Global Development: Views from the Center

 

Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk: Why Don’t More Economists Study Emigration?

September 6, 2011


Economists who study globalization pay lots of attention to trade and capital flows. They have spent generations researching how much better off the world could be if there were fewer international obstacles to voluntary, mutually beneficial trade and investment. If there’s a twenty-dollar bill on the sidewalk—economists’ old catch-phrase meaning an opportunity for big gain at small cost—why not pick it up?

But according to the latest research, one of the biggest growth opportunities in the world economy lies not in the mobility of goods or capital, but in the mobility of labor. If we somehow wiped away all remaining policy barriers to international goods trade, and eliminated every last barrier to the international flow of capital, world income would rise by somewhere in the range of $3 trillion a year. That sounds like a lot until you compare it to the economic gains from even small reductions in the barriers to the international movement of the workers who make those goods and use that capital.

In a new paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, I discuss the latest research literature on this question. The bottom line: A modest increase in emigration out of low-income countries—just 5% of the people now living there—would expand the world economy by several trillion dollars every year. That’s a stunner, so I’ll say it again: Minor reductions in the barriers to labor mobility would add more value than the total, global elimination of all remaining policy barriers to goods trade and all barriers to capital flows, combined.

This creates the greatest single opportunity for global economic prosperity in our age: The gains to greater international labor mobility offer trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.

Why are the gains that colossal? One of the most remarkable facts about the world economy is that workers are more economically productive in some places than they are in other places. Vastly more. Take a male construction worker in the capital of Ghana. There isn’t much you could do to greatly raise his economic productivity in Ghana; access to better tools or training might make him modestly more productive. But if you let the exact same person emigrate to work at a construction site in any big U.S. city, his economic productivity would rise roughly 700% to 1,000%. When just a little movement is that valuable, it doesn’t take much movement before the positive effects can be felt in the national accounts.

Building the world economy is obviously not the only goal of policies like migration barriers, but it deserves weight, and perhaps greater weight when the world economy is sagging. Yet both policymakers and the economics profession know little about the economic opportunities in labor mobility because they are very little studied. My paper sketches a research agenda to fix that.

Possibly Related Posts

  AddThis Social Bookmark Button


2 Responses to “Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk: Why Don’t More Economists Study Emigration?”

  1. But the mentality of “sharing the economic cake”, so the thought that this Ghana immigrant will be “stealing” a part of that cake, just dooms any prospect of that happening.

    As stupid as that view is, it’s ingrained in the head of any politician, and about 100% of the public.

  2. Thanks for your comment, @jmdesp. Zero-sum thinking is indeed pretty hard to square with the history of immigration to the U.S.

    Back in 1900 many opposed further immigration with the same zero-sum mentality. If they had been right, that there’s a fixed economic ‘pie’ in the United States, then the quadrupling of the U.S. population since that time — largely through massive immigration to already-settled areas — would have cut Americans’ living standards to a fourth of what they were back then.

    What really happened is that essentially all Americans are vastly better off today than typical Americans in 1900, even at the depths of today’s crisis. Today’s immigration restrictionists will have you believe that everything’s different now — but yesterday’s restrictionists said exactly the same thing.

    Zero-sum thinking is a profoundly pessimistic view of the country and the economy. But fortunately for you and me, history is on the side of optimism.

Post a Comment

We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.