By
combining economic models with environmental knowledge, the authors of this
study sought to create an analysis of international human migration that
encompassed policy responses to the issue. A two-country overlapping
generations model with endogenous climate change measured on a scale of steady
state perspective was used to accomplish this end. The authors summarize their
main findings as follows: change in climate creates an increase in migration,
small levels of climate change result in substantial impacts on the number of
migrants, northern immigration policies have the potential to impact long-run
migration thus impacting regional inequality, and finally that green technology
decreases emissions and long-run migration where the migrant impact to climate
change is significant. A consideration of how values of inequality, wealth,
environment, and migration numbers impact policy development is also widely
discussed. Although the authors caution the limitations of their approach, they
ultimately advocate that their model may provide states with guidelines for how
to best distribute tax revenue in regard to the issue of human migration. –Adriane Holter
Marchiori,
L., Schumacher, I., 2011. When nature rebels: international migration, climate
change, and inequality. Population Economics 24, 569–600.
In an environmental review, the
authors remind that while the developed world is responsible for the vast
majority of CO2
emissions, it is the developed world that will experience 80% of the lived
damage of global climate change. These experiences include areas such as the
loss of agricultural productivity and water quality, which result in
unsustainable living conditions, that oftentimes lead to environmentally
motivated migration. Reasons for movement out of an area also may include
anticipation of deteriorating and therefore non-sustainable living conditions.
The economic model used in the study incorporates concerns of livelihood by
presenting a decision calculus that states when a person (referred to as
“generations”) considers the benefit of migration to be greater than that of
staying at home, then that person will migrate. The firms in the model are stated
as operating on the basis of profit maximization in a perfectly competitive
market where they have access to international capital mobility.
The authors present four propositions
that result from their analysis, many of which have important policy implications.
First, the optimization consideration of firms and the relative situation of
the generations, an integrated approach is similar to one of autarky,
indicating the economic independence of the firm. Second, endogenous climate
change is a large contributor to international migration that effectively
diminishes the per capita welfare of both northern and southern regions. Third,
increased allocation of funds toward border controls reduces southern access to
migration and increases northern control. This relationship has the ability to
either exaggerate or lessen current north-south regional inequalities due to
environmental improvements and long-run migrant numbers. Finally and similar to
the third proposition, an increase in taxes allocated to green technology will
potentially decrease migrant numbers, positively impact the environment, and
alter the relationship between north-south inequality.
Based on these propositions, the
authors posit that it is advisable for Europe to increase the allotment of tax
revenue toward immigration costs than North America. Conversely, North America
should invest more tax revenue in green technology than Europe. This inverse
economic relationship is due to the fact that production in North America
creates substantially larger numbers of CO2 emissions
than its European counterpart and therefore may best benefit from new
environmental policy. Additionally, North America currently employs harsh
restrictions on border control policy. Europe’s comparatively “soft” immigration
policy therefore makes new approached recommendable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment