Week 4: Policies and practices for inclusive growth in Africa

Introduction

Welcome to the final week of the course. So far, you have been learnt about how inclusive growth might help us to understand the development outcomes of migration, and what role migrant entrepreneurs play in enhancing growth.

In a sense, this has all been an analytical task of how we can better understand migration and development in Africa. But what if we want to make a difference? How have people been intervening to enhance the development potential of migration? And what else could be done to promote inclusive growth through migration? This week, we will explore these questions of policy and practice.

In doing so, we address two of the course’s learning outcomes:

• 3. Use the idea of inclusive growth to explain and expand upon what are considered to be the outcomes of migration for development.
• 5. Support the design of appropriate policies to enhance migration’s contribution to inclusive growth.

4.1 Policy and inclusive growth

Before starting on the learning for this final week, try the following activity.

This week, we want to examine in more detail how existing policies:

• affect growth and whether they are inclusive
• contribute to IG
• could be made to enhance IG along the lines of these OECD recommendations.

Before getting into more detail about the migration policymaking process, we need to appreciate that policies have intended and unintended outcomes. Health or education policies can influence IG and migration without being explicitly focused on them. Some policies may be explicitly designed to enhance inclusion – such as a publicly funded health system – whereas others designed for other purposes may also achieve that, such as exchange rates. Printing more money is an example of a policy that is direct in its outcomes for growth, whereas early years education for girls is more indirect. These direct/indirect and intended/unintended outcomes are captured in Table 4.1.

In Figure 4.1, the ‘+’ and ‘–‘ signs refer to the degree of inclusiveness.

Let’s take the example of policies for early years education for girls. Table 4.2 has some possible outcomes in each of the four quadrants, although there are many others that could be identified.

The top-left quadrant of Table 4.2 reveals that policy is often seen as a rational process of intentionality; a policymaker wants something specific to happen and so people talk about pulling ‘policy levers’ as though it is easy and has direct outcomes. However, the other three quadrants show that policymaking and policy implementation are complicated, socially mediated processes. As you work through this week, remember to look at policy outcomes, and which of these quadrants they fall into. The next few sections begin to delve deeper into these complexities of migration policy.

4.2 How are migration policies made?

Policymaking is a complex process but is only one part of governance. Governance is somewhat different from government because it:

• is more of a self-organising process; that is, no single authority is in charge
• involves a wider range of actors than simply government officials.

However, a great deal of policymaking is done at the national level by governments, so we must focus on that. And when it comes to migration policy, a lot of legislation and regulation is nationally centred because it concerns crossing national borders.

But there are other levels and actors involved in migration governance, so we do need to get a sense of this wider governance picture. In this section, we will look at debates about ‘multi-levelled’ migration governance and then use some of these insights to examine migration policymaking in the four MIAG countries in Africa.

Such a review of the literature is helpful but is necessarily quite general and abstract. Some of the academic language can also be confusing until you are familiar with the terms and concepts.

But what actually happens when it comes to implementing migration policy? While migration governance is clearly complex and multi-levelled, it often involves some national-level policy or policies – which are not produced in a vacuum. As you have just seen, some levels or modes of governance that exist may support a particular national policy, whereas others might undermine one. The next activity looks at implementing migration policy.

4.3 Implementing policies to enhance migration’s positive impacts

In the last section, you focused on migration governance and policymaking; here, you will look at how migration policy is implemented. Policies are complex entities and reflect many competing pressures in a political system, but also in a wider society. For international migration, these pressures are even more complicated because migrants cross borders, which means they may be subject to policies of multiple nation states. Moreover, in many countries we see ‘good’ policies and laws, but their implementation and enforcement are weak.

We begin this section looking at general models of policy implementation before turning to the more specific case of migration policy and why it can fail. Finally, we hear from our MIAG experts again about the implementation of migration policies in the four African countries that are our focus.

Castles’ paper emphasises that situations are rarely straightforward or are susceptible to ‘either/or’ solutions. Any given situation will contain one or more elements of these theoretical models of policymaking and implementation; each element may highlight or obscure some features and illustrate why some things work and others do not. This policy analysis can help actors to intervene in new ways that they hope will make the differences that they see as desirable. We now turn to such policy possibilities.

4.4 What policies might work for migration and inclusive growth?

In the last section, you looked at how migration policy is made and implemented. The fact that such policies don’t always get implemented as intended prompted Castles to title his paper ‘make and unmake’ – policies can easily be unmade. But this isn’t particularly good news if you are trying to develop policies that support migration’s role in development.

In this section, we want to look at what policies could be developed to promote migration’s role in development and to hear from our MIAG experts about innovative policies that are being tried in the countries and regions where they work. The first part of this section looks at what some of the international organisations are recommending should be done to ‘optimise’ – in the words of one of the reports – the economic and social impacts of international migration. The second part examines the innovations taking place in the four MIAG countries in Africa.

Activity 4.4 highlighted that there are many things that could be done to enhance migration’s developmental role. It also showed a fair degree of agreement around the types of policy and their duration, as well as needing to work in collaboration with migrants.

But these recommendations are just that: suggestions for what could be done. What about what is being done? In the next activity you will hear about what policies are being tried in the four MIAG countries.

Activity 4.5: Making and implementing migration policy in Africa

Timing: Allow approximately 40 minutes

So far, you have studied the multi-level architecture of migration policy, what factors affect migration policy implementation and how some international organisations suggest that migration policy could be improved. This has all been rather abstract, so in this activity you will examine the policy process in much more detail based on the experiences of the four MIAG countries.

As you explored in Activity 4.3, policies are usually quite general but signal a direction of government activity. They are important for setting the tone and providing broad parameters to guide more specific actions and interventions. In this activity, you will look at the policies in each of the four MIAG countries, but also the more targeted interventions designed to achieve some aspect of these policies.

Videos 4.1–4.4 feature the MIAG country experts who have been engaged in the migration policymaking processes in their own countries and across Africa. As you watch, use the space below to make notes on the following questions, and think about any similarities or differences between the four countries:

• Who was involved in migration policymaking in each country, and how was it organised?
• To what extent have these policies been implemented, and what affected this implementation process?
• How have these policies helped achieve IG?

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 4.1

Giles Mohan:

What policies exist in Kenya to enhance the role of migration in national development?

Linda Oucho:

OK. The ones that I can think of, obviously, are the diaspora policy. It was established, I think, 2014. And that was specifically to sort of facilitate opportunities for investment for Kenyans in diaspora in different sectors. The focus was mostly on financial remittances, but there’s an interest in skills and knowledge transfer, and also networks with the diaspora.

There’s also the foreign policy – that’s more targeted towards foreign investment. The other ones that are – they’re not complete, but they’re in the process – are the national migration policy, and the labour migration policy and bill. And the specific one for labour migration policy will attract labour migrants from the region, but from beyond the region, and see how they can actually contribute to development, Following the Vision 2030, which is the national development plan for Kenya. So those, I think, are the critical policies that are in place that are designed specifically to attract immigrants to Kenya for development purposes.

Giles Mohan:

Who was involved, and how is that policy design process organised? Who was involved, what was their interest in all of that?

Linda Oucho:

OK. The first one that was developed was led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And it was in consultation with different migrant diaspora associations in different countries. So they would develop it here, and then consult the diaspora associations in different countries. I consulted diasporas in the UK, in the US and selected countries in Europe. I’m not too sure if they consulted within the continent. But I’m sure there was some consultation, because they put the policy online.

And then it’s more of an internal review with the key stakeholders in Kenya that have an interest on migration issues. From there, it’s taken to the cabinet for review, so that at least they can make sure that it aligns with some of the thoughts and views of the different stakeholders. But I feel like that one was more exclusive, in the sense that it didn’t involve many stakeholders. But it’s currently being revised at the moment.

Giles Mohan:

Did you get a sense of any power struggles, or anything in terms of that? Were some interests more dominant than others? Was there any conflict in that? Or was it all a very beautifully smooth process where everybody loved each other and agreed on everything?

Linda Oucho:

Well, the power dynamics were varied, because obviously, different stakeholders have different interests and different focuses, so they would want to see how they can align it with their particular area of focus. And at the moment, we have in Kenya the National Coordination Mechanism for Migration, which could be used as a platform to do that. And that has state and non-state actors involved.

I would say there’s an equal power balance in terms of people’s views and interests are included. But when it goes to the next level, then I’m not too sure what happens in terms of whether they’re included in the final document. So the power struggle, I think, is very subjective in this aspect.

Giles Mohan:

Would you say it was a well-designed policy, and if so, why is it well-designed? Or if it’s not well-designed, why don’t you think it’s a well-designed policy?

Linda Oucho:

Right. I think it is a good start to the design of the policy, because I think that we’re trying to understand what the diaspora needs and how to meet the strategic steps to be taken. So the policy at least acknowledge that they do contribute to the national development, they do have a right to come back and engage in different businesses and facilitate a programme of return reintegration and readmission.

But I think it needed to be strengthened in terms of providing guidelines on how that can be achieved, because there are 14 targets that they wanted to achieve, but it was unclear how some of them would be implemented. So I think what was missing in the diaspora policy, for example, was the strategic guidelines for each of those targets that they were trying to meet. But this is something they are now aware of in the second revision, and it’s something that they would consider, given now that they have lessons learned from the initial policy.

Giles Mohan:

Has it actually been implemented, and how successfully would you say the implementation has gone?

Linda Oucho:

I think there have been attempts to implement it in different ways. But the biggest struggle of implementation of such a policy, especially the diaspora, is building trust with the people that the policy addresses. And if you don’t build trust, the policy will not be implemented in the way it should.

So I think there are some aspects that they have included on the needs of the diaspora, but because the trust-building is still a work in progress, the implementation has kind of fallen short. And I don’t think it’s a weakness of the policy – it’s just that aspect of building the trust with the diaspora. Yeah. So I think implementation, in general, you need to have a conducive environment for it to be implemented sufficiently.

Giles Mohan:

Can you give any examples of innovative interventions that the Kenyan government or other actors have tried to design to bring those kind of benefits about?

Linda Oucho:

I think I would just lean towards that diaspora policy, because it’s something that I’ve already seen that they’ve been implementing. It was the creation of diaspora investment through banking, so involving the private sector as a key actor to protect the investments of the diaspora.

And it started with the real estate, in the sense that they’re able to put in their money and invest in something, and know that at least there’s some growth in their investment. Right now, I think that discussions of creation of other new products that they can invest in that not necessarily is real estate, but can be related to a sector.

So I think there were discussions on how they can actually create, for example, social security programmes. If you have a family member here, how can we pay for, like, health insurance, sorry. Or even an education grant. So there are different ways that it can be implemented and different products to be created. But I think it’s just a matter of finding the right actor to lead in that process or to guide that process. So I think that one was a good practice in terms of the diaspora policy.

End transcript: Video 4.1

Video 4.1

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

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 4.2

Giles Mohan:

What’s the state of policy in Mozambique with regards to migration and development?

Inês Raimundo:

Now this is urgent because it was a request from the President. So the President of the Republic is really interested, yes, in the virus with diaspora. And all this is come from, every year by December, some migrants who live in diaspora, they pay a visit to the President. He opens the door to receive them.

And they demanded that they need to be heard. They need to contribute to Mozambique. So that’s why the President said, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and operation has to produce that diaspora policy.

Giles Mohan:

Why do you think it took so long for Mozambique to start this process?

Inês Raimundo:

There are so many issues around the definition of migration policy because, first of all, a lot of politicians – even some segment of academia – they were thinking that migration policy shouldn’t be separated from the population policy. This is the first thing.

And for years, we’ve been battling on that, so we need to separate migration policy from the population policy. As a matter of fact, we are still using the population policy that was adopted in 1997. A lot of things have changed, even in terms of mortality, trends, fertility – it’s changing. So imagine if these demographic variables have changed, imagine migration. First of all, we need migration policy.

Last month, I was having a conversation with the former Headof Mozambican diaspora in Switzerland. So he told me that, yeah, OK, there are so many opportunities that they were willing, in fact, to bring all of these investors to Mozambique. But when Mozambique doesn’t have a policy, it was really a challenge to put in place an initiative.

Mozambique is such an interesting country because there’s so many things happening. And we have reached a point that it is difficult to decide which priority we have to give to Mozambique, considering that we are still dealing with the wounds of the 16 years. We haven’t sorted out these things. Dealing with the position of migrants from the great length of Africa who are also running away because of war in their country.

So now we have to accommodate this, and accommodate the refugees. We have to follow what the conventions says. And we also have our own people who have been displaced, either by the war – because we are still in wars between the northern Mozambique – but also because of natural disasters. And the third way with the lack of skills, because in terms of migration, Mozambique still need staff. We still need the skills.

And to receive the bulk of diaspora policies, of course, from Kenya, from Ghana and Nigeria. But also have received from Cape Verde, from Angola, from South Africa, from Zimbabwe. So I have to read all of these just to have an idea how are we going to define or design our migration diaspora policy.

Giles Mohan:

My final question, then, is a bit unfair, I guess. But in your kind of experience, are you optimistic that you’ll be able to create a good policy?

Inês Raimundo:

I think so. I think so. I have quite a lot of information. And, of course, this is my other project. I have a lot of information, so I think I will.

End transcript: Video 4.2

Video 4.2

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

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 4.3

Giles Mohan:

What policies are in place in Ghana, or in development, that are seeking to enhance the role of migration in national development?

Joseph Teye:

In 2016, the first national migration policy was launched, which was developed by our centre. And that policy has sections that articulate what the government wants to do in order to harness the benefits of migration. So for instance, the policy talks about how to reduce ‘brain drain’ and convert it into ‘brain gain’. And also, it was about remittances, for instance, which can be harnessed for development.

Then, after that policy in 2016, we began to draft a diaspora engagement policy, which is also interested in trying to develop mechanisms or strategies to harness the benefits of migration for development by extracting some obligations from the diaspora. That policy is still on the drawing board. These are the final stages.

By 2018, we also started developing the labour migration policy. And that was completed last year. So that has also been passed.

The national migration policy was spearheaded by the Ministry of Interior, the labour migration policy by the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations. That was the policy that is targeting the national migration, which our centre developed. The diaspora engagement policy is spearheaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And that is just articulating programmes and activities for better engaging the diaspora, to ensure that they contribute their quota to development.

All three policies have highlighted issues of migration and development.

Giles Mohan:

How did that consultation process go ahead? You said you were a consultant on that – who was actually involved in trying to devise that policy in the first place?

Joseph Teye:

Thank you so much. So that policy was led by the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations. And so, like all the other policies that are developed in Ghana, there is a lead ministry, but the lead ministry works with what you call an inter-ministerial working group. So on migration, the inter-ministerial working group is made up of 34 ministries and agencies that have something to do with migration.

IOM and the ECOWAS were advising the government of Ghana. So the ECOWAS, because of the ECOWAS free movement protocol, ECOWAS and I were provided some of the funding for the development of the policy. So they, together with all these ministries and agencies, attended meetings highly consultative in the policy development.

Giles Mohan:

And were there any areas of disagreement, or was it generally quite a consensual process? Or were there some ministries that were more happy about the role of migration and others that were less happy? Or was it generally quite consensual?

Joseph Teye:

So, for the labour migration policy as well as all the other policies, there are always areas of disagreement. So let me mention, for instance, one typical area of disagreement. So Ghana has signed on to the ECOWAS movement protocol that has been in place since 1979. That protocol allows ECOWAS citizens to move to Ghana, and Ghanaians are also able to move to anywhere. But then, when you look at the other policies in Ghana, for instance the trade and investment policies, it reserves some areas [in] the Investment Policy Act – the Investment Act reserves some areas for Ghanaians.

So in trying to draw a labour migration policy and then governance, we sought to propose strategies to deal with these policy contradictions, because what is in the ECOWAS protocol, we see, is everybody can be in Ghana, and they’re allowed to operate in Ghana, having the same rights as any ECOWAS citizen. The policies that – the act also will say reserved places such as retail trading, operation of taxis, saloons to only Ghanaians.

So whether we should state the policy goal or objective to deal with this contradiction, there was disagreement over this. Some in the Labour Ministry, for instance, feel that, well, it is good to deal with those contradictions. Others in other ministries think that, no, we need to protect some safeguards for Ghana. So those were some of the contradictions.

Giles Mohan:

How well would you say they’ve been implemented? It’s all very well having a very nicely drafted policy, but how do you rate the implementation of them? Has it been successful, or less successful, or successful in some parts and less successful in others?

Joseph Teye:

The policies have largely not been adequately implemented from my view. Let me start with the national migration policy that was formulated in 2016. It outlines some things that have to be done – for instance, the formation of a migration commission which is going to deal with all migration-related issues. And since 2016 – now we are in 2021, so five years have passed – that commission, we are still now working on its establishment. It has been too slow. So that has not been done.

Certain areas of the policy, such as protection, have been implemented a little bit – but not so much. Some of the things that I think they are doing quite well has to do with where they want to leverage remittances for development. For instance, here they’ve done a lot of things to ensure that remittances-linked products have been developed: the diaspora bonds, engagement with the diaspora. So where the government needs to raise revenue, these things should be doing those things quite well.

So I would say it’s about 50/50. So many things are not yet implemented as far as the labour migration policy is concerned. Some of the things, too, are being implemented. So the different ministry, it depends on the zeal and energy of the ministry. And we have also some ministries that are doing well. Other ministries are not doing well at all.

Giles Mohan:

The policy set some broad parameters for, I don’t know, bilateral arrangements or decentralisation, district planning. Can you pick out any innovative interventions that have been tried in terms of implementing those policies? You mentioned diaspora bonds, and some of the financial flows seem to be working quite well. I mean, is that an example of a successful innovation?

Joseph Teye:

One of the successful innovations, as I’ve mentioned already, has to do with the remittances-linked products that were developed. When it was realised that – an assessment was done earlier by myself and the Ghana Statistical Service, we realised that there are many people who are consuming remittances. So the policies have all advocated for their remittances-linked products should also be ruled out by the financial institutions and the Ministry of Finance.

So diaspora bonds were ruled out, which is also to encourage remittances, for instance, that were oversubscribed. And then you also have diaspora home loans and also some investment for those that targeted the diaspora, and those ones are doing very well.

And when it comes to the investment promotion, where assistance is given to foreigners that are coming to Ghana in the area of acquisition of land, which is a problematic area, and sometimes there are [INAUDIBLE] of land, I think they are also doing very well with the number of foreigners having assistance to acquire loans, where they are using for investments, that is fine, and in their registration.

And also, the tax exemptions and the free zone. A recent study that we’ve done for the MIAG study, where we asked them about some of the things that are encouraging them, you do realise that these exemptions and assistance are some of the things, even though something that alone is not enough, and more still needs to be done.

End transcript: Video 4.3

Video 4.3

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

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 4.4

Giles Mohan:

Could you just give us a brief overview of the key policies that relate to migration and development in Nigeria?

Aderanti Adepoju:

The past 15 years or so, there have been a myriad of policies. There was an employment policy; there was a youth policy; there was a gender policy; there was an environment policy; and there was health policy.

These are modelled along activities of government in the MDAs (ministries, departments and agencies). It became apparent that these sectoral policies were restrictive in their approach to the magnitude of the problems and the inter-relatedness.

A national migration policy: its objective was, one, to serve as an umbrella for all these policies to be integrated into one household; secondly, to be comprehensive; thirdly, to be inclusive, readily defined then; and finally, emergent issues.

And that’s what started as a comprehensive national migration policy that dragged on for about ten years in its formation. Then endorsed, in 2015 – Blacks embraced five thematic areas for its implementation. Most of the other policies were implemented, yes. They were not coordinated, yes. But they do not have the format for implementation. So they were at moves. They were in the files. They produced study purposes for which they were intended to, initially.

Giles Mohan:

Could you tell us a little bit more about the genesis of it, so who’s leading that? Briefly, what was the consultation process that led us to the policy?

Aderanti Adepoju:

There was the policy change around 2004 when the civilian government, under Obasanjo, was worried by the suppression of youth, particularly the unemployed and the siege of youths trying to get access into Europe to work, that is, the growth in irregular migration to undocumented movements from Nigeria to Europe. And that is on the negative side.

And on the positive side, the untapped and unrecorded diaspora investments in Nigeria, through remittances lost through divergent areas as part of the then President, Obasanjo, to set up a group to find out how to manage both to the benefit of Nigerians.

A committee was set up to look into both of them. They met. They drew a plan. And that plan was subjected to a dialogue. It was at that stage that the government advised the committee to look for funding prospects, because we have to start from the beginning to have capacity-building of officials – to train officials on migration dynamics, migration configuration and migration policy. A one-year training programme of officials derived from MDAs.

Concurrently, my organisation, NOMRA (Network of Migration Research on Africa) also took advantage of this movement to galvanise, train us. So that we had a group of people that were trained, who were supposed to go to other departments, agencies and ministries to also disseminate the training. And we built up a base of ‘experts’ in the ministries and agencies.

Giles Mohan:

You mentioned the different technical committees for implementing the policy. How successful has been the implementation, in your view?

Aderanti Adepoju:

The reports that I had the opportunity to read has two major conclusions. One, there was lack of funding. So if it was sufficient funding to carry out their activities –mostly because, two, the issue of immigration was moving to most of the communities, and the groups, and the actors. So they had to do a lot of investment in capacity-building and also monitoring and evaluation of whatever they had to do.

But to do that, they needed a lot of funds. And the funds were not coming from governments. They had to rely on, essentially, funding on projects, project-related basis from IOM. Because of the financial crisis of 2018, many of the funding agencies that are not part of the US system couldn’t cope with the demand of the amount of funding that was required. So that stalled implementation policy.

Occasionally, there have been successes. For instance, the migration employment centres – there are about 30 of them, sponsored by the IOM – have shown considerable success in registering deportees or returned migrants, and reintegrating them into society.

Giles Mohan:

Final question, then, is explain briefly what those migration employment centres do, as an interesting example of something that seems to work quite well.

Aderanti Adepoju:

It was to register returnees – either voluntary or involuntary returnees – or repatriated migrants. One, to provide them with information on the settlement and integration process back home, to counsel them to avoid reimmigration or minimise immigration due to lack of information and to provide seed money to help them start a new life, and, consequently, to ensure that they do not wish, want, or do migrate, given the current circumstances and the experiences in the previous trials.

End transcript: Video 4.4

Video 4.4

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

Discussion

Policies, policymaking, implementation and innovation in Kenya are as follows:

• Policies:
  • Diaspora policy: financial remittances, skills
  • Foreign policy: investment
  • In progress: national migration policy, labour migration policy
• Policymaking:
  • For the diaspora policy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs consulted the Kenyan diaspora and Kenyan stakeholders, and it went to the Cabinet for review – it is quite exclusive, with relatively few stakeholders, but is being reviewed
  • Different stakeholders had different focuses
  • The National Coordination Mechanism for Migration means this level is quite inclusive, but as it goes into government it is not clear what happens
• Implementation:
  • Policy is quite good and has good aims, but it is not clear how to implement these strategies
  • Kenya now seems to be addressing these issues, but trust-building with diasporans has been difficult, so implementation has fallen short
• Innovation:
  • Banking and real estate
  • Social security systems

Policies, policymaking, implementation and innovation in Ghana are as follows:

• Policies:
  • National migration policy: brain drain/gain, remittances
  • Diaspora engagement policy: diaspora obligations, not finalised
  • Labour migration policy
• Policymaking:
  • Policymaking is led by ministries; in the case of the labour migration policy, it was the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations
  • Inter-ministerial working groups of around 30-plus ministries, departments and agencies; there are also technical working groups and some involvement by international organisations
  • Some areas of disagreement around regional population movements versus national control (e.g. investment)
• Implementation:
  • Largely inadequately implemented
  • Some policy areas have been implemented
  • Remittances have been quite good
  • Varies by ministry
• Innovation:
  • Remittances
  • Financial products

Policies, policymaking and implementation in Mozambique are as follows:

• Policies:
  • Does not exist – seen as part of a population policy from 1997, but just started a migration policy development process
• Policymaking and implementation:
  • Not clear how it will play out – but it has presidential backing, so hopefully it will get done
  • International Organization for Migration involved
  • Hard to prioritise migration policy given Mozambique’s other challenges (e.g. environment, civil war)
  • Some pressure from the diaspora
  • Local lack of skills to develop policy

Policies, policymaking, implementation and innovation in Nigeria are as follows:

• Policies:
  • Sectoral policies: employment policy, youth policy, gender policy, environment policy, health policy
  • National migration policy
• Policymaking:
  • Worried about youth unemployment and emigration
  • Committee set up in early 2000s
  • Dialogue and sought funding to support policy development
  • Consultation around country
• Implementation:
  • Weakly implemented
  • Funding has been a problem
• Innovation:
  • Migration employment centres

Regarding the similarities and differences between the four countries, all but Mozambique have policies. What is interesting about the three countries that do have policies is that they are all quite similar: diaspora, national migration and labour migration. You may recall that the experts in the videos in Activity 2.4 also pointed out that African migration policies are very similar, despite the contexts across the continent being very different.

The United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM) has funded and advised in various ways in all four countries. This may help to explain why the policies are quite similar, since they draw on similar roots.

Another similarity is that implementation has been weak and uneven. In some cases, this was a financial issue because governments could not afford to put in place the necessary activities to implement the policies; in others, there were too many other priorities to be able to focus on migration.

One area where things seemed to have worked quite well is around remittances and diaspora investment – although it is unsurprising that anything that is relatively straightforward and brings income is facilitated. In Activity 2.4, Dilip Ratha referred to these as ‘tractable’ issues that are easier to address.

Trying to design and implement policies for something as complex and unpredictable as the movement of people is difficult in any country and at any time. And as the three experts in Activity 2.4 discussed, it may be unwise to try to devise a policy for everything. These experts argued that the ‘big issues’ are the processes that generate inequalities and the whole model of the nation state – these issues are so big that a single country with a single policy can never address them adequately. What policy can focus on is what Dilip Ratha termed more ‘tractable’ issues, such as reducing remittance costs – but we should never ignore these bigger challenges.

Conclusion to the course

This week, you looked at migration policy in more detail and sought to address issues of how migration policies are made – but also, to use the words of Castles, how they are ‘unmade’. You started by examining broad recommendations for achieving IG that centred on broadening and integrating policy, as well as joining up policies in different geographical areas.

The issue of different scales of governance was addressed next in examining how different actors in the migration governance process operate and often fail to interact and plan coherently. You then looked at policy implementation: policies may be appealing in theory but in the cut and thrust of ‘real-world’ politics they may get diverted or watered down.

You applied all this to migration policy and whether and how it could stimulate IG. Policymakers at the international level are in some agreement about joining up policies in various ways, which echoes the more general recommendations for achieving inclusive growth – different policy areas and geographical areas being more coherently connected over the longer term.

Then, you heard about policy interventions in the four MIAG countries and how the policies in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria are good, and were arrived at in a consultative way. Mozambique is just embarking on its migration policy development – but the policy has the backing of the country’s President, so our expert was hopeful that it would succeed. In those countries with policies, their implementation has been uneven and varies between ministries, as well as between central and local levels of government. But in Week 2, you heard from other migration experts – Dilip, Heaven and Oliver – who were somewhat sceptical about what policies can ever really achieve, given the enormity of the problems they try to address. So, the key is to be selective about which policies might make a difference and which won’t.

Congratulations, you’ve finished studying the course. Now try the short end-of-course quiz  to test your knowledge. Good luck!

References

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources:

Course description

Course image: Arthimedes/Shutterstock.

Week 1

Images: Figure 1.1: UNCTAD; Step 1.1, cartoon: Cartoon Resource/Shutterstock; Step 1.3, Lagos: Jordi Clave Garsot/123RF; Step 1.3, process vs outcome: adapted from Trevor Day, ‘Process versus outcome’, 15 April 2019; Step 1.3, gender scales: © teshimine/GoGraph; Step 1.3, risk and reward: William Potter/Shutterstock.

Text: Activity 1.7: CLES (Centre for Local Economic Strategies).

Video: Video 1.1: World Bank, https://youtu.be/ Y-2ZIxUtivM; Video 1.2: World Economic Forum, https://youtu.be/ ukHIIg28xQQ; licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) licence, https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by/ 3.0/; Video 1.3: The OECD Development Centre, https://youtu.be/ lZFQAuKkNr0.

Audio: Audio 1.1: Omolola Olarinde, contributor.

Week 2

Images: Figure 2.1: Anne Jose Kan/123RF; Figure 2.2: David Peinado Romero/Shutterstock.

Table: Table 2.1: adapted from Minchiello et al., 1990 (p. 5), source McLeod, 2019 (30 July), https://www.simplypsychology.org/ qualitative-quantitative.html.

Text: Activity 2.2: IOM, 2019.

Week 3

Images: Step 3.1, planning: © Nuiiko/Dreamstime; Step 3.1, café: © Stefan Dahl/Dreamstime.

Text: Activity 3.4: Naudé et al., 2017, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution licence, http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by/ 4.0/; Activity 3.6: Mauldin, 2020, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike licence, http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by-nc-sa/ 4.0/.

Video: Video 3.2: The Fraser Institute; Video 3.5: IWRAW Asia Pacific, https://youtu.be/ U8ni5GkMNGM, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial licence, http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by-nc/ 4.0/.

Week 4

Text: Activity 4.2: Gamlen and Marsh, 2012; Activity 4.3: Castles, 2004, © 2004 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications, Inc.; Activity 4.4, Step 1: IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) and GDN (Global Development Network); Activity 4.4, Step 2: OECD, 2020, https://www.oecd.org/ migration/ mig/ migration-strategic-foresight.pdf.

Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders. If any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.