Close Encounters: Minority and Majority Experiences of ......directly, through quasi-experiments or...
Transcript of Close Encounters: Minority and Majority Experiences of ......directly, through quasi-experiments or...
-
1
20.10.2013 WORK IN PROGRESS PLEASE NO ACADEMIC CITATIONS!
Close Encounters: Minority and Majority Experiences of
Discrimination and Intergroup Relations in Antwerp-Belgium
Ahu Alanya
Karen Phalet
Marc Swyngedouw
Veronique Vandezande
University of Leuven
In spite of persistent disadvantage, increasing numbers of second-generation youngsters are
highly qualified and civically engaged in today‟s European societies. High integration may
not protect them, however, from discrimination in daily intergroup encounters in school, at
work, or in the street. Starting from this so-called „paradox of integration‟, our study develops
an approach from intergroup relations between immigrant minorities and the host majority. Its
twofold aim was: (a) to distinguish minority and majority experiences of (reverse)
discrimination in socio-economic and civic domains, and (b) to relate these experiences to
uneven socio-economic and civic integration and perceived intergroup relations. Drawing on
TIES surveys („The Integration of the European Second generation‟) we compared the
Turkish and Moroccan second generation with the Belgian-origin majority in Antwerp-
Belgium. Most devalued Moroccan Belgians reported most discrimination, Turkish Belgians
significantly less, and majority Belgians least. In addition to socio-economic discrimination,
multi-group CFA revealed domain-specific experiences of civic discrimination in negative
intergroup contact with fellow citizens (e.g., in public space) and with authority (e.g., police).
Though mainly minorities experienced socio-economic discrimination, both minority and
majority reported significant (reverse) civic discrimination. Most discrimination was reported
by highly integrated (i.e., educated and reading newspapers) minority members who
perceived intergroup relations with majority Belgians in Antwerp as insecure or hostile.
-
2
INTRODUCTION
As the second generation of immigrant origin are integrating into European societies,
significant numbers are completing higher education and participating in politics or in public
life. From the perspective of intergroup relations, the integration of immigrant minorities is a
two-way process which requires mutual acceptance and accommodation between minority
and majority groups (Bourhis et al, 1997; Brown & Zagefka, 2010). In European migration
contexts, predominant majority representations of cultural diversity as a „threat‟ to their
economic interest and cultural identity complicate the societal integration of immigrant
minorities (Van Acker, 2011). As opportunities for intergroup contact between minority and
majority members in today‟s schools, at the workplace, and in public spaces have increased
dramatically, so have opportunities for negative contact experiences. Negative experiences
arise when minority members face disrespectful or discriminatory treatment from the majority
group, or conversely, when majority members feel that their interests or values are threatened
by the presence of minorities.
Against this background, the present research aims to improve our understanding of
second-generation discrimination experiences by contextualizing self-reported discrimination
in a number of ways. From an intergroup relations perspective, discrimination experiences
refer to domain-specific negative encounters between minority and majority group members.
Specifically, we will distinguish (a) between socio-economic and civic domains of
discrimination, (b) between minority and majority group perspectives on (reverse)
discrimination; and (c) within groups between different degrees of socio-economic and civic
integration and varying perceptions or evaluations of intergroup relations.
The paradox of integration. In line with predominant threat representations of immigrants in
media and public attitudes, we find that the presence of immigrant minorities in
neighborhoods or schools is indeed associated with more perceived threat by majority
members (Rink et al, 2008) and more frequent experiences of discrimination by minority
members (Baysu et al, 2013). This downside of integration is known as „the paradox of
integration‟ (Ten Teije et al, 2012), when societal integration exposes minority members to
negative experiences of personal discrimination, which may in turn fuel more general
perceptions of intergroup threat and hostility. In the words of a second-generation Moroccan
student: „I grew up in Antwerp but I have never felt at home here… Even well-meaning
-
3
comments such as … „I did not know there were Moroccans like you‟ … betray pervasive
bias and prejudice … in our city‟ (DM, May 2, 2013).
As this quote illustrates, experiences of discrimination are closely entwined with their
societal integration. Thus, comparative research with ethnic minority youth across Europe and
North-America reveals experienced discrimination as a major stressor in the process of
psychological acculturation and adjustment (Berry et al, 2007). Likewise, the socio-economic
integration of visible ethnic minorities in Canada did not protect them from feelings of
discrimination and disaffection (Reitz & Banerjee, 2009); and highly educated Muslims in the
Netherlands perceived more group discrimination and evaluated the majority group more
negatively than low-educated minority members (Ten Teije et al, 2013). Accordingly, we
make a distinction between the socio-economic integration of the second generation in
education and in the labor market on the one hand, and their civic integration in civil society
and in politics on the other hand. Socio-economic and civic integration can be dissociated.
The experience of discrimination. Existing empirical evidence of ethnic discrimination
pertains mainly to educational inequalities (Heath et al, 2008; for Belgium: Phalet et al, 2007)
and to ethnic exclusion in the labor market (Heath & Cheung, 2007; for Belgium: Phalet
2007). The (restricted) socio-economic integration of immigrant minorities has been
associated with actual discrimination indirectly, by way of statistical decomposition methods
(Blank et al, 2004; Holzer & Ludwig 2003; Yinger 1998: Altonji & Blank 1999; for Belgium:
Castelain-Kinet et al, 1998; Martens et al, 2005; Phalet, 2007; Phalet et al, 2011), as well as
directly, through quasi-experiments or so-called situation tests (Amadieu 2004; Zegers de
Beijl 2000). Adding to this literature, our study develops reliable and valid measures of self-
reported discrimination by immigrant minorities and tests their association with objective
indicators of socio-economic integration (education and employment). While the socio-
economic discrimination of immigrant minorities in Europe is well-documented, much less is
known about their discrimination experiences in the civic domain, such as when they
experience ethnic exclusion, harassment or disrespect from fellow citizens or from public
authorities. The latter domains account for significant portions of racist incidents reported by
minorities (Simon & Sabbagh, 2005; for Belgium: CGKR annual report 2012). Therefore, the
present study extends the scope of self-report measures beyond the socio-economic domain to
include also civic domains of discrimination.
In line with an approach from intergroup relations between immigrant minority and
majority groups, a unique strength of our study is the simultaneous analysis of both minority
-
4
and majority perspectives on discrimination. Majority members may experience so-called
„reverse discrimination‟ when immigrant minorities are seen to encroach upon majority
entitlements, for instance, to the better schools or jobs in the city, or when minorities are
outnumbering majority Belgians in „majority minority‟ neighborhoods. From an intergroup
relations approach, experiences of discrimination are tied up with unequal power hierarchies
between social groups in society, so that less powerful minority groups are generally less
protected from unfair or hostile treatment than the dominant majority group (i.e., group
position theory; cf. Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1988). By implication, socio-economically
vulnerable or socio-politically disaffected majority members may experience reverse
discrimination, when the presence of minorities is seen to threaten their dominant group
position in the city.
Separate research lines in sociology and social psychology have documented minority
experiences of discrimination and majority prejudice in European societies (Phalet et al,
2013). As a consequence, majority perspectives are typically missing from research on
discrimination. The present study bridges both lines of inquiry into minority discrimination
and majority prejudice. When immigrant minorities are seen to threaten the economic interest
or the cultural identity of the majority, we argue that the integration of the second generation
risks to exacerbate (rather than reduce) intergroup discrimination and hostility. To put this
argument to an empirical test, his study includes minority as well as majority experiences of
(reverse) discrimination, as part of mutually reinforcing minority and majority perceptions of
intergroup hostility or threat.
Look ahead. In a first step, our study will distinguish and compare minority and majority
experiences of (reverse) discrimination in socio-economic and civic domains. In a next step,
group- and domain-specific discrimination experiences will be related to uneven levels of
integration and to perceptions of intergroup context within minority and majority groups. The
analyses will draw on the TIES surveys („The Integration of the European Second
generation‟) of the Turkish and Moroccan second generation in Antwerp, and a comparison
group of majority Belgians in the same urban neighborhoods. All participants are young
adults (aged 18 to 35) who were born in Belgium. For more information on samples,
fieldwork procedures and data quality, we refer to the technical report (Swyngedouw, Phalet,
Baysu, Vandezande & Fleischmann, 2008). The paper is organized as follows. First, we argue
our theoretical expectations from the research literature. Next, we describe the research
context and groups in Antwerp and introduce our TIES survey data and measures. After
-
5
presenting our results, we conclude with some wider implications for improving intergroup
relations in European cities.
THEORETICAL EXPECTATIONS
Minority and Majority Experiences of Discrimination
For minority group members, experienced discrimination (ED) refers to their generally
disadvantaged position in society, so that they are more likely to become targets of unfair or
hoistile treatment in minority-majority encounters. In addition, also persons belonging to the
nominal majority may report feelings of discrimination when they feel threatened by the
minority population. In particular, when their dominant group position, and the attached
advantages and prerogatives are challenged by the presence of ethnic minorities; we refer to
the ensuing feelings of threat as experiences of “reverse discrimination”. Previous research
has shown that perceived group threat predicts resistance against ethnic minorities by
members of the national majority (Rink et al, 2008; Scheepers et al, 2002; Van Acker, 2011).
One example is the finding that majority inhabitants of multicultural cities such as Brussels
and Rotterdam report experiences of discrimination in specific domains where intergroup
competition is most keenly felt, such as access to social services, which is in line with
perceived welfare threat from immigrant minorities (De Rycke et al, 1999 in Brussels; Phalet
et al, 2000 in Rotterdam). For the majority group, experiences of discrimination thus refer to
situations where intergroup comparison or contact is seen to pose a threat to their dominant
group position (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1988).
Combining minority and majority perspectives, we conceive of experienced (reverse)
discrimination on both sides as part of „recursive cycles of threat‟ in negative intergroup
relations. For example, majority youth who endorsed more strongly a predominant threat
representation of immigrant minorities, reported more frequent negative experiences in daily
contacts with immigrant minorities in an ethnically mixed secondary school (Van Acker,
2011). From the side of minorities, more frequent experiences of personal discrimination had
similar negative consequences. Thus, personal discrimination experiences in school were
longitudinally related to school disengagement (Baysu et al, 2012). Thus, negative
experiences of intergroup contact may become self-enforcing through generalized negative
attitudes or feelings on both sides of the ethnic divide. The ensuing feelings of frustration and
anger on the side of immigrant minorities have also been associated with political unrest, such
as the urban riots that took place in several European capitals including Brussels (Vandezande
-
6
et al. 2011). In the eyes of the majority group, media images of political protest or street
violence by immigrant minorities are readily condemned as illegitimate claims making; and
they are adding to preexisting negative perceptions of intergroup conflict or threat (Kinder
and Sanders, 1996; Meeussen et al, 2011). In short, threat perceptions tend to become self-
enforcing through cumulative negative experiences of intergroup contact between immigrant
minority and majority groups.
Against this background, the present study includes both minority and majority group
perspectives on (reverse) discrimination. Our measure of experienced discrimination indicates
the self-reported frequency of personal discrimination in specific domains, differentiating
between systematic (regular) or incidental (less frequent) discrimination, or none. In line with
the power hierarchy between majority and minority groups in Belgian society, we hypothesize
that Turkish and Moroccan minorities will experience much more frequent discrimination
than the majority group. Moreover, we hypothesize that Moroccan Belgians will experience
most discrimination, because they are placed at the bottom end of a quasi-consensual „ethnic
hierarchy‟ of minority groups in society (Hagendoorn, 1995; Phalet & Gijsberts, 2010). While
both Turkish and Moroccan minorities are devalued in Belgium, Moroccans are the most
stigmatised minority as prototypical Muslims (religious prejudice) and alleged „Arabs‟ (racial
prejudice). Accordingly, Table 1 shows relative group evaluations of the majority and both
minority groups (as targets) by majority, Turkish and Moroccan Belgian respondents in the
TIES surveys. Group evaluations were rated on a „feeling thermometer‟ ranging from most
positive to most negative feelings. Taking into account universal „ingroup favoritism‟ (all
respondents like their in-group best), inter-group evaluations converge on the expected ethnic
hierarchy, with the Belgian majority group being most liked, the Turkish minority less, and
the Moroccan minority least.
-
7
Table 1. Relative Group Evaluations of Belgian majority and Turkish and Moroccan minority
groups by majority, Turkish and Moroccan participants (mean ratings from 0 = most negative to 100
= most positive feelings)
Belgians Turks Moroccans Intergroup
Evaluations†
Evaluations of
Belgians
79 (in-group)
73
70
72
Turks 62 79 (in-group) 63 63
Moroccans 55 51 74 (in-group) 53
† mean of the two out-group evaluations
Source: TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven
Discrimination in Socio-economic and Civic Domains
Since discrimination has most often been studied as a possible explanation of socio-economic
disadvantage, it is habitually conceived in terms of mechanisms of exclusion in schools and
labor markets. As a consequence, experiences of discrimination outside of the socio-economic
realm of educational and occupational attainment have received much less attention. In most
research on ethnic discrimination, actual discrimination is derived from the unexplained
„ethnic penalties‟ on the socio-economic outcomes of immigrant minorities relative to the
majority reference group. Self-report measures of experienced discrimination are often
lacking and even when self-reported discrimination is included as a possible explanation of
actual disadvantage, it is usually restricted to single-item measures (Heath et al, 2013). In the
absence of empirical proof of reliable and valid measurement, it is commonly assumed that
experiences of personal discrimination are unidimensional. Reasoning from situated
intergroup encounters in different life domains, we challenge the unidiemnsional view and
argue instead that experiences of discrimination may well be domain-specific.
More precisely, we distinguish between socio-economic and civic intergroup contexts
of discrimination in line with distinct socio-economic and civic domains of immigrant
integration (Swyngedouw, Phalet & Deschouwer, 1999). Whereas socio-economic refers to
unequal access to socio-economic opportunities and resources, civic discrimination excludes
minority members from equal rights and due respect as fellow citizens in multicultural cities.
Discrimination in one domain does not necessarily spill over into other domains. For instance,
successful minority students may escape discrimination in school or at work, yet they may be
-
8
regular targets of identity checks by the police depending on where they live or where they go
out in the city. We conclude that both domains of experienced discrimination carry distinct
meanings of social disadvantage and disvaluation; and they have different pragmatic
consequences in the lives of the second generation.
As distinct from socio-economic discrimination, civic discrimination experiences have
been less researched to date. As a consequence of increasing diversity in today‟s civil society
and public institutions, however, especially in urban areas with high shares of ethnic minority
inhabitants, the social relations connecting fellow citizens have increasingly (also) become
intergroup relations. From an intergroup relations perspective, then, experiences of
discrimination may arise from negative intergroup contact in any social or institutional
context where minority and majority groups meet. We aim to explore the different meanings
of ED in civic domains, including hostile intergroup encounters in public spaces, in particular,
in ethnically diverse urban areas, and negative encounters with the police as representing
public authority, in particular when visible minorities are targeted for identity checks in their
neighbourhood or when going out (see Barnes, 2000, for a similar domain-specific approach
to racism in the US).
To examine domain-specific experiences of discrimination, our study uses extensive
measures of the self-reported frequencies of discrimination in different life domains where
intergroup encounters may happen. Looking beyond the much studied socio-economic domain
of discrimination in education and in the labour market, our measure also covers intergroup
encounters in the civic domain in the broadest possible sense, including formal intergroup
encounters with public authorities or institutions, as well as informal encounters in civil
society or public space (e.g., FRA 2007; Russell, Quinn, King, O‟Riain & McGinnity 2008;
Feagin 1991). Since discrimination has most often been studied as a possible explanation of
socio-economic disadvantage, it is habitually conceived in terms of mechanisms of exclusion
in schools and labor markets. As a consequence, experiences of discrimination outside of the
socio-economic realm of educational and occupational attainment have received much less
attention.
Using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to estimate the underlying structure of
discrimination experiences in the different groups, we examine whether experienced
discrimination are organised around specific domains (multidimensional hypothesis).
Specifically, we refer to socio-economic discrimination when discrimination experiences refer
to the disadvantaged socio-economic position of minorities and when discriminatory
treatment is attributed to decision makers or procedures in schools or in the labour market. A
-
9
distinct civic domain of discrimination consists of negative intergroup experiences in private
encounters with other citizens in public space and leisure time, e.g., when using public
transport or when going out, as well as institutional encounters with public authority who
represent formal authority, rules or procedures, such as the police or the municipality.
This multidimensional conceptualisation and measurement of experienced
discrimination allows us to validate the quantity and quality of discrimination experiences
across the different groups, and to differentiate further between more or less frequent
discrimination experiences in different life domains within each group. Thus, we will explore
whether civic discrimination experiences are more reciprocal across minority and majority
groups than socio-economic discrimination, which is much more frequently reported by
minorities than by Belgian majority members. We expect this because ethnic discrimination in
access to employment and on school is generally seen and often accepted as one of the causes
for the more disadvantaged position of minorities on the labour market. This has also been
confirmed by studies (Martens e.a. 2005, Castelain-Kinet e.a. 1998).
Who experiences more discrimination? Socio-economic and civic integration and perceived
intergroup relations in the city
While there is a well-established literature on the salience of ED as an explanatory factor,
particularly how it both reflects and shapes integration of immigrants (i.e. Phalet and
Swyngedouw, 2003; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2006; Reitz and Banerjee, 2009), there are few
survey studies of second-generation that focus on the factors that influence ED. Most research
on ED has focused almost exclusively on the impact of the ED on various outcomes including
educational achievement, labour market participation, health and well-being. To be sure, some
studies also looked at associates of ED. Such studies have most often investigated the effects
of individual characteristics on ED such as gender, education or psychological variables ( e.g.
Phinney et al., 1998; Eccleston and Major, 2006). For instance, there is a near consensus on
the potential effect of gender on experienced discrimination while the direction of the effect is
context dependent. Education, on the other hand, is most often associated with experienced
discrimination in the frame of “integration paradox” (Dixon et al. 2010, Tolsma et al. 2012,
Doorn et al. 2012) which suggests that experienced discrimination increases with higher
educational achievement. Although these studies contribute to a better understanding of what
feeds the feelings of discrimination among immigrants, they most often have limitations in
terms of data, and they hardly go beyond examination of sociodemographic associates of
-
10
experienced discrimination ignoring its dimensionality and its association with perceptions
about the inter-group context.
We analyse which people, within the ethnic groups, experience more discrimination. To
this end, we explore three kinds of factors: Socio-economic attainment (employment status,
educational qualification), gender, perceived local and inter-group context1 (increased
violence, loss of income, share of ingroup in neighbourhood, and perceived friendliness) and
civic involvement (following the local news). These factors can contribute to ED in several
ways. Both „objective‟ disadvantage and the more subjective assessment of it can contribute
to feelings of exclusion and deprivation (Blumer 1958); they can trigger feelings of being the
victim of discrimination. Furthermore, it can also imply a lack of resources to avoid or change
discriminatory contexts and events. For example, Wimmer (2000) argues that especially the
expectation that living conditions will deteriorate in the future might have a serious impact on
ED. Concerning the perception of intergroup context, we will study two aspects. We
hypothesize that higher shares of ingroup in the direct living environments of people will
decrease the probability of ED: there first needs to be an occasion in which discrimination can
occur, before discrimination can actually take place (even in the perceptions of people).
In addition, we hypothesize that the more negative persons evaluate interethnic contacts
in Antwerp/ in Belgium in general, the more likely they will be to interpret their own
experiences with out-groups as discrimination particularly in the public spaces. These
negative perceptions of intergroup relations in general offer as a frame in which their own
experiences can be imagined to be part of a collective and unjust group condition. In the same
vein civic involvement, measured as actively following the local news, can increase the
probability that minorities frame their negative experiences in a broader frame of collective
and unjust relations. Civic involvement might activate frames through which ethnic minorities
can interpret negative experiences as discrimination against oneself and potentially use them
as a means to collective action against such practices. For people of the Belgian origin
majority, we do not think that following the local news has a substantive effect since the
„mainstream‟ civic sphere does not offer them the right frames for „majority discrimination‟
(which is mainly seen as a minority problem).
1 We want to remark that the predictors are not „purely‟ exogenous causes of ED, but can also be endogenous,
since they can (partially) be the result of past experiences of ED.
-
11
THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
We focus on the case of Antwerp, the biggest unilingual city in Flanders and the second
biggest city of Belgium which has received a relatively large share of Turkish and Moroccan
immigrants since the early 1970s. Table 2 shows the numbers of the Moroccan and Turkish
origin groups in Antwerp. Together, they make up 10% of the total population. Nevertheless,
the official statistics on the basis of nationality hugely under-represent the second generation,
which is here defined by the criterion of having at least one parent with a foreign place of
birth.
As a world port, Antwerp has developed an industrial economy and attracted many low-
skilled workers, who were hit hard by a late yet brutal post-industrial transition. As labor
migrants, Turkish and Moroccan workers in Antwerp were originally recruited from the less
developed regions of Turkey and Morocco with generally very low levels of literacy and
schooling. As a consequence, they were disproportionately affected by the shrinking of the
industrial sector, which resulted in high rates of unemployment and economic inactivity
among the first generation.
Table 2. Turkish and Moroccan origin population and Belgian Reference Population in Antwerp
(2007)
Nationality criterion
Place of birth parents
criterion
N % N %
Belgian origin 402470 86,4% 342116 73,5%
Moroccan origin 11797 2,5% 34751 7,5%
Turkish origin 4242 0,09% 11215 2,4%
TOTAL 465596 100% 465596 100%
Source: DSPA 2007 (www.dspa.be), author‟s calculations
Apart from its economic make-up and its difficult transition to a post-industrial labor market,
there is another reason why Antwerp is a critical case for the study of discrimination: its
highly salient, polarised and politicised „ethnic divides‟ separating immigrant and host
communities. Ethnic divisions are due – at least in part - to the electoral success of the anti-
immigrant party Vlaams Belang (Hino, 2007; Swyngedouw & Van Craen, 2001/2). Over the
last decade, the large and steadily increasing electorate of the party (i.e., 35% of the votes in
http://www.dspa.be/
-
12
Antwerp as against 25% in Flanders at large in the last regional elections in 2004) has
dominated public policies and debates over issues of immigration and integration in line with
the rise of extreme-right in other parts of Europe. While the discourse of the Vlaams Belang
excludes ethnic minorities, it offers a frame to the host majority that blames ethnic minorities
for social problems. Furthermore, local media coverage of Vlaams Belang, offensive party
slogans and posters depicting Muslims as a threat (such as pictures of minarets rising above
the cathedral) as well as party‟s call for a forced repatriation of immigrants have led to higher
awareness among ethnic minority groups making them vulnerable to feelings of being
discriminated. All these make Antwerp an interesting case for studying ED.
DATA AND MEASURES
In this paper, we focus on personal experiences of discrimination, which are narrowly defined
as experiences of „unfair or hostile treatment because of one‟s origin or background‟. We
examine the lived personal experience of discrimination among the second generation of
immigrant origin, as compared to same-age native origin inhabitants of diverse urban
neighborhoods using data from the Belgian TIES surveys 2007-2008 of the Turkish and
Moroccan second generation in Antwerp and a native comparison group in the same
ethnically diverse urban neighborhoods (Swyngedouw, Phalet, Baysu, Vandezande &
Fleischmann, 2008). The TIES survey of Antwerp was conducted using Computer Assisted
Personal Interviewing (CAPI) in 2007/8. The population considered for this survey is the
residents of the City of Antwerp between the age of 18 and 35 who were born in Belgium and
have at least one parent who was born in Turkey or Morocco. Belgian origin respondents are
selected in the same neighbourhoods as the second generation Turks and Moroccans to
increase the probability of intergroup contact and partly match the living conditions of the
populations under study. A total of 973 respondents were interviewed: 358 Turks, 312
Moroccans, and 303 natives.
The dependent variable, “experienced discrimination” is measured by 7 items with five-
point scales ranging from never to frequently. Three items measured discrimination in the
socio-economic realm: “As a secondary school student, how often did you personally
experience hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin or background?". Similar
questions are posed on other topics and realms including looking for a job, on the street or in
public transports, in the neighbourhood and when going out in dancing‟s, cafés, or restaurants,
and in encounters with the police.
-
13
Socio-economic background is measured as (1) employment status (unemployed, employed,
student, inactive: other) and (2) educational qualifications (tertiary education, lower than
tertiary education). Perceived socio-economic threat is measured as (1) perceived loss of
income (“I am afraid that my living conditions, such as my income and work, will become
worse in the near future"); (2) increase in violence (“violence and vandalism will increase in
our society”), answers are recorded on a five point scale ranging from totally disagree to
totally agree; and (3) share of ingroup was measured with a 7-point likert scale item asking “If
you now think of all the people living in your neighborhood, how many of them are of
[Turkish/ Moroccan/Belgian] origin? (Answer choices were almost none, less than 25%,
approximately 25%, approximately half, approximately 75%, more than 75%, almost
everybody).
Evaluation of the quality of intergroup contact is measured with the item: “In general, to
what extent would you describe the relationship between people of Belgian origin and people
of [Turkish/Moroccan] origin in Antwerp as friendly?" Answers are ranging from not friendly
at all to very friendly on a five point scale. Lastly, local news followership was measured with
the item “Do you sometimes follow the news about Antwerp‟s local politics in the
newspapers, television, radio, or on the Internet?”, for which answers ranged between never
to frequently.
RESULTS
Experienced Discrimination Across Different Life Domains
Descriptive findings comparing differences in ED across groups and life domains confirm our
hypothesis that Belgian majority experience the least and the Moroccan minority experience
the most discrimination in Antwerp; indeed this pattern is one of the most striking finding (see
Figure 1). In almost all domains of life the Moroccan second generation members report more
discrimination than both the Turkish second generation and the Belgian origin majority. The
latter always experiences the least discrimination because of origin or background of the three
groups studied, and the Turkish group takes a middle-position. This is consistent with
expectations based on the „ethnic hierarchy‟ in Table 1.
In general most (incidental and systematic) discrimination is experienced in civic realm
of life where minorities and majority members cross each other on the street or in public
transport. For the Belgian and the Moroccan origin group this domain comes in the first place,
-
14
and for Turks in the second. Another domain in civic realm where ED is more common is
“going out” for the Belgians and Moroccans. To a lesser extent, but we also see a high share
reports systematic discrimination amongst Turks (almost 10%) in this domain. Furthermore,
the share of Moroccan origin groups that report systematic discrimination while going out is
extremely high (almost 25%). Although “going out” does not have the highest mean level of
discrimination, it is clear that certain shares of the two minorities under study report very high
incidences of discrimination while going out. For example, the Structural Equation Model that
follows will show that males are significantly more likely to perceive discrimination in this
domain.
Looking at levels of ED in socio-economic realm, we see that it is an important locus of
discrimination for minority groups, and less so for the Belgian origin group. Mean levels of
ED show that the Turkish origin group experience most discrimination when looking for work
and they also report high levels of discrimination at school. Conversely, people of Belgian
origin mention lower levels of ED in socio-economic realm. This also becomes apparent in
Figure 1, in which we see no or very few Belgian origin respondents reporting systematic
discrimination, and only few reporting incidental discrimination. The differences with the
second generation groups are largest in the three the socio-economic domains (i.e. looking for
work, at work and at school). This is in line with the hypothesis that socio-economic realm
will be more relevant for the minorities than for the majority, because of the focus on this
realm in public debates and recognition of ED as one of the causes for the more
disadvantaged position of minorities on the labour market.
-
15
Figure 1. Percentages Systematic, Incidental, No Experiences of Discrimination by Group and Domain
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
belg
ian
turk
ish
mo
roccan
street/public
transport
in neighborhood going out encounters with
police
looking for a job at the
workplace
at school
systematic
incidental
never
Source: TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven
-
16
Experienced Discrimination in socioeconomic and civic realms
To explore communality between different domains of experienced discrimination and reduce
measurement error in the subsequent analysis by having multiple indicators, we constructed
latent factor models using Mplus software (version 6.0, Muthén & Muthén, 2010). We had
seven manifest „indicator‟ variables as listed in Appendix: ED at school, ED on the street or in
public transport, ED in the neighbourhood, ED when going out, ED in encounters with the
police, ED at the workplace and ED when looking for a job. We expected to find latent factors
of ED corresponding to discrimination experiences in socio-economic and civic realms.
First, we tested the hypothesis that all variables in confirmatory factor analysis
constitute one latent factor. This single factor would stand for the generalised experience of
being treated unfairly in society because of origin or background. Such a model would mean
that the level of discrimination experienced in different domains of life can vary, but that
these experiences „vary together‟. This one-dimensional model clearly did not fit, and this is
true for all the groups under study. We used the conventional fit indices to evaluate the
general fit of the model, more specifically we used CFI ≥ 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.06 (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). Apart from the bad general fit of the model, in all groups we encountered high
and problematic modification indices.
Based on theoretical expectations, we constructed separate multiple group structural
equation models (MGSEMs) for socio-economic and civic realms. As we expected, domains
of ED in socio-economic realm (at workplace, looking for a job, school) were highly
correlated. In fact, ED at school was also highly correlated with ED in civic realm.
Nevertheless, we did not run a common MGSEM for socio-economic and civic realms since
latent variables were highly correlated, a considerable number of respondents had not looked
for a job or worked previously (TIES project surveyed second generation immigrants of age
18-35 years old) and because we expected that ED in those realms have different associations
with socio-demographic and inter-group context variables. Therefore we constructed separate
multiple group structural equation models (MGSEMs) for socio-economic and civic realms to
avoid estimation difficulties. Figure 2 shows the common unstandardised measurement
models for the two realms for all groups.
-
17
Figure 2: Multi-group Measurement models for ED in civic and socio-economic realms (unstandardized parameter estimates)
.
0.54†
1.83
1.00Street
Neighbourhood
Goingout
Police
Public
Authority
1.00
0.71
Chi-square= 33.978, df=23, p-value=0.065, RMSEA=0.038
Model 1: ED in civic realm Model 2: ED in socio-economic realm
1.17
1.31
1.00
Chi-square=9.67, df=16, p-value=0.883, RMSEA=0
School
Looking for a job
Workplace
Soci-economic
† Factor covariance was not restrained to be equal across groups. It was 0.54 for minority groups and 0.45 for Belgian.s†† Both models are estimated using Weighted Least Squares for Categorical Variables. Muthén, B. (1984)
-
18
We found a fitting latent structure in civic realm in the data in line with our theoretical
assumptions (See Model 1 in Figure 2). This latent structure achieved full measurement
equivalence (equal loadings and thresholds) across the three groups: Belgian majority and
Turkish and Moroccan Minority groups. First latent concept in this model is indicated by ED
on the street or in public transport and ED in the neighbourhood. This is consistent with our
hypothesis and can be considered as ED in public space. As we initially expected, going out
was not a part of this latent factor, and it goes together with ED in encounters with the police.
The communality lies in the authority that can be exercised in these contexts, for example,
screening of people by night club bouncers. Discrimination by night club bouncers and other
street level discrimination are frequently reported to CGKR, the official anti-discrimination
authority in Belgium. This kind of discrimination is known to be targeted exclusively towards
men. It is a specific factor which implies conflicts and critical incidents with public/private
order and authority. We labelled this dimension Authority. This model showed significant
mean differences between Belgian majority and minority groups in public space. In addition
Moroccan were more likely to experience discrimination in contacts with the authorities.
We also achieved full measurement invariance for the socio-economic realm with three
indicators ED while looking for a job, ED at workplace and ED at school. (See Model 2 in
Figure 2), with good model fit. Similar to the civic realm minority groups were significantly
higher mean levels of ED in the socio-economic realm.
Predictors of ED in socio-economic and civic realms
Now that we sketched some „group‟ profiles and respective latent structures of ED in civic
and socio-economic realms, we want to explore the variability within the groups: which
people experience discrimination? Because we reached full measurement invariance both
realms of ED, next we added covariates to the models. All the variables were introduced in
the model at the same time, so the effects are controlled for all the other variables in the
model. The standardised within group effects can be found in Table 3 and Table 4. Below we
discuss the predictors of ED starting with the socio-economic domain.
Within the EU, Belgium stands out as one of the countries with the largest gap in
unemployment between natives and immigrants. Particularly in Flanders, unemployment rate
is considerably higher for men of immigrant origin (27%) compared to native Belgians (5%);
female unemployment rate is systematically slightly higher than the male while the gap
between immigrants and natives remains large, 29% vs. 6% for immigrant and native women
-
19
respectively (VDAB Studiedienst, 2009). We suggest that socio-economic realm is essential
to understand ED in Belgium and discrimination in this realm is more likely to spill over to
other domains. Below we investigate which individuals within groups are most affected by
these disparities and feel most discriminated.
In general, variables in our model were more predictive of ED among minority groups
than the majority group in the socio-economic domain. The only significant effect for the
Belgian origin group was that of education which protected native Belgians against ED:
higher educated Belgians were less likely to feel discriminated. This is compatible with the
Ethnic Competition Theory; those with higher educational achievement perceive less threat
from the increasing competition. Alternatively, native Belgians with higher educational
attainment may have lower number of immigrants at workplace and may have more job
security guarding them against feelings of being discriminated. One way or another, the more
educated the native Belgians, the less likely they are to feel discriminated against due to their
origin. This effect was absent for the minority groups in our case.
In the minority groups, on the other hand, we found several strong effects among which
gender and local news media followership were common to both groups. Moroccan and
Turkish men were more likely to feel discriminated than women in the socio-economic
domain, namely while looking for a job or at workplace. Similarly, local news followership
increased ED among the second generation Turks and Moroccans. The strong effect for local
news followership was no surprise given the media coverage of extreme right political
discourse and the disadvantage of immigrants in the labour market.
In addition to gender and local news followership, one other predictor was important for
Turkish group: being unemployed increased ED substantively (standardized coefficient equal
to 0.40). This is in line with the hypothesis that disadvantage on the labour market is
positively related to ED, and mainly to discrimination experienced in the socio-economic
realm (the effect of unemployment was absent for Turks in civic dimensions, see Table 4). For
Moroccans, on the other hand, being a student was a more important predictor of ED in the
socioeconomic domain. The reason why the effect of being a student is strong for Moroccans
and absent for Turks in the socioeconomic domain might be that Moroccans are shown to be
more ambitious with their school careers compared to Turks in the Belgian case (Neels and
Stoop, 2000). They are also more likely to have higher percentage of native Belgians at school
and workplace or have contact with native Belgians while looking for jobs or internships. For
example, Turks tend to rely more on their ethnic network for jobs and they are more likely to
-
20
run their own business such as restaurants (e.g. kebap shops) where again Turks make up the
majority of co-workers and the clients (Phalet & Heath 2010).
-
21
Table 3: Predicting Experienced Discrimination in Civic and Socio-economic Dimensions for Second Generation Turks and
Moroccans (standardized model estimates)
Turkish Second Generation Moroccan Second Generation
Socio-
economic
Civic:
Public space
Civic:
Authority
Socio-
economic
Civic:
Public space
Civic:
Authority
Gender Women -0.29** ns -0.58**
-0.37** -0.22** -
0.67**
Socio-economic integration
Unemployed 0.40** ns ns
ns ns ns
Inactive: student ns ns ns
0.21** 0.21* -.14*
Inactive: other ns -0.14* -0.19**
ns ns ns
Higher educ ns ns ns
ns ns ns
Civic integration Read news 0.25** 0.19** 0.13*
ns ns ns
Perceived threat
Safety threat 0.19* 0.21** ns
ns 0.19* ns
Economic threat ns ns 0.13* 0.22* ns ns
Local group size Rel group size ns ns ns 0.20* ns
Intergroup conflict Perc. hostility 0.17* 0.32** 0.21**
0.20* 0.30** 0.26**
*: p = 0.05 **: p
-
22
Table 4: Predicting Experienced Discrimination in Civic and Socio-economic Dimensions for native Belgians (standardized model estimates)
Socioecon
omic
Civic:
Public space
Civic:
Authority
Gender Women ns ns -0.324
Socio-economic
integration
Unemployed 0.26** ns ns
Inactive: student ns 0.15 ns
Inactive: other ns ns ns
Higher educ -0.22* ns ns
Civic integration Read news ns ns ns
Perceived threat
Safety threat ns ns 0.18
Economic threat ns ns ns
Local group size Rel group size ns -0.16 ns
Intergroup conflict Perc. hostility ns ns ns
*: p = 0.05 **: p
-
23
We found similar but a more complex picture than outlined for the socio-economic realm
when we turned to ED in civic dimension. As expected gender remained as an important
predictor for the minority groups, especially when looking at ED related to encounters with
the police or when going out. The problem of ED in going out and in encounters with the
police is a very specific male problem, particularly for the Moroccan men. Being male was an
important predictor of ED also for the Belgian majority group in the civic dimensions.
