Immigration, good.
I’ve been in Ottawa during the past week, as you will have noticed by the previous stubborn posting that hasn’t been replaced in 8 days. I was interviewing with several government agencies (mostly on the ‘international’ side of things) in a process that can only be described as ‘blind dating’: these were 30-60 minute informal interviews with the manager of a unit or bureau, where we each had a chance to ask each other questions and decide whether we like each other enough to sign a contract.
10 interviews in 4 days.
Needless to say, there’s lots to think about. Lita and I plan to be in Ottawa from September onwards (if not earlier) and hopefully I’ll be working for one of those 10 managers on a case file that could include any of the following: asylum policy, human rights, the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, the United Nations, or development policy.
One observation that stuck out was this: every person (managers and policy analysts) who mentioned where they did their graduate work, did it in Europe (mostly in the UK). London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Paris, Fontainebleau, Geneva. One among this group did a second degree at Harvard, but aside from that I didn’t meet anyone in government who had not studied abroad (and off the continent). I’m not sure precisely what to make of this anecdotal and unscientific study, but altogether I think it’s a good thing — especially since I was interviewing in departments that worked on international issues.
This is all by way of segueing into an interesting new study that I came across when catching up with my favourite blogs. The National Bureau for Economic Research has just published a working paper that uses a massive new data set to draw some remarkable conclusions about the impacts of international migration: it’s good, in an unmitigated and unqualified way. I’ll spare you the economics-ese, but here are the main findings of the paper (which looks at immigration to the world’s richest countries):
1. More people are moving from poor countries to rich countries, in response to inter-country inequality.
2. Restrictive immigration policies decrease flows of migrants.
3. Immigration to wealthy countries boosts overall employment and actually attracts investment and stimulates economic growth.
4. The inflow of immigrants doesn’t lower productivity or investment in either the short run or the long run.
5. Higher levels of immigration boost the GDP of receiving countries without decreasing the average wages or income per person.
If you want to download the paper, go here.
Hat-tip: Chris Blattman
Alright! Great to have Jeune Street back!
Interesting post. Having lived in the North of England, anti-immigrant sentiment is alive and well… and it’s hard to counter with “economics-ese” info as you mentioned, especially when what people see (and hear) is immigrants coming in and “stealing” jobs that should be in the pockets of locals. It’s the whole “can’t see the wood for the trees” scenario. But then again, who is going to tell a person that “it’s good for the country in the long run” when all they want is to put bread (read: fish&chips) on the table. It’s not working yet, even with the EU opening borders for migrant workers.
Admittedly, I am posting this before I have read the paper.
With European and native-born American populations deep within the trenches of the demographic-economic paradox, it never fails to bother me when I hear of anti-immigration campaigns, especially on a national level. The evidence is there, and it seems abundantly clear that immigration is good for and at times, especially for Europe, completely essential to the survival of Western nations. This is not a statement you often hear when politicians explain policy to their constituents, and I’m not entirely sure why. Certainly there will be those who fear the idea of changing national demographics, but, in the US at least, there is a proven record of immigrant assimilation and acceptance of cultural values.
You rarely hear of immigrant labor replacing local labor en masse, though they are certainly vilified for it. I suppose my question is, and I’m particularly curious about Europe: is there actually evidence that this occurs?
nice photoshopping on the log and leaf
Oh, and the post was also very edifying! I actually sent it on to some of my nearest and dearest who, I hope, will be inspired by its content. Thanks for keeping us thinking, Geoff.
The Aunt