Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:06:51.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IMMIGRATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS: CAN HIGH IMMIGRANT FERTILITY EXPLAIN VOTER SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRATION?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2017

Henning Bohn
Affiliation:
University of California Santa Barbara
Armando R. Lopez-Velasco*
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
*
Address correspondence to: Armando R. Lopez-Velasco, Department of Economics, Texas Tech University, PO Box 41014, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA; e-mail: ar.lopez@ttu.edu.

Abstract

First generation immigrants to the United States have higher fertility rates than natives. This paper analyzes to what extent this factor provides political support for immigration, using an overlapping generation model with production and capital accumulation. In this setting, immigration represents a dynamic trade-off for native workers as more immigrants decrease current wages but increase the future return on their savings. We find that immigrant fertility has surprisingly strong effects on voter incentives, especially when there is persistence in the political process. If fertility rates are sufficiently high, native workers support immigration. Persistence, either due to inertia induced by frictions in the legal system or through expectational linkages, significantly magnifies the effects. Entry of immigrants with high fertility has redistributive impacts across generations similar to pay-as-you-go social security: initial generations are net winners, whereas later generations are net losers.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank the editor William A. Barnett and two anonymous referees for valuable comments.

References

REFERENCES

Aydemir, Abdurrahman and Borjas, George (2007) Cross-country variation in the impact of international migration: Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the European Economic Association 5, 663708.Google Scholar
Baudin, Thomas (2010) A role for cultural transmission in fertility transitions. Macroeconomic Dynamics 14, 454481.Google Scholar
Bean, Frank, Swicegood, C. Gray, and Berg, Ruth (2000) Mexican-origin fertility: New patterns and interpretations. Social Science Quarterly Journal 81, 404420.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Jess (1996) On the political economy of immigration. European Economic Review 40, 17371743.Google Scholar
Ben-Gad, Michael (2004) The economic analysis of immigration. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28, 18251845.Google Scholar
Ben-Gad, Michael (2008) Capital-skill complementarity and the immigration surplus. Review of Economic Dynamics 11, 335365.Google Scholar
Boldrin, Michele and Rustichini, Aldo (2000) Political equilibria with social security. Review of Economic Dynamics 3, 4178.Google Scholar
Boldrin, Michele and Montes, Ana (2015) Modeling an immigration shock. European Economic Review 74, 190206.Google Scholar
Borjas, George (2003) The labor demand curve is downward sloping: reexamining the impact of immigration on the labor market. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 13351374.Google Scholar
Brezis, Elise and Ferreira, Rodolphe D. S. (2016). Endogenous fertility with a sibship size effect. Macroeconomic Dynamics 20, 20462066.Google Scholar
Card, David (2001) Immigrant inflows, native outflows, and the local labor market impacts of higher immigration. Journal of Labor Economics 19, 2264.Google Scholar
Cohn, D'Vera (2015) How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history, Pew Research Center September 30. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/Google Scholar
Cooley, Thomas F. and Soares, Jorge (1999) A positive theory of social security based on reputation. Journal of Political Economy 107, 135160.Google Scholar
Dolmas, Jim and Huffman, Gregory (2004) On the political economy of immigration and income redistribution. International Economic Review 45, 11291168.Google Scholar
den Haan, Wouter and Marcet, Albert (1990) Solving the stochastic growth model by parameterizing expectations. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 8, 3134.Google Scholar
Elgin, Ceyhun (2011) A theory of economic development with endogenous fertility. Macroeconomic Dynamics 16, 686705.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Rachel (2001) The impact of mass migration on the israeli labor market. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 13731408.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert (1988) Intertemporal substitution in consumption. Journal of Political Economy 96, 339357.Google Scholar
Hill, Laura and Johnson, Hans (2002) Understanding the Future of Californian's Fertility: the Role of Immigrants. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
Hollman, F., Mulder, T., and Kallan, J. (2000) Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999–2100. Population division working paper No. 38, US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
How the United States Immigration System Works (2016). Retrieved from the American Immigration Council at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works.Google Scholar
Lee, Ronald and Miller, Timothy (2000) Immigration, social security, and broader fiscal impacts. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90, 350354.Google Scholar
Livingston, Gretchen and Cohn, D'Vera (2012) US birth rate falls to a record low; decline is greatest among immigrants. Social and Demographic Trends. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/11/Birth_Rate_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Migration Policy Institute (2013) Major US Immigration Laws, 1790-Present. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/timeline-1790.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Hideki and Seoka, Yoshihiko (2014) Differential fertility and economic development. Macroeconomic Dynamics 18, 10481068.Google Scholar
Ogaki, Masao & Reinhart, Carmen (1998) Measuring intertemporal substitution: The role of durable goods. Journal of Political Economy 106, 10781098.Google Scholar
Ortega, Francesc (2005) Immigration quotas and skill upgrading. Journal of Public Economics 89, 18411863.Google Scholar
Ortega, Francesc (2010) Immigration, citizenship, and the size of government. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10, Contributions, Article 26.Google Scholar
Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P. and Peri, Giovanni (2012) Rethinking the effect of immigration on wages. Journal of the European Economic Association 10, 152197.Google Scholar
Ribar, David C. (2012) Immigrants' Time Use: A Survey of Methods and Evidence. IZA discussion paper no. 6931, October.Google Scholar
Russo, Giuseppe (2011) Voting over selective immigration policies with immigration aversion. Economics of Governance 12, 325351.Google Scholar
Sand, Edith and Razin, Assaf (2007) The Political-Economy Positive Role of the Social Security System in Sustaining Immigration (but not Vice Versa). NBER working paper 13598.Google Scholar
Sevak, Purvi and Schmidt, Lucie (2008) Immigrant-Native Fertility and Mortality Differentials in the United States. University of Michigan Retirement Research Center working paper 2008-181.Google Scholar
Smith, James P. and Edmonston, Barry (eds.) (1997) The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Sobotka, Tomas (2008) The rising importance of migrants for childbearing in Europe. Demographic Research 19, 225248.Google Scholar
Storesletten, Kjetil (2000) Sustaining fiscal policy through immigration. Journal of Political Economy 108, 300323.Google Scholar
Swicegood, C. Gray, Michael Sobczak, and Ishizawa, Hiromi (2006) A New Look at the Recent Fertility of American Immigrants, Results for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles.Google Scholar