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 Index
5
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
75Economic Family Earnings Were Below The Yearly
Mean
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants
% Visible MinoritiesP
erc
en
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
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants
% Visible Minorities
Perc
en
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
45Individual’s Dwelling Is Not Owned By A Family
Member
% Total Popu-lation (ex-cluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants% Visible Minorities
Perc
en
t E
xclu
ded
10
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
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants
% Visible MinoritiesP
erc
en
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 MinoritiesP
erc
en
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
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants
% Visible MinoritiesP
erc
en
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
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants% Visible Minorities
Perc
en
t E
xclu
ded
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*
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants
% Visible MinoritiesP
erc
en
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
25
Individual Had Multiple Jobs Per Week
% Total Population (excluding I & VM)
% Im-mi-grants% Visible Minorities
Perc
en
t E
xclu
ded
24