Development does not reduce migration

For more than 30 years, I have heard the same argument repeated by governments, ministers, international organisations and development agencies. If Europe invests more in Africa, irregular migration will fall. It is an attractive theory. It is also wrong.

The idea rests on a simple assumption that people migrate because they are poor.  Therefore, if we reduce poverty, people will stay at home. It sounds logical. The problem is that decades of migration research tell us otherwise. Development does not automatically reduce migration. Very often, it increases it.

One of the most established findings in migration studies is what researchers call the ‘migration hump’. As source African countries become more prosperous, emigration tends to rise before it eventually falls, often decades later and only at much higher levels of development. This is one reason countries such as Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt have historically produced larger migration flows to Europe than some much poorer African countries.

The reason is straightforward. Migration requires resources. It requires money, some level of education or a skill, access to information, international contacts and the confidence to take risks. The poorest people in Africa are often the least likely to migrate internationally because they simply cannot afford to do so. Development, therefore, gives more people the ability to migrate.

This pattern is very visible across central Africa. Countries such as Ghana, Senegal, Kenya and Nigeria have experienced significant economic growth, improved educational outcomes, better infrastructure and greater integration into the global economy. Yet, they continue to generate substantial migration flows towards Europe. Development did not reduce migration. In many cases, it expanded the pool of people capable of leaving.

This is the fundamental flaw in the argument that more investment in education, healthcare, renewable energy, infrastructure and entrepreneurship will somehow reduce migration pressures on Europe. Such investments improve lives in Africa but they also create larger numbers of people with the means and aspirations to move abroad. Migration is not driven solely by poverty.  It is driven by opportunity.

This is precisely why the assumption that development will reduce migration is so misguided. The argument also ignores demographics. Africa’s population is growing rapidly. Millions of young people enter the labour market every year. Even strong economic growth will struggle to create enough quality jobs to absorb them all. In many countries, population growth continues to outpace job creation. The result is obvious.  Migration pressures are likely to remain strong regardless of development spending.

There is another problem with the development narrative. It creates the illusion that Europe is choosing between development and border management. It is not.

Border management is not a policy failure. It is a core responsibility of every single state. Governments have an obligation to secure their borders, process asylum claims, dismantle smuggling networks, return those who have no right to remain and maintain public confidence in migration systems. Development assistance cannot perform any of these functions.

Presenting development spending as an alternative to migration management is therefore a false choice.

Border management is not a policy failure- David Attard

Nor is there much evidence that decades of development assistance has reduced migration. Europe has invested billions of euros across Africa through aid programmes, partnerships, infrastructure projects and capacity-building initiatives. Many of these programmes have delivered valuable results. They have improved schools, hospitals, roads and economic opportunities. What they have not done is produce a corresponding decline in migration towards Europe.

If development spending were the solution, we would already have seen the results by now.

Perhaps the greatest weakness in the argument is that it misunderstands the nature of migration itself. Migration is not simply a reaction to hardship or war. It is a structural feature of a globalised world.  Once migration routes are established, they become self-sustaining. 

Diaspora communities provide information, financial support, accommodation and employment contacts. Family networks reduce risks and lower costs. Each migrant makes it easier for the next migrant to follow. Migration develops its own momentum. This is why the claim that Europe can solve irregular migration by investing more in Africa is not merely optimistic. It is misleading.

Africa’s development should be pursued because it benefits Africans. Stronger economies, better infrastructure, improved education and greater prosperity are worthwhile objectives in their own right. But they should not be sold to European taxpayers as a migration-control strategy.

Development policy and migration management policy are not the same thing. One may improve living standards. The other manages population movements. Confusing the two has produced decades of unrealistic expectations and disappointing results.

For frontline states such as Malta, that distinction is particularly important. Long-term development goals cannot substitute effective migration management today.  Governments are required to deal with the realities arriving at their borders, not the theories discussed at international conferences.

Europe’s problem is not that it invests too little in Africa. It is that too many policy makers continue to believe that development spending can solve a migration challenge that it was never designed to address.

The evidence is clear. Development may improve lives. It may create prosperity. It may generate opportunity.

What it will not do is substantially reduce irregular migration. 

The sooner our ministers recognise that reality, the sooner they can begin designing evidence-based migration policies.

Colonel David Attard (Retired) is a former Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces of Malta and a graduate of the Joint Services, Advanced Command & Staff College, UK.