The Marketization of Citizenship: A Critique of Selling Passports and Immigration Rights

The podcast episode features Minouche Shafik discussing the controversial proposal by Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker to address immigration challenges by implementing a market-based system where citizenship is sold at a price. Becker argued this approach would generate revenue for national treasuries, attract highly motivated and economically contributing immigrants, and efficiently manage immigration numbers. He even anticipated objections by suggesting a loan system for deserving but less wealthy individuals, akin to university student loans.

Shafik, however, strongly rejects this market allocation for citizenship, asserting that it, along with voting rights, falls into a domain where market mechanisms are fundamentally inappropriate. Her core argument is that for democracy to function effectively, citizens must engage as equals, and the value of a "good citizen" cannot be quantified by wealth or income. She highlights that many outstanding citizens may have no income, while wealthy individuals can be "dreadful citizens," thus rendering financial metrics irrelevant and misleading for assessing civic worth.

Shafik further elaborates that selling citizenship transforms it into a purely instrumental good, thereby undermining the foundational principles of a democratic society. She draws a historical parallel to 18th and 19th-century property qualifications for voting, which are now universally rejected, to illustrate how such market logic can erode fundamental rights. While acknowledging the existence of investor visa programs, she distinguishes between those that merely allow payment for a passport (which she opposes) and those that require genuine investment in specific social areas or actual residency and contribution to the country, deeming the latter more acceptable due to the tangible societal benefits.

The discussion extends to the hypothetical scenario of private citizenship swaps, which Shafik dismisses as illegal and impractical, emphasizing that democratic governments must retain control over immigration policy. She argues that the wider social interest of existing citizens in determining who joins their community supersedes any individual's right to engage in such private transactions, even if criminals or terrorists were screened out. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the critical distinction between domains where market efficiency is beneficial for resource allocation and those where fundamental rights and democratic principles necessitate non-market-based approaches, highlighting the ethical and societal limits of market logic.

Put a price on citizenship and whoever can pay, can come.

I think there are some domains where using market allocations are not appropriate. I think citizenship is one, I think voting is another.

Because being a good citizen, is not measured by how much money you have.

There are people who are outstanding citizens who have no income and there are people who are dreadful citizens who are very wealthy.

I think it fundamentally undermines what a democratic society is all about if you start selling that and using a financial metric.

If you take that logic to its end, the more money you earn, the more votes you should have.

There are some domains where markets and pricing are really good for allocating resources and making decisions and there are some domains where they're not.

those programs where you just pay and you get a passport, I don't think that's right.

I see the wider social interest of other citizens, probably superseding the right of an individual to have a private deal along those lines.

setting your immigration policy is an issue for a democratic government to decide democratically.