Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:04:28.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Lobbying and Immigration Policies in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2013

Ludovic Rheault
Ludovic Rheault*
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
*
Ludovic Rheault, Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal QC, H3C 3J7. Email: ludovic.rheault@umontreal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This study examines the enduring claim that firms exert influence on immigration policies, prompting governments to open the doors to foreign labour. Although intuitively appealing, this claim has received little empirical support so far, the actual channels of influence from special interests to policy makers being usually opaque to public scrutiny. To address this problem, I rely upon the vector autoregression methodology and make use of fine-grained quarterly data on lobbying, skills-based immigration and temporary workers in Canada, between 1996 and 2011. A key result is the positive and robust response of temporary worker inflows to the intensity of corporate lobbying, even after accounting for labour market conditions. In contrast, there is no conclusive evidence that lobbyists carry weight when it comes to permanent migrants.

Résumé. Cette étude examine la thèse voulant que le secteur privé exerce une influence sur les politiques d'immigration, poussant les gouvernements à accroître le nombre d'immigrants. Malgré son attrait, cette thèse n'a reçu qu'un soutien empirique très limité à ce jour, notamment puisque l'influence des groupes d'intérêt s'exerce souvent à huis clos. Afin de surmonter ce problème, je recours à la méthode des vecteurs autorégressifs et utilise des données trimestrielles détaillées sur le lobbying, l'immigration économique et les travailleurs temporaires au Canada entre 1996 et 2011. Un résultat clé est la réponse positive des influx de travailleurs temporaires à l'intensité du lobbying des entreprises, même après avoir pris en compte les conditions du marché du travail. En comparaison, la conclusion que les lobbyistes influencent les niveaux d'immigration permanente apparaît peu robuste.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 691 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Michael G. and Beach, Charles M.. 2011. “Do Admission Criteria and Economic Recessions Affect Immigrant Earnings?” IRPP Study 22.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2006. “Monotone Comparative Statics for Models of Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 214–31.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 33–47.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Berry, Jeffrey M., Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C. and Leech, Beth L.. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jeffrey R., and Weinstein, David E.. 2002. “Do Endowments Predict the Location of Production? Evidence from National and International Data.” Journal of International Economics 56 (1): 55–76.Google Scholar
Borjas, George J. 1995. “The Economic Benefits from Immigration.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (2): 3–22.Google Scholar
Borjas, George J. 2001. Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T. and Williams, John T.. 2007. Multiple Time Series Models. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Canada. 2011. Administering the Lobbying Act: Observations and Recommendations Based on the Experience of the Last Five Years. Ottawa: Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.Google Scholar
Canada. 2012. Table 282-0087. Labour Force Survey Estimates. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
CCC (The Canadian Chamber of Commerce). 2012. Top 10 Barriers to Competitiveness. Ottawa: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2012a. Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2012b. Facts and Figures 2011. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Enders, Walter. 2010. Applied Econometric Time Series. 3rd ed. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ewing, Bradley T. and Wunnava, Phanindra V.. 2001. “Unit Roots and Structural Breaks in North American Unemployment Rates.” The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 12 (3): 273–82.Google Scholar
Facchini, Giovanni, Mayda, Anna Maria and Mishra, Prachi. 2011. “Do Interest Groups Affect US Immigration Policy?” Journal of International Economics 85 (1): 114–28.Google Scholar
Freeman, Gary P. 1995. “Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States.” International Migration Review 29 (4): 881–902.Google Scholar
Freeman, Gary P. 1998. “The Decline of Sovereignty? Politics and Immigration Restriction in Liberal States.” In Challenge to the Nation State, ed. Joppke, Christian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Gary P. 2002. “Winners and Losers: Politics and the Costs and Benefits of Migration.” In Western European Immigration and Immigration Policy, ed. Messina, A.M.. Westport CN: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fudge, Judy and MacPhail, Fiona. 2009. “The Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Canada: Low-Skilled Workers as an Extreme Form of Flexible Labour.” Comparative Labour Law and Policy Journal 31 (1): 101–39.Google Scholar
Gandal, Neil, Hanson, Gordon H. and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2004. “Technology, Trade, and Adjustment to Immigration in Israel.” European Economic Review 48 (2): 403–28.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W.J. 1969. “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods.” Econometrica 37 (3): 424–38.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W.J. and Newbold, Paul. 1974. “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics.” Journal of Econometrics 2 (2): 111–20.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. and Helpman, Elhanan. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grubel, Herbert G. 1994. “The Economics of International Labor and Capital Flows.” In Economic Aspects of International Migration, ed. Giersch, Herbert. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hanson, Gordon H. and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 1999. “The Rybczynski Theorem, Factor-Price Equalization, and Immigration: Evidence from U.S. States.” NBER Working Paper 7074.Google Scholar
Harrigan, James. 1995. “The Volume of Trade in Differentiated Intermediate Goods: Theory and Evidence.” Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (2): 283–93.Google Scholar
Harrigan, James. 1997. “Technology, Factor Supplies, and International Specialization: Estimating the Neoclassical Model.” American Economic Review 87 (4): 475–94.Google Scholar
Hatton, Timothy J. and Williamson, Jeffrey G.. 1994. “International Migration and World Development: A Historical Perspective.” In Economic Aspects of International Migration, ed. Giersch, Herbert. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hatton, Timothy J. and Williamson, Jeffrey G.. 2005. Global Migration and the World Economy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian. 1998. “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration.” World Politics 50 (2): 266–93.Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul R. and Obstfeld, Maurice. 2002. International Economics: Theory and Policy. 6th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lahav, Gallya. 2004. “Public Opinion toward Immigration in the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 37 (10): 1151–83.Google Scholar
Lütkepohl, Helmut. 2005. New Introduction to Multiple Time Series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Menz, Georg. 2009. The Political Economy of Managed Migration: Nonstate Actors, Europeanization, and the Politics of Designing Migration Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Jill and Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2011. “Industry Strength and Immigrant Policy in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (3): 612–24.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H., Taylor, Alan M. and Williamson, Jeffrey G.. 1996. “Factor Price Convergence in the Late Nineteenth Century.” International Economic Review 37 (3): 499–530.Google Scholar
Perron, Pierre. 1989. “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis.” Econometrica 57 (6): 1361–1401.Google Scholar
Rybczynski, Tadeusz M. 1955. “Factor Endowments and Relative Commodity Prices.” Econometrica 22 (88): 336–41.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1975. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. 1972. “Money, Income, and Causality.” American Economic Review 62 (4): 540–52.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48 (1): 1–48.Google Scholar
Statham, Paul and Geddes, Andrew. 2006. “Elites and the Organised Public: Who Drives British Immigration Politics and in Which Direction?” West European Politics 29 (2): 248–69.Google Scholar
Taylor, Alan M. and Williamson, Jeffrey G.. 1997. “Convergence in the Age of Mass Migration.” European Review of Economic History 1: 27–63.Google Scholar
Tichenor, Daniel J. 2002. Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar