Quantitative research .1 Survey

Most studies on naturalization incentives use qualitative data only. Quantitative analysis, however, can provide a powerful insight into the topic, by analysing characteristics of a population (Reichel, 2011). This methodological approach makes the results viable, given the wide variety of people that may participate (de Vaus, 2002).

3.4.1.1 Procedure and Sample Group

As in the qualitative part of the present study, immigrants that want to apply for Dutch citizenship in the future, have already applied or obtained it, were invited to fill out the survey. The survey was spread online via the University of Aruba network and through social media. It was available in 3 different languages (English, Papiamento and Spanish). Participants were informed that the study concerns their incentives to apply for naturalization and that it will take about 5 minutes for completion of the survey. Respondents were being ensured that the results are confidential and anonymous. For potential questions, participants were provided with an email address.

In total, N=60 people completed the survey of which 48%

(n = 29) people were already naturalized, 20% (n = 12) were in the naturalization process and 30% (n = 18) want to naturalize in the future. The participants were between 19 and 54 years of age (M=24.27, SD=9.97). 28% (n = 17) of the respondents were male and 72% (n = 43) female. Most participants have finished high school (68%), some have limited college experience (17%) and 8.3% have obtained their bachelor’s degree.

Most participants were born in Latin America (46.67%), 25% (n = 15) come from the Caribbean, 17% (n = 10) were born in Europe and 11.67% (n = 7) were born in Asia. Overall, participants reported 21 different countries of birth. With 81% of all valid responses (n = 56), most participants were single and 18% were married. Overall, 12 participants had children, where the maximum amount of children was 3. Of those participants that migrated to Aruba (n = 43), the average migration age (years) was M=

9.91 (SD= 9.98).

Figure 2. Descriptive statistics of survey participants

3.4.1.2 Survey Design

The survey was developed in two ways. First, outcomes from similar studies (see Chapter 2) were used to develop general statements about naturalization motives. Second, interviews were conducted to make the survey side-specific. Two officials from the Cabinet of Governors were interviewed to gain insight into naturalization decisions from an institutional perspective (Cabinet, personal communication, February 28, 2018). Second, an interview with Luis Villegas, a local journalist with expertise on naturalization decisions, helped to give insights into the immigrants’ perspective on naturalization decisions (personal communication, February 10, 2018). The local immigration institution DIMAS was contacted, without success.

The final product is a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. 15 Likert items were employed to measure different, underlying

UAUCUStudent Research Exchange Collected Papers 2018

196 constructs, namely: the role of rational choice theory, social identity theory, social capital theory and political incentives in naturalization decision. Each variable was phrased as a question beginning with “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship…..” followed by a statement (i.e. because you feel Aruban; because you decided to settle on Aruba).

The participants could rank the importance with 5 options (1= Not important; 2= Of little importance; 3= Moderately important; 4= Important; 5= very important).

To determine whether the Likert-items measured the intended underlying construct, a principle component analysis (PCA) was performed in addition to a Cronbach alpha, to check for the reliability of the data.

Social Identity Theory. The first determinant for naturalization incentives is the identification with the country of origin and the sense of belonging. There are 4 statements that cover the importance of social identity in the naturalization decision. The first question asked “how important was it for you to apply for citizenship because you feel Aruban?” This question asked if the passport is considered an important factor for one’s identity, attached to feelings of patriotism and social environment. The second question was more concerned with the future relationship and commitment to Aruba: “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship because you decided to settle on Aruba?”. The third and fourth question focused on the role and perception of the individual within the Aruban society.

These questions were: “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to be perceived as a full member of the Aruban community?” and “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to be treated equally as the Aruban citizens?”. These last questions aimed to identify if respondents understand the change of citizenship as a change of status and social identity.

The category “social identity” had a medium level of internal consistency, as determined by the Cronbach alpha of .73.

Given the low corrected item-total correlation of the variable settle (r=.34) and the Cronbach’s alpha, if the item is deleted (α= .77), the variable settle will be excluded from further analysis. This decision is supported by the results of the PCA, which have shown strong correlations of the variable

‘settle’ with multiple variables. This can be explained by the fact that the intention to settle may also be affected by one’s social capital or rational choice decisions. After excluding the variable “settle”, the final Cronbach’s alpha is .77.

Rational Choice Theory. Rational choice motives are divided into economic and pragmatic motives and safety concerns. The economic motivation was measured with four questions. The first question asked for the importance to apply for citizenship to get access to government funding (i.e. student loans, social benefits, pensions):

“How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to have access to loans?” The second question asked: “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to get access to higher education on Aruba or abroad?”. This question was included after the interviews with Villegas and the Cabinet, who emphasized that immigrants naturalize for educational purposes (Cabinet, personal communication, February 28, 2018; L. Villegas, personal communication, February 10, 2018). Questions 3 and 4 were targeted directly at job opportunities on Aruba and Europe: “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to get access to jobs on Aruba?” and “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to get access to job opportunities in Europe?”.

