There is an ongoing debate about the economic effects of individualism. We establish that individualism leads to better educational and labor market outcomes. Using data from the largest international adult skill assessment, we identify the effects of individualism by exploiting variation between migrants at the origin country, origin language, and person level. Migrants from more individualistic cultures have higher cognitive skills and larger skill gains over time. They also invest more in their skills over the life-cycle, as they acquire more years of schooling and are more likely to participate in adult education activities. In fact, individualism is more important in explaining adult skill formation than any other cultural trait that has been emphasized in previous literature. In the labor market, more individualistic migrants earn higher wages and are less often unemployed. We show that our results cannot be explained by selective migration or omitted origin-country variables.

The Roy-Borjas model predicts that international migrants are less educated than nonmigrants because the returns to education are generally higher in developing (migrant-sending) than in developed (migrant-receiving) countries. However, empirical evidence often shows the opposite. Using the case of Mexico-U.S. migration, we show that this inconsistency between predictions and empirical evidence can be resolved when the human capital of migrants is assessed using a two-dimensional measure of occupational skills rather than by educational attainment. Thus, focusing on a single skill dimension when investigating migrant selection can lead to misleading conclusions about the underlying economic incentives and behavioral models of migration.

Choosing a university and field of study is a key life decision that influences one’s lifelong earnings trajectory. Data shows that the share of individuals going to university is unequally distributed, and is lower among disadvantaged students. High-achieving students who are low income are less likely to opt for ambitious education paths, despite the high returns of education. Even among those students who decide to apply for college, the likelihood of whether they will apply to prestigious colleges or renowned study programs differs along the distribution of socioeconomic background. It does not only matter if you study, but also what and where you study, as there is a large variation in long-run outcomes, such as earnings, both between universities as well as between fields of study. Part of this mismatch can be attributed to unequal starting points for children, in terms of both institutional settings and the quality of information available within their close networks.