“Immigration, Search and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare” A Reply
Journal of the European Economic Association · 2026 · Michele Battisti、Gabriel Felbermayr、Giovanni Peri、Panu Poutvaara
中文摘要
Stark 与 Byra 发现了 Battisti 等人补充材料中资本收入计算方式的一个错误,并指出在存在工资税的情况下,我们的工资谈判方程并不对应纳什谈判解。我们承认这两点,并感谢作者指出这些问题。我们在 Battisti 等文中所使用的谈判解是剩余份额固定的 Kalai 比例谈判解,而非纳什谈判。在回应中,我们表明:若将模型校准至工资税率,在保持原有 Kalai 谈判的情况下,纠正这一编码错误对我们原有结果仅有轻微影响。若同时改用纳什谈判解,移民带来的估计收益会变小。福利效应取决于谈判的具体性质,且在 Kalai 比例谈判下往往更大。在纳什谈判下,移民带来的平均总福利收益对低技能和高技能本土居民均为 0.37%,而 Battisti 等文中的结果则为高技能居民 1.25%、低技能居民 1.00%。
Abstract
Abstract Stark and Byra identify a mistake in how capital income is calculated in the supplementary files of Battisti et al. and point out that our wage bargaining equation does not correspond to the Nash bargaining solution in the presence of wage taxation. We acknowledge both points and thank the authors for pointing out these issues. The bargaining solution we use in Battisti et al. is the Kalai proportional bargaining solution with fixed surplus shares, not Nash bargaining. In our reply, we show that if we calibrate the model to wage tax rates, correcting the coding mistake has only a minor effect on our original results if maintaining the original Kalai bargaining. If we also switch to the Nash bargaining solution, the estimated gains from immigration become smaller. Welfare effects depend on the precise nature of bargaining and tend to be larger with Kalai proportional bargaining. Under Nash bargaining, average total welfare gains from immigration are 0.37% for both low-skilled and high-skilled natives, instead of 1.25% for high-skilled and 1.00% for low-skilled natives in Battisti et al.