IMR 45, Vol 4, 2011 4

Success on European Labor Markets: A Cross-national Comparison of Attainment between Immigrant and Majority Populations1
Florian Pichler University of Vienna
Typical labor market outcomes vary considerably between majority and migrant populations. Drawing on scholarship from across the social sciences, we assess competing micro- and macro-level explanations of differential occupational attainment among immigrant groups across 28 countries. The analyses of occupational attainment are run separately for rst- and second-generation migrants as well as children of mixed marriage and take into account their wider social and cultural background. Results from four rounds of the European Social Survey show that people with a migration background do not necessarily achieve a lower labor market success than the majority. However, human capital, social mobility, and cultural background explain these outcomes to different degrees, suggesting tailored pathways to labor market success for each group of migrants. We also nd that occupational attainment varies considerably across countries, although this is hardly attributable to immigration policies. These and other ndings are discussed in the light of previous studies on immigrant incorporation.
I am indebted to Martin Bulmer and Laura Hyman, both from the University of Surrey, Great Britain, Stefanie Smoliner from the Centre for Social Innovation, Vienna, Austria, and three anonymous reviewers of IMR for their careful reading and commenting on earlier versions of this article. Florian Pichler is Assistant Professor at the University of Vienna, Austria. He has obtained his PhD in 2006 from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and has held a lectureship in the Sociology department at the University of Surrey until 2010. His current research includes comparative studies on migration, anti-foreign sentiment, cosmopolitanism, social capital, and identities. He has recently published in International Journal of Comparative Sociology, International Sociology, and European Sociological Review.
2011 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2011.00873.x
938
IMR Volume 45 Number 4 (Winter 2011):938978
Success on European Labor Markets
939
INTRODUCTION
Participation in the labor market is one of the most important factors of successful integration of immigrants into society (e.g., Alba and Nee, 2003; Joppke and Morawska, 2003). However, an abundant literature on integration, here broadly dened as committing groups in one way or another to the dominant mainstream in society, gives evidence that ro cz, migrants face persisting inequality on labor markets (Portes and Bo 1989; Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004; Kogan, 2006; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Migrants have been shown to experience lower wages, participation rates, and occupational status which in turn hinder their opportunities for a more comprehensive integration and often deny them a proportional share of the economic resources needed to equally succeed in modern societies (Alba and Nee, 1997; Zhou, 1997a; Rumbaut, 1997; Mouw and Kalleberg, 2010). How can we explain the labor market outcomes of immigrants? Lower levels of education, foreign education, deciencies in language skills, belonging to classes of lower social status as well as ethnic and cultural attributes are frequently reported as important obstacles to labor market success among migrants (e.g., Farley and Alba, 2002; Crul and Doomernik, 2003; Cheung and Heath, 2007; Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi, 2008; Portes ndez-Kelly, 2008). Beyond these explanations, a growing number and Ferna of studies investigate characteristics of national labor markets and how they chel and Frick, 2005; Kogan, 2006, affect outcomes of immigrants (Bu 2007; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007; for a theoretic overview, see Reitz, 2002). Such studies demonstrate that the welfare provision, employment regulation and immigration policies of different countries impact upon the ways in which migrants fare in their host labor markets. To better understand lower labor market outcomes of migrants, this article empirically assesses a series of potential individual and structural determinants of outcomes across Europe. We elaborate on the existing literature in three important ways. First, we distinguish between four different groups dened by origin to study similarities and differences in correlates of labor market success. We provide separate accounts of labor market success for rst- and second-generation migrants as well as children of mixed marriages and compare them to the majority. Such a disassociation might yield some new insights because various migrant groups may differ from each other on a series of dimensions. For instance, rst-generation immigrants
940
International Migration Review
may experience disadvantages on the labor markets from factors such as a disruptive migration process, insufcient destination-country language skills or foreign education; however, the second generation have lived in the country for their whole life and have obtained domestic education. Therefore, they should not be disadvantaged on the same terms (Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi, 2008). Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007) also give empirical evidence of such different inroads into labor market outcomes; however, their study largely assumes that children of mixed marriages face the same chel and Frick, 2005). Yet, having situation as second generation (see also Bu one native parent may result in their social and cultural integration being substantially different from their second-generation counterparts, and their situation may instead more closely resemble that of the majority population. Hence, separate analyses could therefore lead to more accurate portrayals of labor market outcomes and minimize the danger of deceptive conclusions concerning different groups of immigrants. Second, we extend the list of correlates of labor market success to include a wider set of parental and cultural background characteristics. We investigate consequences of parental education and differentiate between various countries of origin of respondents and their parents. Such multiple-origin studies are not necessarily new (Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004), but they have rarely been combined with separate analyses of migrant groups (cf. Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). This should shed some more light on whether particular groups are locked in to disadvantageous situations to different degrees depending on their sociondez-Kelly, 2008). cultural background (e.g., Platt, 2005; Portes and Ferna Although the caveat exists that migrant groups are generally difcult to compare across countries because of variegated historical contexts of population movements, previous empirical research that has done so provides valuable insights into shared patterns of labor market integration across countries (e.g., Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004; Kogan, 2006; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007; Heath and Cheung, 2007). Yet, these studies have mainly been limited to Western Europe. Notwithstanding that immigration has been the larger issue in more afuent Western Europe, UN gures also show that immigration has become increasingly relevant to Eastern European countries (United Nations, 2010). In light of this but also taking into account recent efforts by the European Union to establish common immigration policies regarding new internal and external ows of migrants, restricting the analysis to immigrants of Western European countries seems less and less justiable. Our analyses
941
therefore do not only cover Western Europe but also include a list of Eastern European countries in order to explore labor market outcomes of migrants in an enlarged Europe. In the following sections, we propose a number of hypotheses about the determinants of labor market outcomes of various immigrant groups. The main focus of our study is on differences in individual-level correlates of labor market success between various migrant groups; however, we also assess macro-level explanations for different outcomes. To empirically test these claims, our multilevel analyses draw on European Social Survey (ESS) data from 28 European countries covering the period 20022008 (Norwegian Social Science Data Services, 2008).
DETERMINANTS: MIGRANTS AND LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

The most prevalent accounts of variegated labor market outcomes refer to the ways in which differences in human capital (Becker, 1962), social mobility (e.g., Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992) and, highly relevant to people coming from different countries, migration background inuence nez, labor market outcomes (e.g., Farley and Alba, 2002; Waters and Jime 2005; Heath and Cheung, 2007). Human capital, or a persons knowledge and skills, is usually regarded as a core contributing factor to a persons productivity and their labor market outcomes (Becker, 1962). Migrants, however, face a predicament; many of their skills stem from foreign education which might result in (1) difculties assessing their human capital from an employers perspective and (2) disposable knowledge and skills not equally needed in the destination country (e.g., Cheung and Heath, 2007; Buzdugan and Halli, 2009). Hence, foreign human capital may be devalued and payoffs from education and prior experience can often be lower for immigrants than for natives. Theories of statistical discrimination add to this that employers may apply different standards when it comes to the allocation of jobs to specic groups such as migrants (e.g., Phelps, 1972; Stiglitz, 1973; Cain, 1986). Drawing on general beliefs about and or prior experience with migrant workers, employers might judge migrants capacities based on group characteristics rather than individual merit, which could translate into a devaluation of their education. For example, migrants could be generally assessed as more mobile and thus more likely to quit a job. Or, migrants could be viewed as less reliable as they come from countries with
942
different work cultures and their cultural origin may be, rightly or wrongly, associated with less punctuality or precision in executing job tasks. Lower labor market outcomes could then be a sort of risk penalty migrants have to pay for employment in the destination country. Previous studies lend strong support to such trends, showing that rst-generation migrants do not only achieve lower attainment levels but also fall short of benetting from higher levels of education to the same degree as the majority (e.g., Dustmann, 1993; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007; Heath and Cheung, 2007). Chiswick (1978; Chiswick and Miller, 2008) has intensively studied the complexity of this issue and puts forward three explanations as to why immigrants education may not yield the same payoffs: (1) self-selection in migration; (2) limited international transferability of skills and (3) general discrimination against immigrants. According to Chiswick and Miller (2008), decisions to migrate are more frequently made by people who are very able and motivated despite their low levels of formal education. These migrants then prove to be more productive in their destination country than their schooling would imply. Therefore, they may achieve labor market outcomes that are substantively above that which could be expected on educational grounds. While selfselection mainly concerns the low-educated, highly skilled migrants often face a limited transferability of their skills across national borders. Only in cases that these workers nd jobs that accord with their skill level, Chiswick and Miller (2008) postulate equal earnings increments for additional education as compared to the majority. However, more often than not highly skilled immigrants nd themselves in jobs for which they are either overeducated or their education is not appropriately recognized, which in turn accounts for the lower educational payoffs. Rather than general discrimination, limited transferability in combination with the stronger performance of low-skilled migrants is thus responsible for the seemingly lower payoffs of education for foreign workers (Chiswick and Miller, 2008). Following the aforesaid ideas, one would not necessarily expect that the second generation would experience similar disadvantages. Self-selection among the highly able can largely be ruled out; over-education may remain an issue, but it is questionable why this should be more prevalent among second generation than majority groups. The same patterns may hold for children of mixed marriage if educated in the host country, but it is less clear how foreign education affects labor market outcomes of those children. These people might, for instance, further benet from higher ability such as the near-perfect knowledge of two languages (if raised
943
bilingual) or other valuable cultural and social capabilities gained through their socialization in a context of mixed familial background. However, because such skills would not have been acquired through formal education, it remains to be seen whether education plays a lesser role in this case. In accordance with previous results, our rst hypothesis then assumes that education plays a smaller role in labor market attainment of migrants as compared to the majority (hypothesis 1) while the education of the second generation (and children of mixed marriage) should not be devalued (hypothesis 1a). Apart from the skills obtained via formal education, it is also well established that prociency in the host countrys language has a considerable impact on labor market attainment (Chiswick, 1978; Braun, 2010). Unless immigrants and their offspring are able to speak the language of the country of residence reasonably well, they often nd themselves tied nto unfavorable labor market positions (Zhou, 1997b; Portes and Ferna dez-Kelly, 2008). Among others, Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flaps (2004) study shows that speaking the host language uently is positively associated with labor force activity and employment. We therefore hypothesize that migrants with higher levels of language prociency experience better labor market outcomes (hypothesis 2). Likewise, we assume that the same holds for the second generation (hypothesis 2a). Labor market prospects also depend on the social origin of employees. Erikson and Goldthorpes (1992) work illustrates how parental education and occupation have long-lasting ramications on labor market outcomes by facilitating or exacerbating upward social mobility across generations. Numerous studies show that the success of immigrants is limited in these terms (e.g., Crul and Doomernik, 2003; Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi, 2008; Rumbaut, 2008). Additional studies demonstrate that the impact of social class origin also varies with ethnicity and that migrants of particular origins may suffer from blocked social mobility, or similarly, segmented assimilation (e.g., Zhou, 1997b; Simon, 2003; Platt, 2005; ndez-Kelly, 2008). These studies indicate that migrants Portes and Ferna and their offspring often nd themselves trapped in low-status occupations for generations or that only migrants from particular origins are socially upward mobile while other migrant groups are not. Arguably, there are a number of competing explanations as to why the education and labor market success of parents might inuence future outlooks of their children. For instance, low-achieving parents might lack the funds for their childrens education or they may be unaware, not
944
appreciative or insufciently supportive of inroads into higher education (Konczal and Haller, 2008; Kroneberg, 2008). Migrants frequent own experience of lower labor market attainment or bleak prospects may also lead to a loss of belief in their childrens payoffs from investment into higher education. Therefore, parental education and occupation are considered stronger predictors of migrants and second generations accomplishments as compared to the majority (hypothesis 3). Because intermarriage between parents can already be taken as a good indication of successful integration in the destination country (e.g., Qian and Lichter, 2007; Dribe and Lundh, 2008; Lucassen and Laarman, 2009), it is also feasible to hypothesize that parental background could play a lesser role for children of mixed marriage than it does for the rst and second generation (hypothesis 3a). Social distance between people of different socio-cultural backgrounds creates additional obstacles, immobility and inequality and further ingrains differences in labor market mechanisms and outcomes (e.g., Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004; Bohon, 2005; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Social distance is especially applicable to immigrants because their lack of contacts with the majority as well as more observable differences in race or ethnicity might marginalize them, be taken as proxies for diminished productivity or ignite other discriminatory practices (cf. Phelps, 1972; Arrow, 1998). Numerous single and multiple-country studies demonstrate that origin matters greatly for labor market success (e.g., Borjas, 1999; Kalter and Granato, 2002; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). More recent EU policy further indicates a sharp distinction between internal migrants, that is, citizens of one EU member state moving to another, and people from outside the EU, highlighting the differential treatment of immigrants with a view to political (and socio-cultural) proximity. Hence, we anticipate that immigrants who are, or are generally perceived as, more different from the majority than others, usually approximated through distant origin of immigrants (non-Western, non-European), face the greatest obstacles to labor market success (hypothesis 4). Following from this, origin should play a more decisive role for migrants than for the second generation since the latter group is more familiar with the cultural life of the destination country (hypothesis 4a). The parental background of children of mixed marriage may also blur the lines of social and ethnicity-based distinctions. Hence, we would assume that the origin of the non-native parent has no substantive effect on labor market outcomes of children of mixed marriage (hypothesis 4b). Initial social distance and other markers of distinction might, however, diminish over time because migrants adapt to the destination
945
environment, accumulate country-specic human capital or are generally recognized as being part of society (cf. Chiswick, 1978). The longer immigrants settle in the country, the better is their integration in general and the higher are their labor market prospects and outcomes (e.g., Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004). However, some studies are less conclusive about such a convergence in European contexts, indicating that duration of residence does not necessarily lead to higher outcomes (e.g., Shields and Price, 1998; Husted et al., 2001). Acquiring citizenship could even outdo the duration of residence in its importance for attainment, indicating the immigrants commitment and efforts to integrate. Studies show that naturalization not only provides access to a wider selection of jobs, especially higher middle-class occupations and public employment, but also promotes other labor market outcomes by, for instance, accelerating wage growth (e.g., Euwals et al., 2010; Bratsberg, Ragan, and Nasir, 2002). Our fth hypothesis combines both of these arguments about adaptation to the host society over time and postulates that longer residence as well as citizenship point toward better labor market outcomes.
CONTEXT: MIGRANTS ON EUROPEAN LABOR MARKETS

Theoretic perspectives suggest a number of explanations as to why immigrants could do better in one country than another. Originating from research in North America, Reitz (2002) proposes a number of interrelated features of host societies which could determine the prospects of immigrant incorporation. First, pre-existing ethnic relations may affect how new immigrants fare on the labor market. In a European context, established relations with immigrants or other ethnic groups may be related to colonialism and immigration policies after the Second World War. Former imperial countries such as France and Britain have attracted overseas immigrants over a longer period of time. Large-scale immigration to other European countries especially to Germany, Austria or Switzerland only took off after the implementation of guest-worker programs in the 1950s and 1960s (Castles, 2006). Other countries such as Spain or Portugal have only recently changed from being an emigration country to an immigration country (see, for instance, Feld, 2005; Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi, 2008). Historical experience thus provides a sound basis for assuming some variation in ethnic relations between majority and migrant groups across Europe. The two features of countries which have attracted most attention in empirical work are, however, differences in labor market institutions and
946
government policies (Reitz, 2002). These accounts appear to be particularly relevant to studies of immigrants incorporation in Europe where countries differ more widely in labor market structures and immigration policies such as naturalization, residence, work permits, social and political participation but also on general welfare provision. Such direct policies assist immigrant settlement by establishing equal-opportunity frameworks, anti-discrimination regulations, shaping inter-group relations and providing training (Reitz, 2002). They generally reect openness and immigration-friendliness of polities. Previous studies then illustrate that variation in immigrant policies plays some role in migrants differential prospects chel and Frick, 2005; of incorporation into society across Europe (e.g., Bu Schain, 2010). Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007), however, nd that quantitative indicators of such integration policies fall somewhat short of explaining a meaningful part of cross-national variation in migrants labor market outcomes. Reitz (2002) reports that the effects of these policies may be more indirect and thus more difcult to quantify. We may therefore assume that more open immigration policies only modestly enhance the labor market outcomes of migrants in direct ways (hypothesis 6). Similarly, labor market institutions may affect the outcomes of migrant groups. Among others, employment regimes, industrial relations or unemployment rates frame opportunities of migrants. More often than not, these institutions constitute barriers to the labor market, which particularly affect immigrants as domestic regulators may be suspicious about the impact of immigration on their own situation. The interrelations between these mechanisms and other societal institutions, however, necessitate complex analyses of these mechanisms, which seem only feasible for two or three countries at a time (Reitz, 2002). Yet, international studies also report some effects of employment regulations and welfare institutions on labor market outcomes of migrants (e.g., Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007; Kogan, 2007). The ndings indicate that more generous welfare regimes and rigid labor market institutions may disadvantage immigrants and hint toward selective protection of the majority rather than the overall workforce. According to Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007), higher employment protection may stimulate statistical discrimination against migrants; Kogan (2007) reports that the highest labor market outcomes of immigrants are found in liberal welfare regimes. To capture this sort of contextual heterogeneity, we nally assume that stricter employment regulations negatively impact on migrants levels of attainment (hypothesis 7a) and that migrants fare better in liberal welfare regimes than in other ones (hypothesis 7b).
947
DATA AND METHODS

To test our hypotheses, we use data from four rounds of the ESS covering the period 20022008 (Norwegian Social Science Data Services, 2008). The ESS is an academically driven, large-scale, repeat cross-sectional social survey, covering over 30 European countries. Its rigorous methodology, relatively large sample size (approximately 2,000 respondents per country per round) and high data quality standards make the ESS a prime source for comparative survey research across European societies. In this study, we rely on 118,295 respondents aged 1565 years, who have been surveyed in four biennial rounds in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 in 28 countries.2 While the ESS does not particularly address migrants as its main target population, it allows a distinction between various migrant groups and their origin. Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007) discuss these important comparative advantages over other data sources such as a series of labor force surveys used by Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap (2004) or studies which focus on a small number of countries and or migrant groups (e.g., Chiswick, Lee, and Miller, 2003; Barrett and Duffy, 2008; Kasinitz et al., 2008). We draw on indicators of place of birth to identify four mutually exclusive groups: (1) majority, that is, people whose parents have both been born in the country of residence and who do not count themselves toward any ethnic minority (N = 99,947);3 (2) migrants who have been
Countries included are: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom. Although data from Bulgaria, Israel, Romania and Turkey are available, we exclude these respondents from the analyses because of issues of data comparability and sample size. For the analysis of labor market outcomes of the second generation, we have further eliminated data from Cyprus, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Russian Federation because of small sample sizes (N < 25). 3 The aforesaid sample sizes apply to non-weighted pooled data. Group sizes vary across countries. While different sizes of migrant groups reect social reality, empirical studies may be driven by those countries for which survey data include many respondents with migration backgrounds. Using hierarchical models in our study, we are partially able to deal with this imbalance in group sizes and account for it in the estimation of xed and random effects respectively. In addition, we have run models excluding data from some countries (e.g., Estonia and Latvia) because of the contested nature of some ethnic minorities and or immigrant groups in these countries. These models, however, do not indicate that the exclusion inclusion of these respondents has any noteworthy effect on our outcome variables. Results are available from the authors upon request.
2
948
born abroad without any native background in the country of residence (N = 8,315), (3) second generation whose parents have both been born abroad but who themselves have been born in the country of residence (N = 2,562), and (4) children of mixed marriage, with one indigenous parent and the other born elsewhere (N = 7,471). Country-specic sample sizes by group and gender are presented in Table A1. To assess labor market outcomes, we rst present participation and unemployment rates. These gures are derived from answers to survey questions about the main activity during the last 7 days prior to the interviews. However, the focus of this study is on occupational attainment of migrants as the ESS provides the most accurate data on this indicator. Following Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007), we derive a measure of labor market success from the occupational classication scheme EGP, developed by Erikson, Goldthorpe, and Portocarero (1979). In comparison with alternative measures (participation and unemployment rates, personal and or household income wage, or ISCO ISEI), EGP provides a widely used indicator which also correlates highly with alternative instruments. EGPs original 11 categories have then been dichotomized: high occupational attainment comprises people in controlling positions (higher and lower controllers, or groups I and II respectively); and not-high occupational attainment comprises all remaining groups (such as routine non-manual, self-employed, skilled, and unskilled manual work).4 This dichotomy helps assess the chances of belonging to the higher middle classes as indicated by higher occupational status, which is sometimes seen as an important criterion of social standing in European societies (cf. Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). While this dichotomization is undoubtedly a simplication, a more complex, multi-group measure of labor market success would lead to considerably unbalanced sample sizes across the various categories, some problems in statistical estimation using a large number of explanatory variables and a potential blurring of the line of demarcation between high and not-high labor market success.
4 EGP correlates highly with ISCO 1-digit codes (q = 0.85 in the pooled sample; 0.74 q 0.90 in specic countries) and total household net income (in deciles) (q = 0.33 and 0.20 q 0.50 respectively), suggesting the use of EGP as the best available proxy for labor market success (all correlation coefcients calculated using 2008 ESS data). Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007) study also shows that various indicators of labor market success, among them a dichotomous EGP-based measure of occupational attainment, are highly correlated and produce very similar results in analyses concerning the determinants of labor market success of migrants.
949
Using hierarchical logistic regression models, we assess the explanatory power of competing theories of high (coded 1) versus not-high low (coded 0) occupational attainment separately for each of the four groups. Random effects of average attainment take into account cross and within-country differences over the four survey rounds. Independent variables enter the models as xed effects because of the small sample size of 28 countries. These models can be expressed as follows: Yijk b0jk b1 HCijk b2 SMijk b3 MBijk b4 Cijk c1 Zjk eijk x1 HSijk b0jk c000 u0jk v00k 1 2
Yijk is the logit-transformed dependent variable pertaining to high occupational attainment of individual i in ESS round j in country k; b0jk includes the constant c000 and its random within-country variation u0jk and acrosscountry variation m00k (see equation 2); the matrix HC comprises independent variables referring to human capital, SM includes measures of social mobility; MB points toward migration background while the matrix C adds further individual-level control variables, and their respective xed regression coefcients b1 to b4. Zjk is a matrix including structural variables at the country level with regression coefcient c1, of which some also vary across survey round j. eijk is the residual at the individual level. Following previous studies, our analyses are run for male and female respondents separately (cf. Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004; Kogan, 2006; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). We have also controlled for potential sample selection bias because the likelihood of entering the labor market may vary across groups (and gender). Using a Heckman selection model, we have calculated the Inverse Mills Ratio and included it in our models. x1HSijk tries to capture this selection effect.5 Preliminary multilevel models further show that changes in aggregate labor market outcomes at the survey round level (level 2) are negligible as this variation
The Heckman selection model regresses a variable indicating either valid or missing data on occupational attainment on a series of predictors. In these models, we have included the following independent variables: education, work experience, experience of unemployment, working experience abroad, language spoken at home, working hours, number of children, place of residence, religious denomination, parental education, country of birth, mothers country of birth, citizenship status, and duration of residence.
5
950
only amounts to 3 percent or less of the total variance and can thus be analytically ignored for our purposes (see Snijders and Bosker, 1999). This also implies that pooled data do not conceal potential changes in aggregate occupational attainment over the period 20022008 in any of the four groups. We therefore use average scores of macro variables over the period 20022008 instead of providing them for each point in time. To assess the effects of human capital on labor market attainment, we rst include the number of years of schooling and control for work experience in years, work experience abroad,6 experience of being unemployed and working hours. Language skills are also included in our models, but the ESS does unfortunately not provide a direct measure of language prociency. However, we have derived a proxy from a variable that concerns the language most often spoken at home. We have computed a dummy variable that indicates whether the language most often spoken at home is an ofcial national language of the country of residence or not. Arguably, speaking the host countrys language at home points toward migrants higher language prociency (see Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Second, we test correlates of social mobility, that is, the extent to which parental background may affect labor market success of their offspring, by referring to the parents highest educational achievement. Third, we elaborate on migration background of migrants, second generation and children of mixed marriage. Here, we examine inuences of country of birth, mothers country of birth, citizenship, and duration of residence. We distinguish between 14 regions where migrants come from. Unsurprisingly, most come from within the European Union; but there are other sizable groups originating from a series of countries regions such as Turkey, the Balkans, other non-EU Eastern Europe, Asia, Central- and South America as well as African regions. After some considerations, we have only included mothers origins for second generation and children of mixed marriage as mothers are thought of being more inuential in socialization in general (see also Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Moreover, parental origins are highly correlated in most of the cases, and
Unfortunately, the ESS does not further distinguish between years of work experience in different countries. In the case of migrants, we can thus not assess how many years they have worked in the destination labor market and how many in others. While working abroad for majority members might indicate mobility and valuable foreign experience, in the case of migrants the same indicator might just reect employment in the origin country.
6
951
sample sizes would not sufce to account for interaction effects of specic combinations of parental origin. Table A2 shows detailed sample sizes of all 14 origin regions by migrant groups and gender. Finally, we add controls for the number of children, place of residence, and religious denomination to account for additional correlates of labor market success as identied in the broader literature. Selected descriptive statistics of these and other individual-level variables are presented in Table A3. At the country level, we include World Bank indicators of GDP growth and ofcial participation and unemployment rates which all describe the economic and labor market situation in European countries between 2002 and 2008. Our welfare regime typology extends that of Esping-Andersen (1990) by including Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal as Southern European Mediterranean welfare regimes, which are characterized by an extended role of the family in providing welfare (see Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). In contrast to previous studies, our analysis also comprises a number of Eastern European countries which are more difcult to include in a welfare typology. Nonetheless, to provide an exhaustive indicator, we have established two other categories for (1) Eastern European countries which have joined the EU (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) or maintain very close links to the EU (Croatia) and (2) which have not (Russia and Ukraine). We also test whether employment protection accounts for variable occupational attainment of migrants in Europe. The OECD provides an index of employment protection constructed from 21 items on individual dismissals of workers with regular contracts, costs for collective dismissals and regulations of temporary contracts. Values range from 0 to 4 where higher values indicate stricter protection regimes.7 Finally, we assess the explanatory power of indices capturing national immigration policies (Migration Integration Policy Group, 2007). These indices range from 0 to 100 where high values indicate immigration integration friendly policies on the dimensions of Access to Nationality, Anti-Discrimination, Family Reunion, Labor Market Access, Long-term Residence and Political Participation. For instance, the Labor Market Access Index reects the eligibility for jobs, state help for migrants to adjust to the domestic labor market and others. Anti-Discrimination refers to policies
See also <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/38/42773608.xls> (accessed November 29, 2010).
7
952
concerning denitions and concepts of discrimination on various grounds, for example, ethnicity, religion and nationality, enforcement, and encouragement to bring forward a case and so on. Long-term Residence captures the length of time until permanent residence permits are granted, restrictive requirements and associated rights with permanent residence (see Migration Integration Policy Group (2007) for more details). The effects of these structural variables on labor market outcomes have to be assessed in separate models because of statistical limitations that exist as a result of the rather small number of countries included in the analysis. Results will therefore provide insights into alternative accounts rather than explanatory power of one structural explanation over others. Country-level statistics of all structural variables are available in Table A4.
RESULTS Labor Market Outcomes of Different Groups: Descriptive Findings

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of labor market outcomes participation and unemployment rates, and occupational attainment by group and gender. Mean participation rates vary considerably more across groups for men than for women. The percentage of men in the majority who are participating equals 73 percent; participation is considerably higher among
TABLE 1 LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES OF DIFFERENT GROUPS. REPORTED LEVELS UNEMPLOYMENT, AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT
OF
PARTICIPATION,
Group
Participation (%) Mean Min Max 80 74 91 73 92 83 88 71
Labor Market Outcomes Unemployment High Attainment (%) (%) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max 5 4 7 7 9 6 6 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 9 14 18 25 21 12 10 36 36 28 33 37 39 41 41 21 19 4 7 4 9 22 16 54 51 43 51 54 55 57 54
Mean 1,957 2,159 161 182 71 74 142 160
N Min 407 452 7 13 12 11 17 15
Max 3,829 3,795 551 654 206 212 303 362
Majority Male 73 62 Female 56 46 Migrant Male 78 53 Female 55 21 2nd generation Male 69 42 Female 57 29 Mixed parental background Male 73 54 Female 56 33
Source: European Social Surveys, rounds 14. Data weighted. Note: Country means, minimums, and maximums.
953
migrants (78 percent) and is somewhat lower among second-generation men (69 percent). Among women, participation rates are more or less equal across groups and amount to approximately 56 percent. We also nd substantial cross-national variation indicated by minimum and maximum participation rates given in Table 1. Unemployment rates also vary across groups, with the highest level of unemployment reported by the second generation. As for high occupational attainment, 36 percent of majority men and women report high occupational status. A lower proportion of migrant men achieve the highest occupational status (28 percent) than women do (33 percent). However, the second generation and the children of mixed marriage report higher levels of occupational attainment than majority. For 37 percent of second-generation men and 39 percent of women, high occupational attainment is indicated. Percentages of those with high attainment levels rise further still to 41 percent for both genders among the children of mixed marriage. However, we also observe larger cross-national variation in these gures which raises the question of whether these differences may be brought about by compositional effects, that is, that different countries may attract differently qualied migrants or whether there are country-level explanations for different attainment across groups and gender (see Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004). Figure I shows a more detailed comparison of rates of high attainment between majority (x-axis) and migrants (y-axis) by gender. The 45 degree line indicates equal outcomes for both groups in each of the charts. In most countries, migrant men report equal or higher participation rates than majority men with the exceptions of Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Latvia. For women, however, such a trend does not appear to exist. While migrant women participate considerably less often than the majority in Poland and Finland, migrant women participate comparatively more often in many other countries. Unequal labor market outcomes are much more pronounced in the case of unemployment where both migrant men and women report higher levels than the majority. This holds for almost all countries under study with the exception of migrant men in Russia, Hungary, and Italy, where none of the sampled men report unemployment (but note the smaller sample sizes shown in Table A1). A very similar picture arises from the comparison of occupational attainment. In most countries, migrants of both genders less often report high attainment than majority. This is particularly true for men in Greece but also in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and some other
Figure I.
954
Labor Market Outcomes of Majority and First-generation Migrant Male (Top) and Female (Bottom) Populations in 28 Countries. Labor Market Participation, Unemployment Rate and Occupational Attainment (Proportions)
Source: European Social Surveys, rounds 14. Data weighted. Notes: AT, Austria; BE, Belgium; CH, Switzerland; CY, Cyprus; CZ, Czech Republic; DE, Germany; DK, Denmark; EE, Estonia; ES, Spain; FI, Finland; FR, France; UK, United Kingdom; GR, Greece; HR, Croatia; HU, Hungary; IE, Ireland; IT, Italy; LU, Luxembourg; LV, Latvia; NL, Netherlands; NO, Norway; PL, Poland; PT, Portugal; RU, Russian Federation; SE, Sweden; SI, Slovenia; SK, Slovakia; UKR, Ukraine.
955
countries, where differences in occupational attainment between migrants and the majority are largest. It is also true for women in most of these countries, although country-level patterns of high occupational attainment among women do not necessarily run in parallel to those among men. This pattern can be illustrated with data from Austria where migrant women report relatively better labor market outcomes than the majority, while migrant men in this case report considerably lower levels of attainment. The aforementioned ndings should, however, be interpreted with some caution because of the variable sample sizes of migrants across countries and the fact that different countries attract migrants from different origins; indeed, we have not yet considered any analytical explanation for these ndings. To provide a fuller picture, we rst discuss so-called baseline multilevel models (not shown), in which we partition the variance in labor market attainment at the country, survey round and individual levels after controlling for selection bias. As has already been noted, our baseline models indicate an absence of variability of occupational attainment across survey rounds within countries (level 2). More importantly, however, the baseline models also identify some countries which show dissimilar patterns of labor market outcomes for some groups (see bottom of Table 2 for a list of these countries). After isolating these countries, that is, removing them from the random part, country-level variation has unsurprisingly decreased and now only accounts for up to 5 percent in the case of male migrants after controlling for sample selection bias in baseline models. Figure II presents boxplots of odds for high occupational attainment obtained from these baseline models. It can be easily seen that second generation and migrant males fare, on average, considerably worse than majority males, while the sons of parents with mixed background do better. Although there is a similar trend among women, the daughters of mixed marriages do not report higher average levels of occupational attainment than majority women. Figure II also indicates substantial country-level variation in occupational achievement. In this respect, occupational attainment most strongly varies across countries for the majority suggesting general structural differences between European labor markets. This variation, however, appears less pronounced for male immigrants and even lesser so for the second generation, where the rather short whiskers illustrate smaller cross-national variation in attainment. This also suggests a rather similar experience of these groups across Europe with the exceptions of Great
956
RESULTS
ON
FROM
LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS Migrant Male OR p 1.17 1.30 *** 1.01 * 1.03 ** 1.02 * 1.03 *** *** *** *** 1.01 0.67 1.31 * *** 0.80 1.47 0.63 1.32 0.83 1.37 Female OR p
TABLE 2 OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)
Majority
Indicator *** *** ***
Male OR p
Female OR p
2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p 0.74 1.28 1.01
Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p * *** *
0.65 1.36
1.02
0.55 0.49 0.71 *** * *** 0.73 *** *** *** * 1.12 0.62 0.64 ** ** 0.84 0.84 1.49 * 0.60 ** 0.62 ** ** 0.72 *** 1.32 0.59 0.60 1.04 1.98 1.00 1.02 *** 1.01 0.96 1.44 ** 1.23 0.79 0.83 No obs 0.60 1.18 1.03 0.55 0.72 0.91 0.97 1.20
*** *** ***
0.47 0.59 0.89
*** ***
0.69 0.73 0.9
* *
0.52 0.54 0.91
* *
0.62 0.59 0.71
0.52 0.45 0.75 0.83 1.05 *** * 1.00 0.85 0.40 0.61 0.80 1.05
*** *** *
0.72 0.65 0.89 0.62 1.72 1.02 0.77 ** ** 0.53 0.73 0.70 1.07
* ** ** ** ***
0.61
1.13
1.01
NA
0.64
* * **
0.71 0.86
Constant 0.67 *** Education (ft) 1.39 *** in years Work 1.03 *** experience (years) Experience unemployment Recent short 0.59 *** Recent long 0.49 *** Previous 0.79 *** short Previous 0.58 *** long Experience 1.14 ** abroad (no) Working 1.00 ** hours week Language NA (majority) Parental education (upper secondary) Not 0.62 *** completed primary Primary 0.70 *** Lower 0.78 *** secondary Post1.14 * secondary
1.14
RESULTS Migrant Male OR p 1.71 2.88 0.41 1.78 0.34 0.47 0.54 0.89 0.62 0.42 ** *** *** 1.42 0.45 0.69 *** * NA NA NA 0.57 0.43 0.34 0.72 1.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA *** * 0.61 0.66 1.05 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA *** 0.58 ** NA NA *** 0.76 0.55 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA *** 1.25 1.78 1.41 1.59 * *** 1.43 ** 1.47 1.24 1.26 1.45 2.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Female OR p
FROM
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)
Majority
Indicator *** ***
Male OR p
Female OR p
2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p ** ***
Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p
1.37
1.54
NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA NA
NA NA NA
1.49 *** First stage tertiary Second stage 1.57 *** tertiary Country of birth (EU15) New EU12 NA Western nonNA EU Europe Eastern non-EU NA Europe Balkan NA Turkey NA Western NA non-Europe Middle East NA India, Pakistan, NA Bangladesh China NA Other Asia NA Central and NA South America, Caribbean North Africa NA Other Africa NA Mothers country of birth (native) Old EU15 NA New EU12 NA 0.58 0.71 NA NA * 0.65 0.47 NA NA ** NA NA Ref 0.41 * NA NA Ref 0.59 NA NA 0.95 0.67 *
NA NA
NA NA 1.04 0.70
NA NA
957
958
RESULTS Migrant Male OR p NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.18 0.79 0.61 NA NA 2.18 1.13 No obs 0.81 No obs 1.35 0.39 NA NA NA 1.04 0.55 0.07 0.84 1.59 No obs 0.57 2.53 1.26 0.24 1.10 No obs 1.99 1.75 NA 0.29 ** 0.62 0.95 NA 0.11 No obs 1.20 Female OR p
FROM
Majority
Indicator
Male OR p
Female OR p
2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p 1.32 0.95 1.11 3.06 0.63 1.97 5.15
NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA NA
NA NA NA
No obs 1.25 1.19
NA NA NA ** Ref 1.09 0.85 1.11 0.79 0.98 Ref 0.81 0.88 1.01 1.15 0.94
NA NA 0.74
NA NA 0.98
0.34 0.40 0.89 NA NA NA NA NA 1.03
1.85 1.78 0.78 NA NA NA NA NA 1.01
1.75 1.66 0.63 0.84 0.69 1.28 0.83 No obs 1.06
0.64 1.22 0.82 0.84 0.48 0.99 0.60 0.42 0.97 **
Western nonNA EU Europe Eastern non-EU NA Europe Balkan NA Turkey NA Western NA non-Europe Middle East NA India, Pakistan, NA Bangladesh China NA Other Asia NA Central and NA South America, Caribbean North Africa NA Other Africa NA Citizenship (yes) NA Duration of residence (born in country) More than NA 20 years 1120 years NA 610 years NA 15 years NA <1 year NA Children at home 1.04 **
NA
NA NA NA NA 0.99
RESULTS Migrant Male OR p Female OR p
FROM
Majority
Indicator
Male OR p
Female OR p
2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p
**
*** *** *** * *
1.01 0.91 0.79 0.70 ** *** *** *
0.79 0.83 0.74 0.51
1.03 0.76 0.82 0.81
1.12 0.78 0.85 No obs
1.00 0.90 0.85 No obs
0.94 0.80 0.78 0.65
1.15 0.91 0.89 0.78 * ** * *
** ** 1.009 0.222 3.152 2.807 ** 0.103 0.214 ** 0.000 ** * * 0.231 ** *
***
1.03 1.00 1.10 0.61 0.401
1.07 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.215
0.85 1.01 0.97 0.79 0.773
0.86 1.39 0.83 0.96 0.174
0.97 1.55 1.38 0.77 0.610
0.91 0.90 0.56 0.29 0.332
1.17 0.78 0.96 1.10 0.344
1.828 2.363
1.868 2.878 * 0.180
* **
2.392 2.117 0.036
** **
Domicile (big city) Suburbs 0.96 Small city 0.80 Country village 0.64 Countryside 0.42 Religious denomination (none) Roman Catholic 1.06 Protestant 1.01 Eastern Orthodox 0.79 Islam 0.65 Sample selection 0.311 control (IMR) Countries (xed) Great Britain Greece Luxembourg Netherlands 1.857 Switzerland Random parts variation Country 0.178 variation
**
0.098
Source: European Social Survey, rounds 14. Twenty-eight countries (22 in the case of 2nd generation). Notes: Odds ratios for high labor market attainment and levels of statistical signicance. Models control for sample selection bias (Heckman selection model). Reference categories in parentheses, continuous predictors centered. Missing and unreliable cases dummied out. In logistic regression models, the individual-level variance of the dependent variable is constant and equals p2 3 = 3.29. Tables including logits and or standard errors are available from the authors upon request. OR, odds ratio; p, p-value; NA, not applicable; No obs, no observations; Ref, reference category. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
959
960
Figure II.
Boxplots of Odds for High Labor Market Attainment of 1565-Year-olds For Majority, First-generation Migrants, Second-generation and Children of Mixed Parental Background, by Gender
Source: European Social Survey, waves 14. Notes: Estimated odds without control variables (baseline models). CH, Switzerland; NL, Netherlands; GB, Great Britain. * denotes outliers at p < 0.05; s denotes outliers at p < 0.10.
Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands, where children of immigrants (in the Netherlands only sons) do signicantly better than in any other country in our study. To explain these differential labor market outcomes, we rst seek explanations in human capital, social mobility, and migration background. As has already been mentioned, some of these country-level differences between migrants and majority may result from the composition of migrant groups in specic countries. In a second step, we examine any remaining country-level variation with a view to a series of structural indicators alluding to the socio-economic environment as well as immigration integration policies across Europe.
961
Explaining Differences in Occupational Attainment of Majority and Immigrant Groups

Table 2 presents odds ratios for high occupational attainment from hierarchical logistic regression models including individual-level explanations. For the most part, and consistent with theory, human capital, social and migration background all correlate signicantly with occupational attainment. Beginning with human capital factors, Table 2 clearly illustrates that additional years of schooling have a great impact. This effect, however, varies notably across groups and gender. In particular, one additional year of full-time education increases the odds for high labor market attainment by 39 percent (odds ratio of 1.39) among majority men, by 30 percent among male migrants; by 47 percent among male second generation and by 37 percent among sons of mixed marriage. As for women, we nd that education has the strongest effect among female majority (odds ratio of 1.36) and the lowest among daughters of mixed marriage (1.28). These different odds ratios suggest that the effects of education may be different across groups but do not show whether these differences are statistically signicant. Following Snijders and Bosker (1999), we calculate 95-percent joint comparative condence intervals to assess whether these effects are statistically signicantly different from each other or not. Compared with majority men (odds ratio of 1.39), results suggest that education has a statistically signicantly smaller effect among migrant men (1.30) and a slightly greater effect among second-generation men (1.47) in comparison with the male majority (1.39) as the respective condence intervals do not overlap. These additional computations further suggest that women of all groups benet less from education than male majority. Moreover, female immigrants education (1.31) and that of daughters of mixed marriage (1.28) is signicantly less correlated with occupational attainment than that of women of the majority (1.36). These ndings largely corroborate our rst hypothesis, that is, that education indeed plays a smaller role for immigrants in labor market attainment. We do, however, not nd evidence that education is devalued in the case of the second generation. Yet, the daughters of mixed marriage tend to benet less from additional education as compared to their majority counterparts, leading to a partial rejection of hypothesis 1a. In response to hypothesis 2, our models suggest that language skills mainly matter for migrants and female second generation, whereas we do
962
not nd signicant effects in the remaining groups. Odds ratios of 0.73 (migrant men) and 0.72 (migrant women) respectively show that persons who do not speak the majority language at home report considerably lower levels of occupational attainment. The odds decrease by 45 percent among second-generation women; however, this is not accompanied by a similar effect among male second generation, which is puzzling. Nonetheless, we generally nd strong support for the importance of language skills for migrants and their offspring to succeed on labor markets (hypothesis 2). The one exception noted earlier, however, casts some doubt on whether language similarly matters for both genders among the second generation (hypothesis 2a). Social mobility, or lack thereof, plays a crucial role in occupational attainment. We nd strong statistical support for the thesis that parents education has a long-lasting impact on their childrens labor market attainment. These trends are very similar across all groups: the lower the educational level of ones parents, the lower ones chances are to attain high occupational status. These ndings generally contradict hypothesis 3 which states that migrants tend to be more locked in to social immobility than majority. Only in one instance does parental education seem to be more important for migrants than majority; this is the case of migrant men whose parents have obtained second-stage university education. In this case, migrant men are almost three times (OR = 2.88) as likely to achieve high occupational attainment, which is again using joint comparative condence intervals statistically signicantly different from the coefcient in the male majority model (1.57). For the second generation, none of the parental education coefcients is statistically signicant. We believe, however, that this is mainly because of smaller sample sizes and it should thus not be assumed that parental education is irrelevant for this group, especially because all coefcients point in similar directions as compared to other groups. As illustrated in Table 2, the origin of migrants is strongly associated with occupational attainment. Smaller odds ratios for high labor market attainment exist for both male and female migrants who were born outside the 15 old EU member states. This is particularly true for immigrants from non-EU Eastern European countries and the Balkans as well as those from South and Central America and large parts of Asia. Interestingly, while males from new EU member states (New EU12) as well as those from Turkey, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and North Africa also show a lower likelihood of obtaining high-status
963
occupations, the odds for high attainment are not decreased for their female counterparts. In contrast, migrants from EU15 countries (the reference group in this analysis) have equally good or even better labor market prospects than majority. This is derived from a comparison of the intercepts of the models. For migrant men from old EU15, the constant yields an odd of 1.17 (0.67 for women) for high occupational attainment, everything else equal. This suggests higher levels of occupational attainment for these migrants than for majority men, whose odds are equal to 0.67, and at equal attainment of migrant women and majority women (odds equal to 0.65) as conrmed by non-overlapping joint condence intervals. These ndings thus largely support hypothesis 4 to the extent that immigrants from non-Western and or non-European origins report lower levels of occupational attainment as compared to immigrants from geographically or culturally closer regions. Interestingly, some migrant groups especially men with Western European origins are even shown to outdo their majority counterparts, everything else equal. Results also indicate that maternal origins tend to matter in fewer instances for the second generation and even less still for children of mixed marriage, lending support to the extended hypotheses 4a and 4b. For example, occupational attainment of male second generation is only lower in three cases, that is, when their mothers come from new EU member states, non-EU Eastern Europe or North Africa; and children of mixed parents have smaller odds ratios for success on European labor markets only in one case, that is, when their mothers come from new member states of the European Union. Finally, there is an evident lack of any signicant effect of duration of residence on migrants labor market outcomes in our study. Furthermore, citizenship only modestly correlates with labor market outcomes in the case of male migrants, where lack of citizenship is shown to lower the odds for high labor market attainment by 26 percent (odds ratio of 0.74). Thus, hypothesis 5 can only be partially sustained at this point. One explanation for this could be grounded in the cross-sectional character of our study. That is to say that duration of residence may be confounded with cohort effects of new incoming immigrants because individual- and group-level differences between migrants who moved more and less recently could be responsible for this nding.
964
Structural Determinants of Occupational Attainment

