It takes courage to defend migration these days. At a time when the movement of people, within nations and between nations, is coming up against political and social barriers, the United Nations Development Programme has boldly set out a package of reforms in its Human Development Report (HDR), 2009, to make the life of migrants easier.
Conceding that migration is an expression of human ‘freedom’, the HDR says that nearly one out of every seven persons in the world is a migrant. The report demonstrates that migration can enhance human development by widening livelihood choices and that this benefits both the migrants and their adoptive communities. This is an important and bold message. From the halls of the US Congress and European parliaments to our own legislatures and municipalities, political leaders deserve to be educated about the macro-economic benefits of migration. Undoubtedly, migration is more often than not an act of desperation. Few people move away from their place of birth out of choice. They do so in search of opportunities for improved livelihood, if not survival. But in an increasingly globalised world, migration is also a consequence of the freer flow of capital and the integration of economies. In contemporary political debates, it is not often appreciated that the world was a more open place, even if less hospitable, for migrants till barely half a century ago. Restrictions on human movements began in the post-War period and were increased and tightened in the past two decades. The imbalance between the freer flow of goods and capital flows and reduced freedom for migration must be reversed.
Setting out what it calls as the “Six Pillars” of reform, HDR 2009 calls for opening existing entry channels for more workers, especially those with low skills; ensuring basic human rights and the provisioning of basic services, like education and health, and even the right to vote; lowering the transaction costs of migration; finding collaborative solutions that benefit both destination communities and migrants; easing internal migration; and, adding migration as a component for origin countries’ development strategies. These are all eminently sensible suggestions, even though some of them would require caveats. For example, the right to vote will have to be linked to some minimum period of residence in the host country. One can only express the hope that the report will be read with care in capitals around the world and in multilateral institutions. The World Trade Organisation is one such institution that must pay attention to the results of this study. India has sought for a long time a global framework for the movement of labour. India has also sought basic human rights for migrant workers. Indian workers in the Persian Gulf have often complained about inhuman treatment and an absence of basic rights. Closer home, politicians need to understand the economic benefits of migration for the poorest of the poor before giving calls for ‘sons of the soil’ entitlement policies.
