Dear sajhaites,

I would like to see comments on the article on NYTimes.com To all the people with *.edu email, you can acess NYTimes online edition for FREE.

Here is the link of that article for people who may not want to use search engines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10global-t.html

I very much agree with most of what the author has to say. I think it is good to debate this article. Should/could governments be more willing to globalize labor? Nepal stand to gain or lose from this globalization (if it hapens)? Is development of people more important or geographically bounded land?

Waiting for comments to fly. Thanks.

"To those standard solutions, trade and aid, Pritchett would add a third: a big upset-the-applecart idea, equally offensive to the left and the right. He wants a giant guest-worker program that would put millions of the world’s poorest people to work in its richest economies. Never mind the goats; if you really want to help Gure Sarki, he says, let him cut your lawn. Pritchett’s nearly religious passion is reflected in the title of his migration manifesto: “Let Their People Come.” It was published last year to little acclaim — none at all, in fact — but that is Pritchett’s point. In a world in which rock stars fight for debt relief and students shun sweatshop apparel, he is vexed to find no placards raised for the cause of labor migration. If goods and money can travel, why can’t workers follow? What’s so special about borders?"

Reminds me of the WSJ motto and the editorial position taken by the Journal on occasion "Free markets, free people". It's interesting to see Nepal used as an example.

In some ways, labor has already become globalized - although not to the same extent as capital and commodities. I agree with the comment in the article that it will be a long time before people move as freely as goods and money but I feel the train has already left the station on this issue. One small evidence of that is in most western countries the policy debate today has shifted from stopping immigration altogether to choosing the type of immigrants you want.

That said, for labor to flow as freely as commodities and money will take a long time for reasons touched on in the article: economic imbalances, demographic concerns etc. But, pe prepared, it is already happening : slowly but surely

:)

Captain Haddock,

Thanks for taking time to reply. I just posted another thread in case people do not notice. I agree with you that globalization of labor is already happening. The question is should developed countries make their border more transparant (accessible) to workers from developing world. Remittance and work opportunities-wise poor people from developing countries stand to gain a lot (if and when it happens). Is there some cost involved?

BKB

BKB -

Here is a libertarian take on immigration that might be of interest to you and others. There is bit a religion undertone to it but it makes for an interesting read nonetheless IMO. As for your question about the cost, I am sure there are others more qualified than me to answer that question. Besides, when it comes to forecasting costs, I am sure there are several numbers out there to support each side of the argument.



A target=_blank>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603i.asp

A Free Market in Immigration
by Jacob G. Hornberger, March 31, 2006

Once again, the federal government is proposing immigration “reforms” to address the immigration woes that confront our country. The proposals in Congress include extending a fortified “fence” (for some reason, government officials shy away from using the word “wall”) along the Southern border, criminalizing illegal residency, criminalizing assistance given to illegal immigrants, providing a means for illegal immigrants to seek citizenship, and instituting a guest-worker program.

The immigration crisis that besets our country demonstrates the problems of central planning that the economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek addressed in their critiques of socialism. Immigration policy, like so many other federal programs, entails a group of politicians and bureaucrats who think that they possess the requisite knowledge to plan, in a top-down, command-and-control fashion, the activities of millions of people, especially with respect to labor markets. That central-planning mindset is what Hayek called the “fatal conceit.”

The results of immigration central planning are predictable — tremendous distortions in the labor market, armies of federal gendarmes patrolling the border, repatriation of Cuban refugees into communist tyranny, building a Berlin-type Wall along the Southern border, deaths of immigrants in the backs of trucks or on parched deserts, raids on American businesses, tragic deportations, and, of course, endless calls for “immigration reforms” to deal with all the distortions that previous government interventions have produced.

U.S. immigration policy also demonstrates the follies of interventionism. As Mises pointed out, government interventions into economic activity inevitably produce artificial distortions, which then produce calls for more interventions to deal with the problems arising from the previous interventions. It is not a coincidence that what began with laws criminalizing illegal entry into the United States ultimately led to criminal laws making felons out of Americans who hire, shelter, or transport illegal immigrants. It is also not a surprise that U.S. officials are now calling for interventions that would subject American church groups to criminal prosecution for simply providing assistance to illegal immigrants.

There is a simple solution to America’s immigration woes, but it lies not with more socialism and interventionism. It is a solution that is consistent with our American heritage rather than the central-planning-regulatory heritage of the Soviet Union. That solution is individual freedom and the free market.

Freedom and the free market have worked well for handling movements of people between the several states. That is, no government agency, either at the national or state level, plans the flow of people from state to state. People rely on the free market, including the supply of labor and the demand for it as well as living costs, to make their individual determinations to move and where and when. They simply have to check the pay rates and the prices in different parts of the country, which are often changing, and then make their decisions accordingly. No one has to seek government permission to move or to rely on government planning to make his decision. We often take it for granted, but the free market has proven to be a remarkable system that regulates the flow of people in interstate travel.

The same principle — freedom and free markets — is the solution to international travel. Leave foreigners free to travel to the United States, tour, visit, trade, interact, work, and open businesses. Some immigrants would retain their citizenship (as Americans who live and work abroad do), while others would try to seek U.S. citizenship. Foreigners would be treated more decently and humanely, especially since they wouldn’t fear being arrested, reported, and deported. The militarization of the border could be ended. The Border Patrol could be abolished. No longer would immigrants be repatriated into communist tyranny. The government could focus its limited resources on genuine criminal activity rather than trying to monitor and control everyone’s activities.

God has created a consistent universe — one in which moral principles coincide with free-market principles. Tear down the walls and open the borders! What better place for Americans to embrace their heritage of Christian values and free-market principles than in the area of immigration?

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

I read the article and while I agree with the Captain's comments as to globalization of labour, what Pritchett is proposing, quite frankly, is a wonderful way to continue with the ever burgeoning ranks of the underpaid/overworked worker population in the U.S and elsewhere.

I fully agree that one way to increase the GDP of Nepal is to advocate for transparent borders with the more economically privileged nations; however, stories of Nepali migrants are replete with horrid abuses suffered and long periods of separation from family - the economic toll may well be worth it in the long run, but what of the psychological toll of a missing father/mother on a young child?

Villages/towns in Nepal are already missing a large portion of their youth - male and female alike. Nepal, I belive, is now opening an embassy in Israel to facilitate the movement of Nepali women as domestic workers there - again, I agree that the economic half of the equation makes sense, but my concern is with the toll in terms of humanity and psychological fallout of such a practice on a nationwide scale.

.....my two cents worth :-)

Nepaali - Very interesting perspectives there. Allow me to use that as a segue to sound off on a couple of issues that come to mind on the larger questions surrounding immigration that have been raised in the article and on this thread.

(1) Immigration control: You could argue that phrase is a bit an oxymoron. Migration has existed as long as humans have and will continue to do so till they live on the planet. Aren't we biologically/genetically driven to move around - for food for example? When food needs have been met, then by extension, don't we seek to move around for a better lifestyle etc? What was that in BIO class about why do animals locomote? :P

(2) Immigration barriers: Back when we came out of Africa, if that is indeed where we came out of, our ancestors faced barriers too. Wild animals, disease, weather, oceans etc. The barriers have changed today to walls, border "control", immigration check posts, passports, visas etc. All of which, in the end, seems to be more about regulating, rather than stopping immigration. Just like those ancient barriers did not stop humans from moving all across the planet, modern ones may not be able to hold people back forever too.

(3) Impact on "original" societies: I am prolly gonna be hated for saying this, but having already pissed off half the people on the site, there is only so much more despising that come come my way I figure so here it is : tough luck! If your grandfather moved from Jumla to Surket, and your father from Surkhet to Kathmandu, you moving from Kathmandu to California is simply part of the same trend. The barriers are different, but it all pretty much for similar goals namely that of bettering your future and the future of your children. Now it's another story if your grandfather did not move from Jumla (or Solu or Humla or Rolpa or any place else - no offense to Jumlesis :). But there is still time left to go to Nepalgunj or Kathmandu or India or America or wherever you can provide best for your families if you cant do well enough in your hometown. You can't expect population centers of yesteryears to thrive under inhospitable circumstances in the present.

I know that might sound insensitive to some but I think it speaks to a reality prevalent in Nepal and many parts of the world.

(4) No goating, no migration: That said, emigration, cannot be looked at in a vacuum. And it certainly isn't a panacea for all that ails us. Just like we cant "goat" our way out of poverty, migrating our way out of poverty may also not work for everyone. Migration is inevitable and if there are enough opportunities within Nepal, internal migration, might ebb the flow of migrants out of the country or even attract people into the country. In the absence of that, we are likely to see people continue to move out because in their minds, the net benefits of leaving are worth the cost that comes with it (financial, monetary, emotional, social, familial etc)


(5) Personal impact on immigrants: Again, feel free to despise me for being so cold hearted, but it's not like everything would have been hunky dory had they stayed back in their villages. There was a reason for moving out after all. They could equally have been miserable living back in the village taking loans from the landlord, toiling the fields, using the yield to repay loans. Sure many immigrants face humiliation and trauma in other countries, but quite a few of them face it at home as well. For example, all those kids who come from villages in Nepal to study in Kathmandu, but end up working as domestic servants etc. Or that fellow in the village who joined the Army to become a soldier ends up washing dishes in a general's house as an orderly.

So it is only valid, genuine and humane to express concerns about the psychological plight of migrants, but I am left to wonder whether such people, that had not migrated, would have had another set of problems where they were. It only human to stress and get worried and have problems. It would just be that the host society or concerned others would prolly be feeling less guilty about it because they would not be our problems or problems related to us.

Net net, it is not for me to judge whether immigration is good or bad. I'll leave that to the experts although I have an opinion on it. The key thing is immigration is here to stay, people are bound to move more freely in the future, and there is little one can do other than embrace it and stay on top of it and use it to the benefits of all.

Just my thoughts. Expressed in the spirit of openness and healthy discussion.


:)

Captain,

Your points are well taken. I know that what I said has more than a whiff of idealistic jargon; however, I still fervently believe that advocating a policy of mass exodus of people out of Nepal isn't going to ameliorate the GDP/standard of living issues they face.

Yes, migration is but a natural phenomenon; as herders etc, one moves from one place to the next in search of better opportunities. However, in today's world, such is not an option for most people - those in the villages and hills of Nepal in particular. If, as you say, they live in the villages and till the field on borrowed money, well, then likewise, they borrow money to send able bodied sons/daughters off to foreign lands and to KTM itself and still face a lifetime of debt repayment (if they happen to go to the Gulf or Malaysia, they are more likely to end up psychologically and physically battered or worse yet languish in prisons there). Having said that, it's no big secret that Nepal's GDP is being kept afloat by the remittances sent by these sons/daughters..it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with no easy answers.

With respect to the immigration debate - as we have daily proof via debates raging in D.C, borders- porous or not, are never going to stop people from moving across barriers, but, my issue with Pritchett is his apparent assumption that a mass scale exodus akin to the Irish movement post potato famine is somehow going to magically alleviate the poverty issues of Nepal.

The micro-credit scheme that the article alluded to seems to be an option that is a "better fit" if you will, for more people. Keeping in mind that a few goats here and there is certainly not going to lift the country out of economic misery but it's a start :-)

The sensible solution would be that the government have political will to start development projects, but hoping for a sensible government in Nepal that works for the benefit of the populace is, in view, nothing short of delusion :-)

Agree that mass scale migration is not the solution. I am with you on that. It is a fascinating and most tempting idea but it cannot be a managed solution for our ills.

Best regards.

:)

Haddock, nepali

Nice discussion. I just skimmed the comments and articles.

More than the general issue of migration, I am more interested in a picture within. If governments on the both sides decide to "globalize" labor, meaning make it much easier for labor to flow in and out. What would be the impact on say developing world, more precisely Nepal.

Does 1/2 population of Nepal go out of the country? Looking at current trend (High ranking government officer of Nepal leaving after getting DV and doing "menial" jobs in US) it occurs to me that at least in short term there would be huge outflux of population from Nepal. If and when labor globalization happens, what should Nepal do to manage that "outflux."

Nothing is the world seems simple, does it? :)