Movements Crossing Borders
Transnational ties and immigrants’ social integration in the Netherlands
June 26th, 2018 Samra Asmellash 10816682
samra_asmellash@hotmail.com Bachelor Thesis Sociology
Economic Integration and Disadvantage of Immigrants Universiteit van Amsterdam
Agnieszka Kanas Matthijs Kalmijn Word count: 6732
PREFACE
Before you lies my bachelor thesis ‘Movements across Borders: Transnational ties and immigrants’ socio-cultural integration in the Netherlands’. As daughter to a man who has sought refuge in the Netherlands, this topic lies close to home. The personal stories and experiences of my family and the history of friends and their families have motivated me to write about the process of migration. This dissertation is written for those who have left their home, forcibly or willingly, and made new spaces familiar, mastering multiple languages of communication in societies in which they seek or sought belonging.
I would like to thank my supervisors Agnieszka Kanas for her guidance in this process. I also wish to thank Martin van Leerdam for the incredible support and critical methodological and statistical attention.
When I was experiencing difficulties during the process, I also benefitted from debating with Mahlet Mesfin and Nikki Isarin. Last, I would like to thank my partner Glenn Ascencion and my parents: your trust in me and wise words have motivated me throughout my academic years in general and the writing of my dissertation in particular.
ABSTRACT
This quantitative study aims to analyze the dynamic between transnational ties and
identifications on socio-cultural integration of immigrants. The study is based on data of a Dutch survey, focusing on four relatively large groups of immigrants from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Somalia, living in the Netherlands. Using the theory of preferences, opportunities and third parties, hypotheses were proposed about the extent to which cross-border contact and identifications with the country of origin determine the contact with Dutch natives. Analyses show that, contrary to what was expected, cross-border contact improves contact with natives. Whether immigrants identify with the country of origin, however, does not influence their frequency of contact with natives. A second aim of this study was to analyze the effect of contact with natives on the language proficiency of immigrants; the results show that contact with natives does improve language proficiency. The study further shows that age is a strong predictor of both contact with natives and language proficiency. Last, higher educated immigrants are generally more in contact with natives and as a result, also experiencing less difficulties with the Dutch language. The results of this study suggest that immigrants are able to simultaneously maintain to stay in touch with the country of origin while settling in the host country: one does not have to exclude the other.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. CENTRAL CONCEPTS 8 2.1. Transnationalism 8 2.2. Socio-cultural integration 10 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 12
3.1. Theory of Preferences, Opportunities and Third Parties 12
3.1.1. Preferences 12 3.1.2. Third parties 13 3.1.3. Opportunities 14 4. METHOD 16 4.1. Data sources 16 4.2. Sample 18 4.3. Measures 18
4.3.1. Cross-border contact and identification 18
4.3.2. Socio-cultural integration 19
4.3.3. Control variables 20
4.4. Data analyses 21
5. FINDINGS 22
1.1. Cross-border ties and identifications & contact with natives 22 1.2. Contact with natives & language proficiency 23
6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 24
1. INTRODUCTION
A growing number of immigrants are settling in European countries, resulting in greater academic and political interest in the integration of immigrants. In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards tightened migration policy in many countries in Europe. The most rigorous shift of attitudes and policy has taken place in the Netherlands: a country characterized as tolerant and progressive is now increasingly tightening its integration policy in ways that emphasize the responsibility of immigrants in the integration process (Entzinger, 2006). Moreover, assimilating to the Dutch norms and values has become an increasingly important dimension of integration. The Dutch integration policy does not solely revolve around teaching the language and preparing for the labor market anymore: the underlying assumption is that, to integrate properly into a new society, one needs to adopt the norms and values of the host country. As an illustration, renewed integration courses emphasize topics such as democracy, national history, and values regarding gender, sexuality and traditions (Verkaaik 2010;
Duyvendak, Pels and Rijkschroeff 2009; Joppke 2007). This intensifying focus on integration has also cultivated attention to contributions of immigrants to their home countries (Grillo and Mazzucato 2008).
Thus, there is an increasing concern with the integration outcomes of immigrants, not only in the political and economic spheres, but also regarding social and cultural ways of living. A dominant paradigm in sociological studies, as well as political debates, is assimilation: the notion that the citizenship and integration of immigrants signifies their identifying with the norms, values and culture, and speaking the language of the host society. This suggest that the maintenance of ties and identification with countries of origin seems to be an obstacle to
(2015), for example, describes the process of immigrants reshaping to the new socio-cultural circumstances of the host society, while the second generation tends to form a hybrid of two cultures. This emphasizes the fact that immigrants identify and belong in multiple societies. Mazzucato’s research (2008) on the migration dynamics of Ghanaians in the Netherlands confirms Mahlers theoretical viewpoint as it shows that depending on the life phase one is in, they can be more or less transnationally oriented – for example, as soon as immigrants have children, they engage less in transnational activities – and immigrants’ children are more engaged with Dutch society through education.
Both Mahler and Mazzacuto’s outcomes align with a developing area of transnational research that critically challenges the traditional theories of migration and integration. According to transnational studies, an immigrant can integrate into the host society while simultaneously maintaining ties with the country of origin. Thus, this relatively new approach opposes the dominant view that successfully integrated immigrants are less likely to continue to involve themselves in the economic, social, and political spheres of their countries of origin (Levitt and Jaworsky 2007).
Both transnationalism and more traditional paradigms have examined the economic, political and religion outcomes of migration (Levitt and Jaworsky 2007). Fewer studies have examined the dynamic between the two perspectives in relation to the socio-culural outcomes. Those who do study the relation between transnational ties and socio-cultural integration are often theoretical studies (Erdal and Oeppen 2013) and this link has rarely been directly tested.
This study contributes to both traditional as well as more recent transnational
perspectives by investigating the determinants of immigrants’ socio-cultural integration. Using the theory of preferences, opportunities and third parties, this study examines whether and to
what extent cross-border social ties are related to immigrants’ contact with natives. In doing so, the multiple cross-border ties linking migrants to their country of origin, such as cross-border contact and identification with the country of origin, will be used as predictors. A second aim of this study is to examine the influence of contact with natives on language proficiency, as study has shown that language proficiency plays a critical role in the process of integration (Martinovic 2013).
The analysis uses data from the Integratie Nieuwe Groepen by Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau Survey (2009), collected in 2009 among six relatively new immigrant groups from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Poland and China, as well as among native Dutch. This
research focuses on the first four groups of immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Afganistan and Somalia, who are predominantly refugees (Dourleijn and Dagevos 2011). As they are relatively newer immigrant groups, little research has been done and the data allows for a focus on relatively new themes – transnational ties in particular. The research question is as follows:
To what extent do transnational ties with sending countries affect the socio-cultural integration of immigrants in the Netherlands?
2. CENTRAL CONCEPTS
As Erdal and Oeppen (2013) argue, integration and transnationalism are both social processes relating to migration. These notions form the conceptual basis for this current study on how people identify themselves and come to belong in societies and how this changes with migration. In the following paragraphs, the theoretical background of these central concepts will be discussed.
2.1. Transnationalism
Whereas integration mainly focuses on post-migration activities, such as access to the host society’s labor market, learning of the culture and language, and inter-ethnic contacts, transnationalism focuses on both pre- and post-migration activities. In migration studies, it is often assumed that maintaining transnational ties challenges immigrants’ integration in the host society (Levitt and Jaworsky 2013). Transnationalism is related to both being and of belonging into multiple societies (Vertovec 1999; Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). For instance, the discussion around dual citizenship in the Netherlands revolved around whether or not an immigrant can be loyal to two countries. The premise is that transnational activities - whether this is formal citizenship, sending remittances or contact with co-ethnics - are preventing immigrants from fully integrating. Identifying and remaining in touch with one’s country of origin can be comforting and reassuring, but it is a possible hinderance to the process of integrating into the country of residence (Snel, Engbersen and Leerkes 2006).
However, an opposing viewpoint is gaining ground in research. For one, Berry (2010) argues that immigrants are able to maintain their culture of origin as well as integrate and thus successfully participate in the destination society. Erdal & Oeppen (2013) argue that these seemingly contradicting phenomena - integration and transnationalism - are in fact not mutually
exclusive, as many scholars have proposed. Since they are both social processes, they can exist alongside each other. In transnational studies, immigrants balance between maintaining ties in the country of origin while building newer ties in the country of origin. Several studies conclude that both integration and transnationalism contain interactions that build ties with co-ethnics and natives, and they can simultaneously co-exist (Vertovec, 2009; Mazzucato, 2008; Snel et al. 2006).
In this research, two elements of transnationalism are given particular attention: namely, transnational cross-border contact with co-ethnics and transnational identification with the country of origin. The latter indicates the level of identification with co-ethnics in the country of origin. Mechanisms of identification are not only a subject of sociological research, but to a large extent, psychological and anthropological research as well. Social identities are constructed by the individual’s surroundings, and Snel et al. (2009) propose that two questions are central in forming a social identity: first, to which group a immigrant belongs and second, how he or she should behave. Considering that ethnic identity is the focus of the current research, the questions that are used to measure ethnic identity seek to examine if the respondent feels closely tied to their ethnicity of origin.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that transnational activities can take place in both the country of origin as well as the host country (Snel et al., 2006). In this study, transnational contact and identification are limitied to cross-border activities and exclude contacts with the co-ethnic community in the host country. Cross-border contact, following this definition, is
measured as contact immigrants have with co-ethnic family, friends and others in the country of origin, excluding those who are part of the co-ethnic community in the host country.
2.2. Socio-cultural integration
Lockwood (in Mouzelis 1997) defines socio-cultural integration as the inclusion of immigrants in the host-society’s system via the creation of new ties, bonds and a position in this society. It is developed through intertwining communications between immigrants and natives of the society. Thus, sociocultural integration is the process of including immigrants in a new society. Bosswick and Heckmann (2006) add to this definition by specifying that both
immigrants and natives play a part in this process Immigrants learn the new language, culture, and norms and values, and through this, gain access to institutions and the labor market. By building relationships within society, they gain a feeling of belonging. This feeling of belonging is also the responsibility of the host society, which needs to welcome and open up to its new members, both institutionally and socially. In this process of integration, contact between natives and immigrants is essential. As Vervoort and Dagevos (2011) argue in their research, recent trends since 2002 show that interethnic contact has stagnated, presumably due to the aggregation of minorities in neighborhoods and to a rather rigid social environment. However, the second generation is shown to be better educated and thus more in contact with natives. Martinovic, van Tubergen and Maas (2009) argue that education obtained in the host country is positively related contact with natives: the presence of Dutch native students gives immigrants to interact with native Dutch students.
Following this, Vervoort and Dagevos (2011) argue that to build relationships and be included in a society, the importance of language should be emphasized. Chiswick and Miller (2001) comfirm this and argue that contact with natives positively affects the language
socio-cultural integration will be measured by the frequency of contact with natives and language proficiency of immigrants.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & HYPOTHESES 3.1. Theory of preferences, opportunities and third parties
Kalmijns (1998) theory of preferences, opportunities and third parties is used as a mechanism to analyze the relationship between cross-border contact and identification with the country of origin on the one hand, and contact with natives on the other. This theory is primarily used to analyze patterns of partner choice and interethnic marriage, where partner choice is influenced by a preference for someone of the same ethnicity, the opportunities of meeting other ethnicities and the opinions of third parties. Martinovic et al. (2009) state that marriage is a form of social contact, which makes this mechanism also applicable to studying other forms of social contact. This theory will be used herein to determine the social contact that immigrants have and how that influences their socio-cultural integration. It is important to note that preferences, opportunities and third parties are not separate dimensions, but intertwined and will be applied as such.
3.1.1. Preferences
The first predictor of the socio-cultural integration of immigrants is contact with co-ethnics. Kalmijn (1998) states that people prefer to have social contact with people they are similar to. In addition to partner choice, this preference for associating with similar others can also involve having friends with the same cultural background, values and outlook on life. It is assumed that homogeneous friends and networks are able to offer more emotional support and understanding (Martinovic 2013). This indicates that immigrants prefer to have social contact with co-ethnics in their country of origin, especially those who have just migrated. However, for successful integration, contact with natives is proven desirable (Chiswick and Miller 2001), as
research has shown that having contact with natives has a positive effect not only on socio-cultural integration, but on other dimensions of integration as well. For example, Kanas and Van Tubergen (2009) have shown that contact with natives can facilitate access to jobs and increase the occupational status of immigrants.
The second predictor, identification with the country of origin, is understood as the act of defining oneself as being part of a social group (Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe 2004; de Vroome, Coenders, van Tubergen and Verkuyten 2011). In this research, social groups are ethnic groups specifically. De Vroome et al. (2011) argue that self-identification with an ethnic group is connected to feelings of belonging in and feeling committed and attached to a society: specifically, social ties form a base for identifying and belonging to a group. Hence, it can be expected that when immigrants prefer to have contact with co-ethnics in the country of origin, they identify more with the country of origin. Conversely, when immigrants identify with the host country, they are likely to have greater interethnic contact.
Whether identifying with a immigrants’ own ethnic group interferes with their
identification with the host society is an issue of contention in migration studies, as well as in public debate (de Vroome et al. 2011).
3.1.2. Third parties
The maintenance of cross-border ties with co-ethnics, such as family and friends, can also influence the beliefs and values of immigrants, which is conceptualized as the effect of third parties. Immigrants can be discouraged through their family members and close friends to build interethnic contact if their beliefs and values do not align with the dominant perspective in the host society (de Vroome et al. 2011). Given that immigrants prefer contact with co-ethnics as
opposed to natives, and taking into account the fact that third parties can also impact
relationships with natives, it can be assumed that cross-border contact with family, friends and other relations increases immigrants’ identification with their country of origin. It can therefore be expected that intensive cross-border contact with third parties can adversely impact contact with natives. Indeed, since immigrants prefer having contact with co-ethnics, and therefore identify with their country of origin more and are influenced by third parties, it can be expected that cross-border ties and identifications have a negative effect on social contact between natives and immigrants (H1).
The advantage of interacting with natives in the integration process relates to learning the host country’s language, as contact with natives generally increases language proficiency
(Chiswick and Miller 2001) and reduces existing prejudices between groups (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). This works reciprocally: immigrants who speak the host country’s language well also have greater contact with natives (Martinovic et al. 2009; Fong and Isajiw 2000; Weijters and Scheepers 2003). Following this logic, the role of immigrants’ contact with natives on language proficiency will be examined. This means that social ties with natives operates as a predictor for language proficiency in this hypothesis. The following can be expected: contact with natives has a positive effect on the language proficiency of immigrants (H2).
3.1.3. Opportunities
Given that immigrants benefit from interethnic contact, it is worthwhile to examine immigrants’ actual opportunities for interethnic contact. If immigrants live in a predominantly Dutch neighborhood or work in such an environment, the opportunity to meet natives is much
higher (Martinovic et al. 2009). Gijsberts and Dagevos (2005) add to this that the opportunity to interact with Dutch natives arises when immigrants follow higher education, because the
representation of immigrants is lower at higher educational institutions. However, the
opportunities to be in contact with Dutch natives while simultaneously staying in touch with co-ethnics are increasing. As a consequence of the rapidity of communication and information, and the increasing development of technologies, immigrants are more easily able to stay in contact with networks in their country of origin (Grillo & Mazzucato, 2008; Vertovec, 2004). To be ‘double engaged’ in the sense of sharing ethnic groups, money and ideas with their country of origin is becoming gradually less complicated and time consuming. As opportunities of communication have expanded, and the opportunities for immigrants to have contact with natives arise through education (Gijsberts and Dagevos 2005), it can be expected that cross border ties and identification have no effect on social contact between natives and immigrants (H0).
4. METHOD
4.1. Data sources
This study draws on data from the Survey Integratie Nieuwe Groepen by Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SING 2009). The SING is a large cross-sectional survey of six new immigrant groups from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Poland and China. Dutch natives are also included as a reference. The timespan of the survey is 2009 and early 2010. A sample was used to collect respondents from 15 years and up and it was intended to have 1,000 interviews of each ethnic group. Either the birthplace of parents or of the respondent themselves was used as an indicator of ethnicity, meaning the data includes both first and second generation immigrants.
A sample was drawn for each ethnic population with a two-stage sampling design. In the first stage, a random selection of municipalities was drawn. In the second stage, random
individuals were drawn from the selected municipalities. Based on data from the Centraal Bureau Statistiek, there is a division between recently settled immigrants and second generation or long-term immigrants, with 5 years as a boundary.
When possible, the respondents were interviewed by bilingual interviewers. The
anticipation of language barriers and the previously taken measures can strengthen the accuracy of the answers. Bilingual interviewers conducted 1,034 interviews with respondents of their own ethnic group, and reported that 75% of the respondents understood the questions well, 19% understood the questions relatively well, 6% understood the questions moderately and 1% of the respondents had misunderstood the questions. During most of the interviews, the interviewer and the respondent were alone (72%). In 28% of the interviews, a third person was present, and in 58 of those interviews the other person had a high impact on the outcomes.
Topics regarding background, education, work experience, attitudes towards work, social contacts, integration, opinions about co-ethnics and other ethnicities, usage of media, feelings of safety and leisure time were included in the survey. Data were collected through in-person interviews, using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). Prior to the fieldwork, pilot research was carried out to construct a definite survey.. All the selected respondents were
informed by letters, translated into their own language, and were then visited by the interviewers. In total, 6,911 respondents were interviewed. This represents a total response rate of 53%, with different response rates per ethnic group, varying between 38% (Somali) and 49%
(Afghan).
One limitation in the Polish ethnic group was language, despite the aforementioned efforts to avoid language barriers. As a result, long-term residents are under-represented and some interviews were conducted via a self-fill list. Additionally, there was a higher non-response rate in the Chinese sub-group. This may have affected the validity of the results of the Polish and Chinese sub-groups, resulting in the exclusion of these groups from the analysis.
This limitation aside, the SING-data is appropriate for this study because it is aimed to register the socio-cultural integration of the relatively new migrant groups in the Netherlands. The current study thematically covers a wide range of information. There is a distinct section in the survey that focuses solely on the ties and activities of immigrants. Newer processes of identification and acceptance in the host society are also covered.
4.2. Sample
In this research, the sampling frame is limited to Afghan, Somali, Iraqi and Iran ethnic groups of immigrants to increase comparability (N=3125), as these are considered to be dominant refugee groups and suitable for comparison to one another (Dourleijn & Dagevos, 2011). Moreover, these ethnic groups have lower complications regarding validity. The analyses are restricted to first generation immigrants involved in this study, as these respondents were both present in the country of origin as well as the host country, thereby having experienced the process of integration. For the main analyses, respondents with missing values have been excluded from the sample. In the following section, the questions used to measure the main concepts will be discussed.
4.3. Measures
Measures of transnational cross-border ties and identification with country of origin, socio-cultural integration and additional controls are included.
4.3.1. Transnational cross-border contact & identification with country of origin Transnationalism is measured by two indicators: transnational cross-border contact & identification with the country of origin. The first variable is operationalized as contact with family, friends and other contacts in the country of origin. Therefore, transnational cross-border ties are measured by the frequency of contact with the home country, ranging from often, to sometimes and never. The second variable is measured by the extent to which immigrants identify as part of their society of origin (de Vroome et al., 2011). In the data, questions regarding identification with the country of origin and the host society were posed. There is a
significant correlation between the answers to one question in regards to identification with the country of origin and one question weighing whether immigrants identify more with the country of origin or the host country ( r = 0,601) . As the predictor is focused solely on identification with the country of origin, this question is used in the analyses.
4.3.2. Socio-cultural integration
Following Lockwood’s (in Mouzelis 1997) and Bosswick and Heckmanns (2006) definition of socio-cultural integration, the independent variable will be measured by the two following concepts: language proficiency and contact with natives.
With regards to language proficiency, questions concerning difficulty with talking, reading and writing in Dutch are taken into account. The answers for the variables used all contain three categories, indicating that respondents either often, sometimes or never experience difficulties. Answers to these questions are highly correlated (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,72),
therefore the variables have been computed as one by adding up the scores on the three questions and dividing them by three.
Contact between natives and immigrants is measured by questions regarding the
frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances, and contact with native neighbors. Both of these questions have the same five categories capturing the frequency of contact, ranging from every day, week or month, a couple of times a year to never or less than once a year (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,618). For the first hypothesis, this variable is used as the dependent variable. For the second hypothesis, contact between natives is used as an independent variable (as discussed in the theoretical framework).
4.3.3. Control variables
There are several additional individual characteristics that might explain variation in contact with natives and language proficiency.
Ethnicity is included to control for differences among the selected groups. This concept is measured as the country that immigrants were born in, excluding second generation immigrants from the sample. Several dummy variables were made relating to the following ethnic categories: Iran, Iraq Somalia and Afghanistan as a reference category.
Second, employment may also explain variation in contact with natives or language proficiency, for it may influence the opportunity to meet Dutch natives and the usage of the Dutch language (Martinovic et al. 2009). Study of Snel et al. (2006) shows that employed immigrants are more involved with transnational ties than unemployed immigrants, which suggests that employment affecting both transnational contact as contact with natives. This employment variable is dichotomized (0 = not employed, 1 = employed).
Mahler (2015) argues that integration processes as well as transnational activities changes as immigrants age. Thus, age is controlled for to account for differences between older and younger immigrants. Gender is also controlled for to measure differences between male and female immigrants.
Furthermore, length of stay in the host country and educational attainment may moderate the effect of cross-border contact and identification and contact with natives. Length of stay in the host country (measured in less than 5 years, 5 to 15 and more than 15 years) has proven to be influential regarding both the transnational ties and socio-cultural integration of immigrants: as Mazzacuto’s research (2008) has proven, immigrants are frequently involved with transnational activities in the first years of settlement, but the frequency decreases over time, implying that the
effect of transnational contact and identification gradually decreases. Length of stay is
dummyfied for analysis, with less than 5 years as a reference catagory and the latter categories included as dummy variables.
As Martinovic et al. (2009) and Gijsberts and Dagevos (2006) argue, higher-educated immigrants are expected to have more contact with natives than lower-educated immigrants. It is therefore of relevance to measure whether education moderates the effect of transnational contact and identification on contact with natives. Education is measured by categories varying between VBO and MAVO as the first category, followed with MBO, HAVO and VWO and lastly HBO and WO. These categories are dummified, with primary school functioning as a reference category. Students without a diploma are included in the category relating to the educational level they are enrolled in.
4.3.4. Data analysis
First, the descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Table 1. Next, multiple linear regression models are presented to explain the relationship between different cross-border ties and contact with natives. The moderating effects of length of stay and educational attainment are added in hierarchial models (Tables 4 and 5). Furthermore, a second multiple linear
regression model is presented, where contact with natives is used as a predictor for language proficiency, and where ethnicity, employment, age and gender are controlled for.
5. FINDINGS
5.1. Cross-border ties and identifications & contact with natives
The first hypothesis was tested by means of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis that used cross border ties and identification with the country of origin as independent variables and contact with natives as the dependent variable. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and
homoscedasticity. After entering cross-border contact and identification with the country of origin in the second model, the total variance explained increased by 0,4%, explaining 8,3% of the variance in total, F (10, 3114) =28,117, p < .001.
The results of the second model (see Table 2) show that cross-border contact has a
positive significant effect on contact with natives: immigrants who sometimes keep in touch with the country of origin have 12,1% more contact with natives and those who often have contact with the country of origin have 22,6% more contact with natives than those who never have contact with natives. This makes it a significant predictor of contact with natives: immigrants with more cross-border contact have more contact with natives. Identifications with the country of origin have no significant effect on contact with natives.
Age has a negative effect on contact with natives: people from 25 to 45 years have less contact with natives than those from 15 to 25 (-,665). People from 45 years and over also have less contact with natives (-,774).This may imply that the older immigrants are, the less contact with natives they have. Employment also has a positive significant effect (,188), as employed immigrants have more contact with natives than unemployed immigrants.
Furthermore, the moderating effect for length of stay is also analyzed (Table 4). The results of this analysis show that the relation between contact with natives and identification is
moderator of contact with natives either. (Table 5). However, educational attainment does have a positive significant effect: contact with natives is generally 16,8% higher for immigrants who are enrolled in or have finished VBO or MAVO, 23,3% when enrolled or finished MBO, HAVO, VWO, and for HBO and WO 21,5% as compared to those who finished have primary school education only (Table 5, Model 3). Length of stay is not a significant predictor of contact with natives.
5.2. Language proficiency and contact with natives
The third hypothesis was also tested by means of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to assess the ability of contact with natives to predict language proficiency, after controlling for gender, age (in groups), employment and ethnicity. After adding contact with natives, the total variance explained by the second model was 28,3%, F(8, 3116)= 153,366, p <.001. The results of Model 2 (Table 3) show that contact with natives is a significant predictor of language proficiency: as contact with natives increases, the language proficiency generally increases by 9,3%.
Age has a significantly high coefficient: the language proficiency of immigrants between 25 and 45 is half as good as immigrants between 15 and 25 (-,597), whereas immigrants above 45 experience even more difficulty with the Dutch language (-,775). Thus, older immigrants seem to have more difficulty with language. Employment is also a significant influencer of language proficiency: working immigrants scored 28,2% higher on language proficiency. Iranian immigrants scored significantly higher on language proficiency as compared to Afghan
6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
This study has examined to what extent cross-border contact and identification with the country of origin affects immigrants’ contact with natives. Using the theory of preferences, opportunities and third parties, the first hypothesis expected that contact with co-ethnics in the country of origin and identification with the country of origin would impact contact with natives negatively. Conversely, the null hypothesis expected that due to growing opportunities of staying in contact with the country of origin, staying in contact and identifying with the country of origin would have no effect on contact with natives. The results revealed a positive
relationship between the cross-border contact that immigrants maintain and the frequency of their contact with natives, but identification with the country of origin did not impact on contact with natives. This may imply that contact with immigrants happens when people are more social in general: more contact with the country of origin results in more contact in the host society. However, identifying with the country of origin does not intervene with building contacts in the host society. The first hypothesis is therefore rejected.
Another finding worth noting is first the effect of age on contact with natives, which implies that, generally, the older immigrants are, the less they are in contact with natives. This might be due to a lack of opportunities to meet people of Dutch descent: older immigrants might be less socially active than younger immigrants. Second, the effect of education is also high: higher educated immigrants have more contact with immigrants than lower educated immigrants, which might relate to the percentage of higher educated immigrants being relatively small. However, educational attainment did have a significant effect on contact with natives, indicating that the finding of Martinovic (2013) also holds in this study.
Both of these outcomes align with the transnational perspective on migration and integration: immigrants simultaneously remain in contact with their country of origin and build new relationships in the host country.
The second aim of this study was to examine whether contact with natives improves the language proficiency of immigrants. The results showed that contact with natives only partially improves the language proficiency of immigrants. Age weakens the language proficiency of immigrants, implying that older immigrants have more difficulty with reading, writing and speaking the Dutch language.
With these results in mind, it can be deduced that the process of integration is complex to examine, largely since many different factors impact the integration of immigrant,.
Through a quantitative approach, this study has shown that cross-border contact does not greatly affect the level of contact that immigrants have with natives. This might be, as
hypothized, because of the growing number of opportunities to stay in touch with family: where a decade ago staying in touch was both financially and time-intensive, technology now enables immigrants to maintain contact with growing ease.
The effect cross-border contact on social contact with natives and language proficiency is of greater consequence for older immigrants, which could imply that younger immigrants are more able to stay in touch and identify with more than one society or country. Relating the strong effect of age to the preferences of immigrants, this might imply that older immigrants prefer to maintain ties with the country of origin over newer ties in the host country. Family, friends and the general norms and values of the country of origin may be more meaningful to older
language proficiency: when contact with natives is low, immigrants have more diffuclty with the Dutch language.
For further analyses, other forms of social ties connecting immigrants to their country of origin would be interesting to incorporate. A second limitation of this study is the focus on one particular group of immigrants, namely predominantly refugees. Other researches could also compare different groups of immigrants, for example economically driven immigrants or migrants due to family reunification. Furthermore, a comparison of contrasting general norms and values of immigrants and how this possibly empedes socio-cultural integration in the host country is another possible topic for further investigation. Last, it is important to note that in this study, the active role of immigrants in integrating is highlighted. As mentioned before, this is a two-way process and the role that Dutch natives play in the outcomes of integration processes would be worth pursuing.
7. REFERENCES
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2012. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.”International Migration Review 31(4): 826-874.
Ashmore, Richard D., Kay Deaux, and Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004. “An organizing
framework for collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality.” Psychological bulletin 130(1): 80-114. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.
Berry, John W. 2010. “Intercultural Relations and Acculturation in the Pacific Region.” Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 4(2): 95-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.4.2.95.
.
Bosswick, Wolfgang and Friederich Heckmann. 2006. Social integration of immigrants: Contribution of Local and Regional Authorities. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved May 20, 2018.
Chiswick, Barry and Paul Miller. 1996. “Ethnic Networks and Language Proficiency among Immigrants.” Journal of Population Economics, 9(1): 19-35.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2009. Survey Integratie Nieuwe Groepen – SING 2009. DANS. doi: https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xnn-ky48.
Duyvendak, Jan W., Trees Pels and Rally Rijkschroeff. 2009. “A multicultural paradise? The cultural factor in Dutch integration policy.” Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences – PNAS: 129-139. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3362.3767. .
Dourleijn, Edith and Jaco Dagevos. 2011. “Vluchtelingengroepen in Nederland.” SCP-publicatie 2011-3. Retrieved May 20, 2018.
Entzinger, Han. 2006. “Changing the rules while the game is on; From multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands.” pp. 121-144 in Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos:
Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America edited by Y. M Bodemann, and G. Yurdakul. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
.
Erdal, Marta B., and Ceri Oeppen. 2013. "Migrant balancing acts: understanding the interactions between integration and transnationalism." Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 39(6): 867-884.
Fong, Eric, and Wsevolod Isajiw, W. 2000. “Determinants of friendship choices in multiethnic society.” Sociological Forum 15(2): 249-271.
Gijsberts, Merove, and Jaco Dagevos. 2005. Uit Elkaars Buurt: De Invloed van Etnische
Concentratie op Integratie en Beeldvorming. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Retrieved April 14, 2018.
Grillo, Ralph and Valentina Mazzucato. 2008. “Africa<> Europe: A Double Engagement.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(2): 175-198.
Joppke, Christian. 2007. Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity. Citizenship Studies 11(1): 37-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020601099831.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24(1): 395-421.
Kanas, Agnieszka, and Frank van Tubergen. 2009. “The Impact of Origin and Host Country Schooling on the Eonomic Performance of Immigrants.” Social Forces 88(2): 893-915.
Levitt, Peggy, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2004. “Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society.” International migration review 38(3): 1002-1039.
Mahler, Sarah J. 2015. “Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging.” 1-13 in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences edited by R. A. Scott and S. M. Kosslyn. doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0358.
Martinovic, Borja, Frank van Tubergen, and Ineke Maas. 2008. “Dynamics of interethnic contact: A panel study of immigrants in the Netherlands.” European Sociological Review 25(3): 303-318.
Martinovic, Borja. (2013). “The inter-ethnic contacts of immigrants and natives in the
Netherlands: A two-sided perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(1): 69-85.
Mazzucato, Valentina. 2008. “The Double Engagement: Transnationalism and Integration. Ghanaian Migrants’ Lives between Ghana and the Netherlands.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(2): 199-216.
Mouzelis, Nicos. 1997. Social and System Integration: Lockwood, Habermas, Giddens. Sociology 31(1): 111-119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031001008.
Snel, Erik, Godfried Engbersen, and Arjen Leerkes. 2006. "Transnational involvement and social integration." Global networks 6(3): 285-308.
Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. "A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory." Journal of personality and social psychology 90(5): 751 - 783.
Verkaaik, Oskar. 2010. “The cachet dilemma: Ritual and agency in new Dutch nationalism.” American Ethnologist 37(1): 69-82.
Vertovec, Steven. 2004. “Cheap Calls: The Social Glue of Migrant Transnationalism.” Global Networks 4: 219-224. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2004.00088.
Vertovec, Steven. 2001. “Transnationalism and identity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(4): 573-582. doi: 10.1080/13691830120090386.
de Vroome, Thomas, Marcel Coenders, Frank van Tubergen and Maykel Verkuyten. 2011. “Economic Participation and National Self‐Identification of Refugees in the Netherlands.” International Migration Review 45(3): 615-638.
Weijters, Gijs, and Peer Scheepers. 2003. Verschillen in sociale integratie tussen etnische groepen: beschrijving en verklaring. Mens & Maatschappij 78(2): 144-157.
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Descriptive Statistics.
Table 2: Multiple regression of contact by natives by cross-border contact and identification with country of origin, including control variables.
N Minimum Maximum Mean SE
Cross-border contact 3125 1 3 2,1 0,704
Identification with country of origin 3125 1 5 3,76 0,959
Language proficiency 3125 1 3 2,25 0,66121
Contact with natives 3125 1 5 3,36 1,16393
Length of stay 3125 1 4 3,05 0,863
Educational attainment 3125 1 4 2,68 1,115
Ethnicity 3125 1 4 2,44 1,113
Age (in categories) 3125 1 3 2,02 0,697
Gender 3125 0 1 0,46
-Labor market participation 3125 0 1 0,385
-Valid N (listwise) 3125
B SE B SE
Intercept 3,886*** 0,057 3,909*** 0,1
Gender (Male = ref. cat.)
