1

2 sobre las Migraciones en el MundoColección de Informes sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo : “El Bienestar de los Migrantes y el Desarrollo”: Séptimo informe de la Colección de Informes sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo Atención centrada en los migrantes Publicación emblemática de la OIM IOM’s flagship publication presenting the latest trends in international migration and insights on emerging migration issues; Since IOM published its first World Migration Report in the year 2000, the topic of migration and development has come to the fore, resulting in a more sophisticated appreciation of the connections between the two. Traditionally, migration has been viewed primarily as a problem arising from a lack of development, or it has been regarded negatively, due to fears about a possible ‘brain drain’ among skilled workers. Today, there is growing recognition that migration can contribute to development, if properly harnessed and effectively managed by policymakers. The WMR 2013 is the seventh report in IOM’s WMR series; WMR 2013 focuses on the migrant, exploring the positive and negative effects of migration on individual well-being. Many reports linking migration and development concentrate on the broad socioeconomic consequences of migratory processes, and the impact of migration on the lives of individuals can easily be overlooked. In contrast, the WMR 2013 focuses on migrants as persons, exploring how migration affects quality of life and human development across a broad range of dimensions.

3 Esbozo de la presentaciónContexto normativo Características distintivas del Informe Cinco mensajes clave Las cuatro direcciones de la migración El bienestar de los migrantes: Pruebas derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup

4 Diálogo de Alto Nivel 2013: Contribuciones y recomendaciones de la OIM1. Contexto normativo: Oportunidades para la configuración del diálogo y las medidas sobre la migración a escala mundial Diálogo de Alto Nivel 2013: Contribuciones y recomendaciones de la OIM Conferencia Internacional sobre la Población y el Desarrollo +20: Examen del Programa de Acción para indicar el camino a seguir Agenda mundial para el desarrollo después de 2015: ¿por qué y cómo incluir la migración? In recent years, migration and its linkages to development have become an increasingly important policy issue. The first United Nations High-level Dialogue (HLD) on International Migration and Development, held in 2006, firmly established migration on the development agenda and led to the creation of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) in The GFMD has served as an important platform for improving dialogue between States on migration and development, and this debate will continue to gain prominence in a number of forthcoming policy forums: 2013 – The second United Nations High-level Dialogue (HLD) on International Migration and Development presents a critical opportunity for the international community to improve the alignment of migration and development policies. IOM contributes to this events in various ways, e.g. GMG Chairmanship June-Dec 2013; IOM Council “Friends of the Chair” initiative (Geneva); support to RCs and RCPs (e.g. regional preparations and fourth RCP global meeting); 5 Preparatory Roundtables in NY by IOM, DESA, UNFPA; IDM /DMC 2013; IOM-CSO consultations and of course the WMR In fact, IOM policy recommendations for the HLD include to i) factor migration into development planning, at national, regional and global levels, including in the post-2015 development agenda, and ii) Enhance the evidence and knowledge base on migration and development. The WMR 2013 aims to contribute to both of these objectives. 2014 – A United Nations review of the twentieth anniversary of the implementation of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) programme of action will have implications for international and internal migration. IOM contributes to the preparations of a global report for ICPD Beyond 2014 (by reviewing migration-related part in the Thematic Report on Population Dynamics) and to the on-going discussions on the formulation of ICPD +20 indicators. 2015 – Post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda discussions will consider the shape of the global development framework beyond 2015 – the deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in which migration is a key factor. WHY: Migration has emerged as a significant factor in the achievement of all three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental development – and an important factor in forthcoming discussions. Specifically, voluntary, safe, legal and orderly migration can generate significant human and societal development gains; equally, migration that is forced, involuntary, massive or unplanned (whether as a result of conflict, natural disaster, environmental degradation, rights violations or severe lack of economic and livelihood opportunities) can have significant negative repercussions for human and societal development. IOM and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) contributed a ‘think piece’ to highlight the importance of keeping migration in the foreground of these development debates (IOM and UN DESA, 2012). Reasons for not including migration in the MDG includes also some reluctance among those who work in the migration and development arena to focus too much on developing agreed targets and indicators. In the GFMD, for example, there is a concern that investing in this area might undermine the informal and non-binding forms of cooperation that have developed within the GFMD. States do not wish to take formal responsibility for achieving an agreed set of migration and development targets each year. Thus there has been relatively little monitoring of the extent to which existing migration and development goals are being achieved. Another reason is the lack of reliable data: the future global development framework will likely need to include better indicators of how migration affects development and, particularly, migrant well-being, if migration is to be factored into the global development agenda in a meaningful way. HOW this can be done best is currently discussed - IOM contributes by engaging in various UN-based inter-agency processes and consultations (e.g. UNTT WG on Monitoring and Indicators, UNDP national consultations, Global thematic Consultation on Population Dynamics in Dhaka March 2013) and producing support materials such as a think-piece on Population Dynamics and Migration together with UN DESA and UNFPA and an edited book discussing possible migration goals, targets and indicators for the post-2015 monitoring framework.

5 Creciente interés en la medición de la felicidad y el bienestarI. Contexto normativo: Llamamiento para la aplicación de un enfoque más holístico en la medición del desarrollo Creciente interés en la medición de la felicidad y el bienestar Percepciones del bienestar como nueva forma de medir el progreso de la sociedad Menos hincapié en la reducción de la pobreza en los países pobres , y más atención al desarrollo humano en todo el mundo. The WMR 2013 analysis of migrant well-being and development takes place within the context of a growing interest among policymakers and scholars in measuring the happiness and well-being of populations. This is especially evident in high-income countries, but is also increasingly a concern in low- and middle-income countries: Examples: Fourth OECD World Economic Forum, held in Delhi in October 2012, focused on the theme of ‘development and well-being’ (see also Gough and McGregor, 2007). The Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan was the first to use measures of ‘gross national happiness’ as a way of assessing social progress and, in April 2012, Bhutan hosted a high-level meeting at the United Nations in New York, bringing together over 800 participants to discuss the creation of an economic paradigm that serves human happiness and well-being of all life (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2012). A similar ‘national well-being project’ is underway in the United Kingdom, comprised of an extensive survey to measure and analyse a wide range of dimensions and determinants of well-being (Dolan et al., 2011). 2011 report How’s Life: Measuring well-being, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) referred to the discrepancy between macroeconomic indicators and the real-life experience of ordinary people. It also includes a ‘Better Life Index’ that measures subjective well-being (OECD, 2011). Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, established by the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Commission, which was led by Nobel Prize-winning economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, along with French economist Jean-Paul Fitoussi, recognized the limitations of measuring societal progress and development in terms of economic measures such as gross national product (GNP) or GDP, and made the case for the collection of a wider set of well-being indicators to assess whether economies were serving the needs of society (Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi, 2009). Recently, the United Nations calls for a more holistic approach to development, arguing that the notion of well-being and sustainability should be at the core of the post-2015 goals and indicators (UN DESA, 2012a), but internationally agreed standards on such non-economic indicators have yet to be developed (Boarini et al., 2006:6). These examples reflect an increasing recognition of the need to find new ways of measuring social progress, and the fact that GDP, long a key point of reference for economic policy and development, may have severe limitations as an indicator of well-being, especially insofar as it fails to capture the subjective dimensions of well-being – namely, what people actually experience and feel about their lives. It is important to highlight that concepts like human development and well-being do not apply solely to the poorest countries of the world, or only to movements of people to more affluent countries but are relevant to all countries and directions of movements. North–North migration (for instance, a German doctor moving to the United States) or North–South migration (for example, a skilled Portuguese worker migrating to Angola) can contribute significantly to development in both the country of origin and the country of destination. Development benefits generated from these types of movements are too often overlooked in the development discourse.

6 I. Contexto normativo: Medición del bienestar humanoLa comunidad del ámbito del desarrollo centra su atención cada vez más en la medición del bienestar “Lo que se mide tiene una incidencia en lo que se hace … ha llegado la hora de que nuestro sistema estadístico se centre más en la medición del bienestar de la población que en la medición de la producción económica” (Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen y Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2010) Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas: “el concepto de bienestar y sostenibilidad debe ser el elemento central de la Agenda Mundial para el Desarrollo después de 2015” (Departamento de Asuntos Económicos y Sociales de las Naciones Unidas, 2012) 6

7 II. Tres características distintivas del Informe1. Primer estudio mundial sobre el bienestar de los migrantes II. Utilización de una fuente de datos única en su género, que abarca migrantes en más de 150 países III. Debate más exhaustivo y equilibrado de la migración y el desarrollo centrando la atención en las cuatro direcciones de la migración The WMR is published amidst a growing debate on how the benefits of migration can best be harnessed for development. Despite progress following the first UN General Assembly High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (HLD) in 2006, migration remains inadequately integrated into development frameworks at national and local levels, and public perceptions of migrants and migration are often very negative. This report contributes to the global debate on migration and development in three ways/distinctive features: 1) Shifting the focus onto migrants and their quality of life, rather than focusing on remittances and the impact of migration on economic life and trade, as has been the case in the past. In other words, the report examines the impact of migration on individual well-being and, thus, presents a more holistic picture of development. 2) This report provides an example of how migration and its impact on the human development of migrants themselves can be measured. It report draws upon the findings of a unique source of data – the Gallup World Poll, conducted in more than 150 countries representing 98% of the world’s adult population – allowing for an assessment of the well-being of migrants worldwide for the first time, providing a means of exploring whether human development indicators for migrants are improving. This way, the report tries to contribute to the debate on the future development agenda after 2015 – the deadline for the achievement of the MDGs. With globalization, human mobility has increased significantly since the MDGs were adopted in the year But, despite the growing interest in migration and development, the issue has not been factored into the MDGs or systematically integrated into national development plans. One of the reasons for this is the lack of reliable data. The future global development framework will likely need to include better indicators of how migration affects development and, particularly, migrant well-being, if migration is to be factored into the global development agenda in a meaningful way. The WMR 2013 present one possible way to move toward that direction. 3) By focusing attention on all pathways of migratory movement. Over the last decade, numerous reports and studies have been published on the linkages between migration and development. Typically, the migration and development policy discourse and related studies focus has been on migration from low-/middle-income countries to more affluent ones and remittances sent from developed towards developing countries). This ‘blind spot’ for policymakers skews the policy debate and draws attention away from other migration flows that merit equal attention (in fact, less than half of all international migrants move from South to North, and almost as many move between countries of the South). It also largely reflects the lack of reliable data on migrants who move from one developing country to another. This report looks at migration and development from a broader perspective, considering the implications for development and well-being when people move in other directions as well, i.e. it considers three additional migration pathways – migration between low-/middle-income countries or between high-income ones, and migration from the rich, industrialized world to countries that are relatively poorer (i.e. migration from the South to North, between countries of the South or between countries of the North, as well as movements from the North to the South) It looks at how changes in the well-being of migrants differ depending on the origin and destination of migrants. South–South migrants are economically important, because of the magnitude of numbers and the potential scale of remittances, but their life experiences are a largely understudied area. NOTE for the presenter: Of course, both ‘North’ and ‘South’ encompass a wide range of different migrant situations and categories, but nonetheless, this division is useful for looking at migration and development in a more holistic way.

8 III. Cinco mensajes claveLos migrantes como elemento central del debate Desarrollo significa bienestar humano La migración no es solamente un fenómeno Sur-Norte La migración mejora el desarrollo humano, pero muchos migrantes aún luchan por alcanzar niveles de bienestar satisfactorios El camino a seguir después de 2015: desarrollo de un barómetro mundial del bienestar de los migrantes To 1) The factors driving migration are numerous and complex: those who freely choose to migrate are driven, first and foremost, by human aspirations. The most fundamental questions they must ask themselves, therefore, are whether they will be happier if they migrate and whether their life will be better than it is now. Many reports on migration and development focus on the broad socioeconomic consequences of migratory processes while the consequences of migration for the lives of individual migrants can easily be overlooked. WMR 2013 focuses instead on migrants as persons and on how the migration experience has affected their lives in positive or negative ways - instead of being the passive subjects of enquiry, migrants should be given the opportunity to tell their stories. This emphasis on the experiential dimension, as opposed to the usual focus on disembodied socioeconomic dynamics, could open the door to policymaking that is more attuned to human needs. To 2) Assessment of development-related outcomes of migration in the context of human well-being, consistent with recent new orientations in thinking about development that are not limited to notions such as productivity, wealth or income (e.g. Mismeasuring our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi (2010); in 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development and United Nations Millennium Declaration well-being as ultimate aim; UNDESA: well-being and sustainability should be at the core of the global development framework beyond 2015) Most studies on migration tend to focus on the situation of migrants in the North and few studies have focused on the well-being of migrants. Gallup World Poll, a unique source of data, provides, for the first time, a global insight into the experience of migrants, providing new evidence of the often understudied situations of migrants in the South. Two characteristics of the idea of ‘well-being’ used in the Gallup Poll need to be underlined. First, well-being is sometimes confused with notions of happiness, but it is a much broader, multidimensional concept. It includes facets of life or life contexts as diverse as health, income, social relationships, security, work and the environment. Second, well-being is considered to have interconnected objective and subjective aspects. The Gallup World Poll assesses the overall well-being of migrants by asking them questions about objective elements in their lives, such as income, shelter and work, as well as subjective perceptions, feelings and impressions of satisfaction with their lives. To 3) Traditionally, migration reports and policy discussions about the contribution of migration to development focus on movements from low- and middle-income countries to more affluent ones The WMR 2013 takes a more inclusive approach and sets out to explore whether variations in the origin and destination of migrants can produce different outcomes for those concerned, i.e. all four ‘migration pathways’ have consequences for development that are yet to be fully understood and need to be taken into account. In fact, only a minority of migrants move from South to North. Clearly, such broad labels have their limitations, given that North and South encompass a wide range of different migrant situations and categories but they are widely understood by decision makers, and, as such, they help provide an understanding of patterns of movement and, consequently, whether the direction of movement has an influence on the well-being of those who have moved. To 4) As we will see later in this presentation: a) migration can bring relevant gains in terms of human development and the greatest gains are associated with migration to the North (North-North in particular) while migrants in the South (South-South in particular) appear to benefit the least and struggle the most; and b) although often gaining by migrating abroad, many migrants in both the North and the South report lower well-being levels than the native-born, across a number of different dimensions. To 5) The shape of the global development agenda beyond 2015 is yet unknown, but it is evident that there will be a need for a much stronger evidence base to better reflect the linkages between migration and development. Currently, when countries are asked to report on the progress they have made towards the achievement of development goals such as the MDGs, there is hardly any mention of migration, partly due to a lack of data and relevant indicators. Existing international migration data currently tell us very little about the well-being of migrants, and whether human development outcomes for migrants are improving or not. The poll findings presented in the WMR 2013 are only a sample of the information that can be gathered through a global survey. By adding new questions to the existing survey, or by increasing the sample of migrants in certain countries, much more could be learned about the well-being of migrants worldwide. It would be possible, using the Gallup World Poll, to develop an ongoing ‘Global Migration Barometer’ survey to regularly monitor changes in the well-being of migrants across the globe. There is much to learn about how migrant well-being varies under different conditions in particular countries or regions – for example, the effect of migration on the well-being of different migrant categories, such as labour migrants, students, irregular migrants, return migrants, or migrants stranded due to conflict situations or environmental disasters. There is a particular need for more evidence regarding the well-being of migrants in the South and the factors shaping their living conditions. More data on emerging trends, such as North–South migration, are also needed for a better understanding of the implications for development.

9 Las cuatro direcciones de la migraciónIV. Conclusiones clave Las cuatro direcciones de la migración

10 ¿Por qué cuatro direcciones de la migración?IV. Conclusiones clave : Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migración ¿Por qué cuatro direcciones de la migración? Norte y Sur globales: No hay una definición común Diferencias dentro de cada una de las direcciones Estrecha interrelación de las cuatro direcciones 1) Over the last decade, numerous reports and studies have been published on the linkages between migration and development. Typically, the migration and development policy discourse and related studies focus on the implications of migration for development when a person moves from South to North. This skews the policy debate and draws attention away from other migration flows that merit equal attention. In fact, less than half of all international migrants move from South to North, and almost as many move between countries of the South. This report looks at migration and development from a broader perspective, considering the implications for development and well-being when people move in other directions as well. 2) Three key definitions (WB and UNDP) of ‘North’ and ‘South’ produce varying results regarding the magnitude and characteristics of migration along each of the four pathways but also highlight some common findings. UNDESA: countries into developing and developed regions (56 countries in developed region = North) WB: income level – the GNI per capita, four groups (low-, lower-middle-, upper-middle-and high-income) (70 countries high-income = North) UNDP : HDI index (42 countries very high = North) Key borderline countries include the Russian Federation and transition economies in Eastern Europe, some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (such as Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates), some of the emerging Asian economies (such as Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; and Singapore) and Caribbean countries (such as Barbados; Bermuda; Puerto Rico; and Trinidad and Tobago). This report adopts the terminology used in development discourse to categorize countries according to their economic status, i.e. WB classification. 3+4) Considerations to keep in mind: While the report tries to highlight common characteristics in each of the four pathways, there are relevant differences within each of them. In fact North’ and ‘South’ encompass a wide range of different migrant situations and categories. While each of the four migration flows will be described as a stand-alone scenario, it is clear that they all form part of the global migration system and are closely interlinked (for example, restrictive migration policies in the North can lead to increased irregular South–North flows but also to an increase of South–South movements). The description of the four migration flows in chapter 2 represents a snapshot of the situation in As the World Bank and UNDP reclassify countries on an annual basis, the composition of ‘North’ and ‘South’ changes too. Nonetheless, this division is useful for looking at migration and development in a more holistic way.

11 IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migraciónLa mayoría de los migrantes internacionales se desplaza de Sur a Norte o entre los países del Sur South–North and South–South represent the two major migratory flows in all three classification (UNDESA, WB and UNDP): South-North ranges between 35%-45%, South-South between 34%-41% depending on the classification used. Gallup figures including only adult migrants estimate South-North movements at 40% and South-South at 33%. Most international migrants live in the North (at least 56%): migrants represent between 10% and 12% of the total population in the North; while in the South they are only 2% of the resident population.

12 IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migraciónEl número de migrantes Sur-Norte registró el mayor aumento durante los últimos dos decenios... ...PERO representa menos de la mitad del total de los migrantes internacionales Less than half of all international migrants move from South to North, and almost as many move between countries of the South. South–South migrants are economically important, due to the magnitude of numbers and the potential scale of remittances, but their life experiences are a largely understudied area. This ‘blind spot’ for policymakers largely reflects the lack of reliable data on migrants who move from one developing country to another, but also the heavy emphasis on South–North flows in policy debates and research. In addition, many people migrate within the North, in fact, while…. (brings to next slide)

13 La mayoría de los migrantes internacionales proviene del Sur…IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migración La mayoría de los migrantes internacionales proviene del Sur… …PERO los nacionales de los países del Norte tienen mayores probabilidades de emigrar The majority of international migrants originate in the South (at least 69%). However, people in the North are more likely to migrate: emigrants make up between 3.6% and 5.2% of the population living in the North; while in the South, emigrants represent roughly 3% of the population.

14 IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migraciónUna reducida mayoría de los migrantes internacionales está integrada por hombres, salvo en el caso de la migración Norte-Norte, en la que hay una mayoría de mujeres. Es más probable que los migrantes en el Sur, comparados con los del Norte, se encuentren en los extremos inferior y superior de la distribución por edad. En el Norte los migrantes están agrupados en la categoría de personas en edad de trabajar. Although not central to the analysis of the WMR 2013, you might be interested to know that: Most international students go to the North: In the academic year 2009/2010, four out of five international students were living in the North, using the World Bank classification. More than half of all international students originate in the South and study in the North. Almost one third are North–North students (mainly because of the opportunities to study in Europe, such as the EU Erasmus Programme). The figure for South–South students is significantly lower (only 18%), despite the fact that South–South migrants account for 35 per cent of the global migrant stock. However, regional hubs for pursuing studies also exist in the South – for instance, more than half of the international students originating in countries belonging to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) decide to study within the region and, more precisely, in South Africa. It should also be noted that existing data do not capture the entire global mobile student population and it is likely that students in the South are be under-recorded. Migrants are predominantly low-skilled, although reliable up-to-date informationis largely missing, particularly for countries in the South. From the data collected by the DIOC-E, it appears that migration remains predominantly low-skilled, both in the North and in the South: 44 per cent of migrants are low-skilled, 33 per cent have intermediate skills; and only 22 per cent are highly skilled (Dumont et al., 2010). Migration by low-skilled workers is likely to play a greater role in the South–South context, which is characterized by informal, less costly movements to neighboring countries and is therefore Further and contrary to public perception, the majority of refugees not only originate but also live in the South: four out of five refugees were born and were living in the South. In the South–South context refugees make up a significant proportion of migrants – that is, more than 10 per cent of all migrants.

15 IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migraciónMás de la mitad de los 20 principales corredores migratorios está constituida por personas que emigran de Sur a Sur Los 20 principales corredores migratorios del mundo (contingente de migrantes, en miles), de acuerdo con la clasificación del Banco Mundial, 2010 Out of top 20 corridors, 12 are S-S (see red arrows), 5 are S-N (see black arrows) and 1 is N-N (grey arrow). Almost all top S-S corridors are in Asia, only one in Africa. The top migration corridors in the four pathways are: South-South: Ukraine to the Russian Federation (3.7 million) and vice versa (3.5 million); followed by Bangladesh to Bhutan; Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation; and Afghanistan to Pakistan. South-North: Mexico to the United States (12.2 million, equal to 6% of the global migrant stock); followed by Turkey to Germany; and China, the Philippines and India to the United States. North-North: Germany to the United States (1.3 million); followed by the United Kingdom to Australia; and Canada, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom to the United States. North-South: Although not in the top 20 global corridors, significant numbers of migrants have been recorded along this pathway, with nationals from the United States moving to Mexico (0.6 million) and, more unexpectedly, to South Africa (0.3 million); Germans to Turkey (0.3 million); and Portuguese to Brazil (0.2 million). Fuente: Cálculos de la OIM, basados en datos del DAES/Naciones Unidas, 2012b. Fuente: Cálculos de la OIM, basados en datos del DAES/Naciones Unidas, 2012b.

16 y entre los países del Norte.IV. Conclusiones clave: Comparación de las cuatro direcciones de la migración La mayor parte de las remesas mundiales se dirige de Norte a Sur (el 43% como mínimo), aunque hay un importante flujo de remesas entre los países del Sur y entre los países del Norte. South–North migrants remit proportionately more than migrants on the other three pathways. This is particularly so if compared with South–South migrants, who represent more than one third of the global migrant stock but remit only a quarter of all remittances or less. These results can be partly explained by differences in the transfer costs, wage differentials and unrecorded remittance flows.

17 Elementos de impulso de la migración Norte–Sur: IV. Conclusiones clave: La migración Norte-Sur en el punto de mira Tendencia que no ha recibido suficiente atención, y en aumento durante el último decenio Elementos de impulso de la migración Norte–Sur: Oportunidades económicas Expansión de las empresas mundiales Migración de retorno Migración de estudiantes Jubilados Posibles consecuencias en materia de desarrollo Cuestión de la fiabilidad de los datos While migration from North to South represents just 3 to 6 per cent of all migratory flows globally (between 7 and 13 million migrants), there is increasing evidence suggesting that this migration flow is gaining importance in several emerging economies. What are the main drivers for this pathway of migration? Economic opportunity: Many traditional migrant-receiving countries in the North hit hard by the crisis; Meanwhile, emerging economies in the South experience labour shortages and skills gaps. Result: decline in immigration and increase in emigration in some European and North American countries (eg. Spain, Ireland and Portugal). Expansion of global companies: Companies are increasingly establishing themselves in the South. 47% of companies in the 2012 Global Mobility Report indicated growth in international assignments in the last year, fuelled in part by explosive expansion into emerging markets, particularly China. Return migration: Numbers are difficult to pin down, but it is clear a considerable portion of N-S migration is due to returning nationals. For instance, in Brazil, 65 per cent of international migrants arriving in Brazil in the census period were return migrants. (Returnees represent a large share of migrants from the U.S., Japan and Portugal). Spain has seen considerable emigration due to return: in 2011, 86% of emigrants from Spain were born outside of Spain. The three top destination countries for emigrants were Morocco, Romania and Ecuador - all important source countries for migrants to Spain. This being said, many migrants are reluctant to return to origin countries as they fear they will not be able to re-enter their host countries; thus they prefer to “stick it out” during rough economic times. The right to return likely has a large influence on the likelihood of migrants returning to their origin countries or moving to third countries in times of crisis. For instance, by 2010 some evidence had emerged of departures of Polish and other Central and Eastern European workers from Britain and Ireland, who could return when the economic situation improves. Student migration: Roughly 3.4 million internationally mobile students in 2009 (UNESCO), a threefold increase from 1980; While OECD countries remain most popular, students are increasingly opting for non-traditional destinations, such as China, Malaysia, and South Africa. Retirement migration: Some evidence that non-traditional destinations in the South are becoming more popular and that certain corridors are increasing in scale. E.g.: U.S.-born residents aged 55 and over increased by 17% in Mexico and 136% in Panama between 1990 and 2000 (Dixon, et.al, 2006). Popular flows to the South include: American and Canadian migration to Mexico and other destinations in Latin America and the Caribbean; New destinations for Europeans include Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, although flows remain much smaller than to traditional destinations in the Mediterranean and other areas of Southern Europe; Other flows in Europe often follow along colonial ties, for instance British moving to South Africa; In Southeast Asia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines have emerged in the last two decades as retirement locations, for example for the aging Japanese population. What is impact of North-South migration on development? On sending countries (North): Possible Positives: Relieves pressure on labour markets Increased remittance inflows Possible Negatives: Loss of skilled young for sending countries – “lost generation” Reduction in tax base Demographic ratios – speed population ageing (both through emigration and decreased immigration On receiving countries (South): Human and financial capital Skills transfer and “reverse brain drain” Enhanced networks between North and South Stimulate service industry, attract investments and foreign visitors Drive up real estate prices and strain on health and social services (retirement migrants) Compete with local labour Return of less-skilled migrants could put a strain on over-burdened labour markets and households accustomed to receiving remittances How reliable is the data currently available on North-South migration? Immigration statistics tend to be most comprehensive in developed economies (North) then in developing ones (South); Because of the paucity of data in receiving countries in the South, N–S migration is often studied by way of emigration flows from sending countries (flows are generally more difficult to measure/compare internationally than stocks). Furthermore, leaving a country usually requires fewer administrative procedures than entering one, and outflow data are therefore less likely to be captured by the sending country; While it is likely that a considerable portion of N–S migration is composed of returning migrants or members of the diaspora, these flows may not be recorded at all or it may not be possible to separate them from total flows.

18 IV. Conclusiones clave El bienestar de los migrantes: Pruebas derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Little research on happiness and well-being in developing countries or specifically on migrants. A notable exception is represented by the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan was the first to use measures of ‘gross national happiness’ as a way of assessing social progress and, in April 2012, Bhutan hosted a high-level meeting at the United Nations in New York, bringing together over 800 participants to discuss the creation of an economic paradigm that serves human happiness and well-being of all life (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2012) Available research suggests that, overall, migrants are less happy than comparable populations in the country of destination and happier than similar populations back home who did not migrate. It might be expected that happiness increases, over time, as migrants become more integrated into the host society, but several studies in Europe have found that migrants remain less happy than native populations, even many years after migration. To get a better understanding there is an urgent need for more research and better data. IOM in collaboration with Gallup tried to look at data collected through the Gallup World Poll to explore possible insights on migrant well-being worldwide. What can we learn from the Gallup World Poll?

19 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup ENCUESTA MUNDIAL GALLUP : Una fuente de datos única en su género sobre la migración internacional Base de datos mundial , que comprende >150 países Dos métodos de comparación: Migrantes (recién llegados y migrantes de larga data) en comparación con los nacidos en el país Migrantes en comparación con las “personas de perfil equivalente” que han permanecido en los países de origen Algunas limitaciones Migrantes Nacidos en el país 25.000 > Recién llegados <5 años Migrantes de larga data >5 años Participants/sample size: Respondents in 150 countries to Gallup’s World Poll survey in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (representing 98% of the world’s total adult population). The typical sample size was 1,000 per country per year. A total of 466,689 responses were included in the analysis, including 441,901 native born residents and 24,788 first generation migrants. Sample characteristic: Three survey questions were used to determine the migrant category: i) Were you born in this country, or not? (Respondents who answered “No” were classified as migrants. All other respondents were classified as native born.) ii) Did you move to this country within the last five years? (Migrants who answered “yes” were classified as Newcomers. Migrants who answered “no” were classified as Long-timers.) iii) In which country were you born? (Migrants were classified as being born in “North” or “South” using self-reported country of birth.) Based on responses to these variables and using the World Bank classification for “North” and “South”, the sample was divided up into the 10 comparison groups (= native-born in the South and in the North + newcomers and long-timers for each of the 4 pathways) 2 methods of comparison: Migrant well-being can be analysed in several ways, including their current situation and expectations for the future, differences between newcomers and long-term migrants, and comparisons with the native-born. To obtain the most valuable insights, a twofold approach was adopted when analysing Gallup World data on migrants’ well-being: Comparison between the self-reported well-being of migrants and the native-born in the host country; and a comparison between the self-reported well-being of migrants and native-born in the country of birth. The first analysis examines how migrants fare compared to native-born of the country of destination. To allow a meaning full comparison between native-born, long-timer migrants and newcomers, data had to be adjusted by age, gender, and education. The second comparison allows investigating what migrants have gained and lost by migrating abroad. It sheds light on the extent that migration can be beneficial or disadvantageous for migrants on a personal human development level. This analysis is possible because Gallup World Poll surveys ask the same questions using consistent methodology across the world. Limitations: a) Sample does not distinguish irregular migrants, returns, or subcategories of migrants. b) Sample excludes migrants who may reside in group situations, such as refugee camps. c) Sample does not include children and adolescents, but only first-generation adults migrants aged 15 years or older. Data breakdown: Age was measured as a continuous variable (i.e. age in years). However, because of extreme values at the higher end of the distribution, age was collapsed into 8 categories. Sex was measured as male or female as recorded by the interviewer. Educational achievement was measured on different scales for each country, based on the educational system of the country. However, for the global analysis, education was assessed as a 3 category variables – primary school or less, some secondary school through 3 years tertiary, equivalent of 4-year bachelor degree or more.

20 Definición del bienestar según la Encuesta Mundial Gallup:IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Definición del bienestar según la Encuesta Mundial Gallup: “El bienestar es la combinación de nuestro amor por lo que hacemos cada día, la calidad de nuestras relaciones, la seguridad de nuestras finanzas, la fortaleza de nuestra salud física y el orgullo que sentimos por lo que hemos aportado a nuestras comunidades”. (Rath y Harter, 2010) “Most importantly, it’s about how these five elements interact. […]These are the universal elements of well-being that differentiate a thriving life from one spent suffering.” (Rath and Harter, 2010) Gallup’s well-being metrics (widely quoted and used by international organizations such as OECD) were developed with extensive input from Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and University of Illinois psychology professor Ed Diener. These metrics stress that ‘well-being’ is more than just ‘happiness’, which has been described as too narrow a concept to measure all dimensions of human development (Conceição and Bandura, 2008). In Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements, Gallup scientists identified career, social connections, personal economics, health and community as the main contributors to a person’s overall subjective well-being (Rath and Harter, 2010). Because these elements are interdependent, they must be considered together to reveal a complete picture of migrants’ well-being.

21 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar subjetivo: la evaluación que hacen las personas de su vida en general (evaluativo), y sus estados afectivos y experiencias en la vida real (experiencial). Bienestar financiero : finanzas personales, capacidad para vivir con los ingresos que se perciben, y satisfacción con el nivel de vida. Bienestar laboral: relativo a la situación de trabajo, las opiniones con respecto al trabajo y las oportunidades empresariales. Subjective well-being refers to how people evaluate their lives, or how people think their lives are going. Subjective well-being can be divided into two aspects: experiential (relating to individuals' momentary affective states or emotions) and evaluative (relating to individuals' memories/assessments of feelings/thoughts about their past and their future). Financial well-being refers to well-being in the context of personal finances and satisfaction with living standards. Gallup assesses individuals’ personal economic situations and the situations of the communities in which they live by asking a series of questions relating to income and the ability to live on that income. Career well-being refers to well-being in the context of career and employment. To assess levels of career well-being, Gallup examines, inter alia, individuals’ employment status, their views about their own job situation, and their perceptions of opportunities for entrepreneurship, including the potential obstacles to setting up a business.

22 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar físico: relativo a la calidad de la salud personal, el acceso a servicios de atención de la salud y el seguro médico. Bienestar social: relativo a las relaciones personales y las redes sociales (por ejemplo, amigos y estructuras de apoyo ) Bienestar comunitario : relaciones con la comunidad (por ejemplo, seguridad personal, confianza en las instituciones nacionales) Medición de las experiencias subjetivas para conocer el bienestar de los migrantes en la vida real Physical well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s personal health. Physical well-being is also seen to be affected by individuals' access to quality healthcare and the likelihood of their having health or medical insurance. Social well-being refers to well-being in the context of personal relationships and social networks. Gallup assesses social well-being by asking about migrants’ social support structures and opportunities to make friends in the city or area where they live. Community well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s relationship with the community in which he or she lives. Gallup gauges community well-being by measuring, inter alia, people’s perceptions of their personal safety, their confidence in national institutions, their views on the prevalence of corruption in business and government, and their degree of community attachment. + Both people’s personal evaluations of their lives, as well as data on objective indicators can be useful for measuring well-being: Well-being may be assessed by asking people to evaluate various aspects of their lives, such as job satisfaction, personal relationships and community attachment. It can also be measured through the collection and verification of objective data such as employment rates, salary levels, life expectancy and housing conditions. Thus, the WMR 2013’s exploration of well-being uses data that are based on individuals’ evaluations of their objective conditions – for example, do they feel safe at night, or do they earn enough to live comfortably. This method is important because it captures people’s well-being as they actually experience it, recognizing that there may be a discrepancy between objective indicators – particularly macroeconomic indicators – and the real-life experience of ordinary people. This approach was chosen in response to growing recognition that understanding people’s subjective experiences of their lives is important for measuring human progress (as mentioned before: Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi, 2011; OECD WEF, How’s Life and Better Life Index; Bhutan GNH; UNDESA – see slide 5)

23 En comparación con las personas IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup En comparación con las personas con un perfil equivalente que han permanecido en el país de origen… Los migrantes que se desplazan al Norte obtienen mejores resultados (en comparación con la situación que tendrían de no haber emigrado): su evaluación de la vida en general es más positiva, se encuentran en mejores condiciones económicas y tienen un mayor grado de satisfacción con su salud personal y los servicios de atención de la salud Los migrantes que se desplazan al Sur obtienen resultados semejantes o peores (en comparación con la situación que tendrían de no haber emigrado): su evaluación de la vida en general es menos positiva, deben esforzarse más para obtener una vivienda adecuada, y su salud personal y los servicios de atención de la salud son más deficientes. Migrants in the North (whether North–North migration or South–North) generally rate their lives better than do their counterparts in their countries of origin. Interestingly, North–North migrants are much more likely than South–North migrants to report that they are better off than they would have been back home. The reverse might have been expected, given the income disparity between the South and the North: North-North migrants give overall life rating of 6.57 (on a 10-point scale) vs. rating of 5.75 among non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Migrants in the North have less trouble affording basic needs of food and shelter: 19% of South-North migrants said they did not have enough to afford food, vs. 26% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Migrants in the North gain in health outcomes: 83% of North-North long-timers (migrants in destination countries for 5 or more years) are satisfied with their personal health, vs. 75% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries. They also have higher values for access to quality healthcare. Migrants in the North also more likely to say that they feel safe walking alone at night than are matched stayers in their home country. By contrast, migrants in the South tend to rate their lives as similar to, or worse than, those of ‘matched stayers’ in the home country. They have more difficulty in achieving a satisfactory standard of living and do not appear to be better off than if they had stayed at home: South-South migrants give their overall life a 4.99 rating (on a 10-point scale), vs. rating of 5.34 among non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Migrants in the South find it harder to afford shelter: 27% of South-South migrants vs. 19% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Migrants in the South have poorer health outcomes than if they had not migrated: only 51% of North-South long-timers are satisfied with available of quality health care, vs. 56% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Explaining such differences is not easy and will require further research, but likely factors are higher housing costs in the destination country, less family support, and the fact that migrants in the South tend to be less skilled than those in the North. Given the higher wages and incomes in the North, it is to be expected that South–North migrants will see a bigger improvement in their economic situation than migrants moving from South to South. NOTE: It is important to bear in mind that certain vulnerable groups of migrants, such as victims of trafficking, stranded migrants and undocumented migrants, are not identified in the Gallup World Poll.

24 En comparación con las personas nacidas en los países de destino …IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup En comparación con las personas nacidas en los países de destino … Muchos migrantes manifiestan tener niveles de bienestar inferiores PERO los resultados difieren entre los migrantes del Norte (por ejemplo, mayor nivel de desempleo, ingresos más bajos) y los del Sur (por ejemplo, más problemas de salud, menos confianza en las instituciones nacionales, menos seguridad personal) La duración de la permanencia es un factor importante If compared to the native-born in the destination country, many migrants report poorer well-being than native-born but much results differ significantly between migrants in the North and the South. In the North: The financial situation of migrants is generally not as good as that of the native-born (although it improves with time): 12 per cent of South–North migrants, for instance, finding it very difficult to get by on their incomes, compared to only 6 per cent of the native-born. The financial challenges faced by migrants are likely due to the difficulties in obtaining work or, if employed, obtaining a full-time job. Migrants in the North are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed: 26 per cent were found to be underemployed and 13 per cent unemployed (compared with 18% and 8%, respectively, of the native-born). In the South, migrants are just as likely as the native-born to be underemployed or unemployed. South-North migrants tend to have lower incomes than the native-born: About 30% of migrants are in the lowest quintile of the income distribution (vs. 18% of native-born). In contrast, South-South migrants and native-born do not experience high income disparities, although migrants report more difficulty affording food and shelter. In the South: Migrants in the South are more likely to have health problems than the native-born: 35% of North-South and 29% of South-South long-timers, vs. 20% of the native-born. In contrast, migrants in the North fare as well or better than the native-born (e.g. 78% of long-timers are satisfied with the availability of quality health care, vs. 74% of the native-born), however, migrants are less likely to be insured (49% of long-timers, vs. 62% of the native-born). Migrants in the South have often less confidence in national institutions: just 44% and 39% of South-South long-timers report having confidence in the police and judicial system/courts, compared to 59% and 53% of native-born. In contrast, migrants in the North have confidence in the institutions of their host country, often even more so than the native-born. South-North migrants are particularly trustful: confidence in national government (53% of long-timers, vs. 39% of the native-born), honesty of elections (61% long-timers vs. 57% native-born), approval of country leader (49% long-timers vs. 43% native-born), and confidence in police (78% long-timers vs. 75% native-born) and judicial system (60% long-timers vs. 54% native-born). In the South, taking the example of South-South newcomers, it appears that migrants feel less safe walking alone at night (44% compared to 61% of native-born), more than twice as likely as native-born residents to have been mugged (13% compared to 6%). They are also more likely to have had property stolen (23% compared to 15%) (over time some of these differences slightly diminish) In contrast, in the North migrants report similar to native-born. Migrants in the South, in particular South-South migrants, often score the lowest: Just over half (53%) of South–South long-timers say that they are happy and enjoying life (compared to 72 of native-born). In the North, particularly North-North, there is no difference or a much smaller difference between migrants and native-born Duration of stay of the migrant matters (i.e. newcomer < 5 years, long timers > 5 years), i.e. the results differ not only depending on the migration pathway, but also depending on how long migrants stay in their destination country. For instance, while poor health, fear and high crime rates prevent migrants, in particularly in the South, from fully participating socially and economically, the situation does seem to improve the longer migrants stay in their new country. One explanation for this could be that new migrants historically tend to initially establish themselves in low-income urban areas that have higher crime rates.

25 Bienestar subjetivo: EvaluativoIV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar subjetivo: Evaluativo Los migrantes en el Norte consideran que su vida es mejor que la que tendrían de no haber emigrado … …mientras que los del Sur consideran que su nivel de vida es semejante o menos favorable. Generally speaking, subjective well-being refers to how people value their lives. Subjective well-being can be divided into two aspects: evaluative (relating to individuals' memories/assessments of feelings/thoughts about their past and their future) and experiential (relating to individuals' momentary affective states or emotions). Evaluative Migrants in the North rate their lives better than if they had not migrated: e.g. North-North migrants give rating of 6.57 (out of 10) vs. rating of 5.75 among non-migrants who remained in origin countries. Migrants in the South rate lives similarly or worse than if they had not migrated: e.g. South-South migrants give rating of 4.99 (out of 10), vs. rating of 5.34 among non-migrants who remained in origin countries.

26 Bienestar subjetivo: ExperiencialIV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar subjetivo: Experiencial En términos generales, es menos probable que los migrantes experimenten emociones positivas… …y es más probable que experimenten emociones negativas, en comparación con los nacidos en el país. Experiential Aside from the North-North context, migrants are less likely to feel happy compared to the native-born. This is particularly true for South-South migrants: 53% of long-timers (migrants living in destination countries for 5 or more years) reported feeling happy during a lot of the day prior to the survey (vs. 72% of the native-born). On the other hand, migrants are more likely than the native-born to report feeling sad, also in the North-North, with more than one quarter of long-timers (27%) and newcomers (29%) reporting sad feelings, vs. less than a fifth (18%) of the native-born. However, the findings have also highlighted wide regional disparities within each of the 4 pathways of migration.

27 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar financiero Las disparidades de ingresos con respecto a los nacidos en el país son más pronunciadas en el caso de los migrantes Sur-Norte que en el de los migrantes Sur-Sur Los recién llegados son los que más tienen que esforzarse pero su situación mejora con el tiempo Financial well-being refers to well-being in the context of personal finances and satisfaction with living standards. Gallup assesses individuals’ personal economic situations and the situations of the communities in which they live by asking a series of questions relating to income and the ability to live on that income. South-North migrants tend to have lower incomes than the native-born: About 30% of migrants are in the lowest quintile of the income distribution (vs. 18% of native-born). South-South migrants and native-born do not experience high income disparities, although migrants report more difficulty affording food and shelter. Migrants in the North have less trouble affording basic needs of food and shelter than if they had not migrated (19% of South-North migrants said they did not have enough to afford food, vs. 26% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). In contrast, migrants in the South find it harder to afford shelter than if they had not migrated (27% of South-South migrants vs. 19% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). Overall, newcomers (migrants living in destination countries for less than 5 years) face the greatest financial difficultly: e.g. 17% to 34% say they do not have enough to afford food and shelter. Over time, North-North migrants fare equally well, or better, financially than the native-born and appear to have the greatest financial success of any migrant group surveyed. Migrants originating in the South (whether going North or South) continue to face more difficulty than the native-born even after 5 years in the destination country.

28 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar financiero Los migrantes que se desplazan al Norte tienen menos dificultades para cubrir algunas de sus necesidades básicas (alimentos y vivienda) que en el caso de no haber emigrado… …suele ocurrir lo contrario en el caso de los migrantes que se desplazan al Sur (por ejemplo, con respecto a la vivienda) Financial well-being refers to well-being in the context of personal finances and satisfaction with living standards. Gallup assesses individuals’ personal economic situations and the situations of the communities in which they live by asking a series of questions relating to income and the ability to live on that income. South-North migrants tend to have lower incomes than the native-born: About 30% of migrants are in the lowest quintile of the income distribution (vs. 18% of native-born). South-South migrants and native-born do not experience high income disparities, although migrants report more difficulty affording food and shelter. Migrants in the North have less trouble affording basic needs of food and shelter than if they had not migrated (13% of South-North migrants said they did not have enough to afford food, vs. 22% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). In contrast, migrants in the South find it harder to afford shelter than if they had not migrated (27% of South-South migrants vs. 19% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). Overall, newcomers (migrants living in destination countries for less than 5 years) face the greatest financial difficultly: e.g. 17% to 34% say they do not have enough to afford food and shelter. Over time, North-North migrants fare equally well, or better, financially than the native-born and appear to have the greatest financial success of any migrant group surveyed. Migrants originating in the South (whether going North or South) continue to face more difficulty than the native-born even after 5 years in the destination country.

29 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar laboral A escala mundial, los migrantes tienen una mayor tasa de participación en la fuerza laboral, el subempleo y el desempleo, en comparación con los nacidos en el país. Career well-being refers to well-being in the context of career and employment. To assess levels of career well-being, Gallup examines, inter alia, individuals’ employment status, their views about their own job situation, and their perceptions of opportunities for entrepreneurship, including the potential obstacles to setting up a business. Among those in the workforce, Gallup’s employment metrics allow for a calculation of the percentage of migrants working full time for an employer, the percentage of unemployed, and the percentage of underemployed: Unemployment: The Gallup Unemployment Rate is the percentage of unemployed adults who actively looked for work within the preceding four weeks, and could have begun to work in that time frame. Gallup’s unemployment measure is comparable to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) unemployment calculations. Underemployment: The Gallup Underemployment Index measures the percentage of adults in the workforce who are working at less than the desired capacity. People are classified as ‘underemployed’ if they are employed part time but want to work full time OR if they are unemployed but want to be working. Labour Participation Rate: Gallup estimates that about 62 per cent of all adults worldwide are in the labour force. For migrants this percentage is slightly higher (66%). These individuals are either currently employed or actively seeking, and able to begin, work. Gallup’s Labour Force Participation Rate measures the percentage of the adult population (aged 15 and older) that is in the labour force.

30 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar laboral Los migrantes en el Norte hacen frente a mayores tasas de desempleo que los nacidos en el país Los migrantes y los nacidos en los países del Sur hacen frente a niveles semejantes de desempleo Los migrantes tienen menos probabilidades que los nacidos en el país de desempeñar el “trabajo ideal” Tasa de desempleo, migrantes y nacidos en el país, Migrantes Nacidos en el país N-N 11% 8% S-N 15% N-S 7% S-S 6% Career well-being refers to well-being in the context of career and employment. To assess levels of career well-being, Gallup examines, inter alia, individuals’ employment status, their views about their own job situation, and their perceptions of opportunities for entrepreneurship, including the potential obstacles to setting up a business. Migrants in the North face higher unemployment than the native-born (particularly if they originate in the South) Migrants and the native-born in the South face similar levels of unemployment Migrants in the North are more likely than the native-born to be unemployed or underemployed. Unemployment among South-North migrants is 15% – nearly double that of native-born – and 29% are underemployed. Migrants in the South have similar levels of unemployment as the native-born. (Among those in the workforce, Gallup distinguishes those working full time for an employer, percentage unemployed, and percentage underemployed. Underemployment - measures the percentage of adults in the workforce who are working at less than desired capacity. People are classified as “underemployed” if they are employed part time but want to work full time OR if they are unemployed but want to be working.) While many migrants are satisfied with their job or work (e.g. in the North, 81% of long-timers (migrants in destination countries for 5 or more years), vs. 84% of the native-born), percentages are much lower if asked if the have their ideal job (e.g. in the North 59% of migrants vs. 67% of native-born; in South-South context, 56% and 62%, respectively). Fuente: Encuesta Mundial Gallup, 30

31 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar físico Los migrantes que se desplazan al Norte obtienen mejores resultados en términos de salud (satisfacción con la salud personal, disponibilidad de servicios de atención de la salud de buena calidad, segúro médico) en comparación con las personas de sus países de origen que no han emigrado Los migrantes que se desplazan al Sur registran una pérdida en lo referente a la salud Physical well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s personal health. Physical well-being is also seen to be affected by individuals' access to quality healthcare and the likelihood of their having health or medical insurance. Migrants in the North gain in health outcomes when compared to those in their origin countries who did not migrate: e.g. 83% of North-North long-timers (migrants in destination countries for 5 or more years) are satisfied with their personal health, vs. 75% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). North-North migrants have the greatest gains of any migrant group and fare as well or better than the native-born: e.g. 78% of long-timers are satisfied with the availability of quality health care, vs. 74% of the native-born. South-North migrants and the native-born have similar levels of satisfaction with their health and health care. However, migrants are less likely to be insured (49% of long-timers, vs. 62% of the native-born). Migrants in the South (South-South in particular) lose in terms of health outcomes compared to if they had not migrated. They are also more likely to have health problems than the native-born: 35% of North-South and 29% of South-South long-timers, vs. 20% of the native-born. In fact, they have poorer health outcomes than if they had not migrated (e.g. only 51% of North-South long-timers are satisfied with available of quality health care, vs. 56% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries).

32 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar físico Physical well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s personal health. Physical well-being is also seen to be affected by individuals' access to quality healthcare and the likelihood of their having health or medical insurance. Migrants in the North gain in health outcomes when compared to those in their origin countries who did not migrate: e.g. 83% of North-North long-timers (migrants in destination countries for 5 or more years) are satisfied with their personal health, vs. 75% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries). North-North migrants have the greatest gains of any migrant group and fare as well or better than the native-born: e.g. 78% of long-timers are satisfied with the availability of quality health care, vs. 74% of the native-born. South-North migrants and the native-born have similar levels of satisfaction with their health and healthcare. However, migrants are less likely to be insured (49% of long-timers, vs. 62% of the native-born). Migrants in the South (South-South in particular) lose in terms of health outcomes compared to if they had not migrated. They are also more likely to have health problems than the native-born: 35% of North-South and 29% of South-South long-timers, vs. 20% of the native-born. In fact, they have poorer health outcomes than if they had not migrated (e.g. only 51% of North-South long-timers are satisfied with available of quality healthcare, vs. 56% of non-migrants who remained in origin countries).

33 Bienestar comunitarioIV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar comunitario Los migrantes que se desplazan al Sur tienen menos probabilidades de sentirse seguros que los nacidos en el país, y los recién llegados son los que mayores probabilidades tienen de ser victimizados Los migrantes que se desplazan al Norte tienen un nivel de confianza semejante o superior en las instituciones de su país de destino que los nacidos en el país, en particular los migrantes Sur-Norte Community well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s relationship with the community in which he or she lives. Gallup gauges community well-being by measuring, inter alia, people’s perceptions of their personal safety, their confidence in national institutions, their views on the prevalence of corruption in business and government, and their degree of community attachment. Migrants in the South are less likely than the native-born to feel safe: e.g. just 44% of South-South newcomers feel safe walking alone at night, and 23% report having money or property stolen in the past year. Generally, migrants in the North have confidence in the institutions of their host country, often even more so than the native-born. In contrast, migrants in the South have as much or less confidence than the native-born: e.g. just 44% of South-South long-timers report having confidence in the police. South-North migrants are particularly enthusiastic regarding institutions – including confidence in national government (53% of long-timers, vs. 39% of the native-born), honesty of elections (61% long-timers vs. 57% native-born), approval of country leader (49% long-timers vs. 43% native-born), and confidence in police (78% long-timers vs. 75% native-born) and judicial system (60% long-timers vs. 54% native-born).

34 Bienestar comunitarioIV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar comunitario Community well-being refers to the quality of an individual’s relationship with the community in which he or she lives. Gallup gauges community well-being by measuring, inter alia, people’s perceptions of their personal safety, their confidence in national institutions, their views on the prevalence of corruption in business and government, and their degree of community attachment. Migrants in the South are less likely than the native-born to feel safe: e.g. just 44% of South-South newcomers feel safe walking alone at night, and 23% report having money or property stolen in the past year. Generally, migrants in the North have confidence in the institutions of their host country, often even more so than the native-born. In contrast, migrants in the South have as much or less confidence than the native-born: e.g. just 44% of South-South long-timers report having confidence in the police. South-North migrants are particularly enthusiastic regarding institutions – including confidence in national government (53% of long-timers, vs. 39% of the native-born), honesty of elections (61% long-timers vs. 57% native-born), approval of country leader (49% long-timers vs. 43% native-born), and confidence in police (78% long-timers vs. 75% native-born) and judicial system (60% long-timers vs. 54% native-born).

35 IV. Conclusiones clave: Pruebas sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup Bienestar social Los migrantes Norte-Norte y Sur-Sur disponen de redes sociales tan eficaces como los nacidos en el país Los migrantes Sur-Norte tienen estructuras de apoyo social más débiles que los nacidos en el país; y más débiles de las que tendrían de no haber emigrado. Social well-being refers to well-being in the context of personal relationships and social networks. Gallup assesses social well-being by asking about migrants’ social support structures and opportunities to make friends in the city or area where they live. North–North and South–South migrants are as well connected socially as native-born residents, and they are as well connected as they would have been in their home country. South-North and North-South long-timers (i.e. staying abroad for more than 5 years) appear to lose more of their social networks than if they had not migrated. Social support may be weaker also compared to the native born, for instance, North-South long-timers are less likely to say they have somebody to count on (73%) than the native-born (80%).

36 Resumen y recordatorio de los mensajes claveConclusión Resumen y recordatorio de los mensajes clave

37 En resumen… La migración mejora el bienestar en toda una serie de distintas dimensiones Muchos migrantes todavía tienen que hacer grandes esfuerzos para alcanzar niveles satisfactorios de bienestar Los cambios en el bienestar de los migrantes difieren entre las cuatro direcciones de la migración… WMR 2013 provides the first global picture of the experience of migrants, shedding light on the often-understudied migrants in the South. The report shows that: Migration improves well-being, across a range of different dimensions. But as we have seen there are also many dimensions for which well-being levels do not change positively and/or remain at unsatisfactory levels This largely depends on the direction of the migration flow, in fact, results differed significantly among the 4 pathways of migration. + Length of stay in a destination country also plays a big role in migrants’ well-being. What might be vital to a newcomer who has lived in their destination country for fewer than five years may be less important for a migrant who has lived there longer. Similarly, perceptions about their current situations and opportunities in the future change according to their duration of stay in the destination country. However, the positive impact of a longer stay very much differed between well-being dimensions and pathways.

38 En resumen… Norte-Norte → resultados extraordinariamente positivos Sur-Norte → ventajas en términos de situación económica, generalmente a expensas del bienestar emocional y la condición social Norte-Sur → diversos resultados, dependiendo de las motivaciones y del tipo de migrante Sur-Sur → lucha por la supervivencia, escasas ventajas y las mismas dificultades que experimentan algunos grupos de personas nacidas en el país The results differ significantly depending on the direction of the migration flow: North-North migration leads to overwhelmingly positive outcomes. These migrants regard themselves as achieving levels of well-being that are at least equal to those of the native-born, and in some cases even superior. Migrants moving between two high-income countries report the most satisfactory experiences. They have the most positive outcomes in multiple dimensions of well-being, such as life satisfaction, emotional positivity, financial gain, personal safety, community attachment and health. Those migrating between the South and the North, in either direction, have mixed experiences. South-North migration leads to very significant improvements in economic well-being, but this often comes at a cost, in terms of decreases in emotional well-being and loss of personal or professional status. North-South migration produces very diverse outcomes depending on the motivations, expectations and the socio-economic status of the migrants. Generally, economic factors play a key role, with North–South migrants enjoying greater economic prowess and the ability to make their money go further in a relatively cheaper environment. These migrants tend to have fewer social contacts, however, and are less likely to have someone they can count on for help. Conversely, those moving from the South to the North suffer from this economic differential, struggling to make the transition, but they are nevertheless better off for having migrated than those who stayed at home. South-South migration is about personal and economic survival.  There are few gains/fewer gains to migrants than South-North migration; more significant challenges. But then again the situation of migrants is often not very different from that of a significant segment of the native born. South-South does not lead to much improvement:They are the least optimistic about their lives and find it difficult to achieve a satisfactory standard of living. Furthermore, migration seems to make little difference to them financially. Personal safety is a concern. Moreover, migrants tend to lack confidence in the institutions of the country they have moved to, and tend to be troubled by their health. These migrants are the most vulnerable and need the most attention. Yet the migration and development policy debate tends to focus overwhelmingly on the situation of migrants in the North.

39 Recordatorio de los cinco mensajes claveLos migrantes como elemento central del debate Desarrollo significa bienestar humano La migración no es solo un fenómeno Sur– Norte La migración mejora el desarrollo humano, aunque muchos migrantes todavía tienen que hacer grandes esfuerzos para alcanzar niveles de bienestar satisfactorios El camino a seguir después de 2015: desarrollo de un barómetro mundial del bienestar de los migrantes To 1) The factors driving migration are numerous and complex: those who freely choose to migrate are driven, first and foremost, by human aspirations. The most fundamental questions they must ask themselves, therefore, are whether they will be happier if they migrate and whether their life will be better than it is now. Many reports on migration and development focus on the broad socioeconomic consequences of migratory processes while the consequences of migration for the lives of individual migrants can easily be overlooked. WMR 2013 focuses instead on migrants as persons and on how the migration experience has affected their lives in positive or negative ways - instead of being the passive subjects of enquiry, migrants should be given the opportunity to tell their stories. This emphasis on the experiential dimension, as opposed to the usual focus on disembodied socioeconomic dynamics, could open the door to policymaking that is more attuned to human needs. To 2) Assessment of development-related outcomes of migration in the context of human well-being, consistent with recent new orientations in thinking about development that are not limited to notions such as productivity, wealth or income (e.g. Mismeasuring our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi (2010); in 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development and United Nations Millennium Declaration well-being as ultimate aim; UNDESA: well-being and sustainability should be at the core of the global development framework beyond 2015) Most studies on migration tend to focus on the situation of migrants in the North + few studies have focused on the well-being of migrants. Gallup World Poll, a unique source of data, provide, for the first time, a global insight into the experience of migrants, providing new evidence of the often understudied situations of migrants in the South. Two characteristics of the idea of ‘well-being’ used in the Gallup Poll need to be underlined. First, well-being is sometimes confused with notions of happiness, but it is a much broader, multidimensional concept. It includes facets of life or life contexts as diverse as health, income, social relationships, security, work and the environment. Second, well-being is considered to have interconnected objective and subjective aspects. The Gallup World Poll assesses the overall well-being of migrants by asking them questions about objective elements in their lives, such as income, shelter and work, as well as subjective perceptions, feelings and impressions of satisfaction with their lives. To 3) Traditionally, migration reports and policy discussions about the contribution of migration to development focus on movements from low- and middle-income countries to more affluent ones The WMR 2013 takes a more inclusive approach and sets out to explore whether variations in the origin and destination of migrants can produce different outcomes for those concerned, i.e. all four ‘migration pathways’ have consequences for development that are yet to be fully understood and need to be taken into account. In fact, only a minority of migrants move from South to North. Clearly, such broad labels have their limitations, given that North and South encompass a wide range of different migrant situations and categories but they are widely understood by decision makers, and, as such, they help provide an understanding of patterns of movement and, consequently, whether the direction of movement has an influence on the well-being of those who have moved. To 4) As we have just seen: a) migration can bring relevant gains in terms of human development and the greatest gains are associated with migration to the North (North-North in particular) while migrants in the South (South-South in particular) appear to benefit the least and struggle the most; and b) although often gaining by migrating abroad, many migrants in both the North and the South report lower well-being levels than the native-born, across a number of different dimensions. To 5) The shape of the global development agenda beyond 2015 is yet unknown, but it is evident that there will be a need for a much stronger evidence base to better reflect the linkages between migration and development. Currently, when countries are asked to report on the progress they have made towards the achievement of development goals such as the MDGs, there is hardly any mention of migration, partly due to a lack of data and relevant indicators. Existing international migration data currently tell us very little about the well-being of migrants, and whether human development outcomes for migrants are improving or not. The poll findings presented in the WMR 2013 are only a sample of the information that can be gathered through a global survey. By adding new questions to the existing survey, or by increasing the sample of migrants in certain countries, much more could be learned about the well-being of migrants worldwide. It would be possible, using the Gallup World Poll, to develop an ongoing ‘Global Migration Barometer’ survey to regularly monitor changes in the well-being of migrants across the globe. There is much to learn about how migrant well-being varies under different conditions in particular countries or regions – for example, the effect of migration on the well-being of different migrant categories, such as labour migrants, students, irregular migrants, return migrants, or migrants stranded due to conflict situations or environmental disasters. There is a particular need for more evidence regarding the well-being of migrants in the South and the factors shaping their living conditions. More data on emerging trends, such as North–South migration, are also needed for a better understanding of the implications for development.

40 Estructura del Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo 2013Capítulo I: Introducción al tema “El bienestar de los migrantes y el desarrollo” Capítulo II: Situación actual de la migración en el mundo en las cuatro direcciones de la migración Capítulo III: Examen de las investigaciones sobre la esfera emergente de la felicidad y el bienestar subjetivo Capítulo IV: Conclusiones sobre el bienestar de los migrantes derivadas de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup, examen de los resultados en seis dimensiones básicas del bienestar en las cuatro direcciones de la migración Capítulo V: Conclusiones y recomendaciones relativas a futuras iniciativas para seguir de cerca el bienestar de los migrantes y las repercusiones de la migración en el desarrollo

41 Más información relativa al Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo 2013 ¿Tiene interés en obtener más información? Consulte la página Web del Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo 2013: Informe completo, capítulos y reseña, descarga gratuita Documentos de trabajo del Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo que ofrecen perspectivas regionales Ponencias en los seminarios relacionados con el Informe sobre las Migraciones en el Mundo 2013, sobre el tema del bienestar de los migrantes y el desarrollo Material de referencia: preguntas frecuentes, hojas informativas, comunicados de prensa, etc.