Migration Systems in Europe - Evidence From Harmonized Flow Data Authors(s) - Jack DeWaard, Keuntae Kim and James Raymer

Migration Systems in Europe: Evidence From Harmonized Flow Data
Authors(s): Jack DeWaard, Keuntae Kim and James Raymer

Source: Demography, Vol. 49, No. 4 (November 2012), pp. 1307-1333
Published by: Springer on behalf of the Population Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23360375
Accessed: 28-03-2016 12:00 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer, Population Association of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Demography
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.177.219.19 on Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:00:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Demography (2012) 49:1307-1333
DOI 10.1007/sl 3524-012-0117-9
Migration Systems in Europe: Evidence From Harmonized

Flow Data
Jack DeWaard • Keuntae Kim • James Raymer
Published online: 12 July 2012

© Population Association of America 2012
Abstract Empirical tests of migration systems theory require consistent and complete
data on international migration flows. Publicly available data, however, represent an
inconsistent and incomplete set of measurements obtained from a variety of national data
collection systems. We overcome these obstacles by standardizing the available migration
reports of sending and receiving countries in the European Union and Norway each year
from 2003-2007 and by estimating the remaining missing flows. The resulting harmo
nized estimates are then used to test migration systems theory. First, locating thresholds in
the size of flows over time, we identify three migration systems within the European
Union and Norway. Second, examining the key determinants of flows with respect to the
predictions of migration systems theory, our results highlight the importance of shared
experiences of nation-state formation, geography, and accession status in the European
Union. Our findings lend support to migration systems theory and demonstrate that
knowledge of migration systems may improve the accuracy of migration forecasts toward
managing the impacts of migration as a source of social change in Europe.
Keywords International migration • Migration systems • Harmonization
Introduction
Migration systems theory (MST) situates international migration against a backdrop

of the ties shared between sending and receiving countries (Kritz et al. 1992;
Mabogunje 1970). It is a theoretically encompassing perspective (Massey et al.
J. DeWaard (El)
Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
8128 William H. Sewell Hall, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
e-mail: jdewaard@ssc.wisc.edu
K. Kim
Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, WI, USA
J. Raymer
Division of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England
Ô Springer
130B J. DeWaard et al.
1998), but efforts to substantiate MST empirically are few. If "international migration
were perfectly measureable, migration systems might be identified by examining the
matrices of in-flows, out-flows, and net-flows between all countries as they evolved
through time" (Zlotnik 1992:20). Publicly available migration data, however, lack a
consistent metric given diverse national data collection systems and timing criteria
used to validate migrations.
Discrepancies between the migration reports of sending and receiving countries are
well documented (Bilsborrow et al. 1997; Kupiszewska and Nowok 2008; Lemaitre
2005; Poulain et al. 2006). For example, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK) each
use a one-year timing criterion to validate the migrations of nationals and foreigners,
but rely on different data collection systems (a population register and a passenger
survey, respectively). Other countries (e.g., Romania) count only permanent moves as
migrations and use separate registers for nationals and foreigners, tracking only their
respective emigrations and immigrations. These sorts of problems render publicly
available migration data inconsistent and the identification of migration systems
tenuous (Zlotnik 1992).
Funded by Eurostat and coordinated by the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demo
graphic Institute, the Migration Modeling for Statistical Analysis (MIMOSA) project
addressed these issues by standardizing the available migration reports of sending and
receiving countries and estimating missing flows for countries neither collecting
nor providing these data to Eurostat.1 Harmonized estimates were developed for
flows among 31 countries in the European Union (EU) and European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) each year from 2002 to 2007 using an optimization procedure
(de Beer et al. 2010; Raymer et al. 2011).2
In the early stages of the MIMOSA project, one method of standardization
considered involved ranking countries by the quality of their migration data, and
calculating country-specific immigration and emigration adjustment ratios to scale
the reports of countries with less reliable data (van der Erf and van der Gaag 2007).
Missing flows were then estimated in a regression framework using covariate infor
mation (Raymer and Abel 2008). Although the MIMOSA project ultimately settled
on an optimization procedure for standardization, the strategy for estimating missing
flows remained the same (Raymer et al. 2011).
In this article, our methodological contribution is to extend the method proposed
by van der Erf and van der Gaag (2007). Because relative data quality cannot be fully
known a priori (Poulain et al. 2006), our approach to standardizing the available
migration reports of sending and receiving countries incorporates uncertainty with
respect to country rank. We then estimate the remaining missing flows using a
technique new to this area of research, the ^-nearest neighbor (kNN) algorithm. These
two steps yield harmonized estimates of flows among EU-27 countries and Norway
each year from 2003 to 2007.
Our empirical contribution uses these harmonized estimates to test MST. Broadly
defined as "a group of countries that exchange relatively large numbers of migrants"
(Kritz and Zlotnik 1992:2), migration systems have typically been identified through
1 The methodology and estimates are available online (www.nidi.knaw.nl/en/projects/230211/).

2 We use the term harmonize to mean both standardization of available migration data and estimation of the
remaining missing flows. We distinguish these and the methods associated with each throughout this article.
ö Springer
Migration Systems in Europe 1309
two approaches. The first attempts to locate thresholds in the size of flows, where "any
submatrix whose entries remained above the threshold during five or ten years would
indicate the potential existence of a system" (Zlotnik 1992:20). The second attempts to
isolate the key ties shared by sending and receiving countries that influence the size of
flows (Boyd 1989). With respect to the latter, the MIMOSA estimates are potentially
unsuited for this task because the project relied on covariate information, which overlaps
the indicators required to test MST (Fawcett 1989; Zlotnik 1992). Our use of the kNN
algorithm overcomes this issue, estimating missing flows exclusively from the
standardized estimates developed in the first step of the harmonization process.
International migration has captured the attention of analysts and policy makers on
topics ranging from population aging and public pensions (Bongaarts 2004) to labor
market pressures associated with EU expansion into Central and Eastern Europe
(Bauer and Zimmermann 1999). Knowledge of migration systems can help unpack
these issues by improving migration forecasts, thereby enhancing the ability to
determine the impact of migration as a catalyst for social change (Bijak 2006).
Background
MST is an encompassing perspective, combining elements of neoclassical econom

ics, the new economics of migration, world systems theory, bifurcated labor market
theory, and social capital theory (Jennissen 2004). Viewed by Massey et al. (1998) as
international labor markets, migration systems are characterized by the unique set
of ties shared by sending and receiving countries (Bonifazi et al. 2008; Boyd
1989; Kritz et al. 1992). The first stylized account of MST detailed three such
linkages (Fawcett 1989). Relational ties include historical and cultural similarities,
and their implications for the integration of migrants in receiving countries. Regula
tory ties include congruent migration policies rooted in shared economic and political
memberships (e.g., the EU). Tangible ties include capital and trade flows, and
encompass the notions of economic and relative economic advantage (Greenwood
and McDowell 1991). Summarizing these linkages, Zlotnik (1992:20) argued that
shared geography, "comparable levels of development. .. [and] cultural affinity" are
the essential features of migration systems, further distilled by Andrienko and Guriev
(2004:2) as "geography, initial conditions and legacies."
Migration stems from push factors at origin, pull factors at destination, and "shared
community" ties linking sending and receiving countries (Greenwood 1997; van
Tubergen et al. 2004:705). MST highlights the third type of ties. Empirical work
has demonstrated the importance of such relational linkages as shared colonial
histories and common language(s) for the size of flows (Kim and Cohen 2010;
Pedersen et al. 2008). Geographic isolation serves to strengthen regional and national
expressions of solidarity, indicated by the positive association between country
contiguity and the size of flows (Karemera et al. 2000). And tangible linkages, such
as relative economic advantage, increase flows when, for example, the GDP per
capita ratio of sending to receiving countries favors destinations (Greenwood and
McDowell 1991; Leblang et al. 2009).
Despite the encompassing potential of MST, few efforts have substantiated its
claims empirically because of problems with publicly available migration data. A
•£) Springer
1310 J. DeWaard et al.
product of different national data collection systems and timing criteria used to
validate migrations, these data represent an inconsistent and incomplete set of
measurements and are unsuited for cross-national comparison (Lemaitre 2005). As
a consequence, research on MST has relied heavily on data on birthplace-specific
migrant stocks (Zlotnik 1992), which is problematic because these confound mortality
and naturalization with migration (Massey et al. 1998:112) and the distinction between
past and recent migrants (Rogers 2008). Labor force surveys are likewise inadequate,
given insufficient sample sizes to capture flows between all pairs of sending and
receiving countries (Nowok et al. 2006:212).
Country-specific data on immigration and emigration flows offer a more promising
avenue but are not immune to problems. To illustrate, we present in Fig. 1 the migration
reports of sending and receiving countries in the EU-15 in 2003, obtained from
Eurostat's New Cronos database (Kupiszewska and Nowok 2008:43-45). Of 420
possible reports, only 72 flows are reported by both sending and receiving countries, and
rarely do these agree.3 The rest are reported by only one country or are missing.
The problems of inconsistent data reflect different conventions used to track and
measure migration (Kupiszewska and Nowok 2008; Poulain et al. 2006). A population
registration system can be compared against many alternatives: for example, separate
registration systems for nationals and foreigners in Slovenia, residence permits for
foreigners in Hungary, and passenger surveys in Ireland and the UK. Timing criteria
also vary, ranging from none specified to permanence, with 3-, 6-, and 12-month
variants in between. Ideally, migration reports should reflect a single timing criterion:
for example, the 12-month long-term criterion recommended by the United Nations
(1998). Finally, additional problems arise because persons have fewer incentives to
deregister when migrating abroad, resulting in emigration reports that are downwardly
biased (Kupiszewska and Nowok 2008). Together, these problems raise questions about
the adequacy of publicly available migration data in empirical work, including on MST.
In this article, we address these issues by extending a method to harmonize data on
migration flows developed by van der Erf and van der Gaag (2007). Their approach
assumes that countries can be ranked by the quality of their migration data. The
migration reports of countries with less reliable data are then scaled to reporting
conventions of countries with more reliable data using a set of immigration and
emigration adjustment ratios. However, our assessment of the available information
by which to rank countries suggests that relative data quality cannot be fully known a
priori. We assume that only groups of countries can be ranked by relative data
quality. Within each group, we permit country rank to vary randomly over 10,000
permutations. By averaging immigration and emigration adjustment ratios across
permutations, we account for uncertainty in country rank in the standardization
process. We then use the kNN algorithm to estimate the missing flows without the
use of covariate information. Harmonized (i.e., standardized and complete) estimates
are developed for flows among EU-27 countries and Norway each year from 2003 to
2007 and are suitable for testing MST.
3 420 = 15 sending countries x 14 receiving countries x 2 reports per flow (i.e., sender and receiver).
Ô Springer
Receiving Country
AUT BEL DEU DNK ESP FIN FRA GBR GRC IRL ITA LUX NLD PRT SWE
177 4422 100 300 196 426 668 340 68 852 44 295 180 396
13456 262 554 92 7 510 33 333
0.33 0.38 0.54 2.13 6.29 0.58 5.45 1.19
267 4291 587 3037 184 804 5348 105 399
15976 4623 2712 16236 2380 19060 15550 18106 2415 33802 1510 8616 8880 3786
12239 3221 13746 807 436 7921 645 2872
1.31 0.84 1.18 2.95 3.46 1.09 13.77 1.32
231 511 2540 1720 403 1333 4317 229 264 782 131 609 174 3786
203 2693 764 371 14 474 58 2872
1.14 0.94 2.25 1.09 9.36 1.28 3.00 1.32
93 647 2109 130 102 2474 2335 38 487 801 89 600 627 164
615 14647 1665 68 28 2794 473 1234
0.15 0.14 0.08 1.50 3.18 0.21 1.33 0.13
76 245 761 397 792 284 1070 56 110 210 57 217 26 3428
251 2204 421 802 2 362 15 3395
0.30 0.35 0.94 0.99 28.50 0.60 1.73 1.01
741 18133 1488 8847 312 987 29 i 9 458 931
1180 13 i 97 3707 34117 914 37 5872 947 3022
465 12959 278 273 63 5 882 15 585
138 2046 306 1649 146 0 3 6i5 37 230
1460 23702 895 5796 209 68 1661 312 473
22 1119 747 119 73 33 1254 171 22 44 208 97 521 74

57 1728 196 89 34 166 10 78
0.39 0.43 0.61 0.82 0.97 0.58 52.10 0.95
470 9284 9822 430 3365 292 3373 7022 482 459 1274 150 666 648
655 13015 820 3567 239 25 264 707
0.72 0.75 0.52 0.94 1.22 6.00 2.52 0.92
0 0 955 0 0 0 849 2187 0 0 0 770 0 0
330 7699 170 5505 56 512 1619 143
0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00
238 411 1580 2585 1356 3386 946 3676 510 205 441 66 499 92
474 3397 2705 1537 3438 11 638 31
0.50 0.47 0.96 0.88 0.98 6.00 0.78 2.97
Fig. 1 Double count matrix of migration flows among EU-15 countries: 2003. E = emigration flow reported by
sending country; I = immigration flow reported by receiving country; and EH = emigration flow/immigra
tion flow. AUT = Austria; BEL = Belgium; DEU = Germany; DNK = Denmark; ESP = Spain; FIN = Finland;
FRA = France; GBR = United Kingdom; GRC = Greece; IRL = Ireland; ITA = Italy; LUX = Luxembourg;
NLD = Netherlands; PRT = Portugal; and SWE = Sweden. Source: Kupiszewska and Nowok (2008)
Harmonization of Flow Data
Methodology
Data on migration flows within Europe are publicly available from Eurostat's New
Cronos database.4 We use the reports of sending and receiving countries classified by
next and previous country of residence. The harmonization method detailed herein is
divided into two steps: (1) standardization of available flow reports and (2) estimation
of missing flows.
4 Retrieved online (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_imm5prv&lang=en and

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_emi3nxt&lang=en).
â Springer
Standardization of Available Flow Reports
The starting point for standardizing the available migration reports of sending and
receiving countries is to organize them into two matrices—reported immigration and
reported emigration—for each year. Elements of these matrices correspond to flows
between pairs of sending and receiving countries. We illustrate the method developed
by van der Erf and van der Gaag (2007) in Fig. 2, using a hypothetical example of
flows among six countries (A, B, C, D, E, and F) in a single year. Countries A and B
are assumed to have reliable data. Country C is assumed to have less reliable data
than A and B, but more reliable data than D. Countries E and F provide no data.
Relative data quality is reflected in the order in which countries are listed in the
matrices in Step 1.
First, we identify the most reliable immigration reports. In Step 1 of Fig. 2, these
are the immigration reports of Countries A and B, and are considered fixed with
immigration adjustment ratios of 1.00. Second, the emigration reports of Countries A and
B are adjusted in Step 2 of Fig. 2. The emigration adjustment ratio for Country A is
obtained by dividing the fixed immigration report of B (20) by the corresponding
emigration report of A (15), for a ratio of 20 / 15 = 1.33. This ratio for Country B is
100 / 80 = 1.25. The emigration reports of Countries A and B are then standardized
using these ratios.5
We proceed iteratively in Step 3 of Fig. 2 and adjust the migration reports of
Country C. The immigration adjustment ratio for Country C is obtained by dividing
the sum of the two standardized flows to this point (27 and 31) by the corresponding
immigration reports of C (25 and 30), for a ratio of 1.05. This ratio is used to
standardize the immigration reports of Country C from D, E, and F.6 The emigration
adjustment ratio for Country C is calculated by dividing the sum of the two stan
dardized flows (125 and 30) by the corresponding emigration reports of C (120 and
30), for a ratio of 1.03. The emigration reports of Country C to D, E, and F are then
standardized using this ratio.7
Following standardization in Step 4 of Fig. 2, immigration from Country E to D is
reduced slightly from 25 to 24, whereas emigration from D to E increases substan
tially from 40 to 153. The adjustment ratios used to produce these results are 0.94 and
3.83, respectively. This method is unable to estimate the missing flows between
Countries E and F because data on these flows were not reported.
Having illustrated the method developed by van der Erf and van der Gaag (2007),
a key assumption is that countries can be ranked by the relative quality of their
migration data, which presumes sufficient a priori knowledge of data quality. Country
rank is important because those with more reliable reports are treated as the standard
to which less-reliable reports are benchmarked. Relative data quality, however,
cannot be fully known a priori. The available taxonomies detailing the sets of
conventions used to track and measure migration permit only informed guesses
(Kupiszewska and Nowok 2008; Poulain et al. 2006). To overcome this problem,
5 For emigration flows from Country A to C, D, E, and F, the standardized figures are 20 x 1.33 = 27, 175 x
1.33 = 233, 35 x 1.33 = 47, and 40 x 1.33 = 53, respectively. The standardized figures for Country B to C,
D, E, and F are 25 x 1.25 = 31, 40 x 1.25 = 50, 65 x 1.25 = 81, and 100 x 1.25 = 125, respectively.
6 The standardized flows are 55 x 1.05 = 58, 65 x 1.05 = 68, and 100 x 1.05 = 105, respectively.
7 The standardized flows are 90 x 1.03 = 93, 75 x 1.03 = 77, and 45 x 1.03 = 46, respectively.
Springer
<1
1}
5
w.
, §Q
•u
■2
< .!
«n
?■!
0c 1D 10 *0 m
«n 1/ cn cn "O O
oQ cn 001 <N
•o
.u
11 IT) lO O
25 ,
lO 65 100 cn CI i/-, vO
O O
01 IO O O O «o m
1^ (n co
- 10 in Q »n
|c cn cc
300175
O <n 00 0
CO
1
1i < ffl U Q tt U- <CQUQ Wit CfflUQWli. < CQ u Q W b

