Study: Testing The Welfare Magnet Hypothesis
From the American Economic Association:
The black line shows net immigration flow from places inside the EU, whose citizens received full welfare benefits throughout the period. The red line indicates the flow into Denmark from outside the EU. (The linear trends were removed in both series to ease comparison.)
Migration to Denmark from inside and outside the EU moved in parallel until the 2002 scheme was introduced. There was a sharp drop in non-EU immigrants, but the numbers completely recovered 3 years after it was repealed and then dropped again upon reintroduction.
The timing and divergence between the two groups is a clear indication that Denmark’s generous and well-publicized welfare program attracted people to the country.
The authors estimated that the cuts reduced the net flow of immigrants by about five thousand people per year. Their work shows that social insurance programs and immigration are in fact intimately related issues.
This doesn’t make it wrong to offer social insurance or a welfare state.Report
It’s an argument against offering it to immigrants and potentially a problem for states within the US but only an argument.
It certainly had no bearing on offering welfare to citizens.Report
“Social insurance” is a weird euphemism. With actual insurance, you pay a premium proportional to your risk, and then you file claims as appropriate. With “social insurance,” the people paying the premiums are a group largely distinct from the people filing claims, and the premium is inversely proportional to risk.
That aside, having a welfare state or not isn’t really a binary thing. It’s on a spectrum. In 2018, Denmark spent over 28% of GDP on social welfare spending, while Canada spent about 17%. Is the optimal level of social welfare spending really 2/3 more than what Canada spends? Maybe Denmark could prioritize the welfare of its taxpayers just a bit more and its tax-receivers just a bit less.Report
And total net social spending shows the US is second only to France in percent of GDP. (Second chart).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending
If they multiplied Actual per capita GDP by the second chart, the US would be number one for net social spending per capita adjusted for taxes and PPP.
Enough to make even the most bleeding heart progressive proud.Report
Note that “net social spending” includes certain categories of private spending, most significantly health insurance premiums (though not out-of-pocket health spending). It also includes payouts from private defined-benefit pensions. So much of that is upper- and middle-class people essentially spending money on themselves, rather than money redistributed downwards.Report
The graph doesn’t match the conclusion. If immigration from outside the EU dropped upon introducing the welfare, then introducing welfare doesn’t attract people but repels them instead. What am I missing?Report
It dropped when they cut benefits for non-EU immigrants, increased when they restored benefits, and then dropped again when they were cut again.Report
The “scheme” referred to in the chart is cutting benefits to non-EU immigrants, not making then eligible for full benefits.Report
Ok, that makes more senseReport
It is also true that a robust economy that is producing jobs and real wage gains, will also be a magnet for immigration.
Further studies have also proven that people migrate away from places of lawless violence and injustice, towards places of peace and safety.
These observations rest on the astonishing idea that if a society is a pleasant and comfortable place to be, it will attract new members.
Please fund my Patreon account for more of these startling insights.Report
Knowledge is power.
The question to be answered was does increasing benefits or eligibility for immigrants increase immigration rates, all else equal? We just got two additional data points supporting the “yes” answer to this.
The ramifications depend upon one”s goals and values. For places or people who want more immigration, here is a possible lever. For people who want less immigration, or perhaps want to defend against a certain type of immigrant (one coming with the goal of living off of others?) the opposite.
Another obvious conclusion might be that one way to INCREASE welfare benefits is to do in a way which excludes immigrants for a certain period. This could make the increase more palatable to some voters.Report
I have been assured many times that people most certainly do not immigrate to take advantage of welfare benefits, but only to work. This suggests that a) a substantial portion of immigrants do seem to be motivated by the prospect of receiving welfare benefits, and b) they can be discouraged from immigrating by reducing the welfare benefits they will be eligible to receive, leading to a higher average quality of immigrant.
You may think that this is obvious, but many of your fellow travellers will vociferously deny it.Report
Is that what happens?
Immigrants enter the country then stop working?Report
We should have a welfare state that is a lot more like Denmark’s.
No, wait. Um.
1. Open Immigration
2. Robust Welfare State
3. Multiculturalism
Pick two?
Anyway, you can see us argue this back in 2017, if you’re so inclined.Report
There is also of course the issue of dynamism and how that is influenced by the size of social safety nets. The argument being that beyond a certain point (probably well above zero), enhanced social safety nets decrease economic dynamism.
And the less dynamic places depend upon the more dynamic for the engine of of economic growth (which can fund safety nets).Report
1. Controlled immigration
2. Robust welfare state
3. Multiculturalism
You may only pick three.Report
If we agree that “multiculturalism” doesn’t mean “different cultures” but “different restaurants”, I agree with all three of those!
We should be more like Denmark!Report
What’s wrong with different cultures?Report
I don’t understand how you’re using the word “wrong” so I’ll give an engineering answer. Let me know if you would prefer me to give one that explains, morally, how some cultures are better than others.
Some of them have different attitudes toward matters of morality than we assume. Stuff like the personhood of women, the morality of same-sex marriage, and whether different races are better/worse than other different races.
There are some parts of these cultures that are incompatible with our culture (or the culture we pretend we have, anyway).
If these incompatibilities are not resolved, it will create a justice issue under our government’s jurisdiction that will need to be addressed. Addressing it will involve getting these other people to change their moral assumptions.
Or, at least, learn how to make mealy-mouthed pious statements while ignoring that they still believe what they used to believe. (Which is also a cultural change.)Report
There are some parts of these cultures that are incompatible with our culture (or the culture we pretend we have, anyway).
Um, doesn’t this describe the rural conservative Christian Trump voters?
It’s an honest question, not a gotcha jibe.
Because I agree with this paragraph:
If these incompatibilities are not resolved, it will create a justice issue under our government’s jurisdiction that will need to be addressed. Addressing it will involve getting these other people to change their moral assumptions.
But what do you think it looks like when we “resolve” these incompatibilities? How can we “change the moral assumptions” of Trump voters?
Consider this complaint we hear from conservatives, that American liberals are more at ease with a Somali Muslim than a Georgian Baptist. There is truth to this, isn’t there?
What I’m suggesting is that the biggest obstacle to multiculturalism isn’t incompatibility between Americans and immigrants, but between Americans and immigrants, and a small group of other Americans.Report
Um, doesn’t this describe the rural conservative Christian Trump voters?
Do you think that this undercuts my point?
I think it bolsters it.
But what do you think it looks like when we “resolve” these incompatibilities? How can we “change the moral assumptions” of Trump voters?
Well, one way would be to have many of them die from opiate overdoses and replace them with immigrants.
Consider this complaint we hear from conservatives, that American liberals are more at ease with a Somali Muslim than a Georgian Baptist. There is truth to this, isn’t there?
See? Everybody agrees.
What I’m suggesting is that the biggest obstacle to multiculturalism isn’t incompatibility between Americans and immigrants, but between Americans and immigrants, and a small group of other Americans.
Now we just get to ask where ownership of change and the rate of change resides.Report
RE: Some of them have different attitudes toward matters of morality than we assume.
“Morality” is just the tip of the iceberg.
Marriage rates.
Attitude towards education.
(Note this implies effects on labor efficiency and income).
Willingness and likelihood to end up on welfare.
Willingness and likelihood to commit crimes.
Willingness and likelihood to report crimes and trust the police.
That last one is why criminals in certain parts of a city won’t go over a street line. They understand other streets play by different rules.Report
In case someone asks you for cites on your statements:
Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343XReport
Okay, extreme example.
One of Colorado’s plains towns has a large Somali refugee population. They came to work in the meat processing plant. At least some of them came from parts of Somalia where it was acceptable to beat your wife when you got home from a bad day at work. It took considerable effort to get through to the elders whom everyone looks to for guidance, none of whom spoke English, that they had to convince the entire community that wife-beating was wrong and not tolerated in America.
Multiculturalism, within limits.Report
I’ve seen similar stories about Hmong refugees from Southeast Asia.
And of course, my interest here is in what you are describing as “effort to get through to the elders”.
Imagine these were conservative Christians who thought corporal punishment of children was acceptable. Or that forcible conversion therapy was good for adolescents confused about their gender.
And imagine a governmental child welfare agency trying to ” get through to the elders” that this was no longer acceptable in America.
This is what Jaybird’s “resolution of incompatible cultures” looks like up close and personal.
It is difficult and unpleasant and results in a lot of bitter feelings. And in the cases I am aware of, the immigrants from Uzbeki-beki-bekistan adapted much more easily than the ones from Trumpistan.Report
Well, there are a lot of people out there who think that Multiculturalism means people whose children don’t go to your schools will still open restaurants near where you live and work.
And it doesn’t mean that.
And they always boggle, with wide-eyed incredulity, that someone might be opposed to Multiculturalism. Don’t you like dumplings? Are you opposed to spices in your food?Report
It’s only acceptable for Christian evangelists, not for persons of other faiths.
I’m always amused by conservatives freaking out about Muslim Law coming to town, when if you stripped out the religious overtones, they’d trip over themselves getting on the wagon.Report
Speaking of Immigration…
Report
Maybe we can make a deal with Mexico where they sort out the economic migrants from the ‘asylum seekers.’ I’m sure they’d be great at it.Report
“Ask them to pronounce ‘LatinX’. If they can’t, they have to stay there.”Report
Duh it’s Latin-equis. Just ask like the most interesting man in the world would say it.Report