FUELED DIVERGENCE
Natural Resources and Migration in the World Economy

​COMPLETE BOOK MANUSCRIPT AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
​(UNDER REVIEW)

How does natural resource wealth affect immigration policies? Drawing from the resource curse literature and the Dutch Disease model, the book, based on an award-winning dissertation, unpacks how different types of natural resources alter the preferences of domestic groups and their relative power in immigration policymaking. Focusing on the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Scandinavian democracies, the book manuscript shows that political institutions condition how natural resource wealth shape immigration policy outcomes. Funded by three distinct grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the book manuscript features a global analysis of immigration policy, a subnational analysis on Senate and House voting on immigration bills, and an in-depth case study of Norway and its Nordic neighbors. 

PUBLICATIONS
Shin, Adrian J. 2019. "Primary Resources, Secondary Labor: Natural Resources and Immigration Policy." International Studies Quarterly, 63(4):805–818.
Shin, Adrian J. 2017. "Tyrants and Migrants: Authoritarian Immigration Policy." Comparative Political Studies, 50(1):14–40.

PROJECT FUNDING INFORMATION
National Science Foundation Research Improvement Grants (NSF DDRIG) ($18,879), 2016
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide (NSF GROW), 2015-16
​National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP), 2012-15

UNDER PRESSURE
International Organizations in the Age of Migration

with MERIH ANGIN and ALBANA SHEHAJ

COMPLETE BOOK MANUSCRIPT AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
​(UNDER REVIEW)

Why do international organizations (IOs) favor some countries over others? Previous research has primarily focused on the strategic and special interests of donor states to explain why some countries receive better deals from international organizations. In this project, we highlight migration pressure from the developing world as an important factor that enters into the decision-making calculus of major IO shareholders. Focusing on the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Union, we show that countries and subnational jurisdictions posing substantial migration pressures on major donor states of these organizations receive preferential treatment, including larger financial packages and less stringent loan conditions. In addition, we compare and contrast the organizations' strategies in governing international migration. Using in-depth case studies and novel datasets on loans, conditionality, and fiscal transfers, we demonstrate the important role of international migration in shaping some of the most critical decisions made by the world's most powerful international organizations.

PUBLICATIONS
Merih Angin, Albana Shehaj, and Adrian J. Shin. 2021. "Inside Job: Migration and Distributive Politics in the European Union." Economics and Politics, 33(2):264–288.

WORKING PAPERS
"IMF: International Migration Fund" (Revise and Resubmit at International Interactions)
"Banking on Development: Migration Management through the World Bank" (Under Review)

CONTAGIOUS WORLD
COVID-19 and the Global Economy

with SUNG EUN KIM and YUJEONG YANG

BOOK MANUSCRIPT IN PROGRESS

Since the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan in Central China's Hubei province, governments around the world have taken measures to prevent its spread into their territories. One of the most popular strategies has been barring entry to all nationals from outbreak countries as well as third-country foreign nationals who have been in outbreak countries over the past 14 days. As COVID-19 has spread to 210 countries and territories around the world, governments have imposed bilateral travel restrictions on "hotspot" countries or have adopted unilateral policies of sealing borders. In this article, we introduce a new dataset on all bilateral, unilateral, and supranational immigration policy changes related to COVID-19 from January, 2020, including entry bans, visa policies, aviation regulations, and non-air travel restrictions. We ask why some countries have been reluctant to impose travel restrictions on nationals from hotspot countries despite overwhelming popular pressures for such bans. Focusing on government bans on travelers from China and other countries where early outbreaks occurred, we examine the important roles of international interdependence, including trade relations, foreign aid, and labor migration. Our preliminary findings about bilateral restrictions against China suggest that international labor interdependence can explain the scope and timing of various travel restrictions and other government policies in response to COVID-19.​

We document all types of government measures related to international travel since the initial outbreak. See our codebook for more information. In related papers, we also examine the effectiveness of these measures as containment strategies as well as the extent to which these measures have disrupted global trade.

PUBLICATIONS
Sung Eun Kim, Adrian J. Shin, and Yujeong Yang. 2022. "The Usual Suspects?: Attitudes toward Immigration during the COVID-19 Pandemic." Journal of Asian Public Policy.
Sung Eun Kim, Adrian J. Shin, and Yujeong Yang. 2022. "Severing the Belt and Road: Overseas Chinese Networks and COVID-19 Travel Restrictions." Foreign Policy Analysis

WORKING PAPERS
​"Twelve Months Later: A Global Analysis of COVID-19 Travel Restrictions"

PROJECT FUNDING INFORMATION
Institute for Humane Studies Hayek Fund for Scholars ($5,000)
2020 Rapid Call for International Joint Research Against the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic, National Research Foundation of Korea (₩32,421,000≈$30,000) 

MARTIAL ORIGINS OF GLOBALIZATION
Modern Warfare, Asset Mobility, and Domestic Politics of Economic Openness

DATA COLLECTION IN PROGRESS

What explains variations in foreign economic policies? I argue that modern warfare, not democracy, was the single most important factor in reshaping the global economic system of the twentieth century. The causal mechanism of the argument hinges on the different extents to which global wars harmed elites who own various types of assets. I focus on asset mobility to see how wars of mass destruction shifted the balance of power between elites with different preferences toward economic globalization. I define asset mobility broadly as the ability to liquidate assets to be channeled into other sectors or to be relocated in other countries. Using this definition of asset mobility, I classify economic elites into two broad categories: owners of mobile assets and owners of immobile assets. These two elite groups also differ in their preferences toward economic globalization as well as in their abilities to move their production across borders and between sectors. Under competitive pressure, immobile elites are more likely to lobby for trade protection, limited foreign competition, and additional labor through more open immigration policy. On the other hand, mobile elites support free trade and the absence of capital controls to take advantage of the global supply chain and markets across the globe. Since high asset mobility allows for access to foreign labor supplies and more capital-intensive technologies, mobile elites are indifferent toward national immigration policies. These two elite groups clash over trade and capital policies because they have opposing preferences in these issue areas. Starting with World War I, modern warfare began to draw in historically unprecedented firepower and mass mobilization, resulting in tremendous wartime destruction. These economic consequences of modern warfare tipped the balance of power in favor of mobile elites by destroying immobile assets disproportionately, which induced policymakers to accommodate mobile elites' policy preferences.

WORKING PAPERS
​"Saving Private Wealth: Mass Warfare and Economic Elites" with Kyle Engels

PROJECT FUNDING INFORMATION
Institute of Behavioral Science Research Development Award ($13,388), 2018