Naomi Lightman, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto

Applying an Economic Exclusion Index: Trends and Dynamics for Immigrants and Racialized Groups in Canada

Naomi Lightman, PhD Candidate, University of TorontoLuann Good Gingrich, Associate Professor, York University

Presented at the CRDCN National Conference: Evidence Based Policy Formation and Evaluation

Fredericton, October 24, 2012

Introduction•SSHRC/Metropolis National Research

Competition project (2011): The dynamics of social exclusion and inclusion for immigrants and racialized groups in Canada

•Luann Good Gingrich (P.I.), Naomi Lightman, Andrew Mitchell, Ernie Lightman

•Use of Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) dataset from Statistics Canada

2

Theoretical Framework•Social Exclusion: the official procedures and

everyday practices that function to (re)produce and justify economic, spatial, socio-political, and subjective divides (Good Gingrich, 2010; Lightman & Good Gingrich, in press)

•Immigrant and visible minority status as dynamic social forces that direct who gets ahead and who falls (and stays) behind in the Canadian labour market

•Research question: Who is made socially excluded in economic terms in Canada’s labour market?

3

Why This Index?•Nine dimensions equally weighted to

explore different facets of economic exclusion, based on research (e.g. Vosko, 2003, 2006; European Commission, 2012)

•A mix of individual and family-level measurements

•A mix of scaled and dichotomous measurements

•No one indicator describes the dynamics of economic exclusion

•However, combined we can see trends within and between groups across time

•Cronbach's α = .75

4

The Economic Exclusion Index5

DIMENSION Measurement Level

Score (0-1) SLID Variables Used

1. Low Wages Individual Scaled cmphrw28 = "Composite hourly wage all paid jobs in refyear"

2. Low Earnings

Economic Family

Scaled earng27 = "Earnings", fmsz27 = "Number of family members"

3. Low Income Household Dichotomous

limsfa25 = "Flag - after tax income is below LIM"

4. Transfer Income

Economic Family

Dichotomous

mjsif27 = "Major source of income for economic family"

5. Home Ownership

Individual Dichotomous

dwtenr25 = "Ownership of dwelling"

6. Job Security Individual Dichotomous

alfst28 = "Annual labour force status”, prmjb1 = "Flag - Permanent job"

7. Employment Adequacy

Individual Scaled alhrp28 = "Total hours paid all jobs during refyear"

8. Multiple Job Holdings

Individual Scaled nbjbsv28 = "Wkly Vector - Nbr of jobs held during each week of the yr"

9. Non-Wage Benefits

Individual Dichotomous

penpln1 = "Flag - Has pension plan with this job in refyear”, alfst28 = "Annual labour force status"

The Sample: Shifting Demographics Over Time• Individuals 18-64, excluding full-time

students• Cross-sectional analysis• N = approx. 24,000 (1994-95), 40-50,000

(1996-2009)• 17-22% are immigrants (variable)• 8-19% are visible minorities (steady increase

over time)• 42% of immigrants are visible minorities in

1994• 65% of immigrants are visible minorities in

2009 (steady increase over time)• Working within confines of existing dataset

6

Contextual Factors: 1994-2009• Exploring economic outcomes for

immigrants and visible minorities over time

• Impact of macro economic and social welfare trends – Who gets hit hardest in tough times? Who benefits most in good times?

• Impact of macro immigration policy – shifting composition of immigrants, increasing emphasis on economic class

• Who ends up disproportionately in the top 20% of the index (i.e. high economic exclusion)?

• Who ends up disproportionately in the bottom 20% of the index (i.e. low economic exclusion)?

7

Dimension #2: LOW EARNINGS

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

50

55

60

65

70

75 Economic Family Earnings Were Below The Yearly Mean

% Total Population (excluding I & VM)

% Im-mi-grants% Visible MinoritiesPe

rcen

t E

xclu

ded

8

Dimension #4: TRANSFER INCOME

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

Economic Family’s Major Source of Income Was Government Transfers



rcen

t E

xclu

ded

9

Dimension #5: HOME OWNERSHIP

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

20

25

30

35

40

45 Individual’s Dwelling Is Not Owned By A Family Member

% Total Popu-lation (ex-cluding I & VM)

