<p><strong>Are current flows of migration bigger that they were in the past?</strong></p>

<p>We tend to forget history because the numbers involved currently are smaller 
relative to world population. For instance, the 8.8 million immigrants who came to the United States in 1901-1910 period is of similar magnitude to the 9.1 million immigrants who came in the 1991-2000 period, but both the U.S. and world populations were much larger than in 1901-1910.</p>

<p>Richard B. Freeman in a nice paper, entitled "<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w12315" rel="noreferrer">People Flows in Globalization</a>," reminds us about this fact. </p>

<p><strong>Some countries indeed receive large inflows of migrants</strong></p>

<p>The US, <strong>Russia</strong> and Germany are the biggest recipients of immigration (see Table 1 in the above paper). These flows have consequences for factor endowment and there is considerable and often heated controversy over their impacts on destination countries.</p>

<p><strong>How Do Immigrants Affect Their Countries of Arrival?</strong></p>

<p>Freeman examines this question (p.18 to 23) and reviews the empirics. In the basic model of immigration, immigrants reduce earnings of substitute factors and raise the earnings of complementary factors, where complements might include capital and some types of native-born labor. In the basic model, there is full employment but you may intuitively consider quantitative adjustments instead of price/wage adjustements by introducing frictions in the labor market. Note than in most advanced countries, 
immigrants have higher unemployment rates and lower employment rates than native workers.</p>

<p>Related to this question a classical paper is "<a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JEL1994.pdf" rel="noreferrer">The Economics of Immigration</a>," with theory and evidence by Georges Borjas in Journal of Economic Literature, December 1994. More recently, in 2015, Borjas published an interesting review on <a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JEL2015.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Immigration and Globalization</a>. You mal also be intereted in reading his paper on how <a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/QJE2012.pdf" rel="noreferrer">the collapse of the Soviet Union affects the productivity of American mathematicians</a>.</p>

<p>Regarding policies Freeman  considers "radically economic policies" such
as auctioning immigration visas or charging sizeable fees and spending the funds on current residents to increase the economic incentive for advanced countries to accept greater immigration.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T19:22:02.020Z
2016-06-23T19:22:02.020Z
emeryville
<p>I want to ask you if there is an explanation in your science of why there are so many migrants in the modern world? </p>

<p>I live in Russia, and after the dissolution of the USSR a lot of people here had to leave their states (former Soviet republics) trying to find a job in Russia (where the economic situation is a bit better in comparison with the other republics). At the same time many people are trying to emigrate from the former Soviet Union to the West. </p>

<p>When looking at the statistics I see that the situation with the employment in the former USSR is not the worst in the world, for example, according to <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this source</a>, the unemployment rate in Russia is now 5.1%, in Uzbekistan 10.6%, and this is not so bad in comparison, say, with Spain, where it is 24.7%. However, the difference between 10.6% and 5.1% (together with some other parameters, like quality of life, etc.) force many people, millions of them, to seek a job abroad, and this is difficult for them (I am sorry for the normative statements).</p>

<p>So, to specify my question, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What is the attitude of the economic theory to this? Is this considered as a result of an unsuccessful economic policy, i.e. of some mistakes in the reforms, or this is regarded as normal (maybe, inevitable)? And</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>If these were mistakes, then what were these mistakes? </li>
  <li>If this was normal, then I suppose there must be an understanding in your science of what people should do in this situation. How does the economic theory expect the jobless people to react? Are they supposed to leave their countries, or wait, or die? If they are supposed to leave, then there appears a contradiction between economics and politics, since usually emigration is very, very difficult, often impossible because of the political reasons. How is this contradiction supposed to be resolved?</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>From what I see in internet I got an impression that the situation in the former USSR is not unique, there are many other countries with similar problems, so, to tell the truth, I don't understand why people here insist that I should specify the country I am speaking about. If this is important, I have in mind the situation in Central Asia, i.e. countries like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and around.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T10:55:06.640Z
I look at the situation in the post-soviet countries, but I thought this is common. That is not true?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T11:09:32.220Z
Levels of unemployment vary hugely by country, and by individual regions within a country. As do levels of migration - both inward and outward - and by type of migration (economic, refugee).
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T11:23:54.787Z
Perhaps, this is a result of the Russian propaganda, but my impression is that there are many jobless people and many migrants, at least here in Russia and in the countries around. (I was also in Europe, and I got an impression that the situation there is not good also. I am not right?) What does the economic theory tell about this?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T11:55:42.540Z
There isn't a single European situation. Every country is different, and in some countries, there are very big regional variations. Some countries will have net inward migration, others will have net outward migration. There are many possible answers, but being able to give the right one, depends on knowing what the specific question is.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T12:28:43.250Z
Many people come to Russia from the countries around, this is so common that this looks like a macroeconomic phenomenon. (I was in France, I think they have the same problem - although I don't know, maybe for Europe this is exaggerated.) Is there an explanation of this from the point of view of economic theory?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T16:17:02.550Z
You mean something like "people go where the jobs are"?
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T16:55:14.257Z
Of course! They leave their countries because there is no job there. This could be normal if the level of unemployment in their countries was not so high. What do economists say about that?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T17:59:44.587Z
@denesp, I don't understand you. The unemployment rate is different in different countries, according to wikipedia, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate People leave their countries because of that, this is seen even without statistics. Isn't that enough for becoming interested what is wrong in the economics?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-21T18:24:38.607Z
@denesp, you exaggerate my stupidity. I am not dreaming of "zero unemployment" or "never left their countries". And the questions you suggest are not exactly what I want to know. I'd like to understand what  is the economic explanation of why the levels of unempleyment and migration in/from some countries are so high. Should I specify this in my question?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-22T00:54:20.420Z
OK, I corrected the question.
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T05:32:34.360Z
@SergeiAkbarov: One reason people leave their countries is that they hope to find a better-paid job in the arrival country: they could still find a job in their own country, but they would get a very low salary. In addition, the target country might have better infrastructure, living condition. and so on. I am also interested in possible explanations economics can provide for this situation.
Giorgio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T08:27:57.740Z
@Giorgio, yes, I understand this. But this is an explanation for an everyday talk, while I am interested what theory tells about that. From people's comments here I deduce that theory doesn't consider such problems at all. This looks absurd as if medicine was not interested in some illnesses like, say, cancer. "That is not our matter, don't ask us about it!"
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-23T18:40:58.807Z
@SergeiAkbarov: I think I understand what you mean. I guess mainstream economics is not interested in such problems since it considers human beings merely as a resource, i.e. as labour power on one hand, and as potential customers on the other hand. To find theories about poverty (IMO, one of the main causes of migration) you have to look outside mainstream economics. I am not sure if non-mainstream economics is welcome on this site.
Giorgio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-27T10:43:35.667Z
@Giorgio [There are several questions](http://economics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&q=poverty) about poverty on this evil mainstream orthodox site, most of them [well received](http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/294/influential-theory-in-the-economics-of-poverty).
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-28T05:58:59.903Z
@denesp: Thanks for the links. Maybe it is not an evil mainstream orthodox site ;-)
Giorgio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-19T12:09:18.870Z
Theory predicts much more migration than we observe in the data. The puzzle is actually why there is not more migration. The answer involves monetary and non-monetary migration costs. To answer your other question,economic theory expects people to go to where they can make the most money. As long and countries differ in development level then of course there will be migration. The 'mistakes' you refer to would include literally everything that would cause an origin country to be less developed than a destination country
BB King
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-22T20:22:34.727Z
@BBKing It is strange for me, actually, that the theory can predict migration, since in Ricardo's axiomatics the population is tied to the country.
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-22T23:38:50.123Z
We assume that people maximize their utility and we also assume that they get more utility from having (higher paid) jobs. If other countries offfer (higher paid) jobs, then migration is unsurprising theoretically. What's surprising is that given the hiuge development differences in the world, why hasn't everyone migrated away from poor countries. The answer, as mentioned, are (non-monetary) migration costs.
BB King
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-23T14:07:38.203Z
@BBKing can you recommend a reading about this?
Sergei Akbarov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-23T16:54:30.437Z
I can recommend the book, "Immigration Economics" (2014) by George Borjas. It is not a complete book though.
BB King
<unemployment><migration>
Why are there so many migrants in the modern world?
Sergei Akbarov
# Why are there so many migrants in the modern world?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-21)

I want to ask you if there is an explanation in your science of why there are so many migrants in the modern world?

