Archive:Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) - a statistical portrait - population

Data from July 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.

This article is part of a set of statistical articles based on Eurostat’s publication Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) — A statistical portrait.

Figure 1: Population density, 2012 (1)
(inhabitants per km²) - Source: Eurostat (demo_r_d3dens) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Table 1a: Key data on population, 1970, 2012 and 2013 - Source: Eurostat (demo_gind), (demo_r_d3area) and (demo_r_d3dens) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Table 1b: Key data on population, 1970, 2012 and 2013 - Source: Eurostat (demo_gind), (demo_r_d3area) and (demo_r_d3dens) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 2: Age pyramids, 2013
(% of total population) - Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 3: Total (young and old) age dependency ratio, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 4: Old-age dependency ratio, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 5: Foreign-born population, 2013
(% of total population) - Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (Trends in International Migrant Stock)

Table 2: Foreign-born population, 2013 - Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (Trends in International Migrant Stock)

Table 3: Largest urban agglomerations, 1950, 2000, 2010 and 2020 (1)
(thousand inhabitants) - Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Urbanisation Prospects)

Figure 6: Number of urban agglomerations with more than 750 000 inhabitants, 2011 (1)
(number) - Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Urbanisation Prospects)

Figure 7: Share of urban population, 1960 and 2013
(% of total population) - Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 8: Natural population change, 1960 and 2012
(per 1 000 inhabitants) - Source: Eurostat (demo_gind) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 9: Net migration rate, 1960–65 and 2005–10 (1)
(per 1 000 inhabitants) - Source: Eurostat (demo_gind) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision)

This article focuses on population data about the European Union (EU), Norway and Switzerland in comparison with 20 Asian ASEM partners. It covers key indicators concerning the size of the population, its age structure, the degree of urbanisation and population change.

The use of the term European ASEM partners in this article refers to the 28 Member States of the EU, Norway and Switzerland. The use of the term Asian ASEM partners in this article refers to the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the 10 remaining ASEM partners referred to as Northeast and South Asia (NESA).

Main statistical findings

Population density

As the population of the ASEM partners grew in recent decades, so did its population density, from 52 inhabitants per km² in 1970 to 91 inhabitants per km² by 2012 (see Table 1). The European ASEM partners reported a population density of 110 inhabitants per km² in 2012 compared with an average of 88 inhabitants per km² among the Asian ASEM partners; both of these figures were above the world average of 54 inhabitants per km². Singapore among the ASEAN partners, Malta from the EU-28 and Bangladesh among the NESA partners all recorded population densities in excess of 1 000 inhabitants per km² (see Figure 1). The least densely populated ASEM partners were Mongolia, Australia and the Russian Federation.

The ASEM partners’ share of the world’s population fell from 68.2 % in 1970 to 62.3 % in 2013, as the population of other parts of the world grew at a faster rate, notably in parts of Africa. This relative decline in population was mainly concentrated in the European ASEM partners, whose share of the world population fell from 12.2 % to 7.3 % during the period under consideration, while that of the Asian ASEM partners declined from 55.9 % to 55.0 % (largely as a result of a contraction in the relative weight of the Chinese population).

Population structure

Figure 2 compares the age structure in 2013, of the world, the EU-28, ASEAN and NESA, as well as that of the four largest ASEM partners. The peaks in the population structure of China among those in the age group 20–29 can be seen in the structure for NESA and that for the whole of the world, although the Chinese peaks for the age group 40–49 are less apparent. The age structures for India, Indonesia and Pakistan are somewhat more regular bell shapes, with Pakistan displaying a particularly broad base and rapid narrowing starting at the age group 25–29. The age structure for the EU-28 is quite different: a much higher share of older persons reflecting higher life expectancy; the share of the age groups below those aged 40–44 years gets progressively smaller approaching the youngest cohorts, reflecting falling fertility rates over several decades and the impact of the baby-boomer cohorts on the population structure. Another notable difference is the greater gender imbalance within the EU-28 among older age groups than is typical for the world as a whole.

The age dependency ratio (young and old) in Figure 3 summarises the level of support for younger persons (aged less than 15 years) and older persons (aged 65 years and over) provided by the working-age population (those aged 15–64 years). Despite different age structures across the various partners, the average ratios for the four groupings in 2013 were relatively similar, with this overall ratio pulled up by high old-age dependency ratios in some partners and by high young-age dependency ratios in others. The old-age dependency ratio (Figure 4) shows a much greater range across the four groupings in 2013, with ASEAN members and NESA partners generally reporting relatively low old-age dependency ratios, aside from the exception of Japan.

The share of the foreign-born population was relatively high in some of the wealthier, smaller ASEM partners, notably Brunei Darussalam, Singapore and Luxembourg, where in 2013 more than two fifths of the population were foreign-born (see Figure 5). By contrast, less than 0.1 % of the population were foreign-born in China. For comparison, across the world around 3.2 % of the global population were born in countries other than where they lived, a share that rose to 10.2 % for the EU-28 while it stood at 1.0 % in NESA.

Within the EU-28, half of all foreign-born residents in 2013 came from countries that were not ASEM partners, such as other parts of Europe (for example, Turkey and parts of the former Yugoslavia), other parts of Asia or other continents. Among the 50.0 % of the foreign-born population in the EU-28 from ASEM partners, more than one third (34.9 %) of the all foreign-born residents in the EU-28 came from other EU-28 Member States (see Table 2), leaving 13.9 % of foreign-born residents from Asian ASEM partners (mainly from NESA), and 1.2 % from Norway and Switzerland. By comparison, the share of foreign-born residents in Asian ASEM partners that were born in European ASEM partners was lower than the share of foreign-born residents from Asian ASEM partners observed for the EU-28. The share was particularly low in ASEAN members where just 0.9 % of foreign-born residents were from European ASEM partners. In general, the origin of the foreign-born population in NESA partners was also relatively diverse, whereas for ASEAN partners more than two thirds (68.6 %) of all foreign-born residents came from other ASEAN members.

Urbanisation

In 2010, the two largest urban agglomerations in the world were in ASEM partners, namely Tokyo (Japan) and Delhi (India). The 10 largest urban agglomerations in ASEM partners are shown in Table 3: they were all in Asian ASEM partners and ranked among the 16 largest agglomerations in the world. The largest urban agglomerations outside of the ASEM partners were Mexico City, New York-Newark (the United States) and São Paulo (Brazil). The largest urban agglomerations within the EU-28 were Paris (France) and London (the United Kingdom).

Worldwide, there were more than 630 urban agglomerations with a population in excess of 750 000 inhabitants in 2011 and together their aggregated population of 1.5 billion people was equivalent to just over one fifth of the world’s population. More than half (343) of these large urban agglomerations were in ASEM partners, with 260 in NESA (China was home to 143 and India 58, as can be seen in Figure 6). There were 46 of these large urban agglomerations in the EU-28, 35 in ASEAN and two in Norway and Switzerland.

There is no internationally accepted standard for distinguishing urban from rural areas, nor for delimiting the boundaries of urban agglomerations. For example, definitions and boundaries may be based on the availability of certain infrastructure, nationally-specific administrative boundaries, overall levels of population and/or levels of population density. The focus of Figure 7 is on the change in the share of the urban population between 1960 and 2013. Whereas the EU-28 recorded a 13.4 percentage point increase during this period, the increases recorded for NESA (23.0 percentage points), Norway and Switzerland (25.6 percentage points) and ASEAN (27.4 percentage points) were all much greater; note however that a higher proportion of the population in European ASEM partners lived in urban areas when compared with Asian ASEM partners. Among the selected ASEM partners shown in Figure 7, particularly large increases in the share of the urban population were recorded for the Republic of Korea, Indonesia and China. Japan retained its position with the highest share of urban population (92.3 %) among these selected partners; as in Japan, more than 90 % of the population lived in urban areas in Singapore, Belgium and Malta.

Population change and migration

There are two distinct components of population change: the natural population change that results from the difference between the number of live births and the number of deaths (see Figure 8); and the net effect of migration (see Figure 9), in other words, the balance between people coming into and people leaving a territory.

Comparing with 1960, China was the only ASEM partner where the natural population change was higher in 2012: in fact, China moved from a position of negative natural population change in 1960 to growth in 2012. Among the Asian ASEM partners, Japan moved in the other direction, from natural population growth to decline, while the Russian Federation moved from growth to a position where the crude birth and death rates were balanced. All other Asian ASEM partners reported natural population growth in 2012, albeit slower than in 1960. Among the European ASEM partners, natural population growth also slowed between 1960 and 2012, turning to a negative natural population change (the death rate exceeding the birth rate) in 12 EU Member States in 2012 and a balanced position in two more. In 2012, natural population change was equal to or below 4 per 1 000 inhabitants in all European ASEM partners except for Ireland and Cyprus, while it exceeded this level in all Asian ASEM partners except for Thailand, the Russian Federation and Japan. Average natural population growth in the EU-28 in 2012 was 0.4 per 1 000 inhabitants, well below the world average of 11.4 per 1 000 inhabitants.

The combined effect of immigration and emigration can be seen in the net migration rate. Figure 9 compares the average net migration rate for the period 1960–65 and that for 2005–10. Across all of the ASEM partners the two small, wealthy countries of Luxembourg and Singapore reported the highest rates of net inward migration between 2005 and 2010.

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mongolia, India and most of the ASEAN partners reported balanced net migration in the first half of the 1960s and negative net migration (more emigration than immigration) between 2005–10, most notably in Cambodia and Bangladesh. In China and Japan inward and outward migration was almost balanced for both of the periods shown. The remaining Asian ASEM partners reported net inward migration between 2005 and 2010; some of these had also reported net inward migration in the period 1960 to 1965, although this was not the case for the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation which had experienced net outward migration during the earlier period.

Among the European ASEM partners, net inward migration was common during the period from 2005 to 2010. The main exceptions were the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) which recorded net outward migration having had net inward migration between 1960 and 1965 and Bulgaria that moved from a balanced position to net outward migration. Romania, Poland, Croatia and Germany reported a balanced position with respect to migration between 2005 and 2010. Among the remaining European ASEM partners, many moved from a position of net outward migration between 1960 and 1965 to net inward migration between 2005 and 2010, most notably the islands of Cyprus and Malta, as well as the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) and Ireland.

Data sources and availability

The indicators presented are often compiled according to international — sometimes global — standards. Although most data are based on international concepts and definitions there may be certain discrepancies in the methods used to compile the data.

Most all of the indicators presented for the EU (and its Member States), Norway and Switzerland have been drawn from Eurobase, Eurostat’s online database. In exceptional cases some indicators for the EU have been extracted from international sources.

For the Asian ASEM partners and their aggregates (ASEAN and NESA), the data presented have been extracted from the World Bank and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

For many of the indicators multiple international statistical sources are available, each with their own policies and practices concerning data management (for example, concerning data validation, the correction of errors, the estimation of missing data, and the frequency of updating). In general, attempts have been made to use only one source for each indicator in order to provide a comparable analysis between the partners.

Aggregates for ASEM, the European ASEM partners and the Asian ASEM partners have been compiled from the data for individual partners as indicated above. As such, they may combine data from Eurostat and international sources.

Context

As a population grows or contracts, its structure changes. In many developed economies the population’s age structure has become older as post-war baby-boom generations reach retirement age, while in many developing countries the age structure is dominated by large numbers of younger people. Many countries have experienced a general increase in life expectancy combined with a fall in fertility, in some cases to a level below that necessary to keep the size of the population constant in the absence of migration.

Further Eurostat information

Publications

Goods trade with ASEAN countries rebounds from 2009 to 2010 — Statistics in focus 47/2011
The EU in the world 2013 — A statistical portrait — Statistical book (2013)
The European Union and the BRIC countries — Pocketbook (2012)
The European Union and the Republic of Korea — A statistical portrait — Statistical book (2012)

Database

Population, see:

Demography (pop)

Demography - National data (demo)

Demographic balance and crude rates (demo_gind)

Population (demo_pop)

Population on 1 January by five years age groups and sex (demo_pjangroup)

Demography - Regional data (demoreg)

Population and area (demo_r_poar)

Population density - NUTS 3 regions (demo_r_d3dens)

Area - NUTS 3 regions (demo_r_d3area)

International Migration and Asylum (migr)

Population by citizenship and by country of birth (migr_stock)

Population by sex, age group and country of birth (migr_pop3ctb)

Dedicated section

Source data for tables and figures (MS Excel)

Download Excel file

External links

[[Category:<Asia>|Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) - a statistical portrait - population]] [[Category:<Non-EU_countries>|Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) - a statistical portrait - population]] [[Category:<Statistical article>|Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) - a statistical portrait - population]]