Discrimination A cross country comparison on the Turkish Second Generation Patrick Simon INED Amsterdam, Stakeholder Conference, May 13, 2009

Outline What do we mean when taking about discrimination ? Data collected in the TIES Survey Findings from the TIES survey : –Data on the transition to the labour market –Experience of discrimination –Perception of discrimination

Different words and concepts, same realities ? Inequalities Differences Discrimination Diversity

Concept of discrimination EU Directive, 2000/43/EC (a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on grounds of racial or ethnic origin; (b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Integration vs Discrimination EU race directive 2000, charter for fundamental rights : a duty for equality and non discrimination Antidiscrimination puts the burden on societies (which have to treat fairly anyone with no consideration to ethnic and racial origin), integration puts it on the immigrants or second generation (who have to prove their adaptation to the system to make use of its opportunities) Revealing discrimination is against the traditional strategy for integration of color-blindness (undifferentiation) Producing sameness and reducing the differences with the “mainstream population” and/or promoting equality in diversity ?

Different dimensions of discrimination in the TIES survey Perception of discrimination Experience of discrimination (self reported) Situation of discrimination Impact Assessment : under- representation, gaps and suspicious disparities

Words are important :phrasing discrimination

Collecting information on perception

Context matters Size and visibility of the Turkish community vary across countries and cities The Turkish 2G is a more « visible » minority in Germany, Belgium (Antwerp), Strasbourg and NL, and less in Paris or Stockholm Relative differences of positions between Turkish 2G and the comparison group can be high and increase the feeling of discrimination The awareness of discrimination in countries and cities varies dramatically (see Eurobarometer)

Participation to the labour market by age group and sex, Turks vs comparison group

Transition school to work among MEN by ancestry and country

Transition school to work among WOMEN by ancestry group and country

Unemployment rate of men by ancestry and country

Unemployment rate of women by ancestry and country

Unemployment rate

Disparities in access to the labour market Slower transition for the Turkish 2G (France and Germany) Higher level of unemployment (France and NL) But these disparities will be explained mainly by human capital (level of education and experience on the labour market) Nevertheless, when controling by an index of level of education, differences are still active

Gross level of self-reported discrimination during the lifetime

Experience of discrimination at school

Experience of discrimination at school (cities)

Self reported experience of discrimination in employment

Self reported discrimination in different places/situation

Ranking the top 3 situation/places (« often »)

Main findings (1) Gross experience of discrimination is very comparable when measured by the highest frequency Germany and Belgium have the highest self reported experience of discrimination, Austria and Netherlands the lowest. The neighbourhood is not quoted as a significant place for discrimination. Looking for job is a critical experience (as expected), as is the workplace. The ranking of places/situations is not stable across countries. Unfair treatment at School or when Going out are the most frequently reported in Germany, whereas the workplace and police are the top situations for France.

Determinants of experience of discrimination : Germany

Determinants of experience of discrimination : Netherlands

Determinants of experience of discrimination : France

Determinants of experience of discrimination : Belgium

Main findings (2) A gender effect : discrimination is a male experience –Explanatory hypothesis : women are less exposed (going out and police encounters/ labour market) and may have internalised unequal experience Age plays out differently according to places/situations : –Older persons have a longer exposure (workplace, lifetime), but younger are subject to profiling (going out, police, looking for job). A period effect (School) ? A constant city effect : Strasbourg, Rotterdam and Brussels (Berlin less significantly) A group at risk : young men with vocational education

Perception of discrimination : group exposure

Perception of discrimination in different places/situations

Main findings (3) Perception of discrimination is without any comparison higher than the self-reported experience. Is perception a better indicator to assess « level of discrimination » in a country ? Perception of « racial » discrimination is higher in France than in NL and Germany. Muslims are a major « group at risk » for Dutch and 2G Turks in Germany Looking for jobs and going out are the most common perceived discriminatory situations.

Interaction with related issues (France and Germany) Discrimination and religion : –Small but significant effect on self-reported discrimination by those who have the highest level of practice Discrimination and identity/belonging : –Feeling strongly French or German is negatively correlated to self-reported discrimination (r=.12 and r=.39) –No relation with feeling Turk –Relation with feeling Muslim (r=.10) No relation with political participation

Conclusion It’s up to you now !