Abstract :

Purpose: This study examines the relationship between migration intensity, education-related integration mechanisms, and labor market outcomes of the foreign-born population in selected European countries over the period 2010–2024. It explores how migration flows and migrant education interact within different institutional contexts.

Methodology: The analysis focuses on Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Sweden,  and the United Kingdom and employs panel data techniques using two-way fixed and random effects models. Model selection is guided by the Hausman specification test, which strongly favors the fixed effects estimator, highlighting the role of country-specific institutional heterogeneity.

Findings: The results indicate that migration intensity alone is not significantly associated with improved migrant employment outcomes once unobserved heterogeneity is controlled for. In contrast, migrant tertiary education shows a positive relationship with employment performance. Public education expenditure, measured as a share of GDP, does not exhibit a robust direct effect, suggesting that aggregate spending levels are insufficient to drive integration outcomes.

Originality:  By providing recent longitudinal cross-country evidence, the study contributes to the applied econometrics literature on migration and labor markets. It highlights the importance of institutional context and educational attainment in shaping migrant labor market integration across Europe.

---

Keywords :

Education, Europe, Institutions heterogeneity, Labor market integration, Migration, Panel data

---

References :

1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
2. Borjas, G. J. (2014). Immigration economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(4), 961–1001. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.4.961
3. Card, D., Dustmann, C., & Preston, I. (2012). Immigration, wages, and compositional amenities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(1), 78–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01051.x
4. Dustmann, C., Frattini, T., & Preston, I. (2013). The effect of immigration along the distribution of wages. Review of Economic Studies, 80(1), 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rds019
5. European Commission. (2016). Action plan on the integration of third-country nationals. Publications Office of the European Union.
6. (2024). Migration and migrant population statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
7. Friedberg, R. M. (2000). You can’t take it with you? Immigrant assimilation and the portability of human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1086/209957
8. Heckman, J. J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54(1), 3–56. https://doi.org/10.1006/reec.1999.0225
9. Kogan, I. (2011). New immigrants—old disadvantage patterns? International Migration Review, 45(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2010.00839.x
10. Magazzino, C. (2016). Wagner’s law and public spending in EU countries: A time-series and panel analysis. Journal of Economic Studies, 43(4), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-07-2015-0130
11. Law, S. H., & Azman-Saini, W. N. W. (2012). Institutional quality, governance and economic growth. Journal of Economic Studies, 39(4), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443581211255661
12. (2019). International migration outlook. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e35eec-en
13. (2023). Indicators of immigrant integration. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/migration/integration-indicators/
14. Puhani, P. A. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00104
15. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
16. World Bank. (2024). World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org