Rashid A Mughal
THE link between migration and development policies has become increasingly prominent in global policy debates. Migration is understood to be an important factor in propelling development and policymakers have come to recognize development as an important force in shaping migration flows. Two major policy documents have articulated this relationship in authoritative ways: The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), explicitly recognizing the potential of migration to promote development, as does the New York Declaration, in which UN Member States committed themselves to negotiate a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted in 2018.
The exact ways in which international cooperation will shape migration and development practice remain a subject of intense debate, however. For development policymakers, it seems clear that cooperation should focus on promoting the development potential of migration rather than reaching for development as a way of reducing migration. But governments, under pressure from concerned publics, are increasingly portraying development as a “cure” for migration. The global compact negotiations and ongoing discussions on the implementation of the SDGs present opportunities to shift the policy debate toward a more informed and development-sensitive approach to international cooperation on migration. Development assistance may be a tool for reshaping migration patterns—and indeed one that could increase flows over the short term.
Shifting the focus away from increasing individuals’ skills and assets toward investment in the broader economic or governance structures that are a prerequisite for growth and stability, may offer more alternatives to emigration in the long run. Although in many countries immigrants fill labour gaps in fields such as agriculture and construction, a few legal migration pathways exist for low-skilled workers. Member states meet to negotiate the Global Compact and take stock of the channels available for such workers to move legally and take up work abroad, highlighting promising practices and policy gaps. Policymakers are looking for ways to address the drivers of illegal immigration. Many have called for migration aims to be incorporated into development work and development tools into migration partnerships.
Development actors are well positioned to help close the gap in refugee protection system capacity that exists between high-income countries and those that have fewer resources. With 85 per cent of the world’s refugees in low- or middle-income countries that lack the means to support them fully, strengthening protection systems would benefit from new thinking and tapping the expertise of well-placed actors to assure a more comprehensive approach. The vast majority of UN Member States in December 2018 adopted the first-ever international agreement to cooperate on migration. Migration and development policy discussions have edged closer to each other on the international stage. The adoption of the Global Compact for Migration in December 2018 marks an important milestone. All eyes turn toward the implementation of policies, more closely on labour migration and migrants’ rights, to returns and reintegration.
Migration and development are linked in many ways – through the livelihood and survival strategy of individuals, households and communities; through large and often well-targeted remittances; through investments and advocacy by migrants, refugees, Diasporas and their transnational communities and through international mobility associated with global integration, inequality and insecurity. Until now, migration and development have constituted separate policy fields. Differing policy approaches that hinder national coordination and international cooperation mark these fields. For migration authorities, the control of migration flows to the European Union and other OECD countries are a high priority issue, as is the integration of migrants into the labour market and wider society. On the other hand, development agencies may fear that the development policy objectives are jeopardized if migration is taken into consideration. Can long-term goals of global poverty reduction be achieved if short–term migration policy interests are to be met? Can partnership with developing countries be real if preventing further migration is the principal European migration policy goal? While there may be good reasons to keep some policies separate, conflicting policies are costly and counter–productive. More importantly, there is unused potential in mutually supportive policies, that is, the constructive use of activities and interventions that are common to both fields and which may have positive effects on poverty reduction, development, prevention of violent conflicts, and international mobility. The current enthusiasm around migrants as agents of development reflects a paradigm which holds that migration can produce beneficial outcome for both emigration and immigration countries.
In the burgeoning discourse on the potential of migration to facilitate development in origin communities, the predominant focus is on the role that governments in those origins can play. In destinations, research and policy attention has been directed towards the role of migration in their own economies and on the adaptation and experience of migrants in the destination. However, if each of the triple bottom line dividends of migration are to be achieved, it is important to ask the question as to whether policies and practices by destination governments can play a role in facilitating positive development impacts in origin areas. Australia which is a major destination of permanent and temporary immigrants from the Asia-Pacific region, contemporary migration and settlement policy and practice are driven understandably by economic and political self-interest. However, a question which is tentatively being raised is whether it would be possible to include some consideration of the impact of migration on origin countries. This potential is explored in a number of areas. Firstly, with respect to brain drain effects, Australian immigration is very selective of high-skill groups and a number of potential ways in which this policy can be modified in order to replace the loss of human capital in countries of origin.
The focus then moves to whether destination countries can target some immigrant recruitment to particular areas, where migration can have the most beneficial effects on origin areas. The coordination of migration and development assistance policies and the role of remittances and whether destination policy can maximize their scale and impact in origins also needs to be focused. This leads into a more extensive consideration of the potential role of Asia-Pacific Diaspora in Australia in facilitating development in their origin communities and whether initiatives in Australia can enhance these effects. There is no substitute for good economic development policy, sound governance and improving human development and well-being if the life of people in low-income countries is to be improved. Migration has the potential to play a facilitating and major role in development. Nevertheless, if this potential is to be fully realized, there is a need for a cultural shift in the way in which migration is seen. This applies not only to origin country govts but also in destinations.
— The writer is former DG (Emigration) and consultant ILO, IOM.
