INTRODUCTION

Migration for employment is an important global issue, which now affects

most countries in the world. Two major labour market force sare in operation

today that result in increased migration for work –many people of working age

either cannot find employment or cannot find employment adequate to support

themselves and their families in their own countries, while some other countries

have a shortage of workers to fill positions in various sectors of their economies.

Other factors include demographic change, socio-economic and political crises,

and widening wage gaps within, as well as between, developed and developing

countries. There is consequently much movement across borders for employment,

with women independently migrating for work in considerably greater numbers

than in the past and now comprising about half of all migrant workers.

Labour migration can have many beneficial elements for those countries which

send and receive migrant workers, as well as for the workers themselves. It can

assist both origin and destination countries in economic growth and development.

While acknowledging the sovereign right of States to develop their own labour

and migration policies, it is important to direct attention to the need to adopt

coherent and comprehensive national policies to effectively manage labour

migration and to protect migrant workers. Special attention should be given to the

multiple disadvantages and discrimination often faced by migrant workers on the

basis of gender, race and migrant status. Further, issues related to the movement

of workers across national borders cannot be effectively addressed when countries

act in isolation; hence, international cooperation in managing labour migration

can be valuable in addressing national interests.

The ILO Multilateral Framework comprises non-binding principles and guidelines

for labour migration. It is derived from extensive research, as well as compilation

and review of labour migration practices in all regions of the world. It has been

drawn from principles contained in relevant international instruments and

international and regional policy guidelines, including the International Agenda

for Migration Management. Governments and the social partners areinvited to

give effect to the principles and guidelines therein. The Framework includes

examples of best practices in Annex II. Relevant instruments that relate to the

principles are referenced below under the principles. The provisions of the

Framework shall not limit or otherwise affect obligations arising out of the

ratification of any ILO Convention. It is designed to provide practical guidance to

governments and to employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to the

development, strengthening and implementation of national and international

labour migration policies. It can also guide other parties interested in labour

migration issues. In the broader context of commitment to promoting decent work

for all, the Multilateral Framework aims to foster cooperation and consultation

among and between the tripartite constituents of the ILO and the Office, and in

partnership with other international organizations, to assist them in implementing

more effective policies on labour migration, including on rights, employment and

protection of migrant workers.

Our world is very unequal. For many people around the world moving away from

their home town or village can be the best — sometimes the only — option open

to improve their life chances. Migration can be hugely effective in improving the

income, education and participation of individuals and families, and enhancing

their children’s future prospects. But its value is more than that: being able to

decide where to live is a key element of human freedom. There is no typical

profile of migrants around the world. Fruit pickers, nurses, political refugees,

construction workers, academics and computer programmers are all part of the

nearly 1 billion people on the move both within their own countries and overseas.

When people move they embark on a journey of hope and uncertainty, whether

within or across international borders. Most people move in search of better

opportunities, hoping to combine their own talents with resources in the

destination country so as to benefit themselves and their immediate family, who

often accompany or follow them. Local communities and societies as a whole

have also benefited both in places of origin and at destinations.

People have different motives for migrating such as: economic reasons (to find

work, escape famine, etc.) social reasons (for a better quality of life or to be closer

to family or friends) political reasons (to escape cultural/political/religious

persecution or war ) environmental reasons (natural disasters such as flooding,

drought) The migration dynamic reflects the interplay of push factors (which

make the people leave their home) and pull factors (which make people move to a

particular area). Here are some examples:

Push factors -lack of jobs and services, poor safety or security, high crime levels,

famine, drought, flooding, poverty, war, political or religious persecution.

Pull factors- more jobs and services better quality of life low crime levels good

food supplies better climate and fertile land less risk of natural hazard wealth

political security.

REVIEW OF LABOUR MIGRATION

The initial impact of migrants’ arrival upon the host country’s economy depends

upon a number of circumstances. In contexts where wages are relatively flexible,

such as the United States, there is some evidence that the added supply of labor

depresses wages of workers within the same broad education level Where wages

are less flexible, such as in much of Europe, the impact tends to be revealed in

higher unemployment Yet, in both cases, the magnitudes of such impacts appear

to be relatively small. More generally, the employability and productivity of

migrants depends upon how well their skill profiles match the demands of

employers. A few countries, including Australia and Canada, have adopted a point

scheme to filter acceptable immigrants in an effort to enhance the likelihood of

job matching. However, where prior job offers are required for entry, as in some

categories of migrants to the United States, the demands of employers are

probably more closely matched. Indeed, it may be argued that a large portion of

irregular migration is driven fairly directly by employers’ demands. To this

extent, penalties on employers for hiring irregular migrants is probably one of the

most effective ways of limiting undocumented immigration, but few societies

possess the political will to impose and enforce such penalties (Martin and Miller

2000; Hanson 2006). In contrast, employers’ demands may reflect hardly at all on

the sudden mass influx of refugees that many developing countries have

witnessed. Granting asylum to large refugee populations may impose substantial

costs on some very low-income countries; finding livelihoods to support those

remaining in camps and absorbing others into the domestic labor market become a

high priority. The initial impacts of migration upon the host country are thus quite

mixed. Though in most situations, the net overall impact on incomes of natives is

probably small. Over time, other factors come into play. First, the mix of

industrial activities in the host country may begin to adapt to the new arrivals. For

instance, some of the more labor-intensive forms of agriculture would probably

not exist today in EU countries and in the United States were it not for access to

migrant workers. The fact that some of these lines of agricultural products are also

subsidized raises curious anomalies with respect to public policy.

Turning from the economic impacts of migrants upon the host countries and their

existing populations, consider the case of those left behind in the countries of

origin. Again the story is mixed. On the one hand is the negative potential of such

factors as “brain drain,” to which the following section will turn. On the other

hand, remittances tend to be seen by many governments as the dominant benefit

to the home country from labor migration abroad. Reported remittances to the

developing regions have grown rapidly, although it is not clear how much of this

is simply a growth in reporting. In any case, international remittances to the

developing regions are now the largest source of financial inflow after direct

foreign investment, having surpassed both debt flows and official development

assistance. Migration of Highly-Skilled Workers

The adult, foreign-born population, with a tertiary education residing in the

OECD countries rose by almost 8 million from 1990 to 2000 This represented an

increase of more than 63 percent. Virtually every OECD country now has

mechanisms to expedite the admission of highly skilled persons, and the

competition to attract the highly skilled is intensifying. By 2000, about 42 percent

of the highly-skilled migrants in the OECD countries were from other OECD

countries. The interchange of professional personnel among the high-income

countries is clearly important. Still, more than half of the highly skilled migrated

from non-OECD countries, raising a specter of a growing brain drain from the

developing regions. North America remains the dominant destination for highly-

skilled migrants: by 2000 about two-thirds of all highly-skilled expatriates in the

OECD regions were in North America. However, the share of Europe has been

rising, and some 30 percent of the net increase in highly-skilled migrants in the

OECD entered the European member countries during the 1990s.

On average, the share of tertiary-educated citizens abroad in the OECD states,

relative to the total population of tertiary-educated persons at home and overseas,

rises the lower the per capita income is in the country of origin. In other words,

the relative rate of brain drain is greater from the lower-income countries. There

is, however, considerable variation in this rate of exodus. From some parts of the

world the rate of brain drain has been very high: from Central America, the

Caribbean, East Europe, parts of the Middle East, Indochina, and from virtually

all of the African countries. From some of the smaller island states, well over half

of their tertiary-educated population is overseas; and for most of Africa the

proportion exceeds 20 percent. In contrast, the rate of brain drain to the OECD

countries is relatively low from such countries as Indonesia, Swaziland, and

several Central Asian countries. Though from Swaziland, many of the highly

skilled migrate to South Africa; and from Central Asia, movement has been into

Russia. An important source of brain drain is the propensity of foreign students to

remain abroad to work. As noted above, North American universities have

traditionally provided the dominant attraction for foreign students though this

flow has more recently been diversified to other high-income countries as well.

There is surprisingly little evidence on the return rates of these students. One of

the only systematic studies is that of Finn (2001) who reports that 51 percent of

foreigners receiving doctorates in science and engineering from U.S. universities

between 1994 and 1995 were working in the United States in 1999. Among

students from India and China, Finn finds these stay rates were 87 and 91 percent

respectively. Indeed, a strategy of attracting the best and the brightest from

overseas is implicitly or explicitly becoming a part of national policy for a

number of the high-income countries.

Offering training at levels not available at home clearly has its merits both for the

students and for the host country. Whether it is a blessing for those left at home is

far less clear—if the host country pays the tuition costs and especially if the

students never return home.

Emigration of the highly skilled may well, on balance, harm those left at home

though the extent of this harm remains to be quantified. On the other hand,

emigration of low-skilled workers tends to reduce poverty amongst those left at

home. The reduction in labor supply at home either puts upward pressure on

wages for those remaining in the domestic labor market or diminishes the extent

of their underemployment. In addition, remittances from low-skilled workers

generally pass to lower-income families at home more than do remittances from

the highly skilled. Indeed, the propensity of low-skilled workers to send

remittances out of given wages tends to be greater than that of the more highly

skilled; this is only because low-skilled migration is more often temporary in

nature and frequently requires leaving immediate family members behind.

These potential poverty-reducing effects of low-skilled emigration can, none the

less, be offset when a family’s major income earner leaves then neglects to remit

for their support. In 2000, about 56 percent of low-skilled migrants in the OECD

countries were in Europe and a third were in North America.The low-skilled

foreign workers present in the OECD states are rarely drawn from the low-income

developing countries. Geography plays a massive role in shaping migration

corridors, and distance is a particularly significant deterrent to migration of low

skilled workers. Thus, among the European OECD countries, 52 percent of low-

skilled migrants are from other OECD states (38 percent from OECD members

other than Turkey). In the United States, 43 percent of the low-skilled migrants

are from Mexico alone. Less than 9 percent of the low-skilled migrants in the

OECD countries were from least-developed countries as of 2000; indeed the

number of low-skilled migrants from these least-developed countries was almost

identical to the number of migrants with a tertiary education from the same

countries (see Table 2). It is also apparent, with countries such as Angola,

Cambodia, and Laos heading the list of least-developed counties of origin of low-

skilled workers, that a large portion of these low-skilled migrants came as

resettled refugees

BACKGROUND TO LABOUR MIGRATION

The first section covers the background to international labour migration and

looks at the key issues from a global and UK national perspective. It highlights

the main initiatives taken by the UK both in the interests of migrant workers

themselves and those of the UK economy. Among the key findings:

• There are around 190 million people global ly living in a country not of their

birth. The ILO estimates that there are more than 42 million migrant workers

worldwide, not including the millions of illegal migrants, many of whom are open

to abuse and exploitation

• Health care workers make up an increasing proportion of migrant workers in the

UK – the majority of whom are from sub-Sahara Africa and South East Asia. This

haemorh age of health workers from developing countries is having a devastating

effect on those countries

• In 2005 the government published a 5-year strategy for asylum and immigration

which proposed a points-based system for those coming into the UK to work or

study. This strategy favours skilled workers.

• The UK has not ratified the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights

of All Migrant Workers and their Families, which would protect migrant workers

and their families from abuse and exploitation.

BENEFITS AND LOSSES LABOUR MIGRATION

The second section sets out the benefits and losses of labour migration to

receiving and sending countries. It is concerned in particular with the losses to

sending countries, in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, with special emphasis on

health service workers and the impact their loss has on health service systems in

their countries. Some of the benefits and losses are:

• Migrant workers make a positive net contribution of around £2.5 billion to the

UK’s public accounts

• Overseas-qualified doctors account for 51 per cent of the increase in the number

of doctors working in the NHS. This has saved the NHS time and money without

redress to investing more in training.

• Most migrant workers, including a number of highly qualified, take on low-paid,

insecure work

• There are huge implications for sending countries; the most crucial is the loss of

expertise. South Africa said it spent US $1b educating health workers who

migrated.

• High levels of out-migration from Sub-Saharan Africa resulted in a struggle to

provide basic health services. It is estimated that annually between 30 and 50% of

health graduates leave South Africa for the US and UK

• The biggest blow from the loss of healthcare professionals is felt by HIV/AIDS

sufferers who are desperately in need of medical attention but are unable to

receive it as doctors and nurses leave to work abroad

• Migration should be voluntary rather than forced by social or economic

circumstances. Development aid and commitments from governments in

developing countries can play a part in improving social and economic

infrastructures

• Many migrants have to leave their families behind who depend on the money

sent home. It is estimated that as much as US $150b was ‘remitted’ globally in

2004

• Migrant workers entering the UK have strong cultural and family ties with the

country of their birth and many do not intend to take up permanent residence in

the UK. Those who do return take back experience and knowledge which benefits

the home country as a whole by adding to its pool of talented workers.

PROBLEMS FACED BY MIGRANT WORKERS

Migrant workers face many obstacles while trying to establish themselves in their

host country. Whether in countries that have traditionally attracted immigrants or

in countries where migration is a recent phenomenon, migration and migrants

have a negative image. Media attention routinely focuseson uncontrolled flows of

people seeking work or asylum, on undocumented migrants, on the criminal

activities of traffickers and smugglers, and on the problems of the integration of

immigrants with the local population.

Public perceptions may reflect real issues and real problems, but they also reflect

fear, ignorance and prejudice. It is widely believed that migrants come to the UK

simply to take advantage of the state welfare system, a belief encouraged by

sections of the press. Evidence shows that migrants make less use of the benefits

system than the indigenous population. One of the reasons for this is that migrant

workers are denied entitlement to noncontributory benefits in the first place. This

is an anomaly that should be addressed.

Public perceptions however, fluctuate and are subject to a variety of influences.

The majority tends to change its views with the ebb and flow of the economy – a

period of unemployment for example inflames fear and prejudice – but it is also

sensitive and responsive to the information and messages coming from political

representatives. At the same time, political representatives are very aware of

trends in perceptions and public opinion, particularly when seeking to gain or

retain electoral support. Extreme politicisation of migration in many countries

bears further testimony to this, as does the rise in violence against migrants.

Migrants and foreigners have always been scapegoats for actual or perceived

economic and social problems, from criminality to unemployment. The events of

September 11 2001 in New York, and July 7 2005 in London, have heightened the

perception of migrants, particularly those of Muslim and/or Arab origin, as a

threat to social stability. In their efforts to assuage public fears of further terrorist

attacks, governments rush to introduce laws which undermine human rights and

adversely alter the balance between freedom and security.

Governments have a responsibility for the protection and security of their

countries, but in doing so they must be mindful of the rights of the people. Studies

on the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples following 9/11 have found that in

most non-Muslim countries, but primarily in north America and Europe,

discrimination and violence towards people originating from Muslim countries

became more frequent. This hostility has had an effect on employment and

recruitment. A study by the Institute of Employment Studies revealed that most

companies surveyed were looking to employ refugee staff because of gaps in the

domestic labour market. However, half of those questioned did not want it to be

publicly known that they employed refugees because of the negative image of

migrants coming to the UK. Violent attacks on migrants and refugees throughout

Europe have been widely reported, but brutality against foreigners is occurring in

all regions of the world. Women migrants are often the targets of such attacks.

Among the types of violence directed at women are beatings, rape and starvation,

with increasing numbers forced into prostitution. Inhumane working conditions,

such as long working hours, non-payment of wages and no time off are

experienced by many women migrant workers, with unskilled workers in

domestic service particularly exposed.

The opportunities for migrant women in securing work are often restricted to

traditional female jobs such as catering and domestic service. Many of these jobs

come into the ‘casual’ category and offer no physical safety or financial security.

As a result, social support through women’s networks has a limited role to play.

While the government has adopted measures to make it easier for migrants to find

employment, they still fall short of offering any real employment protection.

Work permits continue to remain the property of the employer, while a worker’s

right to remain in the UK depends on them remaining with the same employer.

The employer-migrant worker relationship is consequently an uneven one, with

the employer holding a distinct advantage and exercising great power over the

worker.

Under Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 employers effectively

act as immigration control officers. The Act requires that they check the

immigration status of employees who they believe to be immigrants. As a result,

Section 8 places workers at the mercy of employers and is likely to increase

discrimination against job applicants. It should therefore be repealed.

Migrant workers in sector-based schemes are in a similarly weak position. As

many only stay in the country for one year or less they have no protection in the

event of unfair dismissal. Where rights do exist it is difficult to bring a case to a

tribunal if the individual victim has to leave the country. Those with restricted

rights, for example students on seasonal agricultural workers schemes, or those on

work permits employed in private health, can have their documents withheld,

threatened with the sack and subsequently deported.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADE AND MIGRATION

There are both direct and indirect links between trade and migration. The

interchange of professionals and other skilled workers among countries is a direct

and necessary concomitance to merchandise trade and foreign direct investment.

Mode 4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World

Trade Organization (WTO) provides a formal codification for the movement of

persons to deliver services in another country. To date, agreements under this

provision have been restricted almost entirely to the migration of highly-skilled

and professional service providers. The movement of professionals between the

developing and industrialized regions is predominantly one way: from the

developing countries. The industrialized nations have been more reluctant to

admit low-skilled workers through trade agreements, notwithstanding the

tendency of some of these nations to turn a blind eye to irregular migrations.

More indirectly, the globalization of trade could serve to diminish income gaps

and hence diminish migration pressures. Are trade and migration thus substitutes?

This remains an area of dispute. To the extent that south–north trade is shaped by

an abundance of low-skilled workers in the south and by capital and skills in the

north, freer trade ought eventually to narrow the gaps in low-skilled workers’

earnings, reducing the need to migrate. On the other hand, if the agglomeration of

highly-skilled persons in the industrialized countries serves to make each such

person more productive, then increased trade can exacerbate the pressures for a

brain drain, even in the long run. Perhaps far more importantly, the short-term

impacts of sudden trade liberalization can go either way, for workers across a

range of skills. For example, a country whose agricultural exports increase may

face rising prices of food at home under liberalization; that serves to undermine

real wages. By contrast, increased imports of less expensive agricultural goods

may lower incomes for small-scale farmers. Combined with macro-economic

mismanagement and population growth, trade Robert liberalization in Mexico

may well have exacerbated the exodus to the United States, at least in the short

term (Hanson 2006). More generally, liberalization associated with stabilization

and structural adjustment programs in the developing countries following the debt

crises of the 1980s, financial crises of the 1990s, and transition in formerly

socialist countries have initially undermined incomes at home—again adding to

the pressures to move overseas. Meanwhile, some aspects of trade protection in

the north have probably exacerbated migration pressures.

It is an irony of the public policy in many of the industrialized countries that

subsidies and protection to low-skilled activities, notably agriculture, stimulate

precisely those sectors providing much of the employment to irregular migrants.

Whether the ubiquitous protection of agriculture in the industrialized states harms

living standards in the developing world, thus contributing even further to

migration pressures, is more ambiguous. Net food importers tend to gain from

these agricultural subsidies of the north as do food-exporting developing countries

with privileged export access to European markets. Protection of certain crops,

such as cotton in the United States, has most certainly harmed living standards

among some of the cotton exporters of Africa. There exists little or no coherence

between the trade and migration policies adopted by the higher-income countries.

These two sets of issues are the realms of separate ministries, which typically fail

to coordinate, despite the obvious links between their concerns.

Trade policies of both countries of origin and destination impact migration

outcomes. But migration also shapes trade flows. The role of information

provided by migrants in stimulating trade has already been noted. In addition, the

growing circular migration of scientists and engineers, both among the countries

of the north and between the developing and industrialized regions, is a

contributing factor in diffusing and shifting technological superiority and hence

reshaping trade patterns

3.1 CONCLUSION

Migration has occurred throughout history, and current trends certainly indicate

that it will continue to increase in the future. While the forces of globalization

have created opportunities for greater integration of labour markets, a complex

web of national immigration laws and border controls has restricted the mobility

of people across borders. Yet growing disparities in wealth, incomes, human

security, human rights and demographic trends across countries are all exerting

upward pressure on migration. every year, many millions of young men and

women enter the labour force in developing countries where jobs are not created

fast enough to absorb them. The impact of demographic trends in the form of

population decline and ageing is being felt most profoundly in advanced

destination countries, where scarcities of labour are emerging in many sectors.

The shrinking of the labour force in these countries has generated a demand for

workers in many sectors of the economy, particularly in services, which has been

met to a significant extent by migrants. new technologies also allow more people

to acquire the information they need to access the global labour market.

History has shown that the movement of goods, rather than the movement of

people, has been the key factor in the success of some developing countries in

catching up with more advanced ones. The so-called east asian “economic

miracle” was based on a comparative advantage in low-cost labour for the

manufacture of goods for export. This has since spread to china, where per capita

incomes have doubled in less than a decade. However, there are questions over

the degree to which this model can be replicated, particularly in developing

countries that have weaker capacities to produce manufactured goods or lack

other conditions for successful management of the development process.The

increased importance of migration of women seeking employment, the rise in

temporary migration schemes, and the growth in numbers of migrants in irregular

status pose challenges for the international community with important

implications for the governance and regulation of labour migration and the

protection of migrant workers’ rights.an encouraging international trend is an

increasing recognition of the positive contributions of labour migration to

countries of origin and destination, as well as to migrants themselves.