These results provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion about human capital externalities of migration and a possible brain gain.
This hypothesis has been supported empirically by recent macro studies (e.g., Beine et al. 2007), but only few studies have attempted to empirically test the human capital externalities of migration at the household level.
The relative earnings growth at traditional versus newer destinations will therefore depend on network externalities, post-migration investments in skill development as well as relative opportunities at these destinations.
In contrast to existing models of beneficial brain drain, our results do not require agglomeration economies, education-related externalities, remittances, return migration, or an emigration "lottery".
While the importance of aspirations for human capital formation is well established, there is no consensus as to whether the externalities of international migration are positive or negative for children's education.
Was Mexican dispersion to newer destinations related to any network externalities emanating from earlier migration of non-Mexicans with similar backgrounds (e.g. Central American migrants or migrants from Latin America, excluding Mexico)?
These numbers are modest and do not provide any compelling evidence that Mexican dispersion to newer destinations was to exploit network externalities resulting from earlier migration of Central American or other Latin American migrants – because there is little evidence of such migration.
These organizations forecasted technological change, defined trends in consumption and interregional migration, quantified externalities, and so on.
Redistribution by states creates positive horizontal fiscal externalities to other states due to migration, but negative vertical fiscal externalities to the national government due to changes in reported taxable income.
However, migration also produces externalities that influence the welfare of people in both the home and host country.
