24/2/2013: Absurdity of Human Capital Politicisation in Europe

Much of economic policymaking in Europe is driven by the political objectives of the EU, not by economic rationality or efficiency considerations. Here is an interesting potential example of the same trend toward over-politicisation of decision making happening in another sphere - border controls and immigration:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/10/eu-asylum-balkans/

Most certainly worth a read and a robust discussion.

A note to flag some absurdity of the EU policies. Take a look at this map:

Note that Balkan countries, not members of the EU, all (with exception of Kosovo) have a visa-free travel arrangement with the Schengen area. This means that a resident (both citizen and non-citizen) of these countries has visa-free access to the entire Schengen despite paying not a single cent in taxes in the EU, having no residency in the EU, having no family member with an EU citizenship, maintaining no home in the EU nor any business within the EU.

In contrast, an EU taxpayer with full residency in the UK or Ireland but who is not the national of the EU state cannot freely travel to Schengen countries. Full stop. Only one restrictive exception to this is the case where such travel is undertaken by non-EU citizen accompanying their EU-citizen spouse.

Get the madness? Those non-EU citizens who live, work, maintain homes, have families (including with EU citizens in them), run businesses in EU member states (Ireland & UK) have less rights than non-EU citizens of the countries that are not a part of the EU.

Worse than that. Absurdity goes much deeper. A non-EU citizen who is a long-term resident of Ireland and the UK, with home ownership (1), employment (2), business (3) in these states, cannot gain a long-term multi-entry visa to Schengen countries simply because the issuing authorities (embassies of Schengen countries in the UK and Ireland) cannot coordinate the frequency of travel etc between themselves. Yet, a non-EU citizen with a vacation home in, say Spain or Montenegro, has full unrestricted access to the Schengen.

Economics 07/02/2010: Human Capital, Immigrants and Social safety Nets

A very interesting piece of research that tends to support my view that higher minimum wages and more extensive welfare nets / social services nets are acting to reduce overall levels of productivity amongst the immigrants.

One paper, published this week, titled Indian Entrepreneurial Success in the US, Canada and the UK, by Robert W. Fairlie - University of California, Santa Cruz, Harry Krashinsky - University of Toronto, Julie Zissimopoulos – RAND and Krishna B. Kumar – RAND (available here) takes a look at the differences in entrepreneurship (incidence and outcomes) and education amongst one large sub-group of immigrants to the US, UK and Canada. Having a culturally homogenous and relatively large group of immigrants allows the authors to set aside the need for measuring sending country attributes, thus improving substantially the accuracy of their results.

What they found is pretty interesting.

Indian immigrants in the US and other wealthy countries are successful in entrepreneurship. But how successful these entrepreneurs are once they reach different countries and encounter different social systems, and what are the sources of their success?

The study finds that “in the US Indian entrepreneurs have average business income that is substantially higher than the national average and is higher than any other immigrant group. High levels of education among Indian immigrants in the US are responsible for nearly half of the higher level of entrepreneurial earnings while industry differences explain an additional 10 percent. In Canada, Indian entrepreneurs have average earnings slightly below the national average but they are more likely to hire employees, as are their counterparts in the US and UK. The Indian educational advantage is smaller in Canada and the UK contributing less to their entrepreneurial success.”

Hmmm… why so, you might ask?

Immigrants are most likely to enter both the US and UK as ‘family sponsored.’ Since the 1960s U.S. immigration policy has strongly favored family reunification. The UK’s immigration policies over the past four decades have shifted towards emphasizing family reunification and employment. On the other hand, Canada's point-based system which awards immigration admission points based on education, language ability (English or French), years of experience in a managerial, professional or technical occupation, age, arranged employment in Canada, and other factors leads to more skilled immigrants compared to the US.

So far so good – Canada has longer lasting and much more selective immigration policies than the US and UK.

Because of the point-based system, in Canada, roughly half of all immigrants are admitted through employment-based preferences. In contrast, slightly more than 10 percent of immigrants in the US are admitted under this classification.

Again, sounds like Canada should be really the land of entrepreneurial and higher quality immigrants.

The related category of employment creation or investors who face minimum net worth and business experience requirements, and self-employed immigrants who must have relevant experience in occupations. A larger (but still relatively small – just 7%) share of immigrants in Canada are admitted under these policies than in the US (0.1%) and UK (2.4%).

So, ex-ante data analysis, it is pretty clear that “Canada's point-based immigration system results in a higher share of employment-based immigrants compared to the US and UK. On the other hand, the UK admits a much higher share of immigrants under its refugee and asylee programs than the US or Canada. All else equal, we would expect skill levels of immigrants to be the highest in Canada and the lowest in the UK.” (emphasis is mine)

In other words: the authors “find some evidence that the educational advantage of Asian immigrants compared to the national average is lower in the UK than in the US, [consistent with differences in immigration policies]. But, we also find that the educational advantage in the US is higher than it is in Canada, which runs counter to the greater emphasis of Canada's immigration policy on rewarding points for the general skill level of immigrants.”


Why? “A more generous redistribution system, more egalitarian earnings, and other institutional and structural factors, however, may make Canada less attractive to higher skilled immigrants such as Indian immigrants.”

Boy, this is some statement – especially considering the EU policies to achieve ‘Social’ economy – economy based on greater earnings equality, greater rights-based outcomes equalization and maintaining a very generous welfare and redistribution systems. And this is serious, folks. Canada, US and UK are much younger – demographically – societies than EU-core states. This means that in general, the EU has a much more acute need to import younger entrepreneurial talent and skills in order to pay even comparable welfare rates to those in Canada, US and UK. Let alone to afford a more generous system of benefits. The prospects of this happening are not that good, folks.


Let us get back to the study, though:

“We find that Indian entrepreneurs are much more successful than the national average in the US. Indian businesses also perform well in Canada and the UK, but the evidence is not as strong. In the US, Indian entrepreneurs earn 60 percent more than white entrepreneurs and have the highest average business income of any immigrant group.”

No, wait – income inequality is actually favoring ethnic minorities in the US? Without an EU-styled rights legislation that polices allocations of income to specific ethnic groups? Who would have thought that to be possible!

“Estimates from business-level data sources also indicate that Indian firms have higher profits, hire more employees, and have lower failure rates than the average for all U.S. firms.”

Ouch - higher profits = hire more workers + have lower failure rates? And all without help of SIPTU/ICTU/etc to protect the interests of workers and to curb profiteering? Who could have thought?


But what drives such astounding results?

“To explain to relative success of Indian entrepreneurs we focus on the role of human capital. ...We test the hypothesis that a highly-educated Indian entrepreneurial-force is responsible for their superior performance in business. Indian immigrants in all three countries have education levels that are higher than the national average, and in the US the education levels of Indian immigrants are particularly high relative to the entire population. In the US, 68 percent of Indian entrepreneurs have a college education which is twice the rate for whites or the national average. Some of the variation in the education of Indian immigrants across the US, Canada and UK is likely due to immigration policy. Another possibility is that the higher returns to education in the US result in a more selective immigrant pool in the US compared to Canada and the UK.”

Bu wait – ‘higher returns to education’ = greater income inequality between educated and non-educated. Again, who could have thought that this might be a good thing, especially for a ‘knowledge economy’?

“When we examine business income, we find large, positive effects of education in the US and Canada. We also find large positive effects of education on employment in Canada, but smaller positive effects in the UK. The findings for education imply that the relatively high levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs have a large effect on business performance at least in the US and Canada. Decomposition estimates provide exact estimates of the contribution of higher levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs to their higher business incomes and employment levels.

• In the US, higher levels of education among Indian entrepreneurs result in a business income advantage of 21 log points, which represents 43.9 percent of the gap.
• High levels of education also contribute substantially to why Indian entrepreneurs earn more in Canada (12.5 log points), but the difference is not as large as in the US.
• “The combination of the larger education advantage held by Indian entrepreneurs and the larger return to education is responsible for the increased importance of education as an explanatory factor in the US compared to Canada.
• “In contrast to these results, the smaller educational advantage and lower returns to education in the UK result in less explanatory power in the UK.”
  

