POVERTY: the dual aspects of migration

Migration is often caused by poverty. Similarly, poverty can be alleviated by migration. In developing countries, migration is seen simply as a flight from poverty since there are no opportunities available locally.
Historically, migration has been taking place since the dawn of human civilisation. At present, migration takes place because of the integration of global labour markets and workforces, and easy transportation.
The World Bank estimates that in 2008 remittances from migrants amounted to approximately US$444 billion, out of which $338 billion went to poorer countries.
In these days of globalisation, capital, goods and services move easily from country to country, but movement of people is restricted by strict immigration laws.
Intending migrants, therefore, find it very difficult to move from one country to another, although there is a huge demand for workers in industrialised countries.
Even in the supposed enlightenment of the 21st century, most people prefer people of their own type and find different cultures strange or unacceptable. I would not call it racism but a miserable mindset towards another human being.
In 2004, James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, accused rich countries of spending $900 billion on defence, $300 billion on subsidies for their farmers and just $50 billion to $60 billion on aid, of which just half is in cash rather than loans. "That is the fundamental imbalance that one needs to deal with, and it is just so clear," he says.
He recognised that some rich countries spend money on war against terrorism but do not come up with more money for improving the social and economic conditions of poor young people who are unemployed and deprived of the basic necessities of life.
Sending aid to poor countries has merit but it cannot end worldwide poverty. Poverty breeds unrest and conflict, and eventually leads to an unstable world. Instability in one region affects other regions.
Year after year, almost all rich nations, except a few Scandinavian nations, have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7 per cent GNI target on official development aid set by the UN in 1970.
Recent increases in foreign aid do not tell the whole truth about rich countries' generosity, or the lack of it. Moreover, official development assistance (ODA) is often of dubious quality. Analysts say that in many cases:
-Aid is primarily designed to serve the strategic and economic interests of the donor countries.
-Aid is primarily designed to benefit powerful domestic interest groups.
-Aid systems are based on the interests of donors instead of the needs of recipient-countries.
-Too little aid reaches countries that most desperately need it.
-Agriculture's share of total ODA dropped to less than 5 per cent compared with 18 per cent in 1980.
-All too often, aid is wasted on overpriced goods and services from donor countries.
Given the above context, the best way to ameliorate worldwide poverty is to increase migration to rich countries, where the population is getting smaller.
In 2009, the amount of money sent by the migrants was $10.72 billion, constituting about 12 per cent of GDP of Bangladesh. It is estimated that almost the same amount comes through unofficial channels every year. Remittance is the second biggest source of foreign exchange for the country.
According to a report, in the next 30 years the labour force in Germany will shrink from 41 million to 21 million, and from 23 million to 11 million in Italy. Japan will require about 90,000 a year, falling to a longer-term figure of about 700,000 a year.
Left to their own devices, intending migrant workers from poorer countries would gravitate to richer countries, leading to a rough equilibrium between the world's resources and its population.
Migration faces restrictive immigration policies and currently it seems that richer countries are moving to an age of "anti-migration." National security is commonly used to justify a tight migration policy. While each country has a legitimate right to security, richer countries allow entry of tourists from middle income and rich countries - but not of migrants.
Some argue that entry of migrants would lead to cultural dilution. However, a multi-cultural society can be seen in a positive light as cultural enrichment.
The general finding of most studies of migration in non-disaster situations is that it is not the poorest who can move but those with access to some resources, no matter how meagre these might appear.
Migration always involves costs of transportation and the abandonment of many of the few possessions the poor might have. A recent study by IOM in Bangladesh has shown that 59.5 percent of the cost is spent on agents and brokers, that the poorest of the poor cannot afford to migrate, and that the majority starves in situ.
According to many specialists, the weight of the evidence provides support that the movement of population can be a significant factor in the alleviation of worldwide poverty.
The words of John Kenneth Galbraith appear to capture the essence of the whole relationship: "Migration is the oldest action against poverty. It selects those who most want help. It is good for the country to which they go; it helps to break the equilibrium of poverty in the country from which they come. What is the perversity in the human soul that causes people to resist so obvious a good?"
Is the unfettered migration going to happen in future? The answer is in the negative because narrow mindset and prejudice are such powerful forces that they are likely to reverse the "fortress" policy of rich countries. Let there a debate on this issue under the auspices of the UN because, in the globalised world, all countries are dependent on each other.
http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=12145&sec=3