Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World

“In Britain, one high-profile anti-immigrant speech in the 1960s clearly crossed this line: opposing the immigration of people of African and South Asian origin in lurid terms of impending interethnic violence. That foolish speech by a long-dead minor politician, Enoch Powell, closed down British discussion of migration policy for over forty years: opposition to immigration became so indelibly linked to racism that it could not be voiced in mainstream discourse. Powell’s manifestly ridiculous prediction of ‘rivers of blood’ not only closed down discussion, it came to define liberal fears: the great lurking danger was supposedly the potential for interracial violence between immigrants and the indigenous.”

While Collier outright rejects Powell’s predictions as baseless fear-mongering, he uses the example to illustrate how extreme rhetoric can derail nuanced discussions, reflecting The Power of Narratives in Migration Policy. Heated rhetoric entrenches binary thinking—either immigration is wholly good, or opposition to it is wholly racist. His criticism is directed not only at Powell, but also at the broader cultural and political environment that allowed this dynamic to persist.

“Whereas Europe provides an example of differing economic narratives, the contrast between America and South Sudan illustrates differing political narratives. President Clinton famously won an election campaign on the slogan ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ A society in which this sentiment resonates is going to use a given set of political institutions quite differently than one in which the narrative is ‘The Dinka have been wronged by the Nuer.’”

A society’s dominant narrative reflects its values and priorities, but it also determines the effectiveness and focus of its political institutions. Where narratives are divisive, institutions are likely to become tools of factionalism, as in South Sudan. Collier uses this contrast to argue that migration cannot be effectively managed without narratives that promote shared goals and trust in institutional processes. This argument reinforces his central point: Migration is not just about economic opportunity, but also about how societies perceive themselves and their capacity to integrate new members.

“Modern migration is not a quest for land; it is a quest for efficiency.”

In the past, migration was driven by the need for physical space to settle, farm, or to escape overcrowded regions. This type of migration was rooted in tangible, geographical necessities. Collier contrasts this historical migration with modern migration, which focuses on maximizing economic productivity and personal opportunities rather than securing physical territory. Modern migrants often leave low-productivity environments to move to high-income countries, where their labor can yield greater returns.

“The most common ethical framework used in economics is utilitarian—’the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’ Applied to global issues like migration, it leads to a simple and striking answer: what happens to the indigenous populations of host countries is of no consequence as long as overall there are global gains from migration. Although this moral compass—utilitarian universalist—is standard in economic analysis, it bears little relationship to how most people think.”

For many, ethical considerations are rooted in fairness, reciprocity, and loyalty to their community or nation, which contrast with utilitarianism’s global and impersonal focus. Collier suggests that policies based solely on utilitarian principles risk alienating those they aim to serve, as they neglect the concerns and values of host populations. This critique ties into Collier’s larger argument regarding The Balance Between Humanitarian Goals and National Interests: Migration policy must balance global benefits with the legitimate interests of host countries. He challenges the purely utilitarian lens for being too simplistic and detached from the complex realities of migration, arguing instead for a more nuanced ethical framework that acknowledges the competing needs and values of migrants, host populations, and those left behind.

“Around 1810 the term most frequently used in newspapers was ‘emigrants.’ But by 1830, ‘emigrants’ had given way to a new term, ‘settlers.’ I think that this change was not innocuous; the two terms imply radically different narratives. Emigrants are, essentially, leaving their society of origin behind them to join a new one. Settlers, in contrast, are bringing their society of origin with them.”

This quote relates to the theme The Power of Narratives in Migration Policy. The narrative shift from “emigrants” to “settlers” highlights contrasting approaches to integration and assimilation. Collier’s focus on the terminology change also reveals how narratives influence not just societal attitudes, but migration policies. A “settler” narrative could lead host societies to emphasize multiculturalism and policies that support preserving cultural diversity, while an “emigrant” narrative might prioritize assimilation programs that encourage integration into the host culture. Moreover, these narratives shape how migrants perceive their roles, influencing whether they view themselves as participants in a new society or as carriers of their original cultural identity.

“In Britain chicken tikka has become the most popular national dish, replacing the indigenous fish-and-chips. Chicken tikka is not literally the import of an immigrant culture; rather it is an innovation in Britain by an immigrant who rose to the challenge of fusing his own cultural expertise with an indigenous demand for fast food.”

Collier uses the example of chicken tikka to explore The Role of Integration and Assimilation in Multicultural Societies. Successful multicultural societies, Collier believes, are built on active integration, where immigrants do not preserve their traditions in isolation but find ways to connect with, and enhance, the host culture. Chicken tikka represents a form of cultural assimilation that benefits both sides: The immigrant finds acceptance and success by innovating within the new cultural context, while the host society adopts and celebrates a new cultural symbol as part of its identity. This fusion shows how assimilation can create shared practices that unite diverse populations.

“The smart children of the indigenous population have been displaced. Of course, the rising generation of Australians and Americans is likely to be even smarter than it would have been without this competition from motivated immigrants. In some meaningful sense, Australians and Americans will benefit overall from this brilliance. Yet it is also meaningful to say that fewer children of the indigenous population will achieve the ‘glittering prizes’ of outstanding success.”

Collier challenges the utilitarian framework in migration debates by questioning whether it is ethical to prioritize collective societal progress at the expense of opportunities for specific groups within the host population. His focus on the “glittering prizes” lost by some indigenous children highlights the uneven consequences of open-border policies, where the benefits of skilled immigrants are distributed broadly, but the costs are concentrated. Collier argues that such policies fail when they overlook the resentment and discontent that can arise among the indigenous population, particularly when they feel their opportunities are being displaced. He pushes for migration policies that address The Balance Between Humanitarian Goals and National Interests explicitly, rather than assuming societal benefits will automatically outweigh individual costs.

“The first best would be to remove all immigration controls, but the second best is to take advantage of national differences, shuffling people around the world according to their legal access to high-wage opportunities. If you feel uncomfortable with that conclusion, it is perhaps because you attach some value to the concept of a nation, beyond seeing it as a vehicle for the provision of individual opportunities.”

Collier uses a direct appeal in an attempt to engage the reader personally and provoke introspection. By addressing the audience directly, he shifts the argument from a theoretical analysis to a more intimate challenge, asking readers to confront their own values and assumptions. This technique invites the reader to participate in the discussion, rather than passively observing it.

“A reasonable assessment of the evidence of the previous chapters, stripped of the near-overwhelming desire to see it in the light best suited to whatever are one’s moral prejudices, is that moderate immigration has predominantly favorable economic effects on the indigenous population, and ambiguous social effects.”

Collier separates economic and social effects to show that while immigration may bring clear benefits like increased productivity and growth, it also raises less tangible social challenges, such as The Role of Integration and Assimilation in Multicultural Societies. This perspective reinforces his broader argument that migration policies must balance both economic and social dimensions. He insists that migration cannot be understood through simplistic or one-sided viewpoints, as both benefits and challenges must be considered to develop effective policies.

“For any host society the first ten thousand Somali immigrants are likely to provide a pleasing gain in cultural variety and little else. But immigration that increases a culturally separate Somali diaspora from one million to two million would bring little additional gain in variety, while weakening mutual regard and giving significant weight to a bad social model.”

This passage is a warning about the risks of cultural clustering, reinforcing his broader argument that migration policy must account not just for numbers, but for how new arrivals integrate into the existing social structure. However, he downplays any economic or social contributions that migrants might bring, reducing their presence to a form of cultural enrichment for the host society rather than acknowledging their potential as workers, entrepreneurs, or citizens. This suggests that he sees a limited benefit to small-scale immigration beyond diversity itself.

“An uncomfortable corollary is that it is not desirable for migrants from them to bring their social model to their host country. Whether or not migrants realize it, the impetus for their emigration is to escape from those aspects of their countries of origin that have condemned people to low productivity.”

Collier suggests that certain cultural or institutional practices clash with host countries’ systems when migrants leave to escape “aspects […] that have condemned people to low productivity.” This reflects a belief that The Role of Integration and Assimilation in Multicultural Societies is not merely about adapting to new environments for personal success but also about preserving the societal structures that support productivity and stability. In this view, integration is not a two-way process of mutual adaptation but a one-way expectation that migrants should adopt the norms of their new society to avoid undermining its foundations.

“Modern productivity is built on the back of past street demonstrations and protests that cracked the power of self-serving, extractive elites. So the windfall gains from migration are attributable ultimately to the public capital that has been built by the indigenous population.”

Collier claims that the indigenous population built the foundations of modern prosperity, insisting that migration policies must protect the host society’s stability and cohesion. The phrase “windfall gains” suggests an implicit bias toward viewing migrants as beneficiaries of systems they did not help create. This presents migration as a potential imbalance, whereby newcomers gain access to public capital without necessarily contributing to its foundation.

“Economists inhabit a rather chilling world in which people act only on their rational self-interest. Fortunately, our actual world is often more generous-spirited—hence mutual regard—but the implications of brute rational self-interest cannot be lightly dismissed.”

Collier’s approach combines economic principles with reflections on what he regards as human nature. He applies these reflections to explain migration patterns, labor market effects, and policy outcomes, recognizing that economic models alone are incomplete. Throughout the book, this tension drives his analysis: He starts with data and models, but tries to account for the real-world messiness that those models often overlook. This balance allows him to address migration not just as an economic issue, but as a complex social phenomenon that affects both individuals and societies in ways that numbers alone cannot fully capture.

“Migration does not deliver the anticipated free lunch, or rather the free lunch comes at the price of indigestion.”

Collier’s metaphor comparing migration to a “free lunch” that causes “indigestion” is a critique of overly simplistic economic assumptions. Collier implies that the problem is not the cost itself but the side effects that follow. The use of “indigestion” minimizes the severity of the issue while still conveying discomfort. It suggests a slow, internal reaction—something unsettling beneath the surface rather than an outright crisis. This passage reflects Collier’s broader skepticism toward both extremes in migration debates: The utopian view that migration is an unqualified good and the alarmist view that it’s a looming catastrophe. Instead, he positions migration as something beneficial on the surface but complicated by underlying tensions that can’t be ignored.

“A common way of expressing the direct effect of exit is that migration of the talented young provides bad regimes with a safety value: those who remain are self-selected to be more quiescent. Diasporas may kick and scream, but bad regimes may be able safely to ignore them or even turn them into scapegoats.”

The phrase “diasporas may kick and scream” uses a cynical tone. Collier minimizes the political influence of exiled communities, reducing their activism to noisy but ineffectual protests. This strips diaspora activism of any romanticism, reinforcing the argument that real pressure on authoritarian regimes must come from within, not from voices abroad. However, this raises a morally complex issue: Whether individuals should be expected to endure repression for the sake of collective political struggle.

“The right time to adopt migration policies that would be helpful in postconflict situations is during the conflict. Both from the perspective of the duty of rescue, and to help preserve the country’s human capital from violence, during conflict a migration policy needs to be exceptionally generous. The conventional criteria of skills and family need to be overruled by one based on human needs and human rights.”

Collier prioritizes humanitarian action over national security, economic benefit, and administrative convenience, adding another dimension to The Balance Between Humanitarian Goals and National Interests. He challenges the norm that nations delay generous migration policies until conflicts subside to manage domestic risks. This reveals that current systems focus more on controlling aftermath than preventing suffering. Collier exposes a reactive migration mindset by showing that bureaucracies delay intervention and let crises escalate instead of acting proactively.

“Migrants will tend to come from among those people who have the most positive attitudes to work: they want to move to jobs in effective organizations where their talents will be harnessed. This feeds back to the remaining population. The conscientious teacher has emigrated; it is the ineffective one who is still in the classroom. It is this ineffective teacher with whom young teachers interact and who sets the norms of what is expected. With fewer ‘insider’ role models to imitate, remaining workers are more likely to choose to self-identify as ‘outsiders.’”

Collier’s view of “brain drain” (See: Index of Terms) goes beyond conventional economic analysis by focusing on its impact on social norms and institutional culture. The issue is not simply a lack of talent: Emigration of talented young people creates a structural gap where lower standards become accepted because top performers are absent. Migration becomes a trigger for widespread decline rather than an isolated event. Collier questions the assumption that talent migration produces long-term benefits for all. Instead, he describes a scenario in which capable individuals leave, institutions falter, and environments lacking inspiration and high expectations yield fewer emerging talents.

“Paradoxically, the same people who are most supportive of migration from poor countries to rich ones are often most hostile to migration of the rural poor to cities within their own country. It is as if peasants should be preserved in aspic in their rural idylls.”

Collier’s simile of rural populations being “preserved in aspic” expresses the unnatural, stagnant condition imposed by idealized views of rural life. Aspic stands as a symbol for how romanticizing rural communities reduces them to static relics, stripping away vitality and growth potential. This indicates that resistance to internal migration stems more from notions of rural purity or tradition than from practical concerns. Collier describes this mindset as a form of paternalism that deprives rural residents of the freedom to pursue better opportunities, since outsiders cling to a nostalgic vision of a lifestyle that does not match the realities of rural poverty. This situation reflects The Power of Narratives in Migration Policy.

“‘Life is elsewhere’ is potentially debilitating, but it can be countered. A triumph of postmodern culture has been to decenter: excitement is increasingly distributed, and there is no longer a unique pecking order. A challenge for great leadership in the societies of the bottom billion is to promote a credible vision of the excitement of catching up, joining the increasingly diverse group of societies where life is here and now. This is surely the spirit that has embraced modern China and, to varying degrees, Africa. It has little to do with international migration.”

Collier’s idea of a “credible vision of the excitement of catching up” indicates his belief that development involves both economic progress and narrative elements, connecting to the theme The Power of Narratives in Migration Policy. He sees leadership as managing resources alongside cultivating shared aspirations. The emphasis on “credible” means that the vision must rely on measurable progress to instill confidence, especially in societies where historical inequalities have created doubts about the future. When Collier says that this change “has little to do with international migration,” he is making the point that true progress does not result from people leaving their countries in search of success abroad. Instead, it arises from building robust societies where individuals have opportunities to succeed without needing to migrate.

“Perhaps the American reluctance to provide aid reflects the heightened suspicion of government that currently characterizes much American public debate: public aid is government squared, as money passes through first the US government and then that of the recipient country.”

Collier’s description of public aid as “government squared” ties into his broader argument about the role of trust and institutional effectiveness in shaping public policy. He suggests that aid becomes complicated and less trusted when filtered through layers of government, showing how skepticism toward institutions can weaken collective action. Successful policies, whether for migration or foreign aid, rely not just on economic logic but on public confidence in the systems managing these issues. Americans’ willingness to donate individually, contrasted with their reluctance to support government-managed aid, supports Collier’s view on migration: People accept change more easily when it feels personal and direct but resist when it comes through distant bureaucracies.

“The more reasonable fear of nationalism is not that it will unleash war with other nations but that it will not be inclusive: nationalism will be a front for racism. Instead of defining the nation by the people who live in it, it might be defined by the majority ethnic group.”

Collier’s distinction between defining a nation by “the people who live in it” versus “the majority ethnic group” is a deliberate contrast that exposes the dangers of ethnic nationalism. The first definition implies a civic identity based on participation, where belonging is tied to one’s role in society rather than ancestry. This allows for The Role of Integration and Assimilation in Multicultural Societies, where migrants and their descendants can become full members of the nation over time. In contrast, the second definition treats national identity as something fixed and exclusive, where membership is determined by birth rather than contribution. This rigid framework leaves little room for outsiders to ever fully belong, no matter how much they assimilate.

“In the prevailing official narrative, the dominant message delivered to the indigenous is ‘Don’t be racist,’ ‘Make way,’ and ‘Learn to celebrate other cultures.’ As it stands, this is belittling.”

Collier’s description of the common liberal narrative suggests that these messages, while well-intentioned, fail to engage with the concerns of those experiencing rapid demographic change. Rather than fostering inclusion, they come across as one-sided demands, leaving little room for dialogue. This framing appeals to pathos by recognizing the frustration and alienation that many in the host population feel when their anxieties are dismissed. Collier presents these messages as directives rather than conversations, suggesting that they may unintentionally push people toward defensiveness rather than acceptance.

“Debates on what to do about illegal immigrants have been as damagingly polarized as the larger migration debate. Social liberals want a one-off granting of full legal status; social conservatives oppose this on the grounds that rewarding evasion would encourage more of it. The result has been deadlock: nothing has been done and meanwhile illegal immigrants have accumulated: in America twelve million of them, in Britain nobody even knows.”

Collier presents the two dominant ideological positions without endorsing either. Instead, his choice of language, particularly “damagingly polarized” and “deadlock,” suggests frustration with the inability of either side to reach a compromise. This approach positions him as a pragmatic observer, distancing himself from ideological extremes while emphasizing the stagnation that results from their conflict. Instead of weighing the moral arguments for or against legalization, he focuses on the real-world effects of political inaction.