Understanding Immigrant Behavior in Denmark: The Immigrant Enclave and Employment Rate Paradox
Understanding Immigrant Behavior in Denmark: The I mmigrant Enclave and Employment Rate Paradox
0 Part of the Immigration Law Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Labor
Economics Commons, and the Labor Relations Commons Recommended Citation
Andrew Christensen; Follow this and additional works at; http; //scholarship; claremont; edu/urceu
UNDERSTANDING IMMIGRANT BEHAVIOR IN
DENMARK: THE IMMIGRANT ENCLAVE AND
EMPLOYMENT RATE PARADOX
Andrew Christensen
Immigrant enclaves and en'lployment rates present a paradox for policymakers in
Denmark .1 In 1999, only two countries had a larger employment gap between the
immigrant and native-born population than in Denmark
(Roseveare and Jorgensen 2004 ,
14)
. Today, no other country has a larger employment gap between the inunigrant/ nativeĀ
born populations than in Denmark
(Liebig 2007, 10)
. Since 1999, non-western inunigrant
enclaves have continued to develop just as the employment gap between native and foreign
populations has increased
(Olsen and Hansen 2001 , 23/ Nielsen and Jensen 2006 , 49)
. From
these trends, one could conveniently assert that enclaves worsen il11lnigrant employment
rates. But other evidence complicates this picture. The paradox is that while immigrant
enclaves have low employment rates, itnInigrants that relocate to enclaves have high
employment rates
(Nielsen and Jensen 2006, 411Danun and Rosholm 2005,22)
. Or more
simply, why do inunigrant enclaves seem to simultaneously hurt and help immigrant
employment rates? To find out why, this paper will investigate both parts of the paradox. It
will investigate why inunigrants who relocate to enclaves have high employment rates, and
exalnine why immigrant enclaves have low employment rates. This paper asserts that
inIDligrants relocate to enclaves for access to integration resources and co-ethnic networks,
and that refugees largely account for low employment rates in immigrant enclaves. This
assertion suggests a way countries can improve inmligration policy.
By this assertion, this paper challenges two underlying ideas behind many EU
member-state illlnligrant-placement policies.2 The first idea is that an equal geographic
distribution of inIDligrants evens out costs among municipalities, increases the rate of
integration, and improves employment probabilities for inunigrants
(Nielsen and Jensen
2006 , 28/ Liebig 2007 , 17 / Danun and Rosholm 2005,2)
.The second idea is that itnIlligrant
enclaves slow the rate of integration and decrease inIDligrant employment opportunities
(Olsen and Hansen 2001 , 30) . This paper calls these two ideas into question with two
observations. First, inunigrant enclaves unexpectedly lead to positive economic and
integration outcomes for non-refugees. In order to maxinlize these outcomes, policy should
place non-refugees according to their preference and where integration resources are most
Understanding Immigrant Behavior in Denmark
effective. Second, enclaves have low employm ent ra tes b eca use they have large populati ons
of refu gees. In order to counter this trend, policy sh ould dist ribute refu gees evenly
thro ughout the country and co nti nue to foc us o n reso urces for refu gees.
T his paper divides th e enclave-employm ent paradox into two parts. Accordingly,
secti on on e addresses why immigrants w ho relocate have high employment rates, and
secti on two addresses w hy inunigrant enclaves still have low employment rates. Section 1. 1
reviews recent literature's claims abo ut the ca uses and consequ ences of immigrant enclaves,
lays out this paper's m ethod fo r testing these claims, and describes this paper's hypoth esis and
causal logic. Secti o n 1.2 prese nts evidence fo r tlus hyp othesis, and sectio n 1.3 gives some
prelinu nary conclusio ns. Secti o n two addresses low employm ent in imnligrant enclaves.
1 .1 IMMIGRANT CULTURE, DANISH INSTITUTIONS, AND A DIRE FUTURE
R ecent literature gives two explanati o ns fo r w hy imnugrant enclaves em erge and o ne
predi cti on fo r w hat enclaves mean for the future.The first explanati o n identifies inmugrant
culture as th e root ca use, the second explanati on suggests that institutio ns are the ca use. B oth
predi ct that, witho ut dramati c changes, D enmark is h eaded toward a dire future. The first
explanati on assumes that immigrants congregate fo r primarily cultural reaso ns, or m ore
precisely, that their conuno n Islanu c religio n gives inmugra nts strong incentives to create
close conmmnities (Camre 2007, 195). T his ratio nale assumes that living in an ethnic enclave
strengthens an imm igrant's sense of security, solidarity and identity
(D anun and R oshohn
2005 , 19)
. Trus explanatio n offers two solutions to th e problems imnligrant enclaves
potentially pose. It presents m assive culture chan ge o r complete repatriatio n to th e h om e
country as the only viable solutions
(Camre 2007 , 211 / N annestad and Svendsen 2005, 29)
.
Both of these optio ns would be (...truncated)