Skip to main content

Where Have All the Flowers Gone? The Locational Choice of High-Skilled Immigrants Within the EU-15 Countries: Some Empirical Evidence on the Roy-Borjas Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalization
  • 4502 Accesses

Abstract

Increasing immigration into western countries over the last 25 years has re-kindled scholarly and political debates over the economic consequences of such immigration for the receiving countries. So far, research has come up with diverging empirical results. There seems, however, to be agreement on one point: the economic impact of immigration is strongly dependent on who the immigrants turn out to be. Thus, the skill-based sorting of immigrants into various host countries can be expected to be highly relevant. Borjas has proposed a sorting model in which the skill composition of migration depends on the second moments of the income distribution in the sending and the receiving countries, provided that skills and income are correlated in both. Previous empirical tests of this model have failed to turn up consistent results. Using data from the OECD Migration Database on the educational levels of immigrants from EU-15 countries into other EU-15 countries the paper shows that the skill-based sorting of this immigration is consistent with the core prediction from the Roy-Borjas model. This result also obtains after control for network (or herd) effects, which are often marshaled as alternative explanations of the locational decisions of immigrants.

Helpful comments by George J. Borjas, Arye Hillman, Dennis Snower, and Oded Stark on earlier versions of this paper are gratefully acknowledged. Remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Borjas also considers the case of a low correlation between skills in the source and the host country (Borjas 1994: 1689, eq. 15).

  2. 2.

    This reading of the model differs somewhat from Chiswick’s interpretation “… that immigrants from countries with greater inequality constitute the least able members of the origin labor force” (Chiswick 1999: 184).

  3. 3.

    It should be noted, however, that Mayda (2005) is testing the impact of source and host country inequality on the size of immigration rates, whereas the Roy-Borjas model concerns the impact of source and host country income inequality on the skill composition of migration.

  4. 4.

    The main restriction is that while citizens of an EU-15 country have the right to move to another EU-15 country and stay there for up to 6 months looking for work, they can only exercise that right if they are able to provide for themselves (and their families) in the host country. Also they can be repatriated if they lose their job in the host country and become dependent on public support.

  5. 5.

    As will be discussed below, this type of “noise” cannot be eliminated completely, however. Also, the data used here may introduce other kinds of “noise” in the analysis.

  6. 6.

    Borjas uses geographical distance as a proxy for migration costs, assuming migration costs to be proportional to geographical distance. He also assumes migration costs to be the same for all migrants.

  7. 7.

    Even with several such cross-sectional data sets, each referring to different points in time, it would not be possible to construct data on the skill composition of immigration flows.

  8. 8.

    There is no equivalent problem in using the distance between countries as a proxy for migration costs, as this variable is time invariant.

  9. 9.

    Calculated using the distance calculator at http://www.mapcrow.info.

  10. 10.

    Though Denmark and Sweden are separated by the Oeresund, they have been coded as having a common border.

  11. 11.

    Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html. When we classify pairs of countries with respect to whether or not they have a common language some arbitrariness can be hard to avoid. Obviously Austria and Germany or Ireland and the United Kingdom have a common language by all reasonable standards. Belgium has a common language with both France and the Netherlands, as both French and Dutch (of some kind) are spoken in Belgium. Denmark has been coded to have a common language with Sweden, even though Danish and Swedish differ in quite some respects. Nevertheless they are close enough for most Danes and Swedes to communicate with each other using their respective mother tongue. On the other hand Denmark is coded not to have a common language with Germany, even though there is a small German-speaking minority in Denmark and even though most Danes know at least some German.

  12. 12.

    Source: see preceding note.

  13. 13.

    Computed from Heston et al. (2002).

  14. 14.

    This interpretation is supported by the fact that the percentage of low-skilled individuals among immigrants from one EU-15 country into another is positively related to the number of immigrants from the sending country living in the receiving country (r = 0.37).

References

  • Abramitzky, R. (2009). The effect of redistribution on migration: Evidence from the Israeli kibbutz. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 498–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1987). Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review, 77, 531–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1990). Friends or strangers: The impact of immigrants on the U.S. Economy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1994). The economics of immigration. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXII, 1667–1717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1998). Immigration and welfare magnets. NBER Working Paper No. 6813, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1999a). Heaven’s door. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (1999b). Immigration and welfare magnets. Journal of Labor Economics, 17, 607–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brücker, H., Epstein, G. S., McCormick, B., Saint-Paul, G., Venturini, A., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2002). Managing migration in the European welfare state. In T. Boeri, G. Hanson, & B. McCormick (Eds.), Immigration policy and the welfare system (pp. 1–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiquiar, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2002). International migration, self-selection, and the distribution of wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States. NBER Working Paper No. 9242, NBER, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick, B. R. (1999). Are immigrants favorably self-selected? American Economic Review, 89, 181–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb-Clark, D. A. (1993). Immigrant selectivity and wages: The evidence for women. American Economic Review, 83, 986–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, G. S., & Gang, I. N. (2004). The influence of others on migration plans. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1244, IZA, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grogger, J., & Hanson, G. H. (2011). Income maximization and the selection and sorting of international migrants. Journal of Development Economics, 95, 42–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatton, T., & Williamson, J. G. (2002). What fundamentals drive world migration? NBER Working Paper No. 9159, NBER, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2002). Penn world table version 6.1. Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaestner, R., & Malamud, O. (2010). Self-selection and international migration: New evidence from Mexico. NBER Working Papers No. 15765, NBER, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayda, A. M. (2005). International migration: A panel data analysis of economic and non-economic determinants. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1590, IZA, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraga, J. F. (2011). New evidence on emigrant selection. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 72–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nannestad, P. (2007). Immigration and welfare states: A survey of 15 years of research. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2), 512–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). Database on migrants and expatriates. www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_37415_34063091_1_1_1_37415,00.html

  • Pedersen, P. J., Pytlikova, M., & Smith, N. (2004). Selection or network effects? Migration flows into 27 OECD countries, 1990-2000. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1104, IZA, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A.-D. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 3, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2006). World Development Indicators, CD-ROM. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavodny, M. (1999). Determinants of recent immigrants’ locational choices. International Migration Review, 33(4), 1014–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Nannestad .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nannestad, P. (2017). Where Have All the Flowers Gone? The Locational Choice of High-Skilled Immigrants Within the EU-15 Countries: Some Empirical Evidence on the Roy-Borjas Model. In: Christensen, B., Kowalczyk, C. (eds) Globalization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49502-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49502-5_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49500-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-49502-5

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics