What do you think?
Rate this book
The Culture Transplant: How Migrants Make the Economies They Move To a Lot Like the Ones They Left
A provocative new analysis of immigration's long-term effects on a nation's economy and culture. Over the last two decades, as economists began using big datasets and modern computing power to reveal the sources of national prosperity, their statistical results kept pointing toward the power of culture to drive the wealth of nations. In The Culture Transplant , Garett Jones documents the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands―toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government―that persist for decades, and likely for centuries, in their new national homes. Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. And the cultural traits migrants bring to their new homes have enduring effects upon a nation's economic potential. Built upon mainstream, well-reviewed academic research that hasn't pierced the public consciousness, this book offers a compelling refutation of an unspoken consensus that a nation's economic and political institutions won't be changed by immigration. Jones refutes the common view that we can discuss migration policy without considering whether migration can, over a few generations, substantially transform the economic and political institutions of a nation. And since most of the world's technological innovations come from just a handful of nations, Jones concludes, the entire world has a stake in whether migration policy will help or hurt the quality of government and thus the quality of scientific breakthroughs in those rare innovation powerhouses.
213 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 1, 2022
The advent of ‘managed migration’ as a paradigm for controlling the movement of people across national frontiers has assigned the task of sorting out the sheep from the goats primarily to economists. Equipped with the science that supposedly allows them to determine what given country ‘need’ in terms of the functioning of its labour markets, some of the bolder sorts of bean counters have ideas about the types of people and the places they come from who might fill the vacant slots.
Garett Jones offers up the view that closest attention needs to be paid to the cultures of the peoples who make up the migrant flows to determine whether they, and indeed their descendants down to indefinitely extended generations, are likely to provide the qualities that the economy needs. Being keen to avoid simplistic interpretations of ‘culture’ which will make the argument open to the accusation of a ethnic bias, he takes the reader through a series of ‘tire-kicking’ exercises which are intended to adjust for the superficial impression that the proportion of the population of European heritage is a key indicator of economic success. No - what it seems we are really looking for from our migrants is their association with regions of the planet that have a long history of ‘good government’, because the values of ‘good government’ migrant along with the people who have had its values instilled into their world views.
Countries which can de demonstrate an association with good government and ‘good ideas’ are the places where we should expect to find the best immigrants. Jones is a fan of Singapore and his argument comes to a crescendo with a call to make its denizens the archetype of the migrant which countries need. The closer the fit to this go-getting, super-industrious fragment of humanity into your migration flows then the better assured you can be that you are dealing with good immigrants and have a template for excluding those furthest away from this description.
What is totally absent from the reviews of research papers that make up the bulk of this book is any consideration of any objective other than the economic benefit of migration to the receiving country. Nothing is said about the impact of the movement of people on the regions from which people migrate, whether this might provide mechanisms for redistribution and the reduction of inequality, or even more radically, as reparations for environmental and climate damage and historical injustice. Setting a policy objective which aims to make migrant receiving countries look a little more like Singapore seem take an impoverished ambition in an area where so much more is needed in the modern world.
Garett Jones offers up the view that closest attention needs to be paid to the cultures of the peoples who make up the migrant flows to determine whether they, and indeed their descendants down to indefinitely extended generations, are likely to provide the qualities that the economy needs. Being keen to avoid simplistic interpretations of ‘culture’ which will make the argument open to the accusation of a ethnic bias, he takes the reader through a series of ‘tire-kicking’ exercises which are intended to adjust for the superficial impression that the proportion of the population of European heritage is a key indicator of economic success. No - what it seems we are really looking for from our migrants is their association with regions of the planet that have a long history of ‘good government’, because the values of ‘good government’ migrant along with the people who have had its values instilled into their world views.
Countries which can de demonstrate an association with good government and ‘good ideas’ are the places where we should expect to find the best immigrants. Jones is a fan of Singapore and his argument comes to a crescendo with a call to make its denizens the archetype of the migrant which countries need. The closer the fit to this go-getting, super-industrious fragment of humanity into your migration flows then the better assured you can be that you are dealing with good immigrants and have a template for excluding those furthest away from this description.
What is totally absent from the reviews of research papers that make up the bulk of this book is any consideration of any objective other than the economic benefit of migration to the receiving country. Nothing is said about the impact of the movement of people on the regions from which people migrate, whether this might provide mechanisms for redistribution and the reduction of inequality, or even more radically, as reparations for environmental and climate damage and historical injustice. Setting a policy objective which aims to make migrant receiving countries look a little more like Singapore seem take an impoverished ambition in an area where so much more is needed in the modern world.
January 16, 2023
A well argued but brief presentation of a very simple (but controversial today?) idea -- migration affects both the migrants and the societies into which they migrate.
Primarily, the author uses the examples of European migration (colonization/settlement) of the Americas, Australia, etc., as well as the Chinese diaspora elsewhere in Asia, to show how groups high on a particular score (SAT*, but particularly the technological development of the society in the year 1500), when traced through to where they live today, are very predictive of what those societies are like now.
The author almost exclusively uses the "positive" cases like these, rather than lower development groups moving into higher development areas, for two reasons -- until very recently, not developed culture would have permitted this to happen to them (and thus there isn't enough time to see the consequences), and presumably, a desire not to end up the next Charles Murray.
He argues convincingly for diversity of skills, ethnic background, etc., but not of values, as positives for a society. (Calling the skill diversity "Firefly diversity" after the great sci-fi tv show was maybe pandering to the audience a bit much, but I appreciated it!)
This is a major counterpoint to the Bryan Caplan/left-libertarian open borders argument that societies are so powerful at integrating and assimilating migrants that they will largely only be improved. This always seemed absurd to me -- especially on political/voting basis, it's very obviously not true; on an economic or skill basis, it's more ambiguous. Multiple studies are cited within this book to show overall immigrant groups retain 30-50% of their views even after multiple generations; varies by group and domain, but seems relatively well supported. It's pretty clear that moving people from dysfunctional societies into the "I-7" of highly-industrious, inventive nations is great for the migrants individually in the short term, but Jones argues it's potentially worse for everyone long-run by making those special societies less productive and thus producing fewer technological public goods.
Primarily, the author uses the examples of European migration (colonization/settlement) of the Americas, Australia, etc., as well as the Chinese diaspora elsewhere in Asia, to show how groups high on a particular score (SAT*, but particularly the technological development of the society in the year 1500), when traced through to where they live today, are very predictive of what those societies are like now.
The author almost exclusively uses the "positive" cases like these, rather than lower development groups moving into higher development areas, for two reasons -- until very recently, not developed culture would have permitted this to happen to them (and thus there isn't enough time to see the consequences), and presumably, a desire not to end up the next Charles Murray.
He argues convincingly for diversity of skills, ethnic background, etc., but not of values, as positives for a society. (Calling the skill diversity "Firefly diversity" after the great sci-fi tv show was maybe pandering to the audience a bit much, but I appreciated it!)
This is a major counterpoint to the Bryan Caplan/left-libertarian open borders argument that societies are so powerful at integrating and assimilating migrants that they will largely only be improved. This always seemed absurd to me -- especially on political/voting basis, it's very obviously not true; on an economic or skill basis, it's more ambiguous. Multiple studies are cited within this book to show overall immigrant groups retain 30-50% of their views even after multiple generations; varies by group and domain, but seems relatively well supported. It's pretty clear that moving people from dysfunctional societies into the "I-7" of highly-industrious, inventive nations is great for the migrants individually in the short term, but Jones argues it's potentially worse for everyone long-run by making those special societies less productive and thus producing fewer technological public goods.
November 29, 2022
Great book -- easy to read and digest. The thesis is clear and well-supported by evidence spanning many countries and time periods. Would recommend reading the rest of the "Singapore trilogy" (Hive Mind & 10% Less Democracy) as well!
January 3, 2024
There are some good ideas, summaries of papers, explanations, but I loathe the writing style.
US people buy stocks that they can’t control the company; in Italy people have low trust so mostly family-run corporations.
Country of origin predicts the frugality of their descendants.
Ethnic diversity can hurt productivity (e.g. Kenya).
Diverse neighborhoods have lower trust.
Ethnic diversity reduces demand for gov, shifting spending to more private goods for the politically favored ethnic groups.
International country risk guide (icrg) measures government quality whether a nation is likely to pay off its debt.
Malaysia seems like the golden example of successful Chinese diaspora. However, what about India? Would be interested to study Indians too
Market dominant minorities (Chinese) provide bigger tax base, bigger pot of good for government to distribute to others.
Germans is the most conform when it comes to cooperation and the role of gov. Mexican and Poles are the least.
1st of all, all the data and papers cited are 2010 (the latest was 2013) which is 13 years behind. 2nd unnecessary metaphors and analogies. For example, there is a whole page going on typo in bible manuscript to DNA copying process to genetics distance. Even though the purpose is to explain, genetic distance, it feels loquacious. Another example “If the extremely ancient past matters, it will matter for the “less recent past”, not just for today.”Why can’t you just say “it will matter for the past” what does “less recent pass” even mean?
Non-NHW (non Hispanic white). Can’t he just call it Hispanic white? I mean …
I’m tired of the tire kicking horse racing repetition.
US people buy stocks that they can’t control the company; in Italy people have low trust so mostly family-run corporations.
Country of origin predicts the frugality of their descendants.
Ethnic diversity can hurt productivity (e.g. Kenya).
Diverse neighborhoods have lower trust.
Ethnic diversity reduces demand for gov, shifting spending to more private goods for the politically favored ethnic groups.
International country risk guide (icrg) measures government quality whether a nation is likely to pay off its debt.
Malaysia seems like the golden example of successful Chinese diaspora. However, what about India? Would be interested to study Indians too
Market dominant minorities (Chinese) provide bigger tax base, bigger pot of good for government to distribute to others.
Germans is the most conform when it comes to cooperation and the role of gov. Mexican and Poles are the least.
1st of all, all the data and papers cited are 2010 (the latest was 2013) which is 13 years behind. 2nd unnecessary metaphors and analogies. For example, there is a whole page going on typo in bible manuscript to DNA copying process to genetics distance. Even though the purpose is to explain, genetic distance, it feels loquacious. Another example “If the extremely ancient past matters, it will matter for the “less recent past”, not just for today.”Why can’t you just say “it will matter for the past” what does “less recent pass” even mean?
Non-NHW (non Hispanic white). Can’t he just call it Hispanic white? I mean …
I’m tired of the tire kicking horse racing repetition.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 22, 2023
Interesting read. Simple exposition of the theory and its building blocks. Focus is on macro concepts and not on the micro stuff why people take their culture with them when migrating and keeping it for generations.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews