Saturday, September 24, 2022

Improving refugee resettlement: insights from market design by Justin Hadad and Alexander Teytelboym

 The Autumn 2022 issue of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy is about forced migration.  Here's a paper directly related to market design.

Improving refugee resettlement: insights from market design by Justin Hadad and Alexander Teytelboym, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 434–448, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac013, 15 September 2022

Abstract: The current refugee resettlement system is inefficient because there are too few resettlement places and because refugees are resettled to locations where they might not thrive. We outline how ideas from market design can lead to better resettlement practices. In particular, we discuss how market design can incentivize participation of countries in resettlement and improve the matching of refugees at international and local levels; some of these insights have already put into practice. Finally, we highlight several further applications of market design in refugee resettlement, including cardinal preference submission and matching with transfers.

"There is an acute shortage of resettlement. Resettlement is a public good from the point of view of countries (i.e. if one country contributes by resettling a refugee, all other countries benefit), so it is not surprising that it is underprovided (Moraga and Rapoport, 2014). The UNHCR predicts that 1.47 million refugees will need resettlement in 2022––the highest ever number (UNHCR, 2021e). Numbers of resettled refugees fluctuate—in part driven by need, and in part driven by the willingness of the largest hosting countries, such as the United States, to resettle (see Figure 1). The refugees in need of resettlement are the most vulnerable kinds of refugees (see Figure 2); they have often suffered persecution and violence above and beyond the terrible experiences of most refugees.

...

"The UNHCR is responsible for sending the applications of refugees to resettling countries. The process works as follows: the UNHCR identifies a refugee family in need of resettlement, and submits an application on their behalf to a country that may resettle them. If the application is accepted, the country becomes responsible for resettling the refugee according to its own rules; if the application is rejected, the UNHCR can submit an application to another country. The process can take months, if not years. Given the shortage of resettlement places, the UNHCR has a strong incentive to maximize the expected number of successful applications rather than to try to find the best matches between refugees and countries. In 2020, the UNHCR submitted the applications of over 39,500 refugees to resettling countries, which led to just 22,800 individuals departing to these countries (UNHCR, 2021d). This suggests that there is potential to improve the allocation of international resettlement submissions."

***********

Here's the rest of the issue:

Forced Migration

CONTENTS

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 403–413, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac025

PART 1

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 414–433, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac018
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 434–448, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac013

PART 2

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 449–486, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac012
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 487–513, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac022

PART 3

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 514–530, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac017
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 531–556, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac021
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 557–577, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac015
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 578–594, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac024

PART 4

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 595–624, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac014
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 625–653, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac023
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 654–677, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac019
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 678–698, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac016

POSTSCRIPT

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Pages 699–716, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac020

CORRECTION

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, Autumn 2022, Page 717, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac030

Friday, September 23, 2022

Choosing between public and private schools: vouchers in Arizona

There's a fight over public versus private school funding in Arizona. Here's the background:

Arizona OKs Biggest US School Voucher Plan, Faces Challenge. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has signed a massive expansion of Arizona’s private school voucher system.  AP, July 7, 2022

"Republican Gov. Doug Ducey on Thursday signed a massive expansion of the state’s private school voucher system, even as he faced a promised effort by public school advocates to block the bill and ask voters to erase it during November’s election.

"The expansion Ducey signed will let every parent in Arizona take public money now sent to the K-12 public school system and use it to pay for their children’s private school tuition or other education costs.

...

"Ducey has championed “school choice” during his eight years in office. He signed a universal voucher expansion in 2017 with enrollment caps that was referred to the ballot by a grassroots group called Save Our Schools Arizona.

"Voters soundly rejected the expansion by a 2-to-1 vote in the 2018 election, but advocates of what are formally called “Empowerment Scholarship Accounts” pushed ahead with new expansions anyway. The universal voucher bill passed with only support from majority Republican lawmakers in the legislative session that ended early on June 25."

**********

And Salon brings us up to date:

Arizona's school privatization battle heats up: Will the voters get to decide?  Republicans' massive school voucher plan may yet be defeated (again) — but the challenge is stiffer this time By KATHRYN JOYCE, SEPTEMBER 20

"A fight over the future of the most sweeping school voucher program in the country has heated up in Arizona over the last few weeks, as public school advocates race to gather enough signatures to trigger a ballot referendum aimed at overturning a voucher law recently passed by the state's Republican-dominated legislature. The referendum campaign, which faces a crucial deadline this Friday, has drawn intense opposition from Arizona conservatives. This has included funding for multiple anti-referendum websites, roadside protests starring Republican legislators and, over the last two weeks, conflicts between activists both on social media and in the streets. 

...

"Under the new law, any Arizona parent who opts their children out of public school will receive a debit card with an average balance of just under $7,000, which they can use to spend on almost any educational needs they choose, from private school tuition to homeschooling expenses to buying computers to hiring private teachers for "microschools." Public education advocates immediately warned that such a huge transfer of public funds to private hands could be the death knell for public schools, which would likely have to make untenable cuts to teaching staff and school programs.

...

"From the inception of Arizona's ESAs, critics have charged that they're little more than a workaround to funnel public tax dollars to private schools. The idea was born after a court found in 2009 that two earlier Arizona school voucher programs were unconstitutional, violating the state's prohibition on using public money for private education. In 2011, under the guidance of the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank, the state launched an ingenious alternative: sending state funds directly to parents, who spend the money as they see fit. The ESA option then became a nationwide model, copied in numerous other states and increasingly seen by conservative education reform activists as "the purest form of school choice." 


HT: Bertan Turhan