The Emerging ‘Migration State’ James F. Hollifield** and Rahfin Faruk **Professor of Political Science Ora Nixon Arnold Chair in International Political Economy Director, Tower Center, SMU Dallas, Texas USA **Public Policy Fellow Woodrow Wilson International Center Washington, DC James.Hollifield@wilsoncenter.org Rahfin.faruk@fsg.org

States have evolved in their functions over time The state Type Function Garrison state Absolutist 16th- 17th Security (subjects) Trading state Economic (firms) Nation 18th – 19th The state always has a military and security function—Hobbes and the Garrison State—as September 11th reminded us—balance of power At least since the 19th century, the state has had an economic function, which Rosecrance dubbed the Trading State—, commerce, power and interdependence (Keohane & Nye) In the 20th and 21st century, we have seen the emergence of the Migration State where ‘embedded liberalism’ predominates and a ‘rights dynamic’ governs state actions (Hollifield) Migration state Rights (citizens) Liberal post 1945

The migration state encompasses a number of characteristics A state which is relatively open to immigration/emigration and returns A state which manages mobility and regulates migration to maximize economic benefits Gains for receiving states: manpower and human capital (Canada) Gains for sending states: remittances and returns/brain gain/circulation (Philippines) A state which clearly defines the status (rights) of foreigners (Canada) A state which has legal provisions for settlement, naturalization, citizenship, and return migration.

We have formalized these characteristics into five dimensions that constitute an analytical framework 1 Institutional and legal capacity 2 Quantity and quality of rights 3 Safe and orderly migration 4 Market-based migration management 5 Regional and international cooperation

Weighted score (out of 100) Dimension 2: States vary on the quantity and quality of their rights (and therefore outcomes) Rights and outcomes, 2014 Equally weighted average across eight rights and outcome dimensions (labor market mobility, family reunion, education, health, political participation, permanent residence, access to nationality, anti-discrimination) Ø 55 Weighted score (out of 100) For states that give out more rights across critical dimensions (e.g., political participation, family reunification), we see that those same states perform well when it comes to outcomes (e.g., education, health, upward mobility). While more analysis needs to be done (and more data collected by the field), there is a connection between how a state manages its migration population and how successful that migration population is across a number of material dimensions. We also hypothesize that a success of a state’s migrant population could be a linked to a state’s performance overall (e.g., political stability, social capital, long-term economic performance. Australia Canada Australia Germany USA Spain Italy UK Korea France EU27 Greece Japan Poland EU10 Turkey

States balance a number of factors in formulating migration policy (or the lack thereof)… Security Markets Rights Culture

International Migrant Stock (% population) …but virtually all states, receiving and sending, must engage on the issue of migration (1/2) International migrant stock1 by region, 1960-2010 Arab World Latin America & Caribbean  Central Europe and the Baltics Middle East & North Africa  East Asia & Pacific  North America Europe & Central Asia  Sub-Saharan Africa  European Union South Asia International Migrant Stock (% population) Year

…but virtually all states, receiving and sending, must engage on the issue of migration (2/2) Remittances by region, 1975-2013 Arab World Latin America & Caribbean  Central Europe and the Baltics Middle East & North Africa  East Asia & Pacific  North America Europe & Central Asia  Sub-Saharan Africa  European Union South Asia Remittances (% of GDP) Year

Going forward, a more robust migration regime is critical, especially in the current ‘crisis’ Net migration between US and Mexico US to Mexico Mexico to US Number of migrants (in thousands) 1995 to 2000 2005 to 2010 2009 to 2014 This trend continued between 2015 and 2017

Countries fall into three key types along the L curve: senders, receivers, and transition Non-Northern Triangle Northern Triangle Case studies SENDERS El Salvador Honduras Philippines HIGH 2010 Guatemala Nicaragua Morocco LOW Panama Belize TRANSITION RECEIVERS Mexico Costa Rica Thailand United States Turkey LOW HIGH 2010

Some countries are rapidly evolving on migration, which indicates increasing interdependence All Non-Northern Triangle Norther Triangle Case studies Lao PDR Change in remittances (% of GDP) 2005-15 HIGH Sierra Leone Tanzania Panama Guatemala Rwanda United States Philippines Cyprus LOW El Salvador Mexico Morocco The rates at which states change—some shifting from receiving to transition or transition to sending—vary significantly and are empirically correlated with not only the rate of economic and political development but also a state’s willingness or ability to develop as a migration state (Figure 6). For example, some states like Nepal have used migration as an explicit development strategy while other states like Japan have limited the flow of migrants and the rights it gives to the small classes of migrants (low-skilled labor, university students, and temporary high-skilled workers) that are allowed into the country. In general, however, states cluster in terms of change in migrant stock and remittances (as a percentage of GDP) between 2005 and 2015. Some states, very clearly, are in transition, as their on migrants and / or remittances have increased over time; this increase could be the result of a concerted state policy (as the case of Lao PDR to greatly increase its remittance flow) or it could be the result of state’s inability to manage its migration flows (as in the case of Iraq’s inflow of refugees). Moreover, the movement of countries over time also gives us a sense of interdependence. While Mexico’s overall change in migrant stock has increased, Guatemala’s has increased at a far lower rate—this can be partially explained by the inflow of Central American immigrants into Mexico (an inflow Mexico has not effectively stopped). Thailand Zambia South Africa Turkey Korea, Rep. Costa Rica LOW HIGH Change in migrant stock 2005-15