The Link Between Migration, Globalisation and Development Report Novib Expert Meeting Noordwijk a/d Zee, The Netherlands March 13-14, 2003 Content Novib Mission Statement Introduction   1. Presentation day (March 13, 2003) 2. Discussion day (March 14, 2003) 3. A preliminary agenda for action Annexes 1. Expert meeting working paper expert meeting (Novib) 2. Presentation paper D. Bagasao 3. Presentation paper H. Entzinger 4. Background paper P. Emmer 5. Presentation paper P. Stalker 6. List of participants Acknowledgement      Related Information

Annex 5. Abstract presentation

The Impact of Migration in Countries of Origin

By Peter Stalker


Types of migrants

• Settlers - These are people who intend to live permanently in their new country. Most head for the main countries of settlement, notably the United States, Canada and Australia. Around one million travel year, the majority of whom are joining close family members.
• Contract workers - They are admitted to other countries on the understanding that they will stay only for a specific period: the length of their contract. Some are seasonal workers. Others will be on longer-term contracts, of a year or more. Most are to be found in the Gulf countries.
• Seasonal migrants – Seasonal workers travel back and forth, between Poland and Germany for example, to pick asparagus, and between Mali and Côte d'Ivoire for the sugar harvest. The UK also allows foreign students to work seasonally on farms - 40,000 are to be admitted in 2004.
• Professionals - Also called illegal immigrants. There are significant numbers in most immigration countries. Some have been smuggled in, others are overstaying their visas, or are working on tourist visas.
• Asylum seekers and refugees - Asylum seekers have left their homes to escape danger; if their claims for asylum have been accepted they are then classified as 'refugees'. In some cases of mass flight, however, when thousands of people escape across a border they are accepted as refugees without going through this individual process.

Other categories of migrant

One could, for example, also include long-stay tourists and business visitors as migrants. On the other hand, most of the categories listed on the left also overlap. Indian computer programmers working in Silicon Valley, say, are often both professionals and contract workers. And while most refugees leave for political reasons they have to make a living in their new countries so may work either as casual or full-time employees.

Levels of impact

Family
• Shifting responsibilities
• Weakening family ties
- Children
- Elderly


• Uses of remittances
- Food
- Housing
- Consumer goods
- Education
- Debt repayment
- Investment in business

Community
• Rising in equality
• Culture of emigration
• Rites of passage
• Transnational communities
- Hometown clubs

State
• Demography
Population abroad
- 8% of Mexicans
- 10% of Filipinos
- 16% of Ecuadorians
• Employment
- Unemployment and underemployment
- Job shifts
- Structure of the labour market
• Brain drain
Loss of graduates
- India, 3%; Ghana, 26%; Jamaica, 77%
- Investment
- Tax revenue

Foreign study
- 582,000 in US
- Loss of PhDs
Return migration
- Skills transfer
- Circulation
• Remittances
2001 total – $62 billion to developing countries

• Diaspora
Influence overseas
- Dual citizenship
Influence at home
- Political fund raising
- Nationalist movements
Transnational communities
- Reshaping national identity


Most international attention is focused on the effects of immigration on the destination countries. There is much less concern about the effects of emigration on the countries of origin, yet for many countries this can often be profound, with impacts at many different levels – family, community and state.

Family

The most immediate impact is on the family that is left behind. In countries where the majority of migrants have been young men, many of whom are married, this gives extra responsibilities to women who have to maintain the household. Some of the most dramatic effects of male emigration are to be seen in Africa, as in Lesotho where men can leave for up to 15 years to work in South Africa. Men who leave South Asian countries typically leave for shorter periods – but often on a large scale: the Indian state of Kerala, for example, has nearly one million "Gulf wives", living apart from their husbands. On the other hand, emigration from more traditional societies, as in Pakistan, can bring the extended family into play requiring the wife to stay with other family members, or at least get more frequent visits from parents and in-laws.

