11.07.2015 Views

Labour market performance and migration flows - European ...

Labour market performance and migration flows - European ...

Labour market performance and migration flows - European ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>European</strong> CommissionOccasional Paper 60, Volume IThis notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, given the sheer size of <strong>migration</strong> as an economic flow in AMCs, there is anacute need for articulated <strong>migration</strong> policies to optimize their impact on national labour <strong>market</strong>s <strong>and</strong>ultimately on development.5. Elements for Analyzing the Impact of Migration Flows onNational <strong>Labour</strong> MarketsThe literature on the developmental impact of <strong>migration</strong> is enormous <strong>and</strong> growing. Indeed, theprevailing theory has seen a marked evolution. At the end of the 1990s, empirical research <strong>and</strong> policydebates revolving around the effect of e<strong>migration</strong> on the economic development of origin countriesreceived additional impulses. Up until the 1990s, the classical economic theory prevailed, according towhich <strong>migration</strong> – by reducing the supply of labour <strong>and</strong> unemployment <strong>and</strong> inducing remittancestransfers to the countries of origin – contributed to their development, reducing income disparities <strong>and</strong>ultimately rendering <strong>migration</strong> unnecessary.Remittances were considered to be beneficial both for the aggregate economy <strong>and</strong> for themigrant’s family (Kapur 2005, Adams <strong>and</strong> Page 2005). It was commonly argued that remittancesalleviated poverty, increased schooling levels <strong>and</strong> reduced child labour, <strong>and</strong> that they were useful forthe sending country’s balance of payments. Moreover, the debate concentrated on the likelyunproductive use of remittances, mostly employed in consumption <strong>and</strong> for buying a house or a pieceof l<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> only partially for productive investments. Policy interventions tried to favour theallocation of remittances in more productive assets by granting loans to start a business or to buy ahouse even before the migrant’s return to the origin country.In the last few years, a different approach has come to predominate, according to which <strong>migration</strong>causes brain drain <strong>and</strong> even labour shortages in certain sectors, <strong>and</strong> remittances boost privateconsumption <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> (which of course contributes to job creation), but at the same time distort<strong>market</strong>s, cause the Dutch Disease (through the overvaluation of national currency, with productiveresources being transferred from traded to non-traded sectors), increase income inequality <strong>and</strong>reinforce the informal economy. Moreover, the presence of remittances reduces the incentives forparticipation in the labour <strong>market</strong> <strong>and</strong> hence gives rise to a rentier mentality in which reward is not afunction of productivity or work in general (see Chami et alia 2005 <strong>and</strong> Chaaban & Gebara 2007 forthe case of Lebanon).The “brain drain-brain gain” literature (Stark, Helmenstein <strong>and</strong> Prskawetz 1997, 1998; Mountford1997; Beine M, Docquier F., Rapoport H., 2001, 2003) shows how the increased probability ofsuccessful e<strong>migration</strong> among the more educated stimulates investment in education among potentialmigrants. The result is an increase in the number of educated workers in the origin country. While partof this labour force will eventually migrate, a more educated labour force, beneficial to the growth <strong>and</strong>long-term development of the country, will remain in the country.Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that whereas empirical evidence on the negative impact ofremittances exists, evidence revolving around the brain gain effect is very limited (Faini 2006). Thus,a widespread view is that <strong>migration</strong> is good for the migrant <strong>and</strong> for his/her close family because italleviates poverty, but it is not positive in the long run either for the migrants’ relatives or for thecountry. By creating a subsidized economy, it forces future workers to follow e<strong>migration</strong> patterns asemployment prospects in the origin country remain slight. For a general review of research into howe<strong>migration</strong> affects sending countries, see Docquier <strong>and</strong> Rapoport (2008) <strong>and</strong> Hanson (2008).It is the socioeconomic environment of countries of origin, <strong>and</strong> to a certain extent of hostingcountries as well, that determines which theoretical approach is relevant. Correlation between<strong>migration</strong> <strong>and</strong> development is certainly highly dependent on the place of each country in thedevelopment scale. As far as the AMC region is specifically concerned, in 2006 the United Nations66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!