The Social Capital of Migrants and Individual ICT Use

774 views

Published on

Is there a difference in habitualised Internet use between migrants and non migrants, once statistical controls taken into account?
Based on representative data from the European Social Survey 2003 in countries with strong Internet developement there is no difference between migrants & non-migrants. In countries with many young migrants there is a significant higher rate of users among migrants.
A detailed multivariate analysis at the country level shows that in all of the European countries studied age, educational attainment, income but not gender influence the domestication of the Internet. Another important, positive influences is bridging social capital (associations), but less bonding capital (strong links with friends, in Nordic countries).
Social, interpersonal trust (in countries except Nordic welfare regimes) and trust in institutions (in other welfare regimes) increases the odds of regularly using the Internet.
Welfare regime allows to group countries together.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
774
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Social Capital of Migrants and Individual ICT Use

  1. 1. The Social Capital of migrants and individual ICT use. A comparative analysis of European countries Dr Frank Thomas FTR Internet Research Rosny-sous-Bois, France frank.thomasftr@free.fr COST 298 The Good, The Bad and the Unexpected Moscow, 23 to 25 May 2007 COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  2. 2. The context  The free movement of people a major political objective in the European Union  Migrants are important: a - recent - challenge and a possible solution to a part of Europe's problems  i2010 policy: knowledge and innovation the engines of sustainable growth, towards an inclusive Information Society, through widespread use of ICTs COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  3. 3. e-inclusion and migrants  The inclusion of migrants into a sustainable IS has still a considerable way to go.  There are a elite and under-class migrants, the first included in the IS, the second demanding it.  Migrants numerically important: in 2002, a net migration balance of 1.7 mill. inh., i.e. 3.7 per 1,000 inh.  Including migrants a political necessity. COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  4. 4. What is a migrant ? A migrant is not necessarily a foreigner. Migrant Citizenship Status National Non-national Change of borders - Yugoslavia - Baltic States Resident foreigners Non- Standard case - in border regions Migrant - Baltic States Non-nationalised 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants - Germany Returning expat Migrant Having acquired citizenship Internal migration Standard case Transnational migration COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  5. 5. A better definition of a migrant Lambert (2004) proposes a definition based upon  Having a foreign nationality  Having one or two parents born abroad  Speaking a language at home which is not one of the country's official languages  A self-definition as belonging to a minority group in the country COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  6. 6. Migrants and social capital  Social capital can be understood as the capacity for collective action by an individual, an institution, a society through  Social links with social acteurs of the same origin: bonding capital, for social identity = family, friends, neighbours?  Social links with acteurs of different origins, that bridge between bonding networks: bridging capital, for strategic action = acquaintances, voluntary associations, self-help groups.  Trust can be seen either as a result or a condition for collective action through social capital.  Migrants can advance in the receiving contry if they can create both bonding and bridging capital. COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  7. 7. The quality of survey data on migrants (or the lack of it) EUROSTAT EURESCOM Lambert Source: OECD New Cronos P903 EVS ESS (ESS data) Indicator Citizenship Citizenship language citizenship citizenship migrants Year: 2001 2001 2000 2001 2002/03 2002/03 Austria 8,8% 8,9% 1,4% 4,3% 22% Belgium 8,2% 8,4% 11,2% 4,9% 18% Czech Republic 2,0% 5,1% 0,5% 0,4% 12% Denmark 5,0% 4,8% 12,4% 4,1% 2,4% 10% Finland 1,9% 1,8% 0,5% 1,6% 6% France 5,6% 5,6% 8,7% 1,4% 4,3% 25% Germany 8,9% 8,9% 6,7% 2,5% 5,0% 16% Greece 7,0% 7,0% 1,0% 5,3% 20% Hungary 1,1% 1,1% 0,2% 12% Ireland 4,0% 4,1% 1,4% 3,2% 12% Italy 2,4% 2,5% 5,9% 0,1% 0,3% 5% Luxembourg 37,5% 36,9% 37,3% 34,0% 55% Netherlands 4,3% 4,2% 21,4% 2,4% 1,9% 13% Norway 4,1% 8,1% 2,7% 11% Poland 0,1% 0,3% 0,0% 9% Portugal 3,4% 2,0% 2,0% 2,3% 8% Slovenia 2,3% 0,1% 0,1% 14% COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  8. 8. Does being a migrant make a Controls Controls difference ? Social demography Social position Regular Internet & email use Social geography Social bonding capital Social bridging capital Migrant status Migrant status Trust COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  9. 9. To give a context : A classification of countries by social capital  Bonding capital  Mean number of weekly socializing contacts with family & friends  Family judged more important than friends (calculated)  Subjective importance of contacts with family  Subjective importance of contacts with friends  Bridging capital  % Nominal membership in voluntary organizations  % Active membership in voluntary associations  % Volunteering in voluntary associations  % Helping outside family, associations, work COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  10. 10. National profiles of social capital Social- democratic Transfor- & Liberal Corporatist Latin mation Bonding social capital - % Weekly socialising 26 34 34 57 - Mean Importance of family (1 ...10) 9,5 9,0 9,4 9,7 - Mean Importance of friends (1 ... 10) 8,7 8,4 8,2 8,1 - % Family more important than friends 34 43 51 60 Bridging social capital - % Nominal membership 80 75 41 33 - % Active membership 44 42 27 15 - % Volunteering 25 22 11 9 - % Informal & Self-Help 35 45 25 22 COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  11. 11. The Geography of Social Capital in Europe Corporatist Sociodemocrat & liberal Transformation Latin COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  12. 12. Major results of the data analysis Regular use of the Internet can best be explained by, in decreasing order of importance, when using Lambert's definition of migrants  Resource equipment: social position, life cycle, gender, size of community  Bridging capital: nominal or active membership  Bonding capital: socializing (mostly in socialdemocratic & liberal countries)  Migrant status (in some countries)  Trust: interpersonal trust (in some countries) COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  13. 13. And migrants in all of this, after having introduced controls ?  In countries with strong ICT development (DK,SF,NL,UK): no difference for migrants  In countries with younger migrants (EIR, N): more Internet users among migrants  S, D, GR: migrants are less probable Internet users than non-migrants COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  14. 14. Social-democratic & liberal countries Corporatist countries Latin countries Transf ormation countries Odds ratios DK SF N S GB EIR A B D NL ES F I SLO GR HU Age group - 30-60 yrs - 61 + yrs. Red background: negative odds Gender (male) Living as a couple Living with children in preschool age Living with young childr. Yellow background: Living with adolescents positive odds Educational attainment - secondary level - tertiary level, degree Household equival.income - second quartile - third quartile - fourth quartile Size of community Social capital: bonding Informal socialising Importance of friends Social capital: bridging Nominal membership Active membership Volunteering Informal volunteering Percentage of Interpersonal trust variation Trust in institutions explication Migrant status - migrant Sample size 1237 1741 1918 1753 1723 1572 1305 1305 2208 196 861 1209 590 1116 1621 1265 Nagelkerke's R 0,40 0,47 0,48 0,47 0,46 0,41 0,38 0,43 0,38 0,32 0,47 0,40 0,41 0,45 0,49 0,52 COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  15. 15. Some questions that remain  What about mobile use ?  What about the effect of broadband use ?  What about usage patterns ?  A refined analysis of the country & cultural context  There is a lack of longitudinal data  Representative surveys lack sufficient sub-samples of (legal) migrants, to differentiate among migrants  Qualitative and quantitative studies remain unconnected. COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007
  16. 16. And your questions ? Thank you. The full text published in the proceedings can also be obtained from the author or from www.slideshare.com/ftr_ An OpenOffice presentation COST 298 The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected. Moscow 23 – 25 May 2007

×