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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS