Bram Lancee & Anne Hartung Presentation prepared for seminar ‘Networks, Markets and Organizations’ Groningen, Aug

1. Turkish migrants and native Germans compared: The effect of inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic friendships on the transition from unemployment to work Bram Lancee & Anne Hartung Presentation prepared for seminar ‘Networks, Markets and Organizations’ Groningen, August 28th.

2. Introduction • Social capital is found to be an important asset on the labour market. • Often it is argued that returns depend on the form of SC. • This is particularly the case when comparing the effect of SC for migrant and native residents, and addressing the bonding-bridging differentiation.

3. Introduction II The main contribution of this paper is to compare the effect of different forms of social capital (intra- and inter-ethnic friendships) on the duration of unemployment, for Turkish and native residents in Germany. • These different forms of SC are not compared for these groups before. • The duration of UE as a dependent variables is (although highly relevant) hardly ever used in SC research.

4. Social capital “Those with more social capital will better be able to realize their goals or defend their interests. Social capital is a relational resource, having ties to others enables one to have access to their resources, to borrow them, so to speak.” (Flap 2004: 5) Many jobs are obtained through referrals: • Native Germans: ~30% of jobs obtained through social network, immigrants in Germany almost 50% • Question here is not how many jobs are found through social networks, but to what extent different types of social capital can be associated with a shorter unemployment duration.

5. ‚Friendships‘ as social capital • We measure social capital as friendships. • Friends can provide information that is useful on the labour market: Create opportunities for upward mobility on the labour market. • Strength of weak(er) tie argument. (Hence, we expect that having friendships reduces the duration of unemployment, both for Germans and Turks. )

6. Bonding & Bridging • Bonding refers to connections within groups, bridging to connections between groups. • ‘Between’ we define as inter-ethnic connections • ‘Whereas bonding is to get by, bridging is to get ahead’. • However, statement dominantly argued from a “resource-poor” group, such as immigrants. • Hence we can expect differences in the effect of having inter- and intra-ethnic friendships. • Useful to make the distinction between the bridging- and the resource-argument.

7. Two arguments • Bridging argument. Social capital as connections between different groups: it is bridging the ‘ethnic divide’ that matters: network diversification, hence unique information and opportunities come into reach. • Resource argument. Social capital as a capital: it is accessing an environment with useful resources that yields positive returns. It is host country-specific resources matter. • (For migrants: “Compensating” discrimination argument)

8. Bonding, bridging, resource-poor, resource-rich

9. Inter-ethnic friendships For Turks, Inter-ethnic friendships are bridging across the ethnic divide, plus accessing a resource-rich environment. It implies accessing host-country-specific resources. For Germans, it is bridging the ethnic divide, but into a resource-poor environment. Hence: H1a: The positive effect of inter-ethnic friendships on finding employment is larger for Turks than it is for Germans.

10. Intra-ethnic friendships For Germans, intra-ethnic friendships imply accessing a resource-rich environment. For Turks intra-ethnic friendships are neither bridging, nor accessing a resource-rich environment. Hence: H1b: The positive effect of having intra-ethnic friendships on finding employment is larger for Germans than it is for Turks. Counter-argument: Intra-ethnic friendships can be beneficial for Turks, since they may provide access to information for employment in the ‘ethnic’ economy.

11. Social and human capital • Social capital -seen as accessing a resource-rich environment- is likely to have a different effect for high and low educated. • Effect may be larger for those that possess little resources themselves, i.e. those with a low education. • Effect may be larger for those that possess little host-country specific resources, i.e. first generation Turkish migrants with a low education.

12. Hypothesis 2 • H2a: The positive effect of accessing a resource-rich network (i.e. friendships with German natives) on finding employment is larger for those with a lower education, when being compared to those with a higher education. • H2b: The mechanism of H2a is stronger for first generation Turkish migrants than for second generation Turkish migrants and German native residents. • Limitation: we only know ethnic group of friend, not the actual resources a friend can provide (so probably better to limit H2 to 1st gen Turks?)

13. Methodology • Data and construction of the sample: • GSOEP, 1996-2007 • 6,367 persons with 7,890 unemployment spells of which 39.9% end in a transition to work, left censored cases excluded. • Dependent variable: • transition into employment • duration of unemployment (in months) • Independent variables: • Intra-ethnic friendships (y/n): 1996, 2001, 2006 • Inter-ethnic friendships (y/n): 1996, 2001, 2006 • Ethnic group: Country of birth and nationality • Control variables: • Education (ISCED), gender, years working expererience (also squared), language proficiency (also squared), year dummies, dummy for former East Germany.

14. Methodology II • Event history (survival) analysis: • Continuous time • Hazard rate = measuring the “conditional probability of event occurrence per unit of time” (Singer and Willett 2003: 474) • Cox regression (with multiple spells per person)

15. Some descriptives

17. Cox regression predicting the transition to employment(hazard ratios; robust standard errors)

18. Cox regression predicting the transition to employment(hazard ratios; robust standard errors)

19. Limitations / Discussion No conclusive information on network • Overall size of network? • Inter-ethnic vs. bridging the socio-economic divide? • Resources available in network? • Network effect vs. Propensity to integrate • Family relations not included (tried and no effect though) • Second-generation little cases • SC included as time-invariant (due to limited measurement occasions) • Change in network due to unemployment? • Alternative explanations?

20. Summary I • For 1st gen Turks, inter-ethnic friendships reduce UE duration • For native Germans, intra-ethnic friendships reduce UE duration

21. Summary II • What seems to matter is accessing a host-country specific network: both for Germans and for Turks having friendships with Germans reduces UE duration. • However, having friendships is most effective when they are both bridging and accessing a host-country specific environment, like friendships with Germans for the 1st gen Turks. The effect of having friendships with native Germans is highest for first generation Turks with a low education: • higher than 1st gen Turks with a high education • higher than native Germans with a low education.

22. Thank you for your attention!Bram.lancee@eui.euhttp://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/Lancee/