Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:58:04.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Long-Term Economic Impact of Reducing Migration in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Katerina Lisenkova*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Centre for Macroeconomics
Marcel Mérette*
Affiliation:
University of Ottowa
Miguel Sánchez-Martínez*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Abstract

This paper uses an OLG-CGE model for the UK to illustrate the long-term effect of migration on the economy. We use the current Conservative Party migration target to reduce net migration “from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands” as an illustration. Achieving this target would require reducing recent net migration numbers by a factor of about 2. We undertake a simulation exercise to compare a baseline scenario, which incorporates the principal 2010-based ONS population projections, with a lower migration scenario, which assumes that net migration is reduced by around 50 per cent. The results show that such a significant reduction in net migration has strong negative effects on the economy. By 2060 the levels of both GDP and GDP per person fall by 11.0 per cent and 2.7 per cent respectively. Moreover, this policy has a significant impact on public finances. To keep the government budget balanced, the effective labour income tax rate has to be increased by 2.2 percentage points in the lower migration scenario.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Financial support from the Economic and Social Research Council under the grant ‘A dynamic multiregional OLG-CGE model for the study of population ageing in the UK’ is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Auerbach, A. and Kotlikoff, L. (1987), Dynamic Fiscal Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boersch-Supan, A., Ludwig, A. and Winter, J. (2006), ‘Aging, pension reform and capital flows: a multi-country simulation model’, Economica, 73, pp. 625–58.Google Scholar
Chojnicki, X., Docquier, F. and Ragot, L. (2011), ‘Should the US have locked heaven's door? Reassessing the benefits of post war immigration’, Journal of Population Economics, 24, pp. 317–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustmann, C., Glitz, A. and Frattini, T. (2008), ‘The labour market impact of immigration’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24, 3, pp. 477–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustmann, C. and Frattini, T. (2013), The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK, CReAM DP No. 22/13, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, London.Google Scholar
Dustmann, C., Frattini, T. and Halls, C. (2010), ‘Assessing the fiscal costs and benefits of A8 migration to the UK’, Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 31, 1, pp. 141.Google Scholar
Fehr, H., Jokisch, S. and Kotlikoff, L. (2004), ‘The role of immigration in dealing with the developed world's demographic transition’, NBER Working Paper No. 10512, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, H., Jokisch, S., Kallweit, M., Kindermann, F. and Kotlikoff, L. (2013), ‘Generational policy and aging in closed and open dynamic general equilibrium models’, inDixon, P.B. and Jorgenson, D.W. (eds), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling SET, Vol 1, Elsevier B.V., pp. 1719–800.Google Scholar
Fougère, M., Mercenier, J. and Mérette, M. (2007), ‘A sectoral and occupational analysis of population ageing in Canada using a dynamic CGE overlapping generations model’, Economic Modelling, 24, pp. 690–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georges, P., Lisenkova, K. and Mérette, M. (2013), ‘Can ageing north benefit from expanding trade with south?’, Economic Modelling, 35, pp. 990–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gott, C. and Johnston, K. (2002), The Migrant Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Occasional Paper no. 77, London, Home Office.Google Scholar
Kahanec, M., Zimmermann, K., Kurekova, L. and Biavaschi, C. (2013), Labour Migration from EaP Countries to the EU – Assessment of Costs and Benefits and Proposals for Better Labour Market Matching, IZA Research Report Series no. 56.Google Scholar
Kurekova, L. (2013), ‘Welfare systems as emigration factor: evidence from the New Accession States’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 4, pp. 721–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, S. and Portes, J. (2008), ‘New Labour? The impact of migration from Central and Eastern European countries on the UK labour market’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 3756.Google Scholar
Lisenkova, K., Mérette, M. and Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2013), ‘The long term economic impacts of reducing migration: the case of UK migration polic’, Discussion Paper No. 420, London, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. and Sefton, J. (2011), First Estimates of UK National Transfer Accounts.Google Scholar
Manacorda, M., Manning, A. and Wadsworth, J. (2012), ‘The impact of immigration on the structure of wages: theory and evidence from Britain’, Journal of the European Economic Association, 10, 1, pp. 120–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, H., Rienzo, C. and Portes, J. (2013), Migration and Productivity: Employers’ Practices, Public Attitudes and Statistical Evidence, London, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.Google Scholar
Sriskandarajah, D., Cooley, L. and Reed, H. (2005), Paying their Way: The Fiscal Contribution of Immigrants in the UK, London, Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Storesletten, K. (2000), ‘Sustaining fiscal policy through immigration’, Journal of Political Economy, 108, 2, pp. 300–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaari, M. E. (1965), ‘Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer’, Review of Economic Studies, 32, pp. 137–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar