A new study, published in October 2008, finds that the labour market participation rates of migrant women differ between groups of Member States, particularly for third-country migrant women. The study also finds that the age of the migrant woman’s youngest child and how recently she has arrived in the receiving country affects participation rates. It recommends a multi-dimensional approach to tackling migrant women’s exclusion from the labour force.
The European Commission commissioned a study seeking to improve understanding of the labour market outcomes of migrant women in the EU and of the policies that affect these outcomes. The research also aimed to provide the information necessary to address inequalities between men and women, in line with gender equality and social justice agenda. For the purposes of the study, which was conducted by the non-profit research organisation the Rand Corporation and published in October 2008, migrant women were defined as having a foreign country of birth outside the EU, regardless of whether they currently hold EU citizenship in one of the Member States.
The results of the study were primarily based on anonymised EU Labour Force Survey data for 2005 in respect of an initial 20 Member States for which the data were available and where third-country migrant women could be identified. It also referred to more in-depth research provided by two case studies – one on Spain’s programme for regularising the legal status of migrant women and its impact on these women and the other a general study conducted across the EU on work–family reconciliation policy and migrant women’s labour market integration. The study noted that relatively little research has been conducted on migrant women, despite their increasingly significant economic contribution to families and communities through paid work.
Determinants of labour force participation
The study findings showed that migrant women were much less likely than native-born women to combine employment with having young children, while third-country migrant women were more likely to have young children in their households.
The study also found different outcomes for migrant women depending on which Member State they had migrated to: the labour force participation rates of third-country migrant women were substantially lower than those of native-born women in the Member States which the study categorised as ‘old’ migrant receiving countries – that is, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK) and, to a lesser extent, Austria. For example, in Belgium the labour force participation rate for third-country migrant women was about 44%, whereas for native-born women the rate was just over 60%. In the Netherlands, the corresponding figures were 56% compared with 72%. In contrast, in the ‘new’ migrant receiving countries – that is, Greece, Portugal and Spain – the labour force participation rates of third-country migrant women were higher than those of native-born women: in Greece, the rate for third-country migrant women amounted to 60%, compared with around 54% for native-born women; in Spain, these rates totalled 70% compared with 57% respectively, while in Portugal, the corresponding participation rates amounted to 77% and 67% respectively.
These different participation rates are attributed to the different demographics of third-country migrant women, with the average age of those arriving in the ‘new’ receiving countries being generally lower than that of the native-born population. In Spain, for instance, about 55% of third-country migrant women were aged under 35 years, compared with 40% of the native-born population of women.
Even more significant were the age of the woman’s youngest child and how recently migration had occurred. Having a child under the age of five years reduced the labour force participation rate of migrant women more substantially than it did for native-born women. This suggests that migrant women have less access to work-life balance arrangements and to childcare facilities. The differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ receiving countries were also related to the length of time that the migrant woman had been in the receiving country: for example, very low levels of labour force participation were observed in the ‘old’ states for recently arrived migrants. In some of the ‘old’ states, this gap in labour force participation continued even for those who had been in the country for six to 10 years.
Being a woman and a migrant constituted a double disadvantage, particularly in the ‘old’ receiving countries, where third-country migrant women experienced higher levels of unemployment. Migrant women’s unemployment rates in the ‘old’ migrant-receiving and Nordic countries exceeded 10% in all of the countries except the UK. The highest unemployment rates for migrant women were found in Belgium (26.9%), France (20.5%) and Sweden (18%). However, even in the ‘new’ countries, unemployment was still a greater problem for third-country migrant women, even compared with the position of migrant men, with the overall rate being 2.7 percentage points higher for women. Third-country migrant women also had much higher levels of unemployment than migrant women from within the EU and their unemployment rate was 5.6 percentage points higher.
Underemployment and occupational segregation
The differences between native-born and third-country nationals are stark, particularly in the ‘new’ receiving states, where ‘underemployment’ – defined as ‘involuntary part-time work or temporary contract work’ – appears to be more common. These forms of work were consistently more prevalent for third-country migrant women – once again even when compared with third-country migrant men. For example, in Belgium the rate of underemployment was 35% for third-country migrant women, compared with 25% for third-country migrant men. In France, the rate was just over 30% for women, compared with just over 15% for men. Moreover, in relation to temporary employment contracts, the study found that more than half of all employed migrant women in the ‘new’ receiving countries had temporary contracts only.
Looking at the types of jobs carried out by third-country migrant women, the study found that while migrant and native-born women both experienced gender segregation, the former were concentrated in a narrower range of jobs compared with both non-migrant and EU migrant women – such jobs were in sales and services as well as personal and protective services, domestic and care jobs, healthcare, catering and hotels. The study suggests that this ‘indicates that their integration into the EU labour force is at best fractional; they have jobs but lack many of the rights and opportunities that full integration entails’.
In relation to skills and qualifications, the analysis also found that while higher educational levels improved integration, third-country migrant women still had lower labour market participation rates, higher unemployment and higher underemployment than equally qualified non-migrant and EU migrant women. Consequently, third-country migrant women had experienced higher levels of deskilling as a result of migration. The study concluded that structural and systemic obstacles were therefore a factor in explaining the poorer labour market position of third-country nationals.
Commentary
The research makes a number of policy recommendations, including the need for language training and better access to support services for migrant women. However, it warns that individual policies by themselves cannot necessarily counteract migrant women’s labour market disadvantage. The multiple aspects at play in women’s lives, in particular their domestic and childcare commitments, all impact on their labour market outcomes. The research therefore points to the need for a multi-dimensional approach to tackling women’s exclusion from the labour force.
Sonia McKay, Working Lives Research Institute