{"title":"Razlike u prikupljanju migracijskih podataka: usporedba Hrvatske i odabranih europskih zemalja","authors":"Dario Pavić, Ida Ivanović","doi":"10.11567/met.35.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"the in of and remittances, -der, and of fertility, in the of the migration the most and demographic processes, standardised procedures between countries, international comparability of data. theory of migration does and we several perspectives. by two main processes. Firstly, since Croatian law is not unequivocal on the deadline for deregistration, many Croatian emigrants simply do not know when to deregister, in addition to not knowing how long they will stay in the country of immigration. Furthermore, there are negative consequences for deregistering. Croatian citizens would lose many health and social benefits in Croatia if they deregister. There is also evidence that the Croatian interior affairs and judicial system are not very efficient in punishing those that do not deregister. Secondly, most of the countries require registration at the end of three months, Germany even after 14 days. Since immigrants have more incentives to register in the new country, the numbers of immigrants are higher than those of emigrants from Croatian data. These numbers can also be mis-leading, as in the case of Germany, where there are many more annual emigrants to Croatia than the Croatian data reveal, meaning that people come and go to Germany several times annually. In conclusion, this research reveals the imperfections in the registration process, the differences in the logic and procedure of data acquisition, and dissemination, and different traditions of data acquisition throughout Europe. It is therefore of vital in-terest to harmonise the data gathering process by unifying the definitions of migra -tions, the registration process and data dissemination. For Croatia, the imperative is to adopt the concept of usual residence, to implement the population register and to change the laws on residence accordingly. The ideal for all European countries should be the cooperation between Nordic countries where the process of data shar ing is efficient and the statistics are fully comparable.","PeriodicalId":259479,"journal":{"name":"Migracijske i etničke teme / Migration and Ethnic Themes","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Migracijske i etničke teme / Migration and Ethnic Themes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11567/met.35.1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
the in of and remittances, -der, and of fertility, in the of the migration the most and demographic processes, standardised procedures between countries, international comparability of data. theory of migration does and we several perspectives. by two main processes. Firstly, since Croatian law is not unequivocal on the deadline for deregistration, many Croatian emigrants simply do not know when to deregister, in addition to not knowing how long they will stay in the country of immigration. Furthermore, there are negative consequences for deregistering. Croatian citizens would lose many health and social benefits in Croatia if they deregister. There is also evidence that the Croatian interior affairs and judicial system are not very efficient in punishing those that do not deregister. Secondly, most of the countries require registration at the end of three months, Germany even after 14 days. Since immigrants have more incentives to register in the new country, the numbers of immigrants are higher than those of emigrants from Croatian data. These numbers can also be mis-leading, as in the case of Germany, where there are many more annual emigrants to Croatia than the Croatian data reveal, meaning that people come and go to Germany several times annually. In conclusion, this research reveals the imperfections in the registration process, the differences in the logic and procedure of data acquisition, and dissemination, and different traditions of data acquisition throughout Europe. It is therefore of vital in-terest to harmonise the data gathering process by unifying the definitions of migra -tions, the registration process and data dissemination. For Croatia, the imperative is to adopt the concept of usual residence, to implement the population register and to change the laws on residence accordingly. The ideal for all European countries should be the cooperation between Nordic countries where the process of data shar ing is efficient and the statistics are fully comparable.