Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Second generation Immigrants in Europe are de-assimilating

An important policy question about immigration is to what extent the children of immigrants assimilate. Not only does this tell us a lot about the forces at play, but because of the numbers second generation immigrant outcomes help determine our future.

I just read an important new paper about immigration and assimilation in Europe, that (if the information in it is correct) contains surprising results. The paper includes data on employment rate of first and second generation non-European immigrants in the 3 major European countries of France, Germany and U.K (the 4th largest European country - Italy - has few non-European immigrants).

Looking carefully at the data in some of the tables, we can see that non-European immigrants in Europe are de-assimilating, with the second generation doing worse than the parents.

I focus on the share of immigrants that work compared to the natives, and only on non-European immigrants (we all know that European immigrants usually assimilate).

First the data confirms that both first generation and second generation immigrants in all 3 countries work much less than natives, both for men and women.

For women, the second generation is slowly assimilating. Whereas the first generation works 35% less than natives, the second generation works 27% less than natives, an improvement of 8 percentage points. (the figures are the non-weighted, arithmetic mean of the 3 countries, below I have put data in each one).

For men however the trend is the opposite. The second generation non-European immigrants are less likely to work than the previous generation! While the first generation work 10% less than natives, the second generation works 24% less, a deterioration of 14 percentage points.

So things are getting worse in the 3 largest European countries, not better. (The paper had no data on second generation immigrants to Sweden, but I am pretty sure they do better than the first generation).

Why is this happening? One reason may be that the first generation contains people who moved to Europe in order to work. Because they were selected on this trait, they have above average work ethic for their group. The second generation only has some of this advantage left.

Perhaps these are not actually parent-children pairs, and the only cause of the results is that the composition of first generation immigrants changed for the better before they had time to have children (I doubt this).

Another, more troubling possibility is that the second generation are assimilating into a completely new culture. This is not the standard, successful western-European culture, but a new kind of mixed ghetto culture that emphasizes grievances, hostility to the host society, weak norms and a lack of a work ethic.

What the trends suggests is happening that for men, the immigrant culture that has emerged in Europe is worse even than the culture they brought with them from Turkey, Algeria etc. Women instead are less oppressed, and work more than their mothers.


Appendix

Comparing Second generation male immigrant relative employment rates with the first generation immigrants:

UK -10%
France -13%
Germany -19%

Comparing Second generation female immigrant relative employment rates with the first generation immigrants:

UK +15%
France +8%
Germany +2%

Employment rates (the figure in the parenthesis compared immigrants to the native born):

U.K

Native Men: 79.0%
First generation non-European immigrant Men: 67.8% (-14%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Men: 60.0% (-24%)

Native women: 66.5%
First generation non-European immigrant Women: 43.3% (-35%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Women: 53.5% (-20%)



France

Native Men: 66.3%
First generation non-European immigrant Men: 61.6% (-7%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Men: 53.0% (-20%)

Native Women: 58.9%
First generation non-European immigrant Women: 37.6% (-36%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Women: 42.4% (-28%)



Germany

Native Men: 75.3%
First generation non-European immigrant Men: 68.5% (-9%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Men: 53.9% (-28%)

Native women: 65.8%
First generation non-European immigrant Women: 42.5% (-35%)
Second generation non-European immigrant Women: 43.8% (-33%)

14 comments:

  1. I suspect that if Germany had some high IQ East Asian immigration, most of the problems would be ameliorated. East Asian immigrants are incredibly productive academically in various parts of the Anglosphere, like for instance Canada, Australia, the US, etc, in every single case being more academically productive than the native European population.

    As I always say, it's not immigration per se that's the issue. It's what kind of immigrants you're ultimately attracting. Europe may have problems assimilating Muslim immigrants, but Australia has a far different problem, that of East Asian immigrants becoming vastly over-represented in the elite productive sectors of the society. See here.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/learning-curve/segregation-in-the-school-system/20100917-15fzo.html?comments=67

    "To report that 80 per cent of students in selective high schools come from migrant families - predominantly from east Asia - is valid."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not from Europe, so help me to understand. How does one "not work". In my country you can get social assistance but only for a specific amount of time and then you have to find a job. In Europe can one be on assistance indefinitely? Very strange...

    ReplyDelete
  3. MacD, while assistance is more generous in Europe, people 'not working' might also include those living off relatives' earnings or working off the books to avoid paying tax as well as those claiming benefits.

    Incidentally, the generous welfare payments in Europe have not lead to welfare dependency (the way the did in the US) due to a very high level of social integration, which brings with it pressure not to abuse the system.

    One of multiculturalism's costs is the undermining of this effective check on exploiting the labor of others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ***but Australia has a far different problem, that of East Asian immigrants becoming vastly over-represented in the elite productive sectors of the society. See here.***

    Yan,

    Macquarie University, law academic Andrew Fraser flagged this issue a few years ago.

    "A multiracial society forces white Australians to bear other, more subjectively painful social, economic and political costs. At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive élite of East Asians threatens to become similar to “market-dominant minorities” such as the overseas Chinese in South-East Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa.

    Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned. Western-style “old boy” preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and thus permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or “ethnic nepotism” practised by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous régimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics.."

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=128&page=2

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason Richwine showed that assimilation has at least stalled amongst some third generation migrants to the US.

    the Congealing Pot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'm not from Europe, so help me to understand. How does one "not work""

    A both fascinating and a healthy sign about your society that you can’t even imagine this. Let me try to give you a feeling of how it works.

    My parents have lived in Sweden since 1989 for my mother and me and 1993 for my father. (they arrived separately as my parents are divorced).

    With the exception of a few months in a state work program for my mother, neither one of them has worked one day since that time.

    My mother, me and my brother lived of welfare from 19a89 until about ten years later when we started college and got student loans. From welfare you get rent plus approximately $1000-per month, which is more than enough to live off. There are no de facto time limits for welfare; many immigrants get it for decades.

    In Sweden, the norm is now that the social services will much easier grant you welfare if you are immigrants, than if you are a young native Swedes (who they know usually will get a job eventually if you push them).

    The most common way of not working are welfare, unemployment insurance that keep getting renewed, sick leave, and most importantly early retirement.

    Before the new government reformed the system, Sweden (with 7 million adults) had half a million people in early retirement, or about 10% of the working age group. Many are immigrants.

    Some immigrants get jobs in the black economy to supplement welfare, and live VERY comfortably. We are honest people so we didn’t do that, I reported my income from extra work in old-folks home during high school to the social services. But this lucrative option is there.

    Historically the various social insurance payments were even more generous. There was a time in Sweden that if you were sick, you got 100% of your income from the state. This worked, because of the strong Lutheran work and cooperation ethic of the Swedes. They rarely abused it.

    But two things happened that changed things. First, immigrants arrived, who had no problem gaming the system to the maximum.

    Immigrants from certain countries enjoy not having a job and just taking pleasure from leisure. For most native Swedes in contrast (just like Americans) work is a part of your life, something you feel you have to do to live a meaningful life. Remember Swedes are not French or Greek, they have bad political norms but amazing private norms.

    Second, gradually through time even native Swedish norms eroded as a result of their unusual social experiment. It would take a much longer post to analyze why, but it undoubtedly happened.

    So gradually the share of the adult population that lived permanently on the government from 11% in 1970 (some of whom had good reasons, such as unemployment and really being ill) to 22% in 2004.

    Since 2004 this figure has been slowly declining as the state has made the social program much less generous and enacted tougher new regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “Incidentally, the generous welfare payments in Europe have not lead to welfare dependency (the way the did in the US) due to a very high level of social integration, which brings with it pressure not to abuse the system.”

    This is accurate with some caveats:

    It is NOT true for immigrants. Currently only 50% of non-European immigrants in Sweden have a job compared to 82% for native Swedes.

    It is less true for certain segments of the Swedish population than it used to be. Some ethnic Swedish areas in the poorer, northern, more socialist parts of the country also have extremely high rates of abuse of social insurance programs.

    In contrast the most Lutheran parts of the country are still in the equilibrium where social pressure from your neighbors and friends prevent you from abusing the system.

    Also remember this: the Swedish system is only generous once you have worked a few years. Straight out of school with no kids, you get little money. So at least “normal” people have incentives to try to get a job.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tino --

    Second, gradually through time even native Swedish norms eroded as a result of their unusual social experiment. It would take a much longer post to analyze why, but it undoubtedly happened.

    I would love to see you write this up in a future blog post.

    Excellent blog. Love your perspective and knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tino—

    Another, more troubling possibility is that the second generation are assimilating into a completely new culture. This is not the standard, successful western-European culture, but a new kind of mixed ghetto culture that emphasizes grievances, hostility to the host society, weak norms and a lack of a work ethic.

    This is what the simultaneous mass introduction of federal long term welfare for single mothers, and cultural Marxist blaming of white racism and then that chimera “structural racism” for all lagging performance issues of blacks on average, created rapidly in the black ghettos from the mid 1960s on. The same thing tends to happen with other “disadvantaged” (i.e. affirmative action getting) minorities such as heavily Indio Hispanics from southern Mexico and Central America, but not with other minority immigrant groups in the US, such as Indians, NE Asians or for that matter most of America’s middle eastern or Pakistani Muslims.

    What seems to me to be causative are these factors:

    1) The degree of work ethic and sense of self reliance and competitive pride brought from the cultures and sub cultures of origin of the immigrant group in question (attitude);


    2) How economically competitive the immigrant group actually is on average in the host country in what are seen as desirable jobs, what with the skills and intelligence they bring on average (skills, though more accurately average IQ);


    3) How much the elites, media and schools in the host nation have a sense of “white guilt” towards a particular immigrant group as experiences develop with them in country, and how much those elites send the message that a sense of grievances and entitlement that the host society erase all economic differences (white guilt). In the US this is most easily determined by checking whether the group commonly gets affirmative action or not.


    4) How much welfare of various kinds and for how long the host society is willing to provide to immigrants or others (welfare). In a given country this is usually the same for all groups, though it varies a lot between countries. (It’s not always entirely the same though. Some groups tend to get welfare more easily than others in the US because of how thoroughly they’re checked etc.; blacks more easily than e.g. WASPs.)

    This seems to fit well which immigrant groups do and do not develop ghetto cultures of grievances, high hostility to majority society, and long term dependence on varieties of welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tino

    “Incidentally, the generous welfare payments in Europe have not lead to welfare dependency (the way the did in the US) due to a very high level of social integration, which brings with it pressure not to abuse the system.”

    There was never a high percentage of long term welfare dependency among Euro origin Americans either. Most whites who got it only used it as a safety net for a year or two even before welfare reform in the mid 90s - although this isn't as true of food stamps. This wasn't true among blacks or increasingly among Hispanics. It isn't true for some other immigrant groups either - Pacific Islanders, Somalis, others.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice blog..You really post interesting and helpful blog here..Thanks for sharing..I m going to follow your blog..
    viagra online

    ReplyDelete

Google Analytics Alternative