Female -,14** 0,042 -,150*** 0,042
Age (15 to 25 years = ref. cat.)
25 to 45 years -,64*** 0,051 -,665*** 0,051
45 years and over -,751*** 0,059 -,774*** 0,06
Labor market participation (not working = ref. cat.)
Working ,202*** 0,044 ,188*** 0,044
Ethnicity (Afghan = ref. cat.)
Iraq -0,063 0,056 -0,088 0,056
Iran -,121* 0,056 -,164** 0,057
Somali ,119* 0,058 ,125* 0,058
Cross-border contact (Never = ref. cat.)
Sometimes ,121* 0,054
Often ,226*** 0,061
Identification with country of origin -0,029 0,021 Explained variance
R2 ,079*** ,083**
R 2 Change 0,004
Notes: * = p < ,05; ** = p<,01; *** = p < ,001.
B SE B SE
Intercept 2,623*** 0,029 2,261*** 0,045
Gender (male = ref. cat.)
Female -,048* 0,021 -0,035 0,021
Age (15 to 25 years = ref. cat.)
25 to 45 years -,657*** 0,026 -,597*** 0,026
45 years and over -,845*** 0,03 -,775*** 0,03
Labor market participation (not working = ref. cat.)
Working ,301*** 0,022 ,282*** 0,022
Ethnicity (Afghan = ref. cat.)
Iraq ,093** 0,029 ,098*** 0,028
Iran ,215*** 0,029 ,227*** 0,028
Somali 0,05 0,029 0,039 0,029
Contact with natives ,093*** 0,009
Explained variance
R2 ,258*** ,283***
R2 Change , 025
Model 1 Model 2
Table 4: Multiple regression of contact by natives by cross-border contact and identification with country of origin, including control variables and moderator effect of length of stay.
Model 3 Model 4
B SE B SE
Intercept 3,631*** 0,103 3,663*** 0,105
Gender (male = ref. cat.)
Female -,152*** 0,042 -,151*** 0,042
Age (15 to 25 years = ref. cat.)
25 to 45 years -,667*** 0,051 -,666*** 0,051
45 years and over -,796*** 0,06 -,797*** 0,06
Labor market participation (not working = ref. cat.)
Working ,167*** 0,044 ,169*** 0,044
Ethnicity (Afghan = ref. cat.)
Iraq -0,089 0,057 -0,088 0,057 Iran -,176** 0,06 -,176** 0,06 Somali 0,117 0,061 0,116 0,061 Cross-border contact Sometimes ,122* 0,055 ,123* 0,054 Often ,231*** 0,061 ,23*** 0,061
Identification with country of origin
(centered) -0,024 0,021 -0,159 0,084
Length of stay in the Netherlands
5 to 10 years 0,144 0,096 0,112 0,098
10 to 15 years ,201* 0,088 0,168 0,09
15 years and over ,232** 0,09 ,203* 0,092
Moderator effect Identification * 5 - 10 0,128 0,1 Identification *10 - 15 0,125 0,09 Identification * > 45 0,176 0,091 Explained variance R2 ,083* 0,085 R2 Change 0,002 0,001 Notes: * = p < ,05; ** = p<,01; *** = p < ,001.
Table 5: Multiple regression of contact by natives by cross-border contact and identification with country of origin, including control variables and moderator effect of educational attainment.
B SE B SE
Intercept 3,615*** 0,079 3,621*** 0,08
Gender (male = ref. cat.)
Female -,140** 0,042 -,141** 0,042
Age (15 to 25 years = ref. cat.)
25 to 45 years -,607*** 0,054 -,611*** 0,054
45 years and over 0,062 -,732*** 0,062
Labor market participation (not working = ref. cat.)
Working ,162** 0,044 ,163*** 0,045
Ethnicity (Afghan = ref. cat.)
Iraq -0,09 0,056 -0,09 0,057 Iran -,196** 0,058 -,194** 0,058 Somali ,160** 0,059 ,158* 0,059 Cross-border contact Sometimes ,11* 0,054 ,109* 0,055 Often ,203** 0,061 ,201** 0,062
Identification with country of origin (centered) -0,026 0,021 -0,059 0,043
VBO, MAVO ,168* 0,068 ,168* 0,069
MBO, HAVO, VWO ,233*** 0,058 ,230*** 0,058
HBO, WO ,215*** 0,061 ,213*** 0,061
Identification * VBO, MAVO -0,03 0,071
Identification * MBO, HAVO, VWO 0,067 0,056
Identification * HBO, WO 0,048 0,058 Explained variance R2 ,088** 0,089 R2 Change 0,006 0,001 Model 3 Model 4 -,729*** Notes: * = p < ,05; ** = p<,01; *** = p < ,001.
