Labour Migration and its Development Potential in the Age of Mobility15 –16 October 2009, Malmö, Sweden

Round table theme 2: Circular migration

Labour Migration and its Development Potential in the Age of Mobility15-16 October 2009, Malmö, Sweden

Round table theme 2: Circular migration

Table of Contents

Round table 2.1 The development potential of circular migration 5

Circular Migration: Reflections on an enduring debate 6

The development potential of circular migration: Can circular migration serve the interests of countries of origin and destination? 11

Round table 2.2 EU’s future policy for circular migration 17

The paradox of permanency: An incentive-based approach to circular migration policy in the European Union 18

Towards a circular migration regime 24

This conference is co-funded by the European Fund for Integration of Third-country nationals.

5

Round table 2.1 The development potential of circular migration

Panel:

Moderator: Khalid Koser, Director, New Issues in Security Course, Geneva Centre for Security Policy

Panellists:Richard Bedford, Professor of Population Geography and Director of the Population Studies Centre at the University of Waikato, New Zealand

Valentina Mazzucato, Professor of Globalization and Development, Maastricht University, the Netherlands

Ronald Skeldon, Professorial Fellow, Department of Geography, School of Social and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex

Focus of Round table sessionThis Round table will focus on two main issues, namely (1) the conceptualisation of circular forms of mobility and the trend towards increased temporary and circular migration and (2) the development potential of circular migration and how migration policies affect naturally occurring circularity. Circular migration is frequently discussed in policy circles at the EU and international level. It is widely acknowledged as a pattern of mobility with potential to promote development in countries of origin, serve the labour market needs of countries of destination, and benefit migrants themselves. Promoting greater ‘circularity’ by facilitating mobility and expanding opportunities for legal migration can also help mitigate the effects of brain drain by facilitating ‘brain circulation’.

Questions for discussion:

• Has your country had experience with circular migration, either “managed” or “spontaneous”?

• Is it possible to develop more general legislative frameworks that facilitate spontaneous circular migration?

• What are the pros and cons of focusing on legislative frameworks that facilitate spontaneous circular migration and developing specific circular migration schemes that are conditional on return after a specified period of time?

• What have been the impacts of circular migration on development in your country?

• How can policies encourage migrants’ double engagement in both countries of origin and countries of destination?

6

From the 1960s circular migration has been at the centre of debates about urbanisation and development in Africa, Asia, the Pacific Islands and parts of Latin America. What was recognised then, and must continue to be acknowledged in the contemporary European debate about circular migration and development, is that this is not a “new” form of mobility or even a new debate. The focus has shifted from mobility and urbanisation in developing countries to population movement, labour markets and social cohesion in developed countries.

Two influential population geographers reminded us in the late 1970s that “circulation, far from being transitional or ephemeral, is a time-honoured and enduring mode of behaviour, deeply rooted in a great variety of cultures and found at all stages of socioeconomic change”1. The antiquity and persistence of circulation should be kept in mind, even if the focus of attention by researchers and policy makers has shifted from internal mobility within developing countries to mobility into and out of Europe and other parts of the developed world.

An elusive conceptDefining circular migration has always been problematic 2. In the 1970s considerable attention was focussed on trying to differentiate between types of human spatial mobility in terms of distance travelled and duration of absence from a place considered to be “home”. Movements ranged from very short-term oscillation (local circulation associated with the daily and weekly routines and rhythms of individuals, families and households), through circular mobility (movements within and between countries involving absences by

individuals or families from places considered to be “home” for periods of a month or more), through temporary migration (absences of several years, often overseas but also within countries), on to permanent relocation in another place.

This approach, while useful for some purposes, encouraged research that sought to differentiate between types of mobility and movers. However, the various forms of mobility are not mutually exclusive; they overlap continuously. Oscillation and circular migration occur wherever people are living either temporarily or long-term. Temporary migration is an important component of permanent relocation, especially in transnational communities where there are kin and homes in more than one country, and short-term as well as long-term movement between different homes is part of the life cycle of individuals and families. The diversity of forms of circular mobility makes precise definition both difficult and potentially misleading, especially given a tendency in the current debate to conflate circulation with temporary labour migration.

Frameworks that position circular migration and linear migration as mutually exclusive categories are not useful. Much more meaningful is a conceptualisation of circulation as the generic form of population movement. Linear migration, which is associated with long-term residential mobility, is one form of spatial mobility that exists alongside and simultaneously with various forms of circular mobility no matter where the home base is. This approach allows all forms of mobility to be considered simultaneously within the one conceptual framework when examining movement of people between places both within countries as well as overseas. It is best

*Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand1 Chapman, M. and Prothero, R.M. (1985) ‘Circulation between ‘home’ and other places: some propositions.’ In M. Chapman and R.M. Prothero (eds) Circulation in Population Movement. Substance and Concepts from the Melanesian Case, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p. 6. 2 For attempts to define circular migration in the 1970s and 1980s see, amongst others, Bedford, R.D. (1973) ‘A transition in circular mobility: population movement in the New Hebrides, 1800-1970’, in H.C. Brookfield (ed.) The Pacific in Transition: Geographical Perspectives on Adaptation and Change, London: Edward Arnold, 187-227; Bedford, R.D. (1981) ‘The variety and forms of population mobility in Southeast Asia and Melanesia: the case of circulation’, in G.W. Jones and H.V. Richter (eds) Population Mobility and Development: Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Canberra: The Australian National University Development Studies Centre Monograph No. 27, 17-50; Chapman, M. and Prothero, R.M. (1985) ‘Circulation between ‘home’ and other places: some propositions.’ In M. Chapman and R.M. Prothero (eds) Circulation in Population Movement. Substance and Concepts from the Melanesian Case, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1-12; Hugo, G.J. (1982) ‘Circular migration in Indone-sia.’ Population and Development Review, 8: 59-83; Prothero, R. M. and Chapman, M. (1985) Circulation in Third World Countries. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Skeldon, R. (1977) ‘The evolution of migration patterns during the urbanization of Peru.’ Geographical Review, 67: 394-411; Zelinsky, W. (1971) ‘The hypothesis of the mobility transition.’ Geographical Review, 61: 219-49. It is interesting to note that there is no reference to this extensive research and debate in a recent literature review of circular migration prepared by the Migration Policy Institute (Agunias, D.R. (2006) From a Zero-Sum to a Win-Win Scenario? Literature Review on Circular Migration. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute). Circular migration has been re-discovered in recent years in a developed world context. While the context of movement discussed in the earlier literature was quite different, much of the conceptual and policy-related material generated in the 1970s and 1980s remains useful for informing the debates of the 2000s. 3 See, for example, Kritz, M., Lim, L.L..and Zlotnik, H. (eds)(1992) International Migration Systems: A Global Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 41-62 and Skeldon, R. (1997) Migration and Development: A Global Interpretation. Longman: London.

Circular Migration: Reflections on an Enduring DebateRichard Bedford*

7

captured by the “systems” approach to population movement that was being championed in the 1980s and 1990s.3

Circular forms of mobility between countries are extensions of similar processes within countries, and frameworks that allow both internal as well as inter-national circulation to be considered in tandem make much more sense than ones that position international circular migration as being separate or distinctive. 4 This has considerable relevance for the policy debate about “managing” circular forms of movement to achieve particular development outcomes in both the sources and destinations of the migrants. Circular forms of mobility are extremely complex phenomena which are not readily amenable to easy definition or manipulation by policy makers in the cause of development. Skeldon has recently reminded us that “migration is primarily the consequence of development, no matter how defined, and migration policy becomes essentially accommodationist rather than directive.” 5 This approach fits well with some of the basic propositions about circular forms of mobility that were articulated in the literature of the 1970s and 1980s.

Some basic propositionsChapman and Prothero framed some basic proposi-tions about circulation and it is useful to recall these when reflecting on the contemporary debate in Europe and elsewhere about policies that might enhance circular migration in order to achieve desired objectives and outcomes for migrants as well as their countries of origin and destination. 6 They argued that in many parts of the world that are now the sources of Europe’s circular migrants, people’s mobility can be viewed as a system of circuits rather than vectors of movement whose locus is the community, the local sub-group, or the extended or nuclear family. In these systems there is an enduring territorial separation of obligations,

activities and goods that reflects a continuing commitment to communities of origin, and is manifest in flows of information, goods, gifts and people.

Circular mobility systems persist because the various destinations of the circuits of movement, whether another village, a distant town, another country or another continent become the socio-spatial extensions of ‘home’ communities. Origin and destination are not separate entities in such conceptualisations of population movement; they are simply nodes in evolving and ever-changing clusters of places that have relevance for human livelihoods. It is in this sense that it is neces-sary to think of the interrelationships between popula-tion circulation and development in terms of concepts like ‘maintenance’, ‘modification’, ‘amplification’ and ‘accommodation’.

Relevance for and examples from EuropePolicy interventions to facilitate circulation must recognise that circular forms of mobility are integral parts of peoples lives everywhere – they are not discrete processes that have clearly defined determinants that can be isolated and targeted by specific policies to ‘manage’ migration. 7 In the spirit of the European Union’s (2008) Future Focus, the emphasis must be on allowing people to migrate out of choice rather than necessity. This means that attention needs to be focused on facilitating policies that provide legal migrants with secure and flexible residency statuses, rather than on policies that discourage return to home communities and complicate subsequent re-entry to Europe at a later date. This approach has a much greater chance of delivering ‘wins’ to migrants as well as to their countries of origin and destination.

There has always been redistribution of people associated with changing mixes of benefits and opportunities associated with residence in

4 See, for example, Skeldon, R. (2006) ‘Interlinkages between internal and international migration and development in the Asian region.’ Population, Space and Place, 12(1): 15-30. 5 Skeldon, R. (2008a) ‘International migration as a tool in development policy: a passing phase?’ Population and Development Review, 34(1): 1-18. 6 Chapman, M. and Prothero, R.M. (1985) ‘Circulation between ‘home’ and other places: some propositions’, in M. Chapman and R.M. Prothero (eds) Circulation in Population Movement. Substance and Concepts from the Melanesian Case, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1-12. 7 For useful reviews of the recent literature and policy debates about circular migration see: Agunias, D.R. (2006) From a Zero-Sum to a Win-Win Scenario? Literature Review on Circular Migration. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute. Agunias, D.R. and Newland, K. (2007) ‘Circular migration and development: trends, policy routes and ways forward.’ Policy Brief. Program on Migrants, Migration and Development, April 2007, Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute; Newland, K., Agunias, D.R. and Terrazas, A. (2008) ‘Learning by doing: experiences of circular migration.’ Insight. Program on Migrants, Migration and Development, September 2008, Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, and Pastore, F. (2008) ‘Circular migration.’ Background Note for the Meeting of Experts on Legal Migration, Rabat, 3-4 March 2008.

8

different places. But the fact that people tend to cluster in particular places at different times of their lives does not mean that previous places of residence are no longer relevant. As has been observed recently in Europe, opening up opportunities for people from the eight eastern accession countries to work and live in other parts of the continent has not resulted in the wholesale relocation of populations from one country to another. Rather, circuits of mobility have been extended, modified, amplified and, in large measure, accommodated.

There have been some extensive movements of people from the new accession states into neighbouring countries such as Germany, as well as to the United Kingdom. But largely in response to changing economic circumstances in the source and destination countries, much of this movement has been circular rather than linear, reflecting the extent to which movers value opportunities to continue to exercise choice about their place of residence.

In another European context, there are contemporary examples of temporary labour migration programmes that are delivering on the elusive triple wins for migrants as well as their source and destination countries. Spain’s seasonal work programme with Morocco, Columbia and Romania, which allows low-skilled agricultural workers to circulate on nine month contracts, is a positive example of a managed circular migration scheme that has a particular focus on the development of skills that migrants will be able to use to foster development in their home communities. As Newland and her colleagues have pointed out in their very useful paper ‘Learning by doing: experiences of circular migration’, the Spanish scheme promotes the twinning of the seasonal workers home towns and the communities where they work with the objective of imparting skills that will be relevant for ventures back home. They note that the farmers’ union in Spain helps migrants to ‘set up small businesses,

agricultural enterprises, or civil society organisations when they return’. 8 In this way, workers gain skills abroad that are directly applicable to their lives back home, and they also have the financial backing to invest productively in their communities.

Circular migration in context – some New Zealand examplesNew Zealand, in common with other OECD countries, has much larger temporary work and study permit programmes than its annual target for new immigrants as residents. In the year ended June 2009, 46,000 people were approved for permanent residence compared with 136,000 approvals for temporary work and 74,000 approvals for study in New Zealand. Largely in recognition of the very significant role temporary migration now plays in all critical components of the labour market, including the lucrative education ‘industry’, New Zealand’s immigration policy has shifted from an explicit focus on selection of migrants as settlers to one that encourages transitions to residence amongst those admitted on temporary permits for work and study. 9

For many of those on temporary permits options now exist for them to seek approval to transition to legal residences status while in New Zealand, and in recent years around 70 percent of the migrants selected for residence were working or studying in New Zealand when they applied for residence status. The main approach to facilitating circulation has been through allowing permanent and temporary residents to move to and from the country without restriction, and by permitting long-term residents to uplift some of their New Zealand pension entitlements overseas if they chose to retire in another country.

New Zealand thus favours an approach to circu-lar migration that maximises opportunities for legal immigrants to exercise choice over their subsequent

8 Newland, K., Agunias, D.R. and Terrazas, A. (2008) ‘Learning by doing: experiences of circular migration.’ Insight. Program on Migrants, Migration and Development, September 2008, Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute 9 Recent reviews of immigration policy in New Zealand include IMSED Research (2009) Migration Trends and Outlook 2007/08, Department of Labour, Wellington; Bedford, R.D. (2006) ‘Skilled migration in and out of New Zealand: immigrants, workers, students and emigrants’, in B. Birrell, L. Hawthorne and S. Richardson Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 219-246; Bedford, R.D., Ho, E.S. and Lidgard, J.M. (2005) ‘From targets to outcomes: immigration policy in New Zealand, 1996-2003’, in P. Spoonley, A.D. Trlin and N. Watts (eds) New Zealand and International Migration. A Digest and Bibliography, No. 4, Department of Sociology, social policy and Social Work, Massey University, Palmerston North. 10 See, for example, Luthria, M. (2008) ‘Seasonal migration for development? Evaluating New Zealand’s RSE program. Overview”, Economic Bulletin, 23(4): 165-170. Ramasamy, S., Krishnan, V., Bedford, R.D. and Bedford, C. (2008) ‘The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy: seeking the elusive triple wins for development through international migration.’ Pacific Economic Bulletin, 23(4): 171-186.

9

mobility behaviour and residential location. This is partly because New Zealanders are amongst the world’s most com-mitted ‘circulators’ themselves – there are well-established traditions of young people spending time working in other countries gaining ‘overseas experience’. Much of that experience comes back to New Zealand either through the transmission of valuable knowledge and experience to families and friends or when members of the New Zealand diaspora return to their home country.

There have also been managed migration programmes, especially for unskilled workers, for many years, but only one of these, the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Work policy, is a deliberate attempt to foster triple wins for the migrants, their source countries and New Zealand employers. 10 This policy has been developed in the spirit of the UN’s High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development, and is being trialled to see if a managed migration programme can deliver simultaneously on development priorities in source and destination countries, while at the same time ensuring that the migrants are able to further their personal, family and community needs and priorities. The scheme targets Pacific Island workers for New Zealand’s horticultural and viticulture industries and has been the subject of considerable research and evaluation. 11 (see for example, Gibson et al. 2008; McKenzie et al. 2008, Rohorua et al, 2009, Bedford C.E. et al, 2009).

A general consensus is emerging that this scheme, with its primary focus on development of some specific industries in New Zealand and provision of employment for rural Pacific workers, is generating ‘wins’ for the workers, the employers and the rural communities in the source countries. That said, there are also tensions for all of the key players in the scheme. Some employers want returning workers they have trained for longer than they are allowed; some communities want greater control over who is selected for seasonal work than the system currently provides for; some migrants want greater assurances of continuous work for the periods they are allowed to be in New Zealand to work than are currently

guaranteed under the seasonal work permits. The scheme has also attracted critical comment on the grounds that RSE workers are the only temporary workers in New Zealand who are explicitly prevented by the terms of their permits from seeking to transition to another type of permit while in New Zealand.

A concluding commentManaged migration programmes that seek to institutionalise circulation of population are not likely to provide sustained triple wins for migrants and for the source and destination countries on their own. They can be useful initiatives as part of larger packages of policies designed to facilitate mobility between countries, but effective wins over time for migrants and their source and destination communities can only be gained when there are opportunities for migrants to transition to other types of arrangements for work and residence, for employers to retain workers who have developed the skills they need for the ongoing development of their enterprises, and for the source communities to benefit from the regular income streams and other opportunities for their families that are associated with less regulated regimes for popula-tion circulation.

Efforts to promote circular forms of mobility should not be made conditional on return or based on specific groups or categories of migrant. More useful and relevant are legislative frameworks that facilitate circular migration in general rather than the development of circular migration schemes that are conditional on return after a specified period of time. This approach comes much closer to achieving the essential aim of the European Union’s Future Focus ‘that people migrate out of choice rather than necessity’ because it acknowledges that population circulation is an essential ingredient of peoples lives everywhere and at all times; it is not something that can be addressed by specific migration policy interventions designed to ensure that people go back to particular places after specified periods away.

11 See, for example, Bedford, C.E., Bedford, R.D. and Ho, E.S. (2009) ‘Engaging with New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) policy: the case of Tuvalu.’ Asian and Pacific Migration Journal (in press); Gibson, J., McKenzie, D., and Rohorua, H. (2008) ‘How pro-poor is the selection of seasonal migrant workers from Tonga under New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) program?’ Pacific Economic Bulletin, 23(3): 187-204; McKenzie, D., Martinez, P.G. and Winters, L. A. (2008) “Who is coming from Vanuatu to New Zealand under the new Recognised Seasonal Employer program?” Pacific Economic Bulletin, 23(3): 205-228; Rohorua, H., Gibson, J., McKenzie, D. and Martinez, P. (2009) How do Pacific Island Households and Communities Cope With Seasonally Absent Members? Evidence from Tonga and Vanuatu on the Early Effects of New Zealand’s Recognized Seasonal Employer (RSE) Program. Department of Economics Working Paper 7/09, Hamilton: University of Waikato.

10

Some questions for discussion

• What do you, as a senior government official in Europe, understand by the concept of circular migration?

• What does circular migration mean in the context of your country’s labour market in the early 21st century?

• Can we envisage labour markets in large parts of the world during the 21st century without circular migration?

• How should we manage selection of migrants who circulate?

• Are temporary migrants who have employment in your country, and whose skills are in demand in the labour market, allowed to transition to the status of legal residents?

• What are the main challenges you see arising from the suggestion that attention should be focused on legislative frameworks that facilitate circular migration rather than focusing on the development of circular migration schemes that are conditional on return after a specified period of time?

.

11

IntroductionMuch of the current policy interest in circular migration centers on the question whether it can serve the interests of both countries of migrant origin and destination. From the point of view of migrant origin countries, circular migration is a way to benefit from resources, skills and knowledge acquired by migrants and ‘brought back’ through their continuing engagement with their home country. Yet the main drivers of discussions on circular migration are the governments of migrant destination countries in the Global North. These governments are particularly worried about the social and economic costs of receiving migrants from developing countries and seek ways to benefit from the additional labor force, without flooding certain economic sectors with laborers, and avoiding putting too much pressure on their social security systems.

There are some fundamental differences in these objectives which lead to the same term ‘circular migration’ to mean different things to different people. It is therefore important to clarify the terms that are used here. Circular can mean ‘shaped like a circle’ thus entailing movement that continues back and forth. This is often what governments of migrant sending countries seek to encourage. Yet circular can also mean a route that ends at the point where it began, thus entailing a one-off movement from origin to destination and back to origin. This is often the intention behind programs run by governments in migrant receiving countries.

We argue that while the first definition represents what happens ‘spontaneously’ when people are allowed to move out of choice, the second definition represents the understanding that lies behind many policy measures in the Global North, aiming to manage migration. Yet to develop effective policies that can address the interests of both countries of origin and destination, it is neces-sary to start from the understanding of what guides ‘spontaneous’ circulation. 2 This contribution thus looks

at what migrants do ‘spontaneously’ when allowed to choose, and how their movements are affected when they have no choice.

Many examples will come from a large multi-year research program looking at Ghanaians in The Netherlands3 , although other studies will be cited. This research is relevant because it relates to new migration streams into Europe and these are the streams that circular migration policies aim at. These newer migrants exhibit different dynamics and face different contextual factors than the older migrant groups. Ghanaians are an impor-tant group amongst the new migrants. In 2004, there were an estimated 1.5 million Ghanaians overseas, predominantly in Europe, North America and Africa. 4

The main difference between new migrant groups entering Europe since the 1980s, and ‘guestworkers’ recruited to parts of northern Europe in the 1960s, is that they often have experienced living in large metropolises in their own and other countries, and thus do not need to adjust to an urban context when they arrive in the Global North. Second, due to stringent migration policies, some have ‘illegal’ status. Third, most ‘new migrants’ are still in their prime working years, they consist of both women and men and the oldest of the second generation are now completing high school. Both the fact that they are a relatively young group, and that many do not have legal status, means they make relatively little use of welfare benefits. Finally, new migrant groups have different destinations than their post-independence precursors who, once their countries gained independence from colonial rule, tended to follow former colonial ties. 5 This means that they come to countries where they may not know the language.

The rest of this paper will focus on two questions:1. What is happening ‘spontaneously’ and what are the

effects of this both ‘here’ and ‘there’?2. How have migration policies in destination

countries affected the above trends?

The development potential of circular migration: Can circular migration serve the interests of countries of origin and destination?

Valentina Mazzucato*

* Professor of Globalization and Development, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Contact information: e-mail: v.mazzucato@maastrichtuniversity.nl.2 Mazzucato, V. (2005) Ghanaian migrants’ double engagement: a transnational view of development and integration policies (Global Migration Perspectives No. 48). Ge-neva: Global Commission on International Migration; Mazzucato, V. (2008) The double engagement: Transnationalism and integration – Ghanaian migrants’ lives between Ghana and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34 (2): 199-216; Agunias and Newland (2007) Circular migration and development: Trends, policy routes and ways forward. MPI Policy Brief, April.3 http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/ghanatransnet/4 Twum-Baah, K.A. (2005) Volume and characteristics of international Ghanaian migration, in Manuh T. (ed) At Home In The World? International Migration and Develop-ment in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa (pp. 55-77). Accra: Sub-Saharan Africa Press.5 Grillo, R. and V. Mazzucato (2008) Africa <> Europe: A double engagement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34 (2): 175-198

12

6 Ratha, D., S. Mohapatra and A. Silwal (2009) Migration and Development Brief 10. World Bank, Washington D.C.. Available at http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EX-TERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21121930~menuPK:3145470~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html.7 Addison E. (2005) ‘The macroeconomic impact of remittances’, in T. Manuh (ed.) At Home in the World: International Migration and Development in Contemporary Ghana and West Africa (pp. 118-38). Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers.

I. What is happening ‘spontaneously’?

Effects ‘there’Remittances accruing to developing countries worldwide are large and in many countries outstrip both private capital flows and official development aid. In 2008 they amounted to US $ 328 billion, excluding those sent through informal channels. 6 The case of Ghana shows how these official figures can grossly underestimate the total amount of remittances a country receives. Remittances to Ghana from migrants overseas have been estimated by Ghana’s Central Bank to amount to US $1 billion in 2003. 7 Yet much of what comes from migrants is brought through the hands of travelers and goes unregistered. These latter have been estimated at 65% of total remittances making total remittance figures closer to US $3 billion, or more than 40% of Ghana’s GDP. This puts Ghana alongside the largest remittance-receiving countries like Mexico and the Philippines.

How remittances are spent gives an indication of whether they lead to benefits for the origin country. We found that one third of migrants’ expenditures are spent on remittances. The case of Ghana is illustrative. Most remittances are invested, i.e., spent on something that is

considered to generate some future return. Figure 1 shows their distribution between uses. While amounts sent and the level of sacrifice made by the migrant in order to send them varied, the remarkable characteristic is that all migrants remitted at least once a year, even those that were undocumented.

Business, housing and education investments are the most obvious contributors to the home-country economy and those that are dealt with most fully in the literature on migration. Business investments provide services or goods, employ people and generate income, investments in housing increase the real estate value and create jobs in the construction sector, and investments in education augment the human capital of a country. Half of the migrants completed or were in the process of build-ing a house in Ghana, one quarter invested in a business in Ghana and half were supporting a child in school.

Not always are business and housing projects successful, however. Many are the examples of failed business attempts or unfinished housing projects. Yet closer analysis of what contributes to successful business and housing projects shows that these related to a migrants ability to move back and forth between destination and origin country to a) check on her

community proj.1%

health1%

funerals in own family6%

ceremonies others2%

Help41%

general/subsistence20%

education11%

Housing16%

Business33%

Other6%

Costs of papers4%

Figure 1. Use of remittances sent from The Netherlands to Ghana (2003-2004) Source: Mazzucato, 2005.

13

investments, b) build relationships of trust with those who manage the investments back home, c) forge and maintain important business links between origin and destination countries. 8

Mobility and circulation are also important for setting up a business for return migrants, i.e. those migrants who decide to return to their home country for good. Dominican return migrants from the US were facilitated in starting a business if they had maintained their social network in the Dominican Republic while they were in the US. 9 This enabled them to access local markets more easily and to obtain important information on the formal and informal practices of starting and running a business in their home country.

The second category of remittances contributes to ensuring a livelihood of migrants’ network members based back home. These remittances are used for purchasing basic necessities such as food and clothing or paying health bills. These types of remittances are emphasized in the migration and development literature and are seen as a contribution to the lives of people back home, helping them out of poverty.

The third category of remittances is primarily com-posed of spending on funerals and other ceremonies and to a lesser degree for community development projects. This category of remittances is primarily aimed at ‘staying in touch’ with one’s home community to feel like one is making a difference but also to receive social recognition. Migrants finance development projects in their home regions such as clinics, schools and markets, and bringing electricity to their village. A detailed analysis of these projects shows that not all projects are successful but those that are, share a common characteristic: there is active communication between migrants and their home communities, sustained by communication technology, such as e-mail and internet, and frequent trips of migrants back to their home communities. This enables them to have the trust of their home community leaders as well as have realistic ideas of

what is needed and what is feasible in the community. 10 Funeral spending is one of the main ways that migrants

remain engaged with their home communities. They prove one’s success in life and bestow prestige or shame on the family of the deceased person. Financing a grand funeral is a way for a migrant to remain engaged with home. Also seemingly economic investments such as building a house represent ways to remain engaged with home. Nigerian migrants living in the US invest in housing in Nigeria primarily to secure their membership rights to their communities in Nigeria as well as to send signals of wealth which enable the home family to gain increased access to informal credit markets. 11

All of the above-cited activities show that there can be some important development potentials for migrant origin countries ranging from foreign capital acquisition, investments, poverty alleviation and skills/know- ledge development. Yet they also point to the fact that the development potential is not guaranteed, and often is stimulated by having migrants travel back and forth between their different social spaces which entail both origin and destination countries. They also show that some of the activities that migrants engage in aim at staying in touch with their home communities and fulfilling their social obligations. This leads to a double engagement.

Effects ‘here’The main issue around migrants’ engagement with home, from a migrant receiving country perspective, is whether this engagement detracts from migrants’ ability to actively participate in the receiving country economy and society. Indeed, political debates currently tend to center around the opinion that engagement with home runs counter to migrant integration. Yet few studies exist that have studied the matter and they all point to the fact that a) these two concepts are not mutually exclusive and b) migrants’ ability to combine the two depends on receiving and sending country contexts. 12

8 Casini S. 2005. Negotiating personal success and social responsibility: Assessing the developmental impact of Ghanaian migrants’ business enterprises in Ghana. MA thesis, International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam; Poel P. 2005. Informal institutions, transaction costs and trust: A case study on housing construction by migrants in Ashanti-Mampong, Ghana. MA thesis, International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam.9 Portes, A. and L. Guarnizo (1991). Capitalistas del Tropico: la inmigracion en los Estados Unidos y el desarrollo de la pequena empresa en la Republica Dominicana. John Hopkins University: Washington D.C.10 Mazzucato, V. and M. Kabki (2009) Small is beautiful: The micro-politics of transnational relationships between Ghanaian hometown associations and communities back home. Global Networks 9 (2): 227-251.11 Osili, U. (2004) Migrants and housing investments: Theory and evidence from Nigeria. Economic Developmenet and Cultural Change 52 (4): 821-49.12 Snel, E., Engbersen, G. and Leerkes, A. (2006) Transnational involvement and social integration Global Networks 6 (3): 285-308; Mazzucato (2005, 2008); Guarnizo, L., A. Portes, and W. Haller (2003) Assimilation and Transnationalism: Determinants of Transnational Political Action among Contemporary Immigrants. American Journal of Sociology 108 (May): 1211-48.

14

13 Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. and Haller W. (2002) Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review 67 (2): 278-298.14 Hall, C. and Rath, J. (2007) Tourism, migration and place advantage in the global cultural economy. In J. Rath (ed.) Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City. London: Routledge.15 Guarnizo, L., A. Portes and W. Haller (2003).16 Mazzucato, V. (2007) The role of transnational networks and legal status in securing a living: Ghanaian migrants in The Netherlands. COMPAS Working Paper 43, University of Oxford, available at http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-07-43/.

The remittance-spending patterns analyzed above point to Ghanaian migrants’ objectives relating to invest-ments, subsistence needs of the extended family, and their desire to remain engaged with their home communities. Yet these same migrants were also active participants in Dutch society as can be seen by their spending patterns. Two-thirds of migrant expenditures are used ‘here’ on rents or mortgages, local and national taxes, school and church fees, daily subsistence and luxury goods, commu-nication and travel, and payment of wages to personnel of owned businesses.

Immigrants also engage in businesses in the host country in which they sell products and services that are intricately linked with the culture, economy and social networks of their country of origin. Studies on ethnic entrepreneurship have shown that these businesses are economically viable when migrants can maintain continuous ties with their country of origin, as was shown for Columbians, Salvadorans and Dominicans living in the US. 13 Ethnic businesses not only provide economic benefits for their owners, but they also contribute to the attractiveness of European cities for tourists, and provide an economic impulse for ethnic neighborhoods. An example are the ‘China towns’ that attract tourists in many major European cities. 14

The degree to which and how migrants are engaged with their respective home countries varies and to a large extent depends on their level of engagement in their countries of destination. For example, Columbian, Dominican and Salvadorian migrants in the US were found to be doubly engaged, the more well-established they were and the more secure status they had. 15

Likewise, we found that for Ghanaians in the Netherlands, having permanent or long-term residency status is positively correlated with having a secure and stable living situation in the destination country which enables them to be more successfully doubly engaged and involved in circular migration. 16

This last type of migrant may be considered to be the most ‘settled’ in the destination country, he is also the one

who is most doubly engaged with back and forth move-ments, activities and has the most transnational networks of people he maintains contact with. It is also he who is best able to start sustainable businesses, complete housing projects, sustainably help the family back home and most actively participate in the host society. It is this type of migrant that can best contribute to a win-win-win situation for himself, the home country and the receiving country.

II. Effects of migration policies on these dynamicsThe benefits from circular migration discussed above also entail costs, largely determined by destination country migration policies. The first category of costs relates to obtaining documentation to migrate. A second category of costs relates to a new concept we term ‘reverse remittances. We elaborate on these below.

One of the most substantial cost items, after pur-chasing or construction of a house, is the cost of obtaining papers in the formal and informal economy. Substantial amounts of money are absorbed into the formal and informal economies of identity papers. These costs relate to lawyer fees and consular fees for legalization of documents and visas. When it proves to be impossible to obtain a visa via legal means, a migrant will search for means via the informal economy of identity papers.

Resources spent on the formal and informal economy of identity papers are resources detracted from being productively spent ‘here’ or ‘there’. They therefore decrease a migrant’s ability to integrate in the destina-tion country and in his/her ability to contribute to the country of origin.

Reverse remittances are flows in the form of money, goods, ideas and services that are sent from people in a migrant’s home country to the migrant living overseas. Just as remittances represent benefits, reverse remittances represent costs of migration. Yet they are seldom considered in the migration – development nexus. This is because they are often in the form of services that

15

people in home countries do for migrants overseas and are therefore difficult to detect and measure.

Reverse remittances are in the form of food, medicines, videos and tailored clothes sent by migrants’ network members to migrants. But much more substantive, both in terms of the efforts made at home and the importance for migrants’ lives, are the services that people at home provide for migrants. Services can be conceptualized as a flow from the sending to the receiving country. The services that emerged as most important are of three main categories: raising children, building and managing housing construction and businesses, and services related to obtaining documents for regularizing a migrant’s stay abroad and for ensuring their social security.

Stringent migration policies in destination countries often lead to split families. Especially in the case where parents migrate and children remain in the origin country questions arise concerning their wellbeing as has been noted in emigration countries such as the Philippines, Romania and Mexico. 17 A decline in children’s wellbeing is a cost for the migrant sending country. Interestingly, in all cases, if parents were free to travel to visit children regularly, these negative effects were mitigated.

Services provided to migrants to regularize their stays abroad and ensure their social security also entail costs closely related to migration policies in destination countries. These services can be substantial and all entail time detracted from productive and reproductive activities that network members would otherwise be engaged in and as such represent costs for migrant sending countries thus reducing the development potential of migration.

DisengagementWhile we have argued that migrants are doubly engaged, it should not be assumed that double engagement is always a characteristic. The hardening policy towards migrants of the last few years in some EU member states has lead to embittered feelings and ultimately the departure of some for greener pastures (often the UK, but also to Belgium, Spain and Italy). In this way, the makers of migration policies can argue that policies have the desired

effects—after all, they aim at making migrants leave or seek to prevent them from entering. While there is no proof that policies attain the latter objective, there are many cases in which a migrant decides to leave the receiving country. However, the analysis of spending patterns from a transnational point of view raises the question of whether this is a desirable outcome. On the one hand, a migrant’s ability to contribute to her home country is set back by the efforts that it will take to integrate into a new country and the resources this will absorb. On the other hand, it is those who have a higher chance of making it elsewhere who leave, i.e. those who are educated and have papers allowing them to travel. These people are a lost opportunity for receiving countries seeking educated workers. Those with few financial resources, a low level of education and illegal status stay behind. Due to their status they had difficulty integrating. These people are ‘stuck’ and had few options to leave. Ultimately a hardened migration policy has incited those with financial resources and skills to leave and those with few resources and illegal status to stay but with little or no possibility of integrating into the receiving country society.

Conclusions regarding circular migration policies and enabling legislative frameworksThere are three important conclusions to enable policy development that encourages beneficial outcomes for migrants, home countries and destination countries.

First, it is important to acknowledge that new migrants coming into Europe since the 1980s are a distinct group from the guest workers who entered northern Europe in the 1960s and 1970s and exhibit a greater variety of migration destinations than migration from developing countries has in the past where former colonial ties guided destinations. Yet new migrant groups, such as Ghanaians, exhibit different trends and face a different policy context from guest workers and migrants from the ex-colonies. Any cost and benefit calculations based on statistics from these latter groups are bound to be inaccurate. National data collection exercises thus need to be broadened beyond the ‘traditional’ migrant groups so

17 Parrenas R.S. (2005) Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Standford: Standford University Press. Donato, K.M., S.M. Kanaiau-puni, and M. Stainback (2003) “Sex Differences in Child Health: Effects of Mexico-U.S. Migration.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Summer: 455-77. Soros Foundation (2008) The effects of migration: The children left behind. Bucharest: Soros Foundation.

16

that policies can be based on current trends rather than solely on the dynamics of groups facing the consequences of policies from more than half a century ago.

Second, when migrants have a choice, they prefer to be able to circulate in order to maintain their ‘double or multiple engagements’ across countries. This double engagement is not counter to migrants’ ability to integrate within a host country, rather it enables them to be active citizens of more than one country because it makes them more satisfied with their lives as they are fulfilling their goals of caring for family, meeting social obligations, and at the same time building a future for themselves and their children in the host country.

Third, circulation, as back and forth movement enables development to be achieved at home, by sustaining relationships of trust with community leaders, keeping migrants’ knowledge of their community up to date both of which lead to a higher rate of success of migrant- financed development projects; creating and maintaining a network of people whom can be counted on for business and housing investments which help ensure that these investments are successful and for solving problems with childcare, should they arise. Ultimately, the most successful migrants were those who circulated ‘here’ and ‘there’.

With respect to policy, this paper argues that migrants’ simultaneous engagement in their home and host country makes development ‘there’ and integration ‘here’ highly related matters. Migrants contribute to the host country society in a variety of ways, even when

some of their objectives are oriented towards home. Migration policies need to be designed in such a way as to not transform these potential benefits into costs for migrant destination and origin countries. Studies have found that migrants who do not face restrictions to reenter into an EU host country are significantly more likely to engage in circular migration and thus have the opportunity to achieve a win-win-win situation. 18

To conclude, policy towards migration and integra-tion should be based on the reality that migrants are doubly engaged and aim at creating room for juggling between this double loyalty. Such policies would create space for more investments in their home country while facilitating a more active participation in the host country with fewer resources being absorbed by the informal economy of identity papers and reverse remittances.

Questions for discussion:

• What would migration policies that take into account migrants’ double engagement look like? What elements do they need to have?

• We have argued that the most successful migrants are those who can travel back and forth between their home and host countries: they are best integrated ‘here’ and are in the best position for creating development possibilities ‘there’. How can policies facilitate migrants in becoming this type of migrant?

18 Constant, A. and Zimmermann, K. (2003) Circular Movements and Time Away from the Host Country. IZA Discussion Paper No. 960. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=486042. Riccio, B. (2002) Senegal is our home: The anchored nature of Senegalese transnational networks. In Al-Ali and Koser (Eds.) New approaches to migration? London: Routledge

17

Panel

Moderator:

Khalid Koser, Director, New Issues in Security Course,

Geneva Centre for Security Policy

Panellists:

Kathleen Newland, Migration Policy Institute (MPI)

Klaus Zimmerman, Director, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), President, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), and University of Bonn.

Peter Bosch, European Commission (Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS), International aspects of migration and visa policy)

Focus of Round table sessionThis Round table will focus on how the EU and countries of origin can work together in removing barriers to circular migration and creating conditions that favour it. The Round table will also focus on how future EU policy can facilitate mobility/circular migration and promote its positive development effects. Policy coherence with regard to circular migration at the EU level requires a better understanding of how different policy areas interact in creating the fundamental preconditions for circular migration and voluntary return. Maximising the positive development effects of increased mobility also necessitates close cooperation with countries of origin, in particular with regard to dialogue, capacity building and the identification of barriers and facilitators to circular migration in both countries of origin and destination.

Round table 2.2 EU’s future policy for circular migration

Questions for discussion:

• What are the key elements of specific programmes or schemes to promote managed circular migration?

• What more general policy and legislative measures can be taken to promote spontaneous circular migration?

• To what extent have existing circular migration schemes been successful?

• What policy measures may be taken by individual Member States and at EU level to enhance the development effects of circular migration?

18

Circular migration today is a natural consequence of globalization and the increased human mobility that is characteristic of ever-closer economic and social ties across national boundaries. Although the international policy debate about circular migration is recent, the practice is ancient. In the 21st century, however, many more people are able to move among two or more countries, at greater distances and outside of long-established routes.

Many governments and intergovernmental institu-tions think of circular migration as a combination of temporary migration and return migration. More innovative thinking about circular migration recognizes it as a pattern of mobility particularly suited to an era of intense transnational interaction, in which many people enact important parts of their lives in more than one country and travel back and forth between or among them.

Greater circulation of people across borders reduces a distortion of the globalized labor market and can produce benefits for countries of origin, countries of destination and the people who move. Each of these stakeholders has different things to gain from circular migration. Each therefore faces a different set of reasons, or incentives, to pursue circulation. The division of benefits among them is bound to be a subject for negotiation if a cooperative framework is to be established—and a cooperative frame-work is likely to be the only kind that can succeed in realizing the benefits of circular migration.

The reality of circular migrationGlobal data on circular migration do not exist. Very few states record arrival and departure information about their own citizens and non-nationals, or on travelers’ place of birth, destination and duration (or intended duration) of stay. Australia and New Zealand are among the few who do collect and record such data. Australian geographer Graeme Hugo has made a close study of Australia’s data, and discovered a high degree of circulation between Australia, on the one hand, and the Asian-Pacific countries that are among the most important sources of its migrants. This includes non-permanent migration to Australia as well as non-permanent return migration from Australia back to Asian countries of origin, especially to

North East Asia. Hugo’s fieldwork in China and South Korea leads him to deduce that this pattern “reflects a considerable extent of bilocality with many Chinese and South Korea origin Australians maintaining work, family and housing in both countries and…circulating between them.” 1

It is particularly interesting that this extensive circu-lation occurs although the Australian government has no programs or policies to encourage circular migra-tion (except for a very recently introduced program for seasonal workers).

More important, Hugo concludes that “Australia is not a special case.” 2 Circulation is more the rule than the exception in migration patterns between the North and South, but this fact cannot be detected in the migration data collected by most countries. International mobility is much more complex than it is assumed to be in much of the conventional thinking—where the assumption often seems to be that migrants from poorer to richer countries are intent on remaining permanently in the country of destination, and must be compelled to circulate.

Migration policy that does not recognize the reality of circular migration may, perversely, “lock people in” to countries of destination in trying to exert more control over immigration. Such actions may reduce the benefits of international migration for them and for countries of origin and destination. This has been the experience along the United-States-Mexico border since the 1980s and of Germany when it abruptly ended its guest worker programs in 1973. (See Klaus Zimmermann’s contribution in this volume.)

Two branches of the policy debate on circular migrationSince the first Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) in 2007, the discussion about circular migration has bifurcated. One branch recognizes it as a long-standing pattern of mobility, which occurs spontaneously in most cases but can be encouraged (or discouraged) by policy measures. The second branch of policy thinking sees circular migration as a tool for migration management (and sometimes development cooperation in addition), which operates through formal, bilateral or multilateral programs and projects.

The Paradox of Permanency: An Incentive-based Approach to Circular Migration Policy in the European Union

*Migration Policy Institute1 Graeme Hugo, “Migration between the Asia-Pacific and Australia—A Development Perspective,” Paper prepared for Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Migration Task Force Meeting, Mexico City, 15-16 January, 2009, p. 17.2 Ibid., p. 30

Kathleen Newland*

19

Spontaneous circulationTo realize the greatest benefits, spontaneous circulation requires an enabling framework that facilitates mobility. It operates most smoothly in a framework of “transna-tionality.” The individuals who are best able to pursue transnational lives are those who have secure residential status in both country of origin and country of destina-tion, so that they can travel back and forth without fear of losing status in either country. Dual citizenship is the most secure guarantee of such capability, but other forms of secure legal residence may confer similar flexibility—such as that permitted within regional integration struc-tures such as the European Union.

Highly skilled migrants, who are welcomed and encouraged to stay in destination countries, are the most likely to enjoy secure residential status, and thus to be able to circulate freely. They are also the migrants who have the most to contribute to the development of their countries of origin in terms of financial resources and human capital. But less-skilled workers also circulate, legally when they are permitted to do so, but also without authorization unless the costs and risks of mobility become too high. Their remitted earnings have a direct impact on poverty reduction in the country of origin, and they too may transmit valuable skills, connections and knowledge as a result of their experience abroad.

Managed circulationThe terms and duration of the cycles of managed circulation are set by the receiving county’s government, sometimes in cooperation with the government of the country of origin. Circular migration programs and projects rely on a mix of enforcement and incentives for return. The participating migrants circulate, but not freely, according to the terms of a visa or contract that requires them to leave the country of destination after a specified period, with the obligation to return home but, often, with the possibility of a repeat sojourn. Their options are limited, though still greater than those of someone who is unable to move at all, or must do so through irregular channels.

Receiving countries differ markedly in the terms of circulation, and in the extent to which they allow circular migrants to convert their status to legal permanent residence. At one extreme lie the Gulf countries, in which permanent settlement is all but impossible for

a migrant worker; at the other is Spain, which permits migrants who have completed four documented cycles of migration under certain programs to enter a fast track for permanent residence.

Most of the managed circular migration schemes in the West are concerned with seasonal work, where circulation has some inherent logic. In other circum-stances, substantial obstacles must be overcome: workers may not be willing to go home on schedule, employers may be unwilling to replace seasoned workers with new hires simply to conform to an externally imposed time-line, the governments involved may not have the administrative resources (or the will) to monitor and enforce the terms of the programs, or the country of origin may be unwilling to encourage migrants to return. In circumstances where the number of places available in circular migration schemes are fewer than the demand, there is a danger of excessive recruitment fees being charged, legally or illegally, and of corruption in the process of assigning places.

Well-managed circular migration schemes are unusually demanding in administrative terms, and require commitment from both governments involved. Careful selection and preparation of the migrants is important to success, to make sure that the qualities of the immigrants match labor market needs. The reintegration of returning migrants into the origin economy and society needs to be planned and supported. The period of work needs to be long enough for migrants to recoup the costs of recruit-ment and travel, and workers should be insured against the loss of a promised job or other changes that result in significantly reduced earnings.

A pilot project negotiated between Mauritius and France is in many ways a model framework for managed circular migration. It is thoroughly integrated into Mauritius’ national economic planning, and includes thoughtful preparation for reintegration of returning migrants. The pilot stage provides for fewer than 1000 visas, but they include categories for highly-skilled people (1-5 year stay), students graduating from a French university (12-month work experience), and “migration and development” visas that can be applied to 61 occupational categories (up to 30 months stay). The project has a strong emphasis on entrepreneurship and enterprise development. The following features of the project bode

20

well for its effectiveness (the pilot will begin in the last quarter of 2009), but show the level of commitment that is needed to run a circular migration scheme well:

• Technical and financial assistance from France to help migrants set up businesses, including training, purchase of equipment and other financing

• Training programs jointly financed by France and Mauritius

• Joint Monitoring Committee

• National Empowerment Foundation in Mauritius: a public-private partnership to fast-track support to enterprises set up by returning migrants

• Government of Mauritius Implementation Working Group on Circular Migration

• Data Base Management System for on-line registration of Mauritians who would like to migrate

• Hoped-for donor-financed matching facility for migrant savings and investment.

Managed circular migration schemes are more likely to work as intended if they follow the logic of the incentive structures that apply to the different stakeholders—above all, the migrants, who are the actors who must, in the end, decide to comply with the terms of a managed circulation scheme.

Why circulate?Both ways of thinking about circular migration, as a spontaneous or a managed movement, ascribe to it benefits for both origin and destination countries and for the participating migrants. Origin countries stand to gain from the reduction of domestic unemployment (and the political tensions associated with it), flows of migrants’ remittances and investments, and an increase in productive ties with the countries of destination. They may also benefit from the skills, training and experience that many migrants acquire while abroad, if

these resources can be put to use in the country of origin. In some cases, such as Spain vis-à-vis Colombia and France vis-à-vis Mauritius, the country of destination has built into its circular migration schemes an element of development assistance to the country or communities of migrant origin.

Countries of destination benefit from increased flexibility in their labor markets as a result of circular migration. Particularly in a time of economic downturn, such as 2008-09, governments have been able to cushion domestic unemployment by reducing their intake of migrants, including by not renewing or replacing expiring contracts of workers under managed circulation schemes. Spain, for example, reduced the intake of migrant workers under its Continjente program from over 16,000 in 2008 to only 901 in 2009; the rate at which Ireland issues work permits fell from its peak of 3,693 in July 2007 to 623 in March 2009. 3 The countries of origin, of course, have to deal with increased unemployment in a downturn under these circumstances.

Spontaneous circular migration also allows receiving countries to tap into the global skills pool without stripping countries of origin of all benefit of their home-grown talent. It is a step toward policy coherence between immigration and development policies, which is a goal proclaimed by virtually all donor countries. Another policy goal is reduced unauthorized immigration, and managed circular migration schemes create a legal channel for some (although usually quite a limited number) who might otherwise have decided to enter the destination country without permission. The promise of circulation may also reduce domestic controversy over higher levels of permanent migration.

Circular migration can also serve as a framework for maximizing the range of options open to migrants and their families. Given the option, many individuals will choose to move back and forth between their home countries and destinations abroad. Through circular migration, they can avoid making a definitive choice between origin and destination countries but, rather, can maintain significant ties in both. They do so in order to maximize the benefits to themselves and their families: choosing to spend part of their time in a location that offers them superior earnings, for example, while

3 Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, “Colder Climate for those Facing home Truths,” Irish Times, 21 July, 2009.

21

educating their children in a location that has superior schools; or gaining high psychic rewards from philanthropic activities in the country of origin while building a business abroad; or benefiting from the comparative advantages of different countries to establish different parts of a transnational business in optimal locations.

Evidence from areas where formal barriers to mobility have largely been eliminated (although some may still exist) — such as within federal states, in regional structures that permit freedom of movement (the EU, MERCOSUR), or across international borders that are not enforced — suggests that, when it is an option, some migrants will prefer circular trajectories. A small survey of Bulgarian migrants in Greece, for example, found that the benefit they most valued from gaining legal status was freedom of movement, which enabled them to travel to Bulgaria for family visits; most of those interviewed saw legalization as a way of strengthening their bonds with their country of origin because of this ability. 4

Some patterns of circular migration, however, reflect the lack of choices available to migrants. The inability to make an adequate living at home, for example, drives many nationals of the Philippines, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other countries to migrate repeatedly to the Gulf for work. They are not permitted to settle permanently, and many find that their savings or investments are not enough to support them when they return home — so they emigrate again. In such cases, circularity is not freely chosen but compelled by both regulations and circumstances.

The EU policy framework for circular migrationThe European Commission has issued several policy documents that address circular migration. The Communication issued by the European Commission on “Migration and Development: Some concrete orientations” in 2005 puts forward measures that would facilitate both spontaneous and managed circulation. These include, for example:

• Promote networking between foreign researchers wor-king in the EU and research institutions in their countries of origin

• Make sure that temporary returns to the country of origin do not affect the residency rights of members of diasporas

• Create partnerships between institutions in developing countries and those in the EU for the conduct of joint research, joint appointments

• Mutual recognition of qualifications

• Promote and remove any legal obstacles to sabbatical leaves and secondments for immigrants and members of the diaspora

• Give priority for temporary employment visas to people who have already worked in the EU and have returned home as required

• Reward migrants who circulate by matching or ad-ding to their savings, or reimbursing their pension contributions when their contracts expire

• Guarantee that returning migrants will be able to con-tinue to travel to their former countries of destination by giving them multiple re-entry visas or allowing them to keep their residence permits after they have returned—at least temporarily.

Few of these measures, however, have been implement-ed systematically across the EU, although some member states have done so even before this Communication was issued.

The Communication in May, 2007 on “Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships”, however, defined circular migration as “a form of migration that is managed in a way allowing some degree of legal mobility back and forth between two countries.” 5 The emphasis on legal, managed migration suggests that EC thinking about circular migration was at that point closer to the second “branch” of the policy debate described above than the first.

A subsequent Issues Paper on Circular Migration from the European Commission specifies two types of circular migration: of third country nationals settled in the EU

4 Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, date?5 European Commission, COM (2007), ___.6 Remarks by Eva Akerman-Borje, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Swedish Ministry of Justice, MPI-IMEPO conference, Athens, January 26, 2009.

22

returning to their countries of origin (labeled outward circularity) and of people resident in third countries of origin coming temporarily but repeatedly to the EU (labeled inward circularity). The Commission has since been working with Member States of the EU and non-member countries to design and implement agreements focused on inward circulation. A few, notably Sweden, have also been consciously seeking to remove legal and administrative barriers to outward circulation. 6 Moreover, the EU “Blue Card” Directive provides that highly skilled immigrants with rights of residency in the EU can leave the EU for up to two years without losing their status.

Cooperation with countries of originDestination countries can promulgate policies that encourage circular migration either unilaterally or bilaterally, or on a regional basis. Unilateral changes in visa regimes — for example, allowing multiple entry visas and guaranteed labor market access, even if only for certain groups such as the highly skilled or those with a job offer in hand— reduce the transaction costs of circulation.

Bilateral or multilateral measures may include sub-stantial investments in regional economic integration leading to the liberalization of labor mobility among the participating states. Fostering partnerships between specific enterprises or industries in countries of origin and destination allows employees to gain experience in both poles of activity. Other possible steps include guaranteeing pension portability between countries and the payment of health insurance benefits abroad.

The policy experience of circular migration by design is much thinner — but this may be changing. A number of developed and developing countries have recently concluded migration agreements that include circular migration elements, although it is too early to assess them. The France-Mauritius pilot project was described above, and other mobility partnerships are in the early stages.

The experience of Spain is the richest among European countries, with many years of experience in circular migration, both seasonal and non-seasonal. Spain’s programs require workers to return to their home countries at the end of their visa duration, but guarantee re-entry to those who comply with the terms of the program. Under the Contingente, Spain’s system for admitting migrant workers to fill identified labor market

needs, workers who complete four cycles of temporary work in good standing are eligible to enter a fast-track procedure for permanent legal residence. This provides a powerful incentive for cooperation with the terms of the program, and ensures that those who become permanent residents have been successful in the Spanish labor market.

The paradox of permanencyThe experiences of Australia, Canada, and Spain demonstrate the “paradox of permanency”—namely that migrants (and their descendents) who have secure legal residence in a country of destination, or have the prospect of doing so, are more likely to circulate than those with no such avenues. Permanent residency creates the secu-rity that allows migrants to leave a country of destination without cutting off their options to return to it, setting the stage for spontaneous circulation.

For long-term but not permanent residents, circulation can be enabled by long-term visas, multiple re-entry permits, and the possibility of being absent from the country of destination for long periods without jeopardizing their legal status.

For short-term, managed circular migration, the most powerful incentive for compliance with the terms of the programs seems to be the prospect of permanent status ‘earned” by a record of compliance coupled with the ability to earn a living, a clean criminal record, and possibly other evidence of integration. The more stringent the requirements are, however, the less likely they are to be observed—yet another example of the paradox of permanency.

Other, less sweeping policy measures, may increase the motivation for permanent or temporary return of migrants to their countries of origin, from which they may continue to circulate back to their former residence. One of the most powerful is pension portability and, less commonly, some form of portability for other social benefits such as health insurance. Governments may also promote connections between public or private institutions in countries of origin and destination. Such measures may increase the development benefits of circular migration, but their impact will pale in comparison to the impact on circulation of creating more transnational of settled migrants and their descendents.

23

ANNEX: GUIDELINES FOR CIRCULAR MIGRATION POLICY

In general:1. Transparency (clear rules and commitments)2. Regulation and monitoring of recruiters and other intermediaries3. Cultivate synergies between economies of origin and destination countries (supply-chain, outsourcing, matching labor needs with available skills)

For managed circular migration4. Pre-departure training for specific occupations (eg nursing, seafaring)5. Opportunities for repeat entry6. Long-term relationships between employers and employees

7. Develop ‘job ladders’ and other channels for upward mobility8. Develop skills useful in both countries9. Balancing incentives and enforcement10. FLEXIBILITY (earned pathways to permanent status, citizenship)11. Support integration and reintegration efforts

For spontaneous circulation12. Reduce transaction costs of travel, money transfer, transnational investment and philanthropy13. Institutional twinning (schools, hospitals, industries, public institutions)14. Dual citizenship or other forms of secure, permanent residence in both countries15. Retention of residence rights during long absences

24

active migration policies may rely on a point system for permanent (long-term) individual migrants, an auction system for temporary hiring rights of companies and a “white card” for a class of registered skilled laborers who enjoy free mobility only limited by the needs of the global labor markets. Intensified efforts towards inter-cultural integration, which respects and guarantees the preservation of ethnic diversity and the ethnic capital of immigrants are important. Circular labor migration between countries that establish a link between jobs and mobility may considerably help to optimize migration benefits, since they rely on allocative market forces that match demands with supply. It is important to recognize that circular migration can help to satisfy the need of more labor mobility. However, it will not solve the demand for higher permanent labor inflows.

Understanding immobility Can we expect European labor markets to become more mobile as requested? The much criticized inflexibility of European labor markets has a multitude of micro- and macroeconomic reasons. The rise in female participation in the workforce results in double income households and makes the question of mobility more complex; therefore, a move is less probable. Recent years have shown the following causes for the persistently weak labor mobility: 4 the increase in home ownership; limited transferability of social security systems; too little recognition of formal qualifications; lack of innovation in Europe; a fall in available jobs due to low economic growth; the ageing of the working population; and an absence of transparency of European online employment exchanges. Faster trains and cheaper flights have an ambivalent effect: they can encourage a change of job to a more distant region, make commuting easier and promote a supra-regional presence without changing employment. Increasing unemploy-ment has made the attachment to local ethnic and social networks all the stronger. Furthermore, poor language skills and cultural differences present the greatest hurdles

Towards a Circular Migration Regime

* Prof. Dr. Klaus F. Zimmermann, is Director of the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn, Professor of Economics at Bonn University, and President of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).1 See Zimmermann, K.F. (Ed.), European Migration: What Do We Know? Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005. In this paper we use the term ”skill” in no ways related to formal qualifications or degrees.2 Kahanec, M., Zimmermann, K.F., International Migration, Ethnicity and Economic Inequality, in Salverda, W., Nolan, B., Smeeding, T,M. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, 455-490.3 See OECD, International Migration Outlook, SOPEMI 2009, OECD, Paris. ”Circular” migration is only mentioned three times in the entire report.4 See also Bonin, H., Eichhorst, W., Florman, C., Hansen, M. O., Skiöld, L., Stuhler, J., Tatsiramos, K., Thomasen, H., Zimmermann, K. F., Geographic Mobility in the Euro-pean Union. Optimising its Economic and Social Benefits, Report for the European Commission, IZA, Bonn 2008.

Klaus F. Zimmermann *

Challenges and potentialsSince long, an increasingly globalized world and looming demographic shifts call for rapid adjustments of open economies. Despite opposing factors like multiple occupations within families, internet jobs or firm-specific human capital, the worldwide shortage of skilled workers and the importance of mobility for the acquisition and distribution of human capital have risen sharply. Hence, labor mobility is of crucial importance. Mobility contributes to an optimal allocation of economic resources that generates high output and welfare. 1 Qualified immigrants or skilled workers are typically of considerable help in raising the welfare and improving the income distribution within the receiving country.2 More and more unskilled workers will remain unemployed unless more skilled migrants help generate jobs for them. Due to the current global economic crisis the world labor markets require new stimuli to avoid further economic decline, growing risk aversion and negative attitudes toward immigration. 3

At the same time, demographic changes in many countries of the world including nearly all of the old EU states but also Asian states such as China and Japan present great challenges: ageing populations, scarcity of skilled labor, innovation deficits, and financial risks in social security systems or due to the lack of those. Growth, well-being, employment and social security are dependent on whether our reaction to the new challenges faced is flexible and innovative. At first glance, this will put particular demands on labor as a factor of production, which as a provider of human capital acts as the main resource of a knowledge based society. In the long term, lack of skilled labor will be the bottleneck to development and welfare. Human capital absorption through education and mobility policy and a fast adjustment of disequilibria are key elements to master the future.

An open but selective and self-regulating labor migration is a key strategy within a sustainable global welfare policy. Economies need to open up labor markets:

25

to geographic mobility in Europe.If mobility in Europe is to be measured and analyzed,

a series of problems will be encountered: mobility is low, therefore hard to measure; macro-data on migration in the European Union are incomplete and contradictory; the international migration process can only be observed in segments at the micro-level; and while immigrants are complied in the statistics of the receiving country, the reference population is found in the data collec-tion of the sending country. There is also a shortage of transnational surveys. Many statistics treat foreigners as migrants, neglecting their nationality, but include those belonging to the second generation with a foreign passport. Micro-economic migration studies readily fall back on individually compiled migration plans, which, admittedly, can overestimate the actual migration.

Mobility rates and regional labor market performance are related: EU member states with higher rates of internal mobility experience smaller regional imbalances e.g. in unemployment rates. This indicates that increased geographic mobility could help to reduce regional imbalances on labor markets within the EU. If the native population is not sufficiently mobile, mobility can be fostered through enlargement and international circular migration.

Following the two stages of enlargement eastwards, 5 which occurred in May 2004 and January 2007, it was especially Germany and Austria that decided to keep their doors closed for a transitional period in the face of unemployment and the feared “welfare tourism”, while Sweden, the UK and Ireland opened up from the beginning. Considerable inflows of labor migrants could be witnessed coming from the new member states to all European countries, with large numbers of migrants from Poland. These strongly motivated work-oriented migrants performed well in the labor markets, did not harm the locals, did not take-up welfare and consider themselves temporary migrants. The Polish workers in particular can be considered to be a new class of circular labor migrants.

The Eastern enlargement of the EU was an institu-tional impetus to the migration potential in Europe. 6 While the overall numbers of migrants from the new member states in the EU15 increased between 2003 and 2007, this increase was distributed unevenly among countries. The proportion of these migrants in the EU15 remains smaller than that of non-EU27 migrants. The transitory arrangements have diverted migrants from the EU8 mainly to Ireland and the UK. Migrants from the EU2 continued to go predominantly to Italy and Spain. The drain of mainly young and skilled people could pose some additional demographic challenges on the source countries. However, the anticipated brain circulation may in fact help to solve their demographic and economic problems. While the ongoing economic crisis may change the momentum of several migration trajectories, free migration should in fact alleviate many consequences of the crisis and generally improve the allocative efficiency of EU labor markets.

Although Germany has not immediately opened up its labor market for immigrants from the new member states, it has experienced a substantial inflow and a change in the composition of EU8 immigrants. 7 The majority of the new EU8 immigrants are less educated compared to previous immigrant groups, they are more likely to be self-employed than employed as wage earners, and they earn less conditional on being employed or self-employed. These results underline the importance of more open immigration policies targeting skilled immigrants. The previous policy not only could not attract the required skilled workforce, but also could not avoid the attraction of low-skilled immigrants. 8

Circular migration is a historical fact in many countries. Policy measures to stop it often result in the exact opposite of the original intention. 9 The ability to go back and forth between the home and the host country and its consequences for both economies is discussed in the context of Mexican migration to the United States. Originally, this was a temporary, male dominated work-force going home regularly to support the family with

5 See for an evaluation of the migration effects of enlargement Kahanec, M., Zimmermann, K.F. (Eds.), EU Labor Markets After Post-Enlargement Migration, Springer, Berlin 2009. 6 Below the old EU is called EU15, the current is EU27, the first wave of new members from Eastern countries in 2004 is EU8, and EU2 are the 2007 countries (Bulgaria and Rumania).7 This is discussed in detail in chapter 4 of Kahanec, M., Zimmermann, K.F. (Eds.), EU Labor Markets After Post-Enlargement Migration, Springer, Berlin 2009.8 In a policy shift, the German government allows since January 1, 2009 all international migrants with a university degree to enter the country freely if they have a job.9 See Constant, A.F., Zimmermann, K.F., Circular Migration: Counts of Exits and Years Away from the Host Country, IZA Discussion Paper No. 2999, Bonn 2007.

26

money earned abroad. Many communities especially in California enjoyed the advantages of cheap labor without experiencing the problems with entrenched communities of low-income workers and their families. Now with the much stricter border controls the behavior of Mexican migrants has changed. While this has not stopped people from coming, it has made migrants much less inclined to circularly return, and more likely to bring their families. While in the early 1980s an undocumented Mexican worker stayed for about three years on average, the dura-tion of stay had increased to nine years in the late 1990s. A quite similar problem appeared in major European countries including Germany, when in 1973, in the face of rising unemployment, the labor hiring regime was abolished abruptly. As a consequence, many migrants from the guestworker generation stopped going back home and induced a substantial rise in family reunifica-tions in Germany. Now, only a smaller portion of the migrants work, they exhibit high unemployment rates and substantial take-ups of social assistance.

EU policy measuresTo overcome the problems of lacking mobility in the EU labor markets, the EU has to follow a double strategy. 11 First, initiatives have to be taken to mobilize the domestic market. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the full and transparent portability of social entitlements are not the only steps that should belong to the political agenda. The creation of a European online job exchange platform through a cross-linking of national agencies may help to stimulate mobility as well as a Europeanization of education policy programs. Obligatory stays abroad in the educational sector and a strong promotion of exchange programs will certainly be effective. Secondly, since inner EU immobility cannot be expected to be reduced sufficiently, it is also necessary to promote mobility between the EU and third countries.

In the concept of the EU, free capital and product markets promote the integration of the European economic zone and deliver growth and well-being. The largest effect can be expected from unrestricted labor migration, whereby initial adjustment costs cannot be ruled out from the outset. However, labor market

integration and a controlled opening for skilled labor from abroad is only hesitantly gaining ground. Under the current economic recession, labor migration might collapse, with detrimental long-term implications. The upcoming demographic contraction and ageing of the European labor force contrasts with the growing demand for skilled labor and the increased displacement of unskilled labor from production processes. This requires a greater internal flexibility of the labor forces within Europe and a rapid establishment of the EU as a migration destination for skilled global labor. The current economic crisis provides Europe with a big chance to improve its position on the international market for labor migrants, since many of them move temporarily home after loosing their current job. With new regulations and incentive regimes in place, the EU could attract many more of them after economic recovery.

The world is facing a growing shortage of skilled labor, which will strike every economic nation in the long term and end in a battle for the most talented. Europe is not the first choice for the majority of highly qualified migrants. Since the EU has so far lacked a coherent common policy strategy for an active regulation of migration, it is not well positioned for the tasks ahead, but instead faces the danger of watching this on the side-lines, since the environment for labor migration has to be cultivated over time. Migration takes place in networks and builds up social infrastructures of people from diverse ethnicities. These networks need to be continuously invested into in view of the long-term, which is shown by the traditional migration countries. Otherwise, Europe will fall behind. It is not only the traditional policy of “Fortress Europe” which has outlived itself, but also the hesitant policies of making the labor markets more accessible, especially from the governments of Germany and Austria, following the latest European enlargements.

The EU commission has since then recognized and advocated more mobility within Europe proposing a “blue card” for highly qualified workers. This could turn Europe into a continent of migration. Criteria for the allocation of “blue cards” should be (i) a particular professional qualification; (ii) a valid work contract; and (iii) an income of at least 1,5 times the average gross annual salary in the

11 Zimmermann, K. F., European Labour Mobility: Challenges and Potentials, De Economist 153 (2005), 425–450; Bonin, H., Fahr, R., Hinte, H., Immigration Policy and the Labor Market. The German Experience and Lessons for Europe. Springer, Berlin 2007.

27

Member State concerned. If these criteria are fulfilled, the highly qualified worker should receive a work permit and residence visa. The “blue card” is supposed to enable the holder to work within the entire EU economic zone. This could open the possibility of strengthening cross-border mobility within Europe, which would otherwise be too difficult to achieve. This process could generate circular migration among international workers, which would help reduce regional shortages in the European labor markets.

However, the economic gain of immigration from outside of the EU can rise considerably with a migration policy based more on economic principles. This would provide a larger economic welfare effect and increase immigrants’ integration skills. In the process, attention to both the long-term demographic trends and an effective determination of actual migration required are essential. The drop in population due to demographic changes and an ageing society make a steady migration of suitable groups sensible. However, the current labor requirements cannot be adequately covered by permanent immigration in cases of economic fluctuations or short-term demand bottle-necks, because these circumstances require a speedy and tailored response. This asks too much of the public authorities’ ability to plan ahead and the respon-siveness of migrants focused on the long-term.

Different short and long-term variations in demand require a correspondingly diverse reaction in policy in the form of a dual strategy. Permanent migration can be systematically regulated with a “points system” according to international proven models. Points are awarded with priority given to criteria like age, educational achieve-ment, work experience or the presence of a job offer. From an integration perspective, previous stays and the presence of family in the receiving country should be weighted, along with whether they have come with children and how proficient their language skills are. In addition to this, appropriate integration offers would be made available, which would form the basis of a contract between the immigrant and the receiving country.

The most intelligent form of long-term migration policy lies in the education of qualified students who can stay in the country after they obtained a university

degree if they find a job. Another one is a “white card” selected on a a set of criteria for a class of registered skilled laborers who enjoy free mobility only limited by the needs of the global labor markets. Europe should negotiate such a ”white card” with the interested world including next to the EU, for instance, the United States, Canada, Australia, China and Japan, among others, in an International Agreement on Skilled Migration (IAM). Within the EU, these people would be like ”blue card” holders, in the United States they would be like ”green card” holders, etc. Previous foreign students could be one potential source for the ”white card” selection. Further, agreements on circular labor migration between countries may also help to optimize migration benefits. Intensified efforts towards intercultural integration, which guarantees the preservation of ethnic diversity and the ethnic capital of immigrants are also useful.

On the other hand, different factors need to be taken into consideration with temporary workers entering a particular country. Up until now, immigrants have entered a country rather randomly. The task which remains is to allow the entry of immigrants to selected segments in the labor market where there is a shortage of labor. Particular forms of temporary immigration should not be taken into account, for example workers of multinational companies or scientists, because there is no serious justification in state intervention. The actual required amount of immigrants could be “automatically” achieved by use of an auction, where a limited number of work permits and entry visas would be auctioned off to interested companies. The market would react to this supply, and the activity of companies would indicate where the labor shortages are. A company would only take part in such an auction if the expected profit from employing an immigrant was greater than the costs of the auction and the search for personnel. This would only be the case if local labor supply could not meet demand. Such a method would be clearly superior to other conceivable options (fee-based scheme or levels at the discretion of government) because of the careful matching up of demand analysis and demand satiation. Furthermore, it would provide policy-makers with valuable information about current personnel

28

bottlenecks, which could not be immediately tackled with education policy. The generated revenues from the auction could also contribute to finance the education system.

In general, migration should be seen as a chance for new economic dynamism: Europe shall be better placed as a competitor for diminishing human capital. At the same time, imbalances due to maladaption of native workers can be partially compensated through migration. Furthermore, migration of skilled workers produces greater social equality, since the complementarity of high and low qualified workers provides employment and income advantages of the low qualified. To secure these positive effects, uncontrolled migration as well as low skilled labor migration has to be avoided.

The circular migration agendaA policy agenda needs to be established that generates a circular migration system consisting of programs, agreements and more general legislative frameworks conductive to circularity. Both entry and exit incentives should be provided.

Access to the global labor market. Active migration policies should rely on a point system for permanent migrants, an auction system for temporary hiring rights of companies and a “white card” for a class of registered skilled laborers who are attached to the needs of the respective labor markets and can freely move. For new migrants and particular occupations one should establish job search visas.

Core objective of a circular migration system. The core objective of a circular migration system is to tie up a migratory move to a job generated from the market system. The right to enter a country and the requirement to leave it is linked to the availability of work. Then the filter for migration is the labor market.

Basic principle of circular migration. As the basic principle of circular migration one should establish the right or chance for return to the host country. There should be the legal right to come back with a job. This principle applies the historical lesson that there is practically no return or onward migration without that guarantee. With such a guarantee, many more workers will move on if they loose their job.

Citizenships and permanent residence permits. Citizenships and permanent residence permits allow people to stay in the country of immigration. For labor migrants they often induce the opposite. Migrants are encouraged to leave the country, since there is the valuable option to return.

Skilled migration. Skilled migration is the corner-stone of any successful migration system. Policymakers need to analyze the trends that affect skilled migration. Countries need to establish credibility in that particular labor market through a friendly, informative and open migration policy.

Student migrants. Enrolment of international students is a powerful way to establish the credibility of a country on the international skilled labor market, since they serve as an effective recruitment base of migrants. Migrants learn the language of the host country and affiliate with its culture. They should be allowed to remain in the country after the completion of their study provided that they find a job.

Ethnic networks. Ethnic networks effectively connect people to jobs; they do better than labor offices and head-hunters. Hence, circular migration can be established through the well functioning of ethnic networks. A more accurate analysis of mechanisms to both attract and retain talent is needed and governments, universities and other stakeholders in the sending and receiving countries must be encouraged to think more strategically about how to connect better through ethnic networks.

Links to back home. Ethnic communities away from home are key conduits in organizing the transfer of knowledge, technology, capital and remittances to the countries of origin. This is particularly important for developing countries. Such communities can build bridges between foreign technology, markets, local innovators and entrepreneurs. They also understand well how such initiatives might best complement cultural factors and strengthen local institutions.

Challenges of brain circulation. The old patterns of one-way flows of labor, technology and capital from the core to the periphery are out. The value of brain circulation is now recognized as, for example, migrants originally from developing countries, return home to start

29

new companies or take up senior positions in academia or business, while maintaining useful links with their formerly adopted country. Developing countries do not need to be losers in the global competition for talent.

International standard setting. Established policies need to develop minimum work contract standards, provide means to preserve pension rights, facilitate the free circulation of remittances, and enable the reunion of family members.

Questions for discussion:

• Can we satisfy a long-term rising need for labor by circular migration?

• Is it possible to achieve a sufficienty more flexible labor market by internal EU circular migration?

• Does brain circulation hurts the countries of origin?

• Can we leave it to the labor market to regulate labor migration?

• How does the right to return if there is a job offer, the improved portability of pension rights and the provision of citizenship stimulate circularity?

Sveriges ordförandeskap i EU

Swedish Presidency of the EU

La Présidence suédoise de l’UE