Circular migration: looking at both sides of the debate  Premium

Circular migration is a repetitive form of migration wherein people move to another place for work and back, often multiple times. It has become popular due to globalisation and increased access to transport and communication. It is seen as a balanced migration method which looks at the needs of both the sending and receiving countries. In India, internal migration has been mostly circular, with people moving from rural to urban areas. However, migrants often face exploitation and lack of rights in host States. Policy needs to be formulated to ensure their rights and to integrate them in the destination States.

Circular migration is a repetitive form of migration wherein people move to another place (the destination country) and back (country of origin) according to the availability of employment. This effectively means that instead of migrating permanently or temporarily (moving for a period of time to complete any contract-based labour) to another location, people move to different locations for a brief period of time when work is available. It is a phenomenon mostly among low-income groups who migrate to avail of seasonally available jobs in another country, city, place etc.

Circular migration became quite popular in the 60s and 70s with the advent of globalisation and development. Increased access to modern forms of transport and communication, social networks and the growth of multinational corporations have aided the advent of circular migration. However, only recently has the phenomenon been given its due as the seasonal movement of migrants was not properly documented or was boxed along with short-term or temporary migration. Yet, how exactly is circular migration different from other forms of migration?

According to Philippe Fargues, migration can defined as circular if it meets the following criteria — there is a temporary residence in the destination location, there is the possibility of multiple entries into the destination country, there is freedom of movement between the country of origin and the country of destination during the period of residence, there is a legal right to stay in the destination country, there is protection of migrants’ rights, and if there is a healthy demand for temporary labour in the destination country.

But still some doubts remain. How many times does a migrant have to move between countries to be called a circular migrant? As per the report on measuring circular migration by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Task Force, one is called a circular migrant if you have completed at least ‘two loops’ between two countries. Consider country A and B. If you move from A to B and back to A, then you are a return migrant. You had some work, you finished it and now you are back. If you move from A to B to A and then again to B, you have completed two loops between two countries and can be considered a circular migrant. This means you have travelled between your destination and origin country at least two times.

This can become more complicated if more than two countries are involved. Consider one more country C. If you move from A to B then back to A and then to C and back to A, you would be a circular migrant as per country A (as you completed two loops) but not for countries B and C. They might classify you as a temporary, short-term or return migrant.

In short, if your primary destination is the country of origin and if you move periodically between two countries for purposes of economic advancement such as employment, business etc., you can be considered a circular migrant.

With the increasing fluid movement of people, policy around migration is one of the biggest debates in the world. The movement of citizens from the Global South to the West in search of more employment opportunities or a better standard of living creates brain drain for their origin countries and competition for the citizens of the destination countries. Similarly, the flow of people moving from rural areas to more urban areas of the same country, results in the breakdown of infrastructure and agrarian stagnation. Therefore, migration of any kind has become a policy hazard.