Policies on low and semi-skilled labour migration

This study explores factors that initiate and perpetuate low skill labour migration from India to the EU, examines the migration processes and evaluates the policy prescriptions available to manage such migration flows. Based on a survey of the available quantitative and qualitative evidence, our study points to the existence of a fairly stable and persistent demand for low skilled labour in the EU, at least in the medium term. As this demand cannot be fully met from within the EU, there is and will remain a strong demand for low skilled migrant workers from non-EU countries. This offers immense scope for traditional labour sending countries like India as well as destination countries in the EU to strengthen the migration–development nexus. Unfortunately, on both sides, there seems to be an absence of a coherent and focused policy for governing migration of low skilled workers. Considering that migration of low skilled workers from India is mainly directed to the Persian Gulf, the study also makes a comparison between the existing immigration policies in EU countries and the Persian Gulf in order to draw relevant policy perspectives. Evolving appropriate policy response in relation to low skilled migration to Europe is also necessary given that a significant share of such workers end up as irregular migrants in transit or at the destination.

The preference for high-skilled migrants and the relative ambivalence of countries to develop adequate policies for low-skilled migrants is often times accepted without question. The lack of information on the socio-economic impact of these low-skilled migrants on sending and receiving countries thus skews their public image. To challenge this myth of low-preference for the “low-skilled” migrant worker, the paper explores a case study of Indian Punjabi migrants in the Italian dairy industry to show that relevance of these so-called “low-skilled” migrant workers in producing “high-quality” Italian cheese.

The majority of the Skill Matching mechanisms relating to India EU migration do not provide the full functions that the commercial Skill Matching model seeks to offer. Only commercial Skill Matching can really be regarded as a model that is intentional, sophisticated and leading best practice in the field and that is aiding the matching of skills and jobs from India to the EU. The commercial Skill Matching predominately serves, however, the high skilled and professional migrant. Whilst leading global recruitment companies practice the model worldwide, the size of practice relative to the size of the market is small and only begins to scratch the surface in comparison to the force and size of the market driving mechanism influencing Indian labour migration to the EU. Consequently, both semi-skilled and un/low-skilled migrants generally fail to benefit from such mechanisms of leading Skill Matching. They therefore rely on Skill Matching practices that are indirect or unintentional in their nature. However, even where perfectly organized Skill Matching channels are not in place, market mechanisms and immigration selection systems have had a tendency to create some of the same dimensions that an intentional Skill Matching model comprises. There is a demand particularly for medium skills in Europe and governments globally are beginning to recognize the gap of a Skill Matching mechanism for this skill category of migrants by taking action through the creation of mechanisms with partners such as the private sector to facilitate intentional Skill Matching, however, this work is just beginning to take momentum and substantial work remains.

Today more than ever, the European Union needs a comprehensive albeit differentiated approach towards legal labour migration, which responds to the varied needs of domestic labour markets and at the same time discourages effectively irregular migration. The segmented structure of domestic labour markets and the demographic deficit of Europe lead to increasing demand for a migrant labour force. This labour force is concentrated in specific sectors, such as cleaning, catering and care jobs for women; and construction, agricultural and semi-skilled manufacturing jobs for men. Such labour shortages are better catered to by a demand-led approach that takes into account the different economic cycles of Member States, their different economies and labour markets, while at the same time responds to long-term sociodemographic processes, including: a. The ageing of European societies; b. The configuration of nuclear families without extended support networks to cover needs for care of children or elderly/disabled people; c. The participation of women in paid work outside the home; d. These trends are irreversible and persist even in periods of economic downturn or weak growth. A flexible albeit proactive regulatory framework that would allow for demand and shortages to drive recruitment of migrant workers, while also being adaptable to territorial and sectorial variations, would be optimal. Of course, the thorny issue also needs to be addressed of how to match flexibility with worker protection from exploitation, setting up a clear and realistic set of rights and duties for both employer and employee. A framework sectorial approach can be tested in niche sectors such as domestic work or agriculture, complementing existing directives regulating training, research, students, intracompany transferees, highskill migrants and seasonal employment.

The GLARUS project theorizes the ways in which rural societies are transformed as result of large-scale labour immigration, predominantly in low-skilled, manual industries, and how the different parties in the rural societies (immigrants, hosting communities) experience these processes. A key dimension is to explore hypothesized rural/urban and rural/rural differences: In what ways is rural immigration a different phenomenon from its urban counterpart? Are there differences in how the labour immigration phenomenon unfolds in rural communities? What are the implications of the economic base, demographic structure, peripherality, and historical experiences of the receiving communities? The conceptual approach draws on, seeks to cross-fertilize and moves beyond insights from three strands of literature: immigration theory, labour market theory and the rural studies tradition. Key concepts, theories and perspectives within these fields are transnationalism, segmented labour market theory, flexibilization and precarious work, and heterolocal identities, belongings and spaces. The project is genuinely comparative in its approach; nationally and internationally, to order to identify both generic aspects of rural labour migration, and to gain an understanding of how various contextual aspects influence the unfolding of the phenomenon. In Norway three rural study areas with different economic bases (agriculture, fish processing, and tourism) will be studied and compared to study cases in the US and the UK. These study cases will be explored using an extensive mixed-methods methodological design combining various qualitative and quantitative techniques. A key objective of the project is to develop a strong international research network on global rural labour. The project will recruit several young scholars and offer an extensive visiting scholar programme for early- and mid-career scientists.

The sponsorship system of the Arab Gulf countries comprises rules and regulations that tie the residence of a migrant worker to his/her sponsor in the country. This paper offers an in-depth examination of the legal framework of the sponsorship system of three countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The paper looks at different aspects of the system starting with the requirement for sponsorship and ending with the rules on absconding and repatriation.

The sponsorship system of the Arab Gulf countries comprises rules and regulations that tie the residence of a migrant worker to his/her sponsor in the country. This paper offers an in-depth examination of the legal framework of the sponsorship system of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ﾖ Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. It looks at different aspects of the system starting with the requirement for sponsorship and ending with the rules on absconding and repatriation.

The Labour Migration Policy Index (LMPI) aims to assess on a national level the mechanisms which allow employers to meet their labour needs, and which provide favourable conditions for migrant workers. The LMPI focuses on assessing the formal rules and regulations of labour migration programmes, as opposed to actual policy implementation and migration outcomes, which are more difficult to evaluate. The LMPI considers two fields of labour migration policy -- Administration and Entry Mechanisms, and Migrant Worker Entitlements. Each of these two fields is divided into two ‘macro indicators’, for example, ‘Administrative mechanisms’ and ‘Entry mechanisms’. The LMPI only assesses migration programmes in a limited number of countries. In order to ensure some geographical balance, research has been conducted on the following thirteen countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In the absence of a multilateral framework and a rule based global structure for the governance of international migration of people in all its complexities, countries engage in bilateral or regional cooperation in an attempt to engage and harmonize international movements and strive for a win-win situation. India and the EU are major trading partners and are engaged in a strategic Joint Action Plan with annual summit level talks; both sides are on the cusp of a new beginning through the soon to be concluded Free Trade Agreement (FTA). India-EU engagements, while underlining the importance of engagement on movement of people, have not clearly spelt out, as of yet, any roadmap for facilitation and enhancement of movement of people between the regions. The current paper examines if, and how, the bilateral relationship or engagement between India and the EU over the years has influenced international migration flows between the two sides and what potential challenges and policy options they face for a successful engagement and facilitation of movement of people. The paper suggests that given India’s strategic position as a major country of origin for skilled and semi-skilled migrant workers, coupled with foreseeable requirements in the EU domestic markets. There is need for a closer examination of policy initiatives to embrace bilateral flows and make the exercise beneficial for both partners. The International migration flows between India and Europe in the past had always depended on the quality and strength of engagement between the countries and regions. Currently, the EU however has a low profile in India in terms of its ability to attract the best of the talent compared to competitors such as the US and Canada. Therefore, the main challenge is to enhance the EU’s presence in India through greater participation, outreach and building of networks among academia, think tanks and the media. Student mobility need to be increased in all important sectors such as IT, healthcare, science and technology, research and development so as to help create advocacy groups and to enable a greater synergy of talent between India and the EU and enhance future cooperation, partnership and development. Easing of immigration policies for selective sectors of employment and education which are of strategic concern is also important. This will require measures for mutual recognition of degrees and skills, and a minimal window for long-term immigration and integration of third country migrant professionals and workers.

Migrant entrepreneurship has received increasing attention from policy makers, stakeholders and scholars. In both the Action Plan for the integration of third country nationals and the 2020 Entrepreneurship Action Plan, the European Commission emphasises that entrepreneurship represents an alternative form of decent and sustainable employment for migrants. This also follows recent academic and non-academic studies on the topic (European Commission, 2016; Rath, Solano and Schutjens, 2019). There are at least four reasons why policies and measures should focus on supporting migrant entrepreneurs, especially in early stages of the business: • Self-employment represents a way towards empowerment. Although it cannot be taken for granted that self-employment provides migrants with a higher income in comparison to those who opted for a salaried employment (see Bradley, 2004), self-employment represents a way to tackle unemployment, and underemployment - professional downgrading and employment in poorly paid, dangerous and demanding jobs (Rath, Solano and Schutjens, 2019). Furthermore, through migrant entrepreneurship, migrants can improve their social status in the receiving society (Allen and Busse, 2016; Basu, 2001; Solano, 2015). • The impact of migrant entrepreneurship goes way beyond the benefits for the individual entrepreneur. In quantifiable terms, the number of firms, the employment creation, the volume in trade and sales are increasing, something that may benefit the economy in general (Desiderio, 2014). Migrant entrepreneurs also bring about qualitative economic and market changes that result in relatively new products and processes. They gravitate to particular neighborhoods or areas, thereby creating interesting places for leisure and consumption and revitalizing these areas (see, Aytar and Rath, 2012). • A relevant number of migrants starts a business. While many international migrants are economically active as wage workers (i.e., employees), a small but significant number has chosen or would like to start a business. About 13 per cent of all foreign-born migrants in OECD countries are selfemployed (OECD, 2010 and 2013). The same happens for the EU28 countries, in which around the 12% of foreign population is self-employed (Eurostat, 2017). In many countries the rate of self-employment among migrants is higher than the one of natives (Eurostat, 2017; OECD, 2010 and 2013). • Migrant-owned business are likely to fail and to be in low-profitable sectors. Despite self-employment and entrepreneurship represent a promising alternative option for migrants to access the labour market, they need to be adequately supported by policies and initiatives. In fact, migrant enterprises have higher failure rates than nativeowned ones and tend to concentrate in low-profitable sectors (e.g., petty trade) with no possibilities of growth (Desiderio and Mestres 2011; OECD, 2010; Rath and Schutjens, 2016). The difficulties that migrant entrepreneurs have in running the business is due to some specific obstacles that migrants – and, more in general, vulnerable groups -face when they want to start a business. The obstacles are well-known and there is an extensive literature on this (Desiderio, 2014; Rath and Swagerman, 2016): • they have difficulties in accessing credit, especially for financial institutions. As they often lack collaterals (e.g., they do not own a house), financial institutions are likely to deny credit to them. Consequently, migrant entrepreneurs normally receive small loans from relatives, friends and other migrants. This hampers the possibility of entering in sectors that requires a relevant starting capital, which are normally more profitable. • migrant entrepreneurs have difficulties to deal with the bureaucracy of the host country. They have difficulties in understanding all the administrative steps to start the business. • they (often) lack of familiarity with the (business) environment and the market where they start the business. Having only limited knowledge of the context of the destination country – with often information received from other migrants – tunnels them towards ethnic and/or not profitable markets. • a limited personal network, which is often composed of other migrants, does not help in dealing with bureaucracy or accessing information on potential unexplored market – as other migrants have often limited information as well. In conclusion, migrant entrepreneurship may represent an alternative way to access the labour market of the host | 2 country. However, migrant entrepreneurship often results in low-profitable highly-demanding micro businesses, which do not represent a decent form of employment. This is because of the barriers that migrants face when it comes to start a business. Migrant entrepreneurship needs to be supported to become an alternative form of decent employment. Policy makers and support providers (e.g. public employment services, NGOs, microcredit institutions) often face many obstacles in the design and implementation of support policies for migrant entrepreneurs. This handbook is addressed to policy makers in the field and support providers and aims at summarizing the main kinds of support that can be provided to migrant entrepreneurs and the factors for successful support measures. In doing this, we present some good practices.

In the framework of the EU-funded project CrossMigration, the Migration Policy group produced a set of indicators to comparative analyse migration and integration policies, similar to the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The set of indicators allows researchers and policy makers to compare policies in different areas of migration and integration policies and different countries on that. To allow for a cross-country comparative and longitudinal analysis, the dataset included 39 countries (EU28 and other European countries) for 2014 and 2019. The indicators cover eight policy areas: Family reunion; Citizenship; Permanent residence; Labour market; Education; Political participation; Anti-discrimination; Health.

In 2015, IOM developed a Migration Governance Framework (MiGOF) to help define what “well-managed migration policy” might look like at the national level. The MiGOF was welcomed by IOM’s Member States the same year. The Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) were developed to assess national frameworks, and help to operationalize the MiGOF. The MGI is a tool based on policy inputs, which offers insights on policy levers that countries can use to develop their migration governance. The MGI is not meant to rank countries on the design or implementation of migration policies, but rather to be a framework to help countries in the assessment of the comprehensiveness of their migration policies, as well as to identify gaps and areas that could be strengthened. The MGI aims to advance conversations on migration governance by clarifying what “well-governed migration” might look like in the context of SDG Target 10.7. Data collection is based on 90+ indicators grounded in the six dimensions of the Migration Governance Framework (i.e., migrant rights, whole of government approach, well-being of migrants, partnerships, mobility dimension of crises, and safe, orderly and regular migration). Each indicator refers to absence, partial or complete presence of a policy or framework. Since 2015, 50 countries have been assessed based on this indicators. A draft Migration Governance Snapshot based on the findings on analysis is then shared with the government counterparts. Countries can use the MGI as a point of departure towards clarifying what “good governance” entails in the context of migration. Additionally, the MGI—once expanded—can serve as a source of a variety of information regarding “best practices” providing countries with institutional design and policy ideas. Initially, countries can use the MGI to develop a holistic understanding of their migration governance structure and identify significant gaps or areas that need to be strengthened. Finally, the MGI methodology can be used by countries when reporting at the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) on their national efforts to achieve the SDGs.

In 2008, new rules for labor immigration to Sweden were introduced. The regulations apply to employees coming from countries outside the EEA - that is, "third-country citizens”. The purpose of the new law was to facilitate global recruitment of labour, and to give employers better possibilities to employ persons with the right skills.