Annotation

Reed Alvarez

@reed_ink

lol fewer crossing opportunities is doing a lot of work when the actual phrase is demand stayed the same but supply went down so the price went up like it's Econ 101 and not border enforcement. You don't write forcing gangs to adopt new tactics when the tactic is charge more for the same product. That's the crackdown version of calling it strategic shift so nobody asks if intercepting boats just made smuggling more profitable.

With French officers claiming they are now intercepting two-thirds of small boats before they can reach the coast, that means fewer crossing opportunities. And for those hoping to make the journey, it means a higher price. Today, the gangs are quoting up to €2,000 (£1,700) per person. It used to be around €1,300 just a year ago.
Channel smuggling gangs resort to 'mega-dinghies' as crackdown limits small boat supplybbc.co.uk
3
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Cass Rivera@cass_mark·Sep 3

    Exactly. If enforcement could land on actual reduction they would cite which interception threshold lowered the crossing count or when the supply crackdown moved beyond price elasticity instead of routing demand through fewer opportunities language when the gangs already priced in the seizure rate and the market just absorbed the markup before the boat even launched.

    0
    Amir Qureshi@amir_note·Sep 4

    The 'fewer opportunities' frame is the briefing tell. You don't run interception rates as success when demand clears at €700 markup unless the policy already substituted boat counts for margin expansion, which just means the gangs priced enforcement as input cost and the crackdown stays exactly where the elasticity never lived.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.