Our approach does not impose an identical occupational distribution on immigrant and native-born workers but uses the native-born field of study–occupation distribution to define immigrants' occupational match.
It is obvious from this observation that, although the two types of occupational match are related, the field of study–occupation relatedness could be a fundamental issue even among those whose highest degree is the one of the most common in their occupation.
These indices quantify the match in two dimensions by using the clustering of native-born workers in each cell of the field of study–occupation and degree of education–occupation matrices reflecting the relatedness of each of the 1375 fields of study and 14 major degrees to 520 occupations separately.
From this observation, it seems that the occupational mismatch of foreign-educated immigrants is mainly dominated by field of study–occupation relatedness relative to educational degree occupation relatedness.
The top section shows the distribution of field of study–occupation relatedness (NHRI) by NVRI class.
In the literature, the terms "horizontal match" and "vertical match" are often used for field of study–occupation and education–occupation matching, respectively.
However, we have reestimated all regressions with cells restricted to 15 20 25 30 native-born and immigrant workers in the field of study–occupation matrix.
Identifying the field of study–occupation match for internationally educated immigrants requires information on location of study, which was not available in previous censuses.
Most studies on the subject use surveys that contain questions explicitly aimed at extracting information on the field of study–occupation matching.
While some fields of study have strong connections with some specific perhaps regulated occupations, many do not.3 Most studies on the subject use surveys that contain questions explicitly aimed at extracting information on field of study–occupation matching.
When it comes to immigrants, however, using NHRIC dummies in specifications (2) and (3) calculated for the native-born field of study–occupation distribution, and not that of immigrants, provides us with the desired exogeneity in relatedness.
