Education a bridge to success?
--
A research into the role of education in achieving improved socio-economic
outcomes for immigrants on the Dutch labor market.
Amber Ditz
10896864
August, 2016
amberditz@hotmail.com
MSc in International Relations
Master Thesis Political Science Department, University of Amsterdam
17.627 Words: (Ex. Appendix, Ex. Sources)
First Supervisor : Dr. Seiki Tanaka
Abstract
This paper analyses what role education can play in achieving similar or higher labor market outcomes for (second-generation) immigrants, in comparison with Dutch natives, on the Dutch labor market. This research employs a mixed-method approach for the purpose of not merely testing current theoretical perspectives, but to also add to the current literature. The first section explores the significance of education in explaining differentiation in socio-economic integration outcomes, as measured by hourly wages of (second-generation) immigrants in the Netherlands, in comparison with Dutch natives and also tests the possible independent relationship ethnicity has on the educational attainment of immigrants.
The second section explores in a process-oriented manner how education could facilitate similar or higher socio-economic integration outcomes for second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands. It analyses if education could provide immigrants with, language skills, social connections and cultural knowledge, against the back-drop of possible discriminatory practices.
Using data from the LISS panel of 2014 this paper finds that education indeed improves labor market outcomes, for both Dutch natives and second-generation immigrants. Though higher levels of educational attainment are more beneficial in terms of hourly wages for Dutch natives, than so for second-generation immigrants. Furthermore, this research finds that, when using the data from the LISSPanel ethnicity has no significant effect on education. Furthermore, education does seems to foster language skills and social connections, despite reported feelings of discrimination from the research participants, but does not emphasis on cultural knowledge.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the participants who have made it possible for me to conduct my research, without them I would certainly not have been able to finish my master study at UVA. I found it to be a rewarding experience and was charmed by the stories and experiences of the interviewees. Especially Irma Klaassen was very welcoming when conducting the interview at the Kernschool, and I truly admire her hard work and dedication. I would also like to thank my supervisor Dr. Seiki Tanaka for providing me with the necessary guidance and laughter at moments when it was needed. Without his help I would have certainly not been able to finish my studies. Lastly I would like to thank my family and friends who have supported my social withdrawal and pushed me to not only finis my thesis but to also to aim for the highest possible achievement.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction p. 1-6
1.1 Motivation p. 1-6
1.2 Societal and Empirical relevance p. 6-7
Chapter 2 Debating Concepts p. 7-13
2.1 The Untangling of Concepts p. 7-13
2.1.1 Philosophies of Integration p. 7-9 2.1.2 Immigrants in the Netherlands p. 10-11 2.1.3 Second-Generation immigrants in the Netherlands p. 11-12 and their labor market position
2.2 The Dutch Policy Response to Immigrants p. 12-13
Chapter 3 Immigrants and Labor Market outcomes: p. 14-24
Theory and earlier Research Evidence
3.1 Education a bridge to labor market success? p. 15-20 3.1.1 Why would the labor market situation differ
between second-generation immigrants and other p. 15-17 (young) natives entering the Dutch labor market?
3.1.2 Research Evidence into the role of education p. 17-20 on bettering labor market outcomes of
(second-generation) immigrants
3.2 The opportunity framework of Education p. 21-22
Chapter 4 Data and Methodology p. 23-32
4.1 Quantitative Data p. 26-29
4.1.1 General description Quantitative Data p. 24-25
4.1.2 Data Selection p. 25-26
4.1.3 Methodology p. 26
4.1.4 Models p. 27-28
4.1.5 General Remarks Quantitative Data p. 29
4.2 Qualitative Data p. 29-32
4.2.1 Respondents p. 30-31
Chapter 5 Quantitative Findings p. 33-37
5.1 Descriptive Results p. 33-34
5.2 Regression Results p. 35-36
5.3 Results Term Effects p. 37
Chapter 6 Qualitative Findings p. 38-47
Chapter 7 Conclusion p. 48-53 7.1 Conclusion Research p. 48-54 7.2 Limitations Research p. 54-53 Bibliography p. 54-60 Appendix p. 61-63 Annex 1 p. 61-62 Annex 2 p. 63 Annex 3 p. 63 Annex 4 p. 63
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
The integration of (second-generation) immigrants is not a new issue, but due to the large influx of individuals departing from Syria, countries in North-Africa and other countries, as well as a larger variety of migration flows, contemporary integration debates find revived interest (Geets, Pauwels, Wets, Lamberts and Timmerman, 2006).
Hansen (2003) and also Katseli, Lucas and Xenogiani (2006) observed that such migration (flows) usually results in permanent settlement, as such it becomes more relevant to address the integration outlook of immigrants and the policies and amenities that are in place to facilitate their integration needs (Bakker, Dagevos and Engbersen, 2014). The Dutch integration prospects present an interesting case study, because immigrants in the Netherlands currently constitute a considerable part of the Dutch population, approximating 22% (CBS, 2016A). Furthermore, research suggests that many children of immigrants are momentarily entering the Dutch labor market, presenting scholars with new opportunities to add to current literature, by reflecting on the integration prospects and outcomes of immigrant children in the Netherlands1 (Ohinata and van Ours, 2013).
Understanding how well immigrants (and/or children of immigrants) integrate into host-societies is often done, by analyzing the socio-economic outcomes these individuals are able to attain (Katseliv et al. 2006: Lefranc, 2010). The research that has focused on explaining variation of socio-economic integration outcomes, has commonly involved using a ‘proxy’ of labor market outcomes, using indicators such as unemployment status, wage differentials, employment opportunities and profession (Tastsoglou and Preston, 2012: Prokic-Breuer, Dronkers and Vink, 2012: Lancee, 2012). Some scholars have limited their analyses concerning the variation of socio-economic outcomes, to comparing Dutch societal averages with mean outcomes of immigrants (Lefranc, 2010, p.1851), whereas others control for age, gender and educational attainment within their research designs (Lefranc, 2010).
In the Netherlands, labor market participation of (second-generation) immigrants remains an important issue in contemporary integration debates, as research suggests that immigrants (and/or children of immigrants) typically have disadvantaged labor market outcomes, even if they share similar characteristics as Dutch natives (Zimmerman, Kahanec,
1 There are several studies who study the integration prospects of children of immigrants such as Crul (2000),
Crul and Vermeulen (2003), Huijnk, Gijsberts and Dagevos, (2010), de Valk, Baysu, and Dronkers (2011) but the majority of academic research has not been written in the last 5 years (this not being the case for integration reports from the Central Bureau of Planning (CBS) and the Social Bureau of Planning (SCP)
2 Constant, de Voretz, Gataullina and Zaiceva, 2008: Lancee, 2011: Pichler, 2011: Van Tubergen, 2006). Lancee (2012) compared native Dutch individuals to non-Western immigrants and found that in 2008, “10% of the non-Western immigrants in the Netherlands were unemployed, compared to 4% of the native Dutch population” (Lancee, 2012, p.13). van Ours and Veenman (1999) reported substantial differences (in net monthly household incomes) among the different groups of immigrants (in comparison with a Dutch baseline group) of “10% for Antilleans, 13% for Surinamese, 20% for Turks and 22% for Moroccans” (van Ours and Veenman, 1999, p.10-11).
Dutch integration policies are intended to support immigrants (and/or children of immigrants) in improving such disadvantaged position, and have worked on the premise that active participation of immigrants on the labor market is to be a crucial component of full membership in Dutch society (Burkert and Haas, 2014; Potocky-Tripodi, 2003). Labor market participation is (by some) also considered vital for ensuring social cohesion in the host country (Lancee, 2012, p.14) and it enables immigrants to progress into self-functioning and productive Dutch citizens (Rudiger and Spencer 2003, p.9).
Apparent is that the labor market position2 of immigrants in the Netherlands is not as strong as that of Dutch natives, inhibiting these individuals the opportunity of becoming self-reliant and productive citizens (Pichler, 2011 : van Ours and Veenman, 1999:2001). As one might define successful integration as “the achievement of equal opportunities for immigrants and natives” (Alba and Nee, 1977, p.835), such reported differences are troublesome and deserve more empirical and political attention3 (van Ours and Veenman, 1999). How can one then explain the variation in labor market outcomes for immigrants (an/or children of immigrants) and Dutch natives, despite Dutch integration policies being present to eliminate such differences?
Bilgili, Huddleston and Joki (2015) suggest that immigrant specific characteristics such as reasons for migration and language skills are important factors influencing immigrants’ labor market outcomes. Language skills, in particular, could facilitate easier access to employment or could provide the immigrant with valuable social connections, whom could provide information towards finding employment opportunities (Baum and
2
The labor market position (measured in hourly wages and explained further in chapter 3 ) will from here on be used as a proxy for socio-economic outcomes of (second-generation) immigrants in the Netherlands, note that both concepts are used simultaneously throughout this research
3 With regard to labor market outcomes the assumption behind the concept of full participation is that there are
no direct forms of discrimination against immigrants ( example. discriminatory policy practices) and they do not have any additional disadvantages, as such they would eventually be able to achieve similar or higher labor market outcomes.
3 Flores, 2011). Furthermore, immigrants who feel strongly connected to a specific ethnic group tend to have less favorable labor market outcomes, in terms of employment opportunities (Bisin, Patacchini, Verdier and Zenou, 2011, p.85). Lower levels of education either attained in the host-country or country of origin, as well as ethnic and cultural differences, are also frequently reported as significant obstacles to improving labor market outcomes of immigrants (Pichler, 2011).
The contextual or structural difference are also frequently mentioned factors, such as lack of employment legislation or strict rules on the minimum wages (which is more fitting for between country or company analysis).When such are negative they could lower socio-economic outcomes of immigrants (Pichler, 2011). Other contextual factors, such as the non-existence of “apprentice systems” could also decrease the ability of employment opportunities for young individuals for both natives and (second-generation) immigrants on the Dutch labor market (Crul and Vermeulen, 2003, p.982).
Furthermore, much Dutch academic and policy-making work found high levels of wage discrimination among the Dutch population, to lower levels of employment opportunities among immigrants (and/or children of immigrants) (Corrigan, 2013: Andriessen, Dagevos, Nievers and Boog, 2007). Labor market discrimination seems to occur primarily based on country of origin and/or ethnicity and to a lesser extent on destination country. A viable consideration at this point is that, the experienced or perceived forms of discrimination could also originate from low levels of suitability of immigrants on the labor market of the host-country, or it could be that different ethnic groups attain different levels of “visibility” on those labor markets (Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2009, p. 2).
More explanations exist within academic work nonetheless, the educational accomplishments of immigrants usually serve as a key indicator of their integration prospects in the host country’s labor market (Dustmann and Glitz, 2011, p.11). Considering the effect of education on labor market outcomes, a direct proposition is that both pre-migration and post-migration education facilitates the achievement of similar or higher labor market outcomes. Kee (1995) found that in the Netherlands the main contributor to differences in labor market outcomes is the level of post-migration educational attainment. However, even if immigrants in a given host country are as well educated as the Dutch population in terms of “formal qualification or completed years of schooling, they are unlikely to perform equally well on the labor market” (Dustmann and Glitz, 2011, p.11).
4 This study comparable to other research in this area found education to indeed positively influence the labor market outcomes (in hourly wages) for both Dutch natives and immigrants. Secondly it found support for the argumentation that higher levels of educational attainment yield higher levels of labor market outcomes, more so for Dutch natives than (second-generation) immigrants (in hourly wages), resulting in a disproportionate level of improvement, while controlling for age and gender.
After confirming that education indeed meaningfully (though disproportionately) influences labor market outcomes of immigrants in the Netherlands, this research progressed into analyzing the success mechanism the educational environment could hold to be for a second-generation immigrant. This research investigated if the educational environment could facilitate language skills, social connections (including that of Dutch friends and teachers) and cultural knowledge, against the backdrop of potentially discriminatory practices4. Ultimately this thesis sought to answer the following research question:
What role does education play for immigrants, with comparable educational status5 as Dutch natives, in reaching similar or higher socio-economic integration outcomes?
In trying to answer the research question this thesis employed a mixed methods approach, resulting in the logic that this study had two separate but complementary objectives. The first objective of this research was to compare socio-economic outcomes (proxy used is labor market outcomes) of (second-generation) immigrants with Dutch natives. Longitudinal Survey information from 2014 from the CentERdata was used to compare immigrants to the Dutch baseline group, while controlling for educational attainment to see if differences persist. The quantitative analysis was only used to identify the existing group differences for labor market outcomes based on hourly wage differentials, by using a regression analysis. The second objective of this thesis was to examine how (in a process-oriented manner) education could foster similar or higher labor market outcomes, for immigrants who hold most similar educational characteristics as Dutch natives. Considering that
4
Discriminatory practices are only referring to those practices as experienced or reported by the second-generation immigrants in the research sample, it does not imply formal discriminatory policy practices or others forms of officially measured forms of discrimination
5Comparable educational status in this research does not mean that immigrants and Dutch natives have
completed exactly the same educational trajectory, nor does it imply that the individuals included within the sample size have had spent the same amount of years at school, nor that they graduated at similar ages. It does also not exclude those who did obtain some form of post-migration education. The concept is defined as those immigrants who indicated that they ( at least) completed primary and secondary school level education in the Netherlands ( or comparable forms of educational attainment similar to those levels) and/or spend most of their educational trajectory in the Netherlands.
5 generation immigrants (those born in the Netherlands) and/ or immigrants who spend most of their time in the Dutch educational system but who were not actually born in the Netherlands, would both best fit such research objectives. The second part of the research only pertains to analyzing in what ways the educational environment could facilitate higher socio-economic outcomes of second-generation or between-generation immigrants (please see chapter 2 for further delineation of the concepts).
This thesis contributes to current academic work on socio-economic integration prospects and outcomes by focusing (in the qualitative section only) on children of immigrants who were not born in the Netherlands but moved at such a young age that they still spend the majority of their educational upbringing in the Dutch schooling systems. This research argues that this particular group is under researched in academic work, in relation to socio-economic outcomes, as it often remains unclear if this group of immigrants’ are included within the group of generation immigrants. It could be that second-generation immigrants who were born in the Netherlands have had a different level of exposure to other cultures and could have parents who have already been integrating for a longer period of time. Including individuals who were not born here will provide more in-depth insight into the educational experience of all second-generation immigrants , allowing for more tailored integration policies. However it will also prove hard to generalize conclusions drawn from the qualitative section, as this particular sub-group of second-generation immigrants could hold to have a different integration experiences than other groups of immigrants.
1.2 Societal and Empirical Relevance
Reports have shown that the surge in asylum requests, labor migration and family reunification in the Netherlands in 2013-2015 have sharply increased (despite numbers of asylum requests remaining lower than they were in 2000 and 2001)(CBS, 2016B). This contemporary surge is raising questions about the country’s ability to quickly integrate the newcomers into the economy and society. Prejudiced negative expectations regarding social and economic cohesion are increasingly gaining media-attention, stemming from the belief that new arrivals could potentially challenge the “established patterns of nation building and welfare state policies” (Heckmann and Schnapper, 2003, p.9).
While the broad integration debate includes looking into the integration prospects and outcomes of a wide range of groups (ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees), this research focused on one facet of this complex issue of integration, namely the aspect of
6 socio-economic integration (Niessen and Schibel, 2004). A better understanding of the role of education (an opportunity structure facilitated by the host-country) as influancing socio-economic integration outcomes, could help inform the political debate and fuel holistic recommendations for policy making work, regarding the labor market outcomes of immigrants in the Netherlands (Aiyar, Barkbu, Batini, Berger, Detragiache, Dizioli and Spilimbergo, 2016).
7
Chapter 2 Debating Concepts
This section reviews several terminology issues frequently addressed within the debate on integration, to provide the reader with the understanding how these concepts are theorized within this research. Subsequently, Chapter 3 will reflect on different theoretical perspectives and research evidence on labor market determinants for (second-generation) immigrants in the Netherlands and Chapter 4 to 6 will pertain itself to testing key assumptions on socio-economic integration outcomes, followed by Chapter 7 with the conclusion.
This chapter will first discuss different ideas regarding the concept of integration, where this research was restricted to only analyze one specific dimension of integration, that of socio-economic integration. Secondly this section discusses the terminology describing differences amongst immigrants, with the specific aim to create an improved understanding of second-generation and/or between-generation immigrants (which are the main focus in the qualitative part). Last this section will provide the reader with a brief overview of Dutch integration policies as to suggest what implications such policies could hold, and to specifically (in the qualitative section) challenge a particular definition put forward in this part.
2.1 The Untangling of Concepts
2.1.1 Philosophies of Integration
The term integration is a multi-layered idea central to many policy-making and academic work, despite the lack of consensus regarding the specific meaning of the concept. Normatively integration is often used to off-set prospects and outcomes (for example labor market or educational outcomes) of immigrants, against host-countries societal averages (Saggar, Somerville, Ford, and Sobolewska, 2012).
Regardless of the differences in using the concept, most common is a two-way divide between structural or socio-economic and sociocultural means of integrating. Some early work published in the 1970’s includes that of Verwey-Jonker (1971), van Amersfoort (1974), and Entzinger 1975 (as mentioned in Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas and Scholten 2005, p.2).
Van Amersfoort (1974) described three processes via which an immigrant can adapt to the host society, adjustment, integration and absorption. Adjustment implies “the total of behavioral and attitude changes that the migrant uses to adjust his behavior with respect to his or her new environment”. “Integration is defined as the contact at institutional level between
8 the migrant and Dutch society” (van Amersfoort 1974, p.46). Integration into Dutch society of (second-generation) immigrants is then best achieved by facilitating a two-way process. Which requires the Netherlands to be welcoming to other cultures and facilitating of integration demands and needs, and the immigrants to adjust partially to the dominant culture of the host country (Driessen 1999, p.13-14).
In 1984, Entzinger described the concept in a different manner. He saw the concept of integration as referring to “assimilation” on the one hand and referring to “pluralism” on the other. “Assimilation” shares similarities with the concept of “adjustment” of van Amersfoort (1974), and is characterized by the immigrant adapting him or herself to fit the needs and demands of the dominant culture. Pluralism refers to a process in which in the end a host society exists in which there are immigrants with a wide variety of cultures or subcultures who co-exist next to each other (Entzinger 1984, p38). Entzinger (1984) described integration as “respecting one’s culture and as a consequence of increased interaction and communication one will also absorb some elements from another’s culture without letting the cultural differences disappear” (Entzinger in Driessen 1999, p.14).
Research on integration and migration in the Netherlands continued throughout the 1990’s, and in 1994, Vermeulen and Penninx published a book in which they made a similar distinction as Entzinger did in 1984. They argued that integration occurs along two dimensions, the structural and socio-cultural dimension. “Structural” integration is to be understood as full participation in social institutions and “sociocultural” integration is to be understood as the ability of the immigrant to adapt to the dominant culture of the host society and the interaction of the immigrant with Dutch natives (Vermeulen and Penninx in Dagevos 2001, p.12).
Van Vught (1995) also made this distinction. He stated that equal access to all societal sectors and services is the most important factor in getting immigrants to participate on an equal social level with Dutch individuals. Furthermore, van Vught (1995) stated that an individual’s socio-economic position is extremely relevant in determining an immigrant’s social functioning (van Vught 1995, p.28), establishing that such strict divisions between different dimensions of integrating are maybe more challenging than other authors describe. Another author who used an analytical division for understanding integration is Veenman (1994:1995), the author distinguished between a behavioral and attitudinal aspect when addressing integration. The behavioral aspect relates to the participation of the immigrant and the attitudinal aspect relates to the orientation of the immigrant towards the host culture. The concept of participation was subdivided into formal and informal participation. In formal
9 participation, the immigrant should be able to participate in institutions such as education, employment and housing and ‘successful’ integration is determined by the socio-economic position of the immigrant in the host-society.
Stemming from the narrative, of the usually employed, two dimensions (socio-economic/structural/formal or (socio)-cultural) integration), indicators can be derived which make these phenomena’s measurable. The structural or socio-economic position can be measured by (amongst other things) analyzing an immigrants labor market position or educational position. Whereas cultural indicators moreover concern themselves with (placement of) housing, interracial marriages and the participation in political parties of immigrants (Weijters and Scheepers, 2003, p. 293).
Despite conflicting ideas, plentiful current policy-making and academic work considers variables relating to the dimension of socio-economic integration outcomes of immigrants in the Netherlands, to be of great relevance. A great deal of effort is spent on offsetting socio-economic outcomes of immigrants, in specific the labor market and educational outcomes against Dutch societal average. Accordingly, those differences are used to establish meaningful definitions of what ‘successful’ or ‘failed’ socio-economic integration of immigrants constitutes.
This research theorizes (only within the context of this research) to use the word integration to only refer to socio-economic integration outcomes. This is done partly because of practical reasons, considering that data obtained from the CentERdata mostly cover this dimension of integration and also, because covering more than one dimension would be less feasible within one research.
10
2.1.2 Immigrants in the Netherlands
A complicated question for scholars and policymakers is how to holistically conceptualize different groups of immigrants, who are trying to socio-economically integrate in the Netherlands. Differences between first, second and between generation immigrants and furthermore between asylum seekers, economic migrants and refugees are considered of importance in identifying within-group differences (King 2002, p.102). At a more abstract level the question of what is an immigrant or a migrant also still remains (to some degree) academically challenged (Garssen, Nicolaas and Sprangers, 2005).
Anglo-Saxon countries usually refer to first-generation immigrants as individuals who were not born in the host country. Whereas second-generation immigrants tend to be described as individuals who were born in the host-country but whose parents (either both or one) have different nationalities (Dustmann and Frattini, 2011), this being in line with what the Central Bureau of Statistics6 (CBS) since the 1990’s uses as their operational definition of first and second generation immigrants (Garssen, Nicolaas and Sprangers, 2005).
A third (less theorized) category is that of between-generation or what some refer to as “1.5 generation” immigrants. This category can consist of “individuals who were born outside the host-country, but who migrated at such a young age that they received most or all of their education in that host-country” (Fleischmann and Dronkers, 2007, p.5). Veenman and van Ours7 in their (2002) research, conceptualize second-generation immigrants as both, children of immigrants born in the Netherlands and those who immigrated into the Netherlands at a very young age. Crul and Vermeulen in their (2003) research also make note of variances between different generations of immigrants. They refer to second-generation immigrants as being children either born in the host-country or (more broadly) “those who arrived before attending primary school” (Crul and Vermeulen 2003, p.971).
This thesis similar to most academic work used the word first-generation immigrants to describe individuals who move to a host-country voluntarily or not voluntarily, to have the intention of integrating into that society and culture and who were not born in that particular country (the Netherlands). Because of lack of consistency in literature on the topic of second- generation and ‘between’ generation immigrants, this paper similar the operationalization of the concepts as used by Veenman and van Ours (2002) refers to second-generation
6
Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek which publish “reliable and coherent statistical information which responds to the needs of Dutch society. The responsibility of CBS is twofold: firstly, to compile (official) national statistics and secondly to compile European (community) statistics” ( CBS, 2016 C).
7
The research of these authors analyzes the educational position second-generation immigrants hold in Netherlands in comparison to first-generation immigrants and Dutch natives.
11 immigrants as individuals who were born here and whose parents (or at least one of them) is of a different nationality, and also to those were not born in the Netherlands, but moved at such a young age (0-12 years old), having them spent most of their educational trajectory in the Netherlands.
These immigrants are presumed to not face the same difficulties as first-generation immigrants (pre-migration education, language difficulties, previous work experience etc.) when socio-economically integrating, but it remains unclear if their socio-economic integration outcomes could become apparel to those of Dutch natives.
2.1.3 Second-Generation immigrants in the Netherlands and their labor market position
This chapter has addressed the difficulties in defining the concepts of immigrants and integration and restricted itself to only using the dimension of socio-economic integration of second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands. An elaboration on the position of second generation-immigrants on the Dutch labor market is therefore in place.
On the 30th of May 2016, the number of immigrants in the Netherlands compromised approximately 20 % of the general population. Where 10% are first-generation immigrants and 10% second-generation immigrants (CBS, 2016A). The largest groups of both first and second-generation immigrants originate from the more characteristically countries, those being Turkey (396000) Morocco (374000), Surinam(348000) and Antilleans (142000) (CBS, 2016A). This being said immigrants from Poland (123000) and former Yugoslavia countries (83000) and former Sovjet (72000) countries increase the diversity in current immigration flows, as also current refugee flows from Syria Iraq and Afghanistan do (CBS, 2016A).
Much academic work has been written on the topic on labor market performance of first-generation immigrants, focusing on mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, where a smaller number of studies has done so on the second-generation (Van Ours and Veenman, 2003, p.474). This being said when comparing first and second generation immigrants against Dutch societal labor market averages, reports suggest they both hold a disadvantaged position (CBS,2014: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 2015).
Most research in trying to explain the disadvantaged position second-generation immigrants hold on the Dutch labor market have focused on analyzing the effect of the different levels of educational attainment and ethnic background of immigrants on labor market outcomes (de Vries and Wolbers, 2002). Considering that second-generation immigrants will have had more years spend in the Dutch educational system, being more
12 similar to Dutch natives, than that of first-generation immigrants, it would make sense that they experience less obstacles in achieving improved socio-economic integration outcomes. The benefits of participating more years in the Dutch educational system could allow second-generation immigrants to have language skills and cultural knowledge to be more easily transferred, allowing these individuals to make use of the same educational opportunity structure as Dutch natives would (CBS, 2014). For those reasons it becomes academically interesting to investigate why current disadvantages on the labor market persist, for in specific second- generation immigrants in the Netherlands, as there are Dutch integration policies in place to eliminate existing variation on the labor market.
2.2 The Dutch Policy Response to Immigrants
Until about the 1970’s the Netherlands did not have any specific integration policies in place for immigrants to facilitate integration needs and processes, as it was commonly believed by the immigrants themselves as well as Dutch society and the Dutch government, that most immigrants would return to their countries of origin (Driessen, 1999: Beets, ter Bekke and Schoorl, 2008). Such presumptions lead policy-makers to belief that it was not essential to develop a specific integration policy and that being the case there was no broad social or political debate addressing the influx of these individuals, as is currently the case with immigrants arriving in the Netherlands (van der Brug, Fennema, van Heerden, and de Lange, 2009).
In due course, it became clear that these immigrants were not necessarily returning, to their countries of origin, and it also became clear that they themselves and also their children moreover found themselves in an unfavorable position in Dutch society with regards to their socio-economic status, compared to Dutch natives (Ersanilli, 2007: Weijtersm and Scheepers, 2003).
In 1983 the government responded to these developments by presenting the ‘Minority Nota’, which specifically addressed the integration needs and demands for immigrants and in the document, the Dutch government officially departed from the idea that the presence of ethnic minorities would be temporary in nature (WRR,1983).
A second report was released by the WRR (Scientific Council for Government Policy8) in 1989 which emphasized the need to assist immigrants, to in particular improve their education and labor market participation, which, starting that moment, would feature as
8
13 a central theme, throughout most policy-documents. The report called “Allochtonenbeleid CWRR 1989” strongly pushed towards greater independency of these individuals and less reliance on well-fare provisions from the Dutch government. The idea that immigrants are responsible for successful or improved (socio-economic) integration outcomes gained much policy-making attention. Lacking such perceived ‘successful’ (socio-economic) integration outcomes was, ascribed to a lack of effort and initiative on the part of the immigrants (Ersanilli,, 2007). This particular way of thinking about socio-economic integration is still present today and is highlighted by a recent statement from prime-minister Mark Rutte, who stated that ( at the time of the writing of this research):
“The paradox is that the solution lies with Mohammed. New arrivals have always had to adjust and have always had to deal with discrimination. You need to fight !”( Rutte, 2015 in the NRC).
The above mentioned policy-making developments stress that the Dutch government has slowly but surely been putting more emphasis on identifying indicators to what ‘successful’ integration of (second-generation) immigrants in the Netherlands should compromise. But it is lacking a nuanced and detailed understanding as to how education than could facilitate such ‘successful’ socio-economic integration outcomes. Contrary to the two-way process that van Amersfoort (1974) described, current policy has now placed the ‘burden-of proof’ on the side of the immigrant and it is questionable whether a genuine two-way process is in place. Instead, it seemingly now focuses more on what van Amersfoort (1974) referred to as “adjustment”. Where the presumption as regards the understanding of the concept of integration is that immigrants adapt to dominant Dutch culture. Paul Scheffer a Dutch journalist wrote:
“Integration while preserving the ethnic minorities identity is a white lie that should not be
encouraged by the government” (Scheffer in Engbersen, 2003,p.12).
To address the difficulties surrounding a one- or two-way socio-economic integration process for second-generation immigrants, this research addressed the presumption that integration is indeed a one-way process through the qualitative analysis.
14
Chapter 3 Immigrants and Labor Market outcomes: Theory and Earlier
Research Evidence
Chapter 2 clarified how the main concepts in this research are theorized, this chapter discusses different theoretical perspectives and earlier academic research evidence, with regards to the disadvantaged labor market outcomes of second-generation immigrants. This chapter pertains itself to only discuss earlier academic work related to the labor market outcomes and thus will not elaborate on theories and indicators of socio-cultural integration91011.
This section will first reflect on different theories which could help explain why being a second-generation immigrant could result in lower labor market outcomes, in comparison with Dutch natives. Second the role of education will be given extensive attention, considering this concept occupies such a dominant place in most academic and policy-making work. It will elaborate on the ‘opportunity-structure” the educational environment could provide second-generation immigrants with and also provides a tentative mechanism that could help examine how education could facilitate higher socio-economic outcomes. Stemming from such analysis the main argument of the thesis will be presented and tested in the following chapters.
9
Different studies use different indicators for labor market participation of migrants, including employment rates, participation rates, occupational status, quality of employment and others. When referring to labor market participation in this section, this thesis refers to indicators in general by various authors.
10
Recalling that labor outcomes are used as proxy for socioeconomic integration outcomes
11
Recalling that the academic work from van Vught (1995) indicated that sometimes these separate domains can be difficult to assess and as such also its indicators, but that the scope of the research does not allow for inclusion of all dimensions
15
3.1 Education a bridge to labor market success?
3.1.1 Why would the labor market situation differ between second-generation immigrants and other (young) natives entering the Dutch labor market?
In the context of explaining the disadvantaged labor market outcomes, one of the most used theories to explain differences in socio-economic outcomes of second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands, is the theory of human capital (de Koning, Ommen and Tanis, 2012). According to the human capital theory “training and educational investments increases productivity of workers”12 (Becker, 2009, p.16-17), by conveying skills and knowledge. Considering young individuals (second-generation immigrants or native Dutch) can’t use references from previous employment equivalent to that of adult workers (Mansuy and Schröder, 2001), acquiring human capital could prove to be of even greater added value.
Though second-generation immigrants should theoretically be more easily able to access different forms of human capital, considering it is mandatory for children between the ages of 4-16 to go to school. It is unclear if they have the same access to all forms of human capital and if they are able to make use of in the same manner as Dutch natives would.
Second cultural capital as mentioned by Becker (1975 : 2009) hypothesizes that an individual acquires different forms of capital by means of inheriting such capital, as such the social background of individuals could then directly influence their labor market outcomes (de Vries and Wolbers, 2002). For both children of immigrants and Dutch natives, parents from better social backgrounds tend to be more capable of supplying their children with the required financial and cultural resources, which would allow young individuals to gain improved labor market outcomes (de Vries and Wolbers, 2002: Mansuy, and Schröder, 2001: Becker and Tomes, 1994). Disadvantages in labor market outcomes for second-generation immigrants could then come from the understanding that they come from families with “lesser abilities, smaller emphasis on childhood learning, and other non-favorable cultural and genetic attributes” (Becker and Tomes,1994, p.260).
Cultural capital could also indirectly influence labor market outcomes of second- generation immigrants, via the educational attainment they acquire. De Graaf and Ganzeboom (1993) found a “significant downward effects of family background on transitions in the educational careers” (p.97). Second-generation immigrants than obtain lower educational levels of attainment, which in turn could result in lower labor market
12
16 outcomes (de Vries and Wolbers, 2002).
Third social capital as a less tangible form of capital refers to “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arises from them” (Putnam, 2001, p.19). The theory behind social capital suggests that social networks, those being inside the family or outside (those being formal or informal13) provides second-generation immigrants with actors as resources, which they could use to improve their current position on the labor market (Gesthuizen, van der Meer and Scheepers, 2009).
Different forms of social capital can be distinguished, but one that is considered of great importance is the potential for information that is derived from access to these resources (Coleman, 1988). Resources within the social network may provide second-generation immigrants with relevant job-related information (Kanas and van Tubergen, 2009). Boxman, Graaf and Flap (1991) for instance found that top managers of large companies in the Netherlands predominantly find their jobs through the different forms of social capital they obtain, which they also found to have an independent positive influence on income and position level (p.51).
It is argued that Dutch natives, in comparison with (second-generation) immigrants are better equipped in providing job-related information, because they have more years of exposure to the host-countries labor market and second Dutch natives are “less often unemployed, higher educated and have more prestigious jobs than immigrants” and could therefore, provide better means of information (Kanas and van Tubergen, 2009, p. 899). Such findings may insinuate that human capital and finding a job are a circular problem. Having more human capital would provide better job perspectives, but having a job could result in more human capital.
Admittedly in the context of disadvantaged labor market outcomes other theoretical perspectives should also be considered, where the institutional approach seems particularly suited for the study of variation in socio-economic integration outcomes of second-generation immigrants. A number of scholars propose that disadvantages in educational and labor market outcomes of (second-generation) immigrants are correlated with national educational institutional arrangements (“starting age of compulsory schooling, number of school contact hours in primary school, school system characteristics and practices of early or late selection in secondary education” ) (Crul and Heering 2008, p.21).
While acknowledging that all these different theoretical perspectives could provide
13
Examples of informal resources are friends and family whereas formal resources could constitute civic organizations
17 plausible suggestions as to why second-generation immigrants attain disadvantaged labor market outcomes in the Netherlands. The institutional theory can be viewed as a more bottom-down approach, where immigrants are considered as social actors constrained in means of opportunities by existing social institutions. Whereas theoretically speaking the human, social and cultural capital approach, presents itself as a self-realizing opportunity framework (albeit existing disadvantages and against the backdrop of possible discriminatory practices, based on ethnicity), through which (second-generation) immigrants are able to attain higher socio-economic integration outcomes.
It needs to be reflected upon that educational attainment of second-generation immigrants could, as part of human capital, have a direct positive influence on socio-economic outcomes (Kanas and van Tubergen, 2009 : Mansuy, and Schröder, 2001, de Koning, van Ommen and Tanis, 2012). Secondly the educational environment could facilitate social connections and as such could indirectly (as being part of social capital) yield higher labor market outcomes. Thirdly it could provide immigrants with social and cultural knowledge about the host-country, which is different as to that part of cultural capital which they inherited. A closer look into research evidence into the role of education in improving labor market outcomes of (second-generation) immigrants in the Netherlands is therefore in place.
3.1.2 Research Evidence into the role of education on bettering labor market outcomes of (second-generation) immigrants
Several scholars found there to be a positive relationship between educational attainment14 and labor market outcomes of immigrants15 on the Dutch labor market. de Koning, Ommen and Tanis (2012) found that skills and knowledge acquired via education improve the labor market position immigrants hold (first-generation immigrants). They provided a model which holds that education as part of different forms of capital (human, social and cultural) could lead to a better position on the labor market which indirectly results in higher wages for immigrants (p.3).
Other scholars who researched the effect that education has on labor market outcomes
14
A divide between post and pre-migration education is usually employed in research, whereas for second generation immigrants the latter would logically be thought of as more decisive in improving labor market outcomes than is post-migration education.
15
Not all scholars make a distinction between first or second generation immigrants, this section tends to reflect on past work in a more generic matter. Which analyzes if educational attainment plays a positive role for labor market outcomes of immigrants in the Netherlands and when a nuance between second or first generation immigrants can be made it will accordingly do so.
18 of immigrants are De Vroome and van Tubergen (2010), who found that post-migration education in the Netherlands is an important predictor of employment for immigrants (their research only pertains to analyzing the role of education for refugees). Though their research stresses the role education plays for immigrants on the Dutch labor market, it needs to be considered that whilst first-generation immigrants often grew up with a different culture, language and many having had pre-migration education, these factors could prove to play a lesser role for socio-economic integration opportunities of the second-generation immigrants, as they often spend the majority of their educational trajectory in the Netherlands (Glorieux, Laurijssen and van Dorsselaer, 2008).
Gang and Zimmerman (2000) reflect upon the integration of immigrants on the German labor market and find that education (when equivalent to that of the German system) enhances an immigrants’ opportunity to integrate. They ascribe ethnic diversity to negatively influence the educational experience an immigrant attains and find that, although second-generation immigrants retain more similar educational profiles as to German natives (compared to first-generation immigrants), this presumption of ethnic differentiation regarding educational attainment still holds to be influential.
Furthermore, Lancee (2010) found that “both educational attainment and language proficiency increase the odds of being employed” (Lancee, 2010, p.218), where his research controls for first and second generation differences with respect to income. de Valk and Crul (2008) come to similar understanding regarding the importance of education and stated that “education is of crucial importance in the lives of young adults. Attending school is not only a major part of everyday life, but education is a decisive factor for the future” (de Valk and Crul in Crul and Heering, 2008, p.63).
Notwithstanding the positive role education could have in framing potential patterns of socio-economic outcomes of (second-generation) immigrants there are also obstacles which could hinder them from utilizing their acquired skills and knowledge, despite them having the proper qualifications and educational background. Much research found the role of discrimination to be dominant in hindering an immigrants’ abilities to reach similar or higher socio-economic outcomes, compared to Dutch Natives.
Discrimination could occur when an immigrant is at school, but discrimination could also occur at a later stage when immigrants are applying for jobs or already have jobs but are trying to obtain long-term contracts or better positions. Wage discrimination could occur in a direct form (which is the least occurring form) where persons of equal qualifications are rewarded differently in terms of wages. Indirect wage discrimination could also occur when
19 immigrants would earn less because they are attributed lower functions (based on ethnicity) on the Dutch labor market when compared with Dutch Natives with equal qualifications ( Veenman, 2003, p.98).
The Dutch Social Bureau of Planning (SCP) found in 2007 in several investigations that discrimination mostly happens for non-western immigrants in the Netherlands who are trying to enter the labor market. Where Moroccan immigrants seem to report the highest levels of discrimination (Andriessen, Dagevos, Nievers, Boog, 2007, p.11). In 2012 the SCP reported that non-western immigrants at the Dutch labor market, are more often unemployed and have more temporary contracts than do Dutch Natives. Such disadvantages tend to barely decrease over the years and count for both first and second generation immigrants (Andriessen and Nievers, 2012). In 2015 a test was conducted to monitor discriminatory practices in The Hague and found that candidates with different ethnic backgrounds, with similar resume’s, had different changes of success on the Dutch labor market, where they found no significant differences between man and woman (Andriessen, van der Ent, van der Linden and Dekker, 2015). This being said the (second-generation) immigrants themselves reported that although they felt disadvantaged based on their ethnicity, the most important reason for this disadvantage stems from lack of knowledge and education (Andriessen, van der Ent, van der Linden and Dekker, 2015, p.9)
Support for the assumption that improved socio-economic outcomes of immigrants’, are positively influenced by educational attainment are thus not undisputed. Some scholars furthermore question if educational attainment, though having the ability to improve socio-economic outcomes in general, is equally as rewarding in terms of labor market outcomes for immigrants as it is for Dutch natives (this being more the case for first-generation immigrants than it is for second-generation immigrants) (Hartog and Zorlu, 2009).
Crul (2000) and also other authors found that second-generation immigrants are usually lesser educated than Dutch natives (Crul, 2000: van der Aart, 2003: Duquet, Glorieux, Laurijssen and van Dorsselaer, 2006), providing a tentative answer as to why immigrants still obtain lower socio-economic outcomes than do Dutch Natives. It is suggested that immigrants tend to have a longer educational path than do Dutch natives, as selection mechanisms are insufficient in accrediting immigrants with their true educational potential when moving from primary to secondary school (Crul, Pasztor and Lelie, 2008). It also suggested that (second-generation) immigrants tend to receive lower school-advice when moving from primary to secondary school (Crul and Heering, 2008), hindering them in attaining higher levels of educational attainment.
20 Different means of comparisons are used in measuring educational achievements of second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands, possible influencing related labor market results. Crul (2000) suggests that the differences in educational attainment amongst the second-generation and native Dutch individuals are not best measured by comparing educational outcomes but by analyzing the differences of young immigrants and Dutch natives still attending school, considering that most second-generation immigrants are still finishing or have just finished school (p.17).
Ultimately this research questions in line with previous academic work if educational attainment for second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands could hold to be of greater influence than other mentioned explanations for differentiation, as education is part of the opportunity structure of human, social and cultural capital. To analyze such claims this thesis proposes the following research question:
What role does education play for immigrants, with comparable educational status as Dutch natives, in reaching similar or higher labor market outcomes?
Furthermore, this research questions (based on the previous research evidence) that being of a different ethnicity (deviating from Dutch ethnicity) will have a negative independent impact on the educational attainment levels. Secondly by participating in the educational environment and especially primary and secondary school, immigrants could improve their socio-economic status, but as their educational results are still reported as to be lesser than that of Dutch natives the impact of educational attainment on labor market outcomes could be disproportionate for immigrants and Dutch natives. Following such reasoning this paper for the quantitative section presents the following two directional hypothesis:
H1: Being an immigrant has an independent negative impact on the level of educational attainment
H2: Socio-economic outcomes (measured in hourly wages) of immigrants improve with higher levels of educational attainment, but remain lower than that of Dutch natives.
21
3.2 The opportunity framework of Education
Considering that analyzing the role that education has on socio-economic integration outcomes, cannot be considered novel in much academic work this research would also further explore the opportunity mechanism of education for second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands (as part of human, social and cultural capital). The qualitative section tries to gain more detailed insight into the question as to how second-generation immigrants could still obtain higher socio-economic outcomes by means of utilizing the educational environment.
Socio-economic integration in the host country requires special provisions amongst others to facilitate the development of language skills, social connections and cultural
knowledge for immigrants and such provisions are predominantly provided to the immigrants
by means of attending school in the host-country.
Bleakley and Chin (2004) found language skills (as being part of human capital) to be an important facilitator for helping (second-generation) immigrants improve their economic position on the Dutch labor market. Such language skills could aid immigrants in obtaining relevant information about the host-countries labor market and improve access to employment opportunities (Baum and Flores 2011). Similarly, Dustman and Fabbri (2003) found that language proficiency is associated with higher levels of employment and, on average, higher wages. In the Netherlands special teaching programs exist (Krumm and Plutzar, 2008), via which immigrants are assisted in overcoming part of the language disadvantages they are suggested to already face when starting primary school (Driessen,1996).
Secondly the educational environment could facilitate social connections (as being part of social capital) to the immigrants, which could be considered a highly relevant attribute for improving the chances of immigrants obtaining jobs. Such networks may facilitate as an “information mechanism” allowing the immigrant to easier become aware of job-opportunities (Dustmann et al. 2016: 2). Dustmann et al. (2016) found that low-skilled employees, working in positions characteristically associated with immigrants, are more likely to rely on friends and relatives for their job search than high-skilled employees.
The educational environment is thought of as a place where there is much social interaction and where teachers can serve as role models and most importantly serve a more functional role in providing the immigrant with necessary information regarding career-making decisions, school programs and other information which could shape educational
22 performances and influence labor market outcomes (Schnell, Keskiner and Crul, 2013).
Thirdly the educational environment could also help facilitate cultural knowledge (as being part of cultural capital) amongst immigrants with regards to cultural normality’s of the host-country. As the educational environment allows for social interaction and understanding of the language, it could indirectly also foster cultural knowledge. Baum and Flores (2011) found that immigrants who come to the United States as young children are “likely to have an easier time learning the language and internalizing the norms of American society” (Baum and Flores 2011, p.175), which in turn could allow an immigrant to better his socio-economic integration outcomes.
In Chapter 6 the theory will be tested if education (although lower educational achievements have been reported) could provide second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands with language skills, social connections and cultural knowledge (against the backdrop of possible discriminatory practices), where improving in this instance refers to reaching similar or even attaining higher socioeconomic outcomes, so that they can fully participate in Dutch society.
23
Chapter 4 Data and Methodology
This chapter describes the data collection and analyzation in this study. A mixed method approach was employed for the reason that it allows different measurements of the same concept, providing a stronger sense of robustness to the research findings.
Only after confirming, in the quantitative part, that education has a positive significant effect on improving labor market outcomes of second-generation immigrants in the Netherlands, this research could meaningfully, in the qualitative part, explore the opportunity structure of the educational environment for immigrants in the Netherlands. As such both parts are complementary in answering the research question.
The quantitative section will be presented first as this section was used a s a preliminary exploration of wage differentials between immigrants and non-immigrants.
The second section describes qualitative modes of inquiry, through which this study tried to examine, in a process-oriented manner, how education could facilitate similar or higher socio-economic integration outcomes of immigrants (proxy used here is labor market outcomes) in more detail. Furthermore, this section addresses the different views held by the respondents in defining and using the concepts of integration and that of immigrants.
The research design described below will present a clear outline for the mixed-methods employed in this study, before moving on to the separate result chapters.
24
4.1
Quantitative Data
Within the Dutch context, employment is frequently addressed as the way for an immigrant to independently contribute to Dutch society and is used as a tool to measure successful integration outcomes (Altonji and Blank, 1999). Researchers have consistently confirmed that immigrants despite their high educational achievements, have a lower employment rate and wage comparison and furthermore, this gap is larger for woman than for men (Dustmann and Fabbri, 2003). For the quantitative component of the analysis, a proxy for socio-economic integration outcomes for immigrants was used in the form of labor market outcomes, as measured in hourly wages. This proxy was used because it allowed easier means of comparison, as opposed to coarse income estimates such as monthly wages. Furthermore, wages per hour are more quantifiable than unemployment status and allow for more detailed measures of variation.
4.1.1 General description Quantitative Data
The quantitative data used in this study was collected from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS Panel)16 and the Immigrant panel of the Measurement and Experimentation in the Social Sciences Project (MESS project), which is administrated by the non-profit research institute CentERdata (Tilburg University, the Netherlands). The “LISS Panel contains information from 7000 individuals which are placed in 4500 households. The panel is based on a true probability sample of households drawn from the population register by Statistics Netherlands. To ensure equal access to participation households with no computer and an Internet connection, were provided with the necessary tools” (CentERdata, 2016). The data used in this research was aggregated from multiple data-sets and combines only information relevant to the chosen variables. Although data was available for different years and months, this study used data pertaining to 2014.17
From the LISS Panel, this study used the questionnaires “Background Variables 2014/04” and “Background Variables 2014/05” and “Wave 7 of Work and Schooling” (2014). From the Immigrant Panel “Wave 2 of Work and Schooling” (2014) and “Background Variables 06/2014” were used. The total selected number of
16
Langlopende Internet Studies voor de Sociale wetenschappen
17
The amount of respondents for the year 2014 was the highest of the last five years for the LISS panel and could therefore provide the largest sample size.
25 households for the LISS Panel are 7.957 respondents with a non-response of 1.387 respondents and the Immigrant Panel consisted of 1.671 respondents with a non-response of 388 individuals.
4.1.2 Data Selection
Firstly, as only the data for “Wave 7” is used from the LISS panel and “Wave 2” of the Immigrant panel any other additional information from other participants is subsequently removed. Any individual in the sample above the age of 67 was removed, as such a person is eligible for pension benefits in the Netherlands and would not fit as a proper research subject. Furthermore, all participants who indicated they were below the age of 16 were removed from the data-set, as it is stated on the website of CentERdata that only research participants above the age of 16 can participate, thus either those variables are unreliable or were filled in by mistake.
Both individuals with and without paid work are included in the analysis, but to not overestimate results two separate regression analysis are performed, the first will include all the respondents without paid work and the second will exclude such individuals. Additionally, all individuals who have indicated that they have an additional job alongside their primary occupation were excluded because the specified income could not be distinguished from their primary wages, resulting in higher wages per hour which could bias the results of the research. Those individuals who reported that they were self-employed or freelancing were not excluded if they indicated that this was their only form of income from paid work.
Lastly all levels of educational attainment were included18, if the answer was left blank the data was not included. The level of educational attainment is in the original data-set of the LISS Panel was measured by two variables. This thesis pertains to only using the variable which reported values as indicated by the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) and not the values as reported by the individuals themselves, as using data from the CBS could yield higher levels of reliability19.
Finally, each variable was individually checked for the presence of outliers and impossible values. Respondents were excluded if the left monthly income blank or
18 As this section includes both first and second generation immigrants no generalizations regarding similar
educational status can be made, thus all levels are included
19
Please note that both variables are intended to measure the level of educational attainment, where all respondents from the sample size thus originally answered both the questions
26 reported a negative value, ethnicity blank, or if they left hours per week employed blank. The restrictive approach could help in reducing bias, although it narrowed the size of the sample group considerably. In total, the sample consisted of 3.029 individuals of which 2.335 were Dutch natives and 694 were immigrants. Table 1 presents the distribution of this sample (after applying the selection criteria) on various characteristics in terms of individuals per origin group, shown separately for men and women, finding that 77.1 % of the sample are Dutch and 22.9 % is considered an immigrant. The characteristics of the immigrant group show that 12.2 % are first-generation immigrants and 10.7 % are second-generation immigrants. When looking at the gender distribution per group, the distribution was approximately even for the immigrant group and the Dutch native group, though there were more females in both groups. Considering that there are more woman than man in both groups they gender was included as a separate variable in the regression analyses.
Table 1. General Characteristics Sample by origin and gender
Male Female Total Total from Group Total
Dutch Origin 1094 1241 2335 77,1%
First generation foreign, Western background
71 86 157 5.2%
First generation foreign, non-western background
116 98 214 7.0%
Total First Generation 187 184 371 12,2%
Second generation foreign, Western background
100 113 213 7.0%
Second generation foreign, non- Western background
56 54 110 3.7%
Total Second Generation 156 167 323 10,7%
Total group 1437 1592 3029 100%
4.1.3 Methodology
The data collected from the LISS Panel was analyzed using SPSS, using multiple linear regression analyses. This analysis models the relationship between two or more independent variables and a dependent variable using linear equations to model the observed data, where every combination of values of the independent variables X are
