SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Uygulamalı Sosyal Hizmet Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

WELFARE REGIMES AS STRUCTURAL MODERATORS: IMMIGRANT WOMEN'S LABOUR MARKET DISADVANTAGE ACROSS THE EU27 AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Yapısal Düzenleyici Olarak Refah Rejimleri: AB27 Genelinde Göçmen Kadınların İşgücü Piyasası Dezavantajı ve Sosyal Hizmet Uygulamalarına Yansımaları

Zeynep Sezen Koçyiğit(Topkapı Üniversitesi)0009-0008-3707-8692
Pages
47–62
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings challenge additive models of compound disadvantage and carry direct implications for social work practice, professional education, and policy advocacy across differentiated welfare state contexts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:When gender and migration status intersect in European labour markets, the resulting employment disadvantage exceeds the sum of its parts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Across the 27 member states of the European Union, immigrant women's mean employment rate stands at 59.6%, trailing immigrant men by 14.3 percentage points and native women by 4.6 pp.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings challenge additive models of compound disadvantage and carry direct implications for social work practice, professional education, and policy advocacy across differentiated welfare state contexts.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2015–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:göçmen kadınlar · işgücü piyasası entegrasyonu · çift dezavantaj

Abstract

When gender and migration status intersect in European labour markets, the resulting employment disadvantage exceeds the sum of its parts. Across the 27 member states of the European Union, immigrant women's mean employment rate stands at 59.6%, trailing immigrant men by 14.3 percentage points and native women by 4.6 pp. Drawing on Eurostat Labour Force Survey panel data for all EU27 member states (2015–2024) and the OECD International Migration Database (2023), this study conducts a systematic three-way comparison and evaluates four theoretical frameworks: the double disadvantage hypothesis, intersectionality theory, the selective migration hypothesis, and welfare regime theory. Welch t-tests and country fixed-effects OLS regression confirm that the immigrant gender employment gap (14.3 pp; Cohen's d = −1.96, p < .001) is approximately 1.75 times larger than the native gender gap (8.1 pp), consistent with an intersectional interpretation. Between-country heterogeneity is extreme (I² = 98.8%), tracing a welfare regime gradient. A "universalist paradox" is identified in Social Democratic regimes, where the highest absolute employment rates for immigrant women coincide with the widest immigrant–native gaps. Findings challenge additive models of compound disadvantage and carry direct implications for social work practice, professional education, and policy advocacy across differentiated welfare state contexts.

Özet

Cinsiyet ile göç statüsünün kesişimi Avrupa işgücü piyasalarında bileşen bir istihdam dezavantajı üretmekte; bu dezavantajın büyüklüğü her iki boyutun bireysel etkilerinin toplamını aşmaktadır. Avrupa Birliği'nin 27 üye devleti genelinde göçmen kadınların ortalama istihdam oranı yüzde 59,6 olup göçmen erkeklerin 14,3 puan, yerli kadınların ise 4,6 puan gerisinde kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, tüm AB27 üye devletlerine ilişkin Eurostat İşgücü Anketi panel verilerini (2015–2024) ve OECD Uluslararası Göç Veri Tabanını (2023) kullanarak göçmen kadın, göçmen erkek ve yerli kadın arasındaki üç yönlü karşılaştırmalı bir analiz gerçekleştirmekte; dört teorik çerçeve değerlendirilmektedir: Çift dezavantaj hipotezi, kesişimsellik teorisi, seçici göç hipotezi ve refah rejimi teorisi. Welch t-testleri ve ülke sabit etkili OLS regresyon, göçmen cinsiyet istihdam açığının (14,3 pp; Cohen d = −1,96, p < ,001) yerli cinsiyet açığının (8,1 pp) yaklaşık 1,75 katı büyüklüğünde olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Ülkeler arası heterojenlik aşırı boyuttadır (I² = yüzde 98,8) ve bulgular refah rejimi gradyanını izlemektedir. Sosyal Demokrat rejimlerde göçmen kadınlar için en yüksek mutlak istihdam oranları en geniş göçmen-yerli açıklarıyla bir arada gözlemlenmekte; bu durum "evrenselci paradoks" olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bulgular, bileşik dezavantajın toplamsal yorumlarını sorgulamakta ve sosyal hizmet pratiği, mesleki eğitim ile politika savunuculuğu için doğrudan çıkarımlar taşımaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koçyiğit, Z. S. (2026). WELFARE REGIMES AS STRUCTURAL MODERATORS: IMMIGRANT WOMEN'S LABOUR MARKET DISADVANTAGE ACROSS THE EU27 AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE. Türk Uygulamalı Sosyal Hizmet Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.54467/trjasw.1930044

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158. doi:10.1177/089124390004002002
  2. Berbee, P., & Stuhler, J. (2023). The labour market integration of immigrants and their children in Europe. Annual Review of Economics, 15, 603-637.
  3. Bevelander, P., & Irastorza, N. (2020). The labour market performance of immigrant men and women in Europe. In A. Triandafyllidou (Ed.), Handbook of migration and globalisation (pp. 313-329). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  4. Blau, F. D., Kahn, L. M., & Papps, K. L. (2011). Gender, source country characteristics, and labor market assimilation among immigrants: 1980-2000. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 43-58. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00064
  5. Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2012). Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  6. Bolzani, D., Luppi, M., & Fini, E. (2021). Entrepreneurship and gender: The case of immigrant women entrepreneurs in Italy. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(4), 911-938.
  7. Borjas, G. J. (1987). Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review, 77(4), 531-553.
  8. Bredtmann, J., & Otten, S. (2023). Culture and the labor supply of female immigrants. Economic Inquiry, 61(2), 464-482. doi:10.1111/ecin.13129
  9. Bredtmann, J., & Otten, S. (2024). Natives’ gender norms and the labor market integration of female immigrants. World Development, 185, 106772. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106772
  10. Chiswick, B. R. (1978). The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 897-921.
  11. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
  12. Donato, K. M., & Ferris, E. (2020). Studying the gender of refugee experiences: How and why they matter. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 690(1), 14-29.
  13. Duran, K. (2018). Göçmen kadın ve işgüçü piyasası entegrasyonu: Türkiye örneği. Sosyal Politika Dergisi, 12(2), 45-67.
  14. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Eurostat. (2024). Labour force survey - employment rates by country of birth [Dataset lfsa_ergacob]. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2908/lfsa_ergacob
  15. Ferrera, M. (1996). The “southern model” of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17-37.
  16. Frotveit, M., & Shkodych, A. (2021). Labour market integration of immigrant women in Norway: Employment trajectories and gender gaps. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 11(3), 221-238.
  17. Kanas, A., Kosyakova, Y., & Scheible, J. A. (2024). Gender differences in the refugee employment gap. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(3), 635-657.
  18. Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalism and the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 1-26.
  19. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159-173.
  20. Mattsson, T. (2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia, 29(1), 8-17.
  21. Muller, T., Ramioul, M., & Voss, E. (2023). Labour market integration of migrants in Europe: Persistent gender gaps and policy challenges. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 29(2), 121-141.
  22. Murphy, Y., Hunt, V., Zajicek, A. M., Norris, A. N., & Hamilton, L. (2009). Incorporating intersectionality in social work practice, research, policy, and education. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
  23. OECD. (2018). International migration outlook 2018. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/migr_outlook-2018-en
  24. Ortensi, L. E., & Ambrosetti, E. (2021). Gender and labour market integration of immigrants in Italy. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 22(4), 1459-1483.
  25. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  26. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  27. Rengs, B., Berghammer, C., & Buber-Ennser, I. (2021). Labour market integration of immigrant women in Austria: The role of partner characteristics. European Journal of Population, 37(3), 641-675.
  28. Schmid, S. (2019a). Female labour migration to Germany: Integration trajectories by migration motive. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 48(1), 24-43.
  29. Schmid, S. (2019b). Selection effects in female immigration: Skill selectivity and post-migration labour market outcomes. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(9), 1553-1572.
  30. Tervola, J. (2020). Gender gaps in immigrants’ employment: Evidence from Finland’s longitudinal register data. Journal of Population Research, 37(2), 131-154.