Open Trade, Closed Borders Immigration Policy in the Era ... :id:... · Open Trade, Closed

Embed Size (px)

Text of Open Trade, Closed Borders Immigration Policy in the Era ... :id:... · Open Trade, Closed

  • Open Trade, Closed Borders

    Immigration Policy in the Era of Globalization

    Appendix A: Robustness Checks

    Margaret E. Peters

    Yale University

    September 24, 2014

    Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 77 Prostpect St., New Haven, CT06520; margaret.peters@yale.edu.

  • Table A1: Factor AnalysisFactor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

    Factor 1 3.65969 1.43823 0.3050 0.3050Factor 2 2.22146 1.08594 0.1851 0.4901Factor 3 1.13553 0.08545 0.0946 0.5847Factor 4 1.05007 0.07847 0.0875 0.6722Factor 5 0.97160 0.31016 0.0810 0.7532Factor 6 0.66145 0.10612 0.0551 0.8083Factor 7 0.55532 0.07995 0.0463 0.8546Factor 8 0.47537 0.06063 0.0396 0.8942Factor 9 0.41474 0.02093 0.0346 0.9288Factor 10 0.39381 0.15813 0.0328 0.9616Factor 11 0.23567 0.01039 0.0196 0.9812Factor 12 0.22528 0.0188 1.0000

    LR test: chi2(66) = 1.3e+ 04 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

    Immigrant Flows

    As a simple test of whether policy correlates with flows, I regress flows over GDP on policy

    (Table A2) to control for the demand to migrate due to economic growth in the receiving

    state (Massey et al. 1993); the results are similar if we use flows standardized by GDP per

    capita. Flow data is from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011), Fitzgerald, Leblang

    and Teets (2014), Office of Immigration Statistics (2010). The coefficient on immigration

    policy is positive and statistically significant. Therefore, we have confidence that the policy

    measure is capturing immigration policy.

    Robustness Checks

    As a first robustness check, I examine the same regressions using a five-year moving average

    of policy instead of a linear-time trend (Table A3). Immigration policy tends to be sticky;

    it often remains the same for several years before it is changed. Including a five-year moving

    average allows us to control for this stickiness.

    2

  • Tabl

    eA

    2:Im

    mig

    ratio

    nFl

    ows

    Stan

    dard

    ized

    byG

    DP

    Reg

    ress

    edon

    Imm

    igra

    tion

    Polic

    yan

    dG

    DP

    for

    each

    coun

    try

    DV

    :Im

    migrantFlows

    All

    US

    AU

    SC

    AN

    NZ

    UK

    FRA

    DE

    UN

    LDSW

    IJP

    N

    Imm

    igra

    tion

    1.43

    **0.

    97**

    *0.

    36**

    *2.

    17**

    *0.

    05-0

    .89*

    *-0

    .31*

    *0.

    90**

    *0.

    04-0

    .49*

    **0.

    06O

    penn

    ess

    (0.4

    2)(0

    .11)

    (0.0

    6)(0

    .20)

    (0.1

    1)(0

    .25)

    (0.1

    1)(0

    .14)

    (0.0

    2)(0

    .06)

    (0.0

    4)C

    onst

    ant

    2.21

    ***

    1.84

    ***

    0.56

    ***

    3.43

    ***

    0.79

    ***

    -0.5

    3**

    -0.4

    1*2.

    32**

    *0.

    25**

    *0.

    010.

    16*

    (0.3

    2)(0

    .16)

    (0.0

    5)(0

    .26)

    (0.0

    6)(0

    .16)

    (0.1

    7)(0

    .22)

    (0.0

    2)(0

    .07)

    (0.0

    6)

    Obs

    erva

    tion

    s54

    414

    445

    138

    5420

    2240

    4522

    14R

    20.

    430.

    650.

    480.

    510.

    000.

    360.

    200.

    540.

    120.

    410.

    14R

    obus

    tst

    anda

    rder

    rors

    inpa

    rent

    hese

    s.T

    hefir

    stre

    gres

    sion

    incl

    udes

    coun

    try

    fixed

    effec

    ts.

    *p

Recommended

View more >