Search

We present the first large-scale comparative field experiment on appearancebased racial discrimination in hiring conducted in Europe. Using a harmonized methodology, we sent fictitious résumés to real vacancies in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, randomly varying applicants’ ethnic ancestry (signaled foremost by name) and applicants’ racial appearance (signaled by photographs). Applicants are young-adult country nationals born to parents from over 40 different countries of ancestry (N=12783). We examine average differences in callback across four phenotypic groups and four regions of ancestry and present the first cross-country comparable estimates of appearance-based racial discrimination reported in the field-experimental literature. We find that applicants’ phenotype has a significant and independent effect on employers’ responses in Germany and the Netherlands, whereas in Spain we only find evidence of hiring discrimination for particular combinations of phenotype and ancestry, which suggests a less direct and more complex effect of phenotype in this country. Implications are discussed.

Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

Previous research unequivocally shows that immigrants are less successful in the labour market than the native-born population. However, little is known about whether ethnic inequality persists after retirement. We use data on 16 Western European countries from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC, 2004–2013) to provide the first comparative study of ethnic inequalities among the population aged 65 and older. We focus on the retirement income gap (RIG) between immigrants from non-European Union countries and relate its magnitude to country differences in welfare state arrangements. Ethnic inequality after retirement is substantial: after adjusting for key characteristics including age, education and occupational status, the average immigrant penalty across the 16 countries is 28 per cent for men and 29 per cent for women. Country-level regressions show that income gaps are smaller in countries where the pension system is more redistributive. We also find that easy access to long-term residence is associated with larger RIGs, at least for men. There is no clear evidence that immigrants’ access to social security programmes, welfare state transfers to working-age households or the strictness of employment protection legislation affect the size of the RIG

We use data from a cross-nationally harmonised field experiment to examine discrimination towards Muslim job applicants in five European countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom). We focus on job applicants originating from countries that have a substantial Muslim population: of these, some signalled closeness to Islam in their job application while others did not. With this design, we can empirically disentangle anti-Muslim discrimination (a ‘disclosed Muslim’ effect) from the possible stigma of originating from countries where Islam is prevalent (a ‘Muslim by default’ effect). Our double-comparative design allows us to compare the extent of anti-Muslim discrimination faced by different origin groups in destination countries characterised by a varying history of church-state relations and distinctive approaches to grant cultural and religious rights to minorities. We find alarming levels of discrimination, especially towards male applicants from more visible groups. Anti-Muslim discrimination and origin-based discrimination independently contribute to the severe disadvantage faced by ethnic and religious minorities, a disadvantage that is especially severe in the Norwegian labour market.

Previous studies have found that the labour market outcomes of Turkish minorities are slightly better in Germany than in the Netherlands. In this paper we test one of the explanations: differences in ethnic discrimination in hiring. We use a harmonised field experiment to test whether discrimination against job candidates of Turkish origin (age 23-25) varies across Germany and the Netherlands, while holding individual characteristics of job seekers constant. We find that, compared to majority candidates, job candidates of Turkish origin are on average eleven percentage points less likely to receive a positive call-back. Moreover, we find that discrimination against Turkish minorities is significantly higher in the Netherlands than in Germany. In Germany, job candidates of Turkish origin are five percentage points less likely to receive a call-back than equally qualified majority candidates, whereas in the Netherlands this ethnic gap is fifteen percentage points. However, the presented evidence does not support the often-mentioned argument that the amount of diagnostic information in application materials explains why discrimination against Turkish minorities is lower in Germany. Overall, adding diagnostic information has little effect on the relative employment chances of job applicants of Turkish origin, both in Germany and the Netherlands.