DISCUSSIONPAPERSERIES
Forschungsinstitut
zur Zukunft der Arbeit
Institute for the Study
of Labor
Pitfalls of Immigrant Inclusion into the
European Welfare State
IZA DP No. 6260
December 2011
Martin Kahanec
Anna M.-H. Kim
Klaus F. Zimmermann
Pitfalls of Immigrant Inclusion into the
European Welfare State
Martin Kahanec
Central European University
and IZA
Anna M.-H. Kim
IZA
Klaus F. Zimmermann
IZA and Bonn University
Discussion Paper No. 6260
December 2011
IZA
P.O. Box 7240
53072 Bonn
Germany
Phone: +49-228-3894-0
Fax: +49-228-3894-180
E-mail: iza@iza.org
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in
this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions.
The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center
and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit
organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of
Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and
conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i)
original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of
policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public.
IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion.
Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be
available directly from the author.
IZA Discussion Paper No. 6260
December 2011
ABSTRACT
Pitfalls of Immigrant Inclusion into the European Welfare State
This paper’s main purpose is to gauge immigrants’ demand for social assistance and
services and identify the key barriers to social and labor market inclusion of immigrants in the
European Union. The data from an online primary survey of experts from organizations
working on immigrant integration in the EU is analyzed using simple comparative statistical
methods; the robustness of the results is tested by means of Logit and ordered Logit
statistical models. We find that the general public in Europe has rather negative attitudes
towards immigrants. Although the business community views immigrants somewhat less
negatively, barriers to immigrant labor market inclusion identified include language and
human capital gaps, a lack of recognition of foreign qualifications, discrimination,
intransparent labor markets and institutional barriers such as legal restrictions for foreign
citizens. Exclusion from higher education, housing and the services of the financial sector
aggravate these barriers. Changes in the areas of salaried employment, education, social
insurance, mobility and attitudes are seen as most desired by members of ethnic minorities.
The current economic downturn is believed to have increased the importance of active
inclusion policies, especially in the areas of employment and education. These results appear
to be robust with respect to a number of characteristics of respondents and their
organizations.
JEL Classification: J15, J71, J78
Keywords: ethnic minorities, migration, labor market integration, economic crisis,
enlarged European Union, welfare state
Corresponding author:
Klaus F. Zimmermann
IZA
P.O. Box 7240
53072 Bonn
Germany
E-mail: Zimmermann@iza.org
1
Introduction
The concept of immigrants taking advantage of the host state’s welfare benefits and
choosing host countries that offer generous welfare pervades much of the migration
policy debate. Indeed, Borjas (1999) coins the term “magnet effect” of welfare
generosity on the migration decision. In the EU, a massive growth of migration both
within and from outside the EU in recent decades, and in particular following the
2004 and 2007 EU enlargements, has increasingly drawn the attention of both policy
makers and researchers to immigrants’ use of the welfare system. The focus has been
on the disparities prevailing in the labor market participation and use of social
services between native and immigrant populations.
It is widely regarded that failing labor market integration perpetuates the social
exclusion of immigrants and vice versa.1
Understanding this vicious circle requires a
more critical insight and investigation into the factors that hinder the social and labor
market integration of immigrants. Central to this investigation is the role of social
assistance and services. While improperly designed welfare instruments may lead to
adverse social and labor market outcomes, they may also help immigrants to
participate more easily and better in the social and economic life of their host society.2
This issue has been particularly tricky to tackle in the EU, since most of the Member
States − unlike the traditional immigration countries like Canada and the US − have
relied on a temporary-based migration system rather than a permanent one. The nonpermanent
migration system of the EU attracted a predominantly low-educated and
1
See Kahanec and Zimmermann (2011) and Zimmermann, Kahanec, Constant, DeVoretz, Gataullina
and Zaiceva (2008) for a comprehensive account.
2
See Fix, Capps, and Kaushal (2009); Zimmermann, Kahanec, Barrett, Giulietti, Maître and Guzi
(2011).
2
low-skilled foreign workforce in the past, leading to both economic and social
marginalization of ethnic minority populations in many receiving countries.3
Indeed, Barrett and Maître (2011) show that it is rather the adverse compositional
effect that drives immigrants into welfare take up rather than any residual immigrantspecific
factor. Moreover, studying the role of unemployment benefits, Giulietti, Guzi,
Kahanec and Zimmermann (2011) find no evidence for the belief that migrants
choose countries that offer more generous welfare. These findings suggest that the
policy debate about migration is wrongly pitched: it is rather immigrants’ limited
access to – rather than abuse of or attraction to welfare – that is the key problem. In
fact, immigrants may often take up less welfare measures than comparable natives
even if they are eligible, since they are not well-enough informed or may want to
avoid the stigma. In addition, not accepting help could further obstruct the integration
process in the long run. It follows that a critical scrutiny of the barriers immigrants
face when accessing social assistance and services is required.
This paper’s main purpose is to gauge immigrants’ demand for social assistance and
services and identify the key barriers to social and labor market inclusion of
immigrants in the EU, with the help of a unique dataset from the purpose-made IZA
Expert Opinion Survey. The survey’s two waves, in 2007 and 2010, provide an
extended account of stakeholders’ view on immigrant exclusion in the 27 Member
States as well as expert opinions on the barriers immigrants face and the needs vis-àvis
their current social and labor market status in the host countries. We
comparatively evaluate the evidence, test the stability of our findings and draw policy
conclusions.
3
OECD (2008, 2009).
3
Background literature
The decision to migrate may involve a migrant’s concern for his or her expected
income, which includes unemployment benefit when inactive (Heitmueller, 2005).
4
Earlier studies on the US find that immigrant households experience more and longer
welfare spells and consequently spend a longer time participating in welfare programs
(Borjas and Hilton, 1996). This has been denoted as the “magnet effect hypothesis”,
which argues that welfare generous states tend to attract migrants and encourage their
dependency on welfare. This negative acculturation ties into larger concerns about the
moral hazards of welfare expressed by many of those in favor of the broader goals of
welfare reform (Fix, Capps and Kaushal, 2009).
However, more recent studies have called for caution and argue that the validity of
these studies is limited. Van Hook and Bean (2009), for example, assert that
distinguishing between different welfare programs (cash vs. non-cash assistance,
income supplement vs. income replacement) is critical to identify and generalize
the negative effects of welfare benefits on immigration and immigrant economic
integration. Kaestner and Kaushal (2005) argue that the migration decision is based on
information about the availability of jobs rather than the availability of welfare
benefits.
For the European Union Barrett and Maître (2011) show that only for some types of
social benefits and only in some countries are immigrant welfare take-up rates higher
compared to natives. Moreover, when they account for immigrant–native differences
4
See Mayda (2010) for a comprehensive empirical study of push and pull factors of the migration
decision.
4
in characteristics and eligibility, the general pattern they find is that in most cases
immigrants actually exhibit lower– and not higher– welfare use.
When comparing experiences of the major receiving economies of the EU many
studies have found that immigrant selection policy and divergent characteristics of
immigrants lead to different outcomes (e.g. Barrett and McCarthy, 2008; Drinkwater,
Eade and Garapich, 2009). The study by Riphahn (2004) on German guest workers,
for example, suggests that the state’s early immigration policy, which primarily
attracted low-skilled workers, is essentially linked to higher use of welfare benefits by
immigrants than natives. In that context immigration policy plays a key role in
determining both the propensity and the extent of the welfare needs of immigrants.
The statistical evidence in most of the available studies remains weak or suggests only
a marginal significance for the magnet effect of welfare generosity on an inflow of
welfare-prone immigrants (see Barrett and McCarthy, 2008). Hansen and Lofstrom
(2009) find that differences in welfare participation between natives and non-refugee
migrants in Sweden are largely due to permanent unobserved characteristics, whereas
the disproportionally high welfare participation rates among refugee migrants may be
due to the existence of a “welfare trap”.
Indeed, using macro-level data on 19 European countries, Giullietti, Guzi, Kahanec
and Zimmerman (2011) show that the correlation of welfare generosity and
immigration cannot be explained by a causal effect of welfare generosity on
immigration, but rather, the tentative evidence they present suggests that immigration
may increase welfare spending.
5
We interpret the empirical evidence presented above to suggest that the higher
immigrant welfare take up observed among immigrants is not driven by some residual
propensity of immigrants to use welfare, for example due to immigrant selection
driven by the welfare magnet argument. Rather, it appears to be an artifact of
observable, and unfavorable, immigrant characteristics. If immigrants are compared to
natives with comparable characteristics, lower immigrant welfare take up is observed
than would be expected. Therefore, a socio-institutionally induced exclusion of the
minority population from the host society and the labor market, and barriers to
welfare assistance and services in particular, appears to be influential in shaping the
patterns of immigrants’ welfare needs and use.
In this vein, Constant, Kahanec and Zimmermann (2008), in their earlier study using
the 2007 wave of the IZA Expert Opinion Survey, find that negative attitudes are the
key barrier to immigrants’ social and labor market integration. Our main contribution
to this literature is that, besides barriers to immigrants’ social and labor market
inclusion, we also specifically identify barriers to their use of welfare assistance and
services and evaluate the stability of these findings on the backdrop of the current
financial and economic turmoil and also with respect to the respondents’
characteristics.
Data and methods: The IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010
In this section we illustrate how our key data source − the IZA Expert Opinion Survey
− reflects the conceptual issues needed to answer key questions on immigrant
inclusion and the welfare state. The two waves of the IZA Expert Opinion Survey
were conducted between May and July 2007 and between February and September
6
2010. The 2010 questionnaire comprised of 12 main questions and 120 sub-questions
and was conducted online for 27 EU Member States in the respective official
languages, with an additional option of English. It reflects the views of 156 experts
from governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on
immigrant integration and ethnic minority rights across the Member States. The 2007
wave contains the views of 215 expert respondents. The first wave contains responses
from all of the 27 EU Member States, whereas 26 Member States were represented in
the second wave.5
The 2010 sample contains responses from employer associations (7
percent), employee associations or trade unions (14 percent), governmental
organizations (8 percent), NGOs (52 percent), and other organizations (18
percent).The corresponding figures for 2007 are 10, 4, 9, 47, and 30 percent.
While the primary aim of the 2007 survey was to identify the barriers ethnic minority
members face to labor market integration, the follow-up survey conducted in 2010 −
amid the financial crisis− goes beyond that. That survey tries to elicit the nature and
degree of the problems experienced by the different immigrant groups in Europe’s
welfare states. The foreign-born minority groups in the survey include: EU, non-EU,
all ethnic minorities and undocumented (illegal) immigrants. While we are aware that
the evaluation of undocumented immigrants is inevitably limited because of their
invisibility in formal institutions, we tried to include this group for as many questions
as feasible, for example, in the questions about key labor-market and social exclusionrelated
issues.
One of the key strengths of the extended IZA Expert Opinion Survey is that it
captures changes in perceptions of welfare needs of the different immigrant minority
5
There were no responses from Lithuania.
7
populations from the pre-crisis period – 2007− to the crisis period − 2010. In doing so,
we have added questions which investigate more details of institutional barriers and
drawbacks in various policy areas which are considered most important. Moreover, in
the 2010 wave we adopted a number of measures of social services and assistance and
barriers to their use.
Results
The situation of immigrant integration in the EU remains grim. More than a half of
total respondents (54 percent) in the survey said that ethnic minorities are at high or
very high risk of being excluded from the labor market of the host economy, and 33
percent viewed this risk as medium. This appears to be a dominant and growing trend:
compared to 32 percent in 2007, 45 percent of respondents in 2010 viewed labor
market exclusion of ethnic minority populations in the EU as increasing rather than
decreasing or constant.
According to experts’ views negative perceptions about ethnic minorities prevail both
among the general public and in the business world (see Figures 1 and 2). The general
public is viewed to be more negative toward ethnic minority members than the
business world.6
Society and business people both are reported to be more positive
(and less negative) of EU immigrants.
[Figure 1 about here]
[Figure 2 about here]
6
This may be due to many factors, including the perception of immigrants as more productive or
cheaper employees, customers, or perhaps because the business world better understands social benefits
or ignores social costs that immigration may bring about.
8
Figure 3 illustrates experts’ views on the barriers that different types of immigrant
workforce face to participate in the labor market of their host economy. Language is
one of the most common barriers reported for all groups of immigrants. Non-EU and
undocumented immigrants especially, however, are believed to confront more
institutional barriers when entering formal labor markets. Discrimination along with
education and poor access to information are also seen as very important integration
barriers for non-EU and undocumented immigrants.
[Figure 3 about here]
Limited recognition of immigrants’ foreign qualifications in the receiving countries −
claimed by 40 percent of survey respondents for the category of non-EU and
undocumented immigrants – is identified as a significant problem, possibly indicating
educational marginalization of immigrants (see Figure 3). A similar response rate of
“insufficient education” as a barrier may well be interwoven with a lack of skills or a
failure of the host country recognizing qualifications received abroad. This further
implies a risk of “brain waste”, which is a loss of immigrant skills (Dustmann, Frattini
and Preston, 2007; Shinnaoui and Narchal, 2010). Immigrant workers with their
qualifications not recognized would simply be considered low-educated and end up
doing low-skilled jobs in the host country.
Prejudice in the host society, or the natives’ negative perceptions and attitudes
towards immigrant minorities, appears to be the single most persistent and significant
non-institutional barrier to labor market participation. In 2007 more than two thirds of
total survey respondents (70 percent) considered discrimination the greatest barrier to
9
labor market integration. In 2010 − a year of the Eurozone financial crisis − 63
percent of respondents reported that this was the case for non-EU as well as
undocumented immigrants alike, whereas 24 percent believed this to be true of EU
immigrants (see Figure 3).
Having identified the major barriers to labor market integration of immigrant minority
populations, the survey explored the areas of policy where, in the view of the experts,
immigrants’ demand for change and improvement is growing. When asked about the
minority population at greatest risk, more than three quarters (76% in 2010 and 78%
in 2007) of all respondents indicated that this minority demanded some changes
concerning its social and labor market integration.
Figure 4 shows the areas where experts expressed the strongest demand for changes
by the minority groups they believe are at the greatest risk of social exclusion. The
perceived changes in priorities between 2007 and 2010 indicate that during a
recession, people are more concerned about labor market integration than social wellbeing
related areas such as housing, cultural and social activities, or, somewhat
surprisingly, attitudes and acceptance by the natives.
Paid employment is the most prominent in the responses. Remarkably, according to
the surveyed experts the demand for social insurance and other welfare benefits
almost tripled in the crisis year compared to 2007. With regards to national and
international mobility, 24 percent of respondents, a ten-fold increase since 2007,
reported that immigrants and ethnic minorities demanded change. This increased
demand for mobility may imply that migrant workers are in general more affected by
10
the recession and are likely to seek easier mobility to move where they could have
better earning opportunities. Additional areas where the focus has shifted include
participation in trade unions and political life.
[Figure 4 about here]
We also consider experts’ perceptions about the differences in the areas of change in
2010 by different groups of EU and non-EU immigrants. According to Figure 5, nonEU
immigrants are viewed to desire changes in nearly all areas more frequently than
EU immigrants, most notably in housing, health care and paid employment.
[Figure 5 about here]
Figure 6 supports the view of higher barriers of access to various services by non-EU
immigrants compared to those coming from other EU countries. They are
considerably more frequently seen as exposed to either a very high or a high risk of
exclusion in all areas of public services. On the question about the degree of exclusion
across various areas of services and by different groups of immigrants, a substantially
higher proportion of respondents said that non-EU immigrants are excluded from the
services of state employment agencies, either at the very high or high level (39
percent) or at least a medium level of risk (23 percent). Nearly half of total
respondents said that non-EU immigrants experience discrimination by local public
service officials, with 25 percent for very high risk, and 24 percent for high risk. The
three areas where the share of respondents indicating a high or very high degree of
exclusion for non-EU immigrants exceeds or equals 50 percent are higher education,
housing and housing subsidies, and bank services and loans.
11
[Figure 6 about here]
Illegal immigrants are seen as having even worse access to all kinds of public services
than non-EU immigrants. For illegal immigrants the share of respondents reporting a
high or very high degree of exclusion exceeds or equals 50 percent for all considered
public services. This may be due to barriers such as legal or institutional constraints,
discrimination, poor language and education, or lack of information.
The 2010 survey also asked the experts to evaluate the effect of the recession caused
by the financial crisis on the role of active inclusion policies which are targeted at
ethnic minority members. Over half of all respondents (53 percent) indicated that it
was considerably or somewhat more important than before the crisis, and 30 percent
said that it was just as important (see Figure 7). Thus, the overall importance of active
inclusion polices and the enabling services to implement them is very high across
Member States (see Figure 7).
[Figure 7 about here]
Figure 8 reveals which enabling services were seen as the most important in times of
crises in 2010. Employment agency assistance and education were deemed equally
most important, at 58 and 56 percent respectively. Demand for unemployment
benefits is also high (40 percent), ranking only third among all the instruments,
followed by language training at 33.
[Figure 8 about here]
12
Explaining expert opinions
The responses given by the experts give useful insights into the demand for, and
barriers to, the social and labor market integration of immigrants. The message that
unfolds in this analysis is that, according to the surveyed experts, the general public in
Europe has a rather negative attitude towards immigrants, and this has become more
marked throughout the crisis. 7
Although the business world views immigrants
somewhat less negatively, serious barriers to immigrants’ labor market inclusion
regarding language, discrimination, and human capital, exclusion from labor market
information, and recognition of foreign qualification, as well as institutional barriers,
are identified. Exclusion from higher education, housing and the services of the
financial sector aggravate these barriers. Changes in the areas of paid employment,
education, social insurance, mobility and attitudes are seen as desired by members of
ethnic minorities. The economic downturn circa 2010 is viewed as increasing the
importance of active inclusion policies especially in the areas of employment and
education.
The external validity of these insights depends on their robustness with respect to
various subjective factors. While we cannot exhaustively address the issue of the
subjective nature of the expert opinions, we can test their stability with respect to
some characteristics of the surveyed organizations and expert respondents.
Using the Logit and ordered Logit statistical models, we examine the effects of
individual respondent’s characteristics as well as the characteristics of the
7
The results from Figure 4 indicate that significantly less respondents believe that immigrant and
ethnic minorities require changes in the area of the attitudes of the majority population towards them.
This may indicate a growing discouragement or fatigue of ethnic minorities in this area.
13
organization he or she represents on the responses. Among individual characteristics
we consider age, age squared and gender. Respondents’ organizations are classified as
employees’ association (benchmark), employers’ association, trade union,
governmental organization primarily aimed at equal opportunities, other governmental
organization, NGO primarily aimed at equal opportunities, NGO primarily aimed at
labor market integration of ethnic minorities, NGO with primary objectives other than
the labor market integration of ethnic minorities or equal opportunities, or other. In
addition, we distinguish between organizations focusing on a specific ethnic minority
(or ethnic minorities in general) as well as those primarily run by members of a
specific ethnic minority (or ethnic minorities in general). Finally, we classify five
regions of Europe to help account for regional variation of contextual variables: West
(benchmark), including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands; the United Kingdom and Ireland; Scandinavia, including Denmark,
Finland and Sweden; South, including Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and
Spain; and East, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
We test the robustness of responses for the four most important barriers preventing
ethnic minorities from fully participating in the labor market: institutional barriers,
such as citizenship, or legal restrictions; insufficient knowledge of the official
language(s); discriminatory attitudes and behavior towards ethnic minorities; and
insufficient education. The generally insignificant results from the Logit model
reported in Table 1, columns 1-4, demonstrate that whether or not any of these
barriers is viewed as significant does not depend on (and, hence, is not biased by)
individual characteristics of respondents or characteristics of the organization they
14
represent. Except for ethnic focus and being run by ethnic minorities in column 1 we
only find some regional effects to be statistically significant. In fact, the Wald test of
the hypothesis that all the coefficients except the regional dummies are jointly equal
to zero is rejected in all these models.
[Table 1 about here]
That neither individual nor organization’s characteristics affect respondents’
perceptions about whether any changes concerning social and labor market integration
are demanded, and if so in which areas, is confirmed by the generally insignificant
coefficients from the Logit model reported in columns 5 to 9. Besides one regional
coefficient, the only significant coefficient is the positive effect of being a woman on
experts’ perception whether changes are required in the area of social insurance and
benefits. Similarly, the ordered Logit model estimated to measure the effects of
individual and organization’s characteristics on respondent’s perceptions about the
barriers to integration (columns 10-14) shows that such effects are generally
insignificant, with the exception of a few regional effects and the effects of age and
gender in case of access to bank services. Again, the Wald test of the hypothesis that
all the coefficients except the regional dummies are jointly equal to zero is rejected in
all but one of these models (column 13).
We interpret this evidence to signify a reasonable degree of robustness of experts’
perceptions with respect to their individual characteristics as well as the
characteristics of the organizations they represent, and thus provide some support to
the belief that the validity of our results is not limited to the available sample.
15
Policy discussion
That ethnic and immigrant populations would like to change their situation legitimizes
integration policy efforts. Facing difficulties with integration into both the labor
market and social assistance and services puts immigrants into a very severe situation
of double-marginalization. Tackling negative attitudes towards immigrants, which
seem to constitute one of such barriers, is therefore in our view a most important
objective of integration policies. Helping immigrants improve their language skills of
the host country and removing administrative barriers that prevent them from fully
participating in the labor market are other fruitful areas for policy efforts.
In contrast with the premise of excessive immigrant welfare take up so deeply
entrenched in the European discourse, the literature suggests a different interpretation.
Namely, if immigrants are found among welfare recipients more often than natives, it
is rather due to adverse composition of immigrant populations than any peculiar
immigrant-specific factor. Among comparable immigrants and natives, immigrants in
fact exhibit lower welfare take up rates than natives (Zimmermann, Kahanec, Barrett,
Giulietti, Maître and Guzi, 2011; Barrett and Maître, 2011). These findings hint at the
existence of significant barriers to immigrants’ access to welfare. They also highlight
the importance of properly designed immigration policies, which largely determine
the composition of immigrant populations.
Our IZA Expert Opinion Survey identifies and scales a number of barriers to inclusion
as viewed by expert stakeholders. Based on our findings, some of the most urgent foci
of policy efforts include access to housing and housing subsidies, higher education,
16
family and child benefits, unemployment benefits, as well as employment agency
assistance, including information about relevant job vacancies and training. Another
important area where improvement is needed is the access to bank services and credit
(loans, mortgages, consumer and business credit). This is even more important in the
light of the increased significance of self-employment as means of earning one’s
living documented in the survey between 2007 and 2010. As non-EU and
undocumented immigrants face the most severe risk of exclusion from social and
economic opportunities, policy efforts should be targeted at these two groups. General
policies should also aim at reducing the risk of being discriminated, neglected,
uninformed, misinformed or otherwise mistreated by social service agencies. Such
efforts need to be coordinated under an effective umbrella of antidiscrimination
legislation.
It is crucial to understand that welfare inclusion policies should be viewed as means
of broader social and labor market integration. Although they do not come at zero
costs, they do serve as enabling services that have positive effects on the long-run
stability of public finance. In effect, immigrant inclusion into welfare deserves special
attention also in times of economic downturns and crises, when immigrants may be
especially vulnerable.
Conclusion
A variety of barriers continue to hold back both economic and social integration of
immigrant minorities in the EU. The findings of the IZA Expert Opinion Survey show
that discriminatory attitudes of the natives remain a very powerful non-institutional
17
barrier to the integration of ethnic minorities in the EU. Yet it is important to note that
the labor market environment in the business world is slightly more favorable to
people of ethnic minorities than the general public of the EU. This implies that there
is an untested gap between the view of the public and the view of the business world.
Although one reason for the differing perceptions of the general public about
European immigrants and non-European ethnic minority immigrants would be the
discrimination between “us” and “them”, further study is required to identify the exact
anatomy of various socially and institutionally constructed biases against people of
ethnic minority origin across EU Member States. Knowing them will also allow us to
identify variations in discriminatory behavior and target groups across countries as
well as within. For example, the highly disadvantaged, and even stigmatized, position
of Turks in Germany − rooted in the country’s record of receiving low-educated and
low-skilled guest workers from Turkey − is quite different in other Member States
such as Sweden and the UK, which have different systems and histories of
international migration.
The institutional barriers identified in the 2010 survey tell us that, in experts’ view,
ethnic minority immigrants’ key concerns have shifted to the issues which are more
directly related to their long-term economic well-being compared to the pre-crisis
period. This is demonstrated in the change of the immigrant minorities’ policy
priorities between 2007 and 2010.
Education, including vocational and language training, remains a most important
institutional issue together with citizenship and a lack of information about
employment opportunities, which hamper labor market participation of all immigrants
18
from non-EU backgrounds. Of particular importance is the 40 percent of respondents
who reported that not recognizing the foreign qualifications of non-EU immigrants is
a key barrier to labor market integration, compared to 20 percent for EU-migrants –
the “brain waste” phenomenon. Depreciation of immigrants’ qualifications can, in the
long run, have a significant detrimental impact both on the skill supply of the
workforce and the welfare system of the EU’s ageing economies.
Our survey has contributed to addressing a wide range of issues of barriers that
different groups of immigrants have for integration into both the labor market and the
welfare system of the host economy. We have also identified the key policy areas −
known as “enabling services” − which most matter to tackle the barriers prevailing at
the EU level. Such efforts should include general antidiscrimination policies, but also
efforts tackling specific integration barriers mentioned above.
Yet our study has limitations too. The findings of our survey do not fully reflect the
problems which may be more specific and important at the national level other than at
the EU level. This is attributed to the large geopolitical and socio-economic diversity
of an enlarged EU. In sum, the underlying cross-country differences which are
imbued in different immigration histories and systems of the 27 EU Member States
should be taken into account in the general evaluation of the findings. This is also
important for implementation of any new EU-level policy for “active inclusion” of the
diverse immigrant minority populations in the Member States.
19
References
Barrett, A. and Y. McCarthy (2008) “Immigrants and welfare programmes: Exploring
the interactions between immigrant characteristics, immigrant welfare dependence,
and welfare policy”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24 (3), 542-559.
Barrett, A. and B. Maître (2011), “Immigrant welfare receipt across Europe”, IZA
Discussion Paper No. 5515, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, forthcoming in
International Journal of Manpower.
Borjas, G.J. and L. Hilton (1996) “Immigration and the welfare state: Immigrant
participation in means-tested entitlement programs”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
111 (2), 575-604.
Borjas, G.J. (1999) “Immigration and welfare magnets”, Journal of Labor Economics,
17 (4), 607-637.
Constant, A., M. Kahanec and K.F. Zimmermann (2009) “Attitudes towards
immigrants, other integration barriers, and their veracity”, International Journal of
Manpower, 30 (1-2), 5-14.
Drinkwater, S., J. Eade and M. Garapich (2009) “Poles apart? EU enlargement and
the labour market outcomes of immigrants in the United Kingdom”, International
Migration, 47 (1), 161-190.
20
Dustmann, C., T. Frattini and I. Preston (2007) A Study of the Migrant Workers and
the National Minimum Wage and Enforcement Issues, University College London.
Fix, M.E., R. Capps and N. Kaushal. (2009) “Immigrants and Welfare: Overview,” in
Immigrants and Welfare: The impact of welfare reform on America’s newcomers,
M.E. Fix (ed.), New York, Washington D.C.: Russell Sage Foundation.
Giulietti, C., M. Guzi, M. Kahanec and K.F. Zimmermann (2011) “Unemployment
benefits and immigration: Evidence from the EU”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 6075,
Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, forthcoming in International Journal of
Manpower.
Hansen, J. and M. Lofstrom (2008) “The dynamics of immigrant welfare and labor
market behavior”, Journal of Population Economics, 22(4), 941-970.
Heitmueller, A. (2005). ‘Unemployment benefits, risk aversion, and migration
incentives’, Journal of Population Economics, 18(1), 93–112.
Kahanec, M. and K.F. Zimmermann (eds.) (2011) Ethnic Diversity in European
Labor Markets: Challenges and solutions, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kaestner, R. and N. Kaushal (2005). “Immigrant and native responses to welfare
reform”, Journal of Population Economics, 18(1), 69–92.
21
Mayda, A. (2010). “International migration: a panel data analysis of the determinants
of bilateral flows”, Journal of Population Economics, 23(4), 1249–1274.
OECD (2008) A Profile of Immigrant Populations in the 21st Century: Data from
OECD countries, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (2009) International Migration Outlook 2009, Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Riphahn, R.T. (2004) “Immigration participation in social assistance programs”,
Applied Economics Quarterly, 50 (4), 329-362.
Shinnaoui, D. and R. Narchal (2010) “Brain gain to brain waste: Individual biases,
prejudice, and discounting of migrant skills”, Journal of International Migration and
Integration, 11(4), 423-427.
Van Hook, J. and F.D. Bean (2009) “Immigrant welfare receipt: Implications for
immigrant settlement and integration”, in M.E. Fix. (ed.) Immigrants and Welfare:
The impact of welfare reform on America’s newcomers, New York, Washington D.C.:
Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 93-122.
Zimmermann, K.F., M. Kahanec, A. Constant, D. DeVoretz, L. Gataullina and A.
Zaiceva (2008) “Study on the social and labour market integration of ethnic
minorities”, IZA Research Report No.16, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
22
Zimmermann, K.F., M. Kahanec, A. Barrett, C. Giulietti, B. Maître and M. Guzi
(2011) “Study on active inclusion of immigrants”, IZA Research Report, forthcoming.
23
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. The attitudes of the general public towards migrants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive
Percent
EU immigrants
Non-EU immigrants
All peolple of ethnic
minority origin
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010.
Notes: Responses to the question: How would you describe the general public opinion
and attitudes towards the following ethnic minorities?
Figure 2. The attitudes in the business world towards migrants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Very negative Negative Neutral Positive Very positive
Percent
EU immigrants
Non-EU immigrants
All people of ethnic
minority origin
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010.
Notes: Responses to the question: How would you describe the perception of the
following ethnic minorities as employees and business partners in the business world,
i.e. among managers, businessmen and businesswomen, and entrepreneurs?
24
Figure 3. Barriers to labor market inclusion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
N
o
barriers
Language
Education
Inform
ation
D
iscrim
ination
N
orm
s
Institutions
D
iplom
a
recognition
O
ther
Percent
EU immigrants
Non-EU immigrants
Undocumented
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010
Notes: Responses to the question: What are the most significant barriers preventing
ethnic minorities from fully participating in the labor market? [no barriers; insufficient
knowledge of the official language(s); insufficient education; lack of information
about employment opportunities; discriminatory attitudes and behavior towards ethnic
minorities; social, cultural and religious norms originating from within these ethnic
minorities; institutional barriers, such as citizenship, or legal restrictions; institutional
barriers related to recognition of foreign qualifications; other, please specify]
Figure 4. Areas in which changes are required by year
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Paid
em
ploym
entSelf-em
ploym
ent
EducationSocialinsurance
H
ealth
care
H
ousing
M
obility
C
ulture
Politicalparticipation
Trade
unions
Attitudes
O
ther
2007
2010
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2007 and 2010.
Notes: In percent of all respondents, including those claiming no desire for change.
Answers to the question: Please indicate in which three of the following areas such
changes [concerning its social and labor market integration] are most desired by
members of this ethnic minority. [paid employment, including hiring, promotion,
laying off, and remuneration; self-employment, including licensing; education; social
insurance and benefits; health care; housing; national and international mobility;
cultural, social, and religious life; political participation and representation, such as
the right to vote and be elected; representation in employees’ organizations, such as
trade unions; attitudes of and acceptance by society; other]
25
Figure 5. Areas in which changes are required by different groups of immigrants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Paid
em
ploym
ent
Self-em
ploym
ent
Education
SocialinsuranceH
ealth
care
H
ousing
M
obility
C
ulture
PoliticalparticipationTrade
unions
Attitudes
O
ther
Percent
EU immigrants
Non-EU immigrants
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010.
Notes: See Figure 4.
26
Figure 6. Exclusion from services
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
EU
non-EU
Undocumented
Pre-school
education
Education in
general
Higher
education
Language
training
courses
Family and
child benefits
Housing and
housing
subsidies
Unemployment
benefits
Employment
agency
assistance
Health care
and health
insurance
Bank
services and
loans
Risk of being
discriminated
by local
officials
Areas of exclusion
Percent
Very high
High
Medium
Low
No or very low
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010.
Notes: Answers to the question: Please evaluate the risk of [immigrants of the indicated type] being excluded from, or having difficulties
accessing, [indicated social service or social assistance].
27
Figure 7. The importance of active inclusion policies in the economic crisis circa 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Considerably less
important
Somew hat less
important
About as important Somew hat more
important
Considerably more
important
Percent
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010
Notes: Answers to the question: How would you evaluate the effect of the current
financial and economic crisis on the role of active inclusion policies targeting ethnic
minorities compared to the period before the crisis?
Figure 8. Demand for enabling services at times of crisis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pre-school
education
Education
Higher
education
Language
training
Familyand
childbenefits
Housing
Unemployment
benefits
Employment
agency
assistance
Healthcare
services
Bankservices
Percent
Source: IZA Expert Opinion Survey 2010
Notes: Answers to the question: Which of the following enabling services are most
important in times of crisis? Please pick three. [pre-school educational institutions
(kindergartens, child care facilities); education in general; higher education; language
training courses; family and child benefits; housing and housing subsidies;
unemployment benefits; employment agency assistance, including information about
relevant job vacancies and training; health care and health insurance; bank services
and credit (loans, mortgages, consumer and business credit)]
28
Table 1. Determinants of expert opinions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Crisis
Institu-
tions
Language
Discrimi-
nation
Education
Any
change?
Paid
employ-
ment
Education
Social
insurance
Mobility
Higher
education
Housing
Bank
services
Discrimi-
nation
Any
effect?
Age -0.008 0.402 0.201 -0.104 -0.079 -0.099 0.560 0.019 0.340 -0.053 0.077 0.291* 0.092 0.016
[0.150] [0.260] [0.263] [0.159] [0.135] [0.136] [0.378] [0.147] [0.678] [0.117] [0.113] [0.115] [0.111] [0.122]
Age squared -0.016 -0.421 -0.308 0.091 0.067 0.099 -0.851 0.018 -0.319 0.018 -0.082 -0.319** -0.124 0.027
[0.148] [0.275] [0.287] [0.159] [0.136] [0.139] [0.483] [0.146] [0.754] [0.116] [0.112] [0.116] [0.110] [0.127]
Female -1.118 0.693 1.276 -0.883 -0.009 0.084 -1.161 1.694* -2.348 0.985 0.724 1.440* 1.231 0.298
[0.851] [0.864] [0.895] [0.727] [0.679] [0.673] [0.784] [0.833] [1.829] [0.646] [0.603] [0.597] [0.653] [0.527]
Employers' association -0.753 -0.364 16.010 16.470 14.150 0.405 -3.191 1.799 0.757 -1.777
[2.110] [1.963] [1,201] [1,473] [1,489] [1.727] [2.386] [1.903] [2.030] [1.493]
Trade unions 0.474 0.227 17.040 19.370 16.590 12.550 2.781 1.174 1.624 1.006 -1.219
[2.112] [1.911] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1,489] [1.748] [2.350] [1.917] [2.055] [1.457]
Equal opportunities -0.737 2.582 18.370 0.695 -2.797 0.884 2.314 -0.781
governmental organization [2.034] [2.244] [3,897] [1.864] [2.393] [1.943] [2.157] [1.801]
Other governmental -0.694 0.598 15.030 16.760 16.100 0.301 -2.221 -1.432 0.341 -3.296
organization [2.340] [2.060] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1.862] [2.496] [2.153] [2.201] [1.782]
NGO focusing on equal 0.283 1.218 3.027 0.786 16.630 16.390 15.090 13.440 13.240 2.037 -0.437 1.767 3.519 -1.225
opportunities [1.750] [1.706] [1.895] [1.486] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1,489] [7,214] [1.545] [2.170] [1.704] [1.901] [1.218]
NGO focusing on integration 1.348 1.636 -0.067 2.376 17.290 17.740 16.830 12.980 3.255 -1.907 0.311 3.028 -1.951
[2.249] [2.381] [2.190] [1.900] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1,489] [1.980] [2.499] [2.018] [2.243] [1.491]
Other NGO 0.391 2.478 1.601 1.122 16.250 16.200 17.150 11.770 1.046 -0.409 1.176 2.361 -0.604
[1.784] [2.023] [1.956] [1.586] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1,489] [1.693] [2.271] [1.866] [2.253] [1.296]
Other organization -1.146 0.911 0.626 2.714 15.880 15.340 16.660 12.440 12.410 1.125 -0.728 0.289 2.978 -1.506
[1.816] [1.822] [1.800] [1.584] [1,201] [1,473] [3,897] [1,489] [7,214] [1.642] [2.218] [1.741] [1.957] [1.262]
Focus on minorities 2.145* -0.136 -0.331 -0.577 0.177 0.946 -0.175 -0.038 2.183 0.329 1.336 0.251 0.713 0.610
[1.017] [0.964] [0.980] [0.784] [0.853] [0.883] [0.890] [1.019] [1.761] [0.763] [0.779] [0.705] [0.758] [0.617]
Run by minorities -2.145* -1.047 0.935 -0.419 -0.539 -0.585 0.173 -0.137 -1.406 -0.088 -0.647 0.411 0.623 0.939
[1.024] [1.008] [1.137] [0.869] [0.859] [0.807] [0.930] [1.207] [2.004] [0.813] [0.824] [0.795] [0.859] [0.670]
Ireland or the UK -0.007 -0.523 -2.954* -0.239 0.291 -1.450 -0.406 0.062 1.018 1.240 0.297 1.899 -0.350
[1.169] [1.089] [1.391] [1.161] [1.094] [1.640] [1.587] [1.720] [0.976] [0.921] [0.901] [1.060] [0.970]
Scandinavia -4.309* 2.090 0.786 -0.483 -1.035 -0.995 0.360 -1.814 -2.540* 0.549 -0.860 -1.790
[1.748] [1.732] [1.460] [1.169] [1.297] [1.304] [1.514] [1.162] [1.238] [1.184] [1.287] [0.981]
South 1.720 -0.053 -0.007 -2.425* -0.773 -0.241 -0.796 1.782 -2.555** 0.610 0.322 -0.573 0.071
[1.327] [1.049] [1.115] [0.984] [0.873] [0.826] [1.053] [0.959] [0.929] [0.802] [0.799] [0.846] [0.720]
East -2.009* -0.209 -1.519 -0.459 -2.381* 0.527 1.749 -0.142 -3.113** -2.124* -0.799 0.112 -0.507
[0.982] [1.076] [0.847] [0.868] [0.942] [0.932] [1.083] [1.608] [0.874] [0.881] [0.787] [0.813] [0.651]
Pseudo R-sq 0.28 0.20 0.28 0.22 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.08
P>Chi2 0.68 0.75 0.29 0.84 1.00 0.76 0.56 0.85 0.94 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.37
N 74 53 55 77 75 75 74 66 31 64 64 64 64 78
Barriers to labor market participation Areas in which changes desired Exclusion from social services
Notes: Standard errors in brackets; ** p<0.01, * p<0.05; Logit (columns 1-9) and ordered Logit (columns 10-14) regression models. Benchmark categories: West, employees'
association. P>Chi2 reports probabilities of the Wald test of the null hypothesis that all the coefficients (excepting the regional dummies) are jointly equal to zero.