Trajectories of incorporation and the socioeconomic status of immigrants in Spain during the economic crisis: The case of the Basque Country

Abstract

Spain has experienced a major social transformation, which is the result of immigration. This article looks at the differences that occur in their trajectories of incorporation, taking into consideration the socioeconomic, migratory and legal variables. The results show the social stratification of the immigrant group and the differences in terms of internal inequality. Furthermore, it has been noted that while in a period of economic boom, human capital was the most important factor in explaining a rising incorporation, in the period of recession, duration of stay is the crucial variable, not so much for a rising incorporation, but to maintain the same socioeconomic status.

Keywords

Immigration integration socioeconomic status Spain trajectories of incorporation

Introduction

The dynamism of global migratory flows and their capacity for social change in receiving and sending societies have led social scientists to analyse the incorporation of immigrants within the framework of social inequality in receiving countries (Portes, 2010). Social support and the social services play an important role in these processes of incorporation, in that they tend to aid these processes and facilitate inclusion through the provision of information, advice and financial support, whether these come from public social services or from other agents (Viola et al., 2018). Therefore, the type of immigration policy conditions models of incorporation and the role of social support in these processes (Cebolla and González Ferrer, 2013).

Since the 1990s, southern Europe has taken on an important role in the global migration system, going from being a region of emigration to being the part of Europe with the highest growth in terms of immigration (Furtak, 2015; King, 2000; Ribas-Mateos, 2004; Winders, 2014). Spain has been one of the southern European countries where immigration has grown the most. This increase in arrivals occurred during a time of high economic growth, which happened between 1998 and 2008 and occurred in labour-intensive, low-productivity industries, including construction, agriculture and the tourism, hotel and catering sector, which were to be the main niches in the job market for migrants of foreign origin (Aja et al., 2008; Colectivo IOÉ, 2012). The period from 2009 to 2015 was characterized by an intense economic recession, which had a major impact on the Spanish labour market as a whole, with particular effects on the group of people of foreign origin (Oliver, 2015).

In the Basque Country, which is the case study on which this article is based, the labour market demonstrates different characteristics: less important levels of tourism, construction and unqualified jobs, and greater importance of the industrial sector and highly qualified jobs, along with a greater regulation of the labour market. These differences explain the fact that the Basque Country’s migratory dynamic is unlike that of Spain in general, with less flow and greater stability, and immigrants whose main job niches are domestic work and the service sector. Furthermore, the case of the Basque Country is also different in that it is one of the autonomous regions with the most advanced social policies, principally as regards minimum income policies (Moreno and Aierdi, 2011).

In this regard, in societies such as Spain with recent migratory processes, the way in which immigrants are incorporated into receiving societies is an important matter and one that directly influences their process of social integration as well as their social inequality (Grusky, 2000). This incorporation has been analysed by the social sciences according to different perspectives, including participation in the job market, legal situation, status and duration of stay (Chiswick, 1978; Heizmann and Böhnke, 2016; Portes and Rumbaut, 1990).

The goal of this article is to analyse the differences in socioeconomic status (SES) existing within the immigrant population based on the variables that affect immigrants’ trajectories of incorporation in the receiving society. Furthermore, we will analyse the impact of the 2008 economic crisis and its influence on inequality among immigrant groups, according to their origin. According to our research hypothesis, in societies with recent migratory processes, the trajectories of incorporation vary depending on the socioeconomic and migratory characteristics of immigrants and their interaction with the socioeconomic and legal context of the host society, and these influence differences in SES among immigrants.

The article is based on the case study of the Autonomous Region of the Basque Country, a region located in northern Spain. This choice is justified by the absence of data at the state level in terms of information about the migratory and socioeconomic dimensions among the immigrant population.

Theoretical framework

As indicated by Portes and Rumbaut (2001), there is a general perception of the immigrant population as a homogeneous group of low SES, employed in jobs requiring few qualifications, and with a general lack of formal education. However, empirical studies show a group with considerable socioeconomic diversity, in which it is possible to observe differences in the socioeconomic makeup of each origin (Luthra et al., 2018). In this regard, both the decision to emigrate and eventual incorporation into the receiving society are conditioned by the SES of each immigrant (Friedberg, 2000; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Jasso, 2011; Kanas and Van Tubergen, 2009). Likewise, the position of each immigrant in the host society’s social hierarchy and each immigrant’s social mobility are important aspects in the integration process (Alba and Nee, 1997; Jaynes, 2007; Massey et al., 1987, 2003; Portes and Rumbaut, 1990).

The differences in the SES of immigrants can be explained by different models and strategies of incorporation into the host society. Here, SES is a result of interaction between the individual and group characteristics of the immigrant, on one hand; and on the other, of the characteristics of the context with respect to the reception of immigrants in general and each group in particular (Portes and Börözc, 1989; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001).

With regard to individual characteristics, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) point to the type of immigrant as the primary differentiating factor (Auer, 2018; Diehl et al., 2016). According to these authors, worker immigrants characterized by low human capital tend to work in jobs requiring few qualifications. In the case of professional immigrants, characterized by higher human capital, they tend to have better paid jobs requiring higher qualifications. However, access to these kinds of jobs is a result of progress that requires some time, after passing through jobs requiring fewer qualifications (Bakker et al., 2017; Dickey et al., 2018).

