Which comes first in a country: the immigrants or the economic success?
It's like the chicken-and-egg paradox. If there was no promise of success, then immigrants wouldn't come; meanwhile, if there were no immigrants, there wouldn't be enough people to succeed (in cosmopolitan countries like the US). Of course, there are exceptions to the rule… China has enough residents to be successful without immigration and Qatar is a great example of a country that had money before they had immigrants (although the immigrants were clearly necessary to continue the success). But it's hard to make any unbiased conclusions without at least looking at some data:
- The countries with the highest ratio of immigrants include Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Nobody denies that these countries have economies that are highly dependent on their immigrant class of laborers and intellectuals.
- The countries with the lowest ratio of immigrants are Vietnam, Indonesia, Iraq, Guyana, and Afghanistan. Need I say more?
- Australia is the only country with a population of over 20 million as well as an immigrant ratio of over 15% (the ratio is 19.93%). As I've mentioned before, Australia is a great place to be.
- The US has the highest overall population of immigrants (38.4 million, or 12.8% of the population). Anybody who lives in the US can tell you that most of these immigrants are part of the older generation, so they are more of a cause for the US's success than the result. Also, it is common knowledge that the US's immigration boom happened around the turn of the 20th Century (plus or minus 50 years).
- India and China both currently have immigrant ratios below 0.6%… they don't need immigrants to be successful, since they already have plenty of people.
Of course, to make any real conclusions, we'd have to thoroughly analyze historical immigration data and compare it with per-capita GDP data. I think my little investigation, however, might suggest that such a study would not be unfounded. Opening the borders has always led to a positive effect overall, and I think that countries should seriously considering doing so. It will cost more money to have a larger pool of residency/naturalization applications, but I think that this might pay for itself with the increased revenue.
Click here
to see this article (and more) on the author's homepage, where you will
also be able to comment on the articles or subscribe to the Globally
Rational feed.
|
tweet this!
