I have followed up with a blog post on the CGD website:

http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2012/07/is-migration-too-toxic-for-development.php

Thanks Duncan for raising this important issue. I am happy to see that a few posts refer to internal migration, which tends to involve poorer people. Policy positions on internal migration, especially rural-urban migration are negative across diverse countries and continents. According to UN sources, an astonishing 67% of governments had policies to control or limit rural-urban migration in 2009. Underlying these policy positions are romantic visions of sedentary peasants and elitism (referred to by others above) but also notions of exploitation of labour where migrants are seen as moving from one exploitative situation to another. Expanding slums have added to negative perceptions as these are viewed as nothing more than breeding grounds for crime and disease. But recent evidence shows that there is much more going on below the radar; poor migrants are engaged in a number of economic activities that can set them and their families in the village, on a route out of poverty. Internal remittances from such migrants are significant and not many people realise that the sum total of internal remittances can exceed international remittances in large countries with high levels of internal mobility. The potential of internal migration to reduce poverty is being researched in five global regions by the DFID-funded Migrating out of Poverty RPC at the University of Sussex. Please visit our website for more information migratingoutofpoverty.dfid.gov.uk

Thanks for this post. I’m one of the few, secretive advocates of taking on migration as a major development/poverty issue. There do seem to be a lot of obstacles; political, psychological, emotional.

It’s ironic that a form of economic theory underlies a lot of the resistance to immigration (especially among progressives): constraining supply of labor should raise the price (wages).

That makes all kinds of sense, although the evidence doesn’t prove it out. And, more importantly, making the counter argument is more complicated.

We recently hosted Branko Milanovic to talk about inequality. His presentation showed that despite the increased attention to growing intra-national inequality, international inequality is bigger by far.

His policy solution? Open borders and let people reduce global inequality through migration.

I almost choked and thought – “well, that’s a pretty stupid thing to say. Maybe he should think of something that has some political viability.”

But of course, he’s right, even if it’s a long way to go.

So – we all have to find ways to thaw out discussion of migration – as a development issue, as a justice issue, and in the interest of global prosperity – including our own.

Duncan, your use of pictures also problematises the issue of migration. As a teacher, my biggest problem dealing with the teaching of migration is (as you rightly say) that it is almost exclusively framed as a problem and millions of ‘illegals’ are shamefully demonised. Page 14 of the same Oxfam Education magazine I mentioned in a previous discussion features a relevent migration focussed event I organised at a school:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/teachersupport/the_big_picture/files/big_picture_summer_2011.pdf

Three other thoughts to add to your list of reasons why migration and development don’t seem to mix so well:
1. Infrastructure is so often central to many development interventions, yet is fixed in space – and for those trying to plan future infrastructure migration is a pain because people (unlike water pipes, schools, hospitals) are mobile, which connects to a second issue…
2. The persistant assumption that rapid urbanization is a ‘development problem’ and that that process is driven by rural-urban migration. Plenty of evidence that neither assumption is true, but nevertheless they are widely held ideas. The consequence is a view that rural-to-urban migration is an obstacle to development.
3. Diasporas might represent competition for development professionals. Though many diaspora interventions in the name of development might appear ‘amateurish’ to development professionals, (lacking standardized procedures for evaluation, duplicating existing work, not reflecting needs, prey to local political intrigues…) nevertheless they have an authority and credibility locally that some external interventions may lack. There is the potential for forms of local participation based on a level of understanding born of ‘membership’ within a community by those seeking to develop it from the diaspora. In addition vocal and articulate critics of current development practice in the diaspora might make things uncompfortable for development NGOs. Is it just possible that development professionals are lary of migration because they see it as a challenge to their own position and interests? Of course, it doesn’t need to be an antagonistic relationship as successful examples of diaspora engagement can show, but they are few in number.

“he was making the economic case against borders of any kind. Sometimes ’seeing like an economist’ can be mind-blowing.”

Why is it mind blowing to conceive of a world without borders? My mind is blown on a daily basis that we willingly accept (and teach to our kids) that political and economic borders are natural, immutable, equitable and just.

Please reader ask yourself – in the world which you would like to see exist, which would be mind blowing (ie out of place):

a)borders?
b)no borders?

If your answer is a – how are you working towards this?
If your answer is b – get off my planet, you are not welcome!