Who is hurt by discrimination?

Larsen, Birthe; Waisman, Gisela Working Paper Who is hurt by discrimination? Working paper, No. 12-2007 Provided in Cooperation with: Department of Economics, Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Suggested Citation: Larsen, Birthe; Waisman, Gisela (2007) : Who is hurt by discrimination?, Working paper, No. 12-2007, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Department of Economics, Frederiksberg, https://hdl.handle.net/10398/7634 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/208544 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. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Department of Economics Copenhagen Business School Working paper 12-2007 WHO IS HURT BY DISCRIMINATION? Birthe Larsen Gisela Waisman ____________________________________________________ Department of Economics -Porcelænshaven 16A, 1.fl. - DK-2000 Frederiksberg Who is hurt by discrimination ? Birthe Larsenand Gisela Waismany z November 30, 2007 Abstract The e¤ects of discrimination of immigrants on the labour market are studied within a search and wage-bargaining setting including a risk of losing skills during the experience of unemployment. The negative e¤ects of discrimination in the form of higher unemployment and lower wages spread to all workers, immigrants and natives, in all sectors of the economy. The e¤ect is stronger for immigrants, but natives su¤er as well. An increase in the share of immigrants in the economy exacerbates the problem of discrimination. 1 Introduction Labour market discrimination is a situation where individuals who are equally productive are treated unequally - receive lower wages or face lower demands for their services at a given wage - in a way that is related to an observable characteristic, such as race or ethnicity. Centre for Business Research (CEBR) and Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics, Porcelænshaven 16A, 1st ‡oor, DK-2000 Copenhagen F. Ph. +45 38 15 25 44, E-mail address: [email protected] yIIES, Stockholm University, E-mail address: [email protected]. zWe are grateful to Torsten Persson for his advice, to Morten Bennedsen, Lars Calmfors, Ethan Kaplan, Anna Larsson, Åsa Rosén, Lise Duedal Vesterlund, Fabrizio Zilibotti and seminar participants at the IIES and Copenhagen Business School for helpful comments and to Christina Lönnblad for editorial assistance. Financial support to G. Waisman was given by the Tore Beowaldh’s Research Foundation and Mannerfelts Fond. All errors are ours. 1 In 2003, 90% of the respondents to the “Integrationsbarometer” (Swedish Integration Barometer), a survey carried out by Integrationsverket (Swedish Integration Board), thought that immigrants are discriminated against in Sweden. Furthermore, 9% of the respondents declared to have witnessed ethnic discrimination at their own workplace. Field experiments provide further evidence for the existence of discrimination. Carlsson and Rooth (2006) performed a …eld experiment in May 2005 to February 2006 that showed every fourth employer to discriminate against men with Arabic sounding names in the hiring process. Similar …eld experiments …nd evidence of discrimination in the selection of job interviews in Australia (Riach and Rich (1991)) and in the USA (Bertrand and Mullainathan (2003)). The present paper takes into account that, because of discrimination, workers may end up in occupations below their quali…cations. The problem of discrimination becomes more severe if workers are subject to the risk of losing skills during the experience of unemployment. If a worker’s attachment to the labour market becomes very fragile due to discrimination, then her skills potentially deteriorate and the worker ends up searching for less quali…ed jobs. Hence, discrimination may not only result in natives and immigrants getting di¤erent pay for the same work but also in native and immigrants with similar skill levels to end up in di¤erent occupations, if in any occupation at all. This issue has previously been ignored in the theoretical literature. Our purpose in this paper is to study theoretically the e¤ects of discrimination of immigrants on labour market performance for both natives and immigrants, given that all workers are subject to a risk of losing skills during the experience of unemployment.1 We formulate a model of Becker-style taste discrimination within a search and wage-bargaining setting. Even an employer who does not dislike immigrants himself may think that it is against his interest to employ them if he expects that co-workers and clients will disapprove of immigrants. Not all …rms discrim1See Larsen (2001) for a related set-up but not distinguishing between immigrants and natives. 2 inate against immigrants. For simplicity, we assume that neither job searchers nor …rms opening a vacancy know whether discrimination will take place before the match. We motivate this by assuming that each …rm has many interviewers, some of which dislike immigrants. We assume that …rms cannot observe if a particular interviewer has such discriminatory tastes. A discriminatory interviewer does not o¤er a job to an immigrant. Discrimination implies that immigrants face a lower probability of getting a job. An alternative way of modelling discrimination is to assume that immigrants are discriminated against when they separate from the job instead of upon entry. An immigrant worker will then either be …red or forced to resign due to discrimination with a probability that is higher than that of a native worker. This alternative set-up …ts better with the assumption that neither job searchers nor employers can observe whether discrimination will take place in a particular …rm. However, we believe that discrimination at entry is more common in the labour market; moreover, the two modelling strategies yield qualitatively similar results. We assume for simplicity that all workers enter the labour market as skilled workers. Unemployed workers face the risk of losing their skills. If this happens, they can only search for jobs in the low productivity sector. Low productivity workers may regain their skills by accumulating work experience or by training when unemployed. The model delivers the following results. Discrimination directly reduces an immigrant worker’s transition probability out of unemployment and thereby deteriorates her wage-bargaining position. Discrimination therefore implies that wages received by immigrants are lower than wages received by natives, even when they face a non-discriminary employer. A lower hiring probability also implies that immigrants su¤er higher unemployment rates, despite receiving lower wages. By being unemployed more often, immigrants are subject to a higher risk of losing their skills and the economy ends up with a higher proportion of immigrants than natives in low productivity jobs. Not only are immigrants a¤ected by discrimination, but all workers in the economy are. 3 We perform comparative statics analysis where we analyse the e¤ect on all workers of an increase in the level of discrimination and the share of immigrants in the economy. Finally, we endogenize the training decision which allows us to examine how discrimination a¤ects the relative skill levels of natives and immigrants. Related Research Empirical evidence supports that employment below ones quali…cations and loss of skill is an important issue to consider. Firstly, Arai et al (2000) compare the percentage of immigrants in di¤erent occupations with the percentage of immigrants in the labour force in Sweden. Immigrants are overrepresented in only three out of 29 occupations, all of which require no education or training.2The authors estimate the likelihood of getting a quali…ed job, controlling for the years since immigration and the level of education. Immigrants born in the other Nordic countries or in Western Europe have a 25% lower probability of getting a quali…ed job than natives. The probability of getting a quali…ed job is 50% lower for immigrants born in Latin America and 70% lower for those born in East Europe, Asia or Africa, than for natives. Secondly, Reitz (2001) shows that the under-utilization of immigrant skills is signi…cant in Canada. Finally, in an empirical study for Denmark, Nielsen et al (2004) show that a large fraction of the wage gap between immigrants and natives would disappear if only immigrants could …nd employment and thus accumulate work experience. Most of the existing theoretical models introducing discrimination in the labour market emphasize two broad types of discrimination. The …rst is prejudice, which Gary Becker formalizes as a “taste”by at least some members of the majority group against interacting with members of the minority group. The 2Immigrants are overrepresented in handicraft (such as baker, butcher, tailor), service work that requires no vocational education / training (such as salesman, cleaner, newspaper distributor) and other work that requires no vocational education / training (such as unskilled labour in building and construction and other factory work). The underrepresentation in all other occupations is stronger for immigrants coming from Africa, Asia or Latin-America than for those born in Europe. 4 second is statistical discrimination by employers in the presence of imperfect information about the skills or behaviour of members of the minority group. Simple models of taste-based discrimination often predict the elimination of discrimination through competition or segregation. Borjas and Bronars (1989) and subsequent papers merge ideas from search models of the labour market with Becker-style models of taste discrimination and obtain a number of important results. Rosén (1997), Flabbi (2004) and our own model belong to this group. The di¤erence between our model and the models of Rosén, Flabbi and Borjas is that we incorporate in a thorough analysis of unemployment the risk that workers potentially lose skills. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the model is set up. Section 3 incorporates the comparative statics. In section 4 we show the e¤ect of relaxing simplifying assumptions and endogenize the training decision when unemployed. Section 5 concludes. 2 The model We develop a model with two types of agents, workers and …rms. Both workers and …rms are risk-neutral and in…nitely-lived and have a common discount rate. Workers may be either employed or unemployed. To hire new workers, …rms must create a vacancy at a cost of k. Free entry drives the discounted pro…ts from creating a vacancy to zero. The economy is divided into two di¤erent sectors, called hand l. Firms in sector hrequire skilled workers with high productivity, while …rms in sector lcan employ low productivity workers. The skills of workers are observable, implying that low productivity workers never get a job o¤er in sector h: The economy is populated by native and immigrant workers. The labour force is normalized at one. The proportion of native workers, n, is exogenously given. In order to acknowledge that not all …rms discriminate against immigrants we consider the following set-up: 5 All …rms have interviewers that meet job seekers, a proportion dsof which dislike immigrants (s=h; l). When a discriminatory interviewer meets a skilled immigrant, she does not get a job o¤er. Firms cannot observe whether their own interviewers discriminate against immigrants or not. Neither job searchers nor the …rm opening a vacancy know whether discrimination will take place before the match. Firms and workers only know that, with a given probability ds(s=h; l; ); an immigrant worker will not get a job, and a vacancy will not be …lled due to discrimination. We assume for simplicity that all workers enter the labour market as skilled workers. A more realistic set-up where we assume that a proportion of workers are low skilled to start with, does not substantially modify the results. When unemployed, skilled workers lose their skills with probability . Workers who have lost their skills are only able to search for jobs in the low productivity sector. Workers may regain skills in two di¤erent ways: i).they can train while unemployed and become skilled unemployed, which happens at the rate and ii) they can get a low produvtivity job and regain their skills at rate a. For simplicity, and aare assumed to be exogenous and identical for natives and immigrants. An alternative would be to let workers decide whether they want to make an e¤ort to train and become skilled again. We consider this case in an extension below. 2.1 Matching Unemployed workers search for jobs in sector hor l; depending on their productivity level. The matching function for sector sis assumed to have the functional form (vs)(us)1;where vsis the vacancy rate and usis the unemployment rate in sector s=h; l and 0<  < 1. 6 A native worker with productivity sgets a job o¤er at rate fN s. The transition rate into employment for a native worker of productivity sis given by fN s=f(s) =  s; s =h; l ;where s=vs=uscaptures sectorial labour market tightness. An immigrant faces a discriminative interviewer with probability ds;so the transition rate into employment for an immigrant worker of productivity sis reduced relatively to the transition rate of natives to fI s= f(s) (1 ds) =  s(1 ds); s =h; l. The rate at which vacant jobs become …lled is qs=q(1=s) = 1 s; s =h; l. 2.2 Workers and …rms The arbitrage equations facing workers are given by UJ h=fJ hWJ hUJ h+UJ lUJ h; J =N; I: (1) The present discounted value (PDV) of being an unemployed skilled worker of origin j=N; I (natives or immigrants) is given by the likelihood that the worker changes state. With probability fJ hshe gets a job in the high productivity sector and receives the value WJ hand with probability she loses skills and becomes a low skilled unemployed with value UJ l: UJ l=fJ lWJ lUJ l+UJ hUJ l; J =N; I: (2) Low skilled unemployed workers get a job in the low productivity sector with probability fJ land regain skills by training while unemployed at the rate . The value of is assumed to be exogenous but will be endogenized in an extension. The present discounted utility for a skilled employed worker of origin J satis…es WJ h=wJ h+UJ hWJ h;(3) where wjh is the wage received by skilled workers of origin jand is the rate of job separation, assumed to be the same for all workers. Similarly WJ l=wJ l+aUJ h+ (1 a)UJ lWJ l:(4) 7 distribution of unemployment, wages and the distribution of wages. The proofs are easily derived by di¤erentiation. The intuition behind the results is easier if we concentrate on discrimination in a single sector at a time. First, we consider the case when discrimination only appears in the high productivity sector. We will then describe the e¤ect of an increase in the level of discrimination when it exists only in the low productivity sector. Last, we describe the e¤ect of having discrimination in the whole economy. Empirical evidence is not conclusive with respect to which sector is the most a¤ected by discrimination, but most theoretical papers assume that the problem is more acute for skilled immigrants. 3 3.1.1 Discrimination of skilled workers If discrimination is only present in the high productivity sector, it has no e¤ect on the transition rates in the low productivity sector and the wage received by low skilled natives equals that of low skilled immigrants, due to the simplifying assumption (=a)that makes the model recursive. Furthermore, the proportion of natives among the unemployed is the same for skilled and non skilled workers, that is, h=l;as low skilled immigrants are only a¤ected indirectly by discrimination in sector h. When only skilled immigrants are discriminated, the su¢ cient condition that dhdlto ensure that fh> flno longer holds. If productivity di¤erences are not su¢ ciently large, fh(1 dh)< flis a possibility. In this case it would be optimal for high skilled workers to search for low skilled jobs. In order to rule out this possibility we therefore assume that productivity di¤erences are su¢ ciently large so that fh(1 dh)> flholds. Proposition 4 All wages in the high productivity sector decrease whenever the discrimination of skilled workers, dh, increases. Wages of low skilled workers 3In a companion paper, Waisman and Larsen (2007), we show that well educated immigrants su¤er more than less educated immigrants when attitudes are more negative against them. We interpret this result as evidence that discrimination a¤ects more the skilled workers. 14 are not a¤ected. The relative wages of skilled immigrants and skilled natives, wI h=wN h;decrease. As dhincreases, the wages of skilled immigrants are reduced directly by the deterioration in the bargaining position caused by higher discrimination and indirectly by the lower transition rate faced by all skilled workers. Wages of skilled natives are only a¤ected by the lower transition rates, so relative wages of immigrants in the high productivity sector are reduced. Due to the simplifying assumption that turns the model recursive, discrimination in the high productivity sector has no impact on the labour market tightness faced by low skilled workers. This implies that their wages are not a¤ected. Proposition 5 Unemployment of all skilled workers increase when discrimination of skilled workers, dh, increases. Skilled immigrants are more a¤ected than skilled natives. Unemployment of low skilled workers is not a¤ected by dh: The direct e¤ect of higher discrimination is that more skilled immigrants become unemployed and risk losing their skills, which would imply that they join the pool of low skilled unemployed. This direct e¤ect a¤ects immigrants only, increasing their relative unemployment rate among skilled workers, uI h=uN h: The indirect e¤ect is a reduction in the transition rates into employment for all skilled workers when less vacancies are opened. At the same time, discrimination conducted by some interviewers generates a reduction in wages which provides a positive externality on …rms with non discriminatory interviewers. The …rst impact dominates and the total impact on labour market tightness is negative. Due to discrimination, natives are over-represented among skilled workers and are more a¤ected by this negative indirect e¤ect. The impact on skilled natives’unemployment is smaller than the total impact on skilled immigrants’unemployment if + +afh+dh fhdfh ddh + 1 >0 15 If this is the case, uI h=uN hincreases with dh:The relative unemployment rate of low skilled vs high skilled workers decrease for both immigrants uI l=uI hand natives uN l=uN h. 3.1.2 Discrimination of low skilled workers Wages are a¤ected in the following way: Proposition 6 All wages decrease whenever the discrimination of low skilled workers, dl;increases. Relative wages of immigrant vs. native low skilled workers, wI l=wN l;decrease with discrimination. Low skilled immigrants su¤er from both the direct and the indirect e¤ect of discrimination. Low skilled natives su¤er only from the indirect e¤ect, hence their wages decrease less than those of low skilled immigrants. More discrimination in the low productivity sector reduces vacancy supply and therefore the outside option even for low skilled natives and for skilled workers, as they are subject to a risk of losing skills. Skilled workers’bargaining position is then damaged and all skilled workers accept lower wages. The wage reduction increases their transition rate, which in turn has a positive e¤ect on wages, but this e¤ect is smaller than the wage reduction. The total impact on wages is then negative for all skilled workers. The impact on relative wages of immigrants vs native skilled workers, wI h=wN h, is ambiguous as there are several diverging e¤ects. As dlincreases, there is a direct negative impact on relative wages. In addition, high productivity sector workers’transition rate increases, tending to decrease relative wages. Finally, the reduction in the transition rate of low productivity workers has an ambiguous impact on relative wages as immigrants’wages already being lower dampens the impact. Proposition 7 When discrimination of low skilled workers, dlincreases, unemployment of skilled workers falls and the unemployment of low skilled workers increases. The relative unemployment of immigrant vs. native low skilled workers increases with dl. 16 The direct e¤ect of higher discrimination in the low productivity sector is that more low skilled immigrants can not get a job. But all low skilled workers face higher unemployment due to the indirect e¤ect that reduces the transition rates in this sector. This indirect e¤ect hits stronger the immigrants as they are over-represented in the low productivity sector. The relative unemployment of low skilled workers, uI l=uN l;increases with dlas a result of both the direct and the indirect e¤ect. When the value of being a low skilled worker decreases, all skilled workers accept a lower wage in order to avoid losing skills during the experience of unemployment:The lower wage makes skilled workers more attractive for …rms and therefore more vacancies are opened in the high productivity sector. Hence, in this case the existence of discrimination in the low productivity sector provides a positive externality on the high productivity sector by weakening the skilled workers’outside option. This raises the labour market tightness in the high productivity sector and therefore reduces the unemployment of skilled workers. Hence, the discrimination of low skilled immigrants improves employment perspectives of all skilled workers. The relative unemployment of immigrants uI l=uI hand natives uN l=uN h increase as uJ lincreases and uJ hfalls for J=N; I: 3.1.3 Discrimination in both sectors When discrimination prevails in both sectors we can not obtain analytical results any more and turn instead to numerical solutions. The parameter values chosen (which are annual values) for this exercise are: the discount rate is set to = 0:08; the separation rate is set to = 0:08:(see Millard and Mortensen 1997); the match e¢ ciency is assumed to be = 0:5(Pissarides 1995); ylis normalized at one; yhis set equal to 1:3to obtain a relatively large di¤erence between productivity levels in the two sectors and hiring costs are assumed to be k= 0:6: These costs are set in relation to the productivity of the high skilled workers in order to generate reasonable unemployment rates. In Sweden in 2005 the 17 fraction of natives was around n= 0:9(www.scb.se). The rest of the parameters are set to approximately match unemployment in Sweden in 2005, u= 0:073 (www.oecd.org), the fact that the unemployment of natives was 59% of the unemployment of immigrants (Integrationsverket 4) and that the fraction of long term unemployed (more than 12 months of unemployment) was 19% (www.scb.se and www.oecd.org). In our model, the long term unemployed correspond to the workers that have lost their skills. We assume = 0:25 and = 0:08:This implies that a== = 0:8:We assume in the benchmark that one fourth of the interviewers discriminate immigrants in both sectors5. The table in Appendix 4 shows the wages and unemployment rates of all workers in the economy as well as the share of skilled natives and immigrants. We can start comparing our benchmark with an economy where immigrants are not discriminated at all. Discrimination reduces all wages, increases the rates of unemployment faced by all workers and reduces the share of skilled natives and immigrants. But the negative e¤ect is much stronger for immigrants than for natives. In our numerical exercise, immigrants’wages are reduced by 3%, while natives’wages are reduced by less than 0.1%. The rates of unemployment faced by immigrants increase by more than 30%, while those faced by natives increase by less than 1%. The share of skilled natives decreases by almost 5% compared to less than 0.1% for natives. Natives are in this numerical analysis only marginally a¤ected by discrimination. The share of low skilled workers obtained in the exercise is close to the share of long term unemployed workers in Sweden, that is, those workers who are most likely to have lost their skills. Our numerical exercise shows that, due to discrimination, immigrants end up being less skilled than natives even if they entered the economy being as productive as natives. The share of skilled workers would be smaller had we not assumed, for simplicity, that all workers enter the economy being skilled. Furthermore,the di¤erence in the skill composition of 4http://ivpxweb.digitalinformation.se/Database/ /Integrationsverket/Arbetslivet/Arbetslöshet/Arbetslöshet.asp 5Consistent with the results by Carlsson and Rooth (2006). 18 natives and immigrants would be larger if we had assumed that immigrants enter the economy with low skills to a higher extent. In the rest of this subsection, the benchmark with dh=dl= 0:25 constitutes the basis from which we will study the e¤ect of increasing the level of discrimination in one sector at a time. Doubling of the share of interviewers that discriminate in the high productivity sector reduces the wages of skilled immigrants by 4% and increases the unemployment rate they face from 6.63% to 9.77%. The unemployment rate faced by skilled natives increases slightly from 5.05% to 5.14%. The reduction in skilled natives’wages and the increase in the unemployment rate faced by all low skilled workers are very small (they all change by less than 1%). The share of skilled immigrants falls by almost 9%, while the share of skilled natives decreases by only 0.3%. The same increase in the level of discrimination in the low productivity sector a¤ects mainly the low skilled immigrants, whose wages decrease by 5.3% while the unemployment rate they face increases from 8.6% to 12.53%. The unemployment rate faced by low skilled natives increases from 6.59% to 6.69%. All other wages and unemployment rates change by 1% at the most. The share of skilled workers, both natives and immigrants, increase slightly. The simulations basically con…rm the results derived in the previous subsections. In general, the e¤ect of an increase in the level of discrimination on the wages has a smaller order of magnitude than the e¤ect on the unemployment rates. When we allow for di¤erent levels of discrimination in the two sectors we …nd the following additional results worth noting: When discrimination is higher in the low productivity sector, the relative wages of immigrants vs natives are higher for the skilled workers and vice versa, that is, wI h=wN h?wI l=wN lwhen dh7dl: When discrimination is higher in the high productivity sector, the relative unemployment of immigrants vs natives is larger for the skilled work19 ers than for the low skilled workers and vice versa, that is, uI h=uN h? uI l=uN lwhen dl7dh: When discrimination is higher in the high productivity sector, the relative unemployment of low skilled vs skilled natives is higher than that of low skilled vs skilled immigrants and vice versa, that is, uN l=uN h?uI l=uI h when dl7dh: 3.2 E¤ects of higher share of immigrants In this subsection we perform comparative statistics on an increase in the proportion of immigrants in the population, while the total work force is still normalized at one. If there is discrimination in one sector, then an increase in the share of immigrants searching for a job in that sector makes vacancies less attractive, as the probability that they will be …lled is now smaller. We will describe the e¤ect of an increase in the share of immigrants on wages and unemployment rates. The proofs are easily derived by di¤erentiation. 3.2.1 Discrimination of skilled immigrants Proposition 8 When the share of immigrants rises in an economy where only skilled immigrants are discriminated, then wages received by all skilled workers decrease. The impact on relative skilled wages across population groups is ambiguous. Wages received by low skilled workers remain unchanged. When there are more immigrants in the work force, the likelihood that a high productivity …rm with a discriminatory interviewer matches with one of them is higher and this makes vacancies less attractive. The bargaining position of all workers in the sector is weakened, so they accept lower wages. The reduction in wages itself increases the transition rates for skilled workers, which in turn leads to a smaller reduction in wages. The impact on the relative wages of immigrant vs natives skilled workers wI h=wN his ambiguous. When the high productivity sector workers’transition rates increase, this tends to decrease the 20 wages of immigrants relative to natives. However, this impact is modi…ed due to immigrants’transition rate already being the lower. Due to the simplifying assumption relating the rates at which workers regain skills, discrimination in the high productivity sector has no impact on the labour market tightness faced by the low skilled workers. This implies that their wages are not a¤ected. Proposition 9 When the share of immigrants increases in an economy where only skilled immigrants are discriminated against, the unemployment rate of all skilled workers increases. The unemployment rate of skilled natives increases relatively more than that of skilled immigrants. The unemployment of low skilled workers remains unchanged. When vacancies become less attractive, more skilled immigrants end being unemployed. Note that the impact is purely a result of discrimination which reduces the rate by which an open vacancy is …lled and thereby reduces the equilibrium number of vacancies supplied in the economy. The prevalent discrimination means that skilled natives are working to a higher extent, so they are more a¤ected by the reduction in the transition rates in the high productivity sector. As a consequence, the relative unemployment rate of immigrant vs native skilled workers uI h=uN hdecreases. The relative unemployment of low skilled vs skilled workers uJ l=uJ hdecreases for both natives and immigrants. This is because uJ lis constant and uJ hincreases for J=N; I: 3.2.2 Discrimination of low skilled workers Proposition 10 In an economy where low skilled immigrants are discriminated against, a higher proportion of immigrants, a higher (1 n), lowers wages received by all low skilled workers. The impact on skilled workers’ wages and relative wages is ambiguous. An increase in the share of immigrants makes opening a vacancy in the low productivity market less attractive. The fall in the transition rate of low skilled 21 workers when less vacancies are opened deteriorates their bargaining position causing them to accept lower wages. Even skilled workers are induced to accept lower wages to avoid unemployment and the risk of losing skills, but the lower wages themselves lead to an increase in the transaction rate that raises wages again. The total e¤ect on skilled workers’wages is ambiguous. As natives are employed to a higher extent, they are more a¤ected by the reduction in wages. But the fact that immigrants’wages were already lower dampens the impact. The e¤ects on relative wages for immigrant vs. native skilled workers wI h=wN hand low skilled workers wI l=wN lare ambiguous. Proposition 11 When the share of immigrants, (1 n);increases in an economy where only low skilled immigrants are discriminated against, the unemployment rates of all low skilled workers increase, while the unemployment rates of all skilled workers fall. The unemployment of low skilled natives increases more than the unemployment of low skilled immigrants. The relative unemployment of skilled workers is kept unchanged. Fewer vacancies reduce the transition rate of all low skilled workers and increase their unemployment. As low skilled natives are employed to a higher extent, they su¤er a higher increase in unemployment whereby the relative unemployment rate for immigrant vs native low skill workers uI l=uN ldecreases. The fall in the transition rate of low skilled workers even deteriorates the wage-bargaining position of skilled workers. Skilled workers accept lower wages to avoid unemployment and the potential loss of skills. As there is no discrimination in the high productivity sector, all workers there are equally a¤ected by the indirect e¤ect, so relative unemployment for immigrant vs native skilled workers uI h=uN hremains unchanged. 3.2.3 Discrimination in both sectors The comparative analysis when discrimination is present in both sectors in only possible in a numerical exercise. We start from the same benchmark de…ned in subsection 3.1.3 and analyze two di¤erent increases in the share of immigrants 22 in the economy: i) we double the share of immigrants and ii) we increase this share by the same amount of percentage points as we increased the level of discrimination. These two exercises allow us to compare the e¤ect on wages, unemployment rates and skills of an increase in the share of immigrants with the e¤ect of an increase in the level of discrimination. A doubling of the share of immigrants in the economy decreases the wages of all agents by 0.1% at most and increases the unemployment rates they face by 0.6% at most. If the share of immigrants in the economy increases by from 10% to 35%, the wages of all agents still increase by 0.1% at most while the unemployment rates increase by 1.2% at most. In both exercises the share of skilled workers (natives and immigrants) decreases slightly. Our numerical example shows that the e¤ect of an increase in the share of immigrants has a much smaller order of magnitude than the e¤ect of an increase in discrimination. 4 Extensions 4.1 Comparative analysis with 6=a In the main text we have assumed that =a as a devise to make the model recursive. When we relax this assumption, wages in the low productivity sector depend on the di¤erence in the value of being a high skilled vs a low skilled unemployed according to the following equation: wJ l=1 2yl+fJ lWJ lUJ l+ (a)UJ hUJ l:(16) Let us compare to the case where =a. When  > a the low skilled worker’s outside option improves, as the probability of regaining skills is higher while unemployed. This tends to increase the wages of low skilled workers. When  < a; then the opposite holds: low skilled workers are more eager to get a job as training opportunities are now relatively higher while employed. The new equilibrium wages and shares of natives among the unemployed in both sectors in the economy are presented in Appendix 1. The unemployment 23 of Labor Economics, v. 13, iss. 2, pp. 309-33 Carlsson, M. and D.-.O Rooth (2006), "Evidence of Ethnic Discrimination in the Swedish Labor Market Using Experimental Data", IZA Discussion Papers No. 2281. Flabbi L (2004), "Gender Discrimination Estimation in a Search Model with Matching and Bargaining”, Georgetown University, Department of Economics WP No 04-08. Larsen, B, (2001), "Minimum wages, technological progress and loss of skill", European Economic Review 45, pp 1521-1544. Millard, S.P. and Mortensen D.T. (1997) The unemployment and welfare e¤ects of labour market policy: A comparison of the USA and UK. In: Snower, D., de la Dehesa, G. (Eds), Unemployment Policy: Government Options for the Labour Market. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nielsen, H. S., M. Rosholm, N. Smith, L. Husted (2004), "Quali…cations, discrimination, or assimilation? An extended framework for analysing immigrant wage gaps", Empirical Economics p. 1-19. Pissarides, C.A. (1986) Unemployment and Vacancies in Britain. Economic Policy 3, p. 499-559. Reitz, J.G. (2001), "Immigrant Skill Utilization in the Canadian Labour Market: Implications of Human Capital Research", Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2(3):347-378. Riach P & J Rich (1991), "Testing for Racial Discrimination in the Labour Market", Cambridge Journal of Economics 15(3), p 239-56. Rosén Å (1997), "An Equilibrium Search-Matching Model of Discrimination", European Economic Review, Vol 41, p 1589-1613. Waisman, G & B Larsen (2007), "Do attitudes towards immigrants matter?", mimeo. Appendix 1 30 In Section 4, subsection 4.1, we relax the assumption that =a: This turns the model non-recursive and makes it impossible for us to obtain analytical solutions for the comparative statistics. But we can still solve the model numerically. The equilibrium wages when 6=a are: wJ l= 8 < :2 (+) (++)+(+)fJ h yl++fJ l(++)+(a)fJ hyhfJ lyl  (a)fJ hyh(+) (++)+(+)fJ h+fJ lyl9 = ; ; wJ h= 8 < : flyl++fJ l(++)+(a)fJ hyhfJ lyl +2 (+) + fJ l(++) + fJ l(a ) yh(+) (++)+(+)fJ h+fJ lyl9 = ; ; where  = 8 < :2 (+) + fJ l(++) + fJ l(a ) 2 (+) (++)+(+)fJ h  fJ l(a)fJ h 9 = ; The shares of natives among the unemployed becomes: h=1 1 + 1n n (+afl(1dl)) (+afl); l=1 1 + 1n n; where =((+fl)+ (+fh) (+afl)) (+fl(1 dl)) + (+fh(1 dh)) (+afl(1 dl)): The unemployment rates are de…ned by the same functions as before, they are only a¤ected through the changes in the transition rates. 31 Appendix 2 E¤ect of an increase in the probability of regaining skills when unemployed, ; when discrimination prevails in both sectors (dh=dl= 0:25): 00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 Wages Wages Prob of regaining skills when unemployed WNh WIh WNl WIl 00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 Unemployment Unemployment Prob of regaining skills when unemployed uNh uIh uNl uIl 32 Appendix 3 Comparative statics when the decision to train is endogenous. 00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 Probability of regainig skills by training Gamma Discrimination in the high productivity sector Gamma Natives Gamma Immigrants 00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 Probability of regainig skills by training Gamma Discrimination in the low productivity sector Gamma Natives Gamma Immigrants 33 Appendix 4 No Discrimination Benchmark ↑ dh ↑ dl ↑ (1-n) Discrimination in the high productivity sector 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 Discrimination in the low productivity sector 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 Share of immigrants in the economy 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.35 Wages : Skilled Natives (WNh) 1.1550 1.1545 1.1528 1.1547 1.1540 1.1532 Low-Skilled Natives (WNl) 0.8905 0.8900 0.8898 0.8886 0.8895 0.8889 Skilled Immigrants (WIh) 1.1550 1.1196 1.0745 1.1085 1.1189 1.1181 Low-Skilled Immigrants(WIl) 0.8905 0.8633 0.8632 0.8178 0.8628 0.8621 Unemployment Rates : Skilled Natives (uNh) 5.03% 5.05% 5.14% 5.03% 5.08% 5.11% Low-Skilled Natives (uNl) 6.55% 6.59% 6.60% 6.69% 6.62% 6.67% Skilled Immigrants (uIh) 5.03% 6.63% 9.77% 6.59% 6.66% 6.70% Low-Skilled Immigrants(uIl) 6.55% 8.60% 8.61% 12.53% 8.64% 8.70% Share of skilled workers: Natives 0.8357 0.8351 0.8329 0.8359 0.8345 0.8336 Immigrants 0.8357 0.7944 0.7237 0.7952 0.7937 0.7926