By Marlon Bristol

In Part 1 of this sub-series on harnessing rights, riches, and obligations of the diaspora, I introduced the usefulness of engaging the diaspora and the potential gaps it can bridge, starting at the lowest level with a Committee of Sorts.The second part of the series looked at some of the evidence, particularly on the human agency of return migrants and the human agency of an intention to return.

In Part 3, I attempt to make the case for targeted policy to bring the clarity that is needed both for the engagement and involvement of the diaspora more meaningfully in local development, at least those with an interest, and justifying to the domicile non-migrant population exactly how this can be done without fear of a zero-sum situation. Targeting can focus policy to deliver exactly what it is we ask of the diaspora to deliver. However, return policies are not targeted.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, in 2013, reported thusly: “among 58 countries with available data in 2011, (forty) countries had programmes to facilitate the return of migrants to their home countries”. The report also highlighted that “many Governments have set up diaspora units and implemented policy measures to encourage investment by their diaspora”. Commonalities are found in the eligibility requirements, which qualify a returnee based on his/her citizenship, duration abroad, and in some cases ethnic status for second and third generation migrants, etc.

Variations refer mainly to policy elements such as age, type of incentives, inter alia.

Blind spots with regard to policy usually show up as lack of data that gives insight into what the optimal migration duration abroad should be; poor policy coordination among the menu of fragmented opportunities that might exist for the diaspora to contribute and benefit from; and policy purpose(s). While there might be clarity on the degree of rights extended, they are usually silent on obligations or the specificity on gaps that need bridging. As such, non-migrant households are usually up in arms, as they feel these policies are discriminatory in favour of diaspora individuals, often wondering “what have they contributed?” or why such favourable policy?

Consequently, it is easy to see why, in the absence of any clear requirements on what constraints return migrants and their resources will address, John from oversees should enjoy duty free benefits over Paul, who feels he has been here “in the struggle” so to speak. In similar vein, people in the diaspora would often ask the following: Why has their patriotism got to be expressed in reduced benefits and remuneration; and if the country has an acute need, why then could their return not be incentivised, based on productivity and priority or shortage being addressed?

What some countries have done is to set up special units for such matters. These units focus on measures of sustainable return, and/or circulation of migrants. This is done with the aim of mobilizing and maintaining resources coming from the diaspora for local use. Some initiatives include establishment of free zones, science parks and research outfits, to which the diaspora contributes and benefits; portability of benefits; special investment regimes, and tools such as diaspora bonds, inter alia. We can learn, too, from international cooperation with some countries or group of countries that have gone the route of special projects for capacity building, development, and understanding how such is achieved through the use of the diaspora. These projects include, for example, the MIgration de REtour au Maghreb (MIREM), Migration for Development in Africa (MIDA), Migrating Out of Poverty, inter alia. Together they assist in understanding the use of the diaspora in local development.

More specifically, on examples of substantive policy measures that are used to foster local development using the diaspora, a good example would be Anja Wiesbrock’s work investigating some targeted measures used by China, India, and Taiwan. She explained that in Mainland China, the Bureau of Overseas Chinese Affairs created a programme aimed at strengthening ties between overseas Chinese communities in various countries. This included the establishment of associations of ethnic Chinese overseas drawn from the migrant associations in the host countries. The Government offered support in the allocation of housing, as well as allowing duty-free purchases of computers, cars, and the offering of return airfares for self-financed students. Local and city governments in China have recruited overseas Chinese and offered them financial and other material incentives, such as tax exemptions on imported cars, subsidies for home purchases, schooling for the returnees’ children, and assistance in finding employment for their spouses.

In India, there is a separate Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA), which deals with all aspects of persons of Indian Origin and non-resident Indians. Policy measures include enactment of a Foreign Exchange Management Act to facilitate foreign currency transactions in respect of setting up businesses in India, and the setting up of businesses by Indians abroad. Other measures relate to the taxation of remittances and the facility for overseas Indians to receive a 100% tax reduction on exports from Special Economic Zones. There are also a number of bilateral agreements to avoid double taxation of individuals opening enterprises or moving between India and other countries.

In Taiwan, substantial incentives are provided to potential high skilled returnees selected on the basis of their education, current position and salary levels. Incentives offered to such selected individuals include moving costs, subsidized house mortgages, salary top-ups, and the opportunity to establish businesses in Taiwan. Such incentives, aimed at the permanent return of migrants, are supplemented by shorter visiting schemes of about one year. Many migrants have been recruited as lecturers and professors at the national universities by the National Science Council and Ministry of Education.

The impact of these measures varies based on a number of critical factors. Given the multidimensionality of migration and development, policy and programmes must be targeted for the local jurisdiction to benefit, rather than leaving policy open on the assumption of the diaspora’s ‘goodwill’ and ‘good intentions’. Secondly, strengthening the enabling environment locally for a necessary and sufficient level of meaningful integration is required. For this to happen, I recommend that Gamlen’s 2006 multi-purposes policy object should be employed for capacity building, extending rights, and extracting obligations. I will provide some insight to Gamlen’s concept in a follow up article. (Comments can be sent to towardsagoodlife@gmail.com)

[box type=”info” align=”aligncenter” ]Marlon Bristol is a PhD student researching the development impact of return migration to Guyana using parametric and non-parametric techniques. He is currently a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist with the Ministry of the Presidency. He is published, and his strengths include research methods, development economics, policy advice, project management, and monitoring and evaluation.[/box]