Migrant integration statistics – labour market indicators
- Data extracted in May 2017. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database. Planned update: May 2018.
The European Union (EU) is a relatively diverse area and several of its Member States have traditionally been a destination for many migrants, whether from elsewhere within the EU or elsewhere in the world. The flow of migrants has led to a range of new skills and talents being introduced into local labour markets while also increasing cultural diversity. The integration of migrants has increasingly become a key area for policy focus in recent years, with measures to prepare immigrants and their descendants so they may be more active participants in society, for example, labour market and citizenship initiatives.
This article presents EU statistics for a range of labour market indicators, contrasting the situation of migrants with the native population; the information may be used as part of an on-going process to monitor and evaluate migrant integration policies. The indicators presented are based on: a set of Council conclusions from 2010 on migrant integration; a subsequent study Indicators of immigrant integration — a pilot study from 2011; and a report titled Using EU indicators of immigrant integration from 2013. The article analyses information from the list of Zaragoza indicators that were agreed by EU Member States in Zaragoza (Spain) during April 2010, alongside additional information derived from the 2013 report on migrant integration. More specifically, it presents statistical data on the following:
- the activity rate;
- the employment rate;
- the youth employment rate;
- the unemployment rate;
- the youth unemployment rate;
- the long-term unemployment ratio.
- 1 Main statistical findings
- 2 Data sources and availability
- 3 Context
- 4 See also
- 5 Further Eurostat information
- 6 External links
- 7 Notes
Main statistical findings
Labour market participation — activity rates
The gap in labour market participation between those migrants born in the EU and those born outside the EU increased in 2016
Labour market participation may be measured in terms of the activity rate, which provides information on the number of economically active persons (also known as the labour force) aged 20-64 as a percentage of the total population (in the same age group); this indicator is one of the key Zaragoza indicators for measuring migrant integration.
The activity rate of the EU-28 working-age population varies somewhat according to place of birth or citizenship (as illustrated in Figure 1). During the period 2008-2016, non-EU-born migrants (hereafter referred to as migrants born outside the EU) systematically recorded lower activity rates than EU-born migrants (those born in a different EU Member State to the one in which they were living) or the native-born population, with these differences increasing over time.
In 2016, the EU-28 activity rate for migrants born outside the EU was 73.1 %, which was 1.3 percentage points (pp) lower than the rate recorded in 2008. By contrast, the activity rate for the native-born population stood at 77.9 %, which marked an increase of 2.5 pp compared with 2008. However, the highest activity rate was recorded among migrants born elsewhere in the EU, at 80.5 %. The activity rate for this subpopulation also increased at the most rapid pace during the period under consideration, increasing 3.8 pp when compared with 2008.
A similar pattern — but with greater differences — was observed when comparing the activity rates of migrants who were non-EU citizens with those of migrants who were citizens of other EU Member States or with national citizens, with the lowest activity rate recorded for non-EU citizens (68.7 % in 2016) and the highest for EU citizens from other Member States (81.9 %).
Table 1 provides more specific information on activity rates of the working-age population for the EU Member States by place of birth and by age. At an aggregated level, activity rates were generally higher for the native-born population rather than the foreign-born population: this pattern held in 19 of the 27 Member States for which data are available in 2016 (only partial information available for Romania). The biggest differences between activity rates for native-born and foreign-born populations were recorded in the Netherlands (where the native-born population had an activity rate that was 13.3 pp higher than the equivalent rate for the foreign-born population), Latvia (10.3 pp), France (9.9 pp) and Germany (9.1 pp). There were eight Member States, the majority of which were in southern Europe, where the activity rate of the working-age population was higher among foreign-born migrants (rather than the native-born population); the gap was particularly large in Greece, Portugal and Luxembourg, where rates for the foreign-born population were at least 5 pp higher than those for the native-born population.
A comparison between migrants born in a different EU Member State and the native-born population reveals that the former tended to record higher activity rates in 2016. This pattern was repeated in 14 out of 25 Member States for which data are available (only partial information for Bulgaria, Germany and Romania). The migrant populations of Portugal, Croatia, Luxembourg and Hungary who were born elsewhere in the EU recorded particularly high activity rates relative to their native-born populations, with activity rates some 7-9 pp higher. By contrast, in Slovenia and Slovakia, the activity rates of the native-born population were 8 or 9 pp higher than the rates recorded for migrants born in a different EU Member State.
In each of the EU Member States, activity rates for people aged 55-64 were considerably lower than the rates recorded for people within the core working ages (those aged 25-54). This pattern may be attributed, at least in part, to (early) retirement benefits that are available in many of the Member States, as well as illnesses, disability and other conditions that tend to affect older people disproportionately (thereby discouraging or preventing some from working). A comparison between the native-born population and foreign-born migrants aged 55-64 reveals that the latter were more likely to remain active later in their working lives. In 2016, the EU-28 activity rate for elderly foreign-born migrants was 62.0 %, some 3.2 pp higher than the corresponding rate for the native-born population of the same age (58.8 %). However, the same pattern was only repeated in 10 of the 26 Member States for which data are available (only partial information for Bulgaria and Romania), with particularly large differences recorded in Poland, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Italy and Luxembourg, as activity rates for foreign-born migrants aged 55-64 were at least 10 pp higher than those recorded for the native-born population.
Figure 2 provides an analysis of the results by place of birth, underlining that the activity rates of the migrant population born in a different EU Member State tended to be higher than the rates for either the native-born population or the migrant population born outside the EU. In 2016, the EU-28 activity rate of working-age migrants born elsewhere in the EU was 80.5 %, compared with 77.9 % for the native-born population and 73.1 % for migrants born outside the EU. This pattern was repeated in 14 of the 25 Member States for which data are available (partial information for Bulgaria, Germany and Romania), with activity rates among migrants born in a different Member State rising to 85.0 % or higher in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Portugal (where the highest rate was recorded, at 87.7 %).
Those EU Member States that generally recorded some of the highest overall activity rates tended to do so as a result of high rates among their native-born populations; this was particularly the case in Sweden, the Baltic Member States and the Netherlands; the highest activity rates in France, Slovakia and Slovenia were also recorded for the native-born population. In Belgium, activity rates for the native-born population and for migrants born in a different EU Member State were identical, while migrant populations born outside the EU registered the highest activity rates in the Czech Republic, Greece and Poland.
Activity rates for women were systematically lower than the corresponding rates recorded for men in all EU Member States in 2016, highlighting that gender equality had yet to be achieved. This gap was even greater still among migrant women, and in particular, among migrant women born outside the EU: the EU-28 activity rate for migrant women born outside the EU (63.1 %) was 21.1 pp lower than that recorded for men (84.2 %). The largest gender gaps in labour market participation among migrants born outside the EU were recorded in Malta (31.9 pp), Italy (29.2 pp) and Belgium (25.5 pp). The situation in Belgium was interesting insofar as it was the only EU Member State where the activity rate for migrant women born outside the EU was less than half (49.8 %). By contrast, the activity rate for migrant women born outside the EU rose to 79.8 % in Portugal, which was one of four EU Member States — the others being Latvia, Cyprus and Lithuania — where the gender gap in activity rates for migrants born outside the EU was in single figures (see Figure 3).
In 2016, the EU-28 employment rate of foreign-born migrants was 66.0 % compared with 71.8 % for the native-born population
The employment rate is defined as the share of the population of persons of working-age (defined here as 20-64 years) who are in employment; this indicator is also one of the key Zaragoza indicators. In 2016, the EU-28 employment rate for the native-born working-age population was 71.8 %, which was 5.8 pp higher than the rate recorded for foreign-born migrants. A closer analysis of this latter figure reveals that the employment rate for working-age migrants born in a different EU Member State was 72.6 % (some 0.8 pp higher than the average for the native-born population), while that for migrants born outside the EU was much lower, at 61.2 % (some 10.6 pp below the average for the native-born population).
A gender gap is observed in all of the EU Member States for each of the population subgroups shown in Table 2: the native-born population, foreign-born migrants, migrants born in a different EU Member State, and migrants born outside the EU. For each of these, the employment rate for women was lower than that for men, often considerably so, with the largest gaps typically recorded for migrants born outside the EU. The EU-28 employment rate of migrants born outside the EU was 19.5 pp higher for men than for women in 2016; this gender gap fell to a difference of 13.4 pp for migrants born elsewhere in the EU and to 10.6 pp for the native-born population. Such figures may reflect different opportunities and barriers for migrant men and women and/or cultural differences with respect to work-life balance within migrant households.
Looking in more detail across the EU Member States, the smallest gender gaps for employment rates tended to be found within the native-born population. This pattern was repeated in 19 of the 24 Member States for which data are available in 2016 (partial information for Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania and Romania). In Italy, Malta, Poland and Slovenia, the gender gap for the employment rate was lowest among migrants born in a different Member State, while in Cyprus it was lowest among migrants born outside the EU.
The youth employment rate is defined in relation to the subpopulation of young persons aged 15-24 years. Within this age group, EU-28 employment rates ranged from 26.5 % among migrants born outside the EU, through 33.9 % for the native-born population, to a high of 37.3 % recorded for migrants born in a different EU Member State. Note that many people within this age group are still attending school, college, or higher education establishments and that if they do so on a full-time basis then they may not be willing or have the time to seek paid employment alongside their studies.
In 2016, the highest youth employment rates among the EU Member States were often recorded in Denmark and the Netherlands, irrespective of where individual young people were born. The youth employment rate for the native-born population was 61.9 % in the Netherlands (almost double the EU-28 average), while Denmark (58.8 %), Austria (52.7 %) and the United Kingdom (52.2 %) were the only other Member States to report that more than half of all youths were employed. The highest youth employment rate for migrants born in a different Member State was registered in Denmark (63.6 %), while the United Kingdom was the only other Member State to report a rate of more than 50 %. The highest youth employment rate for migrants born outside the EU was also recorded in Denmark (46.5 %), while the Netherlands (43.5 %) was the only other Member State to record a rate in excess of 40 %. By contrast, the lowest youth employment rates were recorded in Greece for both the native-born population (12.4 %) and for migrants born elsewhere in the EU (13.1 %), while the lowest rate for migrants born outside the EU was recorded in Belgium (15.0 %).
Despite falling during three consecutive years, the EU-28 unemployment rate for migrants born outside the EU remained 8.4 pp higher than the rate for the native-born population in 2016
The unemployment rate is defined as the number of unemployed people expressed as a percentage of the total labour force; this indicator is also one of the key Zaragoza indicators. In 2016, the overall EU-28 unemployment rate among people aged 20-64 was 8.6 %.
The EU-28 unemployment rate of the native-born population was consistently lower than the unemployment rate for migrant labour throughout the period from 2008 to 2016 (see Figure 5); this was particularly the case with respect to migrants born outside the EU. At the onset of the global financial and economic crisis the differences between unemployment rates for the native-born and foreign-born populations were relatively small, but these gaps widened in consecutive years following the crisis, reaching 3.3 pp (in 2012) for migrants born in a different EU Member State and 10.1 pp (in 2013) for migrants born outside the EU. Thereafter, the differences in unemployment rates began to narrow again, with the latest data available for 2016 confirming this pattern. The EU-28 unemployment rate for the native-born population was 7.8 % in 2016, while the rate for migrants born elsewhere in the EU was 9.8 % and that for migrants born outside the EU was 16.2 %.
An analysis for the individual EU Member States confirms that unemployment rates were generally lower for native-born rather than foreign-born populations (see Table 3); indeed, Cyprus was the only one of the 25 Member States for which data are available in 2016 (partial information for Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia) to report a higher unemployment rate for its native-born population (some 0.4 pp higher than the rate for its foreign-born migrant population). At the other end of the spectrum, the unemployment rate for foreign-born migrants was more than 5 pp higher than the rate for the native-born population in the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Spain, France, Greece, Finland, Belgium and Sweden (where the difference widened to 11.1 pp).
In 2016, the lowest unemployment rates for migrants born in a different EU Member State were registered in the United Kingdom (3.9 %) and Hungary (4.2 %). They formed part of a group of four Member States where unemployment rates for the migrant population born elsewhere in the EU were lower than those of the native-born population; this was also the case in Cyprus and Portugal, while there was no difference between these two rates in Croatia (see Figure 6). The highest unemployment rates for migrants born in a different Member State were recorded in Spain and Greece (both above 20 %), with the next highest rate recorded in Italy (13.9 %). Unemployment rates were generally higher for the migrant population born elsewhere in the EU than they were for the native-born population, although the difference was usually quite small, this gap peaking at 4.3 pp in Denmark.
In each of the EU Member States for which data are available in 2016 (partial information for Bulgaria, Germany, Romania and Slovakia), unemployment rates for migrants born outside the EU were consistently higher than those for the native-born population. The lowest unemployment rates for migrants born outside the EU were recorded in the Czech Republic (4.6 %), the United Kingdom (6.3 %) and Malta (7.0 %), while the highest rates were registered in Finland (22.1 %), Spain (27.2 %) and Greece (31.5 %). The gap between unemployment rates for migrants born outside the EU and those for the native-born population peaked at 14-15 pp in Sweden, Finland and Belgium, with double-digit differences also recorded in Luxembourg and France. By contrast, there was a relatively small gap (1.0 pp or less) between these two rates in Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Croatia.
An analysis by age (see Table 4) reveals that the EU-28 unemployment rate for the native-born core working-age population (7.2 %) was higher than the rate recorded for the native-born population aged 55-64 (6.0 %). This pattern was repeated for the migrant population, with an unemployment rate of 11.9 % for the core working-age population compared with 10.6 % for more elderly persons aged 55-64. There was no real pattern apparent among the 21 EU Member States for which data are available (partial information for Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), as 10 Member States reported higher unemployment rates for their foreign-born migrant population aged 55-64, while 10 recorded higher rates for their foreign-born migrant population within the core working ages of 25-54; there was no difference in these two rates in Germany.
The development of the youth unemployment rate followed closely that for the overall unemployment rate, although at a much higher level
The youth unemployment rate is defined as the number of unemployed people aged 15-24 as a proportion of the total labour force for the same age group. It should be noted that a relatively high share of young people remain outside the labour market (usually because they are in full-time education).
A comparison between Figure 5 and Figure 7 reveals similar patterns for the development of overall and youth unemployment rates: after initially rising at a fairly rapid pace during and following the global financial and economic crisis, the EU-28 youth unemployment rate peaked in 2013, then subsequently fell for three consecutive years. The migrant population born outside the EU had the highest youth unemployment rate in 2016, while the lowest rate was reported for the native-born population.
There was a marked difference between EU-28 unemployment rates for people aged 15-24 and people aged 20-29 years, with the latest rates for the second of these two age cohorts considerably lower. Furthermore, there was practically no difference in unemployment rates for people aged 20-29 when comparing the native-born population with the migrant population born in a different EU Member State in contrast to the situation for the younger age group, where lower unemployment rates were registered for the native-born population.
In 2016, the EU-28 youth unemployment rate for the native-born population was 18.1 %, while the rates for migrants born in the EU (20.7 %) and migrants born outside the EU (32.4 %) were higher. There is a high degree of variation between youth unemployment rates in the EU Member States, both for native-born populations and for migrant populations. As with the data for the whole of the EU, it was relatively common for the lowest youth unemployment rate to be recorded for the native-born population (this was the case for 8 out of the 12 Member States for which data are available — see Figure 8 for details of coverage). In Italy and Cyprus, youth unemployment rates were lower for the migrant populations born in a different Member State and outside of the EU than they were for the native-born population. In Greece, the youth unemployment rate was lower among the migrant population born outside the EU than among the native-born population. In the United Kingdom the youth unemployment rate was lower among the migrant population born elsewhere in the EU than among the native-born population.
Long-term unemployment refers to those unemployed people (defined here for people aged 20-64) who have been out of work and actively seeking employment for at least a year; this form of ‘structural’ unemployment is of particular concern for policymakers insofar as once people have been unemployed for a considerable period of time it is generally more difficult for them to be assimilated back into the workforce. The share of the long-term unemployed in total unemployment rose across the EU-28 from 39.1 % in 2008 to a peak of 51.2 % in 2014, although there followed two consecutive reductions as the share fell again to less than a half (48.6 %) by 2016.
There was a relatively uniform share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment when analysing results by country of birth. In 2016, the EU-28 share for the native-born population was 49.0 %, while the proportion for migrants born outside the EU was almost identical (at 49.1 %), while that for migrants born in a different EU Member State was somewhat lower (at 44.0 %). Figure 9 shows the development of long-term unemployment as a share of total unemployment over the period 2008-2016, with the lowest proportions consistently recorded for the migrant population born elsewhere in the EU.
A similar analysis is presented in Figure 10 for 2016, with a wide variation in patterns across the 17 EU Member States for which complete data are available. In nine of these, the share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment was lowest for migrants born in a different Member State. This was most notable in Cyprus and the United Kingdom, where the share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment was more than 10 pp below the corresponding ratio for the native-born population. In the Netherlands, Austria, Italy and Spain this gap narrowed to within the range of 5-10 pp, while smaller differences were recorded in Croatia, Denmark and Belgium. There were four EU Member States — the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland and Portugal — where the lowest share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment was recorded for migrants born outside the EU and three Member States — France, Slovenia and Sweden — where the lowest share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment was recorded for the native-born population; in Luxembourg, the same (and lowest) share was recorded for the native-born population and the population born elsewhere in the EU.
The share of long-term unemployment in total unemployment was particularly high in the EU-28 for older members of the labour force, regardless of their country of birth (see Table 5): the gap ranged from 12.8 pp among the native-born population to 21.4 pp for migrants born in a different EU Member State. In 2016, the share of long-term unemployment for the native-born population aged 55-64 was 62.7 %, while the corresponding proportion for foreign-born migrants was slightly higher, at 63.5 %.
Data sources and availability
The main data source for labour market statistics is the EU labour force survey (EU-LFS). The EU-LFS is a large quarterly sample survey that covers the resident population aged 15 and above in private households. It covers the EU Member States, EFTA (except Liechtenstein) and candidate countries. The survey is designed to provide population estimates for a set of main labour market characteristics, covering areas such as employment, unemployment, economic inactivity and hours of work, as well as providing analyses for a range of socio-demographic characteristics, such as sex, age, educational attainment, occupation, household characteristics and region of residence.
A set of Council, European Parliament and European Commission Regulations define how the EU-LFS is carried out, while some countries have their own national legislation for the implementation of the survey. The key advantage using EU-LFS data is that they come from a survey which is highly harmonised and optimised for comparability. However, there are some limitations when considering the coverage of the EU-LFS for migrant populations, as the EU-LFS was designed to target the whole resident population and not specific subgroups, such as migrants. The following issues should be noted when analysing migrant integration statistics:
- recently arrived migrants — this group of migrants is missing from the sampling frame in every host Member State, which results in under-coverage of the actual migrant population for EU-LFS statistics;
- non-response — one disadvantage of the EU-LFS is the high percentage of non-response that is recorded among migrant populations, this may reflect: language difficulties; misunderstanding concerning the purpose of the survey; difficulties in communicating with the survey interviewer; or fear concerning the negative impact that participation in the survey could have (for example, damaging a migrants chances of receiving the necessary authorisation to remain in the host Member State);
- sample size — given the EU-LFS is a sample survey, it is possible that some of the results presented for labour market characteristics of migrants are unrepresentative, especially in those EU Member States with small migrant populations (note that for cases where data are considered to be of particularly low reliability, the data are not published).
This article focuses on comparisons between national and migrant populations. The results for the migrant population are usually disaggregated into migrants from other EU Member States and migrants from outside the EU, with information presented by age and by sex. Migrant indicators are calculated for two broad groups: the foreign population determined by place of birth and the foreign population determined by citizenship). Although providing some main indicators for the latter, this article focuses on providing information on migrant integration by place of birth (this subgroup of the population is generally somewhat larger and therefore allows more complete and robust data to be presented). That said, results by place of birth are generally representative of those by citizenship.
The following analyses are presented:
For the population by place of birth
- Native-born — the population born in the reporting country;
- Foreign-born — the population born outside the reporting country; subdivided into:
- EU-born — the population born in the EU, except the reporting country; and
- Non-EU-born — the population born in non-EU countries.
For the population by citizenship
- Nationals — the population of citizens of the reporting country;
- Foreign citizens — the non-nationals; subdivided into:
- EU citizens — the citizens of EU Member States, except the reporting country;
- Non-EU citizens — the citizens of non-EU countries.
For the population by age
- 15-24: this age cohort represents the youth population, as defined by the United Nations (UN);
- 20-64 — this cohort has been selected because it is relevant to one of the targets included within the Europe 2020 strategy, namely, that the employment rate of persons aged 20-64 should reach 75 % by 2020;
- 25-54 — this cohort is considered as the most appropriate group for an analysis of the situation of core working-age migrants, as it minimises the effects of migration related to non-economic reasons (for example, educational studies, training or early retirement), while forming a homogenous group that is large enough to produce reliable results;
- 55-64 — this cohort focuses on older migrants.
In order to concentrate on those of core working-age, thereby minimising the effect of migration related to non-economic factors, the analyses presented focus principally on the 25-54 age group. This is one of the main age groups for migrants, thereby reducing the effect of different age structures between national/native-born individuals and foreign/foreign-born migrants. Equally, the numbers of persons concerned are large enough to allow an analysis of socioeconomic characteristics with an appropriate degree of reliability.
The indicators in this article use the definitions of the Zaragoza indicators. The above age groups may not be same as used in Eurostat labour market statistics. For this reason results may differ from other results disseminated by Eurostat.
In 2000, there was a major development concerning the integration of migrants living in EU Member States, with a set of new laws impacting, among others, on labour markets, in the form of the Racial equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment equality Directive (2000/78/EC). They were adopted across the EU in order to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion or beliefs, disability, age, sexual orientation, race or ethnic origin, within the following areas: education, labour markets, social protection, and access to public goods.
Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM(2010) 2020 final) was launched in March 2010. One of its goals was to see better integration of migrants in the workforce, with the hope that a new agenda for migrant integration would help to stimulate the EU-28 employment rate for people aged 20-64. In July 2011, the European Commission proposed a European agenda for the integration of third-country nationals  (COM(2011) 455 final), focusing on actions to increase economic, social, cultural and political participation by migrants. This agenda highlighted challenges that need to be addressed is the EU is willing to benefit fully from the potential offered by migration.
The Stockholm programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/C 115/01) covered the period 2010-2014 and embraced the development of core indicators for the monitoring of the results of integration policies in a limited number of relevant policy areas including employment, education and social inclusion. Through the 2010 Zaragoza Declaration (and the subsequent Council conclusions) Member States identified a number of common indicators (the so-called Zaragoza indicators) and called upon the European Commission to undertake a pilot study examining proposals for common integration indicators and reporting on the availability and quality of data from agreed harmonised sources necessary for the calculation of these indicators. The proposals in the pilot study were further examined and developed in a report published by the Directorate-General for Home Affairs Using EU Indicators of Immigrant Integration.
In July 2015, the European Commission released jointly with the OECD the publication Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015. The thematic chapters of this publication provide an analysis based on the foreign-born population, while there is a specific chapter that focuses on non-EU citizens living in the EU, which monitors the Zaragoza indicators.
On 7 June 2016, the European Commission adopted an Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals. The plan aims to support the integration process of nationals from non-member countries in the EU, including the specific challenges faced by refugees. The actions target key policy priorities, such as pre-departure/pre-arrival measures and access to a range of basic services (education, vocational training, labour market integration, healthcare and housing).
EU legislation provides a framework regarding conditions of entry and stay and a common set of rights for certain categories of migrants. Some of the most important legal texts relevant to migrants’ employment are the following:
- Directive 2014/66/EU defining conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer;
- Directive 2014/36/EU on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment;
- Directive 2011/98/EU on a single application procedure for a single permit to reside and work in the EU and on a common set of rights for third-country workers;
- Directive 2009/50/EC concerning the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, commonly called the ‘Blue Card directive’;
- Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification;
- Directive 2000/43/EC on racial equality;
- Directive 2000/78/EC on employment equality.
- Migrant integration statistics—online publication
- Migration and migrant population statistics
- Unemployment statistics
Further Eurostat information
- Social inclusion (mii_soinc)
- Education (mii_educ)
- Employment (mii_emp)
- Activity rates (mii_act)
- Unemployment (mii_une)
- Employment and self-employment (mii_em)
- Employment rates by sex, age and nationality (%) (lfsa_ergan)
- Employment rates by sex, age and country of birth (%) (lfsa_ergacob)
- Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) as a percentage of the total unemployment, by sex, age and nationality (%) (lfsa_upgan)
- Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) as a percentage of the total Unemployment, by sex, age and country of birth (%) (lfsa_upgacob)
- Active citizenship (mii_actctz)
- LFS ad-hoc modules on migrants (mii_lfso)
Methodology / Metadata
- LFS series — Detailed annual survey results (ESMS metadata file — lfsa_esms)
Source data for tables, figures and maps (MS Excel)
- Conclusions on Integration as a Driver for Development and Social Cohesion
- EMN Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 2014
- European website on integration
- Indicators for the Integration of Migrants and their Children — OECD
- Migrant integration policy index (MIPEX) — ILO
- Migrant integration — DG Migration and Home Affairs
- Settling In — 2015
- Using EU Indicators of Immigrant Integration - final report prepared for DG Migration and Home Affairs
- ‘Third-countries’ is a synonym for non-member countries, in other words countries outside of the EU.