# Migrate5 variable **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [January 20, 2022, 6:35pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/migrate5-variable/4471 "2022-01-20T18:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![Ivan\_Strahof](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/ivan_strahof/32/626_2.png) [@Ivan\_Strahof](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Ivan_Strahof)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2022, 9:54pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/migrate5-variable/4471/2 "2022-01-28T21:54:01Z")
[Migrate5](https://international.ipums.org/international-action/variables/MIGRATE5#codes_section) reports migration across unharmonized administrative units. That might explain the unexpected results that you’re getting since there may be cases in which units that existed 5 years ago do not exist in the current census or where new units were created. To mitigate this issue, you will need to use a map of the unharmonized geographic units to determine what changes were made to that unit (i.e. which administrative unit it was combined with/separated from). There are a couple ways IPUMS can help you in this process. The first is that IPUMS does provide harmonized migration data on first-level administrative units in [GEOMIG1\_5](https://international.ipums.org/international-action/variables/GEOMIG1_5#codes_section). Second is that though the process of harmonizing data on second-level units is still on-going, there are a few countries for which this process is complete. If you reach out to us at [ipums@umn.edu](mailto:ipums@umn.edu) and the country is available, I can share translation tables that would help you in deriving second-level administrative units for migration variables that are consistent over time. This is a very complicated question, so I hope this answer helps! --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.ipums.org/t/migrate5-variable/4471)._