Therefore, duration of stay brings advantages in terms of participation in the labour market and income levels, overcoming the problems of transferring human capital to the receiving society. Such transferability is also conditioned by the greater or lesser cultural and linguistic proximity of the immigrant (Adsera and Chiswick, 2007; Chiswick, 1978; Fokkema and de Haas, 2015; Yao and Van Ours, 2015).

With regard to the context of reception, this is characterized by government policies, immigration policies, the conditions of the labour market, the attitude and perception of the native population towards immigration, and the characteristics of ethnic communities (Portes and Börözc, 1989; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Governmental policies establish the legal framework that determines the legal status of immigrants, which affects their entrance into the country, their participation in the job market, access to the welfare state and the exercise of their rights. Depending on the legal situation obtained by immigrants (and whether this is maintained over time), the general conditions of life can vary enormously. In this regard, social intervention plays an important role with respect to the social vulnerability of immigrants. By giving immigrants assistance and legal advice through social support, these immigrants can define strategies of incorporation that allow them to obtain an appropriate legal situation and improve their conditions of life (Viola et al., 2018).

In the case of the labour market, the segregation of immigrants in the most precarious and worst paid jobs is very clear (Semyonov and Herring, 2007). This disadvantage does not occur uniformly throughout the immigrant population, and depends on the positive or negative classification given by employers with regard to the employability of each immigrant group in a particular industry. These dynamics occur and also feed back into the segmentation of the labour market and create niches of ethnic jobs. This segregation is a critical mechanism when it comes to the inequality of ethnic minorities, due to the penalization it brings in terms of income level and job mobility (Aysa-Lastra and Cachón, 2013; Kalter and Kogan, 2006). However, although this segregation is the result of the processes that occur in the labour market of the host country, social and labour inclusion policies constitute another element that is characteristic of this context. In fact, these policies, implemented by means of social support in the form of assistance and job policies, have an important role in the promotion of labour mobility away from ethnic job niches (Aretxabala and Setién, 2015). In this regard, when defining the context in the receiving society that conditions incorporation processes, it can be seen how social policies and social support can influence these incorporation models (Gustafsson and Johansson, 2018).

The Spanish case

Immigration has polarized the distribution of classes in Spanish society (Cebolla et al., 2015), in that it has concentrated a greater number of unqualified workers at the bottom of the social structure. It has also created a process of population replacement within the social hierarchy, related to the rising social mobility of the native population (Requena et al., 2011).

In the Spanish case, the interaction among immigrants’ individual and group factors together with the context of reception offer a model of incorporation or integration with certain peculiarities. These include, for example, the importance of human capital for accessing the labour market and the legal framework for obtaining residence permission (Simón et al., 2014). In this way, in Spain as in other countries, a greater human capital offers greater possibilities of ascending labour mobility (Aysa-Lastra and Cachón, 2013). The impact of human capital does not occur from the first moment, and frequently situations of significant over-qualification among immigrants are detected, particularly in the early stages of the migratory process and upon entrance into the job market. However, the passage of time means that this human capital can be put to use in terms of the ascending job mobility already mentioned (Fellini, 2018; Tornos et al., 2004).

So those people who have spent most time in Spain show the best indicators of integration, both with regard to the socioeconomic sphere and official and legal areas, giving them a continuum of stability (Moreno and Aierdi, 2011) in which integration is supported by the duration of stay and by a gradually improving legal situation. In fact, after the beginning of the economic crisis and the increase in unemployment, the legal question played a very important role. Immigrants who had been in Spain for a few years and had stable legal situations were able to face the economic crisis more effectively than others.

Moving to the context of Spanish reception, it is essential to bear in mind the country’s governmental structure, which conditions the process of incorporation. Although the laws and regulations for foreigners are the same throughout the territory, each of the Spanish autonomous regions has exclusive competences with regard to social welfare and inclusion. This means that actions and measures aimed at integration can vary somewhat depending on the Spanish region. In this context, national integration policies have been few and limited and it is certainly possible to talk about the absence of a model, or indeed a non-model (Cebolla and González Ferrer, 2013), whose principal characteristic is precisely the lack of a normative institutional framework and political implementation to guide and influence the integration processes.

With regard to our case study, the Basque Country is located in the north of Spain, bordering France, and has 2.2 million inhabitants. In the year 2000 the foreign population was 1.7% of the total, and in 2014 it was 8.3%, figures that reflect the substantial growth of the immigrant population in the territory. In this context, it has created its own model of integration of the immigrant population, one that features collaboration between the public authorities and social groups.

Data and methodology

The study is based on the data from the Encuesta de la Población Immigrant Extranjera Residente en la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (EPIE) survey, an official Basque Government statistical inquiry carried out in 2010 and 2014. The EPIE is a face-to-face survey of homes whose head of household is a person of foreign origin. The survey sample was 1949 homes for 2010 and 2140 for 2014. The object of study was the population of foreign origin, regardless of their legal situation or nationality at that time.¹ The exploitation of the data has been done using the statistical programme SPSS.

The methodology used in this article is a multivariate analysis based on a principle component analysis (PCA) and a K-means cluster analysis. First, the PCA is carried out with the socioeconomic and migratory variables. The PCA is a technique that makes it possible to reduce and group into different factors the variables that have been used in the analysis. It is expressed by means of the following equation

X_{P} = a_{p 1} F_{1} + a_{p 2} F_{2} + \dots + a_{p K} F_{K} + u_{p}

where XP are the items, $F_{1}$ ,. . ., $F_{K}$ (k << p) are the common factors; $u_{p}$ ,. . . $u_{p}$ are the unique or specific factors; $a_{i j}$ ; i = 1,. . ., p; j = 1,. . ., k are the factorial loadings.

Then, the resulting factors were used in the cluster analysis. This technique allows a classification of cases (the population of foreign origin) according to the degree of similarity among them. The technique creates categories in which the cases with the greatest similarity among them are grouped, differentiating them from the other cases. The statistical technique is expressed using the following equation

J = \sum_{j = l}^{k} \sum_{i = l}^{n} x_{i}^{(j)} - C_{J} | | 2

where $X_{I}^{(J)}$ are cases; $C_{J}$ is the centre of the cluster.

The immigrant population is classified using these statistical operations, grouping it according to its SES, which makes it possible to ascertain the social hierarchy and demographic weight of each of the social strata. Furthermore, the analysis by continent of origin will allow us to find out what the weight of each of the social strata is in each of these origins.

With regard to the variables used for the definition of the social stratification, this has been done considering the socioeconomic variables that are typical in the definition of social structure, such as educational level, occupation and income, bearing in mind the literature on social stratification (Cachón, 1989; Goldthorpe, 1987). Furthermore, and as pointed out above, from the methodological point of view this study offers the novelty of including migratory experience variables in the definition of the social stratification of the immigrant population. These variables are the duration of empadronamiento (registration in a given municipality), which indicates the duration of stay and the legal residence status. This offers information about the legal situation of the immigrant, which affects their chances of access to the labour market as well as their rights and obligations in the receiving society; meanwhile, it is also closely linked to a better socioeconomic situation and social insertion.

With regard to the occupational hierarchy, we have adapted the variables from the survey to the classification created by Goldthorpe (1987), creating a hierarchy based on four categories. It is important to point out that, due to the high level of unemployment in groups of some origins, we have introduced ‘unemployed’ as the lowest category in the hierarchy.

Category I: Those working in managerial posts and highly qualified positions, including managers, technical workers and functionaries.

Category II: Those working in qualified positions, including qualified workers in the service industries, agriculture and fishing, construction and industry, as well as operatives and machine workers.

Category III: Those working in unqualified positions, including unqualified workers in the service industries, agriculture and fishing, construction and industry as well as operatives and machine workers.

Category IV: Unemployed.

To carry out the analysis, the variables have been, in some cases, recodified and ordered, creating ordinal variables (time of stay, income and occupational category) and, in other cases, reordered to establish a hierarchical conceptual order.

Results

Descriptive analysis

The duration of stay shows a population that registered in municipalities (empadronamiento) mainly during the period of migratory expansion as well as growth in migration during the period of economic crisis (Table 1). Specifically, in 2014, 87% of the foreign origin population registered as resident in the Basque Country from 2001 onwards, while 29% did so between 2009 and 2014. With respect to the legal situation of foreign origin population, by 2014, 28% had gained Spanish nationality. The educational level shows an immigrant population characterized mainly by obligatory or secondary education, while the occupation variable, in 2014, shows that 4 out of 10 immigrants seeking a job were unemployed (category IV). Among the employed, the majority work in qualified (category II) and unqualified (category III) jobs, with a minority working in highly qualified jobs (category I). It can be seen how the economic recession increases unemployment and decreases the percentage of immigrants working in qualified jobs (34.9% in 2010 and 26% in 2014). Finally, with regard to income, more than a third have a level of monthly income below the minimum professional salary (€648 per month) or have no income; meanwhile, the majority had a monthly income between €649 and €1296. As is the case with occupation, the effects of the crisis are clear, increasing the percentage of those who have a lower income and decreasing the percentage of those with higher income.

Table 1.

Active population of foreign origin according to duration of empadronamiento, educational level, legal situation as regards residence, occupation and income. Percentage distribution.

Variables		2010	2014	2010–2014
Duration	0–5 years	43.9	29.9	−14.0
	6–9 years	32.4	33.5	1.1
	10–14 years	11.1	24.2	13.1
	15–19 years	4.0	4.3	0.3
	>20 years	8.2	7.6	−0.7
	Not registered	0.4	0.5	0.1
Education	No, or no significant, education	7.3	10.5	3.1
	Obligatory	26.1	24.6	−1.4
	Secondary	37.1	35.6	−1.5
	Professional training	10.5	11.9	1.5
	Tertiary	19.0	17.4	−1.6
Residence	Without residence permit	8.6	7.4	−1.3
	Temporary	20.1	20.6	0.4
	Permanent	52.9	43.3	−9.6
	With nationality	18.3	28.8	10.5
Occupation	Category I	11.7	13.0	1.4
	Category II	34.9	26.8	−8.1
	Category III	22.5	20.9	−1.6
	Category IV	31.0	39.3	8.3
Income (€/month)	<648	32.5	33.2	0.8
	649–1296	48.2	51.3	3.1
	1297–1954	15.3	11.8	−3.6
	1955–2602	3.1	2.7	−0.3
	>2603	1.0	1.0	0.0

Source: Survey of the Immigrant Population in the Basque Country. Own elaboration.

Principal component analysis

The results obtained (Table 2) show a positive and significant correlation among all the variables for both years. In 2010, the most intense correlations occur between income level and professional situation, with a correlation of 0.526, followed by duration of empadronamiento (registration of residence) and legal status, at 0.437.

Table 2.

Correlation among variables.

	Duration	Education	Residence	Income	Occupation	Year
Duration	1.000	.077	.437	.179	.207	2010
Education	.091	1.000	.095	.149	.211
Residence	.376	.158	1.000	.200	.223
Income	.171	.196	.089	1.000	.526
Occupation	.167	.278	.179	.508	1.000
Year	2014

Source: Survey of the Immigrant Population in the Basque Country. Own elaboration.

All correlations have a unilateral significance of .000.

In 2014, the degree of correlation of the duration of stay decreases with regard to legal situation, occupation and, to a lesser degree, income. The positive correlation of those immigrants with a longer duration of stay with a better job, a better legal situation and a higher income decreases with the crisis. In the case of level of education, the tendency is different. Its correlation with legal situation, professional situation and level of income increases. This trend would indicate how educational level begins to take on importance when explaining the integration process and social mobility, a key element in the framework of a meritocratic social model. The correlation of legal situation with all variables except educational level decreases, and this indicates that it begins to decline in importance in terms of explaining the position of the population of foreign origin within the social structure. With regard to income level, the correlation between this and professional level continues to be high, although with a slight decline.

The resulting models of the factor analysis, both in 2010 and in 2014, show two factors that can explain 61% of the total variance (Table 3). This percentage of explained variance validates the analysis given that, in social sciences, an explained variance of 60% or greater is considered to be a valid model (Hair et al., 1998). Furthermore, both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and the Bartlett sphericity test indicate that the analysis has been carried out within appropriate parameters.

Table 3.

Rotated factor scores and explained variance.

	2010		2014
	F1 (32.1%)	F2 (29.4%)	F1 (33.4%)	F2 (27.6%)
Duration	0.071	0.845	0.116	0.81
Education	0.539	−0.041	0.548	0.129
Residence	0.116	0.831	0.089	0.833
Income	0.792	0.165	0.813	0.024
Occupation	0.814	0.196	0.832	0.109

Source: Survey of the Immigrant Population in the Basque Country. Own elaboration.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure: 0.615 (2010) and 0.598 (2014).

Bartllet sphericity test significance 0.000 (2010 and 2014).

Rotated eigenvalues: F1 = 1.603, F2 = 1.473 (2010); F1 = 1.673, F2 = 1.379 (2014).

Table 3 shows the factor scores of the variables which were rotated using Varimax rotation. The result shows that both in 2010 and in 2014 the significance of the factors is similar. F1 includes professional situation, level of income and educational level, while F2 includes duration of empadronamiento and legal situation. Based on this assignation we define F1 as the socioeconomic factor and F2 as the migratory factor.

The immigrant population’s SES

The K-means cluster analysis is carried out based on the factors resulting from the PCA. The result shows a socioeconomic stratification of the immigrant population composed of five major clusters, in which it is possible to observe the influence of the migratory factor when it comes to intra-group differentiation within the strata of a single SES (Table 4). The high cluster includes the population in the highest section of social stratification, with greater income, better jobs, higher educational level and a better legal situation. The Medium SES > Duration of Stay and Medium SES < Duration of Stay clusters cover the medium level of stratification, with moderate incomes and middling jobs and educational levels. They have a similar socioeconomic profile, but a different migratory profile in terms of time of stay and legal situation (with a better legal situation for a longer duration of stay). Finally, the Low SES > Duration of Stay and Low SES < Duration of Stay clusters include those found at the lowest level of the stratification, with low incomes, worse jobs and lower educational levels. In this case, the migratory profile is also different in terms of duration and legal situation.

Table 4.

Characteristics of the clusters according to the percentage of the variables used. Vertical percentage.

