International migration is probably the most effective mechanism we know to rapidly increase the incomes of poor people (Clemens et al., 2008). However, it is also one of the most controversial, with migrant-receiving countries worried about the costs of assimilating workers and their families. Temporary or circular migration programs are seen as a way of overcoming such concerns and enabling poorer, less-skilled workers to benefit from the higher incomes to be earned abroad as part of a “triple-win”, whereby migrants, the sending country, and the receiving country all benefit.
Which all sounds great in theory. So David McKenzie and John Gibson evaluated New Zealand’s new (2007) seasonal worker program (using matched difference-in-differences), finding it
among the most effective development policies evaluated to date. The policy was designed as a best practice example based on lessons elsewhere, and now should serve as a model for other countries to follow.
Which is great and all, but as I’ve mentioned before, the impacts of migration are pretty clearly positive to me – the challenge and the interesting question is how you change attitudes in rich countries to migration. I worry that the enforceability of temporary migration is a hard sell. I’d like to see how New Zealanders are responding to this program.
3 comments:
Well it seems that the two New Zealanders mentioned (McKenzie and Gibson) responded pretty well.
Thanks for the post.
Here is an evaluation from the New Zealand side:
http://dol.govt.nz/publications/research/rse-evaluation-final-report/rse-final-evaluation.pdf
The overall sense is pretty positive from the New Zealand side too - there was little crowding out of New Zealand workers, very low overstay rates, and growers seem to be experiencing some value from the program in terms of workers being more productive when they return for a second season.
In presenting this paper I've been told that enforceability hasn't been much of an issue in the recent German program, and overstay rates have been low in the Canadian scheme as well. So it is possible for well-designed schemes to have low-overstay.
Thanks, Michael Clemens also sent me this link on the Canadian context - "CSAWP has worked well for 40 years http://bit.ly/coUXhP" - more comments to come once I have to get through this!
Post a Comment