Principal/primary/main applicant is “in the migration context, the person who applies for refugee or other immigration status and under whose name the application is made.” (IOM, 2019).

Members of the family are “persons married to a migrant or a national, or having with them a relationship that, according to applicable law, produces effects equivalent to marriage, as well as their dependent children or other dependent persons who are recognized as members of the family by applicable legislation or applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements between the States concerned, including when they are not nationals of the State” (IOM, 2019).

Dependent is “in the migration context, any person who is granted entry into a State for the purpose of family reunification on the basis of being supported by a “sponsor” with whom the individual has a proven family relationship" (IOM, 2019).

Transnational families “are families who live apart, but who create and retain a ‘sense of collective welfare and unity, in short “familyhood”, even across national borders’” (Bryceson and Vuorela, 2002 in ACP, 2012).

According to preliminary estimates of standardised data, in 2023, permanent-type migration flows to OECD countries reached 5.9 million, a 9.7 per cent increase from 2022 and a 27 per cent increase from 2019. When national statistics are added (which are unstandardised), this figure is 6.5 million (+10 per cent from 2022, +28 per cent from 2019) (OECD, 2024).

Family migration remained the main category of permanent-type migrants, with 2.5 million family migrants in 2023, representing 43 per cent of all new permanent-type migration flows (of standardised data only) that year. This represents an increase of 18 per cent increase from 2022, while previously (2016-2019) family migration had remained stable at around 2 million family migrants each year (ibid.).

• United States of America (870,000)

• United Kingdom (373,000)

• Canada (238,000)

• Australia (102,000)

• New Zealand (72,000)
   

Source: OECD, 2024

Family reunification is possible for all migrants in 42 per cent of MGI countries, and possible for some foreign residents in 53 per cent of them (MGI Database, 2024).¹ There are regional variations with family reunification being an option for all migrants in 67 per cent of the MGI countries in Oceania, 45 per cent in Europe, 41 per cent in both the Americas and Africa, and 37 per cent in Asia (ibid.).
 

¹Note that this analysis is based on the Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) data from 100 countries.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) consolidates inflow data on family, work and humanitarian migration. The OECD dataset on permanent immigrant inflows is derived from Eurostat (see below) and non-EU countries. The dataset is updated on a biannual basis.
OECD also produces statistics on permanent migration inflows in the OECD area, based on the aforementioned dataset, which are presented in the OECD’s International Migration Outlook. The report also presents estimates on family migration for OECD countries and is updated annually.

Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union compiles data on asylum and managed migration primarily based on administrative sources provided by EU Member States’ national statistical offices, interior ministries or related immigration agencies, as well as by Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The database on asylum and managed migration presents the following datasets:

• First permits issued for family reunification with a beneficiary of protection status

• First permits issued for family reasons, by reason, length of validity and citizenship

• Change of immigration status permits, by reason and citizenship

• Admitted family members of EU Blue Card holders, by type of decision and citizenship

• EU Blue Card holders and family members, by member state of previous residence 

• Permits valid at the end of the year for family reunification with a beneficiary of protection status

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) measures migrant integration policies, including for those who come for family reasons. Similar to their previous rounds, MIPEX 2020 also measures how easily immigrants can reunite with their family members. Among OECD countries, data on family reunion – which were last updated in 2020 – are available for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

In light of the current political climate, in which family-based migration in some countries is discussed in connection to irregular migration or in the context of it being a burden to the social system of a host country, granular data on family migration are of special importance to deconstruct these particular myths with data-driven deliberations.

The existing data sources on family migration are valuable baselines, but further enhancement in data collection and harmonization methodologies is essential. In pursuit of these improvements there are limitations that hinder the process, including the following:

There is no global comparable database on family migration, which covers all countries and areas of the world. This is due to a lack of data from most developing countries. Data are missing due to a lack of capacity to collect, process and disseminate data on family migration in these countries. Even when data are available, it is often challenging to integrate and harmonize datasets of diverse origins because of inconsistent methodological frameworks.

There is still little known about the recent dynamics of family migration and about the impact of migration policies in shaping it (OECD, 2017). This is despite the availability of family migration data in some regions of the world. Moreover, the evidence-base regarding the socio-economic demographic characteristics of family migration in some countries has not been updated. For example, in the United States, the most recent surveys on socio-demographic characteristics of family migrants date from the 2000s (ibid.).

Statistics derived from administrative records do not portray the complete picture of the flow of family migrants (GMG 2017).  This is because, although administrative data sources enable the production of estimates on family migration, statistics derived from population registers and issuance of residence permits refer to administrative records rather than people (ibid.). For example, if the permit granted to the head of a family covers her or his dependents, the number of issued residence permits over a year will not be equivalent to the number of family migrants.  Some countries are undertaking initiatives to tackle this issue. They tend to combine different data types, namely survey data and administrative records, to improve the quality of migration data.

Data on transnational familyhood are scarce. Despite the growing importance of this type of family arrangement in recent years, there is still limited knowledge on the scale and dynamics of this type of family arrangement in a migration context. Evidence-based policy is needed to ensure the migration of a family member does not need to lead to those left behind suffering.  

Data on family emigration are currently incomplete because of the most countries’ limited capacity or lack of political will to collect data on family emigration. Thus, policy makers lack a sufficient evidence base to facilitate family emigration processes.