**Table 2: Exports, imports and local labor incomes**

|||**OLS**|||**IV**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**(a)** **Impact of exports on total labor income**|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|log (Exports per worker), change|0.0216|0.0216|0.0263**|-0.00253|0.189**|0.241***|
||(0.0134)|(0.0132)|(0.0131)|(0.0794)|(0.0858)|(0.0920)|
|Observations|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|
|Demographic and employment controls (year 2000)|NO|YES|YES|NO|YES|YES|
|Median income control(year 2000)|NO|NO|YES|NO|NO|YES|
|**(b)** **Impact of exports on average labor income**|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|log (Exports per worker), change|-0.00405|-0.00488|-0.00205|0.0201|0.0514|0.0802|
||(0.00742)|(0.00746)|(0.00745)|(0.0497)|(0.0532)|(0.0575)|
|Observations|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|
|Demographic and employment controls (year 2000)|NO|YES|YES|NO|YES|YES|
|Median income control(year 2000)|NO|NO|YES|NO|NO|YES|
|**(c) Impact of imports on total labor income**|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|log (Imports per worker), change|0.00388|0.00754|0.00662|-0.0529*|0.0393*|0.0418*|
||(0.00760)|(0.00735)|(0.00720)|(0.0272)|(0.0233)|(0.0233)|
|Observations|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|
|Demographic and employment controls (year 2000)|NO|YES|YES|NO|YES|YES|
|Median income control(year 2000)|NO|NO|YES|NO|NO|YES|
|**(d)** **Impact of imports on average labor income**|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|log (Imports per worker), change|0.00249|0.00315|0.00259|-0.0145|0.00482|0.00641|
||(0.00416)|(0.00416)|(0.00416)|(0.0127)|(0.0120)|(0.0120)|
|Observations|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|1,980|
|Demographic and employment controls (year 2000)|NO|YES|YES|NO|YES|YES|
|Median income control(year 2000)|NO|NO|YES|NO|NO|YES|

_Note:_ Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p < .01 ** p < .05 * p < .1. The dependent variable is the change from 2000 to 2015 in the log of total labor income and log of average labor income. The explanatory variable is the change in the log of exportsto-workers and imports-to-workers from 2004 to 2014. Demographic and employment controls include the proportion of rural population, the proportion of population aged 15 and more who are literate, total population, and the share of employment in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of economic activity (all variables in the year 2000). Total and average labor incomes are expressed in 2015 Mexican pesos using the National Consumer Price Index.

# 3.3 Exports, imports and the migration channel

Our findings show that both export and import expansion per worker increase immigration to Mexican municipalities, but effects are stronger for exports (Tables 3 and 4). Expanding exports per worker by 10 percent increased the number of people migrating into the municipality in the previous five years by on average 7.2 people (see also Rodríguez-Castelán et al. 2020), while the effect of imports is less than half that magnitude (panel a, column 1). This represents 4.7 and 1.4 percent of the number of recent immigrants for the average municipality in 2005 for exports and imports, respectively.

Domestic immigrants accounted for the majority of trade-induced immigration (panel b) compared with international immigrants. While a 10 percent expansion of exports (imports, respectively) per worker led to a rise in the number of immigrants from other Mexican municipalities by about 5 (2.7, respectively) people, the increase was only 2.2 (0.54, respectively) people for immigrants from other countries (panel c). Exports and imports attracted predominantly unskilled immigrants. The number of unskilled migrants increased by 5.1 people and 2 people, respectively, due to higher exports and imports (panel a, columns 14