This report provides a comparative overview and

This report provides a comparative overview and
FRA
doi: 10.2811/43290
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Wien
Austria
Tel.: +43 (0) 1 580 30 - 0
Fax: +43 (0) 1 580 30 - 691
Email: [email protected]
fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
twitter.com/EURightsAgency
TK-30-09-253-EN-C
This report provides a comparative overview and
analysis of data and information documenting
discrimination in the workplaces and labour markets
across the EU. It highlights developments that occurred
between 2003 and 2008, and assesses the lack of data
with a view to developing strategies to improve data
availability and comparability at the EU level. While the
total number of complaints of discrimination reported
and processed has increased as a direct consequence
of the implementation of the Equality Directives
in the EU Member States, there are still barriers for
victims that need to be reduced. The report highlights
persistent patterns of inequality between migrants
and minority groups in the labour market and the
overall majority populations. Considerable research
on employment discrimination has been carried out
over recent years, and this provides ample evidence
to identify discrimination as an important factor
leading to inequality for migrants and minorities.
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of
the European Union
Update 2003 – 2008
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
This report addresses matters related to the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21)
and the right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31) falling under the Chapters III
‘Equality’ and IV ‘Solidarity’ of the Fundamental Rights Charter of the European Union.
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union
Update 2003 – 2008
2011 – 92 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9192-497-4
doi: 10.2811/43290
A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet. It can be
accessed through the FRA website (fra.europa.eu).
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
Cover picture: iStockphoto
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Wien
Austria
Tel.: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 0
Fax: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 691
Email: [email protected]
fra.europa.eu
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet
(www.ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011
ISBN 978-92-9192-497-4
doi: 10.2811/43290
© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2010
Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases
before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(www.publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of
the European Union
Update 2003 – 2008
Background to the report
This report is one of a series of comparative reports produced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights (FRA) since 2003. These reports bring together every few years the data and information provided
nationally by the FRA RAXEN National Focal Points on discrimination and related issues regarding migrants
and minorities in selected areas of social life. Since 2003, the Agency has produced such comparative
reports in the areas of employment (2003), legislation (2004), education (2004), racist violence (2005) and
housing (2006). Among the aims of the reports are to highlight themes which emerge when the data
is considered cross-nationally, to identify any signs of trends which can be perceived over the period of
years under consideration, and to point to issues of future concern to policy makers or researchers.
This report begins the cycle again and covers the area of employment for the second time. The first such
comparative employment report, published in 2003, covered data collected by the RAXEN National Focal
Points in the area of employment between 2001 and 2003, covering the then 15 EU Member States. The
current report covers 27 EU Member States, bringing together the material from RAXEN reports between
2003 and 2007, and also adding some further material from 2008. As most of the secondary data goes
up to 2008, the report should be read in the context of several subsequent FRA reports which add to
and advance this data, as well as subsequent FRA research reports which have taken up and explored in
greater detail specific themes which have been raised in the comparative report. These reports1 are:
• FRA Annual Report 2009
• FRA Annual Report 2010
• EU-MIDIS Main Results Report, 2010
• The Impact of the Racial Equality Directive: Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union, 2010
Taken together, the comparative report on employment and these subsequent FRA reports provide a unique
body of secondary and primary data in the area of migrants, minorities and employment, identifying themes
and trends, and suggesting questions of future concern relevant to policy makers and researchers alike.
1
Available at www.fra.europa.eu
3
Country codes
4
AT
Austria
IT
Italy
BE
Belgium
LT
Lithuania
BG
Bulgaria
LU
Luxembourg
CY
Cyprus
LV
Latvia
CZ
Czech Republic
MT
Malta
DE
Germany
NL
Netherlands
DK
Denmark
PL
Poland
EE
Estonia
PT
Portugal
EL
Greece
RO
Romania
ES
Spain
SE
Sweden
FI
Finland
SI
Slovenia
FR
France
SK
Slovakia
HU
Hungary
UK
United Kingdom
IE
Ireland
Contents
BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT................................................................................................................................................ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................ 7
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1. MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES: CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, DATA............................................................................... 11
1.1.Introduction: ethnic and cultural diversity in the European Union................................................................................... 11
1.2.Identifying migrants and minorities ............................................................................................................................................. 15
1.3.Availability of statistics regarding discrimination in the area of employment.............................................................. 19
1.4.Developments of statistical data collection over the last five years.................................................................................. 21
2. PATTERNS OF INEQUALITY................................................................................................................................................ 25
2.1.Inequality, social exclusion and vulnerability............................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.Indicators of inequality...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.Evidence of change and continuity............................................................................................................................................... 45
3.RACIAL/ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: EU LAW.................................................................................. 47
3.1.The Equality Directives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47
3.2.The concepts of discrimination in the Equality Directives.................................................................................................... 48
3.3.The implementation of the Directives.......................................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.Outlook.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
4. INDICATORS OF DISCRIMINATION................................................................................................................................... 53
4.1.Incidents, complaints and court cases......................................................................................................................................... 53
4.2.Research evidence for discrimination........................................................................................................................................... 58
5.LEGAL STATUS AND VULNERABILITY.............................................................................................................................. 65
5.1.The concept of ‘discrimination by law’ – a European dilemma........................................................................................... 65
6.THE SITUATION OF MIGRANT AND MINORITY WOMEN IN EMPLOYMENT ........................................................... 73
6.1.The concept of multiple and intersectional discrimination................................................................................................. 73
6.2.Complex experiences of discrimination – The situation of migrant and minority women in employment....... 74
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 79
STATISTICAL ANNEX................................................................................................................................................................. 81
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS........................................................................................................................................................... 92
5
Executive summary
Executive summary
Migrants and minorities: concepts,
definitions, data
Ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is a central
feature of the European Union. Migration has been
a major source of diversity: the number of foreignborn population in the EU has been estimated as
over 40 million or 8.8 per cent of the total population
of 495 million. Of these, two thirds have been
born outside the European Union. National and
linguistic minorities or ‘historic minorities’ are another
important source of ethnic and cultural diversity
in the European Union. Roma constitute one of
the largest minority populations in the European
Union, estimated at between 4.6 and 6.4 million.
There are considerable differences in how Member
States define migrant and minority groups for policy
purposes and how they collect statistical data on
these groups. These differences in data collection
practices in the European Union place serious
limitations on any comparative study of patterns of
inequality, social exclusion, and discrimination against
migrants and minorities in the labour market.
The study finds that data on citizenship and country
of birth are increasingly available in respect to data on
employment of immigrants, and the recent ad-hoc
module of the European Labour Force Survey includes
information on persons with a migrant background.
However, much less information is available on ethnicity,
which is a relevant category for analysis particularly
regarding national minorities and communities with
a more distant migration background. Changes in
this data situation can be expected in the future, not
least in the context of the implementation of a new
Community Statistical programme during 2008-2012.
Patterns of inequality
The report highlights persistent patterns of inequality
between the situation of foreigners, immigrants and
minority groups in the labour market and that of the
overall majority populations. Differential employment
and unemployment rates, the concentration of
migrants and minorities in specific economic sectors
and branches, income and wage disparities, and
differences in working conditions, access to education
and educational attainment all indicate important
differences in labour outcomes for migrants and
minorities. While unequal labour market outcomes do
not necessarily reflect discrimination, discrimination is,
nevertheless, an important factor leading to inequality.
In general terms, such patterns of inequality seem to
have remained constant since 2000. However, against
the background of the serious lack of sufficiently
detailed longitudinal data on employment patterns
of migrants and minorities, and in particular, the lack
of knowledge on specific subgroups, notably specific
cohorts of immigrants and the second generation, no
definite statements on changes over time are possible.
Racial/ethnic discrimination in
employment: the EU law
The adoption of the equality directives – the Racial
Equality Directive 2000/43/EC and the Employment
Equality Directive 2000/78/EC – must be considered
a milestone in the development of equality and nondiscrimination policies on the European level, although
full and correct transposition in all 27 Member States is
yet to be achieved. The main problem areas of incorrect
transposition include definitions of discrimination,
assistance to the victims of discrimination – such as the
shift in burden of proof and victimisation – and the scope
of protection granted.
The study highlights the importance of reducing barriers
for victims, so that they may seek legal redress or other
more low-profile remedies against unjust situations, and
also emphasises the future rule of the courts in effectively
interpreting the meaning of discrimination itself.
Indicators of discrimination
Incidents, complaints and court cases
Specialised bodies, equality tribunals and judicial courts
throughout the EU have dealt with cases covering all
the types of discrimination covered by the Equality
Directives and, while doing so, have also advanced
different interpretations of several sensitive issues related
to the directives, such as the shift of the burden of proof,
instruction to discrimination, responsibility of employers
for the behaviour of their employees, addressing multiple
discrimination, the use of situation testing as evidence
in court etc. However, although the total number of
complaints of discrimination reported and processed
since 2003 has increased, compared to previous years,
as a direct consequence of the implementation of the
Equality Directives in the Member States, with the notable
exception of the UK and Ireland there is still very little
case law on racial/ethnic discrimination in employment.
7
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
This situation suggests that there are a number of
barriers to gaining access to justice, namely:
• legal and administrative barriers (e.g. the lack of
a service clearly mandated or trained to process
complaints, lack of effective organisations striving
for more equality, complex and slow procedures,
short time limits for filing an application etc.);
• technical barriers (e.g. prohibitive costs of bringing
a case to court or the high cost of legal advice
and lack of access to free legal services); and
• other obstacles to accessing legal remedies against
discrimination (e.g. the infrequency of litigation itself,
lack of effective, proportional and dissuasive sanctions,
low level of awareness among the victim population
regarding their rights and available options for
seeking redress, fear of victimisation, the perception
of low success rate for actions taken to court etc.).
Research evidence for discrimination
Considerable research on employment discrimination
has been carried out over the past five years. The
available data and studies provide ample evidence
for discrimination against migrants and minorities.
The report presents the main findings of research
conducted on employment discrimination on grounds
of ethnicity, while also discussing the strengths
and weaknesses of different methodologies.
Specifically, it focuses on indicators of discrimination
produced from four main research sources: statistical
data on labour market performance; discrimination
testing; research conducted on the majority population,
in particular regarding employers’ discriminatory
attitudes and behaviour; and surveys and interviews
with migrants and minorities recounting their subjective
experiences of discrimination in employment.
This section of the report concludes that discrimination
on grounds of ethnicity and ‘race’ is a social reality,
but also that much more research – especially crossnational – is needed in order to properly assess the
full extent of discrimination against migrants and
minorities on the labour market, and also to raise
awareness of the existence of such discrimination.
Legal status and vulnerability
The Equality Directives explicitly refrain from restricting
‘any treatment which arises from the legal status of the
third-country nationals and stateless persons’. Thus,
the national legal frameworks regulating the entry,
residence and employment of non-nationals continue
8
to be one of the main sources of inequality among
persons residing on the European territory, while
citizenship remains one of the last grounds on which
Member States may legally engage in discriminatory
treatment of persons. The report analyses in detail
public sector exclusion of non-nationals, the legal
insecurities and stratification of third country nationals,
and the situation of undocumented migrant workers.
Research in this area suggests that restrictive
immigration systems may contribute to migrants’
living and working in irregular conditions, as well
as further reinforcing the segmentation of labour
markets along ethnic and national lines.
While Council Directive 2003/109/EC has improved
the status of third country nationals who are long
term residents (for instance, by ensuring their access
to employment on equal terms with the nationals),
‘discrimination by law’ against the remaining
categories of third country nationals has continued to
remain an under-represented and under-researched
field. This section of the report concludes that
legal insecurity renders a considerable number of
immigrants vulnerable to exploitation and may even
reinforce their marginalisation in the labour market
or put them at risk of losing their legal status due to
non-compliance with residence requirements.
Migrant and minority women in
employment
Available data indicates that migrant and minority
women occupy the least-paid and least-skilled jobs in
the most marginalised segments of the labour market.
Often, their employment opportunities are restricted to
work in the domestic sphere, with a high risk of insecurity
and, often, irregular working conditions. In addition,
discrimination experiences of migrant and minority
women are different according to the various social
and legal positions they occupy and to the attitudes
of the majority population they are confronted with.
This section concludes that their situation cannot
be regarded as the simple sum of gender and racial/
ethnic discrimination, rather it is best described as
being at the intersection of a number of different
types of discrimination, including gender, nationality
and ethnicity. This section also includes a brief
theoretical discussion on the concepts of ‘multiple
discrimination’ and ‘intersectional discrimination,’ as
well as the way these concepts have been reflected
at policy level in the EU and the Member States.
Introduction
Introduction
Aims of the study
The overall aim of this comparative study is to provide
the European Community and its Member States
with a policy-relevant and comprehensive overview
of social exclusion and discrimination regarding
migrants and minorities in the area of employment
in the 27 EU Member States. In addition, the study
also surveys the legal framework in place to combat
discrimination. The study highlights main developments
since 2003. In particular, it provides evidences of
change in relation to trends and developments
identified by a previous comparative report on
‘migrants, minorities, and employment’ which was
commissioned by the predecessor institution of
the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) in 2003.2 Patterns of change are discussed in
terms of objective indicators (statistics) and trends.
How the study was conducted
In July 2008, the International Centre for Migration Policy
Development (ICMPD) had been contracted by the
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
to compile an EU level comparative study based on
reports submitted each year by the National Focal Points
(NFPs) of the RAXEN network, as well as other material
produced by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. In
addition, the study team3 draws on a range of additional
sources, including research studies, commissioned
reports, statistical data and reports from the Commission’s
statistical agency, Eurostat and the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
as well as material collected in completed and
on-going research projects undertaken by ICMPD.
Methodology and structure
The study provides a comparative analysis of inequality
and discrimination in the labour market. Given the
widely different historical trajectories of individual
Member States, differences in administrative and political
tradition, different histories of migration and in the
presence of immigrant or autochthonous minorities,
any comparison on the level of the European Union
of 27 is an inherently difficult task. The difficulty of the
task is compounded by large differences in national
2
3
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union
Albert Kraler (co-ordinator), Saskia Bonjour, Alina Cibea, Mariya
Dzhengozova, Christina Hollomey and David Reichel.
data collection practices and the scarcity of in-depth
information on migrants and minorities on the labour
market on the level of the European Union. As the study
is largely based on national level information provided
by the Fundamental Rights Agency’s RAXEN network, the
comparison undertaken is inherently limited. Because of
these limitations, the study team decided to highlight
the central issues involved in the various topics areas,
which are illustrated by examples taken from national
RAXEN reports. Wherever possible, more systematic
and comparable information has been included.
The study is divided into seven parts:
Chapter 1 describes patterns of ethnic and cultural
diversity in the European Union and discusses the
main concepts used in the European Union as a whole
and in individual Member States to identify migrants
and minorities. In addition, the chapter investigates
availability, quality and comparability of data, and
discusses changes in data collection since 2003.
Chapter 2 analyses patterns of employment of
migrants and minorities in the European Union,
looking at employment and unemployment rates,
distribution across employment sectors, and
differences in income and wages, to set the stage
for an investigation of patterns of discrimination in
the EU Member States undertaken in Chapter 4.2.
Chapter 3 provides a discussion of discrimination,
as well as its different forms, as defined by the Racial
Equality Directive (2000/43/EC). In addition, the chapter
provides an overview of the implementation of the
Racial Equality Directive in Member States and provides
an outlook on the future development of equality and
non-discrimination legislation in the European Union.
Chapter 4 provides a discussion of indicators of
discrimination in the area of employment, including
incidents, complaints and court cases, and the
various types of research which have produced
direct evidence of discrimination in employment.
Chapter 5 focuses on the nexus of legal status and
vulnerability to marginalisation, social exclusion
and unequal treatment. The chapter pays particular
attention to the situation of non-EU nationals residing
on a short term basis or without a legal status.
Chapter 6 analyses the position of migrant and
minority women in employment, and provides
a discussion of the interrelated concepts of
intersectionality and multiple discrimination.
9
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Chapter 7 is the concluding chapter and
summarises the main findings of the study.
Note on terminology
In line with previous FRA/EUMC publications, we use
‘migrants and minorities’ as a short cut for minority
groups and those with a migrant background who
are vulnerable to social exclusion, marginalisation and
discrimination. Using these terms, we do not imply
that migrants and minorities are per se vulnerable
groups. Rather, we investigate potential vulnerability
as a consequence of being a minority member or
a person with an immigrant background. Wherever
possible and reasonable, we specify whether we
are speaking about migrants or minorities or both
or particular subgroups among the former.
10
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
1. Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
1.1. I ntroduction: ethnic and cultural
diversity in the European Union
have turned from countries of emigration to countries
of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively.
Ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is in many ways
a central feature of today’s Union of 27, both in the
Union as a whole as well as in individual Member States.
Migration has been a source of diversity in almost all
Member States, but to greatly varying degrees and
in different ways. In the European Union as a whole4
immigration has exceeded emigration since about
1960, with emigration exceeding immigration only for
short periods after the first and second oil crisis and
related return migration of recruited labour migrants.
Net migration levels have been at about 240,000 on
average per year in the 1970s and 198,000 in the 1980s.
Net migration grew significantly to an average of
750,000 per year in the 1990s. With over 2 million, net
migration peaked in 2003 and has since declined.
In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic is an important
receiving country for immigration, although a fair
share of its migrant population are Slovaks, many of
whom have been on the territory already before the
dissolution of the former common state Czechoslovakia.
Similarly, in Slovenia a large share of the foreign born
population have migrated to Slovenia during the
Yugoslav era. The countries continued to receive
both labour migrants and refugees from this region
since independence, while the number of migrants
from other countries has remained relatively small.
The Russian speaking minorities of the three Baltic
countries similarly are a historical legacy of the
Soviet era, when large numbers of Russian speakers
migrated to the area, often in the framework of stateled resettlement and migration programmes.5
Northern and Western European States such as Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden
and the UK are long-standing countries of immigration
with sizable minorities of immigrant origin.
In 2005, the number of foreign born population in
the EU stood at just over 40 million or 8.8 per cent
of the total population of 495 million. Of the more
than 40 million persons born abroad, two thirds
have been born outside the European Union.
Countries such as Finland, Ireland and the four Southern
European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain
Figure 1-1: Share of foreign-born population in the EU Member States, 2005
40%
Foreign-born
35%
Foreign-nationals
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
BG
RO
PL
M
T
SK
FI
IT
HU
LT
CZ
DK
PT
SI
EL
UK
NL
ES
FR
BE
DE
*
SE
CY
IE
AT
LV
EE
EU
-2
7
LU
0%
Note: * Greek part of Cyprus only.
Source: ICMPD presentation based on Table A.1 in the Statistical Annex
4
Data for EU-25 only. N. Diez Guardia, K. Pichelmann (2006) Labour
Migration Patterns in Europe: Recent Trends, Future Challenges,
European Commission Directorate General for Economic and Financial
Affairs, Economic Papers No. 256, September 2006, available at: http://
europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance (29.11.2008), p. 5-6.
5
See A. Triandafyllidou, R. Gropas, D. Vogel (2007) ‘Introduction’, in
A. Triandafyllidou, R. Gropas (eds.) European Immigration. A Sourcebook,
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1-17.
11
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Reflecting the very different historical trajectories of
individual countries, the share of immigrants, however,
varies enormously. With a share of more than 37.4 per
cent, Luxembourg had the highest percentage of foreign
born in 2005. In long-standing countries of immigration,
the share of foreign born is between 9.1 per cent (United
Kingdom) and 15.1 per cent (Austria). The foreign born
population in Latvia and Estonia is roughly in the same
order, with 19.5 per cent and 15.2 per cent respectively.
In various Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria,
Poland, Romania and Slovakia, the share of the foreign
born population, by contrast is much lower and varies
between 0.6 and 2.3 per cent. In the Czech Republic,
Finland and Hungary the share is somewhat higher and
between three and four per cent, while in the majority
of the remaining countries the share of the foreign
born population is just below the EU average.6 Not all
foreign born persons have a foreign background. Indeed,
in some countries with a long history of emigration a
sizable proportion of immigrants is made up of returning
citizens and their descendants, for example in Poland.
Not all foreigners are migrants, in the sense that
they have physically migrated from another state to
the current country of residence. Rather, a small but
considerable number of foreigners were born on
the territory of a Member State, reflecting prevalent
ius sanguinis conceptions of citizenship and a general
reluctance towards the automatic granting of citizenship
upon birth in a country of the European Union.
Reflecting different histories of migration and different
migration and citizenship regimes, the stock of foreigners
varies considerably in the European Union. According to
Eurostat data the percentage of foreigners in EU Member
States ranges between about 0.1 per cent (Poland,
Romania) and more than 41 per cent in Luxembourg.9
The term ‘foreign national’, however, itself is not
a consistent legal category. Rather, the category
comprises a great number of different statuses,
differentiated along various axes, notably nationality,
purpose of stay, the temporality of the permit
(whether migrants possess a short term permit, a
long term permit or a long term residence permit
in the meaning of directive 2003/109/EC10) and in
terms of the renewability of the legal status held.11
The European Union’s population of immigrant origin
is also diverse in terms of legal status. While a sizable
share of immigrants possess the citizenship of their
current country of residence, some 28 million migrants
or descendants of migrants had a foreign citizenship
in 2007, of which some 17 million had a citizenship
of a country outside the European Union.7 8
In the context of the expansion of freedom of movement
rights for European Union citizens and their family
members in particular in the last two decades12, the
Figure 1-2: Share of foreign population in total population in 20078
45%
EU
40%
non-EU
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
SE
UK
*
FI
SK
SI
RO
PT
*
PL
AT
T*
NL
M
HU
LU
LT
*
LV
CY
IT
FR
*
*
ES
EL
IE
EE
*
DE
DK
*
CZ
BG
BE
0%
Source: ICMPD presentation based on data extracted from Eurostat on 28 August 2008
6
7
8
12
R. Münz, T. Straubhaar, F. Vadean, N. Vadean (2006) ‘What are the
migrants’ contributions to employment and growth? A European
approach’, HWWI Policy Paper No. 3-3, Hamburg: HWWI, available online
at: http://www.hwwi.org/Publikationen_Einzel.5119.0.html?&tx_
wilpubdb_pi1[publication_id]=666&tx_wilpubdb_
pi1[back]=484&cHash=1fda167c85, (27.11.2008) p. 21.
See Statistical Annex.
For countries marked with an asterisk (*) numbers include estimates by
Eurostat.
9
10
11
12
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (28.08.2008).
Directive 2003/109/EC (25.11.2003).
A. Kraler (2006) ‘The legal status of immigrants and their access to
nationality’, in R. Bauböck (ed.) Migration and citizenship. Legal Status,
Rights and Political Participation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, p. 38.
Directive 2004/38/EC (29.4.2008).
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
abolition of internal border controls in the framework of
the Schengen rules and the simultaneous emergence
of migration policies vis-à-vis third country nationals,
the distinction between Union citizens and their family
members on the one hand, and third country nationals
on the other, has become increasingly important.13
Legally, the status of Union citizens is almost equal
to that of a citizen of the receiving states, although
transitional regulations for the EU-814 and Bulgaria
and Romania temporarily limit freedom of movement
rights and in particular, access to EU labour markets
until 2011 and 2014, respectively.15 In addition,
family members of EU citizens enjoy freedom of
movement rights irrespective of their nationality.
Like EU citizens and their family members, third country
nationals who are long term residents of a Member
State16 enjoy more or less unrestricted freedom of
movement rights and far-reaching protection from
expulsion and withdrawal of residence status. Most
importantly, unlike foreign nationals who are not covered
by the long term residence directive, long term residents
enjoy far reaching protection from discrimination on
grounds of nationality (excluded from the Equality
directives) and hence equality in access to the labour
market and in particular to public sector jobs, and social
benefits and services, amongst others (see chapter 5).
However, those foreign nationals who are not long
term residents of a member state have highly varying
legal statuses, depending on the purpose of stay and
on whether they have been admitted on a temporary
or a permanent basis. In addition, an unknown and
probably relatively small share of Europe’s population
has been admitted as refugees:17 in 2005, 21,205 persons
were granted refugee status in the EU-27, while 23,765
13
14
15
16
17
See for an account of the emergence of free movement and the
evolution of EU migration policy A. Kraler, M. Jandl, M. Hofmann
(2006) ‘The Evolution of EU Migration Policy and Implications for
Data Collection’. in: M. Poulain, N. Perrin, A. Singleton (eds.) Towards
the Harmonisation of European Statistics on International Migration
(THESIM), Louvain-La-Neuve: UCLPresses Universitaires de Louvain,
pp. 35-75.
Citizens of Cyprus and Malta were never subject to transitional
regulations restricting access to EU-15 labour markets.
The two dates mark the dates by which all restrictions on freedom of
movement and access to labour markets have to be lifted. Three states
(IE, SE, UK) have immediately granted full freedom of movement to
EU-8 citizens. Another 10 of the EU-15 countries have lifted restrictions
between 2006 and 2009. Of the EU-15 Member States, only Austria
and Germany will keep restrictions for EU-8 citizens in place until 2011.
In respect to EU-2 citizens, six of the EU-15 Member States (Denmark,,
Spain, Finland, Greece, Portugal, Sweden) decided to open up their
labour markets at the time of writing. Of the new EU Member States that
acceded to the EU in 2004 all except Malta, which maintains restrictions
against Bulgarians and Romanians, have opened up their labour markets
(see http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=119&langId=en
(31.1.2010)).
Directive 2003/109/EC (25.11.2003).
No data is generally available on the total stock of recognised refugees
and only number of grants (and refusals) is collected.
persons received subsidiary protection. More important
in quantitative terms are asylum seekers, who have
been an important feature of migration in the European
Union since the 1990s, even though their status and
probably their stay is largely of a transitional and
temporary nature. In recent years, however, the number
of asylum applications has significantly decreased.18
Yet migration is not the only source of cultural and
ethnic diversity in the European Union. Autochthonous
ethnic and linguistic minorities or ‘historic minorities’19
are an equally important source of ethnic and
cultural diversity. Virtually all European countries have
autochthonous ethnic and/or linguistic minorities
of some sort. Some, like the Basques and Catalans in
Spain or German-speaking minorities in northern Italy,
and Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania,
constitute large regionally concentrated minorities
which frequently are majority groups in specific regions.
Often, these regions enjoy far reaching autonomy and
in some contexts, notably in Belgium and Spain, the
federal organisation of the political system reflects
the inherent diversity of these states. Such minorities
are also often called national minorities to distinguish
them from smaller autochthonous ethnic minorities
without claims to political and cultural autonomy.
However, not only do such large national minorities
often constitute the majority population in their main
areas of settlement, they also usually differ little from
the overall national population in terms of social,
political and economic participation and thus are
far from being ‘vulnerable groups’. However, as the
focus of this report is on the latter – on migrant and
minority groups vulnerable to social exclusion and
potentially or actually subject to discrimination – such
minorities will not be further considered in this report.
Apart from such large autochthonous national minorities,
there is a broad range of autochthonous minority groups
of smaller size or other characteristics that distinguish
them from national minorities. In several EU Member
States such autochthonous minorities enjoy special
protection under constitutional or other laws, including
the Saami population in Finland, various smaller groups
in Austria, and the Muslim minority of Thrace in Greece.20
Such formal legal protection usually affords specific
cultural rights to minorities so recognised, including
18
19
20
Eurostat database, data extracted on 28.11.2008, available
online at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_
pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=wel
comeref&open=/populat/migr/migr_asy&language=en&product=EU_
MASTER_population&root=EU_MASTER_population&scrollto=0.
Council of Europe (2000) Diversity and Cohesion: New Challenges for the
Integration of Immigrants and Minorities, Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing, p. 25f.
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in the 15 EU Member States of
the European Union
13
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Figure 1-3: Estimated share of Roma populations in the European Union
Less than 0.1% of total population
0.1% to 0.9% of total population
1% to 4.9% of total population
More than 5% of total population
Source: ICMPD presentation. For underlying data see Statistical Annex Tables A.1 and A.2
using a minority language at court and/or as language
of instruction in the education system or entitlements
for public subsidies for minority media or other cultural
activities. Some of these minorities are positioned at
the margins of society and experience marginalisation
and social exclusion. Others differ little from the overall
population in terms of political, social and economic
participation and diversity in their case is essentially
an issue of cultural and political recognition rather
than an issue of social exclusion and marginalisation.
countries and Slovenia to several hundred thousand
in the Czech Republic, France, Slovakia and Spain, to
possibly more than two million in Romania.21 Estimates
on the total population of Roma background living in
the territory of the European Union range from three
to seven million mentioned in the 2004 European
Commission report The Situation of Roma in an Enlarged
Europe22 prior to EU enlargement, to 10 million in
Roma constitute one of the largest minority populations,
numbering between a few thousands in the Baltic
22
14
21
J.-P. Liégois (2007) Roma in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing, p. 31.
European Commission (2004) The Situation of Roma in an Enlarged
Europe, p. 6 available at http://www.errc.org/db/00/E0/m000000E0.pdf
(20.10.2009).
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
the EU 27 Member States, noted in a 2008 European
Parliament Resolution on a European Strategy on the
Roma.23 The population usually referred to as Roma,
however, is itself highly heterogenous and comprises
a large number of different groupings, including Roma
in the narrow sense, Sinti, Travellers, Ashkali, Kale and
Beash, amongst others.24 Reflecting a long history of
social exclusion, marginalisation, discrimination and
persecution, the Roma are generally a particularly
vulnerable group, although, again, conditions differ
greatly between individual Member States.
1.2. I dentifying migrants and
minorities
1.2.1.Theoretical considerations
The general focus of this report is on migrants and
minorities vulnerable to social exclusion, marginalisation
and discrimination. Using these terms, we do not imply
that migrants and minorities are per se vulnerable
groups. Rather, we investigate potential vulnerability as
a consequence of being a minority member or a person
with an immigrant background and use the reference
to migrants and minorities as a reference to vulnerable
groups. Wherever possible and reasonable, we specify
whether we are speaking about migrants or minorities
or both or particular subgroups among the former.
The way the term migrants and minorities is used
in this report – namely as a category referring to
particular groups potentially vulnerable to exclusion,
marginalisation and discrimination rather than as a
term referring to migrants and minorities as a whole
– points to more fundamental issues regarding
concepts and categories used in social and political
analysis and consequently data collection.
First, most categories of social analysis are simultaneously
also categories of social and political practice. This is
most evident perhaps in policy categories such as
‘foreign national’ or the increasing practice to refer to
the migration of EU citizens with the term mobility
and distinguish it sharply from migration involving
third country nationals. In this context, scientific
analysis may run the danger of reifying and in a way
legitimising categories of social and political practice,
whereas the actual task of any analysis should actually
be to critically investigate and deconstruct such
categories, to study how these are reified and turned
into meaningful categories of political and social
practice and to study the impact of such categories on
social and economic patterns and practices. As Roger
Brubaker and Frederick Cooper have remarked, social
scientists ‘should avoid unintentionally reproducing
or reinforcing such reification by uncritically adopting
categories of practice as categories of analysis.’25
In respect to research on patterns of inequality and
practices of discrimination concerning migrants and
minorities, such criticism has in particular been raised
regarding the concepts of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’.26 While
ethnicity is a widely used and accepted term, the exact
meaning of the term is contested, reflecting its dual
nature as a category of social analysis and a category
of social and political practice.27 There is, however, a
growing awareness that ethnicity is a complex and
fluid phenomenon, which involves self-identification
processes of individuals, collective internal discourses of
ethnic groups and external discourses on ethnicity in the
mainstream population. As a consequence of the fluid
and essentially contextual nature of the concept, ethnicity
is difficult to nail down. Equally important, the meaning
of ethnicity is not stable in a temporal perspective either.
‘Race’ is an even more problematic term. As the famous first
UNESCO statement on race of 1950 has remarked ‘[f ]or all
practical social purposes race is not so much a biological
phenomenon as a social myth’. This myth has ‘created an
enormous amount of human and social damage’, and by
implication, should be discarded altogether and replaced
by ethnicity in social and political analysis.28
However, even if more neutral and generic concepts
are used such as immigrants or persons with a migrant
background, the basic assumption still is that such
categories are useful for explaining particular labour
market outcomes or other social patterns. Such
assumptions underlying the use of particular categories
of analysis inherently underpin all social analysis and
25
26
27
28
23
24
The populations (of the Roma and non-Roma) increased significantly
with the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. European Parliament
Resolution of 23 January 2008 on a European Strategy on the Roma
P6_TA(2008)0035, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?pubRef=//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0035+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
(22.09.09)
J.-P. Liégois (2007) Roma in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing, p. 32.
R. Brubaker, F. Cooper (2000) ‘Beyond identity’, in: Theory and Society,
Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 5.
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe; J. Wrench
(2007) Diversity Management and Discrimination: Immigrants and
Ethnic Minorities in the EU. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 104ff.
R. Brubaker (2002) ‘Ethnicity without groups’, in: European Journal
of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie, Vol. 43, No. 2,
pp. 163-189.
UNESCO (1952) The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry, available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf (see
Paragraph 14 of the ‘Text of the 1950 Statement’ in the Appendix). It
should be noted that the first UNESCO statement attracted considerable
criticism from physical anthropologists resulting in a reformulation of it
just two years later. In the reformulated statement, the critique of race
as a ‘social myth’ was dropped and reintroduced as a legitimate category
of biological analysis, which was only reversed in much later UNESCO
statements.
15
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
are as such not necessarily problematic. However, one
should avoid taking these categories as self-explanatory
and as terms connoting specific characteristics of the
groups subsumed under a particular category. Thus,
although many migrant groups in the European Union
experience social exclusion and marginalisation, it is not
necessarily the fact that they are immigrants that explain
their positioning in society; statistical indicators should
be taken as what they are – as indications of possible
explanatory variables for particular social patterns (in our
case gross labour market inequalities, social exclusion
and discrimination). Taking these considerations seriously,
concepts used to identify vulnerable groups need to be
constantly reviewed and open to modification or change.
For the purpose of this report, migrants and minorities
can be taken to comprise two distinct, although
overlapping groups: (1) migrants and minorities with a
migrant background and (2) autochthonous minorities.
For the former, three identification methods can be
distinguished:
(a) Demographically, migrants can be defined as persons
who have moved from another country to their
current country of residence at least once in their
lifetime, usually measured by country of birth. The
broader group of persons with a migrant background
can be identified by their parents’ or grandparent’s
country of birth.
(b) Traditionally the most common identifier of migrant
minorities is citizenship and the related distinction
between nationals and non-nationals. Given the
very different migration and citizenship regimes,
however, this category is less useful for social
analysis and has been replaced or complemented
in many official datasets by country of birth. At
the same time, distinctions between citizens and
non-citizens indicate important legal differences
that may affect the social and economic position of
migrants and therefore is a highly useful category
of social analysis for specific groups and for specific
research questions. Today, many official datasets
permit the combination of the variables citizenship
and country of birth, allowing, for example, to
distinguish ‘native immigrants’ – immigrants who
were citizens at birth – from immigrants with a
foreign citizenship at birth, and thus are able to
attain a more nuanced picture of the possible factors
that influence the position of migrants in society.
(c) Ethnicity is a third possible variable to identify both
migrant and autochthonous minorities. Ethnicity
is usually measured through self-identification. As
a variable, it is employed mainly in surveys and
censuses, whereas it in administrative datasets it
appears much more rarely.29 In addition to selfidentification of respondents with a given list of
ethnic categories, colloquial language and/or religion
may be used as an alternative and as proxy variables.
Ethnicity is also often taken as synonymous with
national origin, in which case citizenship or descent
based variables (country of birth or country of parent’s
birth) or combinations of these are used. In the latter
case, however, ethnicity is virtually synonymous with
descent rather than a concept in its own right. The
use of ethnicity as a synonym for migrant background
such as in the UK signals a certain perspective on
diversity that interprets diversity as an inherent
feature of contemporary societies, so that diversity of
origin should be addressed independently of one’s
migration status.
1.2.2.Data collection practices
in EU Member States
In the following section, we will discuss how EU
Member States define migrant and minority groups
for policy purposes and how they collect statistical
data on these groups. In addition, the section will
also provide a limited analysis of data availability and
comparability, although a thorough and systematic
analysis is outside the scope of this chapter.
The previous EUMC study on migrants, minorities and
employment (2003) grouped the then 15 EU Member
States according to prevalent concepts used to measure
migrants and minorities which the study related to the
immigration histories of the countries.30 The first cluster
of countries identified by the study included those with
colonial histories (FR, NL, UK), the second cluster included
labour recruiting countries which actively recruited workers
from the 1950s to the 1970s (AT, BE, DK, DE, LU, SE),31
and the third cluster was comprised of countries which
only recently (since the late 1980s or 1990s) experienced
considerable immigration (GR, IT, ES, PT, FI, IE).32 While
this cluster has provided a useful approach for making
sense of data collection practices and related ideas about
migrants and minorities in the European Union of 15 in
2003, the two latest waves of enlargement and a number
of developments in statistical data collection practices and
concepts used to measure migrants and minorities have
29
30
31
32
16
See research results for ‘ethnicity’ in the PROMINSTAT database under
http://www.prominstat.eu/prominstat/database/ (4.2.2009).
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union
Often referred to as ‘guestworkers’; however, this ambiguous term is
problematic since ‘guest’ and ‘worker’ is contradictory and it neglects the
fact that those persons were actually immigrants (cf. A. Treibel (2008)
Migration in modernen Gesellschaften. Soziale Folgen von Einwanderung,
Gastarbeit und Flucht, Weinheim and Munich: Juventa, p. 116).
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, pp. 5-9.
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
superseded the analysis. In addition, the 2003 classification
of countries focused on migrant minorities and did not
incorporate a broader minority perspective.