Nowadays, however, an increasing proportion of migrants are women – indeed, they now account for around 48 per cent of international migrants. For some countries of origin, women now make up the majority of contract workers, particularly from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia – mostly for work in domestic service and entertainment, as well as in nursing and teaching. If they are married, this can be very disruptive for family life due to the loosening of family ties. Children feel the effects of this – as has been dramatised in a popular Filipino movie, Anak, about a woman who works as a domestic servant in Hong Kong. Her departure causes her family to disintegrate: her daughter gets caught up in drugs, her son has problems at school, and her youngest child does not recognise her own mother. Emigration can also contribute to the weakening of the extended family, and in particular to a loss of contact with, or at least less care for, the elderly.

Remittances

The most important benefit of emigration for the family is remittances. The Philippines Central Bank estimates that the country's seven million overseas workers on average send home over $400 per month. Around 15% of households receive income from abroad. What do their families do with this money? The most important uses of remittances are:

• Food – For many poor African families, much of the income goes on the most basic requirements, with improvements in the quantity and quality of food.
• Housing – One of the most evident signs that a family member is sending remittances is the building of new houses.
• Consumer goods – Families can now afford more labour-saving or recreational equipment. This can also be prompted by the emigrant’s stories of what he or she has overseas and the migrants often bring back items like TV sets or video recorders.
• Education – One of the most productive uses of remittances is for the education of children, particularly since emigrants will be more aware of the greater earning power that education brings.
• Debt repayment – In many cases the emigrants will have borrowed money to finance the trip, so a lot of the remittances can be used to repay these debts.
• Investment in business – In the Dominican Republic, for example, migrants have established many small factories, and other commercial establishments. Another common investment is in land.


Community

As regards the negative impacts of emigration at community level there has been an increase in inequality. Families with remittance-sender abroad can suddenly see their disposable income boosted two or three times prompting an increase in conspicuous consumption. The houses that these families build are often quite ostentatious. Generally the only way to match this, particularly in rural areas, is to send someone from your own family overseas. This tends to create emigration hotspots – it is noticeable that in rural areas some villages or regions often have many more people overseas than others.

Such emulation can also contribute to a general culture of emigration. This has long been the case in the Caribbean where a history of slavery and indentured labour has left fractured societies in which emigration is seen as one of the most natural options. Young men who have few opportunities at home have come to regard emigration, even if only temporary, as a rite of passage. A similar phenomenon seems to have emerged in Mexico where a whole generation of young people in many communities now direct their aspirations towards El Norte. In West Africa too, many young people see emigration to coastal plantations in other countries as marking the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
Nevertheless there are often many benefits to the community from having links overseas. Although most remittances stay within families, there are also many examples of migrants supporting community development back home. Mexicans in the United States, for example, have around 1,500 ‘hometown associations’, which have supported all kinds of community activity, from building new roads to repainting the church to paying for fiestas. Similarly, emigrants from El Salvador who live in Los Angeles, Washington DC and many other US cities have established comités del pueblo (town committees) to support activities back home. Salvadoran towns with this kind of association often acquire paved roads and electricity – as well as fancier strips for the local football team.

Links have also been established between Europe and Africa. Many of the Malian immigrants to France come from the Kayes region. Some 70 per cent of these are active members of their village associations. A study in 1996 found that over ten years these migrants had contributed more than $2 million to finance 146 projects, a sum supplemented with around $0.5 million from non-governmental organisations. Migrant funds are thought to have contributed to more than half the region’s infrastructure.

State

Most governments in developing countries want to encourage emigration. One potential advantage would be to relieve population pressure and reduce unemployment. However these benefits tend to be limited. True, some of the smallest countries have been effectively depopulated by emigration: over half of people born in the Cook Islands, for example, now live in New Zealand. But for the major countries of origin, even those with the largest numbers of people overseas, a far smaller fraction of the population is leaving. The largest transfer is from Mexico to the United States. Of the 108 million people alive today who were born in Mexico around 8 million now live in the United States – and around 300,000 more Mexicans emigrate each year. This has the effect of reducing Mexico’s annual population growth rate from 1.8 per cent to 1.5 per cent. Another major exporter, the Philippines, has around 10 per cent of the population abroad. Globally, however, the demographic impact of emigration is far smaller. The world’s population is growing by 77 million annually, but only two to three million people migrate each year.
Because relatively few people leave, emigration cannot usually have much impact on unemployment. Not that there is much ‘unemployment’ anyway. Most workers in developing countries do not get unemployment benefit if they lose their job, so they have to do some kind of work to survive, no matter how unproductive or low paid. In Bangladesh, for example, official unemployment is usually around 2 per cent. But a further 20 per cent of people are officially ‘underemployed’, in that they work for less than 35 hours per week, while many more are doing low-paid work in the ‘informal sector’ as street vendors, say, or garbage pickers. At least 40 million Bangladeshis are therefore underemployed. Meanwhile, only around 2 million work overseas.

In any case, emigration would not necessarily relieve unemployment or underemployment directly. It costs money to travel, so those best placed to move are those with some kind of work already and have savings that can be used to invest in an overseas trip, or at least have collateral which they can use to borrow. Nevertheless their departure should open up opportunities for others to step into the jobs they vacate. Employment problems in developing countries are not going to be solved by emigration. Just as in the receiving countries, the balance between the number of jobs and the number of workers depends more on the efficiency of the economy in creating the right kind of opportunities.

Brain drain

One of the main dangers for countries of origin is that they might lose some of their most valuable people. Sending unskilled labourers is one thing, but sending highly trained professionals is another. If a country has spent thousands of dollars educating a doctor or an engineer, it can lose years of investment in a matter of hours when that person gets on a plane to take their skills elsewhere.

An IMF study has estimated that in the case of Asian countries, the proportion of professionals they are losing to the industrial countries as a whole is: Iran 25 per cent, South Korea, 15 per cent; the Philippines 10 per cent; India 3 per cent; and China 3 per cent. Of the African countries for which reliable estimates are possible, one of the highest proportions is for Ghana at 26 per cent. For South Africa and Egypt the proportion is around 8 per cent. In the Caribbean, one of the most dramatic exoduses has been from Jamaica: some 77 per cent of Jamaicans with tertiary education live outside the country; indeed one-third of Jamaicans with secondary education now live overseas.

You can understand why professionals would want to move. In South Africa, for example, primary school teachers and nurses in 2000 were earning only $450 per month and hundreds were leaving each month for better-paid jobs in the UK, Australia and Saudi Arabia. But money is not the only consideration. Professionals also want to pursue their careers. And if they are also worried about the prospects for political or economic stability they are even more likely to emigrate.


But the brain drain is also a direct consequence of the immigration policies of the richer countries, all of whom go out of their way to attract skilled immigrants. Australia and Canada have well-organised systems that make it easier for highly-qualified people to enter. The United States has also been increasing the number of visas available for skilled workers. Even the United Kingdom, which has closed the door to most forms of immigration, is now making it easier for employers to draw in skilled workers from overseas.

A more indirect way of acquiring professionals is to enrol foreign students. Universities and colleges in many countries see foreign students as a rich source of income and run aggressive marketing programmes, particularly in Asia where they often have partnerships with local institutions. Since most students want to learn English, the English-speaking countries have an advantage. Many of these people, particularly those studying for advanced degrees, will not return home. In the United States only half of the foreign students receiving a doctorate or a post-doctoral qualification return to their native country within two years. According to UNESCO, as many as 30,000 Africans holding PhD degrees are now living outside the continent.

How damaging is this brain drain for the sending countries? There are a number of costs. One is that those who leave are often the best and the brightest – so their departure reduces the country’s capacity for long-term economic growth and human development. A second is that it deprives the country of many urgently needed skills. This is most evident in medicine. The industrial countries seem to have an insatiable appetite for doctors and nurses, many from developing countries. Over the period 1978-85, Jamaica lost around 80 per cent of the doctors it had trained, leaving it with a severe shortage of medical staff. The situation is equally severe in many African countries: Ghana, for example, lost 60 per cent of the doctors it trained in the early 1980s.

Added to this is the financial cost. A simple calculation will show a rough order of magnitude. For the OECD countries as a whole there are around three million immigrants with a tertiary education. If it costs say $20,000 to educate someone to this level, then the total wealth transferred from poor countries to rich is now around $60 billion.

Nevertheless, the flows of skilled people should not be seen entirely as a loss. Many developing countries have more graduates than they need. Responding to the aspirations of the middle and upper classes, governments often overspend on tertiary education. India, for example, regularly produces more science graduates than it can employ. A number of African countries also have surplus graduates in certain subjects. In these circumstances it makes sense to send them overseas where they can recoup some of the cost of their education. There are also many cases where people are paying for their own education or training specifically to qualify for overseas employment. Private medical schools in the Philippines, for example, advertise for students, guaranteeing them a job in the United States once they graduate. This phenomenon has now spread to information technology. India is awash with computer training institutions, where tuition costs between $4 to $100 a month.

 

Return migration

Although most attention is focused on out-migration a significant proportion of migrants return – bringing back with them many new skills and attitudes. Most South Asians who spend time as contract workers in the Gulf, for example, go back after a few years. And few Thai men working on collective farms in Israel, or Indonesian women working as domestic servants in Hong Kong, plan to stay very long.

In addition, many people who migrate with the aim of long-term settlement change their minds after a couple of years. Of the 30 million people admitted to the United States between 1900 and 1980 10 million are believed to have returned. Some return out of disappointment. Others leave when they have accumulated sufficient funds. However, the deciding factor will often be the situation in the home country. If the economic outlook improves, returning will seem a more attractive proposition. Ireland, for example, has long been a country of emigration – more than one million Irish people live abroad (around 40 million people in the United States claim Irish ancestry). But Ireland’s economic boom is encouraging many to return.

Many people have also been going back to Asia to take advantage of new opportunities. Indeed Asian governments that find themselves short of skilled labour have been going out of their way to woo their expatriates. In Taiwan, where many people are returning to work in high-tech industries, this is called rencai huiliu – the ‘return flow of human talent’. There are also many opportunities in both Taiwan and China for people to work in US transnational corporations. Many Chinese who had gone to the US as students and stayed on to work and become naturalised citizens are now much sought after in Asia. US companies also like to employ ‘ABCs’ (American-born Chinese), the children of immigrants, who usually also speak some Chinese.

Remittances

For the governments of the countries of origin, one of the main advantages of emigration is the inflow of foreign currency in the form of remittances. The leading developing country receivers of remittances are shown in the table below.

Table 1 – Developing country remittances, 2001

* Data are for 2000

Source: IMF Balance of payment statistics, 2002

Migrant remittances also have a beneficial ‘multiplier effect’ on the economy as a whole. For Mexico, the $2 billion in ‘migradollars’ that were arriving in the early 1990s are thought to have increased overall annual production by $6.5 billion. This was because agricultural communities, for example, used remittances to buy more equipment, fertilisers and other items that helped to increase output.
But even when people use remittances to pay for food say, or health care, or to enable children to stay at school, this promotes human development and boosts long-term productivity, helping to make the country as a whole wealthier.


Diaspora

Transnational communities

Emigration has also effects countries of origin by creating new forms of transnational social and political space. Overseas Diasporas are nothing new: Jews, Armenians, and many others have maintained scattered communities all over the world. But nowadays, with cheaper transport and communications, it is easier for these people to stay in close touch and to form more coherent 'transnational communities'.

If the source and destination countries are close, the migrants can travel regularly back and forth. This kind of circular migration is very common between Mexico and the United States, for example, and between countries in West Africa. At the other end of the transnational scale are the jet-setting Chinese 'astronauts': many wealthy Chinese have extensive business interests in Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China and elsewhere in Asia, but prefer the security of a passport from Australia or Canada or elsewhere. They therefore emigrate with their families then travel back and forth to work. In this case paradoxically it is the family that has emigrated rather than the worker.

Migrants have been able to take full advantage of advances in telecommunications – phone and email – to keep in touch with their home communities. The possibilities for calling home have increased dramatically with the availability of mobile telephones, which have put the rural areas of countries like Bangladesh in closer contact with the outside world.

In the past some countries of origin have paid little attention to their diasporas, but a number such as India, are now going out of their way to contact them. The first conference of the Indian diaspora organised by the Indian government was held in January 2003, where the government pledged to allow dual citizenship for Indians who naturalise in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore. This is partly to encourage remittances and return migration but also because these transnational communities are also becoming politically significant — a useful source of votes and campaign funds. At the same time, overseas communities can also finance rebel groups — as with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

Future emigration prospects

Globalisation and economic development in general are likely to provoke additional emigration as people become more mobile. This is similar to the aftermath of the industrial revolution in 19th-century Europe. But the flows eventually subsided as incomes rose at home, producing what is commonly referred to as the migration hump which is illustrated in figure 1. When the countries of origin start to industrialise, people’s incomes and aspiration rise and they become more prone to emigrate. But as national average per capita incomes rise above US$ 4,000, more opportunities open at home and people feel less need to travel. This results in a ‘migration hump’, which is evident first for short distance unskilled migrants and later for the more skilled workers.

Figure 1. Remittances to developing countries (in US$ million)

In conclusion

• Negative

- Family strain
- Inequality
- Culture of emigration
- Brain drain

Figure 2. Remittances in % of GDP (2001)


Migration might bring financial benefits to the sending communities but it can also be socially disruptive.

Often the burden is borne by women. In countries where the majority of migrants have been young men, many of whom are married, extra responsibilities have to be shouldered by women who have to maintain the household. Some of the most dramatic effects of male emigration are to be seen in Africa, as in Lesotho where men can leave for up to 15 years to work in South Africa. Men who leave South Asian countries typically leave for shorter periods – but often on a large scale: the Indian state of Kerala, for example, has nearly one million "Gulf wives", living apart from their husbands.

When the woman becomes the head of the family, she may suffer from loneliness and the extra workload but she can also gain greater independence. On the other hand, emigration can bring the extended family into play requiring the wife to stay with other family members, or at least get more frequent visits from parents and in-laws. So she may be less free.

Nowadays, however, an increasing proportion of migrants are women – indeed, they now account for around 48 per cent of international migrants. For some countries of origin, women now make up the majority of contract workers, particularly from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia – mostly for work in domestic service and entertainment, as well as in nursing and teaching. If they are married this can be very disruptive for family life as dramatised in a popular Filipino movie.

A more general concern for communities that send people overseas is the creation of a culture of emigration. This has long been the case in the Caribbean where a history of slavery and indentured labour has left fractured societies in which emigration is seen as one of the most natural options. Young men who have few opportunities at home have come to regard emigration, even if only temporary, as a rite of passage. A similar phenomenon seems to have emerged in Mexico where a whole generation of young people in many communities now direct their aspirations towards El Norte.

Migration might help the destination country, but does this also mean a corresponding loss for the sending country? Not necessarily. Migration is in some respects a form of trade. And fair trade should allow all parties to gain.

One potential benefit of migration for the sending countries might be to ease population pressures and reduce unemployment. In the past some European countries sent a significant proportion of their populations overseas. Nowadays even for countries sending millions of people the proportions leaving are smaller.

The largest exodus is from Mexico. Of the 108 million people alive today who were born in Mexico, around 8 million now live in the United States. This has the effect of reducing Mexico's annual population growth rate, but only slightly: from 1.8% to 1.5%. The other major exporter is the Philippines. Globally, however, the demographic impact of emigration is far smaller. The world's population is growing by 77 million annually, but only two to three million people migrate each year.

Because relatively few people leave, emigration cannot usually have much impact on unemployment or underemployment in countries like Bangladesh. In any case, emigration would not necessarily relieve unemployment or underemployment directly. Emigration is expensive. So emigrants need some kind of work already or savings or some collateral against which they can borrow. Their departure should open up some opportunities for others. But employment problems in developing countries are not going to be solved by emigration. Just as in the receiving countries, the balance between the number of jobs and the number of workers depends more on the efficiency of the economy in creating the right kind of opportunities.

Emigration can cost poor countries some of their most valuable people. The thousands of dollars spent on educating a doctor or an engineer disappear when they take their skills abroad.

One of the main beneficiaries is the United States. But professionals from developing countries have been going all over the world. For a number of countries the proportion of graduates working overseas is quite high — Iran 25%, the Philippines 10%, and South Korea 6%. Of the African countries one of the highest proportions is for Ghana at 26%.
But probably the most dramatic exodus has been from Jamaica. Some of the greatest losses have been in science and technology.

These departures are partly a result of people wanting to earn more and gain more experience. However, they are also a response to deliberate recruitment by richer countries. In some cases they achieve this by attracting foreign students who subsequently stay. In the United States only half of the foreign students receiving a doctorate or a postdoctoral qualification return to their native country within two years. The UK and France also actively seek foreign students.

How damaging is this for the sending countries? One major issue is the loss of skills, particularly in medicine. Then there is the loss in educational investment: currently around $60 billion-worth of developing country investment in tertiary education has been 'drained' to the OECD countries.

Nevertheless, some developing countries have more graduates in certain subjects than they need. So it may make sense for them to go overseas. Moreover, some people invest in their own education specifically to qualify for overseas employment. Many private medical schools in the Philippines, for example, advertise for students, doctors and nurses, guaranteeing them a job in the United States once they graduate. This process now extends to teachers, for who can expect to earn $30,000 a year, compared to $5,000 in the Philippines.

A more general concern for communities that send people overseas is the creation of a culture of emigration. This has long been the case in the Caribbean where a history of slavery and indentured labour has left fractured societies in which emigration is seen as one of the most natural options. Young men who have few opportunities at home have come to regard emigration, even if only temporary, as a rite of passage. A similar phenomenon seems to have emerged in Mexico where a whole generation of young people in many communities now direct their aspirations towards El Norte.


• Positive

- Remittances
- Population/employment
- Skills transfer

The main advantage of emigration for the sending countries is that emigrants send much of their earnings home in the form of 'remittances' — providing much needed foreign exchange.

The 20 million people from Latin America who live outside the country of their birth sent home $23 billion in 2001 — on average $200 per month. The Philippines Central Bank estimates that the country's seven million overseas workers on average send home over $400 per month, over $8 billion in 2002. Total remittances to developing and former communist countries in 1999 came to over $65 billion. But many migrants avoid official banking systems. Taking into account also what comes through unofficial channels the real total is probably more than $100 billion.

For many countries, such as Egypt, and Bangladesh remittances have become a crucial source of income and foreign exchange. And they are also a vital source of income for millions of families.

What do their families do with this money? Many, particularly in Africa, will immediately spend more on food and other household essentials as well as education for their children. Others will spend money on housing or land. The families of emigrants also commonly buy land, either for farming or as an investment. Another possibility is simply to save the money or to invest in new businesses.

Migrant remittances also have a beneficial 'multiplier effect' on the economy as a whole. For Mexico, the $2 billion in 'migradollars' that were arriving in the early 1990s are thought to have increased overall annual production by $6.5 billion. This was because agricultural communities, for example, used remittances to buy more equipment, fertilisers, and other items that helped to increase output.

Though most attention is focused on out-migration, a significant proportion of emigrants return.

This is most obvious in the case of contract workers. Most South Asians who work in the Gulf, for example, go back after a few years. And few Thai men working on collective farms in Israel plan to stay very long.

On the other hand, many people who migrate with the aim of long-term settlement change their minds after a couple of years. Of the 30 million people admitted to the United States between 1900 and 1980 10 million are believed to have returned eventually.

Some return out of disappointment. Others leave when they have accumulated sufficient funds. But often the deciding factor will be the situation in the home country. If the economic outlook improves then returning will seem a more attractive proposition. One of the most striking examples is Ireland which has now become a country of immigration.

Many people have also been returning to Asia, notably Taiwan and China, to take advantage of new opportunities. Indeed Asian governments that find themselves short of skilled labour have been going out of their way to woo their expatriates.

The return home will not always be smooth. Returning migrants, who are often wealthier than the people around them, can stir resentment. Thus West Indian migrants who have spent most of their lives in the UK and return home to retire can become a ready target for crime. Some returning migrants who find it difficult to settle will re-migrate.

International migration is creating new social spaces.

Overseas diasporas are nothing new: Jews, Armenians, and many others have maintained scattered communities all over the world. But nowadays, with cheaper transport and communications, it is easier for these people to stay in close touch and to form more coherent 'transnational communities'.

If the source and destination countries are close the migrants can travel regularly back and forth. This kind of circular migration is very common between Mexico and the United States, for example, and between countries in West Africa. At the other end of the transnational scale are the jet-setting Chinese 'astronauts'.


Migrants have been able to take full advantage of advances in telecommunications — phone and email to keep in touch with their home communities. The possibilities for calling home have increased dramatically with the availability of mobile telephones, which have put the rural areas of countries like Bangladesh in closer contact with the outside world.

Although most remittances stay within families, there are also many examples of migrants supporting community development back home. Mexicans in the United States, for example, have around 1,500 ‘hometown associations’, which have supported all kinds of community activity, from building new roads to repainting the church, to paying for fiestas as well as in business. Such associations are also active in may other parts of the world: Malian migrants in France also support development activities at home.

In the past some countries of origin have paid little attention to their Diasporas, but a number such as India, are now going out of their way to contact them. This is partly to encourage remittances and return migration but also because these transnational communities are also becoming politically significant — a useful source of votes and campaign funds. At the same time, overseas communities can also finance rebel groups — as with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.


Figure 1 – The Migration Hump


The same thing could happen in the future in today’s countries of origin as they become richer. One crucial difference is that the economic environment is more unstable. Huge flows of speculative capital make it difficult to promote sustained economic development. And when the investors flee, so do the emigrants. The shocks delivered by globalisation thus shake more people loose from their familiar surroundings and open up the prospect of greater emigration. Nevertheless, in the long term, emigration for the poor countries is also likely to be seen as just a phase in their development. In the next century, when flows will probably become more balanced, future generations may well wonder what all the fuss was about.

When the countries of origin start to industrialise, people’s incomes and aspiration rise and they become more mobile and prone to emigrate. But as national average per capita incomes rise above US$ 4,000, more opportunities open at home and people feel less need to travel. This results in a ‘migration hump’, which is evident first for short distance unskilled migrants and later for the more skilled workers.

The Balance Sheet

____________________________________________________________

Summary

Mr Stalker introduced his audience to the whole range of migration issues from the perspective of a sending country - its causes, problems and pressures to both the migrant and the countries of origin, its impact and effects on the family, the community and the state, the costs and benefits. The problem of brain drain was given some prominence with details and insights not usually discussed in contemporary discourse. Stalker said “the loss of graduates is estimated as being 3% in India, 26% in Ghana and 77% in Jamaica.” The same applies to the portrayal of a migrant, who not only benefits his country and family through remittances, acquired skills and desirable habits, but also contributes to reshaping national identity and funding national movements, with a new found nationalism only acquired by working overseas. In 2001, the total amount of remittances sent to developing countries is US$ 62 billion. Mexico ranks as the highest recipient of remittances which amount to US$9.92, followed by India US$ 9.11 and the Philippines, US$6.32. In many countries, the remittances formed an important part of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 23% in Jordan, 21% in Lesotho and 18% in Albania. Despite all the public apprehension on migration, Mr Stalker confidently believes that migration is a phase that countries and the whole world goes through, and that at some future time, balance will prevail and we will all be wondering what the fuss was all about.