36 encourage return and perhaps 100 times larger than the typical grant<sup>38</sup> as reported in a recent report by Gerber (2017). Even this is an underestimate of the foregone earnings on return since the calculation assumes that the immigrant will not receive a pension on retirement in the host country and that he or she places no value on the future earnings of their offspring, which are higher if they stay.

The case of a refugee is different, since refugees take longer to integrate in labor markets than typical migrants and are paid less on average. However, even applying a further discount to expected earnings of 30%<sup>39</sup> and even if one assumes that the refugee will immediately find a job when they return, the essential message of the calculation does not change, as the difference in the present value of expected earnings remains in the vicinity of $200,000. It is worth noting that, in instances where the refugee has access to welfare benefits when he or she is not working, as well as to health and education services, those benefits alone may be worth more than what they would earn at home.

These calculations employ broad averages. In practice, the differences in earnings streams vary greatly depending on the country of origin and destination. Comparable real wage data is not available, but can be approximated using data on per capita income, which are reported in Table 6. The difference in wages between the developing and advanced countries is likely to be about 15% smaller than is suggested by the data in the Table, reflecting the fact 38 Gerver, M (2017) Paying Refuges to Leave. Political Studies. “In 2007 the Swedish government provided $7,150 to families agreeing to repatriate to Afghanistan (UNHCR, 2007). A year later, the Ghanaian government, working with the UN, gave refugees $100 to return to Liberia (Omata, 2011). Soon after, Denmark began offering $18,700 to anyone returning to Iraq, Iran, and Somalia (The Telegraph 2009). In 2010 the British National Party, in an election campaign, promised to give $78,000 to migrants or refugees who agreed to leave the country. The BNP was never elected, but in 2011 the UK government handed over $3,500 in cash to families agreeing to return to Zimbabwe (Weber, 2011). More recently, Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbott proposed paying asylum seekers $10,000 to go back to their countries of origin (Whyte, 2014) and in 2013 the Israeli government began giving $3,500 to thousands of asylum seekers who agreed to repatriate. Those who refused to repatriate were given $3,500 to accept a one‐way ticket to Uganda, Rwanda, or Ethiopia, where they would be unable to obtain any legal status. In all six of these cases, and many more (Riiskjaer, 2008 and Black et al, 2011)” 39 Using data from the European Social Survey, and based on a review of the relevant literature, an IMF report (IMF, 2016) concludes that, after accounting for observables (age, education, language skills, host country, time) refugees have employment rates that are 22 percentage points lower than those of native workers over the 6 years after arrival and 2 percentage points lower after 20 years, and their earnings are, respectively, 26% and 2% lower. Combining the lower wages and lower employment rates, refugees can expect their labor earnings to be approximately 25% lower than comparable natives on average over their first 20 years in the country. However, since the expected earnings stream is backloaded, the present value difference in earnings is greater still. Applying a discount rate of 3%, the present value of the difference in earnings stream between a refugee and a native is closer to 30%.