International migration, remittances and development: myths and facts

Abstract

The debate on international South – North labour migration tends to focus on the receiving end of migration. This bias obscures a proper understanding of the developmental causes and consequences of migration at the sending end. The reciprocal migration – development relationship is examined through the discussion of seven migration ‘myths’. Because of its profound developmental roots, it is useless to think that migration can be halted or that aid and trade are short-cut ‘solutions’ to immigration. Migrant remittances contribute significantly to development and living conditions in sending countries. Nevertheless, the recent ‘remittance euphoria’ is not justified, because unattractive investment environments and restrictive immigration policies which interrupt circular migration patterns prevent the high development potential of migration from being fully realised. Although specific policies can enhance this potential through facilitating remittance transfers and investments, the key lies in encouraging circular migration. Instead of uselessly and harmfully trying to stop inevitable migration, immigration policies allowing for freer circulation can, besides increasing migration control, enhance the vital contribution of migrants to the development of their home countries.

Notes

This article is a revised and extended version of a Dutch-language article ‘Migratie en ontwikkeling: mythen, nuances en nieuwe inzichten’ which appeared in the Internationale Spectator (58 (5), 2004, pp 252 – 257), a journal published by Koninklijke Uitgeverij Van Gorcum bv on behalf of Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

1 In the case of ‘non-labour’, refugee migration from areas stricken by famines, wars or natural disasters, it is also generally not the poorest who tend to migrate (Skeldon, 2002).

2 Such a comprehensive conceptual approach to development is offered by Sen (1999), who conceives development as ‘the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy’. In order to operationalise these ‘freedoms’, he used the concept of human capability, which relates to the ability of human beings to lead lives they have reason to value and to enhance the substantive choices they have. The basic assumption here is that the expansion of human capabilities adds to the quality of people's lives. Sen's capabilities approach contrasts with narrower views of development that are largely, if not uniquely, restricted to income indicators (eg gnp per head) and material growth. Sen argued that income growth itself should not be the litmus test for development theorists; instead they should place more weight on the question whether the capabilities of people to control their own lives have expanded.

3 For recent pleas for more-or-less free migration see Bhagwati (2003) and Harris (2002). Internationally, neo-classical economists and liberals tend to be the strongest advocates of policies allowing people to move as freely as possible. The former argue that this will contribute to the optimal allocation of production factors and, hence, to greater general wealth. The latter tend to emphasise that freedom of mobility is a basic human right and that people are not the property of states. Therefore, people's mobility should not be restricted as long as they do not threaten the legal order. Some, particularly European, scholars have expressed their fears that free migration will undermine modern welfare states, which would require a form of regulation, for instance, through selection of immigrants or limited or phased access of migrants to public services and social security. Partly because the latter policies tend to be difficult to implement and may run counter to non-discriminatory legislation, others argue that the only alternative is to slim down the public sector and social security in more general terms (Sinn, 2004). This debate needs to be continued in order to formulate more effective immigration policies. Nevertheless, the case of Canada seems to indicate that demand-driven immigration policies are not automatically incompatible with maintaining a relatively high level of social security.