3 ungesichtete Fragmente: "verdächtig" oder "Keine Wertung"
| [1.] Kst/Fragment 041 15 - Diskussion Bearbeitet: 11. November 2021, 09:28 (Mendelbrno) Erstellt: 1. February 2021, 18:02 Mendelbrno | Fragment, Holler Schuster 2016, KeineWertung, Kst, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, ZuSichten |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 41, Zeilen: 15-42 |
Quelle: Holler Schuster 2016 Seite(n): 20, 21, Zeilen: 20: 25-38, 47-53; 21: 1 f. |
|---|---|
| The most significant macroeconomic effects of the analyzed refugee immigration consist of the expansive effect of the government expenditures associated with reception, supply and integration and the increase in the corresponding labor force resources. According to the authors, the increase in government spending, which leads to an increase in public and private consumption and additional labour demand, has an effect above all in the short term (ibid.) [Holler and Schuster (2017)]. In the medium to long term, the change in the supply of labour specific to training is of primary importance. Due to the comparatively low training levels of asylum seekers, the increase in the labour force potential is concentrated mainly in areas with low qualifications, where real wage declines and an expansion of employment occur (ibid.). The expected growth impulses are forecast to be relatively small, although most of the refugees are young people of working age. For the year 2060, real GDP is projected to increase by 1.3% compared to the reference scenario, while the population is projected to increase by 1.6%. The considered refugee immigration has a negative impact on the real GDP per capita over the whole observation period (2015 to 2060). The clearly negative net fiscal contribution in the short term is marked by the exogenous costs and the costs of providing for non-employees within the framework of the demand-oriented minimum income protection, which is partly weakened by additional tax revenues due to macroeconomic growth impulses (ibid.).
As far as those entitled to asylum take up work in the medium term, this leads to higher tax revenues and at the same time reduces the expenditure of social transfer payments. Expenditure on exogenous costs decreases significantly and continues to reduce the negative net fiscal contribution (ibid.) in the medium term. The ageing of asylum seekers over the long term leads to rising pension insurance costs and higher health expenditure. At the same time, however, an improvement in the level of education and increased participation in the labour market of asylum seekers leads to an increase in income, which more than compensates for the increase in expenditure excluding interest. The net fiscal amount (excluding interest) will thus [develop positively in the long term (ibid.).] HOLLER, J., SCHUSTER, P. 2017. Long-run fiscal consequences of refugee migration – The case of Austria. Studies on special topics of fiscal policy relevant to economic policy. Austrian Fiscal Advisory Council. |
[page 20]
Die bedeutendsten makroökonomischen Effekte der analysierten Flüchtlingszuwanderung bestehen aus der expansiven Wirkung der mit der Aufnahme, Versorgung und Integration verbundenen Staatsausgaben und dem Anstieg des Arbeitskräftepotentials. Dabei wirkt der Anstieg der Staatsausgaben, der zu einer Erhöhung des öffentlichen und privaten Konsums und zusätzlicher Arbeitsnachfrage führt, vor allem in der kurzen Frist. Mittel- bis langfristig ist vorrangig die Veränderung des ausbildungsspezifischen Arbeitskräfteangebots von Bedeutung. Der Anstieg des Arbeitskräftepotentials konzentriert sich dabei, aufgrund der vergleichsweise niedrigen Ausbildungsniveaus der Asylberechtigten v. a. auf Bereiche mit geringer Qualifikation, in denen es zu realen Lohnrückgängen und einer Ausdehnung der Beschäftigung kommt. Die Größe der zu erwartenden Wachstumsimpulse ist verglichen mit dem demografischen Potential, einer jungen und sich zum Großteil im Erwerbstätigenalter befindlichen Flüchtlingskohorte, relativ klein. Für 2060 wird ein Anstieg des realen BIP gegenüber dem Referenzszenario um 1,3% berechnet, während die Bevölkerungszahl um 1,6% höher liegt. Die betrachtete Flüchtlingszuwanderung besitzt über die gesamte Betrachtungsperiode (2015 bis 2060) eine negative Auswirkung auf das reale BIP pro Kopf. Die Aufnahme von Arbeit der Asylberechtigten in der mittleren Frist führt zu höheren Steuereinnahmen und reduziert gleichzeitig die Sozialtransfers. Die Ausgaben für exogene Kosten gehen deutlich zurück und reduzieren den in der mittleren Frist weiterhin negativen Nettofiskalbeitrag. Die in der langen Frist einsetzende Alterung der Asylberechtigten führt zu steigenden Pensionierungen und Gesundheitsausgaben. Gleichzeitig kommt es jedoch aufgrund einer Verbesserung des Bildungsniveaus und einer verstärkten Teilnahme am Arbeitsmarkt der Asylberechtigten zu einem Anstieg der Einnahmen, die den Anstieg der Ausgaben ohne Berücksichtigung der Zinsen [page 21] überkompensieren. Der laufende Nettofiskalbeitrag ohne Zinsen wird damit in der langen Frist positiv. |
Continues on next page. The source Holler and Schuster (2017) is cited the beginning of the section and it is repeatedly indicated that content is purportedly from this source. However, a check of the publication list of the Fiscal Advisory Council (Fiskalrat) revealed that the publication with the title "Long-run fiscal consequences of refugee migration – The case of Austria" is from 2018 and not from 2017 as given by Kst. Apart from that, the text does not originate from the stated source anyway, but is translated almost word-for-word from Holler and Schuster (2016): "Langfristeffekte der Flüchtlingszuwanderung 2015 bis 2019 nach Österreich". This fragment is documented here as an example of sloppy referencing. Following a very conservative assessment, it is not included in the overall assessment of the work as plagiarism. |
|
| [2.] Kst/Fragment 042 01 - Diskussion Bearbeitet: 11. November 2021, 09:31 (Mendelbrno) Erstellt: 1. February 2021, 18:53 Mendelbrno | Fragment, Holler Schuster 2016, KeineWertung, Kst, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, ZuSichten |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 42, Zeilen: 1-7, 8-13, 25-30 |
Quelle: Holler Schuster 2016 Seite(n): 2, 20, Zeilen: 2: 20-29; 20: 1-5, 7-10 |
|---|---|
| [The net fiscal amount (excluding interest) will thus] develop positively in the long term (ibid.) [Holler and Schuster (2017)]. The accumulated net fiscal effect including the interest burden is shown by the increase in debt compared to the reference scenario. The effect on the debt ratio in 2060 is +5.7%. This corresponds to around 23 billion euros or 277,000 euros per refugee (as of 2014). The annual net burden without interest payments per refugee shows a falling trend of around 16,200 euros (2016), 10,200 euros (2020) and 1,300 euros (2040). In the year 2060, on the other hand, there was an annual net income of around 300 euros (ibid.).
On the other hand, the results of studies on current refugee immigration in Germany indicate that the socio-demographic characteristics of asylum seekers are likely to have strongly negative fiscal effects. Raffelhüschen and Moog (2016) aussume that the sum of explicit and implicit indebtedness (sustainability gap) will increase by 30.1% to 53.6% of the gross domestic product, depending on the scenario, within the framwork of a generational balance for Germany. [...] . These results are confirmed by a study of the European Commission (2016). Using the QUEST III model (macroeconomic equilibrium model), the authors calculated a negative aggregate fiscal effect of around 3% of GDP for the medium term (2015 to 2020). Only the study by Fratzscher and Junker (2015) calculates a positive aggregated fiscal effect over time, as they assume an extremely positive integration of refugees into the labour market. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2016). An Economic Take on the Refugee Crisis, European Economy Institutional Papers N. 33. Brüssel. FRATZSCHER, M., JUNKER, S. Junker 2015. Integrating Refugees: A Long-Term, Worth-Worth Investment. DIW Economic Bulletin No. 46: 612-616. HOLLER, J., SCHUSTER, P. 2017. Long-run fiscal consequences of refugee migration – The case of Austria. Studies on special topics of fiscal policy relevant to economic policy. Austrian Fiscal Advisory Council. RAFFELHÜSCHEN, B., MOOG, S. 2016: Zur fiskalischen Dividende der Flüchtlingskrise: Eine Generationenbilanz. Ifo Schnelldienst No. 69: 24-29. |
Der laufende Nettofiskalbeitrag ohne Zinsen wird damit in der langen Frist positiv. Der akkumulierte Nettofiskaleffekt inklusive Zinslast ist aus dem Anstieg der Verschuldung im Vergleich zum Referenzszenario ersichtlich. Der Effekt auf die Schuldenquote 2060 beträgt +5,7 Prozentpunkte. Zu Preisen 2014 entspricht dies rund 23 Mrd Euro oder 277.000 Euro pro aufgenommenen Flüchtling. [...] Die jährliche Nettobelastung ohne Zinszahlungen pro aufgenommenen Flüchtling zeigt einen fallenden Verlauf von rund 16.200 Euro (2016), 10.200 Euro (2020), 1.300 Euro (2040) und dreht gegen Ende des Simulationshorizonts in einen jährlichen Nettoertrag (2060: rund 300 Euro).
[page 2] Resultate von Studien bezüglich der aktuellen Flüchtlingszuwanderung in Deutschland deuten darauf hin, dass aufgrund der soziodemografischen Charakteristika der Asylwerber von stark negativen Fiskaleffekten auszugehen ist.4 Raffelhüschen et al. (2016) errechnen5 zum Beispiel im Rahmen einer Generationenbilanz für Deutschland je nach Szenario einen Anstieg der Summe aus expliziter und impliziter Verschuldung (Nachhaltigkeitslücke) von 30,1% bis 53,6% des BIP. Eine rezente Studie der EK (2016) errechnet für Deutschland mit Hilfe des QUEST III-Modells (makroökonomisches Gleichgewichtsmodell) für die mittlere Frist (2015 bis 2020) ebenfalls einen negativen aggregierten Fiskaleffekt in der Höhe von rund 3% des BIP. Einzig die intensiv diskutierte Studie6 von Fratzscher und Junker (2015) des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) berechnet einen positiven über die Zeit aggregierten Fiskaleffekt. 4 [...] 5 Es handelt sich um ein Update der Studie von Raffelhüschen und Moog (2016). 6 [...] Europäische Kommission (2016): „An Economic Take on the Refugee Crisis“, European Economy Institutional Papers No. 33. Brüssel. Fratzscher, M. and S. Junker (2015): Integrating Refugees: A Long-Term, Worth-Worth Investment, DIW Economic Bulletin No. 46, 612–616. Raffelhüschen, B. und S. Moog (2016): Zur fiskalischen Dividende der Flüchtlingskrise: Eine Generationenbilanz. Ifo Schnelldienst Nr. 69, 24-29. Raffelhüschen, B., Bahnsen, L., Manthei, G. (2016): Ehrbarer Staat? Generationenbilanz Update 2016. Pressemitteilung vom 19. Juli 2016. Berlin. |
Continued from previous page. This fragment is documented here as an example of sloppy referencing. Following a very conservative assessment, it is not included in the overall assessment of the work as plagiarism. For more information see Fragment 041 15. |
|
| [3.] Kst/Fragment 038 00 - Diskussion Bearbeitet: 5. December 2021, 21:44 (Mendelbrno) Erstellt: 16. November 2021, 16:07 Mendelbrno | Brücker 2010, Fragment, KeineWertung, Kst, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, ZuSichten |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 38, Zeilen: table |
Quelle: Brücker 2010 Seite(n): 503, 505, Zeilen: 503: table; 505: table |
|---|---|
| [preceding page]
[page 38]
Source: author. ALTONJI, J. G., CARD, D. 1991. The Effects of Immigration on the Labor Market Outcomes of Less-skilled Natives Chapter. In NBER book Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. J. M. Abowd and R. B. Freeman. (Editors): 201-234. ANGRIST, J.D., KUGLER, A. 2003. Protective or counter-productive? Labour market institutions and the effect of immigration on eu native. In: The Economic Journal 113 (488): 302-331. BONIN, H. 2005. Wage and Employment Effects of Immigration to Germany: Evidence from a Skill Group Approach. Discussion Papers. Institute for the Study of Labor. IZA DP No. 1875. Bonn. BORJAS, G. J., FREEMAN, R. B., KATZ, L. F. 1997. How Much Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labor Market Outcomes. Brookings Papers on Economic, Activity No. 1: 1-90. BORJAS, G. J. 2003. The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics. No. 118: 1335-1374. BRAUN, S., OMAR MAHMOND [sic], T. 2014. The Employment Effects of Immigration: Evidence from the Mass Arrival of German Expellees in Postwar Germany. The Journal of Economics [sic] History. Volume 74: 69-108. DENEW, J. P., ZIMMERMANN, K. F. 1994. Native Wage Impacts of Foreign Labor: A Random Effects Panel Analysis, Journal of Population Economics. No. 7: 177-192. DUSTMAN, C., SCHÖNBERG, U., STUHLER, J. 2017. Labor Supply Shocks and the Adjustment Dynamics of Local Wages and Employment: New Evidence from a Commuting Policy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Volome 132. issue 1: 435-483. GLITZ, A. 2012. The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: A Quasi-Experiment Exploiting Immigrant Location Rules in Germany. Journal of Labor Economics. University of Chicago Press. Volume 30(1): 175-213. HAISKEN-DENEW, H. P., ZIMMERMANN, K. F. 1996. Wage and Mobility Effects of Trade and Migration. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper. London: 1318. LONGHI, S., NIJKAMP. P., POOT, J. 2008. Meta-Analysis of Empirical Evidence on the Labor Market Impacts of Immigration. Région et Développement. No. 27 (1): 161-191. OTTAVIANO, G., PERI, G. 2012. Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages. Journal of the European Economic Association. 10 (1): 152-197. PISCHKE, J.-S., VELLING, J. 1997. Employment Effects Of Immigration To Germany: An Analysis Based On Local Labor Markets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1997. Volume 79. Issue 4: 594-604. STEINHARDT, M. F. 2011. The Wage impact of Immigration in Germany - New Evidence for Skill Groups and Occupations. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 11 (1). Contributions. Article 31. WEBER, E., WEIGAND, R. 2016. Identifying macroeconomic effects of refugee migration to Germany. Institute for Employment Research of the Federal Employment Agency. IAB-discussion paper. No. 20. WINKELMANN, R., ZIMMERMANN, K. F. 1994. Count data models for demographic data. Mathematical Population Studies. Volume 4. Edition 3: 205-221. |
[page 503]
[page 505]
Aydemir, A./Borjas, G.J. (2005): Cross-Country variation in the Impact of International Migration: Canada, Mexico and the United States, in: Journal of European Economic Association 4, S. 663–708 Bauer, T. (1998): Arbeitsmarkteffekte der Migration und Einwanderungspolitik. Eine Analyse für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Heidelberg Bonin, H. (2005): Wage and Employment Effects of Immigration to Germany: Evidence from a Skill Group Approach, IZA Discussion Paper 1875, Bonn Borjas, G.J. (2003): The Labour Demand Curve is Downward-Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labour Market, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 4, S. 1335–1374 Borjas, G.J./Freeman, R./Katz, L. (1997): „How much do immigration and trade affect labor market outcomes?”, in: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, S. 1–90 Brücker, H./Jahn E. (2010): Migration and Wage Setting: Reassessing the Labor Market Effects of Migration, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, im Erscheinen Card, D. (1990): The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labor market, in: Industrial and Labor Relations Review 3, S. 245–257 Carrington, W./DeLima, P. (1996): The impact of the 1970s repatriates from Africa on the Portuguese labour market, in: Industrial and Labor Relations Review 4, S. 330–346 D’Amuri, F.,/Ottaviano, G./Peri, G. (2008): The Labor Market Impact of Immigration in Western Germany in the 1990’s, NBER Working Paper 13851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge/USA DeNew, J./Zimmermann, K.F. (1994): Native Wage Impacts of Foreign Labor: A Random Effects Panel Analysis, in: Journal of Population Economics 7, S. 177–192 Dustmann, C./Fabbri, F./Preston, I. (2005): The Impact of Immigration on the UK Labour Market, in: Economic Journal 507, S. F324–F341 Felbermayr, G./Geis, W./Kohler, W.(2008): Absorbing German Immigration: Wages and Employment, CESifo Working Paper Glitz, A. (2006): The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Quasi Experimental Evidence, CreAM Discussion Paper 12, Centre for research and Analysis of Migration, London Haisken-DeNew, J./Zimmerman K.F. (1995): Wage and Mobility Effects of Trade and Migration, CEPR Discussion Paper 1318, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London Hunt, J. (1992): The impact of the 1962 repatriates from Algeria on the French labor market, in: Industrial and Labor Relations Review 2, S. 556–572 Longhi, S./Nijkamp, P./Poot, J. (2006): The Impact of Immigration on the Empoyment of Natives in Regional Labour Markets: A Meta-Analysis, IZA Discussion Paper 2044, Bonn Longhi, S./Nijkamp, P./Poot, J. (2008): Meta-Analysis of Empirical Evidence on the Labor Market Impacts of Immigration, IZA Discussion Paper 3418, Bonn Mühleisen, M./Zimmermann, K.F. (1994): A panel analysis of job changes and unemployment, in: European Economic Review 7, S. 793–801 Ottaviano, G./Peri, G. (2006): Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages, NBER Working Paper 12497, Cambridge/USA Ottaviano, G./Peri, G. (2008): Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and the Empirics, NBER Working Paper Nr. 14188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge/USA Pischke, J./Velling, J. (1997): Employment effects of immigration to Germany: an analysis based on local labor markets, in: Review of Economics and Statistics 3, S. 594–604 Winkelmann, R./Zimmermann, K.F. (1993): Ageing, Migration and Labor Mobility, in: Johnson, P./Zimmermann, K.F. (Hrsg.): Labor Markets in an Ageing Europe, Cambridge/UK Winter-Ebmer, R./Zimmermann, K.F. (1998): East-West Trade and Migration: The Austro-German Case, IZA Discussionpaper 2, Bonn Winter-Ebmer, R./Zweimüller, J. (1996): Immigration and the Earnings of Young Native Workers, Oxford Economic Papers 48, S. 473–491 |
This fragment is categorised in the "keine Wertung" (no rating) category because it cannot be neatly attributed to a single source. It is not included in the overall assessment as plagiarism. Nevertheless, it is an example of poor referencing. The referencing suggests that the author has evaluated the studies mentioned in the table. In fact, however, the data comes from third sources not mentioned here. There are striking parallels between the tables in Kst and Brücker (2010). The suspected takeovers from Brücker (2010) are marked in colour below. For some of the table rows not marked in colour, other possible sources could be found. See below for more information. Kst:
Source:
A clue to the source for the table line "Angrist/Kugler (2003)" is provided by Fragment_036_01 , which reads: "Angrist and Kugler ultimately came to the conclusion that their analyses support the statement that an increase in the proportion of immigrants in the active population of 10% reduces the local employment rate by 0.2% to 0.7% (ibid.)". It should be noted that in Kst's table in footnote 2, for the employment effect given here, it is explained in more detail: "Change in percentage points if the proportion of foreigners increases by one percentage point." "Steinhardt (2011)" and the corresponding data can also be found elsewhere in Kst's work, cf. Fragment_032_19. There it can be read: "Steinhardt (2011) examines the wage differences between employment groups (production, simple and complex services) that were affected to varying degrees by immigration between 1975 and 2001. If the number of employees in a particular employment segment increased by 10% as a result of immigration, the wages of locals fell by 1.3% (ibid.). " It should be noted that in Kst's table in footnote 1, for the wage effect given here, it is explained in more detail: "Change in % with an increase in the proportion of foreigners by one percentage point." "Braun and Omar Mahmond [sic] (2014)" and the corresponding data can also be found in Fragment_031_26: "Braun and Omar Mahmond [sic] (2014) found that an increase in displaced persons in one work segment (defined by employment and region) by 10% reduced the employment rate among natives by 4%." "Dustman et al. (2017)" and the corresponding data can also be found in Fragment_033_01: "According to their [Dustman et al. (2017)] estimates, a 10% increase in the proportion of Czech workers in a municipality reduced local wages by 1.3% and local employment rates of locals by 6.1% (ibid.)". |
|
