CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Labour migration is generally defined as a cross-border movement for purposes of employment in a foreign country. However, there is no universally accepted definition of labour migration. The term economic migrant is sometimes used as an equivalent to the term labour migrant or migrant worker.International labour migration is defined as the movement of people from one country to another for the purpose of employment. Today, an estimated 105 million persons are working in a country other than their country of birth. Labour mobility has become a key feature of globalization and the global economy with migrant workers earning US$ 440 billion in 2011, and the World Bank estimating that more than $350 billion of that total was transferred to developing countries in the form of remittances. However, despite the efforts made to ensure the protection of migrant workers, many remain vulnerable and assume significant risks during the migration process.When properly managed, labour migration has far-reaching potential for the migrants, their communities, the countries of origin and destination, and for employers. While job creation in the home country is the preferred option, demographic, social and economic factors are increasingly the drivers of migration. As a result, a growing number of both sending and receiving countries view international labour migration as an integral part of their national development and employment strategies. On one hand, countries of origin benefit from labour migration because it relieves unemployment pressures and contributes to development through remittances, knowledge transfer, and the creation of business and trade networks. On the other hand, for destination countries facing labour shortages, orderly and well-managed labour migration can lighten labour scarcity and facilitate mobility.International labour migrationThere are several general trends which characterize contemporary internationallabour migration. Most of them are related to changes in the world economy over the last two decades. These changes include the contraction of the manufacturing sector in industrialized countries, the rise in oil prices during the 1970s followed by their decline in the 1980s, and the persistent economic crisis in much of the developing world since the early 1980s. The following section summarizes contemporary changes in the nature of international labour migration and the driving forces behind it (Russell1986, Jones 1990, Allen & Hamnett 1995, King 1995, World Bank 1995): Globalization. More and more countries are incorporated into international migration systems, resulting in a growing spatial spread and cultural diversity of origins and destinations. A growing share of international labour migration comes from low-income countries. Differentiation. International migration flows are increasingly stratified and segmented along lines of skill and legality, as well as length of stay, ranging from international commuting to semi-permanent and permanent resettlement. Polarization. Related to the increasing differentiation is a growing polarity between cheap, low-grade, casual migratory labour on one hand, and a much smaller, but rapidly growing number of highly qualified executive nomads (King 1993) on the other. Stahl (1991) terms the latter capital-assisted migration, as it is often associated with foreign direct investment. Feminization. While labour migrations in the past were male-dominated, women now play a leading role in many migration streams. Examples include Asian women working as housemaids in the Middle East, Filipino nurses in the United States and Ghanaian prostitutes in CtedIvoire (Brydon 1993).

Acceleration. International labour migration is accelerating in the sense that the number of migrants grows, while the average length of their stay becomes shorter. Since the 1960s, there has been a shift in the pattern of international migration, from permanent migrations for resettlement to temporary migration of workers for employment. At the same time, however, international labour migrants constitute a declining share of the total world population. Volatility. Compared with the relative stability of labour migration flows during the long boom (1945-1973), the last two decades has witnessed rapid changes in migration flows. Politically and economically motivated mass expulsions of foreign workers from several host countries have been a major issue for countries of origin. Examples from the1980s include expulsions from Nigeria, Libya and Venezuela (Castao1988). During the 1991 Gulf War, two million foreign workers were uprooted, with detrimental impacts on countries of origin (Connell 1992). Push-pull balance. In general, push factors from countries of origin are becoming more important than pull factors in countries of employment, especially in the industrialized countries. Deteriorating standards of living in many developing countries are becoming ever more sharply contrasted with increasing knowledge of conditions in developed countries. In the countries of employment, the decline in manufacturing industry has led to reduced demand for traditional labour migrants. At the same time, the expansion of service industries and informal sector activities creates new niches of casual, seasonal and insecure employment for post-industrial migrants (King 1993, Sassen 1988). It is worth emphasizing, however, that although the push-pull balance is shifting, actual migration is still primarily demand-induced, not supply-induced (Weiner 1987).

I have chosen to define international labour migration as all population movements across national frontiers for the purpose of employment. This may be on a short-term contract basis, a life-long stay abroad followed by return upon retirement, or economically motivated settlement in a foreign country. This does not mean that distinguishing between different types of international labour migration is not important. However, for the country of origin, all the forms mentioned will have their consequences. The term emigration is often reserved for permanent settlement only. However, I will use labour emigration (cf. Stahl 1982) to cover the whole range of movements referred to above, both temporary and permanent. For an overview of present labour migration flows, I refer to figure 1. While I will comment briefly on the map in the next chapter, a few caveats are in order at the outset. First of all, there is a shortage of reliable, well defined data, and the accuracy. The stocks of migrants in each pole of attraction only includes those with the assumed intention of returning home.International trade theories assume factors of production are not mobile between countries . supporters of free trade argued that free movement of goods between the countries participating in trades. The General Agreement on Traiffs and Trade (GATT) and subsequently the World Trade Organisation (WTO) promoted free or liberal trade in goods and services. WTO also promoted liberal movement of capital between nations.such a liberal approach, however, was not extended to the movement of labour access to their countries on several reasons such as security of the host country, culture, religion, economic and political.There was a large scale migration of European to the New World ( North America). Indians had migrated to African countries contries and in recentdecades to USA, Canada, and European contries.

Here by I like to labour migration of European countries

In the last few years, issues related to international migration are receiving increasing attention from policy makers. This reflects mainly the changes in the magnitude and composition of migration flows. Net migration into the EU has risen again during the period 1998 to 2003. With an overall level of around 4 per thousand, relative immigration levels into the EU appear to be at present somewhat higher than those into the US (3.3 per thousand). High irregular migration, with estimates of the relation between regular and irregular immigration running between 1:0,3 and 1:1, and high numbers of asylum applicants indicate an increase in migration pressure during the last decade. Major changes in the source and destination of migrants have also taken place: traditional receiving countries have lost prominence while Southern European countries, who were sending countries until fairly recently, have become receiving countries, and some Eastern European Member States are now both sending and receiving migrants. Still, it is not straightforward to answer questions such as what is the size of the immigrant population, how many of them are labour migrants, what their skills are and how do successive cohorts perform in their host countries. The data generally available do not provide a clear idea about the number of immigrants across countries, mainly because countries have different concepts of who is an immigrant depending on whether migration is temporary or permanent, or whether immigrants are considered to be foreigners or foreign-born people who have immigrated into their country of residence at a point in their lives. When the criterion used is nationality, immigrants who are naturalised cease to be counted and they become difficult to distinguish from the majority of native citizens. Moreover, the people born in a country, such as the children and grand-children of immigrants, do not always acquire that country's nationality. Using foreign country of birth has several advantages: first, it conforms to the international standard definition of immigrant, second, it is not affected by return migration of those who lived abroad and come back to their home country (who are counted as immigrants if the variable used is "previous foreign country of residence") and, third, it is not affected by naturalisation. From a European perspective, it is appropriate to further distinguish nationals from other Member States, for whom free movement within the EU is in place, from third country nationals, subject to the immigration and asylum legislations of each Member State. In most Member States, over 20% of immigration flows currently originate from another Member State and over 15% are nationals returning from abroad. A Community immigration and asylum agenda is under development under the area of freedom, security and justice created by the treaty of Maastricht of 1991/93. Immigration and asylum of third-country nationals was inserted in the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997/99 (Title IV). The European Council, at its meeting in Tampere in October 1999, provided an important input and agreed that the () issues of asylum and migration call for the development of a common EU policy. It also stressed the assessment of the economic and demographic developments within the Union, as well as the situation in the countries of origin, as a basis for decisions on the approximation of national legislations on the conditions for admission and residence of third country nationals.In November 2000, the Commission published a Communication on a Community Immigration Policy2 in which it recognised that immigration has an important role to play in increasing Europes growth potential and realising the goals of the Lisbon Strategy more generally. In addition, it notes a growing recognition that the zero immigration policies of the past 30 years are no longer appropriate and that channels for legal immigration to the Union should be made available for labour migrants. In its Communication of June 2003 on Immigration, Integration and Employment3, the Commission explored the role of immigration in the context of demographic ageing and outlined policy orientations and priorities to promote the integration of immigrants. The Thessaloniki European Council of June 2003 welcomed this Communication and stressed the need to explore legal means for third country nationals to migrate to the Union, taking into account the reception capacities of the Member States. As a ifollow-up, the Commission adopted its first Annual Report on Migration and Integration in June 2004, where it announced its intention to work towards the definition of common basic principles for integration at EU level. It has commissioned a number of studies on this topic and reported on the labour market situation of immigrants in 2003 and 2004.5The European Council adopted the Hague Programme in November 2004, which sets out an EU work programme for 2005-10 in the field of justice, freedom and security. It asked the Commission to formulate a policy plan on legal migration, including issues such as admission procedures that can respond promptly to fluctuating demands for migrant labour. In response, the Commission first issued a Green Paper on how to manage economic migration at EU level, in January 2005. The Green Paper launched a wide consultation on which rules should be proposed and adopted at EU level concerning the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for economic reasons. Second, the Commission proposed a Policy Plan on legal migration in December 2005. The later events in Ceuta and Melilla and the situation in Lampedusa and Malta, as well as in the Canary Islands and some Greek Islands, reinforce the need for a common and integrated approach to address the international flows of people, taking into account both migration and development policies.Economists can advise the debate on migration, as a growing body of literature examines the characteristics of migrants, their economic integration and the consequences of their migration on both sending and receiving countries. Work on the determinants of migration flows also shows how migration is driven by economic and demographic factors and by policy. This note focuses on several economic aspects of immigration. It first reviews recent trends and patterns in migration to the EU; it then turns to examining the economic impact of migration, in particular the overall gains and pains from immigration and the labour market consequences for receiving countries; finally, it discusses some factual policy approaches CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Logically, migration theory has three questions to answer: how population movements are initiated, why population flows are perpetuated, and what consequences migration has for the areas of origin and destination. Different approaches will emphasize different questions, and they will differ in the way they see these questions as linked. Often, the first two questions are collectively referred to as causes of migration. Unfortunately, one might say, there is no coherent theory on the effects of emigration. However, the way in which these consequences are conceived is often influenced by a general approach to the phenomenon of migration. In this chapter, I will therefore summarize different theories on international migration, and illuminate what is assumed about the consequences of emigration for the countries of origin.Equilibrium modelsWithin the equilibrium perspective, migration is explained in terms of the economic laws of supply and demand associated with neo-classical economics. Migration is always analysed with the individual as the basic unit of analysis. Furthermore, migration is conceived as a process of spatial allocation of resources, an equilibrating mechanism in response to uneven distribution of land, labour, capital and natural resources. Labour moves from areas where capital is scarce and labour is abundant to areas where capital is plentiful and labour is scarce. This is assumed to result in rising wages at the origin and declining wages at the destination. The international movement of labour is seen as conducive to a gradual convergence in the levels of economic growth and social well-being. In the context of contemporary labour migration, this process is thought to be aided by the flow of remittances from countries of employment to countries of origin.

The equilibrium model of migration has been extensively criticized. In particular, the internal consistency of the model has been said to obscure the underlying causes of the structural parameters within which individual decision- making takes place. According to the logic of the model, labour movements from one country to another are caused by excess population relative to complementary factor endowments in the country of origin. However, such an explanation of emigration makes little sense without reference to the distribution of the means of production in the country of origin (Meintel 1984). Furthermore, likening capital with natural resources as a predetermined endowment is highly questionable.Given the causes stated in the model, the effect is bound to be beneficial, not only for the destination, but also for the origin. As the name of the model suggest, the cause of migration is essentially a situation of disequilibrium (disharmony), while the consequence is one of equilibrium (harmony).However, many critics of the equilibrium model would oppose this separation of causes and consequences as two different conditions: The causes of migration cannot be separated from their consequences, for migration is not just the consequence of unequal development due to natural causes Migration is also an element in unequal development, reproducing the same conditions and contributing in this manner to their aggravation.

In other words, the assumption that migration contributes to convergence in development across space is rejected. Furthermore, the microeconomic model gives an unwarranted appearance of free choice under conditions of extreme deprivation or where extra-economic coercion is involved. Few, if any writers would analyse contemporary labour migration in such a simplistic fashion as the equilibrium model outlined here indicates. However, many are influenced by the underlying liberal ethos of free movement of the factors of production, as well as the assumed beneficial effects of international labour migration. For instance, the World Bank (1991: 94) states that looser immigration and emigration policies in both industrial and developing economies are likely to lead to global gains in human welfare.

Historical-structural perspectiveWithin the historical-structural perspective, migration is seen as historically- based and structurally-ordered. Historical factors are important in the emergence of migration flows, while structural factors influence migration through their impact on the spatial variation in demand for labour. Migration is therefore seen as a macro-social rather than an individual process. Obviously, the individual migrant makes the decision to migrate, but the individual motives are conceived as secondary to structural forces.The historical-structural approach contends the treatment of migration asa discrete dimension of social reality. As indicated in Amins statement above, unequal development is a keyword in historical-structural explanations of migration. It follows that population movement can only be studied with reference to a general theory of socio-economic and political transformation. World systems theory, dependency theory and the theory of articulation of modes of production have all provided such frames of reference. For all of them, the unit of analysis is the migration stream itself, as opposed to the atomistic equilibrium approach which treats migration flows simply as aggregations of individual choices. I will limit myself to comment only on the dependency-related view of labour migration. Thisapproach is based upon the following hypotheses.Migration systemsIt can be useful to conceptualize labour migration as a core-periphy process, with poles of attraction (core countries) attracting labour from a surrounding sphere of influence (peripheral countries). This does not signify a wholesale adoption of world systems or dependency theory. Rather, it relates labour migration to what Johnston (1994: 113) calls the well-known core-periphery organization of economic space. The vast majority of labour migrants travel from relatively poor countries to relatively prosperous countries, often, but not always, within the same region. The same countries usually engage in a broader asymmetrical exchange of people, goods and capital which provides a multi-dimensional context for labour migration. This approach is broadly consistent with migration systems analysis, which is not a separate theory of migration so much as a generalization drawing from several theories. It can be seen as a part of the historical structural approach to migration inasmuch as explanations are sought in the totality of relations between different countries.

Countries within a system need not necessarily be geographically close since flows reflect political and economic relationships rather than physical ones. Multipolar systems are possible, whereby a set of dispersed core countries receive migrants from a set of overlapping countries of origin. Consequently, any one country of origin might send labour migrants to several countries of employment._ As political and economic conditions change, systems evolve, so that stability does not imply a fixed structure. Countries may join or drop out of a system in response to social change, economic fluctuations, or political upheaval.Even if there are important similarities which support generalizations aboutmigration systems, it is important to note that the mix of exchanges varies,for instance concerning counter-currents of investment from the core to theperiphery.

CHAPTER 3 TRENDS IN MIGRATIONCharacterising migration in the EURecent Trends In Migration1. Flows And Stocks Of Immigrants From an historical perspective, immigration to europe is a relatively new phenomenon. most european countries have been countries of emigration, some of them until fairly recently. the second half of the 19th century was an era of mass emigration from europe: over 50 million people emigrated to the us, canada and south america between 1820 and 1914. initially,

14