Wednesday 8 May 2013

Interesting Article: Working in Australia with a different sounding name

You are applying for a job and you work hard on your resume. You type in your qualifications and experience. And of course your name. Maybe you do not give a second thought to this. After all, what s in a name when you are applying for a job? Surely, it is only your degrees and experience that matter, not your name or ethnicity. If two job applicants have exactly the same resume, they should have an equal probability of being selected for a job interview, shouldn't they?
To investigate this, my colleagues - Andrew Leigh, Elena Varganova - and I carried out a large-scale field experiment in Australia. Our goal was to see if there is any labour market discrimination against ethnic minorities.
With one in four residents born overseas, Australia is often regarded as something of a poster child for its ability to absorb new migrants into its social and economic fabric. Skilled migrants are selected through a points system, which gives preference to applicants with high qualifications and workers in high-demand occupations.
Australia's points-based immigration policy has not only been much admired, but has also been adopted by other countries, including New Zealand and the UK. And in Australia, we give everyone a fair go, don't we?
Well, maybe not… To investigate if there is ethnic discrimination by employers, we conducted what is termed a correspondence discrimination study, in which fictitious individuals, identical in all respects apart from their ethnicity, apply for jobs.
After obtaining ethics approval from the Australian National University, my co-authors and I randomly submitted over 4,000 fictional applications for entry-level jobs. In terms of number of applications submitted, this was one of the biggest correspondence studies ever conducted. The large size of the study allowed us to look at a range of ethnic groups, where ethnicity was indicated only by the name of the job applicant. The names we used were from five broad ethnicities: Anglo-Saxon, Indigenous, Italian, Chinese and Middle Eastern. We were interested in measuring call-back rates for interviews, and we focused on urban areas alone.
In all cases, we applied for entry-level jobs and submitted a resume indicating that the candidate attended high school in Australia. The findings were both startling and robust.
Consider Anglicising your name if you live and work in a country where Anglo names are in the majority. Or if you do not, consider changing it to match with the dominant group.
Alison Booth

In particular, we found that ethnic minority candidates would need to apply for more jobs in order to receive the same number of invitations to interviews. Moreover, these differences vary systematically across ethnic groups. To get as many interviews as an Anglo applicant with an Anglo-sounding name, an Indigenous person must submit 35 percent more applications, a Chinese person must submit 68 percent more applications, an Italian person must submit 12 percent more applications and a Middle Eastern person 64 percent more applications.
This study has implications for the individual jobseeker as well as for policy.
For the individual, what is the advice? Consider Anglicising your name if you live and work in a country where Anglo names are in the majority. Or if you do not, consider changing it to match with the dominant group. This is the counsel given by some immigration lawyers. They sometimes also recommend that you do not put your country of birth on your application and only mention your language skills if they are relevant to the job you are applying for.
But can policymakers also do something? Yes, and here is one suggestion. Policymakers can implement anonymous job application procedures and can undertake - or commission - a field experiment to evaluate their effects. First, find a few companies or government departments. For these companies, set up two groups - the treatment group and the control. The control group might be all job applicants for the previous year and the treatment would be all the new applicants for the next year for whom anonymous job applications would be introduced. (Alternatively the control group might be half of all new applicants, and then introduce anonymous job applications for the other half.) Evaluations would consider whether or not this process is cumbersome, and evaluate its impact on ethnic and gender call-backs for the treatment group, compared with the control group.
Is this possible? Of course it is, and it has been done. In Germany, in November 2010, the Federal Anti-discrimination Agency initiated a field experiment along these lines, with anonymous job applications (no name, no photograph, no ethnicity or gender). The results showed that standardised anonymised application forms were associated with equal chances of applicants of different minorities receiving a job interview. This is just as you'd expect. Standardised anonymous application forms were also found to be easily implemented.
Can this be done this in other countries? Let us see what the policymakers and anti-discrimination agencies have to say. 
Alison Booth is Professor of Economics at the Australian National University and an ANU Public Policy Fellow. She is also the author of A Distant Land, published in 2012.


894


The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

China Rising - Special series - Al Jazeera English

China Rising - Special series - Al Jazeera English
Now that it is May, the annual US war games on the border with DPRK North Korea have finished, and now, for some reason, the DPRK has moved its missiles back into silos, and have stopped threatening war. Until next April when the US does what it does best, destabilises North Asia.

Saturday 6 April 2013

The New Government of China with Mr Xi as President and Chairman is a different government than that of Mr Hu and his social-engineering paradigm that has now departed.

Mr Xi is a much more savvy politician and his rise to leadership has unified the Chinese army in a way Mr Hu could never do.

China also pretty much has a brand new navy, brand new nuclear attack submarines - a lot of them -that still remain very difficult for the USA to locate at all due to an advanced naval 'sonar doppleganger' technology that the USA can't yet fathom China's main interests are stability on the Korean peninsula and protecting its own interests from attacks/incursions by the USA in strategic DPRK.

Mostly, China is interested in securing its sea lanes and Taiwan and the Daiyu islands, not in Korea, per se. China wants Asia to be free of American ongoing destabilisation.

Meanwhile Russia has a very big presence in the North of Asia and is ramping up its navy and airforce there to secure islands given to Japan, North of Korea, by the USA some years ago.

As for Korea, its territorial bordering and kinship neighbours are China and Russia and neither of these will tolerate any American presence in the north. 

America feels it is dealing with the same Chinese government it was dealing with last year, but Mr Xi, well, he is not like the past at all.
China has mobilised the Peoples Liberation Army in North Eastern China and now moving towards the border with the DPRK, not to invade, but to protect North Korean sovereignty if necessary.
The concern regarding Korea is that it is not unimportant to the world. By its position, and the severe 'tectonic' geo-politics of North Asia, it is the most important place in the world. In comparison, whatever happens in the Middle East doesn't matter at all.

If one place in the Middle East blew up another and was in return blown up, life for most folk in the world would continue as it had...but North Asia is not like that.

Huge populations, massive world wealth, massive weapons, giant armies, massive industrialisation, historically unresolved 'bad blood', severe and competing claims for territory involving Korea, Japan, Russia and China, with the USA somehow feeling it too belongs in that mix as the dominant self-seeking gun-selling policeman of it all.

A conflict in North Asia will involve at least 70% of the world population for many years, and it won't be good for anyone at all. The millions of refugees will also overwhelm the world's capacities.


The USA's easy historical fix of simply invading a country when they are weak and taking their resources doesn't work in North Asia, but they will sell a lot of guns... everyone will sell a lot of guns...and so maybe that is the point.