“Immigration, Search and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare” A Reply

Abstract Stark and Byra (2025) identify a mistake in how capital income is calculated in the supplementary files of Battisti et al. (2018) and point out that our wage bargaining equation does not correspond to the Nash bargaining solution in the presence of wage taxation. We acknowledge both points and thank the authors for pointing out these issues. The bargaining solution we use in Battisti et al. (2018) is the Kalai (1977) proportional bargaining solution with fixed surplus shares, not Nash bargaining. In our reply, we show that if we calibrate the model to wage tax rates, correcting the coding mistake has only a minor effect on our original results if maintaining the original Kalai bargaining. If we also switch to the Nash bargaining solution, the estimated gains from immigration become smaller. Welfare effects depend on the precise nature of bargaining and tend to be larger with Kalai proportional bargaining. Average total welfare gains from immigration are then 0.37% for both low-skilled and high-skilled natives, instead of 1.25% for high-skilled and 1.00% for low-skilled natives in Battisti et al. (2018).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the European Economic Association
Published
2026-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvag018
Primary Topic
Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

“Immigration, Search and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare” A Reply

Giovanni Peri, Gabriel Felbermayr, Panu Poutvaara, Michele Battisti
Journal of the European Economic Association
Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
article

“Immigration, Search and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare” A Reply

Giovanni Peri, Gabriel Felbermayr, Panu Poutvaara, Michele Battisti
article en

Abstract

Abstract Stark and Byra (2025) identify a mistake in how capital income is calculated in the supplementary files of Battisti et al. (2018) and point out that our wage bargaining equation does not correspond to the Nash bargaining solution in the presence of wage taxation. We acknowledge both points and thank the authors for pointing out these issues. The bargaining solution we use in Battisti et al. (2018) is the Kalai (1977) proportional bargaining solution with fixed surplus shares, not Nash bargaining. In our reply, we show that if we calibrate the model to wage tax rates, correcting the coding mistake has only a minor effect on our original results if maintaining the original Kalai bargaining. If we also switch to the Nash bargaining solution, the estimated gains from immigration become smaller. Welfare effects depend on the precise nature of bargaining and tend to be larger with Kalai proportional bargaining. Average total welfare gains from immigration are then 0.37% for both low-skilled and high-skilled natives, instead of 1.25% for high-skilled and 1.00% for low-skilled natives in Battisti et al. (2018).

Journal of the European Economic Association
Center for Economic and Policy Research (US), Austrian Institute of Economic Research (AT), Ifo Institute for Economic Research (DE), Wunschbaby Institut für Kinderwunsch (AT), University of Glasgow (GB), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), University of California, Davis (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.