		2010						2014
		High (10%)	Med. > Duration (23.8%)	Med. < Duration (26%)	Low > Duration (11.8%)	Low < Duration (28%)	Total (100%)	High (11.1%)	Med. > Duration (21.9%)	Med. < Duration (15.2%)	Low > Duration (23.7%)	Low < Duration (28.5%)	Total (100%)
Duration	0–5 years	13.6	5.4	89.5	2.6	62.1	43.9	0.6	9.6	55.0	4.3	65.5	29.9
	6–9 years	27.6	61.5	10.2	16.9	36.4	32.4	10.8	49.7	41.1	27.3	30.9	33.5
	10–14 years	21.7	20.5	0.3	30.4	1.4	11.1	39.0	38.0	3.9	42.6	3.2	24.2
	15–19 years	13.3	5.7	0.0	10.9	0.0	4.0	14.2	1.5	0.0	9.6	0.4	4.3
	>20 years	23.8	6.6	0.0	36.3	0.1	8.2	35.0	1.2	0.0	14.3	0.0	7.6
	Not registered	0.0	0.3	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.5
Residence	Without permit	0.0	0.3	18.3	0.9	13.0	8.6	0.0	0.5	7.7	0.6	21.3	7.4
	Temporary	0.0	0.6	46.7	1.3	27.0	20.2	1.0	3.8	48.4	1.6	42.4	20.6
	Permanent	64.4	68.3	35.0	38.9	58.3	52.9	36.4	59.2	42.6	40.4	36.3	43.2
	Nationality	35.6	30.8	0.0	58.9	1.7	18.3	62.6	36.5	1.3	57.4	0.0	28.8
Education	No, or no significant, education	0.3	4.6	2.3	11.1	15.2	7.3	0.2	5.4	1.3	12.3	22.0	10.5
	Obligatory	4.0	22.6	16.1	45.0	37.9	26.1	9.6	22.6	17.9	31.8	29.7	24.6
	Secondary	14.5	45.8	44.4	28.7	34.7	37.1	15.4	42.7	32.5	40.6	35.6	35.6
	Prof. training	15.8	9.8	12.1	11.3	7.3	10.5	19.8	18.4	14.6	7.1	6.3	11.9
	Tertiary	65.4	17.2	25.1	3.9	4.9	19.0	55.0	10.9	33.8	8.1	6.4	17.4
Occupation	Category I	77.0	10.2	5.5	1.2	0.0	11.7	64.4	5.7	28.8	0.4	0.4	13.0
	Category II	21.7	64.6	52.6	15.1	6.8	34.9	33.7	46.8	54.9	7.7	9.5	26.8
	Category III	1.1	18.7	31.2	28.5	22.7	22.5	1.9	31.2	13.8	22.9	22.6	20.9
	Category IV	0.1	6.5	10.7	55.2	70.6	31.0	0.0	16.3	2.5	69.0	67.5	39.3
Income (€/month)	<648	0.0	8.1	14.0	60.1	69.6	32.5	2.4	10.2	3.0	68.4	50.1	33.2
	649–1296	23.8	66.2	66.3	35.2	30.3	48.2	33.1	77.5	62.0	31.1	49.3	51.3
	1297–1954	37.3	25.5	19.1	4.7	0.1	15.3	39.4	12.3	28.8	0.5	0.6	11.8
	1955–2602	28.7	0.2	0.6	0.0	0.0	3.1	17.9	0.0	4.9	0.0	0.0	2.7
	>2603	10.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	7.2	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0	1.0

Source: Survey of the Immigrant Population in the Basque Country. Own elaboration.

If we look at the SES data from 2010, we can see the result of the different models of incorporation and stabilization of the migratory processes for the period of economic expansion.² In general terms, a positive relationship can be observed between the socioeconomic factors and the migratory factors. Here, we find the High SES, which includes 11.1% of the population of foreign origin, and the Medium SES > Duration of Stay, which has 23.8%. In these two cases, the picture shows immigrants with a stable migratory process, or a process on the way to being stable, and with a positive relationship between their human capital and socioeconomic situation. On the other hand, we find the Low SES < Duration of Stay representing 28% of the immigrant population. In this case, we are looking at poorly qualified immigrants who have arrived recently, with a precarious legal situation and who are in the lowest social stratum.

In the case of the other two clusters, first we have the Medium SES < Duration of Stay (26%), which is characterized by immigrants who, with a short duration of stay and a precarious legal situation, have nonetheless made the most of their human capital to position themselves in the medium stratum of the social hierarchy of the immigrant population. This group indicates a model of incorporation of the immigrant population of medium status who have managed to find, relatively quickly, a job that reflects their human capital. Second, we have the Low SES > Duration of Stay (11.8%), which represents the immigrant population with a long duration of stay and a good legal situation, but with low educational levels and poor socioeconomic conditions. This cluster represents an immigrant population that has found stability in Basque society, but in a situation of social exclusion.

In short, the 2010 data show a result in which it is possible to appreciate the immigrants’ SES differentiated according to the model of incorporation and the stage of the migratory process and where the context of economic boom plays a central role. They arrived before or during the first years of the migratory boom, and their position in the social hierarchy corresponds to their socioeconomic characteristics.

The 2014 results show the major impact of the economic crisis on the socioeconomic conditions of the immigrant population, which have a deteriorating trend in general. The change in the economic context also influences the proportion of each SES of immigrants, due to the impact of the crisis on migratory processes and trajectories of incorporation. Those SES categories whose proportions have not changed significantly are, on the one hand, those with a better socioeconomic condition, a greater duration of stay and a better legal situation, and on the other, those who have a poorer socioeconomic condition, shorter duration of stay and a worse legal situation. However, it is possible to observe a switch of 11% of the population, including those who in 2010 were in the Medium SES < Duration of Stay, and in 2014 had moved to the Low SES > Duration of Stay. This variation indicates how these immigrants who, with a medium SES had recently arrived in 2010, are those who suffer a declining social mobility process, going from a medium status to a low one. In fact, while the immigrants with a medium SES, but with a migratory process stabilized or in the process of stabilizing, have experienced the impact of the crisis, they have been able to maintain their status; meanwhile, those who took on their status in a short time have been the ones who have not been able to maintain their socioeconomic condition and have experienced a worsening of their position in the social hierarchy of immigrants.

These differentiated dynamics point towards an interesting conclusion: although in the period of economic boom it was human capital that influenced that trajectory of incorporation and position in the social hierarchy more than other variables, in the crisis period duration of stay takes on a new importance. It can be clearly observed how those with a medium to high level of human capital but with a short duration of stay have had to undergo a descending mobility process, while those who had a similar status and human capital, but with a longer duration of stay, managed to maintain their position within the immigrants’ social hierarchy.

SES by continent of origin

The analysis of SES by continent of origin (Table 5) makes it possible to see in greater detail the internal social inequality that exists within the immigrant population. The European population presents the distribution according to type of SES with the greatest degree of uniformity, with similar sizes of strata. What is more, the crisis does not cause major changes to this picture. In the case of the population from the Americas, in 2010 the medium SES predominates, as against the low SES, while in 2014 the two low SESs have expanded to include the majority of the American population. This group goes from a social structure based principally on medium strata to one mainly based on low strata. This change happens due to the falling social mobility experienced by Americans of the Medium SES < Duration of Stay kind, which in 2010 represented 30.9% and in 2014, 14.3%. Furthermore, the proportion of immigrants from the Americas of Low SES > Duration of Stay grew from 10.9% in 2010 to 28% in 2014.

Table 5.

Social stratification of the active population of foreign origin by continent of origin. Horizontal percentage distribution. 2010–2014.

		High	Med. > Duration	Med. < Duration	Low > Duration	Low < Duration
2010	Europe	17.6	20.2	20.2	15.4	26.6
	Africa	4.1	21.3	18.0	11.9	44.7
	America	6.6	26.6	30.9	10.9	24.9
	Asia	12.9	24.0	41.3	3.2	18.5
	Total	10.0	23.8	26.0	11.8	28.5
2014	Europe	18.2	21.7	21.1	22.2	16.9
	Africa	4.0	18.1	7.8	22.1	47.9
	America	11.2	24.7	14.3	28.0	21.9
	Asia	7.8	16.2	27.3	3.9	44.8
	Total	11.1	21.9	15.2	23.7	28.0

Source: Survey of the Immigrant Population in the Basque Country. Own elaboration.

The African population presents a high degree of inequality, with a clear majority of the population in the lowest strata, both in 2010 and in 2014, and it is by far the origin with the greatest social precarity, which was also made worse by the crisis. Finally, in the case of the Asian population, in 2010 it presents a structure in which the medium strata (who have a mainly Chinese origin) predominate, while in 2014 (due to the arrival of a population from Pakistan), this is transformed into a social distribution that is polarized between medium and low strata.

These differences in the SES of each continental origin are the result of different models of incorporation that occur based on the interaction between the socioeconomic and migratory characteristics of the immigrants and the characteristics of the host society. In the case of the European population, two types of immigrants can be identified: those from EU15 countries, with high human capital and employability, and those mainly from East European countries, with lower human capital, but with significant skills for working in occupational niches requiring such skills, such as the industrial sector. For most of this group, employability in the job market and an optimum legal situation arising from belonging to the European Union explains this successful model of incorporation, whose result is a rather balanced social structure.

In the case of the population from the Americas, this group is mainly characterized by its high degree of employability in the labour market, mainly in the service sector and jobs related to domestic service. These trajectories of incorporation explain the highly feminized profile of American immigrants. In this regard, the employability of this group is tied to the historical, linguistic, cultural and migratory links between Latin American countries and Spain, meaning that the legal context of obtaining residence permits or Spanish nationality is simpler than for those from other origins. These factors, characteristic of their model of incorporation, explain their social structure based mainly on medium and low strata in 2014, but also the incipient middle class that can be seen during the period of economic growth.

However, the case of the African population presents characteristics of a very different kind. It is a group with major employability problems in the job market, due to multiple factors such as low human capital, problems with obtaining residence permits, and greater social rejection by the host population. Furthermore, in this case the greater cultural and linguistic distance from the receiving society is a barrier to their employability, regarding which it is also important to consider the existence of situations of discrimination of different kinds because of the matter of origin. This model of incorporation of the African population results in a socioeconomic condition characterized by precarity and a significant concentration in the lowest strata of the social hierarchy.

Finally, in the case of the Asian population it is necessary to bear in mind the changes in its composition, in terms of origin. In 2010 the Asian population resident in the Basque Country was mainly one of Chinese origin, a group characterized by a high degree of entrepreneurship and self-employment in the service sector, a fact that explains their medium social strata. However, between 2010 and 2014 the arrival of a population of Pakistani origin changed the characteristics of this group significantly. The Pakistani population that arrived in the Basque Country had low human capital, precarious legal status and problems with employability in the labour market. For this reason, because of the two models of incorporation, the social structure of the Asian population was polarized in 2014.

Discussion and conclusion

The research hypothesis offered in this article is that not all immigrants are incorporated into host societies in the same way, but that there are different models of incorporation; these models, in turn, create different results in terms of the SES that immigrants can achieve. In fact, according to our hypothesis, the trajectories of incorporation vary according to the socioeconomic and migratory characteristics of immigrants and their interaction with the socioeconomic and legal context of the receiving society, and influence the differences in SES among the immigrant population. The analysis carried out validates this hypothesis and allows us to explain the differences in SES that exist among the different immigrant origins.

First, the results of the multivariate analysis have made it possible to identify a social stratification of the immigrant population based on five kinds of SES. The incorporation into the SES analysis of migratory variables (duration of stay and the legal status of the immigrant) defines an SES of immigrants based on when they entered the migratory process. In this regard, one of the main conclusions obtained is that, in the Spanish case, during the period of economic growth, the variable that most determines the immigrants’ SES of those analysed in this study is their human capital, over and above variables such as duration of stay or legal situation. This is largely explained by the erratic Spanish migration policy during the period of migratory growth, which involved a number of legislative changes, and informal employment was one of the main mechanisms for accessing the job market and later regularization, which created a context in which human capital played an essential role when accessing this job market and, consequently, in the immigrant’s SES.

A second major conclusion is related to the changes that happen due to the impact of the crisis. In this case, in a context of increasing precarity among immigrants in general, it has been possible to identify the fact that those who have experienced descending social mobility due to a change in their SES are those who, having been within the medium strata and with a short duration of stay, have been pushed into the lower stratum by the crisis. So we see that, with the crisis, the duration of stay variable is crucial, to an even greater extent than human capital, in order to understand the change in the immigrants’ SES. In fact, during the recession period, those immigrants who had managed to stabilize their migratory process better managed to retain their social position, while those who were in the early stages of this stabilization process, independently of their human capital, tended to a greater or lesser extent towards a descending mobility. This result leads to the conclusion that duration of stay is a fundamental variable not so much in accessing an advantageous position in the social hierarchy, but particularly in maintaining this position acquired.

Despite being aware of the diversity within each continent of origin, and of the limitations involved in using this variable, this analysis by origin has made it possible to strengthen the validity of our hypothesis, in that we have been able to explain and comprehend in greater detail the social inequalities among the different origins of immigrants based on the different models of incorporation. The results indicate that the immigrants’ own characteristics, as individuals and groups, and their interaction with the context of the receiving society, explain different models of incorporation, which in turn generate different social inequality structures. Some of these structures, like the European one, are more balanced, and others, like the Asian one, are more polarized. Some, like the African one, are more precarious. Finally, the American structure is shared between the medium and low strata.

We can see, then, how in the Spanish case the explanation for the social inequality of immigrants must be looked at from many different perspectives, and for which task the model of incorporation is a valuable analytical tool. A greater cultural and linguistic proximity to the host society makes it easier for immigrants to use their human and social capital in the social mobility process within the receiving society. In and of itself, this proximity is an advantage. In this case, then, the immigrants’ human and social capital can play a more important role. Therefore, it is possible to see cultural origin, in terms of its proximity, as another type of capital that boosts and makes possible the development of human and social capital, and facilitates their use for ascending social mobility. On the other hand, a greater cultural and linguistic distance places immigrants at a disadvantage with respect to their capacity to make use of their human and social capital and so their cultural origin has more importance than these factors. The cultural disadvantage, then, has an influence in that it limits the capacity to activate human and social capital in the process of social mobility.

Finally, the relationship demonstrated in this study between models of incorporation and structures of inequality constitutes evidence to be taken into consideration in terms of social support for immigrants. In this regard, the identification of different models of incorporation, and the definition of the interaction of the variables that characterize both the migratory process and the receiving society, make it possible to adapt social support for immigrants to this diverse social reality.

With regard to limitations, this article is based on a case study of a single Spanish region, the Basque Country. In this respect, it would be interesting to be able to expand the coverage of this study for a better picture of the Spanish reality. In any case, it is thought that the area studied can be extrapolated to the Spanish case as a whole.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Arkaitz Fullaondo

Notes

Author biographies

Arkaitz Fullaondo is an assistant professor at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. His research focuses on migration, segregation, social inequalities, poverty and social services. He has published in the Architecture, City and Environment and City and Territory Territorial Studies. He is a researcher at Ikuspegi Basque Immigration Observatory and has participated in several competitive projects, both Spanish and European.

Gorka Moreno is a full professor at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. He has been Director of the Ikuspegi Basque Immigration Observatory from 2011 to 2019. His research focuses on migration, social policies, poverty and social exclusion. He has published in European Journal of Social Work and in Media & Communication. Now he is a researcher at Ikuspegi Basque Immigration Observatory and has participated in several project and research teams.

References

Adsera

Chiswick

B.R.

(2007) ‘Are There Gender and Country of Origin Differences in Immigrant Labor Market Outcomes across European Destinations?’, Journal of Population Economics 20(3): 495–526.

Aja

Arango

Oliver

(2008) La Inmigración en la encrucijada. Anuario de la inmigración en España. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

Alba

Nee

(1997) ‘Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration’, International Migration Review 31(4): 826–74.

Aretxabala

M.E.

Setién

M.L.

(2015) ‘Desafíos de la gestión de la diversidad en el panorama vasco de las empresas de inserción’, Zerbitzuan 58: 73–81.

Auer

(2018) ‘Language Roulette – The Effect of Random Placement on Refugees’ Labour Market Integration’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(3): 341–62.

Aysa-Lastra

Cachón

(2013) ‘Movilidad ocupacional segmentada: el caso de los inmigrantes no comunitarios en España’, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 144: 23–47.

Bakker

Dagevos

Engbersen

(2017) ‘Explaining the Refugee Gap: A Longitudinal Study on Labour Market Participation of Refugees in the Netherlands’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(11): 1775–91.

Cachón

(1989) ¿Movilidad social o trayectorias de clase? Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

Cebolla

González Ferrer

(2013) Inmigración. ¿Integration sin modelo? Madrid: Alianza.

10.

Cebolla

Miyar

Muñoz

(2015) ‘Is the Spanish Recession Increasing Inequality? Male Migrant-Native Differences in Educational Returns Against Unemployment’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41(4): 710–28.

11.

Chiswick

B.R.

(1978) ‘The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-Born Men’, Journal of Political Economy 86(5): 897–921.

12.

Colectivo IOÉ (2012) Impacto de la crisis sobre la población inmigrante. Madrid: Organización Internacional para las Migraciones.

13.

Dickey

Drinkwater

Shubin

(2018) ‘Labour Market and Social Integration of Eastern European Migrants in Scotland and Portugal’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50(6): 1250–68.

14.

Diehl

Lubbers

Muhlau

Platt

(2016) ‘Starting Out: New Migrants’ Socio-Cultural Integration Trajectories in Four European Destinations’, Ethnicities 16(2): 157–79.

15.

Fellini

(2018) ‘Immigrants’ Labour Market Outcomes in Italy and Spain: Has the Southern European Model Disrupted during the Crisis?’, Migration Studies 6(1): 53–78.

16.

Fokkema

de Haas

(2015) ‘Pre and Post-Migration Determinants of Socio-Cultural Integration of African Immigrants in Italy and Spain’, International Migration Review 53(6): 3–26.

17.

Friedberg

R.M.

(2000) ‘You Can’t Take It with You? Immigrant Assimilation and the Portability of Human Capital’, Journal of Labor Economics 18(2): 221–51.

18.

Furtak

F.T.

(2015) ‘The Refugee Crisis – A Challenge for Europe and the World’, Journal of Civil and Legal Sciences 5: 163.

19.

Goldthorpe

J.H.

(1987) Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

20.

Grusky

D.B.

(2000) Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. New York: Routledge.

21.

Gustafsson

Johansson

(2018) ‘A Worthy Reception? Ambivalences in Social Work with Refugees and Migrants in Sweden’, Advances in Social Work 18(3): 983–1004.

22.

Hair

J.F.

Anderson

R.L.

Tatham

Black

(1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

23.

Heizmann

Böhnke

(2016) ‘Migrant Poverty and Social Capital: The Impact of Intra- and Interethnic Contacts’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 46: 73–85.

24.

Hondagneu-Sotelo

(1994) Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

25.

Jasso

(2011) ‘Migration and Stratification’, Social Science Research 40(5): 1292–336.

26.

Jaynes

G.D.

(2007) ‘Migration and Social Stratification’, Du Bois Review 4(1): 5–17.

27.

Kalter

Kogan

(2006) ‘Ethnic Inequalities at the Transition from School to Work in Belgium and Spain: Discrimination or Self-Exclusion?’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 24(3): 259–74.

28.

Kanas

Van Tubergen

(2009) ‘The Impact of Origin and Host Country Schooling on the Economic Performance of Immigrants’, Social Forces 88(2): 893–916.

29.

King

(2000) ‘Southern Europe in the Changing Global Map of Migration’, in King

Lazaridis

Tsardanidis

(eds) Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–26.

30.

Luthra

Platt

Salamonska

(2018) ‘Types of Migration: The Motivations, Composition, and Early Integration Patterns of “New Migrants” in Europe’, International Migration Review 52(2): 368–403.

31.

Massey

D.S.

Alarcón

Durand

González

(1987) Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. London: University of California Press.

32.

Massey

D.S.

Durand

Malone

N.J.

(2003) Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

33.

Moreno

Aierdi

(2011) ‘La inmigración en el País Vasco 2010. Crisis, cambio de ciclo y restos de futuro’, in Moreno

Aierdi

(eds) Anuario de la inmigración en el País Vasco 2010. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 7–10.

34.

Oliver

(2015) ‘La mejoría del empleo inmigrante en España en 2014: ¿Cambios estructurales?’, in Arango

Moya

Oliver

Sánchez-Montijano

(eds) Flujos cambiantes, atonía institucional. Anuario de la inmigración en España. 2014. Barcelona: CIDOB, pp. 124–45.

35.

Portes

(2010) ‘Migration and Social Change: Some Conceptual Reflections’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10): 1537–63.

36.

Portes

Börözc

(1989) ‘Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation’, International Migration Review 23(3): 606–30.

37.

Portes

Rumbaut

(1990) Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

38.

Portes

Rumbaut

(2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

39.

Requena

Radl

Salazar

(2011) ‘Estratificación y clases sociales’, in Fundación Encuentro (ed.) Informe España 2011. Una interpretación de su realidad social. Madrid: Fundación Encuentro, pp. 301–67.

40.

Ribas-Mateos

(2004) ‘How Can We Understand Immigration in Southern Europe?’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30(6): 1045–63.

41.

Semyonov

Herring

(2007) ‘Segregated Jobs or Ethnic Niches? The Impact of Racialized Employment on Earnings Inequality’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25(4): 245–57.

42.

Simón

Ramos

Sanromá

(2014) ‘Immigrant Occupational Mobility: Longitudinal Evidence from Spain’, European Journal of Population 30(2): 223–55.

43.

Tornos

Aparicio

Fernández

(2004) El human capital de la inmigración. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.

44.

Viola

Biondo

Mosso

(2018) ‘The Role of Social Worker in Promoting Immigrants’ Integration’, Social Work in Public Health 33(7–8): 1–14.

45.

Winders

(2014) ‘New Immigrant Destinations in Global Context’, International Migration Review 48(1): 149–79.

46.

Yao

Van Ours

(2015) ‘Language Skills and Labor Market Performance of Immigrants in the Netherlands’, Labour Economics 34: 76–85.