#croissance

We, the undersigned scientists, concerned citizens, innovators welcome the general structure and ambition of the proposal for an increased European Research and Innovation budget – a significant increase in a difficult situation. However, we believe that it falls short of the effort required of Europe to face the growing geopolitical challenges as well as the very high level of competition now set notably by Asian countries: gross domestic spending on R&D in the EU as percentage of GDP, which is below 2% and lags behind Korea (4.2%), Taiwan (3.3%), Japan (3.1%), USA (2.8%), China (2.1%, and constantly rising). There is a serious danger that the situation will force many promising young scientists to leave Europe, and that Europe will become less attractive for foreign scientists.

As we are well aware, in the next decade Europe will have to rely more on its own forces to promote its values and its leadership. An cohesive Europe will need to invest in what counts for strengthening our societies, our economies, our security and our efforts in order to tackle the major global challenges of our planet. An ambitious research and innovation policy, engaging society as a whole, represents a large European added value, and will be decisive in increasing its cohesiveness.

Un peu contradictoire avec ça non?:

The EU needs a stability and wellbeing pact, not more growth
Le Guardian, le 16 septembre 2018
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/722531

238 academics call on the European Union and its member states to plan for a post-growth future in which human and ecological wellbeing is prioritised over GDP

#Science #Université #Europe #décroissance #croissance

Pas de version française? A comparer avec ça:

Petition for an increased #EU #Budget for #Research and Innovation
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/722667

We, the undersigned scientists, concerned citizens, innovators welcome the general structure and ambition of the proposal for an increased European Research and Innovation budget – a significant increase in a difficult situation. However, we believe that it falls short of the effort required of Europe to face the growing geopolitical challenges as well as the very high level of competition now set notably by Asian countries: gross domestic spending on R&D in the EU as percentage of GDP, which is below 2% and lags behind Korea (4.2%), Taiwan (3.3%), Japan (3.1%), USA (2.8%), China (2.1%, and constantly rising). There is a serious danger that the situation will force many promising young scientists to leave Europe, and that Europe will become less attractive for foreign scientists.

As we are well aware, in the next decade Europe will have to rely more on its own forces to promote its values and its leadership. An cohesive Europe will need to invest in what counts for strengthening our societies, our economies, our security and our efforts in order to tackle the major global challenges of our planet. An ambitious research and innovation policy, engaging society as a whole, represents a large European added value, and will be decisive in increasing its cohesiveness.

Chercheurs de gauche vs. chercheurs de droite?

#Science #Université #Europe

‘Secular stagnation’ meets the ‘GDP fetish’

Tim Jackson introduces his new CUSP working paper ‘The Post-Growth Challenge’, in which he discusses the state of advanced economies ten years after the crisis. Our attempts to prop up an ailing capitalism have increased inequality, hindered ecological innovation and undermined stability, he argues.

This week saw the launch of #System_Error a documentary #film from the prize-winning German Director #Florian_Opitz, who has made something of a reputation for himself critiquing the flaws in 21st century capitalism. The film explores our obsession with economic growth through the testimony of some of its most vociferous advocates. It’s a fascinating insight into the ‘GDP fetish’ that has dominated economic policy for over sixty years despite long-standing critiques to the contrary. Opitz’s film is a testament to the tenacity of the growth paradigm – even half a century later.

If there’s one thing that might really throw a spanner in the works it’s that economic growth as we know it is slowly slipping away. Growth rates in advanced economies were declining already even before the crisis. The day after the film’s première in Berlin, former US treasury secretary, Larry Summers writing in the FT defended his contention (first advanced five years ago) that the growth rates expected by economists and yearned for by politicians may be a thing of the past. Sluggish growth, he has argued, is not simply the result of short-term debt overhang in the wake of the financial crisis but might just turn out to be the ‘new normal’. It’s an argument that has support, not only from other mainstream pundits, but also from national statistics: UK growth slumped to another five year low in the first quarter of 2018.

Most reactions to the absence of growth consist in trying to get it back again as fast as possible – whatever the cost. Low interest rates, cheap money, inward investment, bank bailouts, government stimulus, land-grabs, tax havens, fiscal austerity, customs partnerships – you name it. Some of these things didn’t even make sense when put together. But at least they divert us from an inconvenient truth: that the future might look very different from the past. Were it not for a climate destabilised by carbon emissions, oceans which will soon contain more plastic than fish and a planet reeling from species loss a thousand times faster than any at time in the last 65 million years, it might not matter that they don’t add up. But is throwing good money after bad (so to speak) an effective strategy, even in its own right, when so much is still uncertain?

How can we be sure that these increasingly desperate measures will work at all? We’ve been trying most of them for well over a decade, to very little avail. The best we’ve managed, claims Summers, is to stop things falling apart by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at monetary expansion and oscillating between stimulus and fiscal tightening (mostly the latter) as political preference dictates. The end result is a somewhat frightening sense, as the IPPR recently pointed out, that when the next crisis hits there will be neither fiscal nor monetary room for manoeuvre.

In our latest CUSP working paper, I explore the dynamics of this emerging ‘post-growth challenge’. I believe it demands both a deeper understanding of how we got here and a wider palette of colours from which to paint the possibilities for our common future. The paper examines the underlying dynamics of secular stagnation, on both the demand and the supply side, and discusses its relationship to labour productivity growth, rising debt and resource bottlenecks.

The toughest element in this challenge, not yet fully addressed on either the political left or the right, is the relationship between declining growth and social equity. The coordinates of inequality are now plain to see in the stagnant wage rate and declining living conditions of ordinary people. ‘Thousands upon thousands’ of people flocked to this year’s TUC march in London, making it abundantly clear that persistent inequality is threatening political stability. According to TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady ‘there is a new mood in the country; people have been very patient, but now they are demanding a new deal.’

We have addressed the mathematics of this relationship in depth elsewhere. What we found was unexpected. The rising inequality that has haunted advanced economies in recent years wasn’t inevitable at all. Nor is it inevitable in the future. The problem lies, as I argue more specifically in this paper, not in secular stagnation itself but in our responses to it. Specifically, I suggest that rising inequality is the result of our persistent attempts to breathe new life into capitalism, in the face of underlying fundamentals that point in the opposite direction. Our growth fetish has hindered ecological innovation, reinforced inequality and exacerbated financial instability. Prosperity itself is being undone by this allegiance to growth at all costs.

What’s clear now is that it’s time for policy-makers to take the ‘post-growth challenge’ seriously. Judging by the enthusiastic reception from the 900 or so people who attended the première of System Error in Berlin, such a strategy might have a surprising popular support.

https://i2.wp.com/www.cusp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/TJ-Postgrowth-challenge.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1#.jpg

#SYSTEM_ERROR

Why are we so obsessed with economic growth, despite knowing that perpetual growth will kill us in the end? SYSTEM ERROR looks for answers to this principal contradiction of our time and considers global capitalism from the perspective of those who run it. In this manner, the film not only makes the absurdity of our growth-centered system uncomfortably perceptible, but also strikingly questions the seemingly irrefutable rules of the game within a bigger context.

https://filmsfortheearth.org/storage/app/media/filmsdb/covers/System-Error-cover.jpg

Europe, It’s Time to End the Growth Dependency

Petition text

The pursuit of economic growth is not environmentally sustainable, and it is failing to reduce inequalities, foster democracy and ensure well-being of citizens. We call on the European Union, its institutions, and member states to:
1. Constitute a special commission on Post-Growth Futures in the EU Parliament. This commission should actively debate the future of growth, devise policy alternatives for post-growth futures, and reconsider the pursuit of growth as an overarching policy goal.
2. Prioritise social and environmental indicators. Economic policies should be evaluated in terms of their impact on human wellbeing, resource use, inequality, and the provision of decent work. These indicators should be given higher priority than GDP in decision-making.
3. Turn the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) into a Stability and Wellbeing Pact. The SGP is a set of rules aimed at limiting government deficits and national debt. It should be revised to ensure member states meet the basic needs of their citizens, while reducing resource use and waste emissions to a sustainable level.
4. Establish a Ministry for Economic Transition in each member state. A new economy that focuses directly on human and ecological wellbeing could offer a much better future than one that is structurally dependent on economic growth.

https://www.wemove.eu/sites/wemove.eu/files/webform/campaign/post_growth_beyond_growth_final.png

Degrowth: A Call for Radical Abundance

When orthodox economists first encounter the idea of degrowth, they often jump to the conclusion that the objective is to reduce GDP. And because they see GDP as equivalent to social wealth, this makes them very upset.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I reject the fetishization of GDP as an objective in the existing economy, so it would make little sense for me to focus on GDP as the objective of a degrowth economy. Wanting to cut GDP is as senseless as wanting to grow it.

The objective, rather, is to scale down the material throughput of the economy. From an ecological standpoint, that’s what matters. And indeed some orthodox economists might even agree. Where we differ is that while they persist in believing (against the evidence) that this can be done while continuing to grow GDP, I acknowledge that it is likely to result in a reduction of GDP, at least as we presently measure it. In other words, if we were to keep measuring the economy by GDP, that’s what we would see in a degrowth scenario.

And that’s okay.

It’s okay, because we know that human beings can thrive without extremely high levels of GDP.

There are many pieces to this argument, but I want to focus on one here in particular. One of the core claims of degrowth economics is that by restoring public services and expanding the commons, people will be able to access the goods that they need to live well without needing high levels of income.

Take London, for instance. Housing prices in London are astronomically high, to the point where a normal one-bedroom flat can cost upwards of $1 million. These prices are fictional; they are largely a consequence of financial speculation and quantitative easing. Now imagine if the government were to cap the price of housing at half its present level. Prices would still be outrageously high, but Londoners would suddenly be able to work and earn significantly less than they presently do without suffering any loss to their quality of life. Indeed, they would gain in terms of time they could spend with their friends and family, doing things they love, improvements to their health and mental well-being, etc.

The fictionally high prices of housing in London require that people work unnecessarily long hours to earn unnecessary money simply in order to access decent shelter – which they were previously able to access with a fraction of the income. The consequence of this imperative is that everyone is forced to contribute unnecessarily to expanding the juggernaut of production, the output of which must in turn find an outlet in the form of ever-increasing consumption.

This is a problem that’s as old as capitalism itself. And it has a name: enclosure.

Ellen Wood argues that the origins of capitalism lay in the enclosure movement in England, during which wealthy elites walled off the commons and systematically forced peasants off the land in a violent, centuries-long campaign of dispossession. This period saw the abolition of the ancient “right to habitation”, once enshrined in the Charter of the Forest, which guaranteed that ordinary people should have access to the resources necessary for survival.

Suddenly, England’s peasants found themselves subject to a new regime: in order to survive they had to compete with each other for leases on the newly privatized land. And the leases were allocated on the basis of productivity. So in order to retain their access to leases, farmers had to find ways to extract more and more from the earth, and from labor, even if it was vastly in surplus to need. If they didn’t, and if they lost their leases, they could face starvation. And of course this same force, the imperative of ever-increasing productivity, was also at work in the industrial sector.

In other words, the birth of capitalism required the creation of scarcity. The constant creation of scarcity is the engine of the juggernaut.

The same process unfolded around the world during European colonization. In South Africa, colonizers faced what they called “The Labour Question”: How do we get Africans to work in our mines and on our plantations for paltry wages? At the time, Africans were quite content with their subsistence lifestyles, where they had all the land and the water and the livestock they needed to thrive, and showed no inclination to do back-breaking work in European mines. The solution? Force them off their land, or make them pay taxes in European currency, which can only be acquired in exchange for labor. And if they don’t pay, punish them.

Scarcity is the engine of capitalist expansion.

And, crucially, the scarcity was artificially created. Created by elite accumulation, backed up by state violence. In both England and South Africa, there was no actual scarcity. The same land and forests and resources remained, just as they had always been. But they were locked up. Enclosed. In order to regain access to the means of survival, people had no choice but to participate in the juggernaut.

Today, we feel the force of scarcity in the constant threat of unemployment. We must be ever-more productive at work or else lose our jobs to someone who will be more productive than we are. But there is a paradox: as productivity rises, less labor is needed. So workers get laid off and find themselves with no means of survival. Victims of artificial scarcity. And the state, desperate to reduce unemployment, must then find ways to grow the economy in order to create new jobs, just so that people can survive.

And all of us workers join in the choir: Give us growth! We need jobs!

Scarcity creates recruits to the ideology of growth.

Even people who are concerned about ecological breakdown, which is most of us, are forced to submit to this logic: if you care about human lives, then you must call for growth. We can deal with the environment later.

But there will be no later, because the problem of scarcity is never solved. Whenever scarcity is about to be solved, it is always quickly produced anew. Think about it: for 150 years, economists have predicted that “In the very near future our economy will be so productive and replete that we will all have to work no more than a few hours a day.” But the prediction never comes true. Because capitalism transforms even the most spectacular productivity gains not into abundance and human freedom, but into scarcity.

It’s strange, isn’t it? The ideology of capitalism is that it is a system that generates immense abundance (so much stuff!) But in reality it is a system that relies on the constant production of scarcity.

This conundrum was first noticed back in 1804, and became known as the Lauderdale Paradox. Lauderdale pointed out that the only way to increase “private riches” (basically, GDP) was to reduce what he called “public wealth”, or the commons. To enclose things that were once free so that people have to pay in order to access them. To illustrate, he noted that colonialists would often even burn down trees that produced nuts and fruits so that local inhabitants wouldn’t be able to live off of the natural abundance of the earth, but would be forced to work for wages in order to feed themselves.

We see this happening today in the endless waves of privatization that have been unleashed all over the world. Education? Healthcare? Parks? Swimming pools? Social Security? Water? All social goods must be privatized – they must be made scarce. People must be made to pay in order to access them. And in order to pay, they will of course have to work, competing with each other in the labor market to be ever-more productive.

This logic reaches its apogee in the contemporary vision of austerity. What is austerity, really? It is a desperate attempt to re-start the engines of growth by slashing public investment in social goods and social protections, chopping away at what remains of the commons so that people are cast once again at the mercy of starvation, forced to increase their productivity if they want to survive. The point of austerity is to create scarcity. Suffering – indeed, poverty – must be induced for the sake of more growth.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can call a halt to the madness – throw a wrench in the juggernaut. By de-enclosing social goods and restoring the commons, we can ensure that people are able to access the things that they need to live a good life without having to generate piles of income in order to do so, and without feeding the never-ending growth machine. “Private riches” may shrink, as Lauderdale pointed out, but public wealth will increase.

In this sense, degrowth is the very opposite of austerity. While austerity calls for scarcity in order to generate growth, degrowth calls for abundance in order to render growth unnecessary.

Degrowth, at its core, is a demand for radical abundance.

▻https://www.localfutures.org/degrowth-a-call-for-radical-abundance

#surnuméraires

« Ceci étant dit, il ne suffit pas de diminuer les revenus de la dépendance pour booster l’emploi. Encore faut-il un choc simultané et significatif de diminution du coût du travail. Or ce n’est pas le cas. Même si la réforme du CICE entraine un double chèque en 2019, cette baisse n’est pas extrapolable et n’affectera pas le comportement d’embauche. Encore faut-il aussi que l’impact négatif sur l’activité de la réduction du pouvoir d’achat des dépendants soit compensé par un moteur externe puissant, où une dynamique cyclique robuste. Et là encore ce n’est pas le cas. Bref, comme souvent en économie, le timing compte autant que la doctrine. Et là paradoxalement, le gouvernement est en train d’enrayer une job machine qui paraissait pourtant bien repartie. »

Logique « comptable » des experts en économie mais qui est en train de se vérifier.

Cet article provient de la revue de presse Les Crises du 8/9/2018
▻https://www.les-crises.fr/revue-de-presse-du-08-09-2018

Voir aussi : ►https://seenthis.net/people/lescrises

▻https://www.pauljorion.com/blog/2018/08/15/douglas-rushkoff-de-la-survie-des-plus-riches/?cn-reloaded=1

▻http://www.noeud-gordien.fr/index.php?post/2014/02/18/Nous-n-y-pouvons-rien-faire...
#Dennis_Meadows #catastrophisme #croissance

On l’ajoute à la troisième compilation :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/680147

#effondrement #collapsologie #catastrophe #fin_du_monde #it_has_begun #Anthropocène #capitalocène

La fabrication de certains de nos ordinateurs et de nos smartphones reste assujettie au travail forcé et à l’esclavage. Une dépendance si consubstantielle que #Fairphone, l’entreprise qui ambitionnait de fabriquer et de commercialiser des téléphones éthiques, s’est vue obligée de reconnaître que c’était en réalité impossible. Son fondateur se réfère aujourd’hui tristement à ses produits comme étant « plus » éthiques.

#fairphone #numérique #capitalisme #éthique

Puisque la catastrophe se profile à l’horizon, il faut d’ores et déjà s’organiser pour survivre….
►https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-vie-numerique/pourquoi-les-millionnaires-de-la-silicon-valley-se-preparent-la-fin-du

Au vu de tout ça, la seule question me semble-t-il : en cas de fin du monde, ne faut-il pas mieux crever que devoir survivre avec tous ces tarés ?

#survivalisme

Plus spécifiquement : #milliardaires #survivalistes #après-catastrophe

Voir aussi :

The Georgia Guidestones (1980)
►https://seenthis.net/messages/662355

Dix commandements pour l’après-catastrophe
Randall Sullivan, Courrier International, le 16 décembre 2009
►https://seenthis.net/messages/662355

Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich
Evan Osnos, The New-Yorker, le 30 janvier 2017
►https://seenthis.net/messages/563102

Pourquoi les millionnaires de la Silicon Valley se préparent à la fin du monde
Xavier de La Porte, France Culture, le 28 février 2017
►https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-vie-numerique/pourquoi-les-millionnaires-de-la-silicon-valley-se-preparent-la-fin-du

Utopia – Architecture et utopie (2/4)
Perrine Kervran, France Culture, le 26 décembre 2017
►https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/lsd-la-serie-documentaire/utopia-architecture-et-utopie-24-silicon-valley-smer

Des milliardaires rêvent d’îles artificielles indépendantes pour échapper au réchauffement
Maxime Lerolle, Reporterre, le 23 janvier 2018
►https://seenthis.net/messages/662355

Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand
Mark O’Connell, The Guardian, le 15 février 2018
►https://seenthis.net/messages/669620

Nouvelle-zélande. Là où fleurissent les bunkers de milliardaires
Pierric Marissal, L’Humanité, le 16 avril 2019
►https://seenthis.net/messages/775225

Nouvelle-Zélande : près de deux tiers des écosystèmes du pays sont au bord de l’effondrement
Laurie Debove, La Relève, le 26 avril 2019
►https://seenthis.net/messages/777454

#Nouvelle-Zélande

Abris doux abris
#Reiser, Hara Kiri, octobre 1970
►https://seenthis.net/messages/794260

http://www.harakiri-choron.com/img/images_choisies/1970-b/HK%20image%20112.jpg

Mon plan B pour la fin du monde
Nicolas Santolaria, Le Monde, le 20 septembre 2019
►https://seenthis.net/messages/802800

le monde d’après
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/893129

Karine et Camille reviennent sur l’idée de l’économie qui ne serait pas un gâteau...
#Johan_Rochel a très bien expliqué cela dans son livre
Repenser l’immigration. Une boussole éthique
►http://www.ppur.org/produit/810/9782889151769

Il a appelé cela le #piège_du_gâteau (#gâteau -vs- #repas_canadien) :

« La discussion sur les bienfaits économiques de l’immigration est souvent tronquée par le piège du gâteau. Si vous invitez plus de gens à votre anniversaire, la part moyenne du gâteau va rétrécir. De même, on a tendance à penser que si plus de participants accèdent au marché du travail, il en découlera forcément une baisse des salaires et une réduction du nombre d’emplois disponible.
Cette vision repose sur une erreur fondamentale quant au type de gâteau que représente l’économie, puisque, loin d’être de taille fixe, celui-ci augmente en fonction du nombre de participants. Les immigrants trouvant un travail ne osnt en effet pas seulement des travailleurs, ils sont également des consommateurs. Ils doivent se loger, manger, consommer et, à ce titre, leur présence stimule la croissance et crée de nouvelles opportunités économiques. Dans le même temps, cette prospérité économique provoque de nouvelles demandes en termes de logement, mobilité et infrastructure.
L’immigration n’est donc pas comparable à une fête d’anniversaire où la part de gâteau diminuerait sans cesse. La bonne image serait plutôt celle d’un repas canadien : chacun apporte sa contribution personnelle, avant de se lancer à la découverte de divers plats et d’échanger avec les autres convives. Assis à cette table, nous sommes à la fois contributeurs et consommateurs.
Cette analogie du repas canadien nous permet d’expliquer pourquoi un petit pays comme la Suisse n’a pas sombré dans la pauvreté la plus totale suite à l’arrivée de milliers d’Européens. Ces immigrants n’ont pas fait diminuer la taille du gâteau, ils ont contribué à la prospérité et au festin commun. L’augmentation du nombre de personnes actives sur le marché du travail a ainsi conduit à une forte augmentation du nombre d’emplois à disposition, tout en conservant des salaires élevés et un taux de chômage faible.
Collectivement, la Suisse ressort clairement gagnante de cette mobilité internationale. Ce bénéfice collectif ’national’ ne doit cependant pas faire oublier les situations difficiles. Les changements induits par l’immigration profitent en effet à certains, tandis que d’autres se retrouvent sous pression. C’est notamment le cas des travailleurs résidents dont l’activité ou les compétences sont directement en compétition avec les nouveaux immigrés. Cela concerne tout aussi bien des secteurs peu qualifiés (par exemple les anciens migrants actifs dans l’hôtellerie) que dans les domaines hautement qualifiés (comme le management ou la recherche).
Sur le plan éthique, ce constat est essentiel car il fait clairement apparaître deux questions distinctes. D’une part, si l’immigration profite au pays en général, l’exigence d’une répartition équitable des effets positifs et négatifs de cette immigration se pose de manière aiguë. Au final, la question ne relève plus de la politique migratoire, mais de la redistribution des richesses produites. Le douanier imaginaire ne peut donc se justifier sous couvert d’une ’protection’ générale de l’économie.
D’autre part, si l’immigration met sous pression certains travailleurs résidents, la question de leur éventuelle protection doit être posée. Dans le débat public, cette question est souvent présentée comme un choix entre la défense de ’nos pauvres’ ou de ’nos chômeurs’ face aux ’immigrés’. Même si l’immigration est positive pour la collectivité, certains estiment que la protection de certains résidents justifierait la mise en œuvre de politiques migratoires restrictives » (Rochel 2016 : 31-33)

People on the move : migration and mobility in the European Union

Migration is one of the most divisive policy topics in today’s Europe. In this publication, the authors assess the immigration challenge that the EU faces, analyse public perceptions, map migration patterns in the EU and review the literature on the economic impact of immigration to reflect on immigration policies and the role of private institutions in fostering integration.

▻http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/People_on_the_move_ONLINE.pdf
#travail #économie #éducation #intégration #EU #UE #asile #invasion #afflux #préjugés #statistiques #chiffres

Je copie-colle ici deux graphiques.

Un sur le nombre de #immigrants comparé au nombre de #émigrants, où l’on voit que le #solde_migratoire (en pourcentage de la population) est souvent négatif... notamment en #France et en #Italie :

https://i.imgur.com/LEzVz7Q.png

Et un graphique sur les demandes d’asile :

https://i.imgur.com/V2PL5NZ.png

The progressive case for immigration

Whatever politicians say, the world needs more immigration, not less.

“WE CAN’T restore our civilisation with somebody else’s babies.” Steve King, a Republican congressman from Iowa, could hardly have been clearer in his meaning in a tweet this week supporting Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician with anti-immigrant views. Across the rich world, those of a similar mind have been emboldened by a nativist turn in politics. Some do push back: plenty of Americans rallied against Donald Trump’s plans to block refugees and migrants. Yet few rich-world politicians are willing to make the case for immigration that it deserves: it is a good thing and there should be much more of it.

Defenders of immigration often fight on nativist turf, citing data to respond to claims about migrants’ damaging effects on wages or public services. Those data are indeed on migrants’ side. Though some research suggests that native workers with skill levels similar to those of arriving migrants take a hit to their wages because of increased migration, most analyses find that they are not harmed, and that many eventually earn more as competition nudges them to specialise in more demanding occupations. But as a slogan, “The data say you’re wrong” lacks punch. More important, this narrow focus misses immigration’s biggest effects.

Appeal to self-interest is a more effective strategy. In countries with acute demographic challenges, migration is a solution to the challenges posed by ageing: immigrants’ tax payments help fund native pensions; they can help ease a shortage of care workers. In Britain, for example, voters worry that foreigners compete with natives for the care of the National Health Service, but pay less attention to the migrants helping to staff the NHS. Recent research suggests that information campaigns in Japan which focused on these issues managed to raise public support for migration (albeit from very low levels).

Natives enjoy other benefits, too. As migrants to rich countries prosper and have children, they become better able to contribute to science, the arts and entrepreneurial activity. This is the Steve Jobs case for immigration: the child of a Muslim man from Syria might create a world-changing company in his new home.

https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/336/90/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170318_FNC165_0.png

Yet even this argument tiptoes around the most profound case for immigration. Among economists, there is near-universal acceptance that immigration generates huge benefits. Inconveniently, from a rhetorical perspective, most go to the migrants themselves. Workers who migrate from poor countries to rich ones typically earn vastly more than they could have in their country of origin. In a paper published in 2009, economists estimated the “place premium” a foreign worker could earn in America relative to the income of an identical worker in his native country. The figures are eye-popping. A Mexican worker can expect to earn more than 2.5 times her Mexican wage, in PPP-adjusted dollars, in America. The multiple for Haitian workers is over 10; for Yemenis it is 15 (see chart).

No matter how hard a Haitian worker labours, he cannot create around him the institutions, infrastructure and skilled population within which American workers do their jobs. By moving, he gains access to all that at a stroke, which massively boosts the value of his work, whether he is a software engineer or a plumber. Defenders of open borders reckon that restrictions on migration represent a “trillion dollar bills left on the pavement”: a missed opportunity to raise the output of hundreds of millions of people, and, in so doing, to boost their quality of life.
We shall come over; they shall be moved

On what grounds do immigration opponents justify obstructing this happy outcome? Some suppose it would be better for poor countries to become rich themselves. Perhaps so. But achieving rich-world incomes is the exception rather than the rule. The unusual rapid expansion of emerging economies over the past two decades is unlikely to be repeated. Growth in China and in global supply chains—the engines of the emerging-world miracle—is decelerating; so, too, is catch-up to American income levels (see chart). The falling cost of automating manufacturing work is also undermining the role of industry in development. The result is “premature deindustrialisation”, a phenomenon identified by Dani Rodrik, an economist, in which the role of industry in emerging markets peaks at progressively lower levels of income over time. However desirable economic development is, insisting upon it as the way forward traps billions in poverty.

An argument sometimes cited by critics of immigration is that migrants might taint their new homes with a residue of the culture of their countries of origin. If they come in great enough numbers, this argument runs, the accumulated toxins could undermine the institutions that make high incomes possible, leaving everyone worse off. Michael Anton, a national-security adviser to Donald Trump, for example, has warned that the culture of “third-world foreigners” is antithetical to the liberal, Western values that support high incomes and a high quality of life.

This argument, too, fails to convince. At times in history Catholics and Jews faced similar slurs, which in hindsight look simply absurd. Research published last year by Michael Clemens and Lant Pritchett of the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank, found that migration rules tend to be far more restrictive than is justified by worries about the “contagion” of low productivity.

So the theory amounts to an attempt to provide an economic basis for a cultural prejudice: what may be a natural human proclivity to feel more comfortable surrounded by people who look and talk the same, and to be disconcerted by rapid change and the unfamiliar. But like other human tendencies, this is vulnerable to principled campaigns for change. Americans and Europeans are not more deserving of high incomes than Ethiopians or Haitians. And the discomfort some feel at the strange dress or speech of a passer-by does not remotely justify trillions in economic losses foisted on the world’s poorest people. No one should be timid about saying so, loud and clear.

▻https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/18/the-progressive-case-for-immigration?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/theprogressivecaseforimmigrationfreeexchange?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/theprogressivecaseforimmigrationfreeexchange

Emigration et immigration... #solde_migratoire en Italie.

https://i.imgur.com/SKdHnFQ.jpg

source : ▻https://twitter.com/TeresaTalo/status/1034469558793498625

#Riace, l’economia e la rivincita degli zero

Premessa

Intendiamoci, il ministro Salvini può fare tutto quello che vuole. Criminalizzando le ONG può infangare l’operato di tanti volontari che hanno salvato migliaia di persone dall’annegamento; può chiudere i porti ai migranti, sequestrarli per giorni in una nave, chiudere gli Sprar, ridurre i finanziamenti per la loro minima necessaria accoglienza; può togliere il diritto ai migranti di chiedere lo stato di rifugiato, può cancellare modelli di integrazione funzionanti come Riace, può istigare all’odio razziale tramite migliaia di post su facebook in una continua e ansiosa ricerca del criminale (ma solo se ha la pelle scura). Al ministro Salvini è permesso tutto: lavorare sulle paure delle persone per incanalare la loro frustrazione contro un nemico inventato, può persino impedire a dei pullman di raggiungere Roma affinché le persone non possano manifestare contro di lui. Può prendersela con tutti coloro che lo criticano, sdoganare frasi del cupo ventennio fascista, minacciare sgomberi a tutti (tranne che a casapound) e rimanendo in tema, può chiedere il censimento dei ROM per poterli cacciare. Può fare tutto questo a torso nudo, tramite una diretta facebook, chiosando i suoi messaggi ai suoi nemici giurati con baci e abbracci aggressivo-passivi, o mostrandosi sorridente nei suoi selfie durante le tragedie che affliggono il nostro paese. Al ministro Salvini è permesso di tutto, non c’è magistratura o carta costituzionale che tenga.

Ma una cosa è certa: il ministro Salvini non può vietare alle persone di provare empatia, di fare ed essere rete, di non avere paura, di non essere solidale. E soprattutto, il ministro Salvini, non può impedirci di ragionare, di analizzare lo stato dell’arte tramite studi e ricerche scientifiche, capire la storia, smascherare il presente, per provare a proporre valide alternative, per un futuro più aperto ed inclusivo per la pace e il benessere delle persone.

Tutto questo è lo scopo del presente articolo, che dedico a mio padre. Buona lettura.

I migranti ci aiutano a casa nostra

In un mio precedente post, sempre qui su Econopoly, ho spiegato -studi alla mano- come fosse conveniente, anche e soprattutto dal punto di vista economico, avere una politica basata sull’accoglienza: la diversità e la relativa inclusione conviene a tutti. Molti dei commenti critici che ho avuto modo di leggere sui social, oltre alle consuete offese degli instancabili haters possono riassumersi in un solo concetto: “gli altri paesi selezionano i migranti e fanno entrare solo quelli qualificati, mentre in Italia accogliamo tutti”. Premesso che non è così, che l’Italia non è l’unico paese ad offrire ospitalità a questo tipo di migranti, e che non tutte le persone disperate che raggiungono le nostre coste sono poco istruite, non voglio sottrarmi alla critica e voglio rispondere punto su punto nel campo di gioco melmoso e maleodorante da loro scelto. Permettetemi quindi di rivolgermi direttamente a loro, in prima persona.

Prima di tutto mi chiedo come si possa sperare di attirare migranti “qualificati” se non riusciamo neanche a tenerci le nostre migliori menti. Il nostro problema principale è infatti l’emigrazione, non l’immigrazione: più di 250mila italiani emigrano all’estero, perché l’Italia non è più capace di offrire loro un futuro dignitoso. Ma tutto questo evidentemente non rientra tra le priorità del governo del cambiamento.

Tolti i migranti “qualificati”, ci rimangono quindi quelli che gli anglosassoni definiscono “low skilled migrants”, e le obiezioni che i nostri amici rancorosi ci pongono sono sempre le stesse: “per noi sono solo un costo”, “prima gli italiani che non arrivano alla fine del mese”, “ospitateli a casa vostra”, e così via vanverando. Proviamo a rispondere con i numeri, con i dati, sempre che i dati possano avere ancora un valore in questo paese in perenne campagna elettorale, sempre alla ricerca del facile consenso. Correva l’anno 2016, un numero record di sbarchi raggiungeva le nostre coste e lo stato spendeva per loro ben 17,5 miliardi di spesa pubblica. Bene, prima che possiate affogare nella vostra stessa bava, senza che nessuna ONG possa venirvi a salvare, sappiate che gli introiti dello Stato grazie ai contributi da loro versati, nelle varie forme, è stato di 19,2 miliardi: in pratica con i contributi dei migranti lo stato ha guadagnato 1,7 miliardi di euro. Potete prendervela con me che ve lo riporto, o magari con il centro studi e ricerche Idos e con il centro Unar (del dipartimento delle pari opportunità) che questo report lo hanno prodotto, ma la realtà non cambia. Forse fate prima a cambiare voi la vostra percezione, perché dovremmo ringraziarli quei “low skilled migrants”, visto che con quel miliardo e sette di euro ci hanno aiutato a casa nostra, pagando -in parte- la nostra pensione, il nostro ospedale, la nostra scuola.

Studi confermano che i migranti contribuiscono al benessere del paese ospitante

Prima di andare avanti in questo discorso, vale la pena di menzionare un importante e imponente studio di Giovanni Peri e Mette Foged del 2016: i due autori hanno esaminato i salari di ogni singola persona in Danimarca per un periodo di ben 12 anni, nei quali vi era stato un forte afflusso di migranti. Il governo danese distribuì i rifugiati per tutto il territorio, fornendo agli economisti tutti i dati necessari per permettere a loro di analizzarli. Da questi dati emerse che i danesi che avevano i rifugiati nelle vicinanze, avevano visto i propri salari crescere molto più velocemente, rispetto ai connazionali senza rifugiati. Questo si spiega perché i low skilled migrants essendo poco istruiti, generalmente vanno a coprire quei lavori che non richiedono particolari competenze, permettendo -per contrasto- ai locali di specializzarsi nei lavori che invece sono meglio pagati, perché più produttivi.

Quando i migranti non convengono e sono solo un costo

Tuttavia i migranti, per poter versare i propri contributi allo stato, devono -ovviamente- essere messi in grado di lavorare. Non sto dicendo che si debba trovare loro un lavoro, perché sono capaci di farlo da soli, ma semplicemente di dare a loro i necessari permessi burocratici per poter vivere, lavorare, consumare, spendere. Questo alimenterebbe un mercato del lavoro -che molti italiani ormai disdegnano- e aumenterebbe l’indotto delle vendite di beni di consumo ai “nostri” piccoli commercianti italiani e non.

“Potrebbe sembrare controintuitivo, ma i paesi che hanno politiche più severe e restrittive nei confronti dei rifugiati, finiscono per avere un costo maggiore per il mantenimento dei migranti”, afferma Erik Jones, professore alla Johns Hopkins University School. Quindi paradossalmente (ma neanche tanto), più rinchiudiamo i migranti nei centri di accoglienza senza permettere a loro di avere una vita e un lavoro, più sale il loro costo a spese dei cittadini italiani.

Le conseguenze del decreto sicurezza

Stranamente è proprio questa la direzione che il ministro Salvini ha deciso di intraprendere con il suo “decreto sicurezza”: togliendo lo SPRAR ai migranti e rendendo più difficoltosa la possibilità di richiedere asilo, verrà impedito a loro di integrarsi nel tessuto sociale del nostro paese, di lavorare, di produrre ricchezza. Insomma questo decreto finiranno per pagarlo caramente gli italiani, che per il ministro Salvini, sarebbero dovuti “venire prima” (forse intendeva alla cassa).

Non è un caso se al momento in cui scrivo città come Torino, Bergamo, Bologna e Padova hanno espresso forti preoccupazioni nel far attuare il cosiddetto “decreto sicurezza” firmato da Salvini. Il fatto che a Torino governi il m5s che siede nei banchi di governo insieme al ministro degli interni, ha provocato non pochi mal di pancia dentro la maggioranza e conferma quanto questo decreto sia in realtà molto pericoloso per gli italiani stessi. «Io capisco che siamo in campagna elettorale permanente – ha concluso Sergio Giordani ma non si possono prendere decisioni sulla pelle delle persone. Che si scordino di farlo su quella dei padovani», ha affermato il sindaco di Padova. Non è un lapsus, ha proprio detto “sulla pelle dei padovani”, non dei migranti.

Perché il modello Riace ha funzionato

Un interessante studio, diretto dal Prof. Edward Taylor, per la Harvard Business Review, ci spiega quali sono le giuste modalità che permettano ai migranti di sostenere l’economia del paese ospitante, e lo fa spiegandoci due importanti lezioni che ha imparato dopo aver studiato attentamente i costi economici e i benefici di tre campi in Rwanda gestiti dall’UNCHR:
1. Give cash, not food. La prima lezione imparata è quella di fornire direttamente i soldi ai migranti per comprarsi il cibo e di non dare a loro direttamente il cibo. Questo serve ad alimentare il mercato locale, aiutando in un’ottica win-win i contadini locali e i piccoli commercianti del posto
2. Promote long-term integration. La seconda lezione imparata che ci spiega il prof. Edward Taylor, riguarda il necessario tempo di integrazione che si deve concedere ai migranti, al fine di permettere un importante ritorno economico al paese ospitante: in poche parole i migranti devono avere il tempo di sistemarsi, di creare una forza lavoro locale, di integrarsi nel tessuto sociale del luogo ospitante

Quando ho letto questo studio non ho potuto fare altro che pensare all’esperienza di Riace, considerata giustamente un modello vincente di integrazione, diventato famoso in tutto il mondo: infatti quello che consiglia il Prof Taylor è esattamente ciò che ha fatto il sindaco Domenico Lucano nel suo paese! La ricetta è talmente la stessa, che ad un certo punto ho pensato di aver letto male e che il Prof. Taylor si riferisse, in realtà, all’esperienza del paesino calabrese, non a quella del Rwanda.

Per quanto riguarda il primo punto, il sindaco Lucano si è dovuto inventare una moneta locale per permettere ai migranti di essere indipendenti e di spenderli nel territorio ospitante, promuovendo ed aiutando l’economia dell’intero paese; per quanto riguarda il secondo punto, Lucano ha trasformato la natura dei fondi dello SPRAR, che in realtà prevedono una sistemazione del migrante in soli sei mesi, in una integrazione a medio e lungo termine. Per permettere ai migranti di ritornare un valore (anche economico), è necessario del tempo, ed è obiettivamente impossibile immaginarlo fattibile nel limite temporale dei sei mesi. E’ importante sottolineare come le accuse che gli vengono mosse dalla magistratura, che gli sta attualmente impedendo di tornare nella sua Riace, nascano proprio da questo suo approccio ben descritto nelle due lezioni del Prof. Taylor. Altro concetto importante da ribadire è che all’inizio, il sindaco Lucano, si è mosso in questa direzione principalmente per aiutare i suoi compaesani italiani, visto che il paese si stava spopolando. Ad esempio, l’asilo era destinato a chiudere, ma grazie ai figli dei migranti questo non è accaduto.

Tutto questo mi ha fatto pensare al sindaco di Riace, come ad un vero e proprio manager illuminato, oltre che ad una persona di una generosità smisurata, non certamente ad un criminale da punire ed umiliare in questo modo.

Lunga vita a Riace (grazie alla rete)

Dovremmo essere tutti riconoscenti al sindaco Riace, ma non solo esprimendogli solidarietà con le parole. Ho pertanto deciso di concludere questo articolo con delle proposte concrete che possano aiutare Lucano, i riacesi e i migranti che vi abitano. Ognuno può dare il proprio “give-back” al Sindaco Lucano, in base al proprio vissuto, ai propri interessi, alle proprie competenze. Ad esempio, per il lavoro che faccio, a me viene facile pensare che la Digital Transformation che propongo alle aziende possa aiutare in modo decisivo Riace e tutte le “Riaci del mondo” che vogliano provare ad integrare e non a respingere i migranti. Penso ad esempio che Riace meriti una piattaforma web che implementi almeno tre funzioni principali:
1. Funzione divulgativa, culturale. E’ necessario far conoscere le storie delle persone, perché si è stranieri solo fino a quando non ci si conosce l’un l’altro. Per questo penso, ad esempio, ad una web radio, magari ispirata all’esperienza di Radio Aut di Peppino Impastato, visto che Mimmo lo considera, giustamente, una figura vicina alle sue istanze. Contestualmente, sempre attraverso la piattaforma web farei conoscere, tramite dei video molto brevi, le storie e le testimonianze dei singoli migranti
2. Funzione di sostentamento economico. Ogni migrante infatti potrebbe avere un profilo pubblico che potrebbe permettere a tutti noi non solo di conoscere la sua storia ma anche di aiutarlo economicamente, comprando i suoi prodotti, che possano essere di artigianato o di beni di consumo come l’olio locale di Riace. Insomma, una piattaforma che funzionerebbe da e-commerce, seppur con una forte valenza etica. Infatti il “made in Riace”, potrebbe diventare un brand, la garanzia che un commercio equo e solidale possa essere veramente possibile, anche in questo mondo
3. Funzione di offerta lavoro. La piattaforma potrebbe ospitare un sistema che metta in comunicazione la domanda con l’offerta di lavoro. Penso ai tanti lavori e lavoretti di cui la popolazione locale potrebbe avere bisogno, attratta magari dai costi più bassi: il muratore, l’elettricista, l’idraulico, etc. Per non parlare di professioni più qualificanti, perché spesso ad imbarcarsi nei viaggi della speranza ci sono anche molti dottori e professionisti

Ed infine, sempre grazie alla rete, i migranti di un paesino sperduto come Riace, potrebbero tenere lezioni di inglese e francese, tramite skype, a milioni di italiani (che ne hanno veramente bisogno). Credo infine che -rimanendo in tema- potrebbero nascere a Riace, come in tanti altri paesi del nostro belpaese, anche dei laboratori di informatica visto che attualmente moltissime società per trovare un programmatore disponibile sono costrette a cercarlo fuori Italia, data la spropositata differenza tra la domanda e l’offerta in questo settore in continua evoluzione.

Se al sindaco Lucano interessa, il mio personale give-back è tutto e solo per lui.

Conclusioni

Il ministro Salvini, che può tutto, ha definito il sindaco di Riace “uno zero”, pensando di offenderlo ma è evidente che non lo conosce affatto. Come non conosce affatto le dinamiche della rete, nonostante il suo entourage social si vanti di aver creato il profilo pubblico su facebook con più followers. Ma é proprio questo lo sbaglio di fondo, il grande fraintendimento: la rete non è mai stata pensata in ottica di “followers e following”, questa è una aberrazione dei social network che nulla ha a che fare con la rete e le sue origini. La rete è nata per condividere, collaborare, comunicare, contaminare. Ricordiamoci che grazie alla rete, in pochissimi giorni, si sono trovati i fondi per permettere ai figli dei migranti di usufruire della mensa scolastica dei propri bambini, che leghista di Lodi gli aveva tolto. Siamo tutti degli zero, ministro Salvini, non solo il sindaco Riace. Ma lei, sig. ministro, non ha minimamente idea di cosa siano capace di fare gli zero, quando si uniscono con gli uni, se lo faccia dire da un informatico. La rete è solidale by design.

▻https://www.econopoly.ilsole24ore.com/2018/11/11/riace-economia-rivincita-degli-zero/?refresh_ce=1

L’immigration rapporte 3 500 euros par individu chaque année

D’après un rapport de l’OCDE dévoilé par La Libre Belgique, l’immigration « rapporterait » en moyenne près de 3.500 euros de rentrées fiscales par individu par an . Toutefois, l’insertion d’une partie d’entre eux ferait toujours l’objet de discrimination : un véritable gâchis pour les économistes et les observateurs.

▻https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/l-immigration-rapporte-3-500-euros-par-individu-chaque-annee/article-normal-17431.html?cookie_check=1545235756

signalé par @kassem :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/745460

The progressive case for immigration. Whatever politicians say, the world needs more immigration, not less

“WE CAN’T restore our civilisation with somebody else’s babies.” Steve King, a Republican congressman from Iowa, could hardly have been clearer in his meaning in a tweet this week supporting Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician with anti-immigrant views. Across the rich world, those of a similar mind have been emboldened by a nativist turn in politics. Some do push back: plenty of Americans rallied against Donald Trump’s plans to block refugees and migrants. Yet few rich-world politicians are willing to make the case for immigration that it deserves: it is a good thing and there should be much more of it.

Defenders of immigration often fight on nativist turf, citing data to respond to claims about migrants’ damaging effects on wages or public services. Those data are indeed on migrants’ side. Though some research suggests that native workers with skill levels similar to those of arriving migrants take a hit to their wages because of increased migration, most analyses find that they are not harmed, and that many eventually earn more as competition nudges them to specialise in more demanding occupations. But as a slogan, “The data say you’re wrong” lacks punch. More important, this narrow focus misses immigration’s biggest effects.

Appeal to self-interest is a more effective strategy. In countries with acute demographic challenges, migration is a solution to the challenges posed by ageing: immigrants’ tax payments help fund native pensions; they can help ease a shortage of care workers. In Britain, for example, voters worry that foreigners compete with natives for the care of the National Health Service, but pay less attention to the migrants helping to staff the NHS. Recent research suggests that information campaigns in Japan which focused on these issues managed to raise public support for migration (albeit from very low levels).

Natives enjoy other benefits, too. As migrants to rich countries prosper and have children, they become better able to contribute to science, the arts and entrepreneurial activity. This is the Steve Jobs case for immigration: the child of a Muslim man from Syria might create a world-changing company in his new home.

https://i.imgur.com/8r7asKn.png

Yet even this argument tiptoes around the most profound case for immigration. Among economists, there is near-universal acceptance that immigration generates huge benefits. Inconveniently, from a rhetorical perspective, most go to the migrants themselves. Workers who migrate from poor countries to rich ones typically earn vastly more than they could have in their country of origin. In a paper published in 2009, economists estimated the “place premium” a foreign worker could earn in America relative to the income of an identical worker in his native country. The figures are eye-popping. A Mexican worker can expect to earn more than 2.5 times her Mexican wage, in PPP-adjusted dollars, in America. The multiple for Haitian workers is over 10; for Yemenis it is 15 (see chart).

No matter how hard a Haitian worker labours, he cannot create around him the institutions, infrastructure and skilled population within which American workers do their jobs. By moving, he gains access to all that at a stroke, which massively boosts the value of his work, whether he is a software engineer or a plumber. Defenders of open borders reckon that restrictions on migration represent a “trillion dollar bills left on the pavement”: a missed opportunity to raise the output of hundreds of millions of people, and, in so doing, to boost their quality of life.
We shall come over; they shall be moved

On what grounds do immigration opponents justify obstructing this happy outcome? Some suppose it would be better for poor countries to become rich themselves. Perhaps so. But achieving rich-world incomes is the exception rather than the rule. The unusual rapid expansion of emerging economies over the past two decades is unlikely to be repeated. Growth in China and in global supply chains—the engines of the emerging-world miracle—is decelerating; so, too, is catch-up to American income levels (see chart). The falling cost of automating manufacturing work is also undermining the role of industry in development. The result is “premature deindustrialisation”, a phenomenon identified by Dani Rodrik, an economist, in which the role of industry in emerging markets peaks at progressively lower levels of income over time. However desirable economic development is, insisting upon it as the way forward traps billions in poverty.

An argument sometimes cited by critics of immigration is that migrants might taint their new homes with a residue of the culture of their countries of origin. If they come in great enough numbers, this argument runs, the accumulated toxins could undermine the institutions that make high incomes possible, leaving everyone worse off. Michael Anton, a national-security adviser to Donald Trump, for example, has warned that the culture of “third-world foreigners” is antithetical to the liberal, Western values that support high incomes and a high quality of life.

This argument, too, fails to convince. At times in history Catholics and Jews faced similar slurs, which in hindsight look simply absurd. Research published last year by Michael Clemens and Lant Pritchett of the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank, found that migration rules tend to be far more restrictive than is justified by worries about the “contagion” of low productivity.

So the theory amounts to an attempt to provide an economic basis for a cultural prejudice: what may be a natural human proclivity to feel more comfortable surrounded by people who look and talk the same, and to be disconcerted by rapid change and the unfamiliar. But like other human tendencies, this is vulnerable to principled campaigns for change. Americans and Europeans are not more deserving of high incomes than Ethiopians or Haitians. And the discomfort some feel at the strange dress or speech of a passer-by does not remotely justify trillions in economic losses foisted on the world’s poorest people. No one should be timid about saying so, loud and clear.

▻https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/18/the-progressive-case-for-immigration?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed
#USA #Etats-Unis

Migrants contribute more to Britain than they take, and will carry on doing so. Reducing immigration will hurt now, and in the future

https://i.imgur.com/wAK6GFU.png

BRITAIN’S Conservative Party has put reducing immigration at the core of its policies. Stopping “uncontrolled immigration from the EU”, as Theresa May, the prime minister, put it in a speech on September 20th, appears to be the reddest of her red lines in the negotiations over Brexit. Any deal that maintains free movement of people, she says, would fail to respect the result of the Brexit referendum.

In her “Chequers” proposal, Mrs May outlined her vision of Britain’s future relationship with the block, which would have placed restrictions on immigration from the EU. But the block rejected it as unworkable, and the stalemate makes the spectre of a chaotic Brexit next March without any agreement far more likely.

Even if she were to manage to reduce migration significantly, however, Mrs May’s successors might come to regret it. According to the government’s latest review on immigration, by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), immigrants contribute more to the public purse on average than native-born Britons do. Moreover, European newcomers are the most lucrative group among them. The MAC reckons that each additional migrant from the European Economic Area (EEA) will make a total contribution to the public purse of approximately £78,000 over his or her lifetime (in 2017 prices). Last year, the average adult migrant from the EEA yielded £2,370 ($3,000) more for the Treasury than the average British-born adult did. Even so, the MAC recommended refining the current immigration system to remove the cap on high-skilled migrants and also said that no special treatment should be given to EU citizens.

With Britain’s population ageing, the country could do with an influx of younger members to its labour force. If net migration were reduced to the Tories’ target of fewer than 100,000 people per year by 2030, every 1,000 people of prime working age (20-64) in Britain would have to support 405 people over the age of 65. At the present level of net migration, however, those 1,000 people would have to support only 389. This gap of 16 more pension-aged people rises to 44 by 2050. The middle-aged voters who tend to support the Conservatives today are the exact cohort whose pensions are at risk of shrinking if their desired immigration policies were put into practice.

▻https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/26/migrants-contribute-more-to-britain-than-they-take-and-will-carry-on-doing-so?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/migrantscontributemoretobritainthantheytakeandwillcarryondoingsodailychar
#UK #Angleterre

Étude sur l’impact économique des migrants en Europe : « Les flux migratoires sont une opportunité et non une charge »

Pour #Ekrame_Boubtane, la co-auteure de l’étude sur l’impact positif de la migration sur l’économie européenne (▻https://seenthis.net/messages/703437), « les flux migratoires ont contribué à améliorer le niveau de vie moyen ».

Selon une étude du CNRS, les migrants ne sont pas une charge économique pour l’Europe. L’augmentation du flux de migrants permanent produit même des effets positifs. C’est ce que démontre Ekrame Boubtane, économiste, maître de conférence à l’Université Clermont Auvergne, co-auteure de l’étude sur l’impact positif de la migration sur l’économie européenne.

Cette étude intervient alors que la Hongrie, dirigée par Viktor Orban, met en place une nouvelle loi travail qui autorise les employeurs à demander à leurs salariés 400 heures supplémentaires par an, payées trois ans plus tard. Cette disposition, adoptée dans un contexte de manque de main d’oeuvre, est dénoncée par ses opposants comme un « droit à l’esclavage » dans un pays aux salaires parmi les plus bas de l’UE

500 000 Hongrois sont partis travailler à l’Ouest ces dernières années, là où les salaires sont deux à trois fois plus élevés. La nouvelle loi travail portée par le gouvernement hongrois est-elle une solution au manque de main d’oeuvre dans le pays selon vous ?

Ekrame Boubtane : C’est un peu curieux de répondre à un besoin de main d’oeuvre en remettant en cause les droits des travailleurs qui restent en Hongrie. Je pense que c’est un mauvais signal qu’on envoie sur le marché du travail hongrois en disant que les conditions de travail dans le pays vont se détériorer encore plus, incitant peut-être même davantage de travailleurs hongrois à partir dans d’autres pays.

Ce qui est encore plus inquiétant, c’est que le gouvernement hongrois a surfé politiquement sur une idéologie anti-immigration [avec cette barrière à la frontière serbe notamment où sont placés des barbelés, des miradors...] et aujourd’hui il n’a pas une position rationnelle par rapport au marché du travail en Hongrie. Proposer ce genre de mesure ne semble pas très pertinent du point de vue de l’ajustement sur le marché du travail.

En Hongrie, six entreprises sur dix sont aujourd’hui en situation de fragilité. La pénurie de main d’oeuvre dans certains secteurs en tension pourrait-elle être compensée par l’immigration aujourd’hui ?

Je suppose que la législation hongroise en matière de travail est très restrictive pour l’emploi de personnes étrangères, mais ce qu’il faut aussi préciser c’est que les Hongrois qui sont partis travailler dans les autres pays européens n’ont pas forcément les qualifications ou les compétences nécessaires dans ces secteurs en tension. Ce sont des secteurs (bâtiment, agroalimentaire) qui ont besoin de main d’oeuvre. Ce sont des emplois relativement pénibles, payés généralement au niveau minimum et qui ne sont pas très attractifs pour les nationaux.

Les flux migratoires sont une source de main d’oeuvre flexible et mobile. L’Allemagne comme la France ont toujours eu un discours plutôt rationnel et un peu dépassionné de la question migratoire. Je pense à une initiative intéressante en Bretagne où le secteur agroalimentaire avait des difficultés pour pourvoir une centaine de postes. Le pôle emploi local n’a pas trouvé les travailleurs compétents pour ces tâches-là. Le Conseil régional Bretagne et Pôle Emploi ont donc investi dans la formation de migrants, principalement des Afghans qui venaient d’avoir la protection de l’Ofpra [Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides]. Ils les ont formés, et notamment à la maîtrise de la langue, pour pourvoir ces postes.

Les flux migratoires peuvent donc être une chance pour les économies européennes ?

C’est ce que démontrent tous les travaux de recherches scientifiques. Lorsque l’on va parler de connaissances ou de savoir plutôt que d’opinions ou de croyances, les flux migratoires dans les pays européens sont une opportunité économique et non pas une charge. Lorsqu’on travaille sur ces questions-là, on voit clairement que les flux migratoires ont contribué à améliorer le niveau de vie moyen ou encore le solde des finances publiques.

On oublie souvent que les migrants - en proportion de la population - permettent de réduire les dépenses de retraite donc ils permettent de les financer. Généralement on se focalise sur les dépenses et on ne regarde pas ce qui se passe du côté des recettes, alors que du côté des recettes on établit clairement que les migrants contribuent aussi aux recettes des administrations publiques et donc, finalement, on a une implication des flux migratoires sur le solde budgétaire des administrations publiques qui est positif et clairement identifié dans les données.

▻https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/etude-sur-l-impact-economique-des-migrants-en-europe-les-flux-migratoir

Une étude démontre que les migrants ne sont pas un fardeau pour les économies européennes

Le travail réalisé par des économistes français démontre qu’une augmentation du flux de migrants permanents à une date donnée produit des effets positifs jusqu’à quatre ans après.

Une étude réalisée par des économistes français et publiée dans le magazine Sciences advences, mercredi 20 juin, démontre que les migrants ne sont pas un fardeau pour les économies européennes. Les trois chercheurs du CNRS, de l’université de Clermont-Auvergne et de Paris-Nanterre se sont appuyés sur les données statistiques de quinze pays de l’Europe de l’Ouest, dont la France. Les chercheurs ont distingué les migrants permanents des demandeurs d’asile, en situation légale le temps de l’instruction de leur demande et considérés comme résidents une fois leur demande acceptée.

Pendant la période étudiée entre 1985 et 2015, l’Europe de l’Ouest a connu une augmentation importante des flux de demandeurs d’asile à la suite des guerres dans les Balkans et à partir de 2011, en lien avec les Printemps arabes et le conflit syrien. Les flux de migrants, notamment intracommunautaires, ont eux augmenté après l’élargissement de l’Union européenne vers l’Est en 2004.
Une hausse du flux de migrants produits des effets positifs

L’étude démontre qu’une augmentation du flux de migrants permanents à une date donnée produit des effets positifs jusqu’à quatre ans après : le PIB par habitant augmente, le taux de chômage diminue et les dépenses publiques supplémentaires sont plus que compensées par l’augmentation des recettes fiscales. Dans le cas des demandeurs d’asile, les économistes n’observent aucun effet négatif. L’impact positif se fait sentir au bout de trois à cinq ans, lorsqu’une partie des demandeurs obtient l’asile et rejoint la catégorie des migrants permanents.

« Il n’y a pas d’impacts négatifs. Les demandeurs d’asile ne font pas augmenter le chômage, ne réduisent pas le PIB par tête et ils ne dégradent pas le solde des finances publiques. Il y a des effets positifs sur les migrations qui sont un petit peu polémiques parce que tout le monde n’y croit pas. Ce qui est intéressant, c’est de voir que cela ne dégrade pas la situation des finances publiques européennes » a expliqué, jeudi 21 juin sur franceinfo, Hippolyte d’Albis, directeur de recherche au CNRS, professeur à l’École d’économie de Paris et co-auteur de l’étude sur l’impact des demandeurs d’asile sur l’économie.
Investir pour rapidement intégrer le marché du travail

« Trente ans d’accueil de demandeurs d’asile dans les quinze principaux pays d’Europe nous révèlent qu’il n’y a pas eu d’effets négatifs, explique Hippolyte d’Albis. Evidemment il y a un coût, ces personnes vont être logées, parfois recevoir une allocation, mais cet argent va être redistribué dans l’économie. Il ne faut pas voir qu’un côté, nous on a vu le côté des impôts et on a vu que ça se compensait. L’entrée sur le marché du travail, donc la contribution à l’économie va prendre du temps et ce n’est pas efficace. Il vaut mieux investir pour qu’il puisse rapidement intégrer le marché du travail. »

En 2015, un million de personnes ont demandé l’asile dans l’un des pays de l’Union européenne selon le Haut-commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés, ce qui est un record. Les chercheurs estiment donc qu’il est peu probable que la crise migratoire en cours soit une charge économique pour les économies européennes. Elle pourrait être au contraire une opportunité.

▻https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/une-etude-demontre-que-les-migrants-ne-sont-pas-un-fardeau-pour-les-eco

L’impact économique positif des réfugiés sur les économies européennes

En cette journée mondiale des réfugiés, la Bulle Economique s’intéresse à leur impact économique dans les pays d’Europe. Une étude récente montre qu’ils sont loin d’être un « fardeau ». Au contraire.

Dans un récent tweet, la présidente du Rassemblement National se scandalisait de lire que les comptes de la Sécurité sociale allaient être sérieusement grevés par les mesures destinées aux gilets jaunes. « Incroyable de lire ça, écrit Marine Le Pen, et l’AME ça ne creuse pas le trou de la Sécu ? »

L’AME, c’est l’Aide Médicale d’Etat, proposée aux étrangers en situation irrégulière pour leur permettre d’accéder aux soins, et abondé non pas par le budget de la sécurité sociale, mais par celui de l’Etat. Une erreur rapidement pointée du doigt par des députés, qui ont ironiquement proposé à Marine Le Pen de s’intéresser de plus près à ces deux budgets discutés tous les ans au Parlement.

Mais au delà de cette question démagogique proposée au détour d’un tweet, la présidente du parti d’extrême droite réutilise l’argument de l’impact économique soi disant trop lourd qu’auraient les réfugiés sur les finances publiques de la France. Argument remis en cause par trois économistes du CNRS dont les travaux ont été publiés il y a un an tout juste dans la revue Sciences. Une étude à retrouver en cliquant ici.
Un regard macro-économique

Hippolyte d’Albis, Ekrame Boubtane et Dramane Coulibaly ont appliqué aux flux migratoires des réfugiés, les méthodes traditionnellement utilisées pour mesurer l’impact macro-économique des politiques structurelles. Ils l’ont fait pour 15 pays européens depuis 1985 jusqu’en 2015, des données statistiques qui permettent de mesurer l’effet de ces flux sur les finances publiques, le PIB par habitant et le taux de chômage. On parle ici de personnes ayant fait une demande d’asile, et présentes sur le territoire le temps de l’instruction de cette demande. Période pendant laquelle ils n’ont pas le droit de travailler. Soit, pour la France une moyenne de 20 000 entrées sur le territoire par an environ, contre 200 000 migrations de travail légales.

Au total ces 30 ans de données statistiques font apparaître que les dépenses publiques causées par ces réfugiées sont plus que compensées par les gains économiques induits par ces mêmes réfugiés. Les auteurs font ainsi valoir que les chocs d’immigration comme a pu en connaitre l’Europe au moment de ce qu’on a appelé la crise des réfugiés, dont le pic a été atteint en 2015, ces chocs ont eu des effets positifs : ils ont augmenté le PIB par habitant, ont réduit le taux de chômage, et amélioré les finances publiques.

S’il est vrai qu’ils induisent des dépenses publiques supplémentaires pour les accueillir, les accompagner ou les soigner le cas échéant, ce qu’ils rapportent en revenus supplémentaires, notamment fiscaux, compensent, parfois largement, leur coût. Cet impact globalement positif dure longtemps : parfois 3 à 7 années après leur arrivée, selon les auteurs de l’étude.

Les auteurs, mais aussi d’autres chercheurs dans d’autres études qui vont dans le même sens (notamment cette étude de Clemens, Huang et Graham qui montre que les réfugiés peuvent être d’une immense contribution économique dans les pays dans lesquels ils s’installent) font remarquer que plus les états investissent tôt dans l’accueil, la formation et l’accompagnement des réfugiés, meilleure sera leur intégration et leur bénéfice économique final.
L’Europe de mauvaise volonté

Ce qui ressort de cette étude, c’est que l’Europe peut tout à fait se permettre d’accueillir ces demandeurs d’asile, car leur flux est quoiqu’on en dise très limité, comparé par exemple aux afflux de populations réfugiées qu’ont à supporter des pays comme le Jordanie ou le Liban.

Le Liban dont les 4 millions d’habitants ont vu affluer un million et demi de réfugiés syriens. Les conséquences de ce « choc d’immigration » ( et dans ce cas l’expression est juste) pour un petit Etat comme le Liban, sont très différentes : le taux de chômage a augmenté, la pauvreté s’est répandue, notamment à cause d’une plus grande concurrence sur le marché du travail selon le FMI, la croissance a ralenti, quand la dette du Liban s’est alourdie à 141 % du PIB. A tel point que la communauté internationale s’est engagée à soutenir l’économie libanaise, qui a supporté, à elle seule, la plus grande partie du flux de réfugiés syriens.

Rien que pour cela, constate l’un des auteurs de l’étude du CNRS, l’Europe, qui fournit un quart du PIB mondial, devrait modérer ses discours parfois alarmistes. En parlant de « crise des réfugiés », elle accrédite le fait que leur afflux serait un danger économique, s’exonérant par là d’autres impératifs, humanitaires et moraux.*

▻https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-bulle-economique/limpact-economique-positif-des-refugies-sur-les-economies-europeennes

v. aussi ce fil initié en juin 2017 :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/603794

Comparaison de la courbe du #chômage en #Allemagne et l’arrivée de demandeurs d’asile/réfugiés :

https://i.imgur.com/i4y8VTh.png

La « crise migratoire », une opportunité économique pour les pays européens

S’il est une question qui divise nombre d’Etats européens depuis plusieurs années, c’est bien celle de l’accueil des migrants, à l’aune de l’impact économique des flux migratoires, objet de nombreux désaccords, voire de fantasmes. Alors, qu’en est-il réellement ? Une récente étude orchestrée notamment par le CNRS vient tordre le cou aux clichés, montrant qu’une augmentation de flux de migrants permanents est synonyme d’augmentation de PIB par habitant et de diminution du taux de chômage.

L’accueil des migrants et leur intégration constitue-t-il une charge pour les économies européennes ? La réponse est non, selon une étude réalisée notamment par #Hippolyte_d’Albis, directeur de recherches au CNRS (centre national de la recherche scientifique). Dans cette étude effectuée avec ses collègues #Ekrame_Boubtane, enseignant-chercheur à l’Université de Clermont-Auvergne et #Dramane_Coulibaly, enseignant-chercheur à l’Université de Paris-Nanterre, l’accent est mis sur les impacts macro-économiques de l’immigration en Europe et en France de 1985 à 2015.

« L’essentiel de l’économie repose sur l’interaction entre les gens »

Leur travail suggère que l’immigration non européenne a un effet positif sur la #croissance_économique, et cela se vérifie plus particulièrement encore dans le cas de la migration familiale et féminine.

En 2015, plus d’un million de personnes ont demandé l’asile dans l’un des pays de l’Union européenne, ce qui en fait une année record. Des arrivées qui ont provoqué nombre d’interprétations et de fantasmes.

Pour y répondre, des études s’étaient déjà penchées sur la question. Mais, avec celle qui nous intéresse, le modus operandi est nouveau. Il diffère en effet des approches classiques : ces dernières comparent les #impôts payés par les immigrés aux transferts publics qui leur sont versés, mais ne tiennent pas compte des interactions économiques. « Pour évaluer l’immigration, les méthodes sont souvent d’ordre comptable. Mais l’essentiel de l’économie est fait d’interactions entre les gens. Nous souhaitions intégrer cette approche dans l’évaluation », explique Hippolyte d’Albis.

Quid du mode opératoire ?

Les chercheurs ont eu recours à un modèle statistique introduit par Christopher Sims, lauréat en 2011 du prix de la Banque de Suède en sciences économiques en mémoire d’Alfred Nobel. Très utilisé pour évaluer les effets des politiques économiques, il laisse parler les données statistiques en imposant très peu d’a priori et permet d’évaluer les effets économiques sans imposer d’importantes restrictions théoriques.

Les données macroéconomiques et les données de flux migratoires utilisées proviennent d’Eurostat et de l’OCDE, pour concerner quinze pays d’Europe de l’Ouest, dont l’Allemagne, l’Autriche, l’Espagne, la France, l’Italie et le Royaume-Uni.

Les chercheurs ont distingué les flux des demandeurs d’asile de ceux des autres migrants. Ils ont évalué les flux de ces derniers par le solde migratoire, qui ne prend pas en compte les demandeurs d’asile.

Les flux de demandeurs d’asile concernent des personnes en situation légale le temps de l’instruction de leur demande dans le pays d’accueil, qui ne les considérera comme résidents que si leur demande d’asile est acceptée.
Augmentation du PIB par habitant, diminution du taux de chômage…

L’étude montre qu’un accroissement de flux de migrants permanents (hors demandeurs d’asile) à une date donnée produit des #effets_positifs jusqu’à quatre ans après cette date : le #PIB par habitant augmente, le taux de #chômage diminue.

Ainsi, en Europe de l’Ouest, avec un migrant pour 1.000 habitants, le PIB augmente immédiatement de 0,17 % par citoyen. Un pourcentage qui monte jusqu’à 0,32 % en année 2. Le #taux_de_chômage, lui, baisse de 0,14 points avec un effet significatif jusqu’à trois ans après.

En résumé, les #dépenses_publiques supplémentaires entraînées par l’augmentation du flux de migrants permanents s’avèrent au final bénéfiques. Les dépenses augmentent, mais elles sont plus que compensées par l’augmentation des #recettes_fiscales. Dans le cas des demandeurs d’asile, aucun effet négatif n’est observé et l’effet devient positif au bout de trois à cinq ans, lorsqu’une partie des demandeurs obtient l’asile et rejoint la catégorie des migrants permanents.

Comment expliquer cela ? Les demandeurs d’asile rentrent plus tardivement sur le #marché_du_travail, car ils n’y sont généralement pas autorisés lorsque leur demande d’asile est en cours d’instruction. Leur impact semble positif lorsqu’ils obtiennent le statut de résident permanent.

Et Hippolyte d’Albis d’insister : « les résultats indiquent que les flux migratoires ne sont pas une charge économique sur la période étudiée. En moyenne, pour les quinze pays européens considérés, nous identifions des effets positifs des flux migratoires ».

De l’urgence de réorienter le débat

Evidemment, l’#accueil a un #coût, rappelle le chercheur. Mais, l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile n’a pas dégradé la situation financière des Etats. Cela corrobore une intuition de l’Histoire, pour Hippolyte d’Albis. « Les économies ont toujours été fortement impactées par des guerres, des crises financières ou autres… Mais historiquement, les migrations n’ont jamais détruit les économies des pays riches. C’est une fausse idée de croire cela. Certes, il y a beaucoup d’enjeux autour des migrations. Mais nous avons envie de dire aux gouvernements de se concentrer sur les questions diplomatiques et territoriales, sans s’inquiéter d’hypothétiques effets négatifs sur l’économie ».

En résumé, « la crise migratoire en cours pourrait être une opportunité économique pour les pays européens ». Y compris dans l’Hexagone où les effets bénéficient aux revenus moyens, et ce, bien que l’immigration en France ait une caractéristique particulière : 50 % du flux migratoire est d’ordre familial. 25 % de personnes viennent pour étudier et 10 % pour le travail.