Widening the scope, Patrick Simon (2007) identifies three
categories of countries:
Based on an analysis of practices of European countries in
the 2000 census round, Simon finds that most countries
describe the population according to citizenship and
country of birth and its various combinations. He calls
these groups ‘state-centred’ as the variables are mainly
related to states (geographically and politically). EU
15 countries except northern European countries are
assigned to this group.
Simon labels data collection practices in his second
category of countries ‘mosaic-like’. Although they all focus
on ‘ethno-cultural’ questions, actual practices differ widely
in this country grouping. Generally, these countries use
religion, language and nationality/ethnicity to describe
their respective populations. Central and eastern
European countries, the three Baltic States as well as
Balkan countries are assigned to this cluster.
Finally, Simon identifies a third cluster of predominant
practices which he terms ‘post-migration multicultural’
data collection practices. These countries use
classifications which reflect their specific post-war
migration histories as well as traditions of integration
and non-discrimination policies and related concepts
to account for immigrants. Simon includes the United
Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands and the Scandinavian
countries in this category. In these countries ethnicity,
religion and/ or descent (parents’ country of birth)
are important categories of data collection. Migrant
minorities generally are seen as broader groups including
both first generation migrants and their descendants.33
Table 1-1: Types of variables collected
Type
Variables collected
Geographical area
State-centred
Country of birth
and citizenship
EU 15 excepting
northern European
countries, Turkey
Mosaic
Nationality/ethnicity
and language
Baltic countries,
central and eastern
Europe, Balkans
Post migration
multicultural
Ethnic group and
religion
Parents’ country of birth
United Kingdom,
Ireland, Netherlands,
Scandinavian
countries
As a result of major changes in data collection practices
in recent years, characterised by increasingly complex,
multifaceted and internationalised data collection, a
fairly broad range of variables are increasingly available
to identify migrants and minorities in a large number
of EU Member States. As a result, the differences
between countries are increasingly blurred. In addition,
individual countries, particularly in those where
individual datasets cannot be easily linked, may not
employ uniform concepts consistently in all datasets
and may follow different practices at the same time,
collecting data on ethnicity in one dataset and using
other variables in others. An increasing number of
countries are, however, moving towards register-based
population systems, in which different variables and
combinations of these can be used to identify migrants
and minorities. The way migrants and minorities are
represented in published statistics is usually less flexible
and follows discernible national traditions. Some
examples of country specific concepts are given below.
1.2.2.1. Country Specific Concepts
In France the most important variables used are
citizenship and country of birth. Those variables are put
together to create a specific definition of ‘immigrant’
(‘immigré’) which is defined as a resident of France who
was born abroad and had a foreign citizenship at birth.
This concept was introduced for two reasons: (1) Born
abroad was not considered clear enough since there are
many French citizens who are born abroad and there
are important differences of integration processes of
citizens and foreigners once they come to France, and
(2) if the concept of immigrant were defined solely on
the basis of country of birth, different migration and
integration trajectories of immigrants who are naturalised
subsequent to immigration, and those who do not,
would be obscured. Information on citizenship at birth,
by contrast, allows distinction to be made between the
two groups and hence to study possible differences
in integration trajectories.35 In many other countries in
Europe, by contrast, citizenship at birth is not readily
available from official datasets.
In the Netherlands, official statistics distinguish between
allochtones or allochtoons and natives or autochthons.36
Natives are defined as persons whose parents were both
born in the Netherlands, while allochtones are persons
with at least one foreign born parent. Allochtoons are
Source: P. Simon (2007), p.38 34
33
34
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 37-38.
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
35
36
T. Eremenko, X. Thierry (2009) Country Report France, National Data
Collection Systems and Practices, available at: www.prominstat.eu.
J. Doomernik (2009) Country Report The Netherlands, National Data
Collection Systems and Practices, available at: www.prominstat.eu.
17
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
further divided in Western and non-Western.37 Western
countries include all countries in Europe excluding Turkey
as well as North America, Oceania, Indonesia, or Japan.
The remainder is defined as non-Western. The inclusion
of Indonesia and Japan to Western countries has been
justified on the basis of socio-economic considerations.38
Another distinction is made between the first generation
with a foreign background and the second generation
with a foreign background.39 The former comprises
foreign born with at least one parent born abroad,
while ‘second generation’ comprises persons born in
the Netherlands with at least one parent born abroad.
The concept of ‘ethnic nationality’ can be found in
particular in Eastern European countries. ‘Nationality’ in
this context does not refer to the legal relationship of an
individual to a state but rather to national identity in the
sense of ethnic identity. The term thus overlaps but is
not synonymous with ethnicity. Historically, the concept
dates back to the communist period. In this context,
ethnic nationality usually, albeit not exclusively, referred
to national origin in terms of a person’s origin in one of
the constituent ‘nations’ that made up the communist
federations (notably Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union).
In Latvia various statistics are differentiated by ethnic
nationality. Ethnic nationality is usually not derived from
country of birth or citizenship but measured through
self-identification.
The use of ethnicity or ‘race’ in the United Kingdom
is closely linked to anti-racist and anti-discrimination
policies and in particular the Race Relations Act. The
categories used to measure ‘race’, however, have been
subject to considerable change. Ethnicity is measured
through self-identification.40 The ethnic groups available
in the census 2001 were: ‘White’, ‘Mixed’, ‘Asian or Asian
British’, ‘Black or Black British’, and ‘Chinese or other
ethnic group’. All those categories include several
subcategories.41 This categorisation includes several
different characteristics, namely colour of skin (White,
Black-British) as well as national, ethnic and geographic
37
Cf. Statistics Netherlands website, available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/
StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=37325eng&D1=a&D2=01,3-4,139,145,210,225&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=9-12&HD=0806041108&LA=EN&HDR=G3,G4,G2,T&STB=G1,G5 and http://statline.cbs.
nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37325&D1=a&D2=04,136,151,214,231&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a,!0-8&HD=0803311216&HDR=G4,G2,G3,T&STB=G1,G5, (09.10.2008).
38 Cf. Statistics Netherlands website, available at: http://www.cbs.nl/
en-GB/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?ConceptID=1057
and http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.
htm?ConceptID=1013, (09.10.2008).
39 Cf. Statistics Netherlands website, available at: http://www.cbs.nl/
en-GB/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?ConceptID=950
and http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.
htm?ConceptID=1034, (09.10.2008).
40 A. Singleton, A. Lenoel (2010) Country Report United Kingdom, National
Data Collection Systems and Practices, available at: www.prominstat.eu.
41Cf. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/key_statistics_final.
pdf, (05.11.2008).
18
origin (India, Pakistan, China).42 Although ethnic
monitoring in the UK has been justified in terms of antidiscrimination and equal opportunities policies, the use
of race as a category of statistics has also been criticised
and blamed for the ‘racialisation’ of British society.43
1.2.2.2. P
ractices of EU Member States regarding
the use of citizenship, country of birth and
descent, and ethnicity44
Although various countries use their own concepts to
identify migrant and minority groups, both country
of birth and citizenship are increasingly available from
a variety of data sources. Under the recently adopted
Regulation on Community Statistics on Migration and
International Protection45 Member States are obliged
to provide data on stocks of international migrants by
country of birth and citizenship. However, the regulation
only covers general demographic information and
information on the legal status of immigrants. Thus, while
general population statistics usually include the variables
of citizenship and country of birth this is not always the
case in respect to national data sources on employment
and other social areas.
On the European level, both the Labour Force Survey
(LFS) and the European Survey on Income and Living
Conditions (EU-SILC) include the variables citizenship and
country of birth. In the case of the LFS the variable was
introduced in the mid-1990s. The 2008 ad-hoc module on
migrants on the labour market additionally included the
variable of parents’ country of birth to allow identifying
the second generation. In some countries, notably
Austria, the variable of parents’ country of birth has been
defined a core variable and will be maintained in future
waves of the survey.
Legal status, or more precisely, nationality status is the
most commonly used differentiation in EU Member States
and is usually available from general datasets on the
population, residence permit data and socio-economic
datasets such as the LFS or national data sources on
employment. Available data usually differentiates citizens,
foreigners and EU nationals vs. third country nationals. The
residence permit data usually also provides information
on reasons of stay and type of legal status held. Under
the EU Regulation on Community Statistics on Migration
and International Protection, Member States are obliged
to provide such information on an annual basis.
42
43
44
45
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, p. 61.
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, p. 62.
This section draws on a preliminary analysis of the Raxen reports made
available to the study authors and the ongoing FP6 research project
‘Promoting quantitative comparative research in the field of migration
and integration’ (PROMINSTAT). On the project see www.prominstat.eu
(1.12.2008).
Regulation (EC) 862/2007 (11.7.2008).
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
The most important variable for measuring the
origin of persons is the variable of country of birth. In
addition, the parents’ country of birth and citizenship
are important indicators of a person’s descent. While
country of birth is increasingly available from a variety
of datasets, parents’ country of birth and citizenship
is not. Both origin (country of birth) and descent are
proxy statistics for measuring the ethnicity of a person.
Ethnicity is a more complex category than legal status or
origin, especially in regard to data collection and statistics.
Only relatively few countries use ethnicity as a concept
in social statistics.46 Ethnicity may refer to characteristics
of persons, including colour of the skin, national origin,
religion, regional identification, language, amongst others.
The main reason for the unavailability of information
on ethnicity and ‘race’ is the contested nature of the
categories. Notwithstanding reservations about the
use of ethnicity as a statistical category, the European
Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the
Economic and Social Spheres (CEIES) has recently
recommended the inclusion of information on ethnicity
as a core variable of social statistics, to be collected at
the European level in the future, particularly within the
framework of the LFS and EU-SILC. In principle, these
recommendations have been endorsed by the statistical
agency of the European Commission, Eurostat.47
1.3. A
vailability of statistics regarding
discrimination in the area of
employment
There are basically two ways to established statistical
evidence of discrimination: (a) through direct evidence of
discrimination or discriminatory practices, a more detailed
discussion of which is provided below and (b) through
indirect evidence and statistical inference. General
labour market data may be used as general indicators
of vulnerability and potential discrimination. Advanced
statistical techniques which control for alternative
explanatory factors can further help to indirectly identify
possible discrimination.
1.3.1.Statistical data on inequality in the labour
market
The most obvious indicators on labour market inequality
are general statistics on employment patterns, and
the most common are labour force participation and
employment and unemployment rates. Large differences
in employment patterns, however, may in itself be
explained by a variety of factors. Thus, differences in
labour force participation rates might be related to
differences in legal status (access to labour market),
differences in human capital endowments (and
therefore lower chances of employment), differences
in demographic composition of groups (e.g. more
children and/or old persons), cohort effects (time and
age at immigration and/or entry at the labour market)
or discriminatory attitudes of employers. Thus, to be
able to explain labour market outcomes, labour market
statistics need to be linked to a wide range of additional
information, including on demographic characteristics,
educational attainment, working time (e.g. full time
or part time), type of labour contract (fixed term vs.
permanent), economic sector distribution, occupation
and occupational status, working conditions, and wages.
General statistics on employment participation are
commonly available in EU Member States; however,
national data is rarely comparable due to different
concepts used for employment characteristics on
the one hand and for migrants and minorities on the
other. More detailed data on labour market outcomes
of certain groups (such as wages, working conditions,
and education) are even scarcer and less comparable.
To some degree, differences in concepts and definitions
used reflect broader differences in welfare regimes, to
which data production is closely linked. Although some
comparative information is in principle available from
harmonised European surveys such as the EU-SILC and
the LFS, problems in accurately sampling immigrants
and minorities, as well as low sample sizes and resulting
problems in data quality and in possibilities to monitor
smaller migrant and minority groups, collectively
constitute considerable obstacles to comparative analysis.
Data on labour market performance of migrants and
minorities is, by and large, readily available, although not
always in sufficient quality or detail to make statements
regarding the vulnerability of migrants and minorities
or to allow inferences regarding the occurrence of
discrimination.
46
47
P. Simon (2007) “Ethnic” statistics and data protection in the Council of
Europe countries, Study report, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
See M. Gaude (2007) Statistics on discrimination within the context of
social statistics – main issues. Reaction from Eurostat, Paper given at 33rd
CEIES Seminar on ‘Ethnic and Racial Discrimination on the Labour Market:
Measurement, statistics and indicators’, 7-8 June 2007, Valletta, Malta.
19
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
1.3.2.Data on discrimination
There are basically five ways to identify discrimination
or related practices and attitudes:48
First, experiences of discrimination reported by victims
of discrimination can be studied. Information on
experiences of discrimination can be derived from
reported incidents, complaints and court cases or,
more systematically, from surveys. The very nature of
information on incidents, complaints and court cases
does not make it a useful source of information on
broader patterns of discrimination. These problems of
what the data collected in this manner can actually
tell about patterns of discrimination are discussed in
more detail below, in chapter 4.1. Surveys of victims
of discrimination are generally more reliable sources
of information. However, these are also fraught with
problems; victims may not be aware that discrimination
has taken place and may view unequal treatment as
legitimate or commonplace. Or, by contrast, individuals
may perceive unequal treatment as discrimination while
there are other reasons that explain such behaviour.
In 2008 the EU Fundamental Rights Agency conducted
an EU-wide victim survey investigating discrimination
experiences, victimisation and treatment by authorities,
the results of which became available in 2009.49 This has
for the first time provided comprehensive and comparable
information on experiences of discrimination and
victimisation in the EU-27. (See section 4.2.4 of this report.)
Secondly, matched pair discrimination testing can
provide information on discriminatory practices and,
potentially, information on employers (firms) discriminating
against migrants and minorities. Discrimination testing
may be used quasi-experimentally to study the probability
and extent of discriminatory behaviour vis-à-vis specific
groups. In respect of discrimination in employment,
discrimination testing has almost exclusively been
employed in recruitment processes. For methodological
reasons, other forms of discrimination in employment
(promotion, wage discrimination, discrimination in
assigning tasks, etc.) are inherently difficult to study
through discrimination testing. Potentially, discrimination
testing would also permit analysing the characteristics
of firms/employers engaged in discrimination. Existing
discrimination tests, however, have usually only collected
48
49
20
Categorisation adapted from: A. Gächter (2004) Detecting Discrimination
Against Migrants, ZSI Discussion Paper, No. 3, p. 10, available at: http://
www.zsi.at/de/publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008).
See EU-MIDIS survey page, available at: http://www.fra.europa.eu/
(10.11.2008) and S. Nevala (2008) EU-MIDIS Surveying ethnic minorities
and immigrants in the EU-27, Presentation at the 13th International
Metropolis Conference on ‘Mobility, Integration and Development in
a Globalised World’, 27-31 October 2008, Bonn, available at: http://
www.metropolis2008.org/workshop-information/speeches_and_
presentations/index.php, (10.11.2008).
very limited information on employers. Discrimination
testing is discussed in more detail in section 4.2.
Inter-group comparisons of statistical data is a third
method to identify discrimination. By statistically
controlling for alternative explanatory variables such as
education, age and gender, any remaining differences in
labour market outcomes indicate potential discrimination.
Through this method, only indirect evidence for
discrimination can be obtained. The advantage of this
method lies in the fact that it does not require specific
survey tools and that it can be applied using available
data sources on employment, if these are of sufficient
depth and quality.
Fourth, information on attitudes of the majority
population can provide information on the tolerance
of members of the majority population towards
discriminatory practices and attitudes, or, conversely, on
the degree of rejection of discriminatory practices and
attitudes and support for non-discrimination. Various
European surveys, including the Eurobarometer and
the European Social Survey regularly include items on
discrimination, racism and xenophobia.50
Such surveys are useful in two ways: First, they allow
monitoring of majority attitudes towards migrants and
minorities, and to some degree they also permit assessing
the impact of policy initiatives such as awareness raising
programmes, and similar initiatives, on public attitudes.
Secondly, such surveys can potentially be used to identify
reasons why persons hold discriminatory beliefs. Surveys
on attitudes, however, are less useful in the study of
discrimination practices. First, discriminatory attitudes do
not necessarily find expression in discriminatory practices.
Secondly, individuals may engage in discriminatory
practices without holding explicit discriminatory beliefs or
without admitting to hold such beliefs.
A fifth possible source of information on discrimination
is surveys of attitudes and discriminatory practices
of ‘gatekeepers’ – employers, human resource
managers, employment agencies and suchlike. The fact
that discriminatory attitudes do not necessarily find
expression in discriminatory practices also applies to
employer surveys, while information on actual practices
may be distorted by a tendency to report only socially
acceptable practices. Thus, information provided may
reflect the broader acceptance of discriminatory practices
(or non-acceptance) as much as concrete discriminatory
behaviour as such. Despite these caveats, surveys on
gatekeepers potentially provide explanations as to why
employers engage in discriminatory practices. Such
50
See, for example, the special module on discrimination implemented
in the 2006 wave of the Eurobarometer: European Commission (2007)
Discrimination in the European Union, Special Eurobarometer 263 Wave
65.4, TNS Opinion & Social, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_
opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_263_en.pdf (1.12.2008).
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
information is particularly important for designing
appropriate policy responses to discriminatory behaviour.
1.4. D
evelopments of statistical data
collection over the last five years
The 2003 EUMC study on migrants, minorities and
employment highlighted several shortcomings of
available statistical information on socio-economic
characteristics of migrants and minorities and a lack of
statistically sound data on discrimination. The study
recommended that Member States should take necessary
steps for the improvement of the availability, scope, and
quality of data on migrants and minorities.51
Generally, data collection practices in the European
Union have undergone major changes in the period
under review. These changes concern a) changes of
data collection systems, both in terms of improvement
of existing datasets and in terms of the introduction
of new survey instruments and other datasets; b) the
broader availability of the core demographic variables
identifying migrants and minorities, in particular country
of birth; and c) changes linked to the harmonisation
of data collection on the European level.
Thus, an increasing number of countries are currently
moving to register based data collection systems.
Although data collection systems based on administrative
data are not without problems, the advantage of register
based systems is that – in principle – information from
different datasets can be linked systematically to each
other, thus providing comprehensive information on
the total population (or a subgroup among these) of
considerable thematic scope and on a regular basis.
The Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands
have had register based data collection systems for a
considerable time. In Belgium and Slovenia, register
based data collection systems were established during
the 1990s, although in Belgium registers have been more
extensively used for the analysis of labour market patterns
of migrants and minorities only more recently. Austria
adopted a register based system in the early 2000s, in the
wake of which several new registers were established. As
a corollary, the next census will be completely register
based. Similarly, Germany will implement a register based
census in the next census round and has established new
employment related datasets based on administrative
registers in the past decade. In both countries, however,
data linkage outside the census is subject to considerable
legal constraints. Similarly, although the Baltic States
51
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 89-93.
dispose of high quality registers, they are generally not
used for statistical purposes on data protection grounds.52
However, to be able to identify developments and changes
over time and to be able to identify processes and factors
leading to unequal labour outcomes of migrants and
minorities, good longitudinal information is required. While
consecutive cross-sectional surveys, as well as registers
for which only snapshot statistics are produced, allow
monitoring changes over time at an aggregate level,
longitudinal data would be required to allow making
statements on changes over time at the level of the
individual. The availability of longitudinal data, however,
in the European Union varies greatly. Such statistics are
readily available only in countries with register based data
collection systems, albeit panel surveys may be used as a
substitute. On the EU level, the EU-SILC is the only survey
tool explicitly incorporating a longitudinal perspective.
However, the EU-SILC allows only allows for a limited
longitudinal analysis – respondents remain in the EU SILC
for 4 waves, i.e. four years.
Across Europe, the availability of the variable of country of
birth has greatly improved in the past five years. However,
in many national level data sources on employment and
unemployment, for example social security registers
or unemployment registers, citizenship is still the main
variable used. By contrast, ethnicity remains a relatively
rare concept in statistical data collection in the EU. While
some countries have newly introduced variables on
ethnicity and identity in censuses or surveys, such as
in Ireland, where a question on ethnicity was included
in the 2006 census for the first time, other countries
are moving away from ethnicity based data collection.
Thus, Lithuania and Slovakia, where data on ethnicity
were available in employment statistics until 2004 and
1999 respectively, do not use the ethnicity variable
any longer. In immigration contexts, however, ethnic
monitoring might still be successfully implemented in
spite of the absence of the variable of ethnicity by using
descent as the main variable to identify ethnic groups.
On the European level, the introduction of the EU-SILC,
which replaces the European Household Panel, provides
a useful new survey instrument potentially relevant for
the analysis of employment and incomes of migrants
and minorities in a cross-national perspective. However,
relatively small survey sizes mean that only the largest
groups can be identified. In comparison, the European
Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a much more robust
survey instrument. In particular, the 2008 LFS ad-hoc
module on immigrants provides an important new
source of information on the labour market position
52
Information based on PROMINSTAT country reports, available at: www.
prominstat.eu.
21
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
of immigrants.53 Similarly, the earlier mentioned
European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey
(EU-MIDIS) implemented under the auspices of the
Fundamental Rights Agency is the first and largest
EU-wide survey on experiences of discrimination of
selected immigrant and minority groups and exists
as an important information base on discrimination
experiences of immigrants.54 (See section 4.2.4)
An important step in improving the availability and
comparability of European level data on immigrants
has been the adoption of the EU regulation on
community statistics on migration and international
protection in July 2007.55 The regulation requires
Member States to provide statistics on the usual resident
population, immigration and emigration, acquisition of
citizenship, asylum applications and asylum decisions,
prevention of irregular entry and stay, statistics on
residence permits, and return. The regulation requires
differentiations of most data by sex, age, citizenship
and country of birth. The first reference year is 2008. Yet,
initial provisions on the inclusion of socio-economic
variables under article 8 of the regulation on additional
disaggregations to be proposed by the Commission
were dropped in the final version of the regulation.56
Despite the non-inclusion of socio-economic variables in
the final version of the regulation on migration statistics,
there is a growing awareness of the need for comparable
socio-economic data on migrants and minorities in
general and on discrimination in particular. There is
also a growing number of initiatives and measures to
improve data on labour market performance of migrants
and minorities and discrimination. For instance, the
Community Action Programme against Discrimination
2001-2006, adopted in 200057, included various
measures regarding the collection of equality data.
In this context, DG Employment established a working
group on equality data in 2002, involving experts from
ten EU Member States. The task of the working group
was to assess the availability of equality data as well as
the scope and possible improvements to the data. A
53
54
55
56
57
22
For LFS ad-hoc modules, see http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/
employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Adhoc_modules/Adhoc_
modules_mainpage.htm, (07.11.2007).
See EU-MIDIS survey page, available at: http://www.fra.europa.eu/
(10.11.2008) and S. Nevala (2008) EU-MIDIS Surveying ethnic minorities
and immigrants in the EU-27, Presentation at the 13th International
Metropolis Conference on ‘Mobility, Integration and Development in
a Globalised World’, 27-31 October 2008, Bonn, available at: http://
www.metropolis2008.org/workshop-information/speeches_and_
presentations/index.php, (10.11.2008).
Regulation (EC) 862/2007 (11.7.2007).
See on the original proposal A. Kraler, M. Jandl, M. Hofmann (2006) ‘The
Evolution of EU Migration Policy and Implications for Data Collection’,
in: M. Poulain, N. Perrin, A. Singleton (eds.) Towards the Harmonisation
of European Statistics on International Migration (THESIM), Louvain-LaNeuve: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain, p. 69.
Council Decision 2000/750/EC (27.11.2000).
separate study financed under the action programme
provides a detailed investigation of discrimination
statistics and makes a number of recommendations on
how data on discrimination can be improved.58 A second
study financed under the programme with a somewhat
broader remit investigates equality statistics in a broader
perspective.59 Since 2005, Eurostat has been involved in
compiling equality statistics for DG Employment. Since
2007, equality statistics are a separate action mentioned
in the Community’s annual statistical programme.60
Possible approaches to collecting statistics on
discrimination and specific national experiences were
also discussed in a meeting of the European Advisory
Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic
and Social Spheres (CEIES) in 2007, an important expert
network of European statisticians.61 Amongst others, the
meeting recommended to explore ways to including
ethnicity as a social core variable in the framework of
existing EU survey instruments, and to improve the
availability of other variables to enable the indirect
identification of discrimination. These variables include:
(1) demographic factors such as age, family
composition and social networks;
(2) human capital factors, including educational
attainment, skills, knowledge of the majority language;
(3) immigration related issues, including first/second/
third generation, age at immigration, duration of
living in the country and legal status in the country.
In addition, the meeting made recommendations
to include questions on discrimination experiences,
perceived discrimination of others and attitudes
towards discrimination in EU wide survey tools such
as the EU-SILC. Rather than general questions, these
questions should refer to specific areas of discrimination
(labour market, health services, housing, etc.).62
58
59
60
61
62
E. Olli, B. Kofod Olsen (eds.) (2006) Common Measures for Discrimination II.
Recommendations for Improving the Measurement of Discrimination,
The Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud and Danish
Institute of Human Rights, available at: http://www.prominstat.eu/
drupal/?q=system/files/CMD_delrapport_2.pdf_0.pdf.
T. Makkonen (2006) European Handbook on Equality Data. Why and how
to build to a national knowledge base on equality and discrimination
on the grounds of racial and ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability,
age and sexual orientation, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities, available at http://ec.europa.eu/
employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/stud/hb07_en.pdf
M. Gaude (2007) Statistics on discrimination within the context of social
statistics – main issues. Reaction from Eurostat, Paper given at 33rd CEIES
Seminar on ‘Ethnic and Racial Discrimination on the Labour Market:
Measurement, statistics and indicators’, 7-8 June 2007, Valletta, Malta.
33rd CEIES Seminar on ‘Ethnic and Racial Discrimination on the Labour
Market: Measurement, statistics and indicators’, 7-8 June 2007, Valletta,
Malta.
I. Stoop (2007) Summing up, Intervention at 33rd CEIES Seminar on
‘Ethnic and Racial Discrimination on the Labour Market: Measurement,
statistics and indicators’, 7-8 June 2007, Valletta, Malta.
Migrants and minorities: concepts, definitions, data
In addition to official data collection, a series of research
studies have recently been undertaken, or are currently
under way, collecting statistical information on labour
market performance of migrants and minorities, for
example the LIMITS and the TIES projects.63 Similarly, a
number of large-scale research studies have investigated
the availability and comparability of European statistics
in regard to migrants, including the project ‘Towards
harmonised European statistics on international migration’
(THESIM)64 and the ongoing project ‘Promoting quantitative
comparative research in the field of migration and
integration in Europe’ (PROMINSTAT).65 In the framework
of the latter, specific thematic studies are investigating
the availability and comparability of European statistics in
regard to employment, integration and discrimination.66
In conclusion, substantial improvements have been made
since the last report. Although detailed employment data
on migrants and minorities is still scarce, in particular on
the national level, substantial efforts have been made in
recent years to close these gaps on the national as well as
on the European level.
63
On TIES, see http://www.tiesproject.eu/; on LIMITS, see http://www.
limits-net.org/index.html (1.12.2008).
64 Cf. M. Poulain, N. Perrin and A. Singleton (ed.) (2006) Towards
Harmonised European Statistics on International Migration (THESIM),
Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
65See www.prominstat.eu (1.12.2008).
66 On employment see P. Bevelander, M.Hagström (2010) Thematic
Study on Employment, PROMINSTAT Thematic Studies, available at:
www.prominstat.eu. On integration see F. Heckmann, C. Köhler, M.
Peucker, S.Reiter (2010) Thematic Study on Integration, PROMINSTAT
Thematic Studies, available at: www.prominstat.eu. On discrimination
see A. Gächter (2010) Thematic Study on Discrimination, PROMINSTAT
Thematic Studies, available at: www.prominstat.eu.
23
Patterns of inequality
2. Patterns of inequality
2.1. I nequality, social exclusion and
vulnerability
Social and economic inequality is an inherent
characteristic of advanced capitalist societies and in
itself does not necessarily contradict notions of social
justice. It is the permeability of social boundaries,
equal opportunities, and in particular the availability of
opportunities for social upward mobility and betterment,
or in John Rawl’s words, ‘fairness’ which underlie
notions of social justice in liberal democratic societies.67
Inequality thus is problematic in situations in which equal
opportunities are not available, social boundaries of
class and colour cannot be easily crossed, social mobility
is blocked and inequality becomes ethnicised. In this
context, inequality is closely linked to social exclusion,
poverty and vulnerability.
Social exclusion, or marginalisation, is inequality in its
most problematic form. It refers to processes where
persons are pushed to the edge of society due to their
poverty, lack of education and qualifications, or as a
result of discrimination. Prevented from participating in
social and economic life, they have little or no access to
power and decision-making bodies.68 Social exclusion
and poverty are interlinked in the sense that being poor
may lead to social exclusion; however, social exclusion
has a wider remit. It includes exclusion from political
participation, exclusion from educational opportunities,
or limited access to the labour market.
Social exclusion is about belonging to society: it is about
‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ rather than about the ‘poor’ and
the ‘rich’. 69 Poverty and social exclusion imply vulnerability,
in the sense that the groups concerned are exposed to
discrimination and have little or no resources to defend
themselves against it. In general terms, vulnerability
refers to persons ‘who are stigmatized, have low social
status and who have very little power or control over
their lives’ (..) and who ‘live under damaging legal, social
67
68
69
J. Rawls (1971) Theory of Social Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
World Bank (2007): Social Exclusion and the EU’s Social Inclusion
Agenda. Paper prepared for the EU8 Social Inclusion Study, p. 4,
available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECONEVAL/
Resources/SocialExclusionReviewDraft.pdf, (06.10.2008); World
Bank (2007): Social Exclusion and the EU’s Social Inclusion Agenda.
Paper prepared for the EU8 Social Inclusion Study, p. 5, available
at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECONEVAL/Resources/
SocialExclusionReviewDraft. pdf, (06.10.2008).
T. Wagner (2007): Vom „Ende“ der Armut und der „Entdeckung“
der Exklusion. Des Königs neue Kleider oder „neue“ Qualitäten der
Ungleichheit?, p. 2, available at: http://www.sozialarbeit.ch/dokumente/
ende%20der%20armut.pdf, (06.10.2008).
or institutional regimes.’70 Vulnerability thus is not solely
about socio-economic status, rather, it is about social
status and social standing in society more generally, and
thus closely linked to inequalities in power, and symbolic
and social capital. In summary, inequality in employment
is closely associated with broader patterns of inequality:
exclusion in the labour market may lead to exclusion in
other domains; conversely, patterns of inequality and
social exclusion, for example in housing or education,
may lead or reinforce social exclusion and inequality in
employment.
Although inequality in employment does not necessarily
reflect discrimination, discrimination plays an important
role in generating and sustaining inequality.
Generally, there are three ways of conceptualising equality,
which inform different kinds of anti-discrimination policies:
First, formal equality is procedural in nature and requires
consistent equal treatment: individuals should be treated
alike, without considering irrelevant characteristics.
Second, equality of results means that measures,
treatments and policies should result in equality and a fair
distribution of goods and benefits. Differential treatment,
such as the use of quotas and other strong public
policy interventions, may be necessary to achieve equal
outcomes.
Finally, equality of opportunity strives to strike a balance
between formal equality and equality of results. It aims at
ensuring equal chances for all to participate in activities
and services.71
The following section considers statistical outcomes
of labour market performances and thus focuses on
inequality of results. However, we will discuss underlying
factors that help to explain unequal outcomes.
In section 1.2.1 we have argued that migrants and
minorities must not a priori be seen as vulnerable and
subject to social exclusion. Rather, it is particular groups
that experience vulnerability and social exclusion and
which face the starkest disadvantages on Member States’
labour markets. Thus, certain disadvantaged minorities,
as, for example, the Roma, generally experience major
70
71
J. Clements, M.Rapley, R. Cummins, Robert A. (1999): On, to, for, with
– vulnerable people and the practices of the research community,
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 27: 103–115.
European Commission (2006): European handbook on equality data,
p. 14, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=10&
catId=423&langId=en&furtherPubs=yes, (27.07.2010).
25
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
disadvantages on the labour market and relatively
few individuals among the Roma population have
access to opportunities on equal standing with the
majority population or experience social upward
mobility. Other minorities, for example many of the
regionally concentrated ‘national minorities’ such as
the German speaking populations of Northern Italy
or Eastern Belgium or Slovenes in Austria, by contrast,
by and large have largely similar opportunities as
the majority population in those countries.
In respect to migrants, there is a marked segmentation
between migrants on the upper levels of skills spectrum
and those on the bottom. As a recent report suggests,
‘the skill structure of European immigrant population is
favourable in terms of high-skills, however, less favourable
concerning medium-skills. While the high-skill ratio of the
foreign-born population is slightly higher than the one of
the EU-25 natives (25.7% vs. 24.4%), the medium-skilled
ratio of the foreign-born is significantly lower (38.3% vs.
47.4%) and the low-skilled rate significantly higher (36.0%
vs. 28.2%).’72 Data collected by the Fundamental Rights
Agency’s RAXEN network suggest that it is especially
migrants from outside the European Union, and among
these, in particular migrants from lower and middleincome countries which occupy the most disadvantaged
positions on European Member States’ labour markets.
The RAXEN data thus show marked differences in labour
market outcomes for different categories of migrants.
In the following, we will investigate these differences
in more detail and will analyse inequality on the
labour market on the basis of a range of indicators,
including labour force participation, unemployment,
self-employment, income and wages, and skills. An
additional factor contributing to vulnerability and
social exclusion on the labour market, legal status,
will be analysed in depth in chapter 5, below.
Given that little systematic information on working
conditions of migrants and minorities in employment
is available, we will not examine these in a separate
chapter. Relevant information would include information
on working time, job satisfaction, information on
employment related health risks, information on work
accidents, and vacation, amongst others. Largely due to
the specific focus of the report and limitations in financial
resources and time available to conduct the study, we
have not investigated a series of complementary issues
that would shed light on some of the consequences of
the labour market position of migrants and minorities
and how the labour market position impacts on
72
26
R.Münz, T.Straubhaar, F.Vadean, N.Vadean (2006) ‘What are the migrants’
contributions to employment and growth? A European approach’ HWWI
Policy Paper 3-3, Hamburg: HWWI, available online at http://www.hwwi.
org/Publikationen_Einzel.5119.0.html?&tx_wilpubdb_pi1[publication_
id]=666&tx_wilpubdb_pi1[back]=484&cHash=1fda167c85,
(27.11.2008) p. 21
patterns of social inclusion and exclusion more
generally, including work-life balance, time use, or
access to and use of transfers and social benefits.
2.2. Indicators of inequality
Inequality is a complex concept and, like most
analytical concepts used to make sense of social
reality, cannot be directly observed or measured. To
measure inequality on the labour market a number
of indicators are commonly used, including labour
force participation and unemployment rates, the
distribution of migrants and minorities across
economic sectors and branches, information on
occupations and occupational status, income and
wage disparities, and information on the skill structure
of the working population. These indicators, or sets of
indicators, represent distinct dimensions of inequality
on the labour market which, however, are mutually
intertwined and closely connected to each other.
2.2.1.Labour force participation, employment
and unemployment
2.2.1.1. Participation in employment
As the 2003 EUMC Study on Migrants, Minorities and
Employment has argued, ‘[t]he integration of immigrants
and minorities in their respective host societies is to a
considerable degree determined by their opportunities
to actively participate in gainful employment.’73 Indeed,
using the full employment potential of immigrants
was identified by the European Commission as one of
the most important political priorities within national
integration policies, both to address the (potential)
vulnerability of migrants resulting from low levels of
labour force participation and marginalisation on the
labour market and in view of the Lisbon strategy and
the potential of migrant populations to contribute
to economic growth.74 Because of the lack of data on
ethnic minorities without a migration background,
or without a recent migration background, this
section will only deal with immigrant populations.
In 2005, an estimated 19.4 million legal immigrants
– including migrants from other EU Member States –
were economically active in the EU-27, representing a
share of roughly 9.3 per cent in the total labour force.
Of these 19.4 millions, some 12.2 million had a foreign75
73
74
75
EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 23
COM (2004) 508 final
i.e. third-country nationals and citizens of other EU countries
Patterns of inequality
citizenship.76 Indeed, in the EU-15 there has been a
considerable growth of migrant employment in the
period 2000 to 2005 – migrant employment grew by
some 40 per cent in this period, which has been the main
factor in total growth of employment in this period.77
As the migrant population in general, the share of
migrants in the labour force varies widely. Table 2-1,
below, shows the share of the migrant labour force in
the total labour force for selected EU Member States
based on data from the European Labour Force Survey.
Table 2-1: Migrant Labour Force (foreign born), 2005, selected EU Member States
(Thousands)
Migrant labour force as
% of total labour force
Migrant labour force
(in thousands)
EU born
Male
Third countries
Female
Male
Female
Austria
15.6%
624.6
87
96
252
190
Belgium
11.6%
401.0
103
83
133
83
Cyprus
17.7%
84.4
12
9
26
37
Czech Republic
1.9%
98.5
38
31
19
11
Denmark
6.0%
171.9
29
21
61
61
France
11.1%
2,974.6
439
401
1,216
919
Greece
8.9%
421.7
25
28
223
146
Hungary
1.9%
78.9
6
6
36
32
11.9%
222.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
7.9%
1,907.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Luxembourg
44.4%
89.8
44
34
7
5
Netherlands
11.5%
966.6
97
104
445
321
7.8%
405.5
41
39
165
161
Spain
13.8%
2,782.0
215
189
1,326
1,052
Sweden
12.2%
560.0
100
105
188
167
United Kingdom
10.3%
2,703.1
399
386
1,074
844
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Note: n.a. stands for ‘not applicable’.
Source: LFS, table B1 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau, B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force.
Current situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation
76
77
R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An
Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper No.0807, Available
online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/
Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf
(10.2.2009), p. 9
R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An
Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper No.0807, Available
online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/
Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf (10.2.2009),
p. 10
27
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
In the following, we use employment rates as a
measure of participation in gainful employment.
The employment rate is defined as the share of the
number of employed persons in the total population of
working age (i.e. the population aged 15-64 years).78
comparability of employment rates calculated on
the basis of the Labour Force Survey data and major
limitations of data quality in respect to several countries79,
remarkable differences in employment rates between
the natives, EU and non-EU migrants can be observed.
Figure 2-1, below, shows the employment rates of
immigrants for the EU-27 for natives, migrants born in
another EU Member States and migrants from outside
the European Union. Keeping in mind the limited
Figure 2-1: Employment rates in 24 EU Member States for natives, migrants from the EU-27 and
non-EU migrants, 2005 (%)
65
EU 27
67
60
AT
BE
63
57
43
69
67
59
CY
68
62
CZ
59 65
DE
67
DK
69
77
68
57
61 64
EE
60
EL
63
69
67
62
ES
FI
64
64
48
FR
54
57
HU
62
63
IE
70
70
70
66
67
72
61
57
IT
74
62
LT
62
LV
45 54
MT
NL
73
62
69
62
PL
75
69
59
52
26 29
PT
66
SE
75
73
55
SI
59
48 58
SK
67
UK
66
68
70
71
61
0
10
20
Born in country of residence
30
40
50
Born in other EU27 country
75
60
72
70
Born in a country outside EU
Source: European Labour Force Survey (LFS), See Table A3, in the Statistical Annex for detailed references
78
28
See the webbased OECD glossary of statistical terms under http://stats.
oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=785 (10.2.2009)
79
See for more detail the statistical annex, at the end of the report
80
Patterns of inequality
Figure 2-2, below, graphically shows these differences.
In 16 out of the 22 countries for which data is available,
employment rates of immigrants born in another
EU country are lower than those of the native born
population, while the employment rates of non-EU
migrants are below those of non-EU migrants only in
10 countries. However, differences between non-EU
migrants and natives are on the whole much larger.
States living in the EU-15 had relatively high employment
rates of 68.4 per cent (EU-8) and thus employment rates
well above the average employment rate for the total
population of 65.4 per cent. Immigrants from North
America and Australia had even higher employment
rates (74.1 per cent). By contrast, immigrants from middle
and low income countries such as Turkey (47 per cent),
the Middle East and Africa (57 per cent) and Asia (59 per
cent) had considerable lower employment rates.80
However, also within the categories of EU migrants and
non-EU migrants, respectively there are considerable
differences. Thus, immigrants from new EU Member
Figure 2-2: Difference of employment rates between EU-migrants/natives and non-EU migrants/natives
(percentage points)
21.8
30
9.0
8.8
-1.7
SK
SI
SE
-1.7
PT
-1.2
M
T
UK
2.3
3.3
PL
NL
0.1
LT
-9.1
-19.7
-18
-16.5
-11.0
-10.5
-9.3
-6.7
-6.0
-8.3
-6.0
-10.6
-10.0
-11.9
-23
Difference non-EU-migrants relative to natives
Difference non-EU migrants relative to EU migrants
-26.3
Difference EU migrants relative to natives
-30
LV
IE
HU
-5.2
-16.0
-21.2
-20.2
-19.6
-20
7.6
8.1
6.8
6.7
4.6
5.5
6.5
1.0
1.9
FR
-0.6
ES
-3.7
-5.6
-13.7
-11.1
-10.0
-9.1
-7.8
-6.6
-5.9
-4.2
-6.5
EL
EE
FI
DK
CY
-2.2
CZ
BE
AT
-2
EU
-10
3.8
6.8
3.0
4.1
4.3
6.0
2.3
7
0
7.9
7.3
8.0
9.7
10
10.6
12.6
12.7
16.4
20
Note: Positive differences mean the that target group has higher employment rates than the group to which it is compared and vice versa for
negative differences.
Source: LFS, See Table A3 in the Statistical Annex for detailed references
80
R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An
Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper No.0807, Available
online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/
Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf (10.2.2009),
p. 11
29
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Generally, labour market performance as measured by
employment rate of foreign nationals is significantly
worse than that of immigrants more generally, although
the general situation conceals considerable differences
between different migrant groups, with particularly
clear differences between non-nationals from Turkey
and Maghreb countries and persons born in these
countries, notably in Belgium, Denmark, France, the
Netherlands, Austria and Sweden (Turks) and in France,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Denmark (citizens
of vs. persons born in Maghreb countries). This suggests
particularly exclusionary mechanisms in the labour
market in these countries, but also shows that legal
status (citizenship) may make a difference81. Overall
employment rates for citizens, non-citizens and for
the total population are shown in figure 2-3, below.
Figure 2-3: Employment rates for non-nationals, nationals and the total population, 2007 (%)
EU Total
65
66
62
AT
62
BE
54
71
64
63
71
71
71
CY
66
66
CZ
DK
77
77
58
DE
69
56
61
61
54
65
65
59
58
IT
69
70
71
59
FR
LT*
63
67
65
65
61 64
LU
LV
MT
51
65
55
55
NL
PL
76
77
61
57
57
35
69
68
68
67
57
57
HU
68
68
PT
59
59
RO
SE
SI*
61
61
SK*
UK
74
75
65
68
68
66
72
72
67
10
20
Total population
30
Nationals
40
50
72
65
60
0
71
68
66
65
ES
FI
78
69
69
70
EE
EL
72
60
70
80
Non-nationals
Note: * indicates unreliable or uncertain data.
Source: LFS, Eurostat database, data extracted on 11 November 2008
81
30
It may also be that once they are counted as citizens, they become
more or less invisible in the statistics, since they are submerged in the
large group of ‘majority population’ in terms of citizenship. In this case
employment rates by country of birth might be more telling.
Patterns of inequality
The (weighted) average employment rate for the
total population in the EU in 2007 was 65.4 per cent.
Nationals have a slightly higher employment rate
(65.6 per cent), while the employment rate for nonnationals is 62.3 per cent or 3.3 percentage points
lower than that of citizens. In 14 EU Member States,
the employment rates of the non-nationals are lower
than that of citizens. In most countries with significantly
higher employment rates among foreigners the
employment rates of citizens are below the EU average.
The largest differences can be observed in Poland
(22.2 percentage points below natives), Denmark
(20.6 percentage points lower), the Netherlands (15.8
percentage points lower), Sweden (15.3 percentage
points) and Germany (14.7 percentage points). Figure
2-4, below, graphically shows these differences.
Two main factors explain the extent of differences
of employment rates. First, the composition and
characteristics of migrant groups in particular countries,
and secondly, legal barriers, with the first factor probably
being the more important. Thus, in Denmark and
Sweden, the large share of humanitarian migration
(refugees and asylum seekers) partly explains the wide
differences of employment rates of citizens and noncitizens, albeit barriers (lack of access to work for asylum
seekers) and lengthy asylum procedures and resulting
penalties for non-participation in the labour market are
an additional factor to be taken into account. Similarly,
both in Germany and the Netherlands humanitarian
migration has been important in particular during the
1990s and early 2000s. In addition, current employment
patterns among foreign nationals also reflect a history
of recruitment of low skilled migrants and subsequent
family reunification with family members of by and large
similar characteristics in terms of skills. Generally, lower
skilled migrants face considerably higher barriers on
Figure 2-4: Differences in employment rates between citizens and non-citizens, 2007
15
11
8
7
5
-9
*
SI
SK
*
RO
SE
PL
PT
NL
M
T
HU
-2
-3
-4
-5
-9
-12
-15
LV
LT
*
IT
-2
LU
FR
FI
ES
EE
1
EL
DK
DE
CZ
BE
CY
AT
0
-5
-10
6
4
4
5
0
8
UK
9
10
-12
-15
-15
-16
-20
-21
-22
-25
Notes: Data for Bulgaria and Ireland are missing. Positive values indicate countries where employment rate of non-citizens is higher than that of
citizens in the country, and negative values show where employment rate of citizens surpasses that of non-citizens. Horizontally striped
bars indicate countries where the total employment rate is below EU average and striped vertically means a general employment rate
which is above EU average. * indicates unreliable or uncertain data.
Source: LFS, Eurostat database, data extracted on 11 November 2008.
31
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
the labour market than more highly skilled categories
of immigrants or the low skilled native population.
However, legal barriers also play an important role.
Thus, before 2005, it was estimated that about a third
of the foreign resident population in Germany had no
or only a restricted access to the labour market.82 It is
plausible to assume that lack of access to employment
has negative effects on future patterns of participation
in gainful employment. This assumption is corroborated
by the findings of recent study on labour market
performance of migrants regularised in the 2000
regularisation campaign in Belgium. The study suggests
that restricted access to employment or lack of access
to legal employment (and irregular, if any employment)
has significant negative effects on labour market
outcomes in a long term perspective. By contrast,
regularised migrants who already had access to legal
employment (specific categories of asylum seekers with
access to work also benefiting from regularisation) had
a considerably higher chance of being employed and
generally a much better labour force performance.83
The consequences of legal barriers on employment are
analysed in more detail in chapter 5, below.
In addition to differences in employment rates on
grounds of legal status, migrant status and region of
origin, there are also important differences by gender and
generation. Gender differences and the labour market
position of migrant and minority women are discussed in
more detail in chapter 6, below and will not be addressed
here. Suffice is to note that gender does play major role in
inequality in employment.
A second group of concern are young migrants and the
second generation. Reflecting the history of migration in
the EU, the second generation is predominately young.
Second generation migrants have started to enter labour
markets already in the 1980s in long-standing countries
of immigration, when the first cohorts of descendants
of labour migrants reached working age and now
represent a significant share of young people entering
the labour market. In new countries of immigration,
by contrast notably the Southern European countries,
Ireland and Finland, the second generation is not yet
a significant group on the labour market. A growing
number of studies have shown that young migrants
and young persons of immigrant origin continue to face
major disadvantages on the labour market, despite the
fact that a large share of this group of persons has been
socialised or born in their country of residence.84 Thus,
a comparative survey of second generation migrants in
seven EU Member States found that none of the surveyed
migrant groups fared better than the native population.
The most disadvantaged groups in the study were the
second generation of Turkish origin in Belgium, Germany,
and the Netherlands; the second generation of Moroccan
or other North African ancestry in Belgium, France, and
the Netherlands; of Caribbean or Pakistani origin in
Britain; and of Surinamese ancestry in the Netherlands.
Disadvantaged but faring considerably better than
majority groups were persons of Italian origin in Belgium,
of Portuguese origin in France and Germany, of Yugoslav
origin in Austria and Germany; of Caribbean origin in the
Netherlands, and of Indian origin in Britain.85
Similarly, a recent study on the labour market integration
of young persons in the European Union, based on
a special module of the 2002 Labour Force Survey
and commissioned by the European Commission
(DG Employment and Social Affairs) highlights the
disadvantaged position of migrant youth on the labour
market. At the same time, it also shows the importance
of educational opportunities in increasing participation
in employment, although the effect of education for
migrant youth is lower than for other disadvantaged
groups (women and disabled persons).86
Structural barriers in the educational system,
comparatively low educational attainments and
disadvantages experienced in transitions from school
to work explain part of the disadvantaged position
of migrant youth and the second generation on the
labour market.87 Discrimination, however, equally plays
an important role and ongoing research documents a
84
85
82
83
32
R.Münz, T.Straubhaar, F.Vadean, N.Vadean (2006) ‘What are the migrants’
contributions to employment and growth? A European approach’ HWWI
Policy Paper 3-3, Hamburg: HWWI, available online at http://www.hwwi.
org/Publikationen_Einzel.5119.0.html?&tx_wilpubdb_pi1[publication_
id]=666&tx_wilpubdb_pi1[back]=484&cHash=1fda167c85,
(27.11.2008) p. 8
Centrum voor Sociaal Beleid, Université d’Anvers, Groupe d’études sur
l’ethnicité, le racisme, les migrations et l’excllusion, Université Libre de
Bruxelle (2008) ‘Before and After La situation sociale et économique des
personnes ayant bénéficié de la procédure de régularisation en 2000 (Loi
du 22 Décembre 1999)’, available at http://www.ulb.ac.be/socio/germe/
documentsenligne/BAfr.pdf, (19.11.2008).
86
87
See for discussions of the second generation M.Crul, H.Vermeulen
(2003) ‘The Second Generation in Europe. Introduction’. International
Migration Review, vol. 37, nr.4: pp. 965-986; M.Thomson, M.Crul (2007)
‘The Second Generation in Europe and the United States: How is the
Transatlantic Debate Relevant for Further Research on the European
Second Generation’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies vol.33, nr.7:
pp. 1025-1041
F.Heath, C.Rothon, E.Kilpi (2007) ‘The Second Generation in Western
Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment.
Annual Review of Sociology vol.34: p. 218-219
D.Paparella, L.Savino (eds) (2008) ‘Pathways to work: Current practices
and future needs for the labour market integration of young people’
YOUTH: Young in Occupations and Unemployment: Thinking of their
better integration in the labour market. Final Report, online at http://
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=1704&langId=en (13 February
2009): pp. 106 and p. 109
A.F.Heath, C.Rothon, E.Kilpi (2007) ‘The Second Generation in Western
Europe: Education, Unemplyoment, and Occupational Attainment.
Annual Review of Sociology vol.34: pp. 211-235, see also below,
chapter 2.2.4
Patterns of inequality
significant extent of experiences of discrimination by
second generation youth.88
2.2.1.2. U
nemployment rates of foreign and foreignborn population89
In general, patterns of unemployment among migrant
minorities closely mirror broader employment patterns of
immigrants as discussed in the preceding chapter. In the
following, we analyse patterns of unemployment based
Table 2-2: Unemployment rates for the total population, foreign population and foreign-born population 2006
Country
Total population
Foreign population
Foreign population
non-EU27
Foreign population
Migrant labour force
(in thousands)
EU-27
8.2
13.2
15.5
Austria
4.7
10.6
12.8
6.8
9.8
Belgium
8.2
17.3
33.0
11.7
17.3
Bulgaria***
9.0
Czech Republic
7.1
6.2*
7.5*
4.8*
11.5
Cyprus
4.5
5.8
4.5*
7.0
Denmark
3.9
8.2
10.3*
Estonia
5.9
10.7*
10.9
Finland
7.7
18.4
25.4
France
8.8
16.6
23.0
8.0
16.2
Germany
9.2
-
7.5
18.1
10.2
18.8
23.3
12.1
16.2
Greece
8.9
7.9
7.9
7.5
9.4
Hungary
7.5
7.0
Ireland
4.4
6.0
Italy
6.8
Latvia
6.8
Lithuania
5.6
Luxembourg
4.7
Malta
6.9
Netherlands
Poland
3.9
8.6
8.7
8.4
8.5
6.7
21.5*
5.6
6.5
8.8
12.9
4.6*
10.7
11.1
11.1
13.8
Portugal
7.7
Romania***
7.3
Slovenia
6.0
Slovakia
13.4
9.8
25.5**
Spain
8.5
11.8
12.6
9.6
11.2
Sweden
7.1
13.6
20.2
7.8
13.4
United Kingdom
5.4
8.3
9.8
6.2
7.6
Notes: * Unreliable or uncertain data
** 2005
*** Non-EU members in 2006
Sources: LFS, Eurostat database, data extracted on 30 September 2008. Data on foreign-born: OECD (2008), ‘International Migration Outlook’ SOPEMI 2008,
pp. 87 – 92.
88
P.Simon (2008) ‘The Second Generation – Is it about Integration or
Discrimination?’ Presentation at the 13th International Metropolis
Conference, Bonn, 27-31 October 2008.
89
Unemployment rates are generally calculated as the percentage of
unemployed persons of the total active population which includes
employed and unemployed persons at a certain age.
33
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
on data from the European Labour Force Survey. Despite
certain limitations in data quality, it is the only source of
data providing comparable information on patterns of
unemployment in the EU-27 in general and patterns of
unemployment among migrant population in particular.
The overall unemployment rate of EU-27 countries in
2006 is 8.2 per cent, ranging from 3.9 per cent in Denmark
and the Netherlands to 13.8 per cent in Poland.90
The unemployment rate of foreign nationals in the EU
is significantly higher with 13.2 per cent, ranging from
5.8 per cent in Cyprus to 18.8 per cent in Germany.
Greece and the Czech Republic are the only countries
where the unemployment rate of foreigners (both EU
and non-EU citizens in Greece) lies below the rate of
the total population. An explanation for the lower rate
of foreigners in Greece could be the large number of
(undocumented) foreigners employed in the informal
sector, who might be underrepresented in the Labour
Force Survey. The low rate in the Czech Republic might
result from particularly tight eligibility conditions for
obtaining work or residence permits.91
However, when distinguishing the unemployment rates
of EU citizens and non-EU citizens, it becomes clear that
the high unemployment rate of foreigners mainly stems
from the unemployment of foreigners from non-EU
countries. The unemployment rates of EU citizens living
in another EU country were also higher than the overall
unemployment rates, but much less so than that of
non-EU citizens. Only in Cyprus is the unemployment
rate of EU citizens reported to be higher than that of
non-EU citizens, and the Cypriot data on EU citizens are
not reliable. There are only three countries where the
unemployment rates of EU and non-EU nationals do not
differ significantly (with less than two per cent difference),
namely Greece, Spain and Italy. In these countries
however, migrants with irregular statuses – who are
mostly from third countries – make up a large part of the
foreign population.92
Apart from underrepresentation of irregular migrants in
surveys, another explanation of lower unemployment
rates could be that an irregular status forces foreigners
into employment since they have no prospect of
The unemployment rate on the basis of the LFS is the share of
unemployed persons in the total number of active persons in the labour
market. Active persons include employed and unemployed persons.
Unemployed persons are all persons who are between 15 and 74 years
of age who were not employed during the reference week, had actively
sought for work during the past four weeks and were ready to start
working immediately or within two weeks. Employed persons include
all persons who worked at least one hour for pay or profit, or were
temporarily absent from such work during the reference week. Cf.:
http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/une/une_sm.htm and
http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/lfsi/lfsi_sm.htm (30.09.2008)
91 FRA (2007): Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of
the EU, p. 44.
92Cf. http://irregular-migration.hwwi.net/
receiving unemployment benefits and thus depend on
income from employment. In addition, migrants without
a regular status might have a higher propensity to return
when unemployed. Strikingly high unemployment
rates among non-EU nationals are observed in
Belgium (33.0 per cent), Finland (25.4 per cent),
Germany (23.3 per cent), and France (23.0 per cent).
In addition to employment rates of the foreign
population, the foreign-born population is of interest. This
group differs from foreigners in so far that it also includes
naturalised immigrants and excludes persons who
were born in the country but hold foreign citizenship.
The number thus includes all immigrants. Differences
between those two groups are related to naturalisation
policies in EU Member States which influence the
share of foreigners within the group of foreign-born.
In countries where citizenship may be acquired after a
short period of residency, the category of ‘foreigners’ will
comprise relatively few established migrants and many
migrants who entered the country recently. As recently
arrived migrants are more likely to be unemployed, the
unemployment rate among foreigners might be relatively
high in countries where migrants naturalise early.93
Another explanation for high unemployment rates of
foreigners in comparison to the foreign-born population
could be lower unemployment of naturalised immigrants.
Indeed, proof of sufficient financial means (which
usually implies employment) is a common condition
for obtaining citizenship in EU Member States.94 The
unemployment rates of foreign-born persons are in fact
lower than those of foreigners, but the difference is not
large, with an average value of 11.9 per cent for foreign
citizens against 11.6 per cent for foreign-born citizens.
There are only two countries where the unemployment
rate of the foreign-born population is higher than of the
foreign population, namely in the Czech Republic and in
Greece.
Figure 2-5, graphically shows differences in
unemployment rates between the foreign born
population and foreign population.
90
34
93
94
FRA (2007): Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of
the EU, p. 43.
A. Kraler (2006): The legal status of immigrants and their access to
nationality, in: R. Bauböck (Ed.): Migration and Citizenship. Legal Status,
Rights and Political Participation, Amsterdam University Press: IMISCOE
Reports, p. 46.
Patterns of inequality
Figure 2-5: Unemployment rates by nationality and country of birth 2006, selected Member States
25
Foreign citizens
20.8
Foreign-born
20
17.4
18.3
18.1
18.7
17.3
16.2
16.2
15
13.7
13.4
11.5
10
11.5 11.2
10.6
9.8
8.3
11.0 10.7
9.8
9.4
7.5
11.1
8.6 8.5
7.9
8.4
6.7 6.5
6.2
7.6
5
UK
SE
PT
NL
LU
IT
FR
FI
ES
EL
DK
DE
CZ
BE
AT
0
Source: OECD (2008), International Migration Outlook SOPEMI 2008, pp. 87-92.
Again, the rates in Finland, France, Germany and
Belgium are remarkably high for foreigners as well as
for foreign-born persons, yet the rates for foreign-born
are, as expected, significantly lower since naturalised
migrants on the whole perform better than foreigners
in economic terms.95 Belgium however is an exception
to this rule, with high rates of unemployment among
both foreigners and foreign-born persons lying at
17.3 per cent.
As in the case of employment rates, average
unemployment rates for the migrant population
conceal considerable differences between migrant
groups. Thus, while the unemployment rate for
foreigners in general in Belgium was 17.3 per cent in
2006, it was 33 per cent for third-country nationals and
around forty per cent for Moroccans, Turks, Congolese
and Algerians, reflecting that third country nationals
in Belgium also had significantly lower employment
rates. In addition, also the activity rate more generally
95
See: P. Bevelander & J. Veenman (2004): Naturalization and immigrants’
employment integration in the Netherlands. Paper prepared for
conference: Immigrant Ascension to Citizenship: Recent Policies and
Economic and Social Concequences. IMER, Malmoe University, 7 June
2004; D. DeVoretz & S. Pivnenko (2004): The Economics of Canadian
Citizenship. Paper prepared for conference: Immigrant Ascension to
Citizenship: Recent Policies and Economic and Social Concequences.
IMER, Malmoe University, 7 June 2004; I. Kogan (2003): Ex-Yugoslavs
in the Austrian and Swedish labour markets: the significance of the
period of migration and the effect of citizenship acquisition. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 595-622; J. L. Rallu
(2004): Access to citizenship and integration of migrants: Lessons
from the French case. Paper prepared for the 12th Biennial Conference
of the Australian Population Association, 15-17 September 2004,
Canberra.
is relatively low among third country nationals. These
gaps narrow when controlling for place of birth, (‘born in
Belgium’, ‘born in the EU’, and ‘born outside the EU’), but
differences remain.96
Surprisingly, large differences still remain even
when qualification is controlled for, as a recent more
detailed analysis of Labour Force Data shows for
2005: among unqualified workers, unemployment
rates still range from 40.3 per cent among non-EU
nationals to 14.8 per cent for EU25 nationals and 12.9
per cent for Belgians. The same holds true for qualified
workers (34.9 – non-EU 25, 11.4 – EU 25, and 7.9 per
cent – Belgians). Among highly qualified workers
the unemployment rate is highest for non-EU 25
nationals as well, yet the rate of Belgians (7.1 per cent)
is higher than that of EU 25 nationals (5.3 per cent). 97
2.2.1.3. Unemployment among the Roma population
A survey conducted by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO) among Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Romania and the Slovak Republic
in 2001 provides a valuable dataset on the Roma
96
97
Raxen National Focal Point Belgium, National Data Collection Report
Belgium – 2007, p. 51. Data referring to unemployment rates in 2005.
Raxen National Focal Point Belgium, National Data Collection Report
Belgium – 2007, ANNEX Table 10.
35
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
population.98 Amongst others, the survey gathered
information on the current socio-economic status of
the Roma population, including unemployment.99
The survey shows a remarkably high share of Roma who
described themselves as unemployed in the survey.
Extremely high percentages are reported for Slovakia
(61.8 per cent of respondents), Bulgaria (56.4 per cent)
and Romania (52.6 per cent). The shares of unemployed in
the Czech Republic (31.2 per cent) and in Hungary (26.2
per cent) are lower but still very high. Unemployment
is higher among respondents with a lower education
and among male respondents. Women report lower
unemployment (38.6 against 52.4 per cent); however,
they report lower employment as well (14.3 against
24.3 per cent). This difference results from the large
percentage of women who define their socio-economic
status as housekeepers (11.8 per cent women against 1.5
per cent of men) and women who are on maternity leave
(14.5 per cent of women against 0.5 per cent of men).100
In the 2002 census in Slovenia, data on nationality
and ethnicity were collected. Cross-tabulating
ethnicity with activity, the unemployment rates of
the respondent can be analysed and compared.
According to this data, the unemployment of Roma is
striking: 66 per cent of all Roma (including the inactive
population) are unemployed. Interestingly, the share
of unemployed persons was above average among
all respondents who did not identify themselves
as Slovenians or Italians, ranging from 9.3 per cent
among Croats to 15.3 per cent among Albanians.101
2.2.2.Self-employment
There is little comparative research and quantitative
information on patterns of migrant and minority
self-employment in the European Union. The Labour
Force Survey is not a useful source, as the share of
migrants in self-employment in the sample in most
countries is too small to provide reliable information
on patterns of self-employment among immigrants.
Information on non-migrant minorities is even scarcer.
More recently the FRA’s EU-MIDIS survey has produced comprehensive
data on Roma experiences of unemployment across the EU – see FRA
EU-MIDIS Main Results Report 2010 p. 38-40, http://fra.europa.eu/
fraWebsite/attachments/eumidis_mainreport_conference-edition_
en_.pdf
99 UNDP (2002): Avoiding the dependency trap. Roma in Central
and Eastern Europe, available at: http://europeandcis.undp.org/
environment/show/62BBCD48-F203-1EE9-BC5BD7359460A968,
(02.10.2008).
100 UNDP (2002): Avoiding the dependency trap. Roma in Central and
Eastern Europe, p. 95, available at: http://europeandcis.undp.org/
environment/show/62BBCD48-F203-1EE9-BC5BD7359460A968,
(02.10.2008).
101 Not considering ROMA. Raxen National Focal Point Slovenia, National
Data Collection Report Slovenia – 2007, Annex Table 5.11. On the basis
of data compiled by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
Studies on migrant self-employment often confounds
self-employment with ethnic entrepreneurship and
largely focuses on the latter. Against the background
of the considerable growth of atypical and precarious
forms of employment on the fringes of the labour market,
however, it seems increasingly important to distinguish
between different types of self-employment and
distinguish self-employment amounting to dependent
employment from self-employment proper. However,
to date, no sufficiently detailed information is available
that would allow analysing different types of selfemployment among migrants and minorities. Existing
research on minority businesses suggests that there
are high differences of self-employment rates between
different minority groups. Indeed in some cases, selfemployment rates of minority members are well above
self-employment rates for the majority population.
Thus, in the UK, men who identified themselves as
Pakistani or as Indian were found to be most likely to be
self-employed in 2004. 25.8 per cent of Pakistani men and
18.2 per cent of Indian men in work were self-employed,
against 16.9 per cent of ‘white men’ in work. The picture
for women looks different, with those who identified
themselves as Chinese most likely to be self-employed:
12.8 per cent of women in work against 7.1 per cent of
‘white women’.102 In Romania, no less than 71.7 per cent
of employed Roma were reported to be self-employed.103
The available literature suggests that a majority of
ethnic-businesses are small-scale businesses and largely
serve ethnic minority customers. In addition, migrant
businesses seem to be largely concentrated in specific
sectors such as retail, restaurant and hospitality services as
well as personal services.104
Migrant entrepreneurs face specific difficulties, as they
have less access to financial credits due to lack of
references.105 In a survey conducted in Austria among
entrepreneurs with a migration background, half of
the male entrepreneurs and almost 40 per cent of the
female entrepreneurs indicated that procurement of
financing was an important barrier when starting their
business. The survey results also showed that access to
finance was even more difficult for entrepreneurs with
98
36
102 Raxen National Focal Point United Kingdom, National Data Collection
Report United Kingdom – 2006, p. 14.
103 Raxen National Focal Point Romania, National Data Collection Report
Romania – 2006
104 CEEDR (2000) Young Entrepreneurs, Women Entrepreneurs, Ethnic
Minority Entrepreneurs and Co-Entrepreneurs in the European
Union and Central and Eastern Europe. Final Report to the European
Commissioni, DG Enterprise, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/
entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/documents/ethnicminority.pdf
(13.2.2009), J.Rath,R.Kloosterman (2000) ‘A Critical Review of Research
on Immigrant Entrepreneurship. International Migration Review, vol.34,
no.3, pp. 657-681
105 EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 33-34.
Patterns of inequality
lower education.106A survey among business support
organisations conducted in 2000, which, amongst
others, asked respondents about difficulties encountered
by clients with a minority background shows similar
findings. According to business support organisations
access to finance, closely followed by access to markets
were among the main problems faced by minority
entrepreneurs, although these barriers may be common
to small businesses in general. However, access to
finance and markets seem to be more problematic for
entrepreneurs of a migrant background, who, in addition
face considerable discrimination by finance providers.107
Although ethnic businesses often are reasonable
successful, ethnic businesses are not without problems.
Thus, low capitalisation of businesses, low profit margins
and high competition in those segments of the market
in which migrant business are most often found
often results in both self-exploitation and exploitation
of others, notably family members; and, in the case
of non-family labour, employees are often employed
irregularly. In addition, work in migrant businesses is often
characterised by poor working conditions – long working
hours, lack of leisure and lack of breaks during work.108
Thus, employment in an ethnic minority business is not
necessarily beneficial for minority members. Indeed, as a
survey among Turks in the Netherlands showed, half of
those interviewed adamantly did not wish to work in a
business of one of their compatriots in the Netherlands.109
Moreover, while self-employment and entrepreneurship
may be a way of achieving social upward mobility, it is
often a response to disadvantage on the labour market.110
However, research on migrant self-employment also
shows that self-employed and those employed in migrant
businesses often consciously accept some of these
disadvantages and evaluate their quality of life higher
than their difficult working conditions would suggest.111
106 E. Enzenhofer, I. Kessler, F. Lechner, A. Riesenfelder, W. Reiter, P. Wetzel
(2007) Ethnische Ökonomien – Bestand und Chancen für Wien.
Kurzfassung des Endberichts, Wien: L & R Sozialforschung, p. 10,
available at: http://www.lrsocialresearch.at/files/Kurzfassung_EB_LR_
Sozialforschung_Ethnische_Oekonomien_(V2).pdf (25.11.2008).
107 CEEDR (2000) Young Entrepreneurs, Women Entrepreneurs, Ethnic
Minority Entrepreneurs and Co-Entrepreneurs in the European
Union and Central and Eastern Europe. Final Report to the European
Commissioni, DG Enterprise, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/
entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/documents/ethnicminority.pdf
(13.2.2009): p. 99
108 J.Rath (2000) Immigrant Business: The Economic, Political and Social
Environment. Houndsmill, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan
109 J.Rath,R.Kloosterman (2000) ‘A Critical Review of Research on Immigrant
Entrepreneurship. International Migration Review, vol.34, no.3, p. 660
110 A. Pécoud (2003) ‘Self-Employment and Immigrants’ Incorporation:
The Case of Turks in Germany’. Immigrants & Minorities, vol.22, no.2/3:
pp. 247-261
111 U.Apitzsch (2005) ‘The Chances of the second Generation in Families of
migrant Entrepreneurs: Quality of Life Development as a biographical
Process’. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, vol.21, no.3,
pp. 83-94
2.2.3.Economic sectors and occupations
The distribution of migrants across economic sectors
shows a marked concentration in specific sectors and an
underrepresentation in others. Across the EU, migrants
are concentrated in agriculture, industry and the service
sector, albeit with marked gender differences.112 These
patterns of unequal distribution of the migrant and
minority labour force across different sectors clearly has
implications for wider patterns of inequality and social
exclusion, not least since wages, working conditions and
vulnerability to unemployment are closely linked to sector
distribution. Generally, the distribution of the migrant
labour force across economic sectors is an expression of
past migration patterns, skill characteristics (discussed
in the next chapter), occupations, but importantly
also economic changes and opportunity structures.
Based on the OECD immigrant database, which in turn
largely contains data from the 2000 census round, we
have calculated sector distribution rates for the four broad
sectors distinguished in the database – (1) agriculture and
industry, (2) producer services, (3) distributive services and
(4) personal services. Sector distribution rates have been
calculated as the ratio of the share of native born to the
share of the foreign born population in a given sector. A
sector distribution rate above 1 signals overrepresentation
of immigrants, whereas a sector distribution rate below
indicates an underrepresentation of migrants. Figure 2-6,
overleaf, graphically shows these sector distribution rates.
These sector distribution rates vary greatly between the
countries. On average the share of foreign-born population
is higher in producer services and almost equal in personal
and social services. On average the share of foreign-born is
lower in agriculture and industry as well as in distributive
services. However, the differences in certain sectors vary
strongly among the EU Member States. The highest
variation is observed for producer services.
112 OECD (2008): A Profile of Immigrant Populations in the 21st Century:
Data from OECD Countries. Paris: OECD
37
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Figure 2-6: Distribution rate of foreign-born compared to native-born, by economic sectors
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Agriculture and industry
Producer services
Distributive services
SE
SK
PT
PL
NL
LU
IT
IE
HU
EL
UK
FR
FI
ES
DK
CZ
BE
AT
0.6
Personal and social services
Notes: The sector distribution rate has been calculated as the ratio of the share of foreign-born in a sector to the share of native-born in the same sector. A
ratio above 1 indicates overrepresentation of foreign born in a sector, a ratio below 1 that foreign born are underrepresented. Data exclude people
with unknown sector of activity, place of birth or gender. Classification according to International Standard Industrial Classification (third revision),
see: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/class/isic.htm, (03.12.2008).
Source: Own figure, based on OECD (2008): A Profile of Immigrant Populations in the 21st Century: Data from OECD Countries, pp. 153-155, data available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/248340756866, (03.12.2008).
The share of foreign-born in agriculture and industry
is remarkably lower than the share of native-born
(rate lower than 0.9) in Denmark, Finland, United
Kingdom, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, and Portugal. Only
in Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg a considerable higher
participation in agriculture and industry is observable.
Rates for participation in producer services are
outstandingly high in Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg,
and Portugal (more than 30 per cent higher) and
lower than the native-born population only in Czech
Republic (0.94), in Spain (0.86), and in Italy (0.8). The
variations of the rates are not as high for distributive
services and for personal and social services.
Taking Germany as an example, the distribution in
economic sectors differs between persons with a
migration background and persons without.113 In
2005, people with a migration background were
overrepresented in manufacturing and extractive
industry (35 per cent against 29 per cent) as well as in
the trade, hotel and restaurant industry (28 per cent
113 Migration background includes persons who immigrated to Germany,
foreigners who are born in Germany, naturalised migrants, and persons
with at least one parent who immigrated to Germany or at least one
parent who was born in Germany as a foreigner.
38
against 22 per cent). In contrast, persons without
a migration background were overrepresented in
agriculture and forestry, as well as in other services.114
This concentration is confirmed when looking at the
share of foreigners in occupational areas. The share of
foreigners is highest in manufacturing occupations
followed by occupations in the primary service sector.
The lowest share of foreigners is observable in the
secondary service sector. Hence, foreigners and migrants
in Germany are more likely to be found in branches with
lower incomes and less favourable working conditions.
114 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2007) Bevölkerung und
Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund – Ergebnisse
des Mikrozensus 2005, available at:
https://www-ec.destatis.de/csp/shop/sfg/bpm.html.cms.cBroker.
cls?cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1020312 (05.09.2008),
pp. 224 – 225.
Patterns of inequality
Table 2-3: Share of foreigners in occupational
areas in Germany 2003 to 2005
Share of
foreigners
Occupational area
Manufacturing
Primary
service sector
Secondary
service sector
2003
11.0 %
6.4 %
3.7 %
2005
10.6 %
6.3 %
3.6 %
2007
10.5 %
6.5 %
3.8 %
Note: Only employees subject to compulsory social insurance (without
persons in education, self-employed and civil servants).
Source: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesagentur
für Arbeit (2007), Berufe im Spiegel der Statistik 1999-2007, available
at: http://www.pallas.iab.de/bisds/berufsgliederung.asp?level=BF
(05.09.2008)
While the distribution of migrants across economic
sectors reflects patterns of labour market segmentation
along ethnic lines as specific sectors are linked to specific
opportunity structures within these sectors, data on
occupations of migrants generally provide a much
more detailed information and comprehensive picture
of labour market segmentation in the European Union.
Generally, occupations are closely related to human
capital factors and thus characteristics of migrants.
However, as we discuss below, migrants and presumably
also other ethnic minorities do also experience significant
deskilling, in other words, they are not able to use their
skills to the full potential and are often employed in jobs
below their level of qualification.
The new OECD database on immigrants in OECD
countries (DIOC) provides statistical data drawn largely
from data from the 2000 census round by detailed
occupation of immigrants following the ISCO standard
classification. For ease of analysis, the data was then
grouped into three broad categories:
These three categories reflect certain positions on the
skills ladder: operators are the least skilled category,
technicians are placed in the middle to upper position
on the skill spectrum, while professionals refer to highly
skilled persons. For this report, only OECD countries
which are also EU Member States have been considered.
In most countries (12 out of 19) the share of ‘operators’
among foreign-born population is higher than among
native-born population, suggesting lower labour market
positions of migrants. However, in most countries also the
share of foreign-born persons working as ‘professionals’
is higher as the share in the native-born population as
(12 out of 19). In almost all countries where comparable
data are available (except in Denmark and Portugal) the
share of ‘technicians’ is higher among the native-born
population than among the foreign-born population.
This pattern clearly shows that migrants are over­
represented in the highly qualified and in the least
skilled occupations, whereas migrants are under­
represented in the middle spectrum of the labour
market.
Generally, the distributions of occupations in the
foreign-born and native-born populations vary strongly
among l9 EU Member States. Tubergen (2006) found
that country of origin, country of destination as well as
combinations thereof are important for occupational
status of immigrants. He furthermore found that people
originating from politically suppressive countries
have lower occupational status than other migrants
(who have moved for economic reasons), suggesting
broadly lower labour market positions of humanitarian
migrants. Moreover, ‘non-white’ immigrants more often
face discrimination against them leading to lower
occupational status.115 Figure 2-7, below, graphically
shows occupational characteristics of the foreign-born
compared to the native born in the European Union.
(1) professionals, refering to ISCO major groups 1 and 2,
(2) technicians, refering to ISCO major groups 3 and 4 and
(3) operators, refering to ISCO major groups 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
(armed forces (ISCO group 0) have been excluded.)
115 F. van Tubergen (2006): Occupational status of immigrants in crossnational perspective: A multilevel analysis of seventeen Western
societies, pp. 147-171, in: C. A. Parsons & T. M. Smeeding (Ed):
Immigration and Transformation of Europe, Cambridge University Press.
39
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Figure 2-7: Distribution of occupations by place of birth in 19 EU Member States
100%
90%
80%
70%
48
46
42
46
60
67
54
40
50
60
69
60
58
54
56
49
57
22
40%
53
39
47
52
50
60
63
35
21
30
20
32
20
23
20 27
22 33
13
20
50
54
53
65
46
60
10
18 17
15
20
26
23
25
31
18
28
21
20
34
20
44
20
14
21
19 16
20
27
32 30
17
20
26
28
35
30%
0%
57
36
50
80
50%
10%
42
48
70
60%
20%
47
22 19
22
26
18
9
38
32
24
17
11
27
21
20
30
21
30
26
25
21
23 20
25
31
33
19
21
24
15
19
19
24
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
F N
AT
BE
CZ
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
UK
EL
HU
IE
IT
LU
NL
PL
PT
SK
SE
Professionals
Technicians
Operators
Note: F = foreign-born population and N = native-born population. Professionals include all occupations with ISCO116 code 1 and 2; Technicians include all
occupations with ISCO code 3 and 4; Operators include all remaining groups, except armed forces, which have been excluded.
Source: Own presentation based on OECD (2008): A Profile of Immigrant Populations in the 21st Century: Data from OECD Countries, pp. 141-142, data available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/248322247831
2.2.4.Skills, educational attainment and
employment
Human capital factors – skills and educational attainment
– are among the main explanatory factors for labour
market outcomes. Indeed, there are marked differences
in the educational levels between the foreign-born
and native-born population in the European Union.
As discussed by Münz et al. (2006) the immigrant
population in the EU-27 is generally underrepresented
in the medium-skilled group. Almost half of the nativeborn population has a medium educational attainment,
according to the classification used, but only 41 per
cent of the immigrant population born in another EU-27
country and 37.9 per cent of immigrants originating
from countries outside EU-27. Educational attainments
of immigrants are shown in figure 2-8, below.
116 International Standard Classification of Occupations, see http://www.ilo.org/
public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.htm, (03.12.2008).
40
Patterns of inequality
Figure 2-8: Level of education of population
aged 25 to 64 by place of birth, 2005
100%
24.3
28.3
25.8
47.6
41
37.9
28.1
30.7
36.3
Country of
residence
Another
EU-27 country
Outside
of EU-27
High
There is a large body of research on the effects of
educational attainment on migrants’ employment
patterns. Indeed, comparatively low human capital
endowments of particularly vulnerable migrant
and minority groups is one of the most important
factors explaining adverse labour market outcomes.
Nevertheless, even when educational levels of migrants
or minorities are taken into account, inequalities
in employment remain, suggesting considerable
deskilling among migrants and minorities. Figure 2-9,
below, shows overqualification rates for natives
and immigrants in EU Member States, drawing
on data from the OECD immigrant database.
80%
60%
Medium
40%
20%
Low
0%
Note: Incomplete numbers (without Luxembourg; education levels of
immigrants do not include data for Germany, Italy and Luxembourg)
Source: LFS, for detailed references see Table A6 in the Statistical Annex
Figure 2-9: Overqualification of foreign-born compared to native-born population in 16 EU countries (%)
35
32
Native-born
30
Foreign-born
27
25
25
22
21
20
20
16
15
14
15
14
14
12
11
10
8
9
7
8
6
5
5
10
10
11
10
7
5
8
7
ES
17
20
19
18
SE
25
EL
IT
DK
LU
AT
CZ
PT
HU
FI
UK
FR
IE
PL
SK
0
Note: Education and job qualification levels are grouped into three categories: low, intermediate and high. An overqualified individual is a person who
holds a job that requires lesser qualifications that would theoretically be available at his education level. The overqualification rate is defined as the
ratio of the share of foreign born overqualified for their work compared to the respective share of native born. Overqualification rates are calculated
for individuals with an intermediate or higher education.
Source: OECD (2008): A profile of Immigrant Populations in the 21st Century. Data from OECD countries, p. 139, Database on Immigrants in OECD
Countries (DIOC), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/247334814281, (02.12.2008).
41
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Again, not all migrants are similarly subject to deskilling
and migrants from non-EU countries are generally
much more likely to experience deskilling. Thus, in
Denmark non-Western immigrants are more likely to be
overeducated (i.e. their educational level is higher than
required for the job they are employed in). 25 per cent
of non-Western immigrant wage earners with at least a
vocational education are overeducated, against only 15
per cent of the native Danes. Deskilling generally affects
those who acquired their education abroad most.117 This
suggests transfer of skills and educational attainments
across countries as a major problem area. Underlying the
limited transferability of skills and education are several
factors, including employer preferences for skills and
education acquired in a country, non-equivalence of skills
and education acquired abroad, but also discrimination.
Similar patterns can be observed in Austria, where
seven per cent of women and five per cent of men who
completed higher education in Austria are employed
in un- or semi-skilled jobs, compared to 32 per cent of
women and men with higher education completed
outside of Austria. Additionally, unemployment among
persons who completed their education outside of Austria
is twice as high as the unemployment of persons who
have completed their education in Austria for women and
three times as high for men.118 As can be seen in Figure 2.9,
considering 16 EU Member States, in all countries, except
Slovakia, the foreign-born population is more likely
to be overqualified. This is particularly pronounced in
southern Europe (Italy, Greece and Spain) and in some
countries of northern Europe (Denmark and Sweden).119
2.2.5.Income and wages
Income and wage disparities are among the most
important consequences of labour market disadvantages
and among the most obvious signs of social exclusion.
Data on household incomes is available from the EU
Survey on Incomes and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and
its predecessor, the European Community Household
Panel (ECHP). Like all surveys, these are limited in terms
of sample sizes; like in other surveys, ethnicity as such is
not measured and data is only available for persons with
an immigration background and we thus limit ourselves
to migrant minorities and disregard other vulnerable
ethnic minorities. In addition to the EU-SILC, information
on incomes can be derived from various national data
sources, although in fact also in national contexts, the
EU-SILC is often used as the main source of information
in the absence of adequate alternative data-sources.
The EU-SILC also provides information on salaries. As this
analysis is mainly based on secondary data, available
publications and statistical data readily available from the
Eurostat online database and so-far, there has been no
analysis of migrant incomes on the basis of the EU-SILC,
we have used data from a pilot study undertaken by
the OECD and available only for a small number of EU
Member States to show wage disparities (See figure 2-10).
Data for this figure are derived from national data
sources and largely refer to the years 2005 and 2006.120
Figure 2-10: Median wages of immigrants relative to the native-born in five EU countries, 2005-2006
100
100
100
96
94
93
93
87
90
91
95
90 92 90
85
89
82
80
All
Men
70
Women
60
50
(native-born = 100)
PT
DE
SE
FR
NL
Source: OECD (2008): International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI, p. 81, data available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/427665878636, (03.12.2008).
117 C. P. Nielsen (2007): ‘Immigrant Overeducation: Evidence from Denmark’.
AKF, Danish Institute of Governmental Research, p. 1, available at:
www.amid.dk/assets/pdf/overeducation_final.pdf (23.09.2008).
118 A. Gächter (2007) ‘Bildungsverwertung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt’, in: H.
Fassmann (Ed.): 2. Österreichischer Migrations- und Integrationsbericht.
2001 – 2006, Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag, pp. 248 – 249.
119 Including Slovakia, Poland, Ireland, France, UK, Finland, Hungary,
Portugal, the Czech Republic, Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, Italy,
Sweden, Spain and Greece, cf. OECD (2008): A profile of Immigrant
Populations in the 21st Century. Data from OECD countries, p. 139.
42
120 Cf. OECD (2008): International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI, p. 79.
Patterns of inequality
Figure 2-11: Median household incomes of migrant households with children relative to the native-born
in 18 EU countries, 2004
100
% median income
80
60
40
20
EU
-2
5
UK
SE
FI
SI
AT
NL
LU
CY
IT
FR
ES
EL
IE
EE
DE
DK
BE
0
Note: The figure represents the median disposable household income of migrant households with at least once child, equivalised for
differences in the size and composition of households.
Source: EU-SILC, taken from Eurostat (2008): The Social Situation in the European Union, 2007, p.93 (Figure 17)
The results of the OECD pilot study suggest that
migrants earn considerably less than the native-born
population. An earlier study of migrant wages based
on the European Community Household Panel (ECHP)
suggests that wage disparities are particularly large
at the time of arrival of migrants. The analysis shows
that migrants’ earnings are 38 per cent (men) and 42
per cent (women) below those of natives.121 The study,
however, also shows that wage disparities vary greatly
between countries, with migrants in Germany and
Portugal faring the best, and those in Sweden, Denmark,
Luxembourg and Spain the worst. Although the ECHP is
problematic as a source of information on immigrants
and the results are likely to be distorted because of
deficiencies of the sample, the general direction of the
results might still hold true. The study also shows that
wage disparities are closely related to origin. Thus, in 6
out of the 15 countries included in the analysis, wages
of migrants born outside the EU are below those born
in the EU.122 Again, given the deficiencies of the ECHP
sample in regard to migrants and the fact that migrants
from non-EU countries are likely to be underrepresented,
wages of non-EU migrants are probably lower than those
of EU-born migrants in more countries than suggested
by the study. However, the study also suggests that
121 A.Adserà, B.R.Chiswick (2005) Divergent Patterns of Immigrant Earnings
Across European Destinations. In: C.A.Parsons, T.M.Smeeding (eds.)
Immigration and the Transformation of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, p. 97
122 A.Adserà, B.R.Chiswick (2005) Divergent Patterns of Immigrant Earnings
Across European Destinations. In: C.A.Parsons, T.M.Smeeding (eds.)
Immigration and the Transformation of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, p. 97
wage disparities reduce over time and become equal
of that of natives after about 19 years of residence.123
Major disparities between natives and foreign born
in respect to available household incomes are shown
in the most recent edition of the Eurostat report on
the social situation in the European Union. The report
analysed household incomes of migrant households
with at least one child and covers 18 EU Member States
on the basis of the EU-SILC survey.124 Figure 2-11, below
shows median household incomes of households with
at least one child as compared to the native population.
The report shows that household incomes of migrant
households with at least one child are on average 80
per cent below the level of natives, with particularly
large income disparities in Belgium and Luxembourg.
Lower household incomes of migrant households reflect
disadvantages on the labour market in at least two
respects. First, household incomes reflect wage disparities,
which in turn are closely linked to the concentration of
migrants in low wage sectors and occupations. Secondly,
and perhaps even more important, disparities in
household incomes are a consequence of comparatively
low employment and activity rates among migrants
and much higher vulnerability to unemployment.
123 A.Adserà, B.R.Chiswick (2005) Divergent Patterns of Immigrant Earnings
Across European Destinations. In: C.A.Parsons, T.M.Smeeding (eds.)
Immigration and the Transformation of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, p. 105
124 Eurostat (2008): The Social Situation in the European Union, online at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KE-AG-08-001/
EN/KE-AG-08-001-EN.PDF (15.2.2009)
43
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Table 2-4: Risk of poverty of those in households with and without children by place of birth, 2004
(%with income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold)
Born in country of residence
Born outside the EU
% point difference: born outside
EU minus born in country
Country
With children
BE
Without Children
With children
Without Children
With children
Without Children
12
12
64
37
53
25
DK
8
15
39
42
31
28
DE
12
14
33
24
20
10
EE
21
19
26
25
5
6
IE
20
21
40
28
20
7
EL
18
19
43
23
25
4
ES
22
19
53
21
31
2
FR
11
12
41
32
30
21
IT
23
16
33
21
10
6
CY
11
27
30
33
18
6
LU
9
5
53
34
44
29
NL
13
8
51
16
38
8
AT
12
10
35
29
23
19
SI
11
16
19
23
9
7
FI
9
14
30
45
21
31
SE
6
10
28
30
21
20
UK
21
18
40
26
20
8
EU-25
18
15
40
25
23
10
Source: EU-SILC, taken from Eurostat (2008): The Social Situation in the European Union, 2007, p.95 (Table 20)
Thus, the report on the social situation in the European
Union shows that the proportion of children living in
households without a person in employment was larger
for migrant children than for native children. Similarly,
in 12 of the 17 countries included in this analysis, the
household ‘work intensity’ – a measure for the share of
household members in working age in employment –
was less than 1 for over 60 per cent of households with
children (signalling that not everyone of working age was
in employment throughout the year), with households
without children presumably showing similar patterns.125
Similarly, the share of migrant households falling below
the official poverty line – 60 per cent of the Median
income – is significantly higher among immigrants than
among natives. The presence of children in the household
or the size of the family contributes to poverty risks in a
large number of countries, but being born outside the
125 Eurostat (2008): The Social Situation in the European Union, online at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KE-AG-08-001/
EN/KE-AG-08-001-EN.PDF (15.2.2009), p. 96
44
European Union seems to be the decisive factor. In all
EU-Member States persons born outside the EU and
living in households without children are exposed to a
higher poverty risks than natives in households without
children. The difference in the proportion of persons at
risk of poverty in migrants’ households with children and
those without are largest in the Netherlands, Belgium,
Greece and Spain with between 21 and 30 percentage
points difference, while the relative differences between
native households with and without children are relatively
small. Table 2-4, below, shows provides a summary of the
share of persons at risk of poverty for natives with and
without children vs. natives with or without children.
Patterns of inequality
2.3. Evidence of change and continuity
It is difficult, if not impossible to present a clear picture
of change in regard to patterns of inequality regarding
migrants and minorities in employment. Partly, this is
an issue of data availability and comparability. Thus,
for various indicators – for example distribution across
economic sectors, occupations and occupational status
and educational attainment – only snapshot statistics for
a certain point in time are available, thus precluding any
analysis of developments over time. Similarly, longitudinal
data in the narrow sense, which would allow to monitor
labour market experiences of specific cohorts of migrants
and minorities are not available on the EU-level at all, and
available nationally only in a relatively small number of
countries. Information on vulnerable ethnic minorities
other than migrant minorities data is generally much less
readily available, let alone cross-sectional or longitudinal
data allowing to analyse developments over time.
Changes of readily available labour market indicators
such as activity rates, employment and unemployment
rates, on the other hand, are not good indicators of
changing patterns of inequality for three main reasons.
First, changes in unemployment and employment rates
above all reflect the changing economic climate. Thus
employment declines and unemployment rises during
economic downturns, while the reverse happens when
the economy catches up. This said, available evidence
suggests that employment and unemployment rates
of migrants and minorities are subject to much greater
variations than those of the majority population. In
particular, migrants and minorities are much more
vulnerable to economic downturns. Secondly, in the
context of significant net migration into the EU and the
resulting constant re-composition of the migrant
population, overall employment patterns conceal
considerable differences between different cohorts of
migrants, which in turn reflect differences in the
characteristics of immigrants as well as differences in type
of migration. For example, large inflows of humanitarian
migrants is likely to negatively affect employment
patterns, while the reverse is likely to be true if there
are large inflows of economic migrants. To be able to
distinguish between different cohorts of immigrants,
to monitor changes in employment patterns of specific
groups and to be able to assess the impact of policy
measures good longitudinal data would be required
which, so far, are not available.
Perhaps most important, however, is that labour market
inequalities described in this chapter are deeply
entrenched in labour market structures and are
unlikely to radically change. Rather, any changes will be
incremental and small, although they might be significant
for specific subgroups. Again, to be able to discern such
changes and to monitor and assess the impact of policy
measures, more sophisticated and fine-tuned monitoring
mechanisms would be needed.
On the basis of the available information, we must
conclude that fundamental patterns of inequality have
not changed significantly in the last five years. Major
disparities persist between the migrants and minorities
on the one hand, and majority populations, on the other.
Generally, migrants and minorities are more likely to
experience disadvantage on the labour market, to be
less likely to be in employment, and to be subject to
unemployment more frequently and to a larger degree
than the majority population. In addition, migrants and
minorities are more likely to earn less than natives, to
have lower educational attainments and to be employed
in occupations at the lower end of the skill spectrum. And
migrants and minorities are more likely to be employed
in more precarious and undesirable jobs. These general
patterns seem to have remained stable since 2000.126
Causes for inequalities between the overall population
and migrants or minorities are manifold. Differences
in labour market statistics exist due to different
compositions of groups (different age groups, gender
relation, etc.) and different education and qualification
levels of the groups of interest, both leading to different
labour market performances. Moreover, inequalities
originate from weak and insecure legal statuses of
migrants, including limited access to education and
training possibilities and to the labour market. Last but
not least discrimination is an important factor influencing
labour market performance. However, discrimination
against migrants and minorities is not only limited to the
labour market (e.g. in hiring or promoting). Discrimination
in education and in social life in general also influences
the labour market performance of migrants and
minorities. Therefore, policy responses which aim at
eradicating inequalities need also to address several areas
beyond that of employment.
126 Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) (2007): Trends and Developments
1997 – 2005 – Combating Ethnic and Racial Discrimination and
Promoting Equality in the European Union, p. 22.
45
Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment: EU law
3. Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment: EU law
‘Discrimination’, in the broadest sense, refers to differential
treatment which is not justified. It is thus an inherently
normative concept, applied to describe behaviour
deemed reprehensible because it violates the norm
of equality.
To abolish discrimination between workers from different
Member States has been one of the core objectives of
the European Communities from the very beginning.
The fight against gender discrimination has an equally
long history in the EU. It is only recently, however, that
the scope of European anti-discrimination law and policy
has been extended beyond nationality and gender.
3.1. The Equality Directives
In 2000, the European Union took an important step
in the fight against discrimination, by adopting two
new directives: the ‘Racial Equality Directive’127 and the
‘Employment Equality Directive’128. These directives set a
common framework for all Member States to implement
anti-discrimination laws and policies. The provisions of
the directives are minimum requirements, i.e. Member
States may always do more, but never less, to combat
discrimination. The deadline for the transposition of both
directives into national law was 2003 for the EU-15, and
2004 for the newer Member States.129
The ‘Employment Equality Directive’ prohibits
discrimination in employment and occupation – access
to employment, access to vocational training, working
conditions, and membership of workers organisations
– on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age,
or sexual orientation.130 The ‘Racial Equality Directive’
prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race and
ethnic origin, not only in the field of employment, but
also with regard to social protection and advantages,
education and access to public goods and services,
including housing. Thus, the current European legal
framework offers especially strong protection in the
field of employment, and on the grounds of race and
ethnic origin.
127 Council Directive 2000/43/EC (29.06.2000).
128 Council Directive 2000/78/EC (27.11.2000).
129 With the exception of disability and age, where the deadline could be
extended until 2006. M. Bell (2008). ‘The Implementation of European
Anti-Discrimination Directives: Converging towards a Common Model’,
in: The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 36; FRA (2007) Report on
Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, p. 19.
130 In July 2008, the Commission has presented a proposal (COM (2008) 426
final) for a Council Directive which would extend the protection against
discrimination on these four grounds beyond the field of employment.
The formulation of both directives builds on
lessons learned in the prohibition of discrimination
between nationals of Member States as well as
discrimination on grounds of gender, two bodies
of anti-discrimination law which are as old as the
European Communities themselves.131 The Directives
are also said to reflect an ‘“Anglo-Dutch” model, based
on individual litigation rights with an emphasis on
access to key social goods such as employment’.132
In many ways, the directives reflect the wish to
strengthen the position of victims of discrimination.
For instance, as experience has shown that it is difficult
in practice to prove discrimination, the directives
stipulate that victims must only bring forward facts
‘from which it may be presumed that discrimination
has occurred’. The burden of proof then shifts to the
defendant: the court will assume the principle of equal
treatment has been breached, unless the defendant
can prove otherwise. In addition, the Directives
compel Member States to prevent victimisation, i.e. to
protect persons who file a discrimination complaint
from any adverse consequences or ill treatment.133
The Equality Directives stipulate that Member States
shall ensure that judicial or administrative procedures
are available to victims of discrimination, and that
associations or other legal entities have the possibility
to engage such procedures on behalf or in support
of individual victims. The Racial Equality Directive
prescribes that an independent specialised body shall
be designated in all Member States to promote equal
treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. This
body shall be responsible for providing assistance to
victims of discrimination, conducting surveys, publishing
reports and making recommendations. By October
2007, all EU Member States except the Czech Republic
131 E. Ellis (2007) ‘Definitions of key concepts: Direct and Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment’. Paper presented at the ERA conference The
Fight against Discrimination: The Equal Treatment Directives of 2000,
Trier 26-27 November 2007. Available at: http://www.era.int/web/en/
resources/5_1095_6110_file_en.8758.pdf, (12.10.2008)
132 M. Bell (2008). ‘The Implementation of European Anti-Discrimination
Directives: Converging towards a Common Model’, in: The Political
Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 36.
133 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared., p. 58.
47
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
had designated such an equality body, although it
was not yet operational in Spain and Luxemburg.134
because he had more experience – then the differential
treatment is not considered discrimination.136
Both Directives include an obligation for the Member
States to promote social dialogue between employers
and employees to further equal treatment, and to
encourage agreements between the social partners on
anti-discrimination rules as well as dialogue with nongovernmental organisations involved in the fight against
discrimination.
Whereas the provisions on direct discrimination aim at
formal equality, the prohibition of indirect discrimination
aims at substantive equality: at eliminating the
inequalities that persist in practice even when formal
equality is achieved. Indirect discrimination is deemed
to take place where ‘an apparently neutral provision,
criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or
ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared with
other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice
is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means
of achieving that aim is appropriate and necessary’. By
referring to a ‘provision, criterion or practice’, the directives
have broadened the scope of indirect discrimination
beyond formal requirements imposed by employers, to
include expressions of preference of informal practices.
For instance, this may include the practice of word-ofmouth recruitment, which puts ethnic minorities at a
disadvantage because they do not belong to the social
networks where the news of vacancies circulates. The use
of the phrase ‘would put’ implies that the disadvantage
need not already have occurred: it is sufficient to show
that a provision may result in disadvantage in the future.
Furthermore, the directives have been formulated
in such a manner as to open up the possibility to
demonstrate disadvantage for a particular group without
having to deliver statistical proof, relying instead on the
‘common sense’ of a judge. For instance, if an employer
insists on working hours that are incompatible with
certain religious obligations, a claimant should not be
required to produce data on the number of persons
affected to convince the court that these requirements
amount to indirect indiscrimination. Finally, unlike
direct discrimination, indirect discrimination may be
justified if the differential treatment is an appropriate and
necessary means of reaching a legitimate aim. It is up to
the defendant however to prove that this is the case.137
The Racial Equality Directive specifies that ‘this prohibition
of discrimination should also apply to nationals of third
countries, but does not cover differences of treatment
based on nationality and is without prejudice to
provisions governing the entry and residence of thirdcountry nationals and their access to employment and
to occupation’. Thus, migration policies as well as the
regulation of access of foreigners to the labour market fall
outside of the scope of the Directive.
3.2. T
he concepts of discrimination in
the Equality Directives
The Equality Directives distinguish three types of
discrimina­tion: direct discrimination, indirect discrimina­
tion and harassment. In addition, the Directives stipulate
that an ‘instruction to discriminate’ shall be regarded as
discrimination.
Direct discrimination is taken to occur where ‘one person
is treated less favourably than another is, has been or
would be in a comparable situation on grounds of
racial or ethnic origin’.135 The formulation ‘is, has been
or would be’ is important: it implies that a claimant may
point not only to an actual comparator – a colleague
receiving better pay for the same work – but also to a
past or even a hypothetical comparator. This significantly
broadens the possibility for a victim of discrimination
to build a convincing argument. A key element in the
legal definition of direct discrimination is ‘causation’:
race or ethnic origin has to be the cause for the unequal
treatment. If there was another reason – e.g. a white
employee received better pay than his black colleague
134 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 66; Raxen National Focal Point Luxemburg, National Data Collection
Report Luxemburg – 2007, Luxemburg; Raxen National Focal Point
Spain, National Data Collection Report Spain – 2007; Raxen National
Focal Point Bulgaria, National Data Collection Report Bulgaria – 2007;
Raxen National Focal Point Romania, National Data Collection Report
Romania– 2007; Raxen National Focal Point Czech Republic, National
Data Collection Report Czech Republic – 2007.
135 Here and in the following, we quote the Racial Equality Directive; the
definition of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment in
the Employment Equality Directive is the same, only the grounds are
different (and special provisions apply to disability).
48
Harassment, finally, is a new term in EU legislation.
It is defined as ‘unwanted conduct related to racial
or ethnic origin (…) with the purpose or the effect
of violating the dignity of a person and of creating
an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or
offensive environment’. Unlike direct and indirect
discrimination then, harassment does not imply any
136 E. Ellis (2007) ‘Definitions of key concepts: Direct and Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment’. Paper presented at the ERA conference The
Fight against Discrimination: The Equal Treatment Directives of 2000,
Trier 26-27 November 2007, p. 2-4. Available at: http://www.era.int/web/
en/resources/5_1095_6110_file_en.8758.pdf, (12.10.2008)
137 O. Doyle (2007) ‘Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination
and Autonomy’, in: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27. No. 3,
p. 540; E. Ellis (2007) ‘Definitions of key concepts: Direct and Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment’. Paper presented at the ERA conference The
Fight against Discrimination: The Equal Treatment Directives of 2000,
Trier 26-27 November 2007, p. 4-8. Available at: http://www.era.int/web/
en/resources/5_1095_6110_file_en.8758.pdf, (12.10.2008).
Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment: EU law
comparison with a more privileged individual or group.
Although this clause was most probably included so
as to broaden the scope of discriminatory behaviour
punishable by law, there is concern among lawyers that
it might actually be more difficult to prove harassment
than direct or indirect indiscrimination. Up to the
time of writing, there had been no case law from
the European Court of Justice on this provision.138
Motivation is irrelevant in establishing direct
discrimination, indirect discrimination or harassment.
What matters is the discriminatory effect of the action;
whether it was inflicted intentionally or unintentionally is
of no importance.139
3.3. T
he implementation of the
Directives
The following overview is based on information found
in the annual RAXEN country reports of 2006 and 2007;
the country reports presented by the RAXEN national
focal points in 2006 under the title Combating Ethnic and
Racial Discrimination and Promoting Equality: Trends and
Developments 2000-2005; the European Commission’s
most recent report on implementation of the Directives
in the 25 Member States140; and finally the national
anti-discrimination legislation of the Member States
accessible through the internet portal of the European
Commission’s DG for Employment and Social Affairs.141
Since the Equality Directives entered into force, all
Member States have introduced or amended national
anti-discrimination law. In some countries, it was the
first time enforceable legislation on equal treatment was
put in place; in most countries, the transposition of the
Directives into national law contributed to clarification
and strengthening of the legal protection against
discrimination. The implementation of the Directives is
not yet complete or perfect however. The Commission
sent a ‘reasoned opinion’ to 14 Member States142 in
June 2007 for failing to implement the Racial Equality
138 E. Ellis (2007) ‘Definitions of key concepts: Direct and Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment’. Paper presented at the ERA conference The
Fight against Discrimination: The Equal Treatment Directives of 2000,
Trier 26-27 November 2007, p. 12-13. Available at: http://www.era.int/
web/en/resources/5_1095_6110_file_en.8758.pdf, (12.10.2008)
139 E. Ellis (2007) ‘Definitions of key concepts: Direct and Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment’. Paper presented at the ERA conference The
Fight against Discrimination: The Equal Treatment Directives of 2000,
Trier 26-27 November 2007, p. 12. Available at: http://www.era.int/web/
en/resources/5_1095_6110_file_en.8758.pdf, (12.10.2008)
140 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared.
141 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/legis/
lgms_en.htm, (20.10.2008).
142 These were Spain, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Ireland,
United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia
and Slovakia.
Directive fully, and to 11 Member States143 in January
2008 for incorrect implementation of the Employment
Equality Directive. Main problem areas include
definitions of discrimination, assistance to the victims of
discrimination – such as the shift in burden of proof and
victimisation – and the scope of the protection granted.144
3.3.1.Grounds of discrimination
The grounds of discrimination prohibited by the
Directives in the field of employment are racial and
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation. By the end of 2007, Sweden had not
yet introduced legislation on age discrimination.145
In some Member States, the provisions on sexual
orientation are highly sensitive for religious and
political reasons. For instance, in Latvia sexual
orientation is included in the amendments to civil
law which were pending in 2007, but not in antidiscrimination provisions in labour and administrative
law, due to objections raised in Parliament.146
Many Member States go beyond the minimum
requirements of the Directives, and prohibit
discrimination on grounds such as civil or marital status
– e.g. Portugal, Estonia, the Netherlands and Ireland;
social status or wealth – e.g. Belgium, Rumania, and
Slovenia; or membership of a trade union or political
party – e.g. Bulgaria, Lithuania, Greece and Poland.
The reference to ‘racial origin’ was a controversial
issue in the negotiations among the Member States
about the Equality Directives.147 A compromise was
reached with the inclusion in the preamble of the
explicit statement that the use of the term ‘race’ in the
Directive did not imply any admission by the EU of
‘theories which attempt to determine the existence of
separate human races’. The different views taken by
the Member States are reflected in the formulations
adopted in national legislations: Austria and Sweden for
143 The Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Hungary,
Malta, Netherlands, Finland and Sweden received a reasoned opinion. In
addition, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Germany and
two complementary letters of formal notice to Latvia and Lithuania.
144 European Commission (2007) Commission acts to close gaps in equality
rules. Press release 27 June 2007, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/
news/ip07_928_en.pdf, (16.10.2008); European Commission (2008)
Commission acts to close gaps in employment equality rules. Press
release 31 January 2008, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_
social/fundamental_rights/pdf/news/ip08_155_en.pdf, (16.10.2008)
145 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared., p. 16
146 Raxen National Focal Point Latvia, National Data Collection Report Latvia
– 2007; Raxen National Focal Point Latvia (2006) Combating ethnic and
racial discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005.
147 M. Bell (2008). ‘The Implementation of European Anti-Discrimination
Directives: Converging towards a Common Model’, in: The Political
Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 37.
49
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
instance do not mention ‘race’, referring only to ‘ethnic’
belonging or origin. Belgium refers to ‘presumed race’,
and France to ‘real or presumed’ racial belonging.148
The Directive does not define what ‘ethnic or racial origin’
should be taken to mean. Many countries explicitly
mention skin colour – e.g. Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, and
Slovakia – and nationality or national origin – e.g. Latvia,
the Netherlands, Poland, and Romania. France prohibits
discrimination on physical appearance and name;
language is included as a separate protected ground
in Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. In
Hungary, belonging to a national or ethnic minority is
cited as a protected ground. The boundary between
religion and ethnicity is ambiguous: in Dutch case law
and in the UK, discrimination against Jews, Muslims and
Sikhs has been recognised as race discrimination.149
3.3.2.Definitions of discrimination
The large majority of Member States follow the distinction
between direct and indirect discrimination as defined
in the Directives. France and the Netherlands mention
direct and indirect discrimination in national legislation
without providing a definition of these terms.150
In most Member States, the concept of ‘harassment’ was
introduced into national legislation as a consequence
of the Equality Directives. The national definitions
of ‘harassment’ therefore predominantly follow
the formulation of the Directives closely. In France,
harassment is not included in the anti-discrimination
provisions, but covered by the general protection against
moral and sexual harassment at work.151 Some countries,
such as Austria, Denmark and France, explicitly oblige
employers to take action against harassment by third
parties, for instance by other employees.152 In Italy, the
legal definition refers to unwanted conduct creating
an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and
offensive environment’. In the Directive, the word used
148 Austria/Bg 65 (23.06.2004); Sweden/SFS 2003:307 (05.06.2003); Belgium/
BS 30 V 07 (10.05.2007); France/2001-1066 (16.11.2001)
149 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared., p. 17.
150 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared.,
p. 24-25.
151 Raxen National Focal Point France (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005.
152 Raxen National Focal Point France (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005, Paris; Raxen National Focal Point Austria (2006) Combating
ethnic and racial discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and
developments 2000-2005, Vienna; Raxen National Focal Point Denmark
(2006) Combating ethnic and racial discrimination and promoting
equality. Trends and developments 2000-2005
50
is ‘or’: a small but potentially significant difference.153
In Estonia, the law prohibits unwanted conduct
‘against a person in a relationship of subordination or
dependency’ and therefore offers narrower protection
than the Directive, which offers protection irrespective
of the relation between victim and perpetrator.154
Almost all Member States have included ‘an instruction
to discriminate’ as a prohibited form of discrimination.
France is one of the few exceptions; however, general
French principles on complicity and liability ‘may produce
the same effects’.155 The Czech Republic, Poland and
Slovakia have gone beyond the minimal requirements
of the Directives, prohibiting also the ‘incitement’,
‘instigation’ or ‘inducement’ to discriminate. 156
Bulgaria is exceptional, in that persecution and racial
segregation also fall within the legal definition of
discrimination.157 Since 1 January 2007, segregation
is also prohibited in Hungary unless there is a ‘clear
statutory authorisation for the separate treatment’.158
3.3.3.The scope of the protection against
discrimination
One major flaw in the implementation is the failure of
Estonia, the Czech Republic and Poland to extend the
prohibition of discrimination on grounds of race and
ethnicity beyond the realm of employment to include
social protection, education and access to public
goods and services, including housing. In October
2007, comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation
which would bring national law in line with the
Racial Equality Directive was still pending in all three
countries.159 On the other hand, a great many Member
States extend protection on grounds other than race
153 Raxen National Focal Point Italy (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005.
154 Raxen National Focal Point Estonia (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005.
155 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared, p. 26.
156 Raxen National Focal Point Czech Republic (2006) Combating ethnic and
racial discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and developments
2000-2005; Raxen National Focal Point Slovakia (2006) Combating
ethnic and racial discrimination and promoting equality. Trends and
developments 2000-2005, Bratislava; Raxen National Focal Point Poland,
National Data Collection Report Poland – 2004.
157 Bulgaria/DV 86/2003 (30.09.2003)
158 Raxen National Focal Point Hungary, National Data Collection Report
Hungary – 2007.
159 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 11; Raxen National Focal Point Poland, National Data Collection Report
Poland – 2007, Warschau; Raxen National Focal Point Estonia, National
Data Collection Report Estonia – 2007; Raxen National Focal Point Czech
Republic, National Data Collection Report Poland – 2007.
Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment: EU law
and ethnicity beyond the realm of employment and
thus exceed the requirements of the Directive.160
Where the scope of protection against discrimination
in the field of employment is concerned, many
Member States fall short in some way of the standard
set by the Directives. In Estonia, the norm of equal
treatment has been introduced only in the labour
law for the private sector, leaving out the civil service.
In Hungary on the other hand, not all private sectors
are covered. Self-employment is not fully covered in
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Swedish law does not mention ‘working conditions’ as
an area where discrimination is forbidden; Lithuania,
Estonia and Latvia do not fully cover membership of or
involvement in organisations of workers or employers.161
3.3.4.Complaint procedures and protection of
victims
The Directives stipulate that member states shall
ensure that persons who consider themselves victims
of discrimination shall have access to ‘judicial and/or
administrative procedures’. All member states combine
judicial procedures – where disputes can be taken before
the courts – with non-judicial procedures, e.g. complaint
or conciliation mechanisms before either specialised
bodies or Inspectorates, Ombudsmen, or Human Rights
Institutes. The competence of such non-judicial bodies
varies from delivering recommendations to issuing
binding decisions.162
According to the Directives, associations and
organisations which have ‘a legitimate interest in
ensuring that the provisions of [these directives] are
complied with may engage, either on behalf or in
support of the complainant, with his or her approval’ in
judicial or administrative procedures. This leaves some
leeway to the member states: offering ‘support’ is less
far-reaching than allowing associations to engage in
procedures on a victim’s behalf. Most member states only
permit associations to provide assistance in complaint
procedures. Greece, Ireland, Estonia and Slovenia permit
associations to represent a complainant in court. Spain,
Latvia, Poland, Cyprus and Hungary also allow them to
engage in procedures on a victim’s behalf; this will be
permitted in Lithuania too if the Law on Equal Treatment
160 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared, p. 38.
161 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 33-36; ; Raxen National Focal Point Estonia, National Data Collection
Report Estonia – 2007.
162 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 51-54.
which was pending in late 2007 is adopted.163 There is also
variance among the member states with regard to the
criteria associations have to meet in order to be involved
in discrimination procedures. In Germany, an association
has to have at least 75 members; in Belgium, France and
Luxemburg, the association has to be at least 5 years old.
In Luxemburg, associations have to be recognised by the
ministry of Justice as being ‘nationally representative in
the field of anti-discrimination; in France, the association’s
statutes must include the fight against discrimination or
slavery; in Italy, associations must be on a list drawn up by
the ministries of Labour/Welfare and Equal Opportunities.
Among the criteria for being included in the list is
the promotion of equal opportunities and the fight
against discrimination as the only or primary objective.
In Spain, only trade unions can engage in procedures on
complainants’ behalf in the field of employment.164
The shift in the burden of proof was one of the major
problem areas in the implementation of the Directives
identified by the Commission. For instance, in Latvia,
Poland and Estonia the burden of proof only shifts to
the defendant in the field of employment.165 Provisions
on the burden of proof were absent in Lithuanian
legislation; the draft Law on Equal Treatment which
was pending in late 2007 should fill this void. Cyprus
and Hungary have implemented legal reforms in 2007
to comply with this provision in the Directives.166 In
Belgium, a new law of May 2007 specifies which type
of evidence should be presented by a complainant for
the judge to shift the burden of proof. These include
‘a pattern of unequal treatment’ or ‘comparison with a
person of reference’ – to be demonstrated for instance
by a recurrence test or situation testing – in case of direct
discrimination, and ‘general statistics’ or an ‘inherently
suspicious criterion’ in case of indirect discrimination.167
The protection of complainants against victimisation
– adverse treatment or consequences – is another
problematic issue in the implementation of the
Directives. Estonia and Lithuania have not transposed
this provision; in Estonia, a law was pending in late
2007 which would repair this omission. In a great many
countries – Belgium, France, Czech Republic, Malta,
163 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 55-57; Raxen National Focal Point Lithuania, National Data Collection
Report Lithuania – 2007, Vilnius; Raxen National Focal Point Cyprus,
National Data Collection Report Cyprus – 2007.
164 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared, p. 58.
165 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 55-57
166 Raxen National Focal Point Lithuania, National Data Collection Report
Lithuania – 2007; Raxen National Focal Point Cyprus, National Data
Collection Report Cyprus – 2007; Raxen National Focal Point Hungary,
National Data Collection Report Hungary – 2007.
167 Raxen National Focal Point Belgium, National Data Collection Report
Belgium– 2007.
51
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Luxemburg – the
protection against victimisation does not extend beyond
the field of employment. In countries such as France,
Belgium, Poland and Portugal, the law only protects
the complainant him or herself, not others who may
suffer negative treatment, such as colleagues who
acted as witnesses. The French government disagrees
with the Commission’s interpretation of the Directives,
and maintains that the guarantee of protection does
not extend to individuals who offered support to the
complainant. Finally, in certain countries the definition
of ‘adverse treatment’ is rather narrow: French law for
instance covers only disciplinary action or dismissal by
the employer, and Polish labour law prohibits solely
denunciation or dissolution of a labour contract.168
3.4. Outlook
The Equality Directives have now by and large – be
it imperfectly – been transposed into national law. In
the following years, it will be up to the courts and the
Equality Bodies to apply the clauses of the Directives to
concrete cases brought before them. It is only through
this process of interpretation that the meaning and
significance of the Directives will become fully clear.
guarantee a high level of protection, so as to turn
the Directive into a true instrument of change.
The European legal framework does not explicitly cover
multiple discrimination, i.e. discrimination on several
grounds at the same time: disability and age, gender and
religion, sexual orientation and ethnic origin. The Equality
Directives allow for national legislation which addresses
multiple discrimination, but as it is not compulsory, only
Spain, Romania, Germany and Austria have introduced it.
In legal practice throughout Europe, the so-called ‘single
ground approach’ is dominant. Legal advisors generally
assess that their chances of winning the court case for
their client are best if they ‘choose the strongest ground’
and disregard the other grounds. Courts may thus fail to
recognise either the severity or the particular nature of
the discrimination which a complainant suffered.171 One
of the recommendations of the 2007 EU report “Tackling
Multiple Discrimination” was that EU and national antidiscrimination and equal treatment legislation should
cover the grounds of age, disability, religion/belief and
sexual orientation outside the area of employment,
and that the new legislation should also provide
provisions to address intersectional discrimination.172
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have an
important role to play in ensuring that the Directives
are interpreted and applied in a consistent fashion
throughout the EU. Quite recently, the Court has passed
its first judgement dealing with the Racial Equality
Directive. It concerned a dispute between the Belgian
Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to
Racism and the firm Feryn, which sells doors. One
of Feryn’s directors declared in an interview with a
Flemish newspaper that he would not recruit Moroccan
fitters, because his customers did not want Moroccans
entering their houses to install doors. In a preliminary
ruling169 of 10 July 2008, the European Court ruled
that public declaration by an employer that he will
not recruit persons of a specific ethnic or racial origin
constitutes direct discrimination. The Court disagreed
with Ireland and the UK, which had argued that the
Directive could only apply if there was an identifiable
victim of discrimination, stating that ‘the objective
of fostering conditions for a socially inclusive labour
market would be hard to achieve’ if the scope of the
Directive were interpreted so restrictively.170 Thus, this
first ruling might indicate that the Court wishes to
168 European Commission/DG Employment (2007) Developing AntiDiscrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States compared,
p. 58-59; Raxen National Focal Point Estonia, National Data Collection
Report Estonia – 2007, Tallinn; Raxen National Focal Point France,
National Data Collection Report France – 2007.
169 In a preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice, on request of a
national court, clarifies the meaning of European legislation. The national
court is then obliged to follow this interpretation in its ruling.
170 ECJ/C-54/07 (10.07.08)
52
171 European Commission/DG Employment (2007). Tackling Multiple
Discrimination. Practices, Policies and Laws, p. 19-22.
172 European Commission/DG Employment (2007). Tackling Multiple
Discrimination. Practices, Policies and Laws, p. 53.
Indicators of discrimination
4. Indicators of discrimination
4.1. I ncidents, complaints and court
cases
Though undeniably the existing range of incidents,
complaints and court cases convey important
information about the situation regarding racial and
ethnic discrimination in the Member States, there are
several reasons why caution must be exercised when
dealing with this data and drawing conclusions from it.
Specifically, the number of registered complaints may
not necessarily reflect the extent of discrimination in
a given Member State, rather the effectiveness of the
system for reporting and recording complaints or the
level of awareness among potential victims regarding
their rights and the available options for seeking redress.
4.1.1.Barriers to access to justice
Although the total numbers of complaints and court
cases on racial and ethnic discrimination have increased
over the past five years, partly as a consequence of the
changes in the implementation status of the Equality
Directives (see chapter 3.3), there is still a low volume of
case law on racial/ethnic discrimination in most Member
States so far.176 This situation reflects the existence
of a series of barriers to access to justice, the most
important of which are summarised below under three
main categories: (1) legal and administrative barriers,
(2) technical barriers and other de facto obstacles to
accessing legal remedies against discrimination.
4.1.1.1. Legal and administrative barriers
Moreover, as pointed out in all previous EUMC/FRA
reports, the available data is not directly comparable
due to the differences that exist in the Member States in
terms of methods for recording and reporting complaints,
the reporting timeframes, competences and powers of
specialised bodies, and sanctions actually issued.173 For
our specific purpose of looking at the extent of racial
and ethnic discrimination in employment, it is even
more difficult to find concrete data on the number of
complaints and court cases that deal with this precise
area, mainly due to the fact that most countries do
not publish data segregated by grounds and areas of
discrimination. However, where such observations can
be made, the complaints and court cases on racial/ethnic
discrimination in employment appear to be predominant.
For example, in France 42.8 per cent of the total 4,058
complaints brought before the High Authority against
Discrimination and Equality (HALDE) in 2006 dealt with
discrimination in employment, and in 2007 the respective
value increased to more than 50 per cent (out of a total of
6,222 discrimination complaints).174 Also in Italy, the Office
against Racial Discrimination (UNAR) has concluded
that in 2007 racial/ethnic discrimination had occurred
in 265 cases (out of a total 440 recorded complaints),
of which 23.8 per cent related to employment.175
173 See the collection of EUMC/FRA Annual Reports available at www.fra.
europa.eu (21.11.2008).
174 HALDE (2008) Annual Report 2007, p. 10; HALDE (2007) Annual Report
2006, p. 10, both available at: http://www.halde.fr/-Rapports-annuels-.
html?page=rubrique_domaine&id_mot=1 (21.11.2008).
175 UNAR (2008) Un Anno di Attivita’ Contro la Discriminazione razziale
– Raporto 2007, p. 17-18, available at: http://www.pariopportunita.
gov.it/Pari_Opportunita/UserFiles/Il_Dipartimento/UNAR/Notizie/
report_2007.pdf (21.11.2008).
• Lack of a service clearly mandated or trained to
process complaints (such as in the Walloon Region
in Belgium177) or lack of effective equality bodies: by
the end of 2007, this was still the case in the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.178
• Complex and slow procedures, such as in Ireland
(where it can take up to three years to be heard by the
Equality Tribunal), Portugal or Slovenia (where some
judicial proceedings may take five years or more).179
• Complexity or unclear wording of the legislation, cited
for instance by legal experts from Austria and the UK.180
• Short time limits for filing an application, for example
two months after an incident in the Netherlands,
Germany and Ireland, which can be problematic for
176 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States
compared; EUMC/FRA Annual Reports from 2003 until 2008, available at
www.fra.europa.eu (21.11.2008); also based on the information collected
by RAXEN National Focal Points during 2003-2007, provided by the FRA.
177 Answer from the Cell Employment of the cabinet of Jean-Claude
Marcourt, Minister of Economy and Employment of the Walloon Region,
to the Belgian NFP’s request for information.
178 FRA (2008) Annual Report, p. 17. Specifically, in 2007 equality bodies had
not been established in Czech Republic, Spain and Luxembourg; were
not operational in Germany and Malta; and were ineffective in Estonia,
Poland, Portugal and Slovenia.
179 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 54 and p. 63; Raxen National Focal Point Portugal,
National Data Collection Report Portugal – 2007, p. 15.
180 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 53.
53
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
people with literacy difficulties, inadequate command of
the official national language, and disabled persons.181
• Limited powers of the equality bodies which cannot,
for instance, file a case in court on behalf of plaintiffs or
represent them in court free of charge, as is the case in
Austria,182 Lithuania or Greece.183
4.1.1.2. Technical barriers
• Prohibitive costs of bringing a case to court.
• High cost of legal advice and lack of access to free legal
services: in the Czech Republic and Lithuania legal
aid is provided under very limited circumstances;184 in
Slovakia a significant number of people cannot afford
legal services due to a high threshold for qualification
for legal aid;185 in Denmark, though the Complaints
Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment can grant free
legal aid for court procedures, it has used this power
only once in 2007.186
4.1.1.3. O
ther obstacles to accessing legal remedies
against discrimination
• Infrequency of litigation itself187 and the perception
of a low success rate for actions taken to court
(for instance in Ireland, out of a total of 43
employment related decisions on ‘race’ reached
by the Equality Tribunal from 2003 to mid-2007,
only 11 were in favour of the complainant).188
• Lack of effective, proportional and dissuasive
sanctions (during 2006-2007 no sanctions and/or
awards were made in 12 of the Member States).189
181 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 54.
182 Raxen National Focal Point Austria (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality: Trends and developments 20002005, Vienna, p. 34; FRA (2008) Annual Report, p. 20.
183 FRA (2008) Annual Report, p. 18.
184 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 54; FRA (2008) Annual Report, p 53.
185 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 54; FRA (2008) Annual Report, p 53.
186 Raxen National Focal Point Netherlands, National Data Collection Report
Netherlands – 2007.
187 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 54.
188 Raxen National Focal Point Ireland, National Data Collection Report
Ireland – 2007.
189 FRA (2008) Annual Report, p. 17. The 12 countries are Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.
54
• Lack of mediatisation of the decisions reached in
courts or by the equality bodies and generally a lack
of public debates on the fight against discrimination
(as suggested for instance in a recent report of
the Commission for Refugees’ Support in Spain.190
• Low level of awareness among the victim population
regarding their rights and available options for seeking
redress or low levels of trust in the effectiveness of
the system (e.g. in 2005 ECRI noted that, in Cyprus,
awareness amongst members of the legal profession
as well as members of the public with regard to
the new anti-discrimination legislation transposing
the Equality Directives was very limited).191
• Fear of victimisation.
On the other hand, the information collected by the
RAXEN National Focal Points also provides examples
of practical ways in which some of these barriers
are tackled in the Member States, either by public
institutions or by NGOs and other stakeholders. For
instance, in order to ease the process of submitting
complaints, an anti-discrimination hotline has been
introduced in the Czech Republic, Estonia and France.
However, staff of the hotline in the Czech Republic
revealed that a large number of complaints received
on the hotline remain unofficial due to lack of evidence
or the high costs of actually taking them to court.192
In order to increase the levels of awareness about the
emerging case law, a number of courts may include in
their judgements demands to have them published
in newspapers, as in the ‘Moulin rouge’ case from 2003
in France.193 Moreover, the high impact of information
campaigns is suggested by the impetus received by the
HALDE in France following the implementation of its
communication strategy during 2006-2007, when the
number of complaints it received in a year increased
from 1,822 in 2005 to 4,058 in 2006 and to 6,222 in
2007.194 In order to supplement the legal assistance
services provided by anti-discrimination organisations
190 Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR) (2007) La situación
de los refugiados en España – Informe 2007, p. 144, available at: http://
www.cear.es/upload/informe_2007.pdf (25.06.2007).
191 Council of Europe/ECRI (2006) Third report on Cyprus, CRI(2006)17,
adopted on 16.12.2005, Strasbourg, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/
human_rights/ecri/1-ecri/2-country-by-country_approach/Cyprus/
Cyprus_CBC_3.asp#TopOfPage (21.11.2008).
192 Raxen National Focal Point Czech Republic, National Data Collection
Report Czech Republic – 2007, p. 31.
193 France/Cour d’Appel de Paris; 11ème/CA-2003-10-17/03-00387, SOS
Racisme and Marega vs. Beuzit and Association du Moulin rouge
(17.10.2003).
194 Raxen National Focal Point France (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality: Trends and developments 20002005, p. 57; FRA (2008) Annual Report, p. 25.
Indicators of discrimination
with free in-depth legal expertise, UNAR has signed
agreements with two associations of lawyers in Italy.195
Finally, if we are to consider the frequency and severity of
sanctions as indicators of the importance placed on antidiscrimination and the effectiveness of the complaints
system in a Member State, then the UK is truly a role
model in this area, given that it awards a larger number
of and more severe sanctions than all other Member
States together. In 2007, the average compensation
award for racial discrimination cases was of GBP 14,049
(EUR 20,792) with the maximum award of GBP 123,898
(EUR 183,369).196 Exemplary sanctions have recently also
been applied in Ireland, where the average award in
employment cases heard before the Equality Tribunal was
of EUR 12,798 in 2005197 and in Latvia.198 An interesting
development might also take place in Spain, where
a bill linking the level of sanctions and a company’s
turnover was discussed in the Parliament in 2007.199
4.1.2.Areas of discrimination and
interpretations of legislation
The available information on incidents, complaints
and court cases illustrates the ways in which racial and
ethnic discrimination are manifested on the labour
markets of the Member States, as well as how the main
concepts of the anti-discrimination legislation are
being interpreted across the EU.200 By 2007, specialised
bodies, equality tribunals and judicial courts throughout
the EU had dealt with cases covering all three types
of discrimination and the whole scope of the Equality
Directives. For instance, there have been cases on racial/
ethnic discrimination in access to employment including
selection criteria, recruitment practices (Bulgaria,201
195 UNAR (2007) Siglati i protocolli d’intesa tra l’UNAR e l’Associazione
Italiana Giovani Avvocati (AIGA) e con l’Onlus Avvocati per Niente,
Press Release (18.05.2007), available at: www.pariopportunita.gov.it/
DefaultDesktop.aspx?doc=1180 (21.11.2008).
196 Raxen National Focal Point UK, National Data Collection Report UK –
2007, annexes, p. 23.
197 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 62.
198 In the three discrimination cases decided in Latvia in 2005, in awarding
damages the courts specifically expressed the need for the sanction
to fulfil the preventative function. Information available in EC/DG
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007) Developing
Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member States
compared, p. 61.
199 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 63.
200 A searchable database with significant case law concerning the Racial
Equality Directive is available on the FRA website, at www.raxen.fra.
europa.eu (21.11.2008).
201 Bulgaria/CОФИЙCКИ РАЙОНЕНCЪД, I ГК, II ГО, 49/Civil Case No
2079/2004, Metodi Alexandrov Asenov vs. Lyubimka Ltd. (01.08.2005).
France,202 Ireland,203 Slovenia204) and promotion (Ireland205),
as well as access to self-employment (Greece206);
access to vocational training, including practical work
experience (Denmark207); employment and working
conditions (Austria,208 the UK209),210 including dismissals
and pay (Hungary,211 Ireland,212 Poland213); membership
of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or
employers (Cyprus214). There is also an increase in the
number of cases on direct and blatant discrimination
against Roma that reach the courts or the equality bodies
and, among these, the litigations concerning access
to employment and unfair dismissal are predominant
(e.g. Czech Republic,215 Hungary,216 Ireland,217 Latvia218).
Regarding the types of discrimination, most of the
litigations so far have concerned direct discrimination,
but both indirect discrimination and harassment at the
workplace have also been addressed in some Member
States. For instance, in the first (and by the end of 2007
also the last) case of ethnic discrimination taken to court
in Latvia, the judgement was that there has been indirect
discrimination against a Roma woman who was denied
a job because she had a foreign accent.219 Also in Cyprus,
a case dating from 2005 deals precisely with indirect
discrimination and is further relevant on several levels:
the complaint was not filed by a victim but by the Raxen
National Focus Point Cyprus in the absence of a victim, it
was based on statistical data provided in a report of the
Ministry of Labour and Migration Department, and it was
202 France/Cour d’Appel de Paris; 11ème/CA-2003-10-17/03-00387, SOS
Racisme and Marega vs. Beuzit and Association du Moulin rouge
(17.10.2003).
203 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-077 (31.12.2007).
204 Slovenia/ Vrhovno sodisce Republike Slovenije/VIII Ips 265/2006
(07.11.2006).
205 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-072 (6.12.2007).
206 Greece/Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (ΣτΠ)/Ombudsman Recommendation n.
4409/06.2.1/17.07.2006 (17.07.2006).
207 Denmark/Klagekomitéen for Etnisk Ligebehandling/730.4 (01.09.2004)
and Denmark/Ostre Landsret/B-4028-05 (27.06.2006).
208 Austria/Senat II der Gleichbehandlungskommission/OETII
– II/02/05 (2005).
209 The case is described at: http://www.personneltoday.com/
Articles/2007/07/18/41568/pauline+taylor+wins+34000+compensatio
n+after+suffering+eight+years+of+racial+abuse.html (21.11.2008).
210 ‘Working conditions’ may include unequal pay or underpayment,
working hours offences, lack of provision of benefits, no compensation
for working overtime, working during sick leave, insults, bullying and/or
harassment, no investigation into alleged complaints etc.
211 NEKI (2007) Fehér Füzet 2006, available at: http://www.neki.hu/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=32&Itemid=45
(21.11.2008).
212 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-073 (05.12.2007).
213 Poland/Sad Najwyzszy/II PK 14/07 (2007).
214 Cyprus/Equality Authority/File No. A.K.I. 2/2005 (2005).
215 http://www.romea.cz/index.php?id=detail&detail=2007_3174
(21.11.2008).
216 Hungary/ Egyenlö Bánásmód Hatóság/Case 180/2006 (2006); EC/DG
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2006) Equality
and non-discrimination – Annual Report, p. 17; FRA (2008) Annual
Report, p. 46.
217 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-062 (05.11.2007).
218 Latvia/ Jelgavas tiesa/ Case No C 15066406 (25.08.2006).
219 Latvia/ Jelgavas tiesa/ Case No C 15066406 (25.08.2006).
55
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
aimed at correcting a piece of discriminatory legislation
regarding the prohibition of political and trade union
activity for migrants.220 Moreover, in addition to deciding
in favour of the plaintiff, the Equality Authority went
beyond the complaint received to examine and decide
on another issue arising from the investigation of the
case, namely that of the level of salaries for migrants.
With respect to harassment, in Ireland, the Equality
Tribunal has awarded EUR 5,000 compensation for
harassment and discriminatory treatment and an
additional EUR 45,000 for discriminatory dismissal in one
case in 2007, and EUR 7,000 in another case the same
year concerning discrimination in recruitment against
Roma.221 On the other hand, in Austria, although the
Senate II of the Equal Treatment Commission found
harassment on grounds of ethnic origin in a case from
2004 regarding a man of Arab origin who had been
regularly insulted in a racist manner by his colleagues and
on one occasion beaten up, it only recommended that
the harassers should acquire some knowledge about the
Equal Treatment Act.222 However, this case was further
relevant also because for the first time it was explicitly
mentioned that employers have the responsibility to
ensure a non-discriminatory working environment
and an obligation to investigate any discrimination
complaints their employees may bring forward as well
as protect the potential victims from such incidents.
This approach can also be found in the Netherlands
following an opinion of the Equal Treatment Commission
for a case in 2003 which, in addition to dealing with
questions of termination of employment and nonrecruitment following a complaint submitted by the
plaintiff regarding incidents involving discrimination from
colleagues, also clarifies the concept of ‘victimisation’.223
4.1.2.1. Burden of proof
The case law available so far also illustrates the way the
courts are applying the shift in the burden of proof,
which, as pointed out in Chapter 3, is one of the more
thorny issues regarding the implementation of the
Directives. Concrete cases in which the burden of proof
was shifted to the defendant were noted for instance
in Bulgaria, Latvia, Ireland and the UK,224 and the overall
impression is that there is a higher rate of success
among plaintiffs who had the burden of proof shifted
to the defendants than when the burden is shared or
lies solely with the complainant, which after all it is not
so surprising given the difficult nature of proving either
220 Cyprus/Equality Authority/File No. A.K.I. 2/2005 (2005).
221 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-062 (05.11.2007); Ireland/Equality
Tribunal/DEC-E2007-072 (6.12.2007).
222 Austria/Anwältin für die Gleichbehandlung/OETII – II/02/05 (2005).
223 Netherlands/ Commissie Gelijke Behandeling/Opinion 2003-48
(15.11.2003).
224 See the online case law database available at: www.raxen.fra.europa.eu
(21.11.2008).
56
the occurrence of discrimination or its non-occurrence.
However, there are significant differences in the way
different courts interpret and apply this principle.
In the UK, a judgement of the Court of Appeal dating
from 2005 and concerning three separate appeals
from the decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
(two on racial discrimination and one on sexual
discrimination) set out guidelines to be followed by
courts in determining whether a discrimination claim
has been proved.225 Also recently the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) has issued its first preliminary ruling226
dealing with the Racial Equality Directive,227 which ruled
that public statements by an employer that he will
not recruit persons of a specific ethnic or racial origin
constitutes direct discrimination and that it is then for
that employer to prove that there was no breach of the
principle of equal treatment.228 (See chapter 3, section 3.4)
In Denmark, the High Court disagreed with the
preliminary and non-binding opinion of the Complaints
Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment which found
direct discrimination in a school’s compliance with
discriminatory demands from employers in connection
to access to vocational training, on the grounds that
the plaintiff had not proven his case.229 The narrow
interpretation of the concept of shared burden of
proof was also the ground on which the City Court of
Copenhagen had initially rejected both the allegations in
relation to the violation of the Act on Ethnic Treatment
and those regarding the victimisation of the plaintiff,
before the case was appealed to the High Court.230
4.1.2.2. Instructions to discriminate
This issue has been tackled in at least one case in Austria,
where the Equal Treatment Commission assessed as
void the argument most used by employers in order
to flee responsibility for actions committed by their
employees, namely pleading ‘misunderstanding of
instructions.’ Three persons had filed an application
against the owner of a fast food restaurant in Vienna
where they had been denied service by a new waitress
who had received instructions not to serve ‘black drug
dealers.’ The Commission concluded that the employers
have a responsibility for the discriminating behaviour of
225 UK/Court of Appeal/[2005] 3 All ER 812, Wong v Igen Ltd, Emokpae
v Chamberlin Solicitors; Webster v Brunel University (7, 8, 18
February 2005), available at: http://www.raxen.fra.europa.eu/
data/6/15/00056626_m.pdf (21.11.2008).
226 In a preliminary ruling, the ECJ, on request of a national court, clarifies
the meaning of European legislation. The national court is then obliged
to follow this interpretation in its ruling.
227 ECJ/Judgement C-54/07, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor
racismebestrijding v NV Firma Feryn (30.08.2008).
228 It can do so for instance by showing that the company’s actual
recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements.
229 Denmark/Ostre Landsret/B-4028-05 (27.06.2006).
230See: http://www.raxen.fra.europa.eu/1/webmill.php?s_id=32813&dloca
le=748944130&lin=detail&s_displayed=748944130 (21.11.2008).
Indicators of discrimination
their employees and therefore their instructions have to
be sufficiently clear so that an average person cannot
understand it as an instruction to discriminate.231
4.1.2.3. Discrimination on multiple grounds
The available case law also reflects the fact that multiple
discrimination is addressed in a number of Member
States, though by considering separately the allegations
on each different ground (e.g. sex, age, disability, race
and/or ethnicity) in the same court case, as observed in
Denmark, Latvia, Sweden, Ireland and the UK.232 In Ireland,
the Equality Tribunal found in a case from 2007 that the
respondent had discriminated against the complainant
in terms of discriminatory dismissal, harassment and
discriminatory treatment with regard to promotion and
re-grading, on grounds of race and gender.233 However, in
the UK, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court
of Appeal overturned a decision of the Employment
Tribunal which compared an Asian woman to a white
man in order to establish discriminatory treatment on
the grounds of race/ethnic origin and of gender. The
reasoning of the appeal courts was that this was not
possible because each ground had to be disaggregated,
separately considered, and a ruling made on it, even if the
claimant had experienced them as inextricably linked.234
4.1.3.Further identifiable trends
One of the first observations that can be made on the
basis of the available information on court cases in
the Member States is that the chances for plaintiffs to
successfully settle a dispute regarding racial or ethnic
discrimination in any area and on any ground are
dramatically increased if legal and technical support is
available from competent bodies, and proportionally
so with the type of support received (i.e. legal advice,
representation in court, application for legal proceedings
on behalf of the victim, investigation into alleged
discrimination incidents and use of situation testing
etc.). However, this is closely linked to the role and
effectiveness of the equality bodies in each Member
State, namely their specific competencies and powers
and the extent to which they make full use of them.
An illustration of this comes from Latvia. Once the
National Human Rights Office represented a victim in
court in 2006, the number of total complaints received
by this specialised body increased by four per cent
and those regarding ethnic discrimination by seven
231 Austria/Anwältin für die Gleichbehandlung/OETII – III/05/05 (2006).
232 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Tackling Multiple Discrimination. Practices, policies and laws, p. 20-21.
233 Ireland/Equality Tribunal/DEC-E2007-072 (6.12.2007).
234 UK/IRLR 799/2004, case described in EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs
and Equal Opportunities (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination.
Practices, policies and laws, p. 20.
per cent as compared to the previous year.235 An even
more remarkable example is that of the equality body
in France. As already mentioned above, HALDE received
6,222 discrimination complaints in 2007 and 4,058 in
2006, which represented a major and progressive increase
from the 1,822 incidents reported in 2005, the first year
that HALDE had been functional.236 This success is due to
an effective information campaign developed by HALDE
in order to increase awareness of anti-discrimination
legislation among the population, as well as to a proactive approach at promoting equality, which includes
concrete actions developed in partnership with relevant
stakeholders such as large companies, employment
agencies, trade unions and other social partners.237
Furthermore, available data shows that the cases which
benefit from the joint action of different stakeholders
(e.g. equality bodies and other public institutions, NGOs,
trade unions, private employers etc.) on the whole tend
to lead to rapid and successful conclusion in favour of
the victims, which recommends such collaborations
as good practice. Examples of joint interventions
during investigations and proceedings are available
for example from France,238 Cyprus239 and the UK.240
Conversely, the list of barriers to access to justice
summarised in the first section of this chapter points
towards the correlation that exists between the absence
of an effective equality body, or the existence of one
with only a limited role, and the absence of sanctions
and/or awards in the respective Member States. On
the other hand, most sanctions applied by the courts,
equality tribunals or equality bodies, which have the
power to issue them, tend to combine several financial
and non-financial elements. Financial compensation
to the victim may include compensation for past
and future loss (most common), compensation for
injury to feelings, damages for personal injury such as
psychiatric damage, or exemplary damages to punish
the perpetrator (much less common).241 Non-pecuniary
sanctions, which tend to be more preventive rather than
remedial in nature, might include diversity training of
staff, development of internal non-discrimination and
equal opportunities policy by employing companies,
235See: http://www.raxen.fra.europa.eu/1/webmill.php?s_id=32813&dloca
le=748944297&lin=detail&s_displayed=748944297 (21.11.2008).
236 HALDE (2008) Annual Report 2007, p. 10; HALDE (2007) Annual Report
2006, p. 10; HALDE (2006) Annual Report 2005, p. 11, all available
at: http://www.halde.fr/-Rapports-annuels-.html?page=rubrique_
domaine&id_mot=1 (21.11.2008).
237 http://www.halde.fr/Promotion-de-l-egalite,11031.html?page=article_
domaine&id_mot=1 (21.11.2008).
238 France/Tribunal Correctionnel de Nantes/Arrêt Valton vs. Rivaud (2006).
239 Cyprus/Equality Authority/File No. A.K.I. 2/2005 (2005).
240 UK/Court of Appeal/[2005] 3 All ER 812, Wong v Igen Ltd, Emokpae
v Chamberlin Solicitors; Webster v Brunel University
(7, 8, 18 February 2005.
241 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2007)
Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU Member
States compared, p. 60.
57
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
review of recruitment procedures and employment
conditions, obligation to make the decision public
and to inform all employees about it etc.242
And last but not least, it is encouraging to note
that statistical data is increasingly used to support
decisions in discrimination cases (as reflected for
instance by examples in Bulgaria, Cyprus and the
Czech Republic), as is the evidence provided through
situation testing, which in most cases is developed
with the help of anti-discrimination organisations
(e.g. in Hungary, Czech Republic and France).243
4.2. R
esearch evidence for
discrimination
explained by factors other than discrimination, such
as education, sex, age, occupational level, and region
of residence.244 However, if unequal outcomes can still
be observed even when these explanatory variables
are controlled for, such statistical evidence indirectly
indicates the existence of discrimination.245
In this regard discrimination can be defined as
discrepancy between outcomes and inputs, that is to say
discrimination causes equal inputs to result in unequal
outcomes.246 As it is very difficult to identify and include all
factors that might influence labour market performances,
however, this type of statistical evidence cannot
provide direct proof of discrimination. Nevertheless,
unexplained residuals of statistical inequalities
may point to the occurrence of discrimination.
This section presents and discusses research evidence
for discrimination in the area of employment on grounds
of ethnicity. Although the primary aim is to present
the main findings of research done so far, strengths
and weaknesses of different methodologies will be
discussed as well. The first section examines statistical
data on labour market performance, which provides
only indirect evidence of discriminatory treatment of
migrants and minorities in the area of employment.
The second section presents results obtained through
‘discrimination testing’, which shows direct evidence
of discrimination. The third section briefly considers
results of research on the majority population, especially
on employers’ discriminatory attitudes and behaviour.
Finally, the fourth section addresses the subjective
dimension of discrimination, based on surveys and
interviews with migrants and minorities about their
experiences of discrimination in employment.
Since 2003, many studies in various Member States
have demonstrated that even when other variables
such as age, gender and education are held constant,
migrants’ labour market performance is worse than
that of the native population.247 The results of these
studies are not quite comparable however, due to two
main reasons. First, the enormous divergences in data
collection discussed in the first two chapters of this
study lead to significant differences in availability of
data and hence to dissimilar research designs. Second,
statistical calculations which indicate discrimination by
controlling for relevant variables require sophisticated
multivariate analyses (mostly regression analyses) and
creative approaches which have rarely been carried
out in similar, comparable ways. In the following, we
discuss a selection of studies, which do not allow for
generalisation but which exemplify the potential,
limitations and outcomes of recent discrimination
research based on advanced statistical analysis.
4.2.1.Evidence of discrimination from official
statistics
For example, in Germany, the transition from in-firm
vocational training to the labour market of German
nationals and foreigners was analysed. Different
outcomes between nationals and foreigners were
identified with regard to unemployment, occupational
mismatch and skill mismatch. The analysis showed that
even when covariates such as sex, school education,
occupational field, and size of training firm are controlled
for, nationality has an impact on successful transition to
One possible way to identify ethnic and ‘racial’
discrimination in the labour market is the analysis of
existing statistical data. As demonstrated in the second
chapter, there are significant statistical differences in
labour market performance between migrant and
minority groups on the one hand and the overall
population on the other hand. Now, many of these
differences can be explained by the distinct composition
of the groups under investigation. For instance, different
educational levels or legal restrictions of foreigners’
access to the labour market – amongst other factors –
may account for higher unemployment rates. In fact,
inequalities in the labour market between immigrants or
minorities and the majority population are predominantly
242 EC/DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2005)
Remedies and Sanctions in EC non-discrimination law.
243 See the online case law database available at: www.raxen.fra.europa.eu
(21.11.2008).
58
244 A. Gächter (2004): Detecting Discrimination Against Migrants, ZSI
Discussion Paper, Nr. 3, p. 17, available at: http://www.zsi.at/de/
publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008).
245 J. Wrench & T. Modood (2001): The effectiveness of employment
equality policies in relation to immigrants and ethnic minorities in the
UK, International Migration Paper 38, International Labour Organization,
pp. 25 – 26 and A. Rea, J. Wrench and N. Ouali (1999): Introduction, in: A.
Rea, J. Wrench and N. Quali: Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour
Market. Integration and Exclusion in Europe, Macmillan Press Ltd and St.
Martin’s Press, Inc.
246 A. Gächter (2004): Detecting Discrimination Against Migrants, ZSI
Discussion Paper, Nr. 3, p. 17, available at: http://www.zsi.at/de/
publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008).
247 Fundamental Rights Agency (2008): Annual Report, p. 43.
Indicators of discrimination
the labour market. Thus, foreigners living in Germany
face higher risks of being unemployed or experiencing
occupational and skill mismatch, which is especially
true for Turkish nationals.248 Other studies comparing
access to employment of equally qualified minority and
majority populations in Belgium,249 the Netherlands250 and
the UK251 similarly found that after correcting for other
variables – e.g. age, gender, education – there were still
differences between majority and minorities in accessing
jobs at various levels. Also in Sweden, differences in
employment and earnings between immigrants and
natives which cannot be explained by differences in
education and experience have also observed.252
Beside discrimination, the economists who conducted
the Swedish study considered a second factor which
could explain processes of selection on ground of
ethnicity in the labour market, namely an increasing
demand of ‘nation-specific human capital’, which is
defined as language skills and ‘social competence’.253
Similarly, British research has shown that disadvantages
in job interviews of ethnic minority groups dot not
result from a lack of language fluency but from
‘hidden demands on candidates to talk in institutional
credible ways and from a mismatch of implicit cultural
expectations’.254 The question arises whether preferential
treatment – be it intentional or unintentional – of those
possessing ‘nation-specific human capital’ is a legitimate
form of differential treatment, or rather a more subtle
and therefore more dangerous form of discrimination.
In order to control for all kinds of human capital including
‘nation-specific human capital’, Dan-Olof Rooth (2002)
used a creative and sophisticated approach: he analysed
the probability of employment of adopted children in
Sweden according to differences of colour of the skin.
Only children who were adopted by Sweden-born parents
were included, so as to eliminate the effect of different
248 C. Burkert & H. Seibert (2007): Labour market outcomes after
vocational training in Germany. Equal opportunities for migrants and
natives? IAB Discussion Paper No. 31/2007, available at: doku.iab.de/
discussionpapers/2007/dp3107.pdf, (30 October 2008).
249 VDAB (2007) VDAB ontcijfert nummer 3, available at http://www.vdab.
be/trends/ontcijfert/ontcijfert2007nr3.pdf (15.01.2008).
250 H. Langenberg, H. Lautenbach (2007) ‘Beroepsniveau niet-westerse
allochtonen lager’, in: Sociaaleconomische trends, 1 kwartaal, pp. 37-45.
251 Botcherby, S. (2006) Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean
women and employment survey: aspirations, experiences and choices,
Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.. http://83.137.212.42/
sitearchive/eoc/PDF/bme_gfi_women_employment_survey.
pdf?page=19471 (17.10.2007).
252 T. Bengtsson, C. Lundh and K. Scott (2005): ‘From Boom to Bust:
The Economic Integration of Immigrants in Postwar Sweden’, in: K.
Zimmermann (Ed.) European Migration. What Do We Know?, Oxford
University Press, pp. 41 – 45.
253 T. Bengtsson, C. Lundh and K. Scott (2005): ‘From Boom to Bust:
The Economic Integration of Immigrants in Postwar Sweden’, in: K.
Zimmermann (Ed.) European Migration. What Do We Know?, Oxford
University Press, pp. 41 – 45.
254 C. Roberts & S. Campbell (2006) Talk on Trial. Job interviews, language
and ethnicity, research report No. 344, p. 1, available at: http://www.
dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs-index.asp, (30.10.2008).
labour market networks which might exist between
migrant and native parents. While holding constant
variables such as age, sex, schooling in Sweden and
age of adoption (before five), differences in probability
of employment between native Swedes and adopted
individuals born outside Europe were observed. This
difference was not observed between native Swedes and
adopted individuals who were born in Northern Europe.
Assuming that the skin colour of persons born outside
Europe differs from persons born in Northern Europe, the
results can be interpreted as pointing to the existence of
discrimination on grounds of colour of the skin.255
Many efforts have been made to provide indirect
statistical evidence of discrimination. However, such
studies will never provide watertight proof that
unexplained inequalities in labour market performance
result from discrimination against migrants and minorities.
It is impossible to include all aspects which affect
employment probabilities. Nevertheless, indirect statistical
evidence can provide a strong indication of the existence
of discrimination and a first indication of its overall extent.
4.2.2.Discrimination testing
This section deals with a highly effective and objective
method of verifying the occurrence of discrimination,
namely ‘discrimination testing’, also referred to as
‘situation testing’ and ‘practice tests’. In discrimination
testing, two or more testers elicit a response from a
decision-maker in a real life situation. The characteristics
of the testers are completely equal except for certain
characteristics which are to be tested, such as ethnicity.
Different responses from decision-makers can then
be traced back to this particular ground. The usual
approach to testing discrimination in employment
implies sending two similar curricula vitae (CVs)
to a number of employers. If the only differences
between the CVs relate to ethnic characteristics, such
as different names or pictures of the applicants, then
differences in response rates can only be explained by
discriminatory behaviour of the employers. The testing
may comprise several stages in an application process,
from sending a CV to attending an interview if selected.
The strength of discrimination testing, compared
to other research methods which provide evidence
of discrimination, lies in its ability to demonstrate
discrimination against certain groups of persons
directly and to reveal the extent of disadvantages
suffered. In addition, the method is very flexible, as the
indicator of difference – name, physical appearance,
language skills, accent, etc. – may be adapted to the
255 D. Rooth (2002) ‚Adopted Children in the Labour Market – Discrimination
or Unobserved Characteristics?, in: International Migration, Vol. 40 (1),
pp. 71 – 98.
59
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
research question. However, the main weakness of
discrimination testing is that it provides information
mainly on outcomes of selection processes and not on
the workings of the process itself or on the attitudes
of decision-makers.256 Thus, discrimination testing
solidly proves the existence of discrimination against
migrants and minorities, but does not explain it.
According to the RAXEN reports prepared by the National
Focal Points, discrimination tests on grounds of ethnicity
in the area of employment have so far been carried out in
about half of the EU-27 Member States. A number of tests
were commissioned by the International Labour Office
(ILO) and conducted in the EU15 countries in the 1990s.257
). In 2003 the ILO re-started the testing programme with
Italy258, and in 2006 included France259 and Sweden260.
Discrimination tests conducted generally showed
that in more than a third of the cases, the candidate
from the minority groups was excluded.261 Another
way of presenting results is to state that the minority
candidates usually have to make three to five times
more tries as majority candidates to obtain a positive
response in the employment application process262
The main results of selected examples of discrimination
tests involving sending CVs to companies will be
presented below.
In the Netherlands, 150 CVs were sent to job vacancies
where half of the CVs carried ‘traditional Dutch names’
and the other half ‘foreign names’. Ninety two per cent of
the ‘Dutch CVs’ received an invitation for a job interview,
whereas only 44 per cent of the ‘foreign CVs’ received
a positive response.263 In France, it was shown that
when a native French man has 100 chances to obtain
256 R. Zegers de Beijl (1999) (ed.): Documenting discrimination against
migrant workers in the labour market. A comparative study of four
European countries, International Labour Office – Geneva, pp. 13-18. See
also: J. Wrench & T. Modood (2001): The effectiveness of employment
equality policies in relation to immigrants and ethnic minorities in the
UK, International Migration Paper 38, International Labour Organization,
pp. 26 – 29.
257 FRA (2007): Trends and Developments 1997 – 2005 – Combating Ethnic
and Racial Discrimination and Promoting Equality in the European
Union, p. 25.
258 Allasino, E., Reyneri, E., Venturini, A. and Zincone, G. (2004): Labour
Market Discrimination against Migrant Workers in Italy, Geneva:
International Labour Office
259 Cediey, E. and Foroni, F. (2007): Les Discriminations à raison de ’l’origine’
dans les embauches en France – Une enquête nationale par tests
de discrimination selon la méthode du BIT, Geneva: International
Labour Office
260 Attström, K. (2008): Discrimination against Native Swedes of Immigrant
Origin in Access to Employment, Geneva: International Labour Office
261 FRA (2007): Trends and Developments 1997 – 2005 – Combating Ethnic
and Racial Discrimination and Promoting Equality in the European
Union, p. 25.
262 Taran, P. (2008): ‘Situation Testing’ – assessing discrimination in access
to employment, Paper presented at 13th International Metropolis
Conference, Bonn, September
263 EUMC (2006): The Annual Report on the Situation regarding Racism and
Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, p. 48.
60
a job interview, a man of Maghrebian origin only has
36 chances. In other words, the majority of native men
have a 2.8 times higher chance of making it through
the first barrier of the job application process.264
In Greece it was found that male Albanians have much
lesser chances of accessing occupation than male
Greeks.265 After sending equal CVs to vacancies for office
jobs, factory jobs, café and restaurant services and shop
sales, Albanian candidates faced a net discrimination rate
of 43.5 per cent.266 The discrimination rate was highest
for office jobs (65.7 per cent), followed by shop sales
(50.64 per cent) and factory jobs (39.77). Applications
for Restaurant and Café Services showed the lowest,
but still considerable discrimination rate with 24.19 per
cent. In almost half of the cases, both the Greek and
the Albanian candidate received a positive response.
In these cases, differences in terms of potential wage
and of insurance coverage were investigated. The net
discrimination rate for Albanians with regard to social
insurance coverage was 36.6 per cent. This means that
in more than one third of the cases where an employer
offered insurance coverage, it was offered only to
Greeks and not to Albanians. In the remaining cases
insurance was offered to both applicants. Discrimination
regarding insurance coverage was higher in Restaurant
and Café Services (54 per cent) and Shop Sales (50 per
cent) and lower in Factories (26.5 per cent) and Office
Jobs (16.7 per cent).267 Moreover, the wages offered to
Greeks and Albanians differed significantly. The average
wages offered to Albanians were 8.9 per cent lower than
those offered to Greeks. This difference was highest for
Office Jobs (12 per cent), followed by Shop Sales and
Factories (app. 10 per cent) and lowest for Restaurant
and Café Services (6.1 per cent).268 To sum up, male
Albanians face discrimination in Greece concerning
invitation to job interviews as well as concerning
offered insurance coverage and wages. The extent of
discrimination varies between different economic sectors.
264 FRA (2007): Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of
the EU, p. 58.
265 In the following, Albanian and Greek only refers to men, since the study
was only conducted for men.
266 Net discrimination rate, as defined by ILO, is the percentage of
preferences of Greeks (46.9 %) minus the percentage of preferences
of Albanians (3.4 %). Cf. N. Drydakis & M. Vlassis (2007): Ethnic
Discrimination in the Greek Labour Market: Occupational Access,
Insurance Coverage, and Wage Offers, pp. 11-12, available at: http://
www.soc.uoc.gr/econ/wpa/docs/Correspondence_Test-1.pdf,
(18.11.2008).
267 N. Drydakis & M. Vlassis (2007): Ethnic Discrimination in the Greek
Labour Market: Occupational Access, Insurance Coverage, and Wage
Offers, pp. 13-14, available at: http://www.soc.uoc.gr/econ/wpa/docs/
Correspondence_Test-1.pdf, (18.11.2008).
268 N. Drydakis & M. Vlassis (2007): Ethnic Discrimination in the Greek
Labour Market: Occupational Access, Insurance Coverage, and Wage
Offers, pp. 15-16, available at: http://www.soc.uoc.gr/econ/wpa/docs/
Correspondence_Test-1.pdf, (18.11.2008).
Indicators of discrimination
A comparable test has been carried out in Sweden,
where similar CVs were sent to employers in two types
of ‘couples’: either a native with a Swedish sounding
name and a native with a Middle Eastern sounding
name, or a native and an immigrant both with Middle
Eastern sounding names. Regrettably, the test once again
only included male applicants. The call-back rate was
41 per cent for natives with Swedish sounding names,
24 per cent for natives with Middle Eastern sounding
names, and 20 per cent for immigrants. In other words,
a Swedish sounding name increased the probability
of getting an interview by 170 per cent. The authors
concluded that around 23 per cent of the discrimination
against immigrants can be traced back to assumed
differences in education acquired abroad. Additionally,
characteristics of employers (if available) were included
in the analysis. It was found that discrimination of men
with Middle Eastern sounding names is higher if the
recruiters are men as well and if the workplace employs
less than 20 persons. The observed discrimination is
lower for workplaces located in Stockholm and for
recruitment agencies.269 The ILO observed much lower
discrimination rates in Sweden for the important first
stage of application than for any other country where
the ILO had carried out discrimination testing.270
The ILO reports that in general more than one in three
qualified applicants of immigrant background were
unfairly excluded in employment selection procedures in
several ‘Western industrialised’ countries. Discrimination
rates have been observed up to 41 per cent. Women can
face double discrimination in employment and society271
and it is therefore unfortunate that a considerable
number of studies (including many of those mentioned
above) exclude women and therefore provide an
incomplete picture of employment discrimination.
As indicated in the beginning of the section,
discrimination testing is a robust method to provide
evidence of discrimination against any group of persons
which allows measuring the extent of discrimination
as well as cross-country comparisons if implemented
in the same way. However, the methodology does not
provide insight in attitudes or motivations of employers.
This issue will be discussed in the following section.
269 M. Carlsson & D. Rooth (2008): Is It Your Foreign Name or Foreign
Qualifications? An Experimental Study of Ethnic Discrimination in
Hiring, Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA) Discussion Paper No. 3810,
available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3810.pdf, (18.11.2008).
270 FRA (2007): Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of
the EU, p. 58.
271 International Labour Organization (ILO) (2006): Facts on Discrimination
against migrants, available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/
protection/migrant/equality/download/discrimination/factsheet.pdf,
(18.11.2008).
4.2.3.Research on attitudes of the population
This section investigates existing research on
discriminatory attitudes of the overall population towards
migrants and minorities, with special regard to attitudes
of employers. Besides interviewing persons on their
own attitudes on migrants and minorities, surveys often
also collect information on respondents’ perceptions
of discrimination occurring in their environment. After
outlining general advantages and problems related to the
methodology, international surveys on general attitudes
towards migrants and minorities will be discussed.
This section concludes with a discussion of studies
investigating attitudes of employers towards migrants
and minorities.
Researching attitudes of the overall population towards
migrants and minorities has several advantages. It may
provide not only an indication of the occurrence of
discriminatory behaviour, but also information on the
persons who discriminate and on the grounds for their
behaviour. However, quite obviously, the major drawback
of this methodology is that persons often do not openly
admit to their negative attitudes towards certain groups
of persons. In addition, it is not clear to what extent
attitudes correspond to actual behaviour. For instance,
persons might not be aware of their discriminatory
attitudes or behaviour, in which case their statements will
not match their behaviour. A final problem arising from
this methodology is that respondents are confronted
with explicit categorisations of people and asked to
differentiate between these categories. Respondents who
in their daily life pay little attention to ethnic categories
may thereby be ‘seduced’ to express preference or
reticence. Altogether, it appears that negative attitudes
tend to be underestimated rather than overestimated.272
International attitude surveys enable us to identify
the groups of persons who suffer discrimination as
well as the characteristics of the persons who have
discriminatory views. They also offer some possibilities to
compare discriminatory attitudes in different countries.
Cross-country comparability is limited however for
numerous reasons, such as differences of samples
(e.g. different refusal rates), language differences (e.g.
different translations or meanings of terms), different
political debates in the countries at the time of the
survey, and overall different historical contexts.273
272 For a discussion on measuring attitudes and stereotypes see: J.
Agerström, R. Carlsson and Dan-Olof Rooth (2007): Ethnicity and obesity:
evidence of implicit work performance stereotypes in Sweden, Institute
for Labour Market Policy Evaluation, working paper 2007:20, pp. 5-9,
available at: http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/se/2007/wp07-20.pdf,
(12.11.2008).
273 Cf. A. Gächter (2004): Detecting Discrimination Against Migrants, ZSI
Discussion Paper, Nr. 3, p. 18-19, available at: http://www.zsi.at/de/
publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008).
61
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
In February and March 2008, the Special Eurobarometer
No 296 ‘Discrimination in the European Union’ was
carried out in each of the Member States. The sample
size was around 1,000 respondents in each country,
except Germany (1,562), United Kingdom (1,306) and
Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta (500 each), including all
residents aged 15 years and over.274 The survey contained
a question on whether persons feel comfortable with
having a neighbour from a different ethnic origin than
their own. The respondents could assess their attitude
on a scale ranging from ‘1’ meaning very uncomfortable
to ‘10’ meaning totally comfortable. The EU average
value was 8.1, with the highest average value found in
Luxembourg (9.2) and Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and
Sweden (9.1). The lowest values were found in Italy (6.6),
Czech Republic (6.5) and Austria (6.3). The same question
was asked with reference to Roma instead of ‘other ethnic
group’ and yielded significantly different results. Indeed,
the answers to this question paint a very grim picture of
public attitudes towards Roma, in all EU Member States.
The average in the EU-27 was 6.0, with lowest values in
Italy and the Czech Republic. No peculiar differences
were observed regarding the gender of the respondents,
but age did prove relevant. Older persons felt rather
more uncomfortable than younger persons. Additionally,
persons with lower education were more likely to show
discriminatory attitudes.275 Altogether, the survey shows
that there is a considerable share of the population which
has discriminatory attitudes towards ethnic minorities.
Compared to discrimination on other grounds such
as disability and sexual orientation, discrimination on
grounds of ethnicity is perceived as most widespread by
the respondents.276 However, it might well be the case
that discrimination on other grounds is equally or more
widespread but that people are simply not aware of it.
The study of employers’ attitudes and practices
adds another dimension of information in this area.
There is no such study concerning migrants and
minorities which covers all EU-27 countries, but several
studies dealt with the issue in national contexts.
For example, interviews in Germany in 2006 showed
that when recruiting for jobs, people such as personnel
managers are not only guided by relevant factors like
education, qualification and work experience, but also
by cultural stereotypes and prejudices towards Turkish
274 European Commission (2008): Discrimination in the European Union:
Perceptions, Experiences, and Attitudes, Report, annex, available
at: ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf,
(13.11.2008).
275 European Commission (2008): Discrimination in the European Union:
Perceptions, Experiences, and Attitudes, Report, pp. 41-45 and annex,
available at: ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_
en.pdf, (13.11.2008).
276 European Commission (2008): Discrimination in the European
Union: Perceptions, Experiences, and Attitudes, Report, p. 7, available
at: ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf,
(13.11.2008).
62
migrants (e.g. they are ’not ambitious’, ’too macho’, or
’incapable of working in a team’), and some employers
themselves clearly displayed personal prejudices towards
Turkish applicants. Also many German employers
explained that they would worry about problems with
clients or German employees if they recruited a Turk.277
Below are summarised the results of other examples
of studies, done in Belgium, Bulgaria, Romania, Malta
and Sweden, where employers were asked whether
they would have problems with hiring persons who
belong to certain minorities. The samples are not always
representative and not comparable. For instance, the
minority groups addressed depend strongly on the
specific research question. All studies find a good deal
of respondents who state that they do not hire persons
from certain ethnic groups for their company, ranging
from over 90 per cent declining to recruit refugees for
skilled positions in Malta (although 100 per cent would
hire them for unskilled jobs) to 80 per cent refusing
to hire a foreigner in Belgium, to 77 and 60 per cent
unwilling to employ Roma people in Bulgaria and
Romania respectively. A sophisticated study in Sweden
showed that while 12 per cent of interviewed employers
state explicitly that Arab-Muslims perform poorly on the
work floor, no less than 78 per cent harbour implicit lowperformance stereotypes. As justification for their refusal
to employ persons of a specific ethnic origin, respondents
claimed that these persons are lazy and steal, or lack
the necessary language and professional skills.278
In the study on discrimination testing applied in
Greece mentioned above, employers were confronted
with the general outcomes of the study and had the
chance to rationalise the factors responsible for wage
discrimination in their sectors. Employers were asked
to accept or reject three different motivations for lower
wages offered to Albanians. Almost three-quarters
of employers agreed that it results from firms’ profit
maximisation strategies; one quarter agreed that dislike
against Albanians played a role and almost 20 per cent
agreed that wage difference was based on perceptions
of low productivity of Albanians.279 This result could be
interpreted to imply that employers do not offer lower
277 FRA (2007) Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of
the European Union, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,
Vienna p. 56-57
278 Studies on Belgium, Bulgaria and Romania cited in: FRA (2008): Annual
report 2008, p. 52, available at: fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/ar08/
ar08_en.pdf, (13.11.2008). Study on Malta cited in: National Focal
Point Malta (2005): National Data Collection Report Malta – 2008,
p. 14. Study on Sweden: J. Agerström, R. Carlsson and Dan-Olof Rooth
(2007): Ethnicity and obesity: evidence of implicit work performance
stereotypes in Sweden, Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation,
working paper 2007:20, available at: http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/
se/2007/wp07-20.pdf, (12.11.2008).
279 N. Drydakis & M. Vlassis (2007): Ethnic Discrimination in the Greek
Labour Market: Occupational Access, Insurance Coverage, and Wage
Offers, pp. 17-19, available at: http://www.soc.uoc.gr/econ/wpa/docs/
Correspondence_Test-1.pdf, (18.11.2008). See also section 4.2.2.
Indicators of discrimination
wages to migrants and minorities because of dislike
or perceptions of different productivity, but simply
because they can, since such vulnerable groups have
fewer resources to defend their rights and interests.
In this view, discrimination is a rational course of
action for employers to make more money. However,
this interpretation is contradicted by the fact that
migrants or minorities are invited to job interviews less
often. It is far from certain that discrimination against
certain groups of persons is rational behaviour.
4.2.4.Research on discrimination experiences of
migrants and minority groups
Research on discrimination experiences of migrants
and minorities is an additional highly useful approach,
even though it needs to be taken into account that
persons often do not admit to being discriminated
against, or, in other contexts, may interpret employer
behaviour as discriminatory when it is not.
Many different studies on experiences of discrimination
against migrants and minorities have been carried
out in almost all Member States in the past years.
Yet, it is rather difficult to draw a general comparison
from those studies due to their different research
designs. The studies comprise sample surveys
amongst minority groups (some of them claim to be
representative) as well as qualitative interviews with
persons who have experienced discrimination.
Altogether, migrant and minority groups frequently
report negative treatment related to their origin, skin
colour, name, and language.280 For example, in 2006,
surveys of Russian speakers in Estonia, immigrants
in Denmark, Turks in Germany, Serbs and Bosniacs in
Slovenia and Somalis, Russians, Estonians and Vietnamese
in Finland all reported subjective experiences of
discrimination in employment. In France, immigrants
and descendants of immigrants reported that they
were routinely subjected to negative treatment related
to their origin, skin colour, name or speech. And in
Germany, of 1,000 Turkish people surveyed in 2004,
over 56 per cent stated that they had experienced
discriminatory treatment at their workplace.281
280 EUMC (2006): The Annual Report on the Situation regarding Racism and
Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, p. 48.
281 EUMC (2006): Annual Report on the Situation regarding Racism and
Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU. European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna, p. 48
In Finland, it was found that persons with a darker skin
experience more discrimination in employment than
other minority or migrant groups.282 Experiences reported
in studies include general feelings of maltreatment,
less pay and benefits as well as harassment at the
workplace. Most often studies investigate discrimination
in recruitment situations. Rejections of job applications
on grounds of ethnicity were experienced and reported
differently, varying from general feelings of discrimination
on grounds of ethnicity, to being informed that a
vacancy is available on the phone but then being told
in person that the vacancy has already been filled,
and also to experiences of open discrimination.283
Following the earlier EUMC Pilot Study ‘Migrants
Experiences of Racism and Xenophobia in 12 EU Member
States’ published in 2006,284 the FRA carried out in 2008 its
EU-MIDIS (European Union Minorities and Discrimination
Survey) survey on criminal victimisation and policing,
which included questions on discrimination in
employment. In total 23,500 minority respondents were
interviewed. One result from the survey is that, of all the
minority groups surveyed, reported rates of discrimination
were consistently highest among the Roma, and those
with a Sub-Saharan background, followed by those
with a North African background. Furthermore, of
those who indicated they were discriminated against,
the survey showed that the overwhelming majority
did not report their experiences of discrimination to
an organisation or at the place where it occurred.
Respondents were asked if they knew of any organisation
in their Member State that could offer support or
advice to people who have been discriminated against
– for whatever reason. The results indicate that the
majority of respondents in all groups – ranging from
Roma in Greece and Africans in Malta, through to
Somalis in Sweden and Russians in Finland – did not
know of any organisation offering support or advice
to people who have been discriminated against.
282 Country of origin was used as an indicator for skin colour in this study.
Raxen National Focal Point Finland (2006) Combating ethnic and racial
discrimination and promoting equality: Trends and developments 20002005, Helsinki, pp. 8-9.
283 Almost 41 per cent of respondents of a representative survey in Slovakia
report personal or second-hand experiences with employers openly
refusing to employ Roma job seekers. Cf. FRA (2007): Report on Racism
and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, p. 59 – 60.
284 Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, United Kingdom.
63
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
The survey was the first of its kind to systematically survey
minority groups across all EU member states using the
same standardised questionnaire, and has provided data
allowing comparisons to be made between different
minority groups and different member states.285
Although manifold studies on experiences of
discrimination on grounds of ethnicity in the area of
employment exist, more qualitative research is needed
to better understand the forms of discrimination
against migrants and minorities, and more quantitative
research to improve assessments of the extent of
discrimination in employment and comparability of
results among the Member States of the European Union.
Comprehensive knowledge on patterns of discrimination
is a prerequisite to combat discrimination efficiently.
285 The two reports published at the time of writing – Data in Focus
Report 1: The Roma, and Data in Focus Report 2: Muslims, along with the
full EU-MIDIS Main Results Report, are available at www.fra.europa.eu/
eu-midis
64
Legal status and vulnerability
5. Legal status and vulnerability
5.1. T
he concept of ‘discrimination by
law’ – a European dilemma
Since the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty and Article 13
as the legal basis for legislation and measures against
discrimination on the European level, the European Union
has developed a broad action programme to terminate
all forms of discrimination, racism and xenophobia. Yet,
when looking at the situation of migrants and minorities
in employment there is still one major ‘missing link’: the
national legal frameworks regulating entry, residence, and
employment of non-nationals. These must be considered
as a decisive source of inequality between persons residing
on European territory holding a nationality of a European
Member State/ the European Union and those who do
not and hence are subject to migration control. While
complete equality between citizens and non-citizens from
third countries must remain utopia, given that borders and
hence migration controls are likely to remain as central
features of the international system, the question in what
ways, to what extent, and for how long non-citizens from
third countries should be subject to unequal treatment
has been a focus of debate and policy development since
at least the early post-war years, when the first conventions
on the rights of migrant workers were drafted.
While introducing a very broad framework to combat
discrimination against migrants and minorities in
employment, the Equality Directives286 explicitly refrain
from touching upon ‘any treatment which arises from the
legal status of the third-country nationals and stateless
persons’.287 Hence, citizenship remains one of the last
grounds on which Member States may legally engage in
unequal treatment of persons. Immigration laws construct
a legal hierarchy between citizens and non-citizens,
and differentiate the latter into many diverse status
categories that are each entitled to different rights.288
Such forms of unequal treatment inherent to states’ laws
are referred to as ‘formal’289 or ‘prescribed’ discrimination,
‘legal discrimination’290 or ‘discrimination by law’.291
286 Council Directive 2000/43/EC (29 June 2000) and Council Directive
2000/78/EC (27.11.2000)
287 See Council Directive 2000/43/EC (29 June 2000), p. 23.
288 EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 10.
289 See the definition by Kevin Boyle: ‘Formal discrimination is that
sanctioned by law, particularly in respect of non-citizens’, in the
introduction to Dimensions of Racism OHCHR/UNESCO, New York/
Geneva 2005
290 J. Wrench Diversity Management and Discrimination Ashgate, Aldershot,
2007, p. 120.
291 A. Gächter ‘Researching discrimination against immigrants’ in
Dimensions of Racism OHCHR/UNESCO, New York/Geneva 2005 p. 137
The kind of legal status assigned impacts on the
socioeconomic position of migrants as a whole as it
may directly or indirectly limit their access to other
basic rights and resources, such as housing, education,
further training, political participation, social welfare,
etc. Persons with an insecure status are thus more
vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation in
employment and other areas of socioeconomic life.292
There is also evidence that restrictive immigration
systems contribute to irregular living and working
situations of immigrants and reinforce the segmentation
of labour markets along ethnic and national lines.293
Although it is especially third country nationals who
often reside and work on an insecure legal basis,
until the Tampere Council in 1999 this phenomenon
was only tackled with regard to citizens of other EU
states. Following the adoption of the Tampere agenda,
which amongst others contained a commitment to
approximate the rights of third-country nationals who
are long term residents of a member states to those of
nationals, a number of measures in view of this goal,
most importantly a directive on the rights of long
term residents, have been adopted. Despite these
developments, formal discrimination against third country
nationals in general has remained an under-represented
and under-researched field.294 This may be due to the
dilemma inherent to the phenomenon of discrimination
by law itself. In the current context, restrictions on the
admission of new members are considered not only
legitimate but also necessary for the maintenance of
the national community as such.295 Immigration laws are
thus regarded as decisive instruments to safeguard social
cohesion. At the same time however, they are producing
inequalities between certain categories of persons.
Although the system of nation states and citizenship as
such is not broadly challenged today296, it is crucial to
address the impacts this system has on non-nationals
living and working in European societies.297 Arguing
292 FRA, Annual Report 2005, p. 35
293 A. Gächter (2004): Detecting Discrimination Against Migrants, ZSI
Discussion Paper, Nr. 3, p. 9, available at: http://www.zsi.at/de/
publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008)
294 A. Gächter (2004): Detecting Discrimination Against Migrants, ZSI
Discussion Paper, Nr. 3, pp. 7-10, available at: http://www.zsi.at/de/
publikationen/346/list (28.10.2008)
295 J. Seglow (2005) ‘The Ethics of Immigration’, in: Political Studies Review,
Vol. 3, pp. 317–334
296 For a collection of explorations of the ‘migration without borders’
scenario by migration scholars, see A. Pécoud & P. de Guchteneire (eds.)
(2007) Migration without borders. Essays on the free movement of
people. Paris/Oxford: Unesco Publishing/Berghahn Books.
297 R. Bauböck (2007) ‘Migration and citizenship’, in: R. Cohen, H. Laxton
(eds.) The Politics of Migration, Cheltenham/Massachusets: Edward Elgar
Publishing, p. 223
65
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
from the perspective of social cohesion, it is desirable
for the society as a whole that the largest possible part
of the resident population enjoys a secure legal status
and is granted access to basic rights and resources.
Thus, discrimination by law may be regarded as one of
the major dilemmas the European Union faces today.
5.1.1.Public-sector exclusion of non-nationals
While discrimination by law in principle affects all
non-nationals, third country nationals as well as EU
nationals, nearly all legal restrictions towards the latter
have been abolished within the EU. Member States
may only deny EU citizens entry to their territory in case
of serious and individual threats to public policy and
security, or in case of risking an epidemic.298 In addition,
some Member States restrict full labour market access
for citizens of new Member States through transitional
arrangements, for a maximum period of seven years.299
Another, much more influential set of regulations that
restrict the free movement of workers concerns the
exclusion of non-nationals, including EU nationals
from jobs in the public sector.300 Almost all European
countries have specific regulations to partly or fully
restrict employment in the public sector to nationals,
or specific requirements that result in the preferential
treatment of own nationals. Member States are in
principle allowed to restrict access to public sector
jobs, but only if these jobs involve the exercise of public
authority or the responsibility for safeguarding the
general interest of the state. Examples may be jobs in the
forces of the maintenance of the order, the judiciary, or
tax authorities.301 All other jobs must be open to other EU
nationals, and also to third country nationals with a longterm residence permit in the meaning of the long term
residence directive (see in more detail below). Member
States may only close specific posts to non-nationals,
not whole fields of work or the public sector in general.
public sector employment dates back to the late 1980s.303
More detailed definitions regarding the implementation
of equal treatment in public sector employment were laid
down only in 2002 in the Commission’s Communication
entitled ‘Free movement of workers – achieving the full
benefits and potential’.304 The main obstacles to the thus
formulated aim were found in national legislations, but
also in the insufficient administrative implementation
of existing legislation. In 2006 – the European Year of
Workers’ Mobility – a study compiled by the Austrian EU
Presidency finally presented an exhaustive collection on
the state of implementation of ‘Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers’ in the 27 Member States.305
Table 5-1: Mode of public sector regulation
regarding restrictions to the
employment of non-nationals
Mode of public sector regulation
Countries
Direct application of EU law
CZ
Case-by-case decision on
basis of guidelines/criteria
AT, BE, DM, DE, EL, MT, UK
Exhaustive/exemplary
lists of restricted posts
BG, CY, HU, IE, IT, FI, NL,
SE, SI, SK/ EE, LT, LV
Not restricted, except
for specific posts
ES, FR, PT
Restricted, except
for specific posts
LU
Fully restricted
PL, RO
Source: Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border
mobility of public sector workers
The issue of public sector exclusion of non-nationals
first appeared on the European agenda as early as 1957,
at the very moment the European Community was
established. When laying down the principle of free
movement of workers, employment in the public sector
was explicitly excluded.302 However, this limitation to
the free movement of workers was interpreted very
restrictively by the Commission (see above), and the first
action to ensure the equal access of all EU citizens to
The study showed that the extent to which EU countries
restrict their public sectors to non-nationals still varies
a great deal and is regulated in different national
regulations. The Czech Republic is the only Member
Sate which has not adopted any specific regulation but
applies Article 39(4)EC directly (see Table 5-1, above).
Some countries restrict public sector employment only
for certain jobs defined in exhaustive lists (e.g. Sweden,
the Netherlands), others decide on a case-by-case basis
(e.g. Austria, Greece, the United Kingdom). Only two
countries, Poland and Romania, still reserved all jobs in
the public sector to their own nationals. Furthermore, in
a number of Member States specific regulations often
apply to the health and education sectors. The study also
showed that all countries had made efforts to bring their
respective legislation in line with the Community law. At
298 European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (29.04.2004).
299 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/free_movement/docs_
en.htm (24.11.2008), see also footnote 13
300 Article 39 (4) EC Treaty
301 European Commission (2002) Communication ‘Free movement of
workers – achieving the full benefits and potential’ (COM(2002)694final),
pp. 17-19
302 Article 39 (4) EC
303 ‘Freedom of movement of workers and access to employment in the
public service of Member States – Commission action in respect of the
application of Article 48(4) of the EEC Treaty’, OJ C-72/2 (18.03.1988)
304COM(2002)694final
305 Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers.
66
Legal status and vulnerability
the same time, there is still a lack of data regarding the
implementation of legislation in administrative practice.306
Next to the nationality criteria, regulations on the
recognition of professional experience and qualifications
were identified as main obstacles for foreign citizens to
access public sector jobs. Such regulations play a role in
recruitment procedures as well as working conditions
(e.g. moving-up, salary scale) in the public sector in
almost all Member States.307 Although these criteria
affect all public sector employees, foreign applicants
are particularly disadvantaged since professional
experience and seniority, as well as qualifications and
diplomas are most often not equally recognized when
acquired in another state.308 The absence of regulations
on the recognition of foreign diplomas may thus
indirectly exclude non-nationals from public sector
jobs and place them in less favourable positions.
Evidence from Italy illustrates this point: in 2006, doctors
with a diploma acquired in a non-EU country were
paid 30 to 50 per cent less than their colleagues with
a national diploma.309 Already in 2002 the European
Commission stipulated that all Member States should
ensure the equal treatment of all intra-EU migrant
workers in recruitment procedures by recognising work
experience and qualifications irrespective of whether they
were acquired in the home or another EU country.310 In
at least three Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania),
experience acquired in another Member State was
not taken into account when determining working
conditions in 2006.311 Applicants from third countries are
specifically disadvantaged in this respect as European
public sector institutions are mostly less familiar with
non-European educational systems. The recognition
of foreign qualifications and seniority is particularly
important in sectors that show a high demand for
foreign labour, such as the health sector. To ensure equal
opportunities in recruitment procedures may be difficult
though in practice, as recruitment is largely a local affair.
Based on the freedom granted to all EU citizens, most
of the efforts to open the public sector to non-nationals
have remained limited to EU citizens in rhetoric as in
practice. Since the entry into force of the Directive
2003/109/EC third country nationals who are long-term
residents are entitled to access to public employment on
equal standing with EU citizens.312 Information about the
implementation of the directive in national legislation and
306 Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers, pp. 10/f
307 Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers.
308 COM(2002)694final, pp. 21-24
309 FRA, Annual report 2007, p. 62
310COM(2002)694final
311 Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers, p. 12
312 Official Journal of the European Union, Directive 2003/109/EC, Article 11
practice, and in particular its impact on access to public
sector employment, is scarce, however. In addition, the
focus of European debates on public sector employment
remains restricted to EU citizens, whereas access of third
country nationals to public sector jobs hardly feature
in these debates. While third country nationals who are
long term residents now at least theoretically enjoy equal
access to public sector jobs, public sector employment
of third country nationals who are not remains a matter
of national discretion. It seems that a large number of
jobs with the most secure working conditions remain
closed to immigrants from third countries.313 Public
sector exclusion is thus one factor that increases the
vulnerability of non-EU migrant workers and contributes
to their marginalisation on European labour markets.
The issue however is more complex, as two specific
problems exemplify. The first problem is interpreting the
respective Community laws, the second problem is being
fully aware of their scope and of implementing them.
Opinions differ on the question which jobs do in practice
involve public authority or the interest of the state and
may therefore be legitimately closed to non-nationals.
The Commission’s Communication of 2002 tries to clarify
this issue by giving examples of public sector jobs that
may not be reserved to own nationals only: these are
administrative, maintenance or technical consultation
tasks, even if in fields generally falling under the
regulations, such as the judiciary or the armed forces.314
Nevertheless, many Member States still restrict jobs which
do not plausibly fall under these restrictions, and where
the necessity of restriction is questionable. This especially
concerns jobs in the education and health system,
which belong to the public sector, but are not per se
nationally sensitive fields.315 However, the dividing line is
still unclear and is currently negotiated on a national level
as a number of contradictory court rulings show. In Italy,
the nationality requirement was approved as legitimate
exclusion criteria in the case of a foreign cook working in
a public school. In another Italian province however the
very same fact was found to be unjustified in the case
of a foreign doctor and an anaesthetist.316 Clearly, there
is a need for a more consistent application of relevant
legislation in all Member States and further clarification
on when exclusion of non-nationals from public
sector employment is legitimate and when it is not.
Furthermore, the implementation of freedom of
movement in the public sector largely remains limited to
intra EU labour migrants. Many states do not seem
313 EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union
314 COM(2002)694final, pp. 19/f
315 Cf. FRA, Annual Report 2007, p. 62; Guía para implantar el
Principio 6 del Pacto Mundial “No Discriminación en el empleo y
la ocupación”, available at: http://www.pactomundial.org/index.
asp?MP=16&MS=0&MN=1 (24.11.2008)
316 FRA, Annual Report 2007, p. 63/f
67
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
be fully aware of their duty to grant equal access to
jobs and recruitment procedures also to third country
nationals with a long-term permit. On the contrary, some
Member States even introduced new regulations that
explicitly excluded migrants from third countries from
certain occupations. In Italy and in Greece for example
third country nationals could only be employed in the
public sector on the basis of temporary contracts. In
Italian hospitals, foreign nurses may only be employed
as subcontractors.317 While some countries have (partly)
opened their public sectors to other EU nationals, civil
service positions often explicitly or implicitly remain fully
closed to third country nationals (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Italy).
and EU/EEA citizens. While these differences in labour
market outcomes reflect a variety of factors, including
the legacy of recruitment policies, the skill structure and
sector distribution of foreign nationals, (see chapter 2)
the legal status of third country nationals and restrictions
attached to it is an important factor, too. Thus, different
categories of third country nationals face different
requirements in regard to acquiring residence status
or citizenship. This legal stratification manifested in
national immigration laws represent a ‘formalized mode
of civic stratification’320 that may become a permanent
‘impediment’ to obtain a more secure residence status
and to gain access to basic rights and resources.321
In sum, specific problems and concerns persist especially
on the level of implementation of the free movement of
workers in the public sector. They will have to be tackled
by the EU Member States on a legislative as well as
administrative level in the coming years. Many Member
States are just in the process of reforming their respective
legislations and administrations. The most impressive
example for this is probably France: with an estimated six
million jobs318 – almost one third of the labour market –
partially or totally closed to non-nationals before 2005,
France ranged as ‘the’ worst practice example with
regard to the scope public sector exclusion may have
when interpreted in a highly restrictive way. In 2005
France brought its legislation in line with Community
law by opening civil servant employment in its public
sector to EU-citizens.(Non EU-nationals can only be
employed as temporary or contract employees by the
public sector.) In 2006 the above- mentioned study on
“Cross-border mobility of public sector workers” even
complimented France: ‘There are not any national
rules or administrative practices which might cause
an obstacle to cross border mobility of public sector
workers’.319 Despite this laudation, for France and for
all other European countries the implementation of
legislative changes into the administrative practice
will remain a major topic in the next years.
The distinction between short- and long-term residents
is perhaps the most important current form of ‘civic
stratification’ in relation to legal migrants. It divides
third country nationals into two categories, entitled to
temporary or permanent stay, and having no, limited,
or full access to the labour market as well as to other
areas of socioeconomic life. In addition, not all persons
are granted an independent status. Family migrants, for
example, are commonly issued a temporary status which
may be withdrawn in case of family break down or if
other criteria – such as the income requirement – are no
longer met. The family reunification directive – the central
piece of legislation on the rights of family members on
the European level allows for a probationary period of up
to five years.322 In current national regulations, it ranges
from two years (Portugal, the Czech Republic) to five years
(e.g. Sweden, Poland).323 The close linkage constructed
between employment and residence is another ‘key
element of the passage through a hierarchy of statuses to
secure residence’.324 To acquire a more secure residence
status or even to maintain the current one depends on
fulfilling a number of requirements; the most important
are a regular income, social insurance, uninterrupted
and legal stay, and not posing a threat to public order.
5.1.2.Legal insecurities and civic stratification of
third country nationals
Non-EU nationals (third countries plus Switzerland and
Norway) represent the largest group of immigrants in
the majority of European countries as well as in the
European Union in general (see Figure 1-2). At the same
time third country nationals occupy a disadvantaged
position in the labour market in comparison to nationals
317 M. A. Bernadotti (2006) ‘Sindacati e discriminazioni razziali nella Sanità
italiana: il caso degli infermieri’, in: A. Megale. (ed.) Immigrazione e
sindacato. IV Rapporto Ires, Rome: Ediesse.
318 FRA, Annual Report 2007, p. 63
319 Austria/Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2006) Cross-border mobility
of public sector workers, p. 33: France has even established ministerial
committees in charge of comparing national and foreign diplomas.
68
The limitation of first permits to one specific employer,
preferential hiring procedures placing third country
nationals as the last ones to be hired after nationals, EU
320 In relation to immigrants, civic stratification can be defined as the
hierarchy of stratified rights resulting from processes of exclusion and
inclusion which classifies and sorts out migrants and the realisation
of rights formally associated with these locations. See L.Morris (2002):
Managing Migration. Civic stratification and migrants. London, p. 7
321 L. Morris (2001) ‘The Ambiguous Terrain of Rights: Civic Stratification in
Italy’s Emergent Immigration Regime’, in: International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, Vol. 25/3, p. 504
322 Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (22.9.2003) on the right to
family reunification.
323 K. Groenendijk, R. Fernhout, D. van Dam, R. van Oers & T. Strik (2007).
The Family Reunification Directive in EU Member States; the First Year
of Implementation. Nijmegen: Centrum voor Migratierecht, p. 35; A.
Szczepanikova (2008) Family Migration Policies in the Czech Republic:
Actors, Practices and Concerns, project report available at http://
research.icmpd.org/1291.html#c2507 (1.12.2008), p. 9
324 L. Morris (2001) ‘The Ambiguous Terrain of Rights: Civic Stratification in
Italy’s Emergent Immigration Regime’, in: International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, Vol. 25/3, p. 499
Legal status and vulnerability
citizens and recognised refugees, or additional obligations
tied to the recruitment of non-nationals are examples
of how a weak residence status may interrelate with a
weak employment status. In Luxembourg the employer
until very recently was obliged to provide a bank
guarantee of 1,500 EUR for each third country national
hired (in order to cover eventual repatriation costs).325
Such measures heighten the threshold for third country
nationals to access the most secure jobs and thereby
render them more dependent on their employers. They
may thus have to accept worse working conditions and
disadvantageous contractual conditions. Furthermore,
specific regulations on certain types of temporary
migrant labour, such as seasonal work or domestic
work, undermine regulations on minimum wages or
working time.326 In Cyprus, a regulation on domestic
workers prohibited membership in trade unions, with
the threat of expulsion in cases of non-compliance.327
The interrelation between employment and residence
status may degenerate into a vicious circle of precarity: a
weak legal status may prevent someone from accessing
the jobs which would permit him or her to fulfil the
criteria (income, housing) to obtain a better residence
status. Mechanisms of discrimination by law are also
gendered: women are more often working part-time
and in marginalised or irregular segments of the labour
market than men and thus find it harder to fulfil the
requirements to maintain or consolidate their residence
status (notably income requirement), or to obtain a
more secure permit (see chapter 6 for more details). The
consolidation of the residence status is neither a linear
process, nor does it happen automatically after a certain
period of stay. Rather, the success of such a project is
shaped by the various categories of differentiation which
immigration laws ascribe to foreigners and their effect
on the opportunity structures of the persons affected.
At its meeting in Tampere in 1999, the European Council
acknowledged the necessity of ensuring ‘fair treatment of
third country nationals who reside legally on the territory
of [EU] Member States’ and of ‘granting them rights and
obligations comparable to those of EU citizens’.328 The
first concrete steps to approximate the rights of third
country nationals to those of EU citizens followed four
years later in the form of Council Directive 2003/109/EC,
the Long Term Residence Directive, concerning the status
325 Raxen National Focal Point Luxembourg, National Data Collection Report
Luxembourg 2004, p. 16, and Raxen National Focal Point Luxembourg,
National Data Collection Report Luxembourg 2006, p. 22
326 M. Jandl, Ch. Hollomey, S. Gendera, A. Stepien, V. Bilger (2008) Migration
and Irregular Work in Austria. A case study of the structure and dynamics
of irregular foreign employment in Europe at the beginning of the 21st
century, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
327 FRA, Annual Report 2006, p. 12
328 European Council (1999) Presidency Conclusions. Tampere European
Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, available at: http://www.consilium.
europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00200-r1.en9.htm
(01.12.2008)
of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.329
For the time being the scope of the Directive covers
only those third country nationals who have legally and
continuously resided in a Member State of the EU for a
minimum period of five years, who can prove sufficient
and stable resources as well as a health insurance and
who do not pose a threat to public order or security.
Persons residing ‘on a short-term basis’ and those in a
‘precarious’ situation (e.g. temporary workers, refugees
or persons enjoying subsidiary protection) are explicitly
excluded from the scope of the Directive.330 Yet, it is these
groups that are most vulnerable to exploitation and
marginalisation in employment and other areas of social
life. Consequently, although the Directive 2003/109/
EC undoubtedly is very ambitious in its aims, it may
unwittingly reinforce the already existing legal dichotomy
between long-term and short-term permit holders.
Regarding the scope of the Directive, while it defines
to whom it should be applied, it omits to delineate
clearly who may be excluded. On the national level
developments can be observed that may weaken or even
contradict the long-term residents Directive. For example,
Austria in its new Aliens and Settlement Act of 2005
narrowed down access to long-term residence permits
not only for students, but also for specific professions.
Artists, for example, are defined as temporary migrants
and may not consolidate their status over time. To obtain
a long-term residence permit, it does not suffice any more
to be continuously and legally resident (and employed)
for a certain period of time, but the kind of employment
engaged in is decisive as well.331 Consequently, persons
may be locked in a temporary status and reside and work
on an insecure basis, even if living on EU territory for
years. Another obstacle to the full implementation of the
Directive is the fact that fulfilling the requirements does
not automatically lead to the acquisition of an EU longterm status: one has to apply for it. The simultaneous,
yet sometimes conflicting application of national and
EU law, unfamiliarity with EU law and the reluctance of
local municipalities to inform migrants adequately about
their rights may thus considerably weaken the Directive.
The RAXEN reports pointed to another trend which
similarly opposes the principles of the EU integration and
anti-discrimination agenda. There seems to be a general
restrictive trend in Member States’ immigration laws
in recent years, with reforms tightening conditions for
family migration (e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands, France),
naturalisation (e.g. Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland),
and asylum (e.g. Austria, Luxembourg).332 At the same
329 Council Directive 2003/109/EC (25.11.2003)
330 Summary of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (25.11.2003), available at:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l23034.htm
331 S. Schumacher, J. Peyrl (2006) Fremdenrecht. Asyl,
Ausländerbeschäftigung, Einbürgerung, Einwanderung,
Verwaltungsverfahren, Vienna: ÖGB Verlag
332 FRA, Annual Report 2005, p. 24
69
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
time, an increasing number of new migrants is ‘invited’
to fill labour market- and skill shortages.333 Most of those
labour migrants however are only issued a temporary
permit that does not allow for the consolidation of
their status. Both developments are therefore part
of the trend to confine full access to residence and
employment to a relatively small number of persons and
thus reinforce legal insecurities of many third country
nationals already residing on European territory.
Apart from measures to improve the legal situation
of long-term residents there have been similar efforts
addressed at other specific groups of concern, namely
refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, asylum
seekers, and victims of human trafficking. Specific
directives were adopted to improve the legal security of
the latter two groups.334 In response, Italy for example has
already established measures to widen access of asylum
seekers to the labour market.335 Furthermore, in 2007 the
Commission presented a proposal to extend the scope
of the Long Term Residence Directive (2003/109/EC) to
refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection, two
groups that were explicitly excluded in the first bill.336
In sum, a number of very positive and ambitious
developments to address and improve legal insecurities
of third country nationals have taken place on the
national and the EU level, but at the same time, significant
contradictory trends may be observed at the national level.
At the time of writing this report there was no detailed
information available on the implementation of the Long
Term Residence Directive from the Member States, but it
appears there might be a gap between the letter and spirit
of EU legislative measures on the one hand and national
legislation and administrative practices on the other.337 In
addition, the measures taken so far to combat exploitations
of third country nationals in employment have by and
large remained selective and singular, thereby failing to
start a fundamental discussion about the impact of legal
insecurities on vulnerable groups.
333 FRA, Annual Report 2005, p. 35
334 Council Directive 2004/81/EC(1) (29.4.2004) on residence permits for
victims of trafficking, and EU Directive 2003/9/EC (27.1.2003) on the
reception of asylum seekers that defines that asylum seekers must be
granted labour market access after 6 months of residence.
335 European Migration Network (2006) Synthesis Report for Small Scale
Study I ’Reception Systems, their Capacities and the Social Situation
of Asylum Applicants within the Reception System in the EU Member
States’
336 COM (2007) 298 final. Council decision pending in June 2008.
337 Generally, although administrative practices may reinforce legal barriers
defined by national legislations, there is little information about their
impact on the implementation of Community law. FRA, Annual Report
2006, p. 50.
70
5.1.3.The situation of undocumented migrant
workers
Generally, irregular migration cannot be discussed
outside the context of state regulation of migration. Only
if there are explicit rules on legal entry and stay of foreign
nationals, can there be irregular migration.338 Irregular
migration thus is not an objective ‘given’, but varies
according to the specific context, which may be subject
to change in temporal perspective. Indeed, it is only since
the 1970s in the context of the ‘recruitment stop’ that
irregular migration became an issue of concern to policy
makers. Yet only since the 1990s has irregular migration
become a main focus of migration policy making, largely
as a result of the combined effect of the geopolitical
changes after the collapse of the Communist regimes in
eastern Europe, the massive rise in immigration to the
European Union in the late 1980s, and the increase of
asylum- and conflict-related migration.
The “fight” against irregular migration has been a priority of
European Union policies on immigration and asylum ever
since the communitarisation of migration policies in the
wake of the Amsterdam Treaty 1997, and the first five year
policy plan in the area of migration and asylum announced
at the Tampere summit in December 1999. Although
over time, the evaluation of irregular migration and
possible policy responses against it has been subject to
change,339 by and large the focus has been on prevention
and control. At the same time, irregular migration raises a
number of humanitarian concerns which have received
much less attention from policy makers so far. These
include the precarious living and working conditions of
undocumented migrants, which must be considered
separately from the concern of enforcing legal regulations.
To bring these two concerns together is a major challenge
the European Union faces today.
In public perception, irregular migration is often
predominantly associated with irregular border crossing
– unlawful entry and subsequent irregular stay. In
practice, the pathways into irregularity are more complex.
In most countries, overstaying the validity of a visa or
of a short term residence permit is a more important
pathway into irregularity than irregular entry. Withdrawal
or non-renewal of a legal status – for example, because
residence requirements are no longer met or conditions
of residence have been breached – is another important
reason why migrants often lapse into irregularity,
although in a number of countries humanitarian
338 Ch. Joppke (1998) ‘Immigration challenges the nation state’, in: Ch.
Joppke (ed.) Challenge to the nation-state,. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 5-46; See also website of the project ‘Undocumented
Migration: Counting the Uncountable Data and Trends Across Europe’,
available at: http ://www.eliamep.gr/en/clandestino/ (25.11.2008)
339 M. Baldwin-Edwards, A. Kraler (2008) REGINE. Regularisations in Europe.
Study on practices in the area of regularisation of illegally staying third
country-nationals in the Member States of the EU. JLS /B4/05. Vienna:
ICMPD, chapter 3.
Legal status and vulnerability
provisions specifically attempt to prevent this. In
particular in Northern and Western Europe, the failure
of individual migrants to return after a negative asylum
decision and non-enforceability of return for practical,
technical or legal reasons has to be considered another
major pathway into irregularity.340
Although undocumented persons are identified as a group
particularly vulnerable to exploitation in employment,
Member States largely ‘remained passive’ on this issue in
the last years.341 Undocumented migrants are particularly
vulnerable to precarious living and working conditions as
they lack legal entitlements to base their claims upon.
Although irregular migration, by its very nature, eludes
comprehensive observation, there has been a growing
number of research studies that have investigated
irregular migration from both quantitative and qualitative
angles. A recent quantitative study on irregular migration
in the EU thus provides some indications on the size of
the phenomenon. The study suggest that the number
of irregular immigrants342 in the EU-27 is considerably
lower than previously believed and is likely to lie between
1.9 and 3.8 million in 2008. At the same time, the study
also shows that the number of irregular immigrants has
considerably decreased since 2002 – from between 3.1
and 5.3 million in 2002 to between 1.8 and 3.3 million
in the EU-15, largely reflecting the impact of large-scale
regularisations (some 1.8 million persons were regularised
between 2002 and 2008), the regularising effect of
enlargement and presumably also a decrease of new
arrivals in the EU.
Various studies have also shown that, especially in the
economies of Southern European countries, with their
relatively large informal sector, undocumented migrants
represent a large share of the migrant labour force.343
But also in other EU Member States undocumented
migrants constitute a sizeable share of workers in
particular sectors, although the situation varies greatly
between different Member States, Even more so than
documented third country nationals, undocumented
340 See F.Düvell (2009): Pathways into Irregularity: The Social Construction
of Irregular Migration. Comparative Policy Briefs Clandestino
Project. Available online at http://central.radiopod.gr/wp-content/
uploads/2008/05/pdf_ic.png. The typology of pathways into irregularity
is taken from A.Kraler & D. Reichel (2010): Irregular Migration Flows
– Ever Increasing Numbers? Special Issue, International Migration
(forthcoming)
341 FRA, Annual Report 2005, p. 99
342 The study defines irregular immigrants “as residents without any legal
resident status in the country they are residing in, and those whose
presence in the territory – if detected – may be subject to termination
through an order to leave and/or an expulsion order because of their
status.” See D. Vogel (2009): Size and Development of Irregular Migration
in the EU. Comparative Policy Briefs Clandestino Project. Available online
at http://central.radiopod.gr/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/pdf_ic.png
343 See for example EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment:
Exclusion, Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States
of the European Union, p. 53
workers are concentrated in sectors that are characterized
by a high degree of competition, flexibility, seasonality
and low profit margins, such as construction, agri- and
horticulture, domestic work, and catering and other
hospitality services.344 These sectors generally show a
significant involvement of foreign workers and record
a high share of irregular employment. Undocumented
persons are likely to occupy the least profitable, least-paid
and most difficult and dangerous jobs. Non-payment of
wages, non-compliance with workers’ rights, and other
forms of exploitations affect undocumented workers to
a much higher degree than persons in a legal situation.
Furthermore, they are much more dependent on their
employers who may abuse their lack of a legal status to
force them to conform to otherwise unacceptable working
conditions.345 In this regard, the situation of minorities in
some Member States also raises specific concern. Reports
from Romania and Slovenia highlighted that it is specifically
Roma persons who may lack identity papers. As a result,
they and their families do not have access to employment,
or to health and education services.346
As a result of a number of factors (the increasing labour
force participation of native women, changing family
patterns and forms of family solidarity in the wider
society, the ageing of Europe’s population and the
associated increasing demand for care services) the
domestic sector347 has drawn in an increasing number of
migrants, many of them undocumented and the large
majority of them female. Indeed, domestic workers have
been among the main categories of irregular migrants
regularised in various regularisation programmes in
Southern European countries in the course of the
1990s and 2000s. At the same time domestic workers
seem to be among the two groups most at risk of
falling back into irregularity, which highlights the
precarious nature of employment relationships in this
sector (see also section 6.2.1.3 in the next chapter).348
Women are also more vulnerable to become victims of
forced labour and human trafficking. An ILO research
project in Germany found that among the 42 cases of
forced labour identified, the majority of forced labour
victims were female and worked in the sex business; men
were mostly employed in the agriculture or construction
344 Commission of the European Communities (2007) Commission Staff
Working Document accompanying document to the proposal for a
Directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying
third-country nationals – Impact assessment (16.5.2007), p. 7
345 M. Jandl, Ch. Hollomey, S. Gendera, A. Stepien, V. Bilger (2008) Migration
and Irregular Work in Austria. A case study of the structure and dynamics
of irregular foreign employment in Europe at the beginning of the 21st
century, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
346 FRA, Annual Report 2008, p. 12
347 Broadly defined as encompassing both housekeeping tasks and care work
348 A. Kraler (2010): Regularisation of Irregular Immigrants – An Instrument
to Address Vulnerability, Social Exclusion and Exploitation of Irregular
Migrants in Employment? FRA Discussion Paper:
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/products/publications_reports/
studies_discussion_papers/studies_discussion_papers_en.htm
71
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
sector.349 While only a few cases involved outright
violence (e.g. sexual exploitation), a larger number of
persons were affected by some form of coercion, such as
for example the threat by the employer to be reported to
the authorities, holding back the passport, non-payment
of wages, etc. Again, particularly women who were
forced to work in the sex industry reported having been
exposed to physical violence.350 Hence, the irregular status
of migrants shapes conditions conducive to coercion of
migrant workers.351
comprehensively. Contrary to the increasing realization
that irregular migration cannot be sharply separated
from either legal migration or asylum related migration,
irregular migration is still generally treated as a distinct
phenomenon, and is excluded when, for instance, issues
such as social cohesion, integration and discrimination
are addressed.355
Based on the analysis that irregular employment presents
one of the main ‘pull factors’ for irregular immigration352a
proposal to harmonise sanctions against employers of
unlawfully staying third country nationals was adopted
by the Commission in 2007.353 Although the Employer
Sanctions Directive raised a variety of concerns from
civil society organisations, trade unions and others,
the shift from penalising undocumented migrants to
sanctioning employers represents a marked change
in policy focus. In addition, it also sends an important
message to the public, who in many Member States
have almost exclusively put the blame on migrants for
being in an undocumented situation and engaging
in irregular work.354 Despite this shift in policy focus,
however, addressing vulnerability and exploitation of
undocumented migrants is still not a major priority in EU
policies on irregular migration.
However, the European Union, in trying to improve
access to legal migration in parallel with measures
combating irregular migration, has recognized that legal
and irregular migration are closely interrelated. Measures
to improve the legal security of third country nationals
may be regarded as doing both simultaneously. As noted
in the previous section, however, European debates
and legislative action in this field so far stretch mainly
to persons who are long-term legal residents, and to
persons seeking international protection. The situation
of the majority of persons most vulnerable to lose their
legal status, and those resident on European territory for
years, even if undocumented, thus has not been tackled
349 N. Cyrus (2005) Menschenhandel und Arbeitsausbeutung in
Deutschland. Sonderaktionsprogramm zur Bekämpfung der
Schwarzarbeit, Geneva: ILO
350 Germany, Bundeskriminalamt (2003) ‘Lagebild Menschenhandel 2003’
351 International Labour Office (2005) A Global Alliance Against Forced
Labour. Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and rights at Work, Geneva: ILO, pp. 48-50
352 European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament on a Community immigration
policy (COM (2000)757 final), p. 12
353 In 2007, all European Member States except for the UK already foresee
administrative fines for employers who are illegally employing third
country nationals, even if to a very different extent (see: Commission of
the European Communities (2007) Commission Staff Working Document
accompanying document to the proposal for a Directive providing for
sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals –
Impact assessment (16.5.2007), pp. 76-85).
354 See for example FRA, Annual Report 2006, p. 51
72
355 FRA, Trends and developments report 1997-2005, p. 14
The situation of migrant and minority women in employment
6. T
he situation of migrant and minority women in
employment
The principle of equal treatment of women and men
has been anchored in the European Union since its very
establishment. However, women still face considerable
disadvantages and marginalisation on the labour market:
the employment rate of women still ranges under the
targeted 60 per cent in the Lisbon Employment Targets,
and in 2005 women in the European Union were on
average earning 15 per cent less than men per working
hour.356 These inequalities can only partly be traced back
to objective reasons, such as educational or professional
differences. If women are concentrated in particular
segments of the labour market, it is to a large extent due
to their being assigned to professions and sectors which
were traditionally dominated by women and which
are still today less valued. Likewise, the concentration
of women in lower positions, or the higher share of
female part-timers in total employment (7.4 per cent
of men against 32.6 per cent of women are employed
part-time in the EU) point to structural inequalities. 357
The European Union addresses this ‘complex and
persistent problem’358 in the Roadmap for Equality
between Women and Men 2006-2010.359 On the
basis of this roadmap, the European Pact for Gender
Equality has been adopted in 2007.360 The pact focuses
on six priority areas (equal economic independence,
reconciliation of private and professional life, equal
representation in decision-making, eradication of all
forms of gender-based violence, elimination of gender
stereotypes, promotion of gender equality in external and
development policies) that are considered particularly
significant for achieving gender equality, and most of
which bear relevance also in the area of employment.
Migrant and minority women may be even more
vulnerable to discrimination in employment than majority
women or migrant and minority men. They experience
discrimination not only due to their gender, but may be
subject to multiple discrimination on several grounds,
such as gender and ethnic or national background, legal
status, skin colour, religion, etc. Their experiences of
discrimination may therefore be qualitatively different
356 European Commission (2007) Communication ‘Tackling the pay gap
between women and men’ (COM(2007)424 final (18.7.2007)), pp. 1/f
357 European Commission (2006) Communication ‘A roadmap for equality
between women and men 2006-2010’ (COM(2006)92 final (1.3.2006)), p. 5
358 European Commission (2007) Communication ‘Tackling the pay gap
between women and men’ (COM(2007)424 final (18.7.2007)), p. 2
359 European Commission (2006) Communication ‘A roadmap for equality
between women and men 2006-2010’ (COM(2006)92 final (1.3.2006))
360 Council of the European Union (2006) European Pact for Gender Equality,
AnnexII, in: Presidency Conclusions – 23/24 March 2006, Brussels
European Council, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/
ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/89013.pdf (26.11.2008)
from the experiences of their male counterparts. In
light of this, the Roadmap acknowledges the need to
promote gender equality also in regard to migration and
integration policies ‘in order to ensure women’s rights
and civic participation, to fully use their employment
potential and to improve their access to education and
lifelong learning’.361 In the European Pact for Gender
Equality however the specific situation of migrant and
minority women was no longer addressed. Furthermore,
the single-ground approach European anti-discrimination
law is committed to today has been criticised as
unsuitable to respond to the multiple and intersecting
forms of discrimination migrant and minority women
may face. As a result, migrant and minority women
are not only marginalised in employment, but also in
political discourses and regulations on gender equality,
migration and integration, and non-discrimination.
6.1. T
he concept of multiple and
intersectional discrimination
In recent years, EU anti-discrimination legislation has
been expanded and now addresses a fairly broad range
of grounds of discrimination. However, it still perceives
claimants as uni-dimensional subjects who belong
to one main identity group only and thus experience
discrimination on one main ground.362 Thus, it is common
to think of women, or migrant groups and ethnic
minorities, as homogenous groups whose members in
principle share similar experiences of discrimination. As
a consequence, it is all but impossible in current legal
practice to bring allegations of discrimination on multiple
grounds before court (see also Chapter 3). Also in policy
practice, the focus tends to be on collective target groups,
disregarding differences within the group and thereby
often overlooking the specific problems faced by those
who find themselves at the intersection of two or more
axes of differentiation.
In the early 1990s, Kimberlé Crenshaw was one of the
first to criticise this single-ground approach which
shapes anti-discrimination legislation.363 In pointing to
the multi-dimensionality of any person’s identity she
claimed that a person may experience discrimination on
361 European Commission (2006) Communication ‘A roadmap for equality
between women and men 2006-2010’ (COM(2006)92 final (1.3.2006)), p. 4
362 European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination –
Practices, Policies and Laws, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the EC
363 K. Crenshaw (1993) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A
Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory
and Antiracist Politics’, in: D.K. Weisenberg (ed.) Feminist Legal Theory:
Foundations, Philadelphia: Temple
73
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
more than one ground simultaneously. In addition, these
grounds may interact and thus become inseparable.
Crenshaw introduced the concept of ‘multiple’
discrimination, which refers to situations in which two
or more grounds of discrimination add up – the more
a person deviates from the norm, the smaller are her/
his chances to be, for example, appointed for a job.364
Thus, a migrant or ethnic minority woman may be put at
double disadvantage in comparison to her competitors
because she is a woman and because of her ethnic
background. The different grounds of discrimination
are additive in nature, and can still be treated
separately. However, in other cases several grounds of
discrimination are interconnected so as to constitute
a unique situation that is distinct from any single form
of discrimination. Crenshaw described such cases as
‘intersectional’ discrimination. When several grounds of
discrimination intersect, migrant and minority women
may face a ‘qualitatively different experience’365 from
that of majority women or migrant and minority men.
Multiple or intersectional discrimination may in principle
affect all persons. Migrant and minority women are
particularly vulnerable as they embody two grounds of
persistent discrimination, namely gender and ethnicity.
But men may experience multiple discrimination on the
basis of the same two categories too. Thus, in the current
context many young Muslim wearing a religious dress
and a beard may experience discrimination because of
suspicions of associations with radicalism – a suspicion
that would not have applied equally to Muslim women,
or to persons with a different religious and ethnic
background.366 The mechanisms inherent to multiple
and intersectional discrimination thus are multi-faceted
and have to be accounted for on a case-by-case basis.
6.2. C
omplex experiences of
discrimination – The situation of
migrant and minority women in
employment
Migrant and minority women find themselves at the
intersections of gender inequalities on the one hand,
and inequalities between the native and immigrant/
ethnic minority population on the other. While
women are generally worse off in terms of labour
market participation, income and occupational
364 G. Moon 82008) Multiple discrimination: the need for justice for
the whole person, available at: http://www.era.int/web/en/html/
nodes_main/4_1649_490/4_1087_539/5_1070_66/5_1070_7701.htm
(26.11.2008)
365 S. Hannett (2003) ‘Equality at the Intersections: The Legislative and
Judicial Failure to Tackle Multiple Discrimination’, in: Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, Vol.23, No.1, p. 68&f
366 See for an example European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple
Discrimination – Practices, Policies and Laws, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the EC, p. 21
74
level, migrant and minority women are even more
affected by these structural inequalities. Within the
migrant and ethnic minority community they are
attributed to, women also perform significantly
worse than their male counterparts. Data on income
differentials from Austria and the UK show that the
pay gap between female and male immigrants is
higher than that between the native and immigrant
population.367 A study by the RAND Corporation titled
‘Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects’ (2008)368 on the basis
of LFS data identifies third-country migrant women
as specifically disadvantaged in terms of their labor
market participation. Their labor force participation rate,
employment and unemployment rates are substantially
higher than those of migrant women from EU countries,
native-born women, and third-country men.369 However,
the study also shows significant differences between the
various EU countries: Thus, in traditional migrant-receiving
countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, the UK) the labour force participation rate
of third-country women is substantially lower than that
of native-born women, while it is equal or even higher in
‘new’ receiving countries (EL, ES, PT). The Nordic countries
(DK, SE) show similar figures as the traditional receiving
countries, despite differing in their migration history. Only
in the new Member States (CY, CZ, HU) does no clear
picture emerge.
The study also highlights another interesting aspect
that has only received little attention so far and may
put the data presented in the above into perspective:
By considering the phenomena of underemployment
(defined as involuntary part-time employment) and
temporary-contract employment, it is demonstrated
that ‘even when migrant women are actually employed,
the quality of their employment tends to be poor,
exposing them to social and economic vulnerability’.370
This is especially true for the ‘new’ migrant-receiving
countries, where migrant women are relatively
well integrated into the labour market, yet often in
temporary or insecure positions.
Generally, the identified gaps between the labour force
participation rate of foreign- and native-born women
are specifically high in the initial 5 to 10 years of stay,
367 EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 41
368 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation
369 The large majority of female migrant workers comes from third
countries, except for Luxembourg and Belgium.
370 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation, p. xxi
The situation of migrant and minority women in employment
but are reduced or even vanish thereafter.371 Even highly
skilled women from third countries are confronted with
major disadvantages on the European labour markets:
although labour market integration improves with a
higher skill level, the labour force participation rates
and unemployment rates of highly skilled foreign-born
women are significantly worse than that of native-born or
EU migrant women. Furthermore, foreign-born women
are affected twice as much by de-skilling than are the
latter groups.372
As a result of legal barriers but also of structural
discriminations European labour markets are highly
segregated along ethnic and gender lines: migrant and
minority women largely occupy those jobs least valued,
least paid and which offer least security in the sectors
that are generally dominated by foreign workers, such as
agriculture, tourism and catering, but also the care and
cleaning sector.373 Those sectors are characterised by
high flexibility, seasonality, poor working conditions, low
payment and preponderance of unskilled tasks. In addition,
these sectors show a high proportion of irregular working
activities, especially the domestic sector, which offers most
employment opportunities to migrant women.
6.2.1.Differences ‘within’ – Civic stratifications
among migrant and minority women
In addition to these main axes of differentiation – gender
and national or ethnic origin – the group of migrant
and minority women is further stratified by other
factors, such as legal status, qualification, skin colour,
religious clothing, etc. All those characteristics interact
and may produce crucially different situations for women
embodying different individual traits and occupying
different social strata. A Spanish study demonstrated
that migrant women had to accept jobs below their
level of qualification more often than migrant men and
that they found employment mostly in the domestic
sphere. Particular groups, such as Roma, Moroccan or
Sub-Saharan women, were found to be most vulnerable
to such mechanisms of stratification.374 Similarly, another
Spanish study showed that significantly more women
from Latin American, African and Asian countries were
employed as home helps than migrant women from
EEA states (26 per cent in contrast to 0.06 per cent).375
371 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation, pp. xv-xvii
372 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation, p. xxiii
373 EUMC (2003) Migrants, Minorities and Employment: Exclusion,
Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the
European Union, p. 33
374 FRA, Annual Report 2003-2004, p. 75
375 Pajares, Miguel (2004) Inserción laboral de la población inmigrada en
Catalunya. Informe 2004, Barcelona: CCOO-CERES
A study from Portugal on the three largest immigrant
groups (immigrants from Portuguese-speaking African
countries,376 Brazil, and Eastern Europe) revealed that the
unemployment rate for women of all three groups taken
together was higher than for native women, but within
the researched groups women from Portuguese-speaking
African countries showed the highest unemployment
rates, followed by women from Brazil and only then by
women from Eastern European countries.377
6.2.1.1. I ntersectional discrimination and the
headscarf
An example for the difficulties in attributing certain forms
of discrimination to a single ground is discriminations
against Muslim women wearing the headscarf. While
the headscarf is a much contested symbol all over
Europe, the issue of discrimination against women
wearing the headscarf receives much less attention.
Complaints of such discrimination are particularly
hard to prove as the ground or grounds on which the
discrimination took place are not easy to identify, but
may involve gender, religion, or ethnic discrimination
or a combination of those. In addition, a kind of ’legal
discrimination’ (selective bans of wearing the Islamic
headscarf ) also plays a role, and apart from the impact on
those directly affected, has the potential to affect public
perceptions of the headscarf issue, and to increase the
‘acceptability’ of such discrimination against women.
The results of an EU funded research project on policies
and discourses on the Islamic headscarf378 point to the
great variety among European states with regard to
legislation and regulation on the Muslim headscarf. While
countries such as Austria, Denmark, Greece and the
United Kingdom have introduced no explicit legislation,
France and certain German federal states have prohibited
teachers and other civil servants from wearing the Muslim
headscarf. In the Netherlands, specific decrees on
clothing apply to the police, judiciary, ministries, etc.379
In contrast, in Sweden members of the police force are
allowed to wear a turban, headscarf or Jewish kippah in
order to avoid sex- or religious discrimination, and in the
UK there is also flexibility in the police on this issue.380
376Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique and
São Tomé and Príncipe, referred to as PALOP in Portuguese.
377 J. Peixoto et al. (2005) O tráfico de Migrantes: perspectivas sociológicas,
jurídicas e políticas, Lisboa: Observatório da Imigração
378 http://www.veil-project.eu/ (26.11.2008) Note that in some countries
the headscarf is known as the ‘veil’, although in British English usage the
term ‘veil’ more normally suggests a covering of the face.
379 S. Berghahn (2008) Judicial expertise on current regulations as well as on
explanations for varieties in regulations and in the framing of European
headscarf debates, pp.13-14, available at: http://www.veil-project.eu/
(26.11.2008)
380 FRA, Annual Report 2007, p. 74
75
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
National headscarf bans have been criticised as indirect
discrimination on the grounds of sex and religion,
as they affect women more than men and Muslims
more than Christians. The headscarf bans in some
federal states of Germany may even be regarded
as direct religious discrimination as they include an
exception clause for ‘Christian-occidental’ symbols.381
Beside the legislative level, there is evidence that Muslim
women wearing the headscarf experience discrimination
as a ‘visible minority’ on grounds of gender and religion.
A report by the European Commission entitled ‘Tackling
Multiple Discrimination’ reports the case of a nurse who
is continuously confronted with prejudices and negative
comments by her colleagues and clients because of
wearing the headscarf. Furthermore, some cases of
denying a specific job to women with headscarf lack
sufficient justification and may therefore be regarded
as discriminatory. The exclusion of women wearing the
headscarf from jobs that involve customer contact is a
case in point.382 An incident which occurred in Austria
clearly illustrates a case of intersectional discrimination.
There, an employer of a cleaning company threatened
some female employees that he would withdraw their
social security payments if they would not remove their
headscarves.383
6.2.1.2. The specific situation of Roma women
In a resolution adopted in 2006, the European Parliament
called for attention for the specific situation of Roma
women in the EU and for concrete action by national
governments and EU institutions to improve this situation.
The Parliamentary Rapporteur pointed out that Roma
women are still amongst those most vulnerable to human
rights abuses, exclusion of health services, discrimination
and unemployment.384 There is ample evidence that
Roma women are assigned the least valued jobs and
generally find a very limited range of jobs available to
them. A survey from Slovenia from the years 2005-2006
showed that 67 per cent of the Roma population in
general, but 78 per cent of Roma women have never
been employed before.385 Racist and sexist stereotypes
often lie at the root of such patterns of inequality. In the
381 S. Berghahn (2008) Judicial expertise on current regulations as well as on
explanations for varieties in regulations and in the framing of European
headscarf debates, p. 9, available at: http://www.veil-project.eu/
(26.11.2008)
382 European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination –
Practices, Policies and Laws, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the EC, p. 42
383 FRA, Annual report 2007, p. 54
384 Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (2006) Report on
the situation of Roma women in the Euroepan Union (2005/2164(INI)
(25.4.2006)), available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?objRefId=115178&language=EN (26.11.2008)
385 N. Babič Ivaniš, S. Urh, V. Klopčič, M. Adamič (2006) ‘Raziskava
izobraževalnih in poklicnih interesov Romov’, in: N. Žagar, V. Klopčič (eds.)
Poklicno informiranje in svetovanje za Rome – PISR, Črnomelj: Zavod za
izobraževanje in kulturo, pp. 223-225
76
Czech Republic and Latvia, cases were brought to court
in which Roma women were refused a job as salesperson
only because of their ethnic origin.386 Reports by two
Spanish NGOs demonstrated how stereotypes of Roma
women on the one hand and their socioeconomic
marginalisation on the other hand may mutually reinforce
each other and ultimately lead to a vicious circle of
precariousness. The NGO SOS Racismo revealed that
employment chances for Roma women are limited due to
widespread prejudice of them being ‘lazy’ and unwilling
to work; yet at the same time, this prejudice stems from
and is nurtured by the fact that Roma women are almost
exclusively employed in the informal labour market,
particularly in domestic work, and are therefore invisible
on the labour market.387 Additionally, the largely irregular
nature of their employment poses an obstacle to the
obtainment or retention of a regular residence status.388
6.2.1.3. The case of domestic workers
Due to labour market restrictions, negative stereotyping
of migrant women and their insecure legal position, work
in the domestic sphere is often the only niche where
migrant and minority women can find employment.
Domestic and housekeeping tasks that were traditionally
performed by female family members are increasingly
performed by immigrant women. Bridget Anderson
argues that demand and supply factors contribute
equally to this development. As a result of the growing
labour market participation of women, the demand for
paid domestic labour has increased. On the supply side,
the availability of cheap labour provided by migrant
workers has made it possible for a rising number of
private households to employ domestic personnel.
Despite the indispensable contribution of migrant
workers to the national health system, their work is not
equally valued and hence is not rewarded with equal
pay.389 Jobs in the domestic sphere are not recognised
as productive work and range among those leastpaid, with most insecure and often irregular working
conditions. In 2005, the Cypriot National Equality Body
reported that migrant domestic workers earned as little
as one-fifth compared to native domestic workers, which
was clearly condemned as discriminatory treatment.390
Research done in Italy in 2005 and 2007 revealed that in
the domestic and care sector, which almost exclusively
employs women, wages were lower than in other sectors
386 FRA, Annual Report 2007, pp. 48/52
387 L. Azevedo, S. Duarte, A. Cruz (2005) Inquérito às “Câmaras Municipais
sobre mulheres imigrantes e pertencentes a minorias étnicas” Imigração
e Etnicidade. Vivências e trajectórias de Mulheres em Portugal, Lisboa:
SOS Racismo pp. 11-28
388 E. Sertório, F.S. Pereira (2004) Mulheres Imigrantes, Lisboa: Ela por Ela, p. 41
389 B. Anderson (2001) Reproductive Labour and Migration (WPTC-02-01),
available at: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/
WPTC-02-01%20Anderson.doc.pdf (26.11.2008)
390 Greece, Ombudswoman (2005) Ombudswoman. Report File No. A.K.I
2/2005, p. 4.
The situation of migrant and minority women in employment
dominated by migrant workers.391 Domestic workers
from the Philippines and Peru showed the lowest vertical
mobility in comparison to all other domestic workers.392
This under-valuation of domestic work is reflected in
states’ employment models, such as the au-pair system:
the mostly young and female migrant workers are
defined as ‘guests’ who receive ‘pocket money’ instead
of a salary.393 Similarly, standard contracts for home
helps often explicitly leave out basic workers’ rights,
such as the right to trade union membership (as in the
United Kingdom, Cyprus, and Greece) and set very low
minimum wages.394 The Spanish National Focal Point
criticised the fact that migrants as well as native home
helpers are not entitled to unemployment benefits,
and are de facto not entitled to paid sick leave either.395
Bridget Anderson identifies such forms of disfranchised
employment models as ‘sticking plaster’ with which
states try to accommodate the increasing demand
for domestic labour, while keeping its costs low.396
Generally, despite the high demand for domestic services,
many states apply entry quotas to domestic workers or
do not grant them work visas at all.397 Partly as a result of
these restrictive entry policies, many migrant domestic
workers do not have a regular residence status, which
in turn compels them to accept irregular employment.
The high share of irregular labour in domestic work
is also enhanced by the under-regulation of this
sector.398 In 2003, and ILO study revealed that out of 65
countries studied, only 19 had adopted specific laws
and regulations on domestic work.399 In general, there
is little possibility and even less political will to control
for compliance with workers’ rights, covering aspects
such as working time and level and payment of wages,
of domestic workers in private households.400 The
391 F. Di Maggio, A. Fucillitti (eds.) (2006) ‘Immigrants’ wages’, in: Caritas/
Migrantes (2006) Immigration. Statistical Dossier 2006. XVI Report, Rome:
Idos, p. 281
392 Raxen National Focal Point Italy, National data collection report Italy
2005, p. 6
393 B. Anderson (2001) Reproductive Labour and Migration (WPTC-02-01),
available at: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/
WPTC-02-01%20Anderson.doc.pdf (26.11.2008), p. 4
394 FRA, Annual report 2006, p. 51
395 An entitlement only emerges after an excessively long period of 28 days
of sick leave (Raxen National Focal Point Spain, National Data Collection
Report 2003, p. 33).
396 B. Anderson (2001) Reproductive Labour and Migration (WPTC-02-01),
available at: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/
WPTC-02-01%20Anderson.doc.pdf (26.11.2008), p. 4
397 B. Anderson (2001) Reproductive Labour and Migration (WPTC-02-01),
available at: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/
WPTC-02-01%20Anderson.doc.pdf (26.11.2008), p. 7
398 See for example Ireland, MRCI (2006) MRCI Annual Report 2006
399 International Labour Office (2005) A Global Alliance Against Forced
Labour. Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and rights at Work, Geneva: ILO, p. 50
400 M. Jandl, Ch. Hollomey, S. Gendera, A. Stepien, V. Bilger (2008) Migration
and Irregular Work in Austria. A case study of the structure and dynamics
of irregular foreign employment in Europe at the beginning of the 21st
century, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
vulnerability of migrant domestic workers to exploitative
and irregular working conditions is reinforced by their
often insecure or irregular residence status. While the
employee in case of worksite checks risks being expelled,
employers only runs the risk of a financial fine, if they
face sanctions at all.401 This legal insecurity reinforces
the degree of dependency in the employer-employee
relationship. The fact that in many countries it is the
responsibility of the employer to apply for a work visa
further contributes to this dependency.402 A study
by the International Labour Office in 2005 showed
that due to ‘the unprotected nature of their work and
the highly personalised relationship between the
workers and the employer’, domestic workers are most
vulnerable to forced labour and experience forms of
coercion that may even involve physical violence.403
The degree of dependency is especially high in ‘live-in’
arrangements, when the employee lives in the household
of the employer and is de facto available 24 hours a day.
According to Bridget Anderson such forms of domestic
work predominate in Southern European countries which
are generally characterised by a high share of informal
work, and by a high feminisation of this informal sector. As
the worker is defined as ‘part of the family’, the boundary
between paid work and unpaid leisure time, formal and
informal work is specifically blurred in such arrangements.
As several research projects on the situation of migrant
domestic workers in Austria have shown, such live-in
arrangements may be beneficial only to circular migrants
– to women whose centre of life still lies in their country
of origin. All others would prefer a so-called live-out
arrangement that would allow for more personal freedom
and privacy, an increased control over their working
hours and a clearer definition of work duties. In addition,
live-out arrangements are generally better rewarded
than live-in arrangements.404 On the other hand, liveout domestic work demands high flexibility from the
workers as they may have to co-ordinate several jobs
at the same time. Such flexible and insecure working
arrangements make it particularly difficult for migrant
women to reconcile private and work life,405 which is one
of the priorities in the European Pact for Gender Equality.
In conclusion, in order to address the situation of migrant
women in the labour market comprehensive measures
401 S. Gendera, B. Haidinger (2007) „Ich kann in Österreich als Putzfrau
arbeiten. Vielen Dank, ja.“ Bedingungen der bezahlten Haushalts- und
Pflegearbeit von Migrantinnen, in: grundrisse, Oktober 2007, p. 3
402 B. Anderson (2001) Reproductive Labour and Migration (WPTC-02-01),
available at: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/
WPTC-02-01%20Anderson.doc.pdf (26.11.2008), p. 7
403 International Labour Office (2005) A Global Alliance Against Forced
Labour. Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and rights at Work, Geneva: ILO, p. 50
404 S. Gendera, B. Haidinger (2007) „Ich kann in Österreich als Putzfrau
arbeiten. Vielen Dank, ja.“ Bedingungen der bezahlten Haushalts- und
Pflegearbeit von Migrantinnen, in: grundrisse, Oktober 2007, p. 1
405 See also: http://research.icmpd.org/1282.html
77
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
are needed, as the specific situation of migrant women is
related to a multiplicity of factors, such as gender, national
or ethnic origin, education and skill level, language
proficiency, number of children, but also to structural
characteristics, such as legal barriers and discrimination.406
Although the situation of migrant and minority women
in employment is distinct from any other group, antidiscrimination as well as immigration regulations by and
large neglect their specific situation. Migrant and minority
women, although not at all a homogenous group,
experience discriminations that are ‘qualitatively different’
to discrimination experiences of male immigrants, but
also of majority women. Their situation is thus exemplary
for the need to acknowledge multiple and intersectional
discrimination in European anti-discrimination law.
In addition, the legally insecure situation of migrant
domestic workers demonstrates the need to provide legal
employment models that do not create double standards
for natives or long-term residents on the one hand, and
short-term workers on the other. Migrants without a
secure legal position are vulnerable to exploitation which
may degenerate into outright coercion. The study on
female migrants in employment by the RAND
Corporation demands action particularly in two areas:
immigration and integration policies need to facilitate
migrant women’s access to permanent employment, as
well as to positions at their skill level.407 In order to achieve
the targets defined in the European Pact for Gender
Equality, both equality policies and immigration policies
must consider the specific situation of migrant and
minority women.
406 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation, p. xxiv
407 J. Rubin, M.S. Rendall, L. Rabinovich, F. Tsang, C. van Oranje-Nassau,
B. Janta (2008) Migrant women in the European labour force. Current
situation and future prospects, Cambridge: RAND Corporation, p. xxv
78
Conclusions
Conclusions
onclusions on some common and
C
some specific problems in relation to
discrimination in employment
Data collection and research
Data collection practices and data availability still differs
greatly between the Member States. Often, different
Member States use different concepts to identify
migrants and ethnic minorities. The report concludes that
there are still severe limitations to the comparability of
existing data on discrimination and more general data on
labour market outcomes of migrants and minorities, both
between Member States and regarding comparability
within Member States. Yet there is ample evidence that
inequalities between the socioeconomic situation of
the overall population and the foreign, migrant and
ethnic minority population persists, including that of
un/employment rates, wages, working conditions, etc.
The causes of labour market inequality are complex and
structural and it would be naïve to expect radical changes
within short periods of time or immediate large-scale
changes in response to policy measures addressing
inequality in employment. As a corollary, policy measures
addressing inequality in employment need to follow
a comprehensive approach and address different
dimensions contributing to vulnerability in employment.
Racial/ethnic discrimination in
employment: the EU law
The European Equality Directives have now by and
large been transposed into national law. Even if full
and correct transposition in all 27 Member States is
yet to be achieved, the Directives have contributed to
clarifying and strengthening legal measures against
discrimination throughout the European Union.
Indicators of discrimination –
incidents and court cases
During the period covered by this report, specialised
bodies, equality tribunals and judicial courts throughout
the EU have dealt with cases covering all types of
discrimination and the whole scope of the Equality
Directives. While doing so, they have also advanced
different interpretations of several sensitive issues
related to the directives, such as the shift of burden
of proof, instruction to discrimination, responsibility
of employers for the behaviour of their employees,
addressing multiple discrimination, use of discrimination
testing as evidence in court, etc. However, though the
total number of complaints of discrimination reported
and processed during 2003-2007 has increased as
compared to the previous years, probably as a direct
consequence of the advances in the implementation of
the Equality Directives in the Member States, there is still
a low amount of case law on racial/ethnic discrimination
in employment. This situation points towards several
legal, administrative, technical and perceived barriers
to access to justice. A central factor seems to lie in
the efficiency of the equality bodies in a number of
countries that are either not fully effective, have limited
powers, or do not make full use of their powers. Another
problem, as shown by the FRA’s 2008 EU-MIDIS study,
is that the majority of those migrants and minorities
who are vulnerable to discrimination are still not aware
of the legal remedies and bodies that might be drawn
upon to assist them in cases of discrimination.
Indicators of discrimination – research
evidence on discrimination
In the past years considerable research has been carried
out on discrimination in the area of employment,
although it is generally subject to certain limitations
and problems (e.g. data gaps). Existing studies point
both directly and indirectly towards the existence of
significant discrimination against migrants and minorities.
Discrimination on grounds of ethnicity and ‘race’ is
part of social reality; however, much more research –
especially cross-national and longitudinal – is needed
to raise awareness and to understand and combat the
phenomenon of discrimination in employment in a
comprehensive manner.
Legal status and vulnerability
Legal restrictions and insecurities may render a person
more vulnerable to exploitation in employment and
contribute to his or her marginalisation in socioeconomic
life. One such area of concern is the employment of nonnationals in the public sector – although most countries
have made efforts to bring their national laws in line with
EU law, there are still significant grey areas of application
and inconsistencies in regard to the implementation of
the EU Free Movement Directive into national laws.
Third country nationals are generally among those most
affected by legal discriminations and related mechanisms
of civic stratification. The close interrelationship between
the residence and employment status inherent in
immigration regulations may render migrants unable
to obtain a more secure socioeconomic position over
time and hence lead to a ‘vicious circle’ of precariousness
79
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
and uncertainty. This applies in particular to migrants
not covered by the Long-Term Residence Directive
(2003/109/EC).
The specific situation of migrant and
minority women in employment
Migrant and minority women face significant structural
disadvantages on the labour market in comparison with
the majority of women and both minority and majority
men. The share of migrant and minority women who
occupy the least-paid and least-skilled jobs in the most
marginalized segments of the labour market is larger
than among migrant and minority men. However,
anti-discrimination as well as immigration regulations
by and large neglect the specific situation of migrant
and minority women. They find themselves at the
intersections of two or more axes of differentiation and
may experience discrimination on more than one ground.
Their situation vividly shows the need to address multiple
and intersectional discrimination in European antidiscrimination law. The domestic services sector stands
out as a sector in which women not only constitute a
large majority of those employed, but where women
are also highly vulnerable. Informal employment is
particularly widespread in this sector, while the insecure
legal position of many migrant domestic workers
contributes to their vulnerability to exploitation and even
to outright coercion.
80
Statistical Annex
Statistical Annex
Table A1: Total and foreign population in EU Members States
Country
BE
Total population
Foreign population
(2007)
Foreign population
non-EU
(2007)
Foreign-born
population
(2005)
Foreign-born
non-EU (2005
estimated)
Total
Total
%
Total
%
Total
%
10,584,534
932,161
8.8
300,816
2.8
1,186,000
11.4
Total
%
575,000
5.5
BG
7,679,290
25,500*
0.3
21,690*
0.3
104,000
1.3
-
-
CZ
10,287,189
296,236
2.9
186,370
1.8
453,000
4.4
109,000
1.1
DK
5,447,084
278,096
5.1
196,877
3.6
389,000
7.2
273,000
5.0
DE
82,314,906
7,255,949
8.8
4,788,792
5.8
10,144,000
12.3
-
-
EE
1,342,409
236,400
17.6
229,709*
17.1
202,000
15.2
192,000
14.4
EL
11,171,740
887,600*
7.9
729,840*
6.5
974,000
8.8
760,000
6.9
ES
44,474,631
4,606,474*
10.4
2,856,796
6.4
4,790,000
11.1
3,385,000
7.8
FR
63,392,140
3,650,100*
5.8
2,369,540*
3.7
6,471,000
10.7
4,346,000
7.2
IE
4,312,526
452,300
10.5
141,156
3.3
585,000
14.1
156,000
3.8
IT
59,131,287
2,938,922
5.0
606,188
1.0
2,519,000
4.3
-
-
CY
778,684
118,100
15.2
47,184*
6.1
-
-
-
-
LV
2,281,305
432,951
19.0
426,687
18.7
449,000
19.5
406,000
17.6
LT
3,384,879
39,687
1.2
37,354
1.1
165,000
4.8
154,000
4.5
LU
476,187**
198,213
41.6
27,227
5.7
174,000
37.4
-
-
HU
10,066,158
167,873
1.7
66,827
0.7
316,000
3.1
116,000
1.1
MT
407,810
13,877
3.4
4,610*
1.1
11,000
2.7
7.000
1.7
NL
16,357,992
681,932
4,2
437,014
2.7
1,736,000
10.6
1,382,000
8.4
AT
8,298,923
826,013
10,0
550,129
6.6
1,234,000
15.1
745,000
9.1
PL
38,125,479
54,883
0,1
30,955
0.1
703,000
1.8
462,000
1.2
PT
10,599,095
434,887
4,1
339,295
3.2
764,000
7.3
586,000
5.6
RO
21,565,119
26,069
0,1
20,095
0.1
103,000
0.6
-
-
SI
2,010,377
53,555
2,7
50,549
2.5
167,000
8.5
153,000
7.8
SK
5,393,637
32,130
0,6
12,912
0.2
124,000
2.3
18,000
0.3
FI
5,276,955
121,739
2,3
79,277
1.5
156,000
3.0
93,000
1.8
SE
9,113,257
491,996
5,4
266,509
2.9
1,117,000
12.4
559,000
6.2
UK
60,852,828
3,659,900*
6,0
2,203,028*
3.6
5,408,000
9.1
3,816,000
6.4
Source(s): Foreign population: Eurostat database, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, data extracted on: 27.11.2008, * Eurostat estimate, ** Estimated value;
Foreign-born population: R. Münz, T. Straubhaar, F. Vadean, N. Vadean (2006): What are the migrants’ contributions to employment and growth?
A European approach, Migration Research Group, HWWI, p. 21.
81
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Table A2: Estimates on Roma in European countries
Country
Minimum
AT
20,000
30,000
BE
25,000
35,000
CY
1,000
1,500
CZ
200,000
250,000
DK
2,000
4,000
EE
1,000
1,500
FI
9,000
12,000
FR
300,000
400,000
DE
110,000
140,000
EL
180,000
250,000
HU
550,000
650,000
IE
30,000
35,000
IT
110,000
150,000
LV
7,000
10,000
LT
3,000
4,000
LU
100
200
NL
30,000
35,000
PL
35,000
45,000
PT
40,000
50,000
RO
1,800,000
2,400,000
SK
400,000
480,000
SI
8,000
10,000
ES
650,000
800,000
SE
35,000
450,000
UK
150,000
200,000
4,696,100
6,443,200
Total
Source: J.-P. Liégeois (2007): Roma in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, p. 31
82
Maximum
Statistical Annex
Table A3: Employment rates of population aged 15 to 64, by place of birth and gender, 2005 (%)
Country
Born in country of residence
Total
EU-27
64.5
Males
71.2
Born in other EU-27 country
Females
57.7
Total
66.8
Males
74.4
Born in a country outside EU-27
Females
60.2
Total
60.3
Males
69.8
Females
51.2
AT
68.8
74.5
63
66.6
71.3
63.1
58.8
66.2
51.5
BE
62.8
68.7
56.7
56.9
67.6
47.2
43.2
55.6
31.2
CY
68.4
80.1
56.8
61.8
73.8
52.2
74.4
76.9
72.8
CZ
64.7
73.3
56.1
59.1
64.6
53.1
68.8
88.1
46.4
DK
76.8
80.8
72.6
67.7
71.8
64
56.6
68
48.4
EE
64.4
65.4
63.4
60.7
68.7
73.6
64.8
FI
69.6
71.2
68
64.4
70.9
58
48.4
53.9
43.6
65.5
73.7
58.6
53.6
63.4
44.1
FR
63.6
68.6
58.6
DE
67
72.2
61.8
EL
59.8
73.8
45.9
62.8
77.3
53.6
66.6
83.8
47.8
HU
56.7
62.8
50.9
62.2
73.9
52.6
63.2
70.9
56.5
67
75.8
58
71.6
81.8
60.6
61
71
50.2
62.4
66.3
58.4
69.1
79.3
60.4
73
82.7
64.5
45.2
72.7
26
61.6
73.1
48.2
IE
IT
57.3
69.4
45.3
LV
62.3
65.6
59.3
LT
62.4
65.8
59.1
MT
53.5
73.6
33.3
NL
75.1
81.6
68.5
69.1
76.4
63.5
58.6
67.4
49.6
PL
52.4
58.3
46.6
26.1
25.2
27.1
29.4
36.5
22.5
PT
67.2
73.1
61.4
66
74.4
58.1
74.8
79.8
70.4
75.5
61
SK
57.5
64.1
50.9
48.4
62.6
36.8
70.2
SI
65.9
69.8
61.8
59.2
69.9
51.1
68.2
ES
62.3
74.4
50
70.2
79.6
61.4
69.6
79.5
60
SE
74.6
76.3
72.9
72.9
75.3
70.7
54.9
58.4
51.4
UK
72.4
77.9
67
70.7
76.6
65.7
61.4
71
52.4
Note: Incomplete EU-27 average employment rates of natives do not include data for Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Romania; employment rates of immigrants
(born in another EU country or outside the EU-27) do not include data for Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg and Romania. Highlighted values are of
limited reliability due to the small sample size.
Source: LFS, taken from R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper
No.0807, Available online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf
(10.2.2009), Table 8
83
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Table A4: Employment rates of population aged 15 to 64, by citizenship and gender, 2005 (%)
Country
Citizen of Country of Residence
Total
EU-27
64.9
Males
71.4
Females
58.4
Citizen of another EU country
Total
67
Males
75.1
Citizen of a country outside the EU
Females
Total
Males
Females
59
54.4
64.8
43.7
AT
68.3
74.1
62.5
70.5
76.3
65.9
57.1
64.6
49.2
BE
61.9
68.3
55.4
59.8
68.3
50.4
34
48
19.5
CY
68.3
80.1
56.8
66.8
75
58.2
75.8
74.3
76.6
CZ
64.6
73.2
56
74
84.7
62.2
70.8
88.3
49.7
DK
76.3
80.5
72
67.3
78.2
57.1
50.1
61.5
42.2
61.8
67.3
56.4
61.3
70.9
51.7
45.1
52.9
38.6
EE
65.7
66.3
65.2
FI
69.5
71.1
67.8
FR
63.5
68.6
58.5
66.3
75.1
57.9
44.3
58.6
29.4
DE
66.7
72.1
61.2
64.2
73
54.8
47.7
58.5
36.3
EL
59.8
73.8
46
62.5
78.6
52.3
69.4
86.6
49.2
HU
56.7
62.9
50.9
65.2
76.4
56.1
67.8
76.1
59.5
67
75.9
58.1
73.5
83.1
61.7
58.9
70
46.8
63.1
66.9
59.5
64.3
:
:
72.8
87.5
:
62.9
73
52.7
IE
IT
LV
LT
62.6
66.2
59.2
MT
53.6
73.6
33.4
40.1
68.2
25.4
75.2
82.3
68.1
NL
74.1
80.7
67.5
PL
52.2
58.2
46.4
PT
67.5
73.3
61.8
SK
57.4
64.1
50.8
SI
66
70.2
61.8
69
76.3
59.5
41.2
53.8
28.7
44.4
64.3
31.4
72.2
78.7
66.1
54.5
76.9
:
:
ES
62.5
74.5
50.2
70.8
79
62.9
69.4
78.8
60.1
SE
73.5
75.3
71.6
71.9
75
68.9
44.7
49.2
40.6
UK
72.1
77.8
66.5
70.2
76.4
64.9
57.7
65.8
50.1
Note: incomplete EU-27 average: employment rates of natives do not include data for Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Romania; data highlighted in grey are of
limited reliability due to the small sample size.
Source: LFS, taken from R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper
No.0807, Available online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf (10.2.2009),
Table 8
84
Statistical Annex
Table A5: Employment rates by sex, age groups and nationality (%)
Country
EU total
Total population
Nationals (a)
Non-nationals (b)
Difference (b)-(a)
65.4
65.6
62.3
-3.3
BE
62
62.9
53.5
-9.4
CZ
66.1
66
77
11
DK
77.1
78.3
57.7
-20.6
DE
69.4
70.9
56.2
-14.7
EE
69.4
69.3
69.8
0.5
EL
61.4
60.9
67.8
6.9
ES
65.6
65.1
68.9
3.8
FR
64.6
65.3
53.6
-11.7
IT
58.7
58.1
67.1
9
CY
71
70.9
71.2
0.3
LV
68.3
68.3
66.5
-1.8
LT
64.9
64.9
63.4
-1.5
LU
64.2
60.6
68.6
8
HU
57.3
57.3
65.1
7.8
MT
54.6
54.7
50.8
-3.9
NL
76
76.7
60.9
-15.8
AT
71.4
72.4
63.8
-8.6
PL
57
57
34.8
-22.2
PT
67.8
67.6
71.6
4
RO
58.8
58.8
65.2
6.4
SI
67.8
67.8
64.8
-3
SK
60.7
60.7
65.7
5
FI
70.3
70.5
58.8
-11.7
SE
74.2
75
59.7
-15.3
UK
71.5
71.9
66.9
-5
Source: Eurostat Database, data extracted on 11 February 2009
85
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Table A6: Population aged 25 to 64 by place of birth, level of education, and country of residence, 2005 (%)
Country
Born in country of residence
Low
EU-27
28.1
Medium
47.6
Born in other EU-27 country
High
24.3
Low
30.7
Medium
41
Born in a country outside EU-27
High
28.3
Low
36.3
Medium
37.9
High
25.8
AT
16.5
65.8
17.7
14
57.7
28.3
45.6
41.5
12.9
BE
32.7
36.2
31.1
41.8
26.5
31.7
48.3
25.4
26.3
CY
33.9
40.2
26
25.1
31.8
43.1
38.1
29.5
32.4
CZ
9.9
77.2
13
23.6
62.2
14.3
15.9
54.2
29.9
DK
17
50.5
32.4
10.6*
42.2
47.2
26.4
35.7
37.8
EE
11
56.2
32.8
10.5
52.5
37
FI
20.8
44.6
34.6
20.5
47
32.5
28.3
44.8
26.9
51
28.7
20.3
47.6
27.9
24.5
44.4
40.5
15
FR
31.3
43.5
25.2
DE
12.4
62.2
25.4
EL
40.4
38.9
20.8
25.3
51.3
23.4
HU
24.1
59
16.8
16.4
60.8
22.8
11
57.9
31.1
37
35.9
27.2
25.5
35.5
39
13.1
27.9
59
33.7*
43.6
12.1
62.6
25.3
68.2
10.9
IE
IT
50
38.1
11.9
LV
16.7
62.4
20.9
LT
13.1
60.5
26.5
MT
74.7
13.7
11.5
20.9
7.7
65.3
27
50.4
26.1
23.5
NL
28
40.8
31.2
14.9
51.2
33.9
33.8
44.1
22.1
PL
15.3
68.2
16.5
38.7
47.4
13.9*
19.9*
58.1
22
PT
75.7
12.5
11.8
45.3
27.9
26.8
50.5
25.9
23.6
57.5
12.2
SK
12.3
73.9
13.8
15.5*
63.9
20.6
SI
18.4
60.7
20.8
21.8*
60.9*
17.3*
30.3
ES
52.8
19.1
28.2
32.2
33
34.8
43.9
30
26.1
SE
15.7
55.1
29.2
16.6
50.3
33.1
23
46.1
30.9
UK
14.4
56.2
29.5
14.8
56.7
28.6
20
50
30
Note: Incomplete EU-27 average: education levels of natives do not include data for Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Romania; education levels of immigrants
(born in another EU-27 country or outside EU-27) do not include data for Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Romania. * data are of limited
reliability due to the small sample size.
Source: LFS, taken from R.Münz (2008) ‘Migration, Labor, Markets, and Integration of Migrants: An Overview for Europe’ World Bank SP Discussion Paper
No.0807, Available online at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Labor-Market-DP/0807.pdf
(10.2.2009), Table 5
86
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2007
Q2, 2007
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
Year
BE
Country
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) Encuesta
de Población Activa, 3er trimestre de 2007.
Social Insurance Foundation (IKA)
Estonian LFS
Labour participation of the population
by migration status in 1000 (2005)
Germany/Statistisches Bundesamt, Bevölkerung
und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit
Migrationshintergrund. Mikrozensus 2005
Integrationsministeriets udlændingedatabase
i Danmarks Statistik
Analysis of Socially Excluded Roma Localities and
Absorption Capacity of Surrounding Subjects
Annual Report for the Youth of the Republic of BG
LFS
ADSEI/DGSIE (EAK/EFT)
Source
Spanish:
Dual nationality:
Foreigners:
Foreign workers
Age 15-74
TotalPersons without a
migration backgroundPersons with a migration
background wider sensePersons with a migration
background narrow sense-
Age 16-64
No official data
17,478,200 (67. 2%)
186,000
2,846,400 (52. 73%)
Represent 14.2% of the insured
workforce Men 16.48%,
Women 9.49%
11.78%
7.4%
Ethnic Estonians: 4%
Ethnic non-Estonians: 9,7%
1,290.000
1,320.200
6,053,400
5,861,900
4,583.200
3,263.000
Immigrants and descendents from
Non-Western countries 12%
Immigrants& descendents from
Non-Western countries: 50%
36,566.500
30,513,100
Total: 5%
Overall unemployment level
recorded 31.08.06 was 7.9%
Roma average unemployment for
2005: 45-50%. Roma living in socially
excluded localities-90-100%.
Total population 75%
No official data
Ethnic Bulgarians (14. 3%)
Ethnic Turks (36. 1%)
Roma (62. 7%)
2007: 21-22; 41
2007:46
2007:92
2007: 157
2007: 87
2006:17
2007: 136
2007:56
299,091 (7. 4%)
22,472 (8. 8%)
69,104 (24. 5%)
3,753,439 (62. 7%)
233,264 (57. 6%)
134,466 (56. 5%)
Born in BE: 5 988 927
Born in EU: 405 113
Born outside EU: 482 160
Unemployment among
young people (18-35)
2007:55
RAXEN Report
328,772 (7. 8%)
26,045 (9. 9%)
35,851 (34. 6%)
Unemployment numbers/rates
3,895.647 (62. 2%)
236,126 (60. 5%)
67,710 (33. 6%)
Employment numbers/rates
Age 16-64
Nationals: 6 284 012
EU nationals: 390 486
Non-EU: 201 704
Economic active population
Target group
Table A7: National data on active population, employment and unemployment rates from National Focal Points
Statistical Annex
87
88
Central Statistical Bureau
2007
LT
State Employment Agency
2007
Calculations of Laboratory on Immigration
“Ca’ Foscari” University on Caritas data.
LV
31.12.05
IT
Quarterly national Household
Survey, Q2 2007 www.cso.ie
No data
March May
2006
2007
IE
Insee survey “Formation et qualification
professionnelle”, 2003
DPM (2006), Immigration et présence
étrangère en France en 2004.
Source
CY
2003
Year
FR
Country
No data
Economic Characteristic of
Population, 15-64, first half of 2007
Officially registered
unemployed according to
their ethnicity (31.07.2007)
French people aged between 18
and 65 years, born in France
Foreign working population
Economic active population
Target group
All employed
1,054.100
Latvians
648,300 (61. 5%)
Others: 405,100
(38. 4%)
Migrant workers
1,763,952 (10.3%)
Total number of workers in
all sectors 17,204,416
EU15-27 account for 5.6% from all
“in employment” and TCNs for 2.7%
Accounts for approx. 1.5
million people –
5. 7% of the overall
working population.
Employment numbers/rates
All unemployed:
74,400
Latvians:
40,400 (54. 3%)
Others: 34,000 (45, 7%)
Latvian:
53.5% of the unemployed
59% % of total population
Russian:
31.4% of the unemployed
28.3 of total population
Belarusian:
4% of the unemployed
3.7% of total population
Ukrainian:
2.6% of the unemployed
2.5% of total population
Roma
0.7% of the unemployed
0.5% of total population
Irish nationals 4.3%
TCNs – 7.7%
No immigrant parents-9.4%
One immigrant parent- 11.9%
Two immigrant parents-17.9%
Foreign workers are more often
victims of unemployment (19%)
than French workers (9. 4%).
Unemployment numbers/rates
Annex 2007: 22
Annex 2007: 19
Annex 2007: 81
2007: 52;
2007: 175
2006:26
RAXEN Report
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Registered unemployed
in employment centres of
continental Portugal
Instituto de Emprego e Formação Profissional
PT
2007
No data
2007
No data
Economic active population
Target group
PL
Arbeitsmarktservice
Statistik Austria, Jahresergebnisse
2006 – Mikrozensus
AT
2006
Central Bureau of Statistics
Malta/House of Representatives (2007)
Parliamentary Question No. 27196 17.07.2007
ADEM for the figures on employment, IGSS
for the figures on the active population.
Calculation: BODSON, CEPS/Instead
31.12.06
2007
LFS
Source
2006
Year
NL
MT
HU
LU
Country
Nationals: 71.1%; EU-25: 73.1%
Turkey: 47.1%
Ex-YU: 66.3%
Others: 50.9%
Dutch natives (67%)
Western migrants (64%)
Surinamese (60%)
Lowest employment rate: Turks
(44%), Moroccans (39%) and ‘other
non-western ethnic minorities’
(among which are refugees).
People from Ex-Yugoslavia form
12% of all foreign workers.
North Africa and the Middle
East, another source of foreign
labour, provide 7% of the total. In
addition, 305 foreign workers hail
from the former Soviet Union
Nationals 60.9%
Foreigners 67.2%
Employment numbers/rates
Increase in the total number of
foreigners registered : August 2003:
16,010 August 2007: 19,061
Total number
August 2003/07: 380,362
Nationals: 6.4%
Non-nationals: 9.7%
Dutch 4%;
Western migrants: 7%
Non-western ethnic
minorities: 12%-17%
Moroccans& Antilleans/Arubanshighest unemployment rates (17%).
Nationals:
3.4% of unemployed
Former Yugoslavia:
12.3% of unemployed
Cape Verde:13%
Maghreb and Arab countries:
Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq,
Mauritania, Libya, Syria: 27.6%
Sub-Saharan Africa
25.3% of the unemployed
Unemployment numbers/rates
2007: 35; Annex 5
2007:36
2007:35
2007:41-42
2007:25, 116
Annex 2007: 13
2007: 33
RAXEN Report
Statistical Annex
89
90
FI
SK
SI
RO
Country
Ministry of Labour
Survey: T. Joronen (2007) “Työmarkkinoiden
monenlaiset maahanmuuttajanaiset: Haaste
suomalaiselle sukupuolijärjestelmälle”
City of Helsinki Urban Facts
2007
2004
Survey: University of Ljubljana, faculty of
Economics (2006), Trendi zaposlovanja in
ekonomskih migracij na slovenskem trgu dela
Source
01.01.200730.04.2007
2003-2005
Year
Foreigners refer to foreign citizens
and foreign-born Finnish citizens
No data
No data
Economic active population
Target group
Employed: 68,871
Employment rate (1564 age): 48.6 %
Employment numbers/rates
Unemployed: 21.374
(23.7 %)
The unemployment rate of men and
women with mother tongue other
than Finnish is significantly higher at
all levels of education than those men
and women whose mother tongue
is Finnish. The contrast is starkest
among people with higher education
qualifications, but significant also
among those with only basic education
or secondary education qualifications
Overall unemployment rate of the
majority population 2007: 5.9%
Overall unemployment
rate of foreigners:
2007: 20%
2006: 24%; 2005: 28%
Relatively good integration of foreign
population into the Slovenian labour
market. However, it is probably also true
that this reflects the current structure
of the Slovenian economy and market
demands for less-qualified labour force
Foreigners
2003- 8.4%
2004- 7.5%
2005- 7.2%
Average unemployment rates: Nationals
2003- 11.2%
2004-10,6%
2005- 10,2%
Unemployment numbers/rates
2007:111
2007:43
2007:42, 45
2007:49-50
RAXEN Report
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
Key labour market
statistics, Great Britain
Unemployment and employment
rates by ethnic group, Great Britain
LFS: people of working age – men aged
16-64 and women aged 16-59
Spring
2006
Occupational rate of total
population (20-64 age)
Minority Employment Task Force (2006) Ethnic
Minorities in the Labour Market: Spring 2006.
Statistics Sweden,
April 2006
Economic active population
Target group
Spring 2006
Reworking based on: Sweden/
Integrationsverket (2007) Statistikrapport 2007
Source
2006
Year
White Female: 4.4%
BME Female: 10.8%
White Female: 72.3%
BME Female: 52%
The gap in employment rates
between white people and people
from minority ethnic groups is
about ten percentage points
for men, but 20 for women.
White Male: 5.2%
BME Male: 11.5%
BME:
267,000 (11. 2%)
BME:
2,123.000 (59, 7%)
White male: 79.4%
BME male: 69.5%
Entire population:
1,452,000 (5. 2%)
SE born: 4.5%
Foreign born: 10. 6%
The unemployment rate has decreased
overall in 2006, the difference in
unemployment rate between foreignborn and Swedish-born has increased
Swedish born men: 3.8%
Foreign born men: 10%
Swedish born women: 3.2%
Foreign born women: 8.7%
Unemployment numbers/rates
Entire population:
26,448,000 (74.7%)1
SE born: 80, 5%
Foreign born: 61,8%
Employment numbers/rates
Source(s): Raxen National Focal Points: National Data Collection Reports 2006 and 2007
Notes: No official data on employment and unemployment rates: CY; HU; LT; PL; RO; and SK.
Roma: data unemployment rates is provided by BG and CZ; the data in CZ is survey-based and in the case of BG data includes Roma only people between 18 and 35.
UK
SE
Country
2006: 31
Annex 2007: 66
2006: 16
2007: 84
RAXEN Report
Statistical Annex
91
Migrants, minorities and employment – Exclusion and discrimination in the European Union
List of contributors
Principal Authors of the Comparative Report:
Albert Kraler
Research Officer at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
Saskia Bonjour
Research Officer at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
Alina Cibea
Associate Researcher at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
Mariya Dzhengozova
Research Assistant at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
Christina Hollomey
Research Assistant at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
David Reichel
Research Assistant at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna
Scientific Advisors
August Gächter
Senior Researcher at the Centre for Social Innovation (CSI), Vienna
Pieter Bevelander
Associate Professor at the Department of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) and
Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM), Malmö University
92
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
This report addresses matters related to the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21)
and the right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31) falling under the Chapters III
‘Equality’ and IV ‘Solidarity’ of the Fundamental Rights Charter of the European Union.
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union
Update 2003 – 2008
2011 – 92 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9192-497-4
doi: 10.2811/43290
A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet. It can be
accessed through the FRA website (fra.europa.eu).
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
Cover picture: iStockphoto
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Wien
Austria
Tel.: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 0
Fax: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 691
Email: [email protected]
fra.europa.eu
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet
(www.ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011
ISBN 978-92-9192-497-4
doi: 10.2811/43290
© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2010
Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases
before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(www.publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
FRA
doi: 10.2811/43290
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Schwarzenbergplatz 11
1040 Wien
Austria
Tel.: +43 (0) 1 580 30 - 0
Fax: +43 (0) 1 580 30 - 691
Email: [email protected]
fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
twitter.com/EURightsAgency
TK-30-09-253-EN-C
This report provides a comparative overview and
analysis of data and information documenting
discrimination in the workplaces and labour markets
across the EU. It highlights developments that occurred
between 2003 and 2008, and assesses the lack of data
with a view to developing strategies to improve data
availability and comparability at the EU level. While the
total number of complaints of discrimination reported
and processed has increased as a direct consequence
of the implementation of the Equality Directives
in the EU Member States, there are still barriers for
victims that need to be reduced. The report highlights
persistent patterns of inequality between migrants
and minority groups in the labour market and the
overall majority populations. Considerable research
on employment discrimination has been carried out
over recent years, and this provides ample evidence
to identify discrimination as an important factor
leading to inequality for migrants and minorities.
Migrants, minorities and employment
Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of
the European Union
Update 2003 – 2008
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement