Older Migrants’ Social Capital in Host Countries: A Pan-European Comparison

Abstract

Although a wide range of studies have tackled the outputs of social capital, fewer efforts have so far been dedicated to unveil its inputs. This study provides new empirical evidence on the determinants of social capital. The assumption to be tested is that the influence of “length of residence” on migrant’s social capital is different across host countries in Europe. The study makes use of data from the wave 2 of Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (2006–2007) on individuals aged 50 or more in 14 European countries. Social capital is measured through two binary variables of participation in social activities and high generalized trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Notice that the use of individual calibrated weights already reduced such differences.

  2. 2.

    The distribution of length of stay is displayed in Figure A1 in the Appendix.

  3. 3.

    Notice that the Pearson correlation coefficient is highly significant with a P-value<0.001.

  4. 4.

    Apart from Poland and Italy, but the low rates of migrants in these countries suggest that there may be some statistical imprecision about the previously mentioned rates.

  5. 5.

    Notice that our sample of older immigrant may be highly selected leading to an overestimate of migrants’ level of social capital. Older migrants who have chosen to stay in their host country are likely to be satisfied with their economic and social conditions. Some other migrants (not observed in our sample) may have leaved the host country because they were less attached or because of their precarious living conditions in the destination country. In this respect, some migrants may have voluntarily decided to return to their origin countries or to move in another country because of disillusion or barriers they faced. As proved by the economic literature [Borjas and Bratsberg, 1996; Borjas, 1989], the least successful immigrants are more likely to leave the host country. Return migration has been found for immigrants who have failed in the labor market or for those who have seen a narrowing of their positive outlook in the host country.

  6. 6.

    In Figure 3, Ireland is excluded from the analysis because of its net emigration feature [Gilmartin, 2012].

  7. 7.

    Results not shown.

  8. 8.

    Notice that SHARE data also provided information on migrants’ country of origin, so we also investigated the possibility this variable could be associated with different levels of migrants’ social capital. However, because of limitation in statistical power (clusters of migrants from several regions of the world comprise too few cases whatsoever), no primary evidence was found.

References

  1. AGE. 2008. Improving the Situation of Older Migrants in the European Union. EGE Platform Europe, http://www.ageplatform.eu/images/ stories/EN/pdf_AGE_policy_paper_on_older_migrants_ final_EN.pdf (accessed July 10, 2013).

  2. Agren, G., and K. Berensson . 2006. Healthy Ageing: A challenge for Europe. Vol. 2006. Stockholm, Denmark: Swedish National Institute of Public Health, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akerlof, G.A. 1997. Social Distance and Social Decisions. Econometrica, 65 (5): 1005–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aleksynska, M. 2011. Civic Participation of Immigrants in Europe: Assimilation, Origin, and Destination Country Effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 27 (3): 566–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alesina, A., and E. La Ferrara . 2000. Participation in Heterogeneous Communities. The Quaterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3): 847–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Algan, Y., and P. Cahuc . 2007. La société de défiance: Comment le modèle social français s’autodétruit. Éditions Rue d’Ulm/Presses de l’École normale supérieure, Paris, France. Collection du CEPREMAP.

  7. Becker, G. 1974. A Theory of Social Interactions. The Journal of Political Economy, 82 (6): 1063–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Becker, G.S., and KM. Murphy . 2000. Social Economics: Market Behavior in a Social Environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Borjas, G., and B. Bratsberg . 1996. Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign Born. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (1): 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borjas, G. 1989. Immigrant and Emigrant Earnings: A Longitudinal Study. Economic Inquiry, 27 (1): 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Börsch-Supan, A., and H. Jürges . Eds. 2005. The Survey of Health, Aging, and Retirement in Europe-Methodology. Manheim Research Institute for the Economics of Ageing. Germany.

  12. Breton, R. 2003. Social Capital and the Civic Participation of Immigrants and Members of Ethno-Cultural Groups. Paper presented at the conference on The opportunities and challenges of diversity: A role for social capital? Montreal, November.

  13. Collier, P. 1998. Social Capital and Poverty. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 4, Washington: The World Bank.

  14. D’Hombres, B., L. Rocco, M. Suhrcke, and M. McKee . 2010. Does Social Capital Determine Health: Evidence from Eight Transition Countries. Health Economics, 19 (1): 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Palo, D., R. Faini, and A. Venturini . 2007. The Social Assimilation of Immigrants. SP Discussion Paper n° 0101, Washington: The World Bank.

  16. Eloi, L. 2009. Peut-on se fier à la confiance? Revue de l’OFCE, janvier 2009.

  17. European Commission. 2007. Healthy Ageing: Keystone for a Sustainable Europe — EU Health Policy in the Context of Demographic Change, Discussion Paper of the Services of DG SANCO, DG ECFIN and DG EMPL.

  18. Gilmartin, M. 2012. The Changing Landscape of Irish Migration, 2000–2012. NIRSA Working Paper Series No. 69 — October, Ireland: Maynooth.

  19. Glaeser, E., D. Laibson, and B. Sacerdote . 2002. An Economic Approach to Social Capital. The Economic Journal, 112 (483, November): F437–F458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Helliwell, J.F. 2004. Well-Being and Social Capital: Does Suicide Pose a Puzzle? NBER Working Paper No. 10896, Cambridge.

  21. Kazemipur, A. 2004. Social Capital of Immigrants in Canada. PCERII Working Paper Series n° 04-04.

  22. Kawachi, I., S.V. Subramanian, and D. Kim . 2008. Social Capital and Health. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Knack, S., and P. Keefer . 1997. Does Social Capital Have An Economic Payoff? A Cross Country Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4): 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumlin, S., and B. Rosthein . 2005. Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare State Institutions. Comparatives Political Studies, 38 (4): 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Manski, C.F. 2000. Economic Analysis of Social Interactions. NBER Working Paper No. 7580, Cambridge.

  26. Montgomery, J.D. 1991. Social Networks and Labour-Market Outcomes: Toward and Economic Analysis. American Economic Review Volume, 81 (5): 1408–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nannestad, P. 2007. Immigration and Welfare States: A Survey of 15 Years of Research. European Journal of Political Economy, 23 (2): 512–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. OECD. 2010. International Migration Outlook. OECD code: 812010101P1.

  29. Oorschot, W.V., and W. Arts . 2005. The Social Capital of European Welfare States: The Crowding Out Hypothesis Revisited. Journal of European Social policy, 15 (1): 05–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oorschot, W.V. 2003. Different Welfare States; Different Social Commitments? Evidence from the 1999/2000 European Value Study. Paper presented at 1st Annual Conference of ESPAnet, the Network for European Social Policy Analysis, Copenhagen.

  31. Ronconi, L., T.T. Brown, and R.M. Scheffler . 2012. Social Capital and Self-Rated Health in Argentina. Health Economics, 21: 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosthein, B., and D. Stolle . 2003. Social Capital, Impartiality and The Welfare State: An Institutional Approach. in Generating Social Capital: Civil Society And Institutions in Comparative Perspective, edited by M. Hooghe, and D. Stolle. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 191–209.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sacerdote, B. 2001. Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (2): 681–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Salamon, L.M., and W. Sokolowski . 2003. Institutional Roots of Volunteering: Toward A Macro-Structural Theory of Individual Voluntary Action, in The Values of Volunteering: Cross Cultural Perspectives. edited by P. Dekker, and L. Halman. New York: Kluwer Publishers, 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Scheepers, P., M.T. Grotenhuis, and J. Gelissen . 2002. Welfare States and Dimensions of Social Capital: Cross-National Comparisons of Social Contacts in European Countries. European Societies, 4 (2): 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sirven, N., and T. Debrand . 2012. Social Capital and Health of Older Europeans: Causal Pathways and Health Inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 75 (7): 1288–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Van der Vegt, G.S. 2002. Effects of Attitude Dissimilarity and Time on Social Integration: A Longitudinal Panel Study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 (4): 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Warnes, A.M., K. Friedrich, L. Kellaher, and S. Torres . 2004. The Diversity and Welfare of Older Migrants In Europe. Ageing & Society, 24 (3): 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Healthy Cities and Urban Governance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the HEAPS research program (Health Economics of Ageing and Participation in Society, www.irdes.fr/Heaps) supported by grant number ANR-09-JCJC-0141-01 awarded by the National Research Agency, France. This paper uses data from SHARELIFE release 1, as of November 24, 2010 or SHARE release 2.4.0, as of March 17, 2010. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th framework program (project QLK6-CT-2001-00360 in the thematic program Quality of Life), through the 6th framework program (projects SHARE-I3, RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE, CIT5-CT-2005-028857, and SHARELIFE, CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and through the 7th framework program (SHARE-PREP, 211909 and SHARE-LEAP, 227822). Additional funding from the US National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01, and OGHA 04-064, IAG BSR06-11, R21 AG025169) as well as from various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-project.org for a full list of funding institutions).

The authors would like to thanks the participants of the IV Workshop of the “Global Network on Social Capital and Health” held at the University of Padova (October 4 and 5, 2012). In particular, the authors would like to thank Lorenzo Rocco, Susan Averett, Richard M. Scheffler, Timothy Brown, Sherman Folland, Tor Iversen, Audrey Laporte, Lucas Ronconi, Florence Jusot, and Paul Dourgnon.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

Figure A1

Figure A1
figure5

Distribution of length of stay.

Table A1

Table A1 Descriptive statistics of the covariates in the analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berchet, C., Sirven, N. Older Migrants’ Social Capital in Host Countries: A Pan-European Comparison. Eastern Econ J 40, 166–180 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2013.40

Download citation

Keywords

  • social capital
  • aging
  • SHARE

JEL Classifications

  • F22
  • O52
  • C31