Should immigration quotas be traded?

We all want to end world poverty, and a particularly efficient way to do this is to allow the free movement of people. Unfortunately, this often puts a burden on the receiving country, and thus immigration limits are set. But there is clearly a positive externality on the other countries from allowing immigrants in, as long as the others also care about world poverty. This implies that immigration quotas should be set higher.

To make this happen, Jesús Fernández-Huertas Moraga and Hillel Rapoport suggest a system of tradable immigration quotas, that mimics the market for pollution quotas. There is one difference, though, as migrants have preferences on where to go. Thus, there is a global number of migration slots put on the market and countries can trade them, paying for a slot elsewhere if local costs of immigration are particularly high. A central assignment authority attributes migrants to countries following their preferences and a particular assignment scheme.

This market allows to extract the price of immigrants to the host country as well as price the benefit of migration to world social welfare. Unfortunately, it does not appear immune to strategic behavior, as most bilateral assignment problems. But it seems to be a very promising step towards a better world, especially in the light of potentially large migration following climate change.

Animals as forecasters

Futures markets and in particular prediction markets are a good way to hedge against various risks as well as establish what people really think about the likelihood of some event. As they a putting money on the line, these markets are deemed (and have proven) to be more really than surveys and polls. Of particular interest in this context was the short-lived "terrorism futures market" organized by the Pentagon, which was supposed to offer an additional tool for predicting terrorist threats, and which would allow those who could suffer from terrorism to buy insurance against it. Unfortunately, there was also a fear that threats could materialize because of the market, as people would try to manipulate it.

Adi Schnytzer and Yisrael Schnytzer point out that there is another potential for prediction markets: natural disasters. Of course, we humans are so far not particularly good at forecasting such events as earthquakes, but some animals have evolved a sixth sense in this respect that is rather underexploited. While it seems difficult for scientists to drum up money to study this, maybe because this technology does not seem credible or usable, the Schnytzers point out that if prediction markets are created for natural disasters, then funding would emerge if money is to be made. And this would also establish whether these theories have credibility.