I live in Russia, and after the dissolution of the USSR a lot of people here had to leave their states (former Soviet republics) trying to find a job in Russia (where the economic situation is a bit better in comparison with the other republics). At the same time many people are trying to emigrate from the former Soviet Union to the West.

When looking at the statistics I see that the situation with the employment in the former USSR is not the worst in the world, for example, according to [this source](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS), the unemployment rate in Russia is now 5.1%, in Uzbekistan 10.6%, and this is not so bad in comparison, say, with Spain, where it is 24.7%. However, the difference between 10.6% and 5.1% (together with some other parameters, like quality of life, etc.) force many people, millions of them, to seek a job abroad, and this is difficult for them (I am sorry for the normative statements).

So, to specify my question,

> What is the attitude of the economic theory to this? Is this considered as a result of an unsuccessful economic policy, i.e. of some mistakes in the reforms, or this is regarded as normal (maybe, inevitable)? And
>
> * If these were mistakes, then what were these mistakes?
> * If this was normal, then I suppose there must be an understanding in your science of what people should do in this situation. How does the economic theory expect the jobless people to react? Are they supposed to leave their countries, or wait, or die? If they are supposed to leave, then there appears a contradiction between economics and politics, since usually emigration is very, very difficult, often impossible because of the political reasons. How is this contradiction supposed to be resolved?

From what I see in internet I got an impression that the situation in the former USSR is not unique, there are many other countries with similar problems, so, to tell the truth, I don't understand why people here insist that I should specify the country I am speaking about. If this is important, I have in mind the situation in Central Asia, i.e. countries like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and around.

**Tags:** unemployment, migration

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I look at the situation in the post-soviet countries, but I thought this is common. That is not true?  
> **username_1**: Levels of unemployment vary hugely by country, and by individual regions within a country. As do levels of migration - both inward and outward - and by type of migration (economic, refugee).  
> **username_0**: Perhaps, this is a result of the Russian propaganda, but my impression is that there are many jobless people and many migrants, at least here in Russia and in the countries around. (I was also in Europe, and I got an impression that the situation there is not good also. I am not right?) What does the economic theory tell about this?  
> **username_1**: There isn't a single European situation. Every country is different, and in some countries, there are very big regional variations. Some countries will have net inward migration, others will have net outward migration. There are many possible answers, but being able to give the right one, depends on knowing what the specific question is.  
> **username_0**: Many people come to Russia from the countries around, this is so common that this looks like a macroeconomic phenomenon. (I was in France, I think they have the same problem - although I don't know, maybe for Europe this is exaggerated.) Is there an explanation of this from the point of view of economic theory?  
> **username_1**: You mean something like "people go where the jobs are"?  
> **username_0**: Of course! They leave their countries because there is no job there. This could be normal if the level of unemployment in their countries was not so high. What do economists say about that?  
> **username_0**: @denesp, I don't understand you. The unemployment rate is different in different countries, according to wikipedia, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate People leave their countries because of that, this is seen even without statistics. Isn't that enough for becoming interested what is wrong in the economics?  
> **username_0**: @denesp, you exaggerate my stupidity. I am not dreaming of "zero unemployment" or "never left their countries". And the questions you suggest are not exactly what I want to know. I'd like to understand what  is the economic explanation of why the levels of unempleyment and migration in/from some countries are so high. Should I specify this in my question?  
> **username_0**: OK, I corrected the question.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: One reason people leave their countries is that they hope to find a better-paid job in the arrival country: they could still find a job in their own country, but they would get a very low salary. In addition, the target country might have better infrastructure, living condition. and so on. I am also interested in possible explanations economics can provide for this situation.  
> **username_0**: @username_2, yes, I understand this. But this is an explanation for an everyday talk, while I am interested what theory tells about that. From people's comments here I deduce that theory doesn't consider such problems at all. This looks absurd as if medicine was not interested in some illnesses like, say, cancer. "That is not our matter, don't ask us about it!"  
> **username_2**: @username_0: I think I understand what you mean. I guess mainstream economics is not interested in such problems since it considers human beings merely as a resource, i.e. as labour power on one hand, and as potential customers on the other hand. To find theories about poverty (IMO, one of the main causes of migration) you have to look outside mainstream economics. I am not sure if non-mainstream economics is welcome on this site.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 [There are several questions](http://economics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&q=poverty) about poverty on this evil mainstream orthodox site, most of them [well received](http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/294/influential-theory-in-the-economics-of-poverty).  
> **username_2**: @denesp: Thanks for the links. Maybe it is not an evil mainstream orthodox site ;-)  
> **username_4**: Theory predicts much more migration than we observe in the data. The puzzle is actually why there is not more migration. The answer involves monetary and non-monetary migration costs. To answer your other question,economic theory expects people to go to where they can make the most money. As long and countries differ in development level then of course there will be migration. The 'mistakes' you refer to would include literally everything that would cause an origin country to be less developed than a destination country  
> **username_0**: @username_4 It is strange for me, actually, that the theory can predict migration, since in Ricardo's axiomatics the population is tied to the country.  
> **username_4**: We assume that people maximize their utility and we also assume that they get more utility from having (higher paid) jobs. If other countries offfer (higher paid) jobs, then migration is unsurprising theoretically. What's surprising is that given the hiuge development differences in the world, why hasn't everyone migrated away from poor countries. The answer, as mentioned, are (non-monetary) migration costs.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 can you recommend a reading about this?  
> **username_4**: I can recommend the book, "Immigration Economics" (2014) by George Borjas. It is not a complete book though.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-06-23. Score: 5

**Are current flows of migration bigger that they were in the past?**

We tend to forget history because the numbers involved currently are smaller
relative to world population. For instance, the 8.8 million immigrants who came to the United States in 1901-1910 period is of similar magnitude to the 9.1 million immigrants who came in the 1991-2000 period, but both the U.S. and world populations were much larger than in 1901-1910.

Richard B. Freeman in a nice paper, entitled "[People Flows in Globalization](http://www.nber.org/papers/w12315)," reminds us about this fact.

**Some countries indeed receive large inflows of migrants**

The US, **Russia** and Germany are the biggest recipients of immigration (see Table 1 in the above paper). These flows have consequences for factor endowment and there is considerable and often heated controversy over their impacts on destination countries.

**How Do Immigrants Affect Their Countries of Arrival?**

Freeman examines this question (p.18 to 23) and reviews the empirics. In the basic model of immigration, immigrants reduce earnings of substitute factors and raise the earnings of complementary factors, where complements might include capital and some types of native-born labor. In the basic model, there is full employment but you may intuitively consider quantitative adjustments instead of price/wage adjustements by introducing frictions in the labor market. Note than in most advanced countries,
immigrants have higher unemployment rates and lower employment rates than native workers.

Related to this question a classical paper is "[The Economics of Immigration](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JEL1994.pdf)," with theory and evidence by Georges Borjas in Journal of Economic Literature, December 1994. More recently, in 2015, Borjas published an interesting review on [Immigration and Globalization](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JEL2015.pdf). You mal also be intereted in reading his paper on how [the collapse of the Soviet Union affects the productivity of American mathematicians](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/QJE2012.pdf).

Regarding policies Freeman considers "radically economic policies" such
as auctioning immigration visas or charging sizeable fees and spending the funds on current residents to increase the economic incentive for advanced countries to accept greater immigration.


---

