Belonging to an ethnic minority: discrimination among
Western and Central Eastern European countries
Master of Science in Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen
Master Thesis June 2015 Federico Bellani Madoerastraat 8b 9715HG Groningen S2619830
ABSTRACT
During the last decades, new East-West and foreign migration routes have altered the demographic landscapes of European societies, and in the near future it is expected that populations will become even more and more diverse. The integration of ethnic minorities, immigrants and newcomers in their new residing countries plays a crucial role when measuring their life satisfaction and happiness, and the subjective well-being of citizens has become a primary measure of economic and social integration among European countries. Based on a thorough literature review, aim of this research is to prove that discrimination towards ethnic minorities still can play a major role when it comes to their integration in the labor market and in the wider society and has consequences on their subjective wellbeing.
Keywords: Subjective wellbeing, Ethnic Minorities, Quality of job, Social and Political Trust, Western and Central Eastern Europe
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Peter Van Der Meer for his valuable feedbacks and dedicated commitment, and my family and friends who continuously supported me during these
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1 Subjective well-being ... 7
2.2 Determinants of subjective well-being ... 7
2.2.1 Type of work ... 8
2.2.2 Income ... 8
2.2.3 Trust ... 9
2.3 Role of Ethnicity ... 9
2.3.1 On type of work and income ... 10
2.3.2 On social and political trust ... 11
2.4 Western versus Eastern Europe ... 12
2.5 Conceptual Model ... 13
3. METHODOLOGY ... 14
3.1 Data sample ... 14
3.2 Variables and measures ... 14
3.3 Analysis ... 16 4. RESULTS ... 16 4.1 For hypotheses 1 to 8 ... 16 4.2 For hypothesis 9 ... 19 5. DISCUSSION ... 24 5.1 Findings ... 24
5.2 Implications and future research ... 26
1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decades, Western societies have become more and more diverse, and today’s demographic tendencies in the labor market in Western democracies are suggesting that European countries will become even more ethnically and culturally varied in the near future (Hooghe, Reeskens, Stolle, Trappers 2008). The end of World War II and the collapse of the communist regimes have altered the migration flows in and out of Europe and a new influx of Eastern and non-European migrants has been able to access the same rights characterizing life in Western societies.
A fresh European internal market led to increased migration rates in all countries except for Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Iceland (Melchior, 2008). Moreover, in 2004 and 2007, eight new Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Lettonia, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia) joined the European Union along with Malta and Cyprus, making Europe even more multicultural and paving the road for the inclusion of more countries in the future (Zick et al., 2008).
Because of this unique enlargement, the “circular and temporary free movement, informal labour market incorporation, cultures of migration, transnational networks, and other phenomena - illustrate the emergence of a new migration system in Europe” (Favell, 2008, p.701). The new migration routes have indeed modified the demographic profile of liberal-democratic societies, thereby nurturing their ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic diversity. “A vast array of diverse individuals - from asylum seekers, refugees, and legal and illegal workers to sojourners, international students, resettlers and descendents of the second- and third-generation immigrants and many others, make up modern Europe today” (Zick, Pettigrew, Wagner, 2008, p.239).
Consequently, whether European governments succeed in integrating the new populations has become a crucial discussion (Roeder, Mulhau, 2010), and, according to Ryan and Deci (2000), a more effective and fruitful internalization of the social contexts among diverse individuals can have positive outcomes on their wellbeing.
Nowadays millions of members of ethnic groups living in Europe are enduring social and economic exclusion (Kahanec, Zaiceva, Zimmermann, 2010). In fact, in terms of Labor market employment, schooled and skilled East European workers appear destined to occupy low-paid and less valuable positions when in the West, finding often temporary employment in laboring, domestic, agricultural or construction work (Favell, 2008). Intrinsic cultural and ethnic disparities are often found to be the source of such gaps between ethnic minorities and the majority of the populations (Kahanec et al., 2010), and can have consequences on life satisfaction and happiness.
Ultimately, Europe as a whole has only to take advantage from a greater East-West integration and manageability, and here two processes are at work. First, the ‘internationalizing’ of minority rights issues is now a point of legitimate international concern, based on how governments treat their minorities. Second, Western integration models are being exported in newly-democratizing states in Eastern Europe (Kymlicka, 2002), and respect for minority rights became one of the entrance criteria that countries must meet to join the EU and NATO (Kymlicka, 2002, 2008).
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, a literature review has been carried out in order to give a proper definition of subjective wellbeing. Secondly, determinants of subjective wellbeing are found and chosen among numerous factors affecting citizens’ wellbeing (Layard, 2005; Dolan, Peasgood, White, 2007). Indeed, the study will focus on four main aspects, namely job autonomy, income, social trust and political trust. The third part of the literature review concerns the role that ethnicity plays. Ethnicity is often found to be a crucial variable leading to discrimination, exclusion and distrust issues among minorities (Kahanec et al., 2010; Roeder et al., 2010; Safi, 2009), and aim of this study is to try to give explanations of why individuals pertaining to minor groups tend to have lower incomes, trust and quality of jobs compared to national majorities. Part of the research question is aimed at finding differences in how minorities are treated among East and West Europe, since authors argue that negative shifts in economic conditions such as industrial production, unemployment, inflation, and real wages, represented a threat to Eastern Europeans’ subjective well-being, and that the transformation process for these countries did not reflect the Western model of integration, which is made up of a democratic political system and a market economy (Hayo and Seifert, 2002; Kymlicka, 2002, 2008). For example, Melchior (2008) concludes that in Eastern Europe growing incomes have been followed by increasing regional disparities within countries.
Is the subjective wellbeing of ethnic minorities and of national majorities equally
influenced by the same set of factors? Why do ethnic minorities generally report a lower level of happiness and life satisfaction?
And, are the individuals of ethnic minorities being equally treated among Eastern and
Western Eastern European countries?
Concerning the methodology section, data of the 6th round of the European Social Survey will be used, and a pool of selected European countries will be firstly analyzed in order to answer the first research question, and further divided into Central East and West Europe in order to answer the second study question. As explained by Oudhof (2007), the European Social Survey entails a classification based on three aspects characterizing the different backgrounds of ethnic minority individuals. The first criterion simply considers individuals’ citizenship, which is the traditional criterion in EU statistics and differentiates between people who are citizens in their respective countries and those who are not. The second classification considers native/foreign background, derived from country of birth of the respondents in combination with country of birth of their parents. The third measure distinguishes between people who do and people who do not belong to an ethnic minority group in the country, and is measured by a direct question asked to the survey’s respondents. The latter will be the measure for this research since it favors a global perception of ethnic minority and is judged on the European Social Survey by the following question: “Do you belong to an ethnic minority group in the country?”.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Subjective well-being
Life satisfaction and happiness represent two ample fields of analysis, which are likely to link each other under numerous aspects. If coupled, these two concepts can be seen as the two components of the broader concept defined as “subjective wellbeing”.
As stated by Diener, Suh, Lucas, and Smith (1999) subjective wellbeing is a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments on life satisfaction. Subjective wellbeing can also be defined as the absence of negative influences stemming from failures, regrets and past harmful or unhappy experiences. Indeed, Simmons (2014) defines subjective wellbeing as “a seemingly positive and desirable state, which is most consistently measured as the absence of negative: anxiety, irritability, depression, and somatic symptoms” (p.4).
Happiness itself can be viewed as the ultimate goal of humanity. Since the origin of modern societies, governments have taken the happiness of their populations as the guiding principle for their actions (Di Tella, MacCulloch, Oswald, 1999), and, as Diener argues (2000), “the people considered to be the happiest are those who are intensely happy more of the time” (p.36). The concept of happiness entails a rich set of theories and perspectives, and one definition of happiness is the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his or her life as positive (Blenchflower, Oswald, 2002).
Many researchers have explored the field of subjective wellbeing, and definitions vary among two major theories, namely top-down and bottom-up approaches. As explained by Sousa-Poza A. and Sousa-Sousa-Poza A.A. (2000), bottom-up theories analyze the effects that external events, situations, and demographics have on subjective wellbeing. This frame suggests that there are basic and universal human needs, and that if an individual’s needs are met in the current situation, then he or she will be happy. On the other hand, top-down theories assume that there is a general propensity to experience things in a positive way, and this propensity influences the interaction an individual has with the environment. Here, an individual’s personality plays a central role. The bottom-up approach will be adapted for the purpose of the research since its focus will exclude personality traits of the workers.
2.2 Determinants of subjective well-being
(2007), a detailed list of potential factors influencing well-being levels of individuals has been identified.
Among other factors, they found ethnicity, income, trust and type of work as crucial issues affecting the subjective wellbeing. Also in his book “Happiness: lessons from a new science”, Layard (2005) exposes a list of seven most critical aspects of life influencing the happiness of individuals. These are family relationships, work, financial situation, community and friends, health, personal freedom, and personal values. For the purpose of this research, four of these aspects will be analyzed.
2.2.1 Type of work
Being employed is one of the most important factors for happiness more than having an income alone (Layard, 2005). However, according to Dolan et al. (2007) there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the impact that different types of work have on subjective wellbeing. Nevertheless, evidence has been verified on self-employment, and it is proven that one of the most important clues on the job place is the extent to which you exert autonomy over what you do (Layard, 2005; Van der Meer, Wielers, 2013).
In a study conducted on US and UK surveys, Blanchflower and Oswald (1998) found that self-employed people tend to report higher levels of both job and life satisfaction than employees. Also Benz and Frey (2008b) found that the self-employed are substantially more satisfied with their work than the employed, and they gathered results for 15 among Western and Eastern European countries beside other 8 non-European countries. Employees’ experiences of satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the workplace predict their performance and wellbeing at work (Ryan et al. 2000). Being able to work independently is one of the most important determinants of job satisfaction (Sousa Poza et al., 2000). Finally, Van der Meer et al. (2013) found that challenging work with a high level of autonomy makes the workers happier.
H1: Job autonomy is positively related to subjective well-being
2.2.2 Income
Cummins (2000) proves that low levels of income can have negative outcomes on the subjective well-being of individuals. Also Van der Meer et al. (2013) conclude that income has a positive effect on happiness, and Layard (2005) assures that a fall in income causes a fall in happiness.
Likewise, Hayo et al. (2002) found that subjective economic wellbeing associates particularly highly with overall life satisfaction of individuals in Eastern European countries.
H2: Income is positively related to subjective well-being
2.2.3 Trust
Trust is both “a complex interpersonal and organizational construct, and citizen’s trust in government represents a complex mix of ideologies, experiences, stereotypes and images, comprising but not limited to the specific aspects of public sector organization and functioning” (Blind, 2006, p.23).
Blind (2006) argues that trust in government and trust among peers have become independent forecasters of support for government policies, more important than partisanship or ideology alone, and he identified two main variants of trust. These are political trust, which refers to the citizens’ judgment of the responsiveness and reliability of the system and the political institutions, and social trust, which refers to their faith in each other as members pertaining to a social collectivity.
Thus, on one hand higher levels of trust in other peers should tie individuals to a broader community and then spill over to increase level of trust in political institutions. Indeed, the quality of the community we live in is crucial whether we make friends and feel safe, and it does contribute to the increase of happiness and social capital (Layard, 2005). Dolan et al. (2007) state that social and neighborhood trust is associated with higher life satisfaction and happiness, and a lower likelihood of suicide too.
On the other hand, satisfaction in government’s performance is a key determinant of trust in government because it measures the extent to which individuals feel government has met their needs (Maxwell, 2010). Contemporary democratic policies are multicultural, and trust in public institutions is merely based on evaluation of the public goods’ quality (Roeder et al., 2010). Therefore, happiness is found to depend also on the quality of government (Layard, 2005).
H3: Social trust is positively related to subjective well-being H4: Political trust is positively related to subjective well-being
2.3 Role of Ethnicity
explanation for the lower happiness and self-esteem of members of ethnic minorities is that they have lower incomes, less education, and less skilled jobs.
Several studies found that in Europe immigrants tend more likely to be discriminated against compared to nationals, and that discrimination causes serious consequences for their wellbeing (Roeder et al., 2010; Safi, 2009). For example, Te Lindert, Korzilius, Van de Vijver, Kroon and Arends-Toth (2008) found that perceived discrimination was the most salient variable in their model influencing the psychological and sociocultural outcomes of 232 Iranian refugees in the Netherlands. Silveira and Ebrahim (1998) found that inequalities in income, social support, housing and physical health status were the main reasons for variation in mood observed among immigrants and whites in London, and may partly explain differences in life satisfaction. However, “researchers need to know whether or not subjective well-being exhibits conceptual equivalence across racial groups, and what is meant when minority groups report on their life quality” (Adams, 1997, p.217).
2.3.1 On type of work and income
Favell (2008) asserts that the recent East-West mobility is directly related to the Mexican migration flows occurring in North America. Indeed, Eastern European migrants are now regional “free movers”, not immigrants anymore, and, with the frontiers open, they are more likely to find employment in provisional circular and transnational mobility, often in low-end services, manufacturing and agricultural jobs, governed more by the flow and patterns of market demands than by long-term permanent immigration or asylum-seeking (Favell, 2008).
As concluded by D’Addio and Rosholm (2004), temporary jobs are always rewarded with lower wages, and they also prove that workers in low quality employment experience a higher risk of labor market exclusion. As Favell (2008) asserts, today in Britain “is almost impossible to be served dinner or drinks in a rural pub, or get your bathroom fixed in a big city, without encountering an East European worker” (p.711).
structure is of a discriminatory labor market that keeps them professional and precarious in order to better extract cheaper labor. The payoffs, if any, are in terms of their status in relation to their peer group back home” (Favell, 2008, p.712).
H5: The positive effect of job autonomy on subjective well-being is lower for citizens
pertaining to ethnic minorities
H6: The positive effect of income on subjective well-being is lower for citizens pertaining
to ethnic minorities
2.3.2 On social and political trust
So far, evidence for trust is relatively clear. As Soroka, Banting, and Johnston point out (2002), trust is a crucial variable between diversity and endorsement for government’s social welfare actions, and trust among individuals has an important contextual component, which is often represented by ethnicity. Anything that depletes political trust has the potential to negatively affect the commitment and support of the redistributive governments’ actions (Soroka et al., 2002), and trust in public institutions such as the police, the legal system and the government is associated with higher life satisfaction (Dolan et al., 2007).
Hence, for the integration process to be more effective a higher degree of trust and confidence between populations and governmental institutions is required, especially because minorities are strengthening as Western states become more democratic, prosperous and globalized (Kymlicka, 2002). Authorities have the responsibility to manage conflicts between their cultural majorities and minorities by developing anti-discrimination and refugee policies, and, from this viewpoint, the goal shall be the integration of the newcomers (Soroka et al., 2002).
Several empirical studies show a negative relation between ethnic diversity and generalized trust and prove that discrimination, social exclusion and confidence in public institutions are aspects strongly related to each other: the ethnic and racial makeup of social communities still plays a major role when measuring social cohesion and social capital, and can generate negative outcomes in regard to the happiness, political confidence and friendships of the individuals (Hooghe et al. 2008; Roeder et al., 2010). This falls often for migrants, whose lower trust in public institutions is most of the time associated with the discrimination they perceive as being part of an ethnic minority discriminated against (Roeder et al., 2010).
H7: The positive effect of social trust on subjective well-being is lower for citizens
H8: The positive effect of political trust on subjective well-being is lower for citizens
pertaining to ethnic minorities 2.4 Western versus Eastern Europe
The field of subjective well-being has emerged as one of the numerous indicators used to verify the success of the transition processes started during the last decades in economic and social areas in Europe (Vecernik, Mysikova, 2014).
Still, discrepancies are occurring between Western and Eastern models of minorities’ integration. As Kymlicka (2002, 2008) points out, in the Eastern and Central Europe many intellectuals and statists are pessimistic about the idea that substate national groups can raise their autonomy according to liberal-democratic norms. Indeed, they still have the hope that minority nationalism will fade away as a result of current democratization and globalization processes. Differently, Western governments are more optimistic and forward-looking about the prospect of substate national minorities to exert autonomy, thus, their minorities are more likely to be recognized as numerous and politically aware of their rights.
