Happily Ever After: Immigration, Natives' Marriage and Fertility

Michela  Carlana; Marco  Tabellini

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Happily Ever After: Immigration, Natives' Marriage and Fertility

by Michela Carlana and Marco Tabellini

Abstract

In this paper, we study the effects of immigration on natives’ marriage, fertility, and family formation across U.S. cities between 1910 and 1930. Instrumenting immigrants’ location decision by interacting national changes in migration flows across ethnic groups with pre-existing immigrants’ enclaves across U.S. cities, we find that immigration raised marriage rates and the probability of having children for young native men and women. We show that these effects were driven by the large and positive impact of immigration on native men’s employment and occupational standing, which increased the supply of “marriageable men.” We explore alternative mechanisms—changes in sex ratios, natives’ cultural responses, and displacement effects of immigrants on female employment—and provide evidence that none of them can account for a quantitatively relevant fraction of our results.

Keywords: Immigration; Demography; Urban Scope; Household; Employment; History; Outcome or Result; United States;

Language: English

Format: Print

65 pages

SSRN Read Now

Citation:

Carlana, Michela, and Marco Tabellini. "Happily Ever After: Immigration, Natives' Marriage and Fertility." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-004, July 2018. (Revised March 2019. Winner of European Economic Association Young Economist Award, 2018. IZA (Institute of Labor Economics) Discussion Paper Series, No. 11467, April 2018)

This paper documents that disenfranchisement and discrimination discouraged WWII volunteer military participation of African American men, relative to Caucasian men, after the Pearl Harbor attack. The race-gap in volunteer enlistment is most pronounced in regions where discrimination was particularly severe. There is no gap in draft enlistment anywhere. Consistent with the notion that disenfranchisement and discrimination discourage military participation, we document that forcibly interred Japanese Americans were much less likely to serve in the U.S. military than those not interred.

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2020

The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States

Paola Giuliano and Marco Tabellini

We test the relationship between historical immigration to the United States and political ideology today. We hypothesize that European immigrants brought with them their preferences for the welfare state, and that this had a long-lasting effect on the political ideology of US born individuals. Our analysis proceeds in three steps. First, we document that the historical presence of European immigrants is associated with a more liberal political ideology and with stronger preferences for redistribution among US born individuals today. Next, we show that this correlation is not driven by the characteristics of the counties where immigrants settled or other specific, socioeconomic immigrants' traits. Finally, we provide evidence that immigrants brought with them their preferences for the welfare state from their countries of origin. Consistent with the hypothesis that immigration left its footprint on American ideology via cultural transmission from immigrants to natives, we show that our results are stronger when inter-group contact between natives and immigrants, measured with either intermarriage or residential integration, was higher. Our findings also indicate that immigrants influenced American political ideology during one of the largest episodes of redistribution in US history – the New Deal – and that such effects persisted after the initial shock.

Keywords: political ideology; Immigration; History; Values and Beliefs; Welfare or Wellbeing; United States;

Citation:

Giuliano, Paola, and Marco Tabellini. "The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-118, May 2020. (Revised July 2020. Available also from VOX and in UCLA Anderson Review.) View Details

Cite View Details SSRN Read Now

US voters exaggerate the differences in attitudes held by Republicans and Democrats on a range of socioeconomic and political issues. We examine the drivers and implications of such perceived partisan differences. We find that a model of stereotypes where distortions are stronger for issues that are more salient to voters captures important features of the data. First, perceived partisan differences are predictable from the actual differences across parties, in particular the relative prevalence of extreme attitudes. Second, perceived partisan differences are larger on issues that individuals consider more important. In particular, we show that the end of the Cold War in 1991, which shifted US voters’ attention away from external threats, led to an increase in perceived partisan differences in domestic issues, and more so for issues with more stereotypical partisan differences. The reverse pattern occurred after the terrorist attacks in 2001, when attention swung back towards external threats. Finally, the belief distortions we identify are quantitatively significant, and strongly predict voting turnout.

Faculty & Research

Happily Ever After: Immigration, Natives' Marriage and Fertility

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author