1 – The challenges of a retrospective survey

6 The political and scientific expectations of a survey affect the conditions of its use and the types of sociological arguments that can be drawn from it. Using the TeO survey to explore the diverse employment trajectories of the immigrant population is not initially straightforward. [1] Without reviewing the controversy that arose when the survey was designed and its first results published, [2] we should note that the TeO survey was commissioned by the public authorities in 2003, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the March for Equality and Against Racism. It continues a tradition of major surveys on immigration, carried out since the late 1980s (the Geographical Mobility and Social Integration survey in 1992; the Life History survey in 2003), driven by the political and scientific interest in measuring foreign and immigrant presence in France, and in measuring discrimination (Spire, 1999a). The TeO survey reflects its designers’ desire to measure the discrimination against immigrants and their descendants, as well as the ways such discrimination is subjectively experienced. Questions relating to employment and work, particularly those aimed at a retrospective reconstruction of the career trajectory, constitute one of the themes addressed in the survey. From a life course perspective, the TeO survey provides us with occupational status before migration, at the time of arrival in France, and in 2008, when the survey was conducted, as well as annual information on the employment status of individuals (see below).

7 Another feature of the survey illustrates the difficulties potentially encountered when studying past phenomena through a retrospective survey. The subsample of immigrants includes 8,259 individuals aged 60 or under in 2008, who arrived in France between 1948 and 2007. Due to the way the survey is constructed, labour immigration in the 1950s and 1960s is under-represented in relation to its historical weight. The respondents who arrived during this period were at that point very young children. Moreover, the TeO survey does not provide information about certain specific types of workers; those living in communal facilities, including in migrant workers’ homes, were not surveyed. Finally, the requirements of the statistical survey mean that because only immigrants present in metropolitan France in 2008 were surveyed, we know nothing about those who left France after having spent some time there. Moreover, propensity to leave varies greatly by nationality and historical period. As such, there is no reason to believe that this variation would not have impacted the demographic and occupational structure of the immigrant population present in France at the time of the survey (Thave, 1999; De Coulon and Wolff, 2005; Brutel, 2015; Solignac, 2016), even if, strictly speaking, ‘such a hypothesis cannot be verified using the statistical sources available in France’ (Beauchemin et al., 2015b, p. 78). The population studied by the TeO survey is therefore the product of the political and statistical construction of the sample, and of the historical sedimentation of entry, settlement, and exit processes involving immigrant populations in France.

8 To analyse the employment trajectories of immigrants present in mainland France in 2008, the study population was limited to the 3,604 individuals who arrived between 1968 and 1988 and were aged 20–60 at the time of the survey. Several constraints informed this decision. First, sample design constraints (see above) meant that immigrants entering in the 1950s and 1960s were at that point no more than 10 years old, making them unrepresentative of the reality of migration flows during this period (Beauchemin et al., 2015a). As such, within the total sample population, 50% of individuals entered France before the age of 22. However, this distribution is not consistent over time. The average age at entry into France and the dispersion of ages increases gradually with year of arrival. For this reason, we needed to exclude individuals who arrived early (and as such at a young age, due to the sample design) and decided to use only those entering France after 1968. Secondly, the sampling procedure results in the right censoring of the event history data: at the time of the survey, in 2008, some individuals had reached the end of their working lives or were approaching it, whereas for others who entered France more recently or at a very young age, the TeO survey provided only a few years of observation. We therefore considered the same number of years for all individuals, in this case the first 21 years of their presence in France. The study thus excludes individuals who arrived after 1988. [3]

2 – Dynamics of employment status

9 When the survey was conducted, retrospective information was collected concerning employment trajectories. Beginning from their date of arrival in France or the completion of their studies (if later), each respondent had to fill in an annual timeline with his or her situation, using seven pre-coded states: ‘homemaker’, ‘salaried employee’, ‘unemployed’, ‘self-employed’, ‘in education’, ‘variable’, and ‘other’. The questionnaire specified that ‘salaried employee’ covers apprenticeships and paid internships, as well as salaried employment. ‘Selfemployed’ includes those working for themselves or assisting another person with their work. ‘Unemployed’ individuals may or may not be registered with the French Employment Agency. [4] ‘In education’ includes school or university students and individuals on unpaid internships. ‘Other’ is vague, as it includes national service, retirement, disability, and other unspecified situations. This state will not be taken into account in the analysis. The seventh state, ‘variable’, coded after the survey, is attributed to years in which the individual experienced several different states, including alternating periods of employment and unemployment. This information allows us to outline the employment trajectories of individuals arriving between 1968 and 1988, and to assess the relationship between trajectories, changing entry and residence conditions, and immigrants’ social characteristics.

10 Looking at the succession of these states over the first 21 years of presence in France, one is struck by the great diversity of trajectories. The 10 most common trajectories in the sample represent only 34% of individuals. However, three states clearly dominate: ‘salaried employee’ (average of 10 years out of 21), ‘in education’ (6 years), and ‘homemaker’ (3 years). Salaried employment thus remains a dominant experience in the social life of immigrants, with three-quarters of trajectories including at least 1 year of salaried employment and nearly half over 10 years. The most common trajectory (10%) consists of 21 years of continuous salaried employment.

11 However, these findings must be differentiated according to sex and period of arrival. The TeO survey population, representative of the total immigrant population, became increasingly female over the period. This feminization had an impact on the characteristics of workers, who were increasingly female workers. While the most marked difference between men and women relates to the ‘homemaker’ state (not recorded for any men), salaried employment is still, for both women and men, the majority state after about 10 years of presence in France (even though, for women, the start of this employed period is deferred for several years). For women experiencing varying lengths of time as homemakers, the relationship with employment varies and requires special attention. Different social, professional, and family logics no doubt apply depending on whether the individual is at the beginning or end of their employment trajectory.

12 In addition, processes for entering employment and pursuing a salaried career are deferred and change over time. The TeO survey, due to its sample design constraints in terms of time and age of arrival, allows only partial observation of employment trajectories before the 1970s. Nevertheless, we see distinctions based on period of entry into France, particularly around the time of the suspension of labour immigration in July 1974. The proportion of individuals holding a salaried job upon arrival falls after 1974 (from 35% for 1968–1974 to around 20% for subsequent periods). However, entry into the labour market is only deferred. Irrespective of the time period, more than half of immigrants were salaried employees or self-employed after living in France for about 10 years. While the former state remained predominant, the 1980s–1990s saw a rise in self-employment, the determinants of which should also be studied.

13 The ‘end’ of labour immigration therefore did not signify the end of immigrants in work. The transformation of migration policies in the 1970s, while contributing to the rejuvenation and feminization of migrant flows—which doubtless explain the subsequent delays in labour market integration—is also associated with a change in the requirements for legal residence in France. Thus, in the survey sample, the fall in the number of individuals in paid employment upon arrival must be viewed in relation to changes in the statistics on the allocation of residence permits (Figure 1), which show a clear reduction in legal access to France (and the French labour market) granted for employment purposes. [5]

14 Finally, although the change is not on a large scale, we should note the increase over time in the proportion of unemployed individuals, particularly at the beginning of their careers. [6] Unemployment remains uncommon within the study population, but it seems to disrupt salaried employment trajectories (see below). This finding is corroborated by the fact that the proportion of individuals experiencing at least 1 year of unemployment (out of the first 21 years of presence in France) increases with more recent entry into the country. [7]

15 This initial description of the employment trajectories of immigrants who arrived in France between 1968 and 1988, and under age 60 in 2008, allows us to put the 1974 turning point into perspective (Laurens, 2008). It also allows us to highlight significant shifts over the period, despite the structural nature of work being the organizing principle of the employment trajectories: a rise in self-employment, the feminization of the population resulting in homemaker and/or in salaried employment trajectories, the increased difficulty in obtaining stable salaried employment after 1974, the structural dimension (related to the rejuvenation of migrant flows) of the transition from education to salaried employment for immigrants, the issue of unemployment, and the penetration of insecure forms of employment among immigrants.

Figure 1

Type of residence permit by year of arrival

Type of residence permit by year of arrival

Coverage: Immigrants arriving between 1968 and 1988.

16 Understanding employment trajectories involves taking both historical factors and individual characteristics into account. How do these types of trajectories relate to distinct sociodemographic and migration profiles? How can we explain the most frequent transitions between education, salaried or self-employment, unemployment, and the status of homemaker (not working)? What information do these types of trajectories and transitions provide about changes in migrant flows and the conditions of entry and residence of immigrants in France?

1 – Students and young workers

18 Classes 1 and 4 (1,575 individuals, i.e. more than 40% of the sample) comprise immigrants who have had several years of education before making the transition to short periods of employment. Individuals in these two classes are more highly qualified (in each of these classes, at least 32% have a post– upper secondary qualification, compared with 22% of the full sample) and occupy relatively more highly qualified first jobs: higher level occupation for 11% of Class 1 and 13% of Class 4, compared with 7% of the full sample (they are also over-represented among technicians and supervisors). Unsurprisingly, they arrived in France at a younger age, especially those in Class 1, who immigrated on average at age 6, and 80% of whom immigrated before the age of 10. They are much less likely to be children of farmers, although they do not have higher-than-average social backgrounds, the majority being the children of manual workers. Although they mostly arrived in the 1970s, they differ even more markedly in terms of their residence permits. A larger proportion immigrated for family reunification (Class 1) or for study purposes (Class 4). Lastly, by 2008, more than two-thirds of them had French nationality, whereas this was the case for only 54% of the full sample.

19 These two classes undoubtedly combine heterogeneous migration motives and trajectories, i.e. the migration of individuals from middle or upper social classes for the completion of lengthy studies (in medicine, at the doctoral level, or at elite institutions called grandes écoles) and the school careers, potentially marked by repetitions of years, [10] of working-class immigrants who arrived very young. As such, matching solely based on the trajectory criterion, involving the transition from education to employment, masks a heterogeneity already well documented in other works. Classes 1 and 4 correspond to the second and third types of immigrants distinguished by Moguérou et al. (2015), i.e. those ‘arriving as children or teenagers’ and those arriving ‘for study’. The same significant differences can be observed for first residence permit obtained, country of origin, and date of arrival.

Figure 2

Chronograms of the six classes produced using OM

Chronograms of the six classes produced using OM

Notes: The chronograms do not represent individual trajectories and therefore cannot be read horizontally. They show, for each year, the proportion of individuals in each activity state. Individuals in Class 1 are all in education at the beginning of their careers and then gradually enter salaried employment. At the end of the period, 60% of them are in the salaried employee state. At every point in the trajectory, at least 70% of Class 2 individuals are homemakers.
Coverage: Immigrants who arrived between 1968 and 1988.

20 As highlighted by the large numbers of these classes, the rejuvenation of migration flows over the period has resulted in many young immigrants entering the French education system and thus contributing to the diversification of the social statuses occupied by immigrants, who are no longer immediately or solely workers. However, many students maintain a link with the world of work. The transition from the in-education state either to salaried employee or self-employed, or to unemployment or a variable status, is the second distinctive feature of Classes 1 and 4. The modelling of this transition (see Box and Table 1, Model 1) shows that, from the 1980s onwards, these students were affected by the employment crisis (Merckling, 1998), as were natives (Peugny, 2007) and descendants of immigrants (Brinbaum et al., 2015a). Indeed, the model indicates that the probability of transitioning from education to unemployment is lower, all else being equal, before the late 1970s. Those who completed their studies before the 1980s had a lower probability of experiencing unemployment (rather than employment) upon leaving education, compared with those who completed their studies in subsequent decades. In other words, the use of logistic modelling and consideration of year of leaving education reveal that difficulties in finding work were due partly to the composition of this immigrant student population (the significance, for example, of the geographical origin variable) but also to the specific year they left education and, therefore, to the economic context. [11]

2 – Figures on immigrant workers

Apparent homogeneity covering distinctive profiles

22 However, this predominance should not mask certain distinctions within the immigrant worker population. Class 3 trajectories are of two types. Most individuals experience a continuous trajectory of employment, but some experience other states (homemaker, in education, unemployed). To develop this distinction and specify the types within this labour-driven class of immigrants, further OM of the employment trajectories of individuals in Class 3 only was performed, distinguishing four subprofiles (Classes 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D; see Figure 3).

23 Most individuals in Class 3A have continuous employment trajectories (60% of them experience no other employment status and spend an average of 20 years in it) that begin as soon as they arrive in France. Much smaller than Class 3A (their combined numbers equate to only a quarter of the Class 3A population), Classes 3B and 3C also have long periods of employment (12 and 15 years, on average) but have different trajectory profiles. Class 3B includes the most convoluted trajectories, comprising more transitions and longer average times in states other than salaried employment, with a mean unemployment duration of 2 years. [13] Class 3C is almost exclusively composed of women, who begin by being non-working homemakers for a few years (6 years on average) before moving on to employment, which is consistent with the trajectories of the female homemakers analysed below. Finally, Class 3D, which includes trajectories with long-term unemployment, is too small (n = 27) to be interpreted, showing that long-lasting unemployment trajectories are infrequent among the TeO survey’s immigrant population.

24 These types of salaried-worker trajectories relate to differences in individual characteristics, migration trajectories, and relationships with employment. In particular, the distinction between continuous and ‘disrupted’ employment correlates with period of entry, as well as with social and migration origins. Individuals in Class 3A are more frequently children of farmers and worked before emigrating at a relatively older age, and before 1974. They are also more likely to have arrived in France with a work permit and an employment contract, and to have held a first job as a manual worker. Nearly a quarter come from Southern European countries (Portugal, Spain, and Italy) and 50% were, in 2008, in a relationship with a spouse they had met abroad. These are the characteristics of labour immigration, as described in particular by Sayad (1999) in relation to Algerian migrants. [14] Those in Class 3B, although overwhelmingly male manual workers, as in Class 3A, were more likely to have arrived after 1974 and are less likely to have a worker’s residence permit than a refugee card or French spouse visa. [15]

Figure 3

Chronograms of the four classes produced by the subdivision of Class 3 of employed immigrants

Chronograms of the four classes produced by the subdivision of Class 3 of employed immigrants

Interpretation: Individuals in Class 3A are all or almost all in employment from the beginning to the end of the trajectory. On the other hand, 30%–40% of Class 3D experienced, at different points in the trajectory, unemployment or a variable state.
Coverage: Immigrants who arrived between 1968 and 1988.

25 This overlapped with the policy changes of the early 1970s, which established different rules for legal residence and impacted the course of trajectories. Looking at the individuals in Class 3A, more than a third of whom arrived before 1974, for over 45% of them their first residence permit was a worker’s one (which was the case for only 35% of the individuals in Class 3B). The main distinction compared with Class 3B is that Class 3B trajectories are over- represented after the temporary suspension of labour immigration in 1974 and the general deterioration of economic conditions during the same period. Class 3B individuals in ‘disrupted’ employment thus experience, on average, 1.8 years of unemployment (compared with 0.4 years in the sample as a whole and 0.2 years in Class 1). This is also a characteristic feature of Class 3D, which includes the (admittedly rare) trajectories of long-term unemployment. Individuals belonging to this class are markedly over-represented among immigrants arriving in the 1980s. The second model estimated supports this idea by showing a statistically significant period effect from the late 1990s: all else being equal, transitions from employment to unemployment are 1.5 times more likely in the years 1999–2008 compared with 1982–1992 and earlier (see Table 1, Model 2).

Table 1

Modelling of various employment state transitions

Reference category (0) vs. modelled category (1) Model 1: Education ➡ Employment (0) vs. Education ➡ Unemployment (1) Model 2: Employment ➡Employment (0) vs. Employment ➡Unemployment (1) Model 3: Homemaker ➡ Homemaker (0) vs. Homemaker ➡Employment (1) Model 4: Employment ➡ Employment (0) vs. Employment ➡ Homemaker (1) First country of the trajectory† Africa Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Morocco 0.76 1.01 0.37*** 0.76 Algeria 0.53 0.86 0.32*** 1.36 Tunisia 0.22* 1.1 0.27*** 0.57 Portugal, Spain, Italy 0.46* 0.50*** 0.65** 1.05 Other Europe 0.4 1.2 0.55*** 3.36*** Asia 0.38*** 1.01 0.57*** 1.12 Turkey 0.38** 0.8 0.31*** 1.29 Other countries 0.74 1.65 0.49** 2.93*** Level of education No qualification 1.25 0.99 0.81 1.88*** Primary, lower secondary (CEP, Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. BEPC) Upper secondary (baccalauréat) 1.42 1.1 1.3 1.07 Post-baccalauréat 1.27 0.57*** 0.92 0.76 Missing value (*) 0.44* 0.37*** 1.8 Year of arrival in France 1968–1974 0.92 0.79 0.9 0.42*** 1975–1981 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. 1982–1988 0.95 0.95 1.22 1.69*** Period of transition modelled 1968–1974 (*) 0.47 1.82* 2.57** 1975–1981 0.34*** 0.57** 0.88 2.29*** 1982–1992 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. 1993–1998 1.14 1.11 1.13 1.33 1999–2008 1.05 1.46* 1.49** 1.17 Sex Male Ref. Ref. Female 1.27 0.93 With first partner at time of transition No Ref. Ref. Ref. Yes 0.76 1.02 2.06*** Partnership end before transition No Ref. Yes 4.53*** Work before migration No Ref. Ref. Yes 1.28** 0.71** Not applicable (minor on arrival 1.83*** 1.47* in France) Reference category (0) vs. modelled category (1) Model 1: Education ➡ Employment (0) vs. Education ➡ Unemployment (1) Model 2: Employment ➡ Employment (0) vs. Employment ➡ Unemployment (1) Model 3: Homemaker ➡ Homemaker (0) vs. Homemaker ➡ Employment (1) Model 4: Employment ➡ Employment (0) vs. Employment ➡ Homemaker (1) Constant 0.13** 0.01*** 0.13*** 0.01*** Classes modelled 1, 4 1, 3A, 3B, 4, 5 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3C, 4 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3C, 4 Total transitions (categories 0 and 1) 1,155 31,937 9,021 30,311 Pseudo R2 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.07

Modelling of various employment state transitions

† The data to which we had access did not include country of birth. Only an individual’s first country of residence is known.
Interpretation: The coefficients correspond to odds ratios all else being equal. As such, according to Model 3, individuals experiencing the ‘end of a partnership’ were 4.5 times more likely to experience the homemaker– employment transition than to remain a homemaker. Union formation and the end of a partnership before transition refer to transition year n (year in which the change of state began) or year n − 1 (other codings were tested and yielded the same results).
Notes: In each model, age at transition and social origin (parents’ qualifications, father’s occupational code) were introduced as controls. As their coefficients were not significant, they are not reproduced here. (*): No coefficient estimated due to small numbers for the missing value for level of education (n = 3) and the period 1968–1974 (n = 0) in our sample for the study–unemployment transition.
* p < 10%, ** p < 5%, *** p < 1%.

3 – Entrepreneurship

26 Immigrant workers vary not only by type of employment trajectory. There is a striking difference between individuals in Classes 3 and 5, the latter spending periods of various lengths in self-employment. However, this profile remains uncommon. Whereas Class 3 contains 1,207 individuals, Class 5, the self-employed class, contains only 151. The state of self-employment often occurs at a particular point in a professional career: only eight individuals in Class 5 were self-employed throughout the 21 years of their trajectory, the average time being 12 years.

27 Social backgrounds in Class 5 are higher than those of individuals in the other classes, which supports the idea that becoming and remaining self-employed for several years requires ‘social support’ (Zalio, 2009): 44% had a father who was a craftsman (artisan), business owner, or in a higher level occupation (cadre), compared to 23% of the full sample; 29% had a father with at least an upper secondary qualification, compared to 15% of the full sample (similar findings apply to their mothers’ qualifications and socio-occupational categories). In addition, those who had a job before emigrating (about half of them) were more likely to have worked in categories other than farmer, manual worker, or non-management employee (22% in Class 5 vs. 11% in Class 3).

28 These distinctions probably reflect effects related to date of arrival in France, country of origin, and social background. These self-employed individuals tended to arrive after 1974 and particularly in the 1980s, reflecting both changes in the rules for obtaining the foreign trader’s card (abolished from 1984, following a period during which it was issued more readily) and the labour market crisis that characterized that period. Twenty-seven percent are from Asia (compared with 19% for the whole sample) or from Turkey and other European countries. In addition, their trajectories are more erratic than those of Class 3 and even the sample as a whole, as indicated by their higher number of transitions from one state to another. No doubt the transition to self-employment automatically adds at least one transition to the trajectory. But we might question the extent to which this greater variability of states reflects greater instability of trajectories, such as forced transitions to self-employment due to the lack of salaried employment.

29 Transitions to long-term self-employment usually occurred after a period of education or salaried employment. Because only small numbers of individuals in the TeO study experienced this state, it is difficult to subdivide this class and characterize the distinctions obtained. Several competing hypotheses remain open. Some salaried employees become self-employed because they have a starting capital from inheritance or savings; because they leave salaried employment (e.g. following redundancy); or because they have acquired enough experience in a certain field to work for themselves. However, these hypotheses cannot be tested due to the lack of sufficiently detailed information in the TeO survey on the employment trajectories of the self-employed.

4 – Women between home and employment

30 The TeO survey corroborates the ‘trend towards the feminization of the immigrant population’ (Beauchemin et al., 2015b, p. 68). As such, labour immigration is declining in favour of family reunification, usually but not exclusively by women. [16]

31 Trajectory analysis reveals one exclusively female class, reflecting the state of homemaker or housewife (Class 2), although women are also present in the other classes, particularly those reflecting trajectories in education (Classes 1 and 4) and salaried employment (Class 3 and more specifically subclass 3C). [17] Most of the women in Class 2 arrived in France after 1974 (fewer than 20% of them arrived before 1974 vs. 28% for the entire sample) with a residence permit for family reunification purposes or as the spouse of a French national. If we proceed as we did for the salaried employment class, we can distinguish four trajectory subtypes for immigrant women (Figure 4).

High diversity in homemaker trajectories

32 It is principally the relationship with salaried employment that distinguishes these subclasses. The most common profile (n = 271) is that of women in Class 2B who remain homemakers throughout their first 21 years of presence in France (20 years as a homemaker, on average), whereas all others have longer periods of salaried employment. However, women in Classes 2A and 3C [18] (n = 205) gradually enter the labour market and spend an average of 6 and 15 years, respectively, in salaried employment, while those in Classes 2C and 2D (n = 118) follow the opposite path.

33 As Tavan (2006) notes, these differences in trajectories echo the characteristics of the women in question and their migration trajectories. For example, women entering the labour market (Classes 2A and 3C) arrive younger; are less likely to have met and married their spouses before migrating; are less likely to have come for family reunification purposes (35% vs. 56% for women in Class 2B); and are slightly more likely to have worked in their country of origin (30% vs. 24% in Class 2B, but this comparison is partly truncated by non-responses due to younger arrivals). On the other hand, those who remain homemakers (Class 2B) are frequently of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, or Turkish origin; this is family immigration strongly characterized by the labour immigration of men.

Figure 4

Chronograms of the four classes produced by the subdivision of Class 2

Chronograms of the four classes produced by the subdivision of Class 2

Interpretation: Almost all individuals in Class 2A are homemakers at the beginning of the trajectory, while more than 80% of them are in salaried employment at the end of the trajectory.
Coverage: Immigrants who arrived between 1968 and 1988.