IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331440.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the Impact of the Movement of Labour Using a Model of Bilateral Migration Flows

Author

Listed:
  • Walmsley, Terrie L.
  • Winters, L. Alan
  • Ahmed, S. Amer
  • Parsons, Christopher R.

Abstract

The economics literature increasingly recognizes the importance of migration and its ties with many other aspects of development and policy. Examples include the role of international remittances (Harrison et al 2003) or those immigrant-links underpinning the migration-trade nexus (Gould 1994). More recently Walmsley and Winters (2005) demonstrated utilising their Global Migration model (GMig) that lifting restrictions on the movement of natural persons would significantly increase global welfare with the majority of benefits accruing to developing countries. Although an important result, the lack of bilateral labour migration data forced Walmsley and Winters (2005) to make approximations in important areas and naturally precluded their tracking bilateral migration agreements. In this paper we incorporate bilateral labour flows into the GMig model developed by Walmsley and Winters (2005) to examine the impact of liberalizing the temporary movement of natural persons. Quotas on both skilled and unskilled temporary labour in the developed economies are increased by 3% of their labour forces. This additional labour is supplied by the developing economies. The results confirm that restrictions on the movement of natural persons impose significant costs on nearly all countries, and that those on unskilled labour are more burdensome than those on skilled labour. Developed economies increasing their skilled and unskilled labour forces by 3% would raise the welfare of their permanent residents by an average $US382 per person. Most of those gains ($US227 per person) arise from the lifting of quotas on unskilled labour. On average the permanent residents of developing countries also gain $US4.60 per person in welfare from sending unskilled labour, but lose $US1.35 per person from skilled labour. While results differ across developing economies, most gain as a result of the higher remittances sent home. The new skilled and unskilled migrants gain in real terms by $US8K and $US6.5K per worker, respectively. Existing migrants in the developed economies lose in terms of real income as real wages fall with the increased labour supply, while those in developing countries gain as real wages rise.

Suggested Citation

  • Walmsley, Terrie L. & Winters, L. Alan & Ahmed, S. Amer & Parsons, Christopher R., 2005. "Measuring the Impact of the Movement of Labour Using a Model of Bilateral Migration Flows," Conference papers 331440, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331440/files/2152.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2003. "Global Economic Prospects 2004 : Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 14782.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacques Fontanel, 2019. "Sécurité économique, insécurité mondiale," Post-Print hal-02522556, HAL.
    2. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    3. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "From Bound Duties to Actual Protection: Industrial Liberalisation in the Doha Round," Working Papers 2005-12, CEPII research center.
    4. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Sébastien Jean & David Laborde, 2006. "Binding Overhang and Tariff-Cutting Formulas," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 207-232, July.
    5. Anderson, Kym, 2004. "The Challenge of Reducing Subsidies and Trade Barriers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4592, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Thomas W. Hertel, 2006. "A Survey of Findings on the Poverty Impacts of Agricultural Trade Liberalization," The Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26.
    7. Susanna Kinnman & Magnus Lodefalk, 2009. "A Global Baltic:Potential Gains from Trade Liberalisation in the Baltic Sea States," Baltic Journal of Economics, Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies, vol. 9(1), pages 55-79, July.
    8. Chitiga, Margaret & Kandiero, Tonia & Mabugu, Ramos, 2005. "A Computable General Equilibrium Micro-Simulation Analysis of the Impact of Trade Policies on Poverty in Zimbabwe," Conference papers 331388, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Dowlah Caf, 2012. "Mode 4 of WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services: Can it spur Cross-Border Labor Mobility from Developing Countries?," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 56-82, December.
    10. Pierre Rainelli, 2004. "Quelles voies pour l'évolution de la politique agricole ?," Post-Print hal-01518568, HAL.
    11. Guillaume Daudin, 2003. "La logistique de la mondialisation," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 87(4), pages 409-435.
    12. Kym Anderson, 2004. "Agriculture, Trade Reform And Poverty Reduction: Implications For Sub-Saharan Africa," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 22, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    13. Zewdie Habte Shikur, 2020. "Agricultural policies, agricultural production and rural households’ welfare in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Daniel Lederman & Çaglar Özden, 2007. "Geopolitical Interests And Preferential Access To U.S. Markets," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 235-258, July.
    15. Arsenio M Balisacan, 2004. "Averting Hunger and Food Insecurity in Asia," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, June.
    16. Hilmar Þór HILMARSSON, 2018. "Climate Change and the Absence of an International Investment Organization," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(3), pages 274-288, July.
    17. Sibanjan Mishra, 2016. "Macro-economic factors and foreign direct investment in India: a Toda Yamamoto causality approach," International Journal of Economics and Business Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(3), pages 195-208.
    18. Murunga, Powel, 2024. "Assessing Impact of Fertilizer Adoption in Boosting Small Scale Crop Farming Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344322, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
    19. Costas Arkolakis & Sharat Ganapati & Marc-Andreas Muendler, 2021. "The Extensive Margin of Exporting Products: A Firm-Level Analysis," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 182-245, October.
    20. Munir, Sidra & Rao, Zia-ur-Rehman & Sana, S, 2019. "Financial Development, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: The Role of Institutional Quality in Pakistan," Journal of Finance and Accounting Research, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, vol. 1(2), pages 27-47, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.