An executive order by President Trump in late June has suspended a range of visas for skilled workers. We invited our panel to express their views on the potential impact of the visa ban on US leadership in science and innovation; on the attractiveness of US universities for foreign students; and on the location of corporate research facilities.
We asked the experts whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements, and, if so, how strongly and with what degree of confidence:
a) Even if it is temporary, the ban on visas for skilled workers, including researchers, will weaken US leadership in STEM and R&D.
b) Significantly fewer top foreign students will be attracted to US universities as a result of increased restrictions on visas for skilled workers.
c) If increased restrictions on visas for skilled workers are made permanent, a noticeable share of research activities by US and foreign companies will move abroad.
All 43 US experts participated in this survey and the balance of opinion on the three statements are summarized below. More details on the experts’ views come through in the short comments that they are able to make when they participate in the survey.
US leadership in STEM and R&D
On the first statement about potential weakening of US leadership in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and research and development (R&D), there is near unanimity. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 57% of the panel strongly agree, 42% agree, one expert is uncertain, and none disagree.
Among the comments by the overwhelming majority who agree or strongly agree, Larry Samuelson at Yale says: ‘The ability to attract talented workers and researchers from abroad is a great strength of the US economy, and should not be squandered.’ Daron Acemoglu at MIT adds: ‘The US technology sector and R&D, as well as academia, heavily depend on attracting foreign scientists and workers.’
Anil Kashyap at Chicago, who agrees with the statement, comments that he ‘can imagine the effect is small – for example, presidential campaign pressure leads both candidates to pledge to end the ban in January.’ But José Scheinkman at Columbia remains concerned: ‘Even if temporary, this measure creates additional uncertainty for skilled workers and for firms hiring these workers.’ So too is Robert Shimer at Chicago: ‘A temporary ban will permanently affect beliefs about the likelihood of such a ban in the future.’
Robert Hall at Stanford, who states that he is uncertain, notes: ‘The US benefits from improved technology generated in the rest of the world, so US location may not be important.’ Steven Kaplan at Chicago, who agrees with the statement, argues: ‘Firms will hire employees anyway, but they will not be in the US.’
Pete Klenow at Stanford points to a study reviewing the US immigration policy environment that governs how skilled migrants move to America for employment-based purposes. It concludes that immigrants account for about a quarter of US invention and entrepreneurship despite a policy environment that is not well suited for these purposes.
Foreign students at US universities
On the second statement about whether increased restrictions on visas for skilled workers will deter top foreign students from applying to study at US universities, there is another strong majority in agreement. Again weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 66% of the panel strongly agree, 27% agree; 7% are uncertain, and none disagree.
Among the comments, Kenneth Judd at Stanford notes that: ‘Many come here because they want a chance to stay. We would suffer a big loss if we took that carrot away.’ José Scheinkman agrees: ‘One of the attractions of studying in the US has been the option of getting a job here after graduation.’ So too does Jonathan Levin at Stanford, adding a link to National Science Foundation data: ‘A large fraction of international students pursuing graduate study in the US desire to stay in the US.’
Eric Maskin at Harvard agrees with the statements but adds: ‘That fewer top students will be attracted sounds logical – but, of course, they may still come for other reasons.’ Daron Acemoglu responds: ‘Foreign students will come less if they feel unwelcome, which current policies achieve. The hassle and uncertainty factors exacerbate this.’ Larry Samuelson takes a similar view: ‘Universities thrive on a mix of people and ideas. Restrictions threaten this mix, making universities less attractive and less effective.’
Robert Shimer, who says that he is uncertain, is concerned about something else: ‘The bigger issue here are emerging (but unannounced) restrictions on Optional Practical Training. That would be devastating.’
Pete Klenow draws attention to analysis of a longitudinal survey of over 5,600 foreign and native STEM PhD students at US research universities, which examines entrepreneurial characteristics and career preferences prior to graduation, as well as founding and employment outcomes after graduation. Among other things, the research finds that foreign PhD students are more likely to express intentions to become a founder or a start-up employee prior to graduation.
Research facilities of US and foreign companies
On the third statement about the location decisions of companies about their research facilities if the increased restrictions on visas for skilled workers are made permanent, there is another strong majority in agreement. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 57% of the panel strongly agree, 38% agree; 6% are uncertain, and none disagree.
Among the comments of those panelists who agree or strongly agree, some are cautious: Eric Maskin says: ‘Again, the prediction sounds reasonable, but companies may stay in the US for other reasons.’ And Markus Brunnermeier at Princeton comments that: ‘US universities are still top and very attractive to most students.’
Robert Hall notes: ‘Not necessarily harmful from a global perspective.’ Richard Schmalensee at MIT adds: ‘I doubt the share would be large even in the medium term, but “noticeable”? Surely.’ Similarly, Anil Kashyap, who is uncertain, comments: ‘Direction is clear, not sure on the magnitude.’
Others are more concerned. Jonathan Levin remarks: ‘Companies have an incentive to locate R&D in areas with a highly skilled workforce.’ Larry Samuelson states: ‘Research naturally follows talented researches. Excluding the latter will push some research abroad.’
Kenneth Judd concurs: ‘Firms can now spread researchers across different countries. Pushing them out of the US will reduce the externalities of their presence.’ And Pete Klenow alerts us to research showing the positive impact of immigration on innovation, measured by the patenting of local firms, and on measures of local economic dynamism.
Some panelists express their concerns vividly. Daron Acemoglu says: ‘Won’t happen overnight, but hard to imagine how it wouldn’t. Evidence from anti-Jewish policies in Third Reich universities confirm this.’ José Scheinkman concludes: ‘China and Canada are likely to benefit.’
Robert Shimer adds: ‘It will also be devastating for US universities.’ And Christopher Udry at Northwestern warns: ‘Research – generating new ideas – is a global activity. This xenophobic administration is deconstructing institutions in which it flourished.’
All comments made by the experts are in the full survey results.
Romesh Vaitilingam
@econromesh
June 2020
