How Elastic is the Labour Supply of Female Migrants Relative to the Labour Supply of Female Natives?

Fendel, Tanja A icle — Published Ve sion How Elas ic is he Labou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e o he Labou Supply o Female Na i es? De Economis P o ided in Coope a ion wi h: Sp inge Na u e Sugges ed Ci a ion: Fendel, Tanja (2020) : How Elas ic is he Labou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e o he Labou Supply o Female Na i es?, De Economis , ISSN 1572-9982, Sp inge US, New Yo k, NY, Vol. 168, Iss. 4, pp. 475-517, h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10645-020-09368-9 This Ve sion is a ailable a : h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/288406 S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen: Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den. Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen. So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen (insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en, gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e. Te ms o use: Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal and schola ly pu poses. You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public. I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence. h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) De Economis (2020) 168:475–517 h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10645-020-09368-9 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e o heLabou Supply o Female Na i es? TanjaFendel1 Published online: 8 July 2020 © The Au ho (s) 2020 Abs ac This s udy es ima es he wage elas ici ies o mig an s and na i es by using da a om he Ge man Socio-Economic Panel om 1984 o 2015 and a g ouping ins umen al a iable es ima o . Female mig an s who li e wi h a pa ne ha e lowe own- and c oss-wage elas ici ies han espec i e emale na i es, and he elas ici ies o non- Wes e n emale mig an s a e insigni ican . The ela ionship be ween pa icipa ion and elas ici y is no in all cases posi i e, bu pa allel o labou ma ke in eg a ion, he ime since mig a ion inc eases he elas ici ies o women. Elas ici ies indica e he po en ial o inc ease pa icipa ion; he e o e, i is especially impo an o non-Wes - e n emale mig an s o emo e ba ie s o lexible wage esponses. Keywo ds Labou supply beha iou o women· Mig a ion· G ouping es ima o JEL Classi ica ion F22· J22 1 In oduc ion The labou ma ke in eg a ion o women is much mo e p oblema ic among mig an s han na i es, especially non-Wes e n mig an women. The di e ences in he pa - icipa ion a es be ween emale mig an s and na i es a e much highe han hose be ween male mig an s and na i es (Fig.1). Many s udies p o ide empi ical e i- dence o he nega i e impac o mig a ion on emale mig an s’ labou ma ke pe o - mance o ea nings (see Blau e al. 2011; Cooke e al. 2009; Cla k and Wi he s 2002; * Tanja Fendel T[email p o ec ed] 1 Ins i u e o Employmen Resea ch (IAB), Regensbu ge s . 104, 90478Nu embe g, Ge many 476 T.Fendel 1 3 LeCle e and McLaughlin 1997). Howe e , he li e a u e conce ning mig an wom- en’s esponses o inancial incen i es and, he e o e, he elas ici ies o labou sup- ply is e y limi ed.1 Knowledge ega ding he elas ici ies o labou supply has high poli ical and, he e o e, high academic impo ance. The p e ious li e a u e mainly conside s labou supply elas ici ies o indica e he magni ude o he e iciency cos o income axa ion o de e mine he employmen impac o e o ms in edis ibu i e ax-bene i sys ems (E e s e al. 2008). Ne e heless, labou supply elas ici ies a e also highly ele an o in eg a ion policy. The pa icipa ion a e is an indica o o he success o labou ma ke in eg a ion, whe eas labou supply elas ici ies indica e he ex en o which a popula ion g oup is esponsi e o inancial incen i es. A high own-wage elas ici y obse ed wi h a low pa icipa ion a e indica es he po en ial o inc ease labou pa icipa ion and, he e o e, is an impo an mechanism o he labou ma ke in eg a ion o mig an s. P e ious s udies gene ally ind ha ma ied women ha e he la ges own-wage elas- ici ies and ha men ha e smalle own-wage elas ici ies. As e iewed by S eibe and Haas (2012), on a e age, men’s employmen beha iou is e y s able ac oss he li e cou se; mos men wo k ull- ime. Women’s li e cou se ajec o ies a e much mo e he e ogeneous due o child bi h o o he household esponsibili ies. Women ha e be e possibili ies o adjus hei hou s o wo k in esponse o changing economic condi ions depending on he ex en o which women can ou sou ce asks, such as housewo k and child ca e. P e e ences may also di e be ween men and women such ha wage unc ions much mo e as an incen i e o women han men because i is mo e socially accep ed o women han men o s ay a home. On he one hand, a low own-wage elas ici y can be he esul o a high pa icipa ion a e (pa icula ly among men). On he o he hand, among mig an women wi h low pa icipa ion a es, a low own-wage elas ici y may be he esul o p oblems wi h labou ma ke in eg a ion. Own-wage elas ici ies a e no he only impo an ac o o e alua ing he esponses o emale mig an s o inancial incen i es. By conside ing c oss-wage elas ici ies, amily-le el dynamics a e emphasized. Some s udies explain he nega- i e c oss-wage elas ici ies o women by adi ional gende oles (Blau and Kahn 2007). One may a gue ha women in couples wi h adi ional gende oles may no wo k o wo k o a low numbe o hou s when he pa ne ’s income is high enough o main ain ( he p e e ed) li ing condi ions. Howe e , in gene al, such women a e no e y sensi i e o wages, esul ing in a low nega i e c oss-wage elas ici y. A high nega i e c oss-wage elas ici y may esul om a pe ec ly symme ic labou supply wi h he need o p e e ence o main ain a ce ain amoun o household income. This may also be he case among mig an s, especially sho ly a e a i al, because o he need o make a li ing while in es ing in coun y-speci ic human capi al. Ne e he- less, mig an women wi h a low linkage o he labou ma ke may no be sensi i e o hei own and hei pa ne ’s wage. 1 The s udy de ines he uncompensa ed elas ici ies o labou supply as he pe cen age change in he pa - icipa ion a e (ex ensi e ma gin)/hou s wo ked (in ensi e ma gin) ha esul s om a 1 pe cen change in he own hou ly wage (own-wage elas ici y)/ he pa ne ’s hou ly wage (c oss-wage elas ici y). 477 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… The aim o his s udy is o e alua e he labou supply esponses o mig an women o inancial incen i es. Based on a s a ic model and da a ob ained om he Ge man Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) om 1984 o 2015, he s udy es ima es uncompen- sa ed2 own- and c oss-wage elas ici ies a he ex ensi e and in ensi e ma gins. In addi ion o women’s elas ici ies, as a poin o e e ence, he analysis es ima es men’s elas ici ies. This s udy es ima es sepa a e models o Wes e n, non-Wes e n and sec- ond-gene a ion mig an s and na i es.3 Wi hin he main speci ica ion o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne , he analysis es ima es addi ional elas ici ies a he ex ensi e ma gin o mixed couples consis ing o a mig an and a na i e indi idual. Fu he - mo e, his s udy es ima es models o indi iduals who li e oge he wi h a pa ne and indi iduals who li e wi h no pa ne sepa a ely. The esul s show ha emale mig an s who li e wi h a pa ne ha e lowe own- and c oss-wage elas ici ies han espec i e emale na i es and ha he elas ici ies o non-Wes e n emale mig an s a e insigni ican . An in e se u-shape ela ionship appea s o exis be ween he pa icipa ion a e and wage sensi i i y. On he one hand, pa allel o labou ma ke in eg a ion, he esul s indica e ha he ime since mig a ion inc eases he own-wage elas ici ies o emale mig an s. Among non-Wes - e n emale mig an s, hei low labou ma ke in eg a ion appea s o be he eason o he insigni ican elas ici ies. The elas ici ies o non-Wes e n emale mig an s who we e in ol ed in he coun y-speci ic educa ional sys em due o hei low age a he ime o mig a ion a e signi ican . On he o he hand, emale na i es’ elas ici ies we e lowe in he las yea s as hey became mo e a ached o he labou ma ke and elas- ici ies became mo e simila o men’s elas ici ies. This s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e in he ollowing ways. Fi s , o he bes o he au ho ’s knowledge, no p e ious s udy ocused on emale mig an s’ labou supply elas ici ies in he deba e ega ding hei labou ma ke in eg a ion. Only a ew s udies es ima e he labou supply elas ici ies o di e en mig an g oups sepa- a ely ( o example, De Boe 2018). Second, he ema kably la ge GSOEP allows a b oad examina ion o se e al subg oups and he in es iga ion o di e en mig an g oups and li ing cons ella ions. Se e al s udies compa e he labou supply elas- ici ies o he en i e emale and male popula ions in di e en coun ies (see E e s e  al. 2008; Ba gain e  al. 2014; Ba gain and Peichl 2016). As desc ibed by De Boe (2018), many s udies pool subg oups due o he low numbe o obse a ions. Thi d, o educe possible bias om endogenei y and measu emen e o s, he analy- sis applies a weigh ed leas squa es es ima ion o he g oup means weigh ed by he g oup size. Following De e eux (2004), an e o -in- a iables es ima o co ec s o 2 As e iewed by Blundell and MaCu dy (1998), s udies gene ally ocus on he uncompensa ed wage elas ici y o he Ma shallian supply unc ion, which maximizes u ili y subjec o a gi en budge con- s ain . In con as , he Hicksian supply unc ion de ines he compensa ed wage elas ici y by minimizing he budge gi en a cons an u ili y. Fo examples, s udies ha e used he compensa ed wage elas ici y o measu e he subs i u ion and income e ec o labou supply due o he in oduc ion o a wage subsidy ha shi s wo ke s in o a highe ax b acke and ully axes he income inc ease associa ed wi h he sub- sidy. 3 In he ollowing, he e m ‘na i es’ e e s o na i e-bo n indi iduals wi h no mig a ion backg ound, while na i e-bo n mig an s a e excluded om his g oup and e e ed o as ‘second-gene a ion mig an s’. 478 T.Fendel 1 3 bias possibly esul ing om a small g oup size. Finally, he analysis applies se - e al obus ness checks and ei he con i ms he esul s o shows he impac o di e - en assump ions conce ning he selec ion, impu a ion o missing wages, weigh ing, sample, axa ion o exis ence o child en. This pape is o ganized as ollows. Sec ion2 p esen s he heo e ical conside - a ions o a household labou supply model. Sec ion3 in oduces he da a se and p o ides he desc ip i e esul s. Sec ion4 in oduces he es ima ion s a egy, while Sec .5 p esen s he mul i a ia e esul s. Finally, Sec .6 concludes he pape . 2 Theo e ical Conside a ions The analysis in e p e s he labou supply coe icien s in e ms o he s anda d s a ic uni a y model o amily labou supply. A e in oducing he model, I discuss he possible ou comes o he labou supply elas ici ies o emale and male mig an s and na i es wi hin he heo e ical amewo k. As emphasized by Blundell and MaCu dy (1998), he household con ex adds se e al impo an dimensions o he labou supply model. Wage changes no only ha e indi idual consequences bu can also change he balance be ween men and women in he amily labou supply. Assuming ha a household consis s o wo wo king-age indi iduals, he household maximizes a uni a y u ili y unc ion by choosing he bes bundle o leisu e ime o he man L1 , leisu e ime o he woman L2 and household consump ion C as ollows: whe e X is a ec o o household a ibu es, such as he exis ence o child en. The household maximizes he amily u ili y subjec o he budge cons ain as ollows: whe e W1 and W2 a e he ne hou ly wage a es ha de e mine he oppo uni y cos s o leisu e.4 T1 plus T2 is he o al ime a ailable o he household, and nlY is he non-labou income. The model pools he household income as ollows: The join op imizing amewo k de e mines he alloca ion ule. The uni a y model allows he di ec u iliza ion o consume heo y, eco e s he p e e ences o each spouse om obse ed beha iou and p o ides a amewo k o he in e p e a- ion o he empi ical esul s. (1) U( L 1 ,L 2 ,C,X ) (2) C+W1L1+W2L2=nlY +W1T1+W2T2 (3) nlY +W 1( T 1 −L 1) +W 2( T 2 −L 2) = C 4 The main speci ica ion o he es ima ion uses ne wages because g oss wages cap u e he impac o he ax and ans e sys em along wi h he beha iou al adjus men s o indi iduals (Haan 2005). The e o e, he heo e ical model abs ac s om non-linea axes, which would lead o a non-linea budge due o he di e en ma ginal ax a es in he a ious income b acke s combined wi h he exis ence o non-linea income (Blundell and MaCu dy 1998). 479 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Compa able o gene al u ili y models, he amily labou supply model assumes ha he i s de i a i e o he u ili y index wi h espec o he leisu e ime should ce e is pa ibus be posi i e o bo h spouses. Fo some indi iduals wi h a e y high p e e ence o wo k, he ma ginal u ili y o leisu e may also be nega i e. The model u he assumes ha he second de i a i e is nega i e (S eine and W ohlich 2004). Cahuc and Zylbe be g (2004) p esen he decomposi ion o he e ec o a wage inc ease in o a subs i u ion and an income e ec a he indi idual le el, whe e he indi idual has u ili y om leisu e and consump ion. The o al e ec on leisu e de e - mines he labou supply elas ici y. Men usually wo k ull- ime, and inc easing he wo king ime due o wage changes will no esul in high income inc eases. The e- o e, men’s wage elas ici ies a e o en ound o be e y small. The own wage elas ic- i ies o men can also be nega i e when he income e ec leads o a la ge inc ease in leisu e ime. Because women o en wo k pa ime and ha e lowe pa icipa ion a es han men, hei income can inc ease much mo e when hey inc ease hei wo king ime. The e o e, women’s wage elas ici ies a e usually highe han men’s elas ici ies. On he one hand, due o hei po en ial o inc ease pa icipa ion, he lowe labou ma ke in eg a ion o emale mig an s may lead o high own-wage elas ici y; on he o he hand, labou ma ke ba ie s may p e en emale mig an s’ elas ici ies om being as high as emale na i es’ wage elas ici ies. The c oss-subs i u ion e ec be ween wo spouses’ leisu e ime is heo e ically ambiguous. The labou supply (a he ex ensi e o in ensi e ma gins) o women, who a e seconda y ea ne s in he amily, is likely nega i ely a ec ed by hei spouse’s wages in e ms o secu ing li ing expenses o main aining a p e e ed income due o adi ional gende oles. When gende oles a e adi ional and he husband’s ea nings a e high enough, he emale c oss-wage elas ici y may be nega- i e bu low, indica ing a gene al low sensi i i y o inancial incen i es. Highe nega- i e c oss-wage elas ici ies may occu due o a pe ec symme ic labou supply o secu e li ing expenses o main ain a p e e ed income. This si ua ion may apply o mig an s, especially sho ly a e mig a ion, o se e al possible easons, including he need o in es in coun y-speci ic human capi al. Finally, Ba gain e al. (2014) explain posi i e c oss-wage elas ici ies (a he in ensi e ma gin) wi h complemen a- i y such ha spouses enjoy spending leisu e ime oge he . 3 Da a andDesc ip i e S a is ics The analysis uses da a om he GSOEP om 1984 o 2015 o es ima e wage elas- ici ies. The GSOEP is an ongoing ep esen a i e panel su ey o pe sons olde han 16yea s who li e in Ge man households. The panel s udy s a ed in 1984 in Wes Ge many and included he Eas e n Ge many pa since 1990. The GSOEP con- ains de ailed in o ma ion ega ding employmen beha iou and socio-demog aphic a iables o e ime (Wagne e al. 2007). The da a supplying ins i u e con inuously adjus s he GSOEP ques ionnai es acco ding o new de elopmen s in socie y, and almos yea ly, new samples a e d awn o adequa ely ep esen de elopmen s, such as mig a ion lows, and educe he nega i e e ec s o su ey- ela ed panel a i- ion. The numbe o pa icipan s pe yea inc eased om 12,290 in 1984 o 27,183 480 T.Fendel 1 3 in 2015. In 1998, 2013 and 2015, he GSOEP inc eased he sample size by adding app oxima ely 3000 addi ional mig an s pe sample (see also Fig.2 in he Appen- dix) (Bohmann and Giesselmann 2018). The analysis es ic s he sample o pe sons aged be ween 21 and 60yea s. The sample excludes indi iduals who a e in oca ional aining o who wo k as in e ns because in hese cases, he numbe o wo king hou s a e usually ixed. The sample also excludes indi iduals in educa ion who a e no employed because o he inancial esou ces appea o exis o co e li ing expenses. Fu he mo e, he sample excludes indi iduals who a e sel -employed because hei wo k a angemen s can highly di - e om hose o whi e- o blue-colla wo ke s and ci il se an s. In he GSOEP, a dis inc ion be ween long- e m (mo e han 1yea ) unemploymen (“ALGII”) and unemployable (“Sozialgeld”)5 bene i s is no possible; he e o e, he sample excludes unemployed pe sons who ecei e social bene i s when hey a e no egis e ed as unemployed due o ma e nal lea e o a disabili y. Fo he es ima ion o elas ici ies a he in ensi e ma gin, ega ding he hou s wo ked, all indi iduals wi h ze o wo king hou s we e emo ed om he sample. Rega ding he o al elas ic- i y and sub-elas ici y a he ex ensi e ma gin, he analysis includes indi iduals no pa icipa ing wi h o wi hou unemploymen bene i s. One may a gue ha indi idu- als who a e in olun a ily unemployed should no be conside ed in he es ima ion o wage elas ici ies. Simila o o he s udies (e.g., Ba gain e al. 2014), he analysis does no di e en ia e be ween olun a ily and in olun a ily unemployed indi iduals. We do no conside (such as by analysing job sea ch beha iou ) whe he an indi- idual is unemployed and ecei es bene i s because she o he did no ind a job o whe he his o he ese a ion wage is oo high o he a ailable jobs/would be oo high o any job. Because his g oup is impo an o es ima ing wage elas ici ies, he sample includes he en i e g oup o egis e ed unemployed indi iduals. Compa able o non-pa icipa ing women, he analysis impu es he wages o unemployed indi- iduals using he wages o employed indi iduals wi h simila cha ac e is ics. The sec ion ega ding he speci ica ion desc ibes his me hod and discusses i s impac on he esul s. A e hese exclusions, app oxima ely 63% o he esponden s emained in he sample, esul ing in a ull sample o 53,635 indi iduals and 331,050 obse a ions. The a e age sha e o i s - and second-gene a ion mig an s in he sample is 29%, he sha e o women is 52% and he sha e o pe sons who li e wi h a pa ne is 77%. The highes sha e o mig an s, i.e., 45%, o igina es om a coun y in Eu ope (including he o me Yugosla ia), 22% o mig an s o igina e om Asia, he Middle Eas o Tu key, 11% o mig an s o igina e om he o me USSR and 19% o he conside ed mig an s we e bo n in Ge many. On a e age, each na i e indi idual appea s se en imes in he da a. Wes e n and second-gene a ion mig an s and non-Wes e n male 5 The Ge man labou ma ke e o ms in 2005 ( he so-called “Ha z e o ms”) in oduced he special social bene i “Sozialgeld”. Subsequen ly, indi iduals wi h a disabili y ei he ecei ed “Sozialgeld” man- aged by employmen agencies o “Sozialhil e” managed by social secu i y o ices. The in en ion was o supe ise indi iduals wi h a disabili y who li e wi h an indi idual who ecei es long- e m unemploy- men bene i s by a single ins i u ion. 481 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… mig an s appea i e imes, while non-Wes e n emale mig an s appea six imes (see also Tables1 and 8). Table1 compa es he main cha ac e is ics o ( i s - and second-gene a ion) mig an s and na i es in 2015. Table8 in he Appendix u he di e en ia es among mig an s wi h a Wes e n o igin (bo n in Eu ope ou side Ge - many, a high-income coun y ou side Eu ope o he o me USSR), a non-Wes e n o igin (bo n in Asia, he Middle Eas , A ica o Cen al-/Sou h Ame ica) and a Ge - man o igin (second-gene a ion mig an s). Rega ding he a iables used in he es ima ion, he ables compa e he sample means, he s anda d de ia ions and he numbe o obse ed indi iduals in 2015. The inal wo ows show he o al numbe o pe son-yea obse a ions du ing he 1984–2015 pe iod and he a e age numbe o obse ed yea s pe indi idual in each g oup. As emphasized in he in oduc ion, he di e ences in he pa icipa ion a es be ween emale mig an s and na i es (18 pe cen age poin s) a e much highe han he di e ences be ween male mig an s and na i es ( i e pe cen age poin s). On a e - age, emale mig an s wo k less hou s and ecei e a lowe wage han emale na i es. The pa icipa ion a e, numbe o wo king hou s and a e age wage indica e ha second-gene a ion mig an s a e be e in eg a ed han Wes e n mig an s (including mig an s om he o me USSR), while Wes e n mig an s a e be e in eg a ed han non-Wes e n mig an s (see Table8 in he Appendix). Six een o se en een pe cen o emale and male mig an s and 8–9% o emale and male na i es li e in house- holds wi h a leas one child younge han 3yea s. The sha e o pe sons who li e in households wi h a pa ne does no a y much be ween mig an s and na i es ( o he de elopmen o he sha e o e he obse a ion pe iod, see also Fig.3 in he Appendix). The sha e o indi iduals wi h no educa ional deg ee is signi ican ly highe among mig an s han among na i es (see Table1). On a e age, 20% o Wes e n mig an s (including pe sons om he o me USSR) and almos 36% o non-Wes e n mig an s ha e no educa ional deg ee (see Table8 in he Appendix). Al hough mos mig an s mig a ed o Ge many a an age a which educa ional biog aphies a e no necessa - ily inalized,6 a high sha e o mig an s ( hose wi h no educa ional deg ee) ha e no in es ed in u he coun y-speci ic human capi al. Fo many men, he occupa ional skills ha hey gained in hei home coun ies “on- he-job” wi hou ecei ing educa- ional deg ees (see B ücke e al. 2016) enable hem o pa icipa e in he labou ma - ke . Fo women, domes ic esponsibili ies may be a ba ie o in es ing in educa ion. As shown in Fig.4 in he Appendix, he pa icipa ion a es o emale mig an s di e by educa ional deg ee much mo e han hose o emale na i es. The e o e, he low pa icipa ion a e o non-Wes e n emale mig an s is ela ed o hei high sha e wi h no educa ional deg ee. Figu e1a displays he women’s pa icipa ion a es by hei mig a ion s a us, and Fig.1b displays he men’s a es by hei mig a ion s a us. The pa icipa ion a es o women di e much mo e by he mig a ion s a us 6 The a e age age a he ime o mig a ion declined om app oxima ely 25yea s in 1984 (in luenced by he gues wo ke gene a ion) o 13yea s in 2012 (in luenced by mig an s who mig a ed o Ge many as child en o o educa ion). Due o he inclusion o new GSOEP samples in 2013 and 2015 o mig an s who mig a ed o Ge many a e 1994, he a e age age has sha ply inc eased since 2013 o 26yea s in 2015. 