Wednesday’s employment figures saw several newspapers return, once again, to the question of the extent to which increases in employment levels are accounted for by economic migrants.

The Daily Mail, Express, Star, Telegraph and the Independent all featured a breakdown of the statistics which, according to the Express, showed that 77 per cent of the rise in employment went to workers born abroad.

It is a case where the statistics, while accurate, do not necessarily tell the complete story.

Full Fact has already looked in some detail at the problem of classing foreign-born workers as immigrants, and why looking at employment rates for different groups is just as important as employment numbers.

But a forthcoming essay of the Institute for Public Policy Research by Sarah Mulley (previewed on Left Foot Forward) shows how relatively small changes in the labour market can translate into the sort of startling headlines seen this week.

Talking only in terms of employment numbers can give rise to coverage like that seen in the Express.

The paper focuses on quarterly changes which show that the 188,000 rise in employment from the first quarter of 2010 to the second quarter included a 145,000 rise in employment levels for non-UK born workers – or 77 per cent of the increase.

However Ms Mulley points out how such eye catching figures can by produced by relatively minor changes in the proportion of the workforce accounted for by foreign or domestic workers.

She writes: “Let’s assume for a moment that in the period in question, 9m existing jobs were advertised, 1m jobs disappeared and 1,101,000 new jobs were created (net employment gain: 101,000). So at the beginning of the period there were 10m jobs, and at the end there were 10,101,000. Let’s assume that 92% (in line with the real percentage of the total working population) of the jobs that existed at the beginning were held by UK nationals and 8% by non-UK nationals. It only takes those proportions to shift to 91.1% and 8.9% by the end of the period to give 97,000 extra jobs to non-UK nationals and 4,000 extra to UK nationals (i.e. ‘96% of new jobs go to foreigners!’). Small changes in employment patterns can suggest very big impacts if only net figures are considered.”

The point is that it is just as easy to produce much less shocking figures from the same data.

For instance the employment rate among UK nationals was down 0.4 in the year on year for the second quarter of 2010, while the employment rate for non-UK nationals went up 0.6 per cent - hardly the stuff of front page splashes.

This week’s figures did undoubtedly show a rise in employment of those without UK citizenship or birth, against declining employment for both British citizens and those born in the UK. The question is more about the size and significance of this trend.

The IPPR essay explores some of the factors that may have contributed to this trend, and how simple view of migrants taking jobs that would have otherwise been done by UK born/UK nationals requires more nuance.

Alongside arguments about the UK unemployed being ‘trapped’ on benefits cited in some sections of the press, the article argues it is also worth considering the role played by factors such as different skill, or mobility levels among the migrant population.

Likewise doubts are raised about some of the conclusions that have been drawn by research published this week by campaign group MigrationWatch.
 

Looking at the correlation between areas which have seen high immigration flows in recent years, and those which experience high unemployment, a link between high migration and unemployment is suggested by MigrationWatch.
 

However the IPPR essay argues that with migrants more likely to move to urban areas with settled migrant populations and affordable rents, these will, in general, also be areas with higher unemployment anyway.

This would suggest correlation rather than causation between the two variables creating a more complex picture of the relationship between immigration and domestic unemployment levels.

Reason, if more were needed, to treat some of the headlines with a healthy dose of scepticism.