UN charter and GCC labor rotation scheme

You might wonder why a country would want to limit the stay of "unskilled" guest workers who are doing a good job and have gained local knowledge that is valuable to their employers. I certainly have.

When economists see firms or households doing something odd we don't immediately discard our model of rational behavior. We look for constraints or incentives that are not immediately apparent to the observer. In the USA, for example, the answer often lies in government regulation or perverse incentives created by taxes.

The Gulf Coast Countries are considering a plan to limit the stay of unskilled guest workers. The Gulf News yesterday:

The 3+3 law proposes a residency cap of six years for unskilled labourers. If the law is passed, then unskilled workers will come to work in a GCC country with a three-year labour contract which can only be renewed once.
...
However the law would only be applied separately to each country, which means that a labourer could continue to work in the GCC after completing six years but not in the same country.

The last paragraph explains why I've included "labor rotation scheme" in the title.

What rational explanation is there for this plan?

The explanation for this plan can be found a Gulf News article that appeared last month:

Bahraini Minister of Labour, Dr Majeed Al Alawi, told Gulf News ... the residency time ceiling proposed for foreign workers in the Gulf is meant to ensure that unskilled foreign manpower taking part in different development projects do not come to live here for long periods that might entitle them the rights of immigrant workers under the UN conventions.

So, once again, there is a straightforward explanation that comes from regulation -- in this case the UN conventions. The GCC rotation plan dodges the problem of the guest workers being classified as immigrants. Immigrants have rights under the UN conventions, particularly a route to citizenship.

There are other plausible explanations. One is that the longer workers stay the more likely they will be able to organize and achieve collective action -- strikes.

Demographic imbalance is often cited as a reason to limit the number of guest workers. The notion here is that the greater the proportion of the population that is foreign the more that local culture will erode. Limiting the stay would not address demographic imbalance. It would have some cultural effects. For example, consider the family that employs a foreign maid or nannie. They would not be able to keep her beyond six years.

The first article referenced above does also discuss a separate measure to limit the number of unskilled workers. The article states,

The growing number of expatriates in the region has become a matter of grave concern to local governments as unemployment levels have also risen proportionately.

It may be that in some of the poorer GCC countries nationals would take jobs in the unskilled sector. But not in the UAE.

Spigot-like labor force

From Business Week

A North American economist at Merrill Lynch (MER), [David Rosenberg] is one of a number of economists who say the concerns about too few workers are vastly overblown. Rosenberg recently studied the issue and put out a report entitled Is There a Labor Shortage? If employers are having trouble filling jobs, "perhaps they're not looking hard enough," he says.

The issue may not be the number of workers, but rather the level of pay. Economists like Rosenberg argue that in a market economy, there's really no such thing as a true shortage. If you want more of something, you can pay more and have it. When employers say that there's a worker shortage, what they really mean is they can't get enough workers at the price they want to pay, the argument goes. "While it makes for nice cocktail conversation, the data aren't saying there is an acute labor shortage in this country," Rosenberg says.
...
Rosenberg argues the simplest way to gauge whether there's a worker shortage is to look at the price of labor. According to the basic laws of economics, the tighter the supply of labor, the more it should cost. So if the economy were operating with full or near-full employment, we would be seeing an "explosion in labor compensation," he says.

The price of labor, however, is hardly surging....
...
"Employers are very quick to raise the specter of a labor shortage, but often it's another way of saying they can't find the workers they want at the price they're paying," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist for the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. "They are unwilling to meet the price signal the market is sending, so they seek help in the form of a spigot like immigration."
...
"I'm a trained economist," says Bernstein. "I can't sign on to the idea that there are jobs people won't do at any price."

Even more so than the US, the UAE has a spigot-like labor force (and a drain-like labor force!).

We hear claims that there are some jobs Emiratis simply will not do. But we don't really know that because wages have never risen to see whether there is a wage sufficient to draw them into those jobs. The spigot from abroad has remained open -- employers can easily obtain work visas and import laborers. Unemployment amongst Emiratis is not what economists would call unemployment; you are unemployed if you would take a job at the current wage but cannot find one.

We hear claims that western expats in the UAE are dissatisfied with their pay. But if they were in a meaningful sense they would be leaving in large numbers. They aren't. Wages have not climbed significantly because the wage being paid matches the alternatives foreign workers could get elsewhere.

We hear claims that there are shortages in critical areas like government teachers and nurses in government hospitals. But there is no shortage. Rather the government simply is not paying a market wage. (I hasten to add teacher and nurse "shortages" are chronic issues in the US as well. See here, for example.) It is in a perpetual position of replacing workers who move on as soon as they can find better pay and working conditions. Such as a job elsewhere in the region. Or even in the US.

The UAE labor force is spigot-like. But it is also drain-like as well.

Iran under pressure, self imposed, economically

From the Washington Post:

Rationing Fuels Discontent in Iran

A month after raising gasoline prices by 25 percent, the government began fuel rationing Wednesday, which sparked violence in Tehran. Angry Iranians smashed shop windows and set fire to a dozen gas stations.

With armed guards protecting gas stations Thursday, calm returned to the capital as motorists lined up to fill their tanks. But many were still seething. "Ahmadinejad promised paradise, but his government has made life hell for Iranians," Mohsen Nosrati said as he waited at a gas station in central Tehran.
...
This month, about 60 economists wrote to Ahmadinejad blaming rising prices on his mismanagement and flawed economic policies.
...
The international pressure has made it difficult to tackle one of the country's most significant economic problems -- gasoline subsidies that cost the government billions of dollars a year and encourage high demand. Iran is one of the world's biggest oil producers, but it does not have enough refineries, so it must import more than 50 percent of the gasoline consumed domestically. The rationing is part of a government attempt to reduce the $10 billion it spends each year to import fuel that is then sold at below cost to keep prices low.

The Iranian economy was mismanaged before Ahmadinejad came to power; he has only made it worse. International power (sanctions for Iran's nuclear program) have intensified the necessity of reform. While sanctions may have made reforms more difficult they also made them more likely.

The Iranian government has little trust among the populace. The people have learned that the most likely way in which the oil wealth of the country is shared with them is through price subsidies. Subsidies are wasteful of resources, but in the Iranian context (appropriate distrust of government) they make sense.

Surge of demolitions in Abu Dhabi

A commenter (Macthompson) wondered, "Do you have a mathematical model to share with your readers which can explain the business model behind decisions to knock down thirty year old buildings housing rent-capped tenants?"

Here's the story he's referring to: New law triggers demolition surge. Key extract:

[A] source at the municipality explained that many of these buildings do not need maintenance. "The problem is that since the rent cap law was issued, we receive many claims for general maintenance work, a permit that entitles the landlord to evacuate the building, hence avoiding the three-year term for leases... and offering the property without the seven per cent cap restriction," he said.

"The average number of monthly demolition applications was 5 to 10 [buildings] before, but in recent months it surged to 15, especially after the introduction of the new law," the source added. With an extreme shortage of affordable housing in the short-term, increasing the number of demolitions adds to an already compromising situation for residents. However, contractors insist the mechanism is based on a free market approach.

"Any landlord can put in a request ... if he has no financial commitment to the Shaikh Khalifa [rent control] Committee and given that he successfully evacuates the building from existing tenants," explained Mohammad Hussain, deputy general manager of Al Mansouri Contracting Company.

There's the answer to the question: if you own a rent controlled apartment you are allowed to demolish the building and replace it with a building that is not rent controlled. The difference in rents may be sufficient to induce owners to choose demolition and replacement. Based on the numbers above, it appears that this has increased the rate of demolition by about 100 percent over the rate prior to rent control. (It's not clear from the article, but it appears that "demolitions" includes knocking down buildings and substantial renovations short on knockdown.)

Why has government not controlled the rent on new apartments? Because it realizes that no new construction will be occur unless rents rise to a level adequate to yield a market rate of return on investment. And we know new construction is desirable because we know the demand for housing has grown.

Why has the government allowed knockdown-and-replacement? Perhaps because it realizes that one alternative to knockdown is for the owner is to stop maintaining his building.

(The story reveals that another way around the rent control is permitted: obtain a permit for general maintenance, and evict the tenants.)

A note to end on:

Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city--except for bombing.

-Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck