By Ian Preston
Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College London
Ian Preston Deputy
Director of
CReAM and
Professor of Economics at UCL, puts forward the case for freedom of movement
within the European Union. He explains how freedom of movement and economic
migration is important for a dynamic and innovative economy, but it also brings
with it redistributive considerations that cannot be ignored. At a time when
many politicians conflate economic migration and asylum-seeking refugees, he
argues that the two are perhaps not entirely distinct from one another – and
discusses reasons why they shouldn’t be treated as one group.
Some economic
advantages of free movement of labour
Free movement of labour, in the sense of absence of
restriction on European citizens’ rights of location for the purpose of work,
has been a longstanding goal of the European Union. But this goal has come
under increasing attack, from a variety of directions. Critics include not only
those hostile to European Union membership but also some who are professedly
sympathetic to membership but who appear sceptical about the benefits or long
term viability of unrestricted cross-border mobility of people in modern
Europe.
Judged in economic terms, the case for free movement of
labour, within or between countries, is strong since mobility of workers has
compellingly positive aspects.
From the point of view of efficiency in production, free
movement allows workers to migrate to where their skills are most useful. If
particular industries are geographically concentrated or face local skill
shortages then they can recruit labour from a wider area. If workers have
talents which are undervalued where they live then they can move to where they
can be put to better use. High wages in locations of labour shortage will offer
the necessary signals to draw the migration required, allowing migrants to
capture part of the social gain from improved production.
From the point of view of social protection, free movement
provides insurance against locally specific labour market shocks. If demand
intensifies unexpectedly in an area then labour can move in. If demand falls
within an area then labour can move out. The effects of temporary disturbances
are dispersed and variations in labour income are smoothed. When monetary
integration of different areas removes the possibility of macroeconomic
adjustment through exchange rate movements the importance of labour mobility as
an adjustment mechanism is even greater.
From the point of view of growth, free movement allows ideas
to spread as people move so that innovators can work close to where their ideas
are most valued and innovations are therefore adopted widely. As they do so,
fresh encounters generate further new ideas.
From the point of view of efficiency in public provision,
free movement allows better alignment of tastes and public service levels. If
individuals differ in preferences for the type or level of locally publicly
provided goods then free movement allows a better matching of wants and
provision. Individuals who are prepared to pay higher taxes for better services
can move to localities where this is offered and those less interested can move
to areas with lower provision. Public sector economists recognise this as one
way that a sort of invisible hand can work to a limited extent even where goods
are collectively consumed and therefore best provided through the public rather
than private sector. Of course, much public provision is of privately consumed
services and considerations here are more complex, as discussed below, but the
point is not eliminated.
For all of these reasons, “economic migrant” has never been
a pejorative term among economists. On the contrary, economic migration is seen
predominantly as a force for good.
Some economic
drawbacks of free movement of labour
Even outside circles of economists, considerations of this
sort are taken for granted as regards migration within a country. It would be
considered absurd and economically unwise to propose limitations on movement of
British workers from Birmingham to London. And yet, at the supranational
level, limitations on free movement within Europe are argued for and thought to
attract political support.
Why? In large part, this is because the politics of
migration is not about economics. Economic migration drives social change which
attracts strongly different reactions from the culturally conservative and the
socially liberal. Population movements are swelled by humanitarian crises which
draw sympathy differently in different parts of the population.
Nonetheless, even in economic terms, free movement is not
popular. Partly this may be because, despite persuasive reasons to think
the better geographic distribution of labour that results is a good thing on
average, not everyone gains. The principal beneficiaries are migrants
themselves who move because they can earn better wages where they go to than
where they come from. The picture for nonmigrants is likely to be mixed —
beneficial undoubtedly for some but potentially difficult for those competing
most closely with incomers or whose productivity would have benefited from the
presence of outgoers. The best evidence suggests that such effects are small
and probably temporary but they are what matter to the immobile and the
immobile both outnumber the mobile and are politically better represented.
This is not the biggest economic issue though. Perhaps most
prominent among the economic fears of what migration involves in practice is
the concern that what prompts movement between countries may be exploitation of
differences in generosity of welfare systems and other redistributive parts of
public spending. Migrants, it is argued, arrive in richer countries to
claim benefits to which they have not contributed, and to draw on health and
education systems for which they have not paid.
Such problems rarely arise from movement within countries
because, sensibly, redistributive functions are typically centralised. There is
no different welfare system in different parts of the UK and resource
allocation formulae attempt to channel funds for provision in kind fairly to
different parts of the country. This is as it should be. While there can be
advantages to differing local provision of goods consumed in common, as argued
above, privately consumed services with a redistributive aspect cannot be
decentralised without threatening to generate potentially self-defeating
movement of people. Reasons would be created for those most in need to
move to the most generous areas and for those most able to pay to move away,
defeating the feasibility of effective redistribution.
