Integration policies (legal, political, socio-economic, cultural) and access to services

"Theoretical background and objectives This project explores how policies regarding immigrant rights and welfare state regimes have affected the socio-economic integration of immigrants. Most of the literature on immigrant integration assumes that the granting of easy access of immigrants to citizenship rights and government recognition and support for cultural diversity promote the socio-economic integration of immigrants. At the same time, existing work (e.g., Borjas, van Tubergen) has shown that immigrants with low human capital resources tend to migrate preferably to countries with equal income distributions and extensive social security protection. This raises the question whether immigrant integration policies that grant easy access to citizenship rights, and thus also full access to welfare state rights, might have the unintended consequence that they produce a high rate of dependence of immigrants on welfare state arrangements and attendant socio-economic marginalisation in other domains. If integration policies in addition do not demand cultural assimilation (e.g., in the domain of language) the risk of lower-skilled immigrants to become dependent on welfare benefits may further increase. This hypothesis of an interaction effect between integration policies and welfare state regimes is confronted with cross-national data on labour market participation, residential segregation, and imprisonment of immigrants. Where possible, these comparisons are controlled for cross-national differences in the composition of immigrant populations by drawing on comparative data for particular ethnic groups. The analysis includes eight West European countries that have turned into immigration countries at roughly the same time in the 1960s and early 1970s, where institutions have therefore had several decades to affect integration outcomes. They vary both strongly regarding integration policies (including the highest, Sweden, and the second lowest scoring country, Austria, in the 2007 Migrant Integration Policy Index) and regarding welfare state regimes (with Sweden and the United Kingdom at the extremes). Research design, data and methodology The study relies on various indicators of immigrant rights, prevalent typologies and indicators of welfare state regimes, and data from the European Labour Force Survey, International Prison Statistics, as well as results from a large number of previous studies on immigrants' labour market participation, residential segregation and imprisonment. To control for composition effects, the labour market data refer to immigrants from non-EU countries, and for specific country contrasts specific ethnic groups (Turks and ex-Yugoslavs). Residential segregation data refer to a few dozen European cities, partly referring to specific ethnic groups (e.g., Turks, Maghrebians, Caribbeans, Pakistani) and partly to more general categories (Muslims, foreigners, immigrants). Findings Across the three domains of socio-economic integration a consistent cross-national patterns is found (with the exception of residential segregation in the United Kingdom) in which the gap or the degree of segregation between immigrants and the native population is largest in the countries that combine easy access to citizenship rights and a large degree of accommodation of cultural differences with a relatively encompassing and generous welfare state (Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium). Both the United Kingdom, which combines inclusive integration policies with low welfare state provision levels, and the three Germanophone countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), which combine restrictive policies with – at least in the German and Austrian cases – moderately strong welfare states, show relatively small gaps between immigrants and natives. These findings are confirmed for contrast comparisons for specific ethnic groups. For instance, compared to the native population, Turks in the Netherlands have much lower rates of labour market participation than German Turks, and similarly ex-Yugoslavs in Austria perform much better than those in Sweden. Because the results are mostly based on aggregate data – although some of the studies that are used do control for individual-level variables – they need to be further tested by taking individual and local context data more systematically into account. This will be one of the aims of the analyses in the context of project 6.3 further below."

The Multiculturalism Policy Index assesses the government commitment to the multicultural accommodation of newcomers. It is designed to monitor the evolution of multicultural policies across 21 Western countries. The Multiculturalism Policy Index is distinctive in focusing exclusively on multicultural policies designed to recognize, accommodate and support the cultural differences of minority groups. To capture change over time, the Index provides all three indices at three points in time: 1980, 2000 and 2010. Multicultural Policy Index is based on eight indicators: (i) constitutional, legislative or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism, at the central and/or regional and municipal levels; (ii) the adoption of multiculturalism in school curriculum; (iii) the inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in the mandate of public media or media licensing; (iv) exemptions from dress codes, either by statute or by court cases; (v) allowing of dual citizenship; (vi) the funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities; (vii) the funding of bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction; (viii) affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups On each indicator, countries are scored as 0 (no such policy), 0.5 (partial) or 1.0 (clear policy). The scores are then aggregated, with equal weighting for each area (‘recognition’ (Indicators 1–3), ‘accommodation’(Indicators 4–5) and ‘support’ (Indicators 6–8), and producing a country score ranging from 0 to 8.

"Theoretical background and objectives The project contributes to societal and scientific debate by examining the relationship between integration policies and the socio-cultural integration of immigrants in three European countries that have pursued contrasting integration policies: France, Germany and the Netherlands. Socio-cultural integration is treated as a two-dimensional concept consisting of the degree of host culture adoption and the degree of ethnic retention. Following Berry (1997) these two dimensions are seen as – at least potentially – independent. Both dimensions are measured on the basis of four indicators. The degree of host culture adoption is measured as identification with the host country, host country language proficiency, host country language usage and social contacts with natives. The degree of ethnic retention is measured as identification with Turks, Turkish language proficiency, identification with Muslims and the observance of Islamic religious rules (halal diet, participation in Ramadan, mosque visits and headscarf wearing). The project tests several theories of immigrant assimilation in a cross-national perspective: theories em­phasis­ing material costs and benefits of retention and adoption, which claim that assimilation pressures will lead to adoption of the host culture and multicultural policies will promote ethnic retention; acculturative stress theories that pose that adoption is less likely to occur if it is seen as requiring the rejection of the culture of origin; and reactive ethnicity theories, which assume that immigrants withdraw in their ethnic cultures if they face assimilation pressures. In addition, the project pays special attention to naturalisation policies: Based on the widespread assumption that easily accessible citizenship promotes socio-cultural integration, two hypotheses are tested. First, whether naturalised immigrants display higher levels of socio-cultural integration than non-naturalised immigrants. Second, whether immigrants in countries with few preconditions for naturalisation show higher levels of socio-cultural integration. Research design, data and methodology Most previous comparative studies have not been able to control sufficiently for compositional effects related to the timing of immigration and the national and regional composition of immigrant populations. By choosing a quasi-experimental design, the project sought to eliminate such composition effects as far as possible. Therefore, original data were collected based on a telephone survey in the three countries that targeted a selected group of Turkish immigrants and their direct offspring originating in two rural regions of Turkey, who migrated before 1975. Thus, the sample (n = 1 000) excludes all follow-up migration of Turkish refugees and marriage migrants, which occurred to varying degrees in the three countries, and ensures that we are comparing similar immigrants in the three countries, and not predominantly urban Turkish guest workers from Istanbul in one country to Kurdish refugees in another country. All respondents had the option to answer the questionnaire either in Turkish or in their host-country language. The survey data were analysed using multivariate regression techniques, and took into account a range of individual-level control variables as well as the local density of the Turkish immigrant population. The quantitative findings were corroborated and refined with almost 90 additional in-depth interviews. Findings Results show that ethnic retention is strongest in the Netherlands, where multicultural policies were long prevalent, while host culture adoption is strongest in the French context, which has more strongly emphasised assimilation, at least where participation in the public realm is concerned. On the individual level, there is a negative relationship between ethnic retention and host culture adoption, which persists after controlling for relevant background variables. Naturalisation is positively associated with socio-cultural integration only in those countries—France and Germany—that have traditionally required a certain degree of cultural assimilation from their new citizens. Regarding country differences, the analyses reveal that Turkish immigrants in France show higher levels of host culture adoption on all four indicators. For host-country identification, they share this position with Dutch Turks. Taken together, these results provide no support for reactive ethnicity theories, as ethnic retention was strongest in the Netherlands, where citizenship policies have been most inclusive. They do provide support for a combination of material cost/benefit perspectives and acculturative stress perspectives, as neither a lack of incentives for adoption of the host culture (as was long the case in the Netherlands) nor very restrictive citizenship policies that promote an ethnically thick conception of citizenship (as long prevalent in Germany) have been successful in seducing immigrants to adopt the host culture. The results show that limited cultural assimilation conditions tied to an otherwise inclusive notion of citizenship (as in France) may be more helpful in promoting socio-cultural integration, but they also demonstrate that the allowance of dual nationality does not have the negative effects that are sometimes ascribed to it."

The civic integration policy index (CIVIX) addresses civic integration requirements in EU-15. It analyses three target civic knowledge areas (country knowledge, language and values) for entry, settlement and citizenship acquisition. The scale of the CIVIX is 0 to 6: a high score indicates ‘thick’ citizenship content. A low score represents ‘thin’ citizenship content, with minimal or easy content requirements for obtaining status. The coding of requirements takes into account four distinct dimensions: the category of third-country nationals accountable, specifically family unification; whether civic conditions are required for entry, settlement or citizenship; the number of requirements across the civic targets of country knowledge, language and values, including integration courses, tests, contracts, oath ceremonies and interviews; and, finally, the severity of requirements along the path to citizenship (for example, a ‘high’ level of language proficiency or cost). This dimension is also reflected in point valuation, where more points are assigned to language and knowledge requirements at the settlement stage than at naturalisation, where a longer period of residency engenders greater linguistic and knowledge competence. In order to understand the ‘depth’ of current citizenship content and the degree of policy change over time, values were assigned for each of the 17 countries in 1997 and 2009 respectively.

The proposed research will study the impact of different integration policies in European context. The labor market outcomes of the first generation immigrants, the educational outcomes of the second generation and intergenerational mobility will be explored. The cross country variation in labor market outcomes of first generation immigrants is determined by two factors: (1) selection of immigrants that determines the set of observed and unobserved characteristics that immigrants bring to a host country, (2) integration that determines how a given set of characteristics are valued in the host country. This study is going to identify the impact of integration independent of selection effects using a natural experiment. This natural experiment is the mass recruitment of Turkish workers by European countries during 1960s and 1970s that dispersed individuals with similar characteristics across various countries. The second part of the project will provide evidence on the educational outcomes of second generation immigrants from the same source country. Using an internationally comparable data set of 15-year-old students the study will focus on the immigrant students’ performance in mathematics, reading, science and problem-solving skills and provide evidence on the cross country variation in their outcomes. Using the data on educational attainment of parents intergenerational linkages will be explored to assess the extent of upward mobility in these countries. Thus, this study will be exploring integration with a multi generational perspective and highlighting differences in outcomes across host countries for individuals with similar backgrounds. These results will inform the discussions about the best practices for integration both at EU and national levels.

"In this project, we investigate the (sometimes unintended) consequences of policies that have been implemented to regulate immigration and to subsequently facilitate the socio-economic integration of newly arrived immigrants. (1) Networks: First, we exploit a natural experiment in Switzerland, where asylum seekers are randomly assigned to cantons. This immigration policy can be regarded as a transparent and neutral way of distributing refugees across a country to “share a burden”. At the same time, such restrictions regarding free movement within a country come with hefty consequences for the persons affected. On the one hand, a large share of jobs are found through referrals within social networks: in the US, for instance, around 30-60% (Bewley, 2007). At least since Granovetter (1973), a rich theoretical literature has rationalized this fact by modelling networks as non-market institutions that help overcome information frictions inherent in the labor market. From workers' perspective, networks grant their members preferential access to information on high-quality job openings, e.g. as in Calvo-Armengol and Jackson (2004). On the firm side, networks may help alleviate the asymmetric information problem in hiring leading potentially to a better job-match, e.g. as in Beaman and Magruder (2012). In our study, we focus on the value of social networks from the perspective of workers. Swiss asylum policy provides a unique natural experiment to study the effects of social networks on labor market outcomes. Because of the truly exogenous placement, long horizon over which the policy was in place and the large sample size, we can delve deeper into the mechanisms of how social networks affect labor market integration than previous studies have done and look at network structure beyond simply its size. Our findings will enable us to distinguish among a large set of theoretical models of the value of networks from the point of view of individual job seekers. (2) Maternity: At the same time, such immigration policies also affect the social integration of immigrants and, in our case, individual health and wellbeing. Specifically, we exploit the same unique setting to assess the relevance of information on infants' health. Random allocation of asylum seekers in Switzerland allows us to first, study the spatial differences in health care provision across the country. Further, by exploiting that French-speaking refugees are randomly placed in French- or non-French-speaking regions, we can credibly identify the language-match-health-gap, based on refugees that do not speak French as a control group and placed on either side of the language border (in a Difference in Differences framework). By extending the language to a novel (continuous) measure of language distance, we are able to factor out country of origin effects using bi-lateral regressions. A second strand of policies targets the (economic) integration of immigrants and generally of persons outside the labor market. A common approach is to provide measures, so-called Active Labor Market Programs (ALMP) that enhance a jobseeker’s employability (e.g., through additional human capital) or that keep a person close to the labor market through occupational programs. (3) Access Bias: Some measures, however, can negatively affect labor market outcomes, such as unemployment duration and post-unemployment wages, because of factors such as human capital deprivation or lock-in effects. Based on encompassing registry data that allow researchers to control for usually unobserved employability variables, we find evidence of a systematic access bias whereby caseworkers in Switzerland assign unemployed immigrants to activation measures based on what we call a competition logic that is mainly driven by and conforms to an economic rationale and the job center’s performance evaluation. From the perspective of immigrants’ labor market integration, this may be problematic because it results in an overrepresentation of immigrants in measures with little efficacy rather than in measures that could compensate for (some of) their employability disadvantages. Conversely, we find that Swiss citizens are relatively advantaged in the ability to access more measures that promote human capital enhancement (compensation logic) and that have been shown to be successful tools for labor market reintegration. It is plausible that a stronger reliance on the competition logic by caseworkers and the consequential overrepresentation of migrants in low-efficacy measures amplifies migrants’ general labor market disadvantages. (4) Priming: This rather negative stance on integration measures in the form of ALMPs is further advanced by a study where we present indications that ALMP participants are pushed into lower paying jobs compared to equally qualified non-participants. In this study on the effect of subjective beliefs on employment outcomes we find that the employment chances one year after the start of unemployment increase for both ALMP participants and non-participants when self-control and employment beliefs are high. In contrast, higher initial reservation wages increase employment chances for non-participants but substantially reduce them for ALMP participants. Previous studies have shown that beneficial effects of activation measures are often abrogated by lock-in effects, human capital deprivation, and/or negative signals to prospective employers, all of which are particularly harmful for highly skilled workers and higher-paying jobs. We argue that these detrimental effects ultimately push ALMP participants into jobs below their expected salary, where the negative consequences of activation measures are less pronounced. (5) Heterogeneity: A related aspect that is crucial from an integration perspective is whether such effects of ALMPs differ across groups, that is, whether the participation of “natives” turns out to have different consequences for their labor market performance compared to participating immigrants. In this study, we argue that effect heterogeneity between native and migrant participants can provide information about the type of discrimination that migrants face in the labor market. Using encompassing administrative data from Switzerland, we observe all registered jobseekers in 2004 and follow their monthly labor market trajectories over 10 subsequent years. Our findings are consistent with earlier evaluations of ALMPs in Switzerland and elsewhere, which find that participation effects of ALMPs are limited and sometimes even negative. However, findings show that employers value the additional productivity-related information of ALMP participation more if participants have a foreign nationality. We infer that labor market discrimination against migrants is dominated by statistical reasoning on the part of prospective employers. (6) LM-Index: Eventually, we provide a meta-analytical study where we argue that comparative assessments of integration policies fail to properly take confounding factors into account. That is, immigrant groups exposed to integration policies in different countries differ in their characteristics because immigration policies and migrants’ destination choice induce an ex-ante bias. To circumvent this limit to comparative analyses, we aspire to collect and generate data on all existing policy dimensions and subsequently provide a comparative analysis of immigrants’ labor market integration in industrialized countries."

The author has developed a nationalist immigration and integration policy index to measure legislative changes with regard to immigration and integration policy. The index measures to what extent the legislative output on immigration and integration of governments in 9 countries has a (radical) right-wing signature. The analysis covers the period 1996–2010. The index focuses on policy changes on citizenship, asylum, illegal residence/regularisation, family reunion and civic integration (language requirements and tests, etc.). The index analyses policy changes based on a series of requirement indicators on requirements (e.g., years required for citizenship acquisition). In order to assess optimally the range and substance of changes implied in new legislation, varying sources have been used. Apart from scrutinising primary legislative sources, expert reports, articles and books have been consulted for contextual information.

MIPEX is a unique tool to compare and evaluate governments’ integration policies in all EU Member States and several non-EU countries (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA). 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.