Impact-oriented Migration

One of the loudest echoes in the chamber these days is that increasing migration from poor regions to rich regions would massively increase wellbeing in the world. That seems right, at least on the margin. But I’m curious about the other direction: people moving from rich regions to poor ones.

Is moving to a city in a developing country is an underrated “career move” for altruists? I don’t mean moving to work at a nonprofit or company or on some development project. Just the act of moving, and even just for a few years.

Hypothetical: a well-educated, remote-work-able professional living in the U.S. moves to Lusaka. I’d bet the following would happen, from most to least certain:

• Their living expenses go directly into a developing economy.

• Any Lusakans they meet are now one step away from U.S. capital and career networks.

• Their moral distance from people living in Lusaka is reduced.

• If they do get a (skilled labor) job locally:

  • Their skills have higher marginal utility, since they’re almost guaranteed to be filling a role that would be unfilled otherwise.

  • They improve Lusaka’s skilled labor pool via mentorship. Being a mentor is effectively a small-scale version of a management training program, which have been shown to be highly effective in developing countries.

  • They build more career capital than they would in the U.S. In my experience, people are given more responsibility and higher positions when working in companies in the developing world due to the local talent shortage.

  • Their overall quality of life goes up. E.g. their power goes out sometimes, but they live in a larger home/apartment than they would in the U.S., are part of a tight-knit community of expats, and can afford childcare.

The main downside of this idea is that it smells neocolonial. But as long as the people migrating aren’t insufferable saviors or colonizers, it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t net beneficial.

But maybe you see it differently?