How does emigration affect countries-of-origin? Paul Collier kicks off a debate on migration

Take a seat people, you’re in for a treat. Paul Collier kicks off an exchange with Justin Sandefur on that hottest of hot topics, migration. I’ve asked them to focus on the impact on poor countries, as most of the press debate concentrates on the impact in the North. Justin replies tomorrow and (if I can work the new software) you will then get to vote. Enjoy.

How does emigration affect the people left behind in poor countries? That many countries still provide little hope of even basic Paul Collierprosperity to their citizens is the great global challenge of our century. It is a vital matter that the poorest countries catch up with the rich world, but it will require decades of sustained high growth. To see how emigration might affect this process of convergence we need some understanding of why poor countries have remained poor. Poverty persists in very poor countries because of weak political institutions, dysfunctional social attitudes, and a lack of skills. These all make it difficult to harness economic opportunities. Emigration can either help or hinder convergence depending upon who leaves, how many leave, and for how long they go.

Potentially the most important effect of emigration is on political institutions and social attitudes. There is now solid evidence that emigrants can be influential in their home societies. Students from poor countries who have studied abroad in democracies and then return home bring with them pro-democracy attitudes. They spread these attitudes and are sufficiently influential that they speed up democratization. An astonishingly high proportion of the political leaders of poor countries have studied and worked abroad, and this equips them with both new skills and new attitudes. Even migrants who do not return have some influence with their relatives back home. During elections they give advice and commentary, and they become role models for smaller family size.

There has been a lot of research on whether emigration causes a brain drain or a ‘brain gain’. Intuitively, if educated people leave there can only be a brain drain. But we now know that this may be offset by an enhanced incentive to get education. If education is the prerequisite for getting to America, then the many youths who dream of going there will try harder at school. While some will achieve their dream, many will not but in the process will have acquired more education than otherwise. It turns out that which of these effects predominates depends upon how many educated people emigrate. In big countries that are already converging, such as China, relatively few educated people emigrate and so the brain gain predominates: China gains from emigration. But in small countries that are falling even further behind, such as Haiti, so many of the educated leave that the brain drain predominates. Many small, poor countries are unfortunately in the same position as Haiti.

Collier Exodus coverThe brain drain can potentially be reinforced by a motivation drain. Many poor societies are beset by opportunism: teachers don’t show up for work, nurses steal drugs, policemen extract bribes. Those who are motivated to do their jobs properly can stick out as an uncomfortable minority. Emigrating to societies in which norms are more functional can be an attractive option for such workers, but cumulatively this is self-reinforcing: the more who leave the less attractive it is to stay. Whereas the brain drain is well-understood, the motivation drain has yet to be quantified but its analytic foundations have been set out by Nobel Laureate George Akerlof.

Finally, emigrants send remittances home. While this is helpful for the relatives left behind, the average remittance is only around $1,000 per year. Workers would usually produce more than this if they were to stay home, so there is often a net loss to the economy.

In trying to weigh up these disparate effects it is clear that having some emigration is better for poor countries than having none. But this is a clear answer to the wrong question. The pertinent issue is whether poor countries would be better off with somewhat faster, or somewhat slower emigration than they have currently. The answer depends upon who is migrating: young people in search of an education, unskilled workers in search of a job, or skilled workers looking to use their talents. The evidence suggests that the more students the better, especially if they then return. Unskilled workers may well send back more in remittances than they would make at home. But the emigration of skilled workers may already be excessive. Recent evidence finds that for many of the poorest countries emigration rates are already beyond the point of peak benefit: these countries are haemorrhaging their scarce talents. The most severe effects are for fragile states emerging from conflict. During conflict they haemorrhage their most capable people. Post-conflict, they desperately need them to return but cannot compete with the lifestyles of the rich world. Emigrants considering return face a coordination problem: return would be less alarming were others to return as well but there is currently no mechanism for facilitating coordinated return.

Skilled and motivated people are the fairy godmothers in any society: they benefit ordinary people. As the fairy godmothers increasingly shift from poor societies to rich ones, they themselves benefit, but I question whether we should regard this as a triumph of social justice.

Paul Collier’s book Exodus was published by Oxford University Press and Penguin in September 2013.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


8 Responses to “How does emigration affect countries-of-origin? Paul Collier kicks off a debate on migration”
  1. Kristie

    I find the analysis and topic interesting and of course universal findings can always be challenged. Collier would be welcome to look in more detail at Nepal. In the Madhesh region, post conflict violence increased with the proliferation of armed groups and then decreased due to extra judicial killings and MIGRATION of armed group members.

    The issue of migration and social inclusion and protection, that is different issues to just growth or brain drain, should be more strongly considered. Migration is having a positive effect on excluded groups who lack opportunities and fair treatment in Nepal and so temporarily migrate (where they are also treated unfairly but without witnesses). This increases their opportunities through income and overseas exposure which has a positive social inclusion effect when they return.

    Interestingly in India a study has been done on ex-waste removers and visiting America literally had a cleansing affect on what would otherwise have been a hard to escape stigma.

    Additionally in Nepal, the most skilled and educated are upper caste. Having them leave the country creates space for more traditionally excluded groups to participate in business and the state apparatus.

    Rather than somewhat faster, or somewhat slower emigration being the focus, I would argue (based on Nepal as a case study) that the focus should be on the level of protection available to unskilled emigrants and those who remain. What happens to wives left behind with huge debts (as a result of loans taken to fund temporary migration) when the migrant returns dead? What happens to wives in terms of safety and mobility restrictions while their husbands are away? What happens to Nepalis in the Gulf countries who are mistreated? What recourse to they have for justice?

    I think a social inclusion and protection lens of the unskilled is warranted.

  2. Sophie

    I agree that the answer choices on which to vote do not relfect the arguments being discussed here. My vote would go for an option of “that balanced emigration of skilled and unskilled workers is likely to leave a better development legacy, particularly in small countries, than emigration of just skilled workers”.

    I have not yet read Collier’s book, but does it touch on the very complex issue on how much skilled emigration is too much? And surely too much skilled emigration is better than none? I also feel very uncomfortable about developed countries setting emigration caps for the good of others. I guess, I am really sitting on the fence on this one! Great debate topic though!

  3. Halima Begum

    I find the parameters of this debate a bit old-fashioned. Isn’t the discourse now more about brain circulation (not an attractive word, but an attractive concept), and given the complexity of the world today, brain circulation is a net gain, especially if we are to view the world, and solutions to many global challenges, in inter-connected ways. We can’t be viewing the world in terms of brain drain alone. It just reinforces a slightly neo-liberal view of the world as zero-sum outcomes

  4. Suzette Henry-Campbell

    From time immemorial humans have moved from one place to another. This movement is grounded in survival instincts. The preservation of the self is of importance and migration occurs when people seek resources. The heated debate in the public domain is exacerbated by fear and a need for he host countries to protect their borders. More in essence equates to a lessening of the available resources for the citizens.
    Opportunities exist to relax policy in light of global imperatives like the movement of skilled labour. I look as well on countries that have an now become concerned about their aging population and the decline in their productive workforce. There is certainly a need to address protection of a state’s border but be cognizant of the variables that are at play within that state.

    • Shirleen W

      Very well said Suzette. Survival is every human being’s primary drive. Individuals who leave their home countries are inevitably doing it for “better,” howbeit, with a much less spoken of realization that wherever they go, they will be a minor; away from every familiar thing they have known, away from family, friends, food, memories, street knowledge and whatever confidence they have garnered growing up – to enter into a world, where all that is lost and will not hold them up. I would imagine, all things being equal, no person would ever leave “home”… but for poverty. Poverty in resources, poverty in leadership development and poverty in a sense of stewardship.