No similar centralisation of redistributive activities is
politically feasible at the European level because insufficient cross-border
social solidarity exists relative to the inequalities that would need to be
addressed. So redistribution remains largely a country-level function and fears
that differing national levels of generosity will prompt migration flows
generate calls for limits on migration. Benefit tourism is one side of this
just as tax tourism by the affluent is another; though rarely discussed
together and attracting the ire of different people, they are really similar
economic phenomena, just different kinds of redistribution shopping. Associated
hostility to migration can cross the political spectrum. Fears that the
national social solidarity that sustains what redistribution can be afforded by
national governments will be undermined by free movement creates a left-wing
case for concern.
These observations have some force at an abstract level. But
they are no reason to pretend that the benefits to free movement detailed
earlier do not exist and are not substantial at a European level. Also, their
practical importance is an empirical question. To what extent do we actually
see welfare-seeking labour migration? Evidence is tenuous. Migrants are, on the
whole, predominantly young, well educated workers. At least in the short term
and over recent years, within EU migration has, for example, benefited the UK
fiscally even at a time of deficit when the average British born worker has
been a fiscal burden. EU migrants to Britain are less likely to claim benefits,
no more likely to use public health, no more likely to commit crime, and do not
compromise the education outcomes of native speakers. This is not the full
picture since that has to take account of long term implications as young
migrants age and impose future costs on welfare and health services. But some
of them will return to their place of origin and those who stay will raise
children who will pay towards their costs so there is no obvious reason not to
expect gains even considered in the long term. This positive picture is not a
necessary outcome and may not be true for all receiving countries; however, the
strength with which these concerns are voiced in the UK, for example, bears
little relation to any strength of evidence for them.
Because concerns about welfare tourism do seem so strong, a
case can be made for putting time limits on benefit claims by migrants,
enforcing a minimum period of residence before migrants can draw on certain
parts of benefit systems in countries of destination. What would be
positive about this would be that it might assuage concern that threatens to provoke
policy responses which would undermine real economic benefits. If migration is
indeed not largely benefit-driven then it should do little to reduce flows. The
economic cost though is that it would mean social insurance would be denied to
those moving for work.
Free movement and
refugees
The political threat to the future of free movement predates
the current refugee crisis but has been exacerbated by it. Open borders
within the Schengen area have already been temporarily suspended by countries
struggling to manage the sudden size of the flows of people and doubts about
whether free labour mobility is sustainable are voiced even more loudly.
Decisions about the offer of asylum are governed, or should
be, by international humanitarian obligations. It is not clear that accepting
refugees need in any case be economically harmful. While past effects of
immigration may be a poor guide to the labour market and public finance impact
since refugees’ characteristics may differ from previous flows in ways difficult
to predict, there seems little reason to expect entrepreneurialism, initiative
and preparedness to work to be any lower than in past inflows. The notion that
the economic calculus of benefit receipt might suddenly be drawing large
numbers to undertake life-threatening boat crossings so as to exploit European
welfare systems also seems far-fetched.
Nonetheless the handling of short term difficulties of
sudden large flows raises questions about free movement of refugees. Confining
refugees to the first safe country which they reach, whatever its legal basis,
ties the short term costs of receiving large numbers to accidents of geography.
If those countries receiving heaviest flows in the first instance are also
those facing greatest current economic difficulties then the costs are made to
bear most heavily on those least well-prepared to cope. A system of
country-specific quotas is a popular idea for spreading the burden of
adjustment in the short term but can only work as intended if restrictions on
refugees’ subsequent mobility prevents movements which unravel the quotas.
Yet all the economic arguments made above for allowing long
term free movement apply. Allowing refugees to choose to go to where they can
best find work, where their skills and competences are most valued and where
they expect to feel most welcome harnesses refugees’ own wish to find the best
lives for themselves and their families to best economic advantage rather than
letting the most alarmist economic fears drive policy.
There is an unhelpful tendency of some rhetoric to contrast
refugee migration and economic migration. The suggestion that rigorous
discouragement of economic migration is the only way to accommodate a welcoming
policy towards those fleeing persecution should, for instance, be resisted. One
is not deserving and the other undeserving, as if seeking a better life is
politically tolerable only when the alternative is persecution. The potential
for economic migration to promote positive outcomes should be celebrated for
itself.
Ian
Preston is the Deputy Director of CReAM and Professor in the
Department of Economics at UCL.