All 3 entries tagged Migration
January 04, 2022
Source: IOM, July 2021
Written by: Toli J. Amare (Blog Competition shortlist entry)
Migration has been one of the key dimensions of globalisation with ‘brain drain’ increasingly becoming a key feature, and one of the main benefits to the home country in the form of remittances and foreign currency. However, recently, owing to factors like local changes in the emerging nations, the flow of migrants has started to change from the developed world to the developing nations in different regions of the world including Eastern Europe, East Asian countries, and some African countries. For example, Ethiopia until recently has been the linchpin for its economic development and was able to attract a large number of returnees. Ethiopian returnees are playing a vital role in facilitating economic growth and technology transfer. According to a report by the United Nations Agency for International Migration, (2019) the last decade has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of return migrants across the globe. Following this, a long tradition of war for talent which most of the emerging nations are assumed to have lost is shifting because of the change in the dynamics of migration.
Two things might have contributed to the change in the wave of migration. Firstly, the immigration policies, regimes, and xenophobia in the host countries might have facilitated the relevance of returning home. For instance, the rise of Donald Trump had initiated a zero-tolerance immigration policy in the United States with lasting impacts. Second, local transformations in the home countries might have aroused migrants’ interests to contribute to their homeland. Emerging nations have an unexploited market, they hold huge business potential for returnee ventures. Returnees hold abundant skills, experiences, and networks that could be used in facilitating the home country’s economy (Saxenian, 2005). Recently, I interviewed around 30 Ethiopian returnees who are engaged in business for my PhD research project. A returnee from the US explained:
“Migration gives you a chance to see things you have never been aware of, and value what you tend to take for granted. It helps you develop a unique personality and identity. It teaches you respect for work, rules, time, and many skills useable after the return”.
Return migration has resulted in two major outcomes. First, it made it possible for talents to be shared and circulated. It has reoriented the labeling of migration from ‘brain drain’ to ‘brain circulation’ and ‘brain gain’ by signifying migration as an opportunity and a beacon of hope in driving local economic development (Saxenian, 2005). Evidence from Asian countries shows that return migrants are transforming the socio-economic and political environment of their home countries (Gruenhagen, 2019; Gruenhagen and Davidsson 2018). Second, emerging nations who had been assumed losers in the global war for talent have started to fetch their fair share from migration, turning the lose-win tradition to triple wins i.e., the migrants, the host countries, and home countries. This assures a reconsideration of migration from a liability to an opportunity for emerging nations. In line with this, migration is now considered to be one of the pillar elements necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030. However, it does not seem to be easy to maximise the benefits of migration in emerging economies.
The paradox of keeping the brain circulating
Despite varied accrued benefits from migrants living abroad, in some cases, policymakers in emerging economies seem to fix their focus mainly on remittances, and yet to recognise their post-return role. Particularly, African nations seem not to prepare well to take advantage of this phenomenon. For this reason, returnee migrants face two main challenges. The first one is the institutional gap (Gruenhagen, 2019). Often bureaucracy is a primal bottleneck in the emerging nations. Returnees who worked and/or studied in developed nations often expect a different institutional setup that can accommodate their needs. However, corruption and lengthy bureaucracy tend to hold returnees back. There are misconceptions about returning among the policymakers. For example, returnees are assumed to be people who seek to maximise their sole benefits without any regard to the homeland, an idea that drives returnees to frustrations. An excerpt from an interview with another Ethiopian returnee reinforces this:
“Despite the good system and lovely social life, the system in this country needs a huge work. People are assigned to positions based on blood relations, nothing about knowledge and capacity. They do not have respect for a person, they do not talk to you well, imagine how bad it is for the country. I hope it will be taking shape soon. Additionally, most of the officials are corrupt, they ask you [for] cash straight”.
The second is an interpersonal challenge (Mreji and Barnard, 2021). After working in the advanced liberal nations for years, returnees often find it difficult to reintegrate into the society they once left, making them feel alienated due to their absence. Returnees are often assumed to be people with enough cash to spend and support. Due to their better economic position, they are often considered to be responsible for their close ties. This adds to the grand challenge, finally hindering their contribution potential.
Therefore, given the potential of migrants in propelling the economy, and in light of the above challenges, regimes have to improve to take advantage of returnee migrants. Emerging nations need to revisit their policymaking to accommodate the growing interest of returnees. Apart from the remittances, migrants are potential entrepreneurs, carriers of foreign knowledge, and facilitators of innovation and technology transfer to revitalise and transform the local economy.
Saxenian, A. (2021). Brain circulation and capitalist dynamics: Chinese chipmaking and the Silicon Valley-Hsinchu-Shanghai Triangle. In The economic sociology of capitalism(pp. 325-351). Princeton University Press.
Toli J. Amare is a Doctoral Candidate in Management in the Department of Management, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Occasionally, he visits Jonkoping International Business School in Sweden as part of a collaborative programme between Addis Ababa University and Jonkoping University in Sweden. His research interests are entrepreneurship and small business, strategy, and management practices. Currently, he is working on his dissertation entitled - Enablers and challenges of returnee Entrepreneurship in Ethiopia.
October 28, 2021
Written by Irene Garcia
This year has seen unprecedented amounts of migrants arriving at the Balearic Islands. So far in 2021, 91 boats with more than 1400 people have arrived on the shores of these islands. This year has also seen unprecedented numbers of Spanish tourists in the Balearics – in some islands it was up to double the numbers of 2019. Over the summer, I took part in the University of Warwick Undergraduate Research Support Scheme (URSS). Focusing specifically on Spain, I investigated the dominant representations of the Mediterranean in Spanish popular culture and how they exclude and dehumanise the experiences of migrants. I did this by looking at popular culture materials which portray images of the ‘hospitable Mediterranean’, as well as existing migrant testimonies describing their experience of arrival in Spain. Through a discourse analysis of these materials, I looked at how migrant testimonies can challenge dominant views of the Mediterranean, and how these struggles can shape the way the Mediterranean is represented.
The mainstream representation of the Mediterranean is evident in the advertising campaign by the beer company, Estrella Damm, which released yearly advertising campaigns in the summer under the slogan “Mediterráneamente”. This translates as “in a Mediterranean way”, submitting so-called Mediterranean values alongside images of a picture-perfect summer and a catchy song. These adverts have become an important part of Spanish television culture – the 2021 advert accumulated 14 million views in the two months after it was released, an incredibly high figure for a television advertisement.
The key theme of the beer advertisement is the ‘Mediterranean way of life’, based on values such as hospitality, respect and altruism. This appears throughout the plot of the video advertisement, which follows a woman at the beach who appears to have fallen for a famous actor standing on the other side of the beach. In the end, the main character does not walk up to the famous actor, and instead approaches a volunteer who is cleaning the ocean just behind him. The volunteer is described as generous, willing to act and change the status quo, and a good person. Arguably, these are the kind of Mediterranean values that the advert is trying to transmit, values which correlate with the findings of the Anna Lindh survey on intercultural trends in the Mediterranean region, in which Spanish respondents answered that hospitality, the ‘Mediterranean way of life and food’, and the ‘common cultural heritage’ best describe the region.
As the beach-goers gossip about the possible relationship between the woman and the famous actor, they remark that she is out of his league. In this context, one of the characters says that “certain borders cannot be crossed”, meaning that they see no future for the pair. However, another character says that he is about to be witness to a “love without barriers”. Using words like “border” is not accidental and has to be considered within a climate in which migration has been highly politicised by certain political parties and groups in Spain. Interestingly, in the advert, these connotations happily coexist with the picture-perfect beach in the background. Highly charged concepts are, in this way, instrumentalised and used as props to further the advertisement’s plot.
Migrant perspectives on the Mediterranean
I also examined a series of migrant testimonies collated by the Spanish Commission of Help for Refugees (CEAR), a Spanish NGO dedicated to defending the rights of refugees, stateless people, and migrants who need international protection or are at risk of social exclusion. In their 2018 campaign “The Other Sound of the Sea”, the organisation interviewed 6 migrants who survived their trip across the Mediterranean fleeing poverty or war. The migrants were asked about their experiences of the crossing and the sounds that they associate with the sea. CEAR then placed these audio recordings in seashells and left them in various Spanish beaches to showcase migrant experiences.
In contrast to the Estrella advert, these testimonies evidence a distorted sense of hospitality. Migrants describe how they are expected to be grateful for having the opportunity to build a life in Spain yet are not given the space to voice their traumatic experiences or denounce the state’s abuse towards them. In one of the interviews, for example, Ibrahim explains that there is a lot of abuse in the detention centres upon arrival. He uses impersonal verbs and does not specify who is the abuser. For example, he states that “there is abuse in these centres” and that “not everyone treats people well”. Moreover, he ends these remarks by emphasising that “not all of them are bad, but there are some that don’t speak well to you”. It is impossible to know why he shifts towards a softer tone and a use of impersonal verbs here, but it might have something to do with the context in which the interview took place, that is, he is being interviewed by a Spanish organisation on Spanish soil. It is possible that he does not want to be overly critical and seen as attacking their host, that is, the Spanish state. A man called Kurami also speaks of his experiences at the detention centres, which held 1500 people at the time despite only having space for 400. He explains how some people spend six months in these centres, and that he had to stay there for 54 days. He finishes by simply saying “we are lucky”.
These testimonies are reminiscent of a warped relationship between a host and guest. Migrants are under pressure to show gratitude for having the opportunity to make a life in the country yet are not given the space nor the power to voice traumatic experiences or to hold the state accountable for the way that they have been treated. The experiences of migrants contradict the kind of image that the Estrella Damm advertisement is trying to portray. Migrants may speak of Spain as a secure place, in comparison with their home countries, but not necessarily as a hospitable place. The values of generosity, kindness, hospitality or altruism do not appear in migrant testimonies describing deathly journeys across the Mediterranean, only to be abused and treated with disdain upon their arrival on European shores. Listening to migrant voices and centring their experiences is key in highlighting what is ignored by dominant narratives. The narratives of those who are excluded directly challenges established assumptions; the imagery portrayed in the Estrella Damm advertisement turns sour when contrasted with the lived experiences of migrants.
Irene Garcia is an undergraduate student, studying History and Politics at the University of Warwick. Her areas of interest include migration, the history of Latin America and the contemporary history of Spain. She is currently preparing her dissertation on the experiences of Spanish migrants in Mexico in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War.
June 12, 2020
Authors: Ann Fitz-Gerald, Maria Koinova, Alison Mountz, Maurice Stierl
Editors: Briony Jones and Maeve Moynihan
This post is part of a larger collection covering the Global Insights webinar series, hosted jointly by Balsillie School of International Affairs (Canada), the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick (UK), the Institute for Strategic Affairs (Ethiopia), American University’s School of International Service (USA), and Konstanz University (Germany). Global Insights webinars take place every Thursday at 16:00h (BST). You can access a recording of this week’s webinar here.
Panelists: Ann Fitz-Gerald (Moderator - BSIA), Allehone Abebe (UNHCR), Maria Koinova (University of Warwick), Alison Mountz (IMRC, Wilfrid Laurier University, BSIA), Tazreena Sajjad (American University), Maurice Stierl (University of Warwick)
Although the swift closure of borders due to the COVID-19 pandemic shocked many, such closures were a familiar reality for many refugees, displaced people, and migrants. In the past year prior to COVID-19, over 70 million migrants (including refugees and internally displaced people) moved around the globe. Meanwhile, international organizations adopted two global compacts, with varying degrees of success and implementation. COVID-19 has changed the landscape for people on the move in a multitude of ways.
What was the situation for migrants and refugees like before COVID-19?
Before the outbreak of COVID-19, the situation for migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and internally displaced people was dire. Only 1% of displaced people have access to resettlement, demonstrating that for many people on the move, national borders were already closed. For some, the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, published in December 2018, served as symbolic markers of change, however for others selective or minimal enforcement has yielded little concrete change and questions surrounding accountability remain. The compact is non-binding, as nation-states continue to be the bodies that enforce the compact, making implementation uneven. The Global Compact for Migration advocates for “safe, orderly and regular migration,” however nation-states continue to use deterrence methods that paradoxically make migration unsafe and disorderly and provide very few legal paths for movement. While both global compacts served as an achievement and recognition of current challenges, it failed to implement the basic human rights, non-discrimination, and gender responses. The compacts focused on state perspectives rather than the perspectives of people on the move. In doing so, it neglected the rising xenophobia and vilification of migrants and refugees, which warrants a legitimate human rights response.
How is COVID-19 affecting migration globally and in different parts of the world?
The pandemic has illuminated and exacerbated the stark inequalities present in the world prior to the outbreak. In an extreme sense, as millionaires escaped to private compounds, those that were already displaced or seeking protection were driven into more precarity. Those seeking protection or entry however, are forced into more fragile situations, demonstrating how the pandemic has affected people very unequally. For example, Qatar has barricaded migrant labor work areas, called “Cordons Sanitaires,” creating unequal conditions for migrant workers and others. People have framed migrant health-workers as heroes, but society has not acknowledged the plethora of other essential migrant workers, like agricultural workers. For example, while most flights remained grounded the UK considered chartered flights to bring agricultural workers from Bulgaria and Romania, and other places, to bring people and expertise to support agricultural flow and production in the UK. Meanwhile, European countries have misused the pandemic to impose further restrictions on movement, particularly in the Mediterranean. For example, the Maltese government continues to intercept migrant boats and direct them back to conflict-ridden Libya, breaching human rights and maritime conventions. However, Europe remains silent about these violations at the external borders of Europe.
What does COVID-19 mean for the protection of refugees?
The so-called refugee crisis of 2015, which is perhaps more accurately referred to as a European governance crisis, obscured the history of refugee movement and placed the focus on Europe alone as a refugee reception destination. However, countries in the Global South historically and contemporarily continue to see the largest flows of refugees, rather than countries within Europe or North America. Despite the focused attention on the Global North, the top refugee-reception countries, like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan are in the Global South. COVID-19 creates a different dynamic of emergency, people are both being forced to flee, whether related to COVID-19 or otherwise, meanwhile border restrictions are increasing forcing people to cross highly-militarised borders. In Africa alone, there are over 7.8 million refugees and an estimated 90 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), which presents an immense challenge. Key protection issues have arisen such as: diminishing asylum, the closure of borders, and a crisis of education. Principles that have come to define life during the pandemic, such as rigorous hygiene care, teleworking and online schooling, are often not easy to access from a refugee camp. This lack of access generates knock-on effects like lack of nutrition for children unable to attend school and thus unable to get meals. For refugees outside of camps, who may be residing ‘illegally’ in difficult conditions, accessing healthcare is feared as entailing potential detainment, presenting another set of challenges.
Similarly, detention centres represent threats to hygiene and medical care. Prior to the pandemic, immigrant detention had proliferated across the globe in a variety of forms. When the outbreak took hold, governments provided a panoply of responses in their decision-making processes. Within facilities, physical distancing is nearly impossible, personal protective equipment and testing are unavailable for both detainees and staff. Some governments, such as Canada, which held very few immigrants in detention, have released individuals in detention. Others, however, such as the United States, have used the pandemic to further detain and deport quickly, holding over 38,000 people in detention in March 2020. Large crowded facilities have seen significant outbreaks, such as Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego (U.S.), where Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia became the first person to die in immigration detention from COVID-19 on May 7. One can also point to the ‘floating’ detention centres near Malta, where currently about 425 people who fled from Libya are still held by Malta, now for about 5 weeks and without the ability to claim asylum.
What effect is the crisis having on border controls?
On one side, governments have used the pandemic to exacerbate human rights violations and fortify hostile practices. However, at the same time, the pandemic has made migrants more visible. For example, at the Croatian border, border police marked the heads of migrants with spray painted crosses, presenting migrants as objects to be categorised. Meanwhile, the dialogue surrounding migrant health workers in the National Health Service in Great Britain has rendered migrants more visible and their contributions and presence more important. Governments have used moments of crisis to further enforce limitations on migration and asylum. 160 countries have put restrictive border closures into place since the pandemic began, and more than 50 of them did not make an exception to refugees in such closures. Countries in the Global North are effectively containing people displaced in the Global South 84% of displaced people remain in their region of origin. The European Union and the United States dominate in ‘sophisticated’ fortifications and use technological advancement of biometric surveillance that supports the wall-building enterprise. Although there has been extensive action in the Global North surrounding walls and fortification building, the literature does not support connections between migration patterns and physical borders. Walls do not deter migration, but in fact render mobility more difficult and expensive, leading to an expansion of human smuggling, trafficking, vigilante groups, visa overstays, environmental destruction, and lost lives. In addition to such dangerous physical borders, countries have implemented bureaucratic and external borders, such as third country gatekeepers as we see with Morocco for the EU.
What might the future of refugee and migration governance look like?
Despite the current restriction on movement around the globe, people will not stop migrating. Tools of global governance to ‘manage’ migration are highly reactive in response to crises. Border externalisation and securitisation of the sea, two concerning trajectories in migration governance have already grown since the outbreak of the pandemic. The border externalization process, in which European countries outsource border control to non-democratic regimes, contributes to increased militarization and ‘militia-ization’ of border control. Governments in Turkey, Morocco or Libya are intercepting hundreds of migrant boats on behalf of Europe, often in close coordination with EU authorities. EU border externalisation in the Sahel serves as a noteworthy example of such practices. In places like Libya, Sudan and Niger, not only state authorities but also sub-state forces, including rebel groups and criminal networks, profit from Europe’s border externalisation process, and become involved in the deterrence and containment of migrants.
Securitisation of the sea, in Malta for example, exonerates nation-states from responsibility for migration management and blocking NGOs from intervening in many cases. Despite obvious negative and alarming impacts, the pandemic also provides an invitation to step back and look at the big picture. For example, as countries rethink elderly care, they may also rethink refugee management and resettlement. In what ways are existing policies causing harm. Where do people who are resilient continue to go to survive, seek livelihood, seek protection?
Key Conclusions: Five pieces of advice for policy-makers
• Do not rely on border externalisation and third-party agreements (whether with sovereign states or militias) to have responsibility over migration control as it most often leads to human rights violations and unnecessary deaths. Instead the focus should be on allowing safe passage of people in need of protection.
• As you consider solutions, take all forms of forcible displacement into account (including de jure and de facto refugees and Internally Displaced People). Furthermore, recognize that most of the world’s refugees live in informal settlements, not camps. As such, greater attention needs to be paid to their agency, leadership and perspective when considering solutions.
• Take diasporas seriously as an actor embedded in global processes (apart from their cherished remittances) and engage them in new institutional arrangements rather than ad hoc forums, to coordinate transfers of finances, expertise, and more.
• In the realm of research, take a step back to look at the big picture and ask questions about demographics, gender, and ways in which resource access has shaped individual realities. Consider to what extent existing policies are effective and how actual movement can be brought into better alignment with demand in labor markets.
• Show leadership and solidarity with international human rights law and refugee law and offer greater opportunities for refugees and asylum-seekers to engage with, lead in, and be supported for solutions that directly impact their lives.
Any solution needs to consider their perspectives, experiences and context. Furthermore, it is critical to keep in mind that most of the world’s refugees also do not live in camps—many live in informal settlements, in semi-urban and densely population urban centers in close proximity to a country’s urban poor and its internal migrants, and at times with stateless populations. Greater attention needs to be paid to the needs and agencies of these different groups and more attention needs to be paid to context, and solutions need to incorporate the experiences, perspectives and local leadership of these communities.