## Abstract

In this paper, we test the hypothesis that the causal effect of immigrant presence on anti-immigrant votes is a short-run effect. For this purpose, we consider a distributed lag model and adapt the standard instrumental variable approach proposed by Altonji and Card (1991) to a dynamic framework. The evidence from our case study, votes for the UK Independent Party (Ukip) in recent European elections, supports our hypothesis. Furthermore, we find that this effect is robust to differences across areas in terms of population density and socioeconomic characteristics, and it is only partly explained by integration issues.

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

## Notes

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/support-trump-strongest-where- illegal-immigration-lowest; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/identity-over- ideology.html

In Appendix 1, we discuss the effect of such misspecification on the parameters’ estimation and how it can explain some of the paradoxes in the literature.

It is useful to recall that although panel data estimations, namely, estimations with a within estimator, of the standard specification without lag of Eq. 1 provide estimates of the effects of variations of

*x*on variations of*y*, the underlying relation that they estimate is the effect of the level of*x*_{i, t}on the level of*y*_{i, t}. In contrast, the panel estimations of Eq. 3 would provide estimates of the effects of variations and acceleration of*x*on the variations in*y*.From such a perspective, the AIC and BIC test the specifications with only one lag corresponding to the second, fifth and last raw numbers in Table 3, which can be interpreted as a test of the best specification for the length of the “hate at first sight” effect.

A similar identification strategy can also be found in Bianchi et al. (2012).

## References

Abbondanza G, Bailo F (2018) The electoral payoff of immigration flows for anti-immigration parties: the case of Italy’s Lega Nord. Eur Polit Sci 17:378–403

Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Oxford

Altonji JG, Card D (1991) The effects of immigration on the labor market outcomes of less-skilled natives. In: Abowd JM, Freeman RB (eds) Immigration, trade and the labor market. University of Chicago Press, pp 201–234

Arrow K (1971) The theory of discrimination. Discrimination Labor Markets 3(10):3–33

Barone G, D’Ignazio A, De Blasio G, Naticchioni P (2016) Mr. Rossi, Mr. Hu and politics. The role of immigration in shaping natives’ voting behavior. J Public Econ 136:1–13

Bartel AP (1989) Where do the new U.S. immigrants live? J Labor Econ 7(4):371–391

Bauer T, Epstein GS, Gang IN (2007) The influence of stocks and flows on migrants’ location choices. Res Labor Econ 26:199–229

Becker SO, Fetzer T (2016) Does migration cause extreme voting?. Center for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy and The Economic & Social Research Council

Becker SO, Fetzer T, Novy D (2017) Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis. Econ Policy 32(92):601–650

Beine M, Docquier F, Özden Ç (2011) Diasporas. J Dev Econ 95(1):30–41

Bianchi M, Buonanno P, Pinotti P (2012) Do immigrants cause crime? J Eur Econ Assoc 10(6):1318–1347

Borjas GJ (2006) Native internal migration and the labor market impact of immigration. J Hum Resour 41(2):222–258

Brunner B, Kuhn A (2018) Immigration, cultural distance and natives’ attitudes towards immigrants: evidence from Swiss voting results. Kyklos 71(1):28–58

Card D, Di Nardo J (2000) Do immigrant inflows lead to native outflows? Am Econ Rev 90(2):360–367

Card D, Dustmann C, Preston I (2005) Understanding attitudes to immigration: the migration and minority module of the first European Social Survey. CDP Discussion Paper Series 03/05, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, University of London

Card D, Dustmann C, Preston I (2012) Immigration, wages, and compositional amenities. J Eur Econ Assoc 10(1):78–119

Cesur R, Mocan N (2018) Education, religion, and voter preference in a Muslim country. J Popul Econ 31(1):1–44

Colantone I, Stanig P (2018) Global competition and Brexit. Am Pol Sci Rev 112(2):201–2018

Cortés P, Pan J (2014) Foreign nurse importation and the supply of native nurses. J Health Econ 37:164–180

Dustmann C, Preston I (2007) Racial and economic factor in attitudes to immigration. BE J Econ Anal Policy (Contributions) 7(1):1–39

Dustmann C, Vasiljeva K, Damm AP (2018) Refugee migration and electoral outcomes. Rev Econ Stud:rdy047

Epstein GS, Heizler-Cohen OH (2016) The formation of networks in the diaspora. Int J Manpow 37(7):1136–1153

Facchini G, Mayda AM (2009) Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. Rev Econ Stat 91(2):295–314

Halla M, Wagner AF, Zweimüller J (2017) Immigration and voting for the far right. J Eur Econ Assoc 15(6):1341–1385

Harmon NA (2018) Immigration, ethnic diversity, and political outcomes: evidence from Denmark. Scand J Econ 120(4):1043–1074

Immerzeel T, Pickup M (2015) Populist radical right parties mobilizing ‘the people’? The role of populist radical right success in voter turnout. Elect Stud 40:347–360

Jaeger DA, Ruist J, Stuhler J (2018) Shift-share instruments and the impact of immigration. NBER Working Paper No.24285

King G (1997) A solution to the ecological inference problem. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Mayda AM (2006) Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Rev Econ Stat 88(3):510–530

Mayda AM (2010) International migration: a panel data analysis of the determinants of bilateral flows. J Popul Econ 23(4):1249–1274

Mayda AM, Peri G, Steingress W (2016) Immigration to the US: a problem for the republicans or the democrats? NBER Working Paper No.21941

Mendez I, Cutillas IM (2014) Has immigration affected Spanish presidential elections results? J Popul Econ 27(1):135–171

Otto AH, Steinhardt MF (2014) Immigration and election out-comes—evidence from city districts in Hamburg. Reg Sci Urban Econ 45:67–79

Peri G, Sparber C (2011) Assessing inherent model bias: an application to native displacement in response to immigration. J Urban Econ 69:82–91

Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312

Rotte R, Steininger M (2009) Crime, unemployment, and xenophobia? An ecological analysis of right-wing election results in Hamburg, 1986-2005. Rev Reg Res 29:29–63

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

Slotwinski M, Stutzer A (2019) The deterrent effect of an anti-minaret vote on foreigners’ location choices. J Popul Econ 32:1043–1095

Steinmayr A (2016) Exposure to refugees and voting for the far-right: (Unexpected) results from Austria. IZA Discussion Papers 9790

Stockemer D (2017) The success of radical right-wing parties in Western European regions–new challenging findings. J Contemp Eur Stud 25(1):41–56

Vertier P, Viskanic M (2018) Dismantling the “jungle”: migrant relocation and extreme voting in France. CESifo Working paper 6927

Viskanic M (2017) Fear and loathing on the campaign trail: did immigration cause Brexit?. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2941611

## Acknowledgments

We thank Christian Dustmann, Carlo De Villanova, Edoardo Di Porto, Tommaso Frattini, Majlinda Joxhe, Fabrizio Mazzonna, Paolo Naticchioni, and Jackie Wabha for their comments and suggestions. A previous version of this work has been presented to the “International Conference on Migration and Welfare” (Sapienza University of Rome), “3rd Workshop on the Economics of Migration” (Southampton University), “LUMSA Economics Seminars” (LUMSA University), “The Economics of Post-Factual Democracy Conference” (University of Copenhagen), “The Law of Economics of Migration and Mobility Conference” (University of Bern), “Workshop on Recent Developments on Migration Issues” (BETA, Luxembourg), and to the INEQ Research Group meeting (Sapienza University of Rome). We are grateful to all the participants for their useful hints. We thank the editor Klaus F. Zimmermann and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions that led to a considerable improvement of the paper. A slightly different version of this work circulated under the title “Hate at first sight? Dynamic aspects of the electoral impact of migration: The case of UK and Brexit” as a SPRU Working Paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Ethics declarations

### Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## Additional information

*Responsible editor*: Klaus F. Zimmermann

### Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Appendices

### Appendix 1. Biases of mis-specified lag structures

If instead the true relationship has a dynamic dimension, such a model is mis-specified since a more general case of Eq. 1 should be considered. The consistent estimator \( \hat{\beta} \) for the parameter *β* of Eq. 5 would be a consistent estimator of the parameter *β*^{0} of the true model in Eq. 1 only if there is no serial correlation of *x*; thus, we can consider each lag as a different omitted variable which does not affect the correlation with the error term. A lack of serial correlation is clearly not so for the case of the immigration level variable. Conversely, if the *x*_{i, t} serial correlation is 1, the estimated coefficient \( \hat{\beta} \) estimated would be a consistent estimator of the sum of all the coefficients *β*^{0}, *β*^{1}, . . , *β*^{L} since the lags of *x* converge in *plim* to *x*. The unit root test that we performed confirms that this scenario is also not the case for immigration in the UK. In all other cases, the estimated \( \hat{\beta} \) would be a consistent estimator of a linear combination of the true parameters *β*^{0}, *β*^{1}, . . , *β*^{L} with weight given by the serial correlation of *x* with each specific lag *l*. In cases in which the coefficients may have different signs, as the one of this paper, the estimated \( \hat{\beta} \) could also have the opposite sign of both the “true” coefficient *β*^{0} and the sum of all coefficients.

In our specific case, since the effect of new flows is different from the effect of overall immigration, the bias of the estimations of the overall effect of immigration will be higher when flows and stock are less correlated, that is, when there is a process of change in the location of migrants. The sensitivity of the results to the large city/country found in the literature that we have considered in Sect. 2 could be the result of the different effect of immigration in new, rather than the oldest, destinations of migration.

### Appendix 2. Identification of OLS and IV estimations in the case of Eqs. 2 and 3

The finite lag model can be interpreted as a nonlinear case based on the lag operator. Using Wooldridge’s (2010, pg. 342) notation, we can write the following:

where using the lag operator *L* (which maps *x*_{t} onto *x*_{t − l}), the function *g*(*x*) is equal to *Lx* for Eq. 2 and to (1 − *L*)*x* for Eq. 3. Since the specifications are linear in the parameters (the lag operator is an algebraic function), if we have an instrument *z*_{t} for *x*_{t} at any *t* ∈ (1 − *l*; 1; …; *T* − *l*; *T*), we can rely on standard 2SLS estimations by adding *g*(*z*) as instrument for *g*(*x*) (ibid pg. 235). It is analogous to the linear case of two distinct endogenous variables instrumented with two distinct instruments.

Regarding the identification conditions, the order condition is satisfied since we have in each equation the number of excluded endogenous variables, and the number of included exogenous ones corresponds; however, for the rank condition, the dynamic relation between the instruments impose a further condition. Indeed, the covariance matrix of the estimator is given in the two cases of Eqs. 2 and 3, respectively, by the following:

If one of the two variables *x* and *z* has unit roots, in both cases, the expectation and the *plim* of this matrix would not have full ranks. In the case in Eq. 7, the rows or the column would correspond; in the second case, one column or one raw number would be null.

### Appendix 3. Results using the specification in Eq. 2

We report in Table 12 an alternative version of Table 6 with regressions on the original FDL specification in Eq. 2. By construction, the coefficient of the lagged immigrant share is equal to the opposite of the coefficient of the flows in Table 6, while the coefficient of the first raw number is equal to the sum of the coefficients of the two first raw numbers in Table 6. While standard errors change, the results are all confirmed.

### Appendix 4. Regressions by population density

In this appendix, we report the underlying regressions to the Figs. 7 and 8 on the average marginal effects of the immigrant share and of the immigration flows. In column (1), in order to reproduce previous findings, we change our model by removing the immigration flows and by adding the interaction term of the immigrant share with the population density (as a continuous variable); in column (2), we add an interaction term of the immigration flows too.

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Levi, E., Mariani, R.D. & Patriarca, F. Hate at first sight? Dynamic aspects of the electoral impact of migration: the case of Ukip.
*J Popul Econ* **33**, 1–32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-019-00746-5

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-019-00746-5

### Keywords

- Immigration
- Voting
- Political economy

### JEL codes

- P16
- J61
- D72