Advertisement

Quantifying and Qualifying Inequality Among Migrants

  • Wardlow FriesenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mobility & Politics book series (MPP)

Abstract

The analysis of inequality between migrant and non-migrant/host populations has been regularly undertaken within migration studies. However, the consideration of inequalities within migrant populations is much less common. A range of factors may contribute to the inequalities between migrant groups, including nationality, ethnicity and migration status, and within migrant groups, including gender, educational level and socio-economic status. These may originate in pre-migration factors such as social capital, factors related to the selectivity of the migration process itself and/or post-migration conditions such as ‘fit’ in the labour market, reception by the host society and degree of access to services. Using the New Zealand case study, this chapter develops some methods of quantifying some of these inequalities through the use of measures related to income, unemployment and wage levels. The use of these quantitative approaches is also qualified in relation to data availability, data accuracy and the dangers of essentialising difference. Furthermore, the use of qualified information based on detailed case studies and other sources is also suggested. As proposed elsewhere in this book, migration policy itself is the source of inequality among migrants, but an understanding of other sources of inequality is also important in informing policy on migrant outcomes for government and non-government agencies.

Keywords

Quantitative measures Spatial clustering Income inequality Employment Unemployment Earnings Gini Coefficient Lorenz Curve 

References

  1. Atkinson, J., C. Salmond, and P. Crampton. 2014. NZDep2013 index of deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health, University of Otago, and Dunedin: Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago.Google Scholar
  2. Department of Labour. 2009. New faces, new futures: New Zealand. Findings from the Longitudinal immigration survey: New Zealand (LisNZ)–wave one. Wellington: Department of Labour.Google Scholar
  3. Friesen, W. 2015. Asian Auckland: The multiple meanings of diversity. Wellington: Asia New Zealand Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2017a. Migrant settlement. In International encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment and technology, ed. D. Richardson. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers and Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2017b. Migration management and mobility pathways for Filipino migrants to New Zealand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 58 (3): 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friesen, W., and R.A. Kearns. 2010. Otara and Dannemora: Contrasting landscape and identity in two South Auckland suburbs. In Beyond the scene: Landscape and identity in Aotearoa New Zealand, ed. J. Stephenson, M. Abbott, and J. Ruru, 93–100. Dunedin: Otago University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Friesen, W., L. Murphy, and R.A. Kearns. 2005. Spiced-up Sandringham: Indian transnationalism and new suburban spaces in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (2): 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelman, A., and C. Hennig. 2017. Beyond subjective and objective in statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 180 (4): 967–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grbic, C., H. Ishizawa, and C. Crothers. 2010. Ethnic residential segregation in New Zealand, 1991–2006. Social Science Research 39: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ip, M., and W. Friesen. 2001. The new Chinese community in New Zealand: Local outcomes of transnationalism. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 10 (2): 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnston, R., M. Poulsen, and J. Forrest. 2008. Asians, Pacific Islanders, and ethnoburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. Geographical Review 98 (2): 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2009. Research note – Measuring ethnic residential segregation: Putting some more geography in. Urban Geography 30 (1): 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2011. Using spatial statistics to identify and characterise ethnoburbs: Establishing a methodology using the example of Auckland, New Zealand. GeoJournal 76: 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manley, D., R. Johnston, K. Jones, and D. Owen. 2015. Macro-, meso- and microscale segregation: Modeling changing ethnic residential patterns in Auckland, New Zealand, 2001–2013. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (5): 951–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mclaughlin, C., E. Rasmussen, and P. Boxall. 2018. Labour market segmentation in New Zealand: Some answers and more questions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268414459_Labour_Market_Segmentation_in_New_Zealand_Some_Answers_and_More_Questions
  16. Meares, C., E. Ho, R. Peace, and P. Spoonley. 2010a. Bamboo networks: Chinese employers and employees in Auckland. North Shore City: Integration of Immigrants Programme: Massey University/University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2010b. Kimchi networks: Korean employers and employees in Auckland. North Shore City: Integration of Immigrants Programme: Massey University/University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  18. Meares, C., J. Lewin, T. Cain, P. Spoonley, R. Peace, and E. Ho. 2011. Bakkie, braai and boerewors: South African employers and employees in Auckland and Hamilton. North Shore City: Integration of Immigrants Programme: Massey University/University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  19. Perry, B. 2016. Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.Google Scholar
  20. Salesa, D. 2017. Island time: New Zealand’s Pacific futures. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Underhill-Sem, Y., and E. Marsters. 2017. Labour mobility in the Pacific: A systematic literature review of development impacts. Auckland: New Zealand Institute for Pacific Research, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  22. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2016. Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York: UNDP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watson, B., C. Meares, P. Spoonley, T. Cain, R. Peace, and E. Ho. 2011. Bangers ‘n’ mash: British employers and employees in Auckland and Hamilton. Auckland: Integration of Immigrants Programme: Massey University/University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  24. Winkelmann, L., and R. Winkelmann. 1998. Immigrants in the New Zealand labour market: A cohort analysis using 1981, 1986 and 1996 census data. Labour Market Bulletin 1998 (1 & 2): 34–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EnvironmentUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations