Thursday 11 September 2003, 9am, Chapel
Occupational concentration and mobility of Asian immigrants in Australia
Nick Parr and Fei Guo, Macquarie University
Since the abolition of the 'White Australia' policy in the mid-1970s, Australia has accepted a substantial number of immigrants from countries in Asia, especially southeast and northeast Asia. In recent years Australia's migration policy has increasingly emphasised selection on the basis of skills.
Earlier studies of occupational attainment have argued that immigrants in general fare worse than their counterparts who have been born in the country. It has also been recognised that immigrants are ethnically, socially and economically diversified. Most previous studies of Australian immigrants' occupational attainment have tended to consider all immigrant groups as one general group - the 'immigrant population', which to a certain extent may have neglected the differences among the various groups.
Using data from the 1996 and 2001 censuses in Australia, this study aims to update and enhance understanding of the diversified patterns of occupational attainment of a selection of major Asian immigrant groups - mainland China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Vietnam. It provides a detailed and specific description of the very different patterns of occupational concentration of these groups, paying particular attention to the differences in participation in professional occupations.
The results from this study show that, of the Asian groups studied, the occupations of the Malaysia-born, the Hong Kong-born, the Japan-born and the Vietnam-born are the most dissimilar to those of the Australia-born.
For most groups the dissimilarity reflects a higher representation towards the top of the occupational spectrum. For example, for the Malaysia-born and Hong Kong-born the major dissimilarity is the much higher percentages in professional occupations. There is also a clear pattern of concentration in a small number of particular professions. Compared to Australia-born, all the Asian birthplace groups are more likely to be computing professionals or accountants, auditors or corporate treasurers. Almost all the selected birthplace groups are more likely to be medical practitioners than the Australia-born.
The concentration of professional migrants in the selected Asian groups in particular professions would partly be due to the differential allocation of points on the Australian government's skilled occupations list and to some components of these occupations being identified as 'Migration Occupations in Demand' in recent years. A contrasting pattern is evident for the Vietnam-born, with the dissimilarity between their occupations and the Australia-born reflecting a greater concentration at the lower end of the occupational spectrum.
Standardisation shows that for most of the selected birthplace groups if migrants were to have the same demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, education, and English proficiency, as the Australia-born, they would have a lower percentage in professional occupations. This suggests that, on one hand, being in one of the selected Asian birthplace groups does not necessarily deliver an advantage in labour market performance. On the other hand, simply having been born in Australia does not necessarily guarantee one's position in the labour market.
The patterns of occupational concentration and mobility that this study examines are largely determined by the factors that represent one's human capital, especially one's educational qualifications. Between 1996 and 2001 the dissimilarity between the occupations of the selected Asian country of birth groups and those of the Australia-born reduced, with the degree of convergence being most marked for the Vietnam-born (the group most dissimilar to the Australia-born in 1996), the China-born, and the Indonesia-born.
For the Vietnam-born and the China-born, both groups with previously relatively low occupational status, significant upwards occupational mobility is evident, with substantial increases in the percentages of workers in professional occupations, and also increases in the percentages in managerial and administrative occupations. Indeed, the study shows that for all the selected Asian birthplace groups the percentage of employed persons in professional occupations increased, with most increases being greater than for the Australia-born.
The increases in the percentages of most Asian groups in the occupations at the higher end of the spectrum may be due to the effects of an influx of highly skilled migrants, to increased numbers of Asia-born graduates from Australian universities (both former overseas students and the locally educated), and to improvements in English-speaking abilities over the period.
The results from this study may also reflect that the act of migration per se, at least for migrants in the selected birthplace groups, in recent years has not been not such a disadvantageous factor affecting migrants' occupational attainment in the Australian labour market as it was in the past. For many, migration per se would be the process of obtaining an advanced university degree, which in turn may have enhanced their competitive position in Australian labour market.
In an increasingly globalised social and economic environment, migration need not be such a disruption of one's working career. Except for the professions such as medical practitioners, lawyers, and other occupations that are subjected to a strict process of 'credential recognition' for degrees obtained overseas, many professions enjoy a much less strict recognition process, for example IT professionals and engineers.
The study concludes that almost all the selected Asian birthplace groups experienced some degree of upwards occupational mobility, represented by the increase in the percentage in 'high end' occupations. If the Australian government's current migration policy continues, one would expect a steady increase in the percentage of professionals in most of the selected Asian birthplace group in the coming years. Whether the increase is sustainable or not needs further assessment.
Nick Parr
Demographic Research Group
Department of Business
Macquarie University
North Ryde, NSW 2109
Australia
Tel: 61-2-98508570
Fax: 61-2-98506065
Email: nparr@efs.mq.edu.au
Fei Guo
Demographic Research Group
EFS Department of Business, EFS
Macquarie University
North Ryde, NSW 2109
Australia
Tel: 61-2-98508445
Fax: 61-2-98508445
Email: fguo@efs.mq.edu.au
Migration in the year before the 2001 census: variation between local authorities according to the key statistics
Tony Champion, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
The 2001 census asked about people's usual address one year ago, as has every British census from 1961. With the migration section of the standard tables not being included in the main release on 30 June and the special migration tables not due for release till late 2003, this paper is based on an exploration of the migration data published in the key statistics (KS) last February.
KS table 24 is available for England, Wales and Scotland and contains counts for local authority areas on migrant residents, those with no usual address one year ago, within-area movers, inmigrants from the rest of the UK, immigrants from outside the UK, and outmigrants to the rest of the UK. It provides the same information for non-whites, so that a broad comparison with whites can be made in relation to rates of residential movement.
The paper begins by outlining the nature of the migration data available from the 2001 census, and how this differs from that from the 1991 census and other sources like the National Health Service Central Register (NHSCR). The analysis concentrates on migration between local authority (LA) areas, looking at in-, out- and especially net migration. The LAs with the highest and lowest rates of migration are identified. Migration rates for the 408 LAs are then correlated with a range of key statistics from the census in order to explore the role of potential causative factors. Finally, LAs are aggregated to a classification of district types that has been used previously to test for the existence of a 'counterurbanisation cascade'.
A further point of interest is that the 2001 census is the first in which students are meant to have been enumerated at their term time address, and also meant to have answered their usual address one year ago in terms of their term time address then. By focusing on selected university towns, a preliminary attempt will be made to assess how accurately migrations to and from university appear to have been captured, though a comprehensive analysis will need to await the release of the age breakdowns of migrants in the area statistics and the special migration statistics.
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology
University of Newcastle
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Tel: +44 (0) 191 222 6437
Email: tony.champion@ncl.ac.uk
The special migration statistics (SMS) from the 2001 UK census: better or worse than before?
Oliver Duke-Williams, University of Leeds
The 2001 SMS are expected to be released towards the end of 2003. This paper looks forward to their release and discusses the data sets themselves, the differences between these data and those released from previous censuses, and the effects of 'small cell adjustment' disclosure control on the data.
In some respects the 2001 SMS are clearly better than those offered before. The cross-tabulations offer more detailed variables, and the level of spatial resolution is improved: the most detailed set proposed is at output area level. This is part of a progression in which SMS sets from successive censuses have offered more and more detail. However, even this 'improvement' is at a cost: the data become harder for many users to work with.
Far more significant however, may be the effects of disclosure control on the 2001 SMS. Late in the output planning cycle, the disclosure control strategy was updated, such that all outputs would be subject to small cell adjustment. The paper discusses the effects of this on the SMS data, looking at likely statistical effects, and asking whether or not the SMS will be affected in the same way as other data sets.
School of Geography
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
Tel: +44 (0)20 8925 0365
Email: o.duke-williams@geog.leeds.ac.uk