CityReads│Migration Is A Part of Development, Not A Problem
/ 66 /
Migration Is A Part of Development, Not A Problem
By synthesizing and amending existing theories, this paper has advanced a conceptual framework on the developmental drivers of international migration processes. It also empirically tests the main hypotheses of migration transition theory.
Hein de Haas (2010). Migration transitions: a theoretical and empirical inquiry into the developmental drivers of international migration, International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, Working Paper 24.
Source: http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/publications/wp-24-10
Picture source: Migration series by Jacob Lawrence, http://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1495?locale=en
Conventional wisdom holds that international migration is mainly driven by global differences in levels of wealth and human development. This proposition still underlies neoclassical migration theory and popular push-pull models. They presume an inversely proportional relationship between development differentials and volumes of migration. The reduction of such differences by boosting development in poor countries is often seen as the most effective way to reduce international migration
This leads to the hypothesis that most migration occurs between the poorest and wealthiest places and countries. The idea that migration and development are substitutes also leads to the hypothesis that wealthy societies have lower overall levels of migration than poorer societies.
Yet, a quick glance at global migration patterns seems to defy both hypotheses. Most migrants do not move from the poorest to wealthiest countries. In addition, highly developed societies tend to experience not only high immigration, but also substantial emigration and internal movement.
There is no reason not to retain the basic assumption that people generally move in the expectation to improve their wellbeing. What we need is to elaborate more refined theories which are able to grasp actual migration patterns and trends as well as their links to broader processes of social and economic change.
The analytical starting point of this paper is that advancement in migration theory is only possible if we conceptualize migration as an intrinsic part of broader processes of social change, usually embodied in the concept of ‘development’. This creates the required analytical room for establishing a firmer connection between the descriptive field of migration studies and more general social and development theory.
By embedding migration theory within more general social and development theory, the paper aims at achieving an improved explanation of (1) why development is generally associated with higher overall levels of migration and mobility, (2) why the relation between migration and broader development processes is fundamentally non-linear, and (3) why societies tend to go through a sequence of migration transitions. The second aim of this paper is provide an empirical test for migration transition theory drawing on the global migrant origin database.
Theoretical Amendments
This perspective, in which people are expected to move from low income to high income areas, has remained dominant in migration studies since Ravenstein (1885, 1889) formulated his laws of migration. The idea that migration is a function of spatial disequilibria constitutes the cornerstone assumption of so-called ‘push-pull’ models which still dominate much gravity-based migration modelling as well as commonsensical and non-specialist academic thinking about migration.
The analytical value of the push-pull model is limited. First, it is a static model which does not specify how migration reciprocally affects the initial conditions under which it took place. Second, it is a descriptive, post-hoc device to explain migration, in which various ‘migration determinants’ at different levels of aggregation are lumped together in a relative arbitrary manner, without specifying or measuring their relative weight. Third, push-pull models often commit a classical “ecological fallacy” by confounding macro-level migration determinants with individual migration motives.
While neo-classical migration theory is equally based on equilibrium assumptions, it is much more sophisticated than push-pull models. Neo-classical economic theory sees migration as a function of geographical differences in the relatively scarcity of labor and capital. The resulting wage differentials cause workers to move from low-wage, labor-surplus regions to high-wage, labor-scarce regions.
Most migration does not occurring along the steepest opportunity gradients and where wage convergence often coincides with increasing migration. Migration is a strongly patterned process because people’s individual choices are constrained by structural factors such as social stratification, market access, power inequalities as well as cultural repertoires affecting preferences.
Over the past half century, some scholars have advanced theoretical frameworks that analyze the complex relation between migration and broader development processes through space and/or over time. Notwithstanding their differences, ‘spatio-temporal’ migration theories all conceptualize migration as a constituent part of broader transformation processes usually associated with the parallel processes of modernization, capitalist economic development, urbanization and demographic transitions.
Prior theories can be criticized for their evolutionary character and sedentary bias, their inclination towards demographic determinism, their limited conceptualization of structure and agency as well as the causal mechanisms underlying the correlations they describe.
By synthesizing and amending existing theories, this paper has advanced a conceptual framework on the developmental drivers of international migration processes. First, transition theory is amended by introducing notions of stagnation and reversibility. Second, the paper argued that by applying Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach to migration, we are able to broaden conventional, income-focused concepts of development in order to conceptualize migration as a response to generic opportunity rather than income differentials alone. Third, in an attempt to incorporate structure and agency into migration theory, the paper conceptualized migration as a function of people’s capabilities and aspirations, which creates analytical room to analyze virtually all forms of migration within a single perspective and to move beyond artificial categorizations such as between ‘voluntary’ (economic) and ‘forced’ (political) migration.
Hypothesized effect of human development on migration capabilities and aspirations
Graphic representation of migration transition theory
Based on this analytical framework, we hypothesized that human development generally leads to higher levels of migration, mainly through (1) increasing capabilities by loosening constraints on movement, (2) increasing aspirations and (3) increasing occupational specialization. This paper argued how such conceptualizations can help explain why the links between opportunity levels and differentials and migration are fundamentally non-linear, and why human development is typically associated to a sequence of internal and international migration transitions.
Empirical Test: Data and Design
Because of the contested nature of migration transition theory, this paper provided an empirical test for its central hypotheses.
This empirical test draws on the Global Migrant Origin Database released by the World Bank and the University of Sussex. And this database uses national censuses.
This study performed a cross-sectional analysis of the links between levels of human development and migration levels and this database is compiled using migrant stock instead of flow data makes it particularly useful for a cross-sectional analysis of the relation between levels of human development and long term migration trends.
In order to test the hypothesised added value of using a broad, capabilities-based definition of development instead of one focused on income alone, two alternative empirical models have been tested. The first uses the natural logarithm of the 2005 value of per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in United States Dollars in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) as main predictor variable. Other theoretically relevant variables include average GDP per capita growth over the 1987-2006 period to proxy the extent to which countries are “growing fast and offering hope and opportunity”, Literacy is included as a proxy for overall educational levels, and was calculated as the average value over the 1987-2006 period for all the years for which data was available.
The second model replaced the GDP per capita and literacy variables with the Human Development Index (HDI) value for 2005 as calculated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
To test the hypothesis that demographic factors have no direct effect on migration, past fertility levels (the average total fertility rate over the 1970-1990 period) have been included in the model. We took a lagged value, as the effect of fertility on new entries in the labour market of young adults is delayed.
And this study also contained variables measuring a lack of political rights and the surface area.
Results
The results seem to confirm the hypothesized, curvilinear association between HDI and GDP levels and emigrant stocks. While underdeveloped countries have the lowest emigrant stocks as a percentage of their total populations, countries with medium development levels have the highest levels. While highly developed countries have lower emigration stocks, they tend to be still larger than those of underdeveloped countries. In line with theory, the association between HDI and GDP levels and relative immigrant stocks is positive and largely linear. As predicted, the average net migration stock ((immigrant stock – emigrant stock) / total population) is lowest for the countries with middle level incomes and is positive only in the one or two highest categories.
Average total mobility (immigrants + emigrant stock) increases particularly fast between the second and third categories, after which stagnation occurs. This seems to corroborate that countries with high levels of economic development are characterized by generally higher levels of mobility.
The most remarkable result is that there is no correlation between GDP per capita and emigrant stocks, while the association between GDP per capita and immigration is strongly positive. With regards to demographic factors, the correlation matrix also reveals a very strong negative correlation between fertility and GDP and, particularly, HDI. This corroborates that fertility is a somehow proxy of development levels, but may also question whether demographic factors can have a direct effect on migration. Besides, increased political rights are positively correlated to emigrant stocks, vice versa.
Nonparametric (Nadaraya-Watson) regression analyses were performed to further explore non-linearities in the association between GDP, HDI and migration. The results of these analyses are depicted in figures 5, 6 and 7. The estimates show that the association between GDP and emigration better fits an inverted U-shape than the association between HDI and emigration, which is at first absent or even slightly negative after which it follows a much steeper inverted U-shaped pattern.
Interestingly, while no clear relation exists between emigration and HDI for low levels of HDI, the analysis reveals a marked ‘hump-shaped’ association above HDI values of 0.6. Emigrant stocks seem to reach a peak at GDP/capita levels of approximately 12,000 US$ and HDI levels of approximately 0.8, after which they start to decline.
Associations between GDP and HDI and immigrant stocks do not show an inverted U-shape at any point, although they are not entirely linear either. Again, this is particularly the case for HDI values lower than 0.6, beyond which both emigrant and immigrant stocks increase rapidly, albeit the former much more rapidly than the latter. For GDP, the positive effect on emigrant stocks seems to increase beyond 5,000 US$.
The analysis suggests that immigrant-emigrant stock break even points are located at HDI values of about 0.89 and at GDP levels of about 20,000 US$ (or 67 percent above average world GDP) per capita. It is important to emphasize that migrant stock data reflect past rather than current migration, and that the actual tipping and break-even points for migration rates are likely to lie at significantly lower levels.
Conclusion
By synthesizing and amending existing theories, this paper has advanced a conceptual framework on the developmental drivers of international migration processes.
The results confirm the main hypotheses of transition theory. Higher levels of economic and human development as proxied by HDI and GDP indicators, respectively, are associated to higher overall levels of migration; have the predicted U-curve effect on emigration and net migration; and have an overall positive, although not entirely linear, effect on immigration. The results also suggest that past fertility does not have a direct effect on migration. Although future tests should control for reverse causality, this corroborates the hypothesis that demographic factors have no direct effect on migration.
Although several theoretical and empirical puzzles remain, and although we should remain cautious in making claims of causality based on limited, cross-sectional data, the robust outcomes of the analyses strongly suggest that capability- and aspiration- increasing human development is initially associated with generally higher levels of emigration and immigration. There is obviously a range of other factors, particularly those rooted in the particular political economy of countries, their geographical location and historical contingencies, which explain why countries with roughly similar levels of development show highly divergent migration levels and patterns. However, this does not necessarily undermine the hypothesis that there is a general patterned relationship between human development and migration, and that development tends to coincide with a particular sequence of migration transitions. This also leads us to conclude that, contrary to common push-pull models, take-off development in the least developed countries is likely to lead to take-off emigration. More generally, this exemplifies the need to conceptualise migration as an integral part of broader processes of development and social and economic change rather than as problem to be “solved”.
Related CityReads:
4. Whyis migration both inevitable and desirable?
61.How Can We Live Better Together?
（Enter Official Account and reply number “4”or "61" ）
"CityReads", a subscription account on WeChat, posts our notes on city reads weekly.
Please follow us by searching "CityReads"
Or scanning the QR code above