Migrant integration : 2017 edition.
Date: 2018-04-03
Institutions: Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics, foreign national, illegal migration, immigration, integration of migrants, migrant, national statistics, right of asylum

Migrant integration 2017 edition

M

i

g

r

a

n

t

i

n

t

e

g

r

a

t

i

o

n

2

0

1

7

e

d

i

t

i

o

n

S T A T I S T I C A L 
B O O K S

 
 
 
Migrantintegration2017 editionManuscript completed in May 2017

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the 
following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

© European Union, 2017
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

Copyright for the photographs: © Fotolia, 2017

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the 
copyright holders.

For more information, please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/about/policies/copyright

Print 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-74147-0 

 doi: 10.2785/32356 

KS-05-17-100-EN-C

ISBN 978-92-79-74148-7 

 doi: 10.2785/295423 

KS-05-17-100-EN-N

Abstract

Abstract

‘Migrant  integration  statistics’  presents  different  aspects  of  the  European  Union  (EU)  statistics  on  the 
integration  of  migrants.  The  successful  integration  of  migrants  into  society  in  the  host  country  is  key 
to  maximising  the  opportunities  of  legal  migration  and  making  the  most  of  the  contributions  that 
immigration can make to EU development. In this publication, migrant integration is measured in terms of 
employment, education, social inclusion and active citizenship in the host country. The analysis is based on 
2015 statistics from the Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS), statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) 
and Eurostat’s migration statistics.

In  addition,  this  publication  provides  an  analysis  on  the  labour  market  situation  of  migrants  and  their 
immediate descendants based on the outcomes of the 2014 ad-hoc module of EU-LFS.

Data are presented for the European Union and its Member States as well as for the EFTA countries.

Editors

Piotr Juchno, Eurostat, Unit F2 — Population and migration
Mihaela Agafitei, Eurostat, Unit F1 — Social indicators: Methodology and development; Relations with users

Contact details

Eurostat
Bâtiment Joseph Bech 
5, rue Alphonse Weicker 
L-2721 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG 
E-mail: estat-user-support@ec.europa.eu

Production

This publication was produced by William Helminger, Carla Martins and Peter Pospíšil — CRI 
(Luxembourg) S.A.; Edouard Henderyckx and Bruno Scuvée

For more information please consult

Eurostat website: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 
Statistics Explained: http://ec.eurostat.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained

Acknowledgements

The  editors  would  like  to  thank  their  colleagues  who  contributed  to  editing  this  publication  (Franco 
Zampogna) and those who contributed to drafting the Statistics Explained articles used in this publication 
(Silvia Andueza Robustillo, Georgiana Aurelia Ivan, Marius Neagu and Adam Wronski).

3

Migrant integration  Contents

Table of contents

Abstract 

Table of contents 

Introduction  
    Policy background 
    Measuring migrant integration 
    Key concepts  
    Data sources   
    Data sources: advantages and limitations 
    Immigration in the EU-28 

1. Migrant Integration 
    Introduction   
    1.1 Labour market 
    1.2 Employment conditions 
    1.3 Education  
    1.4 Housing and living conditions 
    1.5 At risk of poverty and social exclusion 
    1.6 Active citizenship   

2. First- and second generation immigrants 

    Introduction   
    2.1 Main characteristics 
    2.2 Households 
    2.3 Labour market indicators   
    2.4 Employment 
    2.5 Education and obstacles to work   

Data coverage 

Glossary 

Abbreviations and acronyms 

4

  3

  4

  5
6
7
8
8
10
11

         15
16
17
23
30
39
45
53     

55

56
57
67
73
80
87

  99

  100

107

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IntroductionIntroduction

Introduction

Changing  migratory  patterns,  which  may  occur 
suddenly  and  vary  greatly  in  terms  of  size  and 
composition, pose great challenges to host societies 
and  policymakers,  who  need  quality  information 
on  which  to  base  their  decisions.  Information  on 
the basic demographic characteristics of migrants 
is not sufficient to fulfil those needs. More specific 
socio-economic  statistics  on  migrants  and  their 
descendants are of utmost relevance to reflect the 
complexity of these patterns and the nature of the 
migrant integration process.

This  publication  provides  an  overview  of  the 
European  Union  (EU)  statistics  on  the  integration 
of migrants. Successful migrant integration into the 
society of host countries is the key to maximising 
the  opportunities  of  legal  migration  and  making 
the most of the contributions that immigration can 
bring to EU development.

Statistical  measurement  of  the  level  of  migrant 
integration  is  aimed  at  providing  policy-makers 
with reliable and comparable statistical information. 

Policy background

This  in  turn  facilitates  reaching  appropriate  and 
targeted policy decisions. Based on available data, 
migrant integration in this publication is presented 
in terms of employment, education, social inclusion 
and active citizenship in the hosting country.

This  publication  is  made  up  of  this  introduction 
and  two  main  chapters.  The  introduction  provides 
information  on  the  development  of  EU  migrant 
integration  policy,  indicators  to  monitor  migrant 
integration,  key  concepts,  data  sources  and  their 
limitations.  In  addition,  it  provides  a  brief  insight 
into  latest  migratory  patterns  in  the  EU  including 
migration flows and stocks of immigrant population. 
Chapter  1  provides  an  introduction  to  EU  statistics 
on  the  integration  of  migrants.  Chapter  2  is  based 
on data collected by Eurostat from the 2014 Labour 
force survey ad-hoc module on the ‘Labour market 
situation  of 
immediate 
descendants’. The previous 2008 LFS Ad-hoc module 
on the ‘Labour market situation of immigrants’ was 
also used to compare data over time.

immigrants  and 

their 

The continued development and integration of the 
European  migration  policy  remains  a  key  priority 
to  meeting  the  challenges  and  harnessing  the 
opportunities  that  migration  represents  globally. 
The integration of third-country nationals living in 
EU Member States legally has gained importance in 
the European agenda in recent years.

The  Common  Basic  Principles  for  the  Immigrant 
Integration  Policy,  which  were  adopted  by  the 
Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  in  November 
2004 and reaffirmed in 2014, form the foundations 
of the EU’s policy cooperation on integration. They 
also  form  the  basis  for  the  member  countries  to 
assess  their  own  efforts.  They  include  the  main 
including 
aspects  of  the 
employment,  education,  access  to 
institutions, 
goods  and  services,  and  to  society  in  general. 
Most  importantly,  the  Common  Basic  Principles 

integration  process, 

define integration as a two-way process of mutual 
accommodation by all migrants and by residents of 
the EU Member States.

July  2011, 

In 
the  Commission  proposed  a 
European  agenda  for  the  integration  of  third-
country  nationals,  focusing  on  actions  to  increase 
economic, social, cultural and political participation 
by  migrants  and  emphasising  local  action.  This 
new agenda highlights challenges that need to be 
addressed if the EU is willing to fully benefit from 
the potential offered by migration and the value of 
diversity.

On 7 June 2016 the European Commission adopted 
an Action Plan on the integration of third-country 
nationals. The Action Plan provides a comprehensive 
framework  to  support  Member  States’  efforts  in 
developing  and  strengthening  their  integration 

6

  Migrant integrationIntroduction

policies, and describes the concrete measures the 
Commission  will  implement  in  this  regard.  While 
it  targets  all  third-country  nationals  in  the  EU,  it 
contains actions to address the specific challenges 
faced by refugees.

The Plan includes actions across all policy areas that 
are crucial for integration:

•  Pre-departure  and  pre-arrival  measures, 
including actions to prepare migrants and the 
local communities for the integration process;

•  Education, 

including  actions  to  promote 
language  training,  participation  of  migrant 

children  to  early  childhood  education  and 
care, teacher training and civic education;

•  Employment and vocational training, including 
actions  to  promote  early  integration  into  the 
labour market and migrant entrepreneurship;

•  Access  to  basic  services  such  as  housing  and 

healthcare;

•  Active  participation  and  social 

inclusion, 
including  actions  to  support  exchanges  with 
the receiving society, migrant participation in 
cultural life and fighting discrimination.

Measuring migrant integration

The  2009  Stockholm  Programme  for  the  period 
2010–14  embraced  the  development  of  core 
indicators for monitoring the results of integration 
policies  in  a  limited  number  of  relevant  policy 
areas  (e.g.  employment,  education  and  social 
inclusion).

The Zaragoza declaration adopted in 2010 by the 
European  Ministerial  Conference  on  Integration 
in  Zaragoza  identified  a  number  of  policy  areas 
relevant  to  migrant  integration  and  agreed  on  a 
set of common indicators to monitor the situation 
of  immigrants  and  the  outcome  of  integration 
policies.

Indicators  of 

In  2011,  the  European  Commission  in  the  pilot 
integration 
study 
immigrant 
examined  proposals  for  common 
integration 
indicators  and  reported  on  the  availability  and 
quality  of  the  data  from  agreed  harmonised 
sources  necessary  for  the  calculation  of  these 
indicators.  The  following  report  Migrants 
in 
Europe  —  A  statistical  portrait  of  the  first  and 

second  generation  provided  a  statistical  analysis 
on  a  broad  range  of  characteristics  of  migrants 
living in the EU and EFTA countries.

The  proposals  in  the  pilot  study  were  further 
developed  and  elaborated  in  a  project,  the 
conclusions of which were presented in the report 
Using  EU  indicators  of  immigrant  integration 
published  in  2013.  The  project’s  objectives  were 
to  boost  the  monitoring  and  assessment  of  the 
situation  of  migrants,  along  with  the  relative 
outcomes of integration policies.

Immigrant 

In  July  2015,  the  European  Commission,  jointly 
with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and  Development  (OECD),  released  the  report 
‘Indicators  of 
Integration  2015  — 
Settling In’. While in the thematic chapters of this 
publication the analysis is focused on the foreign-
born  population,  there 
is  a  specific  chapter 
dealing  with  the  situation  of  non-EU  citizens 
in  the  EU,  aimed  specifically  at  monitoring  the 
Zaragoza indicators.

7

Migrant integration  (employment  of  75 %  of  this  population  by 
2020);

•  25–54: 

this 

the  most 
is  considered  as 
appropriate  group  for  the  analysis  of  the 
situation  of  migrants  of  working  age  as  it 
minimises  the  effect  of  migration  for  non-
economic  reasons  (e.g.  study  or  retirement) 
and forms a more homogeneous group, large 
enough to produce reliable results;

•  55–64 and 55 years or over: these age groups 

focus on the older migrants.

The EU labour force survey

The main source of information on the structure and 
trends of the EU for labour market is the EU-LFS. EU-
LFS is a large quarterly sample survey that covers the 
resident population aged 15 and above in private 
households  in  the  EU,  EFTA  (except  Liechtenstein) 
and  candidate  countries.  It  provides  population 
estimates for the main labour market characteristics, 
such  as  employment,  unemployment,  inactivity, 
hours of work, occupation, economic activity and 
other labour related variables, as well as important 
socio-demographic  characteristics,  such  as  sex, 
age,  education,  household  characteristics  and 
regions  of  residence.  Regulations  set  by  the 
European  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and 
the  European  Commission  define  how  the  LFS 
is  carried  out,  whereas  some  countries  have  their 
own national legislation for the implementation of 
this survey.

Introduction

Key concepts

Key  concepts  of  migrant  integration  statistics  are 
explained at the beginning of each chapter where 
they are used.

For  the  purpose  of  this  publication  the  data  on 
migrants are generally presented for the following 
age categories:

•  15–29:  this  group  represents  the  population 
of  young  migrants  and  is  targeted  by  the  EU 
Youth Strategy

•  20–64: this group has been selected because 
it  is  relevant  to  the  first  Europe  2020  target 

Data sources

Data used for the indicators on migrant integration 
come mainly from the EU labour force survey (EU-
LFS)  and  the  EU  statistics  on  income  and  living 
conditions  survey  (EU-SILC),  complemented  by 
administrative data sources.

As  regards  the  dimensions  of  employment  and 
education,  the  data  are  based  on  the  results  of 
the  EU-LFS.  The  EU-SILC  covers  topics  relevant  to 
social inclusion: people at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion, 
income  distribution  and  monetary 
poverty, living conditions and material deprivation. 
The  EU-SILC  also  provides  data  on  the  health 
status  of  the  foreign  population,  in  the  form  of 
‘selfperceived health status’.

EU  migration  statistics  are  collected  on  an  annual 
basis and are supplied to Eurostat by the national 
statistical  authorities  of  the  EU  Member  States. 
Most  EU  Member  States  base  their  statistics  on 
administrative  data  sources  such  as  population 
registers  of 
egisters, 
residence or work permits.

registers  of 

foreigners, 

8

  Migrant integrationThe LFS 2014 ad hoc module on the 
labour market situation of migrants 
and their immediate descendants

The  LFS  2014  ad  hoc  module  on  the  labour 
market  situation  of  migrants  and  their  immediate 
descendants was an improvement of the LFS 2008 
ad  hoc  module  on  the  labour  market  situation 
of  migrants,  aiming  at  boosting  the  quality  of 
in  particular  the  cross-country 
the  data,  and 
comparability and implementability of the module. 
The  target  population  of  the  LFS  2014  ad  hoc 
module  consisted  of  all  persons  aged  15–64.  The 
ad  hoc  module  variables  were  collected  for  all 
persons in the household in the target group age. 
The collection of data on the COB of the father and 
the  mother  enabled  the  identification  of  second-
generation  migrants.  Other  variables  of  the  LFS 
2014  ad  hoc  module  relevant  to  the  migrant 
integration indicators are:

•  level of educational attainment of the parents;

•  over-qualification;

•  obstacles to getting suitable jobs;

•  language  skills  in  the  host  country  language 

and participation in language courses.

EU  statistics  on  income  and  living 
conditions

The  EU-SILC  survey  is  the  main  source  for  the 
compilation of statistics on income, social inclusion 
and 
It  provides  comparable 
micro  data  on  income,  poverty,  social  exclusion, 
housing,  labour,  education  and  health.  EU-SILC  is 

living  conditions. 

Introduction

implemented  in  the  EU  Member  States,  Iceland, 
It  provides 
Norway,  Switzerland  and  Turkey. 
two  types  of  annual  data:  cross-sectional  data 
pertaining to a given time or a certain time period 
with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion 
and  other  living  conditions  and  longitudinal  data 
pertaining  to  individual-level  changes  over  time, 
observed periodically over a four-year period.

Eurostat migration statistics

Eurostat  produces  statistics  on  a  range  of  issues 
related  to 
international  migration  flows,  non-
national  population  stocks  and  the  acquisition 
of  citizenship.  Data  are  collected  on  an  annual 
basis and are supplied to Eurostat by the national 
statistical authorities of the EU Member States.

Since 2008 the collection of data has been based 
on  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007.  Together  with 
the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 351/2010, they define a core set of statistics on 
international migration flows, population stocks of 
foreigners, the acquisition of citizenship, residence 
permits, asylum and measures against illegal entry 
and stay. Although EU Member States may continue 
to use any appropriate data according to national 
availability  and  practice,  the  statistics  collected 
under the Regulation must be based on common 
definitions  and  concepts.  Most  EU  Member 
States  base  their  statistics  on  administrative  data 
sources  such  as  population  registers,  registers  of 
foreigners,  registers  of  residence  or  work  permits, 
health  insurance  registers  and  tax  registers.  Some 
countries  use  mirror  statistics,  sample  surveys  or 
estimation methods to produce migration statistics.

9

Migrant integration  Introduction

Data sources: advantages and limitations

As  already  mentioned,  the  production  of  migrant 
integration indicators is generally based on sample 
surveys  or  on  population  registers/registers  of 
resident  foreign  citizens.  A  key  advantage  is  the 
exploitation  of  data  from  the  EU-LFS  and  EU-SILC. 
Both surveys are highly harmonised and optimised 
for comparability. However, for both types of data 
sources  (administrative  and  survey  data)  there  are 
certain limitations.

With  regard  to  survey  data,  limitations  arise  with 
respect  to  the  coverage  of  migrant  populations. 
By design, both the EU-LFS and EU-SILC target the 
whole resident population and not specifically the 
migrants. Coverage issues of survey data arise in the 
following cases:

•  Recently  arrived  migrants:  this  group  of 
migrants  is  missing  from  the  sampling  frame 
in  every  hosting  country  resulting  in  under-
coverage  of  the  actual  migrant  population  in 
the EU-LFS and EU-SILC.

•  Collective households: the EU-SILC only covers 
private households. Persons living in collective 
households  and  in  institutions  for  asylum 
seekers  and  migrant  workers  are  excluded 
from the target population. This also results in 
under-coverage of migrants in the survey.

•  Non-response  of  migrant  population:  a 
significant  disadvantage  of  the  surveys  is  the 
fact  that  a  high  percentage  of  the  migrant 
population  does  not 
them. 
This  may  be  due  to  language  difficulties, 

respond 

to 

misunderstanding  of  the  purpose  of  each 
survey,  arduousness  in  communicating  with 
the interviewer, and fear on behalf of migrants 
of  a  possible  negative 
impact  on  their 
authorisation  to  remain  in  the  country  after 
participating in the surveys.

•  Sample  size:  given  the  nature  of  the  EU-LFS 
and  EU-SILC  as  sample  surveys,  these  cannot 
fully  capture  the  characteristics  of  migrants 
in  EU  Member  States  with  very  low  migrant 
populations.

•  Information on COC and COB: this information 
is asked from all persons in private households 
sampled in the EU-LFS, whilst in the EU-SILC this 
information is collected only for those aged 16 
and  over,  resulting  in  an  under-estimation  of 
the number of migrants by COC and COB.

With  regard  to  administrative  data,  one  main 
problem  refers  to  the  comparability  of  the  data 
used  to  estimate  migrant  integration  indicators. 
The administrative data sources are not harmonised 
and  there  are  also  variations  in  methods  and 
definitions.  For  example,  some  countries  produce 
estimates  for  the  migrant  population  to  account 
for non-response, while others leave this problem 
untreated.  Coverage  gaps  are  reported  by  certain 
EU  Member  States  with  regard  to  some  types 
of  excluded  international  migrants  (e.g.  asylum 
seekers). 
In  other  cases,  there  are  significant 
numbers of departed migrants not covered by the 
registration systems.

10

  Migrant integrationIntroduction

Immigration in the EU-28

is 

Migration 
influenced  by  a  combination  of 
economic,  environmental,  political  and  social 
factors: either in a migrant’s country of origin (push 
factors) or in the country of destination (pull factors). 
Historically,  the  relative  economic  prosperity  and 
political  stability  of  the  EU  are  thought  to  have 
exerted a considerable pull effect on immigrants.

In  destination  countries,  international  migration 
may  be  used  as  a  tool  to  solve  specific  labour 
market  shortages.  However,  migration  alone  will 
almost certainly not reverse the ongoing trend of 
population  ageing  experienced  in  many  parts  of 
the EU.

Figure I: Number of immigrants, EU-28, 2006–15
(millions)

5.0 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: migr_imm1ctz)

A  total  of  4.7  million  people  immigrated  to  one 
of the EU-28 Member States during 2015, while at 
least  2.8  million  emigrants  were  reported  to  have 
left  an  EU  Member  State.  These  total  figures  do 
not  represent  the  migration  flows  to/from  the  EU 
as a whole, since they also include flows between 
different EU Member States.

Over  the  last  decade,  intensity  of  immigration 
flows varied. About 3.7 million people immigrated 
to  one  of  the  EU-28  Member  States  during  2006. 

This  number  increased  to  4.1  million  during  2007 
when  it  reached  its  peak.  Over  the  following 
two  years  the  number  of  immigrants  gradually 
decreased and in 2010 it levelled off at 3.3 million 
where it remained until 2012. In 2013 the number 
of  immigrated  people  started  increasing  again, 
in  2014  and  2015. 
with  growth  accelerating 
During  2015  the  number  of  immigrants  reached 
4.7  million,  representing  the  highest  value  since 
2006  as  well  as  the  highest  year  to  year  increase 
(+ 900 thousand compared with 2014).

11

Migrant integration   
Introduction

Among  the  4.7  million  immigrants  of  2015,  there 
were  an  estimated  2.4  million  non-EU  citizens,  
1.4 million citizens of a different EU Member State 
from  the  one  to  which  they  immigrated,  around 
860  thousand  people  who  migrated  to  an  EU 
Member  State  of  which  they  had  the  citizenship 
(for example, returning nationals or nationals born 
abroad), and some 19 thousand stateless persons.

Germany  reported  the  largest  total  number  of 
immigrants  (1 543.8  thousand)  in  2015,  followed 
by  the  United  Kingdom  (631.5  thousand),  France 

(363.9 thousand), Spain (342.1 thousand) and Italy 
(280.1  thousand).  Germany  reported  the  highest 
number  of  emigrants  in  2015  (347.2  thousand),  
followed  by  Spain  (343.9  thousand),  the  United  
Kingdom 299.2 thousand), France (298.0 thousand) 
and  Poland  (258.8  thousand).  A  total  of  17  EU 
Member  States  reported  more  immigration  than 
emigration in 2015, but in Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, 
Spain,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Latvia  and  Lithuania,  the  number  of  emigrants  
outnumbered the number of immigrants.

Figure II: Number of immigrants, 2015
(thousands)

1 543.8

631.5

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

i

n
a
p
S

d
n
a
o
P

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

)

(
d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

(1) Provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: migr_imm1ctz)

12

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

)

(
a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
v
t
a
L

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

n
e
t
s
n
e
t
h
c
e
L

i

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure III: Number of immigrants, 2015
(per 1 000 inhabitants)

Introduction

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

)

(
y
n
a
m
r
e
G

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
u
r
p
y
C

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
e
t
i
n
U

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

i

)

(
a
n
a
m
o
R

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

y
l
a
t
I

i

a
v
t
a
L

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

)

(

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

n
e
t
s
n
e
t
h
c
e
L

i

(1) Estimated.
(2) Provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: migr_imm1ctz and migr_pop1ctz)

recorded 

Relative  to  the  size  of  the  resident  population, 
Luxembourg 
rates 
immigrants  per 
of 
1 000  persons),  followed  by  Malta  (30  immigrants 
per  1 000  persons)  and  Germany  (19  immigrants 

immigration 

in  2015 

the 
(42 

highest 

per  1 000  persons)  —  see  Figure  III.  The  highest 
rates  of  emigration  in  2015  were  reported  for 
Luxembourg  (22  emigrants  per  1 000  persons), 
Cyprus (20 emigrants per 1 000 persons) and Malta 
(20 emigrants per 1 000 persons).

13

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction

There  were  35.1  million  people  born  outside  the 
EU-28  living  in  an  EU  Member  State  on  1  January 
2016,  while  19.3  million  people  had  been  born  in 
a  different  EU  Member  State  than  the  one  they 
were residing in. In Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, 
Slovakia and Cyprus, the number of persons born 
in  another  EU  Member  State  was  higher  than  the 
number born outside the EU-28.

1 January 2016 was found in Germany (8.7 million), 
the United Kingdom (5.6 million), Italy (5.0 million), 
Spain  (4.4  million)  and  France  (4.4  million).  Non-
nationals  in  these  five  Member  States  collectively 
represented  76 %  of  the  total  number  of  non-
nationals living in all of the EU Member States, while 
the  same  five  Member  States  had a  63 % share  of 
the EU-28’s population.

The number of people residing in an EU Member 
State  with  non-EU  citizenship  on  1  January  2016 
was  20.7  million,  representing  4.1 %  of  the  EU-28 
population.  In  addition,  16.0  million  persons  were 
living  in  an  EU  Member  States  on  1  January  2016 
with the citizenship of another EU Member State.

In  absolute 
largest  number  of 
the 
non-nationals  living  in  the  EU  Member  States  on  

terms, 

In  relative  terms,  the  EU  Member  State  with  the 
highest  share  of  non-nationals  was  Luxembourg, 
as  non-nationals  accounted  for  47 %  of  its  total 
population.  A  high  proportion  of  non-nationals 
(10 % or more of the resident population) was also 
observed in Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Austria, Ireland, 
Belgium and Germany.

Figure IV: Share of non-nationals in the resident population, 1 January 2016
(%)

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

i

a
v
t
a
L

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

8
2
-
U
E

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

y
l
a
t
I

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

a
t
l
a
M

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

n
a
p
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

Citizens of other EU Member States 

Non-EU citizens  

(1) Provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: migr_pop1ctz)

14

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

n
e
t
s
n
e
t
h
c
e
L

i

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1Migrant integration1 Migrant integration

Introduction

This  chapter  provides  an 
introduction  to  the 
EU  statistics  on  the  integration  of  migrants.  The 
successful integration of migrants into the society 
of  the  host  country  is  key  to  maximising  the 
opportunities  of  legal  migration  and  making  the 
most  of  the  contributions  that  immigration  can 
make  to  EU  development.  Migrant  integration 
is  measured  in  terms  of  employment,  health, 
education, social inclusion and active citizenship in 
the host country.

Two different concepts can be used to define the 
migrant population:

•  the concept of country of birth (COB);

•  the concept of country of citizenship (COC).

Based  on  these  concepts,  two  broad  groups  of 
migrant  population  can  be  defined.  The  data 
analysis  in  the  articles  on  migrant  integration  is 
performed  either  by  COB  or  COC,  based  on  data 
availability and reliability per case.

According  to  the  concept  of  COB,  the  population 
can be divided into the following groups:

 • Native-born:  the  population  born 

in  the 

reporting country;

 • Foreign-born: the population born outside the 

reporting country, of which

 º EU-born: the population born in the EU, 

except the reporting country;

 º Non-EU-born: 
outside the EU.

the  population  born 

Foreign population by COB is the population most 
commonly described as migrants, as these persons 
have migrated to their current country of residence 
at some stage during their lives. It includes persons 
with foreign citizenship as well as persons with the 
citizenship of their country of residence, either from 
birth or acquired later in life.

According  to  the  concept  of  COC,  the  population 
can be divided into the following groups:

 • Nationals: the citizens of the reporting country;

 • Foreign  citizens:  the  non-citizens  of  the 

reporting country, of which

 º EU  citizens:  the  citizens  of  the  EU 
Member  States,  except  the  reporting 
country;

 º Non-EU  citizens:  the  citizens  of  non-EU 

Member States.

Foreign  population  by  COC  are  foreign  citizens 
residing 
in  the  EU  Member  States  and  EFTA 
countries.  As  citizens  of  another  country,  the 
members of this group are in a different situation 
than nationals with regard to their legal rights. This 
is  particularly  the  case  for  non-EU  citizens  (third-
country nationals). Persons in this group may have 
migrated into their country of current residence or 
may have been born there.

16

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

1.1 Labour market

The activity rate represents the economically active population (i.e. employed and unemployed 
persons) as a percentage of the total population.

The  activity  rate  of  the  EU-28  population  varies 
significantly according to citizenship. As illustrated 
in  Figure  1.1,  during  the  last  eight  years,  citizens 
of  non-EU  countries  have  systematically  recorded 
lower activity rates than the nationals and mobile 
foreign  EU  citizens.  Since  2009,  this  gap  has  been 
increasing  noticeably.  Comparing  nationals 
increased  from 
and  non-EU  citizens,  the  gap 
3  percentage  points  (pp)  in  2008  to  8  pp  in  2015 

(and from 6 pp in 2008 to 12 pp in 2015 compared 
with mobile EU citizens).

In  2015,  the  activity  rate  of  non-EU  citizens 
amounted  to  69.8 %  (a  decrease  compared  with 
70.5 % in 2014). There is an opposite trend amongst 
mobile  EU  citizens,  for  whom  the  activity  rate 
increased from 81.3 % in 2014 to 81.6 % in 2015.

Figure 1.1: Evolution of activity rates of the population (aged 20–64), by groups of country of 
citizenship, EU-28, 2008–15 
 (%)

84 

82 

80 

78 

76 

74 

72 

70 

68 

66 

64 

62 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

EU citizens ()

Nationals 

Non-EU citizens 

(1) Except reporting country.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_argan)

17

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

In 2015, the activity rate of mobile EU citizens was 
4  pp  higher  than  that  of  the  nationals,  indicating 
greater  labour  market  participation  for  this  group 
of migrants. The activity rates of both these groups 

have  increased,  and  the  gap  between  them  has 
become larger over the last eight years from 3 pp 
in 2008 to 4 pp in 2015.

Figure 1.2: Activity rates of non-EU citizens (aged 20–64), by sex, 2015
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

y
l
a
t
I

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

s
u
r
p
y
C

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

)

(
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

)

(
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

Males 

Females 

Note: ranked on highest activity rate of  ‘Males’ Data for Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia 

not available. Data on females not available for Lithuania..

(1) Low reliability. 
(2) Low reliability for females.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_argan)

The  activity  rate  of  women  in  2015  was  generally 
lower than that of men, regardless of their country 
of  residence.  This  highlights  that  gender  equality 
in  employment  integration  has  not  yet  been  fully 
achieved.

This is even more evident for migrant women, since 
at  EU-28  level,  women  with  non-EU  citizenship 
have  a  lower  activity  rate  than  male  non-EU 

citizens  by  25  pp,  illustrating  a  wide  gap  in  the 
labour participation of the migrant population by 
sex  (see  Figure  1.2).  At  country  level,  in  2015,  the 
largest  gender  gaps  in  labour  participation  for 
non-EU  citizens  were  observed  in  Luxembourg 
(35  pp),  Malta  (32  pp)  and  France  (31  pp).  The 
countries with the smallest gender gap for the non-
EU  citizen  population  were  Cyprus  (2  pp),  Latvia  
(10 pp) and Portugal (14 pp).

18

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

Figure 1.3: Evolution of unemployment rates of the population (aged 20–64), by groups of 
country of citizenship, EU-28, 2008–15
(%)

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Non-EU citizens 

EU citizens ()

Nationals 

(1) Except reporting country.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_urgan)

The  unemployment  rate  is  the  number  of  unemployed  people  as  a  percentage  of  the 
economically active population (i.e. both employed and unemployed persons, but excluding 
economically inactive persons, such as students and pensioners).

The overall EU-28 unemployment rate, in 2015, for 
the 20–64 age group, reached 9.2 %, a decrease of 
0.8 pp compared with 2014.

In 2015, the unemployment rate of non-EU citizens 
was  18.9 %.  This  group  experienced  the  largest 
in  unemployment  over  the  2008–15 
increase 
period (see Figure 1.3) and also the largest decrease 

—  along  with  EU  citizens  —  from  2014  to  2015. 
The  unemployment  rate  of  non-EU  citizens  was 
around  12  pp  higher  than  that  of  the  nationals 
during 2011–13, but the gap was reduced to 10 pp 
in  2015.  The  unemployment  rate  was  also  higher 
for  mobile  EU  citizens  compared  with  nationals: 
1.5 pp more in 2015.

19

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Figure 1.4: Youth unemployment rate in the population (aged 15–29), by groups of country of 
birth, 2015
(%)

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
l
a
t
I

i

)

(
a
v
t
a
L

n
e
d
e
w
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

)

(

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

)

(
)

(
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

)

(
)

(
a
n
e
v
o
S

l

)

(
d
n
a
n
F

l

i

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

)

(

s
u
r
p
y
C

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

)

(
k
r
a
m
n
e
D

)

(
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

)

(
)

(
c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

EU-born ()

Non-EU-born 

Native-born 

Note: ranked on highest unemployment rate of ‘non-EU-born’ Data for Bulgaria, 

Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia only 
available for native-born population.

(1) Except reporting country.
(2) Low reliability for EU-born.
(3) Low reliability for non-EU-born.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: yth_empl_100)

For  the  Member  States  for  which  data  are 
available,  the  highest  unemployment  rate  of  the 
young  non-EU-born  population  was  recorded  in 
Spain (42.0 %) and Greece (38.7 %) (see Figure 1.4). 
With 13.0 %, the unemployment rate of the young 
non-EU-born  population  in  the  Czech  Republic 
was the lowest in the EU.

In  France,  the  Netherlands,  Austria  and  Sweden, 
the  unemployment  rate  of  the  young  EU-born 
population  was  substantially  higher  than  for  the 
native-born population while in Spain, Croatia, Italy 
and the United Kingdom, the unemployment rate 
of  the  native-born  population  was  substantially 
higher than for the EU-born population.

The  EU-28  unemployment  rate  of  the  young 
EU-born  population  was  identical  to  that  of 
the  native-born  population  aged  15-29  (15.7  %).  

20

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

Figure 1.5: Gap in long-term unemployment between foreign-born and native-born 
populations, 2015
(percentage points)

EU-28 

Cyprus 
Portugal 
Ireland 
United Kingdom 
Italy 
Greece 
Spain 
Germany 
Croatia 
Finland 
Slovenia 
Austria 
Estonia () 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
France 
Belgium 
Hungary () 
Czech Republic 
Latvia 
Sweden 
Denmark 

–15 

–10 

–5 

0 

5 

10 

15

Note: Data for Bulgaria, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia not available.

(1) Low reliability for foreign-born.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_upgacob)

Long-term unemployment refers to the number of people who are out of work and have been 
actively seeking employment for at least a year.

Long-term  unemployment,  as  a  percentage  of 
total unemployment, has increased for the foreign-
born population from 36.6 % in 2009 to 48.9 % in 
2015, after a decrease from 2008 to 2009.

The  cross-country  comparison  of  the  share  of 
long-term  unemployment 
in  2015  depicts  a 
situation  that  varies  significantly  across  those  EU 
Member  States  for  which  data  are  available.  In 
nine countries in particular, the share of long-term 
unemployment  was  lower  for  the  foreign-born 
population aged 20–64 compared with the native-
born  population.  By  far  the  most  significant  gap 

in  long-term  unemployment  between  foreign-
born  and  native-born  population  was  observed 
in  Cyprus,  where  the  percentage  of  long-term 
unemployment  of  the  foreign-born  population 
was almost 11 pp lower than for the native-born.

In  the  majority  of  the  other  EU  Member  States 
however,  the  foreign-born  population  has  been 
more affected by long-term unemployment than 
the native-born population. The largest gaps were 
found  in  Denmark  (14  pp),  Sweden  and  Latvia 
(both 13 pp) and the Czech Republic (12 pp) (see 
Figure 1.5).

21

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Figure 1.6: Youth employment rate (population aged 15–29), by groups of country of birth, 2015
(%)

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

)

(
)

(
a
n
o
t
s
E

i

)

(
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
u
r
p
y
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

)

(
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

)

(
a
t
l
a
M

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

)

(
a
v
t
a
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

)

(
a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

n
a
p
S

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

)

(
)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

EU-born ()

Non-EU-born 

Native-born 

Note: ranked on highest employment rate of ‘non-EU-born’ .Data for Bulgaria, 
Germany, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia only available for native-born 
population.

(1) Except reporting country.
(2) Low reliability for EU-born.
(3) Low reliability for non-EU-born.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: yth_empl_020)

(39.4 %)  was 

The  EU-28  employment  rate  of  the  young 
non-EU-born  population 
lower 
than  for  the  EU-born  (56.4 %)  and  native-born 
(47.2 %)  populations.  With  58.6 %  Estonia  was 
the  EU  Member  State  that  reported  the  highest 
employment  rate  among  young  non-EU-born, 
followed by Hungary (57.6 %) and Cyprus (54.9 %) 
(see Figure 1.6). The lowest employment rates of 
young  non-EU-born  migrants  were  observed  in 
Spain, Italy, France, Belgium and Poland (all under 
35 %).

In Hungary, Cyprus, Croatia and Greece, the youth 
employment  rate  of  non-EU-born  migrants  was 
higher than that of young people born in another 
EU  country  (EU-born).  In  the  case  of  Croatia  the 
employment  rate  of  the  non-EU-born  was  even 

higher  than  that  of  the  native-born  youth  (by 
18  pp).  In  Hungary,  Cyprus  and  Greece  youth 
employment rates among the non-EU-born were 
also higher than among native-born by more than 
12 pp. In Italy, Estonia, Luxembourg and Spain the 
non-EU-born  had  a  higher  youth  employment 
rate  compared  with  the  young  native-born  as 
well, but the differences were below 7 pp.

The youth employment rates of native-born were 
higher than those of the non-EU-born population 
in  15  EU  Member  States.  This  difference  was 
highest  in  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  the  United 
Kingdom,  Sweden  and  Austria,  where  the  gap 
ranged  from  20  pp  in  the  Netherlands  to  14  pp 
in Austria.

22

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

1.2 Employment conditions

Figure 1.7: Share of self-employment, by groups of country of citizenship, 2015
(%)

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

)

(
)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

n
a
p
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

y
l
a
t
I

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

)

(
)

(
a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

)

(
a
v
t
a
L

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

)

(
a
n
o
t
s
E

i

)

(
)

(
a
n
e
v
o
S

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

s
u
r
p
y
C

)

(
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

Non-EU citizens

Nationals 

EU citizens ()

Note: ranked on share of self-employment of ‘non-EU citizens’. Data for Bulgaria, 

Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia only available for nationals.

(1) Except reporting country.
(2) Low reliability for EU citizens.
(3) Low reliability for non-EU citizens.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: lfsa_esgan and lfsa_pganws)

The share of self-employed as a share of employed 
persons among non-EU citizens increased by 2 pp 
from 2008 to 2015, reaching 12 % (see Figure 1.7).

At  Member  State 
self-
level, 
employment  shares  of  non-EU  citizens  were 
recorded in the Czech Republic and Poland (41.9 % 
and 31.7 % respectively). In both countries, the gap 

the  highest 

in self-employment  between non-EU  citizens and 
nationals  was  the  highest  in  the  EU  (26  pp  and 
14  pp  respectively).  A  completely  reverse  pattern 
was  observed  in  Greece  and  Italy,  where  the 
self-employment rate of nationals was significantly 
higher  than  that  of  non-EU  citizens  (21  pp  and 
11 pp respectively).

23

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

Looking at the self-employment status for the year 
2015, it appeared mostly as a matter of own-account 
work, since the share of own-account workers (1) in 
the  total  self-employed  population  was  71.2 %  for 
nationals,  77.0 %  for  mobile  EU  citizens  and  71.6 % 

for  non-EU  citizens.  The  share  of  self-employed 
persons with employees was less than 29 % of the 
total  self-employed  population  in  all  cases  (see 
Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.8: Shares of self-employed persons, by status and citizenship, EU-28, 2015
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Nationals

EU citizens ()

Non-EU citizens

Employers 

Own-account workers 

(1) Except reporting country.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_esgan)

Part-time  and  temporary  employment  may  be 
considered  either  as  a  threat  or  an  opportunity 
for employees, since these indicators can be seen 

either  as  a  means  of  social  integration  or  as  an 
indicator of under-employment.

(1) Own-account workers are persons working on own account (in their own business, farm or professional practice) who are sole owners of 

the unincorporated enterprises in which they work.

24

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Table 1.1: Temporary employees as percentage of the total number of employees, by age and 
groups of country of citizenship, 2015
(%)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

population at age

of which

of which

of which

of which

4
6
–
0
2

4
5
–
5
2

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

12.9

11.6

7.6

4.3

9.7

7.4

10.6

2.8

7.8

10.8

23.5

15.1

19.8

13.5

11.2

3.5

2.0

7.5

11.2

6.7

16.3

5.8

27.6

21.1

1.4

16.5

10.4

13.7

13.9

5.0

6.2

4.1

8.6

6.2

8.7

2.4

6.4

10.0

23.5

12.5

18.8

12.8

10.5

2.8

1.6

4.8

10.2

5.4

14.2

4.7

25.6

19.7

1.2

13.6

9.4

12.4

11.0

4.0

(1) Except reporting country.
 ‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_etpgan)

4
6
–
5
5

6.3

3.0

3.5

7.0

3.0

3.4

:

5.1

8.4

9.5

8.3

8.3

5.5

6.5

3.9

:

:

10.8

6.3

6.0

2.6

16.6

10.8

:

8.6

7.5

7.0

6.8

4.7

4
6
–
0
2

18.7

15.9

:

15.0

10.7

17.8

5.6

8.2

21.9

36.8

25.3

:

16.4

45.7

3.8

:

4
5
–
5
2

18.1

15.7

:

13.5

10.3

16.6

6.6

7.2

21.7

35.5

25.5

:

15.9

46.7

:

:

11.3

10.1

:

:

26.2

8.9

:

:

:

24.8

8.2

:

38.0

36.6

:

:

32.8

31.3

:

21.4

30.8

9.5

:

21.6

30.3

8.9

4
6
–
5
5

10.3

:

:

:

:

6.4

:

:

:

27.3

15.1

:

9.3

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

16.2

6.7

4
6
–
0
2

15.9

13.4

:

15.7

9.3

17.1

:

6.9

24.4

32.2

16.9

:

19.7

19.0

:

:

4
5
–
5
2

15.3

13.4

:

14.4

9.2

16.7

:

6.1

25.7

30.4

17.7

:

19.0

18.8

:

:

10.5

9.5

:

:

21.9

9.2

:

:

:

21.1

8.6

:

32.2

30.3

:

:

:

17.0

19.2

8.8

:

:

:

17.3

19.3

8.1

4
6
–
5
5

8.5

:

:

:

:

5.3

:

:

:

23.6

:

:

12.1

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

4
6
–
0
2

21.4

21.3

:

14.0

12.2

18.6

5.7

11.4

21.4

39.6

30.6

:

14.7

80.2

3.9

:

4
5
–
5
2

20.6

20.4

:

12.4

11.3

16.6

6.8

9.9

20.8

38.6

30.2

:

14.3

81.1

:

:

20.1

17.1

:

:

32.2

8.4

:

:

:

29.9

7.7

:

39.7

38.4

:

:

32.1

30.7

:

26.1

41.6

10.7

:

26.0

40.1

10.2

4
6
–
5
5

12.2

:

:

:

:

8.3

:

:

:

29.7

21.0

:

8.1

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

25

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

At EU-28 level, temporary employment of persons 
for  non-EU  citizens 
aged  20–64  was  higher 
(21.4 %)  than  for  national  employees  (12.9 %).  The 
largest  difference  was  observed  in  Cyprus,  where 
80.2 %  of  employees  with  non-EU  citizenship 
were  temporary  workers,  compared  with  only 
11.2 %  for  the  nationals.  Out  of  22  EU  Member 
States  for  which  data  are  reliable,  large  gaps  in 
temporary  employment  between  non-EU  citizens 
and  nationals  were  also  reported 
in  Sweden 
(28  pp),  Poland  (21  pp),  Portugal  (19  pp),  Spain 
(17 pp), the Netherlands and Slovenia (both 16 pp). 
In  the  other  EU  Member  States,  the  differences 
were  below  15  pp.  In  all  reporting  countries  the 

share  of  non-EU  migrant  temporary  workers  was 
higher  than  that  of  the  nationals.  In  2015,  Ireland 
was the only EU Member State where the share of 
temporary  employees  in  the  group  of  foreign  EU 
citizens was lower than for the country’s nationals 
(a difference of 1 pp).

In  addition,  for  countries  for  which  data  are 
available,  a  strong  age  pattern  may  be  observed 
within  temporary  employment  data,  since  there 
is  a  strong  over-representation  of  the  younger 
population (aged 25–54) in temporary employment 
within the employed population. This is even more 
evident amongst foreign citizens (see Table 1.1).

Figure 1.9: Young temporary employees (aged 15–29) as percentage of the total number of 
employees, by sex and groups of country of birth, 2015
(%)

Males

Females

EU-28

Netherlands 
Portugal 
Cyprus 
Croatia ()()
Spain 
Sweden 
Luxembourg ()
France 
Slovenia ()()
Finland ()()
Belgium 
Italy 
Greece ()
Czech Republic ()()
Denmark 
Ireland ()()
United Kingdom 
Austria ()

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80

Non-EU-born 

Native-born 

Note: ranked on highest percentage of young temporary 

employees for ‘non-EU-born’ males. Data for non-EU-born 
young people not available for: Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania and 
Slovakia.

(1) Low reliability for non-EU-born males.
(2) Low reliability for non-EU-born females.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: yth_empl_050)

26

  Migrant integrationAt EU-28 level, temporary employment decreased 
from  35.7 %  in  2008  to  34.3 %  in  2015  for  the 
young  non-EU-born  population  and  from  26.5 % 
in  2008  to  24.0 %  in  2015  for  the  young  EU-
born  population.  By  contrast,  the  proportion 
the  young 
of 
native-born  population  increased  slightly,  from 
29.7 % in 2008 to 32.6 % in 2015.

temporary  employment 

for 

At Member State level different patterns stand out 
when COB and gender are analysed (see Figure 1.9). 
The highest proportions of temporary employment 
in the young non-EU-born population were found 
in  the  Netherlands  (62.6 %  for  men),  Cyprus  and 
Portugal  (both  around  60 %  of  total  employment 
for both genders, regardless of the COB — the rate 
for young women in Cyprus even exceeded 70 %).

In  2015,  35.0 %  of  non-EU-born  young  women 
were  temporary  workers  versus  33.6 %  of  native-
born young women. In the case of young men, the 
non-EU-born  group  (33.7 %)  had  a  higher  share  of 
temporary  workers  compared  with  31.7 %  for  the 
native-born group. In Cyprus, regardless of gender, 
the gap in youth temporary employment between 
native-  and  non-EU-born  was  the  highest  of  all 
countries for which data are available (around 36 pp 
for men and 49 pp for women).

Migrant integration

1

From the perspective of population groups by COC, 
the  proportion  of  part-time  employment  among 
the  foreign  employed  population  (mobile  EU  and 
non-EU  citizens)  was  higher  than  for  nationals.  At 
EU level, foreign citizens held a significantly higher 
proportion  of  part-time  employment  at  the  age 
of  20–64  than  the  nationals  (25.8 %  vs  18.4 %, 
respectively). Furthermore, the highest percentages 
of part-time employees were observed for foreign 
citizens with non-EU citizenship (28.3 %).

However,  in  some  EU  Member  States  the  trends 
were  reversed  (see  Table  1.2).  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg, 
the 
Netherlands,  Slovenia  and  the  United  Kingdom 
reported  higher  part-time  employment  among 
the  employed  nationals  than  among 
foreign 
citizens,  with  differences  reaching  a  high  of 
7  pp  in  Luxembourg.  For  the  age  group  55–64, 
part-time  employment  was  higher  for  employed 
nationals  than  for  foreign  citizens  in  seven  of  the 
EU  Member  States  where  data  was  available.  Two 
Benelux  countries  had  the  highest  differences 
within the 55–64 age group (10 pp in Luxembourg 
and 7 pp in Belgium) followed by Austria (5 pp).

27

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Table 1.2: Part-time employment, by groups of country of citizenship and age group, 2015
(%)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

population at age

of which

4
6
–
0
2

25.8

23.8

:

4.7

24.6

29.9

6.7

21.5

22.4

22.0

26.2

:

29.5

10.4

7.8

:

of which

4
5
–
5
2

25.2

22.9

:

4.3

21.9

29.8

5.1

20.6

21.5

21.2

25.2

:

29.0

10.0

8.4

:

4
6
–
5
5

28.8

26.8

:

:

:

31.8

11.4

25.7

24.0

28.2

29.4

:

32.0

:

:

:

4
6
–
0
2

4
5
–
5
2

23.2

23.4

22.5

22.4

:

:

21.8

26.3

:

19.8

20.6

21.0

21.2

:

27.4

12.9

:

:

:

:

18.4

26.0

:

19.0

21.3

19.9

20.4

:

27.0

12.5

:

:

4
6
–
0
2

28.3

24.7

:

5.2

27.3

33.8

6.5

25.5

22.9

22.7

29.5

:

of which

4
5
–
5
2

27.6

24.0

:

:

25.2

33.7

4.9

24.3

21.5

22.0

28.2

:

4
6
–
5
5

30.7

:

:

:

:

36.2

:

:

26.8

28.6

36.1

:

4
6
–
5
5

27.2

25.3

:

:

:

29.3

:

27.9

:

27.9

24.1

:

25.9

30.5

30.1

34.6

:

:

:

7.2

8.0

:

6.9

8.6

:

14.4

13.7

20.3

14.4

13.5

20.9

14.4

14.8

:

16.6

42.1

29.8

:

:

14.1

39.7

30.2

:

15.0

14.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

16.8

27.2

22.8

16.1

25.9

21.9

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

47.0

24.5

38.9

28.8

36.6

29.2

46.8

23.2

:

:

:

:

:

:

25.4

28.2

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

11.9

22.6

19.9

12.6

21.8

19.1

:

:

:

:

:

:

22.4

28.2

:

:

46.6

31.2

:

:

:

44.0

31.8

:

15.1

15.0

:

:

:

:

:

:

22.0

31.8

27.7

19.6

29.8

26.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

47.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

32.0

28.3

4
6
–
0
2

18.4

24.1

2.1

5.2

20.5

26.5

9.6

21.3

8.4

14.7

17.8

5.8

16.9

13.5

7.0

7.6

21.6

5.6

13.6

47.1

27.4

6.6

9.4

8.5

9.3

5.7

12.6

22.8

23.9

of which

4
5
–
5
2

16.9

22.3

1.8

4.4

15.9

25.9

8.5

19.0

8.0

14.2

16.4

4.9

17.3

11.6

5.9

6.4

20.2

4.6

12.9

43.6

27.3

5.4

7.3

6.9

6.9

5.0

9.4

19.9

21.7

4
6
–
5
5

21.8

34.2

2.8

7.7

19.9

30.1

9.2

25.9

7.3

11.6

22.0

8.9

12.6

16.6

10.0

11.1

30.0

10.3

13.7

49.2

29.4

10.4

16.5

15.1

13.4

7.3

15.4

24.6

31.1

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

(1) Except reporting country.
 ‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_eppgan)

28

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Comparing the 2015 part-time employment of the 
non-EU-born  male  and  female  population,  across 
the EU Member States for which data are available, 
the  proportions  of  part-time  employment  for 
females  were  higher  than  for  males  (see  Figure 
1.10).  The  widest  gender  gaps  were  found  in  the 

Netherlands  (47  pp),  Austria  (41  pp),  Belgium 
(34 pp) and Italy (31 pp), while the narrowest were 
in  Croatia  (2  pp)  and  Finland  (7  pp).  Cyprus  is  an 
exception  with  part-time  employment  higher  in 
the male population (men: 15 %; women: 9 %).

Figure 1.10: Part-time employment as a percentage of the total employment of the non-EU-
born population aged 20–64, by sex, 2015
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

e
c
n
a
r
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

n
a
p
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

)

(
a
t
l
a
M

)

(
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

Males 

Females 

Note: ranked on highest percentage of part-time employment of ‘Females’. Data 

for Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia not 
available.

(1) Low reliability for males.
(2) Low reliability for females.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfsa_eppgacob)

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

i

)

(
)

(
a
n
e
v
o
S

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

)

(
a
v
t
a
L

i

)

(
a
n
o
t
s
E

s
u
r
p
y
C

)

(
)

(
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

)

(
c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

29

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

1.3 Education

The  analysis  of 
the  educational  attainment 
level  (2)  focuses  on  the  population  aged  25–54 
in  the  EU-28  Member  States  by  COB.  As  can  be 
observed in Figure 1.11, the highest proportion of 
people having completed at most lower secondary 
education  (i.e.  having  attained  only  pre-primary, 
primary  or 
lower  secondary  education)  was 
observed  among  the  non-EU-born  population 
(35.5 %) in 2015. This share was 16 pp higher than for 
the native-born and 14 pp higher than the EU-born 
(except the reporting country) population.

The  proportions  were  reversed  for  educational 
attainment  at  the  level  of  upper  secondary  and 
post-secondary  education,  at  33.2 %  for  the  non-
EU-born  population,  15  pp  lower  than  for  the 
native-born population.

At  the  level  of  tertiary  education,  the  EU-born 
population  recorded  the  highest  share  of  such 
graduates  (36.7 %).  This  proportion  was  4  pp 
higher  than  for  the  native-born  population  and  
5 pp higher than for the non-EU-born population.

Figure 1.11: Population (aged 25–54) by educational attainment level and groups of country of 
birth, EU-28, 2015
(%)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Pre-primary, primary and
lower secondary education
(levels 0–2)

Upper secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary
education (levels 3 and 4) 

First and second stage of
tertiary education
(levels 5–8)

Native-born 

Foreign-born 

EU-born ()

Non-EU-born 

(1) Except reporting country.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat_lfs_9912)

(2) The highest level of education completed successfully is associated with obtaining a certificate or a diploma, when there is a certification. 
In cases where there is no certification, successful completion is associated with full attendance.

30

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Figure 1.12: Rates of pre-primary, primary and low secondary education — comparison of 
foreign-born with native-born population (aged 25–54), 2015
(%)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

n
r
o
b
-
e
v
i
t
a
n
f
o
%

Portugal

Malta 

Spain 

Italy 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Estonia 

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

EU-28 

Belgium 

Greece 

Hungary 

Denmark 

Cyprus 

Netherlands

France 

Croatia 

Slovenia 

Czech Republic

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

0 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 
% of foreign-born

30 

35 

40 

45 

50

Note: Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia: low reliability 

or confidential for data on foreign-born; Germany: data for foreign-born not 
available.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat_lfs_9912)

Comparing  the  native-  with  the  foreign-born 
population,  Figure  1.12  shows  the  situation  in  the 
EU Member States in 2015 for the population aged 
25–54  having  low  educational  attainment  (i.e. 
who  only  attained  pre-primary,  primary  or  lower 
secondary levels of education). Malta (45.3 %), Italy 
(44.6 %), Greece (44.3 %) and Spain (40.9 %) had the 

highest  proportions  of  foreign-born  people  with 
low  educational  attainment.  The  gap  between 
the shares of foreign- and native-born population 
with low educational attainment were the highest 
in Greece (22 pp), Sweden and France (both 20 pp) 
and Finland (19 pp).

31

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

Figure 1.13: Educational attainment level of non-EU-born population (aged 25–54), 2015
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

i

)

(
a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

a
v
t
a
L

s
u
r
p
y
C

e
c
n
a
r
F

8
2
-
U
E

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

a
t
l
a
M

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

n
a
p
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
e
e
r
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

)

(
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

)

(
a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

)

(
d
n
a
o
P

l

)

(
)

(
)

(
a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

)

(
)

(
)

(
a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

First and second stage of tertiary education (levels 5–8) 
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (levels 3 and 4) 
Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education (levels 0–2) 

Note: ranked on decreasing share of ‘first and second stage of tertiary education (levels 

5–8)’ attainment level. Germany: data not available; Romania: low reliability or 
confidential.

(1) Low reliability for data on pre-primary, primary and/or lower secondary education.
(2) Low reliability for data on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 

education and first and second stage of tertiary education.

(3) Low reliability for data on first and second stage of tertiary education.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat_lfs_9912)

Focusing on the non-EU-born population by level 
of  educational  attainment,  Figure  1.13  shows  that 
the  EU  Member  States  attracting  proportionally 
higher  numbers  of  highly  educated  non-EU-born 
migrants  were  Ireland,  Poland  and  the  United 
Kingdom with shares of tertiary education among 
the  non-EU-born  population  in  2015  of  65.3 %, 
56.7 % and 54.3 % respectively. On the other hand, 
Italy,  Greece  and  Slovenia  recorded  the  lowest 
shares  of  tertiary  educational  attainment  within 

the  non-EU-born  with  13.5 %,  12.7 %  and  12.0 % 
respectively.

In  contrast,  Italy  (51.0 %),  Malta  (48.7 %),  Greece 
(47.1 %)  and  Spain  (45.5 %)  recorded  the  highest 
shares  of  the  non-EU-born  population  having 
attained  only  pre-primary,  primary  and 
lower 
secondary education, while the lowest shares were 
registered  in  the  Czech  Republic  (10.8 %),  Ireland 
(6.6 %), Latvia (5.9 %) and Estonia (4.6 %).

32

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

Figure 1.14: Share of population (aged 30–34) with tertiary educational attainment, by country 
of birth, 2015
(%)

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

Europe 2020
strategy target

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
o
P

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
v
t
a
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
l
a
t
I

a
t
l
a
M

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

n
a
p
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

Native-born  

Foreign-born  

Total  

Note: ranked on decreasing share of ‘native-born’ population with tertiary degree. 

Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia: low 
reliability for data on foreign-born. Germany and Romania: data not available.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: edat_lfs_9912 and edat_lfs_9913)

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  strategic  framework 
for European cooperation in education and training 
and the Europe 2020 Strategy is to make sure that 
the  proportion  of  30–34-year-olds  with  tertiary 
educational attainment should reach at least 40 % 
by  2020.  Migrants  will  have  a  vital  role  to  play  in 
reaching this goal since in some EU Member States 
they  form  a  significant  proportion  of  the  resident 
population.  As  can  be  observed  in  Figure  1.14,  in 
some EU Member States such as Denmark, Estonia, 

Ireland,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Sweden  and 
the  United  Kingdom,  the  abovementioned  target 
has  already  been  met  by  both  the  native-  and 
foreign-born populations. (3)

In  eight  EU  Member  States  the  foreign-born 
population made up an even higher proportion of 
the  30–34-year-olds  with  tertiary  education  than 
their peers in the native-born population.

(3) However, it has to be noted that these results refer to the given cohort (i.e. people that are currently in the age group 30–34) which by the 

year 2020 will no longer be represented in the target age group.

33

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

The countries with the largest gaps in that regard 
were  Poland  (63.2 %  vs  43.3 %),  Estonia  (59.2 %  vs 
44.7 %),  Latvia  (54.6 %  vs  40.8 %)  and  Luxembourg 
(57.4 %  vs  48.5 %).  These  were  followed  by  the 
United Kingdom, Malta, Denmark and Ireland. The 
lowest  shares  of  tertiary  educated  foreign-born 
were recorded in Croatia (23.6 %), Slovenia (19.9 %), 
Italy (14.4 %) and Greece (12.1 %).

It should be noted that in several EU Member States, 
no information is available on the shares of tertiary 
educated foreign-born population (for 30–34-year-
olds)  as  data  for  the  foreign-born  population  are 
not reliable.

The participation rate in lifelong learning is expressed as the percentage of people who received 
education or training (formal or non-formal) during the four weeks preceding the survey.

In  2015,  the  Nordic  EU  Member  States  (Denmark, 
Sweden  and  Finland)  reported  by  far  the  highest 
participation  rates  in  lifelong  learning  among  the 
population  aged  25–54,  regardless  of  their  COB, 
with  close  to  one  third  of  the  native-born  in  this 
age  category  participating  in  lifelong  learning  
(see Figure 1.15).

Available  data  showed  that  in  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Finland, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom, 
more non-EU-born people aged 25–54 participated 
in lifelong learning than the native-born.

Note  that  the  participation  in  language  courses 
and  other  integration-focused  learning  activities 
was  also  included  in  the  concept  of  lifelong 
learning.

The lowest rates (in EU Member States for which 
data are available) for the non-EU-born population 
aged 25–54 were reported iwn Cyprus (4.0 %), the 
Czech Republic (3.6 %), Croatia (2.8 %) and Greece 
(1.5 %).

34

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Figure 1.15: Participation in lifelong learning of population (aged 25–54), by country of birth, 
2015
(%)

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

y
l
a
t
I

a
t
l
a
M

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

n
a
p
S

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

a
v
t
a
L

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a
o
P

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

Native-born 

Foreign-born () 

EU-born ()

Non-EU-born ()

Note: ranked on participation in lifelong learning of the ‘native-born’. Bulgaria, 

Germany, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia: foreign-born data not available or 
confidential.

(1) Poland: low reliability.
(2) Except reporting country. Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Poland and 

Slovenia: low reliability or confidential. 

(3) Croatia, Hungary, Malta and Poland: low reliability or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: trng_lfs_13)

35

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

Table 1.3: Early leavers (aged 18–24) from education and training, by country of birth, 2015
(%)

Total

19.0

18.2

:

:

:

:

:

6.8

24.1

33.3

16.5

:

31.3

16.7

:

:

15.6

:

:

9.7

19.0

:

16.2

:

:

:

:

13.9

7.6

Foreign-born

EU-born

Non-EU-born 

17.1

16.3

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

36.1

:

:

26.4

:

:

:

15.6

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

10.9

11.8

19.8

19.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

24.9

32.6

16.6

:

33.0

:

:

:

:

:

:

11.4

24.5

:

16.1

:

:

:

:

14.4

4.5

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Native-born

10.1

9.0

13.5

6.1

7.7

8.6

11.3

7.0

6.8

17.5

8.7

:

12.7

3.1

10.0

5.5

6.9

11.6

19.9

8.0

5.5

5.3

13.5

19.1

4.3

6.9

8.7

5.9

11.2

‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat_lfse_02)

36

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Early leavers from education and training are defined as persons aged 18–24 having attained 
at most lower secondary education and not being involved in further education or training in 
the four weeks preceding the survey.

Early  leavers  from  education  and  training  are 
defined as persons aged 18–24 having attained at 
most  lower  secondary  education  and  not  being 
involved in further education or training in the four 
weeks preceding the survey.

In  2015  among  EU  Member  States  for  which  data 
are  available,  the  highest  shares  of  foreign-born 
early  leavers  from  education  and  training  were 
found  in  Spain  (33.3 %),  Italy  (31.3 %)  and  Greece 
(24.1 %). Due to small sample sizes or low reliability 
of data, a more detailed analysis of the statistics at 
country  level  is  very  limited.  Taking  into  account 
only the EU Member States with reliable data, the 

most  significant  differences  between  the  foreign-
born  and  native-born  populations  were  reported 
in Italy (19 pp higher for the foreign-born), Greece 
(17 pp) and Spain (16 pp). In Spain, the young EU-
born  made  up  the  highest  share  of  early  leavers 
from  education  and  training  (around  36 %)  of  all 
the  population  groups  for  which  reliable  data  are 
available.

As  shown  in  Table  1.3,  the  share  of  native-born 
young  early  leavers  from  education  and  training 
was  only  higher  than  that  of  their  foreign-born 
counterparts  in  the  United  Kingdom  (11.2 %  vs 
7.6 %) and Ireland (7.0 % vs 6.8 %).

Figure 1.16: Young people (aged 15–29) neither in employment nor in education and training, 
by country of birth, 2015
(%)

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

8
2
-
U
E

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
e
e
r
G

)

(
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

n
a
p
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

)

(
a
v
t
a
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

)

(
a
t
l
a
M

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

n
e
d
e
w
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

Native-born 

Foreign-born

Note: ranked on decreasing share of ‘Native-born’ young people 
neither in employment nor in education and training. 
Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and 
Slovakia: data for foreign-born not available.

(1) Foreign-born: low reliability.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: edat_lfse_28)

37

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

The  indicator  of  young  people  neither  in  employment  nor  in  education  and  training  (NEET) 
corresponds to the percentage of the population of a given age group (in this case aged 15–29) 
who are not employed and not involved in further education or training.

The 
in 
indicator  of  young  people  neither 
employment nor in education and training (NEET) 
corresponds  to  the  percentage  of  the  population 
of  a  given  age  group  (in  this  case  aged  15–29) 
who are not employed and not involved in further 
education or training.

In  2015,  about  14 %  of  the  native-born  young 
people  aged  15–29  in  the  EU-28  were  NEET.  This 
share was significantly higher for the foreign-born 
young  population  and  in  particular  for  those  not 
born  in  the  EU,  for  which  it  exceeded  24 %  (see 
Figure 1.16).

According  to  the  available  data  at  country  level 
in  2015,  the  highest  shares  of  foreign-born  young 
people (aged 15–29) NEET were observed in Greece 
(36.9 %),  Italy  (35.2 %)  and  Spain  (29.2 %),  while  the 
lowest  rates  were  registered  in  Sweden  (12.7 %), 
Denmark  (10.8 %)  and  Luxembourg  (10.0 %).  In  all 
the EU Member States for which data are available, 
NEET  rates  were  higher  for  the  foreign-born  than 
for  the  native-born  population,  with  the  largest 
gaps recorded in Latvia (15 pp), Greece (14 pp) and 
Slovenia (12 pp).

38

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

1.4 Housing and living conditions

Housing  is  an  important  element  for  the  well-
being of individuals. The evaluation of the quality 
and cost of each person’s living space is crucial for 
measuring living standards and social inclusion.

In  2015  in  the  EU-28,  70.5 %  of  nationals  aged 
20–64 
in  owner-occupied  dwellings, 
compared with 32.1 % of all foreign citizens of the 
same age group (see Figures 1.17 and 1.18).

lived 

Tenure  status  is  generally  an  important  indicator 
it  needs  to  be 
of  social 

inclusion.  However, 

cautiously  considered  with  other  characteristics 
that  are  specific  to  the  country  of  residence  and 
certain features of that country’s entire population. 
Available  statistics  show  that  while 
less  than 
one  third  of  nationals  in  the  EU  are  tenants,  the 
proportion of tenants in the population of foreign 
citizens  is  significantly  higher.  Around  two  out  of 
three foreign citizens live in rented dwellings, while 
the remaining are owners.

Figure 1.17: Tenure status of nationals aged 20–64 of the reporting country, 2015
(% of total population)

EU-28 

Germany 
Denmark 
Austria 
France 
United Kingdom 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Portugal 
Ireland 
Greece 
Italy 
Slovenia 
Czech Republic 
Latvia 
Spain 
Estonia 
Cyprus 
Malta 
Bulgaria 
Poland 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Slovakia 
Croatia 
Romania 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvps15)

Tenant 

Owner 

39

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Figure 1.18: Tenure status of foreign citizens aged 20–64, 2015
(%)

EU-28 () 

Slovenia 
Italy 
Austria 
Greece 
Ireland 
United Kingdom 
Portugal 
Denmark 
Spain 
Finland 
Germany 
Belgium 
Cyprus 
Sweden 
France 
Czech Republic 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Malta 
Croatia 
Latvia 
Estonia 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100

Tenant 

Owner 

Note: Data with low reliability are not presented in this figure. Data not available for 

Romania.

(1) Estimated data.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvps15)

At  the  EU  Member  State  level  in  2015,  51.0 %  of 
nationals  in  Germany  were  tenants,  followed  by 
Denmark,  Austria  and  France  (40.8 %,  38.1 %  and 
38.0 %, respectively), while in Romania only 3.7 % of 
nationals were tenants, followed by Croatia (9.9 %), 
Slovakia (10.7 %) and Lithuania (10.8 %).

The  highest  proportion  of  tenants  in  2015  within 
the  population  of  foreign  citizens  was  observed 

in  Slovenia,  where  79.7 %  of  the  foreign  citizens 
were  tenants,  followed  by  Italy  (78.9 %),  Austria 
(77.6 %),  Greece  (77.5 %)  and  Ireland  (76.7 %).  By 
contrast, the highest proportions of owners within 
the  population  of  foreign  citizens  —  among  EU 
Member States with reliable data — were recorded 
in  Estonia  (85.3 %),  Latvia  (80.0 %)  and  Croatia 
(75.3 %).

40

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Table 1.4: Overcrowding rate by groups of country of birth and age groups, 2015
(%)

Native-born

Foreign-born

Of which:

EU-born (1)

Non-EU born

population at age

of which

of which

4
6
–
0
2

16.5

0.9

42.9

17.7

8.8

6.7

12.7

2.1

28.0

4.4

6.5

42.9

27.4

1.2

41.3

26.4

3.1

40.4

3.3

3.5

9.0

42.1

9.5

50.8

12.6

38.4

7.0

11.4

4.7

of which

4
5
–
5
2

17.3

1.0

47.1

19.4

7.8

6.7

13.7

2.2

28.2

4.5

6.8

44.5

28.4

1.1

43.5

27.0

3.5

45.3

3.4

2.9

8.8

44.8

10.2

54.5

13.4

40.5

6.8

10.2

4.8

4
6
–
5
5

9.9

0.6

23.6

8.4

2.0

4.0

5.8

0.8

18.8

2.7

2.3

29.4

17.9

0.6

24.6

13.4

1.1

21.4

2.3

0.9

5.0

28.5

4.4

30.1

6.6

21.5

3.9

3.3

1.9

4
6
–
0
2

22.2

4.2

:

29.5

17.1

15.8

11.2

6.3

50.8

10.7

15.6

43.8

47.1

2.9

38.2

23.7

11.2

51.2

4.5

6.4

36.3

42.6

15.9

:

28.9

36.3

13.5

24.1

19.8

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

(1) Except reporting country.
‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvho16)

4
5
–
5
2

23.2

4.7

:

31.4

17.6

16.5

13.9

6.0

50.3

10.5

17.3

46.7

48.4

2.2

45.3

32.5

10.8

52.6

4.5

6.2

4
6
–
5
5

11.7

1.1

:

14.5

2.3

7.5

8.2

3.5

4
6
–
0
2

17.9

1.3

:

23.0

8.6

13.7

:

5.1

4
5
–
5
2

18.7

1.1

:

26.2

7.6

15.1

:

4.7

46.9

34.5

34.6

5.6

9.0

35.3

31.2

1.6

31.1

15.4

9.4

:

2.6

2.5

3.4

6.1

39.8

43.1

2.4

29.7

:

9.7

49.4

2.1

3.8

3.6

6.4

43.0

45.5

1.7

:

:

9.5

52.4

2.8

4.2

37.1

23.1

23.5

21.4

:

:

14.5

11.9

:

:

:

8.5

:

:

7.4

:

4
6
–
5
5

:

1.1

:

9.9

0.8

5.5

:

2.6

:

0.0

3.1

:

19.2

0.0

:

:

7.6

:

:

2.7

17.9

:

:

:

4
6
–
0
2

24.5

6.3

:

39.0

21.1

17.7

11.4

9.8

54.0

14.1

19.3

44.5

48.8

3.4

39.2

23.9

16.1

:

6.7

7.2

43.4

42.8

18.5

:

of which

4
5
–
5
2

25.6

7.1

:

38.0

21.2

17.6

14.4

9.5

53.3

13.7

21.6

47.5

49.6

2.8

47.8

35.0

15.1

:

5.9

6.7

4
6
–
5
5

:

1.0

:

:

4.0

10.9

8.5

:

53.5

9.0

11.4

36.3

36.8

3.7

31.2

15.0

18.4

:

:

2.5

45.5

25.7

:

:

17.4

12.9

:

:

31.8

20.5

14.0

15.8

9.1

33.3

36.2

24.7

:

12.2

25.8

20.4

:

6.2

6.9

6.4

:

11.8

12.7

23.5

:

11.2

13.7

22.5

:

:

3.0

6.3

:

14.4

28.6

17.6

:

12.9

29.6

19.0

:

5.5

10.4

6.4

41

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

The overcrowding rate is defined as the percentage of the population living in an overcrowded 
household.

A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at 
its disposal a minimum of rooms equal to:

•  one room for the household;

•  one room per couple in the household;

•  one room for each single person aged 18 and more;

•  one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;

•  one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the 

previous category;

•  one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

The  foreign-born  population  is  generally  more 
likely  to  live  in  an  overcrowded  household  than 
the  native-born  population.  The  overcrowding 
rate is usually correlated with other social inclusion 
indicators, in particular on income, and similarly to 
those indicators this rate is higher for the foreign-
born population.

In  2015  in  the  EU,  the  overcrowding  rate  for 
the  foreign-born  population  aged  20–64  was 
22.2 %  compared  with  16.5 %  for  the  native-
born  population.  Among  the  foreign-born,  the 

non-EU-born  population  recorded  a  significantly 
higher overcrowding rate (24.5 %) than the migrants 
born in one of the EU Member States (17.9 %) (see 
Table 1.4).

The  highest  overcrowding  rates  for  the  foreign-
born population were observed in Hungary (51.2 %), 
Greece (50.8 %) and Italy (47.1 %). In contrast, Cyprus 
(2.9 %), Belgium (4.2 %), Malta (4.5 %), Ireland (6.3 %) 
and the Netherlands (6.4 %), with rates below 10 %, 
reported  the  lowest  overcrowding  rates  of  the 
foreign-born.

42

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

Figure 1.19: Evolution of housing cost overburden rate by groups of country of citizenship (total 
population aged 20–64), EU-28, 2009–15
(%)

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Non-EU citizens 

EU citizens (except reporting country) 

Nationals 

Note: EU-27 for 2009.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvho25)

The housing cost overburden rate is defined as the share of the population living in households 
where the total cost of housing accounts for more than 40 % of a household’s disposable income.

The rate illustrates changes to the living conditions 
of individuals, e.g. decreases in disposable income 
or  increases  in  living  costs.  The  evolution  of  the 
housing  cost  overburden  rate  is  thus  used  to 
illustrate  the  changes  in  housing  cost  during  the 
last  seven  years  for  which  data  are  available  (see 
Figure  1.19).  The  housing  cost  overburden  rates 
for  nationals  were  significantly  lower  than  those 
of  non-EU  citizens.  The  gap  in  the  housing  costs 

overburden  rates  between  nationals  and  non-EU 
citizens  decreased  regularly  from  2010  to  2013, 
falling  from  21.4  to  16.7  pp.  However,  from  2013 
to  2014  the  housing  cost  overburden  for  non-EU 
citizens  increased  substantially  (far  more  than  for 
nationals), resulting in the widening of the gap to 
almost  2010  levels  (19.3  pp).  During  the  following 
year the gap slightly closed and in 2015 it stood at 
18.8 pp.

43

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Table 1.5: People living in households with very low work intensity by groups of country of 
citizenship and age groups, 2015
(%)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

population at age

of which

of which

9
5
–
8
1

of which

9
5
–
5
2

9
5
–
5
5

:

:

:

:

34.3

17.2

17.5

28.9

9
5
–
8
1

11.0

13.8

11.0

6.4

13.0

10.2

6.4

19.1

19.0

17.0

8.6

15.0

13.4

11.2

7.3

9.5

7.6

8.9

8.5

9
5
–
5
2

11.1

13.9

10.6

6.7

13.0

10.7

6.4

18.8

18.6

16.4

8.6

15.6

13.3

11.0

7.5

10.3

8.2

9.2

8.8

11.6

11.2

7.3

8.0

8.0

8.4

11.6

11.7

7.9

8.7

6.8

11.7

5.1

10.8

8.2

9.1

6.9

11.3

5.2

10.7

9
5
–
5
5

20.6

26.7

15.1

15.8

19.8

18.8

15.1

25.4

34.4

26.7

22.0

26.6

22.4

23.9

12.6

20.4

25.9

19.6

17.0

19.2

19.0

19.2

25.3

21.8

25.6

14.4

17.9

7.4

15.5

9
5
–
8
1

12.4

26.3

:

6.7

18.1

13.1

10.8

16.2

16.5

13.1

16.1

15.7

6.5

12.2

12.1

:

5.6

:

13.5

8.5

14.1

:

9.0

:

6.0

:

24.9

19.9

11.1

9
5
–
5
2

12.2

26.2

:

6.2

18.7

12.6

11.0

15.7

16.3

12.3

15.2

16.8

6.8

12.3

12.1

:

5.4

:

13.4

7.3

14.5

:

9.5

:

6.3

:

23.4

17.9

11.4

9
5
–
5
5

:

:

:

19.4

16.0

:

24.2

13.1

24.5

:

11.2

23.8

17.8

:

17.7

:

:

:

36.9

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

25.8

:

14.1

13.8

8.6

:

14.8

25.0

13.5

7.6

:

6.5

10.9

:

:

5.6

:

12.5

10.3

10.5

:

:

12.8

12.3

8.1

:

14.1

25.7

12.0

7.8

:

6.9

11.1

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

25.6

:

:

5.4

19.0

:

13.1

7.9

9.9

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

28.9

10.1

10.4

:

:

11.2

10.1

:

12.2

10.9

8.0

:

12.2

9.7

7.8

9
5
–
8
1

14.9

41.2

:

0.5

20.5

18.6

11.0

23.2

15.0

12.8

20.9

:

6.5

14.2

12.0

:

5.6

:

14.7

6.3

16.6

:

8.8

:

5.0

:

34.3

25.1

15.9

of which

9
5
–
5
2

14.8

40.6

:

0.6

22.4

18.4

11.1

24.2

14.6

12.5

19.5

:

6.7

14.2

12.0

:

5.1

:

13.9

6.5

17.7

:

9.3

:

5.5

:

32.5

22.9

16.7

9
5
–
5
5

:

:

:

:

:

:

16.2

:

22.8

:

:

:

8.6

:

17.7

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

(1) Except reporting country.
‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvhl15)

44

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

People living in households with very low work intensity are those living in households where 
the adults have worked less than 20 % of their total work potential during the past year.

Using available data for 2015 for the age group 18–
59, the rate of people living in households with very 
low work intensity in the EU was 11.0 % for nationals, 
compared  with  12.4 %  for  all  foreign  citizens  and 
14.9 % for non-EU citizens (see Table 1.5).

At country level, the highest rates of foreign citizens 
living  in  households  with  very  low  work  intensity 
were  reported  in  Belgium  (26.3 %)  and  Finland 

(24.9 %).  Luxembourg  (5.6 %),  Slovenia  (6.0 %),  Italy 
(6.5 %) and the Czech Republic (6.7 %) reported the 
lowest rates among the EU Member States.

As  regards  non-EU  citizens,  the  highest  rates  — 
among  EU  Member  States  with  reliable  data  — 
were  observed  in  Belgium  (41.2 %)  and  Finland 
(34.3 %),  while  the  lowest  rates  were  found  in  the 
Czech Republic (0.5 %) and Slovenia (5.0 %).

1.5 At risk of poverty and social exclusion

The ‘at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion’  (AROPE)  refers  to  the  situation  of  people  who  are 
either at risk of poverty, or severely materially deprived or living in a household with a very 
low work intensity. The AROPE rate, the share of the total population at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion, is the headline indicator monitoring the EU 2020 poverty target. It is defined as the 
share  of  people  with  an  equivalised  disposable  income  (after  social  transfer)  below  the  at-
risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable 
income  after  social  transfers.  This  indicator  does  not  measure  wealth  or  poverty,  but  low 
income in comparison to other residents in that country, which does not necessarily imply a 
low standard of living.

45

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

From the perspective of COC, according to available 
data  (see  Figure  1.20),  the  greatest  gaps  in  AROPE 
rates  between  citizens  of  the  reporting  country 
(nationals)  and  non-EU  citizens  were  generally 
observed  in  Sweden  (45.0  pp),  Belgium  (44.9  pp), 
followed by Spain (37.8 pp), Luxembourg (34.3 pp) 
and Greece (33.7 pp). By contrast, the AROPE gaps 
were the smallest in the Czech Republic (2.7 pp), the 
Netherlands (10.0 pp) and Malta (10.3 pp).

The  AROPE  rate  for  foreign  citizens  aged  20–64 
in  the  EU  was  significantly  higher  (39.5 %)  than 
the  corresponding  rate  for  nationals  (23.4 %)  (see 
Table  1.6).  The  population  of  non-EU  citizens  was 
particularly affected by the high AROPE rate (48.4 %).

One  of  the  headline  targets  of  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy is the reduction of poverty by lifting at least 
20 million people out of poverty or social exclusion.

Figure 1.20: Gaps of AROPE rates between nationals, EU citizens and non-EU citizens, 2015
(percentage points)

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

–10 

)

(
8
2
-
U
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

n
a
p
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
l
a
t
I

s
u
r
p
y
C

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

Gap between nationals and EU citizens 

Gap between nationals and non-EU citizens 

Note: Romania: data not available. Countries with unreliable data are not displayed.

(1) EU citizens: low reliability; non-EU citizens: estimate.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_peps05)

46

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

Table 1.6: People AROPE by groups of country of citizenship and by age group, 2015
(%)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

4
6
–
0
2

23.4

18.6

37.0

13.3

19.7

20.9

19.2

25.7

37.2

28.6

17.5

28.2

28.2

27.3

25.9

26.2

13.5

28.6

20.1

18.5

14.4

23.8

26.7

35.0

18.5

17.5

17.3

13.3

21.8

4
5
–
5
2

21.9

17.0

35.4

12.6

16.5

18.4

17.1

23.9

35.2

28.0

15.6

26.9

27.9

24.9

24.2

24.4

11.2

27.0

19.0

16.2

12.2

22.7

24.7

34.1

16.1

17.2

14.7

11.2

20.2

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

20.2

18.3

46.6

12.7

11.5

20.6

31.4

20.9

28.3

18.5

13.2

32.5

22.1

25.5

36.7

34.2

10.8

24.1

23.8

11.2

15.2

21.7

25.8

34.1

22.8

15.2

15.0

15.1

18.8

(1) Except reporting country.
‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_peps05)

population at age

4
5
–
5
2

38.5

39.4

:

17.1

42.0

31.3

30.4

27.0

64.4

51.4

38.4

:

47.0

42.7

31.7

:

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

4
6
–
0
2

4
5
–
5
2

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

:

:

:

:

38.7

29.4

26.0

32.3

:

:

20.3

27.3

37.8

34.3

58.1

45.5

40.9

:

47.9

24.9

40.9

:

:

17.8

33.3

22.8

:

25.5

48.4

40.0

24.9

:

39.8

38.9

:

:

:

16.3

28.3

22.2

:

24.0

48.5

38.3

22.7

:

39.4

38.6

:

:

:

:

26.3

20.0

:

34.8

27.6

39.6

38.8

:

31.9

22.6

:

:

4
6
–
0
2

48.4

61.7

:

15.6

48.6

42.7

31.3

41.7

66.7

61.9

48.3

:

51.1

49.9

33.8

:

4
5
–
5
2

47.6

59.6

:

17.8

49.4

42.4

31.0

41.2

67.1

60.0

46.9

:

50.3

48.8

31.9

:

4
6
–
0
2

39.5

41.3

:

16.6

42.3

31.4

30.8

28.2

63.8

53.1

39.4

36.7

47.7

43.1

33.6

:

25.4

24.1

21.8

21.4

20.0

20.0

47.5

44.9

:

30.7

26.7

41.0

:

:

29.5

27.6

42.5

:

49.9

47.3

:

:

:

25.8

24.7

39.8

:

:

23.4

23.4

39.6

:

:

29.4

19.7

42.5

:

:

22.3

23.1

38.2

:

45.3

42.4

37.2

20.8

:

:

:

:

:

17.8

19.7

35.8

:

:

:

47.1

46.3

45.2

39.9

36.3

:

37.7

46.0

28.3

:

36.7

46.3

26.3

:

40.0

33.3

32.3

:

26.9

28.2

23.2

:

24.3

28.9

20.2

:

29.2

22.9

54.0

:

:

:

:

:

:

23.3

32.5

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

:

:

:

:

:

42.8

37.9

:

66.5

57.6

44.2

:

55.3

:

40.8

:

:

:

:

:

35.4

:

:

:

48.6

48.5

45.3

:

46.1

57.9

36.1

:

46.0

56.3

35.2

:

:

:

31.9

47

Migrant integration   
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
1 Migrant integration

Table 1.7: Median income by groups of country of citizenship and age groups, 2015
(EUR)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

population at age

4
6
–
0
2

of which

4
5
–
5
2

4
6
–
5
5

4
6
–
0
2

of which

4
5
–
5
2

4
6
–
5
5

4
6
–
0
2

of which

4
5
–
5
2

4
6
–
5
5

4
6
–
0
2

of which

4
5
–
5
2

4
6
–
5
5

17 131 17 305 17 584 15 380

15 683

:

:

:

:

13 162

13 325

24 348 24 736 23 653 16 731 16 979

17 629

20 662

21 411

18 538 12 590 12 664

3 726

3 767

3 749

:

:

Czech Republic

8 037

8 186

7 760

7 273

7 172

:

:

:

:

8 018

8 018

:

:

:

:

7 063

6 696

30 633 31 371 33 514 22 402 23 059

28 939

23 533

25 816

: 21 365 21 288

22 101 22 653 21 395 18 842 18 845

20 325

21 467

21 769

21 411 15 019 15 019

9 370

9 672

8 781

7 304

7 617

6 917

:

:

:

7 283

7 631

6 911

23 479 24 170 23 273 19 836 20 054

19 097

20 247

20 803

18 377 18 163 17 665

:

7 954

7 980

8 359

4 826

4 826

4 464

5 833

5 767

:

4 633

4 667

4 050

14 357 14 373 15 588

8 754

8 912

10 346

10 602

10 864

11 370

7 694

7 865

:

22 132 22 145 23 617 16 416 16 308

16 487

21 824

21 134

23 320 14 734 14 763

14 823

5 831

5 955

5 536

4 934

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

17 247 17 178 18 388 11 490 11 639

10 800

12 003

12 211

12 720 11 282 11 480

9 579

15 336 15 554 15 600 10 680 10 547

13 856

11 261

10 889

14 794

9 700

9 814

:

6 638

6 798

6 077

5 914

6 070

5 697

Lithuania

5 909

6 093

5 546

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

5 886

6 036

5 697

:

:

Luxembourg

41 255 41 980 42 160 29 171 29 403

30 738

30 537

30 876

31 087 21 520 22 122

Hungary

Malta

4 729

4 789

4 813

:

:

14 790 14 954 13 926 14 111 14 463

Netherlands

22 474 22 691 23 336 20 369 20 369

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

14 924

15 478

: 12 271 12 677

21 226

21 226

: 18 586 18 904

25 977 25 869 26 918 17 057 17 293

16 686

18 877

19 735

: 16 402 16 256

16 683

5 728

5 791

5 722

:

:

8 804

8 877

8 880

7 178

7 620

2 459

2 462

2 670

:

:

:

:

:

:

10 881

:

:

:

:

12 783 13 004 12 127

8 680

8 798

9 194

9 504

10 933

7 366

7 349

7 584

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

6 530

7 255

:

:

:

:

:

8 439

8 608

9 194

:

:

25 705 26 462 26 937 19 519 20 465

21 025

22 708

23 512

: 16 510 17 094

29 208 28 905 35 112 18 660 18 660

24 741

24 755

25 767

: 15 486 15 864

United Kingdom 23 313 23 923 23 488 21 170 22 235

19 991

21 732

22 469

19 991 21 094 21 350

(1) Except reporting country.
‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_di15)

48

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

While  foreign  EU  citizens  have  higher  median 
incomes  than  the  nationals,  the  median  incomes 
of  non-EU  citizens  seem  considerably  lower.  As 
shown  in  Table  1.7,  at  EU  level  (4)  the  median 
income  of  nationals  was  higher  (EUR  17 131)  than 
the  corresponding  income  of  the  foreign  citizens 
(EUR 15 380) in 2015.

Looking at individual EU Member States, the greatest  
gaps between median income of the nationals and 

foreign  citizens  were  found  in  Luxembourg  (EUR 
12  084),  Sweden  (EUR  10 548),  Austria  (EUR  8 920) 
and Denmark (EUR 8 231). The smallest gaps (below 
EUR 900) were observed in Malta, Latvia, the Czech 
Republic and Croatia. As for the gap in the median 
income among the foreign citizens’ population, in 
all EU Member States for which data were available, 
the  foreign  EU  citizens  aged  20–64  had  a  higher 
median income than the non-EU citizens.

Figure 1.21: At-risk-of poverty rate of children aged 0–17, by groups of country of citizenship of 
their parents, 2015
(%)

EU-28 () 

Spain 
Sweden 
Greece 
Lithuania () 
Slovenia 
Denmark 
France 
Italy 
Portugal 
Croatia 
Austria 
Belgium 
Malta 
United Kingdom 
Poland ()() 
Luxembourg 
Hungary () 
Estonia 
Cyprus () 
Finland 
Latvia 
Ireland 
Germany () 
Czech Republic 
Netherlands () 
Romania 
Bulgaria 
Slovakia 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60

Children with migratory background 

Children of nationals 

Note: Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia: data not available for foreign 

children.

(1) Children with migratory background: estimate.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_li33)

(2) Children with migratory background: low reliability.
(3) 2014.
(4) Provisional.

(4) The income reference period is a fixed 12-month period (such as the previous calendar or tax year) for all countries except the United 
Kingdom for which the income reference period is the current year of the survey and Ireland for which the survey is continuous and 
income is collected for the 12 months prior to the survey.

49

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Children (aged 0–17) with a migratory background 
are exposed to a particularly high risk of poverty. A 
child is considered to have a migratory background 
if  at  least  one  of  the  parents  living  with  him/her 
is  a  foreign  citizen.  A  child  is  considered  to  be 
national  if  both  parents  living  in  the  household 
are  nationals  or,  if  there  is  only  one  parent  in  the 
household,  that  parent  is  a  national.  As  children 
usually  do  not  have  incomes  of  their  own,  they 
are assumed to share the income  of their  parents 
and others in the household. The at-risk-of-poverty 
rates for children with a migratory background are 
significantly higher than for children whose parents 
are  both  nationals  at  the  EU  level  and  in  most  of 
the EU Member States. While the at-risk-of-poverty 

rate  for  children  of  nationals  was  18.9 %  in  2015, 
the corresponding rate for children with migratory 
background stood at 37.4 % (see Figure 1.21).

Spain (53.3 %), Sweden (52.6 %) and Greece (52.4 %) 
reported  the  highest  at-risk-of-poverty  rates  for 
children with migratory background. On the other 
hand, the children’s poverty rate was lowest in the 
Netherlands  (16.8 %).  It  should  be  noted  that  in 
Latvia and the Netherlands children with migratory 
background  had  the  smallest  gaps  in  at-risk-of-
poverty rates compared with children of nationals, 
while  the  largest  gaps  between  migrant  children 
and children of nationals were recorded in Sweden, 
Denmark, Slovenia and Greece.

Figure 1.22: In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate, gap between native and foreign-born population 
aged 20–64, 2015
(percentage points)

EU-28 () 

Spain 
Greece 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Austria 
Denmark 
Slovenia 
Luxembourg 
France 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Germany 
Malta 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
Croatia 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Slovakia () 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Estonia 
Poland () 

–10 

–5 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25

Note: Data not available for Bulgaria and Romania.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_iw16)

(1) Foreign-born population: estimate.
(2) Foreign-born population: low reliability.

50

  Migrant integrationMigrant integration

1

The  in-work  at-risk-of-poverty  rate  is  the  share  of  persons  who  are  at  work  and  have  an 
equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the 
national median equivalised disposable income.

The  in-work  at-risk-of-poverty  rate  represents  the 
employed population facing the risk of poverty. In 
2015 in the EU it stood at 8.4 % for the native-born 
population aged 20–64 compared with 18.2 % for 
the  foreign-born  population,  i.e.  the  rate  of  the 
foreign-born  population  was  9.8  pp  higher  than 
that of the native-born population (see Figure 1.22).

The  greatest  differences  between  foreign-  and 
native-born  populations  were  found 
in  Spain 
(21.1 pp), Greece (18.0 pp), Italy (16.4 pp) and Cyprus 
(15.5  pp).  However,  Ireland,  Latvia  and  Lithuania 
had  differences  below  2.0  pp,  meaning  that  both 
foreign- and native-born populations were exposed 
to a similar level of in-work at-risk-of-poverty rates.

The material deprivation rate is an indicator that expresses the inability to afford some items 
considered  by  most  people  to  be  desirable  or  even  necessary  to  lead  an  adequate  life.  It 
distinguishes between individuals who cannot afford a certain good or service, and those who 
do not have this good or service for another reason, e.g. because they do not want or need it.

The indicator represents the percentage of the population that cannot afford at least three of 
the following nine items:

•  pay their rent, mortgage or utility bills;
•  keep their home adequately warm;
•  face unexpected expenses;
•  eat meat or proteins regularly;
•  go on holiday;
•  television set;
•  washing machine;
•  car;
•  telephone.

Those  who  are  unable  to  afford  four  or  more  items  are  considered  to  be  severely  materially 
deprived.

Material deprivation plays a key role in defining the 
poverty  and  social  exclusion  goal  of  the  Europe 
2020  Strategy,  which  is  to  reduce  the  number  of 
people at risk of poverty by 20 million.

As seen in Table 1.8, foreign citizens tended to face 
higher rates of severe material deprivation in the EU 
than the nationals, with the highest rates for foreign 
citizens in Greece (52.4 %). In Malta, Ireland and the 
United  Kingdom  the  patterns  were  inverted,  with 
the nationals having slightly higher rates of severe 
material deprivation.

Within  the  population  of  foreign  citizens,  severe 
material deprivation tended to be most widespread 
(17.9 %).  Among  the 
among  non-EU  citizens 
countries with sufficiently reliable data, by far the 
highest  rates  of  severe  material  deprivation  of 
non-EU citizens were observed in Greece (55.6 %), 
followed by Portugal (29.8 %), Belgium (29.4 %) and 
Italy (25.2 %). The lowest were recorded in Sweden 
(5.3 %), the Czech Republic (6.7 %), Malta (8.3 %) and 
the United Kingdom (8.8 %).

51

Migrant integration  1 Migrant integration

Table 1.8: Severe material deprivation rate by groups of country of citizenship and age groups, 
2015
(%)

Nationals

Foreign citizens

Of which:

EU citizens (1)

Non-EU citizens

population at age

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

4
5
–
5
2

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

4
6
–
0
2

7.9

4.7

4
5
–
5
2

7.7

4.9

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

6.4

2.6

31.6

30.5

37.7

5.3

3.8

4.8

3.5

7.6

5.1

3.5

4.8

3.1

7.9

5.0

1.5

3.2

4.7

4.1

20.9

20.6

16.3

5.7

4.3

13.6

10.9

15.9

14.8

12.4

1.0

19.0

8.4

3.0

2.8

7.9

9.1

5.8

3.9

13.0

10.5

15.5

13.8

10.9

1.2

18.5

8.0

3.1

2.6

7.4

8.3

3.2

3.0

14.9

9.1

8.7

17.6

17.0

0.4

16.7

6.3

1.7

2.1

8.6

9.5

4
6
–
0
2

12.7

15.0

:

8.4

13.8

5.9

9.9

6.9

52.4

17.7

16.0

23.2

22.5

18.9

20.0

:

3.2

:

6.6

9.5

10.1

:

4
5
–
5
2

12.8

14.7

:

8.9

15.2

5.8

9.3

6.8

52.8

17.5

16.6

:

22.8

19.1

18.3

:

2.7

:

6.1

8.9

9.3

:

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

:

10.7

:

:

5.9

4.3

10.3

5.6

47.3

7.3

10.2

:

20.5

7.8

21.0

:

2.1

:

2.5

4.0

10.8

:

4
6
–
0
2

:

6.6

:

10.4

3.9

2.6

:

6.3

35.3

14.2

10.6

:

16.1

19.9

:

:

1.8

:

5.5

6.3

9.4

:

27.6

26.8

18.4

16.4

21.0

20.8

20.6

:

:

:

:

:

5.2

:

9.6

3.0

2.0

:

5.8

36.8

15.3

11.1

:

15.5

20.8

:

:

1.7

:

4.5

3.0

9.6

:

:

:

5.7

8.2

2.4

0.6

6.1

5.2

7.8

2.4

0.6

6.2

6.8

8.9

1.5

0.4

2.4

12.7

11.7

19.9

12.6

11.8

:

8.1

3.8

5.7

:

5.4

3.7

5.6

:

10.5

1.0

9.6

:

3.9

1.6

3.6

:

0.8

2.3

3.6

4
6
–
0
2

17.9

29.4

:

6.7

20.5

10.2

10.3

9.8

55.6

20.1

19.3

:

25.2

17.4

20.1

:

11.0

:

8.3

13.5

10.6

:

4
5
–
5
2

17.8

29.0

:

8.4

21.9

10.2

9.7

11.3

55.5

19.0

19.6

:

25.9

16.6

18.5

:

7.6

:

7.9

15.6

9.1

0.0

29.8

29.0

:

:

d
n
a
5
5

r
e
v
o

:

:

:

:

:

8.6

10.5

:

55.9

16.7

16.7

:

23.7

:

21.1

:

:

:

:

:

15.6

:

:

:

12.8

11.7

22.4

:

11.3

5.3

8.8

:

8.9

4.4

8.6

:

:

:

6.4

:

7.3

:

:

4.4

2.5

:

5.9

15.8

2.6

6.0

:

13.4

6.3

:

:

1.1

:

2.2

6.4

2.8

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.0

11.3

(1) Except reporting country.
‘ : ‘ – data not available, not reliable or confidential.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_mddd15)

52

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migrant integration

1

1.6 Active citizenship

The  acquisition  of  citizenship  represents  evidence 
of  effective  migrant  integration  and  recognition 
in the hosting countries, offering them fully active 
citizenship  rights.  In  2014  around  890  thousand 
foreign citizens received citizenship of the hosting 
country out of a total of 34 million foreign citizens 
residing  in  EU-28  Member  States  (stateless  and 
included).  The 
unknown  citizenship  categories 
ratio between these two categories, defined as the 
naturalisation rate, was 2.6 % in 2014, slightly lower 
than the 3.0 % recorded in 2013.

Ireland with 10.5 % and the Netherlands with 8.7 % 
were the two EU Member States which recorded the 

highest naturalisation rates of prior non-EU citizens, 
while two other Member States had a naturalisation 
rate  above  7 %:  Sweden  (8.1 %)  and  Spain  (7.5 %). 
The highest naturalisation rate for prior EU citizens 
was  observed  in  Hungary  (8.3 %),  followed  by 
Sweden  (3.7 %),  while  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Finland 
and Latvia also presented naturalisation rates of at 
least 1.0 %.

Only  Hungary  and  Latvia  recorded  a  higher 
naturalisation rate for prior EU citizens than for prior 
non-EU citizens (see Figure 1.23).

Figure 1.23: Naturalisation rate by broad groups of former citizenships, 2014
(%)

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

)

(
8
2
-
U
E

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

s
u
r
p
y
C

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

)

(
a
n
a
m
o
R

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

)

(
a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
t
l
a
M

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

Prior citizens of another EU Member State 

Prior Non-EU citizens 

(1) Estimates.
(2) Provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: migr_acqs)

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

i

a
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

53

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Migrant integration

Figure 1.24: Top citizenships with share of long-term residents higher than 30 % at EU-28 level, 
2015
(%)

100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 

)

(

C
N
R

r
o
d
a
u
c
E

a

i
l

a
m
o
S

i

a
n
a
b
A

l

u
r
e
P

l

s
s
e
e
t
a
t
S

a
v
o
d
o
M

l

)

(
u
r
u
a
N

t
p
y
g
E

a
v

i

i
l

o
B

o
s
a
F
a
n
k
r
u
B

i

h
s
e
d
a
g
n
a
B

l

a
e
r
t
i
r
E

y
a
u
g
u
r
U

s
e
n
p
p

i

i
l
i

h
P

a
n
a
h
G

o
c
c
o
r
o
M

)

(
a
r
a
h
a
S
n
r
e
t
s
e
W

i

a
n
o
d
e
c
a
M

f
o
R
Y
F

)

(

s
d
n
a
l
s
I

l
l

a
h
s
r
a
M

i

a
b
m
o
o
C

l

l

)

(
u
a
v
u
T

a

i
l

o
g
n
o
M

l

a
g
e
n
e
S

i

a
b
m
a
G

)

(
o
c
a
n
o
M

n
a
t
s
i

k
a
P

a
n
i
t
n
e
g
r
A

e

l
i

h
C

s
e

l
l

e
h
c
y
e
S

a
i
r
e
g
N

i

)

(
a
n
h
C

i

a
r
r
o
d
n
A

a
k
n
a
L

i
r
S

a
i
s
s
u
R

i

a
n
v
o
g
e
z
r
e
H
d
n
a
a
n
s
o
B

i

i

a
p
o
h
t
E

i

i

e
n
a
r
k
U

Note: Long-term residents in the United Kingdom not included. 

(1) Recognised non-citizens.
(2) Low numbers of long-term residence permits: Nauru 6, Tuvalu 7, Marshall Islands 11, 

Monaco 17, Western Sahara 86.

(3) Including Hong Kong.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: migr_resvalid and migr_reslong)

At  the  end  of  2015  around  7.7  million  non-EU 
citizens  were 
in  the  EU, 
long-term  residents 
representing more than 40 % of all non-EU citizens 
with valid residence permits.

permits  at  the  end  of  the  year  i.e.  ‘the  share  of 
long-term  residents’  was  40.9 %  in  2015,  slightly 
higher  than  in  2014  and  2013  (38.8 %  and  36.3 % 
respectively).

long-term 

residence  permit 

Non-EU  citizens  are  usually  granted  a  residence 
permit  with  a  certain  length  of  validity  in  the 
host  country,  depending  on  the  national  legal 
is 
framework.  A 
understood  to  have  a  validity  length  of  5  years 
or  more  and  consequently  offers  safer  residence 
status  to  non-EU  citizens  and  by  extension,  more 
similar  socio-economic  rights  and  responsibilities 
to  nationals  (advanced  active  citizenship  rights). 
Around  7.7  million  long-term  residence  permits 
were  issued  to  non-EU  citizens  and  were  valid  in 
the EU at the end of 2015, i.e. 12 % more than at the 
end of 2014 when 6.9 million long-term residence 
permits were valid.

The  ratio  between  the  number  of 
long-term 
residents and the total of residents with residence 

54

Figure  1.24  presents  the  share  of 
long-term 
residence for nearly 40 different citizenships which 
recorded  shares  of  long-term  residence  of  over 
30 % at EU level. Recognised non-citizens represent 
a  special  category  of  non-EU  citizens, 
living 
mainly  in  Estonia  and  Latvia,  having  similar  rights 
as  nationals  (with  some  exceptions  related  for 
instance to the exercise of EU rights like free travel 
within  the  Schengen  area).  This  explains  a  high 
share of long-term residents (97 %) of this category 
at  EU  level.  Ecuador  was  the  citizenship  with  the 
second  highest  share  of  long-term  residents  at 
EU-28  level  with  67 %,  followed  by  other  seven 
citizenships  with  a  significant  share  (with  50 %  or 
greater): Somalia, Albania, Peru, stateless, Moldova, 
Nauru and Burkina Faso.

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2First- and second-generation immigrants2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Introduction

This  chapter 
looks  at  the  first-  and  second-
generation immigrant populations living in the EU 
and  analyses  separately  those  of  EU  and  non-EU 
background.

‘First-generation immigrants’ are people born in a 
country other than their country of residence and 
whose  residence  period  in  the  host  country  is,  or 
is  expected  to  be,  at  least  12  months.  ‘Second-
generation  immigrants’  are  native-born  persons 
with at least one foreign-born parent.

In  addition  to  this  breakdown  by  generation,  the 
chapter looks into the differences between people 
with  an  EU  and  a  non-EU  migration  background. 
In  this  context,  the  migration  background  of  first-
generation immigrants are based on their country 
of birth as follows:

 • if at least one parent is foreign-born, the native-

born resident is considered to have:

 º an EU background if at least one parent 
is  born  in  the  EU  (including  in  the 
reporting country), and

 º a non-EU background if both parents are 

born outside the EU.

In  summary,  a  person’s  migration  status  together 
with  their  migration  background  results  in  the 
following five immigrant populations:

 • first-generation  immigrants  born  in  the  EU 
(born in a country other than their country of 
residence  and  whose residence period  in  the 
host  country  is,  or  is  expected  to  be,  at  least 
12 months);

 • ‘EU background’ if the country of birth is in the 

 • first-generation  immigrants  born  outside 

EU and

the EU (e.g. born in a non-EU country); 

 • ‘non-EU background’ if it is not.

‘EU mobile citizens’ refers to people born in the EU, 
who  live  in  another  Member  State  than  the  one 
they were born in as a result of the free movement 
rights granted to EU  citizens. Therefore,  the  terms 
‘first-generation immigrant born in the EU’ and ‘EU 
mobile  citizens’  are  used  interchangeably  in  this 
chapter.

 • second-generation immigrants of EU origins 
(e.g. native-born population with at least one 
foreign  parent  where  at  least  one  parent  is 
born in an EU country, including the reporting 
one);

 • second-generation  immigrants  of  non-EU 
origins (e.g. native-born population with both 
parents born outside the EU);

The  migration  background  of  a  native-born 
resident is based on the country of birth of her/his 
parents as follows:

 • native-born of native background (i.e. native-
born population whose parents are both also 
native-born).

 • if  neither  parent  is  foreign-born,  the  native-

born resident has a native background.

56

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

2.1 Main characteristics

The  EU  immigrant  population  (1)  (including  those 
born  abroad  and  their  immediate  descendants) 
reached about 55 million in 2014, up from about 40 
million in 2008. This period comes immediately after 
the flow of East European immigrants following the 
EU  enlargements  in  2004  and  2007.  Accordingly, 

the EU immigrant population increased by almost 
two  fifths  (37.2 %)  between  2008  and  2014,  while 
the EU native-born population with native origins 
decreased  by  2.8 %  during  the  same  period  (see 
Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Relative difference across time by migration status and background, 2014 compared 
with 2008
(%)

First-generation immigrants,  
born within the EU
58,7

First-generation immigrants,  
born outside the EU
53,7

Second-generation 
immigrants, of EU origin
11,8

Second-generation 
immigrants, of non-EU origin
33,4

Native-born 
with native
origins
-2,8

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: missing data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and 2014 LFS ad hoc module

(1) Because Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands did not participate in the 2014 LFS ad hoc module, the data for these countries are 

excluded from the EU aggregates when analysing the absolute differences across time (i.e. 2014 compared with 2008). When comparing 
the structural distributions, all participating countries are included in the EU aggregates, irrespective of the reference year or whether the 
data are provided for both reference years.

57

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Overall, in 2014, at least one in six people (or 17.6 %) 
residing  in  the  EU  was  an  immigrant,  compared 
with  about  one  in  seven  people  (or  13.2 %)  in 
2008  (see  Figure  2.2).  Analysing  the  immigrant 
population as a whole shows that 44 out of every 
100  immigrants  in  the  EU  were  first-generation 
immigrants  born  outside  the  EU.  This  was  the 
largest  group  of  immigrants,  and  accounted  for 
7.7 % in the total EU population. By contrast, second-
generation immigrants of non-EU origin were the 
smallest of the four groups of immigrants: only ten 
in  a  hundred  immigrants  (or  9.5 %)  were  second-
generation of non-EU origin. In 2008, this figure was 

only 0.4 pp higher (9.9 %). This actually represents a 
33.4 % increase in numbers for this category, as the 
proportion of the immigrant population as a whole 
in  the  total  has  increased  significantly.  In  2014, 
second-generation  immigrants  represented  6.1  % 
of the total population in the reporting countries, 
0.9  pp  more  than  in  2008.  The  total  numbers  of 
first-generation  immigrants  of  both  EU  and  non-
EU origins  on the other hand increased by at least 
50%,  and  combined  they  represent  11.5  %  of  the 
total population of the reporting countries in 2014. 
This represents 3.5 pp more compared to 2008.

Figure 2.2: EU population distribution by migration status and background, 2008 and 2014
(%)

2014

2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

First-generation immigrants,  born within EU
Second-generation immigrants,  of EU origin
Native-born with native origins

First-generation immigrants,  born outside EU
Second-generation immigrants,  of non-EU origin

Note: for 2014, all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and 2014 LFS ad hoc module

58

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.3: Distribution of EU-28 immigrant population by residence country, 2014
(%)

All other
Member States
20 %

Germany
21 %

Spain
10 %

Italy
11 %

United-Kingdom
19 % 

Note: data not available for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14pcobp)

France
19 %

In 2014, almost four fifths (or 79.7 %) of immigrants 
in  the  EU  were  living  in  just  five  Member  States, 
namely  Germany  (20.5 %),  the  United  Kingdom 
(19.4 %),  France  (19.3 %),  Italy  (10.8 %)  and  Spain 
(9.7 %)  (see  Figure  2.3).  These  five  were  also  the 

largest  Member  States  in  terms  of  population, 
and together they accounted for 65 % of the total 
population  aged  from  15  to  64  and  living  in  the 
25 Member States that took part in the survey.

59

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Comparing  the  median  age  of  the  five  migration 
groups  shows  that,  in  both  reference  years,  the 
youngest group was second-generation immigrants 
whose parents were both born outside the EU. At EU 
level, 2014 estimates indicate that these immigrants’ 
median  age  was  32.3  years,  compared  with  40.4 
years  for  the  native-born  population  without  any 
migration background (see Figure 2.4). On average, 
the second-generation immigrant population was 
younger  than  all  other  migrant  groups,  despite 

the  fact  that  those  of  EU  origin  were  significantly 
older  than  those  of  non-EU  origin  (37.6  years  and 
32.3  years,  respectively).  Moreover,  this  migration 
group  was  the  only  one  whose  median  age 
decreased  slightly  between  2008  and  2014,  while 
for  ‘first-generation  immigrants’  the  median  age 
increased  by  up  to  1.2  year.  The  median  age  of 
the first-generation immigrant population and the 
native-born  population  with  a  native  background 
were similar.

Figure 2.4: Median age by migration status and background, EU, 2008 and 2014
(years)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

051015202530354045

born within EU

born outside EU

of EU origin

of non-EU origin

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
origins

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: for 2014, all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and 2014 LFS ad hoc module

60

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

In  2014,  native-born  immigrants  of  non-EU  origin 
were about eight years younger (median age) than 
both the foreign-born population and the native-
born  population  with  a  native  background.  As  a 
natural consequence of this, the share of the core 
working-age  (25–54)  population  among  native-
born immigrants of non-EU origin was lower than 
among  the  other  two  populations.  On  average, 
57.2 % of second-generation immigrants were aged 

from 25 to 54, compared with about 73.9 % of first-
generation  immigrants  and  62.9 %  of  the  native-
born  population  with  a  native  background  (see 
Figure  2.5).  Furthermore,  the  second-generation 
immigrant  population  of  non-EU  origins  had  the 
lowest  share  of  young  workers  (54–64)  with  only 
4.6 %  compared  with  20.7 %  in  the  native-born 
population  with  a  native  background,  which  was 
the highest share.

Figure 2.5: Distribution by age group, migration status and background, EU, 2008 and 2014
(%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

16,2

17,0

11,1

14,3

15,3

16,4

5,1

4,6

18,7

20,7

71,0

73,1

74,5

74,3

60,8

58,0

63,5

62,9

54,7

55,0

12,8

2008

9,7

2014

14,4

2008

11,3

2014

born within EU

born outside EU

23,8

25,5

40,2

40,1

17,8

16,4

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

with at least one parent
born within EU

with both parents born
outside EU

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
origins

From 15 to 24 years

From 25 to 54 years

From 55 to 64 years

Note: all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
The difference up to 100 % is given by non-response and unknown cases.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14pcobp)

61

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

fact 

that 

the  first-generation 

The 
immigrant 
population  had  a  larger  share  of  core  working-age 
workers  (25–54)  at  the  expense  of  both  young 
workers  (15–24)  and  older  workers  (55–64)  was  the 
main  factor  differentiating  them  from  the  native-
born  population  with  a  native  background.  Thus, 
74.3 %  of  first-generation  immigrants  born  outside 
the EU were in the core working-age group (25–54), 
which  is  1.2  pp  more  than  among  first-generation 
immigrants  born  in  the  EU  and  11.4  pp  more 
than  among  native-born  people  with  a  native 
background. In a similar way to median age, the share 
of young workers (15–24) increased slightly between 
2008  and  2014  for  second-generation  immigrant 
of  ‘EU  origin’  (1.7  pp),  while  being  approximately 
constant for those of ‘non-EU origin’ and decreasing 
for all other groups.”

In  2014,  the  gender  ratio  for  the  native-born 
population  of  native  origin  was  balanced,  with 
only  0.2  pp  more  men  than  women  (see  Figure 
2.6).  By  contrast,  the  proportion  of  women 
among  the 
irrespective 
immigrant  population, 
of  the  generation  or  migration  background,  was 
clearly  higher  than  the  proportion  of  men.  The 
only  exception  was  among  second-generation 
immigrants  of  EU  origin,  where  there  were 
0.2  pp  more  men  than  women.  Therefore,  there 
were about 3 pp more women than men among 
second-generation  immigrants  of  non-EU  origin, 
while for the foreign-born population, irrespective 
of  migration  background,  the  difference  doubled 
to 6.6 pp (also in favour of women).

Figure 2.6: Distribution by sex, migration status and background, EU-28, 2008 and 2014
(%)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

born within EU

born outside the EU

with EU origins

with  non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with
native origins

Males, 2008 

Males, 2014 

Females, 2008 

Females, 2014 

Note: the EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
The difference up to 100 % comes from non-response and unknown cases.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14pcobp)

62

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Looking  at  the  trends  over  time,  we  see  that  the 
gender  ratio  was  more  balanced  in  2008  than  in 
2014.  Only  the  native-born  population  of  native 
and EU origin was stable over time with an almost 
perfect gender balance. In contrast, the proportion 
of  women  in  all  migration  groups  except  ‘first-
generation  immigrants’  increased.  The  increase 
was  greatest  among  first-generation  immigrants 
born outside the EU where the relative difference 
between  women  and  men  almost  tripled  from  
2.4 pp in 2008 to 6.6 pp in 2014.

Figure  2.7  indicates  the  strong  tendency  of  the 
immigrant  population  towards  settling  in  cities 
where labour markets are larger and infrastructure 
(e.g.  hospitals,  schools,  universities,  commodities) 
is  better  consolidated.  Thus,  in  2014  about  three 
fifths (61.3 %) of immigrants of non-EU background 
were living in cities as opposed to almost a quarter 
(24.7 %) in towns and one seventh (13.9 %) in rural 
areas.  Just  under  a  half  (47.6 %)  of  immigrants  of 
EU origin were also living in cities compared with 

only  about  two  fifths  (38.5 %)  of  the  native-born 
population without any migration background.

A 
little  more  than  half  of  each  generation 
(56.3 %  of  first-generation  and  53.1 %  of  second-
generation)  was  settled  in  cities.  This  preference 
becomes clear when considering that, at EU level, 
the native-born population with native background 
was distributed more or less proportionally across 
the  three  urban  areas,  with  only  a  very  slight 
preference for cities (38.5 % in cities, 30.5 % in towns 
and 31.0 % in rural areas). The share of immigrants 
living in towns differed only slightly across the four 
migration  groups,  but  immigrants  of  EU  origin, 
irrespective of the generation, were more likely to 
settle  in  rural  areas  than  those  of  non-EU  origin: 
23.0 % of immigrants of EU background and 13.9 % 
of immigrants of non-EU background were living in 
rural areas. Some 18.2 % of the total immigrants in 
the EU lived in rural areas. This was 12.9 pp less than 
among  the  native-born  population  with  a  native 
background.

Figure 2.7: Distribution by degree of urbanisation, migration status and background, EU-28, 2014
(%)

Rural
areas
21.2

Towns
30.3

Cities
48.5

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Rural
areas
14.8

Towns
25.5

Cities
59.7

Rural
areas 10.0

Towns
20.9

Cities
69.1 

Rural
areas
24.3

Towns
28.1

Cities
47.6

Rural
areas
31.0

Towns
30.5

Cities
38.5

born within the EU born outside the EU

of EU origin

of non-EU origin

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with
native origins

Note: all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14purb)

63

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Citizenship  expresses  the  relationship  between 
an  individual  and  a  state  and  gives  the  individual 
specific legal rights and duties. The most important 
rights associated with citizenship are the protection 
by the state and unrestricted access to the territory 
and implicitly to the labour market. Even if alternative 
statuses 
residence  permit,  work  permit) 
may  provide  sufficient  security  of  residence  and 
strong  protection  against  expulsion,  ultimately  it  is 
‘naturalisation’ that transforms a foreigner (2) into a 
citizen. Citizenship also brings additional privileges, 
such as diplomatic protection, the right to vote and 
access to public sector jobs, to name but a few.

(e.g. 

In the EU, not all foreigners have the same interest 
in  obtaining  the  citizenship  of  their  host  country. 
More  exactly,  the  acquisition  of  citizenship  only 
secondarily  concerns  foreigners  who  are  already 
EU  citizens  (i.e.  citizens  of  an  EU  Member  State). 
This is because EU citizens are already protected by 
legislation in force in all Member States and, with a 
few exceptions, should have largely the same legal 
rights as the citizens of the reporting country. Thus, 
the  citizenship  issue  primarily  concerns  foreigners 
who are not EU citizens.

Figure 2.8: Distribution by migration status, migration background and citizenship, EU-28, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

35.2

24.3

39.0

4.1
3.0

92.2

27.6

72.0

64.8

32.0

by citizenship

by background

by citizenship

by background

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Reporting country 

EU 

Non-EU 

Note: all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
The difference up to 100 % comes from non-response and unknown cases.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14purb)

(2) Foreigners are defined as people who do not hold the citizenship of the country of residence, regardless of whether they were born in 

that country or elsewhere.

64

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.8 shows that slightly over half of the first-
generation  immigrants  born  outside  the  EU  were 
not  EU  citizens  (they  were  citizens  of  a  country 
outside  the  EU).  It  can  then  be  approximated 
that  the  other  half  of  first-generation  immigrants 
born  outside  the  EU  obtained  the  citizenship  of 
their  host  country.  It  is  also  possible  that  some  of 
them  obtained  the  citizenship  of  an  EU  Member 
State  other  than  the  country  of  residence,  giving 
them  the  right  to  circulate  freely  inside  the  EU. 
But it is reasonable to assume that these cases are 
negligible. Following the same reasoning, a quarter 
of first-generation immigrants born in the EU also 
obtained  the  citizenship  of  their  host  country, 
which confirms the expectation that there is little 
incentive for EU citizens to acquire the citizenship 
of another EU Member State (in which they reside).

In  the  overwhelming  majority  of  cases,  second-
generation  immigrants  received  the  citizenship 
of the country in which they were born: 92.2 % of 
native-born  immigrants  with  foreign  origins  were 
citizens  of  their  reporting  countries.  At  the  same 
time,  some  3 %  of  second-generation  immigrants 
were  citizens  of  an  EU  country  other  than  the 
reporting one and another 4.1 % were citizens of a 
country outside the EU.

Almost five in seven foreign-born immigrants had 
been  living  in  the  country  for  10  years  or  more 
(69.4 %).  The  rest  were  almost  equally  divided 
between  those  who  arrived  in  the  country  in  the 
last five years (14.8 %) and those who had lived in 
the country for between 5 and 10 years (15.1 %) (see 
Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9: First-generation immigrants by length of stay, EU-28, 2014
(%)

From 1 to 5 years
15 %

From 6 to 9 years
15 %

10 years or over
70 %

Note: all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
The difference up to 100 % comes from non-response and unknown cases.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14b1dr)

65

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Mainly  social  reasons  made  people  move  from 
their  country  of  birth.  In  2014,  about  half  (49.5 %) 
of  the  people  who  decided  to  move  from  their 
country of birth to another country did so for the 
purpose of family reunification (see Table 2.1). The 
economic  reason  came  in  second:  about  three  in 
ten (29.2 %) foreign-born people decided to move 
in order to find work in a country other than their 
country  of  birth.  Many  of  them  migrated  without 
having previously found a job (20.4 %), while a few 
had  already  found  one  (8.8 %).  The  third  reason 
to  migrate  was  for  educational  purposes  (6.6 %) 
followed  closely  by  international  protection  and 
asylum (5.1 %).

The order of reasons to migrate remains the same 
when  analysing  jointly  the  reason  to  migrate  by 
sex and by length of stay, separately. However, the 
proportions differ.

Thus,  the  proportion  of  foreign-born  women 
(58.2 %) who decided to migrate for family reasons 
was a fifth (17.8 pp) more than the corresponding 
proportion  among  foreign-born  men  (40.4 %). 
Conversely,  15.1  pp  fewer  foreign-born  women 
than men decided to migrate for work. In addition 
to  this,  we  note  that  the  proportion  of  foreign-
born  men  who  decided  to  migrate  for  family 

reunification (40.4 %) was similar to the proportion 
migrating for work (36.9 %), while the proportion of 
foreign-born  women  who  decided  to  migrate  for 
family reunification (58.2 %) was almost three times 
higher  than  the  proportion  migrating  for  work 
(21.9 %).

foreign-born 

Breaking down the reason to migrate by duration 
of  stay  shows  that 
immigrants 
who  have  been  living  in  a  country  for  less  than 
10  years  migrated  in  similar  proportions  for  both 
family  reunification  (39.8 %  for 
less  than  five 
years  and  34.3 %  for  six  to  nine  years)  and  work 
(42.6 % for less than five years and 42.5 % for six to 
nine  years).  However,  the  proportion  of  foreign-
born  immigrants  who  have  been  living  in  the 
country  for  10  years  or  more  and  who  migrated 
for  family  reunification  (53.7 %)  was  double  the 
proportion of those who migrated for work (25.5 %). 
Also,  the  proportion  of  foreign-born  immigrants 
who have been living in the country for 10 years or 
more and who migrated for educational purposes 
(4.9 %)  was  at  least  half  of  the  corresponding 
proportion  of  those  who  migrated  for  education 
purposes and arrived in the country during the last 
five years (13.9 %).

Table 2.1: First-generation immigrants by reason for migrating, sex and length of stay, EU-28, 
2014
(%)

Reason for migrating

Family reasons
Work, no job found before 
migrating
Work, job found before 
migrating
Other reasons
Education reasons
International protection or 
asylum
No answer

First-
generation 
immigrants
49.5

20.4

8.8

7.1
6.6

5.1

2.5

of which

Males

Females

40.4

25.4

11.5

6.8
7.3

6.3

2.4

58.2

15.9

6.0

7.4
5.9

4.1

2.6

from 1 to 5 
years
39.8

of which
from 6 to 9 
years
42.6

10 years and 
over
53.7

19.0

15.2

6.4
13.9

3.5

2.1

28.3

14.2

5.1
6.5

2.5

0.8

19.1

6.4

7.6
4.9

5.8

2.6

Note: all EU aggregates do not include data for Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module (online data code: lfso_14b1dr)

66

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

2.2 Households

Various types of households encompassing the main characteristics of immigrants are analysed. 
Two  separate  household  definitions  are  used,  each  of  them  being  presented  in  detail  in  the 
glossary.

In 2014, the EU had around 55 million immigrants 
aged  15–64,  which  made  up  17.7 %  of  the 
corresponding  EU  population.  These  people  lived 
in around 16.7 million ‘immigrant households’ and 
9.4  million  ‘mixed  households’.  These  households 
made  up  14.2 %  and  8.0 %  respectively  of  all 
households in the EU (see Figure 2.10).

Looking at the national share of households with at 
least one immigrant adult, regardless of generation 
(i.e. ‘immigrant households’ and ‘mixed households’ 
taken  together),  Luxembourg  recorded  by  far  the 
highest proportion of such households, with about 
three  quarters  of  all  households  in  the  country 
(74.4 %)  belonging  to  this  category.  However, 

Luxembourg accounted for only 0.5 % of the total 
households in the EU with at least one immigrant 
adult.  In  the  remaining  countries  for  which  data 
are available, the national share of households with 
at  least  one  immigrant  adult  ranged  from  about 
two fifths in Latvia (39.8 %) and Estonia (38.8 %) to 
0.3 %  in  Romania.  The  large  share  of  ‘immigrant 
households’  observed  in  Latvia  and  Estonia  is 
largely  explained  by  the  high  proportion  of  what 
are  called  recognised  non-citizens  (mainly  former 
Soviet Union citizens who are permanent residents 
in these countries but have not acquired Latvian/
Estonian  citizenship  or  any  other  citizenship)  in 
these two Baltic countries.

67

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.10: Household distribution by country and migration status of the household, 2014
(%)

EU-28 

Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Estonia 
Cyprus 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Austria 
United Kingdom 
France 
Slovenia 
Croatia 
Spain 
Italy 
Malta 
Portugal 
Greece 
Czech Republic 
Lithuania 
Finland 
Slovakia 
Hungary 
Poland 
Bulgaria 
Romania 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Native households 

Immigrant households 

Mixed households  

Other 

Note: in descending order by total households with at least one immigrant adult (i.e. 
immigrant households and mix households taken together). Missing countries: 
Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfso_14hhcompcob)

68

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.11: Distribution of EU households by migration status of a household, EU-28, 2014
(%)

Mixed
households
8.0 %

Other
1.5 %

Mixed migration
households
1.4 %

Second generation
immigrant households
3.2 %

First generation
immigrant
household
9.6 %

Mixed migration
households
10.1 %

Second
generation
immigrant
households
22.2 %

Native
households
76.3 %

First generation
immigrant
household
67.7 %

Note: missing countries: Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfso_14hhcompcob)

Looking  at  EU  level,  households  consisting  solely 
of foreign-born adults represented 67.7 % of all EU 
‘immigrant households’ and 9.6 % of all households 
in  the  EU  (see  Figure  2.11).  Households  consisting 

of both native-born adults with native background 
and  immigrant  adults,  irrespective  of  generation, 
represented 8 % of all households in the EU.

69

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.12: National share of immigrant households in total number of immigrant households 
living in the EU-28, 2014
(%)

Czech Republic
1 % 

Portugal
1 %

All other available countries
7 %

Greece
2 %

United-Kingdom
26 % 

Austria
4 %

Belgium
5 %

Sweden
6 %

Spain
11 %

France
24 %

Italy
14 %

Note: missing countries: Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfso_14hhcompcob)

Similarly to immigrant distribution across countries, 
households 
immigrants 
consisting  only  of 
(regardless  of  generation  and  combination  of 
generations)  were  unevenly  distributed  across 
Member  States.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  three 
quarters of them were hosted by just four reporting 
countries:  the  United  Kingdom,  France,  Italy  and 
Spain.  To  put  the  statistic  into  context,  these  four 
countries  accounted  for  60 %  of  all  households  in 

the Member States that took part in the survey (see 
Figure  2.12).  Moreover,  14  out  of  the  24  Member 
States  with  available  data  each  held  1 %  or  less 
of  the  total  ‘immigrant  households’  living  in  the 
EU  and  all  together  accounted  for  only  6.6 %  of 
all  ‘immigrant  households’  living  in  the  EU.  This 
compares  with  23.5 %  of  all  households  in  the  24 
reporting Member States.

70

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.13: Household composition by migration status of a household, EU-28, 2014
(%)

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Total

Second generation
immigrant
households

First generation
immigrant
household

Mixed migration
households

Immigrant households

Mixed households

Native and native
background
households

Single adult without children 
Couple without children 
Other type of household without children 

Single adult with children 
Couple with children 
Other type of household with children 

Note: missing countries: Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfso_14hhcompcob)

Looking  at  household  composition,  households 
consisting  solely  of  immigrants  tended  more  to 
be  ‘single-adult  households’  than  the  households 
consisting solely of natives with native background. 
Among 
‘second-
‘immigrant  households’,  the 
generation  immigrant  households’  showed  the 
largest  proportion  of  ‘single-adult  households’, 
namely 71 %, which is 39.1 pp higher than among 
‘native households’ (see Figure 2.13).

‘mixed 
immigrant  households’  and 
‘Mixed 
households’  cannot  be  ‘single-adult  households’. 
This is because they are composed of a minimum 
of  two  adult  members.  For  ‘mixed  immigrant 
households’,  this  could  mean  at  least  one  first-
generation  immigrant  and  at  least  one  second-
generation immigrant. For ‘mixed households’, this 
could  mean  at  least  one  native-born  adult  with 
native  background  and  at  least  one  immigrant 

adult,  regardless  of  the  generation.  Nevertheless, 
‘mixed  households’  tended  to  be  couples  (76.9 %) 
more  than  ‘mixed  immigrant  households’  (52.2 %) 
did.  The  predominance  of  this  type  of  household 
composition  came  at  the  expense  of  other  types 
of households (i.e. with a minimum of two adults in 
the household for this particular case, but with no 
family links or links other than marital links). Among 
all  household  groups  where  all  compositions  are 
possible,  ‘native  households’  and  ‘first-generation 
immigrant households’ were mostly couples.

The  largest  proportion  of  ‘couples  with  children’ 
(46.2 %)  was  observed  among  ‘mixed  households’ 
(i.e. consisting of immigrant adults alongside native-
born  adults  with  native  background).  By  contrast, 
the  largest  proportion  of  ‘single  adults  without 
children’  (53.2 %)  was  noted  among 
‘second-
generation immigrant households’. This is probably 

71

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

because  second-generation  immigrants  tended 
on  average  to  be  younger.  A  little  more  than  half 
of  ‘first-generation  immigrant  households’  had 
no children (52.0 %), which was 4.8 pp less than in 
households consisting solely of native-born adults 
with native background.

As  regards  background  (i.e.  the  country  of  birth 
of  foreign-born  adults  in  the  households  and  of 
parents  of  native-born  adults  in  the  household), 

it  is  noteworthy  that  almost  two  thirds  (or  62.8 %) 
of  households  consisting  solely  of  adults  with 
a  non-EU  background  were  ‘long-term  settled 
households’ (see Figure 2.14). The ‘EU background 
households’  and  ‘mixed  background  households’ 
were  also  mainly  ‘long-term  settled  households’ 
(37.8 % and 45.7 % respectively).

The  share  of 
‘medium-
term  settled  households’  was  very  similar  across 

‘recently  settled’  and 

Figure 2.14: Household distribution by background of a household and duration of stay, EU-28, 
2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Not applicable
43.9

Long-tem
settled
households
37.8

Medium settled
households. 9.6
Recent settled
households. 8.1

Not applicable
18.0

Long-tem
settled
households
62.8

Medium settled
households. 10.7
Recent settled
households. 8.1

Not applicable
40.5

Long-tem
settled
households
45.7

Medium settled
households. 7.1
Recent settled
households. 6.1

EU background households

Non-EU background households Mixed background households

Recent settled households 

Medium settled households 

Long-tem settled households 

Not applicable 

Note: missing countries: Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfso_14hhwkmg)

all  households  with  at  least  one  adult  with  a 
foreign  background.  The  proportion  of  ‘recently 
settled  households’  ranged  from  7.1 %  in  ‘mixed 
‘non-EU 
background  households’  to  10.7 % 

in 

background  households’,  while  for  ‘medium-term 
settled  households’  the  range  was  from  6.1 %  in 
‘mixed background households’ to 8.1 % in EU and 
in ‘non-EU background households’.

72

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

2.3 Labour market indicators

The activity rate represents the economically active population (i.e. employed and unemployed 
persons) as a percentage of the total population.

For  the  population  aged  25–54,  the  activity  rate 
in  2014  was  86.2 %  for  the  ‘native-born  with  a 
native background’ or 0.7 pp higher than in 2008. 
Similar activity rates were found amongst ‘second-
generation immigrants’ with ‘EU origins’ (recording 
a  slightly  higher  activity  rate  of  87.4 %)  and  ‘first-
generation  immigrants’  with  ‘EU  origins’  (85.6 %). 
For  both,  increases  were  recorded  from  2008  to 
2014 (of + 0.4 and + 1.8 pp respectively).

On  the  other  hand,  activity  rates  of  the  ‘non-
EU’  migrant  groups  were  significantly  below 
the  figures  for  the  ‘native-born  with  a  native 
background’  (8.4  pp  lower  for  the  immigrants 
born in a non-EU country and 2.9 pp for ‘second-
‘non-EU  origins’). 
generation 
While  foreign-born  residents  of  non-EU  origin 
registered  a  decrease  between  2008  and  2014  
(–  0.8  pp),  the  native-born  residents  of  non-EU 
origin registered an increase (+1.7 pp).

immigrants’  with 

When  analysing  data  by  sex  (see  Figure  2.15),  in 
2014 the activity rates of males aged 25–54 stood 
at  more  than  90 %  for  all  the  groups  analysed, 
ranging  from  90 %  for  both  ‘first’  and  ‘second-
generation  immigrants’  with  ‘non-EU  origins’  to 
93 %  for  ‘first-generation  immigrants’  with  ‘EU 
origins’. The activity rate of those ‘native-born with 
a  native  background’  was  in  between,  at  91.7 %. 

Overall  for  males  there  was  a  slight  decrease 
compared  with  2008,  which  impacted  ‘second-
generation  immigrants’  the  strongest  in  absolute 
terms (– 0.9 pp).

The labour market participation of women, on the 
other hand, although slightly higher than in 2008 for 
all  categories  except  ‘first-generation  immigrants’ 
born  outside  the  EU,  was  still  much  lower  than 
that  of  men  in  2014  for  all  the  migration  statuses 
analysed. Specifically in 2014 this gap ranged from 
7.5 pp for ‘second-generation immigrants’ with ‘EU 
origins’ to 23.4 pp for ‘first-generation immigrants’ 
with  ‘non-EU  origins’.  The  percentage  of  women 
in the latter category active on the labour market 
stood at 66.5 % in 2014 (down from 67.2 % in 2008), 
compared  with  79.0 %  for  the  women  born  in 
another EU country and 80.7 % of the ‘native-born 
with a native background’.

Another  interesting  feature  when  analysing  the 
activity rates by migration status and gender is that 
activity  rates  slightly  decreased  for  men  across  all 
the migration statuses, while in the case of women 
significant increases (above 1.9 pp) were recorded in 
all statuses except the ‘first-generation immigrants’ 
with ‘non-EU origin’. 

73

Migrant integration   
2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.15: Activity rates by migration status, country of birth (1) and sex, EU, 2008 and 2014 (2)
(%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

born within EU

born outside the EU

with EU origins

with  non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
origins

Males, 2008

Males, 2014

Females, 2008

Females, 2014

Note: population aged 25–54.

(1) 

(2) 

Origin of first-generation immigrants: country of birth; origin of second-
generation immigrants: country of birth of parents.

2008: second-generation immigrants do not include Denmark, Germany, 
Ireland or the Netherlands. 2014: estimates do not include Denmark, Ireland, the 
Netherlands or Sweden, and include estimates for Germany by citizenship.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

74

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

The employment rate is the percentage of employed persons in relation to the comparable total 
population.

In 2014, an estimated 81.1 % of the active population 
aged  25–54  belonging  to 
‘second-generation 
immigrants’ with ‘at least one parent born in the EU’ 
was employed (see Figure 2.16). This employment 
rate  was  2.5  pp  above  the  rate  presented  by  the 
‘native-born with a native background’ and 15.6 pp 
higher than the employment rate of ‘first-generation 
immigrants’ with ‘non-EU origins’. Immigrants with 
‘EU  origins’  presented  higher  employment  rates 
than immigrants with ‘non-EU origins’ in both the 
first  (11.6  pp  difference)  and  second-generation 
(7.1 pp more) groups.

(reaching 7.4 pp for the ‘first generation’ with ‘non-
EU origins’ and 7.1 pp for the native-born with native 
background). The decreases were more moderate 
for those with a higher level of education, ranging 
from  3.8  pp  in  the  case  of  ‘second-generation 
immigrants’ with ‘non-EU origins’ to 1.5 pp for ‘first-
generation  immigrants’  with  ‘EU  origins’.  Highly 
educated ‘second-generation immigrants’ with ‘EU 
origin’ even registered a small increase of +0.5 pp. 
The  impact  of  the  global  financial  and  economic 
crisis  was  strongest  on  the  immigrants  with  ‘non-
EU origins’ and lowest on those with ‘EU origins’.

Between  2008  and  2014,  the  ranking  did  not 
change  among  the  various  migration  statuses 
and  origins,  and  the  overall  EU  employment  rate 
decreased  in  all  groups  except  for  foreign-born 
of  non-EU  origin  for  which  there  was  an  +0.7  pp 
increase. The decrease magnitudes were specific to 
the ‘first-generation immigrants’ of ‘non-EU origin’ 
(– 4.7  pp).  The  decrease  in  employment  rates  was 
less  apparent  within  the  migrant  groups  with  ‘EU 
origins’  (less  than  1.0  pp),  while  the  ‘native-born 
with native background’ experienced a 2.2 pp drop 
between 2008 and 2014.

When  looking  at  trends  in  the  employment  rates 
of  those  25–54  by  educational  attainment  (see 
Figure  2.17),  all  groups  experienced  decreases  in 
employment  rates  between  2008  and  2014,  with 
the  exception  of  ‘second-generation  immigrants’ 
with  ‘EU  origins’  with  a  ‘high’  level  of  educational 
attainment  (for  which  there  was  an  increase  of 
0.5  pp).  Natives  and  ‘first-generation  immigrants’ 
with  a  ‘low’  level  of  education  registered  sharp 
decreases  in  their  already  low  employment  rates 

These  findings  can  be  translated  into  increases 
in  the  gap  between  those  with  ‘low’  and  ‘high’ 
educational  attainment  levels  in  most  migration 
statuses 
‘second-generation 
the 
immigrants’  with 
‘EU  origins’),  confirming  the 
main tendency of greater employability within the 
population pursuing higher academic education.

(except 

in 
immigrants’  of 

In  2014,  the  employment  rates  of  the  population 
25–54  with  ‘low’  educational  attainment  varied 
‘second-
‘first’  and 
from  54.6 %  to  55.5 % 
generation 
‘non-EU  origins’  to 
65.5 %  to  68.2 %  in  ‘first’  and  ‘second-generation 
immigrants with ‘EU origins’. The employment rate 
of  ‘native-born  with  native  background’  with  at 
most lower secondary education completed stood 
between  that  of  immigrants  with  ‘EU  origins’  and 
‘non-EU  origins’  (60.1 %).  In  the  case  of  the  highly 
qualified,  employment  rates  were  higher  than 
85 %  for  ‘second-generation  immigrants’  with  ‘EU 
origins’  and  ‘native-born  with  native  background’ 
(89.4 % and 87.1 % respectively) and lower than 75 % 
for those born in a non-EU country (namely 74.3 %).

75

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.16: Employment rates by migration status and by origin (1), EU, 2008 and 2014 (2)
(%)

100
100

90

80
80

70

60
60
50

40
40
30

20
20
10

0
0

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants
First-generation immigrants

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

Second-generation immigrants
Second-generation immigrants

Nativeborn with native
background
Nativeborn with native
background

Note: population aged 25–54. 

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

(1) 

(2) 

Origin of first-generation immigrants: country of birth; origin of second-
generation immigrants: country of birth of parents. 

2014: estimates do not include Denmark, Germany, Ireland or the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

Figure 2.17: Employment rates of population, by migration status, by origin (1) and by 
educational attainment, EU, 2008 and 2014 (2)
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

born within EU

born outside the EU

with EU origins

with  non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with
native origins

2008, low level of education 
2008, high level of education 

2014, low level of education 
2014, high level of education 

Note: population aged 25–54.

(1) 

(2) 

Origin of first-generation immigrants: country of birth; origin of second-
generation immigrants: country of birth of parents.

2014: estimates do not include Denmark, Germany, Ireland or the Netherlands.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

76

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.18: Employment rates of ‘first-generation immigrants’, by duration of migration, EU-28, 
2008 and 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Stay of
1–5 years

Stay of
6–9 years

EU origins

Stay of
over 10 years

Stay of
1–5 years

Stay of
6–9 years

Stay of
over 10 years

Non-EU origins

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: population aged 25–54. 2014: estimates do not include Germany.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

Figure 2.18 presents the employment rates of first-
generation  immigrants  by  the  duration  of  their 
stay  in  the  resident  country  and  also  their  ‘EU’  or 
‘non-EU origins’. In 2014, the employment rates of 
‘first-generation  immigrants’  with  ‘non-EU  origins’ 
increased  substantially  with  their  duration  of  stay, 
from  52.1 %  for  those  having  been  in  the  country 
for less than 5 years to 68.3 % for those that already 
resided  for  more  than  10  years.  This  was  not  the 
case for immigrants born in another EU country, as 
their employment rates were relatively stable (from 
75.6 % to 76.3 %) and did not vary much based on 
their  duration  of  stay.  The  same  patterns  can  also 
be observed for the year 2008. In terms of trends, 

an  overall  decrease 
in  the  employment  rates 
between  2008  and  2014  can  be  noted  for  all  the 
groups  analysed,  but  it  was  particularly  steep  for 
immigrants  with  ‘non-EU  origins’.  The  magnitude 
of the decrease lowers with the time spent in the 
resident country, as it ranges from – 12.0 pp for the 
most recently settled (less than 5 years) to – 4.6 pp 
for the ones that have spent more than 10 years in 
the  host  country.  Comparatively,  for  the  intra-EU 
immigrants the impact varied between – 3.1 pp for 
the most settled immigrants (more than 10 years) 
and  only  0.2  pp  for  those  having  spent  between 
6 and 9 years in the host country.

77

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

The  unemployment  rate  is  the  number  of  unemployed  people  as  a  percentage  of  the 
economically active population (i.e. both employed and unemployed persons, but excluding 
economically inactive persons, such as students and pensioners).

Figure 2.19: Unemployment rates of population, by migration status and country of birth (1), 
EU, 2008 and 2014 (2)
(%)

20
20

15
15

10
10

5
5

0
0

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants
First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants
Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
Native-born with native
background
background

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: population aged 25–54. 

(1) 

(2) 

Origin of first-generation immigrants: country of birth; origin of second-
generation immigrants: country of birth of parents.

2014: estimates do not include Denmark, Ireland or the Netherlands and include 
estimates for Germany by citizenship.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

In  2014,  the  unemployment  rate  of  the  EU 
population aged 25–54 ranged from 17.2 % in the 
case  of  ‘first-generation  immigrants’  with  ‘non-EU 
origins’ to 7.6 % for ‘second-generation immigrants’ 
with  ‘EU  origins’  (see  Figure  2.19).  Unemployment 
rates were higher among both groups with ‘non-EU 
origins’ while the immigrants with ‘EU origins’ and 
the ‘native-born with native background’ presented 
unemployment  rates  below  10 %.  Between  2008 
and 2014, the unemployment rates increased for all 
categories. The steepest increase was observed for 
‘first-generation  immigrants’  with  ‘non-EU  origins 

(+ 6.6  pp),  while  ‘second-generation  immigrants’ 
with both ‘EU and non-EU origins’ taken separately 
only registered a 1.3 pp increase, the lowest among 
the migration statuses analysed. This small increase 
meant that in 2014 ‘second-generation immigrants’ 
with  ‘EU  origins’  had  the  smallest  unemployment 
rate (7.6 %) while in 2008 the lowest rate belonged 
to  the  ‘native-born  with  a  native  background’ 
(5.5 %),  indicating  a  stronger  resilience  of  the  first 
group in facing the global financial and economic 
crisis.

78

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

rates  of 

Looking  at 
the 
the  unemployment 
population aged 15–29, the patterns were very similar 
to the ones of the older age group (25–54), and the 
discrepancy  was  strongest  among  the  young 
cohort (see Figure 2.20). In fact the unemployment 
rate in the 15–29 age class was more than double 
the  rate  of  the  25–54  age  group  for  the  ‘native-
born with a native background’ (19.8 % compared 
with  8.8 %)  and  also 
‘second-generation 
immigrants’  in  2014.  It  was  higher  than  17 %  for 
all  migration  statuses,  reaching  as  high  as  28.9 % 
for  immigrants  with  ‘non-EU  origins’.  Another 

for 

general  characteristic  of  youth  unemployment, 
observed in all migration statuses, was the steeper 
increase  of  the  unemployment  rates  between 
2008 and 2014, as the unemployment rate almost 
doubled  for  this  age  group,  while  it  was  slightly 
more  moderate  for  those  aged  25–54.  On  the 
other hand, a similar trend as for those aged 25–54 
was  observed,  as  the  highest  increases  in  the 
unemployment  rates  were  noted  for  immigrants 
with ‘non-EU origins’, regardless of the generation 
(of around 10.5 pp to 1.2 pp).

Figure 2.20: Youth unemployment rates (population aged 15 to 29) by migration status  
and by country of birth (1), EU, 2008 and 2014 (2)
(%)

30
30

25
25

20
20

15
15

10
10

5
5

0
0

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

EU origins
EU origins

Non-EU origins
Non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants
First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants
Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
Native-born with native
background
background

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

(1) 

(2) 

Origin of first-generation immigrants: country of birth; origin of second-
generation immigrants: country of birth of parents.

2014: Estimates do not include Denmark, Ireland or the Netherlands.  
Estimates for native and first-generation immigrants include estimates for 
Germany by citizenship. Estimates for second-generation immigrants  
do not include Germany.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

79

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

2.4 Employment

The International standard classification of occupations (ISCO) classifies the occupation status 
of employed persons into 10 major categories. Four broader categories of employees can be 
distinguished (armed forces are excluded):

 • high-skilled  white  collar  (ISCO  codes  1,2  and  3)  includes  legislators,  senior  officials  and 

managers, professionals and technicians and associate professionals;

 • low-skilled white collar (ISCO codes 4 and 5) includes clerks and service workers and shop 

and market sales workers;

 • high-skilled blue collar (ISCO codes 6 and 7) includes skilled agricultural and fishery workers 

and craft and related trades workers;

 • low-skilled  blue  collar  (ISCO  codes  8  and  9)  includes  plant  and  machine  operators  and 

assemblers and elementary occupations.

immigrants’  and 

In  terms  of  occupational  structure,  the  ‘native-
born  with  native  background’  and  the  ‘second-
generation  immigrants’  showed  a  more  similar 
pattern, while the comparison with ‘first-generation 
immigrants’  was  more  divergent  (see  Figure  2.21). 
This  difference  comes  from  the  general  tendency 
of  ‘first-generation  immigrants’  to  work  in  less 
qualified jobs (elementary occupations and service 
workers were the two most common occupational 
categories  for  them  in  2014),  while  both  ‘second-
generation 
‘native-born  with 
native  background’  were  engaged  in  a  larger 
proportion  in  jobs  requiring  higher  qualifications 
(especially professionals and technicians). ‘Second-
generation  immigrants’  were  much  more  often 
employed in highly skilled occupational categories 
(which 
tertiary  education), 
require 
even  when  comparing  with  the  ‘native-born  with 
native background’ (52.4 % work in ISCO codes 1–3 
occupations, compared with 42.0 % of the natives). 
On the other hand, ‘second-generation immigrants’ 
tend  to  be  younger,  and  therefore  more  qualified 
on  average,  compared  with  the  ‘native-born  with 
native background’.

frequently 

In  2014,  more  than  one  in  four  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’  in  the  EU  was  employed  in  ‘unskilled 
blue  collar  occupations’ 
(‘plant  and  machine 
operators  and  assemblers  and  elementary 
occupations’).

80

These occupational categories include jobs which 
in  general  require  a  low  level  of  qualifications  (i.e. 
primary  education).  By  comparison,  in  both  the 
‘second-generation  immigrants’  and  ‘native-born 
with native background’ groups, only 13 or 16 out 
of  every  hundred  employees  undertook  this  kind 
of occupation.

On  the  other  hand,  almost  1  in  3  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’  in  the  EU  were  employed  in  highly 
skilled  office  occupations 
(‘senior  officials, 
managers’,  ‘professionals’  and  ‘technicians’).  These 
occupational  groups  consist  generally  (but  not 
always)  of  highly  qualified  workers  with  a  first  or 
second  stage  of  tertiary  education,  leading  to  an 
advanced research qualification. By contrast, a little 
more than half of ‘second-generation immigrants’ 
and  4  in  10  ‘natives  with  native  background’ 
worked 
in  these  highly  qualified  occupations. 
This  shows  that  the  labour  market  conditions  of 
‘second-generation immigrants’ were much better 
compared with those of the first generation.

It is interesting to note that, while the percentage 
of  those  employed  in  low  skilled  white  collar 
occupations  (administrative  and  service  jobs)  was 
the  same  for  all  the  migration  statuses  (around 
26.0 %),  a  smaller  share  of  immigrants,  especially 
of 
in  skilled  blue 
collar  occupations  (8.7 %  and  13.1 %,  compared 
with  16.5 %).  The  latter  comprises  the  categories 

‘second-generation’  worked 

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

‘skilled  agricultural  and  fishery  workers’  and  ‘craft 
and related trade workers’. Part of the explanation 
could  be  that  these  activities  are  linked  to  family 
labour  force  and  to  resources  (land,  ships  and 
tools) passed down through generations of ‘native-
born  with  native  background’.  Another  possibility 
is  that  the  labour  force  working  in  these  areas 
(especially  skilled  agricultural  and  fishery  workers) 
is  more  concentrated  in  countries  in  which  fewer 
immigrants exist.

The  structural  change  of  the  economy  over  the 
2008–14  period  had  a  stronger  impact  on  the 
occupational  structure  of  immigrants  (especially 
the second generation), while for ‘native-born with 
native  background’  the  changes  were  minimal. 
The general trend consisted of an increase in more 
professionalised and service oriented jobs (so called 
‘white-collar’  jobs),  accompanied  by  a  decrease  in 

low  skilled  occupations  linked  to  production  and 
other manual jobs, noted especially in the case of 
immigrants.

The  proportions  of  those  employed  in  ‘white-
collar  occupations’  presented  an  increase  within 
all  migration  statuses,  reaching  a  growth  of  5.1  pp 
among  ‘second-generation  immigrants’  for  highly 
skilled  non-manual  jobs  and  3.7  pp  among  ‘first-
generation immigrants’ and 2.3 pp among natives 
for  the  low  skilled  ones.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
percentages  of  people  working  in  ‘unskilled  blue 
collar  occupations’  was  lower  in  2014  than  in 
2008,  especially  for  the  second  (– 3.0  pp)  and  first 
(– 1.5  pp)  generations  of  immigrants.  The  same 
trend  can  be  noticed  for  skilled  manual  jobs,  for 
which  the  decrease  was  even  stronger  in  both 
relative and absolute terms (– 3.6 pp for the second 
generation and – 4.3 pp for the first one).

Figure 2.21: Occupation of employees by migration status and year, EU-28, 2008 and 2014
(%)

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Native

1st
gen.

2nd
gen.
Highly skilled while
collar occupations

Native

1st
gen.

2nd
gen.
Low skilled white
collar occupations

Native

1st
gen.

2nd
gen.
Skilled blue
collar occupations

Native

1st
gen.

2nd
gen.
Unskilled blue
collar occupations

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

81

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Table 2.2: Top three activities of first-generation immigrant employees, 2014

EU-28

Belgium

Bulgaria

First

Second

Third

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Human health and social 
work activities

Administrative and support 
service activities

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

:

:

:

Czech Republic

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

:

:

:

:

:

:

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Transportation and storage

:

:

:

Accomodation and food 
service activities

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Activities of households as 
employers

Accomodation and food 
service activities

Wholesale and retail trade

Human health and social 
work activities

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Manufacturing

Construction

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

Activities of households as 
employers

Construction

Activities of households as 
employers

Wholesale and retail trade

Accomodation and food 
service activities

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Transportation and storage

Education

:

:

Financial and insurance 
activities

Activities of extraterritorial 
organisations and bodies

Professional

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

Accomodation and food 
service activities

Wholesale and retail trade

:

:

:

:

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Accomodation and food 
service activities

:

:

:

:

Human health and social 
work activities

:

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Human health and social 
work activities

Human health and social 
work activities

:

:

Construction

Wholesale and retail trade

:

:

Human health and social 
work activities

Wholesale and retail trade

Education

Wholesale and retail trade

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing

Note: population aged 25–54. ‘Wholesale and retail trade’ also includes ‘repair of motor 

vehicles and motorcycles’.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

82

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

When  analysing  the  distribution  of  employment 
by  type  of  activity  among  the  three  migration 
statuses,  the  difference  between  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’  and  ‘second-generation  immigrants’ 
was  less  than  when  analysing  their  occupational 
structure.

As can be seen in Table 2.2, in the Czech Republic, 
Estonia,  Croatia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland, 
Portugal,  Slovenia,  Slovakia  and  Finland  the  most 
‘first-generation 
common  activity  sector  of  a 
immigrant’ worker was ‘manufacturing’.

Hungary  was  the  only  Member  State  where 
‘wholesale  and  retail’  ranked  first  and  only  Italy, 
Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Luxembourg  did  not  have  it 
in their top three activity sectors. It was the second 
most  common  activity  sector  for  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’  to  be  employed  in  the  overall  EU 
aggregate.

France,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  were 
the EU Member States where it was more likely for 
‘first-generation  immigrants’  to  work  in  ‘human 
health and social work activities’. The high number 
of  immigrants  in  France  and  the  United  Kingdom 
placed this activity sector in third place within the 
EU aggregate.

The ‘activities of household as employers’ were the 
most  common  for  ‘first-generation  immigrants’  in 
Spain and Cyprus, and the second most common 
in  Italy.  Greece  and  Malta  had  the  greatest  share 
in 
of  their 

immigrants  working 

foreign-born 

‘accommodation  and  food  activities’  —  linked 
to  the  importance  of  the  tourist  sector  in  these 
economies.

Luxembourg’s  situation  was  particular  among 
EU  Member  States  with  its  top  three  activities 
reflecting  the  predominance  of  its  specific  and 
specialised  economy: 
insurance 
activities’, ‘activities of extraterritorial organisations 
and bodies’ and ‘professional’ activities.

‘financial  and 

Self-employed persons work in their own business 
or  professional  practice;  in  2014,  they  made  up 
18.9 % of the employed EU ‘native-born with native 
background’  population  —  the  highest  value 
among the five migration statuses being analysed 
(see  Figure  2.22).  ‘Second-generation  immigrants’ 
were  the  group  least  likely  to  be  self-employed 
(ranging  from  14.6 %  for  those  of  ‘EU  origins’  to 
11.5 % for those with both parents born outside the 
EU). The self-employment share of ‘first-generation 
immigrants’ was also higher among immigrants of 
‘EU  origins’  (16.7 %)  than  among  those  of  ‘non-EU 
origins’ (15.5 %).

Since  2008,  there  has  been  a  general  tendency 
towards  an  increasing  share  of  self-employment, 
‘first-generation  immigrants’  of  ‘non-EU  origins’ 
presenting the largest increase (from 14.0 % in 2008 
to  15.5 %  in  2014)  while  for  ‘second-generation 
immigrants’ of ‘non-EU origins’ only a slight increase 
(+0.2 pp) was observed.

83

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.22: Self-employment by migration status and origin, EU, 2008 and 2014
(%)

20
20

18
18

16
16

14
14

12
12

10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0

EU origins
EU origins

non-EU origins
non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants
First-generation immigrants

EU origins
EU origins

non-EU origins
non-EU origins

Second-generation immigrants
Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
background
Native-born with native
background

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: population aged 25–54.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

Figure 2.23: Temporary contract by migration status and origin, 2008 and 2014
(%)

25
25

20
20

15
15

10
10

5

5

0

0

EU origins

non-EU origins

EU origins

non-EU origins

EU origins

First-generation immigrants

non-EU origins

Second-generation immigrants

non-EU origins

EU origins

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: population aged 25–54.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

84

Native-born with native
background
Native-born with native
background

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

In  2014,  11.9 %  of  the  EU  employees  who  were 
‘native-born  with  native  background’  had  a 
temporary  contract,  meaning  that  their  main  job 
would terminate after a pre-defined period, or after 
the  completion  of  a  given  task  (see  Figure  2.23). 
This  value  was  only  lower  in  the  case  of  ‘second-
generation immigrants’ of ‘EU origins’ (10.8 %). For 
‘second-generation immigrants’ of ‘non-EU origins’ 
the share of employees  with  temporary  contracts 
was  13.0 %  while  in  the  case  of  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’, the values were 14.9 % for those of ‘EU 
origins’  and  peaked  at  17.0 %  for  those  of  ‘non-EU 
origins’.  Regardless  of  the  generation,  immigrants 
of  ‘non-EU  origins’  were  more  likely  than  those 
of  ‘EU  origins’  to  hold  temporary  employment 
contracts. It should be noted that ‘first-generation 
immigrants’,  regardless  of  their  origin,  were  more 
likely  to  have  a  temporary  employment  contract 
as  opposed  to  ‘second-generation  immigrants’  or 
‘native-born with native background’.

From 2008 to 2014, there was a slight increase in the 
share  of  temporary  contracts  among  ‘native-born 
with  native  background’  employees,  while  there 
were  contradictory  trends  among  the  immigrant 
groups. The outcome was more positive in the case 
of ‘first-generation immigrants’, given the decrease 
in the share of temporary contracts. The opposite 
was  true  for  ‘second-generation  immigrants’,  for 
whom the proportion of those having a temporary 
contract 
increased  from  10.7 %  to  10.8 %  (‘EU 
origins’) and from 12.5 % to 13.0 % (‘non-EU origins’). 
Although  the  trend  is  positive,  amongst  ‘first-
generation  immigrants’  of  ‘non-EU  origin’  there  is 
still the highest proportion of temporary contract 
amongst employees.

Part-time  employees  are  persons  whose  usual 
working  hours  are  less  than  the  normal  working 
hours.  It  can  be  either  voluntary  (e.g.  for  family 
reasons)  or  involuntary  (when  the  person  would 
like to work more hours but cannot find a suitable 

contract). This analysis does not distinguish between 
the two because of sample size limitations.

Figure  2.24  shows  the  predominance  of  part-
time  work  in  the  EU  female  population  across 
all  immigrant  statuses,  with  differences  always 
exceeding  18  pp  compared  with  the  male 
population.  ‘First-generation  immigrants’  of  both 
‘EU  origins’  and 
‘non-EU  origins’  showed  the 
highest  rates  of  part-time  employment,  reaching 
over one third in the case of female employees and 
6.7 %  (‘EU  origins’)  and  12.7 %  (‘non-EU  origins’)  of 
male  employees  in  2014.  Among  men,  the  ‘first-
generation  immigrants’  of  ‘non-EU  origins’  were 
the  category  with  the  highest  share  of  part-time 
work, which was more than triple that of the native 
men of native origin. The share of part-time workers 
amongst  employees  was  higher  for 
‘second-
generation immigrants’ than in the case of ‘native-
born  with  native  background’  and  lower  than 
amongst ‘first-generation immigrants’. This was the 
case  regardless  of  the  gender,  with  the  exception 
of men whose both parents were born outside the 
EU and accounted for the second highest share of 
part-timers. Also, regardless of the gender and the 
generation,  the  proportion  was  higher  amongst 
immigrants  of  ‘non-EU  origins’  than  those  of  ‘EU 
origins’.  Given  these  patterns,  it  is  likely  that  the 
share of the employees working part-time who are 
not in this situation by choice is higher in the case 
of  immigrants,  particularly  when  they  only  have 
‘non-EU origins’.

The  prevalence  of  part-time  work  increased  in 
all  categories  except  for  ‘native-born  with  native 
background’  and  ‘second-generation  immigrant’ 
women  of  ‘EU  origins’,  for  which  it  decreased. 
The  gender  gap  showed  diverging  trends,  as  it 
increased  for  ‘second-generation  immigrants’  of 
‘non-EU  origin’  (by  10  pp)  and  ‘first-generation 
immigrants’ of ‘EU origins’ (by 1.1 pp only), while it 
decreased for the other categories.

85

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.24: Part-time employment by migration status, sex and origin, EU, 2008 and 2014
(%)

40
40

35
35

30
30

25
25

20
20

15
15

10
10

5
5

0
0

Males
Males

Females
Females

Males
Males

Females
Females

Males
Males

Females
Females

Males
Males

Females
Females

Males
Males

Females
Females

EU origins
EU origins

non-EU origins
non-EU origins

EU origins
EU origins

non-EU origins
non-EU origins

First-generation immigrants
First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants
Second-generation immigrants

Native-born with native
Native-born with native
background
background

2008

2014

2008

2014

Note: population aged 25–54.

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS AHM2014/2008

86

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

2.5 Education and obstacles to work

People need skills and qualifications if they are to 
participate  successfully  in  the  labour  market;  this 
is  particularly  true  for  immigrants.  Skills  can  be 
acquired through education and training (including 
training on the job). Data on qualifications, measured 
by  highest  level  of  educational  attainment,  are 
an important indicator of the skills on offer in the 
labour  market,  as  they  provide  a  wide  range  of 
information on individuals’ attributes and chances 
of getting a good job.

When  looking  at  the  highest  level  of  educational 
attainment,  significant  differences  can  be  noticed 
between first- and second-generation immigrants 

and native-born residents with native backgrounds 
(see Figure 2.25). In 2014, the highest proportion of 
tertiary  graduates  was  observed  among  second-
generation  immigrants  (38.5 %  for  those  of  EU 
and  36.2 %  for  those  of  non-EU  origin),  while  the 
lowest  was  among  first-generation  immigrants 
born  outside  the  EU  (29.4 %).  The  proportion  of 
tertiary  graduates  among  EU  mobile  citizens  was 
between that of native-born residents with foreign 
and those with native backgrounds. Overall, the EU 
attracts  quite  a  high  proportion  of  highly  skilled 
immigrants.

Figure 2.25: Educational attainment level distribution by migration status and background, 
25–55 age group, EU-28, 2008 and 2014
(%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

33,3

28,5

29,4

45,3

35,9

44,3

24,6

36,6

38,5

31,8

36,2

28,9

30,9

26,0

45,4

47,8

44,9

46,1

46,7

50,0

22,4

26,2

34,7

38,8

16,1

20,4

18,9

25,0

22,4

24,1

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

born inside EU

born outside EU

of EU origins

of non-EU origins

of native background

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Native-born

Primary education

Secondary education

Tertiary education

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

87

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

The proportion of low skilled workers is particularly 
high  (34.7 %)  among  first-generation  immigrants 
born  outside  the  EU,  the  same  for  native-born 
residents and EU mobile citizens (22.4 %), and lower 
for second-generation immigrants (16.1 % for those 
of EU and 18.9 % for those of non-EU origin).

The  trend  over  time  is  similar  for  all  groups,  in  line 
with the general increase in the proportion of tertiary 

graduates and a decrease in the proportion of those 
with up to lower secondary education. The biggest 
relative  increase  was  among  second-generation 
immigrants of both ‘EU origin’ (+ 6.7 pp) and ‘non-
EU origin’ (+7.3 pp). The increase was similar (around 
+5.0 pp) for foreign-born and native-born residents 
of native origin.

Figure 2.26: Objective over-qualification by migration status and background, 25–54 age group, 
2008 and 2014
(%)

40
40

35
35

30
30

25
25

20
20

15
15

10
10

5
5
0
0

born inside EU
born inside EU

born outside EU
born outside EU

First-generation
immigrants
First-generation
immigrants

of EU origins
of EU origins

of non EU origins
of non EU origins

Second-generation
immigrants
Second-generation
immigrants

of native background

of native background

Native-born

Native-born

2008

2014

2008

2014

2008

2014

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

Over-qualification is the state of being skilled or educated beyond what is necessary for a job. 
The over-qualification rate is the number of over-qualified people as a percentage of the labour 
force.

Two indicators of over-qualification are presented:

 • objective over-qualification (the proportion of tertiary graduates working in jobs for which 

a degree is not required, ISCO levels 4–9); and

 • subjective  over-qualification  (the  proportion  of  employed  persons  declaring  that  their 

qualifications and skills would allow them to carry out more demanding tasks).

88

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

In 2014, over a third of first-generation immigrants 
with  a  tertiary  degree  worked  in  a  job  that  did 
not  require  that  level  of  education  (ranging  from 
34.3 % for those born in the EU to 36.2 % for those 
born elsewhere), as compared with around a fifth 
of  native-born  residents  with  native  backgrounds 
and  second-generation  immigrants  (see  Figure 
2.26). Compared with 2008, this applied to slightly 
fewer  first-generation  immigrants  born  outside 
the EU (–1.3 pp), but significantly more EU mobile 
citizens  (+ 7.2  pp).  This  may  be  related  to  the 
increased  number  of  citizens  from  the  countries 
that joined the EU most recently (Romania, Bulgaria 
and  Croatia)  who  were  subject  to  labour  market 
restrictions in some countries until 2014. There was 
also an increase in the proportion of over-qualified 
native-born  residents 
(+ 1.6  pp)  and  second-
generation  immigrants  of  whom  both  parents 
were born outside the EU (+ 1.9 pp).

Figure 2.27 shows the percentage of people in each 
migration  group  who  perceived  themselves  as 
over-qualified for their main current job, based on 

a comparison of their qualifications and skills with 
the tasks they carry out. All respondents who had 
a job were asked about this, regardless of whether 
they were actually doing it in the reference week. 
At aggregate level, the resultant values and pattern 
seem  to  be  very  similar  to  those  obtained  by 
analysing objective over-qualification, even though 
the reference populations differ (all the employed 
population 
for  the  subjective  and  employed 
tertiary  graduates  for  the  objective  measure)  and 
the coverage is therefore not the same in all cases.

First-generation  immigrants  are  much  more  likely 
to  declare  themselves  as  being  over-qualified  for 
their job (almost a third, as compared with around 
a fifth of those born in their country of residence, 
regardless  of  background).  The  percentage 
declaring  themselves  to  be  over-qualified 
is 
slightly higher among first- and second-generation 
immigrants of non-EU origin than among those of 
EU  origin.  Second-generation  immigrants  with  at 
least one parent born in the EU are the migration 
group with the lowest percentage.

Figure 2.27: Subjective over-qualification by migration status and background, 25–54 age group, 
2014
(%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

born inside EU

born outside EU

of EU origin

of non EU origin

of native background

First-generation
immigrants

Second-generation
immigrants

Native-born

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

89

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure 2.28: Subjective over-qualification by migration status, background and sex, 25–54 age 
group, 2014
(%)

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

born inside EU

born outside EU

of EU origins

of non EU origins

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Natives of native
background 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

Male 

Female 

looks  at  first-generation 

Women  are  much  more  likely  than  men  to  feel 
that  they  are  over-qualified,  particularly  when 
one 
immigrants  (see 
Figure  2.28).  Only  26.0 %  to  29.3 %  of  male  first-
generation immigrants declared themselves to be 
over-qualified,  as  against  35.1 %  to  36.5 %  of  their 

female counterparts. Similar, but smaller differences  
(2  pp)  apply  to  native-born  residents  with  native 
backgrounds  and  second-generation  immigrants 
with  both  parents  born  outside  the  EU,  while  for 
those with an intra-EU background the percentage 
is similar for men and women.

90

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Figure 2.29: Language skills of first-generation immigrants by migration background, 15–64 age 
group, 2014
(%)

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Mother tongue

Proﬁcient

Moderate

Basic

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

Born within EU 

Born outside EU 

The  information  in  the  next  paragraphs  refers  to 
respondents’ self-perceived command of their host 
country’s main language. Where a country has more 
than one official language, it refers to the language 
of  which  the  respondent  has  the  best  command. 
immigrants 
Around  a  third  of  first-generation 
moved to countries in which their mother tongue 
was  spoken,  while  another  third  (or  slightly  more 

in  the  case  of  those  born  in  another  EU  country) 
claimed  to  be  proficient  in  the  official  language 
of their host country (see Figure 2.29). Only 9 % of 
those born in another EU country and 12 % of those 
born in a non-EU country saw themselves as having 
only  basic  knowledge  of  the  host  country’s  main 
language.

91

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

As Figure 2.30 shows, and as is to be expected, first-
generation  immigrants’  language  skills  improved 
over  time:  the  longer  they  lived  in  their  host 
country,  the  less  they  declared  only  having  basic 
skills.  However,  even  among  people  who  have 
lived  in  their  host  country  for  10  years  or  more, 
4.1 %  of  those  born  in  another  EU  country  and 
7.9 %  of  those  born  in  a  non-EU  country  declared 

only  having  basic  skills  in  the  language(s)  of  their 
host  country.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that 
the  percentage  of  those  declaring  that  the  host 
country’s  language  is  also  their  mother  tongue 
was  higher 
in  relative  terms) 
among  those  who  had  settled  (arrived  over 
10 years ago).

(about  double 

Figure 2.30: Language skills of first-generation immigrants by number of years spent in the 
country and migration background, 15–64 age group, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Basic
22.3

Basic
24.4

Moderate
30.0

Moderate
27.5

Basic
11.3

Basic
15.4

Moderate
31.0

Moderate
23.9

Proﬁcient
31.6

Proﬁcient
28.4

Proﬁcient
40.7

Mother
tongue
16.2

Mother
tongue
19.7

Mother
tongue
17.0

Proﬁcient
29.9

Mother
tongue
30.8

Basic. 4.1
Moderate
13.9

Proﬁcient
39.0

Basic. 7.9

Moderate
19.9

Proﬁcient
32.7

Mother
tongue
43.0

Mother
tongue
39.5

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Less than 5 years 

Between 6 and 9 years 

10 years and over 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

92

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

As  expected,  there  was  a  correlation  between 
better language skills and educational attainment, 
but  it  was  less  evident  than  that  between  better 
language skills and time spent in the host country 
(see Figure 2.31). On average, around 80 % of tertiary 
graduates were native or proficient speakers of the 
host  country’s  main  language,  while  this  applied 
to  just  over  one  half  of  foreign-born  residents 
with  only  primary  education.  The  differences  by 
migration background were insignificant.

In  2014,  the  proportion  of  highly  skilled  persons 
was  higher  among 
immigrants  than  among 
native-born  with  native  background.  Despite 
a  high  level  of  education,  two  major  indicators 
showed  difficulties  which  immigrants,  especially 
immigrants,  faced  on  the  EU 
first-generation 

labour  market:  their  unemployment  and  over-
qualification  rates  were  higher  than  those  of 
native-born  residents  with  native  background. 
Migration-specific  work  obstacles  like  language 
and communication barriers, lack of recognition of 
foreign credentials and experience, restricted rights 
to work and discrimination on social and religious 
grounds may have contributed to this situation.

With 
regard  to  work  obstacles,  there  were 
substantial differences between first- and second-
generation 
immigrants.  As  second-generation 
immigrants were raised and educated in the host 
country,  they  did  not  face  the  same  obstacles  as 
their  immigrant  parents  or  other  first-generation 
immigrants. Therefore, the two generations should 
be dealt with separately.

Figure 2.31: Language skills of first-generation immigrants by education attainment level and 
migration background, 15–64 age group, 2014
(%)

Basic
12.9

Moderate
24.3

Proﬁcient
32.9

Basic
19.5

Moderate
28.5

Proﬁcient
24.5

Basic
9.4

Moderate
28.5

Proﬁcient
35.9

Basic
8.0

Moderate
19.4

Proﬁcient
33.2

Basic. 4.9

Moderate
14.0

Basic. 4.9

Moderate
15.1

Proﬁcient
44.4

Proﬁcient
39.2

Mother
tongue
30.0

Mother
tongue
27.6

Mother
tongue
32.0

Mother
tongue
39.5

Mother
tongue
36.7

Mother
tongue
40.7

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Born within EU

Born outside EU

Primary education

Secondary education

Tertiary education

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

93

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

However,  both  generations  had  two  things  in 
common. About half of first-generation immigrants 
and  about  two  thirds  of  second-generation 
immigrants  did  not  mention  any  particular 
obstacle  to  finding  a  suitable  job,  this  being  the 
most  common  response  for  both  generations 
(see  Figure  2.32).  Also,  just  under  a  third  of  both 
generations,  regardless  of  having  EU  or  non-EU 
origins,  encountered  a  work  obstacle  other  than 
the four migration-specific ones.

As  the  analysis  from  this  point  on  will  primarily 
look at specific difficulties faced by immigrants in 
finding a suitable job, we disregarded the groups’ 
responses of ‘no particular obstacle’, ‘other obstacle’ 
and  ‘unknown’.  That  being  said,  we  noted  that 
the lack of language skills was the most common 
obstacle  preventing  first-generation  immigrants 
from  finding  a  suitable  job,  affecting  about  1  in 
every  10  foreign-born  immigrants,  irrespective  of 
where they came from.

Regarding  the  lack  of  recognition  of  qualification 
obtained  abroad  —  the  second  most  common 
migration-specific work obstacle — it is interesting 
to  note  that  first-generation 
immigrants  born 
outside  the  EU  were  more  affected  than  their 
counterparts  born  within  the  EU,  which  is  not 
surprising  given  the  progress  on  standardising 
European  degrees  under  the  Bologna  system.  In 
any event, the relative difference was small, at 2 pp.

Similarly, first-generation immigrants born outside 
the EU were more affected by work restrictions as 
they do not have the same civil and work rights as EU/
EEA citizens. Only 1.4 % of EU mobile citizens ( ) cited 
this as their major problem in finding a suitable job, 
compared with 3.7 % of first-generation immigrants 
born outside the EU. However as an obstacle, work 
restrictions  came  after  discrimination  on  social 
and  religious  grounds,  which  affected  2.4 %  of  EU 
mobile citizens and 4.3 % foreign-born residents of 
non-EU origin.

Figure 2.32: Work obstacles by migration status and background, 15–64 age group, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

born
inside the EU

born
outside the EU

of EU origin

of non-EU origin

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Unknown 
No particular obstacle 
Other obstacle 
Origin religion or social background 
Restricted right to work because of citizenship or residence permission 
Lack of recognition of qualiﬁcations obtained abroad 
Lack of language skills in host country language(s) 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

94

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

Just  little  over  2 %  of  first-generation  residents 
encountered  obstacles  to  work  but  could  not 
identify a specific/main one.

The  situation  was  very  different  for  second-
generation immigrants. Less than 1 % experienced 
language  or  communication  barriers.  This  could 
be  due  to  their  level  of  education  rather  than 
migration background. However, the fact that 3.5 % 
of second-generation immigrants with at least one 
parent born outside the EU faced discrimination on 
social and religious grounds can surely be explained 
by their migration background. The proportion of 
second-generation  immigrants  who  encountered 
obstacles  to  work  without  identifying  a  specific/
main  one  is  about  twice  that  of  those  facing  no 
particular obstacle.

Analysis  of  the  different  age  groups  reveals  that 
about three fifths of both young (aged 15–24) and 
older  (aged  55–64)  foreign-born  workers  faced 
no  particular  obstacle,  compared  with  two  fifths 
of  foreign-born  workers  in  the  core  working  age 
group (aged 25–54) (see Figure 2.33).

As  for  the  first-generation  immigrants  who  are  in 
the core working age (aged 25–54) or older workers 
(aged  55–64),  the  structural  distribution  of  the 
four  migration-specific  obstacles  analysed  follows 
the  overall  pattern:  the  most  common  obstacle 
was  the  lack  of  language  skills,  followed  by  lack 
of  recognition  of  qualifications,  discrimination 
on  social  and  religious  grounds  and  restricted 
right  to  work.  By  contrast,  young  foreign-born 
workers  (aged  15–24)  faced  mainly  language  or 
communication  problems  and  to  a  similar  extent 
problems  related  to  lack  of  qualifications,  work 
restrictions and social and religious discrimination.

few  second-generation 

immigrants  who 
The 
faced one of the four migration-specific obstacles 
were  concentrated 
in  the  core-working  age 
group (aged 25–54). Similarly with first-generation 
immigrants, mainly younger (aged 15–24) and older 
workers  (aged  55–64)  among  second-generation 
immigrants faced no particular obstacles.

Figure 2.33: Work obstacles by migration status and age group, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

15–24

25–54

55–64

15–24

25–54

55–64

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Unknown 
No particular obstacle 
Other obstacle 
Origin religion or social background 
Restricted right to work because of citizenship or residence permission 
Lack of recognition of qualiﬁcations obtained abroad 
Lack of language skills in host country language(s) 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

95

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Figure  2.34  shows  that  there  was  no  notable 
difference  between  men  and  women  when 
analysing  obstacles  to  work  as  a 
result  of 
migration  background.  The  only  difference  arose 

when  looking  at  second-generation  immigrants 
encountering  social  and  religious  discrimination, 
where men seemed to be somewhat more affected 
than women.

Figure 2.34: Work obstacles by migration status and sex, 15–64 age group, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Male

Female

Male

Female

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Unknown 
No particular obstacle 
Other obstacle 
Origin religion or social background 
Restricted right to work because of citizenship or residence permission 
Lack of recognition of qualiﬁcations obtained abroad 
Lack of language skills in host country language(s) 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

96

  Migrant integrationFirst- and second-generation immigrants

2

these 

Looking  at  foreign-born  residents,  the  higher  the 
education level, the higher the proportion of those 
facing  difficulty  in  gaining  recognition  of  their 
qualifications (see Figure 2.35). However, the higher 
the  education  level,  the  lower  the  proportion 
language 
immigrants  encountering 
of 
barriers.  Therefore  the  most  common  migration-
specific  work  obstacle  among  first-generation 
immigrants  with  high-level  education  was  lack 
of  recognition  of  qualifications  obtained  abroad 
while  among  those  with  low-level  education  the 
most common obstacle was lack of language skills. 
Among first-generation immigrants with medium-
level  education  the  two  obstacles  had  a  similar 

importance. This situation could be due to the fact 
that  language  skills  improve  with  the  education 
level, and because of the lower need to recognise 
foreign  qualifications  for  jobs  that  do  not  require 
higher education.

The  social  and  religious  discrimination  varied 
slightly with education level, with the most affected 
being  foreign-born  residents  with  medium-level 
education.  As  expected,  the  work  restriction 
obstacle  was  not  correlated  with  education.  The 
highest proportion of those who did not experience 
any work obstacle was seen among first-generation 
immigrants with low-level education.

Figure 2.35: Work obstacles by migration status and education level, 15–64 age group, 2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Low

Medium

High

Low

Medium

High

First-generation immigrants

Second-generation immigrants

Unknown 
No particular obstacle 
Other obstacle 
Origin religion or social background 
Restricted right to work because of citizenship or residence permission 
Lack of recognition of qualiﬁcations obtained abroad 
Lack of language skills in host country language(s) 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

97

Migrant integration  2 First- and second-generation immigrants

Among second-generation immigrants, there was 
no significant structural difference in the obstacles 
people  experience  based  on  which  of  the  three 
major  educational  attainment 
levels  they  had 
reached.

in  all  three  education 
For  both  generations 
levels,  the  most  common  response  remained  ‘no 
particular  obstacle’  followed  by  ‘other  obstacles’. 
However  the  differences 
in  proportions  were 
affected  by  changes  in  the  total  proportion  of 
migration-specific  work  obstacles  rather  than  by 
the education level itself.

Work  obstacles  are  correlated  with  the  length 
of  stay  in  the  host  country.  As  Figure  2.36  shows, 
the longer the number of years spent in the host 
country, the smaller the proportion of foreign-born 
residents  affected  by  one  of  the  four  migration-

specific  obstacles.  In  fact,  the  total  proportion  of 
those facing migration-specific work obstacles was 
reduced  to  about  half,  from  33.3 %  for  those  who 
had lived in the host country for 5 years or less to 
17.5 % for those who had lived there for 10 years or 
more. The largest decrease was seen for command 
of  the  main  host  country  language:  only  6.2 %  of 
foreign-born  residents  who  had  been  living  in 
the  host  country  for  10  years  or  more  still  faced 
linguistic  barriers,  compared  with  about  a  fifth  of 
those  who  arrived  during  the  last  5  years.  Work 
restrictions due to citizenship or residence permits 
were  also  reduced  by  3.3  pp.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  proportion  of  foreign-born  immigrants  facing 
religious  and  social  discrimination  increased  by 
about 1 pp for each group, broken down by each 
category of time spent in the host country.

Figure 2.36: Work obstacles of first-generation immigrants by length of stay, 15–64 age group, 
2014
(%)

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

less than 5 years

from 5 to 9 years

10 years and over

Unknown 
No particular obstacle 
Other obstacle 
Origin religion or social background 
Restricted right to work because of citizenship or residence permission 
Lack of recognition of qualiﬁcations obtained abroad 
Lack of language skills in host country language(s) 

Source: Eurostat, LFS 2014 ad hoc module

98

  Migrant integrationData coverage

Data coverage

Eurostat online databases contain a large amount of metadata that provides information on the status 
of particular values or data series. In order to improve readability of this statistical book, only the most 
significant meta-information has been included under the tables and figures. The following symbols are 
used, where necessary:

Italic 

data value is forecasted, provisional or estimated and is likely to change;

: 

– 

not available, confidential or unreliable value;

not applicable.

Breaks in series are indicated in the footnotes provided under each table and figure.

This publication generally presents information for the EU-28 (the 28 Member States of the EU), as well as 
the individual EU Member States. The order of the Member States in tables and figures generally follows 
their order of protocol; in other words, the alphabetical order of the countries’ names in their respective 
original  languages;  in  some  of  the  figures  the  data  are  ranked  according  to  the  values  of  a  particular 
indicator.

The EU-28 aggregate is provided when information for all of the countries is available, or if an estimate has 
been made for missing information. Any incomplete totals that are created are systematically footnoted.

When  available,  information  is  also  presented  for  EFTA  countries,  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries. In the event that data for any of these non-member countries are not available, they have been 
excluded from the tables and figures presented.

If data are not available for a particular country, then efforts have been made to fill tables and figures with 
data for previous reference periods (these exceptions are footnoted); generally, an effort has been made to 
go back at least two years, for example showing data for 2013 or 2014 if data for 2015 are not yet available.

99

Migrant integration  Glossary

Glossary

Asylum

Form  of  protection  given  by  a  state  on  its  territory  based  on  the  principle  of  ‘non-refoulement’  (no 
repulsing/sending  back)  and  internationally  or  nationally  recognised  refugee  rights.  It  is  granted  to  a 
person who is unable to seek protection in his/her country of citizenship and/or residence, in particular for 
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group 
or political opinion.

Asylum seeker

Asylum applicant awaiting a decision on an application for international protection, granting or refusing a 
refugee status or another form of international protection.

Citizenship

Particular  legal  bond  between  an  individual  and  his  or  her  state,  acquired  by  birth  or  naturalisation, 
whether by declaration, choice, marriage or other means according to national legislation.

Emigrant

Person undertaking emigration.

Emigration

Action by which a person, having previously been usually resident in the territory of a country, ceases to 
have his or her usual residence in that country for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least 12 months.

EU mobile citizens

People born in the EU, who live in another Member State than the one they were born in as a result of the 
free movement rights granted to EU citizens.

First-generation immigrant

Person born in a country other than her/his country of residence and whose residence period in the host 
country is, or is expected to be, at least 12 months.

Foreign citizens (non-nationals)

Persons who do not hold the citizenship of their country of residence, regardless of whether they were 
born in that country or elsewhere.

Immigrant

Person undertaking immigration.

100

  Migrant integrationGlossary

Immigration

Action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of a country for a period 
that is, or is expected to be, at least 12 months, having previously been usually resident in another country.

Median age

Age that divides the population into two groups of equal size.

Naturalisation rate

Ratio between the number of persons who acquired the citizenship of a country during a calendar year 
and the stock of foreign residents in the same country at the beginning of the year.

Recognised non-citizen

Person who is not a citizen of the reporting country nor of any other country, but who has established links 
to that country which include some but not all rights and obligations of full citizenship.

Refugee

Person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, 
political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside his or her country of nationality 
and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.

Residence permit

Any authorisation valid for at least 3 months issued by the authorities of an EU Member State allowing a 
third country national to stay legally on its territory.

Second-generation immigrant

Native-born person with at least one foreign-born parent.

Third-country nationals

Persons who are usually resident in the EU 28 and who do not have the citizenship of an EU 28 Member 
State.

Usual residence

Place at which a person normally spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary absences for 
purposes  of  recreation,  holidays,  visits  to  friends  and  relatives,  business,  medical  treatment  or  religious 
pilgrimage or, by default, the place of legal or registered residence.

101

Migrant integration  Glossary

Education

Bologna Process

Collective  effort  of  public  authorities,  universities,  teachers,  and  students,  together  with  stakeholder 
associations, employers, quality assurance agencies, international organisations, and institutions, including 
the European Commission. The main focus is:

 • the introduction of the three cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate);

 • strengthened quality assurance; and

 • easier recognition of qualifications and periods of study.

Early leavers from education and training

Persons aged 18–24 having attained at most lower secondary education and not being involved in further 
education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey.

International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)

Reference international classification for organising education programmes and related qualifications by 
levels and fields. ISCED 2011 is implemented in all EU data collections as from 2014. ISCED 2011 has nine 
levels of education, from level 0 to level 8:

 • ISCED 0: Early childhood education

 • ISCED 1: Primary education 

 • ISCED 2: Lower secondary education 

 • ISCED 3: Upper secondary education 

 • ISCED 4: Post-secondary non-tertiary education 

 • ISCED 5: Short-cycle tertiary education 

 • ISCED 6: Bachelor’s or equivalent level 

 • ISCED 7: Master’s or equivalent level 

 • ISCED 8: Doctoral or equivalent level

Data on educational attainment level are often presented for three aggregates:

•  Low education: levels 0–2

•  Medium education: levels 3–4

•  High education: levels 5–8

Participation rate in lifelong learning

Percentage of people who received education or training (formal or non-formal) during the four weeks 
preceding the survey.

102

  Migrant integrationGlossary

Young people neither in employment nor in education and training 
(NEET)

Percentage of the population of a given age group and sex who is not employed (i.e. who is unemployed 
or inactive) and not involved in further education or training.

Employment

Activity rate

Percentage of economically active persons in relation to the comparable total population.

Economically active population

Also referred to as labour force, this comprises employed and unemployed persons.

Employment rate

Percentage of employed persons in relation to the comparable total population.

International standard classification of occupations (ISCO)

International  classification  under  the  responsibility  of  the  International  Labour  Organization  (ILO)  for 
organising jobs into a clearly defined set of groups according to the tasks and duties undertaken in the job.

Long-term unemployment

Number of people who are out of work and have been actively seeking employment for at least a year.

Over-qualification

State of being skilled or educated beyond what is necessary for a job. The over-qualification rate is the 
number of over-qualified people as a percentage of the labour force.

Two indicators of over-qualification are presented in this publication:

•  objective over-qualification (the proportion of tertiary graduates working in jobs for which a degree 

is not required, ISCO level 4-9); and

•  subjective over-qualification (the proportion of employed persons declaring that their qualifications 

and skills would allow them to carry out more demanding tasks).

Self-employed person

Sole or joint owner of an unincorporated enterprise (one that has not been incorporated i.e. formed into a 
legal corporation) in which he/she works, unless he/she is also in paid employment which is his/her main 
activity.

103

Migrant integration  Glossary

Temporary employment

Includes work under a fixed-term contract, as against permanent work where there is no end-date. A job 
may be considered temporary employment if both employer and employee agree that its end is decided 
by objective rules, e.g. a specific date, the end of a task, or the return of another employee who has been 
temporarily replaced.

Unemployed persons

Persons  who  were  without  work  during  the  reference  week,  were  available  for  work  and  were  either 
actively seeking work during the last four weeks or had already found a job to start within the next three 
months.

Unemployment rate

Number of people unemployed as a percentage of the labour force.

Living conditions

At risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE)

Situation of people either at risk of poverty, or severely materially deprived or living in a household with a 
very low work intensity.

At-risk-of-poverty rate

Share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty 
threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers. 
This indicator does not measure wealth or poverty, but low income in comparison to other residents in 
that country, which does not necessarily imply a low standard of living.

Equivalised disposable income

Total  income  of  a  household,  after  tax  and  other  deductions,  that  is  available  for  spending  or  saving, 
divided  by  the  number  of  household  members  converted  into  equalised  adults;  household  members 
are equalised or made equivalent by weighting each according to their age, using the so-called modified 
OECD  equivalence  scale  (this  scale  gives  a  weight  of  1.0  to  the  first  adult,  0.5  to  any  other  household 
member aged 14 and over and 0.3 to each child under 14 years).

104

  Migrant integrationGlossary

Household

Defined  as  a  housekeeping  unit.  It  includes  either  one  person  living  alone  or  a  group  of  people,  not 
necessarily related, living at the same address with common housekeeping, i.e. sharing at least one meal 
per day or sharing a living or sitting room.

Types of household based on the migration status of the household members:

 • ‘native households’, where all adults are native-born with native background;

 • ‘immigrant households’, where all adults are immigrants;

 – ‘first-generation immigrant households’, where all adults are first-generation immigrants

 – ‘second-generation  immigrant  households’,  where  all  adults  are  second-generation  immigrants 

(native-born with a least one foreign-born parent);

 – ‘mixed immigrant households’, where at least one adult is from the first-generation of immigrants 

and at least one other adult is from the second-generation of immigrants.

 – ‘mixed households’, where at least one adult is native-born with a native background and at least 

one other adult is an immigrant.

Types of household based on the migration background of the household members;

 • ‘native background households’, where all adults have a background in the reporting country;

 • ‘EU background households’, where at least one adult has an EU background and none have a non-EU 

background;

 • ‘non-EU background households’, where all adults have a non-EU background;

 • ‘mixed  background  households’,  where  at  least  one  adult  has  a  background  in  any  EU  country, 

including the reporting country, and at least one adult has a background in a non-EU country.

Housing cost overburden rate

Percentage  of  the  population  living  in  households  where  the  total  housing  costs  represent  more  than 
40 % of disposable income.

In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate

Share of persons who are at work and have an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty 
threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income.

105

Migrant integration  Glossary

Material deprivation rate

Inability to afford some items considered by most people to be desirable or even necessary to lead an 
adequate life. The indicator represents the percentage of the population that cannot afford at least three 
of the following nine items:

1. rent, mortgage or utility bills;

2. keep home adequately warm;

3. face unexpected expenses;

4. eat meat or proteins regularly;

5. go on holiday;

6. television set;

7. washing machine;

8. car;

9. telephone.

Overcrowding rate

Percentage  of  the  population  living  in  an  overcrowded  household.  A  person  is  considered  as  living  in  an 
overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:

 • one room for the household;

 • one room per couple in the household;

 • one room for each single person aged 18 or more;

 • one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;

 • one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous 

category;

 • one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

Persons living in households with very low work intensity

Number of persons living in a household where the members of working age worked less than 20 % of 
their total potential during the previous 12 months.

Severe material deprivation rate

Enforced inability to pay for at least four of the above-mentioned items.

106

  Migrant integrationAbbreviations

Abbreviations and acronyms

Geographical aggregates and countries

EU-28 

EU-27 

The  28  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  from  1  July  2013  (Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece, 
Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom)

The  27  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  from  1  January  2007  to 
30  June  2013  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany, 
Estonia, 
Italy,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom)

Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France, 

Note that EU aggregates are back-calculated when enough information is available — for example, data 
relating to the EU-28 aggregate is presented when possible for periods before Croatia joined the EU in 
2013 and before the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, as if all 28 Member States had always been 
members of the EU.

Units of measurement

: 

% 

EUR 

pp 

Abbreviations

AHM 

AROPE 

COB 

COC 

no data available

percentage

euro

percentage points

ad-hoc module

at risk of poverty or social exclusion 

country of birth

country of citizenship

DG HOME 

Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs

EC 

ESS 

EU-LFS 

European Commission

European Statistical System

EU Labour Force Survey

107

Migrant integration   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations

EU-SILC 

HDI 

ISCED 

NACE 

NEET 

OECD 

EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

Human Development Index

International Standard Classification of Education

Statistical classification of economic activities

Young people neither in employment nor in education and training

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

108

  Migrant integration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct 
Information Centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 
http://europa.eu/contact

On the phone or by e-mail
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European 
Union. You can contact this service

 – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for 

these calls),

 – at the following standard number: +32 2 299 96 96 or

 – by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU 
is available on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu

EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from 
EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free 
publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 
in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.
eu

Open data from the EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides 
access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for 
free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

Migrant integration

‘Migrant integration statistics’ presents different aspects 
of the European Union (EU) statistics on the integration of 
migrants. The successful integration of migrants into society 
in the host country is key to maximising the opportunities of 
legal migration and making the most of the contributions that 
immigration can make to EU development. In this publication, 
migrant integration is measured in terms of employment, 
education, social inclusion and active citizenship in the host 
country. The analysis is based on 2015 statistics from the 
Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS), statistics on income and living 
conditions (EU-SILC) and Eurostat’s migration statistics.

In addition, this publication provides an analysis on the labour 
market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants 
based on the outcomes of the 2014 ad-hoc module of EU-LFS. 
Data are presented for the European Union and its Member 
States as well as for the EFTA countries.

For more information
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

M

i

g

r

a

n

t

i

n

t

e

g

r

a

t

i

o

n

2

0

1

7

e

d

i

t

i

o

n