Immigration’s Economic Enigma: Are We Underestimating the Fiscal Impact?

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Over the past decade or two, concerns about the economic impacts of immigration on high-income countries have undergone a significant metamorphosis. The prevailing narrative has shifted from fears that incomers are taking the jobs of existing residents – a perspective often associated with localized labour market disruption – to more macro-level worries that the low (or even no) pay of new arrivals will place a growing financial burden on the host country’s public finances. This evolution in concern directly impacts national budget stability, sovereign debt trajectories, and ultimately, investor sentiment towards a country’s long-term fiscal health.

This critical shift is reflected both in heated public commentary, often influencing electoral cycles and policy platforms, and in the increasing use of sophisticated economic modelling to forecast immigrants’ fiscal impact. However, both approaches are frequently subject to faulty assumptions, leading to a frustrating and often unproductive debate that obscures the underlying financial realities.

On the one hand, official modelling by influential organisations such as the UK’s Migration Advisory Committee tends to assume all immigrants share similar economic trajectories, overlooking critical nuances. Simultaneously, some commentary on the right argues that fiscal impacts are determined primarily by immigrants’ countries and cultures of origin, a generalization that lacks economic precision. Both perspectives critically miss the fact that the nature of a country’s fiscal system – its tax structures, welfare provisions, and social insurance policies – fundamentally shapes the extent to which immigrants with different economic characteristics emerge as a net cost or net contributors to the exchequer. Understanding these structural differences is paramount for investors evaluating the fiscal sustainability of various national economies.

The UK offers a striking example of this fiscal architecture at play. Its comparatively low rates of tax and social insurance contributions for low-paid workers, combined with a relatively flat state pension, mean that individuals (immigrant or otherwise) who do small amounts of paid work or remain on low incomes contribute little to the exchequer. Despite this, they still benefit from robust state support in areas like healthcare, education, and social security. This structure creates a higher fiscal hurdle for achieving net positive contributions from a significant portion of the workforce. In contrast, within Germany or France’s fiscal systems, someone with the same weak employment and earnings patterns would generate much larger receipts from tax and social insurance due to a flatter tax regime and more comprehensive social contributions. Furthermore, they would receive a comparatively smaller pension since these benefits are linked more tightly to lifetime earnings, creating a stronger incentive for sustained employment and higher wages.

The stark financial implication is that in order to be a net fiscal contributor over their lifetime, the average couple arriving in the UK at age 30 needs the primary earner to have a salary at the 55th percentile of the overall earnings distribution. This contrasts sharply with the 45th percentile required in France and a mere 28th percentile in Germany. This crucial insight comes from a new working paper on the fiscal impacts of immigration in different European countries by Usama Polani, a researcher at the Stanford Institute for Economic and Policy Research. Such discrepancies highlight the inherent fiscal efficiency – or inefficiency – of different economic models when absorbing new populations, a factor that rating agencies and bond investors carefully consider.

Put another way, for immigration to be financially beneficial to the state, the UK’s fiscal system dictates that it needs to attract migrants with much higher pay and rates of employment than its continental peers. This is because low-wage or inactive families — whether native-born or immigrant — exert a much greater net fiscal cost in Britain’s current setup than elsewhere. This structural dependency on high-earning migrants has significant implications for UK labour market policy, skills attraction strategies, and its long-term economic competitiveness, potentially influencing foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions and human capital flows.

The changing composition of global migrant flows means this issue is only likely to become a more pressing concern in the years ahead, and not just for the UK. Both on living standards and low birth rates, the convergence between the world’s richest countries and the tier just below them means that inflows from other high-income countries have been declining in relative terms. Conversely, arrivals from countries with lower incomes and education levels, or different economic norms – such as much lower rates of female employment – have been steadily rising. This demographic shift presents a structural headwind for many advanced economies, challenging their social security systems and long-term fiscal projections.

As Polani’s analysis shows, fiscal impact models whose assumptions about pay and participation are based on historical cohorts with very different economic characteristics risk significantly overestimating tax revenues and understating benefit spending for today’s intakes. Such miscalculations can lead to unexpected budget deficits, increased sovereign borrowing, and potentially dampen economic growth outlooks, creating volatility in public debt markets.

At the same time, it would be wrong to treat demography as destiny, or to assume that past trends are immutable. A 2021 analysis by Denmark’s Ministry of Finance found that immigrants from non-western countries cost the state a net 31bn kroner in 2018 — equivalent to 1.4 per cent of its GDP that year. However, that figure was notably down from 42bn three years earlier. One significant factor contributing to that improvement has been a steady rise in the employment rate of women from the Middle East, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey. This rate was 40 percentage points below Denmark-born women in 2015 but had closed to roughly 20 points behind by 2024. This demonstrates that targeted policies can yield tangible economic benefits, improving labour force participation and boosting national productivity.

However, that successful integration model has not been matched in other major economies including the UK, France and Germany, suggesting that economic assimilation does not always happen organically or quickly. There is an ongoing debate among policymakers and economists as to how much of Denmark’s success comes from its introduction of a requirement for new arrivals to do substantial paid work before they qualify for higher levels of benefits, and how much from its strong recent economic performance and robust social support infrastructure. Nevertheless, Denmark serves as a compelling case study for how policy levers can be pulled to shift immigrant cohorts from fiscal burdens to net contributors, a critical lesson for nations grappling with similar challenges.

There are three critical lessons here for financial observers and policymakers alike. First, “immigration” is not a fixed, monolithic economic variable across time and place; its composition and characteristics are constantly evolving. Second, its economic impacts, and thus its market implications, are shaped by the host country’s policies and fiscal architecture just as much as by the people themselves. And third, if the nature of immigration changes fundamentally, the underlying economic and social policies designed to manage it must also adapt dynamically to maintain fiscal health and long-term economic competitiveness.

Market Impact:

The fiscal implications of immigration, as illuminated by this analysis, carry significant weight for financial markets. Nations like the UK, whose fiscal systems require higher-earning migrants to achieve neutrality, face potential sovereign credit risks if migrant inflows consist disproportionately of lower-income individuals. This could translate into increased government borrowing, pushing up bond yields and straining national budgets, thereby impacting the attractiveness of government debt. Investors will increasingly scrutinize labor market integration rates and government policies designed to enhance economic participation, particularly among new arrivals. Success in boosting employment and earnings, as seen in Denmark, can improve a nation’s long-term GDP potential, bolster tax revenues, and alleviate pressure on social security systems, positively influencing currency valuations and overall market confidence. Conversely, a failure to adapt policies to changing migration patterns could lead to persistent fiscal deficits, heightened social spending, and ultimately, a less stable economic environment, deterring both domestic and foreign direct investment. The real estate and consumer sectors are also directly affected by changes in population dynamics and income distributions, creating both opportunities and challenges for investors depending on a country’s demographic and fiscal trajectory.