Do immigrants squeeze natives out of bad schedules? Evidence from Italy

Table 5 Effects of immigrants on natives labor market transitions, 2SLS

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Transitions	NE‐E	NE‐NS	E‐E	NS‐E	S‐E	NS‐NS	S‐NS
log (Foreign Population)	0.005	‐0.002	0.004	0.006	0.003	‐0.041***	‐0.012***
	(0.00440)	(0.00187)	(0.00412)	(0.00531)	(0.00421)	(0.0124)	(0.00410)
Observations	196,221	196,221	246,119	68,347	177,393	63,465	162,815
Mean of the Dep.Var.	0.09	0.026	0.92	0.93	0.92	0.68	0.11
Standard errors in parentheses
* p<0.01, p<0.05, * p<0.1

Notes: NE = non‐employed; E = employed; NS = employed on non‐standard schedule; S = employed on a standard schedule. Columns headings describe states as t ₀ ‐ t ₁. Samples, NE‐E and NE‐NS: non employed at t ₀; E‐E: employed at t ₀; NS‐E: employed on non‐standard schedule at t ₀; S‐E: employed on standard schedule at t ₀; NS‐NS: employed at t ₀ and t ₁, on non‐standard schedule at t ₀; S‐NS: employed at t ₀ and t ₁, on standard schedule at t ₀. All the estimates presented include standard socio‐demographic controls (age dummies, gender, education dummies, family size, family type, number of people in household under 9 years old, between 10 and 18 and older than 65, relevant economic features of the province as of 1995 (the sectoral composition of value added and sectoral labor productivity) and province size and region‐year fixed effects as in column 4 of Table 1. Sector dummies are included only when the sample is restricted to the employed population. The data sources are LFS (2006‐2008), Municipal Records (2006‐2008), ISTAT Province Accounts (1995) and Minister of Interior for Residence Permits issued at the province level as of 1995.