Blog
Migration Matters

by Christina Boswell, Jeff Crisp and George Borjas​

The globalization of the world economic and social structure - in terms of increased volumes of both immigration and trade - is certainly one of the key characteristics describing how the relationships among countries has changed in the past three decades. There are obvious similarities in the economic impact of immigration and trade: both of these flows bring scarce resources into the country. But there also exist equally important differences. Immigration introduces cultural, political, and economic considerations that are absent when discussing the impact of foreign trade. Simply put, importing workers to harvest tomatoes is not the same thing as importing tomatoes.

Partly as a result of these differences, the issues of migration and asylum have risen to the very top of the international agenda. This is partly a question of numbers. Around 175 million people now live in a country other than the one in which they were born, and more people than ever are moving - or trying to move - from one country and continent to another. As an example, in the United States, the main immigrant-receiving country, the share of the population that is foreign-born more than doubled in the past thirty years, from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 11.1 percent by 2000.

But it is not simply the scale of international migration that has changed. The motivations for movement have become more complex, blurring the line that traditionally separated economic migrants from refugees. It may no longer be possible to make a simple distinction between countries of origin, transit and destination; many states both generate and admit large numbers of international migrants. And while states generally acknowledge the substantial benefits to be derived from international migration that takes place in an orderly, planned and predictable manner, they have become increasingly alarmed about the phenomena of irregular migration and human smuggling.

To discuss these issues, WIDER convened an international conference in Helsinki on 27-28 September 2002, bringing together over one hundred experts from every part of the world. Significantly, these included specialists on the economics of international labour migration and researchers who focus on the issue of refugees and asylum migration - two groups of experts who have traditionally lived in quite separate intellectual and institutional worlds.

A major purpose of the conference was to take a wide-ranging look at the impact and implications of international migration: for migrants and refugees, for both sending and receiving countries, and for the global economy.

Many of these implications are positive.  Migration can contribute to development or reform in countries of origin through the development of transnational migrant networks which transfer resources, information and ideas to those who have stayed at home. Immigration can also bring tangible economic benefits to countries of destination, providing a cheap and flexible source of labour to fill gaps in labour supply or to cushion seasonal and cyclical fluctuations. And immigration improves the allocation of labor resources on a global scale, thereby narrowing global income inequality.

Many receiving societies have also recognized that immigration can be culturally enriching, providing a source of fresh talent, ideas and experiences. From the perspective of migrants themselves, temporary or permanent migration can be a means of gaining access to a better standard of living and improved education, while simultaneously supporting family members and communities at home. For refugees and asylum seekers, migration may literally be a matter of life and death, providing them with safety from persecution or armed conflict.

Of course, international migration can also have negative consequences. Emigration can impede development in countries of origin through the loss of educated and skilled workers, or by delaying the need for economic restructuring so as to create more jobs.   Moreover, immigrants tend to alter economic conditions in the labor markets of the receiving countries, hurting the opportunities of those workers who are in most direct competition with the immigrants.

In short, the restructuring of the global economy has forced many of the receiving countries to again ask the two fundamental questions in the immigration debate: How many immigrants should the country admit? And which types of immigrants should be granted the scarce entry visas?

Prosperous industrialized countries are only now beginning to address the political, economic, and social implications of answering these two fundamental questions. The answer is likely to vary across countries.

In some countries, the public and the media may have negative views of international migration. Some prosperous industrialized states, for example, perceive themselves to be at risk of a human invasion from countries which are poorer, less stable and which have very different cultures. Other countries, however, value the economic and social diversity that immigrants introduce into the host society, and will likely encourage still more immigrants to enter. Furthermore, in many parts of the world, international migration will be increasingly regarded as a threat to a security and national identity, especially after the events of 11 September 2001.​

Responding to these considerations, many industrialized states have sought to obstruct or deter the arrival of asylum seekers and irregular migrants.  But this has had the unintended consequence of forcing such people into the hands of human smugglers, thereby compounding the very problem that governments were hoping to resolve.

During the conference, it became clear that current migration and asylum policies do not fully address these predicaments. Indeed, in many senses those policies have contributed to the current situation. Expensive and cumbersome asylum systems are failing to ensure protection for those most in need, while creating scope for abuse by those who are not; restricted channels for legal movement have encouraged the growth of human smuggling and irregular migration; dwindling resources for development and refugee assistance in poorer regions of the world have created the conditions for additional migration and displacement.

The urgency of addressing these dilemmas is not going to recede. Indeed, a number of trends suggest that international migration is likely to increase over the coming decades. The process of globalization, if anything, appears to be exacerbating global economic disparities. It may also be contributing to the instability and conflict that force people to flee to other countries. Meanwhile, the availability of cheap communications and transport, coupled   with   t he   expansion of transnational social networks created by earlier migratory movements, will increase both the incentives and the opportunities for people to move from one country and continent to another.

Christina Boswell is Marie Curie Fellow at the Institute for Peace Research in Hamburg, and Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute for International Affairs.

Jeff Crisp is Head of UNHCR s Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit.

George Borjas is Robert W. Scrivner P rofessor of Economics and Social Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Papers from the conference are available at: www.wider.unu.edu