The Herald’s editorial today is headed “Population growth is powering NZ economy”. It isn’t just a statement of the rather obvious, that a rapid growth in the population – particularly unexpectedly rapid growth – boosts total GDP. When there are more people, they all need to consume stuff, and they need houses, schools, shops, roads, offices etc. And unexpected surges in the population boost demand more, in the short-term, than they do supply. But they don’t do anything much to boost sustainable per capita real GDP.
That isn’t, of course, the Herald line. Rather, channelling the Prime Minister, they assert that
The population increase is helping to generate the growth in the economy that puts New Zealand ahead of most other and larger economies at present, which in turn makes it a magnet for yet more migrants, as well as persuading more young New Zealanders to stay here.
There is so much wrong with this sentence, it is difficult to know where to start. First, and repeating it slowly yet again, it is per capita economic growth that matters. New Zealand has been doing quite badly on that score over the last year or so, even by comparison with other countries. And as I illustrated yesterday, even on the Treasury’s own, optimistic-looking, numbers, we are expected to be only an average performer over the next four year. Average isn’t necessarily bad, except that we are starting out so much poorer than most advanced countries, and not closing the gap.
And it isn’t as if jobs are abundant here either, Our unemployment rate, at 5.7 per cent, is well above most estimates of the “natural” rate of unemployment, and not much below the median unemployment rate for OECD countries. The number of residence approvals here is subject to a target, so even if there is increased demand from foreign citizens to move here, it only increases slightly the quality of the people we can take, not the total number. Much of the variation results from two things. The first is the inflow of students, probably influenced more by the policy change allowing most to work here while they study, rather than by the intrinsic strength of the New Zealand economy. And the second is the flow – mostly of New Zealand citizens – to and from Australia. Australia’s unemployment rate is also now quite high, at 5.7 per cent, and New Zealanders moving there don’t have access to the welfare safety net and associated entitlements they do at home.
The editorial goes on
The Government would not want to say this out loud, but clearly it is not controlling immigration as tightly as previous governments have done. This attitude undoubtedly comes from the Prime Minister and it is consistent with his disinclination to restrict foreign investment or even monitor its impact on the house market. He deeply believes the country is better off being open and connected to the world’s flows of capital, trade and people. The performance of the economy on his watch suggests he is right. Even the housing affordability is a cost of prosperity. If we want drastic steps taken to stop rising prices we need to be careful what we wish for.
With the exception of allowing students to work, the initial claim here is simply incorrect. The residence approvals target is the same as it was under the previous government, and even student arrivals have not reached the peaks seen under the previous government. As for the rest, no doubt it accurately reports the Prime Minister’s views – he has repeated them often enough – but there is no evidence to support it. Productivity growth – the foundation of sustained long-term prosperity – has remained disappointingly weak. And the immigration inflows have been overwhelmingly concentrated in Auckland, and yet the official data show that Auckland incomes are (a) lower relative to those in the rest of the country than we see in most advanced countries (comparing dominant cities and the rest of the country) and (b) that that gap has been narrowing. Whatever the reason, the strategy is failing.
From there the editorial launches off into its own alternative universe
New Zealand’s desirable population size has always been a contentious subject, though not previously an urgent question. The increase since the turn of the century followed 25 years of static population figures as more people left than arrived.
Immigration policy was a notoriously capricious. Each time the economy dipped, governments would close the door. Now that we appear to have a rapidly growing population again, we need to be discussing how high we want it to go, and how it might be channelled to regions that most need it, and the houses and services it is going to need.
This country would benefit from many more people, and better preparation for their arrival.
There was a period from the mid 1970s to the late 1980s when New Zealand’s population growth was quite subdued. But for the last 25 years – not just since the turn of the century – we have had one of the faster population growth rates of the OECD. One doesn’t have to take a view on causation to note that people haven’t exactly been flocking to an economic success story. Incomes here are presumably better than they were in the migrants’ home countries, but our productivity growth rate over that 25 years has been among the very slowest in the OECD. Starting low, we’ve just drifted somewhat further behind.
I’m also not sure where the author gets the idea that New Zealand “immigration policy was notoriously capricious”. Yes, there are constant changes at the margin, but to a large extent we’ve been running much the same immigration policy for 25 years now, through several recessions, and some pretty sharp ups and downs in the labour market. Much the same could be said of the post-war decades, until the Labour government in 1974 closed down automatic access for British and Irish citizens – and that wasn’t because the economy was doing badly, but just because they thought immigration should be less focused on traditional sources countries.
Of course, I thoroughly agree that we should be having a national debate about immigration policy. Policy has long been premised, explicitly or otherwise, on the belief that New Zealand would be better, and more productive, if only there were more people. But there is just no evidence for that proposition, and certainly not enough on which to rest such a large scale economic and social intervention as our immigration policy. Big countries don’t grow faster than small ones. When we had 1 million people, there were calls for many more people. And when we had 2 million people. And when we had 3 million people. And so on. And for decades our relative incomes and productivity performance have been deteriorating. New Zealanders have been getting poorer relative to their advanced country peers. I’m not sure where the advocates think the critical threshold is where things might turn around – but clearly 4.5 million people hasn’t been enough either.
The editorial writer talks of channeling people to “the regions”, which is almost certainly even more wrongheaded than bringing in large numbers in the first place. We’ve seen that in the policy changes the government made last year: giving more points to people with job offers from the regions simply has the effect of lowering the average quality of the migrants we do get, who (on average) have not been terribly highly-skilled in the first place.
Instead of constantly championing the case for ever more people – even at the cost of encouraging New Zealanders to leave Auckland (a weird way to help people at the bottom) – it is about time there was a serious conversation that stopped pretending everything was fine, and confronted the facts of New Zealand’s economic underperformance, and Auckland’s economic underperformance. Doing so would force people to think harder about whether there was much realistic prospect of New Zealanders benefiting from an ever-increasing migration-fuelled population. I’m not suggesting a population policy – fertility and emigration choices of New Zealanders are their own affair – rather, the abandonment of the implicit “big New Zealand” population policy we have had through successive governments. Pretty much everyone accepts (and it is an uncontested OECD empirical result) that our distance from markets (and competitors) is a material penalty, making it harder to generate really high per capita incomes in New Zealand. There is still no sign that New Zealand is getting much traction in products and markets that don’t rely largely on our natural resources – and utilizing those natural resources in ever smarter ways simply does not need lots more people. Why penalize everyone more by rapidly increasing the population of a country with such a disadvantageous location?
The Herald is right that without the unexpected surge in immigration total GDP today would be lower than it is. But without the surge in immigration over the last few years then, all else equal, our interest rates would also be lower, and our exchange rate would be lower. And New Zealanders as a whole would be better off, because more firms would be better positioned to sell products and services into world markets at competitive prices. But, probably more importantly in the long-run, our largely fixed stock of natural resources, found on not-very-propitiously-located remote islands, would be spread over rather fewer people. As a country we’d be better off, and lower Auckland house prices – no doubt still distorted by unnecessary land use restrictions – would be a beneficial mark of that success. As it happens, the regions – where the natural resources mostly are (pasture, forests, mines, seas, landscapes) – would loom larger relative to Auckland, curiously the goal that the Herald’s editorialist seems to espouse.
croaking cassandra 
It seems that Winston (NZFP) has decided to move into the regional vacuum, muted by Ian Taylor some time ago, http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/267429/call-south-form-own-party
This is a winning move, many Auckland people may also swing this way against further unlimited migration into AKL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
….. love your stuff
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couldn’t agree more. I was stunned that the editor could write such poorly informed comment but such is the state of journalism these days. I’ve heard this line before from others, -that NZ needs a higher population. Funnily enough you hear it from big business types, e.g. supermarket operators, building materials etc – they benefit explicitly from population increase as they can leverage their fixed costs and dominant market position simply from selling more product to more people. Difficult to see who else does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IT, Accountants, retail, manufacturing, and every other industry that needs to sell something wants a larger population. Our population is far too small on land the size of Japan that has 125 million people and shock and horror that we are overpopulated at 4.2 million.
LikeLike
Advocating for more population on the basis of another countries land area is, to be polite, simplistic. To be blunt it is [edited out – crossed my line – MHR]. Why choose Japan? Singapore has a population of 5.4 million and a land area of 800 sq km (6750/sq km). By your reasoning one might Singapore (or any other country) and argue for NZ to have a population of 5.4÷4.2 x 268000÷800. About 431 million.
If that weren’t enough nonsense, then perhaps you should consider that with greater population you also get more “IT, Accountants, retail, manufacturing, and every other industry” to split the profits. Individually one is no better off. Collectively you wind up with population, housing, traffic and any number of other issues followed by massive rates hikes or central government subsidies (tax) to pay for fixing them.
There are far more rational arguments for letting our population gradually reduce as it would do were it not for immigration, and to a lesser extent, subsidised breeding that some aspects of our social policy encourages.
LikeLike
Say something often enough and people will believe it’s true. Immigration has been touted up for that 25 years and so the group think gets entrenched.
Same for reducing immigration. Just has to be said and said and said until someone in Wellington gets the idea.
Looks like we need a lot more votes for NZ First as its always been Winstons contention that what you argue is true.
Nice copy in the paper about the bank by the way. Need lots more like that so an alternative view might just get some traction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gross new migrant thus year is 14k. The rest is international students and foreign workers already counted as PLT migrants of 36k and most will stay for only a few years but creates and enduring business relationship in the future. 14k is a gross number. NZ statistics does not even bother to identify those that have left the country. Migrant churn rate is high. Migration is a replacement policy. Tourism and international students increased by 450,000 and most of them come through Auckland taking up accomodation at $120 a nite. Migration is just fear mongering.
LikeLike
I assume the 14k you refer to is the 14k who arrived on resident visas. Remember that each year 40-50k individuals gain residency, therefore the bulk of those gaining residency (~30k) are already in NZ having arrived on student or work visas. Therefore many who arrive this year on student or work visas will go on to become residents in future. Migration is not replacement policy otherwise net migration would be zero over the long term. Clearly this is not so.
LikeLike
Migration is not a NZ problem it is a Auckland problem due to a single international airport. I have already done the maths on it and the average increase over a 10 year period after including births and deaths is around 8,000 a year from migration which in the context of 4.2 million is a 0.2% increase from migration. NZ population mainly grows at the rate of natural birth.
The whole migrant debate is a red herring. You should be more concerned with the planned 4 million tourists that would also come mainly through Auckland as its first port of call and so far we have only 1 new hotel nearing completion. The Air BnB business is booming filling out apartments and houses.
LikeLike
I’m not too sure what 10 year period you are referring too, but over the last 10 years (up to the present) average net migration is far higher than 8000 at around 15k. Also, NZ had a population of 4.2 million several years ago. Our population now is 4.69 million.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Take out the difference between natural birth and deaths and you end up with the migrant impact which is around 8000 a year.
LikeLike
Also you need to discount for Statistics NZ from after the Census nite data because the estimates for migration after census nite is just a made up number which includes international students, foreign workers and tourists ie anyone that has a visiting visa for more than 12 months they count as a permanent and long term migrant, Statistics NZ tends to get grossly exaggerated population numbers.
LikeLike
there is certainly measurement error, but it doesn’t consistently run one way or the other. From 2001 to 2006 estimates based on the PLT numbers materially understated the growth in the population.
LikeLike
Keep up the good work. I couldn’t agree more I also read the editorial this morning and couldn’t believe what I was reading. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”The economic impact of migration has been intensively studied but is still often driven by ill-informed perceptions, which, in turn, can lead to public antagonism towards migration. These negative views risk jeopardising efforts to adapt migration policies to the new economic and demographic challenges facing many countries. ”
Click to access OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf
It will be useful to have more robust “research-based evidence”, rather than ill-informed perceptions.
LikeLike
Entirely agree
LikeLike
So…. your argument is that the immigration issue needs to be debated because GDP per head is not going anywhere and NZ’s rate of productivity growth is so low we are steadily getting relatively poorer…
This inspires the Winston fanciers to conclude that lower migration would be better, but a lower population would be even better again… I’m not sure that I can see a compelling reason for the latter because we will have the highest GDP and stock of resources per head once the population reaches one person! A bit facetious but that is the illogical conclusion you could reach…
Therefore the question has to be, what are we doing wrong to have such insipid productivity growth and poor GSP per head growth? Distance = yes, but that is only a partial explanation…
Migration is just the lens you are using to look at this deeper issue… and yes, I agree the Herald is mostly bollocks… in fact the only use for the paper these days is to do the puzzles…
LikeLike
The real question is why the current 3.2 million tourists that spend $11 billion in NZ and mainly come through Auckland International airport as its first port of call do not spend in Auckland. Migrants as an issue is a red herring and a waste of time and effort.
LikeLike
Well, my argument has more to it than that – this was a single blog post. I articulated the story to a somewhat greater extent in the speech I linked to here https://croakingcassandra.com/2016/05/21/location-matters/
Yes, the big question is why our productivity growth has been so poor, and the levels now so mediocre. I came to the location/distance/immigration story in part after largely exhausting the possibilities of the other explanations. Of course, there are other things we could do that would make some difference – cut back the thicket of the regulatory state, lower capital taxes etc – and I would favour those changes, but since we don’t really stand out on those items from other advanced economies they seem unlikely to be the most important element in explaining NZ’s underperformance.
LikeLike
Or you could easily have drawn the same long straw argument that the best of kiwi productivity left the country and it is the replacement migrants that are actually propping up NZ.. The remaining kiwis are the worst of the worst and therefore affecting NZ productivity.
LikeLike
except that the argument has never been about the productivity of individuals (or classes of individuals) but about the overall ability of the economy to generate high returns. as it happens, the data tends to suggest that the people who leave are about as qualified/unqualified as the people who come, and other evidence suggests that most immigrants (Uk and, from memory, South Africa excepted) struggle to generate the same incomes that NZers achieve with the same (paper) skills/qualifications/experience.
But, I’m all for debate. We owe it to the next generation to get to the bottom of our economic underperformance. Perhaps rapid population growth in the face of fixed natural resources is part of the story. Or perhaps not. We need some contestable narratives, and an active debate.
LikeLike
This inspires the Winston fanciers to conclude that lower migration would be better, but a lower population would be even better again…
Not the bright ons fatty.
LikeLike