Competition and Migration Updated

In the previous post, we examined a dataset on migration to get at what it might mean to be competitive as a nation.  In this post, we give improvements to the data.

Population Adjustments

In the previous ranking, China and India were considered misplaced as they sat near the bottom.  One of the explanations for this placement was that China and India simply contain many more people than other countries.  Therefore, in the pairwise comparisons we were doing, it was natural that they had negative migrant balances with most other countries.  Other countries just cannot produce the sheer number of migrants that China and India do.

As suggested in the comments of the previous post, we have adjusted our numbers to produce a migration per capita measure.  The idea behind this is that instead of comparing migrants one-to-one, we should be comparing migrants as a proportion of the population of their home country.

To create these numbers, we obtained the 2000 population values from the UN Population Prospects, the 2008 Revision and then added in the country’s out-migrants and subtracted out its in-migrants.  This adjustment should have given us the number of people originally from a given country, not just its population.  Using only population numbers includes migrants from other countries and thus might throw off comparisons for some countries.  Finally, we used these numbers to compare migrants as proportions of their home populations.

A downside to this adjustment is that it enhances migration involving less populous countries.  Countries with lower populations are more capable of having a higher proportion of their population living abroad.  Thus, smaller countries become deflated and large nearby countries get inflated.  To correct for this, we’ve left out countries with a population of fewer than 100,000.

Distance Adjustments

The other thing that stuck out in the previous data was that countries could be very locally competitive, which drove up their number of in-migrants, but were probably not competitive on what would be considered a global scale.  The most straightforward adjustment for this is to take into account distance between countries.

CEPII has compiled data (dist_cepii.xls found here) on distances between countries among other geographic measures.  To incorporate this data into our measure of competitiveness, we multiplied the population-adjusted migration balance between each pair of countries by the square-root of the distance between the two countries.  Basically, we wanted migration between two countries that are close together to count less than migration between two countries that are far apart.  Further, using the square-root of the distance reflects our belief that distance traveled would likely be related to competition in a diminishing manner.  Put another way, it might be difficult to move 100 miles, but once you’ve moved that first 100 miles, it becomes less difficult to move another 100 miles and so on.  Therefore, while the distance travelled likely matters, we think it matters in a non-linear, diminishing way.

Applying these adjustments, we get the map below.  Click to go to the more detailed, interactive version.

 

Again, these adjusted numbers by no means constitute a perfect measure.  A brief look at other migration models reveals many different factors that might be accounted for in our numbers.  These include anything from adjusting for whether or not countries share a border to compensating for measures such as the “gravity” between two countries, where “gravity” is measured by an adaptation of Newton’s law of gravitation.

The most notable changes from the previous ranking are China and India as they’ve jumped into the top of the ranking.  China comes in at number 30 and India is at number 18.  Most of this change (from the bottom to their current positions) is accounted for by the population adjustment.  

Some may be unsatisfied even with the new positions for China and India, but it’s important to remember our data on migration are stocks, not flows.  Without data on flows by year, it’s difficult to get at an instantaneous measure of competition.  For example, the United States has clearly built up a strong base of immigrants, but with this data, we can’t tell if people are now starting to move away.  Further, China was once not as competitive as it is now (hence its lower ranking), but we can’t tell if China’s recent rise is reflected in our numbers.

Rankings from the top:

1. The United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Australia
5. Netherlands

From the bottom (starting with the lowest):

1. Netherlands Antilles
2. Antigua & Barbuda
3. Suriname
4. Tonga
5. Samoa

The data are attached in xlsx format: Download NetMigrationAllData

Comments

[replica watches]

The comments seem to be talking all around the question but not addressing the heart of the entreprenurial debate. The issue should be: How to get state capital around the financial logjam and into the hands of the entrepreneur.

[GED]

it’s good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource.

[mbt shoes]

I love your blog very much, more more info, I will concern it again!

[mbt shoes]

I love your blog very much, more more info, I will concern it again!

[air jordan 6]

There is no doubt that your blog is specific,I've learnt a lot from you. Something of your blog informations are very helpful to us. WISH YOU HAPPY EVERYDAY!

[gw 2 gold]

If you write or copyedit in Microsoft Word, have you thought about using color as a tool? Here are two ways I use color in editing and word-processing.

[MBT Shoes Uk]

I guess the point is to give and save as much as you can and make your money work for you like the good servant we should strive to be.

[Coach Outlet Factory]

[ this is good]

[Jordan Big Fund]

Love,love love this post!O(∩_∩)O~