• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content


Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Final kevin richardson migration presentation northumbria university november 2010






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Final kevin richardson migration presentation northumbria university november 2010 Final kevin richardson migration presentation northumbria university november 2010 Presentation Transcript

      • The inevitable limitations of managing migration
      Kevin Richardson
    • ‘… .it is possible that the population declines in absolute numbers and that it grows older at the same time. ….this would have repercussions for the labour market, the housing market, the social and physical infrastructure of the region, and the current knowledge based growth strategy. A population which is shrinking …..needs to be anticipated in time….’ “… .. a sophisticated view of future demographic trends …..is required. This understanding does not appear to exist at the moment, and is needed.”
    • 266,000 284,300
    • …… like most Core Cities, a recent welcome (but largely unexplained) return to an excess of births over deaths births deaths
    • …… a worst case scenario – ONS projections of our working age population should we do not attract a net surplus of 2,100 economic migrants year on year ONS projections of working age population assuming a surplus of 2,100 economic migrants per annum ..and without those migrants
    • …… rates of birth well below that needed to repopulate without migration
    • … .a fairly standard profile……but who will replace the baby boomers when they retire?
    • A Commentary
      • Our people are changing very quickly (size and structure)
      • European Union only one source of migrants. Overall picture is much more complex
      • Without sustained inward migration our population will fall and get older
      • Incoming migration not predicted, promoted, planned or managed .
      • Few chose Newcastle as a destination of open choice. Prior image of Newcastle was either neutral or none.
      • Persistent patterns of outgoing migration
      • But we’re not really sure what is happening – we don’t yet have that ‘sophisticated’ understanding.
    • A Matrix of Limitations
      • Legal
      • Physical
      • Demographic
      • Economic
      • European
      • Central Government
      • Regional Policy
    • Limitations of EU Regional Policy
      • UK, Sweden and Eire first to act and gain advantage – but all remaining Member States now beginning to meet Treaty obligations – and are opening borders to workers from Accessionary States in advance of 2011/13 deadline.
      • Massive investments in high speed rail (and air) networks (especially across Northern and Central Europe) offers real potential for dense, complex and non traditional patterns of migration
      • Long term challenge to redistributive elements of Common Agricultural Policy suggests fundamental structural reform and dislocation of remaining, relatively highly populated (and poor) agricultural regions, especially in Eastern Europe.
      • Ever deepening of cross border trade e.g. implementation of Services Directive requires inevitable increased mobility of labour
      • Extension of Schengen area but existing land borders inevitability porous e.g. Romania/Moldova, Poland/Kaliningrad, Poland/Ukraine, Spain/Italy/Northern Africa, Turkey/Cyprus
      • Trend pressure to open trading borders further to include Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and (populous and very poor) Turkey
      • “ As we control our borders and bring immigration to a manageable level, we will not impede you from attracting the best talent from around the world”
      Rt. Hon. David Cameron Speech to CBI 25th October 2010
    • Limitations of Central Government Policy
      • Managing political perceptions within wider supremacy of EU directives and regulations, and other supranational binding conventions e.g. Convention on Treatment of Asylum Seekers
      • Divergent motivations of different government departments (tax, security of borders, cohesion, productivity, skills, territorial development). Differing expectations of devolved administrations.
      • Differentiated local impacts and responses (North/South, urban/rural, industrial/service/agricultural, absolute/relative numbers, knowledge/production workers)
      • Official ONS population statistical methodology (largely mathematical & mechanical) effectively redundant by circumstance
      • Repeated need for legislative revisions e.g. Nine Immigration Bills in eleven years….and more to come?
      • Managing impact of London as gateway ‘mega’ global capital
    • Source: DWP …… a working age population much greater than that of Newcastle arrived to work in London in just one year
    • Limitations of UK Regional Policy
      • A free market approach relies upon elastic response of mobile labour to places of comparative advantage e.g. higher relative net salaries and lower costs
      • Traditional strategies founded on endogenous growth theory and supply side ‘productivity’ horizontal policies both implicitly assume a sufficient (elastic) supply of labour
      • Little real evidence of reduced regional disparities across the UK regions – and convergence less likely during periods of economic downturn. Most population growth (based almost exclusively on inward migration) forecast by ONS to be centred on (already congested) London, South and South East .
    • “ Today the battle for talent is as important as the battle for capital.” OECD November 2006