Anna Maria Mayda
Dept. of Economics, ICC 552
37th and O Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20057
Tel: 202 687 6712
Information about this author at RePEc
NBER Working Papers and Publications
|October 2017||The Effect of the H-1B Quota on Employment and Selection of Foreign-Born Labor|
with Francesc Ortega, Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, Chad Sparber: w23902
The H-1B program allows skilled foreign-born individuals to work in the United States. The annual quota on new H-1B visa issuances fell from 195,000 to 65,000 for employees of most firms in fiscal year 2004. However, this cap did not apply to new employees of colleges, universities, and non-profit research institutions. Additionally, existing H-1B holders seeking to renew their visa were also exempt from the quota. Using a triple difference approach, this paper demonstrates that cap restrictions significantly reduced the employment of new H-1B workers in for-profit firms relative to what would have occurred in an unconstrained environment. Employment of similar native workers in for profit firms did not change, however, consistently with a low degree of substitutability between H1B and nat...
|January 2016||Immigration to the U.S.: A problem for the Republicans or the Democrats?|
with Giovanni Peri, Walter Steingress: w21941
We empirically analyze the impact of immigration to the U.S. on the share of votes to the Republicans and Democrats between 1994 and 2012. Our analysis is based on variation across states and years – using data from the Current Population Survey merged with election data – and addresses the endogeneity of immigrant flows using a novel set of instruments. On average across election types, immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share, consistent with the typical view of political analysts in the U.S. This average effect – which is driven by elections in the House – works through two main channels. The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, ...
|April 2007||Risk, Government and Globalization: International Survey Evidence|
with Kevin H. O'Rourke, Richard Sinnott: w13037
This paper uses international survey data to document two stylized facts. First, risk aversion is associated with anti-trade attitudes. Second, this effect is smaller in countries with greater levels of government expenditure. The paper thus provides evidence for the microeconomic underpinnings of the argument associated with Ruggie (1982), Rodrik (1998) and others that government spending can bolster support for globalization by reducing the risk associated with it in the minds of voters.
|September 2001||Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others?|
with Dani Rodrik: w8461
We analyze a rich cross-country data set that contains information on attitudes toward trade as well as a broad range of socio-demographic and other indicators. We find that pro-trade preferences are significantly and robustly correlated with an individual's level of human capital, in the manner predicted by the factor endowments model. Preferences over trade are also correlated with the trade exposure of the sector in which an individual is employed: individuals in non-traded sectors tend to be the most pro-trade, while individuals in sectors with a revealed comparative disadvantage are the most protectionist. Third, an individual's relative economic status, measured in terms of either relative income within each country or self-expressed social status, has a very strong positive associat...
Published: Mayda, Anna Maria and Dani Rodrik. "Why Are Some People (And Countries) More Protectionist Than Others?," European Economic Review, 2005, v49(6,Aug), 1393-1430. citation courtesy of