Migrant communities and quality of life in European neighbourhoodsPresentation to 6th International Conference on

Population Geographies

David Owen, IER and CRER, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Aims of the paper

To identify the comparative circumstances of migrants from within the EU and third-country migrants

To compare the situations of third-country migrants of “European” and developing world heritage

To analyse comparative patterns of disadvantage of migrants and determine whether the second generation of migrants remain disadvantaged

To identify the extent to which disadvantaged migrants tend to concentrate in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

To assess the relative importance of individual and local labour market factors and spatial structure on the likelihood of employment

Structure of paper

Outline of migration and integration in the European Union

Discussion of data sources Key questions for analysis Analysis of labour market contrasts Analysis of deprivation patterns Analysis of housing circumstances Conclusions

Trends of migration to the EU

Since WW2, Europe has attracted an increasing volume of international migrants.

Those born outside Europe now form around a tenth of the population. There is considerable national variation – from 4% in Finland to 32.2% in Luxembourg. Among the larger countries, from 7.3% in Italy to 13.8% in Spain.

In the 1950s/60s mass international immigration was mainly from former colonies, to meet the demands of industry. In 1970s/80s migration declined and was mainly family reunification.

Immigration increased rapidly from 1990s onwards, due to increased refugee flows and economic migrants as the pace of globalisation increased

Increased EU integration has led to greater intra-EU migration. EU policy aims to increase mobility in order to improve productivity and competitiveness (Lisbon Agenda)

Expansion of the EU into eastern Europe from 2004 has attracted a new source of intra-EU migrants.

Integration of international migrants in the EU Migrants from outside Europe were recruited by employers to meet the

labour demands of growing industries and for declining industries unattractive to European workers. Jobs were predominantly low skilled and low paid.

Migrants also found opportunities in the service sector, also low paid. The geographical distribution of these migrants tends to reflect the

location of job opportunities and business opportunities. Thus, they are located in larger cities (often capitals like London, Paris

or Berlin), but also industrial areas (e.g. north-west England). With low incomes and facing discrimination, residential choice was

limited to poorer quality housing, often in the older parts of cities. With high levels of need, they also tend to be concentrated in social housing (now poor quality) in urban fringes.

Some second/third generation migrants have progressed economically, others remain disadvantaged, living in disadvantaged locations.

EU aims to increase the rights of 3rd country nationals, but to restrict unskilled migration from outside the EU.

Data sources

This paper is largely based on Eurofound’s second European Quality of Life Survey (2007).

A large survey: 1000 interviews of people aged 18+ living in private households in each country and over 2000 in countries with the largest populations.

Asks a wide range of socio-economic and demographic questions. There are also questions about lifestyle and attitudes.

The survey includes questions on country of birth of the respondents and their parents, and on the neighbourhood and NUTS2 region in which they live.

Neighbourhoods are classified as having ‘many’, ‘some’ or ‘few’ people from minority ethnic groups.

The European Values Survey (a survey of similar size, also intended to be broadly representative of the adult population) is used to calculate indicators of diversity and prejudice towards migrants and minorities for NUTS1 regions.

Key questions being addressed Are migrants from Africa/Asia/Latin America

more disadvantaged than intra-EU migrants and 3rd country European migrants?

Does the disadvantage of the first generation persist into the second?

Are neighbourhoods where ethnic minorities are most common most deprived, and are migrants concentrated in deprived areas?

Labour market contrastsMigrant status Employment

rate Unemploym

ent rate Students as

a % of population

% EA pop long-term

unemployed

Female employment

rate Person and parents born in country

51.4 8.3 5.9 4.6 44.0

1st generation EU 52.4 15.2 3.8 5.1 48.5 1st generation European

59.0 13.4 7.6 7.8 46.4

1st generation Africa/Asia/Latin America

57.4 16.1 6.0 5.6 53.1

2nd generation other EU

52.9 11.9 8.9 9.1 49.8

2nd generation outside Europe

53.8 14.4 23.0 5.4 47.8

All 51.9 9.3 6.3 5.0 44.8

The employment rate of migrants is higher than that of the ‘native’ population, and highest for third-country migrants with European heritage.

The employment rate of the second generation is lower than that of first generation migrants. Female employment rates are also higher for migrants. A higher percentage of migrants are students for

(except first generation EU migrants), reflecting younger age structure. The percentage of the economically active population unemployed is much higher for migrants, especially

for those from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Second generation of third country migrants is also much more likely to be unemployed than both non-

migrants and other migrants. Long-term unemployment is more of a problem for migrants of European origin.

Occupational contrasts

Migrants from elsewhere in EU more likely to be professionals and managers or skilled employees

In the first generation of third country migrants, those of European origin and those with origins in Africa, Asia and Latin America are most likely to be unskilled manual workers and much less likely to be managers.

In the second generation, those of European heritage are much more likely to be in managerial occupations, while non-Europeans are much more likely to have unskilled occupations and work in the service sector.

The non-European second generation from are also less likely than the non-European first generation to be entrepreneurs.

This confirms the role of intra-European migrants in filling skilled positions and highlight the continued disadvantage of second generation non-Europeans.

Employment rates

First-generation EU migrants have similar employment rates to non-migrants in most countries, but their employment rate is very low in Spain and Finland.

First-generation 3rd country migrants of European background have higher than non-migrant employment rates in Spain, Finland Ireland, France, Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK, but exhibit very low employment rates in Belgium, Greece, Italy and Portugal.

Employment rates for first-generation 3rd country migrants of African, Asian or Latin American heritage are below average in most countries, but well above average in Spain, Italy and Sweden.

Second generation migrants from the EU display employment rates well below average in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and the UK and above average in Denmark, Greece and Sweden.

Rates for the second generation of non-European origin are lower than the first generation, being extremely low in Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Austria. However, they were more likely to be employed than average in Denmark, France and Luxembourg.

Unemployment rates

The overall unemployment rate for survey participants was particularly low in Scandinavia and much of northern Europe and high in the Mediterranean, Germany, France and the UK.

The unemployment rates experienced by EU migrants were broadly similar to those of non-migrants, except for the very high rates in Spain and Finland.

First-generation migrants of European origin experienced very high rates in Belgium, Greece, Finland and Austria.

First generation migrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America experienced very high unemployment rates in most countries, but very low rates in Luxembourg and Austria.

There was also extreme volatility in unemployment rates for second-generation migrants.

Employment rates and geographical concentration of minorities

The overall employment rate (and that of non-migrants) declines slightly as the ethnic minority share of the neighbourhood population increases.

For first-generation EU migrants, the employment rate is highest in the neighbourhoods with high minority populations.

For migrants of European origin, the employment rate is highest where ‘some’ people are from ethnic minorities.

The employment rate of first-generation migrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America is highest where the minority share of the population is lowest and lowest where it is highest.

For second-generation migrants, the employment rate is much lower in neighbourhoods where ‘many’ people are from ethnic minorities. Those of European origin are more likely to be employed where ‘some’ people are from ethnic minorities while those of non-European origin are least likely to work there.

People of a different ethnic group from the majority

Person and parents born

in country

1st generation

EU

1st generation European

1st generation

Africa/Asia/Latin America

2nd generation other EU

2nd generation

outside Europe

All

Almost nobody 59.4 58.6 52.7 76.8 52.4 68.8 59.4

Some people 58.6 58.7 61.1 60.5 66.6 30.4 58.5

Many people 57.5 72.6 55.2 48.8 38.1 56.8 56.5

All 58.9 61.4 56.9 58.6 57.0 52.0 58.7

Logistic regression results for the probability of being employed (coefficients significant at 5%) Model successfully predicted 77 per cent of cases; Cox & Snell R

Square=0.376; Nagelkerke R Square value=0.501. Base case: non-migrant man aged 25 to 34 with a basic level of education

living in a city in a neighbourhood with ‘many’ people from ethnic minorities. Positive: level of education (strongest); aged 35 to 49; living in the open

countryside or in a village or small town; first generation. Negative: aged under 24 or over 50; female; living in Germany, Finland,

Luxembourg, Austria or Sweden. Labour market factors had the expected effect but were only weakly

influential Diversity of population and measures of prejudice (both at NUTS1 scale)

had no statistically significant effect upon the probability of employment. Therefore, holding the effect of education, gender and age constant, first

generation migrants from the EU and from Asia, Africa and Latin America were more likely to be employed than either similar people whose origins lie in the country of residence or second generation migrants. However, being located in larger urban areas acts to reduce the probability of employment.

Quality of life and housing

The EQLS includes a number of questions about the standard of living of individuals

Here, the focus is on aspects of deprivation and poor housing quality.

Six dimensions of deprivation

All types of migrant were more likely than natives of a country to experience deprivation. The first generation, with origins in the EU were least disadvantaged. There was lesser disadvantage in the second generation, but those with non-European

origins were most disadvantaged. First generation migrants were more likely than natives to experience two or more

elements of deprivation, though second generation migrants were less so. A very small percentage of respondents were deprived on all six dimensions, with migrants

(especially second generation EU migrants) slightly more likely to be disadvantaged.

Person and

parents born in country

1st generatio

n EU

1st generatio

n European

1st generatio

n Africa/Asi

a/Latin America

2nd generation other

EU

2nd generation outside Europe

All

Keeping home adequately warm

6.5 5.8 10.1 10.8 7.3 8.0 6.7

Paying for a week's annual holiday away from home

22.5 25.7 41.9 37.9 18.0 28.9 23.6

Replacing any worn-out furniture

19.9 22.7 30.5 31.2 22.9 19.2 20.7

A meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day

3.3 3.9 7.0 6.3 3.9 4.7 3.6

Buy new, rather than second-hand, clothes

6.4 9.5 20.0 9.8 7.3 7.0 7.0

Having friends or family for a drink or meal at least once a month

7.9 10.5 20.4 12.3 8.7 3.7 8.4

Total (millions) 261.6 9.9 6.1 12.6 9.8 5.8 305.8 No deprivation 70.2 61.7 49.4 54.6 69.0 62.7 68.7 more than 2 18.2 20.7 33.8 31.5 17.1 18.8 19.1 All six 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.0 1.2

Two or more dimensions of disadvantage There are large national differences are revealed; highest levels of

deprivation occur in Greece, Portugal, Italy Germany and Spain, and the lowest in Luxembourg and the Scandinavian countries.

The percentage of migrants experiencing this level of deprivation is particularly high in the Mediterranean countries, notably for second generation EU migrants in Greece.

Level of deprivation increases as the minority share of a neighbourhood’s population increases, with migrants from outside the EU experiencing the highest percentages.

Second generation migrants are only more disadvantaged than the native population in the neighbourhoods with smallest minority population shares.

In neighbourhoods with ‘many’ people from ethnic minorities, the % deprived is highest in Portugal, Spain and Greece, with first generation European migrants most disadvantaged.

Migrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America most deprived in France, Germany, UK and Netherlands, where second generation is less deprived.

Poor housing quality

The overall percentage of people living in housing of poor physical standard (here no exclusive bath/shower or WC) is highest in Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg, and lowest in Austria, France and the Netherlands.

The relative deprivation of migrants of European background is greatest in Spain, France, Austria and the Netherlands.

People with origins in Asia, Africa and Latin America are most disadvantaged in Denmark, Luxembourg the UK and the Netherlands.

Second generation migrants with origins outside Europe are particularly disadvantaged in Belgium, Germany, Finland and the UK.

The percentage living in poor housing is much higher in the neighbourhoods where ‘many’ people are from ethnic minorities.

Only in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are migrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America more likely to be disadvantaged.

Second generation non-European migrants again display relative housing disadvantage in Belgium and the UK.

In most countries, those in the poorest housing in the areas of largest minority populations are people born in the country with parents born in the country.

Poor housing quality and neighbourhood concentration of minoritiesPeople of a different

ethnic group from the majority

Person and

parents born in country

1st generation EU

1st generati

on Europea

n

1st generati

on Africa/Asia/Latin America

2nd generation other

EU

2nd generati

on outside Europe

All

Almost nobody 1.5 0.2 7.8 0.0 0.4 2.2 1.4 Some people 1.7 1.2 4.1 1.5 0.6 9.1 1.8 Many people 2.7 10.6 1.9 2.9 7.5 4.0 3.2 All 1.7 2.3 4.1 1.8 1.1 5.1 1.8

EU migrants are most likely to live in poor quality housing in areas of high minority population.

First generation migrants of European heritage are most likely to experience such housing problems in areas of low minority populations

The percentage for first generation migrants from Asian and Africa is highest in neighbourhoods with high minority populations.

Second generation EU migrants are also much more likely to experience housing deprivation in areas of high minority populations

Second generation migrants with origins outside Europe were most disadvantaged in areas where ‘some’ people were of an ethnic minority background.

Conclusions

The results presented here suggest that while migrants tend to be disadvantaged relative to the ‘native’ population, there is a less consistent differential between migrants of European and non-European heritage.

Intra-EU migrants are generally more likely to be in employment, but may also experience poorer living conditions than non-migrants.

There is clear evidence that neighbourhoods perceived as having larger numbers of people from ethnic minorities were areas of poorer economic and social conditions.

However, EU migrants seemed to be more disadvantaged than third-country migrants when living in these neighbourhoods.

The main determinant of being employed was the level of education. Age and gender were also important. Being a first-generation migrant increased the probability of employment.

There was weak evidence of higher employment probabilities in more dynamic local labour markets. The presence of discrimination had little effect on the probability of being employed.

The analysis confirmed the disadvantage of second-generation migrants, particularly those with non-European origins, who were less likely to be employed and more likely to work in lower status jobs. However, they were less likely to suffer material deprivation than first generation migrants and the deprived second generation were more likely to live where the minority share of the population was lower.