Review Reports - The Economic Decision of International Migration: Two Empirical Evidences from the United States and Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a fairly relevant topic. The references to the literature are sufficient. The contribution's place in the relevant literature is clarified well. The data used and the methodology of analysis are adequate.

I think the exposition could be improved to make it more orderly and comprehensible. In particular with reference to the empirical analysis.

I give some examples.

In Table 3 (and then equivalently in the results tables):

- the variable SEX, could be named MALE (because in the current version the dummy is worth 1 in case of MALE; this can be reversed with FEMALE, but ‘SEX’ is difficult to interpret)

- The dummies SC1 and SC2 could become ‘SECONDARY’ and ‘TERTIARY’ (or post-secondary)

- AG and AG_Q could become AGE and AGE_SQ

In the version I have, Tables 4 and 5 are very badly formatted and difficult to read. I think the formatting needs to be much improved.

Section VI-3 does not seem to me to add much and could be removed or moved to the Appendix in order to lighten the paper

Author Response

Author Response Report

Dear Reviewer 1:

My co-authors and I now provide a revised manuscript that addresses a set of comments raised. We sincerely appreciate you for the patience and valuable comments, which significantly improved the manuscript, and we hope this revision can satisfy your comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Responses to Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate your time to review.

I think the exposition could be improved to make it more orderly and comprehensible. In particular with reference to the empirical analysis.

We fully revised the manuscript. With the support of my colleague, Michael Shelly who gave a full review of the article, we revised the manuscript clearly.

I give some examples.

In Table 3 (and then equivalently in the results tables):

- the variable SEX, could be named MALE (because in the current version the dummy is worth 1 in case of MALE; this can be reversed with FEMALE, but ‘SEX’ is difficult to interpret)

- The dummies SC1 and SC2 could become ‘SECONDARY’ and ‘TERTIARY’ (or post-secondary)

- AG and AG_Q could become AGE and AGE_SQ

In the version I have, Tables 4 and 5 are very badly formatted and difficult to read. I think the formatting needs to be much improved.

We changed the variable names as suggested. Further, we found a table formatting issue (Tables 4 and 5) generated by the journal, which has been fixed. We did not change SC1 and SC2 to avoid the table formatting issue. Many thanks for the suggestions

Section VI-3 does not seem to me to add much and could be removed or moved to the Appendix in order to lighten the paper

Thank you for the suggestion. Based on the fully revised version, the section looks quite useful as is. I hope this version can be satisfied with you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examined the impact of international migration on incomes of the migrats in both USA and Canada. The paper used sofisticated data and methodology to arrive at results and conclussion.

Table 4 and 5 needs to be redrawn, with SE up to 2 decimals only for clarity. Authors may relate to international literature on migration by including some literature from developing countries like China and India also. Authors can develop a theory of change to support the results and also identify botlenecks which hinder international migration. The paper is acceptable with minor changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate english language corections are required.

Author Response

Author Response Report

Dear Reviewer 2:

Responses to Reviewer 2

The paper examined the impact of international migration on incomes of the migrats in both USA and Canada. The paper used sofisticated data and methodology to arrive at results and conclussion.

Thanks for this comment. First of all, my colleague, Michael Shelly (environmental economist), gave a full review of the article with a clear focus on the manuscript including the abstract. Without his valuable support, the manuscript may still be unclear. Further, we found a table formatting issue (Tables 4 and 5) generated by the journal, which has now been fixed. As suggested in the last section, Conclusions and Limitations, we addressed your point but please note that we have not found an empirical study for developing country case while we are working on it. Our next manuscript can be submitted soon to address your point.

“Third, it would be valuable to better understand how non-economic factors affect the international migration decision, especially focusing on international migration from a ‘developing’ country to a ‘developed’ country. Cases that encompass different cultures, languages, and economic development status are needed to understand if the expected income gap is as important a decision factor as it was in the present study.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Economic Decision of International Migration: Empirical Evidence from the United States and Canada

The main theme of the research is the investigation of economic factors such as key determinants in international migration decisions. It empirically examines whether the expected income gaps between origin and destination countries, specifically the U.S. and Canada, significantly influence individuals' decisions to migrate. By comparing the potential life-long incomes of immigrants and non-immigrants, the study aims to determine if economic well-being is a primary motivator for migration. The findings suggest that income disparities do play a statistically significant role, highlighting the ease of transferring labor skills between similar countries as a contributing factor. Additionally, the study acknowledges the complexity of migration decisions, suggesting that future research should also consider non-economic factors and diverse migratory contexts.

1. The abstract is hard to understand because it's overly complicated and lacks a clear focus. It uses inconsistent terms and includes too much detail. It compares immigrants and non-immigrants and delves into complex methods without proper explanation. The findings lack clarity and depth, and there are grammar errors that make it difficult to read. Additionally, it fails to articulate clear research goals, a hypothesis, or adhere to a structured format.

2. Making the introduction very specific highlighting the main question/s and goals would be better. It talks about migration theories and income gaps but doesn't clearly state the research problem and its importance. This makes it hard for readers to grasp the study's focus and scope. The intro jumps around theories without connecting them to the study's aims and hypotheses.

3. Empirical Evaluation: The problem with assessing international migration studies is their heavy reliance on overall data, which overlooks individual differences and creates biases. Also, the lack of detailed individual data and limited sample sizes poses restrictions on the the applicability of results. To bridge this gap between broad studies and individual experiences, this paper would serve the reader well if more thorough data and varied research approaches to grasp migration dynamics are addressed.

4. The research hypothesis has several weaknesses. Firstly, it heavily relies on the neoclassical theory's assumption that migration decisions are solely based on economic expectations, ignoring other significant factors like social or personal motivations. Secondly, it assumes that immigrants' economic well-being can be compared to non-immigrants', without adequately considering the difficulty in measuring potential earnings in their origin countries. Additionally, it doesn't effectively address the self-selectivity bias, despite acknowledging it, weakening the validity of comparisons. Furthermore, its conditions are overly restrictive, limiting its applicability to cases with similar economic, cultural, and legal contexts, like US-Canada migration, which doesn't cover the diversity of migration scenarios. Lastly, relying on the RFP model, even when extended, raises concerns about its ability to correct for the diverse characteristics of the populations studied.

5. The economic model explains migration decisions based on human capital and neoclassical theories, focusing on maximizing future income. It defines migration drivers as the pursuit of higher earnings in destination countries. The model suggests that people migrate when potential earnings exceed those in their origin country, considering costs like travel and adaptation. Besides earnings, it also considers other factors influencing migration. While effective in predicting migration trends, the model has limitations. It overlooks non-economic influences, oversimplifies human behavior, and relies heavily on quantitative information. Dynamic factors like policy changes are often ignored. The model's simplicity hinders its ability to fully capture the complexities of migration dynamics.

6. Data and Variables: Data was collected and analyzed to study migration between the U.S. and Canada in 1990 and 1991. It mentions limitations like potential biases from sampling, using estimated income instead of raw data, and a 15-year immigration period restriction. Limitations of the data include potential biases from the sampling process, the use of estimated income values instead of raw data, and the restriction of immigration period to 15 years.

7. The findings from the US to Canada and Canada to US migration patterns reveal key insights. In the US to Canada context, the Gap model, incorporating the income gap variable, improves estimation compared to the traditional RFP model. Significant factors influencing migration decisions include age, education level, occupation, household size, and urban residence. Specific occupational sectors show varying inclinations towards migration. Conversely, in the Canada to US migration scenario, while similar trends regarding age, education, and marital status exist, differences in the impact of occupation variables emerge. Unlike the US to Canada trend, where certain occupation categories show inclination towards migration, in the Canada to US trend, all occupational categories exhibit positive associations with migration, possibly indicating better job opportunities in the US. Income equations highlight income asymmetries between the two countries, potentially presenting challenges for Canadian migrants accessing the US job market. Weaknesses include the need for further exploration into the nuanced factors influencing migration decisions and addressing potential biases in the data collection methods. Additionally, the study could benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of policy implications and long-term migration trends.

8. Concluding part: It assess migration decision theory based on the neoclassical theory of international migration. It highlights how the expected income gap influences immigration chances in the U.S. and Canada. The theory suggests that labor skill transferability is a key migration motivator. Yet, it has limitations such as missing variables due to data constraints and focusing on economically similar countries. It also relies on old data and overlooks non-economic factors like culture and family. This indicates a necessity for more inclusive and up-to-date research to grasp migratory patterns fully.

Overall, this paper provides a good migration story of the north American countries. However, it needs to be improving the relevance and practicality of research on international migration by addressing various aspects such as clarity in abstract and introduction, acknowledging data limitations, strengthening the research hypothesis, broadening the economic model, enhancing methodological transparency, interpreting findings with nuance, and highlighting cultural and policy implications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

My co-authors and I now provide a revised manuscript that addresses a set of comments raised, which is available in the attachment. We sincerely appreciate you for the patience and valuable comments, which significantly improved the manuscript, and we hope this revision can satisfy your comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the author(s)' responses, and they seem satisfactory to me. I confirm that I have no objections to accepting this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing is essential.