Migration – good for recipient and sending countries?

According to the World Bank in year 2000 36% of migrants in 20th richest countries were highly skilled. Do sending and receiving countries benefit or suffer from high-skilled migration? Without immigrants, ageing societies with low natural birthrate would have to cope with economic slowdown. Especially economies in America and Europe with increasing demand for high-skilled workers and in need for people willing to do hard and unpleasant jobs. Not enough young natives have the right skills or motivation, so the rich must hope that outsiders will keep coming. And they will as long as such wealth differentials persist, the draw will continue. It is more complicated issue in sending countries. Poorer countries could benefit from emigration in general till the natural birthrate is higher than emigration rate, then emigration could lead to lower poverty and higher wage level (examples Belize, El Salvador, Guyana, Jamaica). Although remittances and new skills are claimed to be beneficial there is no guarantee emigrants will return. Exporting better brains will harm sending economy in long term. Poor and middle-income countries in North-Africa, Pacific and Caribbean region face shortages of skilled workforce, well qualified workforce will emigrate leaving most critical jobs unfilled at home, so there hardly will be potential for economic catch up.See more Economist.com

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Migration – good for recipient and sending countries?

  1. I think that immigrants can bring lot of benefits for both-host countries and countries of their origin. The problem is that the governemnts often resist to take advantage of free labour flow with enacting of pro-immigration laws. Therefore the immigration gained bad name with creation of black market, asylum seeking, human trafficking…There is a general opinion that emigration from original country means also so-called brain drain, that the high-skilled migrants take with them their abilities as well as the public investments in their education. On the other hand some of the migrants who have returned back home invested to their home country with new skills, new work culture and expertise. People also perceive immigrants as those who take the jobs to natives and abuse the welfare system of their host countries, but the point is that in most cases they do the work native people are not willing to do like the three Ds- dirty, difficult, dangerous…

    Reply
  2. Successfully managed, migration can be a blessing for both recipient and sending countries. However if it is not managed properly it may be a curse as well. The aforegoing blog was posted before the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum was realized. It would be interesting to get an update on the situation now.

    Reply
  3. In my home country one in ten people in Britain are immigrants at the last count in 2005, the foreign-born made up 9.7% of the British population and I can only presume that this percentage is constantly increasing. People who cross international borders are often categorised by their motives, and some of these categories are seen as less desirable than others. Most migrants move for economic reasons, many in search of jobs, some to be reunited with relatives and most appear to be doing so legally. For example in America in 2002-06 they allowed on average just over 1 million legal immigrants a year who planned to settle permanently, more than half of them sponsored by relatives. Another 320,000 a year entered temporarily.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s