2010
DOI: 10.3386/w15684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Europe's Tired, Poor, Huddled Masses: Self-Selection and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
234
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(246 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
12
234
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The match rate for U.S. born men is at 19 percent considerably higher. 7 See also the more detailed discussion on selection in initial and return migrations among Norwegian migrants to the U.S. in Abramitzky et al (2012b).…”
Section: Migration Temporariness: Data and Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The match rate for U.S. born men is at 19 percent considerably higher. 7 See also the more detailed discussion on selection in initial and return migrations among Norwegian migrants to the U.S. in Abramitzky et al (2012b).…”
Section: Migration Temporariness: Data and Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We then calculate the average income (weighted by the sample frequencies in 1910) for the occupations with nonmissing income data based on the Preston-Haines tabulations, and assign this value ($335.04) to all farmers (see Appendix Table 1 for the details of the calculation). As an alternative, we impute farmers' income based on the methodology originally described by Mitchell et al (1922) and recently used by Abramitzky et al (2012). For owner-occupier farmers, we calculate income as the difference between the value of farm products (augmented by the value of rent and food consumed by the family) and the total expenditures on labor, fertilizer, feed, seeds, threshing, taxes and maintenance (this results in an imputed annual income of $576).…”
Section: Measuring Incomementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evidence to date suggests that emigration increases the incomes and, in some instances, the life satisfaction and perceived quality of life aspects of those who move (Abramitzky, Boustan, & Eriksson, 2012;Clemens, Montenegro, & Pritchett, 2008;IOM, 2013;Nikolova & Graham, 2015;Simpson, 2013;Stillman, Gibson, McKenzie, & Rohorua, 2015). The effects of migration on the left-behind could be positive or negative depending on individual circumstances, who is left behind at origin (e.g., spouses vs. elderly parents or children), and the well-being outcome.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%