Ju
Fig.ratios.
2 and
Illustration
van der of
Boldface standar
Gaag (2007
= standard
Ô Springer
we therefore extend the preceding method by treating country rank—and thus

the order of countries in the initial immigration and emigration matrices (here
after, "rank-order")—as a permutation problem.
We analyze the migration reports of EU-27 countries plus Norway each year from
2003-2007. Absent information on data quality, there are 28! combinations by which
to rank-order these countries. Because this is computationally unmanageable, we
proceed first by combining the data over the 2003-2007 period. Using the informa
tion provided by Poulain et al. (2006:222-227), we then assign each country to one of
four groups, rank-ordered by the comprehensiveness of the data collection system
and proximity to a 12-month timing criterion (United Nations 1998). From most to
least reliable, these groups include (1) Nordic countries, (2) non-Nordic countries
with reliable data, (3) non-Nordic countries with semi-reliable data, and (4) non
Nordic countries with unreliable data.8
No assumptions are made about relative data quality within each group. Instead,
we generate 10,000 permutations, preserving the rank-order of the four groups but
permitting the rank-order of countries within each group to vary randomly. For each
permutation, we implement the standardization procedure detailed in Fig. 2 and
calculate immigration and emigration adjustment ratios for each country. We then
average each ratio across all permutations and apply these to standardize the migra
tion reports of sending and receiving countries for each year, one at a time. We use the
harmonic average because in theory, each permutation should produce estimates of
the same flow. Average adjustment ratios should reflect this by mitigating the impact
of large values and aggravating the impact of small ones. These ratios produce
smoother, less fluctuating patterns over time, and therefore represent a more conser
vative approach.
Estimation of Missing Flows
With the available migration reports of sending and receiving countries standardized
to the conventions of Nordic countries each year from 2003 to 2007, we estimate the
remaining missing flows for countries that neither collect nor provide these data to
Eurostat using the kNN algorithm. This algorithm uses neighboring observations
(defined herein) to impute and smooth data points. The basic steps are (1) locating
observations in a defined space; (2) setting the parameter k, the number of nearest
neighbors; (3) calculating the distance to each neighbor for each observation;
(4) adjusting each observation using an inverse distance weighted average of neigh
boring observations; and (5) repeating until convergence (Cover and Hart 1967).
We implement three variants of the kNN algorithm and illustrate our approach in
Fig. 3. In Step 1, we extend the example in Fig. 2 by adding two matrices of hypothetical
flows, yielding three years of standardized estimates among six countries. Flows with
Countries A, B, and C as either the sending or receiving country are complete at all time
8 Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Non-Nordic countries with reliable data:
Austria, Germany, Netherlands, and Spain. Non-Nordic countries with semi-reliable data: Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.
Non-Nordic countries with unreliable data: Ireland, Portugal, and Romania (emigration only). Countries
with missing data: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, and Malta.
â Springer
M n (S Ti \Q ooo©
© © © © pv|
VTt ooS
o iri r-; c n
•n iri on
r- —■ on r»
cn cn
O oo oo in
OO 88
©© oo,
3 8'<
ss
— V5
(n| fN On
NO ir> tJ
•n — o o
©©©©
d o o d oo
g> ^oo
N h oo 2
oo ri r-'
— r- oo tj
>- cn
oo o O en >
oo on en on r-~ on — m in no £
o on r- so oo — - t (N °
U*
3© NO NO NO "O
r- no no <U
o fi rf -t Tt
II
CO On no' no' £
00 On no '*3
'T'tmNO «
1888?
oooooooo.
inoo — in vo >o r- in
(NiO n (N - — oo
o—oooooo
dddddoddi
o —< oo en co
oo 00 rj- in On ^t incJOONOO^OH
V^" qroqqoNqqr-;
O no cn d —« iri r-' en
^£ rt cn no no en oo
IT) (N -h oo vo ■
cn — r • _ -
ooc »oo ©8c
;oo ooc
88-85
> tj- r- *
:^P
> cn no
■ r- en
— cs
©©>
• en — — o°$ J
no no cn t} cn Tf o no -o
r- r 1
rt — — \0 u
mm co rt CO Tf ts
i r~-' r-' on on o no' E
■ en en oo oo
■ Tf
CN ON *5
3 <CQUQWPh
corresponding
Fig. 3 Refer
Illustration weights.
of
to Step 2kNN thB
for alg
Ô Springer
points. Two sets of flows—E to F, and F to E—are missing at all time points. And one set
of flows, D to F, is partially complete during the period because one flow is missing at
Time 2. Our approach to estimating missing flows begins by imputing flows for pairs of
sending and receiving countries with partially complete data.
The matrices in Step 1 of Fig. 3 contain one partial row sum and one partial
column sum. These sums represent total flows from Country D to A and B (row sum)
and from Countries A and B to D (column sum). As we did in Fig. 2,we assume that
Countries A and B have the most reliable data, thereby providing a consistent metric
to implement the kNN algorithm. The partial row and column sums can be viewed as
x and y coordinates, respectively, to locate the flows from Country D to F in two
dimensional space. We display these coordinates in Step 2 of Fig. 3.9 We then
calculate the Euclidean distance between the missing flow at Time 2 and each flow
at Times 1 and 3. These distances are 20.59 and 81.41, respectively; thus, parameter
k _ 2 10 The inverse of each distance is then used as a weight to estimate the missing
flow at Time 2, which is 126." The matrices in Step 3 of Fig. 3 now contain pairs of
countries with either complete or missing data over the three-year period.
Because this approach is potentially sensitive to period fluctuations, we smooth
flows for pairs of countries with complete data over the period (not shown). This step
is similar to the last; however, the partial row and column sums now include flows
from and to Countries A, B, C, and D. As before, parameter k = 2 because each pair of
countries has three years of data and thus two neighbors per flow. We then calculate
the appropriate Euclidean distances and weights. Because these flows are complete
over the period, the flow being smoothed is assigned a weight of 0.50. Smoothing
thus retains 50 % of the original standardized estimate. The remaining 50 % is a
distance weighted average of neighboring flows.
The last step is to estimate flows between sending and receiving countries missing
data at all time points. In Step 3 of Fig. 3, we again calculate partial row and column
sums to include flows from and to Countries A, B, C, and D. Unlike in Step 2, however,
we cannot use neighboring observations to impute missing flows because these data are
missing at all time points. Instead, we use information from other pairs of countries with
complete data. Treating the partial row and column sums in Step 3 asx and y coordinates,
respectively, we define a plane in two-dimensional space for each pair of sending and
receiving countries missing data over the period. The coordinates defining each plane
are given in Step 4 of Fig. 3. Flows from Country E to F have x and y coordinates at
Times 1, 2, and 3 of (397, 339), (437, 374), and (596, 510), respectively. The
coordinates for flows from Country F to E are (443, 358), (489, 393), and (666,
537), respectively. The corresponding planes are thus bound by the points (397, 510),
(596, 510), (596, 339), and (397, 339) for flows from Country E to F; and by (443,
537), (666, 537), (666, 358), and (443, 358) for flows from Country F to E.
We define as ^-nearest neighbors those flows displayed in the matrices in Step 3 of
Fig. 3 that occupy the aforementioned planes. Were one to plot these 84 flows using
the partial row and columns sums, one would identify eight and four neighbors (k = 8;
9 The x and y coordinates are (95, 178), (105, 196), and (143, 268) at Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
10 In our analysis, 1 < k < 4 because pairs of sending and receiving countries with partially complete data
have between one and four years of valid data from 2003 to 2007.
n
126=115 x [0.049/(0.049 + 0.012)] + 173 x [0.012/(0.049 + 0.012)]
â Springer
k = 4), respectively.12 We then proceed to calculate the appropriate Euclidean

distances and inverse distance weights in Step 5 of Fig. 3.13 Missing flows are
estimated as a distance weighted average of neighboring flows. These estimates are
displayed at the bottom of Fig. 3.
The standardization and estimation procedures detailed herein yield a harmonized
set of flows among EU-27 countries and Norway each year from 2003 to 2007. The
estimates are consistent because they are standardized to the conventions of Nordic
countries. They are complete because they rely on information from neighboring
observations to estimate missing flows and for data smoothing.
Results
Average immigration and emigration adjustment ratios are displayed in Table 1. These
ratios were generated from 10,000 random permutations of countries rank ordered in
the initial immigration and emigration matrices, and are the first to be developed with
a corresponding measure of dispersion. The immigration adjustment ratios for Nordic
countries are equal to 1.00, reflecting our treatment of these migration reports as the
standard at the outset. The corresponding emigration adjustment ratios are slightly
greater than 1.00. The ratios for countries in the remaining three groups exhibit
considerable variation. For example, the emigration adjustment ratio for Spain is 4.94,
and reflects the average level of scaling required to standardize Spain's emigration
reports to the conventions of Nordic countries, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands.
In Table 2, we assess our harmonized estimates relative to those developed by the
MIMOSA project (de Beer et al. 2010; Raymer et al. 2011).14 Our total estimate of
migration among countries in the EU-27 and Norway is 7.9 million persons over the
2003-2007 period. The corresponding MIMOSA estimate is 7.7 million. Means and
standard deviations each year and over the period are also largely consistent. The
largest discrepancy occurs in 2003, for which our mean estimate of migration ( 1,895)
among these 28 countries is 13 % higher than the corresponding MIMOSA estimate
(1,754). The congruence of our estimates and the MIMOSA estimates is due to similar
immigration and emigration adjustment ratios (de Beer et al. 2010:471 —473), with the
two sets of estimates picking up a positive trend in the volume of migration flows over
the period.
To further examine whether our estimates are reasonable, we display in
Fig. 4 the emigration and immigration reports for selected sending and receiving
countries, respectively, and corresponding harmonized estimates developed in this
and the MIMOSA projects. For flows from Denmark to Sweden, the MIMOSA
estimates are identical to the latter's immigration reports, whereas our estimates are
slightly lower given smoothing prior to estimating missing flows.
12 In our analysis, the maximum value of k is 125.

13 To save space, we show only the results of these calculations, which can be replicated by expanding the
equation in Step 2. For example, the missing flow from Country F to E at Time 1 is estimated as follows:
148= 118 X [0.056/(0.056+ 0.014+ 0.005 +0.004)]+ 130 x [0.014/(0.056 + 0.014 + 0.005 + 0.004)]+
450 x [0.005/(0.056 + 0.014 + 0.005 + 0.004)] + 263 x [0.004/(0.056 + 0.014 + 0.005 + 0.004)] .
14 Abel (2010) and Poulain (1993, 1999) developed harmonized migration estimates, but for fewer sending
and receiving countries.
Ô Springer
Table 1 Average immigration and emigration adjustment ratios: 2003-2007
Immigration Emigration
Harmonic Mean SD Harmonic Mean SD
Nordic countries
Denmark 1.000 (0.000) 1.005 (0.000)

Finland 1.000 (0.000) 1.006 (0.000)
Norway 1.000 (0.000) 1.005 (0.000)
Sweden 1.000 (0.000) 1.038 (0.000)
Non-Nordic Countries: Reliable Migration Data
Austria 0.855 (0.156) 1.132 (0.303)
Germany 0.707 (0.149) 0.867 (0.089)
Netherlands 0.952 (0.255) 1.025 (0.130)
Spain 0.842 (0.050) 4.940 (1.517)
Non-Nordic Countries: Semi-Reliable Migration Data
Cyprus 0.729 (0.332) 3.630 (1.224)
Czech Republic 2.250 (1.131) 4.119 (5.927)
Italy 2.742 (0.559) 3.701 (0.655)
Latvia 3.378 (0.892) 5.674 (0.699)
Lithuania 2.475 (0.618) 2.492 (0.551)
Luxembourg 5.228 (0.662) 1.884 (0.342)
Poland 23.295 (3.909) 9.129 (1.597)
Slovakia 16.893 (24.573) 37.104 (15.994)
Slovenia 5.234 (0.633) 2.328 (0.471)
United Kingdom 1.187 (0.171) 1.345 (0.259)
Non-Nordic Countries: Unreliable Migration Data
a a a
—a
Belgium
a a a a
Bulgaria11
a a a a
Estonia
a a
France —a —•*
a a a a
Greece
a a a a
Hungary
Ireland 1.431 (0.210) 1.898 (0.215)
a a a a
Malta
Portugal 8.712 (1.240) 30.046 (2.685)

a a
Romania 32.661 (4.199)
a Immigration and/or emigration data not collected or provided to Eurostat.

b Bulgaria's immigration and emigration reports were recoded as missing following adjustment factors of
445.27 and 101.00, respectively, which are too large for these reports to be considered reliable (Raymer and
Abel 2008).
The emigration and immigration reports of Austria and Germany, respectively,

lack the agreement evident among Nordic countries. Excluding 2007, our estimates
fall between the reports of Austria and Germany and are lower than the MIMOSA
Ô Springer
Table 2 Summary estimates of harmonized migration flows among EU countries and Norway: 2003-2007
Current Estimates MIMOSA Estimates
Total Flows
2003 1,432,788 1,325,652

2004 1,488,348 1,437,402
2005 1,507,935 1,479,873
2006 1,673,923 1,641,810
2007 1,789,933 1,819,282
2003-2007 7,892,926 7,704,019
Mean
2003 1,895.2 1,753.5

2004 1,968.7 1,901.3
2005 1,994.6 1,957.5
2006 2,214.2 2,171.7
2007 2,367.6 2,406.5
2003-2007 2,088.1 2,038.1
Standard Deviation
2003 6,996.1 6,695.2

2004 7,345.3 7,223.5
2005 7,403.0 7,194.6
2006 8,382.7 7,859.6
2007 8,890.0 8,568.5
2003-2007 7,833.7 7,535.5
N 3,780 3,780
Source-, MIMOSA estimates (de Beer et al. 2010).
project's estimates. We selected this example to show that even minor discrepancies
in adjustment ratios can produce notable differences in harmonized estimates. We
calculated emigration and immigration adjustment ratios for Austria of 1.13 and 0.86,
respectively; those from the MIMOSA project are 1.35 and 1.17, respectively (de Beer
et al. 2010:473). Likewise, our emigration and immigration adjustment ratios for
Germany are 0.87 and 0.71, respectively, compared with 0.71 and 0.81 in the
MIMOSA project.
The bottom panels in Fig. 4 display reported and harmonized flows from Belgium
to the Netherlands and from Portugal to Spain. The emigration reports of Belgium
and Portugal are not collected by or provided to Eurostat. The immigration reports of
the Netherlands and the two sets of harmonized estimates pick up the same positive
trend in flows from Belgium. In contrast, Spain's reported immigration from Portugal
is substantially higher than the two sets of harmonized estimates. Here, our estimates
in 2003 and 2004 are similar to those from the MIMOSA project but diverge
thereafter. The divergence is due to the fact that the MIMOSA project imputed these
flows, whereas we used emigration data covering only foreigners to calculate the
adjustment ratios.
Ô Springer
1320 J- DeWaard et al.
Denmark to Sweden
24 ■
o
§ 70
£
16 -
E
c
e
33 12.
C3
Of)
S
4 ——, ,
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Austria to Germany
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Belgium to the Netherlands

24
I 20
is
I 16
c
•2 12
g
s8
4
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Portugal to Spain
24
I 20
E 16
c
•2 12
a
4
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
- - Emigration report of sending country - - Immigration report of receiving country

— MIMOSA estimate — Current project estimate
Fig. 4 Repeated and harmonized migration flows for selected pairs of sending and receiving countries:
2003-2007. Migration flow in unit of persons. Source: Immigration and emigration reports (Eurostat);
MIMOSA estimates (de Beer et al. 2010)
â Springer
Identification of Migration Systems
Methodology
Zlotnik (1992) raised the possibility of locating thresholds in migration flow data by
which to identify migration systems. We examine this claim in exploratory
fashion using the harmonized estimates developed herein and the tools of
cluster analysis. Like the kNN algorithm, cluster analysis is an iterative process
that begins by treating each flow as its own cluster and subsequently allocates flows
among k clusters until a convergence criterion is satisfied. We employ average
linkage clustering (Rabe-Hesketh and Everett 2006), which maximizes the average
distance between k clusters. Averaging is performed over all possible pairs of flows to
maximize the distance function:
(1)
A^yis the average distance between clusters X and Y. The number of observations in
each cluster is denoted by Nx and NY, respectively, and d(xjyi) is the distance between
observation xt in cluster X and y} in cluster Y. Hq. (1) can be expanded to accommo
date k clusters.
To illustrate this method, designate the flow from Portugal to Spain in 2003
as cluster X, which in Fig. 4 is x, = 8,235 persons. Cluster Y is composed of the
remaining flows, yj (j = 1,2, . . ., 3,779).15 Average linkage clustering calculates the
absolute distance between the flow in cluster X and each flow in cluster Y, and records
the average. At each iteration, one flow from cluster Y is reallocated to X, and the
average distance recorded. Clusters X and Y are identified (in our case, as migration
systems) when the average distance between X and Y is maximized.
Cluster analysis lacks a likelihood-based goodness-of-fit measure for determining
the optimal number of clusters; thus, a set of stopping rules is typically employed.
Milligan and Cooper (1985) examined 30 such rules and found via Monte Carlo
simulations that the Calinski and Duda-Hart Indexes perform best in the analysis of
continuous data. Large values of the Calinski Index, combined with large values of
the Duda-Hart Index and corresponding small pseudo ^-squared ratios, jointly deter
mine the optimal number of clusters and are employed in our analysis (Milligan and
Cooper 1985; Rabe-Hesketh and Everett 2006).
We perform average linkage clustering on a natural logarithmic transforma
tion of our harmonized estimates after excluding flows equal to 0 (« = 20). We
exclude these flows because migration systems require some volume of migration to
be identified (Zlotnik 1992). Given the exploratory nature of this analysis, this fixes
our attention on 3,760 flows among EU-27 countries and Norway each year from
2003 to 2007.16
15 Ny= 3,779 = 28 sending countries x 27 receiving countries x 5 years of data - 1 flow in cluster X.
16 3,760 = 28 sending countries x 27 receiving countries x 5 years of data - 20 zero flows.
Ô Springer
Results
From exploratory cluster analysis, we find evidence for three migration systems
among countries in the EU-27 and Norway from 2003 to 2007 after imposing two
additional constraints from the literature on MST.17 First, flows between pairs of
sending and receiving countries must fall within the same cluster during the five-year
period (Zlotnik 1992:20). Second, countries must exchange (i.e., send and receive)
flows with all or most countries sharing the same cluster to be considered part of the
migration system (Zlotnik 1992:39).
After we impose these restrictions, the clusters identified earlier coalesce into three
more or less geographically distinct migration systems: flows primarily among
(1) five countries in the core of Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK);
(2) 14 countries located largely at the periphery (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia); and (3) eight countries in the intermediate region (Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). Of the 28
countries considered in our analysis, only Portugal could not be assigned to one of these
three systems; despite exchanging large flows with Spain, migration between Portugal
and France, Germany, Italy, and the UK is not sufficiently large to warrant inclusion in
the core migration system.
The three migration systems, displayed in Fig. 5, are consistent with Salt's
(2001:31) conclusion that migration systems are, to some extent, "geographically
discrete." Although Massey et al. (1998:110) invoked the institutional ties shared by
countries—for example, the Treaties of Rome—to argue for a single migration
system (see also, Salt 1989), our evidence for the three aforementioned systems is
derived purely from our harmonized estimates of migration flows and the set of
criteria for identifying migration systems provided by MST.
Flows among the five countries in the core migration system are considerably large
(Castles and Miller 2003). The lower threshold with respect to the size of flows
defining this system is 6,722 persons per year, which is reasonable given that
countries with larger populations tend to produce larger flows in both absolute
(Kim and Cohen 2010) and relative (DeWaard and Raymer 2012) terms. At the other
extreme, flows among periphery countries are quite small but nonetheless consistent
over the period, with an upper bound of 175 persons per year. Despite concerns about
the implications of East-West migration in Europe (Bauer and Zimmermann 1999),
Kaczmarczyk and Okôlski (2005:4) noted that periphery migration does not neces
sarily "spill over the region's boundaries, especially to the West, but to a large extent
[is] contained within" them. Although these flows are small, their consistency over
the period supports this idea and thus supports viewing these flows as a distinct
migration system.
These systems are more or less geographically discrete, but they are not closed.
Castles and Miller (2003), for example, argued that Italy and Spain are relatively
17 The Calinski Index for the three-cluster solution is 6,743.92; the Duda-Hart Index and its corresponding
pseudo /-squared ratio are 0.387 and 443.80, respectively. Relative to a four-cluster (or higher-cluster)
solution, with values of 4,634.51 on the Calinski Index and 0.335 and 3,252.41 for the Duda-Hart Index
and pseudo f-squared ratio, respectively, the stopping rules employed suggest three optimal clusters
(Milligan and Cooper 1985; Rabe-Hesketh and Everett 2006).
Springer
Migration Systems
Periphery System
||j^^ Intermediate System
■ Core System
Finland
Sweden
g* Norway
Estonia
Russia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belarus
Poland
Germany
zech Republic
Ukraine
Slovakia
HHHM/itzcrl ustria Hungary Moldova

Croatia Romania
Serbia
>snia :egovina
Bulgaria
Georgia
Albania Macedonia
Armenia Azerbaijan
Greece
Turkey
Cyprus
Malta
Fig. 5 European migration systems: 2003-2007. Only labels (not shapes) are shown for Malta and Cyprus.
Source: Authors' construction
recent migrant destinations for persons seeking entrance into the core of Europe
through what Calavita (2003:347) terms the "back door" (see also, Zolberg 2006:22).
Although our data do not permit examination of these patterns, they do provide an
indirect glimpse of a related feature of migration systems: namely, step, return, and
circular migration. Typically described within the framework of cumulative causa
tion, these patterns obtain when migration "tends to sustain itself' (Massey et al.
1998:45). Informed by MST, the two restrictions imposed at the outset of our analysis
effectively require that flows between sending and receiving countries in a migration
system be consistent over time. To the extent that patterns of step, return, and circular
migration require consistency, the countries that make up the three migration systems
cited herein are likely candidates for these processes.
Despite the exploratory nature of our analysis, the three systems identified repre
sent an important step in the evolution of MST. Identifying migration systems is a
"hard task, considering the complexity of . . . economic, social and political
Ô Springer
interactions" between sending and receiving countries (Bonifazi et al. 2008:123).

Restricting—or, more aptly, reorienting—one's efforts to the harmonized data them
selves represents a viable starting point for empirical assessments of MST toward
resolving debates on the existence, quantity, and character of migration systems in
Europe (Massey et al. 1998; Salt 1989, 2001; Zlotnik 1992).
Determinants of Migration Flows
Methodology
Several recent efforts have attempted to identify the key determinants of international
migration flows (Cohen et al. 2008; Kim and Cohen 2010; Mayda 2005; Pedersen et
al. 2008); however, none have connected their work to MST or used harmonized flow
data. Using a gravity model approach (Greenwood 1997), we aim to identify the key
ties shared by sending and receiving countries that influence the size of flows.
Although we consider the relevant push and pull factors of sending and receiving
countries, respectively, our focus is with the "shared community" ties that link
countries (van Tubergen et al. 2004:705).
Recalling Fawcett's (1989) trichotomy, shared relational ties include historical
similarities and intersections of sending and receiving countries with respect to
nation-state formation and past colonial relationships. Shared official or national
language has also been widely cited as a relevant relational linkage (Kim and Cohen
2010; Mayda 2005). Regulatory ties include geographic isolation, typically measured
by country contiguity or shared region (Pedersen et al. 2008), as well as economic
and political memberships. Raymer et al. (2011), for example, considered new
accession status to the EU as a relevant predictor of flows. Finally, tangible ties are
usually taken to mean the volume of trade flows between countries (Pedersen et al.
2008). Thinking more broadly, however, these also include features of relative
economic well-being and standards of living in sending and receiving countries
(Greenwood and McDowell 1991).
Descriptions of the measures used to capture the above linkages are provided in the
Appendix table. To take one example, consider the indicator of shared national
or colonial origins. We combined two variables to express whether sending and
receiving countries were ever the same country or in a colonial relationship for
a period of 75 years or more, up to and including the nineteenth century, or for
25-50 years during the twentieth century, thereby capturing such historical
features as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the division of Czechoslovakia
in 1993.
We also consider the following push and pull factors in sending and receiving
countries, respectively: population size, percentage of the population living in urban
areas, old-age dependency ratio, change in labor force participation from the prior
year, and social expenditures per household head. Additionally, as is typical in gravity
models, we include a measure of the geographic distance between sending and
receiving countries.
Our unit of analysis is the harmonized migration flow between a pair of sending
and receiving countries in a single year. Using the natural logarithm of these flows as
*£l Springer
the dependent variable, we estimate a set of generalized estimating equations (GEE),

lagging all time-varying measures by one year. Recent work on gravity models of
migration flows has increasingly made use of GEE, given their ability to treat both
clustering and autocorrelation (Kim and Cohen 2010; Pedersen et al. 2008). With
respect to the latter, GEE provide explicit treatment of the within-panel correlation
structure but do not impose predetermined assumptions about the origins of these
dependencies (Hardin and Hilbe 2003; Liang and Zeger 1986).
Because GEE are not based on maximum likelihood theory, conventional
indices of model fit do not apply (Cui 2007; Pan 2001). We therefore use the
quasi-likelihood information criterion (QIC) and the marginal R2 statistic
(Hardin and Hilbe 2003; Zheng 2000). Like the Bayesian information criterion
(BIC), smaller QIC values indicate better model fit relative to nested models.
Use of the marginal R2 is intended to overcome the problem raised by Cui (2007):
namely, that there exist no rules for model selection like those suggested by
Raftery (1995) using the BIC. The marginal R2 can be interpreted like the
conventional R2.vi
Results
GEE results are presented in Table 3. Model 1 includes only the relevant push and
pull factors associated with sending and receiving countries, respectively, and serves
as the baseline model. Each of the year coefficients show a steady increase in the size
of flows over the period, from 0.7 % in 2004 to 10.8 % in 2007, relative to 2003.19 It
is worth remembering, however, that the EU expanded considerably in 2004 from 15
to 25 countries. The lack of significant difference between the size of flows in 2003
and 2004 may therefore reflect this period of adjustment.
Hallmarks of gravity models are measures of the distance between sending and
receiving countries and the population size of each. Because distance acts as a proxy
for the monetary and psychic costs of migration (Greenwood 1997), it is not
surprising that flows decline at a rate of 5.8 % when the distance separating potential
migrants from their desired destinations increases by 10 %.20 In contrast, population
size in both sending and receiving countries promotes migration, as does the percent
age of the population living in urban areas. Neumayer (2005) envisioned these as
simultaneous processes, whereby potential migrants gravitate to more populated
urban areas, where migrant networks are relatively dense and information is more
accessible. As forms of social capital, these networks ultimately increase the likeli
hood of migration (Massey et al. 1998).
Beyond demographic factors, economic conditions in sending and receiving
countries are also important predictors of flows (Todaro 1976). Growth in labor force
participation relative to the prior year signals economic growth but is associated with
EÈ(r>-r>f tn
Rmaro — ' ' r ' 1 > where ^ — „V S £ •

5S(r"-7)
19 0.7 = 100 x (e0 007 - 1); 10.8 = 100 x (e0103 - 1) .
20 -5.8 = 100 x (1.10 0 622 - 1) .
â Springer
Table 3 Generalized estimating equations (GEE) of harmonized migration flows: 2003-2007
Model 1 Model 2
Year = 2004 0.007 0.006
(0.013) (0.013)
Year = 2005 0.038* 0.036*
(0.016) (0.016)
Year = 2006 0.079" 0.079**
(0.020) (0.020)
Year = 2007 0.103** 0.104**
(0.023) (0.022)
Geographic Distance3 -0.622** -0.351**
(0.079) (0.089)
Population Size at Origin* 0.783** 0.790**
(0.042) (0.042)
Population Size at Destination3 0.832** 0.839**
(0.040) (0.040)
Percentage Urban at Origin3 0.823* 0.807*
(0.325) (0.322)
Percentage Urban at Destination3 0.865** 0.831**
(0.320) (0.319)
Old-Age Dependency Ratio at Origin3 -0.083 -0.036
(0.341) (0.324)
Old-Age Dependency Ratio at Destination3 -1.048** -0.950**
(0.350) (0.331)
Labor Force Participation Change at Origin3 0.010** 0.011**
(0.003) (0.003)
Labor Force Participation Change at Destination3 0.005* 0.005*
(0.003) (0.003)
Unemployment Rate at Origin3 -0.087* -0.081*
(0.041) (0.039)
Unemployment Rate at Destination3 -0.119* -0.116*
(0.048) (0.046)
Social Expenditures per Household Head at Origin3 -0.169** -0.180**
(0.054) (0.053)
Social Expenditures per Household head at Destination3 0.266** 0.223**
(0.055) (0.054)
Shared National or Colonial Origins 1.034**
(0.292)
0.270
Shared Language
(0.328)
0.581**
Shared Region
(0.137)
Relative Timing of EU Accession' 0.008**
(0.003)
GDP per Capita Ratio 0.068
(0.054)
Constant -25.534** -27.299**
(2.745) (2.830)
Sending and Receiving Country Pairs 702 702
Sending and Receiving Country-Pair Years 2,712 2,712

QIC 4,039.84 3.868.52
R1MARC 0.675 0.693
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. QIC: quasi-likelihood information criterion. R2 marg'- Marginal R2
a Natural log transformation.
b Inclusion of this measure requires restricting the sample to EU countries.
*p < .05; **p < .01
<£j Springer
small increases in the size of flows—less than one-tenth of 1 % for a 10 % change in

the former. A seemingly anomalous finding, the rate of total unemployment in
sending countries deters flows. Andrienko and Guriev (2004) explained this in
context of internal migration among Russian territories by suggesting that
migration requires some minimal level of human and financial capital. In our
case, to the extent that EU expansions into central and eastern Europe in 2004
and 2007 enlarged the pool of potential migrants too economically vulnerable
to realize their migration intentions, the negative association in Model 1 is
theoretically plausible. A similar negative association is found for the rate of
total unemployment in receiving countries, which is expected, and aligns with
prior research (Mayda 2005; Pedersen et al. 2008). Finally, to the extent that social
welfare systems in sending and receiving countries attenuate the aforementioned
dynamics, their contribution is largely offsetting, repelling and attracting flows by
rates of-1.6 % and 2.6 %, respectively, when social expenditures are increased by 10 %
(Svaton and Warin 2008).
In Model 2, we examine the ties shared by sending and receiving countries as
informed by MST. In her analysis of publicly available immigration reports for 14
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries from
1980-1995, Mayda (2005:17) concluded that "past colonial relationships do not
appear to significantly affect migration." Our findings contradict this conclusion.
Shared national and colonial origins reflect continuity and overlap with respect to the
historical contexts of migration (Massey et al 1998:112). Castles and Miller (2003),
for example, noted that nation-state formation is intimately connected to the
institutional and legal frameworks of jus sanguinis and jus soli as criteria for
citizenship. Our results show that these linkages increase flows by a factor of 2.81.
Considering only the shared colonial ties of sending and receiving countries, Kim and
Cohen (2010:912-915) reported similar results in their analysis of publicly available
emigration and immigration reports for 13 and 17 Western countries, respectively,
from 1950 to 2007.
With respect to sharing an official or national language, our results confirm
Mayda's (2005:17) observation that "common language ... is not always statistically
significant" (emphasis ours). Although she attributes this to model specification
(Pedersen et al. 2008), it is an open question whether findings from prior research,
both in support of and against shared language, are products of model specification,
versus reliance on publicly available migration reports. Unfortunately, there exists no
set of harmonized flows that are comparable to the ones employed here to examine
this claim.21
Moving from the relational to regulatory ties linking sending and receiving
countries together, "state-to-state" relations are enhanced and even insulated
by geographic isolation (Fawcett 1989:673-675). For example, the Inter-Nordic
Migration Agreement ensures that persons can be registered in only one country
at a time by requiring that migrants carry an inter-Nordic migration certificate
(Poulain et al. 2006). These sorts of agreements ultimately shape migration in the
region as a whole, not to mention the positive benefits for the accuracy of migration
21 Recall that the MIMOSA project used covariate information, including shared language family, to
estimate missing flows (Raymer and Abel 2008; Raymer et al. 2011).
â Springer
data across countries. Shared geographic region represents one approach to

examining this dynamic. As could only be suggested by Fig. 5, flows between
sending and receiving countries in the same European region are 78.8 % higher
than those between countries lacking a common geography. As Fawcett
(1989:674) noted, these ties catalyze similar migration policies, and thereby the
broader "social acceptance" of migrants.
Despite geographic similarity, sending and receiving countries also differ with
respect to their institutional affiliations. Raymer et al. (2011) suggested that accession
status in the EU is a relevant predictor of migration flows. Our results confirm this
observation, and suggest that flows between new and old accession countries are
significantly higher than those between countries with similar accession dates. For
example, flows between countries joining the EU in 2007 (i.e., Bulgaria and
Romania) and member countries from the signing and later enforcement of the
Maastricht Treaty in 1993 are 11.2 % higher than flows among the latter set of
countries. As the EU considers further expansions to include Croatia, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey (to name a few), these accessions
are likely to fuel increased migration and anxieties about their potential labor
market implications (Bauer and Zimmermann 1999).
Turning to the tangible ties shared by sending and receiving countries, neoclassical
economics has a made a strong case for the role of relative economic advantage in
both micro- and macro-level accounts of migration (Todaro 1976). Although the
coefficient for the GDP per capita ratio in Model 2 is in the expected direction, it is
not statistically significant. This finding does not imply that material ties shared by
sending and receiving countries are altogether unimportant; instead, in the current
context, the primacy of economic factors is not substantiated.
Two measures of model fit displayed at the bottom of Table 3 show that ties shared
by sending and receiving countries are relevant for the size of flows. Our efforts
broadly substantiate the tenets of MST, but the fit of Model 2 improves only modestly
by 4.0 % and 2.7 % as judged by the QIC and marginal R2, respectively. Nonetheless,
as markers of potential migration systems, consideration of these ties is of increasing
importance in efforts to forecast migration given the potential for future EU
expansions. Knowledge of migration systems provides a unique set of tools to
gauge these trends toward managing the impact of migration as a catalyst for social
change (Bijak 2006).
Discussion and Conclusion
In 2007, the European Parliament established clear definitions of emigration

