What do you think?
Rate this book
Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World
It is one of the most pressing and controversial questions of our time -- vehemently debated, steeped in ideology, profoundly divisive. Who should be allowed to immigrate and who not? What are the arguments for and against limiting the numbers? We are supposedly a nation of immigrants, and
yet our policies reflect deep anxieties and the quirks of short-term self-interest, with effective legislation snagging on thousand-mile-long security fences and the question of how long and arduous the path to citizenship should be.
In Exodus , Paul Collier, the world-renowned economist and bestselling author of The Bottom Billion , clearly and concisely lays out the effects of encouraging or restricting migration. Drawing on original research and case studies, he explores this volatile issue from three that of the
migrants themselves, that of the people they leave behind, and that of the host societies where they relocate.
Immigration is a simple economic equation, but its effects are complex. Exodus confirms how crucial it will be that public policy face and address all of its ramifications. Sharply written and brilliantly clarifying, Exodus offers a provocative analysis of an issue that affects us all.
yet our policies reflect deep anxieties and the quirks of short-term self-interest, with effective legislation snagging on thousand-mile-long security fences and the question of how long and arduous the path to citizenship should be.
In Exodus , Paul Collier, the world-renowned economist and bestselling author of The Bottom Billion , clearly and concisely lays out the effects of encouraging or restricting migration. Drawing on original research and case studies, he explores this volatile issue from three that of the
migrants themselves, that of the people they leave behind, and that of the host societies where they relocate.
Immigration is a simple economic equation, but its effects are complex. Exodus confirms how crucial it will be that public policy face and address all of its ramifications. Sharply written and brilliantly clarifying, Exodus offers a provocative analysis of an issue that affects us all.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
164 people are currently reading
2788 people want to read
About the author
Paul Collier
107 books468 followersPaul Collier, CBE is a Professor of Economics, Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College. He is the author of The Plundered Planet; Wars, Guns, and Votes; and The Bottom Billion, winner of Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews
January 28, 2014
What prejudiced, offensive drivel. Collier's thinly veiled xenophobia is insulting to the reader's intelligence. His insinuations about the inferiority of non-Western cultures, his wildly stereotypical observations about other cultures, and his gall in couching his arguments in an alleged concern for the well-being of LDCs, not to mention the nearly non-existent use of research to back his claims about the detrimental social and economic effects of more open immigration policies to Western countries are enough to consign this book to the "severely toxic - do not touch" pile.
This review by Foreign Affairs, although a good start, is much too mild in its criticism of his arguments: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/article....
This review by Foreign Affairs, although a good start, is much too mild in its criticism of his arguments: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/article....
June 1, 2017
Eine Stimme der Vernunft
Mit seinem 2013 erschienenen Buch Exodus. Warum wir Einwanderung neu regeln müssen hat der britische Ökonom Paul Collier etwas getan, wozu in unserer Zeit nur die wenigsten bereit oder fähig zu sein scheinen, sobald es um die Frage der Einwanderung geht. Er hat seinen Verstand eingeschaltet, diverse Forschungsergebnisse und Theorien herangezogen und auf dieser Grundlage die Vor- und Nachteile der Migration für alle drei von ihr betroffenen Gruppen – Migranten, Einheimische der Zielgesellschaften, in den Herkunftsgesellschaften Zurückgebliebene – abgewägt, um am Ende eine von Verantwortungsethik geprägte ideale Einwanderungspolitik zu skizzieren. Dabei geht es ihm, wie er oft betont, nicht um die Frage, ob Einwanderung zuzulassen oder gänzlich zu unterbinden sei, da sich diese Frage angesichts der globalen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungen ohnehin nicht stelle, sondern um die Frage, in welchem Maße und nach welchen Gesichtspunkten Einwanderung stattfinden soll. Damit dürfte er sich gleich von zwei Seiten Kritik eingehandelt haben, wenn man denn das Wiederholen der immer gleichen Vorurteile mit dem edlen Wort „Kritik“ aufwerten will – einerseits von den Xenophoben, die in der Einwanderungspolitik westlicher Regierungen nicht einfach eine Mischung aus Unvermögen und Heuchelei, sondern gar eine Verschwörung sehen; andererseits von den wohlstandsverwahrlosten Gutmenschen, die ganz gern ihre Gesinnungsethik zur Schau tragen und dabei übersehen, daß die Grundlagen, auf denen unser Wohlstand beruht, höchstwahrscheinlich von einem fragilen Gleichgewicht über Jahrhunderte gewachsener Strukturen abhängen.
Collier widmet sich in seiner dreischrittigen Analyse (Zielländer, Migranten, Herkunftsländer) nicht bloß ökonomischen Auswirkungen, sondern betrachtet auch kulturelle und soziale Folgen einer ungesteuerten Auswanderung. Unter anderem legt er die Bedeutung sozialer Narrative für den Wohlstand und die Leistungsfähigkeit von Gesellschaften dar, wobei er allerdings betont, daß es hier nicht darum geht, diese Gesellschaften per se als höher- oder minderwertig einzustufen, sondern sie allenfalls im Hinblick auf die Frage, welche Entfaltungsmöglichkeiten und Wohlstandsoptionen sie ihren Mitgliedern bieten, zu betrachten – etwas, das die Migranten ja auch tun. Es wird im Verlaufe dieser Ausführungen deutlich, daß wirtschaftlicher Erfolg nicht einzig von geographischen Bedingungen, Ressourcen und demographischen Faktoren abhängt, sondern eben auch von den Narrativen, die in einer Gesellschaft verbreitet sind und die sich über Jahrhunderte herangebildet haben. In Anlehnung an Robert Putnam kommt er zu dem Schluß, daß für westliche Gesellschaften besonders das Vertrauen in die Institutionen des Staates sowie in die Vertreter von Institutionen und Gruppen, aber auch in das fair play der Mitbürger ausschlaggebend ist. So kann ein modernes Staatswesen nur dann sozial funktionieren, wenn die Bürger bereit sind, einen Teil ihres Einkommens der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung zu stellen, wohlwissend, daß staatliche Institutionen diesen für die Verbesserung der öffentlichen Güter und den moderaten Ausgleich sozialer Ungleichheit verwenden und daß dies auf eine überwiegend gerechte und nutzbringende Art geschieht. Migranten aus in dieser Hinsicht dysfunktionalen Gesellschaften indes bringen dieses Vertrauen in der Regel nicht auf und sind infolgedessen meist in geringerem Maße zur gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kooperation willens. Die Folgen einer übermäßigen Einwanderung von Menschen aus solchen Gesellschaften für die zukünftige Bereitstellung und Verwaltung öffentlicher Güter dürften jedem ersichtlich sein.
Collier legt aber auch dar, daß Migranten selbst, obwohl sie zunächst einmal zu den Hauptgewinnern der Migration zählen dürften, auf lange Sicht ein ökonomisches Interesse an Einwanderungsbeschränkungen haben dürften. Besonders interessant wird es allerdings, wenn er sich den Folgen einer ungesteuerten Einwanderung für die Menschen widmet, die in den Herkunftsländern bleiben, beispielsweise weil sie sich aufgrund ihrer Armut eine Auswanderung gar nicht leisten können. Hier relativiert er die Bedeutung des sogenannten Braindrains, weist aber gleichzeitig nach, daß ab einem bestimmten Ausmaß an Auswanderung dieser Braindrain dann tatsächlich stattfindet. Auch die Höhe der Rücküberweisungen, die Familienangehörige von Auswanderern erhalten und die nach Collier eine wichtige Ergänzung der westlichen Entwicklungshilfe sind, hängt den ihm vorliegenden Daten nach von dem Ausmaß der Migration und der Möglichkeit des Familiennachzuges ab.
Dies sind freilich nur einige der Punkte, auf die Collier in einer sehr umsichtigen und vernunftgeleiteten Analyse eingeht und die im Rahmen einer Rezension nicht in Gänze behandelt werden können. Abschließend kommt er dann zu Eckpunkten eines Modells für eine ideale Migrationspolitik, die von den Zielländern ausgehen muß, sind es doch, wie er wiederholt betont, diese und nicht etwa die Auswanderungsländer, in deren Macht es liegt, Migration – sowohl in ihrem eigenen Sinne als auch in dem der Herkunftsländer wie auch der Migranten – zu steuern. Diese Punkte lauten wie folgt:
a) Obergrenzen: Collier hält von den Zielländern festgesetzte Obergrenzen für die Migration für unumgänglich, wobei er diese in erster Linie davon abhängig machen möchte, wie hoch die Absorptionsrate, d.h. die Rate der Migranten eines bestimmten Herkunftslandes ist, die sich in die Zielgesellschaft integriert haben. Der Hintergrund dieser Überlegung ist, dass eine hohe Auslandsgemeinde, d.h. die Gruppe derer, die die Integration noch nicht vollzogen haben, eine hohe Attraktionskraft auf weitere potentielle Einwanderer ausübt.
b) Auswahl: Zielländer sollten das Recht auf Familiennachzug als nur eines unter mehreren Kriterien gelten lassen und sich vielmehr auf Faktoren wie Schutzbedürftigkeit (beispielsweise vor politischer Verfolgung), Qualifikation, Arbeitsmarktfähigkeit oder kulturelle Herkunft konzentrieren, weil all diese Aspekte zum einen die Absorptionsrate beeinflussen, zum anderen aber auch Rückwirkungen auf die Situation in den Herkunftsländern haben.
c) Integration: Angesichts der Bedeutung der auf Vertrauen gründenden Kooperation für den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg westlicher Gesellschaften überrascht es nicht, daß Collier dem salad bowl model skeptisch gegenübersteht. Er verficht einen nicht auf biologische, sondern kulturelle Gemeinsamkeiten, Teilhabe ermöglichenden und inklusiven Nationsbegriff und sieht die Nation als eine wichtige Quelle für die Bereitschaft zur Kooperation. Dies setzt auf seiten der Einheimischen sowie der Migranten – hier allerdings noch stärker – die Bereitschaft zu Offenheit und Anpassung voraus.
d) Legalisierung illegaler Einwanderung: Bislang werden illegale Einwanderer stillschweigend ignoriert und damit toleriert. Daß man sie nicht einfach massenhaft ausweisen kann, ist Collier klar, und deshalb verfolgt er mit diesem Punkt das Ziel, ihren Status zu legalisieren, verknüpft damit jedoch temporäre Restriktionen, denen sie sich zu unterwerfen haben, um auf diese Weise den Anreiz zur illegalen Einwanderung zu vermindern.
Ich habe eigentlich noch nie eine so treffende Analyse dieses emotionsbeladenen Themas gelesen, die am Ende zudem noch zu praktikablen, von umsichtiger und vorausschauender Verantwortungsethik getragenen Lösungsvorschlägen kommt, und kann nur hoffen, obwohl leider anderes zu befürchten ist, daß dieses Buch noch rechtzeitig zur Grundlage einer zukünftigen Migrationspolitik gemacht wird.
Mit seinem 2013 erschienenen Buch Exodus. Warum wir Einwanderung neu regeln müssen hat der britische Ökonom Paul Collier etwas getan, wozu in unserer Zeit nur die wenigsten bereit oder fähig zu sein scheinen, sobald es um die Frage der Einwanderung geht. Er hat seinen Verstand eingeschaltet, diverse Forschungsergebnisse und Theorien herangezogen und auf dieser Grundlage die Vor- und Nachteile der Migration für alle drei von ihr betroffenen Gruppen – Migranten, Einheimische der Zielgesellschaften, in den Herkunftsgesellschaften Zurückgebliebene – abgewägt, um am Ende eine von Verantwortungsethik geprägte ideale Einwanderungspolitik zu skizzieren. Dabei geht es ihm, wie er oft betont, nicht um die Frage, ob Einwanderung zuzulassen oder gänzlich zu unterbinden sei, da sich diese Frage angesichts der globalen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungen ohnehin nicht stelle, sondern um die Frage, in welchem Maße und nach welchen Gesichtspunkten Einwanderung stattfinden soll. Damit dürfte er sich gleich von zwei Seiten Kritik eingehandelt haben, wenn man denn das Wiederholen der immer gleichen Vorurteile mit dem edlen Wort „Kritik“ aufwerten will – einerseits von den Xenophoben, die in der Einwanderungspolitik westlicher Regierungen nicht einfach eine Mischung aus Unvermögen und Heuchelei, sondern gar eine Verschwörung sehen; andererseits von den wohlstandsverwahrlosten Gutmenschen, die ganz gern ihre Gesinnungsethik zur Schau tragen und dabei übersehen, daß die Grundlagen, auf denen unser Wohlstand beruht, höchstwahrscheinlich von einem fragilen Gleichgewicht über Jahrhunderte gewachsener Strukturen abhängen.
Collier widmet sich in seiner dreischrittigen Analyse (Zielländer, Migranten, Herkunftsländer) nicht bloß ökonomischen Auswirkungen, sondern betrachtet auch kulturelle und soziale Folgen einer ungesteuerten Auswanderung. Unter anderem legt er die Bedeutung sozialer Narrative für den Wohlstand und die Leistungsfähigkeit von Gesellschaften dar, wobei er allerdings betont, daß es hier nicht darum geht, diese Gesellschaften per se als höher- oder minderwertig einzustufen, sondern sie allenfalls im Hinblick auf die Frage, welche Entfaltungsmöglichkeiten und Wohlstandsoptionen sie ihren Mitgliedern bieten, zu betrachten – etwas, das die Migranten ja auch tun. Es wird im Verlaufe dieser Ausführungen deutlich, daß wirtschaftlicher Erfolg nicht einzig von geographischen Bedingungen, Ressourcen und demographischen Faktoren abhängt, sondern eben auch von den Narrativen, die in einer Gesellschaft verbreitet sind und die sich über Jahrhunderte herangebildet haben. In Anlehnung an Robert Putnam kommt er zu dem Schluß, daß für westliche Gesellschaften besonders das Vertrauen in die Institutionen des Staates sowie in die Vertreter von Institutionen und Gruppen, aber auch in das fair play der Mitbürger ausschlaggebend ist. So kann ein modernes Staatswesen nur dann sozial funktionieren, wenn die Bürger bereit sind, einen Teil ihres Einkommens der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung zu stellen, wohlwissend, daß staatliche Institutionen diesen für die Verbesserung der öffentlichen Güter und den moderaten Ausgleich sozialer Ungleichheit verwenden und daß dies auf eine überwiegend gerechte und nutzbringende Art geschieht. Migranten aus in dieser Hinsicht dysfunktionalen Gesellschaften indes bringen dieses Vertrauen in der Regel nicht auf und sind infolgedessen meist in geringerem Maße zur gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kooperation willens. Die Folgen einer übermäßigen Einwanderung von Menschen aus solchen Gesellschaften für die zukünftige Bereitstellung und Verwaltung öffentlicher Güter dürften jedem ersichtlich sein.
Collier legt aber auch dar, daß Migranten selbst, obwohl sie zunächst einmal zu den Hauptgewinnern der Migration zählen dürften, auf lange Sicht ein ökonomisches Interesse an Einwanderungsbeschränkungen haben dürften. Besonders interessant wird es allerdings, wenn er sich den Folgen einer ungesteuerten Einwanderung für die Menschen widmet, die in den Herkunftsländern bleiben, beispielsweise weil sie sich aufgrund ihrer Armut eine Auswanderung gar nicht leisten können. Hier relativiert er die Bedeutung des sogenannten Braindrains, weist aber gleichzeitig nach, daß ab einem bestimmten Ausmaß an Auswanderung dieser Braindrain dann tatsächlich stattfindet. Auch die Höhe der Rücküberweisungen, die Familienangehörige von Auswanderern erhalten und die nach Collier eine wichtige Ergänzung der westlichen Entwicklungshilfe sind, hängt den ihm vorliegenden Daten nach von dem Ausmaß der Migration und der Möglichkeit des Familiennachzuges ab.
Dies sind freilich nur einige der Punkte, auf die Collier in einer sehr umsichtigen und vernunftgeleiteten Analyse eingeht und die im Rahmen einer Rezension nicht in Gänze behandelt werden können. Abschließend kommt er dann zu Eckpunkten eines Modells für eine ideale Migrationspolitik, die von den Zielländern ausgehen muß, sind es doch, wie er wiederholt betont, diese und nicht etwa die Auswanderungsländer, in deren Macht es liegt, Migration – sowohl in ihrem eigenen Sinne als auch in dem der Herkunftsländer wie auch der Migranten – zu steuern. Diese Punkte lauten wie folgt:
a) Obergrenzen: Collier hält von den Zielländern festgesetzte Obergrenzen für die Migration für unumgänglich, wobei er diese in erster Linie davon abhängig machen möchte, wie hoch die Absorptionsrate, d.h. die Rate der Migranten eines bestimmten Herkunftslandes ist, die sich in die Zielgesellschaft integriert haben. Der Hintergrund dieser Überlegung ist, dass eine hohe Auslandsgemeinde, d.h. die Gruppe derer, die die Integration noch nicht vollzogen haben, eine hohe Attraktionskraft auf weitere potentielle Einwanderer ausübt.
b) Auswahl: Zielländer sollten das Recht auf Familiennachzug als nur eines unter mehreren Kriterien gelten lassen und sich vielmehr auf Faktoren wie Schutzbedürftigkeit (beispielsweise vor politischer Verfolgung), Qualifikation, Arbeitsmarktfähigkeit oder kulturelle Herkunft konzentrieren, weil all diese Aspekte zum einen die Absorptionsrate beeinflussen, zum anderen aber auch Rückwirkungen auf die Situation in den Herkunftsländern haben.
c) Integration: Angesichts der Bedeutung der auf Vertrauen gründenden Kooperation für den wirtschaftlichen Erfolg westlicher Gesellschaften überrascht es nicht, daß Collier dem salad bowl model skeptisch gegenübersteht. Er verficht einen nicht auf biologische, sondern kulturelle Gemeinsamkeiten, Teilhabe ermöglichenden und inklusiven Nationsbegriff und sieht die Nation als eine wichtige Quelle für die Bereitschaft zur Kooperation. Dies setzt auf seiten der Einheimischen sowie der Migranten – hier allerdings noch stärker – die Bereitschaft zu Offenheit und Anpassung voraus.
d) Legalisierung illegaler Einwanderung: Bislang werden illegale Einwanderer stillschweigend ignoriert und damit toleriert. Daß man sie nicht einfach massenhaft ausweisen kann, ist Collier klar, und deshalb verfolgt er mit diesem Punkt das Ziel, ihren Status zu legalisieren, verknüpft damit jedoch temporäre Restriktionen, denen sie sich zu unterwerfen haben, um auf diese Weise den Anreiz zur illegalen Einwanderung zu vermindern.
Ich habe eigentlich noch nie eine so treffende Analyse dieses emotionsbeladenen Themas gelesen, die am Ende zudem noch zu praktikablen, von umsichtiger und vorausschauender Verantwortungsethik getragenen Lösungsvorschlägen kommt, und kann nur hoffen, obwohl leider anderes zu befürchten ist, daß dieses Buch noch rechtzeitig zur Grundlage einer zukünftigen Migrationspolitik gemacht wird.
November 11, 2019
لطالما آمنت أن القراءة تفتح لنا آفاقاً جديدة من أمور وأشياء أعتيادية بحتة..
فمن منطلق ومفهوم الهجرة، كم من مرة مر علي المصطلح ولم أتدبر في كم المعلومات والحقائق الهائلة التي تتوارى خلفه.
الكتاب منظم الأفكار بطريقة أبهرتني، لعله ربما يكن محل دراسة، ولكن من جانب إستطلاعي فلقد ملأت جعبتي بمعلوماتٍ شتى في نواحي إقتصادية وثقافية وسياسية وإن كنت لا أفقه الكثير عن تلك العلوم. وخصوصاً المفهوم الأخص والأشمل وهو الهجرة
فمن منطلق ومفهوم الهجرة، كم من مرة مر علي المصطلح ولم أتدبر في كم المعلومات والحقائق الهائلة التي تتوارى خلفه.
الكتاب منظم الأفكار بطريقة أبهرتني، لعله ربما يكن محل دراسة، ولكن من جانب إستطلاعي فلقد ملأت جعبتي بمعلوماتٍ شتى في نواحي إقتصادية وثقافية وسياسية وإن كنت لا أفقه الكثير عن تلك العلوم. وخصوصاً المفهوم الأخص والأشمل وهو الهجرة
Read
June 28, 2020I love Paul Collier's books. He has very controversial opinions and isn't afraid to speak about taboo subjects, but he's no edgelord: at the same time he manages to consider all the sides to the debate and stay unerringly polite and respectful in tone.
And when it comes to migration, you know there are taboos aplenty. Collier did sound angry at one point in the book, when he mentions how the old established parties in Europe have tried their best to avoid speaking about immigration policy, which has led to irrational policy and the opportunity for the far right to rise. I personally know people who wouldn't like to vote for far-right populist parties, but since they are the only ones who have a clear policy against uncontrolled immigration, that's who they vote.
Collier discusses separately how migration affects the indigenes at the host countries, the migrants themselves, and the origin countries. There is no group for whom migration is a clear-cut case of good or bad: for some levels of migration, the host countries are better or worse off, the same goes for countries of origin, and even the migrants themselves would prefer that there wasn't too much immigration after they have crossed the border (any follow-up migrants will compete with them for the same jobs, after all).
Collier analyzes the situation from many perspectives but isn't afraid to make pretty controversial policy recommendations: favoring integration or even assimilation policies over multicultural ones; proposing hard limits on the number of immigrants; arguing against the right to gain entry rights for family members of immigrants.
Exodus is written before the crisis of 2015, and you can tell: Collier spends very little time discussing asylum seekers. Instead he focuses on economic migrants and guest workers. That's why the policy recommendations are a bit out of date.
Still, whatever you think about Collier's recommendations, one cannot but agree that the politicians should have a well though out policy towards immigration instead of the ad hoc solutions we see today. Collier's analysis is a great starting point for the debate that should've started 30 years ago.
And when it comes to migration, you know there are taboos aplenty. Collier did sound angry at one point in the book, when he mentions how the old established parties in Europe have tried their best to avoid speaking about immigration policy, which has led to irrational policy and the opportunity for the far right to rise. I personally know people who wouldn't like to vote for far-right populist parties, but since they are the only ones who have a clear policy against uncontrolled immigration, that's who they vote.
Collier discusses separately how migration affects the indigenes at the host countries, the migrants themselves, and the origin countries. There is no group for whom migration is a clear-cut case of good or bad: for some levels of migration, the host countries are better or worse off, the same goes for countries of origin, and even the migrants themselves would prefer that there wasn't too much immigration after they have crossed the border (any follow-up migrants will compete with them for the same jobs, after all).
Collier analyzes the situation from many perspectives but isn't afraid to make pretty controversial policy recommendations: favoring integration or even assimilation policies over multicultural ones; proposing hard limits on the number of immigrants; arguing against the right to gain entry rights for family members of immigrants.
Exodus is written before the crisis of 2015, and you can tell: Collier spends very little time discussing asylum seekers. Instead he focuses on economic migrants and guest workers. That's why the policy recommendations are a bit out of date.
Still, whatever you think about Collier's recommendations, one cannot but agree that the politicians should have a well though out policy towards immigration instead of the ad hoc solutions we see today. Collier's analysis is a great starting point for the debate that should've started 30 years ago.
March 28, 2017
Food for thought. Especially with the current state of affairs.
Highly recommended to those who want to be more informed in times of increasing migration and to those who, like myself, left their country of origin behind. It is important to know what consequences such a decision may have in the bigger picture.
Highly recommended to those who want to be more informed in times of increasing migration and to those who, like myself, left their country of origin behind. It is important to know what consequences such a decision may have in the bigger picture.
September 13, 2014
A non-biased sensitive approach to the question of Immigration without avoiding any of the hard issues. I found his discussions on the positive and negative effects on the developing world of immigration particularly enlightening.
September 17, 2015
What could be more topical ? I bought this book way before the migrant crisis in the EU exploded onto the news channels. I saw the author interviewed, possibly on Newsnight, in 2014. I eyed the book as a hardback and then paperback at Christmas in a bookstore in Leeds. I finally plumped for the eBook on iBooks - consuming it on a combination of my phone and my desktop computer.
Paul stays clear of any emotion and partisan stance whilst he considers the effects of migration of the three groups that are involved by it: the migrants, the country of origin and the host country.
It's a scientific approach so if you're this way inclined, as am I, you'll find it really informative and an eye-opener as you get to take a new look at concepts such as remittances, world aid programmes and migrant diasporas. Old questions are re-opened and the answers we took for granted may not be as they seem any longer. For example, the concept of the brain drain always, to my mind, meant that the country of origin lost out. Not so in the bigger scheme of things.
The book urges that instead of asking migration or no ? we should be asking how much and at what rate ? Instead of asking how many people should we accept as a host nation we should be looking at how to integrate migrants upon arrival.
Paul addresses what goes right and what goes wrong and how seemingly stand-alone policy decisions in a host nation massively effect behaviours years later in far away lands.
Early on you get the graphs. The Diaspora Schedule and the Migration Function denoted as lines charted on an X and Y axis plot. And it's right here that you realise this is the one piece of media totally free of emotion and human interest - that the current debate is totally flawed in the press and that this subject is important enough to earn some intellectual consideration in an environ worthy of the cause.
I applaud the author for this. It is considered, thorough and enlightening. Are we each one of us not guilty of coming down a little too firmly on one side of this debate which never was black and white in any case ? Paul Collier has the reader looking right across the spectrum of interests. All three groups are human after all.
Big respect. I enjoyed this and come away feeling an intense mix of humility and further education.
It is the book of our times.
Paul stays clear of any emotion and partisan stance whilst he considers the effects of migration of the three groups that are involved by it: the migrants, the country of origin and the host country.
It's a scientific approach so if you're this way inclined, as am I, you'll find it really informative and an eye-opener as you get to take a new look at concepts such as remittances, world aid programmes and migrant diasporas. Old questions are re-opened and the answers we took for granted may not be as they seem any longer. For example, the concept of the brain drain always, to my mind, meant that the country of origin lost out. Not so in the bigger scheme of things.
The book urges that instead of asking migration or no ? we should be asking how much and at what rate ? Instead of asking how many people should we accept as a host nation we should be looking at how to integrate migrants upon arrival.
Paul addresses what goes right and what goes wrong and how seemingly stand-alone policy decisions in a host nation massively effect behaviours years later in far away lands.
Early on you get the graphs. The Diaspora Schedule and the Migration Function denoted as lines charted on an X and Y axis plot. And it's right here that you realise this is the one piece of media totally free of emotion and human interest - that the current debate is totally flawed in the press and that this subject is important enough to earn some intellectual consideration in an environ worthy of the cause.
I applaud the author for this. It is considered, thorough and enlightening. Are we each one of us not guilty of coming down a little too firmly on one side of this debate which never was black and white in any case ? Paul Collier has the reader looking right across the spectrum of interests. All three groups are human after all.
Big respect. I enjoyed this and come away feeling an intense mix of humility and further education.
It is the book of our times.
February 23, 2016
Two words: rambling assertions. Pseudo-scientific models sprinkled here and there, including some mistakes, and more assertions. The only red thread recognizable to me was, in the author's words, a willingness to anger everyone equally (though the arguments felt much more targeted at angering Collier readers in particular, and calculated to create some buzz which should help sales figures). Not intellectually stimulating, and not even an interesting basis for discussions, as "Bottom Billion" was. Not a nice reading experience either.
Example? Collier notes:
- immigrants are often escaping dysfunctional societies with low levels of trust
- rich countries typically have trusting societies
- trust is important for an economy to thrive
The book's conclusion: Immigrants "infiltrate" rich economies with low trust, which is damaging for everyone. What does not receive any mention in the book is that perhaps immigrants might be escaping such dysfunctional societies because they do not align well with their own, individual values. Perhaps emigrants are systematically different from those "left behind"?
Example? Collier notes:
- immigrants are often escaping dysfunctional societies with low levels of trust
- rich countries typically have trusting societies
- trust is important for an economy to thrive
The book's conclusion: Immigrants "infiltrate" rich economies with low trust, which is damaging for everyone. What does not receive any mention in the book is that perhaps immigrants might be escaping such dysfunctional societies because they do not align well with their own, individual values. Perhaps emigrants are systematically different from those "left behind"?
January 15, 2014
I won this book on Goodreads! I learned significantly more about the social, political, and economic issues related to migration from reading this book than I did during four years of college--and I was a Global Studies and Political Science major! The author does an excellent job of explaining the likely outcomes of various policies for multiple segments of the population in both the home and host societies. I greatly appreciated the author's willingness to present and evaluate both liberal and conservative arguments and his reliance on data and real-world examples rather than ideology. The author includes explanations of why nations have chosen the policies they have and why similar policies can have very different results for different societies.
April 4, 2020
"انا مواطن إنجليزي، وزوجتي باولين هولندية لكنها نشأت في إيطاليا، بينما ابننا دانييل ولد في الولايات المتحدة، وكان دائما يشعر بالفخر وهو يعرض جواز سفره الأمريكي. أبناء أخي مصريون، وأمهم أيرلندية، وهذا الكتاب مثل مؤلفاتي السابقة، كتبته في فرنسا. فإذا كانت هناك عائلة عابرة للقوميات، فهي عائلتي حتما."
يعرض الاقتصادي الإنجليزي بول كوليير في هذا الكتاب الكثير والكثير من وجهات النظر المختلفة حول الهجرة بجميع أطرافها المعنيين، ويحاول –دون تحيز- أن يُبرز الجوانب الإيجابية والسلبية للهجرة في تأثيراتها على المهاجرين، والمواطنين الأصليين في البلد المضيف، وأيضًا، الذين بقوا في بلادهم. لم يتوانى بول في عرض الجوانب الاقتصادية والاجتماعية للبلدان التي يحدث منها الهجرة والبلدان المضيفة.
كان سؤال بول المستمر والذي كَتب من أجله هذا الكتاب: هل يجب علينا أن نفرض قيودًا على الهجرة أم نتبع سياسة الباب المفتوح؟ وكانت الإجابة المختصرة جدًا، والتي يمكن اعتصارها من جسد هذا الكتاب؛ هو أن فرض القيود على الهجرة مع دفع الشتات (الجاليات المهاجرة) إلى الاندماج في المجتمع، وذلك من خلال توزيعهم على الولايات المختلفة كما في كندا، والسماح بنسب إثنية محددة مسبقًا لأبناء المهاجرين في المدارس كما في الولايات المتحدة، هو الحل لضمان التنوع والاندماج.
من الجوانب التي تحدث عنها الكتاب أيضًا مصطلح "استنزاف العقول" وأوضح من خلال بعض الإحصائيات أن الدول النامية الكبيرة مثل الصين والهند ومصر تستفيد من الهجرة، وخاصة الهجرة المؤقتة من أجل التعليم والعودة مرة أخرى إلى بلادهم، فالهجرة تحفز التعليم وتخلق كوادر ونماذج تسعى الأجيال الجديدة إلى إتباعها. أما في الدول الفقيرة مثل مالي وهاييتي فإن تسارع الهجرة بدون عودة يتسبب في فقد العمال الماهرون، والمتعلمون الذين لولا رحيلهم سيكون لهم دور كبير في النهوض ببلادهم.
الكتاب غني إلى حد كبير بالمعلومات ووجهات النظر المختلفة حول الهجرة .. أنصح به الجميع :D
يعرض الاقتصادي الإنجليزي بول كوليير في هذا الكتاب الكثير والكثير من وجهات النظر المختلفة حول الهجرة بجميع أطرافها المعنيين، ويحاول –دون تحيز- أن يُبرز الجوانب الإيجابية والسلبية للهجرة في تأثيراتها على المهاجرين، والمواطنين الأصليين في البلد المضيف، وأيضًا، الذين بقوا في بلادهم. لم يتوانى بول في عرض الجوانب الاقتصادية والاجتماعية للبلدان التي يحدث منها الهجرة والبلدان المضيفة.
كان سؤال بول المستمر والذي كَتب من أجله هذا الكتاب: هل يجب علينا أن نفرض قيودًا على الهجرة أم نتبع سياسة الباب المفتوح؟ وكانت الإجابة المختصرة جدًا، والتي يمكن اعتصارها من جسد هذا الكتاب؛ هو أن فرض القيود على الهجرة مع دفع الشتات (الجاليات المهاجرة) إلى الاندماج في المجتمع، وذلك من خلال توزيعهم على الولايات المختلفة كما في كندا، والسماح بنسب إثنية محددة مسبقًا لأبناء المهاجرين في المدارس كما في الولايات المتحدة، هو الحل لضمان التنوع والاندماج.
من الجوانب التي تحدث عنها الكتاب أيضًا مصطلح "استنزاف العقول" وأوضح من خلال بعض الإحصائيات أن الدول النامية الكبيرة مثل الصين والهند ومصر تستفيد من الهجرة، وخاصة الهجرة المؤقتة من أجل التعليم والعودة مرة أخرى إلى بلادهم، فالهجرة تحفز التعليم وتخلق كوادر ونماذج تسعى الأجيال الجديدة إلى إتباعها. أما في الدول الفقيرة مثل مالي وهاييتي فإن تسارع الهجرة بدون عودة يتسبب في فقد العمال الماهرون، والمتعلمون الذين لولا رحيلهم سيكون لهم دور كبير في النهوض ببلادهم.
الكتاب غني إلى حد كبير بالمعلومات ووجهات النظر المختلفة حول الهجرة .. أنصح به الجميع :D
January 7, 2015
Thought-provoking, sometimes controversial, but always relying on actual data. A forceful contribution to a necessary debate
January 4, 2016
This book is basically an attempt by a liberal to support, recast in dense academic verbiage, positions that have been historically self-evident to conservatives, by citing research and justifications that appeal to progressive sympathies. Thus it will produce cognitive dissonance in people from both camps.
His thesis is that given open borders, migration from poor countries will continue until the poor countries are largely empty and the rich countries are destabilized. The larger the diaspora group in a host country, the faster it will grow and the less it will be integrated into the surrounding culture, causing unsustainable growth in social welfare spending, lowered wages for poor indigenes, and conflict in proportion to the distance between the two cultures, not to mention stripping the country of origin of its most productive citizens and impoverishing those left behind. He comes down in favor of nationalism, immigration quotas, admitting immigrants by accomplishment rather than family reunification, and other not-so-progressive strategems, because the alternative is unworkable. He sees a moral responsibility to aid refugees, but advises that they be kept outside of borders, or admitted for only a limited time. Here are a few quotes:
"It may prove unsustainable to combine rapid migration with multicultural policies that keep absorption rates low and welfare systems that are generous." (The Impossible Trinity)
"A refusal to countenance racially based differences in behavior is a manifestation of human decency. A refusal to countenance culturally based differences in behavior would be a manifestation of blinkered denial of the obvious."
"It is possible that permanently rising cultural diversity would gradually undermine mutual regard and that unabsorbed diasporas would hang onto dysfunctional aspects of the social models that prevailed in their countries of origin at the time of migration."
His thesis is that given open borders, migration from poor countries will continue until the poor countries are largely empty and the rich countries are destabilized. The larger the diaspora group in a host country, the faster it will grow and the less it will be integrated into the surrounding culture, causing unsustainable growth in social welfare spending, lowered wages for poor indigenes, and conflict in proportion to the distance between the two cultures, not to mention stripping the country of origin of its most productive citizens and impoverishing those left behind. He comes down in favor of nationalism, immigration quotas, admitting immigrants by accomplishment rather than family reunification, and other not-so-progressive strategems, because the alternative is unworkable. He sees a moral responsibility to aid refugees, but advises that they be kept outside of borders, or admitted for only a limited time. Here are a few quotes:
"It may prove unsustainable to combine rapid migration with multicultural policies that keep absorption rates low and welfare systems that are generous." (The Impossible Trinity)
"A refusal to countenance racially based differences in behavior is a manifestation of human decency. A refusal to countenance culturally based differences in behavior would be a manifestation of blinkered denial of the obvious."
"It is possible that permanently rising cultural diversity would gradually undermine mutual regard and that unabsorbed diasporas would hang onto dysfunctional aspects of the social models that prevailed in their countries of origin at the time of migration."
Read
February 1, 2024Not even worth rating this book because there isn't an option to give it 0 stars. A blatantly xenophobic and completely over-generalized approach to migration that focuses on it in a purely economic sense. By throwing the emotive side of immigration out of the picture- including the role of intersectionality, discrimination, cultural nuances, push and pull factors, remittances, the socio-cultural and agentive side of immigration etc,- what we're left with is a punitive, monetary, and unsupported analysis of immigration. He argues that poor societies are poor because they have "dysfunctional social models", and that migrants threaten the sense of mutual regard, cooperation, and trust supposedly inherent in richer host countries. Combined with general, vague, baseless, and wild claims, this book is not only a rhetorical nightmare, but a dangerously misled perspective of why people migrate, the economic implications, and the supposed measure of costs/benefits experienced by the host countries and those left behind in home countries as a result. Had to read for my immigration anthropology class because it is in exact opposition to the cultural breadth and understanding of human behavior, interactions, and choices within the incredibly complex, emotional, and human reality of immigration that anthropology illuminates.
December 25, 2013
I won this book on Goodreads. Thank you!
The author seeks to be a voice of reason in a prickly and emotional discussion that affects all people, everywhere. I doubt that anyone believes that emotion has no place at the table, but good decisions demand thorough review of all aspects. Whether or not you agree with Professor Collier’s end position, I believe that you will find his arguments compelling.
I have greatly enjoyed this thought provoking book which was especially timely as I am currently taking Economics courses. In fact, I am thinking of passing this on to one of my professors and will be interested to hear his views.
The author seeks to be a voice of reason in a prickly and emotional discussion that affects all people, everywhere. I doubt that anyone believes that emotion has no place at the table, but good decisions demand thorough review of all aspects. Whether or not you agree with Professor Collier’s end position, I believe that you will find his arguments compelling.
I have greatly enjoyed this thought provoking book which was especially timely as I am currently taking Economics courses. In fact, I am thinking of passing this on to one of my professors and will be interested to hear his views.
April 1, 2018
محتواه رصين ومبني على دراسات وبحوث ، ناقش كل شيء يختص بهذه الظاهرة التي زادت هذه الأيام ، أسبابها ، تأثيرها ، سيكولوجيتها ، اقتصاديتها ، مستقبلها ، تاريخها ، تفصيل لكل جوانبها بشكل يشبه الطريقة الأكاديمية .
ليس كتاباً سهلاً ، يتطلب جهد ذهني وتركيز في الفصول .
أعتقد أنه يتحدث عن مبحث قلّما تجد من يتحدث عنه بهذا الاسهاب .
" الهجرة لاتوفر الوجبة المجانية المتوقعة ، بالأحرى هي وجبة مجانية ثمنها عشر الهضم " .
ليس كتاباً سهلاً ، يتطلب جهد ذهني وتركيز في الفصول .
أعتقد أنه يتحدث عن مبحث قلّما تجد من يتحدث عنه بهذا الاسهاب .
" الهجرة لاتوفر الوجبة المجانية المتوقعة ، بالأحرى هي وجبة مجانية ثمنها عشر الهضم " .