▻https://guitinews.fr/data/2019/10/29/la-crise-migratoire-une-opportunite-economique-pour-les-pays-europeens

–-------------

L’étude dont on parle dans cet article :
Macroeconomic evidence suggests that asylum seekers are not a “burden” for Western European countries

This paper aims to evaluate the economic and fiscal effects of inflows of asylum seekers into Western Europe from 1985 to 2015. It relies on an empirical methodology that is widely used to estimate the macroeconomic effects of structural shocks and policies. It shows that inflows of asylum seekers do not deteriorate host countries’ economic performance or fiscal balance because the increase in public spending induced by asylum seekers is more than compensated for by an increase in tax revenues net of transfers. As asylum seekers become permanent residents, their macroeconomic impacts become positive.

►https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq0883.full

LEVEL BEST: Diversity, Cohesion and the Drive to Level Up

In our new report, #Level_Best, we show that areas that have seen the biggest rises in prosperity over the last decade also tend to have also seen the biggest increases in diversity.

https://seenthis.net/local/cache-vignettes/L425xH583/3vg3JgRpng-220a8-b982b.png

►https://seenthis.net/messages/902936

The Death of Asylum and the Search for Alternatives

Une réflexion à partir du livre de Hansen: "A Modern Migration Theory. An Alternative Economic Approach to Failed EU Policy"

https://seenthis.net/local/cache-vignettes/L350xH525/9781788210555f3f-d3df5.jpg

Hansen documents what happened next in Sweden. First, the Swedish state ended austerity in an emergency response to the challenge of hosting so many refugees. As part of this, and as a country that produces its own currency, the Swedish state distributed funds across the local authorities of the country to help them in receiving the refugees. And third, this money was spent not just on refugees, but on the infrastructure needed to support an increased population in a given area – on schools, hospitals, and housing. This is in the context of Sweden also having a welfare system which is extremely generous compared to Britain’s stripped back welfare regime.

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/912640

Les demandeurs d’asile ne sont pas un « fardeau » pour les économies européennes

L’arrivée de demandeurs d’asile entraîne-t-elle une dégradation des performances économiques et des finances publiques des pays européens qui les accueillent ? La réponse est non, selon des économistes du CNRS, de l’Université Clermont-Auvergne et de l’Université Paris-Nanterre 1, qui estiment un modèle statistique dynamique à partir de 30 ans de données de 15 pays d’Europe de l’Ouest. Au contraire, l’impact économique tend à être positif lorsqu’une partie d’entre eux deviennent résidents permanents. Cette étude est publiée dans Science Advances le 20 juin 2018.

Plus d’un million de personnes ont demandé l’asile dans l’un des pays de l’Union européenne en 2015, ce qui en fait une année record. Quel est l’impact économique et fiscal des flux migratoires ? Cette étude n’est pas la première à se pencher sur la question 2, mais la méthode utilisée est nouvelle. En effet, les approches traditionnelles sont principalement comptables : elles comparent les impôts payés par les immigrés aux transferts publics qui leur sont versés mais ne tiennent pas compte des interactions économiques 3.

Les chercheurs ont eu recours à un modèle statistique introduit par Christopher Sims, lauréat en 2011 du prix de la Banque de Suède en sciences économiques en mémoire d’Alfred Nobel. Très utilisé pour évaluer les effets des politiques économiques, il laisse parler les données statistiques en imposant très peu d’a priori. Les données macroéconomiques et les données de flux migratoires utilisées proviennent d’Eurostat et de l’OCDE et concernent 15 pays d’Europe de l’Ouest : Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Danemark, Espagne, Finlande, France, Irlande, Islande, Italie, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Portugal, Royaume-Uni et Suède.

Les chercheurs ont distingué les flux de demandeurs d’asile de ceux des autres migrants. Ils ont évalué les flux de ces derniers par le solde migratoire, qui ne prend pas en compte les demandeurs d’asile. Les flux de demandeurs d’asile concernent des personnes en situation légale le temps de l’instruction de leur demande dans le pays d’accueil, qui ne les considèrera comme résident que si leur demande d’asile est acceptée.

Au cours de la période étudiée (1985-2015), l’Europe de l’Ouest a connu une augmentation importante des flux de demandeurs d’asile suite aux guerres dans les Balkans entre 1991 et 1999 et à partir de 2011 à la suite des Printemps arabes et du conflit syrien. D’autre part, les flux de migrants, notamment intracommunautaires, ont augmenté après l’élargissement de l’UE vers l’est en 2004. Autant d’occasions de tester les conséquences d’une augmentation non anticipée des flux migratoires sur le PIB par habitant, le taux de chômage et les finances publiques.

Les chercheurs montrent qu’une augmentation de flux de migrants permanents (c’est-à-dire hors demandeurs d’asile) à une date donnée produit des effets positifs jusqu’à quatre ans après cette date : le PIB par habitant augmente, le taux de chômage diminue et les dépenses publiques supplémentaires sont plus que compensées par l’augmentation des recettes fiscales. Dans le cas des demandeurs d’asile, aucun effet négatif n’est observé et l’effet devient positif au bout de trois à cinq ans, lorsqu’une partie des demandeurs obtient l’asile et rejoint la catégorie des migrants permanents.

Selon ces résultats, il est peu probable que la crise migratoire en cours soit une charge pour les économies européennes : au contraire, elle pourrait être une opportunité économique.

▻https://www.cnrs.fr/fr/les-demandeurs-dasile-ne-sont-pas-un-fardeau-pour-les-economies-europeennes

Many more to come? Migration from and within Africa

The report provides an analysis of the past of African migration; the present patterns of migration within and from Africa; the individual intentions to migrate; the macro drivers of migration within and from Africa; the potential impacts of demography and development on migration within and from Africa in a medium term perspective. The main conclusion of this analysis in response to the question in the title of this science for policy report ‘Many more to come?’ is that at the moment there are no signs of an imminent exodus but that in a medium term perspective both development and demographic factors are likely to determine an increase of migratory pressure from Africa. What is not known is if this migratory pressure will manifest itself mostly within Africa or whether it will ’spill over’ in international migrations directed in particular towards Europe due to geographical proximity and existing economic and migration ties.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/styles/responsive-portrait/public/publications_thumbnails/publication_110703_cover.jpg?itok=E4ROMlrW#.jpg

Pour télécharger le #rapport:

https://i.imgur.com/Tui1WHI.png

Quelques sélections d’infographies:

https://i.imgur.com/xFBDLdD.png https://i.imgur.com/EUF58kq.png https://i.imgur.com/AuqLRKY.png https://i.imgur.com/ijQngIk.png https://i.imgur.com/ARbyxUE.png https://i.imgur.com/khV5Gen.png https://i.imgur.com/tkTTzta.png https://i.imgur.com/Gnb5L7V.png https://i.imgur.com/RckyIOV.png

#invasion #afflux #préjugés

#développement, #inégalités #riches #pauvres

le marronnier des #milliardaires #France #fortune #enrichissement des #riches
►https://seenthis.net/messages/508536
►https://seenthis.net/messages/611060
►https://seenthis.net/messages/639901
►https://seenthis.net/messages/640331
►https://seenthis.net/messages/640590
►https://seenthis.net/messages/655329
►https://seenthis.net/messages/655753
►https://seenthis.net/messages/674434

#croissance #jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéos

Et le lien #changement_climatique et #développement :

https://i.imgur.com/la1jBsw.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/JoyBcMO.jpg

#Nouvelle_Orléans #New_Orleans

https://i.imgur.com/u3MFaGi.jpg

–-> cette double page me fait penser au livre de #Naomi_Klein « La #stratégie_du_choc »

Why multilingualism is good for economic growth

Language matters on a large-scale national level and at the level of smaller businesses. One famous cheese steak shop in Philadelphia, Geno’s, used to refuse sales to customers placing their orders in languages other than English. Its sign announcing this to customers was only taken down in 2011.

▻https://theconversation.com/why-multilingualism-is-good-for-economic-growth-71851

Take Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, who is learning Mandarin. His wife’s family is Chinese, so you might say he is personally motivated to do so. But he also has a huge market-driven incentive, as his company has long been trying to penetrate China’s market.

In this, he follows an old mantra that was most famously expressed by Willy Brandt, the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany: “If I’m selling to you, I speak your language. But if I’m buying, dann müssen Sie Deutsch sprechen [then you have to speak German]”. This shows that now too, the customer is king.

Cyril Dion : coli-briseur de l’écologie radicale (La Brique)
►http://labrique.net/index.php/thematiques/politicaille/954-cyril-dion-coli-briseur-de-l-ecologie-radicale

Cette vision individualiste et déculpabilisante permet à chacun.e de naviguer au milieu des pires systèmes d’#oppression tout en se préservant une certaine #pureté_morale. C’est pourquoi elle est plébiscitée par le public... et sponsorisée par les pires #pollueurs. Ces derniers y trouvent de quoi laver leur honneur, détourner l’attention et faire du pognon en inventant toujours plus de services et de gadgets éco-trucs à vendre.

N’en déplaise aux #éco-citoyen.nes, on ne rachète pas si facilement son #empreinte_carbone. Jean-Baptiste Comby, sociologue, rappelle dans son ouvrage que la pression qu’exerce un foyer sur l’environnement dépend de ses revenus et non pas de son niveau de #conscience_écologique. Bah oui, tous les #éco-gestes mis bout à bout ne compenseront jamais la semaine de vacances passée sous les tropiques, quand bien même on la passerait dans un éco-lodge à chier dans la sciure. Selon le sociologue, cette morale écocitoyenne sert un enjeu politique qui est de « masquer les #inégalités, en confortant les styles de vie les plus prédateurs et en maintenant les #privilèges symboliques et moraux de la petite bourgeoisie. » En réalité les inégalités face à la #pollution se creusent pour deux raisons : l’externalisation des nuisances, à l’instar des quartiers bourgeois qui se gardent les espaces verts tandis que les centres commerciaux et les usines vont en périphérie ; et la recherche toujours plus aiguisée d’un bien-être environnemental pour les plus aisé.es.

Autres liens : ►https://seenthis.net/messages/647066