Archive:Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) - a statistical portrait - population

This Statistics Explained article is outdated and has been archived - for recent articles on non-EU countries see here.

Data from April and May 2016. No planned article update.

Highlights

The share of the population from ASEM countries in the world population decreased from 69 % in 1960 to 62 % in 2014.

In 2015 around 4 5% of the population living in Singapore and Luxembourg were born abroad.

Natural population change, 1960 and 2014
(per 1 000 inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat (demo_gind) and the World Bank (DataBank)

This article is part of a Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) — A statistical portrait based on Eurostat’s publication Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) — A statistical portrait.

It focuses on population data about the European Union (EU), Norway and Switzerland in comparison with 21 Asian ASEM partners and covers key indicators concerning the size of the population, its age structure, the degree of urbanisation and population change.

The use of the term European ASEM partners in this article refers to the 28 Member States of the EU, Norway and Switzerland. The use of the term Asian ASEM partners in this article refers to the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the 11 remaining ASEM partners referred to as Northeast and South Asia (NESA).

Full article

Population key data

The Asian ASEM partners recorded substantially faster population growth during the period shown in Table 1. Between 1960 and 2014, European ASEM partners recorded average population growth of 0.4 % per year, whereas growth for Asian ASEM partners averaged 1.6 % per year, the latter being the same rate as the world average which it greatly influences. Between 1995 and 2000, ASEAN’s population overtook that of the EU-28.

Table 1a: Key data on population, 1960, 1961 and 2014
Source: Eurostat (demo_gind), (demo_r_d3area) and (demo_r_d3dens) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Table 1b: Key data on population, 1960, 1961 and 2014
Source: Eurostat (demo_gind), (demo_r_d3area) and (demo_r_d3dens) and the World Bank (DataBank)

As the population of the ASEM partners grew in recent decades, so did its population density, from 41 inhabitants per km² in 1961 to 91 inhabitants per km² by 2014. The European ASEM partners reported a population density of 111 inhabitants per km² in 2014 compared with an average of 70 inhabitants per km² among the Asian ASEM partners; both of these figures were above the world average of 56 inhabitants per km². Malta from the EU-28 and Bangladesh among the NESA partners both recorded population densities in excess of 1 000 inhabitants per km², while Singapore among the ASEAN members had the highest density of all, 7.8 thousand inhabitants per km². The least densely populated ASEM partners were Mongolia, Australia, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (all NESA countries).

Population structure

Figure 1 compares the age structure, in 2014, of the world, the EU-28, ASEAN and NESA, as well as the four largest ASEM partners. The peaks in the population structure of China among those in the age group 20–29 can be seen in the structure for NESA and that for the whole of the world, although the Chinese peaks for the age group 40–49 are less apparent. The age structures for India, Indonesia and Pakistan are somewhat more regular ‘bell’ shapes, with Pakistan displaying a particularly broad base and rapid narrowing starting at the age group 25–29, synonymous with relatively high birth rates and low life expectancy.

The age structure for the EU-28 is quite different: a much higher share of older persons reflecting higher life expectancy and the impact of the ‘baby-boomer’ cohorts on the population structure; the share of the age groups below those aged 45–49 years gets progressively smaller approaching the youngest cohorts, reflecting falling fertility rates over several decades. Another difference is the somewhat greater gender imbalance (than is typical for the world as a whole) within the EU-28 among older age groups.

Figure 1: Age pyramids, 2014
(% of total population)
Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

The age dependency ratio (young and old) shown in Figures 2 and3 summarises the level of support for younger persons (aged less than 15 years) and older persons (aged 65 years and over) provided by the working-age population (those aged 15–64 years). Despite different age structures across the various partners, the average ratios for the four groupings in 2014 are relatively similar, with the overall ratio pulled up by high old-age dependency ratios in some partners and by high young-age dependency ratios in others. Figure 3 focuses on the old-age dependency ratio and this shows a much greater range across the four groupings in 2014, with ASEAN members and NESA partners generally reporting relatively low old-age dependency ratios, aside from the notable exception of Japan.

Figure 2: Total
(young and old) age dependency ratio, 2014 (¹)
(%)
Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

Figure 3: Old-age dependency ratio, 2014 (¹)
(%)
Source: Eurostat (demo_pjangroup) and the World Bank (DataBank)

The share of the foreign-born population was relatively high in some of the wealthier, smaller ASEM partners, notably Singapore, Australia and Brunei Darussalam in Asia, and Luxembourg and Switzerland in Europe, where in 2015 around one quarter or more of the population was foreign-born (see Figure 4). By contrast, less than 0.1 % of the population was foreign-born in China and in Vietnam. For comparison, across the world around 3.3 % of the global population was living in a different country from the one in which they were born, a share that rose to an estimated 10.4 % for the EU-28 while it stood at 1.6 % in ASEAN and 1.1 % in NESA.

Figure 4: Foreign-born population, 2015
(% of total population)
Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb) and the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (Trends in International Migrant Stock)

Within the EU-28, nearly half of all foreign-born residents in 2015 came from countries that were not ASEM partners, such as other parts of Europe (for example, Turkey and parts of the former Yugoslavia), Asia or other continents. Some 15.8 % of foreign-born residents in the EU-28 were from Asian ASEM partners (mainly from NESA). By comparison, the share of foreign-born residents in Asian ASEM partners that were born in European ASEM partners was lower (8.2 %). The share was particularly low in ASEAN members where just 1.1 % of foreign-born residents were from European ASEM partners.

Table 2: Foreign-born population, 2015
Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb)Source: the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (Trends in International Migrant Stock)

Urbanisation

In 2015, the three largest urban agglomerations in the world were in ASEM partners, namely Tokyo (Japan), Delhi (India) and Shanghai (China). The 10 largest urban agglomerations in ASEM partners are shown in Table 3: they were all in Asian ASEM partners and ranked among the 16 largest agglomerations in the world. The largest urban agglomerations outside of the ASEM partners were São Paulo (Brazil), Mexico City and Cairo (Egypt). The largest urban agglomerations within the EU-28 were Paris (France) and London (the United Kingdom).

Table 3: Largest urban agglomerations in ASEM partners, 1950, 2000–20 (¹)
(million inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb)Source: the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Urbanisation Prospects)

Worldwide, there were more than 660 urban agglomerations with a population in excess of 750 thousand inhabitants in 2015 and together their aggregated population of 1.8 billion people was equivalent to nearly one quarter of the world’s population. More than half (363) of these large urban agglomerations were in ASEM partners, with 277 in NESA (China was home to 147 and India 67, as can be seen in Figure 5). There were 48 of these large urban agglomerations in the EU-28, 36 in ASEAN and two in Norway and Switzerland.

Figure 5: Number of urban agglomerations with more than 750 000 inhabitants, 2015 (¹)
(number)
Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb)Source: the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Urbanisation Prospects)

There is no globally accepted standard for distinguishing urban from rural areas, nor for delimiting the boundaries of urban agglomerations. For example, definitions and boundaries may be based on the availability of certain infrastructure, nationally-specific administrative boundaries, overall levels of population and/or levels of population density. The focus of Figure 6 is on the change in the share of the urban population between 1960 and 2015; at a global level this rose from 33.7 % to 54.0 %. Among the ASEM partners shown, particularly large increases in the share of the urban population were recorded for the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, China and Indonesia, while the highest increase in percentage point terms among the EU-28 Member States was in Bulgaria. Aside from Singapore, where the whole population lives in urban areas, the highest shares of urban population in 2015 were in Belgium and Malta in the EU-28 and in Japan among the Asian ASEM partners.

Figure 6: Share of urban population, 1960 and 2015
(% of total population)
Source: Eurostat (migr_pop3ctb)Source: the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Urbanisation Prospects)

Population change and migration

There are two distinct components to population change: natural population change that results from the difference between the number of live births and the number of deaths (see Figure 7); and the net effect of migration (see Figure 8), in other words, the balance between people coming into and people leaving a territory.

Comparing with 1960, China was the only ASEM partner where the natural population change was higher in 2014: in fact, China moved from a position of negative natural population change in 1960 to growth in 2014. Among the Asian ASEM partners, Japan moved in the other direction, from natural population growth to decline. All other Asian ASEM partners reported natural population growth in 2014, albeit slower than in 1960. Among the European ASEM partners, natural population growth also slowed between 1960 and 2014, with a negative rate of natural population change (the death rate exceeded the birth rate) in 11 of the EU Member States in 2014 and a balanced position in Poland. In 2014, natural population change was equal to or below 4.0 per 1 000 inhabitants in all European ASEM partners except for Ireland and Cyprus, while it exceeded this level in all Asian ASEM partners except for the Republic of Korea, Thailand, the Russian Federation and Japan. The rate of natural population change in the EU-28 in 2014 was 0.4 per 1 000 inhabitants, well below the world average of 11.6 per 1 000 inhabitants.

Figure 7: Natural population change, 1960 and 2014
(per 1 000 inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat (demo_gind) and the World Bank (DataBank)

The combined effect of immigration and emigration can be seen in the net migration rate. Figure 8 compares average net migration rates for the periods 1960–65 and 2010–15. Across all of the ASEM partners the two small, wealthy countries of Luxembourg and Singapore reported the highest rates of net inward migration for the latter period (2010–15).

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mongolia and several of the ASEAN members reported balanced net migration in the first half of the 1960s and negative net migration (more emigration than immigration) between 2010 and 2015, most notably in Lao PDR, Bangladesh and Cambodia. Singapore was unusual in that it moved from balanced migration between 1960 and 1965 to a particularly high net inward migration between 2010 and 2015. The Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation experienced net outward migration during the earlier period but net inward migration between 2010 and 2015. Five Asian ASEM partners reported net inward migration for both of the periods under consideration: Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Australia, Kazakhstan and New Zealand.

Figure 8: Net migration rate, 1960–65 and 2010–15 (¹)
(per 1 000 inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat (demo_gind)Source: the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision)

Among the European ASEM partners, net inward migration was relatively common during the period 2010–15. The main exceptions were the three Baltic Member States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) which recorded net outward migration having had net inward migration between 1960 and 1965, Romania that moved from a balanced position to net outward migration, and Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal which recorded net outward migration for both periods. Several European ASEM partners moved from a position of net outward migration between 1960 and 1965 to net inward migration between 2010 and 2015, most notably the islands of Cyprus and Malta, as well as Finland, Slovenia and Italy.

Source data for tables and graphs

Download Excel file

Data sources

The indicators presented are often compiled according to international — sometimes global — standards. Although most data are based on international concepts and definitions there may be certain discrepancies in the methods used to compile the data.

Most of the indicators presented for the EU (and its Member States), Norway and Switzerland have been drawn from Eurobase, Eurostat’s online database. In exceptional cases some indicators for the EU have been extracted from international sources.

For the Asian ASEM partners and their aggregates (ASEAN and NESA), the data presented have been extracted from the World Bank and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

For many of the indicators, multiple international statistical sources are available, each with their own policies and practices concerning data management (for example, concerning data validation, the correction of errors, the estimation of missing data, and the frequency of updating). In general, attempts have been made to use only one source for each indicator in order to provide a comparable analysis between the partners.

Aggregates for ASEM, the European ASEM partners and the Asian ASEM partners have been compiled from the data for individual partners as indicated above. As such, they may combine data from Eurostat and international sources.

Context

As a population grows or contracts, its structure changes. In many developed economies the population’s age structure has become considerably older as post-war ‘baby-boom’ generations reach retirement age, while in many developing countries the age structure is dominated by large numbers of young people. Many countries have experienced a general increase in life expectancy combined with a fall in fertility, in some cases to a level below that necessary to keep the size of the population constant in the absence of migration.