482 T.Fendel 1 3 han hose o men. Figu e1a also shows ha in con as o he pa icipa ion a es o mig an women, he pa icipa ion a es o na i e-bo n women ha e inc eased since 2000. The pa icipa ion a es o second-gene a ion emale mig an s a e lowe han he pa icipa ion a es o emale na i es, bu hey display a simila end. As u he sugges ed by he indica o s displayed in Tables1 and 8, he in eg a ion p oblem o emale mig an s is less se ious among second-gene a ion mig an s. In eg a ion p ob- lems appea o dec ease o he ollowing gene a ions o mig an s. Fig. 1 Pa icipa ion a es by su ey yea , gende and mig a ion backg ound. Sou ce: GSOEP, 1984–2015 489 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 2 (con inued) Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Own wage 0.286*** 0.355*** 0.131*** 0.183*** 0.262*** 0.204*** 0.512*** 0.497*** 0.155** 0.465*** (0.032) (0.030) (0.045) (0.030) (0.038) (0.038) (0.097) (0.082) (0.076) (0.061) A e age hou s wo ked (ze o hou s included) 108.664 130.831 114.356 139.807 111.885 135.322 97.814 119.957 112.444 133.128 N3315 302 236 231 141 122 76 73 98 107 Obs426 26 131 121 29 29 15 19 29 27 ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o he hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup 490 T.Fendel 1 3 o indi iduals who li e wi h a pa ne . The elas ici ies o men a e smalle and mo e concen a ed. Among he men, he own-wage elas ici y o he mig an s is sligh ly highe han ha o he na i es. The di e ence om na i e men is highe among non-Wes e n mig an men han o he g oups o mig an men. Among male mig an s wi h a na i e spouse and male na i es wi h a mig an spouse, he elas ici ies a e highly simila o hose o males li ing wi h a pa ne wi h he same mig a ion o non-mig a ion backg ound. As a second indica o , Table2a and b display he uncompensa ed o al c oss-wage elas ici y. In Table 2a, he c oss-wage elas ici y is s a is ically signi ican nega i e among emale mig an s and na i es wi h a high alue o emale na i es and a e y low alue o emale mig an s. In Table2b, he c oss-wage elas ici y is also signi i- can and nega i e among 2nd-gene a ion emale mig an s and emale na i es wi h a mig an spouse. Nega i e c oss-wage elas ici y may esul due o a pe ec ly symme ic labou supply be ween a couple esul ing om he need o co e li ing expenses o he p e e ence o main ain a ce ain s a us. Female mig an s a e less sensi i e o no only hei own bu also hei pa ne s’ wage. Among male mig an s, he c oss-wage elas ic- i y shown in Table2a is signi ican and posi i e bu e y low, sugges ing ha male and emale leisu e is complemen a y ( an Soes 1995). The same applies o Wes e n emale mig an s and 2nd-gene a ion male mig an s (Table2b). Asso a i e ma ing is a possible explana ion o he posi i e c oss-wage elas ici y. Bloss eld and Timm (2003) p o ide e idence o a high co ela ion be ween educa ion and social a ibu es wi hin couples in mos coun ies. Asso a i e ma ing o en esul s in a simila labou supply beha iou be ween couples. As se e al s udies sugges , in all cases, he c oss-wage sensi i i y has signi ican ly smalle coe icien s han he own-wage sensi i i y (Blau and Kahn 2007; De e eux 2004; Killingswo h 1983; an Soes 1995). Table2c shows he o al own-wage elas ici ies o indi iduals who li e wi hou a pa ne . The elas ici ies a e mo e e en be ween single women and men, and he signi ican es ima es lay in a na ow ange; among mig an s in gene al, na i es and second-gene a ion mig an s, he elas ici ies o women a e e en lowe han hose o men. In con as o he espec i e women wi h a pa ne , single non-Wes e n mig an women ha e a signi ican elas ici y. Table9a and b in he Appendix display he ull es ima ion esul s wi h he coe - icien s de i ed om he linea -log models no calcula ing he o al elas ici ies. In mos g oups, he e ec s o he o he a iables on he numbe o hou s wo ked a e as expec ed. In mos g oups, he e ec o non-labou household income is signi i- can ly nega i e, and he e ec o a good heal h s a us is mos ly posi i e. The e ec o young child en is signi ican ly nega i e among women. In many cases, li ing in he Eas e n Ge many a ea has a posi i e e ec on he hou s wo ked; ne e heless, his e ec is o en insigni ican . Table3a and b p o ide he sub-elas ici ies wi h espec o he pa icipa ion a e (ex en- si e ma gin), while Table4a and b p o ide he sub-elas ici ies wi h espec o he hou s wo ked excluding non-pa icipan s (in ensi e ma gin) among indi iduals who li e wi h a pa ne (Tables a) and wi hou a pa ne (Tables b). The o al elas ici ies a e e y simila o hose a he ex ensi e ma gin and consis en wi h o he s udies, and in mos cases, he ex ensi e ma gin domina es he in ensi e ma gin (Ba gain e al. 2014; de Boe 2018). The di e ences ac oss he subg oups a e simila a he ex ensi e and in ensi e ma gins 491 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 3 Wage elas ici ies wi h espec o pa icipa ion1,2 o indi iduals li ing (a) wi h a pa ne , (b) wi hou a pa ne ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o he pa icipa ion a e in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (a) Own wage 0.505*** 0.242*** 0.694*** 0.151*** 0.468*** 0.201*** 0.096 0.371*** 0.359*** 0.169*** (0.065) (0.023) (0.044) (0.015) (0.081) (0.034) (0.170) (0.051) (0.084) (0.032) Spouse’s wage − 0.142** 0.021 − 0.396*** 0.005 − 0.064 0.036 0.113 − 0.099** − 0.031 0.133*** (0.055) (0.021) (0.034) (0.016) (0.072) (0.032) (0.154) (0.047) (0.061) (0.030) A e age pa icipa ion a e 0.512 0.842 0.606 0.846 0.568 0.849 0.370 0.779 0.578 0.898 N3849 779 593 580 368 343 252 231 229 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 (b) Own wage 0.283*** 0.316*** 0.175*** 0.204*** 0.245*** 0.190*** 0.390*** 0.440*** 0.281*** 0.406*** (0.026) (0.026) (0.033) (0.027) (0.034) (0.033) (0.079) (0.073) (0.056) (0.050) A e age pa icipa ion a e 0.705 0.752 0.701 0.769 0.717 0.781 0.654 0.704 0.728 0.752 N3344 316 257 246 154 128 84 82 106 106 Obs424 25 120 114 27 28 14 17 27 27 492 T.Fendel 1 3 and compa able o he o al elas ici y. The esponses o women wi h a pa ne a e highe han he esponses o espec i e men. The esponses o emale mig an s wi h a pa ne a e lowe han hose o espec i e emale na i es. This inding holds among Wes e n and second-gene a ion emale mig an s wi h a pa ne . Among non-Wes e n emale mig an s wi h a pa ne , he esponses a e insigni ican . Among men wi h a pa ne , he esponses o mig an s a e highe han hose o na i es, and non-Wes e n mig an men exhibi he highes esponses. Among indi iduals wi hou a pa ne , he own-wage elas ici ies a he ex ensi e and in ensi e ma gin a e also e y simila o he o al elas ici ies wi h lowe di e ences be ween men and women and be ween mig an s and na i es han among indi iduals wi h a pa ne . The c oss-wage elas ici ies a he ex ensi e ma gin (Table3a) a e e y simila o he o al c oss-wage elas ici ies. A he in ensi e ma gin (Table4a), mos g oups ha e a signi ican and posi i e bu low c oss-wage elas ici y, excep o emale na i es and 2nd-gene a ion mig an s, who ha e an insigni ican coe icien . Some basic esul s o his s udy a e simila o he indings o p e ious s udies. The ex ensi e ma gin domina es he in ensi e ma gin, and he own-wage elas ici ies o women wi h a pa ne a e highe han hose o espec i e men. The alues co espond o he in e als epo ed in o he s udies. Ba gain e al. (2014) compa e compensa ed and uncompensa ed labou supply elas ici ies ac oss 17 Eu opean coun ies and he US and show ha he es ima es o ma ied women ange be ween 0.2 and 0.6 (and hose o men a e smalle and mo e concen a ed). The own-wage elas ici y in his s udy is e y high o emale na i es and lowe o emale mig an s. Blundell and MaCu dy (1998) and E e s e al. (2008) epo he elas ici ies o women, and some es ima es a e la ge han 2. Table5 compa es he o al own-wage elas ici ies o women who li e wi h a pa ne be ween he 1985–2009 and 2010–2015 pe iods and shows ha he own-wage elas ici y o emale mig an s inc eased while ha o emale na i es dec eased om he i s o he second pe iod.9 Simila o he dec ease in he own-wage elas ici y o emale na i es, many s udies p o ide e idence o a dec ease in he own-wage elas ici y o women o e he las decades. Ba gain and Peichl (2016) discuss whe he smalle elas ici ies in mo e ecen pe iods exis due o an inc ease in emale labou ma ke a achmen o e ime o gene al changes in wo k p e e ences. Blau and Kahn (2007) sugges ha ising pa icipa ion a es, inc easing di o ce a es and inc easing ca ee o ien a ions o ma ied women a e easons explaining why women’s labou supply has become less sensi i e o he own wage. Conce ning he da a used in his s udy, i may be ele an ha un il 1990, he GSOEP only includes indi iduals om Wes e n Ge many, which has always been mo e adi ional, showing lowe emale labou o ce pa icipa ion han he o me Eas e n Ge many. The li e a u e o en associa es a highe emale labou o ce pa icipa ion wi h lowe own-wage elas ici ies, i.e., elas ici ies ha become mo e compa able o men’s own-wage elas ici ies. By summa izing he own-wage elas ici ies epo ed in di e en s udies om 1900 o 1980, Goldin (1990) shows ha he ela ionship be ween women’s pa icipa ion a e and hei wage elas ici y is no posi i e in all pa s o he pa icipa ion a e. The elas ici ies we e small in app oxima ely 1900, inc eased wi h women’s educa ional 9 The coe icien s a e no pe ec ly compa able o hose o he main esul s because he analysis g oups he da a o he esul s in Table5 only by wo pe iods ins ead o h ee-yea a e ages. The es ima ion does no con ol o yea ixed e ec s. 493 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 4 Wage elas ici ies wi h espec o hou s wo ked1,2 o indi iduals li ing (a) wi h a pa ne , (b) wi hou a pa ne ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (a) Own wage 0.228*** 0.198*** 0.408*** 0.028** 0.204*** 0.226*** 0.022 0.254*** 0.237*** 0.214*** (0.032) (0.012) (0.031) (0.011) (0.069) (0.026) (0.102) (0.026) (0.055) (0.029) Spouse’s wage 0.147*** 0.083*** − 0.418 0.047*** 0.197*** 0.102*** 0.476*** 0.086*** 0.001 0.035 (0.028) (0.012) (0.026) (0.013) (0.063) (0.024) (0.088) (0.024) (0.042) (0.028) A e age hou s wo ked 128.210 183.291 139.580 189.845 129.711 179.231 120.572 174.556 127.774 189.614 N31178 1140 580 569 312 307 189 199 220 205 Obs428 28 169 153 47 46 35 34 20 19 (b) Own wage 0.388*** 0.236*** 0.259*** 0.326*** 0.440*** 0.338*** 0.392*** 0.335*** 0.201*** 0.270*** (0.021) (0.021) (0.018) (0.020) (0.026) (0.032) (0.065) (0.055) (0.044) (0.031) A e age hou s wo ked 151.011 183.412 158.739 175.072 153.150 175.408 144.670 171.042 152.850 177.462 N3315 230 236 301 141 122 76 73 98 106 Obs426 122 131 26 29 29 15 19 29 27 494 T.Fendel 1 3 a ainmen un il 1950, and subsequen ly dec eased. Because emale pa icipa ion a es con inuously inc eased du ing his ime, he e appea s o be an in e se u-shape ela ionship o elas ici ies. The inc ease in he own-wage elas ici ies o mig an women shown in Table5 om one pe iod o he o he pe iod may be compa able o he inc ease in women’s elas ici ies in he ea ly 1990 h. Because 70% o i s -gen- e a ion mig an s in he da a mig a ed o Ge many be o e 1980, he emale mig an s du ing he i s pe iod we e in Ge many o an a e age sho e pe iod o ime and, he e o e, a e less a ached o he labou ma ke han emale mig an s du ing he second pe iod. Table6 displays he o al own-wage elas ici ies o i s -gene a ion mig an s who li e wi h a pa ne by yea s since mig a ion ca ego ies and sugges s ha he ime since mig a ion is a main de e minan o he inc easing elas ici y.10 Du ing he i s 10yea s a e a i al, he own-wage elas ici y is insigni ican among all g oups o emale mig an s. Among he whole g oup o 1s -gene a ion emale mig an s and Wes e n emale mig an s, he coe icien s display an inc easing end among mig an s who li ed in Ge many o mo e han 10yea s, al hough he end is no linea wi h a highe alue in he second ca ego y han he hi d ca ego y. In he ou h ca ego y o 31yea s and mo e, he own wage elas ici y o 1s -gene a- ion mig an s is e en highe han ha o emale na i es (Tables2a). Hence, emale mig an s’ own-wage elas ici ies a e no in all cases lowe han hose o emale na i es bu highly depend on he s a us o labou ma ke in eg a ion. Ano he majo esul o his s udy is he insigni ican own-wage elas ici ies o non-Wes e n emale mig an s who li e wi h a pa ne . In Table6, ega ding he sec- ond ca ego y o ele en o 20yea s since mig a ion, he own-wage elas ici y is also Table 5 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o women li ing wi h a pa ne ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o he hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s Mig an s Na i es Wes e n Non-Wes e n 2nd-gene a ion 1s - and 2nd- gene a ion 1984–2009 0.452** 0.098 0.386* 0.669*** 1.099*** (2.207) (0.249) (1.903) (4.119) (6.796) 2010–2016 0.879*** 0.490 0.747*** 0.824*** 0.973*** (0.240) (0.345) (0.226) (0.159) (0.125) 10 The coe icien s a e no pe ec ly compa able o hose o he main esul s because he analysis g oups he da a by addi ional a iables (by he yea s since mig a ion ca ego ical a iable in Table6 and he mig a ion coho indica o a iable in he ollowing Table7). This g ouping esul s in a highe numbe o g oups wi h a lowe numbe o obse a ions pe g oup and leads o mo e speci ic coe icien s on he one hand and a highe possible bias on he o he hand. A smalle numbe o obse a ions pe g oup also leads o a highe p obabili y ha he con ol a iables do no a y wi hin a g oup and, he e o e, d op ou o he es ima ion, especially in he case o he indica o a iable ela ed o li ing in Eas e n Ge many. The sha e o mig an s li ing in Eas e n Ge many is much lowe han ha li ing in Wes e n Ge many. 495 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… signi ican among non-Wes e n mig an s bu is insigni ican among he mig an s in he o he ca ego ies. On he one hand, his inding demons a es ha he own-wage elas ici y o non-Wes e n emale mig an s is no in all cases insigni ican . On he o he hand, due o he panel s uc u e o he da a, i is di icul o explain he sig- ni icance wi h coho e ec s. Since 66% o non-Wes e n emale mig an s mig a ed o Ge many be o e 1980 and almos 100% o hese mig an s mig a ed om Tu key, mos non-Wes e n emale mig an s—de e mining insigni ican elas ici ies in his g oup—mig a ed as amily mig an s o Tu kish gues wo ke s. The cen al hypo hesis in his s udy is ha p oblems ela ed o labou ma - ke in eg a ion, especially du ing he i s yea s a e mig a ion, lead o a low wage sensi i i y among mig an s compa ed o na i es. These p oblems may be especially high among non-Wes e n emale mig an s p edominan ly om Tu - key, which is a Muslim coun y, due o cul u al di e ences om Ge mans (and emale Wes e n mig an s wi h signi ican elas ici ies). P oblems associa ed wi h labou ma ke in eg a ion among non-whi e and Muslim women a e well docu- men ed in he li e a u e. Khoudja and Fleischmann (2015) show ha he p edic ed nega i e e ec s o adi ional gende ole a i udes and eligiosi y con ibu e o he explana ion o e hnic di e ences in emale labou o ce pa icipa ion. Kha - ab and Hussein (2018) depic he disad an ages aced by Muslim women in he labou ma ke . Zaice a and Zimme mann (2014) p o ide e idence sugges ing ha non-whi e women spend signi ican ly mo e ime on eligious ac i i ies and ood managemen han whi e women, and he au ho s d aw a connec ion o he low labou ma ke pa icipa ion o e hnic mino i y women. Al hough he esul s o he na i es show ha pa icipa ion has no posi i e e ec on elas ici ies a all pa s o he pa icipa ion a e, u he analysis shows ha labou ma ke in eg a- ion in luences own-wage elas ici ies also among non-Wes e n emale mig an s. Table7 shows ha he own-wage elas ici ies o non-Wes e n emale mig an s who mig a ed o Ge many a an age o 16 yea s o below a e signi ican in Table 6 To al own-wage elas ici ies1,2 o emale mig an s li ing wi h a pa ne ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o he hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 1s -gene a ion mig an s Wes e n Non-Wes e n 0–10yea s 0.051 − 0.038 − 1.361 (0.309) (0.270) (0.707) 11–20yea s 0.848*** 0.526** 0.749*** (0.182) (0.212) (0.284) 21–30yea s 0.578*** 0.345** 0.677 (0.217) (0.166) (0.530) 31+ yea s 1.253*** 0.937*** 0.457 (0.307) (0.254) (0.623) 496 T.Fendel 1 3 con as o hose o he g oup o non-Wes e n emale mig an s who mig a ed a an olde age. The g oup o so-called ‘academic na ionals’, who we e no bo n in Ge many bu ecei ed some educa ion in Ge many due o hei age, is compa- able o i s -gene a ion mig an s. Table2a shows ha among Wes e n and non- Wes e n second-gene a ion mig an s, he own-wage elas ici ies a e signi ican . Knowledge ega ding he Ge man educa ional sys em and possibly he exis ence o a Ge man educa ional deg ee ha e a high impac on labou ma ke in eg a ion and p obably in luence own-wage elas ici ies. As a u he esul o his s udy, among women, he own-wage elas ici ies o mig an s wi h a na i e spouse a e insigni ican , and he own-wage elas ici ies o na i es wi h a mig an spouse a e lowe han hose o na i es wi h a na i e spouse. Among men, he elas ici ies do no a y much be ween mixed couples and couples wi h wo mig an o wo na i e spouses. The espec i e spouse appea s o in luence women’s esponses much mo e han men’s esponses. The c oss- wage elas ici ies con i m his conclusion, al hough he e a e di e ences in e ms o whe he he esponse is o he pa ne ’s o igin o he pa ne ’s wage. In mos cases, he c oss-wage elas ici ies a e highe han hose o men o only signi ican among women. Su eys ha e sugges ed ha women’s labou supply is conside - ably mo e sensi i e o he pa ne ’s wage han men’s labou supply is sensi i e o he pa ne ’s wage (see Blau and Kahn 2007). The signi ican nega i e c oss-wage elas ici ies o emale na i es a e highe han hose o emale mig an s. A high nega i e c oss-wage elas ici y may esul due o a pe ec ly symme ic labou supply be ween a couple esul ing om he need o co e li ing expenses o he p e e ence o main ain a ce ain s a us. On he one hand, his si ua ion could be a possible eason o he e y high nega i e c oss-wage elas ici y o emale na i es. On he o he hand, emale mig an s appea o be on a e age less sensi i e no only o hei own bu also o hei pa ne ’s wage han emale na i es. Table 7 To al own-wage elas ici ies1,2 o emale mig an s li ing wi h a pa ne ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o he hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 1s -gene a ion mig an s Wes e n Non-Wes e n 16yea s o younge a he ime o mig a ion 0.856*** 0.517** 0.776* (0.222) (0.231) (0.460) Olde han 16yea s a he ime o mig a ion 0.569*** 0.460*** − 0.009 (0.075) (0.100) (0.205) 497 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… 5.2 Robus ness Checks The li e a u e shows g ea a ia ion in he magni ude o labou -supply elas ici ies. Me a-analyses sugges ha de e minan s, such as he es ima ion me hod, model speci ica ion o amily si ua ion, a e he main sou ces o a ia ion (E e s e  al. 2008). In he ollowing, a ious obus ness checks a e pe o med o es whe he issues conce ning selec ion, he me hod o wage impu a ion, he es ima ion ech- nique, he sample, axa ion o he exis ence o child en ha e a signi ican impac on he main esul s o his s udy. Excep o he i s obus ness check, we apply he o al elas ici ies, and we apply elas ici ies only o indi iduals who li e wi h a pa - ne . The Appendix displays he esul s. The analysis o he in ensi e ma gin only includes indi iduals wi h a posi i e numbe o hou s wo ked and does no conside non-pa icipan s. The i s obus - ness check es s whe he he esul s o he in ensi e ma gin signi ican ly a y when including he in e se mill a io o he p obabili y o pa icipa e in he equa ion on hou s wo ked.11 As shown in Table10a in he Appendix, he elas ici ies do no a y much om he main esul s o he in ensi e ma gin (Table4a). Rega ding he o al elas ici ies and sub-elas ici y a he ex ensi e ma gin, he anal- ysis impu es he wages o non-pa icipan s by assigning hem he p edic ed wages o employed indi iduals wi h he same obse ed cha ac e is ics. The obus ness check es ima es he po en ial wages by using a s anda d Heckman eg ession.12 The esul s o he o al elas ici ies (Table10b in he Appendix) do no a y much om he main esul s (Table2a, b). As De e eux (2004) emphasizes, he esul s ha e o be simila since using he a ailable g ouping a iables ei he o impu e wages non-pa ame i- cally as a mean o he g oup o by adding any unc ion o hese a iables o he wage equa ion as a selec ion co ec ion makes no di e ence. A main c i ique o assigning non-pa icipan s he p edic ed wages o simila ly employed indi iduals is ha non-pa icipan s a e likely o ha e lowe wages han pa icipan s wi h he same cha ac e is ics. The e o e, wo obus ness checks epea he impu a ion o he o al elas ici ies by using he en h o 25 h pe cen ile o he wages o he pa icipan s in hei g oup (see Tables11a and b in he Appendix). Al hough he esul s do no a y much ega ding o whe he he en h o 25 h pe - cen ile is used, compa able o De e eux (2004), he wage elas ici ies depend on he me hod o wage impu a ion, especially in he g oups wi h low pa icipa ion a es. 11 The selec ion equa ion includes a a iable ela ed o belonging o a chu ch as an exclusion es ic ion. Non-pa icipa ion conce ns mos ly women, and belonging o a chu ch o a eligious communi y may be co ela ed wi h adi ional gende - ole beha iou ollowing he male b eadwinne / emale homemake amily model. In con as , one can a gue ha his a iable does no in luence he numbe o wo king hou s, al hough among mo e adi ional women, he p obabili y o wo king a lowe numbe o hou s may also be highe han ha among less adi ional-o ien ed women. 12 Compa able o he in ensi e ma gin, he selec ion equa ion ela ed o pa icipa ion used o he wage es ima ion, includes a a iable ela ed o belonging o a chu ch as an exclusion es ic ion. One can a gue ha he a iable does no in luence he wage, al hough among mo e adi ional women, he p obabili y o in es in a ca ee o highe ea nings may be lowe han ha among less adi ional-o ien ed women. 498 T.Fendel 1 3 The own- and c oss-wage elas ici ies o emale mig an s a e much highe compa ed o he main esul s. The own-wage elas ici ies o emale mig an s a e compa able o hose o emale na i es. When we assume ha non-pa icipa ing mig an women ha e much lowe wages han pa icipa ing women, non-pa icipa ing mig an women espond mo e s ongly o hei own and pa ne ’s wage inc eases. Howe e , one can only d aw assump ions conce ning he pa o he wage dis ibu ion o which he non-pa icipan s belong. Ano he obus ness check examines he sample-speci ic de e minan s. The g oup- ing s a egy con ols o he main socio-demog aphic cha ac e is ics and human capi al a iables, and he eg ession con ols o addi ional a iables. To examine whe he he analysis con ols o all ele an sample speci ic ac o s, Table12 (in he Appendix) displays he coe icien s by using he GSOEP sample weigh s ins ead o he g oup size o compu e he weigh ed a iables. The wage elas ici ies a e simila o he elas ici ies p esen ed in Table2a, b. Hence, he a iables used o he g oup- ing and es ima ion a e su icien o a leas con ain all a iables conside ed in he GSOEP sample weigh ing. Indi iduals may s ill be in educa ion un il he age o 25yea s, and women may no wo k un il hey a e 60. Indi iduals younge han 25 and olde han 60 may bias he esul s o he labou supply elas ici ies. The e o e, he obus ness check in Table13 in he Appendix epea s he esul s o Table2a and b by conside ing only indi iduals aged be ween 25 and 55yea s. The esul s a e e y simila o he esul s p esen ed in Table2a and b. Because pe sons in oca ional aining o gene al edu- ca ion a e excluded om he sample, he a e age size o he g oups and numbe o g oups do no signi ican ly dec ease. A u he obus ness check eplaces pos - ax wi h p e- ax wage a es o calcula e he own- and c oss-wage elas ici ies (see Table14 in he Appendix). The esul s a e e y simila o he esul s in Table2a and b and, he e o e, indica e ha axa ion does no ha e a signi ican impac on labou supply elas ici ies. Finally, a obus ness check es s whe he he exis ence o young child en in he household in luences he labou supply elas ici ies o women who li e wi h a pa - ne . Table15 shows he elas ici ies o women who li e wi h a pa ne and a leas one child below he age o 11yea s sepa a ely by he ou mig a ion-speci ic g oups. Fo addi ional di e en ia ion by child age, he numbe o mo he s in he sam- ple is oo low. In con as o he main esul s, he elas ici y o non-Wes e n emale mig an s is signi ican . The own-wage elas ici ies o mo he s o young child en a e highe han hose o women in gene al (Table2a–c). This inding is consis en wi h he esul s epo ed by De Boe (2018), who simula es he elas ici ies o couples wi h and wi hou child en sepa a ely o show ha he subg oups di e in esponses o inancial incen i es. He emphasizes ha he di e ences in elas ici ies a e p ima - ily d i en by di e ences in pa icipa ion a es. The pe cen age change esul ing om a 1% change in wage is la ge wi h a low a e age numbe o hou s wo ked, such as among mo he s o young child en. The analysis in his s udy de i es he o al 505 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 9 (con inued) Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Mig an s wi h a na i e spouse Na i es wi h a mig an spouse Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men 1993– 1995 29.562 − 2.776 235.221*** 77.803*** 2.792 − 1.818 − 106.759*** − 57.169* 151.041*** 169.049*** 52.017 − 31.084 26.588 3.947 (25.427) (18.466) (51.449) (29.809) (34.702) (30.936) (40.947) (33.812) (57.025) (48.454) (46.001) (34.306) (34.410) (31.750) 1996– 1998 − 13.071 − 13.390 249.456*** 77.434*** − 45.136 − 19.498 − 151.432*** − 100.106*** 107.778** 144.442*** 24.991 − 27.954 39.261 35.093 (24.654) (18.157) (51.534) (29.892) (33.486) (30.462) (40.825) (33.215) (52.246) (45.667) (47.418) (35.355) (35.144) (32.215) 1999– 2001 − 12.099 − 6.208 254.641*** 85.167*** − 29.303 − 20.773 − 141.865*** − 77.052** 89.422* 127.877*** 9.709 − 23.647 53.372 20.200 (23.527) (17.706) (51.599) (29.989) (33.027) (29.973) (39.777) (32.999) (50.658) (44.433) (42.484) (34.701) (34.539) (30.543) 2002– 2004 8.050 − 1.847 310.268*** 69.546** − 23.539 − 15.037 − 150.259*** − 100.907*** 82.992* 108.736** 73.681* − 10.667 60.742* − 0.154 (23.861) (17.755) (51.762) (30.515) (33.627) (30.147) (41.614) (34.141) (50.269) (44.388) (44.576) (35.587) (35.980) (31.081) 2005– 2007 − 1.739 − 5.238 303.196*** 72.772** − 33.895 − 17.719 − 135.254*** − 78.384* 96.811* 119.118*** 37.985 − 19.821 83.309** 38.237 (23.807) (17.990) (51.807) (30.297) (34.176) (30.645) (41.127) (34.183) (49.937) (43.848) (42.990) (37.159) (35.952) (30.726) 2008– 2010 17.225 27.620 350.145*** 108.762*** − 25.887 11.284 − 117.63*** − 21.484 110.322** 151.711*** 68.518 − 4.566 96.405** 88.086*** (24.130) (18.166) (52.412) (30.280) (35.006) (31.028) (41.200) (34.738) (49.731) (44.180) (45.151) (37.584) (38.280) (31.846) 2011– 2013 19.996 34.126** 333.227*** 110.502*** − 26.944 43.547 − 146.047*** − 14.975 118.18** 136.105*** 122.140*** − 1.710 128.305*** 54.173* (22.784) (16.944) (52.197) (30.380) (32.612) (28.637) (38.916) (31.606) (49.781) (43.845) (43.595) (34.599) (35.230) (29.924) 2014– 2016 27.590 29.912* 361.254*** 135.452*** − 8.328 39.346 − 112.278*** − 3.664 111.698** 117.269*** 119.980*** 18.841 116.774*** 51.718* (22.630) (17.006) (52.640) (30.603) (32.533) (28.558) (38.609) (32.724) (49.561) (43.897) (42.235) (35.334) (33.475) (30.048) A e age hou s wo ked (ze o hou s included) 72.055 154.583 88.609 161.219 76.487 154.286 44.315 137.268 79.009 170.541 83.360 155.858 83.298 171.458 506 T.Fendel 1 3 Table 9 (con inued) Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Mig an s wi h a na i e spouse Na i es wi h a mig an spouse Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men N2971 934 585 571 316 307 200 200 229 205 226 222 249 207 Obs331 30 168 153 47 46 33 34 20 19 17 14 14 17 Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (b) Cons an − 43.549 − 72.883** − 287.723*** − 89.099* − 18.899 42.672 − 73.836 − 86.308 − 200.690*** − 161.639** (33.016) (28.698) (70.602) (50.193) (47.529) (43.341) (79.304) (55.666) (66.243) (73.421) Own wage 31.096*** 46.460*** 14.934*** 25.634*** 29.330*** 27.630*** 50.090*** 59.564*** 17.391** 61.901*** (3.481) (3.913) (5.114) (4.183) (4.283) (5.078) (9.517) (9.869) (8.499) (8.075) Non-labou household income pe pe son4 − 16.569*** − 31.156*** − 28.687*** − 40.987*** − 25.694*** − 33.981*** − 4.343 − 41.580*** − 14.089* − 42.209*** (5.321) (3.746) (6.590) (4.307) (7.743) (5.160) (14.434) (14.033) (8.424) (7.204) Good heal h 98.565*** 86.150*** 157.175*** 141.653*** 104.707*** 114.159*** 57.505*** 68.919*** 131.483*** 66.737*** (8.508) (8.876) (14.317) (12.015) (10.246) (11.584) (20.538) (19.323) (20.331) (17.860) Child en younge han 3yea s − 69.544*** 12.372 − 140.477*** 17.899 − 96.812*** 83.471* − 6.268 41.756 − 217.103*** − 4.578 (19.104) (20.427) (37.037) (50.185) (28.277) (44.778) (37.396) (45.609) (50.517) (44.055) Eas 63.285*** − 22.37 12.213 − 50.152* 95.683*** − 40.855 − 247.382** − 118.65 19.438 − 24.466 (21.711) (18.475) (35.591) (27.115) (33.818) (28.457) (124.183) (72.484) (33.525) (27.835) 1987–1989 25 70.031** 167.746* 98.042 − 9.721 56.100 − 9 − 26 231.223** 246.171*** (39.754) (33.316) (87.276) (64.312) (49.293) (41.123) (73.152) (51.519) (90.717) (92.392) 1990–1992 44.021 65.419** 255.395*** 137.874** 48.726 34.524 26.801 22.562 250.604*** 205.954** (39.144) (31.574) (77.584) (57.224) (48.990) (41.542) (75.700) (45.298) (93.340) (87.847) 1993–1995 − 5.015 8.763 151.545* 72.188 43.910 − 0.899 − 122.042* − 63.248 167.511* 115.507 (38.150) (31.234) (77.631) (57.598) (48.110) (40.226) (68.668) (49.561) (93.072) (81.922) 1996–1998 − 24.736 − 25.664 105.417 47.635 − 12.877 − 54.770 − 31.998 − 99.335* 108.327 81.994 507 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 9 (con inued) Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (37.098) (30.592) (77.365) (57.242) (46.485) (38.950) (76.601) (57.031) (82.384) (79.528) 1999–2001 − 15.920 − 17.440 86.81 20.005 − 40.100 − 51.823 1.538 − 71.792 165.406** 78.330 (35.197) (28.827) (77.937) (57.065) (44.204) (37.757) (74.969) (48.090) (76.445) (78.062) 2002–2004 − 37.793 − 26.146 56.309 − 4.114 − 38.260 − 53.730 17.442 − 73.340 123.770 59.348 (35.451) (29.441) (77.626) (58.019) (46.082) (39.395) (80.407) (50.308) (77.353) (76.721) 2005–2007 − 40.258 − 15.705 57.016 − 9.129 − 46.293 − 62.369 − 41.92 − 48.103 141.275* 57.907 (35.027) (30.098) (78.041) (57.469) (44.535) (41.847) (79.186) (58.224) (74.415) (76.375) 2008–2010 − 28.593 − 8.490 106.357 49.793 − 39.569 − 128.216*** − 48.581 − 76.175 145.129** 114.548 (35.677) (29.735) (77.297) (57.363) (45.310) (42.006) (80.634) (57.084) (73.625) (76.056) 2011–2013 − 94.112*** − 21.529 8.896 − 14.151 − 139.064*** − 76.571** − 120.949* − 46.804 133.200* 43.385 (33.255) (27.312) (79.439) (57.422) (43.920) (36.266) (67.122) (42.770) (75.361) (76.086) 2014–2016 − 106.313*** − 7.741 107.294 19.530 − 123.804*** − 74.569** − 169.466** − 47.820 108.917 72.723 (33.683) (27.265) (78.488) (57.592) (43.781) (35.760) (69.165) (44.694) (75.265) (76.510) A e age hou s wo ked (ze o hou s included) 108.664 130.831 114.356 139.807 111.885 135.322 97.814 119.957 112.444 133.128 N2315 302 236 231 141 122 76 73 98 107 Obs326 26 131 121 29 29 15 19 29 27 ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 2 Numbe o g oups 3 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup 4 Scaled a 100 o he es ima ion 508 T.Fendel 1 3 Table 10 (a) Wage elas ici ies wi h espec o hou s wo ked1,2 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne —es ima ion based on he heckman selec ion model. (b) To al wage elas ici ies12 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne —impu ed wages based on he heckman selec ion model ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (a) Own wage 0.237*** 0.189*** 0.463*** 0.067*** 0.164*** 0.183*** − 0.066 0.195*** 0.222*** 0.232*** (0.038) (0.015) (0.032) (0.011) (0.059) (0.025) (0.088) (0.022) (0.056) (0.027) Spouse’s wage 0.102*** 0.076*** − 0.442*** 0.020 0.086 0.070*** 0.446*** 0.081*** 0.017 0.024 (0.035) (0.014) (0.025) (0.012) (0.056) (0.024) (0.084) (0.021) (0.043) (0.026) N3818 778 588 578 356 343 242 230 220 205 Obs437 36 174 158 51 49 31 33 20 19 (b) Own wage 0.664*** 0.276*** 0.907*** 0.172*** 0.559*** 0.198*** 0.155 0.371*** 0.564*** 0.272*** (0.071) (0.027) (0.060) (0.018) (0.087) (0.043) (0.186) (0.053) (0.108) (0.040) Spouse’s wage − 0.257 0.005 − 0.808 − 0.002 − 0.144 0.033 0.122 − 0.109 − 0.182 0.069* (0.063) (0.025) (0.049) (0.019) (0.082) (0.040) (0.177) (0.050) (0.077) (0.037) N3853 779 593 580 370 343 253 231 230 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 509 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 11 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne —impu ed wages: (a) 10 h pe cen ile, (b) 25 h pe cen ile ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men (a) Own wage 0.909*** 0.356*** 0.948*** 0.227*** 0.757*** 0.306*** 0.780*** 0.459*** 0.697*** 0.281*** (0.055) (0.024) (0.033) (0.014) (0.073) (0.040) (0.147) (0.045) (0.080) (0.038) Spouse’s wage − 0.306*** − 0.039* − 0.702*** − 0.037** − 0.205*** − 0.028 − 0.214* − 0.117*** − 0.211*** 0.041 (0.049) (0.023) (0.031) (0.016) (0.067) (0.036) (0.128) (0.042) (0.067) (0.038) N3849 779 593 580 368 343 252 231 229 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 (b) Own wage 0.894*** 0.325*** 1.059*** 0.217*** 0.744*** 0.259*** 0.672*** 0.430*** 0.651*** 0.278*** (0.064) (0.025) (0.042) (0.015) (0.085) (0.041) (0.175) (0.049) (0.092) (0.039) Spouse’s wage − 0.315*** − 0.022 − 0.766*** − 0.029* − 0.223*** − 0.003 − 0.160 − 0.117*** − 0.178** 0.051 (0.054) (0.024) (0.035) (0.017) (0.075) (0.038) (0.142) (0.045) (0.069) (0.038) N3849 779 593 580 368 343 252 231 229 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 510 T.Fendel 1 3 Table 12 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne —SOEP weigh s ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Own wage 0.471*** 0.213*** 0.915*** 0.182*** 0.344*** 0.091** 0.022 0.356*** 0.345*** 0.233*** (0.076) (0.028) (0.058) (0.017) (0.096) (0.042) (0.210) (0.060) (0.107) (0.038) Spouse’s wage − 0.183*** 0.012 − 0.844*** − 0.012 − 0.038 0.080** 0.171 − 0.154*** − 0.151* 0.077** (0.064) (0.026) (0.045) (0.019) (0.084) (0.038) (0.182) (0.052) (0.080) (0.036) N3849 779 593 580 368 343 252 231 229 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 511 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Table 13 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne aged 25–55 ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Own wage 0.587*** 0.267** 0.983*** 0.156*** 0.367*** 0.219*** 0.065 0.336*** 0.384*** 0.287*** (0.079) (0.114) (0.057) (0.016) (0.101) (0.038) (0.216) (0.051) (0.107) (0.036) Spouse’s wage − 0.156** 0.028 − 0.793*** 0.022 0.011 0.067* 0.313 − 0.057 − 0.140* 0.038 (0.068) (0.025) (0.042) (0.017) (0.088) (0.036) (0.192) (0.049) (0.081) (0.034) N3775 726 576 562 351 321 227 219 197 186 Obs433 33 150 137 45 45 29 30 19 18 512 T.Fendel 1 3 Table 14 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o indi iduals li ing wi h a pa ne —g oss ins ead o ne wages ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd-gene a ion mig an s Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Own wage 0.682*** 0.255** 0.902*** 0.184*** 0.557*** 0.181*** 0.441*** 0.325*** 0.499*** 0.250*** (0.060) (0.023) (0.055) (0.017) (0.082) (0.036) (0.165) (0.047) (0.088) (0.036) Spouse’s wage − 0.348*** − 0.01 − 0.824*** − 0.025 − 0.219** 0.024 − 0.160 − 0.106** − 0.183** 0.046 (0.062) (0.025) (0.048) (0.019) (0.088) (0.039) (0.178) (0.050) (0.075) (0.039) N3849 779 593 580 368 343 252 231 229 205 Obs436 36 172 157 49 49 30 33 20 19 513 1 3 How Elas ic is heLabou Supply o Female Mig an s Rela i e… Figu es See Figs.2, 3 and 4. E o s‑in‑Va iables Es ima o When y* e e s o he popula ion a e age pa icipa ion a e (sub-elas ici y a he ex ensi e ma gin)/a e age hou s wo ked ( o al elas ici y o sub-elas ici y a he in ensi e ma gin), x* e e s o he labou supply de e minan s o one g oup, and x and y a e he espec i e sample means wi h y * = x * + e as he eg ession a he le el o he popula ion means, Eq. (6) displays he sampling e o s uc u e as ollows: N is de ined as he numbe o g oups, and k is de ined as he numbe o igh - hand side a iables. Dea on (1985) de i es an unbiased e o s-in- a iables es ima o (7) o he es ima ion o models in le els ha is app oxima ely unbiased and consis - en as he numbe o g oups eaches in ini y. y=y∗+u x=x∗+ (6) ( y x ) ∼N ( y∗ x∗ 𝜎00 𝜎 𝜎� 𝛴 ) Table 15 To al wage elas ici ies1,2 o women li ing wi h a pa ne and child( en) below 11yea s ***Signi ican a p < 0.01; **signi ican a p < 0.05; *signi ican a p < 0.1 1 Elas ici ies a e calcula ed a he sample means o hou s wo ked in he espec i e g oup 2 All speci ica ions include egional and ime indica o s 3 Numbe o g oups 4 A e age numbe o obse a ions pe g oup Mig an s Na i es Wes e n mig an s Non-Wes e n mig an s 2nd- gene a ion mig an s Own wage 0.822*** 1.143*** 0.513*** 0.459* 0.853*** (0.119) (0.085) (0.170) (0.278) (0.186) Es ima ed coe icien 39.816 80.359 29.364 15.901 42.933 Spouse’s wage − 0.182* − 1.010*** − 0.086 0.301 − 0.202 (0.104) (0.064) (0.154) (0.248) (0.137) Es ima ed coe icien − 8.798 − 70.956 − 4.915 10.424 − 10.179 A e age hou s wo ked 48.435 70.280 57.238 34.619 50.328 N3528 440 235 167 126 Obs428 81 33 28 18 514 T.Fendel 1 3 Fig. 2 De elopmen o di e en SOEP samples (1984–2015) o pe sons olde han 17yea s No e: A 1984 S a ing-Sample (Wes ), B 1984 Mig a ion (un il 1983, Wes ) , C 1990 S a ing-Sample (Eas ), D 1994/5 Mig a ion (1984-92/94 Wes ), E 1998 Sample inc ease, F 2000 Sample inc ease, G 2002 High-Income, H 2006 Sample inc ease, I 2009 Inno a ion sample, J 2011 Sample inc ease, K 2012 Sample inc ease, L1 2010 Bi h coho s (2007-2010), L2 2010 Types o amilies (lowinc), L3 2011 Types o amilies (single pa en ), M1 2013 Mig a ion (1995-2010),M2 2015 Mig a ion (2009-2015) Sou ce: Bohmann and Giesselmann (2018). Fig. 2 (con inued) Fig. 3 Sha e o pe sons li ing wi h a pa ne (b) by gende and mig a ion backg ound o e he obse a- ion pe iod. Sou ce: GSOEP, 1984–2015