Essays on Migration: part 1

Essays from a Sociology of Migration course. 1. In what ways does the contemporary world resemble a tributary model of production? Think critically about this concept and identify how migration plays a role in 21st century flows of wealth.

In this essay I will show that, since the contemporary world has become characterized by mobility and neoliberal ideals, labour outsourcing and migrant labour has increased. The way that labour outsourcing and migrant labour recruitment function benefits the developed countries in that most of the world’s wealth flows to them, specifically due to the developed countries receiving most of the wealth produced by commodity chains, employers in the developed countries not paying their workers as much as they are entitled to and profiting from this by keeping the excess money, and the developed countries participating in the brain drain and thus benefiting from low income countries’ high-skilled workers, while those countries suffer from losing them. Local migration in low-income countries and migration of workers from low-income countries to developed ones, therefore, plays a role in 21st century flows of migration in that it perpetuates its flow to only the developed countries. The contemporary world is characterized by mobility in that, as opposed to migrating only for permanent settlement, people often move to study, seek professional advancement through temporary employment, adopt a lifestyle different from their own, and so on, which entails increased mobility around the world. A considerable reason for mobility in the contemporary world is casual and informal job opportunities, which are very common today, and migrant labour has been recognized by the receiving countries for its benefit, and has subsequently increased. The Home Office of Britain “published a report that highlighted the potential benefits of labor migration” (Castles, 98), and the contemporary world has become more open to labour migration, making it very common. The contemporary world has also become characterized by neoliberal ideals of free markets and deregulation, which has led to “trends toward the growth of small enterprises, deregulation, casualization, and contracting-out open[ing] up the space for informal employment” (Castles, 105), allowing developed countries to recruit migrant workers for informal positions. The characterization of the contemporary world by mobility and neoliberal ideals has led to a global market that resembles a tributary model of production in that in it, the developed countries receive most of the world’s wealth, while low-income countries and its workers and migrant workers receive very little of it. A tributary model of production was identified by Eric Wolf, who explained it as characterized by serving the economic interests of only Europe, in that the world’s wealth flows to Europe and according only to its investors’ interests (lecture). Specifically, the contemporary world resembles a tributary model of production in several ways. Firstly, production outsourcing from developed countries to low-income countries has had the effect of workers in the low-income countries moving from rural to urban areas to work in factories that labour was outsourced to. (Castles, 169) In those factories, the workers receive very little in comparison with what the factory owners and workers involved with it in the developed countries do. The developed countries created global commodity chains, “while maintaining control and profits within multinational corporations” (Castles, 169). The wealth from the workers’ labour in the low-income countries, therefore, flows to the developed ones, which is a crucial characteristic of a tributary mode of production, and the contemporary world thus resembles it in this way. Another way in which the world today resembles a tributary model of production is that migrant workers in developed countries often do not get paid for their labour as much as they are entitled to be, with the excess amount of money being kept by their employer. Recently, developed countries have realized that they “could not export all low-skilled work to low-skilled countries” (Castles, 99), and need to recruit low-skilled migrant workers from other countries. They were unwilling to allow them in permanently, however, and created temporary labour recruitment schemes and programs, which have led to discrimination against those workers, since “[e]mploying migrants on a temporary basis is another way of enhancing employer control and reducing demands for better wages and conditions” (Castles, 56). Migrants who have travelled from low-income countries to developed countries in search of employment are less likely than locals to demand safe working conditions and fair wages, so the neo-liberal-influenced deregulation of employment has led to the “removal of legal controls on employment and the reduction of work-site inspections by labour market authorities” (Castles, 56). Migrants often do not get paid the developed country’s minimum wage, with those differences being kept by their employers. This treatment of migrant workers by employers in developed countries resembles the tributary model of production in that the workers’ labour is exploited and the majority of the money is kept by the developed countries’ representatives. Finally, the contemporary world resembles the tributary model of production in that due to developed countries recruiting high-skilled migrants from low-income countries, there occurs a brain drain phenomenon, which benefits only the developed countries and harms the low-income ones. The brain drain entails “shortages of key personnel in healthcare, education, management, and administration and thus hamper[s] economic development” (Castles, 100) in low-income