Lecture 4 Flashcards
‘Bleakly and Chin, (2010)’
Looked at the effects of English proficiency on social assimilation for immigrants in the US. Found immigrants with better English skills are more educated, fewer children and less likely to live in enclaves.
‘Ipshording, (2015)’
Found that there is a structural break in language learning abilities at 11. Before this point everyone is just as likely to learn any language in the world.
‘Beenstock et al, (2002)’
Looked at Hebrew proficiency of immigrants in Israel. Found Arabic speaking immigrants are most likely to learn Hebrew (smallest linguistic distance) and native-English speakers the least likely to learn the language
‘Toomet, (2011)’
After WW2 a big migration movement from ethnic Russia to Estonia and Latvia, but these immigrants lived isolated lives in enclaves. Found for Russian immigrants these is a no effect of learning the local language but did earn a wage premium compared to other identical immigrants if they could speak English (25% at the upper end of the skill distribution) but they still had wage penalties placed against them.
‘Leping and Toomet, (2008)’
Showed there is ethnic discrimination between Estonians and Russians and a immigrant-native income differential and that they were less likely to get jobs than identical natives. Cause Russia to see a glass-ceiling effect on wages and employment chances when living in Estonia and Latvia.
‘Chiswick, (1978)’
Looked at US migrants in 1970 using a single cross-section and how at the start they are disadvantaged relative to natives due to a lack of destination specific human capital but wages grow faster than natives so catch up occurred after 10 years and within 30 years they earn 11% more. But single cross-section causes with the reliability
‘Borjas, (2015)’
Compares several immigrant cohorts using US data from 1970-2010 and found more recent immigrants perform worse upon entry and assimilate at a slower rate.
‘Lemos, (2013)’
Looked at immigrant assimilation in the UK found recent immigrants earn more upon entry than older cohorts (30% less relative to natives than 60% less) and catch up with immigrants quicker now.
‘Edin et al., (2003)’
Through the use of a natural experiment of a random allocation of refugees around the country between 1985-2004 found living in a enclave had a positive effect especially for the least skilled. 1 S.D increase in ethnic concentration leave to increased wages of low skilled immigrants by 13%.
‘Abramitzky et al., (2014)’
Looking at migration in the US during the Age of Mass Migration (1850-1913) using panel data instead of a single cross-section and found initially migrants did have differing skills to natives and wage increases over time occurred at the same rate for immigrants and natives, so if there was an advantage upon arrival this persisted. Goes against the idea set out by ‘Chiswick, (1978)’ that immigrants saw a greater catch up rate.
‘Borjas, (2013)’
Showed in the 1970’s US 1st Generation immigrants earn 1.4% more than natives while 2nd Generation immigrants earn 6.3% more. Children of immigrants outperform their parents and natives
‘Algan et al, (2010)’
Looking at educational, earnings and employment figures of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants in the UK, France and Germany.
For all 3 countries 2nd generation immigrants have lower gaps of education to natives than 1st generation (education system attempting to integrate children of immigrants)
In earrings UK second generation immigrants do much better than 1st generation immigrants who underpeform against natives. In Germany and France not much change is seen.
UK and Germany see similar employment rates for 2nd generation immigrants compared to 1st generation with a major improvement for women. But France see a decline for 2nd generation immigrants from Turkey and North-Africa. But for all the employment rates are still significantly lower than the native population, and fail to make a serious catch up