But sectoral and cultural decompositions also matter: “Lower concentrations of Indian entrepreneurs in agriculture and construction, lower female share*, higher marriage rates, and favorable regional distributions also generally contribute to why Indian businesses perform better than white businesses or the national average.”

Again, give it a thought, folks. The above says that Indian entrepreneurs are so spectacularly successful in all three countries because they avoid investing in ‘losing’ sectors and regions. So where does it put state-led efforts to pump money into such ‘losing’ sectors as, for example, agriculture? And where does this leave Ireland’s ‘National Spatial Development Plans’ that reallocate cash to ‘losing’ regions/areas? In the category of ‘luxury goods’ – an affordable (in certain times) cost of keeping at bay social discontent amongst those who are falling behind?

And it also says that higher marriage rates are positively associated with higher returns to entrepreneurship. Who could have thought?


Some food for thought for our immigration policy bureaucrats and our national development authorities, then…



*[Aside - the issue of lower female share of entrepreneurship is, in my view, a simple statistical legacy. Women entrepreneurs tend to run businesses that are on average younger than those for men, hence, some increased risk in statistical measures. Over time, I would expect as female entrepreneurship gains fully similar footing in types of business, sources of financing etc as male entrepreneurship, this difference will disappear completely.]

Economics 26/12/2009: Commoners Amongst Our Foreigners

Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year.

To start off the post-Christmas season on an interesting note, here is a different look at the CSO's data on PPS allocations.
Cumulative PPS allocations over 2002-2008 show clearly the magnitude (absolute and relative) of migration from Poland to Ireland. It is worth highlighting the fact that the number of people moving to Ireland from the countries with strong historical links to this country is smaller than that from Poland, and close to that from the 3 Baltic States. Of course, the relative potential pool of migrants from the historically important destinations for Irish emigrants in the past is of magnitude of 100 times greater than that of the Baltic 3 entire populations.
Total immigration figures are impressive, peaking in 2006 and falling in 2008 to the average of 2004-2005 levels.
Looking at the same in terms of countries, the above graph shows again how dramatic was immigration from Poland relative to other countries. In 2005, tiny Lithuania sent more people into Ireland than any other country save for UK and Poland. However, as credit bubble blossomed back in the Baltics, Lithuanian and Latvian migration started to decline after 2005, as was the case with Slovakia post 2006.
A messy chart above shows several interesting trends in migration from other countries. Nigeria - a clear decline post Michael McDowell-led reforms of the free-for-all asylum processes. Brazil - massive increase between 2004 and 2008. Whatever the reasons might be? Philippines - no dramatic slowdown in inflows, save for 2002-2004 period. In other words, given that the Philippines is the leading country supplying nursing staff to HSE, there is really no evidence here that Filipino nurses stopped coming to Ireland (remember the claims made by the trade unions). There are many other interesting things going on in the chart, so feel free to interpret/speculate.
Some more trends in PPS allocations in 2002-2008 above. As percentage of the total, Poland's weight was still increasing in 2008, relative to all other major destinations sending immigrants to Ireland.
Cumulative allocations as shares of total allocations above. And next, same by broader region:
Here is a funny thing - 3 Baltic states accounted for more allocations in 2004-2006 than the UK, the rest of the EU15, the US and even the rest of the world. Amazing, given these three countries are about 1/100th of the EU27 population. And, given that incomes were raising in these countries at very high rates, why would these three countries attract such a massive migration to Ireland? Perhaps the reason is coincident with the anecdotal evidence that vast majority of migrants from these 3 states were Russian speaking. Of course, if this is true, it would represent a small embarrassment to these countries' leaderships, because it would illustrate dramatically how prosecution of Russian-speaking minorities in these countries was pushing people to emigrate. But, again, this is speculative at this point in time, as we never bothered to ask these people their ethnicity, as opposed to their citizenship.

Now, next, look at the dynamics of allocations of PPS numbers to foreign nationals:
Note the dramatic dynamics for the EU10 - virtually none in 2003, jump in 2004 and on to peaking in 2006. what does it tell us about these workers? Prior to 2004, they had to compete with the rest of non-EU employees for jobs. And they were not very good at it, apparently. Post 2004, they no longer had to face real competition. And they became, overnight, very good at getting jobs. Suspicious? Me too. Just shows how arbitrary the world is out there - your skills, your aptitude, your knowledge - all these matter as a secondary differential at the very best. Your passport is what determines who you are, can be and will be to a greater extent.
Total allocations to foreign nationals above.

Now, on to two very interesting graphs:
The above chart shows that overall, the groups with no employment activity were dominated not by the EU10 citizens, but by the UK, EU15, and US migrants. Why, you might ask? Well, citizens of these countries came to Ireland for many reasons, some of which were simply not available to those from EU10 - retirement would be one, second homes would be another one. In other words, it is not that the citizens of these countries had lower propensity to work in Ireland, they simply were more heterogeneous (age wise and occupation/income wise).
Chart above dispels several myths:

• EU10 citizens propensity to drop out of labour market activities was no more dramatic than that of other major groups of migrants. However, this must be interpreted with care, as the EU10 migrants do not include second home owners or retirees (which makes their drop-out rates higher than average for EU15, UK and US migrants) and they have no restrictions on spouses employment here (which makes their rates of dropping out more significant than those for the rest of the world migrants);
• US migrants have the lowest rate of decline in labour market activities;
• EU10 numbers for 2008 also conceal the fact that many of those migrants probably moved into gray economy (cash payments) and into sub-contracting, both not recorded by PAYE system. This increases the rate of non-participation for these immigrants.
  

So despite a massively different levels of migration from the EU10 over 2004-2008, there is little evidence so far to suggest that these migrants were dramatically different from other groups of migrants. In some areas they were somewhat distinct, but one cannot conclude that these differences were dramatic...

The unravelling of the core?

The latest report (here) from Switzerland is claiming that the Swiss are considering imposition of limits on the admission of the migrants from the EU15 + Malta & Cyprus. First, background, then conclusion:

Per EUObserver report, "under bilateral accords signed with the EU, the Swiss government is entitled to limit the number of workers entering the country" from the original EU15 states, plus Cyprus and Malta, whenever Swiss unemployment rises above a certain threshold.The threshold is not an absolute level of unemployment, but a rate of increase in jobless of more than 10% in a year "compared to the average rate in the previous three years". The latest data shows that Swiss unemployment reached a new three-year high of 3.5% in April - a 35.5% increase y-o-y. EU27 is now forecast to reach 9.7% unemployment in 2009 and 10.9% in 2010.

Currently there are no restrictions on the number of EU15+2 workers that can take jobs in Switzerland. "If the clause is activated", says EUObserver, "immigration from the EU15, plus Cyprus and Malta, will be limited to the average migration rate of the previous year plus five per cent for a maximum of two years.

So what is my analysis of this development? Access to the Swiss market - within a broader EEA community - is a legitimising point for EU in so far as it shows that European Union has attraction as a trading, capital and migration partner for countries which, unlike Eastern Europe, cannot be either bought or bullied into submission. Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein (EEA members) and Switzerland are, at this point in time, the only countries that can claim such a status, although in the past the EU tried to 'compel' all of these states in relation to various aspects of their internal regulations.

Should Switzerland put in place even symbolic restrictions on the EU citizens' ability to gain work there, one of the three legs of this pillar will be gone. The questions to be asked in this context are:

1. Should Swiss authorities limit inward migration from the EU15+2, will this trigger a push within the EU15 to further restrict access to their own labour markets for the EU12 Accession states?
2. Should the Swiss elect to enact the restrictions clause, what signal on the integrity of EEA+ does this send out in the context of the future EU enlargement? Are we risking losing Switzerland as an investment and jobs market partner in order to gain Turkey? Albania? and so on?
3. Will Swiss-imposed restrictions signal an alternative 'Third' way for countries currently finding themselves in a difficulty within the harmonized EU monetary and FX policies - e.g. Austria - for distancing themselves from the full EU membership into an Association-style treaty Swiss-style?

In an opposite, but widely anticipated move, Iceland is now swinging in favour of full EU membership - a dubious win for Brussels, considering the state of general economic collapse in that country.

A disclaimer: applicable to anything I write on the EU - I do not advocate any of the above measures. This post is simply about presenting an argument as to what might be possible.