This paper presents the first meta-analysis of the elasticity of substitution between native and immigrant labor. Drawing on 1,091 estimates from 41 studies, we examine whether immigrants and natives compete in the same labor markets, and to what extent published estimates are shaped by methodological choices and publication bias. We find strong evidence of small-study effects: less precise estimates tend to report lower elasticities, suggesting selective reporting. Correcting for these biases using a wide array of techniques—linear, nonlinear, and selection models—raises the mean implied elasticity from 13.3 to approximately 20. Model averaging techniques reveal that data features, such as experience level, wage definition, and region, explain much of the heterogeneity in reported results. Notably, the often-cited discrepancy between using log(mean wages) and mean(log wages) largely disappears once bias is accounted for. Our findings imply that immigrants and natives are imperfect substitutes but more substitutable than is commonly assumed, with important implications for the wage effects of immigration and the calibration of structural labor market models.

Fig: Publication bias in reported negative inverse elasticities




Reference: Kantova Klara, Havranek Tomas, Irsova Zuzana (2025), "The Elasticity of Substitution between Native and Immigrant Labor: A Meta-Analysis." Charles University, Prague. Available at meta-analysis.cz/migrant.