1. Immigrant and Canadian-born Family Migration and the Employment Outcomes of Women and Men Hongchen Yue Department of Economics University of Manitoba umyueh@cc.umanitoba.ca

2. Objective of this Study  Examine the family migration behavior of immigrants and Canadian-born and the consequences of employment for both men and women.  Analyse in a family and gender perspective, help to understand how ethnicity, gender and employment interact in the process of internal migration and integration

3. Theoretical Framework  Human-Capital model of family migration by Mincer (1978), Frank (1978) and Sandell (1977) -- Empirical evidence indicates the “tied movers” for women (Mincer 1978; Sandell 1977; Spitz 1984; Morrison and Lichter, etc.)  Gender-role model ( Bielby and Bielby 1992) --Husband-dominated family vs. egalitarian family -- HC based theory is egalitarian decision making

4. Theoretical Framework Immigrants’ secondary migration:  ‘Social ties’ (Granovetter 1973; Toney 1976; Wilson and Portes 1980) Immigrants are more mobile or less mobile than the Canadian-born?  Less location specific human capital  Race and ethnic background, enclaves and social ties  Previous studies on Canadian Immigrants internal migration: Newbold (1996), Lin (1998), etc.

5. Theoretical Framework “Family Investment model” by Baker and Benjamin’s (1997)  “Family composition is an important correlate of immigrant assimilation.”  Variation in employment outcomes across different family types.  Family types: immigrant families, mixed families and native families.

6. What about today’s family migration?  Participation of women and rates of family dissolution increase  Traditional family structure decreases?  Relocation strategies and behavior of dual-earner families are likely to become more complicated - complex trade-offs and bargain interactions (Lundberge and Pollak 2001)

7. Modeling Methods  Binary logit models for family migration behavior analysis M i =0 if Mi * <= 0 if M i * > 0M i =1

8. Modeling Methods  Self-selection is a problem  Recursive bivariate probit model (Greene 2003) was used for employment consequences analysis (1) (2) The error terms, u i in equation (1) and v i in equation (2), are assumed to be correlated.

9. Data and Variables  SLID (the Survey of Labor and Income Dynamics)  Pooled eleven two-year cross-sections in the migration model and ten three-year cross sections in the employment model  Census family as the analysis unit, “nuclear family” - Only consider the families of married and common-law couples with or without children - families keep stable and the couples must move together

10. Data and Variables  Migration is defined as the change of CMA residence or the change of Employment Insurance Region (EIR) from one year to the next.  A cut-off of 1000 hours annually for paid work is used to define the employed (or working people).  All the independent variables measured the pre-move situation, including family and spouses’ characteristics

11. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates  A. By Joint Education Level AllNative families Immigrant families Both Have Postsecondary Certificate 3.6%4.1%1.33% Only Husband Has Postsecondary Certificate 3.0%3.4%1.39% Only Wife Has Postsecondary Certificate 3.8%4.2%1.21% Neither Has Postsecondary Certificate 3.1%3.4%1.11%

12. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates  B. By Joint employment Status AllNative families Immigrant families Both Employed 3.1%3.5%0.9% Only Husband Employed 4.0%4.4%1.8% Only Wife Employed 3.7%4.2%0.8% Neither Employed 3.0%3.2%1.6%

13. Descriptive Statistics: Moving Rates

14. Descriptive Statistics Non-moverMover Nativ e family (71%) Wife Immigr ant family Husba nd Immigr ant Immigr ant family (13%) Native family Wife Immigra nt family Husb and Immig rant Immi grant famil y YSM (wife) --28.2 --17.9 --26.2 --17.5 YSM (husband) -- 29.918.9 -- -- 30.819.1 Urban 0.750.840.870.930.650.770.720.78 Received EI 0.280.220.230.20.360.170.280.16

15. Descriptive Statistics

16. Results for Family Migration Models VariablesAll Only immigra nt family Only native family Immigrant family?0.589*.6001 Visible minority immigrant family? 1.106 Black0.622.703 Asian3.974**.991 Only-Immigrant- wife family? 1.71.352.643 Only-Immigrant- husband family?.491 Husband is immigrant? 0.398** Wife is immigrant?1.523

17. Wald coefficient tests (prob> 0) Wife is immigrant=husband is immigrant 0.0550 Immigrant family=only wife immigrant family 0.0232 Immigrant family=only husband immigrant family 0.6511 family=only husband immigrant family 0.0582 Immigrant family=visible minority immigrant family 0.1801 Black=Asian 0.06630.7467

18. Results for employment equations for Men and Women (from recursive bivariate probit models) VariablesAll (wives) All (husba nd) Unemploye d pre-move (wives) Unemploy ed working pre-move (husbands) working pre-move (wives) working pre-move (husban ds ) Family migrant.804***1.62***1.353***1.678***.973**-1.587*** Working before move? 1.156***.003 Migrant*immig rant wife/husband -.150-.0940.237-.367 -.216-.0263 Migrant*immig rant family wife/husband -.248.0823-.3637.466***0.114-.700*** rho -.433-..959-.758-.959-.560.638 Wald test of rho=0, prob>chi2 0.00150.000 0.03940.08240.000 Wald Prob > chi2 0.00000.000

19. Results for employment equations for Men and Women (from recursive bivariate probit models) VariablesOnly Immigrant (husbands) Only Canadian- born ( husband) Only immigrant ( wives) Only Canadian- born ( husbands) Family migrant -1.202**1.619***1.12.838*** Working before move?.102-.0311.066***1.165*** Migrant*imm igrant wife/husband -.0550.094 rho.438-.959-.662-.454 Wald test of rho=0, prob>chi2 0.04190.0000.243500.0011 Wald Prob > chi2 0.000

20. Additional Results  Wives’ characteristic is quite significant in the migration model -- Wife’s education, occupation and participation status are important determinants for family migration but not the employment status.  If husband participates, there is a higher probability of moving, while the probability will diminish if wives participate.

21. Conclusions  Move has different effect on men and women  Wives are not necessarily the tied-movers  Did not detect important differences between immigrants and native-born on family migrant behavior but found differences on migrant outcomes between immigrant men and native-born.

22. Future Research  Consider moving reasons, more detailed employment status by month and job search in the research work.  The interval of three to five years after move could be used to see the ‘long-run’ effect.  Separate those who moved more than once from those who made only one move.