Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A Critical Relationship
R. T. Appleyard
Centre for Migration and Development Studies
University of Western Australia
Population research in recent years has focused sharply on the causes and
consequences of natural increase. The literature abounds with important
contributions on all aspects of fertility and mortality. Population distribu-
tion, especially international migration, has been accorded less attention,
which is understandable because growth has been on an exponential curve
for many decades and is unlikely to flatten before the mid-twenty first
century when total population will have reached about eleven billion. The
majority of persons added to the world’s population during the next sixty
years will, of course, be living in Third World countries. Growth will be
especially rapid in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia as many countries
comprising these regions pass through the middle stages of demographic
transition.
this liberal doctrine for state intervention. In the long run, individual,
national and international interests coincide; any positive action by the
state would be a check or hindrance to the general interest.
Liberal theory was based essentially upon the same comparative statics
which characterize the marginal theory of production. Assuming given
capital and natural resources in both countries, labor will emigrate from
country A, where the marginal productivity of labor is low, to country B
where it is high, until productivities are equal and there is no incentive for
further migration. The assumptions underlying the theory are so rigid that
its application to specific situations is extremely limited. For example, an
attempt by Paul Douglas to measure and compare marginal productivities
in Massachusetts and two Australian states assumed perfect mobility of
labor and capital, perfect competition in the labor market, full employment
of the factors of production and the absence of state intervention. Then,
when Paul Samuelson argued from theory based on similar constraining
assumptions that, under certain conditions, international trade was a sub-
stitute for labor and capital, the economic heavens fell upon him. Following
a protracted debate in economic journals, Samuelson admitted that he had
been rash in “drawing a moral concerning the worth of emigration from
Europe out of an abstract simplified model” (see Thomas, 1961; Appleyard,
1974).
Major changes in type, direction and composition of migration after the
mid-1960s saw many social scientists reassessing the ways in which both
motives and patterns differed according to the “historical course of devel-
opment” (Population Information Program, 1983). Economists, especially
economic historians, became increasingly aware of the need to consider
changes in a country’s socio-economic structure in order to adequately
explain patterns of internal and international migration. As a country’s
socio-economic structure evolved, so changes in productivity, infrastruc-
ture and capital output ratios created new aggregate and specific demands
for labor. During periods of rapid economic growth, immigrants with
appropriate skills represented a cheap and effective medium for satisfying
unfilled labor demand. Other social scientists also sought explanations
more realistic than any which could be drawn from liberal theory. For
example, Kingsley Davis (1981) proposed three generalizations:
(1) international migration depends more on political and social require-
ments than on the free play of market forces;
(2) when and where market forces do prevail (i.e., in the absence, and
sometimes in spite of political, religious and ethnic constraints), migration
goes towards countries with a high technology and/or a higher ratio of
resources to people;
1
For example, the Council of Europe’s Conference of Ministers on the Movement of
Persons coming from Central and Eastern European Countries (Vienna, January 24-25,1991);
the Ninth IOM Seminar on South-North Migration (Geneva, December 4-6,1990) (see Interna-
tional Migration, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 1991); the OECD International Conference on Migration
(Rome, March 13-15, 1991); and the ECE/UN Population Fund Expert Group Meeting on
International Migration (Geneva, July 16-19, 1991). Following the “G7 Summit” in London
during mid-July 1991, the leaders’ declaration noted that “Migration has made and can make
a valuable contribution to economic and social development, under appropriate conditions,
although there is growing concern about worldwide migratory pressures” (extract published
in The Daily Telegraph, July 18,1991).
also the abiding theme at the recent OECD conference in Rome where
Emmerij (1991) captured the importance of the issue by arguing that unless
changes in economic policies are forthcoming the next wave of interna-
tional migration is “just around the corner.” What is needed, he proposed,
;,- a comprehensive transnational policy which covers the whole range of
economic, financial and social (including education and migration) poli-
cies. In also advocating policies aimed at improving economic prospects in
,migration countries, Soltwedel (1991) emphasized the need for these
Countries to improve their economies in order to attract internationally
mobile, investible funds. A stable macroeconomic environment, he con-
cluded, is a necessary condition for this to occur. Tapinos (1991) put the
issue in a different light when he wrote that the new paradigm that is
emerging, which aims at studying the impact of international cooperation
as an alternative to emigration, has at least the merit of highlighting the fact
that the problem of migration is secondary to that of development, which
i 5 the only path possible in the longer term.
The salient point to emerge in recent debates has been reaffirmation that
migration flows are, and will continue to be, inextricably connected with
the development process. Brinley Thomas articulated the relationship be-
tween flows and selected economic indices in his study of transatlantic
migration at a time when the U.S. imposed few restrictions on the entry of
Europeans. However, explanation of modern flows has not been accorded
the same scholarly attention that it clearly deserves. Economic differentials
are generally acknowledged as still being central in explanation, but actual
flows appear to vary in association with other variables. A major contribu-
tion to our understanding was made by Wilbur Zelinsky (1979) when he
insisted that scholars must take account of historical setting and evolution-
processes. Social scientists, he contended, find it analytically convenient
to ignore history, preferring instead to concentrate on the here and now.
Even Ravenstein’s laws, he argued, were really only a series of generaliza-
tions derived from statistical data available a century ago. Although these
had been greatly refined and extended by Everett Lee, neither scholar had
considered the historical dimension explicitly, even though their models of
the migrational system “do not exclude the possibility of evolutionary
development.”
To this extent, Zelinsky saw the Ravenstein and Lee models as ancestral
to his own concept of Mobility Transition. Impressed by the way that the
concept of demographic transition had captured the attention of scholars,
when low per capita incomes and opportunities push many persons to leave
for another country at a higher stage of modernization. However as the
sending country proceeds through modernization, the volume of emigration
declines because per capita incomes have increased, thus reducing the
pressure to emigrate. In other words, emigration is depicted on a transition-
type diagram by a downward-sloping ‘E’ curve.
Emigration however, almost always occurs outside government con-
trol. The only requirement an emigrant needs (aside from resources to cover
cost of travel) is a country willing to accept him/her. The crucial test for the
applicability of the model is the extent to which it explains how and why
governments regulate immigration at different stages of modernization.
The basic proposition is that only small numbers of immigrants are ac-
cepted at early stages of modernization but numbers increase during
middle stages and can be quite high at advanced stages. Immigration
intakes are therefore depicted by an upward-sloping ‘I’ curve over the same
modernization period.
Further reflection suggests that if the I-curve (which relates to numbers
only) is disaggregated according to an acceptable typology (which also
largely determines composition), then it is likely to better explain govern-
ment policy concerning immigration needs during different stages of the
modernization process. Although basic migration typologies simply di-
chotomize permanent and temporary immigrants, the latter includes sub-
categories the demand for which varies at different stages of moderniza-
tion. A widely accepted typology identifies:
• permanent (settler) immigrants (including persons admitted under fa-
mily reunion);
• contract workers (normally semi- or unskilled workers who enter a
country for a finite period);
• professional transients (also normally temporary and comprising profes-
sional and highly skilled workers who move from one country to
another often as employees of international companies);
• clandestine or illegal migrants (who generally work in jobs that indige-
nous workers avoid);
• asylum seekers (who cross borders and appeal for status on political
and/or economic grounds); and
• refugees.
It should also be noted that many non-settler (permanent) immigrants
achieve permanent status after entry. However, the present argument
relates only to government policy concerning numbers of each type on
admission.
East and Southeast Asia contain a number of countries which have experi-
enced high rates of economic growth, rapid demographic transition and
migration flows between constituent and “outside” countries that bear little
relation to flows during their early post-war phases of economic stagnation.
Although a great deal more research (and data) would be required to find
out the extent to which each experience fits the model, one is inclined on
the basis of what is already known to agree with Zelinksy that it is “worthy
of perseverance.”
Take Singapore for example. Under its Immigration (Prohibition of
Entry) Order of 1959, entry permits were restricted to the wives and
children of Singapore citizens although provision was made for the entry
of “professional and specialist” immigrants and others of “economic inter-
est.” In fact, only 12 persons (plus 20 dependents) were admitted in 1961
and 5 (plus 8) in 1962. High economic growth after the mid-1960s saw a
strong government campaign to attract foreign investment to industrial
estates. By 1966, 214 foreign male “managerial and supervisory personnel”
(professional transients) were working in the 165 pioneer companies that
had been established in Singapore. Although data on subsequent flows
are not available, it is clear that these transients were followed by thou-
sands of others who played crucial roles in Singapore’s rapid economic
growth.
Stahl(1991) points out that by 1968 tight immigration controls on foreign
contract labor were relaxed in response to increasing shortages as a result
sion of land development schemes. Lim (1984) attributed the shortage of labor
in the small holding sector to the emigration of young workers to urban areas.
A measure increasingly adopted by estate owners and those in charge of
land clearance schemes, is the use of illegal labor from Indonesia. Lim also
quoted estimates of between 100,000 and 300,000, and the Malaysian Govern-
ment has estimated 350,000 in Peninsular Malaysia, although the Malaysian
Trades Union Congress claims that the number could exceed one million
(Stahl, 1991).
With no restrictions on emigration, there has been a significant and
sustained loss of Malaysians for permanent settlement in the United King-
dom, the United States, Canada and Australia, especially after the late 1960s
when the latter three countries abandoned ethnic-preferred selection pro-
cedures. While Singapore appears to have largely stemmed the outflow of
highly-skilled and professional workers, Malaysia, at an earlier stage of
modernization, has been less successful, although explanation could be
facilitated by information on the ethnic composition of permanent emi-
grants.
Epilogue
then it is possible that other types of migration will be utilized. But one cannot
be certain that the needs of Bangladesh, for example, will follow the pattern
observed for the Asian NICs as they proceeded rapidly through the modern-
ization process.
Research on these and related issues needs urgent attention if migration
is to be appropriately factored into development policy. Econometric stud-
ies undertaken in the traditional receiver countries could well be a starting
point. Soltwedel’s timely warning that a necessary condition for develop-
ing countries to attract internationally mobile, investible funds is a stable
macroeconomic environment, should certainly be heeded. Nor should
developing countries place undue hope on receiving investment from
developed countries because of their low wage structures. In his paper
presented to the OECD’s Rome Conference, Mouhoud (1981) rightly
warned that current technical change is causing a process of “reconquering
the comparative advantages” of industrialized countries with respect to
low wage countries with abundant labor. Nor can poorer countries expect
to replicate the successful strategy of Asian NICs in working back up the
production chain (after initially attracting investment from industrialized
countries) and then exercising voluntarist policies of increasing wages.
The U.S. Commission’s view that sustained development, though ap-
propriate for reducing emigration pressures, is likely to have profoundly
destabilizing impacts on developing countries, including increased out-mi-
gration in the short-term, is clearly worthy of further investigation. Indeed,
reformed trade and investment policies aimed at raising living standards
in Third World countries, at a time when global population is increasing
inexorably towards eleven billion, would be so unique as to almost cer-
tainly lead to migration flows and impacts markedly different from those
discussed in this article concerning relatively small countries during the
1960s to 1980s.
Even if appropriate development policies were invoked, and emigration
from Third World countries initially contained many workers seeking
training for skills appropriate for their country’s new economic growth, it
would be naive to expect that the flows would not also contain many
persons simply seeking a better life. As the recent International Organiza-
tion for Migration seminar on South-North migration noted, LDCs have
the demographic capacity to create, in only 20 years, an additional number
of new jobs much greater than the 1990 stock of the whole developed world.
However, specific demand for labor in developed countries is likely to
favor skilled persons with a wide range of specialized knowledge, espe-
cially in such fields as machine programming, control and maintenance,
and in organization, coordination and management functions.
REFERENCES
Appleyard, R.T.
1989b “Migration and Development: Myths and Reality;” International Migration Review,
23:486-499.
Davis, Kingsley
1981 International Inequality and Migration in the Middle East and North Africa. Population
Bulletin of ECWA, No. 2.
Emmerij, Louis
1991 “The International Situation, Economic Development and Employment” Paper pre-
sented at the OECD International Conference, Rome.
_______________
1984 “Consequences of International Migration for Social Change: The Case of Malaysia.”
Paper presented at the Workshop of the IUSSP Committee on International Migration,
Canberra.
Mouhoud, El Mouhoub
1981 “Enterprise Relocation, North/South Economic Relations, and the Dynamics of Em-
ployment.” Paper presented to the OECD International Conference on Migration,
Rome.
OECD
1991 Migration: The Demographic Aspects. Paris: OECD.
Papademetriou, Demetrious G.
1988 “International Migration in Western Europe and North America: Trends and Conse-
quences.” In International Migration Today: Trends and Prospects. Edited by R.T. Apple-
yard. Paris: UNESCO.
Soltwedel, Rudiger
1991 “Structural Adjustment, Economic Growth and Employment” Paper presented at the
OECD International Conference on Migration, Rome.
Stahl, C.W.
1991 “South-North Migration in the Asia-Pacific Region, ‘International Migration,29(2):163-
193.
1986 International Labor Migration: A Study of the ASEAN Countries. New York: Center for
Migration Studies.
Tapinos, George
1991 “Can International Co-operation be an Alternative to the Emigration of Workers?”
Paper presented at the OECD International Conference on Migration, Rome.
Teitelbaum, Michael S.
1991 “The Effects of Economic Development on out-Migration Pressures in Sending Coun-
tries.” Paper presented at the OECD International Conference on Migration, Rome.
Thomas Brinley
1961 International Migration and Economic Development. Paris: UNESCO.
1954 Migration and Economic Growth: A Study of Great Britain and the Atlantic Economy.
Cambridge: University Press.
U.S. Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic
Development
1990 Unauthorized Migration: An Economic Development Response. Washington, D.C.: The
Commission.
Zelinksy, Wilbur
1979 “The Demographic Transition: Changing Patterns of Migration.” Paper presented at
the IUSSP Conference on Science in the Service of Life, Vienna. In Proceedings. Belgium:
IUSSP.