154 Andrew Geddes
and resources necessary for movement and creating a ‘migration hump’
(Papademetriou & Martin 1991). Or, put another way, ‘Poverty reduction
is not in itself a migration-reducing strategy’ (Nyberg-Sørensen, Van Hear
& Engberg-Pedersen 2002: 40). For sending states, emigration can relieve
labour-market and political pressures, provide education and training,
generate remittances, and lead to eventual return by successful migrants.
The downside can include ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain waste’, the diff iculty of
establishing voluntary-return programmes, and the relatively unproductive
channelling of remittances towards inf lation and inequalities-generating
consumption.
The current demand for migrant workers in EU member states is fuelled
by labour-market and skills shortages and by the effects of population
change, low fertility rates and ageing populations. There are, however, major
differences in the policies of European states towards labour migration
(particularly of the high-skilled), which is largely welcomed, and asylum
seeking and irregular migration f lows, which generally are not. The EU
does not possess competence in relation to the number of migrants to be
admitted. However, it has sought to approximate member-state rules on the
admission of high-skilled migrants through what is known as the Blue Card.
In 2013, the EU was developing a sectoral approach to the approximation
of rules governing seasonal workers (agreed in January 2014)and intra-
corporate transferees. There is also an increased interest in temporary and
circular migration, with the development of mobility partnerships that
seek to facilitate some migration in return for non-member states seeking
to exercise controls over out-migration.
Within its Strategic Approach to Democracy and Prosperit y with MENA
partner countries, the Commission emphasised the development of mobility
partnerships. Such partnerships are understood to provide a ‘comprehensive
framework to ensure that the movement of persons between the EU and a
third country is well-managed’ (CEC 2011a: 7). The issues covered include
visas and legal migration, legal frameworks for (economic) migration,
capacity-building to manage remittances and for the eff icient matching
of labour demands and needs, return and reintegration programmes, and
the upgrading of the asylum systems to EU standards. There is a clear quid
pro quo:
In return for increased mobility, partners must be ready to undertake
increasing capacity building and provide appropriate f inancial
support for border management, preventing and f ighting against ir-
regular migration and traf f icking in human beings, including through