Immigration Granger-causes neither unemployment nor growth

So argues a new paper (pdf) by Ekrame Boubtane, Dramane Coulibaly, and Christophe Rault, the abstract is here:

This paper examines the causality relationship between immigration, unemployment and economic growth of the host country. We employ the panel Granger causality testing approach of Konya (2006) that is based on SUR systems and Wald tests with country specific bootstrap critical values. This approach allows to test for Granger-causality on each individual panel member separately by taking into account the contemporaneous correlation across countries. Using annual data over the 1980-2005 period for 22 OECD countries, we find that, only in Portugal, unemployment negatively causes immigration, while in any country, immigration does not cause unemployment. On the other hand, our results show that, in four countries (France, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom), growth positively causes immigration, whereas in any country, immigration does not cause growth.

This result reflects two broader lessons.  First, at the margin the major benefits from migration are to the migrants.  Second, again at the margin, most policy changes matter less than you think they will.

Hat tip goes to Ben Southwood.

Comments

Ah, but the fly in the ointment is the paper does not discuss *unrestricted* immigration. It's a whole new ballgame if you do. Trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.

" First, at the margin the major benefits from migration are to the migrants."
I dont get it. Our finest economist have told us for years, that there is a free trillion dollar bill. Everybody would gain from more immigration.

But you are telling us, that basically only immigrants are gaining, and not the hosts. However at the same time, the hosts are taking a lot of risk. Things could have been a lot worse and all the negative externalities crime/terrorism.....

Risk without any gains, just sounds like a bad idea.

@Qwerty - the key to understanding these econ papers is to see that they deal with marginal effects, and not with underlying realities. Concrete example: at the margin, a high-tax state like California actually has higher value add then a low-tax state like say Texas or Arizona or the Dakotas. So the conclusion is that high taxes don't hurt a state. But does not follow that high taxes are good for business? No (unless you are a die hard Democrat). Likewise, this immigration paper simply shows that when times are good in a country, immigrants are pulled into the good-times country, since they are needed, but since immigration is restricted, it's not going to make the country richer since the numbers are too small (when times are bad). That's why you need *unrestricted* immigration. The ability of anybody--say 100M Third World people--to move into your neighborhood, right now (imagine your property values skyrocketing with that sort of density!). That would "move the needle" and show that immigration *does* increase GDP. The closest we got to this is the natural experiment in the turn of the last century in the USA, when immigrants from Ireland and south Europe came to the USA. GDP actually did go up quite a bit, until there was a backlash and the borders were closed. That's why I said what I said--these marginal studies are just plain marginal in their conclusions. I once saw a marginal analysis study that concluded --absurdly--that the refrigerator was no big improvement over the icebox, as they basically, at the margin, do the same thing.

I honestly dont know if you're joking or not.

"immigrants are pulled into the good-times country"
Most immigrants are not "pulled"

" but since immigration is restricted, it’s not going to make the country richer since the numbers are too small"
I got a degree in economics, and still I have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. And I really dont think I'm the problem here.

"the natural experiment in the turn of the last century in the USA "
It's always funny when people think 1910 is so easely compared to 2010.

"GDP actually did go up quite a bit, until there was a backlash and the borders were closed"
Yes, almost correct. GDP growth stopped because of closed borders. Or something.

Your theory summed up;
Small numbers of immigrants are no benefit to US.
Large numbers of immigrant are a benefit to US.
Argument: something with refrigerator.

No offence, but you probably shouldnt expect any Nobel Prize anytime soon.

The study appears to use GDP per capita, which can quite easily stay flat in the face of increased net migrants, and therefore hide the fact that native GDP per capita actually went up. Am I wrong in thinking this?

@QWERTY--lol! You lack in reading comprehension, at the margin.

Increasing GDP does not, by itself, justify a policy.

There are fair questions anyone can ask about the costs of the chosen method of increasing GDP. There are also fair questions one can ask about how the additional GDP is allocated. Who are the winners and who are the losers? This study concludes that, on the margin, "the major benefits from migration" go to the migrants. It seems understandable that people already in the destination country might choose to vote down policies that allow further immigration, under those circumstances.

It seems reasonable to expect that the government which is managing the immigration direct some (or most of) the increase in GDP to those who are losing in the deal. Also, it seems reasonable to expect the government to actually measure the losses which the existing residents must bear, rather than ignoring them.

"the hosts are taking a lot of risk..."

Really? which risks? Too many ethnic restaurants?

Immigrants are less prone to crime than local population (immigrants come to work, not to commit crimes). And the threat of terrorism is tremendously exaggerated for political reasons. How many deaths have been caused in the USA since 9/11? A lot less than almost any other cause, during the same time.

"(immigrants come to work, not to commit crimes)." My how I laughed. All immigrants may be treated as quite interchangeable, and so absurdly sweeping generalisations can be made about them. That's akin to the mindset behind racism.

"Immigration" is an act, therefore a group of immigrants share identification by an action they committed, which already tells us more about them from an inferential standpoint than simply knowing a group of people share identification by race.

Moreover, treating various groups as interchangeable, despite differing characteristics, is not similar to the mindset that purports to differentiate, and deny interchangeability to various groups, because of differing characteristics. It's quite the opposite.

"a group of immigrants share identification by an action they committed, which already tells us more about them from an inferential standpoint than simply knowing a group of people share identification by race." Have you any evidence at all for that preposterous claim? For a start, "share identification by an action they committed" is clearly rubbish, since it doesn't distinguish voluntary emigrants from involuntary - including wives who may have had no say in the decision, children who will almost always have had no say, and those who will have little say because they are fleeing the cops or their creditors. It also fails to distinguish people who emigrate because they are attracted by, say, low land prices and less competition - like many early emigrants to North America - from those who emigrate because they've failed to impose their loony religious beliefs on their fellow countrymen - like many early emigrants to North America.

It is not a strong association, it is a very weak one, but it is an association. Which portion do you disagree with exactly, that all immigrants have immigration in common, or that 100 people randomly chose who performed an action should tell us more, inferentially, than 100 randomly chosen people who share the same skin color?

"Immigrants are less prone to crime than local population"
Please.

Risk?
Crime.
Terrorism.
Segregation.
Increased racism.
Ethnic violence.
Civil War.
Negative effects on quality of institutions.
And all those other externalities that comes with immigration.

Eventhough a lot of this haven't happen yet in the US on a massive scale, it does not mean it is not a risk.

There can be pretty big local negative effects of a big increase in immigration, because of the need to change resources around. If you get a big influx of kids who don't speak English, your public schools will need to adapt to that, perhaps by doing a lot of work on getting the kids up to speed in English. That may all work out fine eventually, but it does involve added costs to the local school district. I think this has been a feature of all our historical waves of immigration--those had a lot of local problems, even though as a whole they worked out quite well for the US.

"That may all work out fine eventually" ... but there is no evidence of this happening, through studies on generational outcomes of Hispanic Americans whose parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents migrated to the US. Yes, it worked out for ethnic groups who came from countries that are now doing very well... no surprise there.

Immigrants are less prone to crime than local population.

The key here is that the "local population" of the United States includes Blacks and "immigrants" includes Asians.

How many deaths have been caused in the USA since 9/11?

How many deaths have been caused since the day before 9/11?

One risk is that the state and local governments fail to keep up with the additional burdens placed on infrastructure from an increasing population caused by immigration. There is no guarantee that governments have the expertise, motivation, and funding to address the increased infrastructure and service burden imposed by the additional population. Increased GDP notwithstanding, immigrants do not always come with a sufficiently large guaranteed income stream to state and local government. Growth can be mismanaged. Not all kinds of growth are desirable.

One example is traffic. Additional cars driven by immigrants to Southern California have caused the existing local population to experience a decrease in free time and a decreased geographical range over which to pursue employment. The local population took a risk that their government would be able to manage the increase in car traffic caused by an increase in population. But the government has failed to increase the size of the freeways to keep up with the additional demand. Governments have also failed to build rapid transit alternatives quickly and extensively enough to maintain commute times for existing local workers at previous levels. The state and local governments lack the funding to do so. The increase in GDP from immigration has not been sufficient to support increased taxes which would cover the required increases in government budgets. Local populations took a risk but it has resulted in higher commute times.

If the electorate wants more immigration, it would be wise to carefully regulate and tax the economy in such a way that government is _guaranteed_ a sufficient additional stream of income from the economic sectors which profit from that immigration. Otherwise the local population is taking a risk and may well lose in the process.

Absurd--Illegal immigrants, in their millions, are much more likely to commit crimes, although often caught and released by the current Gang in power. Not surprisingly, since their entry into the US was itself a crimes.

" (immigrants come to work, not to commit crimes). "

False, they come to feed off the host population. A vast proportion of them go on welfare. Look at any welfare office in Europe on the day when registration starts for the monthly handout - all immigrants.

By your logic Finland and Switzerland would have benefited from having mass immigration of millions of Africans. Yeah, sure. Like Rhodesia has benefited from Black rule, right?

Blacks in the U.S. cost far more than they produce. Blacks immigrating from Africa are the same. No country is improved by adding Somalis to it. Hell, even other immigrants hate living among Somalis. And those other groups, Mestizos and Arabs and Turks, are crap too. The non-White immigrants are the dreg of their societies, the ones who couldn't make it back home and go to the West where they can feed off the welfare systems. It is well known in the Middle East that Arabs in Europe are trash. I have talked to them myself. You haven't - ignorance about other cultures is the trademark of the Left.

Our finest economist have told us for years, that there is a free trillion dollar bill. Everybody would gain from more immigration.

If I'm not mistaken, the published research of the finest economist in question consists of econometrics applied to political behavior. The burden of this research is that you are stupid meat and should just listen to your nerd overlords at the Cato Institute.

Please help me out. They use GDP per capita as their "growth" variable. Why would this be the correct variable? Given that their sample of countries are OECD, a valid hypothesis would be that net migration to these countries would come from individuals who are less, and likely much less, productive. As this lower productivity and lower GDP per capita gets blended into the national averages, it will tend to drag down productivity metrics for the entire country. To the extent that this hypothesis is true, and to the extent that immigration does not affect a lagged GDP per capita variable, then native GDP per capita, or productivity, will had to have increase to offset the negative affect. In my view, increased immigration that has no discernible negative effect on unemployment (their finding) and no discernible positive effect on GDP per capita (their finding) on host OECD countries, is about as ringing an endorsement you can get for more liberal immigration.

You get more crime, the possibility of terrorism and all the violations of liberty supposedly necessary to contain it, multiculturalism and the multiculturalist thought police, ethnic tension, miscegenation, more poor people, large areas of your cities becoming "vibrant" no-go zones for Whites, more welfare spending, more votes for the left*, plus, the can't put a price on it experience of feeling like a foreigner in your own capital city, as many British people I have talked to say about London.

*A supposedly bad thing for the "libertarians" on here.

And you get no economic benefit, no reduction in unemployment, no increase in per capita GDP. A "ringing endorsement" if you have an axe to grind against the traditional people and culture of the West.

....yes, and I'm the one with axes to grind.

You live in a country with 100 citizens who have GDP per capita of $100K. 10 citizens from Africa come and have GDP per capita in your country of $50K. They get hired at the same rate as natives. The unemployment rate doesn't change. Three years later, the blended GDP per capita, despite immigrants dragging it down initially, is the same at $100K. There is "no increase in per capita GDP" as you put it. Why is this a bad thing. Why does this not require that native GDP per capita grew to offset the effect on national GDP variables? Why does this not imply "growth" for "hosts." I laid out the hypothesis and question above. Not saying I am right, I'm asking why I'm wrong. Not asking for your misplaced rants.

We need more spherical cows.

Funny how Jordan here "forgets" how the majority of gang rapes in Europe are committed by immigrants - who aren't even citizens in European countries. All the filth of the Third World want to come to feed off Whites, and murder and rape. Non-Whites like Jordan here only laugh when they read about Whites being victimized. Then they attack anyone revealing the facts as "racist" and seek to silence him so that the crimes can continue. It is disgusting how the socialist mind works.

I proposed a very specific question on theory & methodology on an academic paper. Care to answer it (and actually think, rather than react). I'm not attacking anyone. Your behavior is shocking.

Clover, "miscegenation"? Do you mean having a girlfriend who isn't the same race as you? Like, dating a Russian girl when you are from Australia? Can you expand on the terrible evils of miscegenation a bit?

Regression to the mean. Of course, different groups have different means.

Do you mean having a girlfriend who isn’t the same race as you?

Um..Yeah.

It's about assuring the biological and cultural continuity of the White race.

How about you let other people decide who they will live and have sex with the rest of their lives....rather than...you know...your prejudice determining it for them.

"terrible evils of miscegenation" - Funny to hear from a "Libertarian in China". If you think all people are the same, why are you in China? Why not go to Africa? Go live in Rwanda. But you won't - you will spout leftist propaganda lines online, but you will never live with the mud you praise. Being the only White in an all-Black environment would show you what your lies mean, so you will avoid that at all cost.

One of the most sane and honest comments I have read on this blog.

Good question! I'm not going to find out the answer, but its those kind of subtleties which allow the authors of a paper to skew their findings one way or another isn't it?

"unemployment negatively causes immigration": you what? Do they mean that unemployment causes emigration?

That is undoubtedly the case.

High unemployment in developing countries tends to cause workers in those places to look for jobs elsewhere. Why wouldn't the same happen in developed countries?

Spain went from a monthly influx of 60,000 people/month during the boom years to a net emigration rate of 20,000/month now. Similar things are happening in Greece, Portugal, Ireland and the Baltics.

When times are bad, people flee.

No, they undoubtedly dont mean that.

They mean what they said: the coefficient on the regressor of growth on immigration is negative. Immigration and emigration are TWO SEPARATE FLOWS. A decline in immigration does not imply emigration. It doesnt even imply emigration on net.

Ugh. Regressor on unemployment, I mean.

Tyler, I lost the respect I had of you when I saw you actually featured this paper.

John, I'm disappointed in you and a bit concerned.

Slight jump of topic, from immigration to ebola:

Why is there no mention of the economic tools at disposal for stopping the epidemic?

I.e. http://www.vox.com/cards/ebola-facts-you-need-to-know/what-is-the-ebola-virus or marginalrevolution posts.

By making the opportunity cost of travelling higher than not travelling, the economic incentives would be to stay put. A good carrot would be delivery of food and water to homes and villages, a good stick would be killing unauthorized travelers. I say this as a libertarian who recognizes that there are cases where the greater good trumps individual rights, and quarantine in this case has a stronger moral justification than income taxes for social redistribution schemes.

The war on Ebola is fought with liberal tools like Obama building hospitals, whereas this is one of the few cases US staffed roadblocks would be justified. Iraq had many examples of unjustified roadblocks/checkpoints.

Viking

One can't help but wonder as to what constitutes your definition of "slight"

OK, huge, but the latest ebola post is too many days ago, and this immigration stuff is unimportant fluff.

Deadly diseases in your home country are one reason to come here. The costs to the US from a day of illegal immigration are likely higher than the costs of Ebola up to this point.

"We employ the panel Granger causality testing approach of Konya (2006) that is based on SUR systems and Wald tests with country specific bootstrap critical values. This approach allows to test for Granger-causality on each individual panel member separately by taking into account the contemporaneous correlation across countries."

And what are the many, many violated assumptions underlying this statistical technique? Maybe some Angrist and Pischke are in order here.

"we find that, only in Portugal, unemployment negatively causes immigration"

Did they mean emigration? Or, if they actually meant that unemployment "caused" immigration, was there even greater unemployment in the countries of origin?

I think they mean that unemployment causes a reduction in immigration, which makes sense. But they have to say it in a less easily understandable way(as is common in academic literature) so they say "unemployment negatively causes immigration."

It's on page 23 of the study:

A. The needs of Portuguese employers play a significant role in recruiting foreign labor; and

B. When labor conditions are unfavorable, Portuguese nationals and foreigners are more likely to immigrate to another European country.

Thus, when unemployment is high, employers aren't recruiting and the unemployed are leaving for places like France. The word "emigration" doesn't appear in the whole thing. Apparently nobody ever leaves, they are always arriving though.

Of course people leave, and they probably leave based on domestic economics. Immigration and emigration are separate flows. The paper doesnt mention emigration and doesnt need to in order to analyze the effect on the inflow of people. It doesnt analyze the birth rate (or death rate), but those are obviously relevant and material. Emigration is simply outside the scope of the paper. The idiot above is confusing the sign on the coefficient of the regressor on unemployment with a change in the population from immigration. B is negative, not X.

Ah, okay. A rise in emigration is called "negative immigration," and UE causes it. Thanks.

Thats not what the article says. Read it again.

immigration does not cause growth.

Then perhaps no one of good will will mind if we cut the inflow to just enough to compensate for our fertility deficits and net emigration (which would include dispatching Bryan Caplan via trebuchet). About 550,000 people per year who have passed an English proficiency test ought to cover it.

Open borders people don't like arbitrary quotas and hypothetical costs. Better to just ignore those statist conventions.

Language is an artificial construct too. I remember Bill Cosby talking about a Vietnamese boat person who came to America, not knowing English, floating on the roof of her house. In four years, she became a straight A student and tutored American C students in English.

More people working for lower wages selling cheaper shit to each other. There is no great stagnation.

There's only one Yellowstone National Park. Double America's population and the park gets overrun by visitors, destroying its recreational value for everyone. Apply that to every public resource in America and you begin to see the problem here.

Doubling the population and having GDP/person stay the same probably means that quality of life has gone down substantially.

Depends on the immigrants. Your typical immigrants have much lower human capital and productivity, and if you double the population with this type of immigrant and GDP per capita remains the same, that would actually imply that quality of life went up substantially for natives.

Hmm. Doesn't it merely imply that GDP per capita (in the existing local population) went up? I'm struggling to see how GDP per capita is the same as quality of life.

If having a quiet, relaxing visit to the floor of Yosemite Valley is an important part of someone's quality of life, and because of population increases such a visit is only possible X days per year in 2014, whereas it was possible 3X days per year in 1970, I don't think it matters to that person if their income has risen a little.

If my income has risen over the last thirty years, but now I have to spend two hours each way commuting to my job, whereas I only had to spend half an hour before the population jumped and the transportation system became overloaded, I don't find much consolation in that income bump. (Unless it's a _really big_ income bump.)

I don't see how we can just subsume all of quality of life into per capita GDP. What am I missing here?

You are correct, I equated GDP per capita and productivity with quality of life. I agree there are other factors and didn't mean to equate them 1-for-1. That said, certainly higher GDP per capita helps offset quality of life impingements. And why are we treating public goods / spaces as static? The government owns an insane amount of land in this country.

How about we move these lower human capital, less productive immigrants into your neighborhood and going to school with your kids and you can reassure your wife that with GDP per capita the same, the family's quality of life has actually improved.

I am open to immigrants, or any non-violent, non right-violating humans contracting for property in the neighborhood I live in. Many have. That is what i means to support liberal immigration. You're a bright one.

I agree with your point, but not exactly.

As the population grows, the club good will become more congested and it will become less desirable. A doubling of population will less than double visits. But it is clear that total social welfare will decline. You can manage the club good with an entry fee because the park is mostly excludable. This will manage congestion but give the space to those who value it most highly. Of course, this doesnt please the redistributionist crowd who think Yellowstone Park and San Francisco basketball courts belong to the masses and should be free to use.

Stupid yokels who think they've got some kind of claim on the place as opposed to the Han or Pakistani who stepped on the tarmac 10 minutes ago. I mean, the nerve of these rubes. Probably do cornball crap like sing their national anthem at high school football games or encourage their kids to serve what they naively call "their" country.

Ah, but the fly in the ointment is the paper does not discuss *unrestricted* immigration. It’s a whole new ballgame if you do. Trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk. - See more

Ahhh...."The Result". No critical analysis of the model, data or approach. Probably just read the abstract. Here is "The Result". Granger Causality mentioned! Handshakes all around!

Abstract Affiliation.

And we see your critical analysis of the model, data, and approach....nowhere.

Piss off, knee biter.

That people actually give any weight to short term economic effects when considereing immigration policy just shows how ruined our culture already is.

But there are short term costs that we bear in every time period. Not every immigrant who self selects to come here would be considered a good "investment" for the short term costs we bear. In fact, the costs may beget costs.

Of course, we run the same risk when we allow natives to reproduce. This highlights a fundamental distinction though; that there are property rights for the group of public and private goods we call America.

Maybe we should let citizens sell their property rights to immigrants.

Of course, we run the same risk when we allow natives to reproduce.

Sure we do. And we should not subsidize anybody's reproduction. But at the end of the day they are ours; fellow countrymen, just like we don't resent the birth of our nieces and nephews. And if that's too mawkish for you, then let's get about abolishing the present state constructs so people can form their own nations.

Maybe we should let citizens sell their property rights to immigrants.

Maybe we should tell immigrants to stay home, and use their money and talents to make their own shithole countries a desirable place to live.

what idiot would actually believe these immigration studies from academia? In fact, I don't know what comes out of academia that is worthwhile, at least outside of hard science. And even hard science from academia is often fraudulent.

The worst thing about mass immigration is how it creates factions in the populace. A unified populace is the only way a nation can fight back against the corporations. Mass immigration damages unity in the populace.

It would seem to me that the bottom line for studying the effects of immigration is not "unemployment" or "wages," but "standard of living."

I'm sorry if I harp on California so much, but it does seem kind of a big deal. Before massive immigration, California had, by world historical standards, a spectacularly high standard of living for, say, 95 IQ Americans.

Today, it's a great place to live if you are Mark Zuckerberg. Below the Zuckerberg level, however, Americans seem to have been moving out of California for decades.

California benefited from immigrants, be them whites from Boston, coolies from China, or Irishmen from Ireland. Only the few native Americans there, and the Spanish, lost out. Anyway why are you concerned about the 95 IQ Americans? Let them move out, as CA is too good for them anyway.

With statements like that, do you see why the guns come out at some point? The wealthy get to buy their own culture and territory and exclude outsiders by price; the middle and lower-middle have to rely on their rulers maintain their country's cultural and territorial integrity, so it's considered a point of honor among them to sign up for the military. That social contract is being breached in a big, big way.

The fact that every armed conflict on the planet right now is essentially a civil war suggests that the ideology of "open borders" and multiculturalism is not the most forward-thinking one.

"Only the few native Americans there, and the Spanish, lost out."

Not quite right. When the US took California, it was part of Mexico, not Spain. Most of the existing Mexican land holding families in California lost their ranchos after their titles were deemed invalid in US courts. It was the Mexicans who lost out. (The Spanish had already lost out decades earlier, when Mexico gained independence in 1821.)

I should add that the reason US possession of California is relevant here is that the really big waves of immigration started to arrive after California became part of the US and gold was discovered, 1848, 1849 and later. Before that, it was a smaller number of Yankee illegal immigrants coming to what was then Mexico, from the east.

California also happens to be a "doing business" nightmare and far too large in general.

Regulations are a great way to block smaller competitors. Environmental regulations are also a great way to maintain property values for your big spread. California could easily fit more immigrants on all that wasteful green space out there. I personally won't be happy until there are at least one billion people in the US. Two billion would be even better. Three billion would be heaven on earth.

The California bullet train's current route is an attempt to make sure the undesirables don't build any new housing near the coast, where the weather is actually pleasant.

Let's pack the impoverished masses into the hot, dry parts of the San Joaquin valley and the Mojave desert and give 'em a neato fast train to their minimum wage jobs. Global warming's turning those places into even more of a hell hole than they already are anyway. Let 'em go there. They can have that.

Just don't obstruct my view of Anacapa.

Man, I really feel good about myself because I voted for Jerry Brown, a real champion of the bullet train -- and the people.

Everything Tyler posts on this reveals immigration is just more of the Highs and the Lows battle against the Middles. That's probably why Alex no longer bothers with economic arguments like the manic Trillion Dollar Bills On Sidewalks. I's become a Kantian imperative but that gets taken apart pretty easily. Open Borders is essentially a matter of dogma at this point.

Amusing. Not a word about rape, murder, theft, drunken driving, child molestation, diseases. Indeed, immigrants are a blessing! Especially the Third World ones.

Comments for this post are closed