Search

Highly skilled migrants are presumably in a better position than less skilled ones to contribute to development in their countries of origin, largely by way of economic and social remittances. In this article, we use unique data on first-generation migrants in the Netherlands to test how economic and social remittances differ by skill level. We find that the highly skilled are more likely to remit, to remit larger amounts and to give advice on education, jobs and health matters. Thus, we identify the highly skilled as having a greater capacity to affect development than have migrants of other skill levels. However, nuances exist with respect to this overall result. We illustrate that the low and medium skilled also show some capacity to affect economic development and that a medium skill level is sufficient to be in a position to transfer significantly more knowledge and skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past decade, much attention has been paid to the migration-development nexus, both in academia and in the global development community. This has created what we argue in this paper can be characterized as an 'international buzz' around the issue. In this paper, we explore how two donor countries, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have approached the nexus in their policies and practices in recent years. We examine in what ways it has been feasible to work with migration-development links, taking into account various interests and the national political climates regarding development aid and immigration policies. Important themes of the nexus, which are discussed in detail going through the policies, are remittances, engagement with migrant associations, and temporary migration schemes and programmes addressing the so-called 'brain drain' problem. We argue that the two countries represent two different trends among donors: the one does not directly link migration management with migration and development policies, as these are conceived within the national donor agencies; while the other appears to be more focused on providing better migration management through development cooperation. In the conclusion, we argue that the consensus-orientated simplicity of the buzz surrounding migration and development can be said to have had a somewhat restricting effect on the policies, in the sense that it seems to have discouraged conflicting parts of the migration-development nexus from being taken up in the national contexts. Based on our analysis of the two countries' policies, we discuss possible implications for the future, reflecting on the tendency of buzzwords to dip in and out of fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]