Building bridges
ءان ب وس ج لار
A study on the relationships between social capital and buddy programs on the different forms of refugee integration
Master thesis Business Administration - Leadership & Management Name: Thara Wielaart
Student number: 11412380
Supervisor: mw. dr. Nesrien Abu Ghazaleh Date: 23-06-2017
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student: Thara Wielaart, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Abstract
This quantitative study aimed to examine the influence of buddy programs on the relationship between social capital and integration. Data was collected from 104 refugees who participated in a buddy programme. Results showed that there was a significant relationship between social capital and socio-cultural integration. This means that those who had more social capital in the host country, also scored higher on socio-cultural integration. No direct relationship were found between social capital and structural integration or between the buddy programmes and integration. Implications of these findings are discussed.
4
Inhoud
Statement of Originality ... 2 Abstract ... 3 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Literature review ... 10 2.1 Understanding integration ... 10 2.2 Social capital ... 11 2.3 Buddy programmes ... 13 3. Methods ... 16 3.1 Research design ... 16 3.2 Respondents ... 16 3.3 Measurements ... 17 4. Results ... 20 4.1 Analytic strategy ... 204.2 Social capital and integration ... 23
4.3 Buddy programme ... 24
4.4 Mediation model. ... 25
4.5 Moderation model ... 27
4.6 Effects of different activities within the buddy programmes ... 28
5. Discussion & conclusion ... 29
5.1 Theoretical implications ... 29
5.2 Limitations & future directions ... 32
5.3 Practical implications ... 34
5.4 conclusion ... 34
Bibliography ... 36
5
1. Introduction
Worldwide, there are more than 65.3 million people on the run. These refugees or asylum seekers have a grounded fear that they are not safe in their home country or can be prosecuted based on, for example, religion, sexual preferences or political convictions (Vluchtelingenwerk.nl, 2017).
The topic of refugees in the Netherlands is not new. But with the number of unsafe places in the world increasing on an almost daily basis, the amount of refugees has reached a high point. In 2017 the Netherlands counts about 200.000 to 250.000 refugees who come from countries as Syria, Afghanistan, Irak, Iran or Somalia (Vluchtelingenwerk.nl, 2017).
This big flow of refugees towards countries in Europe has caused a real crisis (Braicu, 2016). Of course there are the issues of space and housing but the problems seem to go further than this. A lot of Europeans seem to become more and more hostile towards refugees and nationalism seems to increase (BBC news, 2017). On the other hand, refugees seem to have a hard time integrating into their new host country (Human rights watch, 2017). This rising polarization causes not only public issues but also a lot of economic problems.
In 2013, Lodewijk Asscher, the deputy prime minister and the minister of social affairs from the Netherlands has stated that the newcomers should be more aware of the Dutch norms and values. He said that it should be more clear that having the freedom to be yourself, is what makes the Netherlands such a great country and that it is of great importance to keep it this way (Translated freely from: De volkskrant, February 20th, 2013). In other words, refugees who will build their future in
the Netherlands, should become better adapted and integrated into the Dutch society.
So it is clear that integration in the host country is important, both for the refugees themselves as for the native citizens of the host country. However, in practice it turns out to be really complicated and it often goes wrong (Ostrand, 2015). Many research has been conducted on this subject but there hasn’t been found one clear cause or solution yet (e.g. Lavenex, 2001; Sigona, 2005; Valenta and Bunar,
6 2010). Integration could be divided into structural integration and socio-cultural integration. Structural integration describes the formal part of integration and focusses on participation on the labour market or for example education and housing. Socio-cultural integration, describes the more informal part of integration and focusses on the orientation on the Dutch society and the contact with native Dutch citizens (Veenman, 1994, 1995). Socio-cultural as well as structural integration seems to be interdependent in order to reach full integration in the Dutch society. Problems with integration often seem to occur because there is a focus on one of the two aspects of integration instead of on both (Verhaeghe, 2011).
Each of these two aspects of integration can be linked to two concepts often used in the literature on management, namely, human capital and social capital. Human capital contributes towards structural integration because it consists out of a person’s education, work experience, language skills etc. It can be described as the knowledge, skills and abilities of a person (Buller & McEvoy, 2010). Social capital can contribute towards socio-cultural integration because it consists out of a person’s network. This includes: family members, friends, acquaintances, colleagues and basically everyone a person meets or has (ever had) contact with (Buller & McEvoy, 2012). The contribution towards the socio-cultural integration of refugees is especially clear when their social capital includes interethnic contact, because this way the refugees can e.g. learn more about the local culture and values.
However, for refugees, the value of human and social capital is less clear then for native Dutch citizens. For native Dutch citizens, their human and social capital can determine many things. It has for example a big influence on their success in getting and maintaining a job they like. If someone has the right experiences, education and knowledge for a specific job then they are of great value and bring a lot of human capital when they get that job. In order for, for example, employers, to notice their human capital they can use their network (their social capital) to get the right connections and meet the right people. That the situation for refugees is completely different and a lot more complicated, is shown in, for example, an article from Lamba (2008) who performed research on this subject in Canada.
7 Within her research, she shows that the national origin of human capital greatly determines its value. Her results have shown, that human capital that is domestically obtained, has significantly more value than work experience and education that is obtained abroad. This could cause earning disadvantages for refugees and immigrants compared to native citizens (Lamba, 2008). This differentiation in value could be caused by the many prejudices that seem to play a role when it comes to a refugees’ human capital. Most people think of them as poor, low skilled and less important. This, however, doesn’t at all has to be the case. Refugees could have been doctors or lawyers in their home country and end up as taxi drivers or cleaners in the host country, not because they don’t possess human capital but simply because their human capital is hard to transfer and less appreciated. Next to the prejudices, this immobility of human capital is mostly caused by more practical matters like language barriers, specific policies in the host country or, for example, degrees that are not valid in the host country (Lamba, 2008). Obviously, this immobility of human capital could complicate the integration of refugees because this way they aren’t able to show their full potential.
