Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:19:07 +0200
Worried about immigration? Try living in a developing country
Any meaningful immigration debate should seek to maximise benefits for
countries of origin as well as recipient states
Posted by
<http://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathan-glennie> Jonathan Glennie and
David Turton
Monday 03 May 2014 07.00 BST
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/europe-leaders-future-left-rig
ht-commission-strasbourg> The surge in rightwing representatives at the
European parliament election last week has sent a clear message to governing
parties – a significant proportion of citizens across the continent are
unhappy with immigration.
But if we are concerned with poverty and development, wealthy western
nations should be more, rather than less, generous to potential immigrants
and their countries of origin.
There are good reasons for people to be concerned about immigration,
including its impact on wages and the cultural makeup of communities.
However, the current debate is framed by all sides entirely in terms of what
is best for the recipient country. There is seldom a thought for what might
be most beneficial for the potential migrants, their families or their
countries of origin.
This is understandable, perhaps, given people's mainly parochial concerns.
In many ways, it is similar to the way the
<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/oct/05/d
rugs-prohibition-development-issue-legalisation> debate on drugs is carried
out, with the health concerns and social problems of the UK the main
determinant of policy, rather than the impact of those possibly devastating
policies on drug-producing countries. But although understandable, it is
also blinkered, and likely to have negative consequences for people far
poorer than the potential host communities.
There are few areas in international development policy where there is
almost total agreement among experts. But on the developmental benefits of
<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/migration> migrationthere is
agreement – the more migration the better. Dani Rodrik's
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR201103110
6730.html> The Globalisation Paradox is particularly convincing on the
benefits of labour market liberalisation. Why? Because immigrants benefit
from the higher salaries and better health and education in destination
countries. And because
<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/aug/09/remittan
ces-britain-data> they send their excess earnings back home – remittances
have transformed the opportunities of millions of poor people in the past
two decades.
An
<http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinio
n-files/8694.pdf> Overseas Development Institute paper (pdf) published last
year summarised studies on the impacts of increased migration on global
welfare – the numbers are astronomical and far outweigh the impact of aid,
for example.
That said, away from the macroeconomic numbers there are myriad social and
economic problems, especially when receiving countries are experiencing
periods of recession. Immigrants may face challenges and abuse, while host
communities, including previous generations of immigrants, may see increased
competition for jobs and pressure on services and housing.
Such challenges require comprehensive national policies and international
treaties, enhancing the benefits and minimising disruption and problems, as
<http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp20
11_11e.pdf> José Antonio Alonso has often argued (pdf). But some of the
policies being proposed and implemented do not have the best interests of
the poor in mind.
One policy that has become common in many countries is the points system,
designed to weed out possible immigrants without the right qualifications to
make the required contribution to the host country. It is easy to see why
this might be considered a sensible policy for a host country, but it is
equally hard to think of a more anti-developmental approach to immigration.
First, it is relatively unskilled and unqualified migrants who have the most
to gain from the wage differentials between poor and rich countries. A
pro-poverty policy would encourage such migration rather than seek to
curtail it. Second, there is the so-called brain drain. A
<http://ftp.iza.org/dp2440.pdf> significant proportion (pdf) of people who
go to university in some poor countries emigrate – almost half in Haiti, for
example, and about a third in Ghana and Mozambique.
When UK politicians praise the African nurses who are helping to sustain the
NHS, they should spare a thought for the countries that trained them but who
no longer have them doing their vital work, or paying tax where it is most
needed. Of course nurses, like anyone else, should have the right to try to
further their prospects through seeking employment abroad, and countries of
origin can benefit if they return with better skills.
The point is that the immigration policies of recipient countries should
seek to maximise the potential benefits these policies can bring to sending
countries by, for example, extending and liberalising temporary foreign
worker schemes, as advocated 10 years ago by
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=443784> Alan Winters and
colleagues. Meanwhile, the potential harmful effects of the brain drain on
sending countries could be minimised by formal compensatory measures, or by
incentivising qualified people to remain in their own countries.
Take the open-border policy of the EU. While political debate focuses
uniquely on the impacts of this policy on recipient countries, possible
immigrants from far lower-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America
may be losing out as opportunities are taken by eastern Europeans.
It is understandable yet inevitable that policies will be drawn up with
domestic constituencies in mind. This is not an argument for mass
immigration – host communities have rights and concerns, and if there are no
jobs, homes and legal protections for immigrants, they may be better off
staying put.
But as with the drugs debate, as with climate change and energy consumption,
as with cheap clothes, so with immigration: the way rich country policies
affect others far away should be taken into account more fully as those
policies are devised and implemented.
David Turton is senior research fellow at African studies centre and former
director at Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford
Haitian students
Students in Port-au-Prince celebrate winning a scholarship to Senegal. Half
of university-educated Haitians emigrate to other countries. Photograph: EPA
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)