Overall it appears from Table 3 and Table 4 that minority and majority groups shared
only one other predictor of ED in addition to gender: fear of increase in violence in society. In
line with Wimmer (2000) we hypothesized that the expectation that living conditions will
become worse in the future has a positive impact on ED. This is confirmed: we found that the
more pessimistic people are about their future living conditions, the more likely they are to
experience personal discrimination towards them. For both minorities, being afraid of future
violence in society and being worried about their own future living context had a significant
influence on the extent of discrimination that they perceive towards them. Notably, this effect
was even larger for the Belgian origin majority.
Not surprisingly, perceived friendliness of group relations had the strongest effect in the
civic dimension following gender for the minority groups. We hypothesized that if people
consider group relations to be of bad quality, they would be more inclined to frame their own
experiences accordingly and would be more likely to report higher levels of discrimination.
This indeed seems to be the case; we found that the extent to which people report
discrimination to their group in general and the extent to which they characterise intergroup
relations as unfriendly increases the extent of ED towards themselves. Although it may seem
as given that ED would be correlated with perceived friendliness, we did not find a similar
effect in the socio-economic domain and for the Belgian origin group. Also common to both
minority groups is the effect of being a student; students seem to experience more
discrimination in the civic dimension (school, street, and neighbourhood). This may be in
most part due to do interactions with peers at school as well as the representatives of authority
in the institutions such as teachers.
For Turks, one consistent finding across all realms of ED was the effect local news
followership. The more closely the Turkish minority followed local news, the more they felt
discriminated. This finding can stimulate further research into which media outlets the
Turkish minority use and analysis of the content in these media outlets. Also particular to the
Turkish group, we found that worry about loss of personal income in the future increases ED
-
24
while going out or in encounters with the police. Lastly, for the Turkish group, being retired,
homemaker or not able to work (category inactive: other) decreases ED significantly in the
civic dimension. The strong effect of being inactive on ED in controls may be in part due not
going out so much or having fewer encounters with the police. For Moroccans, on the other
hand, apart from the common predictors with the Turkish group including the positive effect
of being male, student, fear of violence and negative effect of perceived friendliness of groups
relations on PD, we did not find other significant effects.
An interesting finding for the Belgian origin group was the effect of perceived
percentage of ingroup in the neighbourhood. In general, the bigger the share of ingroup
members persons perceive in their direct living environment (neighbourhood), the less likely
they are to perceive discrimination from other groups. This is related to the lower likelihood
of - possibly negative – contacts as well as lower threat perceptions. We found this effect for
the Belgian origin group in civic dimension, but not for the minority groups. In addition to
having a higher share of ingroup in the neighbourhood, having tertiary education also
decreased experiences of discrimination due to origin among the Belgian majority: people
with a diploma of a college or university experience significantly less discrimination.
Notably, this was not the case for neither of the minority groups. This can be interpreted in
terms of the notion of the so-called “integration-paradox” implying that people who are more
integrated are also more sensitive to phenomena of exclusion (Buijs, Demant & Hamdy 2006
in Slootman en Tillie 2006). Although we do not find this pattern for education, we find a
strong effect of local news media followership on ED which is in line with this notion. Lastly,
being unemployed predicts higher levels of ED among the Belgian origin group in the civic
dimension; which is again not found among the minority groups.
-
25
CONCLUSION
The primary implication of our results is that integration is a dynamic two-way process by
which immigrants are incorporated into a host society and the way host society adapts as it
incorporates its immigrant population. In spite of persisting socio-economic disparities (part
of) 2nd generation is increasingly integrated in the civic domain; they are educated, following
local news and participate in politics. Against this background, ED in civic dimension can be
seen as the downside of civic integration in less welcoming group contexts such as the city of
Antwerp. Along those lines, civic discrimination is experienced most by the discontented
within both Turkish and Moroccan minority groups in Antwerp: students, unemployed, active
citizens who read local news and who define intergroup relations as illegitimate and perceive
future threat to social order.
Majority experiences of civic discrimination, on the other hand, are rather reactive. In
Blumerian (1958) terms they are triggered by a sense of group position and perceptions of
“outgroup encroachment”. Especially the economically vulnerable segments of majority
group (low educated, inactive others= „peripherals‟) experience the increasing numbers
(decreasing share of ingroup in the neighbourhood) of minorities in their city and
neighbourhood as a threat (increase of violence in society). Also, combined minority and
majority perspectives suggest „recursive cycles of threat‟ in intergroup relations so that the
civic integration of the 2nd
generation exacerbates inter-group conflict and gives rise to
mutually enforcing minority and majority experiences of civic discrimination in the multi-
cultural city.
Research on discrimination experiences of second generation has become even more
crucial in the face of immigrant youth riots in several European countries such as France, UK,
Belgium and more recently Sweden. Studying second generation is distinct from studying
first generation immigrants. Despite being born in the country, second generation may be
exposed to higher levels of discrimination than their parents which may lead to
marginalization and feelings of not belonging within the society (Abouguendia and Noels,
2001). We tried to provide more insight into experiences of second generation Turks and
Moroccans in Antwerp-Belgium, which are indicative of long-term prospects of integration
and the groups which are more likely to be at risk of marginalization. However, more research
is needed into experiences of second and third generation immigrants at different levels
(individual, inter-group, societal) to have a more profound view of the effect of experienced
-
26
personal discrimination and to provide more comprehensive and innovative input for public
policies particularly regarding minority and majority relations that help foster positive
intergroup relations and make boundaries between minority and majority populations more
permeable.
References
Abouguendia, M., and K. Noels. 2001. “General and Acculturation-related Daily Hassles and
Psychological Adjustment in First- and Second generation South Asian Immigrants to
Canada.” International Journal of Psychology 36, 3, p. 163-173.
Alba, R. (2005) “Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion
in France, Germany, and the United States” Ethnic and racial studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp20-49.
Altonji, J. & Blank, R. (1999) “Race and gender in the labor market”. In Ashenfelter, O. &
Card, D. (eds) Handbook of labor economics, volume 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Amadieu, J. (2004) Enquête “testing” sur CV, Adia/ Paris I – Observatoire des
discriminations.
Asparouhov T. and Muthen B. (2010)”Multiple Imputation with Mplus”, Technical Report.
Version 2
Barnes, Annie (2000) Everyday Racism: A book for all Americans, Naperville, Ill. :
Sourcebooks.
Baysu, G., Phalet, K. and Brown, R. (2013), “Relative group size and minority school
success: The role of intergroup friendship and discrimination experiences”. British Journal of
Social Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12035
Blank, R., Dabady, M. & Citro, C. (2004) Measuring racial discrimination, Washington D.C.:
The national academies press.
Blumer, H. (1958) Race prejudice as a sense of group position, Pacific Sociological Review,
1, pp3-7.
Branscombe, N., Schmitt, M. & Harvey, R. (1999) “Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being”, Journal of
personality and social psychology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp135-149.
Bobo, L. (1988) “Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes”.
In Katz, P.A. and Taylor, D.A. (eds.) Eliminating racism: profiles in controversy, New York:
Plenum.
Buijs, F., Demant, F. & Hamdi, A. (2006) Strijders van eigen bodem. Radicale en
democratische moslims in Nederland, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. In Slootman,
-
27
M. & Tillie, J. (2006) Processen van radicalisering. Waarom sommige Amsterdamse moslims
radicaal worden, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Migratie- en Etnische Studies.
Cantisani, G. en Poulain, N. (2006) “Statistics on population with usual residence”. In
Poulain, M., Perrin, N. en Singleton, A. (red.) THESIM Towards Harmonised European
Statistics on International Migration, Louvain-La-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Castelain-Kinet, F., Es-Safi, L., Feld, S. & Lannoy, F. (1998) “Results in the Walloon
region”. In Arrijn, P., Feld, S. & Nayer, A. (1998) “Discrimination in access to employment
on grounds of foreign origin: the case of Belgium” International migration papers, 23,
Geneva, ILO
De Rycke, K, Swyngedouw, M. & Phalet, K. (1999) “De subjectieve ervaring van
discriminatie”. In Swyngedouw, M., Phalet, K. & Deschouwer, K. (eds.) Minderheden in
Brussel, Brussel: VUB Press.
Dion, K. L. (2001). The Social Psychology of Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination.
Canadian Psychology, 43 (1), 1-10.
Dixon J., Durrheim K., Tredoux C., Tropp L., Beverly C., and Eaton L. (2010) “A Pardox of
Integration? Interracial contact, Prejudice reduction, and perceptions of Racial discrimination”
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 401-406.
Doorn M., Scheepers P., Dagevos J. (2012) “Explaining the Integration Paradox Among
Small Immigrant Groups in the Netherlands” International Migration and IntegrationDOI
10.10007/s121134-012-0244-6.
Eccleston, C. P., Major, B. N. (2006). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: The
role of group identification and appraisals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(2),
147-162.
Feagin, J. (1991) “The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public
Places”, American Sociological review, vol. 56, no. 1, pp101-116.
FRA (2007) “Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU”, TK-AK-
07-002-EN-C
Fuegen, K. & Biernat, M. (2000) „Defining discrimination in the personal/ group
discrimination discrepancy“, Sex roles, Vol. 43, nrs. 5/6, pp285-310.
Gijsberts, M. (2005) “Opvattingen van autochtonen en allochtonen over de multi-etnische
samenleving”. In Jaarrapport integratie, Den Haag: SCP, WODC, CBS, pp189-205.
Hagendoorn, L. (1995) “Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of
ethnic hierarchies”. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social
Psychology, Vol. 6 (pp. 199-228). London, UK: Wiley
Heath, A. and Cheung, S. (2006) Ethnic penalties in the labour market: Employers and
discrimination, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 341.
-
28
Heath, A. & Cheung, S.-Y. (2007) (Eds). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western
labor markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, A. & Li, Y. (2007) Measuring the size of the employer contribution to the ethnic
minority employment gap, paper for the national employment panel.
Heath, A., Rothon, C., & Kilpi, E. (2008). The Second Generation in Western Europe:
Education, unemployment and occupational attainment. Annual Review of Sociology.
Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. (Eds.) (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hino, A. (2007) “Kenmerken van stemgedrag op 'nieuwe partijen'. Agalev en Vlaams Blok”.
In Swyngedouw, M., Billiet, J. & Goeminne, B. ( eds.) De kiezer onderzocht. De verkiezingen
van 2003 en 2004 in Vlaanderen, Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven.
Holzer, H. & Ludwig, J. (2003) “Measuring discrimination in education: Are methodologies
from labor and markets useful?” Teachers College Record, vol. 105, no. 6, pp1147–1178.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999) “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural equation modeling, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp1-55.
Jacobs, D. & Rea, A. (2006) "Construction et importation des classements ethniques.
Allochtones et immigrés aux Pays-Bas et en Belgique". Revue Européenne des Migrations
Internationales, Vol. 21 , Nr. 2 , pp 35-59.
Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered
categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115-132.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010). Mplus User's Guide
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J., Waters, M. & Holdaway, J. (2008) Inheriting the City: The
Children of Immigrants Come of Age, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Martens, A., Ouali, N., Van de maele, M., Vertommen, S., Dryon, P. en Verhoeven, H. (2005)
Etnische discriminatie op de arbeidsmarkt in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussel:
Brussels observatorium van de arbeidsmarkt en kwalificaties.
Merton, R. K. and A. S. Kitt (1950) “Contributions to the theory of reference group
behavior”. Merton, R. and Lazarsfeld, P (eds.) New York: The Free Press, pp. 40–105.
Meuleman, B., Davidov, E. and Billiet, J. (2009) Changing Attitudes toward Immigration in
Europe, 2002-2007: A Dynamic Group Conflict Theory Approach. Social Science Research
38(2): 352-365.
-
29
Neels, K. and Stoop, R. (2000) “Reassessing the Ethnic Gap. Employment of Younger Turks
and Moroccans in Belgium” in: R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Communities and Generations: Turkish
and Moroccan Populations in Belgium, Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 279 – 320.
Pettigrew, T. (2002) “Conclusion”. In Walker, I. & Smith, H. (ed.) Relative deprivation :
specification, development, and integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Phalet, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2003). Measuring immigrant integration: the case of
Belgium. Studi Emigrazione, 40 (152), 773-803.
Phalet, K. (2007). Down and out: The children of immigrant workers in the Belgian labor
market. In A. Heath & S-Y. Cheung (Eds), Unequal chances. Oxford University Press.
Phalet, K., Deboosere, P. and Bastiaenssen, V. (2007), “Old and new inequalities in
educational Attainment”, in Ethnicities, vol. 7, no. 3, pp390-415.
Phalet, K., van Lotringen, C. & Entzinger, H. (2000) Islam in de multiculturele samenleving:
Opvattingen van jongeren in Rotterdam, Commissioned by: ERCOMER Reports, Utrecht.
Phinney, J. S., Madden, T., Santos, L. J. (2006). Psychological Variables as Predictors of
Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Among Minority and Immigrant Adolescents. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 937-953.
Postmes, T., Branscombe, N., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999) “Comparative processes in
personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 320-338.
Reitz, J. & Bannerjee, R. (2007) “Racial inequality, social cohesion, and policy issues in
Canada.” In Banting, K., Courchene, T.J. & Seidle, L. (Eds.) Belonging, Diversity,
Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, Montreal: Institute for Research on Public
Policy.
Rink, N., Phalet, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2008) “The effects of immigrant population size,
unemployment, and individual characteristics on voting for the Vlaams Blok in Flanders
1991-1999” European Sociological Review, doi:10.1093/esr/jcn028, pp1-14.
Russell, H., Quinn, .E, King, O‟Riain, R. and McGinnity, F. (2008) The experience of
discrimination in Ireland, Dublin: Brunswick press.
Rustenbach, E. (2010) Sources of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants in Europe: A
Multilevel Analysis. International Migration Review 44(1): 53-77.
Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M. & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European
countries, public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic
threat. European Sociological Review, 18 (1), 17-34.
Schmitt, M.T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N.R. (2003). Constructing a minority group
identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 33, 1-12.
-
30
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R. and Gorodzeisky, A. (2006) The Rise of Anti-Foreigner
Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000. American Sociological Review Vol. 71(No. 3):
426-449.
Silberman, R., Alba, R. & Fournier, I. (2007) “Segmented assimilation in France?
Discrimination in the labour market against the second generation”, Ethnic and racial studies,
vol. 30, nr 1., pp1-27.
Simon, P. & Sabbagh, D. (2005) (Eds). Measuring discrimination. International Social
Science Journal, 183.
Slootman, M. & Tillie, J. (2006) Processen van radicalisering. Waarom sommige
Amsterdamse moslims radicaal worden, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Migratie- en Etnische
Studies.
Steele, M. C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotype shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52 (6), 613-629.
Swyngedouw, M., Phalet, K., Baysu, G., Vandezande, V. and Fleischmann, F. (2008)
Trajectories and experiences of Turkish, Moroccan and native Belgians in Antwerp and
Brussels: Codebook and Technical Report of the TIES Surveys 2007-2008 Belgium. Leuven:
ISPO & CSCP, University of Leuven.
Swyngedouw, M, Phalet, K. and Deschouwer, K. (eds; 1999) Minderheden in Brussel,
Brussel: VUBPress.
Swyngedouw, M. & Van Craen, M. (2001/2) “Vlaams Blok en de natiestaat. Het rechts-
radicale Vlaams-nationalisme onder de loep“, Fédéralisme Régionalisme, Volume 2 : 2001-
2002 - Extrême droite et fédéralisme.
Taylor, D., Wright, S., Moghaddam, F. & Lalonde , R. (1990) “The personal group
discrimination discrepancy: perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for
discrimination, Personality and social psychology bulletin, 16, pp254-262.
Ter Wal, J. & Verkuyten, M. (eds.; 2000) Comparative perspectives on racism, Alderschot:
Ashgate.
Wimmer, A. (2000) “Racism in nationalised states: A framework for comparative research”.
In Ter Wal, J. & Verkuyten, M. (eds.) Comparative perspectives on racism, Alderschot:
Ashgate.
Wrench, J (2008) “Research and indicators of discrimination in employment: problems of
comparability”, Transnational Seminar Which indicators for measuring racism and
discrimination in European cities? The European Coalition of Cities against Racism
(UNESCO), Liège, 16 – 17 May, 2008
VDAB Studiedienst – 2009 “Allochtonen op de Vlaamse arbeidsmarkt”
https://www.vdab.be/trends/kik/doc/KiK_Allochtonen200903.pdf
http://popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/sommaire.php?id=180http://popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/sommaire.php?id=180https://www.vdab.be/trends/kik/doc/KiK_Allochtonen200903.pdf
-
31
Yinger, J. (1998) “Evidence on discrimination in consumer markets” The journal of economic
perspectives, vol. 12, no. 2, pp23-40.
Zegers de Beijl, R. (ed. 2000) Documenting discrimination against migrant workers in the
labour market: A comparative study of four European countries, Geneva: International labour
organisation.
MPI Global City Migration Map: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/gcmm.cfm
European Commission (2011). Cities of tomorrow: challenges, visions, ways forward. EC,
Directorate General for Regional Policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfm
Eurobarometer Migrant Integration Aggregate Report, May 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_migrant_en.pdf
EU-MIDIS Survey http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-
minorities-and-discrimination-survey
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfmhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_migrant_en.pdfhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-surveyhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey
-
32
APPENDIX II
Measures of Experienced Discrimination
EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION
In the socio-economic realm.
As a secondary school student, how often did you personally experience hostility or unfair
treatment because of your origin or background?
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently
When looking for a job, currently or in the past, how often have you personally experienced
hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin?
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently
At your workplace, , currently or in the past, how often have you personally experienced
hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin?
In social life
Here are some situations or places. How often did you experience hostility or unfair treatment
because of your origin or background in these situations?
a. On the street or in public transports
b. In your neighborhood
c. When going out or in dancing‟s, cafés, or restaurants
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly – Frequently
In the institutional realm
Here are some situations or places. How often did you experience hostility or unfair treatment
because of your origin or background in these situations?
In encounters with the police
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently
-
33
Predictors of Experienced Discrimination
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
Socio-economic attainment
Employment Status
Unemployed
Inactive: students
Inactive: other
[Reference category: employed]
Educational Qualifications
Tertiary education
[Reference category: lower than tertiary education]
Perceived threat (fear of demotion)
Increased violence
I am afraid that in the near future violence and vandalism will increase in our society
Totally agree – Agree - Neither agree nor disagree – Disagree - Totally disagree [recoded
conversely]
Loss of income
I am afraid that my living conditions, such as my income and work, will become worse in the
near future
Totally agree – Agree - Neither agree nor disagree – Disagree - Totally disagree [recoded
conversely]
PERCEIVED INTERGROUP CONTEXT
Share of the in-/ out-group in different domains of life.
-
34
If you now think of all the people living in your neighbourhood, how many of them are of [in-
group: Turkish/ Moroccan/ Belgian] origin?
Almost everybody - More than 75% - Approximately 75 % - Approximately half -
Approximately 25 % - Less than 25 % - Almost none [recoded conversely]
Evaluation of the quality of intergroup contact.
In general, to what extent would you describe the relationship between people of Belgian origin
and people of [Turkish/Moroccan] origin in Antwerp as friendly?
Not friendly at all - Not so friendly – Indifferent – Friendly - Very friendly [recoded conversely]
In general, how often do you think that the following groups experience hostility or unfair
treatment in Belgium because of their origin or background? (in-group: Belgians/ Turks/ Moroccans)
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently
CIVIC INVOLVEMENT
Following the local news.
Do you sometimes follow the topics listed below in the newspapers, television, radio, or on the
Internet? The news about Antwerp local politics
Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently
TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven
APPENDIX II
Sample
For the second generations we used a simple random sample of persons from a full sampling
frame. For the Belgian origin group, we used a stratified sample: we selected them in neighbourhoods
proportionate to the number of second generation Turks and Moroccans (from 18 – 35 years) living in
that neighbourhood.
Table 4. Interviews in Antwerp
Men Women Total
-
35
Belgian 158 145 303
Turkish 178 180 358
Morocca
n
118 194 312
Total 454 519 973
Response
Table 5. Overall response rate in Antwerp
Num
ber
Overall response
rate
Cooperation
rate
Interviewed 966 58,44% 71,40%
Refusal 343 20,75% 25,35%
Not reached 290 17,54% NA
Illness 10 0,60% NA
Language problems 14 0,85% 1,03%
Other* 30 1,81% 2,22%
SUBTOTAL 1.653 100,00% 100,00%
Does not belong to sample
frame 289 NA NA
TOTAL 1.942 100,00% 100,00%
For the Belgian origin comparison group the overall response rate was 55,76% and the
cooperation rate 69,61. For the Turkish group the overall response rate 63,48% was and the
cooperation rate 75,05%. For the Moroccan group the overall response rate was 55,9% and the
cooperation rate 69,21%
Source. TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven