BRITISH IMMIGRATION POLICY AND WORK

David MetcalfDecember 2009

Chair, Migration Advisory Committeeand

London School of Economics

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/mac

CONTENT

1. Context immigration stock immigration flows

2. Labour market impact labour market impact of immigration

how recession alters labour market impact

3. Points Based System points based system why skilled workers? 4. Migration Advisory Committee MAC tier 1: supply-side tier 2: RLMT, ICT, shortage; demand-side accession countries: method and policy

5. Discussion

Stock: share of immigrants (foreign-born) in the UK

working-age population, 1979 – 2008

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1979

1981

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

% o

f fo

reig

n b

orn

in

UK

po

pu

lati

on

Note: Rate describes working-age population. Immigrants are defined as foreign born individuals. The per cent is calculated by dividing the foreign born working-age population by the total UK working-age population. The data are the average of the four quarters for each year.

Source: Labour Force Survey 1979-2008

•13% of working age population born outside the UK; corresponding figure for OECD is 12%, world is 3%

•68% of stock of immigrants born outside EEA

•employment rate of UK born is 74% compared to 68% for non-UK born.

Flows of long-term migrants to and from the UK

Flows of long-term migrants to and from the UK, 1991-2008

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Nu

mb

er o

f m

igra

nts

(00

0s)

Balance

Inflow

Outflow

Mar

Jun

Sep

tD

ec

2008

Note: long-term migration is defined in the survey as those intending to change their place of residence for a year or more. This definition includes all nationalities and countries of birth, including the UK. Source: International Passenger Survey, 1991-2008, published by ONS.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

UK

EU

15 A8

Com

mon

wea

lth

Oth

er fo

reig

n

Balance by country of birth, Sept 2007 - Sept 2008

Flows 2008

• Inflows, outflows, net (all nationalities)

• Inflow by nationality

Total

thousands

Work related thousands

Inflow

Outflow

Net

512

395

+118

202

209

-7

Thousands %

British

Foreign

Total

71

440

512

14

84

100

Flows 2008 (continued)

• Inflow by reason (all nationalities)

NB: Work-related only 2-in-5

• NiNo’s NI numbers issued to non-UK nationals year ending March 2009 686 000 change Mar 08 – Mar 09 - 6%

• Workers Registration Scheme (A8)

year ending June 2009 116 000 change June 08 – June 09 -42%

Thousands %

Work-related

Study

Dependants

Other/no reason

Total

202

160

79

71

512

40

31

15

14

100

Balance of non-EU nationals by reason for migration, 1991 – 2007

Note: The figures describe the balance of non-EU nationals intending to change their place of residence for a year or more. For 1995, those looking for work were not recorded separately from ‘Other reasons’.Source: International Passenger Survey 1991-2007, published by Office for National Statistics

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Net

in

flo

ws

(th

ou

san

ds)

Definite jobLooking for workAccompany/joinFormal studyOther

Labour market impact of immigration

a. Introduction

• Most adjustments focus on employment and pay (i.e. factor prices) of natives; but there are 2 other adjustment mechanisms: composition of output, e.g. ethnic restaurants, A8 gardeners production technology, e.g. labour intensive flower picking.

• The studies have to deal with the no counterfactual problem

they study pay change or employment change before/after immigration

but really should compare such changes with what would have happened with no immigration

the missing counterfactual is dealt with by identification assumptions e.g. slice LM into areas which do/do not experience immigration

but immigrants choose where to go, e.g. to region with higher growth in pay then get spurious positive association: immigration causes pay growth

overcome this problem using instruments OR

might slice by occupation/skill/age

b. Employment and unemployment

• Lump of labour fallacy: aggregate number of jobs is not fixed so there is no one-for-one displacement

e.g. consider baby boom cohorts

if number of jobs fixed, when they entered LM unemployment would rise. Did not happen. Instead

employment rose.

• Unemployment

Portes and Lemos, 2004-06 A8 influx, inflow >500 000

409 districts (study builds on two similar previous studies)

no association between immigrant inflow and rise in claimant unemployment

this holds even for possibly vulnerable groups, such as younger workers or the lower skilled

• Employment

Gilpin 2006

1% point increase in share of migrants in working population (approx. 300 000) would cut employment of

people of working age already in UK by 6 000.

Tiny impact.

But need also to analyse specific occupations

e.g. IT, possibly indirect displacement via intra-company transfers

c. Pay

• Real wage level, average impact

Dustman (up to 2005) small positive, e.g. because of:

- immigration surplus

- immigrants paid less than MP and surplus captured by natives

IPPR (up to 2007) small negative: A8 non-complementarity?

specific occupation, e.g. impact of intra-company transfers on IT

sector pay

Wadsworth: biggest impact possibly on previous immigrants

• Distribution of pay

Dustman: gains at top of distribution, losses at bottom

Nickell: clear tradeoff between immigration and pay in less skilled occupations, e.g. care homes

Portes: A8, 2004-06, >500 000 mainly less skilled jobs – no wage effect because less skilled protected by NMW

PBS emphasises skilled immigration. This presumably lowers skilled relative pay cf what would otherwise have been

if supply of capital not perfectly elastic some of the immigration surplus will go to capital, impacting on distribution between pay and profits

• Wage inflation Bank of England (up to 2007)

immigration reduces the NAIRU due to adjustments in labour and product markets and fear of displacement

d. Skills• Short term – composition effect

e.g. A8 relatively well educated but substantial occupation downgrading

• Longer term – complementarities and incentives

much more complicated to model and assess

e. Population

• ONS projections state 4 million plus increase to 65.6 million over ten year period up to 2018

• Over two thirds of this is due to net immigration and higher fertility rates of immigrants

• But ONS use 2008 net immigration figure of 180 000

peculiar – true figure is 118 000

so projections much too high

f. Conclusion

• little impact on natives pay/jobs in short run

• Plausible that LR impact good, e.g. skill complementarities, dynamic benefits, but hard to get firm

evidence

How labour market impact alters with recession

a. Employment and unemployment

• Does immigration help to smooth the economic cycle?

- amplitude of immigrant unemployment was greater than native unemployment, but not

2008-09

- return migration?

- Migration Policy Institute states A8 inflow

employment motivated

no visa (can return later)

no family ties

network important – no jobs to report back

• Adverse impacts: displacement

Is ‘lump of labour’ fallacy less of a fallacy?

- EU, no controls, less skilled, some displacement?

- RoW – skilled, probably less displacement (but ICTs?)

• Types of labour shortage

- cyclical, e.g. civil engineers, quantity surveyors

- structural: insufficient training, e.g. some medical consultancies

- publicly funded, e.g. senior care workers, NHS pharmacists

- global excellence, e.g. ballet dancers

b. Wage pressures and levels

• Migration previously reduced NAIRU due to adjustment of

product/labour market and fear of displacement (BoE). But not so important in recession.• If capital not perfectly elastic, possible negative impact on native pay

c. Externalities

• Productivity, little change, no reason to tighten• Congestion lower, no reason to tighten

d. PBS

• Automatic stabiliser rather than continued recalibration

UK policy on labour immigration Points Based System (PBS)

• Tier 1 Highly skilled individuals to contribute to growth and productivity (supply-side)

• Tier 2 Skilled workers with a job offer to fill gaps in the UK labour force (demand-side)• Tier 3 Low skilled workers to fill specific temporary labour shortages

(suspended)• Tier 4 Students• Tier 5 Youth and temporary: people coming to UK to satisfy primarily non-

economic objectives.

Note:

• PBS involves: (i) numbers or scale; (ii) selection or composition; (iii) rights, e.g. extensions, ILR

• Re (i): Tiers 1 (highly skilled) and 2 (skilled) have no cap/quota; Tier 3 set at zero• Re (ii): focus on skilled workers• Re (iii): migrant initially admitted temporarily• Important to consider (i) inflow and (ii) duration of stay. These two factors

determine stock of immigrants.

Why Skilled Workers?

• What are the economic objectives of labour market immigration policy? maximise gain to natives minimise adverse distributional impact on lower paid

• Greater complementarity with capital, e.g. skill-biased technical change other labour therefore larger potential ‘immigration surplus’ [efficiency]

• Dynamic effect: over time productivity up raise other workers productivity (externality) innovation (spill over)

• Stronger net fiscal contribution less likely to be unemployed than unskilled pay more in taxes

• Larger supply of skilled/qualified workers leads to more equal pay distribution [equity]

Migration Advisory Committee (MAC)

• Independent Committee: 5 economists, small secretariat• Examined

Tier 1: supply side

Tier 2: demand side

EU: Rumania and Bulgaria, A8 registration• Method

evidence based – both top-down and bottom-up

strong interaction with stakeholders

transparent

flexible: government determines work programme• Philosophy

selective immigration (e.g. via PBS) vital

but only positive narrative if:

no undercutting

no displacement

no disincentive to upskill• Not social issues, e.g. health, education, crime (MIF?)

Tier 1• Highly Skilled, no job offer required, i.e. supply-side, human capital

emphasised• October 2009 report

• General (i.e. from out of country), e.g.:

weighting of points: qualification, age, pay

professional qualifications

higher pay threshold for those with only bachelors degree

salary multipliers

visa 2 years + 3, instead of 3 years + 2• Post study

which colleges/subjects?

why 2 years?

UK graduate unemployment

cross-subsidy to UK students

displacement of less skilled

retrospection

Regarding both the above: what jobs do they do?

Tier 1 (continued)

• Investors/Entrepreneurs

process by which they bring in their money

enforcement e.g. net cf gross job creation

• Keep Tier 1 (cf EU blue card)

• Numbers Sept 2008 to August 2009

Total 86 188

of which

General 58%

PSWR 42%

Investors & entrep. <1%

Tier 2Basics

• Demand-side, employer-led, occupation-based• Skilled, job offer required, 3 year visa plus 2 year extension• Sponsor• Certificate of sponsorship (old Work Permit)• Job title skilled to NQF 3+ (i.e. NVQ 3+)• Pay to be ‘reasonable’ – is no undercutting• Prior entry clearance

Routes: need 70+ points

i. Mandatory competence in English (level A1) 10 pts maintenance requirement (£800) 10 pts

ii. Routes shortage occupation 50 pts RLMT (35) + pay/qualifications (≥15) 50 pts ICT (30) + pay/qualifications (≥20) 50 pts

Tier 2 (continued)

• July 2009 Report approx 60 000 in 2009, of which: - resident labour market test (RLMT) 30% - intra-company transfers (ICT) 60% - shortage occupation list 10% and India over 50%• Points for qualifications and pay: required under RLMT and ICT route Masters degree points raised pay thresholds raised: £17K - £24K to £20K - £32K special arrangements for e.g. teachers, nurses• RLMT retain advertise for four weeks (up from previous two weeks) investigate certification

Tier 2 (continued)

• ICTs retain not route to permanent residence duration with employer up from 6 months to 12 months discount allowances

• Compliance and Enforcement strengthen ex ante? Not in spirit of trust the sponsor check displacement/undercutting

• Fees raise (from £170) as complement to enforcement?

• Business visas – misused?

Tier 2 (continued) Shortage Occupation Lists

Reports Sept 08, April 09, Sept 09

Top-Down

Indicators

Bottom-Up

Evidence

Skilled •Occupational hierarchy•Formal qualifications•Earnings

•On-the-job training or experience•Innate ability

Shortage •Employer surveys•Rising earnings•Vacancies

•Softer labour market intelligence•Past/projected trends

Sensible •Alternatives to immigrants•Skills acquisition•Productivity & international competitiveness

•Production technology•EEA labour supply•Impact on efforts to seek alternatives – dependence on migrants

Tier 2 (continued)Shortage occupation lists (Results e.g. April 2009)

Whole occupation

Civil engineers

Ships officers

Both removed in September 2009

Subset of skilled occupation

Some specialist medical posts

Maths & science teachers

Skilled ballet dancers

Skilled subset of less skilled occupation

Skilled sheep shearers

Skilled chefs

Skilled senior care workers

Number of jobs covered by shortage occupation list:

• September 2008 700 000+

• September 2009 500 000-

Tier 2 (continued)

3 hurdles, occupations/jobs where MAC lobbied

• Fail on skill (NVQ 3+), e.g.

chefs, except skilled sub-set

care workers, except senior group

• Fail on shortage

community pharmacists (0/9), no evidence of closure

ships officer, civil engineer, quantity surveyor: previously on

social workers for adults

• Fail on sensible

genetic pathologists: training ceased

land engineer: can get from construction

ships officers: displacement plus disincentive to train UK

officers

future: chefs?

Accession countries: method

• Policy: principle and practice (including possible actions of other EU countries)

• Context: economy and immigration

• Past experience: A8 experience

• Theory: impact on flows, economic downturn

• Restrictions: Full or partial lifting

• Specific sectors: case for selective, limited, low-skilled immigration?

Policy for accession countries

• What was the UK’s experience in 2004?– much larger number than predicted– lower skilled manual and elementary occupations– no negative employment impact (but impact on pay?)– will above hold under a recession?

• Recommend caution: retain restrictions for now

• A2: considered specific sectors (inc agriculture, food processing, social care)

Discussion

• Regulating scale of immigration and selecting migrant workers - presently no limit or target - could have hard quota (say 50 000 Tier 1 or 2) or soft target (e.g. net work immigration) - could auction visas, e.g. Tier 2 certificate fee very low

• PBS and other migrant worker admission policies, e.g. does the lack of cap/quota (tiers 1 and 2) imply effects of immigration largely linear rather than diminishing returns/increasing costs?

• Managing low-skilled immigration, e.g. social care, agriculture, i.e. clear trade-off between raising wages or greater immigration

• Is it possible to distinguish in UK system between temporary and permanent migration? e.g. sector-based schemes (SAWS) and intra-company transfers

Annex: Recent studies of impact of immigration on payAuthor Years Observatio

nsResults

Dustman et al (2008)

1997 – 2005(pre-

accession)

17 regions 1% point increase in share of immigrants in population:

Pay percentile % p per hour

5th -0.6 -1

10th -0.4 -1

50th +0.7 +1.5

90th +0.5 +2

Nickell and Salaheen (2008)

1992 - 2005

25 2-digit SOC

11 regions

10% point increase in share of immigrants in population:

Group Wage %

Average -0.4 %

Semi/unskilled services -5.2%

Reed and Latore (2009)

2001 - 2007

17 regions

16 1-digit SOC

1% point increase in share of immigrants in population associated with decrease in average wages of 0.3%

Note: All studies: LFS; immigrant is non-UK born; hourly pay; controls include age, skill, time.

Points: 1. Dustman and Nickell: 5th percentile/care workers 5% point increase in immigrant share gives wage reduction of 18p hour or £7.20 for 40 hour week.

2. Reed (IPPR): note direction now negative. Authors describe it as ‘small’ but 5% point x -0.3 x £10 x 40 hours = -£6.