Abstract
This article examines the pro-trade influence of immigrants using data on state-level exports from the 48 contiguous USA to 28 countries during the year 1993. Immigrants from lesser developed countries are found to exert stronger proportional effects on state-level exports relative to the immigrants from more developed countries. Calculation of absolute immigrant effects at state, regional and national levels also reveal influences of immigrants from developing countries are of greater magnitude; however, results depend on the metric employed to categorize countries as developing or developed. The findings emphasize the importance of immigrants’ connections to business and social networks and allow for an improved understanding of the role that information asymmetries play in fomenting opportunities for immigrants to enhance trade.
Résumé
Nous examinons l’influence pro-commerce des immigrés en utilisant des données sur les exports au niveau national des 48 états contigus des États-Unis, à 28 pays pendant l’année 1993. On trouve que les immigrés des pays moins développés exercent de plus forts effets proportionnels sur les exports au niveau national par rapport aux immigrés des pays plus développés. Le calcul des effets-immigrés absolus au niveau de l’état, de la région, et de la nation révèlent aussi que les influences des immigrés des pays en voie de développement sont d’une plus grande ampleur; les résultats dépendent pourtant de la métrique employée pour caractériser les pays comme en voie de développement ou développés. Les conclusions soulignent l’importance des liens des immigrés aux réseaux commerciaux et sociaux et permettent une compréhension améliorée du rôle joué par des assymétries de renseignment dans la création des occasions pour l’augmentation du commerce par les immigrés.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Appendix A lists the 28 countries included in the data set. Collectively, these countries accounted for 67.4% of US exports in 1993 (Feenstra, 1997) and were home countries for 60.2% of the 1990 US foreign-born population (US Bureau of the Census 1993).
The effect of immigrants on net exports, while an interesting issue that is particularly important for public policy, cannot be examined as import data is not available at the state level. Studies examining the immigrant–trade link using aggregate trade data, however, provide mixed results as to whether immigrants’ influences generate increases or decreases in net exports.
Appendix B lists data sources and discusses corresponding variable construction.
Results from estimation of ancillary regression specifications, where only the immigrant stock variable is lagged, correspond to the conclusions presented in “Estimation Results”. All estimation results and data are available upon request.
References
Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106–116.
Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Coughlin, C. C., & Wall, H. J. (2008). Ethnic networks and U.S. exports. Review of International Economics, 16(1), 199–213.
Bardhan, A. D., & Guhathakurta, S. (2005). Global linkages of subnational regions: coastal exports and international networks. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 225–236.
Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 474–481.
Blanes, J. V. (2003). The link between immigration and trade in Spain. Paper presented at XXVIII Simposio de Analisis Economico, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, 11–13 December.
Blanes, J. V. (2005). Does immigration help to explain intra-industry trade? Evidence for Spain. Review of World Economics, 141(2), 244–270.
Blanes, J. V. (2006). Immigrant’s characteristics and their different effects on bilateral trade. Evidence from Spain, WP#06.08, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Departamento de Economía.
Blanes, J. V., & Martín-Montaner, J. A. (2006). Migration flows and intra-industry trade adjustments. Review of World Economics, 127(3), 567–584.
Boisso, D., & Ferrantino, M. (1997). Economic distance, cultural distance, and openness in international trade: empirical puzzles. Journal of Economic Integration, 12(4), 456–484.
Bryant, J., Genc, M., & Law, D. (2004). Trade and migration to New Zealand. New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 04/18.
Co, C. Y., Euzent, P., & Martin, T. (2004). The export effect of immigration into the usa. Applied Economics, 36(6), 573–583.
Combes, P., Lafourcade, M., & Mayer, T. (2005). The trade creating effects of business and social networks: evidence from France. Journal of International Economics, 66(1), 1–29.
Davis, D. (1995). Intra-industry trade: A Heckscher–Ohlin–Ricardo approach. Journal of International Economics, 39(3–4), 201–226.
Deardorff, A. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world? In J. Frankel (Ed.), The regionalization of the world economy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dunlevy, J. A. (2006). The impact of corruption and language on the pro-trade effect of immigrants: evidence from the American States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(1), 182–186.
Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741–1779.
Feenstra R. C. (1997) U.S. Exports, 1972–1994, with state exports and other U.S. Data. NBER Working Paper Number 5990
Feenstra, R. C., Markusen, J., & Rose, A. (2001). Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34(2), 430–447.
Girma, S., & Yu, Z. (2002). The link between immigration and trade: evidence from the U.K. Review of World Economics, 138(1), 115–130.
Gould, D. M. (1994). Immigrant links to the home country: Empirical implications for U.S. bilateral trade flows. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 302–316.
Greenaway, D., Mahabir, P. A., & Milner, C. (2007). “Does the presence of ethnic Chinese in trading partner countries influence bilateral trade flows with China?” Leverhulme Centre for Research in Globalisation and Economic Policy, University of Nottingham Working Paper.
Head, K., & Ries, J. (1998). Immigration and trade creation: econometric evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31(1), 47–62.
Helliwell, J. F. (1997). National borders, trade and migration. Pacific Economic Review, 3(3), 165–185.
Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade—Increasing returns, imperfect competition, and the international economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Herander, M. G., & Saavedra, L. A. (2005). Exports and the structure of immigrant-based networks: the role of geographic proximity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(2), 323–335.
Hong, T. C., & Santhapparaj, A. S. (2006). Skilled labor immigration and external trade in Malaysia: A pooled data analysis. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 5(4), 351–366.
Hutchinson, W. K. (2002). Does ease of communication increase trade? Commonality of language and bilateral trade. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(5), 544–556.
Mundra, K. (2005). Immigration and international trade: A semiparametric empirical investigation. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 14(1), 65–91.
Piperakis, A. S., Milner, C., & Wright, P. W. (2003). Immigration, trade costs and trade: gravity evidence for Greece. Journal of Economic Integration, 18(4), 750–62.
Rauch, J., & Trindade, V. (2002). Ethnic Chinese networks in international trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 116–130.
Tadesse, B., & White, R. (2008). Cultural distance as a determinant of bilateral trade flows: do immigrants counter the effect of cultural differences? Applied Economic Letters, doi:10.1080/13504850701719983.
United Nations Development Programme. (2004). Human development report 2004: Cultural Liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: United Nations.
US Bureau of the Census. (1993). Census of population and housing, 1990: Subject summary Tape File (SSTF) 1. The Foreign Born Population in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical yearbook of the immigration and naturalization service. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Wagner, D., Head, K., & Ries, J. (2002). Immigration and the trade of provinces. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(5), 507–525.
White, R. (2007a). Immigrant-trade links, transplanted home bias and network effects. Applied Economics, 39(7), 839–852.
White, R. (2007b). An examination of the Danish immigrant–trade link. International Migration, 45(5), 62–86.
White, R. (2008). Exploring a US immigrant–intra-industry trade link. Eastern Economic Journal, 34(2), 252–262.
White, R. (2009) Immigration, trade and product differentiation. Economic Issues 14(1), 43–63.
White, R., & Tadesse, B. (2007). Immigration policy, cultural pluralism and trade: evidence from the White Australia Policy. Pacific Economic Review, 12(4), 489–509.
White, R., & Tadesse, B. (2009). East–West Migration and the immigrant-trade link: Evidence from Italy. The Romanian Journal of European Studies (in press).
World Bank. (1997). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Development Data Group of the World Bank’s International Economics Department.
World Bank. (2003). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Development Data Group of the World Bank’s International Economics Department.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Country Listing/Development Classifications
Canadaa,b,c, Chinaf, Colombiae, Dominican Republice, Ecuadore, El Salvadore, Francea,b,c, Germanya,b,c, Greecea,b,d, Guatemalae, Guyanaf, Hondurasf, Hong Kongb,c, Indiaf, Irelanda,b,c, Italya,b,c, Jamaicae, Japana,b,c, Mexicod, Nicaraguae, Panamae, Perue, Philippinesf, Portugala,b,d, South Koreab,d, Thailande, Trinidad and Tobagod, United Kingdoma,b,c.
a OECD members; b High HDI countries; c High-Income countries; d Upper Middle Income countries; e Lower Middle Income countries; f Low-Income countries.
Appendix B: Data Sources
State-level export data are from Feenstra (1997). Immigrant stock values are from the US Bureau of the Census (1993). Gross state product data are from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.doc.gov). Home country populations and GDP and trade values, used to construct the openness variable, are from the World Bank (2003). The infrastructure proxy variable and gross national income per capita, used to classify countries as high, upper middle, lower middle and low income, are from the World Bank (2003). State population values are from the US Bureau of the Census (1996). Distance between state and home country capitols are calculated by the author using the Great Circle method. OECD membership is from the OECD (www.oecd.org). Human Development Index classifications are from the United Nations Development Programme (2004). Adjacency is a dummy variable equal to one if the home country is Mexico or Canada; zero otherwise. Border-North and Border-South equal one if the host state borders Canada or Mexico, respectively; zero otherwise. Similarly, Coastal-West and Coastal East equal one if the host state borders the Pacific Ocean or either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean, respectively; zero otherwise.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, R. Immigration, Trade and Home Country Development: State-Level Variation in the US Immigrant–Export Link. Int. Migration & Integration 10, 121–143 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-009-0096-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-009-0096-x