The eagerly awaited rebuttal to queries raised by Lindsay Holder’s Barbados – A Cost Benefit Analysis of Immigration has been submitted. Here is the link to the PDF document titled Comments on Cost-Benefit Analysis Article.
Lindsay Holder Responds To Comments On Cost-Benefit Analysis Article
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
32 responses to “Lindsay Holder Responds To Comments On Cost-Benefit Analysis Article”
-
LH seems to have responded to the critics?
-
@LHolder
First, thanks for the responses. I have read them just one. I would like to avoid a lot of back and forth and I am going to focus on having interchanges with you (as author) and David (as blog moderator). That I feel will keep me focused on the substance of the original post.Second, the thrust of my questions was that the assumptions matter, and that for better understanding across a wider group it would have been useful to show what happens/could happen if the assumptions were changed. I can do a few in my head and they worsen or improve the outcomes you first presented in the newspapers and here. That was why earlier I thought that tabulating the results would make things much clearer than they appear in textual form.
Third, I have not considered the responses from the viewpoint of a trained economist, but just tried to apply certain principles of logic.
I will deal with your replies by paragraphs, then your concluding remarks.
1. I do not recall seeing 15,000 CARICOM immigrants worked into your scenarios. If I missed that, could you flag it for me (and I apologize beforehand if it is my simple oversight).
1/2. On casual observations, using Cheapside Market. I would find that more plausible if you said that this represented a good microcosm of Barbados at large. Because if it does not then no matter how good the observations you know you are not seeing something representative of the whole. In other words, I do not accept that what you see in Cheapside Market can simply be scaled up to give a good picture of what the country is going through. Put another way, I could focus my observations on SuperCentre in Sergeants Village (not necessarily over the same 1993 to now time span) and give you a very different casual observation. I could also do another thing, which is to recall what I saw in Barbados when I was here in 1989/90 and what I found when I came back in 2003 and what I then found when I came back again in 2006-2009.
Your leprosy analogy is flawed, to me. We could agree that leprosy had been eradicated. But when doctors see/diagnose patients with the disease over 6 months, we have questions to answer not clear conclusions to draw. We know that the disease still exists and is prevalent in nearby countries. So I think we ask questions such as: has the disease come back from persons who were not here previously, or had travelled and been in contact with infected persons? And we monitor. We have a new base line and some prelimiary observations but where does the line now go? You could find, say, that six months hence, after you have isolated the known cases, you have no more reported diagnoses.
3. I take your grabbing at a figure from Senator McLean, and I hope that if and when we get to see/hear of the comprehensive immigration policy that the government may give us (at least for a base line) a comprehensive set of data on the matter.
4. You merely restate your assumption of 20% of the immigrants being children. You say no actual figures exist but that it is ‘well known that children of school age… constitute…some of the immigrant population.” But how do you arrive at 20%? Discussing the conclusions after that assumption seems premature. You say that “the assumption relating to children was not critical to the analysis”. But it is critical to the question of pressure on resources, which you do discuss.
5. You say that 4.1% is applicable to the USA and then give reasons why that is actually not appropriate. Going back to my earlier points, I would think it better to work with realistic assumptions. If 4.1%/USA paradigm does not fit then take it off the table. Work with an assumption that is befitting and leave the conclusions to fall as they do/will. Why opt for an assumption which might ‘sugar coat’ the results? That much less useful as a starting point (akin to the debate on BWA rate increases, which I understand started at 140%, then 100%, then 60% applied). Let’s get to Happy Land by negotiation, if it’s a possible destination.
6. No comment.
7. No comment.
8. No problem with 1991 base year, which also has other good properties.
9. I would prefer to see this paragraph in the context of a more realistic assumption about unemployment.
In your closing, I do not think the word to use is ‘corroborate’ ( to support with evidence or authority : make more certain).
I sympathise with the cathartic process.
In the penultimate paragraph, I would draw a line from the sentence beginning “Those of you who sought to criticise…” The successive sentences include terms that I think are agreed to be offensive. I do not see that they have a place in a set of responses from someone on a professional level (at least not in public). I sincerely hope that if tomorrow you are faced with critics that this would not be the sort of oral response they should expect, whether you thing their criticisms are valid or not.
