In almost every rich country, anti-immigrant fervor is at fever pitch. However, it is a malady that must be resisted if these societies are to continue to prosper and developing countries are to fight poverty and sustain economic growth.
A higher rate of global migration is desirable for four reasons: It is a source of innovation and dynamism; it responds to labor shortages; it meets the challenges posed by rapidly aging populations and it provides an escape from poverty and persecution. By contrast, limiting migration slows economic growth and undermines societies’ long-term competitiveness. It also creates a less prosperous, more unequal and partitioned world.
Of course, there are short-run, local costs to higher rates of migration that must be addressed if societies are to enjoy the much larger long-term benefits. And yet, despite domestic opposition in recipient countries, the number of international migrants has doubled during the past 25 years and will double again by 2030. Rapid economic and political change — and, increasingly, environmental change — dislodges people and encourages them to seek opportunity and security in new homes.
Illustration: Yusha
Against the backdrop of rapid globalization, the individual risks and costs of moving internationally will continue to fall. The combination of the estimated increase in the world’s population by 2 billion people, lower transport costs, better connectivity and growing transnational social and economic networks could and should lead to increased movement of people. If this process is allowed to take its course, it will stimulate global growth and serve to reduce poverty.
And yet, while the incremental reduction of barriers to cross-border flows of capital, goods and services has been a major achievement of recent decades, international migration has never been more strictly controlled. The classical economists such as John Stuart Mill saw this as both economically illogical and ethically unacceptable.
Adam Smith objected to anything that obstructed “the free circulation of labor from one employment to another.”
By the 19th century, the development of steam and other transport meant that a third of the population of Scandinavia, Ireland and parts of Italy emigrated. Mass migration gave millions of Europeans an escape route from poverty and persecution, and fed the dynamism and development of countries such as the US, the UK and various colonies.
The rise of nationalism prior to the outbreak of World War I led to the widespread introduction of passports and ushered in stricter controls on the international movement of people. A hundred years later, despite falling barriers to trade, finance and information, the walls to free mobility have been built higher.
Approximately 200 million people, about 3 percent of the world’s population, now live in countries in which they were not born. These are the orphans of the international system. In our book Exceptional People, we demonstrate that, on balance, they bring great benefit to their host societies. In addition to providing a much-needed source of skilled and unskilled labor, they contribute disproportionately to innovation and wealth creation.
For example, immigrants to the US contribute more than half of the patents and Silicon Valley start-ups. They also contribute more in tax than they claim through social-welfare benefits or other payments.
Medical and public health advances have increased longevity in developed countries, while persistently low fertility levels and the end of the post-World War II baby boom mean that the number of native-born workers will fall in the coming years. As countries’ populations age and their fertility rates collapse, more migration will be necessary to ensure economic competitiveness and finance pension and health-care systems.
The effects of a shrinking labor force will be compounded by rising educational attainment in developed countries, which will leave fewer people interested in taking on low-skilled service jobs or in working in the trades and construction. Between 2005 and 2025, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are expected to experience a 35 percent increase in the percentage of their workforces with tertiary education. As education levels rise, so do expectations about work.
For the countries they leave, migrants often represent a brain drain. Even so, they contribute significantly to their home countries. Taiwan and Israel are testimony to the role played by migrants abroad, with their diasporas playing a vital role in terms of political support, investment flows and technology transfer.
Moreover, migration has historically been the most effective measure against poverty. Remittances sent home by migrants exceeded US$440 billion last year, with more than two-thirds of these flows going to developing countries. In a number of small developing countries, remittances contribute more than a third of GDP, and in a number of larger countries, annual receipts exceed US$50 billion. In Latin America and the Caribbean, more than 50 million people are supported by remittances and the numbers are even greater in Africa and Asia.
Both rich and poor countries would benefit from increased migration, with developing countries benefiting the most. It is estimated that increasing migration by just 3 percent of the workforce in developed countries between 2005 and 2025 would generate global gains of US$356 billion, more than two-thirds of which would accrue to developing countries. Opening borders completely could produce gains as high as US$39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years.
There has been much discussion of the need to complete the Doha Round of global trade negotiations and increase development assistance to poor countries. While these actions are vital, putting migration reform on the agenda is as important — a small increase in migration would yield a much greater boon to the global economy and developing countries than the combined benefits of aid and trade reform.
Today, powerful countries argue against migration reform and the development of a rules-based global migration organization. However, more migration is in everyone’s interest and the public debate about it is too important to be left to politicians. Deep thinking needs to be followed by bold action.
Ian Goldin is a director of the University of Oxford’s Oxford Martin School and a professorial fellow at its Balliol College. Geoffrey Cameron a research associate.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Life as we know it will probably not come to an end in Japan this weekend, but what if it does? That is the question consuming a disaster-prone country ahead of a widely spread prediction of disaster that one comic book suggests would occur tomorrow. The Future I Saw, a manga by Ryo Tatsuki about her purported ability to see the future in dreams, was first published in 1999. It would have faded into obscurity, but for the mention of a tsunami and the cover that read “Major disaster in March 2011.” Years later, when the most powerful earthquake ever
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS