Country Reports on national data collection systems ...

Working Paper No. 03

Quantitative Integration Research in Europe – Data Needs and Data Availability by Friedrich Heckmann, Claudia Köhler, Mario Peucker and Stefanie Reiter February 2010

Promoting Comparative Quantitative Research in the Field of Migration and Integration in Europe (PROMINSTAT)

Project funded by the European Commission, DG Research Sixth Framework Programme, Priority 8

About the authors Prof. Dr. Friedrich Heckmann, Director, european forum for migration studies (efms), Bamberg, Germany, [email protected] Claudia Köhler, Researcher, european forum for migration studies (efms), Bamberg, Germany, [email protected] Mario Peucker, Researcher, european forum for migration studies (efms), Bamberg, Germany, [email protected] Stefanie Reiter, Researcher, european forum for migration studies (efms), Bamberg, Germany, [email protected]

PROMINSTAT Thematic Study on Integration

2

Executive Summary This umbrella study points out approaches to the study of integration and elaborates on data types, sources and implications for integration research. Main issues On the political level, there is a predominant consent within the EU on the basic definition of „integration‟ as a “two-way, multidimensional process”. On the theoretical level, approaches range from (neo-)classical integration theories in the United States and their modified application in the European context, which assume a societal mainstream defining the “direction” of integration, to more pluralistic approaches of transnationalism. In integration research a general consent seems to prevail that the process of integration may have very different outcomes depending on the various social areas and may occur beyond society‟s core institutions. Integration research refers to different target groups. Besides the main target group of migrants and their descendents, ethnic or national minorities, refugees and undocumented (irregular) migrants, as well as the native population at large may be included in integration research. The following thematic dimensions offer are a pragmatic framework for integration research: structural (e.g. labour market participation, educational attainments), cultural (e.g. language competences, values and norms), interactive (e.g. friendship and marriage pattern, transnational networks), and identificative (feelings of belonging) integration, the openness of the majority society (e.g. personal and systemic openness), contextual aspects of migrants (e.g. duration of stay, transnational patterns), and societal aspects (e.g. social-spatial criteria). Main findings The analysis of the availability and usage of data for integration research as well as of integration indicators and reporting and monitoring systems, which was conducted in the scope of this study within the PROMINSTAT project, concludes: Country-specific differences as well as similarities are found in the applied concept of integration (e.g. the concept of equal rights and obligations among all residents is widely agreed on). The available data types vary strongly between the countries; registers and counts are the most commonly used data sources. Country-specific datasets for the measurement of integration are often restricted to aspects relevant for the structural dimension of integration. The structural dimension is also the one that most integration indicators have been developed for and that is measured by most indicators in the EU member states, whereas other dimensions (e.g. identificative integration and the openness of the majority society) are rather neglected. Efforts have been made to design harmonised sets of indicators on the European level. Standardised datasets that are already applied EU-wide cover only some indicators, such as labour market participation and educational performance. Some EU member states have implemented national integration reporting or monitoring systems, which differ, however, significantly regarding their methodological approaches and data type used. Existing monitoring systems on the European level focus solely on individual aspects of integration (e.g. labour market


3

participation) and thus do not reflect the multi-dimension, non-linear process of integration. The definition and identification of migrant or minority groups studied in empirical integration research vary greatly between the PROMINSTAT countries; third country (non-EU) nationals are primarily the target group of “integration”. Datasets only rarely differentiate by duration of stay and second generation migrant. In most European countries official statistical information consists of a combination of census data, register and counts. Official statistical data have the potential to provide systematic reporting on the data situation of migrants by registration of objective structural data. In contrast, survey data, especially multi-topic surveys, allow for thematically differentiated analyses as well as for analyses that focus on alternating details. Longitudinal and panel data hold the potential of capturing the long-term and intergenerational character of integration processes. Recommendations For the measurement of the complex processes of integration it is essential that datasets offer the opportunity to clearly identify the target groups and specific subgroups. Datasets should include socio-economic, demographic and other background indicators and differentiate between the population with migration background and the autochthonous population. Longitudinal and international harmonised data are desirable. Datasets should shift from covering predominantly the structural dimension of integration to a multi-dimensional coverage of the integration process. Registers and surveys are the most suitable data sources for providing comprehensive background information in a rather cost-efficient way. Interlinked register-systems and longitudinal surveys bear the highest potential for capturing the long-term character of integration processes. Panel studies should be institutionalised to study integration processes. The quality of penal studies could be increased by allowing the identification of sub-groups within the group of migrants (e.g. native speakers). Existing surveys providing these differentiated data should more consistently be used by integration researchers. Concepts of integration, indicators and integration reporting or monitoring systems should be generated in all EU member states with the aspiration of the comparability of results. Existing monitoring systems on the European level should enable the interlinking of data and be extended to include several dimensions of integration.


4

Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................... 6 Section 1 Concept, dimensions and state of the art of integration research . 7 Section 1a Analytical concept of integration ........................................................ 7 Section 1b An analytical frame for research on social integration of migrants... 14 Section 1c State of the art ................................................................................. 21 Section 2 Methods and data sources ............................................................... 25 Section 3 Results ............................................................................................... 27 Section 3a Main data sources / types of data sources ...................................... 27 Section 3b Integration indicators and dimensions ............................................. 29 Section 3c Integration reporting and monitoring ................................................ 37 Section 3d Target groups of integration measurement ...................................... 40 Section 3e Data implications ............................................................................. 42 Section 4 Recommendations ............................................................................ 46 References .............................................................................................................. 48 Annex A - “Integration” related datasets in PROMINSTAT database ................ 54 Annex B - Questionnaire on integration ............................................................... 63 List of Tables Table 1: Types of acculturation according to Berry ..................................................... 7 Table 2: Types of incorporation according to Esser.................................................... 8 Table 3: Thematic dimensions: four dimensions....................................................... 20 Table 4: Dimensions relevant to integration research ............................................... 21 Table 5: Main areas of research in integration studies 1995-2004 ........................... 22 Table 6: The social integration of migrants into institutions of the receiving society . 23 Table 7: Integration reporting and data ..................................................................... 24 Table 8: Indicators by their use................................................................................. 25 Table 9: Reviewed studies on integration indicators ................................................. 26 Table 10: Main datasets on integration in selected European countries ................... 28 Table 11: Allocation of indicators developed by studies of integration indicators to dimensions relevant for integration research ..................................................... 30 Table 12: Dimensions of indicators used by selected European countries for the measurement of integration ............................................................................... 33 Table 13: Categories of integration indicators by EU Website on Integration ........... 35 Table 14: Indicators and datasets for the measurement of integration on the European level .................................................................................................. 35 Table 15: Overview of national reporting and monitoring systems in selected European countries ........................................................................................... 38 Table 16: Quantitative reporting and monitoring systems on the European level ..... 40 Table 17: Groups that “integration” refers to in EU Member States .......................... 41 Table 18: National survey datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database . 54 Table 19: National count datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database .. 57 Table 20: European comparative survey datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database ................................................................................... 58


5

Introduction “The field of integration has expanded [to include], along with the traditional domains of work, education, housing and health and political, social and cultural/religious dimensions, new topics such as language, policymaking in the field, interethnic relations, discrimination, age, gender and generation.” (Penninx et al. 2008: 7); research related to integration has generated a multitude of individual studies on various aspects of integration. Due to the increasing complexity and the quantity of studies in different European countries, this paper does not claim to draw a representative picture of research done on the topic. The focus on the following paper is rather to view at methodological and theoretical level issues related to the empirical study of migrant integration. Integration as a multifaceted concept relies on the availability of certain types of data in a wide range of thematic fields. Building upon findings of the numerous thematic studies written in the scope of the PROMINSTAT project, this paper reviews quantitative approaches to the study of integration. A main task is to identify different concepts and dimensions of integration and to analyse the data implications. Different methodological approaches to study integration are discussed. This paper is to be considered as an umbrella study pointing out approaches for the study of integration. The concrete research, however, is elaborated in the respective thematic fields (links between sub-topics and interconnections of domains to the identified dimensions of integration are indicated accordingly). In the first section, an analytical frame and system of categories for research on migrant integration is developed. This is done on the basis of a review of existing research approaches to the study of integration and major trends in international empirical and analytical research regarding the integration of migrants in European societies. Attention is paid in particular to integration research from a European perspective. As the identification of research trends needs a conceptual basis, different approaches to integration as a concept and an area of migration research are briefly discussed and clarifying distinctions are made in the first paragraphs. The groups studied in integration research are also under discussion. Overall, an overview on dominant concepts in this field, analysis of directions of research and approaches including the identification of gaps in research is given. A general description on how this thematic study on integration was conducted, including remarks on the overall design of the study, methods and data sources, is presented in section 2. Section 3 provides detailed information on current trends in integration research reporting and monitoring at the national level of the PROMINSTAT countries (EU-25 member states plus Norway and Switzerland) and at the EU level. In this context, trends in thematic focuses of integration indicators, dimensions and target groups are summarised and main data sources are identified. Based on the identification of different concepts and dimensions of integration elaborated in section 1, the question on what kind of data would be needed to approach and operationalise these concepts of integration in empirical research is put up for discussion and data implications of different concepts and methodological approaches are outlined.


6

Based on this summarising assessment, recommendations to policy makers and researchers for the improvement of data collection in the area of integration are provided (section 4).

Section 1

Concept, dimensions and state of the art of integration research

Section 1a

Analytical concept of integration

Divergent terminology Migration to a country has the effect that the size and the composition of the population of the receiving country and society are continuously changing and that the newcomers have to relate – in one way or another – to the people and institutions that are already there, and vice versa. This process has been studied in social sciences by using different terms, such as absorption, adaptation, race relations cycle, assimilation, acculturation, inclusion, incorporation and integration (Heckmann 1992: 162-207). These divergent terminologies often describe similar notions of these social phenomena, but sometimes they also indicate conflicting or mutually supplementary analytical concepts and definitions applied by researchers and academics across Europe and overseas; this divergent use of terminologies is illustrated by the following brief comparison. The Canadian scholar Berry differentiates between four types of acculturation based on the two dichotomy dimensions (a) contact and participation (within the majority group) and (b) cultural maintenance (holding on to one‟s own cultural heritage), which results in a four-folded matrix encompassing ideal-typical forms of acculturation: assimilation, separation, marginalisation and integration. Berry‟s acculturation framework describes (bicultural) integration as the most desirable type of acculturation. Table 1: Types of acculturation according to Berry

Cultural maintenance

Types of acculturation Contacts and participation (in the majority group)

Yes

No

Yes

Integration

Assimilation

No

Separation

Marginalisation

Source: Berry 1997

Similarly, the German sociologist Esser employs two dichotomy dimensions to describe a matrix of four ideal-typical forms of incorporation, as he terms it, but uses different concepts and terminologies. Employing the two dimensions,


7

(a) social integration in the context of the host society and (b) social integration in the ethnic context or the context of the country of origin, Esser defines four types of incorporation: multiple integration, segmentation, marginalisation and assimilation, as shown in table 2. Table 2: Types of incorporation according to Esser

Social integration in the ethnic context or the country of origin

Types of incorporation Social integration in the context of the mainstream society

Yes

No

Yes

Multiple integration

Assimilation

No

Segmentation

Marginalisation

Source: Esser 2000

In contrast to Berry, Esser assumes that multiple integration occurs very rarely and is difficult to achieve; thus he focuses his analytical and empirical research primarily on “assimilation”. According to Esser, similar to the US researcher Richard Alba, assimilation means the diminishing of socially relevant differences between groups; it differs from minority reproduction with clear ethnic boundaries and also from social segregation, ethnic stratification and marginality. According to both Esser and Alba, assimilation is – in contrast to widespread negative opinions that suggest otherwise – not understood as a unidirectional, suppressive concept. However, due to, amongst other reasons, this public perception and political and partly academic controversial use of the term “assimilation”, this study will avoid this term and primarily use the term integration instead: “integration” appears most adequate as a basis for theory, empirical research and for communication with policymakers, the media and the general public. Integration – a political consent in the EU The European Commission (2003: 17/18) provided the following political understanding of integration, which appears to be broadly accepted among many, if not most, mainstream democratic policymakers across the European Union: “Integration should be understood as a two-way process based on mutual rights and corresponding obligations of legally resident third country nationals and the host society which provides for full participation of the immigrant. This implies on the one hand that it is the responsibility of the host society to ensure that the formal rights of immigrants are in place in such a way that the individual has the possibility of participating in economic, social, cultural and civil life and on the other, that immigrants respect the fundamental norms and values of the host society and participate actively in the integration process, without having to relinquish their own identity.” This political definition of integration as a permanent, two-way process covers the basic principles of integration as it is accepted and used – with slight modifications –


8

by most policy makers: the objective of integration is, generally speaking, equal opportunities and the full participation of immigrants (and minorities) in core areas of society without being forced to give up their cultural and ethnic convictions, practices and identity – within the scope of the fundamental legal norms and ethic core principles of the host society. Such a fairly broad consent on the principles and concepts of integration is lacking in social and political sciences, where these complex social phenomena of integration is conceptualised in various, often divergent ways, applying different theoretical and analytical concepts. Diverse theoretical concepts of integration The theoretical approaches to integration range broadly from (neo-)classical integration theories in the United States (e.g. Park 1930, Gordon 1964, Alba and Nee 1999) and their modified application in the European context (e.g. Esser 2000, Heckmann/Schnapper 2003), which all – implicitly or explicitly – assume a societal mainstream defining the “direction” of integration (Fincke 2009, 31), to more pluralistic approaches of transnationalism (e.g. Glick Schiller et al. 1992; Portes 1999, Faist 2000).1 This wide range shows the diversity of theoretical concepts within the academic debate on these immigration-induced social changes and phenomena and clearly indicates that these debates have long overcome the simple dichotomy of (cultural) assimilation (“melting pot”) and multiculturalism (“mosaic”). Except for “old school” classical integration theories (e.g. Gordon 1964) that assume that integration is a gradual but inevitable process of assimilation, there seems to be a general consent among integration researchers and academics that integration is not a linear, curvilinear or in any other pattern “necessarily” progressing process leading to a certain outcome. The process may have very different outcomes in different social areas. The receiving society is not homogenous and is stratified on a vertical dimension with different social milieus; in addition, modern societies are characterised by the existence of marginalised structures, like subcultures of poverty and welfare dependency, into which immigrants may be included on a material basis, but also with regard to language and values. This kind of integration beyond society‟s core institutions has been coined “segmented assimilation” by Portes and Min Zou (1993; see also Portes/Rumbaut 2001). This study is not the place for an exhaustive presentation and profound discussion of all these different theoretical strands within integration research. The following chapter on the general concept of integration and its application in migration research will primarily refer to a neo-classical based analytical frame; this frame is considered suitable to empirically describe the status and the process of integration as it employs clearly defined variables. In addition, the following sections seek to take into account other theoretical approaches that claim that in modern societies, in an era of globalisation and cultural and social diversification, such (neo-)classical nation-state oriented concepts are too simplistic and have thus lost some of their explanatory 1

The sociologist Pries underscores that “the approach of transnational social spaces is not the product of a closed paradigma or a finished conceptual framework, but a research agenda. A focus on Transnational social spaces is based on the conviction that we must look systematically for multi-sited social realities (…) that (…) span more than one nation-state not only in a transitory manner but in a stable manner over time” (Pries 2001: 28).


9

power.2 The following analytical frame will thus be supplemented by references to other, more pluralistic theoretical concepts which apply a divergent and critical perspective on, amongst other, the (implicitly assumed) societal mainstream as a direction of integration processes and the necessity of cultural assimilation within the scope of these processes. It is important to mention that in empirical quantitative integration research, the different applied theoretical concepts usually refer to similar sets of indicators (e.g. variables related to employment, education, housing, participation, social interactions, language skills, naturalisation), but often differ in terms of the suggested interpretations of these data. General concept of integration and its application in migration research Integration as a general sociological concept and as a description of a specific status or situation refers to stable, cooperative relations within a social system which has distinct borders to its environment; in this sense a social system is integrated. Functionalist theory sees integration as one of the functional prerequisites of any social system to ensure its survival. As process the concept of integration indicates, on the one hand, the further strengthening of relations within a social system, on the other, integration refers to the continuing effort of relating to and including new and additional actors or groups in an existing social system and its core institutions. The integration of immigrants has to do primarily with integration as process. If this process succeeds a society or a social system is being “integrated”. Following David Lockwood (1964), theory of social systems has developed the concepts of system integration and social integration. System integration is that type of integration in a system that works relatively independently of the motives, goals and relations of individual actors, quite often against their motives and interests. System integration is integration of social systems via institutions and organisations, via the state, the legal system, markets, corporate actors or money. It is a mostly anonymous form of integration. Social integration stands for the inclusion of new individual actors in a system, for the creation of mutual relationships among actors and for their attitudes to the social system as a whole. Whereas system integration primarily is the anonymous functioning of coordinating institutions and mechanisms social integration refers to the conscious and motivated interaction and cooperation of individual actors and groups. Esser (2000: 272-275) proposes four basic forms of social integration: culturation, placement, interaction and identification. Culturation, similar to socialisation in other terminology, refers to the transmission to and acquisition of knowledge, cultural standards and competences by an individual. Placement means the individual‟s acquisition and occupation of relevant positions in society, like in the educational system, in the economic system, in the professions, as a citizen. Placement is connected with the acquisition of certain rights that belong to particular positions and with the opportunity to establish relevant social relations and to gain and/or use cultural, social and economic capital. Interaction is a case of social action characterised by mutual orientations of actors and the formation of relations and networks. Examples of social integration via 2

In recent years several scholars, such as Morawska (2002), have attempted to bring (neo)classical assimilationism and pluralistic transnationalism together by formulating “one common and coherent theoretical framework of analysis” (Bommes 2005).


10

interaction would be the establishment of friendships, of love or of marriage relations, or generally of membership in primary groups. Identification as a dimension of social integration indicates the identification of an actor with a social system by which he sees himself as an element of a collective body. Identification has cognitive and emotional sides and results in a “we - feeling” towards a group or collective. Following Esser‟s suggestions (Esser 2004), the following distinctions can be made when studying the relations between immigrant groups and a native population: (1) the social integration of immigrants into the existing systems of the receiving society, (2) the consequences of social integration for the social structures of the receiving societies, and (3) the consequences of social integration (or partial or non-integration) for the societal integration or system integration of the receiving society. Ad (1): Integration of migrants into a receiving society should be understood as a special case of social integration for which the concepts of placement, culturation, interaction and identification can be applied. In other literature (Heckmann and Schnapper 2003) it has been suggested to conceptualise these as structural integration, cultural integration (or acculturation), interactive integration3 and identificative integration. They are basic dimensions of integration and have proven to be well apt for operationalisation in empirical research and for the development of indicators. Ad (2): Talking about the consequences of migration and social integration of migrants into the social structure necessitates some clarification about the way we want to use the concept of social structure. Social structure is a rather broad sociological concept that is being understood in different contexts and with varying dimensions. A major strand of sociological theory and research understands social inequality as one of the central dimension of social structure. Social inequality has been and is being intensively studied in all countries with a sociological tradition and everywhere it is of high political relevance. The other dimension of social structure that we are interested in is social differentiation. Whereas structures of inequality and ethnic stratification are social aggregates, structures of social differentiation refer to different patterns of social relations along socially relevant lines. Functional, cultural or ethnic differentiation would be varieties of social differentiation. A division of labour would be an economic form of functional differentiation. Group formations on a cultural or ethnic basis that happen after immigration into a country would be examples of cultural or ethnic differentiation. Ad (3): Immigration and (non-, partial or encompassing) integration will not only have consequences for new structures of inequality and processes of group formation, but for the integration of the societal macro system as a whole: societal integration.

3

In former publications we have termed “interactive integration” as „social integration“; since we are now using social integration as a general concept in the sense of Lockwood we have introduced the term interactive integration in order to avoid confusion.


11

Groups studied in integration research Integration research refers to different target groups being studied; the main target groups are migrants and their descendents, but may also encompass – depending on the national context and research tradition – other groups such as ethnic or national minorities, refugees and undocumented (irregular) migrants. Moreover, it is generally deemed as vital by most integration researchers that the receiving society with their members, institutions and structures are included in integration research studies. The heterogeneous group of migrants includes first generation migrants, e.g. people who have migrated themselves – at different ages – to a new country. Ethnic repatriates, like ethnic German Spätaussiedler or Ingrian Finns, who officially “return” to their home country, but are basically in a similar situation like other immigrants, also fall in this category. Integration of immigrant groups is a process that usually lasts for more than one generation. Thus, integration research is not limited to the first generation, but includes also the second or – in some European countries – even the third generations of “immigrants”. Whereas in previous times the vast majority of research and theorising referred – explicitly or implicitly – to first generation migrants, the second generation of migrants has quickly gained importance in integration research in the recent past. Integration on different generations is particularly important for assessing how the integration process of a group in a particular society is developing. While there is a prevailing consent that integration research must focus on more than only the first generation of immigrants (i.e. those who actually immigrated themselves), the European research landscape is characterised by a variety of different approaches to (statistically) identify these immigrant groups and their descendents (e.g. through indicators such as parents‟ or own country of birth, mother language). This diversity applies not only to different national traditions and approaches, but differences can also be found within individual countries. In recent years, integration research in some European countries has increasingly paid attention to the integration processes of “transnational migrants”.4 In contrast to the neo-classical notion of integration conceptualised as the incorporation of migrants into one national society, pluralistic transnationalistic concepts pay particular attention to “transnational spaces”5 between the country of origin and the receiving society; these spaces are regarded as a source of valuable networks and thus the allocation of resources that enable migrants in the long run to secure a stable socio-economic status in the receiving society (Portes 1999). Thus, research 4

Phenomena of transnationalism in the context of integration are not limited to migrants that commute on a more or less regular basis between their country of origin and the host country. According to Portes et al. (1999) “it is preferable to delimit the concept of transnationalism to occupations and activities that require regular and sustained social contacts over the time across national borders for their implementation” (219); these social contacts can also be maintained through the means of modern communication. Compare also the concept of “transnational families” in GonzálezFerrer/Fernández-Reino/Obucina, 2010: Thematic Study on Family. 5 According to Pries, such transnational spaces refer to “multi-sited social realities (…) that (…) span more than one nation-state not only in a transitory manner but in a stable manner over time” (Pries 2001: 28). Although this theoretical concept of transnational spaces is not easy to grasp, empirical research has applied this perspective of transnationalism: in a recent empirical study on “local attachment and transnational every-day lives”, Wessendorf, for example, found that some Italian second generation migrants in Switzerland “strongly relate to co-ethnics and actively foster their transnational relations to Italy”; interestingly, the majority plan their lives in Switzerland (Wessendorf 2009).


12

on the integration of transnational migrants applies a perspective which differs from other integration studies primarily in terms of research questions and not so much regarding the target groups. Generally speaking, integration is mainly conceived as a process involving people with a perspective of staying in the country they have come to. Integration research can also refer to other groups of migrants, such as refugees living in a status of temporary protection, who are given a certain basic support and who have to adopt to their new situation, or to temporary workers. The inclusion of such migrant groups into integration research depends on national patterns of research strategies and definitions. Similarly, research on the insertion of irregular migrants and their living conditions differs from country to country and is not equally deemed as a relevant part of integration research in all European countries6. In many nation states ethnic diversity is not only caused by migration, but also by ethnic and national minorities, i.e. territorially and historically rooted groups who have not migrated, but have been living in the country for many generations, sometimes for many centuries. The largest ethnic minority group in Europe are the Roma with estimated 12 million people living in almost all European countries, but primarily in Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, national minorities7, some of them being recognised as such by the nation states under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, contribute to the ethnic diversity in European nation states (e.g. Hungarian minority in Slovakia or Romania, German minority in Romania, Danes in Germany). These ethnic or national minorities may also be regarded as a target group of integration research. Integration as a two-way process is not only a moral or political claim, but a social reality that needs to be reflected in integration research by extending the target group to the native population. From the perspective of neo-classical integration concepts, which define integration as the diminishing of socially relevant differences between migrants and receiving society, the inclusion of the receiving society into quantitative research is vital for gaining insights into the core question as to whether differences between both groups increase or decrease. For other theoretical integration concepts, which reject the notion of a societal mainstream, it appears equally necessary to analyse the structures and characteristics of a socio-economic and cultural pluralistic society with its different sub-systems in which migrants may or may not be integrated. Portes‟ and Rumbaut‟s concept of segmented assimilation of the second immigrant generation illustrates this: the question is no longer whether the second generation integrates, but into which segment of the society they integrate (Portes/Rumbaut 2001: 55).

6

Compare the differentiated definition of migrant groups in Poulain & Herm (2010): Population stocks relevant to international migration., and the analysis of irregular migration in Drbohlav (2010): Irregular migration. 7 A differentiation between ethnic and national minorities is difficult and not consistently applied in the European context. Within the scope of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities the Council of Europe uses the term „national minority‟ in a broad sense (including also ethnic minorities) without providing a clear definition. Following a more narrow understanding, one may define national minorities as those minorities whose ethnicity refers to a national origin (e.g. Hungarians in Romania or Danes in Germany), whereas the identity of ethnic minorities (such as Roma) does not refer to another nationality, but to their feelings of belonging to the respective ethnic group.


13

The inclusion of the native population as well as structures and institutions of the receiving society in empirical research on integration is also essential due to the fact that the “openness” of the receiving society is a necessary precondition for the integration of immigrants. Hence, the analysis of barriers to integration – are they individual or structural forms of discrimination – are an integral part of integration research.

Section 1b

An analytical frame for research on social integration of migrants

This section comes back to the classification of research on migrant integration and further develops the categories and trace interrelations between them. The first section elaborates the processes of social integration of individual migrants into systems and institutions of the receiving society; the second section focuses on the changes of the social structure as a consequence of immigration. The third and last section touches upon the question of macro-societal cohesion and integration as it is affected by immigration. Social integration of individual migrants into the institutions of the receiving society The earlier described dimensions of placement, culturation, interaction and identification as general concepts for the analysis of the social integration of individuals into social systems or institutions are well suited for the analysis of migrants‟ social integration into the systems of the receiving society. The application of these categories leads to the distinction between structural integration, cultural integration, interactive and identificative integration. When studying integration of individuals into existing systems and institutions the question has to be answered as to which institutions can be regarded as central for the integration process. This is the question of core institutions in which participation of immigrants is vital for their integration. Social integration can be conceptualised as a learning and socialisation process that takes place under certain conditions and will develop categories and concepts for these processes. There will be barriers to integration in this sense which we will discuss as prejudice and discrimination, or as the openness of institutions and the society at large including attitudes toward immigrants. This is where the receiving society has to learn in the mutual process of integration. Dimensions and definition of social integration Structural integration Placement as a dimension and mechanism in any form of social integration of individuals into groups corresponds to structural integration in the context of immigration. Structural integration means the acquisition of rights and the access to positions and membership statuses in the core institutions of the immigration society: economy and labour market8, education and qualification systems, housing system9, 8

For a detailed analysis of the role of the labour market in the integration process compare Bevelander & Hagstöm (2010a): Thematic Study on Employment., and for the role of income and social benefits compare Bevelander, & Hagström (2010b), Thematic study on income, transfers and social benefits. Moreover, compare the discussion of work permits and work permit data in Grabowska-Lusińska (2010): Theamtic Study Work Permit Data.


14

welfare state institutions including the health system10, and citizenship as membership in the political community11. These are core institutions since participation in them determines the socio-economic status, the opportunity structure and the resources of a person in a modern market society. Neo-classical integration theories (e.g. Esser, Alba/Nee, Heckmann) as well as pluralistic transnationalistic integration concepts consider socio-economic assimilation of migrants and minorities, i.e. the diminishing of differences in terms of, for instance, educational attainments and occupational status, as essential for the integration process. Societies depend on the material reproduction of their existence. This is the main reason for the centrality of economic institutions in societies, for the centrality of institutions preparing for them – like the educational system – and for the influence of economic positions in determining the social status of individuals in society. It is therefore necessary for each member of society to obtain the cognitive, cultural and social competences for achieving positions and playing roles in the socio-economic institutions and organisations of society. Access to the housing market and welfare state institutions is central for the physical and emotional reproduction of individuals in households. And membership in the political community through naturalisation and citizenship is a precondition for exerting influence in the political system: migrants as citizens become a clientele in politicians‟ electorate that cannot be neglected. Additionally, immigrants who have become citizens can occupy positions of power in the political system12. Another aspect of citizenship that makes it central for integration is that immigrants‟ very possibility to stay safely in a country and society depends on it. Since, generally speaking, migrants seek to improve their (and their children‟s) social status and life chances, they need to gain access to key institutions of the receiving society. A seeming alternative to participating in the core institutions of the (national) receiving society would be to live in the “ethnic colony” and/or to participate in “transnational systems” on the basis of internationally extended rights. 13 According to neo-classical integration concepts, these kinds of integration into ethnic subsystems or into “international systems” would occur at the cost of limited opportunities for realising immigrants‟ aspirations (“mobility trap”, Wiley 1970) – compared to the opportunity structure of a modern market economy and welfare state. This negative assessment of ethnic colonies and transnational activities and ties is not shared by pluralistic and transnationalistic integration concepts; Portes (1999), for instance, assumes that ethnic and transnational networks and activities can provide resources that can help immigrants obtain a socio-economic status in the receiving society: “At the grass-root level, economic transnationalism offers an alternative to some immigrants (…) against low-wage dead-end jobs; political transnationalism gives them voice they otherwise would not have; and cultural transnationalism allows them to reaffirm their own self-worth and transmit valued traditions to their young” (Portes 1999, 469).

9

Compare the discussion of housing in Fonseca et al. (2010): Thematic Study on Housing. Compare the discussion of the health system in Juhász et al. (2010): Possibilities and limitations of comparative research on international migration and health. 11 Compare the discussion of naturalisation in Reichel (2010): Availability and comparability of quantitative data regarding determinants and consequences of acquisition of nationality after birth. 12 Compare the discussion of the role of political participation in the integration process in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 13 An example of such internationally extended rights would be the elements of an EU citizenship. 10


15

Cultural integration Representatives of neo-classical integration theories argue that rights can be used and positions and statuses can be obtained only if certain learning and socialisation processes take part on the side of the immigrants. Newcomers have to acquire core elements and competences of the culture and society of the host country. In relation to these preconditions of participation integration refers to processes and states of cognitive, behavioural and attitudinal change of individuals that are described as cultural integration (acculturation). According to these neo-classical theories, there is some form of cultural mainstream that functions as a benchmark for migrants and define minimum requirements regarding cultural practices and skills (e.g. especially but not exclusively, the language of the receiving society) that immigrants need to acquire. Consequently, acculturation concerns primarily immigrants and their descendants; although these processes are conceptualised as an interactive, mutual process that also requires some alterations on the side of the receiving society, which has to learn new ways of relating to and adapting to the needs of the migrants. Cultural integration does not entail that migrant groups have to give up cultural elements of their home country – bicultural competences and personalities are regarded as an asset for the individual and the receiving society. Despite this appreciation of bi-cultural skills and competence, neo-classical integration theories emphasis the necessity of acquiring core competences related to the host society; it is generally assumed that “economic success and social status depend (...) exclusively on rapid acculturation and entrance into the mainstream circles of the host society”. Transnationalistic concepts, however, argue that social status and socio-economic success “at present depend (at least for some) on cultivating strong social networks across national borders” (Portes et al. 1999, 229). Under certain precondition, cultural capital acquired in the country of origin and other alternative forms of social capital (e.g. transnational or internal ethnic networks) may also serve as a resource on the path to a stable socio-economic status and thus in the integration process (Portes 1999: 469; Zhou 2004). Interactive integration Acceptance and inclusion of immigrants in the sphere of primary relations and networks of the receiving society (alternatively, as transnationalistic theories argue, also ethnic and transnational networks) is indicated by peoples‟ private relations and primary group memberships14 – this is labelled by neo-classical theories as interactive integration. Indicators are social intercourse, friendships, partnerships, marriages and membership in voluntary organisations. Core elements of cultural integration, particularly communicative competences, are preconditions for interactive integration15. Interactive integration into the social systems of the ethnic colony helps the immigrants in the integration process through support and solidarity of relatives and co-ethnics, through their sharing of information and experiences, but in time, as neoclassical integration theories assume, may hinder the migrant to build relations to the native society; being bound to the ethnic colony makes it difficult for the person to acquire the cultural and social capital necessary for being competitive in the core 14

This is what Milton Gordon (1964) somewhat misleadingly called „structural assimilation“. Compare discussion of the role of political participation in the integration process in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 15


16

institutions of the immigration country. Pluralistic transnationalistic integration concepts assess such strong ties and relations to people from the same country (or even region) of origin and transnational networks as a source of resources that can be an asset – not a barrier – in the integration process. Identificative integration Participation in the core institutions of the receiving society does not immediately require the person‟s emotional identification with the goals of these institutions or feelings of belonging to and inclusion into the new society. These feelings of belonging may develop as a result of participation and acceptance and thus will develop at a later stage of the integration process. Inclusion in a new society on the subjective level – identificative integration – becomes apparent in feelings of belonging to and identification with groups, particularly in forms of ethnic, regional, local and/or national identification, or in sophisticated combinations of these forms16. Integration as social integration can be defined as a generations lasting process of inclusion and acceptance of migrants in the core institutions, relations and statuses of the receiving society. For the migrants integration refers to a process of learning a new culture, an acquisition of rights, access to positions and statuses, a building of personal relations to members of the receiving society and a formation of feelings of belonging and identification towards the immigration society. Integration is an interactive process between migrants and the receiving society. The receiving society has to learn new ways of interacting with the newcomers and adapt its institutions to their needs. In this process, however, the receiving society has much more power and prestige. Following this definition, learning or socialisation as well as openness or barriers are key elements in the social integration process. The following two sections will briefly comment on these elements which will become categories in our reporting scheme for integration research. Barriers to social integration: the role of discrimination and prejudice Whereas these four dimensions of social integration put the main emphasis on the efforts and adaptation of migrants, the institutions and members of the receiving society also play a vital role in facilitating integration processes. Legal regulations, structural and interpersonal discriminatory barriers and personal prejudices may block or hamper the migrants‟ access to core institutions of the labour market, the education and qualification system, housing, the health and welfare systems and citizenship and hinder the development of personal interethnic relationships (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia 2004). Such barriers to social integration encompass, amongst others the following aspects17: Legal barriers, mechanisms or rules of institutions that bar or hamper participation and membership of immigrants (structural or institutional discrimination)

16

In addition compare the discussion of the relation between group identity and political participation in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 17 For a detailed definition and discussion of discrimination compare Gächter (2010): Data needs and data availability for discrimination research in Europe.


17

Individual discriminatory behaviour as unjustified unequal treatment of immigrants in interpersonal contacts irrespective of one‟s motives (direct or interpersonal discrimination) Individual prejudices and other negative stereotypes (attitudes) among the members of the receiving society that may lead to discriminatory behaviour Lack of support, provided by state and civil society actors, aimed to foster the integration process The consequences of social integration of immigrants for the social structure of the receiving society The effect of the social integration of immigrants - or only partial integration - on the structures of inequality of the receiving society has been of major interest to researchers whose countries experience significant immigration. Differentiating between a horizontal and a vertical dimension of social inequality one could clearly state that the vertical dimension has been studied primarily. Referring both to processes and structures the concept of ethnic stratification delineates the effect of ethnic origin and belonging upon the structure of social inequality. If ethnic origin looses influence or does not have a decisive effect any more on stratification one could - in a socio-structural sense - define this as integration: In the context of social structure and social inequality integration thus can be defined as a decrease or the absence of ethnic stratification, a state in which status achievement and position of immigrants or their descendants is determined by the “normal” factors of education, income, professional position, but not (any more) by ethnicity or immigrant origin. Immigration does not only have effects on the structures of inequality, but will also have effects on social differentiation and group formation. Functional and ethnic forms of social differentiation would be examples of forms of social differentiation. Functional and ethnic differentiation could also coincide, like in an ethnic division of labour. In the context of social differentiation integration would mean the decrease and eventually the absence of ethnic or immigrant status related forms of social differentiation. Group formation or organisation building on an ethnic basis will decrease. The function of an ethnic colony can be seen as being an institution of transition helping the migrants in an early process of integration. With progressing integration it looses its function and relevance. Only continuous new immigration reproduces the need for ethnic self organisation on a large scale. Integration in the context of social structure could then be ideal typically understood as the absence of ethnic stratification in the inequality structure of society. Vertical stratification would happen only on the basis of “normal” criteria like education, age, professional position and income. Socio-structural integration would mean that ethnicity or ethnic origin does not play a role in status achievement any more, or would only have a meaning as symbolic ethnicity with minimal influence upon a person‟s opportunities and achievements in life. As to the horizontal dimension of social structure integration means that ethnicity based group formation does decrease. If – in this sense - ethnic minority formation and the reproduction of ethnic minority status occur as a consequence of immigration, this is not integration in the conceptual framework and terminology suggested. The development of a lasting ethnic minority status among immigrant groups – not as a transitory stage in an integration process – raises questions of societal or system integration that will be discussed in the following section.


18

Immigration and societal integration of the receiving society In addition to processes of inclusion of individuals into the major institutions of the receiving society and changes of the social structure as a result if immigration, another integration-related aspect is system integration or societal integration. In this context the stability and integration of the societal system may be affected by immigration. Societal integration of the receiving society or system integration can be minimally defined as the absence of severe group conflict and as cohesion among major social groupings. System integration will be generally supported by mutual dependencies of collective actors, and, in relation to immigration – by structural and interactive integration of immigrants (Esser 2004: 53). Immigration may both increase and decrease the stability and integration of societies. An increase in stability may result from compensating for demographic gaps through immigration. Immigration may more specifically fill gaps in the labour market and may help secure economic growth. Qualifications not present in a society may be imported and the cultural and material capital of a society may be increased. Immigrants as consumers will increase economic demand. The effect of immigration, however, could also create and/or increase tensions in a society and decrease integration and stability. Societal integration can decrease or even be threatened, amongst others, by the following aspects: An import of ethnic conflict between immigrant groups The ethnicisation of social problems An increase in right wing extremism Increasing welfare dependency of the immigrant population which puts financial strain on public budgets and can stimulate anti–immigrant feeling in the native population Nativist movements who organise campaigns against immigrants The formation of political parties whose sole purpose is to fight immigration and integration of immigrants Violent forms of conflict Thematic dimensions for research on integration The previously elaborated analytical concept of integration (section 1a), which defines integration as a multi-dimensional, long-term process that affects both the migrant as well as the non-migrant population, serves as a useful analytical frame also for research on migrant integration. The four above described dimensions of integration constitute a practical foundation and an analytical tool for quantitative research on migrant integration, in particular on the social integration of migrants and minorities into the receiving society.18 As the INTPOL state of the art report has shown, the thematic focus of research on social integration can generally be categorised according to the four dimensions of structural, cultural, interactive and identificative integration. These thematic 18

As elaborated above, integration research in a broader sense is not limited to the analysis of social integration of migrants into the receiving society, but also encompasses two other thematic components, which will, however, not be in the centre of attention in the following: firstly, the consequences of social integration on the social structure (e.g. structure of inequalities, ethnic stratification and horizontal ethnic differentiation) and, secondly, the immigration induced changes regarding the societal integration of the receiving society (e.g. interethnic conflicts between migrants and non-migrants; nativist movements) .


19

dimensions are not only useful for identifying the thematic focus of surveys and other research studies, but can also be drawn upon when categorising statistical data sources, such as registers, census and other administrative statistics. Despite the fact that these four dimensions stem from neo-classical integration theories, they serve as a useful analytical frame to describe integration processes from other more pluralistic and transnationalistic perspectives – though with a sometimes divergent reading of the statistical data, in particular in the field of cultural, interactive and identificative integration. The following table presents exemplary thematic areas relevant to the four analytical dimensions. Table 3: Thematic dimensions: four dimensions

Structural integration Economy: labour market participation Education and vocational training (participation and attainments) Housing situation Citizenship (access to political community19) Access to health system Interactive integration Friendships Marriages, partnerships Membership in organisations20 Volunteering21 Transnational networks

Cultural integration Language competence Values and norms Religion

Identificative integration Subjective feelings of belonging

Quantitative integration research that applies these analytical dimensions focus on the situation of migrants and their integration process and neglects issues related to the receiving society, which is only referred to for reasons of comparison between migrants and non-migrants.22 In order to address the shortcomings of such migrantfocussed research approaches, quantitative integration research should additionally cover relevant majority-related aspects such as general attitudes towards migrants and minorities (personal openness), xenophobic and non-immigration movements and patterns of behaviour (e.g. racist crimes) as well as topics related to the accessibility of the institutions of the receiving society (systemic openness).23 Moreover, quantitative integration research needs to take into account contextual aspects that affect the integration process, such as ethnic and cultural background of the researched migrant groups (e.g. country of origin, cultural capital), the aspect 19

Compare Political Participation Type A in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. Compare Political Participation Type B and C in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 21 Compare Political Participation Type D in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation.. 22 The general notion is that (growing) resemblances between the group of migrants and the group of non-migrants indicate (growing) integration. 23 These issues of personal openness (or prejudices) and accessibility of societal institutions are deemed as structural/institutional or inter-personal (discriminatory) barriers to integration and inclusion; they are further elaborated in Gächter (2010): Data needs and data availability for discrimination research in Europe. 20


20

of time (e.g. duration of stay, second or subsequent generation) and transnational networks and activities (e.g. regular transnational communication, patterns of “backand-forth” migration). Against the background of a dwindling (or even dissolved) social and cultural mainstream in modern societies, integration may occur within the context of different cultural sub-systems and social milieus (see, for instance, concepts of segmented assimilation). Such pluralistic concepts of integration would call for datasets that allow for an identification of such sub-groups and/or spatially disaggregated data that help put integration related data into perspective with the structural, social and personal situation of non-migrants of a similar sub-group or a similar neighbourhood.24 More precisely, such research approaches require data disaggregated by social or cultural sub-group (e.g. milieu) and broken down by sociospatial criteria (e.g. social and cultural composition of the neighbourhood). Table 4: Dimensions relevant to integration research

Structural integration

Cultural integration

Interactive integration

Identificative integration

Majority society (openness) Personal openness: attitudes towards migrants and minority, discriminatory behaviour and perceived discrimination Systemic openness: accessibility of key institutions (e.g. proportion of employed migrants in key institutions) Xenophobic and anti-immigration tendencies (movements, organisations) Contextual aspects (migrants) Ethnic, cultural background (country of origin) Age Duration of stay, migrant generation Transnational patterns (incl. migration movements, exchange and communication) and other migration related activities (e.g. family reunification) Societal context social or cultural sub-group (e.g. milieu) socio-spatial criteria (e.g. composition and “mainstream” of neighbourhood)

Section 1c

State of the art

This section identifies research trends by reviewing existing research approaches to the study of integration of migrants in European societies, major trends in international empirical research and in approaches of monitoring integration processes. Not only national studies are taken into account, but attention is also paid to integration research from a European perspective. Due to the quantity of studies on integration in different European countries, the paper does not claim to draw a representative picture of research on the topic but rather points out major trends. 24

On a general note, the Australian urban researcher Baum underscored the necessity of a stronger focus on the socio-spatial dimension when analysing social inclusion; based on empirical findings he argues in favour of taking “more consideration of the links between people and places” as that the individuals‟ social and economic lives are strongly “linked to the circumstances in local communities, neighbourhoods and towns because of where particular people live and the nature of their roles in society and the economy” (Baum 2008: 32-33).


21

Mapping research studies Research related to integration has grown to such an extent that it is practically impossible to review the literature according to conventional approaches of a State of the Art study. In the following the results of two studies on the state of the art on integration research are presented. The results, however, do not claim to be exhaustive. Subsequently it is illustrated how monitoring systems contribute to integration research. (1) The INTPOL study was conducted by the efms as a mapping exercise aimed at finding and describing trends in current research on migrant integration. Due to the large scope of relevant literature, the mapping was limited to a few representative journals: Sociological Abstracts, the journal best representing trends in sociological research on an international scale, was analysed for the time period of 1995-2004, the other journals were “mapped” from 1999 until 2004/2005 (Heckmann 2009). The results of the INTPOL mapping represent a combination of qualitative and quantitative research which rather seeks to identify thematic trends in integration research than to draw a valid picture of quantitative integration research. (2) The second study was conducted by COMPAS as part of NORFACE and commissioned by ESRC as a state of the art paper outlining current research on migration and integration in Europe on the basis of the expertise of the authors (Penninx et al. 2008). (1) The mapping exercise of the INTPOL study finds: When analysing the distribution of research topics among the categories of “social integration into institutions of receiving society”; “consequences of social integration for the social structure”, “societal integration of the receiving society”, and “transnationalism”, it is found that the very large majority of studies (86.5%) are in the area of social integration of migrants into the institutions of the receiving society. Only small proportions of 5.2% and 3.5% relate to the changes of the social structure of societies as a consequence of migration and to questions of cohesion or system integration in relation to incorporation of migrants. Integration into a national society and into a nation state are the predominant patterns that are looked at. A few studies (4.8%) do not take the nation state, but transnational structures as the reference frame, into which migrants are integrated (cf. Table 5). Table 5: Main areas of research in integration studies 1995-2004

Category Social Integration into institutions of receiving society The consequences of social integration for the social structure of receiving society Immigration and societal integration of receiving society Transnationalism

N

%

200

86.5

12

5.2

8 11 231

3.5 4.8 100

Source: Heckmann 2009

By far the largest group of all research studies reviewed concerns the social integration of migrants. Within this category almost half of the studies (47.0%) are on structural integration. Reflecting on the central role of language for the integration of immigrants the few studies on language competence in the area of cultural


22

integration have to be noted. The area of interactive integration, which is integration in the private sphere and is indicative of the social distance between immigrants and natives, is clearly under researched. It is remarkable that in the literature reviewed not a single piece of research has studied mutual acculturation, i.e. changes in the culture of immigrant groups and changes in the culture of the receiving society under the impact of immigration (cf. Table 6). Table 6: The social integration of migrants into institutions of the receiving society

Category/Sub-categories

N

%

Structural Integration Cultural Integration Interactive Integration Identificative Integration Integration as learning and socialisation process Barriers to social integration The social integration of migrants into the institutions of the receiving society Source: Heckmann 2009

94 28 13 21 30 14

47.0 14.0 6.5 10.5 15.0 7.0

200

100

(2) The COMPAS study identified the following development of national and crossnational studies as well as overview studies: National and cross-national studies and reports: With the rising impact of migration and integration issues in the 1990s in European countries, numerous national overview studies have been published in the recent past. Most of them are commissioned by the respective governments and are published on an annual basis. They often relate to current policies and policy changes and therewith reflect the transformation into immigration countries which takes place at different space throughout the European countries. Penninx et al. (2008: 7) discovered a lack of analysis of the ”mismatch between policy evaluation and advice and actual political processes” as well as uncertainty about the origin and development of political processes, and about the role of actors such as governments, NGOs, individuals and others. The lack of the regional and local perspective has increasingly been supplemented by integration reports commissioned by regional and local municipalities. The INTPOL mapping found 13 international comparative studies; eleven of them compare empirical data from different sources for two or more countries. However, there was none with a cross-national design (Heckmann 2009: 36-41). Penninx et al. (2008:7) found a recent increase of research with a cross-European focus as well as with links to sending countries. Overview studies commissioned by international organisations: A starting point of reports which include topics of migration and integration can be identified in the 1970s through annual reports of the Council of Europe and the SOPEMI-Continuous Reporting System on Migration by the OECD. In the following decades these publications were joined by numerous studies on predominantly migration yet to a lesser degree integration by organisations such as ILO, UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) and the IOM. After a number of research and overview studies on migration


23

commissioned by the European Commission since 199725 were done, the field of integration followed in 2003 after the political acceptance of the Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment (2003) (Penninx et al. 2008: 7). Some of the mentioned studies have served as integration monitoring tools. Monitoring of integration processes Some of the above mentioned studies can be applied for integration reporting. Differentiated by their relevance for integration policies or their measurement of the state and development of integration the following types of integration reporting can be identified: Table 7: Integration reporting and data

Approach of integration reporting Data on the life condition of migrants

Documentation of integration measures

Assessment of effectiveness of integration measures by indicators

Monitoring systems

Type of data

Value of data

Collection of data on life conditions of migrants and partly comparison of data with autochthonous population Assessment and description of present integration measures and institutions

Important information on integration, but no integration monitoring

Indicators measure the effectiveness of integration measures

Indicators measure the state and process of integration at several points of time

Information on integration measures and realisation of integration policies, but no control of effectiveness of integration measures Monitoring but no evaluation; effect of some measures not measurable by indicators; other influences are not determinable By pointing out areas of success and areas of need of political action effective contribution to the control of integration policies

Source: Heckmann and Friedrich (2007)

For the purpose of monitoring of integration processes and integration measures the latter two approaches, by using indicators of integration as tools of measurement, are feasible. Moreover, the last type – a monitoring system – can be applied as an evaluation instrument. However, within the discussion of integration measurement the term “monitoring system” is used in diverse ways: 1) The table above suggests an interpretation of “monitoring system” as the whole of tools and evaluation mechanisms, including a set of indicators, by which integration processes, including the effectiveness of integration policies, are measured and evaluated. A monitoring system in this understanding provides the programmatic and conceptual frame within which integration is measured by indicators. Moreover, monitoring systems suggest options of improving integration. 2) In other contexts, particularly where the evaluation of integration policies and measures themselves is included in the evaluation process, “monitoring system” also referred to as “relevance” or “context indicators” - is defined as “… the 25

The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 declared international migration a topic of communitarian policymaking.


24

background statistical information needed to construct possible outcome indicators” (Huddleston 2009: 14). However, “monitoring” in this context, can also refer to the whole system of evaluation which is based on indicators. The following table demonstrates a possible system of indicators by their use: “context indicators” or “monitoring system” stands, on the one hand, for the statistical information. On the other hand, “monitoring” on a broader level refers to the whole system of evaluation (cf. Table 8). Table 8: Indicators by their use

Intermediate indicators Indicator

Context

Input

Results indicators Output and Performance outcomes

Mapping Priority setting Policy design

Policy Efficiency Products measures Effectiveness Impact Use Resourcing Sustainability Actions Monitoring and review Reporting – audits – exchanges of good practice – peer reviews - evaluation Source: Niessen, 2009[1]: 3 (amended)

Two main categories of indicators have to be distinguished: Context and input indicators constitute the category of intermediate or policy indicators; they measure the quantity and quality of integration policies and devices by the government. Performance and output and outcome indicators constitute the category of result indicators; they refer to the situation or effectively achieved condition of the target group (Huddleston 2009: 12 and Angel et al. 2007: 14-17). For the quantitative study of integration processes mainly result indicators are relevant. They are based on the respective theoretical concept of integration, the policy approach as well as the data availability which is manifested in: the selection of indicators, the target group(s) which the indicators are designed for, and the interpretation of the selected indicators. The same indicators may be used for different policy approaches, however, there will be differences in interpretation; e.g. contacts oriented towards the country of origin may be interpreted as an indication for segmentation according to an assimilation oriented policy, whereas the same can be considered as an indication for transnational spaces according to a transnationalistic approach. The identification of common goals among the European countries therefore is vital not only for the construction of indicators but also for the comparability of the results. Section 3 elaborates on the use of indicators in European countries and illustrates existing reporting and monitoring systems.

Section 2

Methods and data sources

This section briefly describes how this umbrella study on integration was conducted. In this context, remarks on the overall design of the study, the methods and measures used to assess the key issue, the involvement of co-authors and external


25

experts and methodological problems encountered and corrective actions being taken are given. Following the overall design as an umbrella study with the main focus on viewing methodological and theoretical level issues related to the empirical study on migrant integration, an emphasis of the study is the review of literature and policy papers. However, the paper does not claim to draw a representative picture of research on the topic but rather points out major trends. On the basis of the results of this literature review, an analytical framework and system of categories for research on migrant integration is developed and different approaches to integration as a concept and an area of migration research are briefly discussed. Particular attention is paid on a review of studies on integration indicators on the national and European level. Five studies were included with the following selection criteria: Construction of sets of indicators for the measurement of integration, publication within the last ten years, claim to be applicable as a general concept (on the national or on the European level), based on quantitative indicators (only quantitative or qualitative and quantitative) (cf. Table 9). Table 9: Reviewed studies on integration indicators

Reference

Commissioned by

Angel Gil Leal, M., Pérez Arredondo, Gloria et al. (2007), Immigrant integration indicators. Proposal for contributions to the formulation of a system of common integration indicators.

Co-funded by the INTI Programme “Integration of third-country nationals" (GD of Justice, Freedom and Security of the EC). European Commission

Entzinger, H. & Biezeveld, R. (2003), Benchmarking in immigrant integration. Rotterdam: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER). ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik) & WZB (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung) (2009), Integration in Deutschland. Erster Integrationsindikatorenbericht: Erprobung des Indikatorensets und Bericht zum bundesweiten Integrationsmonitoring. NIDI (Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute) (2005), „Information needs on stocks of migrants for research on integration‟, Working Paper No. 5 Rev. 1 at the UNECE/Eurostat Seminar on Migration Statistics, prepared by J. Schoorl, Geneva, 21-23 March 2005. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (2004), Indicators of integration. Final report.

Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration

Home Office

The studies are systematically analysed in order to identify differences of applied theories of integration, included target groups and thematic coverage of result indicators. Complementary to this review of literature, a brief standardised questionnaire was developed and sent out to the country experts within the PROMINSTAT Consortium.26 By the means of this questionnaire, information on current trends in 26

The questionnaire can be found in Annex B.


26

integration research and reporting on the respective national level was systematically collected for all PROMINSTAT countries (EU-25 member States plus Norway and Switzerland). The collected information is supplemented by details drawn from the the European Website on Integration and results from the Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy, 2009. Building upon the compilation of this information, overviews on thematic focuses of integration indicators and dimensions as well as neglected areas are developed. Moreover, main target groups of integration measurement at the national and European level and main data sources are identified. In assessing the main data sources, background information was drawn from the PROMINSTAT country reports and the PROMINSTAT database which contains meta-information on datasets and detailed information on variables. Data implications of various data types are illustrated by examples from the PROMINSTAT database. In addition, datasets which explicitly refer to integration and/or related terms are identified in the PROMINSTAT database and categorised accordingly. Other thematic studies being written in the scope of the PROMINSTAT project are also taken into account; links between sub-topics and interconnections of domains to the identified dimensions of integration are indicated. The study was conducted and written by the efms team with the help of comments and the country-specific expertise on integration by other members of the PROMINSTAT Consortium.

Section 3

Results

This chapter firstly lists relevant data sources for integration research in the European countries. Secondly the development of integration indicators in conducted studies on integration as well as the application of indicators in European countries (the national level) and on the European level is illustrated. The third section provides information on existing integration reporting and monitoring instruments on the national as well as on the European level. In the fourth section the target groups, which integration refers to in selected European countries, are analysed. Concluding, the overall quality of data and data implications are assessed.

Section 3a

Main data sources / types of data sources

In order to provide an overview on data sources on integration in the European countries, the PROMINSTAT partners were asked to name the three main data sources for integration research in their country. The data types listed by most countries were registers and sample surveys. Census and register based censuses – mainly population censuses - are used by several countries as well, whereas counts are only applied by a few countries.


27

Table 10: Main datasets on integration in selected European countries 27 Cou Registers Counts ntry Register on Social Insurance AT Cases AT0054

Census and register-based Sample surveys censuses Population Census 2001 (PROMINSTAT ID: AT0007)

DE ES Employment Service Statistics FI0032

FI FR

Immigrants' transition to retirement (PRI) FR0029 Longitudinal survey on the careers and profiles of newly arrived or regularised migrants – first wave 2006 FR0030; second wave 2007 FR0031 Life History - Identity Construction (HDV) 2003 FR0019

GR HU

27

Social Integration of foreign adolescents of the second generation AT0135 Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2005 AT0076 Microcensus and Labour Force Survey (Micorcensus) (2007) AT0108 Microcensus (2005) DE0074 German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) (2007) DE0070 National Survey of Immigrants (2007) ES0028 Labour Force Survey ES0020

Registration of employment of foreigners with a work permit (programme assisting the administration of the employment of foreigners in Hungary) HU0030

Statistics of hospital cases (inpatients) HU0014 Statistics of outpatient cases HU0015

Population and Housing Census (2001) GR0010 Population and housing census (2001) HU0001

The information provided is based on a questionnaire to the PROMINSTAT partners. The list is not exhaustive, only responding countries could be included.


28

MT

NO

PL

PT

Linked registers include: ID Cards Register MT0002, Electoral Register MT0003 and the Work Permits Register Relevant linked registers: Labour market: Register of unemployed NO0010, Register of Employees NO0009, Labour Force Survey on immigrants NO0059 Education: Completed upper secondary and higher education NO0035, Population's highest level of education NO0007, Undertaken upper secondary and higher education NO0034 Central register of data on the granting and loss of Polish citizenship - register of applications for Polish citizenship and persons who acquired Polish citizenship PL0117 Central register of applications submitted, decisions and rulings rendered in the cases concerning 1) the issue of the entry visa for the purpose of repatriation; 2) the recognition as a repatriate; 3) granting assistance to repatriates from the state budget PL0120 MISI database, set up by the Ministry of Education

SK


Census of Population and Housing (2005) MT0010

Living conditions among immigrants NO0002: 2005/2006, NO0058: 2005/2006 Supplementary sample.

Datasets on marriages PL0011

Population and housing census (2001) SK0005

Labour Force Survey (LFS) PT0013 Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2006) PT0015 Microcensus (2003) SK0013 Labour force sample survey in the Slovak Republic (2005/Q2) SK0002

29

SI

Register on Employment SI0019

SE

STATIV longitudinal database about integration, segregation, gender equality and migration (SE0031)

CH


Socio-economic Characteristics of the Population of Slovenia and of International Migrants SI0007

Population Census (2002) SI0001

Slovenia Labour Force Survey (LFS) (2006) SI0008 Slovenia Survey on living conditions (EU-SILC) (2006) SI0010

Federal Population CH0001- CH0004

Health Monitoring of the Swiss migrant (Gesundheitsmonitoring der schweizerischen Migrationsbevölkerung - GMM) CH0089 Swiss Labour Fource Survey 19912006 CH0099

Census

30

Nearly all of the above listed data sources which are used for the study of integration do not explicitly concern integration but certain aspects relevant for integration28. Accordingly they only implicitly refer to integration. In order to assess, if there are datasets that explicitly deal with integration, a keyword search was conducted in the PROMINSTAT database by terms which directly refer to integration29: Except four counts all identified datasets are surveys. The datasets were allocated to the dimensions relevant for integration. Among the national datasets, matches for all dimensions of integration were found. The majority of datasets can be allocated to the cultural and identificative dimension as well as to the openness of the majority population (cf. Annex Table 17). All counts concern a Polish dataset which measures the structural dimension of integration (cf. Annex Table 19). Among the datasets which are comparable among European countries, survey datasets can be allocated to the cultural, interactive and identificative dimension of integration as well as to the openness of the majority population and to contextual aspects of migrants. Aspects of the cultural and identificative dimension and of the openness of the majority population can be measured by most datasets of the search (cf. Annex Table 20).

Section 3b

Integration indicators and dimensions

Studies on integration indicators Policy makers in the EU as well as researchers have a growing interest in better understanding how migration influences societies and how societies „perform‟ with regard to integration. The attempt to measure integration is manifested in the increasing development of indicators of integration. In the scope of this study, a review of five relevant studies on integration indicators was conducted in order to analyse what types of indicators have been developed according to the dimensions relevant for integration and which conceptual disparities exist between the studies30: Differences can be found in the applied theories of integration and, in conjunction with this, the target groups (e.g. immigrants and second generation migrants vs. host society, persons with a migration background vs. persons with no migration background, refugees vs. host society) which the indicators are based on. Moreover, the differentiation between intermediate and result indicators is not coherent in some studies. Because of the focus on quantitative measurement, only result indicators were reviewed. The indicators were allocated to the above developed dimensions relevant to integration research in order to analyse how well these dimensions are covered by indicators so far. However, only broad dimensions of indicators are illustrated, within 28

Compare the analysis of datasets on labour market participation in Bevelander & Hagström (2010a): Thematic Study on Employment., on income and social benefits in Bevelander & Hagström (2010b), Thematic study on income, transfers and social benefits., on housing in Fonseca et al. (2010) Thematic Study on Housing., on health in Juhász et al. (2010): Possibilities and limitations of comparative research on international migration and health., and the analysis of datasets relevant for research on discrimination in Gächter (2010): Data needs a., and data availability for discrimination research in Europe. 29 The keywords search included the following terms: integration, integrate, assimilate, adoption, belonging, culture, affiliation, affinity, minority and lifestyle. 30 See section 2, Table 9 for a list of the included studies.


29

these dimensions a large variety of specific indicators was developed. Table 11 demonstrates the results of this allocation. Table 11: Allocation of indicators developed by studies of integration indicators to dimensions relevant for integration research

Structural integration Type of indicator

Economy: labour participation


Studies proposing the indicator

market 5


Type of indicator

Language competence

5

Among those: migrant language competences of receiving society need for language support of migrants language competences (language of host society) of migrants

Education and vocational training (participation and attainments) Housing situation Citizenship (access to political community) Access to health system

1 3

5

Values and norms

3

4 4

Religion

3

Among those: religious affiliation religiosity

3

Interactive integration Friendships Marriages, partnerships Membership in organisations Volunteering Transnational networks

1

1 2

Identificative integration 3 4 5 4 0

Subjective feelings of belonging 1 Subjective feelings of 2 acceptance and safety

Majority society (openness) Type of indicator

Personal openness: attitudes towards migrants and minority, discriminatory behaviour and perceived discrimination Systemic openness: accessibility of key institutions (e.g. proportion of employed migrants in key institutions) Xenophobic and anti-immigration tendencies (movements, organisations)


4 3 0

Contextual aspects (migrants) Ethnic, cultural background (country of origin) Age Duration of stay, migrant generation Transnational patterns (incl. migration movements, exchange and communication) and other migration related activities (e.g. family reunification)

2 3 1 1

Societal aspects Social or cultural sub-group (e.g. milieu) incl. crime Socio-spatial criteria (e.g. composition and “mainstream” of neighbourhood)


3 1

30

In all studies, most (in numbers and in detail) indicators are developed for the dimension of structural integration. Results of this dimension are often interpreted in comparative terms with the autochthonous population. Indicators developed for the cultural dimension of integration are rather diverse in the following aspects: While all studies develop indicators for “language”, three of them measure migrants‟ competences of the host society‟s language, of the other two, one measures migrants‟ need for language support, and the other measures the receiving society‟s competences of migrant languages. Indicators of interactive integration are proposed by most studies, while only three develop indicators for the identificative dimension. Among those, one measures migrants‟ feelings of identification with the receiving society; two measure migrants‟ feelings of acceptance and safety perceived by the host society. Together with the identificative dimension, contextual and societal aspects of migrants as well as aspects of the openness of the receiving society are only rarely covered by the proposed indicators. According to Carrera (2008: 45), most studies of indicators of integration contain the following weaknesses in reference to their value for benchmarking integration: “… the lack of a common approach, the lack of neutrality, difficulties in relation to the personal and territorial scope, and defects in the methodology.” The following section demonstrates how integration indicators have been used in European countries. Integration indicators: National level Sets of indicators which have been applied so far in European countries reflect the diversity of national integration patterns as well as an Europeanisation of integration policies. However, a commonly shared understanding of integration among the European countries is not existent, yet. Differences as well as similarities in the concept of integration are demonstrated among others by the results of a questionnaire on the definition of integration, which was filled in by the PROMINSTAT partners for their respective country, within the scope of this study. Except one country, which defines integration as a process of assimilation, the following conceptual similarities can be found among the responding countries: the concept of equal rights, obligations and opportunities among all residents including equalisation in the fields of the structural dimension of integration, regardless of ethnic or national origin the definition of integration as a two-way dynamic process of mutual adjustment on the part of immigrants as well as the autochthonous population These shared principles are in compliance with the above described consensus on the political definition of integration among the European countries (cf. section 1a: Integration – a political consent in the EU). Differences were found regarding the following aspects: the extent to which the autochthonous population is involved in the two-way process of integration and their role in it the definition of integration as a process of assimilation (this applies to only one responding country) Moreover, several countries have not lined out a national definition of integration so far. According to Dietrich/Kapphan (2009) a comprehensive concept of integration exists in 14 out of 20 European countries; two countries are presently developing a concept.


31

Similarly, measurement of integration by indicators has not been practiced by all European member states, nor have there been consistent indicators on the national level in all European countries. A survey conducted by the Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy 2009 concluded that differences can be found regarding the focus on the type of indicator (intermediate vs. result indicators, subjective-qualitative vs. objective-quantitative): most countries place the emphasis on result indicators (Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway) whereas Finland and France focus on intermediate indicators. Moreover, most countries use objective-quantitative indicators (Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway) while Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Italy and the Netherlands focus on subjective-qualitative indicators. The following major fields of indicators are primarily measured by indicators: education, labour market, naturalisation, language, housing, job qualification, family, income, discrimination/racism, legal system and health31 (Dietrich/Kapphan 2009). A similar focus can be found in an analysis within this study32.

31

The information was collected through a survey in the scope of the „Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy‟ which was held in Berlin, in June 2009. The major fields mentioned are based on the data of 19 EU Member States and Norway which participated in the survey. 32 The analysis is based on a questionnaire to the PROMINSTAT partners, the PROMINSTAT country reports and other relevant sources.


32

Classified by the dimensions relevant for integration the following results can be drawn on the use of indicators: Table 12: Dimensions of indicators used by selected European countries for the measurement of integration

Structural integration


the dimension measured by most indicators the most used categories of indicators include: education, labour market33, income34, housing, naturalisation and citizenship/naturalisation35 besides these indicators health care and social security are frequently measured


not very frequently measured categories of measured indicators include language, religion (and religious freedom), gender roles,


not frequently measured categories of measured indicators include political and social participation, membership in organisations36, social contacts, relations with sending countries

none of the analysed countries measures indicators of this dimension

Majority society (openness) not frequently measured categories of measured indicators include discrimination/racism, openness and attitudes of receiving society37

Contextual aspects (migrants) not frequently measured only categories of demography are measured

Societal aspects not frequently measured only categories of crime are measured

The comparability of the indicators, however, is restricted because of different statistical data sources and availability among the European countries. Therefore only broad results can be drawn: So far mainly the structural dimension of integration is being measured in the countries. Only a few countries include indicators of the other dimensions of integration, where this is the case the limited amount of indicators for the respective dimensions restricts the value of the interpretation of the dimensions of integration. In order to find results on the multidimensional process of integration an application of a wider set of indicators would be necessary. Compare Grabowska-Lusińska (2010): Thematic Study Work Permit Data, and analysis of indicators of labour market integration in Bevelander & Hagström (2010a): Thematic Study on Employment. 34 Compare Bevelander & Hagström (2010b), Thematic study on income, transfers and social benefits. 35 Compare measurement of Political participation Type A in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 36 Compare measurement of Political participation Type B, C and D in Doomernik (2010): Thematic Study Political Participation. 37 Compare the analysis of indicators for the research on discrimination in Gächter (2010): Data needs and data availability for discrimination research in Europe. 33


33

Registers and counts are the most commonly used data sources, especially for the assessment of indicators of the structural dimension. Sample surveys provide data on attitudes, values and the sense of belonging, however, with the exception of Belgium and partly Estonia and the Netherlands, they are not very frequently used (Dietrich/Kapphan 2009). The results of a keyword search of the PROMINSTAT database38 prove that there is quite a number of variables in survey datasets which cover relevant aspects of the dimensions of integration which have been underrepresented in previous research as demonstrated by the usage of indicators (cultural, interactive and identificative integration as well as societal and contextual aspects and the openness of the receiving society). The stronger incorporation of respective indicators in integration research could increase the coverage of the multi-dimensional aspect of integration. Integration indicators: European level On the European level, efforts have been made to design universal sets of indicators which allow for comparable results. This was made explicit in the adoption of the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union in 2004: “Developing clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms are necessary to adjust policy, evaluate progress on integration and to make the exchange of information more effective.” (Council of the European Union 2004: 4)39. A common set of homogeneous indicators on the European level involves the identification of dimensions and indicators which are comparable across the European countries. At the present time the construction of such a system faces the following two main challenges: the diversity of integration models and applied theories which is reflected in differing indicators and target groups the diversity of data types, quantity, quality and availability which reflect the type of integration model and policy as well as national traditions.

38

The keywords search included the following terms: integration, integrate, assimilate, adoption, belonging, culture, affiliation, affinity, minority and lifestyle. 39 This goal was stressed out again at the Ministerial Conference on Integration in 2008: “… evaluation of integration policies must be a priority at European level. It must be the subject of regular exchanges on both method and results and lead to the identification of indicators.” (European Ministerial Conference on Integration 2008: 9) and the „Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy in 2009‟.


34

So far, the EU illustrates topics on integration (among others on the EU Website on Integration) by the following categories of indicators: Table 13: Categories of integration indicators by EU Website on Integration Active Citizenship Economic Participation Residence and work permits Employment Civic citizenship Recognition of qualification and skills assessment Naturalisation Vocational training and career Political participation development Volunteering and third-sector Workforce diversity and capacity-building Consultations, meditation and dialogue Self-employment and entrepreneurship platforms Supplier diversity Civic education Social Cohesion Education and Culture Housing and urban development School education Social inclusion Out-of-school education incl. life-long learning and distance education Social protection Language competencies Health E-learning Other services Intercultural dialogue including interreligious dialogue Cultural activities and diversity Anti-discrimination and Equality Anti-discrimination at work Anti-discrimination in service provision Access to justice Equal opportunities Positive action

Not all of the above indicators can be measured by datasets, yet. The following table provides an overview of the available datasets for monitoring integration on the European level and the indicators covered by those. Table 14: Indicators and datasets for the measurement of integration on the European level 40

Indicator Membership in trade unions Membership in political parties Volunteering Contact with decision-makers Signing petitions Voting Acquisition of longterm residence Acquisition of nationality 40

Source Active Citizenship

Link

European Social Survey (EES)

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/

EES


EES


EES


EES EES To be prepared EC Regulation 862/2007

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:20 07:199:0023:0029:EN:PDF http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://eur-

Eurostat / also EC Regulation

Categorisation drawn from Niessen, 2009[2]: 24


35

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:20 07:199:0023:0029:EN:PDF

862/2007

Economic Participation Labour market participation

Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

Employment

EU LFS

Unemployment

EU LFS

Over-qualification

EU LFS

Transitions by type of contract

Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU SILC)

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc

Labour market segregation

EU LFS

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm

Access to continuing training

Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS)

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/i ndex.php/Continuing_vocational_training_survey_%2 8CVTS%29

Participation in Activation/ support measures

EU LFS

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm

Social Cohesion At-risk-of-poverty

Eurostat / EU SILC

In-work-poverty risk

EU SILC

Unmet health needs

Eurostat / EU SILC

Life expectancy

Eurostat / Demography

Self-reported unmet need for medical care

To be prepared by Eurostat / EU SILC

Housing

To be prepared by Eurostat / EU SILC

Separated families

To be developed

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/mic rodata/eu_silc

Education and Culture

Participation in preschool education

Special needs education

Eurostat / UNESCOUIS/OECD/EURO STAT data collection on education statistics (UOE) To be prepared by Eurostat


http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_39 263238_38082166_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/

36

Early school leavers

Eurostat / EU LFS

Literacy in reading, mathematics, and science

PISA / UOE

Completion of upper secondary education

Eurostat / EU LFS

Completion of higher (tertiary) education

Under preparation

Participation in lifelong learning

Eurostat / EU LFS

Educational attainment of the population

Eurostat / EU LFS

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351 _32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_39 263238_38082166_1_1_1_1,00.html http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eur ostat/home/ http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu _lfs/index.htm

Anti-discrimination and Equality Awareness of discrimination Attitudes to diversity in public office Attitudes to diversity in media Personal experience of discrimination General knowledge of rights

Section 3c

Eurobarometer

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

Eurobarometer


Eurobarometer


Eurobarometer


Eurobarometer


Integration reporting and monitoring

Reporting and monitoring: National level At least ten European countries have already implemented reporting or monitoring systems; at least five countries are presently in the course of developing reporting or monitoring systems. The existence of a concept of integration is an important, but not vital, precondition for the invention of a monitoring system: All European countries which have established monitoring systems have a national concept of integration. Differences can be found in the basis for the implemented monitoring systems: some countries use outcome and policy indicators, some use only one type; other countries rely solely on qualitative surveys assessing perceptions and attitudes of the receiving and the migrant population, for other countries this represents a supplementary source (Dietrich/Kapphan 2009). The following table provides an overview of national reporting or monitoring systems in selected European countries.


37

Table 15: Overview of national reporting and monitoring systems in selected European countries41 Cou Reporting or Conducted by Commissio Freque Accessibility / Link ntry monitoring ned by ncy of system conduct ion AT Work in process BE Statistical Flemish authorities Region: Integration Map Walloon Region: Synthetical indicator Federal level: Diversity Barometer DE Integration in Social Science Federal 2009 for So far only in German at: Germany Research Government the first http://www.bundesregieru Centre Berlin Commission time, to ng.de/nn_56546/Content/ DE/Artikel/IB/Artikel/2009 (Wissenschafts er for be zentrum Berlin) Migration, continue -06-10-indikatorenbericht2009.html possibly in and Institut für Refugees d but no English at a later time at: Sozialforschung and informati http://www.bundesregieru und Integration on on ng.de/ Gesellschaftspo frequenc litik y DK Monitoring Statistical Ministry of Every Report on the authorities Refugee, six or integration of Immigration twelve immigrants and month (further Integration development Affairs in process) http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/ EE Integration of Research team Integration UDRW/images/items/docl Estonian consisting of Foundation _7497_187762761.pdf Society: Pavelson, Vetik, (2005) Monitoring Proos, Pettai, Kruusvall, Hallik ES Work in process, so far indicators FI Work in process FR Work in High process, so Council on far indicators Integration 41

The information provided in the table was assessed through a questionnaire to the PROMINSTAT partners: the country experts were asked to name the three main data sources for the study of integration in their country, a survey conducted for the Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy (Dietrich/Kapphan 2009), the European Website on Integration (http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/index.cfm) and relevant other sources.


