Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World

Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World (titled Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century for its UK release) is a 2013 book by development economist Paul Collier about the way migration affects migrants as well as the countries that send and receive the migrants, and the implications this has for development economics and the quest to end poverty. It was published by Oxford University Press. Collier's book focuses on the challenges posed by the nexus of immigration and multiculturalism, and also claims that brain drain is one of the main, often overlooked, drawbacks of migration.

Reception

Reviews

Writing for The Guardian, Colin Kidd called the book "a humane and sensible voice in a highly toxic debate." Ian Birrell also reviewed the book for The Guardian, writing: "Given the evidence, Paul Collier's lively study of mass migration paints a curiously bleak picture of the future." Rupert Edis reviewed the book for The Telegraph, calling it "[a] frank dissection of the costs and benefits of immigration." David Goodhart reviewed the book for The Sunday Times, calling it a "hard-headed book that assesses the effect of the brain drain from poor countries to richer ones." Melanie McDonagh reviewed the book for The Spectator.

Robert Putnam, Malkin Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University reviewed the book saying: "Magisterial. Paul Collier offers a comprehensive, incisive, and well-written balance sheet of the pros and cons of immigration for receiving societies, sending societies, and migrants themselves. For everyone on every side of this contentious issue, Exodus is a must-read."

Robert Zoellick, Former President of the World Bank Group, U.S. Trade Representative, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State stated about the book "Paul Collier has done it again. Exodus is his latest effort to subject taboo topics to straightforward questions that most other scholars shrink from asking. This time Collier considers the effects of migration on the departing peoples' new homes, their old homes, and the emigrants themselves. Collier's framework for thinking about the topic is valuable; his explanation of past research is insightful; and his agenda for further studies displays his aptitude for considering big topics while pressing for detailed research. Moreover, he courageously interconnects different fields of scholarship-addressing problems that don't fit neatly into academic categories. This book is a true achievement."

Ravi Mattu reviewed the book for Financial Times, concluding by writing: "Prof Collier’s is a voice to which it is worth paying attention. His book could be better written but this grandson of an immigrant is asking important questions about one of the world’s most pressing issues." A review of the book was also published in The Economist, concluding with the statement: "the tone of “Exodus” is problematic. Mr Collier finds endless objections to a policy—more or less unlimited immigration—that no country has adopted. In the process, he exaggerates the possible risks of mobility and underplays its proven benefits."

Dalibor Rohac reviewed the book for the London School of Economics review of books, writing: "The risks that Collier attributes to immigration are thus driven by domestic policies of host countries – specifically, by their overly generous welfare assistance given to immigrants and a misguided notion of multiculturalism. And on that front, the book disappoints. Although the author is correct to advocate a greater integration of diasporas and a legalisation of illegal immigrants as guest workers, he fails to offer a more radical rethink of the West’s redistribution systems. But, as the late economist William Niskanen was fond of saying, cracking the immigration problem will require building a wall around the welfare state, not around our countries."

British commentator Kenan Malik reviewed the book extensively on his own blog. A short version of the review appeared in The Independent.

Dilip Ratha, lead economist at the World Bank reviewed the book on the World Bank's People Move blog, calling the recommendations in Collier's book "reckless" and concluding thus: "Collier could have been commended for a courageous, head-on discussion of difficult questions related to immigration. Instead, he will be noted for a lazy, selective, self-serving citation of the literature and reckless policy recommendations." Dilip Ratha instead recommends the removal of border controls to increase migration.

Michael Clemens and Justin Sandefur of the Center for Global Development (a Washington D.C.-based think tank) reviewed the book for the January/February 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs. They noted that many of Collier's conclusions were unsupported by research, and concluded as follows: "Collier laments the fact that the immigration debate has been marked by “high emotion and little knowledge.” That is true, yet Exodus exemplifies the problem. This book could have seriously engaged with the large literature on immigration and helped people without Collier’s training and position think through the complexities of the issue. Instead, Collier has written a text mortally wounded by incoherence, error, and overconfident leaps to baseless conclusions."

The book was reviewed in multiple blog posts by Nathan Smith and Paul Crider for Open Borders: The Case. Smith wrote in his first response post: "It is pretty strong on the economics, and while I find Collier’s ethical attitudes weird, repugnant, and indefensible, they serve as a useful window on the way a lot of people think. [...] If Collier sets the standard that future restrictionist writings will be expected to live up to, the quality of public discourse about immigration will be vastly improved." He contrasted the book favorably with Victor Davis Hanson's book Mexifornia, and also praised Collier for engaging and responding to open borders as a position rather than arguing purely in relation to the status quo. Crider concluded his review by writing: "One can clearly see that Collier isn’t a hardcore restrictionist. He even suggests legalizing immigrants as guest workers, partly as a way to reduce the costs of having large numbers of immigrants living in the shadows. Some of the policies proposed here are rather coercive, and limit the very freedoms of movement and association that form the core of my open borders position, yet they are similar in spirit to some of the keyhole policies discussed elsewhere on this site. [...] It is perhaps a sobering assessment of the state of world migration policy that, if Collier’s favored policies were implemented globally, it would represent an improvement on the status quo.

Foseti reviewed the book on his/her own blog.

Other mentions

Economist Bryan Caplan argued that Collier's discussion of diaspora dynamics strengthened the case for open borders by reducing fears of swamping: large levels of migration could occur while the initial level of migration might still be sufficiently small.