Cultural Diversity and Cultural Distance as Choice Determinants of Migration Destination

Abstract

This study analyses the impact of cultural composition on regional attractiveness from the perspective of international migrant sorting behaviour on a European regional NUTS1 level. We use an attitudinal survey to quantify cultural distances between natives and immigrants in the region concerned, and estimate the migrants’ varying preferences for both cultural diversity and cultural distance. To account for regional unobserved heterogeneity, our econometric analysis employs artificial instrumental variables, as developed by Bayer et al., [2004a. An equilibrium model of sorting in an urban housing market. NBER no. 10865]. The main conclusions are twofold. On the one hand, cultural diversity increases regional attractiveness. On the other hand, average cultural distance greatly weakens regional attractiveness.

Diversité culturelle et distance culturelle comme éléments déterminants du choix dans la destination de la migration

Résumé Cette étude analyse l'impact de la composition culturelle sur l'attrait régional du point de vue de l'attitude sur le tri des migrants internationaux à l’échelon régional européen NUTS1. Nous faisons usage d'un sondage comportemental pour quantifier des distances culturelles entre ressortissants locaux et immigrants dans la région en question, et nous estimons les différentes préférences des migrants sur les plans de la diversité culturelle et de la distance. Afin de tenir compte de l'hétérogénéité régionale non observée, notre analyse économétrique fait usage de variables instrumentales artificielles, développées par Bayer et autres (2004a). On en tire une double conclusion. D'un côté, la diversité culturelle accroît l'attraction de la région, de l'autre, la distance culturelle moyenne affaiblit fortement l'attraction régionale.

La diversidad cultural y la distancia cultural como determinantes para la elección del destino de migración

Resumen Este estudio analiza el efecto de la composición cultural sobre la atracción regional desde la perspectiva del comportamiento para la clasificación de la migración internacional con base en un nivel NUTS1 regional europeo. Utilizamos una encuesta de actitud para cuantificar las distancias culturales entre los nativos y los inmigrantes de la región concerniente y estimamos las diversas preferencias de los migrantes en lo que respecta a la diversidad cultural y la distancia cultural. Para contabilizar la heterogeneidad regional no observada, nuestro análisis econométrico emplea variables instrumentales artificiales, tal y como fueron desarrolladas por Bayer et al. (2004a). Las conclusiones principales se dividen en dos partes. Por un lado, la diversidad cultural incrementa el atractivo regional. Por el otro, la distancia cultural media reduce en gran medida el atractivo regional.

文化多样性和文化距离作为选择迁移目的地的决定因素

摘要 本研究从欧洲区域 NUTS1 级国际迁移分类行为的角度,分析了文化构成对区域吸引力的影响。我们采取态度调查的方式,对相关区域内本地人和移民之间的文化距离加以量化,估测移民对于文化多样性和文化距离的不同偏好。为说明区域内不可观察的异质性,我们的计量经济分析运用了 Bayer 等人(2004)年,设计的人工辅助变量。主要结论分为两部分。一方面,文化多样性增加了区域吸引力。另一方面,平均文化距离大幅削弱区域吸引力。

• Keywords: Migration
• cultural diversity
• cultural distance
• destination choice
• sorting

JEL classification:

• R23
• Z1

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at 10.1080/17421772.2016.1102956

Notes

1. Other local characteristics and amenities also play significant roles in attracting migrants both in the USA and the European context (Haurin, 1980; Roback, 1982; Glaeser et al., 2001; Scott, 2010; Biagi et al., 2011; Dorfman et al., 2011), including weather, population density, physical setting, public goods provision, etc.

2. Distinctive compositions of norms, values and beliefs endow the two regions with different compositional amenities. The consequences are shown by Card et al. (2012), who found that compositional concerns are much more important than economic concerns in shaping natives' anti-immigrant attitudes.

3. Despite the possible confusion of using ‘cultural’ in both phrases (where cultural diversity connotes ethno-linguistic classifications and cultural distance connotes values and beliefs), we stick to this terminology in order to be consistent with the literature.

4. Non-EU migrants are those who migrate to the EU from countries outside the EU.

5. The measurement of cultural diversity captures more than merely the fractionalization index. See Montalvo & Reynal-querol (2005) or Ager & Brückner (2013) for a discussion of polarization; and Nijkamp & Poot (2015) for an overview of cultural diversity measures, where they consider, in turn, abundance, dispersion and socio-cultural distance-related measures of diversity.

6. Examples of using indicators of individual values and beliefs to measure culture can be found in Grief (1994); Tadesse & White (2009); Tabellini (2010); Belot & Ederveen (2012).

7. This differentiated ‘product’ approach is typically referred to as the Berry–Levinsohn–Pakes (BLP) approach (Berry et al., 1995), and has recently been applied to a number of empirical studies (Murdock, 2006; Klaiber & Phaneuf, 2010; Van Duijn & Rouwendal, 2013).

8. These regional unobserved characteristics (which are observed by the migrants) might include social tensions, cultural or natural amenities, and specific (regional) institutional settings.

9. See also Bayer et al. (2004b) for an application to school quality, and Van Duijn & Rouwendal (2013) for an application to cultural heritage.

10. We consider living in a region is a product to be purchased by migrants, and each migrant only purchases one unit product with a particular package of regional characteristics and amenities. The local authorities provide the products in the market by making production decisions on what packages of characteristics and amenities are to be assembled (Tiebout, 1956; Rosen, 1974).

11. More details can be found in http://geoplaza.ubvu.vu.nl and http://www.camecon.com/.

12. A selection of survey questions and the average responses can be found in Table A1 in the Appendix.

13. See Tubadji & Nijkamp (2014) for an example of PCA in cultural impact analysis.

14. We use Euclidean distance, e.g. An alternative definition of bilateral cultural distance between migrant's individual attitudes and region 's mainstream culture has also been tried out, and the results do not differ from . In addition, we tried out a new variable, which measures the cultural distance between the culture of origin and that of the largest immigrant group . The estimate in the discrete choice model is insignificant for the variable and thus we dropped this measure in our following analysis for simplicity. The estimation results are available on request.

15. There are 11 variables for individual characteristics , and 11 variables for regional characteristics and amenities , respectively. The full estimation results are in Table A2.

16. We did the second stage estimation for 41 regions in the western Europe, where the estimate for cultural diversity is insignificant and the estimate for average cultural distance is significantly negative. For the eastern Europe and the Scandinavian countries, there are too few observations for us to do the regression separately.

17. We also tried traditional instrumental variables in the analysis, for example, geographical features of regions as in Monfort (2009). The instruments were less strongly correlated with the two indicators of cultural composition with less significant but qualitatively similar results. The estimation results are available on request.

18. An estimation of a discrete choice model requires variation within each individual's choice set. The language dummy is quite unlikely to vary for non-EU migrants since most of its values are equal to 0. Therefore, we drop non-EU migrants for this extension.

19. This issue also applies to other regional characteristics. Since more of them remain relatively invariant over time (e.g. sectoral growth), we focus only on the variable which is most likely to bias the results.

20. There are only 20 NUTS1 regions that contains a capital city. We have too few observations to run the regression for this subsample.

21. Joppke (2012) mentioned that language and religion as two critical cultural differences that are hard to be integrated.