1 / 22

Immigrant and Canadian-born Family Migration and the Employment Outcomes of Women and Men

Immigrant and Canadian-born Family Migration and the Employment Outcomes of Women and Men. Hongchen Yue Department of Economics University of Manitoba umyueh@cc.umanitoba.ca. Objective of this Study.

leon
Download Presentation

Immigrant and Canadian-born Family Migration and the Employment Outcomes of Women and Men

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Immigrant and Canadian-born Family Migration and the Employment Outcomes of Women and Men Hongchen Yue Department of Economics University of Manitoba umyueh@cc.umanitoba.ca

  2. Objective of this Study • Examine the family migration behavior of immigrants and Canadian-born and the consequences of employment for both men and women. • Analyse in a family and gender perspective, help to understand how ethnicity, gender and employment interact in the process of internal migration and integration

  3. Theoretical Framework • Human-Capital model of family migration by Mincer (1978), Frank (1978) and Sandell (1977) --Empirical evidence indicates the “tied movers” for women (Mincer 1978; Sandell 1977; Spitz 1984; Morrison and Lichter, etc.) • Gender-role model (Bielby and Bielby 1992) --Husband-dominated family vs. egalitarian family -- HC based theory is egalitarian decision making

  4. Theoretical Framework Immigrants’ secondary migration: • ‘Social ties’ (Granovetter 1973; Toney 1976; Wilson and Portes 1980) Immigrants are more mobile or less mobile than the Canadian-born? • Less location specific human capital • Race and ethnic background, enclaves and social ties • Previous studies on Canadian Immigrants internal migration: Newbold (1996), Lin (1998), etc.

  5. Theoretical Framework “Family Investment model” by Baker and Benjamin’s (1997) • “Family composition is an important correlate of immigrant assimilation.” • Variation in employment outcomes across different family types. • Family types: immigrant families, mixed families and native families.

  6. What about today’s family migration? • Participation of women and rates of family dissolution increase • Traditional family structure decreases? • Relocation strategies and behavior of dual-earner families are likely to become more complicated - complex trade-offs and bargain interactions (Lundberge and Pollak 2001)

  7. Modeling Methods • Binary logit models for family migration behavior analysis Mi =1 ifMi* > 0 Mi =0 if Mi * <= 0

  8. Modeling Methods • Self-selection is a problem • Recursive bivariate probit model (Greene 2003) was used for employment consequences analysis (1) (2) The error terms,uiin equation (1) and vi in equation (2), are assumed to be correlated.

  9. Data and Variables • SLID (the Survey of Labor and Income Dynamics) • Pooled eleven two-year cross-sections in the migration model and ten three-year cross sections in the employment model • Census family as the analysis unit, “nuclear family” - Only consider the families of married and common-law couples with or without children - families keep stable and the couples must move together

  10. Data and Variables • Migration is defined as the change of CMA residence or the change of Employment Insurance Region (EIR) from one year to the next. • A cut-off of 1000 hours annually for paid work is used to define the employed (or working people). • All the independent variables measured the pre-move situation, including family and spouses’ characteristics

  11. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates • A. By Joint Education Level

  12. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates • B.By Joint employment Status

  13. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates

  14. Descriptive Statistics

  15. Descriptive Statistics

  16. Results for Family Migration Models

  17. Results for employment equations for Men and Women (from recursive bivariate probit models)

  18. Results for employment equations for Men and Women (from recursive bivariate probit models)

  19. Additional Results • Wives’ characteristic is quite significant in the migration model -- Wife’s education, occupation and participation status are important determinants for family migration but not the employment status. • If husband participates, there is a higher probability of moving, while the probability will diminish if wives participate.

  20. Conclusions • Move has different effect on men and women • Wives are not necessarily the tied-movers • Did not detect important differences between immigrants and native-born on family migrant behavior but found differences on migrant outcomes between immigrant men and native-born.

  21. Future Research • Consider moving reasons, more detailed employment status by month and job search in the research work. • The interval of three to five years after move could be used to see the ‘long-run’ effect . • Separate those who moved more than once from those who made only one move.

More Related