Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 507–530 | Cite as

How do immigrants spend their time? The process of assimilation

Original Paper

Abstract

Sharp differences in time use by nativity emerge when activities are distinguished by incidence and intensity in recent US data. A model with daily fixed costs for assimilating activities predicts that immigrants are less likely than natives to undertake such activities on a given day; but those who do will spend relatively more time on them. Activities such as purchasing, education, and market work conform to the model. Other results suggest that fixed costs for assimilating activities are higher for immigrants with poor English proficiency or who originate in less developed countries. An analysis of comparable Australian data yields similar results.

Keywords

Time use Fixed costs Incidence Intensity 

JEL Classification

J11 J16 

Supplementary material

148_2012_440_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (120 kb)
(PDF 120 KB)

References

  1. Abraham K, Maitland A, Bianchi S (2006) Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey. Public Opin Q 70(5):676–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antecol H, Kuhn P, Trejo S (2006) Assimilation via prices or quantities? Sources of immigrant earnings growth in Australia, Canada, and the United States. J Hum Resour 41(4):821–840Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1993) Time Use Survey, Australia 1992. ABS, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleakley H, Chin A (2004) Language skills and earnings: evidence from childhood immigrants. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borjas G (1985) Assimilation, changes in cohort quality, and the earnings of immigrants. J Labor Econ 3(4):463–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borjas G (1987) Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. Am Econ Rev 77(4):531–553Google Scholar
  7. Borjas G (1995) Assimilation and changes in cohort quality revisited: what happened to immigrant earnings in the 1980s?. J Labor Econ 13(2):201–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burda M, Hamermesh D, Weil P (2013) Total work and gender: facts and possible explanations. J Popul Econ. doi:10.1007/s00148-012-0408-x Google Scholar
  9. Burke W (2009) Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s tobit alternative using STATA. STATA J 9(4):584–592Google Scholar
  10. Card D (2005) Is the new immigration really so bad? Econ J 115(507):F300–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiswick B (1978) The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. J Polit Econ 86(5):897–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiswick B, Miller P (1995) The endogeneity between language and earnings: international analyses. J Labor Econ 13(2):246–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cragg J (1971) Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5):829–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan B, Trejo S (2012) Low-skilled immigrants and the U.S. labor market. In: Jefferson P (ed) The Oxford handbook of the economics of poverty. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Dustmann C, Fabbri C (2003) Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK. Econ J 113(489):695–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farley R, Alba R (2002) The new second generation in the United States. Int Migr Rev 36(4):669–701Google Scholar
  17. Friedberg R, Jaeger D (2009) The economic diversity of immigrants across the United States. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4555Google Scholar
  18. Gronau R, Hamermesh D (2008) The demand for variety: a household production perspective. Rev Econ Stat 90(4):562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamermesh D, Frazis H, Stewart J (2005) Data watch: the American Time Use Survey. J Econ Perspect 19(1):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Handlin O (1951) The uprooted. Grosset & Dunlap, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kritz M, Gurak D (2005) Immigration and a changing America. In: Farley R, Haaga J (eds) The American people: census 2000. Russell Sage, New York, pp 259–301Google Scholar
  22. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  23. Perlmann J, Waldinger R (1997) Second generation decline? Children of immigrants, past and present—a reconsideration. Int Migr Rev 31(4):893–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ribar D (2012) Immigrants’ time use: a survey of methods and evidence. In: Constant A, Zimmermann K (eds) International handbook on the economics of migration. Edward Elgar, London (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Stewart J (2009) Tobit or not tobit. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4588Google Scholar
  26. Vargas A, Chavez M (2009) Assimilation and cohort effects beyond the labor market: time allocations of Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. unpublished paper. Texas Tech UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Veall M, Zimmerman K (1996) Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variables models. J Econ Surv 10(4):241–259Google Scholar
  28. Zaiceva A, Zimmermann K (2007) Children, kitchen, church: does ethnicity matter? IZA Discussion Paper No. 3070Google Scholar
  29. Zaiceva A, Zimmermann K (2011) Do ethnic minorities ‘stretch’ their time? Evidence from the UK Time Use Survey. Rev Econ Household 9(2):181–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations