Ongelijkheid, immigratie en hypocrisie

May 8, 2015 Kenneth Rogoff

CAMBRIDGE – De Europese vluchtelingencrisis legt een fundamentele zwakte bloot in het voortgaande debat over economische ongelijkheid, als je het al geen gigantische hypocrisie wilt noemen. Een waarlijk progressief iemand zou toch gelijke kansen voor alle mensen op de planeet willen, en niet alleen voor de gelukkigen die in rijke landen zijn geboren en opgegroeid?

Velen dachten altijd dat de leiders in geavanceerde economieën een mentaliteit van ‘recht hebben op’ prediken. Maar dit ‘recht op’ houdt op aan de grens; alhoewel ze een betere herverdeling binnen individuele landen als categorische imperatief zien, wordt er aan mensen die in opkomende markten of ontwikkelingslanden wonen voorbij gegaan.

Als de huidige zorgen over ongelijkheid geheel in politieke termen gegoten waren, zou deze naar binnen gerichte blik begrijpelijk zijn; inwoners van arme landen kunnen nou eenmaal niet stemmen in rijke landen. Maar de retoriek in het ongelijkheidsdebat in rijke landen verraadt een morele zekerheid die gemakshalve de miljarden mensen die het elders veel slechter hebben negeert.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

A Safer Path to Asylum Smart Development
Mustafa Bader/ZumaPress

A Safer Path to Asylum

Peter Sutherland urges the EU to allow refugees to apply for protection without being forced to risk their lives.

0

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 69 in all 69 Comments on this article

james benton Feb 17, 2017

Dr. Rogoff does not know his political science. When governments and the fortunate argue that we as a nation owe foreign workers as much concern as we owe workers at home, loss of trust and populist upsets tend to follow. A quite different morality -- "we take care of our own" -- is taken for granted in most of the world. If we support a decent welfare system, we need to build on that foundation, not some abstract humanism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Kavran Oct 4, 2016

It is up to the political elite of the rich countries to decrease inequality domestically and spread wealth around the globe. Until they don't do the homework at home, you can't expect (in fact, you can never expect) people to be less selfish.
It is not right to blame the poor people of 'rich' countries.
About immigration in Europe, especially in Central Europe (as a Hungarian): if you look at everything from 10k feet, you are never going to understand the social dynamics, root causes, etc. and you will never come to the right conclusion ( as you do not do it now).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ralph Musgrave Sep 20, 2015

Yes: let's turn Europe into something resembling the Islamic part of Nigeria. Strange that the Rogoffs of this world don't go live in the Islamic part of Nigeria: then they can enjoy all the benefits that that entails, like having your children abducted and sold into slavery. Or rather I do understand: members of the elite like Rogoff like appearing saintly during their own lifetime, meanwhile the real cost will be born by future generations who may be forced to "enjoy" having their children abducted. For the Rogoffs of this world, that's a win win scenario.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jun 14, 2015

PERHAPS, MR. ROGOFF, THIS WILL HELP PHASE OUT INEQUALITY OF ALL KINDS IN ALL LATITUDES:

https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Colombo Colombo May 29, 2015

The end of the article, as well as the corresponding research, http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogoff/files/btf2004_0.pdf , of which I read only the introduction, suggests that inequality will become prevailing in the debate on poverty. Admittedly, the Millennium Development Goals were somehow achieved, with 72 countries out of 129 reaching them according to the FAO. But inequality would be on the contrary very secondary if there was no poverty.
The ways chargeable to the “rich countries” in favour of the development, also recommended at the end of the article, are easily acceptable.

On the contrary, the central idea according to which “Allowing freer flows of people across borders would equalize opportunities even faster than trade” prolongs the ideology which led to the impoverishment or the stagnation of the middle classes in the European and Anglo-Saxon countries, the ideology of globalization. The transfer of wealth wished by K. Rogoff is already largely engaged. Let us note besides that the theory according to which it would be necessary to strip Peter (much) to equip Paul (a little) precisely goes back to the beginning of the 1990's, whereas the first destroying effects of globalization in the European and Anglo-Saxon countries started to be seen.
Besides, in a very demagogic way, K. Rogoff justifies these effects by so-called “rents” collected by workers in advanced countries, whereas this progression of the standard of living precisely gave rise to these middle classes and thereby, to the true establishment of the benefits of the market economy, causing a certain reconciliation between the workers and the capital holders.
K. Rogoff makes pretence of accepting that all the prices and values scales constituting the hierarchies are called into question, of which, it is supposed, his own emoluments (sublime hypocrisy), whereas these hierarchies and inequality would do nothing but increase, but also poverty, if the migratory flows worsened in the European and Anglo-Saxon countries, would be this only because the welfare expenditures exert a strong redistributive effect and that they bend when immigration is massive, especially if one takes into account the effects on the labour market. Let us note besides that beyond the opposition on the success or the drift of capitalism, T. Piketty thinks like K. Rogoff on the benefits of immigration to reshuffle fortunes (see in French "a very superficial criticism of "Capital in the Twenty-First Century"", http://forums.france2.fr/ce-soir-ou-jamais/Participez-aux-debats/critique-superficielle-capital-sujet_7796_1.htm , by Percever).

But the world to come will probably resemble that desired by K. Rogoff and one sees already that the States are attacked from all sides (weight of the public expenditures, strategies of the gigantic multinational corporations…). It will be a world with a world super-elite and lots of undifferentiated poor, the burial of the Western civilization and of what made its glory and its honor, but also of course of the related nations. Back to the 19th century in the European and Anglo-Saxon countries, while celebrating at last the victory of the individual only dominated by economic rationality, but probably poorer. The vision of K. Rogoff is purely economic besides. If not, he would also point at the responsibility of the emerging and developing countries for the overpopulation which compromise their development.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
srinivasan gopalan May 28, 2015

A brilliant piece with enlightened self-interest, the arguments adduced by Prof.Rogoff are too formidable to be treated with levity. It is time the rich world understood the moral imperatives and their implied duty to help iron out discrepancies not only within their own areas/backyards but also across the universe where more than a quarter of humanity some hoe goes out an existence that is remotely deemed a decent level. Movement of people as service-providers under Mode-4 continues to be contentious issue under the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS), even as the rich nations is on the threshold of a grey dawn decades ago!
G.Srinivasan,Journalist, New Delhi.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alexandros Aslanidis May 23, 2015

Here's what I say to Mr. Rogoff: pipe down.

As a highly-paid upper-class academic you don't stand to lose from globalization. The low-skilled workers/ employees in the West do. Why should they care if people get richer in the developing countries? I say they should mostly care about the fact that they themselves get poorer.

Besides, we all know how the developing countries don't exactly play by the book when it comes to economic policy. They constrain domestic demand in order to pursue export-led growth, thus stealing demand from abroad. So, Mr. Rogoff, instead of parading in favor of the current state of globalization, maybe it'd better if you paraded in condemnation of the beggar-thy-neighbor policies that the developing countries pursue.

Thank you and goodbye.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mr Econotarian May 20, 2015

Good for Mr. Rogoff for making this important case!

I'm glad my impoverished ancestors were able to come to the US and experience its high level of economic freedom. Now several of their descendants are in "the 1%".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Harlem Harlem Bachelet May 16, 2015

The author's policy prescription is correct, but he should not invite aesthetic morals like "intellectual consistency" into a debate about measurable living standards

We will not accept greater immigration flows for universal moral reasons. We do not have universal morals. We have parochial interests, sometimes called racism.

Our technocrat bosses should accept them in professional sectors because otherwise we're stranding ourselves without access to the best talent. My country has about 5% of the world's population. It's pretty tough to be a 99th percentile superpower in a high-tech world if you're only playing with 5% of potential brain inputs

Let as many of the eggheads in as you can. The dummies (like myself) will b hard to accommodate without clever tailoring of the welfare state and housing regulation
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
T Selvakumaran May 14, 2015

Rather than work on enabling, in the long-term, EMIGRATION from the developed countries, instead of that, to frame the debate on a triage of Inequality, Immigration and Morality is also quite hypocritical, especially so when economists do it, since the case for emigration in the long-term makes most sense from the perspective of economics.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Martin Screeton May 14, 2015

I wholeheartedly agree with easing immigration policies around the world and also would like to see our companies along with our governments start prying open these producer countries and begin to get those economies, along with its citizens, into better living conditions and unionized hourly wages. At least wages above the average hourly wage within theses countries. They are making everything in our houses here in America. inequality and outright exploitation will continue to cause major problems unless we unite to make everybody better.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pepy Sakellariou May 13, 2015

Why make it so difficult for poor people?
Leave home, go somewhere else to start over, usually by being exploited most of the times? Not an option for poverty alleviation
It sounds like a mumbo-jumbo argument, when there is a much more simple alternative.
To tackle impoverishment across globe just put global rules on taxation and enforce re-investments of those companies operating in poor countries.
Oh! Global working conditions and minimum wage to the level of that in developed countries are prerequisite too.
Hypocrisy is to turn a blind eye to solutions that give a way out of poverty with dignity and benevolence within the countries.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bruno Berewono May 13, 2015

I agree completely with the learned author. Thank you Prof. for saying it without mincing words.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu May 13, 2015

Yes globalization is a factor influencing migration...However (GOP) political agenda of USA and its invasion & occupation of Iraq let lose a Pandora box of population dislocation and subsequent migration to safety from bombs and guns. ISIS would not have risen without GWB & his naïve gesture - *bring them on*!
Rogoff is a political amateur to understand how his own government works and decides on illegal migrants from south... Obama cannot get millions of illegal immigrants issue settled because of wickedness of GOP culture of white-political -supremacy!
EU, in particular, has been generous to immigrants throughout postwar period. Only now with advent of bombing Libya by Nato - led by US/UK-the crisis has gotten worse because Gadhafi's tribal culture breakdown.
The hypocrisy of US/UK is perhaps the worst when it comes to dealing with non-white (illegal) immigrants on their boarders.
Current crisis in southern Italy will eventually be resolved because there is a will in Brussels to find a solution to this human crisis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Harland Brown May 12, 2015

I suspect that Prof Rogoff has an ideological agenda here, i.e., that the European social model is based on hypocrisy. Without going into the details, I would just point out that the European social model, unlike the Marxist model, never aimed to deliver well-being to all of humanity.
While Europe has plenty of problems to solve, I would suggest that American academics look at the areas in which their government's decisions have had a direct impact on the well-being of people abroad. Iraq and Afghanistan come immediately to mind. The U.S. has accepted a miniscule number of refugees from those countries, even though it was directly responsible for the displacement of millions of people.
To claim that the E.U. has a similar responsibility for the refugees of Syria or Eritrea is a weak argument indeed.
- Robert Lunn Jul 29, 2015
  
  Agree. I think he started this by saying "how can I take a shot at someone, (Piketty), so I can get noticed". I read Piketty's book and that was not my take. It seems to me the inequality issue has turned into a Rorschach test. The argument my class has is based on where the benefit has gone, specifically on immigration but also on accessing the low labor cost in lessor developed economies. The money saved has gone to the few. Put another way, the cheaper labor has not been passed to the consumer. With stagnant wage, we are getting less, with more going to those in control or providing the leverage.
  Our complaint, (to speak for those masses out here is arrogant I know), is where the benefit is going, not that it exists. Immigration and globalization are both okay. Through market rigging and many other actions by the few, the distribution of the benefit is skewed.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Gunnar Eriksson May 14, 2015
  
  Thanks!!
  One could possibly add that figuring out how to pay for basic healthcare for US citizen could be a good starter.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Martin Screeton May 14, 2015
  
  Agree, American Government needs to take more responsibility in helping the people that in which lives we have damaged directly.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matteo Fragetta May 12, 2015

I completely agree, but one does not necessarily exclude the other.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George Balella May 11, 2015

The people hoarding trillions in cash profiteering from lopsided trade agreements and other power aggregating effects of globalization LOVE your argument. Redirect the anger from them and make it about greedy stagnant middle class workers and the wonderful doubling of the global poors wages from $1 dollar a day to $2 dollars a day.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Faruk Timuroglu May 11, 2015

There has been a lot of noisy blah blah blah on the subject recently. Politicians in rich countries know well what message Mr. Rogoff is trying to give. Certainly, they don't want to hear. Inequality has always been presented as a national issue despite the rich countries' economic-colonial interests as global, as if this were an unbreakable heavenly rule. Mr. Rogoff however, breaks the rule, touches the real issue, which is the Inequality in its true meaning, though can change nothing. This looming problem has the potential to grow into the most destructive man-made calamity ever seen. Unfortunately, we don't have global thinking political leaders.
- Martin Screeton May 14, 2015
  
  We have certainly congress persons who have not touched the soil of a foreign country! :) Good Post.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Neer Jain May 11, 2015

Opening up borders can be catastrophic with respect to safety by large. However why not create West in the East, South , North , in developing and emerging world. Create safety, employment, affordable healthcare, make them sustainable and strong to combat the global warming.
How would live at peace in your home if your neighbors suffer !
- Mr Econotarian May 20, 2015
  
  I'm glad my impoverished ancestors were able to come to the US and experience its high level of economic freedom. Now their descendent is in the 1%.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rajendran Vasudevan May 11, 2015

An excellent start to a necessary discussion. Timing is excellent too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thomas Markson May 11, 2015

Straw man. Many progressives, myself included, support open borders. This attitude is certainly more common among progressives than conservatives.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George Bittlingmayer May 10, 2015

I am not so sure. Take exceptionally successful small countries (in terms of population) like Switzerland and Canada. They would cease to be what they are and quite possibly import some of the cultural and political dysfunction (like low trust, tribalism) that refugees are fleeing.
- Dean Abele May 11, 2015
  
  Yes I agree. Also, the welfare state encourages risk taking and economic growth, but it could not be sustained with open borders. It is also much more efficient to improve these countries then over crowd countries with good institutions. We must improve poor countries in all the ways he suggested instead of debt relief, as this is just giving money to corrupt governments. Low inequality within a country also encourages a healthy community and happy people.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anonymous Jim May 10, 2015

One of the reasons for the hypocrisy is that they have a moral view which seeks to choose a safe society where your behind the veil of ignorance. Therefore, they tend to maximize their political votes based on this assumption .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Stewart May 10, 2015

If all borders were to be opened immediately, and fully, there might be a small problem with demand exceeding supply. This could be fixed with a price system. The entrance fee could be set annually to allow the bureaucratically/politically determined 'correct' number of immigrants into a country. An auction would be even better.

As a starter I suggest $50,000 to get into the United States, with a work permit only, not voting rights and citizenship, which could be obtained under a completely unrelated process. There would be many ways for 'poor' people to raise the $50,000, including loans from their employer, who would hold the permit until it was paid off, fund raising from private groups who wanted to save a particular set of refugees, perhaps crowd sourcing, etc.

Many complaints I have read in the comments concern the welfare systems which, to my astonishment, apparently allow non-citizens to collect benefits? This is easily corrected - don't do it.

A final detail, the work permit I envision would be good for one person only. Should permit holders wish to have their spouses and families join them, they would be welcome, as tourists. Should they wish to work, ever, they would have to buy their own $50,000 permits.

Additional details at http://rickstewart.com/content/immigration
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer May 10, 2015

Imported goods don’t yield multigenerational poverty, failing schools,welfare dependency, crime, gridlock, unaffordable housing, societal chaos, etc. Let me quote from Gail the Teacher (writing in opposition to Bryan Caplan).

“Let me guess: you don’t (nor have you ever) lived in a community, a neighborhood, in which open borders has resulted in welfare lines at the HHS building two miles away, with anchor baby mothers and their little ones being served your tax dollars. You haven’t waited in a doctor’s office while MediCal patients, armed with their anchor babies, sit five to a row, a mother with four kids (each child about 14 months apart–oh, and btw, not all the kids are actually “anchor” children…maybe only one or two were born here but in your open borders world it’s a moot point anyway). You haven’t stood in the line at Food-4-Less, trying to save a few bucks on your families’ grocery bill while the open borders crowds in front of you pay the bill with food stamps and merrily walk out, only to find a dent they left in your car door. (Funny how they have no appreciation of MY car). Let me guess: you’re thinking, “What a small-minded person, worrying about such little things while I, Caplan the Economist, think of the large ideas of life, the trivial daily problems of regular ole working Americans and their families be damned.”)

You haven’t had the principal tell you that because he needs an extra teacher for the new ESL section he’s opened, he’s pulling out one of your colleagues from the English Department, leaving 37 kids from her former class to be absorbed by the four other sections of the course; thus, you’ve not been told to be ready the next day to receive your “share” of the change.

You haven’t had meeting after meeting to determine some way, ANY way, to encourage the Open Border kids and their parents to learn English, to see to it homework is done–or at least attempted– and most importantly, to see to it they don’t remove their kids from school for five weeks around Christmas and ten days around Easter. (“How is it ‘poor people’ find the money for all that gas or airfare,” you never have to wonder.)

You don’t ever get to see first hand, do you, Bryan, that there are indeed peoples and cultures that don’t want to live the “American Dream” as YOU understand that dream, which includes an education and a grasp of at least the basics of such an education?

Nor do you understand that there are people who don’t wish to assimilate, do you? Nor do you need to ponder why they should when the border is open, when they can cross it any time they wish, and when their real home, the home of the heart, is tanks of gas and a cheap plane ride away.

You do not send your children to these schools, do you, Bryan? You live in no such neighborhood, do you, Bryan? Nor would you because you know the performance of a school is really the performance of the children of that school and your children would learn next to nothing in such a school, but you don’t think anything’s wrong with the children of other Americans who are middle and working class sending their kids to this school, this school of kids who aren’t really (oh, oh, this is probably a really sore spot with you) not_ very_ bright. No, Bryan, not bright. In fact, the occupy the lower end of the Bell. Is it any wonder they don’t show an interest in school? How does one learn algebra, how does one care about algebra with an IQ of 87 or so when multiplication tables are difficult enough?

Indulge in all the intellectualism you wish. It changes nothing. You are intellectually dishonest, and face it, a hypocrite. Or, surprise me by having a new baby, moving to a community like the one I’ve described, living in the neighborhood, and sending your son or daughter to the neighborhood school there. “
- Martin Screeton May 14, 2015
  
  @ Gail the Teacher... another grave problem in America, racism and bigotry. Gail needs to be fired, lose her home, and perhaps she will end up on the street and spend a few months in homeless shelter. Then lets see her attitude on poor people after her special experiences in the so called land of plenty.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Rajendran Vasudevan May 11, 2015
  
  You are intellectually honest with out doubt! The basis of this intellect has a historiography which accommodates only about 250 years into the past as of now, by when Europeans were hoping to be the only bonafide citizens of America! Oh I was joking, you could actually be better than that. There is simply no way of knowing. Sorry about it. :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Luke Lea May 10, 2015

For a second there I thought Rogoff was going to talk about how massive low-skilled immigration contributes to inequality in America, the least-skilled, most vulnerable sections of our population (like the blacks in inner-city Baltimore) hurt worst of all.

Sacrificing the welfare of the bottom half of American people in the name of universalist ideals is morally indefensible.
- Shan Jun Chang May 11, 2015
  
  You've just completely missed the point haven't you? Why is sacrificing the welfare of specifically the poorest Americans in the name of what you yourself admit is a universalist ideal indefensible? Is it because Americans are in some way this exceptional bunch of people, morally entitled just by virtue of their nationality to some special benefit? Be careful with that sort of claim: it's been used to prelude subjugation and ethnic cleansing many times throughout history.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula May 10, 2015

Well, thank you for another very interesting article, especially your first paragraph. Well, I consider myself a progressive. Yes, I support equal opportunity. However, I am also a female, and now a female nearing 70years of age in the US, and a US born citizen. I can only hope that I’m not a hypocrite, especially with my following remarks.

Equal opportunity is a myth.
Democracy is becoming a myth as political infrastructures and community systems try to function, if at all.
I appreciate your article. It adds a bottom-line perspective to continuing intellectual discourse about globalized economic actions, or really inactions affecting international and national policies.

There are millions if not billions of US citizens that are worse off, and present younger citizens are a good proportion of those citizens today. Do I have the statistics to backup my words? Check EPI.org.

Am I focusing on “domestic inequality”? I sure am. Am I aware of the bigger picture, and the worser, or worst “inequalities”? I sure am. Thank God, I have not had to experience some of the worst. Do I think that the issue of global inequality is being overshadowed by domestic inequality? No. Emphatically.

Is the arrival of desperate boat people on Europe’s shores a symptom of Europe’s failure to make a difference? I sure don’t think so. Is it Europe’s responsibility to resolve the corruption problems, and inability of the fleeing peoples countries governments to allow survival within their own nations?

Individual states must be allowed to maintain their own boundaries, laws, and infrastructures, if individual states are going to be allowed to survive. Who is the almighty power to determine state’s survival? If the issue is an international issue, then state members of the international unions need to establish shelters, and aid internationally. There would need to be permanent international processing and systems established that are agreed to by the state members to compensate for human misery due to internal corruptive and abhorrent internal state practices. Who of international state leaders will be the first to step up and practice what they really support and placate? Where does most of the money go to the present volunteer(?) NGO and aid groups? How transparent are their budgets? I sure haven’t found much on the internet, for a clear financial picture. How did ISIS, and some of those other rogue military groups get most of their weaponry, tanks, trucks, airplanes, and other weaponry? They sure didn’t manufacture the weaponry themselves. Who is cleaning up the destruction? Who created it?

If Europe is to be condemned, and responsible for past colonialism, then start charging all the people who inherited wealth from their ancestors. Start taxing the individual human beings that have established the business practices of the corporations, and business that have existed for generations that have profited from the inhuman labor practices. Who is the first political leader that is going to voice such an action?
Will Obama include a specific limitation to corporate leadership and board members salaries in the new
Trade agreement? Will the US Congress and Asian Countries support such a proposal? Step right up folks and improve the world for all the world/s citizens. Is it gonna happen? I don’t think so.

I would like to be optimistic, but all of my idealism has been shattered for me by the political leadership that only continues to support themselves, not any goals of this nation. Is it any different in other nations today? The form of government doesn’t seem to make much difference any more. There are only various political bases that exist for themselves, feeding off the masses of the various societies within their individual nations. The imbalances aren’t severe enough worldwide yet. If more immigration destabilizes already weakened social structure within Europe, of course, Europe will become a free-for-all-to-escape too! Let the herding of the masses begin! Hasn’t this been occurring for over a generation now? Who has access to those algorithms, population projections and reports? I view the fleeing of populations today as deliberate “herding” of groups of people. Yes, I think in this day an age, that this “herding” is deliberate, and focused. Who is doing the herding varies from illegal profiteers in S.A., and other continents, to the legal profiteers who are profiting by low-wage practices. This herding is calculated and allowed by elite corporate practices, supported by political leadership and corrupt business practices. Is this just a bizarre thought from an opinionated old lady?

Did I just share an example of what you mentioned years ago: “As the world becomes richer, inequality inevitably will loom as a much larger issue relative to poverty, a point I first argued more than a decade ago. “ I would have to argue back, that the world is NOT becoming richer.

Trickle down economy is also a myth. One of the biggest myths ever told. Only a certain platform, or segment of national and international society is becoming richer. That segment is proportionally quite small to the number of the mass society that is growing in numbers, but not in equivalent wealth to continue reasonable existence. I would also like to emphasize “Reasonable existence”.

If the issue of “reasonable existence” continues to not be acknowledged by international corporate and political leadership, then ultimately the issue of :

“With most rich countries’ capacity and tolerance for immigration already limited, it is hard to see how a new equilibrium for global population distribution will be reached peacefully. Resentment against the advanced economies, which account for a vastly disproportionate share of global pollution and commodity consumption, could boil over. “

You are absolutely right. It ain’t gonna happen peacefully. The pot’s been on a high simmer for quite a while now. Yep, it’s already starting to boil over.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer May 10, 2015

Every nation has the fundamental right to determine who crosses its borders and who (if anyone) takes up residence within its national territory. Stopping immigration isn't immoral, its a basic aspect of sovereignty. No one has the right to enter a nation without the consent of the people of that nation. Violating that fundamental principle is a hostile, an act of invasion that every nation has the right to resist as need be.

The idea that people should be allowed to migrate freely is absurd and immoral. If 500 million people invaded Europe from the third world, the third world would still be deeply poor. However, Europe would be annihilated forever. The people of Europe have every right and indeed duty to say no. Self-preservation is the most basic of human rights.

Imagine if 100 million poor people from Asia invaded Japan. Would Japan still exist in any significant way other than mere geography? Of course not. Will the Japanese tolerate the destruction of their nation via immigration? At least so far the answer is no. Would Israel survive even five years with Open Borders? Doubtful. No one should be surprised that Israel has the best (and most successful) fences in the world.

It is important to realize that immigration is a (large) net negative for the receiving nations. The immigrants coming to Europe, Asia, and the United States are poor and massively welfare dependent. They can not possibly make a positive contribution. Many years ago, Milton Friedman stated "You cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration". The welfare state (in the United States) was considerably smaller back then. The economics of immigration have gotten worse since then (and have always been catastrophic in Europe). This issue has been studied to death in Europe and America. The results are invariable negative. Importing poor people is a losing proposition. Anyone who doubts this needs to read Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany Does Itself In"). Of course, the National Academy of Sciences (in the USA) reached the same conclusions decades ago.

The author mentions the current "refugee" inflows into Europe. Like it or not, these are not "refugees", they are economic immigrants, using the word "refugee" to invade Europe. Some are indeed leaving war-torn nations. However, real refugees live in refugee camps, not France or the Netherlands. Neither Europe nor the United States can (or should) solve these problems. Refugees should be handled where they came from, not dumped onto welfare in Berlin or Paris.

The idea that poverty or wealth is just an accident of where a person was born is a myth. Nations are rich (and poor) because of the values and talents of their people. More that 150 years and the values and talents of the Japanese people enabled Japan to take off and become an advanced nation. That has happened in much of the world today and may never happen. Importing poor people into Europe may make them better off. However, it will undermine the culture, values, and talents that enabled Europe, North America, and parts of Asia to be so successful.

It is worth noting that the advocates of Open Borders are almost invariably selfish profiteers who benefit from the status quo or ivory tower types insulated from the grim realities of mass immigration. People stuck on the front lines of mass immigration have a clearer view of the realities on the ground and tend to be harsh restrictionists. Reality has that kind of effect.

What does Open Borders really mean? The truth is miserable. Extreme polarization, extreme inequality, failing schools, crushing taxes, unemployment, poverty, and Charlie Hebdo forever. Why would any sane nation choose this path? None would.
- Petey Bee May 11, 2015
  
  @Peter Schaeffer,
  
  You are right that a necessary defining aspect of nations, for better or worse, is to define their future population by controlling immigration.
  
  However, your characterization of immigrants has no basis in reality. I am talking about the US here. First of all, those claiming the right to be here now are all descended from immigrants. Secondly, this country was built by either subsequent waves who either immigrated or in some cases were forcibly brought here. But nevermind, leave that aside. Also leave aside that nearly all the labor going into the food we eat, when it has to be picked from the soil, gets done by my migrant workers from south of the border, who are like immigrants except they'll never be citizens if they play by the rules. Lets just talk about present-day, like within our lifetimes.
  
  If you actually ever met any, you would find out that immigrants in the US work harder than typical US citizens, and often achieve more when starting with less. They are the ones who actually live out the American dream. It is ok to be upset about that, you would think these opportunities should be reserved for poorer citizens, and there are plenty. But if this is so, say that directly, not that they're lazy because that isn't true.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stamatis Kavvadias May 10, 2015

This is a partial read of the problem of inequality, in many ways.

Yes, growth of the Chinese and Indian economies lifted hundreds of millions from poverty. This is surely a significant accomplishment of these countries but not a dramatic win for the world. Yes, globalization is a force to make unskilled labor wages equal in China and the US. But, obviously, markets are not the proper actor to define the pace of this transition. Other, manipulating forces are at work; obviously, prof. Rogoff is among them.

If we exclude real poverty (on the same metrics), which feels the same everywhere, inequality is much more intensely felt at the local level. This is is well known to anyone really interested in inequality.

I did not see an argument to redistribute the wealth of the global 1% to the global poor. During the crisis, with manipulation --not because of a victory of capitalism-- QE from western economies has been largely spent directly in domestic and emerging financial markets; newly created money that were never spent at home, in real markets. Pure undemocratic manipulation, not capitalism. And all that went to the pockets of the 1%.

Also, people want to travel and prefer to work if there is work, even if it is abroad. But this, by no means implies that they like becoming immigrants (unless they are 20 years old and take it as traveling abroad). So, if there is conviction to address inequality, stop the hypocrisy that capitalism works for a more equal society. Equality is not to be understood as a force to the benefit of the economy, but a force to the benefit of society. Otherwise, we will become equal, except for the pigs that will have to be more equal...

Finally, it is not true that left wing parties are advocating "keeping people out". This must be the center-left turning right, prof. Rogoff has in mind. The left is not so single-sidedly concerned with the economy, to turn cold in view of human suffering.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu May 10, 2015

"Hypocrisy" sums it all!

For those who claim that we're all god's children but wouldn't share their entitlement with their siblings are at least inconsistent in their "belief". No?

"laber" is the single most important factor in any economic activities and to call it "Free Trade" w/o free labor movement is dishonest. And yet few citizens of the west have noticed and sleep well with that kind of dishonesty!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rudolf Hoefling May 10, 2015

From a humanitarian aspect I cannot disagree with the article. From a practical viewpoint I am very concerned. I believe that the most capable people in these developing countries will seek the opportunities in Europe and the US. While the rest will stay. This will make these countries ultimately poorer as they are today. We have to find a way to help these countries to create stable governments and help them to use their local resources in a global economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kuruvilla Abraham May 10, 2015

Globalization has liberalized technology and capita0l flows but not labor flows. That as the authors says will automatically change as low agriculture labor availability (low pressure) in cold countries and high agricultural labor availability (high pressure) draw labor from the South to the North. This is already happening as agri-labor from India flows into USA and Southern Europe, specially Italy
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
philip navarre May 10, 2015

I think that the hypocrisie exist both ways.
With the globalisation push that started with the collapse of the soviet union, millions of underskilled workers have lost their jobs in the west or have been unable to get one. But you should probably know that thousand of them have travelled the world to find a job. A lot have settled in Asia, per instance in Thailand. And how are they treated there mostly of the time? As underdogs!
So, before before to think to bleed the developped world one more time may be you could promote also fair rules for the immigratuon from this developped world!
Usually, in matter of diplomaty, the rule of reciprocity apply but you are promoting a rule of un reciprocity. Why?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
James Sherborne May 10, 2015

It is morally defensible as it was a democratic decision. If one decides than they know better than the majority of a society and act upon that without the support of that society then the very fabric of democracy is damaged. Therefore, i do not agree that the logic of a represented leader potentially acting upon the electorates demands by 'keeping other people out' is 'morally indefensible'.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha May 10, 2015

The Professor hits the nail on the head when expounding on the fundamental link between Migration and Macroeconomics. Migration is the motor that drives - whether inward or cross border. China's macroeconomic fundamentals are premised on inward migration to its MegaCities. Just as cross border migration created the economic engines in America Australia Canada over the last 300 years. And just as there are Inequalities within that need economic solutions - parts of the world now called Third World were once 'Greeces' that had to EXIT due the Inequality that Capitalism breeds. The impending EXIT of Greece from Europe is no different - as migration of 11 million to Brussels or Berlin is no longer possible, unlike the migration of even larger millions to The Anglosphere once was.
- jagjeet sinha May 10, 2015
  
  When the Macroeconomics within the Union creates Inequalities in Regions, Migration is a natural outcome.
  When Migration is no longer possible, the natural outcome is Exit.
  'Greece' is merely an example currently in vogue that captures this phenomenon perfectly.
  Wish Greece a speedy return to the good times before Euro happened.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Stamatis Kavvadias May 10, 2015
  
  Don't be so much worried about Greece. Living in Greece was far better in the 1980's (when considered a "developing economy") than it has been since the euro.
  
  BTW, Greece cannot "exit Europe". It's Europe that can renounce its name.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Il Poel May 10, 2015

If Mr Rogoff has children who profit from his hefty salary and the lifestyle it allows, isn´t that some kind of rent these children are getting, just for being born not within a certain country, but within a certain family? Could this be a case of towering hypocrisy? Also, notice how he implies that climate change will be the cause of mass migrations to the north... but he conveniently omits the projected jump in African population from 1.1 billion now to 2 billion in the next 35 years (sic). This glaring omission has a simple reason: climate change can be blamed on white people, while irresponsible population growth is solely the responsability of Africans... and we all know these people can never bear responsibility for anything, don´t we?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gi Fu May 9, 2015

kù
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee May 9, 2015

+1
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley May 9, 2015

Good article. What's wanted is probably some balance in the regulation and taxation of capital and labor movements: more taxation and regulation of capital movements, less on the movement of labor.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaap Bosma May 9, 2015

It's hypocritical to use the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean to denounce the inequality debate in the rich countries. Is mr. Rogoff cynically trying to defend the economic/power\tax system that promotes inequality in rich countries?

Contrary to mr. Rogoff's suggestion more equality worldwide and more equality in rich countries are not mutually exclusive.
The answer to worldwide inequality is not migration but development. Migration does not solve the problem of underdevelopment, but rather execarbates it because those left behind are usually the least able. Migration is just a short term solution. In the long run, development is a far superior solution.
The answer to inequality in rich countires is more complicated, but in my view should include at least international agreement on minimum tax levels for capital, profits and the rich, so that the rat race of tax competition between countries can be stopped and the rich can be taxed progressively again. This is certainly not at odds with the development of poor countries.
Isn't it also true that the most equal rich countries give the highest percentage of GDP in foreign aid (see "The Spririt Level")? That suggests that reducing inequality in rich countries goes hand in hand with reducing worldwide inequality.
- Rajendran Vasudevan May 11, 2015
  
  It is indeed appreciable that you have provided, an even broader boundary to the discussion of inequality. In all likelihood, the central theme of prof.rogoff's concern - international inequity being a bigger issue iniquity within say USA- will be taken care of in a matter of 50 odd years. This is predicated on a fairer trade, easier technology transfer opportunities, to begin with. The way you have portrayed lower taxes in poorer as some kind of global-ill is absolutely wrong. The tax-progression as it were is a basis which is at the core of "development". Some level of this fairness will also go with some form of migration. Migration does not only mean the developed counties attracting the best and the brightest from poorer countries and in turn way laying the poorer country's effort at "developing". It also includes, for instance, agricultural laborers from those locations were it is excessive to those places where it is in short supply.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Stamatis Kavvadias May 10, 2015
  
  Very well said.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- tony smith May 9, 2015
  
  Brilliant response. It must have been a nice feeling after you had finished writing your comment knowing you had completely and utterly eviscerated this acclaimed academics mini-thesis.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee May 9, 2015
  
  @Jaap Bosma. +1
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
TR Barnes May 9, 2015

Mr. Rogoff,
How about if you donate 25% of your net worth to the impoverished in the developing world and donate 25% of your annual earnings as well. How about if you do this and make it publicly known. That way you can demonstrate that you are willing to make the sacrifices that you are asking others much less fortunate than yourself to make. If you are unwilling to do this or something thereabouts equivalent, it's yourself who has a problem with hypocrisy far greater than the one you cite.
- Stamatis Kavvadias May 10, 2015
  
  Well said.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry F. Hough May 9, 2015

This would be a fine argument if it did not come from someone who profitted from the tripling of the market and the profits and low wages on which it is based.

Since the tripling of the market has led a lot of people like El-Erian, Fischer, etc., to talk about the possibility of a bubble which produced the kind of crisis that Rogoff has studied and that has done great harm in the world, he might be concerned with tax policies and immigration laws. Another bubble will really have political consequences.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public May 8, 2015

Inequality is a meaningless thing for those living outside the borders of the 1st world, just a poverty is a meaningless thing for those living inside these borders. Also, the reduction in poverty is largely a statistical trick to do with drawing the poverty line - they used to earn 99c a day now they earn 1.01. In reality, not much has changed for many of them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kenneth Pao May 8, 2015

Professor Rogoff's article examines the related issues from the perspective of a missionary (Jan Smith below) imploring the advanced European economies (or the equivalent north Americans for the poor south Americans) to open their hearts, wallets and share their wealth with the poor and hungry masses from the Middle East and Africa. His heart is in the right place but it needs a different approach.

There is a well known Chinese proverb "Be charitable for emergency relief but not for poverty" or the equivalent western proverb "Give fish to the poor to relief hunger for a day or teach them fishing skills to solve their hunger problem".

As pointed out by Bernhard Kopp below the European advanced economies (or the Asian or American) reached their economic well being by working hard and struggled for many centuries to get to where they are today. There were no handouts from anyone for anyone.

Instead of pointing fingers at the advanced western European economies for rejecting the poor immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, the UN ought to be empowered to solve the fundamental economic development issues in the Middle East and Africa. Certainly for the Middle East, security and stability needs to be restored first before economic development can begin.
- Rajendran Vasudevan May 11, 2015
  
  European economies robbed wealth of the colonies. However, fortuitously, this wealth also helped in a major way to support industrial revolution. So it wont be long before the economic equilibrium gets back to a state prior to 1600 AD. The history of the universe is not circumscribed by even events of the last 300 years. I am referring to an economic process called convergence.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee May 8, 2015

That's a great observation. Makes me ask, is there value in having subdivisions, or a granularity to the structure of political power -- i.e., are nation states of value in a way similar to deliberately designed provincial and local power structures within the political structure internal to a nation-state?

I think there is -- it allows the provincial and local interests to concentrate their negotiating power, when a totally flat national-level stucture might steamroll their interests -- what used to be called the "Tyrrany of the majority".

Of course this argument is very easily twisted around and misused to undercut genuinely valuable populist notions -- hence the well justified suspicion.

In any case, the direct consequence of allowing freedom of movement, which is generally good, would be that there would be the burning question of who, then, is entitled to a vote in the locally-granular (i.e., provincial/national) political power structures? A person born there? A person paying taxes there? A person working there? A person selling items and making profits there?

Bring it on, these things need to be answered.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter May 8, 2015

I think the majority of thoughtful progressives are fully aware of the dissonance in discussions of economic inequality that fail to take global realities into account.

But those same progressives are aware too of the falsity (perhaps even hypocrisy) embedded in the notion that every aspect of human life -- including inequality -- must be viewed through an ECONOMIC lens. Anthropologist remind us constantly that there are other values at play among the peoples of the planet -- even in the West. Trust, for example, does not seem to lend itself to an analysis based on supply and demand and the workings of the mythical invisible hand.

Rogoff writes "Many broad policy issues are distorted when viewed through a lens that focuses only on domestic inequality and ignores global inequality." That's true -- but broad policy issues are even more likely to be distorted, I think, by viewing them exclusively through a economic lens.
And that, more than inequality, is the disease that ought to demand our attention here in the West.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert O'Regan May 8, 2015

Let's hear this fat cat give his/US position on Greece as well ~
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp May 8, 2015

Mr. Rogoff knows that of about 500 million Europeans some 25 million are registered unemployed or at least receive some sort of transfer payments. Another 50 million of the working age population are the working poor. Furthermore, some 50 million retirees are very close to the poverty line. Altogether approximately one third of the European population, some 150 - 200 million, are in no position and certainly not willing to reduce their 'rent' of living with entitlements in generally wealthy world. This wealthy world was only so for a majority of the population for some 150 of the past 1200 years. Is has been buildt over generations, with sweat, tears and blood, to achieve the economic and political stability level we have. Nobody will spare Africa or the Middle East to go the same route if they ever want to get their act together, politically and economically. Nothing materially different to Latin America where, since the Bolivar-revolution they have achieved what we can see, and not what is still missing. There is no human right to just walk across some desert or borders and demand to share other countries entitlements. There is no work here.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery May 8, 2015

Spoken exactly like one who has never seen his own life up-ended because his job was "off-shored," and smugly believes it never can be.
The sense of smug superiority is nauseating.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
aubrey kohn May 8, 2015

Moral defensibility is relative to mores. Fascists have control of all major nation-states now, and by fascist moral standards freedom of movement is far less important than protecting rent streams. The fascist end-game solves the problems of migration pressure and resource depletion at one blow, by means of a depopulation event. Fascist morality is always defined by the interests of the winners.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/8R3PpQqnl

Cookies and Privacy

Ongelijkheid, immigratie en hypocrisie

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

A Safer Path to Asylum

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Ongelijkheid, immigratie en hypocrisie

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification