Aug 26, 2007 - however, make up the largest and fastest growing share of population ..... whether they were born in countries hosting their migrant parents.
New Frontiers, Uncertain Futures: Migrant Youth and Children of Migrants in a Globalized World Marta Tienda Linnet Taylor Janet Maughan August 26, 2007
I. Introduction Over 3 percent of the world’s 6.4 billion inhabitants resided in countries outside their birthplace in 2000. 1 Not only has this share has been rising over time as inter- and intra-national economic disparities have grown (Zlotnik, 2006: Table 6), but the flows differ between developing and industrialized nations in their size, composition and character. Approximately 9 percent of the population living in developed regions is foreign-born compared with a meager 1.3 percent in developing regions. The U.N. estimates that the number of international migrants more than doubled between 1970 and 2005, from 82 to 191 million, with two-thirds residing in developed nations (Freeman, 2006). Notably, Sub-Saharan African migration to the OECD countries accelerated during the 1990s, with the African diaspora stock increasing 80 percent over the decade (World Bank, 2007). Movement within countries dwarfs international flows, particularly in nations with low levels of urbanization (Roberts, 2006; Cohen, 2004). 2 Contemporary international migration differs from that of earlier periods in several significant ways related to social and economic wellbeing of migrants. First, the regional origins and destinations of movers have changed. For example, many European 1
The UN defines international migrants as persons who reside outside of their country of origin for one year or more. 2 For example, despite years of state restriction on internal movement, currently China has 130 million internal migrants (Population Reference Bureau Brief, 2002.“China’s Economic Reforms Likely to Increase Internal Migration.”)
1
source countries have become immigrant-receiving nations (e.g., Spain, Italy, and Germany) while formerly immigrant-receiving Latin America has become a source of emigrants. Population flows from poor to rich countries and among poor nations, however, make up the largest and fastest growing share of population movements today. Second, contemporary international migration is occurring against the backdrop of an unprecedented demographic divide—an aging industrialized world and a youthful developing world. Industrialized nations need young migrants to replenish their aging labor force. Developing countries also need the talents of their most skilled youth to meet the challenges of economic growth in ever more competitive, globally integrated capital and labor markets. Finally, the age and gender composition of international migration flows has changed as growing numbers of women and children cross national boundaries, and large numbers do so without authorization (Freeman, 2006). While feminization of migration flows has been well documented and researched, there has been scant attention to children’s involvement in international migration and its consequences for their psychosocial, physical and economic wellbeing. For perspective, in 2005 nearly one-third of the developing world population was between 10 and 24 years old—precisely the ages that have witnessed a steep rise in migration rates (McKenzie, 2006). Notwithstanding increasing global interest in population movement (GCIM, 2005), relatively few studies consider the impacts of migration for children and youth, including those left behind when their family members move. Notable exceptions are studies that focus on child and adolescent labor migrants (e.g., McKenzie, 2006; Lloyd, et al., 2006; Whitehead and Hashim, 2005); the children of immigrants (second
2
generation) in developed countries (e.g. TIES and ICSEY); 3 and highly vulnerable groups, such as victims of trafficking for sex, labor or armed conflict (e.g. Carey and Kim, 2006; Zimmerman 2003). 4 Whether and how migration improves or diminishes the life chances of children and youth is poorly understood because studies of child wellbeing and migration operate in separate spheres; because estimates of world migration streams are seldom disaggregated by age; and because most research that focuses on young people with migration backgrounds is based on case studies that may not be readily generalized.5 Irregular distribution of country-specific reports about specific groups and proliferation of case studies by nongovernmental organizations further limit systematic comparative assessments of child and youth migration. Accordingly, our program exploration sought to identify the reasons for the relative neglect of child and youth migrants and to propose concrete actions that will include children and youth in the migration and development policy terrain by harnessing their human capital potential. Section II identifies two formidable barriers and elaborates on the significance of creating a focal point on children and youth in the research and policy discourse about migration and economic development. In Section III we develop a conceptual scheme that illustrates what types of policy insights can be garnered from a 3
TIES (The Integration of the European Second Generation) is a study about the transition to adulthood being conducted in Paris, Strasburg, Berlin, Frankfurt, Madrid, Barcelona, Vienna, Linz, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, Zurich, Basle and Stockholm. ICSEY (International Comparative studies of Ethnocultural Youth) is a completed cross-national study based on school-based surveys designed to study the adaptation and integration of second generation youth. The cooperating countries are Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zeland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, UK, and USA. In addition to their focus on adolescent youth enrolled in school, the studies were focused largely on psych-social aspects of youth development. See Berry, Phinney, Sam and Vedder 2006. 4 According to Carey and Kim (2006), roughly half of 30 million people displaced by armed conflict worldwide are children. 5 Zimmerman’s (2003) study of women trafficked for sex, for example, is based on interviews with less than 30 women.
3
child-centric perspective of migration. Section IV summarizes exploration activities now underway to assess the viability of forging a child-centric migration subfield, and the final section proposes activities to sustain the momentum generated by the exploration activities and identifies opportunities to leverage new partners, to enhance ongoing data collection efforts, and to create international networks of research and policy experts interested in migration and child development.
II. The Problem: Invisible Child and Youth Migrants Although international definitions of childhood and adolescence vary (see Appendix A), experts agree that both are crucial phases of human development. A mounting body of empirical evidence attests that early mastery of cognitive, social and emotional competencies both facilitates and increases the likelihood of later learning, which, in turn, depends directly on the foundations established during the early years (Heckman, et al., 2006). Adolescence is a difficult lifecycle period under the best of circumstances because of the profound biological, psychological, economic and social changes that define the transition to adulthood. Globalization and migration magnify the challenges of adolescent development by undermining traditional expectations about work and family life that are associated with the transition to adulthood (Lloyd, et al., 2005). Yet, with few exceptions, children and youth are largely invisible in the discourse about migration as a development strategy, except to underscore their heightened vulnerabilities as victims of labor exploitation, sex trafficking, and forced armed service, or to extol their potential as agents of social change (e.g., Carey and Kim, 2006; Roudi-
4
Fahimi and Kent, 2007). The preponderance of child advocacy and rights groups among international organizations is a common response to render visible the plight of vulnerable migrant children and youth, but does little to address the root causes of their heightened vulnerability or to develop lasting policy solutions that benefit the migrants as well as their origin and destination communities. The Rockefeller Foundation is uniquely positioned to shift the policy discussion about migrant youth from its emphasis on rights and advocacy to asset building for social and economic development. According to the 2007 World Bank Development Report dedicated to children, the relative paucity of data is a major barrier limiting systematic scholarly and policy attention to the plight of migrant children and youth. U.N. estimates of world migration flows have not been disaggregated by age. 6 Although necessary to document the contours of child and youth migration, aggregate migration rates and flows can not address questions about whether and under what circumstances young people are better or worse off for having moved. The failure of many international organizations to include migrant status in their ongoing data systems further precludes researchers and policy analysts from evaluating the wellbeing of youth with migration backgrounds. A second barrier to understanding how migration impacts wellbeing of children and youth is the labor bias of most international publications that consider population movements. The 2005 Report of the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) briefly discusses children, but mainly as accessories to adult mobility. Similarly, 6
The UN Population Division is now developing estimates of world migration flows broken down by age in response to several requests by governments and research communities. The UNHCR 2006 Global Trends report indicates that age breakdowns were available for only about one quarter of their target population (i.e., refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, IDPs and stateless persons). Women, young people, and elderly refugees constitute target demographic groups for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), yet data coverage for them also is highly uneven, particularly those who find their way to developed nations.
5
the National Academy of Sciences study about the transition to adulthood in developing nations reflects a labor bias in its treatment of youth migration (Lloyd, 2005). Finally, the migration chapter in the 2007 World Development Report dedicated to youth also uses an adult lens by emphasizing employment activity and the potential for migration to stimulate human capital formation among young workers. However, it eschews consideration of the requirements for healthy child and youth development before labor force entry—precisely when normative development is at risk of being thwarted by migration. Youth were also missing from the agenda of the first meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), which claims to have shifted a policy paradigm by moving development to the center of the migration debate (GFMD, 2007). 7 As remittances move to center stage in policy discussions about migration as an economic development strategy (World Bank, 2007), the need to render children and youth visible is even more pressing. Ignoring young people as a focus of asset creation represents a formidable opportunity cost. Does migration undermine or enhance normative social development, and if so, in what ways? That is the looming question; its answers are crucial for informed decisionmaking both in nations that send and those that receive young migrants.
Significance Migration is a powerful correlate of economic development that incurs costs and benefits for both sending and receiving countries, and for the migrants themselves. Because migration today is occurring against the backdrop of aging populations in 7
Notably, women were explicitly discussed as a group warranting further attention both because of their heightened vulnerability and because of their economic roles as heads of households when their male partners migrate (p. 15).
6
industrialized nations, the infusion of young migrants also represents a potential demographic dividend that can be garnered by destination communities through human capital investments (Kent and Haub, 2005; Roudi-Fahimi and Kent, 2007). Policy analysts from immigrant-receiving countries are interested in harnessing the benefits from migration of young people (World Bank, 2006) while those from migrant-sending countries seek to maximize social and economic impacts of remittances. Unfortunately, the growing emphasis on regulation (controlling borders) of migration and remittances has deflected attention from myriad opportunities to capitalize on migration of young people, which requires creating conditions that benefit migrants and ideally, their origin and destination communities as well. For children and youth, capitalizing on migration acquires added complexity because of their heightened vulnerabilities that range from lack of recognition by researchers and policy analysts to their exploitation and trafficking by predatory adults. To ensure that young people with migration backgrounds acquire skills for managing risks, exercising their creative talents, and becoming productive citizens, investments in their social development and physical wellbeing are essential. The first order challenge, however, is to include children and youth in research and policy discourse on migration by systematically documenting dimensions, circumstances and consequences of their geographic mobility. Three barriers have precluded this from materializing: (1) the absence of an integrated analytical framework that depicting how migration enhances or undermines normative development of children and youth; (2) the lack of networks connecting migration research and policy communities with those interested in children and youth; and (3) the paucity of data for
7
comparative and dynamic analysis. The following section addresses the first issue by developing a conceptual map that connects migration and youth development fields.
III. Toward a Child-Centric Migration Agenda The growing presence of children and youth among migrant populations underscores the need to frame migration from the perspective of young people to better understand its consequences for them, and raises two important research and policy questions bearing directly on wellbeing of young people with migration backgrounds. 8 •
First, how does migration influence well-being of children and youth;
•
Second, how are migrant children and youth faring in their host countries?
Although related, these questions differ in more than semantic ways, and their policy implications differ as well. 9 The first asks how young people who migrate differ from similarly situated youth in their origin countries that do not migrate. Importantly, the answer requires an understanding of the selection regimes that produce migratory flows of children and youth as well as the forces that influence particular types moves, i.e., whether moves are voluntary and/or tied to adults, and whether international moves are authorized. Essentially, this question seeks to clarify whether migration improves or undermines wellbeing of young people, depending on its character, timing, duration, and auspices. The second question, which is most relevant for host countries, takes as given the migration decision and asks, instead, how migrant children compare with nonmigrant
8
We use the term “young people” as a more encompassing term to include both children and youth, whose age boundaries differ although they sometimes overlap. See Appendix A. 9 From a research standpoint as well, the former is much more difficult to address and poses formidable data and computational demands.
8
children in their host communities on various dimensions of physical, social, and economic wellbeing. For example, do migrant youth close education gaps with their nonmigrant counterparts as they master their host country language, or are they marginalized from mainstream institutions and denied opportunities for social integration? Do migrant and nonmigrant youth differ in their health status, and if so, are these differences transitory? How much time is required for convergence in pshcyo-social and economic wellbeing of native and migrant youth? Although the auspices of migration are also important for addressing this question, the migration decision per se is of secondary importance. Answers to this question should identify for policy makers what aspects of integration lend themselves to interventions that can improve wellbeing of migrant youth while also closing disparities with native populations.
Forging a Field: Child Migration and Economic Development Despite claims that migration is an important component of economic development policy, and that young people are an especially valuable human capital resource for both sending and receiving countries (Kent and Haub, 2005), there has been little effort to clarify how migration enhances both economic development and youth development. There is a vast research and policy literature about child and adolescent development on the one hand, and another about migration and economic development; but, with rare exception these literatures do not overlap. Increasingly, the migration and development literature focuses on remittances as a poverty-reduction tool, largely ignoring young people except to acknowledge their future labor market activity or to extol their creative potential. Research on youth and adolescent development largely
9
focuses on experiences of developed countries, except for a few cross-national studies that consider the psychological wellbeing or school-to-work transition of youth with immigrant parents (see Berry, et al., 2006; Lloyd, et al., 2005; TIES study). Because these domains of scientific inquiry and social policy rarely intersect, myriad questions about whether and how geographic mobility impacts the wellbeing of children and youth with migration backgrounds can not be answered. Particularly in developing nations where child and youth migration is on the rise, its consequences for future generations are likely to be appreciable (McKenzie, 2006). Few researchers interested in youth development understand economic development, but a handful of development economists who have examined the determinants of child and adolescent wellbeing hold great promise for cultivating a child migration subfield in development studies.
Figure 1: Child-Centric Migration: Forging a Field
Research on child and adolescent development
•Scholars •Data •Research
Research on migration and economic development
10
Figure 1 maps the conceptual space that underpins the nascent field of child and youth migration in the context of economic development, and identifies three ingredients to render young people visible in this research and policy terrain. Identifying the key scholars and mobilizing them to define the contours of child-centric migration research is an important step toward this goal, as are the corollary activities of surveying existing empirical research and appropriate data sources.
Auspices of Child and Youth Migration Appreciating how migration experiences impact children and youth requires researchers to consider both the auspices of movement and domains of wellbeing because migration takes many forms; because wellbeing is multi-faceted; and because cultural understandings of childhood differ. For example, in many African countries, teenagers have traditionally transitioned to adulthood through community recognition and cultural ritual. As globalization blurs cultural boundaries, youth seek alternative ways to mark out time and space between childhood and adulthood, with autonomous migration offering an increasingly common strategy to do so. 10 Therefore, a child-centric typology of migration must consider whether international borders are involved; whether children and youth move voluntarily; and especially whether they are accompanied by adults, travel alone, or are left behind in communities where large numbers of adult caregivers leave for protracted periods of time. The auspices of child and youth migration are especially important for
10
Ann Whitehead, Sussex University (UK), and Mark Collinson, Witwatersrand University (South Africa): observations from Ghana and South African studies of migrant youth communicated during RF meeting on migrant youth, 7/25/07.
11
understanding whether mobility increases vulnerability or improves wellbeing, and in what ways. 11
Figure 2. Child-centric Perspective of Migration Child Status
Type of Move Domestic Voluntary
Involuntary
International Voluntary
Involuntary
Accompanied Unaccompanied Left behind by migrant parents/guardians Children of migrant parents
Figure 2 illustrates a child-centric typology of migration that distinguishes between domestic and international moves by whether they are voluntary or not; by whether young people move in the company of adults or are left behind altogether; or whether they were born in countries hosting their migrant parents. Involuntary moves within countries result in displacement (IDPs) while forced moves across international boundaries produce asylees and refugees, each with different responsible agents. Additional distinctions of significant consequence for understanding how migration impacts children and youth include legal status of movers and whether moves occur between low-income areas, or between low- and high-income areas. Presumably, such 11
According to McKenzie (2006), young migrants are more likely than older migrants to be undocumented, and the pervasiveness of child labor among migrants is higher among those who move alone. Furthermore, the prevalence of unaccompanied youth migration largely involves moves between developing countries, especially Africa.
12
considerations are best understood in the context of specific flows, and for parsimony, are not disaggregated in the typology. The core child status and type of move distinctions are important not only because they map on to existing national and international migration policy systems, but also because data availability differs, particularly for groups that are not specifically targeted by international organizations (e.g., children left behind, children of immigrants, and undocumented or stateless children). 12 Additional considerations for appreciating the impacts of migration on young people include its duration (e.g., temporary or permanent) and the distances involved.
Improving Wellbeing of Migrant Children and Youth Although there is no single agreed upon index of child wellbeing, experts agree about the needs for successful youth development, including safety, education, social skills, sense of belonging (integration) and healthy environments. 13 To focus on education for concrete illustration, migration can either enhance opportunities for learning if destination communities have better educational facilities than the source communities, and if migrant children and youth can avail themselves of these opportunities. Even if remittances permit children left behind to attend school, it is not
12
For example, UNHCR focuses on internal and international displacement of people, among whom many are children and youth. Partly because of the age boundaries and partly because of its mission to “to advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential,”12 documenting and contending with child trafficking is largely the responsibility of UNICEF. There are, however, numerous circumstances of child and youth migration that fall outside the domain of existing organizations either because of their age-bounded mission statements (see Appendix A) or because the receiving communities lack institutional arrangements or resources for migrant integration. 13 Some analysts (e.g., Heckman) distinguish between cognitive and social skills, with the latter incorporating behavioral problems. Amartya Sen’s notion of capabilities embraces both health and education.
13
clear that they are better off raised by a single parent or relative. Alternatively, migrant youth could face more limited educational opportunities if, as occurs in China, rural migrant children are denied access to school in their urban destination communities (French, 2007). For young people, migration means that they must make sense of a new country, often learning a new language, and if they migrate alone or without legal status, they face perilous journeys and precarious living conditions. Many migrant children must navigate through unsafe schools and unwelcoming communities, particularly if they are unaccompanied. Still others may have been born in the host country, but live without papers, in effect, as stateless residents with no prospects of acquiring citizenship in their parents’ country or their birthplace. In countries that offer birthright citizenship, children whose parents are undocumented face the challenges of being reared in families with mixed legal status. 14
IV. Building Blocks: Insights from an Exploration How migration impacts child and youth wellbeing is poorly understood because countries differ widely in their migration philosophies, including whether they want temporary workers or permanent migrants (including families); 15 because countries differ in their predispositions to integrate newcomers; and because few data collection efforts, including those dedicated to migration, consider how migration impacts children 14
Demographers estimate that 1.6 million undocumented children reside in the U.S., and an additional 3.1 million live with parents who are undocumented, yet relatively is known about how being reared in a mixed family may thwart child development. 15 Personal communication, Hania Zlotnik, Director, U.N. Population Division, 15 February, 2007. For example, if nations accept migrants only under very restricted terms (e.g., Saudi Arabia), the matter of child migration is moot. But, when nations accept workers and their families, then child migration and its consequences presents both integration challenges and opportunities for economic development via human capital investment.
14
and youth. Although many youth development experts rely on deficit models that emphasize problem solving, our interest in devising ways to capitalizing on child and youth migration emphasizes asset-building approaches instead that also attenuate vulnerabilities induced by geographic movement. That young people have been largely invisible in research and policy discourse about migration and economic development, even as their mobility rates rise, warrants a strategic, multi-pronged initiative to build a child-centric perspective in this expanding research and policy field. Specific requirements for developing a child-centric migration field include: (1) systematically documenting the contours of child and youth migration; (2) evaluating what we know about how migrant children and youth fare in destination communities in order to highlight the conditions of that exacerbate vulnerability and undermine their normative development; (3) canvassing existing data sources to identify those most suitable to advance (1) and (2), but also in search of opportunities to build on existing data systems by including items needed to identify child and youth migrants; and (4) identifying interventions, policies and practices proven to enhance wellbeing of migrant children and youth. Collectively these objectives promise to signal opportunities to capitalize on child and youth migration within national and international policy contexts. Our search for opportunities to cultivate a child-centric perspective in the field of migration and economic development identified two key barriers that represent fundamental building blocks, namely the identification of researchers interested in the wellbeing of children and youth with migration backgrounds16 and the availability of
16
Importantly, we focused on researchers with expertise in various facets of child development rather than migration experts because it is more likely to have the former consider migration in their study of child
15
suitable data to develop a research and policy agenda. Below we summarize insights garnered to date.
Synthesizing Evidence and Creating Research Networks As part of its exploration, the Rockefeller Foundation made a planning grant to Sara McLanahan, director of the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing at Princeton University to assess what we know and don’t know about the dimensions and consequences of child migration worldwide. 17 Two authors, Andrea Rossi (UNICEF and Harvard University) and Stephan Klasen (University of Gottingen) have been enlisted to prepare white papers that assess the state of knowledge of existing research on child and youth migration, in developing and developed nations, respectively (see Appendix B for their current CV’s). These research syntheses will (1) indicate what topics have been explored most extensively and which remain understudied; (2) whether there is adequate data to evaluate how the growing numbers of child and adolescent migrants are faring in their host communities; and (3) leading researchers who have prepared the highest caliber research about migrant youth. A first workshop was held in Princeton on 19 June with Andrea Rossi, Sara McLanahan (Founding Director of the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing), Christine Paxson (Founding Director of the Center for Health & Wellbeing), and Sally Findley (Professor at Columbia who serves as advisor to In-Depth and consultant to the
development than to have typical migration researchers consider child development as an outcome of interest. 17 Initially the team considered an international blue ribbon commission with the standing and visibility of NAS panels. Given the spotty data and research evidence, we determined that it was first necessary to conduct basic stock-taking around the two orienting questions that guided the exploration activities.
16
Princeton exploration grant). 18 The working group discussed general criteria for the synthetic papers, including the decision to discuss separately the south-north flows and the south-south flows. Participants also discussed criteria for migration, child migration status, measures of well-being, and the different emphases of the two papers. This discussion proved fruitful for framing a full team meeting in Zurich, attended by both authors of the synthetic papers and a representative of the InDepth demographic surveillance migration network. 19 An additional goal was to establish ties with the Jacobs Foundation in order to enlist their collaboration in advancing the research agenda through their annual conference series. The two commissioned research syntheses, interim drafts of which are due in mid February, 2008, will be used to organize a mini-symposium that will convene top researchers with expertise in child well-being, in migration, or both. Tentatively this convening will be held at the Bellagio conference facility in spring, 2008. Invited participants will have two obligations: to provide written commentary on the two synthetic papers and to write a short position statement about a future research needs. Additionally, participants will evaluate the prospects for building a child-centric perspective in the field of migration—both for research and policy purposes. At the conclusion of this meeting we will be poised to assess the prospects of preparing two volumes of the Future of Children, the gold standard of policy research syntheses about
18
Both Linnet Taylor and Marta Tienda represented the Rockefeller Foundation, with Tienda straddling both institutions. 19 Mark Collinson from the Agincourt site in South Africa attended the Zurich meeting and has been commissioned to prepare a set of tabulations that illustrate the potential of the InDepth surveillance data for the study of child and youth migration. We considered mobilizing the entire migration network among the InDepth surveillance sites but this strategy proved unwieldy given the lack of consistency in data collected among sites, the differing data and computing platforms used, and the variability of the longitudinal reference points used to track migrants. However, the South Africa case study promises to show how the data collection for all sites can be improved for the purpose of studying child and youth migration.
17
child wellbeing in the United States. One volume will focus on South-North migration of young people, and the second will emphasize South-South flows of children and youth. Our exploratory activities, particularly after the extended discussions during Princeton and Zurich meetings, indicate that there is likely to be sufficient research to prepare two Future of Children volumes. Although the exact content of these volumes, however, can not be decided after the synthetic papers are prepared, most likely both volumes will address questions about how migrant children and youth fare in their host countries, an emphasis in keeping with the policy focus of FoC volumes. Therefore, potential for policy action will be an overriding criterion for selection of topics to pursue in depth, but availability of an empirical research base will delimit the scope of countries included for any particular substantive topic. Beyond stocktaking existing evidence, it is also necessary to promote research to answer the first question posed in Section II: how does migration impact children and youth? This question will be the focus of a research conference organized under the auspices of the Jacobs Foundation (JF) of Switzerland in collaboration with the Princeton University and, through involvement of the authors of the synthetic papers, the Rockefeller Foundation. 20 Both authors have agreed to participate and Rossi has committed to serve as primary organizer for the spring, 2009 JF conference. As part of their literature synthesis, Rossi and Klasen will identify some of the leading analysts with demonstrated records conducting research about migrant children and youth. This information will be critical for the JF 2009 research conference. 21
20
The exploration grant to Princeton will be completed by this date, and the possibility of continued collaboration depends on a commitment from RF to pursue further work on child migration. 21 Since its inception, the Jacobs Foundation has sponsored research conferences on various aspects of child and adolescent development that involve distinguished scientists from around the world, leading
18
Tienda, who serves on the board of the JF and Princeton University, will serve as liaison between the two foundations. In contrast to the activities designed to establish the feasibility of producing policy-relevant Future of Children volumes, these international conferences are designed to convene world-class researchers who prepare original research papers. The conferences are designed to produce a research volume published by Cambridge University Press for the Jacobs Foundation Series on Adolescence. Because this conference is currently in the early planning stage, it is possible to use it to develop a strategic research agenda and stimulate policy interest in child and youth migration. That some of the JF research conferences are followed by activities with audiences interested in the actionable findings of researchers represents yet another opportunity for collaboration between Jacobs and Rockefeller Foundations.
Lessons from the Data Search A significant barrier to forging a child-centric perspective in the field of migration and development is the paucity of data to portray the magnitude, contours and consequences of child and youth migration over time and across nations. Significantly, few ongoing data series about wellbeing of children and youth take mobility into account, and most data about international migration flows is not disaggregated by age. Not surprisingly, the available data for cross-national comparisons of migrant children and youth favor developed nations; however, we discovered several unique opportunities to
practitioners, and young investigators. These three-day events are hosted at Marbach Castle, located on the shores of Lake Constance in Germany. Depending on the theme, there may be follow-up activities intended to provide broader dissemination of findings to a non-academic audience, or to pursue some idea in further depth through research finding mechanisms.
19
bolster understanding of child and youth migration in developing countries either by piggy-backing child modules onto existing longitudinal surveys or adding to ongoing data collection series a few questions about parents’ and children’s birthplace. It bears emphasizing that building a child-centric perspective in the study of migration suitable for answering questions about how migration influences wellbeing of young people and how migrant children and youth fare in their host countries requires ideally requires longitudinal data. This is both because human development and geographic mobility are social processes that evolve over time, and because repeated measurement for the same individuals provides a sound foundation for causal inference. Nevertheless, it is possible to learn a good deal about wellbeing of migrant children and adolescents using cross-sectional data if abridged migration histories are obtained, particularly questions about age at migration but minimally items about birthplace of parents and children. Although our exploratory review of existing data suited to study migration of children and youth was not exhaustive, we successfully identified promising opportunities for building the knowledge base by strengthening existing or ongoing data collection systems. These opportunities are elaborated in the final section, following a brief review of existing data suitable to address the two orienting questions about how migration influences child development. We fully expect that the two synthesis papers will provide a more systematic assessment of opportunities to strengthen ongoing data collection efforts. 1. Understanding Wellbeing of Migrant Youth in Host Countries Several ongoing (repeated) cross-national surveys permit comparisons of the educational, health, income, and labor status of children and youth (see Appendix C),
20
particularly for OECD countries, but not all include identifiers of migrant status. With information about children’s country of birth, cross-national surveys permit comparisons with native youth, and if the birthplace of parents is known, it is possible to approximate the immigrant second generation, that is children and youth whose parents were born in a different country. With minimal information about child and parental birthplace it is possible to address how young people with migration backgrounds compare with their age counterparts born in the host country. By themselves, birthplace indicators of migration background can not portray the complexity of young people’s mobility history, such as age of migration, duration in host country, and whether the final destination involved several interim locations, which are critical for understanding the significance of nativity disparities in wellbeing. Age at migration, for example, is crucial for simulating rates of socioeconomic and cultural assimilation. Ongoing international data series suitable to evaluate educational outcomes of young people with migration outcomes include TIMMS, (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), but PISA lacks information about the timing of migration. TIMMS features a richer battery of migration indicators. PISA is a 60-country survey administered every three years by the OECD that evaluates reading, math, and scientific literacy levels of enrolled 15 year-olds. 22 Strengths of the survey are its broad comparative reach; its repeated country assessments; and its inclusion of information about language spoken at home, parental education levels, and the birthplace of parents and student respondents. Immigrant youth are asked their date of arrival to the host country. TIMSS data also includes indicators of both student and parents’ birthplace, language spoken at home and 22
The most recent survey, which was conducted in 2006, will become available in December, 2007.
21
household composition, and each round of TIMSS (conducted every four years) surveys three cohorts of students: 9-year olds, 13-year olds; and students in the last year of secondary school. This survey, which spans 50 countries, measures several academic achievement outcomes, as well as students’ attitudes toward their school and their educational progress. 23 Neither the PISA nor the TIMSS surveys provide longitudinal measurement of educational outcomes, which means that inferences about educational progress of youth with migration backgrounds must rely on synthetic comparisons by generational status (i.e., foreign born youth and children of immigrant parents), which are deemed less authoritative than inferences based on longitudinal data or experimental designs (very rare in the field of migration). A crude proxy for time in country is helpful for assessing educational integration processes of youth with migration backgrounds and represents a significant potential enhancement of the PISA data. Another limitation of the TIMSS and PISA data is the relatively limited involvement of developing countries in the battery of surveys. Nevertheless, several migrant sending countries, like Mexico and the Philippines are represented, as are the three largest migrant-receiving countries: USA, Canada, and Australia. The Health Behaviors in School-Age Children (HBSC) survey, which is conducted on a biennial basis in 41 countries in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), provides various measures of health status, including respondents’ subjective assessment of wellbeing. However, unlike the cross-national educational surveys, HBSC lacks any indicators on the migration status of respondents. As such, it
23
Although there is considerable overlap between the TIMSS and PISA countries, not all TIMSS countries participate in PISA and vice versa. See Appendix C.
22
represents a prime example of how strategic investment by the RF to promote the addition of the migration indicators included in the TIMSS and PISA surveys would greatly enhance the value of these data for the study of wellbeing of youth with migration backgrounds. 24 In summary, our preliminary exploration identified several cross-national data series with potential to learn more about how migrant children and youth are faring in their host countries, particularly in the realm of education, but much less so pertaining to health status, economic wellbeing, and language proficiency. Given the fixed costs of these ongoing surveys, opportunities to enhance their suitability for the study of youth with migration backgrounds by adding a selected battery of questions will be very cost efficient relative to the knowledge they can yield. This issue is discussed further in the section V. 2. Assessing the Impact of Migration on Young People Answering questions about how migration impacts wellbeing of young people imposes much more stringent data requirements because analysts must model the selection regimes that underpin specific flows as well as the determinants of specific outcomes (e.g., school, health status, economic wellbeing, etc.). Our search confirmed that migration surveys seldom include information about children and youth, unless they are directly involved in labor migration, but we identified several unique surveys that provide opportunities to enhance the study of child migration either by funding a child module (Kerala Survey) and/or expanding the range of items that pertain to wellbeing of 24
During our exploration, we contacted the US representative to HBSC at the NIH. He was receptive to the idea of adding migration identifiers to the data, but the coordinator of the HBSC did not respond to our messages. We did not pursue this matter because we were not positioned to make any concrete proposals, but believe that higher level administrators at WHO could be enlisted to strengthen this important biennial data series about youth health.
23
children with migration backgrounds (InDepth Surveillance Surveys). 25 To illustrate more concretely how strategic RF investments could significantly increase the availability of developing country data to expand research about the influence of migration on wellbeing of young people, we briefly discuss the potential of both the Kerala and the InDEPTH Surveillance surveys. The former is a country-specific study, while the latter affords is part of a cross-national data system that spans several regions. The Kerala migration survey offers a unique to opportunity to glean new knowledge about the wellbeing of children with migration backgrounds. The survey covers the southern Indian state of Kerala, a large proportion of whose people migrate to the Gulf States for work. Conducted by the Indian government through the Center for Development Studies in Kerala, this survey covers 10,000 households in a random sampling design, with a record of children’s education and health outcomes dating back to 1998. Although it only covers the population of a single Indian state, the survey provides a rare opportunity to study the impacts of parents’ migration on children in a variety of dimensions that include educational achievement and health outcomes. The Kerala survey is unusual in that it has always disaggregated its sample population by age, allowing researchers to discern the effects of parental mobility not only on a discrete cohort of children over time, but also on children born since 1998. It also allows analysts to document the delicate tradeoffs inherent in migration: parents send home remittances that may improve their children’s educational opportunities, but their absence may also have negative impacts on health and family stability, and increase
25
Other longitudinal surveys to evaluate for their suitability to study the impact of migration on children and youth include the New Zealand migration lottery, the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) surveys and the Latin American Migration Project (LAMP) surveys, the Thailand migration surveys conducted by Mahidol University, and the Indonesian and Malaysian migration surveys conducted by RAND.
24
children’s own likelihood of migrating. Surprisingly, however, none of the research papers prepared from the existing surveys have focused on children and youth, unless they became movers in a subsequent period. Thus, the survey offers an opportunity to enhance its value to study how migration influences wellbeing of children and youth, including those left behind, and to stimulate research on this question by sponsoring analyses of the data. More recently we learned about a major 10-country study of international migration in Africa and three major receiving countries (US, UK and South Africa) being planned by the World Bank (World Bank, 2007; Shaw, 2007). Recognizing the paucity of data about migration in Africa, the study seeks to strengthen capacity of policy makers and researchers to analyze international mobility trends, understand their causes, and assess their impacts. This initiative is largely motivated by an interest in remittances and brain drain issues, with no mention of children and youth. Because this study is currently in the planning stage, however, it is possible to direct attention to the circumstances of children and youth by developing and appending appropriate modules, as discussed for the Kerala survey. Finally, the Rockefeller Foundation already has made significant investments in the InDepth Demographic Surveillance Surveys, which have great strength for the study of migration in as a dynamic process, but their value for the study of children with migration backgrounds could be enhanced. As part of the Princeton exploratory work, the Agincourt (South Africa) team has been commissioned to prepare a set of tabulations about the contours of child migration and to identify ways the data collection can be enhanced to generate insights about the life chances (survivorship, health status, and
25
educational attainment) of children living in migrant households or who themselves move. As one of the strongest of the surveillance surveys that collects migration data, the findings from this exercise promise to inform other sites about how to improve data collection in order to answer questions about how migration affects wellbeing of children and youth. The timing of this exercise is propitious in light of the evaluation of the InDepth program now underway.
V. Sustaining the Momentum Our exploration into the opportunities to make children and youth a focal point in high-level international and national discussions about migration and development has yielded several concrete outcomes: (1) a plan to produce two state-of-the-art papers that summarize what we know about the influence of migration on wellbeing of young people and to identify the most distinguished scholars conducting research on this topic; 26 (2) an initial reconnaissance of existing data for answering core questions about the impact of migration on children and youth; and (3) building on knowledge produced by (1) and (2), plans to host a two policy research conferences over the next two years, one under auspices of a collaborating foundation. Moreover, our exploration affirmed that child and youth migration represents a unique niche for RF involvement both to improve life chances of young people with migration backgrounds and to harness their potential as agents of national development. Simply put, the Rockefeller Foundation faces a strategic opportunity to move the interests of migrant children and youth from back to center stage in the
26
We especially seek to identify researchers from Africa and Asia who could sustain a policy research agenda beyond a period of involvement with the Rockefeller Foundation.
26
continuing international dialogue about migration and development by building on its distinguished record of knowledge-building and reputation for targeted intervention. That children and youth were missing from the agendas of the UN High Level Dialogue (September, 2006) and the inaugural meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (July 2007) attests to the strategic importance of RF intervention before the international migration agendas become too entrenched in their longstanding biases. The invisibility of children and youth in national and international dialogues of migration and development, except as targets of protection or workers, undermines the capacity of policy makers, local researchers and institutions to capitalize on this growing component of migration streams. As the share of children and youth who cross international boundaries continues to increase, so does the need to balance the research and policy dialogue on migration and development from its continued preoccupation with remittances, labor standards, and protection of human rights by adding a focal point on young migrants as targets for asset-building and agents of change. The synthesis papers to be presented and discussed at the Bellagio research seminar (2008), the 2009 JF research conference on child migration, and the initial reconnaissance of data and experts in child wellbeing represent essential first steps in building a nascent field that puts children and youth on the research and policy map in the context of migration and economic development. Conferences provide one venue for convening around a specific set of questions, but seldom result in sustained and cumulative generation of knowledge-building activities, and follow-up activities, are seldom sustained beyond the production of academic publications or conference reports.
27
In order for these agenda-setting exploration activities to have lasting value, however, it is essential also to establish a forum for policy researchers interested in migration and child development to sustain the momentum and guide the creation of a youth focal point within the context of the Global Forum of Migration and Development. Four specific activities that could reinforce the development of a child-centric perspective of migration are: (1) the production of two volumes of the Future of Children, focused, respectively on actionable agendas in developed and developing nations, respectively; 27 (2) the establishment of a RF child migration policy network on a pilot basis, with a specific charge to develop and oversee activities needed to move children and youth from back to center stage in the Global Forum agenda; (3) improvements of data sources for the empirical study of child and youth migration by building on ongoing and proposed data collection initiatives; and (4) sponsorship of a research competition, possibly in collaboration with the JF and others, to empirically address research gaps identified in the synthesis papers now underway. Given the lack of in-house expertise on migration at the Rockefeller Foundation after mid-September, pursuit of activities (3) and (4) depend on the decision about the pilot policy network. Therefore, justification for this idea is developed at some length, with concrete proposals about membership, duration of the pilot, and the ingredients for success.
Child Migration Policy Network As an alternative to building permanent in-house capacity on child migration, at least for the short term, the Rockefeller Foundation could establish an inter-disciplinary 27
A separate proposal in conjunction with other funding organizations will be prepared following the Bellagio conference.
28
research policy network entrusted to give voice to children and youth in the ongoing international policy discussions about migration and development. Unlike the 8-10 year MacArthur Health Research Networks that entertained diffuse agendas in attempts to redefine the contours of a research field, the RF Child Migration Policy Network (CMPN) will pursue a focused mission, namely creating a youth focal point in the future agendas of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). As a pilot, the network would have a relatively short initial duration—initially two years—and a deliberate membership tied to specific goals and required expertise. In addition to staff transitions at the RF, we propose the creation of a pilot Child Migration Policy Network because children and youth were absent from the agenda of the most recent meeting of the GFMD; because the exploration activities will generate several interim products that require evaluation and monitoring; and most importantly, because several new opportunities for reducing information and policy barriers will present themselves within the next two years, as elaborated below. The existence of the CMPN will position the Foundation to seize these opportunities and put young people on the migration and development policy agenda. 1. Objective Two sets of circumstances have hindered the challenge of including children and youth in policy dialogues about migration and economic development: the absence of data and the limited interaction between experts on migration and development with those focused on youth development. Forging a child-centric perspective in the migration and development research and policy dialogue requires formulating and sharpening questions about whether, how, and under what circumstances children and youth benefit
29
from migration, and when geographic mobility (theirs or that of their parents) heightens their vulnerability to social deprivation. 2. Membership Eliminating both barriers requires deliberate planning and follow-up activities that can potentially be developed and monitored by a small policy research network with strategic connections to the GFMD, international organizations planning major, recurring data collection initiatives (e.g., World Bank, UN); migration policy think tanks with international reach (e.g., MPI); researchers with expertise on child development, and key RF field staff. A small network of 6-8 members is recommended to minimize unnecessary coordination and overhead. For concreteness and illustrative purposes, membership on the pilot Child Migration Policy Network might include: •
GFMD
•
Africa Data Initiative D. Ratha (WB) D. McKenzie (WB)
•
Innocenti
A. Rossi (Harvard & Princeton); Micklewright (UK)
•
RF
K. Bond (Bankok); AGRA rep
G. Maniatis (MPI); H. Zlotnik (UN Population Division)
These names are intended to be illustrative of the cross-cutting ties required to forge a meaningful child focal point in migration and development research and policy discussions. 28 Several will be invited to the Bellagio research seminar, which provides a propitious opportunity to begin the conversation about the strategy to render youth visible by including them on future agendas of the GCMD.
28
Conceivably, other foundations could be involved but that seems premature for a pilot activity. Still, JF and MacArthur might be included in some early discussions.
30
3. Duration and Timing Given that several RF exploration activities now underway will yield significant outputs over the next 9 months, the planned JF child migration research conference in spring, 2009, and two planned GFMD meetings for 2008 (Philippines) and 2009 (Greece), the establishment of a small working network for a 2-year period, from January 2008 through December, 2009, would appear to be both strategic and opportunistic for the Foundation—both to sustain the momentum of the initial RF investments and to multiply their impact by impacting the GFMD agenda. Moreover, several international organizations are planning major data collection initiatives that could be enhanced for the study of young people with migration backgrounds, which represents yet another reason for establishing the pilot CMPN. Members of the CMPN would represent the RF with the consortium of funding organizations that seek to enhance existing and planned household surveys so they are better suited to address policy-relevant questions about child migration. Importantly, the ongoing evaluation of the InDepth Surveillance Surveys could also be advised by the CMPN. 29 4. Ingredients for Success: Evaluation Other foundations, notably MacArthur, have considerable experience with interdisciplinary research networks. The proposed Child Migration Policy Network will differ from the MacArthur model in several important ways. First, the agenda will be driven by clear, practical and actionable goals. Simply stated, the network will formulate and prioritize research and data needs to forge an indelible child-centric policy imprint on 29
In addition to the World Bank Africa Surveys and the Kerala Survey discussed below, plans are currently underway for a new round of the health surveys conducted biennially and both the TIMSS and PISA are planning new rounds. Innocenti regularly conducts surveys of its target populatin, which provides yet another opportunity to redress this key barrier for developing child-centric migration policy research policy.
31
the field of migration and development. By sharpening questions about what potential benefits are not being realized by young people with migration backgrounds, the network will spotlight specific areas for knowledge creation and data requirements. Second, the success of the network will be based on concrete metrics, and particularly whether the 2008 and 2009 GFMD agendas demonstrate a shift in their concerns with migrant children and youth from a focus on “ rights and protection” to a focus on “human and social development The growing interest in remittances, for example, has not systematically considered whether, and under what circumstances lives of young people are improved. Third, the success of the CMPN will also be gauged by its ability to connect with other RF initiatives such as AGRA, climate change, and urbanization. Migration is implicated in all, although these dimensions have not been systematically developed. This represents yet a third potential opportunity to maximize the impact of a child-centric migration initiative. Realizing these successes, however, requires strong leadership, welldefined goals and strong institutional support. 30
Reducing Data Barriers Exploration activities identified data as a significant constraint on the development of a child-centric perspective of migration, but also revealed numerous strategic opportunities for reducing this barrier at marginal cost by piggy-backing migration modules to ongoing surveys. Specifically, we identified several surveys with national and/or international scope that include measures of child and youth wellbeing
30
We have not discussed the institutional support because this would depend on where the network would be housed.
32
but lack requisite information about migration status and history. For the strongest surveys, adding child migration modules could greatly expand knowledge about migrant children’s developmental outcomes and wellbeing. In the short run, adding key questions about children’s and parents’ birthplace to the large, cross-national education and health surveys is likely to produce major returns in the form of policy-relevant knowledge about how migrant youth fare in their host countries. 31 Our exploratory data review was perforce not comprehensive in its coverage of topics or surveys used to study child migrants. Before making any recommendations about the most strategic investment opportunities for reducing data barriers, it is prudent to conduct a more systematic reconnaissance of existing data resources that, with enhancements, can be used to bolster comparative policy research about the magnitude and consequences of child and youth migration in both sending and receiving countries. 1. Sussex Data Hub Although the team’s work identified some of the most visible data systems that have potential to evaluate how children migrant fare in their host communities, discovering datasets with potential to address more general questions about how migration affects young people requires a more systematic, global landscaping of ongoing and planned surveys and, ideally, creation of a data hub that locates, evaluates and provides links to publicly available sources thorough a common site. This laborintensive job involves close study of the questionnaires used in censuses and in household, remittance and migration surveys worldwide, which exceeds RF’s in-house research capacity. We have therefore recommended a grant to the research team at Sussex 31
The Demographic and Health Surveys offer another opportunity for child migration module supplements, particularly in light of their ability to cover both pre-school and school-age populations. HBSC only covers the latter.
33
University’s Development Research Center (DRC), which has proposed to build a public web directory that identifies existing data on mobility of children and youth for use by a broader research community. The Sussex team will also make recommendations about how the existing data sources might be improved. 2. African Migration Data Initiative Although incomplete, our data search affirmed that the most limited information about migration, and child migration in particular, corresponds to Africa—especially in Sub-Saharan countries where RF is making formidable investments to improve living standards of vulnerable populations. The acute data shortage for sub-Saharan Africa has been recognized by several international organizations. In response, under the leadership of senior economist Dilip Ratha, the World Bank is spearheading a multi-country study of migration and remittances across 10 Sub-Saharan. 32 Importantly six of the countries tentatively proposed as survey sites currently participate in the InDepth Surveillance Survey Program. In the absence of RF involvement to direct attention to young people, these proposed household surveys, which are intended “to fill knowledge gaps about the impact of migration and remittances on development and to strengthen the capacity of policy makers, local researchers and institutions to analyze relevant trends” (World Bank, 2007), will further perpetuate the existing labor and remittance biases while ignoring the needs, experiences and human capital potential represented by children and youth with migration backgrounds (World Bank, 2007).
32
These are Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda.
34
Currently in the planning stage with funding commitments from the African Development Bank, DFID, the World Bank and other donors, 33 this unprecedented multination migration survey provides a propitious opportunity to answer both of the questions posed at the outset, namely how migration impacts children and youth and how young people with migration backgrounds fare in their host societies. That the design of the multi-country study will include some of the poorer and comparatively richer African countries as well as three industrialized countries that host Sub-Saharan migrants (UK, US and South Africa) will permit a broad foundation for generalization about the conditions that benefit children and youth who migrate and the circumstances that thwart their development and undermine their potential social and economic contributions to host and sending societies. As important, the surveys can add to the RF urbanization initiative by linking intra-national population movements to changes in the demand for and supply of urban amenities—schools, health clinics, recreation services, safe food supplies, etc. 3. Enhancements to Kerala Survey The migration team’s research identified the Kerala migration survey as a dataset that offered a unique opportunity to gain new knowledge of migration and child wellbeing. The baseline surveys, which include complete tracking information, also recorded children’s education and health outcomes, but there was no attempt to monitor the migration behavior of young people or to evaluate whether and how remittances actually permit improvements in wellbeing of children and youth whose parents migrate.
33
The PI, Dilip Ratha, is currently securing funding commitments for this project, which also involves McKenzie, who was a major contributor to the 2007 World Development Report dedicated to children and understands the data needs to make children and youth a focal point in the migration and development field.
35
Addition of a child module to this high quality survey would permit researchers answer questions about the circumstances of child migration (are children reared by singleparents faring as well as their counterparts raised by two parents who do not migrate?), whether girls benefit equally from their parents’ labor migration, and whether youth reared in migrant households are more likely to migrate themselves compared with similarly situated youth who do not migrate. Therefore, we propose adding a module on children to the 2008 survey, to be designed by researchers collaborating with the Princeton team in assessing the available empirical research and data shortcomings to address particular questions. The survey will go into the field in March and produce results by July, well before the end of the Princeton research and in time for the investigators we have spurred to work on this issue to use the information it provides.
Request for Proposals In part the “success” of the exploration activities, including the synthesis papers now underway and their evaluation and discussion at the Bellagio 2008 conference, will be evident in their ability to identify policy-relevant research gaps that can be addressed in the short- and medium-term via creative use of existing data (some of which will be identified as part of this assignment). Seeding research grants in response to a request for proposals could productively fill research gaps, while also helping to train a new generation of researchers to build a child focus in the study of migration. The proposed Rockefeller Child Migration Policy Network could serve as a review panel, thus reinforcing the congruence between the agenda setting plans and responsive funding
36
instruments. This activity is all he more important to reap dividends on investments made in data enhancements.
37
References Berry, John W., Jean S. Phinney, David L.Sam and Paul Vedder. 2006. Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation, Identity and Adaptation across National Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Carey, Robert and Jane Kim. 2006. Tapping the Potential of Refugee Youth. International Rescue Committee. Cohen, Barney. 2004. “Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts.” World Development 32(1):23-51. Freeman, Richard B. 2006. “People Flows in Globalization.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (2):145-170. French, Howard W. 2007. “China Strains to Fit Migrants into Mainstream Classes.” NYT, January, 25. Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM). 2005. Migration in an interconnected world: New Directions for action. Report of the GCIM (http://www.gcim.org/attachements/gcim-complete-report-2005.pdf) Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). 2007. Summary Report of First Meeting. http://www.gfmd-fmmd.org/en/system/files/Rapport+GFMD_EN+_3_.pdf Heckman, James J., et al., 2006. “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children.” Science 312, 1900-1902. Kent, Mary M. and Carl Haub. 2005. “Global Demographic Divide.” Population Bulletin, Vol. 60, No. 4. Lloyd, Cynthia B (et al.). 2005. Growing Up Global: The Changing Transitions to Adulthood in Developing Countries. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. McKenzie, David J. “A Profile of the World’s Young Developing Country Migrants.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4021.World Bank: Washington DC. Roberts, Bryan R. “Comparative Urban Systems: An Overview.” Pp. 71-114 in Tienda, et al. (eds.), Africa on the Move: African Migration and Urbanisation in Comparative Perspective. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
38
Roudi-Fahimi, Farzaneh and Mary M. Kent. 2007. “Challenges and Opportunities—The Population of the Middle East and North Africa.” Population Bulletin 62, No. 2. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Shaw, William. 2007. “Migration in Africa: A Review of the Economic Literature on International Migration in 10 Countries.” Unpublished Manuscript, World Bank. U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). 2007. 2006 Global Trends. Geneva: Division of Operational Services Field Information and Coordination Support Section. (http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4676a71d4.pdf) Whitehead, Ann and Iman Hashim, 2005. “Children and Migration.” Unpublished background paper for DFID Migration Team. March. Development Research Center, University of Sussex. http://www.livelihoods.org/hot_topics/docs/DfIDChildren.doc World Bank. 2006. World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation. World Bank, Washington D.C. World Bank. 2007. Migration, Remittances and Development in Africa.” Unpublished Concept Note, March 29. Zimmerman, Cathy. 2003. “The Health Risks and Consequences of Trafficking in Women and Adolescents: Findings from a European Study.” London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Zlotnik, Hania. 2006. “The Dimensions of Migration in Africa.” Pp. 15-37 in Tienda, et al. (eds.), Africa on the Move: African Migration and Urbanisation in Comparative Perspective. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
39
Appendix A. Multiple Definitions of Children and Youth • • • • • • • •
•
• • • •
The United Nations distinguishes between children, ages 5 – 15, which are the focus of UNICEF, and youth, ages 16-24, which are the purview of UNFPA. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as someone under 18, except where pre-empted by a law that defines a younger age of majority. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) stipulates age 15 as the cutoff point for military recruitment, but the 2002 Optional Protocol to CRC on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict raised that age to 18. The World Development Report 2007 defines “young people” as persons between the ages of 12 and 24. The Millennium Development Goals literature usually refers to persons ages 15 and over as adults, hence youth are 14 and under. The ILO advocates that work shouldn’t begin until someone is 12 years old, which presumably is the age demarcating the divide between child labor and youth employment. Asylum law, in the US and the EU, designates persons under 18 as children. DHS surveys (and much of the health research) uses the age conventions distinguishing between infants, children and youth: o infants 0 o children 1-14 o youth 15-24. Seminal child development theorist Erik Erikson defined the main stages of development as: o Childhood 0-12 o Adolescence 13-18 o Young adult 19-40. The WHO defines ages 0-9 as childhood and ages 10-19 as adolescence, with the notable exception in reference to reproductive health, where women ages 15 -49 are treated as adults. IAVI, an international HIV organization, defines children as persons aged 0-15. UNESCO defines childhood as 0-15 and youth as 15-24. The minimum age for marriage, the cutoff point for the right to education, and the age at which a person can be held responsible for a crime vary widely across countries and regions.
40
Appendix B. Authors of Commissioned Research Syntheses
Stephan Klasen Stephan Klasen is a professor of development economics and empirical economic research at the University of Göttingen, where he also heads the Ibero-American Institute. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and has held positions at the World Bank, King’s College (Cambridge, UK) and the University of Munich, Germany. His research focuses on questions of poverty and gender inequality in developing countries. Klasen has analyzed issues of child wellbeing including health, education and economic status. His current research includes an assessment of the relation between labor market events and demographic decisions at the household level, an analysis of the determinants of undernutrition and child mortality in developing countries, the linkages between inequality, growth, and well-being, and the causes and consequences of gender inequality in developing countries.
Andrea Rossi Andrea Rossi is Policy Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. A United Nations Officer, he has worked as advisor on child trafficking and migration to UNICEF in New York and as Research Coordinator at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Center. He is an economist with a particular focus on development and applied research, and teaches courses on survey techniques for hidden and marginalized populations. Rossi is currently coordinating research projects in Africa and Europe, as well as developing specific research methodologies on children’s issues. He has previously worked for the International Labor Organization in the East Africa Area Office, Tanzania. His main areas of interest are applied research methodology; combining qualitative and quantitative methods; applied micro econometrics; and participatory approaches. He has conducted research on child labor and child trafficking, prostitution, homeless people, and illegal migrants.
41
Appendix C—
Country
Data Sources Relating to Youth Migration Health Trends in Program for Lux. International Internationa Progress in Behaviour in Mathematics l Student International School-aged Income and Science Children Study Assessment Reading Study (PISA) - ('00, (PIRLS) ('01, (HBSC) - ('98, (LIS) ('95, INDEPTH Study (TIMSS) '02, '06) '00, '05) (annual) ('95, '99, '03) '03, '06) '06)
Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belize Belgium Brazil Bolivia Botswana Bulgaria Burkina-Faso Burundi Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark
x
x
x x x
x
x
EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) (annual)
x x x
x x
x x
Individual country ILO labor migration surveys survey ('03) on (collates countries' migration own data) x x x x x x
x x x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x
x
x x x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x
x
x
x x
x x x
x
x x x x
x x x
x x
42
Country
Data Sources Relating to Children's Migration Health Trends in Program for Lux. International Internationa Progress in Behaviour in Mathematics International School-aged Income l Student and Science Assessment Reading Study Children Study (PISA) - ('00, (PIRLS) ('01, (HBSC) - ('98, (LIS) ('95, INDEPTH Study (TIMSS) '00, '05) (annual) ('95, '99, '03) '03, '06) '06) '02, '06)
Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France The Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Guatemala Guinea-Bissau Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan
EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) (annual)
x x x
x
x x
x
Individual country ILO labor migration surveys survey ('03) on (collates countries' migration own data) x x x
x
x x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x x
x x x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x x x x
x x x
x
x x
x x x x
x x
x x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x Kerala
x x x x x x
x x x x x
x x
43
Country
Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea Kuwait Kyrgyz Rep. Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia Madagascar Malaysia Malawi Malta Mauritius Mexico Moldova Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Norway
Data Sources Relating to Children's Migration Health Trends in Program for Lux. International Internationa Progress in Behaviour in Mathematics International School-aged Income l Student and Science Assessment Reading Study Children Study (PISA) - ('00, (PIRLS) ('01, (HBSC) - ('98, (LIS) ('95, INDEPTH Study (TIMSS) '00, '05) (annual) ('95, '99, '03) '03, '06) '06) '02, '06) x x
EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) (annual)
Individual country ILO labor migration surveys survey ('03) on (collates countries' migration own data) x x x x
x x
x x
x x x x x x x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x x
x x
x
x x x
x x
x x
x x
x x x x x x x
x x x
x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x PINZMS
x x x x x
44
Country
Data Sources Relating to Children's Migration Health Trends in Program for Lux. International Internationa Progress in Behaviour in Mathematics International School-aged Income l Student and Science Assessment Reading Study Children Study (PISA) - ('00, (PIRLS) ('01, (HBSC) - ('98, (LIS) ('95, INDEPTH Study (TIMSS) '00, '05) (annual) ('95, '99, '03) '03, '06) '06) '02, '06)
Oman Pakistan Panama Palestine Papua New Guinea Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Montenegro Romania Russia Rwanda Saudi Scotland Senegal Rep. of Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain South Africa Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden
EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) (annual)
Individual country ILO labor migration surveys survey ('03) on (collates countries' migration own data) x x x
x x Nutrition x x x x x x x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x
x
x x x
x x
x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
x x x
x
x
x x x
x x x x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x
45
Country
Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad Tunisia Turkey Uganda UAE UK USA Uruguay Vietnam Wales Yemen Zimbabwe OECD
Data Sources Relating to Children's Migration Health Trends in Program for Lux. International Internationa Progress in Behaviour in Mathematics l Student International School-aged Income Study and Science Assessment Reading Study Children (PISA) - ('00, (PIRLS) ('01, (HBSC) - ('98, (LIS) ('95, INDEPTH Study (TIMSS) '00, '05) (annual) ('95, '99, '03) '03, '06) '06) '02, '06) x x x x x x x x
EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) (annual)
Individual country ILO labor migration surveys survey ('03) on (collates countries' migration own data) x x x
x x
x
x
x x
x x x
x x
x
x
x x
x x x
x x
x
x x
x x x x x
x x x
x
x x x x
46
