I thought you would be interested in this article about the “globalization of labor.” The issue is controversial and also metaphorical for how complex the confluence of markets, culture and values can be when considering issues of poverty and development. We’d be interested in your thoughts.
I’m sure Pritchett’s plan would work perfectly if, 1) all culture and class biases disappeared from the world, 2) the existing socialized systems in western countries could handle the increased strain, 3) all people had resources to migrate, not just the upwardly mobile ones (thereby preventing further brain-drain), 4) everyone promised to play by the rules and go home when their stay is done, and 5) encouraging the separation of families had no ill effects on society. None of these factors fit neatly into an economist’s equation, and like other ‘big push’ ideas of the past, this top-down approach retreats to the safety of theory rather than the challenges of reality.
Personally, I’ve got mixed feelings about open borders, and don’t come down on either side of the argument in a big way. I definitely don’t support the current immigration bureaucracy, and do realize the importance of remittances. But a “managed” free-for-all hardly seems like a solution. It’s a complex issue, which is why I bristle a bit at Pritchett’s reductionist views. His plan seems intrinsically wrong for an issue so closely tied to culture and family.
Zooming out a bit, his plan discounts any potential for people to uplift themselves out of poverty. It ignores all the successful examples of bottom-up development that have occurred in places thought of as hopeless, and through plans thought of as unfeasible. These efforts have required hard work, but have also achieved lasting results. Such initiatives don’t have the grandeur of Pritchett’s, but they are more respectful and understanding of the people they’re meant to help.
Reply to John PaulI think its important to understand that any proposal that brings about well being to the global community will eventually be implemented regardless of the stand of any nation or group of nations on any clause. This being regardless of the economic, political or social status of the countries opposing! Its important to understand that there is only soo much a political ideology can achieve. It can slow down the process of change but cannot stop the inevitable.Once it has been triggered it will happen! Parallels can be drawn from history; freud theories were probably the building block of the western way of life today! His provocative implications led society to come out, speak out and the western society evolved and moved forward, hence the transformation from the traditional conservative to liberal way of life! In the same manner, eventually homosexual’s will be given equal status in all aspects of lives! The same goes for stem cell research, clonning of human beings is inevitable. If not today in the year 2050 it will become main stream regardless of the sanctions and clauses the conservative world may attach to it today! So thought, progress, creation of man made hurdles and fighting ways through those is inevitable. It is a way through which man gives meaning to his life! Therefore, although most rich countries may oppose such recommendations today, ways forward in similar directives will be found and globalisation of labour would become a main stream and accepted phenomena soon enough! Their opposition interms of their political game being imposed through their round tables annually and semi annually can only slow down the process of mass acceptance and the way forward but cannot completely eradicate the desired phenomena.
Reply to Ali Sohail