POLICYFORUM ECONOMICS
Doctoral Students and U.S. Immigration Policy
Policies should promote skilled non-U.S. students to study, and stay, in the United States.
1
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. 2Yale University, School of Management, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. 3University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA. *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
562
lated to conditions in U.S. academia. Each additional international Ph.D. student led to 0.92 to 0.97 publica0.3 tions and 33 citations per year or about 2.3% of the average 100,000 0.25 university-field knowledge production. Each additional 0.2 domestic Ph.D. student supported 0.84 to 1.05 publications and 45 citations. These 50,000 0.15 contributions of international 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year and domestic students were statistically indistinguishU.S. S&E publications and the share of S&E doctoral students at able, which suggests that the U.S. universities who are foreign-born, have both increased over two groups are comparable at time. This is illustrative, but not indicative, of a causal relationship. the margin. Enrollment data derived from the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates. We also studied gains in Publications data from Web of Science. Details in (11). knowledge production from science, the claims made above lose much of bringing in students of particularly high their force. Any innovation benefits have to aptitude for research. Using two different be weighed against downsides to immigrant types of foreign-student supply fluctuations entry discussed in the literature: Foreign stu- (those correlated with the ability to pay for dents are expensive to train; they drive out graduate study and others that had nothing to domestic counterparts; they reduce salaries of do with their economic situations), we find native-born postdoctoral students and scien- suggestive evidence that publication contritists and engineers (8, 9). The theoretical basis butions of international students admitted for adverse effects on native employment and based on aptitude were about twice as high wages is that immigrants and domestic work- as for students admitted because of ability ers are substitutes within skill classes. Recent to pay. The logic is that, when incomes rise theoretical and empirical work shows that unexpectedly abroad, universities expand substitutability may be imperfect, which lim- admission offers to less-qualified, but feeits adverse effects of immigrants on salaries paying, students. There may be long-term (10). Influx of immigrants with certain skills costs to restricting entry of high-quality may even raise demand for workers with com- foreign students, as departments may not be plementary skill sets (10). able to replace such students as easily. These effects buttress the case for susProductivity and Quality taining and increasing access to the best Our analysis of contributions of foreign and graduate students regardless of nationality. domestic doctoral students to creation of The results have implications for immigraknowledge at 100 research-intensive U.S. tion policy regarding the highly skilled. The universities across 23 S&E fields (11) found student quality results call into question the that both international and U.S. graduate stu- focus in U.S. entry requirements on students’ dents are essential and causal inputs into sci- access to sufficient financial resources at entific discovery. Our research exploits fluc- home to complete their programs of study, tuations in supplies of foreign students due as well as incentives and ability to return to macro or policy shocks in source countries home upon graduation. Other countervailto identify casual effects on innovation. For ing policies, such as the National Science example, changes in study-abroad restric- Foundation Graduate Fellowship Program, tions in China led to variation in the number aim to induce universities to admit more of Chinese students in the U.S. that was unre- high-quality students, even at the expense Share of foreign students in total enrollment Publications
150,000
1 NOVEMBER 2013 VOL 342 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org Published by AAAS
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on January 6, 2014
0.35
Publications
W
hether the United States should make it easier for foreign graduates of U.S. universities to acquire visas and permanent residency is an important question raised by current immigration reform proposals (1). Such policies should be informed by rigorous analyses of whether international doctoral students are important for research and support technological innovation. We discuss the evidence on this point, its implications, and some new policy ideas. There are three rationales commonly cited to ease foreign student entry. First, academic scientists argue that their ability to perform research and generate new knowledge is impaired when universities are unable to recruit the best doctoral students, domestic or foreign (2, 3). Second, the perceived difficulty of getting and sustaining a visa for graduate work in science and engineering (S&E), combined with rapidly improving training around the world, may be diminishing the willingness of international doctoral students to come to U.S. universities (4, 5). Finally, U.S. immigration policies raise barriers that must be surmounted by foreign students wishing to launch careers in the United States after graduation. Many believe this dampens competitiveness by pushing innovative people abroad (6). This policy is increasingly out of touch with more welcoming standards in Canada, Australia, and Europe (7). In recent decades, the numbers and percentages of foreign doctoral students in S&E programs have grown tremendously. Over the same period, there has been a major increase in research output from those laboratories (see the figure). Yet these trends may simply reflect incidental correlation, both having risen for other reasons, e.g., expanded federal research funding, or increased commercial demand for technical applications of basic science. Without a clear demonstration that enrolling more international students is an instrumental source of more and better
Share of foreign students in total enrollment
Keith E. Maskus,1 A. Mushfiq Mobarak,2* Eric T. Stuen 3
POLICYFORUM of fee-paying students, but these fellowships only apply to natives, not to foreign students. U.S. policy also requires foreign nationals who complete their doctoral studies to leave the country unless they find employers that are willing to sponsor their stay using shortterm training visas or longer-term employment visas that may or may not lead to permanent residency status. In 2009, about 62% of foreign doctoral students remained in the United States on temporary visas 5 years after graduation, down from 67% in 2005 (12). Ph.D. earners from major study-abroad countries, such as India and China, are sometimes caught between binding caps for H-1B temporary employment visas and per-country limits for green cards (13). Although our research is limited to effects of immigrants on academic knowledge output in the short run (while still enrolled as students), others (14–16) have examined impacts of high-skilled immigrants more broadly on innovation (patents) produced by private industry, wages, employment, and total-factor productivity in U.S. cities and states. These studies support the proposition that high-skilled immigrants contribute to innovation and higher productivity. Spillover Effects, Field Specifics
The evidence and underlying theories are not conclusive, however. Echoing earlier concerns (8, 9), a recent study found no net productivity gains from the influx of Soviet mathematicians at the end of the Cold War (17). This was due to the displacement of publications that otherwise would have been created by U.S. mathematicians. This highlights the possibility that net benefits of immigration may vary greatly by context and field. Field-specific effects have not been carefully explored in the literature and are an important topic for further research. Other papers study all STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in aggregate, and either do not find similar displacement effects (11, 15), or find positive spillover effects on native skilled wages (16). The benefits from skilled immigration, net of displacement, may depend on whether the field of research requires close interaction between members of scientific teams. Our study found limited evidence that increased diversity is one channel through which increased foreign student presence benefits innovation. Other studies indicate that teamwork has become increasingly important for research (18, 19). The talent of coauthors and Ph.D. mentors has been found to have effects on research productiv-
ity (20, 21); colocation has been shown not to impact productivity (22). In line with the belief that foreign-born doctoral recipients in S&E who quickly gain residency status might contribute to U.S. innovation and economic growth (23), there are proposals to emulate Germany and other nations by offering permanent residency to doctoral graduates in accredited STEM programs (24, 25). The U.S. Senate bill (25), passed in June, would exempt foreign applicants with advanced STEM degrees from caps on green cards and the per-country limits. It would also issue additional H-1B visas for international students who recently received an M.A. or higher degree in STEM fields from U.S. universities. Policy discussions and academic literature (8, 9) have pointed to potential adverse effects on U.S. citizens who may find it more difficult to find high-technology jobs or whose wages may be undermined by immigration. There are more than 2 million S&E research and development (R&D) workers in the U.S. private sector (26), and roughly 10,000 STEM doctorates are awarded each year in the United States to temporary visa holders. A policy of facilitating permanent residency for doctoral graduates who wish to stay is unlikely to have significant wage and employment effects on most U.S. R&D workers. However, there may be noticeable effects on certain disciplines. Another option, given concerns about threats to U.S. citizens’ job access and wages, would be to provide an entrepreneurshipbased path to immigration. S&E graduates who have ideas for marketable products based on their research should be encouraged to launch entrepreneurial ventures in the United States, to support job creation, rather than risk job displacement. At present, there are well-established paths to permanent residency through sponsorship by an employer or a family member and for investors with capital, but no largescale program to attract entrepreneurs. This should be fixed, with safeguards to prevent abuse. Entrepreneurship visas could be based on verifiable signals of the market value and practical relevance of the new ideas, including patents that have achieved some commercialization milestones or products that have received venture capital financing. Canada recently designed a “Start-up Visa Program” to fast-track permanent residency for immigrant entrepreneurs, with a goal of attracting STEM graduates from leading U.S. universities (27). The U.S. Senate bill would establish such entrepreneurship-based visas (25). Based on our reading of existing evidence, we think that a combination of immigration
reforms to encourage more talented foreign students to study at U.S. universities, as well as for science and engineering Ph.D. graduates to remain in the United States to work or to start entrepreneurial ventures, would help revitalize innovation and economic growth. This also appears to be the consensus view among an expert panel of economists (28), who often disagree on policy issues otherwise. References and Notes 1. C. Grimes, E. Alden, Financial Times, 16 May 2004. 2. G. Brumfiel, Nature 431, 231 (2004). 3. National Academies of Science, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005). 4. K. Fischer, Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 April 2013. 5. Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, “The knowledge economy: Is the United States losing its competitive edge?” 16 February 2005; www.ipadvocate.org/ mission/pdfs/Knowledge%20Economy.pdf. 6. “Germany eases post-study work and immigration legislation for foreign students,” ICEF Monitor, 7 May 2012; http://monitor.icef.com/2012/05/germany-eases-poststudy-work-and-immigration-legislation-for-foreignstudents. 7. L. A. Nelson, Inside Higher Ed, 30 January 2013; www. insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/30/obamas-immigration-plan-would-expand-stem-visas-fund-scienceeducation-offer-path. 8. G. Borjas, in Science and the University, P. Stephan and G. Ehrenberg, Eds. (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 2007), pp. 134–149. 9. G. Borjas, in Science and Engineering Careers in the United States, R. Freeman and D. Goroff, Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009), pp. 131–161. 10. G. Ottaviano, G. Peri, J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 10, 152 (2012). 11. E. Stuen et al., Econ. J. 122, 1143 (2012). 12. M. Finn, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Programs, 2012.; http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/stayrates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2009.pdf 13. H. Shen, Nature 499, 17 (2013). 14. J. Hunt, M. Gauthier-Loiselle, Am. Econ. J.: Macroecon. 2, 31 (2010). 15. W. Kerr, W. Lincoln, J. Labor Econ. 28, 473 (2010). 16. G. Peri, K. Shih, C. Sparber, “STEM workers, H1B visas and productivity in U.S. cities” (Norface Discussion paper 2013009, University College London, 2013). 17. G. Borjas, K. Doran, Q. J. Econ. 127, 1143 (2012). 18. S. Wuchty et al., Science 316, 1036 (2007). 19. J. Adams, G. Black, J. Clemmons, P. Stephan, Res. Policy 34, 259 (2005). 20. P. Azoulay et al., Q. J. Econ. 125, 549 (2010). 21. F. Waldinger, J. Polit. Econ. 118, 787 (2010). 22. F. Waldinger, Rev. Econ. Stud. 79, 838 (2012). 23. G. Peri, Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2013. 24. U.S. House of Representatives, Judicial Committee, Fact Sheet: the STEM Jobs Act (H.R. 6429), 2012. 25. U.S. Senate, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), 2013. 26. National Science Foundation/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) 2008; www.nsf.gov/ statistics/sestat/. 27. B. Bouw, The Globe and Mail, 1 April 2013. 28. I. G. M. Chicago Booth, Forum, High-Skilled Immigrants; www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/pollresults?SurveyID=SV_0JtSLKwzqNSfrAF Acknowledgments: This research was supported by NSF SciSIP Grant SBE 0738036.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 342 1 NOVEMBER 2013 Published by AAAS
10.1126/science.1239572
563
Doctoral Students and U.S. Immigration Policy
Policies should promote skilled non-U.S. students to study, and stay, in the United States.
1
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. 2Yale University, School of Management, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. 3University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA. *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
562
lated to conditions in U.S. academia. Each additional international Ph.D. student led to 0.92 to 0.97 publica0.3 tions and 33 citations per year or about 2.3% of the average 100,000 0.25 university-field knowledge production. Each additional 0.2 domestic Ph.D. student supported 0.84 to 1.05 publications and 45 citations. These 50,000 0.15 contributions of international 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year and domestic students were statistically indistinguishU.S. S&E publications and the share of S&E doctoral students at able, which suggests that the U.S. universities who are foreign-born, have both increased over two groups are comparable at time. This is illustrative, but not indicative, of a causal relationship. the margin. Enrollment data derived from the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates. We also studied gains in Publications data from Web of Science. Details in (11). knowledge production from science, the claims made above lose much of bringing in students of particularly high their force. Any innovation benefits have to aptitude for research. Using two different be weighed against downsides to immigrant types of foreign-student supply fluctuations entry discussed in the literature: Foreign stu- (those correlated with the ability to pay for dents are expensive to train; they drive out graduate study and others that had nothing to domestic counterparts; they reduce salaries of do with their economic situations), we find native-born postdoctoral students and scien- suggestive evidence that publication contritists and engineers (8, 9). The theoretical basis butions of international students admitted for adverse effects on native employment and based on aptitude were about twice as high wages is that immigrants and domestic work- as for students admitted because of ability ers are substitutes within skill classes. Recent to pay. The logic is that, when incomes rise theoretical and empirical work shows that unexpectedly abroad, universities expand substitutability may be imperfect, which lim- admission offers to less-qualified, but feeits adverse effects of immigrants on salaries paying, students. There may be long-term (10). Influx of immigrants with certain skills costs to restricting entry of high-quality may even raise demand for workers with com- foreign students, as departments may not be plementary skill sets (10). able to replace such students as easily. These effects buttress the case for susProductivity and Quality taining and increasing access to the best Our analysis of contributions of foreign and graduate students regardless of nationality. domestic doctoral students to creation of The results have implications for immigraknowledge at 100 research-intensive U.S. tion policy regarding the highly skilled. The universities across 23 S&E fields (11) found student quality results call into question the that both international and U.S. graduate stu- focus in U.S. entry requirements on students’ dents are essential and causal inputs into sci- access to sufficient financial resources at entific discovery. Our research exploits fluc- home to complete their programs of study, tuations in supplies of foreign students due as well as incentives and ability to return to macro or policy shocks in source countries home upon graduation. Other countervailto identify casual effects on innovation. For ing policies, such as the National Science example, changes in study-abroad restric- Foundation Graduate Fellowship Program, tions in China led to variation in the number aim to induce universities to admit more of Chinese students in the U.S. that was unre- high-quality students, even at the expense Share of foreign students in total enrollment Publications
150,000
1 NOVEMBER 2013 VOL 342 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org Published by AAAS
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on January 6, 2014
0.35
Publications
W
hether the United States should make it easier for foreign graduates of U.S. universities to acquire visas and permanent residency is an important question raised by current immigration reform proposals (1). Such policies should be informed by rigorous analyses of whether international doctoral students are important for research and support technological innovation. We discuss the evidence on this point, its implications, and some new policy ideas. There are three rationales commonly cited to ease foreign student entry. First, academic scientists argue that their ability to perform research and generate new knowledge is impaired when universities are unable to recruit the best doctoral students, domestic or foreign (2, 3). Second, the perceived difficulty of getting and sustaining a visa for graduate work in science and engineering (S&E), combined with rapidly improving training around the world, may be diminishing the willingness of international doctoral students to come to U.S. universities (4, 5). Finally, U.S. immigration policies raise barriers that must be surmounted by foreign students wishing to launch careers in the United States after graduation. Many believe this dampens competitiveness by pushing innovative people abroad (6). This policy is increasingly out of touch with more welcoming standards in Canada, Australia, and Europe (7). In recent decades, the numbers and percentages of foreign doctoral students in S&E programs have grown tremendously. Over the same period, there has been a major increase in research output from those laboratories (see the figure). Yet these trends may simply reflect incidental correlation, both having risen for other reasons, e.g., expanded federal research funding, or increased commercial demand for technical applications of basic science. Without a clear demonstration that enrolling more international students is an instrumental source of more and better
Share of foreign students in total enrollment
Keith E. Maskus,1 A. Mushfiq Mobarak,2* Eric T. Stuen 3
POLICYFORUM of fee-paying students, but these fellowships only apply to natives, not to foreign students. U.S. policy also requires foreign nationals who complete their doctoral studies to leave the country unless they find employers that are willing to sponsor their stay using shortterm training visas or longer-term employment visas that may or may not lead to permanent residency status. In 2009, about 62% of foreign doctoral students remained in the United States on temporary visas 5 years after graduation, down from 67% in 2005 (12). Ph.D. earners from major study-abroad countries, such as India and China, are sometimes caught between binding caps for H-1B temporary employment visas and per-country limits for green cards (13). Although our research is limited to effects of immigrants on academic knowledge output in the short run (while still enrolled as students), others (14–16) have examined impacts of high-skilled immigrants more broadly on innovation (patents) produced by private industry, wages, employment, and total-factor productivity in U.S. cities and states. These studies support the proposition that high-skilled immigrants contribute to innovation and higher productivity. Spillover Effects, Field Specifics
The evidence and underlying theories are not conclusive, however. Echoing earlier concerns (8, 9), a recent study found no net productivity gains from the influx of Soviet mathematicians at the end of the Cold War (17). This was due to the displacement of publications that otherwise would have been created by U.S. mathematicians. This highlights the possibility that net benefits of immigration may vary greatly by context and field. Field-specific effects have not been carefully explored in the literature and are an important topic for further research. Other papers study all STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in aggregate, and either do not find similar displacement effects (11, 15), or find positive spillover effects on native skilled wages (16). The benefits from skilled immigration, net of displacement, may depend on whether the field of research requires close interaction between members of scientific teams. Our study found limited evidence that increased diversity is one channel through which increased foreign student presence benefits innovation. Other studies indicate that teamwork has become increasingly important for research (18, 19). The talent of coauthors and Ph.D. mentors has been found to have effects on research productiv-
ity (20, 21); colocation has been shown not to impact productivity (22). In line with the belief that foreign-born doctoral recipients in S&E who quickly gain residency status might contribute to U.S. innovation and economic growth (23), there are proposals to emulate Germany and other nations by offering permanent residency to doctoral graduates in accredited STEM programs (24, 25). The U.S. Senate bill (25), passed in June, would exempt foreign applicants with advanced STEM degrees from caps on green cards and the per-country limits. It would also issue additional H-1B visas for international students who recently received an M.A. or higher degree in STEM fields from U.S. universities. Policy discussions and academic literature (8, 9) have pointed to potential adverse effects on U.S. citizens who may find it more difficult to find high-technology jobs or whose wages may be undermined by immigration. There are more than 2 million S&E research and development (R&D) workers in the U.S. private sector (26), and roughly 10,000 STEM doctorates are awarded each year in the United States to temporary visa holders. A policy of facilitating permanent residency for doctoral graduates who wish to stay is unlikely to have significant wage and employment effects on most U.S. R&D workers. However, there may be noticeable effects on certain disciplines. Another option, given concerns about threats to U.S. citizens’ job access and wages, would be to provide an entrepreneurshipbased path to immigration. S&E graduates who have ideas for marketable products based on their research should be encouraged to launch entrepreneurial ventures in the United States, to support job creation, rather than risk job displacement. At present, there are well-established paths to permanent residency through sponsorship by an employer or a family member and for investors with capital, but no largescale program to attract entrepreneurs. This should be fixed, with safeguards to prevent abuse. Entrepreneurship visas could be based on verifiable signals of the market value and practical relevance of the new ideas, including patents that have achieved some commercialization milestones or products that have received venture capital financing. Canada recently designed a “Start-up Visa Program” to fast-track permanent residency for immigrant entrepreneurs, with a goal of attracting STEM graduates from leading U.S. universities (27). The U.S. Senate bill would establish such entrepreneurship-based visas (25). Based on our reading of existing evidence, we think that a combination of immigration
reforms to encourage more talented foreign students to study at U.S. universities, as well as for science and engineering Ph.D. graduates to remain in the United States to work or to start entrepreneurial ventures, would help revitalize innovation and economic growth. This also appears to be the consensus view among an expert panel of economists (28), who often disagree on policy issues otherwise. References and Notes 1. C. Grimes, E. Alden, Financial Times, 16 May 2004. 2. G. Brumfiel, Nature 431, 231 (2004). 3. National Academies of Science, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005). 4. K. Fischer, Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 April 2013. 5. Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, “The knowledge economy: Is the United States losing its competitive edge?” 16 February 2005; www.ipadvocate.org/ mission/pdfs/Knowledge%20Economy.pdf. 6. “Germany eases post-study work and immigration legislation for foreign students,” ICEF Monitor, 7 May 2012; http://monitor.icef.com/2012/05/germany-eases-poststudy-work-and-immigration-legislation-for-foreignstudents. 7. L. A. Nelson, Inside Higher Ed, 30 January 2013; www. insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/30/obamas-immigration-plan-would-expand-stem-visas-fund-scienceeducation-offer-path. 8. G. Borjas, in Science and the University, P. Stephan and G. Ehrenberg, Eds. (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 2007), pp. 134–149. 9. G. Borjas, in Science and Engineering Careers in the United States, R. Freeman and D. Goroff, Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009), pp. 131–161. 10. G. Ottaviano, G. Peri, J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 10, 152 (2012). 11. E. Stuen et al., Econ. J. 122, 1143 (2012). 12. M. Finn, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Programs, 2012.; http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/stayrates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2009.pdf 13. H. Shen, Nature 499, 17 (2013). 14. J. Hunt, M. Gauthier-Loiselle, Am. Econ. J.: Macroecon. 2, 31 (2010). 15. W. Kerr, W. Lincoln, J. Labor Econ. 28, 473 (2010). 16. G. Peri, K. Shih, C. Sparber, “STEM workers, H1B visas and productivity in U.S. cities” (Norface Discussion paper 2013009, University College London, 2013). 17. G. Borjas, K. Doran, Q. J. Econ. 127, 1143 (2012). 18. S. Wuchty et al., Science 316, 1036 (2007). 19. J. Adams, G. Black, J. Clemmons, P. Stephan, Res. Policy 34, 259 (2005). 20. P. Azoulay et al., Q. J. Econ. 125, 549 (2010). 21. F. Waldinger, J. Polit. Econ. 118, 787 (2010). 22. F. Waldinger, Rev. Econ. Stud. 79, 838 (2012). 23. G. Peri, Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2013. 24. U.S. House of Representatives, Judicial Committee, Fact Sheet: the STEM Jobs Act (H.R. 6429), 2012. 25. U.S. Senate, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), 2013. 26. National Science Foundation/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) 2008; www.nsf.gov/ statistics/sestat/. 27. B. Bouw, The Globe and Mail, 1 April 2013. 28. I. G. M. Chicago Booth, Forum, High-Skilled Immigrants; www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/pollresults?SurveyID=SV_0JtSLKwzqNSfrAF Acknowledgments: This research was supported by NSF SciSIP Grant SBE 0738036.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 342 1 NOVEMBER 2013 Published by AAAS
10.1126/science.1239572
563
