EUref: What are the facts?

Both official(ish) sides of the EU referendum campaign are under fire for supposedly misleading voters by presenting opinions as facts. Vote Leave produced an official-looking “facts” leaflet that hid their campaign name into small font on the back page, while the government has spent £9m producing a leaflet setting out its position.

The common thing whenever “facts” are referred to is that one side considers them facts, and the other propaganda. Propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view” – it’s information used to influence others, and naturally both sides assert the other side is misleading people into voting against their cause.

Is there then any real hope for clarity in this debate? I think there is, if we try and boil down to particular dimensions of the question. We won’t necessarily get numbers, but we’ll get directions of effects, certainly if we’re thinking in the economic sphere.

For example (and in a private correspondence with Leave.EU they have conceded this point), at the moment firms can employ people (relatively) freely from all over the EU, rather than just from within the UK. Try to employ someone from outside the EU and that likely involves a costly interview process to determine suitability of match, and then another costly process of getting a visa, a process to be repeated every time the visa expires.

It stands to reason then that given firms can employ people from a much larger pool of potential workers, they will be able to find a better match as an employee than if restricted to just UK workers (and of course, if they could employ anyone from anywhere in the world, then they’d likely find a better match still, but that option isn’t on the cards at the moment, if ever). Hence British firms, and indeed firms elsewhere in the EU that have hired workers from another EU country, have done so on the basis that that non-native is the best possible person for the job – and equally, that person has figured that company is the best company for them to be working for.

If we then apply non-EU rules to EU workers, this has to have some impact. It means it becomes more costly to appoint the best person for the job if that person is from another EU country, reducing the likelihood that that person is appointed. That then reduces output from that firm as the firm must be less efficient as a result. Even if they still hire that EU worker, the HR costs of appointing that person, renewing their visa and associated bureaucratic costs and uncertainty, that is still time and effort that could have gone to productive purposes within the firm.

Since there are over 2m such EU workers in the UK, and a similar number of UK workers elsewhere in the EU, that is a lot of people immediately affected by such changes. That likely is a much greater number when families are taken into account. They may well stay, and indeed many of the EU workers here in the UK that I know well are taking steps to ensure they can stay (applying for British citizenship, at significant costs to themselves and indirectly to their workplaces). The point though is that these are actions that otherwise would not have been taken.

In addition, what is the effect on hiring decisions in the coming years, in the event of Brexit? Will EU workers better suited to UK jobs than any British worker be suitably discouraged from applying? Will EU workers in the UK be discouraged from changing jobs to a better suited role by the increased bureaucracy involved in any such step?

All in all, these are not numbers, which we commonly associate with “facts”, but they are directions. The impacts described here cannot be positive on productivity in the UK, nor on stress levels, nor on levels of red tape and bureaucracy. Hence the only real question is whether they are a price worth paying for some greater benefit from leaving?

What is a “theory”?

I’ve mentioned this a number of times in lecture: as we try and follow a scientific approach to macroeconomics, it is important to be aware of what are theories, and what are facts. The BBC today has an article asking “when is a theory ‘just a theory’?”.

The article points out the general point of confusion – when something is so well accepted that it becomes essentially a fact, using evolution as an example. However, evolution remains a theory because it is a theory – a set of ideas about how the world became how it is now from what it previously was, and it is possible (albeit mind-blowingly unlikely) that some new evidence or discovery (some data) might disprove the theory.

Economic theories, in all likelihood, will never reach the same level of acceptedness (to be more accurate: non-rejectedness) as evolution, and as such we should be very clear about what theories are: theories about a “natural rate of unemployment”, for example.

Facts, on the other hand, are events that occur, or as Google defines, “a thing that is known or proved to be true”. The financial crisis, the Second World War, the closing price of the FTSE100, the time of day, are all facts.