- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
President William Ruto says change aims to boost trade and allow goods, services, people and ideas to move freely across continent
You must log in or register to comment.
The concept of open borders for work and tourism works very well for the EU (imo) - I think this is a good thing.
It’s not been all great for Eastern Europe. Freedom of movement contributed to the massive brain drain plaguing former communist countries. But IIRC Kenya has a strong regional economy so they’re positioning themselves to be on the “good” end of increased workforce mobility.
Personally I think more freedom is a good thing despite those drawbacks, but also it’s easy for me to say as a Western European.
That’s not a problem of the open borders though. That’s an issue with the countries themselves.
The newly elected post-communist democratic Polish legislature could not reasonably be accused of running their country into the ground. Yet brain drain following the fall of the Iron Curtain was (and is) a real problem because it harms the country in a very real way. Eastern Europe is still paying for decades of autocratic communist rule, and looser border restrictions are certainly one contributing factor to the brain drain that continues to harm Eastern European countries (which leads to continued brain drain, which leads to a worse performing economy… you get the gist). There’s a reason the USSR forbid essentially all migration from East to West across the Iron Curtain.
From an individual perspective moving to a richer country makes sense, I’d do the same, but from a macroeconomic perspective this traps less developed nations in a vicious circle of brain drain leading to less economic development leading to brain drain (and more develpped nations in a vicious circle of de-industrialization).
I do not claim that this means that we should close down borders, as I still value individual freedoms quite highly and am generally pro-EU, but that should not prevent us from recognizing the very concrete downsides of those policies as well.
I see where you’re coming from and I don’t disagree. I just have a hard time telling people where they can and can’t go. I have no idea how we’d deal with both ends of this issue
Governments and big companies create strong incentives for the types of workers the country needs.
The problem can be solved by billionaires spending their money, just like every other problem in the world.
If that’s what we’re waiting for then we’re gonna be here for a long time…
I imagine there is a balance if the countries both have people-friendly policies and it is just the development status that differs. People choose where to live on quality of life, not income; income is only one factor. Lower costs of living work in favour of people staying / moving to that country, but low incomes work the other way.
I imagine in low average quality of life countries people benefit from mobility (companies there are competing with not just local companies, but the option of moving somewhere else), but local companies have to reduce their profits. In high average quality of life countries, high mobility negatively impacts local people (they are competing in a race to the bottom with people from other countries) and helps local companies (they can lower wages). Since there are winners and losers either way, I’d personally rather policy globally be optimised for people over companies, and helping have nots over helping haves - which means opening borders to help the people in lower average quality of life countries.
Except that the flow from poor countries to rich ones isn’t constant.
In the USA, internal migrations have gone to relatively poor states for various reasons, including better economic opportunity. It wouldn’t be hard to see that shift occurring in a less developed EU nation.
We’d probably need a degree in economics to model this, but intuitively I’d think it’s both a matter of relative difference in wealth being much smaller between Cali & Louisiana than between Germany&Romania, as well as the absolute living conditions being much better in Louisiana than Romania.
There’s poor, and there’s poor. Nowhere in the US or Western Europe is even remotely poor like post-communist Romania was poor. That changes the game a lot when deciding where to live and work.
Let’s compare GDP per capita. These are just basic numbers I pulled from Google.
Bay Area/New Orleans = $89,978 (2017) / $52,535 (2017) = 1.71
Frankfurt/Bucharest = $55,200 (2020) / $39,200 (2020) = 1.41
So the San Francisco Bay Area has a higher income disparity compared to Greater New Orleans than Frankfurt has to Bucharest. Maybe there is an absolute number that people target, but the relative difference is much worse in the USA.
Lmao Frankfurt is not to Germany what the Bay area is to Cali. The Bay Area is so ridiculously overpriced it tops the worldwide charts.
Comparing at a country/state level, Louisiana-Cali is a 1.5x difference while Romania-Germany is a 2.7x difference in nominal GDP per capita… and it was way worse right after the fall of communism. Like, “oh shit oh fuck why are there so many orphanages and so many homeless orphans” kind of worse.
Freedom of movement contributed to the massive brain drain plaguing former communist countries.
Are you suggesting it would have been better to restrict movement so people were forced to stay where they didn’t want to?
Did you even read my second paragraph? No. But you are allowed to support a thing while recognizing its drawbacks.
Latinamerica have something like that too, mercosur+friends, and is great, me and my wife have traveled all over Latinamerica for work (and for vacations too) and our friends group is a buch people from all over the place that have also do the same.
it’s convenient that much is true, not quite sure if I would call it ‘working well’ though.
But corporations are probably happy with all the guests workers doing jobs for the bare minimum amount of money.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Visas to visit Kenya are to be scrapped for other African nationals from next year as part of a movement towards opening up trade and travel within the continent.
Costly and time-consuming visa requirements, as well as high air fares, have long created barriers to inter-African travel for African passport holders; 32 out of 54 African countries still require the nationals of half or more countries on the continent to obtain a visa.
Ruto said the removal of barriers was necessary to facilitate the implementation of the African continental free trade area.
“It is time we realise the importance of trading among ourselves and allowing goods, services, people and ideas to move freely across the continent,” he said.
It launched an “AU passport” in 2016 to allow unrestricted travel for Africans within the continent.
Kenya’s announcement has been met with positive reactions from Africans online, and hopes that other countries will follow suit.
The original article contains 377 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
For the whole continent? I thought they would try that starting with their own (proposed) regional block, the Eastern African Federation.
