How Labor-Market Integration Affects Perceptions of Discrimination: School-to-Apprenticeship Transitions of Youth with Migration Background in Germany

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between structural integration and perceived discrimination among young people with migration backgrounds in Germany. Assimilation theories expect ethnic boundaries to lessen through minority groups’ upward mobility, while the recently proposed integration paradox asserts that structural integration increases perceptions of discrimination. Using longitudinal data from the German National Educational Panel Study, this article investigates how a successful transition from school to the training market affects young people’s perceptions of ethnic discrimination. Results of propensity score matching and linear probability models show that perceptions of discrimination increase only in response to unsuccessful entry into the training market, partially due to occupational aspirations and personal discrimination experiences. Findings also show that perceptions of discrimination do not increase for young people who are well integrated in the educational system, even if they take up a training position that is not in accordance with their desired profession. These findings highlight the importance of considering perceptions of discrimination in longitudinal and life-course perspectives to better understanding dynamics in these perceptions.

Keywords

labor market integration perceived discrimination school-to-work transition

Introduction

The successful integration of the children of immigrants is a key issue in the context of large migration flows in many societies (e.g., Alba and Foner 2015). Extensive research has examined the determinants affecting minority youth’s structural integration in education and the labor market (review in Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi 2008), but less is known about the relationship between structural integration and perceptions of discrimination (e.g., Silberman, Alba, and Fournier 2007; Alanya, Baysu, and Swyngedouw 2015). Understanding perceived discrimination is important, however, because it can have serious consequences for an individual’s psychological well-being (Schmitt et al. 2014), diminish a sense of belonging to the host society, and increase the overall social distance between groups (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, and Solheim 2009; Skrobanek 2009; de Vroome, Verkuyten, and Martinovic 2014; Heath and Demireva 2014; Diehl, Fischer-Neumann, and Mühlau 2016). Thus, perceptions of discrimination can indicate the salience of ethnic boundaries, which can act as a hindrance to overall social cohesion (Lamont 2009).

Previous research on immigrant integration suggests that structural integration affects the risk of experiencing and perceiving discrimination (e.g., Silberman, Alba, and Fournier 2007; Schaeffer 2019). On the one hand, assimilation theories propose that structural integration in education and the labor market reduces group boundaries, as well as the overall level of ethnic prejudice (Gordon 1964; Alba 2005). Thus, the least socioeconomically integrated minorities should face the most discrimination and strongest boundaries. On the other hand, recent research highlights the importance of the integration paradox: members of an ethnic minority who are more socioeconomically integrated are more likely to perceive discrimination due to increased awareness of it, as well as higher expectations (Tolsma, Lubbers, and Gijsberts 2012; Verkuyten 2016; Steinmann 2018). However, we still know relatively little about the scope of the integration paradox, especially concerning perceptions of discrimination among socioeconomically integrated minorities who have not attained higher education. Moreover, empirical tests of the reasons why perceptions of discrimination might change in the process of structural integration are rare.

In addition, most research has relied on cross-sectional data (e.g., de Vroome, Martinovic, and Verkuyten 2014; Steinmann 2018, but see for longitudinal applications McGinnity and Gijsberts 2016; Diehl and Liebau 2017), which limits the possibilities of exploring how perceptions of discrimination change as a result of structural integration. In addition, individuals are often more sensitive to the issue of discrimination if they already have personal experiences with discrimination in a particular domain, such as the labor market (Maxwell 2015). Hence, methodologically speaking, the use of longitudinal data and a focus on the transition from school to the labor market can help identify the causes of changes in perceived discrimination.

This article takes a longitudinal perspective to explore the relationship between structural integration and perceived discrimination among young people with migration backgrounds in Germany. The main question it examines is how successful transition from education to the training market¹ affects perceptions of ethnic discrimination in the hiring process. The aim is also to shed light on possible reasons for changing perceptions of discrimination. The analysis presented here focuses on the children of immigrants, including the second generation as well as young people who migrated as children and completed their education in Germany. Awareness about unfair treatment is often higher among children of immigrants, as they are likely to compare themselves with native peers while the first generation’s relevant reference group tends to be their origin country (Heath 2014). This article uses longitudinal data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) for years 2010–2013. The analytical sample includes school-leavers who attained certificates from non-academic tracks of secondary education in Germany. Hence, in contrast to most literature on the integration paradox that compares people with higher and lower education (e.g., de Vroome, Martinovic, and Verkuyten 2014; Steinmann 2018), the study presented here expands the focus by asking whether the integration paradox is salient among socioeconomically integrated minorities whose relevant comparison group is likely natives but who have not attained higher education.

In what follows, I first outline the rationale for investigating the German context. Next, I discuss current theorizing on the relationship between structural integration and perceptions of discrimination. Thereafter, I formulate the hypothesis predicting the changing perceptions of discrimination in the German context. This presentation is followed by the empirical study and concluding discussion that summarizes the findings in the light of the examined theoretical framework.

German Context

Germany offers an inspiring context for studying the relationship between structural integration and perceptions of discrimination for at least two reasons. First, an increasing portion of Germany’s youth population has a migration background. In 2017, around 31 percent of 15- to 20-year-olds had a migration background, and immigrant families in Germany have diverse ethnic backgrounds and migration biographies (BAMF 2019). One of the largest groups is the children of labor immigrants from Southern European countries, Turkey, and the former Yugoslavia, whose parents or grandparents immigrated to Germany between the 1950s and 1970s to work in low-skilled industrial jobs and who were later accompanied by families (Kalter and Granato 2007). From the 1970s onwards, however, many of these labor immigrants suffered from frequent unemployment and remained segregated in the labor market (Kogan 2007).

Another large group with a migration background includes ethnic Germans who migrated mainly from Poland, Romania, and, since the early 1990s, the former Soviet Union (Olczyk et al. 2016). Overall, this group integrated better into the German labor market than did the labor immigrants arriving between the 1950s and 1970s, although more qualified ethnic Germans experienced downward mobility due to insufficient German language skills (Kogan 2007). Since the 1990s, a relatively heterogeneous group of asylum-seekers has also arrived in Germany, including refugees from the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, and former Soviet Union (Olczyk et al. 2016). More recently, labor immigration from other European countries has been significant, particularly after the 2004 European Union enlargement (BAMF 2019), but children of these migrants do not yet constitute a large group in the educational system (Olczyk et al. 2016). Thus, the number of students from this group is likely smaller in this analysis than the number of children descending from earlier labor immigrants or ethnic Germans.

Second, Germany’s secondary education system is highly differentiated, and such differentiated systems tend to contribute to higher inequality in educational achievement across social classes and ethnic groups (van de Werfhorst and Mijs 2010). More specifically, students in Germany are sorted into different secondary-school tracks, starting at the age of 10 years, and only a diploma from the upper-secondary track provides eligibility for university entry, while the chances of students in non-academic school tracks to move upward into an academic track are relatively low (Hillmert and Jacob 2010). Overall, the children of immigrants are more likely to continue in lower or intermediate secondary school than are natives in Germany (Kristen and Granato 2007; Krause, Rinne, and Schüller 2015). However, the vocational training system offers some very viable options for graduates, such as dual apprenticeship programs in firms. Access to these in-firm training positions is market-driven and highly competitive, as the recruitment process for new apprentices resembles the process of hiring new employees (Solga et al. 2014; Jacob and Solga 2015). The relevant alternative to a direct transition to an apprenticeship is to continue studies at school (Holtmann, Menze, and Solga 2017), with the aim to study at an (applied) university or to secure a better position for applying for apprenticeships in firms.² The option to continue studies at school typically requires that a student has a sufficiently high level of achievement. Hence, this article focuses on these two alternative pathways (apprenticeship vs. school) to examine how successful transition from school to the training market affects perceptions of ethnic discrimination in the hiring process.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical perspectives in the integration literature, especially assimilation theories, expect ethnic boundaries and actual discrimination to lessen with increasing immigrant integration into the education system and labor market (e.g., Gordon 1964; Alba 2005). Yet, research on the integration paradox shows that upward mobility might increase perceptions of discrimination (e.g., Verkuyten 2016). More specifically, classical assimilation theory proposed that structural integration promoted other aspects of adaption and ultimately led to diminishing prejudice and ethnic discrimination (Gordon 1964). More recently, Alba (2005) has suggested that if an individual or group narrows the social distance from the mainstream through upward mobility, then socially constructed ethnic boundaries can be, respectively, crossed or blurred. However, Portes and Zhou (1993) emphasize in segmented assimilation theory that minority groups with limited human and financial resources who face more discrimination have the highest risk for assimilation into lower segments of society (see also Zhou 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 2006). In turn, the second generation’s downward assimilation may inhibit the crossing of symbolic boundaries used by majority groups to construct notions of “us” and “them” (Bail 2008). These symbolic boundaries could be interrelated with perceptions of discrimination. For instance, studies focusing on structurally disadvantaged young people with a Turkish ethnic background in Germany have documented high levels of perceived discrimination and feelings of social exclusion from German society (Skrobanek 2009; Çelik 2015). Therefore, low levels of structural integration might be related to heightened perceptions of discrimination.

In contrast, recent scholarship on the integration paradox suggests that perceptions of discrimination are high among socioeconomically integrated individuals (Alanya, Baysu, and Swyngedouw 2015; di Saint Pierre, Martinovic, and de Vroome 2015; Verkuyten 2016; Steinmann 2018). This literature departs from empirical studies of perceived discrimination, showing that people who are more socioeconomically integrated are more likely to perceive prejudice against their group and, as a result, to distance themselves from the host society. Above all, the integration paradox applies for individuals who have higher education (ibid.). The reasons perceptions of discrimination are heightened in the process of labor-market integration for this group relate to augmented social comparisons (Verkuyten 2016). A sense of relative deprivation arises for members of a minority group if they find their group to be disadvantaged compared to the majority group and perceive this disadvantage as unfair and resentful (Smith et al. 2012; Pettigrew and Hewstone 2017). In particular, children of immigrants who have attained their education in the destination country likely have higher expectations for labor-market success than do their parents and, thus, feel more disappointment when facing unequal opportunities and stereotypes about their group (Verkuyten 2016). Some previous cross-sectional studies have found support for the integration paradox among several immigrant groups in the Netherlands (de Vroome, Martinovic, and Verkuyten 2014; di Saint Pierre, Martinovic, and de Vroome 2015), Germany (Steinmann 2018; Schaeffer 2019), and Belgium (Alanya, Baysu, and Swyngedouw 2015). In contrast, a longitudinal study of first- and second-generation immigrants by Diehl and Liebau (2017) shows that rising levels of structural integration are not followed by increases in perceived discrimination in Germany, even though highly educated Turks perceive somewhat more discrimination on average. Thus, although cross-sectional evidence points toward higher levels of perceived discrimination among the most integrated groups, longitudinal studies supporting this finding are still lacking.

The relevant aspect for understanding the changing levels of perceived discrimination is also the relationship between heightened perceptions of discrimination and an individual’s personal discrimination experiences. Overall, many field experiments have documented employer discrimination in the hiring process (e.g., Zschirnt and Ruedin 2016). For instance, in Germany, field experiments in the training market indicate discrimination against applicants with Turkish-sounding names (Kaas and Manger 2012; Schneider, Yemane, and Weinmann 2014). However, research on perceptions and experiences often relies on observational studies. A longitudinal study in four Western European countries by McGinnity and Gijsberts (2016), for example, documented that an increase in perceived discrimination was strongly associated with immigrants’ negative experiences in the host country, such as harassment or bad treatment by institutions. Moreover, in a qualitative study among Austrian university graduates, Verwiebe et al. (2016) found that immigrant-origin labor-market entrants experienced situations in which employers seemed to interpret their foreign-sounding names and appearances as indications of poorer performance and skills. Thus, we can expect a correlation between experiences of discrimination and perceptions of discrimination.

One relevant shortcoming of using self-reported discrimination is the phenomenon of attributional ambiguity: minorities tend to interpret ambiguous negative feedback as indication of prejudice to protect their self-esteem (Crocker et al. 1991), especially minorities with stronger ethnic identity (Operario and Fiske 2001). Hence, in some cases, people might attribute prejudice to situations without actual discrimination or might not always be aware that they experienced discrimination. It is also important to note that individuals typically perceive more discrimination directed at their group than they have experienced themselves, mainly due to additive information, as people can learn about discrimination from others’ experiences or from societal discourses (Taylor et al. 1990). Thus, perceptions of discrimination might rise even if the individual has not experienced personal discrimination. This article focuses on such wider perceptions of discrimination at the group level. Moreover, following the above discussion on the process of perceiving discrimination, it also considers the role of personal discrimination experiences in affecting group-level perceptions.

Hypothesis in the German Context

Building on the theoretical perspectives discussed above, this article investigates the effect of labor-market integration on the level of perceived discrimination among young people with migration backgrounds in Germany. More precisely, it aims to analyze how the transition to the training market shapes students’ perceptions of discrimination and how joining an apprenticeship at a firm, instead of continuing studies at school, affects perceptions of discrimination among students who completed non-academic tracks in secondary school. While taking up an apprenticeship likely leads to qualified jobs and, thus, is a step toward better labor-market integration, continuing studies in school might give successful students an opportunity to study at (applied) universities and, thus, improve their educational integration. Previous studies in Germany show that, compared to their peers, children of immigrants are more likely to continue studies in school than to begin vocational training (e.g., Hunkler 2016) for reasons related to high aspirations or immigrant optimism rather than to anticipated discrimination or information asymmetries (Dollmann 2017; Tjaden and Hunkler 2017). Hence, as anticipated discrimination seems not to be a relevant determinant for this educational choice, the important question is how perceptions of discrimination evolve following transition to the training market.

I postulate three hypotheses that consider the heterogeneity of training positions in terms of skill levels, as well as an individual’s own evaluation of the success of training-market entry. The first hypothesis is based on ideas in assimilation theories. I expect that a successful start in the training market decreases the level of perceived discrimination while an unsuccessful start increases it (Hypothesis 1). I define an unsuccessful start as entry into a training position for a semi-skilled occupation or for an occupation to which the individual did not aspire (see next section). Second, I expect that the reasons why perceptions of discrimination arise in the transition to the training market for unsuccessful entrants include personal discrimination experiences and high aspirations (Hypothesis 2). Finally, based on the integration paradox approach, I propose a counterhypothesis to Hypothesis 1, expecting that even a successful start in the training market leads to an increase in perceived discrimination, particularly for minority youth with higher levels of educational integration (Hypothesis 3).

Data and Variables

I use data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a large-scale longitudinal study sampling educational cohorts (Blossfeld, Roßbach, and von Maurice 2011). This analysis is based on data from the cohort that joined the NEPS in the 9th grade, when students are typically around age 15.³ I used Waves 1 to 5, which were conducted between Fall 2010 and Fall 2013. The analytical sample includes only young people with migration backgrounds who completed the lower or intermediate track in secondary school after the end of 9th or 10th grade. The final sample consists of 1,132 individuals.

The treatment variable is the transition that young people made in one or two years after completing non-academic track in secondary school. I compare two main transitions: (a) a treatment group of young people who found an apprenticeship position in the firm and (b) a control group of young people who continued in school (i.e., they had not yet begun professional training, and their future career was still likely undecided). Other possible pathways are not this article’s focus. I excluded apprentices in school-based training programs, because they have less contact with the labor market, and a very small group of dropouts from the school and training system. However, Table 1 also presents the results for participants in preparatory vocational programs as a separate category (also Footnote 1).

Table 1.

Effects of Transition to Apprenticeship, Ethnic Characteristics and Achievements on Perceived Discrimination.

	Skill level				Accordance with aspirations
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Transition (ref. school)
Semi-skilled position	0.125**	(0.054)	0.132**	(0.055)
Skilled position	0.025	(0.037)	0.024	(0.037)
Not aspired position					0.104**	(0.048)	0.108**	(0.049)
Aspired position					0.031	(0.046)	0.034	(0.046)
Preparatory program	–0.005	(0.041)	–0.002	(0.042)	–0.006	(0.041)	0.000	(0.042)
Perceived discrimination before transition	0.131***	(0.032)	0.133***	(0.033)	0.142***	(0.035)	0.143***
Not German citizen	0.018	(0.037)	0.016	(0.038)	–0.002	(0.040)	–0.007	(0.040)
Origin group (ref. Turkey)
Central and Eastern Europe	–0.046	(0.054)	–0.056	(0.055)	–0.046	(0.059)	–0.054	(0.059)
Southern Europe and former Yugoslavia	0.032	(0.045)	0.029	(0.045)	0.025	(0.048)	0.024	(0.048)
Former Soviet Union	0.023	(0.050)	0.019	(0.050)	0.014	(0.054)	0.007	(0.054)
Small minorities	0.082*	(0.047)	0.074	(0.048)	0.075	(0.050)	0.067	(0.051)
Migration generation (ref. first)
Second	0.067	(0.052)	0.067	(0.053)	0.034	(0.056)	0.037	(0.057)
Third or 1 native parent	0.049	(0.059)	0.049	(0.061)	0.024	(0.064)	0.031	(0.066)
% with migration background in the class (ref. <25%)
25–50%	–0.045	(0.047)	–0.043	(0.047)	–0.062	(0.051)	–0.060	(0.051)
> 50%	0.053	(0.045)	0.059	(0.046)	0.044	(0.049)	0.050	(0.050)
Intermediate degree			0.019	(0.041)			0.026	(0.044)
Grade point average			–0.013	(0.015)			–0.005	(0.017)
Literacy score			0.023	(0.020)			0.020	(0.022)
German at home			–0.008	(0.035)			–0.026	(0.038)
R²	0.044		0.046		0.043		0.046
N	1132				979

Note: Coefficients are from the linear probability regression. Standard errors are in parentheses. Models control for age, gender, parental education and occupation, entry time, and regional supply of positions.

***p < .01, **p < .05, *p <.1 (two-tailed tests)

The quality of apprenticeship positions in Germany is heterogeneous. Thus, I first analyze whether entry into a training position for a semi-skilled or skilled occupation affects the level of perceived discrimination. I separate semi-skilled and skilled occupations based on Blossfeld’s Occupational Classification developed for the German labor market (Blossfeld 1985). Semi-skilled occupations are lower white-collar or manual occupations that require the least skills. About 23 percent of apprenticeship entrants with a migration background took up a semi-skilled training position. Thereafter, I focus on the more subjective criteria of success. The NEPS study asked students’ assessment on the following: “The profession [of my apprenticeship] is my desired profession [Wunschberuf].” I coded students who said that this statement applied to them as having an aspired training position (53%) and students who said that it did not apply or that only some parts of it applied as not having an aspired training position (47%). Apprentices who did not know or did not answer this question are excluded from the models that analyze accordance between apprenticeship and desired profession. I compare all possible outcomes with the control group of students continuing their studies in school.

The dependent variable is perception of ethnic discrimination in the labor market measured after young people made the transition. In Fall 2013 (Wave 5), NEPS participants gave their opinion on the following statement: “People of foreign origin are turned down when looking for work more often than others, even if their credentials are just as good.” This variable refers to group discrimination but does not specify the concrete ethnic group. Respondents could choose from five options: strongly disagree, rather disagree, rather agree, strongly agree, or do not know. I coded students who agreed or rather agreed with the statement as perceiving discrimination and students who rather or strongly disagreed as not perceiving discrimination. Altogether, about 41 percent of the sample perceived discrimination. Respondents who replied “do not know” are not included in the analysis (about 2%).⁴

The NEPS also measured the perception of discrimination when students were in 9th grade and most likely had not yet experienced personal discrimination in the labor market. Students were asked: “It is not easy to find an apprenticeship. Do you think that one is more likely to be turned down, if one has a name that sounds foreign? Or if one looks foreign?” I coded students who agreed or rather agreed that a foreign-sounding name or appearance increased the likelihood of rejection as perceiving discrimination. I use this measure to control for the initial level of perceived discrimination before transition (see method section below). About 15 percent of respondents did not answer this question.⁵

The NEPS data include a rich set of covariates to estimate the propensity for entry into an apprenticeship (see also Supplemental Table A1 in the Supplemental Appendix). First, achievements and skills matter. My analysis controls for the type of secondary-school qualification and the standardized grade point average.⁶ The latter is calculated based on grades in Math and German (here, I reversed the scale for higher values to denote higher performance). Additionally, the analysis includes scores for literacy in German that the NEPS tested in 9th grade. I also included a variable indicating whether an individual learned German at home as a child. Moreover, the analysis includes characteristics related to migration background that might affect the success of finding an apprenticeship position (i.e., origin country, German citizenship, and migration generation).⁷ I also control for ethnic segregation in the classroom, measured as a percentage of students with a migration background in 9th grade, and for parental highest occupational status and educational attainment. Additionally, I include the supply and demand ratio of apprenticeship positions in the regional training market. This measure affects school-leavers’ opportunities because adverse economic conditions, together with large cohort sizes, often result in high levels of competition for vocational training positions (Kleinert and Jacob 2012).⁸ Finally, the analysis controls for age, gender, and year of receiving qualification from school.

I also test the role of four explanatory covariates to explore why transition outcomes affect perceived discrimination. The first is an indicator measuring whether an individual has any personal experience of poorer treatment at school (for students who stayed in school) or at the place of vocational training (for youth who entered the training market). A second indicator measures personal experience with discrimination during the hiring process. The NEPS asked: “Have you ever been refused an apprenticeship simply because of your origin?” Students who stayed in school could also have such an experience, since about 36 percent of them had applied for an apprenticeship position. Both indicators for discrimination experience were measured in Fall 2013 (i.e., after the transition to the training market or to further studies in school). A third indicator measures the level of occupational aspirations (ideal occupation) asked of students when they were in 9th grade and thereafter coded to ISCO-08 scale.⁹ Finally, entry into a semi-skilled apprenticeship might increase the level of perceived discrimination because of a mismatch between aspirations and achieved position. I, thus, use a dummy variable that indicates whether the achieved apprenticeship position’s skill level is lower than the aspired position in 9th grade.

I conducted additional analysis for more integrated minority youth in the education system (i.e., young people with higher grades and higher literacy scores in German). I defined students as having higher grades if the sum of their German and Math grade was maximally 5 (1 is the highest grade; the scale is not reversed here). In addition, students with migration backgrounds whose scores in the literacy test were higher than the overall average among students studying in non-academic tracks (including students without migration background) belong to a group with a high literacy rate.

Methods

I used propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983) to find out whether the transition from school to the training market had an effect on perceptions of discrimination. The aim here was to estimate whether young people who entered into the training market (D = 1) would have had a different level of perceived discrimination (Y) if they had stayed in school (D = 0). Because we cannot measure this counterfactual outcome, the procedure of propensity score matching constructs it for each individual who began vocational training, using individuals who stayed in school but were otherwise similar in terms of observed covariates. This strategy helps limit selection bias in treatment. Using one-dimensional propensity scores for the probability of experiencing the treatment also reduces the high dimensionality of observed characteristics.

The analysis focuses on the average treatment effects on those who were treated (ATT). ATT shows the mean of differences between the observed perceived discrimination of training-market entrants (D = 1) and their counterfactual perceived discrimination (D = 0) if they had stayed in school, which is estimated based on young people who actually stayed in school (e.g., Gangl 2015; Morgan and Winship 2015):

A T T_{m a t c h} = \frac{1}{N^{D = 1}} \sum_{i | D = 1} [\begin{matrix} Y_{i} & - \sum_{j | D = 0}^{0} w_{i j} Y_{j} \end{matrix}]

where $N^{D = 1}$ is the number of treated individuals, i denotes individuals in the treatment group, j denotes individuals in the control group, and w_ij denotes the matching weight based on propensity scores.

The procedure of propensity score matching involves two steps. First, I estimated the propensity scores for apprenticeship entry, using logistic regression. This model controlled for observed covariates (see section variables) that affected the training-market entry and perceived discrimination. Thereafter, I applied the kernel matching estimator (Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd 1998) to calculate matching weights based on propensity scores. The kernel matching estimator uses all cases in the control group to construct the counterfactual for each case in the treatment group. Control cases that had propensity scores most similar to the target case were given the highest weight. However, this estimation was done only across the common support area in the sample where control and treatment groups overlapped (see more details and balance tests in Supplemental Table A2 in the Supplemental Appendix). I compared several algorithms, which delivered fairly similar results and, hence, decided on the often-used kernel matching.

I also included the level of perceived discrimination in 9th grade in the set of matching covariates. As a result, individuals in the treatment group were matched to individuals in the control group who had similar pre-treatment outcome and other covariates, ensuring more balanced control and treatment groups (see Athey and Imbens 2006; Arpino and Aassve 2013). Besides propensity score matching, I used linear probability models to further explore the background of estimated treatment effects. However, semiparametric propensity score matching has some clear advantages over linear regression, as it does not assume the relationship between treatment and outcome to have a certain functional form and can balance even largely differing covariate distributions in the control and treatment groups (Imbens 2015).

Results

The Effect of Transition Outcomes

Before analyzing the impact of apprenticeship entry on perceptions of discrimination, I conducted a logistic regression analysis predicting the likelihood of different transition outcomes (Supplemental Table A3 in the Supplemental Appendix). These models represent the assignment models of the PSM estimators. Importantly, I found that perceived discrimination before the transition did not affect the likelihood of apprenticeship entry. This finding is in line with previous research in Germany showing that anticipated discrimination is an unlikely reason immigrant children are diverted from viable options in the vocational training system (Tjaden and Hunkler 2017). Only young people who ended up in a training position that was not in accordance with their occupational aspirations were slightly less likely to perceive discrimination before their transition compared to their peers who continued in the school. The following analysis tackles such selection trends into vocational training by considering the level of pre-transition discrimination perceptions, as well as a large set of other covariates.

I next turn to the main analyses focused on transition outcomes’ effect on the level of perceived discrimination. Figure 1 presents the ATT estimates from propensity score matching (PSM) and from a linear probability model (LPM). ATT estimates from the PSM and LPM models are rather consistent and, thus, seem not to decisively depend on the estimation method. As these models control for a large set of pre-transition covariates, we can interpret the presented estimates as increasing or decreasing levels of perceived discrimination for young people in the treatment group compared to the counterfactual scenario of their staying in school.¹⁰ It is also important to note that PSM post-estimation tests showed a good covariate balance as the residual bias was marginal after balancing control and treatment groups and counterfactual observations were assigned to the majority of young people who entered in vocational training (Supplemental Table A2 in the Supplemental Appendix).

Figure 1.

Effects of Transition to Apprenticeship on Perceived Discrimination. Note: The reference category is students staying in school presented by the line crossing the vertical axes at 0. PSM denotes propensity score matching; LPM denotes the linear probability regression; 90 percent confidence intervals. Supplemental Appendix A2 reports bootstrapped standard errors and significance levels of ATT estimates, common support, the results of balancing tests and sample sizes.

Figure 1 shows that the level of perceived discrimination did not change significantly after finding a training position in the firm compared to staying in school. It is possible that continuing in school and finding a training position both indicated an increasing level of structural integration for young people, either in education or in the labor market. Hence, these findings suggest that, overall, perceptions of discrimination did not rise significantly among young people with migration backgrounds in response to entry into the training market.

Importantly, training positions are quite heterogeneous in terms of their quality, and findings in Figure 1 show that discrimination perceptions depend on the apprenticeship’s quality. Taking up a semi-skilled apprenticeship increased the level of perceived discrimination compared to continuing studies in school. The ATT estimate from PSM indicates that young people who began a semi-skilled position were about 14 percentage points more likely to perceive discrimination than their counterparts who stayed in school. In contrast, beginning a skilled training position had no effect on the perceived discrimination. Thus, successful labor-market entrants did not perceive more discrimination; this tendency seems to contradict the integration paradox, as I analyze in more detail below.

Besides skill level, Figure 1 shows that the subjective evaluation of success was important for perceptions of discrimination, as the level of perceived discrimination increased for young people who ended up in an apprenticeship that did not correspond to their career aspirations. The ATT estimate from PSM shows that their level of perceived discrimination was about 13 percentage points higher compared to their very similar peers who stayed in school. However, starting an apprenticeship in a position that was in line with an apprentice’s career aspirations had no effect on the level of perceived discrimination.

An additional important question concerns heterogeneity within the control group, as some students staying in school applied for apprenticeships. This experience might have affected their opinion on discrimination in the labor market. Thus, I estimated additional models by separating the control group based on whether students had previous application experience. Results in Supplemental Figure A1 (Supplemental Appendix) are consistent with the analysis that treats students staying in school as one group, even though the effects are marginally stronger when vocational-training entrants are compared with students in school who did not apply for apprenticeship.

To conclude, the findings provide some support for Hypothesis 1 that unsuccessful entry into the training market increases the level of perceived discrimination, in line with the ideas of segmented assimilation theory. However, successful transitions do not seem to reduce the extent of discrimination perceived in the labor market. Finally, it is important to note that despite the large set of pre-transition covariates used to create balanced samples, the PSM estimation could still be biased if some relevant factor that predicts both the student selection into transition outcomes and their perceptions of discrimination remains unobserved in the analysis.

Explanations for Effects

An important question is why perceptions of discrimination were heightened for some groups in the transition process. To address this question, I used LPMs and tested the role of occupational aspirations, a mismatch of these aspirations to achieved position, and two types of self-reported discrimination experiences: unequal treatment at work (or at school for the control group) and unfair employer rejection of the training position.¹¹ I focus only on the effects of transitions to an apprenticeship that was semi-skilled or not in accordance with the individual’s desired profession, as these two transitions affected the level of perceived discrimination.

Panel A on Figure 2 analyzes possible reasons for the effect of semi-skilled apprenticeship entry on perceptions of discrimination. I start with the baseline model (Model 1) that is similar to the model presented in Figure 1 (note that, here, the sample is a bit smaller because it does not include individuals who had missing values for questions about personal discrimination experiences). Model 2 tests the role of having an experience of unequal treatment at school or the training company. The coefficient is only marginally lower than in Model 1. Similarly, the experience of unfair rejection in the hiring process did not explain the adverse effect of semi-skilled apprenticeship entry (Model 3). Hence, although unequal treatment and unfair rejection both strongly increased perceptions of discrimination (Supplemental Table A4 in the Supplemental Appendix), the rise in the level of perceived discrimination among entrants of semi-skilled apprenticeships cannot be explained by their personal discrimination experiences.

Figure 2.

Explaining the Effect of Transition to Apprenticeship on Perceived Discrimination Note: Coefficients from the linear probability regression. The reference category is students staying in school presented by the line crossing the vertical axes at 0; 90 percent confidence intervals. Models are presented in Supplemental Appendix A4 and include all control variables. Panel A: M6 includes occupational aspirations and a mismatch between aspirations and achieved position; Panel B: M5 includes rejection and occupational aspirations.

In contrast, the adverse effect of semi-skilled apprenticeship entry on discrimination perceptions is somewhat explained by these young people’s overall occupational aspirations (Models 4 and 5 in Figure 2). Importantly, including a variable indicating a mismatch between the skill levels of the aspired occupational position and the achieved training position reduced the adverse effect of semi-skilled apprenticeships. Finally, Model 6 includes both aspirations and their mismatch with the achieved position, which reduced the effect of semi-skilled apprenticeship to 9 percentage points. Therefore, it seems that young people in semi-skilled training positions had higher perceptions of discrimination partly because of their aspiration for a skilled position.

Finally, I explored why the transition to an apprenticeship that was not in accordance with the individual’s occupational aspirations raised the level of perceived discrimination. Discrimination experience and entry into an apprenticeship for which there was no aspiration might be related in two ways. First, entry into such a position might make young people more sensitive to noticing discrimination. Second, young people who settled for such a position were most likely rejected from the apprenticeship for which they aspired, and grounds for this rejection might have been unfair or evaluated by the individual as unfair. Thus, the question is to what extent do discrimination experiences explain the effect of transition into an apprenticeship for which there was no career aspiration on the heightened perceptions of discrimination? Findings in Figure 2 indicate that the experience of unfair treatment at the workplace is probably not a reason (Panel B, Model 2). However, discrimination experience in the hiring process somewhat contributes to explaining the increase in perceived discrimination among young people who entered into an apprenticeship (Model 3) for which they had no aspiration. In addition, the higher occupational aspirations had a moderate role in explaining the rise of their level of perceived discrimination (Model 4). Note that the analysis does not include a covariate measuring the mismatch of aspired and achieved skill level because it is too similar an indicator to the treatment variable. Thus, personal experiences of discrimination and higher occupational aspirations are likely, but not the only, reasons young people who took up an apprenticeship not in accordance with their aspirations perceived more discrimination than their counterparts who stayed in the school.

To conclude, findings provide only moderate support for Hypothesis 2 that perceptions of discrimination arise in the transition to the training market for unsuccessful entrants because of personal discrimination experiences and high aspirations, as both aspirations and personal discrimination experiences in the hiring process somewhat contributed to explaining higher levels of perceived discrimination among less successful training-market entrants. Additionally, the measure for reported personal experiences of discrimination should also capture the possibility that young people rationalized their failure to cope better with it or interpreted ambitious negative feedback as an indication of personal prejudice. Thus, the moderate role of personal experiences of discrimination in explaining the relationship between transition outcomes and heightened perceptions of discrimination indicates that such rationalization of failure or interpretation of negative feedback is a relatively unlikely explanation for the effect of unsuccessful transition outcomes.

The Integration Paradox

Research on the integration paradox suggests that immigrants who are well integrated into an education system perceive the most discrimination (e.g., Verkuyten 2016). In the transition from school to the training market, we can assume that students with good grades and above-average literacy scores in German were well integrated in the education system. In the following analysis, I first investigate whether grades and skills affect the relationship between transition outcomes and perceived discrimination. Thereafter, I conduct a subgroup analysis by separating high-achievers and other youth.

Linear probability models in Table 1 show the effect of transition on perceived discrimination with and without controlling for achievement. The first model includes covariates for ethnic and social background, while the second model adds variables indicating students’ achievement and skills: school-leaving certificate, grade point average, literacy scores in German, and speaking German at home.¹² A comparison of these two models indicates that when achievement and skills were similar, the level of perceived discrimination changed only marginally among unsuccessful apprenticeship entrants compared to their counterparts who stayed in school (Model 1 versus Model 2 and Model 3 versus Model 4). The analysis below further explores achievement’s role in affecting the relationship between transition outcomes and level of perceived discrimination. It is also interesting to note that although origin group, German citizenship, migration generation, and ethnic segregation had almost no effect on the level of perceived discrimination in Models 1 and 3 in Table 1, these models controlled for a large set of background variables and pre-transition discrimination perceptions and, thus, are not directly suitable for further conclusions about the specific effects of ethnic and migration background.¹³

Next, I conducted a separate analysis for high achievers and other young people. Figure 3 shows that the level of perceived discrimination among young people who had high grades or high literacy skills did not change much depending on the transition outcomes (models with interactions are presented in Supplemental Table A5 in the Supplemental Appendix).¹⁴ Importantly, even if high-skilled youth took up an apprenticeship that did not correspond to their aspirations, their level of perceived discrimination did not differ from that of their high-skilled counterparts who stayed in school. It is possible that high-skilled youth treated these apprenticeship positions as temporary and saw options to move further. In contrast, entry to semi-skilled training or apprenticeship for which they had no aspiration increased perceptions of discrimination for those youth with lower literacy or lower grades. Yet, if these lower-achieving young people found a skilled training position or apprenticeship that corresponded to their aspiration, their level of perceived discrimination did not change compared to similar young people who stayed in school.

Figure 3.

The Effect of Transition to Apprenticeship on Perceived Discrimination Depending on the Level of Achievement. Note: Coefficients from the linear probability regression. The reference category is students staying in school presented by the line crossing the vertical axes at 0; 90 percent confidence intervals. Models with interactions between achievement and apprenticeship quality are presented in Supplemental Appendix (Table A5).

Finally, the integration paradox might be especially important for the second generation, who has grown up in the destination country and whose expectations likely do not differ much from youth without migration background (Verkuyten 2016). Although the sample size is too small for sound conclusions, I estimated separate models for migration generations (Supplemental Figure A2 in the Supplemental Appendix). Similarly to Figure 1, these additional models show that perceptions of discrimination did not increase after entry to skilled or aspired training position for youth belonging to second or later generations. In addition, entry to apprenticeship seems not to have affected the levels of perceived discrimination among high-achieving second-generation youth compared to their high-achieving counterparts who stayed in school.¹⁵ Thus, the results are similar when analysis includes only second and later generations.

In sum, findings do not support Hypothesis 3 that a successful start in the training market leads to an increase in perceived discrimination, particularly for minority youth with higher levels of educational integration. Instead, they show that high achievers in the education system did not perceive more discrimination after entry into the training market, even when they took up positions not in accordance with their desired profession. Thus, results seem not to provide support for the integration paradox among young people of migration background who completed non-academic secondary school tracks in Germany.

Conclusion

The relationship between structural integration and perceived discrimination is complex, but understanding it is critical to enhancing minorities’ well-being and sense of belonging to mainstream society. Structural integration and upward mobility might reduce ethnic boundaries and actual discrimination, as expected in assimilation theories. Yet, the recent literature on the integration paradox suggests that structural integration increases perceptions of discrimination among immigrants (e.g., Verkuyten 2016). These two theoretical approaches provide a motivation for examining the effect of structural integration on perceived discrimination.

This article used a longitudinal perspective to investigate perceptions of discrimination among young people with migration backgrounds after their transition from school to training position in the German labor market. More specifically, it examined how the success of transition affected the perception of ethnic discrimination in the hiring process. In contrast to previous cross-sectional research (e.g., de Vroome, Martinovic, and Verkuyten 2014; Steinmann 2018), the aim was to get closer to causal inference by employing matching techniques with longitudinal NEPS data to moderate selection bias and by considering pre-transition levels of perceived discrimination. Moreover, despite the large literature on structural integration (e.g., Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi 2008), only limited empirical research has tested mechanisms for the changing perceptions of discrimination in structural integration process. Hence, this article aimed to shed light on the reasons for heightened perceptions of discrimination among young people of migrant origins.

Findings suggest that perceptions of discrimination rose among young people only in response to an unsuccessful entry into the training market, while successful entry had no effect. More specifically, the level of perceived discrimination increased after entry into a semi-skilled apprenticeship or an apprenticeship that was not in accordance with the individual’s desired profession. These rising perceptions of discrimination were only marginally explained by personal discrimination experiences in the hiring process, even though negative experiences strongly affected the level of perceived discrimination. Therefore, it is unlikely that heightened perceptions of discrimination could be only attributed to post-hoc rationalization of the failure. Moreover, occupational aspirations had some role in explaining rising perceptions of discrimination among semi-skilled apprenticeship entrants. However, a significant part of structural integration’s effect on perceived discrimination remains unexplained. This finding suggests that considering the complex combination of several contextual and psychological factors is important in future research.

These results show that unsuccessful steps in labor-market integration likely increase perceptions of discrimination. It is possible that an unsuccessful start in the labor market, together with heightened perceptions of discrimination, indicates a risk of long-term downward assimilation processes, as suggested in segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Zhou 1993), although this theory looks at integration over a longer period than the short-term effects examined in this article. Similarly, Schaeffer (2019) finds that downward intergenerational educational mobility increases the levels of perceived discrimination among the second generation, likely due to a negative role of unfulfilled mobility aspirations. However, we know little about how permanent perceptions of discrimination are. Importantly, findings presented here show that a successful start in training for an aspired career did not reduce perceived discrimination in the labor market. Thus, in contrast to negative transition outcomes, people seem to have no (quick) positive response to successful transition outcomes. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that perceptions of discrimination might decrease in time for successful training-market entrants.

Previous research has highlighted the importance of the integration paradox: immigrants who are more socioeconomically integrated perceive more discrimination than less-integrated immigrants (Tolsma, Lubbers, and Gijsberts 2012; Verkuyten 2016; Steinmann 2018). However, I found that well-integrated young people who had higher grades or higher literacy rates were not more likely to perceive discrimination, after entering the training market. Their perceptions of discrimination did not rise even if they ended up in an apprenticeship that was not in accordance with their aspired careers. Thus, these findings do not provide evidence for the integration paradox among immigrant-origin youth graduating from non-academic school tracks in Germany. However, in contrast to this study, most literature on the integration paradox focuses on differences between people with higher and lower education (e.g., de Vroome, Martinovic, and Verkuyten 2014; Steinmann 2018). Yet, using longitudinal data for the overall immigration population in Germany, Diehl and Liebau (2017) also show that socioeconomic integration does not increase the level of perceived discrimination. Moreover, although youth with higher education might have higher occupational expectations than graduates of non-academic school tracks, it is likely that the relevant comparison group is natives for the majority of young people with migration background who have attained their education in Germany. Thus, further research should continue to empirically evaluate the limitations of the integration paradox and to explore to what extent this paradox is the result of labor-market integration or primarily a phenomenon among people with higher education.

An additional important aspect explaining the change in perceptions of discrimination relates to contacts between minority and majority. Some previous studies find that immigrants who have more contacts with natives tend to perceive less discrimination (di Saint Pierre, Martinovic, and de Vroome 2015; McGinnity and Gijsberts 2017). Although this analysis controlled for ethnic segregation at school, the possibilities to investigate the role of social contacts further with the NEPS data are limited. For instance, only a small number of young people who mostly spoke a minority language with their classmates entered into a German-speaking environment at the place of training. Thus, it would be relevant to evaluate in future empirical studies to what extent the changing perceptions of discrimination in the structural integration process are related to increasing contacts with majority.

In addition, some ethnic groups face more salient boundaries than others. Previous studies in Germany, for example, have documented a bright boundary for second-generation Turks (Skrobanek 2009; Schulz and Leszczensky 2016). Although the NEPS dataset was not large enough for a sound analysis by ethnic group, the response to successful transitions does not seem to differ across groups, even if there is some variability across groups in how their perceptions of discrimination changed after unsuccessful transition experiences. This preliminary analysis also suggests that heightened perceptions of discrimination are a hazard for a wider youth population with different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Therefore, future studies should more rigorously test these differences between immigrant groups.

Notwithstanding these shortcomings, this article demonstrates that disappointment in labor-market entry can increase perceptions of discrimination in the labor market. The increase in perceptions of discrimination can occur even if an individual has not personally experienced discrimination or does not have higher aspirations than do other young people with migration backgrounds. These findings suggest that policies aiming to strengthen social cohesion should especially focus on those youth who experience difficulties in the transition to adulthood, as failures might increase their perceptions of ethnic boundaries in society. Such policy focus is highly relevant because an unsuccessful start in the labor market, together with heightened perceptions of discrimination, might push young people toward marginalization from mainstream society. The findings also call for considering perceptions of discrimination in a longitudinal perspective to better understand their dynamics. In particular, the long-term consequence of unsuccessful entry into the labor market, coupled with rising perceptions of discrimination, is an important question for future studies.

Supplemental Material

Online_Appendix - How Labor-Market Integration Affects Perceptions of Discrimination: School-to-Apprenticeship Transitions of Youth with Migration Background in Germany

Online_Appendix for How Labor-Market Integration Affects Perceptions of Discrimination: School-to-Apprenticeship Transitions of Youth with Migration Background in Germany by Kristina Lindemann in International Migration Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I thank the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi) for giving me access to the NEPS data. I am very grateful to three reviewers and the editor for their many helpful suggestions. I also thank Dimitrios Efthymiou and participants at ISA RC28 Spring Meeting 2017 in Cologne and the Mittelbaucolloquium at Goethe University Frankfurt for helpful feedback as well as for support the Chair of Social Stratification and Social Policy at the Goethe University Frankfurt.

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

Kristina Lindemann

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Alanya

Baysu

Swyngedouw

. 2015. “Identifying City Differences in Perceived Group Discrimination among Second-Generation Turks and Moroccans in Belgium.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41(7):1088–10.

Alba

2005. “Bright vs. Blurred Boundaries: Second-Generation Assimilation and Exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1):20–49.

Alba

Foner

. 2015. Strangers No More: Immigration and the Challenges of Integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Arpino

Aassve

. 2013. “Estimating the Causal Effect of Fertility on Economic Wellbeing: Data Requirements, Identifying Assumptions and Estimation Methods.” Empirical Economics 44(1):355–85.

Athey

Imbens

G. W.

. 2006. “Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models.” Econometrica 74(2):431–97.

Bail

C. A.

2008. “The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe.” American Sociological Review 73(1):37–59.

BAMF (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge). 2019. Migrationsbericht der Bundesregierung. Migrationsbericht 2016/2017. http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2016-2017.pdf.

Blossfeld

H.-P.

1985. Bildungsexpansion und Berufschancen: empirische Analysen zur Lage der Berufsanfänger in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Blossfeld

H.-P.

Roßbach

H.-G.

von Maurice

, eds. 2011. Education as a Lifelong Process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Vol. 14. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

10.

Çelik

Ç.

2015. “‘Having a German Passport Will Not Make Me German’: Reactive Ethnicity and Oppositional Identity among Disadvantaged Male Turkish Second-Generation Youth in Germany.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(9):1646–62.

11.

Crocker

Voelkl

Testa

Major

. 1991. “Social Stigma: The Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(2):218–28.

12.

de Vroome

Martinovic

Verkuyten

. 2014. “The Integration Paradox: Level of Education and Immigrants’ Attitudes towards Natives and the Host Society.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 20(2):166–75.

13.

de Vroome

Verkuyten

Martinovic

. 2014. “Host National Identification of Immigrants in the Netherlands.” International Migration Review 48(1):76–102.

14.

di Saint Pierre

Martinovic

de Vroome

. 2015. “Return Wishes of Refugees in the Netherlands: The Role of Integration, Host National Identification and Perceived Discrimination.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41(11):1836–57.

15.

Diehl

Fischer-Neumann

Mühlau

. 2016. “Between Ethnic Options and Ethnic Boundaries: Recent Polish and Turkish Migrants’ Identification with Germany.” Ethnicities 16(2):236–60.

16.

Diehl

Liebau

. 2017. “Perceptions of Discrimination: What Do They Measure and Why Do They Matter?” SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research No. 945. Berlin: DIW.

17.

Dollmann

2017. “Positive Choices for All? SES- and Gender-Specific Premia of Immigrants at Educational Transitions.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 49(Supplement C):20–31.

18.

Flores

R. D.

2015. “The Resurgence of Race in Spain: Perceptions of Discrimination among Immigrants.” Social Forces 94(1):237–69.

19.

Gangl

2015. “Matching Estimators for Treatment Effects.” The SAGE Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference, edited by Best

Wolf

, 251–76. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

20.

Gordon

M. M.

1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

21.

Heath

2014. “Introduction: Patterns of Generational Change: Convergent, Reactive or Emergent?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(1):1–9.

22.

Heath

Demireva

. 2014. “Has Multiculturalism Failed in Britain?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(1):161–80.

23.

Heath

Rothon

Kilpi

. 2008. “The Second Generation in Western Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 34(1):211–35.

24.

Heckman

J. J.

Ichimura

Todd

. 1998. “Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator.” The Review of Economic Studies 65:261–94.

25.

Hillmert

Jacob

. 2010. “Selections and Social Selectivity on the Academic Track: A Life-Course Analysis of Educational Attainment in Germany.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 28(1):59–76.

26.

Holtmann

A. C.

Menze

Solga

. 2017. “Persistent Disadvantages or New Opportunities? The Role of Agency and Structural Constraints for Low-Achieving Adolescents’ School-to-Work Transitions.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46(10):2091–113.

27.

Hunkler

2016. “Ethnische Unterschiede beim Zugang zu beruflicher Ausbildung.” In Ethnische Ungleichheiten im Bildungsverlauf: Mechanismen, Befunde, Debatten, edited by Diehl

Hunkler

Kristen

, 597–641. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

28.

Imbens

G. W.

2015. “Matching Methods in Practice: Three Examples.” Journal of Human Resources 50(2):373–419.

29.

Jacob

Solga

. 2015. “Germany’s Vocational Education and Training System in Transformation: Changes in the Participation of Low- and High-Achieving Youth over Time.” European Sociological Review 31(2):161–71.

30.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Liebkind

Solheim

. 2009. “To Identify or Not to Identify? National Disidentification as an Alternative Reaction to Perceived Ethnic Discrimination.” Applied Psychology 58(1):105–28.

31.

Kaas

Manger

. 2012. “Ethnic Discrimination in Germany’s Labour Market: A Field Experiment.” German Economic Review 13(1):1–20.

32.

Kalter

Granato

. 2007. “Educational Hurdles on the Way to Structural Assimilation in Germany.” In Unequal Chances. Ethnic Minorities in Western Labour Markets, edited by Heath

Cheung

S. Y.

, 271–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33.

Kleinert

Jacob

. 2012. “Strukturwandel des Übergangs in eine berufliche Ausbildung.” In Soziologische Bildungsforschung, edited by Becker

Solga

, 211–33. Wiesbaden: Springer.

34.

Kogan

2007. “A Study of Immigrants’ Employment Careers in West Germany Using the Sequence Analysis Technique.” Social Science Research 36(2):491–511.

35.

Krause

Rinne

Schüller

. 2015. “Kick It Like Özil? Decomposing the Native-Migrant Education Gap.” International Migration Review 49(3):757–789.

36.

Kristen

Granato

. 2007. “The Educational Attainment of the Second Generation in Germany.” Ethnicities 7(3):343–66.

37.

Lamont

2009. “Responses to Racism, Health, and Social inclusion as a Dimension of Successful Societies.” In Successful Societies: How Institutions and Culture Affect Health, edited by Hall

P. A.

Lamont

, 151–68. New York: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Maxwell

2015. “Perceived Discrimination across Institutional Fields: Racial Minorities in the United Kingdom.” European Sociological Review 31(3):342–53.

39.

McGinnity

Gijsberts

. 2016. “A Threat in the Air? Perceptions of Group Discrimination in the First Years after Migration: Comparing Polish Migrants in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland.” Ethnicities 16(2):290–315.

40.

McGinnity

Gijsberts

. 2017. “The Experience of Discrimination among Newly Arrived Poles in Ireland and the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 40(10):1–19.

41.

Morgan

S. L.

Winship

. 2015. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research (Second Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Olczyk

Seuring

Will

Zinn

. 2016. “Migranten und ihre Nachkommen im deutschen Bildungssystem: Ein aktueller Überblick.” In Ethnische Ungleichheiten im Bildungsverlauf: Mechanismen, Befunde, Debatten, edited by Diehl

Hunkler

Kristen

, 33–70. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

43.

Operario

Fiske

S. T.

. 2001. “Ethnic Identity Moderates Perceptions of Prejudice: Judgments of Personal versus Group Discrimination and Subtle Versus Blatant Bias.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(5):550–61.

44.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Hewstone

. 2017. “The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1.” Social Issues and Policy Review 11(1):8–37.

45.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

. 2006. Immigrant America: A Portrait: Berkeley: University of California Press.

46.

Portes

Zhou

. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74–96.

47.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70(1):41–55.

48.

Schaeffer

2019. “Social Mobility and Perceived Discrimination: Adding an Intergenerational Perspective.” European Sociological Review 35(1):65–80.

49.

Schmitt

M. T.

Branscombe

N. R.

Postmes

Garcia

. 2014. “The Consequences of Perceived Discrimination for Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 140(4):921.

50.

Schneider

Yemane

Weinmann

. 2014. Diskriminierung am Ausbildungsmarkt. Ausmaß, Ursachen und Handlungsperspektiven. Berlin: Forschungsbereich beim Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration.

51.

Schulz

Leszczensky

. 2016. “Native Friends and Host Country Identification among Adolescent Immigrants in Germany: The Role of Ethnic Boundaries.” International Migration Review 50(1):163–96.

52.

Silberman

Alba

Fournier

. 2007. “Segmented Assimilation in France? Discrimination in the Labour Market against the Second Generation.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(1):1–27.

53.

Skrobanek

2009. “Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity and the (Re-)Ethnicisation of Youth with a Turkish Ethnic Background in Germany.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35(4):535–54.

54.

Smith

H. J.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Pippin

G. M.

Bialosiewicz

. 2012. “Relative Deprivation.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(3):203–32.

55.

Solga

Protsch

Ebner

Brzinsky-Fay

. 2014. “The German Vocational Education and Training System: Its Institutional Configuration, Strengths, and Challenges.” WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2014–502.

56.

Steinmann

J.-P

. 2018. “The Paradox of Integration: Why Do Higher Educated New Immigrants Perceive More Discrimination in Germany?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1480359

57.

Taylor

D. M.

Wright

S. C.

Moghaddam

F. M.

Lalonde

R. N.

. 1990. “The Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy: Perceiving My Group, but Not Myself, to Be a Target for Discrimination.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16(2):254–62.

58.

Tjaden

J. D.

Hunkler

. 2017. “The Optimism Trap: Migrants’ Educational Choices in Stratified Education Systems.” Social Science Research 67:213–28.

59.

Tolsma

Lubbers

Gijsberts

. 2012. “Education and Cultural Integration among Ethnic Minorities and Natives in the Netherlands: A Test of the Integration Paradox.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(5):793–813.

60.

van de Werfhorst

H. G.

Mijs

J. J. B.

. 2010. “Achievement Inequality and the Institutional Structure of Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 36(1):407–28.

61.

Verkuyten

2016. “The Integration Paradox.” American Behavioral Scientist 60(5–6):583–96.

62.

Verwiebe

Seewann

Wolf

Hacioglu

. 2016. “‘I Have to Be Very Good in What I Do’: Marginalisation and Discrimination in the Career-Entry Phase: Experiences and Coping Strategies among University Graduates with a Migrant Background in Austria.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(15):2468–90.

63.

Zhou

1997. “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation.” International Migration Review 31(4):975–1008.

64.

Zschirnt

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.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB