The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden How do immigrants from Norway and Denmark assimilate to the Swedish income level and is the assimilation negative? Authors: Ellinor Ivarsson David Linder Tutor: Mats Hammarstedt Examiner: Dominique Anxo Subject: Economics Level and semester: Bachelor thesis, spring 2013 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Abstract
This essay analyses the earnings between Scandinavian immigrants compared to the Swedish natives (Scandinavia refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden). The researchers have up until today devoted considerable effort to describe the phenomenon involving the positive assimilation, but never taken the time to analyse the appearance of the opposite outcome. The main objective of this essay is to observe if we can detect a case of negative assimilation among the Scandinavian immigrants in Sweden. The reason this paper is focused on Scandinavia is mainly because of the transferability of human capital that these ethnic groups hold, compared to the Swedish natives, with their cultural and linguistic consistency. An empirical analysis has been conducted using OLS on a pooled data sample for immigrants from Norway and Denmark entering the Swedish labour market. Our results show that there is a negative assimilation among the male immigrants at a linear pace. This was observed with the appearance of an initial higher income level than the natives, which implied a regression towards the mean. Among the females no observable assimilation pattern could be detected and they had an entry disadvantage upon arrival in Sweden. 1 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 4 2.1 THE DECISION TO MIGRATE ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 HUMAN CAPITAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 THE NEGATIVE ASSIMILATION ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.5 THE FAMILY CAPITAL ................................................................................................................................................. 9 3. EMPIRICAL APPLICATION ..................................................................................................................... 10 4. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 MODEL SPECIFICAITON ........................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 ESTIMATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 5. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 DANISH AND NORWEGIAN MALES ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.2 DANISH AND NORWEGIAN FEMALES .................................................................................................................... 21 6. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................... 22 7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 26 8. APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................... 28 9. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 32 2 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden 1. Introduction The previous research on the assimilation of immigrants is large and mainly focused on the positive assimilation of immigrants from distant countries with a human capital that is far from perfect transferable to the labour markets of the destination country. This is usually a measure of improvement with the duration of their stay in the new country since the immigrants often enter the labour market with an earnings disadvantage. This study will take a step aside from this trail of tunnel vision and look upon immigrants that might have highly transferable human capital. Chiswick and Miller (2008) did a similar study in the US where they focused on immigrants from developed English speaking countries. They found that those immigrants actually experienced a negative assimilation from an initial earnings advantage instead of a positive assimilation from an initial earnings disadvantage. The countries in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) are developed economies with similar languages and cultures. This study addresses how Danish and Norwegian immigrants assimilate to the Swedish income level and if a negative assimilation could be found also in Scandinavia. Since there is small linguistic and cultural barriers between the countries, the transition of human capital should be more effective and thus also the assimilation of those immigrants. This suggests that the earnings disadvantage should be smaller or even turned into an advantage when the immigrants arrive in Sweden. Hence, if there is an initial earnings advantage instead of a disadvantage the assimilation might be negative. In section 2, you will find a review of previous research and theories on which we will base our study. Section 3 will show relevant numbers from our dataset comparing the immigrants to their counterpart natives. The methodology will be found in section 4 and the results of the regression analysis will be found in section 5. The paper finishes in section 6 and 7 with an analysis of the results and a conclusion. 3 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder 2. Theoretical and empirical framework 2.1 The Decision to Migrate The migration decision is based, according to Nobel Laureate John Hicks (1932), on the net present value of future income. This theory identifies all individuals as rational, from which we base our decision on where we will gain the highest lifetime earnings. The cost of immigrating plays a central role in the migration decision. Some more concrete examples of these costs include transporting costs for the individual and her family (including household goods) and the emotional cost of leaving culture and relatives. An endogenous event that could affect the migration decision could be certain economic opportunity improvements in one of the market regions (Borjas 2010). A 10 percentage-­‐point increase in wage differential increase the probability of migration by about 7 percentage-­‐points (Nakosteen 1980). Another aspect concerning propensity to migrate is the level of education. A research between College and High School graduates in the US resulted in the implication that workers with highly skilled competences are much more likely to migrate across state boarders (US Bureau 2006). The explanation for this is that education improves the abilities to scrutinize the different labour markets, which will imply a reduced migration cost for the individual (Borjas 2010). It is also useful to discuss whether the country of examination experiences a positive or negative selection when analysing the decision to migrate. Positive selection occurs when a country is able to attract highly qualified workers. This is partly determined by how the taxation system is established since high quality immigrants will choose to immigrate in a country where they can capture the highest returns on their human capital investments. A good example of this type of country would be the US with its favourable taxation system for high-­‐income earners. Negative selection occurs when a country attract less qualified workers. If the subsidized structure is too favourable for the unemployed, migrants with lower educational level and less incentive to work will be attracted. Sweden is often described as country that would experience a negative selection (Borjas 2010). 4 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden 2.2 Human Capital The assimilation model is underpinned by the assumption that the immigrant has skills in the originated country that is not perfectly transferable to the country of destination. This is mainly based on that the skills acquired in the lower income origin will lack certain required properties to be directly applicable in the new country. Concrete examples of skills of relevance would be linguistic characteristics, educational credentials, on-­‐the-­‐job training, labour market information, labour market networks, occupational licensing and credentials and also cultural characteristics that will affect the productivity (Borjas 2010). When a person consider moving to another country she has to consider how transferable her skillset is. Immigrants from a country that is very similar to their origin country, in terms of language, technology, culture and legal systems, will find that their skills will be more transferable than the skills of immigrants from more deviant countries (Chiswick 1979). In order to transform the immigrant’s skills to fit the new labour market she needs to make some investments. Some of the investments are made to ease the transition of the already existing skills, like a fisherman learning how to fish in another country, and some of the investments are made to obtain new skills, like an immigrant learning the language of the new country. The investments should be made sooner rather than later in life, with the most profitable investments made first, so that the migrant can capture the return from their investment as many years as possible. This is why it is mostly young workers who migrate, since they can collect the return on their investment for a longer time period. This theoretical approach underlines that the migrant age-­‐earnings profile is steeper than the native age-­‐earning profile, which will imply a convergence between the two. During the investment period, the earnings are low but they increase as they capture the return on the investment. As they increase their skills the opportunity cost of obtaining new skills will rise and the return on these investments will be lower (Ben-­‐Porath 1967). Hence, the curve on earning-­‐duration has an upward slope but the positive slope is decreasing with time. This catch-­‐up concept is a case of positive assimilation. Chiswick (1995) writes about the importance of language as human capital. The “mother tongue” language is acquired when young and parents or caregivers make most of the investment in this human capital. For immigrants it is very important to learn the language of the destination country and Chiswick (1995) shows that there seem to be a 5 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder relationship between earnings and language skills. The author describes a higher market wage rate, a decrease in cost of consumption and a higher rate of employment as economic incentives to acquire language skills (Chiswick 1995). This, in turn, could imply that a person who already has the language skills has a higher human capital and a better opportunity to get economic benefits from migration. 2.3 Historical Overview Sweden’s neutrality in the Second World War saved them from a lot of damage and Since very little capital was destroyed Sweden had an advantage after the war. The booming Swedish economy and the increased production between 1950 and 1970 created a labour shortage through an excessive demand for labour, especially of the low-­‐skilled kind (Magnusson 2000). At the same time the public sector increased rapidly and Sweden soon had the largest public sector among comparable countries (Statistics Sweden 2007). After year 1970 the unemployment increased (Magnusson, 2000) and Sweden experienced a change in the labour markets. Before year 1970 the labour markets were dominated by the traditional industrial sector and a lot of people were employed for production in industries. After year 1970 the labour markets changed. The industrial sector gave way to the service sector in an era to be named the third industrial revolution. More people were employed in costumer-­‐based jobs and the human capital became a very important asset for both the company and the individual. It was no longer enough to be strong and hard working, you had to have social skills, be responsible and flexible in your work (SOU 1999). Thus, the third industrial revolution might have increased the importance of language skills since it became more essential to communicate in order to give costumer-­‐improved service. Another change in the labour demand in Sweden is due to the increasingly globalized economy. Sweden has as many other industrialized countries experienced a decrease in the demand for low-­‐skilled labour and one of the reasons for this is that the productions that use low-­‐skilled labour has moved to countries with lower wages. The well-­‐
developed trade unions in Sweden are sometimes accused for forcing the low-­‐skilled jobs out of the country by keeping the wages at an excessively high level. In the end of the 80’s and in the beginning of the 90’s the low-­‐skilled jobs had a big share of the labour market but as time passed by the number of low-­‐skilled jobs decreased while the high-­‐skilled jobs increased during the whole period (Åberg 2004). 6 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden In 1980 the labour markets once again had a shortage of labour due to an excessive demand on the labour market but this changed drastically in the 90’s (Magnusson 2000). In the beginning of the 90’s the Swedish economy experienced a challenging setback mainly due to the effects of the deregulations on the credit market. The inflation increased rapidly, the export industry stagnated and fell to its lowest point in 1992 and the aggregated demand decreased. From year 1990 to 1993 the unemployment raised from 2 % to 11 % and the immigrants were highly affected. The upturn came in 1997 when unemployment decreased rapidly from 11% to 6 % in 2001. The crisis in the beginning of the 90’s is now known as ‘the labour crisis’ due to the high unemployment and low employment (Holmlund 2011). Between 1990 and 1992 the employment rates for males in Sweden were higher than in the other Scandinavian countries. For the women the employments rates were higher in Sweden between 1990 and 1996 (Feldbaek, 1997). How could a crisis like the one in the 90’s affect the earnings of the immigrants? It is generally known that the macroeconomic environment in a country affects the employment of both immigrants and natives. In an article Barth, Bratsberg and Raaum (2004) show that the employment of immigrants is highly sensitive to macroeconomic factors, more sensitive than the natives. This sensitivity is reflected in the earnings of immigrants. The duration in the destination country should have a positive effect on time as an employed worker, productivity and an improvement in the bargaining position. If the time as an employed worker is short, the immigrant will lose in productivity, skills and decrease the position of bargaining in the market. They describe that a high unemployment increases the gap between native and immigrant earnings as a level effect. They show that when local unemployment increases, earnings of immigrants decrease and that there is no or a very small effect on the earnings of natives (Barth, Bratsberg and Raaum 2004). 2.4 The Negative Assimilation Chiswick and Miller (2008) examined the negative assimilation of immigrants from developed English speaking countries in the US. When the assimilation is negative, the immigrants will first have higher earnings than the average native population but will experience a decrease in earnings with the duration of their stay within the new country. To be able to examine this they look upon developed countries with the same 7 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder language and with similar income levels since they have similar structures of the labour markets and technology. The reason why they found a negative assimilation is based on the individual’s decision to migrate. Consider two developed countries, Alpha and Beta, with the same average level of income for individuals with the same levels of schooling and with perfectly transferable human capital. Why would people from Alpha move to Beta? As explained before, an individual decides to migrate if she will receive a net gain on the migration. This means that the wage-­‐offer in Beta needs to be higher than the wage in Alpha. Since both countries has the same level of income, a higher wage in Beta means that the wage offers on average need to be higher than the wages of the average natives in Beta. Thus, the immigrants from Alpha have, on average, a higher income level than the average natives in Beta. Under the assumptions discussed in section 2.2, the migrant will not make any investments in her human capital if her earnings already exceed the natives because the return on the investments is low or even negative and this is why she might experience a negative assimilation. If the wage does not regress to the mean, it could be a proof that the immigrants are of higher quality than the natives with the same educational level. They might be specialized in an area or have a more attractive skillset than the comparable natives. Chiswick and Miller (2008) looked upon how people from Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand immigrated to the US and how they assimilated to the income level of the natives. It is important to note that there is no countries that have exactly the same average income levels and perfectly transferable human capital, but this set of countries are about as close as they can get. They found that the initial earning advantage of the immigrants from these countries is not persistent in the US; the earnings of the immigrants will regress to the mean. The size of the effect of the negative assimilation is determined by the year of immigration. One explanation for why the year of immigration has an impact on the assimilation could be quality changes of the different cohorts, but the result in their study is ambiguous (Chiswick and Miller 2008). There is reason to believe that this negative assimilation also could be found for Scandinavian immigrants in Sweden since the languages and cultures are very similar which should ease the transition of their human capital. Data from Eurostat (2011) shows that average income levels are higher in both Denmark and Norway than in 8 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Sweden. This would strengthen the argument for a negative assimilation in Sweden since the wage-­‐offers on average need to be higher than the average income levels in the country of origin. However, opposing evidence is found in an article written by Hammarstedt and Shukur (2006). They find that both Nordic males and females enter the Swedish labour market with earning disadvantages and experience a positive assimilation with the duration of their stay. The weakness with this study is that they do not look upon the countries separately to analyse the effects. In their analyse they also include Finland in the data for the Nordic countries and thereby do not put any weight in the importance of linguistic skills. 2.5 The Family Capital If there would be a regression to the mean, so that the immigrant’s wage would decrease, would they move back the country of origin? Some of them probably would. When looking upon two countries with similar income levels and perfect transferable human capital there will be a two-­‐ way migration (Dumont and Lemaitre 2005). The people who stay will probably experience a negative assimilation effect. But why do they stay? Unmarried and childless people are more likely to move back since the cost of moving is minor. If the migrant start a family in the destination country she is less likely to move back since this raises the costs of migration. Therefore she stays, and accepts the negative assimilation if this cost is minor to the cost of return. The economic reason why the incentives for a family to migrate is smaller is that the return on migration increase less than the costs of migration. If the family has children in school-­‐age, the cost of migration is even higher since the location and preferences of schools is limiting the geographic mobility of the family. This also implies that if the children are of pre-­‐school age the choice of school might instead increase the incentives for migration. When a couple is married the difference between gain and loss for the couple together has to be positive. It can occur that the gain for the wife exceeds the loss of the husband enough to make them move even though the husband looses more than he gain on the migration. He will then be a ‘tied mover’ and will experience a net loss from the migration while the family experiences a net gain; he moves only because it is better for the family as a whole (Mincer 1977). 9 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder The decision to stay or not in the new country can also be explained by the probability for the immigrant to consider the migration as a mistake. A study made in the US shows that if the immigrant comes from a low-­‐information country, they are more likely to overestimate their gain of migration and thus have lower realized earnings in the new country. Immigrants from more ‘attractive’ countries with a higher income level and better information about the destination country (in this case the US) will on average have higher realized earnings than other immigrants. They also find that immigrants from more distant countries have higher migration costs and thus higher earnings in the US. However, immigrants from more distant countries might also have more imperfect information about the US and experience lower realized earnings (Jasso and Rosenzweig 1985). 3. Empirical application The transferability of human capital between countries is essential for a good assimilation of the immigrants. In Scandinavia the human capital should be highly transferable since they are developed economies with similar language and culture. Both Denmark and Norway have a higher income level than Sweden and this suggests that the Scandinavian immigrants in Sweden might initially have a higher wage than the natives but in time they will experience a regress to the mean (ie. experience a negative assimilation). Relevant data is found from Statistics Sweden on the 1990, 1995 and 1999 Censuses of population. We analyse immigrant males and females separately for Norway and Denmark and compare them with the native born Swedes. In our research we are focusing on immigrants in working age, from 20 to 64 years old, since we want to compare their income levels to the natives. We have information on the immigrants about age, gender, education, years since immigration (YSM), number of children living at home above age 18 and under age 17, what municipal they migrated to and their marital status. We have divided the immigrants into different cohorts by the years since immigration. A cohort is a group of immigrants arriving at the same period of time. This is very important because it gives a more realistic view since it considers changes in the immigrant population. Various cohorts may exhibit different productivity pattern, which makes it ambiguous to base recent emigrated future earnings on elder emigrated contemporary earnings. This also suggests that there might not be an intersection 10 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden between native and immigrant earnings due to the investments in the immigrant’s human capital and self-­‐selection. An explicit case of this would appear if we were able to identify a decreasing level of skills on each subsequent cohort. Another case that would argue for the importance of using cohorts is the appearance of return migration in certain income groups. A high return migration of low-­‐income groups would give the appearance of a high positively correlated age earnings curve for the remaining high-­‐
income group if you only look upon the immigrants as one merged group (Borjas 1985). The cohorts used in this paper are: Pre-­‐1970, 1971-­‐1980, 1981-­‐1990, 1991-­‐1995 and 1996-­‐1999. Only the first three groups will be observed in 1990, all except the last one will be observed in 1995 and all cohorts will be observed in 1999. Table 1 shows the number of immigrants in working age living in Sweden at each year of observation. In year 1990 there was 3,736 Norwegian immigrants living in Sweden and 4,019 Danish, the Swedish reference group amounted 36,716. In 1995 the number of Norwegian immigrants was 3,354, the Danish was 3,583 and the Swedish group amounted to 37,608. In 1999 the Norwegian group amounted to 3,074, the Danish to 3,180 and the Swedish reference group was 35,296. The amount of Danish immigrants is slightly higher than the Norwegian immigrants each year of observation. The information on these years is drawn from the same sample of individuals. This implies that the differential of the number of immigrants between the years is due to the entries and exits into the working age. We can observe a decreasing number of immigrants in the working age between 1990 and 1999 and this is mirroring the EU problem of an ageing population. 11 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder Table 1: Number of immigrants and natives aged 20-­‐64 by region of birth and time of immigration. Point in time _______________________________________________ 1990 1995 1999 _____________ _____________ ____________ Region of birth Norway 3,736 3,354 3,074 Denmark 4,019 3,583 3,180 Total 7,755 6,937 6,254 Time of immigration Pre-­‐1970 3,864 2,960 2,329 1971-­‐1980 1,737 1,873 1,845 1981-­‐1990 2,154 1,319 1,327 1991-­‐1995 785 315 1996-­‐1999 438 Total 7,755 6,937 6,254 Number of natives 36,716 37,608 Source: Statistics Sweden 35,293 . Next we look upon the educational level of the Scandinavians immigrating to Sweden. As being discoursed in section 2.2 it is important to take education into account since a better education often makes the human capital more transferable and hence the assimilation better. In table 2 we see that there was a big share of low-­‐educated immigrants in year 1990 and the theory of a negative selection could be called into question. Is the share of immigrants with a lower education explained by the Swedish favourable subsidy system or is it just a high demand for less qualified workers? One interesting finding is that low educated immigrants decreased their share from year 1990 to 1999 while the share of mid-­‐ and high-­‐ educated immigrants increased. This suggests that there has been a turnover in the demand for foreign labour. This is in accordance with the impact of the globalized economy described in the historical overview that drove many of the low skilled jobs out of the country after year 1990. This effect persists over the years with a constant decreasing rate of low-­‐educated immigrants from Denmark and Norway. In the cohorts we can see almost the same pattern. From year 1990 to 1999 many low-­‐educated individuals from each cohort have invested in education and we see this as a shift from low-­‐educated to more mid-­‐ and high-­‐ educated immigrants in the table. The share of low educated individuals decreases from research year 1990 and onwards while the share of high-­‐educated individuals increase. The share of mid-­‐educated 12 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden individuals shows a different pattern with an increasing share from research year 1990 to 1995 while the share of mid-­‐educated individuals decreases between year 1995 and 1999. Some of the mid-­‐educated immigrants seem to have invested first in a mid-­‐
education from year 1990-­‐1995, as we see the increasing share of mid-­‐educated individuals, and then continued to invest in university studies up until year 1999, where we see a decreasing share of mid-­‐educated individuals. Another thing to be observed is that the Danish immigrants have a higher share of low-­‐ and high-­‐ educated individuals than the Norwegian immigrants in all research years. For all the cohorts the number of low-­‐educated individuals decrease the more recent the cohort is with the largest share of low-­‐educated individuals observed in the pre-­‐
1970 cohort. The share of high-­‐educated individuals is accordingly at its minimum in the Pre-­‐1970 cohort on 13.2 % and the share increases between the different research years. The share of mid-­‐educated individuals varies a lot between the different cohorts and research years and a consistent pattern is hard to find. The results between the cohorts are ambiguous. We find that the share of high-­‐educated immigrants increases between the different cohorts in all research years and reaches its highest level in research year 1999 for the 1981-­‐1990 cohort on 24.1 %. After reaching this point the share of high-­‐educated individuals starts to decrease and in the 1991-­‐1995 cohort the share have decreased to 23.2 % and the share of high-­‐educated immigrants decreases further in the 1996-­‐1999 cohort down to 20.5 %. Compared to the natives the share of low-­‐educated immigrants from Norway and Denmark are sufficiently higher than the natives. The shares of mid-­‐ and high-­‐educated immigrants are smaller for both Danish and Norwegian immigrants compared to the natives. The same results are found for the different cohorts in all educational groups. 13 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder Table 2: Educational attainment in different groups of immigrants and natives in age 20-­‐64 measured in the years 1990, 1995 and 1999. Point in time _______________________________________________________________ 1990 1995 1999
________________________ ________________________ ______________________ Edu1 Edu2 Edu3 Edu1 Edu2 Edu3 Edu1 Edu2 Edu3 Region of birth Norway 38.6 45.5 15.9 33.4 48.6 18.0 31.8 48.1 20.1 Denmark 40.8 42.8 16.4 36.0 44.6 19.4 33.1 44.8 22.1 Time of immigration Pre-­‐1970 43.9 42.9 13.2 38.3 46.4 15.3 34.6 48.5 16.9 1971-­‐1980 33.5 47.7 18.8 31.3 48.1 20.6 30.6 46.7 22.7 1981-­‐1990 37.3 43.2 19.5 31.3 45.9 22.8 31.3 44.2 24.5 1991-­‐1995 35.4 44.6 20.0 30.9 44.9 24.2 1996-­‐1999 36.5 42.9 20.6 Natives 29.8 48.0 22.2 24.6 49.4 26.0 22.5 48.2 29.3 Note: Edu1: Nine-­‐year compulsory school or shorter. Edu2: Upper secondary schooling. Edu3: University studies. Source: Statistics Sweden In table 3 the data highlights the proportion of respective group with a positive income expressed in both absolute terms and in percentage. In the research from 1990 we are able to identify a higher share of positive income among Danish and Norwegian immigrants in comparison with other research years and the share of the immigrants positive income decreases consistently over the years. The differences between the shares of immigrants with a positive income from Denmark and Norway are very small and not consistent. In the cohorts measured in year 1990, the proportions of immigrants with a positive income are greater than in the cohorts measured in other research years. If we compare the cohorts between different research years it looks like there is a small decrease of the share of positive income from year 1990 to 1999 except for the cohort from pre-­‐1970 where we find a decrease between 1990 and 1995 and then a small increase in research year 1999. Surprisingly, we observe the smallest share of positive income in the cohorts from 1991-­‐1999 with the numbers 71.2 % and 71.1 % respectively. The highest share of positive income is found for the 1971-­‐1980 cohort measured in 1990 with a share of 14 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden 89.5 %. From the cohort from 1971-­‐1980 and onwards the share of positive income decreases the more recent the cohort is in all research years. Maybe this could be explained by the theory of negative selection described in section 2.1; that more and more immigrants migrate to Sweden to take advantage of the subsidy system, not to work. The increased share of high-­‐educated immigrants between the different research years could be another reason for the decreasing share of immigrants with a positive income. When the immigrants are investing in their human capital by increasing their level of education they might not have any income and hence we see an increasing share of zero-­‐income immigrants over the years. The positive income share for the immigrants is smaller in all research years and all cohorts than for the comparable natives. The reason for this could be that some of the immigrants lives in Sweden while working in their home country since it is cheaper to live in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark, while the salary often is higher in Norway and Denmark (Gottfridsson 2011) Table 3: Number and share of individuals with a positive income in age 20-­‐64 for the countries and different cohorts measured in 1990, 1995 and 1999. Point in time ___________________________________________________________ 1990 1995 1999
___________________ __________________ ___________________ Number % Number % Number % Region of birth Norway 3,155 84.4 2,647 78.9 2,370 77.1 Denmark 3,448 85.8 2,772 77.4 2,450 77.0 Time of immigration Pre-­‐1970 3,244 84.0 2,256 76.2 1,808 77.6 1971-­‐1980 1,555 89.5 1,536 82.0 1,465 79.4 1981-­‐1990 1,804 83.8 1,028 77.9 1,011 76.2 1991-­‐1995 599 76.3 224 71.2 1996-­‐1999 312 71.1 Natives 33,938 92.4 32,912 87.5 30,956 87.7 Source: Statistics Sweden Table 4 shows differences in the mean income between immigrant groups and their respective Swedish comparison group. Both Danish and Norwegian females experiences an earnings disadvantage but the earnings disadvantage seems to be smaller for the Danish women than the Norwegian women in all of the research years. The females 15 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder experiences an earnings disadvantage in all cohorts in all research years. We can distinguish an earning advantage among Norwegian male immigrants in all research years and the earnings advantage increases in 1995 at which is followed by a decrease in 1999. An interesting discovery is that the males have an earnings advantage in all cohorts in research year 1995 while they have an earnings disadvantage in all cohorts, except the 1981-­‐1990 cohort, in research year 1999. The reason why this is of special interest is that there was a crisis in Sweden that went on from about 1993 to 1997 and that a high unemployment usually affects the earnings of immigrants more negative than the natives. For the Scandinavian male immigrants we find that they actually did well in 1995 despite the crisis. A reason for this could be the presence of a time lag, which imply a delay before the crisis reached to affect the labour markets. The prosperity in the early 1990’s might still have an effect on the wages in 1995 since the crisis might not yet had the time to affect the labour markets. After some years the full effect of the crisis strokes the labour market and since the immigrants often is affected more than the natives this is seen as an earnings disadvantage for the Scandinavian immigrants compared to the natives in research year 1999. For the female cohorts we find that their earnings disadvantage increases the more recent the cohorts are in all research years until the 1991-­‐1995 cohort, this except for the research year in 1995 where we find a small decrease in the earnings disadvantage. For the males it is difficult to find a consistent relationship between the different cohorts and research years. Between the different research years we find that the female cohort from 1991-­‐1995 increased their earnings disadvantage from 6 % in 1995 up to 13.8 % in 1999, but this disadvantage is less for the last female cohort in 1999 with an earnings disadvantage of 11.2 % compared to the natives. These numbers could be explained by the possible time lag of the crisis that probably hit more recently immigrated individuals harder since they do not have the time to adapt their human capital to the labour market as much as the previous cohorts had. 16 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Table 4: Yearly earnings differentials between immigrants and natives aged 20-­‐64 with positive income from work in 1990, 1995, and 1999. Point in time __________________________________________________________ 1990 1995 1999
___________________ ____________________ ___________________ Men Women Men Women Men Women Region of birth Norway 0.048 -­‐0.050 0.051 -­‐0.046 0.009 -­‐0.059 Denmark -­‐0.000 -­‐0.044 0.025 -­‐0.042 -­‐0.028 -­‐0.056 Time of immigration Pre-­‐1970 0.025 -­‐0.036 0.036 -­‐0.020 -­‐0.003 -­‐0.022 1971-­‐1980 0.052 -­‐0.037 0.040 -­‐0.062 -­‐0.036 -­‐0.071 1981-­‐1990 -­‐0.015 -­‐0.076 0.028 -­‐0.063 0.018 -­‐0.072 1991-­‐1995 0.039 -­‐0.059 -­‐0.056 -­‐0.138 1996-­‐1999 -­‐0.007 -­‐0.112 Natives 167,600 118,000 195,000 140,100 244,900 173,500
Source: Statistics Sweden 17 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder 4. Methodology 4.1 Model Specificaiton In this section we describe the model we make use of in the conduction of our examination. The construction of our regression model is a direct image of the one applied in Hammarstedt’s and Shukur’s peer review concerning immigrants relative earnings in Sweden where it focuses on creating a vector of cohorts to identify specific characteristics of immigrants, with respect to their arrival in Sweden. Since we are using a cohort model it will also allow us to identify if there is an abnormal pattern of the immigrants qualities related to their skills between the different cohorts. The empirical model is as follows: !
!
!
! = !" +∝! !"# +∝! (!"#) + !! !"# + !! (!"#) +
!! !"# + ! !!!
This model divides males and females into two groups based on country of origin, from which they are compared with the equivalent native group. Y=natural logarithm of yearly earnings X= vector of human capital variables YSM= Years since migration for immigrants (=0 for Swedish born individuals) COH=A vector of time interval expressed in different dummy variables, which categorize immigrant arrivals to Sweden. The cohorts are conducted with 10 respective 5 years interval. (Swedes are coded as 0 in all of the examinations). The most essential aspects in the model are whether you discern a positive or negative value of θ1, which describes the assimilation effect, and to see if this is non-­‐linear giving a significant value of θ2. It is also of interest to look upon λi to see if the immigrant cohort has an earnings advantage or disadvantage upon arrival in Sweden to see how the immigrated cohorts relate, in comparison with its respective native sample group. If there is a negative assimilation among the immigrants from Scandinavia in Sweden the value of θ1 will be negative and λi will be positive. The coefficient λi describes the difference in earnings between the immigrant and the Swedish born, where YSM=0, at the time of immigration. This coefficient might be positive since there are almost no cultural or linguistic barriers between the countries of 18 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden examination and due to the migration theory of a net gain of migration. The fact that the countries of examination have a higher income level than Sweden would only fuel this theory if the quality of the immigrants would represent a random sample of the population in their country of origin. This coefficient might also vary between the cohorts since the conditions for the immigrants have changed over the years, both due to change in labour demand and changes in the macroeconomic environment. Immigrants in the early cohorts were often recruited direct into the Swedish labour market and the jobs were often of the low-­‐skilled kind. Since then the labour markets have changed to demand more skilled workers and possibly also workers with better linguistic and cultural skills since the service sector has gained a wider share of the labour market. The assimilation coefficient θ1 measures the yearly percentage change in the earnings of the immigrants. This coefficient might be negative since the earnings of the immigrants’ will regress to the mean if the immigrants don’t have unobserved skills that raise the qualities of the immigrants above the natives. If the similarities between the countries are not as apparent as we think they are and hence the human capital not perfectly transferable, the assimilation coefficient could become positive indicating a positive assimilation. If this would be the case we expect a negative value of λi representing an earning disadvantage at the time of migration. 4.2 Estimation In previous studies on the assimilation of income levels that have been carried out the initial perception among researchers have been that immigrants who enter into the new destination country will undoubtedly achieve lower income compared to its natives. Then by the presence of time they reduce their disadvantage and might even turn it to an advantage. However, in comparison to this view there have been few who have been interesting in measure the reverse phenomenon and almost none who examined it on such a small and intense scale as ours. The innovation in this study is to put our main focus on countries with similar languages and cultures to get a more narrow view on what affect earnings of immigrants. We will estimate a regression with the natural logarithm of labour income as dependent variable. The reason why we use the natural log of Y is because we want to look at the percentage change in labour income due to changes in the explanatory 19 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder variables. We will estimate this regression by using the OLS methodology on our pooled data from three points in time that is 1990, 1995 and 1999. This method chooses our estimators in such manner that it gives us the smallest value of the squared residuals. By using panel data we are able to analyse more informative data, with more variability, less colinearity among the variables and obtain additional degrees of freedom. When testing the data for multicolinearity we found that there is no sign of multicolinearity. We will make all our calculations using SPSS. 5. Results 5.1 Danish and Norwegian Males The tables with the results from the regression are found in the Appendix. When comparing Danish male immigrants to the Swedish counterparts we find a negative assimilation of 1.7 % at a 1 % level of significance. It is also observed that the assimilation is linear since the coefficient for the squared YSM is equal to zero. Concerning the Norwegian males the same phenomenon is identified with a negative assimilation of 1 %, which is slightly smaller than for the Danish counterparts. For the different cohorts we find that the Danish males have an entry advantage on 25.8 % and 18.7 % for the pre-­‐1970 and 1971-­‐1980 cohorts respectively. We can also identify a disadvantage for Danish immigrants arriving between 1996-­‐1999 of 16.7 %. Concerning the Norwegian immigration cohorts there is only one statistically significant and that is the cohort 1991-­‐1995 where the immigrants achieved an earning advantage of 11.8 %. For research year 1999 we find that both the Danish and the Norwegian men earn about 22.6 % more than they did in 1990 and that the result for 1995 is not statistically significant. Marriage affect earnings positively by about 20.8 % for both Norwegian and Danish males and if they live in a metropolitan such as Stockholm, Göteborg or Malmö the Danish males earn 9.9 % more, and the Norwegian males 11.4 % more, than other immigrants from the same country living in another municipality. Both groups with children living at home above 18 years old earn about 5.7 % less than those without children living at home above 18 years old. The results for children living at home under 17 years old are not statistically significant. 20 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Danish males with upper secondary schooling earn 16.3 % more than Danish males with seven years of compulsory school or shorter and this number is roughly the same for the Norwegian males. Danish male immigrants with a university degree earn 35.6 % more, while the males from Norway with a university degree earn 35.5 % more than the low-­‐educated equals. Age has a positive effect on income with around 13.3 % per year for both groups but this effect levels off the older the immigrant gets (since the squared age is negative). 5.2 Danish and Norwegian Females For the Danish and Norwegian females we could not detect any assimilation since the coefficient for the YSM was not statistically significant. For the Danish females only the cohorts from 1981-­‐1990 and 1991-­‐1995 are statistically significant and both show an earning disadvantage of 12.5 % and 12.9 % respectively. The result for the Norwegian females show that the three last cohorts is statistically significant and that we can find an entry disadvantage for all of them. For the 1981-­‐1990 cohort we find an entry disadvantage at 12.2 % which is somewhat smaller than it was for the Danish equals. The Norwegian females from the 1991-­‐1995 cohort earn 10.2 % less than the natives which is somewhat better than the Danish cohort who had an disadvantage of 12.9 %. The cohort from 1996-­‐1999 had a hard time facing an earnings disadvantage of 24.6 %. In year 1995 both female groups earned about 6 % more than they did in 1990 and until 1999 this improvement increased up to roughly 22.6 %. If the females are married they earn in general around 2 % more than non-­‐married females and if they live in a metropolitan the Danish females earn 11.6 %, and the Norwegian 12.8 %, more than females from the same country living in other municipalities. If they have children under 17 years old living at home they earn 8 % less, and if the children that lives at home are over 18 years old they earn about 5.5 % less, than females without children living at home. Danish or Norwegian with upper secondary schooling earn around 18.8 % more, and if they have a university degree they earn about 40 % more, than women with seven years of compulsory schooling or shorter. Age has a positive effect on earnings for both groups by about 12 % and this effect levels off the older the immigrant gets. 21 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder 6. Analysis We have made an OLS regression on Scandinavian immigrants earnings in Sweden. Due to previous research we had reason to believe that a negative assimilation would be find among the immigrants from an initial earnings advantage upon arrival in Sweden. A previous study has showed that such relationship can be found among immigrants from developed English speaking countries, thus with perfectly transferable language skills, in the US and the innovation in this study is to apply the same ideas to Scandinavian immigrants. This study has never been applied to Scandinavia and the interesting thing is to see if the same relationship could be found among Scandinavian immigrants where the language is close but not perfectly transferable. The basic idea of this kind of negative assimilation would be that the similar languages and cultures make the human capital highly transferable between the countries and hence make the differences in earnings minor. If the income levels in the countries would be the same, the immigrants would on average need a higher income in Sweden than the average native to cover the costs that the migration brings. Since Norway and Denmark both have higher income levels than Sweden it strengthens the assumption of the immigrants getting a higher income than the native Swedes. The question would then be, do the earnings of the immigrants regress to the mean (i.e. negative assimilation)? For the Danish men we found that all cohorts, except one, had an earnings advantage upon arrival in Sweden and that those experienced a negative assimilation. The results that showed an earnings advantage for the Danish male immigrants was found in the two first cohorts, pre-­‐1970 and 1971-­‐1980. As described in the historic overview in section 2.3 Sweden had a labour shortage after Second World War and this increased the demand for foreign labour. Many low-­‐skilled immigrants from the Nordic countries were directly recruited into the production industry and this is noticed in table 2 with the highest share of low-­‐educated individuals in the pre-­‐1970 cohort. This raises the question; How come they had an earnings advantage upon entry when they were recruited into low-­‐skilled and probably low-­‐paid jobs? One deficiency of our data is that we do not have the number of worked hours for the immigrants and consequently it is hard to differ a high-­‐wage immigrant from a hard-­‐working immigrant. It is likely that the immigrants who were directly recruited into the labour market were more set to work since that probably was their main incentive for migrating to Sweden. Hence, the earnings advantage of those immigrants might have come from an excessive amount of 22 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden worked hours instead of a high wage. The results also show that their earnings regress to the mean income of the natives over time. This is probably because after covering the costs of the migration the immigrants are able to work less than they did initially and are finally approaching the income level of the natives. The pre-­‐1970 cohort experiences a greater earnings advantage than the 1971-­‐1980 cohort with 25.8 % over 18.7 %. The reason for the decrease in the advantage between these cohorts is probably the change in the labour markets and the increased unemployment, described in section 2.3. However, for the Danish male cohort in 1996-­‐1999 the conditions changed and they faced an entry disadvantage of 16.7 %. Previous research points out that immigrants are more negatively affected than natives by a trembling macroeconomic environment. The downturn that hit Sweden in the beginning of the 90’s ceased first in 1997 and this might have affected the Danish immigrants in the last cohort. The migration theory states that an individual only moves if the gain is higher than the costs of migration, so why did immigrants from a country with higher income level move to a country with a lower income level to receive earnings beneath the average native? First, the wage may have been higher than the average native in Sweden, but due to the downturn in the economy the expected working hours might have been higher than the actual working hours. With too few hours worked a high wage is not enough to reach the mean income level of the natives. Second, the disadvantage experienced by the Danish males could be due to a negative selection among the immigrants in this cohort. In table 2 we observed that the 1996-­‐1999 cohort had a higher share of low-­‐educated individuals than most of the previous cohorts. Since the Swedish economy was in a poor condition during this period the demand for foreign labour was probably not excessive and after the third industrial revolution the demand for low-­‐skilled labour had decreased. This could imply that the immigrants arriving in this cohort had low work-­‐incentives and that this could be the explanation to why they did not reach up to the mean income of the natives. Third, the importance of language might have increased after the third industrial revolution with an increased share of the service sector and more costumer based jobs. The immigrants might, perhaps incorrectly, identify their country neighbours as more similar than they really are when it comes to linguistic equivalences. Hence, the immigrants’ perception of the transferability of their human capital could differ from the labour markets perception of the transferability of the immigrants’ human capital. If this is the case it will be harder for the immigrant to get into the Swedish labour markets in 23 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder the same premises as the native. This could also lead to a negative assimilation if the immigrants consider their human capital to be perfectly transferable and hence make no investments to improve the transferability, while the labour markets think that their human capital is not perfectly transferable. Since the immigrant does not make the necessary investments to keep up with the counterpart natives, he might not follow the same yearly increase in earnings and thus experience that his earnings disadvantage gets larger compared to the native males over the years. It is also possible that this cohort (Danish males, 1996-­‐1999) experienced a positive assimilation. If their human capital is not perfectly transferable they will experience a positive assimilation as their human capital improves. The regression result shows a negative assimilation for the Danish immigrants but the measure of the assimilation of the immigrants is an average of all cohorts. Hence, the negative assimilation of the two other cohorts might have overtaken the positive assimilation of the immigrants for the cohort from 1996-­‐1999 and thus given us a small negative assimilation as a result. For the Norwegian men we found that only the cohort from 1991-­‐1995 was statistically significant and it showed an entry advantage of 11.8 %. Up until year 1991 the Swedish economy did well with a decent growth and between 1990 and 1992 the employment rates were higher in Sweden than they were in Norway (Feldbaek 1997). In year 1991 the Swedish economy started to tremble and ended up in a full crisis in 1993. How is it possible for immigrants to receive an earnings advantage in a period of tough economic environment when the previous research points in the other direction? One explanation could be that if a country is threatened by an economic crisis the potential immigrants probably think twice before they decide to migrate to that country. Due to the migration theory they will only move if they are sure to get earnings high enough to cover up for the migration costs, which implies that they only move if they are sure that their earnings are not affected by the potential crisis. At the same time the natives’ earnings will be affected by the crisis while these tactical immigrants will be assured to receive their earnings leaving them with an earnings advantage towards the natives. The Norwegian males also experienced a negative assimilation. The reason why this negative assimilation occurs is because the immigrants are drawn to Sweden by a high wage to cover for the migration costs, for example a project employment or a shortage in a special occupation. Perhaps, after some time the shortage will be filled, or the project employment will end, and thus the wage regresses to the mean. With time they might 24 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden build family capital and the cost of re-­‐migrating gets larger, even though the wage regresses to the mean of the natives, than the cost of staying in the new country. For the women the results are different. No assimilation could be found and they had an earnings disadvantage upon arrival in Sweden for all statistically significant cohorts. For the two cohorts between 1981 and 1995 the disadvantage varied between 10 % and 12 % for both Danish and Norwegian female immigrants. A lot of women are employed in the public sector, especially in the health sector, and in the middle of the 70’s the public sector increased rapidly and Sweden soon had the largest public sector among comparable countries (Statistics Sweden 2007). This gives us reason to believe that some of the immigrants were recruited directly into this sector and that the women were given the low-­‐paid jobs. But as we compare them to the Swedish counterparts the impact of the labour markets are the same for both the natives and the immigrants. The female immigrants might not represent a random sample of the population of their home country-­‐ they might be negatively selected. If it is mostly low-­‐quality immigrant females from Scandinavia, this is a case of negative selection. Since these immigrants are less qualified they will not experience a positive assimilation unless they invest in their human capital and because they might not have high work-­‐incentives they choose not to invest and thus stay in the same position. Another reason why we observe an earnings disadvantage for the female cohorts could be that their incentives of migrating could be other than economic. The earnings advantage of the males gives us reason to discourse whether the Scandinavian immigrant females might have been tied movers. This means that the females only moved because it was the best for the family as a whole, even though they themselves got an earnings disadvantage upon arrival in Sweden, and is described in section 2.2. The results also showed that marriage affected earnings positively by 20.8 % for the male Scandinavian immigrants but only positively by 2 % for the female counterparts. This implies that the females seem to have gained less from their marriage than the males; that is, the females seem to have been tied movers to a wider extent than the males. For the Norwegian female cohort from 1996-­‐1999 we found that their earnings disadvantage increased to 24.6 %. The reason for this is probably the on-­‐going crisis in Sweden that did not turn before year 1997 since macroeconomic factors is known to affect immigrants more negative than the natives (Barth, Bratsberg and Raaum 2004). As described earlier in this paper, a time lag on the impact of the crisis might have 25 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder caused the massive disadvantage for this whole cohort. After year 1996 the employment rates in Sweden became lower than in the other Scandinavian countries and this might have increased the disadvantage for Scandinavian women (Feldbaek 1997). 7. Conclusion This study innovated by focusing on immigrants with highly transferable human capital and instead of including all Nordic countries, like Hammarstedt and Shukur (2006) did in their examination, we focused only on the Scandinavian countries where the languages and cultures are very similar. This allowed us to analyse the importance of language skills in more narrow view. Hammarstedt and Shukur (2006) found a positive assimilation from an initial earnings disadvantage for the Nordic immigrants but our result for the Scandinavian immigrants were different. To conclude the results of this paper the human capital seems to be easy transferable for the Norwegian immigrants since we found an earnings advantage for the Norwegian males arriving in the 90’s. For the Danish males the results are more ambiguous. Danish immigrants arriving before 1981 seem to have adapted well to the Swedish labour market and this implies that their human capital was easy transferable to the Swedish labour market. In the 90’s we find that the Danish immigrants had a disadvantage compared to the natives but this is not necessarily explained by a linguistic or cultural barrier-­‐ it is more likely that the disadvantage is due to the contemporary crisis in Sweden. Hence, it is seems like the human capital is highly transferable for both Danish and Norwegian male immigrants since the results probably differ for other reasons than because of the transferability of the human capital. Both Danish and Norwegian male immigrants experienced a negative assimilation during their stay in Sweden. For the Danish immigrants with an earnings advantage upon arrival in Sweden this is probably because they work fewer hours after covering up the costs of the migration. For the Norwegian males it is likely that their actual wage was higher than the average native and with time it is expected that their wage will regress to the mean. For the female cohorts we discovered that they had earnings disadvantage in all cohorts but it is unlikely to be due to a poor transferability of the human capital, since it should reflect the transferability of the human capital of the males. The reason for the female disadvantage is probably that the women migrate for other reasons than economic or that they possibly are negatively selected. 26 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden However, the result of this paper show a brighter outlook for the Scandinavian immigrants than Hammarstedt and Shukur (2006) found in their paper examining all the Nordic immigrants. Hence, it seems like the human capital is more transferable for the Scandinavian immigrants in Sweden than it is for the rest of the Nordic immigrants. 27 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder 8. Appendix Regression comparing the earnings of Danish men with Swedish men: Unstandardized
Std. Error
Coefficients
Regressors
Sig.
B
(Constant)
Upper secondary schooling
University studies
Age
Age squared
Number of children living at home 0-­‐17
Number of children living at home 18+
Metropolitan
Married
Years since migration
Years since migration squared
Pre1970 cohort
1971-­‐1980 cohort
1981-­‐1990 cohort
1991-­‐1995 cohort
1996-­‐1999 cohort
Research year 1995
4,289
0,163
0,356
0,133
-­‐0,002
0,05
0,009
0,011
0,003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,004
0,004
0,35
-­‐0,056
0,099
0,209
-­‐0,017
0,007
0,009
0,009
0,006
0
0
0
0,003
0
0,258
0,187
0,035
-­‐0,074
-­‐0,167
0,014
0
0,103
0,084
0,046
0,068
0,098
0,009
0,019
0,012
0,026
0,448
0,279
0,087
0,132
Research year 1999
0,228
0,01
0
R
R Square
,361
a
0,131
Adjusted R Square
0,13
Std. Error of the
Estimate
0,85925
Source: Statistics Sweden 28 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Regression comparing the earnings of Norwegian men with Swedish men: Unstandardized
Coefficients
Regressors
Std. Error
Sig.
B
(Constant)
Upper secondary schooling
University studies
Age
Age squared
Number of children living at home 0-­‐17
Number of children living at home 18+
Metropolitan
Married
4,29
0,164
0,355
0,134
-­‐0,002
0,051
0,009
0,011
0,003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,003
0,004
0,479
-­‐0,057
0,114
0,208
0,007
0,009
0,009
0
0
0
Years since migration
Years since migration squared
Pre1970 cohort
1971-­‐1980 cohort
1981-­‐1990 cohort
1991-­‐1995 cohort
1996-­‐1999 cohort
Research year 1995
Research year 1999
-­‐0,01
0,006
0,083
0
0,108
0,1
-­‐0,017
0,118
0,111
0,009
0,224
0
0,102
0,085
0,041
0,058
0,099
0,009
0,01
0,044
0,288
0,241
0,674
0,041
0,261
0,327
0
R
R Square
,363
a
0,132
Adjusted R Square
0,132
Std. Error of the
Estimate
0,85577
Source: Statistics Sweden 29 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder Regression comparing the earnings of Danish women with Swedish women: Unstandardized
Coefficients
Regressors
Std. Error
Sig.
4,242
0,186
0,402
0,124
-­‐0,001
0,048
0,01
0,011
0,003
0
0
0
0
0
0
-­‐0,08
0,004
0
-­‐0,054
0,116
0,021
-­‐0,004
0,007
0,008
0,008
0,006
0
0
0,009
0,519
6,82E-­‐05
-­‐0,012
-­‐0,054
-­‐0,125
-­‐0,129
0,011
0,059
0,225
0
0,098
0,081
0,046
0,07
0,102
0,009
0,009
0,472
0,901
0,506
0,006
0,066
0,913
0
0
B
(Constant)
Upper secondary schooling
University studies
Age
Age squared
Number of children living at home 0-­‐17
Number of children living at home 18+
Metropolitan
Married
Years since migration
Years since migration squared
Pre1970 Cohort
1971-­‐1980 cohort
1981-­‐1990 cohort
1991-­‐1995 cohort
1996-­‐1999 cohort
Research year 1995
Research year 1999
R
R Square
,335
a
0,112
Adjusted R Square
0,112
Std. Error of the
Estimate
0,81164
Source: Statistics Sweden 30 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Regression comparing the earnings of Norwegian women with Swedish women: Unstandardized
Std. Error
Coefficients
Regressors
Sig.
B
(Constant)
Upper secondary schooling
University studies
Age
Age squared
Number of children living at home 0-­‐17
Number of children living at home 18+
Metropolitan
Married
Years since migration
Years since migration squared
Pre1970 Cohort
1971-­‐1980 cohort
1981-­‐1990 cohort
1991-­‐1995 cohort
1996-­‐1999 cohort
Research year 1995
Research year 1999
4,256
0,048
0
0,19
0,403
0,123
-­‐0,001
0,01
0,011
0,003
0
0
0
0
0
-­‐0,08
0,004
0
-­‐0,057
0,128
0,023
-­‐0,004
0,007
0,008
0,008
0,005
0
0
0,005
0,344
4,77E-­‐05
0,056
-­‐0,006
-­‐0,122
-­‐0,102
-­‐0,246
0,06
0,226
0
0,084
0,068
0,036
0,053
0,084
0,009
0,009
0,561
0,502
0,925
0,001
0,053
0,003
0
0
R
R Square
,335
a
0,112
Adjusted R Square
0,112
Std. Error of the
Estimate
0,81265
Source: Statistics Sweden 31 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder 9. References Barth, Erling, Bratsberg, Bernt and Raaum, Oddbjorn. 2004. Identifying the Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants under Changing Macroeconomic Conditions. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106, pp. 1-­‐22. Ben-­‐Porath, Yoram 1967. The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle of Earnings. Journal of Political Economy, 75, pp. 352-­‐365. Borjas, George J. 1985. Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 3, pp. 463-­‐489. Borjas, George J. 2010. Labor Economics. Issue 5. New York: McGraw-­‐Hill Irwin. Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-­‐born Men. Journal of Political Economy, 86, pp. 897-­‐922. Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. The economic Progress of immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns. Washington: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 357-­‐399. Chiswick, Barry R. and Miller, Paul W. 2008. The “Negative” Assimilation of Immigrants: A Special Case. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Discussion paper No. 3563. Dumont, Jean-­‐Christophe and Lemaître, G. 2005. Counting Immigrants and Expatriates in OECD Countries: a new Perspective. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Gottfridsson, Hans Olof, 2011. Gränslöst liv? En studie av två gränskommuner i Värmland. Centrum för forskning om regional utveckling. Karlstads University pp 39-­‐51 Hammarstedt, Mats and Shukur, Ghazi 2006. Immigrants’ Relative Earnings in Sweden — A Cohort Analysis. LABOUR, 20, pp. 285–323. Hicks, John R. 1932. The Theory of Wages. London: Macmillian pp. 76. Holmlund, Bertil 2011. Svensk arbetsmarknad under två kriser. Nationalekonomiska institutionen, Uppsala University. Jasso, Guillerima and Rosenzweig, Mark.R. 1985. What's in a Name? Country-­‐of-­‐Origin Influences on the Earnings of Immigrants in the United States. University of Minnesota, Economic Development, 8424. Magnusson, Lars 2000. Den svenska arbetslösheten i ett längre perspektiv. Ekonomisk Debatt 2000, 133. 32 The Assimilation of Scandinavian Immigrants in Sweden Mincer, Jacob 1977. Family Migration decisions. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Nakosteen, Robert A. and Zimmer, Michael 1980. Migration and Income: The question of Self-­‐Selection. Southern Economic Journal 46, 1980. Feldbaek, Inge 1997. Nordic Statistical Yearbook. Statistics Denmark, 35. pp 93-­‐95. U.S Bureau of the Census 2006. Table 6: General Mobility of Persons 25 years and over by Region, Age and Educational Attainment. www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/migrate/cps2006.html SOU, Statens Offentliga Utredningar 1999. Ett Arbetsliv i Förändring 1950-­‐2000. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/23/86/e3e36bde.pdf#page=22 Statistics Sweden, 2007. Sveriges ekonomi, statistiskt perspektiv. 2. Sveriges ekonomi. Åberg, Rune 2004. Vilka jobb har skapats på den svenska arbetsmarknaden de senaste decennierna? http://www.nationalekonomi.se/filer/pdf/32-­‐7-­‐ra.pdf Eurostat 2011. Earnings in the business economy (average gross annual earnings of full-­‐
time employees) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Earnings_in_
the_business_economy_(average_gross_annual_earnings_of_full-­‐
time_employees)_(1)_(EUR).png&filetimestamp=20111118123743#filehistory 33 Ellinor Ivarsson & David Linder Linnaeus University – a firm focus on quality and competence
On 1 January 2010 Växjö University and the University of Kalmar merged to form Linnaeus University. This
new university is the product of a will to improve the quality, enhance the appeal and boost the development
potential of teaching and research, at the same time as it plays a prominent role in working closely together with
local society. Linnaeus University offers an attractive knowledge environment characterised by high quality and
a competitive portfolio of skills.
Linnaeus University is a modern, international university with the emphasis on the desire for knowledge,
creative thinking and practical innovations. For us, the focus is on proximity to our students, but also on the
world around us and the future ahead.
Linnæus University
SE-391 82 Kalmar/SE-351 95 Växjö
Telefon 0772-288000
34