This article appears in the following Oxford Review of Economic Policy issue: LABOUR MIGRATION IN EUROPE [View the issue table of contents]
Economic research and labour immigration policy
* ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford, e-mail: martin.ruhs{at}compas.ox.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The design of labour immigration policy requires nation states to make fundamental decisions on how to regulate: (i) the number of migrants to be admitted; (ii) the selection of migrants; and, (iii) the rights of migrants after admission. In practice, the debate over these three elements of immigration policy involves a wide range of economic, social, legal, moral, and political considerations. Recognizing the inherent inter-disciplinarity of the subject, this paper focuses on the implications of economic theories and research for regulating the number, selection, and rights of migrant workers in high-income countries. It examines the asymmetric economic interests of migrant-receiving and migrant-sending countries in the debate over the ‘optimal’ design of labour immigration policy and, in light of this analysis, provides a brief economic assessment of the core components of labour immigration policy in the UK.
Key Words: economic effects of migration • labour immigration policy • UK
For their helpful comments, I would like to thank Ken Mayhew, Alan Barrett, Clare Fox, Stephen Castles, Isabel Shutes, Jonathan Wadsworth, and the referees. All views expressed in the paper and any errors are my own responsibility.
1 The distinction between high-income migrant-receiving countries and lower-income migrant-sending countries is a convenient simplification. It reflects the fact that global migration patterns are dominated by the movement of people from less developed regions to more-developed regions. In practice, most countries experience both immigration and emigration. The great majority of high-income countries are net-receivers of migrants (United Nations, 2007).
2 The ‘immigration surplus’ is that part of the additional output and income generated by immigration that accrues to the pre-existing residents of the receiving country.
3 Compare Borjas (1999b), which discusses these issues in the context of US immigration policy.
4 See http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/immigrate/business/investors/index.asp
5 The European Economic Area (EEA) includes all 27 member states of the European Union, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. As a member of the EU, the UK cannot formally control the admission of EEA nationals (see the article by Anzelika Zaiceva and Klaus Zimmermann (2008, this issue).
6 Calculated based on data from Home Office (2008, Immigration Control Statistics 2007), Worker registration Scheme 2007 and A2 data for 2007.
7 Denmark is an example of a country that, in contrast to the UK and the USA, has avoided a dependence on low-cost labour in various sectors (including social care) by actively pursuing a high-road strategy of investing in new equipment, automation, skill development, and high unionization (see Westergaard- Nielson, 2008).