Our friends over at MPG are organizing a webinar on the impact of policies. Let’s be frank here, questions of causality will be a challenge, but with the data collected by MIPEX we’ll surely be able to make some headway in this crucial question:
‘Do policies matter? Exploring the Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes through MIPEX‘. The webinar addresses what policymakers should know about the impacts of integration policies and what researchers should investigate in the future.
When? 28th May 2021 at 2PM CET
Registration and agenda here:
Welcome and introduction – Giacomo Solano, Head of Research, MPG
Exploring the links between MIPEX and migrant integration outcomes: Lessons learned and new avenues for research – Thomas Huddleston, Research and Strategic Advisor, MPG and Giacomo Solano, Head of Research, MPG
2.25PM-2.45PM The effect of integration policies: which policies do matter and for whom?
Sol Juarez, Associate Professor in Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University
Maarten Vink, Professor of Citizenship Studies, European University Institute
Conrad Ziller, Assistant Professor in Political Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen
Together with Gianni D’Amato and Denise Efionayi-Mäder, I have written up some reflections on the new MIPEX results for Switzerland (in German):
We highlight the comparatively poor protection against discrimination in Switzerland, despite growing attention to Black Lives Matter and racism. We encourage policy comparison not to copy and past policies, but to encourage local solutions to do more.
Incidentally, the new results from MIPEX present nothing new — Swiss immigrant integration policies have been stable in the last few years (though historically they have changed much).
Should we come across as criticizing Swiss policy, let’s not forget the innovative and positive policies on health care in Switzerland (ranked “favourable” by MIPEX).
Yes, MIPEX has been brought up to date! The global launch is due:
After months working together with local partners, MPG is now happy to invite you to the International Launch of MIPEX2020 taking place on December 9 from 2PM-3.30PM CET. The event will take place via Zoom Webinar and we very much look forward to welcoming you all to have an enriching discussion about MIPEX2020, its different areas, indicators, and international trends on integration policies.
You’ll have to register by 6 December 2020: Link to invitation and registration
The BBC report on a large correspondent test in the UK carried out by the excellent GEMM project. It’s good to see this reach a wider audience; it’s sad to see the results from our meta-analysis confirmed once again.
British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds have to send, on average, 60% more job applications to get a positive response from employers compared to their white counterparts
What I really like about this short report by the BBC is that the essentials are covered. Yes we see discrimination, but no, it’s not so bad that none of the minority applicants would ever succeed. They also start the piece with an example of someone changing their name on the CV as a strategy to counter expected (or experienced) discrimination — and they highlight that discrimination has not declined despite policy changes, and indeed that discrimination affects native citizens who happen to have a ‘foreign’ name: they pay for an action of their parents or grandparents.
Are employers in Britain discriminating against ethnic minorities?, GEMM project: PDF of report
Zschirnt, Eva, and Didier Ruedin. 2016. ‘Ethnic Discrimination in Hiring Decisions: A Meta-Analysis of Correspondence Tests 1990–2015’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (7): 1115–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1133279.
A colleague recently commented that he is confused where I stand with regard to the academic use of MIPEX data. Apparently I have been rather critical and quite enthusiastic about it. I guess this sums it up quite well. I’ve always been critical of the (historical) lack of a theoretical base for the indicators used, and the often uncritical use of the aggregate scores as indicators of ‘immigration policy’ in the literature. I’m enthusiastic about its coverage (compared to other indices), the effort to keep it up-to-date, and the availability of the detailed data.
A few years back, I verified that it is OK to use the MIPEX as a scale (as is often done), highlighting redundancy in the items and that such scales could be improved:
In the context of the SOM project, we have demonstrated that it is feasible to expand the MIPEX indicators back in time. We did so for 7 countries back to 1995. I refined these data by using the qualitative descriptions provided to identify the year of the change, giving year-on-year changes since 1995 for the 7 SOM countries. These data are experimental in that they rely on the documentation and not original research. If that’s not enough, Camilla and I have then created a complete time series of the MIPEX indicators in Switzerland since 1848. This showed that we definitely can go back in time, but also that quite a few of the things MIPEX measures were not regulated a century ago.
Even with the short time in the SOM data, these data are quite insightful:
Later I provided a different approach: re-assembling! The idea is generic and does not apply to the MIPEX alone: make use of the many indicators in the database, but use your own theory to pick and choose the ones you consider most appropriate (rather than be constrained by the presentation in the MIPEX publications). I have demonstrated that the MIPEX data can be used to closely approximate the Koopmans et al. data, but immediately cover a wider range of countries and observe changes over time. Now we can have theory and coverage!
And yes, we can apply these data to gain new insights, like the nature of the politicization of immigrant groups: