Analysis of Relations between Migration, Unemployment and Income: The Case of OECD Countries

Abstract

International migration flows that especially have risen after the 2000s with globalization movements is one of the major economic and political concerns for high income countries these days. In this study, in order to assert the macroeconomic determinants of migration, the relationship between migration, unemployment and per capita income in 2000-2016 period is analyzed by using panel data analysis for 27 OECD countries. According to the test results, unemployment rate has 1 % negative and statistically significant effect on migration and 1% of unemployment rate rise results in about a 0,3% decrease of migration to OECD countries. Per capita income has 1% positive and statistically significant effect on migration, and 1% of per capita income rise results in about a 1% increase of migration to OECD countries. The results suggest that migration does not mean to move from one country to another according to certain rules, but the special conditions of each country effect migration flows. Therefore, it is important that policy makers should convey politics considering the properties typical to their own countries.

Keywords

• Migration,Unemployment,Income,OECD Countries

Göç, İşsizlik ve Gelir Arasındaki İlişkilerin Analizi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz

Küreselleşme hareketleriyle birlikte özellikle 2000’li yıllardan sonra büyük artış gösteren uluslararası göç hareketleri, günümüzde yüksek gelirli ülkeler için en önemli ekonomik ve politik konuların başında gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada, göçün makroekonomik belirleyicilerinin neler olduğunu ortaya koymak amacıyla göç, işsizlik ve kişi başına düşen gelir arasındaki ilişkiler 2000-2016 döneminde panel veri analiz yöntemi kullanılarak 27 OECD ülkesi için test edilmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre, işsizlik oranı göç üzerinde negatif ve %1 seviyesinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olup işsizlik oranında meydana gelen %1’lik artış, OECD ülkelerinde bu ülkelere gelen göçü yaklaşık %0,3 azaltmaktadır. Kişi başına düşen gelir göç üzerinde pozitif ve %1 seviyesinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olup kişi başına düşen gelirin %1 oranında artması, OECD ülkelerine gelen göçü yaklaşık %1 oranında artırmaktadır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bu sonuçlar, göçün belli kanunlar çerçevesinde bir ülkeden diğerine gitmediğini her ülkenin kendine özgü koşullarının göç akımlarını etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Dolayısıyla, politika uygulayıcılarının ülkelerine özgü bireysel özellikleri dikkate alarak politika geliştirmeleri önem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Göç,İşsizlik,Gelir,OECD Ülkeleri

References

1. Birleşmiş Milletler (2017). International Migration Report 2017.
2. Bonin, Holger (2005). Wage and Employment Effects of Immigration to Germany: Evidence from a Skill Group Approach. IZA DP No. 1875.
3. Borjas, George J. (2001). Does Immigration Grease the Wheels of the Labor Market? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 32(1), 69-134.
4. Boubtane, Ekrame vd. (2013). Immigration, Unemployment and GDP in the Host Country: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries. Economic Modelling, 33(2013), 261-269.
5. Bove, Vincenzo ve Elia, Leandro (2017). Migration, Diversity, and Economic Growth. World Development, 89, 227-239.
6. Breusch, P. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 11(7), 239-253.
7. Di Maria, Corrado ve Lazarova, Emiliya A. (2012). Migration, Human Capital Formation, and Growth: An Empirical Investigation. World Development, 40(5), 938-955.
8. Docquier, Frédéric vd. (2011a). Emigration and Democracy”, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5496, http://ftp.iza.org/dp5496.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2019).

9. Docquier, Frédéric vd. (2011b). The Labor Market Effects of Immigration and Emigration in OECD Countries. IZA DP No. 6258.
10. Dustmann, Christian vd. (2005). The Impact of Immigration on the British Labor Market. The Economic Journal, 115(507), 324-341.
11. Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F. (2011). Econometrics for Grumblers: A New look at the Literature on Cross‐Country Growth Empirics, Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(1), 109-155.
12. Eberhardt, Markus ve Bond, Stephen (2009). Cross-section Dependence in Nonstationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator. MPRA Paper No: 17692.
13. Grogger, J. ve Hanson, G. H. (2011). “Income Maximization and the Selection and Sorting of International Migrants. Journal of Development Economics, 95, 42-57.
14. Islam, Asadul (2007), “Immigratıon Unemployment Relationship: The Evidence from Canada”, Australian Economic Papers, March, 52-66.
15. Jean, Sebastien ve Jimenez, Miguel (2011). The Unemployment Impact of Immigration in OECD Countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 27, 241-256.
16. Karemera, D., vd. (2000). A Gravity Model Analysis of International Migration to North America. Applied Economics, 32(13),1745-1755.
17. Kim, Keuntae ve Cohen, Joel E. (2010). Determinants of International Migration Flows to and from Industrialized Countries: A Panel Data Approach Beyond Gravity. International Migration Review, 44(4), 899- 932.
18. Lee, E.S. (1966). A Theory of Migration. Demography, 3(1), 47-55.
19. Lewer, Joshua J. ve Berg, Hendrik Van den, (2008). A Gravity Model of Immigration. Economics Letters, 99, 164-167.
20. Mayda, Anna M. (2007). International Migration: A Panel Data Analysis of the Determinants of Bilateral Flows. Discussion Paper Series, CDP No 07/07.
21. Morley, Bruce (2006). Causality Between Economic Growth and Immigration: An ARDL Bounds Testing Approach. Economics Letters, 90(1), 72-76.
22. Neumayer, E. (2005). Bogus Refugees? The Determinants of Asylum Migration to Western Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 389-409.
23. OECD (2018), International Migration Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris.
24. OECD International Migration Database, http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/oecdmigrationdatabases.htm
25. Ortega, Francesc ve Peri, Giovanni (2009). The Causes and Effects of International Migrations: Evidence from OECD Countries 1980-2005. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 14833.
26. Ortega, Javier and Verdugo, Gregory (2014). The Impact of Immigration on the French Labor Market: Why so different? Labor Economics, 29(C), 14-27.
27. Pesaran, Hashem M. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence Panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No: 1229.
28. Pesaran, Hashem M. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (2), 265-312.
29. Pesaran, M. Hasheem, vd. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test for Error Cross-Section Independence. Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127.
30. Pesaran, M. Hashem ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50-93.
31. Petersen, William (1958). A General Typology of Migration. American Sociological Review, 23(3), 256-266.
32. Pischke, Jörn-Steffen ve Velling, Johannes (1997). Employment Effects of Immigration to Germany: An Analysis Based on Local Labor Markets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4) 594-604.
33. Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Statistical Society, 48(2), 167-235.
34. Shan vd. (1999). Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. International Review of Applied Economics, 13(2), 253-260.
35. Steinhardt, Max Friedrich (2011). The Wage Impact of Immigration in Germany-New Evidence for Skill Groups and Occupations. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), 1-33.
36. Stouffer, Samuel A. (1940). Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance. American Sociological Review, 5(6), 845-867.
37. Westerlund, Joakim ve Edgerton, David (2007). A Panel Boostrap Cointegration Test. Economic Letters, 97(3), 185-190.
38. Zipf, George Kingsley (1946). The P1P2/D Hypothesis: On the Intercity Movement of Persons. American Sociological Review, 11(6), 677-686.