Skip to main content

Immigration as a commitment device

Abstract

This paper shows that the admittance of immigrants who are on average less skilled than natives can be part of a support-maximizing government policy despite a general political bias in favour of the poor. We make this point in a simple model with redistributive unemployment insurance. Once wage contracts are binding, the government has an incentive to increase the unemployment benefit, which leads to excessive unemployment. Affecting the political balance within the constituency, immigrants can serve as a commitment device against this time inconsistency. We show that this possibility can be greatly promoted by restrictions on political naturalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. According to a survey by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP 1995), a majority of natives prefer a reduction in immigration in 15 out of 22 considered countries and there is no majority to increase it in the other countries.

  2. However, as emphasized by Boeri et al. (2004), the empirical evidence on the wage and employment effects of immigration is mixed. Razin et al. (2002) find a negative link between immigration and redistribution in a cross-section of countries.

  3. Between 1999 and 2000, immigration to the European Union rose by 3.2% (SOPEMI 2003), with increases above 10% in the Netherlands, Finland and France. Simultaneously, these countries experienced an increase in the share of foreigners having at most lower secondary education (SOPEMI 2001, 2003; Table I.11).

  4. Working immigration varies significantly among countries from about none in Sweden to more than 50% in Portugal (SOPEMI 2003; Chart I.2).

  5. Native resistance to political integration of immigrants arises also in other settings; see, e.g. Kemnitz (2002) and Mayr (2003).

  6. Indeed, only about 3–4% of foreign residents acquire the nationality of the host in most OECD countries per year. In 2000, Sweden and Portugal displayed the highest and lowest naturalization rates of about 9 and 0.5%, respectively (SOPEMI 2003; Chart I.18).

  7. The Cobb–Douglas technology is quite popular in the migration literature (Casarico and Devillanova 2003) and is mostly used for convenience. For the empirically more relevant case of the elasticity of substitution between skills exceeding unity (Johnson 1997), immigration would enjoy even stronger political support than in the present set-up for it would decrease the low-skilled unemployment rate for a given tax rate (Kemnitz 2004).

  8. The theoretical literature suggests that the higher cultural diversity of migrants translates into a lower per capita weight. Mazza and van Winden (1996) consider the case where this diversity erodes the political influence of workers, such that μ L decreases in M. Fuest and Thum (2001) make a similar argument with respect to trade union power. Since this may exert countervailing effects on the stage 1 attitude of low-skilled natives, we consider the per capita weights to be independent of the number of migrants. From an empirical point of view, the importance of cultural diversity is mitigated by the fact that migrants to most OECD countries stem predominately from one or two origin countries, with at least one of the top four sending countries having a border to the respective receiving country (SOPEMI 2003).

  9. The fact that the low skilled separate into two distinct groups raises the question about the political power of the unemployed relative to the employed. In general, arguments both for and against a higher political importance of the unemployed can be made. According to the ‘single-mindedness hypothesis’ of Mulligan and Sala-i-Martin (1999), the unemployed should enjoy superior political importance. However, it is often argued that political participation is lower for the poor than for the rich. To simplify matters, we assume that the political power of a low skilled does not depend on his employment status.

  10. A negative tax is ruled out by the fact that the unemployed have no resources except welfare state transfers. Hence, a net transfer to the employed is impossible.

  11. This is different with respect to lobbying at stage 3, where each union knows that a higher unemployment benefit at the economy-wide level requires a higher tax rate. Introducing strategic interactions between wage policies and social protection would make the analysis more cumbersome without affecting the subsequent results.

  12. A similar turnover could be introduced for the high skilled as well without affecting any of our findings.

  13. With a tax rate of unity, all high skilled would be left with zero net income without having the opportunity to escape into unemployment since employment contracts are binding. Hence, opposition against both τ=0 and τ=1 is infinitely high.

  14. It should be emphasized that native sentiments towards immigrants depend on a host of factors, including security concerns and ethnic and racial identity. However, a number of recent empirical studies conclude that individual attitudes are to a large extent shaped by economic factors (Bauer et al. 2001; Scheve and Slaughter 2001; Mayda 2003). In a cross-country study, Mayda (2003) finds that differences in actual policies can be explained by the skill composition of natives relative to immigrants.

  15. To be precise, Mazza and van Winden (1996) derive this effect in the context of capital and labour. In our setting, the respective problem is max T N H ln(w H T)+λ L N L ln(w L +N H /N L ·T) with the first-order condition −1/(w H T)+λ L /(w L +N H /N L ·T)=0. Hence, the optimal transfer is positive whenever Eq. 17 is fulfilled.

  16. Of course, immigrants may use demonstrations and lobbying to fight for more political rights. In that sense, the government would find itself trapped in additional commitment problem as it may be induced to alter the announced naturalization policy. We do not model this problem here. However, one can consider the political weights presented below as a reduced form incorporating these repercussions.

References

  • Bauer TK, Lofstrom M, Zimmermann KF (2001) Immigration policy, assimilation of immigrants and natives' sentiments towards immigrants: evidence from 12 OECD-countries. Swed Econ Policy Rev 7(2):11–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeri T, Hanson G, McCormick B (2004) Immigration policy and the welfare system. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Casarico A, Devillanova C (2003) Social security and migration with endogenous skill upgrading. J Public Econ 87(3/4):773–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuest C, Thum M (2000) Welfare effects of immigration in a dual labor market. Reg Sci Urban Econ 30(5):551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuest C, Thum M (2001) Immigration and skill formation in unionized labor markets. Eur J Polit Econ 17(3):557–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grether JM, de Melo J, Müller T (2001) The political economy of international migration in a Ricardo–Viner model. In: Djajic S (ed) International migration: trends, policy and impact. Routledge, London, pp 42–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman G, Helpman E (1996) Electoral politics and special interest groups. Rev Econ Stud 63(2):265–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISSP (1995) National-identity data set. International Social Survey Programme

  • Johnson G (1997) Changes in earnings inequality: the role of demand shifts. J Econ Perspect 11(2):41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaas L, von Thadden L (2003) Unemployment, factor substitution, and capital formation. Ger Econ Rev 4(4):475–495

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kemnitz A (2002) On the political economy of low skilled immigration and the welfare state. Int Tax Public Financ 9(4):423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemnitz A (2004) Unemployment, technology and the welfare effects of immigration. Mimeo

  • Lindbeck A, Weibull JW (1987) Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice 52(3):273–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayda AM (2003) Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. IZA Discussion Paper 1115

  • Mayr K (2003) Immigration and majority voting on income redistribution—is there a case for opposition from natives? University of Linz Working Paper 0308

  • Mazza I, van Winden F (1996) A political economic analysis of labor migration and income redistribution. Public Choice 88(3):333–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan CB, Sala-i-Martin X (1999) Gerontocracy, retirement and social security. NBER Working Paper 7117

  • Razin A, Sadka E, Swagel P (2002) Tax burden and migration: a political economy theory and evidence. J Public Econ 85(2):167–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheve KF, Slaughter MJ (2001) Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Rev Econ Stat 83(1):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt CM, Stilz A, Zimmermann KF (1994) Mass migration, unions, and government intervention. J Public Econ 55(2):185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOPEMI (2001) Trends in international migration. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • SOPEMI (2003) Trends in international migration. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Nick Ehrhart and three anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Kemnitz.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Gil S. Epstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kemnitz, A. Immigration as a commitment device. J Popul Econ 19, 299–313 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0042-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0042-y

Keywords

  • Immigration
  • Welfare state
  • Democracy
  • Time inconsistency

JEL

  • D72
  • F22
  • J68