International migration and development * (original) (raw)

Revisiting International Migration and Development

Transcend , 2015

International migration is now a significant contributor to the economic development of both North and South countries, regardless of its legality. The imbalances in the economic and social situations between these two hemispheres explain the orientation of the flows. The economic crisis in underprivileged countries has led to high rates of population displacement. The usual theory of migration highlights that "Migrants are rational beings who fled towards favorable regions, where their needs for a secure or better life can be met" (Harris John et Todaro Michael, "Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis" in The American Economic Review, vol LX, n°1, 1970, p. 126-142).

Development and Migration: Historical Trends and Future Research

New Perspectives on International Migration and Development, 2013

Socio-economic development has driven international migration globally since the initiation of the industrial revolution of the 18th century and it continues to do so into the 21st century. The resulting rural-urban population flows have been a predominant component of migration both internally and internationally between relatively underdeveloped and developed regions and nations. There is still much research needed to determine how this process unfolded in the past and will continue in the future.

Does Migration Lead to Development? Or is it Contributing to a Global Divide?

Societies, 2012

This article aims to show that the benefits of international migration (often presented as a ‗global flow') very much depend on the positionality of the areas involved, as well as the regional particularities. It is argued that countries producing south-north migration or diasporic states are in a more favorable position to benefit from international migration than countries that are mainly involved in south-south migration. In addition, the opportunity to benefit from international migration very much depends on geographical particularities. For example, international migration in the context of Latin America/USA is in many respects not comparable to what is happening in Africa, Asia, the EU and the Gulf States. Even though international migration is often described in terms of a growing connectedness in the age of globalization, it progresses also hand in hand with new gaps and regional divides.

Migration and Development Perspectives f

IOM, 2008

Globalization therefore seems flawed as a scientific paradigm to explain current global changes. It is more an ideology-summed up in the "Washington consensus" on the importance of market liberalization, privatization and deregulation-(Stiglitz, 2002: 67) about how the world should be reshaped. Its basic premise is "the leadership of civilization by economics" (Saul, 2006 xi). This has been linked to the idea that globalization is inevitable and that resistance is pointless and reactionary. Some critics use the term "globalism" rather than globalization (Petras and Veltmayer, 2000; Saul, 2006) to emphasize this ideological character. By 2005, some analysts were arguing that globalism had collapsed, and that a fundamental change in the global order was beginning to emerge (see, from very different perspectives Bello, 2006; Saul, 2006). However, it seems important to distinguish here between globalization as a political project and as an economic process. On the political level, the ideological dominance of globalization as a way of understanding the contemporary world seems to be over. Rising inequality, growing conflict and the failure to achieve fairer trade rules for poorer countries make it obvious that globalization has betrayed its promise. States and regional associations in Europe, Latin America and Asia are less willing to accept neoliberal orthodoxies than in the 1980s and 1990s. The world seems to be entering a period of re-assertion of the importance of nation-states as political actors and social regulators. But on the economic level, the dominance of an increasingly integrated capital world market, which became possible with the end of the Cold War, shows no sign of receding-even though the optimistic ideas of a new inclusive global economic order are increasingly being replaced by an understanding of the continued dominance of core industrial economies (Bello, 2006). Privatization, deregulation and liberalization and development-nobody believes that anymore" (Massey et al., 1998: 260). So why has there been a "new surge of interest" (Newland, 2007) in migration and development? Why do international agencies and governments of both sending and receiving countries emphasize the potential gains to be made through migration? Have the real costs and benefits for countries of origin shifted radically, or is it more a question of changed perceptions? The main emphasis has been on the rapid growth of remittances to less-developed countries (Ghosh, 2006; World Bank, 2006). As economist Devesh Kapur (Kapur, 2004) has pointed out, remittances have become a new "development mantra": the belief that remittances can be channelled into economic investments that will overcome underdevelopment. Or to put it less positively, the idea is that some of the most exploited workers in the world can make up for the failure of mainstream development policies. Adopting perspectives from the South also means questioning the dominant understanding of "development", which implies that southern countries must necessarily repeat the past trajectories of today's rich countries through the "invisible hand" of marketdriven forces (as interpreted through celebratory neoliberal theories). Southern perspectives mean understanding the reciprocity of the historical processes of development of the North and underdevelopment of the South, in which the coercive mobilization of southern labour and other resources was a crucial precondition for capital accumulation and industrialization in the North. In Chapter 9: Turkey's Immigration and Emigration Dilemmas at the Gate of the European Union, Gamze Avci and Kemal Kirişci examine the profound effects of post-1945 Chapter 11: Perspectives from Governments of Countries of Origin and Migrant Associations, by Oliver Bakewell, seeks to broaden the approach of the book. The preceding chapters were written by migration scholars accustomed to providing information and analyses of relevance to policymakers and communities affected by migration. At the meeting in Bellagio, the draft chapters were discussed intensively not only by academics from the countries concerned, but also by government officials and representatives of migrant associations. This chapter distils out essential points of these discussions and thus provides a reality-control of social-scientific analysis, by confronting it with the varied experience of practitioners from countries of origin. Chapter 12: Perspectives from the South: Conclusions from the 2006 Bellagio Conference on Migration and Development, is based on the intensive discussion process between academics, officials and representatives of migrant organizations predominantly from southern migrant sending-countries. While acknowledging important differences in the migration histories and contexts of such countries, as well as in the views and practices of civil societies and states, these conclusions draw attention to common experiences and responses. The conclusions thus provide a perspective that has been largely neglected in debates on international migration: the perspective of key actors in the South.

The effects of development on migration: theoretical issues and new empirical evidence

Journal of Population Economics, 2000

The Effects of Development on Migration: Theoretical Issues and New Empirical Evidence * Empirical research on the determinants of international migration including the LDCs has so far neglected one important issue: the complex relationship of development and migration. Since the beginning of the 1990s several arguments have been discussed which hint at the possibility that progress in development of less developed regions might lead to more migration, even if income differentials to the potential destination regions decrease. This paper presents these arguments and tests them for the case of migration to Germany from 86 Asian and African countries from 1981 to 1995. The results confirm the importance of dissolving financial restrictions on migration, migration networks, and changes in the societal structure of the sending countries as well as the existence of a home preference. It is shown, however, that population growth does not necessarily lead to more international migration. The estimations also control for the political situation in the home countries and for institutional measures in the host country.