Great review of Them and Us in The Economist

“Them and Us” by Philippe Legrain, a former Economist journalist, sets out the benefits of migration and asks how newcomers and locals can get along better. “Wretched Refuse?” by Alex Nowrasteh and Benjamin Powell, a think-tanker and an academic, asks a crucial question: might immigration from poor, corrupt countries undermine the institutions of rich, well-governed ones?

Mr Legrain’s book is the more accessible: though underpinned by scholarship it is chatty, entertaining and full of anecdotes, such as the one with which this review begins. He breezily rebuts popular arguments for closed borders, and turns populist slogans upside down.

Thank you, Robert Guest.

Read the full review. Find out more about Them and Us.

Has migration gone too far?

Photo by Joy Ekpeti

I debated this with Ian Goldin at The Economist’s Open Future conference in London.

Having just flown in from Sydney I was extremely jetlagged, but apart from saying the word “fundamentally” a few too many times, I hope my positive, reasoned message came across well.

Watch the full day on YouTube; our panel starts around 7 hours 11 minutes in

The Economist reviews European Spring

European Spring is reviewed as part of the lead review in this week’s Economist.

The Economist writes:

Philippe Legrain, who once worked for The Economist, was another close observer of the euro crisis, as an economic adviser to the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso. His conclusions are similar to Mr Pisani-Ferry’s, if more stridently expressed. He is particularly good on (and particularly scathing about) the shortcomings of his own institution and the ECB. He is not popular in Brussels or Frankfurt.

Mr Legrain argues that Europe should have tackled its banks’ problems much sooner than mid-2012, when it decided to create a (still incomplete) banking union. A big reason why America has recently grown faster than Europe is that it did more to sort out its banks in 2008-09. Mr Legrain is also right to criticise the ECB for its half-hearted bond purchases before July 2012, when it finally emerged as a proper lender of last resort. Only in the second part of his book, when he moves into broader topics such as education, innovation, climate change and democracy, culminating in his call for a “European spring”, are his arguments sometimes less persuasive.

Both authors agree that the aftermath of the crisis is an unsatisfactory one that may not endure. Even if markets do not turn sour again, most of Europe seems stuck with low growth, high unemployment (especially for young people) and a horrible debt burden. The risk of a “lost decade” similar to Japan’s in the 1990s is worryingly high. Worst of all is the broad disillusion of voters with the entire European project, which will be expressed in this month’s European elections through big gains for populist and extremist parties….

What is striking is how much the authors agree about the failings of the EU and the euro, which is stuck in a half-completed house. Where they differ is in the solutions they propose.Europhiles want deeper integration and more centralised powers. That was proposed this spring by the German-led Glienicker group and by the French-led Eiffel Europe group. It is also backed by Loukas Tsoukalis, a Greek academic, in an essay, “The Unhappy State of the Union”, published by London-based Policy Network.

Yet few voters feel warmly about ever closer union; many would agree with Mr Bootle that this aspiration of the original Treaty of Rome should be formally ditched. Nor do many welcome ever greater intrusion by Brussels and Frankfurt into domestic politics. A more plausible idea, backed by Mr Legrain, is to restore greater freedom to national governments but reinstate the principle that they will not be rescued by the centre if they get into trouble.

The biggest worry may stem from the perception that the crisis is over. This is likely to slow or even stop further reforms. If that happens, the EU and the euro will get into trouble again—and the outcome next time could be even worse.

John Peet, Europe Editor of The Economist, adds:

Philippe Legrain convincingly argues that euro-zone policymakers made several big mistakes: there was too much fiscal austerity, they were too slow in trying to mend the banks and the European Central Bank delayed for too long in becoming a lender of last resort. The euro may have survived, but the system remains unstable and Europe still needs a lot more reform if it is to prosper.

Quoted in this week’s Economist

“The notion that migration is a one-way movement of permanent settlement is outdated. Most of it is temporary—and it’s time the debate about immigration recognised this reality,” argues Philippe Legrain, an analyst of immigration and the author of “Aftershock”, a recent book analysing economic changes in the wake of the financial crash. Read the full article here.

The Economist reviews Aftershock

As the world economy tiptoes back from the precipice, there is a growing appetite for books that try to read the future. Two thoughtful studies—one by a former Economist journalist and commentator on globalisation, Philippe Legrain, and the other by Raghuram Rajan, once the chief economist at the IMF and now at the University of Chicago—aim at giving readers a deeper understanding of the forces that brought about the worst financial and economic crisis in at least half a century and look at what can be done to prevent the next one.

Mr Legrain’s book is the zippier read. In just a few chapters, he outlines the forces that brought the world to the brink of a bust: a house-price bubble boosted by runaway mortgage lending in the rich world, particularly America, a lightly regulated global financial system that found ever-more creative ways to speculate on rising house prices, and macroeconomic policymaking that was far too laid back about the dangers posed by asset-price bubbles.

None of this is new. But Mr Legrain has a gift for combining big numbers that offer a sense of the scale of the global build-up in things like household debt while zeroing in on what all this means for people like Thorvaldur Thorvaldsson, a proudly left-wing Icelandic carpenter and unlikely sometime property speculator. This makes his book a particularly good survey of what made up the unpleasant cocktail which the world has yet to digest…

Both books say it would be folly to eliminate the benefits of a more open, globalised world—including vastly improved standards of living for millions in the emerging world—because of disgust with the depredations of the financial sector. Mr Legrain cites innovative, entrepreneurial and peripatetic Swedes and Indians to drive home his central thesis that both rich and emerging countries stand to gain from the latter’s increasing economic dynamism. In particular, he makes a strong pitch for the freer movement of people across borders. Both authors would also like institutions like the IMF to be reformed in such a way that would allow them to play a greater role in sorting out the macroeconomic imbalances that underlay the crisis.

Mr Rajan, however, was the fund’s chief economist when it tried, with little success, to get a serious conversation going on this matter. For that reason, perhaps, his book, excellent though it is, has less of a “can do” feeling about it than Mr Legrain’s. Despite that, both deserve to be widely read in a time when the tendency to blame everything on catch-all terms like “globalisation” is gaining ground.

Read the full review on The Economist’s website.

The human face of globalisation

The New Zealand that Mike Moore grew up in was an
insular place. “Even the humble spud was opposed by the merchants and
church in its day. A church leader railed against the potato as being a
dangerous narcotic, almost as bad as tea. The merchants and farmers
wanted to protect their profits… against this dangerous, competitive
new crop,” he writes in his latest book, “A Brief History of the
Future”. If New Zealand turned its back on the world, the world ignored
New Zealand. Ideas did not flow into or out of it. It produced wool,
not world leaders. Mr Moore, who takes over at the World Trade
Organisation on September 1st, has changed that.

Read more

Objection

On a recent trip to Tokyo, Charlene Barshefsky, America’s trade representative, gave her hosts a wigging. She demanded concessions, threatening sanctions if Japan did not reflate, deregulate and curb steel exports. The Japanese shrugged. They have come to expect fighting talk from the woman they call “Dragon Lady”.

Read more