Why Liberal Economists Don't Support Open Immigration
January 29th 2010 15:56
Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute wrote an interesting piece on inequality this past summer. Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:
One section on liberal economist Paul Krugman's view of immigration was especially interesting:
First, this concept of “analytical nationalism” held by people like Krugman is one that should be discredited. Sure, adding poorer people to the United States economy would very likely increase income inequality in the U.S. But, is that the correct paradigm with which to judge the morality or desirability of a policy? While the income inequality increases in the U.S., the income inequality in the world surely declines. Those who were third-world poor now move to a developed country where their standard of living will almost definitely increase. Aside from the “improvement” to income inequality, what really matters is that poor people are better off, most people in the U.S. are better off and practically no one is harmed. When the bogus borders are removed from the discussion, restrictions on immigration are revealed as inequality increasing, poverty increasing and welfare-reducing.
Second, I would like to take issue with Krugman's last sentence. As described in the above paragraph, excluding the benefits to immigrants, which Krugman admits are large, leads to a serious underestimate of the true benefit to society of immigration. Why would we ignore the “large gains to the immigrants themselves?” Are they not people? Nevertheless, recent research on immigration puts in question Krugman's contention that the benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration are small (see here and here.)
P.S. The economist Scott Sumner of the blog, The Money Illusion , offers his conclusion on why liberal economists, caught in a bind between supporting the global poverty-reducing power and the potential increase in U.S. inequality from liberalized immigration, too often choose restricted immigration:
Read the whole post!
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral significance of rising income inequality... Many thinkers mistake national populations for "society" and thereby obscure the real story about the effects of trade and immigration on welfare, equality, and justice. There is little evidence that high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery slope to the destruction of democracy and rule by the rich. The unequal political voice of the poor can be addressed only through policies that actually work to fight poverty and improve education. Income inequality is a dangerous distraction from the real problems: poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and systemic injustice.
Analytical nationalism has serious real-world consequences. It leads well-meaning people to countenance, or even support, acts of injustice against fellow members of our transnational society—restrictions on the free movement of persons across political boundaries—in the name of combating the illusory injustice of an uptick in the national Gini coefficient. These gaffes lead Paul Krugman, for example, to tie his conscience in a liberal knot. “I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration,” Krugman confesses. But he is also instinctively, emotionally committed to the moral relevance of national income inequality statistics. Thus does a modest rule that tells the Census Bureau where to stop counting come to tell Krugman whose welfare really counts. “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skilled immigrants. Mainly that means better border controls on illegal immigration, ” Krugman concludes. After all, “the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves [emphasis added], are small.”
Second, I would like to take issue with Krugman's last sentence. As described in the above paragraph, excluding the benefits to immigrants, which Krugman admits are large, leads to a serious underestimate of the true benefit to society of immigration. Why would we ignore the “large gains to the immigrants themselves?” Are they not people? Nevertheless, recent research on immigration puts in question Krugman's contention that the benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration are small (see here and here.)
P.S. The economist Scott Sumner of the blog, The Money Illusion , offers his conclusion on why liberal economists, caught in a bind between supporting the global poverty-reducing power and the potential increase in U.S. inequality from liberalized immigration, too often choose restricted immigration:
So this is the liberal’s dilemma. They may delight in the cultural diversity produced by immigration, and enjoy eating in all the great Thai restaurants. But if the immigrants are unskilled peasants then they may have to accept that American cities will not be as neat, tidy, and prosperous looking as Zurich, Stockholm and Singapore. And that thought is apparently too much to bear.
Read the whole post!
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
| 19 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
