Multiprocesadores NUMA con coherencia de caché

Following the theoretical backgrounds, this research firstly considers the relation between the percentage of relative inflows of immigrants and the percentage of the social expenditure spending from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each country. This parsimonious descriptive analysis aims to identify the welfare magnet theory (Borjas, 1999), which argues that the more generous welfare states attract more immigrants.

Figure 2. Bivariate relationship between percentage of relative inflows of immigrants and percentage of social expenditure of GDP in 2007 (Left, r= -0.18, p= 0.47) and 2015 (Right, r= -0.02, p= 0.95).

In contrast to the welfare magnet theory (Borjas, 1999), the results of the bivariate association between the relative inflows of immigrants and the social expenditure spending show a negative and more or less no relationship. Figure 2 demonstrates the associations of both the years of 2007 and 2015, which allows the comparison of difference of 8 years. In 2007, nonetheless, the association is shown as significant, the correlation appears to be quite weak (r= -0.18, p=0.47). Thus, from both years, it appears to be the case that it is inadequate to say that the results are supporting the welfare magnet theory. In 2007, some countries like Spain and Slovenia seems to have a relatively higher level of the inflows of immigrants with a higher percentage of social expenditure spending. Yet, France, Finland, and Portugal show the different cases that the higher percentage of social expenditure spending is not related to the level of inflows of immigrants. In 2015, there is a slight change in the slope, which shows mostly no relation between the percentage of social expenditure and the level of inflows of immigrants (r= -0.02, p= 0.95). Germany seems to show a particular case that experienced a

BE CH CZ DE EE ES FI FR GB HU IE IL NL NO PL PT SE SI 0 10 20 30 40 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Relative inflows of immigrants 2007 (%)

Social expenditure of GDP 2007 (%) Fitted values

BE CH CZ DE EE ES FI FR GB HU IE IL NL NO PL PT SE SI 0 10 20 30 40 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Relative inflows of immigrants 2015 (%) Social expenditure of GDP 2015 (%) Fitted values

huge increase in inflows of immigrants (from 0.7 percent in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2017) with not a great difference in the percentage of the social expenditure spending. In addition, Ireland experienced a decreased level of inflows of immigrants with its remained lower level of social expenditure. These two countries might appear to be supporting the welfare magnet theory. Many other countries such as France, Finland, and Sweden remain their similar positions of a higher level of social expenditure with a lower level of inflows of immigrants. In the case of Spain, nevertheless Spain has relatively higher social expenditure spending, the result demonstrates that there has been a decreased level of inflows of immigrants from 2.1% to 0.6%. Consequently, Figure 2 shows a great heterogeneity of the association between the inflows of immigrants and the social expenditure spending across countries. Moreover, it seems that overall the welfare magnet theory might not be supported according to the above results.

This simple descriptive analysis could imply that different facets of migration are needed to be analysed in order to understand the relationship between the welfare state and immigration, especially when it comes to the association between the welfare generosity of a country and the choices of the destinations of immigrants. For instance, a more dynamic model to explain this relationship can be the migrant network theory. It explains the decision-making process of migrants’ choices of destinations beyond the quantity of countries’ degree of welfare generosity. ‘Migrant networks are sets of interpersonal ties that link together migrants, former migrants, and nonmigrants in origin and destination areas through the bonds of kinship, friendship and shared community origin’ (Massey, 1990, p. 69). By having a certain degree of networks among people, migrants can reduce their risk and cost of moving to such a new place since exiting migrant networks can help to direct the newcomers to reach professions or accommodation more easily and securely. Moreover, it cannot be neglected that information that migrants could gain through their social networks can be a crucial part of determining the destination country. For example, a study by Tabor, Milfont, and Ward (2015) indicates that migrants’ decision upon their destinations is made by different information, such as safety, opportunity (for better employment), and cultural similarity and so on. Consequently, the migrant network, which is ‘the flow of the reciprocal exchange of goods, services, and economically valuable information’ (Lomnitz, 1976, p. 137 as cited in Gurak & Caces, 1992, p. 154), facilitates and attracts additional movements of people.

‘It is also possible that the relationship highlighted by the welfare magnet theory is endogenous, with the composition of immigrant groups or policy changes in reaction to immigration altering unemployment benefit spending’ (Giulietti, Guzi, Kahanec, & Zimmermann, 2013 as cited in Soroka, Johnston, Kevins, Banting, & Kymlicka, 2016). Razin,

Sadka, and Suwankiri (2011) comprehensively approach to the question of the welfare state and immigration by analysing the relationship between the generosity of the welfare state and the skill composition of immigrants. According to authors, in a broad sense, welfare generosity attracts immigrants as the welfare magnet hypothesis suggests; however, it attracts mostly unskilled immigrants who are considered as welfare beneficiaries rather than contributors. Moreover, they also highlight the importance of taking into account different migrant regimes as the relationship between the welfare state and immigration can be depended upon the migration policy or regime. ‘[T]he welfare magnet hypothesis is only expected in free- migration regimes, where migrants are free to self-select. [...because] in a managed-migration regime [or restricted migration regime] [...], demand for immigrants would favour the high skilled net contributors to the welfare system’ (Giulietti & Wahba, 2012, p. 10).