Welcome to E Con Talk, part of the Library of Economics and Liberty. I'm your host, Russ Roberts at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Our website is he contact dot org's or you can subscribe comment on this podcast and find links and other information related to today's conversation. You'll also find our archives where you can listen to every episode we've ever done. Going back to 2006. Our email address is melody contact dot org's we'd love to Hear for Today is July 18th 2018 and my guest is Alberto Alice Sena, the Nathaniel Ropes professor of political economy and the Department of Economics at Harvard University. He previously appeared on a contact in 2016 to discuss austerity and stimulus. Alberto, welcome back to E contact.

Thank you. I'm glad to be here.

Our topic for today is a recent paper that you wrote with Armando Miano and Stephanie Stan Sheva in the title The Papers. Immigration and Redistribution and the Paper looks at attitudes that and knowledge that people have of immigrants and then their attitudes to redistribution generally. What was your goal in writing this paper?

Well, the paper is part of ah broad research project that I have been following the last several years about given the growth in the quality in some places is what is what are the preference for people about the distribution would lead. The wood leads them to be in favor or against redistribution and one main team in my research. But also in that off others. Is that the generosity both private generality say the nation on public genital orifice here, the wealthiest people via the welfare state travels much better amongst people who are similar off the same raise the same religion. The same culture by the drug doesn't travel as well. Ah, across at NIH groups raised and so on. So we thought that we that burst off immigration that that there has bean in the U. S. And Europe, particularly in Europe in terms of birth. But also they a big discussion about, ah, immigration. We thought that putting together the as the other for distribution and diversity with immigration sounded interesting.

Yeah, it's extremely interesting paper, and I, uh, I learned a great deal that I was mostly mostly depressed to learn about, But we'll see there may be some cheerier things. They run in the inner conversation. But the basic idea You talk about the data set you're looking across. How many countries is it?

It's six countries the US, the UK, Sweden, Eataly, friends and Germany. We pick this these countries because, well, first of all, they're important countries. Of course, the U. S is the U. S. And the European countries are countries that have bean, particularly at the center off. Ah ah, the debate about the immigration Sweden,

for example, has had ah, very light flow of immigrant and there's a very large share of immigrants in their populations. So we thought that was a good group of countries, and gill and go beyond six was getting a bit expensive for because this service and expensive to make

and you surveyed ah, a fairly large number of people in each country. Thousands right. About 4000

ism is 20 about 23,000 total. The number of country is about roughly equal across cancer. They're actually slightly less in Sweden. Um, for two reasons. One Sweden was actually much more expensive for some reason, and Swedish people replied in a way which was so consistent with words with still very little variance within them that we felt like we somehow we could stop the survey after 55

or 10 people. Now it seems that, well, it's a smaller country to than some of the others. Eso you surveyed six in six countries and want the first thing you look at is, um attitude starts immigration. And these are all surveys of native born

people in each of the three year old 80. But maybe we the first question is that your nephew board, if you're not by you, cannot think that service

and you're looking at Native Born and we start with attitudes towards immigrants and no, excuse me not add to just simple knowledge about the characteristics of immigrants. And to be this is a huge important point. Ah, the night's huge is I thought it was going in your only in very carefully and very explicitly talking about legal legal immigrants.

Yes, we wanted to focus on legal leave again because not because illegal immigrant I'm not important, but because we wanted to focus on taking away from marble consideration issues having to do with illegally bigger, and they're committing a crime by being in the country, and therefore we wanted to consider people who are legal. But they're not your countrymen.

And the definition of an immigrant illegal immigrant is someone who's there legally, who

who is not born in the country, off the respondent.

So this

is Is that which he, by the way, the official definition of women and off they always see the

right now I would have defined its That's all good Thea underlying question, of course, and we will maybe touch on this in the conversation is people maybe told Very and you tell them we're the ones that you're talking about legal immigrants, but their attitudes and assessments may, uh, be colored by they're lumping illegal illegals together. Obviously, that's one challenge, however, what I was surprised to discover it was how small the estimates are of illegal immigration relatives not only immigration, the proportion of the of the native popular of the country's population that is legal versus illegal. So talk about those numbers because they're quite small in Europe and even in United States, their smile than I would have thought

well in the United States. I wouldn't say that that they are so small. I mean the well that I

might have thought that

the league, Well, I don't know what you thought, but I think the number of legal immunity is about 10% on the number of illegal even Candies. About 33.5%. I wouldn't say that small. I mean, I actually I was surprised. Bio biggie, would. But maybe we have different tires for the other countries. I don't remember the actual number, and I can't find them, uh, quickly, but they're not. They're very small. So I'm really not something

that my memory from the paper is that in Europe it's under 1% in

inside one drives one. But it said, But although, um, that is a more saddle problem. Ah, that, um, they're they're very the number of original. But you know, sometimes the legal limit may be those that that people see in the most upsetting way say they're sleeping in the in the park in the middle of the city and the mother going there with their Children. They see a name Iran who is most likely legal, that is, sleeping in the garden, which he usually walks with their Children and just start thinking that you know there are 10,000 or 10 10% of people are illegal immigrant. That is not true, but against maybe the legal even and especially,

um, visible. Lawrence train station in Europe is the typical example, and these people may be particularly visible and particularly effect affecting people perceptions. But there's not much that we can do, other than emphasizing, you know very often in the question that we're talking about legal.

Yeah, I think the fancy political science word or psychology or this salience So the illegal population could be more salient, more into front of people's minds. More people would be more aware than the other advantage, of course, of legal eyes that you can measure that we know things about them. At least we think we do in terms of government data. And so we have some way of at least assessing the accuracy of

reason. I mean, beyond the actually is actually surprised. That was surprising for me often when you have well, of course, you have data numbers, and some when you have data, say about their income and education and what they do and whatever doors are, um, they're not administrative data they are. They are survey data taken on immigrant and sometimes those surveyed that don't quite distinguish between legal and illegal. So this actually harder. Then you think to get the data that we use in the paper, distinguishing carefully between legal and illegal, because some sources are not very clear what they do. So I think one of the sort of minor or for some research, not some minor part of the paper is tight. He probably had the best data, at least for this country that distinguish information about legal versus illegal.

When I guess the other question is, Is that even? Am I looking very crudely? It said. Various data on on in common and ah, wages. I've often found it somewhat uneven. The sources that are more reliable don't necessarily make a distinction between legal and illegal. And, as you point out, and you know, some some of the surveys or just their overall quality might not be as high as some of the data we might use on, say, the unemployment rate or or at the national level. So I wish it came up in passing, and I asked listeners, Think about what you think the proportion of,

say, the U. S population is about 3/4 of our listeners of tea khon talk or in the United States, at least according to our crude survey at the end of the year. The rest of them are scattered in 64 or so 65 66 different countries. And it's interesting to think about what you is. The listener would think is the population that is foreign born in your country and United States Alberto's. You just said it's about 10%. I wonder how well our listeners would have done on that. But that's, uh, what's the range in the six countries for the form for

foreign born right away Before he answered your question, I must say, when I was writing this paper often time when it was God for dinner, often with, you know, call lace which are, you know, or friends but at all, like, you know, sort of highly educated. Yeah, and I asked them. I asked them. I made I ask them your question. And every single day, every single one overestimated the number off immigrant,

not as much as they are village in. That was simple but they range of Anthony was getting with about 15% rather than 10 anyway, so that is a good metal. Your question, that is, of course, a variance in answers, which we report in some online appendix off the paper. But the media. But the distribution off off the answer is not enormous. And the median is around the median, and the average is actually I'm 30. Ah, as we report in the paper. So you know, there are people who have,

you know, crazy ants. By the way, we do all our work excluding answer, which are clearly crazy, like, you know, 100% or or zero. And we also exclude, in our analysis, people that have taken too little time in feeling out the server because we can follow how much time they do. So people that take on a reasonable, small amount of time, we exclude that they're they're answered, even though at the end of the day doesn't make any difference. But ah, so a large fraction of the respondent, Evan answer said, You know, between 25 35 the average answer is about 30

that's for the United States. over across the slaves

for the another state for the other country. For the other countries, um, the for the other country friends Germany, eat and eat it in the UK The mistake if along the same order of magnitude, the number of immigrants in the other country, it's not that far from that of the U. S. A little higher, a little lower. And and people respond in the same order of magnitude like the US, the only country where it, um it, um, makes the only country that is actually more accurate out of this weed who have more immigrant. But they actually more accurate because they're the number of immigrants in Sweden is a piece closed toe 18% and they're a better dancer is around 27

and that's not close. But it's not as well

about half of the mistake of the other countries. So that's going to be on a, to be honest. When we started when we started the servant with the broader than we Ah, ask that question, we were pretty sure that there would have been older estimate because of the salience of the immigration, because everybody today is reading about immigration and all that. But we were quite shocked by the size of the misperceptions, I must say.

Of course it didn't. You're looking immigration. Ah, I've often I've done many surveys of one of my favorite statistics the proportion of the American workforce that earns the minimum wage or less. I've done it with lawyers. I've done it with law professors. I've done it with first rate journalists. And, um, the immediate answer and those groups has always been about 20%. He actually insert of the time when I was doing the service is about to set it off by an order of magnitude. An extraordinary misreading. Uh, so it could be that on numerous is that to do with salience? It just that people are very uninformed about a wide range of economic data about the economy as a whole. And but what I thought was one of the more important things that you find, of course, is that that Miss Estimate that overestimate across countries is not ah is not that different by various, uh, other characteristics of the respondents, but the various characteristics the respondents correct,

that is quite correct. And it would actually more surprising than we thought for the only the only corrected, which is itself into the only characteristics that that that distinguishes people in terms of what they expect about the number of immigrant, not so much the characteristic of immigrant will get to it, perhaps later, but on the size of the number of imminent. Not that much makes a difference in terms of the characteristic of the response, neither neither in the U. S, not another country. The only thing that seemed to matter which I find it actually interesting is whether the respondent work in a sector which witch is which has, ah, overrepresentation off, immigrant. And we defined that, looking at the statistic off, how many millions work in different sectors and we come out with a list of sector that that how your low in terms off immigrant working that section, sex or sector and response native responded Working sector with Marie 1,000,000. They then toe overestimate more than their fellow natives about the number of immigrants, which is that no other, no other connected.

Any other characteristics you have income you have

in coma, gender, education, income. Um, and, uh, in case with the U s where we had more data, More information? Where were the respondent leave? But, um, but this characteristic income, gender education, whether they know any minute or not. Incidentally, we ask matter for other answers, but not for the number of

which again it's somewhat. It's not that surprising. And people are making some crude estimates, not a number that's people's fingertips just interesting that they systematically overestimated rather than just be wildly inaccurate, which could be the other. Of course, the other possibility. Did you have party or ideological identifications?

Yes, yes, I was about to make that party ideology. We asked on this point, we asked two types of questions in this paper. We used only one on, but you plan it right to continue to work and right use the other part of the question. One question was simply whether you classify yourself as right wing or left wing, and we use the appropriate world for the appropriate country. So in in the U. S. Liberal conservative in other countries, we use the A prop your world that is in the language, which is from one for that country, but that we also asked them which which Which part is you vote for in the latest election, and and we didn't use those answer yet. May may do it in another paper because I'm really striking Result about the trump waters and voters for populist parties in Europe that we may get to that later.

It's Father that right? What? Not later in this interview, but because I have read in the paper yet, but later in my career. Next, the the the left wing makes a big left right. Makes a lot of difference in just about everything except on the misperception off the number of immunity. Both right wing, the left wing responder misperceive about the same level. The number of immune that they meets perceive other things the right wing. I think that the media and the poorer, more reliant on welfare, less educated Lazier, then the left winger and ah, they have a bigger misperception that in fact,

everybody else. But for the right wing, there is bigger off where the immigrant come from. Namely, that is an another. General misperception is that in all countries, um, native thing, that immigrant come from problematic countries of problematic religion, religion, for example, that vastly overestimate the number off Muslim immigrant, and they vastly underestimate the number off Christian immune.

And that's and that's to in all countries, according to your saying across the before, you correct for left right? They overestimate the Muslim population

under a seat for everybody. So everybody, everybody, everybody in every country overestimate the number of state Muslim and underestimate the number of Christians with exceptional friends that they don't overestimate the number of Muslim. And the fact that a lot of Muslim immune friends in the other country they all overestimated the number of Muslim and underestimate the number of Christian. But the right winger they have overestimated more than left me riddled.

Correct. So that's the next question. Is there anything else to add about? So people systematically across ideology and cross other characteristics overestimate the portion of their fellows that fellow country people that are, um, immigrants. They let's talk then about other characteristics. You mentioned a left right, But how accurate to people generally do on income? Ah, sources of countries for immigration. Are they accurate at all? Do they overestimate systematically?

They said that they tend to overestimate um, the origin of immigrant I gave you a gave you the example off, you know, Islam and Christian. But there are also overestimation about you know, Nord Africa or Latin American. And of course, that changes depending on if you are in the U. S. Of course, the key issue are Latin America. And if you are in Europe, is node Africa for when to start about and you talk about the region's, it becomes, you know, a bit more complicated. But the general point is that in every country, people tend toe overestimate the immigrants that are salient and problematic for that country, as opposed toe say immigrant from Western Europe. Oh, are more similar countries to the natives.

Think this is similar? By the way, just what I mention this because I wanna make clear what we're talking about that you know, when NAFTA was passed in the United States, NAFTA, of course, stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement. All of the controversy was about Mexico, even that there were three countries the US, Mexico and Canada. Canada was just not on the table as a worry for either, because it isn't a worry, whatever that means or because people are more likely to be worried about people who are quote more different than they are, whatever that really might define that. Ah, and to be honest, I'm gonna reveal so my by Caesar Prior's right now I do think people demonize or scare people about,

you know, people who are different from them, who don't have the same skin color, don't have the same religion. And, you know, I think the news media, going back to my recent monologue on the topic is prone to exaggerate and intensify the feelings people have about the other people who are not like us in whatever dimensions. People are particularly worried about people I think like to read and watch and consume information that often increases their paranoia or xenophobia or anxiety and aren't, for whatever reason, don't seem so interested in being comforted by information that it's more accurate sometimes about the situation.

I couldn't agree more. I mean, you said it wonderfully. I wish I could have said it's as well in when I write, but that that's exactly by that's exactly come I completely agree, and off course, the paper that we're talking about does not have any concrete evidence off what you just said. But I would say it is a perfectly in my view, the right the right explanation for these misperception and so on. So

let's talk about a few other variables, and then we're gonna will get it to some of the redistribution issues. But, um, you mentioned, for example, that conservatives in America or more likely to see immigrants is lazy, and liberals are more likely to see them as hard working. How do you How do you get at that differences at a scale variable. Do you have

when you ask people? No eso, it's well, this is actually the issue of Let me open a slight but and this is good. This is important issue off laziness or not laziness. It's something that my more broadly in my earlier research, some of it with Stephanie as well is that attitude towards redistribution both comparing the U. S. And Europe. But comparing people within each country has to do with whether people that the poor, our Wolsey or there or not. So if you think that the Porter Porter where they're lazier here, everything at the same, um, less favorable to the distribution if you think that the poor are unfortunate. Then you're more favorable to the distribution. It turns out that is a,

uh, a torrent of papers that confirm that these are very, very important determinant for people preference and willing to redistribute So in general. So that's the fact that we knew even served in this paper. The way this quite this these attitudes are pursued is in general to ask a question, which is a variant off a question that is in the World Values Survey, which is a worldwide respected survey about attitude done in about 80 countries. Um, and the question is, I don't remember the exact wording, but it's pretty close to saying Do you think that, um, the poor are poor because off lack of effort in their work or because they are unfortunate and just to give you a you a number in the U. S. Like something like 70% of respondents say that the Porter Porter, because lack of effort it in Europe,

that number is 30%. So these were the unimportant Thies, an important determinant preference for the distribution so in and in evaluating in this paper to discuss the preference for a distribution. This is immigration. One issue is to say OK, do do natives believe that immigrants are lazy? So we asked the question, Do you think that, um if the immigrants are poor because they are lazy and, um and ah, vast majority off Respondent responded that the immigrants are poor because they are they together poor because they are lazy. But then we did something, which is we thought that would actually a interesting that namely. Then we ask another question along the same night. They said, You think immigrants are poorer than since natives because they're lazier than natives?

And so some surprise in all countries, there is a good portion of that. People did not think that the immigrant they were that much lazier than then. Ah, native, a little bit, a little bit, but not that much Lazier, then the natives. So even it's on 80 thing that the evening is that lazy. But, uh but, you know, um, not much more than the lazy Nathan with the lazy poor. So,

in other words, in the US, in freedom, they they think that people are the poor, people are not lazy. I need that The natives, not the immigrant, even though the immigrant a bit more than the natives and in the U. S. A lot of people think that the poor are lazy and the immigrant a little more than the natives, but not much more.

So I'm gonna make a little confession here, and this is a digression. Um, I have. When I was younger, I felt that, you know, the American economy so great that anybody could find a job here, which still might be true in some dimension. Uh, but it's also the cases I've gotten older. I've gotten much were sympathetic to the, um the Straits and challenges of facing people who grow up in situations very different from my own. And so I'm much more open minded and agnostic about the question of why certain people struggle to make living, say, there's all kinds of stuff going on. There's family background,

there's genetics. There's, ah, bad luck. There's the current state of, you know, the kind of it could be a recession. There's are horrible education system that particularly punishes some horrible for everybody's particularly bad, though, for people in America who are growing up in very poor neighborhoods hard to disentangle that from other from family issues and culture. But it's still, I think, a problem. So I'm much more agnostic about the question. Having said that about who's quote faulted as white people, poor.

And I'm much more sympathetic to the to the challenges of ah, of life. And but having said that, it's kind of interesting thing about that distinction you mentioned between the United States and Europe that 70% of Americans blame the poor for their own poverty. And in Europe it's basically reversed, Would you say, 20 year, say,

20% basically basically close to being rivers if they're slightly four or five years old? Data about them think they've changed that matches.

So what? What strikes me about that? Just that it's a digression from our conversation, but it just I think it's interesting. Uh, of course, it's I suspect it's the case that it's easier for a poor person in America to find work than it is in Europe. I think the American economy still is more dynamic than the European economy, especially for younger people struggling to get into the labor force to get the and make the investments and Of course, the welfare state in Europe is more generous in in Europe than is the United States. Overall, Ah, court least across the board and, you know, for certain groups maybe, you know, when we Children's little different but in general,

across the board for, say, working age men, I think Europe is more generous. And so it's you. Can you blame someone for taking, say, a welfare payment that's more generous. So it's reasonable that Europeans, Americans would differ. There doesn't necessarily get at the true underlying perception they have, Ah, their situation versus a poor people and I do agree. I mean, I do think it's it's hard for successful people to empathize with people who were struggling. I think it's easy for people who are successful toe credit,

their own merit rather than good luck. And yeah, I do think there's some merit and I do think there's some bad luck for people who are poor. But I do think it's not that statement about your person that states there's a lot going on there. That's that's what I'm trying to say, I guess

Yes, I mean, actually, ever common and important, I think in a comment on an important aggression and then that relate the point would bring us back to the paper. The first point is that there are data on social mobility in the U. S. And Europe, and I actually in a previous paper with Stephanie Stan Shava in the Taser, which is published on the end of this year. We actually do a work which is somewhat related middle due largely to the paper. We're talking about asking people about what they think about social mobility in the U. S. And in the same countries in Europe. And what it turns out, it's something that I hypothesize without much data, not in a book with Ed Lazear about 10 years ago.

Is that Americans Think, as you said, that there is there much more option for upward mobility in the US than in Europe? Ah, and European things that there is much less mobility than in the US anywhere. And, uh, but in reality, the data on social mobility for the U. S. And Europe showed that on average, there is not that much different Europe in you in the U. S. 1/4 is a huge valiant. There are parts of the country with social Mobile. It's very high part that are very low.

But just to get the average, which is 1/2 number, is not that different from, say, Germany, friends and Italy. But Americans think that it's much bigger than what the tease and European things that it is. Wars, many thieves and therefore Americans are more optimistic about four can make it and probably more optimistic than they should be. And Europeans are very pessimistic, probably more pessimistic than they should be about whether a poor can make it or not, especially given the generous welfare state that you just that you just mentioned. But

But later tonight, can I react to that? And then you're gonna hold that your second thought, which is gonna bring us back to the paper. But my thought when you when you make that point and every have seen a lot of those papers that show that surprisingly, American mobility is not that not that great. And there's not that much movement among groups, and a lot of that's a little bit hard to interpret because first of all, sometimes it's relatively ability. The ability moved, you know, up a number of Quintiles say, as opposed to absolute mobility, whether you're actually can can do better, which are two very different things. And the second thing is it doesn't. There's often I I suspect this.

I just could be wrong I don't know, but I suspect there's a selectivity, a selection bias problem there because the people who are not mobile are in the sample. You're typically looking people who are have income in the year one and comparing to their income in your 10 and seeing where they are relative to other people in the country. But a lot of people maybe are not working. The reason why I make the point about relative mobility in the two car relative opportunities in the two countries is that the data on unemployment, especially youth, unemployment Europe seems so much higher. Maybe it's not measured the same way. Maybe it's temporary. Maybe doesn't last, but the numbers that I've that I typically read, and maybe there by a sources but the number two pick numbers I typically read about, say, youth unemployment in France or youth unemployment in the UK really are shockingly high, compared the United States.

And so I always assume that has a you know about. That's a very bad fork out, a very depressing forecast for future opportunity. Do you think there's a relevant issue, the selection bias across countries?

If the, um that, of course not my recent, where they said they agree with you that this number about unemployment in youth, unemployment in Europe, in some country a staggering. And of course, when we talk about social mobility, we are talking at the past, the past generation. It is perfectly possible that in future generations, things we look, we look quite different for Europe. They're certainly looking very different for for Italy.

But I'm making the point that even in the current say, recent short term measures of ability, people weren't the labor force, either. At the beginning, you sample the end or not called stagnant. They're just not in the in the data. That's what I'm wondering because they're not observed having income that absurd to have any income than I. They're not treated as a zero. They're just rejected from the sample.

That is a good point. I suspect people that that board on days like rod shaped and company at work for the U. S.

You think they worry about

that? Yeah, I'm really sure that I don't know how with a massive water, but that. But I'm not. I'm not that the potential, but certainly if you compare the US and Europe with very different unemployment, they they unemployment subsidies and treatment of unemployed. Ah, I'm not. I'm not 100% sure what they

do. Okay, so I interrupted you. Do you remember where you're going to go to bring us back to the paper?

Now we're going That the paper, it's related to the transfer and social welfare and transfer to the poor and the lazier. The interest it was, is one that is one experiment would not spend it. One question that we asked which we thought was fascinating was first. We asked whether the the native believe that immigrant receives more per capita more transfer than natives. And afterward, yes, they believe that they received more transfers than natives. Now you would say, Well, you know that fine. If they think that they are poorer, it's perfectly normal that they received more transfers. But then we asked another question which is supported in your country. There are two immigrant toe started to individual. Ah ah.

The 1st 1 is named for the U. S. Say, John, typical American name. And for, um, the other person his name. And we choose a clearly, uh, immigrant native, more Ahmed or Carlos or we actually tried with different names and the result that make the difference. And they have the same income, the same war. They made it very clear that that identical except that one is native and the other one is presumably immune in a very large number off respondent both in the US In other end, in other countries.

Um, I something I remember them a number like 50% of the respondent in a few countries, particularly friends, and Italy, where the worst were the worst offender. The answer that the immigrant gets much more than then the natives simply because it's called catalysts and not John or more amended. Not the and Albert, and and looking at the answer, there is like something close toe. 20% I think they reported in the paper. But I remember the number that about 20% of French respondent and enamel with a big lower in the other country, but not that much lower. Believe that the person named with an immigrant named received more than twice as much as the native so that is sold

or that is like a dollar more

so it sounds like, um, sounds like natives receive, ah that the system discriminate in favour her immigrants and, you know, with obvious consequences for their views about the welfare

state. Now, when you say you gave them to individuals with the same income and the same characteristics accept their names, did each respond to get two people to think about? Or did some people get the immigrant versus Some people got the native name?

No, no, not the same person, same person, the same respondent we told them consider to in the the question were considered to in the video won his name John. And when it's named Mohammed, they have the same income way not to make it to board. And we wrote a question that was Mento. Make think that they were economically identical, but when they had the same number of Children where one would say Jame, not them joining the other more. I mean how much they get and they were body adoption the same, which, of course, the right answer. And it says, by the way,

in Sweden, and they, like, you know, no, actually, with Germany in Germany, they were actually right, like, 90% of the German is fun. That said, they get the same, which is, of course, the right answer. But in all the other countries,

there were, you know, up to 20% of people said that more, I mean, get more than twice as much.

20% said that Mohammed gets more than twice as much.

Yeah. Wow. We didn't report that particular number off the twice as much in the paper, But in the paper, we do report that, like, 50% of French believe and 50% of Italian, more than 50% of French of 50% of Italians believe that, um, 50% of those believe that the mast, the Mormon guy gets more than

John. What's fascinating? Kind of extraordinary. Um, and

but if you look at me, I I live in Italy, where actually I mean equally Well, as you know, there is this again crazy renewed over there is this issue of off emergency and emitted Indian. It'll that. But it kind of thing you read about immigrants really blows your mind away. It's unbelievable

of this kind. You mean this kind

of result? Yeah, this guy I mean, the idea that you read things like these people come here and they become reached with our welfare and they don't work and they pay their taxes and we pay them with their taxes. And while it turns out that in Italy actually because of the aging population, it is well known by by people who believe in number and not in perception that actually legal immigrants are helping us because they're young and the more kids and they pay contribution to our in patients. Easton was using bad shape.

And I was like to point out that illegal immigrants typically are contributing to so security, uh, and other pay and pensions essentially, but are not gonna collect it if they're illegal because they don't have a legitimate so security number of their own. They're just using a fake one. Um, but the other point

I would make, but even the legal contribute more than they would. They get in anyway. I mean, they have they they help the Social Security system in Italy because they they're younger. They're worried.

Um, I would point out again that I would guess if you ask the average American what somebody makes on disability or various welfare programs, they would wildly overestimate the amount. It's just interesting that they even more while wildly overestimated for some with the name an immigrant name, this in a domestic

on this particular this particular scored that the Americans were not the worst offender. Think Italian in the French were the worst offender, but even the Americans overestimated. Well,

okay, so I want to turn to redistribution now on attitudes toward redistribution. So you did some standard things that that were Ah, we're looking at the relationship between people's attitudes towards immigrants and their willingness to support, uh, redistribution, expansion of, or existence of the welfare state or even private charity. But you also did some very creative things. Uh, you Well, let's start with that. Let's start what you found about that. And then I want to move to the prime

ing issue. So, um well, first of all, we started with about asking people about ah, redistribution in a in a fairly detailed where we asked them a lot of question because we had we had the same. We use the same question we used in a previous paper, so were very specific about bunch of question, but probably acidity of the tax system and whether you want to spend and Social Security or who are other stuff. And also we asked them to make a donation. We tell them that they had some ticket for ah, lottery and they if they win the lottery, they would get forget with

world. But some $6000. Remember, I was in the paper more recently when you have

1000 $1000 but they could donate, um, Sam outdoors, um, to a charity. And we specify for each country the child is a couple of charities they could donate to specify Stewart, just to make sure that we didn't pick one that was hated by most. So they the answer about the distribution were the the answer. But the usual fairly stand that people we expected to be in favour over the distribution where and left wing more than right wing and rich people less than poor people you know, are perfectly. No. And then we asked. And then the second, a second set of question was about immigration. Will do you think about? We should have ah, restricted values.

Example off. Do you do we want to have more restricting laws about immigration? Leave me the number. What amount of many? Many question which put classified people at those in favor of welcoming immigrant and or people think left. Keep them out So and again we got very reasonable response. Left winger were more in favour off immigration. Um interestingly, poor people working in immigration intensive um sector did not want in Maryland but reach people Even those living in immigration intensive people wanted them so injured, even engineer in in Silicon Valley where more than welcomed by, you know, rich people in Silicon Valley Typical example. But poor people did not want workers. This will be competing with their job in high immigration sectors. And then we did a few a few things. The first experiment we did which was we thought that is, that were quite

striking days. They are we tomatoes

and we did the following to half of the respondent we first showed they would. We call. Um, but we call ah, distribution block So much a question about the distribution without ever ever mentioning immigration and never when they start taking the server, they have any idea that the survey is about immigration. So the first set of question they get after their personal characteristic is what do you think about the distribution? And then we asked them about by this question about immigration t sect to the other half. Randomly chosen people would do the opposite. We first ask them a bunch of question about immigration. And then we asked them about the question about redistribution the same question that the same two blocks but changing the order. So the only difference between the order is that does that see immigration first? Their prompt to think about the issue of immigration, Of course. In fact, we asked them, you know,

maybe 15 questions about immigration so clearly they have been thinking about immigration, and the result is that those people who have seen the immigration question first, they're much more averse to the distribution, holding everything else constant than people who have seen the redistribution question first. So making people think about immigration makes them much less favorable toe redistribution. And that is very, very strong. Just just there. No matter how you look at the data just there told for every country it'll for the country's together. And is that

there? What's the magnitude where kind of magnitude. So are we talking about? Because that's you have to just make it aside here you can have a statistically significant result that's not very significant. So how much difference does what kind of impact does that have? How important is that difference? It's imaginable. Understand that people, when prompted, might respond different. Lee that if they were prompted. But you know how big is the difference?

Because many ways of looking at this size of the difference in different countries according to different answer about different type of distribution. One summary answer is to say that about for a little more than 5% off the people who have seen the immigration question first, Ah, um, likely to say that immigration that ah, that inequality is a problem when other world 3% of the 50% more of the people who see immigration first are more likely to think that immigration is a problem again. That number of violence across countries and it varies depending on which measure of redistribution you look

at. You see, it's a 5% change. You said,

Ah, five, a 5% change, which is 3%

point. And I'm looking at the paper. It says that that's about 13% of the gap between left and right wing responded. So it's it takes you, Ah, an eighth of the way toward the other ideology. Exactly. So So what we make of all this? It is very interesting work. It's extremely ah, timely for better. Worse. It is a huge issue. Um, and you know, in a recent episode of E Contact, I had a long,

um, monologue on the issue of Why things to be Why things seem to be so different politically in the United States and in Europe today. Relative to, say, 20 years ago. And one answer is a standard answer is that the rise of populism worries about ah Brexit and vote on Brexit in the UK the election of Donald Trump that a lot of this is a response to immigration. My claim, at least in that monologue, and I gave a one sided view there because I wanted Teoh help people understand how I think about this, Whether it's right or not, I don't know. But my claim is that a lot of our attitudes toward various political issues, uh, being created in a very different environment for news and information. They were prone to find new sources because of the rise of the Internet, and cable television were prone to find new sources that confirm our biases that gets riled up that make us angry,

that vilify our ideological opponents. And so the question I do think people are much more concerned about immigration. But what your work says at least the part that confirms my story is that it's true. People are working too concerned about it, but part of their concerns not accurate. It's exaggerated the impulse that people have to be worried about people were different from them and that we're prone if we're not careful toe work ourselves up about something that's not as important as we might think it is there that we might hear it is over and over and over again. If you watch Fox News or MSNBC. If we read the new York Times versus ah, uh, The Wall Street Journal and that and that this is having a serious impact on our political life, your papers, not about this, your papers just trying to characterize how people feel about immigrants and how they feel, understand how accurately they understand it and their results of their support for various forms of redistribution. But it seems to me that it's that the underlying problem here, whether it's the news environment, I'm thinking that I'm particularly that worried about these days or the ah, the concerns that people have are there not accurate. It's deeply disturbing.

I couldn't agree more, but let me just add that we, in our conversation we focused about I would result on the distribution. But there is also another part of the paper in which we look at how these misperceptions about immigrant lead the different views about immigration, immigration policies, not redistribution. So and they're the effect of these misperception are not surprisingly, very, very large, because if people have complete, if people feel that their country, they are invaded by immigrant, clearly they had different views. If they do not believe that, so the misperception about the size type nature of immigration effects not only indirectly prevalent for a distribution, but also very directly at this cash in about the immigration policies which, as you said,

is very divisive both in the U. S. And in Europe. And I couldn't agree more with you. I mean this paper. Needless to say, this paper have no prescription for weather. Would policies for immigration to where every noise, we're very far from, maybe any policy prescription. But, ah, all we can say all that. This paper suggested that these conversations should be happening with real data and not we perceive data and not with the idea theology, ideological scream, but reality.

And unfortunately, as you said with examples in the US, that's happening in other countries as well, there's 11 example that always make that is even in there more in the best newspapers in Italy. Um, I when there is a crime committed now, it is perfectly normal, acceptable to say Ah, an immigrant from Country X as Calmette has committed this crime. Now these immigrant maybe actually be second generation at an Italian citizen. But it said, you know, the news reached some guy from, say, Morocco s killed an Italian woman. And you can imagine would that kind of reaction generates on And and there is a lot of it I'm going on.

And, uh, and, uh, that that's indeed what causes many of the misperception And, of course, those people who are anti immigration for whatever reason, even for perfectly reasonable and honest and intellectually defensible reason. They have a lot. They have no interest in correcting these biases.

And I think for me I'm very open and and up front about the fact that I think immigration is generally good, has been a good thing for America and continues to be a good thing for most Americans. And I say that out of compassion for people who live in places that are poor, who have come here and also their impact mostly overwhelming, positive on on American life culturally but also just in the fact that that there are opportunities to work here to do things that lower wages than Americans would be happy to do them at that. That's hard on some Americans. It's good for a lot of Americans, and it the money that is saved by paying less free is freed up to do other things that helps create opportunities for Americans of who have skills like immigrants. It's very unclear, Uh, obviously it's a huge debate about whether who the winners and losers from from unopened, more open border policy. But I'm I'm in generally for a whole bunch of reasons, selfish and non selfish, interested in having open borders. What they should be more open than there. Now I'm tend to be sympathetic that they should be more open.

How open is it is an interesting question. I think we should get rid of the welfare state for immigrants at least right away. I think we should discourage people coming here to be beneficiaries of the welfare state. I don't think that's a big problem right now. That's but least that's my perception. Having said all that so that just laying my cards on the table, I think it's the case this around, what your clothes on and here your reaction. It's the case that American culture generally has been something of a melting pot. We could debate how well it works, how well people assimilated 2018 vs 1940 or 1918 80 that there's a relevant questions. But in general, America's identity has always been that we are open to people who aren't just like us because there's no such thing is just like us. We are a nation of immigrants, Um, and in most Americans,

of course, it depends on the time of history buffs, burgers. They're pretty positive about that in general. And so they're more in recent years, not so much, but in general America, I think, is fairly open immigration. Certainly we've taken a lot more of instant than most other countries. Then you go to a place like Italy where you're from originally. So the way I want to finish what they're on the American side is. So somebody's been here for two generations. It's not a Mexican American there in American. That's what we call him. And you're suggesting that in Italy,

and I suspect here is well, there's there's an intent increasing and somewhat disturbing to me identification people with where they came from originally, not whether where they were born, even if they've been here for two or three generations, and that I find scary, not so healthy for America, and certainly not helping Elsie for really, But having said that, Ah, I my impression is that Europe is much doesn't see itself, isn't as an assimilation melting pot kind of place like America does is a very strong Italian culture of very strong French culture, a very strong British culture, very strong German culture. There's a deep concern that people who come from different places don't share that, and they don't come to share it. I think is the concern,

right? And so you know, when I think of I mentioned this before, when I think of many small towns in Italy, Uh, they're a little bit like museums. They're very, they're beautifully preserved, and it's great for tourism. It's not so good if you're ah ah, an immigrant hoping to find opportunity in that place it may be, but it many times I assume like it that way they don't want the skyline of Florence to be changed. They love it the way it is and someone who comes from somewhere else who wasn't raised to love. It is not gonna love it the way they dio have lived there for six generations or 20 generations. So I'm kind of rambling here, Robert,

I'm sorry, but I'd like your reaction to that in terms of just the cultural issues of identity and how you I'm curious. What your personal feeling is is someone who is identifiably not born in America because of your accent. You have a name that it's not like John Smith you have Alberto Alessi Now is a beautiful name to me, but it's different. So I'm curious. What your thoughts.

Well, first of all, you were not rambling a toll. I think you put your really summarized extremely well what they were. The issues that and I mean before, give you an athletic let be re summarize in a slightly different way. The U. S is a country of immigrants. It was born as a country beginning, and it went through pain and suffering. But they developed assisting, which is reasonably welcoming for immigrants. And they developed a melting part which is more or less working. Europe does not that that history and they're not, uh, used to wave off immigration, and they face all the issues that you are mentioning.

Not only that, they they don't not f even a culture or a researcher thinking about immigration. I mean, if you in the US I don't know how many 1,000,000 and 1000 off pages have been written by on integration, immigration, affirmative action. Uh ah. Diversity multicultural table. Because I collar and I could probably feel three libraries. Fine. You know, if you find 10 books written about the these in Europe, you'll be lucky. So you Europeans are ages behind Americans in dealing with that One second, they are giving up a really despicable spectacle or fighting within the sh other about who can save both off dying, poor North African,

which is really despicable. And, um but but in the this is all fine. But yes, you actually have a point that Sith European countries have not bean melting part historically. Now, how do immigrant will either Great in culture, which are last much most melting part but just legal parts. The dom l'd like Italy or friends of Portugal or Greece. Um, now toe goto the A little cities in, you know, even smaller than Florida. But to doing those wonderful small town and in Italy, probably they they don't see yet a lot of immigrant there, mostly in big cities,

but still, both the race is a very, very critical issues. Do I have answers? No. But the only answer you have, which is given in this paper that we need to start talking about this, but with the right, with the reality in front of us and not with stereotypes and wrong perceptions.

I look forward to your room, ongoing work in the area, and and I do think it's some. It's incredibly important. It's just the facts, right? And one of the issues that we talk about any contact sometimes is, or I talk about is how hard it is to measure things and particularly causation and a multi period system and the challenge of a kind of metric analysis, Uh, what we've been talking about today or facts. And I always argue that fax important that evidence matters just a question of what's reliable evidence versus what is looks like science for versus what, What is science And of course, in this paper that you made lots of decisions and they're things you had to measure in certain ways. So it's not like it's you're measuring the length of, ah, have a stick with a ruler, but most of what we're talking about.

That is just simply what is not anything about not that much interpretation. There's not that much, uh, statistical analysis. There was some of the paper by the wouldn't talk about it, but I thought what was important about this paper is it just is a window into how we look at the world and the accuracy seven and its implications for, uh, how we vote and how we treat each other and how we treat each other when we're not the same. We come from different places, and it strikes me. Is extremely important work. So I'm very grateful for

Thank you. Rest have been, ah, pressure, as always, and I hope we can do it again.

I guess today has been Alberto Allah. Sina will put a link to his paper. Ah, with his co authors online so that you can look at it yourself. Alberto,

Thanks for being part of the con Tuck. Thank you. Ready? My dress? It was Wait,

this is e con talk, part of the Library of Economics and Liberty for Maury. Contact Cody, contact dot org's where you can also comment on today's podcast and find links and readings related to today's conversation. The sound engineer Free contact is rich guy, yet I'm your host, Russ Roberts. Thanks for listening. Talk to you on Monday.