Migrating out of poverty: the case of Moldova, Tajikistan, Kosovo and Georgia

Migration can help reduce poverty in both origin and destination countries but governments need to make sure the right political and economic environment is in place. Migration should be seen as an opportunity to develop poorer regions rather than a threat, particularly in the case of the so-called transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe.

New work from the Development Research Centre on Migration,Globalisation and Poverty, in the UK, analyses the management ofmigration in relation to poverty reduction using the examples of Moldova,Tajikistan, Kosovo and Georgia. All these countries have been affected by thecollapse of the Soviet system. Most have undergone a traumatic period oftransition to a market economy, and several have experienced conflict that ledto population displacements. More recently these countries have stabilisedeconomically, if unevenly.

These changes have led todistinct patterns of increasing migration across the region. These include themovement of refugees and internally displaced people, international migrationfor work (much of it illegal), including the movement of younger and moreskilled sections of the workforce to larger urban centres. These can beexplained by negative factors such as poverty, violent conflict, the collapse of social protection institutions, a poorbusiness climate and the impacts of land reform. There are also positive factorsincluding the availability of jobs in construction and the service sector inWestern Europe and Russia. 

But how have destination andorigin countries responded to migration in general? Many are witnessing a brain drain, trade deficits, increasedinflation, poverty among refugees, diversion of cash to trafficking networks,and changed population structures in rural and urban areas as a result ofmigration. Key findings include:

Migration policies have beenincluded in 44 national laws and international agreements, leading to ‘NationalPlans of Action’.

These seek to controlmigration despite its potential benefits, and do not manage migration positivelyor protect migrant workers.

Money sent back home bymigrants has reduced poverty, but this effect may beslowing.

Although money from migrationhas contributed to small businesses, it is unlikely to lead to large-scaledevelopment in countries of origin.

There is increased inequalityas the poorest people do not have enough money to migrate.  

For migration to have apositive impact, it needs to be better managed within a stable macroeconomicenvironment. Governments should:

establish relaxed, reciprocalvisa regimes, and register those who move so they are notexploited

encourage the involvement ofemigrants in the economic development and political integration of theircountries of origin

ensure banking mechanisms aretransparent and worker funds are safe, and encourage the investment of savingsin productive activities

make agreements to allowmigrant workers to contribute to pension schemes that they can take back totheir countries of origin

improve social services toreach the poorest people, since economic growth does not necessarily reducepoverty and migration mostly benefits the better off

produce better statisticsand establish a monitoring system to create reliable and systematic data onmigration.