Leveraging migration for progress towards the 2030 Agenda
Migration and mobility provide a real opportunity to unlock progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For this, policies and investments need to be adapted to the realities of populations that are on the move.
Debates on migration are seldom grounded in the real complexities that shape the phenomenon. Even conceptually, useful typologies and distinctions are hard to find. Rarely are the motivations that underlie mobility clear-cut. Analysts generally distinguish two main categories: displacement as a result of an immediate hazard or danger and mobility to pursue livelihood strategies. Even here, however, oversimplification is all too easy. For instance, while sudden-onset events may force relatively short-distance movements (Drabo & Mbaye, 2011), these are often a precursor to subsequent longer term and more voluntary movements. On the flip side, slower-onset events, like environmental degradation and social and political unrest, can encourage rural farm households to pursue new economic strategies outside of agriculture. These many times involve migration. Overall, migration and mobility tend to be the result of multiple factors. It is this complexity that makes definition, classification, and generalisation extremely difficult.
Lack of data is another problem, especially regarding internal migration (Vargas-Lundius, forthcoming). Mobility within national borders is much more prevalent than international migration. Generally this means migrating from a rural area to a larger town or city. People are drawn to city life by economic, social, and environmental factors. Primary among these are the non-agricultural opportunities created by increasingly diversified national economies, improved connectivity and information flows, and the rise of intermediate towns that serve as stepping stones (Suttie & Vargas-Lundius, 2016; IFAD & FAO, 2008; Ratha, 2013; Hussein & Suttie, 2016). Conflict and fragility can play a role in mobility too. If institutions, policies, investment frameworks, and norms give rise to economic processes that are neither inclusive nor sustainable, the outcome may be civil strife, social and political instability, and conflicts over natural resources (in some places exacerbated by climate change). These all can provide a trigger for population movements.
Push and pull factors intersect in mobility decisions
Some of these dynamics are “pull” factors, as they provide a potential path for accessing better and more diversified livelihood opportunities. Others are “push” factors, such as when lack of viable living conditions in an area drives people to move. Yet, in reality, different “push” and “pull” factors often overlap in influencing people’s mobility decisions.
Given this complexity, attempts to frame debates on migration in terms of any imperative to “address root causes” is unlikely be realistic or productive. Particularly, the assumption that migration can be stemmed by economic development is generally not borne out by reality (Laborde et al., 2017). Evidence suggests in fact that development may increase migration, at least in the short term (De Haas, 2011). This is not entirely unsurprising considering the human and financial resources needed to migrate. The poverty-reduction impact of mobility is well documented, and often especially evident in connection with internal movements (Ferré, 2011; Oucho, Oucho and Ochieng, 2014; McKay and Deshingkar, 2014; Vargas-Lundius and Suttie, 2016; Vargas-Lundius, forthcoming).
Embracing mobility for inclusive development
A more constructive approach is possible. First, however, we have to abandon the faulty assumption that sedentary livelihoods are the norm — especially in rural areas. Mobility has long been a key livelihood strategy, and it will continue to be so (Krätli & Swift, 2014; Catley, Lind & Scoones, 2014). Moreover, under the right conditions, mobility could strengthen advancement towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, it could provide greater access to employment, markets, and education. Second, support is needed for livelihood strategies that involve mobility – the goal being to improve migration’s social and economic returns to the communities of origin and destination, and to the migrants themselves.
We still have very little understanding of the needs and realities of migrant workers and the challenges they face. What we do have is an abundance of poorly informed and polarised political debates, which not infrequently end in proposals that ultimately undermine the opportunities and general living conditions of mobile workers. Barriers to mobility are erected, for instance, in the form of policies that discriminate against migrants’ access to social services, employment, and housing.
It is important to note that such barriers have an especially stark impact on women. Not least, barred access to social services and infrastructure affect women disproportionately because of their duties in the household. Gender discrimination in the labour market is also persistent (Chant, 2013).
Giving migrants a voice and building policies to support their choices
Development agencies, supported by governments, have a constructive role to play in facilitating migrant organisation. Collectively, migrants could have a stronger voice and ability to represent their interests in political fora. With the right training and organisations, mobile workers could develop the capacity to articulate their needs and to link up with institutional structures that allow their political voice to be heard. Supported by civil society, they could advocate for policies that open doors to opportunities or, at least, remove rules and regulations that discriminate against their interests (Suttie, forthcoming). Country case studies show that where human capital development and mobility intersect, enhanced national productivity and well-being can result (Vargas-Lundius, forthcoming).
Mobile services for mobile people
When it comes to serving migrants, advisory and support services adapted to contexts of mobility offer particular scope, though this has been underused thus far. To share knowledge and information, mobile people need access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). ICT-related applications and tools – including mobile phones, social media, e-learning platforms, web portals, and community radio – could provide a growing spectrum of services to migrants (Suttie, forthcoming). Already, mobile money transfer tools are increasing efficiency and reducing the costs associated with remittance transfers (IFAD, 2017). Such technologies could also play a role in facilitating investment in both rural and urban areas. This could help stimulate economic activity outside the big cities, in turn helping rural households overcome the financial constraints associated with the seasonality of rural and especially agricultural incomes.
Mobile technology has developed rapidly in recent years. Subscription rates in developing countries increased from 22 per 100 inhabitants in 2005 to 91.8 per 100 inhabitants in 2015 (Saravanan & Suchiradipta, 2015). Crucially, mobile technology breaks down barriers, offering a compelling platform for expanded services to people on the move at a relatively low cost. To further expand these services’ reach and interactivity, awareness-raising programmes are needed. They also need to be adapted to the requirements of mobile populations – especially those coming from remote rural areas. For this, public and private actors will need to be brought on board and partnerships developed between service providers, migrant organisations, and telecommunication companies (Suttie, forthcoming).
Targeted support for young migrants
Focusing on the needs of heterogeneous sub-groups is important to ensure inclusive outcomes. Evidence shows that youths are more likely to migrate than older adults (UN-Habitat, 2010; World Bank, 2006). This fact becomes particularly relevant in light of the expanding shares of people under the age of 25 in many regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser extent, South Asia (Filmer & Fox, 2014; cited in World Bank & IFAD, 2017: pp. 5-6). Migrant youths therefore need to be included in relevant dialogues and institutions, and training and service provision needs to be linked to the aspirations of the modern youth. This could be done in various ways, for example, through engagement with entrepreneurship-related forums, secondary and higher education events, and mentorship programmes.
Adapting approaches to the gendered realities of mobility
Women too are becoming ever more prevalent among those migrating (Tacoli & Mabala, 2010). Nonetheless, access to services and training is generally skewed towards men (Colverson, 2015; Petrics et al, 2015). Flexible ICT-based modalities of service delivery can help respond to this reality. To serve women effectively, services have to be sensitive to the different workloads of household members, including the extent that some are engaged in different forms of mobility. In addition to women who themselves migrate, rural women whose husbands migrate need targeted support, as they have an added workload to manage (FAO, IFAD & ILO, 2010).
Changing mind-sets for a brighter future
Overall, there is a strong need for policies, institutions, and investments that respond to and enable people’s mobility – rather than erect barriers. Certainly there is scope for policies aiming to enhance communities’ resilience and foster inclusive and shared prosperity. Furthermore, efforts are doubtless needed to reduce social instability and the drivers of the conflicts that fuel displacement. At the same time, however, mobility needs to be recognised as a legitimate household strategy. With the support of governments, development agencies, and civil society, as well as private actors, migration and mobility can be leveraged for progress towards the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda.
Catley A, J Lind and I Scoones. 2013. Pastoralism and development in Africa: Dynamic change on the margins. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, Routledge.
Colverson K E. 2015. Integrating gender into rural advisory services. Note 4. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. Lindau, Switzerland, GFRAS.
Chant S. 2013. Cities through a Gender Lens: A golden “urban age” for women in the global south? Environment and Urbanization. 25: 9-29. London, International Institute for Environment and Development.
De Haas, H. 2011. Development leads to more migration. Hein de Haas online blog. Available at: http://heindehaas.blogspot.it/2011/05/development-leads-to-more-migration.html [Accessed November 14 2017].
Drabo A and L M Mbaye. 2011. Climate change, natural disasters and migration: An empirical analysis in developing countries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5927. Online. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5927.pdf [Accessed November 11 2017].
Ferré C. 2011. Is internal migration bad for receiving urban centres? Evidence from Brazil, 1995‑2000. UNU-WIDER Working Paper 2011/21.
Filmer D and L Fox. 2014. Youth employment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC, The World Bank.
IFAD. 2017. Sending Money Home: Contributing to the SDGs one family at a time. Rome, IFAD.
Hussein K and D Suttie. 2016. Rural-Urban Linkages and Food Systems in sub-Saharan Africa: The rural dimension. Rome, IFAD.
IFAD and FAO. 2008. International Migration, Remittances and Rural Development. Rome, IFAD. Krätli S and J Swift. 2014. Counting Pastoralists in Kenya. Nairobi, DLCI/REGLAP.
Laborde D, L Bizikova, T Lallemant and C Smaller. 2017. What is the link between hunger and migration? International Institute for Sustainable Development. Online. Available at: http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/link-between-hunger-migration.pdf [Accessed November 6 2017].
McKay A and P Deshingkar. 2014. Internal remittances and poverty: further evidence from Africa and Asia. Working Paper 12, Migrating out of Poverty Research Consortium. University of Sussex.
Oucho J O, L A Oucho and V Ochieng’. 2014. Is migration the solution to poverty alleviation in Kenya? Rural-urban migration experiences of migrants from western Kenya to Kisumu and Nairobi. Migrating out of Poverty Research Consortium. Working Paper 21. University of Sussex.
Petrics H, M Blum, S Kaaria, P Tamma and K Barale. 2015. Enhancing the potential of family farming for poverty reduction and food security through gender-sensitive rural advisory services. Rome, FAO.
Ratha D. 2013. Leveraging Migration and Remittances for Development. UN Chronicle L: 3. New York, United Nations.
Saravanan R and B Suchiradipta. 2015. Extension – Mobile phones for agricultural advisory services. Note 17. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. Lindau, Switzerland, GFRAS.
Suttie D. Forthcoming. Migration and Rural Advisory Services. GFRAS Issues Paper No.2. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Lausanne.
Suttie D and R Vargas-Lundius. 2016. Migration and Transformative Pathways: A rural perspective. Rome, IFAD.
Tacoli C and R Mabala. 2010. Exploring mobility and migration in the context of rural-urban linkages: Why gender and generation matter. Environment and Urbanization 2010. 22: 389. London: IIED.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), Population Division. 2016. International Migration Report 2015: Highlights. New York, UN-DESA.
UN-Habitat. 2010. State of the urban youth 2010/2011: Levelling the playing field. Nairobi, UN Habitat.
Vargas-Lundius R. Forthcoming. Synthesis report: Internal migration and urbanisation. Washington D C, The World Bank.
World Bank. 2006. World Development Report 2007. Development and the Next Generation. Washington D C, The World Bank.
World Bank and IFAD. 2017. Rural youth employment. Paper commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development as an input document for the G20 Development Working Group. Online. Available at: http://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/g20/Rural_Youth_Employment_-_WB-IFAD-Synthesis_Study_DWG.pdf [Accessed 14 November 2017].
About the authors
David Suttie works for the Global Engagement, Knowledge and Strategy Division of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), where he is active in research and policy advice, focusing on the themes of rural youth employment, migration, rural urban linkages, and family farming. David is also a lecturer in rural development at the University of Rome Tor Vergata.
Rosemary Vargas-Lundius holds a doctorate in development economics from Lund University, Sweden, and has carried out research on rural poverty and unemployment, gender, and migration. She was a staff member of IFAD for two decades, where she worked as the Senior Research Coordinator in the Office of Strategy and Knowledge Management and as Country Programme Manager in the Latin America and Caribbean Division.