Understanding economic integration in immigrant and refugee populations: A scoping review of concepts and metrics in the United States

Naseh, Mitra et al. Article Understanding economic integration in immigrant and refugee populations: A scoping review of concepts and metrics in the United States Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Naseh, Mitra et al. (2024) : Understanding economic integration in immigrant and refugee populations: A scoping review of concepts and metrics in the United States, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 7, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329093 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: 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: 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/ economies12070167 Academic Editor: Sajid Anwar Received: 20 March 2024 Revised: 13 June 2024 Accepted: 27 June 2024 Published: 30 June 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). economies Review Understanding Economic Integration in Immigrant and Refugee Populations: A Scoping Review of Concepts and Metrics in the United States Mitra Naseh 1,* , Jihye Lee 1, Yingying Zeng 2, Proscovia Nabunya 3, Valencia Alvarez 1and Meena Safi 1 1Initiative on Social Work and Forced Migration, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA 2School of Social Work, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 3International Center for Child Health and Development, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] 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. Keywords: scoping review; immigrants; refugees; economic integration; United States; poverty 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 Economies 2024,12, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12070167 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies Economies 2024,12, 167 2 of 14 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. Economies 2024,12, 167 3 of 14 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 firstgeneration 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 Economies 2024,12, 167 4 of 14 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. Economies2024,12,xFORPEERREVIEW5of17   Figure1.PRISMAflowchartofthestudy. 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;Nasehetal.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 Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the study. Economies 2024,12, 167 5 of 14 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-García 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 Economies 2024,12, 167 6 of 14 2012;Shaw et al. 2022;Silles 2018;Stempel and Alemi 2021;Tran and Lara-García 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 Economies 2024,12, 167 7 of 14 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’ Economies 2024,12, 167 8 of 14 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 experi-