Immigration is a topic I’ve covered numerous times on this blog, and most evidence suggests that it’s a highly valuable endeavor for both the individuals and the host community alike. Nonetheless, the ability to settle in as quickly as possible is obviously extremely important.
Research from Bocconi University reveals that the desire for the immigrant to remain in the country over the long term plays a crucial role in their success in acquiring vital skills, such as the native language, and subsequently on their ability to successfully contribute to the host country.
Deciding to stay
The researchers developed a mathematical model to provide insight into the decision-making process of immigrants. The model suggests that the expectations of the length of stay of each individual are crucial to understanding any subsequent decisions to invest in things like skills development as well as their likelihood of accepting lower-paid jobs and how they respond to immigration policies.
The authors explain that a lot of previous research has focused on the various productivity differences between immigrants in order to try and explain any different career paths they may embark upon. The new paper suggests that one’s location preferences are also crucially important. For instance, someone with a clear intent to stay is much more likely to invest time and energy in understanding the local labor market, developing key social ties, and learning the local language than a peer who would rather return to their homeland.
When testing their model on Turkish immigration into Germany, the researchers found that people who remain are often higher-skilled, which is in part due to their willingness to invest in developing the skills to thrive.
The right policy
The researchers then used their model to examine three distinct immigration policies, each of which grants permanent residency after five years, depending on:
- An earning threshold (like the UK);
- Acquiring host-specific skills such as language (like in some countries of the EU);
- Granted randomly with 30% probability.
The researchers say that the first approach tends to select high productivity migrants, whereas the second focuses more on those with a high preference for the host country.
They ran the model for Turkish immigrants in Germany and found that the earnings threshold approach would generate a per capita increase in tax payments of €782 per year. When the second approach was used, it generated an annual gain of €789, but also ensured fewer losses as fewer people left the country. The random lottery approach produced an annual fall of €633.
It’s also important to note that the 1st and 3rd schemes present noticeable barriers to securing permanent residency, so also reduce total immigration by around 26%. This compares to host-specific skills rules, which appeared to reduce immigration by just 3%.
These findings are particularly important in light of policies such as the UK’s decision to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, which is a clear example of stripping people of any fundamental agency over their lives. The research reminds us that a desire to be somewhere is the bedrock upon which successful integration is founded, so should not be dismissed so lightly.
