Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjms20

Early career trajectories of first- and second-

generation migrant graduates of professional
university

Barbara Belfi, Jim Allen, Babs Jacobs, Mark Levels & Kars van Oosterhout

To cite this article: Barbara Belfi, Jim Allen, Babs Jacobs, Mark Levels & Kars van Oosterhout
(2022) Early career trajectories of first- and second-generation migrant graduates of
professional university, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48:10, 2415-2435, DOI:
10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935666

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935666

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 30 Jul 2021. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3200 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES
2022, VOL. 48, NO. 10, 2415–2435
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935666

Early career trajectories of first- and second-generation

migrant graduates of professional university
Barbara Belfi, Jim Allen, Babs Jacobs, Mark Levels and Kars van Oosterhout
Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, Netherlands

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study explores how the careers of professional university Higher education;
graduates with a first- or second-generation non-Western migrant Professional university
background evolve within the first four to eight years after graduates; early career
graduation, as compared to their Dutch native peers. We find trajectories; first- and
second-generation migrants;
that in the first year after graduation, while holding constant longitudinal analysis
background characteristics, both first- and second-generation
migrants experienced lower employment chances, more skill
mismatches and lower job satisfaction than natives. No wage
differences could be observed between migrants and natives.
Although the differences between first- and second-generation
migrants appeared to be small in the short term, a follow-up
survey four to eight years after graduation revealed evidence that
second-generation – but not first-generation – migrants
improved their situation overall. They maintained earnings parity
with natives, and narrowed the gap in terms of job satisfaction,
skill match, and to a somewhat lesser extent employment
chances. Although the first generation eliminated the gap with
respect to natives in terms of employment chances, they
continued to show lower job satisfaction and opened up a wage
gap as compared to their native Dutch peers. This suggests that
early-career gaps for first-generation migrants are enduring and
cannot easily be resolved.

1. Introduction
Over the last decades, the share of non-Western migrants in Europe has risen sharply
through different waves of migration from former colonies, refugees fleeing warzones,
and the permanent settlement of guest workers (OECD 2018). Several studies show
that the children of these migrants perform worse in school than comparable students
without migration backgrounds (Belfi et al. 2014; Gabrielli and Impicciatore 2022;
Levels and Dronkers 2008; Triventi, Vlach and Pini 2022). In this paper, we investigate
how migrants fare once they enter the labour market, looking at the case of Dutch pro-
fessional university graduates.

CONTACT Barbara Belfi b.belfi@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935666.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2416 B. BELFI ET AL.

While initially, non-Western migrants in Europe typically found work in manual and
other types of low-skilled jobs, currently many have higher education (HE) degrees, and
pursue a middle-class career (Brekke 2007; Zwysen and Longhi 2018). However, while
the labour market trajectories of lower educated migrant school leavers are well-
studied, relatively little is still known about the labour market trajectories of migrants
who successfully managed to complete higher education in the host country. To our
knowledge, only one study to date has looked into the development of early career tra-
jectories of HE graduates with a non-Western migrant background and compared these
with their non-migrant counterparts (Zwysen and Longhi 2018). This study investigated
employment and wage differences in the early career of university graduates with a non-
Western migrant background in the UK, between six months and three and a half years
after graduation. While this study found large ethnic differences in employment in both
short-and long-term, it found almost no ethnic wage differences.
It is an open question whether the labour market situation of higher educated non-
Western ethnic migrants found in the UK resemble those of higher educated migrants
in the Netherlands and other European countries. A country’s migration history, its edu-
cation system, and its organisation of the labour market all affect whether and how ethnic
penalties arise in the labour market arise (Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2005). The Nether-
lands differs on a number of these characteristics from the UK. While the UK’s migrant
groups mainly consist of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi migrants, the three largest
migrant groups in the Netherlands are of Surinamese, Moroccan, and Turkish descent
(Connor et al. 2004; Blommaert, van Tubergen, and Coenders 2012). These origin differ-
ences matter for labour market success (Van Tubergen and Kalmijn 2005). Furthermore,
while research has established that migrant students in the UK typically tend to enrol in
lower quality institutions (Connor et al. 2004), the quality of HE institutions in the Neth-
erlands has been found to be very homogeneous (Klumpp, de Boer, and Vossensteyn
2014). There is however a strong tradition of vocationally oriented professional higher
education in the Netherlands. There is no comparable tradition in the UK, so Zwysen
and Longhi (2018) focussed on graduates of academic universities. By contrast, in the
Netherlands, graduates of professional universities currently comprise almost two-
thirds of the HE graduates entering the labour market each year (Allen and Belfi 2020).
The present study consequently focuses on investigating the early labour market tra-
jectories of non-Western migrant graduates of Dutch professional universities. Aside
from supplementing Zwysen and Longhi’s (2018) research, this study contributes to
the broader literature on ethnic-related differences in graduate labour market careers,
in at least two ways. Firstly, in order to get a more balanced view of ethnic differences
in early career development, in this paper we not only focus on objective indicators of
labour market success, such as employment and wages, but also on subjective success
indicators, such as job satisfaction and subjective job-skill match. This is because prior
research has shown that both types of career success contribute to people’s overall well-
being (Verbruggen et al. 2015).
Secondly, this study aims to identify potential education-related barriers faced by non-
Western migrant graduates that may explain potential ethnic-related labour market gaps.
More specifically, this study investigates to which extent background differences with
regard to human capital, parental socioeconomic background and field of study prefer-
ences can account for potential ethnic-related differences in the labour market success of
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2417

HE graduates. To our knowledge, apart from Zwysen and Longhi (2018), this topic has
been little studied.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the existing theoretical
explanations for labour market differences between migrants and natives and between
first- and second-generation migrants. Section 3 provides information on the specific
migrant groups and higher education system in the Netherlands. In Section 4, we
describe this study’s sample, variables, and design. The results of the descriptive and
regression analyses are discussed in Section 5. The paper concludes with a discussion
of its results in Section 6.

2. Literature review
2.1. Explanations for ethnic related labour market differences
In labour market research, human capital theory (Becker 1962) is by far the best-known
theory in accounting for differences in labour market success. According to this theory,
education and work experience are the most crucial factors for labour market success, as
these factors increase the productivity of workers. However, research has shown that
differences in education and work experience alone are often unable to fully explain eth-
nicity-related differences in career outcomes (Blommaert, van Tubergen, and Coenders
2012; Siebers and van Gastel 2015). The remaining unexplained variance in career out-
comes between migrants and natives after education and experience have been accounted
for has been referred to as an ethnic penalty (Heath and Cheung 2007).
Several modifications and alternatives to human capital theory have been suggested to
account for this ethnic penalty. For example, it has been pointed out that human capital
acquired in the country of origin by migrants may be less well transferable to, or
rewarded differently in, destination countries. The argument usually revolves around
assumptions about differing circumstances between origin and destination countries in
terms of socio-economic circumstances and education systems (Dronkers, Levels, and
de Heus 2014; Basilio, Bauer, and Kramer 2017). The fact that human capital acquired
in origin countries can be less suited or less rewarded in destination countries has
been used to explain differences between natives and migrants in terms of wages (Chis-
wick and Miller 2005), economic integration (Van Tubergen, Maas, and Flap 2004), and
educational performance (Levels and Dronkers 2008).
As an alternative to human capital theory, signalling theory assumes that employers
use observable signals to gauge job applicants’ productive potential, such as degrees
and resumes (Spence 1973). Foreign credentials may be seen as less reliable or less valu-
able signals (Castagnone et al. 2015). More subtle differences within otherwise compar-
able qualifications may be expressed in signals such as grade point average (GPA) and
extracurricular activities (such as managerial experience in a student association) (Kittel-
sen Røberg and Helland 2017). Migrant students generally acquire less of such specific
forms of human capital during their studies than native students (Camacho and
Fuligni 2015). This could account for part of the ethnic-related differences in the
labour market during the school-to-work transition.
It has also been found that migrant students hold different preferences regarding fields
of study than students without a migration background. For example, migrant students
2418 B. BELFI ET AL.

show a stronger preference for law and economics and less interest in technical and
health care studies (Gerber and Cheung 2008; Jennissen and Oudhof 2007 Kittelsen
Røberg and Helland 2017). Pásztor (2012) found that this difference in preference
could be explained by a stronger preference of migrants for white-collar professions
that are a certain entry ticket into the upper-middle class, as these present a clear contrast
to their parents’ jobs, which are often characterised by hard physical labour, unattractive
working hours and a minimal income. Jennissen and Oudhof (2007) found that migrant
students’ study choices are relatively strongly driven by factors such as job security and
prestige. However, in the Netherlands, such jobs are less in demand, as the labour market
for school-leavers has a higher demand for highly educated personnel in jobs that involve
physical tasks and unattractive working hours, such as technical and health care jobs,
than in jobs in business and sales (Bakens, Fouarge, and Peeters 2018). As such, differ-
ences in field of study preferences may also account for less successful careers of
migrant HE graduates.
Another frequently cited explanation for ethnic-related labour market problems has to
do with the often lower parental socioeconomic status (SES) of migrants which would
imply lower social and cultural capital and less information about the education
system (Gabrielli, Longobardi, and Strozza 2022; Gabrielli and Impicciatore 2022).
However, research has shown that effects of SES decrease as students grow older. For
example, a recent literature review found a very weak relationship between parental
SES and academic achievement among HE students (Rodriguez-Hernandez, Cascallar,
and Kyndt 2020). As students age, other factors (such as previous academic achievement
and extracurricular experience) become more important than SES. For example, Zwysen
and Longhi (2018) who studied employment and earning differences in the early career
of ethnic minority British graduates, found no evidence that SES played an explanatory
role in these relationships.
A final explanation for ethnic career-differences is taste-based or statistical discrimi-
nation by employers. Employers may discriminate against migrants for various reasons,
including a manifest or perceived dislike of migrants, or a perception of lower potential
productivity (Becker 1962). Field experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimi-
nation against ethnic minorities also plays a role in the Dutch labour market (Ramos,
Thijssen, and Coenders 2019).

2.2. Explanations for labour market differences between first- and second-
generation migrants
Research on career trajectories has shown that first- and second-generation migrants
differ in many respects. For example, several studies have shown that first-generation
migrants demonstrate considerable skill shortages in terms of literacy and numeracy in
comparison to second-generation migrants, and accordingly perform worse in the
labour market compared to native peers with the same education (Chiswick and
Miller 1999; Levels and Dronkers 2008). Differences have also been found in country-
specific knowledge such as cultural norms and customs, and this has also been found
to hinder first-generation migrants’ careers (Crul and Vermeulen 2003). Furthermore,
first-generation migrants’ sometimes involuntary departure from their country of
origin and possible traumatic events they experienced there have also been found to
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2419

disadvantage them when entering the labour market in comparison to their second-gen-
eration counterparts (Bakker, Dagevos, and Engbersen 2017).
Finally, the literature on transnationalism (cf. Basch, Glick, and Cristina 1994)
suggests that first-generation migrants may be choosing different jobs, as socio-economic
circumstances and labour markets in origin countries form a stronger frame of reference.1
By contrast, second-generation migrants may have developed frames of references that
are more similar to those of students without a migration background, and therefore
have higher job aspirations (Heath and Cheung 2007). These findings are consistent
with those of Arcarons and Muñoz-Comet (2022), who observed that first-generation
migrants often suffer from a persistent concentration in vulnerable economic sectors
with a precarious hold on the labour market. This underscores the importance of dis-
tinguishing between generations when investigating possible ethnic penalties in the
labour market.

2.3. Implications of unfavourable labour market beginnings for later career

trajectories
Although it is increasingly clear that the school-to-work transition is a process rather
than a singular event (Raffe 2008), the first job still forms a crucial element determining
the trajectory from school to work, as it is through this experience that one learns to
transform the formal knowledge obtained in school into job-relevant outcomes
(Becker 1962). As such, the more challenging the first job is, the more human capital
will be accumulated within that job. This additional human capital further increases
the opportunities for a good second job. In turn, a good second job will increase
chances for a good third job, and so on.
It is therefore important that initial labour market experiences are taken into account
when studying possible ethnic-related differences in career trajectories (Birkelund,
Heggebø, and Rogstad 2017; Zwysen and Longhi 2018). Both signalling theory (Spence
1973) and career timetable theory (Lawrence 1988) predict that problems in finding an
initial job may result in a so-called scarring effect, which may form a negative signal
for later employers. This is because there are certain norms regarding how an individual’s
career develops over time and which achievements are appropriate given one’s career
stage. The further one falls behind the ‘normal’ career timetable, the more likely one is
to be viewed unfavourably by prospective future employers (Verbruggen et al. 2015).

3. The Dutch context

3.1. Ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the inflow of non-Western migrants, took off in the 1960s and 1970s.
In 2018, the Netherlands had about 17 million inhabitants, of whom 13% had a non-
Western migration background (Statistics Netherlands 2019). Non-Western ethnic
migrants in the Netherlands can be divided into four main groups based on origin: (1)
migrants from former Dutch colonies (Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles); (2)
guest workers from Mediterranean countries (e.g. Turkey and Morocco); (3) subsequent
waves of migrants from these countries for purposes of family reunification; and (4)
2420 B. BELFI ET AL.

asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East. More recently, there has been a marked
increase in the prevalence of study migration to the Netherlands, which has brought in
migrants from countries from further afield, like China, (Statistics Netherlands 2021).
Given these different origins, there is some diversity among non-Western migrants in
the Netherlands. However, almost all non-Western migrant groups share a compara-
tively disadvantaged socioeconomic position (Bakker, Dagevos, and Engbersen 2017;
Gabrielli and Impicciatore 2022). In this regard, non-Western migrant groups are con-
siderably different from Western migrant populations in the Netherlands, who mostly
come from neighbouring countries such as Belgium and Germany (Statistics Netherlands
2019). Of the total Dutch population, 7.2% is considered a first-generation non-Western
migrant, while 5.8% is a second-generation migrant (Statistics Netherlands 2019).

3.2. The Dutch higher education system

The Netherlands has a binary system of higher education, consisting of 13 m academic
universities and 41 professional universities (‘Hoger Beroepsonderwijs’ in Dutch; hence-
forth: HBO). In general, academic universities are relatively more theoretically oriented
and the professional universities more vocationally oriented. Both types of institutions
offer studies in a broad and largely overlapping range of fields.2 Dutch professional uni-
versities enrol around two-thirds of all higher education students in the Netherlands
(Lepori and Kyvik 2010). Due to strict national accountability measures, there is rela-
tively little difference between institutions within these two broad types of higher edu-
cation in terms of quality of teaching and research (Klumpp, de Boer, and
Vossensteyn 2014). Access to both types of higher education is conditional on prior qua-
lifications. While a degree in academic upper secondary education is required for aca-
demic university enrolment, professional university enrolment is open to all students
with any form of upper secondary education degree. Since non-Western migrants are
strongly underrepresented in academic upper secondary education, professional univer-
sity is often their chosen path towards a higher education diploma (Jennissen and
Oudhof 2007).

4. Data and methods

4.1. Sample
The present study makes use of data on graduates from professional universities, who
comprise almost two-thirds of the annual outflow from Dutch HE to the labour
market (Allen and Belfi 2020). Partly due to their larger student volume and stronger
vocational orientation, the professional universities invest more resources into monitor-
ing the transition from study to work than professional universities, for which data are
scarcer and of lower quality. We use two partly overlapping datasets for our study. For
the analysis of the initial transition from HE to the labour market, we make use of
data from the HBO-Monitor, a yearly graduate survey among recent graduates of pro-
fessional universities. In this survey, professional university graduates are asked about
their work situation one year after graduation. Around 90% of all Dutch professional uni-
versities take part in this study with full coverage of all their recent graduates with annual
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2421

response rates around 40%. These data have been analysed for indications of deviations
from representativeness, and this has shown the data to be strongly representative of the
population as a whole (Belfi and Huijgen 2015). Key outcomes such as employment
chances and income have also been found to be highly comparable to those revealed
in administrative data collected by the Dutch government (Allen et al. 2019).3 For our
analyses, we use data from eleven cohorts that graduated in the academic years 2007–
2017, who were surveyed in the years 2008–2018 respectively.4
We restricted the sample to native respondents and respondents who belonged to a
non-Western migrant group according to the definition of Statistics Netherlands
(2019). If at least one parent was born outside the Netherlands, an individual is
defined as migrant. If this is a country in Africa, Latin America or Asia, one is defined
as a non-Western migrant. There are two exceptions to this general rule. First, the
whole of Turkey, including the part that lies in Europe, is classified as non-Western.
Second, Indonesia and Japan are classed as Western as migrants from these countries
occupy a more favourable socio-economic position than migrants from other countries
in Asia5 (for a more elaborate explanation of this definition, see Guiraudon, Phalet, and
Ter Wal 2005).
If the respondents themselves were born outside the Netherlands, they are defined as
having a first-generation migrant background. If they were born in the Netherlands to at
least one non-Western parent, they are defined as having a second-generation migrant
background. To avoid confounding the results with outcomes that are likely to be
strongly influenced by differences in the life-cycle phases of graduates, we further
restricted our sample to graduates who were younger than 30 when they first entered
the labour market. After applying these selections, the final sample for the analyses com-
prised 110,635 graduates, including 3,264 first-generation non-Western migrants and
5781 second-generation non-Western migrants.
Finally, for the analysis of the graduates’ subsequent career development, we focussed
on a subsample drawn from the four cohorts that graduated in 2007, 2009, 2010 and
2011, and that were first approached for participation one year after graduation, in
2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. A follow up of all four cohorts was held in
2015, when the graduates had already been in the labour market for four to eight
years. In total, 10,434 (14.5%) of the graduates who participated in the first survey
could be uniquely identified in the second survey. After further restrictions in terms of
age and availability of relevant labour market data were taken into account, the final
sample for the career analyses comprised 5,984 graduates, including 114 first-generation
non-Western migrants and198 second-generation non-Western migrants.

4.2. Variables
4.2.1. Outcome variables
Four labour market outcomes were studied: two objective and two subjective outcomes.
All outcomes were measured both one year after graduation and (depending on the
cohort) four to eight years after graduation. The two objective outcomes were employ-
ment status and hourly earnings. The subjective outcomes were job-skill match and
job satisfaction.
2422 B. BELFI ET AL.

Employment status: this variable was specified as a dummy. Graduates who at the time
of the survey were in paid employment (including self-employment) for at least one hour
per week were defined as employed.6 Graduates who were not in paid employment but
who were actively seeking employment were defined as unemployed.
Hourly earnings: the hourly earnings of graduates were derived from reported
monthly earnings in combination with hours worked. To eliminate possible estimation
bias due to implausible outliers, the top and bottom 1% of the earnings distribution
were excluded from the analyses. We took the natural logarithm of the remaining
income measure.
Job-skill match: this outcome consisted of two separate measures of job-skill match:
skill utilisation and skill shortage. First, respondents were asked to report the extent to
which they felt that their skills were insufficient for their current job (skill shortage).
Second, respondents were asked to report the extent to which they used their skills in
their current job (skill utilisation). Both questions were rated on an ordinal five-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a high extent).
Job satisfaction: graduates were asked to report their satisfaction with their current
job on an ordinal five-point scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very
satisfied).

4.2.2. Control variables

In all analyses, the following variables were controlled for: gender (1=woman; 0=man);
age (in years, linear and quadratic); cohort dummies for graduation cohorts 2008
through 2017 (with as reference year 2007); study province (reference province South
Holland, with dummies for each of the 11 other Dutch provinces); living abroad at
time of survey (1=yes; 0=no); highest prior education (dummies for pre-university sec-
ondary education, secondary vocational education, previous college programme or other
programme, with as reference higher general secondary education), and further edu-
cation directly after graduation (1=yes; 0=no).

4.2.3. Explanatory variables

To assess the explanatory role of field of study, parental SES, and human capital accumu-
lation, the following variables were included in the analyses:
Field of study: agriculture, education, technical studies, health studies and social
studies; reference category: economics.
Parental SES: operationalised as the highest level of education attained by at least one
parent; dummies for high and medium SES (reference category low SES). The original
question distinguished six levels: primary education and lower secondary education
(classed as low SES), upper secondary education and intermediate vocational education
(classed as medium SES) and professional university education and academic university
education (classed as high SES). This variable was only available in the data for the
second wave.
Additional human capital: expressed by GPA7 and extra-curricular experiences during
study, operationalised by dummies indicating relevant work experience over and above
the compulsory internships and administrative experience in student associations, sport-
ing clubs and the like.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2423

4.3. Study design

As mentioned, our analyses focus on graduates of professional universities, and do not
relate to HE graduates who attended an academic university. This could potentially
raise issues of selectivity. There is evidence suggesting that Dutch non-Western migrants
prefer such professional universities to academic universities, which seems to be related
to the stricter admission conditions for academic universities, and to a preference on the
part of non-Western migrants for more applied fields of study (Pásztor 2012). To account
for possible effects of selection into professional universities vs. academic universities, a
Heckman Correction Model (HCM) has been applied (Heckman 1979). We estimate the
HCM in two stages (cf. Wooldridge 2009). The first stage uses nationally representative
school leaver data (Meng 2020) to predict the likelihood of a student to enrol in pro-
fessional vs. academic university and calculate the predicted inverse Mills ratio. The vari-
ables used for this estimation were first and second-generation migration background,
gender, HE enrolment age, HE enrolment year, and dummies indicating the type and
level of prior education. The second stage corrects for possible the decision of enrolment
by including the inverse Mills ratio (λ) as a predictor in all models. Subsequently,
depending on the measurement of the outcome variables linear and (ordered) logistic
regression analyses – including the inverse Mills ratio – were used to assess whether
ethnic-related differences in the short-term career trajectories (one year after graduation)
were present with regard to employment, income, skill shortage, skill utilisation and job
satisfaction, for the total sample of 110,635 graduates.8
Three regression models per outcome were estimated in which native graduates served
as the reference category, and differential effects for first and second-generation non-
Western migrant graduates were estimated by including two additional dummies repre-
senting each group. The first of the three models was a baseline model, estimating the
relation between migration status and the outcome in the short-term with no controls.
In the second model, the standard control variables described in Section 4.2.2 are
added to the baseline model. These control variables could potentially distort the esti-
mated associations, but play no plausible direct role in shaping outcomes of migrants
compared to those of natives. The third model was an explanatory model for the
short-term outcome in question, in which three explanatory variables (mediators)
were added: (1) field of study, (2) GPA, and (3) extra-curricular experiences. If the
labour market careers of migrant graduates are (partly) mediated by these explanatory
variables, inclusion of these variables will reduce the estimated associations.
For a limited number of cohorts and graduates we had data at our disposal collected
several years after the initial graduation. This has been done for a subset of graduates
from the cohorts 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, which were all surveyed in 2015. Since it
is likely that there is some selectivity involved in determining which graduates surveyed
one year after graduation were available for the follow-up survey four to eight years later,
a second Heckman Correction Model (HCM) has been applied in addition to that
described above, to account for selectivity in response to the follow-up survey. For the
first stage, we used migration background, broad field of study, response mode for the
initial survey (paper or internet), employment status, job search and training partici-
pation one year after graduation, to predict the odds that one is represented in the
follow-up survey and calculate the predicted inverse Mills ratio. Subsequently, in the
2424 B. BELFI ET AL.

second stage we corrected for possible selectivity in the decision to respond by including
the inverse Mills ratio (λ) as a predictor in all models used to estimate the effect of
migration background on outcomes in the medium term.
To examine differences by migration background in medium-term outcomes, four
models per outcome were estimated for the smaller, selective sample of graduates who
completed both surveys at both time-points. The first model was equivalent to that esti-
mated for short-term outcomes, including no controls. The second model used a subset
of the standard controls used for estimating short-term outcomes, namely gender, age,
graduation cohort, prior education, study region and living abroad at time of survey.9
To examine to what extent the medium-term outcomes were due to the possible scarring
effects of the initial transition, in the third model a dynamic regression analysis was added
(Honoré and Tamar 2006), in which we controlled for the corresponding outcome in the
short-term. Finally, in the fourth model four mediators were added: (1) field of study, (2)
parental SES, (3) GPA, and (4) extra-curricular experiences to estimate to which extent any
residual ethnic-related medium-term career differences could be explained by these factors.

5. Results
5.1. Descriptive analyses
Table 1 shows descriptive evidence for the main variables of analysis by migration back-
ground one year after graduation. This table already reveals some quite marked differ-
ences between migrant and native graduates. In terms of objective labour market
outcomes, the most striking difference is in the higher risk of unemployment among
first- and second-generation migrants. The differences in unemployment risk between
first and second-generation migrants is quite small compared to the gap with natives.
Once graduates have obtained a job, there is little difference between native and
migrant graduates in terms of earnings. Migrant graduates – particularly first-generation
migrants – are however more likely to experience a skill shortage, less likely to utilise
their skills, and are less likely to be satisfied with their current job. It is important to
bear in mind that these differences in labour market outcomes could be due to differences
in other characteristics of graduates, which as Table 1 reveals, are quite numerous.
Regarding the mediating variables, both first- and second-generation migrants show a
preference for economics programmes, and the second-generation shows a preference
for social studies programmes. The grades of both natives and migrant students were
very close to average. Native and migrant graduates show similar extra-curricular experi-
ences, although the second generation gained somewhat less administrative experience.
Finally, as expected, Table 1 also shows small differences between natives and migrants
on our control variables, with most notably migrant graduates being slightly older at time
of graduation and more frequently living in the West of the Netherlands.

5.2. Multivariate analyses

5.2.1. Short-term analyses
Employment status. Table 2 shows the relationship between migration background and
graduates’ employment status one year after graduation. Model 1 shows the marginal
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2425

Table 1. Descriptive statistics by migration background.

First-generation Second-generation
Native Dutch minority minority
Labour market 1 year after graduation
Unemployment 4.8% 13.0% 11.1%
Hourly wage (mean Euros) €14.43 €14.99 €14.61
Skill shortage 6.2% 9.9% 8.8%
Skill utilisation 64.4% 54.5% 53.8%
Job satisfaction 67.9% 58.6% 57.5%
Mediators
Field of study
Agriculture 3.4% 1.4% 0.6%
Education 13.7% 5.0% 8.1%
Technical 18.2% 19.4% 13.3%
Economics 36.7% 52.6% 52.0%
Health care 13.2% 7.8% 6.9%
Social studies 14.8% 13.8% 19.0%
GPA relative to class mates 0.01 −0.06 −0.08
Extracurricular experiences
Relevant work 47.7% 46.2% 44.3%
Administrative experience 16.2% 18.7% 14.1%
Control variables
Gender: female 56.7% 56.1% 60.3%
Living abroad at time of survey 2.0% 8.7% 2.0%
Age at graduation (mean years) 23.7 26.0 24.7
Graduation year
2007 8.7% 9.8% 7.3%
2008 8.0% 8.0% 5.9%
2009 8.1% 8.8% 6.6%
2010 8.9% 9.4% 7.9%
2011 8.6% 7.7% 7.9%
2012 8.9% 8.0% 9.4%
2013 9.4% 8.6% 9.4%
2014 9.0% 9.7% 9.6%
2015 10.1% 9.2% 11.4%
2016 10.4% 9.7% 11.9%
2017 10.0% 11.1% 12.7%
Study region
North 11.8% 5.9% 3.8%
East 23.7% 14.4% 13.3%
West 39.3% 66.8% 69.3%
South 25.2% 13.0% 13.6%
Prior education
Senior general secondary education 53.8% 37.1% 49.6%
(HAVO)
Pre-university education (VWO) 15.1% 11.7% 7.4%
Secondary vocational education (MBO) 26.5% 34.7% 38.3%
Previous college degree 3.0% 7.6% 2.6%
Other 1.5% 9.0% 2.1%
Further education 18.2% 18.6% 17.3%
N 101,590 3264 5781

effects – the estimated percentage-point difference between graduates with a first- and
second-generation non-Western migration background compared to native Dutch
graduates. Both first-generation migrants (−5.5%, p < .001) and second-generation
migrants (−4.6%, p < .001) are less likely to be employed one year after graduation
than their native Dutch peers. Model 2 shows that the difference between native and
first- and second-generation graduates is reduced by respectively 2.2 and 1.3 p.p. (percen-
tage points) after controlling for the control variables.
2426 B. BELFI ET AL.

Table 2. Logistic regressions on employment status (marginal effects).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Migration status (ref. native Dutch)
1st generation non-western −5.5% *** 0.3% −3.3% *** 0.4% −3.1% *** 0.4%
2nd generation non-western −4.6% *** 0.2% −3.3% *** 0.8% −3.2% *** 0.4%
Standard controls a no yes yes
Mediators
Field of study (ref. economics)
Agriculture −1.1% ** 0.4%
Education 2.7% *** 0.2%
Technical studies 1.2% *** 0.2%
Health studies 4.8% *** 0.3%
Social studies 1.1% *** 0.2%
GPA 1.0% *** 0.1%
Extracurricular experience
Relevant work experience 1.3% *** 0.1%
Administrative experience 0.9% *** 0.2%
Mills ratio: lambda −0.1% * 0.1% 2.6% *** 0.8% 1.6% * 0.7%
Notes: aThe standard control variables are gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort, study province, living
abroad at time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 110,635.

Finally model 3 shows that all added mediators have significant associations with
graduates’ employment prospects. Graduates of health studies programmes have particu-
larly good employment prospects, having 4.8% (p < .001) more chance of being employed
than graduates in the reference field of economics. High grades significantly enhance
one’s prospects of finding work (+1.0%, p < .001) as do relevant work experience
(+1.3%, p < .001) and administrative experience gained while studying (+0.9%, p
< .001). Adding these mediators further explains 0.2 p.p. of the association for the first
generation, and 0.1 p.p. of the impact on the estimates for the second generation.
Hourly earnings. Once graduates with a migration background obtain employment,
they do not appear to suffer any penalty in terms of their earnings compared to native
Dutch graduates (see Table 3). In fact, prior to the controls (Model 1) first-generation
as well as second-generation migrants, have a substantial earnings advantage of respect-
ively 2.8% (p < .001) and 0.8% (p < .05) relative to their native Dutch peers. After
accounting for the covariates in Model 2 the earnings advantage disappears entirely.
Job-skills match. As outlined above, we use two measures to assess the match between
the skills possessed and those required for the job, namely skill shortage and skill
utilisation.
Skill shortage. Table 4 shows the association between migration background and the
extent to which graduates report that they lack the skills required to do their job.
Since the outcome is measured on a five-point scale – which can be presumed to be
ordinal but with scale points that cannot necessarily be assumed to be equally spaced
– we use ordered logit models to estimate these associations. The estimates in these
models represent the change in the log odds of being in a higher category on the depen-
dent variable (in this case skill shortage) that results from a one point increase in the pre-
dictor. In the case of first- and second-generation non-western migration status, the
coefficient represents the change in log odds compared to natives. Model 1 shows that
both first-generation (b = 0.192, p < .001) and second-generation migrants (b = 0.066,
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2427

Table 3. Regressions on ln(hourly earnings).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Migration status (ref. native Dutch)
1st generation non-western 2.8% *** 0.5% −0.8% 0.6% −1.0% 0.6%
2nd generation non-western 0.8% * 0.4% −0.6% 0.5% −0.7% 0.5%

Standard controlsa no yes yes

Mediators
Field of study (ref. economics)
Agriculture −1.2% * 0.5%
Education 3.3% *** 0.3%
Technical studies 4.2% *** 0.2%
Health studies 13.1% *** 0.3%
Social studies 3.2% *** 0.2%
GPA 3.0% *** 0.1%
Extracurricular experience
Relevant work experience 1.8% *** 0.2%
Administrative experience 1.2% *** 0.2%
Mills ratio: lambda −0.9% *** 0.1% −0.2% 0.9% −3.6% *** 0.9%
Notes:
a
The standard control variables are gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort, study province, living abroad at
time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 91,430.

p < .05) are significantly more likely to report that they have a skill shortage than their
native Dutch peers. After adding the control variables in Model 2, the log odds of
being in a higher skill shortage category actually increase by 0.097, for first-generation
migrants and 0.91 for second-generation migrants. This is mainly attributable to differ-
ences in age and prior education. Migrants are older on average, and more likely than

Table 4. Ordered logistic regressions on skill shortage.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Migration status (ref. native Dutch)
1st generation non-western 0.192 *** 0.035 0.289 *** 0.042 0.292 *** 0.042
2nd generation non-western 0.066 * 0.026 0.157 *** 0.037 0.185 *** 0.037
Standard controlsa no yes yes
Mediators
Field of study (ref. economics)
Agriculture 0.348 *** 0.038
Education −0.023 0.019
Technical studies 0.252 *** 0.017
Health studies 0.125 *** 0.019
Social studies −0.120 *** 0.018
GPA −0.104 *** 0.011
Extracurricular experience
Relevant work experience −0.072 *** 0.012
Administrative experience −0.010 0.016
Mills ratio: lambda 0.057 *** 0.005 0.247 *** 0.065 0.286 *** 0.065
Notes:
a
The standard control variables are gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort, study province, living abroad at
time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 104,101.
2428 B. BELFI ET AL.

natives to have entered HE via secondary vocational education. Both these attributes are
associated with less skill shortages, so after controlling for them the effects of migration
background become larger. The log odds are further increased after adding the mediators
added in Model 3. More specifically, the log odds of being in a higher skill shortage cat-
egory increase by a further 0.003 for first-generation migrants by 0.028 for second-gen-
eration migrants, indicating that differences in choice of field of study, lower GPAs, and
less relevant work experience further increase the skill shortages of migrants as compared
to those of natives.
Skill utilisation. The other side of job-skills match is skill utilisation. To some extent,
this may be viewed as the mirror image of skill shortages, in the sense that if one experi-
ences a skill shortage one is presumably more likely to utilise the skills that one does
possess. However, this only applies to those graduates working in a domain that is sub-
stantively related to one’s field of study. For example, a trained nurse working as a
nursing assistant may fail to fully utilise his/her skills, but will probably not experience
any major skill shortages. The same trained nurse working as a hotel manager may
however simultaneously experience a skill shortage and fail to utilise his/her existing
skills.
The importance of distinguishing these two aspects of skill match becomes clear when
we look at Table 5, which shows the associations between migration background and skill
utilisation. Despite experiencing a higher level of skill shortages compared to native
graduates, migrant graduates are less likely to use the skills that they possess at work.
This problem appears to be a bit more severe among the second-generation (b =
−0.397, p < .001) than among the first-generation (b = −0.339, p < .001).
Adding the standard controls in Model 2 reduces the gap with respect to natives in the
log odds of being in a higher skill utilisation category by 0.159 for first-generation
migrants and by 0.150 for second-generation migrants. Additional analyses reveal that

Table 5. Ordered logistic regressions on skill utilisation.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Migration status (ref. native Dutch)
1st generation non-western −0.339 *** 0.034 −0.180 *** 0.042 −0.074 0.042
2nd generation non-western −0.397 *** 0.026 −0.247 *** 0.037 −0.176 *** 0.037
Standard controlsa no yes yes
Mediators
Field of study (ref. economics)
Agriculture 0.082 * 0.038
Education 1.228 *** 0.020
Technical studies 0.395 *** 0.017
Health studies 1.001 *** 0.020
Social studies 0.147 *** 0.018
GPA 0.251 *** 0.011
Extracurricular experience
Relevant work experience 0.196 *** 0.012
Administrative experience 0.104 *** 0.016
Mills ratio: lambda −0.060 *** 0.005 0.237 *** 0.064 0.044 0.065
Notes:
a
The standard control variables are gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort, study province, living abroad at
time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 104,243.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2429

this is mainly due to age differences. The addition of the mediators in Model 3 further
reduces the gap in log odds further by respectively 0.106 and 0.073. The disadvantage
compared to natives remains statistically significant for the second-generation, but is
no longer significant for first-generation migrants. This change is mainly attributable
to the field of study choice of those with a migration background, with their preferred
field of economics showing the lowest levels of utilisation.
Job satisfaction. Table 6 shows that both first- and second-generation migrants are
substantially less likely to be satisfied with their current work than natives are. This nega-
tive association is somewhat stronger for the second-generation (b = −0.390, p < .001)
than the first-generation (b = −0.360, p < .001), as was the case for skill utilisation. The
addition of the standard controls reduces the gap with respect to natives in the log
odds of moving to a higher job satisfaction category by 0.107 for first-generation
migrants and by 0.073 for second-generation migrants (see Model 2). Once again, this
is mainly due to the higher age of graduates with a migration background. Model 3
finally shows that the mediators explain an additional portion, namely 0.034 for first-gen-
eration migrants and 0.39 for second-generation migrants. Once again, study choice
appears to be the main explanation here.

5.2.2 Medium-term analyses

Table 7 summarises the results of the analyses conducted on labour market outcomes in
the medium term. For brevity’s sake, we only show the estimated associations between
migration background and outcomes (see Appendix IV for the full results).
When we compare the results in Table 7 with those in Tables 2–6, we see that there are
fewer differences between migrants natives in the medium-term outcomes than in the
short-term outcomes. First-generation migrants are no longer significantly less likely
than natives to be in paid employment, and there are almost no significant differences

Table 6. Ordered logistic regressions on job satisfaction.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimates S.E. Estimates S.E. Estimates S.E.
Migration status (ref. native Dutch)
1st generation non-western −0.360 *** 0.034 −0.253 *** 0.041 −0.219 *** 0.042
2nd generation non-western −0.390 *** 0.026 −0.317 *** 0.037 −0.278 *** 0.037
Standard controlsa no yes yes
Mediators
Field of study (ref. economics)
Agriculture 0.225 *** 0.038
Education 0.435 *** 0.019
Technical studies 0.351 *** 0.017
Health studies 0.534 *** 0.019
Social studies −0.055 ** 0.018
GPA 0.146 *** 0.011
Extracurricular experience
Relevant work experience 0.126 *** 0.012
Administrative experience 0.086 *** 0.016
Mills ratio: lambda −0.051 *** 0.005 0.040 0.064 −0.067 0.064
Notes:
a
The standard control variables are gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort, study province, living abroad at
time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 104,424.
2430 B. BELFI ET AL.

Table 7. Effects of migration status on outcomes in the medium term.

Control for short- Control for
No controls Standard controls term mediators
Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E. Estimate S.E.
Odds of being employed
1st generation non-western −1.7% 1.2% 0.0% 1.3% −0.1% 1.3% −0.4% 1.6%
2nd generation non-western −2.7% ** 0.8% −2.1% * 0.9% −2.0% * 0.9% −2.3% * 1.4%
Hourly earnings
1st generation non-western −7.6% ** 2.8% −6.4% * 2.7% −7.3% ** 2.6% −5.2% * 2.6%
2nd generation non-western −1.5% 2.1% 0.5% 2.1% −1.0% 2.0% 1.1% 2.2%
Job satisfaction
1st generation non-western −0.484 * 0.197 −0.367 0.203 −0.360 0.203 −0.332 0.207
2nd generation non-western −0.212 0.150 −0.149 0.157 −0.129 0.158 −0.092 0.159
Skill shortage
1st generation non-western 0.324 0.205 0.244 0.211 0.229 0.211 0.320 0.215
2nd generation non-western 0.178 0.155 0.140 0.162 0.160 0.162 0.235 0.164
Skill utilisation
1st generation non-western −0.359 0.204 −0.181 0.210 −0.193 0.211 −0.176 0.215
2nd generation non-western −0.189 0.156 −0.068 0.163 −0.068 0.163 −0.055 0.165
Notes:
a
Controls for field of study, GPA, experiences during study, SES, gender, age (linear and quadratic), graduation cohort,
study province, living abroad at time of survey, prior education and further education.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
c
N = 5984.

between migrants and natives in terms of skill match and job satisfaction in the medium
term. In terms of wages however, we now observe a significant penalty of 7.6% for first
generation migrants compared to their native Dutch peers. Part of this effect (1.2 p.p.) is
accounted for by the standard controls, but when we control for earnings in the short
term, most of this (0.9 p.p.) is added back on. When we recall that this group had a sig-
nificant earnings advantage in the short term (before controls), this finding makes sense.
Adding the mediators to the model subsequently accounts for 2.1p.p., but a significant
earnings penalty of over 5% remains unaccounted for.
We need to be cautious when interpreting the results in terms of the other out-
comes. The far lower number of observations gives these analyses much less statistical
power than those on short-term outcomes, so an absence of significance should not be
too hastily interpreted as the absence of an effect. When we look at the size of the
coefficients, the only outcome on which we see a clear reduction in effect size is
that of employment chances. This also applies to the second-generation: although
their employment chances relative to natives is still statistically significant, this effect
is weaker both in terms of significance and effect size. Whereas in the short term
second-generation migrants are 3.2 p.p. less likely than their native peers to be in
paid employment after account for standard controls and mediators, in the medium
term the gap has narrowed to 2.3 p.p.
In terms of subjective outcomes, although we mostly no longer see significant effects,
the effect sizes are actually quite similar to those seen in the short-term analyses,
especially for first-generation migrants. It may therefore be premature to conclude
that this group has narrowed the gap in terms of skills match and job satisfaction com-
pared to native Dutch graduates. We do see indications that second-generation migrants
have not only retained earnings parity with their native peers, but also have narrowed the
gap in terms of skill utilisation and job satisfaction.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2431

6. Discussion
This study assessed and compared the early career trajectories of professional university
graduates with a first- or second-generation non-Western migrant background with
those of natives in the Netherlands. To get a complete picture of graduates’ initial
work experiences, two objective and two subjective labour market outcomes were inves-
tigated one year and four to eight years after graduation. Holding constant for a large
number of relevant background characteristics, we examined whether the associations
could be partially or completely accounted by several mediators, such as GPA, extracur-
ricular experience, parental social background and initial work experience.
Regarding the short-term findings, our results closely mirror those of Zwysen and
Longhi (2018) in the UK. Like them, we find that migrants are more often unemployed,
but have no earnings disadvantage as compared to natives. In the light of the noted differ-
ences between the Netherlands and the UK in terms of the higher education system and
the composition of the migrant population, this correspondence is striking.
Unlike Zwysen and Longhi (2018), we looked at both first- and second-generation
migrants, and examined not only objective labour market outcomes but also subjective
indicators of labour market success. In both areas, this yielded interesting insights.
Second- generation migrants did not perform systematically better in the labour
market than their first-generation peers. This runs counter to both conventional
wisdom and other research (Muñoz-Comet and Arcarons 2022; Van Tubergen and
Kalmijn 2005), which suggests that the second-generation’s greater acquaintance with
the host country’s labour market and culture should give them an advantage compared
to the relative newcomers. Muñoz-Comet and Arcarons (2022) found in Spanish context
that while the later careers of second-generation migrants are not very different from
those of non-migrants, first-generation migrants performed much worse in the labour
market than natives. However, research has shown that there are large differences in
the transition from education to the labour market between Southern and Northern
Europe (Borghans and Golsteyn 2012). It is therefore not obvious that the findings by
Muñoz-Comet and Arcarons (2022) should be expected in a country like the Nether-
lands, which has a labour market and education system that is more similar to those
in other Northern European countries such as Germany, Belgium and Austria (Borghans
and Golsteyn 2012).
With respect to short-term subjective labour market outcomes, we found that
migrants experience significantly higher levels of skill mismatch and lower job satisfac-
tion than their native peers. Worryingly, migrants are both more likely to experience a
shortage of skills, and less likely to report that their existing skills are being utilised.
First-generation migrants are most likely to experience a skill shortage, while low skill
utilisation is more prevalent among second-generation migrants. The available measures
do not reveal whether these differences result from lower skill levels on the part of first-
generation migrants or higher skill demands in their jobs. Further research with more
specific measures could perhaps shed more light on this. Both first- and second-gener-
ation migrants also reported significantly lower levels of job satisfaction than their
native Dutch peers. Further, whereas the ethnic penalty in terms of objective labour
market outcomes seemed to be only marginally mediated by field of study, grades and
2432 B. BELFI ET AL.

extra-curricular experiences during HE, the disadvantage in terms of skill utilisation and
job satisfaction was partly accounted for by field of study.
These findings suggest that while migrants’ study choices do not strongly affect their
employment chances per se, they may make it more difficult for them to find jobs that fit
well with their skills and career goals. This could mean that significant gains could be had
from better study and career guidance for young people with origins outside the Western
world. Gains could also be had from increasing awareness among employers that a large
and currently underutilised reserve of highly qualified young people from non-Western
backgrounds exists, from whom they are currently failing to derive the fullest benefits.
In order to assess whether the problems facing migrants abate over time, we looked at
the same labour market outcomes in the longer-term, more specifically four to eight years
after graduation. Although limitations in the data mean that these results are indicative
rather than definitive, the results suggest that many problems remain. First-generation
migrants still have a significant disadvantage compared to non-migrants in terms of
job satisfaction, and even after controlling for the short-term situation and mediators
show an earnings disadvantage. For the second-generation we now only see a significant
disadvantage as compared to non-migrants in terms of employment chances. It is not
immediately clear why employment chances remain lower for second-generation
migrants than for first first-generation migrants. It may be that this is because first-gen-
eration migrants are more prepared to settle for a lower-quality job, but this is speculative
at this point; follow-up research will have to reveal the reason for this.
In both the short and the longer term, we were unable to account for all of the differ-
ences between migrant graduates and their native peers, so there is still much that can be
done in future research to build on the results we have obtained. First, given the difficulty
of reaching graduates long after graduation, other avenues could be explored to obtain a
more robust view of longer-term outcomes, such as using register data to trace graduates’
career development over time. A second focus for future work is to meticulously explore
the exact mismatches graduates experience between their own skills and required skills.
Only then, can it be determined whether these are driven by deficits in terms of edu-
cation, training and life experiences, or more by a failure to assign these graduates to
jobs that do more justice to their skill set. Finally, more information is needed on the
social, cultural and economic resources that are available to graduates in terms of
social networks, access to relevant information, and awareness of Dutch society and
the national labour market.

Notes
1. Although many immigrants experience relative downward social mobility: they end up in
lower socioeconomic positions in their destination countries than they would have in
their origin countries.
2. Agriculture, engineering, economics, health care, arts & humanities, social studies, edu-
cation, law and science. The latter two fields are mainly restricted to academic universities,
while the majority of teacher training takes place in HBO institutions.
3. For a more detailed account of the representativeness of the data used, see Appendix I.
4. We have estimated all models with robust and clustered standard errors within cohorts to
account for the dependency in observations of respondents from a same cohort. In all
models, the proportion of variance on the cohort level was very low and did not significantly
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2433

differ from zero according to a likelihood ratio test. Therefore, we did not account for this
clustering in our final models.
5. As a robustness check, all analyses presented in this paper were repeated with Japan and
Indonesia included as non-Western countries. These models yielded similar effects as the
final models in which these countries were included as Western countries.
6. As a robustness check, the analyses were also carried out using a stricter criterion for unem-
ployment, namely a minimum of 20 h of work per week. This yielded highly similar results,
as can be seen in Appendix II.
7. To eliminate possible differences in grading norms, GPA was operationalized as the devi-
ation from the average grade of graduates who followed the same study programme at
the institution.
8. To show how much difference the Heckman correction makes, Online Appendix III shows
the results of all multivariate analyses without inclusion of the inverse Mills ratio as control
variable.
9. Due to the relatively small number of cases it was necessary to restrict the number of control
variables, to avoid instability in the estimates. We only omitted those control variables that
had little or no relation to outcomes and/or migration background.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Allen, J., and B. Belfi. 2020. “Educational Expansion in the Netherlands: Better Chances for all?”
Oxford Review of Education 46 (1): 44–62.
Allen, J., B. Belfi, I. Bijlsma, D. Fouarge, and T. Peeters. 2019. “Ad-opleidingen: omvang en rende-
ment.” ROA Reports No. 004. https://doi.org/10.26481/umarep.2019004
Bakens, J., D. Fouarge, and T. Peeters. 2018. Labour Market Forecasts by Education and Occupation
up to 2022. ROA Technical Reports, no. 003, Research Centre for Education and the Labour
Market, Maastricht.
Bakker, L., J. Dagevos, and G. Engbersen. 2017. “Explaining the Refugee Gap: A Longitudinal
Study on Labour Market Participation of Refugees in the Netherlands.” Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 43 (11): 1775–1791.
Basch, L., N. Schiller Glick, and Szanton Blanc Cristina. 1994. Nations Unbound. Transnational
Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Langhorne. Belgium:
Gordon and Breach.
Basilio, L., T. K. Bauer, and A. Kramer. 2017. “Transferability of Human Capital and Immigrant
Assimilation: An Analysis for Germany.” Labour (Committee. on Canadian Labour History) 31
(3): 245–264.
Becker, G. S. 1962. “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis.” Journal of Political
Economy 70 (5): 9–49.
Belfi, B. E., and T. G. Huijgen. 2015. “Responsanalyse schoolverlatersonderzoeken.” ROA Meting
2013. ROA. ROA Technical Reports No. 003. https://doi.org/10.26481/umarot.2015003.
Belfi, B., M. Goos, M. Pinxten, J. P. Verhaeghe, S. Gielen, B. De Fraine, and J. Van Damme. 2014.
“Inequality in Language Achievement Growth? An Investigation Into the Impact of Pupil Socio-
Ethnic Background and School Socio-Ethnic Composition.” British Educational Research
Journal 40 (5): 820–846.
Birkelund, G. E., K. Heggebø, and J. Rogstad. 2017. “Additive or Multiplicative Disadvantage? The
Scarring Effects of Unemployment for Ethnic Minorities.” European Sociological Review 33 (1):
17–29.
Blommaert, L., F. van Tubergen, and M. Coenders. 2012. “Implicit and Explicit Interethnic
Attitudes and Ethnic Discrimination in Hiring.” Social Science Research 41 (1): 61–73.
2434 B. BELFI ET AL.

Borghans, L., and B. H. Golsteyn. 2012. “Job Mobility in Europe, Japan and the United States.”
British Journal of Industrial Relations 50 (3): 436–456.
Brekke, I. 2007. “Ethnic Background and the Transition from Education to Work among
University Graduates.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33 (8): 1299–1321.
Camacho, D. E., and A. J. Fuligni. 2015. “Extracurricular Participation among Adolescents from
Immigrant Families.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44 (6): 1251–1262.
Castagnone, E., T. Nazio, L. Bartolini, and B. Schoumaker. 2015. “Understanding Transnational
Labour Market Trajectories of African-European Migrants: Evidence from the MAFE
Survey.” International Migration Review 49 (1): 200–231.
Chiswick, B. R., and P. W. Miller. 1999. Language Skills and Earnings among Legalized Aliens.
Journal of Population Economics 12 (1): 63–89.
Chiswick, B. R., and P. W. Miller. 2005. “Linguistic Distance: A Quantitative Measure of the
Distance Between English and Other Languages.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 26 (1): 1–11.
Connor, H., C. Tyers, T. Modood, and J. Hillage. 2004. “Why the Difference? A Closer Look at
Higher Education Minority Ethnic Students and Graduates.” Institute for Employment
Studies Research Report 552: 1–192.
Crul, M., and H. Vermeulen. 2003. “The Second-Generation in Europe.” International Migration
Review 37 (4): 965–986.
Dronkers, J., M. Levels, and M. de Heus. 2014. “Migrant Pupils’ Scientific Performance: The
Influence of Educational System Features of Origin and Destination Countries.” Large-scale
Assessments in Education F (1): 1–28.
Gabrielli, G., and R. Impicciatore. 2022. “Breaking Down the Barriers: Educational Paths, Labour
Market Outcomes and Wellbeing of Children of Immigrants.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 48 (10): 2305–2323. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935655.
Gabrielli, G., S. Longobardi, and S. Strozza. 2022. “The Academic Resilience of Native and
Immigrant-origin Students in Selected European Countries.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 48 (10): 2347–2368. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935657.
Gerber, T. P., and S. Y. Cheung. 2008. “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education:
Forms, Explanations, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 34: 299–318.
Guiraudon, V., K. Phalet, and J. Ter Wal. 2005. “Monitoring Ethnic Minorities in the
Netherlands.” International Social Science Journal 57 (183): 75–87.
Heath, A., and S. Y. Cheung. 2007. Unequal Chances. Ethnic Minorities in Western Labour
Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heckman, J. J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica: Journal of the
Econometric Society 47: 153–161.
Honoré, B. E., and E. Tamar. 2006. “Bounds on Parameters in Panel Dynamic Discrete Choice
Models.” Econometrica 74: 611–629.
Jennissen, R. P. W., and J. Oudhof. 2007. Ontwikkelingen in de Maatschappelijke Participatie van
Allochtonen. Een Theoretische Verdieping en een Thematische Verbreding van de Integratiekaart
2006. Den Haag, NL: WODC.
Kittelsen Røberg, K. I., and H. Helland. 2017. “Do Grades in Higher Education Matter for Labour
Market Rewards? A Multilevel Analysis of all Norwegian Graduates in the Period 1990–2006.”
Journal of Education and Work 30 (4): 383–402.
Klumpp, M., H. de Boer, and H. Vossensteyn. 2014. “Comparing National Policies on Institutional
Profiling in Germany and the Netherlands.” Comparative Education 50 (2): 156–176.
Lawrence, B. 1988. “Age Grading: The Implicit Organizational Timetables.” Journal of
Occupational Behavior 30: 330–346.
Lepori, B., and S. Kyvik. 2010. “The Research Mission of Universities of Applied Sciences and the
Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe.” Higher Education Policy 23 (3):
295–316.
Levels, M., and J. Dronkers. 2008. “Educational Performance of Native and Immigrant Children
from Various Countries of Origin.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (8): 1404–1425.
Meng, C. 2020. “Schoolverlaters-Meting 2019: Kernresultaten.” ROA. ROA Fact Sheets No. 007.
 JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 2435

Muñoz-Comet, J., and A. F. Arcarons. 2022. “The Occupational Attainment and Job Security of
Immigrant Children in Spain.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48 (10): 2396–2414.
doi:10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935662.
OECD. 2018. Settling in 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pásztor, A. 2012. “Imagined Futures: Why Business Studies Dominate the Higher Education
Choices of Second-Generation Turks in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35 (4):
704–717.
Raffe, D. 2008. “The Concept of Transition System.” Journal of Education and Work 21 (4): 277–
296.
Ramos, M., L. Thijssen, and M. Coenders. 2019. “Labour Market Discrimination Against
Moroccan Minorities in the Netherlands and Spain: A Cross-National and Cross-Regional
Comparison.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47: 1–24.
Rodriguez-Hernandez, C. F., E. Cascallar, and E. Kyndt. 2020. “Socio-economic Status and
Academic Performance in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research
Review 29: 1–10.
Siebers, H., and J. van Gastel. 2015. “Why Migrants Earn Less: In Search of the Factors Producing
the Ethno-Migrant pay gap in a Dutch Public Organization.” Work, Employment and Society 29
(3): 371–391.
Spence, M. 1973. “Job Market Signaling.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87: 355–374.
Statistics Netherlands. 2019. Statline. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/.
Statistics Netherlands. 2021. Statline. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/.
Triventi, M., E. Vlach, and E. Pini. 2022. “Understanding why Immigrant Children Underperform:
Evidence from Italian Compulsory Education.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48 (10):
2324–2346. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935656.
Van Tubergen, F., and M. Kalmijn. 2005. “Destination-language Proficiency in Cross-National
Perspective: A Study of Immigrant Groups in Nine Western Countries.” American Journal of
Sociology 110 (5): 1412–1457.
Van Tubergen, F., I. Maas, and H. Flap. 2004. “The Economic Incorporation of Immigrants in 18
Western Societies: Origin, Destination, and Community Effects.” American Sociological Review
69 (5): 704–727.
Verbruggen, M., H. van Emmerik, A. Van Gils, C. Meng, and A. de Grip. 2015. “Does Early-Career
Underemployment Impact Future Career Success? A Path Dependency Perspective.” Journal of
Vocational Behavior 90: 101–110.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2009. Hurdle and “selection” Models. Michigan State UniversityBGSE/IZA
Course in Micro-econometrics.
Zwysen, W., and S. Longhi. 2018. “Employment and Earning Differences in the Early Career of
Ethnic Minority British Graduates: The Importance of University Career, Parental
Background and Area Characteristics.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (1): 154–172.