Transcript Migration and Development - Queen Mary University of London

Theorising migration and the
migration-development nexus
Aims of lectures

Define migration, and distinguish between
different types of migration

Introduce the main theories on migration

Examine the relationship between migration and
development

Migration is ‘back-forth-and-onwards
movements of an individual, family, or
group between [sending and receiving
countries]’ (Bang Nielsen 2004, p.16).

It can be further distinguished in terms of:
scale
reasons for moving
characteristics of migrants
legality or illegality of migration
duration of migration
It’s all about the numbers….

Migration to urban areas in
global South very significant.

The 2007 UNHCS report
notes that cities in the global
South will absorb as much
as 95% of all urban growth in
the next two decades.

By 2030, 4 billion people or
80% of the world’s urban
population will live in the
developing world.

International and transnational migration
also important.

Presently, 214 million people live outside
their country of birth =


3% of world population
1 out of every 33 people an international
migrant (IOM 2011; World Bank 2010)
Theorising migration





Neo-classical/equilibrium approaches
Structuralist/marxist approaches
Structuration approaches
Livelihood approaches
Transnational migration

BUT also other approaches to migration including
gender and migration, household approaches
Migration and Development

Changing perceptions of relationship
between migration and development from:



negative perceptions – migration and the ‘brain
drain
positive assessments - migration and ‘capital
gain’ through remittances.
Migration and the MDGs
The brain drain….

Propensity for those with
skills to migrate

Between 1990-2000, the
proportion of skilled migrants
over the age of 25 living in
the countries of the OECD
grew from 29.8% to 34.6%.

Particularly affects some
countries and certain sectors



In 2000, 16.5 percent of Mexicans with tertiary education
lived in USA; three-quarters of all highly skilled workers
in Guyana, Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago and Fiji
had moved to OECD countries
A third of all African graduates reside outside their
country of birth rising to 42% of skilled Ghanaians and
36% of skilled Nigerians
Health sector especially affected; 20 000 Nigerian
doctors work in the USA while in Zimbabwe, threequarters of all doctors emigrate within a few years of
qualifying

Sources: Datta, 2009; Skeldon, 2008; Sriskandarajah, 2005

Facilitated by Points Based Immigration System
– UK, France, Germany, US, Canada, Australia
which prioritise skills

BUT migrants not always able to use their
qualifications/skills = brain wastage,
deprofessionalisation

EG GCW project, 43.1% completed primary
and/or secondary education, 19 % vocational or
professional tertiary education & 21 % academic
tertiary education

The very first time I met with him, he asked
me, “You’re from Bangladesh?” “Yes.” “What
did you do? What did you do back to your
country?“ And I told him, “To be very honest, I
am a doctor in my country.” “Oh, you bloody
doctor, what are you doing here? You are
doing my kitchen, my hovering” and what he
did last of all, … he underestimate me very
much, you can’t imagine it, and I did work with
him for that day only and I told the office that I
don’t feel comfortable with that man. (Zelu,
Bangladeshi migrant)

“My father thinks that I am already speaking
English! How can I tell him that here it is as if
I am in Brazil? I live here in an island of
Brazilians. If you want you can spend ten
years here and never learn English!” (Carlos,
cleaner, Brazilian)

TWO main responses

Restrict migration of skilled migrants (DFID, NHS and
New Labour govt in UK = compassionate racism?

Convert brain drain to brain gain/circulation via
diaspora networks like SANSA (South African
Network of Skills Abroad), MIDA (Migration for
Development in Africa) and TOKTEN (Transfer of
Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals)
Positive links between migration
and development?

Remittances defined as the
intra-household transfer of
resources. Further:





Usually money but also gifts
Social, political and
philanthropic remittances
Remittances are multi-scalar
Flow from the North to the
south and the south to the
north
Gender and remittances
Remittances as the new
development finance
1. Increased volume of remittances
2011 – global remittances US$501 billion; to global
South US$372 billion (12% increase from 2010)
Increased from US$ 2 billion in 1970 to US$31.1 billion
in 1990; US$76.8 billion in 2000 and US$316 billion in
2009 (World Bank 2006, Ratha et al. 2008; Ratha and
Mohapatra 2009
The true volume of remittances is possibly 50, or even
100 percent

2011, India (US$64b), China (US$62b),
Mexico (US$24b) and the Philippines
(US$23b) among highest recipient countries

Emergence of ‘cultures of migration’ =
migrants refereed to bagong bayani in
Philippines

Globally 1.9% of GDP but more significant in
smaller countries with large diasporas such
as Tajikistan (31% of GDP), Haiti (24.8% of
GDP) and Jamaica (17.4% of GDP)
Remittances from the UK..

Remittances from the UK totaled US$6 billion in
2009 and were sent to more than 50 countries in the
Global South

The average amount sent was £870 a year, with
Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Jamaica and Ghana
receiving the greatest amounts

There are 2800 Money Transfer Agencies in the UK
which have 30 000 outlets – compared to 60
agencies in Spain, 50 in Italy, 30 in Germany and a
mere 3 in France
2. Increased relative
importance of remittances

Remittances, Overseas Development assistance
(ODA), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), export
income.

On average, remittances are the second largest
capital flow behind Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
and ahead of ODA (which it overtook in 1995)

In some poorer countries, remittances are twice FDI
and outstrip ODA by some 20% such that they
represent the most significant financial transfer to
cash strapped governments and states; 2011,
remittances 3x ODA to poorer countries (World
Bank 2011)
3. Counter-cyclical


Continue to flow in times
of environmental,
economic and political
crisis –
e.g. political crisis in
Zimbabwe since 1990s,
financial crisis in Mexico
in 1995, and Indonesia
and Thailand in 1998

2007-2010 financial crisis

Remittances declined sharply by 5-8 percent from
US$305 billion in 2008 to US$ 290 billion in 2009

BUT private capital flows to poorer countries slashed
by half while most donor countries also reducing aid
budgets

Remittances are expected to make a strong recovery
in the post-economic downturn period.

(The Economist 2009, IDS 2009, Sward with Skeldon,
2009, Ratha and Mohapatra 2009).
4. Beneficial impact on poverty
and growth

Productive and unproductive/consumption based remittances

Remittances and basic needs

World Bank study of 71 developing countries found that a 10% increase
in remittances from each migrant led to a 3.5 percent decline in the
number of people living in poverty as well as reducing income
inequality.

Supported by household surveys with reduced poverty head count
ratios in Uganda (by 11%), Bangladesh (6%) and Ghana (5%)

Migration from Kerala, India to the Middle Eastern states generated
remittances of US$ 3 billion in 2000 and resulted in a 12% reduction in
poverty across the state
From unproductive to
productive remittances

Over time, migrants may start to invest their remittances
in more productive enterprises including land, housing,
small service based businesses.

Support local industries such as construction; creates
employment and fuels growth

EG Quinto Suyo program - Peruvian migrants in US,
Spain, Italy and Japan able to purchase housing for their
families in Peru through collaborations between Peruvian
banks and several foreign intermediaries (Conthe and
García 2007).

“[Migrants] are here [with] the idea of earning
money and going back to Brazil. I know many
here who are like that, they save money here,
as much as they can… and buy a flat over
there. They save as much as they can, then
they return to Brazil to set up a business.
They save to open a hairdresser salon, a bar
or anything else where they can be selfemployed. To work in Brazil as an employee,
you’ll starve to death.” (Pedro, Brazilian
migrant, office cleaner)
BUT, are remittances always
good for development?

Remittances do not go to the poorest countries, or
the poorest people in a country (De Haas, 2006)

Only 15% of all migrants in the OECD originated in
low income countries (Skeldon, 2008)

Rates of outmigration from the Global South range
from a mere 0.5% from low income countries to
3.3% for lower middle income countries, 4.2% for
upper middle income countries (such as India and
Mexico) and 2.8% for high income countries (De
Haas, 2006; Skeldon, 2008)

Although remittances from low income
countries in sub-Saharan Africa have
increased from $1.9 billion in 1990 to $8.1 in
2005, this is considerably less than the $43.1
billion that flows into countries of East Asia
and the Pacific or the $42.4 that is sent to
Latin America and the Caribbean

Evidence that remittances can generate sustainable
growth is patchy

Can generate intra- and inter-household inequality
(Gardener and Ahmed, 2006)

Generate dependency on remittances with
detrimental consequences for local economies

Agricultural societies transformed into service based
economies serving the interests of migrants and
their families (Portes, 2001)

Who is responsible for development?



Addressing the symptoms rather then the
structural causes
States in Global North and South versus migrants
Costs to migrants