In the FT yesterday, Branko Milanovic suggested that we might be able to increase global migration by reducing the citizenship rights of migrants. This is not a new idea – Lant Pritchett brought it up ten years ago and it is widely practiced by many Gulf states.
Over at Crooked Timber, Chris Bertram made it clear he really doesn’t like this idea, comparing Milanovic’s suggestion to “recreating apartheid” (I suspect the word apartheid will eventually be subject to its own form of Godwin’s law):
Milanovic wants us explicitly to abandon the liberal and democratic principles of legitimacy that those who are subject to the laws of a society should (in time in the case of migrants) get to have the right to make those laws. In doing so, he goes far beyond similar proposals (for example from Martin Ruhs that have been explicitly temporary in nature and have largely focused on labour-market rights. Milanovic’s lack of commitment to the norms of liberal democracy also comes across in the fact that he holds up illegitimate and tyrannical states, such as the Gulf kleptocracies, as models for his proposed policy.
Part of what’s going on here is the economist’s perspective on policy, which just focuses on net improvements in well-being or utility, with income serving as a proxy, and which doesn’t, therefore, see human beings as possessed of basic rights which it is impermissible to violate. Rather, all and any rights can be sacrificed on the altar of income improvement, just in case someone is poor and desperate enough to make a deal (who are we, paternalistically, to stop them?). The road to hell is paved with Pareto improvements.
Let’s be absolutely clear: we are already in hell and we are trying to find a path out of it. International migration restrictions – as they stand – already enforce a global system of apartheid. Most of global inequality in income (and likely in health and happiness) is driven mainly by where you are born. By preventing someone mired in poverty overseas from moving to a place where they can make a better life for themselves – even temporarily – we are implicitly denying that person the same rights that we enjoy every day (rights that most have us have inherited, not earned). These are also arguments that Pritchett made before.
Human beings have a proximity problem: inequalities in outcomes or rights which are proximate to us (on the right side of an arbitrary national boundary) are weighted much higher that massive, gaping inequalities which are harder to observe because the people bearing the brunt of that inequality happen to live overseas.
We would all agree that a migration system which allows for restricted freedom is a worse solution than a system which allows for the same amount of migration with no restrictions on freedom. But the latter system does not exist, nor has anyone managed to propagate a convincing way to get there. I don’t know if a Milanovic/Pritchett system would work, but I can think of two main reasons why we might not want to consider it:
- There is a lower cost path towards a system which does not limit freedom that we can implement sooner.
- Adopting a system based on limited citizenship now will somehow make it harder to move to a free system later on.
If Bertram really wants to make a convincing case against the Milanovics of the world, he needs to start by showing us a better road out of hell.