overseas continues to be significantly negative at the Union level. However,
we now find that it is positive for Austria and Spain. The effect of female
is now significantly positive for France and Italy, while it was negative for
countries where it was statistically significant in Table 4. This may be
intuitive: females are generally disadvantaged in the labor market, so the
effect of f emale is positive among those who anticipate a negative labor
market impact of immigration. The marginal effect of age remains generally
positive, although it is now negative for Ireland and the Netherlands.
Table 6(b) reports the results for the subsample of those who did not
think that immigration would depress wages. The results are somewhat
different from Table 6(a). The effect of employ continues to be significantly
negative for Austria. We observe that the magnitude is larger than that for
those who thought that wages would fall due to immigration. This seems
to suggest that the source of benefit from immigration is not its wage effect
in the country, and it does not support our theoretical reasoning. The
effect of employ is significantly positive for Spain, Sweden and the UK. It
is also significantly positive at the Union level. Since we did not find a
significantly positive effect of employ in Table 6(a), the positive effect of
employ comes from those employers who did not think that immigration
would reduce wages. This seems to suggest that there is not benefit but some
disadvantage of immigration for employers, e.g., they increase the number of
producers.
The effect of unemploy is no longer significant except for the Netherlands
where it is significantly negative but only at 10 percent. This, together with
the estimate in Table 6(a), appears consistent with what we would expect:
24