Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 7:23PM | in World Development What does a post-aid development policy look like?
There is widespread and growing skepticism about foreign aid that I believe will lead in a few years to radical changes in the development policy of many Western governments. This debate will likely come to a head around 2015, when most of the Millennium Development Goals are not reached. The big question will concern how to 'do development' in a post-aid age. Michael Clemens has an idea in his new Center for Global Development Working Paper:
Rich countries have made efforts for half a century to help people in poor countries catch up to rich-country standards of living. Those efforts have included giving foreign aid, encouraging overseas investment, dismantling trade barriers, and spreading ideas and institutions. That is, their international development policy has been to encourage the globalization of almost all factors of production—except labor. So far, this policy has failed to cause the living standards of most people in most developing countries to converge with living standards in rich countries. But the globalization of labor—greater mobility for workers across borders—quickly and massively raises migrants’ living standards toward those of rich countries.
This paper argues that every rich country should consider its immigration policy to be part of its international development policy, and vice versa. A development policy that includes migration will be more effective; an immigration policy that includes development will better serve rich countries’ ideals and interests
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 7:23PM | in World Development 
Reader Comments (4)
This proposal measures quality of life from a purely economic viewpoint. A person who moves to another country leaves behind all the accumulated knowledge of a lifetime and has to start at the bottom of the ladder in the new location. Also his/her native wisdom can no longer be available at home where it would be most valuable. I believe the way of the future lies in supporting the work of those who join with others in their own land to build a better life for their country in their own distinctive way.
Thanks for your comment, Meg.
I think you are right, but I don't think the two views are opposed to each other. The vast majority of people will never leave the country where they were born. Today, only 3% of the world's population are migrants. However, those who *do* want to move should have better, safer, and more rewarding options. Greater options for mobility allows people to choose where they make their living and how to support their families. While movement can be socially disruptive, I believe that it is a natural social process that can be harnessed to reduce poverty.
A number of migrants who seek work in another country,who may have qualified skills are,offered work or jobs with lower rate of pay,than a local person who feel undermined by the migrants seeking work and the migrants are not on an equal basis as far as equal rights in the work place who can be seen as cheaper labour by the employee, So migrant worker and local workers feel unjustly treated. by social dumping which causes friction to migrant and the local people seeking employment.
Thanks for your comment, Peter.
I understand where your concern is coming from, but I think it stems from an inaccurate view of how economies work. There is never a fixed number of jobs that people are competing for. Businesses are starting all the time, and many of them are started by entrepreneurial migrants. Just think of Yahoo and Google. Consider how many jobs their migrant founders have created for native-born Americans. There are lots more examples, probably in the stores and restaurants around the corner from where you live.