This immobility of human capital could be strengthened by a lack of social capital. Most refugees don’t have a lot of strong ties with native Dutch citizens. This could give them a huge disadvantage when it comes to socio-cultural as well as structural integration. The majority of refugees isn’t able to use their social capital in order to find a suitable job in the host country or get help in finding the right education, because they don’t have (strong) enough ties with native Dutch citizens. Creating these ties could be advantageous for refugees, because it can provide them with easier access to the labour market (Lin, 1999) and enables them to gain more knowledge on cultural norms, values and local traditions (Cruz-Saco, 2008). Consistent interethnic contact could also help refugees learn the local language quicker (Chiswick & Miller, 2001). Lastly, social ties within the host country could be of great value to refugees because it could work as a support system during the difficult parts of the integration process and the adjustment to a new society (Behnia, 2007).
Not finding a job or doing a job that is far below a refugees professional level could have consequences for their socio-cultural as well as their structural integration because it could make
8 them feel unwelcome, underappreciated, depressed, less motivated to be part of Dutch society and more likely to stop working at all or to even separate themselves completely from the Dutch society. This in turn could cause more of the refugees to rely on benefits or increase their need of, for example, health care, which both could cause economic decline and could increase prejudices towards refugees and thereby increase polarization which would cause a vicious circle. In order to find a solution for this problem, it is important to research the extent to which this relationship is clear in the Netherlands, so: “To what extent does social capital relate to the structural integration of refugees in the Netherlands and to what extend is this relationship influenced by socio-cultural integration.” This research is of great importance because there’s evidence that supports the idea that successful integration of refugees will positively impact Europe’s economic performance in the long-run (Sawan, 2016). But that this is only possible when refugees are able to overcome the restrictions and barriers that are associated with resettlement. Research has shown that by encouraging a refugees’ accumulation of social capital, it will provide them with the opportunity to expand their capabilities and ultimately become active drivers of substantial economic growth (Sawan, 2016). It is important to emphasize the major role that social capital can play within the context of the refugee resettlement process and prove that this is one of the most important methods by which refugees are able to integrate successfully and, by this, sustain economic well-being (Sawan, 2016).
An important question however, is whether this relationship could be stronger when It included not only regular social capital but capital in the form of a “buddy” that is specifically assigned to help the refugee in any way with their integration process. This could range from a language coach to, for example, someone who helps with paper work or simply someone to talk to. The only requirement for the buddy would be to have a high level of Dutch language skills. Within the Netherlands there are many of these so called “buddy programmes”. These projects are mostly based on volunteers who are willing to help the refugees without getting any financial rewards in return. These volunteers have the ability to contribute to the integration of the refugees. Not only could they help them by acting as the refugees’ support system but, volunteers could be able to help refugees in
9 many different areas. As Behnia (2007) shows, a special befriending programme between refugees and volunteers brought many benefits. Volunteers were able to help refugees by creating new social ties with natives, providing them with language courses and with more knowledge on the local culture, giving them the chance to meet new people, reducing their feelings of isolation , and giving them more confidence. Results have shown that refugees who took part in this programme, got a job sooner, learned the language quicker, had less need for assistance from the government, had more social contacts and were very optimistic about their future, compared to other refugees (Behnia, 2007). This could imply that a “buddy” could not only influence the relationship between social capital and socio-cultural integration, but also the direct relationship between social capital and structural integration. Since no clear results have been found on this relationship yet, it is really important to conduct more research on the topic (Smith, 2005). If a buddy programme could truly strengthen the relationship in a way that would increase a refugees chances on successful socio-cultural and structural integration then this could be a great opportunity to increase not only the refugees’ well-being but economic well-being and growth overall. Therefore, within these paper, the model showed below in figure 1 will be thoroughly researched.
10
2. Literature review
In this chapter, the most relevant findings from the current literature about social capital, socio-cultural integration, structural integration and buddy programmes and the different mutual relationships, are discussed. The hypotheses of this study are formulated based on this theoretical foundation. Initially, the key concepts that provide the theoretical foundation for the different forms of integration are discussed. Subsequently, the chapter continues with a description of social capital and its effect on integration. Finally, this chapter outlines how a buddy programmes moderate the relationship between social capital and integration.
2.1 Understanding integration
Literature has shown that there is no single generally accepted definition or theory on refugee integration. Although many research has been done on the subject, it remains a controversial and debated concept which can be explained in many different ways (Ager & Strang, 2012). One thing that is clear about integration is that it consists out of different aspects. Researchers use different terms to describe these aspects of integration. Frequently used terms to describe the different aspects of integration are: socio-cultural integration and structural integration (Vermeulen & Penninx, 1994, Veenman, 1994, Breed, 1958, Snel, Engbersen & Leerkes, 2006). For example, Vermeulen and Penninx (1994) use these terms in their research. They describe Structural integration as: “Complete participation in the public institutions of the host country” and Socio-cultural integration as: “the interethnic social contacts that minorities engage in with native citizens of the host country and the cultural adjustments they make to fit into the host society (Vermeulen & Penninx (1994).
Veenman (1994) also makes the distinction between structural and socio-cultural integration to describe the concept of integration but uses a slightly different point of view. He divides integration into attitudes and behavioural aspects. The behavioural aspects include the participation of the
11 refugee. Within participation a distinction is made into formal and informal. Formal participation describes participation in institutions like labour, housing and education which is the structural integration part and formal participation includes contact with native citizens of the host country and orientation on the Dutch society which shows the socio-cultural integration part (Veenman, 1994). As was already shown in the introduction, structural and socio-cultural integration seem to be interdependent. Among others, Verhaeghe (2011) shows that when a refugee is poorly integrated within the structural field, so, for example, he doesn’t have a job or proper housing. This influences his socio-structural integration because he or she e.g. doesn’t have colleagues or neighbours and it’s harder to meet new people and create new ties with native citizens. This also works the other way around. When a refugee is poorly integrated into the socio-cultural field, it is harder to, e.g. access the labour market or gain important knowledge on Dutch culture which in turn, could complicate structural integration (Dagevos, 2001). This shows the importance of focussing on both aspects of integration. Only the combination of structural and social-cultural integration can provide optimal integration, which in turn, could reduce arising problems with regard to refugees and economic decline.
2.2 Social capital
Social capital is a well-researched topic and knows many different definitions. Sander (2003) describes it as the collective value of all social networks and the benefits that arise from these networks due to the norms of reciprocity (doing things for each other) and the flow of information, trust and cooperation. Within these social networks, Ager & Strang (2008), make a distinction between social links, social bonds and social bridges. Social links refer to a persons’ level of involvement in local institutions, organizations and services. Social bonds are the ties that exist within communities, these include, for example, religious ties, national ties or ethnical ties. And lastly, social bridges refer to ties that exceed social bonds. So contacts that outstep e.g. the ethnical or national level.
A further distinction could be made between strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). The difference comes from the amount of time, intimacy and reciprocity that is involved in the relationship.
12 Strong ties are with the contacts you see very often like close friends or family and weak ties involve a more broad group of people which you have had contact with at some point. According to Granovetter (1973) and Putnam (2000), the weak ties are more important when it comes to the integration process because it provides a larger network of people which could help you by, for example, finding and getting a job. Coleman (1988) disagrees and states that the strong ties are more effective because they provide a stable and closed network.
Social capital could play an important role in the integration process of refugees. Especially the first few years in the host country are emotionally very difficult. Refugees could be suffering from traumas and post migration stress. A social network could give them several forms of support: practical, emotional and informative. But because of these mental issues it could be a lot harder for refugees to integrate into a social network (de Vroome & van Tubergen, 2010). A small network, few close friends and not a lot of people to talk to could cause feelings of depression and exclusion. So when they do create a social network, this could improve their psychological well-being and give them a sense of belonging. In order to gain these benefits it doesn’t necessarily has to be about strong ties, also weak ties could help them to create these benefits (Lin, 1999). For refugees, social bridges will be the most important form of social capital because this indicates social capital within the host country (Ager & Strang, 2008). When a social network includes Interethnic contact between refugees and natives, this can lead to socio-cultural integration.
The level of interethnic contact is dependent on both the refugees and the native citizens of the host country and for example the level of cultural distance between them. Interethnic contact could bring a lot of benefits, not only could it decrease interethnic conflict and prejudices but it could also contribute to mutual understanding and acceptance. It can be especially beneficial for refugees because it can increase their access to a wider job market (Lin, 1999). Furthermore, interethnic contact could improve intergroup relations and ensure a more cohesive society (Allport, 1954). Martinovic, van Tubergen & Maas (2008) found, for example, that refugees who had more contact with native citizens, also had better language skills. and that refugees who live in ethnically mixed neighbourhoods
13 had more frequent contact with native citizens(Emerson et al., 2002; Gijsberts and Dagevos, 2005) and are more likely to marry someone from that group. The causality of these relationship however remain questionable. Refugees could, for example, have better language skills because they have more contact with native citizens or they have more contact with native citizens because their language skills are better (Martinovic, van Tubergen & Maas, 2008).
In order to gain these benefits, the interethnic contact should be based on four conditions: equal status, common goals, support from institutional authorities and collaboration between the different groups (Allport, 1954). For refugees that remain isolated from society, it could be extremely difficult to better their socioeconomic position. These refugees will remain a fiscal burden on the state because they will not be able to develop the capabilities that are valuable and necessary within the society and economy (Sawan, 2016). Being part of a social network within the host country will give the refugees a chance to expand their capabilities. The interethnic contact will not only decrease their language barrier and familiarize them with the local norm, values and culture. But will also empower them to seek higher education, employment and integrate into the society (Sawan, 2016). This knowledge leads us to our first two hypotheses: H1: Social capital within the host country positively
relates to a refugees’ structural integration within the host country and H2: Social capital within the host country positively relates to a refugees’ socio-cultural integration within the host country.
Research has shown that several factors influence the probability of creating social capital. For example, women have an advantage when it comes to creating a network compared to men. Also the older a refugee is, the harder it is to create a network and some other factors like level of education, religion, and knowledge about the language.
2.3 Buddy programmes
As is shown before, refugees almost always have a very hard time once they enter the host country (De Vroome & Van Tubergen, 2014). They suffer from mental and sometimes even physical issues and face the difficulties of adjusting to a new society (Behnia, 2007). Lin (1999) describes, as is also shown
14 before, that when people are struggling or having a hard time, their network consisting out of friends and family could work as a support system. The problem with refugees is, however, that most of them hardly know anyone within the host country. This is caused due to, among other things, the dislocation of their own family, language barriers and unfamiliarity with the culture of the host country (Behnia, 2007). Lin (1999), however, also shows that not only a network consisting out of strong ties could create benefits for a persons’ well-being and economic integration, but also a network consisting mostly out of weak ties. When taking this information into account it should be easier to help refugees integrate into the Dutch society.
One possible solution that is now being used quite frequently around the Netherlands are the, so called, buddy or befriending programmes. Within these programmes a Dutch (Or at least Dutch speaking) citizen volunteers as a buddy and get matched with a refugee. This happens in all sorts of different forms. Buddy programmes for refugees are mostly focussed on: improvement of the language skills, social participation, and social integration. It goes further than simply teaching the language and is also about learning the participants more about Dutch norms, values and culture. The underlying thought is not only to make the integration process of the refugees more successful but also to create mutual respect and cultural exchanges (Uyterlinde, Lub, De Groot & Sprinkhuizen, 2009).
The cultural and social aspect of these buddy programmes have proven to be fundamental in order for, the projects to be successful. Projects where the focus is only on economic goals are lacking in effectivity (Cruz-Saco, 2008). Building connections between the different population groups, making people feel welcome in the country and take away friction is why the buddy programmes are able to contribute to building stronger communities. This in turn, contributes to the structural integration of refugees and increases their participation on the labour market (Cruz-Saco, 2008). This leads to our third hypothesis: H3: Sociocultural integration within the host country mediates the relationship
between social capital within the host country and structural integration. In a way that, social capital can lead to an increase in socio-cultural integration which in turn has a positive relationship with structural integration.
15 Research indicates that the relationship between social capital and integration will be stronger when interethnic contact is based on mutual trust and includes attention for diversity (Uyterlinde, Lub, De Groot & Sprinkhuizen, 2009). Therefore, the focus in most of the buddy programmes is on these aspects. International research has provided an overview with the most important conditions for buddy programmes to be successful. These conditions include: the importance of a sustainable relationship between the buddies, a focus on personal attention and frequent contact and, for example, use of role models, Dutch buddies that are successful within their education or career could motivate their buddy to work hard (E-quality & ISW, 2011). To achieve these conditions the matching process within the buddy programme is really important. Buddies that are about the same age and share some mutual interests are more likely to establish a strong relationship and work towards the desired results (Allport, 1954). When the buddy programme is effective the buddies can function as bridges between the different cultural groups within society. Contact between these different groups is important for an entire country. Instead of social ties with the own group that provide mostly trust and support, bridges between different groups could provide people with different information that they normally wouldn’t have access to (Putnam, 2000). This offers them opportunities to improve their socioeconomic position (Granovetter, 1973). This focus on bridging social capital shows the reinforcing effect that a buddy programme could have on the relationship between social capital and integration and leads us to the last two hypotheses. H4: Involvement within a buddy programme moderates the
relationship between social capital and structural integration so that the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement. Because the buddy programme will strengthen the relationship by adding
or expanding bridging capital which provides the refugees with chances to develop their capabilities and thereby increase or transfer their human capital. This will make it more likely for them to find a suitable job or education and H5: Involvement within a buddy programme moderates the relationship
between social capital and socio-cultural integration in a way that, the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement. Because again the bridging social capital provided by the buddy
16 language quicker, know more about the local habits and culture and increase their identification with the country.
3. Methods
3.1 Research design
The sample for this research consists out of refugees who are in contact with a “buddy”. This buddy could be an official language coach but could also be a volunteer with whom the refugee meets up every now and then to, for example, explore the neighbourhood, talk, learn more about Dutch culture etcetera. Therefore, the definition of “buddy” has been taken very broad within this research.
A survey has been constructed and put on different online pages from projects that provide these special buddy programmes, since the response rate from these pages was quite low, two projects have been visited so the survey could be distributed manually. Therefore, most respondents are from these two projects. Furthermore, a few of the respondents from the two projects mentioned before, have shared the survey on their social media and with their friends. The returned surveys have been quantitatively analysed. In the next paragraphs, the research design will be explained in more detail.
3.2 Respondents
The sample for this research consists out of 104 participants. Within the sample there were 55 men and 47 women with an average age of 37.97 (SD= 12.749). The majority of the participants were born in Syria (89), besides this there were 12 respondents from Afghanistan and 1 from Somalia. Most of the respondents (82) have been in the Netherlands for less than 5 years. 9 of them have been here even shorter than 1 year.
Surveys were distributed online on the Facebook pages from a.o. vluchtelingen welkom in de zaanstreek, het Arabisch forum, vrijwilligerscentrale Haarlem, Maatjesproject MCB and De Sluis. Because response rates were low I visited two of the projects myself. De Sluis and Het Arabisch forum both located in Zaanstad. De Sluis is connected to an asylum seekers centre and most of the refugees
17 that came there had only recently arrived in the Netherlands. Therefore, the survey was quite difficult for them and I had to explain all the questions individually. At het Arabisch forum, all the refugees had been in the Netherlands a bit longer. They didn’t live in an asylum seeker centre anymore but had their own house. Here is where I got most of my respondents. There were 65 refugees who were divided over different tables and each table had their own Dutch volunteer. The Dutch volunteers went through the survey with their group by explaining all the questions beforehand and offering help when necessary. This way, I tried to avoid mistakes in interpretation and misunderstanding of the question. Afterwards, some of the refugees shared the survey with their friends and family and on their social media which provided the last respondents.
The survey started with an introduction letter to thank the respondents for their participation. This letter included a brief description of the research question and the goal of the research. It assured the respondents that there answers were anonymous and would be treated with care. The contact details of the researcher were given so that all the respondents could ask for further information if wanted and it stated that all the results would be shared with the organizations that provided us access to the respondents.
The inclusion criteria for this research were (I) All the respondents needed to be refugees. (II) They had to be above the age of 18 and (III) They had to be in contact with a “buddy”. Finally, the respondents didn’t receive any rewards or compensation for their participation.
3.3 Measurements
A survey has been constructed that consists out of different items that were measured. The different items that were measured were: contact with Dutch people, contact with people from the home country, satisfaction with the buddy programme, activities undertaken with the buddy, structural integration through participation in the Dutch labour market or the Dutch education system and socio-cultural Integration based on a.o. identification with the Netherlands and the Dutch culture, Self-reliance, and level of the Dutch language. There were also questions included about the respondents
18 demographics and background. These included: home country, age, sex, year of arrival and work in the home country. The survey was constructed within Qualtrics and an online as well as a printed version was available.
Social capital was measured using questions 15 and 16. E-Quality & IWS Instituut voor Integratie en Sociale Weerbaarheid (2011). Mentorprojecten en Migrantenjeugd: Effecten en Werkzame factoren. The reliability analysis shows that these questions measure the same things, therefore, no items had to be deleted and a scale could be created. This scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.79. For a scale to be reliable, the Cronbach’s alpha needs to be above 0.7. Therefore this scale can be described as reliable.
Satisfaction with the buddy programme was measured using question 22. This question
included a scale with 6 items. An example of one of he items is: “Because of my buddy, I was able to learn the Dutch language quicker.” This scale had an Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.84 which made it very reliable. The question was answered on a 5-point-Likertscale ranging from strongly agree till strongly disagree. The scale shows the effect that, according to the respondent, the buddy has had on: the creation of social capital (Q2 & Q7), the respondents self-reliance (Q1, Q5), their structural integration (Finding a job or education, Q6) and how they contribute to the respondents overall well-being (Q3 & Q4). Furthermore, there were a few loose items measured related to the buddy programme in order to get more background information. Questions included: What kind of activities do you undertake with your buddy and what do you appreciate in your buddy. Both could be answered using different categories such as: I appreciate that I learn the language and my buddy learns me the language. With both questions, more than one answer could be given. This way, in the analysis respondents scores on for example integration could be compared to the activities that were undertaken with the buddy to see whether there is a correlation.
Socio-cultural Integration was measured using two scales and two loose items. The scale
consisted out of 6 items that measured the respondents’ identification with the Netherlands. An example of one of the items is: “I feel welcome in the Netherlands” and could again be answered using a 5-point-likerscale ranging from strongly agree till strongly disagree. The Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale
19 was 0.80 and therefore the scale is reliable. The other two items that were used to measure integration were the measurement of the level of the Dutch language. This question could be answered by a 4 point scale ranging from I can speak the Dutch language without any effort till I cannot speak the Dutch language. And finally, integration was measured by measuring the respondents’ desire to stay in the
Netherlands with the possible answers: Yes I want to stay, No I want to go back to my home country,
No I want to go to a different country or I don’t know/ it is unclear.
Structural integration was measured by asking the respondents whether they were currently
working or following an education within the Netherlands and what kind of education or work they had. Work and education were during the analysis both categorized according to different levels.
Demographics and control variables. All respondents were asked to fill in their age, sex, home
country, year of arrival in the Netherlands, whether or not they had a job in their home country and what kind of job it was.
Table 1. Average means of the scales
Scale N = Mean
(min-max)
Standard deviation Socio-cultural integration 101 12, 85 (6-22) 3,38 Satisfaction Buddy Programme 98 13,50 (7-23) 3,98
Activities Buddy Programme 102 3,41 (0-8) 1,94
Appreciation Buddy Programme 102 3,37 (1-7) 2,01
Level of Dutch language 102 1,99 (1-4) 0,83
Desire to stay in the Netherlands 101 1,74 (1-4) 1,08 Contact with native Dutch citizens 99 3,62 (2-7) 1,60 Participation on the labour market
in NL
100 1,52 (1-2) 0,50
20
4. Results
The purpose of this chapter is to give a full description of the results of this research. The results are analysed according to the different hypotheses that have been drawn up in chapter 2. After describing the exploration and preparation part of the data, direct relationships between social capital and integration were analysed in advance to the mediation and interaction effects.
4.1 Analytic strategy
To begin, a frequency analysis was performed to check for any errors and missing values within the data set. No Errors were found. There was being dealt with missing values by excluding cases list wise. Besides this, the data was also checked for any counter-indicative items. These items were recoded so that agreement stands for a high level of the construct being measured.
Furthermore, all the items were checked on reliability. The reliability analysis shows how good the internal consistency of the scale is. Within this research, all the items have a Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.7. This shows a high level of internal consistency and indicates that all items can be used for further analysis.
Then, in order to make it possible to test the hypotheses, the existing variables were used to create new “total”. Scale means were computed for: TOTsocialcapitalNL, TOTactivities, TOTidentification, TOTbuddyprogramme, TOTsatisfaction. To further explore the data, a correlation table has been made using the computed means for all seven variables, as is shown in table 2. The strongest correlation found is between the appreciation of the buddy program and the activities that were undertaken with the buddy (r = .732, p = .00) which indicates that the relationship between those two variables is positive and significant ( p < .01). When the activities increase, the values of appreciation for the buddy program increase too. Another relevant correlation is the one between socio-cultural integration within the host country and social capital within the host country (r = .324, p = .00) which means that this relationship is also positive and significant at a .01 level. This means that, the more social capital a refugee has in the host country, the higher their values of socio-cultural
21 integration are. The last relevant correlation is between social capital and age (r = .253, p = .04). This relationship is positive and significant at a .05 level. This means that age has a significant effect on social capital an should be considered as an important control variable.
22 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 2.80 1.30 - 2. Sex 1.46 0.50 -.073 - 3. TOTactivities 3.41 1.94 -.070 .037 - (0.72) 4. TOTappreciation 3.37 2.01 -.101 .054 .732** - (0.75) 5. TOTsocialcapitalNL 3.62 1.61 .253* .158 .024 -.001 - (.80) 6. TOTsatisfaction 13.50 3.98 -.092 -.205 -.292 -.223 .155 - (.84) 7. TOTsociocultural 12.85 3.38 .048 0.059 .103 .035 .324** .309 - (.80)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
23
4.2 Social capital and integration
In this paragraph, a description will be given on the analysis of hypothesis 1 (Social capital within the
host country positively relates to a refugees’ structural integration within the host country) and 2 ( Social capital within the host country positively relates to a refugees’ socio-cultural integration within the host country.). First, to see if there’s a relationship between social capital within the host country
and socio-cultural integration within the host country an ANOVA analysis was performed. The results are shown in table 3.
Table 3A: Anova social capital and TOTidentification.
SS DF MS Sig. F
Social capital 173.03 5 34.606 0.007 3.400
Error 956.76 94 10.178
Total 1129.79 99
Table 3B: Anova social capital and TOTsocio-culturalNL.
Social capital Mean SD N
2 11.22 3.41 32 3 12.86 3.50 22 4 14.30 2.64 20 5 13.00 1.76 12 6 15.00 3.16 4 7 14.50 3.98 10 Total 12.89 3.38 100
There was a statistically significant effect of Social capital within the host country on levels of socio-cultural integration with the host country, F (5, 94) = 3.40, p < 0,05. Tukey post- hoc tests revealed that the level of identification with the host country was significantly higher in the group with the most social capital (group 2) compared to the group with average social capital (Group 4) (P = .013)
24 and with the group with the lowest social capital (Group 7) (P = 0.049). Between , group 3, 5 and , no significant difference was found (P = 0.432) ( P = 0.568) and ( P = 0.232).
Therefore, H2: The creation of social capital within the host country, positively contributes to
the socio-cultural integration of refugees was accepted. Then a regression analysis was performed to
research the relationship between social capital and structural integration. Structural integration consisted out of both work or education within the Netherlands. The results show that there was only a small correlation between social capital and structural integration and that the relationship was not significant (R = .005, P= .670) Therefore, H1: Social capital within the host country positively
relates to a refugees’ structural integration within the host country is rejected.
4.3 Buddy programme
In this paragraph, a description will be given on the analysis of hypothesis (H5: Participating in a
buddy programme positively moderates the relationship between social capital within the host country and the integration of the refugee). Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to
investigate the ability of social capital in the host country and involvement in the buddy programme to predict levels of socio-cultural integration, after controlling for gender and age. The results of the analysis are shown in table 4.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression model of identification with the host country
R R² R² Change B SE β T Step 1 .66 .004 Age .116 .263 .045 .439 Gender .349 .684 .052 .511 Step 2 .36 .131 .127 Age -.142 .259 -.55 -.547 Gender -.230 .667 .034 .346 Social capital .677 .213 .322 3.180 Buddy programme .741 .457 .159 1.622
25 In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors were entered: gender and age. This model was not statistically significant (F (2,97) ; P > .05). After entry of social capital and the buddy programme at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 13% and the model was statistically significant F (4, 95); P < .01. The introduction of social capital and the buddy programme explained the additional 12% in identification with the host country, after controlling for gender and age (R2 Change = .127; F (2, 95) = 6.947; p < .01). In the final model, only one of the four variables turned out to be statistically significant. Therefore, only social capital has a direct
relationship with a person’s identification with the host country. (β = 0,322, p < .01). In other words, if a person’s social capital increases for one, their identification with the host country will increase for 0.46. Therefore, it is shown, again, that the creation of social capital positively relates to the socio-cultural integration which underlines H2. H5 however is not shown in this analysis and this
hypothesis is rejected.
4.4 Mediation model.
To test hypothesis 3 and the mediation model the zip file PROCESS was downloaded and installed. To test the relationship between social capital, identification with the host country and participation in the Dutch labour market, a simple mediation model was used. Within the PROCESS file, this was called, model number 4. The results of this analysis are shown in table 5A and 5B and a further description of the results is given.
26 Table 5A & 5B, Process model 4: Mediation model.
The effect of TOTSC on TOTID a1 = 0.711. This means that two refugees that differ by one unit in TOTSC are estimated to differ by 0.71 units on TOTID. In other words, this means that those relatively higher in social capital are estimated to be higher in identification with the host country. This effect is statistically different from zero, t = 3.33, p = .0012 with a 95% confidence interval. The effect B1 = 0.0047 indicates that two refugees who experience the same level of social capital but who differ by one unit in their level on identification with the host country are estimated to differ by b1 = 0.0047 units on WORKNL2. This effect is positive and indicates that those relatively higher in identification with the host country are estimated to have a higher level of participation on the labour market. This effect is however too small and statistically not different from zero, t = 0.1238, p = .9017.
The indirect effect of 0.0034 means that two refugees who differ by one unit in their identification with the host country are estimated to differ by .0034 unit in their participation in the labour market as a result of the tendency for those who have created more social capital in the host country which translates into greater participation in the labour market. Again, this effect is not significant as is shown by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that comes below the zero.
(-27 00564, .0629).
The direct effect of TOTSC, c’ = .1009, is the estimated difference in participation in the labour market between refugees that are experiencing the same level of identification with the host country but who differ by one unit in their reported TOTSC, meaning that refugees with equal identification with the host country but with more social capital is estimated to be 0.1009 units higher in his or her reported participation in the labour market. This direct effect is also not statistically different from zero, t= 1,1930, p = .2358, with a 95% confidence interval).
The total effect of social capital on participation in the labour market is c = .104, meaning two refugees who differ by one unit in social capital are estimated to differ by .104 units on WORKNL2. R2 quantifies the proportion of the total variance of WORKNL2 (Y) explained by the overall model. This solution explains 6.4% of the variance of WORKNL, which is statistically not significant (P = .094).
This analysis shows that there are no significant effects between social capital and structural integration and socio-cultural integration with the host country and structural integration. Therefore, these hypotheses 1 and 3 are rejected. The only significant effect that was found, was again between social capital within the host country and identification with the host country which underlines H1.
4.5 Moderation model
Again the PROCESS file was used to run a moderated mediation model on the data set. Again, the relationships between social capital, identification with the host country and the participation on the Dutch labour market was analysed but this time, the possible moderating effect of involvement in the buddy programme was included.
After running model 8 of the process file it was immediately shown that there was no significant relationship between the variables (P > .05) and therefore, no moderation effect was found. So involvement in the buddy programme has no moderating effect on the relationship between social capital and identification with the host country or on the relationship between social capital and participation on the labour market, therefore, hypothesis 4 (Involvement within a buddy
28
programme moderates the relationship between social capital and structural integration so that the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement.) and hypothesis 5 (Involvement within a buddy programme moderates the relationship between social capital and socio-cultural integration in a way that, the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement.) are rejected.
4.6 Effects of different activities within the buddy programmes
The activities that different buddies undertake together could range from simply talking together to going out and exploring the city together. Within the survey, all the respondents were asked to mention which activities they undertook with their buddy. With this data an ANOVA analysis will be performed in order to check which activities have the most effect on identification with the host country.
Table 6 ANOVA analysis buddy activities
Activities with buddies Mean F (Sig.)
Never Often/regularly
Talking 2.0 3.03 2.275
Cooking 1.66 3.03 2.266
Help with administration/homework 1.66 3.08 1.977
Meeting new people 2.53 2.69 0.381
Practicing the language 2.54 2.66 0.266
Getting to know the city 2.90 2.83 0.388
Sports 3.66 2.61 2.131
Note. Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01 ***p<.001
The analysis shows that there are no significant effects of the different activities and the level of socio-cultural integration.
29
5. Discussion & conclusion
This study was based around the relationship between social capital of refugees and the structural integration of these refugees. The influence that socio-cultural integration and involvement within a buddy programme have on this relationship was thoroughly researched. Besides this, a description was given of which specific factors from the buddy programmes contribute to the integration process. The aim of the research was to know more about the different ways that a buddy or other forms of social capital could contribute to the integration of refugees so new opportunities could be discovered, to increase not only the refugees’ being but the whole country’s economic well-being and growth.
Surveys were distributed among refugees who were in contact with a buddy. Expectations were that contact with a buddy caused increased socio-cultural and structural integration and moderated the relationship between social capital and integration.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Hypothesis 1 states that: Social capital within the host country positively relates to a refugees’ structural integration within the host country. The results of this research, however, do not show any significant relationship between these two variables and the hypothesis was rejected.
A possible explanation could be found in the theory of Cruz-Saco (2008). He states that connections between different population groups, only have a significant effect on integration when the goal of the project is not purely economic but includes a cultural or social aspect. This could explain that there is no direct relationship between social capital and structural integration because he states that the creation of connections could be able to contribute to building stronger communities and making people feel more safe and welcome (Cruz-Saco, 2008). This in turn, could contribute to a better structural integration of refugees but this only indicates an indirect effect. This could be the reason that no significant relationship was found.
30 Another possible explanation could be that the respondents are not aware of the contribution that their social capital has on their structural integration because they might not directly help them with getting a job or education. However, providing refugees with knowledge on the Dutch procedures and improve their language skills also increases their chances on the job market. This makes it possible that the respondents don’t see the effectivity of the social capital in the short-term but that in the long-term they do contribute to their structural integration.
Another explanation, for the lack of effect from social capital could be that increased social capital, doesn’t necessarily has to imply relevant social capital. Someone could be getting to know a lot of people but if none of these people are able to help you with, in this case, finding a job or education, then there’s no relationship between your social capital and your structural integration. This does however probably mean that the social network is still too small but the size of the network is not the only concern. The diversity of the network is also important. As Grantovetter (1973) stated, there should be a balanced mix between weak and strong ties. The strong ties can provide you with support while the weak ties increase your access to the job market and to relevant information. Therefore, it is possible that no significant relationship was found because the social network consisted only out of strong ties and missed the weak ties. Lastly, it might be possible that the refugees that participated in this research were still taking language classes or other necessary exams to get a permit which made them unable to have a job. It is possible that, when they have been in the Netherlands for a longer period of time, their social capital does have an influence on their structural integration.
Hypothesis 2 states that: social capital within the host country positively relates to a refugees’ socio-cultural integration within the host country. Within this research, a significant relationship between both variables was found. That means that a refugees’ social capital within the host country does seem to have a positive relationship with socio-cultural integration. These results, substantiate the theory of Sawan (2016) and Lin (1999) that describe social capital as a positive influence on a.o. a refugees’ language skills, sense of belonging, identification with the host country etc. These results indicate the importance of interethnic contact for refugees.
31 Hypothesis 3 states that: Sociocultural integration within the host country mediates the relationship between social capital within the host country and structural integration. In a way that, social capital can lead to an increase in socio-cultural integration which in turn has a positive relationship with structural integration. Contrary to prior studies related to this topic (Uyterlinde, Lub, De Groot & Sprinkhuizen, 2009; Cruz-Saco, 2008), no significant mediation effect was found within this research. A possible explanation could again be that the refugees that participated in the research were not yet focused on getting a job or education because they have not been in the Netherlands long enough. Therefore, this research might not show a significant effect because it will only be effective in the long-term.
Hypothesis 4, Involvement within a buddy programme moderates the relationship between social capital and structural integration so that the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement and Hypothesis 5, Involvement within a buddy programme moderates the relationship between social capital and socio-cultural integration in a way that, the relationship is stronger for higher levels of involvement, were also rejected because no significant moderating effects were found. In the literature however, both effects were found. According to Granovetter (1973) and Putnam (2000), the bridging social capital that buddy programs provide could contribute to the socioeconomic wellbeing of refugees and increase their participation on the labour market. Besides this it could also make them feel more safe and welcome and increase their identification with the host country. This indicates a moderating effect between social capital and structural and socio-cultural integration. Possible explanations for the contradictory results within this research could be that, with the surveys, opinions of the refugees were questioned. No objective measurements have been used. Because you’re only questioning the opinion of the refugee it could still be very possible that a relationship between the different variables does exist but that the refugee is just not (completely aware of them). Another possible explanation could be that the buddy of the refugee only represents a small part of their social network within the host country and that they have a lot more contact within, for example, their neighbourhood or on the work floor. This could decrease the effect of the buddy because they
32 have a lot of other interethnic contact that could influence their integration. A final possible explanation for the missing moderation effect could lay in the theory from Allport (1954) which has been discussed in the literature review. He states that, for the contact between buddy and refugee to be effective, it need to be based around four fundamental conditions. One of these conditions includes an equal status the buddy and the refugee and mutual interests. It is possible that these conditions were not met. For example, because the matches weren’t good enough and had no personal connection or for example because refugee felt that they were not equal. This problem remains difficult because a buddy is still a volunteer and is there to help the refugee, this could make the refugees feel like their buddy is better and has a higher status. This could explain the lack of a significant relationship between the variables. Other researchers however, have stated that the relationship between buddy and refugee doesn’t necessarily have to meet these conditions in order to be effective (Pettigrew & Trop, 2006). Therefore, a clear explanation for the rejection of this hypothesis remains complex.
In conclusion, the current study has contributed to the literature by assessing the direct and indirect influence of social capital on structural integration and the moderating effect of a buddy program. Based on this research, only social capital seems to have a significant effect on socio-cultural integration. However, in order to establish a generalized framework, further research is needed.
5.2 Limitations & future directions
Almost all of the hypotheses that were drawn up, based on the analysis of the literature, were rejected after the data-collection and analysis. The different relationships that were expected based on the theoretical model could not be found. The limited number of responses could be one of the reasons for these results. However, more importantly was probably, for a lot of the respondents, the language barrier. In the first instance, the survey created for this research was a lot longer and more complicated. After testing it on a few subjects, a shortened and more simple version was created.
33 Most of the respondents were still not able to take to survey by themselves and needed someone to help them and explain the questions, it is possible that there was still a part of the respondents that misunderstood some of the questions. Because this took a lot of time and effort it might be more effective for future research to take on a more qualitative approach. Either way, it is necessary to spend that much time with each of the respondents so therefore it might be good to take a smaller sample and go more in depth on the different relationship researched. This way, it could be ensured that there are no misunderstandings and that the information that is gained is correct. . Besides this, during this research I became a “buddy” myself and started volunteering at a language café for Syrian refugees. These experiences convinced me that, even though the data collection didn’t show
significant results, that having a buddy, or, at least, interethnic contact, does definitely has an effect on a refugees’ integration process. Because of the language barriers that exist with the respondents for this research, it might also be better to focus the research on less and simpler variables. This way, it is easier to avoid misunderstanding and the relationships could be measured more accurately. Furthermore, with this research, the causality of the different relationships remains questionable.
For future research, it would be interesting to create a control group. One group of refugees who do have contact with a buddy and one group of refugees who don’t have contact with a buddy. This way the specific influence that the buddy has, could become a lot more clear. Besides this, within this research, it didn’t matter what kind of buddy the refugees were in contact with and for how long they had been in contact with them. This could make the research less reliable because when a refugee has been in contact with a buddy for one month it is less likely that a relationship with integration can be found than when they were already in contact for, for example, a year. Also the frequency of the contact with the buddy should be taken into consideration. Lastly, it could be interesting to see the variables in a different order. For example to research the direct relationship between buddy programmes on social capital and structural integration on socio-cultural integration.
34
5.3 Practical implications
This research only revealed a significant relationship between the social capital of the refugee and their socio-cultural integration. This relationship is, according to the literature, of great importance for the (socioeconomic) wellbeing of refugees. Therefore, it might be important for projects, such as the buddy programmes discussed in this research, to focus more on the social and cultural aspects of integration instead of the economic goals. Even though the focus will be more on making the refugees feel safe and welcome and familiarizing them with the local culture, in the long-term this will contribute to the economic growth of the entire country.
Besides this, it might be necessary for the different buddy projects to spend more time and effort on the matches they make between volunteers and refugees so that the four conditions for an effective relationship will be met (Allport, 1954). Because none of the other relationships turned out to be significant it is difficult to give further practical advice. However, the results and the literature discussed within this paper do point out that the further research will need to contribute to more clarity on the subject based on the different suggestions made for future research.
5.4 conclusion
In conclusion, the current study has contributed to the literature by assessing the direct and indirect influence of social capital within the host country on the integration of refugees. A direct significant relationship has been found between social capital and the socio-cultural integration of refugees. This indicates that refugees who have a lot of contact with people from the host country are more likely to: feel welcome in the host country, speak the language and identify themselves with the local culture. Even though this study doesn’t show any significant relationship between socio-cultural integration and structural integration, prior literature has provided many convincing results that a relationship between both does exist. Therefore, future research will be needed to explain the different relationship more thoroughly. Besides this, no moderating effect of buddy programmes was
35 found within this study. More research is needed so that the different buddy programmes within the Netherlands could be designed in the most effective way to help refugees with their integration within the host country. This study includes evidence that integration in turn will lead to economic well-being for the entire country and therefore, is not an option but a necessity.
36
Bibliography
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of
Refugee Studies, 21(2): 166-191. doi:10.1093/jrs/fen016.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
BBC News. (2017). Is Europe lurching to the far right? - BBC News. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36150807 [Accessed 9 Feb. 2017]. Behnam Behnia PhD (2007) An Exploratory Study of Befriending Programs
with Refugees, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 5(3), 1-19.
Braicu, C. (2016). EU Refugee Crisis Impact on the European Labor Market. International conference
KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, 22(2).
Breed, W. (1958). Mass Communication and Socio-Cultural Integration. Social Forces, 37(2), pp.109-116.
Buller, P. and McEvoy, G. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22(1), pp.43-56.
Chiswick, B.R. & Miller, P.W. (2001). A model of destination-language acquisition: application to male immigrants in Canada, Demography, 38, 391–409.
Cruz-Saco, M.A. (2008). Promoting Social Integration: Economic, Social and Political Dimensions
with a focus on Latin America. USA: Connecticut College.
Dagevos, J. (2001). Perspectief op integratie: over de sociaal-culturele en structurele integratie van etnische minderheden in Nederland. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijke raad voor het regeringsbeleid.
Dakhli, M. and De Clercq, D. (2004) "Human Capital, Social Capital, And Innovation: A Multi-Country Study". Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 16.2 (2004) 107-128. Web. De Vroome, T. and Van Tubergen, F. (2010). The Employment Experience of Refugees in the
Netherlands1. International Migration Review, 44(2), pp.376-403.
Engbersen, G., Dagevos, J., Jennissen, R., Bakker, L., Leerkes, A., Klaver, J., & Odé A., (2015). WRR Policy-brief. Geen tijd verliezen: van opvang naar integratie van asielmigranten.
E-Quality & IWS Instituut voor Integratie en Sociale Weerbaarheid (2011). Mentorprojecten en Migrantenjeugd: Effecten en Werkzame factoren.
37 Grand, C. L., & Szulkin, R. (2002). Permanent disadvantage or gradual integration: explaining the
immigrant-native earnings gap in Sweden. Labour, 16(1), 37-64
Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties, The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Hanekamp, M. (2012). Multiculturalisme in vergelijkend perspectief. Universiteit van Utrecht/ Herderschee, G. & Stam, J. (2013) Asscher wil elke migrant contract laten tekenen, 20 februari - De
Volkskrant.
Human Rights Watch. (2017). For Europe, Integrating Refugees Is the Next Big Challenge. [online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/13/europe-integrating-refugees-next-big-challenge [Accessed 9 Feb. 2017].
Kanas, A., & van Tubergen, F. (2014). The conditional returns to origin-country human capital among Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in Belgium. Social science research, 46, 130-141.
Krahn, H., T. Derwing, M. Mulder and L. Wilkinson (2000). Educated and Underemployed: Refugee Integration into the Canadian LabourMarket.’’ International Journal of Migration and Integration 1:59–84.
Lamba, N. (2008). The Employment Experiences of Canadian Refugees: Measuring the Impact of Human and Social Capital on Quality of Employment*. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue
canadienne de sociologie, 40(1), pp.45-64.
Lavenex, S. (2001). The Europeanization of Refugee Policies: Normative Challenges and Institutional Legacies. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(5), pp.851-874.
Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment, Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487. Ostrand, N (2015). The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 3(3), pp. 255-279.
Sigona, N. (2005). Refugee Integration(s): Policy and Practice in the European Union. Refugee Survey
Quarterly, 24(4), pp.115-122.
Snel, E., Engbersen, G. and Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks, 6(3), pp.285-308.
Uyterlinde, M., Lub, V. Groot, N. de., Sprinkhuizen, A. (2009). Meer dan een steuntje in de rug.
Succesfactoren van coaching en mentoring onderzocht. Utrecht: Movisie.
Valenta, M. and Bunar, N. (2010). State Assisted Integration: Refugee Integration Policies in Scandinavian Welfare States: the Swedish and Norwegian Experience. Journal of Refugee
38 Veenman, J. (1994) Participatie in perspectief. Ontwikkelingen in de sociaaleconomische
positie van zes allochtone groepen in Nederland, Houten/ Zaventem en Lelystad: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum/Koninklijke Vermande.
Veenman, J. (1995) Onbekend maakt onbemind. Over selectie van allochtonen op de
arbeidsmarkt, Assen: Van Gorcum.
Verhaeghe, P. (2011). De sociaaleconomische integratie van etnische minderheden: De rol van interklasse en interetnische contacten. Migrantenstudies, 2, 205-214
Vermeulen, H., en R. Penninx (1994). Het democratisch ongeduld. De emancipatie en
integratie van zes doelgroepen van het minderhedenbeleid, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Vluchtelingenwerk.nl. (2017). Wanneer ben je vluchteling? | VluchtelingenWerk Nederland. [online] Available at: https://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/feiten-cijfers/wie-vluchteling [Accessed 30 Jan. 2017].
Waxman, P. (2001) ‘‘The Economic Adjustment of Recently Arrived Bosnian, Afghan and Iraqi Refugees in Sydney, Australia.’’ International Migration Review 35:472–505.
Weijters, G. and Scheepers, P. (2003). Verschillen in Sociale Integratie tussen Etnische
Groepen: Beschrijving en Verklaring [Differences in Social Integration between Ethnic Groups: Description and Explanation]. Mens & Maatschappij, 78, 144 – 150
