Special issue of International Journal of Manpower with Martin Kahanec (Public Policy) as guest editor and contributor of a widely covered article published now

A special double-issue of the International Journal of Manpower with Martin Kahanec (DPP) as a guest editor (with Alan Barrett and Klaus F. Zimmermann) has just been published by Emerald. The double issue features two articles co-authored by Martin Kahanec, one on the "Pitfalls of Immigrant Inclusion into the European Welfare State" (with Anna Myung-Hee Kim and Klaus F. Zimmermann) and another one on "Unemployment Benefits and Immigration: Evidence from the EU" (with Corrado Giulietti, Maritn Guzi and Klaus F. Zimmermann). The latter article provides new evidence on the welfare magnet hypothesis, refuting the myth that welfare generosity leads to increased inflows of migrants. The article has been extensively covered by major European media, including The Guardian, Handelsblatt, or Die Welt. 

International Journal of Manpower, special issue on “Migration, the Welfare State, and European Labor Markets”, Vol. 34, No. 1+2, (2013)

Recent article in The Guardian available here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/28/immigrants-eu-benefits-welfare-magnet

Please read more about the special issue and the articles here:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0143-7720&volume=34&issue=1

Unemployment Benefits and Immigration: Evidence from the EU
by Corrado Giulietti, Martin Guzi, Martin Kahanec, Klaus F. Zimmermann
(October 2011)
published in: International Journal of Manpower, 2013, 34 (1), 24-38. Discussed in media like The Guardian, Handelsblatt, Die Welt, among others.

Abstract:
The paper studies the impact of unemployment benefits on immigration. A sample of 19 European countries observed over the period 1993-2008 is used to test the hypothesis that unemployment benefit spending (UBS) is correlated with immigration flows from EU and non-EU origins. While OLS estimates reveal the existence of a moderate correlation for non-EU immigrants only, IV and GMM techniques used to address endogeneity issues yield, respectively, a much smaller and an essentially zero causal impact of UBS on immigration. All estimates for immigrants from EU origins indicate that flows within the EU are not related to unemployment benefit generosity. This suggests that the so-called "welfare migration" debate is misguided and not based on empirical evidence.
Text: See Discussion Paper No. 6075  

Pitfalls of Immigrant Inclusion into the European Welfare State
by Martin Kahanec, Anna Myunghee Kim, Klaus F. Zimmermann
(December 2011)
published in: International Journal of Manpower, 2013, 34 (1), 39-55.

Abstract:
This paper's main purpose is to gauge immigrants' demand for social assistance and services and identify the key barriers to social and labor market inclusion of immigrants in the European Union. The data from an online primary survey of experts from organizations working on immigrant integration in the EU is analyzed using simple comparative statistical methods; the robustness of the results is tested by means of Logit and ordered Logit statistical models. We find that the general public in Europe has rather negative attitudes towards immigrants. Although the business community views immigrants somewhat less negatively, barriers to immigrant labor market inclusion identified include language and human capital gaps, a lack of recognition of foreign qualifications, discrimination, intransparent labor markets and institutional barriers such as legal restrictions for foreign citizens. Exclusion from higher education, housing and the services of the financial sector aggravate these barriers. Changes in the areas of salaried employment, education, social insurance, mobility and attitudes are seen as most desired by members of ethnic minorities. The current economic downturn is believed to have increased the importance of active inclusion policies, especially in the areas of employment and education. These results appear to be robust with respect to a number of characteristics of respondents and their organizations.
Text: See Discussion Paper No. 6260