Next Article in Journal
Crises and Contagion in Equity Portfolios
Previous Article in Journal
Asymmetric Analysis of Causal Relations in the Informality–Globalisation Nexus in Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can Remittance Promote Tourism Income and Inclusive Gender Employment? Function of Migration in the South African Economy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Economies
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/economies12070167
economies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Understanding Economic Integration in Immigrant and Refugee Populations: A Scoping Review of Concepts and Metrics in the United States

by
Mitra Naseh
1,*,
Jihye Lee
1,
Yingying Zeng
2,
Proscovia Nabunya
3,
Valencia Alvarez
1 and
Meena Safi
1
1
Initiative on Social Work and Forced Migration, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
2
School of Social Work, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
3
International Center for Child Health and Development, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2024, 12(7), 167; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 13 June 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 30 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economics of Migration)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In an increasingly mobile world, the integration of immigrants and displaced individuals is an important factor in creating cohesive and inclusive societies. Integration has different dimensions; this scoping review examines the conceptualization and measurement of economic integration among immigrants and refugees in the United States. Quantitative peer-reviewed journal papers measuring or conceptualizing the economic integration of first-generation documented adult immigrants or refugees in the United States, as well as relevant conceptual or theory papers on this topic, were included in the review. The search strategy included an online search of the Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), and EconLit. Additional search strategies included scanning the reference lists of studies identified as relevant in the initial database search. An analysis of 72 studies included in the review using a data extraction table reveals seven key domains of economic integration: income and economic security, employment and occupational categories, assets and use of financial services, neighborhood and housing, health, education, and use of public assistance. Income and economic security emerged as the most common indicators of integration in the reviewed studies. Notably, less than half of the reviewed publications had a multidimensional approach to defining or measuring economic integration, and the majority of studies were focused on immigrants, with a smaller proportion dedicated to refugees. This review emphasizes the need for comprehensive frameworks in assessing economic integration among immigrants and refugees, reflecting the multifaceted nature of their economic integration experiences.

1. Introduction

It is estimated that 1 in every 28 individuals worldwide lives outside of their country of birth (McAuliffe and Triandafyllidou 2021). Migration is a diverse and complex phenomenon, influenced by economic, geographic, demographic, and various other factors that shape distinct patterns (McAuliffe and Triandafyllidou 2021; Potocky and Naseh 2020). Notably, many migrants move from developing countries to larger economies, with the United States being a primary destination; it is currently home to over 51 million migrants (McAuliffe and Triandafyllidou 2021). There exists a distinction between immigrants and forcibly displaced individuals; the former usually move voluntarily, driven usually by the prospect of economic improvement, while the latter are often compelled to leave their homes in response to unplanned and often traumatic events such as war and conflicts (Loescher 1996; Zong and Batalova 2018).
Integration, then, is the process by which (forced) migrants become accepted into their new society, feel satisfied, or have a sense of belonging encompassing both individual adaptation and community acceptance (da Silva et al. 2022; Lerpold et al. 2023). Integration is essential for building inclusive and cohesive societies and promoting full societal participation (OECD/European Commission 2023). This involves participation in all aspects of life and necessitates acceptance by the host population (Alba et al. 2012). Integration encompasses various domains for immigrants and refugees. For instance, Harder et al. (2018) categorize these domains into psychological, linguistic, political, social, navigational, and economic integration for immigrants, while Garcés-Mascareñas and Penninx (2016) highlight legal and political, cultural and religious, and socioeconomic factors as main aspects of integration for refugees.
Achieving integration implies migrants obtaining parity in life opportunities compared to the native-born majority, while maintaining their cultural identity (Kuhlman 1991; Pineau and Waters 2015). Integration is a complex process, influenced by supportive or restrictive policies, personal agency and human capital, and social networks, and its success not only benefits immigrants and their offspring by enhancing their community contributions but is also an important goal for the host countries themselves (Garcés-Mascareñas and Penninx 2016; Lerpold et al. 2023; Pineau and Waters 2015).
One critical dimension of integration for immigrants and forcibly displaced individuals is economic integration, which measures the extent to which immigrants can participate in and contribute to the host country’s economy while respecting their cultural values (Kuhlman 1991). Economic integration is a key indicator of social inclusion, spatial assimilation, a sense of belonging, and diminished disparities within the community (Jayakody et al. 2022; Massey and Mullan 1984). Economic integration is a multifaceted and complex process with challenges for (forced) immigrants, including limited social support, scarce financial resources, restricted access to fair employment opportunities, and undervalued education and qualifications (Painter 2013; Potocky and Naseh 2020). For those who are forcibly displaced, the sudden and unplanned journey and associated traumatic experiences with forced migration can further complicate economic integration (Potocky and Naseh 2020).
Defining economic integration for (forced) immigrants is complex, particularly in a society that is itself changing and intricate (Pineau and Waters 2015). The multifaceted nature of economic integration and its profound effects on both migrants and host societies demand a thorough understanding. Despite its importance, there is a notable gap in the literature on this topic. In light of this, we have conducted a scoping review to document and answer the question of how economic integration has been defined and measured for adult immigrants and forcibly displaced individuals, specifically refugees, in the United States. Our systematic search strategy uncovers the broad spectrum of definitions and indicators of economic integration among adult immigrants and refugees, reflecting our primary objective of capturing its multidimensional interpretations. This synthesis provides a comprehensive definition of economic integration for immigrants and refugees in the United States and addresses a critical gap in the literature.
Defining economic integration for (forced) immigrants is complex, particularly in a society that is itself changing, and is intricate (Pineau and Waters 2015). The debate often centers around the appropriate standards for comparison or factors to include. The multifaceted nature of economic integration and its profound effects on both migrants and the host societies demands a thorough understanding. Despite its importance, there is a notable gap in the literature on this topic. In light of this, we have conducted a scoping review to document how economic integration has been defined and measured for immigrants and forcibly displaced individuals, specifically refugees, in the United States. Our systematic search strategy uncovers the broad spectrum of definitions and indicators of economic integration among adult immigrants and refugees, reflecting our primary objective of capturing its multidimensional interpretations. The synthesis provides a comprehensive definition of economic integration for immigrants and refugees in the United States and responds to a critical gap in the literature.

2. Methodology

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist (Tricco et al. 2018) and used the Review Protocol Template developed by Visintini (2024).

2.1. Search Strategy

The search strategy for this paper included an online search of abstracts and full texts of peer-reviewed journal papers published in English in the Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), and EconLit using keywords related to “migration”, “integration”, “success”, and the “United States”. A sample of the full electronic search strategy is available in Appendix B. The search was conducted on 10 December 2022, and retrieved studies through the search were exported into Covidence software for the review process. Additional search strategies included forward citation searching, searching to find all of the articles that cite back to key identified articles; and backward reference searching, scanning the reference lists of studies identified as relevant in the initial database search. This was done to find scholarly articles of potential interest that were not indexed in the selected databases for the scoping review.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Review

At the screening stage, or title and abstract review phase, our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed journal papers, studies focused on the success or integration of first-generation documented adult immigrants or refugees in the United States, as well as relevant conceptual or theory papers on this topic. During this stage, we excluded books, book chapters, reports, dissertations, and any other type of publication except peer-reviewed journal papers. Additionally, we excluded studies on under-documented immigrants, asylum seekers, populations other than first-generation adult immigrants or refugees in the United States, and studies on mixed populations that included adult immigrants or refugees but did not provide disaggregated data for this group.
We specifically excluded studies on under-documented (undocumented) immigrants, mixed-status families, and asylum seekers to focus on the foreign-born population with full access to available resources for economic integration and success, such as the right to work. We use the term “under-documented” to refer to individuals who often possess some form of legal documentation that may be expired or not recognized by the United States for various reasons. Additionally, qualitative papers, concept notes, scoping or systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded, as we were only interested in manuscripts measuring economic integration quantitatively or papers conceptualizing it. However, we kept a record of any previous scoping or systematic reviews and meta-analyses for our review and comparison.
At the full-text review stage, our inclusion criteria were studies quantitatively measuring economic integration among first-generation adult immigrants or refugees in the United States and studies conceptualizing economic integration among first-generation adult immigrants or refugees in the United States. At this stage, we labeled the included studies by their focus on economic, social, cultural, or spatial integration; integration in general; and success. We then only included those focused on economic integration. For this study, we considered financial integration as part of economic integration.

2.3. Screening and Full-Text Review

Abstracts of the studies imported into Covidence were reviewed by two researchers and in case of a conflict in voting to exclude or include, a third reviewer made the final decision. Peer-reviewed journal papers on integration and success among first-generation adult immigrants or refugees in the United States were included in the screening. A team of three researchers reviewed the full texts of the studies relevant to integration with a specific focus on economic integration. Similarly to the screening process, each full text was reviewed by two independent researchers, and conflicts in voting were resolved by a third reviewer following a Zoom discussion between the research team members. Inter-rater reliability for voting of reviewers was measured by Cohen’s Kappa statistic (McHugh 2012).

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data from the included studies after full-text review were extracted in two steps. In the first step, using a data extraction form, the research team independently extracted data on publication information (names of the authors, year of publication, names of the journals) and integration category (integration in general or economic, social, cultural, or spatial integration). In the second step, the research team independently extracted data on indicators used to define, measure, or conceptualize integration. This scoping review focuses on studies we found with data or conceptual frameworks defining economic integration among adult immigrants or refugees in the United States.

3. Results

The online database search yielded 12,255 potentially relevant studies. After eliminating 3307 duplicates using Covidence, a six-member research team screened the abstracts of 8948 studies. Based on the inclusion criteria, 8108 abstracts were excluded in the screening stage, leaving 840 studies for full-text review. The full-text review identified 199 quantitative papers focusing on integration among first-generation immigrants or refugees in the United States. Of these studies, 72 included data or conceptual frameworks that defined economic integration among first-generation immigrants or refugees in the United States (Figure 1). The screening stage had a 98.2% agreement rate among reviewers, with a Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.90, indicating strong agreement. At the full-text review stage, the agreement rate dropped slightly to 91.1%, with a Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.76, reflecting moderate agreement.
Economic integration in the included studies in this scoping review was variously described or framed as economic achievement, adaptation, advancement, assimilation, attainment, incorporation, mobility, security, self-sufficiency, success, and wellbeing as well as financial assimilation or integration, labor market or occupational status, and socioeconomic achievement, adaptation, and integration. Data extracted from the included studies suggest that economic integration among immigrants and refugees is conceptualized in the existing literature across seven main domains: (1) income and economic security, (2) employment and occupational categories, (3) assets and use of financial services, (4) neighborhood and housing, (5) health, (6) education, and (7) use of public assistance. Less than half of the studies (n = 32) defined or measured economic integration among refugees and immigrants multidimensionally or across two or more of these domains.

3.1. Economic Integration in the Context of Income and Economic Security

The majority of the included studies (n = 53, 74%) partially or fully defined economic integration based on factors related to income and economic security, such as wages and hours worked. Income was measured either at the individual or household level and was generally reported on a monthly or annual basis. Among the included studies, 35 used income in some form to define economic integration. Among them are 19 studies that used income or earnings to quantify or measure economic integration among immigrants and refugees (Akresh 2007, 2011; Bauer et al. 2011; Ee 2019; Hagstrom and Pereira 2021; Ketkar and Dora 2011; Kusow et al. 2018; Michalikova and Yang 2016; Niankara 2020; Paulson and Rhine 2008; Portes and Zhou 1992; Potocky 1997; Potocky and McDonald 1995; Potocky-Tripodi 2001, 2004; Shaw et al. 2022; Stempel and Alemi 2021; Stodolska et al. 2007; Zhou 1998). Moreover, among these were six studies that defined or measured the economic integration of immigrants or refugees by comparing their incomes to those of native-born individuals and households (Abramitzky et al. 2014; Allensworth 1997; Birgier et al. 2018; Escamilla-Guerrero et al. 2021; Lin 2013, 2016). We also found eight studies that compared immigrants’ and refugees’ incomes with the national poverty lines and used poverty as an indicator of economic integration among immigrants and refugees (Crowley et al. 2015; Kuhlman 1991; Kwon et al. 2004; Li and Zhang 2021; Naseh et al. 2022a, 2022b; Silles 2018; Takeda 2000). Two studies by Kislev (2014, 2018) quantified economic success among immigrants based on wage, income, and occupation using the Hauser and Warren Socioeconomic Index (Hauser and Warren 1997).
Of the reviewed studies, five defined economic integration based on income or wage growth (Cohen and Haberfeld 2007; Duncan and Trejo 2015; Lubotsky 2007; Seeborg and Wu 2012; Spindler-Ruiz 2021). A subset of studies combined income with assets to evaluate wealth or wealth accumulation as an indicator of economic integration (Akresh 2011; Bauer et al. 2011; Hagstrom and Pereira 2021; Ketkar and Dora 2011). The hourly wage was also used as an economic integration indicator in multiple studies (Aguilera 2005; Bratsberg et al. 2006; Carroll and Schaffer 2021; Chi 2015; Connor 2010; Goodwin-White 2008; James et al. 2002; Padilla and Glick 2000; Poston 2002; Schoellman 2010). Finally, hours of work served as an indicator of economic assimilation and security in three studies (Lozano and Sorensen 2015; Tran and Lara-Garcia 2020; Wilkinson et al. 2006).

3.2. Economic Integration in the Context of Employment and Occupation Category

Nearly half of the studies included in this scoping review (n = 34, 44%) considered employment status and/or occupational categories when defining or measuring economic integration among immigrants and refugees. Many studies primarily focused on whether participants were employed or unemployed at the time of the interview (Adida et al. 2015; Birgier et al. 2018; Bratsberg et al. 2006; Bulut and Carlson 2020; Connor 2010; Crowley et al. 2015; Ee 2019; Evans et al. 2021; Florian et al. 2022; Furtado and Theodoropoulos 2010; Hagstrom and Pereira 2021; Kislev 2018; Kuhlman 1991; Naseh et al. 2022a; Potocky 1997; Potocky and McDonald 1995; Potocky-Tripodi 2001, 2004; Rooth and Scott 2012; Shaw et al. 2022; Silles 2018; Stempel and Alemi 2021; Tran and Lara-Garcia 2020; Wilkinson et al. 2006).
Other studies examined various aspects of occupation, such as the type of occupation (Aguilera 2005; Takeda 2000; Toussaint-Comeau 2006), the occupational index (Akresh 2006), occupational diversity (Lester and Nguyen 2016), and occupational status or position (Shaw et al. 2022; Wilkinson et al. 2006). In addition, four studies specifically measured self-employment, entrepreneurship, or business ownership as indicators of economic integration for immigrants and refugees (Mindes et al. 2022; Portes et al. 2002; Portes and Zhou 1992; Tseng 1995; Zhou 1998).

3.3. Economic Integration in the Context of Assest and Use of Financial Services

Among the reviewed studies, 11 papers quantified economic integration including financial assimilation partly or completely based on asset ownership and/or use of financial services. Akresh (2011) and Bauer et al. (2011) quantified economic integration based on wealth and measured wealth as the combination of assets and income. Painter (2013, 2014, 2015) and Painter et al. (2016) quantified economic integration based on net worth and measured it by deducting debts from assets. Asset ownership and asset accumulation were used as an indicator of economic integration in studies by Chatterjee (2009), Chatterjee and Zahirovic-Herbert (2014), and Hagstrom and Pereira (2021). Additionally, the use of financial services, specifically checking and saving accounts, was highlighted as an indicator of economic and financial integration by Hagstrom and Pereira (2021), Nam et al. (2015), and Paulson and Rhine (2008).

3.4. Economic Integration in the Context of Neighborhood and Housing

Among the studies included in this scoping review, five of them partially defined the concept of economic integration with a focus on housing situations (Crowley et al. 2015; Naseh et al. 2022a, 2022b; Paulson and Rhine 2008) and home ownership (Li and Zhang 2021). In terms of the housing situation, Crowley et al. (2015) introduced an indicator defined by the number of rooms and emphasized the importance of ensuring that there is at least one room per person in the household. Additionally, Naseh et al. (2022a, 2022b) examined whether refugee households resided in government-supported housing projects or not as an indicator of their economic integration. See Appendix A, Table A1.

3.5. Economic Integration in the Context of Health and Education

The two studies by Naseh et al. (2022a, 2022b) referred to health and education as indicators of economic integration. In these two studies, economic integration among refugees was measured by a multidimensional poverty index, and health and education were both domains of the utilized index. Similarly to these studies, Silles (2018) used multiple indicators to define economic integration among immigrants, and among them were years of schooling and health insurance coverage. Moreover, among the reviewed studies, Kusow et al. (2018), Michalikova and Yang (2016), and Toussaint-Comeau (2006) considered educational attainment as a contributing factor to immigrants’ socioeconomic achievement in the United States.

3.6. Economic Integration in the Context of Using Public Assistance

Among the reviewed studies, the four studies led by Potocky (Potocky 1997; Potocky and McDonald 1995; Potocky-Tripodi 2001, 2004) employed the utilization of public assistance as a benchmark for assessing economic integration among refugees in the United States. In these studies, public assistance use was examined together with household income and employment as indicators of the economic status of refugees. See Appendix A.

4. Discussion

This scoping review offers the first comprehensive literature synthesis regarding the definition and measures of economic integration among immigrants and refugees in the United States. This review identifies seven primary domains through which economic integration is conceptualized. The interwoven complexities of income and economic security, employment and occupational categories, assets and use of financial services, neighborhood and housing, health, education, and use of public assistance highlight the multidimensional nature of immigrant economic integration and the challenges of capturing the comprehensive picture of economic wellbeing among immigrant and refugee populations. It also suggests that interventions in one domain may have ripple effects across others, necessitating a holistic approach considering the multidimensional nature of immigrant economic integration.
Our findings suggest that the discourse on income and economic security in the literature is rich. Reviewed studies incorporated income or earnings, income or wage growth, hours worked, and income levels compared to native-born populations and national poverty lines as indicators for economic integration. While these indicators are, to a great extent, the primary financial resources of a household, they overlook consumption, the other direction of cash flow critical to economic wellbeing. Including assets, wealth, and the use of financial services expands the understanding of the economic success of immigrants and refugees. According to asset theory, the accumulation of assets or asset building can produce economic, psychological, and social advantages for people (Sherraden 2018). Owning assets can enhance individuals’ capabilities and opportunities.
Employment and occupation categories constituted another significant domain cited in the literature, highlighting the importance of job status and occupation in economic integration. Nevertheless, we also identified a gap in previous research; that is, a nuanced exploration of job satisfaction, the career ladder, and employment quality. For example, studies used the bamboo ceiling to describe the cultural and organizational barriers that impede Asian Americans from climbing the career ladder (e.g., Yu 2020). Moreover, several studies show that mobility out of the low-wage market, the market that is more accessible for refugees and immigrants, is far too difficult (Osterman and Shulman 2011; Rank et al. 2021). These kinds of workplace challenges and discriminations are hard to measure by employment status, and there is a need for further attention to the type of occupation. Still, employment profoundly impacts career development and long-term economic integration among immigrants and refugees. An in-depth understanding of immigrants’ and refugees’ employment situations is needed when measuring their level of economic integration.
While the majority of studies focused on specific dimensions of economic integration, a noteworthy subset adopted a multidimensional approach, incorporating multiple domains simultaneously (Kusow et al. 2018; Michalikova and Yang 2016; Naseh et al. 2022a, 2022b; Silles 2018). For example, health and education were identified as indicators of economic integration, highlighting the interrelated nature of socioeconomic factors. This multidimensional approach underscores the importance of understanding economic integration beyond monetary measures. Economic integration is a multi-layered and complex issue; unidimensional measures, such as income, might not provide an accurate picture of economic integration (Naseh et al. 2022a). Measuring economic integration multidimensionally can aid in thoroughly addressing the multiple factors that can contribute to this process as challenges and facilitators.
The notable focus on immigrants over refugees reveals a significant gap in the literature. While refugees face similar barriers to general immigrants in achieving economic success, such as limited English language proficiency (Chin and Cortes 2015), unfamiliarity with the United States economic and financial systems (Patraporn et al. 2010; Paulson et al. 2006), under-evaluation of work experience and/or education (Naseh et al. 2022a), and no or limited credit history, they have unique challenges given their forced migration nature. Although the United States government provides refugees with time-limited cash assistance and social benefits (Girard 2015), the current U.S. refugee resettlement programs focus primarily on helping refugees achieve self-sufficiency through rapid job placement to minimize the fiscal burden of refugee resettlements (Brick et al. 2010). This approach overemphasizes short-term relief without paying enough attention to refugees’ long-term economic integration, limiting their upward mobility opportunities. A recent study on multidimensional poverty among refugees in the United shows that poverty increased between 2015 and 2017 among refugees, with nearly two-thirds being classified as multidimensionally poor in 2017 (Naseh et al. 2022a). This scoping review highlights the importance of prioritizing research on refugee economic integration, specifically, the determinants shaping the economic trajectories of refugee populations.

4.1. Conclusions

In conclusion, this scoping review underscores the complex nature of economic integration among immigrants and refugees. By conducting a comprehensive and systematic literature search and review, we have identified seven primary domains commonly used to measure or conceptualize economic integration by researchers in the United States. These domains—income and economic security, employment and occupational categories, assets and use of financial services, neighborhood and housing, health, education, and use of public assistance—are consistent with those included in existing multidimensional indices and tools that measure economic integration among different groups. For example, the United States Census Multidimensional Deprivation Index (MDI) encompasses six domains, measuring deprivations in standards of living (quantified by income poverty), education, health, economic security, housing quality, and neighborhood quality (Glassman 2019). Another example is the Multidimensional Measure of Immigrant Integration questionnaire, which includes an economic integration section with questions about income, employment, and savings. Additionally, there is a multidimensional index designed to measure self-reliance among refugees in the Global South named the Refugee Resilience Index, which incorporates 12 domains, including housing, food, healthcare, health status, safety, employment, financial resources, assistance, debt, savings, and social capital (Refugee Self-Reliance Initiative 2020).
The findings from this scoping review highlight the necessity of a holistic approach to understanding, measuring, and addressing economic integration among immigrants and refugees. The review also emphasizes the significant gap in research focusing on refugees, who face unique challenges beyond those experienced by general immigrant populations. Future research should pay more attention to the economic integration of refugees, who are among the most at risk of exclusion in this area (Naseh et al. 2022a). The findings from this scoping review can guide the creation of a multidimensional questionnaire or the adaptation of existing surveys to better measure economic integration among immigrants and refugees in the United States.

4.2. Limitations and Strengths

Despite the thoroughness and robustness of the scoping review methodology, this study has limitations. The focus on English-language publication may introduce language bias. Although we excluded under-documented immigrants, mixed-status families, and asylum seekers to ensure that the participants in the included studies had full access to available resources for economic integration, there are still nuances among the included immigrants due to the complex immigration laws. For example, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) restricts access by legal immigrants who entered the United States after August 1996 to certain federal means-tested public benefits for their first five years in the country (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009). The exclusion of the under-documented immigrants, mixed-status families, and asylum seekers also introduces a limitation, as the study does not account for a significant portion of the immigrant population in the United States. Under-documented immigrants, mixed-status families, and asylum seekers face unique challenges that can affect their economic integration and success. With over 10 million under-documented immigrants in the U.S., not including them means the study’s findings might not fully represent the broader immigrant experience (Batalova 2024). Future research should address this gap by investigating how these individuals navigate economic integration.

4.3. Implications

The findings from this scoping review have important implications for social policy and practice. First, a unified and comprehensive definition of economic integration is critical for policymakers to reach a consensus on promoting immigrants’ and refugees’ economic wellbeing and to plan related budgeting. Our findings call for a holistic approach to policy design and development related to economic integration among immigrants and refugees, incorporating income, employment, asset and financial service use, health, education, and other relevant domains. Additionally, tailoring strategies based on refugees’ specific needs and barriers is crucial for developing comprehensive refugee resettlement programs and, therefore, fostering their successful economic integration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, M.N.; screening and analysis, M.N., V.A., and M.S.; data extraction, M.N., V.A., and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N., J.L., Y.Z., V.A., and M.S.; writing—review and editing, P.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, grant number, 2111-34681.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Lily Coll, Ali Lateef, and Nina Lukow for their help with the screening of the studies. Thanks to Lindsay Stark and Ilana Seff for partially funding research assistant hours to make this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Summary of extracted information.
Table A1. Summary of extracted information.
First Author (Year)PopulationEconomic Integration Domains
1234567
Abramitzky et al. (2014)ImmigrantIncome
Adida et al. (2015)Immigrant Employment
Aguilera (2005)ImmigrantWageOccupation
Akresh (2006)Immigrant Occupation
Akresh (2007)ImmigrantIncome
Akresh (2011)ImmigrantIncome Assets
Allensworth (1997)ImmigrantIncome
Bauer et al. (2011)ImmigrantIncome Assets
Birgier et al. (2018)RefugeesIncome Employment
Bratsberg et al. (2006)ImmigrantWage Employment
Bulut and Carlson (2020)Immigrant Employment
Carroll and Schaffer (2021)RefugeesWage
Chatterjee (2009)Immigrant Assets
Chatterjee and Zahirovic-Herbert (2014)Immigrant Assets
Chi (2015)ImmigrantWage
Cohen and Haberfeld (2007)ImmigrantIncome *
Connor (2010)ImmigrantWageEmployment
Crowley et al. (2015)ImmigrantIncomeEmployment Housing
Duncan and Trejo (2015)ImmigrantIncome *
Ee (2019)ImmigrantIncome Employment
Escamilla-Guerrero et al. (2021)ImmigrantIncome
Evans et al. (2021)Refugees Employment
Florian et al. (2022)Immigrant Employment
Furtado and Theodoropoulos (2010)Immigrant Employment
Goodwin-White (2008)ImmigrantWage
Hagstrom and Pereira (2021)RefugeesIncome EmploymentAssets
Banking
James et al. (2002)ImmigrantWage
Ketkar and Dora (2011)ImmigrantIncome
Kislev (2014)ImmigrantIncomeEmployment
Kislev (2018)ImmigrantIncome
Kuhlman (1991)RefugeesIncomeEmployment
Kusow et al. (2018)ImmigrantIncomeOccupation Education
Kwon et al. (2004)ImmigrantIncome
Lester and Nguyen (2016)Immigrant Occupation
Li and Zhang (2021)ImmigrantIncome Home ownership
Lin (2013)ImmigrantIncome
Lin (2016)ImmigrantIncome
Lozano and Sorensen (2015)ImmigrantWage Education
Lubotsky (2007)Immigrant Wage *
Michalikova and Yang (2016)ImmigrantIncome Education
Mindes et al. (2022)Immigrant Employment **
Nam et al. (2015)Immigrant Banking
Naseh et al. (2022a)RefugeesIncomeEmployment Housing EducationHealth
Naseh et al. (2022b)RefugeesIncome Housing EducationHealth
Niankara (2020)ImmigrantIncome
Padilla and Glick (2000)ImmigrantWage
Painter (2013)Immigrant Net worth
Painter (2014)Immigrant Net worth
Painter (2015)Immigrant Net worth
Painter et al. (2016)Immigrant Net worth
Paulson and Rhine (2008)ImmigrantIncome BankingHousing Education
Portes and Zhou (1992)ImmigrantIncomeEmployment **
Portes et al. (2002)Immigrant Employment **
Poston (2002)ImmigrantWage
Potocky and McDonald (1995)RefugeesIncomeEmployment Public
assistance
Potocky (1997)RefugeesIncomeEmployment Public
assistance
Potocky-Tripodi (2001)RefugeesIncome Employment Public
assistance
Potocky-Tripodi (2004)RefugeesIncome Employment Public
assistance
Rooth and Scott (2012)Immigrant Employment
Shaw et al. (2022)RefugeesIncomeEmployment, occupation
Schoellman (2010)ImmigrantWage
Seeborg and Wu (2012)ImmigrantIncome *
Silles (2018)ImmigrantIncome Employment Education Health
Spindler-Ruiz (2021)ImmigrantIncome *
Stempel and Alemi (2021)RefugeesIncomeEmployment
Stodolska et al. (2007)ImmigrantIncome
Takeda (2000)RefugeesIncome Occupation
Toussaint-Comeau (2006)Immigrant Occupation Education
Tran and Lara-Garcia (2020)RefugeesWageEmployment
Tseng (1995)Immigrant Employment **
Wilkinson et al. (2006)ImmigrantWageEmployment, occupation
Zhou (1998)ImmigrantIncome Employment **
* Income or wage growth; ** self-employment or business ownership.

Appendix B

Sample full electronic search strategy for PsycINFO:
(AB (“index” OR “indexes” OR indices OR “instrument” OR “instruments” OR interview* OR questionnaire OR questionnaires OR survey* OR “inventory” OR “inventories” OR measure* OR measuring OR psychometric OR psychometrics OR rating OR ratings OR “scale” OR “scales” OR screening OR screenings OR sociometric OR sociometrics OR “tool” OR “tools” OR variables OR factors OR determinants OR attributes OR characteristics OR contributors OR facilitators OR indicators OR mechanisms OR predictors OR mediators OR evaluate* OR evaluati* OR assess*) AND AB (refuge* OR “forc* displace*” OR emigra* OR migra* OR immigra* OR “humanitarian entrant*” OR “humanitarian settled*” OR resettled* OR “boat* person*” OR “boat* people” OR “protected person*” OR “protected people” OR “protected individual*” OR asylum OR asylee* NOT undocumented NOT Unaccompanied NOT “under* documented” NOT “mixed* status” NOT “illegal* emigra*” NOT “illegal* immigra*” NOT “illegal migra*” NOT “removal* Proce*”) AND AB (integrat* OR Income* OR wealth* OR earning* OR salar* OR revenue* OR wage* OR pay OR livelihood* OR earning* OR poverty OR destitution* OR deprivation* OR impoverished OR Poor OR job* OR occupation OR employ* OR unemploy* OR “under* employment” OR “financial* independ*” OR “financial* stab*” OR “self* Sufficien*” OR “self* relianc*” OR “standard* of living” OR “living Standard*” OR “living quality” OR “quality of living” OR welfare OR “government* assistance” OR assimil* OR belong* OR “well* being” OR wellbeing)) AND (“United States” OR USA OR “U.S.” OR America OR Alabama OR Alaska OR Arizona OR Arkansas OR California OR Colorado OR Connecticut OR Delaware OR Florida OR Georgia OR Hawaii OR Idaho OR Illinois OR Indiana OR Iowa OR Kansas OR Kentucky OR Louisiana OR Maine OR Maryland OR Massachusetts OR Michigan OR Minnesota OR Mississippi OR Missouri OR Montana OR Nebraska OR Nevada OR “New Hampshire” OR “New Jersey” OR “New Mexico” OR “New York” OR “North Carolina” OR “North Dakota” OR Ohio OR Oklahoma OR Oregon OR Pennsylvania OR “Rhode Island” OR “South Carolina” OR “South Dakota” OR Tennessee OR Texas OR Utah OR Vermont OR Virginia OR Washington OR “West Virginia” OR Wisconsin OR Wyoming).

References

  1. Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine Eriksson. 2014. A Nation of Immigrants: Assimilation and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration. Journal of Political Economy 122: 467–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Adida, Claire L., Laitin David D., and Marie-Anne Valfort. 2015. How Do Muslims Qua Muslims Integrate in the US? Economics Bulletin 35: 2750–67. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguilera, Michael Bernabé. 2005. The impact of social capital on the earnings of Puerto Rican migrants. The Sociological Quarterly 46: 569–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alba, Richard, Jeffrey G. Reitz, and Patrick Simon. 2012. National conceptions of assimilation, integration, and cohesion. In The Changing Face of world cities: Young Adult Children of Immigrants in Europe and the United States. Edited by M. Crul and J. Mollenkopf. New York: Sage Foundation: pp. 44–64. [Google Scholar]
  5. Allensworth, Elaine M. 1997. Earnings Mobility of First and “1.5” Generation Mexican-Origin Women and Men: A Comparison with U.S.-Born Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites. The International Migration Review 31: 386–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Akresh, Ilana Redstone. 2006. Occupational mobility among legal immigrants to the United States. International Migration Review 40: 854–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akresh, Ilana Redstone. 2007. U.S. Immigrants’ Labor Market Adjustment: Additional Human Capital Investment and Earnings Growth. DemographyDemography 44: 865–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Akresh, Ilana Redstone. 2011. Wealth accumulation among US immigrants: A study of assimilation and differentials. Social Science Research 40: 1390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Batalova, Jeanne. 2024. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States. Available online: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-2024 (accessed on 29 June 2024).
  10. Bauer, Thomas K., Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Vincent A. Hildebrand, and Mathias G. Sinning. 2011. A Comparative Analysis of the Nativity Wealth Gap. Economic InquiryEconomic Inquiry 49: 989–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Birgier, Debora Pricila, Christer Lundh, Yitchak Haberfeld, and Erik Elldér. 2018. Self-Selection and Host Country Context in the Economic Assimilation of Political Refugees in the United States, Sweden, and Israel. International Migration Review 52: 524–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bratsberg, Bernt, Erling Barth, and Oddbjørn Raaum. 2006. Local Unemployment and the Relative Wages of Immigrants: Evidence from the Current Population Surveys. Review of Economics & Statistics 88: 243–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brick, Kate, Amy Cushing-Savvi, Samia Elshafie, Alan Krill, Megan M. Scanlon, and Marianne Stone. 2010. Refugee resettlement in the United States: An Examination of Challenges and Proposed Solutions. New York: Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bulut, Elif, and Elwood Carlson. 2020. Labour Force Participation among MENA Women in the United States: Exploring the Role of Ethnically Homogamous Relationships. International Migration 58: 235–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carroll, Wayne, and David Schaffer. 2021. Employment and Wages of Hmong and Other Southeast Asian Refugees in the United States. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 19: 526–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chatterjee, Swarn. 2009. Do Immigrants Have Lower Participation Rates in U.S. Financial Markets? International Journal of Business and Finance Research 3: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chatterjee, Swarn, and Velma Zahirovic-Herbert. 2014. A Road to Assimilation: Immigrants and Financial Markets. Journal of Economics and Finance 38: 345–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chi, Miao. 2015. Does Intermarriage Promote Economic Assimilation among Immigrants in the United States? International Journal of Manpower 36: 1034–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chin, Aimee, and Kalena E. Cortes. 2015. The Refugee/Asylum Seeker. Handbook of the Economics of International Migration 1: 585–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cohen, Yinon, and Yitchak Haberfeld. 2007. Self-Selection and Earnings Assimilation: Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel and the United States. Demography 44: 649–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Connor, Phillip. 2010. Explaining the Refugee Gap: Economic Outcomes of Refugees versus Other Immigrants. Journal of Refugee Studies 23: 377–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Crowley, Martha, Daniel T. Lichter, and Richard N. Turner. 2015. Diverging fortunes? Economic well-being of Latinos and African Americans in new rural destinations. Social Science Research 51: 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. da Silva, Pablo Marlon Medeiros, Walid Abbas El-Aouar, Thaís Teles Firmino, Juliana Carvalho de Sousa, and Wesley Vieira da Silva. 2022. Contributions and challenges of voluntary organizations towards the integration of refugees into the job market. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 41: 608–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duncan, Brian, and Stephen J. Trejo. 2015. Assessing the Socioeconomic Mobility and Integration of U.S. Immigrants and Their Descendants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 657: 108–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ee, Jongyeon. 2019. Bamboo bridges or barriers? Exploring advantages of bilingualism among Asians in the U.S. labor market through the lens of superdiversity. Bilingual Research Journal 42: 252–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Escamilla-Guerrero, David, Edward Kosack, and Zachary Ward. 2021. Life after crossing the border: Assimilation during the first Mexican mass migration. Explorations In Economic History 82: 101403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Evans, William N., Brendan Perry, and Rachel Factor. 2021. The Impact of Broadband Access on Social and Economic Integration: Results from the Refugee Mobile Pilot. Journal of Refugee Studies 34: 915–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Florian, Sandra, Chenoa Flippen, and Emilio Parrado. 2022. The Labor Force Trajectories of Immigrant Women in the United States: Intersecting Individual and Gendered Cohort Characteristics. International Migration Review 57: 95–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Furtado, Delia, and Nikolaos Theodoropoulos. 2010. Why Does Intermarriage Increase Immigrant Employment? The Role of Networks. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garcés-Mascareñas, Blanca, and Rinus Penninx. 2016. Integration Processes and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Nature. [Google Scholar]
  31. Girard, Chris. 2015. Immigrant Use of Public Assistance and Mode of Entry: Demographics versus Dependence. Social Science Research 53: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Glassman, Brian. 2019. Multidimensional Deprivation in the United States: 2017; ACS-40; American Community Survey Report. Suitland-Silver Hill: United States Census Bureau. Available online: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/demo/acs-40.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2024).
  33. Goodwin-White, Jamie. 2008. Placing Progress: Contextual Inequality and Immigrant Incorporation in the United States. Economic Geography 84: 303–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hagstrom, Paul, and Javier Pereira. 2021. Financial inclusion of individuals who arrived as refugees to the United States. Journal of International Development 33: 752–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Harder, Niklas, Lucila Figueroa, Rachel M. Gillum, Dominik Hangartner, David D. Laitin, and Jens Hainmueller. 2018. Multidimensional Measure of Immigrant Integration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 11483–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hauser, Robert M., and John Robert Warren. 1997. Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique. Sociological Methodology 27: 177–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. James, Franklin J., Jeff Romine, and Phyllis Resnick Terry. 2002. Big city labor markets and immigrant economic performance. Policy Studies Journal 30: 107–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jayakody, Chathuranganee, Chamindi Malalgoda, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh, Champika Liyanage, Emlyn Witt, Mo Hamza, and Nishara Fernando. 2022. Approaches to Strengthen the Social Cohesion between Displaced and Host Communities. Sustainability 14: 3413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ketkar, Suhas L., and Manoj K. Dora. 2011. Wealth of Recent Immigrants to the USA. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies 4: 330–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kislev, Elyakim. 2014. The Effect of Minority/Majority Origins on Immigrants’ Integration. Social Forces 92: 1457–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kislev, Elyakim. 2018. Transnational Social Mobility of Minorities: A Comparative Analysis of 14 Immigrant Minority Groups. IZA Journal of Development and Migration 8: 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kuhlman, Tom. 1991. The Economic Integration of Refugees in Developing Countries: A Research Model. Journal of Refugee Studies 4: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kusow, Abdi M., Kristine J. Ajrouch, and Mamadi Corra. 2018. Socioeconomic Achievement Among Arab Immigrants in the USA: The Influence of Region of Origin and Gender. Journal of International Migration and Integration 19: 111–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kwon, Hee-Kyung, Virginia S. Zuiker, and Jean W. Bauer. 2004. Factors Associated with the Poverty Status of Asian Immigrant Householders by Citizenship Status. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 25: 101–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lerpold, Lin, Örjan Sjöberg, and Karl Wennberg. 2023. Migration, Integration, and the Pandemic. In Springer EBooks. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lester, T. William, and Mai Thi Nguyen. 2016. The Economic Integration of Immigrants and Regional Resilience. Journal of Urban Affairs 38: 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, Shuang, and Weiwei Zhang. 2021. Living in Ethnic Areas or Not? Residential Preference of Decimal Generation Immigrants among Asian Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese. Social Sciences-Basel 10: 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lin, Carl. 2013. Earnings Gap, Cohort Effect and Economic Assimilation of Immigrants from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan in the United States. Review of International Economics 21: 249–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lin, Carl. 2016. How Do Immigrants from Taiwan Fare in the U.S. Labor Market? Singapore Economic Review 61: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Loescher, Gil. 1996. Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lozano, Fernando A., and Todd Sorensen. 2015. Mexican Immigrants, Labour Market Assimilation and the Current Population: The Sensitivity of Results Across Seemingly Equivalent Surveys. International Migration 53: 250–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lubotsky, Darren. 2007. Chutes or Ladders? A Longitudinal Analysis of Immigrant Earnings. Journal of Political Economy 115: 820–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Massey, Douglas S., and Brendan P. Mullan. 1984. Processes of Hispanic and Black Spatial Assimilation. American Journal of Sociology 89: 836–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McAuliffe, Marie, and Anna Triandafyllidou. 2021. World Migration Report 2022. International Organization for Migration (IOM). Available online: https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2022 (accessed on 29 November 2023).
  55. McHugh, Marry L. 2012. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica 22: 276–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Michalikova, Nina, and Philip Q. Yang. 2016. Socioeconomic Adaptation of Post-1991 Eastern European Immigrants in the USA. Journal of International Migration And Integration 17: 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mindes, Samuel C. H., Paul Lewin, and Monica Fisher. 2022. Intergenerational and ethnonational disparities in Hispanic immigrant self-employment. Ethnicities 22: 763–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nam, Yunju, Eun Jeong Lee, Jin Huang, and Junpyo Kim. 2015. Financial Capability, Asset Ownership, and Later-Age Immigration: Evidence From a Sample of Low-Income Older Asian Immigrants. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 58: 114–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Naseh, Mitra, Mary Lehman Held, Anthony Gilbertson, and Lisha Shrestha. 2022a. Multidimensional Deprivation amongst Refugees in the USA. The British Journal of Social Work 53: 2120–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Naseh, Mitra, Miriam Potocky, Shanna L. Burke, Paul H. Stuart, and Fatma G. Huffman. 2022b. Factors Associated with Poverty among Refugees in the United States. Journal of Poverty 28: 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Niankara, Ibrahim. 2020. The Role of English Language Proficiency on Immigrants’ Health and Economic Integration in the USA. International Journal of Economics and Business Research 20: 255–87. [Google Scholar]
  62. OECD/European Commission. 2023. Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Summary of Immigrant Eligibility Restrictions under Current Law. Available online: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/summary-immigrant-eligibility-restrictions-under-current-law (accessed on 29 November 2023).
  64. Osterman, Paul, and Beth Shulman. 2011. Good Jobs America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  65. Padilla, Yolanda C., and Jennifer E. Glick. 2000. Variations in the economic integration of immigrant and US-born Mexicans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 22: 179–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Painter, Matthew A. 2013. Immigrant and Native Financial Well-Being: The Roles of Place of Education and Race/Ethnicity. Social Science Research 42: 1375–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Painter, Matthew A. 2014. Educational-Occupational Mismatch, Race/Ethnicity, and Immigrant Wealth Attainment. Journal of International Migration and Integration 15: 753–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Painter, Matthew A. 2015. Social capital and immigrant wealth inequality: Visa sponsorship and the role of ties, education, and race/ethnicity. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 42: 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Painter, Matthew A., Malcolm D. Holmes, and Jenna Bateman. 2016. Skin Tone, Race/Ethnicity, and Wealth Inequality among New Immigrants. Social Forces 94: 1153–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Patraporn, R. Varisa, Deirdre Pfeiffer, and Paul Ong. 2010. Building Bridges to the Middle Class: The Role of Community-Based Organizations in Asian American Wealth Accumulation. Economic Development Quarterly 24: 288–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Paulson, Anna, Audrey Singer, Robin Newberger, and Jeremy Smith. 2006. Financial Access for Immigrants: Lessons from Diverse Perspectives. Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/financial-access-for-immigrants-lessons-from-diverse-perspectives/ (accessed on 29 November 2023).
  72. Paulson, Anna, and Sherrie L. W. Rhine. 2008. The Financial Assimilation of an Immigrant Group: Evidence on the Use of Checking and Savings Accounts and Currency Exchanges. Journal of Family & Economic Issues 29: 264–78. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pineau, Marisa Gerstein, and Mary C. Waters, eds. 2015. The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press: 520p. [Google Scholar]
  74. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1992. Gaining the upper hand—Economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15: 491–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Portes, Alejandro, William J. Haller, and Luis Eduardo Guarnizo. 2002. Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review 67: 278–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. 2002. Human capital, cultural capital and the economic attainment patterns of Asian-born immigrants to the United States: Multi-level analyses. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 11: 197–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Potocky, Miriam. 1997. Predictors of Refugee Economic Status. Journal of Social Service Research 23: 41–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Potocky, Miriam, and Mitra Naseh. 2020. Best Practices for Social Work with Refugees and Immigrants. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  79. Potocky, Miriam, and Thomas P. McDonald. 1995. Predictors of Economic Status of Southeast Asian Refugees: Implications for Service Improvement. Social Work Research 19: 219–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Potocky-Tripodi, Miriam. 2001. Micro and Macro Determinants of Refugee Economic Status. Journal of Social Service Research 27: 33–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Potocky-Tripodi, Miriam. 2004. The Role of Social Capital in Immigrant and Refugee Economic Adaptation. Journal of Social Service Research 31: 59–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rank, Mark Robert, Lawrence M. Eppard, and Heather E. Bullock. 2021. Poorly Understood What America Gets Wrong about Poverty. New York: United States of America Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  83. Refugee Self-Reliance Initiative. 2020. Self-Reliance Index Version 2.0: Indicators to Measure Progress towards Self-Reliance. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/SRI%202.0%20%28English%29.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2024).
  84. Rooth, Dan-Olof, and Kirk Scott. 2012. Three Generations in the New World: Labour Market Outcomes of Swedish Americans in the USA, 1880-2000. Scandinavian Economic History Review 60: 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schoellman, Todd. 2010. The Occupations and Human Capital of U.S. Immigrants. Journal of Human Capital 4: 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Seeborg, Michael C., and Yujie Wu. 2012. Economic Assimilation of Mexican and Chinese Immigrants in the United States: Is There Wage Convergence? Economics Bulletin 32: 1978–91. [Google Scholar]
  87. Shaw, Stacey A., Graeme Rodgers, Patrick Poulin, and Jessica Robinson. 2022. Extended Case Management Services Among Resettled Refugees in the United States. Research on Social Work Practice 32: 912–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sherraden, Michael. 2018. Asset Building as Social Investment. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 45: 35. [Google Scholar]
  89. Silles, Antonia. 2018. The Effects of Language Skills on the Economic Assimilation of Female Immigrants in the United States. Manchester School 86: 789–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Spindler-Ruiz, Pedro. 2021. Mexican Niches in the US Construction Industry: 2009–15. Journal of International Migration And Integration 22: 405–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stempel, Carl, and Qais Alemi. 2021. Challenges to the economic integration of Afghan refugees in the US. Journal of Ethnic And Migration Studies 47: 4872–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Stodolska, Monika, Matthew Marcinkowski, and Jouyeon Yi-Kook. 2007. The role of ethnic enclosure in leisure in the economic achievement of Korean immigrants. Journal of Leisure Research 39: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Takeda, Joe. 2000. Psychological and economic adaptation of Iraqi adult male refugees: Implications for social work practice. Journal of Social Service Research 26: 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  94. Toussaint-Comeau, Maude. 2006. The Occupational Assimilation of Hispanic Immigrants in the U.S.: Evidence from Panel Data. The International Migration Review 40: 508–36. [Google Scholar]
  95. Tran, Van C., and Francisco Lara-García. 2020. A New Beginning: Early Refugee Integration in the United States. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 6: 117–49. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tseng, Yen-Fen. 1995. Beyond “Little Taipei”: The Development of Taiwanese Immigrant Businesses in Los Angeles. The International Migration Review 29: 33–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tricco, Andrea C, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, David Moher, Micah D.J. Peters, Tanya Horsley, Laura Weeks, and et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169: 467–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Visintini, Sarah. 2024. Organizing your Systematic Review: Review Protocol Template. Available online: https://www.sarahvisintini.ca/blog-posts/organizing-your-systematic-review-review-protocol-template (accessed on 29 June 2024).
  99. Wilkinson, Lori, Tracey Peter, and Renuka Chaturvedi. 2006. The Short-Term, Medium-Term, and Long-Term Economic Performance of Immigrant Women in Canada and the United States. Journal of International Migration and Integration 7: 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yu, Helen H. 2020. Revisiting the Bamboo Ceiling: Perceptions from Asian Americans on Experiencing Workplace Discrimination. Asian American Journal of Psychology 11: 158–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhou, Yu. 1998. How do places matter? A comparative study of Chinese ethnic economies in Los Angeles and New York City. Urban Geography 19: 531–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zong, Caitlin, and Jeanne Batalova. 2018. Filipino Immigrants in the United States. Migrationpolicy.org. Available online: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/filipino-immigrants-united-states (accessed on 29 November 2023).
Economies 12 00167 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the study.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the study.
Economies 12 00167 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naseh, M.; Lee, J.; Zeng, Y.; Nabunya, P.; Alvarez, V.; Safi, M. Understanding Economic Integration in Immigrant and Refugee Populations: A Scoping Review of Concepts and Metrics in the United States. Economies 2024, 12, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167

AMA Style

Naseh M, Lee J, Zeng Y, Nabunya P, Alvarez V, Safi M. Understanding Economic Integration in Immigrant and Refugee Populations: A Scoping Review of Concepts and Metrics in the United States. Economies. 2024; 12(7):167. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naseh, Mitra, Jihye Lee, Yingying Zeng, Proscovia Nabunya, Valencia Alvarez, and Meena Safi. 2024. "Understanding Economic Integration in Immigrant and Refugee Populations: A Scoping Review of Concepts and Metrics in the United States" Economies 12, no. 7: 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop