Flüchtlinge

The difficulties of integrating male and female refugees into the labour market in Western economies

Introduction

Move­ments of refu­gees have been incre­a­sing for deca­des now. The prio­ri­ty for public admi­nis­tra­ti­ons in Wes­tern socie­ties is to ensu­re that refu­gees achie­ve eco­no­mic inte­gra­ti­on, which will allow them to learn the country’s lan­guage and cus­toms, free them­sel­ves from wel­fa­re pay­ments and con­tri­bu­te to socie­ty. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly striking is the dif­fe­rence bet­ween the rates of labour-mar­ket par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on of male (50%) and fema­le (40%) refu­gees during the ten years fol­lowing their immi­gra­ti­on. The ques­ti­on rai­sed here is whe­ther the­se dif­fe­ren­ces are due to employ­er discri­mi­na­ti­on against fema­le job see­kers, or whe­ther the­re are other fac­tors pre­ven­ting their integration.

The research process

Stu­dy­ing discri­mi­na­ti­on is dif­fi­cult becau­se employ­ers often give social­ly desi­ra­ble respon­ses. To get around this pro­blem, we expe­ri­men­ted by using an online sur­vey in which a sketch (fic­tio­n­al descrip­ti­on of a situa­ti­on) was pre­sen­ted to respondents. The sketch gave a sum­ma­ry of the life of a refu­gee who­se cha­rac­te­ris­tics (gen­der, civil sta­tus, age, etc.) varied in ran­dom fashion. This meant that employ­ers were less likely to noti­ce that we were stu­dy­ing discri­mi­na­ti­on, and hence respon­ded more sin­ce­rely. Employ­ers were shown several sket­ches pre­sen­ting peop­le with very dif­fe­rent pro­files and were invi­ted to indi­ca­te the likeli­hood that they would inter­view any of the can­di­da­tes for a job requi­ring few qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons. We con­duc­ted this stu­dy of discri­mi­na­ti­on in Aus­tria, Ger­ma­ny, and Swe­den, sin­ce the­se coun­tries were most affec­ted by inf­lu­xes of refu­gees from Syria, Iraq and Afgha­ni­stan during the “refu­gee cri­sis” (2011- 2017).

Results

We found that employ­ers favour fema­le refu­gees over their male coun­ter­parts, to a high degree of sta­tis­ti­cal signi­fi­can­ce (as shown in Figu­re 1, whe­re men were asses­sed less favour­a­b­ly than women by about 0.15 points on a sca­le of 1–10). Our explana­ti­on is that men are discri­mi­na­ted against becau­se of nega­ti­ve ste­reo­ty­pes with which they are asso­cia­ted in the media (cri­mi­na­li­ty, aggres­si­ve­ness, drug traf­fi­cking). We also found that employ­ers discri­mi­na­te against peop­le with child­ren (Figu­re 1). The ques­ti­on is to ascer­tain whe­ther this result hides dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween the sexes. Fur­ther ana­ly­ses show that, unli­ke men, women face more discri­mi­na­ti­on if they have children.

Figure 1 | Effects of fictional CV variables on the probability of obtaining a job interview

Figu­re: Alix d’Agostino, DeFacto

Conclusion and implications

Sin­ce employ­ers discri­mi­na­te against male can­di­da­tes, public admi­nis­tra­ti­on should make employ­ers awa­re of ste­reo­ty­pes regar­ding men from the Midd­le East and/or Mus­lim coun­tries. The same goes for refu­gee mothers. Psy­cho­lo­gists sug­gest stra­te­gies to eli­mi­na­te the­se bia­ses invol­ving an inst­ruc­tion to allow employ­ers to con­si­der refu­gees’ point of view and deve­lop empa­thy towards them. Men­to­ring pro­gram­mes in which a pro­fes­sio­nal intro­du­ces a refu­gee to his or her working net­work can also be useful.

Moreo­ver, public admi­nis­tra­ti­on can help refu­gees by pro­po­sing addi­tio­nal inte­gra­ti­on mea­su­res (see Figu­re 1). Fos­sa­ti and Liech­ti (2020) found that employ­ers are more likely to hire refu­gees who, in addi­ti­on to a com­pul­so­ry inte­gra­ti­on cour­se, have taken part in other acti­vi­ties such as a work pla­ce­ment or vol­un­teer work. Unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly, this fin­ding app­lies only to employ­ers who had a posi­ti­ve atti­tu­de towards immi­grants befo­re the stu­dy. This means that inte­gra­ti­on poli­ci­es have no effect on employ­ers who just do not want to work with refugees.

In con­clu­si­on, our fin­dings show that the low employ­ment rates of fema­le refu­gees who are not mothers can­not be exp­lai­ned by employ­er discri­mi­na­ti­on. Rather, low rates pro­bab­ly stem from fac­tors such as tra­di­tio­nal gen­der roles, refu­gees’ lack of edu­ca­ti­on and/or work expe­ri­ence. Clear­ly, a set of diver­si­fied mea­su­res is necessa­ry to tack­le the eco­no­mic inte­gra­ti­on of dif­fe­rent groups of refugees.


Note: This arti­cle was publis­hed as part of IDHEAP Poli­cy Brief No. 7.

Refe­ren­ces:

  • Fos­sa­ti, F., Knotz, C., Liech­ti, F. and I. Otma­ni (2022). The Gen­der Employ­ment Gap among Refu­gees and the Role of Employ­er Discri­mi­na­ti­on: Expe­ri­men­tal Evi­dence from the Ger­man, Swe­dish and Aus­tri­an Labor Mar­kets. Inter­na­tio­nal Migra­ti­on review.

  • Fos­sa­ti, F. and Liech­ti, F. (2020). Inte­gra­ting refu­gees through public poli­cy: A com­pa­ra­ti­ve sur­vey expe­ri­ment on hiring pre­fe­ren­ces. Jour­nal of Euro­pean Social Poli­cy, 30(5) 601–615.

image: flickr.com

image_pdfimage_print