Threads by Kate Evans (January 2019)
I thought one of the most interesting comments in Threads was that setting a fine for people smuggling essentially sets the minimum price for refugees trying to make it across a border. The mechanism is fairly simple from an economic perspective – if caught, the smuggler is responsible for paying the fine and therefore will require compensation to ensure that ‘expenses’ are covered.
This note is an example of the way economics always lurks in the background of Threads. Another good example is the idea of open borders. Economists generally predict the future will see increasingly open borders because the benefits are too much to ignore forever. The underlying idea is that if people move away from where they cannot work to places where work is available, they are able to work and therefore able to produce greater output. From a certain point of view, the refugee crisis is just another step toward this future.
The proponents who argue that the refugee crisis is another economic opportunity might not win points on the moral or ethical scale but they will be directly addressing the concerns raised by their opponents. A common argument against immigration is that it lacks economic benefit – this has been refuted many times by various researchers. A more compelling perspective to me is that nations where people struggle with poverty should not accept refugees until its problems at home are resolved. I agree with the principle but I don’t think any of these countries are doing anything about poverty, either, that justifies turning away refugees fleeing war-torn areas. Instead of arguing against accepting refugees – who represent a long-term anti-poverty measure anyway through their contribution to GDP – these opponents should argue against the austerity measures that slow or reverse the transfer of wealth from rich to poor and challenge their leaders to solve rather than merely acknowledge the problems of poverty at home.
