The Transfert of Migrants : Which Links between the Migratory policies ans the Development of the Countries of Migration
Practical information
Breakfast Meeting with Jean-Pierre Garson, chef de la Division des économies non membres et des migrations internationales, OCDE, and Guillaume Almeras, associé-gérant de BGV Consulting, membre de l'Institut de Prospective et d'Etude pour la Méditerranée. Chaired by : Christophe Bertossi, Senior Research Fellow, Responsable for the "Migrations, Identities, Citizenship" Programme at Ifri.
The idea to link European migration policies to the development of the origin countries of migrants is not new but it has been emphasised at the beginning of the 2000's, overall with the "global approach" to migration. This results in so called "co-development" policies or in "migration management" agreements. Migrants are more and more considered as part of the solution to the economic problems of European countries (selective immigration policies) but also as a solution to the departure countries problems (as they generate increased amounts of remittances). In 2007, international migrants transferred 240 billion dollars towards developing countries. In this context, what role should be given to migrants in these "co-development" or "solidar development" policies? What tools could maximise the remittances efficiency? How could remittances contribute to the economic and social development of emigration countries on the long term?
Speakers
Other events
Nuclear Sharing in Europe: A Contested Policy That Endures
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of US nuclear weapons stationed in Europe has fallen more than seventy-fold, yet their presence in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey remains a quiet pillar of NATO's deterrence posture. This "nuclear sharing" arrangement, central to the Alliance since its founding, has long been contested by public opinion, political parties, and civil society across Europe, without ever being abandoned by host governments. This paradox lies at the heart of the seminar: why does such an unpopular policy persist?