Your final paragraph is also partial, in the sense that you deal with pressure on social services, but arguments that I have seen on the pros and cons of immigration (illegal or otherwise) are based on much broader considerations. I think illegality in itself does not need the kind of analysis you have done, which I applaud. It begs for the application fully of laws already in existence. I have also argued from the outset that this aspect seems missing in the application of the (partial) immigration policy, and that can only make a bad situation worse, because it opens or keeps open a door that says “lawlessness is alright….follow me”.
I hope that helps.
-
I have a great deal of admiration for both Mr Holder and LIB. Mr Holder provided a wonderful framework for the analysis of the problem and LIB provided equally good criticisms of the framework.
LIB , I think that you should offer an alternative analysis based on what you think are more realistic assumptions.
The rest of us can then determine which set of assumptions we think are more realistic.
Some of us might even be eclectic and pick from both LIB and Mr Holder and come up with our own analyzes.
Let discussion continue.
-
Would have thought LH’s response would have elicited a response from George Brathwaite et al by now. It seems the critics are quick to punch holes in LH’s position but offer zero in alternatives. Except LIB of course!
-
well said david. unfortunately, i cannot oblige you on this occasion.
-
@Anonymous,
I have said before that I am no expert on immigration, but was a trained economist, and had worked as a public servant for several decades. I have looked at the analysis as I do with most things, trying to see whether I find the arguments convincing or not. Lindsay has taken on this subject in a detailed way, and I have commented before (on another thread) that he is to be applauded for that. The counter arguments we have had here still leave us in the uncomfortable position of doing something that government agencies should have done. In that sense we add to a fog that we have not created.I do not believe that more analyses are what is needed. My first issue was that a major piece of government policy was announced (amended amnesty) but seemed lacking in any concrete basis (no start point in term of numbers, and no indicative totals for accomlishment). We have since heard that the government is to announce a comprehensive policy, and most expected that to be available at end-July/beginning August.
What we are in danger of doing is putting a framework together that could offer a basis for the government’s policy that they have not done themselves. Lindsay’s foray is really a part of what I would have expected government to present, as part of a package to convince people why they were taking a particular direction.
As I said also earlier today, the government simply have said that it will apply fully the laws against illegal immigration, respecified those for good measure (to help the public understand) and gone its merry way. We would then have had (a) Immigration dealing with amensty applications (b) Immigration and Police and Tax Adminstration working to identify those who employed illegal immigrants, housed illegal immigrants, faciliated the entry and overstayin of illegal immigants, (c) public service facilities taking steps to clear identify users of services, separating out those who were truly eligible as nationals or legal immigrants, and those who were ineligible. I think that would have covered almost all of the supply and demand for illegal immigrants, and most people would have felt, I believe that this effort was well directed and also things were coordinated. That comprehensive approach to deal with something clearly at odds with the law and order of the country has been my starting point and remains my basic belief. The absence of data is one of the things that implies to me that the effort is either not well thought out or being haphazardly applied.
What is really very surprising to me is that I have not heard one goverment official comment on what Lindsay has done, even in the most general ot terms, to indicate whether or not it fits with their thinking. To someone who has worked on the advising of public decision makers that silence tells me volumes.
-
@David
I don’t think that people should be obligated to deal with these matters in a way other than they feel is right for them. I presume we all have priorities. It gives an impression that someone is being dilatory. Likewise, the author was not pressed to come back on comments in a speedy way initially. If I recall correctly a lot of comments passed before any public response from LHolder.In the same way commentators are not being bound here or elsewhere to provide ‘sensible comments only’, no tittle tattle.
I have my own standards, and others have theirs.
-
@LIB
George Brathwaite has been most vocal on stating he does not agree with LH’s CBA. Don’t you think it is logical he should equally be expected to put up or shut up?
-
LIB,
Do not expect analysis from the public servants. Most of them ,in spite of certification, cannot provide the type of framework that Mr Holder did.
On the matter of statistics, it is normal for policy to be made without evidence.
We seriously need a programme for the collection and dissemination of statistics.
The average persons including most politicians does not like or understand statistics.
Without evidence, talkers mostly public relation experts,lawyers,historians, sociologists, political scientists,etc flourish and analysts have to make assumptions about what the data are
-
@David
I would expect him to put up but he is free to do as he chooses. It’s not a competition. -
@Anon
All you say is true, but none of it is acceptable. I have a view when presented with the familiar Bajan “That’s how it is…” I say “No. That’s how you ALLOW it to be.” -
@LIB
Don’t state the obvious.
The context for our challenge to George stands. In his position as a budding academic he challenged LH about his CBA, what credibility can George project if he does not show his hand? He can get away with it on the talk shows with BLP sympathizers like Wendell Callender but he will not be so lucky on BU 🙂
-
“the average person ………does”
-
pre-PHD-GCB, inspite of his saying otherwise had hope that his academic standing/status would carry day for him to win the argument. He has set a very high standard for himself and others who would wish to do battle with him in the arena of ideas. I sense that he knows that he cannot win the argument against Holder and therefore seeks to hide behind academic responsibilties. Is it not amazing that he was the first and only one out of the gates with a response to Lindsay’s first article. He use the delivery of Lindsay CBA to mark his introduction to BU, bragging and berating me to start to engage him he is ready, while taking swipes at Lindsay. I sense that he had nothing, and had hope that Lindsay would cower in fear of his claim to know “something” about LH intentions etc. Now that LH has demonstrated that he would not be intimidated, and or silence, pre-PHD-GCB is claiming academic responsibilities is preventing him from engaging. I aint buying it.
-
David your comments as I infer represent some sort of challenge. Shame on you! My articles as I remember, hit BU before LH’s. Then when he did write, I responded. Only last week, I through this media, told BU and LH that I would provide a more detailed feedback time permitting. You are correct, I could put up or shut up. What I will do for sure, is to keep my priorities in order.
I do not need the assistance of ‘BLP sympathizers’ on talk shows to put a position. I am not a ‘budding academic’, I I have a BSs. with 1st Class honours, I hold a MPhil conducted within the set time frame, I hold a certificate in Research Methods, and I am at least half-way through my PhD. This apart I have presented at several conferences , to date I have minor publications and am currently working on at least two articles for publication within the coming year. All of this is not a boast, and these were achieved with some ‘credibility’. To reiterate my point, I will comment on LH’s analyses in time permitting. As LIH has stated, it is not a competition. My view may not be the popular; nevertheless, I am quite capable of substantiating anything I say or write. Thank you for the courtesies you have extended. If you are rushed for an analysis from me, please feel free to call me a wimp or any weakling that you so choose. I know exactly who I am and what I am capable of, your reassurance is not necessary. -
@George
In no way questioning your academic achievements. The use of budding was not used disparagingly, it is a compliment actually. Our position stands, if you are publicly going to challenge the LH CBA you must table valid rebuttals at the same time not to suffer credibility issues.
-
A little digression.
Why do persons with first class honours degrees need to do amasters/ Mphils before doing a doctorate.
I would think that a first class honours should get you straight in to a doctorate programme. To me it looks like a waste of time. A first class honours degree says that you have excelled academically.
-
@Anonymous
There are several routes that one must pass. Even if application is made directly to a PhD programme, one must still be registered at the master’s level and then go through the process of being upgraded to a PhD. Also, for the individual and because nothing is ever set in stone, and interests or circumstances may change over time, it is better to at least hold the second degree. In my case, all of these things played a part. My research interest at the master’s level concentrated on the Caribbean posture in international relations as it relates to its small size, sovereignty and power. At this stage, while those interests remain compelling arteries, my key focus is on the vexing situation of free movement of Caribbean Community nationals and its contribution to the deepening of regional integration. Also, the fact that I have completed a first research degree has better prepared me for the challenges of the PhD and it enhanced my choices to the extent that I was able to walk into my department in the Uk and teach. So as a matter of fact, pursuing the master’s was not “a waste of time,” it is an asset that I am happy with and it has enhanced my career potential. Finally, I enjoy research, I love what I do, and out of this, the key is to share my knowledge as much as possible. I know that there will be critics, there will be persons standing in the breach to dislodge me, but I stand my ground and remain true to myself knowing full well that I have a responsibility to Barbadians, the Caribbean, and to humanity.
-
@George
Given your focus of research and seemingly fixation(not a good word) on the movement of people as the key plank to pushing regional integration here is a question for you.
What importance do you place on a mechanism to settle monetary transactions? Can we truly have movement of people in Caricom without a mechanism to easily accommodate movement of capital and settlement of all financial transactions?
-
It is a valid question David and perhaps not the easiest to answer in the context of things. Mindful of this, I will point you to the OECS and ask, what lessons can we learn from them? Also, history will show that the region attempted such before with a clearing facility. However a recurrent problem plagued this action. In the region we are hesitant to implement, there are always reversals for one reason or the other, and for the most part many of the institutions that we do establish suffer from lack of capacity, hegemonic tendencies and hierarchies that are built around cliques that stifle the organisations from creativity and real growth. We voluntarily or involuntarily subscribe to many liberal tenets that encapsulate the global economy; perhaps none more so than the free mobility of factors of production although labour mobility has its inherent issues and preferences for the highly skilled. Why is it not a problem for big business and a web of professionals who traverse these islands reaping a wealth of money? In conclusion, many things are possible; the things we have to work out are how, for whose benefit, and at what pace? If negotiation and compromise are not part of the regional schedules then it is unlikely that there can be a positive answer to your very important question.
-
@David
I must state for the record, that while I am by virtue of my understanding pro-integrationist, I am by no means stating that “the movement of people” has to be or is “the key plank to pushing regional integration.” What I can say for the record, is that the securitisation of freedom of movement of Caribbean community nationals goes against the grain of deepening regional integration. I am suggesting that sooner or later, the region has to decide if it truly wants a deepening of regional integration because economic factors alone can only take you thus far and regional integration is much more complex.
-
“George C. Brathwaite said:
My key focus is on the vexing situation of free movement of Caribbean Community nationals and its contribution to the deepening of regional integration.”
—————————————-
Why are you only focused on the contributions & not the PITFALLS as well ?Doesn’t seem like a balanced view,imo.I think managed Skilled Free-movement should be up to the member states & not forced onto them by some tertiary institution.It comes off as being elitist & usurping the power from the people & Member state Governments,aka sovereignty.Technically,there is Free movement within Caricom.I believe most participating member states within CSME can travel to another member state without requiring a visa if they meet certain standards.That is my idea of ‘Free movement’,but most here whom promote there idea of ‘Free movement’ are talking about full unrestricted & PERMANENT immigration to member states is something imo,Caricom or its member states are simply not ready for in the single space,especially in Barbados.I think Caricom member states should implement a more conservative immigration policy at the Caricom level.The trigger for allowing certain categories of workers into member states would be based on the economic activity in a member state’s country such as an increased GDP per capita would work.
-
@Jay
Contributions can be positive or negative.
Your understanding of the free movement doctrine is not consistent with what occurs elsewhere nor what is defined in the literature. Maybe you are right on some of your points. Rather than guess if you are correct or wrong, I prefer to do the research and measurement, and come to a conclusion based upon what the data suggest. I cant see the connection you made about being forced by tertiary institution, appears a non-point. -
Submitted on 2009/08/11 at 3:39am
@Jay
Contributions can be positive or negative.
Your understanding of the free movement doctrine is not consistent with what occurs elsewhere nor what is defined in the literature. Maybe you are right on some of your points. Rather than guess if you are correct or wrong, I prefer to do the research and measurement, and come to a conclusion based upon what the data suggest. I cant see the connection you made about being forced by tertiary institution, appears a non-point.@George Brathwaite
The above quote is instructive.
Why do you not apply this approach to determining the importance of building a settlement mechanism? How can we have free movement of people and no focus on how settlement for trade and other monetary driven transactions are done? Shouldn’t people of your view be using the quoted methodology to build CBA’s as to how a regional integration model can proceed successfully without a parallel market to absorb settlement? It makes ordinary people feel there is an agenda about regarding free movement or the actors are simpletons.
-
I also have my bias in favour of free movement of labour, capital, etc, but countries contemplating free movement must determine as best they can, if free movement would be harmful or beneficial. This is why I like the CBA approach.
-
Hello All,
The purpose of my initial Cost-Benefit Analysis was to highlight the problems or potential problems that Barbados, or any host country for that matter, faces or could face in the presence of unchecked immigration. Using rough estimates, I sought to demonstrate that immigrants were undertaking useful jobs in the construction and agriculture sectors, as well as in the ‘other services’ sector that should capture activity in the underground economy.Despite the contributions made by some immigrants in Barbados, I also sought to demonstrate that if the number of immigrants exceeds some given number, then Barbados would be confronted with some problems or potential problems. It is important to note that the number of immigrants could only exceed some given number, or loosely put be too large, if there is some degree of illegal immigration. This is the case since if the process was managed well, then the end result should be one where the number of immigrants accepted and placed in jobs would be approximately equal to the excess demand for workers. The spouses and children of those immigrants, if allowed to enter the country, would, under standard protocols, be granted legal or documented status and should therefore qualify for access to some social services.
I used as my upper limit the figure of 30,000 immigrants, and based on that figure I demonstrated that some of the immigrants would experience unemployment or underemployment or that some would be engaged in unlawful activities. If children of some of the immigrants, documented or un-documented, were also living illegally in Barbados, then there would be the additional problem that the bulk of those children would not be attending school.
In the context of my analysis, I have not sought to make a distinction between the negative impact of having many unemployed immigrants and the negative impact of having the un-documented children of immigrants not being educated. If you want to be stylistic, or delve further into the issue, you can assign different weights (levels of importance) to the two problems. Note that the primary point I sought to make was that a host country would not be doing itself any good by having a large number of immigrants unemployed or by having a situation where the children of some immigrants did not have access to education.
The problem of unemployment among un-documented immigrants is a serious one that should be addressed, in all cases, as soon as possible. If allowed to persist, then it would become more difficult for the Government to repatriate the unemployed un-documented immigrants. If after considerable time has elapsed and the latter option is not feasible, then the Government would have no choice than but to regularize the status of the undocumented immigrants and their children. Note, however, that regularization of their status would not make them employed overnight, and thus the problem of unemployment would still be there. The only immediate benefit of regularization of status would be that the children should qualify for access to education and the immigrants would qualify for some social services, even though at a cost to the Government and Barbadian taxpayers.
As an aside, one should note that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the recently announced amnesty is to address the problem as outlined above.
Various comments were made about the assumptions I used in the initial article, and in my recent submission of comments I demonstrated that if we approached the issue from another perspective the conclusions were the same. That perspective was to determine the number of jobs created in Barbados between 1991 and 2007, and to show that, if in fact there were 30,000 CARICOM immigrants in Barbados in 2007, most of them were un-documented and a substantial number of them were unemployed or underemployed or engaged in unlawful activities.
The focus of comments on my assumptions is therefore misplaced. I have used two approaches, and have arrived at the same basic conclusions. As I stated in my first article, the overriding issue is the total number of immigrants. I have chosen to accept the figures presented by Senator Maxine McClean; those of you who do not, then identify an alternative.
With regard to my observations over fifteen years at the Cheapside Market, those are my observations and I stand by them. Different people may have the same observations based on other locations, or they may have different ones. My detailed and overall analyses are consistent with my observations. Other individuals should carry out similar analyses and come to some conclusions.
With regard to LIB’s comments posted at 5.23 p.m. on 10th August, even though the policies and institutional framework he highlighted are desirable, one must recognize that the current Government has only been in office for approximately nineteen months. In the absence of the policies and framework, it does not mean that the Government should not take action to correct what it perceives to be a problem. It is, however, desirable, and perhaps necessary, that the policies and framework that LIB highlighted be put in place by the end of the year.
With regard to the comments of George Brathwaite that were posted recently, I am at a lost with regard to most of them. I have used the tools and analysis that almost any experienced economist would apply to the issue, and quotations form various authors are not sufficient to refute my analysis.
With regard to a few specific points raised by Mr. Brathwaite, the first I wish to address is the statement that ‘liberalization of markets have often led to noticeable decreases in unit costs.’ The major situation in which you get decreases in unit costs is that of the generation of economies of scale in production. The immigrant situation in Barbados has nothing to do with economies of scale in production; it has been restricted solely to the importation of labour. Also, economists know that wages are sticky downwards, and thus the importation of labour has not had any significant impact on labour costs. The only activities in which there would have been some significant reduction in labour costs were those where the immigrants were un-documented and were being exploited by their employers. From an ethical perspective, we have accepted that such behaviour is not desirable. From the fair competition perspective, such behaviour is not acceptable.
With regard to the ageing population of Barbados, we all do accept that if that problem is to be addressed then birth rates must increase or some use must be made of immigrant labour. Accepting that some use must be made of immigrant labour, it does not mean that you should have an open door immigration policy. As in countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, you implement a well formulated immigration policy that facilitates the immigration of those deemed acceptable and that rejects those deemed unacceptable.
Lastly, nowhere in both of my analyses have I discussed the issue of remittances to justify any of my conclusions. Quite frankly, the fact that Mr. Brathwaite raised the issue of remittances is the best example that he and some others do not understand cost-benefit analysis. Benefits and costs are measured using a numeraire, and that unit of account can be foreign exchange. For some benefits and costs the official foreign exchange rate is used, and for others the official rate adjusted to take into account taxes on imports is used. The adjusted rate is known as the Standard Conversion Factor. When the outlined approach is used, remittances are taken into account indirectly. The point is that the focus is never on remittances.
-
Lindsay Holder
Have you been hearing the licks shridath ramphal is getting?
Licks like fire!
From peter wickham,dennis kellman,from callers,and I am just waiting to see if the government is not going to make a public statement in protest of those ethnic cleansing remarks.
-
@Lindsay
With all due respect and admiration (this time), I see this last posting as more in tune with what I would have expected from you. While I am yet to be convinced in some areas, I find this latest response to be sober reading and a well-reasoned demonstration to defend your arguments under the circumstances. I believe that it is an issue worth pursuing all of the different perspectives and possibilities. For the time being, I shall limit my comment but I am sure to follow the progress of all sides of what has to be a complex issue.
-
MUBB,
No, I have not been keeping up. I have been trying to finish a couple of small assignments as well as accomplish some personal tasks.But, what I would say is that it is refreshing that other Barbadians have taken up the cudgel against Sir Shridath Ramphal.
Let us wait and see how the Government responds.
-
George Brathwaite,
Thank you, but note that I have not strayed from my initial conclusions.Like you I am not anti-immigrant and I am pro integration. However, integration is a difficult task when the two largest countries, Guyana and Jamaica, both of which have a good natural resource base, have severe economic difficulties. Under normal circumstances those two countries should be at the forefront of the integration effort by creating opportunities for individuals from the smaller countries.
Note that Trinidad and Tobago, the wealthiest CARICOM member state, has been guarding its resources. We all know that lack of investment is a major problem for Guyana, but I am not aware of any major proposals from T&T to invest in that country.
-
What nonsense is this Living In Barbados is talking about? What comprehensive data? What is the threshold – economic or social – for illegal immigrants? And who the hell is Denis Jones to determine whether his judgement over statistics is to be accepted?
Barbadians elected a government in 2008 to govern and the party that was elected was elected on a particular platform which included controlling illegal immigration. And that they must do.
If there is one illegal immigrant here, it is one too many.
That is my view.
-
Hear,hear,Veritas.
Please let the P.M. know that we are concerned that he has gone soft on the immigration issue and guyanese are now boasting they are not going back since the meeting of the heads,and we are not seeing or hearing about any more deportations or removals.
The people need to know and see that this is happening.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.