8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

1/21

The Economic Desirability of MigrationAuthor(s): Tadeusz StarkReviewed work(s):Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Spring, 1967), pp. 3-22Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3002805.

Accessed: 26/01/2012 11:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toInternational Migration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrationshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3002805?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3002805?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrations

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

2/21

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

3/21

4 the international migration reviewThe desirability of migration from the individual point of viewdoes not present much doubt; for an energetic and active migrant, migra?

tion should be an economic advantage. Normally, after a transitoryperiod, it should give him a higher standard of living and greater eco?nomic stability.2 And it is only legitimate for a man to try to emigratein order to assure himself and his children of a better future. The situa?tion may be more difficult if the migrant remains a long time without hisfamily which is left behind in the country of origin. Here the migrantavails himself very little of the higher wages gained in the immigrationcountry. Besides the fact that living costs are usually higher in the newcountry, he reserves for himself only the strict minimum and what issent to the family abroad does not allow a substantial increase in hisstandard of living.3

As to the desirability of migration on a national level, the prob?lem becomes complicated: many more economic aspects must be takeninto consideration and at first sight the whole picture seems to raisesome doubts.Especially in recent times, many people ask themselves whether

emigration shoud not be considered as being rather harmful to a country.What is interesting to see is the opposition raised to migration on

both sides, in the departure countries as well as in the reception coun?tries. The first exaggerate intentionally the importance of the emigrantsfor a country and stress that their departure constitutes an intrinsicloss for the country, but they are silent about the future gains. Theymaintain that it is always the best elements who depart and from thenationalistic point of view those leaving the country should be consid?ered as "traitors to the country." The Germans speak about "die Aus-blutung unserer besten Menschenkrafte." 4On the other hand, the reception countries sometimes seem tominimize the value of their intake of immigrants and point out thatthe employers in the reception countries do not draw more profit froman immigrant than from another worker. In Switzerland which takesin hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, one often hearsthat immigration is "un mal necessaire qui coute cher" (a necessaryevil which costs dear). The immigration country is obliged to build up2. George Rochcau: "Reflexions sur le droit aux migrations," and especially theparagraph: "Est-ie bon d'emigrer?" Revue de VAction Populaire, No. 184 (Jan?uary, 1966).3. Charles Ageneau: "Migration?a necessity" in the monthly of the Economicand Social Research Center in Paris, Etudes et Documents (January-March1965), p. 31.4. Paul A. Ladame: "Les migrations comme facteur du developpement eco-nomique mondial"?expose at the General Assembly of the International Coun?cil of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) held on August 11, 1961, in Geneva (p. 8).

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

4/21

THE ECONOMICDESIRABILITYOF MIGRATION 5and to extend its social infrastructure including schools for the immi?grants' children, hospitals and free time centres for the immigrants.The immigrant is almost treated like a parasite occupying space whichshould be reserved for the national workers.5

Already in 1942, a Canadian writer, W. H. Chamberlin, justlyremarked that "in immigration, as in foreign trade, the restrictive at?titude is apt to possess the greater popular appeal. The benefits of in?creased population are general and slow in making themselves felt.The dislocations, the injuries to the interests of special groups andclasses which may be the immediate consequence of an influx of new?comers are quickly felt, are resented and often exaggerated."6Nevertheless, these two aspects of advantages and disadvantagesboth on the part of the immigration country which has benefitted fromthe importation of human resources, and on the part of the emigrationcountry which has exported the migrant, deserve careful inquiry intothe question: who is right?

In order to reply to this question, we shall at first examine suc?cessively the benefits and losses of the emigration country and thoseof the immigration country.Profit of the Emigration Country

Professors Julius Isaac and Brinley Thomas after the secondWorld War were among the first in Europe to draw attention to a de?tailed analysis of economic factors determining the volume and direc?tion of migration between the sending and receiving countries.7

They observed that from the economic point of view the flow ofmigration goes from countries of low prosperity to those of higher pros?perity and that the prospective increase of the real income of an indi?vidual is the determining factor in this process. Thomas examined therelations between emigration and the rate of real income per head inGreat Britain and the swings of economic progress in the United Statesas shown by railway construction and coal output. He also analyzedhow the American economy reacted to four great waves of immigra?tion, each of which coincided with a period of relatively rapid growth.Emigration in this context was ,in fact, chiefly a remedy for low wagesin the sending country. It carried labor from the place where it wassuperabundant to those where it was scarce. It exported workers from5. Charles Caporale: "Coiit et profits des migrations Internationales," Revue derAction Populaire (January, 1965), p. 49.6. W. H. Chamberlain: Canada, Today and Tomorrow (1942), quoted byJulius Isaac, op. cit.7. Julius Isaac: op cit.; and Brinley Thomas: Migration and Economic Growth(Cambridge University Press, 1954).

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

5/21

6 the international migration reviewthe places where their productive power was less to a place where itwas greater.

Isaac stressed that the real income of an individual is usually de?termined by two factors: 1) his net income in terms of money and 2)the purchasing power of this money income. If the purchasing powerof money in the receiving country is low (the present difficulties inLatin America, for instance) and in the departing country high, thereis no place for migration.Speaking about "the dynamics of international migration," Thomasremarked in his analysis that, in the migration process, there are al?

ways "push" and "pull" elements. The former correspond to the in?terests of the emigration country and the second to immigration. The"pull" element is normally stronger than the "push" element. DorothySwaine Thomas, in her study of Swedish emigration, came to the sameconclusion, namely that among the two factors, the industrial "pull"of America and the agricultural "push" from Sweden, the formerplayed an overwhelmingly important role in respect to the annual fluc?tuations of the seventies to the end of the emigration era in Sweden,just before the first World War. She stated: "in prosperous years, Swed?ish industry was able to compete successfully with the lure of Amer?ica, and the latest agricultural push towards emigration became an ac?tive force only when a Swedish industrial depression occurred simul?taneously with expanding or prosperous business conditions in the newworld."8

If we consider that the state policy of the emigration countryshould be directed towards securing a maximum amount of welfare forits individual members, we must conclude that it will be the first profitof the emigration country that the emigrant gain employment and in?crease his money income. In this respect, emigration is desirable as itresults in an improvement of the standard of living of those emigrating,although this improvement takes place outside the country and the in?dividual leaves?temporarily or permanently?his country or origin.

But this indirect advantage for the emigration country is connectedwith two others, both on the production and consumption levels. Asto production, if an unemployed man emigrates, his departure releasesthe country from the unproductive element; if he had a job before emi?grating he leaves it open to others. On the consumption side, the emi?gration increases the possible consumption per head, owing to the re?duced number of consumers who remain in the country. This may alsoreduce the price of the consumer articles following the rule of supplyand demand. Thus, very often emigration appears as a means of im-8. Brinley Thomas: op. cit., p. 83.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

6/21

THE ECONOMICDESIRABILITY OF MIGRATION 7proving the incomes not only of the emigrants, but also of the remain?ing population. This is undoubtedly one economic advantage of emi?gration, but there are others.The second one is the flow of new capital earned by the emigrantinto the emigration country. This is by no means a negligible amountas it consists of 1) remittances of money sent to the country of originby the emigrant, 2) the capital brought back by the returning emigrantand 3) the family allowances sent by the social security authorities tothe families remaining in the country of origin (the latter item referschiefly to movements within Europe).

As to the remittances of money sent back by the emigrants, theofficial figures are collected by the majority of countries to-day, butin fact they only disclose a part of the reality as there are many waysin which the emigrant can avoid controls, and thus considerableamounts are not included in the statistics of remittances. In spite ofthis, we are able to admit that the remittances represent a high eco?nomic advantage to the country of origin. One of the first to calculatethis figure before the first World War was Charles F. Speare for theUnited States; he indicated that out of the savings of foreign born mi?grants, $250 million a year were going abroad and that the annualincrease was about 10 per cent.9

As to more recent times and recent migration movements, we areable to quote some statistics which are calculated year by year by thesending countries. For recent years, we know, for instance, that theemigrant's remittances brought impressive amounts in US dollars tothe following four countries:Italy ? $673,600,000 (of which $493 million only from those who

had emigrated to European countries in 1965)Spain ? $200,000,000Greece ? $170,000,000 (of which $40 million from emigrants inEurope)

Turkey ? $150,000,000 (in 1965)These figures have been showing a rising trend during the pastfew years. The Spanish figure must also be completed by additionalremittances from Spanish seasonal agricultural workers in France,which brought $25 million more.It is interesting to look at the list of originating countries fromwhich the Italian remittances were sent during 1963, 1964 and 1965in millions of dollars:10

9. Julius Isaac: op. cit., p. 244.10. Italian Foreign Ministry: Problemi del Lav oro italiano all'Estero: relazioneper il 1964 (Roma: 1965) p. 99; and: Problemi del lavoro italiano allestero:relazione per il 1965 (Roma: 1966), p. 96.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

7/21

8 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEW1963 1964 1965

Total $522.2 $550.3 $673.6Europe 335.5 380.8 493.8of which (among others):Germany 147.8 165.2 255.0Switzerland 104.0 128.3 138.0France 36.3 39.7 47.1Belgium & Luxemburg 20.2 21.1 23.0North America 115.4 110.9 125.3of whichUnited States 88.9 83.7 97.5Canada 26.8 27.1 27.8South America 30.6 24.6 20.7of whichArgentina 6.6 6.2 3.9Brazil 1.7 0.7 0.6Uruguay 1.3 0.7 0.6Venezuela 19.6 16.2 14.7Australia 19.8 18.1 17.4Africa 13.9 11.1 9.7

There is no space to comment in detail on these figures but itmay be stressed that if some appear to be smaller, it depends uponthe nature of the emigration movement. In France, for instance, thereis a higher percentage of family reunion which obviously results in lessremittances abroad. Also emigration to the United States, Canada orAustralia has a more definite character than others. The small amountof remittances from Latin America can be explained by the recent in?flation.

