The authors are grateful for support from the Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Program, a SSHRC Grant (#410-2007-1477), and funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP0666158). The authors would also like to thank Juan Barón, Markus Grabka, David Maré, the participants of the Immigration Workshop 2006 at the Australian National University, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIVITY WEALTH GAP*
Article first published online: 11 MAR 2010
© 2010 Western Economic Association International
Volume 49, Issue 4, pages 989–1007, October 2011
How to Cite
BAUER, T. K., COBB-CLARK, D. A., HILDEBRAND, V. A. and SINNING, M. G. (2011), A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIVITY WEALTH GAP. Economic Inquiry, 49: 989–1007. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00221.x
This paper uses confidentialized unit record file data from the HILDA survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Department of Families, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (MIAESR). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to FaCSIA or MIAESR.
- Issue published online: 11 MAR 2010
- Article first published online: 11 MAR 2010
- Online Early publication March 11, 2010
We investigate the relative wealth position of immigrant households residing in Australia, Germany, and the United States. In Germany and the United States, wealth differentials stem from differences in the educational attainment and demographic characteristics of the native and immigrant populations, rather than income differentials. In contrast, the small nativity wealth gap in Australia exists because immigrants to Australia do not translate their relative educational and demographic advantage into a wealth advantage. Overall, we find substantial disparity in the economic well-being of immigrant and native families which is largely consistent with domestic labor markets and immigration policies. (JEL F22, D31)