July 08, 2004

Supply and Demand Immigration

By Bob_Dudley

Today I was flipping through the channels on my radio when I stumbled across Bill O’Reilly discussing the porous border between the United States and Mexico. He offered a solution to the “problem” (whether or not it is actually a problem is another blog in itself). Mr. O’Reilly’s suggestion is that California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas use their National Guard forces to patrol the border. He continued on saying that within a few months so many people will get caught that the “coyotes” who smuggle paying customers over land will no longer be able to charge high prices based on guaranteed success. Those high prices are what ensure that there are many “coyotes” in business. If the success is no longer guaranteed, the argument goes, prices will drop, “coyotes” will go out of business, and illegal immigration will decrease substantially. What about smuggling people over water? Bill says that it’s not efficient enough so no one will resort to it on a large scale. Using economics, the border would be secure if we simply take Bill’s advice. Right?
Unfortunately O’Reilly has failed to take into account the fact there will still be millions of people who want to cross the border. Think of immigration as a market. Safe border-crossings are the commodity, “coyotes” are the suppliers, and those who wish to come into America are the buyers. The National Guard may reduce the amount of safe crossings that are produced in the short-run. However, given the huge demand for safe crossing, “coyotes” are more likely to innovate new ways to sneak across undetected than they are to quit altogether. Furthermore, while I have extremely little knowledge of oceanic smuggling operations (about as much as O’Reilly, I’d guess), I know that if the price people are willing to pay is high enough, someone will figure out how to make it worth the costs. Remember, 70 years ago commercial air travel was thought to be unfeasible too.
Trying to reduce the incidence of a specific transaction, if both parties are voluntary participants, is pretty darn close to impossible. We can see that fact in the market for illicit drugs. America has focused on reducing the supply of drugs. Yet considering the quantity of the resources devoted to stopping the supply, most experts would agree that we don’t capture even half of the drugs that are sold in America (I believe 10%-15% is a more accurate estimate). Similarly, even if we reduce the supply of safe border-crossings we have done nothing to decrease the desire of people to enter the United States. Mr. O’Reilly falls prey to the assumptions that most politicians and pundits succumb to: a fundamental misunderstanding of the incentives that regulation creates. I suspect that “coyotes” will probably always have newer, smarter ways to deliver their goods because they have a keen financial interest in doing so. Maybe we should pay Border Patrolmen extra for each illegal border crossing they prevent. It might be more effective. At the very least it’s a more interesting debate.

Posted at July 8, 2004 03:45 PM

Comments

We could give Mexico 10 billion a year in aid, and subtract one thousand dollars for each illegal caught in the United States.

We could deport illegals to South America instead of back home, to increase the cost of being captured.

Comment by John Doe at July 9, 2004 07:22 PM | Permalink

O'Reilly got the price effect wrong. But making it riskier
(harder) to get into this country wouldn't that cause the price to rise?

Since fewer "coyotes" would be willing to engage in this far riskier scenario, the supplier of the good would decrease. As Bob pointed out, people still want to get into the US. Thus only the very best firms (smugglers) would be left in the market and they can command an above average price right? This strikes me as akin to organized crime here in the US. Just because murder is a crime doesn't mean you can off a guy for $5.

Comment by Ryan Mariner at July 12, 2004 06:08 PM | Permalink

Increasing patrols would increase the cost of entering the US. While this will not eliminate border crossings, won't the higher cost of entry reduce immigration?

The point of the current drug war strategy is to increase street prices to the point that more people will choose not to buy.

While it may be that these strategies are less efficient than others we could postulate, it is still true that higher prices reduce consumption. Although, if I were the one to make policy decisions, I would focus on driving prices down through reduced demand, rather than on reducing demand through higher prices, but that is easier said than done.

Comment by Rob at July 12, 2004 06:29 PM | Permalink

I like John Doe's suggestion. Give the mexican government the incentive to stop this. They might be in a better position to. Besides, if Mexico's economy grows, there'll be fewer people wanting to cross.

Comment by Pets at December 24, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink

salut

Comment by MEGHAZAOUI Hadj djilali at January 12, 2005 11:31 AM | Permalink

Post a Comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style):

Note: You may have to reload to see your comment.


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/125