At the dawn of the new millennium, international development agencies and governments have “discovered” the potential of migration and remittances to stimulate development in poor countries. However, migration and development is anything but a new topic. The debate about migration and development has swung back and forth like a pendulum, from optimism in the postwar period to deep “brain drain” pessimism since the 1970s towards neo-optimistic “brain gain” since 2000. Influenced by growing policy disappointment, we might now be at the beginning of a backswing towards more pessimistic views. While these shifts are rooted in deeper ideological and paradigmatic shifts, a review of empirical evidence yields a much more nuanced picture. Despite the often considerable benefits of migration and remittances for individuals and communities involved, migrants alone can generally not remove more structural development constraints and migration may actually contribute to development stagnation and reinforce the political status quo. Despite their development potential, migrants and remittances can therefore neither be blamed for a lack of development nor be expected to trigger take-off development in generally unattractive investment environments. Recent views celebrating migration as self-help development “from below” are partly driven by neoliberal ideologies that shift the attention away from structural development constraints and, hence, the responsibility of migrant-sending states to pursue political and economic reform. Immigrant-receiving countries can increase the development potential of migration by creating legal channels for high- and lower-skilled migration and integration policies that favour socio-economic mobility of migrants and avoid their marginalization.

The Migration and Development Pendulum: A Critical View on Research and Policy

Early debates often read globalisation as a powerful tendency destined to make state borders less pertinent. Recent research has challenged this view by suggesting that globalisation and (re)bordering frequently advance hand-in-hand, culminating in a condition that might be described as ‘gated globalism’. But somewhat neglected in this recent wave of research is the role that particular international agencies are playing in shaping the norms and forms that pertain to emergent regimes of border control—what we call the international government of borders. Focusing on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and its involvement in the promotion of what it calls better ‘border management’, this paper aims to partially redress this oversight. The IOM is interesting because it illustrates how the control of borders has become constituted as an object of technical expertise and intervention within programmes and schemes of international authority. Two themes are pursued. First, recent work on neoliber...

/pdf/the-international-organization-for-migration-and-the-1or5k76ypu.pdf

The International Organization for Migration and the International Government of Borders

Der Verhaltenskodex der WHO (2010) fur die internationale Anwerbung von Gesundheitsfachkraften (WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel) enthalt umfangreiche Empfehlungen fur eine faire, transparente und nachhaltige internationale Rekrutierung von Gesundheitsfachkraften. Die GOG erhebt im BMG-Auftrag Daten zu aus dem Ausland stammenden Personen in Gesundheitsberufen. Osterreich ubermittelt - wie die anderen Mitgliedstaaten der WHO - seit dem Jahr 2012 alle drei Jahre einen Bericht zum Umsetzungsstand des Kodex. Ziel ist, sowohl in der nationalen Gesetzgebung, als auch in europaweiten politischen Entscheidungsprozessen, den ethischen Umgang in der Anwerbung von Gesundheitspersonal zu verankern.

WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel

Air quality changes in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It has often been predicted that large numbers of people will be displaced by climate change and that this will lead to violent conflict At the core of this prediction is a simple causal model which assumes that climate change will result in resource scarcities, which in turn will drive migration as well as violent conflict Academic research into the links between climate change, migration and conflict has questioned such predictions; their theoretical foundation and empirical support are thin This does not mean that climate change will be irrelevant for future patterns of migration, including migration that may be linked to violent conflict However, it has become clear that the links between climate change, migration and conflict are complex and defy simple and sensationalist conclusions After outlining the state of the art on climate migration and the environment–migration–conflict nexus, this article sketches the environmental, economic and sociopolitical consequences of climate change contributin

Climate change, migration and violent conflict: vulnerabilities, pathways and adaptation strategies

www.migrantscontribute.com In early September, IOM Director General William Lacy Swing and Deputy Director General Laura Thompson brought together all Chiefs of Missions around the world for the Global Chief of Mission Meeting. During three days of presentations, meetings and exchange including a reception with keynote speaker Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations the Director General laid out the achievements already made and declared his intention to pursue three additional strategic objectives for the future: continuity, coherence and change. These guideposts are reflected in many of our new policy and management initiatives. Among others, a migration governance framework will be developed, which sets out clear objectives for migration governance; a migration data analysis unit will be established with the aim to foster better analysis, use and presentation of IOM data; and the role of IOM with regards to the rights of migrants and protecting these should be further looked at in the near future. In this context, it is important to mention that a widespread external perception exists that IOM is not mandated or able to contribute to protection through its work. To review the IOM policy on protection and update the last institutional document from 2007 towards meeting international standards and circumstances, we have established a Protection Policy Working Group. We think that protecting and assisting migrants is the most fundamental responsibility entrusted to IOM, especially with regards to the humanitarian work IOM implements worldwide. To highlight and strengthen IOM ́s humanitarian role, including through policy developments and implementing procedures, is therefore a high priority. In the Austrian context, we are looking forward to putting into practice as many of the new initiatives as possible and to properly updating you on new developments on our new website to be released in October.

Gervais Appave

Papers

The International Organization for Migration