Powerful lobbyists and inertia led to Russia’s coal-mining sector missing an excellent opportunity to solve its structural problems.
Alexey Gusev
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Robert E. B. Lucas finds in a new report that the net impact of migration is positive for the migrants and high-income countries, and more gains are feasible. At the same time, he finds more ambiguous effects on developing countries, which may suffer from growing brain-drain; only temporary migration among southern hemisphere countries seemed to provide clear benefits.
WASHINGTON, Oct 14—As globalization spread dramatically over the last twenty years, migration expanded less rapidly than either trade or foreign investment. Yet migration remains contentious, often being blamed for income stagnation, even as some economists praise it as the fastest route to raising world incomes. The reality is more limited and nuanced.
Money sent by migrants to their home countries can promote rapid growth in developing regions, and the withdrawal of laborers can induce higher wages or less underemployment for those left behind. However, the flow of money can dry up quickly and unexpectedly, as has happened recently in Mexico.
Robert E. B. Lucas finds in a new report that the net impact of migration is positive for the migrants and high-income countries, and more gains are feasible. At the same time, he finds more ambiguous effects on developing countries, which may suffer from growing brain-drain; only temporary migration among southern hemisphere countries seemed to provide clear benefits.
Key findings:
Lucas concludes:
“The net potential gains to migrants entering the industrialized countries are extremely high. Yet the impacts of any additional migrations on the incomes of those left at home and of natives in the host countries are more ambiguous. While migrants are clearly the big winners, others may even lose.”
###

Powerful lobbyists and inertia led to Russia’s coal-mining sector missing an excellent opportunity to solve its structural problems.
Alexey Gusev
Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.
Sergey Vakulenko
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
Russian oil production is remarkably resilient to significant price changes, but significant political headwinds may lead to a drop regardless of economics.
Sergey Vakulenko