As every significant social phenomenon, this one brings about some consequences. We can observe both negative and positive effects of migration. They can be analysed from the point of view of a person emigrating and from the perspective of the country they leave.
A positive effect of emigration is obviously the improvement in the situation of a migrating individual. This change does not only concern such an individual. Usually the situation of the whole family improves.
There are also non-material positive consequences of migration. Migrants have an opportunity to experience some adventures or even to find their new place in the world. They improve their qualifications as well as social skills – they are able to adjust to the new community, the new culture, etc.
Negative effects of migration on the migrating person include mainly separation from their family and friends. This situation sometimes leads to divorces. Parents who emigrate and leave their children with their grandparents no longer have influence on their offspring. They are often unable to be with their children during important events.
A country experiencing the outflow of workers also suffers from another negative side effect – the increasing deficit of specialists. This is visible in various situations – the lack of doctors and nurses in hospitals limits access to healthcare, which brings negative effects to society.
At the same time, as workers with relevant qualifications leave the country, enterprises find it impossible to recruit well qualified staff, which is detrimental to the domestic economy.
First: “…Jaumotte, Koloskova and Saxena at the IMF and VoxEU argue that migration, no matter how controversial politically (see figure 1), makes sense economically. In the long term, both high and low-skilled workers who migrate bring benefits to their new home countries by increasing income per person and living standards. High-skilled migrants bring diverse talent and expertise, while low-skilled migrants fill essential occupations for which natives are in short supply and allow natives to be employed at higher-skilled jobs.
Gains are broadly shared by the population, so it may be well-worth shouldering the short term costs to help integrate these new workers.” [https://www.bruegel.org/2017/01/the-economic effects-of-migration/]
Second: “…A multi-author report by RAND looks at the cost of non-Schengen from a civil liberties and home affairs perspective. They estimate the cost of re-introducing internal border controls in the Schengen Area at around €0.1–19bn in one-off costs – depending on the extent of border crossing point reconstruction – and around €2–4bn in annual operating costs, corresponding to around 0.02–0.03 per cent of Schengen Area GDP. Portes and Forte look specifically at the economic impact of Brexit-induced reductions in migration.
Their scenarios imply that net EU migration to the UK could fall by up to 91,000 on the central scenario, and up to 150,000 on a more extreme scenario. Using the existing empirical evidence on the impact of migration on growth and productivity in advanced economies, they estimate the possible impact of falls in EU migration on GDP and GDP per capita growth between now and 2020, compared to a counterfactual where EU migration remains constant. In their central scenario, the impact would be to reduce GDP by between about 0.63% to 1.19%, while GDP per capita would be reduced by between about 0.22% and 0.78%. In the more extreme scenario, the hit to GDP per capita would be up to 1.16%.” [https://www.bruegel.org/2017/01/the-economic-effects-of-migration/]
