International Migration and Globalization

In previous eras, population movements have taken place side by side

with the development of contacts and flows between different societies and
cultures. In particular, large human migrations played a fundamental role
during the first phase of globalization, which took place between the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this respect, the present situation
is paradoxical, because in a world which is more interconnected than ever, in
which financial and trade flows have been liberalized, the mobility of persons
runs up against severe barriers which restrict it.

As Tapinos and Delaunay (2000) point out, international migration

currently seems to be excluded from the new globalization process. This
exclusion is the biggest difference between the new trends in the world
economy and the two great previous periods of globalization. This narrow
view of “globalization”, leaving out the human mobility factor, raises a
threefold question of ethics, political realism and economic efficacy, as well as
the question of the long-term sustainability of this type of world development
strategy.

The difficulties placed in the way of migration just at a time when real-
time exchanges are being promoted —to which end barriers impeding the
free circulation of goods and ideas are being demolished— reveal the
asymmetrical aspects of a form of globalization which includes some
individuals, population groups, countries and regions but at the same time
excludes others (Castells, 1999). Although the number of migrants has always
been small compared with the world population, at other times in the past —
such as that of the boom in trade which accompanied the first phase of
globalization— it nevertheless represented a much larger proportion than the
present level of 3%. Clear signs of the limited nature of the present degree of
globalization of migration —compared with financial globalization— are that
free movement of persons between countries is limited almost exclusively to
one region of the world (the European Union) and is the subject of debates
and case-by-case negotiations on international agreements aimed at
permitting only temporary movements of persons with qualifications directly
connected with business or the provision of services.

The fact that most migrants move in spite of the persistent barriers to
their entry shows up the incompatibility between the restrictive approaches
adopted and a world which is advancing towards growing liberalization of
other flows. It is this inconsistency which is largely responsible for the big
increase in the number of migrants without official papers and the emergence
of migrant transit areas, as well as providing fertile ground for one of the
most serious crimes against human rights: the trafficking of persons across
frontiers. The increase in such situations highlights the need to promote
broader agreements among countries to secure better governance of
international migration, to recognize the fundamental role of civil society in
formulating measures regarding human migrations, and to foster full respect
for the rights of migrants.

In recent decades Latin America and the Caribbean has become a

source of outward migration to the most varied destinations. At the present
moment, one out of every ten of the 150 million international migrants
(IOM/United Nations, 2000) was born in a Latin American or Caribbean
country, and this is a minimum figure, for it takes no account of the number
of persons who migrate (and work) in an irregular capacity, without official
papers, and nor does it include temporary, circular or return migrations. The
available information indicates that nearly 20 million Latin Americans and
Caribbean are living outside their country of birth, and half of them emigrated
during the 1990s, especially to the United States, though during the same
decade new migration flows to Europe emerged which are on a smaller scale
but are registering unprecedented growth rates. The intraregional migration
which accompanied the different stages in the development of the Latin
American and Caribbean countries in the past still retains some of its
traditional features, but it is now on a smaller scale, due partly to the decline
in the attractiveness of the main countries of destination (Argentina and
Venezuela).

Analyses show that there is an enormous gap between what is

generally imagined and what is really the case as regards the magnitude and
consequences of immigration. Although sounder and more general evidence is
still needed, that which exists is very different from the simple opinions which
emphasize the negative repercussions of migration and only serve to heighten
prejudices and increase the feeling of rejection against some immigrants. One
example of how great this gap is may be found in a study commissioned by
the United States Congress from a broad group of specialists (Smith and
Edmonston, 1997). Leaving aside the inherent complexity of the wide range
of factors involved, this study concludes that the existing evidence shows that
immigration has had a relatively minor impact on the wage and job
opportunities of the competing local groups ….. Immigration affects above all
the wellbeing of the immigrants themselves. In reality, the “condemnation”
that popular opinion applies to immigrants has no backing in scientific
knowledge (Mármora, 2001). Only very rarely has it been shown that
immigrants adversely affect working conditions —this would only appear to be
the case in a context favouring illegality— and social services. Why, then, are
prejudices persisting and even sometimes getting worse? The answer to this
question calls for profound reflection on aspects going beyond the ambit of
migrtion itself.

I. The interactive nature of migration and globalization

1. Factors which promote mobility and heterogeneity

The complexity of the present international migration of persons from Latin

America and the Caribbean is due to the great diversity of factors which
stimulate and characterize it. It is no longer sufficient merely to identify
countries as sources or recipients, since it is also necessary to consider those
which, because of their geographical position, have become areas of transit
towards a final destination, and there has also been a big increase in the
number of such destinations. Furthermore, migration is no longer limited to
such a clearly identifiable human group as in the past: the range of the types
of persons involved —whose migration affects the social reproduction of their
families and the development of their communities of origin— is increasingly
broad, and in their places of final destination they establish links with diverse
social groups, build up networks of contacts which stretch across national
borders, and use different strategies and means for their movements.

The basic determinants of international migration lie in the inequalities

which exist in levels of development, and the enormous magnitude,
persistence and flagrancy of those inequalities in the globalized world of today
heighten the so-called pressures for migration (UNFPA, 1998). Thus, in recent
decades the Latin American and Caribbean countries have registered an
unstable economic performance, and the modest recovery glimpsed in some
of them during the 1990s has barely been sufficient to reverse the serious
consequences of the “lost decade” of the 1980s (ECLAC, 2001a). The very
uneven distribution of the benefits offered by the international economy is
very evident in the region, whether in terms of the shortcomings in human
capital and knowledge, the changes in the role of the State in the social field
or, more generally, the structural insufficiencies of development. At the same
time, the precarious nature of employment and the heightening of social
tensions have given rise to a generalized feeling of social vulnerability in the
region; in view of the widespread perception of insecurity, risks and
defenselessness —reflected in public opinion surveys widely disseminated by
the mass media—, emigration is being increasingly seen as an option for
coping with difficult living conditions, an uncertain employment outlook, and
dissatisfaction with the results of the prevailing development pattern. In the
final analysis, the reduction of social disparities and convergence of economic
conditions are fundamental for reducing the incentives for migration in the
long term; meanwhile, the countries of the region will have to live with
international migration, facing up to its many consequences, but also taking
advantage of the opportunities it offers.

The developed economies have always needed workers from less

developed countries. This demand, which is sometimes beyond the immediate
influence of business cycles, operates through the establishment of dual labor
markets which offer opportunities for the employment of foreign workers at
both extremes of the range of skills. In theory, to the extent that the inflow of
foreign workers helps to fill the gaps in the domestic supply of labor,
migration can be a means of adjustment in the recipient countries, but it can
also operate as a factor to keep down wage increases and drive up capital
surpluses, and this is basically why local workers are against large scale
immigration.
 It is well known that the immigrants with the lowest levels of skills
enter the labor markets to occupy jobs that are usually scorned by the local
population (in sectors such as primary industries, agriculture or personal
services, for example). Through the possibility of reducing labor costs, some
employers obtain benefits from such migrant flows. At the same time, the
foreign workers may build up social capital and attain upward occupational
mobility.

Although there is a demand for these workers and many of them carry
out activities which are vital for the expansion of the economy, they are
generally subject to strict regulations on migration —for example, through
annual quotas or temporary hiring programmes— and in a number of cases
these represent barriers to their entry and permanent residence; this causes
some migrants to work without the necessary official papers, thus heightening
the negative perception of immigration which often exists in the recipient
countries. The migration of skilled workers has other features. Although it is
not a new phenomenon, the growing demand in the developed countries for
foreign workers with specific skills means that the barriers impeding their
mobility need to be reviewed. Those with high qualifications are in a better
position to take an active part in such mobility, as reflected in the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which, among the ways of providing
services, includes their provision by natural persons, with emphasis on the
temporary movement of skilled personnel.

Although this Agreement provides for quantitative restrictions and

additional requirements (such as a work permit), which are a source of
controversy in its application —since they involve the consideration of each
case separately— the basic idea is that such movements are complementary
to trade and allow the developing countries to increase their participation in
world trade, which could help in the long run to reduce the incentives for
migration (Iredale, 2001; UNFPA, 1998). The developed countries naturally
make deliberate efforts to attract scarce specialists —in some cases this forms
part of their human resources policies— and these efforts are welcomed in
many segments of the societies of origin of the migrants.

Particularly striking is the increase in the demand by those countries for

immigrants with increasingly specialized skills —such as those connected with
engineering and technology in the general field of information processing—
which causes them to offer conditions that cannot be matched by the nations
of our region. At the beginning of the 1990s, some 300,000 Latin American
and Caribbean professionals and technicians —some 3% of the total number
existing in the region— were living in countries other than those of their birth;
over two-thirds of that total were concentrated in the United States (Villa and
Martínez, 2000), where it is estimated that 12% of all persons with a degree
in science or engineering are foreigners, mostly from developing countries
(Pellegrino, 2000).
 The outflow of such human resources has given rise to very serious
discussions in the region, because their importance cannot be measured only
in quantitative terms. The traditional debate on the brain drain, which
stresses its negative repercussions —since it is a factor which helps to widen
gaps, undermines the formation of critical masses, and affects income
distribution—, is now combined with proposals designed to stimulate the
circulation and exchange of highly skilled human resources (“brain circulation”
and “brain exchange”), with the aim of making migrants into links between
the local and global scientific and technological development networks and
agents for the transfer of knowledge and technology (Pellegrino, 2000). From
the point of view of the countries of origin, these proposals seek to take
advantage of the opportunities opened up by globalization, but their practical
application is hindered by the labor flexibilization practices of the big
corporations, the retention of the most outstanding students in the
universities of the developed world, the enormous disparity between the
working conditions and salaries offered by the two types of countries, and the
absence of suitable environments for the reinsertion of former migrants.

The growing opportunities for individuals abroad are all too obvious
compared with the very limited capacity of the developing countries to retain
their most highly qualified personnel. However, these opportunities do not
always become a reality: many skilled migrants do not succeed in maximizing
their benefits because of difficulties in securing official recognition of their
qualifications, and in addition to the requirements and limitations on free
mobility they face obstacles in finding a suitable place in their countries of
destination (such as rules giving priority to local personnel), so that their
potential contributions are reduced (ECLAC, 2000g; Iredale, 1998; UNFPA,
1998). In some recipient countries, there is a debate on whether the increase
in the immigration of professionals and technicians is a factor tending to
depress wages among the most highly qualified groups in the labor force: an
association of events which was observed in the 1990s among scientists and
engineers in the United States (Espenshade and others, 2001).

Although these circumstances bring in a note of caution with regard to

the prospects of forming a global market of skilled human resources, they do
not detract from the role that these migrants can play in the transfer of
technology, and their importance should serve as an incentive to seek best
practices —active policies— through which the source countries to make
better use of their potential. Some of the integration processes in the region
are instructive in this respect, since they envisage measures to facilitate the
mobility of professionals and the joint formulation of postgraduate
programmes. Thus, the creation of employment opportunities —together with
permanent training— for highly skilled workers is a priority task on the
regional agenda.

2. Migrant culture and the formation of transnational communities

International migration has always aided in cultural exchanges and —
notwithstanding the challenges raised when individuals, groups and
communities of different cultures, ethnic groups and religions live together—
it is reasonable to expect that it will continue to forge multicultural spaces and
spread ideas and values. Globalization involves opposing movements,
however: expectations of mobility become widespread, but the restrictions on
movement become tighter all the time. The new technologies in the fields of
communications and transport facilitate international mobility, and moreover,
thanks to better schooling, together with more information on the situation in
other countries —with messages on standards of living and codes of values
which heighten the perception of the supposed advantages of migration—
there are now many more persons interested in migrating. In the final
analysis, the right to migrate is an option for all those with a minimum of
human capital who are not able to materialize their aspirations to social
mobility in their countries of origin, whose restrictions on the exercise of
economic and social rights end up by undermining the right to stay. Thus,
international movements of persons and families —in search of something
that their own countries only offer them symbolically— are based on
increasingly informed decisions, accompanied by the perception that such
moves involve decreasing risks and costs. This is the current attitude to
migration, the motives for which are now relatively independent of purely
economic considerations.

One of the cultural manifestations of globalization is the transition from

territorially-based national identities to others which are perhaps less
comprehensive but are of a trans-territorial nature. Migration has led to the
emergence of new actors who, organized in communities and linked together
through networks, maintain close links with their areas of origin (to which
they send remittances and information) and represent collective referents of
identity in the areas of destination (Portes, 1997a). These transnational
communities are a clear example of the interactive role of international
migration and globalization within the context of the explosion of identity
marking the fragmentation of societies today (Castells, 1999, vol. II). Social
networks and communities form part of an affirmative strategy of migrants in
defense of their cultural features, the expression of their demands for
citizenship, and protection both from restrictive attitudes to immigration and
practices of social rejection (as exemplified in the working conditions of many
migrants and anti-immigration feelings). To a large extent, they act as
feedback factors promoting migration flows and further the diversification of
human mobility.
The transnational communities benefit from the traditional associations of
migrants, but they are more complex than these: they promote cultural
events —dances, dinners, festivities and typical products— and they legitimize
the diversity of the recipient societies. They are geographically extended
social units, with close relations and supportive links, and even sponsor
transnational micro-entrepreneurial initiatives (Portes, 1997a and 1997b).
They often function with tensions, conflicts and contradictions that recreate
the context of structural inequality of their communities of origin, and thereby
serve as a matrix for the social reproduction of their members in their
destination countries (Canales and Zlolniski, 2000).

The heterogeneity of their members, the potential of some of them for

resistance and opposition, their different forms of organization, their
international links and their complex relations with the market and the State
make these transnational communities a mandatory element of reference of
indisputable importance for the design of measures to deal with the question
of migration. Their interactive relation with globalization is particularly evident
in the case of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants in the United States.

3. Persistence of barriers and institutional difficulties which restrict mobility

The restrictive logic underlying the measures applied by many
governments with regard to international migration is based on their
responsibility for safeguarding national sovereignty, which justifies
institutional controls over the entry and continuing presence of foreigners.
The extension of this logic to the rules on migration is not in keeping,
however, with the international nature of this phenomenon or the factors
which stimulate it, both in the countries of origin and those of destination.
Entrusting migration policy to the police agencies responsible for guarding the
frontiers is undoubtedly an unsuitable option for dealing with a phenomenon
of such economic, social and cultural complexity. The result is the aggravation
of restrictive practices which are not in line with most governments’
declarations on migration and are in contradiction with what is happening
with international trade. Thus, States have agreed to eliminate many barriers
to the movement of capital and goods and services, without prejudice to
negotiations on specific matters, provided that the procedures followed do not
run counter to the rules laid down in the global agreements.

In the case of international migration, however, such general

frameworks do not exist, although the challenges raised by this phenomenon
have led States to acknowledge that unilateral action is not enough. How,
then, can general agreements be reached on migration, over and above the
provisions governing mobility in the field of business and the supply of
services which are included in some international instruments? In principle —
leaving aside other polemical objectives— strict regulation of migration is
usually seen as a means of protecting national labour markets. Only
exceptionally, however, do foreigners come to account for a major fraction of
the labour force of a country; they are usually only a modest proportion of
the total and occupy positions left unoccupied by local workers, so that they
rarely displace the latter. It is possible, however, that their participation in the
labour market may help to depress wages in their destination country. The
probability that this will occur is greater when there is a substantial presence
of migrant workers without official papers, who, since they are outside the
trade unions and collective bargaining mechanisms, may help to produce a
decline in real wages. This has led to allegations that the employment of
foreigners without official papers at lower wages than those of local workers
will undermine the existing collective agreements, foster the replacement of
local workers with foreigners in some sectors, and weaken their contribution
to national income (Abella, 2000).

Although the migration policies of most countries continue to be

adopted on the basis of their own unilateral criteria, there were some signs in
the 1990s of support for regional-level initiatives in this field. In line with this
new spirit, it was explicitly recognized at the Symposium on International
Migration in the Americas that “international migration is a multi-faceted
phenomenon which involves all countries and which calls for international
dialogue and cooperation, but that this should in no way impinge upon
national sovereignty in establishing the necessary legal and political
instruments to deal with international migration” (ECLAC, 2000g, p. 7). This
recognition, which does not deny each country’s right to regulate
immigration, is a promising sign of the gradual adoption of more flexible
common principles in the Americas. In order to deal with the many issues
involved in international migration it is necessary to move beyond official
normative approaches of an essentially restrictive nature, which extend to
much of public opinion and feed prejudices on this phenomenon; this means
promoting a progressively more flexible approach which facilitates migratory
movements and protects the population groups involved.

The task of making the rules on migration more flexible is particularly

feasible at the intraregional level (especially in border areas), since
restrictions on the flow of foreign workers should begin to slacken as
integration processes gain greater depth and it is recognized that migratory
exchanges provide a complementary labour component in strategic sectors. It
is precisely within the traditional restrictive context that the questions of
undocumented migration, “illegal” workers and unfair competition in the labor
market become manifest (Mármora, 1997). The opportunity provided by the
subregional integration agreements for advancing in these areas must be
seized in a decided and systematic manner, recognizing the multisectoral
nature of the issues involved in international migration and adopting policies
guided by the pursuit of convergence. The restrictive logic, which means
closing the door to the possibility of settling in a country other than one’s
country of origin, leads to serious tensions: many migrants not only find it
difficult to exercise their right to live in their country of birth but also to settle
in another country or return to their country of origin.

4. Global forces and the future of migration

International migration is a historically important process which forms

an indissoluble part of human evolution. In the past, in response to changes
in economic, social and political circumstances, it has aided in the expansion
of trade and the economy, helped to create new nations and territories,
fostered urbanization, opened up new spaces for production, and made
decisive contributions to social and cultural change. In the second half of the
nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth, the world
witnessed a type of migration fundamentally consisting of two opposite flows:
the voluntary migration of Europeans, which played a key role in the
economic convergence of some regions of the Old and New World, and
another flow involving the (often forced) migration of workers of varying
origins, but mostly Asians (coolies), to tropical regions, which resulted in the
further expansion of the inequality of the international order. These flows,
which were promoted by different forces, were readily accepted by the
destination countries.

Nowadays, however, there is concern over some conflictive aspects of

migration affecting not only the countries of origin and destination but also
the migrants themselves (such as the risk of heightening inequalities and the
risks associated with undocumented status). Everything seems to indicate
that, at least in the short and medium term, migration will continue to be
stimulated, in a highly interconnected world in which the profound
international economic disparities and the acute structural shortcomings of
the developing countries will become increasingly visible. In addition, the
developed countries, with their ageing populations, will strengthen their
strategies designed to attract skilled human resources and will keep up their
demand for less-skilled workers, the new contingents of which cannot easily
be absorbed by the labour markets of the developing countries, although in
some of the latter the labour supply will gradually diminish as a result of
demographic transition processes. In this context, the further spread of
values and information, typical of a migrant culture which reasserts the
legitimacy of the right to emigrate, together with the consolidation of
organized actors in this field, will make it easier to take the decision to
migrate.

From a strictly economic standpoint, experience shows that the change

of countries from being sources of migrants to recipients of them will only
take place in a small number of cases; the developing countries which have
made this transition have done so by taking advantage of their low labour and
manufacturing costs and exporting labour-intensive products (Richelle, 1998).
Most of the developing countries, however, will suffer the disruptive effects
associated with development processes and will increase their outward flows
of migrants in the short term, especially when better wage levels continue to
be the exception rather than the rule in those countries. The strategies of the
developed nations and the big corporations aimed at increasing their
competitiveness may erode the stock of skilled human resources in the
developing countries, thus further widening the economic gaps. In view of
this prospect, it would be worth investigating the repercussions that the
relocation of production activities could have on employment in the
developing countries; transfers of services would appear to be the most
promising developments in this respect, and this option could be
strengthened in the subregional integration processes, provided that wage
differences do not increase still further and the member countries of the
agreements make effective progress in assuming the commitments required
for deeper integration.
II. Potential and problems of migration
1. Remittances
Monetary transfers by emigrants to their countries of origin form a
close link between migration and development. Although there is no doubt
that these remittances are an important source of foreign exchange, factors
such as the varying forms of the transfers (family or collective), the channels
of transmission (formal or informal), the costs of transmission and the ways
the money is used (consumption, saving or investment) make it difficult to
evaluate their actual and potential impact on the development of the recipient
communities. Because of the informal nature of many transfers —an unknown
proportion travel in the pockets of emigrants, relatives or friends— the central
banks are unable to estimate their amount accurately. Even so, it is calculated
that in the region they totalled over US$ 17 billion in the year 2000 (see table
8.8). Mexico, with almost US$ 7 billion, is the main recipient in the region and
the second largest recipient in the world, after India; although their incidence
in the national economy is relatively low (1.1% of GDP), remittances
nevertheless bring in more money than that generated by most export
branches.

Their impact is much greater on the economies of El Salvador,

Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Jamaica (where they
represent between 8% and 14% of the GDP of those countries and, in the
case of El Salvador, are equivalent to 48% of the value of total exports). The
amounts remitted to Brazil, Colombia and Peru are also considerable,
although their impact on GDP is small (0.2%, 1.3% and 1.3% respectively).
In the 1990s there was rapid growth in the amount of remittances, especially
in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Peru and Honduras.

2. Lack of protection and vulnerability of migrants

Apart from the gravity of the trafficking of persons —a crime that

countries and the international community should punish most severely—
migration also involves other forms of lack of protection and vulnerability.
These occur when migration is not a voluntary action but is due to compelling
political or environmental reasons and exposes the migrants to the precarious
status of being refugees and the complex problems of resettlement and
reinsertion. As these movements are due to sudden unforeseen
circumstances, it is hard to make conjectures about their future evolution, but
their incidence will probably go down insofar as countries advance in their
democratization processes and become better prepared to cope with natural
disasters. Undocumented status, due to overstaying the authorized period of
presence in a country, and consequent deportation, are two common features
of present-day migration. Both of them may involve the violation of human
rights —as for example through arbitrary arrest, extortion and abuse of
authority— which is usually accompanied by discriminatory treatment of
migrants on account of their origin, qualifications or ethnic background.
Although irregular forms of hiring workers are very widespread because of the
more flexible labour rules now current, foreigners are particularly exposed to
abuses because they lack legal protection, especially in the case of
undocumented migrants.

3. Citizenship and human rights

Protection of the fundamental human rights of migrants in the
countries of destination is a matter of great concern at present. Awareness of
the abuses and hostile and discriminatory treatment suffered by many
persons because they are foreigners (non-citizens) has given rise to intensive
discussions in civil society whose content gradually seeps up to government
circles. Effective recognition of the instruments on migration which form part
of international law is essential in order to guide this discussion, but the
reluctance of many governments to ratify those instruments prevents their
principles from being incorporated into national legislation and policies. There
is an extensive range of international instruments on migrants. Under the
leadership of the International Labour Organization (ILO), numerous
international labour standards have been formulated, a number of which have
received the approval of the international community and been incorporated
in conventions and agreements on the rights of migrant workers, but in view
of the marked disparity observed between the letter of the treaties and their
actual application, the great challenge at present is to ensure that States obey
the agreements they have signed (Perruchoud, 2000).

Although some instruments probably need to be redesigned in order to

adapt them to the prevailing situations, there are others whose validity is
beyond doubt. Among these are the International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families, which recognizes that many migrant workers and their families are
not protected by national legislation, establishes international definitions of
migrant workers, and lays down rules for respecting the specific human rights
of all migrants, whatever their origin or status. Since it is aimed at putting an
end to exploitation and to all irregular situations in migration, its application
would represent a decisive step forward towards incorporating the question of
the human rights of migrants in all initiatives dealing with current
international migration. The Convention was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on 18 December 1990, and in order for it to come into
force it needs to be ratified by at least 20 States. Up to the beginning of
2002, this Convention had been ratified by 19 States, including six from the
region (Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Uruguay), while
another three countries (Chile, Guatemala and Paraguay) have signed it
(www.december18.net). The large number of provisions of the Convention,
which mean that it must be analysed very carefully before its ratification, and
the concern of some States that its application might encourage the arrival of
still more persons in irregular situations, have militated against its entry into
force.

Strict adherence to the rules —and determination to follow the

arduous road to ensuring their strict application— is a necessary but not of
itself sufficient condition for advancing in the fulfilment of the agenda on
migrants' rights. Transnationalization and the new forms of citizenship made
necessary by international migration raise unprecedented challenges for the
present globalization process: among other aspects, they call for recognition
of the role of transnational migrant communities and promotion of the
conscious intervention of civil society. In the case of the communities, their
action should not be allowed to become a de facto policy for the defence of
fundamental rights, since this could eliminate the incentive of the fulfilment of
obligations which are the responsibility of governments, while with regard to
civil society in the countries of destination, redoubled efforts should be made
to educate society in the field of non-discrimination, which is a long-term
task.

Global Demography
The increase in the number of population worldwide caused varying
concerns from different group of people and organization. There is a
disagreement among population experts and development planners on the
effect and impact of population in the welfare of the nation.

The Malthusian model is a classic explanation on population and

welfare where Thomas Malthus give details the effect in the increases in the
population. He explains that increases in the population are in geometric
sequence while the resources are in arithmetic progression which mean the
population increases exponentially while the resources progresses one at a
time in its production. In this, he warned that increases in the population will
result to the depletion of earth’s resources.

In the 1960’s, the Erlich couple argued that overpopulation in the

1970s and 1980 will bring about the global environmental disasters that
would, in turn, lead to food shortage and mass starvation (Claudio, 2018).
Because of the Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian views of population, many
governments all throughout the world decided to have policies on control
population and it was done through reproductive health programs as a means
of curtailing the growing population of their respective nations.

As of 9:00pm of August 8, 2020, there is an estimate

7,803,547,443people in the world (worldometers.info). There 84,771,280
birth this and there 35, 589,018 population growth. According to Claudio
(2018) the use of population control to prevent economic crisis has its critics.
Betsy Harmann disagrees with the advocates of No-Malthusian theory and
accused governments of using population control as a “substitute for social
justice and much needed reforms – such land distribution, employment
creation, provision of mass education and health care, and emancipation.”
Others pointed out that the population did grow fast in many countries in the
1960s, and this growth “aided economic development by spurring
technological and institutional innovation and increasing the supply of human
ingenuity.”