Migration and Development: The Elusive Link at the GFMD

Migration and Development: TheElusive Link at the GFMDPhilip MartinUniversity of California, Davis

Manolo AbellaInternational Labour Organization

The second Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD)(http://www.gfmd2008.org) was held in Manila on October 27–30, 2008.Representatives of 163 governments discussed best practices to protect therights of migrants, types of legal migration that enhance development,and methods to achieve greater coherence between migration and othersocioeconomic policies, including aid, development, and trade policies.The United States government, which fears that the GFMD will becomea venue for poorer migrant-sending countries to criticize the treatment oftheir nationals in richer migrant-receiving countries, did not participate.

The GFMD is a government-led process outside the UN system.The host government sets the agenda in consultation with a steeringgroup of 30 governments drawn from the larger Friends of the Forum.The first GFMD (http://www.gfmd-fmmd.org), which brought 160governments to Brussels July 10–11, 2007, ‘‘established a new approachto migration by squarely moving development to the center of the migra-tion debate…[by] promoting legal migration as an opportunity for devel-opment of both origin and destination countries, rather than as a threat.’’(GFMD, 2007, Final Report, p16).

The Manila GFMD focused on the rights of migrants, emphasizingthat legal migration that respects migrant rights has more favorabledevelopment impacts than irregular migration. Greece will host the 2009GFMD, followed by Argentina in 2010, Spain in 2011, and Morocco in2012.

CIVIL SOCIETY DAYS

A 2-day civil society conference was held October 27–28, 2008, justbefore the government meeting. Over 200 representatives of mostlyunions and migrant rights groups discussed the same issues addressed by

� 2009 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00771.x

IMR Volume 43 Number 2 (Summer 2009):431–439 431

government delegates: protecting the human rights of migrants, usinglegal migration to accelerate development in migrant countries of origin,and obtaining the data needed to improve coordination and coherencebetween migration and development policies.

The civil society discussions began with a reminder that migrationshould be a choice rather than a necessity, that people who choose tocross national borders should move legally and be treated the same asother residents and workers after arrival, and that managing migrationis rising on national, regional, and global agendas. The goal of the dis-cussions was to highlight win-win-win policy changes, defined as thosethat can benefit migrants as well as migrant-sending and -receivingcountries.

For example, it is widely acknowledged that the cost of sendingsmall sums of money over national borders is high, often 10–15 percentof the typical $200 transaction (World Bank, 2005). Reducing the cost ofremitting migrant savings can provide more funds for migrant familiesand their countries of origin and increase migrant satisfaction abroad,benefiting employers and host countries at the expense of money-transferfirms. Encouraging remittances to be sent via regulated financial institu-tions has other benefits as well, including strengthening the banking sys-tems of migrant-sending countries and reducing channels that terroristsand criminals could use to transfer funds.

Moving from reducing remittance costs to other win-win issues ismore challenging (Martin, Abella, and Kuptsch, 2005). It is widelyacknowledged that farm subsidies in OECD countries of about $1billion a day keep their agricultural sectors larger than they otherwisewould be and attract migrants to fill especially seasonal jobs. Rich-country farm subsidies also hold down the incomes of farmers in poorcountries by increasing global production and depressing world pricesof farm commodities. One result of low farm incomes in developingcountries is migration, both rural-urban within countries and overborders.

The interaction of farm, aid, trade, and migration policies are anexample of policy incoherence. Industrial countries spend two-to-threetimes more on farm subsidies than they do on foreign aid, often subsidizethe export of their surplus farm commodities and restrict the imports ofcommodities from developing countries, and adjust their migrationpolicies to allow foreign workers to be employed in agriculture.

432 International Migration Review

However, recognizing policy contradictions and remedying them aretwo different things. There are well-known reasons why rich countriessubsidize their relatively few and wealthy farmers.1 Meanwhile, many poorcountries tax their numerous farmers via monopoly suppliers, who chargehigh prices for inputs, and buyers of the commodities they produce, whopay less than world prices. The GFMD discussions aim to identify suchpolicy contradictions and build the case for changing them to achievepolicy coherence.

MIGRANT RIGHTS

Migrants are people with rights to equal treatment under internationallaw. International Labor Conventions 97 (1949) and 143 (1975) as wellas the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of All MigrantWorkers and Members of their Families call for migrants to be treatedequally in the countries to which they move. The UN Convention, whichspells out a comprehensive set of rights for legal and irregular migrantsand their families, has been ratified by fewer than 40 countries, none ofwhich are significant destinations for migrants.

Equal treatment is more often a goal than a reality, and much ofthe discussion at the GFMD focused on how to close the gap betweenrights’ goals and realities. Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs)lamented the relatively few migrant-receiving countries that have ratifiedthe ILO and UN conventions, and many urged new campaigns to pro-mote their ratification and enforcement. However, some migrant-receivinggovernments believe that the ILO and UN conventions should be revis-ited to remove provisions that discourage ratification, such as rights forirregular workers. Revising migrant conventions is opposed by mostNGOs, who believe that the priority should be to embrace acceptance ofthe conventions as written and to add new conventions to deal with work-ers who are often excluded, such as domestic helpers.

Many NGOs urged that the GFMD be moved inside the UN.There are three major types of international organizations, most of whichare part of the UN system: those that set standards, those that provideservices, and those that provide forums for discussion. NGOs would like

1Most farm subsidies guarantee prices for commodities such as corn, wheat, and cotton.These price guarantees are capitalized or incorporated into the price of farm land, so

reducing them would reduce the wealth of landowners.

Migration and Development 433

the GFMD to become a norms- or standard-setting organization, muchas the World Trade Organization sets rules for trade and the ILO setsnorms for workers. Some international organizations provide services tomember states, such the International Organization for Migration, whileothers simply provide a forum for discussion, as with the GFMD andmost of the regional processes on migration.

Norm- or standard-setting organizations are in the best position toencourage member states to change their policies. There are two majortypes of norms relevant to migration. The WTO’s General Agreement onTrade in Services aims to liberalize trade in services, which could be doneby making it easier for foreigners to enter and provide services (Martin,2006). The World Bank, which wants to accelerate development inpoorer countries, urges richer countries to open more doors to migrantsto achieve the global economic gains assumed to derive from movinglabor from lower to higher wage areas (World Bank, 2005). The ILO, onthe other hand, is an example of an international organization concernedprimarily with the rights of migrant workers (ILO, 2004).

GUEST WORKERS

About half of the 200 million international migrants are employed in thecountry to which they moved, and the second theme of the ManilaGFMD aimed to find best practices to encourage more legal temporarylabor migration. Many governments advocate circular migration, empha-sizing that guest workers are expected to return and seeking ways toinvolve settled migrants in the development of their countries of origin. Arelated concept is life-cycle migration, which emphasizes cooperationbetween migrant-sending and -receiving governments to protect migrantrights during recruitment and employment abroad as well as during thereturn and reintegration of guest workers.

Many NGOs lamented the inherent weak bargaining power ofmigrant workers. Most are tied to an employer abroad, and lose the rightto legal residence and work when they lose their jobs. Some argued thatmigrants had more rights in an irregular status in some industrial coun-tries than as legal migrants in some oil-exporting countries, where theyare tethered to a sponsor-employer.

Both governments and NGOs agreed that recruitment fees are toohigh and that some recruiters are in fact smugglers and traffickers. Somegovernments and NGOs emphasized that under ILO conventions, workers


are not supposed to pay recruitment costs. If employers paid recruitmentcosts, they suggested there would be less smuggling and trafficking.Employers usually do pay recruitment costs for highly skilled workerssuch as accountants and seamen because the demand is large relative tothe supply of workers with such skills. Furthermore, migrant-receivingcountries often allow foreign professionals to arrive with their families andsettle.

There are far more low-skilled workers who want to migrate thanthere are legal channels open to them to migrate for employment. Mostlow-skilled migrants pay significant recruitment fees, often 25 percent ofwhat they expect to earn while working abroad for two years. There arecosts involved with international migration for passports, visas, healthchecks, travel expenses, and so forth, and the GFMD discussion centeredon how to reduce these costs. Some NGOs focused on employers andgovernments in receiving countries, saying they bore the responsibility toensure that migrants did not pay recruitment costs, while others focusedon the actions open to governments in sending countries to regulaterecruiters and reduce recruitment costs.

Government agencies play regulatory rather than active roles inrecruiting and deploying migrants. There is no agreement on how to reg-ulate the agents who recruit and deploy migrants, the employers who hirethem abroad, and the institutions they deal with on their return. One rea-son for the lack of transferable best practices is the potential trade-offbetween migrant rights and migrant numbers. Many governments thatsend workers abroad want to increase deployments, and being too aggres-sive about protecting migrant rights could make it harder to achievedeployment targets (Ruhs and Martin, 2008).

There is a similar trade-off between protecting migrants and reduc-ing their pre-departure costs. Requiring migrants to learn the laws andlanguage of the country in which they will work before they depart canhelp to protect them abroad, but may also increase their pre-departuredebts, making them more vulnerable abroad because of the need to repaydebts. Several pilot projects aimed at helping migrants go abroad withoutincurring deployment debts, which usually carry high interest rates, werediscussed.

A second dimension of empowering migrants to contribute to thedevelopment of their countries of origin involves remittances, investments,pensions, and other flows of money between receiving and sendingcountries. There is general agreement that remittance costs should be


minimized, but less agreement on whether and how migrants settledabroad can affect investments and trade between sending and receivingcountries. Exempting migrants from paying into pension systems whilethey are employed abroad, or refunding their pension contributions whenthey depart, can encourage circular migration, but can also leave foreignworkers without the benefits received by local workers if they settle abroad.

POLICY COHERENCE

There was general agreement that the database for understanding andexamining international migration needs to be strengthened, and that the2010 round of national censuses should include questions that would pro-vide a much better picture of migrant stocks and flows. There was alsoagreement that the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers prepared by gov-ernments with input from NGOs should deal with the links betweenmigration and development.2

There was a call for more recognition of the importance ofmigration at national and international levels. Ideally, national govern-ments and international organizations would establish inter-agency taskforces and forums to highlight and reduce contradictions in migrationand development policies and identify and promote best practices tomanage migration and promote development.

Country development plans often lay out plans and programs toreduce the poverty that encourages internal or international migration.The Philippines 2004–2010 development plan, for example, anticipatessending a million workers a year abroad and aims to better protect themwith bilateral agreements and re-integration programs. A few countries,with donor support, have established commissions or agencies to deal withmigration and development.

Some European countries have policies that explicitly link migrationand development, such as French co-development policies with Africancountries and agreements signed by Italy and Spain with migrant-sendingcountries that open a certain number of slots for guest workers inexchange for these countries agreeing to accept the return of unauthorizedforeigners. However, migration and development are often linked more in

2PSRPs are posted at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPRS/0,,contentMDK:20200608~menuPK:421515~pagePK:148956~

piPK:216618~theSitePK:384201,00.html#S


theory than practice, and there are countless examples of trade, aid, andeven migration policies that may impede development, such as migrationpolicies that allow the best and brightest to come for study and settle aftergraduation.

The Gulf states are taking the lead in cooperating with migrant-sending states to manage migration on a life-cycle basis that emphasizesreturn and re-integration. The United Arab Emirates in Manilaannounced a pilot project with the Philippines and India to deal withmigrants during recruitment, employment abroad, preparation for return,and re-integration. The UAE, which has 304,000 migrant workers in theseven Emirates, is funding the pilot project.

Some advocate diverting a portion of development aid from govern-ments and projects in migrant-sending countries to diasporas living in thedonor country, under the theory that these migrants know what theircountries of origin need. Both the UN and IOM operate return-of-talentprograms, under which foreign professionals settled abroad return to theircountry of origin physically or virtually for temporary periods ingovernment and nonprofit organizations to improve capacity for develop-ment by training local workers. However, diverting development aid todiasporas raises the issue of migrants winning twice by migrating and byreceiving assistance targeted to their countries of origin.

ASSESSMENT

The GFMD was launched by a high-level dialog on migration at the UNin September 2006 (UN, 2006). The first GFMD in Brussels showed thatmost UN member governments wanted to discuss migration and develop-ment issues, and that NGOs were keen to urge them to protect the rightsof migrants. The second GFMD in Manila emphasized the importance ofprotecting the rights of migrants and urged governments to collect betterdata and support research to improve policy making.

It is clear that NGOs and governments can discuss migration anddevelopment issues, but it is less clear that they can identify and promotebest practices that increase rights for migrants and ensure that sendingworkers abroad accelerates development at home. Most participants in theGFMD believe that more migration is inevitable, that migration isgenerally beneficial to migrants and receiving countries, and that the chal-lenge is to manage this migration in ways that protect the rights ofmigrants to enhance migration’s benefits.


As with many complex socioeconomic issues, there are two extremesalong the migration and development spectrum. One extreme argues thatsending workers abroad can provide win-win-win outcomes for migrantsas well as sending and host countries, making the major policy priorityopening more channels for legal migration. Giving migrants jobs that gen-erate wages and remittances, this argument runs, will speed up develop-ment as migration opens a new avenue for globalization to hasteneconomic and human development in both sending and receivingcountries.

The other extreme considers it almost impossible to move espe-cially low-skilled workers over borders in ways that protect migrantrights. Most of the richer countries now receiving migrant workers expe-rienced internal migration that was marred by abuses, as with migrantfarmworkers. Some of those studying U.S. migrant farm-workers a halfcentury ago argued that the best way to protect them was to eliminatethe jobs that motivated them to move, concluding that there was noway to effectively protect migrant worker rights.3 Economic developmentreduced the number of low-skill internal migrants, and the hope is thatglobal economic development can similarly eliminate low-skill migrationover national borders.

Durable solutions are rarely found at the extremes of the policyspectrum, raising the question of how to protect migrants and ensure thatmigration accelerates development over time. Many economists and inter-national development organizations want more migrants to move fromlower to higher wage countries to reduce poverty and accelerate develop-ment, while most NGOs and many governments want to do more toprotect migrants. The challenge is to find the optimal trade-off betweenmigrant rights and migrant numbers.

REFERENCES

Fisher, L.1953 The Harvest Labor Market in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

GFMD2007 Final Report. Global Forum on Migration and Development. Brussels, July 9–11.

<http://www.gfmd-fmmd.org> Accessed March 23, 2009.

3‘‘The brightest hope for the welfare of seasonal agricultural workers lies with the elimina-

tion of the jobs upon which they now depend’’ (Fisher, 1953, 148).


ILO2004 Towards a Fair Deal for Migrant Workers in the Global Economy. Report 92 VI.

<http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Publications/ILOBookstore/Orderonline/Books/lang–en/docName–WCMS_PUBL_9221130436_EN/index.htm>.

Martin, P.2006 GATS, Migration, and Labor Standards. ILO Institute Discussion Paper 165.

<http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/index.htm>.

———, M., Abella, and C. Kuptsch2005 Managing Labor Migration in the Twenty-First Century. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Ruhs, M., and P. Martin2008 Numbers vs. Rights: Trade-offs and Guest Worker Programs. International Migra-

tion Review 42(1):249–265.

United Nations2006. International Migration and Development. <http://www.unmigration.org>.

World Bank2005. Global Economic Prospects. The Economic Implications of Remittances and Migration.

<http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gep2006>.


Documents

Migration and Development: The Elusive Link at the GFMD