The Folly of Switzerland’s Proposed Population Cap

T his June, Swiss voters will head to the polls to vote on a proposal limiting the country’s population — including both Swiss citizens and those with foreign residency papers — to 10 million should it reach that threshold before 2050. Early polls suggest a plurality of voters support the measure. Under the Swiss direct democracy system, the outcome will be binding, and the cap would go into effect.

It would also be a huge mistake for the country, because it would knee-cap its own economic success.

The population currently stands at around 9.1 million, and it’s rising. Since 2010, the Swiss population has grown by over 15 percent, faster than any country in Western and Northern Europe except for Ireland and tiny Luxembourg. Today, more than a quarter of Switzerland’s population is made up of non-citizens.

While its supporters say it will ease strains on the environment and the social safety net, the proposed cap is clearly a response to rising immigration. However, unlike in virtually all European countries, the immigration the Swiss voters are concerned with is not the third-world immigration experienced by the likes of its neighbors. In fact, from 2010 to 2024, the share of non-Europeans in the Swiss population barely increased, rising only from 3.3 to 4.8 percent — a measly 1.5 percentage points. By contrast, Sweden saw a 6-point increase, while Germany and France registered increases in its non-EU population share in the 4–5 point range. No country in Western Europe saw a smaller increase in non-European residents than Switzerland. Much of the Swiss population boom has instead been driven by immigration from other European countries.

Why is this? Switzerland is a place people want to live and work. While far from identical, Switzerland is perhaps the country in Europe that most resembles the United States, with high rates of gun ownership, a strong commitment to federalism, separation of powers, and far less social media censorship than its European peers. It should not come as a surprise that, much as the United States rapidly outgrew Europe after the financial crisis, Switzerland did as well. Since 2010, no country in Western Europe other than Ireland and Luxembourg has experienced faster real economic growth.

Crucially, Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, and as such lacks much of the burdensome EU regulations that plague other European economies. While EU countries were bogged down in the Eurozone crisis, Switzerland recovered fast, aided by the stellar reputation of its Swiss franc, which acted as a safe haven. The Swiss unemployment rate never rose above 5 percent even in the midst of the financial crisis, nor even during the pandemic.

Yet, while not a member, Switzerland maintains freedom of movement with the EU. Due in part to its status as a multilingual country, Switzerland after the Eurozone crisis found itself a victim of its own success, swamped with German, French, and Italian migrants from its slow-growing neighbors. Good conditions have also led to a rising life expectancy, now on par with Japan, which has contributed to the population boom.

In 2014, anxieties about rising immigration levels drove Swiss voters to narrowly approve an initiative to introduce quotas and end free movement with the EU. But the government — knowing that this would almost certainly mean an end to the country’s free-trade arrangement with the EU — ultimately watered it down. A second referendum in 2020 then confirmed support for free movement. Instead of quotas (which directly violate existing agreements), this time immigration skeptics are opting for a 10 million population cap, leaving it to the government to decide how to “scare off” migrants.

Under the currently proposed cap, if the Swiss population were to reach 9.5 million, the government would be obligated to take certain measures including asylum and family reunification rights. If it were to reach 10 million before 2050, further restrictions would be added. If these too proved ineffective at reducing the population, the government would then have to end free movement with the EU.

What about natural population growth? Would the Swiss government be forced to exile, or perhaps “Logan’s Run” some of its population if Switzerland were to experience a baby boom? In theory, yes. That risk, however, is minuscule, given that Swiss fertility rates have dipped in recent years, having never been above 1.5 births per woman since the early 1990s (and not above replacement level since the 1960s).

This brings us to the crux of the issue: While European countries could easily cut off third-world migration without suffering economic consequences, the Swiss economy truly is dependent on high-skilled migrants from its economically stagnant neighbors. Swiss voters may be about to cut off much of the lifeblood that has allowed it to soar above its “Europoor” neighbors.

The concerns of immigration skeptics about density, high housing costs, road congestion, and packed trains should not be dismissed. Switzerland’s largest city, Zurich, is now the most expensive city in the world to live in (second only to New York City, when factoring in housing costs). Harsh zoning laws and NIMBY-ism have contributed strongly to this. Like NYC, San Francisco and other areas with this problem, the solution ultimately lies in supply-side reform — not in population caps. Fortunately, the government is now taking cautious steps in this direction.

Switzerland’s remarkable economic success — built on limited government, sound money, and free markets — should inspire a stagnant Europe. Now, rather than flirt with population caps, the Swiss, famously market-friendly in most other policy areas, should apply their own proven principles to address the challenges they face.