# **Introduction: Scope of the Survey**

In recent years, the already sizable literature<sup>on migrationissueshasgrownwithanaccelerated</sup> pace. Migration, refugee, and asylum<sup>issueshavepushedto thetop of the policy agenda in</sup> Europe and North America, and policy<sup>researchhas grownapace.Our goal is to focuson a</sup> relatively small part of that policy literature<sup>that is of special concernto the World Bankand</sup> other development agencies. That<sup>is the literatureon the developmentimpactof (voluntary)</sup> migration in the home countries or<sup>regions.Therelationship betweeninternational migration</sup> and development in the home country<sup>has been variously calledan"unsettled"[Papademetriou</sup> and Martin 1991] or "unresolved"<sup>[Appleyard1992]relationship.In the courseof the survey,I</sup> will try to clarify some of the analytical<sup>issues and to indicatesomeof the potentiallyfruitful</sup> connections between migration research<sup>and developmentpolicies.</sup>

# **Opening Match: Harry Johnson**<sup>**Versus DonPatinkin**</sup> **Harry Johnson's "Internationalist" Model**

We might begin with a 1968 debate between<sup>two prominenteconomists, Harry Johnsonand Don</sup> Patinkin, in an early anthology of papers<sup>on the "braindrain"[Adams1968].Johnson begins</sup> with one of the basic policy questions<sup>in thefield:better or worsefor whom?Isit the peopleof</sup> the home country or region (excluding<sup>those whomight leaveor have left) or the peopleof the</sup> world as a whole? Or is the policy<sup>commitmentto a specificplace or nationrather thanan</sup> identifiable set of people?

Johnson staked out what he called<sup>the "cosmopolitanliberalposition"noting that he expected</sup> "many educated international migrants<sup>wouldshare this position"[Johnson1968,70](Johnson</sup> was a Canadian who taught at the<sup>Universityof Chicagoand London Schoolof Economics).</sup> The basic assumption in this position is<sup>that theinternationalflow of humancapital is a</sup> beneficial process since "it reflects<sup>the free choicesof theindividualswho choose to migrate"</sup> (Johnson was not commenting on<sup>refugeesor asylum-seekers).</sup> The policy reference group is the<sup>worldas a whole.Most people have a culturallyconditioned</sup> attachment to their home country but,<sup>in asense,that isan artificialpath-dependent</sup> phenomenon. If "the individual [had]<sup>been bornand grown up inanother country"then he</sup> would have a similar attachment to<sup>thatother country.Withsuch "artificialbarriersto</sup> migration" in operation, Johnson argued<sup>that lessmigration from low to highincome countries</sup> occurs that is "economically optimal."<sup>Hencewhensuch migrationdoes occur,he put the burden</sup> of proof squarely on any argument<sup>againstthe migration being economicallybeneficial.</sup> Voluntary migration-"like any profit-motivated<sup>international movement of factorsof</sup> production-may be expected to raise<sup>total world output ...[except] whenthe migrant'sprivate</sup> calculation of gain from migration excludes<sup>certainsocialcosts that hismigration entails."</sup> [Johnson 1968, 75] Thus Johnson<sup>allows for one complication,namely,externalitieswhichare</sup> not taken into account in the private<sup>calculations.Such externalitiesmay or may not outweigh</sup> the benefits of the migration. Since<sup>the externalities associatedwith the brain drain might</sup> include positive ones in the receiving<sup>countryaswell as negativeones in the sending country,</sup> Johnson makes a _primafacie_ case<sup>that the externalitieswill tosome extent cancelout and willon</sup> the whole not outweigh the direct benefits<sup>to the migrants.</sup> 3