The second generation in Europe.
Three statements on integration.
Dr. Maurice Crul
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR)
University of Amsterdam
Three questions about integration
• Where does the second generation grow
up?
• Integration with whom?
• What is the best local context of
integration?
Place of integration
Where did the second generation grow up?
The percentage of the 2nd generation
Turks and comparison group members
who grew up in the survey city
100
80
60
40
20
0
Berlin
Strasbourg
Stockholm
Turks raised in
Survey City in %
96
89
83
CG raised in Survey
City in %
91
66
55
The percentage of 2nd generation
Moroccans and comparison group
members that grew up in the survey city
100
80
60
40
20
0
Madrid
Antw erp
Am sterdam
Moroccans raised in
Survey City in %
93
91
88
CG raised in Survey
City in %
98
66
35
The percentage of the 2nd generation former
Yugoslavian and comparison group members
who grew up in the survey city
100
80
60
40
20
0
Vienna
Zurich
Frankfurt
Yugoslavs raised in Survey
City in %
92
66
94
CG raised in Survey City in
%
76
49
85
First statement about integration
• The second generation is a strongly established
group in the city.
• They grew up in the city, went to school in the city
and they are now looking as young adults for a job
in the city.
• The majority of the second generation strongly or
very strongly identifies with the cities they live in.
• They show in their practices at the neighborhood
level more social cohesiveness than the
comparison group.
• A substantial part of the comparison group, one
third, are actual newcomers.
Integration with whom?
Do the second generation and the comparison groups
limit their friendships to their own ethnic groups?
The percentage of friends of 2nd generation
Turks and the comparison group with
different ethnic backgrounds
80
60
40
20
0
Berlin
Strasbourg
Stockholm
% TURKS having friends
w ith other ethnic
background
32
45
62
% C group having friends
w ith other ethnic
background
18
15
15
The percentage of friends of 2nd generation
Moroccans and the comparison group with
different ethnic backgrounds
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Madrid
Antwerp
Amsterdam
% Moroccans having friends with
other ethnic background
51
51
46
% C group having friends with
other ethnic background
4
12
19
The percentage of friends of 2nd generation
Yugoslavians and the comparison group with
different ethnic backgrounds
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Vie nna
Zurich
Frank furt
% Yugos lavs having
frie nds w ith othe r
e thnic back ground
62
54
74
% C group having
frie nds w ith othe r
e thnic back ground
16
19
19
Second statement about integration
• There are differences between the second generation
groups in the level of interaction with people of
different ethnic backgrounds.
• In general the second generation is not fenced in in
their own ethnic group.
• If there is group that lives in a parallel ‘gesellschaft’ it
is the youngsters of the comparison groups. They
show a worrisome low degree of integration into the
new multi-ethnic reality of the city.
What is the best place for integration?
The example of integration into school.
• Debates about integration understandably have a national, or even
local, focus.
• When the low performances of children of immigrants in school are
discussed, usually the finger is pointed to characteristics of the
immigrant parents.
• There is at the same time a blind spot for the importance of the
integration context.
• An international comparison makes it possible to also look at the
importance of the national or local integration context.
• The international comparison shows huge differences in educational
outcomes for the Turkish second generation across seven countries.
Highest educational level for those in school
or highest diploma for those who left school
Lower Secondary
(at the most)
(No High School)
Upper Secondary
or Apprenticeship
(High School)
Colleges and
Universities
Germany
34.3%
61.1%
4.7%
Austria
33.5%
51.3%
15.2%
Switzerland
16.9%
68.1%
15.0%
Netherlands
28.8%
44.3%
26.9%
Belgium
35.9%
34.9%
29.2%
Sweden
9.0%
61.8%
29.2%
France
16.6%
44.4%
39.0%
Third statement about integration
• The way the educational system is organized in
the different countries makes a huge difference for
the educational outcomes.
• Open educational systems like in France and
Sweden produce the best results.
• Systems that provide an early start, have full days
of school and select late give children from poor
immigrant families an opportunity to succeed.
How does the integration context shape
Turkish communities in Europe?
• Sweden and France: Dominant pattern is upward
mobility. We see an upcoming first elite among the
second generation and not many early school leavers.
• Netherlands and Belgium: Dominant pattern is
polarization. The group that succeeds is equally big as
the group at the bottom.
• Germany and Austria: Dominant pattern is stagnation at
the bottom. The largest group either leaves school early
or is in the vocational column.
• Each country gets the type of community according to
the chances and opportunities it provides.
http://www.tiesproject.eu/