Human Capital and Labor Supply Decisions in Immigrant Families: An Alternative Test of the Family Investment Hypothesis

Immigrant households frequently face liquidity constraints upon arrival, which potentially hinders their long-term economic integration. The Family Investment Hypothesis (FIH) suggests that couples may respond to these constraints by coordinating their labor supply: one spouse works to finance the other’s investment in local human capital. Previous studies have tested the FIH by comparing married immigrants to married natives, attributing differences in outcomes to financial constraints. However, this approach may conflate such constraints with other inherent differences between immigrants and natives. This paper introduces a novel identification strategy that compares the differences in labor market outcomes of married and single immigrants to those of their native-born counterparts, allowing for better isolation of the effects of liquidity. Applying this strategy to repeated cross-sectional data on immigrants from the Former Soviet Union who arrived in Israel during the 1990s, the analysis finds no supporting evidence for the FIH. One possible explanation for this finding is the substantial government support extended to these immigrants, which may have mitigated their financial constraints. Alternatively, the results may indicate that immigrant households do not systematically adjust their labor supply in accordance with the FIH framework. These findings highlight the importance of the institutional context in shaping household labor supply decisions.