Disparities in work, risk and health between immigrants and native-born Spaniards
AbstractThe probability of acquiring a permanent disability is partly determined by working and contractual conditions, particularly exposure to job risks. We postulate a model in which this impact is mediated by the choice of occupation, with a level of risk associated with it. We assume this choice is endogenous and that it depends on preferences and opportunities in the labour market, both of which may differ between immigrants and natives. To test this hypothesis we apply a bivariate probit model, in which we control for personal and firm characteristics, to data for 2006 from the Continuous Sample of Working Lives provided by the Spanish Social Security system, containing records for over a million workers. We find that risk exposure increases the probability of permanent disability – arising from any cause – by almost 5%. Temporary employment and low-skilled jobs also have a positive impact. Increases in education reduce the likelihood of disability, even after controlling for the impact of education on the choice of (lower) risk. Females have a greater probability of becoming disabled. Migrant status – with differences among regions of origin – significantly affects both disability and the probability of being employed in a high-risk occupation. In spite of immigrants' working conditions being objectively worse, they exhibit a lower probability of becoming disabled than natives because the impact of such conditions on disability is much smaller in their case. Time elapsed since first enrolment in the Social Security system increases the probability of disability in a proportion similar to that of natives, which is consistent with the immigrant assimilation hypothesis. We finally conclude that our theoretical hypothesis that disability and risk are jointly determined is only valid for natives and not valid for immigrants, in the sense that, for them, working conditions are not a matter of choice in terms of health.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 76 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.