Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

New evidence on the healthy immigrant effect

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Population Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents new evidence that immigrants have better health than natives upon arrival to their destination. It analyzes a very interesting episode in international migration, namely the exodus of Ecuadorians in the aftermath of the economic collapse in the late 1990s. More than 600,000 Ecuadorians from 1999 to 2005 left their homeland, most relocating in Spain. Using information from the birth certificate data, the paper compares the birth outcomes of immigrant women in Spain not only to that of natives at destination, but to that of natives in Ecuador and immigrants from other nationalities in Spain. These comparisons suggest that the better health at birth of children born to immigrants from Ecuador partly responds to the selection of healthier women into migration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the US see Jasso et al. (2004), Abraido-Lanza et al. (1999), Antecol and Bedard (2006), and Giuntella (2012). Chen et al. (1996), Deri (2003), McDonald (2003) and Laroche (2000) have documented a health advantage among immigrants to Canada, while Donovan et al. (1992), Chiswick et al. (2008), and Powles and Gifford (1990) do so for immigrants to Australia.

  2. It has also been suggested that the immigrant health advantage could derive from the mandatory health screening that is part of the migration process in some countries. However, some evidence indicates that admission policies are not the principal determinant of the health gap (Laroche 2000; Uitenbroek and Verhoeff 2002).

  3. See Aizer and Currie (2014) for a detailed survey of the literature.

  4. As a result of the exodus, the Ecuadorian population in Spain increased from 76,000 individuals before 2000 to 457,000 in 2005 (Bertoli et al. 2011).

  5. An important debate in this literature is the existence of nonlinearities in the effect of birth weight. For example, Almond et al. (2005) and Royer (2009) find that the relationship between birth weight and infant mortality is strongest for the lower birth weight births. Behrman and Rosenzweig (2004) also find that augmenting birth weight among lower birth weight babies, but not among higher birth weight ones, has significant labor market payoffs. In contrast, they also find that increasing birth weight increases adult schooling attainment and adult height for babies at most levels of birth weight. Similarly, Black et al. (2007) find little evidence of significant nonlinearities in earnings, education, height, or IQ tests. Finally, Royer (2009) shows that the effect of birth weight on education is strongest in the 2500+ g range, while Oreopoulos et al. (2008) find strong effects of birth weight on outcomes such as death between ages 1 and 17 years, grade completion, and months on social assistance after age 18 years, even for ranges not considered overtly concerning (for example, birth weights between 2500 and 3500 g).

  6. Evidence of positive selection on health has been documented in Jasso et al. (2004) and Antecol and Bedard (2006).

  7. See Table 11 in the Appendix.

  8. In the first half of the 2000s in Spain, there were three amnesties to illegal immigrants (2001, 2002, and 2005).

  9. The same authors estimate that the Ecuadorian population in the USA increased from 272,000 before 2000 to 394,000 in 2005 and represented 1.3 % of immigration flows in the USA during this period.

  10. Deindustrialization led to a decrease of almost 3 million jobs in industrial employment that particularly impacted younger and older workers, who were less likely to find new employment opportunities (Voicu 2005).

  11. See Macias (2008).

  12. According to Fernández-Huertas Moraga (2013), between 2000 and 2007 a 5.1 % of the population in Romania had a college degree, while this number was 9.5 % among immigrants in Spain.

  13. In order to register a birth, the parents or the legal representative of the child have to present a document with statistical information on the birth outcome (Informe Estadístico del Nacido Vivo in Ecuador, or Boletí n Estadístico del Parto in Spain).

  14. The Spanish data protection policy prevents the police from accessing the local population registry to identify illegal aliens.

  15. Unfortunately, the birth certificates do not contain information on prenatal care.

  16. See Table 11 in the Appendix.

  17. The birth certificate data for Spain are made publicly available by the National Statistical Institute (INE).

  18. The descriptive statistics in Table 2 consider only the nationality of the mother. In estimation, I will take into account the nationality of the father.

  19. These data are available from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC) in Ecuador.

  20. Note that the information for Ecuadorian immigrants in Spain is taken from the Spanish birth certificate data.

  21. Only 40 % of the observations with valid information on birth weight report gestational length.

  22. Note that healthy habits may vary across individuals from the same sending country (e.g., different rates of prenatal care or nutrition). Differences among immigrants and non-immigrants in this dimension will be captured by the selection ( β selection) rather than the habits component ( β habits).

  23. See Fernández-Huertas Moraga (2013) and Bertoli et al. (2013).

  24. While the lexical similarity between Romanian and Spanish has been estimated at 71 %, some immigrants upon arrival my not properly understand the native language.

  25. Differences in fertility patterns across groups and their implications for the results are investigated in the next section.

  26. The estimate is obtained by including as additional controls in Eq. 1 the gender of the child, an indicator for the month and year of birth, a set of dummies for the mother’s age at the date of birth, as well as indicators for the province of residence in Spain.

  27. I replicate the results in Table 5 but excluding from estimation mixed couples (i.e., babies born to mothers from Ecuador and fathers from Spain and that born to mothers from Spain and fathers from other nationalities). The main conclusions in Table 5 remain unaffected. The largest difference appears in terms of birth weight: when mixed couples are excluded the estimated healthy immigrant effect is reduced by 10 g. The results when mixed couples are excluded are available upon request from the author.

  28. Birth weight can be an inaccurate measure of maternal health as in some cases health problems of the mother, like diabetes, lead to an elevated weight of the baby. Therefore, I extend the analysis to these other pregnancy outcomes that are also related to maternal health (see Aizer and Currie 2014).

  29. Differences in birth weight and the probability of low birth weight between natives and immigrants could result from the observed differences in gestational length. To examine this possibility I have re-estimated the birth weight and the low birth weight regressions in column (1) and (2) in Table 5 including as an additional control gestational length. This slightly reduces the size of the healthy immigrant effect (from 117.7 to 110.1 g in the birth weight regression and from −0.022 to −0.019 in the probability of low birth weight). These differences are still significant at any conventional level.

  30. The model also includes a set of dummies for the age of the mother, as well as province and year indicators.

  31. Note that the estimated models in Table 5 include these controls.

  32. Note that the estimates in Table 5 are obtained from the births occurred between 2001 and 2005. Given the characteristics of the Ecuadorian exodus, most of these births are likely to be to recent immigrants or immigrants that have been in the country for less than 5 years. However, this assumption cannot be tested as information on year since arrival is not available in the data. There is evidence, mostly among Mexican immigrants in the USA (see Antecol and Bedard 2006) showing that the initial health advantage erodes over time as immigrants assimilates. If this pattern also existed among Ecuadorian immigrants in Spain (data limitation issues prevent me from testing it), the estimates in Table 5 would represent a lower bound of the healthy immigrant effect.

  33. As discussed in Section IV, the analysis is restricted to the years 2001–2005 (i.e., pre-crisis period). Fernández-Huertas Moraga (2014) shows that migration flows to Spain were positively selected in terms of productive skills during the booming years, and that, on average, they improved after the crisis. However, for the Ecuadorian case, there is evidence of negative selection in terms of some education measures after the crisis. This suggests that my estimates of the healthy immigrant effect for the period 2001-2005 may be positively biased as a result of the different selection patterns over the business cycle.

  34. Gestational age is only reported for 40 % of the births with valid information on weight, and there is no information to construct the death within 24 h after birth.

  35. The lexical similarity of Romanian with Spanish has been estimated at 71 %.

  36. Table 11 in the Appendix indicates that among the Ecuadorian and Romanian immigrants living in Spain in 2007, 72 % of them arrived between 2000 and 2004.

  37. These results are obtained after controlling for differences in socioeconomic characteristics. A similar message is obtained when the models are estimated without including the additional controls.

  38. Note that the health advantage in terms of birth weight is present even if the average birth weight in Romania is higher than in Ecuador (i.e., 3196 versus 3098).

  39. See Camacho 2008; Almond and Mazumder 2013; and Bozzoli and Quintana 2014 for evidence of the negative effect of stress and malnutrition on birth outcomes.

  40. Table 15 in the Appendix reports the estimates of the fertility model for these groups. Note that immigrants from Colombia and Bulgaria have lower fertility rates than immigrants from Ecuador. Thus, the health advantage of Ecuadorian immigrants does not respond to lower fertility.

  41. Note that Chinese immigrants have a long tradition in Spain. There is evidence that the initial health advantage of immigrants erodes over time as their practices and behaviors converge to that of natives (Antecol and Bedard 2006). Thus, the healthy immigrant effect for the Chinese reported in Table 10 could be underestimated due to the presence of non-recent immigrants in the data.

References

  • Aizer A, Currie J (2014) The intergenerational transmission of inequality: Maternal disadvantage and health at birth. Science 344:856–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraido-Lanza A, Dohrenwend B, Ng-Mak D, Tuner J (1999) The Latino mortality paradox: a test of the “salmon-bias” and healthy migrant hypothesis. Am J Public Health 89:1543–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almond D, Mazumder B (2013) Health capital and the prenatal environment: the effect of maternal fasting during pregnancy. Am Econ J: Appl Econ 3(4):56–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond D, Chay K, Lee D (2005) The costs of low birth weight. Q J Econ 120(3):1031–1083

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosini JW, Mayr K, Peri G, Radu D (2012) The selection of migrants and returnees in Romania: evidence and long-run implications. IZA Discussion Papers No. 6664, IZA Bonn

  • Andrén A, Roman M (2014) Should I stay or should I go? Romanian migrants during transition and enlargement. IZA Discussion Papers No. 8690, IZA Bonn

  • Antecol H, Bedard K (2006) Unhealthy assimilation: do immigrants converge to American weights? Demography 43(2):337–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker G (1981) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrman J, Rosenzweig MR (2004) Returns to birthweight. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):586–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belot MV, Hatton TJ (2008) Immigrant Selection in the OECD. Australian National University Centre for economic policy research discussion paper 571

  • Bertoli S (2010) Networks, sorting and self-selection of Ecuadorian migrants. Ann Econ Stat 97(/98):261–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoli S, Fernández-Huertas Moraga J, Ortega F (2011) Immigration policies and The Ecuadorian exodus world bank. Econ Rev 25(1):57–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoli S, Fernández-Huertas Moraga J, Ortega F (2013) Crossing the border: self-selection, earnings, and individual migration decisions. J Dev Econ 101:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birth Certificate Data. Ecuador. Several years. http://www.inec.gob.ec/estadisticas/?option=com_content&view=article&id=114&Itemid=91

  • Birth Certificate Data, Spain. Several years. Spanish Statistical Institute. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/Vitalstatsonline.htm#Downloadable

  • Black S, Devereux PJ, Salvanes K (2007) From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight on adult outcomes. Q J Econ 122(1):409–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas G (1987) Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. Am Econ Rev 77(4):531–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch M, Carnero MA, Farre L (2010) Information and discrimination in the rental housing market: evidence from a field experiment. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozzoli C, Quintana C (2014) The weight of the crisis: evidence from newborns in Argentina. Rev Econ Stat 96(3):550–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho A (2008) Stress and birth weight: evidence from terrorist attacks. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 98(2):511–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Ng E, Wilkins R (1996) The health of Canada’s immigrants in 94–95. Health Rep 7(4):33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiquiar D, Hanson G (2005) International migration, self-selection, and the distribution of wages: evidence form Mexico and the United States. J Polit Econ 113 (2):239–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick BR (1978) The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign born men. J Polit Econ 86:897–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick BR (1988) Differences in education and earnings across racial and ethnic groups: tastes, discrimination and investment in child quality. Q J Econ 103:571–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick BR (1999) Are immigrants favorably self-selected? Am Econ Rev 89:181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick BR, Lee YL, Miller PW (2008) Immigrant selection systems and immigrant health contemporary. Econ Policy 26(4):555–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie J, Moretti E (2007) Biology as destiny? Short- and long-run determinants of intergenerational transmission of birth weight. J Labor Econ 25(2):231–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie J, Neidell M, Schneider JF (2009) Air pollution and infant health: lessons from New Jersey. J Health Econ 28(3):688–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie J (2009) Healthy, wealthy, and wise: Is there a causal relationship between child health and human capital development. J Econ Lit 47(1):87–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deri C (2003) Understanding the healthy immigrant effect in Canada. Unpublished Manuscript

  • Donovan J, d’Espaignet E, Metron C, van Ommeren M (eds) (1992) Immigrants in Australia: a health profile, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethnic Health Series, No 1, Canberra: AGPS

  • Fernández-Huertas Moraga J (2011) New evidence on emigrant selection. Rev Econ Stat 93(1):72–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Huertas Moraga J (2013) Inmigración. In: Cebolla H, González A (eds) Integración sin modelo?

  • Fernández-Huertas Moraga J (2014) Immigrant selection over the business cycle: the spanish boom and the great recession. FEDEA Working Paper, 2014–05

  • Grogger J, Hanson GH (2008) Income maximization and the selection and sorting of international migrants NBER working paper 13821

  • Giuntella O (2012) Why does the health of immigrants deteriorate? Boston University Mimeo

  • Hoynes H, Page M, Stevens H (2011) Can targeted transfers improve birth outcomes? Evidence from the introduction of the WIC program. J Public Econ 95:813–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso G, Massey D, Rosenzweig MD, Smith J (2004) Immigrant health - selectivity and acculturation Anderson, Bulatao, Cohen (eds), The National Academies Press, Washington DC

  • King G, Murray CJL, Salomon JA, Tandon A (2004) Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. AM Polit Sci Rev 98:191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche M (2000) Health status and health services utilization of Canada’s immigrants and non-immigrant population, vol 26, pp 51–75

  • Macias A (2008) Flujo migratorio de la minoria étnica gitana desde Rumania hacia España. Universidad Pública de Navarra

  • McDonald JT (2003) The health of immigrants to Canada. mimeo University of New Brunswick

  • McKenzie DJ, Rapoport H (2007) Network effects and the dynamics of migration and inequality: theory and evidence from Mexico. J Dev Econ 84(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie DJ, Rapoport H (2010) Self-selection patterns in Mexico-U.S. migration: the role of migration networks. Rev Econ Stat 92(4):811–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie DJ, Gibson J, Stillman S (2010) How important is selection? Experimental vs non-experimental measures of the income gains from migration. J Eur Econ Assoc 4:913–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanu R, Palicari G, Stativa E, Vitcu A (2006) Starea de nutritie a copilului varsta de pana la 5 ani in Romania. IOMC-Institutul pentru ocrotirea mamei si copilului. Alfred Rusescu. Ministerul Sanatatii Publice, Unicef – reprezentanta in Romania Editura MarLink, ISBN: 973-8411-45-9

  • Oreopoulos P, Stabile M, Walld R, Roos LL (2008) Short-, medium-, and long-term consequences of poor infant health. J Human Res 43:88–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orrenius P, Zavodny M (2005) Did 9/11 worsen the job prospects of Hispanic immigrants? Working Papers 0508, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

  • Powles J, Gifford S (1990) How healthy are Australian immigrants? In: Reid JC, Trompf P (eds) The health of immigrant Australians. Sydney: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, pp 77–107

  • Quintana-Domeque C, Rodenas P (2014) Fear in the womb: the effects of terrorism on birth outcomes in Spain. IZA Working Paper 8671

  • Royer H (2009) Separated at girth: US twin estimates of the effects of birth weight. Am Econ J: Appl Econ 1(1):49–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubalcava L, Teruel G, Thomas D, Goldman N (2008) The healthy migrant effect: new findings from the Mexican family life survey. Am J Public Health 98:78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman S, Gibson J, McKenzie D (2012) The impact of immigration on child health: experimental evidence from a migration lottery program. Econ Inq 50(1):6281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uitenbroek D, Verhoeff A (2002) Life expectancy and mortality differences between migrant groups living in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 54:1379–1388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voicu A (2005) Employment Dynamics in the Romanian Labor Market: A Markow Chain Monte Carlo Approach. J Comp Econ 33(3):604–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to the editor, Klaus Zimmermann, and three anonymous referees for their comments, help and guidance. I also acknowledge the comments and suggestions by Jesús Fernández-Huertas Moraga, Hillel Rapoport, Deborah Cobb-Clark, Matilde Machado, Libertad González, Alessia Matano and participants at the 10th IZA Annual Migration Meeting and 4th Migration Topic Week, the 15th IZA/CEPR European Summer Symposium in Labor Economics and the 14th IZA/SOLE Transatlantic Meetings of Labor Economists for comments and suggestions. I acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Catalonia (grant SGR2014-325), the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant ECO2014-59959-P-P) and the RecerCaixa 2012 grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic Policy (GiM-IREA), Universitat de Barcelona, Carrer Keynes 1-11, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Lídia Farré

  2. Institut d’Anàlisi Econòmica (IAE-CSIC), Campus UAB, 08193, Bellaterra, Spain

    Lídia Farré

  3. IZA, Bonn, Germany

    Lídia Farré

Authors
  1. Lídia Farré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lídia Farré.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Klaus F. Zimmermann

Appendix

Appendix

Table 11 Year of arrival by country of origin
Full size table
Table 12 Aggregate health statistics
Full size table
Table 13 Missing birth weight information in the birth certificate data in Ecuador
Full size table
Table 14 Socioeconomic characteristics of female natives and immigrants in Spain
Full size table
Table 15 Differences in fertility across immigrant groups
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farré, L. New evidence on the healthy immigrant effect. J Popul Econ 29, 365–394 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0578-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0578-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation