What is “budgetary impact” immigration for a state? The OECD published, Thursday, October 28, a study on the subject. By making the ratio between the contributions paid by immigrants and the public expenditure of the State, it concludes that the cost is balanced and that it can even turn out to be positive.
“In all countries, the contribution of immigrants in the form of taxes and contributions is greater than the expenditure that countries devote to their social protection, health and education”, writes the OECD in this report which covers its 25 member states for the period 2006-2018.
In France, for example, the net budgetary contribution of people born abroad is 1.02% of GDP, and therefore slightly in surplus, against an average of 1.56% for all countries. “What focuses the public debate, especially in France, is the cost that immigration can represent in terms of social spending, health, etc. We show that this question should not obsess us, because when we do the account, we observe that the contribution is positive until military expenditure and public debt are taken into account “, analysis for AFP Jean-Christophe Dumont, head of the Migration division of the OECD.
Indeed, the trend is slightly reversed when the calculation includes the defense budget and the repayment of the public debt, which do not only concern immigrants but the entire population. In this case, the contribution becomes negative for France (-0.85%) as for the average of the 25 countries studied (-0.16). “The budgetary impact of immigrants is low”, summarizes Ana Damas de Matos, author of the study, the first on the subject since 2013.
“If you count everything the state spends on migrants, from health to street lighting, police and allowances, and what they contribute, you’re always going to find a net fiscal contribution gap. between -1 and + 1% of GDP. “
Ana Damas de Matos, economist, author of the studyto AFP
Those data “reflect the migratory history of each country”, estimates the economist: “In countries where there has been a lot of recent and young immigration, we will have a more positive contribution, such as in Italy or Spain. And vice versa. France is in an intermediate situation”, with an older immigrant population.
There are “a misunderstanding between the individual situation of immigrants and the impact of their entire population”, estimates Lionel Ragot, professor of economics at Paris-Nanterre University, who himself had studied the budgetary impact of immigration in France between 1979 and 2011. “Individually, they are more unemployed, receive more benefits, it’s true. This is the shortcut that is often put forward to say that they are very expensive for France., he remarks. Except that this individual result is offset by an age structure, with immigrants who are often in the workforce and therefore contribute a lot. “