The migration development nexus

Castles (2009) notes that until recently scholarship on migration and scholarship on development followed separate lines and refers to a “major conceptual shift”(p. 3) in the twenty–first century. Prior to the mid-1990s the consensus on migration as it related to the development of the sending country was predominantly negative. Following an exhaustive literature search, Massey et al. (1998) referred to “very pessimistic conclusions about migration’s role in promoting productive investment” (p.239). Where remittances could be linked to increasing prosperity, this was seen as ‘dependency modernisation’ and not development (Connell, 1990, p. 9 citing Schneider et al.).

A global upsurge of interest in migration and remittances dates from the mid-1990s. From 1996 the estimated world-wide volume of remittances overtook official development assistance (P. Martin et al., 2006, p. 155), and econometricians in particular began to take special interest in remittances. De Haas (2005, p. 1277) notes that “the surge in remittances has given rise to a kind of euphoria”.

Accumulated over the 1990s as a whole, remittance volumes were about 20% higher than aid to developing countries (Nyberg-Sorenson et al., 2002, p. 69) and this trend has accelerated since then. Kunz (2008) identifies a “global remittance trend” referring to the growing interest by governments, NGOs and firms in this development potential. Kapur (2004) refers to remittances as the “new development mantra” and there has been an explosion of academic writing on the links between migration and development in the twenty-first century.

A high level of interest has been shown by World Bank economists among others in using regression analysis to establish correlation between remittances and economic growth and/or poverty

reduction (Adams, 1991; Adams & Page, 2005; Baldé, 2011; S. S. Brown, 2006; Glytsos, 2002; Jayaraman, Choong, & Kumar, 2009; Maimbo & Ratha, 2005; Ratha, 2003, 2004; Zaman & Akbar, 2013) but this type of aggregate analysis has limitations. According to Bakewell (2008, p. 1342; cf Castles, 2008) what is missing from this analysis is “any critique of the concept of development under consideration.” Brown (2006, p. 65) offers a definition of development as “loosely defined as

poverty and inequality reduction and improved average living standards”: there is a broad emphasis within such studies on these issues. There is some acknowledgement that remittances are not always pro-poor (Adams & Page, 2005; S. S. Brown, 2006), but the majority of studies cannot actually show this because they deal with aggregate data at country level, focused on gross returns which also may not detect remittance decay.

The remittance mantra has not been without challenge. A development mantra based on migration is distinguishable from the advocacy of Nyberg-Sorenson et al.(2002) who call for greater co- ordination between migration and development policies; an approach which sees the potential of remittances to work with aid, not as a kind of replacement. In this vein, Connell and Conway (2000, p. 63) note seven potential developmental strategies of migration, including family basic needs, savings strategies, human capital resource investments, location-specific capital ventures, diversified micro-economic investments, community support and ‘social capital’. “Unfortunately” commented Massey et al. (1998, p. 223) “policy-makers often view foreign labour as a panacea rather than a complement to good policy”. Delgado Wise and Covarrubias (2009, p. 96) point to a level of cynicism which sees migrants as “heroes of development” (see also Asis, 2008) thus excusing the state from accountability. Ellerman (2005, p. 620) describes migration/remittances as a safety valve: “Many governments in developing countries have now discovered the ‘oil well of remittances’ that might help them paper over problems and pay the costs of not changing”.

There is no established consensus yet on the following key points:

1) Whether remittances decay over time. Lee (2004, p. 239) notes contradictory results from different studies. Qualifying the ‘transnational corporations of kin’ concept, Lee suggests that remittances become more individualistic over time. A focus on aggregate data can overlook remittance decay at the individual scale in circumstances of diasporic growth.

2) Whether a more open approach to borders will encourage circular migration with development benefits. There has been considerable advocacy for the removal of barriers to immigration in developed countries, with the paradoxical effects noted (De Haas, 2005; Hayter, 2004).

3) Whether temporary labour migration schemes with fixed terms on the schemes, are the best way to ensure that working abroad is seen “as a path to local development rather than an escape from local underdevelopment” (Ellerman, 2005).

4) More fundamentally, whether development requires a geographic locality. Highly nuanced debates fall between the tight geographic definition that went with the development project and the hyper-globalist position (see W. E. Murray, 2006 for clarification on differing perceptions of globalisation). Barcham et al. (2009), and Bakewell (2008) take a transnational perspective without necessarily embracing globalisation.

Whereas the dominant approach to the nexus of migration and development emphasises the activities of transnational communities, another approach emphasises short term temporary contracts for immediate local benefit. If this latter path is taken, then the corresponding restriction on network activity which accompanies the seasonal projects requires a conception of development which is territorially meaningful and which offers more than short term remittance benefit.

Only a few studies have looked specifically at the developmental effects of seasonal contract labour distinct from migration and remittances in general. Basok (2000) studied a sample of Mexican migrant workers in the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programme (SAWP) and concluded that there were improvements in the standard of living of seasonal labour migrants but minimal productive investment and there was an ongoing dependence on external income sources. A follow up study in eleven Mexican communities (Basok, 2003) found that there were different patterns of remittance use in communities which were grouped according to their endowments. De Vletter

(2007) studied the development effects of South African contract mine workers from southern rural Mozambique and found that in spite of the highly exploitative conditions in the mines, southern households, particularly those with several generations of miners, were likely to have built up economic assets far in excess of the more agriculturally fertile regions in the north. The high level of interest in the RSE programme is therefore timely. Portes (2009) attempts to delineate between migration which has developmental effects and that which does not, and concludes that low-skilled labour flows need to be cyclical whereas professional labour flows may be permanent as well as developmental in some circumstances.

The next section addresses the late twentieth century MIRAB discourse, not strictly part of the migration/development nexus insofar as the development claims are more limited, yet it acts as a microcosm for the global picture. Although there had been earlier debate within the Pacific on migration which was in some respects world leading, MIRAB pre-empted or foreshadowed the migration development nexus through its legitimisation of migration as a development pathway.