June 13, 2021
Endlich geschafft! Dieses Buch hat mich beim Lesen immer entweder gelangweilt oder geärgert... Mal musste man über fünf Seiten lesen, was Diagramme sind und wozu die X- und Y-Achse gut sind (aha!) und dann fehlte aber die Info, woher die aufgetragenen Kurven eigentlich kommen und wie die Werte ermittelt worden. Überhaupt sind im Buch phasenweise krasse Aussagen völlig ohne Quellenangabe dahingeschrieben. Ich hätte mir zum Beispiel eine valide Quelle und harte Zahlen zur Aussage "Migranten haben immer mehr Kinder" gewünscht, aber spätestens bei der Aussage "Deutschland wird absolut sicher nie wieder Polen oder England angreifen" (kann ich diese Glaskugel bitte auch haben?) ist klar, dass der Autor an wissenschaftlich fundierten Aussagen auch null Interesse hat. Weiteres Beispiel gefällig? "Ein Standardmerkmal der afrikanischen politischen Ökonomie ist, dass jeder Clan die Staatskasse als Allgemeingut betrachtet, das zum Nutzen des Clans geplündert werden kann." Für diese Aussage wären die meisten Fußballtrainer wegen Rassismus vor die Tür gesetzt worden. Hier steht sie einfach so, völlig aus dem Kontext, ohne eine einzige Zahl, ohne Studie, ohne Quelle, von einem der laut Klappentext klügsten Ökonomen der Welt.
Statt mit Fakten und Quellen muss man sich die Lesezeit damit vertreiben, den Ausführungen des Autors zu folgen, was er denn nun als nächstes betrachten möchte und worauf er danach noch eingehen möchte und warum das dritte Thema vermutlich erst danach besprochen werden sollte, obwohl es auch jetzt gleich diskutiert werden könnte.
Nun bin ich durch und kann endlich wieder was Lesenswertes lesen. Gott sei Dank!
Statt mit Fakten und Quellen muss man sich die Lesezeit damit vertreiben, den Ausführungen des Autors zu folgen, was er denn nun als nächstes betrachten möchte und worauf er danach noch eingehen möchte und warum das dritte Thema vermutlich erst danach besprochen werden sollte, obwohl es auch jetzt gleich diskutiert werden könnte.
Nun bin ich durch und kann endlich wieder was Lesenswertes lesen. Gott sei Dank!
October 11, 2021
A book looking into the reasons and effect of migration. Considers impact on global scale, on local economies and on the families. How the ones migrating from poorer countries are the 'middle class',as they have something to gain from moving into a wealthier country and can in fact afford it whereas the poorest of them all couldn't afford it.
It considers immigration policies and compares them globally. Eg how in UAE they have attracted workers from all over the world but their identity is never at risk (as it is in many other countries with mixing cultures and languages) as it is very difficult for foreigners to become residents.
Also considering asylum seekers and how the laws change around those in different countries over time to regulate the flow of people.
And by the end of the book you'll definitely know what an diaspora is (I didn't to begin with so needed to look it up even though the context makes it clearer).
However I thought some reasonings were questionable tbh, as a person migrated away from my home country. I also was not on the same page about the thought of having to pay taxes to the country of origin for the education and upbringing. If it were taken from expenses paid anyway, sure, but as an additional tax it makes no sense to a person, when there is such a freedom of movement.
It considers immigration policies and compares them globally. Eg how in UAE they have attracted workers from all over the world but their identity is never at risk (as it is in many other countries with mixing cultures and languages) as it is very difficult for foreigners to become residents.
Also considering asylum seekers and how the laws change around those in different countries over time to regulate the flow of people.
And by the end of the book you'll definitely know what an diaspora is (I didn't to begin with so needed to look it up even though the context makes it clearer).
However I thought some reasonings were questionable tbh, as a person migrated away from my home country. I also was not on the same page about the thought of having to pay taxes to the country of origin for the education and upbringing. If it were taken from expenses paid anyway, sure, but as an additional tax it makes no sense to a person, when there is such a freedom of movement.
July 20, 2018
Opened up a lot of persepectives for me confronting the seemingly "un-unravelable" problem of immigration.
September 23, 2018
دراسة تحليلية رائعة تتناول الهجرة من عدة جوانب
المهاجرون
البلاد المستضيفة لهم
البلاد الاصلية
و السكان الذين بقوا في بلدانهم
المهاجرون
البلاد المستضيفة لهم
البلاد الاصلية
و السكان الذين بقوا في بلدانهم
June 19, 2020
كتاب يطرح الكثير من النقاط الهامة عن الهجرة ، التي لم افكر بها من قبل ، كتاب جيد و بترجمة جيدة
Read
January 10, 2016Quite an interesting read. Kind of reinforces the idea that you might be better off reading books than reading the news if you want to understand world events.
Much of Exodus builds on a diaspora absorption model: the diaspora are the people from a given that have not yet been fully absorbed into the mainstream. The observation is that a bigger diaspora makes it easier to migrate (you have a network). This model has two opposing forces (some Bret Victor style insta-feedback visualisation would be helpful here). It grows as people come in (thus accelerating migration because as the diaspora grows, migration becomes easier), and shrinks as people assimilate.
[A funny implication of this might be that one way a xenophobe could go about reducing the number of foreigners they see would be to be nicer to them, help them integrate into the mainstream (shrink the diaspora network)]
Collier explores this from several angles basically blowing up the two dimensional space of how is affected (indigenous, migrants, left behind) and how (economically vs political), and then caps it off with some policy recommendations. If I understand correctly, the overall picture is that so far migration has been beneficial to all parties (except maybe recent Haiti), but that bad things could happen if it were to accelerate (see diaspora model). The point according to Collier isn't whether migration is intrinsically good/bad, but how much of it we should want.
If I recall correctly, economically speaking, basically everybody wins-ish. Migrants most of all, but for the indigenous it's neutral to slightly positive? (but negative if low skilled). The left behind get remittances (good), but gain better educations (people are incentivised and motivated by prospect of being able to seek a better life)... but also potentially lose from brain drain. There's apparently a sort of optimal migration you can hit where the education boost outweighs the brain drain (and the loss of conscientious people with the right attitudes).
Socially and politically, things are a bit trickier. One of the ideas Collier introduces here is that of "mutual regard", something deeper than just mutual respect (ok, fellow human) but a sort of one-of-us-togetherness feeling… which can go down in culturally diverse societies (one measure of cultural distance he uses is a via linguistic family tree). So yes, societies benefit from more variety and viewpoints, but can lose cohesion (trust, cooperation) if migrants are not successfully absorbed into society so that everybody's feeling fraternal.
A lot to absorb. This was a pretty carefully written book. I kind of feel bad for the guy, have to be very very very careful not to be misunderstood. Some distinctions he makes here that between the obligation to help poor people, and to have them migrate. Another is between immigrants, students, and refugees. If you come out of the book thinking that migration should be carefully limited, note that Collier thinks that having students come in is very good (they go home full of new ideas from the host country), and that refugees should be welcomed with open arms… but with the requirement that they return when the conflict has subsided.
Collier also makes an argument somewhere that part of the difference between rich and poor countries are *gulp* differences in social models (institutions, rules, norms, and organisations of a country), and then well as far as prosperity is concerned, (ahem, Diamond Age), some social models are more conducive than others. There is talk about downloadable role models, organisational insiders (aligned with the goals of the org) vs outsiders, etc… which sometimes drifts uncomfortably close to the sort of "well, damnit, some cultures ARE better than others, there I've said it, and just so you don't think I'm racist, look at Asians" rhetoric (which I tend to think more often than not has elaborately disguised racism in it). I don't think that's the sort of thing Collier intends though. I'm sort of comfortable if we stick to talking in terms of social models and norms…
Much of Exodus builds on a diaspora absorption model: the diaspora are the people from a given that have not yet been fully absorbed into the mainstream. The observation is that a bigger diaspora makes it easier to migrate (you have a network). This model has two opposing forces (some Bret Victor style insta-feedback visualisation would be helpful here). It grows as people come in (thus accelerating migration because as the diaspora grows, migration becomes easier), and shrinks as people assimilate.
[A funny implication of this might be that one way a xenophobe could go about reducing the number of foreigners they see would be to be nicer to them, help them integrate into the mainstream (shrink the diaspora network)]
Collier explores this from several angles basically blowing up the two dimensional space of how is affected (indigenous, migrants, left behind) and how (economically vs political), and then caps it off with some policy recommendations. If I understand correctly, the overall picture is that so far migration has been beneficial to all parties (except maybe recent Haiti), but that bad things could happen if it were to accelerate (see diaspora model). The point according to Collier isn't whether migration is intrinsically good/bad, but how much of it we should want.
If I recall correctly, economically speaking, basically everybody wins-ish. Migrants most of all, but for the indigenous it's neutral to slightly positive? (but negative if low skilled). The left behind get remittances (good), but gain better educations (people are incentivised and motivated by prospect of being able to seek a better life)... but also potentially lose from brain drain. There's apparently a sort of optimal migration you can hit where the education boost outweighs the brain drain (and the loss of conscientious people with the right attitudes).
Socially and politically, things are a bit trickier. One of the ideas Collier introduces here is that of "mutual regard", something deeper than just mutual respect (ok, fellow human) but a sort of one-of-us-togetherness feeling… which can go down in culturally diverse societies (one measure of cultural distance he uses is a via linguistic family tree). So yes, societies benefit from more variety and viewpoints, but can lose cohesion (trust, cooperation) if migrants are not successfully absorbed into society so that everybody's feeling fraternal.
A lot to absorb. This was a pretty carefully written book. I kind of feel bad for the guy, have to be very very very careful not to be misunderstood. Some distinctions he makes here that between the obligation to help poor people, and to have them migrate. Another is between immigrants, students, and refugees. If you come out of the book thinking that migration should be carefully limited, note that Collier thinks that having students come in is very good (they go home full of new ideas from the host country), and that refugees should be welcomed with open arms… but with the requirement that they return when the conflict has subsided.
Collier also makes an argument somewhere that part of the difference between rich and poor countries are *gulp* differences in social models (institutions, rules, norms, and organisations of a country), and then well as far as prosperity is concerned, (ahem, Diamond Age), some social models are more conducive than others. There is talk about downloadable role models, organisational insiders (aligned with the goals of the org) vs outsiders, etc… which sometimes drifts uncomfortably close to the sort of "well, damnit, some cultures ARE better than others, there I've said it, and just so you don't think I'm racist, look at Asians" rhetoric (which I tend to think more often than not has elaborately disguised racism in it). I don't think that's the sort of thing Collier intends though. I'm sort of comfortable if we stick to talking in terms of social models and norms…
June 23, 2016
I suppose it's not just my personal problem. But when I tried to consider the issue of migration I very soon realized I had very little real information to ponder on. And here is a book that offers the best up to date results of socio-economic research on the subject. And very well presented, though a bit too technical at times.
I think everyone should spend a moment on this book, at least for a quick look at the final chapter, where the author summarizes all previous issues and proposes what he considers a sound basis for a just and effective migration control policy.
His main points are: migration is a natural and good thing, from which everyone profits, provided only that it's not left unregulated. In general migration has no self stabilizing mechanisms: if left unregulated it generates great damage, first of all to the countries of origin. And that's one of the many paradoxes one discovers in this book: host countries normally benefit from migration, the countries of origin in some cases do (eg through money remittances) and in others don't (eg because of brain drain). When considering migration one mus keep in mind the good and rights of the migrants, of the host country and of the country of origin (this last piece is often forgotten, when that's where the weakest people involved are to be found).
Any attempt to control migration by force alone is unjust and useless. A sound policy should include the following: housing and other public services' policies for immigrants; family reunion policies (too close would be unjust, too open would damage the countries of origin); active efforts toward integration (in his opinion multiculturalism is just a nice word to hide the absence of integration policies, and non integrated national communities have problematic side effects); definition of per-country based quotas (with less places for slower integrating communities); a pragmatic and ordinary (not exceptional) legislation for the treatment of illegal immigrants; active action for hosting refugees and (what no country does) for encouraging their return home when the crisis ends.
Living in a "border region" perhaps makes me especially sensitive to the issue of illegal immigration. His proposal seems to me very honest and realistic. No matter the efforts, there will always be some illegal immigrants, so let's decide how to deal with them so that they don't become non-persons in our countries and thus subject to involvement in outlaw activities. He suggests a long period (some years) of a temporary status: with reduced rights, higher taxes and so on, ending in a regularization that implies subtracting their number from their respective national quotas.
I think everyone should spend a moment on this book, at least for a quick look at the final chapter, where the author summarizes all previous issues and proposes what he considers a sound basis for a just and effective migration control policy.
His main points are: migration is a natural and good thing, from which everyone profits, provided only that it's not left unregulated. In general migration has no self stabilizing mechanisms: if left unregulated it generates great damage, first of all to the countries of origin. And that's one of the many paradoxes one discovers in this book: host countries normally benefit from migration, the countries of origin in some cases do (eg through money remittances) and in others don't (eg because of brain drain). When considering migration one mus keep in mind the good and rights of the migrants, of the host country and of the country of origin (this last piece is often forgotten, when that's where the weakest people involved are to be found).
Any attempt to control migration by force alone is unjust and useless. A sound policy should include the following: housing and other public services' policies for immigrants; family reunion policies (too close would be unjust, too open would damage the countries of origin); active efforts toward integration (in his opinion multiculturalism is just a nice word to hide the absence of integration policies, and non integrated national communities have problematic side effects); definition of per-country based quotas (with less places for slower integrating communities); a pragmatic and ordinary (not exceptional) legislation for the treatment of illegal immigrants; active action for hosting refugees and (what no country does) for encouraging their return home when the crisis ends.
Living in a "border region" perhaps makes me especially sensitive to the issue of illegal immigration. His proposal seems to me very honest and realistic. No matter the efforts, there will always be some illegal immigrants, so let's decide how to deal with them so that they don't become non-persons in our countries and thus subject to involvement in outlaw activities. He suggests a long period (some years) of a temporary status: with reduced rights, higher taxes and so on, ending in a regularization that implies subtracting their number from their respective national quotas.
August 25, 2017
Collier urges us to look at economics rather than politics and ethics when we think about migration. Rather than deciding on our position on the issue and then think of the consequences, we should look at the evidence to the causes and effects of migration on the host communities, the migrants themselves, and the people left behind before we contemplate our support or opposition to certain policy positions.
In doing so, he takes us through the available evidence from economics, social sciences, and policy and looks at the social and economic consequences of migration on each individual group. His aim , as he states, is not to end up in a position of closing borders or opening up completely but to arrive at what level of migration is best.
His conclusions, which are based on the available evidence he reviews, show middle ground outcomes in most cases. Migration is not harmful to host countries labor neither is it very useful, the migrants make economic gains but pay a social price, and many such statements.
My issue with this is that it uses a certain way of interpreting the data that is not certainly right. Interestingly, Collier advocates for not opening the borders entirely while the Economist has published an article using practically the same evidence to conclude that opening the border will be of massively positive economic consequences for host and migrant populations.
It is important to acknowledge that policy and economic research are neither mathematical or biological science, in other words, there is less certain cause and effect and the data can be subject to different interpretations. This is why I do not believe that Collier's attempt to lay off the ethical and human rights argument until we've looked at the economic evidence is a valid one. We should determine, I believe, where we stand morally and decide what are our red lines and then be honest and open about the available evidence rather than use what suits us for propaganda purposes. If that is the case, rather than using the data to discredit others, we can use it to mitigate the risks and amplify the benefits of migration.
Nevertheless, and despite my objections, it is worth reading to know about the other sides of the migration discourse.
In doing so, he takes us through the available evidence from economics, social sciences, and policy and looks at the social and economic consequences of migration on each individual group. His aim , as he states, is not to end up in a position of closing borders or opening up completely but to arrive at what level of migration is best.
His conclusions, which are based on the available evidence he reviews, show middle ground outcomes in most cases. Migration is not harmful to host countries labor neither is it very useful, the migrants make economic gains but pay a social price, and many such statements.
My issue with this is that it uses a certain way of interpreting the data that is not certainly right. Interestingly, Collier advocates for not opening the borders entirely while the Economist has published an article using practically the same evidence to conclude that opening the border will be of massively positive economic consequences for host and migrant populations.
It is important to acknowledge that policy and economic research are neither mathematical or biological science, in other words, there is less certain cause and effect and the data can be subject to different interpretations. This is why I do not believe that Collier's attempt to lay off the ethical and human rights argument until we've looked at the economic evidence is a valid one. We should determine, I believe, where we stand morally and decide what are our red lines and then be honest and open about the available evidence rather than use what suits us for propaganda purposes. If that is the case, rather than using the data to discredit others, we can use it to mitigate the risks and amplify the benefits of migration.
Nevertheless, and despite my objections, it is worth reading to know about the other sides of the migration discourse.
December 14, 2014
Collier only concerns himself with impartiality, excluding the visceral and emotional arguments characteristic of the mainstream media today. He presents a well argued, incisive exposition of the pros and cons of immigration. In particular, he hones in on what is known as the "social model", constituted by a nation's norms, practices, and values, inter alia. Often the continual exoduses of immigration can problematise and indeed compromise a country's hitherto passive and indifferent acceptance of the process into a jingoistic hostility. This is because of the significant cultural distance between the two groups, each with their own idiosyncratic cultural norms. In addition, immigrants have a proclivity, hardly unsurprisingly, to live and gradually concentrate in the same area, being surrounded by individual's the same nationality. This in turn is inhibitive to their assimilation into the host nation's culture and way of life.
For a more in-depth, more relevatory review/analysis/summary of Paul's book feel free to read my blog on immigration, wherein I admittedly fall foul of the biggest academic sin and use some of his theories and ideas without adduction:
http://themiscellaneousaspectsoflife....
For a more in-depth, more relevatory review/analysis/summary of Paul's book feel free to read my blog on immigration, wherein I admittedly fall foul of the biggest academic sin and use some of his theories and ideas without adduction:
http://themiscellaneousaspectsoflife....
March 30, 2016
A refreshingly objective overview of current research in the subject of migration. This is a subject that's far too often clouded by opinions and feelings, but Collier summarizes the available research. It is of course impossible not to be influenced by one's opinions, but the author does a good job of separating the two.
He looks into the three main stakeholders in the migration process, the source country, the destination country, and the migrants themselves. (Conspicuously there is no discussion of the transit countries, nor of people smuggling.)
The main conclusion is that on the whole migration has had a mainly positive impact on everyone concerned, but that the effect depends a lot on the policies employed by the destination countries. If the migrants are poorly integrated, they will act as a magnet for more migrants, as well as reducing the trust within the destination country. One surprising conclusion is that strict guidelines favourising well-educated migrants is that it will (in many cases) reduce the effective brain-drain from the source countries. Collier is also strongly against the admission of family members, as it increases the separateness between the immigrant diaspora and the indigenous population.
He looks into the three main stakeholders in the migration process, the source country, the destination country, and the migrants themselves. (Conspicuously there is no discussion of the transit countries, nor of people smuggling.)
The main conclusion is that on the whole migration has had a mainly positive impact on everyone concerned, but that the effect depends a lot on the policies employed by the destination countries. If the migrants are poorly integrated, they will act as a magnet for more migrants, as well as reducing the trust within the destination country. One surprising conclusion is that strict guidelines favourising well-educated migrants is that it will (in many cases) reduce the effective brain-drain from the source countries. Collier is also strongly against the admission of family members, as it increases the separateness between the immigrant diaspora and the indigenous population.
August 22, 2019
طبع هذا الكتاب بصيغته الانكليزية عام 2013 اي قبل عام أو أقل من الهجرات الواسعة التي شهدها العالم في منتصف عام 2014 وما فوق بما يعني ان الكتاب عالج موضوعاً حساساً قبل موجات الهجرة لكنه لم يكن يعلم بحجم الموجات التي ستطرق أبواب اوربا وتغير سلوكيات حكامها وشعوبها ايضاً..
بالعموم الكتاب يعطيك صورة عن العديد من البلدان التي تشهد موجات هجرة / استراليا من دول الهند وشرق اسيا/ امريكا من هاييتي / اوربا الغربية (فرنسا واسبانيا) من دول غرب افريقيا كالسنغال والي وغيرها اضافة الى دول المغرب وليبيا والجزائر / أما اوربا كألمانيا والسويد والنرويج وغيرها في ستكون حصة العراق وسوريا وايران وافغانستان وهكذا ليعطيك صورة بحجم كبير عن المحمولات الاجتماعية للمهاجرين واندماجهم مع محمولات الثقافة لسكان بلاد المهجر ومراحل الصراع الثقافي وتكون تكتلات مجتمعية خاصة بكل قومية لتشهد هذه الاخيرة حركة شبه فعالة في مجتمع المهجر بالسياسة الاقتصاد وغيرها .
الكتاب جد مهم بالنسبة لي وهو دراسة تستحق الاشادة لانها ليست بالسهلة ، يشكر بالتأكيد مترجم الكتاب الاستاذ مصطفى ناصر على جهده في تحويل عناية القارئ العربي لهكذا دراسات وبالتأكيد الشكر موصول الى المجلس الوطني للثقافة والفنون والاداب الكويتي الذي يتحفنا بكتب رصينة كل مرة وعلى مدار الاعوام
أدام الله هذا العطاء من الناشر والترجمة
بالعموم الكتاب يعطيك صورة عن العديد من البلدان التي تشهد موجات هجرة / استراليا من دول الهند وشرق اسيا/ امريكا من هاييتي / اوربا الغربية (فرنسا واسبانيا) من دول غرب افريقيا كالسنغال والي وغيرها اضافة الى دول المغرب وليبيا والجزائر / أما اوربا كألمانيا والسويد والنرويج وغيرها في ستكون حصة العراق وسوريا وايران وافغانستان وهكذا ليعطيك صورة بحجم كبير عن المحمولات الاجتماعية للمهاجرين واندماجهم مع محمولات الثقافة لسكان بلاد المهجر ومراحل الصراع الثقافي وتكون تكتلات مجتمعية خاصة بكل قومية لتشهد هذه الاخيرة حركة شبه فعالة في مجتمع المهجر بالسياسة الاقتصاد وغيرها .
الكتاب جد مهم بالنسبة لي وهو دراسة تستحق الاشادة لانها ليست بالسهلة ، يشكر بالتأكيد مترجم الكتاب الاستاذ مصطفى ناصر على جهده في تحويل عناية القارئ العربي لهكذا دراسات وبالتأكيد الشكر موصول الى المجلس الوطني للثقافة والفنون والاداب الكويتي الذي يتحفنا بكتب رصينة كل مرة وعلى مدار الاعوام
أدام الله هذا العطاء من الناشر والترجمة
March 3, 2014
It's certainly true that not all issues, raised in the book, are supported by strong evidence. Nevertheless, the questions (and possible solutions) raised are higly valuable and mostly well argumented.
It's about time that migration gets 'unstuck' from the debilatating non-debate between 'Left' and 'Right'. Paul Collier more than achieves this goal.
It's about time that migration gets 'unstuck' from the debilatating non-debate between 'Left' and 'Right'. Paul Collier more than achieves this goal.
August 11, 2015
An academic analysis of the benefits and burdens of immigration from the point of view of the sending and receiving countries and the would-be migrant. Clearly and concisely written and illuminating. Demonstrates that whatever one's views, the failure of UK politicians to grapple with the issues will work out badly.
January 11, 2023
يسعى الكتاب الى الاجلبة على ثلاث اسئلة وهي
1- ما الذي يؤثر في قرارات المهاجرين؟
2- كيف تؤثر الهجرة في الذين يبقون في الوطن؟
3- كيف تؤثر في السكان الاصليين للبلدان المضيفة؟
وهل يتم التعامل مع الهجرة كمسالة اخلاقية
1- ما الذي يؤثر في قرارات المهاجرين؟
2- كيف تؤثر الهجرة في الذين يبقون في الوطن؟
3- كيف تؤثر في السكان الاصليين للبلدان المضيفة؟
وهل يتم التعامل مع الهجرة كمسالة اخلاقية
January 27, 2015
Provocative, very provocative... Still good food for thought.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews