Restricting Social Mobility Equals Poverty

Economist Bill Easterly commenting on the incidences of ghost towns in the US makes a point where restriction of social mobility leads to impoverishment.

I quote Bill Easterly, (bold highlights mine)

What if we had a law that everybody had to stay in their home state? What if North Dakotans had to stay in North Dakota despite the collapsing economy there? Then wages would collapse and we would have very poor North Dakotans. Happily no one would dream of such a stupid law. Instead we have middle class North Dakotans moving to other places voluntarily, where employers want to hire them voluntarily. And so (former) North Dakotans stay middle class.

For states…but not for countries. We treat migration usually as a non-option if Zambia has an economic decline, so Zambians stay there and get even poorer as the economy declines.

This is the great point made by Lant Pritchett in a classic article and in a CGD book. Why can’t we start treating Zambians like North Dakotans? If their home economy is declining, let them move to other places voluntarily, where employers want to hire them voluntarily. Why do we recognize the right to live wherever you want for North Dakotans and not for Zambians?

I guess the Philippines should be a worthy example.

Had many of our countrymen (kababayan) been prohibited from finding greener pastures around the globe, then we’d be worst off economically considering the relatively unfree political and economic environment that continues to beleaguer us.

That’s why anyone who claims that the exodus of people results to “brain drain” is no less than prescribing poverty for us.

Regional share of Philippine remittances (ADB)

Bottom line:

Freedom should encompass people’s mobility or to move around or migrate in accordance with their perceived interests.

We should allow people to come in, in as much as to go out. Where free markets is about voting with money on products and services, freedom of movement is about voting with the feet.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold highlights mine)

The principles of freedom, which have gradually been gaining ground everywhere since the eighteenth century, gave people freedom of movement. The growing security of law facilitates capital movements, improvement of transportation facilities, and the location of production away from the points of consumption. That coincides, not by chance, with a great revolution in the entire technique of production and with drawing the entire earth's surface into world trade, The world is gradually approaching a condition of free movement of persons and capital goods. A great migration movement sets in. Many millions left Europe in the nineteenth century to find new homes in the New World, and sometimes in the Old World also. No less important is the migration of the means of production: capital export. Capital and labor move from territories of less favorable conditions of production to territories of more favorable conditions of production.