移民、搜寻与再分配: 对本地人福利的量化评估: 评注
“Immigration, Search and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare:” Comment
Journal of the European Economic Association · 2025 · [{"name": "Oded Stark", "affiliation": ["University of Bonn", "University of Warsaw"]}, {"name": "Łukasz Byra", "affiliation": ["University of Warsaw"]}]
中文摘要
摘要 Battisti 等人发表于 2018 年 8 月《欧洲经济协会杂志》(Journal of the European Economic Association) 的论文《移民、搜寻与再分配: 对本地人福利的定量评估》考察了向 20 个经济合作与发展组织 (OECD) 国家的移民如何影响这些国家本地工人的福利。在这篇评论中, 我们就 Battisti 等人研究中与该效应相关的分析部分与实证部分提出若干关切。具体而言, 当 Battisti 等人为企业与工人之间分配由企业—工人匹配所产生的剩余制定规则时, 他们忽略了工资被征税这一事实; 当 Battisti 等人构建 GDP 恒等式时, 对资本的纳入方式是不正确的。本评论对修正后模型进行的校准表明, 上述问题在可测量的程度上影响了关于技能中性迁移与低技能工人迁移对本地工人福利之影响的实证结果。另一个关切是, 我们对修正后模型的校准所得到的工人工资税率估计值过高, 高到无法被视为可行。这向我们表明, 即便 Battisti 等人的模型得到修正, 仍有必要进行结构性修订, 才能提供一个衡量移民对这 20 个 OECD 国家本地工人福利之影响的有用工具。作为朝此方向迈出的一步, 我们校准了修正后模型的一个版本, 该版本包含"合理的"工资税率与预算赤字。这一反事实版本得到的结果, 支持了修正后模型关于技能中性迁移与低技能工人迁移对本地工人福利具有负面影响的结论。
Abstract
Abstract In “Immigration, search and redistribution: A quantitative assessment of native welfare,” a paper by Battisti et al. published in the August 2018 issue of the Journal of the European Economic Association, the authors inquire about how migration to 20 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries affects the welfare of the countries’ native workers. In this comment, we raise several concerns regarding the analytical and the empirical parts of the Battisti et al.’s inquiry that bear on this effect. In particular, when Battisti et al. formulate a rule for the division between a worker and a firm of the surplus that arises from a firm-worker match, Battisti et al. neglect to take into account the fact that wages are taxed. When Battisti et al. formulate the GDP identity, the incorporation of capital is done incorrectly. Calibration of a corrected model undertaken in this comment reveals that these issues affect measurably the empirical results regarding the impacts on the welfare of native workers of skill-neutral migration and of migration by low-skill workers. An additional concern is that our calibration of a corrected model yields estimates of the tax rate on workers’ wages that are far too high to be considered feasible. This suggests to us that even when the model of Battisti et al. is corrected, a structural revision is deemed necessary in order to deliver a useful tool for measuring the effect of migration on the welfare of native workers in the 20 OECD countries. As a step in this direction, we calibrate a version of the corrected model, which involves “reasonable” tax rates on wages and a budget deficit. The results yielded by this counterfactual version lend support to the results of the corrected model regarding the negative impact of skill-neutral migration and of migration by low-skill workers on the welfare of native workers.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →