A variação do saldo migratório internacional do Brasil

7Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Administrative records from consular representations in Brazil and abroad are not adequate to estimate international migration balance (the difference between inmigration and emigration) for two main reasons. First, such data are not always available. Second, even if available, these data are not reliable sources of internatonal migration flows due to underestimation of illegal migration. Thus, it is not possible to use these records to unveil the magnitude and direction of Brazil's international migration balance. Indirect techniques allows estimating international migration balance from two consecutive censuses. These techniques involve comparing the population in the second census (the "observed population") and an "expected population", which is an estimation of the dosed population in the second census (that is, the expected population in the second census assuming absence of international migration - emigration and inmigration - between the two censuses). The difference between the observed and the closed population is a proxy of the international migration balance. Even considering problems in these estmations, notably the variability in census coverage rates between 1980 and 1991, it can be inferred that Brazil had a negative migraton balance (or alternatively, a higher number of emigrants compared to inmigrants) of about 1.8 million people. The balance, still negative, felt to about 550,000 people between 1990-2000. This decline can be attributed almost entirely to the decline in Brazilian emigration. The 1991 and 2000 censuses reveal a very small increase in Brazilian international inmigration. © 2006 Instituto de Estudos Avançados da Universidade de São Paulo.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

de Carvalho, J. A. M., & de Campos, M. B. (2006). A variação do saldo migratório internacional do Brasil. Estudos Avancados, 20(57), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142006000200005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free