The second generation in Europe. Three statements on integration.

Dr. Maurice CrulAmsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR)

University of Amsterdam

Three questions about integration

• Where does the second generation grow up?

• Integration with whom?• What is the best local context of

integration?

Where did the second generation grow up?

Place of integration

The percentage of the 2nd generation Turks and comparison group members

who grew up in the survey city

0

20

40

60

80

100

Turks raised inSurvey City in %

96 89 83

CG raised in SurveyCity in %

91 66 55

Berlin Strasbourg Stockholm

The percentage of 2nd generation Moroccans and comparison group

members that grew up in the survey city

0

20

40

60

80

100

Moroccans raised inSurvey City in %

93 91 88

CG raised in SurveyCity in %

98 66 35

Madrid Antwerp Amsterdam

The percentage of the 2nd generation former Yugoslavian and comparison group members

who grew up in the survey city

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yugoslavs raised in SurveyCity in %

92 66 94

CG raised in Survey City in%

76 49 85

Vienna Zurich Frankfurt

First statement about integration

• The second generation is a strongly established group in the city.

• They grew up in the city, went to school in the city and they are now looking as young adults for a job in the city.

• The majority of the second generation strongly or very strongly identifies with the cities they live in.

• They show in their practices at the neighborhood level more social cohesiveness than the comparison group.

• A substantial part of the comparison group, one third, are actual newcomers.

Integration with whom?

Do the second generation and the comparison groups limit their friendships to their own ethnic groups?

The percentage of friends of 2nd generation Turks and the comparison group with

different ethnic backgrounds

0

20

40

60

80

% TURKS having friendswith other ethnicbackground

32 45 62

% C group having friendswith other ethnicbackground

18 15 15

Berlin Strasbourg Stockholm

The percentage of friends of 2nd generation Moroccans and the comparison group with

different ethnic backgrounds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% Moroccans having friends withother ethnic background

51 51 46

% C group having friends withother ethnic background

4 12 19

Madrid Antwerp Amsterdam

The percentage of friends of 2nd generation Yugoslavians and the comparison group with

different ethnic backgrounds

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

80

% Yugoslavs havingfriends with otherethnic background

62 54 74

% C group havingfriends with otherethnic background

16 19 19

Vienna Zurich Frankfurt

Second statement about integration

• There are differences between the second generation groups in the level of interaction with people of different ethnic backgrounds.

• In general the second generation is not fenced in in their own ethnic group.

• If there is group that lives in a parallel ‘gesellschaft’ it is the youngsters of the comparison groups. They show a worrisome low degree of integration into the new multi-ethnic reality of the city.

What is the best place for integration? The example of integration into school.

• Debates about integration understandably have a national, or even local, focus.

• When the low performances of children of immigrants in school are discussed, usually the finger is pointed to characteristics of the immigrant parents.

• There is at the same time a blind spot for the importance of the integration context.

• An international comparison makes it possible to also look at the importance of the national or local integration context.

• The international comparison shows huge differences in educational outcomes for the Turkish second generation across seven countries.

Highest educational level for those in school or highest diploma for those who left school

Lower Secondary (at the most)(No High School)

Upper Secondary or Apprenticeship(High School)

Colleges and Universities

Germany 34.3% 61.1% 4.7%Austria 33.5% 51.3% 15.2%

Switzerland 16.9% 68.1% 15.0%Netherlands 28.8% 44.3% 26.9%

Belgium 35.9% 34.9% 29.2%Sweden 9.0% 61.8% 29.2%

France 16.6% 44.4% 39.0%

Third statement about integration

• The way the educational system is organized in the different countries makes a huge difference for the educational outcomes.

• Open educational systems like in France and Sweden produce the best results.

• Systems that provide an early start, have full days of school and select late give children from poor immigrant families an opportunity to succeed.

How does the integration context shape Turkish communities in Europe?

• Sweden and France: Dominant pattern is upward mobility. We see an upcoming first elite among the second generation and not many early school leavers.

• Netherlands and Belgium: Dominant pattern is polarization. The group that succeeds is equally big as the group at the bottom.

• Germany and Austria: Dominant pattern is stagnation at the bottom. The largest group either leaves school early or is in the vocational column.

• Each country gets the type of community according to the chances and opportunities it provides.

http://www.tiesproject.eu/