National perspectives of COVID-19: case of Sri Lanka

How do population movements fit within the framework of systemic risk?

“…Restrictions to local and international mobility increased risk for immobile labour migrants all over the world [7]. They also generated global ripple impacts for economic growth and industrial production, food and water security, and health through the shortage of workers in essential services and the decrease of global remittances [1,27,46,72,80]. Other environmental, health and livelihood security impacts were produced through the forced return of migrants in their locations of origin [26,73] The propagation of these risk effects to a systemic level (i.e.…”

“…At the same time, the presence of migrants benefits economies of destination by sustaining consumption, increasing demand, and expanding fiscal revenues. In many advanced economies, the viability of key productive sectors rely on the movement of specialised and skilled workforces, both high and low-paid [27,31,32,45,46,85]. As recently shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, migrants represent a large share of the workforce in essential sectors such as social care and agricultural production in most countries of the Global North [15,39].…”

“…At a global level, the circulation of people enables capitals and knowledge movement that produces positive benefits in terms of consumption, production and economic growth [27,31,40,41,85]. Effective allocation of workforce at global level, cultural vitality and innovation, transfers of material resources and ideas would not be possible at the present scale without sustained population movements.…”