Essay Example on Feminization of Migration

The neoclassical theory encapsulates optimistic and positive views pertaining to migration, and importantly, as Castles et al. (2014) articulate, it highlights the importance of unconstrained migration to both receiving and sending countries by allowing for optimal allocation of production factors. However, according to de Hass (2010), the capital flows were expected to move oppositely, from receiving countries with labor scarcity to sending countries with capital shortages. In essence, the migration process lowers wages while at the same time raising production in the receiving nations, but raises wages and stimulates technological innovation primarily in the country the migrants originate from (Gamlen, 2014). In congruence to this view, de Hass (2010) points out that the migrants who return are considered important for innovation and change, attributed to the fact that they bring with them money, entrepreneurial attitudes, knowledge, as well as new ideas. Besides the neoclassical theory, the modernization theory has an optimistic view regarding migration. In fact, such optimistic views held in the neoclassical theory are reflected in the modernization theory. Countries that have recently been decolonized usually follow a similar path of modernization, economic growth, and industrialization, just as the Western nations. Since migration allows for large-scale capital transfer, the resulting remittances are vital and important for development, and they ultimately enable the poor countries to industrialize (Castles et al., 2014).

Even though the neoclassical and modernization theories hold an optimistic view of migration, there are also theories that are pessimistic towards migration, including the historical-structural theory. The theory interprets migration as a manifestation of capitalist penetration, which subsequently leads to unequal trade between the underdeveloped and developed countries.

However, even with the pessimistic view, there is a doubt that migration leads to a permanent loss. Essentially, as Guarnizo et al. (2003) highlight, migrants are beneficial to their families, primarily through support, as well as their ability to engage economically, socially, and politics in their origin nations, and also an increase in their occupation situation in the destination country. For instance, some governments create surpluses of particular highly skilled individuals as a labor export strategy, for example in the Philippines, where it encourages the education of nurses with the aim of generating more payments (Lorenzo et al., 2007).

Migration pessimism, since the 1990s, however, was challenged by pluralist views, for example, new household and economic approaches. Using these perspectives and generating tax returns that compensate for weak insurance and credit markets, stimulating local economies, as well as sharing the migrants knowledge and labor through a circular flow, migration provides beneficial results in both destination and origin nations, as well as the migrants themselves (Agunias, 2006). In effect, as Gamlem (2014) opines, there is a shift towards adopting an optimistic stance towards migration attributed to transnational flows of social and financial remittances, as well as investments, which coupled together, benefit the origin country. Even so, there has been nuanced assessments connecting migration with brain drain. Stark et al. (1997) point out that more positivity is yielded owing to the highly skilled migration, which is connected to increased educational enrolments at the origin nation, which increases human capital levels. Besides, Stark et al. (1997) posit that brain drain can also yield brain gain as moving abroad motivates those who remain to acquire more education, and the net effect is positive. However, Castles et al. (2014) highlight that this occurs only if the migration opportunity increases the economic returns connected to education as it can create negative incentives for the low-skilled, and in instances of irregular migration with few positive returns can lead to brain waste.

Regarding the issue of brain drain or gain, destination nations are increasingly adopting measures geared to attract migrants, but at the same time the origin nations are equally encouraging their own to return (de Hass, 2010). Even so, as Hardy (2010) argued, migrants do not find a match for their education level, which significantly discourages them from returning.

There are common factors that result in migrant deskilling. For instance, in Europe, non-EU migrant qualification is a problem, making it difficult for re-skilling and labor integration, or even costly, and lengthy, and these aspects coupled together discourage migrants who have no qualifications. In addition, there are dominant stereotypes, and professionals often tend to classify the migrants in accordance to their home county. There is also lack of frameworks for supporting new migrants get jobs, making them rely on informal networks, which is exacerbated by the lack of accessible and affordable language courses for qualified migrants, and together, they pose as a great barrier. However, some scholars usually attribute the deskilling as a gendered occurrence. For example, Kofman (2000) argues that female migrants are more likely to be qualified compared to men, and female deskilling is made worse by the global shift to a service economy. Also, women are categorized as the lowest employment hierarchy and are seen as domestic workers. In such scenarios, deskilling is negative and even exploitative as it takes place in the informal sector characterized by lack of protection and enforcement of work-related rights.