ABSTRACT
As migration from developing to developed countries becomes more significant, it is crucial to understand just what type of effect this has on the development
prospects of sending countries. Additionally, because both migration and development are multi-dimensional processes it is also essential to discern how these interact with other relevant policy areas. Thus in analysing the integration of migration issues in a trade agreement such as the EPA, two questions must first be addressed. First, what is the relationship between migration and development? Second, to what extent does trade liberalization positively or negatively affect migration, which in turn affects development? Perhaps the most directly visible positive effect of migration on development is found in remittances, or the private transfer of funds which migrants send to their countries of origin, mostly to support families. Although in Africa, for example, official development assistance and foreign direct investment continue to represent the most significant flow of capital, remittances are steadily on the rise and tend to be less volatile. Indeed, in big migrant-sending countries remittances represent an increasingly important source of revenue. Remittances can positively contribute to development by reducing poverty, stimulating economic growth, and deepening financial development (Gupta et al. 2007). Although the extent of this effect is debated and dependent on country-specific factors, the overall consensus in the academic literature points towards a positive relationship between development and remittance flows. Second, migration and development are positively linked through potential gains in human capital and economic growth. One way is through the temporary ease on unemployment strains in the country of origin due to the departure of surplus labour (OECD Development Centre 2007: 60-1). Another is through the potential ‘brain gain’ and knowledge transfers that occur due to either return migration or engagement with diaspora networks. Where temporary migration, or ‘brain circulation’ is insured, return migrants bring with them new skills, information and technologies, which in turn contribute to stimulating economic growth through the creation of new enterprises and investment. Diaspora involvement can facilitate the forging of trade, investment and development links between origin and destination countries (Xenogiani 2006: 21). At the same time, where migration remains largely unmanaged, it also has the potential of harming development. One of the foremost ways in which this occurs is through the long-term loss of skilled migrants specialized in sectors of particular relevance to development, more commonly known as the ‘brain drain’. This is a particular problem for SSA, where the proportion of university graduates who have migrated to Europe is higher than in any part of the world (Katseli et al. 2006: 19). The loss of skilled professionals can mean the loss of productivity and knowledge, a loss of return on the investment made in training and education, and a loss in potential revenues. Furthermore, the brain drain adversely affects mainly the health and education sectors through the loss of key professionals, making the delivery of critical social services difficult (OECD Development Centre 2007: 70-1). Migration can also create significant social strains by negatively affecting income inequality and domestic labour markets. The departure of skilled migrants and their remittance flows can exacerbate income inequalities between households, with unskilled workers unable to afford migrating.
It is only at a later stage when low-skilled workers begin to migrate that these inequalities decrease (Katseli et al. 2006: 27-9). Unregulated migration flows can also create significant social strains on the country of origin as well as on the migrants themselves. Crime and corruption is exacerbated in the establishment of illegal migration routes, while the migrants themselves often experience serious human rights abuses in their migration attempts. The relationship between migration and development is not unidirectional, however; rather the two influence each other. Indeed, the push and pull factors for economic migration originate in the disparities in levels of development between sending and destination countries. To this extent, it also becomes important to discern how development affects migration. On the one hand, development can create more employment opportunities in the country of origin, thus discouraging economic migration. On the other hand, economic growth and increased resources provides new opportunities for migration to those who could previously not afford to leave. To the extent that development also influences migration, within the context of the EPAs, which aim to promote development through trade liberalization, it is crucial to understand how this process will contribute to South-North migratory movements. Traditional trade theory argues that in the long run trade liberalization decreases migration pressures (Xenogiani 2006: 31). An increase in exports of labour-intensive goods is said to increase the demand for low-skilled labour and, therefore, to reduce migratory flows, as potential migrants find increased opportunities at home. Increased trade is also likely to decrease wage disparities, thus essentially discouraging migration by fostering convergence among sending and destination countries. FTAs are thus seen to promote an environment which deters international migratory movement in the long run. Migration and trade are thus understood to be substitutes. More recent findings suggest that trade liberalization and migration are instead complementary. The ‘migration hump’ model argues that where trade liberalization occurs between countries or regions facing very disparate levels of development, increased trade tends to foster immediate migratory pressures due to structural changes caused by liberalization as such. Therefore,
