欧洲主要国家移民人口生活条件比较

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Societies Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.3390/soc14090179
Roberto Robutti
{"title":"欧洲主要国家移民人口生活条件比较","authors":"Roberto Robutti","doi":"10.3390/soc14090179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Specific aspects and territorial characteristics of migration have been extensively studied, while the primary living conditions of foreigners have been less compared in-depth. Using data from the Labor Force Surveys and EU-Silc for the year 2019, relating to six key aspects of daily life, in this study, foreign-born people living in the five main European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and the European Union were compared for the frequency of costs (e.g., for welfare services) and benefits (e.g., for employment) for the host society. Subsequently, the comparison of them, made by juxtaposing natives and non-natives, allowed for a definition of the level of primary integration (distance of immigrants from natives on the same aspects). The results show that the degree of congruence between the frequency of costs and that of benefits in the immigrant population is strongly influenced by the economic situation, favorable for Germany and the United Kingdom in 2019, with a lower recurrence of hardship cases among immigrants, but high wealth did not automatically reduce their differences. Instead, a small gap between immigrants and natives may also be due to the progressive impoverishment of the latter (Italian case). Therefore, especially in periods of economic stagnation, the different impact of it and of welfare measures on the immigrant population compared to natives requires the analysis of their actual living conditions, as the traditionally used economic aggregates (especially GDP) do not reveal the disparities in the distribution of resources between the various social and ethnic groups.","PeriodicalId":21795,"journal":{"name":"Societies","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Living Conditions of the Immigrant Population in Major European Countries\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Robutti\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/soc14090179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Specific aspects and territorial characteristics of migration have been extensively studied, while the primary living conditions of foreigners have been less compared in-depth. Using data from the Labor Force Surveys and EU-Silc for the year 2019, relating to six key aspects of daily life, in this study, foreign-born people living in the five main European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and the European Union were compared for the frequency of costs (e.g., for welfare services) and benefits (e.g., for employment) for the host society. Subsequently, the comparison of them, made by juxtaposing natives and non-natives, allowed for a definition of the level of primary integration (distance of immigrants from natives on the same aspects). The results show that the degree of congruence between the frequency of costs and that of benefits in the immigrant population is strongly influenced by the economic situation, favorable for Germany and the United Kingdom in 2019, with a lower recurrence of hardship cases among immigrants, but high wealth did not automatically reduce their differences. Instead, a small gap between immigrants and natives may also be due to the progressive impoverishment of the latter (Italian case). Therefore, especially in periods of economic stagnation, the different impact of it and of welfare measures on the immigrant population compared to natives requires the analysis of their actual living conditions, as the traditionally used economic aggregates (especially GDP) do not reveal the disparities in the distribution of resources between the various social and ethnic groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Societies\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Societies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090179\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Societies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对移民的具体方面和地域特征进行了广泛研究,但对外国人的主要生活条件却较少进行深入比较。本研究利用劳动力调查和欧盟调查(EU-Silc)提供的 2019 年与日常生活六个主要方面相关的数据,比较了生活在欧洲五个主要国家(法国、德国、意大利、西班牙和英国)和欧盟的外国出生者为东道国社会带来的成本(如福利服务)和收益(如就业)的频率。随后,通过将本地人和非本地人并列进行比较,确定了基本融合程度(移民与本地人在相同方面的距离)。结果表明,移民人口的成本频率和收益频率之间的一致程度受经济形势的影响很大,2019 年德国和英国的经济形势良好,移民的困难情况发生率较低,但高财富并不会自动缩小他们之间的差距。相反,移民与本地人之间的微小差距也可能是由于后者的逐步贫困化造成的(意大利案例)。因此,特别是在经济停滞时期,要分析经济停滞和福利措施对移民与本地人的不同影响,就必须分析他们的实际生活条件,因为传统上使用的经济总量(特别是国内生产总值)并不能揭示不同社会和种族群体之间的资源分配差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the Living Conditions of the Immigrant Population in Major European Countries
Specific aspects and territorial characteristics of migration have been extensively studied, while the primary living conditions of foreigners have been less compared in-depth. Using data from the Labor Force Surveys and EU-Silc for the year 2019, relating to six key aspects of daily life, in this study, foreign-born people living in the five main European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and the European Union were compared for the frequency of costs (e.g., for welfare services) and benefits (e.g., for employment) for the host society. Subsequently, the comparison of them, made by juxtaposing natives and non-natives, allowed for a definition of the level of primary integration (distance of immigrants from natives on the same aspects). The results show that the degree of congruence between the frequency of costs and that of benefits in the immigrant population is strongly influenced by the economic situation, favorable for Germany and the United Kingdom in 2019, with a lower recurrence of hardship cases among immigrants, but high wealth did not automatically reduce their differences. Instead, a small gap between immigrants and natives may also be due to the progressive impoverishment of the latter (Italian case). Therefore, especially in periods of economic stagnation, the different impact of it and of welfare measures on the immigrant population compared to natives requires the analysis of their actual living conditions, as the traditionally used economic aggregates (especially GDP) do not reveal the disparities in the distribution of resources between the various social and ethnic groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Societies
Societies SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Antimicrobial Resistance: The Impact from and on Society According to One Health Approach Translating Values into Quality: How We Can Use Max Weber’s Ethic of Responsibility to Rethink Professional Ethics Everyday Life Infrastructure Impact on Subjective Well-Being in the European Union: A Gender Perspective Cross-Disciplinary Rapid Scoping Review of Structural Racial and Caste Discrimination Associated with Population Health Disparities in the 21st Century Syndemic Connections: Overdose Death Crisis, Gender-Based Violence and COVID-19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1