Migration Theory Summary

The macro section of Neoclassical Economics theory, in summary, states that the sole purpose of migration pertains to the exceptional imbalance in labor supply, labor demand, which leads to wage differentials in different countries. As a result, workers from low wage countries tend to move to high wage countries, which ultimately leads to the micro section of this theory. Moreover, people act as individuals to make rational choices based on their expectations of the cost and benefits that migrating will produce (Notes 1/22). Individuals perceive migration, according to this section of the theory, to be an investment in human capital. Migration has a tendency to influence where they can be the most productive and have a positive net return.

This meticulous theory describes the migration through the lens of a fairly large family group in deciding the allocation of household resources to prevent the risks of their economic well-being (Notes 1/22). In this case, households decide where individual members of the family will eventually migrate, in order to produce income and be prepared for future market failure. In addition, this specific migration theory also comprises with the idea that often migrants do not often allocate permanently due to the ongoing fact that the whole family does not migrate, therefore, migrants return to their native homes in a constant manner. In my opinion, the strength of this theory is once again the connections that it establishes with migrants. Once more, this particular theory does in fact prove that families brainstorm and execute the dispersion of certain family members to different countries, or even within the same one. For instance, my father’s experience consisted of migrating to another country, which allowed him to benefit by providing the appropriate financial means for our family back in Mexico, hence positive net income. However, due to the fact that my mother and my siblings were not physically with my father, he had to continually revisit us, just as the Pedro Flores displayed in the film. It is acceptable to conclude that this migration theory displays strength, however, there are also weaknesses that

In other words, core countries such as North America, England, Japan, have developed in massive quantities, which by no doubt, negatively impacts peripheral countries. Mexico, China, India, are just a few examples of peripheral countries. Under these circumstances, migration acts as the result of disruptions that occur during capitalist development (Notes 1/17). In addition, core countries have managed to utilize peripheral countries as markets for their manufactured goods, which then leads to dependency theory. The dependency theory essentially states that political power is distributed in an unequal pattern, therefore causing entrapment to peripheral countries. In sum, this theory is tremendously communicating the links that core countries have developed with peripheral countries which cause migration. In my standpoint, this is a positive aspect. For example, Pedro Flores had a link to Kansas, due to the former Bracero program, which was created as a capitalist movement in the United States, as a result, Kansas was vulnerable to migrants. In my perspective, this theory does an astonishing job explaining the influences of migration. Another prime example, could be myself, as the result of the power of the United States, my father migrated to the United States to seek better education. If education in peripheral countries was similar to that