54

Developing World (Subject) / Migration and Development (Lesson)

This lesson was created by vahir100.

Learn lesson

This lesson is not released for learning.

back  |  next 2 / 2

• Myth 6: the orientation of migrants towards their countries of origin is an indication of the lack of social and economic integration in the receiving countries’ societies. For instance, some Dutch politicians argued in 2002 that immigrants should not invest in theircountries of origin, but in the Netherlands to strengthen their integration. Remittances were negatively perceived as a ‘disappearance’ of income earned in the Netherlands to Turkey and Morocco and as hampering migrants’ integration. In 2004 the Dutch Cabinet said that it would propose the abolishment of dual nationality for 3rd generation immigrants and discourage dual nationality generally. On the one hand, this reveals the strong bias towards the receiving countries in the migration debate, in which the potential contribution of migration to development in sending countries is ignored. On the other hand, it not only seems unnecessarily harsh, but also factually incorrect to automatically interpret migrants’ commitment towards their countries of origin as a manifestation of their inability or unwillingness to integrate. Although this might indeed be the case, the reverse is also possible. After all, successful and ‘integrated’ migrants generally also dispose of increased cognitive and financial capacity for setting up enterprises and participating in public debate in their countries of origin. Thus loyalty to sending countries is not necessarily in conflict with good citizenship in receiving countries. Successful Turkish entrepreneurs living in Germany are increasingly active in the burgeoning tourism, catering and entertainment sectors in Turkey. Migrants also tend to be increasingly involved in political life and civil society in their country of origin. In the Netherlands, Belgium and France, often well educated professionals of Moroccan descentexhibit a continued interest in their countries of origin, which is exemplified by the establishment of associations that explicitly aim to foster links with the countries of origin and sometimes provide small-scale aid. ransnationality is not incompatible with integration per se, and therefore does not deserve to be regarded a priori as a problem.
• migrant remittances Remittances to developing countries more than doubled over the 1990s,whereas official aid flows showed a declining trend. Remittances have provedto be less volatile, less pro-cyclical, and therefore a more reliable source ofincome than other capital flows to developing countries, such as foreigndirect investment (FDI) and development aid Migrant remittances have made possible a drastic improvement in the living conditions of millions of households in migrant-sending countries. For an increasing number of developing countries remittances form a crucial source of foreign exchange, sustaining their balance of payments. In addition, governments of sending countries have placed renewed hopes on migrants as potential investors in the national economy. The surge in remittances hasrecently given rise to a kind of euphoria, with migrant remittances being proclaimed as the newest ‘development mantra’ among institutions like the World Bank, governments and development NGOs
• How could migration benefit development? governments and development agencies can play a role in increasing the positive impact of migration on development in sending countries. First, they can try to reduce the transaction costs of remittances. Banks, specialised money transfer agencies, such as Western Union, and informal middlemen often make high profits on remittances. Second, remittances can be encouraged by exempting them from taxation, as had been the case in the Netherlands until recently. In the recent past many governments and banks in sending countries have successfully attempted to attract remittances through special fiscal polices, the establishment of foreign bank branches and giving migrants the opportunity to open foreign currency accounts.
• myth 7: tates are able to ‘manage’, largely control or stop migration This is not the case. Although policies do certainly have adistinct influence on the character and volume of migration, the goals ofrestrictive immigration policies as pursued by most Western states aregenerally unrealistic, and therefore tend to have counterproductive results. Inthis, the erroneous point of departure is the belief that effective migration-control is equal to zero migration A higher-than-present level of migration control seems almostimpossible without drastically curtailing civil and human rights in a way thatwould be at odds with enlightenment values and the open nature of modern,democratic societies and capitalist economies. Near-total migration control isonly possible in totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia and the former SovietUnion Experience has repeatedly taught thatmigration movements, once set in motion, tend to gain their own momentumover time, mainly through the establishment of transnational networks,and have therefore become notoriously difficult for governments to control. Migration networks tend to facilitate continuing labour, family and undocumented migration over formally closedborders. Immigration therefore often correlates more strongly with economicgrowth than with immigration policies Moreover, restrictive immigration policies tend to have diverse harmful,‘perverse’ effects. These include lower visibility of and control over migrationbecause of an increase in undocumented migration and people smuggling, and the exploitative, cruel or degrading treatment of migrants this involves;the use of asylum procedures by non-refugees; the labelling and stereotyp-ing of immigrants as ‘economic refugees’ and ‘illegals’; and the overallcriminalisation of migration  Anti-immigrant policies and concomitant public discourses also tend tojustify public xenophobia, the harm of which might counteract the desiredmigrants’ integration. In terms of the migration and development relationshipthe most important perverse effect of current policies seems to be that severerestrictions on labour immigration tend to encourage the permanent settlementof migrants while interrupting patterns of circular migration. This significantlylowers the potential contribution of migration to development in sendingcountries. In sum, the perverse effects of restrictive policies seem largely tooutweigh their limited effect on the arrival of mostly low-skilled workers.

back  |  next 2 / 2