Global Migration: Demographic Aspects and Its Relevance for Development
Professor Ronald Skeldon
Professorial Fellow in Geography, University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division
Technical Paper
No. 2013/6
United Nations ∙New York, 2013
PREFACE
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is responsible for providing the international community with up- to-date and scientifically objective information on population and development. The Population Division provides guidance on population and development issues to the United Nations General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Population and Development and undertakes regular studies on population estimates and projections, fertility, mortality, migration, reproductive health, population policies and population and development interrelationships.
The purpose of the Technical Paper series is to publish substantive and methodological research on population issues carried out by experts within and outside the United Nations system. The series promotes scientific understanding of population issues among Governments, national and international organizations, research institutions and individuals engaged in social and economic planning, research and training.
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat organized an Expert Group Meeting on New Trends in Migration: Demographic Aspects at United Nations Headquarters in New York, on 3 December 2012. The meeting was convened in preparation for the forty-sixth Session of the Commission on Population and Development, which was held from 22 to 26 April 2013. Background documents prepared by experts participating in the meeting have been posted on the website of the meeting at http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_MigrationTrends/MigrationTrends.html.
This paper was prepared by Mr. Ronald Skeldon, Professorial Fellow in the Department of Geography at the University of Sussex. Mr. Skeldon participated in the meeting and also gave the keynote address.
CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................... V
A. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
B. MIGRATION, MOBILITY AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT MIGRANTS......... 2
C. CHANGES IN THE GLOBAL SYSTEM............................................. 4
D. LINKAGES AMONG DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ..................... 7
E. BEYOND THE MIGRATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITIONS........... 10
F. INTERNAL MIGRATION AND THE DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING WORLD.....11
G. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF SHIFTS IN POPULATION STRUCTURE AND INTERNAL MIGRATION .................................................. 18
H. MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT: TOWARDS A GLOBAL FUTURE .......... 23
I.CONCLUSION...............................................25
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 28
A. INTRODUCTION
Along with births and deaths, migration is one of the three demographic components of population change, and it has often been described as the most difficult to measure, model and forecast. Unlike fertility and mortality, migration is not a single unique event in time and space, but can repeat itself over the lifetime of an individual. Thus, the volume and type of migration measured and analyzed depend on the definitions used to identify a migrant. Central to these definitions is the choice of the size of the spatial unit and its legal status (country, county, etc.) across whose boundary a person has to move in order to be defined as a migrant and the length of time a person has to stay in an area after moving, also to be so defined. These definitions vary by country and even within country over time and are at the root of analysts preoccupied with the measurement of migration and their long-standing requests for better and more comparative data. Much has been achieved over recent years to improve data quality and quantity but much remains to be done. At the outset of this paper it is worthwhile to reiterate the call to improve the quality and quantity of the data available to generate information on migration flows and migrant stocks that is important to guide evidence-based policy-making and public debate. This task remains one of the principal challenges in the area of population studies.
Death is a time for mourning or of celebrating a life, and a birth a time of rejoicing. Migrating across international boundaries can be empowering for some, as they pursue, for example, higher levels of education or better job opportunities, while others flee political conflicts or environmental disasters. Also, the effects of an international migrant on countries of origin and destination vary with the fear of the outsider often a characteristic that makes migration a social, political and economic issue that continues to affect the way in which migrants are often perceived by others. Rational debate on this topic is often difficult, and it is imperative that appropriate forums exist to allow Governments to discuss these issues in an informal manner. This paper sets out to: (a) examine recent trends in global migration within a demographic context; (b) dispel some common myths regarding current migration patterns and levels; (c) speculate on future directions, and (d) link population movements with development. Its regional focus will be on countries in Eastern Asia.
Due to the nature of international migration data, migration is often conceptualized as a move from an origin to a destination, or from a place of birth to another destination across international borders. For example, measures of global bilateral flows are often based on movements from a country other than a migrant’s usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination becomes the migrant’s new country of usual residence.1 In developed countries, the idea of the migrant as a permanent, or at least long-term mover, is often institutionalized through flow data that admit people as immigrants as opposed to those who enter through a variety of non-immigrant or temporary migration channels.
Thus, migration is often seen as a permanent move rather than a complex series of backward or onward movements. The data omit return or circular migration as people who are registered in the same place as their place of birth are “non-migrants” even though they may have spent considerable time outside their place of birth. The reality may be quite different, although the data to demonstrate the case may not be so robust. Historical studies of the movement of Europeans to the United States in the nineteenth century have shown the significance of return migration. For example, it is estimated that about 40 per cent of English and Welsh migrants to the United States returned back to their home countries between 1861 and 1913, between 40 and 50 per cent of Italian migrants to the United States returned to Italy in the early twentieth century, and rates of return of migrants from Argentina and Brazil at the same time, particularly Italians, were similar (Baines, 1991; Nugent, 1992). How many of these migrants moved back-and-forth is not known. In more contemporary studies of internal migration in the developing world, a circulation between villages and towns appears to exist rather than a simple movement from rural to urban areas (Hugo, 1982; Prothero and Chapman, 1985; Skeldon, 1990).
In studies of contemporary international migration to developed countries high rates of turnover among migrants have been observed. Between 1986 and 1991, some 17 per cent of immigrants originating in China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region who had moved to Australia had not stayed long enough at their destination to be recorded in the 1991 census and there was a particularly high attrition rate during the first year after arrival (Kee and Skeldon, 1994). This particular situation is complicated by the establishment of homes in destination areas
1 For a definition of an “international migrant”, see United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (1998).
from which family members circulate back to origins on a longer or shorter-term basis, essentially establishing a bilocality of household location. Overall for Australia, where excellent data on “exits” exist, about one-fifth of all permanent migrants in the post-Second World War period subsequently left the country (Hugo, 2008). However, traditional countries of immigration such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America, where immigration is considered to be an integral part of nation-building, have turned to temporary or non-immigrant programmes in order to compete for skills and labour in an increasingly globalizing world. These non-immigrant classes of admission have expanded to surpass the permanent immigrant categories. For example, in 2010, the United States accepted 1.04 million persons under permanent immigrant categories while admitting 2.82 million temporary workers and their families.2 Australia admitted 213,409 migrants through permanent channels in 2010-2011, while temporary entry arrivals amounted to 504,671 persons. Canada admitted 280,681 persons in its immigrant channel against 383,929 persons in non-permanent categories. These figures are not directly comparable owing to definitional differences but they do show the importance of temporary entry channels in traditional countries of immigration.
One of the concerns among policy-makers is that migrants admitted through temporary channels stay on to become permanent or long-term migrants. However, despite such concerns the “Gastarbeiter” programme in Germany has shown, for example, that 70 per cent of the 30 million foreigners who stayed for more than 30 days in Germany between 1960 and 1999 returned or moved on (Martin, 2004). Some Governments focus on those who have entered through a temporary programme for students, for example, to become more permanent migrants. Of those accepted by Australia as permanent settlers in 2010-2011, fully 40 per cent were already in the country having previously entered through a temporary channel. Hence, although clear permanent and temporary channels of entry exist, the underlying reality of population movement blurs meaningful distinction. Hence, a policy approach to migration and development, as well as to other aspects of migration, that clearly integrates both longer-term and shorter-term types of migration seems desirable, with a recent example being the European Union's Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM)3.
2 The actual total number admitted through the I-94 non-immigrant category was 46.5 million in 2010, including 35.1 million short-term visitors for pleasure and 5.2 million visitors for business. Students, exchange visitors and diplomats were other major categories in this channel of admission. See United States of America, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security (2011). For Canada and Australia, see Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2010) and Australia, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2011)
3 For more information on the European Global Approach to Migration, see
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/global-approach-to-migration/index_en.htm (accessed 8 February 2013
Full Text
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق