Press Center

From the article: U.S. President Donald Trump's consideration of sending immigrants to so-called sanctuary cities represented by Democrats is more than possible retaliation against his political opponents. It also evokes an event nearly 40 years ago that to this day shapes the partisan debates in the United States and other countries about the impact of immigration. That debate focuses on whether a large influx of low-skilled immigrants hurts native workers. That answer is complicated and depends upon how studies are framed, according to economists and research conducted around the world. Some economists say low-skilled immigrants from poor countries can hurt low-skilled native workers, while others say such an influx can bolster a local economy. The Mariel boatlift in 1980 is highly instructive about the impact low-skilled immigrants have on native workers, being the focus of numerous studies. The boatlift was a mass migration of Cubans into the U.S. that began on April 20 of that year and lasted through October, and was allowed by then-President Fidel Castro after a severe downturn in Cuba's economy. In all, an estimated 125,000 people traveled from Cuba to the U.S. and after reports emerged that some of the migrants had been released from Cuban jails, a heated public debate began in America about the merits of allowing large immigrant populations. A sizable portion of those Cubans, called "Marielitos," permanently settled in the Miami area, says economist Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit think tank based in Washington. "Everyone assumed at the time the flood (of immigrants) would have to (adversely) influence the labor market," Clemens says. But that didn't happen, Clemens says, who points to research published in 1990 by economist David Card of the University of California-Berkeley as the lasting standard that examines immigration's impact on a local economy. Card's study found no changes in wage or employment trends between Miami and other similar-sized U.S. cities in his study. Social scientists have since looked at several factors that may explain Card's findings, and a 2017 study by Harvard economist George Borjas challenged the 1990 research by asserting that low-skilled immigrants do damage the employment prospects for native workers. But the Borjas study is flawed, Clemens says. In a separate 2017 study that Clemens co-authored with Jennifer Hunt, Clemens says Borjas' study ignored female and Hispanic workers and people who had high school diplomas Additionally, Borjas looked only at male workers aged 25-55, and placed an overly representative weight on African-American workers compared to the overall Miami labor market. However, Borjas forcefully contested Clemens and Hunt by presenting data in 2017 that showed that even removing African-American workers from his analysis did not alter his findings. "In short, using the increase in the relative size of Miami's black workforce after 1980 to dismiss my Mariel evidence performs the job of obfuscating the debate further, but does little to clarify," Borjas wrote. The flaw in the argument that an influx of workers will adversely affect native workers is in looking at people as if they are bananas, Clemens says. When the supply of bananas increases, the value of each individual banana falls. That isn't the case with humans, Clemens says, whose research shows that as more people arrive in a local economy, demand for goods and services such as housing and food also increases. -- What should policymakers keep in mind when crafting laws to handle immigration? Clemens says it's simple: Countries need to have clear, consistent lawful channels for migration. "When people have legal status, they make larger financial contributions to society," Clemens says. "It's more beneficial to the country of origin. It's also beneficial to the home country, where people can send remittances. Plus, you're taking money away from smugglers."

From the article: BRUSSELS — European Union states have given nine economists six months to suggest changes to the bloc’s development financing structure, as the European Investment Bank, European Commission, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development vie to assert their role in meeting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The mandate for the “High-Level Group of Wise Persons,” agreed last week by European governments, is to set out “the challenges to and opportunities for rationalising” European development finance, particularly the respective roles of EIB and EBRD. The group will look at what best delivers “development impact,” “the respective strengths and weaknesses of the mandates and instruments of all actors involved,” and “the strategies put forward by the EIB, the EBRD and the Commission to further develop their mandates with a view to enhancing private sector development and sovereign lending, including, as appropriate, in least‑developed and fragile countries.” -- In September last year, the commission declared that it wanted to play a leading role in steering investments from European development actors, including national players such as the Agence Française de Développement. That clashed with the vision of EIB President Werner Hoyer, who has said there are “many inefficiencies” in the European development landscape and is pursuing plans for an EIB subsidiary focused on projects outside the EU. Meanwhile, EBRD is now considering a move into sub-Saharan Africa, to be decided at its annual meeting next year. “Collectively, the EU invests more in developing countries than the rest of the world combined,” said Mikaela Gavas from the Center for Global Development think tank. “But the impact of its investment is mired in a system that is fragmented and uncoordinated and thus unable to meet its full potential of taking a leading role in sustainable development.” Gavas said the wise persons’ group could propose a division of labor between EIB and EBRD, but the “problem is that the objectives, modes of operating and the expertise of the two banks are very different. There cannot simply be an arbitrary division between lending operations in the public and private sectors, or Europe and Africa.” --  

From the article: U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, voiced concerns about a World Bank effort to direct more private investment to low-income, fragile, and conflict-affected countries — and she threatened to withhold support for the bank’s capital increase package unless the institution shows greater transparency. In a hearing with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Tuesday, Waters began her opening remarks with a statement about the International Development Association — the arm of the bank that delivers grants to 75 low-income countries — and its “private sector window.” Her remarks came just as the World Bank Spring Meetings were getting underway, and on the day that David Malpass, a now-former U.S. Treasury official, took over as the institution's president. “I’m concerned that IDA, through its new private sector window ... today is transferring $2.5 billion to the World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, and is subsidizing private firms selected without competition on the basis of unsolicited proposals,” Waters said. “The PSW is likely to prioritize financial returns over positive development impacts, which will be difficult to monitor. The PSW also stands in conflict with the World Bank’s own principles that call for subsidies to be justified, transparent, competitively based, focused on impact, and guarded against rent-seeking opportunities,” she said. Waters concluded with a specific request — and a specific consequence if the bank chooses not to heed it. -- Waters is not the first to raise questions and concerns about IDA’s private sector window. After a review late last year noted that the PSW had only allocated $185 million of its resources, Charles Kenny, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, observed that, “If anyone was still dreaming that there were a bunch of significant shovel-ready public-private infrastructure deals in low-income countries just waiting for slightly better financing terms, the PSW’s experience should get them woke.” Kenny and others have also raised some of the transparency and open competition questions that Waters focused on in her remarks to Mnuchin. Resources from the IDA window subsidize private sector deals, but information about who actually receives those subsidies, and on what basis, and with what development impact are difficult to come by, Kenny wrote last year. “The taxpayers who provide this finance, as well as the client countries of IDA which would otherwise have received it, have the right to know how it is being used,” he argued. The World Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.