Same people – different context = different outcomes?
Role of systemic, the policy and the direct environment
Three cases
Messing Vera, Ph.D.
Center for Policy Study, CEU, Budapest;
Center for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Winter School on Generational Inequalities
3‐5 November, CEPS, Brussels
Difficulties answering the question?
This is a very much relevant question, especially for policy making;
But difficult to study: both conceptually, but even more so methodologically. Three levels/examples:
 REF’ study of the same people in different contexts (Roma students’ migrating from Sk, CZ to UK); (also: Judit Durst)
 TIES’ study of a group that shares ethnic background in different educational systems (2nd generation migrant Turkish in 13 cities of 7 countries; (also: EDUMIGROM)
 NEUJOBS’ study of how policies try to target and reach out to unemployed Roma in Hungary and Spain and support their labour market integration;
Example 1: Migrant Roma students at home and the UK
 REF (2011): From Segregation to Inclusion. Roma pupils in the UK. A Pilot research project analyzing how migrant Roma students from Chech
Republic and Slovakia to the UK manage in British schools.  In Cz and Sl the vast majority of Roma students attended special schools for mentally deprived children which are also racially segregated. After migrating to the UK they were included in mainstream primary and secondary schools.  The average performance ‐ of the same students, who were identified with mental disabilities in Cz and SL – proved to be very close to ‐ just below ‐ the average;  They learnt English quickly and well;
 Only 2‐4% were regarded as requiring special educational needs because of learning disabilities;
 None of the had a statutory assessment for special education needs SEN.
Example 1: Students´ & parents’ experiences of the difference between SK, Cz and UK schools
Country of emigration: Slovakia, Czech Republic
United Kingdom
They did not receive any special support, despite the ‚special’ nature of the school
They received support in studying English as a foreign language and in any subject matter the teacher deemed it necessary
everyday experience of racial hatred and bullying on the side of children and adults
No experiences of racial bullying
Segregated school or classes
Racially and socially inclusive schools
Often even hostile teachers, psychological and physical punishment
Helpful and non‐discriminating teachers; respecting dignity of students
Everyday practices of racial discrimination No experiences of discrimination
No attention to cultural diversity
Multicultural curriculum
Example 2: Second generation Turkish
migrants in 13 European cities
TIES project. Crul, Schneider, Lelie (2012): The European Second Generation Compared. Does the Integration Context Matter?
„Educational institutional arrangements are a main driving force behind school level differences”.
Analyzing 2nd generation Turkish migrants’ chances and performance in 13 European cities of 7 countries;
Hypothesis: the integration context matters ‐> Differences in performance and opportunities can be attributed to variations of school systems and educational policies to a large extent;
I would add: ‐ These differences affect majority students as well, but to a lesser extent, as their parents are better equipped with information and social capital to navigate in and overcome failures of the educational system;
‐‐ The general level of xenophobia and discrimination is also an important factor which was not included in the analysis.
Example 2: Second generation Turkish migrants ‐ Findings
Differences of the educational systems with regards to:

age at which the child becomes involved in formal education (Fr versus A, G); This is important in terms of language skills and socialization;

pathways through the system (opportunity of upstreaming; procedures of ‚failure’, grading and assessment);

