Search

Segregation of visible minorities has persisted throughout time in Toronto. In examining these concentrations, the literature has been heavily focused on the notion that visible minorities are choosing to live in proximity to their respective ethno‐racial groups and that these are spaces of aspiration rather than marginalization in Canada. This paper raises questions about the assertion of "self‐segregation" by emphasizing affordability constraints on residential choices that are often rooted in discrimination in the labour market. Census data from 2016 and an adopted neighbourhood classification scheme were used to understand the spatial patterning of visible minorities in the Toronto census metropolitan area and highlight differences in the socio‐economic characteristics of visible minority dominant and white dominant census tracts. The findings invite the inference that economic opportunities play a critical role in the residential choices of visible minorities and raise concerns about the quality of life in visible minority neighbourhoods. This research contributes to our understanding of how social inequalities have impacted the socio‐spatial organization of the city of Toronto. Key messages: Visible minority dominant neighbourhoods have lower labour market participation, educational attainment, and income, as well as higher unemployment rates than white dominant neighbourhoods.Although homeownership rates are high in visible minority concentrations, the data indicate that visible minority groups may be making sacrifices in terms of suitability, space, and location due to financial constraints.Housing prices are a likely factor propelling visible minority concentrations in the Toronto census metropolitan area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper refers to the issues of diversity and inclusion because they represent a possible innovation in the field of management and business. Over the last years, there have appeared some organizations that take care of justice and supporting diversity in employment. This phenomenon is applicable to strategic management, human resource management and business, too. The labour market situation is ever-changing and brings new problems but also new challenges and opportunities for companies and their management how to increase their competitiveness. The main aim of this paper is to describe the opinion on diversity and inclusion of young people, specifically university and high school students of economic disciplines because they are potential managers or workers to occupy higher positions and their attitude could influence the future state of using diversity management and fair treatment with employees. Further aim is to work out a brief theoretical framework and to describe the current state of diversity and inclusion in the Czech Republic. In this paper, there are used methods as literature review, questionnaire survey, frequency comparison, Chi-squared test, and Mann-Whitney test. The paper includes work with secondary (statistical and theoretical) data but especially with primary data based on a questionnaire survey conducted by the author that is focused on exploring student's opinion on diversity, diversity management and benefits of using diversity in business, opinion on discrimination in the Czech Republic, or quotas for women in decision-making bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the 2003 National Household Survey, mean labour income for an indigenous worker is only 56% of that for a non-indigenous worker. Studies of ethnic discrimination in Peru's labour markets generally find that discrimination is too low to explain inequalities of this magnitude. However, Sigma Theory (Figueroa 2003) predicts that social exclusion is a source of inter-ethnic inequality, and that has not been empirically tested. The primary aim of this paper is to fill this gap by estimating the extent to which exclusion and discrimination contribute to income inequality. Hurdle models are used to tackle down econometric endogeneity of years of schooling and truncation-at-zero of incomes. The results imply that exclusion plays a stronger role on inequality than discrimination: without exclusion, the Gini of labour income would decrease from 0.64 to 0.45, and without discrimination it would be reduced to 0.50. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]