Tuesday, 3 November 2015

Saving Syrian Refugees Won't Hurt the Economy

The economic evidence is in, says Matthew La Corte in this guest post: Doing the right thing doesn’t cost anything in the long-run.

New Zealand plans to take an extra 600 Syrian refugees over the next two-and-a-half years. The US plans to resettle 10,000 Syrians next year. Many eye that news with concern. Critics fear that refugee resettlement, though a compassionate program, will prove to be a far too costly endeavour.

Yet economic evidence clearly suggests that, despite upfront costs, the long-run impact of resettlement will be neutral — and could actually trigger modest economic stimulus.

From a humanitarian angle, it is hard to argue against resettling Syrians. Seven and a half million Syrians have been internally displaced, and 4 million externally displaced since 2011. Over 200,000 civilians have been killed since the onset of the civil war four years ago. Life expectancy has dropped by 20 years, and 80 percent of Syrians now live in poverty.

Resettlement is one of the only ways to save refugees from a nightmare situation back home.

Fiscal conservatives, however, worry that an influx of refugees will dramatically strain government budgets and take jobs from local citizens. These are understandable concerns. Yet current case studies largely alleviate them, making the case against resettling refugees substantially weaker.

Take Lebanon, for example. Since 2011, the country has taken in more than a million refugees. The World Bank found their economy has continued to grow, despite the influx. In 2013, real GDP increased 0.9 percent. In 2014, it increased 2.0 percent. For 2015, projections find an increase of 2.5 percent.

In Jordan, where over 600,000 Syrians have been resettled, the International Labour Organization reports that unemployment rate has remained virtually unchanged.

In Turkey, where more than 1.8 million Syrians have been resettled, the World Bank found a small displacement of low-educated workers. However, the World Bank also reported that the inflow of refugees created new, higher-wage jobs, allowing for the “occupational upgrading of Turkish workers,” and increased the earnings for the average native worker.

Between 1994 and 2008, Denmark resettled over 80,000 refugees from Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. During that time, lower-skilled refugee workers pushed native Danes into higher-wage jobs, resulting in a positive effect on wages and employment opportunities.

Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Denmark are countries with moderate-sized economies. When it comes to resettling refugees into larger economies, the numbers are even more impressive, because these economies are more adept at leveraging refugee skills. Oxford Economics, a UK-based forecasting and analysis firm, finds that if Germany accepts a million refugees in the next three years, its GDP would jump by 0.6 percent by 2020.

What’s more, Syrian-Americans that currently live in the US have outpaced other Americans in terms of earnings.

Syrian-Americans are a good proxy for what Syrians can do in a new country when unencumbered by the war and disaster of their own. The Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh found that Syrian-Americans have a median household income of over $65,000, which is $10,000 more than the native-born median household income.

When refugees resettle in the US, they start businesses, make existing businesses better and spend money on goods and services, all driving further economic activity. Refugees and their families pay taxes that bolster government budget at all levels. Refugees also tend to be younger than native-born citizens and are prone to having large families, good news for a country with a declining birth rate and deteriorating worker-to-retiree ratio.

And if the upfront costs are considered too high, using private sector funding and sponsorship options for refugee resettlement is always an option. In fact, Canada’s private refugee program has helped resettle more than 230,000 refugees since 1978.

Finally, the 600 Syrians to resettle in NZ represent just 0.015% of the total NZ population; the 10,00 to resettle in the US in 2016 represents just 0.003 percent of the total US population (which would be just 0.25% of the NZ population). The argument that, even given the figures given above were wrong, that such a small and diffuse uptick in population would harm native-born employment prospects is far-fetched at best.

Images of desperate, bedraggled Syrian refugees pouring across borders might make it difficult to imagine they they’re capable of contributing to a high-tech, fast-paced economy.

But refugees are not homeless by choice. They are people with skills who have been pushed out of their homes by war, and are now working harder than most of us ever have to work, and in the most adverse conditions, simply to return to a semblance of productive, normal life.

Many refugees are driven, skilled, experienced workers. These are not people who aim to limp through life in a foreign land. These are people who will–and do—pull their weight.

Some refugees turn out to do spectacular things.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Intel CEO Andrew Grove, Google cofounder Sergey Brin, and Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang were all refugees. The American children of Syrian immigrants have a pretty impressive track record, too. If you’ve never heard of the award-winning Syrian-American novelist Mona Simpson, maybe you’ve heard of her Syrian-American brother, Steve Jobs.

Refugee resettlement is, at worst, economically neutral in the long run, and is unequivocally the most effective and humane way to handle the refugee crisis. And who knows? A Syrian refugee might just mastermind the next Yahoo or Google. Or give you your next job.

Matthew La CorteMatthew La Corte is a Research Associate at the Niskanen Center where he focuses on immigration policy.
This post is based on articles at Anything Peaceful and the Niskanen Center.


  1. So long as they leave Islam behind them, it's all good. Europe isn't heading towards anything good from the inundation of muslim invaders. Achieve a free society first and then open the doors. Or, if prior to having achieved a free society, make sure that only liberty lovers can enter. We are watching the demise of Europe, while libertarians keep pushing political theory over the defence of actual values.

    1. Richard, you keep asserting things as if they are self-evident (nothing good, invaders, demise of Europe). They are not self-evident.
      You do need to supply an actual argument.

    2. You've got it backwards Peter. All the countries in Europe with Islamic populations have social problems in direct proportion. It's your ideological argument that is assumed to be self-evident, in spite of what has actually played out in reality.

    3. You've just made an assertion, Barry, so you'll need evidence to back that up.

      You know, the sort of thing offered in the figures quoted in the post above, with its links to the data on which the figures are based. That sort of thing.

    4. You do realise Peter, that the Islamists you are defending would advocate your execution as an infidel?

      The links in the post you are referring to are just articles written by people with the same opinion as you. So don't really count as evidence. However there is plenty of contrary evidence:




      The overwhelming evidence of Islamic ghetto problems in Europe is hardly a secret. So what's your excuse for ignoring this?

    5. Barry: If your evidence is so overwhelming, then why don't you post it? Two 2-minute Youtube vidoes and Nigel Farage talking is not evidence. Just so you know.
      And talking about "no-go zones" especially is neither evidence, nor accurate--as confirmed by the fellow who first coined the term.

      For clarification, evidence looks like this: Someone makes the claim, for example, that an influx of refugees will neither dramatically strain government budgets nor take jobs from local citizens. They then cite current case studies that largely alleviate those concerns, with links to the evidence backing up the case studies, and then write sentences like this: "Take Lebanon, for example. Since 2011, the country has taken in more than a million refugees. The World Bank found their economy has continued to grow, despite the influx. In 2013, real GDP increased 0.9 percent. In 2014, it increased 2.0 percent."

      If they went on to write whole paragraphs in the same vein, they might, you know, end up looking like the post above.

    6. Libertarians and Communists aligned:


    7. Any time someone cites Lebanon, a 3rd world Islamic shithole, as a successful example; you know they're deluded as hell.

      Hypothetically PC, if there were irrefutable evidence that mass Islamic immigration is a disaster that should be avoided
      would you admit it?

  2. The videos that Barry linked to are just the tip of the iceberg, which I'm surprised you are not aware of, Peter.


    Daniel Pipes cannot be trusted. Before you jump to hearing what you want to hear you should check all sides. An example of how untrustworthy Mr. Pipes is:


    You can argue about whether or not No Go Zones exist, and raise statistics such as an increased GDP to support a position, but none of that addresses the issue of liberty. GDP growth is no indicator of liberty, or of social stability, or of anything important at all. Is Lebanon more free or less free since forcing out Christians and becoming increasingly Islamised? A freedom lover shouldn't give too much of a stuff about GDP, but care everything about whether or not he is free to pursue his values.

    The German government is currently talking about introducing compulsory service for youth once they leave school. A year either in the military, or helping migrants. They are going further into debt to support the influx, and there is, quite literally, nowhere to put them all. There have been many riots, burning down of refugee centres, and tensions are rising. On top of that, people are still flooding in. However, none of the above really matters. What matters can be comprehended with a simple question. You know how difficult it is to convince your fellow western-minded person that unadulterated liberty is worth valuing. Since that is the path you've chosen (convincing everyone around you) to reach your goal of a free society how is your task of doing that going to be easier when you flood the place with people raised and steeped in Islam, a religion that instills the antithesis of freedom loving? Will your task become easier, or increasingly difficult?

    Also, there is a war raging. Islamic State explicitly stated they would flood Europe with refugees. Devout muslims in Libya have just made this threat too. Why, during a war, do you advocate opening the gates to our enemies to just come flooding in?

  3. Hillary supporters:



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.