A large literature exploits geographic variation in the concentration of immigrants to identify their impact on a variety of outcomes. To address the endogeneity of immigrants' location choices, the most commonly-used instrument interacts national inflows by country of origin with immigrants' past geographic distribution. We present evidence that estimates based on this "shift-share" instrument conflate the short- and long-run responses to immigration shocks. If the spatial distribution of immigrant inflows is stable over time, the instrument is likely to be correlated with ongoing responses to previous supply shocks. Estimates based on the conventional shift-share instrument are therefore unlikely to identify the short-run causal effect. We propose a "multiple instrumentation" procedure that isolates the spatial variation arising from changes in the country-of-origin composition at the national level and permits us to estimate separately the short- and long-run effects. Our results are a cautionary tale for a large body of empirical work, not just on immigration, that rely on shift-share instruments for causal inference.

Shift-Share Instruments and the Impact of Immigration

ABSTRACT We identify four main strands of the migrant enfranchisement literature since 2010 and outline its main (debated) concepts. We pinpoint missing links among the strands, such as a tendency for scholars to study the electoral rights of foreign residents (immigrants) separate from nationals abroad (emigrants). Other missing links lie with actors and processes along the migrant enfranchisement legal path, with more studies focused on enacting or implementing rights versus fewer on why rights stagnate or fail to pass. Another missing link is geographic, favouring South–North over South-South enfranchisement. Despite an overall acceptance of transnational belonging and multi-territorial political participation, research agendas remain disparate across migration studies, political science, sociology, international relations, and other social sciences and humanities. Missing links are missed opportunities to merge disciplinary findings and find (causal) mechanisms to explain migrant enfranchisement. When analysing the four strands, we suggest researchers apply an immigrant-emigrant lens to include origin and residence countries and rights of both emigrants and immigrants. Each article in this Special Issue nuances one of the strands, combines them, or applies the immigrant-emigrant lens. The issue expands the geographic coverage of current studies and offers innovative comparative analyses of Africa, Europe, and Latin America.

Missing links in migrant enfranchisement studies

ABSTRACT Low visibility activism poses a challenge for scholars wishing to understand the involvement and impact of immigrant activists in political processes. While the migrant enfranchisement literature frequently credits emigrants for their active role in efforts toward the right to vote, it often ignores or dismisses the parallel role of immigrants. I revisit Switzerland as one of the most widely studied cases of immigrant enfranchisement to analyse the cantonal case studies of Geneva and Zurich. The results show that immigrants were actively involved in various ways, and at points, their activism proved to be essential. However, their contributions were often not publicly visible due to strategic choices made by immigrant activists and institutional barriers that limited their participation. This low visibility presents a challenge for scholars studying enfranchisement processes because the official paper trail may fail to reflect immigrant activism. By comparing parliamentary debates with interview as well as archival evidence, I demonstrate that only the latter two provide glimpses into immigrant contributions to their own enfranchisement. I conclude with a call to engage deeply with sources beyond the official paper trail when reaching conclusions about the extent and impact of immigrant involvement in political processes.

The challenge of low visibility: immigrant activism toward enfranchisement

Low visibility activism poses a challenge for scholars wishing to understand the involvement and impact of immigrant activists in political processes. While the migrant enfranchisement literature frequently credits emigrants for their active role in efforts toward the right to vote, it often ignores or dismisses the parallel role of immigrants. I revisit Switzerland as one of the most widely studied cases of immigrant enfranchisement to analyse the cantonal case studies of Geneva and Zurich. The results show that immigrants were actively involved in various ways, and at points, their activism proved to be essential. However, their contributions were often not publicly visible due to strategic choices made by immigrant activists and institutional barriers that limited their participation. This low visibility presents a challenge for scholars studying enfranchisement processes because the official paper trail may fail to reflect immigrant activism. By comparing parliamentary debates with interview as well as archival evidence, I demonstrate that only the latter two provide glimpses into immigrant contributions to their own enfranchisement. I conclude with a call to engage deeply with sources beyond the official paper trail when reaching conclusions about the extent and impact of immigrant involvement in political processes. 

Patricia Schafer

Papers

Enfranchising non-citizens: What drives natives’ willingness to share power?