JHR 425 -THE ECONOMICS OF BORDER WALLS AND PHYSICAL BARRIERS

P a g e | 1

THE ECONOMICS OF BORDER WALLS AND PHYSICAL BARRIERS

1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC THEORY

In the past and present, states and nations have built walls and other barriers to demarcate

boundaries, regulate access and flow of people and goods, protect from external threats and

influence economic effects. Such constructions have had significant geopolitical and

socioeconomic functions ranging from the Great Wall of China that was constructed over 2000

years ago to the Berlin Wall separating East and West Germany during the cold war.

Studying the economics of border walls and barriers involves looking at concepts such as trade,

labor, finances and other elements through the prism of various theories. A pure free market view

of the world regards borders as constraints that hinder the proper functioning of markets and

achieve the greatest consumer surplus. Walls, in a way, prevent the free movement of labor,

goods, capital and ideas within regions and thus reduce competition, specialization and other

market forces that put downward pressure on costs and prices. But some economists argue that

borders may be perfectly aligned in terms of securing economic values such as security, cultural

integrity as well as regulating sudden and unplanned large-scale movements of people. There are

also arguments that while walls have initial costs in terms of disrupting supply chain and labor

markets, over time new trade routes develop around them.

The historical analysis provides a clear picture of how such walls and barriers such as Hadrian’s

Wall in the Roman Britain or Korean DMZ have over time demarcated economic boundaries.

Game theory captures the military and economic rationality of when and why factions build

barriers. Foreign policy, especially as it relates to border security policy, is studied in the public

choice theory based on lobbying interests and political incentives. New trade theory, which

P a g e | 2

recognizes walls as barriers to international trade on one front, also recognizes that walls

inherently create the environment for contraband and the black market. To assess the true

benefits or costs of walls, it is necessary to look not only at the tangible advantages and

disadvantages but also at the distribution of the effects on various stakeholders.

This has enriched the study of the modern border walls and barriers located all over the world

through historical, theoretical and analytical lens. Such economic walls analysis through

historical and theoretical frameworks also offers a richer measurement of the costs and benefits

of economic walls and the related policy choices.

a. Evolution of border fortifications throughout history

Boundaries and the constructions that were created for their protection have been always

connected with economic aspects. Starting from the Great Wall of China, walled cities and

medieval castles, rulers have always put up barriers to defend land, regulate commerce and

secure revenue through taxes, tariffs and rents. The development of border walls is grounded in

the altered economic conditions, concerns, technological advancements and views. The early

city-states put up walls more for the purpose of excluding other rulers than the common person.

Mercantilist theories later focused on the stockpiling of gold and silver that justified the

establishment of customs houses and naval boycotts. Contemporary barriers concern

immigration, smuggling, terrorism and the drug trade using advanced technologies such as

sensors, drones and cameras with artificial intelligence. It’s still unclear whether they are

effective and cost-efficient. According to Adam Smith, border walls act as barriers and

uneconomical use of resources that can be used in more productive ways. Some argue that they

fund rule of law, property rights and steady growth rates. Costs and benefits in the past were

based on sites, designs and local economic factors. The Roman Limes and the Antonine Wall

P a g e | 3

aimed for the monopolization of commerce and control over tribes in extensive borders. The

construction of the Great Wall started with feudal states scrambling for materials before they

united China. Medieval fortifications responded to changes in cannon technology. Contemporary

walls are equipped with sophisticated monitoring devices. Economics also factor the placement,

length and traits of the fortifications. Coastal areas, mountainous terrain and narrow chokepoints

are favorable to fixed structures. Open borders and coasts are ideal for the application of

technologies that enable the identification of cross-border movements. It is crucial to understand

that costs and benefits have never been determined by some easily calculated formula or fixed

model. Historically and today, they remain a function of shifting and multifaceted economic and

political factors. The shifting technology, goals and cost of border walls support the fact that the

barriers represent sites of struggle over what is currently important.

b. Economic theories of international trade and factor mobility

Different theories of international economics help to explain the effects of global trade and

factors of productions on the domestic economies. The classical free trade theories put forward

by Adam Smith and David Ricardo provided that one can gain more wealth by making

specialization and trade. These theories imply that borders that are open to trade provide the best

trade-off in terms of efficiency in the global economy. However, the critics have argued that

these theories do not explain all the various intricate aspects of modern trade and its effect on

income distribution. Modern theories of trade based on the 20th century focus on the concepts

such as economies of scale, imperfect competition, and technology. These theories added some

qualifications to the idea of perfectly free trade and identified possible strategic uses of some

trade protections and government actions. Concerning mobility of factors, it is argued by

neoclassical growth theories that the mobility of labor enhances efficient distribution of

P a g e | 4

production factors across countries depending on their endowment of labor and capital.

However, some economists argue this does not pay sufficient attention to distributional effects

across countries and effects within the countries particularly on the native low-skill workers who

are affected by new competition in the labor market. The immigration restriction analyses also

rely on labor economics, public finance, urban planning, and migration theory regarding fiscal

costs, assimilation difficulties, spatial densities, and impacts on wages and employment. Some of

the contextual theories assert that economic effects of trade and immigration are greatly shaped

by regulatory conditions, flexibility of labor market, skill status of immigrants in relation to

natives and type of trade. Considering these theories and viewpoints contributes historical

background for the analysis of the multifaceted economic effects of modern border walls and

barriers—both the constructive effects for safeguarded industries and the destructive effects from

disruptions. It is important to incorporate an appreciation of these economic perspectives for a

more comprehensive understanding of these multiple impacts.

c. Concepts of border economics and spatial economics

Historically, two concept areas have emerged, the border economics and the spatial economics

which serve as theoretical models to measure the economic effects of border walls and barriers.

Boundaries produce economic breaks which in turn account for spatial differences in prices,

wages, and other economic factors. According to economic theory, borders are a distortion that

inhibits a balancing of these variables. But at the same time, borders promote trade as delimiters

of political structures as well as the territorial divisions. Border economics embraces concepts

associated with these distortions and discontinuities into mainstream economic modeling thus

enhancing understanding of cross border flow of goods, services, labor and capital. Studied

theories encompass wage arbitrage, a phenomenon in which people are willing to work for

P a g e | 5

higher wages across the borders; price wedge models focusing on border effects on prices; and

qualitative choice models providing an estimation of border impacts on migration and trade.

These are the areas where commerce related industries are developed to support the borders

trade. Centrifugal and centripetal forces are determined by the economic geographers to

understand how the location of the borders influences the regional economy of both countries

involved. Centripetal forces work in favor of economic concentration and development in border

cities that are involved in cross border activities. Centralization still hinders development in areas

that are located far from borders since such places have poor access and high transportation

costs. These concepts provide background information on the multifaceted nature of the

economic functions of borders and how a border wall may bring new inefficiencies in relation to

wages, employment, prices, trade, consumer and producer surplus, and industrial structure on

both sides of the border. Thus, the border and spatial economics combined with the conventional

trade theories offer more theoretical understanding of border costs that cannot be derived from

the partial equilibrium trade and the standard CGE trade models. Economic theory has not been

very effective in explaining informal cross-border economic transactions, ethnically divided

cross-border commerce, and non-economic reasons for the construction of barriers across

borders such as security, signaling, or domestic political processes. Political science concepts,

sociology and ethnic studies could be used to overcome these limitations.

d. Game theory applications to border security

Used in conflict and cooperation, game theory is a mathematical concept that can be applied

when studying border security. One is that border security is not a zero-sum game, but a

sequential decision by countries in a game. Models provide a clearer understanding of the

incentive matrix that governs the setting of priorities at the national level. For instance,

P a g e | 6

authorities may decide to shift efforts and personnel in areas of enforcement towards specific

sectors of the border that records high incidences of unlawful cross border activities. However,

models suggest that smugglers are likely to adapt by changing their routes and tactics to take full

advantage of the new vulnerabilities. Authorities then re-optimize, and the process continues as a

game of ‘catch me if you can’. Game theory helps to explain why border barriers are not very

effective as a unilateral measure. Walls may act as a substitute for illicit flows, without

addressing incentives in place that drive unauthorized immigration, gun running or drug

trafficking. Total exclusion is not possible due to resource limitation. However, excluded groups

can react with higher risk penetration efforts, which can be more aggressive in nature. According

to the proposed game theory, border security problems are not necessarily security issues but

social welfare and distributional problems in the broad sense. Both strategic interaction and

externality effects imply that countries have common concerns that require cooperation such as

development aid and governance structures. However, game theory also shows that cooperation

has its problems such as the problem of free-riding. Institutional design and multiple interactions

enabling reputation building and reciprocity are the key to eliminating distrust. Compared to

physical barriers, it makes more sense to realize that addressing the causes can more effectively

stabilize the results, although it may take more time and dedication. Game theory is thus very

useful in border security contexts whether it is in the context of interdictor-smuggler games,

multiple authority coordination, or integration gains and threats associated with borders with

different levels of permeability. Insights assist in decisions on where to focus resources based on

constraints.

P a g e | 7

e. Cost-benefit analysis frameworks

One of the most important conceptual tools that can be used for the analysis of border walls and

barriers is cost-benefit analysis where potential gains and losses of any project for the society are

compared. In the past several decades, there has been an advance in cost-benefit methods that are

more comprehensive and precise for the assessment of costs and benefits beyond the narrow

financial costs. For example, some analyses now measure environmental costs of construction

and its effects on migration rates, on regional economic development and fiscal positions, on

national security and geopolitical repercussions. There are even complex models that assigned

dollar values to beauty and cultural-historical values around borders. Measuring such indirect

impacts is challenging and calls for a multidisciplinary approach across the social sciences field.

The new data analyses methods also enable tracking of the costs and benefits in a more detailed,

real-time manner instead of relying on estimates or polls. Dynamic modeling can be updated at

each phase as new impacts occur in construction, operation and maintenance phases. Whereas in

the past, cost-benefit analyses of border walls seemed to provide clearer conclusions, there are

now complications that have allowed critics to argue that this vagueness helps partisan interests

selectively distort this information to favor one political outcome over the other. In conclusion,

there are still controversies on what counts as relevant effects, how they are to be assessed, and

how the major concerns of one party relate to those of another over mobility, economic gain,

environment, and perceived social/cultural concerns over migration and globalization in general.

Therefore, even the theoretical concept that has been employed in the present work, cost-benefit

analysis has recently become a subject to debates on its assumptions, modeling restrictions, and

general possibilities to represent the lived experience of border wall effects. This raises questions

about whose knowledge is valued and whose needs are ultimately catered for through processes

of policymaking and border wall decisions shrouded in technicality and economic rationality.

P a g e | 8

f. Externalities and unintended consequences in border economics

Building of physical barriers and walls particularly the borders exposes the economy to large

externalities and other effects. Externalities are defined as the favorable or unfavorable impacts

on the third party who are not related to the economic transaction. When it comes to border

barriers, these costs and benefits are to be borne and received not only by the governments who

are financing and constructing the barriers, but also to individuals and groups in a given

community and region, employers and employees, consumers and taxpayers, immigrants and

emigrants, and trading partners on both sides of the border. For instance, border walls can deter

the value of properties adjacent to the border and disrupt societies. These landowners hardly

receive compensation for their loss, which is a negative production externality. Furthermore, it is

important to note that, barriers affect not only the unauthorized movement of people and goods

but also the legal cross-border trade, business, tourism, and social relations causing harm to the

economies of border cities. Reduced economic output and foregone tax receipts are two

dimensions of negative consumption externalities that are borne by local governments and their

residents instead of the federal agencies that oversee the construction of barriers. Yet sometimes

border enforcement itself generates a large economic transfer industry that acts in the interests of

its own contractors while competing with other priorities of governmental spending. Border

barriers elicit intricate redistribution effects which yields winners and losers who have not been

foreseen when such projects are planned. These unforeseen secondary impacts shed light on the

costs and risks of bordering policies and border security perhaps offset by gains if only perceived

by decision makers and not border residents. It is for this reason, comprehensive cost and benefit

analysis that factors in externalities in an effort to determine net social gains, can help explain

border enforcement provided, however, that public administrative theories of rationalism-

incrementalism in policymaking do not allow political factors to replace economic ones in

P a g e | 9

defining border enforcement priorities. Appreciating all the economic consequences requires

dynamic analysis thinking and empirical analysis of the additive, multiplicative and time effects

within the entire life cycle of border barrier systems.

2. COSTS OF BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

The overall expenses incurred in building and maintaining a border wall or barrier in the

bordering region between Mexico and the US are significantly high. A study conducted in 2011

calculated that constructing a single concrete wall for 700 miles out of the 1900 miles border

could cost between to billion for construction with a yearly maintenance of over 0 million.

Though, future government reviews and estimations point towards the fact that the true costs

could be even greater. A report on the costs and benefits of border walls by the U. S. Government

Accountability Office in 2018 highlighted that construction costs could be as follows: basic

fencing. 5 million per mile up to over 5 million per mile of more complex fencing and double-

layered walls in more remote or difficult terrain regions of the border. When the whole of the

southern border area is considered, this amounts to costs of between 8 billion and 4 billion only

for the fencing not including other complementary costs such as acquisition of land, construction

of roads to the fencing barriers, lighting, gates and costs of maintenance over time.

Physical barriers also have many costs and challenges related to their construction, maintenance

or repair once implemented. Hazardous geographical conditions like steep slopes and

unfavorable climate like monsoon, heat, and flash floods affect the border wall structure.

Leakage at walls call for sufficient surveillance to identify and fix them; the repairs are

expensive and challenging in remote borders. The cost of maintaining the existing 700 miles of

barriers was estimated in one 2017 study to be as high as 0 million per year in areas such as San

Diego and El Paso. Applying the same logic to the rest of the southern border area means that the

P a g e | 10

permanent care of even more extensive border barriers could cost well over billion per year for

personnel, technology, roads, and repairs for thousands of miles of desert and other terrains.

Altogether, starting from multi-billion-dollar investments necessary for construction of walls to

hundreds of millions per year for their maintenance, border walls and barriers mean significant

resource expenditures in the long run. This is because these costs, when measured against

emerging questions about their effectiveness in curbing illegal crossings, pose relevant economic

questions about the efficacy of expending massive resources in constructing border walls and

fences as strategies to bolster immigration enforcement and border security vis-à-vis other

methods. Here, policy considerations demand close scrutiny to discern whether the intended

policy outcomes might be attainable at a lower overall cost by employing other border control

strategies.

a. Initial construction costs and budget analysis

The initial construction costs of border barriers can be relatively cheap or expensive depending

on the terrain, materials, height, and methods applied. It is obvious that constructing walls or

fences in regions where the grounds are challenging to access due to the terrain is more costly

than in comparatively smooth and easily accessible territories. Labor, transportation, and

materials have to be imported. Tall concrete walls with a height of approximately 18 feet are

considerably more expensive than other structures such as vehicle barriers or fences. A study

conducted by the Government Accountability Office in 2018 was able to determine the

following; A simple vehicle fence cost between per linear foot while the concrete wall cost 5

million per mile through mountainous areas. Consequently, the costs and gains that are expected

to be achieved within a short period, such as reducing cases of illegal border crossing, must be

put into balance against the costs that may be incurred in the long run. Budget control is

P a g e | 11

important since some of the government wall and fence contracts have been known to go

overboard the initial approval. For instance, in 2009, Homeland Security asked for 10 million for

53 miles of border fencing, but it spent billion on only 36 miles. Such differences between

funding requests and actual costs underscore the need to undertake comprehensive, credible, and

exhaustive analyses of the budget impact before allocating resources. Construction budgets

should have provisions for working with difficult topography issues but at the same time, should

not allow for limitless cost overruns with no clear gains. Due to the fact that costs of border

barriers require initial outlays of taxpayers’ money plus future costs of maintenance, economic

analysis assists in identifying whether the costs are justified by the returns or whether the funds

directed get the best results. Structure and materials in construction, geography, manpower,

regular maintenance, efficiency against costs offer crucial information about its financial and

economic feasibility while thinking of border walls.

b. Long-term maintenance and repair expenses

There are long-term costs associated with the maintenance and repair of the border wall that

could add up to a large figure in the long run. After the initial construction, there are costs of

people to man the wall monitoring and patrolling, security gadgets like sensors and cameras for

surveillance, roads and vehicles for access along the long stretches, supplies for crews that may

be repairing breaches, repair costs including labor and materials. These are costs that will be

incurred periodically for the lifetime of the wall.

Some of the influencing aspects of the cost of long-term maintenance and repair include the

length of the wall constructed, the geographical accessibility, and the climatic conditions. There

has been a construction of a number of hundreds of miles border fencing in some regions like

southern California, Arizona and Texas which are massive and need regular maintenance.

P a g e | 12

Constructed crossing over distant desert, across mountain ranges and over rivers add multiple

folds complexities and cost several times higher than constructed in urban areas. It also leads to

costs; metal structures deteriorate faster close to oceans and seasons such as winter snowstorms

or summer monsoons are more aggressive in wearing out structures within a decade or more

timeframe.

Coming up with per mile lifetime cost for maintenance and repair means predicting future

budgets decades in advance. Some GAO reports have accused the White House of inflating the

cost estimates for the border wall because there are too many unknown factors. But lifecycle cost

analysis of prior fence construction has made it be seen that a real cost of construction to a

million dollars per mile over twenty to thirty years can be obtained when everything that is

needed includes 24/7 staffing, recurrent land and fence maintenance, swapping out of technology

systems, road rebuilding and replacement of vehicles and equipment on a timeline that is long

enough. Since hundreds of miles have to be covered in order to have a good signal, the total

ongoing costs add up to the billions of dollars after a few years.

Additional sections of barrier, steeper topography, and evolving unpredictability of immigration

and security technologies will lead to higher lifetime maintenance expenses. As federal budgets

remain significantly limited, financing the long-term border wall repairs could impact other

national priorities. Therefore, while extending barriers is meant to enhance near term security,

the cost of maintaining the barriers which future administrations and taxpayers bear may turn

into an economic issue in its own right.

P a g e | 13

c. Environmental impact assessments and mitigation costs

The erection of fences and other structures at the border is known to have severe consequences

on the environment hence the need to put in place measures that seek to counter this.

Environmental compliance is the process of undertaking environmental studies to establish

environmentally sensitive areas, species, routes, water sources, and other features that are likely

to be affected by the construction of border barriers. Environmental mitigation costs relate to the

amount of money that is spent in avoiding or offsetting the negative impacts of border

infrastructure projects on the natural environment with a view of meeting the legal requirements

on environmental impact assessment.

Mitigation costs include any and all actions taken to avoid, minimize or compensate for impact

on environmental resources arising from the construction footprint and supporting infrastructure

for border fencing and walls. Some costs may involve pre-construction surveys for wildlife and

habitats, moving native plants and animals away from construction areas, constructing measures

to regulate storm water and containing oil spills during construction, re-planting vegetation to

reduce soil erosion after construction, designing barriers such as grates or gaps friendly to

wildlife, purchasing other adjacent habitats to mitigate for destruction by construction, and

monitoring impacts on the environment. Due to the fact that most border areas are located in

hard to access geographical areas Inaccessible geographical areas as well as substandard areas,

the costs for mitigation measures for large scale border barrier projects are relatively high and

depend on the environmental conditions of the specific area.

Measures intended to reduce the negative impacts on the environment in the form of compliance

and mitigation charges magnify significantly the costs of border wall and fencing across many

areas. Taking into account these additional but frequently necessary project costs is crucial to

P a g e | 14

analyzing the economic implications and potential of border barrier construction proposals along

the entirety of the United States’ expansive land borders. Comparing costs of mitigation with

probable environmental consequences and security advantages is necessary in determining the

costs and benefits of funding the extension of border barriers or merely maintaining them.

Detailed cost estimating and modelling of barriers must also include engineering/construction

direct costs but must also incorporate other but highly relevant costs associated with

environmental compliance and mitigation.

d. Land acquisition and eminent domain issues

The development of any large infrastructure projects includes the process of land acquisition,

which often leads to eminent domain issues if property owners refuse to give up their properties.

The border wall is no exception to this reality and has been developed as a means of addressing

the issue of illegals and crime. Even though the federal government has the power to acquire

private property for public use through eminent domain, it has to compensate the owner. Setting

reasonable rates has already been difficult, legal, and expensive along the southern border. About

one and a half thousand miles of the border area are uninhabited, and many of the properties are

not documented or documented inaccurately. Owners have dismissed federal valuation

approaches and offers which fail to capture the loss of land amenity, business income, and access

to property in Mexico side of the wall. Various legal challenges involving the violation of the

right to property through eminent domain from the construction of border fences orchestrated

during the regime of President George W. Bush are still pending in the courts to date. From an

efficiency perspective, eminent domain expenses are an external cost that is not included in

border wall construction costs. Such costs include legal costs that are incurred in cases that have

not been resolved and the cost of funds borrowed to finance the cases. Since it takes decades to

P a g e | 15

incrementally build sections of barrier wall, land acquisition processes might take years before

construction in a given area starts. This increases overall costs as well as the level of risk

associated with projects in total. Since there are hundreds of more miles under threat of eminent

domain takings for President Donald Trump’s border wall plans, one can be assured that costs

will skyrocket to tens if not hundreds of millions due to legal battles. Finally, these costs are

borne by the taxpayers. Another economic cost stems from not addressing the landowner loss

claims adequately and within reasonable time, and when the properties depreciate, they become

useless. As much as eminent domain is meant to promote public interest, a poorly executed

process that disregards private property rights and interests can potentially hurt economic output

along the border.

e. Opportunity costs of border wall investments

Direct monetary costs are associated with constructing and maintaining a border wall along the

U. S. -Mexico border. However, the opportunity costs of such investments are arguably even

higher. The financial resources used in border wall construction or maintenance are the resources

that could be utilized in projects that can generate higher economic and social benefits. Still,

economists suggest that the construction of a wall stretching across the entire southern border

may cost anywhere between billion and more. Substantial recurring expenses would also be

necessary for its maintenance, repair, improvements, and personnel for monitoring the wall.

However, the same amount of capital investment could benefit infrastructure, health, education,

or the fight against climate change, for instance. For instance, investing in road construction;

railway and port development has been observed to boost economic efficiency; the

Congressional Budget Office estimated that infrastructure construction spending yields economic

return of as much as 220%. The benefits of investing in higher education access for low-income

P a g e | 16

students are also high, social rate of returns on college access programs are or more for every

spent on them by students’ career. The economists also explain that even spending money on

foreign aid to enhance the standards of living in foreign countries can be helpful to national

security than the border fences, for instance, violent conflict and poverty push people to look for

better living conditions elsewhere in the world. It is expensive to build walls and fences and

other barriers; and since governments usually have many calls on their resources and so scarce,

funding expensive border walls and fences always comes with huge opportunity costs and

tradeoffs. Building and protecting boundaries also called for the use of much land and personnel

resources that cannot be diverted to other forms of security, economic or social purposes. Former

economists have stated that even in the case of a wall that is only half the length of the entire

southern border would demand about 5,998 agents for constant surveillance of the wall – a

significant deviation from the actual protection endeavors in the homeland security domain.

Finally, in the context of the current debate on the appropriateness of using border walls for

inhibiting specific security threats, it is important to recognize that regardless of the effectiveness

of such structures, their benefits and costs need to be carefully compared to other policy

approaches that could define the best ways and means of employing the scare public resources

for achieving the maximum social benefit.

f. Technological alternatives and their comparative costs

As for the technological solutions, which can be used instead of the physical border barriers, it

should be noted that they may be much more effective in the long run. One is the surveillance

systems that involve the setting up of fixed towers and mobile camera units fitted with infrared

cameras and sensors to detect movement. These systems use artificial intelligence and algorithms

to distinguish between humans, cars, and other living beings that cross the border and may sound

P a g e | 17

a bell for the border control agents to take the necessary action. The initial cost of setting up the

infrastructure would be capital intensive, with approximate costs pegged at 0,000 per mile for

both towers and cameras. But there would be lower cost than building a physical wall in terms of

construction, labor and cost of maintenance in future. The enhanced ‘virtual wall’ along the

entire 2,000-mile of the southern border would cost -4 billion for the initial setup but has, 80-90

percent less yearly maintenance cost compared to a billion-dollar wall made of concrete that will

continually need repair due to deterioration by the elements. Drones also give surveillance from

the sky and employ object recognition software to detect the violation of the border. The recent

entry of more players in the consumer, commercial, and military drone markets has seen the

costs of these UAVs come down even as their functionality goes up. Sleek short-range craft for

brief operations are less than ,000 per vehicle. Larger units have even more extensive ranges for

continuous monitoring, but they cost between 000 and 000 before sensors and software.

Although not individual complete solutions, additional elements to an overall integrated

electronic monitoring system in areas of vast remote borderlands could provide extra capabilities

at costs not excessive to purely physical barriers. In general, technological alternatives could

offer higher functionality, improved accuracy, increased ease of deployment and coverage of a

broader territory, and considerable savings – both in the short run and in the long view of

decades of operations. They are easier to adapt and modify as threats change or new technologies

are developed. High regard for technological solutions over the physical structures can be viewed

as a major benefit for those considering choices to strengthen border protection.

3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON TRADE AND COMMERCE

Physical barriers such as border walls and fences can hamper trade between two neighboring

countries. These barriers hinder the easy movement of goods, services, capital and labor which

P a g e | 18

are key components of international trade; walls are inefficiency therefore change existing trade

structures. For instance, the construction of a wall along the Mexican border could have adverse

effects on more than 1 billion in cross-border sales. Those businesses that use just-in-time

inventory systems and outsourcing may end up paying more since trucks spend more time

crossing borders. Walls also dissuade FDI if MNCs believe that the prevailing trade environment

is hostile. It means that if the border procedures become more complicated the impact of the

tourism industry may reduce. Each of these effects lessens the benefits of specialization and

exchange that are available to open economies.

Excluding the trade relations effects, borders walls can impact the overall economic development

and growth. If the level of economic integration with neighbors is low, then it reduces the market

exposure and absence of scope economies. If a company is facing closed borders, then there are

fewer incentives for the company to invest in trade related infrastructure such as ports, roads, and

distribution centers. However, spending a large sum of money on constructing an expensive

border wall takes away funds from other areas of government concern which are more useful for

development. There may also be opportunity costs if dynamic innovative firms and entrepreneurs

do not migrate because of walls discouraging immigration. Another study reveals that the

unauthorized immigrants contributed about trillion in the US GDP in a decade while they

themselves were not legally allowed to work. This is because more open migration promotes

labor mobility and skill sharing while border walls inhibit these avenues for growth.

Finally, borders are political divisions that have no rationality in their economic fundamentals.

However, when breaking up what were previously more interconnected economies and labor

markets with border barriers, there is a risk of inducive inefficiency, diseconomies of scale, and

reduced innovation in the long-run. Border walls pursued for immigration control or security

P a g e | 19

purposes should in this case be seen in the context of the potential adverse economic effects on

disrupted trading, reduced investment and lower income growth that could easily outweigh any

gain. To ascertain whether border walls meet the objectives set for them without implying

substantial economic costs, thorough economic evaluations are needed.

a. Effects on cross-border trade flows and supply chains

Border walls and barriers hinder the movement of goods and services between nations which is

an important aspect of economic development. At over 0 billion a year in trade between the two

countries, a wall along the almost 2000 miles of border would disrupt the delicate choreography

of supply chains that expect to move semi-finished goods across borders without delay.

Companies in the global market have established complicated supply chain networks that involve

different countries to increase their competitive advantage, resources and labor. Introducing more

formalities, documents, and time consumption by having a border wall would increase costs

associated with compliance, inventory stock, and synchronization. This could force firms to alter

supply chain configurations in an inefficient way or completely exit international transactions. It

also threatens to shift economic activity to the informal sector thus reducing trade volumes and

depriving states of duties. In addition, for industries like agriculture, automotive and electronics,

components and workers depend significantly on the border crossing between the United States

and Mexico. Interference with a physical boundary could severely affect production and output

of manufacturers on both sides. The impact would then cascade through vertically integrated

production chains, given that most goods traded today are intermediate products. Besides the

commercial effects, border walls limit labor mobility as well. As they limit the natural filtration

of migrant workers, they can further complicate the problem of labor shortage and lead to

production slowdowns. Some data point to a potential loss of over billion annually in the U. S.

P a g e | 20

economy as a result of restrictions on the flow of people across the southern border. To sum up,

there are many and varied economic impacts of constructing the physical barriers of separation.

They pose the danger of interrupting established economic relations and the complex distribution

systems of products, supplies, money, and manpower that should ideally function as conduits for

constructive interaction between neighboring countries.

b. Changes in transportation and logistics costs

The erection of border walls and barriers affects the flow of transport and thus the costs of doing

business in the context of cross-border trade and commerce. As there are more barriers to the

physical movement of goods and services, companies need to consider costs such as the route to

transport shipments, permits and documents, hiring employees with specific skills, and longer

lead-time for supplies. For instance, the US-Mexico border wall demands that the commercial

trucks have to cross the border through the ports of entry that experience increased traffic and

time due to stricter immigration and customs control. This bottleneck leads to per-shipment fees

going up since drivers are paid depending on the distance they travelled and more container

inventory that has to be controlled. Further, the border barrier hinders the usage of cross border

rail lines and hence the freight has to be transported either by road or by air, which is more costly

per tonne transported. Industry analyses indicate that firms involved in the trade between the

United States and Mexico have experienced an average increase in shipping prices of between 20

to 30 percent in line with the construction of the border wall. The long lead time in the supply

chain amplifies business expenses on inventory, insurance, facilities, and capital. In the long-run,

these high transportation and logistics costs either reduce the magnitude of trade or shift trade

flows to other areas, which are detrimental to productivity. Some expectations present the way

the border wall will affect US-Mexico trade as having the potential to reduce the Gross Domestic

P a g e | 21

Product by 0. 7 percentage point yearly. While discussions about border walls and trade policies

continue, an analysis of the changes in transport and logistics costs can offer valuable

information for policy decision-makers to assess the economic effects that need to be considered

when balancing security concerns with commerce development. It is therefore possible to

distinguish between the real and the said when it comes to costs and benefits of improved

physical barriers to sensitive economic border zones.

c. Impact on border regions' economies and sister cities

There are generally implications of constructing walls and barriers within the political borders as

they affect the economic aspects of the regions and countries that share borders. San Diego and

Tijuana, El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, Brownsville and Matamoros are examples of twin cities

sharing economic, social, and cultural relations through years of border related exchanges.

However, construction of barbed wired walls interferes with these long standing relationships

and flow of commodities, services, capital, information and people across the bordering cities.

This results in negative consequences for companies from large manufacturing industries to

small stores and street vendors who rely on the Mexicans. Also, a large number of Mexican

immigrants commute daily to work in the US border cities thus offer labor to agriculture,

construction, hospitality and other sectors. This is not possible due to heightened measures at

borders which help minimize the available workforce and customers to cater for the regional

economic growth. The consequences are felt in supply chains and distribution systems that

extend across the border. In the same way, the maquiladoras, the factories owned by either the

US or foreign investors operating in Mexican border cities that receive materials duty-free from

the US market but export the finished products are affected by the increased border checks, time,

and costs. This affects the just-in-time production approach. Lost contracts, sales, profits, jobs,

P a g e | 22

tax revenues, and reinvestment are the next one. Long-term economic growth and fairness of

distribution of wealth within a society is negatively affected. Integrated cooperation strategies

that take into account the cross-border nature of the economies are necessary when addressing

issues that involve the setting up of defensive barriers. Sister city relations require focus and

attention. Blessing in disguise, it can be ascertained that smart borders not barriers at borders are

the answer to security as well as sustainable trade and economic cooperation.

d. Consequences for specific industries (e.g., agriculture, manufacturing)

Building fences and walls can lead to negative economic effects on particular sectors of the

economy that involve imports and exports of goods and services as well as the flow of people

between countries. In agriculture for example, physical barriers affect the mobility of seasonal

migrant employees who are crucial in planting and harvesting labor intensive crops. As a result,

without access to this cheap labor, farms experience increased costs, lower yields, and revenue

loss due to uncollected crops. The USDA also says that the income reduction can be up to billion

if 50-75% of the undocumented farmworkers were expelled. Other sectors that are in the line

include manufacturing especially those factories that are in border towns where workers have to

cross the border on daily basis. When more barriers were put in place in California in the 1990s,

several assembly plants shut down due to longer wait times at the border for Mexican employees.

Other sectors, such as the meat processing industry and construction also employ a large number

of immigrants. In construction, for instance, it was claimed that the construction industry might

lose over 400 000 jobs if there is a decline in immigration. In addition to interruptions in labor,

trade barriers also increase input costs. High import tariffs on raw materials, components and

machinery would also reduce competitiveness of manufactured goods originating from the US.

Moreover, border delays due to the improvement of inspections harm just-in-time flows because

P a g e | 23

they increase inventory and shipping costs. For instance, one research examined the effect of

border delays on the US auto industry and determined that it incurred expenses of 3 billion per

year. A sector that could benefit from this is the domestic producers of the goods that would now

experience reduced competition from the imports. However, the overall decline in

competitiveness and efficiency erases any conceivable benefits accruing from specific sectors.

Finally, by increasing business costs, interrupting the source of labor and dampening efficiency,

increased border barriers have adverse effects on industries sensitive to trade across the

economy.

e. Foreign direct investment patterns in border regions

FDI is a major source of capital accumulation and development, which is influential to nations

that borders other countries. Border regions depend a lot on trade and contact with the

neighboring countries, which makes them the most suitable areas for the establishment of new

production facilities for those companies that can gain access to several markets. However, the

expansion of walls and barriers on the borders of certain countries can distort these FDI patterns

to the detriment of the local economic development. Studies have also shown that areas with

more permeable borders are likely to attract higher FDI than those areas with well-guarded

borders. For instance, the Northern Border region between the United States and Canada has

remained a lucrative market for investment throughout the previous decade for automobile

manufacturers, information technology firms, and other firms with interlinked supply chains

across the border. The porous and virtually unpoliced border has also ensured the ease of

movement of merchandise and people thus fostering multinational’s operations on both sides. On

the other hand, the evidence based on the case of Mexico-U. S. border proof illustrates that

regions that have erected more extensive barriers and employed more patrols have been unable to

P a g e | 24

attract the comparable volume of FDI as was witnessed before erecting barriers. This might be

due to higher costs, risks and time taken for international production activities to be carried out.

The negative effects on FDI add to the cost of economic losses resulting from the decrease in

tourism and travel. In the end border walls and barriers not only hamper legal business and trade

but foreign firms from setting up new facilities and business ventures on these borders. The

economic effects then extend to the local employment opportunities and wages, thereby stunting

the emergence of robust border economies. It is therefore important to consider whether any

positive impacts on national security arising from border barriers can offset the negative impacts

on growth, investment, and employment opportunities in communities of border regions.

f. Tourism and service sector implications

These are some of the impacts that can be observed, when constructing walls and barriers along

the borders of a country or a particular region: Since the main concept of preventing the free

movement of people across borders is through construction of barriers this naturally hinders

tourism both in the case of international visitors and intraregional travelers. When the number of

tourist visits is low, the effects spread in the areas of accommodation, transport, shopping, and

leisure. For instance, the construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico will limit

the travel and spending across the border. This would have a detrimental effect on beach tourism

destinations in Mexico that rely on American visitors and American metropolitan areas such as

San Diego whose retail industry benefits from Mexican customers. Fewer foreign tourists mean

less bookings for hotels, less visitors for restaurants, stores, and attractions, and therefore, less

revenue. Other transport industries such as airlines, taxis, and tour operators are also negatively

affected because fewer tourists come to a country. Apart from tourism, restriction of movement

through border walls also affects cross-border transactions in services. Restrictions hinder the

P a g e | 25

mobility of persons providing services in other countries besides those who go into other

countries to seek the services. The impact of having processing and analytical services restricted

to nation-state boundaries is staggering; it impacts every aspect of accounting, to higher

education, if service providers and clients cannot easily cross borders to do business. In the long

run, border walls and barriers affect the movement of people, capital, technology and talent –

factors that fuel kinetic service-based economies. Tourism and service industries are significant

components of import/export and GPD, thus border walls threaten industries that drive economic

growth, innovation job creation, tax revenues, living standards. As the globalization process

advances, the presence of barriers between different countries and regions can be unprofitable

from the economic point of view.

4. LABOR MARKET EFFECTS AND MIGRATION ECONOMICS

Physical barriers that are constructed to limit the flow of people such as the construction of walls

or fences in order to limit immigration or movement across the border can have a variety of

impacts on the labor markets on either side of the border. From a migration economics point of

view barriers impact on the labor supply through restricting new entrants and circulation of

existing migrants. New barriers have emerged that limit the entry of low skilled workers in

sectors that depend on such workers like agriculture and construction. This could result to

scarcity of labor, high wages, and low competitiveness for firms in the industries of the side

receiving low migrant inflows. However, it may lead to an oversupply of low-skilled labor in

domestic markets, thus exerting downward pressure on wages and rising unemployment. On the

one hand, higher wages and fewer job opportunities on the side with the barrier could reduce the

incentive to emigrate for work.

P a g e | 26

The border barriers can also affect the economies of the regions involved, including the overall

economy and not only the specific sectors of the border area. When migration is decreasing, tax

revenues and consumption are lower due to fewer migrant workers and immigrants that hinder

overall economic growth. Fit immigrants and returnees also contribute fresh human capital and

networks that create new opportunities for local businesses and employment. Walls and barriers

also affect the informal cross-border trade that is also a source of income to many people living

in the borderland region. On the other side, less outward migration and diaspora remittances can

hamper economic growth and development in the case if those countries have relied on those

remittance-based economies.

Last but not the least, border barriers can also affect the stock and quality of people who will

migrate or are already present on either side. Policies may alter the direction of migration to

other more risky corridors or make migrants become permanent settlers instead of circular

migrants hence altering the future supply of labor. It can affect the skills, education level, and

other economic potential of migrants or return migrants. In the short-run, the labor barriers may

give industries a harder time in sourcing for workers with the kind of skills that they require

since the supply and human capital composition of workers changes due to the labor barriers.

Understanding these multi-faceted labor market effects and, more importantly, studying ways to

minimize the adverse effects of borders and barriers on industries and communities can shed

light on the economic costs and benefits of proposed border walls and barriers.

a. Changes in legal and illegal migration patterns

The world has witnessed gradual changes in the trends of both Legal and Illegal immigrants to

various countries. All these changing migration patterns have had clear impacts on labor markets

and the overall economic conditions. For instance, in the United States and Europe, stricter

P a g e | 27

measures on border control and immigration laws have significantly reduced traditional labor

migration opportunities and pathways in the last couple of decades. For instance, there is a

dramatic decrease in temporary Mexican labor migrants going to the U. S. after the phenomenal

Bracero guest worker program of 1964. Similarly, the advanced border security barriers,

surveillance systems and patrol activities have rendered crossing borders without lawful

documents extremely challenging in the recent past – a situation that is evidenced by the

dramatic reduction in the number of Mexicans who entered the United States illegally since mid-

2000s. What economic research reveals is that since the old channels of immigration have been

cut off, the migrants have opted to the new routes and methods and these include visa overstays,

fake visas and the dangerous routes through unfavorable terrains. Such changes in legal and

illegal flows have shifted the characteristics of new immigrant arrivals in terms of demographics,

skills, incomes, and occupations of the major receiving countries. Lastly, the current trend of

circular migration and market-based adjustments in foreign labor supply, has costly market

distortions and a significant amount of foregone output that constitutes billions of dollars per

year across sectors such as agriculture, construction and hospitality which use migrant labor.

Given these significant changes and implications, having more sensitive and evidence-based

policies regarding legal migration for work programs and irregular immigration flow control

comes into focus as significant for addressing the conflicting demands of economic development

and stability.

b. Impact on labor supply and wage levels in destination countries

The effects of immigration on the labor markets of receiving countries are arguable, and both the

proponents and opponents have valid points. From a theoretical standpoint, the availability of

more individuals to work because of immigration should depress wages in the short run and shift

P a g e | 28

native workers to jobs that are more consistent with immigrants’ skills. However, empirical

analysis has identified little impact on mean wages. This explains the divergence as immigration

leads to the increase in demand for goods and services as it also provides an increase in the

supply of labor. This increased demand means more people are needed to manufacture these

goods and services. Moreover, native workers can be more qualified through better education,

social networks, and language proficiency. There may, however, be more severe impacts on

specific low-wage industries or subgroups of workers who are most in direct competition with

immigrants. As such, it is not a black and white problem that needs addressing while taking into

account the overall qualifications and immigration rates. They also pointed that border walls can

amplify the wage effects as more unauthorized workers will be willing to accept low wages. This

in turn leads to further decline in wages in sectors that employ undocumented immigrants such

as farming. It also encourages an informal labor market susceptible to abuse. However, border

walls limit circular mobility and promote the permanency which can paradoxically translate to a

better condition of integration in the economic and social realms in the long-run. However, there

are also strong ethical reasons that restricted borders are a violation of civil liberties of mobility

that are deeper than economical. The impact of both increased migration and border control

involves multiple factors that cannot be easily summarized or categorized. Immigration is a

multifaceted issue that when appropriately addressed in terms of ethical principles and policies, it

may bring positive changes in the economic, social and, cultural aspects of the host countries.

Instead, there is the need to embrace principles of compassion, coupled with the need to have

rational ways of dealing with the challenges of a globalized society.

P a g e | 29

c. Remittance flows and effects on origin country economies

The money that migrant workers send back to their home country is an important cash flow that

has the potential of significantly affecting origin country labor markets and development paths.

Cross-border money transfers to developing countries amounted to slightly over 9 billion in

2018, leaving behind the aid flows in dollar terms. These person-to-person transfers meet the

needs for basic needs and investment among millions of households in the developing world.

The research reveals that remittances enhance expenditure on the improvement of housing,

children education, health and small business ventures. This leads to multiplier effects as

consumption leads to employment of residents in the production of local goods and services.

They also enable the origin countries to pay for imports and manage scarcity of foreign

exchange. At the macroeconomic level, remittance may help to improve BoP position, increase

national savings and income and support government social expenditure. Therefore, the positive

impact of high remittance flows, which includes the stimulation of the overall economic growth

through consumption, infrastructure financing, and development of financial sectors.

Nevertheless, LM and reliance on remittances can also have negative effects such as large-scale

outmigration. The endowment effect that is associated with labor mobility is long-term human

capital loss to labor-sending countries due to the brain drain effect. The income from remittances

may lead to some households to shy away from employment and unemployment. Dutch disease

effects are manifested when currency appreciation resulting from remittance inflows threatens

the export competitiveness of manufacturing and agriculture in the origin country. There are also

worries that remittance flows widen income disparities as only households with financial ability

to do so, release migrants to the foreign countries. Policy responses in migrant origin countries

are normally targeted at increasing benefits of high remittance levels while at the same time

minimizing on the risks. Governments may use diaspora bonds to legalize the remittance

P a g e | 30

channels or use tax incentives for migrant transfers and productive investment in the home

country. Similar to remittance reduction, mobile payment systems, hometown associations, and

hometown investment funds, utilize diaspora resources for development. All in all, the

remittance of worker remittances presents various trade-offs that are expected of labor-exporting

states to achieve social mobility and national development.

d. Brain drain vs. brain gain dynamics

The term “brain drain” is used to describe the migration of people with skills, talents, or

education from their home country to a more developed country with more employment and

career opportunities. This can lead to a loss of human capital in the originating country that is

often required for the development of the economy. However, “brain gain” is a term that depicts

the possibility that the migration of high-skilled personnel at times brings back to the country-of-

origin certain gains. For instance, migrants are known to transfer money back to their home

countries, share information and investment capital and help in the conduct of international

business between their country of origin and the country of destination. Evaluating the pros and

cons of using brain drain losses as compared to the brain gain benefits is vital in migration

economics. Measures like border walls and stricter visa regulations can try to prevent brain drain,

although they can fail at achieving brain gain if not approached correctly.

From the angle of labor market implications, high skilled emigration may result in labor scarcity

in important fields such as health, teaching and engineering in developing nations that are

experiencing brain drain. This loss of skilled labor can slow down jobs and hinder the economic

development of a country or region. But if the destination countries have similar immigration

policies that encourage the immigration of entrepreneurial talent, this enhances circular

migration and knowledge flow back to the origin countries. Technology also makes it easier to

P a g e | 31

work from home as well as share knowledge across the world. It is therefore essential to observe

such nuanced relations in a bid to ascertain the actual economic effects of high-skilled migration

flows influenced by barriers to immigration. Quantitative aspects are relevant, too, including

whether those emigrating are young professionals in the prime of their careers or families

escaping war-torn regions. It is, therefore, apparent that various purposes of migration result in

different economic and social impacts on both the countries of origin and reception.

Therefore, considering the pros and cons of brain drain and gain is essential when analyzing the

effectiveness of restrictive border policies. Hence, whereas concrete barriers can slow the rate of

emigration flows, sound policy making also involves liberalization of visa regimes, promotion of

circular migration and investment in human capital development in origin countries. The purely

restrictive measures always tend to be economically self-defeating in due course. Thus, only

regulating legal high-skilled migration that does not overwhelm the receiving country and at the

same time does not deprive the sending country of valuable workers is possible in today’s

globalized knowledge-based economy.

e. Seasonal and circular migration disruptions

Border barriers constructions could therefore be extremely disruptive to established seasonal and

circular migrations, which are mutually beneficial economically. Temporary workers from

Mexico and Central America for many years have been coming to the United States legally

through the southern border for the purpose of seeking employment under the legal seasonal

guest worker permits in sectors such as agriculture, landscaping, tourism, among others. Circular

migration enables these workers to earn better wages than at home, and then repatriate the

earnings and skills gained back home. Their cheap labor increases productivity, competitiveness,

and profitability to industries that rely on migrant workforce during the peak seasons whenever

P a g e | 32

American workers are scarce. Barring populations by constructing walls and fences hinders

access to these supplemental workforces. When viable crossing points are eliminated, migrants

are forced to cross difficult deserts and deadly rivers that have higher risks due to natural

barriers. More may then opt for unauthorized ways to maintain this kind of seasonal income that

their families depend on. However, this makes them vulnerable to exploitation because while

they cannot enjoy social protections, they continue to live in fear of being deported. From an

economic point of view, disrupting circular migration patterns damages industries in the United

States, eradicates sources of income supporting border economies in other countries, and does

not prevent people from migrating through harsh conditions but aggravates vulnerability.

According to scholars, border walls do not make good economic sense – they have not delivered

a reduction in net immigration levels in the long-run as compared to market signals in the form

of policy changes to match demand for high-skill temporary visas to meet labor market demand.

Better ones moderate, but do not cease the flow of the seasonal migrants’ entry-exit while

synchronizing the creation of new immigration avenues with humane safeguard measures so as

not to relinquish the cross-border employment opportunity for both the foreign worker and the

domestic employer. The economics show that open borders are beneficial for essential short-term

migration of labor; when barriers are introduced to hinder free flow, there are productivity costs,

human costs and little effect of border controls on those with few choices.

f. Long-term demographic and skill composition changes

The building of walls and barriers can bring major long-term consequences in the demographics

and skills of the two divided countries and even the regions where they are located. Hence, by

drastically reducing immigration, whether intended or otherwise, these physical barriers

drastically alter the distribution of various labor skills and abilities in the two regions. For

P a g e | 33

instance, if a border wall significantly cuts down the influx of lower-skilled immigrants, it may

over time result in labor shortages affecting areas with many opportunities for work and better

pay, especially for native-born citizens, and lead to higher wages for these positions or difficulty

in recruiting native talent. On the other hand, the region on the side of the border barriers may

suffer even more severe losses of human capital if the higher skilled migrants are put off by these

dividers, stunting its development potential without financial remittance and innovation

capabilities. The cultural demographics can also be shifted if specific ethnic groups are isolated

more in a region based on areas that the border wall is constructed. These compositional changes

may be slow – may take longer periods of time to emerge – but are quite important where labor

forces and productivity of nations are concerned. Due to the fact that border regions experience

various levels of interdependencies over time, introducing tangible barriers is likely to lead to

inefficiencies, resource misallocation and declines in regional human capital, specialization and

growth. Simply, one economy may have a fundamentally different demographic future and a

shift in the balance of skills, capacities, and specializations compared to the other side of the

border walls which contain structural problems that may encourage risky unauthorized

immigration despite the physical risk. More effort is needed to estimate these long-term

demographic effects of border restrictions and to better align them with ethical economic

objectives.

5. BROADER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

Besides the aim of reducing immigration and cross-border crime, the building of barriers and

walls can have other wider repercussions on the economy and society of a country. Fiscally,

constructing large border infrastructure projects entails a hefty cost that runs into billions of

dollars that could be channeled towards other pressing needs such as education, health, or

P a g e | 34

infrastructure. The border areas depend on cross border business and travel both legal and

otherwise hence any closure hampers business and tourism affecting the economies of both the

border and the overall region. For instance, following the construction of barbed wires along the

US Mexico border in 2000’s the legal cross- border traffic reduced significantly; the cross-border

trade and tourism including across the border towns that depended on visitors from Mexico.

Culturally, barriers such as walls and fences would separate families and communities that have

lived side by side for many generations due to their economic and social relationship with one

another. One example of this is erecting a physical barrier between these communities which

undermines the general social cohesiveness and regional patronage. There are also impacts on

the migrants themselves who may opt for even more lethal undesirable irregular channels of

crossing borders in an attempt to avoid border fences; they end up relying on criminal racketeers

for assistance. This can lead to more migrant deaths and hazards.

There may also be environmental effects specific to the construction of physical borders such as

roads, security structures and the borders themselves, which disrupt natural ecology and

movement patterns for some species of animals in border areas. Clearing land for barrier

construction has been attributed to potential harm to fragile desert and riparian habitats in the

particularly the United States and Mexico borders. Anti-immigrant border protection measures

intended to prevent migrants can also push them into dangerous territories.

Although border walls and barriers are mostly used to enforce immigration laws and ensure

border security, their effects can have rippling effects at the regional economies, societies, and

environments in ways that are profound and nuanced, and should therefore not be dismissed as

simple solutions to immigration policy issues. This focus on border control may lead to

overlooking their broader economic, social and environmental impacts.

P a g e | 35

a. Fiscal impacts on public services and social programs

Building and sustaining long border walls and barriers impose significant financial implications

on social services and programs in border areas and in the broader countries. Border security is

an expensive necessity, and the more money that is used to fund it, the less money is available

for other needs. Building several hundred miles of border barriers and the necessary support

structures cost billions of dollars at the outset. For instance, it was estimated that construction of

only fences and barriers at some parts of the border under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 cost

between 2- 9 billion. Maintaining and repairing these barriers then calls for further spending

every year thereafter while they operate. Different researchers have approximated that an

extended border wall all along the US-Mexico border may cost more than seventy billion dollars

throughout the service delivery. Such costs can easily compete with other policy imperatives that

would also require funding from the government such as education, health, physical

infrastructures, and social welfare programs. Thus, focusing on the construction of border

barriers may lead to the displacement of fiscal resources devoted to the welfare of disadvantaged

minorities. This can increase inequality and have a detrimental effect on living standards more

generally. The routine performance of public services could also be affected by resource

shortages. This is particularly the case with local governments in border areas where they may

have limited revenues bases but may be responsible for many of the logistical, administrative,

environmental, and public safety costs associated with the implementation of the wall over the

long term. All in all, this shows how large spending on border walls and barriers due to security

considerations have costs; these are scarce fiscal resources and policymaker attention that are

taken away from other public service delivery and social program investments that would be

more productive in promoting general economic growth and social well-being.

P a g e | 36

b. National security expenditures and resource allocation

Border protection and immigration policies entail costs and choices in terms of resource

utilization and allocation. Building massive border fences and barriers entails huge initial costs,

with some projects costing billions of dollars. These expenses are defended as needed for

increasing homeland security, preventing illegal immigration and fighting against such crimes as

drug and human trafficking. However, critics argue that the effectiveness of walls in achieving

those goals is doubtful because of the ability of immigrants to move to other less secure regions

and the centrality of visa overstayers in the formation of the unauthorized population. The

monies to be spent on constructing walls and patrolling borders could perhaps be better directed

to enhance the tracking of visas, security of ports of entry, and other technology-based

monitoring that experts state could yield more benefits per dollar spent.

There are also concerns that directing billions towards border barriers leads to deadweight loss,

reducing the funds available for other priorities in the country. Redirecting homeland security

spending to building the wall hampers investments in cyber security, airport screening, readiness

and response, and other counter-terrorism initiatives. Committing additional resources to

physical border barriers also means less money can be spent on the immigration court system,

the process of asylum determination, and refugee and humanitarian support programs. From an

economic point of view, it is stated by some analysts that money could be more effectively spent

on making legal channels more efficient because immigration is necessary for economic

development and to solve the problems of shortage of workers in certain industries such as

agriculture and high technology. Deploying billions for building walls and hiring border patrols

does not remove forces that compel people to migrate or the business needs for cheap immigrant

labor and consumers. This means that there are trade-offs, which are not easy to resolve, on

P a g e | 37

whether the most border enforcement is more important than legal immigration and the other

pieces of a sensible, integrated immigration system.

Scholarly arguments for and against border walls suggest that the billions spent on them are

justified to address unauthorized immigration and criminality, and whether upgrades to the visa

system and the dispersion of homeland security funds to other policy objectives are more

efficient. Addressing those intricate resource exchanges defines most controversy surrounding

the general effectiveness of border walls and barriers.

c. Diplomatic and international relations consequences

Border walls and other physical barriers are not just economic and social concerns; they also

have diplomatic and international relations consequences. In the past, the creation of such

barriers has been interpreted by other states as signs of hostility and signs of distrust, enmity as

well as rejection. Such was the situation with the barriers erected around East and West Germany

during the Cold War, between North and South Korea through the demilitarized zone, and

between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast through ‘peace’ walls. In more modern times border

barriers erected by countries such as Hungary and Slovenia to prevent migrant and refugee

influxes have attracted a lot criticism from other EU member states disrupting diplomatic

relations and cooperation. The construction of the wall between the United States and Mexico

has also led to tension between the two nations. To date, more than billion has been spent, and

hundreds of miles of the wall have been constructed, which has angered many Mexican

politicians and citizens; a verbal war between leaders, threats of retaliation, and the deterioration

of the bilateral relationship have ensued.

P a g e | 38

There can also be broad geopolitical implications. The EU and other regional economic and

political communities that are based on principles of open borders and free movement of people

and goods may be seen as violating core principles where physical barriers are erected that are

specifically aimed at some nationalities. Barriers constructed to prevent undesired mobility and

refugees from conflict areas may also exacerbate the situation that causes migration and make

the region even more insecure. But when borders are militarized to combat security threats such

as terrorism and transnational crime, such illicit flows are shifted to countries with less stringent

border controls.

Also, due to their very location, border walls and fences convey the message of division based on

national, ethnic, religious or other parameters of identity. This can similarly mobilize negative

perceptions by broader international audiences, such as the case of the US-Mexico border wall.

The compartmentalization of the territories and the separation between the Israelis and

Palestinians have also attracted international condemnation for worsening divisions rather than

promoting unity. Thus, in addition to redirecting flows of goods, people and capital, borders

redefine how countries are viewed internationally – commonly to the disadvantage of their soft

power and moral authority, particularly where such nations market themselves as liberal

democracies. With the ever-emerging globalization, a high securitization of borders means a shift

from cooperation and integration – which reduces a state’s diplomatic power. The social,

economic and security challenges which led to the construction of the border walls may be

compounded instead of being solved if enough consideration is not given to the surrounding

international relations.

P a g e | 39

d. Social cohesion and integration costs

Some of the social and economic impacts of the construction of border walls and other physical

barriers include: One of them is linked to the effects on social cohesiveness and assimilation.

These physical barriers contribute to the hated society of “us” against “them” that negates

empathy and togetherness. This can evoke anti-immigrant prejudices, discriminations, and even

hate crimes directed to minorities deemed as ‘other’. The barriers also establish a physical divide

that accentuates the contrast between the two groups. In the long run, this is detrimental to the

economy and hinders the development of new ideas, growth, and the general welfare that require

social capital and social mixing. There may also be direct monetary costs associated with

tackling growing extremism, violence, and calls for more security to ‘shield’ the hegemonic

groups.

In addition, border walls and barriers prevent the exchange of goods and services, people, and

social relations that foster harmonious interactions between societies. Cutting these integrative

ties generates mistrust and misinterpretations that weaken social cooperation within and across

societies. The costs are expressed in many ways, including consumers being locked out of the

market for certain products and services, families being unable to communicate with relatives

overseas, and employers unable to find workers for critical positions. Through generations, when

there is lack of human interaction and communication, it affects the ability of people to talk, their

understanding of culture and acceptance of other people. In other words, these barriers do not

separate land only but minds and social relations. As such, the downstream ripple effects

negatively impact the stability of economic activity, cohesion of communities, and achievement

of collectively embraced dreams.

P a g e | 40

e. Innovation and knowledge transfer implications

It only becomes apparent that the construction of border walls and barriers can have negative

impacts on innovation and dissemination of knowledge between nations. At the economic level,

the free movement of people across borders is reduced to inhibit the access of business talent.

This may mean that companies will have difficulties in attracting skilled human capital from

outside and getting access to global talent that is normally essential for creativity and

innovations. This may help to reduce the incidence of innovation, and in turn, the pace at which

new technologies, systems, and processes are developed and diffused across diverse contexts and

sectors in the long-run. Other hindrances are to cross-border value chain integration, which

affects the international supply of intermediate inputs and the adoption of ideas and best

practices. Interestingly, the empirical evidence finds that immigration leads to higher rates of

patenting in the destination countries, implying that border walls deny societies these positive

externalities that can result in aggregate productivity improvement across an economy.

On a social level, it inhibits exchange of information and norms across academic, scientific and

cultural domains and across countries. This can hamper the development of global knowledge

and goodwill between societies across generations. While academic collaboration and

student/teacher exchanges are affected, the young generation is denied privileges that promote

creativity. In such a way, subtle interactions and fragmented flows of ideas due to national

borders may also strengthen categorization of people by nationalities and set negative attitudes

toward other nations which are against inclusive and creative work and cooperation. In today’s

globalized economy driven by the fast-moving technological advancements and digitally enabled

knowledge flows into organizational and country boundaries, ‘firewalled’ conception and talent

P a g e | 41

from the outside world threatens to pull down the growth and adaptation capabilities of

countries.

f. Long-term economic growth and development outcomes

Physical barriers such as border walls affect long-term economic consequences in border regions

and total development of countries involved in the construction of walls. In terms of trade, the

erection of walls across borders is problematic since it hinders the free movement of goods and

services, finance and people; it can hamper investment, the movement of workers, and business

and innovation partnerships between organizations on either side of the walls. This can reduce

growth in the utilization of inputs, export markets, migrant workers, overseas talents and cross-

border opportunities for resource sharing and technology transfer. This means declining

productivity growth becomes a constraint on the pace of GDP growth and misses out on

development prospects. Moreover, the border areas rely on cross-border economic integration,

and therefore, when these connections are interrupted by walls, it substantially affects incomes,

employment, poverty and living standards in these areas in the long-term. They continue to

underutilized as economic assets. On a global scale, border walls represent nationalist and

protectionist tendencies of governments, which lead to uncertainty that discourages FDI,

increases the rate of talent emigration, and reduces competitiveness – once again, eradicating the

long-term growth potential. However, proponents claim that walls prevent the smuggling and

other security threats that equally pose a hindrance to development. In the long run, one has to

consider the economic consequences of forgone growth and consequences for border regions

compared to the perceived security gains. Critically, it emerges that border walls seldom create

sufficient economic and social benefits to offset the costs, although no two cases are identical.

P a g e | 42

Therefore, long-term development outcomes significantly depend on achieving optimal levels of

international cooperation and protectionist measures for borders.

JHR 425 -THE ECONOMICS OF BORDER WALLS AND PHYSICAL BARRIERS

Students also viewed