Home Sociology  &  Culture  Journal Issue Article

Population

2011/3 (Vol. 66)

  • Pages : 252
  • ISBN : 9782733231135
  • DOI : 10.3917/popu.1103.0555
  • Publisher : I.N.E.D

Email alert

Your alert request has been correctly taken into account.
You will receive an email when new issues are put online.

Close

Previous Pages 473 - 517 Next
1

Since the mid-twentieth century, France’s overseas départements (département d’outre-mer, DOM) [1]  France has five overseas départements: Guadeloupe,...[1] have seen intense migration, with criss-crossing flows of DOM native-borns [2]  The term “DOM native-born” refers to anyone born in...[2] leaving and returning, alongside migrants from France and other countries. While these migration flows have little impact on the total population size of the DOMs, they have significant effects on the population structure by age, sex and origin, as well as on youth employment and unemployment.

2

The salient feature of these migration flows is that they almost exclusively involve people of working age. They therefore alter the composition of the working-age population in the DOMs, with a strong impact in terms of educational levels, employment rates and unemployment rates of the populations concerned.

3

This article endeavours to identify the factors underpinning these flows. It focuses on selection mechanisms, actors’ strategies and new competition on the labour market. The aim is to shed light on the complexity of these migration flows, to take account of the dynamics at play between mobility, education and employment of DOM native-borns, to identify their conditions of integration in the place of destination and to assess how much those who return home have really benefited from migration.

4

After describing the size and structure of the DOM native-born population in their home départements and in metropolitan France, [3]  Metropolitan France comprises mainland France and ...[3] we attempt to capture the complexity of these migration flows and their dynamics, their pathways and the selection processes involved. We begin by asking: Who migrates and who doesn’t? For what reasons? We then explore the following questions: Who returns home and who settles in metropolitan France? Under what conditions and for what benefits?

5

To better identify the selection mechanisms at play, we take a global approach to the DOM native-born population, regardless of where they are living (DOM or metropolitan France), rather than a “conventional” approach by territory. Our analysis is based on data from censuses conducted in the DOMs and in metropolitan France, supplemented by the very recent findings of the MFV and TeO surveys (Box 1), which give insights into the dynamics at work. Special attention is paid to the younger age group (18-34), which exhibits very high net out-migration. This group is compared with an older group (aged 35-64) in order to highlight the changes which, from one generation to the next, have marked this long-standing tradition of intense migration between the DOMs and metropolitan France.

6

For more than 50 years, this tradition has been supported by public policies specifically encouraging emigration (Constant, 1987; Labache, 2007) and driven by constraints such as an inadequate education provision, slack labour markets and very high unemployment, which create insurmountable barriers to workforce integration for young people that bear no comparison with the situation in metropolitan France (ONPES, 2006).

I - The population of the DOMs: “here and there”

7

In the 2007 census, the four DOMs had a combined population of 1,805,000, of which 81% (or 1,460,000) were born in those départements. Inmigrants [4]  In this article, “in-migrants” are all persons born...[4] born in metropolitan France accounted for 10% of the total DOM population, and those born in other countries [5]  On the same date, people born in another DOM or in...[5] made up roughly 7%. This average distribution conceals large differences between the DOMs, however. In French Guiana, the percentage of foreign-born immigrants is more than 32% (compared with less than 5% in the other DOMs), and the percentage of DOM native-borns is consequently only 55%, while the percentage of in-migrants from metropolitan France is the same as the overall average (10%). On the same date, 364,000 DOM native-borns were living in metropolitan France (Figure 1), i.e. one in five of all DOM native-borns (20%). [6]  Percentage of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan...[6]

8

The population pyramid of all DOM native-borns, whether living in their home DOM, in metropolitan France or in another DOM (Figure 1), has a specific shape. Only a fraction of the narrowing observed at ages 20-34 can be attributed to the numbers of young DOM native-borns living abroad (Appendix A.1); it is mainly the result of past population trends, and reflects the record numbers of births recorded in the DOMS between the 1950s and the early 1970s (Marie and Temporal, 2011). The cohorts born during that period, now aged 35-55, are very large and, despite a decline in fertility, have many children themselves. Rather than a “dent”, it is actually a “double bulge”. In the 1950s, the fertility rate in the DOM was 6 children per woman and natural increase was 3%, and even above that in Réunion (Rallu and Diagne, 2005). Fertility and birth rates then declined rapidly (Charbit and Leridon, 1980; Festy and Hamon, 1983), before stabilizing in recent years (Temporal, 2011).

Figure 1 - Population pyramid of DOM native-borns by place of residence (DOM of birth, metropolitan France or other DOM) in 2007 (per 1,000)
Source: INSEE, population census 2007; authors’ calculations.
9

While one DOM native-born in five lives in metropolitan France, the percentage varies considerably by département, age, gender, educational level and employment status, as indicated by the detailed breakdown of the census data (DOMs and metropolitan France). In the working-age population (ages 15-64), almost one-third of working-age adults from the Caribbean (Guadeloupe and Martinique) are living in metropolitan France, one-quarter of those from French Guiana and one-fifth of those from Réunion. Proportions appear to be even higher for the younger group (ages 18-34), among whom 36% of native-borns from Guadeloupe, 33% of those from Martinique, 30% of those from French Guiana and 19% of those from Réunion were living in metropolitan France in 2007. This breakdown by age also reflects the past and more recent migration history of DOM native-borns (Domenach and Picouet, 1992). Indeed, in every period, most out-migrants leave at ages 15-25 (Appendix A.2). This age group is also the most numerous currently living in metropolitan France (Figure 2A). Numbers fall after age 30, when returns outnumber departures.

Figure 2 - Share of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France, per 100 native-borns, by age group and selected characteristics

Population: DOM native-borns living in their home DOM and in metropolitan France.

Source: INSEE, 2007 population census; authors’ calculations.
Figure 2 - (cont’d). Share of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France, per 100 native-borns, by age group and selected characteristics

Population: DOM native-borns living in their home DOM and in metropolitan France.

Source: INSEE, 2007 population census; authors’ calculations.
10

An examination of the percentages [7]  Share of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France among...[7] by sex shows that men aged 25-34 more frequently move to metropolitan France than women of the same age (Figure 2B), confirming the research based on the population censuses of 1999 and 2006 (Marie and Temporal, 2011; Monteil and Rallu, 2010), which already highlighted extremely high net out-migration among native-borns aged 15-34, three-fifths of whom were men (32,000 men and 22,000 women).

11

For young DOM native-borns, employment and education have always been important reasons for migrating (Appendix A.2), giving rise to strong selection by educational level and employment status. There is even a double selection (at depature and return), which gives a specific structure to the DOM-born population living in metropolitan France: a far higher proportion of DOM native-borns with the highest educational level and in employment move to metropolitan France and live there long-term than DOM native-borns with low or no educational qualifications and/or who are unemployed (Figures 2C and 2D). In 2007, 38% of DOM native-borns with higher education were living in metropolitan France, compared with only 15% of those with low or no educational qualifications. [8]  No qualification, primary certificate (CEP) or lower...[8] The selection is even stronger in the younger group (ages 18-34): 43% of those with higher education in this age group live in metropolitan France, and only 14% with the least education (Table 1).

Table 1 - Percentage of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France per 100 native-borns aged 18-34 by educational level and employment status, 2007
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census; authors’ calculations.
12

Even more significantly, in the younger group, a similar number of native-borns with higher education from Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana live in metropolitan France as in their home département. The general increase in educational levels in the overseas départements has had the positive effect of a steady increase in young DOM native-borns entering higher education in their home DOM or in metropolitan France. While the local supply of university courses has considerably increased, it is concentrated at undergraduate level, leading many students who wish to pursue postgraduate study to enrol at universities in metropolitan France. That situation partly explains the high percentage of highly educated young DOM native-borns in metropolitan France.

13

There is an equally strong selection by employment status. Despite the distances, more than one-third (36%) of young DOM native-borns (aged 18-34) who are employed live in metropolitan France. The percentages break down as 48% of Guadeloupeans, 42% of Martiniquans, 37% of Guianese, and 27% of Réunionese. Altogether in 2007, across all age groups, 34% of DOM native-borns in employment were living in metropolitan France, compared with only 13% of the unemployed. Those figures reflect the reality of local job markets. Despite their apparent dynamism, [9]  Job creation in the DOMs outpaced metropolitan France...[9] the DOM economies do not provide enough jobs for the working-age population, and unemployment rates are much higher than in metropolitan France, especially among young people. [10]  According to the 2009 employment survey, ILO-defined...[10]

Box 1. Data sources (RRP07, MFV, TeO)

Three complementary data sources were used for this study: the detailed fi les from the 2007 census (based on annual census surveys) of the DOMS and metropolitan France; the Migration, Family and Ageing survey (Migrations, Famille and Vieillissement, MFV); and the TeO survey (Trajectories and Origins: Survey on Population Diversity in France).

The population censuses provide fi gures for all the DOM native-borns living in France, whether they are living in their home département or in metropolitan France. The MFV survey usefully rounds out that information. Designed and prepared by Claude-Valentin Marie (lead researcher), Didier Breton, Franck Temporal and Stéphanie Condon (Breton et al., 2009), the MFV was conducted in 2009-2010 by INED in partnership with INSEE in the four DOMs, to record the socio-demographic changes underway and their potential impact on the future of those départements (Marie, 2011). Three research themes were chosen: changes to family life; the implications and consequences of migration; and the effects of population ageing on inter-generational solidarity (Marie et al., 2011). The TeO survey was conducted jointly by INED and INSEE between September 2008 and February 2009 in order to shed light on the social trajectories and living standards of migrants and their descendants in French society. The aim was to verify the effects of migrant origins on access to rights, and to goods and services in society, and to identify any inequalities between individuals and/or population groups. It covers the population aged 18-60 living in metropolitan France, including DOM native-borns and their descendants (Beauchemin et al., 2010; Borrel et al., 2010). By combining the weighted data from the MFV and TeO surveys, both representative of DOM native-borns living in their home départements and in metropolitan France, it was possible to constitute cohorts of DOM native-borns and to monitor their migration patterns at different ages. The cohorts of DOM native-borns were based on years of birth. Ages at departure and return provided the information used to describe migration trajectories.

II - Selection at departure and return

14

Now that the population distribution between the DOMs and metropolitan France is known, two questions arise: what are the factors that influence the labour market integration of young DOM native-borns, and how does the decision or opportunity to move to and stay long-term in metropolitan France arise in their life course? By exploring these questions, we are in fact seeking to address the issue of the double selection that occurs within this population, at departure and then at return. Who migrates and who doesn’t? For which reasons? And of those who decide to migrate, who returns and who doesn’t?

1 - Who migrates and who doesn’t?

15

The MFV survey gives new information about the migration histories of people living in the DOMs which provides a useful complement to the census data. It enables us to divide these native-borns into three groups: those who have never left the département where they were born; those who have only left on short trips; and those who have migrated in the past (for at least six months) and have returned to settle in the département (returned native-borns). The census of metropolitan France includes the number of DOM native-borns who live there. By combining the two sources (MFV/census), we can assess – from a completely new angle – the importance of migration in the life courses of DOM native-borns (Box 2). Rather than a territory-based approach, we examine all DOM native-borns, both those living in metropolitan France and those living in the département where they were born.

Box 2. Four groups of DOM native-borns in terms of migration experience

From the DOM native-born population – aged 18-79 living in the département where they were born – provided by the 2007 census, the MFV survey proposes a percentage breakdown into three groups based on migration experience: DOM native-borns who have never left the département; native-borns who have left their département for short trips (less than six months); and returned native-borns. The survey defines “returned native-borns” as individuals who left their département for at least six consecutive months before returning to settle in the département.

DOM native-borns who reported having left their DOM for less than six months are not considered here to be migrants. Those short stays are recorded, but are not described in detail. They encompass a wide variety of situations in terms of reasons for travel (holiday, language study, training, internships, etc.), length (from less than a week to several months) and destination (metropolitan France, country in the region, other country, other DOM). In each of the DOMs, this is the biggest group.

Among DOM native-borns who, at the time of the survey, reported never having left their département even for a few days, some, particularly the youngest, will probably leave in the future, whereas others will certainly never leave.

If we take the population of DOM native-borns living in their département as indicated by the censuses and divide them into these three groups according to the results of the MFV survey, and then add them to the numbers living in metropolitan France (also indicated by the censuses of metropolitan France), we can ascertain the status of all DOM native-borns, regardless of where they live. By redistributing that number across a total of 100%, we can estimate the size of each of the four sub-populations.

Using this method, the estimated population of DOM native-borns aged 18-79 is 1,257,000, of which 410,700 are aged 18-34.

In this study, the term “long-term migrants” comprises all returned DOM native-borns who migrated in the past and all those currently living in metropolitan France. They make up 47% of the population of DOM native-borns aged 18-79, i.e. 594,000 individuals in that age range.

16

These figures reveal the scale of migration by DOM native-borns. Only a small minority has never left the département where they were born: one in six on average (Table 2). The percentage is much smaller in the Caribbean (9% and 10%) than in French Guiana (16%) and Réunion (22%).

Table 2 - Migration experience of DOM native-borns aged 18-79 (%)
Sources: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010 and 2007 population census.
Table 3 - Migration experience of DOM native-borns aged 18-34 (%)
Sources: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010 and 2007 population census.
17

Conversely, a high percentage have lived or are still living long-term outside their département. This is the case for more than half of Caribbeans (56% from Guadeloupe and 53% from Martinique): 43% have returned and 57% are currently living in metropolitan France. A total of 47% of DOM native-borns aged 18-79 have experienced long-term migration.

18

In the younger group (aged 18-34), the percentage is slightly lower (Table 3). We can safely assume that some of the youngest sub-group (aged 18-24) will leave in the future. In any case, the percentage is still high (42%) and illustrates the extent of mobility in that group too.

19

We also observe substantial differences between the départements. Réunion has the smallest percentage of young native-borns (aged 18-34) who have experienced migration. Only one-third of young Réunionese have left their island for more than six months, (including those who have returned and those who have settled in metropolitan France), compared with half of Caribbeans and just over two-fifths of Guianese.

20

As well as these differences by territory, there are even bigger divergences in terms of educational level: the higher it is, the larger the percentage of long-term migrants (Figure 3). While just one-quarter of native-borns aged 18-34 with low or no educational qualifications have experienced long-term migration, two-thirds of those with higher education have migrated (ranging from 56% in Réunion to 77% in Guadeloupe). [11]  For those with the least education, the percentages...[11] For intermediate qualifications, the percentages are 44% of those with upper secondary education and 39% of those with vocational lower secondary education.

Figure 3 - Migration experience of DOM native-borns aged 18-34 by educational level (%)

Population: DOM native-borns living in their home DOM and in metropolitan France.

Sources: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010 and 2007 population census.
21

Concentrating on native-borns who have never left their département, we observe that they have an extremely vulnerable socioeconomic profile and stand out sharply from all the other groups, with a very low educational level, a very high unemployment rate, a high percentage living below the poverty line, etc. (Marie et al., 2011). This suggests that their serious economic and social difficulties limit their employment opportunities, ruling out any prospect of mobility, even for a short trip.

2 - Who returns and who doesn’t?

22

Education thus appears to be a decisive factor in migration by young DOM native-borns. The higher their educational qualifications, the more likely they are to experience long-term migration. But how many of them settle in metropolitan France and how many return home?

23

A combination of survey and census data is also highly instructive here. It shows first that more young migrants, irrespective of their qualifications, live in metropolitan France than have returned to their home département. Here again, the breakdown depends on educational level. Among DOM native-borns aged 18-34 who have experienced long-term migration, those with the lowest qualifications tend to return home more (41%) than those with higher education (34%). [12]  The percentage is 36.5% for holders of a vocational...[12] The smaller percentage (26%) of those with upper secondary education who have already returned reflects the fact that many are still in education.

24

While the two sources (MFV and censuses) can be combined in order to estimate the percentage of returnees in the total population of DOM native-borns who have experienced long-term migration, the MFV data permits a more specific analysis of the factors that might have influenced return migration in each of the départements. A first statistical model [13]  Some binary logistic regressions that complement the...[13] analysing the factors that influence whether a migrant returns or not was constructed for this purpose (Appendix Table A.3.1). It is applied here to young native-borns living in their département aged 26-34, an age by which most have completed their education and when return migrants are the most numerous.

25

Family social capital seems to play a major role here. The parents’ social category appears to be the main factor influencing long-term emigration followed by a return home. The children of persons in higher-level occupations are much more likely to return home than those with a parent who is a clerical/sales worker (odds ratio of 5.6). The same is true when the parent is a farmer or manual worker. The migration experience (past or current) of close relatives [14]  “Close relatives” refers to the spouse, parents and...[14] is another factor influencing out-migration followed by a return. The odds ratio is two or three times higher in this kind of family than in a family where no one has experienced migration.

26

Sex and age have a smaller effect. Men are slightly more likely than women to return (OR = 1.4) and those aged 30-34 slightly more likely than those aged 26-29 (OR = 1.4). Last, for equivalent characteristics, there are no substantial differences between the overseas départements.

27

When applied to older native-borns (35-64) living in the DOMs, the same model yields practically the same probabilities of returning, although with some differences with respect to the younger groups. Having parents in a high social category has a positive impact, although its influence is smaller for the older group (OR = 1.8). This seems to indicate that, far from becoming democratized, current mobility has accentuated the selection of DOM native-borns aged 26-34 who migrate and those who return. Having parents who belong to higher social categories has an even bigger positive impact on young people today than on their elders. The Family Survey of 1997 in Réunion reached the same conclusions (Dion and Bellot, 2004). Furthermore, for the older group (aged 35 and over) more than for young people, being a man strongly increases the probability of returning (OR = 2.7). This is explained by the large-scale out-migration of men from previous cohorts to perform their military service (now abolished).

An aspiration for mobility that remains high among young DOM native-borns

28

In addition to information on the determinants of mobility, the MFV survey also sheds light on the place of mobility in the life plans of young native-borns living in their DOM, through the intentions and wishes they express. Half [15]  This figure only covers the answers “Yes” and “No”....[15] of DOM native-borns aged 18-34 said they would be willing to leave (or to leave again) if they were offered a job somewhere else. [16]  The question was worded: “If you had a job opportunity...[16] The percentage varies considerably between départements: it reaches 67% in Martinique, 58% in Guadeloupe and 56% in French Guiana, but only 41% in Réunion.

29

The youngest (aged 18-24) are the most determined: two-thirds say they are willing to leave, and men more than women. University and secondary students are more willing than others, with three-quarters saying yes. In contrast, family responsibilities seem to discourage mobility. People who are not in a relationship and do not have children are more enthusiastic than those already committed to family life. For the majority of those who say they are willing to leave, departure is conditional upon the possibility of returning (57.5%); very few consider migrating permanently (8%). Last, more than three-quarters (77%) choose metropolitan France; only a minority envisage moving to another country (12%).

30

The typical profile of a migration candidate is therefore a young man, single with no children, who has an educational qualification, and who plans to return home after migrating. With equivalent characteristics, young Martiniquans are the most attracted by this experience, followed by young Guianese and Guadeloupeans and, to a lesser extent, young Réunionese (Appendix Table A.3.2). We note also that returnees are even more willing to migrate again than those who have never left the département for a long period (OR = 1.4). Those who have an educational qualification, especially an upper secondary qualification or a degree in higher education, are also more interested in leaving than those with no qualifications. Being employed or not also affects decisions to leave. Overall, working-age people in employment report being less willing to leave their département than the unemployed (OR = 0.7). The descriptive analysis shows that students most frequently express the desire to leave. For the unemployed, the situation in Réunion differs from that of the other three DOMs. While in the Caribbean and French Guiana, more unemployed people report wanting to leave than the population average and than employed people, the pattern is reversed in Réunion. [17]  This result is confirmed by the statistical model on...[17]

Those who wish to return home

31

It is interesting to compare the aspirations of those young native-borns living in their department with the intentions of those who were living in metropolitan France at the same date. Among DOM native-borns who expressed a firm intention, [18]  Here again, only the responses “Yes” and “No” were...[18] 45% said they wanted to go and live one day in the département where they were born. [19]  The question was “Do you think one day you will go...[19] The data from the TeO survey, which offers new information on this point, do not show major differences by sex (47% of women and 43% of men) or age. Similarly, educational level does not seem to be a strong discriminating factor: slightly more of those with an upper secondary qualification report intending to return home (48%), whereas slightly fewer of those with a lower secondary qualification aspire to do so (41%).

32

Conversely, family status has a positive influence on the aspiration to return: 53% of people in a couple with children wish to return, versus only 37% of single people with no children. Employment status also has an influence. Individuals who have been employed the longest since they arrived have less intention of returning than those who have spent less time in employment.

III - Selection in migration: who benefits?

33

The previous results illustrate the selection that occurs: those who move to metropolitan France are young, highly educated and employed. The conditions of integration of young DOM native-borns, in their DOM and in metropolitan France, by educational level need to be assessed in order to better understand the dynamics at work. Does migration bring benefits? Does returning home benefit everyone equally, irrespective of educational level? Is this also the case for those who settle long-term in metropolitan France?

1 - Do DOM native-borns benefit from out-migration?

DOM native-borns in metropolitan France are better educated than those who stay home

34

The educational level of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France is on a par with the national average. Their distribution by educational level is comparable to the metropolitan average and therefore much higher than that of their peers living in the département. The youngest [20]  This is the population who are not currently in education....[20] are even better off (Figures 4 and 5). Closer to the national average, they differ more strongly from those of the same age who still live in the home département: they twice as frequently have a degree in higher education and half as frequently have low or no qualifications. The oldest (aged 35 and over) more frequently have a degree in higher education than their peers living at home but less than the national average.

Figure 4 - Educational level of persons aged 18-34 not currently in education (%)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census, DOMs and metropolitan France.
Figure 5 - Educational level of persons aged over 35 not currently in education (%)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census, DOMs and metropolitan France.
35

For all DOM native-borns not currently in education, we observe above all a sharp increase in educational level in the youngest group, regardless of where they live. A full 19% of those aged under 35 have a degree in higher education (Figure 4) compared with only 12% of their elders (Figure 5). However, we also find that these increases have benefited metropolitan France much more than their home territories. Some 58% of young DOM native-borns in metropolitan France have at least an upper secondary level compared with 37% of those living in their home département (Figure 4). Young native-borns in metropolitan France now have an educational level comparable to the metropolitan average, which was not the case for their elders. The TeO survey shows that 88% of DOM native-borns with higher education and living in metropolitan France attained their qualifications during migration. According to the MFV, this is the case for 47% of returned DOM native-borns. These results highlight the importance for DOM native-borns of migration for educational purposes. Alongside the overall increase in the educational level of the youngest DOM native-borns, there is a double selection – at departure and then at return – to the detriment of the overseas départements: only those best equipped to enter the labour market settle long-term in metropolitan France. An overview of their employment conditions in the DOM and in metropolitan France will shed light on the mechanisms at work.

DOM native-borns in metropolitan France find jobs more easily

36

Since the early 1960s, employment has been one of the main drivers of out-migration and, above all, of the long-term settlement of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France (Marie and Rallu, 2004). According to the 2007 census, the working-age population (aged 15-64) living in metropolitan France are now more frequently in employment and less affected by unemployment than DOM native-borns who have remained in or returned to their départements. The employment rate of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France is 70% (74% for men and 66% for women), which is higher than the metropolitan average (64% in total, 68% for men and 59% for women). Conversely, for DOM native-borns who remained in or returned to their départements, the employment rate is barely above 45% (50% for men and 41% for women). The differentials are the same for unemployment, which affects only 11.5% of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France, compared with 31% for those living in their DOM and 11% for the metropolitan population as a whole. These inequalities of access to employment by sex and place of residence are compounded by inequalities by age and educational level.

37

An examination of divergences by place of residence, with equivalent educational qualifications, is equally instructive. The most paradoxical result is that DOM native-borns with low or no educational qualifications have a higher employment rate in metropolitan France than the national average. They therefore stand out very strongly from those with the same educational level who remained or returned home: [21]  We will see in Section III.2 that the more favourable...[21] the difference is almost 25 percentage points, with the biggest divergence in the 45-55 age group (Figure 6A). This is confirmed by available data on unemployment. For the total working-age population (aged 15-64) with a low educational level, the average differential in the unemployment rate is 19 points in favour of native-borns living in metropolitan France. For the youngest group (aged 20-24), it is 27 points. [22]  The gap narrows to 19 points after age 25 and remains...[22] The unemployment rate of young DOM native-borns in metropolitan France is thus in line with the national average, well below the rates in the four départements (Figure 6C), where the situation is particularly difficult for the least educated in that age group: more than 60% of economically active persons in this category were unemployed in 2007!

38

For DOM native-borns with higher education, the situation is completely different. Regardless of where they live, their employment rates are always very high (Figure 6B) and close to the national average. The employment curves for men and women, which sometimes converge, attest to this. Only the youngest group (aged under 30) have results below the metropolitan average; but the discrepancies are small and diminish with age. These results indicate firstly the successful labour market integration of the best educated DOM native-borns in metropolitan France. While they seem slightly more vulnerable to unemployment before age 35 (11.3% compared with a metropolitan average of 8.5%), this is no longer the case at older ages. Compared with those with the same educational level living in their DOM, the difference is small (Figure 6D). While the latter have slightly more difficulty integrating the workforce (15.6% are unemployed), their situation is completely different from the virtual labour market exclusion experienced by those with no educational qualifications. An indication, if that were needed, that education continues to offer the best protection against unemployment everywhere (in metropolitan France and even more so in the DOMs).

Figures 6 - Employment and unemployment rates of DOM native-borns by age, sex, educational level and place of residence (%)

Population: DOM native-borns living in their home DOM or in metropolitan France.

Source: INSEE, 2007 population census.
Figures 6 (cont’d) - Employment and unemployment rates of DOM native-borns by age, sex, educational level and place of residence (%)

Population: DOM native-borns living in their home DOM or in metropolitan France.

Source: INSEE, 2007 population census.
39

The advantage of moving to metropolitan France is clearer for those with an intermediate qualification and even more so for young people. Between ages 20 and 24, the employment rate of DOM native-borns with a lower secondary qualification living in metropolitan France is 25 points higher than that of DOM native-borns with the same educational level living in their départements. The same applies to holders of an upper secondary qualification, although the gap is smaller.

40

For DOM native-borns, the advantage of living in metropolitan France seems paradoxically to be the highest for those with the least education, even though, in relative terms, they are the group that move there the least (Table 1). In metropolitan France, they are less affected by unemployment than those living in their départements, and the gap widens as educational level decreases. The differential is 29 points for young adults (aged 20-34) with low or no qualifications; 24 points for those with a lower secondary qualification; 16 points for those with an upper secondary qualification; and only 4 points for those with a degree in higher education. The differential with the least educated is largest among Guadeloupeans: more than 31 points; it is 28 points among Réunionese, 24 points among Guianese and only 19 points among Martiniquans. Conversely, the difference between the DOMs and metropolitan France is smallest for those with the highest qualifications. The gap is only 7 points for the best educated Guadaloupeans and Martiniquans, and just 3 points for Réunionese of the same level, a sign that this département offers its educated native-borns more job opportunities than the Caribbean. This trend seems even clearer in French Guiana. Demand for skilled labour is so high there that French Guianese with higher education are the only group that seems less affected by unemployment at home (7%) than in metropolitan France (15%).

41

The statistical models constructed with census data to test these inequalities of access to employment confirm the descriptive analyses (Appendix Table A.3.3). After controlling for sex, age, family status and specific educational level, [23]  Unlike the previous results where the “educational...[23] DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France are much more likely to be employed than those who stayed in or returned to their départements (the OR are 2.6 for Guadeloupeans, 2.5 for Réunionese, 2.3 for Martiniquans and 1.3 for Guianese). More broadly, the probability of being employed is higher for men, and increases with educational level and age (up to 55). [24]  After individuals with no qualifications, the least...[24]

Qualification of jobs held by place of residence

42

An analysis of the qualification of jobs held helps to refine the cost/benefit approach to migration. Are DOM native-borns in metropolitan France also better off in this respect than their compatriots who stayed at home? In both cases, are differences observed by type of employment? The descriptive analysis gives more contrasting responses to these questions than for access to employment.

43

We first observe that more of the highest educated access highly qualified jobs in metropolitan France than in their DOM; the disparities are particularly wide for the youngest group. Among DOM native-borns aged under 35, 34% of men and 22% of women with higher education are in higher-level occupations in metropolitan France, compared with 19% and 13% in the DOMs (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7 - Qualification level of jobs held by DOM native-born men aged 18-34 living in their DOM and in metropolitan France, and of the metropolitan population in 2007 (%)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census, DOMs and metropolitan France.
Figure 8 - Qualification level of jobs held by DOM native-born women aged 18-34 living in their DOM and in metropolitan France, and of the metropolitan population in 2007 (%)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census, DOMs and metropolitan France.
44

This is well below the metropolitan average, however. DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France, but even more so those living in the DOM, generally hold less qualified jobs. The percentage of graduates in a higher-level occupation is a good example. The metropolitan average is always higher (37% of men and 23% of women) than DOM native-borns with the same educational level living in metropolitan France, and even higher than for those living in their départements.

45

These differences are not found among the least educated: percentages of clerical/sales workers and manual workers are very similar between DOM native-borns living at home, DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France and the metropolitan average. Only the youngest DOM native-borns in metropolitan France are slightly more frequently clerical/sales workers than manual workers.

46

To estimate possible differences in the recognition of educational qualifications, we looked at young DOM native-borns (aged under 35) with higher education in manual and clerical/sales occupations. Regardless of where they live, a higher percentage of these young people than the metropolitan average are in low-skillled jobs (manual workers or clerical/sales). For men, this is the case for 30% of those living in metropolitan France, 31% of those living in their DOM, compared with a metropolitan average of only 21%. For young women, 37% with higher education working in metropolitan France are in clerical/sales or manual jobs; 36% are in this situation in their DOM compared with a metropolitan average of 30%.

47

To limit structural effects, we tested the probability of holding wage employment in a higher-level or intermediate occupation among DOM native-borns with higher education and equivalent age, sex and family status. The model shows that DOM native-borns with similar characteristics less frequently access highly qualified jobs in metropolitan France than in their département (Appendix Table A.3.4). Compared with their counterparts in their home département, Réunionese (OR = 0.7), Guadeloupeans (OR = 0.7) and Martiniquans (OR = 0.8) in metropolitan France less frequently hold such positions. French Guiana’s exception is confirmed. For native-borns from that département, there does not appear to be a significant difference by place of residence.

48

This overall result can be attributed largely to the situation of the older group, as confirmed when the same model is applied to young adults (aged 18-34), and to their elders (aged 35 and over) (Appendix Table A.3.4). The older group with higher education in metropolitan France less often hold jobs in higher-level or intermediate occupations than their peers in their départements (OR = 0.6). But the gap narrows considerably for the youngest age group (OR = 0.9). This indicates both that the quality of education has increased and that younger native-borns with higher education are more demanding than their elders. It is as if, by choosing to live in metropolitan France, more of the older group accepted lower skilled jobs than those who remained in their départements. This unfavourable tradeoff occurs considerably less frequently among the younger group. All other things being equal, they occupy jobs with practically the same level of qualification in the DOMs as in metropolitan France, and the gap with the metropolitan population has narrowed.

2 - Increased selection of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France

49

Do these positive trends in the workforce integration of young DOM native-borns in metropolitan France reflect an increasing capacity to adapt to the metropolitan job market? Or do they reflect strong selection, which results in a higher percentage of the least qualified and most vulnerable young people being sent back to the DOMs?

50

In 2007, 43% of young DOM native-borns with higher education and in employment lived in metropolitan France, compared with only 25% of those with low or no educational qualifications (Table 4). Note that for the older group (aged 35 and over), the percentages are 35% and 30%, respectively, and therefore much more balanced. The higher qualification of occupations held by the youngest DOM native-borns in metropolitan France certainly explains why a growing number of them, especially the best educated, are tempted by migration. While education is their primary motive for leaving, job opportunities in metropolitan France are the main reason for their decision to stay long-term; and this is especially true for those with the highest educational level.

Table 4 - Distribution of DOM native-borns in employment by place of residence (DOM/metropolitan France), age group and educational level
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census; authors’ calculations.
51

An examination of the numbers in employment by age group and the breakdown by educational level in the DOMs and in metropolitan France confirm not only that a clear selection occurs to the detriment of the DOMs, but that this selection increases among the youngest group (Table 4). Selection by educational level has increased as overall educational levels have risen in the DOMs. These results are a good illustration of the changing profile with age of DOM native-borns employed in metropolitan France, and especially the general increase in their educational level. Selection can also be attributed to more frequent, earlier returns of young people who have difficulty entering the workforce, especially the least educated (Section I.2); they often prefer a return to the family and the home community over an insecure status in metropolitan France.

52

By combining the data from the TeO and MFV surveys, we were able to reconstitute cohorts [25]  Each corresponds to a pair of birth cohorts: 1950 and...[25] of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France or in their départements across different ages and to estimate the percentage of long-term migrants in each cohort, whether currently living in metropolitan France or having returned to their DOM (Box 1). This analysis enables us, for the first time, to highlight the change in intensity of this migration for each cohort (Figure 9). It also provides the percentage of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France at each age (Figure 10).

53

For all the cohorts studied (Figure 9), the percentage of DOM native-borns who have migrated increases sharply at ages 15-25, then continues to rise but at a more modest pace. At age 25, 33-43% have migrated, depending on the cohort. However, unlike the 1950-1951 and 1960-1961 cohorts, in which the number of long-term migrants only increased significantly after age 15, migration takes place earlier in the most recent cohorts. This is mainly due to the migration of young children accompanying their parent(s), rarely observed in the past. As they are socialized from a very young age in metropolitan France, their life courses and their migration behaviour undoubtedly differ from those of the previous cohorts. After age 15, the trends by age at migration are fairly similar from one cohort to the next.

Figure 9 - Proportion of DOM native-borns with experience of long-term migration by age in selected cohorts (%)
Sources: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010 and TeO 2008-2009.
54

We note that for all the cohorts studied here, the percentage of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France (Figure 10) follows the same broad trend by age. The highest percentage is reached around age 30 (age 27 for the 1960-1961 and 1980-1981 cohorts; 32 for the 1950-51 cohorts; and 37 for the 1970-1971 cohorts) before stabilizing, then decreasing gradually as the number of returns to the DOM outnumbers arrivals in metropolitan France. For the oldest cohorts (1950-1951 and 1960-1961), the decline is slow, reflecting the fact that many DOM native-borns have settled very long-term in metropolitan France and that there are still significant arrivals after age 40. We even note a slight increase for the 1970-1971 cohorts, indicating more numerous arrivals than returns at ages 30-37.

Figure 10 - Proportion of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France by age in selected cohorts (%)
Sources: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010 and TeO 2008-2009.
55

For the youngest cohorts, the percentage of long-term migrants is highest (Figure 9) at the very youngest ages (under 15), and the percentage of those living in metropolitan France (Figure 10) is also higher than before, indicating that returns are relatively low at those ages. After age 15, the increase is common to all the cohorts shown, highlighting the much higher number of arrivals than returns at ages 15-30.

56

These results confirm that most DOM native-borns migrate before age 30, even if some move between their DOM and metropolitan France at older ages. The wider availability of mobility allowances covering some or all of the costs of travel to and/or from metropolitan France has undoubtedly spurred this trend, simultaneously contributing to increased movement between the DOMs and metropolitan France. The data from the MFV survey on the recipients of mobility allowances (Table 5) show that overall, compared with the older group (age 35 and over), the younger group stay for less time (fewer than half of stays exceed two years). But these results also show that the difference between generations is larger among recipients of mobility allowances. More than half of young people who receive a mobility allowance stay for less than two years, compared with less than 30% of the older group. For DOM native-borns aged 35-64, receiving an allowance is more frequently associated with long stays (more than two years), but this is less often the case among the younger group.

Table 5 - Duration of stay in metropolitan France of returned DOM native-borns by age group and receipt of mobility allowance (%)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
57

It is these movements that are reflected in the structural differences by educational level, employment and unemployment rates between DOM native-borns who live in metropolitan France and those who live in their départements.

3 - What are the benefits of returning home?

58

Unlike their elders, younger DOM native-borns, especially those who have difficulty integrating the metropolitan labour market, tend to return home after a short stay. What is their status when they return? Does migration benefit everyone, irrespective of educational level and age? Are returned DOM native-borns better off than non-migrants, and, if so, in what way?

59

Among young people (aged 18-34) living in the DOMs, we find in general that returned native-borns are less affected by unemployment than non-migrant native-borns. However, the results vary considerably with educational level and sex (Table 6). The least educated returned DOM native-borns, and women with a lower secondary qualification, have higher unemployment levels than non-migrant DOM native-borns.

Table 6 - Unemployment rate of DOM native-borns aged 18-34 living in their DOM (%)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
60

After controlling for sex, age, detailed educational level, family status and migration experience, we find that returned DOM native-borns have no real advantage over non-migrants in terms of access to employment (Appendix Table A.3.5). On the contrary, returned DOM native-borns even seem – all other things being equal – to be in employment less frequently than non-migrant DOM native-borns (OR = 0.6). This shows that the experience of long-term migration alone is not sufficient to account for differences in access to employment among the population of DOM native-borns.

61

Returned DOM native-borns do not form a homogeneous sub-group, and the experience of long-term migration is not in itself an advantage in finding employment. Beyond the shared migration experience, it is social (individual and family) characteristics and actual trajectories that make the difference and account for the diversification of profiles. To examine this point in more detail, we sought to identify the factors influencing access to employment of returned migrants and non-migrants in their département (Appendix Table A.3.5).

62

Overall, education emerges as the main factor affecting the likelihood of being in employment for native-borns in their DOM. The higher the educational level, the bigger the impact. For DOM native-borns who hold a master’s degree or higher, the probability of being in employment is 19 times higher than for those with no qualifications. The place where the qualification is attained is also a discriminating factor. For those who completed their education in metropolitan France, the probability of being in employment is higher than for those with qualifications from the DOM (OR = 1.6). Work experience (and especially time spent in employment) is equally important. The longer the experience, the higher the likelihood of having a job.

63

These inequalities of access to employment seem to be greater in the younger group (ages 18-34). Compared with the older group, the influence of education appears stronger: for young higher education graduates the probability of being in employment is 23 times higher than for those of the same age without a qualification; it is just 14 times higher among those aged 35 and over. Gender inequalities are also more pronounced in the younger group. By contrast, the place where the qualification is obtained does not have any effect in the younger group, unlike among their elders, which is probably a sign of the expansion and improvement in education provision in the DOMs in recent decades.

64

The effect of work experience is much stronger for those aged 35 and over than for the younger group, for whom education is more important. Complementary models comparing access to employment of all DOM native-borns by educational level (lower or higher than completion of secondary) illustrate this point in more detail. They first indicate that the effect of work experience on access to employment is positive in both sub-populations and is more important for those whose educational level is below upper secondary.

65

Applying the same model solely to the population of returned DOM native-borns offers additional insights (Appendix Table A.3.6). The effect of educational level on their access to employment in their département appears even more pronounced, especially for younger people. A young returning DOM native-born with a master’s degree or higher is much more likely to be in employment than a returnee with no qualifications. Having qualifications from metropolitan France further increases this likelihood, both in the younger group (OR = 1.5) and among those aged 35 and over (OR = 1.76).

66

Last, applying these models to each DOM highlights significant differences between them, especially between Réunion and the other DOMs (Appendix Table A.3.7). While in all DOMs, returned native-borns aged 35 are less likely to be in employment than those of the same age who have not migrated, this is not always the case for younger people. With equivalent characteristics, it is only in Réunion that young returned DOM native-borns are less likely to have a job than non-migrants (OR = 0.4). In Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana, differences between returned native-borns and non-migrants are not significant at ages 18-34.

67

Réunion is also the only DOM in which the place where young returned native-borns attained their qualifications has a significant effect on their access to employment. Young Réunionese returning from migration who attained their qualifications in metropolitan France are more frequently in employment than those who completed their education in the département (OR = 4.9). This advantage is not found in the other DOMs.

68

On the whole, these results show that migration alone is not sufficient to guarantee labour market integration unless it is accompanied by an increase in the social capital of those concerned. Among returned DOM native-borns, we find real differences between those who took advantage of the migration experience to do further training, acquire qualifications or extend their work experience, and those who did not take advantage of the time spent outside the département. The latter group even risk finding themselves in a less favourable position than non-migrant native-borns.

69

The multiplication of short stays by the least educated and most precarious migrants could even accentuate the divide, because this type of mobility does not offer these young people real opportunities to improve their skills and consequently to build their social capital in a way that will help them find employment when they return home. These “failed” returns do not favour their labour market integration. DOM native-borns who migrated to pursue their education but did not complete their courses find themselves in a similar situation. Because they failed to increase their social capital, they seem to be even more disadvantaged than when they left. Their chances of finding a job are lower than those of non-migrants who graduated from local universities.

70

Regarding the qualification level of jobs held by the best educated DOM native-borns in their département, we do not find any significant difference between returned native-borns and non-migrants (Appendix Table A.3.8). For all DOM native-borns living in their DOM, the most discriminating factor seems to be work experience. With 10 or more years of experience, the probability of holding a higher-level occupation is 3.6 times higher than for those who have less than two years’ experience. But the analysis also shows that a qualification from metropolitan France increases the chances of attaining a higher social position. Compared with those who attained their qualifications in the DOM, native-borns who completed education in metropolitan France have a much higher chance of working in a higher-level or intermediate occupations (OR = 1.7).

Conclusion

71

After more than half a century of continuous migration, initiated and supported by specific public policies (BUMIDOM, ANT, LADOM [26]  BUMIDOM: Bureau pour le développement des migrations...[26]), institutional measures (military service) and private initiatives, we can draw three major conclusions.

72

The first is the high percentage of DOM native-borns who have built, and who – more than ever – are now building their future prospects and life course in a dual economic and social space: their département and metropolitan France. Their strategies, choices and decisions are shaped by their social capital, by the opportunities that arise and by the constraints that they face: insufficient educational provision, a slack labour market and high unemployment, especially among young people, with far more precarious conditions than in metropolitan France.

73

The MFV survey stresses the importance of migration in the life of DOM native-borns, more so among Caribbeans than among Réunionese. More than half of Caribbeans (56% in Guadeloupe and 53% in Martinique) have experienced long-term migration, and 43% have moved back to their départements, while 57% are still living in metropolitan France. Only a small minority have never left even for a short time (less than six months). Only 9% to 10% of DOM native-borns from the Caribbean have never left their islands. These are the most vulnerable group: they have low or no educational qualifications, are often unemployed, and many live below the poverty line. This profile seems to exclude them from any prospect of mobility.

74

Among young people, the aspiration to leave remains strong, even if its intensity varies from one département to another. Asked about their mobility intentions (MFV survey), half of young adults from the DOMs aged 18-34 say they would be willing to leave if they were offered a job somewhere else. This breaks down as 67% in Martinique, 58% in Guadeloupe, 56% in French Guiana, versus 41% in Réunion. The youngest (aged 18-24) are even more determined.

75

Social and family origin is also very important, especially in migration choices. Having at least one parent in a qualified occupation and/or a close relative who has experienced migration (currently or in the past) increase the chances of being a migrant. This family capital has an even bigger positive impact on young people now than on their elders, a sign that selection mechanisms have been reinforced. Educational level seems to be a determining factor in turning reported intentions into actual emigration. A higher educational level increases the likelihood of long-term settlement in metropolitan France and access to skilled employment.

76

The second conclusion is that a strong selection of the population occurs in migration, from which metropolitan France seems to draw the greater benefit. In fact, there is a double selection – at departure and return – which mostly disadvantages the DOMs: only the best equipped to integrate the workforce settle long-term in metropolitan France, while the others (the less educated or less directly employable) return to their home DOM within a short time. It is this double selection that gives a particular structure to the population of DOM native-borns who have settled in metropolitan France.

77

The breakdown of this group by educational level and employment status reflects this selection effect. In 2007, metropolitan France was home to 38% of all DOM native-borns with higher education, but to only 15% of DOM native-borns with low or no qualifications. The selection is even stronger among younger people. For those aged 18-34, the proportions are 43% for those with higher education and 14% of those with low or no qualifications. In this age group, the educational level of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France has increased much more than in their home départements. Consequently, young DOM native-borns in metropolitan France now have a educational level comparable to the metropolitan average, which is not the case for their elders. This selection is played out again in employment: a higher percentage of young DOM native-borns are in employment in metropolitan France than in their DOM.

78

Our third conclusion is that those who return home do not always benefit from having migrated. Indeed, returned DOM native-borns do not form a homogeneous group and their migration experience is not in itself an advantage. Despite this common experience, it is their social (individual and family) characteristics and actual migration history that really count. While those who took the opportunity to further their training, attain qualifications or extend their work experience can capitalize on this investment when they return, those who derived no gain from the time spent outside the département find themselves in a worse situation than non-migrant native-borns in terms of access to employment when they return. The results obtained in Réunion are in line with those from a previous survey (Marie and Chevalier, 2001) which had already highlighted this strong heterogeneity. [27]  A factor analysis of the Démo97 survey in Réunion on...[27]

79

To follow up this research, it would be useful to analyse migration histories in more detail to better explain the factors that contribute to the heterogeneity between those for whom migration contributes to successful workforce integration or reintegration and those who, on the contrary, derive no benefit from it. The effects of the migration of DOM native-borns on the job market and on social cohesion in the overseas départements could also be assessed in connection with labour immigrants settling there (metropolitan nationals, EU citizens and third-country foreigners). These issues open new areas for research. There are several outstanding questions about the competition that might arise between these different population categories (returned DOM native-borns, non-migrants, in-migrants born in metropolitan France and immigrants born abroad). Are these multiple layers of competition, which vary from one département to another, generating unequal opportunities in access to employment or in the qualification of the jobs held? The same analyses should be conducted for DOM native-borns in metropolitan France. Do they enjoy the same opportunities as metropolitans or do they hold less qualified jobs for comparable skill levels? Here again, the TeO and MFV surveys offer a wealth of material for new research.

Appendix A.1. Estimated percentage of DOM native-borns living abroad, based on the information gathered on close relatives who have migrated

80

The MFV survey provides data about the place of residence of family members – parent(s), children, spouse – of the respondents aged 18-79, which can be used to estimate the percentage of DOM native-borns living outside the département where they were born. This estimate gives equal weight to DOM native-borns living outside their département and to the respondents interviewed in the survey.

81

A comparison of the survey results with the French censuses yields very similar estimates for the population living outside the DOM where they were born. For the population aged 18-79, the censuses estimate the number of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France or in another DOM at 334,500; the MFV survey, based on information provided by respondents, gives a total of 329,900, i.e. a difference of only 1.4% with respect to the census.

82

If we apply this difference to the number of DOM native-borns living abroad or in an overseas territory (TOM), we can estimate (based on information provided by the MFV respondents) that around 13,500 DOM native-borns aged 18-79 were living abroad at the time of the survey.

83

According to the MFV, 26% of DOM native-borns aged 18-79 live outside the département where they were born: 23% in metropolitan France, 2% in another DOM and only 1% in another country or in a TOM. In the younger age group (18-34), the percentage living in another country is almost 1.8%, reflecting the recent but still moderate increase in migration to other countries in that age group.

84

We thus have confirmation that migration (departures and returns) of DOM native-borns is largely limited to movements between the département where they were born and metropolitan France. We can therefore restrict the field of this study to DOM native-borns living either in the département where they were born or in metropolitan France.

Appendix A.2. Main migration characteristics of returned DOM native-borns based on the MFV survey

85

Of DOM native-borns aged 18-79 who returned to their home département after more than six months away, 29% said they left for employment purposes, 24% for military service, 16% for education and 15% for family reasons.

86

This population of “returned native-borns” comprises more men (59%) than women. The over-representation of men and their high propensity to return can be attributed to the importance of military service as a factor of out-migration in previous years. Excluding military service, men make up only 46% of returned native-borns. At the same time, the data from population censuses indicate that women make up 51% of DOM native-borns settled in metropolitan France.

87

For the younger group, aged 18-34, [28]  These results are based on a cross-sectional analysis...[28] the dominant reasons for leaving are education and employment (34% and 23%, respectively) whereas for those aged 35 and over, the most frequently cited reasons are employment (31%) and military service (27%), well ahead of education (12%).

88

Whatever their current age, these returned native-borns left when they were young: 71% before the age of 25 (61% of those who left for employment and 89% of those who left for education). Those aged 18-34 at the time of the survey left earlier than the older group (85% before age 25 versus 67%), and some were children accompanying their parents who migrated.

89

In terms of length of stay, 57% of returned native-borns aged 18-34 who left for employment and 49% of those who left for education stayed away for less than two years before returning to their home département. The respective percentages were 18% and 30% in the group aged 35 and over. Mobility allowances have a stronger impact on the out-migration of younger returned native-borns: 52% of those who left for education and 40% of those who left for employment reported having received an allowance, compared with 29.5% and 24% of those aged 35 and over.

90

Metropolitan France is still the preferred destination (87%). Only 9% migrated to another DOM or COM, and only 4% to another country. We note, however, that return migration from other countries is increasing among young people: 8% compared with 3% among DOM native-borns aged 35 and over.

The statistical models used for tables A.3.1 to A.3.8

91

In order to neutralize any effects linked to differences in age structure, educational level, sex, département of origin, etc. and to avoid interpretation errors when comparing an indicator between several groups (e.g. unemployment rate or mobility intentions), the descriptive analyses were systematically backed up by statistical models. Their main results are given in the body of the text and presented in detail in the form of appendix tables.

92

They are binary logistic regression models. For each covariate – all presented in the tables – the results obtained can be used to compare the test modalities with a reference modality (Ref.) to estimate the probability of being concerned, or otherwise, by the modelled event (e.g. the fact of having a job with respect to not having one). These results, expressed as odds ratios (OR) make it possible to reason in terms of “all other things being equal”. For example, if we model the fact of being employed or not, a coefficient below 1 signifies that probability of being in employment is lower for the population concerned (men in the analyses of the gender covariate) than for the reference population. Conversely, a coefficient above 1 signifies a higher probability.

93

The statistical significance of each test modality is identified as follows:

94

*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

95

The higher the number of asterisks, the greater the significance of the result. The absence of an asterisk indicates that the modality cannot be interpreted.

96

For the purposes of our analysis, these models comprise a number of different modalities (age group, educational level, département of residence, etc.) to assess intra-group variations in behaviour.

Appendix A.3.1. Factors associated with the probability of having migrated and returned for native-borns living in their DOM (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
Appendix A.3.2. Factors associated with the probability for native-borns living in their DOM of being willing to leave their département for employment reasons (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
Appendix A.3.3. Factors associated with the probability of being in employment for native-borns living in their DOM or in metropolitan France (OR)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census.
Appendix A.3.4. Factors associated with the probability for DOM native-borns with a degree in higher education living in their DOM or in metropolitan France of being a salaried employee in a higher-level or intermediate occupation (OR)
Source: INSEE, 2007 population census.
Appendix A.3.5. Factors associated with the probability of being in employment for native-borns living in their DOM (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
Appendix A.3.6. Factors associated with the probability of being in employment for returned native-borns (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
Appendix A.3.7. Factors associated with the probability of being in employment for native-borns living in their DOM (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.
Appendix A.3.8: Factors associated with the probability for DOM native-borns with a degree in higher education living in their DOM of being a salaried employee in a higher-level or intermediate occupation (OR)
Source: INED-INSEE, MFV 2009-2010.

References

  • Beauchemin C., Hamel., Simon P., 2010, Trajectories and Origins. Survey on Population Diversity in France. Initial Findings, INED, Document de travail 168, 149 p.
  • Borrel C., Lhommeau B., 2010, “Être né en France d’un parent immigré”, Insee première 1287, 4 p.
  • Breton D., Condon S., Marie C.-V., Temporal F., 2009, “The challenges of population ageing and migration in the French overseas départements”, Population and Societies, 460, 4 p., http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/1480/
  • Charbit Y., Leridon H., 1980, Transition démographique et modernisation en Guadeloupe et en Martinique, Paris, INED, Cahier 89, 308 p.
  • Contant F., 1987, “La politique française de l’immigration antillaise de 1946 à 1987”, Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 3(3), pp. 9-30.
  • Dion M., Bellot S., 2004, “La migration pour études, atout à la Réunion ?”, Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 20(1), pp. 141-167.
  • Domenach H., Picouet M., 1992, La dimension migratoire des Antilles, Paris, Economica, 254 p.
  • Festy P., Hamon C., 1983, Croissance et révolution démographiques à La Réunion, Paris, Ined/PUF, Cahier 100, 116 p.
  • Labache L., 2007, “La mobilité des jeunes Réunionnais vers la métropole et l’espace européen”, Les 3e rencontres “Jeunes et sociétés en Europe et autour de la Méditerranée”, Marseille IUFM, 24, 25 and 26 October, 13 p. http://www.jeunes-et-societes.com/public/archives/2005/LABACHE.pdf
  • Marie C.-V., 2011, “L’enquête Migrations, famille et vieillissement”, Politiques sociales et familiales. Réalités sociales et politiques publiques dans les DOM, 106, CNAF, 6 p.
  • Marie C.-V., Chevalier F., 2001, “Migrants de retour : entre promotion et précarité”, Économie de la Réunion, 109, INSEE, pp. 14-17.
  • Marie C.-V., Temporal F., 2011, “Les DOM : terres de migrations”, Espace populations sociétés, 2011/3.
  • Marie C.-V., Temporal F., 2001, “Migrants de retour : une émigration très encadrée par les institutions”, Économie de la Réunion, 109, INSEE, pp. 12-14.
  • Marie C.-V., Rallu J.-L., 2004, “Migrations croisées entre DOM et Métropole : l’emploi comme moteur de la migration”, Espace populations sociétés, 2004/2, pp. 237-252.
  • Marie C-V., Temporal F., Breton D., Condon S., Abdouni S., 2011, “Migrations, famille et vieillissement – Des défis pour La Réunion de demain”, INSEE-Réunion, INSEE-Partenaires, 12, 6 p.
  • Monteil C., Rallu J.-L., 2010, “Migrations : l’impact démographique et économique”, Économie de La Réunion, 136, INSEE, p. 11-22.
  • Observatoire national de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion sociale (ONEPS), 2006, “Une approche de la pauvreté dans les départements d’outre-mer. Réflexions sur la pauvreté dans les départements d’outre-mer. Annexe du rapport 2005-2006”, Les travaux de l’observatoire, La Documentation française, pp. 389-539.
  • Parain C., 2011, “Approche comparée des évolutions macro-économiques des Outre-mer” Créer de la valeur ajoutée et de l’emploi en outre-mer, Conference of the Agence française du développement in partnership with CEROM, Paris, Maison de la RATP, 25 November.
  • Rallu J.-L., Diagne A., 2005, “La population des départements d’outre-mer depuis les années 1950”, in Bergouignan C., Blayo C., Parant A., Sardon J.-P., Tribalat M. (eds.), La Population de la France : évolutions démographiques depuis 1946, Pessac, CUPED, Volume 1, pp. 103-125.
  • Temporal F., 2011, “L’évolution démographique récente dans les départements d’outre-mer”, Politiques sociales et familiales, 106, Synthèses et statistiques, CNAF, pp. 1-7.

Notes

[1] France has five overseas départements: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion and Mayotte (not studied here), which became a DOM in March 2011.

[2] The term “DOM native-born” refers to anyone born in one of the four French overseas dépar-tements considered.

[3] Metropolitan France comprises mainland France and Corsica.

[4] In this article, “in-migrants” are all persons born outside the DOM(s) considered. They may have French or foreign nationality.

[5] On the same date, people born in another DOM or in another French overseas territory (COM) made up less than 2% of the population of those départements.

[6] Percentage of DOM native-borns living in metropolitan France among total DOM native-borns (whether living in their home département or in metropolitan France). This figure does not include DOM native-borns who live in a foreign country, in another DOM or in another overseas territory.

[7] Share of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France among total native-borns (whether living in their home département or in metropolitan France).

[8] No qualification, primary certificate (CEP) or lower secondary certificate (BEPC).

[9] Job creation in the DOMs outpaced metropolitan France in the 2000s (Parain, 2011).

[10] According to the 2009 employment survey, ILO-defined youth unemployment at ages 15-24 was 61% in Martinique, 57% in Guadeloupe, 52% in Réunion and 40% in Guiana, compared with 24% in metropolitan France.

[11] For those with the least education, the percentages range from 19% to 35% in the same départements.

[12] The percentage is 36.5% for holders of a vocational lower secondary qualification.

[13] Some binary logistic regressions that complement the descriptive analysis are shown in the Appendix.

[14] “Close relatives” refers to the spouse, parents and siblings of the MFV respondent.

[15] This figure only covers the answers “Yes” and “No”. The indefinite answer “Don’t know” was excluded to enhance readability. Of all young DOM native-borns aged 18-34 surveyed in the MFV about their employment mobility intentions, 49.1% said they were willing to leave their département, 48.4% said they were not and only 2.5% said they didn’t know.

[16] The question was worded: “If you had a job opportunity (or a more interesting job opportunity for people already in employment) outside the département, would you be willing to leave?”.

[17] This result is confirmed by the statistical model on unemployed DOM native-borns aged 18-34 (Appendix Table A.3.2): young unemployed people from the Caribbean and Guiana much are more likely to report an intention to leave than unemployed Réunionese.

[18] Here again, only the responses “Yes” and “No” were retained, while the indefinite responses “Maybe” and “Don’t know” were excluded from the calculation. Of all the young DOM native-borns aged 18-34 surveyed in the TeO survey about their intention to return to their home département, 34.9% said “Yes”, 43.1% said “No”, 17.8% said “Maybe” and 4.2% said “Don’t know”.

[19] The question was “Do you think one day you will go to live in another DOM, a TOM or a country other than France?”. The “yes” answers concerned only native-borns aged 18-34 who said they wish to return to their home département.

[20] This is the population who are not currently in education. Those who reported the status of “student” on the census date were excluded from the analysis.

[21] We will see in Section III.2 that the more favourable situation for DOM native-borns in metropolitan France can be explained partly by this selection effect.

[22] The gap narrows to 19 points after age 25 and remains at that level until retirement age.

[23] Unlike the previous results where the “educational level” variable was grouped into four categories, the variable used in the statistical models comprises seven modalities (1. No qualification; 2. Primary; 3. Lower secondary; 4. Mainstream upper secondary; 5. Vocational upper secondary; 6. Undergraduate degree; 7. Master’s or higher). This more detailed variable provides a means to control for interpretation biases that may be linked to a difference in qualification level between sub-populations within grouped categories.

[24] After individuals with no qualifications, the least favourable status is a vocational upper secondary qualification (Appendix Table A.3.3).

[25] Each corresponds to a pair of birth cohorts: 1950 and 1951, 1960 and 1961, etc.

[26] BUMIDOM: Bureau pour le développement des migrations dans les DOM (Bureau for the development of migration in the DOMs); ANT: (Agence nationale des travailleurs d’outre-mer (National agency for overseas workers); LADOM: L’agence d’outre-mer pour la mobilité (DOM mobility agency).

[27] A factor analysis of the Démo97 survey in Réunion on the labour market integration of native-borns returning from migration has shown the heterogeneity of this population. Six groups of returned native-borns were identified, ranging from “failed return” associated with extremely preciarous living conditions, to “successful return”, combining rapid labour market integration with favourable living conditions.

[28] These results are based on a cross-sectional analysis of the population of returned native-borns at the time of the MFV survey. Note that the data for the 18-34 age group are less “robust” than those for the older group because a higher percentage of young people have not yet migrated or have not yet returned. However, the trends observed (Figure 10) suggest that the differentials presented here should mostly persist.

Abstract

English

Since the mid-twentieth century, France’s overseas départements (DOM) have seen intense migration, with criss-crossing flows of DOM native-borns leaving and returning, alongside migrants from France and other countries. Practically all of the DOM native-borns who emigrate – mainly towards metropolitan France – are working-age adults who leave their home for work or educational purposes. This study measures the scale of these migration flows and describes their complexity, focusing on the selection mechanisms at play among leavers and returners, notably in terms of educational level. We also examine the conditions of integration of DOM native-borns in their place of destination and assess the benefits of migration for those who return, the youngest especially (ages 18-34), by comparison with their elders (ages 35-64), the aim being to shed light on the changes which, from one age group to another, have marked this powerful and long-standing migration tradition. The original findings of the Migrations, Family and Ageing survey (MFV), and of the Trajectories and Origins survey (TeO), associated with census data from the DOMs and metropolitan France, provide scope for detailed analysis of the population of DOM native-borns, whatever their place of residence, and for a better understanding of the dynamics involved.

Keywords

  • DOM native-borns
  • emigration
  • return
  • educational level
  • labour market integration
  • job qualification

Outline

  1. The population of the DOMs: “here and there”
  2. Selection at departure and return
    1. Who migrates and who doesn’t?
    2. Who returns and who doesn’t?
      1. An aspiration for mobility that remains high among young DOM native-borns
      2. Those who wish to return home
  3. Selection in migration: who benefits?
    1. Do DOM native-borns benefit from out-migration?
      1. DOM native-borns in metropolitan France are better educated than those who stay home
      2. DOM native-borns in metropolitan France find jobs more easily
      3. Qualification of jobs held by place of residence
    2. Increased selection of DOM native-borns in metropolitan France
    3. What are the benefits of returning home?
  4. Conclusion

To cite this article

Franck Temporal, Claude-Valentin Marie, Stéphane Bernard, “ Insertion professionnelle des jeunes ultramarins : DOM ou métropole ? ”, Population 3/2011 (Vol. 66) , p. 555-599
URL : www.cairn.info/revue-population-2011-3-page-555.htm.
DOI : 10.3917/popu.1103.0555.


Previous Pages 473 - 517 Next
© 2010-2014 Cairn.info
back to top
Feedback

Message sent

Your email address has been saved.
We will notify you when this article becomes available in English.