% Im-mi-grants% Visible Minorities

Perc

ent

Exc

lude

d10

Dimension #6: JOB SECURITY

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

25

30

35

40

45

50Individual Had Non-Permanent Job / No Job



rcen

t E

xclu

ded

11

Dimension #9: NON-WAGE BENEFITS

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

60

65

70

75

80

85Individual Had Job Without A Pension Plan / No Job

% Total Popu-lation (ex-cluding I & VM)

% Immigrants

% Visible MinoritiesPe

rcen

t E

xclu

ded

12

Economic Exclusion Index Outcomes: The Most Excluded Quintile

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80Ratio of Over / Under Representation in Top 20% of

Index

Total Popula-tion Ratio (Excluding I & VM)

Immigrant ratio

Visible Minor-ity Ratio

13

Economic Exclusion Index Outcomes: The Most Excluded Quintile

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60Ratio of Over / Under Representation in Top 20% of

Index

Total Popula-tion Ratio (Excluding I & VM)

Immigrant ratio

Visible Minor-ity Ratio

14

Economic Exclusion Index Outcomes: The Least Excluded Quintile

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Ratio of Over / Under Representation in Bottom 20% of Index

Total Popula-tion Ra-tio (Ex-cluding I & VM)

Immi-grant Ratio

Visible Minority Ratio

15

Economic Exclusion Index Outcomes: The Least Excluded Quintile

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Ratio of Over / Under Representation in Bottom 20% of Index

Total Popula-tion Ra-tio (Ex-cluding I & VM)

Immi-grant Ratio

Visible Minority Ratio

16

Conclusions• No sustained equity-producing growth over macro

economic boom years• Supports previous research suggesting immigrants

suffer deeper negative impacts of a recession first (Picot & Sweetman, 2005)

• Immigrants less likely to be among the most excluded 20% but also less likely to be among the least excluded 20%

• Visible minorities continuously face uneven economic exclusion on the vast majority of dimensions

• Perhaps gaps between groups getting wider?• Future research: longitudinal analysis, other datasets• Policy implications: Need larger sample sizes for more

specific analysis of social groups over time; labour opportunities and social welfare supports appear to be declining overall for immigrants and visible minorities

17

References:• Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1),

14-25. • European Commission. (2012). Employment and social developments in Europe

2011 (pp. 286). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.• Good Gingrich, L. (2010). The dynamics of social exclusion and inclusion for

immigrants and racialized groups in Canada - A research proposal. Immigration and the Metropolis Research Proposal. York University. Toronto.

• Lightman, N., & Good Gingrich, L. (in press). The intersecting dynamics of social exclusion: Age, gender, race and immigrant status in Canada's labour market. Canadian Ethnic Studies.

• Picot, G., & Sweetman, A. (2005). The deteriorating economic welfare of immigrants and possible causes: Update 2005 (pp. 1-26). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

• Vosko, L. F. (2006). Precarious employment: Towards an improved understanding of labour market insecurity. In L. F. Vosko (Ed.), Precarious employment: Understanding labour market insecurity in Canada (pp. 1-39). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

• Vosko, L. F., Zukewich, N., & Cranford, C. J. (2003). Precarious jobs: A new typology of employment. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 4(10), 16-26.

18

Thank you!Contact Information

Naomi Lightman: [email protected]

Luann Good Gingrich: [email protected]

APPENDIXES

20

Dimension #1: LOW WAGES

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

50

55

60

65

70

75

Composite Hourly Wages For Individual Over The Year Were Below The Mean


% Im-mi-grants

% Visible MinoritiesPe

rcen

t E

xclu

ded

21

Dimension #3: LOW INCOME

22

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

5

10

15

20

25

Household After-Tax Income Was Below The Low Income Measure



Perc

ent

Exc

lude

d

Dimension #7: EMPLOYMENT ADEQUACY

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

40

45

50

55

60

65

Hours Individual Worked For Pay Was Less Than Full-Time*



rcen

t E

xclu

ded

*Defined as 1750 hours per year

23

Dimension #8: MULTIPLE JOB HOLDINGS

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

5

10

15

20

25Individual Had Multiple Jobs Per Week



Perc

ent

Exc

lude

d24

Naomi Lightman, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto

Documents

Transcript of Naomi Lightman, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto