Policing borders or providing prospects? How opportunity shapes mobility

Recent research suggests that improving living conditions and prospects can reduce the desire to migrate, an insight further explored in an ongoing DYNAMIG study. Lena Detlefsen, Tobias Heidland and Claas Schneiderheinze argue that fostering optimism and opportunity in countries of origin may be more effective than the restrictive border control measures Western countries often prioritise.

Managing the movement of people from poorer to richer countries more effectively is a key policy goal across the Western world. A particular priority is reducing migration outside the highly organised channels of labour, education-related and family migration. Most Europeans tend to view this challenge through the lens of more restrictive immigration policies and border controls – as reflected, for example, in Germany’s new coalition agreement or the policies pursued by the Trump administration.

An alternative approach – addressing the so-called root causes of migration by improving living conditions in countries migrants leave behind – has recently received less attention among non-specialists. However, this approach is intuitively highly appealing. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide indicate they want to emigrate, according to Gallup’s latest polls. In sub-Saharan Africa, 37% of those polled expressed this desire. If we apply that percentage to the region’s adult population, this suggests roughly 256 million people would like to emigrate. If the reasons compelling them to leave were reduced, these numbers could shrink. But what would that take?

Progress at home leads to less desire to leave

Understanding what truly drives migration is tricky. People's decisions are influenced by a mix of factors, and it’s hard to isolate the impact of any single cause.

One way to identify the role of improvements in living conditions is by conducting experiments. We carried out such studies, for example, in Senegal and Uganda. We presented respondents with hypothetical scenarios that differed in key aspects – from income, job prospects and the quality of public services at home to the conditions of a potential journey and prospects in a destination country. They then indicated which scenarios increased their desire to migrate and under which conditions they would prefer to stay. It’s a bit like comparing recipes where only one or two ingredients change each time. By observing people's choices repeatedly, we were able to identify what factors mattered most.

What struck us most was how consistently factors related to a better life at home reduced people's willingness to migrate. For example, when people were presented with a scenario in which the economic outlook in their home region was positive, they expressed much lower interest in moving abroad. Similarly, higher income levels and better local amenities dampened migration aspirations.

These results aren't unique to our experiments – they align with other research. This includes studies on actual migration patterns; analysing, for instance, country-level emigration statistics over time or how emigration aspirations in a province change when foreign aid projects are implemented there. The fact that results carry over from migration aspirations to actual migration is relevant for policymakers whose main focus is reducing the number of arrivals in Europe rather than improving conditions for would-be migrants abroad.

Future expectations matter greatly

Perhaps the most compelling insight from our study in Uganda and Senegal is how strongly people's expectations about the future in their home countries influence their desire to migrate. Even when current income levels were low, people who believed their local economy was likely to improve showed a much lower desire to migrate. On average, presenting respondents with a scenario featuring positive rather than negative local economic expectations reduces their willingness to migrate more than a $10,000 increase in migration costs.

Expectations and perceptions of people’s futures differ by context and across groups. Furthermore, the actual situation within a country does not always align with people’s expectations and perceptions. For policymakers, this means that focusing on creating reasons for optimism and a sense of opportunity in developing countries is paramount. This could involve supporting local businesses, investing in education and skills development, and promoting stable and predictable economic environments, which programmes like the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) aim to do.

It is also important to be inclusive: if young men and women don’t see a pathway to improved lives in their home countries, they will consider pursuing this goal elsewhere, even at high risk. More men than women express this desire. As highlighted in our DYNAMIG paper on gender and migration aspirations, this is not merely a reflection of lower ambition among women, but shaped by unequal access to resources, mobility restrictions and deeply-rooted social norms that tie women’s identity to familial status.

Policies that can credibly signal and foster positive expectations – whether through creating jobs, improving governance or investing in future opportunities – can thus be expected to be particularly effective in reducing migration pressures.

Context matters

When designing policy interventions to reduce irregular migration, it’s not enough to focus only on improving living conditions. In some contexts, and particularly for specific groups (often young men), the reasons for people to migrate can be so strong that an improvement in their earnings can increase, rather than decrease, their likelihood to migrate. This is rational behaviour: an increase in income that is unlikely to be permanent enables them to leave but does not sustainably improve the situation at home. If people who have the opportunity to migrate to a wealthier place were simply given cash, they may invest it in improving their conditions – and in some contexts, the best option might then appear to be migrating irregularly.

Policy interventions can realistically aim to play a role in shaping the outlook of people who are still weighing whether to stay or leave. For most people, the decision to migrate isn't fixed and depends on how their situation develops.

In the coming months, we’ll complement these insights with findings from our ongoing DYNAMIG research, based on survey experiments conducted with tens of thousands of respondents across Africa. These studies will clarify exactly which of the drivers of (irregular) migration have the greatest impact and for which population segments.

Takeaways for policymakers

The findings from our research have significant implications for how we think about and address international migration. Policy debates in the West often focus on border control and restrictive immigration policies. While these measures address the symptoms of migration, our research suggests that long-term solutions lie in sustainable development and positive expectations in origin countries. Moreover, in a world increasingly affected by climate change and other global challenges that can displace populations, understanding how to create resilient and hopeful communities is more important than ever.

Three takeaways are particularly important. First of all, policies should go beyond addressing immediate needs and focus on building a future that people want to stay for. Migration decisions are heavily influenced by prospects. While improving people’s long-term perspective may not appear to be the quick fix policymakers often seek,  it can deliver immediate results by reducing people’s migration intentions. Therefore, even when there is pressure to achieve quick outcomes, the root causes approach to reducing irregular migration should not be dismissed.

Second, it’s key to support initiatives that create jobs, enhance opportunities and provide a clear pathway for future progress. Investing in rigorous evaluations of projects will help expand the evidence base and ensure more effective use of future resources.

Policymakers should recognise the importance of local context, carefully choose which contexts to engage in, and tailor policy interventions to the specific context. Migration drivers and the effectiveness of interventions can vary across regions and communities. Aid is more effective in contexts of good governance, where people are also more likely to be optimistic about the future. This suggests that funds to reduce irregular migration might be best targeted at such settings.

Finally, policymakers should be mindful of differences between groups. People differ in their expectations, preferences and their ability to turn migration aspirations into reality. Policies designed to shape migration decisions might not effectively do so for everyone, so it’s important to consider the size of the group whose decisions may be influenced.

Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the REA can be held responsible for them.

If you would like to know more or stay informed, please sign up for our newsletter or get in touch via dynamig@ecdpm.org.