Firstly, a declaration of a conflict of interest. I am a first generation New Zealander born to immigrant parents who arrived in New Zealand in the early 1950s and have lived here since.
So, yes, I’m likely to be biased. But, remember, most New Zealanders will have an immigrant somewhere in their back history. However, I will leave you to judge whether my thoughts are suitably robust for grown up debate.
The context
Now, let’s be clear that the immigration surge we have been experiencing is a relatively short-term phenomenon. And the consequential population growth, in the context of the long-term experience, has been little short of ordinary.
The 3-year immigration surge has lifted population growth over the last 10 years to a yawn-inspiring annual average of 1.2%, identical to that for the previous 10 years, and only slightly higher than for the 1986-96 period.
So if your time horizon is supremely short and you are after knee-jerk responses to latest data (e.g. finance markets) then it will be no surprise that you blame the nation’s ills on the recent immigration shock. However, it would be more appropriate (and honest) to argue for or against immigration using a much longer-term time horizon.
Why? Well that is because there are many influences arising from immigration that are inherently long term in nature.
So, what is an appropriate framework to assess the impacts of immigration from an economist’s perspective? I suggest there are 4 ways that economists look at immigration.
- demand side influences
- supply side influences
- both demand and supply side influences
- a component of a population policy
Demand side influences
Immigration adds to economic activity by increasing total demand from households, as a result of the extra people now resident here. In essence, this provides a larger domestic market for firms within which to ply their trade. Consequently, potentially higher profits and profitability for firms could also be in store.
However, this perspective also acknowledges the downside of potentially adding to inflationary pressures as demand grows too fast. The prime example is the current imbalance in house prices, which is being blamed on immigration-fuelled demand outstripping current supply.
Taken to its logical extreme, this perspective will likely point out other costs in the form of over-crowded school rooms, lengthy hospital waiting lists, congested roads and slow internet connections as the burgeoning demand side strains existing network infrastructure and service capacities.
Supply side influences
Another perspective focuses on the influence of immigration on the supply side – primarily through adding to the size of the labour market. That is, immigration is a way to increase the quantity of workers available to firms.
This perspective has been, arguably, the primary rationale underpinning NZ’s immigration policy stance (and has been the case virtually from the year dot). Although the New Zealand context is more in the vein of, replacing lost workers (through emigration) and then, secondly, adding to the size of the workforce. As is illustrated, there has been a regular net outflow of NZ citizens every year.
Further, if policy settings are clever they will aim to replace the quantity of workers lost with those of a higher quality (or skills) for the replenished workforce. However, the cleverness of NZ policy in this regard is arguable. This arises from short term measures and lobbying that place occupations on the skill shortage list. Such a list should more correctly arise from robust analysis and longer-term workforce considerations.
Consequently, this supply-side perspective provides a foundation for the “foreigners taking our jobs and also depressing wages” argument.
However, from the supply-side perspective, immigration should not be criticised for the numbers (or quantity) entering New Zealand. But the mix of quality arising from the implementation of the policy may well be called into question.
More broadly, immigration adds to capacity of the economy and so, potentially reduces inflationary pressures.
Both supply and demand influences
The previous two perspectives can be rightly dismissed as superficial. As all economists (should) know, immigration influences both the demand and the supply sides together. Thus any robust perspective must assess the aspects noted in both of the two sub-sections above.
The main addition is to note that the demand-side influences are pretty close to immediate, while the supply-side (or capacity enhancing) influences take (much) longer.
Thus, the trick to policy implementation is to strive for some balance between these two influences. And that is why sudden surges, and slumps, in immigration are not helpful when you are looking to maximise the benefits (extra demand, profitability, workforce, skills, capacity) and minimise the costs (congestion, competing against home-grown workers, depressing wages, property price bubbles).
And, of course, the last three years have seen a sudden surge in immigration, which has contributed to much knee-jerk commentary.
A component of a population policy
There is a fourth perspective within which we can view immigration. And that is as part of a coherent population policy.
Immigration can be used to replace holes in the demographic structure (e.g. the youth/young that leave), which is closely allied to supply-side labour market perspective.
More broadly though, we could venture into questions like what is the target population of the country at some future date? Underpinned by an economies of scale argument, this suggests that a population that is too small leads to an inability to fund large-scale infrastructure and other ‘nice to haves’. Or, alternatively, too small a population means such infrastructure are more costly or less efficient. For example
- air, sea, road and rail transport connections, routes, ports, and networks
- environmental protection, maintenance, and enhancement
- sewerage, drainage, and reticulation systems
- hospitals and specialist treatment centres (and related clinical trials)
- specialist universities and research institutions
An explicit population target (with its concomitant immigration policy) would assist decisions as to infrastructure projects and developments. In its absence, any large infrastructure proposal always (it seems to me) begs the question: for what population is this being built? If the answer is yesterday’s or today’s population then the proposal is almost certainly too late. If the answer is tomorrow’s population, then there is the obvious question: how big is that population?
A thought experiment
There are, of course, several elements to population growth, with only some within our ambit of control. The surge, if that’s the right word, of the past 3 years has been driven as much by the changes in the movement of New Zealand citizens as in the migration of foreigners.
But, a population policy is properly focussed on the long run.
So I ask what if, in response to the 2-year surge in immigration and population growth experienced in the early-1980s, an immigration review decided to then close the doors. That is, all immigration of non-NZ citizens was halted from 1984.
From a population of a shave over 3.2 million in 1984 we would have just over 3.1 million people residing here in 2016; compared to the actual 4.7 million. The fall in population arises from a combination of a lower natural increase, as well as the ongoing exodus of NZ citizens and the emigration of some of the non-NZ citizens that had arrived earlier.
I suggest a 2016 population of 3.1 million would have considerable difficulty funding that list of ‘nice to haves’. Many regional polytechnics would be a shell; the rural broadband network would likely be languishing on someone’s wish list; there would almost certainly be way less than 8 universities; high-performance sports centres may also be standing in the funding queue; and more (many) would be looking offshore for specialist medical treatments.
Consumer services from abroad reliant on a large(ish) market (e.g. Netflix), or connections that rely on at least one sizable international city may also be vulnerable. Imagine having to fly to Sydney in order to be able to access overseas holiday options?
As for the compulsory schooling system, on-line learning may be the answer to get past the economies of scale argument, but then there’s that broadband issue again?
So, here’s hoping any review of immigration policy sees past the short-term hand-wringing and desire to find a scapegoat for the nation’s ills. Yes, the implementation of immigration policy – e.g. the composition of the skill shortages list – may have a lot to answer for. But let’s not use that as an excuse to hide ourselves behind a wall.
*Dr. Ganesh Nana is the Chief Economist and the Executive Director at BERL. You can contact him here (email) or here (Twitter). This article was first published here and is reposted with permission.
67 Comments
Yes we need an immigration policy, and for the long term. My target would be that population is stable. On two basic grounds. One is that it would be a far better place to live. The second is that I remain unconvinced of the benefits of being big.
Currently if you look at the problems we have, homelessness in the streets, the middle classes unable to afford houses like they once could, and static incomes, it does not seem to me that the doubling of the population in just a few decades has produced at all.
* Homelessness is not only caused by immigration, it is also caused by not building enough houses. It can be resolved
* Static incomes are a result of the global economy and low inflation
* As Ganesh has pointed out, it is far too easy to forget the good aspects of a larger population. I wonder if we would be able to attract and retain medical skills, technology skills, etc if we hadn't had immigration? Maybe our economy would be more like that of Fiji or Samoa.
* A smaller NZ may be a far better place to live in your opinion - but some of us would find it rather boring...
"Homelessness is not only caused by immigration, it is also caused by not building enough houses. It can be resolved"
- I would imagine there are some significant other factors involved rather than "not building enough houses"
"Static incomes are a result of the global economy and low inflation"
- Perhaps overpopulation causes some issues.
"As Ganesh has pointed out, it is far too easy to forget the good aspects of a larger population. I wonder if we would be able to attract and retain medical skills, technology skills, etc if we hadn't had immigration? Maybe our economy would be more like that of Fiji or Samoa."
- Maybe our economy could be like Brazil, Nigeria, or Bangladesh. Or instead we could focus on being like Luxembourg, Qatar, Ireland, or San Marino (lower populations with higher GDP)
"A smaller NZ may be a far better place to live in your opinion - but some of us would find it rather boring..."
- Lets compare some major European cities to Auckland.
Auckland = 1.5mil
Dublin = 1.4mil
The Hague = 1.4mil
Glasgow = 1.4mil
Seville = 1.1mil
Nice = 1mil
Osle = 1mil
Size isn't important. It is our Geographic separation that would see us remain "boring".
Noncents,
Just a small point; the population of the City of Glasgow is approx. 600,000. Greater Glasgow, which takes into account towns such as Hamilton,Motherwell, Airdrie and others well outside the city boundary,is approx. 1.20m.
I lived there for over 40 years and it is a much underrated city.
Noncents,
Just a small point; the population of the City of Glasgow is approx. 600,000. Greater Glasgow, which takes into account towns such as Hamilton,Motherwell, Airdrie and others well outside the city boundary,is approx. 1.20m.
I lived there for over 40 years and it is a much underrated city.
Thank Goodness , someone has actually called for this , we really need clarity on this issue , specifically we need to know exactly how many visa's are issued in any period ,
AND
How many the Government plans to issue in say any given year
AND
We would like to know where the intended migrant intends to settle / work / invest / study ( surely we can ASK them in advance ?)
This will enable us to know how many houses we need
How many new school teachers we need
How much more the Actuaries need to invest in the NZ Super each year
How many new hospital beds we are going to need
Traffic and road planning
Right now we are left clueless , instead of planning for new arrivals we are left reacting and metaphorically only start building the house after the family arrives .
This statistic of 60,000 new arrivals unannounced and without any warning has come like a bolt out of the blue and a shock to the entire system , not only to us personally , but also to the market for housing , cars , services , school enrolments , and pressure on health services
"We would like to know where the intended migrant intends to settle / work / invest / study ( surely we can ASK them in advance ?)"
You can ask and they can tell. I think based on statistics, we already know where they wish to do the above. Enforcing it is another matter.
Nice analysis here.
It does seem very obvious from the population change graph that it is the net immigration of others that is causing the problems for infrastructure and housing in particular.
Translate those figures into an Auckland only thing and the chances are that the graph would be quite horrific.
And still this 'do nothing Nat led government' cannot or will not attempt any solutions.
Ganesh is a good chap but he misses the most important point. People bring money with them. Lots of money.
In the last boom it was Americans and Europeans buying up large, this time it's people from China. Too much money floods in and house prices leap up, the NZD leaps up and exports become largely unprofitable. The economy becomes one favourable to low productivity property based businesses and unfavourable to export oriented businesses. It's all there in the current account - we allow too much money in which pushes up the currency and strangles exports. New Zealand has been doing this since 1973.
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-current-account
Don't agree that he has missed the point. I think he simply puts it aside. It is not the money they bring that is the issue, it is where they spend it. Just buying property, other than where they intend to live benefits very few. As Ganesh points out an immigration policy that is targeted so that any immigration has a net benefit to the country is needed.
Disclaimer, I too am descended from immigrants, they arrived here in 1848. Don't know how many generations that is.
Does money really " flood in " .. To buy a NZ $ requires someone to sell a NZ $.
No flood - Higher prices for NZ $'s due to increased demand but no flood.
We have financed our 45 consecutive years of current account deficits by borrowing and selling assets to foreigners, the wisdom of which is debatable but it is hard to believe it will be without consequences.
what about the money remitted back to home counties to help the family.
I am sure if my family did everything they could to raise money to send me here I would not just say thank you have a good life but would be sending back monies that I earn here to help them out
do we have any idea now of the size of this, it used to be back to the islands but the scale was relatively small
Look at the current account deficit in the link above. Money floods in at a rate of 3% of GDP per annum. We are force fed the stuff like a goose for liver pate. Very little goes into improving productivity, most just inflates the value of existing assets.
Good call Ganesh Nana, we need a population policy, or even competing policies from different parties we can vote on. As this issue somehow slips under the bar of normal debate, anyone who talks about it can be - and is - labelled a racist.
I'd like a policy which makes NZ a place people don't want to leave, so we are not having to replace our population. Make it a more friendly environment with opportunities for our young people, and affordable housing and living costs. And make it rather stable, so small increases in population, that don't create these horrible bottle necks we're seeing in housing, and health, infrastructure and so on.
Also we should be allowed to debate population and immigration without the racism slur.
"I'd like a policy which makes NZ a place people don't want to leave, so we are not having to replace our population. Make it a more friendly environment with opportunities for our young people, and affordable housing and living costs. And make it rather stable, so small increases in population, that don't create these horrible bottle necks we're seeing in housing, and health, infrastructure and so on."
Sounds great. Every country likes that. Now, what does NZ have to pay for all of that? Affordable housing, cheap living costs, desirable living environment, strong economy - I challenge you to find me a country/city that has all of that.
instead of drilling everyone who makes a comment on immigration, you're obviously taking this as a personal affront, especially with the handle 'tired immigrant' - since you live here now, why don't you put your mind to how you could help make NZ a better place. There are endless ways and it will be a never ending battle. Part of that, from time to time, might include adjusting the country's immigration settings
from 4.3 The Reddell hypothesis
The Reddell story is not about immigration generally being bad or economically negative.
In fact, Reddell states that “in general, my reading of the evidence is that it makes quite a
142
small difference either way.” Rather, Reddell argues that in assessing the potential
impact of migration, it is important to pay attention to the characteristics of individual
country experiences, and the possible role of combinations of circumstances. In
New Zealand, migration policy has made a large difference to population growth,
throughout history and over the past 20 years.In the late 19th century and early 20th century, immigration to New Zealand could be seen
as reflecting a favourable shock to the tradable sector. Opening up new lands to
production, falling transport costs, refrigerated shipping combined to lift the population
capacity of New Zealand while still offering high wages and high rates of return.By the middle of the 20th century, New Zealand was settled and producing, and
technological change in the key export sectors was no longer as rapid (relative to other
producers). The factor price equalisation justification for strong population growth had
dissipated, yet population growth remained high. Across the OECD, there is some
evidence that rapid population growth in post-war advanced countries was associated with
143
an apparent cost to per capita growth rates.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
Sounds good. What (i.e. the high wage growth etc in the 19th and early 20th century) about today in the 21st century? Which country today experiences all of the above yet has to cheap affordable housing comparable to what New Zealand has in stock (i.e. houses on freehold land)?
I think it is the quality of immigration that people have been most upset about, which you point out could well be justified. Logic suggests that low quality arrivals do not assist in growing real per capita incomes, so we don't get any further ahead (other than economies of scale), but create scarcity issues in finite land.
So the only gain this gives us is economies of scale.
What is the population number that gives us the scale required for the nice-to-haves then? You suggest that the increase from 3.1m to 4.7m has brought about regional polytechnics, more universities, rural broadband, Netflix. (As an aside, I don't think more training institutions have been that great - another topic).
What other nice-to-haves are we missing out on with our current 4.7m population?
Agree on quality of immigration. Everyone wants high quality immigrants which I assume reasonably to mean smart, hardworking, easily assimilated into NZ's society etc.
Next (more important) question: how to capture such immigrants given NZ's below average pay compared to the rest of OECD countries? What is NZ's biggest selling point? Not cheap houses I assume.
It would be good to ask recent high quality immigrants what made them choose NZ. Perhaps recruitment agents see a lot of them?
I would guess that quality if life is important, e.g. affordability of house, safety of community, quality of education in local schools, space (both at home and in public spaces), proximity to beaches and other nature.
We can strike out affordability (if considered in local income terms). Some of these immigrants, however, come in with quite a bit of money so New Zealand houses are still relatively affordable.
The rest are very good points. The point to remember is that the high quality immigrants that commentators are clamouring for are high in demand in other countries which offer similar or better advantages (and these immigrants know that). In short, there is global competition for high quality immigrants (and not so much for refugees for example). When these other countries start becoming insular and resist such immigration (see for example USA), it's a good chance for New Zealand to step up and grab as much of these high quality immigrants as possible with looser immigration policy.
The world is way way past overshoot, and all economists can come up with is we need MORE people to drive growth... The answer we should be asking is what is an appropriate (sustainable) non-fossil fuel propelled population. The answer for NZ is probably well under 1 million.