nature and rigidity of the tracking system (age of selection; aspects of selection and permeability between tracks);
 nature of the school system (stratified versus comprehensive)
explain a lot of the differences of the opportunities of migrant students. The study found the more comprehensive systems –i.e. Swedish an French – are highly favorable (over 50% of 2nd generation Turkish reach tertiary education), while the more stratified ones – i.e. German, Austrian ‐ systems unfavorable for migrant students’ career (7‐10% reach tertiary education).
Example 3: Roma employment in Hungary and Spain Do policies make a differnence?
 NEUJOBS WP19: Policy puzzles with Roma employment.  5 countries – Bg, E, Hu, Sk, Ro – analyzing how ALMP reach out (or not) to marginalized Roma unemployed.  Employment rate of Roma is between 25‐35% in Hungary (depending on the definition applied in the survey – 2011 national surveys, 2011 FRA) and 40‐60% in Spain (depending on the definition and the time of the survey: EU‐Inclusive 2011, FSG 2005);
 The crisis hit low skilled Roma’s employment opportunities hard in both countries. Most important reasons behind low
employment
Hungary
Spain
 Low education relative to mainstream population;
 The immense disadvantage of low education on odds of employment;
 Post transition crisis ‐> regional disadvantages;
 Structure of the economy disadvantageous for low skilled workers;
 High level of racial discrimination;
 Poor policy responses;
 Low educational levels in absolute terms (60% have no completed primary education);
 Crisis of 2008;
 Relatively lowerer level of discrimination;
 Significant gender gap;
Most important differences shaping
employment opportunities
Hungary
Spain
 Economic structure unfavorable to  Economic structure provides opportunities for the low skilled low skilled;
(tourism, construction,  Self‐employment is expensive and agriculture);
bureaucratic;
 Easy self‐employment and family  Costs of formal employment is high business schemes;
(contributions and taxes);
 Tradition of self employment;  High level of discrimination.
 Relatively low level of discrimination;
 Good policy responses
Policy responses: Color blind, mainstreaming policies
 Job creation = public employment
The dominant ALMP in Hungary, marginal in othe EU countries (EUROSTAT 2011): 70%
62%
60%
Spain (2011)
50%
41%
40%
30%
Hungary (2011)
28%
24%
26%
20%
10%
EU28 (2009)
37%
12%
7%
15%
9%
12%
16%
2%
7%
0%
Training
Employment
incentives
Supported
Direct job creation
employment and
rehabilitation
Start-up incenti
The Hungarian model: color blind job creation: public work
‐ Immense (200th unemployed involved) –> 100billion HUF‐ burden on the budget ‐ ‐> consumes all available fund and distracts financial resources from more efficient interventions (training, employment incentives);
‐ This is the only ALMP which reaches out to Roma in significant numbers BUT does not respond to any of the causes of unemployment.
Because: ‐ Does not support labour market reintegration ‐> in contrast, it is a vicious circle for unemployed;
‐ Reduces motivation of unemployed to actively search a job;
‐ Results in irrational economic decisions (by offering cost‐free workforce);
‐ Does not provide training, tackle geographical disparities; discrimination;
‐ Improves labour statistics; politically easy to sell;
The Spanish model: combination of mainstreaming and ethnically targeted programs
 Universal and inclusive social welfare net;
 Pragmatic approach: targeting problems (i.e. housing, employment, education) and not groups;
 BUT: involving Roma communities in inclusion programs: a major distributor of EU Funds is a Roma NGO (FSG), which operates ACCEDER, the flagship Roma inclusion program of Spain. It responds to some of the causes of high unemployment such as:

discrimination (affirmative action and awareness raising);

low educational levels (offering training and councelling);

geographical inequalities (urban poverty). The dilema of targeting
 Mainstreaming , general (aiming at unemployed per se);
 Mainstreaming but targeting certain vulnerabilities:
 Demographic traits (youth, elderly, mothers with young children etc.;
 Labour market situation (long‐term unemployed);
 Health situation, disability;
 Territorial disadvantages (disadvantaged micro‐regions, or urban areas) (33 MDR in HU; Llei de Barris in Cat.)
 Ethnic targeting (Roma employment programs);
 ACCEDER: ethnic targeting is not made on the level of beneficiaries but on the level of the distribution of ‐ major EU ‐ funds.  Hungarian „roma employment programs’ are local, project based.
 Targeting the mainstream society: discrimination and exclusion.
Umbrella over policy fields: national Roma integration strategies
 EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS)
 Explicit political commitment to Roma inclusion
 Intention: channeling of targeted solutions through mainstream institutions ‐> Roma should be explicitly named as vulnerable in national programs. The principle of „Explicit but not exclusive”.
 National Action Plans on Social Inclusion follow this principle in both countries;
 The practice, however, is that Roma strategies have been pushed onto the existing mainstreaming systems without their targeting techniques carefully adjusted. Thus, they have very little influence on the grounds.
Conclusion
Context of integration does make a difference on many levels:
 Systemic characteristics ‐ educational systems, labour market systems, economic regulatory systems;
 Policies ‐ their design and targeting; the technique of distribution of funds and the involvement of the representatives of the communities; commitment of political actors and stakeholders;
 Individual environment – attitudes of the direct environment: the school, teachers, employers, civil servants .
Thank you for your attention
Related papers are available at:
http://cps.ceu.hu/publications/working‐papers‐and‐
reports
[email protected]