The $100bn cost of making tourists get visas

"Tough on migration" can't help but meaning "tough on tourism".

There's a lot written about the extent to which restrictions on immigration hurt the UK economy. People settling in Britain and working is a good thing: someone else has paid for their education and upbringing, and we reap all the rewards. When we stop that happening, we hurt our economy.

On top of that, overly restrictive limitations on migration have spillover effects. The most obvious one is that caps on international student numbers – who are, bizarrely, counted as migrants in national statistics – severely limits the ability of our university sector to export its services. That sector punches well above its weight internationally; if we can't even make policy which lets it compete, what hope have our smaller industries?

But other spillover effects are less discussed. One of the possible wounds of our closed-borders policy could be on tourism. A new study, highlighted by Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution, looking at the effects of visa restrictions in India, finds that particularly onerous requirements can lead to a 70 per cent reduction in inbound travel.

The authors take those findings, and apply them to the case of the US. Although they caution that "extreme counterfactuals…should always be judged cautiously", the estimates are nothing short of stunning:

What would happen if the United States opened up tourist travel to all comers without requiring visas? … We calculate a 112% increase in total inbound travel. In 2010, the U.S. recorded 59,791,000 inbound visitors who spent an estimated total of $109,975,000,000 (approximately $2000 per visitor) according to World Bank data. Increasing these figures by 112% yields an additional 67 million visitors and $123 billion in spending.

That's around one per cent of US GDP a year from tourism alone; and it still doesn't take account of the extra disincentive effect of immigration checks. British people, for instance, don't require a visa to travel to the US, but the unpleasant, borderline-abusive reputation of border guards in the country may well have a deterrent effect of its own.

Tourism restrictions have to get stronger the harsher limits on legal migration are, to prevent people entering the country through back routes, so liberalisation in both areas would have to proceed hand-in-hand. But if it did, the possible gains seem to get higher every day.

The US Embassy. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.