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
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
Owing to the combined majority of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), the legislature last week voted to further extend the current session to the end of next month, prolonging the session twice for a total of 211 days, the longest in Taiwan’s democratic history. Legally, the legislature holds two regular sessions annually: from February to May, and from September to December. The extensions pushed by the opposition in May and last week mean there would be no break between the first and second sessions this year. While the opposition parties said the extensions were needed to
RSS