The Evening Star SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1928. THE LIMITS OF MIGRATION.

Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1928. THE LIMITS OF MIGRATION.

Tun cautious tone adopted by Lord liovat in an address on migration mentioned in our cables a day or two ago is in accord with the general attitude now developing. There are signs in various quarters that a new attitude is being taken different countries in regard to immigration. Up till comparatively recently, since the middle nineteenth century, thousands and thousands of emigrants have left Europe for America and other new lands. The theory grew up that these were relieving the pressure of population at Home, and the colonies amassed virtue as they received these immigrants. Recently, however, at an expert conference the theory was put forward that except under abnormal conditions migration can never actually reduce the population of any country over any length of time, as the birth .rate tends to go up in the country that is being emptied. This remains to be proved; possibly it is 'not capable of proof, as the laws of population still remain obscure. But in his little book on ‘Population ’ Mr A. M. Carr-Saunders, a British authority on this question, speaks in a similar fashion. “Itis by no means certain,” he says, “that the effect of a regular movement of 100,000 or so regularly from this country would not tend to stimulate, at least in some degree, the birth rate in such a fashion as to counteract any beneficial effect which such a movement is often supposed to promote.”

Another old idea that has had to he abandoned is that emigrants from Great Britain would permanently engage in agriculture in the dominions, and thus promote the system whereby the Home Country would get more food and sell manufactured articles in return. It is becoming increasingly evident, firstly, that there is no surplus of agricultural laborers in Great Britain; and, secondly, that the emigrants must be drawn from the towns. Few are thus likely to make a success of country life in the dominions. Rather are they likely to engage m manufactures, and thus lessen rather than increaEX) the demand for British goods. So far we have been looking at the question from the point of view of the Home Land. There are also new aspects developing from tho point of view of the new lands. Writing in the last number of the ‘Economic Record,’ Mr S. L. Wood, M.A., of Melbourne University, says: “It has, I think, been proved conclusively that periods of high immigration .tend to reduce the rate of increase of working populations.” This at least offers food for thought. A native-born New Zealander is our best immigrant; and a lowering of the birth rate is hardly compensated for by an increase in immigration. On tho other hand, this theory tends to minimise the effects of immigration towards unemployment in the long run. In the short run, however —and political exigencies have mostly to do with the “ short run ” —the question of the effect of migration on employment has been attracting attention in other countries besides New Zealand. The National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States has recently published ‘Migration and Business Cycles,’ a piece of research by Dr Jerome, a member of its staff, as to the extent to which fluctuations in migration were duo to changes in employment and the degree in which migration ameliorates or aggravates unemployment. Space and time no longer hinder migration, so rapidly do modern transport facilities function. Tho “immobility of labor,” of which the economists used to tell us, is every day becoming a smaller factor. So it is quite natural that difficulties of adjustment should crop up in new countries. One consequence is that need is apparent for some attempt at tho regulation of the movement of workers, though this is no easy task. It is possible that uncontrolled migration would dominate the direction and extent of a young country’s expansion. Dr Jerome and his assistants have scrutinised the ways in which the tide of migration ebbs and flows, and have attempted to relate this movement with industrial activity in both giving and receiving countries. As a result they find it true that business conditions are a dominating determinant of cyclical fluctuations in immigration. Depression in a country does retard immigration to and accelerate emigration from that country; but the weight of evidence for America shows, also, that the momentum attained is always steadily adding to the number of workers for the entire duration of periods of unemployment.

Again, much time is lost in adjusting newcomers, and this aggravates the unemployment situation. It was found that, owing to the tendency of depressions to be concurrent in most countries, migration cannot ameliorate unemployment in the sending country without intensifying unemployment in the receiving country. This goes against the point of view taken up by the ‘ Daily Chronicle ’ in the cable we mentioned earlier. It is reported to have said that half the unemployment figures in Great Britain could be accounted for by failure to keep up the stream of emigration. It is all very well for the Home Country to cut down unemployment by emigration; but is there any net gain to the Empire as a whole if the .unemployment is simply transferred to the dominions? Emphatically no! The world to-day is so much an economic whole that very often there is worldwide depression. That is no time for a shuffling of population. But it was also found in the United States that the relatively largo influx of aliens tended to protract and intensify the boom periods, and as a result to intensify the severity of the subsequent depression. Migration, by constantly providing ample labor, aids undue expansion, and counteracts that more effective check-rising costs of production. Another effect is the aggravation of the problem of labor turnover. The final result from these studies of American trade cycles is that migration, or rather the maladjustment of migration to the condition of business, is an important factor contributing to the* evils of unemployment. These are facts to ponder over. We need, of course, to know more of the obscure forces at work in population. But there is enough to justify caution in any immigration policy. This does not, however, by any means alter the fact? that a policy should be pursued, as Lord Lovjst aptly puts it, of distribut-

irig the white population of the Empire efficiently in all regions. Apart, also, from the .economic/side, there are cultural and social gains from an intermingling of people from the ,-Home Land with their colonial cousins. This also suggests that it is no little gain to the Empire for young men and women from the dominions to go to Great Britain for a period. A policy of “assisted emigration” from New Zealand into Great Britain might well be devised in this direction. Here is a noble task for someone troubled with his surplus wealth.