Both questions discuss the importance of enhancing job opportunities, both on Aruba and abroad. To measure the importance of pragmatic reasons, 2 questions were examined. The first question asked “how important was it for you to apply for citizenship because traveling is easier with the Aruban citizenship/ Dutch passport?”, and second,

“how important was it for you to apply for citizenship to avoid having to reapply for permits to live on Aruba?”.

Finally, safety concerns and their impact on naturalization decisions will be questioned. The desire for safety is related

to both immigration policies and travel restrictions. First, the participant was asked: “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to not be affected by changes in immigration policies?”, and second, “how important was it for you to apply for citizenship to be able to come and leave Aruba without restrictions?”.

The PCA indicated that rational choice theory can be divided into two separate categories: (1) ‘future opportunities’ (job opportunities on Aruba/ in Europe;

traveling; access to higher education; government funding) and (2) ‘naturalization status’ (importance of coming and leaving Aruba; having to reapply and not being affected by policy changes). The category ‘future opportunities’ has an average of 4.20 (SD=.67) and explains 32% of the variance in naturalization decisions. The category ‘naturalization status’

explains a further 11% of the total variance. The Cronbach’s alpha for ‘future opportunities’ and ‘naturalization status’, however, is too low to include both factors in the further analysis. Therefore, it was decided to group economic, pragmatic and safety concerns into one category, namely:

rational choice motives. The Cronbach alpha of the newly constructed dependent variable is .78, which indicates a fairly good reliability.

Social Capital Theory. The role social capital plays in individual naturalization decisions will be measured with 2 questions. Firstly, “how important was it for you to apply for citizenship so that your children can have the European citizenship?”. This question aims to measures the importance of intergenerational naturalization decision that has proven to play a significant role in different studies (Street, 2014).

Second, the influence of the immigrants’ surroundings is taken into consideration by asking “how important was it for you to apply for citizenship because relatives applied for naturalization too?”. This question measures the perceived importance of social networks on naturalization decisions.

The two questions only have a weak correlation and the Cronbach’s alpha is low, namely, .60. Therefore, it is decided

to measure “social capital” using two independent variables instead of grouping them together. This decision is further supported by the outcome of the PCA analysis that indicated correlations between the importance for applying for citizenship for the future of one’s children and rational choice theory.

Political Motivation. Previous research found that being able to vote is an important motivation for naturalization.

The participants were asked, “How important was it for you to apply for citizenship to be able to vote in elections?”.

The PCA indicated correlations with various factors. This result was expected, as immigrants may consider voting important for rational choice motives, social identity reasons or to please their social network (see chapter 2).

Therefore, ‘political motivation’ will be considered as a category of its own.

Independent variables. The independent variables include the economic position (education; income; occupation), migration background (time living on Aruba; migrant generation) the social network (having children, marital status) and finally the country of origin (GNI per capita;

region) of the immigrant. Given the low number of responses, the variables had to be reconstructed into larger categories with “sufficient cases” as presented below.

From a perspective of socialisation theory, the more time an individual spends in a country, the more they identify with its culture and people (Esser, 2009). The independent variables are the immigrants’ status (1st generation/1.5 generation/ 2nd generation), based upon the country of birth, the country of the parents’ birth and the year of migration to Aruba and the time spend in Aruba.

Social networks have shown to impact naturalization decisions. The present research considers the marital status of respondents, including two different statuses, namely

UAUCUStudent Research Exchange Collected Papers 2018

198

“single” and “married”. All respondents that do not fall into either of these categories were coded as missing cases (coded in SPSS as 99). This research further differentiates between people having children (coded as 1) and not having children (coded as 2).

Finally, the individual’s economic position and human capital will be measured including the educational background (high school or less/ some college experience or more), income level (below 20.000 AFL/ between 20.000-29.999 AFL/ above 30.000 AFL) and occupational status (student/ working for wages).

The last independent variables concern the country of origin. Countries are divided into different regions (Latin America/ Asia/ Caribbean/ Europe) and are categorised into middle-income economies and high-income economies, using the GNI per capita, based on the World Bank Atlas Method (World Bank, 2018). As the democratic status of a country may determine the importance attributed to voting incentives in naturalization decisions, the countries are divided into democratic countries (full democracies and flawed democracies) and non-democratic countries (hybrid democracies and authoritarian regimes), based on the democracy index 2017 (economist intelligence unit, 2018).

Additional variables. Gender is used as an additional variable. It is determined by the question: “Are you male or female or what gender do you most identify with?”.

The responses included either male (coded as 1) or female (coded as 2). Finally, the naturalization status is controlled.

Respondents are divided into the categories ‘already naturalized’ (coded as 1) and ‘not naturalized’ (coded as 2).