One Response

  1. Farida Fleming
    Farida Fleming November 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    I think you’re right to question Australia’s high ranking for the development impact of its migration policies. Two other reasons to question the ranking than those you’ve raised are:
    – the targeted nature of our immigration policy and
    – the nature of contemporary world poverty.

    Our immigration policy is highly targeted. You touched on some of this in your other post. Our targeted policy means that the largest number of immigrants of the total immigration program are the highly skilled and educated – the elite. For example, in 2014-2015, 127 774 migrants were skilled, 61 085 migrants came through the family stream, and 13 756 through the humanitarian program. Another example, an estimated 62% of recent migrants had obtained a non-school qualification before arrival in Australia. If we were serious about the development impact of our migration policy we would increase the places allocated through the humanitarian program and the family stream.

    Contemporary research on world poverty shows that most poor people now live in middle-income countries rather than lower income countries. So to assess development impact we need to look at what type of people are migrating to Australia rather than only which country they are coming from.

    Finally, there is a question about the framing of CGD ranking that assesses development impact only on developing countries. Given the highly skilled, educated, and otherwise endowed nature of migrants shouldn’t we also measure development impact the other way? That is, measure the way in which skilled migrants, from both developed and developing countries, contribute to Australia’s development.

Leave a Reply