Tied migration and subsequent employment: Evidence from couples in Britain

We use unique information on migration behaviour and the reasons for migration to study the impact of tied migration on labour market outcomes among husbands and wives. We find that fewer than 2% of couples migrate for job-related reasons, and that the majority of these move for reasons associated with the husband’s job. Estimates from dynamic random effects models indicate that husbands and wives in couples that migrated for job-related reasons suffer lower job retention rates than nonmigrants. Furthermore we find that tied migration reduces the probability of subsequent employment for both husbands and wives. In particular, tied migration has a large negative impact on job retention rates among wives. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Empirical evidence demonstrates that family migration has large negative effects on labour market outcomes for women. In contrast, there is evidence of positive returns to migration among men. It is typically assumed that these differences are the result of family moves being undertaken to fulfil the career aspirations of the husband at the expense of those of the wife. In this paper we directly address issues relating to how family ties that force residential mobility affect labour market outcomes for men and women in couple households in Britain. Although there have been a number of British studies on how family migration affects an individual’s career, our approach is unique in explicitly identifying tied migrants and distinguishing them from lead migrants. We identify tied and lead migrants using information on reasons for migration reported after any move, and in particular distinguish between migrants who moved for reasons associated with their own job or employment and those who moved for reasons associated with their spouse’s job or employment. Our contribution to the literature is to (1) quantify the proportion of husbands and wives that are tied and lead migrants; (2) identify the impact of tied and lead migration on subsequent labour market status; and (3) examine whether these impacts differ between husbands and wives. Using panel data covering the period 1991-2003 from the British Household Panel Survey, we are able to take into account unobserved time-invariant individual-specific factors that are likely to be correlated with both the propensity to migrate and labour market status. Our results indicate that job-related migration is not common. Fewer than 2% of couples in the sample migrated for reasons related to either the husband’s or the wife’s job or employment, representing one in four migrants. More than one half migrated for reasons relating to the husband’s job or employment. Such couples moved an average of 107 kilometres, compared with 63 kilometres for those migrating for reasons to do with the wife’s job and 30 kilometres for other, non-job related moves. Multivariate analysis indicates that job-related migration reduces job retention rates of both husbands and wives, but the size of this effect is larger for wives. Tied migration in particular reduces the probability of employment. Among husbands, this effect is the result of a combination of lower job entry and job retention rates relative to non-migrants while among wives it is the result of lower job retention rates relative to non-migrants. These results are largely robust to controlling for potential selection effects. Therefore we find that tied migration has similar impacts on employment propensities irrespective of gender, although these result from different dynamics. This highlights the importance of identifying reasons for migration in assessing the impact of migration on labour market outcomes. Although employment-related migration among couples is uncommon, wives remain twice as likely as husbands to be tied migrants. The lower job retention rates among tied migrant wives results in a more widespread loss of occupational status and the associated pension rights. These have a longer term impact on the economic well-being of women. These analyses may understate the true impact of tied migration. Even tied migrants that remain in employment may suffer in terms of job quality, particularly if the move required a change in job or employer. In such circumstances tied migrants, although remaining employed, may suffer a relative wage loss, a decline in job satisfaction, or an increase in commuting time. We leave this for future research.