Paul CollierExodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World

A thorough bipartisan assessment of this contentious issue, with a few clear standout messages on the problem and what can be done about it. Heavy but essential reading.

An excellent book written by the most incisive analyst in the field.

Lots of interesting and well thought out threads in this book, generally followed through to sensible conclusions.But the author seems to be under a taboo regarding population pressures as the major underlying generator of migrants. Hardly a word on it. Given the hugely unsustainable birth rates in countries from which migrants are, and until remedied will remain, in constant flow, unfortunately this missing chunk of the story relegates the book to a short term tactical guide rather than one having long term strategic vision.

An excellent economic analysis of the impact of migration on sending and receiving communities and on the migrants themselves. Very good insights into policy implications. A must read for everyone wanting a rational anaysis of the effects of migration and appropriate policy responses.

Over the last decade Europe appears to be flooded with foreigners escaping civil war, dictatorships, or simply hoping for a better tomorrow. In a week when 300 North Africans were drowned off Lampedusa in the Mediterranean, when in 9 months 30,000 reached Italy illegally (three times more than in 2012), when British newspaper articles reveal that Britain is fast becoming the new "melting pot" with 1,100 new arrivals entering daily, hosting more Poles and Lithuanians in 15 years than in Gdansk and Siauliai - not bad for a country with 20% indigenous youth unemployment, one wonders either whether Oxford University Press, or indeed the author, Professor Paul Collier (who gladly shows off his credentials as a third generation immigrant from Germany, though not a part of the German diaspora) have come up trumps with the year's best seller. The young Arsenal football, Jack Wilshere, may have added a further angle to the argument when criticizing the possible adoption of "foreign" imports in the English national team.Collier broadens his earlier research on the wealth of the bottom billion among the poorest nations  The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It , and admits the truths and fears prevailing among the general public, in part influenced by populist xenophobic and some extremist racist voices, and rather than keeping it as a taboo toxic subject in the political wilderness, blamed on a "foolish" Rivers of blood speech delivered by the "long-dead minor politician" Enoch Powell in 1968, it requires a real open debate. He delivers his short book as an epistle to business, and like minded progressive liberals, supported by his academic social science brethren who continue to paint the current open door policies as ensuring large benefits and are ethically good and imperative, and argues that the question if immigration was "good" or "bad" is neither right or helpful, as it only produces spontaneous irrational knee jerk emotive responses.Instead, as no one can deny that some migration is more acceptable than no or floods of migrants, Collier pushes the discussion and analysis to focus on the policies that impose limits and controls which prevent explosions in the rates and numbers of new faces. He does this firstly by the traditional approach of identifying what the new arrivals obtain in the host country in the short, medium and longer terms, as well as what the indigenous society in turn obtains both economically and socially; and, finally, more originally, he presents the benefits and losses that arise in the migrants' homeland due to controlled or open migration.He lays bare the typical myths about migration. Contrary to the supporters of the racist BNP, migrants are not all unskilled, and unless they empty their land and flood the host country they will not affect the employment chances of young working class indigenous persons nor their take home pay. Migrants can cause both brain drain to the home country, as in the case of Haiti, if clever specialists choose not to return home, or brain gain as in the case of clever Chinese, Indians, and Africans studying and working abroad - and Collier lists President Sirleaf of Liberia, Nobel Prize winner, and President Outtarra of the Ivory Coast among these. In the next breath Collier is forced to admit that foreign education and living abroad does not itself guarantee success or produce western liberal ways as is seen for the Marxist President Mugabe and his henchmen in Zimbabwe who turned against their people, and in 30 years transformed a prosperous fertile bread basket into a barren ravaged and failed state.The BBC / Guardianista Left might be left job smacked to be told that modern migrants do not easily assimilate into the host country and would fail the Norman Tebbit cricket test, partly because it is heavily led by its diaspora with its own agendas who push them to specific geographical areas. It has even led in the UK to the formation of a foreign based political party, Respect, and since the lion share of migrants live in London and the South east they drive up rents and the price of housing, crowding out poor unemployed indigenous workers from moving to growth areas. Furthermore, though not a cause of growing migration, as a consequence it is the skilled migrants who seem to attract new skilled jobs, because employers over the years have chosen not to invest in training and apprenticeships, and such vital though forgotten economic factors drive the angry helpless indigenous community away from the traditional politicians and into pens to listen to single issue anti-party racists.Collier does mention in passing, but does not stress that the growth of cheaper travel and telephone charges, and the ever use of the internet is the latest reason why new arrivals have less incentive of learning the language of the country, and of integrating into the wider "foreign" society, especially when they hear from western anthropologists and do-gooders that assimilation might be compared to "cultural genocide". It does not take long to arrive at the rabid views of extremist fundamentalists, urging all to stand up to institutionalised racism of the police, to fight against and kill traitorous British Muslims fighting in the Armed forces for the Jihad in Afghanistan, and encouraging girls to be proud when appearing different and distinct to others around them by covering their face with veils, something not related to their own local cultures as they or their parents would never have behaved in such a fashion in their homeland of Pakistan.The author was unable to overlook the fact that the poorest migrants arrive illegally, and are forced to turn to organized crime and prostitution rings, and that the sole effective solution is not just expulsion - the annual figure of 400,000 in Obama's progressive US, or of trying out multicultural experiments, or again of legalizing all migrants as temporary guest worker status (Germany illustrates the case of its Turkish community staying on indefinitely), but even to consider David Cameron's controversial policy of aid in projects in the developing countries as a means of creating work in the home setting, so avoiding the unnecessary extra psychological burdens of adapting in the dangerous alien world abroad.He concludes in a manner more akin of the academic that the current strangeness is because past models no longer work and need re-working. Mass migration is definitely not a permanent feature of globalisation; it is in reality a temporary response to an "ugly" changing phase in which prosperity has not yet globalized. Outside the classroom, presenting problems as models, however, is neither very politically correct, much less heartless. What Collier means is in fifty years time Latin America and Africa will have become much more developed, and within a further fifty years by 2100 more integrated with Europeans themselves found migrating away to newer territories of growth, which is another way of saying that academics, and successively politicians are slowly moving along a road of knowledge and eventually will come up with magical solutions. Good stuff one might reply, but not so great for the oppressed poor living today, or waiting for the great day in the future. If then they read that the Irish famine of 1846 has since brought some good to Ireland it is certain to cause outcry to the diaspora of Irish around the globe as such analysis sounds cold, insensitive and in poor taste.The public debate long in coming should obviously go beyond current bi-lateral schemes, to include the EU, as suggested in October 2013 by the Maltese Premier, Joseph Muscat, to prevent the Mediterranean becoming a living "cemetery", or maybe even the United Nations, Pope Francis and the Vatican (Santa Claus, Uncle Tom Cobley and all if anyone has their mobile numbers) to encourage a wider diffusion of migration away from over-populated states, such as Holland and the UK, towards larger more under-populated ones, like Australia and Canada. However, the more organizations and experts are called upon to enter the equation the longer the worthwhile solutions will arrive.Migration is a toxic subject not because of Powell. Indeed, had Collier spoke of another Conservative MP, Sir Gerald Nabarro (South Worcester) as a "minor" politician there would be little comment; instead Powell was looked highly by many for his many views, especially because he represented a constituency Wolverhampton South West where South Asian immigrants were prevalent, and immigration was openly discussed since the mid 1950s. Unfortunately, there never existed a Margaret Thatcher with a crusading mission to take the subject of race like a bull by the horns, and to stand up to a leader like Ted Heath with reasoned debate and viable solutions. That chance was lost in all parties, and too often people were led to repeating set phrases of the liberal progressive establishment that race was taboo to be avoided, and Enoch Powell was the devil  Enoch at 100: A re-evaluation of the life, politics and philosophy of Enoch Powell .Faced between the devil and the deep blue sea, Paul Collier sends out a life-line to the middle of the road politicians to come together before reason is drowned out by the extremist Griffins and their band of bullyboys waiting for their day dawning. Migrants may be clever; they are certainly not evil, and migration per se is not toxic. Politicians and academics are paid to get us out of this growing hole which has gone on since Doctor Who. Now with Collier they should get out of the starting blocks quickly and get on with the job in hand!

Very well constructed and fair assessment of the current world migration issue, and exactly who wins and loses.

M Collier, professeur d'économie à Oxford, a eu le courage de nous livrer ses analyses sur les effets de l'immigration, au plan économique au sens large du terme, donc avec aussi les aspects sociaux, à la fois sur les sociétés d'accueils, les pays d'origine, et les immigrants eux mêmes. J'utilise le mot "courage" car il n'hésite pas à aborder, par exemple, l'aspect, dangereux, car il s'agit d'un thème tabou, des effets négatifs sur le comportement des gens vis à vis les uns des autres et le niveau de confiance au sein de la société d'accueil ; et le seul fait de vouloir traiter cette thématique peut vous rendre indésirable au yeux des tenants d'une certaine pensée figée dans le politiquement correct.Or M Collier montre bien que ce qui fait la différence entre des pays de niveau économique très différent, c'est surtout le bon fonctionnement des institutions, et l'intégration dans les comportements individuels de certains modes de rapport de confiance à l'autre, et donc l'importance qu'il y a à aborder cet aspect. Et l'immigration, au delà d'un certain seuil, peut avoir des effets négatifs sur ce point.M Collier a l'honnêteté d'insister sur le fait que les exemples anecdotiques qu'il donne sont là pour mieux faire comprendre, en les illustrant, les modèles théoriques et leurs résultats, et non comme partie de la démonstration eux mêmes, car des personnes en désaccord avec ces résultats pourraient trouver des exemples concrets isolés de situations allant dans l'autre sens.Il n'a cependant apparemment pas eu le temps de vérifier tous les fait qu'il présente comme acquis,comme le fait que la loi française sur le voile aurait permis selon lui de faire disparaître la problématique de sa visibilité dans l'espace public, au point qu'on n'en verrait quasiment plus dans les rues, en France, contrairement à la GB qui a fait le choix, erroné, du multiculturalisme, avant d'en voir les inconvénients! il n'a visiblement pas été visité la basilique de Saint Denis!C'est ce qui m'empêche de lui accorder la 5° étoile.Par ailleurs, est-ce pour tenter de se refaire une virginité idéologique, en contrepartie de son immense courage, qu'il affirme implicitement un féminisme linguistique (à mon avis totalement dévoyé et contreproductif) et emploie systématiquement le pronom féminin "she" comme l'expression de l'indétermination du sexe des membres du groupe dont il parle ? (par ex : " le migrant fait ceci et cela, si "elle" est dans telle situation…"). Dommage, car ça perturbe la lecture, surtout à la première occurrence, car on a l'impression de ne pas avoir bien compris qui est cette "elle", puisqu' aucun mot de genre grammatical féminin n'est apparu auparavant, et l'on revient sur la phrase, rendant ainsi le parcours du texte haché et désagréable.Mais on finit par s'y habituer.....

Paul Collier is one of the best development economists in the world. He teaches at Oxford. This book presents a ton of interesting insights on migrations backed by serious research and very well written.For instance, he explains that diversity is great for a country in many ways (ex: innovation) but that beyond a certain point it hurts social cohesion. Once that point is reached, the richer citizens of a country reduce their willingness to pay for the poorer ones because they do not feel that that they share enough with the rest of the nation. In other words, the sense of belonging (to the same nation) and keeping everybody together has budgetary implications.California is very a wealthy state but a weakening social cohesion with many diasporas leading parallel lives reduced the willingness of the richer californians to pay for the common good. This is why public healthcare and public education were starved of funding.One of Collier’s recommendations is for a country to target an optimal level of diversity, then put a cap on non assimilated diasporas (non assimilated is the key word). Once this done, the country can decide on two (but not three) of the following variables :1. the assimilation rate of the migrants2. the volume of immigration3. the level of government expenses and taxes.The important idea is that you can not decide on all three variables at the same time. For instance, if a country has a high volume of migrants with a slow assimilation rate, soon or later it will cut government expenses (a big increase in public debt may delay things a bit). Alternatively, if a country has a generous government and a high volume of immigration, then it needs migrants with a fast assimilation rate.

One of the best reviews of migration that brings together analyses from many disciplines. The role of diasporas and multiculturalism are particularly enlightening.

In a world where bleeding hearts and security nuts dominate the scene, Paul Collier is the only authentic voice of science and humanity on the subject of international population flows that I have run across. A real charmer, and one who is unusually willing to give credit to his graduate students and third world colleagues who did much of the number crunching that justify his conclusions, he is nevertheless able to derive conclusions and recommend solutions that do justice to science and humanity.Interesting sidelight. His grandfather migrated from Germany to England before World Word One, established a prosperous shop, but was set upon by an English mob once the war started. His business devastated, his wife thrown into depression, he returned to Germany after the war. Disgusted by Hitlerism, the family returned to England in the late 30's. The family name went back from Hellenschmidt to Collier, and young Paul went off to Oxford after the war. Makes me want to cry.

Theoretical and rambling approach makes the book hard to read. Steady persistence is rewarded with some good insights. Worth reading if you are patient and persistent.

A very insightful view of immigration policies and their effect on demography in the long run - the big question, can some ethnic groups ever be integrated into our society. Where a large group of greatly disparate people are brought in, they tend to stay with their own, not learn the country's language and in many cases have much larger families. While immigration is needed for labour supply and balanced demography, this book tends to downgrade multi-culturalism as a viable goal. I agree and to me many of Collin's points are the seeds of future difficulties.

Exodus by Paul Collier is a well reasoned new look at international migration from a relatively restrictionist point of view. Collier argues that while some migration is probably a good thing there is a point at which it becomes too much. Immigration is a big issue and many people have made up their minds without considering the nuances that Collier discusses in Exodus. He shows, for instance, that diasporas are both a result of and a cause of migration. He creates a formula to predict future migration based on variables like, income gap, diaspora size and cultural difference and comes up with some surprising results. He also takes a long look at why some countries are successful and others are not. His conclusion: "Poor countries are poor because their social models are dysfunctional."The restrictionist view of immigration has become associated with nativism and nationalism. Collier from his chair at Oxford attempts to change that. He justifies restrictionism ethically by putting the rights of the indigenous people and/or the state ahead of the rights of those with the desire to migrate. And he justifies it economically by arguing that "economics should not be a very important criteria for determining immigration policy" because the effect is small for those writing the rules. These arguments are seductive but they didn't convince me or Lant Pritchett who wrote in  Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility  about the tremendous benefits that accrue to poor immigrants. And they won't convince Philippe Legrain who wrote in  Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them  that "freer international migration should be the next front in the battle for global economic justice."Collier argues that since large unassimilated diasporas are destructive to the social trust that makes successful societies work we have to restrict immigration. The alternate argument that successful societies will be the ones that accept peoples right to migrate and then get very good at absorbing, integrating and assimilating new immigrants not given much consideration.The weakness of Collier's position that we need to restrict immigration is demonstrated by his total lack of ability to say at what number the restriction should be placed. He likes the idea of a specific international target for foreign aid but is silent on what the target for international immigration should be. He makes a case that "some" immigration is a societal good but fails to quantify what "some" is. Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor MobilityImmigrants: Your Country Needs Them

The Mehdi Hasan interview with Paul Collier was a complete distortion. The misrepresentation is very significant so I suggest you buy this and decide the ideas for yourself.

Collier makes a forceful argument for an assimilationist, and nationalist approach to immigration: If international migration is to continue, the focus of host countries should be on integration rather than multiculturalism. He is pessimistic about the prospects for multicultural societies.

As with all of his other books, Prof Collier has taken a dispassionate and pragmatic view of one of the most perplexing policy issues of our time. The models and analysis are paradoxical and I think some of the assumptions may be wrong, for example, the people who win the visa lottery may not be much different than people who migrate via other legal means. You have to be pretty ambitious to put up with the paper work demands etc of the lottery system. Also on the effects on those that are left behind, returning diasporas seem to be having an impact, at least in Lagos (Richard Dowden predicted they would). Read this book, it will challenge your current position on immigration.

this book is almost worth reading more than once.

Thoughtful if controversial observations about immigration worldwide.

Collier provides an overview of current migration in an accessible framework. He masterfully outlines the various impacts of migration and objectively weighs the benefits and costs, adroitly handling nuanced and non-quantitative aspects.His aim to promote a national and international dialogue is a decisive success.

Very enjoyable read. Provides a different and thoughtful perspective on human migration

Good read. But what do we do with it.