Current migration systems encourage migrants to take on debt and service providers to behave poorly, undermining the development impact of labor mobility. We propose a Migrant Welfare Fund that partners with impact investors to pay service providers for outcomes in connecting migrants to jobs, creating a rights-respecting and self-financing system.
CGD Policy Blogs
Charles Kenny reviews recent Economics Nobel Prize Winners Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo’s new book, Good Economics for Hard Times.
The biggest immigration debate of this year in the US has been what to do about the rise in migration pressure at the Southwest border. That pressure comes mostly from the “Northern Triangle” of Central America: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
This blog post is part of a series called Let’s Talk Development, originally published by the World Bank here. The series includes contributions from external bloggers and reflects their views.
How Can Japan Meet Its Goal of 500,000 Foreign Workers by 2025? By Contracting Out Labor Mobility Programs
To combat a “super-aging” society, Japan plans to admit 500,000 foreign workers by 2025. But the country faces significant implementation gaps, which could be solved through contracting work out.
‘Untying’ work permits can reduce workers’ vulnerabilities, strengthen their wages, and improve employer productivity. But these benefits can only be realized if practical barriers to changing employers are removed. Here, we describe how.
How can countries of destination promote skilled, legal labor migration while also cultivating development in countries of origin? Here we highlight innovations doing just that.
With proper design, Global Skill Partnerships offer governments a new tool—alongside the old, unilateral tools—to maximize the benefits of migration.
Last week’s report from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC)—an independent body commissioned by the Home Office—included some good suggestions for the UK government, such as removing the cap on high-skilled immigration. However, the committee also made the rather extreme, and we think ill-advised, recommendation that there should be no legal work-based route for so called “low-skilled” immigration, which would shut the door on people without a job offer worth £30,000.