This report is an econometric analysis of the migration module piloted by Statistics South Africa (StatsStats
SA) in the third quarter (Q3) 2012 of the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). The aim of this analysis is to
examine the factors likely to explain the relative situation of international migrants, domestic migrants and
non-migrants in the South African labour market regarding employment, underemployment, informal
activities and precarious employment.
The first section of the report discusses how the QLFS can be used to analyse the impact of migrants on the
South African labour market. Three groups are distinguished: the international migrant (IM), the domestic
migrant (DM) and the nonmnon-migrant (NM). The second and third sections provide a statistical analysis
of the characteristics (in terms of age, gender, level of education, population group) of domestic and
international migrants compared to non-migrants and their situation on the labour market. The fourth
section presents the results of the econometric analysis.
Two main results emerge from the econometric analysis:
? IM have a higher probability of being employed than the other two categories. In other words, an
international migrant with the same age, gender, and level of education, belonging to the same
population group and residing in the same place as a South African, has a higher probability of
being employed than a South African non migrant. This is a very unusual finding as in most
countries where data is available, except in Luxembourg and in southern European countries prior
to the recent economic crisis, the rate of employment for IM is a lot lower than for local workers;
? IM have a higher probability of being employed in informal and precarious activities than the
other two categories. There are several possible explanations for these two aspects. Their
overrepresentation in the informal sector may also be explained by the fact that it is the sector
with the lowest entry cost into the labour market. Precarious employment shows the same result:
IM are much more frequently in precarious employment than NM and DM. One explanation here
could be the exploitation of IMs’ willingness to accept more precarious conditions and sometimes
use precarious jobs as a stepping stone to the formal labour market. This is a situation that they
share with most migrants around the world. IM are more likely to have poor working conditions
and to occupy positions that locals are not willing to take.
This higher probability of ’IMs’ employment in the informal sector and precarious activities provides a first
explanation to ’IMs’ general higher employment probability. It points to the following pattern: while IM are
more likely to be employed, they are more likely to be in the informal sector and in precarious
employment, both characterized by lower levels of earnings. These results therefore raise the question of
the relative position of IM on the South African labour market compared to NM and DM. Are they better
off because they are more likely to be employed or less well off because they endure poorer working
conditions? There are no data in the QLFS on earnings, therefore precluding any definitive answer to this
question.
81
Migrat