Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ELMAR HÖNEKOPP
Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung
EDDA CURRLE
European Forum for Migration Studies
© 2009 The German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission
in writing from the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-
making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America
and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders
to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can
address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen
democracies.
Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,
GMF has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.
Guest Worker Programs and Circular Migration: What Works?
May 2009
Friedrich Heckmann,
European Forum for Migration Studies (efms)
Elmar Hönekopp, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung
Edda Currle, European Forum for Migration Studies
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Lessons from the guest worker program in Germany, 1955–1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lessons from the Bracero Program in the United States, 1942–1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
New programs for a changed situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The present discussion on labor migration programs in the European Union . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
*This first edition of the European Forum on Migration Studies policy brief presents the results of the expert meeting “Can Guest
Worker Programs Work?” supported by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). We would like to thank the
Washington and Berlin staff of GMF for their kind assistance in organizing the joint expert meeting in Washington, DC.
1 Introduction
Somewhat surprisingly, the new millennium spoke of a guest worker program; and the EU
has seen the reappearance of temporary labor Commission has presented concepts for circular
migration programs in political discourse within migration and a Blue Card (European Commission
both Europe and the United States. Germany had 2007 and 2007a).
already introduced temporary programs in the
1990s for seasonal and project-tied workers. “Guest This policy brief aims at evaluating these concepts
worker program,” “circular migration,” “Green for temporary labor migration programs. It first
Card” (in Germany), and “Blue Card” are among looks at two historical cases of such programs and
the terms currently being used in the somewhat asks what kind of lessons could be learned from
confusing political debate as well as in lawmaking. the German guest worker program and the Bracero
For example, in 2000 Germany introduced a Program of the United States. A second part
temporary Green Card status for guest workers; examines circular migration as recommended by
the Bush-Kennedy compromise for the proposed the EU Commission, a concept that is scientifically
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 discussed in regard to the United States as well.
The German guest worker program was a response and making up for the smaller supply resulting
to a labor supply problem. A demand for foreign from other factors, this segment of the
labor developed quite early in Germany at a workforce became a little smaller.
time when the overall unemployment rate was • The reduced number of hours worked per
still quite high. In 1955 Germany signed its first week: Germans worked an average of 40 hours
recruitment contract with Italy. Until 1961 the per week in the 1960s instead of the 48 hours
influx of immigrants from the German Democratic they had worked in the 1950s.
The guest worker Republic to the Federal Republic of Germany was
program was high. Therefore, it was only after 1961—when The guest worker program was conceived as a
immigration from East Germany abruptly strictly temporary program in which new workers
conceived as a
stopped—that strategic recruitment in Germany would rotate between their country of origin
strictly temporary
gained momentum as a series of recruitment and Germany. All participants in the program
program in which
treaties with different Mediterranean countries were convinced that this indeed was a temporary
new workers program. However, these parties have had different,
were signed.
would rotate sometimes opposed interests and perceptions of
between their The institutionalization and expansion of the the program:
country of origin program in the 1960s had a number of major
and Germany. causes, among them: The employers: Employers wanted cheap and
motivated workers who could easily be laid off in
• Das deutsche Wirtschaftswunder: High times of a recession; guest workers were desirable
economic growth increased the demand for positions (mostly in industry) for which native
for labor. workers either could not be recruited in sufficient
• The founding of the Bundeswehr: Initially it numbers or would pose much higher costs. In
required 500,000 soldiers plus 200,000 civilian many cases employers opted for cheap labor over
employees, causing a sharp reduction in the investment in new and technologically advanced
labor supply. machinery. On the whole, employers took a rather
• The building of the Berlin Wall: Until short-term perspective.
construction of the wall began on August 13,
1961, some 150,000 to 300,000 people annually The receiving country: Enormous migration
had escaped the East German regime and come processes had occurred in Germany since the
to the Federal Republic of Germany; most end of World War II. Between 1945 and the early
were in their early working years and quite 1950s, about 12 million German refugees and
well qualified. Cessation of this labor supply expellees came to the allied zones from former
severely increased pressure on the labor market German territories or from German ethnic
from 1961 onward. minority settlements in Southeastern and Eastern
• Expansion of secondary and higher Europe and the Soviet Union. Before the building
education: More people remained in schools of the Berlin Wall in 1961, 3.8 million people
and universities, and this decreased the supply migrated from East Germany to the Federal
of available labor. Republic. The settlement and integration of these
• Demography: The number of people ages large populations—despite an overall successful
15–65 decreased during the 1960s. development—were still ongoing processes that
• Decreased numbers of women in the labor needed resources. Against the backdrop of this
market during the 1960s: Instead of increasing situation, new sources of settlement migration were
In spring 1942, under the pressure of California signed in the following month. Changes in the
growers, the United States Immigration and nature of the program could be observed and
Naturalization Service formed an interagency an important step had been taken toward the
committee to study the question of agricultural institutionalization of importing Mexican labor. On
labor. Mexico stepped in as a supplier of labor, but the U.S. side, the agreement clearly reflected the
for the first time Mexico and the United States political power of U.S. farm interests.
entered into a bilateral government-to-government
accord: The Official Bracero Agreement for the With the implementation of the “wetback bill” and
The curtailment
Temporary Migration of Mexican Agricultural the extension of the migrant-labor agreement early
of the Bracero
Workers to the United States (Official Bracero in 1952, the Bracero Program entered a period of
growth and stabilization. From 1952 to 1959, more
Program in 1960
Agreement 1942) was signed between Mexico and and its end in
the United States on August 4, 1942. Although than 2.5 million Mexican nationals were employed
on U.S. farms (Craig 1971: 101–102). In 1954 a 1964 saw the
the original agreement expired in 1947, the
new Bracero agreement was created, but after two beginning of the
program continued informally and without further
regulation until 1951. further extensions in 1961 and 1963, Public Law 78 increasing wave of
expired in December 1964. With its expiration, 22 illegal immigration
From 1942 to 1947, more than 200,000 “braceros” years of large-scale bracero contracting came to an that we see up to
entered the United States and worked in 24 end. More than 4.5 million Mexican farm workers the present.
states. The majority were employed in California. had been legally contracted for work on U.S. farms
From 1948 to 1951, around 400,000 legally over the period from 1942 to 1964 (Craig 1971: 1).
contracted “braceros” worked on U.S. farms
(www.farmworkers.org/migrdata.html), but the Ending the formal program, however, did not
number of illegal aliens apprehended by the INS stop its consequences, as thousand of former
was three times as high (Calavita 1992, Appendix braceros continued to enter the United States
A). Probably the majority of the illegally entered and seek jobs, albeit as illegal immigrants. The
Mexicans worked illegally on farms. curtailment of the Bracero Program in 1960 and
its end in 1964 saw the beginning of the increasing
The money earned by legal (and illegal) Mexican wave of illegal immigration that we see up to the
migrants constituted an important source of foreign present. Therefore, the predicted agricultural labor
exchange. Although a presidential commission shortages didn’t occur. The impact on the labor
denied the need for further Mexican braceros in market, however, had already begun during the
1950, the Korean War was used to justify approval program as it depressed existing wages and reduced
of a new program: Public Law 78 was implemented employment of domestic farm workers (Waller
in July 1951, and the new Bracero agreement was Meyers 2006: 2).
Guest worker programs in general aim to add and circular migration.” The report suggested that
temporary workers to the labor force without destination countries should promote adequate
adding permanent residents to the population models (Global Commission 2005: 31). The
(Martin 2003: 1). Workers are expected to return to worldwide discussion on circular migration is
their home country after having worked abroad for based on considerations of the importance of
several years. Past programs, however, have been remittances and the potential of organized migrant
said to have “failed” in the sense that they caused labor measures for developing countries. The
Against the unintended effects such as permanent and illegal win-win-win argument of the model is underlined.
widespread immigration. Martin relates these problems to two Advantages are seen not only for the receiving
understanding, phenomena: distortion and dependence. Distortion countries, but for the sending countries and the
circular migration refers to the recipient labor markets drawing on the migrants themselves. Circular migration is also
is more than only assumption of permanent influx of guest workers, seen as a means of reducing irregular migration.
a special form whereas dependence focuses on migrant workers Giving quotas to sending countries for legal
and sending economies becoming dependent on migration should motivate them to cooperate with
of temporary
foreign jobs (Martin 2003: 3). receiving countries in fighting illegal migration
migration.
where it originates.
Managing labor migration in a way that does
not lead to distortion, dependence, and more Different stakeholders in the political and scientific
unauthorized migration is especially daunting. discussion mean different things when talking
Guest worker programs may be part of the answer, about circular migration. Against the widespread
but simply relaunching past programs is likely to understanding of circular migration as a special
produce the same problems (Martin 2007: 37). Both form of only temporary migration, Agunias and
in Europe and in the United States, the concept Newland developed a more complex typology of
of circular migration is being discussed as an circular migration (Agunias/Newland 2007).
alternative.
Their typology includes both permanent and
The Global Commission on International temporary migrants returning either permanently
Migration emphasized in its report the relevance or temporarily. It shows that circular migration
of circular migration: “The Commission concludes is more than temporary migration and includes a
that the old paradigm of permanent migrant variety of migration forms and types of return.
settlement is progressively giving way to temporary
1
Chapter 5 is based on Brücker/Hönekopp 2007.
Agunias, Dovelyn R. and Kathleen Newland (2007). Commission of the European Communities
Circular Migration and Development: Trends, (2005). Proposal for a directive of the European
Policy Routes and Ways Forward. Washington, Parliament and of the Council on common
Migration Policy Institute, April 2007. standards and procedures in Member States
Retrieved at: www.migrationpolicy.org/ pubs/ for returning illegally staying third-country
MigDevPB_041807.pdf nationals. COM(2005)0391. Retrieved at http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.
Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1991). do?uri=COM:2005:0391:FIN:EN:PDF
Convergence Across States and Regions.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1991:1, Constant, Amelie and Klaus F. Zimmermann
Macroeconomics, pp. 107–182. (2003). Circular movements and time away from
the host country. DIW Discussion Paper 390.
Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1995). Berlin, December 2003. Retrieved at http://www.
Economic Growth, New York: McGraw-Hill. diw.de/documents/ publikationen/73/41109/
dp390.pdf
Bauer, Thomas (1998). Arbeitsmarkteffekte in
der Migration und Einwanderungspolitik. Eine Council of the European Union (2008). European
Analyse für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Pact on Immigration and Asylum. 13440/08.
Heidelberg, Physika-Verlag. Retrieved at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/
pdf/en/08/st13/ st13440.en08.pdf
Beine, Michel, Frédéric Docquier, and Hillel
Rapoport (2003). Brain Drain and LDCs’ Growth: Craig, Richard B. (1971). The Bracero Program.
Winners and Losers. IZA Discussion Paper 819. Interest Groups and Foreign Policy, Austin &
Retrieved at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp819.pdf London, University of Texas Press.
Boeri, Tito and Herbert Brücker (2005). “Why are European Commission (2007). Circular migration
Europeans so tough on migrants?” Economic and mobility partnerships between the European
Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 621–703. Union and third countries. Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament,
Bonin, Holger (2002). Eine fiskalische Gesamtbilanz
the Council, the European Economic and
der Zuwanderung nach Deutschland. IZA
Social Committee, and the Committee
Discussion Paper 516. Retrieved at: http://ftp.iza.
of the Regions, MEMO/07/197. Brussels,
org/dp516.pdf
European Commission. Retrieved at: http://
Brücker, Herbert and Elmar Hönekopp (2007). eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
Zirkuläre Migration—Grundlage für eine do?uri=COM:2007:0248:FIN:EN:PDF
neue Zuwanderungspolitik? Bewertung eines
European Commission (2007a). Attractive
Vorschlages der Europäischen Kommission.
conditions for the admission and residence of
Internal paper, unpublished, Nuremberg, June
highly qualified immigrants. MEMO/07/423.
7, 2007.
Brussels, European Commission. Retrieved at:
Calavita, Kitty (1992). Inside the State: The Bracero http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?r
Program, Immigration, and the INS, New York, eference=MEMO/07/423&format=HTML&aged
Routledge. =1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en