Migration and Development Flashcards
(32 cards)
What is an Immigrant
Origins
o Country of birth: first generation migrants, better for
determining physical movement, place of birth cannot
change, BUT international borders can!
o Nationality: determinant of entry, employment, voting
rights, access to public services entry, may be bestowed
upon children, naturalization, unclear in disputed
territories
o Country of last previous residence – useful for most
recent movement
- Duration of stay
o Temporary vs. permanent (long-term) typically 12 months+
nationality and citizens - used interchangeably
stocks - total number in a place and time
flows - movements - SR dynamics
Paradox where definitional issues are present for migration, yet it is used very vividly in modern media where it is not properly understood.
The Myth of the Migrant Masses
data is old - as it takes a long time to process
absolute nums - migration has increased over time
as a proportion, international migration is stable (between 2.8 and 3.4 percent)
this data doesn’t record 2nd -5th generation onwards, migrants.
Typically when ppl now observe migration - they look around and misperceive how many migrants there are in the word by noticing present changes
What’s rly happened - not just (+) nums, but the COMPOSITION has changed fundamentally! (slide 8)
-> compositional shift
Largely, most migration is from from poor to poorer countries.
BUT, poor to rich migration has increased massively (quality matching) from the 60’s onwards - ie. absorbing human capital.
loss of control from ppl ‘fearful’ of migration - understandable if they weren’t fully informed of the nature of the migration they we about to exist within
(slide 10) interp -> 10 countries account for 1/2 total migration in world
(slide 11)
perceived migration is much larger than actual
-> actual: blue (passport)
-> actual: beige (foreign-born)
(slide 12)
-> maybe?? high inequality - overestimation of migrant numbers
Trends in International Migration
(slide 13)
-> south-south migration
-> lots wishing former countries of soviet unions, Indian countries, Brazil etc.
-> massive migrations to Middle East
(slide 14) - not important
The Myth that we do not Need Unskilled Labour
-> widely held belfie high skill migrants good low skilled migrants bad
-> (slide 16)
Theory of relative deprivation:
-> Natives unwillingness to do specific jobs:
-> compare yourself to others to see how well you’re doing - context of country you’re migrating from v migrating to determines you’re reference group (ie. peers)
o Stigma (rising aspirations), broad desire for HS economy
o Not possible if no workers in unskilled positions, but have
the money to pay for them (service costs fall if immigration
allowed – freeing up native labour to be HS)
o Relative deprivation
Clemens (2013): - evidence for ^^
o Analysis of North Carolina agricultural farm labour
o 15 year study
o In the depths of recession (2011) 6,500 available farm jobs
o 268 native applications from approx. half million unemployed
o 90% of those natives hired (i.e. 245)
o Of which 168 did not show up on first day
o Only 7 native workers completed season!!!
Productivity-resistant (non-tradable) services:
o Baumol effect (1967)
-> ‘we enjoy non tradable services’ - these are growth resistant, must be done by human
* Low productivity sectors dominate employment
* Labour-intensive ‘prod. growth resistant’ services
* Relative price increases - share of services in total
employment grows
* Growth in ‘non-tradeable services’
o Popularised by Pritchett (2006)
Only evidence for developed countries to need low skilled labour (slide 20)
biggest increase in employment needs are non-tradable services
caveat - may be able to be done by technology
The Myth of the Invading Hordes
(Affecting Labour Markets)
-> used to be perceived as a a failure of lack of development of prior country - but migration is a small cog in a larger machine, its effects are varied in type, scale and scope.
-> both schrodingers elements have elements of truth, which is why they are so efficiently weaponised
Migrants: ‘steal jobs’
-> number of jobs is NOT FIXED
-> migrants create jobs as well as filling jobs
- Fixed number jobs ?!
o Populations increase ≠ mass unemployment - Immigrants and locals competing for same jobs
-> immigrants NOT the same as domestic ppl
o Immigrants same as natives?
* If so benefits small, initially lower wages, response in capital (native unemployment increase, lower costs goods and services)
* Inv., capital adjusts, wed end up with the same wage, just a larger economy.
o Immigrants differ: diversity, skills, trade, investment…
-> we will see displacement of workers most where incoming population is most SIMILAR to native population
-> ie, some truth, but its massively overplayed - Immigrants migrate to claim benefits etc.
o Migration costly and risky
aus Coffee culture come s from change in tariffs
The Myth of the Invading Hordes
(Affecting Labour Markets)
effects of Migration on Natives
Look at SHOCKS to economy
slide(23, 24)
-> in a lot of these cases we find 0 effect - more likely to find effect immediately
-> ALL studies look at lost of low skilled ppl coming into economy - but not the case in Australia which enjoys lots of high skilled migration
!!!!are the people coming in going to be complements (different) or substitutes (same - can replace)!!!!
How big is the population coming in relative to native population: (and other contextual components)
-> if native is small, migrant is large - leads to problems
-> if native is large, migrant is small - leads to problems
() philipines -> HK: complementeary - (worker benefits from higher wages, household benefits because they have another earner) - wage effects tend to be smaller than employment effects
()
- Immigration results in large displacement effects among groups of native-born citizens who most directly compete with the immigrant labour. These tend to be low-skilled and less-educated workers who are likely to
be already struggling in the labour market.
(typical low skilled low skilled) - Groups of native-born citizens that do not directly compete with the immigrants frequently experience significant gains. These groups tend to complement the immigrants in the labour markets, and they experience
productivity gains. - Overall wage effects tend to be small compared to the employment and reallocation effects of immigration.
The Myth that Barriers Keep Immigrants out (slide 26!! - important! ) - Bracero Program example (what happened after it terminated)
- If put barriers around cities, what would commuters do?
- Much migration envisioned to be temp.
perception that if we erect large migration barriers well get fewer migrants - NOT TRUE
-> Bracero Program: temporary migration program that worked great, meant almost no illegal migration
-> After it shut dow - all temp mig was immedately (almost) replaced by illegal migration
-> if you make it too hard for ppl to come in and out, when ppl are in they will not go out. Too high of a cost - 0 incentive to leave.
The Myth that Development in Migrants’
Origins will Lower Emigration
Key determinant in migration in economic is: a primary argument for why south to north migration occurs is because ppl earn more in destination than origin
Isaac (1947: 98) developed countries can substitute for migration with overseas aid and trade policy, reducing migration via “the establishment of new industries in undercapitalized, densely populated countries.”
Based on this theory - many nations send money abroad to increase their wages so migration to nations country will decrease (ie decreasing wage differential)
In truth - (slide 28):
-> The migration transition/migration hump/vital transition holds
-> INVERSE U relationship between migration(Y) and development (X)HOLDS
-> iEg. in poor country - every wants to leave but nobody can (ie. many ppl enter visa lottery to America)
-> if you (+)income not so much that ppl don’t want to leave, but now they can leave, so they do.
-> so you have to get very very rich to want to stay - < maybe think about barriers to development - links to migration? >
The (Partial) Myth of the Brain Drain
Define brain gain!
- History peppered with examples of mass migrations but current upsurge in HS migration has no precedent
- Developed countries:
-> For the ‘Best and Brightest’ Kapur and McHale (2005)
-> Global Competition for Talent (Boeri et al 2012) - Developing countries foster fears of brain drain
-> Phrase coined by UK journalists 1963, emigration of UK scientists
-> UNCTAD 2007, “the emigration of skilled workers…undermines
progress in the least developed countries”
-> Chen and Bouffard (2005): medical migration “fatal flows”
-> Chairman BMA: medical migration “the rape of the poorest countries”
-> Mills et al (2008): recommend international recruiters of health
professionals be tried for crimes against humanity!!!
if you are in a country where most ppl with tertiary education leave, it can be argued the brain drain is bad for the country.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
there is countervailing forces of the brain drain (high skilled ppl leave country and go elsewhere) called the brain gain!!!!!
-> BRAIN GAIN: for each Phil nurse that leaves the Phillipines, 7 additional people sign up for medical school
-> the prospects of being able to leave abroad, increase the amount of people becoming more educated in the field which ppl are leaving elsesewhere - (+) increases investment in education
-> this depends on number of places available for education
-> this effect is HUGE for middle income countries who can train ppl
-> however the loss from very small countries is outweighed by the large gains for the medium countries
-> but this argument doesn’t help the smaller countries
-> don’t have training capacity to reinvigorate human capital
Partial: in some instances (Phillipines, balngaldesh) it is a benefit - thus it is an exception to the rule, but the exception is in a very populous country so outweighs the larger volume of small countries experiencing negative effects
Brain drain harms developing countries?:
* Finite stock of skilled workers
* Skilled workers themselves not poor
* Stealing jobs vs. fundamental human right
* Such workers always productive at home (urban bias)
– No statistical evidence that emigration Drs linked to poorer health outcomes
- Country Govt. paid for their training – mostly untrue, African Drs work five yrs on average before migrating
- Do not send money home
- Skilled migrants never return
The (Partial) Myth of the Brain Drain: Cumulative Distribution of High skilled immigration and emigration (slide 32) - gaining from high skilled migration
Destination countries ranked according to the stock of immigrants
3/4 of ppl with 1 year of territory education reside in UK, Canada, Aus and USA
-> Cumulative shares depicted
-> Line starts at almost 40 percent, as the United States is the first-ranked country and accounts for the largest share of global immigration flows.
-> Adding the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia pushes the cumulative share to almost 75 percent.
Second graph equivalent distribution for emigration of high-skilled workers
The gap between the two lines clearly shows that skilled emigration originates from many countries, even if it flows to relatively few.
- losing from high skilled migration
- In 2010 small low-income countries and island states, such as
Guyana (93 percent), Trinidad and Tobago (68 percent),
Barbados (66 percent), Tonga (53 percent), and Zimbabwe (44
percent) very high emigration rates. - Inverse relationship between country size and high-skilled
emigration rates. - Emigration rates decreasing in GDP per capita
- Patterns much starker for high-skilled migration than for
overall flows. - Such movements of high-skilled labour from particular small
and low-income countries raised controversies about “brain
drain”.
Partial myth of brain drain (slide 36): immigrant inventors
the more intensely you specialise in skill, the more concentrated high skilled migration is
historically, other countries you thought would be dong better care losings inventors to America - changed now
Partial myth of brain drain: Nobel prizes
historical - Germany and France win from 1901 (in first third of years)
o Most recent third of years, academics associated with American institutions have won over 65% of these Nobel Prizes, yet only
46% of this group was born in the United States.
-> get recruited to go to America, and then American university gets Nobel prize
- Agglomeration in the upper tail of the talent distribution
- E.g. Nobel Prizes (Chemistry, Medicine, Economics & Physics)
o Since 1901, individuals affiliated with institutions in the United
States (330 individuals), the United Kingdom (90), Germany (69)
and France (33) awarded >80% percent of Nobel Prizes.
o US domination in large part because of emigration.
o First third years since 1901, 9% winners born in United States,
13% affiliated with US institutions at time of winning.
o Most recent third of years, academics associated with American
institutions have won over 65% of these Nobel Prizes, yet only
46% of this group was born in the United States.
o Of all Nobel Prizes across the four subject areas, 31 percent (203
of 661) have been awarded to immigrants, of whom 53 percent
(107 of 203) were affiliated with American institutions
Who benefits from migration?
Migration as Development
Potential of International Migration (1)
