Sunday, September 18, 2011

Bryan Caplan is wrong about open borders and the size of government

Bryan Caplan once again claims that open borders would reduce the welfare state. He uses two misleading pieces of evidence, based on Alesina et al. (2001):

1. First, internationally, more ethnically fragmented countries have less social spending as a share of GDP.

This compares underdeveloped third world countries like Peru and Guatemala with Western Europe. Ethnically fragmented societies tend to be poorer and less well organized, which makes a large welfare state hard to finance. But we are discussing immigration to the west, not to Guatemala.

Alesina et al. (2001) further use social spending, a narrow component of government spending which is even more biased towards rich European countries.

I use the total size of government (taxes as a share of GDP 1990-2001), from the OECD, and only for rich OECD countries, as well as fractionalization data from Alesina et al. (2001). The period is chosen to correspond with the years when ethnic fractionalization was calculated.

As you see, there is no statistically significant relationship between ethnic fractionation and the size of government among advanced OECD countries.


2. The second graph of U.S states which Caplan cites is equally flawed. This uses the generosity of welfare expenditure per recipient, controlling for state income.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, generosity per welfare recipient is an improper measure to evaluate diversity and the size of government. More poor minorities mechanically increases the number of those on welfare. Likely, the state will respond by making welfare less generous per recipient. The total cost may however still go up, since there are now simply more people on welfare. New Hampshire can afford to be more generous than Maryland.

This is why I use aggregate numbers, which suggest that American states with more minorities spend more in total. After all, we are discussing the effect of open borders on the overall size of government, which is a aggregate number. Even if open border forces us to be less generous per welfare recipient, increasing the number of poor people tends to expand government.

Caplan doesn't counter any of my other arguments. In particular, let me stress once again that even if open borders makes the majority population more anti-government, after a while their preferences will not matter, since they will inevitably become a minority of voters.

One more point. Looking at third world countries is also misleading for another more subtle reason. Poor countries tend not to have yet developed liberalism, an important mediating factor between ethnic diversity and the size of government.

Non-liberal voters probably become less generous if their taxes are going to poor people from other ethnic groups. This is especially true in poor countries such as Africa or Latin America. However, liberal western voters likely become more supporting of government intervention if poverty is concentrated among disadvantaged racial minorities.

This is because they view a society where the white majority is rich but where blacks and Hispanics are poor as racist and discriminatory, in addition to merely having an uneven distribution of income (I think this view makes some sense). Poverty which is spread out evenly between races is by contrast perceived as more likely to be the result of a reasonably fair market process, and therefore less morally offensive.

I know I can't persuade Bryan Caplan of this, because in my experience he is too ideologically dogmatic regarding open borders to listen to anything other than perhaps hard data. For instance, I was banned from Econlog after I debated the fiscal cost of unskilled immigration.

But the rest of us should simply read the arguments of the American left to test my claim. What are the overwhelmingly white Hufftington Post, New York Times and Daily Kos more bothered by, poverty among rural whites (their co-ethnics) or poverty among African Americans and Hispanics?

Or look at how movies and the media portrays poor Appalachian whites ("rednecks", "white trash") compared to how poor minorities are depicted.

For the same reason, I think using a definition of ethnic fractionation of different white groups (such as different language groups in Switzerland) which Alesina et al. use is misleading. We should calculate the share of racial minorities, since liberals view black or immigrant poverty more problematic than white poverty.

Racism carries a bigger moral punch in our society than the unequal distribution of earnings among whites.

18 comments:

  1. I've been following the discussion with interest. I think you also said that even if immigration and ethnic diversity reduces the social trust necessary for a welfare state, this is hardly a desirable trend in itself.

    Anyway I'm not sure where I stand yet. To the best of my knowledge, Ireland was one of the more free market economies of Europe in the mid-1990s and also one of the most ethnically homogenous. As immigration increased ethnic diversity, social protection spending did tend to increase, though not necessarily as a direct consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've started to read a couple pro-immigration libertarian blogs. Their devotion to the cause seems out of proportion to the observed benefits. It is like they want to prove their "We Are the World", "all the colors run into one" bona fides to the liberal establishment. What bone do they expect to be thrown?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even though this topic is interesting Tino, I would like to see a post about Greece and your thoughts about what is going to happen next.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bryan Caplan tries to rebut you:

    Ethnic Diversity and the Size of Government: A Belated Reply to Sanandaji, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/ethnic_diversit.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

    ReplyDelete
  5. SL,

    "I think you also said that even if immigration and ethnic diversity reduces the social trust necessary for a welfare state, this is hardly a desirable trend in itself."

    Indeed. The shocking thing is the willingness of libertarians to overtly advocate immigration as a way of undermining society, because they believe that weaker societies will be less willing to support the welfare state.

    That's not much above advocating epidemics as means of population control.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you meant to use Old Whig's link, since that's Caplan's latest reply.

    I'm more skeptical of controls and thus more comfortable with your restriction of data to OECD countries, even if we lose some data. I think a better point is that we can't extrapolate from blacks to immigrants. And in fact if you read Ron Unz, that point may actually be in your favor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't use African Americans, I use blacks + Hispanics. The fragmentation data above includes both groups.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ugh. I just read Caplan's reply:

    "I freely admit that AGS's results for the U.S. states are indeed subject to Sanandaji's critique here. AGS only show that states with larger black population shares spend less per person, not less in total. But even this weaker result shows that the standard story is overstated."

    How so? How annoying that he still stubbornly refuses to state the statistic "spending per WELFARE RECIPIENT" accurately.

    It reminds of the way he addresses concerns about low-skill immigrants and illegal immigrants by citing statistics that mix all immigrants together.

    I wish libertarians would spend less time thinking of ways to ingratiate their PC masters while dreaming of libertarian utopias and more time thinking hard about the *mechanisms* of freedom.

    -Mercy

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ugh. I just read Caplan's reply:

    "I freely admit that AGS's results for the U.S. states are indeed subject to Sanandaji's critique here. AGS only show that states with larger black population shares spend less per person, not less in total. But even this weaker result shows that the standard story is overstated."

    How so? How annoying that he still stubbornly refuses to state the statistic "spending per WELFARE RECIPIENT" accurately.

    It reminds of the way he addresses concerns about low-skill immigrants and illegal immigrants by citing statistics that mix all immigrants together.

    I wish libertarians would spend less time thinking of ways to ingratiate their PC masters while dreaming of libertarian utopias and more time thinking hard about the *mechanisms* of freedom.

    -Mercy

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good post. I study something tougher on totally different blogs everyday. It should at all times be stimulating to learn content material from other writers and follow a bit something from their store.
    Generic Viagra

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is an interesting discussion. I would appreciate it if you could put it somewhere more academic so I can cite it in my thesis, please.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I infer I haven't interpreted specified incomparable physical anywhere added online.
    unsecured loans online

    ReplyDelete
  13. A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you need.
    discount loans here

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pretty! It was really a wonderful blog. Thanks for the provided information.
    instant payday loans online

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have sent your articles links to all my contacts and all of them liked it including me as well.
    online payday loan lenders

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am definitely coming back again for additional contents of yours.
    accident claim

    ReplyDelete

Google Analytics Alternative