The

determinants of
migration: Why
do people
move?
The determinants of migration

The relative importance of

these determinants depends
on the
• Region
• Period
• Individual characteristics

Migration motives often

• Complex
• Multiple
• Dynamic
I. A quick tour of migration theories
Early foundations:
Smith
Adam Smith (1776) was the
first economist to write on
migration. In his An Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes
of the Wealth of Nations,
Smith wrote:
experience that a man is of all sorts of luggage
“. . . the wages of labour vary more from place
to place than the price of provisions. The
prices of bread and butcher's meat are
generally the same or very nearly the same
through the greater part of the United
Kingdom. … But the wages of labour in a
great town and its neighbourhood are
frequently a fourth or a fifth part, twenty or
five-and-twenty per cent higher than at a few
miles distance.
After all… it appears evidently from
the most difficult to be transported.”
 In his groundbreaking work, Smith (1776) also condemned the
Early foundations: so-called “law of settlements” which imposed constraints on
Smith the free movement of labor, thereby reducing welfare
Early foundations: Ravenstein

In response to William Farr’s (1876) remark that migration seems to continue without any definite rule,
Ernst Ravenstein wrote his famous Laws of Migration (1885, 1889):

1. Most migration is over a short distance

2. Migration occurs in a series of steps
3. Long distance migrants usually move to centers of economic opportunity (urban areas)
4. Each migration produces a movement in the opposite direction (counter stream)
5. People in rural areas migrate more than people in cities
6. Men migrate over longer distances than women
7. Most migrants are young adult males
8. Cities grow more by migration than by natural increase
9. Migration increases with economic development
10. Migration is mostly due to economic causes
           
Early foundations: Lee

Lee (1966) reformulated Ravenstein’s laws in a more rigorous fashion and developed a general framework for
explaining various types of spatial movements

• More general definition of migration: “No matter how short or how long, how easy or how difficult, every act of
migration involves an origin, a destination, and an intervening set of obstacles.”
• Migration is driven by push factors (unfavorable conditions in the origin country), pull factors (attractive
features of the destination country), intervening obstacles
The core of migration theory:
Migration as human capital investment

These studies were collectively important in recognizing early that migration decisions are driven
by potential costs and benefits
Yet, it was not until the development of the human capital investment model in the 1960s, and
the pioneering work by Sjaastad (1962), that theoretical models of the determinants of migration
really became formalized
Sjaastad did not provide a formal mathematical model, but pioneered the application of HC
theory to understanding migration, arguing that migration is the act of locating one’s skills in that
market that offers the highest return
Nearly all modern neoclassical economic analyses of the migration decision proceed from this
basic framework!
Internal vs international migration theory

The notion of migration as HC investment is a unifying theme underlying most current

economic theories of migration

Yet, various oft-cited expository surveys (e.g., Massey et al., 1993; Greenwood, 1997;
Lucas, 1997) may have inadvertently created the misleading perception that internal and
international migration are theoretically distinct

Yet no different models needed to account for these phenomena. Rather, one needs a single
model that accounts for different costs
Neoclassical macro model of migration

Renewed attention for the migration theme in the academic world from neoclassical
macroeconomists (Lewis1954, Ranis1961, Harris1970, Todaro1976)
• Migration occurs because of geographical differences in labor demand and supply
• Countries where labor is abundant relative to capital will have a low equilibrium wage, while
countries where labor is relatively scarce will be characterized by a high market wage
• Consequently, rational workers have an incentive to migrate from low-wage to high-wage
countries

This simple macroeconomic explanation of international migration considerably influenced

public thinking and provided the intellectual basis for immigration policies
Neoclassical micro model of migration

Analogously, neoclassical theorists developed a microeconomic model of individual choice

(Sjaastad1962, Todaro1969, Greenwood1975, Todaro1976, Todaro1987, Todaro1989)
• Migration as investment in HC: the rational individual maximizes its utility subject to a budget
constraint
• People move to where they can be most productive, given their skills, and earn the highest wages
• The migration decision is based on the comparison of the (net present value of lifetime) earnings
across alternative locations
• A person is expected to migrate if the net (present value of the) expected gains from migration
are positive
II. The neoclassical model
Sjaastad, L. A. (1962).
The costs and returns of
human
migration. Journal of
Political Economy, 70
(5, Part 2), 80-93.
Motivation

The US 1950 Population Census poses 2 puzzles:

1. Why do large income differences across US states persist in the face of massive internal migration
movements?
2. Why is there so much migration in two directions?

The Census estimates e.g. that during that year, 62 500 persons emigrated from Mississippi (poorest
US state at the time); while also 51 900 immigrated towards it: rational behavior?

⇒ Maybe spatial income convergence is prevented not by a lack of mobility but bc of mobility in the
wrong direction
Motivation

How can we explain Mississippi’s migration pattern (which represents that of most
states)?
High return migration bc of recession (data-specific)
Heterogeneity in immigration and emigration flows (skills, occupations,
industries, age)

Conclusion: In order to determine the impact of migration on the income

distribution, consider migration flows broken down by at least age and occupation
What does the literature say?

Most previous studies investigating the impact of income differentials

on migration focussed on net migration
• Consensus: high earnings are associated with net immigration, low
earnings with net emigration
• Yet the effect is typically small and weak
• Reason: Ignores gross flows in 2 directions and heterogeneity in
earnings across industries & occupations
Sjaastad’s alternative

Treat migration as an investment decision (increasing the productivity of human

resources)
Requires to identify and measure both the private costs and returns to migration
• Money costs: transportation, lodging, food, ...
• Non-money costs: opportunity costs from foregone earnings and psychic costs
• Money returns: difference in earnings across rather than within occupations
• Non-money returns: preference for the destination location related to climate, smog,
congestion, ...
Private money returns to migration

Migration cannot be seen in isolation but is complementary to other human capital investments (training)
• Local income shock: earnings can be increased by migrating alone
• National income shock: investment in (internal) migration only beneficial if accompanied by
investment in training

Whether or not the additional investment is worthwhile depends crucially upon age: Young people have
a
• lower risk of becoming obsolete
• higher present value of the returns to additional investment
given their longer remaining lifespan
Age selectivity of net migration from agricultural
areas

Empirical test: Compare emigration rates from rural

areas in the upper Midwest with gross US rates for
identical age groups
Migration rate in the upper Midwest drops by 70% if
we go from age ranges 15-29 to 20-34, but remains
same for US
Cannot be explained by differences in money or non-
money costs or money returns of migration
Rural out-migrants are more likely to change
occupations, requiring substantial additional costs of
retraining (not justifiable for older people)
Conclusion Sjaastad (1962)

Migration is one of several complementary investments in the human

agent
These additional investments can help to understand persistent
immobility in the face of large income differentials
The returns to migration should be studied using gross migration
rates (rather than net)
The migration decision depends crucially on a person’s age
Borjas, G. J. (1989).
Economic theory and
international migration. 
International Migration
Review, 23(3), 457-485.
Introduction

Borjas (1989) introduces the concept of an “international immigration market”, sorting immigrants
across potential host countries
• The migration decision is based on the comparison of lifetime earnings across potential
destinations
• Neoclassical theory: individuals choose the location that maximizes their utility, given
constraints:
financial (individual resource constraints)
legal (national immigration and emigration policies)
• Aggregate migration flows between countries are then just the sums of individual moves
undertaken on the basis of individual cost-benefit estimations
Microeconomic decision of a utility
maximizing individual...

Migration decision
• Calculates expected costs and benefits of migration
from i to j
• Migrates when expected benefits > expected costs

Location choice
• Calculates expected costs and benefits of migration
to each potential destination
• Chooses the location that provides the highest
utility (largest difference between expected
benefits and costs)
Key assumptions I

• Two-country framework
• Residents of a source country (0) consider migrating to a host country (1)
• The migration decision is initially assumed irreversable (excludes return
migration)
• The average worker in the source country is equally skilled as the average
person in the host country (avoids selection in the migration decision for
now, which we’ll cover next lecture)
Key assumptions II

• Individual migration is guided solely by comparisons of wages across countries

In The Theory of Wages, Hicks (1932, p76) argued that “differences in net economic
advantages, chiefly differences in wages, are the main causes of migration.”
Strong assumption cause in reality people also consider other aspects of potential
destinations (eg weather, culture, crime rate, ...)
But income-maximization has been shown a necessary condition for utility maximization
Income-maximization hypothesis has proved successful in the human capital literature
Lifetime earnings

The (log) earnings for residents of the source (0) and host (1) country are characterized by the earnings functions:
Log w0 = X δ0 + ε0 (1)
Log w1 = X δ1 + ε1 (2)
with:
• w: individual lifetime earnings
• X: a vector of observable socioeconomic characteristics (such as education and age)
• δ: rate of return to socioeconomic characteristics X
• Xδ: mean earnings for person with characteristics X
• ε: random variable ∼ N(0, σ2)
• ρ = corr(ε0,ε1): if ρ > 0 and close to 1 the host and source country value unobserved ability in the same way
The migration decision

We can define the index function:

with:       
• C: mobility costs to migrate from country 0 to 1
• π = C/w0: “time-equivalent” measure of the costs of migration ,
assumed to be the same for all individuals in the source country
Should I stay or Should I go?

An individual will decide to migrate to the host country when I>0,

and to remain in the source country when I≤ 0

Probability that an individual with characteristics X born in country

0 migrates to country 1:
George Borjas: Captain Obvious?

The emigration
rate of a country • the higher the mean income in
populated by the host country
income- • the lower the mean income in the
maximizing source country
individuals is • the lower the migration costs
higher...
Extensions to
this basic
model
Extensions to this basic model

The utility- or income-maximization model can be made more realistic in

several ways. It can incorporate
• the fact that income depends on both the wage and the probability of being
employed
• differences in the costs of living in the origin and destination countries
• a time horizon to indicate that migration may occur only for a certain period,
such as while someone is of working age  discount future income to its
present value
Implications of these extensions

Like the simple model, this more complex model predicts that people are

more likely to migrate as less likely to migrate as

• the wage in the destination country increases
• the probability of finding a job in the
destination country increases
• the wage in the origin country increases
• the probability of finding a job in the origin
country increases
• their personal discount rate, r, increases (as
this means they are less motivated by future
income gains)
Other extensions:
uncertainty
Include other sources of uncertainty
• by using the expected values of income in the origin and destination
• by incorporating a measure of the variation in those expected values to
account for the disutility of uncertainty

Most people dislike not knowing what their income will be, and they
dislike fluctuations in their income
 More uncertainty abroad because of less knowledge
 More variable abroad since immigrants may have fewer family
and friends to rely on for help in bad times
 More generous social insurance and public assistance system
abroad, reducing uncertainty and fluctuations
Other extensions: risk aversion

Include a measure of potential immigrants’

tolerance for risk or their risk aversion

 If income is more uncertain in the

destination country than in the origin
country, people with less tolerance for risk
will be less likely to migrate for a given
difference in expected income

 Risk aversion may depend on factors like

• age
• gender
• network
 Return or onwards The utility- or income-maximization model can explain not
migration only why people move but also why some people move again

Return migrants Repeat migrants

Moving back to their home country Moving on to yet another destination

country
 E.g. because of changes in conditions in  Conditions in that new destination may
the origin relative to the destination, have changed, making it a more
such as a relative increase in wages or desirable place to be than the current
the probability of employment in the destination
origin
Internal migration

The model also can be applied to internal migration

Economics views internal migration, like international migration, as motivated by differences
in incomes and living standards

Migration costs typically lower for internal migration than for international migration:
• The direct costs are lower since the distance moved tends to be shorter
• The psychic costs tend to be lower because of greater cultural and linguistic similarity
• In addition, there are usually few policy barriers to internal migration

No surprise that internal migration is much more common than international migration
Including other factors

The utility- or income-maximization model of the migration decision can be adapted to

include other push and pull factors discussed above
• Country specific costs: migration hindered by restrictive/selective migration policies or
geographical obstacles (mountains, oceans, …)
• Bilateral relations: cultural similarities (=common language, colonial link, …) facilitate migration
• Migrant networks: Former migrants originating from the same country (region) of origin already
present in the destination improve job prospects and reduce psychological and monetary costs of
migration:
• Hard to observe (usually captured using migrant stocks)
• Important source of persistence in migration streams
Family decision-making

The migration decision may be made by an individual or by a family:

1. A family may want to remain together (everyone moves or stays)

Migration choice is based on what makes the family as a whole best off
But that decision may not make each individual within the family better off. For example, a wife may earn more if a family
moves, but her husband may earn less. The family moves if the wife’s gains are greater than the husband’s losses, net of
migration costs. In this case, the husband is a “tied mover,” or someone who moves because of his ties to another migrant. If the
family stays because the wife’s gains are smaller than the husband’s losses, the wife would be a “tied stayer.”

2. Alternatively, a family may decide that one or some members will migrate in order to boost total family income
or diversify risk
Those with the biggest gains from migration are the most likely to migrate
Immigration under joint
decisionmaking

The wife gains from moving in

regions C, D and E. The couple
jointly gains from moving in
regions B, C and D.

From: Bansak, C., Simpson, N., & Zavodny, M. (2020). The

economics of immigration. Routledge.
Family decision-making and remittances

Family members who migrate can send back remittances to those who stay behind
Remittances are money sent by immigrants to people back in the origin country
Remittances sent back by immigrants may fund migration by other family
members, and immigrants may be able to sponsor their relatives for visas

In many cases, families expect an immigrant to send remittances home to replace

the income that person contributed to the family when living and working in the
origin country
III. The gravity model of migration
A macroeconomic model of migration

Gravity model: Migration flows between two countries are determined by their masses and the distance between them
(idea first applied to migration in 1946 by George Zipf):

M01 = AP0 P1Y1/D01Y0

with
M01 the migration flow from country 0 to country 1
A a constant
P0 the population of country 0, P1 the population of country 1
Y0 the GDPpc of country 0, Y1 the GDPpc of country 1
D01 the distance between country 0 and country 1

42
Applications of the gravity model of migration

The model is implicitly rooted in utility or income maximization—it assumes that people base their decision to migrate
on whether migration makes them better off.

Applications of the gravity model also often include other variables that proxy for migration costs or the benefits of
migrating:
- Stock of previous migrants (network effects)
- Cost of living
- Historical ties
- Common language
- Common border
- Restrictiveness of migration policy
- ...
Gravity vs. utility-maximization model of migration

Economists use
• the utility- or income-maximization model to estimate the determinants of migration when using
individual-level data
• the gravity model when using aggregate data

More data on migration are available at the macro level than at the micro level
Traditionally, most studies used data on immigration to only one country, but large datasets on bilateral
migration flows have been created in recent years

Some of the results of studies using that data are consistent with theoretical predictions while others are not
IV. Empirical evidence
The role of economic
conditions at origin

From: Bansak, C., Simpson, N., &

Zavodny, M. (2020). The economics
of immigration. Routledge.
The role of other economic factors

Immigration tends to be negatively related to a destination country’s

unemployment rate and its tax burden (e.g., Geis, Uebelmesser and
Werding, 2013; Czaika and Parsons, 2017)

Research usually finds that economic conditions in receiving countries

matter more than economic conditions in sending countries (e.g.,
Mayda, 2010; Grogger and Hanson, 2011; Ortega and Peri, 2013)
 Studies typically find
• the geographical distance between two countries is
negatively related to the scale of migration between them
• also the cultural and linguistic distance to matter:
migration flows bigger btw countries
The role of • that share a language (Artuc et al., 2015)

migration costs • with more similar languages (Adserà and Pytliková, 2015)
• that had a colonial relationship (Artuc et al., 2015)
because of
• shared history and cultural ties
• more favourable immigration policies for residents of former
colonies

.
The role of migrant
networks

Networks typically lower the costs of migrating while raising

the benefits:
• provide information about potential destinations
• send funds that cover migration costs
• help migrants find jobs and housing

Empirical studies typically find that the number of people

moving from an origin to a destination is strongly related to the
number of previous immigrants from that origin living in that
destination

 Networks are a major predictor of migration

“Birds of feather flock together”

Migrant networks and migration intentions

Bertoli and Ruyssen (2016) analyse the impact of social networks on the location choice of future
migrants using data from 419 surveys taken in 147 countries between 2007-2011 (the Gallup
World Polls) and find that:
• The estimated parameter of having family or friends in the country of destination is
significantly positive for 130 out of 147 countries and varies between 0.28 and 4.49
• The chance that someone who has indicated that (s)he is willing to migrate abroad chooses a
particular destination is 8 to 10 times higher when (s)he has friends or family there
• The presence of a social network can be decisive for the choice between two potential
destinations with otherwise similar characteristics
Estimated impact of
”having friends or family
abroad whom one can
count on when needed”
by country of origin
(Bertoli & Ruyssen, 2016)

Note: the size of the circles indicate sample size

Cumulative causation of migration

The importance of networks can make immigration a self-perpetuating process once the number of
immigrants reaches a critical threshold:
Bad economic, political or social conditions in an origin country—or good conditions in a destination
country—may cause some people to move. Once those migrants are settled, their friends and families may
join them even if the relative conditions that stimulated the initial migration have disappeared. The Nobel
prize-winning economist Gunnar Myrdal (1957) referred to this as the “cumulative causation of migration”

Family members often sponsor their relatives to migrate legally, so-called “chain migration”
major source of migration for countries that grant legal permanent residence based partly on family ties to
citizens or permanent residents
Evidence for specific groups of migrants

Humanitarian immigrants—refugees and legitimate asylum seekers—should be affected mainly by political and social
conditions in the origin. Economic conditions in either the origin or the destination should, in theory, play little role in
their migration decision since they are moving to escape persecution or violence
• The evidence on refugee flows supports this theory. Schmeidl (1997) of refugees between 1971 and 1990 shows that
the number of refugees depends primarily on political, not economic, conditions
• Research indicates that the number of asylum seekers likewise depends on political and social conditions but also
economic conditions in the origin country matter (Neumayer, 2005; Hatton, 2009)
• Also the destination choice of asylum seekers does not fully confirm the theory. Hatton (2016) shows that asylum
applications are higher in countries with lower unemployment rates and more flexible asylum policies, while they are
unrelated to a destination country’s GDP
Return migration

Many migrants do not remain in the destination: some return to their origin, while others move on to a third
country.

Reasons:
• a desire to live elsewhere: lower cost of living and a desire to live in the origin provide powerful reasons for
many immigrants to return migrate (Dustmann and Weiss, 2007)
• having earned a targeted amount
• changes in economic conditions in the origin or the destination (though mixed)
• having acquired skills that are valuable in the origin (increases probability of a higher income, see e.g. Barrett
and Goggin, 2010; Reinhold and Thom, 2013; though this is contradicted by other studies like Sun, 2013)
• failed in the destination (though this may also delay return)
V. Other migration paradigms
Other migration paradigms

This course focuses on the neoclassical economic model of immigration  based on individual utility
maximization, though easily extended to include the family, the household and the community

There are at least three other paradigms that people who study the economics of migration should be
familiar with:
• new economics of migration
• dual labor market theory
• world-systems theory

More prevalent in other disciplines, particularly sociology

The new economics of migration paradigm I

Immigration is seen as a collective decision made not only to maximize income but also to
minimize risks and loosen constraints that result from incomplete markets

Markets are incomplete when supply is not sufficient to meet demand in an economy (or
vice versa):
Incomplete insurance markets may drive families to send a member to work elsewhere so
as to diversify income and reduce risk
Incomplete financial markets prohibiting people to borrow enough money to buy land or
start a business may motivate people to migrate so as to fund future activities
The new economics of migration paradigm II

This paradigm also focuses on inequality as a motive for becoming an immigrant:

Families may send a worker abroad not just to boost family income in absolute
terms but also in relative terms

This theory predicts that economic development that increases inequality within a
community spurs out-migration within families that become relatively poorer, even
if their actual incomes have not changed
 Relative deprivation can be a motivation for migration (Stark, 1991)
Dual labor market theory

Immigration is seen as the result of industrial countries’ need for a continual stream of low-skilled,
low-wage labor (Piore, 1979)

Labor markets in industrialized countries are divided, or segmented, into

• a primary sector of high-skilled, high-wage jobs
• a secondary sector of low-skilled, low-wage jobs, which natives are reluctant to take but
immigrants will, at least initially, because they have a different frame of reference than natives

In this theory, immigration is largely a response to firms’ demand for workers, and firms may
actively recruit workers abroad
World-systems theory

World-systems theory argues that, as capitalism spreads globally, it creates dislocations that lead
to migration
 Think for instance of a country that has been producing a good that it doesn’t have a
comparative advantage in (e.g. textile in Europe). When this country opens up to international
trade (i.e. protectionist measures are lifted), it will no longer produce that good so that people
who used to produce it lose their jobs and may become international or internal migrants
Connection with neoclassical model

This course focuses on the neoclassical model because it is the main paradigm in
economics. However, money is not the only thing that matters when it comes to
deciding whether to become an immigrant:
Research suggests that lifestyle preferences may ultimately play a more important role
than relative earnings in determining both emigration and return migration
For many people, desire to live near family and in a familiar culture overrides purely
economic motives

The neoclassical model has been modified to include some facets of these paradigms
Taking a step back:
How do migration aspirations arise?

New approaches to migration theory see migration as the outcome of

1. the formation of migration aspirations
2. the ability to realize those aspirations

The model is a general framework for all types of migration, including refugee flows
• While refugees are a distinct category in legal terms, the difference with other migrants is not
an analytically clear-cut one
• There is enormous variation in the balance of choice and constraint among migrants, and this
variation does not map neatly onto legal classifications
The mechanisms of migration

Source: Carling, J. (2017) ‘How Does Migration Arise?’

A desire for change

The origins of migration lie in the conditions of states, communities, and individuals that underlie a
desire for change, which, in turn, produces migration aspirations
Requires a recognition that action is needed to alter the course of one’s life—be it to ensure survival,
escape repression, finance children’s education, fulfil professional ambitions, or other reasons

Across these diverse circumstances, what is crucial is a discrepancy between the present conditions and
the desired state of affairs
• It is often not destitution that makes people turn to migration, but rather a feeling of inescapable
stagnation
• Also, it depends on the extent to which poor people can imagine, and actively seek, a better life
Migration aspirations

Source: Carling, J. (2017) ‘How Does Migration Arise?’

Migration aspirations

This desire for change may translate into an aspiration to migrate

preferences or desires for migration, regardless of the context and the urgency of the desire

• Civilians threatened by conflict

• university graduates faced with unemployment
• farmers hurt by environmental degradation
might all reach the conclusion that their best option is to leave (migration aspiration)

This is the first step towards actually migrating…

Alternative options

Migration is only one possible answer to a desire for change

The range of possible responses depends on the context. For instance, inhabitants of a country with
a dictatorial regime could
• seek to escape (exit)
• fight for change (voice)
• or protect themselves through allegiance to the regime in power (loyalty)

 In other words, the ‘root causes’ of migration are also root causes of other, no less important
phenomena
The role of the migration infrastructure

Migration infrastructure = the diverse human and non-human elements that enable and shape migration, 5
dimensions:
1. commercial (brokers, smugglers)
2. regulatory (state apparatus and procedures)
3. technological (communication, transport)
4. humanitarian (NGOs and international organizations)
5. social (migrant networks)

Two distinct roles:

• affects how people perceive the possibility of migration and whether or not they develop migration aspirations
• affects whether or not such aspirations are realized
Migration aspirations

Share of people desiring to migrate by region

Source: Gallup World Polls

Migration aspirations

Survey data from the Gallup World Poll suggest that about 14 per cent of
the world population would like to migrate permanently to another country.
• >>> 3.6% who have actually migrated
• Great variation by region and country:
• Nowhere is it greater than in West Africa (39%)
• Other regions with a high proportion of potential migrants are the rest of Sub-
Saharan Africa (29%), Non-OECD European countries (27%), South and Central
America (24%) and North Africa and Middle East (22)
Migration outcomes

Source: Carling, J. (2017) ‘How Does Migration Arise?’

Effective migration

Migration aspirations are one step removed from actual migration but having a
wish to migrate is not the same as acting upon it!!

Additional questions about plans and preparations in the GWP

• In the case of West Africa, 5% plan to move within the next 12 months, and 2%
have started making preparations
• <<< 39% who express migration aspirations, but still represent substantial
numbers of people (20 million and 6 million, respectively)
Migration outcomes

For people who have developed migration aspirations, there are 3 possible outcomes
• Succesful migration: destination reached (regardless of whether migration is a ‘success’ for the
individual), depending on migration regulations, access to information, social networks, and
other dimensions of migration infrastructure
• Failed migration attempt: death in extremis, apprehended and returned soon after arriving, or
left home but got stuck on the way
• a serious burden also for migrants’ families and communities of origin
• Involuntary immobility: largely invisible outcome, but nevertheless a consequential one
• When people have their hopes pinned on leaving, they are less likely to invest resources in local livelihoods
and locally relevant skills
Policy interventions

Hence, there are many possible strategies for restricting migration, but the different strategies have
different implications for the lives of individuals and the development of communities of origin
• When migration is prevented in conventional ways, through restrictive immigration policies, it
can result in involuntary immobility or make people direct their desires for change towards other
responses, which may be disruptive or detrimental to development processes
• If policy interventions are successfully directed at earlier stages in the chain—towards the left-
hand side of the figure —people would stay because they want to (bc of more jobs, higher
standard ofliving, elimination of repression and violent conflict), and not because they are blocked
from leaving