You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.1 Global Systems — international migration and the movement of labour as a flow within the global system; the consequences of globalisation for unequal flows of people; interdependence between source and host regions; remittances; the social, economic and political implications of international migration. Synoptic links: globalisation flows (Lesson 1), remittances and development finance (Lesson 4), and sovereignty/border control (Lesson 10). This lesson combines AO1 (migration theory from Ravenstein and Lee to Massey's cumulative causation; the global labour market) with AO2 (applying theory to located corridors) and AO3 (remittance-as-%-GDP and net-migration calculation).
Migration is a defining flow of the global system and a powerful expression of uneven development: people move, broadly, up the gradient of opportunity that globalisation has both created and made visible. The depth treatment moves beyond simple push–pull to a labour-market and transnationalist understanding, in which migration is structured by the demand of richer economies for labour, by transnational social networks, and by the interdependence it forges between source and host regions.
Key Definition: Migration is a permanent or semi-permanent change of residence; international migration crosses a national border. Labour migration specifically denotes movement driven by, and feeding, the demand for workers — increasingly organised into a global labour market segmented by skill.
The earliest framework, E.G. Ravenstein's "laws", established empirical regularities still visible today: most migration is over short distances and in steps; long-distance migrants head for major centres of commerce; each migration stream generates a counter-stream; and migration increases with the development of transport and industry — an early recognition of the time-space compression of Lesson 1.
| Push (origin) | Pull (destination) | |
|---|---|---|
| Economic | Unemployment, low wages, poverty | Higher wages, jobs, growth, labour demand |
| Political | Persecution, war, repression | Stability, rule of law, asylum |
| Social | Discrimination, poor services | Family reunion, education, healthcare |
| Environmental | Drought, disaster, degradation | Lower environmental risk |
| Demographic | Youth bulge, resource pressure | Ageing populations, labour shortages |
Important: Migration is multi-causal. Decisions blend push and pull with personal circumstances and, critically, the resources to move — which is why the very poorest often cannot migrate internationally (the "mobility paradox").
Everett Lee added analytical depth with four elements: positive and negative factors at the origin; positive and negative factors at the destination; intervening obstacles (distance, cost, visas, border controls); and personal factors (age, gender, education, perception of risk). Its strength is recognising that places have mixed attributes and that obstacles and perception mediate flows. Its weakness is that it remains individualistic and rationalist, underplaying households, social networks and structural forces.
The most important depth refinement comes from Douglas Massey's theory of cumulative causation and migration networks. Once a migration stream begins, it becomes self-sustaining: each migrant lowers the cost and risk for the next by providing information, contacts, housing and jobs (chain migration). Migration thus develops its own momentum independent of the original push–pull triggers, which explains why corridors (Mexico–USA, Philippines–Gulf) persist and grow. This network theory, alongside world-systems accounts (migration follows the same core–periphery linkages as capital — Wallerstein, Lesson 2) and the "new economics of labour migration" (migration as a household risk-diversification strategy, not just individual wage-maximising), is what distinguishes A-level depth from GCSE push–pull.
A host country reports the following annual flows:
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Immigration (in) | 1,200,000 |
| Emigration (out) | 450,000 |
| Mid-year population | 68,000,000 |
Manipulate:
Explain: A net rate of +11 per 1,000 means migration is adding population at over 1% a year — significant for labour supply, housing and the dependency ratio. The large gross turnover shows migration is churn, not just one-way settlement.
Evaluate: Net migration is a residual that hides the composition (skill, age, legal status) and direction of flows; a falling net figure could result from more emigration rather than less immigration, with very different policy implications. Annual figures are also volatile and sensitive to definition (who counts as a migrant, and over what duration), so trends matter more than single years.
| Characteristic | Voluntary (labour) migration | Forced migration |
|---|---|---|
| Driver | Economic opportunity, lifestyle | Conflict, persecution, disaster |
| Status | Economic migrant, skilled worker | Refugee, asylum seeker, IDP |
| Choice | Some choice of destination | Limited or none |
| Return | Possible if conditions change | Often unsafe |
| Example | Filipino nurses in the Gulf | Syrians in Türkiye |
The legal distinctions carry huge policy weight:
As of 2023, UNHCR estimated over 110 million forcibly displaced people worldwide — the highest on record — of whom roughly a third are refugees and the majority IDPs.
Globalisation has produced a segmented global labour market: a high-skill stream (engineers, doctors, IT workers) competed for by the core, and a low-skill stream (construction, care, agriculture, domestic work) filling jobs that ageing rich societies cannot or will not.
Brain drain is the emigration of skilled workers from poorer to richer countries, depleting human capital. Examples: large shares of professionals from small economies emigrate; the Philippines trains nurses substantially for export to the USA, UK and Gulf; and sub-Saharan health systems lose doctors and nurses to the Global North — a subsidy from poor to rich, since the origin country bore the training cost.
Brain gain captures the offsetting benefits: larger remittances from high earners; diaspora networks that channel investment, knowledge and trade; return migration bringing skills and capital; and an incentive effect whereby the prospect of emigration raises educational investment at home. The modern synthesis, "brain circulation", argues that in a connected world skilled migration is less a one-way drain than a circulation of talent and ideas.
Case Study — India: India simultaneously exemplifies both sides. It has long lost skilled professionals (its diaspora leads global firms — Sundar Pichai at Alphabet, Satya Nadella at Microsoft), yet it is the world's largest remittance recipient (~US$100 billion in 2022/23), and returning diaspora and US-based networks were central to building Bengaluru's IT cluster — a textbook case of brain circulation converting an apparent loss into a developmental gain.
A diaspora maintains identity and ties across borders, sending remittances, building transnational trade/investment networks and influencing politics in both host and home states — for example the large Chinese and Indian diasporas' economic roles across Southeast Asia and the wider world. Diasporas are the social infrastructure of Massey's migration networks.
Diasporas increasingly act as deliberate agents of development beyond remittances: through diaspora bonds (governments raising finance from emigrants, as India and Israel have done), knowledge transfer (skilled emigrants mentoring or investing in home-country firms), diaspora direct investment, and trade facilitation (co-ethnic networks lowering the transaction costs of cross-border trade, e.g. the Chinese diaspora underpinning trade across the Asia-Pacific). This reframes the migrant not as a "lost" national (brain drain) but as a transnational developmental resource — the strongest version of the brain-circulation argument. Transnationalism as a concept (Glick Schiller) captures how modern migrants increasingly live across two societies simultaneously — sending money, voting in home elections, consuming home media — rather than cleanly "leaving" one country for another, which is why the simple source/host binary the exam question above presupposes is itself analytically dated.
The Mexico–USA corridor is among the largest bilateral migration systems on Earth and the classic illustration of labour migration and source–host interdependence.
Suppose a Mexican sending-state receives US$5.2 billion in remittances against a regional GDP of US$40 billion, and that ten years earlier it received US$2.6 billion.
Manipulate:
Explain: A 13% share means remittances now rival or exceed local wages and public spending as a development resource — funding housing, schooling and small enterprise (the "3 Ts": transfers spent on techo, tortilla, trabajo — housing, food, work). The doubling reflects a maturing migration network (cumulative causation).
Evaluate: Such dependence is double-edged: remittances are poverty-reducing and counter-cyclical, but they can entrench dependency, deepen inequality between remittance-receiving and non-receiving households, and are vulnerable to host-economy shocks and tighter immigration policy. A single % figure also hides distribution — gains may concentrate in particular households and regions.
The Syrian civil war (from 2011) produced one of the largest displacement crises in modern history — over 6.5 million Syrians fled abroad and a comparable number were internally displaced, more than half the pre-war population of ~21 million.
| Host country | Syrian refugees (approx.) |
|---|---|
| Türkiye | ~3.6 million (the world's largest host) |
| Lebanon | ~1.5 million (~a quarter of Lebanon's population) |
| Jordan | ~660,000 |
| Germany | ~800,000+ |
Host impacts: Türkiye bore costs estimated above US$40 billion by 2020, and the 2016 EU–Türkiye deal provided €6 billion for Türkiye to host refugees and curb onward movement — an example of externalising migration governance. Lebanon, with one of the highest refugee-per-capita ratios on Earth, faced acute strain on housing, water and jobs amid its own collapse. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel's 2015 decision to admit over 800,000 was internationally praised but domestically contentious, contributing to the rise of the far-right AfD — even as many refugees integrated successfully into the labour market. The crisis shows how forced migration tests both humanitarian obligation and sovereign border control.
Key data point on burden-sharing: a crucial and frequently-rewarded observation is that, contrary to popular perception in the Global North, low- and middle-income countries host around 75% of the world's refugees (UNHCR). The Syrian case proves it — Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan, neighbouring and far poorer than Germany or the UK, absorbed the overwhelming majority. This refutes the framing of refugees as primarily a "Western" burden and reframes the politics of asylum (Lesson 10) around the failure of richer states to share responsibility.
Migration is one of the least-governed of the global flows (Lesson 1), and its governance is the sharpest expression of the sovereignty–globalisation tension (Lesson 10).
While trade has the WTO and finance the IMF, migration has no equivalent binding global institution. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2018) was the first comprehensive UN framework, but it is explicitly non-binding, and several states (including the USA and Hungary) refused to adopt it — a clear illustration of how states guard sovereignty most jealously over who may enter their territory.
Faced with rising flows, rich states have increasingly turned to deterrence and externalisation rather than open management:
This "fortress" turn exposes a deep contradiction at the heart of globalisation: capital, goods and information are encouraged to move freely, but the movement of people — especially poorer people — is increasingly restricted. Zygmunt Bauman's distinction between the mobile "tourists" (the wealthy, who move by choice) and the immobilised "vagabonds" (the poor, who are stopped) captures the uneven power-geometry of mobility (Massey, Lesson 1). The governance gap also raises acute ethical questions — externalisation may reduce arrivals but often shifts harm to transit states and migrants — making migration governance a defining test of whether the international system can reconcile sovereignty with humanitarian obligation.
Although the spec foregrounds international migration, the largest migration flows globally are internal rural–urban movements, which are central to the development process and worth understanding synoptically.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.