Immigrants and their children Social Mobility across generations

1. Immigrants and their childrenSocial Mobility across generations The relative position of migrants Brussels, 7 May, 2010 Claudine Attias-Donfut, CNAV, Ageing Research Direction & CNRS Centre Edgar Morin, Paris

2. Outline of the presentation Introduction of some aspects of the theory of social mobility into the study of immigrants and their children. How to evaluate social mobility (objective and subjective) �across frontiers?� Evidence from France (presentation of a quantitative survey) What are the determinants of social mobility: For immigrants : does ceteris paribus the social status during childhood (social and cultural capital) have an influence on their success in the country of destination? For immigrants�s children: Are the inequalities mainly determined by the socio-economic conditions of the families in the country of immigration? Or -Is there any influence of the social milieu of origin (Grandparents in birth country)? And -Do ethnic origins (parents birth country) play a role?

3. The sociology of immigration Influence of migration on social mobility in the recipient country (Mills, 1951; Sauvy, 1965) Impact of migration on the social mobility of the individuals -Intra-generational mobility: difference between first and last job (Chiswick, 1979; Dayan et al. 1997..) -Inter-generational mobility mostly focused on differences between first and second generation in country of destination (Meurs et al., 2005, ..) (because of lack of information on immigrants�s parents in country of origin)

4. 10% of the French populationare immigrants (2008) France has been an immigration country for more than 150 years; immigration takes the form of ��lasting infusion��(H�ran, 2006), which deeply alter the composition of the population, with the passing of the generations. In the total population, one out of four has at least one grandparent who was an immigrant Half of the migrants are French citizens, as well as more than 80% of their children This phenomenon raises important and topical issues concerning integration and life chances of immigrants and successive generations

5. Empirical data : PRI survey in France PRI survey, on transition to retirement of immigrants (Enqu�te sur le Passage � la Retraite des Immigr�s ) data set collected from December 2002 to November 2003. Representative sample of 6 211 immigrants living in all regions in France (persons born abroad by a foreign parent ) in age groups 45-70, Randomly selected on the basis of the population census . About 51% of the respondents come from Europe, 38% come from Africa and 11% come from all other continents Information about each child given by each interviewee: 19285 children are precisely described : the sample includes all of the children of the same family living or not living in France (12% live outside of France). Focus on the influence of family life and intergenerational links on integration and well being of older and younger generations Results published in: C. Attias-Donfut and al., L�enracinement, Paris: Armand Colin, 2006; C. Attias-Donfut and F.C. Wolff, Le destin des Enfants d�Immigr�s. Un d�sencha�nement des g�n�rations, (The social destiny of children of migrants. Unchaining generations), Paris: Stock, 2009 C. Attias-Donfut and Dimova R. ��Social mobility �sans frontieres�. Results from a survey on immigrants in France�� European societies, forthcoming 2010 Our survey differs from most of the studies done on young people from immigrant backgrounds from at least three standpoints. First and foremost, it is not limited to certain categories of immigrants but covers all those born outside of France, of foreign origin, whether they come from Africa, Asia, Europe or elsewhere. This allows for comparisons between every country and continent. Our choice was motivated both by a refusal to take an ethnic-based vision of immigration; As you know in France, the notion of immigr�s is mainly used to speak about African or Arabs instead of ethnicity, which is a taboo notion. In this survey we can compare people from any origin. This comparison was made possible by the size of the sample (6,200 immigrants and close to 20 000 children). Secondly, the data on immigrant offspring comes from their parents and looks at all the children in each participating family, making it possible to compare the destinies of different siblings of the same family, which can vary widely, as our study shows, especially between those who live in France and those who continue to live abroad, which is the case for a tenth of all the children studied. � Finally our approach consisted in describing the offspring of immigrants in their family environment, analysing their inter-generational links and trying to understand their school histories and social mobility in terms of their relationships with their parents. In general, focus isput mainly on immigrant labor, which obscures the involvement of multiple generations in the immigrant enterprise. Rarely have family systems been used as the unit of investigation despite the fact that migration is a family decision with consequences for older generations as well as for the young. Our survey differs from most of the studies done on young people from immigrant backgrounds from at least three standpoints. First and foremost, it is not limited to certain categories of immigrants but covers all those born outside of France, of foreign origin, whether they come from Africa, Asia, Europe or elsewhere. This allows for comparisons between every country and continent. Our choice was motivated both by a refusal to take an ethnic-based vision of immigration; As you know in France, the notion of immigr�s is mainly used to speak about African or Arabs instead of ethnicity, which is a taboo notion. In this survey we can compare people from any origin. This comparison was made possible by the size of the sample (6,200 immigrants and close to 20 000 children). Secondly, the data on immigrant offspring comes from their parents and looks at all the children in each participating family, making it possible to compare the destinies of different siblings of the same family, which can vary widely, as our study shows, especially between those who live in France and those who continue to live abroad, which is the case for a tenth of all the children studied. � Finally our approach consisted in describing the offspring of immigrants in their family environment, analysing their inter-generational links and trying to understand their school histories and social mobility in terms of their relationships with their parents. In general, focus isput mainly on immigrant labor, which obscures the involvement of multiple generations in the immigrant enterprise. Rarely have family systems been used as the unit of investigation despite the fact that migration is a family decision with consequences for older generations as well as for the young.

6. The size of the sample allow us to compare the main countries of immigration which are the 3 from S E and the 3 from N A, The distribution of children genetation is different from that of parents, because of the difference in the family size between the different groups.The size of the sample allow us to compare the main countries of immigration which are the 3 from S E and the 3 from N A, The distribution of children genetation is different from that of parents, because of the difference in the family size between the different groups.

8. Different ways of evaluating intergenerational social mobility First generation: -Comparing professional status of father/migrant at the end of the career (blue collar workers, white collar workers and professionals). -Comparing standard of living during childhood and at the end of the career -Subjective social mobility auto reported Second generation: -Comparing professional status & standard of living of migrant/adult child (at the same stage of the lifecourse) -Subjective social mobility auto reported Since the primary focus of this study is to evaluate the selection of immigrants by comparing their socio-economic status during childhood in the origin country with their socio-economic status at the end of their career in France we first take a look at the distribution of migrants by socio-economic status during childhood and socio-economic status at the end of career. We use two different definitions of socio-economic status. First, we divide the immigrants into 3 different groups: poor, middle class and rich based on questions placing each immigrant in one of these categories during childhood and end of career, respectively. Secondly, we compare the professional background of the immigrant on the basis of the profession held by the migrant�s father during that migrant�s childhood and compare this professional status with the professional status of the migrant at the end of his or her career in France. Our professional status categories are again three and include black collar workers, white collar workers and professionals. Since the primary focus of this study is to evaluate the selection of immigrants by comparing their socio-economic status during childhood in the origin country with their socio-economic status at the end of their career in France we first take a look at the distribution of migrants by socio-economic status during childhood and socio-economic status at the end of career. We use two different definitions of socio-economic status. First, we divide the immigrants into 3 different groups: poor, middle class and rich based on questions placing each immigrant in one of these categories during childhood and end of career, respectively. Secondly, we compare the professional background of the immigrant on the basis of the profession held by the migrant�s father during that migrant�s childhood and compare this professional status with the professional status of the migrant at the end of his or her career in France. Our professional status categories are again three and include black collar workers, white collar workers and professionals.

9. First generation: Separate analyses by country (continent) of origin social status of the first generation as dependent ordered variable: poor/middle/rich in France explanatory variables: years of education of the respondent age of the respondent; the respondent lives with a partner the respondent was rich during childhood the respondent was poor during childhood years since coming to France; the primary reason for migrating was insecurity; the primary reason for migrating was work or career; the respondent lived in a village during childhood; the respondent has no problems with spoken and written French.

10. Main results High level of social mobility among European migrants Upper strata mobility more restrictive among non european migrants Decrease in the poverty rate among non European migrants Significant influence of the level of education and of the status of origin in every group, European and non European It can easily be seen that the majority of migrants experienced positive selection into France and this was especially true for European migrants who are characterized by positive mobility according to all three categories examined. For example, while about 5% of the North Europeans came from poor families, the proportion of poor migrants at career end in France was close to 0. At the same time, the proportion of middle-class North European decreased by 20 % and the proportion of rich North Europeans increased by as much as 30%. For South Europeans migration decreased the proportion of the poor from more than 20% to about 5%, increased slightly the proportion of the middle class and significantly increased the proportion of the rich, from around 10% to around 25%. Migration also decreased significantly the proportion of the poor among the East Europeans, while increasing only slightly the proportion of the middle class and increasing more significantly the proportion of the rich. While European migrants experienced high level of social mobility in all strata of the society, the mobility of non-European migrants in the upper strata was more restrictive. Specifically, while migration decreased the proportion of the poor among the North and South African and the Middle Eastern immigrants from more than 20 % to less than 10%, and kept it relatively stable at 5% among the American and 10% among the Asian immigrants, the proportion of rich North African, Middle East and American immigrants remained stable at around 10%, 20% and 40%, respectively and the proportion of rich South African and Asian immigrants fell from around 30% to around 20%. Meanwhile, the proportion of the middle class immigrants from all these origins increased only slightly. It can easily be seen that the majority of migrants experienced positive selection into France and this was especially true for European migrants who are characterized by positive mobility according to all three categories examined. For example, while about 5% of the North Europeans came from poor families, the proportion of poor migrants at career end in France was close to 0. At the same time, the proportion of middle-class North European decreased by 20 % and the proportion of rich North Europeans increased by as much as 30%. For South Europeans migration decreased the proportion of the poor from more than 20% to about 5%, increased slightly the proportion of the middle class and significantly increased the proportion of the rich, from around 10% to around 25%. Migration also decreased significantly the proportion of the poor among the East Europeans, while increasing only slightly the proportion of the middle class and increasing more significantly the proportion of the rich. While European migrants experienced high level of social mobility in all strata of the society, the mobility of non-European migrants in the upper strata was more restrictive. Specifically, while migration decreased the proportion of the poor among the North and South African and the Middle Eastern immigrants from more than 20 % to less than 10%, and kept it relatively stable at 5% among the American and 10% among the Asian immigrants, the proportion of rich North African, Middle East and American immigrants remained stable at around 10%, 20% and 40%, respectively and the proportion of rich South African and Asian immigrants fell from around 30% to around 20%. Meanwhile, the proportion of the middle class immigrants from all these origins increased only slightly.

11. Subjective social mobility Question Did you socially succeed: better, the same or less than your parents? The large majority in the workforce- 69%- felt on the whole that they had been more successful than their parents. The perception of intergenerational social mobility was particularly common among immigrants from North Africa (74%). Among the retirees the feeling of upward mobility is higher (76% on average and 82% of the North African retirees)

12. Main conclusion In the main, upward intergenerational social mobility (with more or less generational distance) The level of education is highly determinant, however: Among people of the same country of origin, with the same level of education, the �milieu� of origin remains significant This is the confirmation of ��Dominance effect�� (Boudon)

13. Second generation Level of education of adult immigrants�s children Subjective social mobility

14. Factors of inequalities in educational performances Main questions: Are inequalities in educational performance mainly determined by the socio-economic conditions of the families in the country of immigration? or Is there any influence of the social milieu of origin (in the birth country)? and Do ethnic origins (birth country) play a role?

15. ResultsGirls are doing better than boys characteristics of the children with higher education* (in families where only part of the children have diploma of higher education, but not all of them) Female *** Age (younger cohorts)*** Rank : no significant *logit (conditional probability)

16. Factors of inequalities in educational performance* Girls Large families - N brothers-N sisters + Parents education (> elementary school +) Parents standards of living Parents social milieu in birth country Parents language difficulties Bad neighbourhood(-) Boys Large families - N brothers+N sisters - Parents education (> secondary school +) Parents standards of living Parents social milieu in birth country Parents language difficulties ++ Bad neighbourhood(-)

17. Country effects?Reference :Europe N and Centre* Girls No country difference except 2 weak effects (.05) Turkish origin � Asian origin+ Boys No country difference except 1 effect (.001) Asian origin + While young women of Turkish origin stand out as the only group with lower qualifications on average, this is due to family issues and the traditional roles that continue to be attributed to them, as the anthropological studies done on this group have demonstrated. These studies also highlight the increasing trend towards resistance on their part, which, although still relatively passive, nevertheless heralds a rapid emancipation for women in the Turkish community. As for the better school performance recorded for Asian children, it is certainly due to the support their families receive from their social networks, the cohesion and density of which have already been demonstrated in the studies on these groups. Strong family mobilisation is a frequently found characteristic of immigrant families, both poor and well to do, and it plays a decisive role in the scholastic success of their offspring, some of whom have had spectacular ascensions. While young women of Turkish origin stand out as the only group with lower qualifications on average, this is due to family issues and the traditional roles that continue to be attributed to them, as the anthropological studies done on this group have demonstrated. These studies also highlight the increasing trend towards resistance on their part, which, although still relatively passive, nevertheless heralds a rapid emancipation for women in the Turkish community. As for the better school performance recorded for Asian children, it is certainly due to the support their families receive from their social networks, the cohesion and density of which have already been demonstrated in the studies on these groups. Strong family mobilisation is a frequently found characteristic of immigrant families, both poor and well to do, and it plays a decisive role in the scholastic success of their offspring, some of whom have had spectacular ascensions.

18. Comments on the results How do parents social milieu in the birth country play a role across borders? The direction of financial transfers depends on the income of the family left behind Transnational social networks, linked to social capital Habitus (sense of social legitimacy) The differences in ethnic and cultural background do not affect the cognitive performances of children

19. Children social mobilityseen by parents Subjective question: Is your son (daughter) succeeding : better, the same or less than you? According to parents, the majority of children (61% ) are doing better than themselves, and 22% the same: On the whole, intergenerational transmission of the desire to succeed which has been the main motivation to migrate. Less than 10% children are seen in a downward social mobility: No country difference among daughters but more frequent (significantly) among sons of migrants from Algeria and Sub-Sahara Africa (10 �12%)

20. The integration of immigrants children into the world of work Same distribution of second generation by occupational status and branch of industry as general population, unlike first generation (Meurs,Pailh�,Simon, Ined/Ehf) More frequent unemployment (mainly among educated men from algerian and morrocan origin) More frequent women inactivity (masked unemployment ?)

21. Concluding remarks A great diversity among immigrants (country and milieu of origin) The majority of Children is on the path to success. The family socioeconomic conditions and the neighbourhood are more determinant than country of origin The parents social milieu of origin is more determinant than ��ethnicity�� or country of origin Better performance and less problems among immigrants daughters Only a small minority has serious problems