Migrants and Labour Market Outcomes
LABOUR FORCE STATUS OF MIGRANTS
Amongst labour market outcomes, participation and employment status are variables of interest. We investigate these, differentiating according to migrant characteristics as noted in Table 7.1.
Labour force participation rate
According to the census data, the participation rate for the New Zealand born population increased from 59.3% in 1981 to 67.3% in 1996, 69.0% in 2001 and 70.6% in 2006. Comparable figures for the overseas born population group were 58.6%, 58.6%, 59.6% and 63.6%. These comparisons are depicted in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1 Labour force participation rate for population groups
In essence, the noticeable rise in the labour force participation of the New Zealand born over the 1981-1996 period was not reflected in the overseas born population. Of further note are actual reductions in the participation rates between 1981 and 1996 for the Asian, Europe and North American, and Pacific Islands born population groups.
Interestingly, incorporating the years in New Zealand dimension to the participation rates analysis suggests that the intermediate migrant group (i.e. those with between 5 and 14 years residence in New Zealand) are closest to the New Zealand born outcome. Conversely, participation rates for recent and earlier migrant groups are below those of the New Zealand born, with the exception being the 1981 recent migrants group.
Figure 7.2 Participation rate for migrant groups by years of residence in New Zealand
Taken together with the earlier analysis, these observations of labour force participation suggest differences in labour market outcomes between migrant and New Zealand born groups are not fully explained by length of residence characteristics. This is confirmed by the analysis in sub-section 10.2.1 below, suggesting qualifications, age and birthplace dimensions being significant factors in labour force participation.
7.1.1 Participation rates for 25-54 year old age groups
Of course, participation rates for the 25-54 year old age group are noticeably higher than for the overall population. In particular, for the New Zealand born population, 85% of 25-54 year olds were in the labour force in 2006.
Figure 7.3 indicates that participation rates amongst the migrants aged 25-54 are broadly comparable with this figure, the exceptions being the lower participation of migrants born in the Pacific Islands and Asia. Also noticeable is the relatively little difference in this measure between recent migrants and the total 25-54 year old migrant group.
Figure 7.3 Labour force participation rate for 25-54 year olds
Prevalence of self-employed
Of those employed in 2006, 11.7% of the New Zealand born group were self-employed. This proportion had risen from 11.2% in 1996 and 7.3% in 1981, although it is lower than the 12.1% recorded in 2001. As depicted in Figure 7.4, this pattern of increase in self-employment over the 1981-2001 period followed by a decline in 2006 is mirrored across migration birthplace groups. The exception is the slight fall in proportion recorded between 1996 and 2001 in the Asian born group.
Figure 7.4 Proportion of employed in population group who are self-employed
An additional observation is that, for all birthplace groups except the Pacific Islands born population, the overall rate of self-employment is at least on a par, if not above, the relevant New Zealand born figure.
Incorporating the years in New Zealand dimension into this analysis suggests the earlier migrant group have notably higher prevalence of self-employment than the New Zealand born group. In 2006, for example, the 15.0% of employed earlier migrants were self-employed, compared with the 11.7% figure for those born in New Zealand. Except for the Pacific Islands born group,[13] this proportion ranged from 12.8% for the Australian born to 22.0% for earlier migrants born in Europe and North America.
Conversely, the prevalence of self-employment amongst recent migrants is lower than the New Zealand-figure. Here, the lower incidence holds for all birthplace groups.
Prevalence of employers
In contrast to the relatively high incidence of self-employed among migrant groups, the incidence of employers among migrant groups is less.
Figure 7.5 Proportion of employed in population groups who are employers
As depicted in Figure 7.5, of those employed in 2006, 7.6% of the New Zealand born population were employers. This is slightly down from the 7.8% recorded in both 1996 and 2001, but higher than the 6.2% recorded in 1981.
In 2006, no migrant birthplace group's proportion of employers exceeded that of the New Zealand born proportion. In 2001, there was one exception, with the Europe and North American born group recording a rate higher than that for the New Zealand born. There is an identical conclusion for 1996. In 1981, this migrant group was joined by the Asian born group recording a proportion of employers higher than the comparable New Zealand born figure.
Incorporating the years in New Zealand dimension here shows that only a small proportion (2.8%) of employed recent migrants in 2006 were employers. Across the birthplace categories here, the highest proportion is the 3.6% recorded for the born in Asia group.
Moving to the earlier group of migrants, the proportion of employers is noticeably higher for the Asian, Europe and North American, and United Kingdom and Ireland born populations. However, for earlier migrants born in Australia and the Pacific Islands, the proportions who are employers remains below that of the New Zealand born group.
Labour force status summary
Participation rate outcomes for migrant groups appear to be noticeably lower than those for the New Zealand born population. While this difference is not apparent for the intermediate migrant population group, the difference does reappear for the earlier migrant group. It is possible that the difference for earlier migrants is due to differences in retirement.
The prevalence of self-employed is relatively high for migrant groups, compared to the New Zealand born population. The Europe and North American migrant group is a particularly noticeable feature in this observation.
Furthermore, this migrant group also leads in the prevalence of employers. Other migrant groups, however, feature less so in this measure.
[13] Which registered a low 6.4% figure.