Comparing Immigration Policies: An Overview from the IMPALA                             Database

Beine, Michel; Boucher, Anna; Burgoon, Brian; Crock, Mary; Gest, Justin; Hiscox, Michael; McGovern, Patrick; Rapoport, Hillel; Schaper, Joep; Thielemann, Eiko R.

doi:10.1111/imre.12169

Cited by 126 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 These data involve the coding of six sample countries between the years 1990 and 2008: Australia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United States. This paper thus complements the information provided in Beine et al (2015) which focuses on two specific years, namely 1999…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Measuring Immigration Policies: Preliminary Evidence from IMPALA

Beine¹,

Crock²,

Gest³

et al. 2015

CESifo Economic Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Measuring Immigration Policies: Preliminary Evidence from IMPALA Abstract This paper presents the methods and preliminary findings from IMPALA, a database that systematically measures the character and stringency of immigration policies. Based on a selection of data for six pilot countries between 1990 and 2008, we document the variation of immigration policies across countries and over time. We focus on three specific dimensions: the number of entry tracks for economic workers; the measurement and role of bilateral agreements that complement unilateral immigration policies; and aggregation procedures that allow for gauging the stringency of immigration regulations comparatively. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Measuring Immigration Policies: Preliminary Evidence from IMPALA

Beine¹,

Crock²,

Gest³

et al. 2015

CESifo Economic Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 The measure of Mayda (2010) that has been applied by, e.g., Ortega and Peri (2009), is not suitable for studying migration stocks, as it only captures changes in immigration policy without information on initial policy levels. The more current studies by Beine et al (2015) and Beine et al (2016) allow for a cross-country comparison, but only for a very limited number of destination countries with regard to our sample (five destination countries for the years 1999 and 2008 and three destination countries between 1990 and 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public beliefs in social mobility and high-skilled migration

Lumpe

2018

J Popul Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, this table does not even include immigration policy indices—a comparative latecomer to the index literature. Some of these include Timothy Hatton’s Asylum Policy Index (Hatton & Moloney, , Hatton, ), Martin Ruhs’s Openness and Migration Rights Indicators (); Helbling, Bjerre, Römer, and Zobel’s () Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC); the International Migration Policy and Law Analysis (IMPALA) database (Beine et al, ); Cerna’s () index of states’ openness to high‐skilled immigrants (HSI); and the Determinants of International Migration (DEMIG) policy database, which tracks policy change across 45 countries between 1945 and 2013 (De Haas, Natter, & Vezzoli ).…”

Section: European Migrant‐related Policy Indexing: Highlighting Methomentioning

confidence: 99%

Indexing Immigration and Integration Policy: Lessons from Europe

Goodman¹

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immigrant‐related policy indexes have become popular in both U.S. and European contexts, yet these projects boast distinct and divergent trajectories. European indices are characterized by rigorous conceptualization, specificity in elements of policy design (e.g., settings like fees or appeal process), and a variety of measurement strategies. By contrast, U.S. state‐level policy indices exhibit a lack of differentiation between immigration and integration policy and excessive generality in measurement and representation of policy instruments and settings, exacerbated in presenting a policy index as an aggregate count. This paper argues U.S. policy indexing can benefit from the European indexing experience. Following an overview of the state of each field, assessing concept differentiation, specification, and measurement in each, the paper illustrates how even the well‐conceived and specified European integration policy indices run into problems at the analysis stage. It presents a replication‐replacement study to illustrate divergent performance of highly correlated and conceptually agreeing indices, as well as methodological issues inherent to indices of low‐N, including using a policy index as a dependent variable and index selection absent a priori theorization. It concludes with suggestions for improving American immigration policy indices, as well as general observations on working with statistical power‐challenged indices and data limitations.

show abstract

Comparing Immigration Policies: An Overview from the IMPALA Database

Cited by 126 publications

References 65 publications

Measuring Immigration Policies: Preliminary Evidence from IMPALA

Measuring Immigration Policies: Preliminary Evidence from IMPALA

Public beliefs in social mobility and high-skilled migration

Indexing Immigration and Integration Policy: Lessons from Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About