Netherlands Election Puts Immigration Costs Under Microscope

As the Netherlands prepares for snap elections following the collapse of the Schoof government, immigration has emerged as a contentious campaign issue, with competing claims about the economic impact of migrants on Dutch society.

The debate intensified recently when Dutch far-right commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek claimed on social media platform X that each non-Western immigrant costs the Netherlands an average of €600,000 – an assertion that appears to exaggerate figures from existing research.

Vlaardingerbroek’s statement draws from studies by Dutch economist Jan van de Beek, including his 2024 book “Migratiemagneet Nederland” (Migration Magnet Netherlands) and a 2021 co-authored study “Grenzeloze verzorgingsstaat” (Borderless Welfare State). These works have gained significant attention in Dutch political discourse ahead of the October 29 election.

Van de Beek’s research analyzed the lifetime fiscal impact of different migrant groups, finding that labor migrants arriving between ages 20-50 contribute positively to public finances – more than €100,000 per person. However, the study calculated negative net contributions for other groups: approximately €400,000 for asylum seekers and €200,000 for family migrants, with particularly high costs associated with asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East.

The 2021 report estimated immigration cost the Dutch treasury €400 billion between 1995 and 2019, suggesting the welfare state could collapse without policy changes. These figures have featured prominently in election debates about the sustainability of the Netherlands’ social support systems.

However, multiple Dutch economists have challenged van de Beek’s methodology and conclusions. Jan Willem Gunning, professor of development economics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, noted a fundamental error in how the study allocated public service costs to immigrants.

“The study miscalculates migration costs by treating all public services as ‘rivalrous,'” Gunning explained, referring to the economic concept that a service’s use by one person reduces its availability to others. In reality, many government expenditures like defense and flood protection are “non-rivalrous” – their costs remain relatively fixed regardless of population size.

In an op-ed co-authored with professors Casper de Vries from Erasmus University Rotterdam and Alexander Rinnooy Kan from the University of Amsterdam, Gunning recalculated the figures. They concluded the annual cost attributable to migration is closer to €8.4 billion – less than 1% of GDP – rather than the €17.3 billion claimed in van de Beek’s study.

The critics also highlighted how the original research fails to account for immigrants’ changing economic situations over time. “Several studies show that over time, these people become better and more highly educated,” de Vries told The Cube. “They may pose a negative effect on the treasury at first, but that then becomes positive.”

Leo Lucassen, professor of global labor and migration history at the University of Leiden, warned that such studies can stigmatize certain immigrant groups unfairly. “Migrants’ contributions and situations, regardless of where they come from, tend to be the same as Dutch citizens with the same education level,” he noted.

Lucassen emphasized that asylum seekers initially cost more because they are restricted from working, but this changes once they gain employment rights. “In the long run, they do integrate and contribute. They become Dutch, and their integration is up and running, despite some cultural differences.”

Official figures from the Dutch Ministry of Asylum and Migration indicate the average daily cost for accommodating an asylum seeker is approximately €71. The total 2025 budget for foreigner admission and reception stands at about €9.48 billion – less than 1% of the country’s GDP.

As voters prepare to head to the polls, these competing economic narratives have become central to the immigration debate. While critics acknowledge the short-term costs associated with certain immigrant groups, they reject the conclusion that immigration threatens the sustainability of the Dutch welfare system.

“The figures might be right, but the conclusion that the welfare state can’t accommodate migrants is ridiculous,” Lucassen concluded. “Over the long run, there has generally been no upward trend in the number of asylum seekers since the late 1980s, and the welfare state has survived.”