 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Migration can help reduce poverty in both origin and destination countries but governments need to make sure the right political and economic environment is in place. Migration should be seen as an opportunity to develop poorer regions rather than a threat, particularly in the case of the so-called transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe. New work from the Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, in the UK, analyses the management of migration in relation to poverty reduction using the examples of Moldova, Tajikistan, Kosovo and Georgia. All these countries have been affected by the collapse of the Soviet system. Most have undergone a traumatic period of transition to a market economy, and several have experienced conflict that led to population displacements. More recently these countries have stabilised economically, if unevenly. These changes have led to distinct patterns of increasing migration across the region. These include the movement of refugees and internally displaced people, international migration for work (much of it illegal), including the movement of younger and more skilled sections of the workforce to larger urban centres. These can be explained by negative factors such as poverty, violent conflict, the collapse of social protection institutions, a poor business climate and the impacts of land reform. There are also positive factors including the availability of jobs in construction and the service sector in Western Europe and Russia. But how have destination and origin countries responded to migration in general? Many are witnessing a brain drain, trade deficits, increased inflation, poverty among refugees, diversion of cash to trafficking networks, and changed population structures in rural and urban areas as a result of migration. Key findings include: Migration policies have been included in 44 national laws and international agreements, leading to ‘National Plans of Action’. These seek to control migration despite its potential benefits, and do not manage migration positively or protect migrant workers. Money sent back home by migrants has reduced poverty, but this effect may be slowing. Although money from migration has contributed to small businesses, it is unlikely to lead to large-scale development in countries of origin. There is increased inequality as the poorest people do not have enough money to migrate. For migration to have a positive impact, it needs to be better managed within a stable macroeconomic environment. Governments should: establish relaxed, reciprocal visa regimes, and register those who move so they are not exploited encourage the involvement of emigrants in the economic development and political integration of their countries of origin ensure banking mechanisms are transparent and worker funds are safe, and encourage the investment of savings in productive activities make agreements to allow migrant workers to contribute to pension schemes that they can take back to their countries of origin improve social services to reach the poorest people, since economic growth does not necessarily reduce poverty and migration mostly benefits the better off produce better statistics and establish a monitoring system to create reliable and systematic data on migration. Source(s): Funded by: Department for International Development (UK) id21 Research Highlight: 19 March 2008
Further Information: Tel:
+44 1273 877090
Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, UK Other related links:
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
