admission displays some welfare motivation in the location decision. The smallest elasticity is in the immediate relative category. In this case a 1 percent increase in the maximum
combined AFDC and food stamp benefit correlates with an 8.8 percent increase in the number of immigrants choosing the state as their location. The same increase in welfare
correlates with an even larger inflow of immigrants in each of the remaining three categories.
4. Differences among immigrants within the sample
Females are typically the primary beneficiaries of AFDC payments. For example, in 1991 female headed households, with no spouse present, accounted for a majority of the benefi-
ciaries in the AFDC program and the food stamp program. This group made up 69 percent of total participants in the AFDC program. The same group accounted for 57 percent of the
total participants in the food stamp program. For all means tested assistance programs, which includes AFDC, the food stamp program, Medicaid, and housing assistance the female
headed-household participation rate was 48 percent.
15
Consequently, the determinants of location choices for female immigrants may provide additional evidence as to the possibility of welfare motivation. If immigrants are welfare
motivated and females maintain a greater participation rate in the AFDC and food stamp program, welfare motivation should be more apparent among females than with the total sample.
Table 4 reports elasticities for female immigrant location choices with respect to the same determinants using the same Tobit procedure and elasticity calculation as described in Table 3.
Female immigrants display very little difference in relation to the full set of immi- grants with respect to the determinants of location choices. Total population is still a
significantly positive factor in the decision. The metropolitan population is significant only for refugees. Family sponsored and employment based female immigrants consider
the employment shares within a state while the other categories do not. Nativity factors remain an important factor in the decision for females as well. However, like the results
for total immigration, the maximum welfare payment within a state overshadows the other determinants.
Intuition suggests that immigrant’s in each of the admission categories react differently to these proposed state factors. As discussed earlier employment-based immigrants may choose
states that maintain employment shares in manufacturing for example. Additionally, they may not consider any of these factors if they simply reside in a state based on a predeter-
mined employer location. Although the calculated elasticities imply some differing responses to the independent variables across the various admission categories, there is no assurance
that they are statistically different.
A secondary model can check for these differences. In this second model all the observations for each of the four admission classes are pooled into one data set. Next,
a set of three dummy variables indicating the various classes are interacted with each of
15
All statistics on 1991 participation rates in means tested assistance programs are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1997. p. 376 Table 584.
60 M. E. Dodson III International Review of Law and Economics 21 2001 47– 67
the independent variables. Employment-based admissions are the one set of immigrants not interacted with a dummy variable. Therefore, the regression includes 4116 obser-
vations, all the independent variables plus another three sets of the independent variables interacted with each of the three dummies. Each of the interacted independent variables
are interpreted as the marginal difference between the individual response for the independent variable across the family sponsored, immediate relative, and refugee
admission class relative to the same response for the employment-based admission class. If these marginal differences are not statistically significant, then the conclusion is that
no difference across the admission categories exists with respect to the response for that independent variable.
Table 5 displays these marginal coefficients and any statistical difference relative to the employment-based admission class for the full sample of 1991 immigrants. The table
indicates that there is no statistical difference between the employment-based category and any of the other admission categories in the location decision with respect to the maximum
combined AFDC and food stamp benefits in any particular state. All the admission categories indicate an equally positive and significant response to welfare.
16
16
As a secondary test of this result I regressed the location choices of family sponsored, immediate relative and refugee category immigrants on the hypothesized independent variables and the residuals from the employ-
Table 4 Tobit elasticities for females only
Family Sponsored
Immediate Relatives
Refugees Asylees
Employment Based
Per Capita Gross State Product 0.840
0.093 3.76
0.285 0.568
0.171 2.766
0.449 Welfare
34.818 8.062
167.643 39.437
10.98 3.456
52.583 8.331
Percent of Total Population that is Similarly Born 0.197
0.02 0.565
0.003 0.021
0.007 0.092
0.016 Similarly Born Recent Arrivals
0.294 0.117
20.034 0.065
0.016 0.005
0.055 0.01
Agricultural Share of Employment 217.668
20.244 223.149
212.536 4.727
1.443 22.531
3.617 Goods Producing Share of Employment
213.587 21.023
213.04 213.257
5.952 1.873
29.818 4.452
Total Population 9.839
3.138 34.002
9.485 1.305
0.423 6.33
1.047 Employment Growth
1.569 0.988
21.151 1.066
2.811 0.895
13.676 2.18
Unemployment Rate 23.295
20.381 216.352
23.412 8.254
2.567 41.473
6.264 Sales Tax
20.141 0.232
12.162 22.177
4.040 1.253
20.187 3.052
Metropolitan Population 10.519
20.899 78.338
3.86 6.623
2.031 31.963
4.941 A significance level of 1 is denoted by , 5 by , and 10 by
V. 61
M. E. Dodson III International Review of Law and Economics 21 2001 47– 67
Immigrants do respond differently to changes in the recent flow of immigration, total population of the destination state, and the metropolitan population within the destination
state. According to the estimates in Table 5 family-sponsored immigrants and those classified as immediate relatives are more likely to locate in states with a larger recent flow of similarly
born immigrants. This result is most likely due to the location of the new immigrant’s sponsor. Refugees, on the other hand, are less likely to locate in states with a large recent
flow than employment-based immigrants. Each class of admission responds differently to the population within the state of residence. Category differences for female immigrants are not
reported but are similar. Like the total sample, there are no differences among the admission categories with respect to welfare generosity. Total state population, recent immigration and
the similarly born stock of immigrants do produce varying incentives for female immigrants in each category of admission.
ment based immigrant specification. If employment based immigrants are not welfare motivated, as many would expect, and there are any unobserved factors which explain location choices among all immigrants then these
factors would be represented in the error term. This procedure changed none of the significant coefficients and altered no conclusions.
Table 5 Relative coefficients
Employment Based
Family Sponsored
Immediate Relative
Refugees Asylees
Per Capita Gross State Product 20.039
0.265 0.177
0.252 0.143
0.189 0.179
0.193 Welfare
236.46 85.58
55.39 242.28
71.963 80.13
77.60 82.88
Percent of Total Population that is Similarly Born 222.41
1940.0 551.64
V 1965.9
215.89 297.89
296.24 298.28
Similarly Born Recent Arrivals 0.002
0.016 0.022
20.002 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 Agricultural Share of Employment
25487.1 23094.6
4433.5 4481.6
2406.3 3101.7
3015.4 3198.0
Goods Producing Share of Employment 2234.99
25.769 212.08
12.92 156.30
207.94 203.57
217.87 Total Population
7.95 6.44
6.64 5.78
1.722 2.22
2.21 2.27
Employment Growth 79.25
24.95 71.77
21.26 141.78
191.97 188.41
200.01 Unemployment Rate
3.17 22.67
20.723 213.77
7.44 9.67
9.34 10.17
Sales Tax 22.89
1.77 5.08
2.86 4.47
6.17 5.97
6.43 Metropolitan Population
56509.0 27263.8
273714.0 215510.0 27354.0
36961.0 35612.0
38329.0 A significance level of 1 is denoted by , 5 by , and 10 by
V. 62
M. E. Dodson III International Review of Law and Economics 21 2001 47– 67
5. Estimates for the preferred states only
