Tutorial 4: Consequences for sending countries: Migration and development Flashcards
How do development optimists and development pessimists see the positive and negative effects of emigration on the eco-development of sending countries
- optimists: neo-classical and functionalist
Eco growth for both receiving and sending countries due to the transfer of labor and funds
Optimal allocation
Win (destination)-win(origin)-win(migrant itself)
Modernization (high productivity) in the sending country
remittances - pessimist: neo-Marxist and dependency: historical-structural
Cause of under-development in sending country -> reason? Brain drain, unequal investments, inflation, …
Receiving country: low-cost low skilled labor and high-skilled labor
Cultural colonization
Increasing inequality
Culture of Migration
Dependency - nuanced?
NELM
Alleviate poverty –
o context specific –>
o structural barriers/problems
o Selectivity
=> remittances = do not break structural problems but instead simply level up a (small) selection of individual families
Under what conditions can sending countries benefit from intl migration and avoid negative consequences?
Migration and remittances = pos effects only under conditions which indv migrants = cannot change
Potential pos impact when investing money and return -> depends on pol and eco situation in origin country + position of migrants in the destination country
! migration did not trigger national development, but development = condition = for investment and return
Policy lessons:
Eco remittances to become cheaper (break bank monopoly)
Improve the infrastructure of the origin country
For receiving countries: better thresholds for temporary migration
What are social remittances? What are the 2 types? How and under what conditions do social remittances result in social change in a sending country such as Poland?
Social remittances = “ideas, behaviors, identities and social capital flowing from destination countries to origin countries”
o acquisition, transfer, the outcome of transfer
2 types:
o Wide-ranging
= a whole mind-set and world view -> gender roles, religion, political views, …
o Selective
= situational and relate to life situations -> weddings, christenings, …
Social change = dependent on receptivity
= willingness to consider and accept new ideas or suggestions
Factors: making social change more likely
o Close similarity between sending and receiving countries
How can we define development?
= process of expanding the substantive freedoms that people enjoy
- human capability: ‘ability of human beings to lead lives they have reason to value and to enhance the substantive choices they have
-> implies access to resources: access to social capital, cultural/human capital + economic capital
! development = does not simply mean economic growth
How do optimist view migration?
1950-1960:
- labour migration = integral/positive part of modernization -> reduction of labour surpluses (origin countries) + inflow through remittances => productivity and incomes => development
- recruitment agreements: mutual benefits for sending and receiving countries -> migration => labour in destination countries + remittances for development in origin countries
-> fit within neoclassical migration theory + modernization theory ->migration => optimal allocation of the factors of production labour and capital => convergence of eco conditions
How do pessimists view migration?
After 1973 Oil shock
- Western world: recessions, industrial restructuring and increasing unemployment
- destination country: migration = undermines prospects for local eco-development and yields a state of stagnation and dependency
- origin country: ideas about migration?
o Underdevelopment: migration = uncontrolled depletion of workforce
o Brain drain
o Brain waste -> migrants = unable to get qualifications recognized
o Remittances: fuels consumption + no investment + lost labour: dependency on remittances
o Intl migration: well-off groups => increasing inequality
o Changes in rural taste + consumerist attitudes => disruption of traditional kinship systems and care structures => ‘culture of migration’
o ‘migrant syndrome’: migration leading to more underdevelopment, leading to more migration, …
What countries are the largest remittance receivers and demonstrate why this forms a paradox?
- largest remittance receivers: India, Philippines, Mexico
=> paradox: poorest countries: only 5% of global remittances -> remittances dependency: highest in lower-middle/low income countries
What is the general conclusion about the economic impacts of migration and remittances?
- ! impact = dependent on general development context in origin countries !
- impact? Remittances => poverty-reducing, income-increasing and welfare-enhancing benefits for indvs/communities BUT cannot remove structural development obstacles at the national level
What is the effect of remittances on income, poverty and inequality?
- remittances => stable source of income + improve living conditions, …
- ! do not alleviate poverty (mostly when concerned w international migration) -> reason? Migration = selective process -> BUT internal migration = more accessible + lack competition + no high foreign exchange costs => alleviate poverty
=> effects = dependent on who migrates!
What is the effect of migration on gender roles?
- Neg: migration affects the position of women and gender roles -> however only temporary + no fundamental changes in traditional gender roles
-> most women: perceive increase responsibilities/tasks = burden + w remittances => pressure women to cease work - pos: women = able to improve economic position and power in origin country
Is there a direct effect of remittances on national eco growth in origin countries?
- no!
- > migration = cannot overcome structural development problems
What are some lessons drawn in regard to policy implications and remittances
- Need to make remittance transfer easier + break monopolies of remittance transfer firms
- Policies to facilitate remittances, engage diaspora and encourage investment/return = only limited effect if no general reform
* Need to improve infrastructures, legal security, governmental accountability and macro-eco stability, counter corruption, improve access to public education, health and credit - Destination country = can increase the development potential of migration by lowering thresholds for immigration
Demonstrate the process of social remitting.
Acquisition?
o Occurs when encounters take place in various social settings: workplaces, parks, …
o Acquisition through observing, communicating and doing things w others
Transfer?
o Wide-ranging: travel in bundles -> might be translated into norms, beliefs and values
o Selective: travel singly Eg. seating name cards for wedding guests
Outcomes of transfer
o Both implementation and adaption -> either copying and pasting OR translating/adjusting
o Success = dependent on active carriers = ‘agent of change’
Demonstrate the relationship between migration and development?
Migration -> develops out of development -> need a certain level of development in order to migrate
- migration stops w development -> not true -> development => more migration Eg. Urbanization,
-> non-linear trend -> when wealthier: more migration UNTIL tipping point Eg. American in NL
-> capabilities – aspirations model!
Do remittances bring development?
- yes, they reduce poverty + improve levels of education and health among members of families
- however, nature of migration process = important
- Poorest trend = not to migrate internationally
- Migration = not randomly distributed -> highly concentrated in terms of its origin and its destinations
- Remittances = may not reach poorest parts of a country nor the poorest people -> ‘chain remittances’?
- Remittances from internal sources = more important for poor people
- Reverse remittances or remittances foregone
