The impact of immigration on the population structure of Greece[1]

Viron Kotzamanis [2], Anastasia Kostaki [3]

[1] This research is a part of a research project conducted at the Laboratory of Demographic and Social Analyses, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, financed by the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (PYTHAGORAS: e-demography, digital platform of information, documentation and analysis of demographic information).

[2] Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Greece email: bkotz@prd.uth.gr

[3] Department of Statistics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece, email: kostaki@aueb.gr

After the 2nd world war until roughly the middle of 70’s, the Greek population exhibited a strong emigration profile. A great amount of emigrants moved to highly industrialized countries especially to the USA, Canada, Australia and W. Germany.

Then, at the early 80’s a part of them came back.

Since the early 90’s the country experience a strong immigration wave, mainly from the neighboring Balkans countries (especially Albania) and secondary from the other East European countries.

Table 1: Population distribution (census data 2001)

TOTAL Greeks Foreigners Albanians

0-14 1.660.899 1.534.088 126811 93510

15-44 4.844.352 4.344.020 500332 286063

45-64 2.601.613 2.493.620 107993 47954

65+ 1.827.233 1.800.556 26677 10509

TOTAL 10.934.097 10.172.284 (93%)

761.813 (7%)

438.036 (4%

57,5%)

0-14 % 15,2 15,1 16,6 21,315-44 % 44,3 42,7 65,7 65,345-64 % 23,8 24,5 14,2 10,965+ % 16,7 17,7 3,5 2,4

Aged-Child Ratio

110,01 117,37 21,04 11,24

Dependency Ratio

46,85 48,77 25,23 31,14

This work, analyzing the information of the two recent

censuses at a micro geographical level,

Studies the implications of the immigration on the spatial

distribution of the population.

Investigates the impact of the immigration flow to the

population structure of Greece, by comparing the population profile

of the actual (real) population (comprised by natives plus

immigrants), in each spatial unit (municipality), with the one of

solely natives (i.e. the population to be, if immigration was not

existed).

As confirmed by the evidence of the two recent censuses,

during the last two decades Greece has altered from an emigration country to an immigration one;

Immigrants increased dramatically, formed more than the 7% of the population in 2001, being roughly non-existed (less than 2%) in 1991.

Map 1: Percentages (%) of the foreigners in the total population (census data 1991)

Map 2: Percentages (%) of the foreigners in the total population (census data 2001)

Map 3: Changes in the percentages of the immigrant population between 1991 and 2001 in the 1034

Greek municipalities (censuses data 1991 and 2001)

Map 3 : Location Quotient for the immigrants in municipalities (census data, 1991)

Map 4: Location Quotient for the immigrants in municipalities (census data, 2001)

Location quotient = the quotient between the percentage of immigrants in the municipality and the total percentage of immigrants in the country

(actually it tells us about their spatial concentration)

Diagram 1: Concentration of the Greek Population and the Immigrant Population, in Greek

municipalities, census data 2001. (Lorenz Curve)

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%

90,00%

100,00%

0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00% 80,00% 90,00% 100,00%

GREEKS

FOREIGNERS

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

2001

2001

Gini

index

Natives 0,803

Immigrants 0,868

group 1 (Developed countries) 0,900

group 2 (Balkans) 0,857

group 3 (East Europe) 0,930

group 4 (other) 0,968

Map 5: Immigrant population evolution between 1991 and 2001

Table 2 : Distribution of Population by major age-groups(census data 2001)

Total Natives Immigrants group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4

TOTAL 10934097 10172284 761813 99901 500226 85715 75541

0-14 1660899 1534088 126811 11455 98530 10794 5990

15-64 7445965 6837640 608325 79422 390296 72437 65790

65+ 1827233 1800556 26677 9024 11400 2484 3761

               

0-14 (%) 15,19 15,08 16,65 11,47 19,70 12,59 7,93

15-64 (%) 68,10 67,22 79,85 79,50 78,02 84,51 87,09

65+ (%) 16,71 17,70 3,50 9,03 2,28 2,90 4,98

               

Aged-Child Ratio 110,01 117,36 21,04 78,78 11,57 23,01 62,79

Mean Age 39,93 40,6 30,9 37,45 28,72 33,42 33,86

Table 3 : Population distribution by sex (census data 2001)

TOTAL Males Females Males

(%)Females

(%) Sex ratio

Total 10934097 5413426 5520671 49,51 50,49 101,98

Natives 10172284 4998058 5174226 49,13 50,87 103,52

Immigrants 761813 415368 346445 54,52 45,48 83,41

Table 4: Population distribution of the immigrants by nationality (census data 2001)

TOTAL Males Females Males (%)

Females (%)

Sex ratio

IMMIGRANTS (total) 761813 415368 346445 54,52 45,48 83,41

group 1 (Developed countries) 99901 43840 56061 43,88 56,12 127,88

group 2 (Balkans) 500226 285941 214285 57,16 42,84 74,94

group 3 (East Europe) 85715 32979 52736 38,48 61,52 159,91

group 4 (Non European 75541 52285 23256 69,21 30,79 44,48

Table 5: Distribution of Immigrants by sex and Nationality group (census data 2001)

TOTAL % males % females %

IMMIGRANTS (Total) 761813 100,0 415368 100,0 346445 100,0

group 1 (Dev. C.) 99901 13,1 43840 10,6 56061 16,2group 2 (Balkans) 500226 65,7 285941 68,8 214285 61,9group 3 (East Europe) 85715 11,3 32979 7,9 52736 15,2group 4 (others)

75541 9,9 52285 12,6 23256 6,7

POPULATION PYRAMIDES total (1) , Natives (2), Immigrants (3)

1

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

2

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

3

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

4

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Population pyramides for Immigrant population by nationality group

3

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

5

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

6

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

7

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Percentages of Immigrants in every five year age group

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Active population [15, 65) as a percentage of the population in active

ages [15, 65)

Total Population 61,84Natives 61,07

Immigrants 70,58group 1 47,50group 2 74,12group 3 69,50group 4 78,65

Table 6: Percentages of active population (census data 2001)

In order to investigate the implications of immigration in the population structure of Greece, in a lower geographical level, we consider the native population, as well as the actual (real) one (natives plus immigrants) of each spatial unit (municipality), and then,

we build the differences between the values of the following characteristics in each spatial unit, for the two populations.

proportion of males mean age proportion of population aged [15, 65) proportion of population aged 65+

Finally, using statistical classification (statistical clustering) techniques,

We classify municipalities in homogenous groups (clusters) according to specific statistical criteria based to the size of these differences.

In order to reveal the optimal grouping of the municipality units into homogenous groups, we utilize the procedure of

Two-step Cluster Analysis,an exploratory statistical technique designed to reveal natural grouping (or clusters) in a data set that would otherwise not be apparent.The analysis is implemented in the SPSS statistical package

CLUSTERING BY COUNTRY GROUP

Cluster Distribution

N % of

Combined Cluster 1 84 8,3%

2 55 5,4% 3 120 11,8% 4 513 50,6% 5 242 23,9% Combined 1014 100,0%

Excluded Cases 20

Total 1034

Cluster Profiles GROUP1 GROUP2 GROUP3

N Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Cluster 1 84 51,74 17,89 32,87 16,64 6,63 7,35 2 55 13,51 9,82 31,15 13,19 52,14 14,90 3 120 9,24 5,19 64,46 8,60 22,74 6,53 4 513 5,54 4,38 87,90 7,54 3,84 3,54 5 242 22,77 7,75 64,04 9,80 6,18 4,32

Combined 14,35 15,29 71,79 21,44 9,49 13,08

. very high level . high level . low level . very low level . mean level

5

4

3

2

1

TwoStep ClusterNumber

Cluster Size

Attribute Importance

FindingsFindings According to the nationality of the immigrant, the municipalities form

five distinct profiles:

Profile 1: Highest presentation of Group I and IV (for Group I more than 50% compared with country mean = 14,35%, and for Group IV, 8,77 in comparison to the country mean = 4,37%. Lowest presentation of Group II (less than a half of their mean presentation in the country). N=84

Profile 2: Highest presentation of Group III (more than 50% compared with country mean = 9,49%),Lowest presentation of Group II (less than the half of their mean presentation in the country), N=55

Profile 3: High presentation of Group II (more than double the country mean); Somewhat lower presentation of the other groups. N=120

Profile 4: Highest presentation of Group II ( 88%), Very low presentation of the other groups. N=513

Profile 5: Highest presentation of Group I; Low presentation of Groups II and III. N=242

Map 5: Municipalities profiles according to their Map 5: Municipalities profiles according to their nationality synthesis of the immigrantsnationality synthesis of the immigrants

CLUSTERING OF MUNICIPALITIES ACCORDING TO THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION IN THE PROPORTION OF MALES (Distribution by sex)

Cluster Distribution

Cluster Profiles

N% of

Combined

Cluster 1 36 3,6%

2 259 26,0%

3 701 70,4%

Combined 996 100,0%

Excluded Cases36

Total1032

Increase of the Male Proportion

Meanincrease Std. Deviation

Cluster 1 ,0355 ,0127

2 ,0113 ,0042

3 ,0013 ,0027

Combined ,0051 ,0083

3

2

1

TwoStep ClusterNumber

Cluster Size

Cluster Distribution

CLUSTER 1 NMinimum

Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

Males in Total Population

36 ,50 ,63 ,544 ,028

Males in Greek Population

36 ,46 ,60 ,509 ,026

Proportions Differences

36 ,04 ,09 ,035 ,013

CLUSTER 2 NMinim

umMaxim

um MeanStd.

Deviation

Males in Total Population

259 ,48 ,57 ,513 ,014

Males in Greek Population

259 ,47 ,55 ,501 ,013

Proportions Differences

259 ,01 ,02 ,012 ,004

CLUSTER 3 NMinim

umMaxim

um MeanStd.

Deviation

Males in Total Population 701 ,46 1,00 ,507 ,027

Males in Greek Population 701 ,45 1,00 ,505 ,028

Proportions Differences 701 -,01 ,01 ,002 ,003

321

Cluster

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00

diff_

mal

es

Reference Line is the Overall Mean = ,01

Simultaneous 95% Confidence Intervals for Means

MAP 6 : Classification of municipalities according to the impact of immigration on their sex distribution (on the proportion of males)

CLUSTERING BY MEAN AGE

3

2

1

TwoStep ClusterNumber

Cluster Size

Attribute Importance

Cluster Distribution

Cluster Profiles

N % of Combined

Cluster 1 568 57,0%

2 312 31,3%

3 116 11,6%

Combined

996 100,0%

Excluded Cases 36

Total 1032

Decrease of mean age

Mean Std. Deviation

Cluster 1 - ,33 ,19

2 -1,01 ,25

3 -2,10 ,57

Combined - ,75 ,64

321

Cluster

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

-2,0

diff

_mea

nag

e

Reference Line is the Overall Mean = -,75

Simultaneous 95% Confidence Intervals for Means

Map 7: Clustering of municipalities according to the impact of

immigrants in the mean age of their population

RESULTS:RESULTS:

In 30% (295 out of 996) of the municipalities the proportion of males exhibit statistically significant increase.

In 43% (428 out of 996) of the municipalities the mean age of the population becomes statistically significant higher.

In 28% (282 out of 996) of the municipalities the population in active ages exhibit statistically significant increase.

In 30% (299 out of 996) of the municipalities the proportion of population aged 65+ exhibit statistically significant decline.