Internationally, high rates of out-migration from the Caribbean are rooted in a Caribbean-specific
context largely shaped by structural features of the economy and institutional features of the
labour market. Demographic factors and labour force participation rates generate domestic
labour supplies that per se do not require out-migration as an adjustment mechanism. Rather, the
economies of the region have by and large proved incapable of sustaining economically-viable
employment opportunities in general, and skilled and high-skilled employment opportunities in
particular.
At the same time and perhaps not coincidentally, educational institutions and practices inherited
from the colonial period and arguably still neo-colonial in essence, contribute to a contemporary
manpower mismatch but also bestow a certain international competitive advantage upon
Caribbean nationals in skilled and high-skilled labour. A palpable “demonstration effect”
emanating from these same areas affecting lifestyle aspirations exacerbates the sense of
entitlement already nurtured by the educational system. This works in conjunction with the
opportunities for securing better jobs and careers in North America and the UK on the one hand,
and the structurally-based constraints on sustainable employment and intergenerational mobility
at home on the other, to generate the highest migration propensity in the world.
Families and individuals tend to see economic migration less as a last resort and more as a
rational component in a strategy of maximizing lifetime income-earning opportunities and
perhaps risk diversification. There is every reason to anticipate that developments at home and
abroad over the next decade will reinforce such tendencies; this will likely result in an even
higher percentage of persons participating in migration flows.
The high rates of out-migration are often bemoaned as a curse and problem from a national,
societal and developmental perspective. At the same time, the “migration option” is arguably a
blessing and presumably a solution from the perspective of those who migrate.
Does the rational choice of persons to migrate result in a socially optimal allocation of Caribbean
labour and other (public and private) resources? If not, what are the appropriate public policy
interventions? How feasible are the policies in terms of formulation and implementation? Is the
institutional capacity, including the generation of accurate and timely information, adequate?
What are the costs? Are they outweighed by the benefits they presumably generate? What is the
nature and extent of positive and negative externalities associated with Caribbean migration?
These are among the issues explored in this review.
With the economies of the Caribbean structurally and institutionally subject to the ebb and flow
of international migration, a whole range of economic and social circumstances are inextricably
bound-up with the movement of persons, both extra-regionally and intra-regionally. The
implications permeate society and bear on a wide range of policy matters extending well beyond
migration in the traditional sense. 2
Implications for migrants and their families are highly contingent upon factors such as
transportation and placement costs, their legal status, skills and qualifications, bargaining power
with respect to recruiters and employers, and the existence and effectiveness of diaspora
networks. Many of these contingencies are affected by the policy frameworks of both source and
destination countries. The effect on Caribbean societies in terms of gains and losses is also
impacted by their dependency on relevant institutional frameworks, programmes and policies.
There is a much larger array of potential benefits to be actualized from pro-active, forwardlooking
migration policies than is generally acknowledged. Put another way, whereas the costs
associated with labour migration are already known from experience and observation, the
migration potential exceeds actual benefits that have thus far been experienced.
The overall conclusion is that the challenge to stakeholders is not migration, but rather the ability
to take full advantage of the latent opportunities for gain. The objective should be not to reduce
or control migration, but to harness it to optimize benefits and minimize costs both to migrants
and to the societies that “produced” and “paid” for them.