In a paper submitted to the 1965 World Population Conferenceon the "Role of Emigrants' Remittances in the Economic Develop?ment of European Countries" professor Parent of the University ofFlorence stressed that the possibility of the sending country disposingof an additional quota of imports without upsetting the balance of pay?ments is a positive fact in the sending country's process of develop?ment.1111. Prof. Giuseppe Parenti: op. cit. in the text, p. 2. Cf. United Nations, WorldPopulation Conference, 1955, New York, United Nations, 1966, Vol., I, Pre?liminary Report, pp. 138-150.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

8/21

the economic desirability of migration 9He quotes the following figures for the years 1960-1962 for four

sending countries:Remittances Percentage Percentage ofin millions of $ of imports national income

Italy 1960 430.2 8.0 1.61961 533.4 8.8 1.71962 538.1 9.0 1.9

Spain 1960 63.8 8.8 0.71961 119.5 10.9 1.21962 116.9 10.0 1.4

Greece 1960 99.1 14.1 3.61961 107.2 15.0 3.51962 153.3 21.9 4.7

Portugal 1960 54.5 10.0 2.61961 44.6 6.8 2.01962 51.1 8.8 2.2

From this table we can see that in 1961 this percentage of im?ports reaches almost 11% for Spain and from 14 to 22% for Greece.This allowed the countries concerned a larger consumption of raw ma?terials and machinery as well as stating and continuing the process oftransforming the national economy .

One part of the remittances also goes to savings deposited in banksor directly invested in the payment of old debts, in running small com?merces or artisan activities and in buying houses or land. Through theaccumulation of savings, the high rate of interest may be reduced. An?other beneficial result is the paying off of real estate mortgages.Through their role of supplementing national savings and directly pro?ductive investments, the emigrants' remittances can be a decisive fac?tor in implementing the modern development policy of a country.

Finally, we come to the third profit drawn by the emigration coun?try: widening of the professional knowledge of the most active and en?terprising elements who emigrate.

May it be stressed immediately that this profit is rather difficultto attain in the present times owing to the changes in the nature ofmovements to-day. In the early 20th century, a migrant who departedoverseas often acquired new skills and a new profession.But today this happens more and more rarely. The migrants per?haps learn new working methods, acquaint themselves with modernmachinery and if they come from rural areas, they may adapt them?selves to the new conditions in industry. But normally, they occupy

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

9/21

10 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATION REVIEWmarginal and low occupations, where there is little possibility of pro?fessional specialization. Their work very often consists in mechanicaland monotonous chain work where there is nothing to learn. Ofcourse, there are also exceptions to this rule. But those who emigratetoday are not always the most active and enterprising. It is more thosewho cannot adapt to the life or work in the home country who try toescape from the difficulties by emigrating abroad. These elements some?times gain new skills, but in most cases, this does not happen unlessthey have a real desire to improve their standing.The emigration country would draw a profit from these emigrantsif they return home. But here again, those who really acquire new pro?fessions do not return but remain definitely in the new country, havingbetter working conditions to which they are accustomed and which theywill not find at home.

In fact, this profit is therefore rather rare today. It may arise inthe case of migration from an underdeveloped country, Africa for in?stance, where until now, the educational formation has been difficult,to some developed European country. For some time already, Francehas been organizing pre-vocational training centres for African work?ers and there they acquire the ability to adapt themselves to the newliving conditions and later, a skill. After their return to the home coun?try, these Africans will undoubtedly constitute a profit in comparisonwith the local elements.Losses of Emigration Countries

Against these profits, the emigration country has however, to notesome losses to its economy:1) The most important is, without doubt, the loss of the emigrants.Even if we admit that today it is not always the most active and bestelements who leave, the departure of a worker constitutes a loss. Ifthe emigrating worker has a technical skill learnt in the home country,the loss is even greater. Some authors call this a true "amputation ofthe most interesting part of the population."12 In the preceding para?graph, we explained that today this is not so often the case, as those whoemigrate here are often unadaptable to the local life or are trying toget rid of some difficulties; the good worker normally remains home,unless there are other reasons to decide his departure.2) The second disadvantage is more serious; it consists in the distor?tion of the age and sex distribution of the remaining population. Thedeparture of an older worker is undoubtedly an economic advantage12. Charles Caporale: art. cit., p. 45.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

10/21

the economic desirability of migration 11for the emigration country, but these categories emigrate rather rarelybecause of the medical screening of the recruiting commissions. Infact, the migration recruiting commissions fix a maximum and mini?mum age which is normally between 20 and 45 years. Some excep?tions were made during World Refugee Year for handicapped refugeesbut they are not general. Selection according to sex may also deprivethe emigration country of men of a marriageable age which causes areal imbalance in the age structure of the population. The great pro?portion of old persons, children and those who are ill, remaining inthe country, may endanger or perpetuate the obstacles to the develop?ment of entire regions of the country. The real effects of this state maycreate serious difficulties in the field of social security which loses the"paying members" and retains only the "paid members."133) The situation is much more serious if those emigrating are highlytrained engineers, doctors or belong to other liberal professions. A true"brain drain" results from this situation. A recent study by EnriqueOteiza from Buenos Aires drew attention to the serious consequencesof the emigration of engineers from Argentina to the United States.14It shows that when highly qualified manpower emigrates from a lessdeveloped country to a more developed one, the loss to the former isvery great. It causes an obvious loss of the capital investment in train?ing and education which has no counterpart for the emigration coun?try. In the case of professional workers, this investment is high be?cause of the many years of study involved. The statistics quoted bythe author show that during the recent period of 1950 to 1964 some13,804 highly qualified emigrants left Argentina for the United States(among whom were 6,417 technicians, 2,008 senior executives and5,379 skilled workers).It must be stressed that there are also large numbers of migrants inprofessional occupations in other immigration countries, especially inmedical professions (nurses, doctors), education (teachers) and tech?nicians (engineers, architects, etc.). The addition of the main figuresreveal that in the post war period nearly 70,000 nurses, 30,000 physi?cians and 40,000 engineers left the European emigration countries foroverseas.15

In the presence of these facts, we must agree with Professor Sauvyof France who states that this problem has not yet received the at-13. Prof. A. Sauvy: Theorie generale de la population, Vol. I: "Economie etcroissance," (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963), p. 291.14. E. Oteiza: "Emigration of Engineers from Argentina," International LaborReview (December, 1965), p. 445.15. T. Stark in Migration News (1963, No. 2), and Migration Facts and Figures,No. 28 (March-April, 1963). Especially interesting are the country-by-countrytables concerning Canada, Australia, and the United States.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

11/21

\2 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEWtention it merits. The departure of this kind of emigrant is a seriousloss for the emigration country. When big foreign overseas trusts comeoffering contracts to the best students in European engineering schools,notwithstanding the legality of the approach, the emigration countrymeets with a serious loss.164) Finally there is also another disadvantage for the emigration coun?try which refers to the re-integration difficulties of those emigrants whodecide to return to their country of origin. Besides, the difficult re-adap?tation after their return, they often encounter obstacles in finding suit?able placement because of differences in the development levels of bothcountris. Those who return, for instance from Europe to Africa, wherethere are less industries and fewer working possibilities, meet difficul?ties in being re-integrated into the local industries. This disadvantageconstitutes the reverse side of the problem with which we dealt be?fore under profits for the emigration country, namely the widening ofprofessional knowledge. Paradoxically enough, the returning emigrantwho has gained some knowledge may, in fact, become a worker un-adapted to the level of his country, when he returns, and unable to beabsorbed by the local industry in view of the existing conditions. Heis thus condemned to accept a job which is far below his qualificationsand often he will be obliged to emigrate again for ever.17 But hereagain we must say that those who really acquire new professions returnrather rarely because they are already accustomed to more luxuriousconditions and are not inclined to return. Often also, the home countrydoes not absorb its yearly excess populaion and does not encourage peo?ple to return in view of the growing population.

Profits of the Immigration CountryAgainst this balance sheet of the emigration country, we shallexamine at present the benefits drawn from the newcomers by the im?

migration country.There is no doubt today, that the economic profits of the immi?

gration country are considerable and that immigration adds new richesand new wealth to the whole community.This contribution may generally be expressed as raising the na?tional income and living conditions. This rise is the result of severalfactors. In the first place it is due to the increase of production by afuller exploitation of the natural resources of the country. But immi?gration does not merely add to the supply of labor. It also increasesconsumption and adds to the demand for goods and services; through16. A. Sauvy: op. cit., p. 292.17. C. Caporale: art. cit., p. 43.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

12/21

the economic desirability of migration 13the latter it also leads to a demand for new labor both in the privateand public sectors. By remedying a labor shortage, immigration makesit possible to direct workers to priority work by widening crucial bot?tlenecks. It stimulates a high rate of investment for an expansion ofcapacity in building, manufacturing and other industries.18

To calculate all these factors in figures is difficult. However, someattempts have been made to calculate the total increase of the nationalincome which is due to immigrants and to compare it to the totalamount of salaries paid to them. The attempt was made in Switzer?land in 1962 and it revealed interesting results.19 The real increase ofthe Swiss national income was estimated at 5% during the past fewyears. Of this some 2.5% was due to the value of the immigrants'work and the remaining percentage to other factors such as progressin rationalizing the work and development of the interior market. Inother words, half the increase in the present standard of living inSwitzerland is attributed to immigration. As during the period from1954 to 1960 the real national income increased by 4,680 million Swissfrancs, the contribution of immigration would be some 2,390 millionSwiss franks. This figure may be compared to the total amount of thesalaries paid to the immigrants. It has been estimated at 800 millionSwiss francs. Thus, the difference constitutes the value of the increase ofthe Swiss national income due to immigration.

This calculation, although based on simplified approximation, israther instructive.

