In the aftermath of the recent Belgium terrorist attack, which followed upon even more horrific Islamist violence in Paris, there have come the inevitable media finger-pointing, second-guessing, and obligatory warnings against blaming innocent Muslims. Also heard is self-congratulatory chatter about how America’s Muslim immigrants are much better integrated into our society than their European counterparts. Few have had anything perceptive to say regarding why our “home grown” terrorism is far more muted than Belgium’s or France’s.
I am sure that more than one factor comes into play, but Alex Tabarrok, a prominent free market economist, has certainly highlighted an important cause. Namely, labor market rigidity:
Institutions that make it more difficult to hire and fire workers or adjust wages can increase unemployment and reduce employment, especially among immigrant youth. Firms will be less willing to hire if it is very costly to fire…The hiring hurdle is especially burdensome for immigrants given the additional real or perceived uncertainty from hiring immigrants. One of the few ways that immigrants can compete in these situations is by offering to work for lower wages. But if that route is blocked by minimum wages or requirements that every worker receive significant non-wage benefits then unemployment and non-employment among immigrants will be high generating disaffection, especially among the young.
Tabarrok quotes an OECD report to the effect that Belgium is a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, and thus, “In 2012, the overall unemployment rate in Belgium was 7.6% (15-64 age group), rising to 19.8% for those in the labour force aged under 25, and, among these, reaching 29.3% and 27.9% for immigrants and their native-born offspring, respectively.” According to a story in the March 23, 2016 edition of the Wall Street Journal (p.A7), 30% of the 95,000 residents of Molenbeek, the now infamous, predominantly Muslim neighborhood in Brussels, are unemployed.
Working with and for people of different ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds tends to build trust and strengthen social bonds. On the other hand, immigrants who are unable to obtain gainful work are likely to become disaffected and resentful, and thus more open to the sort of extremist ideology spread by the jihadists. The US was until recently, compared to the EU, a paragon of labor market flexibility, but sadly this is rapidly changing. Our “blue” states are now competing to set the highest minimum wage and the most generous non-wage benefits (e.g. paid vacations and leave), while ObamaCare has imposed on employers a costly healthcare insurance mandate.
Not only does the welfare/regulatory state make it difficult for immigrants to find gainful employment, it disincentivizes it. While non-citizens are not generally eligible for social assistance in the US, in most European nations fairly generous welfare benefits are available to legal immigrants.[1] And even for our citizens, we have bitter experience with the long-term effects of welfare dependency on both recipients and their offspring.[2] Something similar is surely happening in many European Muslim-immigrant communities, such as Molenbeek, the Paris banlieues, etc.
Just to be clear, we know that the leaders of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations are ideologically driven fanatics, and not motivated by poverty. But, the existence of substantial Muslim-majority communities in major European cities in which a disproportionate number of residents are unemployed, and thus hostile to the dominant culture, permits terrorists to organize, plan, and operate with impunity. In Mao’s words, these neighborhoods are the “sea” in which the terrorists “swim.” So, in addition to all the other harms inflicted on society by the welfare/regulatory state, we can add the promotion of terrorism.
_______________
[2] See the statistics and sources cited in my Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World, pp. 118-20.
This sounds like a probable cause. But Islam seems to be plenty violent with much need of support from welfare. But it does seem that the welfare aspect makes it worse.
Hi Avraham,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that for those who read the Koran literally, Islam can promote violence to a greater extent than other religions. Nevertheless, I believe that a majority of Muslims either reject the literalist approach or have found ways to sanitize these verses in their own heads. But, even a substantial minority concentrated in certain communities can be a breeding ground for terrorism, as we have just seen.