For example, Barany (2002) concludes that the mobilization of Eastern Gypsies after the 90’s within Eastern and Central European countries has remained “woefully underrepresented in Eastern Europe’s polities” (p.306), and factors such as weak ethnic identity, scarce resources and low voting rates have impeded their effectiveness on government’s policies. Moreover, he argues that the few positive tangible policy shifts that these communities have gained have occurred mainly due to the relentless pressure that international organizations such as the Council of Europe and, in particular, the European Union have carried out over the Eastern states.
Eastern European territories therefore represent a more hostile place in terms of minorities’ integration, and, especially in post-communist countries, “it is typically the majority that feels it has been the victim of oppression, often at hands of minorities acting in collaboration with foreign enemies” (Kymlicka, 2008, p.29). In addition, Layard (2005) proves that in post communist countries citizens are found to be less personally, politically and economically free, thereby showing lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction. In example, he shows that there are huge differences in happiness associated with government between Belarus (former communist country) and Hungary, which is a post-communist state.
H9: Differences between minorities’ and majorities’ subjective well-being are larger in
Eastern European countries compared to Western European countries 2.5 Conceptual Model
The conceptual model of the research is represented by a conditional direct effect. Being part of an ethnic minority is expected as moderating the positive effects that job autonomy, income and social and political trust usually have on the subjective wellbeing of citizens. Thus, a comparison between ethnic minorities and majority of populations will be analyzed according to the model showed below.
Further, the European pool of countries will be divided into East and West, and same calculations of the previous hypotheses will be analyzed taking into consideration the two different sides of Europe. Based on the theory presented in section 1.4, a comparison between results in Eastern and Western Europe will be offered in order to answer hypotheses 9.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data sample
For the purpose of this research, recent data of the 6th round of the European Social Survey conducted in 2012 has been retrieved and analyzed. The survey is a cross-national European academic project that takes every two years since more than a decade, and entails questionnaires measuring the attitudes, beliefs and behavior patterns of the citizens.
The missing cases in the dataset have been cleaned in order to better investigate on the results. Also, respondents from Cyprus and Israel have been excluded from the database due to geographical reasons. Thus, a total number of 41.490 respondents from 27 European countries represented the pool of investigation, including 2.466 individuals pertaining to an ethnic minority group in their countries. For the purpose of the investigations on aspects regarding job autonomy, results have been calculated by taking into consideration individuals that declared being employed in a paid job at the time of the survey. For the purpose of hypotheses 9, countries’ data have been divided in Western and Central Eastern Europe. Indeed, the term CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) is a generic term in use after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, indicating the bloc of former communist countries in Europe. Thus, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine and Kosovo represented the Central and Eastern Europe group, whereas Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Island, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden have been included in the Western Europe group.
3.2 Variables and measures
Listed below are the variables of the ESS’s 6th round of 2012 that have been used for conducting the research. Reliability analyses have been carried out for those variables that have been computed in order to better represent a specific construct of the research.
Dependent variable:
Subjective well-being: C1: Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? B20: All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?
The two questions are measured with a scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 means “extremely unhappy or dissatisfied” and 10 means “extremely happy or satisfied”.
Independent variables:
1. Ethnicity: C24: Do you belong to a minority ethnic group in [country]? Belonging to an ethnic minority has been coded as 1 (=yes) and 0 (=no). The variable has been renamed as “Ethnicity”. 2. Job autonomy: F27-28: I am going to read out a list of things about your working life. Using this card, please say how much the management at your work allows/allowed you? To decide how your own daily work is/was organized? To influence policy decisions about the activities of the organisation? Here, the scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 means “I have/had no influence” and 10 means “I have/had complete control”.
Both variables measuring the job autonomy have been computed based on their mean and labeled as “Job autonomy”. The reliability analysis for the combined variables resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.794.
3. Subjective Income: F42: Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household's income nowadays? Here, the possible answers range from 1 (very difficult on present income) to 4 (living comfortably on present income).
4. Social trust: A3: Using this card, generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people? Please tell me on a score of 0 to 10, where 0 means you can't be too careful and 10 means that most people can be trusted.
5. Political trust: B22, Government satisfaction: Now thinking about the [country] government, how satisfied are you with the way it is doing its job? Here, the scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 means “extremely dissatisfied” and 10 means “extremely satisfied”.
B2-8, Trust in parliament, legal system and police: Using this card, please tell me on a score of 0-10 how much you personally trust each of the institutions I read out. 0 means you do not trust an institution at all, and 10 means you have complete trust. Firstly… [country]’s parliament? Secondly… ...the legal system?; Thirdly... …the police?;
These four variables measuring political trust have been computed based on their mean and labeled as “Political Trust” The reliability analysis for the combined variables showed a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.841.
Control variables: 5. Country
3.3 Analysis
Firstly, a descriptive investigation of means, standard deviations and correlations occurring among subjective wellbeing, job autonomy, income, social and political trust, and ethnicity has been presented.
Secondly, mixed linear model analyses have been carried out and presented in order to answer hypotheses 1 to 8. For the purpose of hypotheses number 9, mixed linear model analyses are run for the two different pools of countries representing Western and Central Eastern Europe.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Analyses for hypotheses 1 to 8
Table 1 shows the descriptive results for the whole set of independent variables. All the variables are positively and significantly correlated with subjective wellbeing, a part from “being part of an ethnic minority group in country” (ethnicity) since it is, logically, the only variable being negatively correlated to the others. Subjective income stands out, and counts for the largest variation in subjective wellbeing (r = .514). Political trust also plays a major role (r = .444). The least effective factor is represented by job autonomy, which has a Pearson Correlation value of .266. Being part of an ethnic minority is significantly and negatively correlated to all the other factors, especially with subjective income (r = -.105) and with subjective wellbeing (r = -.095).
Table 1 – Means, standard deviations and correlations
Notes: S.D.: standard deviations; * Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) N=41490
Table 2 shows the mixed linear model analyses’ results obtained with subjective wellbeing as dependent variable. Firstly, the has been run with the control variables solely. In a second step, the five independent variables have been added, so that results for the first four hypotheses are analyzed. From the third to the sixth model, mixed linear model analyses are run by taking in
Variables Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 1 Subjective well being 6.94 2.06
2 Job Autonomy 5.16 3.22 .266*
3 Subjective Income 2.85 0.91 .514* .312*
4 Social Trust 5.01 2.46 .325* .178* .281*
5 Political Trust 4.65 2.23 .444* .206* .390* .426*
consideration the interaction effects between the independent variables and the variable representing ethnicity. Thus, the single variables of job autonomy, subjective income, social trust and political trust have been computed one by one with the dummy variable of ethnicity and subsequently added to each model. Finally, model number 7 represents the full picture that takes into consideration all of the variables and the interaction terms between the independent variables and ethnicity.
In model 1 we can notice that age, gender and health significantly count for variations in the model. Subjective general health plays the major variance in the model and resulted in a significant estimate coefficient of .750. Age and gender are found to count much less for variations in subjective wellbeing.
Model 2 is a better predictor for the study since its residual and land variances substantially decreased from the previous model. Moreover, the added independent variables show a significant variance, and subjective income and political trust play the major roles (coefficient values of respectively .636 and .179). Another result obtained in model 2 is represented by ethnicity, which holds a negative coefficient of -.213 in regard to subjective wellbeing.
In models 3 to 6, the interaction terms are subsequently added for testing hypotheses 5 to 8 which aimed at analyzing if the positive effect of job autonomy, subjective income, social and political trust on subjective well-being is reduced for individuals pertaining to ethnic minorities.
Table 2 – Mixed Linear Model Analysis
Notes: S.E.: Standard Error; * p < .001; ** p < .01; *** p < .05
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
4.2 Analysis for hypothesis 9
The results reported in tables 3, 4 and 5 concern the investigation on regional disparities between Western and Central Eastern Europe.
Tables 3a and 3b report the descriptive results of the variables for Western and Central Eastern Europe respectively. Interesting results already arise. Means of subjective wellbeing, job autonomy, subjective income, social trust and political trust are all lower for Eastern countries compared to the West. Moreover, being part of an ethnic minority is more negatively correlated to the rest of the variables in Central and Eastern European countries than in the West, except for the correlation with social trust. Finally, all the correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 3a – Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for Western Europe
Notes: S.D.: standard deviations; * Correlation significant at the .001 level (2-tailed) N=24181
Table 3b – Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for Central and Eastern Europe
Notes: S.D.: standard deviations; * Correlation significant at the .001 level (2-tailed) N=17147
Table 3c reports the T-test results obtained for the comparison of the variables’ means between the two groups of countries. All the t values are above the desired level of 1.96, thus acceptable. Subjective income and political trust show the higher significant values and lower standard error of difference.
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Subjective well being 7.513 2.169
2 Job Autonomy 5.873 3.000 .183* 3 Subjective Income 3.140 0.822 .439* .203* 4 Social Trust 5.490 2.280 .323* .154* .268* 5 Political Trust 5.388 1.963 .385* .129* .329* .444* 6 Ethnicity .04 .196 -.027* -.036* -.043* -.019* -.038* Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Subjective well being 6.131 2.169
2 Job Autonomy 4.175 3.258 .213*
3 Subjective Income 2.440 0.875 .456* .284*
4 Social Trust 4.340 2.540 .219* .091* .155*
5 Political Trust 3.602 2.155 .339* .104* .232* .296*
Table 3c – T-test values for variable differences between West and Central East Europe
Notes: * p < .001 level (2-tailed) N=41490
Results of table 4 report the mixed linear model analyses on subjective wellbeing for the pool of Western European countries. Likewise in the previous calculations, model 1 is run with the control variables solely. Here, the subjective general health score reported by the respondents still consistently plays the major role when measuring their subjective wellbeing level, whereas gender has a slightly negative but non-significant relation with the model.
In model 2, the effects of the five independent variables are analyzed. All of them significantly affect the variance on subjective wellbeing, and the variable “ethnicity” is negatively correlated to subjective wellbeing with an estimate coefficient of -.151. Moreover, the land and residual variance have considerably decreased from model 1.
In models 3, 4 and 5 the added interaction terms among job autonomy, subjective income, and social trust with ethnicity do not significantly explain variations in their respective models. Moreover, even ethnicity’s significance dramatically decreases from model 2 (where significance level was of .002) to lower levels such as of .254 in model 2 and of .109 in model 5. In model 6 and the last comprehensive model number 7, the interaction term between political trust and ethnicity is the solely interaction having a significant moderation effect on the subjective wellbeing of the respondents (sig. = .000). In addition, the effect of ethnicity significantly explains variance in the model again, both in models 6 and 7.
Results of table 5 concern the mixed linear model analysis on subjective wellbeing for the pool of countries representing Central and Eastern Europe. In model 1, the variable “gender” plays a negative and significant role in regard to subjective wellbeing (sig. = .001). Still, subjective health scores reported by the respondents have the greatest effect, holding a coefficient value of .891, which is higher than its relative result for Western countries.
Variables t value Standard Error
In model 2, the added independent variables all significantly explain variance in the model at the .001 level, and ethnicity is more strongly negatively correlated to subjective wellbeing (estimate = -.198) than in table 4 (-.151).
In models 3 to 6 job autonomy, subjective income, social and political trust are interacted with ethnicity and subsequently added to each model. Initially, the interaction between job autonomy and ethnicity entails an estimate coefficient of .030, but it is not a significant result (sig. = .114). Similar result for this interaction is obtained in the full model. In model 4, the interaction among ethnicity and subjective income is included, and significantly counts for variance in the subsequent models at a p value of <.01. In model 7, the estimate for this interaction is of .131 but its significance decreases down to .019. Likewise in the table for Western countries, the term representing the interaction between social trust and ethnicity does not play a significant role in explaining variance in models 5 and 7. On the other hand, the interaction term between political trust and ethnicity added in model 6 is significant at a p value of <.01, and holds the same significance level of the interaction between income and ethnicity in the full model.
Table 4 – Mixed Linear Model Analysis for Western Europe
Notes: S.E.: Standard Error; * p < .001; ** p < .01; *** p < .05
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Table 5 – Mixed Linear Model Analysis for Central and Eastern Europe
Notes: S.E.: Standard Error; * p < .001; ** p < .01; *** p < .05
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Findings
Aim of this study was to investigate on the reasons behind a generalized lower life satisfaction and happiness of people pertaining to ethnic minorities in European countries. In the theoretical framework it has been found that although four chosen factors, namely job autonomy, subjective income, social trust and political trust represent a positive source of wellbeing for both minorities and majorities, those who pertain to minorities in their countries still report lower levels of subjective wellbeing.
The statistical analyses conducted partially support the proposed hypotheses. Specifically, hypotheses 1 to 4 are confirmed, since it has been found that all the four studied variables are positively and significantly correlated to the subjective wellbeing of individuals. Moreover, they do play a significant and valuable role in all the different calculations concerning the research model number 2.
Hypothesis number 5, which aimed at finding differences in job autonomy levels for ethnic minorities, is not confirmed. The interaction term between job autonomy and ethnicity does not play a significant and valid role in explaining variations in subjective wellbeing in none of the models analyzed. In addition, job autonomy has been found as counting for the less in shaping individuals’ wellbeing. In fact, in Table 1 it is the weakest related factor to subjective wellbeing, resulting in a Pearson value of .266.
Hypothesis number 6 concerned the moderation effects of ethnicity and subjective income on subjective wellbeing. Subjective income does play the major role when measuring the wellbeing of citizens (see Table 1), and in Table 2 results are similar when the interaction with ethnicity is added. Here, the interaction does significantly affect models 4 and 7, holding a desired p value of <.01 in the former and of <.05 in the latter. Therefore, we can partially confirm hypotheses number 6 since, on one hand, the interaction term between income and ethnicity significantly moderates the outcomes on life satisfaction and happiness, whereas, on the other hand, it involves a stronger and positive effect of income for ethnic minorities rather than a negative one as formulated in the hypothesis. Thus, we can logically conclude that ethnic minorities attach more value to subjective income as a source for their happiness and life satisfaction than the majorities of their countries do.
Although social trust does consistently affect the subjective wellbeing of citizens slightly more than job autonomy does (r = .325, see Table 1) its interaction term with the variable representing ethnicity does not entail a significant role in none of the subsequent studies. Indeed, its significance level is unacceptable in Table 2 when added in model 5, and same negative result is obtained concerning the studies on discrepancies between Western and Central Eastern Europe. Moreover, model 5 does not represent a valid and meaningful model for the research. In fact, as explained in the results section, the log likelihood value that it confers to the next models differs from what should be expected.
On the other hand, political trust does represent a source of variation in the various research models presented. Together with subjective income, political trust has the strongest effect on the subjective wellbeing reported by the individuals (r = .444, see Table 1), and similar results are obtained in the tables concerning the mixed linear model analyses. Surprisingly, the interaction between ethnicity and political trust is extremely significant in both Tables 2 and 4, confirming the view that satisfaction and trust in government, trust in the legal system and in the police do play a major role when assessing the wellbeing of individuals pertaining to ethnic minorities, especially in Western countries. Indeed, its significance level for Eastern countries (Table 5) is slightly lower than in Tables 2 and 4, although being still acceptable. Thus, as in the case of hypothesis number 6, we can conclude that hypothesis 8 is partially confirmed, since it entails the same conceptual issue discovered with the results for hypothesis 6.
factors such as job autonomy, income and social trust than minority citizens of Central and Eastern Europe do.
The sole interaction factor playing a crucial role when determining the wellbeing of ethnic minorities in both Western and Central Eastern societies is political trust. This is in line with the theoretical hints offered by Barany (2008), which highlighted the fact that the actions of supranational institutions such as the European Union and the European Council do play a vital role and actually have helped minorities such as the Eastern Gypsies in recognizing their existence and legitimacy. Consequently, we can conclude that the subjective wellbeing of ethnic minorities residing in Western and Central Eastern European countries is more strongly determined by their trust and satisfaction in the work of governmental bodies such as the parliament and the police rather than on the job autonomy and wages they experience on the labor market.
In addition, subjective income and ethnicity together also significantly moderate for the Central and Eastern European pool of countries, while the relation is much less significant when measuring on West Europe. This confirms the theoretical viewpoint offered in chapter 2.2.2, which argued that workers in Eastern Europe generally tend to attach more value to higher incomes and salaries than workers in the Western part of Europe.
Ultimately, we can conclude that hypothesis number 9 is confirmed since the variable ethnicity has been found as shaping more strongly and more significantly the wellbeing of individuals throughout Central and Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe.
5.2 Implications and future research
At a practical level, this paper is aimed at improving the general understanding of the concept and consequences of discrimination. As introduced in the theoretical section, aspects related to social and economic discrimination represent one of the main reasons of the lower subjective wellbeing of ethnic minorities. From the viewpoint of this research, discrimination represents a doubled faced factor, since it can be logically seen as both a cause and an effect of lower levels of job autonomy, incomes and social and political trust. More specifically, this study investigated on two detrimental sides of discrimination befalling nowadays in European countries, namely economic and social exclusion. Indeed, as Thorat and Newman argue (2007), discrimination entails both social exclusion and economic consequences on individuals, and can act as both a passive and an active factor.
most affecting variable in regard to outcomes on their life satisfaction and happiness. This occurs especially in Eastern Europe, where, farther, minorities are found to be more discriminated against than in West Europe and endure worse economic conditions. This illustrates that income is a major determinant of life satisfaction and happiness, and, if coupled with important aspects such as health status, it can deeply shape one’s overall wellbeing, regardless of his or her race, gender and age. On the other hand, studies and hypotheses about the interaction between job autonomy and ethnicity experienced by workers have been rejected. This means that although job autonomy is a main determinant of job satisfaction, and less strongly of happiness and life satisfaction, we cannot contribute to the understanding of job quality levels experienced by workers who pertain to ethnic minorities as expected from the theoretical framework.
Concerning the social exclusion of minorities, investigations have been carried out on two identified facets of trust, namely social trust and political trust. Unfortunately, results for social trust had to be rejected. The interaction between the variable “people can be trusted or you can’t be too careful” and ethnicity did not show any valuable result in none of the studies presented. On the other hand, political trust is found to be a major aspect affecting the life of citizens. It is highly important for both minorities and majorities. This means that what governments and politicians do is an essential factor that needs to be taken in consideration when measuring the wellbeing of citizens and communities and, with concern to ethnic minorities, actions should be incisive on avoiding the “denial of equal access to opportunities imposed by certain groups in society upon others” (Buvinic, 2005).
To conclude, the added value of this study is that it confirms the viewpoint that discrimination is still a problem for millions of individuals residing in Europe, and that governments’ lack of fruitful actions in regard to their economic and social inclusion is undermining their wellbeing, especially if a recent, developing and broad East-West regional integration viewpoint is adopted.
5.3 Limitations
A second limitation of the research involves a plausible misunderstanding of the concept of ethnic minorities. Although the definition that has been offered in the introduction section does entail a rather large, general perspective of ethnic minorities in Europe, it is still in line with the theoretical framework adopted for the rest of the research, which discussed the new routes of migration that were born after the end of World War II and of communist regimes in the East. In addition, Wrench’s (2002) definition of ethnic minorities that has been proposed includes the descendants of individuals pertaining to ethnic minorities, thus taking in consideration the different generations of the last decades. Interestingly, much research has been carried out on the subjective wellbeing of second and third generation of migrants, asylum seekers and post-war refugees. However, although it would have been possible to design the study in a more detailed and careful way in order to select on different generations and types of minorities and migrants, a general and more simple perspective of ethnic minorities has been adopted that fits with the literature review that has been carried out. Indeed, the calculations that have been executed for the investigations on ethnic minorities simply included all the individuals declaring to pertain to an ethnic minority group in their country, regardless of their age, generation, gender or race.
A third limitation of the study concerns the calculations for the hypotheses on job autonomy. The number of respondents that has been investigated for this aspect of the research had to be lowered as explained in chapter 3.1, and, consequently, the number of people pertaining to ethnic minorities halved. This could represent a statistical hurdle when measuring the interaction between job autonomy and ethnicity since the number of ethnic minorities is dramatically lower than that of majorities.
APPENDIX A
The following are the SPSS calculations syntax for mixed model analyses.
Model 1:
MIXED Subjective_wellbeing BY Land WITH gender age health
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(5) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=gender age health | SSTYPE(3)
/METHOD=ML /PRINT=SOLUTION
/RANDOM=Land | COVTYPE(VC).
Model 2:
MIXED Subjective_wellbeing BY Land WITH gender age health ethnicity Job_autonomy Income Social_trust Political_trust
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(5) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,
ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=gender age health ethnicity Job_autonomy Income Social_trust Political_trust | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=ML /PRINT=SOLUTION /RANDOM=Land | COVTYPE(VC). Model(s) 3to 7:
MIXED Subjective_wellbeing BY Land WITH gender age health ethnicity Job_autonomy Income
Social_trust Political_trust
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(5) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=gender age health ethnicity Job_autonomy Income Social_trust
Political_trust ethnicity*Job_autonomy ethnicity*Income ethnicity*Social_trust ethnicity*Political_trust | SSTYPE(3)
/METHOD=ML /PRINT=SOLUTION
/RANDOM=Land | COVTYPE(VC).
Testing with dummy West East variable:
RECODE Land (2=0) (4=0) (6=0) (7=0) (9=0) (10=0) (11=0) (12=0) (14=0) (15=0) (16=0) (18=0) (19=0) (21=0) (23=0) (1=1) (3=1) (5=1) (8=1) (13=1) (17=1) (20=1) (22=1) (24=1) (25=1) (26=1) (27=1) INTO westeast.
VARIABLE LABELS westeast 'westeast'. EXECUTE.
MIXED Subjective_wellbeing BY Land WITH gender age health westeast ethnicity Job_autonomy Income Social_trust Political_trust
/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(105) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0,ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=gender age health westeast ethnicity Job_autonomy Income Social_trust Political_trust gender*westeast age*westeast health*westeast westeast*ethnicity westeast*Job_autonomy westeast*Income westeast*Social_trust
westeast*Political_trust | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=ML
/PRINT=SOLUTION
/RANDOM=Land | COVTYPE(VC).
REFERENCES
Adams, V.H, 1997. A paradox in african american quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Social Indicator Research 42, 205-219
Argyle, M., 2003. 18 Causes and Correlates of Happiness. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, 353.
Barany, Z., 2002. Ethnic Mobilization Without Prerequisites. World Politics 54, 277-307 Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A.J., 1998. What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labour
Economics, vol. 16, no.1
Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A.J., 2002. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal
of Public Economics 88, 1359-1386
Blind, P.K., 2006. Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: review of literature and emerging issues. 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government
Benz, M., Frey, B.S., 2008b. The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-employed in 23 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68, 445-455
Buvinic, M., 2005. ‘Social Inclusion in Latin America’ in Mayra Buvinici and Jacqueline Mazza (eds), Social Exclusion and Economic Development, pp 3-32. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ciupijus, Z., 2011. Mobile central eastern European in Britain: successful European Union citizens and disadvantaged labour migrants? Work, Employment and Society, 25(3), 540-550
Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133-158.
Diener, E., 2000. Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, 34-43.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E., Smith, H.L., 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, Vol, 125, No. 2, 276-302.
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., Oswald, A.J., 1999. The macroeconomics of happiness. ZEI
Working Paper, No. B 03-1999.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., White, M., 2007. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of economic
psychology 29, 94-122.
Favell, A., 2008. The new face of East-West migration in Europe. Journal of Ethnic Migration
Hayo, B., Seifert, W., 2002. Subjective economic well-being in Eastern Europe. Journal of
Economic Psychology 24, 329-348
Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., Trappers, A., 2008. Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe. A cross-national multilevel study. Comparative political studies, Vol. 42, No.2, pp. 198-223
Kahanec, M., Zaiceva, A., Zimmermann, K.F., 2010. Ethnic minorities in the European Union: an overview. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5397.
Kymlicka, W., 2002. Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: West and East. Queen’s University,
Canada, and Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. Issue 4/2002
Kymlicka, W., 2008. The Internalization of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press and New
York University School of Law, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 1-32
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: lessons form a New Science. London: Allen Lane.
Maxwell, R., 2010. Trust in government among British Muslims: the importance of migration status. Political Behavior 32, 89-109
Melchior, A., 2008. East-West Integration and the Economic Geography of Europe. NUPI
Working Paper 750
Oudhof, K., 2007. Ethnic minorities, discrimination and well-being in the ESS. Statistic
Nederlands, Division of Social and Spatial Statistics, Development and Support Department.
Rhode, B., 1993. Brain drain, brain gain and brain waste: reflections on the emigration of highly educated and scientific personnel from Eastern Europe. The New Geography of European
Migrations, King R Belhaven, London, 228-245
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 67-68.
Roeder, A., Muehlau, P., 2010. Discrimination, exclusion and immigrants’ confidence in public institutions in Europe. Institute for International Integration Studies, Discussion Paper No.320
Safi, M. (2010). Immigrants’ life satisfaction in Europe: Between assimilation and discrimination. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 159-176.
Silveira, E.R.T., Ebrahim, S., 1998. Social Determinants of Psychiatric Morbidity and well-being in Immigrant Elders And Whites in East London. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 13, 801-812
Simmons, B.L., 2014. Organizational characteristics of happy organizations. Work and
wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Volume III.
Soroka, S., Banting, K., Johnston, R., 2002. Ethnicity, Trust, and the Welfare State. Diversity,
Sousa-Poza A, Sousa-Poza A.A. 2000. Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of socio-economics No. 29, 517-538
Te Lindert, A., Korzilius, H., Van de Vijver, F. J., Kroon, S., & Arends-Toth, J. (2008). Perceived discrimination and acculturation among Iranian refugees in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 578-588.
Thorat, S., Newman, K.S., 2007. Caste and Economic Discrimination: Causes, Consequences and remedies. Economical and political weekly, Vol. 42, No. 41, 4121-4124
United Nations Organization, Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml - site retrieved on June 16th, 2014. Van der Meer, P.H., Wielers, R., 2013. What Makes Workers Happy? Applied Economics, 45:3, 357-368
Vecernik, J., Mysikova, M., 2014. (Un)happy transition? Subjective Well-Being in European Countries in 1991-2008 and beyond. WIFO Working Papers, No. 467
Wrench, J., 2002. Diversity management, discrimination and ethnic minorities in Europe. Clarifications, critiques and research agendas. Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies,
Department of Health Promotion Research, University of Southern Denmark
Zick, A., Pettigrew, T.F., Wagner, U., 2008. Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination in Europe.
