ABSTRACT
The negatiw cfkct of diversity on economic growth (mnd by both l\J&l\Jc and E&L translates into great losses 0\'('1' time. Based on l\J&l\lc's figures, at 50 per cent diwrsity economic growth is reduced hy one pc)' cent at the mean income lewl, so that an economy will be about 8 pCI' cent smaller in 10 years than it would haw beell without crossing the diwrsity threshold, 17 per cent smaller after 20 years, and 32 per cent after 40 years. The greatest impact, if l\l&:\Jc's ligures are accepted, is su/l('red mainly by the poorest economics. The impact is tragic for those near or below the mean per capita income and economic growth of 2 per cent or less. '''hen such economies arc weighed down by 30 :,)0 pCI' cent di\Trsity, they are hampered li'om growing out of the prohlem zone, CH'II within se\'Cral decades. For them, di\Trsity is a burden that prolongs poverty, slows infrastructure dewlopment, and contributes to other problems of economic underden'lopml'nt. Poor economics that manage to sustain robllst growth t()r sen'ral decades can in principle become wealthy enough to amelioratt' ethnic competition; hut a high diwrsity rate will tend to prolong the process, incrcasing the risk of rewrsal. In short, diwrsity is a luxury only the \\Talthy can allard.
