I am wary of this blog becoming the "China and Migration Zone," but these two topics seem to be very much the topics du jour nowadays and deserve to be discussed in greater detail IMHO. This recent study conducted by three London School of Economics profs that I found care of the Employment Intelligence blog deserves some attention as it does shed light on the question of migration's benefits to London in particular and even Europe in general. You should note however that it may be ever-so-slightly biased in favor of migration as it was commissioned after all by the City of London. Still, this pro-migration toady was rather glad to see its findings. Here's a summary of it from the LSE press blurb:
Additionally, here are some factoids from the executive summary:The Impact of Recent Immigration on the London Economy, prepared for the City of London Corporation by Professor Ian Gordon, Tony Travers and Professor Christine Whitehead of LSE's London research centre, is a capital–wide study into how and where London’s 200,000 annual in-migrants work and live. It has found their abilities employed in both high-skill City jobs and lower paid work in construction, hospitality and catering.
The City of London Corporation-LSE report found that most immigrants make better use of London’s housing. Immigrants live in fewer households and in higher densities than Britons. The rental market, much favoured by immigrants, has so far expanded to cope with demand, allowing rents to remain stable.
The report found three main types of London immigrant among a very diverse range, which have brought the UK capital level with New York as a global 'melting pot':
- Highly-skilled workers, often in the financial and business services who come from a rich country such as the USA or Australia, stay several years for career reasons, and whose prized skill-set helps sustain the City as a world-leading international business centre. These represent about one third of the inflow.
- Migrants (typically from poorer countries such as Poland or African countries) who stay for a longer period, working (at least initially) in poorly-remunerated jobs, below their qualification level, where they tend to further depress wage levels. These represent just over half of those arriving.
- Asylum-seekers from countries suffering economic and political breakdown, who are not initially available for work. These accounted for about one in eight of all immigrants to London since the late 1990s, though the proportion has been cut back to one in thirty in the last few years.
The report dispels negative historic attitudes to immigration, finding Londoners in a 'confident and expansive mood', coping well with the radical changes in community and workforce makeup that now see 29 per cent of London jobs filled by people born outside the UK.
The majority of new migrants now arrive from a set of 15 countries, including Pakistan, France and Poland, compared with just six main feeder countries 20 years ago (Ireland, India, Kenya, Jamaica, Cyprus and Bangladesh). Many of the immigrants are young (50 per cent are aged between 20-30), over 50 per cent were white and 20 per cent were non-Christian including 10 per cent Muslim. They share characteristics of relative youth, above-average qualifications and positive employer-ratings.
Michael Snyder, policy chairman of the City of London, said maintaining London’s openness was vital to on-going economic success: 'Walk down a city street and you will hear five different languages in 50 paces. London’s welcoming, multi-cultural attitude is attracting the crème of international talent. Many of the world’s young professionals aspire to work in London at some point during their career,
'London has the best markets, the best job prospects and, with some important exceptions such as transport and housing costs, the best quality of life, especially in its cultural offerings. Business is booming in part due to the inputs of migrants, London must guard its reputation and sense of openness fiercely,' he said.
Executive Summary
· Twenty years of strong inward migration, with net gains totalling some 800
thousand people since 1998, have produced both overall population
growth and a much more cosmopolitan mix in London. The foreign born
population has grown from 1 to 2 million over the 20 year period.
Whereas, in 1986 just 6 countries of origin accounted for half of this
population, now it takes 15 to do so.
· Particular elements, such as asylum seekers and recent A81 migrants, have contributed to this growth but are only minor parts of a strong trend driven by international forces combined with London's particular attractions. These trends appear set to continue.
· Net immigration into London from abroad tends to displace some existing
residents, who move out into other parts of the Greater South East
though the short-run effect is nearer to `one for two' than `one for one.'
This substantially reduces the impact of immigration on London population
growth, while probably intensifying that on the population mix.
Characteristics of migrants
· The new migrants come from many places, but share characteristics of
relative youth, above average qualifications, and positive ratings by
employers.
· There are major limitations in the official statistics about migrants, notably
on out-migration, whether by the UK-born or by temporary residents here.
Similarly it is not possible to track migrants' subsequent moves within the
UK. The basic facts are reasonably clear, but the picture is complicated,
and our current understanding is only partial.
· Those who come from richer countries tend to remain for shorter periods
(particularly the most qualified), while those from less developed countries
are far more likely to make London their long-term home.
Impacts on the London economy
· Two distinct positive effects of migration are its qualitative impact on the
London labour force and economy, through diversity, flexibility,
international experience and skill sets; and its quantitative contribution
through expanding labour supply and thus enabling employment growth
and reducing upward wage pressure.
· Migrants work in most types of job in London. There are concentrations
mainly from richer countries in the financial and business services. Many
work in catering and hospitality. A8 in-migrants are particularly
concentrated in construction.
· Those coming from less developed countries tend (at least initially) to take
up lower status jobs than their qualifications would warrant. Over time this
differentiation tends to disappear.
· An effect of the concentration of migrants in the worst paid segment of
the labour market has been a significant downward pressure on wages at
the bottom end of the market. This seems to have encouraged job
growth in these occupations, but earnings among workers in this sector
have suffered, falling behind growth in the cost of living. At the same time
the gap between earnings levels for this group in London and those in the
rest of the UK has been substantially eroded.
· High levels of net inward migration in the working age range (averaging
about 70 thousand per annum (p.a.)) have continued since 2000, despite
both the substantial cut-back in numbers of asylum-seekers and the fact
that London employment growth has slowed down.
· So far, this imbalance in labour supply and demand trends has been
mitigated particularly by increased out-commuting, with no evident
increase in unemployment in London. Across the wider set of south
eastern regions including London, there may, however, have been some
downward effect on labour market participation.
· Both employment rates and earnings among new migrants tend to be
lower than for otherwise comparable Londoners. This suggests that their
potential is not being fully used at present by London employers.
Use of public services by migrants
· The majority of migrants use relatively fewer public services than
indigenous households and are therefore less costly to the public purse.
There are, however, additional pressures from the diverse needs of
migrants, and the claims of those in the weakest situation. The costs of
housing, translation services, health provision, schools and social security
benefits have increased as a result of the additional needs of some new
migrants to London.
· Finance to secure additional local government services is often not fully
underwritten by central government, resulting in councils having to make
statutory provision without an adequate resource base. London faces
particular problems when revisions are made to estimates of migrant
arrivals (and thus local populations), as these lead to unpredictable shifts
in central grant support to local government, the NHS and other services.
