The name is absent

for Greece and Ireland. The effect of belonging to an ethinc minority group
does not seem to matter to individual preferences for immigration restriction
except for Austria and Italy where it is significantly positive. Since the effect
of ethnic was generally negative in Table 6(a), the mixed results we found
in Table 4 are thus split signwise by the perception. However, it is counter
intuitive. We would expect the effect of ethnic to be positive, rather than
negative, among those who anticipate a wage fall due to immigration because
immigrants would easily substitute for ethnic minority workers.

The effect of having at least one parent born abroad is mixed: it is sig-
nificantly negative for Luxembourg and the Netherlands, but positive for
Finland and Sweden. The effect of f emale is negative where it is statisti-
cally significant, i.e., Germany, Finland, Greece, Ireland and Sweden. The
marginal effect of age is positive where it is statistically significant, namely,
Austria, Denmark, Finland and France. It is also significantly positive at
the Union level.

[Tables 7(a) and 7(b) about here]

We also re-estimate the specification used for Table 5. Table 7(a) reports
the results for those who thought that immigration would depress wages, and
Table 7(b) for those who did not think so.

Table 7(a) shows that the marginal effect of employ × isb is significantly
negative for Luxembourg and Portugal. This is consistent with our expecta-
tion that employers are more pro-immigration in sectors where migrant labor
is useful input. However, for Austria where the effect of employ is signifi-
cantly negative, it is positive. It suggests that employers are more likely to

26

<<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   >>

More intriguing information