Another recent estimate of Professor Kuznets on the relative in?come per capita also shows a very significant fact that the countriesnow occupying the top income bracket were the major immigrant ab?sorbing countries, namely the United States, Canada and Australia.20Let us now examine the particular profits which together contrib?ute to the increase of the national income in an immigration country.They may be listed in the following order:1) Increase of production per head, owing to the supply of new laborand remedying the labor shortages existing in the country. A calcula?tion was made before the last war by some economists and it showedthat the rate of growth of output per head in the overseas countries18. Prof. H. W. Arndt: "The National Economy and Migration," lecture givenon October 30, 1963, at Canberra (Meeting ICEM-Information Department).19. Quoted by G. Abraham Frois: "Capital humain et migrations internation-ales," Revue d'Economie Politique (March-April, 1964), p. 547. The estimatewas made by Prof. Kneschaurek and reported in the article by Alfred Peter:"Ohne Italiener kein Wohlstand," (September, 1962).20. Cfr. article by Brinley Thomas in the Quarterly of the Inter-governmentalCommittee on European Migration (ICEM), Migration (July-September, 1961),p. 12.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

13/21

14 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATION REVIEWup to 1913, such as Canada, the United States, Australia and NewZealand was much greater than in the sending countries. The receivingcountries rapidly ascended the production scale and entered the world'stop income bracket. The percentage of increase in real products perhead per decade during the five decades before the first World Warwas 24.7% for Canada and 27.5% for the United States, whereas thesending countries like the United Kingdom increased by only 12.8%.It means that in the half century, the average increase in real productper head in Canada and the United States was twice as high as in thesending countries and it has been proved that a considerable part ofthis process was played by the immigration from Europe.The calculation of the increase in the production output by immi?grants should not only include the direct addition to the production ofthe new country but also the indirect elements which result from thefact that the migrants were occupied in a sector for which there werefew applicants in the country, for instance mining. This liberates thelocal manpower for the more qualified tasks and widens the existingbottlenecks.2) The correction of age and sex distribution in the country is againthe reverse side of the situation in the emigration country which hasbeen mentioned before.3) The increase in the rate of consumption. The new immigrantscontribute to raising the levels of consumption and to demands for newgoods and services. As soon as the immigrant puts his foot on the soilof his new country, he needs food and accommodation. These arephysical and psychological necessities that are transferred into eco?nomic demands within the purchasing power of the immigrant. A studyof the immigrant's budget allows one to know with more precision theinfluence of immigration on consumption. Professor de Avila from Bra?zil has observed that the immigration country gains much more in thisrespect if the immigrant comes with his family.21 If the immigrant mi?grates alone, during a longer or shorter period, he is compelled to sendmoney home from his savings in order to support his family. If thefamily accompanies him, he will not export his earnings but pour theminto the inner economic circuit. J. Bourgois-Pichat has also studiedthis problem in France and has arrived at the conclusion that familyimmigration is the best solution.22

Australian economists stress that immigration contributes to theenlargement of the country's domestic market for its own manufactur-21. Prof. Fernando Bastos de Avila: Economic Impacts of Immigration (TheHague: M. Nijhoff, 1954), p. 59 and 60.22. J. Bourgois-Pichat in the French journal Population of July-September, 1949,pp. 417-432 (quoted also by F. de Avila).

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

14/21

THE ECONOMIC DESIRABILITYOF MIGRATION 15ing industries.23 Hitherto the relatively small size of Australia's domes?tic market has been a major obstacle in competition with the largerindustrial countries. Population growth through the increase of immi?grants has alleviated this problem. It is also true that the immigrantsexert pressure in Australia on the demand for public utilities such astransport or public services. In this respect, the immigrants create newopportunities for employment and increase the demand on the labormarket.

In this respect, immigration may also be considered as a doubleinsurance against underemployment. In Australia it was a factor inkeeping up the general tempo of business activity and economic de?velopment by encouraging optimistic expectations about the future rateof growth of demand.4) The gain of economic value of the immigrants. Economists haveknown for a long time that the "immigrant not only creates economicassets but is in fact one himself."24 Thanks to immigration, the receiv?ing country makes a considerable saving because it imports a unit forwhose education it has not paid a penny. The salary paid to the im?migrant worker may be considered only as interest on capital broughtin from the emigration country. We shall devote a separate study tothis problem. Here we merely state that the immigration country haspaid nothing for the education and training of the immigrants whichis a substantial contribution even in financial terms. The monetary valueof human capital received in this way by the immigration countries israther high in the case of the "brain drain" mentioned before.5) The capital brought in by the migrant. Besides his personal value,the immigrant very often brings capital into the country. This capitalmay be invested, wholly or partially, or oriented towards consumption.Bringing capital, the immigrant is one more taxpayer and spreadingthe general charges is always in interest of those who have to bearthem. It is obvious that the value of the financial benefits brought inby the immigrant varies according to the economic conjuncture of thereceiving country and its level of economic development.25 His utilityis, of course, much greater in a country suffering from financial diffi?culties. In this connection it is interesting to refer to the fact alreadyobserved in the 19th century that the capital amounts brought into

theUnited States by the immigrants were rather small. At the beginningof this century for instance, the average amount per head of immi-23. H. W. Arndt: lecture quoted above, p. 4.24. Prof. Fernando B. de Avila: "Immigration Development and Industrial Ex?pansion in Brazil," in the ICEM bimonthly Migration (July-September, 1961),p. 28.25. Prof. F. B. de Avila: Economic Impacts of Immigration, op. cit., p. 63.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

15/21

16 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATION REVIEWgrant was only $15. The explanation for this was that many immi?grants did not make accurate statements on their arrival, and beingsuspicious of the reasons for requesting such information, they alwaysthought it wiser to admit to much less than they really possessed.26Nowadays it may be said that immigrants do not carry all their capi?tal with them but have it transferred to the immigration country throughbanks if the need arises.

If the attraction of overseas capital is considerable, it may be de?batable in smaller countries as to whether, from the financial point ofview, a large volume of overseas investment in the country should beencouraged. There are growing fears, at present, in countries such asAustralia, for example, about the danger of the country showing in?creasing dependence on the foreign control of its industries. It is esti?mated that one third of Australia's manufacturing industries is at pres?ent owned by overseas interests. Many of the overseas parent com?panies have no interest in their subsidiaries exporting their productsso that foreign control may operate as a major obstacle to the urgent?ly needed development of the Australian export trade in manufacture.27

Disadvantages for Immigration CountriesThe difficulties mentioned earlier are counterbalanced in the

immigration countries by some disadvantages or even losses. In thefirst place, the competition of the immigrants with the national workersis often given as an argument against immigration. This is the reasonwhy workers' trade unions oppose immigration and why, in the past,the legislative measures in some countries have tended to limit andcurtail migration movements. Two reasons are generally mentioned bythese opponents: 1) the danger of unemployment for the national work?ers and 2) the tendency to lower the wages of the national workers.

If these dangers may effectively arise in some economic conditions,the economists and demographers are today in agreement that any mi?gration releases a multitude of other forces and that a constant andregular flow of immigrants allows the necessary economic adjustmentsto be made; usually economic systems are too dynamic to allow suchrigid interpretations.28

As to unemployment, immigration is generally oriented towardslower levels of secondary and tertiary sectors which the native workersrefuse to fill. The existence of unemployment in a country does not26. J. Isaac: op. cit., p. 235.27. H. W. Arndt: op. cit., p. 6.28. A. Sauvy: Theorie genirale de la population, op. cit., p. 295. F. B. de Avila:Economic Impacts of Immigration, op. cit., p. 64. J. Isaac: op. cit., p. 200.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

16/21

THE ECONOMIC DESIRABILITYOF MIGRATION yfnecessarily mean that there are no vacant jobs in the economic struc?ture, just the contrary. The demand for labor is not constant but vari?able, and the migrant creates new employment opportunities in theconsumption sector. To oppose immigration for fear of unemploymentis no wiser than to hinder mechanization for the same fear; the ma?chine takes the place of the worker, just as the migrant takes the placeof the native.

As to the tendency to lower wages, it is true that immigrants findemployment in the new country chiefly as unskilled workers and havingfew means at their disposal, they are often obliged to take any job atany wage. However, undercutting the prevailing wage rates has the netresult that demand at a lower price level increases and has a countereffect on the declining trend of the wage rate. The opportunities opento migrants are often limited to unpleasant jobs and extra-marginal oc?cupations so that a "non-competing group" becomes distinct from un?skilled labor and can no longer be considered as a part of unskilledlabor. In certain industries, certain jobs become "immigrant jobs" andcause a concentration of ethnic groups in the big cities. Under theseparticular conditions, the immigrant's labor becomes a different factorof production. Its wage rate cannot be directly associated with the wagerate for unskilled workers in general because the native workmen arequickly raised to a higher level of better paid jobs.29

We must agree with Professor Sauvy that the attitude of the tradeunions of workers and liberal professions towards immigration is al?most always restrictive and that sometimes their interests may differfrom those of the whole population as they only refer to a particulargroup. If immigration is sufficiently selective, the improvement in qual?ity involves an increase in productivity, which depends upon optimumpopulation and reduces unemployment contrary to the opinion general?ly expressed.30

As a second argument against the desirability of immigration, thecost of constructing new houses, new factories, new schools and newhospitals for the incoming migrants is often quoted. To bring new im?migrants into the work force at the level of productivity of the immi?gration country, it is necessary to give the new worker the same equip?ment already available to the average member of the native work force.This means that new factories, new shops and offices have to be builtand machinery installed. Similarly, the population growth caused bythe immigrants makes growing demands on consumer goods and serv?ices of all kinds. Much capital is also required to build housing and29. J. Isaac: op. cit., pp. 200-203.30. A. Sauvy: op. cit., p. 296.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

17/21

18 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATION REVIEWto assure all the facilities of a wide range of social services such aspublic health (hospitals), education (schools) and social security.

New capital is needed to cover all these costs and for some coun?tries it may even mean a diminution of the real income per head. Thisis at present the case in Australia, where the economists generally be?lieve that owing to the high rate of population growth of 2.5% peryear, these costs require high amounts and this accounts for Austra?lia's relatively poor performance in terms of growth of real incomeper head, a rate of about 1.5% per year only.31The third argument concerns the loss of the capital which themigrants send back to their country of origin. Here the loss is againthe reverse side of the advantage gained by the sending country. Butnot only that. The remittances constitute a double loss in the sensethat the capital earned by the immigrant is not used to buy consumergoods which would be profitable to the immigration country, but issent abroad. It would be more advantageous for the immigration coun?try for this money to be spent on the spot for food or other services.

In the last few years, in the Europe of the Six (Common Market)certain groups of immigrants (Italians, Spaniards and Algerians) areallowed to earn family allowances, even if the family remains in thecountry of origin, and these are an appreciable asset to the sendingcountry. Year by year, the figures of these amounts are growing.

Finally, the cost of the necessary initial training of the immigrantsmust be inscribed on the debit side of the balance of gain and losses.This cost is borne by industry or by the receiving state if it is doneat private or public courses. It is generally accepted now that uponhis arrival and before the immigrant begins his work, he is usuallytrained to adapt himself to the local conditions and to learn localmethods of work. This cost of training in industry is sometimes high.The Case of Greece

To judge the desirability of migration, we shall analyze one con?crete practical case of an emigration country supplying labor to an?other country. In view of the recent increase of Intra-European mi?gration, we have chosen Greece whose case is quite interesting andgenerally less known. Our task is greatly facilitated thanks to the inter?esting study of a professor of economics at the University of Toronto,S. G. Triantis, who presented it to the Belgrade World PopulationConference (September 1965).3231. W. H. Arndt: op. cit., p. 5.32. Prof. S. G. Triantis: "Population, Emigration, and Economic Development,"a paper contributed to the United Nations World Population Conference, 1965(B9/I/E/20).

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

18/21

THE ECONOMICDESIRABILITY OF MIGRATION 19The rate of natural population increase in Greece is rather low

(in 1963 it was situated below 10 pro mille) and it shows a downwardtrend. Here are some figures in thousands of people:

Natural increase Emigration1959 99.3 23.71960 96.7 47.81961 86.1 58.81962 85.8 84.11963 80.9 100.1

The above table shows that in 1963, for the first time, emigra?tion from Greece exceeded the 100,000 mark and the natural popula?tion increase by almost 20,000. If we compare the figures referring tothe proportion of workers among the emmigrants, it may even be statedthat the number of workers emigrating from Greece has already ex?ceeded the natural addition to the labor force since 1961.Another feature of present Greek emigration is that owing to the

change from overseas to Intra-European migration, the emigrants areno longer farmers and peasants but also craftsmen and industrial work?ers.This intensive emigration movement from Greece to Western Eu?

rope (chiefly Germany) is mainly caused by the economic motives ana?lyzed at the beginning of this study, namely the difference of real in?come between Greece and the Western European countries. The Greekemigrants are able to earn higher income in these countries, besidesthe latter have a higher level of economic development, which is con?nected to a shortage of manpower acting as a "pulling" power. Othermotives encouraging this emigration are: easy means of communica?tions, the liberalization of labor between the European countries andthe free movement of money (remittances).

Numerous "pushing" factors correspond to these "pulling" elementswhich make emigration desirable. In the first place, an insufficiency ofnatural resources, the reduced size of the home economy and the un?favourable geographic situation of Greece. A recent F.A.O. study ofthe agricultural structure of Greece is very categorical on several points:the mountainous topography of the country which restricts the amountof arable land to about one quarter, the poorness of the soil, the dryclimate with irregular rain.33

In view of the country's poverty of resources the size of the Greekeconomy is small, at present and potentially. The yearly income per33. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO): World Agricultural Structure,Study No. 3: "Land Utilization," (Roma, 1964).

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

19/21

20 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEWhead is only $400 and there are few prospects for development in viewof the location of Greece, far from external sources of materials orlarge industrial markets.

These differences have existed for a long time, but today emigra?tion is easier because of the relaxation of European restrictions for im?migration and progress in communications. The possibility of return?ing home after some years was also a strong "pushing" factor to manywho preferred life in Greece to staying abroad for ever.

How can the advantages and losses of Greek emigration be evalu?ated? On one side of the economic profits is the possibility for theGreeks to increase their income per head leaving fuller employmentfor those who remain, thus bringing about a reduction of the incomeinequality and instability in the home country. Another profit of thepresent Greek emigration lies in the emigrants' remittances which ef?fectively make a substantial contribution to the country's income, for?eign exchange and resources for investment. Here can also be includedthe advantages of Western European social services and other benefits.

Last but not least, the fact that in Western Europe the Greekworkers may more readily adapt themselves to modern working meth?ods and industrial conditions is an undeniable benefit.

Under these circumstances, emigration would appear, in the end,to be a natural way of improving the income rate of the whole popu?lation, both those migrating and those remaining behind.

However, the whole picture has darker sides showing the economicundesirability of these outgoing movements. Among these disadvant?ages, the one usually mentioned first is the distortion of the populationstructure, by age and profession. In fact, emigration draws heavily onthe younger adults and attracts the more healthy. As to professions, re?cent statistics show a very discouraging fact that whereas in 1962 and1963 together, only some 13,000 farmers and agricultural workers leftGreece, the corresponding figure for low degree industrial manpowerand craftsmen exceeded 100,000 together for those two years (i.e. 47,-267 in 1962 and 54,070 in 1963). This is very harmful to the coun?try. From the economic point of view, Greece is losing factory workermasses because of this exodus and, as a result, entire regions or com?munities will become derelict.

In view of the low rate of natural increase in Greece, the fact thatthe distortion of the population structure increases with the rate ofemigration and that a large flow of emigration may result in suddenchanges in the structure of various Greek industries, it would seem thata lower rate of emigration than during the year 1961-1962 would bepreferable.

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

20/21

THE ECONOMICDESIRABILITYOF MIGRATION 21In spite of these disadvantages, economists like Professor Triantisrather hesitate and declare themselves to be in difficulties when it comes

to drawing safe conclusions as to the desirability or undesirability ofthis flow of emigration continuing. They point out, however, that thereasons against emigration would be of a more non-economic charac?ter, i.e. the majority of the adversaries give mixed reasons, namely na?tional, political, demographic and economic. They speak of the risk of"national suicide" and mention the necessity of retaining the country'spresent population and integrity. However, they forget that Greeks haveoften succeeded abroad in many ways, financial and others, and havethus contributed to the strengthening of the Greek nation.Conclusion

We have seen, in theory and in practice, various arguments speak?ing in favour of the desirability of migration or against it.We have observed that in the final balance sheet, the economicadvantages and disadvantages seem to appear in various degrees onboth sides.

It depends upon an examination of the economic situation of eachof the two countries involved to decide whether migration betweenthem is desirable or not. If some disadvantages prevail, it is for eco?nomic planning to change them in such a way that the profits on thenational level can be mutual.

Each of the countries may find an advantage for itself if it adaptsthe movement to its advantage, especially the reception countries, bothin size and by timing the movements. Any exaggeration or unrestrictedincrease seems to be dangerous. An exaggeration of the inflow often pro?vokes a reaction from the local population, such as we have recentlyseen in Switzerland. Any excessive "brain drain" is, for instance un?favourable to the emigration country, but a reasonable exchange mayserve progress. It depends upon the economic structure of each partici?pating country and, therefore, a balance sheet of profit and loss mustbe established and the principle of reciprocal services should be applied.

In the end the desirability or undesirability of migration must bejudged in relation to the existing conjuncture of each partner country.

Some authors maintain that by receiving an immigrant on its soil,the reception country imports a value for which it does not pay anycounterpart.34 We cannot agree to that, as on both sides there are ad?vantages and measures that can be taken to improve these advantagesor correct the disadvantages.

Considering the long term aspects, it is difficult not to recognize34. C. Caporale: art. cit., p. 44..

8/13/2019 IMR 1, vol 2, 1967

21/21

22 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEWthe beneficial results of population transfers as a factor in economicexpansion. If migration is planned in volume and in quality, it mayhave the favourable effect of being an efficient factor of structural ad?justment in both countries.

ResumeL'objet de cette etude est une recherche sur les interets economiques qui

gouvernent l'emigration. Les avantages et les desavantages economiquesdes mouvements d'emigration en general et aussi dans des situations con?cretes sont deduits des etudes anterieures dans ce domaine et des cas decertains pays d'emigration. L'avantage economique de remigration peut etreanalyse de deux points de vue: individuel et national. II semble qu'il n'yait aucune regie universelle qui determine l'influence de remigration sur lasituation economique d'un pays. Plutot, cela depend d'une evaluation dela situation economique de chacun des deux pays inter esses pour decider siremigration entre eux soit desirable.

ResumenEl objeto de este estudio consiste en investigar los intereses economicos

que gobiernan la migracion; las ventajas y desventajas economicas de losmovimientos de migracion en general y en situaciones particulares son de-ducidos de previos estudios de la materia y en casos especificos de lospaises de emigration. La conveniencia economica de migracion puede serexaminada desde dos puntos de vista: individual y nacional. Parece queno hay regla universal que determine el impacto de la migracion y de lavida economica de un pais. Mas bien depende de un examen de la situa?tion economica de cada uno de los paises interesados en decidir si la mi?gracion entre ellos es deseable.

ZusammenfassungDas Ziel dieser Studie ist eine Untersuchung der wirtschaftlichen Inte-

ressen, die die Migration steuern. Die wirtschaftlichen Vor- und Nachteilevon Migrationsbewegungen im allgemeinen und in konkreten Situationensind abgeleitet von friiheren Studien, die in spezifischen Auswanderungslan-dern unternommen worden sind. Die wirschaftliche Erwunschtheit einerMigration kann von zwei Gesichtspunkten aus untersucht werden: einemindividuellen und einem nationalen. Es scheint keine allgemeine Regel zugeben, die den Anlass zur Migration und das wirtschaftliche Leben einesLandes bestimmt. Vielmehr hangt es von der Untersuchung der wirtschaft?lichen Lage beider in Frage kommender Lander ab, um zu entscheiden, obMigration zwischen ihnen erstrebenswert ist oder nicht.