The impact of immigrants – it’s not what you think

Migration Outlook 2013

Click to read the report

In the land of tabloid terrors, immigrants loom large. Flick through the pages or online comments of some of the racier newspapers, and you’ll see immigrants being accused of stealing jobs or, if not that, of being workshy and “scrounging benefits”.

Such views may be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they do seem to reflect a degree of public ambivalence, and even hostility, towards immigrants in a number of OECD countries. Anecdotal evidence is not hard to find. A columnist from The Economist reported this encounter between a British legislator and one of his constituents, Phil: “‘I’m not a racist,’ says Phil, an unemployed resident of the tough Greenwich estate in Ipswich. ‘But we’ve got to do something about them.’”

Surveys offer further evidence: For example, a 2011 study in five European countries and the United States found that at least 40% of respondents in each country regarded immigration as “more of a problem than an opportunity”. More than half the respondents in each country also agreed with the proposition that immigrants were a burden on social services. This sense that immigrants are living off the state appears to be widespread. But is it true?

New research from the OECD indicates that it’s not. In general across OECD countries, the amount that immigrants pay to the state in the form of taxes is more or less balanced by what they get back in benefits. Even where immigrants do have an impact on the public purse – a “fiscal impact” – it amounts to more than 0.5% of GDP in only ten OECD countries, and in those it’s more likely to be positive than negative. In sum, says the report, when it comes to their fiscal impact, “immigrants are pretty much like the rest of the population”.

The extent to which this finding holds true across OECD countries is striking, although there are naturally some variations. Where these exist, they largely reflect the nature of the immigrants who arrive in each country. For example, countries like Australia and New Zealand rely heavily on selective entry, and so attract a lot of relatively young and well-educated immigrants. Other countries, such as in northern Europe, have higher levels of humanitarian immigration, such as refugees and asylum-seekers.

That said, there’s been a general push in many countries in recent years to attract better educated immigrants, in part because of the economic value of their skills but also because such policies attract less public resistance. For example, a survey in the United Kingdom, where resistance to immigration is relatively high, reported that 64% of respondents wanted to reduce immigration of low-skilled workers but only 32% wanted fewer high-skilled immigrants. Indeed, one objection that’s regularly raised to lower-skilled immigrants is the fear that they will live off state benefits.

But, here again, the OECD report offers some perhaps surprising insights. It indicates that low-skilled migrants – like migrants in general – are neither a major drain nor gain on the public purse. Indeed, low-skilled immigrants are less likely to have a negative impact than equivalent locals.

Useful links

International Migration Outlook 2013

OECD work on migration

OECD Insights: International Migration

 

 

  1. Pingback: ‘The Impact of Immigrants’ | The Penn Ave Post

  2. Pingback: Friday Reads | Sky Dancing

  3. Pingback: Remarkable! — shareholdersunite.com

  4. Well, immigrants are neither a drain nor a pain in the country of their settlement. The fact that skilled, semi-skilled or even unskilled people cross countries shows that they do so to seek a secure livelihood in the case of the last category, while the other two desire to seek their fortune in the land of their settlement. In all cases, the people so settled do not and cannot be a pain to the native inhabitants as their contribution to overall development is not inconsiderable. When globalization and the inter-dependence of nations is talked about, it is time for the mind-set of people also to broaden to let people test their stamina and staying power even in alien places, as long as the incomers do not disturb domestic peace and harmony. Any exaggerated apprehensions that the settlers are out to destroy native employment or they might usurp a hefty share of welfare benefits are not only far-fetched but also the byproduct of warped thinking of basically slothful people. G.Srinivasan, Journalist, New Delhi, India

  5. Most concerns about immigration aren’t economic .
    This type of article is designed to brush aside concerns of real people who do not view immigration through the prism of +/- GDP figures etc…

    • Not so, rikrok. This study is not just about + / – GDP figures, but does go to some of the issues that real people highlight about migration – including that migrants steal jobs, or are a burden on the welfare system. It may not canvas every concern that people have, but these are nevertheless common ones.

  6. Pingback: Hyvä, paha siirtolaisuus | The Ulkopolitist