38

has been working on a set of indicators for monitoring IE IT

NL

NO

PT

SE

UK

Work process

http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/ UDRW/images/items/docl _4371_418171993.pdf

in

Report on migrant integration Integromet er

Monitor civic integration Report on integration Facts & Figures CBS Several monitors on specific topics; more general monitor to be issued in 2009

Council for Economy and Labour (CNEL) ISMUFoundation Statistics Ministry Netherlands, Interior Research and Documentation Centre of Ministry of Justice Statistics Norway

every two years (report on migrant integrati on) of Annually

Ministry of Annually Labour and Social Inclusion Department of Integration and Diversity (IMA) High Advisory Commissariat Council for for Immigration Immigrant and Intercultural Affairs Dialogue (ACIDI, I.P.) STATIV Statistics Before 1 Annually Sweden July 2007: Integration Board; afterwards: Statistics Sweden Report University of Home Office “Integration: Oxford, Centre Immigration Mapping the for Migration Research field” and Policy and Research and Statistics Refugee Service Studies Centre


http://www.cbs.nl/enGB/menu/methoden/toeli chtingen/alfabet/i/integrati on-monitor-2006.htm; http://english.wodc.nl/ond erzoeksdatabase/concept uele-verkenningintegratie.aspx http://www.ssb.no/english /subjects/00/00/10/innvan dring_en/

After fall 2009: website of Statistics Sweden

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/r ds/pdfs2/rdsolr2803.doc 2004-01-27

39

Reporting and monitoring: European level So far, several reporting and monitoring systems have been in place on the European level. However, they primarily refer to a specific field, e.g. the labour market, but do not cover several dimensions of integration or link data and therefore can not serve as an adequate data source for the measurement of integration as a multi-dimensional and non-linear process. The following table provides an overview of the existing quantitative monitoring systems: Table 16: Quantitative reporting and monitoring systems on the European level

Source

Link

Information provided / linked to42

Eurostat

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europ a.eu/portal/page/portal/euro stat/home/ http://www.oecd.org/home/ http://ec.europa.eu/employ ment_social/spsi/european _observatory_en.htm

Data on the composition of the population which is used in:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/

Information on countries of origin destination

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsi s/employment/info/data/eu_ lfs/index.htm

Labour market statistics that can be used as indicators of the socio-economic position of the overall population and that of immigrant and refugees Information on the population‟s well-being and indicators of openness, tolerance and inclusiveness

OECD European Observatory on the Social situation demography UNDP‟s Development Report Labour Force Survey (EU LFS)

http://www.europeansocials European Social Survey urvey.org/ (ESS) http://ec.europa.eu/public_o Eurobarometer

LIME Assessment Framework (LAF) European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EUMIDIS)

Section 3d

pinion/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/econom y_finance/db_indicators/laf/i ndex_en.htm http://fra.europa.eu/fraWeb site/eu-midis/index_en.htm

Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion http://ec.europa.eu/emplo yment_social/spsi/the_pr ocess_en.htm

Tool for the assessment of the economic impact of migration and integration by using indicators of growth Survey on immigrants experiences of discrimination, awareness of rights and support organisations, and reporting of complaints to the police

Target groups of integration measurement

Sound quantitative integration research relies on a clear and consistent definition of the target groups under analysis. The definition and identification of the migrant or minority group studied in empirical integration research varies greatly between the PROMINSTAT countries, which hampers quantitative cross-country research on integration. Whereas some countries continue to differentiate primarily according to nationality or citizenship when defining respective migrant or minority groups, in other countries a more ethnicity-based approach is applied. Even within national contexts, divergent definitions and criteria are applied in different data sources (e.g. registers, 42

The description of the source is mainly drawn from Niessen (2009[1]: 5).


40

census and administrative counts); in many countries it is often infeasible to determine the aspect of time, more precisely the duration of stay and a differentiation between first and second generation migrants (cf. section 1a Groups studied in integration research)43; this constitutes an additional shortcoming of statistical data sources. In most European countries ”integration” refers to third country (non-EU) nationals, however, an increasing number of countries includes citizens of the country concerned who have a certain minority status of migration background in the understanding of integration; this applies mainly to minority groups such as the Aussiedler in Germany and to citizens who were naturalised or whose parents are or were non-citizens of the country concerned. For some countries “integration” also includes EU-nationals. The following table attempts to provide an overview of the groups that “integration” refers to (by definition) in selected European countries. The groups are differentiated following the categories proposed by Poulain & Herm (2010): “Population stocks relevant to international migration”. The categories were slightly adapted.

Country

Table 17: Groups that “integration” refers to in EU Member States 44 Citizens of the country concerned

AT EE FI FR DE GR IE MT NO PL PT SK SI ES SE CH

Who were citizens at birth Whose Whose parents are parents are citizens of (or were) the country non-citizens concerned of the country concerned46

X

Who were not citizens at birth and were naturalised45

Other citizens with minority status

Non-citizens of the country concerned EUNon-EU nationals nationals (Third country nationals) including asylum seekers

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

43

Additionally compare González-Ferrrer et al.(2010): Thematic Study on Family and Kupiszewski et al. (2010): Possibilities and limitations of comparative quantitative research on international migration flows. 44 The information provided in the table was assessed through a questionnaire to the PROMINSTAT partners, the PROMINSTAT country reports and other relevant sources. The list is not exhaustive. 45 This category includes EU nationals as well as third country nationals. 46 This category includes EU nationals as well as third country nationals.


41

Besides defining which groups to include in integration research and measurement, the data availability has a crucial impact; e.g. variables for second generation migrants can barely be collected, if datasets do not include “migration background” and results can not differentiate by different national origins, if datasets do not contain this differentiation47. The information on the groups provided in the table, therefore does not imply that these groups are actually being studied in the respective country. On the European level integration policies are directed towards third country nationals. As stated above, the discussion on the differentiation and inclusion of specific groups in the measurement and monitoring of integration is ongoing.

Section 3e

Data implications

This section discusses how different data sources can be used for quantitative integration research and which types of data are needed for the measurement of integration according to the above outlined dimensions of integration. Research on integration in Europe faces two fundamental challenges: the lack of a commonly accepted definition of integration entails difficulties in designing research projects, including the selection of relevant indicators, and in interpreting research findings the lack of consent on the target groups which should be included and differentiated in the measurement Given the complexity of integration processes, which has to be taken into account by integration research, various types of statistical sources are relevant. Comprehensive integration research requires both differentiated statistical data specifically on the migrant and ethnic minority population (e.g. large-scale surveys) as well as statistical data on the general population (of minorities, migrant and non-migrants), the latter being vital for examining integration processes that can only be seen in comparison to the native, non-migrant (sub)population group. Integration does not only refer to a state of affairs at a specific point in time, but also to a process over time. Against the background of the long-term and intergenerational character of integration processes, longitudinal (panel or register) data are of high relevance for quantitative integration research and comparisons over time. Due to large differences in the national statistics and the consequently low level of comparability of national datasets, international (harmonised) data sources (e.g. general surveys like LFS, EU-SILC, Eurobarometer or specific integration surveys such as TIES) are particularly relevant for the cross-national comparison. The incorporation of socio economic, demographic and other background indicators in datasets (e.g. age and gender) is essential for the contextual understanding of integration processes. 47

Compare the analysis of data implications and data availability in Poulain & Herm (2010): Population stocks relevant to international migration.


42

Types of data sources In most European countries official statistical information consists of a combination of census data, registers and counts. Official statistical data provides systematic reporting on the data situation of migrants by registration of objective structural data. In this context, basic information on integration is collected in clear and comparable categories. This type of data, however, only allows for in-depth analysis on indicators in specific thematic areas of integration. Census data An asset of housing and population census data is that they usually cover several social areas and thus provides an opportunity for researchers to carry our crosssectional analyses; moreover, census datasets allow for a statistical identification of different population sub-groups which can then be examined in a comparative design. This is essential for integration research that seeks to analyse the live situation of migrants or minorities (target group) in comparison to non-migrants or the majority (reference group) – also broken down by their socio-economic situation. The linking of several censuses allows for results on the integration process of persons over time. The costs and effort for conducting censuses in a regularly basis is, however, quite high. Counts Counts, as mostly represented by administrative data, often have the advantage of regularity and low costs. However, the information provided does often not completely correspond to the theoretical concepts of integration but usually only refer to individual social areas. Analyses of counts therefore, are limited to the variables and the time frame covered. Counts can either be based on cases or on persons. When using counts for cross-sectional quantitative integration research, it is decisive if, and to which extent, the different count data sources can be linked. Registers Registers, by containing longitudinal data, provide the opportunity to analyse the process of integration over a certain period of time. Historical information, however, is not always kept after previous registered persons or cases are deleted. The population covered by these datasets is mostly composed of new arrivals as well as long-term residents. Depending on the strength of migratory movements this may bias the results on integration research. It is vital, therefore, to include data on the duration of residence, in order to control for this bias (Schoorl 2005: 3). Like counts, information provided in registers is limited to certain thematic areas. In some countries, for instance Norway (cf. Table 14), different thematic registers can be linked via identifiers like personal identification numbers. In such cases of interlinked register-systems, processes of structural integration can be monitored efficiently. Surveys Beside official data, information on integration is often provided through survey data. Surveys hold the potential for collecting additional background information on individual persons (complementary to objective structural data which is mostly also PROMINSTAT Thematic Study on Integration

43

covered by other types of data sources). Some aspects of integration like attitudes of the majority population toward migrants and minority groups or also indicators for identificational integration of migrants can only be covered by survey data. Surveys can be distinguished according to the following categories: scope, representativeness and thematic coverage. The following types can be of particular interest for research on integration: Representative longitudinal surveys (large-scale) generally, and panel surveys (e.g. SOEP) which allow for long-term monitoring in particular National multi-topic surveys which cover several thematic areas of integration Cross-country multi-topic surveys (e.g. TIES, EU-SILC) Surveys have the potential to target a specific research goal or one or several thematic fields of integration. With surveys covering one or only a small number of thematic fields, certain dimensions of integration can be analysed in detail. One example for combined data on the thematic fields of employment and education is the Labour Force Survey. Multi-topic surveys which cover many thematic areas of interest to research in integration offer a good starting point for in-depth empirical analysis. Such data that allows for links and comparison to be made between different thematic areas and personal features is essential for researching integration.48Therefore, especially multi-topic surveys allow for thematically differentiated analyses as well as for analyses that focus on alternating details. In contrast to cross-sectional data, longitudinal data allows for generating individual data on the integration process over time; therefore longitudinal data and panel data hold the potential of capturing the long-term and intergenerational character of integration processes. One of the most severe disadvantages of survey data is the problem of nonresponse.

Dimensions of integration and data The measurement of certain aspects of integration requires the comparison between data on the migrant population with data on the majority population, whereas other aspects can be measured by data on migrants only as they are interpretable without the comparison to the autochthonous population as reference group. Structural integration The measurement of structural integration to a large part consists of the comparison of statistical distribution in areas such as employment, education, housing, access to political community etc. among the migrant population with those of the autochthonous population. The narrowing of the distributions among both populations 48

A general analysis of integration has to refer to different thematic social areas as integration does not only occur in one field; these thematic fields are interlinked, for instance language competences of the host country can determine and assist other fields like education and employment opportunities or interethnic contacts.


44

is considered as an increase of the level of integration. However, the domains of status of residence and naturalisation naturally are not compared to the majority population. Results on the level of integration have to be drawn from their distribution over a period of time or from the comparison between different groups of migrants. As policies of nationality and residential status vary between countries, the possibilities of cross-national comparisons are restricted. Counts are sometimes used for the measurement of structural integration; however, registers provide more useful information on the process of integration. Cultural integration Cultural integration is measured by comparing statistical dimensions of values, norms and gender roles between migrant and majority population. Language competences can – depending on the applied concept of integration – be measured of migrants (host country language) or of both migrants (host country language and other languages) and majority population (foreign language). The measurement of cultural integration mostly requires a combination of survey and administrative data. Interactive integration The measurement of interactive integration mainly consists of the comparison of frequencies of social ties, e.g. friendships and marriages between migrants (of the own migrant group and/or other migrant groups) and autochthonous population, and of memberships and participation patterns but also on intra-ethnic and transnational networks and relations. Whereas information on friendships and other forms of informal social contacts between populations groups predominantly derives from surveys, data on formal social ties, e.g. marriages and memberships, can also be found in administrative data. Identificative integration Identificative integration is measured by subjective feelings of belonging, often only of the migrant population, although comparable data on the majority population are vital for comparison reasons. Surveys provide the opportunity to gather such in-depth information. Quantitative research on the identificative dimension of integration is often combined with qualitative methods of research. Majority society (openness) In addition to the aforementioned four dimensions of social integration, research on the inclusion of migrants and minorities need to take into account the openness of the receiving majority society. This openness encompasses aspects of (1) personal openness (i.e. attitudes towards migrants and minority, discriminatory behaviour and perceived discrimination), (2) systemic openness (i.e. accessibility of key institutions) and (3) xenophobic and anti-immigration tendencies within the society at large. Attitudes surveys among the general population (opinion polls), both on a regional or national and on a European level (e.g. Eurobarometer), as well as victim surveys carried out among potential victims of discrimination and racism (e.g. EU-MIDIS by the Fundamental Rights Agency) are two important data sources for measuring the personal openness of the majority society, moreover, in some countries discrimination complaints statistics may serve as additional proxy data sources.


45

Regarding the systemic openness of key institutions, for instance, the labour market, administrative statistics (count) administered by private or public employers, on the proportion of employed migrants or minorities may provide additional background information relevant to integration research. Racist or xenophobic tendencies within the receiving society are often difficult to measure, which makes datasets on racially motivated or xenophobic crimes, usually within the responsibility of the police or the Intelligence Services (administrative counts), particularly valuable.

Section 4

Recommendations

Identification of sub-groups Datasets allowing for the statistical identification of respective target groups are a basic prerequisite for integration research. This holds true for censuses, counts, registers and surveys. Datasets need to contain relevant indicators, e.g. on own or parents‟ country of birth, own or parent‟s time of immigration, mother tongue, that can be used to define the groups under analysis. Moreover, it is vital to include information on the duration of residence in order to be able to statistically distinguish between newly arrived migrants and long-term residents. For European comparative integration research, it is also desirable to include variables for harmonised target group identification across the European countries. Datasets should not only contain such background information that enables the researcher to identify the specific target groups of integration research, but also offer the opportunity to statistically determine certain sub-groups on the basis of relevant socio-economic, demographic and other aspects; this would allow for a comparison not only between majority and minority, but also within certain social milieus. Due to the long-term, cross-generational aspects of integration processes, migration status and a persons‟ origin should also be measured in the subsequent generation(s). The integration process is reflected by the structural, social and emotional changes and development of these cohorts. Accordingly, longitudinal data are vital for comprehensive integration research. Such longitudinal datasets (e.g. registers and panel surveys) should ideally provide the possibility of identifying migrants by generational status.

Thematic coverage The multi-dimensional character of integration requires coverage of various thematic dimensions. A shift from the previously one-sided concentration on the analysis of structural dimensions of integration towards a more comprehensive perspective including the cultural and identificative dimension as well as societal and contextual aspects and the openness of the receiving society is necessary. Registers, especially interlinked register-systems, are deemed as very useful for ensuring the possibility of cross-sectional analysis. They mainly cover structural aspects of integration. Survey data provide the potential to also cover attitude-based aspects of the cultural, interactive and identificative dimensions of integration as well as of contextual and societal aspects and of the openness of the receiving society.


46

Specific types of data sources The types of data sources most suitable for encompassing comprehensive background information in a rather cost-efficient way are registers and surveys. As elaborated above, interlinked register-systems and longitudinal surveys bear the highest potential for capturing the long-term character of integration processes. The linkage of different registers, however, requires a clearly assigned ID, which is – so far – not given in all cases and EU member states. For integration research it is desirable to keep historical information, even after previous registered persons or cases are deleted, although it may cause additional administrative costs. Panel studies should be institutionalised to study integration processes. The inclusion of sub-groups (e.g. migrant households) in existing panel studies could increase the data quality with little additional expenses. At the same time, existing surveys providing data on these areas should increasingly be incorporated into the research on integration.

Monitoring integration processes Concepts of integration should be generated in all EU member states as a base for the invention of integration indicators and systems for monitoring migrant integration. The comparability of results of those throughout the EU should be aspired. Existing monitoring system on the European level should be extended to describe several dimensions of integration and interlink data in order to enable the measurement of integration as a multi-dimensional and non-linear process.


47

PROMINSTAT Country Reports consulted for the study 1

Country Austria

Author(s) Albert Kraler, Christina Hollomey and Alfred Wöger

Date of publication May 2009 (updated December 2009) April 2009

2

Belgium

Nicolas Perrin and Quentin Schoonvaere

3

Bulgaria

Anne Herm

4

Cyprus

Martin Baldwin-Edwards

May 2010

5

Czech Republic

Dušan Drbohlav and Lenka Lachmanová-Medová

May 2009

6

Denmark

Anita Lange and Thomas Michael Nielsen

April 2009

7

Estonia

Université catholique de Louvain

April 2009

8

Finland

Sirkku Wilkman

April 2009

9

France

Tatiana Eremenko and Xavier Thierry

April 2009

10

Germany

Mario Peucker and Stefanie Reiter

11

Greece

Martin Baldwin-Edwards

12

Hungary

Éva Gárdos

13

Ireland

Ann Singleton and Audrey Lenoel

April 2010

14

Italy

April 2009

15

Latvia

Domenico Gabrielli, Salvatore Strozza and Enrico Todisco Rita Zukauskiene

June 2009

16

Lithuania

Rita Zukauskiene

June 2009

17

Luxembourg

Quentin Schoonvaere and Nicolas Perrin

April 2009

18

Malta

Albert Kraler and David Reichel

April 2009

19

Norway

Vebjørn Aalandslid and Lars Østby

April 2009

20

Poland

Dorota Kupiszewska

May 2009

21

Portugal

April 2009

22

Romania

Maria Lucinda Fonseca, Alina Esteves, Dora Possidónio and Jennifer McGarrigle Anne Herm

23

Slovakia

24

Slovenia

Mária Katerinková, Danuša Jurčová and Ferenc Csatari David Reichel

25

Spain

Amparo González-Ferrer

June 2009

26

Sweden

Mirjam Hagström

April 2009

27

Switzerland

Marco Pecoraro

April 2009

28

The Netherlands

Jeroen Doomernik

29

United Kingdom

Audrey Lenoël, Ann Singleton, Olga Gora and

February 2010

June 2009 (updated December 2009) May 2010 February 2010

February 2010 March 2010 April 2009

August 2009 (updated February 2010) January 2010

Lynnmarie Sardinha Available at: www.prominstat.eu


48

References Ager, A. & Strang, A. (2004), Indicators of integration research. Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office: London. Alba, R. & Nee, V. (1999), „Rethinking assimilation theory‟, in C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz & J. DeWind (eds.), The handbook of international migration. The American Experience, 137-160. Russel Sage Foundation: New York. Baum, S. (2008), „Making space for social inclusion‟, People and Place 16 (4): 32-42. Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration (2009), Grundsätze für das Monitoring und die Bewertung von Integrationspolitik. http://www.bundesregierung.de/nsc_true/Content/DE/Artikel/IB/Anlagen/2009-0615-eckpunkte-deutsch,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2009-06-15eckpunkte-deutsch. Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration (2009), Issues Paper for the Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy, Berlin, 15-16 June 2009. Berry, J. W. (1997), „Integration, acculturation, and adaptation‟, Applied Psychology: An International Review 46: 5-34. Bommes, M. (2005), Transnationalism or assimilation? http://www.sowionlinejournal.de/2005-1/transnationalism_assimilation_bommes.htm. Carrera, S. (2008), Benchmarking Integration in the EU, Analyzing the debate on integration indicators and moving it forward. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation. Commission of the European Communities (2005), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A common agenda for integration. Framework for the integration of third-country nationals in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_988_232042490.pdf. Council of the European Union (2004), Draft conclusions of the council and the representatives of the governments of the member states on the establishment of common basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union. http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14776.en04.pdf. Council of Europe (1997), „Measurement and indicators of integration‟, Directorate of Social and Economic Affairs, Council of Europe Publishing.

Dietrich, M. Kapphan, A. (2009), Presentation of the results of the country survey on existing monitoring systems in European countries. http://www.bundesregierung.de/nsc_true/Content/DE/Artikel/IB/Artikel/International es/Anlagen/11-results-of-the-countrysurvey,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/11-results-of-the-countrysurvey.


49

Entzinger, H. & Biezeveld, R. (2003), Benchmarking in immigrant integration. Rotterdam: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER). European Commission (2003), „Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration, Integration and Employment‟, COM(2003) 336, Brussels, 3 June 2003. European Ministerial Conference on Integration (2008), Declaration approved by the representatives of the member states, Vichy, 3-4 November 2008. http://www.eu2008.fr/webdav/site/PFUE/shared/import/1103_Ministerielle_Integrati on/conference_integration_041108_Final_declaration_EN.pdf. European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2004), Analytical Report on Integration. www.eumc.eu.int. Esser, H. (2004), ‟Welche Alternativen zur “Assimilation” gibt es eigentlich?‟, IMIS Beiträge 23: 41-60. Esser, H. (2000), Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Faist, T. (ed.) (2000), Transnationale Räume. Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur in und zwischen Deutschland und der Türkei. Bielefeld: transcript. Fincke, G. (2009). Abgehängt, chancenlos, unwillig? Eine empirische Reorientierung von Integrationstheorien zu MigrantInnen der zweiten Generation in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Geddes, A., Niessen, J. et al. (2005), European civic citizenship and inclusion index. Brussels: British Council Brussels. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. & Blanc-Szanton, C (eds.) (1992), Towards a transnational perspective on migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity and Nationalism Reconsidered (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 645). New York. Gordon, M. (1964), Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion, and national origin. New York: Oxford University Press. Granato, N. & Kalter, F. (2001), ‟Die Persistenz ethnischer Ungleichheit auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt – Diskriminierung oder Unterinvestition in Humankapital‟, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 53 (3): 497-520. Heckmann, F. (2009), Integration and integration policies. IMISCOE Network Feasibility Study 2006. Bamberg: european forum for migration studies. Heckmann, F. (2007), ‟Empirical research on migrant integration‟. Trends 1995-2004‟, Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 32 (3-4): 505-532. Heckmann, F. (2007), ‟Integrationkonzepte europäischer Staaten‟, paper presented at the workshop ‟Rechtliche Fragen zur Integration‟, Postdam, 16 February 2007. Heckmann, F. & Friedrich, L. (2007), ‟Auf dem Wege zum Integrations- und


50

Diversitätsmonitoring?‟ paper presented at the international conference ‟Integrations- und Diversitätsmonitoring „Integration messbar machen“‟, Vienna, 26 November 2007. Heckmann, F. & Schnapper, D. (eds.) (2003), The integration of immigrants in European societies. National differences and trends of convergence. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius. Heckmann, F. (1992), Ethnische Minderheiten, Volk und Nation. Soziologie interethnischer Beziehungen. Stuttgart: Enke. Huddleston, T. (2009) How to evaluate the promotion of integration and measure its effects? Experiences in the EU Migration Policy Group. Preparation of a forthcoming book chapter entitled “On using indicators for raising and meeting integration standards” in Legal Instruments for the Integration of Third Country Nationals and edited by Thomas Huddleston and Jan Niessen. http://www.unhcr.ch/include/fckeditor/custom/File/Huddelston.pdf. Kristen, C. & Granato, N. (2004), ‟Bildungsinvestitionen in Migrantenfamilien‟, IMIS Beiträge 23: 123-141. Lockwood, D. (1964), „Social integration and system integration‟, in K. Zollschan & W. Hirsch (eds.), Explorations in Social Change, 244-251. London: Routledge and Kegan. Morawska, E. (2002), „Immigrant transnationalism and assimilation: a variety of combinations and the analytic strategy it suggests‟, in E. Morawska & Ch. Joppke (eds.), Towards assimilation and citizenship in liberal nation-states, 136-176. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

Niessen, J. (2009)[2], Developing and using European integration indicators, Background paper prepared for the Swedish Presidency Conference Integration of New Arrivals – Incentives and work in focus (Malmo, 14-16 December 2009), online document available at: http://www.migpolgroup.com/public/docs/168.DevelopingandusingEuropeanintegra tionindicators_15.12.09.pdf Niessen, J. (2009)[1], Integration indicators, monitors and benchmarks, Background paper to the key-note address for the German Conference on Indicators and Experiences in Monitoring Integration Policy organised by the German Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration, Berlin, 15-16 June 2009, online document available at: http://www.migpolgroup.com/public/docs/events/Berlinpaper_final.pdf.

Niessen, J., Huddleson, T. et al. (2007), Setting up a system of benchmarking to measure the success of integration policies in Europe. http://www.temaasyl.se/Documents/EUdokument/Parlamentsdokument/Benchmarking%20Integration.pdf. Niessen, J., Huddleston, T., Citron, L., et al. (2007), Migrant integration policy index. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group. Niessen, J. & Schibel, Y. (2007), Handbook on integration for policy-makers and practitioners. Brussels: European Commission.


51

Niessen, J. & Schibel, Y. (2004), Handbook on integration for policy-makers and practitioners. Brussels: European Commission. Niessen, J. (2001), Diversity and cohesion: new challenges for the integration of immigrants and minorities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Park, R. E. (1930), „Assimilation, social‟, in E.R.A. Seligman & A. Johnson (eds.), Encyclopaedia of social sciences, 281-283. New York: Mac Millan & Co. Penninx, R., Spencer, D. & Van Hear, N. (2008) „Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research‟, Report commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for NORFACE (New Opportunities for Research Funding Cooperation in Europe): University of Oxford. Penninx, R. & Martiniello, M. (2004), „Integration Processes and Policies: State of the Art and Lessons‟, in R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M. Martiniello & S. Vertovec (eds.), Citizenship in European Cities. Immigrants, Local Politics and Integration Policies. Ashgate: Aldershof. Portes, A. (1999), „Conclusion: towards a new world – the origin and effects of transnational activities‟, Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (2): 463-477. Portes, A., L. E. Guarnizo & P. Landolt (1999), „Introduction: pitfalls and promise of an emerging research field‟, Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (2): 217-237. Portes, A. & R. G. Rumbaut (2001), Legacies. The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkley: University of California Press. Portes, A. & Zhou, M. (1993), „The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants among post-1965 immigrant youth‟, Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 530: 74-96. Pries, L. (2001), „The approach of transnational social spaces: responding to new configurations of the social and the spatial‟, in L. Pries (ed.), New transnational social spaces. International migration and transnational companies in the early twenty-first century, 3-33. London/New York: Routledge. Schoorl, J. (2005), „Information needs on stocks of migrants for research on integration‟, Working paper no. 5 presented at the Joint Eurostat/UNECE Seminar on Migration Statistics, Geneva, 21-23 March 2005. Wessendorf, S. (2009), Local attachments and transnational everyday lives: second generation Italians in Switzerland and in Italy. MMG Working paper No. 09-07. Göttingen: Max-Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity Wiley, N. F. (1970), „The ethnic mobility trap and stratification theory‟, in P.I. Rose (ed.), The study of society, 551-563. New York: The Free Press.

PROMINSTAT - Thematic Studies

Bevelander, P. & Hagström, M. (2010a), Thematic Study on Employment.


52

Bevelander, P. & Hagström, M. (2010b), Thematic study on income, transfers and social benefits. Doomernik, J. (2010), Thematic Study Political Participation. Drbohlav, D. (2010), Thematic Study Irregular Migration. Fonseca, L., McGarrigle, J. & Sampio, D. (2010), Thematic Study on Housing. Gächter, A. (2010), Data needs and data availability for discrimination research in Europe. González-Ferrer, A., Fernández-Reino, M. & Obucina, O. (2010), Thematic Study on Family. Grabowska-Lusińska, I. (2010), Thematic Study Work Permit Data. Juhász, J., Makara, P. & Taller, A. (2010), Possibilities and limitations of comparative research on international migration and health. Kraler, A. & Reichel, D. (2010), Quantitative data in the area of migration, integration and discrimination in Europe – an overview. Kupiszewska, D., Kupiszewski, M., Martí, M. & Ródenas, C. (2010), Possibilities and limitations of comparative quantitative research on international migration flows. Poulain, M. & Herm, Anne (2010), Population stocks relevant to international migration. Reichel, D. (2010), Availability and comparability of quantitative data regarding determinants and consequences of acquisition of nationality after birth.


53

Annex Annex A – “Integration” related datasets in PROMINSTAT database Table 18: National survey datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database ID of Key word Name of dataset Wording of item data set Structural integration FR0 014

Geographical Mobility and Integration Social Integration (MGIS) immigrants

Do you receive a special integration benefit (minimum guaranteed income (RMI), etc.)?

FR0 015

Geographical Mobility and Integration Social Integration (MGIS) born in France

Do you receive a special integration benefit (minimum guaranteed income (RMI) etc.)?

NL0 054

Adoption

Social position and use of resources allochthones (SPVA) 2003

Are you taking place in a 'new comers' programme or adoption programme? Did you finish the adoption programme with a certificate or diploma?


FR0 030

Longitudinal survey on the careers and profiles of Integration newly arrived or regularized migrants - 1st wave

During this reception you were offered to sign the Reception and Integration Contract. Did you sign it?

PT0 006

Attitudes and values Integration towards immigration (no acronym given)

For your integration in Portugal, which of the following factors seems most necessary to you?

PT0 009

Integration

Family reunification and immigration in Portugal

Which of the following factors are most essential for your integration in Portugal?

Social Integration of foreign adolescents of the second generation

According to your opinion should immigrants who have been living in Austria for long be expected to assimilate to the Austrian society in respect of religion?

AT0 135

Assimilate

HU0 001

Affinity

Population and housing census 2001

Which of these nationalities' cultural values and traditions do you feel affinity with?

AT0 135

Culture


How far do they following statements apply to you? I feel confident with the Austrian lifestyle and culture

NL0 037

Culture

Housing experience survey 2001


According to your opinion should immigrants who have been living in Austria for long be expected to assimilate to the Austrians in terms of cloths, etc.

I would like best to live in a home which has achitectural aspects from my culture. I would like best to see architecture from my culture in my neighbourhood.

54

UK0 019

Culture

Citizenship Survey 2007

There are different opinions about what values are important in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Please choose your answer from the card. People should be free to say what they believe even if it offends others.(VALS1) - People should respect the culture and religious beliefs of others even when these oppose their own values (VALS2) - Different ethnic and religious groups should adapt and blend into the larger society.(VALS3) - Different ethnic and religious groups should maintain their customs and traditions.(VALS4) - Government should make sure that all groups have the same opportunities.(VALS5) - Protecting freedom of speech is more important than maintaining order in the nation.(VALS6) - Maintaining order in the nation is more important than protecting freedom of speech (VALS7) - Individuals should take responsibility for helping other people in their local community (VALS8)

HU0 024

Lifestyle

TÁRKI – Omnibus 1998/2

According to your lifestyle, which of the social strata listed on ANSWER SHEET 3 would you place yourself in?

LU0 035

The social and political participation in the Grand Integration Duchy: Survey on candidates for municipal elections

Are you involved in an association for the integration of foreigners?

NL0 006

Social position and use of Integration resources allochthones (SPVA) 1998

Long questionnaire for respondent - Cultural integration

DE0 036

Integrated

The German Welfare Survey 1998

In your view how important are the following items for being integrated and included into social life.

Interactive integration BE0 043

Affiliation

2003, General Election Study Belgium

BE0 044

Affiliation


NL0 029

Culture

Cohort Survey of Secondary School Parents (VOCL) - 1999 cohort

Community or group of primary affiliation Community or group of secondary affiliation Community or group of primary affiliation Community or group of secondary affiliation How many of your friends count themselves to the Dutch language or culture society?


LU0 024

Survey on migrants' Integration experiences of racism and integrated discrimination

AT0 135

Assimilate



People living in Luxembourg can feel integrated in the place to different extents. On the scale below, mark your level of integration. How far do they following statements apply to you? It does not matter how good I assimilate to the Austrian society, I will always be considered as a foreigner

55

DE0 045

Belonging

DE0 014

Belonging

LU0 024

Belonging

NO0 002

Belonging

DE0 014

Belonging

DE0 006

Culture

DE0 008

Culture

DE0 010

Culture

DE0 086

Culture, Belonging

The German SocioEconomic Panel (GSOEP) 1996 The German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 2000 Survey on migrants' experiences of racism and discrimination Living conditions among immigrants, 2005/2006 The German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 2000 The German SocioEconomic Panel (GSOEP) 1997

A foreigner living in Germany for a time can experience a sense of not belonging to any country. Do you also feel this way? And what about your sense of belonging to the federal state (Land) of the Federal Republic you are living in and to its citizens? On the scale below, mark how strong your feeling of belonging in your homeland is People living in Norway may feel a sense of belonging to Norway as a country, to varying extent. To what extent do you feel a sense of belonging to Norway as a country? Answer on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is "no belonging" and 7 is "strong belonging". What about your sense of belonging to Germany and its citizens? If No in question 107: To what extend do you feel that you belong to the culture of the country where you or your family comes from?

The German SocioEconomic Panel (GSOEP) 1999

If No in question 124: To what extend do you feel that you belong to the culture of the country where you or your family comes from?


If No in question A135a: To what extend do you feel that you belong to the culture of the country where you or your family comes from?


To what extent do you feel that you belong to the culture of the country where you or your family comes from?

Majority society (openness) Can you tell us your opinion about the following statements: The culture of the country of origin is important for the integration of immigrants Could you please tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements? The culture of the country of origin is important for the integration of immigrants

PT0 007

Immigrants and the Portuguese Population: Integration Reciprocal Images analysis of two surveys (no acronym given)

NL0 037

Culture

Housing experience survey 2001

A neighbourhood with people from different cultures

NL0 054

Culture

Social position and use of resources allochthones (SPVA) 2003

The Netherlands is open to foreign cultures

NL0 042

Culture

Cohort Survey: Primary and Special Education (PRIMA) 1998/99

The possibility to get in touch with different cultures

BE0 043

Culture


The presence of different cultures enriches our society

BE0 044

Culture


The presence of different cultures enriches our society


56

AT0 135

Culture


DE0 071

Culture

The German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 2006

NL0 049

Culture

Living conditions of urban allochtones (LAS)

DE0 003

Lifestyle

DE0 071

Lifestyle

NL0 049

Culture

The German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 1996 The German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) 2006 Living conditions of urban allochtones (LAS)

Various views exist on the coexistance of different groups. Please, tell how confident or disconfident you are with following statements? Immigrants shall accept the different culture and the requirements of the host country as soon as possible What do you think about following statements concerning foreigners in Germany? They are an enrichment for the German culture What is your opinion on the following statement: Immigrants should not stick very close to their old culture and habits "How strongly, in your opinion, do the members of these groups who live in Germany differ from Germans in their lifestyles?" Differences concerning lifestyle: Do following ethnical groups differ from Germans concerning. The [country] lifestyle? If autochtoneous (3) Most Muslims in the Netherlands have respect for the Dutch culture

Contextual aspects (migrants)

CZ0 015

Minority

HU0 022

Lifestyle

Population and Housing Census 2001 Socio-demographic research on foreigners immigrating to Hungary "Citizen"

Nationality - indicate what nationality you consider yourself to be Please tell me, in your opinion, to which class of society your parents belong(ed) considering their lifestyle?

Societal aspects

NO0 002, NO0 058

Minority

Living conditions among immigrants, 2005/2006, Living conditions among immigrants, 2005/2006. Supplementary sample

Do you or oyour family belong to any ethnic, national, linguistic or religious minority in your or your parents' country of origin?

Table 19: National count datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database ID of data Key word Name of dataset Wording of item set Dataset on teaching of native Number of children learning language of PL0 language for children and ethnic or national minority or children of Minority Roma origin attending additional classes in 097 youth from national or ethnic kindergarten divisions of the primary school. minorities (S-15 form) Dataset on teaching of native Number of children learning language of PL0 language for children and ethnic or national minority or children of Minority Roma origin attending additional classes in 097 youth from national or ethnic kindergarten divisions of the primary school. minorities (S-15 form) PL0 018

Minority

Information system on education (ISE) (since 2007)

PL0 017

Minority

Information system on education (ISE)


Number of students attending ethnic minority, national minority or regional language classes: [language] Number of students attending ethnic or national minority language classes: [language]

57

Table 20: European comparative survey datasets of keyword search in PROMINSTAT database Key ID of dataset Name of dataset Wording of item word Structural integration Cultural integration

BE0047

Culture

The Integration of the European Second generation Survey (TIES Survey)

DE0046, AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027, GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028, NL0056, NO0070, SE0068

Minority

Eurobarometer 47.1

DE0046, DE0047

Culture


Eurobarometer 47.1, 1997, Eurobarometer 53, 2000

The idea that all groups in Belgium become closer and mix their cultures The idea that all groups in Belgium perpetuate their culture and spend time mainly with people of their own cultural group. The idea that all minorities in Belgium renounce their culture and adopt the Belgian culture. The majority of young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims believe that also at home, it is important to adopt the Belgian culture and lifestyle as much as possible. The majority of young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims believe that also at school and work, it is important to maintain the Turkish/ Moroccan/ Muslim culture and lifestyle as much as possible The majority of young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims believe that at home it is important to maintain the Turkish/ Moroccan/ Muslim culture and lifestyle as much as possible. The majority of young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims believe that at school and work, it is important to adopt the Belgian culture and lifestyle as much as possible. According to you, would you say that living together with people of different origins in [Brussels/ Antwerp] is threatening or enriching for your own culture? People from these minority groups are enriching the cultural life of (country)

Minority groups must give up their religion or culture which may be in conflict with (nationality) law

Minority groups must give up their own culture

58

AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027, GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028, NL0056, NO0070, SE0068

Culture

Eurobarometer 47.1

In order to become fully accepted members of (NATIONALITY) society, they must give up their own culture. In order to be fully accepted members of (NATIONALITY) society, people belonging to these minority groups must give up such parts of their religion or culture which may be in conflict with (NATIONALITY) law. In order to be fully accepted members of (NATIONALITY) society, people belonging to these minority groups must give up their own culture. The right to one's own language and culture


DE0047

Culture

Eurobarometer 53, 2000

AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027, GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028, NL0056, NO0070, SE0068, DE0046

Minority

Eurobarometer 47.1

DE0046

Minority

Eurobarometer 47.1, 1997

What do you think ought to be done to improve the relationship between people of different races, religions, cultures in our country? What do you think ought to be done to improve the relationship between people of different races, religions, cultures in our country? Do you have many friends, some friends or no friends at all amongst people from these minority groups? Minority: Could you imagine having a close relationship with someone from this (minority) group, or not?


DE0047

Belongin g



Belongin g

Eurobarometer 47.1

In two or three generations' time, people belonging to these minority groups will be like all other members of society People belonging to these minority groups are so different, they can never be fully accepted members of (nationality) society In two or three generations' time, people belonging to these minority groups will be like all other members of society. Not everybody belonging to these minority groups wants to be a member of (NATIONALITY) society. People belonging to these minority groups are so different, they can never be fully accepted members of (nationality) society Whether people belonging to these minority groups can be fully accepted members of (NATIONALITY) society depends on which group they belong to.


59

AT0089, BE0054, DK0013, ES0041, FI0039, FR0054, GR0007, IE0024, IT0042, LU0031, NL0059, PT0023, SE0071

Affinity

Eurobarometer 60.1

To which of the following countries/regions do you feel the greatest affinity?

DE0101

Affinity

Eurobarometer 60.1 east

DE0102

Affinity

Eurobarometer 60.1 west

Culture

Eurobarometer 53, 2000, Eurobarometer 47.1, 1997

To which of the following countries/regions do you feel the greatest affinity? To which of the following countries/regions do you feel the greatest affinity? Do you personally have the feeling that you belong in (your country) to one of the majority groups or one of the minority groups in terms of race, religion or culture?

Culture

Eurobarometer 57.2

BE0047

Culture



Minority

Eurobarometer 47.1

DE0046, DE0047 AT0087, BE0053, CZ0030, DE0099, DE0100, DK0012, ES0040, FI0038, FR0053, UK0029, GR0006, HU0050, IT0041, LU0030, NL0058, PL0058, PT0022, SE0070

I feel (NATIONALITY) because I share with my fellow (NATIONALITY) a common culture, customs and traditions. The idea that for all groups in Belgium, the culture of origin is only of secondary importance and that people learn to consider themselves and others as individual citizens. The idea that minorities do not belong in Belgium because their culture is different from the Belgian one. Do you personally have the feeling that you belong in (our country) to one of the majority groups or one of the minority groups in terms of race, religion and culture?

Majority society (openness)


Belongin g

Eurobarometer 47.1

(OUR COUNTRY) has reached its limits; if there were to be more people belonging to these minority groups we would have problems.

DE0046

Culture


(Country)'s diversity in terms of race, religion and culture adds to is its strengths

AT0089, BE0054, DK0013, ES0041, FI0039, FR0054, GR0007, IE0024, IT0042, LU0031, NL0059, PT0023, SE0071, DE0047

Culture


(Country)'s diversity in terms of race, religion and culture adds to its strengths

Eurobarometer 47.1

Amongst the groups of people who live in (OUR COUNTRY) and who are not of the same race, religion or culture as yourself, which one group strikes you as being particularly different from yourself and which you find sometimes disturbing ?

AT0089, BE0054, DK0013, ES0041, FI0039, FR0054, GR0007, IE0024, IT0042, LU0031, NL0059, PT0023, SE0071

Culture


60

DE0046, DE0047

Culture

Eurobarometer 47.1, 1997, Eurobarometer 53, 2000

DE0046

Culture


AT0095, SI0026

Culture

International Social Survey 2003 (ISSP 2003)

Culture

International Social Survey (ISSP) 1995

AT0096, SI0025

BE0047

Culture


Generally speaking about people from minority groups in term of race, religion, culture, do you think there are too many, a lot but not too many or not many living in our country? Groups of people who live in (country) and who are not of the same race, religion, culture as yourself, which one strikes you as being particularly different from yourself and which you find sometimes disturbing? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Immigrants improve (COUNTRY NATIONALITY) society by bringing in new ideas and cultures How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Immigrants make [Britain] more open to new ideas and cultures I accept that also at school and work, young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims maintain the Turkish/ Moroccan/ Muslim culture and lifestyle as much as possible I accept that at home, young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims maintain the Turkish/ Moroccan/ Muslim culture and lifestyle as much as possible. I expect that also at home, young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims adopt the Belgian culture and lifestyle as much as possible. I expect that at school and work, young Turks/ Moroccans/ Muslims adopt the Belgian culture and lifestyle as much as possible.


Culture


Eurobarometer 47.1

Is there any one group in (OUR COUNTRY) which is not of the same race, religion or culture as yourself and which you think some (NATIONALITY) people find sometimes disturbing? It is a good thing for any society to be made up of people from different races, religions and cultures. Speaking generally about people from minority groups in terms of race, religion and culture, do you think that there are not many, a lot but not too many, or too many of them living in this country?

61


Culture

Eurobarometer 47.1

There is a limit to how many people of other races, religions and cultures a society can accept.

DE0047

Culture


DE0046, AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027, GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028, NL0056, NO0070, SE0068

Minority

Eurobarometer 47.1

DE0047

Minority


There is a limit to how many people of other races, religions or cultures a society can accept In schools where there are too many children from these minority groups, the quality of education suffers People from these minority groups abuse the system of social benefits In schools where there are too many children from these minority groups, the quality of education suffers People from these minority groups abuse the system of social benefits

Eurobarometer 47.1 The following datasets contain questions to migrants as well as to the autochthonous population. The answers of the autochthonous population can be interpreted within the dimension of the openness of the majority society. The answers of migrants refer to the cultural and identificative dimension (see details on the datasets under cultural and identificative integration). The Integration of the European Second generation Survey (TIES Survey): BE0047, Eurobarometer 47.1: AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027,GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028,NL0056, NO0070, SE0068, DE0046, AT0129, BE0051, DK0010, ES0038, FI0036, FR0051, UK0027, GR0004, IE0021, IT0039, LU0028, NL0056, NO0070, SE0068, Eurobarometer 53, 2000: DE0047 DE0047

Minority

Contextual aspects (migrants)

BE0025, BE0026, BE0027, LU0019, NO0067, PL0010, PT0017, AT0083, AT0084, CZ0021, CZ0022, DK0006, DK0007, EE0004, FI0033, FI0034, FR0044, FR0046, DE0089, DE0090, GR0001, GR0002, HU0047, HU0048, IE0013, IE0017, IT0032, IT0033, LU0022, LU0020, NO0068, PL0026, PT0019, SK0003, SI0031, ES0034, ES0035, SE0047, SE0048, CH0100, CH0101, NL0052, NL0051, UK0023, UK0025, SE0059, AT0120, BG0001, CH0103, CY0001, DE0094, DK0008, EE0005, ES0036, FI0035, FR0048, UK0026, HU0049, IE0018, LV0004, NL0053, NO0069, PL0027, PT0020, RO0001, RU0001, SI0012, SK0004, UA0001

European Social Survey (ESS1), European Social Survey (ESS2), European Social Survey (ESS3)

Minority

Do you belong to a minority ethnic group in [country]?

Societal aspects


62

Annex B - Questionnaire on integration

Questionnaire on Thematic Study on Integration For the completion of the Thematic Study on Integration we kindly ask you to answer the following questions on integration statistics/research for your country. If it is not possible to answer all questions, we will appreciate the partial completion of the questionnaire as well as your comments.

1.

Name

2.

Country

3.

Definition of ‚integration‘ a. Is there a commonly used definition of ‚integration‘ in your country? Yes

No

If Yes, please quote:

b. Which target groups does ‘integration’ mainly refer to in your country (e.g. third country nationals)?


63

4.

Datasets on integration a. Which are the three most important datasets used in recent integration research in your country (either multi-topic datasets or linked / easily linkable datasets)? 1. 2. 3.

5.

Integration monitoring systems on a national level a. Are there integration monitoring systems on a national level in place in your country? Yes

No

If Yes, please describe briefly:

b. Who are these systems commissioned by?

c. How frequently are they conducted and since when?

d. How are they accessible?

e. Which key indicators are used to measure integration (please provide a list of key indicators or a link to the respective online source)?

6.

Optional question a. Please provide comments on recommendations for improving EU-wide harmonised integration research.

Thank you very much for your time and effort!


64