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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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