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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution