Do Economic Integration Agreements Increase Members' Migration? Accounting for Migration in Trade Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A substantial body of literature establishes that economic integration agreements (EIAs) facilitate trade among member countries. However, their impact on migration flows remains less understood. In this paper, we construct a stylized spatial general equilibrium model to study the impact of economic integration agreements on trade and migration. The model is similar to that of Allen and Arkolakis (2014) and Redding and Rossi‐Hansberg (2017), and yields structural gravity equations for both trade and migration that allow us to estimate the direct impact of trade agreements on trade and migration flows. Given these parameter estimates, we can simulate the spatial model to highlight the general equilibrium effects of trade agreements on trade and migration. In our simulation exercise, we show that if the United States‐Mexico‐Canada Agreement (USMCA) were modified to have the trade‐creating effect of a common market, it would foster more trade within the group and encourage in‐migration from outside the trading bloc. If the USMCA were also modified to allow migration costs to fall to the level of a common market, the within‐migration impact on trade and welfare would be more modest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".