Roodman, The Commitment to Development Index: 2010 Edition Benin because it is relatively practical for them to come to the United States?—the CDI strives for utilitarianism, simply asking where aid will do the most good. Thus the pertinent question is whether there is an interaction that makes aid more valuable in countries that are major sources of a donor’s immigrants. There appears to be no evidence of this. Indicator 3, however, offers a nice complement to Grieco and Hamilton’s statistic on foreign-born students since it is a more direct measure of policy. The OECD (2005a) reports on whether foreign students in general, or, for some European countries, non-European students, pay higher or the same tuition as nationals at public universities—or get in free, along with nationals. The three possibilities are translated into a 3-point scale. Accepting the considered judgment of Grieco and Hamilton (2004), openness to foreign students, now comprising two indicators, gets 15% weight; and the modified UNHCR index gets 20%. The 15% for foreign students is now split between the outcome indicator, the share of foreign students who are from developing countries, and the policy indicator, on tuition levels. The remaining weight goes to the indicators of migration flows. Before combining the various measures, each is rescaled so that the back-calculated scores for 2003, the CDI’s first year, average 5.0. Table 11 shows the calculations. Austria emerges on top. The major reason appears to be its acceptance of immigrants from the nearby the former Yugoslavia, which many people fled in the 1990s. With the revision of the Docquier and Marfouk data, Switzerland’s reported value for the net stock change statistic has fallen substantially, from 331 million to 98 million, enough to pull it out of the top ranks on migration.
31