Economies to scale (their solution) is no longer outpacing diminishing returns, particularly with mining and Oil production, but also water and food.... Everyone is hitting resource walls and people are on the move. ..economic growth will soon seem pretty insignificant when you are scraping over whats left of drinkable water and local available food.
The human race has probably overshot its optimal number for the planet to sustain us by at least double. Yes, time to be doing something other than trying to fill up NZ, one of the last countries on the planet relatively close to the number that is sustainable. Nuts, I reckon.
First priority has to be getting the fraud and corruption out of the system. It's huge - just that one recent case with the Filipino dairy farm workers showed that about a third of the total were here fraudulently, and that it was being done on an organised scale. No idea about the other two thirds. Has it even been investigated? More exploitation of labour, and pay-for-residency scams than Immigration can keep up with. It can't go on like this. It's bad for New Zealand, it's bad for our reputation, it's bad for our economy, and it fails the duty of care owed to immigrants who are being ripped off and exploited.
This is an area that needs to operate at a high level of integrity and due diligence, but we're effectively allowing immigration policy to be set and implemented by organised crime.
The article is very flawed as it examines everything from a NZ perspective, which leaves out most of the reasons people immigrate. Then it uses this half baked data set to come to the wrong conclusion.
People immigrate because where they are going is better than where they are, depending on global conditions. We get sumps and surges, because that is how immigration works.
Smoothing for population growth would be horrendously expensive. In a slump we'd need to attract people who don't want to come here, in a surge we would have to penalise those who do wish to come here. We would have to pay at every stage of the process, except for brief transitory moments when NZ policy would align with global immigration conditions.
Rather than attempt the impossible, we should look for ways to accommodate the reality of slumps and surges.
2.3 Changing policy expectations
While useful, models do not capture all the effects policymakers expect from immigration.
When New Zealand moved to increase the numbers and skills of immigrants in the 1980s
and 1990s, policymakers appear to have considered that these changes had the potential
to have major beneficial impacts on the New Zealand economy, reinforcing the gains from
22
the other liberalising and deregulating economic reforms undertaken during that period.
At that time, it was considered that skills-focused inward migration could: improve growth
by bringing in better quality human capital and addressing skills shortages; improve
international connections and boost trade; help mitigate the effects of population ageing;
and have beneficial effects on fiscal balance. As well as “replacing” departing
New Zealanders and providing particular help with staffing public services (for example,
medical professionals), it was believed that migration flows could be managed so as to
avoid possible detrimental effects (such as congestion or poorer economic prospects) for
existing New Zealanders.Since then, New Zealand has had substantial gross and net immigration, which has been
relatively skill-focused by international standards. However, New Zealand’s economic
performance has not been transformed. Growth in GDP per capita has been relatively
lacklustre, with no progress in closing income gaps with the rest of the advanced world,
and productivity performance has been poor. It may be that initial expectations about the
potential positive net benefits of immigration were too high.Based on a large body of new research evidence and practical experience, the consensus
among policymakers now is that other factors are more important for per capita growth
23
and productivity than migration and population growth. CGE modelling exercises for
Australia and New Zealand have been influential in reshaping expectations.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10
Migration and Macroeconomic
Performance in New Zealand:
Theory and Evidence
Julie Fry
New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 14/10
super link jh - Treasury is saying the opposite to what JK keeps saying to the media. Immigration can have large negative macroeconomic effects.
Starting quote in the abstract
"New Zealand immigration policy settings are based on the assumption that the macroeconomic impacts of immigration may be significantly positive, with at worst small negative effects. However, both large positive and large negative effects are possible."
Not because they are cheap to extract, but because of a lack of NEW demand ... people cant actually afford to consume more or dont see opportunity to expand; there are no more new markets to expand into,, cheap resources left to convert to agriculture etc etc ... hence everyone relies on population growth to expand debt ...
Producers on the other hand, produce MORE to cover costs and stop exploration.
ham n eggs,
Much of what you(regularly) say about energy(ie fossil fuels) is I believe right. However, I also believe that it will take a long time to wean the world off their use. As prices move back up and they will at some point,then more effort will be put into exploration and extraction. Sadly, a warming world will unlock additional exploration potential and whatever the long-term environmental effects might be,these new resources will be exploited.
At the same time however, considerable effort is going into renewables even in the US and that will continue.
Linklater - it would definitely take a long time to wean the world off the use - absolutely. But its because ultimately there is no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels. Solar is basically a battery — we burn a tonne of fossil fuels to make the battery… and we get slightly more than a tonne worth of energy from the battery over 30 years… No actual benefit. It all subsidies and hope. Peak Oil = peak food = starvation for billions if the Oil stops. And the peak doesnt mean we are half way through, reality is more like a Seneca cliff.
And your assumption that Oil prices will or can rise back up again doesnt explain how the struggling world economy can somehow generate growth on higher priced Oil...
this is a quote from someone else which sums up affordability issue. Peak Oil is really about peak debt.
The problem we face now, is that demand cannot pay the higher price for energy, while growing energy consumption, and thus the economy, at the rate needed to sustain growth and continue the current system. The problem is demand side, not supply side. If people could afford to pay an ever increasing price while ever increasing total consumption, things would be booming for a while yet, until some other limit was hit.
There is one economist who believes we should focus on quantity not quality. Ganesh Nana has had a strong influence on our immigration policy and is frequently sponsored by the Department of Labour to research the economic effects of immigration. In 2009, Nana and his colleagues advocated that we double our immigration rate. They argued this would raise GDP by 7.4% and increase exports by 12.9%51. They argue that this occurs because migration increases the demand for goods and services at the same time as increasing the supply of labour. From here, they assume…
The combination of additional demand for goods and services and additional labour resources will require, simultaneously, additional machinery, equipment, buildings, and other productive capital. This further requirement will be reflected in increased demand for investment goods…
On the one hand, households and investment demand for goods and services are increased. In particular, sectors associated with the production and supply of physical capital resources (investment goods) will benefit from the increased demand for such resources. On the other hand, the additional labour and capital available will be able to supply more goods and services…
Because of the increased resources available to New Zealand producers, the price of New Zealand commodities compared with overseas-made goods and services will decline. Consequently, New Zealand producers competing against overseas products (whether domestically or abroad) will also be advantaged52.
Based on these assumptions, they built a model that suggests that migration has a huge benefit for New Zealand. Because it was sponsored by the Department of Labour, Ministers then use it to state the economic benefits of migration, including the current Minister of Immigration who, in reference to this paper, claimed that New Zealand benefits by $1.9 billion a year from migration.
There are huge problems with the logic in this paper. Just because we have more resources does not mean our prices come down, particularly given that much of our capital items are imported. The price of land and buildings may in fact go up, which leaves only the price of labour to go down, and many workers would not favour this as a way of raising GDP per capita. There is of course, a possible effect on economies of scale, but around the world, the generally accepted assumption is that migration shows constant returns to scale, not increasing53.
A middle path for the New Zealand Economy:
Getting back to basics
Dr Greg Clydesdale
Now that we have pushed immigration: Lets Have A Population Policy
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/We-need-an-adult-discussion-about-immigratio…
a moving horizon to get the heat out of it all?
The Industrial revolution has been fueled with resources that pollute and will run out. These fuels have allowed for unrestricted population growth.
Embracing population growth as an economic necessity is such a flawed economic plan, I can't believe people still embrace it.
Personal greed can be the only answer that locks people to the growth policy, the population goes up,so do their property values.
If we had a stable population instead of continually needing new enlarged infrastructure the economy would only have to maintain the status quo with moderate investment in modernization.
Personal wealth would be reflective of a persons productivity.
We would have to rewire how we think and how we run our country. The creation of wealth without productivity would require a new game plan than the current one and would be hard to achieve. NZ's growing wealth inequalities would stabilize and we would have a happier society.
We’re in a Low-Growth World. How Did We Get Here?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/upshot/were-in-a-low-growth-world-how…
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/05/02/debt-the-key-factor-connecting-en…
theres some good articles here about how we got here
this gives the idea of the scale of growth in population...
Get some immigrants while you still can. They don't make 'em like they used to. "The annual rate of population growth has recently been going down. A long historical period of accelerated growth has thus come to an end; the annual world population growth rate peaked in 1962, at around 2.1%, and has come down to almost half since.
Now that period is over, and the third part of the story has begun; the population growth rate is falling and will likely continue to fall, leading to an end of growth towards the end of this century."
ourworldindata.org
Interesting graph. You see all the real growth in one area:
The article is spot on that we need a popn target. I have long thought 5m about right given the number of successful countries of that size. Note that economies of scale become less relevant in a world of increasing automation. With one roading robot and sufficient raw material one can eventually put in all the roads ones heart desires.
We are essentially at 5 million now (4.7) and will shoot right past 5 million to ??? (at current rates of growth 9 million by mid century). Enjoy free fishing in the Hauraki gulf while it lasts - everyone was grisling about the snapper limit being reduced a couple of years back, it can only go one way...one of the many downsides of population growth that most economists seem to miss.
Focusing on the thought experiment of cutting immigration in 1984. We should evaluate what good the immigration has bought us.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was about 4% now it is 6%, home ownership rates were over 70% now they are 64% and falling, Our housing affordability ratio has risen from in the range of 2 -3 to 5.2 and climbing and finally while I cant quickly find the figures, our levels of poverty and most social ill statics have gotten significantly worse. So has it done the average citizen any good. I suspect not.
We not only need a population policy, but also to be given the right to vote on what size population that we want. It is our country and it effects every one of us.
Pressing population issues focus of forums
Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley says there hasn’t been a strategic government population policy since the 1970s and, since that time, New Zealand has undergone dramatic demographic change with an ageing population, falling birth rates and rapidly increasing immigration.
During's (1985) terms, coming to know New Zealand in our terms, not those which
originated with a colonial power. At the core of this re-assessment was an emergent
biculturalism which involved placing indigeneity and the effects of colonialism on the
tangata whenua as a key consideration of political and policy development from the
1970s, and more particularly from 1985. Whether it was the delivery of Maori-sensitive
welfare and economic policy, increasing the awareness of the impact of colonialism both
in an historical as well as a contemporary sense, or Treaty settlements, there was a
significant re-orientation of public perception and practice. It also involved inviting
others, notably Pakeha, to explore their own post-colonial identity (Spoonley, 1995). But
almost simultaneously, decisions were being made about New Zealand's immigration
policies that were to have far reaching consequences for the cultural politics of New
Zealand, although it was to be almost a decade before there was an awareness of what
exactly this meant.
So we or they had a population policy?
The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s
towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the
value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of
Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation
of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy
changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the
“infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to
the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this
Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in
the future” (Burke 1986:330).
Answer = Them
Professor Spoonley says the consequence of not embracing immigrants in the regions could be dire in terms of service provision for the elderly.
“I hate to say it but the baby boomer population, who have been drivers of the growth generation in New Zealand over the last 50 years, could turn into a liability as they age.”
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_…
Except it isn’t a solution as the migrants themselves age.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/111069/sustainable-pop…
So we pushed immigration; only some people benefited and there is widespread resistance. So let's have a population policy. We can build the roads, hospitals, schools. Then we can have more migration, after all, the young people know no better and the migrants have more tolerance for a larger populations (and the proportion of migrant voters increases). This doesn't solve the underlying economic issues however (it assumes - for some reason - we will be better off).
All this was covered by Dr Greg Clydesdale who was given the heave-ho from Massey for his efforts. His papers are prescient and well worth a read. The man should be given due recognition (but for the thought police).
http://kauri.aut.ac.nz:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/205/1/clydesdale…
A middle path for the New Zealand Economy: Getting back to basics. Dr Greg Clydesdale [doc]
https://thestandard.org.nz/farrar-shills-for-nzs-most-racist-academic/
http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2008/06/gang-up-on-media-7.html
Interesting comment from a JR Murphy on the Massey link:
Sad thing about immigration is it stops the government from providing professional health care and services for people with disabilities so they can work - we're left rotting in hell on welfare, degraded, discriminated against and despised. Unstable unsafe housing, ostracized in the community, inadequate money to live a decent life. Why is nobody talking about this, people are killing themselves around me and everybody is ignoring it.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.