What is wrong with referendums vol 2: Brexit

In a previous post I discussed some of the problems with referendums. Brexit referendum had it's share of issues. I'll discuss here two of these.

Restricted categories of voters

First, it violated the principle that everyone who has large stakes in the process can have a say. Two groups that are most affected by British EU membership and it's potential termination are the EU citizens living in UK, and UK citizens living on the continent. Unfortunately, these two groups had limited voting opportunites. British expats can only vote up to 15 years after leaving the UK, and Non-British EU citizens (except Irish, Maltese, and Cypriots) were excluded by a political decision. Maybe exaggerating a bit, but one may say that only those who weren't using the EU provided free movement were deciding it's fate.

In a broader sense it is a common situation: migrants usually cannot vote (despite paying taxes) in their new host countries, and often find it hard or impossible to vote in their countries of origin as well, so migration-related policies are decided by people who are not moving. This is partly because of design, insiders are keen to keep their exclusive rights, but partly due to insiders' inherently better knowledge and better networks.

No positive question

Second, the referendum asked a "negative" question—there was little indication what will happen in case "leave" wins. If "stay" had won, the answer had been simple—more of the same. But leavers had no positive program, and one can argue that leave voters may have voted for very different and incompatible ideas.

One of the central issue with the Brexit referendum was lack of any positive program. Two years later, the UK government is still debating what does "Leave the European Union" mean.

If one disregards the slight margin, one can still argue that leaving the EU was "will of the people". However, one cannot extend this claim to any particular type of Brexit, or to any particular reason, such as immigration. These claims are either based on polls or some other kind of interpretation. But polls and interpretations are just that—polls and interpretation—and not the "will of the people".

It looks like Britons have currently at least two incompatible "wills". Because of the slight margin and blurred options, the referendum gave a mandate not for leaving the EU, but to bring the UK and EU relationship back to the drawing board. This may mean leaving the EU but that should be a different decision, taken years later, and including a positive program for what will happen in that case.

What is Wrong with Referendums? A Reply to Geert Wilders

Recently (2015-11-19) Geert Wilders published an article in New York Times arguing that Europe should hold national referendums on immigration policy. But referendums are not necessarily fair, nor are they the ultimate form of democracy. Referendums have two problems: first, only insiders can vote, even on questions that largely concerns outsiders. Second, everyone has a single vote of equal weight, even in case where the importance of the outcome differs widely.

Who Can Vote?

Current "universal" voting is limited to "insiders", those who are either confined to a certain territory, or possess a certain legal status. In case of national referendums, these are typically citizens of the country; in local referendums these may be residents of a city. Outsiders cannot participate, even when voting over issues that have major consequences for them. This violates a central pillar of democracy, the ability to influence decisions that affect you.

A referendum over immigration policies is just such an example. Unless potential immigrants also participate, we cannot talk about universal democratic decision. Similar issues arise when neighborhood residents vote for restrictive zoning laws. The potential "immigrants" to the neighborhood who are adversely affected cannot participate because they are not residents. The Greek referendum of 2015 shared similar traits: only Greek citizens were voting over a decision that involved most of the EU.

Greek 2015 referendum ballot. The referendum had several problems, only Greek citizens voting over a pan-European decision was perhaps it's most serious flaw.

How Big Is the Vote?

Another problem with referendums is the "size" of vote. Traditionally, everyone has a single vote. This is true even if different people have very different stakes in the question. In this way the majority can always outvote a minority. For instance, in many places the majority may outlaw homosexuality. The Swiss minaret law is an outcome of a referendum that was flawed in this way. I don't know how many Muslims and non-Muslims actually care about minarets, but I can imagine it is a far less important issue for non-Muslims. But they could easily muster a majority. As an extreme example, imagine that Hitler put Nuremberg Laws, the Nazi laws that robbed Jews of their rights, on a national referendum. Would we consider the outcome democratic? Analogously, potential migrants may outvote the whole EU if given an equal weight.

Solutions

Unfortunately, these two problems cannot easily be corrected. Although it is not fair to exclude outsiders from decision–making, and give equal say for those with unequal stakes, we cannot calculate the fair vote size. Referendum is justified when the electorate has roughly equal stakes and outsiders are little affected. If this is not the case, one should not call for a referendum.

Instead, we may strive toward inclusive representative bodies that also involve outsiders. In case of the current refugee crisis it should include representatives from both EU, and refugee origin and transition countries. Such conferences, potentially meeting regularly, would ensure that insiders have more rights but outsiders will also have a say.

Common Arguments Against Hosting Refugees Do Not Justify Strict Immigration Policy: Help some if you cannot help them all

Three everyday arguments against granting asylum for refugees are "we cannot help everyone", "refugees should be hosted in their neighboring countries", and "we don't want economic migrants". All these claims make a point, but none of these can be used to justify a strict asylum policy. Below, I mainly take the European view but the arguments also apply for other developed economis like the Australia and Israel, and for the middle-income countries, such as Brazil or Dubai as well.

*

A common argument against granting asylum is that there is a too large number of potential immigrants outside the European borders. As we "we cannot help everyone out there", we should keep our borders firmly closed. Otherwise, the rising human flood will flush away both us and our culture. But this argument is fighting a strawman. Accepting some asylum seekers does not imply we have to open borders for all the potential immigrants. We should think about doing our "fair share", not that we have to help everyone. If EU accepts, say, a million refugees, that is a million humans whose lives are improved. And this is a good thing. One can draw a parallel with other calamities here, many survived holocaust exactly because there were people who were willing to help just a few. If you improve the life of someone, this is a life improved, however large is the number of those you cannot help. Another, more pragmatic reason is that by moving some people out of crowded refugee camps in poor regions we lower the pressure both on the camps and on the regions. Indirectly we help the others.

Water tank in al Zaatari refugee camp. Providing water and sanitation for thousands over extended period is a major logistical challenge and may need a substantial infrastructure put in place.

By Mustafa Bader (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

I agree that the preferred location for displaced people is close to their region of origin. From there it is easier to go back once the fighting is over, and cultural similarity helps too. But geographic and cultural proximity is just one piece in the enormous logistic challenge. There are many more variables that matter, in particular the availability of jobs and infrastructure to host a large number of people. Conflicts often occur in poor areas were neighbors can offer little besides a similar language. And countless examples show that cultural similarity is no obstacle for killing. Neighbors often do their fair share. Lebanon (4.5M inhabitants) hosts 1.2 million Syrian refugees. 500 million strong EU is far better able to provide the living necessities for a million newcomers. Poor neighbors' help is necessary. But without proper housing, sanitation, jobs and schools, and the conflict lasting for decades, the tent camps are not a solution.

The last major famine in Europe, the Irish Potato Famine, led to a substantial increase of emigration to the U.S.

By James Mahony [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Finally, I don't see a clear difference between refugees and economic migrants. Sure, we have to spend our limited ressources on those who deserve it most. But often poverty is accompanied with fighting, and famine may be even more deadly than war. I would suggest to introduce an immigration lottery, similar to the US green card lottery where everyone may try their luck. Give those who are fleeing war and desperation a substantially better chance to be granted access, but give the others an opportunity too. In this way we avoid drawing too strict lines between humans, and too much desperation among those who were left out.

*

We can do things the poor regions cannot. We should help some even if we cannot help everyone.

Mediterranean Migration Crisis: Do Not Blame the Smugglers...

The recent disasters in the Mediterranean have brought immigration and human trafficking to the top of European agenda. EU has responded with a predictable face–lifting proposals—promising to
triple the maritime patrols and tackle the issue "at its root", by attacking human traffickers, and by improving the border policing of the African states (in particular Libya).

But this is not the root of the problem. The main underlying problem is the world inequality, both in humanitarian and economic sense. Too many people are living in a desperate situation, be it because of threat to their lives, or lack of opportunities in the place where they happen to live. And for these people, the smugglers are simply the least bad of the available options.

I stress this again---the traffickers are the best available option for hundreds of thousands of migrants. All these people hope that the traffickers help them to escape death and poverty, and to fulfill their dreams of a better life. They are willing to pay an amount, comparable to the price of Europe-US return flight in business class. What they get for it is a 90-percent chance to cross 200km of sea in a crowded wreckage. Remember also that these people cannot just save this money from their paycheck over a few months, for many of them it amounts to years' of savings. This should remind us what scale of human suffering is out there behind our borders, how desperate are refugees, and what is the role of the smugglers.

This is not to say that the smugglers should not be blamed at all. They still must treat their "customers" in a humane manner. They should inform the migrants about the dangers and opportunities of the trip. They must keep their promises. Slaughtering selected people because of religion or other reasons is plainly criminal. Smugglers should also follow minimal safety and navigation standards. But these problems can be addressed by training, regulation and oversight of the smuggling industry, not by airstrikes. Or even better—by opening a regular ferry line that adheres to the accepted safety rules.

The initiative to improve the border patrolling and crack down the human trafficking in African countries is more like outsourcing the border guarding jobs further away to forces with more dubious human rights record than the European ones. It will not help with the underlying problems, and it will increase human suffering by leaving hundreds of thousands in a desperate situation without the best option to escape they have had up to now. To really address the root cause would mean to ameliorate world inequality, and to pacify Middle-East. This is far beyond what EU (or anyone else) can realistically hope. Unfortunately, the simple and realistic alternative—open the borders to substantially more refugees—will enjoy very little popular support.

So, dear politicians, I understand very well that tackling the root of the problem is simply a fantasy. I also know that the voters do not let you to take any available steps either. But you still can use the right words: Our response will be to build a stronger fence. Because suffering further from our borders is not our problem.

Public Goods Provision as an Anti-Immigration Argument?

The public goods game is an explanation to why so often too little is done to promote the common cause. The idea itself is very simple. Imagine we have several players. Everyone can decide how much resources to put into the "common pot". Next, the content of the pot is multiplied (by a number less then the number of players) and distributed evenly back to all the players. Obviously, the best solution for everyone were to invest a lot and gain back even more. Unfortunately, for every dollar I invest, I receive back less than one (although I receive a slice of what the others have invested). Hence, a rational selfish player will not invest anything at all and solely free-ride on the others investments. As experiments indicate, the people around us are not quite that bad, but most will still devote less than optimal amount of resources for the public good.
Now imagine that instead of players, we have countries. The common pot are the public goods, such as crime prevention or public highways. Voters in every country are free to pay taxes and build up such public goods. But afterwards, they are also free to move to whichever country they want. What would rational voters do? First, they would pay no taxes, and second, they will move to the country with best amenities. Sounds like the public goods game, right?
However, for the analogy to work, the public goods must be non-excludable -- it must be hard to avoid free-riding on the taxpayers bill. However, from the viewpoint of immigration, many public goods, usually given as examples of non-excludable goods, are actually excludable. This includes highways (can be financed by fuel taxes), social security (can be made conditional on some sort of contribution period) and public schools (if immigrants can be taxes, this money can by used for constructing new schools). If population growth (not just through immigration) is slow enough, and newcomers pay taxes, you can expand all of the above examples. The excludability originates from the fact that governments can tax the (potential) users, and expand the supply through this source of funding. Note that you still may have a conflict between rather rich locals and poor immigrants, each preferring a different level and variety of goods.
What cannot be easily expand include some sort of inherently limited resources one cannot produce at all, such as minerals, arable land, but also street space in a busy downtown. Although these are public goods as well, the public goods game as described above does not directly apply for these (another one, called "tragedy of commons", does). There is also a type of amenities which are non-excludable even in case of countries and governments. This includes information, environment protection, and other stuff for which national borders play no role.
In conclusion, free-riding on public goods provided by locals is a valid but possibly quite weak argument against liberal immigration policy. Strength of it depends on the degree to which the immigrant population can be taxed, i.e. whether immigrants are in legal employment.
Note also that there are more ways immigration and public goods provision are related. For instance, studies find that more diverse population leads to less public goods provision, possibly through low level of solidarity in heterogeneous society. That's a different story, however.