Final Research Project Preparation – Annotated Bibliography
shasha4
economic_impacts_of_immigration.pdf
Finnish Economic Papers – Volume 24 – Number 1 – Spring 2011
1
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IMMIGRATION: A SURVEY*
SARI PEKKALA KERR
Wellesley College, e-mail: [email protected]
and
WILLIAM R. KERR
Harvard University and NBER, e-mail: [email protected]
This paper surveys recent empirical studies on the economic impacts of immigra- tion. The survey first examines the magnitude of immigration as an economic phe- nomenon in various host countries. The second part deals with the assimilation of immigrant workers into host-country labor markets and concomitant effects for natives. The paper then turns to immigration's impact for the public finances of host countries. The final section considers emerging topics in the study of immigration. The survey particularly emphasizes the recent experiences of Northern Europe and Scandinavia and relevant lessons from traditional destination countries like the US. (JEL: H53, J23, J31, J61, J68)
1. Introduction
International migration is a mighty force glob- ally. Over 175m people, accounting for 3% of world's population, live permanently outside their countries of birth (UN 2002). At the start
of the new millennium, European migration pat- terns are very different than those from even 50 years ago. Europeans emigrated heavily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but today the reception and assimilation of immigrants is a significant economic and social phenomenon in many previous emigration countries. Altogether 27m foreign nationals lived in European Union (EU15) countries in 2007, accounting for about 7% of the population. Figure 1 shows that most of the recent population growth in Europe re- sults from migration.
This paper surveys the economic impacts of immigration for host countries. Empirical evi- dence is drawn from the older and extensive lit- erature regarding traditional destination coun- tries like the US and Canada. However, this re-
* Comments are appreciated. The authors are grateful to David Autor, Jennifer Hunt, Robert E.B. Lucas, Mark Part- ridge, the editor and anonymous referees for helpful com- ments. This research was funded in Finland by the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the Association of Fin- nish Local and Regional Authorities, and The Finnish Natio- nal Fund for Research and Development (Sitra). Part of the research was conducted while Sari Kerr was on sabbatical graciously funded by the Yrjö Jahnsson foundation. Additio- nal support through Harvard Business School Research is gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of this survey was circulated as VATT Working Paper 362 by Sari Pekkala.
2
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
view also emphasizes the recent experiences of Northern Europe and Scandinavia; a central goal is to highlight studies and lessons that have par- ticular application within this region. Migrant flows to some European countries are now of similar magnitude to flows to the US, and it is helpful to identify relevant lessons from the ex- periences of the US and other traditional desti- nation countries. Looking forward, the hetero- geneity in recent European experiences and policy environments provides an excellent labo- ratory for identifying immigration's effects in a new setting.
Section 2 begins by describing recent Euro- pean immigration patterns. Section 3 considers immigrant assimilation in the labor markets of host countries, while Section 4 surveys evidence on possible displacement effects for natives. Section 5 evaluates how immigration impacts the public finances of host countries. This is of particular policy importance for Europe given its ageing populations and fiscal imbalances. Sec- tion 6 identifies new areas of study regarding immigration that move beyond these traditional topics; examples include the effects of immigra-
tion on housing markets, prices, and innovation. The final section concludes.1
2. European migration patterns
Immigration is now a prominent feature in the economic, social, and political landscape of many European countries. In 2007, over 27m people living in EU15 countries were foreign nationals. This figure partially represented mi- gration within the EU region, which accounted for approximately a third of total migration. The larger share was citizens of countries outside of the EU25 area, which comprised two-thirds of migrants and 5% of the EU15 population. The aggregate size of this foreign national popula- tion was larger than the US' comparable stock.
1 Interested readers should also consult classic surveys of immigration like Greenwood and McDowell (1986), Bor- jas (1994, 1995a, 1999c), Friedberg and Hunt (1995), Bau- er and Zimmermann (1999), Card (2005), and Bodvarsson and Van den Berg (2009). Some of these surveys provided formal theoretical backgrounds on the economics of immi- gration that are touched upon very lightly in this paper. Zim- mermann (1995) described the history of EU migration.
Figure 1. Components of EU25’s population change Source: Eurostat 2006.
Figure 1. Components of EU25’s population change Source: Eurostat 2006.
3
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Table 1 shows that the majority of these EU15 foreign nationals resided in large countries like Germany, France, Spain, and the UK. Measured in terms of population shares, foreign nationals were of comparable importance for many of the smaller economies in Northern Europe. The mean population share of EU15 foreign nation- als of 7% was similar to the US share. Smaller and geographically-remote nations like Finland or Portugal tended to have below average shares.
Table 1 mostly presents Eurostat statistics that are based upon nationality status. Defining im- migrants through country of birth yields a simi- lar picture, although some differences emerge. Table 1 continues by documenting differences in the rate at which European countries grant citi- zenship to migrants. Europe as a whole had sub- stantially lower rates of citizenship acquisition than the US. Northern European countries tend- ed to have higher rates of citizenship attainment relative to Southern Europe for migrants; this was especially true for Sweden and the Nether- lands. Immigration is an even larger force in these countries than statistics using foreign na- tionals indicate. Likewise, the US immigrant population share in 2000 defined through coun- try of birth was 11% versus 7% defined through citizenship.
The directions of migrant flows are very asymmetric. A significant share of early mi- grants moved from Europe to the US, Canada, and Australia. While migration into these coun- tries remains very strong, the composition of source countries changed substantially over the last 30 years or so. Most migrants to the US, for example, now come from Latin America and Asia instead of Europe. This composition change of migration flows is also observed in Europe. Table 2 presents the major source coun- tries of immigration by host country for 1997. This table considers legal migrants only; illegal migration would further increase the migrant share coming from outside the OECD for most host countries. Composition shifts were quite dramatic across Northern European countries with the largest immigrant population shares. Sweden, for example, received most of its mi- grants from other Nordic countries until the late 1970s, but a substantial portion of its recent im- migration has been refugees. Germany has re-
ceived large inflows from Turkey, while Moroc- can immigrants were the largest share for the Netherlands.2
This broader pool of migrants has led to great- er heterogeneity in immigrant traits. The US case is best documented. Recent immigrants from Latin America tended to be less educated than earlier European migrations to the US. Over 35% of high-school dropouts in the US were foreign born in 2000 (calculation based on the Current Population Survey), far greater than the overall immigrant population share. On the other hand, the US has recently received large flows of highly-educated immigrants. Asian in- flows have been particularly important in sci- ence and engineering sectors and account for the majority of the US' 1990s growth in these oc- cupations.3
Heterogeneity in immigrant types is also an important dimension of European flows. Table 1 documents differences in the 2001 foreign na- tional share of workers with primary/secondary or tertiary educations. As discussed below, im- migrants have weaker labor force participation rates than natives, which generally leads to low- er worker shares compared to population shares. This is particularly evident in countries accept- ing more refugees and asylum seekers. Most highly-educated immigrants originated from other European countries or the OECD more generally; only a third came from developing countries. Despite these high-skilled inflows, the majority of recent immigrants to Europe had a lower level of education than natives. 4
2 Germany also experienced inflows in the 1990s of ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union that were substanti- ally larger than the listed immigration flows (e.g., Brücker and Jahn 2010). These inflows are not captured, however, by nationality surveys as citizenship was automatically granted to ethnically German migrants. While typically preferred, surveys collecting country of birth are unfortunately not consistently available.
3 For example, Cervantes and Guellec (2002), Freeman (2006), Kerr (2007), and Kerr and Lincoln (2010).
4 Recent work has begun to more systematically compare immigrants across countries. Antecol, Cobb-Clark and Tre- jo (2003) and Aydemir and Borjas (2007) provided studies of quality differences in immigrants across several non-Eu- ropean countries. Europe is relatively under studied in this respect, with Algan et al. (2010) an important exception.
4
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
F
or ei
gn
T ot
al fo
re ig
n
E U
25 fo
re ig
n
19 90
s an
n u
al r
at e
of
20 02
20
01 fo
re ig
n n
at io
n al
s h
ar e
20 01
n
at io
n al
n
at io
n al
n
at io
n al
ci
ti ze
n sh
ip a
cq u
is it
io n
re
fu ge
es
of e
du ca
te d
w or
ke r
s fo
re ig
n s
h ar
e
po pu
la ti
on
po pu
la ti
on
po pu
la ti
on
P er
ce n
t of
P
er t
h ou
sa n
d an
d as
yl u
m
P ri
m ar
y an
d T
er ti
ar y
or t
er ti
ar y
C ou
n tr
y 20
07
sh ar
e 20
07
sh ar
e 20
07
m ig
ra n
ts
po pu
la ti
on
se ek
er s
se co
n da
ry
an d
ab ov
e en
ro llm
en ts
A u
st ri
a 82
6 01
3 10
.0 %
3.
0%
2. 5%
0.
89
43 6
24
7. 5%
3.
9%
12 .0
% B
el gi
u m
93
2 16
1 8.
8%
5. 8%
2.
8%
2. 41
32
4 25
n
.a .
n .a
. 10
.6 %
D en
m ar
k
27 8
09 6
5. 1%
1.
4%
2. 5%
1.
22
79 6
65
3. 3%
4.
2%
6. 5%
F in
la n
d
12 1
73 9
2. 3%
0.
8%
1. 7%
0.
32
15 8
16
1. 1%
1.
3%
2. 3%
F ra
n ce
3
65 0
10 0
5. 8%
2.
0%
1. 2%
1.
18
13 6
77 0
3. 7%
4.
8%
7. 3%
G er
m an
y 7
25 5
94 9
8. 8%
2.
9%
1. 1%
0.
83
95 3
00 0
8. 1%
5.
1%
9. 5%
G re
ec e
88 7
60 0
7. 9%
0.
8%
0. 2%
0.
09
4 52
6 7.
1%
6. 0%
n
.a Ir
el an
d
45 2
30 0
10 .5
%
6. 8%
0.
4%
0. 28
12
3 47
5.
1%
11 .0
%
4. 9%
It al
y 2
93 8
92 2
5. 0%
0.
4%
0. 5%
0.
14
15 8
52
2. 0%
3.
6%
1. 6%
L u
xe m
bo u
rg
19 8
21 3
41 .6
%
35 .9
%
0. 4%
1.
37
2 24
4 33
.4 %
46
.3 %
n
.a N
et h
er la
n d
s 68
1 93
2 4.
2%
1. 5%
3.
7%
3. 19
20
6 52
1 4.
2%
4. 1%
3.
3% P
or tu
ga l
43 4
88 7
4. 1%
0.
8%
0. 2%
0.
04
70 7
2. 1%
3.
5%
1. 6%
S p
ai n
4
60 6
47 4
10 .4
%
2. 4%
0.
9%
0. 22
13
0 89
3.
7%
4. 7%
2.
2% S
w ed
en
49 1
99 6
5. 4%
2.
4%
3. 6%
3.
64
17 5
20 9
4. 8%
5.
9%
7. 3%
U n
it ed
K in
gd om
3
65 9
90 0
6. 0%
2.
3%
1. 2%
0.
80
20 0
03 6
7. 3%
16
.1 %
10
.9 %
E
U 15
s u
m
27 4
16 2
82
1 89
1 83
1
E
U 15
u n
w td
m ea
n
6.
7%
2. 4%
1.
6%
1. 09
4. 6%
5.
7%
6. 2%
E U
15 w
td m
ea n
7. 0%
2.
1%
1. 2%
0.
87
5.
2%
6. 5%
6.
6%
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
18 6
00 0
00
6. 6%
n
.a .
1. 9%
1.
98
87 8
48 8
7. 3%
5.
9%
3. 5%
N ot
es :
E U
15 u
nw td
m ea
n ex
cl ud
es L
ux em
bo ur
g. U
S p
op ul
at io
n da
ta r
ef er
t o
20 00
. D
at a
ta ke
n fr
om E
ur os
ta t
(2 00
8) , L
uc as
( 20
05 ),
a nd
t he
2 00
0 U
S C
en su
s IP
U M
S .
T ab
le 1
. E ur
op ea
n m
ig ra
ti on
p at
te rn
s
5
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Looking forward, observers place alternating fear and hope in the role of immigration for Northern Europe. These fears often relate to the perceived fiscal and social strains that would ac- company the assimilation of a large number of less-educated workers. Cultural and social cohe- sion is also a central policy concern. These is- sues have been strongly debated in the lead up to and evaluation of the integration of European labor markets following the accession of Eastern European states beginning in 2004.5 These is- sues and concerns are increasingly focused on expanding immigration from developing econo- mies and the assimilation of refugees.
Other observers, however, hope that future im- migration can partially rectify fiscal imbalances resulting from ageing populations. By 2015, Eu- rope's natural rate of population growth will turn negative with deaths outnumbering births. Net migration to the region is expected to maintain a positive overall growth rate for the region's population until 2035, but thereafter projected immigration is insufficient to maintain a positive rate (Eurostat 2009). While many observers con- clude that immigrants cannot fully rectify these fiscal and ageing imbalances (e.g., Freeman 2006, Feldstein 2006), it is clear that immigra- tion will grow in importance for Europe over the next 50 years (Coleman 2008). This is particu- larly true with respect to labor markets and pub- lic finances, to which this survey turns next.
3. Immigrant assimilation in the labor market
This section and the next consider the impact of immigration on the labor market. The choice to migrate is first analyzed, as different motiva- tions can yield distinctly different economic outcomes. Assimilation of immigrants into the host-country labor market over time in terms of wages and employment is then discussed. The section closes with future research needs. The
next section surveys how immigrants affect the labor market outcomes of natives.
3.1. Migration choices
People move across countries for many reasons. Economic theory most prominently highlights the international labor mobility that descends from wage differences across countries. Likewise, many students from developing economies mi- grate to advanced countries, for either short or long durations, to study in the schools and uni- versities of advanced countries (e.g., Borjas 2009). Sadly, many migrations are also the result of hardships or oppressions, as the growth of refugees in Northern Europe attests. The nature of the migration will impact education levels, ages, and tenures of immigrants, and consequent- ly their probable assimilation. When migrants have the power to choose, the nature of the mi- gration will also impact the host country selected.
Unfortunately, the causes and decision frame- works of immigration are significantly less stud- ied empirically than the economic impacts of resulting flows. International questionnaires provide some evidence of migrant rationales, particularly surrounding the choice of destina- tion country. Migrants frequently cite higher income levels, better personal safety, short dis- tance to home countries, and established immi- grant networks as the main reasons for choosing their new host countries. Econometric studies tend to support these conclusions, and the im- portance of income differentials is also evident in comparisons of income or GDP levels be- tween host and source countries.6
This demand for entry meets with supply re- strictions set by nations through immigration quotas. Ruhs (2008) reviewed the considerations inherent in immigration policy with particular application to the UK's framework. His work noted that economics provides more powerful lessons for the selection of migrants, due to fac-
5 For example, IOM (1991), Layard et al. (1992), Cole- man (1993), OECD (1998), Bauer and Zimmermann (1999), Fertig and Schmidt (2001), and Boeri and Brücker (2005). Zaiceva and Zimmermann (2008) described the modest ini- tial migration.
6 For example, Lucas (1975), Straubhaar (1986), Long, Tucker and Urton (1988), Faini and Venturini (1993), Zim- mermann (1995), Massey et al. (1998), IOM (1998), Bauer and Zimmermann (1999), Hatton and Williamson (1998), OECD (2000), Coppel, Dumont and Visco (2001), Munshi (2003), Mandorff (2007), and Kerr (2008b).
6
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
H os
t co
u n
tr y
Im m
ig ra
n t
Im m
ig ra
n t
H os
t co
u n
tr y
Im m
ig ra
n t
Im m
ig ra
n t
H os
t co
u n
tr y
Im m
ig ra
n t
Im m
ig ra
n t
- S
ou rc
e co
u n
tr y
fl ow
p
op u
la ti
on
- S
ou rc
e co
u n
tr y
fl ow
p
op u
la ti
on
- S
ou rc
e co
u n
tr y
fl ow
p
op u
la ti
on A
u st
ra li
a
F
in la
n d
N
or w
ay
N ew
Z ea
la n
d
22 %
8
%
R
u ss
ia
30 %
24
%
S
w ed
en
22 %
11
%
U n
it ed
K in
gd om
10
%
27 %
S w
ed en
10
%
9 %
D en
m ar
k
8 %
12
%
C h
in a
7 %
3
%
E
st on
ia
8 %
12
%
G
re at
B ri
ta in
5
%
7 %
S
ou th
A fr
ic a
6 %
1
%
S
om al
ia
4 %
7
%
G
er m
an y
4 %
3
%
P h
il ip
p in
es
4 %
2
%
Ir
aq
3 %
3
%
S
om al
ia
4 %
-
B el
gi u
m
F ra
n ce
S
w ed
en
F ra
n ce
15
%
12 %
A
lg er
ia
14 %
16
%
Ir
aq
15 %
5
%
N et
h er
la n
d s
12 %
9
%
M
or oc
co
14 %
17
%
F
in la
n d
8
%
18 %
M
or oc
co
9 %
15
%
T u
rk ey
6
%
5 %
Y
u go
sl av
ia
5 %
6
%
G er
m an
y 6
%
4 %
C h
in a
5 %
0
%
N
or w
ay
5 %
6
%
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
6 %
1
%
T u
n is
ia
5 %
6
%
Ir
an
4 %
5
%
C
an ad
a
G
er m
an y
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
C h
in a
11 %
5
%
P
ol an
d
11 %
4
%
M
ex ic
o 20
%
22 %
In
d ia
9
%
5 %
Y
u go
sl av
ia
10 %
10
%
C
h in
a 6
%
3 %
P
h il
ip p
in es
5
%
4 %
T
u rk
ey
8 %
29
%
In
d ia
6
%
2 %
H
on g
K on
g 5
%
5 %
It al
y 6
%
8 %
P h
il ip
p in
es
5 %
5
%
P ak
is ta
n
5 %
-
R
u ss
ia
5 %
2
%
D
om . R
ep u
bl ic
3
%
2 %
D en
m ar
k
N et
h er
la n
d s
Ja p
an
S om
al ia
9
%
4 %
M or
oc co
7
%
20 %
C h
in a
21 %
17
% Y
u go
sl av
ia
7 %
14
%
T u
rk ey
6
%
17 %
P h
il ip
p in
es
18 %
6
%
Ir aq
6
%
3 %
G er
m an
y 6
%
8 %
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
10 %
3
%
G er
m an
y 6
%
5 %
U n
it ed
K in
gd om
6
%
6 %
B ra
zi l
8 %
16
%
N or
w ay
5
%
5 %
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
4 %
2
%
K
or ea
6
%
44 %
S ou
rc es
: C
op pe
l, D
um on
t an
d V
is co
( 20
01 ).
Im
m ig
ra nt
fl ow
s re
fe r
to 1
99 8
ex ce
pt f
or A
us tr
al ia
a nd
D en
m ar
k (1
99 9)
. Im
m ig
ra nt
s to
ck s
re fe
r to
1 99
7 ex
ce pt
f or
A us
tr al
ia ,
C an
ad a,
a nd
D en
m ar
k (1
99 6)
. Im
m ig
ra nt
p op
ul at
io ns
r ef
er t
o fo
re ig
n- bo
rn p
op ul
at io
n fo
r A
us tr
al ia
, C an
ad a,
a nd
t he
U S
.
T ab
le 2
. P ri
m ar
y so
ur ce
c ou
nt ri
es o
f O
E C
D i
m m
ig ra
ti on
, 1 99
7– 19
98
7
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
tors reviewed next, than for levels of immigra- tion or the rights conferred to migrants. Lucas (2004) and Aydemir and Borjas (2007) com- pared immigration policies in North America. Europe is understudied in this respect. Recent moves towards more uniform policies by EU members, however, are an especially interesting topic for future research.7
3.2. Earnings assimilation
The assimilation of immigrants into host-coun- try labor markets is typically studied through a comparison of wages and employment rates of immigrants versus natives at the time of entry and over the duration of stay. Various studies have employed cross-sectional data, repeated cross-sections, or panel data. Most studies esti- mate a wage equation of the form
(1)
where i indexes individuals and t indexes time. Immigration cohorts C, defined through the year of entry j, have separate intercept terms that are of direct interest. is the natural logarithm of earnings of individual i in year t. Annual wages are often considered, or averages of hourly, weekly, or monthly pay. is a vector of indi- vidual characteristics that typically includes age, education, region of residence, marital status, work experience, and language spoken.
Where several years of data are available, stud- ies typically control for both years since migra- tion and migrant cohort fixed effects
. The latter may be more broadly measured using five-year intervals or similar. Year fixed effects can further control for aggregate wage changes with repeated cross-sections or panel data. Variations in specification (1) exist across studies, depending upon the emphasis of re- searchers, as one cannot identify cohort effects, time period effects, time since migration, and immigrant age simultaneously at a detailed level.
The first studies in this vein found that US immigrants earned less than natives when enter- ing the country but converged to the native wage level in 15 years (e.g., Chiswick 1978; Carliner 1980). After 30 years, immigrants were found to earn more than natives of similar age and educa- tion. These results led many to conclude that immigration had a positive net impact on the US economy. A large debate subsequently emerged about whether more recent immigration cohorts to the US were of lower education and skill due to a shift in source-country composition after the 1965 Immigration Act. Particular concern fo- cused on whether these newer cohorts would integrate as well into the US economy.8
Table 3 surveys the wage studies on immigrant assimilation in Northern Europe. There are a large number of studies concerning the US, of which Table 3 presents a subset for comparison. Similar to the US, European immigrants typi- cally earn less than natives at entry and over time. These earnings gaps do vary greatly across coun- tries and time, however, and some groups of im- migrants earn more than natives (e.g., Bell 1997; Grant 1999). Hence, the within-country differ- ences can be as large as between-country differ- ences. It is usually found that these earnings gaps are largely explained by lower education levels among immigrants, although Clark and Drinkwa- ter (2008) described the larger conditional gaps for immigrants from recent accession countries to the UK. The latter occurs when highly edu- cated migrants work in low wage positions.
Beyond the levels of earnings gaps at entry, most studies agree that the earnings gap dimin- ishes with time spent in the host country. Earn- ings assimilation happens as immigrants im- prove their language skills or obtain more edu- cation (e.g., Chiswick 1991; Borjas 1994). There are several studies on linguistic adjustment of immigrants9, including the important work of Dustmann (1994), Dustmann and van Soest
7 While beyond the scope of this survey, the political economy of immigration is an important and growing literature. Facchini and Mayda (2009) provide a recent evidence and review.
8 Borjas (1985, 1995a, 1999b) and Yuengert (1994) were pessimistic with respect to recent cohorts, while Chiswick (1986), LaLonde and Topel (1991), Card (2005), and Lu- botsky (2007) were more optimistic. Borjas (1993) and Ba- ker and Benjamin (1994) considered the Canadian evidence.
9 For example, McManus, Gould and Welch (1983), Evans (1986), Chiswick and Miller (1988, 1992, 1995), Robinson (1988), and Tainer (1988).
8
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Study Country Year (Cohort) Wage difference A. European studies Constant and Massey (2005) Germany 1984–97 (–1997) −13% Ekberg (1994) Sweden 1970–90 (–1970) −2% Edin et al. (2000) Sweden 1970 (1965–70) −12% 2000 (1995–2000) −46% Arai and Vilhelmsson (2004) Sweden 1991 (Nordic, –1991) ±0% 1991 (Europe, –1991) −3% 1991 (Other, –1991) −7% Hammarstedt (2003) Sweden 1990 −43% to +11% Bell (1997) Great Britain 1973–92 (–1989) −34% to +31% Büchel and Frick (2005) Spain 1994–97 +4% Ireland 1994–97 +12% Great Britain 1994–98 +6% Italy 1994–97 +5% Austria 1995–98 −2% Luxembourg 1994–96 +3% Germany 1995–99 −26% Denmark 1994–97 −53% B. North American studies LaLonde and Topel (1991) USA 1970 (1965–69) −20% 1980 (1965–69) −14% 1980 (1975–79) −35% Yuengert (1994) USA 1980 (1965–69) −26% to +82% Borjas (1994) USA 1990 (1985–89) −30% Funkhouser and Trejo (1995) USA 1989 (1985–89) −30% Card (2001) USA 1990 (–1984) −6% 1990 (1985–90) −29% Butcher and DiNardo (2002) USA 1990 (–1989) −10% Blau et al. (2003) USA 1980 (1975–79) −15% Borjas (1993) Canada 1980 (1975–80) −16% Grant (1999) Canada 1981–91 (1976–90) −30% to +7%
Sources: Reported studies. Estimates were calculated using sample averages reported in the studies. Wage differences are reported as mean or maximum–minimum differences for various immigrant groups. Differences do not control for immigrant observable characteristics in most cases.
Table 3. Survey of immigrant-native wage differences
9
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
(2002), and Dustmann and Fabbri (2003) for Eu- rope. Unfortunately, the relative importance of language skills in many contexts is difficult to study due to data constraints. The recent litera- ture mostly concludes that immigrant-native wage gaps diminish over the duration of stay but that permanent gaps nonetheless persist (e.g., LaLonde and Topel 1992; Schoeni, McCarthy and Vernez 1996). Similar to the US, recent im- migrant cohorts in most European countries are not expected to achieve full convergence to na- tive wage levels.
Proper accounting for re-migration is essential for determining the economic impacts for host countries. Every fourth or third immigrant to the US permanently leaves the US at a later time.10 The available evidence suggests higher re-mi- gration rates exist in Northern Europe. Edin, LaLonde and Åslund (2000) found that 30%– 40% of immigrants to Sweden left the country within five years of arrival, and those who re- migrated were those who did not assimilate well into the Swedish labor market. Constant and Massey (2003) and Bellemare (2003) found similar patterns in Germany. These higher re- migration rates are not surprising given the geo- graphical proximity of Northern European na- tions to each other and to migrants' home coun- tries. They may also descend from more chal- lenging economic and cultural assimilation vis-à-vis traditional destination countries like the US, although these determinants have not been systematically studied.
To the extent that re-migration is negatively selected—that is, those who re-migrate per- formed worse in terms of assimilation—empiri- cal estimates are apt to both overstate the eco- nomic success that immigrants attain with dura- tion of stay and overstate the expected costs of immigration to society. They may also misjudge longitudinal changes in cohort quality. Recent work highlights the potential biases that exist in studies using repeated cross-sections.
In a careful and credible study Lubotsky (2007) accounted for these effects using confi-
dential longitudinal data on immigrants from the US Census Bureau. He found that immigrant earnings grew 10%–15% more over their first 20 years in the US compared to native workers. This convergence was only half of the achieve- ment that would have been calculated off of re- peated cross-sections noted above. The selective emigration by immigrants with poor earnings in the US led to a systematic overstatement of as- similation. Lubotsky (2007) also found that more recent cohorts of US immigrants were of lower quality, but that the decline was less than originally perceived.
The existing evidence suggests that less suc- cessful immigrants were more likely to re-mi- grate from Northern European countries, too. The direction of this selection effect and the high rates of re-migration would suggest that the Lubotsky (2007) critique holds for the existing European evidence. Indeed, this study provides the strongest lessons of the US experience for Europe going forward. Much more attention should be devoted to these re-migration deci- sions that can seriously affect the estimation of assimilation profiles and other trends related to the duration of stay. As a positive, the Northern Europe experiences can be particularly informa- tive regarding re-migration issues given the re- cent development of labor market datasets of sufficient longitudinal quality in many Nordic countries to replicate the Lubotsky (2007) ap- proach.
Another issue typically ignored by the assim- ilation studies are the actual mechanisms through which earnings assimilation takes place. While it is over time in the host country, that information does not necessarily lead to any rel- evant policy conclusions. More important would be to understand whether the observed assimila- tion is caused, for example, by improved lan- guage skills, education obtained in the host country, or new networks and contacts devel- oped during the stay. Many of the potential as- similation mechanisms can be affected by policy measures and hence knowing what helps mi- grants to do better over time can offer valuable lessons for policy makers. For example, many Scandinavian countries offer language courses to new immigrants as part of their assimilation training, but no evidence exists on the effective-
10 For example, Lubotsky (2007), Warren and Peck (1980), and Friedberg and Hunt (1995). Dustmann (1996, 2003) and Dustmann and Weiss (2007) provide models and evidence from Europe.
10
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
ness of such training in terms of the success of job search or improved earnings.
Finally, some debate exists about whether earnings assimilation depends on the economic conditions that immigrants face when entering the country—that is, a scarring effect due to ini- tial labor market experiences independent of im- migrant quality. Åslund and Rooth (2007) found that immigrants to Sweden during the very se- vere 1990s recession still faced inferior wage development seven years later. The evidence from the US and Canada on this is ambiguous.11
3.3. Employment assimilation
European researchers and policy makers are par- ticularly interested in the employment rates of immigrants relative to natives. These outcomes are distinct from the wage differentials for em- ployed immigrants discussed above. This Euro- pean focus is due to both higher unemployment rates in most European countries vis-à-vis the US over the past few decades and the greater generosity of European unemployment benefits systems. Long-term unemployment among im- migrants can be a much larger fiscal burden for European public finances than in the US.
Table 4 documents the relative employment rates of non-EU immigrants to natives across
European countries, taken from Angrist and Ku- gler (2003). Immigrants had both lower partici- pation rates and employment rates (conditional on participation). Similar to wages, gaps in par- ticipation rates were substantially larger among more recent immigrants than earlier cohorts. These differentials can again reflect immigrant assimilation over time or deteriorations in im- migrant quality with recent cohorts. Recent in- fluxes of refugees to Europe further lowered relative participation rates due to restrictions on the initial ability of refugees to seek employ- ment. Table 4 also shows that relative participa- tion rates were lower among female immigrants, perhaps partially due to cultural reasons.12
To characterize these effects more rigorously, most studies estimate an employment equation akin to the wage equation (1). The dependent variable is usually an indicator variable for em- ployment status, and linear probability or non- linear estimation techniques are utilized. Similar to the wage debate, the employment results re- garding US immigrants are conflicting. While all researchers found large differences in em- ployment rates at time of entry, some argued that these gaps disappear after ten years (e.g., Chis-
11 For example, Nakamura and Nakamura (1994), Chis- wick, Cohen and Zack (1997), McDonald and Worswick (1998), and Chiswick and Miller (2005).
12 While most studies analyze the assimilation of immi- grant men, foreign-born females are a sizeable share of the labor force in many countries (e.g., 5% in the US). This lack of research is due in part to the weaker labor market at- tachment of women, selection biases, and the resulting lack of wage information. This weaker attachment, however, ma- kes a study of female assimilation even more interesting and relevant to policy. Schoeni (1998) surveys the labor market assimilation of immigrant women.
Relative participation rate of non-EU immigrants to natives Males Males Females Females Overall arriving arriving arriving arriving unemployment rate Country 1995–99 pre-1995 1995–99 pre-1995 Natives Immigrants Denmark 0.75 0.84 0.42 0.81 6 % 13 % Finland 0.90 0.95 0.67 0.87 15 % 17 % France 0.77 0.99 0.45 0.78 12 % 19 % Germany 0.86 0.98 0.67 0.91 8 % 17 % Great Britain 0.79 0.96 0.61 0.84 8 % 12 % Netherlands 0.62 0.87 0.55 0.79 5 % 15 % Norway 0.84 0.85 0.58 0.80 5 % 9 % Sweden 0.70 0.91 0.49 0.81 8 % 23 %
Sources: Angrist and Kugler (2003). Relative participation rates are calculated as the ratios of non-EU immigrant to native participation rates. Participation rates are the labor force divided by the working-age population. European figures are derived from Eurostat labour force surveys (LFS). LFS estimates differ substantially from actual employment for Finland due to small LFS sample sizes.
Table 4. Immigrant-native participation and unemployment rates, 1995−1999
11
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
wick et al. 1997) while others argued that per- manent gaps remain (e.g., Borjas 1995a,b). Most again believed that the employment rates of re- cent immigrant cohorts will not converge com- pletely to native rates.
Table 5 surveys further European evidence. The most important explanatory variable for im- migrant employment gaps tends to be source country. Taking the Swedish example, most im- migrants in the 1970s were from other Nordic countries and did not display weaker employ- ment rates than the native Swedes.13
The relative employment rates of immigrants, however, have worsened with recent cohorts and greater numbers of refugees. Nekby (2002), for example, found that migrants from other Nordic countries did well in the Swedish labor market, whereas those from outside of Europe did worse. Nevertheless, relative employment rates of all immigrants improved over the duration of their stay. Men and women who moved less than five years ago were 44% and 48% less likely to be employed, respectively, but the gaps for both genders declined to less than 15% after 20 years of stay.
As noted earlier, immigrant traits vary dra- matically across source countries. It is likely that
the high explanatory power of source countries partly reflects poor measurement of observable characteristics like immigrant education, lan- guage ability, and work experience. It is also difficult in practice to discern cohort effects from assimilation effects due to longitudinal limitations in most immigration datasets. The recent growth of longitudinal datasets represents a genuine opportunity to refine these estimates and account for re-migration selection issues. One example is Sarvimäki (2010), who found that many immigrant groups in Finland rapidly converged towards native employment levels despite large initial employment gaps. Sarvimä- ki recognized the effects of selective re-migra- tion that limit most assimilation studies. The same criticism pointed out by Lubotsky (2007) for the wage assimilation studies is also applica- ble here.
3.4. Conclusions and future research opportunities
The surveyed evidence finds that recent migra- tion cohorts to Northern Europe are likely to enter with reduced employment and earnings; over their durations of stay they will only achieve partial convergence to native levels. Fu-
13 For example, Ekberg (1991, 1999), Wadensjö (1997), Lundborg (2000), and Vilhelmsson (2000).
Study Country Measure Year (Cohort) Percentage difference Arai and Vilhelmsson (2004) Sweden Unemployment 1992–95 (1968–91) Non-EU: +69% to +101% EU: +17% to +34% Nordic: +9% to +23% Nekby (2002) Sweden Employment 1990–2000 (1946–99) Men: −32% Women: −30% Roodenburg et al. (2003) Netherlands Employment 2000 Western countries: −4% Non-western: −18% Sarvimäki (2010) Finland Employment 1993–2003 (1970–98) Men non-OECD: −12% to −9% Men OECD: −18% to −15% Women non-OECD: −9% to −4% Women OECD: −13% to −9% Ekberg (1991) Sweden Employment 1989 -17% Card (2001) USA Employment 1989 (pre-1986) -3% 1989 (1986–89) -16%
Sources: Reported studies.
Table 5. Survey of immigrant-native employment heterogeneity
12
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
ture research will mainly focus on the magni- tudes of these effects. As noted, proper account- ing for re-migration is essential. Closer attention is also needed on assimilation patterns under conditions of native population decline. The studies above evaluated countries and periods undergoing population expansion, especially the US studies. As Europe moves into an era of natural population and workforce decline, the assimilation of immigrants may be different from earlier experiences.
Second, the heterogeneity of immigrant expe- riences within countries is understudied. The existing evidence suggests that assimilation is faster with greater education (e.g., Schoeni 1997). More research is required into the specif- ics of labor market assimilation for refugees, past asylum seekers, and similar categories. As the migration is not motivated for employment reasons, assimilation is likely to be slower and less successful. Indeed, many studies have not accounted for the fact that some immigrant groups are not eligible to work in the host coun- try, at least not immediately upon arrival. This is particularly true for asylum seekers and the spouses of migrants. Separate analyses of these groups would be warranted, as well as evalua- tions of assimilation after the potential employ- ment limitations have been removed. Under- standing better how cultural assimilation (e.g., Bisin et al. 2008) affects labor market assimila- tion is also important, and Aleksynska and Al- gan (2011) review progress to date.
Third, the mechanisms of wage and employ- ment assimilation are poorly understood. Immi- grants may face various obstacles to employ- ment, including issues with the recognition of educational degrees, lack of language skills, poor professional connections or networks, and regulations that prevent them from working le- gally. These obstacles are not generally account- ed for in the assimilation studies. Furthermore, as these obstacles generally diminish during the stay in the host country, researchers should eval- uate how it affects employment and wage as- similation. A better understanding of the as- similation mechanisms would help in develop- ing more relevant policy recommendations.
Finally, recent research has begun to better document the assimilation of second-generation
immigrants. Card (2005) found that children of immigrants assimilated reasonably well into the US labor market. This is encouraging as recent US cohorts will likely have persistent gaps to the average native in both education levels and wag- es conditional on these traits. On the other hand, Algan et al. (2010) did not find consistent evi- dence for strong second-generation convergence in Germany, France, and the UK. Nor was there a clear link to the assimilation policies of the countries studied. This remains an important frontier in immigration studies.
4. Displacement effects in the labor market
This section moves from immigrant assimilation to the effects of immigration on labor outcomes of native workers. The conceptual framework is first presented, followed by a review of earnings and employment displacement studies. As mul- tiple high-quality surveys are devoted to the ex- tensive literature on displacement effects, this paper presents highlights most relevant for this discussion. Interested readers should consult ref- erenced surveys below for additional details.
4.1. Conceptual framework
Immigration affects the wages of the host coun- try in several ways. Abstracting from lower par- ticipation rates, immigration increases the labor force of the receiving country. This growth in labor supply affects average wages in the econ- omy if other factors of production like capital are fixed due to changes in relative scarcities. Even if other factors of production adjust, this labor growth directly affects the average wage due to simple composition effects if the distribu- tion of educations and skills of immigrants dif- fers from the native population. For most Euro- pean economies, this composition effect has reduced the average wage as immigrants were of lower average skill than native workers.
More interestingly, immigrants are also ex- pected to lower the relative wages or employ- ment of natives for whom they are close substi- tutes. This decline is due to a change in the rela-
13
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
tive supply of worker types. On the other hand, wages and employment of complementary workers or factors of production may increase. These predictions follow directly from a stand- ard labor supply-demand framework. They are short-run predictions absent any changes in capital stocks, industry mixes, and similar. Hence, the welfare of certain populations in the host country may deteriorate even if the aggre- gate impact of immigration is positive.
Accordingly, studies have sought to quantify effects for native groups viewed as particularly at risk of displacement. Typical examples in- clude high-school dropouts, previous immigrant cohorts, and US scientists and engineers. Esti- mating these effects is quite challenging, how- ever, as substitutability has many dimensions (e.g., personal traits, spatial and time variation).
Most studies employ regional comparisons or, to a lesser extent, general equilibrium frame- works. Regional studies typically compare labor markets in cities with high immigration flows to those with smaller flows. While readily imple- mentable, these studies face several challenges: overcoming integration and spillovers across neighboring labor markets; small datasets with few cities and years; and ignoring general equi- librium effects like price changes. These issues are particularly acute in smaller countries with a few dominant cities. Card (2005) discussed this approach in detail.
Alternatively, general equilibrium frameworks identify a single immigration event where a clear comparison group exists. This focus helps isolate immigration's effect from contemporane- ous innovations in the labor market. The chal- lenges, of course, are the identification of suit- able case studies and asserting the external va- lidity of findings. Okkerse (2008) provided a detailed survey of these techniques and related approaches.
4.2. Earnings displacement effects
Immigrants tend to concentrate in certain re- gions of host countries, often the major cities. For large nations like the US, geographical dis- tances of cities to home countries also play an important role. Immigrant networks from past
migrations are important for location decisions, although skilled and unskilled immigrants of the same nationality may sort differently across cit- ies in the host country.
A typical wage displacement study attempts to exploit this spatial heterogeneity across loca- tions in an estimating equation of the form
(2)
where is the natural logarithm of earnings of individual i in region r and year t. in- cludes controls for observable traits like educa- tion, experience, and appropriate interactions. Panel fixed effects for regions and years are in- cluded. The regressor of interest, , is the im- migrant density in region r at year t, and cap- tures the partial correlation between wages and immigration density. This simple framework only considers region-year variation in immi- grant density, but the approach is readily ex- tended to cells constructed by education, experi- ence, industry, occupation, or some combination of these.
Table 6 catalogues several wage displacement studies. As the surveys of Borjas (1994) and Friedberg and Hunt (1995) provided excellent summaries of wage displacement effects until the early 1990s, this survey concentrates on more recent studies and European experiences. The table reports estimated wage elasticities. These elasticities are often calculated for a par- ticular worker population, and the impact on at- risk groups should not be generalized to the population level. Comparisons across studies are challenged by differences in how narrow or wide this population subsample is; they are also chal- lenged by studies alternatively examining num- bers of immigrants versus their share in the labor force. Nonetheless, broad patterns of this phe- nomenon are evident.
The documented wage elasticities are small and clustered near zero. Dustmann, Glitz and Frattini (2008) likewise found very little evi- dence for wage effects in their review of the UK experience. This parallels an earlier conclusion by Friedberg and Hunt (1995) that immigration had little impact on native wages; overall, their survey of the earlier literature found that a 10% increase in the immigrant share of the labor
14
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Percentage of Study Country Year wage elasticity A. European studies DeNew and Zimmermann (1994a) Germany 1984–89 −0.16 DeNew and Zimmermann (1994b) Germany 1984–89 −0.35 (−0.54 to +0.12) Bauer (1997) Germany 1994 +0.082 Bauer (1998) Germany 1994 −0.021 to +0.035 Pischke and Velling (1994) Germany 1985–89 ±0 (+0.033) Hatzius (1994) Germany 1984–91 −0.058 to ±0 Brucker and Jahn (2010) Germany 1975–2004 −0.1 Winter-Ebmer and Zweimüller (1996) Austria 1988–91 regional +0.037 industry +0.01 Winter-Ebmer and Zimmermann (1998) Germany ±0 to +0.01 Austria −0.16 to ±0 Gang and Rivera-Batiz (1994) Netherlands 1986–89 −0.09 to + 0.02 Great Britain −0.08 to +0.02 France −0.11 to -0.01 Germany −0.05 to +0.11 Zorlu and Hartog (2005) Netherlands 1998 −0.04 to +0.02 Great Britain 1997–98 −0.036 to +0.056 Norway 1996 −0.063 to +0.180 Hunt (1992) France 1968 −0.08 to −0.14 Dolado et al. (1996) Spain +0.02 to +0.04 B. North American and other studies Grossman (1982) USA 1970 −0.1 Card (2001) USA 1989 −0.04 to -0.01 Goldin (1994) USA 1890–1921 −1.6 to -1.0 LaLonde and Topel (1991) USA 1970, –80 −0.6 to -0.1 Borjas, Freeman, and Katz (1992) USA 1967–1987 −1.2 Altonji and Card (1991) USA 1970, –80 −0.86, −1.2 Borjas (2003) USA 1960–2001 −0.4 to −0.3 Pope and Withers (1993) Australia 1881–1981 ±0 Friedberg (2001) Israel 1994 +0.03
Sources: Bauer and Zimmermann (1999), Friedberg and Hunt (1995), reported studies. Table shows elasticity of wages with respect to a one percent increase in the share of immigrants in labor force (or population).
Table 6. Survey of immigration's wage effect for natives
15
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
force reduced native wages by about 1%. Recent meta-surveys by Longhi, Nijkamp and Poot (2005, 2008) and Okkerse (2008) found compa- rable, small effects across many studies.
This consistent finding of small effects has led to many additional efforts to understand its ori- gin. Several studies assess whether endogenous location decisions by immigrants weaken dis- placement. One strand uses natural experiments of major, exogenous immigration waves to a region: the Card (1990) study of the 1980 Ma- riel boatlift from Cuba to Miami, the Hunt (1992) study of the 1962 repatriation of Europe- an-origin Algerians to France upon Algeria's independence, and the Friedberg (2001) study of Russian Jewish immigration to Israel in 1990– 2004. These studies found very weak effects after these events despite increases of up to 10% of the local labor force. These types of studies are generally credible, especially if they can demonstrate external validity of results. A sec- ond strand uses an interaction of past immigrant stocks and migration trends to instrument for observed local changes.14 These estimations again find comparable results.
Other work focuses on whether economic in- tegration across cities dampens the measured effects (e.g., Borjas, Freeman and Katz 1992, 1997). Potential out-migration from cities by na- tives due to immigration could counteract changes in relative supply. Card and DiNardo (2000), Card (2001), and Peri (2007a) found this to be very small in the US context, although Par- tridge, Rickman and Ali (2008) found out-mi- gration important for immigration's impact on rural counties. Likewise, Card and Lewis (2007) found that industry adjustment across US cities in response to immigration is very small.
Despite this success, Angrist and Krueger (1999) stressed that researchers must be very careful about assessing the differences-in-differ- ences assumptions embodied in (2). They, for example, show different labor market trends among seemingly comparable cities in a falsifi- cation exercise for a potential Mariel boatlift in 1994 that was diverted at the last minute. Future studies of similar nature should therefore con-
sider demonstrating external validity through these types of falsification exercises. Lewis (2010) provided evidence that technology choice and capital-skill complementarity can explain some of the limited findings in area-based stud- ies. Aydemir and Borjas (2011) also highlighted the role that sampling error can play in immigra- tion analyses.
Borjas (2003) provided the strongest criticism of regional studies and their limited displace- ment effects. Borjas argued that the US com- prised a national labor market. Looking within cohort-schooling-experience cells, Borjas found large, negative wage effects due to immigration. He measured that a 10% increase in immigrant labor supply reduced native weekly earnings by 3%–4%. Much of the recent literature has de- bated these methodologies and findings, with particular emphasis on how substitutable immi- grant and native workers are.15 A second debate is about the extent to which labor markets are national versus local in nature. Also, if a third factor (such as skill biased technological change) affects the wage structure at the same time when large numbers of less skilled immi- grants enter the host country, this could bias es- timates of the extent to which immigration caus- es native wage displacement effects.
The displacement evidence collected for Eu- rope is comparable to the US, although most European studies do not exploit natural experi- ments or other experimental settings. European studies are generally based on large influxes of immigrants into a specific country at a specific point in time, and the estimates could perhaps be characterized as descriptive rather than causal.
Most studies have examined the German ex- perience, typically finding only small wage ef- fects despite large immigration volumes.16 Im- pacts can again be different across native groups. DeNew and Zimmermann (1994b) found that unskilled wages in Germany declined as a result of immigration in the 1980s, whereas skilled wages increased. D'Amuri, Ottaviano and Peri
14 For example, Altonji and Card (1991), Card (2001), Peri (2007a), Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle (2010), and Kerr and Lincoln (2010).
15 For example, Peri (2007a), Ottaviano and Peri (2008, 2010), Cortes (2008), and Borjas, Grogger and Hanson (2008).
16 For example, Bauer (1998), Pischke and Velling (1994), and Winter-Ebmer and Zimmermann (1998).
16
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
(2010) found that the wage and employment dis- placement effects from 1990s immigration to Germany were concentrated among the immi- grants themselves, with little impact for natives. In a strong recent paper, Brücker and Jahn (2011) built a general equilibrium model that allowed wage setting. They concluded that a 1% increase in the German labor force through im- migration reduced wages by 0.1%, an elasticity comparable to the area-based studies in the US. Their long-run analysis suggested significant capital adjustment as well, so that average wag- es did not permanently decline.
The small wage elasticities also appear to hold for other European countries. One reason for small wage effects in Europe may be that im- migrants do not usually find work immediately. As discussed earlier, a large share of immigrants remains outside the labor force upon arrival. Second, the recent US work emphasizes the ex- tent to which immigrants and natives are substi- tutes. While comparative assessments do not exist, it seems likely that immigrants will be less substitutable in many European countries than in the US (e.g., greater language differences).17
4.3. Employment displacement effects
Table 7 catalogues a second set of European studies that consider possible employment dis- placement effects for natives by immigration (e.g., Zimmermann 1994). Similar to wages, there is little evidence for adverse employment effects, although Borjas (2003, 2009) did find very large displacement effects. The meta-sur- vey by Longhi, Nijkamp and Poot (2006) con- cluded that limited employment displacement has occurred. Interestingly, they found evidence
that employment displacement was more likely in Europe than in the US, and that to some de- gree employment displacement substituted for wage displacement. These differences, however, were small and not statistically precise.
Some European studies have also evaluated native unemployment rates, which can be more difficult to compare across countries. Theory also does not predict directly how rates of unem- ployment and employment will react (e.g., Friedberg and Hunt 1995). These studies again do not point to a significant trend. Bauer and Zimmermann (1999) calculated that native un- employment in the EU15 will increase by 0.2% if immigrants' share in the labor force increases by 1%. Gross (2002) argued that immigration would reduce France's long-run unemployment even if unemployment increased in the short run. Brücker and Jahn (2011) concluded that a 1% increase in the German labor force through im- migration raised unemployment by less than 0.1%. This latter finding is particularly striking given the size of the German immigration and the similar ethnic origins of the immigrants.
4.4. Conclusions and future research opportunities
The displacement literature is vast, and this pa- per has only touched on major points. The large majority of studies suggest that immigration does not exert significant effects on native labor market outcomes. Even large, sudden inflows of immigrants were not found to reduce native wages or employment significantly. Effects that do exist tend to be relatively small and concen- trated among natives or past immigrants that are close substitutes (e.g., Okkerse 2008). Overall, the limited substitutability of immigrants for na- tives in many European economies would sug- gest that displacement effects are likely to be small. It should be noted, however, that re- searchers are continuing to debate and refine the methodologies put forth by Borjas (2003) that find larger impacts.
While large, economy-wide displacement ef- fects appear unlikely, it is still possible that spe- cific sectors or population groups experience significant impacts from immigration. Studies
17 Additional research attempts to quantify the compre- hensive effect of immigration on the wages or employment of natives. This work combines elasticities, which are most directly transferable across countries, with levels of immi- gration. For example, Jaeger (1996) argued that US immi- gration in the 1980s reduced the real wages of high-school dropouts by 3%, or a third of the change during the decade. Card (2001) estimated that immigration to gateway US cities has reduced wage levels by 1%–3% or less. In a scenario of massive Eastern European immigration, Bauer and Zimmer- mann (1999) calculated that Western European wages would decline by at most 0.8%.
17
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
evaluating the potential displacement effects for the at-risk groups or sectors, especially those with strong empirical identification, would still have a place in the vast displacement literature.
Cross-country comparisons within Europe of- fer a great opportunity to refine these assess- ments. In particular, appropriately aligned data would allow a comparison of national labor mar- ket approaches and area-based studies. The in- tegration of datasets and country experiences could also allow simultaneous analysis of effects on sending and receiving countries (e.g., Chiqui- ar and Hanson 2005). Moreover, this setting al- lows for a comparison across countries in terms
of policy environments. For example, Angrist and Kugler (2003) found that European labor market rigidities exacerbated the negative im- pact of immigration on native employment. These labor market rigidities include, for exam- ple, centralized wage setting that does not allow for downward wage adjustment and restrictive employment protection laws. The move towards common policies with the integration of EU la- bor and product markets could potentially offer empirical footholds for causal assessments that have generally not been performed in the Euro- pean displacement studies.
Study Country Year Employment effect A. European studies Winkelmann and Zimmermann (1993) Germany 1974–84 Small negative employment effect Mühleisen and Zimmermann (1994) Germany 1982–89 None Pischke and Velling (1997) Germany 1986–89 Employment +2% Unemployment ±0% Hatzius (1994) Germany None Brucker and Jahn (2010) Germany 1975–2004 Unemployment +0.1% Velling (1995) Germany 1988–93 Employment rate +0.24% Gang and Rivera-Batiz (1994) Germany 1988 None Winter-Ebmer and Zweimüller (1997) Austria 1988–91 None Winter-Ebmer and Zimmermann (1998) Austria Employment −0.1% Germany Small negative employment effect Dolado et al. (1996) Spain Negative employment effect Hunt (1992) France 1968 Unemployment +0.2% Gross (2002) France 1975–95 Unemployment rate −0.16% Angrist and Kugler (2003) EEA 1983–99 Employment −0.07% to −0.02% B. North American and other studies Card (2001) USA 1989 Employment −0.12% Altonji and Card (1991) USA 1980 Employment rate −0.23% Friedberg (2001) Israel 1994 Employment −0.16%
Sources: Bauer and Zimmermann (1999), Friedberg and Hunt (1995), reported studies. Table shows change in native emp- loyment or unemployment due to a one percent increase in immigrants’ share of population or labor force unless otherwise stated.
Table 7. Survey of immigration's employment effect for natives
18
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
5. Immigration and public finances
This section turns to immigration's effects on the public finances of host countries. The first part analyzes the use of social benefits by immi- grants; the second part studies the net fiscal ef- fects of immigrants over their lifetimes. This area has been less studied and reviewed than the work on labor markets, but this is of central im- portance for European economies given the stronger social benefits provided compared to the US.
5.1. Immigrants and social benefits
A crucial determinant of the economic impact of immigration on the host country is the amount
of welfare services and other social benefits that immigrants consume. Weaker employment pros- pects may lead immigrants to depend more on social security and similar programs than na- tives. Moreover, social security programs in host countries are often more generous than in im- migrants' homelands. Borjas (1999a) and others have discussed possible "welfare magnet ef- fects" where migrants are drawn to countries with high social benefits. This section reviews empirical work on immigrants' use of social ben- efits in the US, Canada, and Northern Europe. The US studies discussed below were exception- ally influential, resulting in policy changes that reduced the welfare services available to immi- grants.
The earliest US studies concluded that immi- grant families used social benefits less frequent-
Country, Difference in probability Assimilation: Study Benefit type Year of benefit use Into or out of? A. European studies Blume and Verner (2007) Denmark 1984–99 1990: +56% to +300% Out of All income transfers 1999: +57% to +315% Hansen and Lofstrom (2003) Sweden 1990–96 1990: +160% to +418% Out of 1996: +117% to +583% B. North American studies Borjas and Trejo (1991) USA 1970 1970: −3% Into 1980 1980: +10% Hu (1998) USA 1980 1980: +36% Into, but refugees out of Social security 1990 1990: +26% Borjas (1995b) USA 1970 1970: −2% Into, but not for refugees 1980 1980: +10% 1990 1990: +20% Gustman and Steinmeier (2000) USA 1992 Men: −9% All types of support Women: +74% Baker and Benjamin (1995) Canada 1985 1985: −44% to −16% Into Unemployment benefit 1990 1990: −36% to +7% Canada 1985: −66% to −29% Into Social security 1990: −46% to +11% Canada 1985: −32% to +77% Out of Housing support 1990: −56% to +51%
Sources: Reported studies. Blume and Verner (2007) examined welfare dependence. Rate of dependence calculated as percentage of income from social security transfers.
Table 8. Survey of immigrants and social benefits
19
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
ly than otherwise similar American families; conditional on use, the intensity of benefits were similar (e.g., Blau 1984; Tienda and Jensen 1986). These studies used cross-sectional data from 1976 and 1980, respectively, and hence were unable to identify differences across mi- grant cohorts from changes in welfare use over duration of stay. More recent studies have relied on repeated cross-sections or panel data to dis- entangle assimilation effects. Table 8 surveys differences in the probability of social benefits use by immigrants relative to natives, and whether immigrants assimilate into or out of welfare. As an example, immigrants are reported to be 100% more likely to be welfare users if 10% of native families and 20% of immigrant families use social benefits. Thus, larger appar- ent differences can emerge vis-à-vis wage and employment estimations, especially if absolute use of benefits by natives is small. Most studies consider frequency of use; differences in inten- sity of use can raise or lower the estimated de- pendency.
Borjas and Trejo (1991) found that immi- grants' use of social benefits in the US increased dramatically in the 1970s. This was mainly due to the weaker labor market status of new immi- grant cohorts in the 1960s. Moreover, in contrast to earlier work, immigrants appeared to increase their use of social benefits with duration of stay. Assimilation into welfare may be due to im- proved knowledge of social institutions of the host country or the ending of legal restrictions on welfare use during the initial years of stay. Hu (1998) also emphasized that older US im- migrants used proportionally more social bene- fits than younger immigrants (in relative com- parison to natives of similar ages). Table 8 shows Hu's calculations for age groups 18-64, but she also found that benefits use by immi- grants over 55 years old increased from 18% to 64% in 1980–1990. The main determinant of benefits use was age at entry, and newer cohorts were found to use social benefits more than pre- vious cohorts throughout the age distribution. Education, language proficiency, and labor mar- ket success were also important determinants of welfare use.
Concerning the amount of social support re- ceived, Gustman and Steinmeier (2000) con-
cluded that immigrant males both use social benefits less frequently and receive smaller amounts than natives. The only benefit they used more was food stamps (10% of the total). Im- migrant women were more likely than natives to be on welfare and particularly social security; they received about 10% more support than na- tives. Gustman and Steinmeier calculated that immigrant men by retirement pay 76% of the taxes a comparable native male, but receive in pensions and social security 83% of the amount natives receive. The shares for women are more equal at 78% and 80%, respectively. Yet, larger differences again exist for later cohorts. Borjas and Trejo (1991) calculated that the average im- migrant family costs $13.5k for the welfare sys- tem over the course of their US stay, compared to the $7.9k cost of a native family.
Baker and Benjamin (1995) found the Cana- dian experience to be somewhat different. Im- migrants, apart from refugees, consumed less unemployment benefits, social security, and housing support than natives. They also found that immigrants assimilated towards higher ben- efit incidence with duration of stay, a result that Crossley, McDonald and Worswick (2001) later disputed. Crossley et al. also did not find evi- dence that more recent cohorts were more likely to be on unemployment insurance or social as- sistance than earlier cohorts. They concluded that estimates from cohort fixed-effects models were very sensitive to the choice of survey years. The fact that the Canadian results were so sensi- tive to the selection of immigrant cohorts and observation years speaks against relying on small data sets, especially those with only cross- sectional information or few time-series obser- vation points, for making conclusions on behav- ioral changes and trends over time spent in the host country. Their results also argue for careful specification selection and caution when using fixed effects specifications that rely on the com- mon time effect assumption to identify the effect of "years since migration".
Immigrants in most European countries rely more on social security and unemployment ben- efits relative to natives than in the US or Canada. Nordic countries enjoy the advantage of having access to population level data over longer peri- ods of time. Despite the high data quality, most
20
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
of the Nordic studies are not concerned with causal identification or issues such as selective re-migration, instead being more descriptive in nature. Sweden and Denmark are the most stud- ied Nordic countries. Immigrants in these coun- tries are 2–3 times more likely to be below the poverty line than natives, and Blume et al. (2003) found that disparities in immigrant-to- native poverty rates increased from the mid- 1980s to late 1990s.18 Immigrants received over 18% of social benefits in Denmark in 1999, even though their population share was less than 3% (Blume and Verner 2007). Büchel and Frick (2005) calculated that social benefits were the major income source for 40% of the Danish im- migrant population, five times higher than the native rate.
Hansen and Lofstrom (2003) took a deeper look at the causes of greater welfare reliance by immigrants and found that recent Swedish im- migrants used relatively more social security than they did in the 1980s; they traced this in- crease to changes in the volume and composi- tion of migrant flows and higher overall unem- ployment rates. In order to develop more useful policy recommendations they evaluate whether welfare usage is related to employability or pref- erences. They find that differences in observable traits do not explain the gap in welfare take-up rates between immigrants and natives. Immi- grants assimilate out of welfare in both Denmark and Sweden (Hansen and Lofstrom 2003; Blume and Verner 2007), but permanent differences ex- ist between immigrants and natives. Immigrants are 5%–8% more likely to receive social benefits than natives after 20 years of stay, which is com- parable to the 5%–7% differences measured for the US and Canada (e.g., Borjas and Hilton 1996; Baker and Benjamin 1995).
In a pan-European analysis, Büchel and Frick (2005) emphasized the considerable differences that exist across European countries. Immigrants
used social benefits much more than natives in Denmark, but relative usage levels were more similar in other countries. Most importantly, this study found that controlling for immigrant char- acteristics did not dramatically change this Eu- ropean heterogeneity. The higher benefit usage thus results more from policy and institutional differences across countries than the character- istics of migrants. Barrett and McCarthy (2008) further described the ambiguity in experiences regarding welfare usage by immigrants.
One issue with many of the welfare assimila- tion studies is the lack of separation between welfare eligibility and usage. In particular, most studies do not evaluate the extent to which vari- ous immigrant groups are eligible to work and/ or to receive welfare benefits in the host country. Changes in work eligibility over time might of- fer interesting insights in the reasons for the greater reliance on welfare by the immigrants. Similar to the wage and employment assimila- tion studies, welfare assimilation studies also suffer from the issue of selective re-migration that generally has not been accounted for. In ad- dition, none of the studies have estimated the extent to which welfare dependence is related to the "welfare magnet" effects versus employment obstacles such as discrimination, insufficient language skills, transferability of educational degrees and lack of work permits.
5.2. Aggregate impact on public finances
The evidence thus suggests that immigrants are more likely to use social benefits than natives in many Northern European countries. A central policy question is whether immigration burdens the host country's social benefits system, welfare services, education system, and health care sec- tor more than is covered by the taxes paid by the immigrants (OECD 2000). This impact of mi- gration for European public finance is particu- larly important given the predicted fiscal imbal- ances that will result from Europe's ageing populations. A number of studies evaluate the fiscal impacts of immigration, often concluding that the total economic impact on the host coun- try is relatively small. These calculations are very difficult, however, and it should be empha-
18 Approximately 10% and 15% of native Danes and Swe- des, respectively, were below the poverty line at the end of the 1990s. This compared to every third immigrant in Den- mark and every fourth immigrant in Sweden being below the line. The comparable US share for immigrants varies bet- ween 6% and 37% depending on migrant ethnicity (Borjas 1990). The Canadian share is between 8% and 32% (Kaze- mipur and Halli 2001).
21
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
sized that the estimates can vary substantially depending on assumptions, econometric meth- ods, discounting techniques, and data employed (Coppel, Dumont and Visco 2001, Rowthorn 2008). These challenges are summarized below.
There are two main techniques for evaluating the economic impact of immigration on public sectors. The first tradition employs a simple "immigration surplus method". This technique estimates a percentage GDP gain due to the growth in the supply of workers resulting from immigration. The technique has an intuitive derivation from a constant returns model and builds on the elasticity of demand for substi- tutes.19 The second approach applies genera- tional accounting methods (e.g., Auerbach and Kotlikoff 1987). This work estimates the total costs and benefits to the national economy caused by natives and immigrants, taking into account that these costs and benefits vary great- ly by stage of life. The calculation is based on assumptions about the taxes immigrants pay over their lifetime, the public goods and servic- es (including social benefits) they consume, and how long they live in the host country. The total economic impact is the discounted difference between tax payments and income transfers re- ceived for an immigrant over the duration in the host country.
The earliest studies on fiscal effects of immi- gration for the US yielded conflicting results. Passel and Clark (1994) calculated that immi- grants paid $27b more in taxes than the benefits they derived from the US social and education systems. By contrast, Huddle (1993) argued that immigrants represented an annual net cost of $40b in 1992. Borjas (1995a) criticized the ear- lier studies for making unreasonable assump- tions. He estimated the net impact of immigra- tion to range from a $16b cost to a $60b benefit depending on the assumptions made. This work highlighted the sensitivity of fiscal estimates to the methods employed. In a later study, Borjas (2001) argued that the positive effects of immi- gration are created by improved labor market efficiency, with gains accruing to natives be- tween $5b and $10b. More recent US studies
have calculated that the average net cost or ben- efit of a single immigrant is very small.20
In perhaps the most relevant study from the US, Storesletten (2000) calculated that one im- migrant provides a net benefit of only $7.4k over his lifetime. More importantly, Storesletten also modelled the large heterogeneity across migrant groups. Highly-educated immigrants provide new human capital, often succeed in the US la- bor market, and pay more in taxes than they use in public goods and services. Uneducated and elderly immigrants tend to cause large net eco- nomic costs to society. The calculated differ- ences can be striking, ranging from a net $36k cost to $96k benefit depending upon the educa- tion level of the migrant. Storesletten (2000) also noted that family migration may reduce the estimated benefits of immigration. A typical fig- ure of the discounted social net value by migrant age is given in Figure 2. The figure demonstrates that even though migrants initially represent a net cost to the society, this cost is smaller and lasts a much shorter time than the initial cost of a newborn native that has to be schooled. In- deed, by comparison, a newly-born native rep- resented a discounted net cost of $80k. As the initial societal cost of newborn natives is so great, immigrants in their 20s and 30s are attrac- tive from a fiscal perspective.
The generational accounting studies (such as Storesletten 2000) typically ignore the impact of immigrants on the natives, including any wage and employment displacement effects. Based on the modest impacts found in the displacement literature discussed above, this may not be such a great omission, but should certainly be recog- nized in each study. Despite this omission, Storesletten (2000) provides one of the most careful and credible calculations of the total fis- cal cost of immigration.
External validity is always a concern for im- migration studies given the unique circumstanc- es of each country. This is certainly true for fis- cal impacts, as most European countries have a much larger public sector than the US. Public expenditures in the US account for about 36%
19 For example, Borjas (1995a), Freeman (2006), and Drinkwater et al. (2007).
20 For example, Lee and Miller (2000), Smith and Edmon- ton (1997), Auerbach and Oreopoulos (1999), and Storeslet- ten (2000).
22
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Age
T h
o u
s a
n d
d o
lla r
Educated Migrates with family No return migration
s
of GDP, whereas the European average is 48%. This higher public share likely increases the Eu- ropean costs of immigration, as most public goods are consumed proportionately by natives and immigrants. Moreover, immigrants have had less success in European labor markets com- pared to the US, which reduces the realized eco- nomic benefits of immigration.
Storesletten (2003) repeated his earlier analy- sis for Sweden and estimated that the average immigrant to Sweden represented a net cost of euro 20k for the public sector, but the variation across different groups of immigrants was very wide. Young immigrants produced a net gain of euro 24k, whereas immigrants over the age of 50 represented a large net cost. The results again depended greatly on how the immigrants fared in the labor market. It is therefore crucial to evaluate the labor market success in terms of participation and employment rates as discussed earlier. Gustafsson and Österberg (2001) found that more recent immigrants and refugees had weaker labor market attachment and caused much higher costs than immigrants who had been in Sweden for more than five years.
Policy studies of the Netherlands reached similar conclusions to the Swedish experience. Roodenburg, Eurwals and ter Rele (2003) also found that the fiscal net effects varied greatly by
immigrant group but that the average impact re- mained small. Those who immigrated at a young age or came from a western society produced a net gain, but all other groups represented a net fiscal cost. Moreover, the authors found immi- gration benefited capital owners. Knaap et al. (2003) supported these conclusions: even if all immigrants had the same level of education as the average native, the net fiscal benefit was only marginal. In reality, immigrants had much lower average education levels, so the possible benefits were also lower. The pessimistic view was a result of the extensive public expenditure on goods and services. Immigrants were calcu- lated as consumers of these services whether or not they paid taxes.
Turning to Germany, a policy study by Sinn and Werding (2001) concluded that immigration represented a net fiscal burden to Germany, at least in 1997, even though long-term immigrants who stayed over 25 years produced a net sur- plus. Bonin, Raffelhueschen and Walliser (2000) and Bonin (2001) argued that immigrants yield a small net benefit for the public sector over their whole lifespans due to their young average arrival age and the manner through which the German pension system was tied to earned in- come. Moscarola (2003) and Ablett, Kotlikoff and Leibfritz (1999) similarly estimated that
Figure 2. Discounted net value of immigration in the US Source: Storesletten (2000).
23
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Italy and Australia, respectively, benefited from the taxes paid by immigrants relative to the cost they represent.
It should be noted that the above studies make various assumptions about how public expendi- tures on goods such as national defense and in- frastructure are divided among natives and im- migrants. It is often assumed that pure public goods are produced regardless, so that the con- sumption of a single immigrant does not increase expenditures. Other studies assumed that both natives and immigrants consume equal amounts of such public goods. Rowthorn (2008) reviewed these differences and concluded that in the great majority of countries the net fiscal impact was, positive or negative, less than 1% of GDP.
5.3. Conclusions and future research opportunities
Research on the role of immigrants in the labor market mostly yields consistent findings across countries and experiences: recent migrants have lower earnings than natives, there is partial con- vergence with duration of stay, displacement ef- fects tend to be small, the most affected groups are close substitutes, etc. The literature on pub- lic finances does not allow as many definitive conclusions. It is clear that recent immigrants to Northern Europe are likely on average to use more social benefits than natives, especially in the case of refugees. Likewise, it is very clear that the net social impact of an immigrant over his or her lifetime depends substantially and in predictable ways on the immigrant's age at ar- rival, education, reason for migration, and simi- lar.
But strong conclusions on other dimensions are not forthcoming. Studies find conflicting evidence on whether immigrants increase or re- duce social benefit usage with duration of stay. The estimated net fiscal impact of migrants also varies substantially across studies, but the over- all magnitudes relative to the GDP remain mod- est. This variance is partly due to different set- tings and policies, but also due to differences in methodology and assumptions. The more cred- ible analyses typically find small fiscal effects. It is likely that most future research in this area
will continue to evaluate the fiscal impacts of immigration on a country-specific basis. Inter- esting comparisons might be provided by coun- tries that traditionally have had a very selective migration policy, especially to the extent that they have been able to attract the most econom- ically profitable immigrants.
Two future research areas for public finances and immigration are return migration and remit- tances. Calculations of fiscal impacts often as- sume that immigrants remain in the host country after arrival; use of services and taxes paid are estimated through cross-sectional patterns. Go- ing forward, these calculations need to consider more Europe's high rates of return migration and the selective outflow based upon assimilation. This would provide a better estimate of the mean effect and also characterize the heterogeneity in immigrant types. Likewise, the rapid growth in remittances can affect public finances. Many foreign workers transfer money to their home countries, and the World Bank estimated total flows of about $300b in 2008. Carling (2008) described European patterns. To the extent that remittances remove demand from the host coun- try, some fiscal benefits of migrants weaken.
6. Emerging areas of immigration research
The literatures on how immigration affects the labor markets and public finances of host coun- tries are the most developed. This survey closes by highlighting several areas of new research that should be extended to the European context.
The first focuses on how immigrants impact housing prices and rents. Saiz (2003, 2007) showed that US housing prices rise with immi- gration at the city level. Moreover, the elasticity is about one, or ten times larger than that found in comparable labor market studies.21 Evalua- tions of immigration and housing prices within Europe would help collaborate and extend these US findings. The estimated elasticities may even
21 On the other hand, Saiz and Wachter (2010) found that growth in immigrants at the neighborhood-level within cities was associated with lower housing price appreciation.
24
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
be stronger, for example, due to limited building space in small countries vis-à-vis the US. Gon- zalez and Ortega (2009) find a similar effect in Spain, calculating that immigration could ac- count for a third of Spain's recent housing boom. This would suggest enormous effects of immi- gration on the economy through a very under- studied channel.
Other research shows, however, that the gen- eral effect of immigration on price levels is am- biguous. Similar to housing, aggregate demand for consumer goods in the short run grows with a larger population. If supply adjusts slowly, with housing being a prominent example, then short-run prices are likely to increase. Yet, im- migrants may also affect the composition of consumers. Lach (2007) studied the massive in- flow of Russian Jewish immigrants into Israel in the early 1990s, and evaluated their impact on store level prices of consumer price index goods. He found that even in the short-run immigrants resulted in lower and more uniform prices be- cause the immigrants had a greater demand elas- ticity and lower search costs than the existing population. This contrast to the housing studies is very interesting.
Related, recent work quantifies how the sup- ply of immigrant employment affects relative price levels across goods (and thus the consump- tion bundles of natives). Cortes (2008) found that a 10% increase in the share of low-skill im- migrants in the labor force at the US city level decreased the price of immigrant-intensive ser- vices by 2%. Prominent examples included housekeeping and gardening. This reduction was primarily through lower wages paid to immi- grants. Her work built off of a small open econ- omy model, and examining comparable effects across European economies would be very inter- esting. Frattini (2008) provided recent, compa- rable evidence from the UK. The variations in immigrant types across European economies would also provide empirical traction into sepa- rating the mechanisms behind these effects (e.g., refugees who are restricted from work but pur- chase goods and services). They are also impor- tant inputs into better general equilibrium frame- works along the tradition of Greenwood and Hunt (1995).
A final area of work investigates the role of immigrants in US innovation (e.g., Stephan and Levin 2001). Immigrants represented 24% and 47% of the US science and engineering (SE) workforce with bachelor's and doctorate educa- tions in the 2000 Census, respectively. This con- tribution was significantly higher than the 12% share of immigrants in the US working popula- tion. Kerr and Lincoln (2010) calculated that immigrant SE workers accounted for more than half of the net increase in the US SE labor force since 1995. Several studies further connect high- skill immigration to growth in innovation by city or state.22 The available evidence suggests that this is mainly due to high-skill immigrants being more involved in SE (e.g., Hunt 2010), with lim- ited evidence of crowding-out of natives. How- ever, mirroring to some extent the wage dis- placement studies discussed earlier, Borjas (2009) argued that native displacement from SE Ph.D. fields occurred due to immigration.
Within the European context, most papers have analyzed the extent to which high-skilled natives emigrate and to where (e.g., Saint-Paul 2004, Constant and D'Agosto 2008). Less stud- ied are the directions of flows within Europe, and the role of universities and R&D spending by countries in shaping these patterns. The Hunter, Oswald and Charlton (2009) study of the migration of prominent physicists is an im- portant step in this direction. Likewise, the im- pact of location on productivity is just being discerned (e.g., Kahn and MacGarvie 2009). Given higher rates of return migration from the US, these issues will continue to grow in impor- tance.23
7. Conclusions
The economic literature on migration is an evolving research tradition with strong relevance
22 For example, Peri (2007b), Kerr and Lincoln (2010), and Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle (2010).
23 The broader literature on the "brain drain" effect typi- cally focuses on non-European experiences. Lucas (2005), Freeman (2006), and Kerr (2008a) provide further referen- ces.
25
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
for policy choices. This survey has presented recent findings on the economic impacts of im- migration for host countries, with particular em- phasis on Northern European experiences. Im- migration levels and flows for some Northern European countries have a relative strength on par with traditional destination countries like the US. These significant economic magnitudes, combined with Europe's ageing population, make immigration a first-order policy question and research concern. Empirical lessons are drawn from several literature strands.
First, evaluations of immigrants' success in host-country labor markets are often based on comparisons of immigrant wages and employ- ment to natives at the time of entry and over the duration of the stay. While the US literature has concentrated on wages, more European studies analyze employment assimilation. Typically, im- migrants are found to experience lower employ- ment and wages than natives at entry. Even though these differences are likely to diminish over the duration of a migrant's stay, recent co- horts are expected to experience permanently weaker labor market success. This is particu- larly clear in European countries.
The likelihood and magnitude of adverse labor market effects for natives from immigration are substantially weaker than often perceived. With- in the large empirical literature looking at the effects of immigration on native employment and wages, most studies find only minor dis- placement effects even after very large immi- grant flows. On the other hand, some more re- cent studies have found larger effects, and many studies note that the negative effects are concen- trated on certain parts of the native population. The parts of the population most typically af- fected are the less-educated natives or the ear- lier immigrant cohorts—that is, those who are the closest substitutes to the new immigrant flow currently experienced by Europe.
The survey next looked at social benefits use by immigrants. As immigrants are more often outside of the labor force or unemployed, it has been assumed that they spend more time on wel- fare and other forms of social assistance com- pared to natives. This assumption is not uni- formly confirmed by the literature, however. Welfare dependency varies across immigrant
types in predictable ways, and the recent immi- grants to many European countries are more likely to use social assistance upon arrival. But countries differ substantially on levels of use and whether immigrants assimilate into or out of welfare. This is due primarily to policy and in- stitutional differences across nations.
Immigration is often viewed as a large fiscal burden for European public finances—or as a possible saviour if correctly harnessed. This has been palpable in the recent political atmospheres of France, Italy, and Germany, for instance. Most empirical studies, however, estimate the fiscal impacts of immigration to be very small. There certainly exist large differences across migrant groups in the costs and benefits they cause for a host country; the net impact depends heavily on the migrant's age, education, and du- ration of stay. On average, immigrants appear to have a minor positive net fiscal effect for host countries. Of course, these benefits are not uni- formly distributed across the native population and sectors of the economy.
The literature on the economic impacts of im- migration has come a long way, making theo- retical and empirical advances on multiple di- mensions. This survey has sought to balance the extensive research regarding the experiences of traditional host countries like the US with more recent European studies. This balance is impor- tant given the substantial differences that exist in European labor markets, welfare systems, and recent migration flows. Both literatures aid in the development of appropriate immigration policies for European countries. Despite persis- tent data constraints and econometric challeng- es, many of the short-run effects for labor mar- ket outcomes and public finances can be forecast reasonably well. Future research around key factors like re-migration is essential so that long-term impacts are better understood.
References
Ablett, J., L.J. Kotlikoff, and W. Leibfritz (1999). “Gen- erational accounting in Australia.” In Generational Ac- counting around the World, 141–160. Eds. A. Auerbach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Aleksynska, M., and Y. Algan (2011). “Conclusion: As- similation and integration of immigrants in Europe.” In Cultural and Economic Integration in Europe. Eds. Y. Algan, A. Bisin, A. Manning, and T. Verdier. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
Algan, Y., C. Dustmann, A. Glitz, and A. Manning (2010). “The economic situation of first- and second-generation immigrants in France, Germany, and the UK.” Econom- ic Journal 120, 4–30.
Altonji, J., and D. Card (1991). “The effects of immigra- tion on the labor market outcomes of less-skilled na- tives.” In Immigration, Trade and the Labor Market, 201–234. Eds. J. Abowd and R. Freeman. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
Angrist, J., and A. Krueger (1999). “Empirical strategies in labor economics.” In The Handbook of Labor Eco- nomics. Vol. 3, 1277–1366. Eds. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Angrist, J., and A. Kugler (2003). “Protective or counter- protective? Labor market institutions and the effect of immigration on EU natives.” Economic Journal 113, 302–331.
Antecol, H., D. Cobb-Clark D., and S. Trejo (2003). “Im- migration policy and the skills of immigrants to Aus- tralia, Canada and the United States.” Journal of Human Resources 38, 193–218.
Arai, M., and R. Vilhelmsson (2004). “Immigrants' and natives' unemployment-risk: Productivity differentials or discrimination.” Industrial Relations 43, 690–698.
Åslund, O., and D.-O. Rooth (2007). “Do when and where matter? Initial labor market conditions and immigrant earnings.” Economic Journal 117, 422-448. (See also Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU) Working Paper 2003:7.)
Auerbach, A., and L. Kotlikoff (1987). Dynamic Fiscal Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Auerbach, A., and P. Oreopoulos (1999). “Analyzing the fiscal impact of U.S. immigration.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89, 176–180.
Aydemir, A., and G. Borjas (2011). “Attenuation bias in measuring the wage impact of immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 29, 69–113.
Aydemir, A., and G. Borjas (2007). “Cross-country varia- tion in the impact of international migration: Canada, Mexico, and the United States.” Journal of the European Economic Association 5, 663–708.
Baker, M., and D. Benjamin (1995). “The receipt of trans- fer payments by immigrants to Canada.” Journal of Hu- man Resources 30, 650–676.
Baker, M., and D. Benjamin (1994). “The performance of immigrants in the Canadian labor market.” Journal of Labor Economics 12, 369–405.
Barrett, A., and Y. McCarthy (2008). “Immigrants and welfare programmes: Exploring the interactions between immigrant characteristics, immigrant welfare depend- ence, and welfare policy.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 542–559.
Bauer, T. (1998). Arbeitsmarkteffekte der Migration und einwanderungspolitik: Eine Analyse für die Bun- desrepublik Deutschland. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Bauer, T. (1997). Lohneffecte der Zuwanderung: Eine Em- pirische Untersuchung für Deutschland. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Bauer, T., and K. Zimmermann (1999). Assessment of possible migration pressure and its labour market impact following EU enlargement to Central and Eastern Eu- rope. IZA Research Reports 3.
Bell, B. (1997). “The performance of immigrants in the United Kingdom: Evidence from the GHS.” Economic Journal 107, 333–344.
Bellemare, C. (2003). Economic assimilation and out mi- gration of immigrants in West Germany earnings. Dis- cussion Paper 65, Tilburg University, Centre for Eco- nomic Research.
Bisin, A., E. Patacchin., T. Verdier, and Y. Zenou (2008). “Are Muslim immigrants different in terms of cultural integration?” Journal of the European Economic Asso- ciation 6, 445–456.
Blau, F. (1984). “The use of transfer payments by immi- grants.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37, 222–239.
Blau, F., L. Kahn, J. Moriarty, and A. Portela Souza (2003). “The role of family in immigrants' labor market activity: An evaluation of alternative explanations.” American Economic Review 93, 429–447. (See also NBER Working Paper 9051.)
Blume, K., B. Gustafsson, P. Pedersen, and M. Verner (2003). “A tale of two countries: Poverty among immi- grants in Denmark and Sweden since 1984.” In Interna- tional Migration and Asylum. Eds. G. Borjas and T. Shorrocks. (See also WIDER Discussion Paper 36.)
Blume, K., and M. Verner (2007). “Welfare dependency among Danish immigrants.” European Journal of Po- litical Economy 23, 453–471.
Bodvarsson, O., and H. Van den Berg (2009). The Eco- nomics of Immigration. Heidelberg: Springer.
Boeri, T., and H. Brücker (2005). “Why are Europeans so tough on migrants?” Economic Policy 20, 629–703.
Bonin, H. (2001). “Fiscale effecte der zuwanderung nach Deutschland: Eine generationsbilanz.” Finanzarchiv 57, 1–21.
Bonin, H., B. Raffelhueschen, and J. Walliser (2000). “Can immigration alleviate demographic burden?” Ap- plied Economics Quarterly, Supplement 52, 127–156.
Borjas, G. (2009). “Immigration in high-skill labor markets: The impact of foreign students on the earning of doctor- ates.” In Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, 131– 161. Eds. R. Freeman and D. Goroff. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press. (See also NBER Working Paper 12085.)
Borjas, G. (2003). “The labor demand curve is downward sloping: Reexamining the impact of immigration on the
27
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
labor market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 1335–1374.
Borjas, G. (2001). “Does immigration grease the wheels of the labor market?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activ- ity 1, 69–134.
Borjas, G. (1999a). “Immigration and welfare magnets.” Journal of Labor Economics 17, 607–637.
Borjas, G. (1999b). Heaven's Door. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Borjas, G. (1999c). “The economic analysis of immigra- tion.” In Handbook on Labor Economics. Vol. 3A, 1697– 1760. Eds. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Borjas, G. (1995a). “The economic benefits from immigra- tion.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 3–22.
Borjas, G. (1995b). “Immigration and welfare, 1970— 1990.” Research in Labor Economics 14, 251–280.
Borjas, G. (1994). “Economics of immigration.” Journal of Economic Literature 32, 1667–1717.
Borjas, G. (1993). “Immigration policy, national origin and immigrant skills: A comparison of Canada and the Unit- ed States.” In Small Differences that Matter, 21–44. Eds. D. Card and R. Freeman. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Borjas, G. (1990). Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Im- migration on the U.S. Economy. New York: Basic Books.
Borjas, G. (1985). “Assimilation, changes in cohort quality and the earnings of immigrants.” Journal of Labor Eco- nomics 3, 463–489.
Borjas, G., R. Freeman, and L. Katz (1997). “How much do immigration and trade affect labor market out- comes?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 1–90.
Borjas, G., R. Freeman, and L. Katz (1992). “On the labor market impacts of immigration and trade.” In Immigra- tion and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and the Source Areas, 213 - 244. Eds. G. Borjas and R. Freeman R. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Borjas, G., J. Grogger, and G. Hanson (2008). Imperfect substitution between immigrants and natives: A reap- praisal. Working Paper.
Borjas, G., and L. Hilton (1996). “Immigrants and the wel- fare state: Immigrant participation in means-tested enti- tlement programs.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, 575–604.
Borjas, G., and S. Trejo (1991). “Immigrant participation in the welfare system.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44, 195–211.
Brücker, H., and F. Jahn (2011). “Migration and wage- setting: Reassessing the labor market effects of migra- tion.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 113, 286– 317.
Büchel, F., and J. Frick (2005). “Immigrants' economic performance across Europe – Does immigration policy matter?” Population Research and Policy Review 24,
175–212. (See also EPAC Working Paper 42, University of Colchester.)
Butcher, K., and J. DiNardo J. (2002). “The immigrant and native-born wage distributions: Evidence from the Unit- ed States censuses.” Industrial and Labor Relations Re- view 56, 97–121. (See also NBER Working Paper 6630.)
Card, D. (2005). “Is the new immigration really so bad?” Economic Journal 115, F300–323.
Card, D. (2001). “Immigrant inflows, native outflows, and the local labor market impacts of higher immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19, 22–64.
Card, D. (1990). “The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labor market.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43, 245–257.
Card, D., and J. DiNardo (2000). “Do immigrant inflows lead to native out-flows?” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90, 360–367.
Card, D., and E. Lewis (2007). “The diffusion of Mexican immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and im- pacts.” In Mexican Immigration, 193–228. Ed. G. Borjas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carliner, G. (1980). “Wages, earnings and hours of first, second and third generation American males.” Econom- ic Inquiry 18, 87–102.
Carling, J. (2008). “The determinants of migrant remit- tances.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 581–598.
Cervantes, M., and D. Guellec (2002). The brain drain: Old myths, new realities. OECD Observer, May 2002.
Chiquiar, D., and G. Hanson (2005). “International migra- tion, self-selection, and the distribution of wages: Evi- dence from Mexico and the United States.” Journal of Political Economy 113, 239–281.
Chiswick, B. (1991). “Speaking, reading and earnings among low-skilled immigrants.” Journal of Labor Eco- nomics 9, 149–170.
Chiswick, B. (1986). “Is the new immigration less skilled than the old?” Journal of Labor Economics 4, 168–192.
Chiswick, B. (1978). “The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men.” Journal of Political Economy 86, 897–921.
Chiswick, B., Y. Cohen,. and T. Zach (1997). “The labor market status of immigrants: Effects of unemployment rate at arrival and duration of residence.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50, 289–303.
Chiswick, B., and P. Miller (2005). “Do enclaves matter in immigrant adjustment?” City and Community 4, 5–35. (See also IZA Discussion Paper 449.)
Chiswick, B., and P. Miller (1995). “The endogeneity be- tween language and earnings: International analyses.” Journal of Labor Economics 13, 246–288.
Chiswick, B., and P. Miller (1992): “Language and the la- bor market: The immigrant experience in Canada and the United States.” In Immigration, Language and Ethnic issues: Canada and the United States. Ed. B. Chiswick. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
Chiswick, B., and P. Miller (1988). “Earnings in Canada: The roles of immigrant generation, French ethnicity and
28
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
language.” In Research in Population Economics, 183– 228 . Ed. P. Schulz. New York: JAI Press.
Clark, K., and S. Drinkwater (2008). “The labour-market performance of recent migrants.” Oxford Review of Eco- nomic Policy 24, 495–516.
Coleman, D. (2008). “The demographic effects of interna- tional migration in Europe.” Oxford Review of Econom- ic Policy 24, 452–476.
Coleman, D. (1993). “Contrasting age structures of Western Europe and of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: Demographic curiosity of labor resource.” Popu- lation and Development Review 19, 523–555.
Constant, A., and E. D'Agosto (2008). “Where do the brainy Italians go?” In The Labour Market Impact of the EU Enlargement, 247–271. Eds. F.E. Caroleo and F. Pas- tero. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Constant, A., and D. Massey (2005). “Labor market seg- mentation and the earnings of German guest workers.” Population Research and Policy Review 24, 489–512. (See also IZA Discussion Paper 774.)
Constant, A., and D. Massey (2003). “Self-selection, earn- ings, and out-migration: A longitudinal study of immi- grants to Germany.” Journal of Population Economics 16, 631–653.
Coppel, J., J.-C. Dumont, and I. Visco (2001). Trends in immigration and economic consequences. OECD Eco- nomics Department Working Paper 284.
Cortes, P. (2008). “The effect of low-skilled immigration on US prices: Evidence from CPI data.” Journal of Political Economy 116, 381–422.
Crossley, T., J. McDonald, and C. Worswick (2001). “Im- migrant benefit receipt revisited: Sensitivity to the choice of survey years and model specification.” Journal of Human Resources 36, 379–397.
D'Amuri, F., G. Ottaviano, and G. Peri (2010). ”The labor market impact of immigration in Western Germany in the 1990's.” European Economic Review 54, 550–570.
DeNew, J,. and K. Zimmermann (1994a). “Native wage impacts of foreign labor: A random effects panel analy- sis.” Journal of Population Economics 7, 177–192.
DeNew, J., and K. Zimmermann (1994b). “Blue collar labor vulnerability: Wage impacts of migration.” In Eco- nomic Consequences of Immigration to Germany, 81– 100. Eds. G. Steinmann and R. Urich. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Dolado, J., R. Duce, and J. Jimeno (1996). The effects of migration on the relative demand of skilled versus un- skilled labour: Evidence from Spain. CEPR Discussion Paper 1476.
Drinkwater, S., P. Levine, E. Lotti, and J. Pearlman (2007). “The immigration surplus revisited in a general equilibrium model with endogenous growth.” Journal of Regional Science 47, 569–601.
Dustmann, C. (2003). “Return migration, wages differen- tials and the optimal migration duration.” European Eco- nomic Review 47, 353–367.
Dustmann, C. (1996). “Return migration: The European experience.” Economic Policy 22, 215–250.
Dustmann, C. (1994). “Speaking fluency, writing fluency and earnings of migrants.” Journal of Population Eco- nomics 7,133–156.
Dustmann, C., and F. Fabbri (2003). “Language profi- ciency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK.” Economic Journal 113, 695–717.
Dustmann, C., and A. Glitz (2005). Immigration, jobs and wages: Theory, evidence and opinion. London: Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration.
Dustmann, C., A. Glitz, and T. Frattini (2008). “The la- bour market impacts of immigration.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 477–494.
Dustmann, C., and A. van Soest (2002). “Language and the earnings of immigrants.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55, 473–492.
Dustmann, C., and Y. Weiss (2007). “Return migration: Theory and empirical evidence for the UK.” British Journal of Industrial Economics 45, 236–256.
Edin. P.-A., P. Fredriksson, and O. Åslund (2003). “Ethnic enclaves and the economic success of immigrants: Evi- dence from a natural experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 329–357.
Edin, P.-A., R. LaLonde, and O. Åslund (2000). “Emigra- tion of immigrants and measures of immigrant assimila- tion: Evidence from Sweden.” Swedish Economic Policy Review 7, 163–204.
Ekberg, J. (1999). “Immigration and the public sector: In- come effects for the native population in Sweden.” Jour- nal of Population Economics 12, 411–430.
Ekberg, J. (1994). “Economic progress of immigrants in Sweden from 1970 to 1990: A longitudinal study.” Scan- dinavian Journal of Social Welfare 3, 148–157.
Ekberg, J. (1991). Vad hände sedan? En studie av utrikes födda på arbetsmarknaden. ACTA Wexionesia, Serie 2, Economy and Politics, Växjö.
Eurostat (2009). Population and Social Conditions. Eurostat (2008). Europa database, http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu. Eurostat (2006). EU Integration Seen Through Statistics. Eurostat (2003). Labour Force Survey. Eurostat (2002). Labour Force Survey. Evans. M. (1986). “Sources of immigrants' language profi-
ciency: Australian results with comparison to Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America.” European Sociological Review 2, 226–236.
Facchini, G., and A.M. Mayda (2009). The political econ- omy of immigration policy. United Nations Human De- velopment Report.
Faini, R. and A. Venturini (1993). “Trade aid and migra- tions, some basic policy issues.” European Economic Review 37, 435–442.
Feldstein, M. (2006). The effects of the ageing European population on economic growth and budgets: Implica- tions for immigration and other policies. NBER Working Paper 12736.
29
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Fertig, M., and C. Schmidt (2001). “Aggregate-level mi- gration studies as a tool for forecasting future migration streams.” In International Migration: Trends, Policy and Economic Impact, 111–138. Ed. S. Djajic. London/New York: Routledge.
Frattini, T. (2008). Immigration and prices in the UK. Working Paper.
Freeman, R. (2006). “People flows in globalization.” Jour- nal of Economic Perspectives 20, 145–170.
Friedberg, R. (2001). “The impact of mass migration on the Israeli labor market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, 1373–1408.
Friedberg, R., and J. Hunt (1995). “The impact of immi- grants on host country wages, employment and growth.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 23–44.
Funkhouser, E., and S. Trejo (1995). “The labor market skills of recent male immigrants: Evidence from the Current Population Survey.” Industrial and Labor Rela- tions Review 48, 792–811.
Gang, I., and F. Rivera-Batiz (1994). “Labor market effects of immigration in the United States and Europe: Substi- tution vs. complementarity.” Journal of Population Eco- nomics 7, 157–175.
Goldin, C. (1994). “The political economy of immigration restriction in the United States, 1890–1921.” In The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy, 223–258. Eds. C. Goldin and G. Libecap. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.
Gonzalez, L., and F. Ortega (2009). Immigration and hous- ing booms: Evidence from Spain. IZA Working Paper 4333.
Grant, M. (1999). “Evidence of new immigrant assimilation in Canada.” Canadian Economic Journal 32, 930–955.
Greenwood, M., and G. Hunt (1995). “Economic effects of immigrants on native and foreign-born workers: Com- plementarity, substitutability, and other channels of in- fluence.” Southern Economic Journal Literature 61, 1076–1097.
Greenwood, M., and J. McDowell (1986). “The factor- market consequences of US immigration.” Journal of Economic Literature 24, 1738–1772.
Gross, D. (2002). “Three million foreigners, three million unemployed? Immigration flows and the labor market in France.” Applied Economics 34, 1969–1983.
Grossman, J. (1982). “The substitutability of natives and immigrants in production.” Review of Economics and Statistics 64, 596–603.
Gustafsson, B., and T. Österberg (2001). “Immigrants and the public sector budget – Accounting exercise for Swe- den.” Journal of Population Economics 14, 689–708.
Gustman, A., and T. Steinmeier (2000). “Social security benefits of immigrants and the U.S. born.” In Issues in the Economics of Immigration, 309–350. Ed. G. Borjas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hammarstedt, M. (2003). “Income from work among im- migrants to Sweden.” Review of Income and Wealth 49, 185–203.
Hansen, J., and M. Lofstrom (2003). “Immigrant assimila- tion and welfare participation: Do immigrants assimilate into or out-of welfare?” Journal of Human Resources 38, 74–98.
Hatton, T., and J. Williamson (1998). The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Impacts. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Pres.
Hatzius, J. (1994). “The unemployment and earnings effect of German immigration.” University of Oxford Applied Economics Preprints 165.
Hu, W.-Y. (1998). “Elderly immigrants on welfare.” Journal of Human Resources 33, 711–741.
Huddle, D. (1993). The Costs of Immigration. Rice Univer- sity.
Hunt, J. (2010). “Which immigrants are most innovative and entrepreneurial? Distinctions by entry visa.” Journal of Labor Economics, forthcoming.
Hunt, J. (1992). “The impact of the 1962 repatriates from Algeria on the French labor market.” Industrial and La- bor Relations Review 45, 556–572.
Hunt, J., and M. Gauthier-Loiselle (2010). “How much does immigration boost innovation?, American Eco- nomic Journal: Macroeconomics 2, 31–56.
Hunter, R., A. Oswald, and B. Charlton (2009). “The elite brain drain.” The Economic Journal 119, F231–F251
IOM (1998). Migration Potential in Central and Eastern Europe. Geneve: International Organization for Migra- tion.
IOM (1991). Ninth IOM Seminar on Migration: North- South Migration. International Migration 29.
Jaeger, D. (1996). Skill differences and the effect of immi- grants on the wages of the natives. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Working Paper 273.
Kahn, S., and M. MacGarvie (2009). How important is location for research in science? Working Paper.
Kazemipur, A., and S. Halli (2001). “Immigrants and “new poverty”: The case of Canada.” International Migration Review 35, 1129–1156.
Kerr, W. (2008a). “Ethnic scientific communities and inter- national technology diffusion.” Review of Economics and Statistics 90, 518–537.
Kerr, W. (2008b). “The agglomeration of US ethnic inven- tion.” In Agglomeration Economics, 237–276. Ed. E. Glaeser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kerr, W. (2007). The ethnic composition of US inventors. HBS Working Paper 08-006.
Kerr, W., and W. Lincoln (2010). “The supply side of in- novation: H-1B visas and US ethnic invention.” Journal of Labor Economics 28, 473–508.
Knaap, T., A. Bovenberg, L. Bettendorf, and D. Broer (2003). Vergrijzning, aanvullende pensionen en de Ned- erlandse economie. Ocfeb Studies in Economic Policy 7, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Lach, S. (2007). “Immigration and prices.” Journal of Po- litical Economy 115, 548–587.
LaLonde, R., and R. Topel (1992). “The assimilation of immigrants in the U.S. labor market.” In Immigration
30
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and the Source Areas, 67–92. Eds. G. Bor- jas and R. Freeman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LaLonde, R., and R. Topel (1991). “Immigrants in the American labor market: Quality, assimilation, and dis- tributional effects.” American Economic Review 81, 297–302.
Layard, R., O. Blanchard, R. Dornbusch, and P. Krug- man (1992). East-West Migration: The Alternatives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lee, R., and T. Miller (2000). “Immigration, social secu- rity and broader impacts.” American Economic Review 90, 350–354.
Lewis, E. (2010). “Immigration, skill mix, and capital-skill complementarity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.
Long, L.H., C.J. Tucker, and W.L. Urton (1988). “Migra- tion distances, an international comparison.” Demogra- phy 25, 633–640.
Longhi, S., P. Nijkamp, and J. Poot. (2008). “Meta-analy- sis of empirical evidence on the labor market impacts of immigration.” Region et Developpement 27, 161–190. (See also IZA Working Paper 3418..
Longhi, S., P. Nijkamp, and J. Poot. (2006). The impact of immigration on the employment of natives in regional labour markets: A meta-analysis. IZA Working Paper 2044.
Longhi, S., P. Nijkamp, and J. Poot (2005). “A meta-ana- lytic assessment of the effects of immigration on wages.” Journal of Economic Surveys 19, 451–477.
Lubostky, D. (2007). “Chutes or ladders? A longitudinal study of immigrant earnings.” Journal of Political Econ- omy 115, 820–867.
Lucas, R.E.B. (2005). International Migration and Eco- nomic Development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Lucas, R.E.B. (2004). International migration regimes and economic development. Draft report to the Expert Group on Development Issues, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
Lucas, R.E.B. (1975). “The supply of immigrants' function and taxation of immigrants' incomes: An econometric analysis.” Journal of Development Economics 2, 289– 308.
Lundborg, P. (2000). “Vilka förlorade jobbet under 1990-ta- let?” In Välfärdens förutsättningar. Arbetsmarknad, de- mografi och segregation, SOU 2000:37. Ed. J. Fritzell. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Mandorff, M. (2007). Social networks, ethnicity, and oc- cupation. Working Paper.
Massey, D., G. Hugo, J. Taylor, J. Arango, and A. Kouaouci (1998). Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McDonald, J., and C. Worswick (1998). “The earnings of immigrant men in Canada: Job tenure, cohort effects and
macroeconomic conditions.” Industrial and Labor Rela- tions Review 51, 465–482.
McManus, W., W. Gould, and F. Welch (1983). “Earnings of Hispanic men: The role of English language profi- ciency.” Journal of Labor Economics 1, 101–130.
Moscarola, F. (2003). “Immigration flows and the sustain- ability of the Italian welfare state.” Politica Economica 1, 63–90.
Mühleisen, M., and K. Zimmermann (1994). “A panel analysis of job changes and unemployment.” European Economic Review 38, 793–801.
Munshi, K. (2003). “Networks in the modern economy: Mexican migrants in the U.S. labor market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 549–599.
Nakamura, A., and M. Nakamura (1994). “Wage rates of immigrant men in Canada and the United States.” In Im- migration, Language and Ethnicity: Canada and the United States. Ed. B. Chiswick. Washington D.C.: Amer- ican Enterprise Institute.
Nekby, L. (2002). How long does it take to integrate? Em- ployment convergence of immigrants and natives in Sweden. Trade Union Institute for Economic Research Working Paper 185.
OECD (2003). SOPEMI – Trends in International Migra- tion: Annual Report, Paris.
OECD (2002). International Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2000). Trends in Immigration and Economic Con- sequences. OECD Economic Outlook 68.
OECD (1999). Trends in International Migration, Annual Report, 1999 Edition, Paris.
OECD (1998). SOPEMI – Trends in International Migra- tion: Annual Report, Paris.
Okkerse, L. (2008). “How to measure labour market effects of immigration: A review.” Journal of Economic Surveys 22, 1–30.
Ottaviano, P., and Peri G. (2010). ”Rethinking the effects of immigration on wages.” Journal of the European Eco- nomic Association, forthcoming. (See also NBER Work- ing Paper 12497.)
Ottaviano, P., and G. Peri (2008). Immigration and na- tional wages: Clarifying the theory and the empirics. Working Paper.
Partridge, M., D. Rickman, and K. Ali (2008). “Recent immigration and economic outcomes in rural America.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, 1326– 1333.
Passel, J., and R. Clark (1994). How much do immigrants really cost? A reappraisal of Huddle's `The cost of im- migrants'. Urban Institute Working Paper.
Peri, G. (2007a). Immigrants' complementarities and native wages: Evidence from California, NBER Working Paper 12956.
Peri, G. (2007b). “Higher education, innovation and growth.” In Education and Training in Europe, 56–70. Eds. G. Brunello, P. Garibaldi, and E. Wasmer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Pischke, J., and J. Velling (1997). “Employment effects of immigration to Germany – An analysis based on local labor markets:” Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 594–604.
Pischke, J., and J. Velling (1994). Wage and employment effects of immigration to Germany – An analysis based on local labor markets. CEPR Discussion Paper 935.
Pope, D., and G. Withers (1993). “Do migrants rob jobs? Lessons from Australian history, 1861–1991.” Journal of Economic History 53, 719–742.
Robinson, C. (1988). “Language and choice: The distribu- tion of language skills and earnings in a dual language economy.” Research in Labor Economics 9, 53–90.
Roodenburg, H., R. Euwals, and H. ter Rele (2003). Im- migration and the Dutch economy. CPB Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis.
Rowthorn, R. (2008). “The fiscal impacts of immigration on advanced economies.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 560–580.
Ruhs, M. (2008). “Economic research and labour immigra- tion policy.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 403–426.
Saint-Paul, G. (2004). The brain drain: Some evidence from European expatriates in the United States. IZA Working Paper 1310.
Saiz, A. (2007). “Immigration and housing rents in Ameri- can cities.” Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 345–371.
Saiz, A. (2003). “Room in the kitchen for the melting pot: Immigration and rental prices.” Review of Economics and Statistics 85, 502–521.
Saiz, A., and S. Wachter (2010). “Immigration and the neighborhood.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, forthcoming.
Sarvimäki, M. (2010). “Assimilation to a welfare state: La- bor market performance and use of social benefits by immigrants to Finland.” Scandinavian Journal of Eco- nomics, forthcoming.
Schoeni, R. (1998). “Labor market assimilation of immi- grant women.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51, 483–504.
Schoeni, R. (1997). “New evidence on the economic pro- gress of foreign-born men in the 1970s and 1980s.” Jour- nal of Human Resources 32, 683–740.
Schoeni, R., K. McCarthy, and G. Vernez (1996). The Mixed Economic Progress of Immigrants. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sinn, H., and M. Werding (2001). Immigration following the EU eastern enlargement. CESifo Forum, Summer 2001, 40-47.
Smith, J., and B. Edmonton (1997) (eds.). The New Amer- icans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington D.C.: National Academic Press.
Stephan, P., and Levin S. (2001). “Exceptional contribu- tions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign- educated“ Population Research and Policy Review 20, 59–79.
Storesletten, K. (2003). “Fiscal implications of immigration – a net present value approach.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 105, 487–506.
Storesletten, K. (2000). Sustaining fiscal policy through im- migration.” Journal of Political Economy 108, 300–323.
Straubhaar, T. (1986). “The determinants of workers' remit- tances: The case of Turkey.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 122, 728–740.
Tainer, E. (1988). “English language proficiency and earn- ings among foreign-born men.” Journal of Human Re- sources 23, 108–122.
Tienda, M., and L. Jensen (1986). “Immigration and public assistance participation: Dispelling the myth of depend- ency.” Social Science Research 15, 372–400.
UN (2002). International Migration. United Nations, Depart- ment of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Divi- sion, New York.
UN (2000). Replacement migration: Is it a solution to de- clining and ageing populations? Technical report, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York.
US Census Bureau (2000a). The Foreign Born Population in the United States.
US Census Bureau (2000b). Census Brief: Coming to America: A Profile of the Nation's Foreign Born.
Velling, J. (1995). Immigration und Arbeitsmarkt: Eine Em- pirische Analyse für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Vilhelmsson, R. (2000). Ethnic differences in the Swedish youth labor market. Licentiatserien 15/2000, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
Wadensjö, E. (1997). Invandrarkvinnornas arbetsmarknad. SOU 1997:137, 195–212.
Warren, R., and J. Peck (1980). “Foreign-born emigration from the United States: 1960–1970.” Demography 17, 71–84.
Winkelmann, R., and K. Zimmermann (1993). “Ageing, migration and labour mobility.” In Labour Markets in an Ageing Europe, 255–282. Eds. P. Johnson and K. Zim- mermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter-Ebmer, R., and K. Zimmermann (1998). East- West trade and migration: The Austro-German case. IZA Working Paper 2.
Winter-Ebmer, R., and J. Zweimüller (1997). “Immigra- tion, trade, and Austrian unemployment.” In Unemploy- ment in Europe. Eds. M. Landesmann and E. Streissler. London: MacMillan.
Winter-Ebmer, R., and J. Zweimüller (1996). “Immigra- tion and the earnings of young native workers.” Oxford Economic Papers 48, 473–491.
Yuengert, A. (1994). “Immigrant earnings relative to what? Importance of earnings function specification and com- parison points.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 9, 71–90.
Zaiceva, A., and K. Zimmermann (2008). “Scale, diver- sity, and determinants of labour migration in Europe.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 427–451.
32
Finnish Economic Papers 1/2011 – Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr
Zimmermann, K. (1995). “Tackling the European migra- tion problem.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 45–62.
Zimmermann, K. (1994). “European migration: Push and pull.” Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Confer- ence on Development Economics, Supplement to the World Economic Review and the World Bank Research Observer.
Zorlu, A., and J. Hartog (2005). “The effect of immigration on wages in three European countries.” Journal of Popu- lation Economics 18, 113–151.
Copyright of Finnish Economic Papers is the property of Finnish Economic Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
