-
Agree
Doctor Anna Alexandrova
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK)I believe different senses of wellbeing likely respond differently to free movement. Wellbeing in the sense of accomplishment of personal priorities and goals surely increases with fewer obstacles and free movement removes these obstacles. However wellbeing in the sense of emotional state may well be affected negatively by even the mere awareness that moving to a 'better place' is the right way to improve life. This ideology likely undermines sense of community and people's commitment to their kin, all important elements of wellbeing themselves. There could also be opposing effects (emotional state suffering from lack of options) and frankly I don't think we know enough to conclude which effect is stronger. This is why freedom of movement is a value that will need to be defended on additional grounds such as justice and solidarity, not only wellbeing.
-
Disagree
Professor Peter Singer
Professor of Philosophy at PrincetonIn theory, free movement of peoples within the EU should increase average welfare. But that fails to take account of the hostility to immigrants among significant sections of the public. Those people then become susceptible to appeals from right-wing extremists. The result is votes like Brexit and (though this is not in the EU, of course) the election of Donald Trump. If that trend continues in Europe, and the extreme right becomes more influential, average wellbeing will fall.
-
Disagree
Professor Leonardo Bechetti
Professor of Economics, University of Rome Tor Vergatathe problem is that migration of low skilled workers creates competition on the low end of the skill distribution reducing wages of unskilled domestic workers. This reduces wellbeing of this group of workers and produces as well hostility and extreme voting (https://www.unibz.it/it/events/121268-research-seminar-does-migration-cause-extreme-voting). The elephant-shape graph of Milanovic explains the same point documenting why the current phase of globalisation risks to become politically unsustainable Reality is exacerbated by perceptions induced by media and political parties that have interests in extreme voting
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Chris Barrington-Leigh
Professor, McGill UniversityThis one's beyond me. There are multiple issues, dynamics on different time scales, and multiple possible equilibria here. I don't know of SWB research to bring to this with much specificity, though I hope others do.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Dan Haybron
Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis UniversityI don't know any research on this question, and the issues are complex enough that it is hard to guess. I could imagine both positive and negative effects.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Arie Kapteyn
Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaIn itself removing restrictions tends to be welfare enhancing; there is a potential downside of increasing tension between natives and foreigners, but as the Brexit vote shows the people most exposed to non-nationals are most happy with free movement
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Richard Easterlin
Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaToo many pros and cons to make a definitive statement.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Mariano Rojas
Professor of Economics, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de PueblaThis is really a difficult topic which requires more research. There are indirect well-being impacts of free movement (educational, economic, marriage, so on) and there are direct well-being impacts (how locals react to more foreigners living in the neighborhood and whether they are willing or have been educated to accept -and even to value- cultural differences). I do believe that the main issue for well-being studies should be addressing how people ought to be educated in order to recognize the value of every human being, independently of his/her culture, religion, ethnicity, language and so on.
-
Agree
Professor Daniel Benjamin
Associate Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaSome people are impacted negatively when low-skill workers migrate from elsewhere and take job opportunities away from locals. But I believe that the wellbeing gains from better matching of people to jobs, and of people to places, outweighs the losses on average. Moreover, the gains in liberty add as well to wellbeing, which I am defining as satisfaction of reasoned preferences.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Nick Powdthavee
Professor of Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickWe know from evidence that dissatisfaction with life drives individual's decision to migrate. Assuming that migration leads to an increase in income and other life opportunities that are likely to be more positive than negative for the migrants, I can only think that wellbeing of EU citizens will increase as a result of free movement within EU.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University RotterdamAverage life satisfaction has increased in most member states after joining the EU and this was also the case in the UK. Free movement within the EU is likely to be one of the drivers of this gain in well-being, since freedom typically adds to life-satisfaction, allowing people to find a way of life that fits them best. The rise of average life-satisfaction in EU nations, co-exists with a small decline of life-satisfaction in particular areas and publics in the UK associated with influx of migrants from Eastern Europe.
-
Agree
Professor Heinz Welsch
Professor of Economics, University of OldenburgThere are several aspects of the term "free movement". The most obvious is open borders, no visas etc., which I think almost everybody enjoys. Another is worker mobility. Standard economics suggests that it enhances economic well-being ON AVERAGE. There may exist groups that loose. Economic and social policy must take care of those.
-
Agree
Professor Bruno Frey
Visiting Professor of Economics and Wellbeing, University of BaselOpens new opportunities and increases autonomy, and of course raises the per capita income.
-
Agree
Professor Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSICYes, free movement of people allow optimizing allocation of resources.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Homa Zarghamee
Assistant Professor of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia UniversityCrudely, if potential migrants are worse off than host-country inhabitants, then migrants' wellbeing gains from free movement likely outweigh any reduction in wellbeing experienced by host-country inhabitants.
-
Agree
Doctor Esteban Calvo
Associate Professor of Public Policy at Universidad Diego PortalesFreedom to move around the EU is an opportunity for well-being, but whether or not well-being is increased remains uncertain. The reasons behind the move are probably an important factor shaping well-being outcomes.
-
Agree
Professor Alois Stutzer
Professor of Political Economics, University of Basel... with those who move benefiting the most.
World Wellbeing Panel
Wellbeing of EU citizens increases on average with free movement within the EU.
The UK closing its borders for EU nationals who want to work in the UK after Brexit would harm both UK wellbeing and that of the rest of the EU.
-
Agree strongly
Doctor Anna Alexandrova
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK)It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't, now that we've tasted free movement of labour. The direction of change matters in this case.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Peter Singer
Professor of Philosophy at PrincetonSee previous comment. Similar considerations may apply, as the Brexit vote indicates.
-
Agree
Professor Leonardo Bechetti
Professor of Economics, University of Rome Tor VergataI agree that restricting movement of EU nationals with the US is not a good solution to the problem I described with my previous answer. It creates another problem to solve an ongoing problem
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Chris Barrington-Leigh
Professor, McGill UniversityThere are plenty of principles here which do not rely on insights from recent SWB (life satisfaction) literature, such as that surprises are probably not good either psychologically or materially. That is, for people who have made choices and investments (social, human, financial, geographic) assuming the rules were stable, something is being taken away (which we know humans are particularly sensitive to), and it's not clear what is being gained. What we know from SWB is that the full set of costs and benefits should include the social, family, and emotional disruption, and should put appropriate large weight on job loss, rather than counting only incomes (or, worst of all, treating trade flow volumes as though they are a direct benefit measure).
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Dan Haybron
Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis UniversityI imagine the effect would be negative, especially economically, but again don't know the research on this question well enough to venture an informed opinion.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Arie Kapteyn
Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaMy answer really follows from the previous one. Isolationism appears to be based mainly on fear; giving in to it feeds fear. Fear has a negative effect on wellbeing
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Richard Easterlin
Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaLife satisfaction depends on many things. It's not clear that this in an of itself would be of major importance, one way or the other.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Mariano Rojas
Professor of Economics, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de PueblaAgain, I think we do not have enough research to provide a solid response to this question.
-
Agree
Professor Daniel Benjamin
Associate Professor of Economics, University of Southern CaliforniaSame reasoning as my response to the previous question.
-
Agree strongly
Professor Nick Powdthavee
Professor of Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickThe average wellbeing of EU nationals will almost certainly decrease immediately following Brexit as many people will be forced to leave their jobs and family, which are major sources of people's wellbeing. The average wellbeing of people who voted to remain (leave) may decrease (increase) in the short-run following Brexit, but unless Brexit changes the way they live their lives, the effect is unlikely to last for very long.
-
Agree
Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University RotterdamAn immediate negative effect on life-satisfaction is in the restriction of freedom for EU nationals, and probably also for UK nationals, if similar restrictions are imposed by the EU. In the long-run, the life-satisfaction in Europe will also be negatively affected by reduced economic efficiency and weakened global political power, the indirect effects of which are likely to affect life-satisfaction more than the, possible, direct effects of a strong sense of national identity
-
Agree
Professor Heinz Welsch
Professor of Economics, University of OldenburgFollowing up on Statement No. 1, Brexit is economically bad for both the average UK and average rest-of-EU citizen. Wellbeing, however, depends not just on economic issues. It has been found that people's attitudes towards immigraton depend more on concern about cultural composition and identity than on economic issues. I would expect that a high weight placed on cultural concerns applies not only to immigration-related attitudes but also to people's immigration-related subjective well-being.
-
Agree
Professor Bruno Frey
Visiting Professor of Economics and Wellbeing, University of BaselFree trade in persons offers new opportunities for everyone and therewith raises well-being.
-
Agree
Professor Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSICFree movement of people increases not only the wellbeing of those who want to move to seek better opportunities, but in the mid and long term it also increases the average wellbeing of the receiving countries. Although with migration some might win and some might lose the total production in the receiving country increases. In addition, migration also enriches the culture of the receiving country. In the mid and long term, therefore, average wellbeing should increase.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Homa Zarghamee
Assistant Professor of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia UniversityThe UK closing its borders for EU nationals who want to work in the UK is likely to harm the wellbeing of those EU nationals. If the majority of UK nationals want such a policy, it's possible that their SWB increases because national policies are aligned with their preferences even if there are negative economic consequences.
-
Agree strongly
Doctor Esteban Calvo
Associate Professor of Public Policy at Universidad Diego PortalesSocial boundaries, in this case closing country borders, rarely have positive effects when they are built on a strong divide between us and them.
-
Neither agree nor disagree
Professor Alois Stutzer
Professor of Political Economics, University of BaselThe well educated British might loose from closing the borders because of higher prices for services produced on a less contested market for personal services. However, the less qualified British at the bottom of the income distribution might benefit (also in terms of employment opportunities) thereby gaining relatively more in terms of wellbeing.