A recent article by Jill Stephenson, ‘What are universities for?’, and a follow-up piece by Bill Sinclair, ‘Why
is academia allowed to swan serenely on?’, have provoked a variety of
robust responses…
[1]
War in the ivory tower
Simon Smith, Professor David Jackson and Bernie Cohen
[2]
The ‘long summer holiday’?
You must be joking
says Jill Stephenson
[3]
Journalists and academics have very little in common
Joe Crawford
If and when a future confederation of independent nation states within the British Isles has to arrive at common policies on vital issues of common concern, then the list will surely be headed by population movement, and specifically immigration, which has profound policy implications for the receiving states.
Large-scale global movement of population is increasing in gigantic steps every year, as United Nations statistics reveal. It is commonly regarded as an uncontrolled mass movement of people from developing countries looking for a higher standard of living in Europe and North America. In fact, according to the latest UN data, there are as many international migrants born in the south living in other countries of the south as in countries of the north, reflecting changing patterns of Asian migration, but globally the United States remains the most popular destination.
More people than ever before are living away from their countries of birth or citizenship. In 2013 to date, a staggering 232 million people, or 3.2% of the world’s population, are international migrants resident abroad, compared with 175 million in 2000 and 154 million in 1990.
Wu Hongbo, UN under-secretary-general for economic and social affairs, puts the positive case for population movement:
Migration, when governed fairly, can make a very important contribution to social and economic development both in the countries of origin and in the countries of destination. Migration broadens the opportunities available to individuals and is a crucial means of broadening access to resources and reducing poverty.
‘When governed fairly’ – fairly for all concerned – is surely the primary stipulation for a movement that can have drastic social, cultural, economic, employment, educational and other policy consequences for the receiving states if numbers exceed what can be absorbed and integrated within a reasonable time scale, avoiding the formation of ghettos and mutually hostile ethnic groups, and ensuring that the indigenous culture is not swamped.
It is not simply a case of migrants from developing countries flooding into Europe and North America. Of the overall total numbers of foreign residents in 2013, about 82.3 million international migrants who were born in the south were residing in the south, which is fractionally higher than the 81.9 million international migrants originating in the south and living in the north.
Most migrants head for Europe and Asia, which, combined, host nearly two-thirds of all international migrants worldwide. Europe remains the most popular destination region with 72 million international migrants so far in 2013, compared with 71 million in Asia. Since 1990, North America recorded the largest gain in the absolute number of international migrants, adding 25 million, and experienced the fastest growth in migrant stock by an average of 2.8% per year.
‘New sources and destinations of migrants are emerging, and certain countries have become important points of origin, transit and destination simultaneously,’ says John Wilmoth, director of the population division in the UN’s department of economic and social affairs.
By comparison with other regions of destination, Asia saw the largest increase in international migrants since 2000, adding some 20 million migrants in 13 years. This growth was mainly fuelled by the increasing demand for foreign labour in the oil-producing countries of western Asia and in south-eastern Asian countries with rapidly growing economies, such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.
International migration overall nevertheless remains highly concentrated. In 2013, half of all international migrants live in 10 countries, with the United States hosting the largest number (45.8 million), followed by the Russian Federation (11 million); Germany (9.8 million); Saudi Arabia (9.1 million); United Arab Emirates (7.8 million); United Kingdom (7.8 million); France (7.4 million); Canada (7.3 million); Australia (6.5 million); and Spain (6.5 million).
The US gained the largest absolute number of international migrants between 1990 and 2013 – nearly 23 million, equal to one million additional migrants per year. The United Arab Emirates recorded the second largest gain with seven million, followed by Spain with six million.
These rocketing figures are an indication of what lies ahead if the movement of population is not controlled and managed fairly for all concerned, and not simply those on the move. A policy of actively encouraging immigration, for any reason at all, is clearly a non-starter. A proportion of these migrants still, regrettably, consists of genuine refugees, but, for the vast majority, economic advantage and a better way of life provide strong incentives for uprooting oneself. Cheap transport and electronic communications are having their effect, and the grass is seen to be greener in Europe and North America.
The impact of international migration is only one of many aspects of global governance that will confront an independent Scottish government. It will demand a correspondingly global perspective for its resolution as well as a degree of statesmanship that far transcends anything demanded by the level of narrow domestic policy-making to which our politicians are accustomed. Whether they can rise to the occasion of coping with this looming avalanche of 232 million people on the move remains to be seen.
James Wilkie worked for the United Nations in Africa and Asia as well as for the Austrian chancellery and foreign ministry
