The Human Development Index and international migration : questioning the mismatch between international migration phenomena and Human Development Index rankings with a Capabilities Approach perspective on perceptions o

(1)

THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

INDEX AND INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION

Questioning the mismatch between international migration

phenomena and Human Development Index rankings with a

Capabilities Approach perspective on perceptions of well-being

By

M. E. E. Pronk (10003715)

University of Amsterdam - Graduate School of Social Sciences Master Thesis Political Science – International Relations

Supervisor: dr. E. (Enzo) Rossi June 2014, Amsterdam

(2)

(3)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

“I want to leave my country, that is why I am learning French”, said a Spanish friend of mine about a year ago while telling me about his plans for the future. We first met each other in Paris during a summer French language course and I soon got intrigued by his fortitude to find luck outside the borders of Spain. At first I thought he was an exception to the rule, an ambiguous, high-educated individual who aimed at having a career abroad. But little did I know that he represented an entire generation with similar thoughts and perspectives on migrating, thoughts that not all originated from ambition and motivation. In the conversations that followed, he explained the reasons behind his urge to move abroad and expressed his dissatisfaction with the social and economic situation in Spain more than once. Hearing this, I assumed that he would probably not be alone in his views. Not long after, my assumptions were indeed confirmed by both my surroundings and the media. Articles on the situation of, among others, the Spanish youth headlined ‘Young and Educated in Europe, but Desperate for Jobs’ (Alderman 2013) and ‘Young, qualified and jobless: plight of Europe's best-educated generation’ (Henley 2013), while the debates concerning the problems related to large-scale migration from South European countries to North European countries flared up quickly in the political arena. Discussions about imposing restrictions on EU migration were especially present in the United Kingdom and raised tensions between European countries (Parker 2013). All in all, the conversations I had with my Spanish friend fitted well into the general picture of the large-scale pan-European migration phenomenon painted by media and politics.

This phenomenon of individuals leaving countries inspired me into thinking further about the comparison of performances of countries as a whole. What considerations and motivations drive people towards migration? What is it exactly other countries have to offer? The link between international migration on the one hand and the performance of a country on the other has been widely discussed in academic literature, mainly in terms of human development. In general, we can distinguish two approaches towards the relation between international migration and human development. First, it has been argued that international migration patterns can have both positive and negative impacts on human development (de Haas 2010a: 229). This view would emphasize that international migration phenomena influence the processes of human development by either stimulating it or blocking it. Whether approaching it as being positive or negative, international migration is in any case viewed as having an impact on the human development process of a country or society.

(6)

6

Second, this reasoning can be turned around in order to assess the effect of differences in levels of human development on international migration patterns. It can be argued that different living conditions either encourage or discourage migration. The level of human development can be seen as a key in understanding the motivations of individuals to migrate to other countries. If, for example, a certain country offers better chances on well-being and better opportunities for individuals, then that could be a reason for individuals to cross borders. After all, it is not surprising that a rational individual always chooses the best possible scenarios. But, as Hein de Haas coins the hypothesis in his article, will the out-migration subsequently decrease when the opportunity gaps become smaller and societies achieve similar levels of human development (2010b: 19-20)? In other words: does this reasoning suggest an equilibrium of migration numbers when a similar level of human development has been reached by countries?

The contemporary reality of pan-European migration refutes this claim. As stated above, tensions and discussions concerning migration phenomena within Europe increased considerably. Due to the economic crisis in Europe, South European countries have experienced major waves of emigration towards North European countries. South European countries as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain have seen large-scale departures of citizens over the past couple of years (Hamel 2013). European member states as the United Kingdom, Germany and France simultaneously confirmed an increase in the number of immigrants in the same period of time (ibid.). Germany experienced an increase of 73 percent in the number of Greek immigrants in the years 2011 and 2012, a doubling in the number of immigrants from Spain and Portugal, and a 35 percent jump for Italians (ibid.). The United Kingdom witnessed a net migration jump of 30 percent in one year time, mainly fuelled by migrants from the recession-hit South European countries (Travis 2014). In this context, there is an obvious distinction between countries that experience emigration and countries that experience immigration. What is of particular interest, is the relation between these two groups. The Spanish think tank Fundación Alternativas recently published a striking report called ‘La nueva emigración española. Lo que sabemos y lo que no’ on the facts of the new emigration phenomena in Spain (González-Ferrer 2013). The report explores a wide range of statistics on emigration of Spanish citizens from both Spanish and foreign statistical research centres in order to paint a realistic picture of the migration patterns. It argues that the Spanish emigration flow has grown more rapidly than the emigration flows of other South European countries that were hit by the economic crisis (González-Ferrer 2013: 7). Especially

(7)

7

interesting is the conclusion that the number of Spanish labour migrants in the United Kingdom has been increasing rapidly, currently being ranked as the second largest labour migrant populations in the United Kingdom (ibid.). Connecting these numbers to the international migration theory sketched out above would make us expect that there is certain dissimilarity between the living conditions in Spain and the living conditions in the United Kingdom. After all, a large difference in levels of human development increases the occurrence of both immigration and emigration. The question that we should thus ask is whether this dissimilarity is indeed reflected when measuring and comparing the human development of separate countries in Europe.

In 1990, The United Nations published the first annual Human Development Report and introduced such a measurement tool that would be able to assess and compare the performance of countries with regard to human development (Stanton 2007: 3). Over the years, many statistics on countries have been collected and pictures have been painted that show levels of human development. Therefore, it is possible to compare the levels of human development of different countries and discuss how these results fit with the migration theory sketched out above. Because the report of Fundación Alternativas underlines the striking number of Spanish migrants that chose to migrate to the United Kingdom, and because the United Kingdom confirms the notable rise in Spanish immigrants, we would expect this to be a clear-cut case in the context of human development differences. However, taking the overall performances of Spain and the United Kingdom, the Human Development Report does not seem to account for this expected divergence.

The report distinguishes three main indicators of human development. The first of those, the Human Development Index, is the central score, which is supplemented by two additional indicators. The Human Development Index takes the performance of a country with regard to 1) life expectancy, 2) educational attainment and 3) command over the resources needed for a decent living into account (United Nations Development Programme 2013: 1). Taking the most recent Human Development Index scores of both Spain and the United Kingdom shows us a comparable level of human development. While Spain scores a 0.885 on the Human Development Index, does the United Kingdom strand on a score of 0.875 (ibid.: 144). So surprisingly, Spain seems to have a small advantage over the United Kingdom. In general, the scores are extremely alike and are thus of no use in explaining the migration phenomena. This similarity also persists when looking at the two additional measurement tools, which are presented by the United Nations. The first of those, the Inequality-adjusted

(8)

8

Human Development Index, takes the distribution of human development within a society into account. In an equal society, the scores of the Human Development Index and the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index would be the same (ibid.: 29). In reality, it is likely that there is always a small deviation between the two scores. If there is indeed a lot of inequality in the Spanish society, it could be the case that the most disadvantaged group of people decides to migrate to another country. However, the scores on the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index for Spain and the United Kingdom are respectively 0.796 and 0.802 (ibid.: 152). These scores do change the picture in favour of the United Kingdom, but can still not make a very strong case for the phenomena that we are currently encountering. Just as the Human Development Index, does the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index not have a clear-cut explanation. The same holds, lastly, for the third measurement tool as introduced in the Human Development Reports. The Gender Inequality Index is a measurement tool that aims to expose discrimination by showing differences in distribution of human development between men and women (ibid.: 31). While the Gender Inequality Index is closely related to the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, is it still useful as an indicator to paint a realistic picture of a country’s performance. In the case of Spain and the United Kingdom, scores Spain better with regard to gender equality than the United Kingdom (the scores respectively being 0.103 and 0.205) (ibid.: 156). So again, there seems to be no evidence that could lead towards an understanding of the pan-European migration patterns that we are currently encountering.

Taking the three scores together leads to the conclusion that there is nothing remarkable in the data of the human development measurements that could explain the current phenomena of large-scale emigration from Spain and large-scale immigration into the United Kingdom. From the scores provided by the Human Development Index, the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index and the Gender Inequality Index, large-scale migration from Spain to the United Kingdom would seem to be a rather irrational move, but reports show that it is nevertheless happening in practice. The picture can get complicated even further: while the Human Development Index is not able to explain this phenomenon of international migration, does the migration follow rationally from the respective scores on Gross National Income (the United Kingdom performs better on Gross National Income scores than Spain (United Nations Development Programme 2013: 144)). As elaborated on by Martha Nussbaum in her book ‘Creating Capabilities: the Human Development Approach’ (2011), the focus on human development was introduced as an alternative for a focus on

(9)

9

wealth and income. This shift in focus was supposed to be an answer to the blind spots of Gross Domestic Product1 as a measurement tool for human development and well-being. One of the major critiques on the measurement of human development by using only Gross Domestic Product scores has been that it does not take into account how material wealth gets translated into better living conditions for individuals (Nussbaum 2011: 49). Gross Domestic Product tells us only about the economic development and growth of a country as a whole. Consequently, it reduces human development to material wealth rather than exploring actual human well-being. In response to these critiques, the Human Development Index was introduced on stage in order to broaden the perspective on human development. Other than the Gross Domestic Product measure, does the Human Development Index combine the material wealth of a country with the development of socio-economic facilities and thus paints a clearer picture of how a country is actually performing with regard to human development. So even though it is now widespread believed that individuals do not just care about economic wealth but also about well-being in general, does the migration case sketched out above question this view on people. The case could lead us into thinking that people might still care about income more than about levels of human development. Overall, to conclude from the scores as provided by the United Nations that people simply behave irrational is very unsatisfying, and the same holds for seeing Gross National Income scores as clear-cut explanations. Rather, critical questions about the measurement tools of the indexes should be asked. Why can we not explain these phenomena from the data provided by the Human Development Reports? What does this tell us about the relevance of what the reports measure, or more important, the relevance of factors that are not taken into account by the measurement tools? Does the Human Development Index really measure well-being as it is valued by individuals? Or does it fall into a similar trap of mismeasurement? What is it that migrants value on a daily basis, which the Human Development Index does not capture?

While the United Nations claims to be measuring the improvement of the well-being of individuals (United Nations Development Programme 2013: 66), should the previous argument make us think critically about this claim. Is it indeed well-being that the measurement tools grasp? While assessing the history of the Human Development Index, Stanton argues that key capabilities are operated in the Human Development Index and that ‘empowered by these, and other, capabilities, individuals can achieve their desired state of

1_{Gross Domestic Product as an indicator of the Human Development Index was replaced by the Gross National}

(10)

10

being’ (Stanton 2007: 3). This claim does not, however, fit well with the migration phenomena that we are encountering in Europe. What seems to be missing from the statistics is an eye for certain human preferences that out-rule the capabilities assessed by the Human Development Index.

In order to assess the usefulness of the Human Development Index with regard to measuring the well-being of individuals, it is necessary to explore the general purpose of international migration in terms of improving the state of well-being. For that reason, the hypothesis will be raised that the Human Development Index functions well in comparing the overall performances of different countries when it comes to human development on three main subjects, but it seems to lack the ability to understand and analyse the behaviour of individuals with regard to expanding their well-being on a daily basis. It seems challenging to capture societal changes and the motivations behind those with only the tools of the Human Development Index that are in essence focusing on quite static indicators. I will argue that the Capabilities Approach is useful for the framing of the purpose of international migration, since it introduces a perspective on well-being that is more focused on the components that individuals value in terms of well-being on a daily basis. By framing international migration in terms of expanding the capabilities of an individual with regard to well-being, it is possible to expose the limitations of the Human Development Index in assessing the well-being of individuals in different countries. The Capabilities Approach is a useful tool that is able to formulate a theoretical critique on the Human Development Index by exposing the fact that the Human Development Index does not really measure well-being on a daily basis, as it is exposed by contemporary migration patterns. From this, the following research question derives:

Why are the forces that drive international migration invisible for the measurement tools of the Human Development Index and what does this imply for the usefulness of the Human Development Index in general?

In order to find an answer to this question, I will first explore the different angles present in the literature about the relationship between international migration and human development in general. The dominant debates concerning the impact of international migration on human development and the causes of international migration related to human development levels

(11)

11

will be explored. By doing so, different approaches towards the relationship between international migration and human development as developed over time in the literature will be pointed out. Furthermore, the literature that deals with the explicit link between international migration and the Human Development Index will be assessed. It will be explored up until what level the Human Development Index seems to be able to assess and explain phenomena of international migration in different areas of the globe, in order to set up the puzzle to which this thesis will add pieces and paint the framework in which this thesis can be placed.

Second, the argument will move on to exploring what it exactly is that the Human Development Index fails to address with regard to international migration and opening up the discussion about the usefulness of the Human Development Index in exploring this phenomenon. In chapter 3 I will frame the purpose of international migration in terms of the expansion of individual capabilities. The Capabilities Approach will be introduced as a tool able of explaining international migration as an action with the aim to improve the well-being of individuals. By taking a more practical perspective, it will become possible to zoom in on certain capabilities in the daily lives of individuals that are of great importance with regard to their individual perceptions of well-being.

In chapter 4 I will compare this perception of well-being to the different measurement tools of the Human Development Index. It will become clear that the Human Development Index is capable of measuring well-being up until a certain level, but lacks the ability to measure well-being as soon as the perception of well-being becomes more nuanced. I will argue that its measurement tools lack the sensitivity to anticipate on nuanced changes in human preferences with regard to living conditions. By discussing this, it will implicitly draw into question whether it is fair to state that the Human Development Index actually measures the well-being of individuals on the ground. The discussion will thus form a critique on the limitations of the Human Development Index with regard to the measurement of well-being as it is valued by individuals on a daily basis.

Following from this critical discussion, I will use the findings in chapter 5 in order to explore possible recommendations that can be made with the aim to improve the usefulness of the Human Development Index. By assessing the encountered limitations of the Human Development Index in relation to international migration, it becomes possible to evaluate alternative or additional measurement techniques that are more appropriate for assessing the well-being of individuals. It will be argued that this is a challenge the Human Development

(12)

12

Index might not be able of tackling. As a result, the discussion will be opened on what the Human Development Index is capable of measuring and thus should aim to depict with its rankings. A possible adaptation of the use of the Human Development Index scores, which could lead to the ability of explaining international migration phenomena, will be coined.

Lastly, in chapter 6 a brief conclusion will follow with an overview of the argument and an answer to the proposed research question. Additionally, a field in which more research needs to be done will be identified along the way.

(13)

13

2. ACADEMIC CONTEXT: THE LINKAGE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN PREVIOUS STUDIES

Needless to say, this research is not the first in exploring the relationship between international migration and human well-being and will thus build upon a vast body of literature that has been written so far. Up until now, considerable research has been undertaken on the topic of international migration and human well-being in terms of human development. As a result, it is possible to distinguish between different ethical debates in this academic field over time. We can highlight the dominant models that have been applied to study the relation between international migration and human development. The theoretical debates surrounding these models focus primarily on the possible effects of international migration on the levels of human development and, reasoning the other way around, on the possible consequences of different levels of human development on international migration patterns. Additionally, the introduction of the Human Development Index by the United Nations has led to the creation of a body of literature focussing on a more practical dimension of the relationship between international migration and human development. Whereas many debates remained theoretical before, gave the Human Development Index the possibility to put forward explanations for international migration patterns as encountered across the globe in the form of case studies.

From here, human development and international migration will first be conceptualized. Second, a brief overview of the academic approaches towards the relation between international migration and human development will follow. The dominant debates with regard to international migration and human development will explicitly be pointed out and, thirdly, the review will zoom in on what has specifically been written about the relation between international migration and the Human Development Index. It will, lastly, be linked to the research proposed in this thesis.

2.1. The relation between international migration and human development

2.1.1. Conceptualizing ‘human development’ and ‘international migration’

Before exploring the relationship between human development and international migration, it is useful to argue what both concepts include in the literature. The concept of human development finds its origins in the 1990. In that year, the United Nations published their first

(14)

14

Human Development Report in which they aimed to produce a human dimension of development by introducing the concept of human development as an alternative to the concept of income. Both concepts aimed to be a measure of human flourishing. In the report, the United Nations both defined the concept of human development and explained the additional value of it. In essence, human development is defined by the United Nations as the ‘process of enlarging people’s choices’ (United Nations Development Programme 1990: 10). The report states that these choices are not static and can thus change over time, but it distinguishes three essential ones that are at the very basis of human flourishing, at all times and for every individual: ‘to lead a long and healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to resources needed for a decent standard of living’ (ibid.). Without these three options, many other opportunities are unavailable to individuals. The aim of the concept is thus to put the people back at the centre of human flourishing and to reintroduce development as having the goal to benefit individuals in a concrete manner (ibid.: 9). With this renewed focus, the introduction of the concept transformed the landscape of human flourishing in theories, in methods and in policies. This is mainly the case because, with this concept, the Human Development Report went far beyond the traditional use of income, which had been widely used as an indicator of human flourishing up until that moment.

Up until the introduction of human development, it had been argued that income is a good indicator for human flourishing, since income as a means makes the exercise of other valuable options possible (United Nations Development Programme 1990: 9). However, this idea has been widely opposed in academic literature. While income tells us much about the economic development of a country, does it not tell us anything about how income as a means translates into valuable options that enrich the lives of individuals. As the report states: ‘well-being of a society depends on the uses to which income is put, not to the level of income itself’ (ibid.: 10). For this reason, income as a measure of human flourishing is said to be very limited when exploring improvements on the ground. When assessing well-being, it is more important to analyse the achievements that people value. These achievements, however, do not always show up when only assessing the levels of income (ibid.: 9). So while income is insufficient when painting a picture of human flourishing, is the concept of human development supposed to address this blind spot and analyse the actual changes in living conditions for people on a daily basis. Human development is thus believed to measure the concrete social and economic improvements that individuals value.

(15)

15

The second concept, international migration, is less controversial. The concept has been conceptualized by the United Nations in their published International Migration Report 2002. It is generally defined in terms of the human characteristic to move from one place to another (United Nations Population Division 2002: 1). Here, an important distinction is made with regard to the dimension of time: the report defines ‘a long-term migrant as a person who moves to a country other than his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year and short-term migrants as a person who moves for at least three months but less than a year’ (ibid.: 11). In other words, short visits to foreign countries as a professional worker or as a tourist are not considered a form of migration. This same interpretation of what international migration is will be used in assessing the relationship between human development and international migration, since the mutual influence of migrants and human development becomes particularly visible and possibly stronger after a longer period of time.

2.1.2. Debating different perspectives on the causality of the relation

As argued earlier in this thesis, the relation between international migration and human development has been widely explored over time. In the literature, there is a fierce debate visible between policy makers and scholars that have a positive perspective on the relation, and policy maker and scholars that stick to a negative image of the relation between the two concepts (de Haas 2010a: 229). In his article ‘Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective’ (2010a), Hein de Haas explores the way this debate shifted in focus over time and how this has led to different approaches towards international migration and development. He draws a helpful framework in which the different approaches, ethical debates and clashing visions can be placed.

The first distinction that de Haas makes in his article is between policy makers and scholars that are optimistic about the causal relation between international migration and development (in terms of possible benefits and progress) and the ones that are pessimistically pointing towards problematic impacts and concerns of the large-scale departure of individuals (de Haas 2010a: 227). The first group of policy makers and scholars, the optimists, underline the fact that migrants should be ‘seen as important agents of change and innovation’ (ibid.: 231). Individuals that move to another country are not by definition harming their country of origin. The optimists argue that the possible harming or benefitting depends on the way countries deal with migrants. Optimists state that migrants can be expected to have a positive effect on the countries they depart from. This positive effect manifests itself in the form of

(16)

16

newly gained knowledge, investment, entrepreneurial attitudes and stimulation of the economy (ibid.). In this manner, international migration can be viewed as ‘a major instrument of national economic development’ (ibid.: 232). It is necessary to analyse up until what level the departure of individuals, and thus the not physically being present in a country, can be compensated in another form. These scholars analyse the compensating effects of what migrants can contribute to their countries of origin in general (ibid.: 231). Kieran Oberman also underlines this argument by stating that ‘there are a number of compensatory factors, such as the remittances that migrants send home, which in some cases prove sufficient to turn brain drain into a net gain for poor sending states’ (2013: 429). Here, Oberman focuses on the migration of skilled workers, which is in general viewed as the most harmful form of migration. However, he is not alone in his view that a possible brain drain could be turned into a brain gain. More optimistic scholars support this idea.

In general, optimistic scholars have argued that the possibility of international migration can actually stimulate the incentives of individuals to gain more knowledge and human capital within the sending country (Hidalgo 2013: 606). In his article, Javier S. Hidalgo underlines this point by arguing against the pessimistic view that international migration of highly-skilled labourers such as health workers has only negative consequences for the sending country. He states that studies have shown an increase in educated health workers caused by the prospect of emigration (ibid.). The possible outlook on international migration to another country in itself can increase the number of individuals educated in a certain professional field by stimulating motivations. In that case, the so-called harming of brain drain is outweighed by the brain gaining that occurs. Devesh Kapur and John McHale strengthen this argument by arguing along the same line that a possible brain drain could turn into a brain gain when it stimulates individuals to invest more in skills (2006: 310). Furthermore, they also underline that migrants can possibly function as ‘entrepreneurs and institution builders’ (Kapur & McHale 2006: 311), depending on how the ties between the migrants and the sending countries are established.

The pessimists, however, object to this positive view and take a more critical stand with regard to migrants. They mainly view international migration as a ‘“flight from misery”’ (de Haas 2010a: 233). This group of policy makers and scholars focuses more explicitly on migrants that are skilled and view the international migration of these individuals as an action ‘to deprive poor countries of their scarce skilled and professional labour resources in which states have invested many years of education’ (ibid.). The expectation is that international

(17)

17

migration will eventually undermine both regional and national economies because the much-needed human and material resources are disappearing (ibid.: 234). Kapur and McHale frame this in terms of ‘fiscal losses, lost knowledge spillovers, and the possibility of lost specialized skills’ (Kapur & McHale 2006: 312). Additionally, they argue that these patterns of emigration can turn into a vicious cycle in which the bad circumstances that cause the emigration will not improve due to the departure of the human capital needed to change the circumstances (ibid.: 313). Vedran Horvat also elaborates on this argument in his article ‘Brain Drain. Threat to Successful Transition in South East Europe?’ (2004) with a case study that shows that, in South East Europe, ‘the mass emigration of highly-skilled persons from a country or region means the weakening of the human potential necessary for social changes’ (Horvat 2004: 80). So while South East European countries encounter the departure of skilled individuals due to insufficient living circumstances, are those skilled individuals at the same time crucial for the process of improving the living circumstances. Following from this, it is not surprising for pessimists to argue that migration causes more inequality in the world by deepening the differences in welfare between regions (de Haas 2010a: 233). Furthermore, it can lead to more dependency between countries, which in itself stimulates emigration (ibid.: 234). Migration then results in an ‘asymmetric growth’ (ibid.) that is said to be negative.

Pessimists furthermore reject the argument made by optimists that remittances will at least partly compensate for the migration of individuals. They disagree with this argument by pointing towards the fact that remittances mainly end up with the already better-off groups (de Haas 2010a: 236). Instead of the entire society benefitting from the remittances when resources are invested productively, are the resources mostly used for everyday consumption (ibid.). Where the optimists would see the capital transfer as an opportunity, argue the pessimists that this opportunity does not get seized in practice and will thus not reduce the harm. Furthermore, pessimists elaborate on the socio-cultural consequences of remittances and argue that exposing people in the sending country to the wealth enjoyed by migrants can influence the tastes of individuals towards material aspirations (ibid.: 237). Especially the youth is vulnerable for this effect, because dissatisfaction with the standard of living could encourage more migration towards more prosperous countries (ibid.). Such an argument about the different standards of living can be treated as a separate debate in the academic literature. That debate deals with the relation between patterns of international migration and levels of human development. Whereas the first debate focused on the disagreements between optimists and pessimists with regard to the opportunities created by migration, deals the

(18)

18

following debate with the impacts of migration and the causes of migration in relation to human development (ibid.: 228).

Taking the previous arguments together makes it clear why pessimists argue that migration has to be treated as blocking the process of development and increasing inequality between regions and countries, while the optimists see migration as an opportunity that can lead to more development. An explicit link between migration patterns and levels of human development is thus made in both perspectives on international migration. This link in itself can constitute for two other approaches that we can distinguish in the literature. The first approach deals with and assesses the impact of international migration on human development (de Haas 2010a: 228). This approach overlaps for a large part with the arguments explored in both the perspectives of the optimists and the pessimists and would discuss the fact that migration phenomena influence the processes of human development in sending countries by either stimulating it or blocking it. In his article ‘International Migration and Human Development in Destination Countries: A Cross-National Analysis of Less-Developed Countries, 1970-2005’ (2010) Matthew Sanderson argues that ‘the impact of international migration on development outcomes in migrant-receiving countries has not been addressed systematically across countries and over time’ (Sanderson 2010: 60). For that reason, he explores how immigration in developing countries has influenced the development process of those receiving countries. There is thus a causal relation between the levels of human development on the one hand and migration patterns on the other.

In the second debate, which is concerned with the causes of international migration, this line of reasoning is turned around (de Haas 2010a: 228). Here, the causal relation between human development and migration is explored, too. However, the questions asked in this debate deal with the drivers behind migration processes in general. Relating this principle to human development leads to a discussion in which scholars explore the possible effects of differences in levels of human development on migration patterns. By focusing on factors that function as incentives to international migration, this debate seems to be closely related to the traditional discussion about push and pull factors (de Haas 2010b: 4). As discussed above, it can be argued that different living conditions either encourage or discourage international migration. In general, different levels of human development should be taken into account when trying to understand the motivations of individuals to migrate to other countries.

In his paper ‘Migration Transitions’, Hein de Haas elaborates on this causal relation and explores the line of reasoning that the classical conceptualization of international

(19)

19

migration as the consequence of differences in absolute and relative incomes of countries should be broadened (2010b: 4). Instead of focusing just on wealth and income, he argues that the meaningful notions of agency and structure should be incorporated in migration theory in order to understand migration phenomena to the fullest (de Haas 2010b.: 5). De Haas argues that research on the causes of migration has fallen behind due to the messy character of the phenomenon. Often social theory sticks to the general statement that ‘most people migrate to improve their wellbeing’ (ibid.: 2). The universal character of such a statement does not, however, help in explaining real-world phenomena (ibid.). Nevertheless, assuming that the general well-being is what individuals care about leads to an expectation that the level of human development and international migration are in a causal relationship: a low level of human development leads to high chances of emigration, while a high level of human development makes emigration less likely (ibid.: 19). It can thus be argued that large-scale movements of people are relatable to different levels of well-being in the countries of origin and the hosting countries. Surely, when a country A and a country B have similar living conditions, then a large-scale movement of people from country A to country B would not be in line with expectations. If country B, however, has a considerably higher standard of living and sought-after living conditions, movement of people from country A to country B would seem more reasonable. In essence, a high standard of living in a particular country would imply a high chance of well-being and thus suggest high numbers of immigration and low numbers of emigration. A low standard of living would, using the same logic, imply high numbers of emigration and low numbers of immigration. This hypothesis could be tested using the Human Development Index. Nevertheless, hitherto only a few articles have been written which make a serious attempt to test this hypothesis in practice.

2.1.3. Research on international migration and the Human Development Index

Up until now, I have delineated the different debates concerning the relation between international migration and human development. There is not, however, a clear-cut answer to the questions how international migration influences human development and how human development influences migration patterns. In order to explore the possible answers to these questions, it is necessary to be able to measure and compare different levels of human development. In contrast to the relationship between migration and human development, is the body of literature on the link between migration and the Human Development Index very slim. It is nevertheless of great importance here.

(20)

20

In their article ‘A Human Development Index for the United States-Mexico Border’ Joan Anderson and Jim Gerber present a modified version of United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index called the ‘Border Human Development Index’ (2004: 3). With this adjusted index, the authors intent ‘to compare the development levels of the U.S. counties and Mexican municipios that touch the U.S.-Mexico Border’ (ibid.). In their book ‘Fifty Years of Change on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Growth, Development and Quality of Life’ (2009) they relate these measurements and comparisons to phenomena as border security and labour migration. Among other conclusions, the authors state that

the contemporary flow of Mexicans northward is partly about wages, but its relationship to the development gap is far deeper than dollars per hour. Migration satisfies the needs of Mexicans who lack social safety nets such as life insurance and access to credit but who are intent on advancing their own economic well-being and that of their families and communities (Anderson & Gerber 2009: 212).

In other words: the border regions seem to be extremely sensitive to cross-border migration (as an action with the goal to improve the well-being of families) due to large differences in scores on the Human Development Index.

Furthermore, in the article ‘Human Development Approach to Migration Analysis of District Level Data of Nepal’ Yogendra B. Gurung intends to apply the concept of human development as defined by the United Nations in order to deal ‘with causes and consequences of migration not only on the basis of economic dimensions, but also on the social, cultural and political dimensions of development for freedoms and well-being of human lives’ (2006: 2). He attempts to look at migration phenomena in Nepal with a human development perspective in order to explain the occurrence of migration. Gurung argues that people probably migrate from one place to another in order to achieve a better state of human well-being than before migrating (Gurung 2006: 14). His approach, which uses the concept of well-being, thus goes beyond the classical push-pull model by focussing more on rational choice of individuals (ibid.). He views a human development approach as an appropriate framework for analysing migration, since it focuses on a wider range of aspects which could enrich the lives of people (ibid.: 3). The research conducted by Gurung demonstrates that it is indeed the case that human migration is in a significant linear relationship with levels of human development

(21)

21

(ibid.: 14). He argues that ‘population mobility in the district and tendency of people to go to a district are closely associated with the prosperity of human well-being in that district’ (ibid.: 9).

However, Gurung is not the first in applying the human development approach to migration. He points out that John Kerry conducted a similar kind of research in 1997 in which he explored the relationship between the Human Development Index scores and migration in European countries (Gurung 2006: 3). Kerry argued that the emigration from Poland decreased when the Polish Human Development Index rose and the country changed into an importer of labour (ibid.). His empirical research supported the hypothesis that emigration decreases when the scores on the Human Development Index of a country rises (ibid.). Gurung argues that KC, who conducted a research in which he compared 75 district migration phenomena with human development indicators, also found a clear causal relation between migration into a district and the human development indicators in that same area (ibid.: 3-4). All in all, these researches support the idea that a higher score on the Human Development Index correlates with a lower score on migration levels.

The relation between human migration and the Human Development Index scores should nevertheless be approached in a critical manner. Is it indeed all as straightforward as these few studies suggest? Interesting is that, as elaborated on in the introduction, the current migration phenomena which Europe is encountering do not fit well with these findings described by the authors who analysed the relationship between the Human Development Index scores and human migration in Nepal, Europe and America. What is it that the current Human Development Index scores do not measure and thus not show? In the article ‘Impact of migrant workers on the Human Development Index’ (2014) Mamtani et al. also elaborate on a more methodological critique. They explore the question how international migration could impact on county-specific Human Development Index scores. Other than the researches explored above, which focused mainly on explaining the causes of migration in terms of different scores on the Human Development Index, do these authors focus on the effects of human migration on the Human Development Index scores themselves. They argue that the education indicator is sensitive to change due to the influx of migrants. Especially for countries dealing with a high influx of unskilled guest workers, and related low educational levels, the educational indicator of the Human Development Index could get biased (Mamtani et al. 2014: 23). With this study, the authors aim to determine the impact of large numbers of guest workers on the Human Development Index ranking and thus provide a critique on the

(22)

22

credibility of the current ranking of countries (ibid.: 24). It is not at all certain that this bias is also present in the case of the current pan-European migration, but this study is a first step towards a critical assessment of the Human Development Index and its measurement tools. This thesis might take a similar path of methodological criticism.

2.2. Concluding remarks

All in all, this chapter showed that much has been written about the relationship between international migration and human development. It is possible to distinguish between different, fierce debates within the academic literature over a longer period of time. This chapter has looked into the different views from optimists and pessimists on the possible opportunities created by migration, as well as the relation between human development and migration patterns in terms of causes and impacts. It has become clear, however, that there is not much written work in which the relation between international migration and human development gets tested in practice. As shown, there are a few attempts to analyse and explain migration patterns starting from comparing the levels of human development. While the Human Development Index could possibly function as a proper tool to analyse the relation between migration patterns and human development, is the amount of research done in this field nevertheless surprisingly slim. For that reason, this thesis builds its research upon the debates and developments in the literature as discussed in this chapter so far. It will make an attempt to explore the methodological limitations of the Human Development Index by critically assessing the international migration phenomena that we are currently encountering within Europe. From here, the argument will start with exploring the purpose of international migration for individuals in terms of an expansion of the set of capabilities available to them. By doing so, the discussion can be opened on the question whether the Human Development Index measures the factors which drive international migration.

(23)

23

3. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN A CAPABILITIES APPROACH

FRAMEWORK

Deciding to migrate is not easy and is not without consequences. It would be safe to say that the choice to migrate is driven by a strong sense of finding better opportunities, by the idea that another country has something to offer that would be worth migrating for. The country of destination has something to offer that individuals care deeply about in their daily lives. So the circumstances in the country of origin and in the country of destination are of great importance when exploring the purpose of migration. With other words: both external factors and personal values play key roles in explaining the choice to migrate.

In order to explore international migration as a tool of expanding the well-being of an individual I will, firstly, introduce the basic ideas of the Capabilities Approach and its aims. Second, I will briefly explore the discussions on the ways in which the Capabilities Approach can be applied in order to assess individual well-being. The conceptualization of well-being (or happiness, which is a closely related concept), what the ideal state of well-being looks like and how it can be measured form a separate academic debate, a political debate and an important question within policies. I am aware of the complexity of the concept and the fact that the use of it is discussed extensively in the literature, yet I intend to limit the use of well-being in this thesis to the way it is conceptualized in the Capabilities Approach. In this approach, well-being is conceptualized as the answer to the question whether an individual can live a life that he or she values. As such, well-being is approached as being different for every individual and influential on individual behaviour. Especially this perspective on the individual is useful, since the thesis explores a phenomenon that is driven by individual motivations. Thirdly, international migration will be looked at through the glasses of the Capabilities Approach so that we can understand international migration as a function of improving the set of capabilities available to an individual. Following from that, the chapter will lastly conclude that international migration can be assessed as a rational choice of individuals to improve their state of well-being.

3.1. The Capabilities Approach: core ideas

The Capabilities Approach has been pioneered by Amartya Sen and is a theoretical framework that directly assesses human capability and freedom. In its core, the Capabilities

(24)

24

Approach has a normative character. The approach consist of two core idea: 1) the idea that the freedom to achieve well-being lies at the basis of human morality, and 2) that the freedom to achieve well-being can best be understood in terms of people’s capabilities. In other words, the approach has been developed in order to facilitate quality-of-life assessment and to theorize about what lies at the basis of social justice (Nussbaum 2011: 18). When assessing the quality-of-life within societies, every individual is an end in itself (ibid.). The question that should be asked is formulated by Nussbaum as: “What is each person able to do and to be?” (ibid.).

The ability of people to do what and to be who they prefer consists of two elements. The perspective of the Capabilities Approach is on people’s capabilities on the one hand, and on people’s functionings on the other. This distinction is fundamental, because it underlines the notion of freedom that is central in the approach. In general, the Capabilities Approach points towards the fact that expanding the capabilities of people, not just their functionings, should be the ultimate goal, since capabilities are thought of ‘as spheres of freedom and choice’ (Nussbaum 2011: 25). They are described as the valuable opportunities people have in their lives, opportunities which they can turn into actual functionings. This latter group, on the other hand, represents the things that an individual is and does in his or her life. They are the realizations of one or more capabilities. Functionings can have a very elementary character, for instance the functioning to be nourished and to have a good health (Sen 1993: 31), which is valuable for every human being. However, they can also be context specific and thus more valuable for one individual than for another. So especially since functionings are sensitive to preferences, does the Capabilities Approach underline the importance of providing

capabilities to individuals.

The creation of capabilities is furthermore the result of an interplay between internal abilities and external factors (Nussbaum 2011: 22). Only when both internal abilities and external factors facilitate each other, is a so called combined capability created (ibid.: 21). A clear example of this interplay is riding a bike. In order to ride a bike, an individual should have the skill to ride a bike. The ability to ride a bike is internal to the individual. Furthermore, in order to ride a bike this individual should have both a bike and a road on which he or she can ride this bike. These circumstances needed to actually ride a bike are external factors. Together, they make it possible for an individual to ride a bike. However, with one of the two missing (either the internal ability or the external factors) riding a bike would not be possible and would thus not be a combined capability for the individual. For that

(25)

25

reason, two questions necessary to analyse the well-being of an individual would be 1) whether the human abilities are sufficient enough to reach a level of well-being (internal ability), and 2) whether the circumstances facilitate the use of those human abilities in order to reach well-being (external factors). Arguing along this line, the Capabilities Approach is able to pave the way towards assessing how someone is doing in terms of well-being. When it comes to the actual assessment of well-being, however, there is some disagreement between scholars who work extensively with the Capabilities Approach. While some scholars argue that well-being is hard to assess since it is sensitive to subjective notions of what well-being looks like, do other scholars argue that it is possible to provide a number of basic capabilities that are valuable for all individuals across time and space.

3.2. The Capabilities Approach and individual well-being

Amartya Sen, who pioneered the Capabilities Approach in the first place, is sceptical towards the idea that we can assess well-being of individuals. He argues that ‘the well-being achievement of a person can be seen as an evaluation of the “wellness” of the person’s state of being’ (Sen 1993: 36). The question that should be addressed is whether a person is able to live a life he or she values. He questions, however, whether it is possible to compare the well-being of one person to another. He argues that, in order to evaluate how well people are of in terms of the capabilities that are available to them, it is necessary to decide on the capabilities and functionings that constitute a good life and, additionally, to determine the value attached to each component which together create a concept of a good life (Sen 1999: 76-77). Sen argues that the only way towards such an evaluation tool is through a decision making process in which the people are the central players. He proposes a ‘“social choice” exercise’ (ibid.: 78) that will lead towards a democratic concept of what a good life looks like. Such an exercise puts people at the centre and takes individual preferences into account. Hence, in his notion of how well-being should be assessed, Sen clearly takes a different position than other scholars in the field of the Capabilities Approach. Whereas Sen points towards the evaluative character of the Capabilities Approach and the importance of creating ‘zones of freedom’ in order to improve the amount of freedom enjoyed by individuals (Nussbaum 2011: 70), does Martha Nussbaum use the Capabilities Approach in a normative manner with the aim to create a measurement tool that can account for a basic level of human dignity. Sen also leans towards a normative use of the Capabilities Approach, by arguing that certain capabilities are

(26)

26

more important than others, but he does not present a clear picture of what his notion of basic justice would look like (ibid.).

Following the path taken by Sen, does Martha Nussbaum build her specific use of the Capabilities Approach and her notion of well-being on similar ideas. However, Nussbaum expands the ideas even further. Whereas Sen argues that well-being and a concept of the good life can only be constituted through a democratic process of ‘social choice’ (Sen 1999: 78), does Nussbaum build her principle of well-being and the good life on normative grounds. Nussbaum takes the principle of ‘basic social justice’ (Nussbaum 2011: 19) as her starting point and introduces a list of central capabilities which represents the capabilities necessary in order to live a human life that’s worthy of human dignity (ibid.). Where Sen explicitly rejects the creation of such a list due to his emphasis on the principle of freedom (Sen 2004: 78), does Nussbaum underline the importance of basic human dignity. Even though Sen does not ‘employ a threshold or a specific list of capabilities’ (Nussbaum 2011: 19), he still has an interest in using the Capabilities Approach in order to define a principle of basic justice (ibid.: 70) and that is exactly what Nussbaum intents to do. She asks the question what a life worthy of human dignity requires and identifies ten central human capabilities that account for a threshold of a life worthy of human dignity (ibid.: 32). A brief exploration of these ten central capabilities follows from here, derived from Nussbaum’s official list as defined in her book ‘Creating Capabilities’ (2011: 33-34).

(1) Life. An individual should be able to live a human life with a normal length. Life expectancy and the quality of that life are central here.

(2) Bodily health. An individual should be able to enjoy a good health, including being adequately nourished and to have a good shelter.

(3) Bodily integrity. The ability of individuals to have control over their own bodies in terms of movement and satisfaction. This capability underlines the fact that an individual should be secured against unwanted use of the body.

(4) Senses, imagination, and thought. The ability of individuals to think, reason, imagine and use the senses in a human manner.

(27)

27

(5) Emotions. An individual should be able to attach oneself to things and people that are outside of oneself, including associations that support the existence of this capability.

(6) Practical reason. The ability of individuals to create an idea of what is good and what is bad. Additionally, being able to think about and reflect on the planning of an individual’s life.

(7) Affiliation. The ability of individuals to engage in social relationships with others and to imagine the life perspective of others. Additionally, individuals should have a social basis of self-respect and non-humiliation in order to be treated as of equal worth by others.

(8) Other species. The ability of individuals to live with and care for the nature in general.

(9) Play. An individual should be able to enjoy recreational activities.

(10) Political and material control over one’s environment. The ability of individuals to have property rights up until a same level as others, to seek employment on an equal basis with others. Furthermore, individuals should have the option of political participation, have influence on political choices and have protected freedom of speech and freedom to associate.

Nussbaum argues that a human life is only worth living if these ten capabilities are available to a particular individual. She states that providing more of one capability cannot account for the lack of another capability, since all capabilities on the list are valuable in themselves (Nussbaum 2011: 35). In essence, Nussbaum attributes a large part of the responsibility to provide these ten central capabilities to states and state institutions. She argues that, ‘given a widely shared understanding of the task of government (namely, that government has the job of making people able to pursue a dignified and minimally flourishing life), it follows that a decent political order must secure to all citizens at least a threshold level of these ten Central Capabilities’ (ibid.: 32-33). Nussbaum views the possibility to live a life worth of human dignity as a basic job of governments (ibid.: 64). Hence, a nation that does not provide these capabilities to its citizens is to that extent unjust (Nussbaum 2006: 285). The capabilities on the list, however, require more than just the inhibition of interfering state action (ibid.: 286).

(28)

28

The state needs to actively shape an environment that puts citizens in the position to function according to the ten central capabilities (ibid.: 287). Ingrid Robeyns also underlines the importance of the environment by stating that

the capability approach directs our focus to people’s capability sets, but insists that we also need to scrutinize the impact of social norms, the context in which economic production and social interactions take place and how that affects people’s well-being, and whether the circumstances in which people choose from their opportunity sets are just. Attention to the importance of social norms and other informal social structures is a crucial characteristic of the capability approach (Robeyns 2009: 405).

Robeyns thus points towards social structures in general, while Nussbaum explicitly mentions the relation between the state and its citizens. From here, it is a short step towards the relation between the functioning of the state and international migration of citizens. If a state fails in providing its citizens with a certain capability that is deeply valued by society in general, then the movement of individuals to a state that does facilitate this capability seems plausible. For that reason, the relation between international migration and the concept of well-being as defined within the Capabilities Approach should be assessed in more detail.

3.3. International migration as an expansion of individual capabilities and perceptions of well-being

When an individual decides to migrate to another country, he or she makes the rational choice to leave one country for another. As argued before, the drivers behind international migration are always related to opportunities to improve lives. As long as people move from one place to another, it is safe to assume that the place of destination has something to offer that the place of origin lacks. For that reason, migration can be thought of as an indicator of well-being. If an individual enjoys the highest level of well-being possible on one place, than he or she would have no incentive to make the drastic decision of leaving this place for another place. If an individual does, however, decide to move to another country, than the costs are probably lower than the gains. There must be a certain difference between well-being as

(29)

29

experienced ‘here’ and well-being as experienced ‘there’. Hence, it can be argued that a lack of capabilities available to individuals in one country drives international migration. The European Union has made a rough sketch on the drivers of pan-European migration by providing data on the main reasons for migration. This data has extensively been used in the report ‘How free is free movement? Dynamics and drivers of mobility within the European Union’ (2013) in which Meghan Benton and Milica Petrovic explore the pan-European migration. They state that, in general, opportunity differentials are indeed the main drivers of migration (Benton & Petrovic 2013: 12). Different opportunities between the country of origin and the country of destination encourage individuals into migrating. Whereas the idea of opportunity differentials brings together different reasons to migrate, would it be of great value to unpack the term into more concrete reasons to migrate. What was the deciding factor for individuals in Europe to choose migrating to another European member state over staying? In the year 2008, the European Union analysed pan-European migration patterns by conducting a survey (Labour Force Survey)2 with which they investigated the motivations of individuals to migrate from one European country to another. The survey was conducted among persons that have migrated to another European member state and were aged fifteen years or older. Furthermore, the reason of migrating applied only for the last migration movement and, lastly, the information had been collected for a limited number of European countries. Nevertheless, the information can be valuable in that it tells us something about what reasons count as the most important factors when considering migration. Therefore, despite the rough numbers, it can underline the hypothesis that international migration should be thought of as a tool in order to expand the options available to individuals.

In their database Eurostat, the European Union clustered all these national surveys and divided the results into five groups that represent main reasons for migration. The concluding statistics show that the main reasons to migrate are labelled as 1) family reasons, 2) educational reasons, 3) work, job found before migrating, 4) work, no job found before migrating, and 5) international protection (see Appendix A). These main reasons for migration, as provided by the European member states, have been used by Benton and Petrovic to create a hierarchical picture of the main reasons to migrate for European citizens. Taken together, the number one reason for pan-European migration is work (Benton & Petrovic 2013: 13). This category includes both migration after work was found in another

2

Eurostat: ‘Labour market situation of migrants’ visited at

The Human Development Index and international migration : questioning the mismatch between international migration phenomena and Human Development Index rankings with a Capabilities Approach perspective on perceptions o