Why is understanding migration patterns important for policy development processes?

Migration policies are developed and administered predominantly at national level and are often influenced by the geopolitical relations between countries at the bilateral level (i.e. between two entities) and can result in visa-free arrangements agreed between two (or more countries). Examples of bilateral agreements include the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand,⁶³ the Agreement on Mutual Abolition of Visa Requirements between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea,⁶⁴ and the Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver,⁶⁵ although many hundreds of similar bilateral arrangements currently exist.⁶⁶

Policies help countries to create systems that respond to changes within a country (e.g. skills shortages), as well as outside a country (e.g bilateral relationships), and determine who can access a country. Data are therefore important to determine trends and flows from, to and within a region in order to inform policy processes. Countries with the available resources, knowledge and expertise are able to capture, analyse and present data for policy responses, especially with regard to regular migration. On the other hand, data on irregular migration occurring outside of, or in contravention of, regulated systems are based on estimations and predictions of available small-scale data sets that can be used to inform the policy development process. However, for States to develop migration policy processes, such as bilateral visa agreements or bilateral labour migration agreements, they require systematic procedures to consider relevant data and trends in origin and destination countries guided by a comprehensive analytical framework.⁶⁷ To a large extent, the focus is necessarily on migration dynamics, trends and data at the country level, as the main focus is on bilateral negotiations and agreement-making.

Importantly, visa policies are designed as control measures for mobility, allowing each individual country to exercise its exterritorial control over potential entrants (e.g. business travellers, tourists, students and migrant workers).⁶⁸ Given the volume and complexity of country-specific policies on the entry and stay of non-nationals, most analysis undertaken around the world is conducted at the country level (i.e focusing on a single country). The DEMIG project,⁶⁹ however, analysed the evolution of migration policies since the 1850s with the aim of evaluating their impact on international migration patterns and trends. Researchers found that visa policies had evolved between 1995 and 2019, resulting in border control, entry and exit policies that were more restrictive over time.⁷⁰ Other analysis points to destination countries formulating agreements that grant free visa access to their allies, while imposing restrictions on poorer countries or those they deem unfriendly.⁷¹ This may create more opportunities for citizens in high HDI countries to migrate, in comparison with those in developing countries, who face more restrictions. On a long-term basis, this could lead to systemic inequality between countries and further deepen mobility inequality between countries and regions, while placing greater migration “pressures” that could significantly increase human trafficking and migrant smuggling.

Strictly enforced laws and requirements may dissuade some migrants from selecting one destination over another,⁷² while countries with weaker regulatory regimes may unwittingly create an environment in which irregular migration thrives due to a lack of effective regulation and adequate resources. Ensuring a safe environment for regular migration to take place is important to reduce the risks faced by migrants who would otherwise have little choice but to move irregularly. Free movement of persons, goods and services and a labour environment based on a mutual understanding between member States can reduce some migration-related risks within regional blocs.

Regional agreements facilitating mobility

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Schengen area have illustrated how mobility agreements achieved through multilateral approaches, which build upon bilateral arrangements, can open up further mobility opportunities and support development and greater equality, while reducing pressures (including those related to trafficking and smuggling). They have, however, evolved differently through time, with clear contrasts in the way free movement is implemented.

The European Union Schengen agreement has seen gradual progress since 1985, with the process of removing internal border checks between member States taking place at the same time that the external border has been strengthened around the Schengen area. Notwithstanding events (such as the large-scale movement of people into and through the Schengen area in 2015–16 and the COVID-19 pandemic) that exerted considerable pressure on aspects of European Union border, entry and asylum/refugee policies, the Schengen agreement has remained intact, providing mobility opportunities for 400 million European citizens.⁷³

Source: ArchaeoGLOBE Project, 2018.
Note: This map is for illustration purposes only. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Organization for Migration.

The significance of the Schengen mobility agreement can be seen in Figure 9. Though Schengen countries made up only 39 per cent of countries classified as very high HDI in 2020 globally (26 out of 66), and a fraction of the total population of the aggregated total populations in very high HDI countries, the proportional growth in very high HDI country migration was much higher for Schengen countries than non-Schengen countries between 1995 and 2020.

Sources: UNDP, 2020; UN DESA, 2021.
Notes: The data points at the five-year intervals in the colour bands reflect whether the migration corridor (i) did not feature Schengen countries; (ii) featured a Schengen country either at origin or destination; or (iii) featured Schengen countries at both origin and destination. Designation as a Schengen country coincides with implementation of Schengen area policies (see Schengen Visa Info, 2020). All Schengen countries are very high HDI countries.

In ECOWAS, the process of achieving free movement in the region has been an ongoing process since 1979. In the initial years, free movement of goods, services, people and labour occurred with limited restrictions. However, as countries in the region began to develop and as conflict arose in some member States, cross-border movements became more restrictive as countries responded with national laws that undermined the notion of free movement. The conflict in Liberia over competition for resources and the rise of irregular migration between member States has weakened some of the implementation strategies adopted, as security was prioritized over the benefits of trade.⁷⁴ ECOWAS also lacked an established and efficient mechanism that could monitor trafficking of persons, weapons and drugs, among other issues. The approach to reduce irregular migration from West African States, however, has not been to restrict mobility, but to generate greater awareness of the risks of irregular migration, as well as to enhance the opportunities available within the region and facilitated by mobility, especially for the youth.

Source: ArchaeoGLOBE Project, 2018.
Note: This map is for illustration purposes only. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Organization for Migration.
 

Figure 11 illustrates how migration involving ECOWAS countries is almost completely made up of migration between regional member States of the economic organization. The scale of migration is smaller compared with the Schengen zone, and the majority of countries in ECOWAS are classified as low HDI, but despite these differences, the same dynamics manifest in similar proportions. Out of the 10 million international migrants moving to or from ECOWAS countries in 2020, more than 6 million moved within ECOWAS. When people have the ability to move in order to obtain access to a greater range of opportunities, many will do so.

Sources: UNDP, 2020; UN DESA, 2021.
Notes: The data points at the five-year intervals in the colour bands reflect instances in which the migration corridor (i) did not feature an ECOWAS country; (ii featured an ECOWAS country at either origin or destination; or (iii) featured an ECOWAS country at both origin and destination. With one exception, membership in ECOWAS has been consistent throughout the timeframe examined here (ECOWAS, 2021). ECOWAS includes Ghana (medium HDI); non-ECOWAS does not include India and Pakistan.