I wear many hats, but call me a neo-Marxist on this one. Humanitarian, geo-political or socio-economic problem, or is it a panacea to Europe’s demographic challenge? The migration crisis witnessed in Europe in the recent months is one unprecedented and unforeseen by many population and migration theorists across the globe, mainly due to their focus on the labor market and limited attention to forced migration. Let’s look at 2 broad schools of thought: the population enthusiasts including Marxists and Neo-Marxists on one hand; and the advocates of population control such as Thomas Malthus. The latter category often carries the connotation of inhumane pessimism. While Malthusians argue that warfare and famine are positive checks to population growth, libertarians, socialists and Marxists have maintained that T. Malthus did not consider humanitarian concerns or socio-economic advancements in his 1798 Essay on the Principal of Population. The new world order pays great attention to humanistic values and any Country opposed both to the neoclassical paradigm and to the modernization school which underpins the mobility transition model of Wilbur Zelinsky is seen as promoting Malthusian-ism. Hungary has found itself in this spot with fellow EU Countries accusing her of perpetuating a humanitarian crisis by refusing to allow migrants on transit through its borders. Denmark on the other hand was initially reluctant to allow migrants on transit to Sweden from Germany through its borders but has now recanted its decision, allowing in migrants after thorough checks in line with the Schengen code on immigration, which Denmark, the UK and Ireland are non-signatories.
Where do migrants originate? The crisis in the Middle East including Syria, Iraq and Lebanon is one that has caused significant suffering among large masses dominantly women and children. The current migration crisis is caused by mass movement and forced mobility due to the war in Syria. Alarmists would rightfully say the war in Iraq and Syria is a potential trigger for world war 3 considering the interest and involvement of Russia, Iran, Australia, the US and the EU. But these are not the only migrants into Europe. Political upheaval in Africa and South Asia has equally caused a major re-shape in migration in Europe and weighty concerns among EU governments. In early 2015 alone, UNHCR estimates that 137,000 refugees and migrants crossed the Mediterranean travelling in life threatening conditions; in mid-April, 800 people died in the waters in one of the largest refugee ship-wrecks fleeing war and conflict at home. Of all migrants and refugees arriving in Europe by sea, 34% were Syrians, the single largest nationality. Many refugees flee to neighboring countries such as Turkey and Lebanon. However, the economies and infrastructure of many neighboring refugee-hosting countries are weakening, making it difficult for refugees to find work, shelter, health care, and education. Humanitarian funding has equally declined, hence many migrants simply move on to more economically friendly and welcoming Countries like Sweden and Germany. Migrants have in past weeks moved en masse from Syria to the EU through Turkey, Greece, Hungary and Denmark into Germany and Sweden. The question remains why refugees are unwilling to move to neighboring Gulf Nations.
According to UNHCR, majority of migrants are Arab (78%), Sunni (87%) men (83%), between the age of 18-35 (71%), productive youth. 40% are university educated, and another 46% have secondary education. Around half (45%) are married, and 44% have children. Obviously, if not well managed and integrated into host societies, these young people remain a threat and a time-bomb to host countries. Germany and Sweden have taken up majority (about 45%) of all refugees. Some say this is not sustainable; indeed not a good sign at all for neo-Marxists and pro-dependency-theory demographers who maintain that migration is self-perpetuating, reproducing inequality through the mechanism of cumulative causation. Let’s have a look at Germany and Sweden’s demographic profile.
In 2014, Sweden’s TFR was 1.88, slightly below what we demographers call replacement fertility, meaning couples only have adequate children to replace themselves. Over time, birth and death rates have fallen, particularly in the 2000s, while immigration has increased, upholding steady population growth. Birth rates are higher among immigrants (majority Asian origin) than ethnic Swedes. This means that over time, Sweden will have a larger population of Asian Swedes than ethnic Swedes. Sweden’s economy is highly industrialized implying that they need skilled labor which in recent years has declined as a result of demographic change. So it’s easier to import cheap labor from Asia to build this economy, especially productive youth. While this is in harmony with the dual labor market theory, positive for demographic dividend enthusiasts, and is in accordance with proposition 4 of Wilbur Zelinsky’s mobility transition theory, Neo-Marxists and native politicians may not be as excited considering immigration as part of the global geographic division of labor and of the historical process of subordinate incorporation of the underdeveloped world into the major capitalist economies, regardless of whether migration is forced or voluntary. However, none of these theories put into consideration modern conflict and a surge in forced migration. Germany’s TFR on the other hand was 1.43 in 2014; way below replacement fertility and its population pyramid represents the classic demographic transition model. Germany therefore needs a large population of immigrants to sustain its labor market. Locals take up mostly skilled labor, leaving unskilled labor to immigrants in line with the segmented labor market theory. It's no surprise that Germany has allowed almost 800,000 refugees into the country in the past year.
So what with all these theories and models? While Germany and Sweden are in need of both skilled and unskilled labor to sustain their economies, the combination of low TFRs, low but increasing death rates due to rising prevalence of NCDs and high immigration implies that immigrants are likely to take up a larger proportion of the population over time. This may result in a destabilized social equilibrium, leading to tensions and eventual conflict. The probability of easy transfer of terrorism abroad is equally higher in the wake of forced migration. Serendipitously, Sweden and Germany’s demographic dilemma are likely to be solved through a stable population growth and a more stable labor market. However, to realize the positive effects of this mass immigration, host countries must lay emphasis on proper integration of immigrants.
