5. Governance at destination countries

5. Governance at destination countries

Migration Governance Policy: International Perspectives and the GCC

This section examines linkages between governance and migration from the perspective of receiving countries. Migrants’ socioeconomic and legal rights in destination countries have important implications for their welfare, labor market integration, and overall well-being. Understanding how governance in destination countries affects migrants and refugees is crucial to ease their integration into labor market, enhance their human capital accumulation, and improve their overall well-being. Several aspects of governance in destination countries, including employment rights, legal status, access to services, and citizenship paths, might shape immigration flows to the destination and migrants’ welfare.

The literature documents the attractiveness of better migration institutions in destination countries and the benefits of granting citizenship on migrants’ integration into the labor market. Several studies have also shown the detrimental labor market effects associated with restricted employment rights for refugees and asylum seekers. Focusing on mass migration to Australia, Canada, the United States, and Western European countries in the 19th century, Bertocchi and Strozzi (2008) find that migrants are attracted to countries with positive migration policies, including laws regulating ascension to citizenship and other proxies for the quality of migration policies in areas such as land distribution and public education and attitudes toward immigration policy.

More recent studies such as those of Govind (2021) have shown that granting citizenship to migrants can catalyze labor market integration. Exploiting a quasi-experimental setting induced a recent change in the law of naturalization through marriage in France; Govind (2021) found that citizenship increases annual earnings by increasing labor supply and hourly wages. Relatedly, Testaverde and colleagues (2017) highlight that more generous employment terms, including lengthier employment passes may benefit destination countries through productivity improvements. For instance, Chung, Choi, and Lee (2015) found that, in Korea, the productivity of migrant workers tends to be about 50 percent of their local counterparts in the first year of employment, 80 percent in the second year, and 100 percent in the third. Alternatively, Fasani, Frattini, and Minale (2021) found that employment restrictions imposed on refugees entering European countries have long-lasting detrimental effects on their integration into the labor market, that exposure to a ban at arrival reduces the employment probability of refugees by 15 percent in the post-ban years, and that these effects can last for up to 10 years after arrival.

Better migration policies in destination countries are beneficial for migrants and refugees, as well as for the destination countries. As highlighted in the literature, reducing discrimination and informality through achievement of citizenship can catalyze migrants’ labor market integration, which benefits migrants and destination countries alike. Likewise, lifting employment restrictions imposed on refugees and asylum seekers is likely to improve labor market outcomes, as reflected by higher labor force participation and employment. As shown in Section 2.1, a large percentage of Middle Eastern and North African emigrants emigrate to the GCC, particularly to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (Figure 2). The GCC countries hire migrant labor under the sponsorship system, which governs the relationship between employers and migrant workers.13 According to this system, citizenship and permanent residency are precluded to foreign nationals, and the immigration status of a migrant worker is legally bound to a sponsor or employer for their contract period. A migrant worker therefore remains tied to a sponsor throughout their stay in the destination country.

13 See Damir-Geilsdorf and Pelican (2019) for more information on the sponsorship system.

The sponsorship system has long been subject to condemnation, with international organizations and civil society calling for replacement by an alternative labor migration governance policy. The system may be impeding internal labor market mobility and sustaining situations of forced labor, as highlighted in the International Labor Organization’s (2017) report on employer-migrant worker relationships in the Middle East. The sponsorship system inherently emphasizes the temporary nature of contract labor, which might discourage social cohesiveness. Furthermore, citizenship rights are unavailable to migrant workers even if the worker lives in the country for a long time. These unfavorable migration policies are found, in some instances, to be associated with migrants over-staying in destination countries and development of undocumented migration and irregular forms of employment. As shown in Elmallakh and Wahba (2021), undocumented migration experiences are not only associated with worse labor market conditions in destination countries, as reflected by lower-ranked occupations and lower wages and savings, but also with long-term penalties that persist even after migrants return to their home country, as reflected by lower wages upon return.

Alternative labor migration governance policies are needed, in particular, when it comes to reforming admission system and bolstering protection of migrant workers. Some GCC countries have started to incrementally reform the sponsorship system in recent years. For instance, under the sponsorship system, workers could not transfer employment or leave the country without obtaining a written approval from their sponsor. In recent years, these mobility restrictions were lifted in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates is currently implementing new regulations to attract specialists and exceptional talents for long-term residency under updated Golden Visa and Green Visa rules. These changes would allow workers to stay longer in the country since employment will no longer be tied to employer sponsorship (Fragomen, 2022). Other GCC countries should also seek new governance frameworks aiming to protect migrant workers against forced labor and abuse by ensuring implementation and enforcement of labor laws (Khan and Harroff-Tavel 2011), and facilitate assimilation of migrant workers by granting employment rights, residency permits, and potential citizenship paths.

Refugee Governance Policy: Improving the Lives of Refugees in Jordan and Lebanon

Better governance in destination countries should focus on improving migrants’ and refugees’ welfare. As highlighted in Section 2.2, 27 percent of refugees and asylum seekers from Middle Eastern and North African countries were hosted in other Middle Eastern and North African countries in 2020 (UNHCR 2021). Jordan and Lebanon, neighbors to Syria, hosted 11 percent and 9 percent of total refugees and asylum seekers from Middle Eastern and North African countries in 2020, respectively. Lenner and Schmelter (2016) provide an excellent review of Jordan’s and Lebanon’s policies in hosting Syrian refugees and analyze the condition of Syrian refugees in both countries. The analysis highlights that both countries could improve their refugee governance framework across multiple dimensions.

First, a legal framework governing hosting of refugees needs to be developed in both countries. Neither Jordan nor Lebanon has signed the 1951 Geneva convention, and neither has specific asylum laws (Lenner and Schmelter 2016). Therefore, cooperation with UNHCR is based on a memorandum of understanding. In Jordan, UNHCR registers Syrians as refugees, and there is a process of status verification that requires all Syrians to register with the closest police station to obtain a Jordanian identity card, but the Lebanese government does not recognize UNHCR registration as a type of legal status for refugees because of the lack of an updated memorandum of understanding pertaining to Syrian refugees. In Lebanon, this has placed most Syrian refugees in a precarious position.