and immigration, and required that member countries provide these data to
Eurostat (Regulation (EC) No 862 2007). These regulations, however, are
indeterminate with respect to the methods used to produce estimates of flows
(Fassmann 2009). Until a uniform set of conventions is in place, efforts to
harmonize migration data are crucial to ensure that flows reflect a common and
meaningful metric.
Because "lack of comparable data on migration flows hinders the demarca
tion of [a migration] system" (Zlotnik 1992:32), this article makes two
Ô Springer
contributions. First, we extended the harmonization method proposed by van

der Erf and van der Gaag (2007) to account for uncertainty in rank ordering
countries by data quality. The emigration and immigration adjustment ratios provided
in Table 1 are the first to be accompanied by a corresponding measure of
dispersion. Second, the resulting harmonized estimates were used to test MST
empirically. Exploratory cluster analysis revealed three migration systems within
Europe, each more or less geographically bound. Because these systems are
congruent with prior research (Kaczmarczyk and Okölski 2005; Salt 2001), our
contribution lies in using harmonized migration data to arrive at these findings
per the expectations of MST. We also examined the key ties shared by sending
and receiving countries that shape migration flows. Consistent with prior
research (Kim and Cohen 2010; Raymer et al. 2011), relational and regulatory ties
shared by sending and receiving countries emerged as paramount, thereby lending
support to the tenets of MST (Fawcett 1989).
Empirical work on MST is a natural extension of efforts to harmonize
migration flow data. This article provides an initial synthesis of these efforts
and a template for future work. Subsequent efforts should consider the following
potential issues with our approach. First, although we attempted to be systematic in
assigning countries to one of four groups ranked by data quality, our classification is
open to question. It is also invites alternative approaches. One currently in progress
is the Integrated Modeling of European Migration (IMEM) project, which combines
expert judgments and Bayesian methods to compensate for inconsistencies and
incompleteness in migration reports (Raymer et al. 20 1 0).22 Other approaches may
wish to consider expanding the set of countries to include those outside the EU-27
and Norway.
Second, because there are few references in MST about how to go about
"examining the matrices of in-flows, out-flows, and net-flows" to identify migration
systems (Zlotnik 1992:20), our exploratory use of cluster analysis could be revised to
include a more rigorous set of theoretical expectations and methodological strategies
amenable to hypothesis testing. Similarly, the use of explanatory models to identify
the key ties shared by sending and receiving countries would benefit from a more
theoretically explicit set of hypotheses and indicators. Among these, Kim and Cohen
(2010) cited the dearth of data on the congruence of policy measures between sending
and receiving countries over time (Mayda 2005).
Acknowledgments Jack DeWaard is supported by NICHD Training Grant T32-HD07014 and

Center Grant R24-HD047873 to the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. James Raymer received support from the ESRC Research Centre for Popula
tion Change (Grant Reference RES-625-28-0001). The authors acknowledge the Migration Model
ing for Statistical Analysis (MIMOSA) project in providing harmonized flow data for comparison,
and comments from Theodore P. Gerber, Katherine J. Curtis, Jenna Nobles, Mary M. Kritz,
Douglas T. Gurak, Joel E. Cohen, Stewart Tolnay, and three anonymous reviewers. Previous
versions of this article were presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of
America on April 15, 2010 and the Integrated Modeling of European Migration (IMEM) workshop
on May 27, 2011.
22 A summary of the IMEM is available online (http://www.norface.org/migrationl2.html).
•£) Springer
Appendix
Table 4 Data descriptions, sources, and variable names
Description Source Variable Name(s)
Ties Shared by Sending and Receiving Countries

Shared national or Set to 1 if sending and receiving Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et smctry colony
colonial origins countries were the same country d'Informations Internationales (CEPII)
or in a colonial relationship for (http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/bdd/
75+ years through the distances.htm) (http://www.cepii.fr/
nineteenth century or 25 distance/noticedisten.pdf)
50 years in the twentieth century
Shared language Set to 1 if official or national Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et langoff i

language(s) of sending and d'Informations Internationales (CEPII)
receiving countries are spoken
by at least 20 % of the
population in each country
Shared region Set to 1 if sending and receiving United Nations Statistics Division (http:// Authors' construction
countries share one of four unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/
geographic regions within m49regin.htm)
Europe: North = Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, and
UK. West = Austria, Belgium,
France, Germany, Luxembourg,
and the Netherlands. East =
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, and Slovakia. South =
Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal,
Slovenia, and Spain
Relative timing of EU Absolute distance (in years) European Union (Europa) (http:// Authors' construction
accession separating EU accession dates of europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/
sending and receiving countries index_en.htm)
GDP per capita ratio Set to 1 if gross domestic product International Monetary Fund (IMF): PPPPC
(based on purchasing power parity) World Economic Outlook (http://
of receiving country exceeds that www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?
of sending country by 1.05 id=28)
Characteristics of Sending and Receiving Countries
Geographic distance Geodesic distance (in kilometers) Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et distcap
between capital cities of sending d'Informations Internationales (CEPII)
and receiving countries3
Population size Total population at origin and United Nations Population Division Total population
destination http://www.un.org/esa/population/ (both sexes)
Percentage urban Percentage of total population United Nations Population Division PopUrban
residing in urban areas
Old-age dependency Ratio of population aged 65+ to United Nations Population Division Old age dependency
ratio population aged 15-64 ratio 65+/(15-64)
Labor force Percentage change in rate of labor International Labour Organization: Key Labor force
participation change force participation from prior Indicators of the Labour Market participation (%)
year (KILM) (http://www.ilo.org/empelm/
what/1 ang-en/WCMS_l 14240)
Unemployment rate Total unemployment rate International Labour Organization: Key Unemployment rate
Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) (%)
Social expenditures per Total expenditures on social Eurostat: New Cronos Database tps00099
household head protection per head of (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
population tgm/table.do?tab=table&init= 1 &
language=en&pcode=tps00099&
plugin=l)
"From great circle formula. Calculations use latitudes and longitudes of capital cities.
Ô Springer
References
Abel, G. J. (2010). Estimation of international migration flow tables in Europe. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series A, 173, 797-825.
Andrienko, Y., & Guriev, S. (2004). Determinants of interregional mobility in Russia. The Economics of
Transition, 12, 1-27.
Bauer, T. K., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1999). Assessment of possible migration pressure and its labour
market impact following EU enlargement to central and eastern Europe (IZA Research Report No. 3).
Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Bijak, J. (2006). Forecasting international migration: Selected theories, models and methods (CEFMR
Working Paper 4/2006). Warsaw, Poland: Central European Forum for Migration Research.
Bilsborrow, R. E., Hugo, G., Obérai, A. S., & Zlotnik, H. (1997). International migration statistics: Guide
lines for improving data collection systems. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Bongaarts, J. (2004). Population aging and the rising cost of public pensions. Population and Development
Review, 30, 1-23.
Bonifazi, C., Okolski, M., Schoorl, J., & Simon, P. (2008). International migration in Europe: New trends
and new methods of analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international migration: Recent developments and new
agendas. International Migration Review, 23, 638-670.
Calavita, K. (2003). Italy: Immigration, economic flexibility and policy responses. In W. Cornelius, P. L.
Martin, & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Controlling immigration: A global perspective (2nd ed.). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Castles, S., & Miller, M. (2003). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern
world (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. E., Roig, M., Reuman, D. C., & GoSwilt, C. (2008). International migration beyond gravity: A
statistical model for use in population projections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 105, 15269-15274.
Cover, T. M., & Hart, P. E. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 13, 21-27.
Cui, J. (2007). QIC program and model selection in GEE. The Stata Journal, 7, 209-220.
de Beer, J., Raymer, J., van der Erf, R., & van Wissen, L. (2010). Overcoming the problems of
inconsistent migration data: A new method applied to flows in Europe. European Journal of
Population, 26, 459—481.
DeWaard, J., & Raymer, J. (2012). The temporal dynamics of international migration in Europe: Recent
trends. Demographic Research. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2012.26.21
Fassmann, H. (2009). European migration: Historical overview and statistical problems. In H. Fassmann,
U. Reeger, & W. Sievers (Eds.), Statistics and reality: Concepts and measurements of migration in
Europe (pp. 21 44). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Fawcett, J. T. (1989). Networks, linkages, and migration systems. International Migration Review, 23,
671-680.
Greenwood, M. J. (1997). Internal migration in developed countries. In M. R. Rozenzweig & O. Stark

(Eds.), Handbook ofpopulation and family economics (Vol. 2, pp. 647-720). New York: Elsevier.
Greenwood, M. J., & McDowell, J. M. (1991). Differential economic opportunity, transferability of skills, and
immigration to the United States and Canada. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 612-623.
Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and
Hall/CRC.
Jennissen, R. P. W. (2004). Macro-economic determinants of international migration in Europe.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Dutch University Press.
Kaczmarczyk, P., & Okôlski, M. (2005). International migration in central and eastern Europe: Current
and future trends (UN/POP/MIG/2005/12). United Nations Expert Group Meeting on International
Migration and Development. New York: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, United Nations.
Karemera, D., Oguledo, V., & Davis, B. (2000). A gravity model analysis of international migration to
North America. Applied Economics. 32, 1745-1755.
Kim, K., & Cohen, J. E. (2010). Determinants of international migration flows to and from industrialized
countries: A panel data approach beyond gravity. International Migration Review, 44, 899-932.
Kritz, M. M., Lim, L. L., & Zlotnik, H. (1992). International migration systems: A global approach.
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Ô Springer
Kritz, M. M., & Zlotnik, H. (1992). Global interactions: Migration systems, processes, and policies.
In M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & H. Zlotnik (Eds.), International migration systems: A global
approach (pp. 1-18). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Kupiszewska, D., & Nowok, B. (2008). Comparability of statistics on international migration flows in the
European Union. In J. Raymer & F. Willekens (Eds.), International migration in Europe: Data, models
and estimates. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
Leblang, D. A., Fitzgerald, J., & Teets, J. (2009). Defying the law of gravity: The political economy of
international migration (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: Faculty Discussion Group on Political
Economy, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.
Lemaitre, G. (2005). The comparability of international migration statistics: Problems and prospects
(Statistics Brief No. 9). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika,
73, 13-22.
Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). A systems approach to a theory of rural-urban migration. Geographic Analysis,
2, 1-18.
Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1998). Worlds
in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Mayda, A. M. (2005). International migration: A panel data analysis of economic and non-economic
determinants (Discussion Paper No. 1590). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of
clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159-179.
Neumayer, E. (2005). Bogus refugees? The determinants of asylum migration to western Europe. Interna
tional Studies Quarterly, 49, 389-409.
Nowok, B., Kupiszewska, D., & Poulain, M. (2006). Statistics on international migration flows. In M.
Poulain, N. Perrin, & A. Singleton (Eds.), THESIM: Towards harmonised European statistics on
international migration. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Pan, W. (2001). Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics, 57,
120-125.
Pedersen, P. J., Pytlikova, M., & Smith, N. (2008). Selection and network effects: Migration flows into
OECD countries 1990-2000. European Economic Review, 52, 1160-1186.
Poulain, M. (1993). Confrontation des Statistiques de Migrations Intra-Européennes: Vers plus
d'harmonisation? [Statistical comparison of intra-European migration: Toward greater harmonization],
European Journal of Population, 9, 353-381.
Poulain, M. (1999). International migration within Europe: Towards more complete and reliable data
(Working Paper 12). Geneva, Switzerland: Joint ECE-Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics.
Poulain, M., Perrin, N., & Singleton, A. (2006). THESIM: Towards harmonized European statistics on
international migration. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Everett, B. S. (2006). A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata (4th ed.). Boca
Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
Raymer, J., & Abel, G. (2008). The MIMOSA model for estimating international migration flows in the
European Union (Working Paper 8). Geneva, Switzerland: Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on
Migration Statistics.
Raymer, J., de Beer, J., & van der Erf, R. (2011). Putting the pieces of the puzzle together: Age
and sex-specific estimates of migration between EU/EFTA countries, 2002-2007. European
Journal of Population, 27, 185-215.
Raymer, J., Forster, J. J., Smith, P. W. F., Bijak, J., Wisniowski, A., & Abel, G. J. (2010). The IMEMmodel
for estimating international migration flows in the European Union (Working Paper 14). Geneva,
Switzerland: Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics.
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European parliament and of the council of 11 July 2007 on community
statistics on migration and international protection and repealing council regulation (EEC) No 311/76
on the Compilation of Statistics on Foreign Workers. (2007). Official Journal of the European Union.
Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0023:0029:
EN:PDF
Rogers, A. (2008). Demographic modeling of the geography of migration and population: A multiregional
perspective. Geographical Analysis, 40, 276-296.
Salt, J. (1989). A comparative overview of international trends and types: 1950-80. International
Migration Review, 23, 431—456.
•£) Springer
Salt, J. (2001). Current trends in international migration in Europe (Report CDMG (2001) 33). Stasbourg,
France: European Committee on Migration, Council of Europe.
Svaton, P., & Warin, T. (2008). European migration: Welfare migration or economic migration? Global
Economy Journal, 8, 1-30.
Todaro, M. P. (1976). Internal migration in developing countries. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor
Office.
United Nations. (1998). Recommendations on statistics of international migration (Statistical Papers Series
M, No. 58, Rev. 1). New York: Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United
Nations.
van der Erf, R., & van der Gaag, N. (2007). An iterative procedure to revise available data in the double
entry migration matrix for 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Discussion Paper). The Hague: Netherlands
Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute. Retrieved from http://mimosa.gedap.be/Documents/
Erf_2007.pdf
van Tubergen, F., Maas, I., & Flap, H. (2004). The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 Western
societies: Origin, destination, and community effects. American Sociological Review, 69, 704-727.
Zheng, B. (2000). Summarizing the goodness of fit of generalized linear models for longitudinal data.
Statistics in Medicine, 19, 1265-1275.
Zlotnik, H. (1992). Empirical identification of international migration systems. In M. M. Kritz, L. L. Lim,
& H. Zlotnik (Eds.), International migration systems: A global approach (pp. 19-40). Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Zolberg, A. R. (2006). A nation by design: Immigration policy in the fashioning of America. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Springer

Migration Systems in Europe - Evidence From Harmonized Flow Data Authors(s) - Jack DeWaard, Keuntae Kim and James Raymer

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Migration Systems in Europe - Evidence From Harmonized Flow Data Authors(s) - Jack DeWaard, Keuntae Kim and James Raymer

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Migration Systems in Europe: Evidence From Harmonized Flow Data

Authors(s): Jack DeWaard, Keuntae Kim and James Raymer

Migration Systems in Europe: Evidence From Harmonized

Jack DeWaard • Keuntae Kim • James Raymer

Published online: 12 July 2012

Keywords International migration • Migration systems • Harmonization

Migration systems theory (MST) situates international migration against a backdrop

1 The methodology and estimates are available online (www.nidi.knaw.nl/en/projects/230211/).

MST is an encompassing perspective, combining elements of neoclassical econom

267 4291 587 3037 184 804 5348 105 399

741 18133 1488 8847 312 987 29 i 9 458 931

1180 13 i 97 3707 34117 914 37 5872 947 3022

465 12959 278 273 63 5 882 15 585

138 2046 306 1649 146 0 3 6i5 37 230

1460 23702 895 5796 209 68 1661 312 473

22 1119 747 119 73 33 1254 171 22 44 208 97 521 74

Harmonization of Flow Data

4 Retrieved online (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_imm5prv&lang=en and

Standardization of Available Flow Reports

1i < ffl U Q tt U- <CQUQ Wit CfflUQWli. < CQ u Q W b

we therefore extend the preceding method by treating country rank—and thus

Estimation of Missing Flows

k = 4), respectively.12 We then proceed to calculate the appropriate Euclidean

12 In our analysis, the maximum value of k is 125.

Table 1 Average immigration and emigration adjustment ratios: 2003-2007

Harmonic Mean SD Harmonic Mean SD

Denmark 1.000 (0.000) 1.005 (0.000)

Portugal 8.712 (1.240) 30.046 (2.685)

a Immigration and/or emigration data not collected or provided to Eurostat.

The emigration and immigration reports of Austria and Germany, respectively,

Current Estimates MIMOSA Estimates

2003 1,432,788 1,325,652

2003 1,895.2 1,753.5

2003 6,996.1 6,695.2

Source-, MIMOSA estimates (de Beer et al. 2010).

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Belgium to the Netherlands

- - Emigration report of sending country - - Immigration report of receiving country

Identification of Migration Systems

||j^^ Intermediate System

HHHM/itzcrl ustria Hungary Moldova

interactions" between sending and receiving countries (Bonifazi et al. 2008:123).

Determinants of Migration Flows

the dependent variable, we estimate a set of generalized estimating equations (GEE),

Rmaro — ' ' r ' 1 > where ^ — „V S £ •

Table 3 Generalized estimating equations (GEE) of harmonized migration flows: 2003-2007

Year = 2004 0.007 0.006

Sending and Receiving Country-Pair Years 2,712 2,712

R1MARC 0.675 0.693

a Natural log transformation.

b Inclusion of this measure requires restricting the sample to EU countries.

*p < .05; **p < .01

small increases in the size of flows—less than one-tenth of 1 % for a 10 % change in

data across countries. Shared geographic region represents one approach to

Discussion and Conclusion

In 2007, the European Parliament established clear definitions of emigration

contributions. First, we extended the harmonization method proposed by van

Acknowledgments Jack DeWaard is supported by NICHD Training Grant T32-HD07014 and

22 A summary of the IMEM is available online (http://www.norface.org/migrationl2.html).

Table 4 Data descriptions, sources, and variable names

Description Source Variable Name(s)

Ties Shared by Sending and Receiving Countries

Shared language Set to 1 if official or national Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et langoff i