Despacho Aduanero

Apart from seeking to describe and understand the phenomenon of migration, as in many cultural and social studies, a different collection of literature links up more with policy. The main question in such an approach is what the relation between migration and development is, in order to make a policy that enhances the developmental impact of migration. By explicitly questioning whether mi- gration is positive or negative, and for whom, values become more important in these studies. Note, however, that literature about migration and development concentrates on the questions of whether and how migration can be helpful for countries of origin. The question whether it relates positively or negatively to development in countries of destination is hardly asked.

Spaan et al. (2005) give an overview of changes in discourses on migration and development. They describe two basic contrasting approaches to migration and development. The first is the balanced growth approach, developed in the 1960s and 1970s, and based on neo-liberal economic theory. This theory as- sumes that ‘the emigration of (surplus) labour from underdeveloped, peripheral areas leads to a new equilibrium between capital and labour that eventually fosters development’ (Ibid.: 37). Migration can have some negative effects, but these are short-term. In the long term it is assumed that it leads to an improve- ment in resource availability and income distribution.

The asymmetrical growth approach, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, is contradictory. Migration is seen as merely negative. A link is assumed between the underdevelopment in sending regions and development in receiving regions. This inequality is enforced by migration. Negative consequences are a brain drain, loss in productivity, dependency on remittance income and an increase of social inequality.

Previously, migration was seen merely as a failure of development (Black & King 2004). Policy was oriented at ‘the reduction of poverty, or associated en- vironmental degradation, conflict and economic decline, in order to address what are seen as the ‘root causes’ of this migration’ (Ibid.: 77). Note the dif- ference with ideas of migration as a natural way of being in cultural approaches.

Recently, the view on migration and development has become more positive. It is recognised that remittances to developing countries exceed the amount of official development assistance (Black & King 2004). Possible advantages and disadvantages are both taken into account and a main question is how policy can contribute to enhancing the positive effects, while minimising the negative. Brain drain has moved to brain gain and, in line with insights about transnati- onalism, to brain circulation. Other questions are how it can be stimulated that remittances are being invested in productive ways and what could be the development potential of returning migrants.

This brings us to the importance of family relations, because remittances are almost exclusively aimed at the families of migrants. Besides, family relations are also an important factor for return migration. From the policy point of view, what exactly the impact of the family is, is an important question, so policy measures can be directed both to migrants and their families.

A study that is concerned with this issue was carried out by Tiemoko (2004). It is about the role of the family in decisions about migration and return from West Africa to Europe. The study is in fact an attempt to explain that besides economic motives, there are also social factors. Going beyond the ‘push and pull’ model, it is assumed that migration also has a cultural and social dimen- sion. The study continues by trying to divide migrants (from Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana) on the basis of a survey among two categories: ‘family-influenced

migrants’ and ‘those whose migration decisions are not directly influenced by their families’. In my opinion, the outcomes are too much of a simplification of reality. One man’s quote about return migration demonstrates this: ‘Return is circumstantial’, is what he says, after which he mentions all kinds of circumstances that play a role. Nevertheless this was then summarized by a list with four reasons (end of study, family reasons, employment, business) that are presented in a nice simple table. Does Tiemoko actually take his respondents seriously?

Tiemoko also comes to the conclusion that family does not play a role in moving to a second country, such as from France or the U.K. to elsewhere in Europe. In my study, I found the opposite. For Malian migrants, family plays a very important role in the decision to move to a second country (see Chapter 5). People often want to distance from their family and the Malian community and therefore move to another country. Are these kinds of factors not important for migrants from Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire at all, or didn’t they find their way into Tiemoko’s table?

The reason I am paying so much attention to this study is that it demon- strates to me that in an attempt to get to quantitative results, sometimes the out- comes no longer represent reality. Although attention is paid to family relations as a social factor because of the large sums of money that are sent to family, studies do not yet adopt a very nuanced view on family practices. In that res- pect, this thesis, with a qualitative approach, can be an addition.