Migration and Development

1 downloads 0 Views 106KB Size Report
This enterprise, as part of cds curricula, requires new theoretical and methodological tools that can result in the .... Goldring, Henders & Vandergeest 2003.
Section 12 – Capitalism, Labour and Development

Module 37

Migration and Development Labour in the Global Economy Raúl Delgado Wise and Humberto Márquez Covarrubias Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico

Led by the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, some international organizations have been pursuing an international political agenda in the area of migration and development. They posit that remittances sent home by migrants can promote local, regional and national development in the countries of origin. By extension, remittances are seen as an indispensable source of foreign exchange, which provides macroeconomic stability and alleviates the ravages caused by insidious problems such as poverty. This view is supported by the growing importance of remittances as a source of subsistence income for many households in underdeveloped countries. It has been estimated that 500 million people (8 percent of the world’s population) receive remittances. According to World Bank figures, remittances sent home by emigrants from underdeveloped countries rose from U.S.$85 billion in 2000 to U.S.$199 billion in 2006. Unrecorded flows through informal channels may increase these figures by 50 percent or more (World Bank 2006). Taking unrecorded flows into account, the overall amount of remittances surpassed foreign direct investment flows and more than doubled the figures for official aid received by Third World countries. In many cases remittances have become the largest and best volatile source of foreign exchange earnings. Although the World Bank’s position vis-à-vis the relationship between remittances and migration has lately become more cautious, it is evident that the impact of structural adjustment programs, promoted by the World Bank and the imf, is the root cause of the upsurge in SouthNorth migration and remittance flows. Moreover, far from contributing to the development of migrant-sending countries, the World Bank’s saps have reinforced the dynamics of underdevelopment through three major movements: the dismantling and re-articulation of the productive apparatus to the capital restructuring processes commanded by Northern countries; the creation of vast amounts of surplus population, well beyond the conventional formulation of the reserve army of the unemployed; and the acceleration of migration flows. The great paradox of the migration-development agenda is that it leaves intact the principles that underpin the current process of global capital restructuring and does not affect the specific way in which neoliberal policies are applied in migrant-sending countries. At most, it offers superficial strategies involving migration, such as lowering the cost of transferring remittances and supporting financial infrastructures that enable the use of remittances in micro-projects (which, ultimately, have very limited impact in terms of development). Dominant policies regarding migration and development are neither coherent nor properly contextualized and could not serve as part of an alternative development model or a new form of regional economic integration capable of reducing the socioeconomic asymmetries that exist between sending and receiving 187

The Critical Development Studies Handbook

countries. They are also unlikely to contain—or reduce—the current and burgeoning migratory flows. Notwithstanding a recent boom in migration and development research, there is a clear dissociation between theories of development and theories of migration. This results in restricted studies that do not capture the context within which migrations—and the fundamental connections involving processes of global, national, regional and local development—are inscribed. Conceptual and theoretical research has been lagging behind the discourse and migration and development policies promoted by international organizations. Consequently, academic debate has been largely limited to a conceptual reproduction of said discourse or, at best, establishing critical distance from it. The analytical complexity of the relationship between migration and development requires an alternative approach that does not centre on the migratory phenomenon but has a focus on the broader processes of development and social transformation. This standpoint implies comprehending international migration from a cds perspective. In order to achieve this, it is crucial to shape theoretical objectives through interdisciplinary exercise, that is, formulate outlines and propositions based on the context, agents and processes of a multi-spatial environment. Additionally, it is necessary to problematize and contextualize the notion of development to break through normative frameworks that, failing to consider the need for structural and institutional change, limit the formulation of any socioeconomic improvement to abstract terms. Moreover, in a context of large migration flows, the problem of development involves additional challenges, such as the asymmetric relations between countries, the reconfiguration of productive chains and concomitant restructuring and precarization of labour markets, transterritorial social inequalities and, more specifically, the decline of the material and subjective foundations that propitiate a given population’s emigration, along with issues involving their integration into receiving societies under unfavourable social and labour conditions and preservation of their ties with their societies of origin. In order to comprehend this complex phenomenon outlined and examine specific aspects in the dialectic interaction between development and migration, the following issues must be addressed: 1. Strategic practices. This refers to the confrontation between different projects that espouse diverging interests, which in turn underlie the structures of contemporary capitalism and its inherent development problems. There are currently two major projects. The one that has achieved a virtual hegemony is promoted by the large transnational corporations, the governments of developed countries led by the U.S. and its allied elites in the underdeveloped nations, all under the umbrella of diverse international organizations and financial institutions. The loss of legitimacy for this project under the aegis of neoliberal globalization means that nowadays rather than speaking (or writing) of hegemony we can use the term ‘domination’: implementation of this project is not the result of a consensus but rather military force and the imposition by Washington of an appropriate macroeconomic policy. The second project, the alternative one, consists of the socio-political actions of a range of social classes and movements as well as collective subjects and agents who endorse a political project designed to transform the structural dynamics and political and institutional environments that bar the implementation of alternative development strategies on the global, regional, national and local levels. 188

Section 12 – Capitalism, Labour and Development

2. Structural dynamics. This refers to the asymmetric articulation of contemporary capitalism on several planes and levels. It includes the financial, commercial, productive and labour market spheres, as well as technological innovation (a strategic form of control) and the use and allotment of natural resources and environmental impacts. These factors condition the ways in which (1) developed, (2) developed and underdeveloped, and (3) underdeveloped countries relate to each other. They also determine the fields in which interactions between sectors, groups, movements and social classes take place. All of this is manifest in different ways on global, regional, nation and local levels. This module offers an assessment of migration and development studies from a cds perspective, where the current explosion of migration is viewed as part of the intricate machinery of the current capital restructuring process. To understand this process a redefinition of the boundaries of studies that address migration and development is required: expand the field of research and invert the terms of the present migration-development equation in order to situate the complex issues of development and social transformation at the centre of the frame. This entails an alternative way of understanding international migration. Migrants should not be held responsible for the promotion of development in their places of origin. At the same time, it is important to highlight their direct contributions to the development of receiving countries and their impact in their places of origin, as part the current global capital restructuring processes. This enterprise, as part of cds curricula, requires new theoretical and methodological tools that can result in the production of new knowledge, research agendas, concepts, analytical categories and information systems.

1. A critical overview of migration and development theories Modernization theory: neoclassicisism, new economics, neoMalthusian, migration hump; historical-Structural approaches: Marxist, dependency theory, world systems, cumulative causation, segmented labour markets; neostructuralism: social capital, social networks, transnationalism; general assessment of the field: nature and limitations of the relationship between migration and development. Theories on migration tend to belong within either one of two main paradigms. The positivist outlook encompasses a modernizing approach centred on individuals’ rational behaviour in the economic milieu and a social context that tends toward convergence and the reduction of asymmetries. The second paradigm is based on a more critical outlook and, unlike positivism, emphasizes social transformation and social contradictions. Neostructuralist approaches take a middle stance and attempt to explain migration dynamics by focusing on the agency of migrants. In spite of their common paradigmatic roots, theories on migration have developed somewhat separately from theories of development. Consequently, their analytical horizon has been limited and they have failed to consider central aspects of the current capitalist context. A political economy approach based on a critical, historical/structural outlook can provide the theoretical and methodological apparatus with which to examine the important link between migration and development. It can also contribute, among other things, basic tools for the analysis of contemporary capitalism, its role in labour migration and related historical, structural and strategic aspects. A number of topics can be approached from this perspective: the depth 189

The Critical Development Studies Handbook

of the systemic crisis and capitalist restructuring (i.e., so-called neoliberal globalization); the creation of economic regional blocs; the transformation of labour processes under a postFordist production system; the political and military hegemony of the United States; the increasing gap between developed and underdeveloped nations; the internationalization of production; the transnationalization, differentiation and precarization of labour markets; the global increase in social inequalities and the generation of a surplus population that must engage in forced SouthNorth migration. Massey et al. 1998; Massey et al. 1993: 431–66; De Hass 2007; Herrera 2006.

2. Neoliberal globalization and migration: The capitalist restructuring of labour Contemporary capitalism: globalization, neoliberalism, imperialism, capital restructuring; neoliberalism and migration: structural adjustment programs, regional integration, internationalization of production, transnationalization and precarization of labour markets; new migratory dynamics: emerging modalities of forced migration and migration patterns, new modalities of innovation and skilled migration, labour precarization and social exclusion. The accumulation crisis and resulting loss of profitability experienced by the global capitalist system during the 1970s led the developed countries to implement a global strategy of capitalist restructuring. This was based on a set of three complementary mechanisms: globalization, neoliberalization, and financialization. In underdeveloped nations, the implementation of these strategies leads to three crucial problems. The first is the destruction of national patterns of accumulation and the country’s reinsertion into the dynamics of capitalist restructuring led by large corporations; this effectively dismantles the production apparatus and its internal market, devastates subsistence systems and social security, and increases the gap between rich and poor. The second is the production of surplus population: this is the result of the liberalization of vast contingents from their means of production and subsistence, which increases the amount of unemployment and sub-employment, poverty and marginalization and has led to an unprecedented expansion of the so-called informal sector. This climate of social instability is also conducive to state repression, violence, illicit activities and lack of social security. The third problem is the explosion of forced migration, which is the consequence of the destruction of modes of production and subsistence. Millions of workers and their families are forced to leave the countryside in order to work in urban centres—either in their own country or in a developed nation. Bello 2006; Harvey 2007: 21–44; Castles & Miller 2008; Sassen 1990.

3. The new development mantra: Remittances, migration and public policies Issues in these readings include the notion, measurement and typology of remittances; the international agenda on remittances and development; and a critique of the remittance-based development model in theory and practice: the macro and micro impacts and limitations, socioeconomic dependency on remittances and unsustainability. Instead of promoting structural, political and institutional changes that address the root 190

Section 12 – Capitalism, Labour and Development

causes of forced migration and, ultimately, the problems of underdevelopment and related dependency, international organizations and the governments of migrant-sending and -receiving countries have promoted a development agenda based on remittances and their impact in regions of origin. This outlook maintains that migration is a source of development while remittances are the vehicle and migrants the agents. Implemented in migrant-sending countries, this model of ‘development’ is based on the export of cheap labour. This results in regressive patterns in the accumulation process and asymmetric and subordinated relationships within the regional integration system of receiving countries. gcim 2005; bid-fomi 2006; Fajnzylber & López 2007; Ratha 2003; World Bank 2006; Terry & Wilson 2005; Nyberg-Sorensen, Van Hear & Engberg-Pedersen 2002: 3–48; Delgado-Wise & Márquez 2008.

4. Migrant organizations and political participation, human and labour rights and citizenship The critical issues in these readings include the social organization of migration; social networks and migrant organizations; the political and social participation of migrants; transnational citizenship; trends towards a transnational civil society; modes of integration and asylum policies; intergenerational incorporation and the trends and challenges related to transnationalism and development. Despite their valuable contribution to the economies of developed, labour-importing nations, migrants are subject to labour precarization, social exclusion and political marginalization. The policies implemented by the governments of receiving countries to regulate the entry, residence and expulsion of migrants tend to violate labour and human rights and criminalize migration while responding to the needs of capitalist enterprises that benefit from an abundance of disorganized, vulnerable, flexible and precarized labour force. On the other hand, migrants themselves show little proclivity to unionize or engage in political participation in order to defend their own interests. There are growing attempts at organization and mobilization, but these have yet to produce an organized political front that influences migrants’ living and working conditions. Most migrant organizations are split into identity-based groups built around a common nationality or, in extreme cases, a given place of origin. They are also split into different aspects of social practice: religion, social interaction and solidarity with their places of origin. In contrast, the governments of migrant-sending nations do not intercede on behalf of their migrants and are, at best, only interested in establishing diplomatic ties in order to ‘seduce the diaspora’ and guarantee the flow of remittances into the country of origin. This allows them to reduce external pressure on national accounts while ensuring the subsistence of millions of poor families. Schierup, Hansen & Castles 2006; Fox & Brooks 2003; Fox 2005; Goldring, Henders & Vandergeest 2003.

191

The Critical Development Studies Handbook

5. Migration and development: perspectives from the South The readings in this theme provide a set of perspectives from the South on the migrationdevelopment nexus, including a comprehensive view of this nexus; a comparative analysis of the major migrant-sending countries in regional integration contexts; migration flows and the ‘modern diaspora,’ including remittances, public policies regarding incorporation into the receiving country; and the development implications as well as ‘best practice’ forms of migrant agency. The first challenge facing the study of the relationship between migration and development is the lack of a proper theoretical basis. Additionally, the subject of migration has not been adequately incorporated into the field of development studies. A more integral approach necessitates a more comprehensive analytical framework—one that without bypassing the contributions of numerous researchers also addresses the context of socioeconomic regional integration and the problematic issue of development in migrant-sending nations. This will establish a specific and theoretical practical connection between migration and development. This critical reconstruction of both migration and development studies must also overcome the partial outlook of migrant-importing developed countries, which is based on concepts such as the regulation of migration flows, security agendas, co-development and the criminalization of migrants. It is essential that we incorporate the points of view of underdeveloped, migrant-exporting nations; this requires a comprehensive understanding of current capitalist development and its context, as well as the type of asymmetric relationships established between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. Theorizing from an underdeveloped perspective is not a new endeavour. From the 1950s to the 1970s, structuralist economics and dependency theory developed a solid theoretical basis and anticipated the subsequent emergence of transnationalism when they went beyond methodological nationalism. Generally speaking, theorists and analysts from developed nations still exhibit a considerable lack of knowledge in regard to the theoretical contributions of authors from Latin American and other underdeveloped regions or actively omit them from their own work. Castles & Delgado Wise 2008; Rapoport & Docquier 2004; unesco 1999.

6. Towards a CDS perspective on migration and development What form should or does a cds perspective on migration and development take? What kind of dialectic between migration and development emerges in the context of neoliberal globalization? What are the basic analytical dimensions and concepts to be considered? Given that the preponderant views on migration characterize it as a source of development for places of origin, it is necessary to adopt an alternative outlook within the framework of critical development studies. Political economy allows us to critically reconstruct the links between development, migration and remittances from a historical, structural and strategic perspective: 1. Capitalist restructuring increases underdevelopment and forced migration. 2. Migrants directly contribute to the accumulation process in developed countries. 3. Through the sending of remittances, migrants contribute to the precarious, neoliberal macroeconomic stability of their countries of origin, the subsistence of their families and the undertaking of basic social infrastructure projects.

192

Section 12 – Capitalism, Labour and Development

The dependence on remittances in places of origin is associated to processes of social degradation: social unsustainability, productive dismantling, environmental degradation and depopulation. It is crucial that we critically define our key concepts. Instead of viewing migration as a population movement based on individual and family decisions we must address the prevailing context of underdevelopment and dependency. This way we can examine the current mechanisms of capitalist restructuring and the role they play in the creation of forced migration, both through the accelerated decline of working and living conditions and the demand for cheap, flexible and unorganized labour. It is important to shed light on the social nature of remittances: they evidence the social relations of a transnational production system characterized by superexploitation, social exclusion and the resulting decrease in workers’ quality of life. The production of remittances also entails a transfer of resources (i.e., the transfer of productive human resources without involved costs) and invisible social costs such as depopulation, the abandonment of productive activities and family separation. Delgado-Wise & Márquez 2008; Petras 2007; Schierup 1990; Munck 2008; Castles 2008.

Module 38

Urban Development in the Global South Charmain Levy

Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada

In post World War II classical modernization development theory, urbanization was considered a critical feature of the transition from traditional agrarian to modern industrial society. Labour was required for urban industrial complexes and capitalist development in the countryside pushed the peasant population off the land to the cities. Rapid urbanization took place in most developing countries, especially in Latin America and Asia, where a large part of the rural population migrated to the cities from the 1960s through to the 1980s. Despite the importance of urbanization to modernization, practically no state-supported infrastructure was provided to this population in urban centres. As the low-income population were left to their own devices to survive in the city, in many countries and regions we find a collective ‘self-help’ reaction to the problems around the lack of urban infrastructure (transportation, housing, sanitation, electricity, streets, health centres, schools, daycare, etc.) and tenure regulation of the state. Neighbourhood associations became the basis of urban popular movements and nongovernmental organizations; a burgeoning ‘civil society’ formed to contest the urban space and demand action as well as public services from governments. In many large cities, one way for the working classes to survive has been to illegally squat on land. This has led to the formation of slums and shantytowns, which have become part of the urban landscape in the Global South. This modern urban phenomenon is in fact a solution for the state as well as a reason not to provide low-income housing on a universal scale. Structural adjustment programs and neoliberal macroeconomic policies since the mid 1980s have exacerbated 193