2.2 How do we conceptualise migration and development?

Let’s delve a little deeper into how we conceptualise the linkages between migration and development.

As Figures 2.1 and 2.2 and the ensuing discussion in Activity 2.1 suggested, migration can evoke powerful emotions. Ideas of ‘crisis’ conjure up negative ideas of migrants coming in large numbers, threatening jobs or social services, or even the very way of life of the host community. Politicians and activists may play on these sentiments for political gain. The idea of ‘brain drain’ is generally a bad thing for the sending countries, but potentially good for the receiving countries if those skilled migrants can apply their skills. Remittances are generally seen to be a ‘good’ thing for the households that receive them back home.

Debates around migration and development are often presented in polarised terms, either good or bad, which varies with the standpoint of the observer. Part of this standpoint is about where the person observing and making these claims about migration is located. Does the development that occurs because of the migrant’s movement accrue to the receiving country or the sending country – or both?

In this section, we want to summarise the main debates about the positive and negative impacts of migration on development.

Activity 2.3: Applying de Haas’ framework

Timing: Allow approximately 15 minutes

To delve deeper into the complex and sometimes contradictory relationships between migration and development, watch Video 2.1. It is a ‘primer’ by the Oxford Migration Observatory and includes an interview with Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, who is a migration expert.

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 2.1 Oxford Migration Observatory interview with Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva.

ROB McNEIL:

When large numbers of people move from developing countries to developed countries, it seems clear that there’ll be impact for both the sending country and the receiving country. I’m here to discuss the impact of migration on international development with Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University.

So Carlos, does migration affect international development – and if so, how can we measure that?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

Well, most of the literature concludes that migration increases global welfares, and the way they measure this, or the conclusion, is that a small increase in migration of less than 5% at global levels can increase global welfare by the hundreds of millions of US dollars. So a small increase in migration can lead to a big increase in global welfare.

Now, this increase in global welfare can be divided in three parts: you have the increasing welfare of the sending country, the increasing welfare of the migrant, and the increasing welfare of the receiving country. A lot of the increasing welfare is increasing welfare of the migrant that was earning a low wage, or a lower wage, in the sending country, and migrates, and now receives a larger wage in the host country.

So to a certain degree, the increase in global welfare does not necessarily lead to increase in development. Now, migrants, usually when they migrate they keep some connection with their home countries. And the connection of migrants with their home countries and their relationship and their money transfers and other social transfers are the way in which migration affects development.

ROB McNEIL:

So is poverty the main reason that people leave their home country?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

Well, income levels are one of the important reasons. But what you have to think about when you think about income levels is that a lot of times, if you’re really poor, if you don’t have money to travel and to migrate – even if you want to migrate and you can take advantage of that – then you’re not going to be able to do it. The classic example is Africa, where a lot of the residents of Africa could earn higher wages in other countries, but they don’t migrate because they don’t have enough money to pay for the trip. So there’s a limitation in the case of underdevelopment and poverty in regards to migration.

The implication of that is that increased development and welfare levels in developing countries – in some developing countries – may lead to more migration instead of less migration, because as they move off in the income categories, then they are going to be able to afford to move and they can move to other countries where they can get higher incomes.

ROB McNEIL:

If developing countries provide training for people who are then able to emigrate, does that have a negative impact on those sending countries?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

Yeah, there’s the notion of a ‘brain drain’ that basically says that developing countries are training their citizens with their limited resources, and then these people leave to developed countries that take advantage of that training. So in some sense, there is a movement, or a drain, of these human capital levels of developing countries.

Now, recently there has been also a notion of a ‘brain gain’: that basically says that in order to get educated, people need some incentive – and that incentive is usually the expectation of receiving a certain salary. And in developing countries, salaries or wages for certain professions are very low, so the possibility of migrating allows these people or encourages people to get educated because they may receive, in the end, a higher salary in the other country.

Now, if everyone migrates and everyone that is educated migrates from a country, then actually you have a brain drain. But if just a portion of those migrate, then the possibility of migration may increase the human capitals of the country, because it increases the expected salary in some professions.

ROB McNEIL:

When people gain skills in a developed country, can that then bring benefits to their home country?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

There’s also the notion of a ‘brain bank’. So people return home in a lot of cases. So they come to developed countries, they get educated and they go back. And their skills and the skills that they take with them are going to affect development levels of those countries – so in some sense, yes, you can have a feedback effect into developing countries.

In addition to that, people may acquire some other things, such as business experience and knowledge about certain technologies in developed countries that they can take with them to developing countries. They don’t even have to migrate – just the fact that they have knowledge of those things and that they have a relationship with the developing country means that they can invest the money, and they can transfer that knowledge to the developing country.

ROB McNEIL:

So is it generally positive, then, for migrants to send home money from a developed to a developing country?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

What we have seen in the last decades is that the level of remittances at global levels has increased dramatically. Now remittances stand at over US$300 billion, which is a very large amount. And for a lot of countries, remittances account for more than 10% of GDP. So these flows are very important for developing countries.

Now, there are positive effects of remittances and there are negative effects of remittances. One of the positive effects is that a lot of these transfers are invested in education, so receiving households use this money to send children to school. In a lot of cases, these flows are also invested in small businesses, and this can provide the initial capital that that is necessary to start the business – and this is very important, because a lot of developing countries lack credit markets where people can get this money.

However, on the other hand we have evidence that receiving this money sometimes results in a decrease in the labour supply of some receiving households, and this is similar to what will happen with some international welfare system in which people receive this money so there’s less incentive to work. There is also some evidence that remittances appreciate the real exchange rate, and this has a negative effect on the export sector.

ROB McNEIL:

Is money the primary resource that gets sent home?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

It is likely that money is the primary, but it’s not the only one. Migrants also send social norms, ideas of behaviour and other things back home, not only money. One of the examples is, in Mexico there’s evidence that migrants have sent democratic ideas: so they go to the United States, where the rule of the law is followed more strictly – they get those ideas there, and when they go back home then they want to apply that and they want the law to be followed more strictly.

Sometimes migrants go to countries where politicians are held accountable for their actions. So when they go back home, maybe politicians before there were not accountable, but now they want that because they have seen that working in the receiving countries, in the countries that they migrated to.

ROB McNEIL:

Where migration is happening, is there a way to improve the benefits that migration brings to developing countries?

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

As I mentioned at the beginning, there is a lot of evidence that migration can increase global welfares. But this is not the only way in which a government, a receiving country government, can make migration more development-friendly. There are different ways. One way that is very popular is to have a remittances portal, which is a website in which migrants can go and compare prices from different remittances companies, and they can select the best that offers them the best deal. So that’s an easy way for the government to support development through migration.

Another example is governments that support migrant organisations when they are making investments back home. So they can basically match up some quantity of money that these migrant organisations are donating for development projects in the sending country with some money, and basically make the project bigger. This is very important, because migrant organisations know the needs of developing countries very well, and they know the needs of the regions where they come from. So it is usually the case that this one is going to be well invested.

ROB McNEIL:

Carlos, thank you very much.

CARLOS VARGAS-SILVA:

Thank you.

End transcript: Video 2.1 Oxford Migration Observatory interview with Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva.

Video 2.1 Oxford Migration Observatory interview with Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

As you watch the video, try to find examples of the different views of migration that de Haas identifies. Make some brief notes, under the three headings of optimistic, pessimistic and pluralist.

Optimistic	Pessimistic	Pluralist
To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.	To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.	To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.

Words: 0

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Discussion

It is not always easy to neatly allocate the things that Dr Vargas-Silva mentioned into the categories that de Haas set up, but we have made some notes in the table below. It was interesting that the interviewer said early on that migration is from developing to developed countries, which reinforces our contention that too much focus is given to south–north migration.

Optimistic	Pessimistic	Pluralist
Global welfare – sending, migrant, receiving – but mainly for the migrant Other social transfers Brain gain and income opportunities Other knowledges acquired Remittances – invested in education, start-up capital	Brain drain	Other social transfers Only wealthier can migrate Brain bank – feedback effect Remittances – may reduce incentives to work Norms and behaviours, e.g. rule of law

Video 2.1 reveals that the outcomes of migration for development are complex and can differ between the sending country, the receiving country and the migrant. What benefits the migrant may not benefit either the sending or receiving country, or what benefits the receiving country is a net loss to the sending country, or vice versa.

It also reveals that the development outcomes are not singular. Some concern income – what was referred to as global welfare – and these finances had knock-on effects like start-up capital or paying for education in the sending country. But it could also be more intangible effects like attitudes towards gender or the rule of law, which may be less immediate or visible, but nonetheless are important for development.

Can we find a coherent framework for linking migration and these diverse development outcomes? Let’s look at what IG offers us.