Foreign aid can reduce risky migration journeys - says study

If nations are going to use foreign aid to make migration less attractive to potential migrants, then they should be smarter about it, according to a new study.

There are currently conflicting theories around whether foreign aid is an effective tool to reduce migration. The "migration hump" theory, for example, suggests aid might actually increase migration by making it more financially feasible for individuals.

However, new research led by the University of Essex has for the first time found that foreign aid projects can successfully reduce the desire to migrate in the short-term if they trigger what is known as “instrumental place attachment”, which is the feeling they can pursue their life goals at home better than anywhere else.

The study, published in the journal American Journal of Political Science, is the first to look at how a foreign aid project actually affects migrants’ decision-making and aspirations to emigrate.

States are increasingly using foreign aid as an economic incentive to reduce migration, particularly since the mid-2010s refugee crises in Europe and Central America. Examples include the EU Trust Fund for Africa and the Biden-Harris Root Causes Strategy.

The research team, which involved academics from Essex working with colleagues from Royal Holloway, University of London, and University of Birmingham, evaluated the UK government’s Youth Employment Program, implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in The Gambia, a country with high emigration rates along the Central Mediterranean route.

The project helped participants start or grow businesses and was found to reduce their desire to migrate, compared to those not selected to take part in the programme. “Instrumental place attachment” was identified as the primary reason for its success. This was due to several factors including the formation of local networks of mentors and entrepreneurs.

However, the success was sadly short-lived because when the program ended, so did the incentives and the environment which encouraged more individuals to stay in The Gambia and not emigrate.

“Our research took place at a time when the inequalities between countries were particularly stark, but this problem is unlikely to go away any time soon,” says Dr Miranda Simon, from the University of Essex's Department of Government. “Because of that, it’s important to recognise that there will always be people hoping to make a better living for themselves and their families in more prosperous countries. If foreign aid can give people the option to achieve their ambitions at home, then it’s important to understand how to use that aid most effectively.”

The three-month project began in February 2021, where mobility restrictions due to COVID-19 prevented actual migration from the region. However, economic insecurities fuelled a greater aspiration to emigrate. At the time the project began, Sub-Saharan Africa had seen a loss in working hours equivalent to about 22 million full-time jobs and young Gambians did not have confidence in their government’s ability to ensure a quick economic recovery for the country.

Christa Rottensteiner, Chief of Mission of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the United Kingdom, the UN Migration Agency, said: “This research shows that livelihood opportunities for young people can offer meaningful alternatives to dangerous migration journeys.

“As countries grapple with how to respond to irregular migration, this work highlights the value of moving beyond enforcement, and instead adopting a comprehensive response that includes addressing the reasons why people leave their homes.”

“The programme did an excellent job of improving people’s economic self-sufficiency in the short- and long-term, but that - on its own - did not shift migration aspirations,” said Dr Cassilde Schwartz, from Royal Holloway, University of London. “Instead, the programme’s short-term success was rooted in its ability to anchor participants to their local business environment with a support network.”

Professor David Hudson, from the University of Birmingham, added: “The choice to use development aid as a tool to reduce migration is not uncontroversial. But many governments continue to face pressures to do so. So, we need to interrogate how and if such efforts ‘work’ and use the evidence to inform policy and public debate. When debates around deterrence – such as small boats and deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda – have dominated the UK news and policy agenda, the evidence that youth employment schemes can help individuals pursue their personal goals should encourage a more rounded view of migration policy.”