REVIEWING LABOUR MIGRATION POLICY IN EUROPE · Source: WEF (2014), Global Competitiveness Report...
16
REVIEWING LABOUR MIGRATION POLICY IN EUROPE Attractiveness, Evaluation, Recommendations from a Joint OECD-European Commission research project Jean-Christophe Dumont and Jonathan Chaloff International Migration Division Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs OECD Public hearing on "Reforming the EU Blue Card“ European Parliament Brussels, 7 November 2016
Transcript of REVIEWING LABOUR MIGRATION POLICY IN EUROPE · Source: WEF (2014), Global Competitiveness Report...
REVIEWING LABOUR MIGRATION
POLICY IN EUROPEAttractiveness, Evaluation, Recommendations from a Joint OECD-European Commission research project
Jean-Christophe Dumont and Jonathan ChaloffInternational Migration DivisionDirectorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs OECD
Public hearing on "Reforming the EU Blue Card“European ParliamentBrussels, 7 November 2016
Key questions• Is the EU able to attract the skills it needs?
• Who wants to come to the EU?
• What can be done at the EU level to improve the EU’s ability to attract and retain the skills it needs?
Outline of the presentation
EU is boxing below its weight in the global competition for talents
The value added of the EU policies regarding high-skilled migration can be improved …
… but this requires a global approach to the attractiveness and retention of foreign talents
Take away messages
Permanent immigration by category of entry or of status change into
selected OECD countries, 2013
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
% o
f th
e p
op
ula
tion
Other Free movement Work
Europe receives as many new permanent
immigrants as the United States
Source: OECD (2015), International Migration Outlook.
The higher the education level, the less
likely non-EU migrants are to live in the EU
EU/EEA; 50%
United States;
45%
Other OECD;
5%
Low
EU/EEA; 32%
United States;
45%
Other OECD;
23%
High
EU/EEA; 39%
United States;
48%
Other OECD;
13%
Medium
Distribution of non-EU migrants by education level and destination, stock and intentions
Ob
se
rv
ed
20
10/1
1
Source : DIOC 2010/11, 25-64
EU/EEA 37%
United States;
29%
Other OECD;
34%EU/EEA,
42%
United States;
41%
Other OECD;
17%EU/EEA
38%
United States;
41%
Other OECD;
20%
Inte
nti
on
s 2
011
Source : Gallup World Surveys , 18+
The EU is the preferential destination for European
and sub-Saharan high-educated potential migrants
0,1068
0,2238
0,2349
0,3069
0,3221
0,4559
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EU/EEA
North America & Oceania
Latin America & Caribbean
Middle East & North Africa
Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Other Europe
EU/EEA United States Other OECD Non-OECD
Region or country preferred by potential migrants, high-educated only, by region of origin, 2011
Source: Gallup surveys 2011-2014, Gubert and Senne (2016). Extrapolated using sampling weights. Figures exclude intra-EU/EEA mobility
The EU attracts international students but
struggles to retain them
Number of international students by destination, 2000-12, excluding intra-EU mobility
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2000 2005 2010 2011 2012
Th
ou
sa
nd
s
EU United States Japan Canada EEA Australia/New Zealand
Source: OECD Education database
Potential employers have a negative
view on attractiveness and retention
Source: WEF (2014), Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Executives in EU Member States perceive greater difficulty in attractingand retaining talent than many other OECD destinations, 2013-14
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
6,5
Attract talent Retain talent
Worst
Best
What role for labour migration policies?
This is where EU level policy can make a difference
The objective is to regain a comparative advantage
Coordination & cooperation can provide value added if one takes advantage of
Size Diversity Economies of scale Outreach/Branding
The scope for national policies to make a difference is shrinking
Most OECD countries have converging favourable policies for the “best and brightest” (e.g. facilitation of 2-steps migration, attractive packages, active
promotion campaign) …
… leaving employers and migrants to make choices with less influence of public
policy on international recruitment
Policies have addressed most
categories, but in a rigid frameworkDuration of policy process for recent legal migration directives
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Long-term residence
Students
Researchers
EU Blue Card
Single permit
Seasonal workers
Intra-companytransfers
Duration from first official mention toproposal by the CommissionDuration to adoption
Duration to transposition deadline
Duration to final transposition
Revised proposal
EU achieved a great deal in setting common standards … but national schemes are still perceived as more flexible and efficient for attracting and retaining talents
More needs to be done to support migration
management and mobility
• Improve the framework for recognition of qualifications for TCNs• Reinforce related support and mobility (portability) procedures
• Develop and reinforce EU-wide job-matching databases• Link databases with compatible labour migration channels
Improve the general framework
• Standardise application forms for labour migrants• Strengthen the EU Immigration Portal (gateway for initial
contact)
Streamline procedures
• Build more flexibility into the regulatory cycle• Develop the labour migration component in mobility
partnerships
Increase adaptability of the regulatory framework
EU “branding” should be improved
Improve the general framework
Streamline procedures
• Certain EU permits (e.g., Blue Card, Long Term Residence) granting priority access to border crossing points
• Promote and prioritise status change to EU permits• Increase outreach in origin countries through EU
diplomatic presence
Develop active promotion
EU permits should offer clearer benefits
Improve the general framework
Streamline procedures
Develop active promotion
• Increase opportunities for intra-EU mobility• Build a bridge between EU permits within and
across Member States
Build an attractive package
EU permits should offer clearer benefits
Improve the general framework
Streamline procedures
Develop active promotion
Build an attractive package
• Lower salary threshold• …
Reform the Blue Card
The Blue Card salary threshold should
be lowered
Share of gross full-time earnings above national threshold for the Blue Card (and similar permits in non-Blue Card EU Member States), tertiary-educated only
source: EU-SILC, G-SOEP(German). * refers to lower thresholds for shortage occupations. Tertiary ≤ 29 of LU* & DE* not above reliability threshold.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
LT
SK
BG
EL
FR
EE
HR
SE
HU PL FI
CZ
LV
BE
ES
*
EE
*
ES SI
HU
*
NL
AT
DE
LU
DE
*
IT DK
PT
UK
LU
*
IE
DE
*
Total Under age 30
In addition to a lower threshold, there should be separate income thresholds for younger workers and new EU graduates
EU permits should offer clearer benefits
Improve the general framework
Streamline procedures
Develop active promotion
Build an attractive package
• Lower salary threshold• Reduce required contract duration, waiting period prior to mobility• Waive labour market tests for labour migrants changing status into
the Blue Card• Faster access to EU Long Term Resident status• Develop a “Blue-Card-Ready” pool of pre-qualified candidates
Reform the Blue Card
For further information: www.oecd.org/migration
16/11
Thank you for your attention
