Migration and Development Policy: Six Lessons Learned
Kathleen Newland, Migration Policy Institute | November 2011
Over the past several decades, migration has been at the center of heated policy debates in both the United States and Europe. In this report by the Migration Policy Institute, Kathleen Newland evaluates what lessons can be drawn from past experiences involving the policies of developed countries in regards to migration and development.
1) Decision makers have moved away from the idea that economical development is a cure for migration.
Both the EU and the US made efforts in the 80s and 90s to promote economic development in immigrant source countries across the developing world with foreign aid investments and free-trade agreements. These policies did not, however, live up to their expectations, failing to curb the flow of migrants coming to Europe and the United States. It became gradually apparent that outward migration is an inherent part of globalization and occurs even in highly developed regions such as the EU.
2) Immigration is not exclusively driven by economics. Individuals have multiple motives for relocating to a different country.
Although much of the focus remains on labor migrants, it is important to keep in mind that every individual may have a different rationale for immigrating ranging from political persecution to family reunification. These types of migrants can also make a positive contribution to the host country and immigrant-receiving countries should foster existing cross-border family ties to promote integration.
3) Research shows that remittances reduce poverty, but do not necessarily contribute to growth and development.
In immigrant-receiving countries, policies have been put in place to reduce the transaction costs in order to facilitate remittances. Regrettably, recipients of remittances cannot successfully utilize the money because of corruption, poor infrastructure and other difficult conditions on the ground. Therefore it is vital for Europe and the US to address the macroeconomic impact of remittances, while paying close attention to the microeconomic details.
4) Migration policy is striving to go beyond such catch phrases as "brain drain" and "remittances.
Migrants have historically done much more than just send money back to their home countries and contributed their work skills to their host societies. Diaspora groups in the US and the EU have the potential to also lend their knowledge, energy, expertise and resources to development efforts in developing countries. In the US, for example, the State Department has recognized this opportunity by engaging different diasporic communites in American foreign assistance and development efforts.
5) Migration flows cannot be reduced unilaterally by immigrant-receiving countries.
Asymmetrical power relationships between immigrant-receiving and immigrant-sending countries have been a consistent barrier to the emergence of meaningful partnerships. Unilateral restrictive migration policies have proven to be costly and ineffective. As a result, the EU has been active in spearheading partnerships between origin, transit and destination countries in order to develop a more equitable immigration policy based on common interests. Thus far immigrant-sending countries have remained skeptical of these partnerships, fearing the possibility of being forced to bear an unequal burden.
6) State and local governments can also play an important role in migration and development policy.
Beyond the policies of federal and central governments in both the EU and the US, local, state and provincial officials have developed successful strategies for better integration and recruitment into the local workforce. In Canada, for instance, provincial government have enacted their own individual immigration programs altered to fit the needs of the particular region. On the other side of the Atlantic, municipal councils in Southern Spain have coordinated projects to improve the conditions of Moroccan migrants working in agriculture with EU funding. By allowing local communities to play an active role in immigration policy, national governments are building a better foundation for social cohesion between immigrants and the local population.
This summary was written by Yan Matusevich, an editor at atlantic-community.org. Read the full report entitled "Migration and Development Policy: What Have We Learned?" by clicking here.
Tue, Nov 1st 2011, 15:07
Member deleted
Yet, in my opinion, what has not changed is the largely negative discourse surrounding migrants, both on the political and public level. It seems that economic burden is most often sited as a reason for wanting to discourage migration. I would argue that there are in fact economic benefits on both ends, that is for both sending and receiving countries. Take the United States as an example. Some of the largest and most successful companies, Apple, Google, AT&T, Budweiser, Colgate, eBay, General Electric, IBM, and McDonalds, were founded by migrants or by those with a migrant background. In fact, Forbes says that 40% of Fortune 500 companies are founded by migrants or their children. On the other end, The World Bank estimates that in 2006 $250 billion US dollars were sent in remittances, with that number increasing by 30% every year. Of course there are examples of corruption, as noted in the report, however there are also instances where remittances do promote economic growth and security, particularly on the local level. The money sent home helps to diversify income, meaning that family and community members are less dependent on one, often unstable, source of income. Thus there are clearly economic benefits to migration, not to mention the benefits of cultural exchange, and yet political discourse and public opinion surrounding migration and immigration often continues to be negative.
So I guess my question is where does this negativity come from, and why? Is it legitimized by political discourse, and the policies in place, or is it the other way around, that public opinion shapes restrictive immigration policy? And ultimately, what can we do to change that?