Sunday 20 October 2013

Why Jonathan Portes should shut up about migration - from someone who agrees with him...

****


“These transitional places – arrival cities – are the places where the next great economic and cultural boom will be born, or where the next great explosion of violence will occur. The difference depends on our ability to notice and our willingness to engage” Doug Saunders


The problem with the discussion of migration is that the public debate is characterised by adherence to unquestioned and polemical positions – either migration is a bad thing that places undue pressures on jobs, culture and public institutions or else migration contributes to economic growth and underscores the idea of a free nation.

Now those who know me will know that I’m much closer to the second of these positions. Indeed, the idea that a nation is made up of people who want to be there (rather than who just happened to have been born there) is a far healthier idea than the sort of racially or culturally determined ideas of nationhood that are preferred by many opposed to immigration.

However, the comments from Jonathan Portes – a sort of “my carefully chosen facts are the only facts” commentary reveal a deep unpleasantness in the debate (an unpleasantness more usually associated with those who say we’re full up and call for ever more draconian restrictions on migration).

The real point here is that the presence of migrants in the UK – from wherever they come – must have an impact on the home communities. Portes presents statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be working than is the case for the population as a whole but doesn’t recognise that this is only part of the picture. And then, without presenting any facts, Portes then makes this sweeping statement:


So, once again, we are left with the conclusion that in the absence of immigration the public finances would be in an even worse state – we'd be spending somewhat less, but we'd lose even more than that on tax, both in the short and the long run, as the OBR has pointed out.


So we move from a very specific assessment – of migration from EU accession nations – to a general observation about the economic benefits of migration. A benefit that reflects every sort of migrant – everyone from billionaire Russian oligarchs to penniless refugees from Burma. The problem is further confused by this:


But since the non-activity rate is lower in the EU migrant population as a whole (and remember many non-active EU migrants will be family members of those who are active) overall this simply confirms the conclusion found by other studies – EU migrants, like migrants in general, pay in more than they take out on average.


This simply doesn’t prove the point that Portes is making, certainly not in the short run and absolutely not in the case of migrants from Eastern Europe. Given that most of these recent immigrants are in low paid work, the amount paid in is less and many will be receiving in-work benefits (tax credits, housing benefit) and universal benefits (child benefits). So the fact of them working does not mean that they are net contributors to the system.

And beyond the discussion about the NHS, we have to provide education for children – including for many the £900 per child pupil premium - we have costs falling on social services and other exceptional costs. It is unhelpful and misleading for Portes to dismiss the short-term effect of migration on public services with what amounts to ‘pah’.

What Jonathan Portes needs to learn is that, if we are to make the case for migration as a benefit, we need to do so positively. Treating those who are concerned about migration as if they are a bunch of pseudo-racist nutcases does not help at all – rather it reinforces the view that migration benefits middle-class professionals like Portes and me, so who cares about the impact on working class communities or the worries about schools, hospitals and social services.

I headed this comment with a quote from Doug Saunders, from the preface to Arrival City, the story of how migration is transforming the world for the better. That is the message we need to get across rather than the grubby and snide use of selected facts to make what is, ultimately, a petty point.

....


2 comments:

Jonathan Portes said...

You're free to dislike my tone, of course, but on the facts this doesn't make a lot of sense. You say:

And then, without presenting any facts, Portes then makes this sweeping statement:

"So, once again, we are left with the conclusion that in the absence of immigration the public finances would be in an even worse state – we'd be spending somewhat less, but we'd lose even more than that on tax, both in the short and the long run, as the OBR has pointed out."

But of course I reference the OBR, and link in the original blog to this:

http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-and-public-finances-long-run-obrs-fiscal-sustainability-report#.Ulu0C1DItzM

Plenty of facts and analysis there backing up the "sweeping statement".

Similarly:

This simply doesn’t prove the point that Portes is making, certainly not in the short run and absolutely not in the case of migrants from Eastern Europe.Given that most of these recent immigrants are in low paid work, the amount paid in is less and many will be receiving in-work benefits (tax credits, housing benefit) and universal benefits (child benefits). So the fact of them working does not mean that they are net contributors to the system.

Again, that's why I referenced other studies, and linked to this one:

http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-a8-migration-uk

It's a little odd to accuse someone of making unsubstantiated statements when they provide well-signposted references to published research, which you don't seem to have read.

Luke said...

You say you basically agree with JP. If it was within your power to reverse or delay the right of Romanians and Bulgarians to come here next year, would you do so?