It is a given in neo-liberal economic thinking that the aggregate economic benefits of the free movement of people are real and that a liberalised global labour market would boost world economic growth. Socio-political circumstances in countries and regions however tend to militate against a genuine, free flow of people and skills.
In a flexible labour market like that of the United States, immigrant labour plays a pivotal role, but there are quotas for immigrants and migrant workers. Before the enlargement of the European Union in May 2004, there had existed the freedom to work and settle across the Union. This is no longer the case. With the accession of 10 relatively poorer, mainly Eastern European countries, 12 of the 15 old, wealthier Western European members imposed a two-year ban on workers from the new members, for fear that a flood of cheap labour would destroy existing jobs.
The ban is coming up for review in May and is already re-igniting tensions between old and new member states. Britain, Ireland and Sweden, all countries with strong economies, have had no significant problems with the influx of new workers.
In Britain and Ireland though, access to the welfare system is restricted. However, the issue is far more controversial for the other EU countries, many of which have high unemployment. Last year, during the referendum on the EU constitution in France, the “Polish plumber” became a symbol of cheap labour and a catchphrase of the “Non” camp, which prevailed. The undercurrent of popular feeling against the free movement of labour cannot be underestimated and Austria, France and Germany are leading the call for restrictions to remain until 2011.
The free movement of skills (not persons) has been recognised for some time now as an integral component of the CARICOM Single Market (CSM), which came into being in January this year. In the CSM, the free movement of skills is meant to provide for the creation of a regional, albeit limited, pool of talent, through the employment of CARICOM nationals who are university graduates, media workers, sportspersons, artistes and musicians. The marketplace should dictate labour flows and employment, but as in the US and the EU, there are socio-political concerns that are giving rise to bureaucratic obstacles to free movement. At the last CARICOM summit in Trinidad in February, it was reported that the free movement of skills regime was being fully implemented in ten member states – the exceptions were Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Haiti and Suriname. In Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados and Suriname, free movement was reportedly being “facilitated administratively”, whilst Bahamas and Haiti were not yet signed on to the CSM.
CARICOM Heads of Government therefore agreed that with the establishment of the CSM, “it was even more urgent that the eligible categories of wage earners be expanded”, apparently conscious of the fact that to prevaricate further would give rise to renewed scepticism regarding the whole regional integration process. In this respect, they agreed that consideration should be given to the inclusion of artisans, hospitality workers, domestics, nurses and teachers in the categories of skilled workers.
Now this all seems rather encouraging, until one realises that there are huge gaps between the political agreements, the legal provisions and the actual methods of implementation. There are, for example, several bureaucratic hoops to jump through, involving a cumbersome certification process and layers of administrative and regulatory red tape involving the CARICOM Secretariat, Ministries of Labour and Ministries of National Security. Moreover, dependants of approved workers do not themselves have an automatic right to work or access social services in the host country, thus making it difficult for whole families to relocate.
Some, in an effort to make the system more user-friendly, have suggested that there should be a single certification process and a central register of skilled persons at the CARICOM Secretariat. But is this really necessary?
Then there are the problems we Guyanese in particular are familiar with: the harassment of our nationals at ports of entry across the region. In some countries, it is almost as if the commitments and high-sounding statements of the political leaders are not communicated to the civil servants for implementation. Or perhaps, they are simply treated as the empty rhetoric they represent in the context of insularity and fears of losing jobs to migrant labour, no matter that the despised ‘foreigners’ are usually more willing and able to undertake the jobs that the locals either will not or cannot do.
If as has been constantly stated by regional NGOs and politicians, regional integration should be people-driven, should there not be simply a political decision to allow for the free movement within the CSM of all CARICOM nationals, not just those with “skills”, to allow for a truly integrated single market?
The market would determine employment needs and set wage levels. The free flow of labour, both skilled and unskilled, would then bring potential benefits in terms of greater productivity, the consolidation of regional firms, enhanced international competitiveness and extra-regional export expansion.
The CSM is perhaps the only hope for the small economies of CARICOM, with their finite natural and human resources and limited markets, to survive in a globalised world.
As individual economies make the transition, of course there will be dislocation. But the ensuing reordering and rationalisation of the factors of production should result in increased regional economic growth and, hopefully, improved standards of living for all the region’s people.
It therefore makes no sense to drag our feet with regard to the free movement of people. In typical CARICOM style, little steps continue to be taken when a quantum leap is required.
Source: www.stabroeknews.com
