In my last blog on rotational labour mobility (RLM) — which is in news because of a recent MEA bill on overseas mobility — I had argued that RLM does address anti-immigrant sentiment within the native communities in the host countries. But beyond the immigrant sentiments, do other promises of RLM hold up?
For example, a key promise of RLM is that such programs would be growth-enhancing for India.
It is true that while abroad, Indian talent will send remittances back home. These remittance inflows help the Indian economy. But the alluring promise of RLM is that on their return, the Indian talent will bring back skills, expertise and technological know-how to the country. Theoretically, this may lead to a rise in productivity and innovation as well as spur the growth of businesses. However, the degree to which returning migrants would help India’s economy depends on various factors, including the capacity of India’s economy to absorb and retain the returning migrants. Whether an economy that created the preconditions for large-scale migration in the first place would have the capacity to absorb skilled talent on its return is moot.
If the returning talent is not absorbed or if their aspirations are not met within the Indian economic setup, such talent may want to further emigrate. Now specific host countries may restrict the re-entry of just returned Indian migrants, but the Indian government may find it difficult and quite unpopular to stop just returned migrants to further move to a different host country. Why? Because this would militate against the value/right of free movement. That is, it would not be freedom-compatible. If India is able to work out well-devised RLMs with a number of countries across the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia then the movement of Indian talent temporarily across different economies may unfold smoothly. In that case, the primary benefit might be restricted to increased remittance flows while a more sustainable growth-enhancing contribution of talent to India’s economy may stay limited.
One additional factor that will impact the absorption of returning talent — in addition to bureaucratic hurdles, ease of establishing and running new businesses, and wage differentials — would be the competitive aspirations of the migrants moving from rural to urban areas in India. When there is already a stream of migrants moving from India’s hinterlands to a handful of economically vibrant cities, how much would such cities be able to absorb additional talent without the creation of new cities?