Circular Migration: Good or Bad?
What do a French businessman who travels to Spain for work each day, a farm laborer from Morocco who travels to Spain to work during the harvest season, and a woman from Sri Lanka who works as a nanny for a middle-class family in Spain all have in common? They are circular migrants. The European Union defines circular migration as “a repetition of legal migration by the same person between two or more countries.” In the modern era, increased communication and travel technology have led to an increase in circular migration patterns across the globe.
When I discussed this idea with my fellow WUPR members, they expressed shock about circular migration. They felt it was exploitative and they did not understand why migrants would keep returning to their home country instead of settling in their host country. To them, circular migration was racist and a way to exploit migrants’ labor without providing them citizenship benefits. At first, circular migration seemed transactional to me as well: a way for countries to take advantage of migrants’ labor while excluding them from achieving citizenship. However, after more research into the issue, I realized circular migration can have myriad positive impacts on migrants, host countries, and migrants’ countries of origin.
Circular migration provides many benefits for migrants. Since they are working in higher-income countries, they receive higher wages than they would at home. This pattern means their money has more spending power when they return to their countries of origin. Circular migration also allows migrants and their families to maintain their culture, language, and other homeland associations. Many people, migrants included, consider these characteristics important pieces of themselves, and circular migration allows migrants to maintain their sense of identity and cultural pride. In addition, while working abroad, some migrants may attain specialized skills that they can use to obtain better jobs when they return to their home countries.
Reciprocally, host countries want to encourage circular migration because they reap many advantages from it. The phenomenon allows them to fill short-term positions, such as large construction projects or the harvest of crops. Circular migrants can also fill jobs in the service sector, such as working as nannies and in elder care facilities, positions that European countries, especially, are finding harder to fill as more women become educated and go into professional careers. Migrants’ countries of origin profit from circular migration too. According to research from the Migration Policy Institute, circular migration can reduce “brain drain” from migrants’ countries of origin. Brain drain refers to the pattern of educated and high-achieving people moving to other countries for better economic opportunities. Research has found that circular migrants are typically more driven and many of them have significant levels of education, but their countries do not have jobs for them, which is why they must take jobs in the service sector for which they are overqualified.
When I discussed this idea with my fellow WUPR members, they expressed shock about circular migration. They felt it was exploitative.
Since migrants participating in circular migration return to their home countries regularly and do not permanently move their families to new countries, brain drain does not occur on such a large scale as it did before circular migration became common. Many migrants involved in circular migration send home substantial amounts of money to their families in their home countries. This money, or remittances, also aids the migrants’ countries. Researchers found that since 2017, “remittances have been the largest source of external finance flows to low-and middle-income countries.” The paychecks of circular migrants are driving the economies of many developing countries. Circular migration also reduces the unemployment rate in these countries since there are fewer workers seeking jobs in-country. Additionally, while working abroad migrants acquire skills and knowledge that they can bring back to their countries of origin, which assists these countries.
Is circular migration good or bad? Research has found benefits for migrants, host countries, and migrants’ home countries, although much of this data has emphasized that circular migration has the possibility of becoming extremely exploitative, as what happened with massive migrant worker mistreatment in Qatar for the 2022 World Cup. Nevertheless, stronger governance and labor protection laws can overcome this problem and provide safe work environments for circular migrants. The optimal situation is for people to be able to find good jobs in their home countries because many migrants experience problems related to being away from their families for so long, and the psychological toll of being isolated in their host countries. Many of them also struggle with reintegration into their home countries’ labor markets when they return. Moreover, circular migration allows host countries to gain the advantages of migrants’ labor, while side-stepping claims that they are “letting in too many migrants.” Europe’s economy desperately needs migrants to fill positions, but when immigration to a country increases, it often leads to the emergence of right-wing parties. Circular migration dampens the possible negative political effect of migration for politicians while allowing them to profit from migrants’ labor. The ability to provide for their families, though, is a huge benefit for many circular migrants, and one that should not be taken away.
Emily Woodruff ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ewoodruff@wustl.edu.