Moving Workers is Only Half the Job

Global labor markets are changing fast. Across Europe, Asia and other regions, employers are struggling to fill vacancies in sectors ranging from healthcare and construction to hospitality and manufacturing. At the same time, millions of workers in low-income countries are looking for decent job opportunities to improve their livelihoods, including through employment abroad. The growing interest in labor mobility is therefore unsurprising.

Yet there are flaws in how labor mobility is often discussed. Too frequently, it is reduced to a simple transaction: A worker moves from one country to another to fill a vacancy. While this perspective may help explain migration flows, it tells us little about whether mobility pathways are ethical, sustainable or capable of generating lasting development benefits.

At Helvetas, we believe it is time to look beyond recruitment as discussed in our new position paper drawing on decades of experience in skills development, labor migration and private-sector engagement. Labor mobility should be understood as a transnational system connecting skills, employment, institutions, employers and workers across borders. And if labor mobility is a system, then financing and responsibility must also be shared across that system.

A different viewpoint on the labor mobility pathway

A successful labor mobility pathway begins long before a worker decides to leave home. It starts with credible labor demand, skills development, certification, ethical recruitment and preparation. It continues through employment, integration, worker protection and, eventually, career progression or return.

When one of these elements is weak, the entire pathway can be affected. Training programs disconnected from employer demand may not lead to jobs. Recruitment without sufficient oversight can expose workers to excessive costs and abuse. Placement without adequate support can lead to poor retention. Return without opportunities for skills recognition or economic reintegration can limit the long-term benefits of migration.

This is why labor mobility must be viewed as a system rather than a sequence of isolated activities. A systems perspective shifts the focus from moving people to creating the conditions that allow workers, employers and institutions to succeed together. It prompts us to ask different questions: What services are needed? Who benefits from them? Who should pay for them? And who is best placed to manage the risks involved?

Who benefits from well-designed labor mobility?

The most visible beneficiaries of labor mobility are migrant workers and their families, as highlighted in a recent blog with the Center for Global Development. Access to better-paying jobs can increase incomes, support remittances and create opportunities for skills development and career advancement. But these benefits are not automatic. Their scale and durability depend on working conditions, recruitment practices, access to rights and the quality of employment opportunities available.

Employers also benefit. International labor mobility can help address labor shortages, improve workforce stability and provide access to needed skills. However, employers are more than passive beneficiaries. They may influence whether pathways are genuinely demand-driven, whether recruitment is responsible, and whether workers experience decent conditions and opportunities for career advancement.

Benefits can also extend to countries of origin. Skills systems may improve when training providers adapt curricula to labor market demand. Public institutions can strengthen coordination and governance. Recruitment agencies and training providers may adopt higher standards and improve service quality through collaboration with international partners. These system-level improvements often represent some of the most realistic and sustainable development gains. Longer-term outcomes such as technology transfer, entrepreneurship or local economic transformation remain possible, but they rarely occur automatically. They require deliberate investment, enabling conditions and sustained support.

A financing question we often avoid

Despite growing interest in labor mobility programs, one fundamental question receives too little attention: Who should pay?

This question is more complex than it first appears. Actors engage with labor mobility in different ways. Some purchase services. Others invest in organizations or systems. Some receive direct economic benefits. Others contribute because they seek social impact or public value. Understanding these differences is critical to designing sustainable labor mobility pathways.

The first principle is clear: Workers should not bear recruitment fees or recruitment-related costs. Ethical labor mobility requires adherence to internationally recognized fair recruitment standards and the Employer Pays Principle. The costs of accessing a job should not be transferred to those with the least bargaining power and financial resilience.

Beyond recruitment, however, labor mobility involves a wider ecosystem of services and institutions. Labor market information systems, qualification recognition frameworks, grievance mechanisms, standards, oversight and cross-border coordination all generate value. Yet many of these functions cannot be sustainably financed by a single commercial actor. They create public or shared benefits that justify public, philanthropic or catalytic support.

Recognizing this distinction helps move the discussion beyond simplistic debates about public versus private financing. The challenge is not deciding whether one actor should pay for everything. The challenge is determining how different actors can contribute according to the value they receive and the role they play within the system.

Why co-investment matters

A co-investment approach offers a practical framework for addressing this challenge.

The underlying idea is straightforward: Different actors participate in labor mobility for different reasons. Employers may invest because they need reliable access to skills and workers. Training providers may invest because higher-quality services improve their competitiveness and expand market opportunities. Public actors may finance regulatory functions and worker protections because these serve wider public interests. Philanthropic organizations may support innovation, inclusion or system strengthening. Impact investors may provide capital where both financial sustainability and social outcomes are achievable.

Rather than expecting a single source of funding to support an entire pathway, co-investment distributes responsibilities across actors according to their incentives, capacities and expected returns.

Importantly, co-investment is not simply about attracting more finance. It is also about allocating risk more fairly. Labor mobility involves uncertainty. Workers may fail examinations. Visa processes can change. Employers' needs may evolve. Placements may not proceed as planned. One of the most important tests of a responsible labor mobility model is therefore whether risks are borne by those best able to manage them. Employers are often better placed to manage demand risk, providers to manage service quality risk and public actors to manage regulatory risk. Workers should not become the default shock absorbers of the system.

Climate finance gained momentum by moving beyond isolated projects to mechanisms aligning public funding, private investment and shared accountability at scale. While labor mobility differs from climate action, there are useful lessons from this sector. Labor mobility may be approaching a similar moment, where growing recognition of its economic and development potential creates opportunities to finance not only individual programs, but the wider ecosystems that make mobility fair, effective and sustainable.

From projects to systems

For development organizations, adopting a co-investment perspective requires a shift in mindset.

Too often, labor mobility initiatives begin with predefined activities or funding instruments. A systems approach begins by understanding the migration corridor, the actors involved and the specific outcomes being pursued. It maps who creates value, who receives value, where risks are concentrated and where financing gaps prevent the system from functioning effectively.

Solutions often extend beyond training or recruitment. They may involve strengthening providers, improving standards, supporting institutional cooperation, developing evidence, creating incentives for responsible employers or testing new risk-sharing arrangements. Sustainable models emerge through learning, partnership-building and continuous improvement rather than through a single intervention.

The result is a more realistic understanding of how labor mobility can contribute to development. Instead of treating mobility as a pipeline that ends when a worker crosses a border, it becomes a framework for connecting skills, employment, institutions and opportunities across countries and over time.

Helvetas' role in shaping future labor mobility pathways

As labor mobility gains prominence within development cooperation, there is a growing need for organizations capable of connecting different parts of the ecosystem.

Helvetas' comparative advantage lies precisely in this intersection. Through its work on skills development, employment, migration systems, private sector engagement and finance, Helvetas is well positioned to help partners design pathways that balance economic opportunity with worker protection and long-term development objectives.

This means working with employers, training providers, recruiters, public institutions, workers' organizations, civil society, funders and investors. It means strengthening systems as well as supporting individuals. And it means helping identify where public resources, private capital and philanthropic support can each contribute most effectively.

Looking ahead

The future of labor mobility will not be determined solely by the number of workers moving across borders. It will be determined by the quality of the systems that support them.

If labor mobility is treated merely as recruitment, opportunities for achieving development impact will remain limited. But if it is understood as a shared system of skills, employment, institutions and partnerships, then new possibilities emerge. Ethical labor mobility pathways can create value for workers, employers and societies alike, provided that responsibilities, costs and risks are allocated fairly.

The development community therefore faces a timely challenge: to move beyond project-based thinking and towards models that align incentives, strengthen systems and distribute responsibility across all actors involved.

Co-investment is not a silver bullet. But it may offer one of the most promising frameworks for building labor mobility pathways that are not only demand-driven and financially viable, but also fair, resilient and capable of generating lasting development outcomes.