Now that the individual-level determinants of labor market outcomes have been examined, some of the remaining cross-national variation in occupational attainment might be explained with respect to macro-level differences between countries. These analyses (see Table 3) have, however, been restricted to a comparison between majority and migrants because it is theoretically less clear if and how immigration policies exert spill-over effects on the second generation or children of mixed marriage. Starting with indices from the Migration Integration Policy Group (2007), we nd no statistical evidence that immigration and integration policies might affect migrants labor market outcomes once we control for individual-level correlates. None of the six dimensions of integration policies appear to hinder or enhance migrants prospects of occupational attainment in any way, which leads us to reject our sixth hypothesis. While this might not seem intuitive, Fleischmann and Dronkers (2007) have already argued that these policy measures offer rather weak explanations with regard to the assessment of migrants occupational attainment across different Western European countries. Economic and labor market indicators (overall participation and unemployment rates, employment protection measures) are neither shown to constitute strong mechanisms behind these country differences. Only national unemployment rates appear to inuence labor market outcomes of both migrants and majority to the extent that where unemployment rates are higher, odds ratios for high labor market attainment are lower. GDP growth, overall participation rates, and employment protection legislation have no signicant effects on migrants occupational attainment. We therefore also reject hypothesis 7a, which anticipated negative effects of employment conditions on migrant workers. Turning toward broader welfare regulations, migrants face worse odds for high labor market attainment, especially in Southern European countries. In comparison with migrants working in conservative welfare regimes, odds ratios of 0.35 (men) and 0.27 (women) strongly suggest a signicantly inferior situation for migrants on these labor markets. For women, social democratic welfare regimes and Eastern European countries also provide bleaker prospects. Similar ndings are obtained for majority women; however, majority men are particularly less likely to obtain high labor market outcomes only in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. While these differences suggest that welfare regimes matter for migrant
965
TABLE 3 STRUCTURAL EFFECTS ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT AMONG MAJORITY AND MIGRANTS. RESULTS (ODDS RATIOS) FROM HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION MODELS CONTROLLING FOR INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL CORRELATES Majority Men Indicator OR p * * * *** ** Migration Integration Policy Indices Access to nationality 1.01 Anti-discrimination 1.01 Family reunion 1.00 Labor market access 1.01 Long-term residence 1.00 Political participation 1.01 GDP growth 0.89 Unemployment rate 0.93 Participation rate 1.03 Employment protection 1.19 Welfare State (conservative) Social democratic 0.75 Liberal 0.71 Southern 0.68 Other: Eastern EU-Europe 0.46 Other: Russia and Ukraine 0.47 Random part VC Without macro-level indicators 0.18 Migration Integration Policy Indices Access to nationality 0.16 Anti-discrimination 0.18 Family reunion 0.20 Labor market access 0.16 Long-term residence 0.20 Political participation 0.16 GDP growth 0.12 Unemployment rate 0.13 Participation rate 0.16 Employment protection 0.19 Welfare State 0.12 Female OR p 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.02 0.92 0.66 0.93 0.60 0.67 0.79 VC 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.08 * Migrant Male Female OR p OR p 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.92 1.02 0.91 0.67 0.85 0.35 0.66 0.87 VC 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.05 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.92 1.03 0.78 0.50 0.72 0.27 0.64 1.13 VC 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.06
* * * p ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** *** * p ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
*** p
*** * p ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
* * * * * * *
Source: European Social Surveys, rounds 14. World Bank, OECD, and Migration Integration Policy Group (2007). Notes: Reference categories of categorical predictors in parentheses. Models include all individual-level predictors as shown in previous analyses. Macro-level indicators are entered into the models one at a time because of small N at the country level. Random parts denote the remaining, that is, unaccounted, variance at the country level. The smaller the random part of a specic model, the better the explanatory power of the indicator. C, coefcient; SE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; p, p-value; VC, variance component. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10 (two-tailed).
labor market success, we cannot corroborate Kogans (2006, 2007) ndings that migrants fare best in liberal regimes and thus have to reject the corresponding hypothesis 7b.
966
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper examines labor market outcomes of different migrant groups. It extends that which has been explored in previous studies by synthesizing individual and structural explanations of occupational attainment in a cross-national 28-country study. Using ESS data from 20022008, the study provides accounts of labor market success for the rst and second generation of migrants as well as children of mixed marriage. We explore several explanations of differential labor market outcomes that concern human capital, social mobility, and cultural background and assess the extent to which characteristics of the country of destination covary with migrants successes on European labor markets. Initial hierarchical regression models that control for selection bias highlight substantive differences in occupational attainment between migrants and majority. In line with the literature, we nd that human capital plays a major role in explaining this variability (cf. Chiswick, 1978; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Moreover, education appears to be devalued for rst generation, that is, additional education has smaller payoffs for these immigrants (Chiswick and Miller, 2008). Unsurprisingly, migrants labor market outcomes hinge on language skills, and we also nd some evidence that a lack of language skills may be just as much of a hindrance for the second generation. Social mobility is another factor frequently associated with lower occupational attainment among migrants. Yet, new statistical evidence suggests that migrants in Europe may not be tied to their parental social origins to a greater extent than the majority. Because other European studies highlight the variable impact of class origins across different migrant and ethnic groups, it could thus be the case that social immobility concerns migrants from different origins to different degrees (e.g., Crul and Doomernik, 2003; Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi, 2008). A relationship has also not been found between occupational attainment and duration of residence of migrants or their citizenship status (cf. Chiswick, 1978; Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004). Yet, Shields and Price (1998) and Husted et al. (2001) have already claimed that residency may not be as decisive in Europe as in the United States when it comes to immigrant integration on the labor market. Unfortunately, data from the ESS, or any other source for this matter, do not provide the necessary level of detail or sample size to undertake any further examination of these issues in a broader comparative perspective.
967
What seems to carry a very large weight is origin of migrants. Here, our study generally corroborates previous ndings indicating that specic origins especially Eastern European, Asian, and African constitute barriers to high labor market outcomes across Europe (cf. Kalter and Granato, 2002; Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap, 2004; Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Unsurprisingly, origin loses some importance for second generation and even more so for children of mixed marriage however, second generation originating from Eastern European countries persistently report lower outcomes. In terms of internal migration within the European Union, these results may also bear a message for future divisions in a common European labor market. If a signicant gap in occupational outcomes endured between migrants from old member states and migrants from new Eastern European member states, free movement of labor would benet Western Europeans to a greater extent than Eastern Europeans an outcome which may contradict wider European integration intentions. The analysis has also shown that separating the second generation from children of mixed marriage yields important insights into the labor market outcomes of these two groups. Descriptive ndings show that children of mixed marriage have a huge advantage over the second generation on European labor markets; this has not been sufciently addressed by previous work (e.g., Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). However, these differences are largely explained by a combination of individual-level characteristics suggesting that the second generation and the children of mixed marriage differ in terms of their average levels of education, social, and cultural background. Children of mixed marriage prot from knowledge of two cultures and they might also belong to higher social classes in the rst place (Alba and Nee, 2003; Qian and Lichter, 2007). European Social Survey data, for instance, illustrate that children of mixed marriage disproportionally come from highly educated households and more often speak the host countrys language at home in comparison with the second generation. As for explanations of country differences in occupational attainment, structural indicators of labor markets provide few insights. Interestingly, different immigration policies do not explain variable labor market outcomes of migrants across Europe. These ndings are broadly in line with some previous research, which portrayed quantitative measures of immigration policies as rather modest accounts (cf. Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). While such measures provide useful and much
968
needed descriptions of national policies, one could also more critically assess the intentions of immigration policies. Are they designed to assist immigrants in their incorporation or do they mainly aim at regulating future inows? Are they concerned with establishing equal opportunities for migrants or do they perpetuate existing cleavages between population groups? Our ndings allow us to conclude that contemporary policies may predominantly focus on mechanisms rather than outcomes on labor markets and that they may target anticipated new immigration to a greater extent than immigrants who are already in the country. Because there can be some doubt that current efforts are being sufciently made to complement these speculations with rm evidence, we suggest that legal scholars, political and social scientists, and economists should take these thoughts on board when studying immigration in the future. What partially accounts for some cross-national variation in migrants occupational attainment are broader welfare policies. Here, we nd that migrants face more adverse situations in Mediterranean countries, while we cannot nd higher outcomes of those migrating to liberal welfare regimes as compared to the conservative ones (cf. Kogan, 2006, 2007). With a view to the ndings at the individual level, one could thus speculate about the broader effects of characteristics of the host country. It appears that different countries attract differently qualied migrants and that individual characteristics of migrants mainly account for crossnational variation in labor market outcomes rather than immigration policies. Institutions of the host country might thus be more indirectly linked to migrants occupational attainment, at least from a statistical viewpoint (cf. Reitz, 2002). Notwithstanding these important insights, this study is limited in some ways. International comparative analyses of migrants labor market outcomes would ideally draw on large data sets which include detailed information about the ethnic, social, and economic background facilitating representative multiple-group, multiple-destination and multiple-origin studies over time. For obvious reasons, contemporary comparative survey research is not fully achieving this and the ESS is no exception. These difculties might be one of the most convincing reasons for why the available literature tends to focus on a rather small number of contexts or even specializes in single-nation studies, examining dominant immigrant groups and using different measures of labor market attainment across selected countries. However, as immigration is becoming a more
969
common occurence across Europe, survey research is able to extend that which has been carried out in a few countries and examine similarities and differences in migrants incorporation in a larger number of labor markets. Thus, quantitative empirical research is able to provide much needed information for EU policymaking on common patterns of immigrant integration (cf. Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007). Here then, we want to suggest that future surveys should undertake an even more concerted effort to capture immigrant populations in order to broaden the discussion about best incorporation practices and experience in countries that are, because of historical and political reasons, less likely to be picked for such detailed explorations. This is not only important from an academic perspective, but given the increasing salience of migration in times of economic crisis, it is well worth exploring how migrants and their offspring fare from a public point of view.
REFERENCES
Alba, R., and V. Nee 1997 Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review 31(4):826874. , and 2003 Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Arrow, K. J. 1998 What Has Economics to Say about Racial Discrimination? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):91100. Barrett, A., and D. Duffy 2008 Are Irelands Immigrants Integrating into Its Labor Market? International Migration Review 42(3):597619. Becker, G. S. 1962 Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. The Journal of Political Economy 70(5):949. Bohon, S. A. 2005 Occupational Attainment of Latino Immigrants in the United States. The Geographical Review 95(2):249266. Borjas, G. J. 1999 Heavens Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bratsberg, B., J. F. Ragan Jr, and Z. M. Nasir 2002 The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics 20(3):568597.
970
Braun, M. 2010 Foreign-language Prociency of Intra-European Migrants: A Multilevel Analysis. European Sociological Review 26(5):603617. chel, F., and J. R. Frick Bu 2005 Immigrants Economic Performance across Europe Does Immigration Policy Matter? Population Research and Policy Review 24(1):175212. Buzdugan, R., and S. S. Halli 2009 Labor Market Experience of Canadian Immigrants with Focus on Foreign Education and Experience. International Migration Review 43(2):366386. Cain, G. C. 1986 The Economic Analysis of Labor Market Discrimination: A Survey. In Handbook of Labor Economics. Ed. O. C. Ashenfelter, and R. Layard. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 693781. Castles, S. 2006 Guestworkers in Europe: A Resurrection? International Migration Review 40(4):741766. Cheung, S. Y., and A. F. Heath 2007 Nice Work if You Can Get It: Ethnic Penalities in Great Britain. In Unequal Chances: Ethnic Minorities in Western Labour Markets. Ed. A. F. Heath, and S. Y. Cheung. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 507550. Chiswick, B. R. 1978 The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-born Men. The Journal of Political Economy 86(5):897921. , Y. L. Lee, and P. W. Miller 2003 Patterns of Immigrant Occupational Attainment in a Longitudinal Survey. International Migration 41(4):4769. , and P. W. Miller 2008 Why is the Payoff to Schooling Smaller for Immigrants? Labour Economics 15:13171340. Crul, M., and J. Doomernik 2003 The Turkish and Moroccan Second Generation in the Netherlands: Divergent Trends between and Polarization within the Two Groups. International Migration Review 37(4):10391064. Dribe, M., and C. Lundh 2008 Intermarriage and Immigrant Integration in Sweden: An Explanatory Analysis. Acta Sociologica 51(4):329354. Dustmann, C. 1993 Earnings Adjustment of Temporary Migrants. Journal of Population Economics 6(2):153168. Erikson, R., and J. H. Goldthorpe 1992 The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , , and L. Portocarero 1979 Intergenerational Class Mobility in Three Western European Societies: England, France and Sweden. British Journal of Sociology 30(4):415441.
971
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990 The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Euwals, R., J. Dagevos, M. Gijsberts and H. Roodenburg 2010 Citizenship and Labor Market Position: Turkish Immigrants Germany and the Netherlands. International Migration Review 44(3):513538. Farley, R., and R. Alba 2002 The New Second Generation in the United States. International Migration Review 36(3):669701. Feld, S. 2005 Labor Force Trends and Immigration in Europe. International Migration Review 39(3):637662. Fleischmann, F., and J. Dronkers 2007 The Effects of Social and Labour Market Policies of EU-countries on the Socio-Economic Integration of First and Second Generation Immigrants from Different Countries of Origin. EUI Working Paper Series, 2007 19. Florence, SC: European University Institute. Heath, A. F., and S. Y. Cheung (Eds) 2007 Unequal Chances: Ethnic Minorities in Western Labour Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heath, A. F., C. Rothon, and E. Kilpi 2008 The Second Generation in Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology 34:211235. Husted, L., H. Skyt Nielsen, M. Rosholm and N. Smith 2001 Employment and Wage Assimilation of Male First-Generation Immigrants in Denmark. International Journal of Manpower 22(1 2):3968. Joppke, C., and E. Morawska (Eds) 2003 Toward Assimilation and Citizenship. Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. Kalter, F., and N. Granato 2002 Demographic Change, Educational Expansion and Structural Assimilation of Immigrants: The case of Germany. European Sociological Review 18(2):199216. Kasinitz, P., J. H. Mollenkopf, M. C. Waters and J. Holdaway 2008 Inheriting the City: the Children of Immigrants Come of Age. New York and Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press. Kogan, I. 2006 Labor Markets and Economic Incorporation among Recent Immigrants in Europe. Social Forces 85(2):697721. 2007 Working through Barriers: Host Country Institutions and Immigrant Labour Market Performance in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer. Konczal, L., and W. Haller 2008 Fit to Miss, but Matched to Hatch: Success Factors among the Second Generations Disadvantaged in South Florida. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 620:161176.
972
Kroneberg, C. 2008 Ethnic Communities and School Performance among the New Second Generation in the United States: Testing the Theory of Segmented Assimilation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 620:138160. Lucassen, L., and C. Laarman 2009 Immigration, Intermarriage and the Changing Face of Europe in the Post War Period. The History of the Family 14(1):5268. Migration Integration Policy Group 2007 Migration Integration Policy Index, 2nd edn. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group. <http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/les/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipex_ii-2007.pdf>. Accessed on June 21, 2010. Mouw, T., and A. L. Kalleberg 2010 Occupations and the Structure of Wage Inequality in the United States, 1980s to 2000s. American Sociological Review 75(3):402431. Norwegian Social Science Data Service 2008 ESS Rounds 1-4, Data (20022008). Data Archive and Distributor of ESS Data. <http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org>. Accessed June 21, 2010. Phelps, E. S. 1972 The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism. American Economic Review 62(4):659661. Platt, L. 2005 The Intergenerational Social Mobility of Minority Ethnic Groups. Sociology 39(3):445461. ro cz Portes, A., and J. Bo 1989 Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation. International Migration Review 23(3):606630. ndez-Kelly , and P. Ferna 2008 No Margin of Error: Educational and Occupational Achievements among Disadvantaged Children of Immigrants. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 620:1236. Qian, Z., and D. T. Lichter 2007 Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage. American Sociological Review 72(1):6894. Reitz, J. G. 2002 Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants: Research Themes, Emerging Theories and Methodological Issues. International Migration Review 36(4):1005 1019. Rumbaut, R. G. 1997 Assimilation and Its Discontents: Between Rhetoric and Reality. International Migration Review 31(4):923960. 2008 The Coming of the Second Generation: Immigration and Ethnic Mobility in Southern California. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Studies 620:196236.
973
Schain, M. A. 2010 Managing Difference: Immigration Integration Policy in France, Britain, and the United States. Social Science Research 77(1):205236. Shields, M. A., and S. W. Price 1998 The Earnings of Male Immigrants in England: Evidence from the Quarterly LFS. Applied Economics 30(9):11571168. Simon, P. 2003 France and the Unknown Second Generation: Preliminary Results on Social Mobility. International Migration Review 37(4):10911119. Snijders, T. A. B., and R. J. Bosker 1999 Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage. Stiglitz, J. E. 1973 Approaches to the Economics of Discrimination. American Economic Review 63(2):287295. United Nations 2010 International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision. <http://esa.un.org/migration/ index.asp?panel=1>. Accessed on November 30, 2010. Van Tubergen, F., I. Maas, and H. Flap 2004 The Economic Incorporation of Immigrants in 18 Western Societies: Origin, Destination and Community Effects. American Sociological Review 69(5):704727. nez Waters, M. C., and T. R. Jime 2005 Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31:105125. Zhou, M. 1997a Growing Up American: The Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and Children of Immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology 23:6395. 1997b Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation. International Migration Review 31(4):9751008.
974
APPENDIX
SAMPLE SIZES
OF
GROUPS
BY
TABLE A1 MIGRATION BACKGROUND
AND
GENDER Children of Mixed Marriage Male Female 220 193 51 17 140 118 214 58 258 289 81 99 119 24 93 180 166 148 87 47 56 92 160 50 251 303 235 220 288 220 56 15 162 142 286 60 268 288 93 104 139 19 137 163 192 142 80 71 82 124 164 60 225 362 314 234
Majority Male Female Austria Belgium Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom 2,360 2,392 432 461 2,313 2,241 1,017 3,127 2,210 3,829 2,022 2,000 1,999 1,083 407 639 2,634 2,823 2,799 2,362 682 1,736 1,787 2,737 2,544 2,066 1,391 2,707 2,685 2,398 610 452 2,413 2,215 1,253 3,164 2,490 3,795 2,703 2,401 2,566 1,154 623 615 3,106 2,473 2,889 3,230 888 1,877 1,964 2,845 2,411 2,209 1,998 3,013
Migrant Male Female 171 224 35 22 47 105 238 46 200 406 208 16 113 7 50 448 226 191 7 120 31 20 85 248 319 551 93 285 195 215 35 27 52 130 315 71 237 422 216 43 122 19 73 467 239 196 13 143 27 29 103 237 327 654 183 313
2nd Generation Male Female 55 132 12 35 13 206 119 128 65 13 32 143 53 15 29 30 15 70 75 144 66 122 62 115 19 37 14 212 147 100 65 16 46 109 97 11 32 31 12 69 76 156 83 122
Source: European Social Survey, rounds 14. Data weighted by design.
975
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
OF
TABLE A2 MIGRANT GROUPS

Migrant
BY
GENDER. SAMPLE SIZES

Children of Mixed Marriage Male 2,219 363 240 26 248 34 1 48 1 25 3 66 18 45 42 Female 2,541 423 223 22 252 19 2 64 3 17 10 83 29 74 41
2nd Generation Male 207 163 4 95 27 76 5 5 105 5 18 28 123 34 Female 243 181 2 96 23 61 0 1 76 1 17 39 106 31
Cultural Background Native-born European Union 15 New European Union 12 Western non-EU Europe Eastern non-EU Europe Balkan Turkey Western non-Europe Middle-East India, Pakistan, Bangladesh China Other Asia Central- and South America, Caribean North Africa Other Africa: subsaharan Africa
Male 634 329 11 408 251 260 62 110 221 27 301 245 338 300
Female 764 411 34 664 198 144 81 40 130 40 333 367 245 240
Source: European Social Survey, rounds 14. Data weighted by design and population size. Notes: Cultural background for migrants is country of birth; cultural background for second generation and children of mixed marriages is mothers country of birth.
976
SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

FOR BY AND
TABLE A3 1565 YEAR-OLDS GROUP 2nd Generation Male Female Mixed Background Male Female GENDER Female
Majority Female Male
Migrant
Male
Sample Size
SD 0.48 0.35 0.09 0.29 0.15 0.36 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.34 0.28 0.45 0.33 0.47 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.49 0.41 0.11
3.975 3.583 Mean SD 0.49 0.31
4.340 3.753 Mean SD
1.253 1.224 Mean SD
1.309 1.276 Mean SD
3.466 3.379 Mean SD
4.005 3.802 Mean SD 0.41 0.11 0.49 0.31
3.56 12.86 4.51 12.90 4.11 13.14 3.51 13.35 3.54 13.41 3.62 13.20 3.55 12.88 40.82 11.86 41.71 12.10 37.18 13.37 38.74 13.18 41.25 13.12 40.74 13.21 13.79 21.78 12.59 22.76 12.84 17.86 13.64 19.30 13.78 21.86 13.52 21.53 14.05 0.08 0.33 0.47 0.26 0.44 0.13 0.34 0.10 0.30 0.04 0.18 0.03 0.18 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.34 0.03 0.39 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.49 0.50 0.19 0.39 0.18 0.44 0.18 0.38 0.22 0.41 0.38 0.50 0.49 0.44 0.35 0.39 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.47 0.32 0.47 0.32 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.48 0.23 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.17 0.15 0.08 Not applicable 0.48 0.47 0.38 0.36 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.29 0.20 0.03 0.88 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.39 0.45 0.40 0.16 0.33 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.38 0.19 0.24 0.21 0.03 0.88 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.39 0.43 0.40 0.16 0.33 0.26 0.17 0.10 0.09
Unweighted 48.312 51.635 Weighted 48.337 51.068 Indicator Min Max Mean SD Mean Labor market attainment High (versus 0 1 0.36 0.48 0.36 not-high) Missing (versus 0 1 0.10 0.30 0.14 valid) Years of schooling 0 30 12.85 3.71 12.78 Age 15 65 42.01 13.39 42.22 Work experience 0 50 22.88 13.98 23.17 Language 0 1 0.01 0.08 0.01 (majority) Employment 0 1 0.21 0.41 0.36 (active) Parental highest level of education Primary or 0 1 0.29 0.45 0.30 lower Upper 0 1 0.25 0.43 0.24 secondary University 0 1 0.14 0.35 0.14 (1st stage) Citizenship (yes) 0 1 0.00 0.03 0.00 Duration of residence Born in country 0 1 Not applicable More than 0 1 20 years 1120 years 0 1 610 years 0 1 15 years 0 1 Not applicable 0.49 0.42
TABLE A3 (CONTINUED) SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR 1565 YEAR-OLDS

BY
GROUP
AND
GENDER Mixed Background Male Female
Male
Majority Female Male
Migrant Female
2nd Generation Male Female
Sample Size 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.43 0.30 0.18 0.23 0.42 0.12 0.32 0.19 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.39 0.30 0.20 0.46 0.40 0.28 0.16 0.45 0.37 0.26 0.20 0.44 0.40 0.35 0.22 0.26 0.02 0.42 0.44 0.13 0.38 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.50 0.20 0.11 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.37 0.40 0.31 0.38 0.22 0.19 0.48 Not applicable 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.20 0.43 0.44 0.12
Country of birth (if different from country of residence) Old EU15 0 1 Not applicable New EU15 0 1 Eastern non-EU Europe 0 1 Balkan 0 1 Turkey 0 1 Other non-Western non-Europe 0 1 Domicile Big city 0 1 0.17 0.38 0.18 0.39 Village 0 1 0.33 0.47 0.32 0.47 Religious denomination Islam 0 1 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Source: European Social Surveys. rounds 14. Data weighted (by design and population size). Notes: Sample sizes according to valid data on labor market attainment. Reference categories in parentheses.
977
978
MACRO INDICATORS PERTAINING

TO AND AND
ECONOMIC
Migration Integration Policy Indices (MIPEX 2006)
TABLE A4 LABOR MARKET PERFORMANCE MIGRATION INTEGRATION POLICIES
Annual Averages 20022008
Country 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.4 2.9 1.8 1.3 2.4 3.4 2.2 2.7 2.1 3.4 1.9 1.8 2.6 3.0 2.5 1.6 40 41 41 71 44 62 44 79 50 94 33 81 1.1 36 50 33 26 44 54 38 25 36 62 33 25 45 51 39 45 69 38 71 66 92 43 61 55 60 90 100 75 60 60 27 33 23 75 81 50 58 85 58 69 33 56 81 54 46 87 32 58 36 61 68 45 61 41 50 50 79 42 50 59 66 66 84 40 50 40 75 70 50 50 40 40 50 85 20 45 70 70 25 90 47 63 67 61 65 48 53 60 50 39 67 51 48 66 72 67 67 51 63 70 76 51 67 22 71 42 75 34 61 45 75 55 74
GDP Growth (%) Participation (%) Employment Protection Access to Nationality AntiDiscrimination Family Reunion Long-term Residence
Unemployment (%)
Labor Market Access
Political Participation 34 57 18 41 55 30 81 52 66 14 29 59 55 11 84 80 86 14 79 14 15 50 93 55 46
Austria Belgium Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom
1.8 1.4 4.5 1.7 4.2 1.0 6.7 2.5 0.9 1.2 3.7 3.5 2.4 0.0 7.7 2.2 1.6 1.6 4.6 0.3 7.1 6.5 4.3 1.4 2.1 1.2 7.4 1.8
4.7 7.6 12.1 4.2 6.9 4.4 7.7 8.0 8.5 9.5 9.2 6.7 4.6 7.6 8.8 4.3 4.1 3.7 15.2 7.0 7.2 14.9 5.8 10.1 6.4 3.8 7.7 5.1
59.3 52.6 53.0 61.6 59.1 66.0 59.3 61.8 56.0 58.7 53.5 49.8 61.7 48.9 58.9 54.7 64.8 67.0 54.6 62.2 61.6 59.6 58.7 56.1 64.2 67.4 57.5 61.7
Sources: World Bank Data Bases (<http://www.worldbank.org>), OECD Employment Protection (<http://www.oecd.org>), Migration Integration Policy Data Bases (<http:// www.mipex.eu>). Notes: GDP growth, participation, and unemployment rates by World Bank. Employment Protection by OECD standards. Scale of 04 where high values indicate strict employment protection. Migration Integration Policy Indices on scales of 0100, where low values indicate unfriendly environments for migrants. For a detailed description of these indices, see text and Migration Integration Policy Group (2007).

IMR 45, Vol 4, 2011 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMR 45, Vol 4, 2011 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Success on European Labor Markets: A Cross-national Comparison of Attainment between Immigrant and Majority Populations1

Florian Pichler University of Vienna

IMR Volume 45 Number 4 (Winter 2011):938978

Success on European Labor Markets

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

DETERMINANTS: MIGRANTS AND LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

CONTEXT: MIGRANTS ON EUROPEAN LABOR MARKETS

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

DATA AND METHODS

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

International Migration Review

RESULTS Labor Market Outcomes of Different Groups: Descriptive Findings

Participation (%) Mean Min Max 80 74 91 73 92 83 88 71

Mean 1,957 2,159 161 182 71 74 142 160

N Min 407 452 7 13 12 11 17 15

Max 3,829 3,795 551 654 206 212 303 362

Success on European Labor Markets

International Migration Review

Success on European Labor Markets

TABLE 2 OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)

Indicator *** *** ***

2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p 0.74 1.28 1.01

Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p * *** *

*** *** ***

0.47 0.59 0.89

0.69 0.73 0.9

0.52 0.54 0.91

0.62 0.59 0.71

International Migration Review

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)

Indicator *** ***

2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p ** ***

Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p

Success on European Labor Markets

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)

Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p

No obs 1.25 1.19

International Migration Review

0.34 0.40 0.89 NA NA NA NA NA 1.03

1.85 1.78 0.78 NA NA NA NA NA 1.01

1.75 1.66 0.63 0.84 0.69 1.28 0.83 No obs 1.06

0.64 1.22 0.82 0.84 0.48 0.99 0.60 0.42 0.97 **

RESULTS Migrant Male OR p Female OR p

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT (FOR 1565-YEAR-OLDS)

2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p

Children of Mixed Parental Background Male Female OR p OR p

*** *** *** * *

1.01 0.91 0.79 0.70 ** *** *** *

0.79 0.83 0.74 0.51

1.03 0.76 0.82 0.81

1.12 0.78 0.85 No obs

1.00 0.90 0.85 No obs

0.94 0.80 0.78 0.65

Indicator * * ***

* * ***

Indicator * *

2nd Generation Male Female OR p OR p *

* * *** * *

1.01 0.91 0.79 0.70 * *** *

1.009 0.222 3.152 2.807 0.103 0.214 0.000 ** * * 0.231 ** *