countries. The developed countries harm the low-income ones with this recruitment, therefore, by taking their potential for development for themselves. It follows that this practice, which is unique to the contemporary world, resembles the tributary model of production in which only the developed countries benefit. To sum up, the contemporary world resembles a tributary model of production in the inequality it perpetuates, ensuring that most of the world’s wealth flows to the developed countries. “According to a World Bank economist, global inequality by the mid-2000s was ‘probably the highest ever recorded’ (Castles, 169), and it is for reasons mentioned in this essay such as developed countries controlling the global market’s commodity chains, migrants not receiving the wages they are entitled to and their employers keeping the difference, and the brain drain, that the contemporary world resembles a tributary model of production. The workers that reside in or have migrated from low-income countries receive very little of the world’s wealth, while the developed countries and its locals receive most of it and dictate the global economy, perpetuating their own economic dominance. Migration of workers from low-income countries to developed countries, it can be concluded, leads to wealth flowing to only the latter ones. 2. What problems do researchers face in relying on official (government generated) data on migration? How might these problems be addressed? Researchers face various problems in relying on official, government generated data on migration. Migration research, already scrutinized for its alleged lack of importance, is, in the contemporary world, fraught with “mistaken or narrow assumptions, lack of reliable statistics or inadequate survey techniques” (Castles, 80). In this essay I will focus on general issues such as ignoring the inherently interdisciplinary nature of migration, a lack of standardization across migration data and studies, relying too much on quantitative data, and biases influencing migration research, and, thereby, subsequent actions taken in regards to migration itself. I will suggest ways of addressing these problems such as a standardization of data collection and accounting for unique societal contexts of each study, resulting in a decrease in bias and an increase in interdisciplinary consideration of the phenomenon of migration. The first problem that researchers face in relying on official data on migration is that the studies that have been done fail to see migration as connected to other aspects of social life, and consider it as a standalone phenomenon, or else motivated only by potential monetary gain, ignoring other potential incentives. As Castles writes, “[m]igration embraces all dimensions of social existence, and therefore demands an interdisciplinary approach” (Castles, 7), but is rarely actually approached in that way. This results in cases of migration being perceived as standalone occurrences, and the societal contexts that influence them are often overlooked, but are crucial for understanding this interdisciplinary phenomenon. “The disciplinary bias has often meant reductionist approaches that focus on limited aspects of migratory experiences, blocking understanding of the whole migratory process” (Castles, 7), Castles writes, highlighting the necessity for the recognition of migration as an interdisciplinary occurrence in gaining a complete understanding of it. “Migration scholars tend to be highly specialized, and … [research r]esults include a failure to understand the historical character of migration, false assumptions of one-way causality, and an inability to understand the overall dynamics of migratory processes and their embeddedness in processes of societal change (Castles, 8). Another problem that researchers face when relying on official data on migration is the lack of standardization within it. The migration studies that have been done vary across countries and even within them, can be conducted differently from one another, and may not be reliable, and therefore lack standardization. Relying on official data in migration research, writes Castles, can be problematic because “[e]ven in the most developed regions, migration statistics are based on differing definitions and categories, and are collected in different ways from country to country, because they reflect national migration policies and ideologies” (Castles, 76). Due to individual studies often focusing solely on one aspect of migration or one group of migrants, as well as to the various methodologies being used to study migration, “[i]t is hard for an interdisciplinary field like migration studies to develop an agreed body of knowledge”(Castles, 7), and the gathered information, therefore, is hardly comparable, and can not be considered entirely useful due to its lack of standardization. The third problem that researchers face in relying on official data on migration is that it emphasizes quantitative research, which does not work well for sociology, since sociology cannot “emulate the natural sciences by putting forward models based on quantitative data … due to the unpredictability and complexity of the groups and relationships they deal with, and the frequent lack of quantifiable data” (Castles, 7). Relying solely or mostly on quantitative data can lead to an oversimplification of problems related to migration and can cause researchers to overlook larger societal issues that influence migration. As Castles points out, quantitative methods of data collection “may advance the description of social phenomena, but do very little to increase understanding of the processes which bring them about or indeed to find solutions to the pressing dilemmas of society” (Castles, 75). Relying on quantitative data, therefore, can cause researchers to consider migration in different studies as a separate issue, while migration needs to be analyzed within its societal contexts. Another major issue that researchers face when relying on official data on migration is that this data is often biased and influenced either by private investors or policy makers, both of which implies imposing a subjective agenda onto the research. Recently, the issues associated with migration have been politicized, resulting in policy-driven research, and “government-commissioned work can … mean that research questions, methods and even findings may be shaped by policy interests” (Castles, 9). This inevitably leads to governments pushing their political agendas onto the research and thereby affecting its outcomes. The practical problem with this is that “policy-driven research often provides simplistic, short-term remedies to complex, long-term social issues” (Castles, 9), resulting, once again, in an oversimplification of the studied migration processes and failing to deal with the larger societal factors that influence it. Furthermore, “migration research often takes place in dedicated research centres heavily dependent on external funding. “This forces migration researchers to take on policy-driven consultancy work” (Castles, 10), which is also heavily susceptible to bias, affecting the research outcomes, and influencing the ways in which migration is perceived and reacted to. In addition to that, bias is created due to a lot of migration research taking “the situation in northern destination countries as its starting point, neglecting the perspectives of origin and transit countries, and of migrants” (Castles, 9). This creates a very one-sided view of the issues surrounding migration, which, in turn, affects policies, ensuring that they are constructed in a biased way. I have identified four problems that researchers face when relying on official data on migration, which are ignoring the interdisciplinary quality of migration, migration data being unstandardized, quantitative data receiving too much emphasis, and biases influencing migration research and actions taken in reaction to migration issues. To address these problems, it is necessary to standardize the ways in which migration is studied, which allow data to be compared across and within states, and to be perceived within the context of its larger societal influences. The individual contexts of the specific migratory occurrences must also be taken into consideration when gathering data - researchers must “develop methods of data collection and analysis that reflect the realities of the society (or societies) concerned” (Castles, 76), which would allow them to consider the context of the specific research and adjust for it and understand its almost certainly great influence. Migration researchers, in summary, should strive to “emphasize the importance of understanding social phenomena and the processes which bring them about, rather than merely describing and counting superficial indicators” (Castles, 76). Standardizing data collection and accounting for the unique social settings influencing the research would simultaneously recognize and correct for the potential and dangerous bias involved with migration studies, and allow the researchers to identify societal issues that influence migration, placing migration into its societal context, in which it should be considered to gain a full understanding of it, since it is an interdisciplinary phenomenon. 5. What different types of migrants have social scientists identified? Discuss and critique the classifications asserted. How have these changed over time? Social scientists have identified multiple types of migrants, and have distinguished between the various types, with those definitions changing over time. In this essay I will outline the most common ones and discuss their definitions. I will also explore definitions attributed to migrants who move for the purposes of employment, and will distinguish between various kinds of those definitions, in addition to persons who move to and reside in a country illegally. As well, I will focus on definitions of displaced persons and distinguish between those, focusing on how those have changed over time and have been influenced by major world events, and will conclude that though they have contributed positively to displaced persons’ safety, they are not inclusive enough, showing that expanding those definitions and bringing those expansions to the discourse is necessary to provide all displaced persons with necessary aid and protection. The term “migrant” is used often, and is a general term for a person moving within or between territories or boundaries (lecture). It is unofficial and provides no information on whether the person is leaving a country, arriving at a country, how long they may be staying inside a country if they are entering it, nor on whether their activity is legal or official. The term does not mention the movement’s purpose either, and is simply a general, unofficial one used to imply the movement of a person. The term “immigrant” is a legal one, it implies that a person enters a specific territory from outside of it, and involves that person crossing a regulated boundary between that territory and other land (lecture). As well, it involves documents such as passports and visas, and is thus more official than the aforementioned “migrant” term. Like “migrant”, however, this term offers no specification as to the purposes of the person’s movement, nor the intended length of their stay in the territory they are arriving at. The term “emigrant” is also a legal one, and is specific to a person who is departing from a specific territory, the boundaries of which are often regulated (lecture). This term is distinct in that it relates only to the person’s action of leaving a territory, but it also does not provide any insight into the purposes of the departure, nor of a potential return journey. “Migratory workers” and “international workers” are different from the previous terms and can be grouped together in that these terms imply that the purposes of the migrants’ movement is employment in a different territory or state (lecture). There is also the implication that the migrant does not intend to remain in the territory they are entering permanently, but has a temporary employment opportunity, after which they will return to their country of origin. “Migrant worker” and “international worker”, which is also known as “foreign worker” differ in that the former is used to describe “persons who move in pursuit of work, from one region of a country to another, or across international boundaries” (lecture), and the latter is used to describe “persons who find work or are recruited for work across international boundaries, often skilled persons needed for certain industries” (lecture). “Migrant worker”, thus may imply both international migration, and local migration for the purposes of employment, while “international worker” implies the definite recruitment across international states or territories. The term “aliens” can be used legally and illegally, and describes a person who resides in a country of which they are neither a citizen, nor a national (lecture). This term gives no indication of the purposes of their residing in the country, and simply entails that they have no legal claim to its citizenship. Similarly, the term “illegal immigrant” is used to describe a person who resides in a country and has no legal claim to its citizenship due to lacking documents and an official status (lecture). The terms for persons who are for a variety of reasons displaced from their home countries have been crucially influenced by the events of World War II, the mass murders of Jewish people, and the subsequent Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The world war greatly contributed to the changing of definitions over time, since the events of the holocaust and the inhumane treatment of minorities during the war led to the widely held notion that universal human rights are needed, which, in turn, led to legal and formal definitions. The term “asylum seeker” is attributed to people “who have fled their home country because of war or persecution”, are seeking another country’s protection, have clearly expressed the desire for this protection, as well as their unwillingness to return to the home country (lecture), and their rights are recognized internationally. The term “refugee” was defined in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that was held in Geneva in 1951, and refers to “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” (lecture). This definition is widely accepted, but differs somewhat in the United States, which defines a refugee as “someone who is located outside of the United States, is of special humanitarian concern to the United States, demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, is not firmly resettled in another country, and is admissible to the United States” (lecture). Legal definitions of the term “refugee” are important because they provide an official basis on which a displaced person in a difficult situation may be helped, and the standardization of the term ensures a lack of discrimination against those kinds of people across nations. The terms “asylum seeker” and “refugee” and the, for the most part, generally standardized definitions of the two, have contributed to human aid across states. The creation of such definitions served as the beginning to programs such as the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program and the In-Canada Asylum Program in Canada, both of which help refugees and asylum seekers. As well, they have resulted in non-refoulement, which, for refugees, is the “prohibition of expulsion or return if their life or freedom would be threatened on the basis of any of the conditions identified in the Convention on Refugees” (lecture). In addition to that, if such a person will face torture or any other degrading or inhuman treatment in their home country, they may not be returned to their home country, and are entitled to the immediate protection of another state, which will not reveal any details about them to their country of origin (lecture). It is recognized, therefore, that refugees and asylum seekers deserve protection of other states, and may remain in them as long as is required for their personal safety. The legal definitions of the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker”, therefore, have led to conditions in which such persons are helped by other states. However, since these terms are the ones most widely used, and they fail to specify the conditions due to which the persons were displaced, all refugees and asylum seekers are often grouped together, while such reasons are varied and may include genocide, climate change, population displacement, and so on. There exist definitions such as “environmental displacees” and “disaster displacees”, but the utilization of those terms is quite rare, and the generalized pens such as “refugee” and “asylum seeker” are used most often, which results in an unhelpful grouping together of displacement reasons. We have seen that formal and legal definitions have led to proactive treatment of displaced persons, so it follows that identifying the reasons for which they have been displaced can lead not only to the protection of the persons, but to actions against those specific reasons. As well, a downside of the definition of the term “refugee” is that “most of the world’s forced migrants do not fulfill the Convention criteria, either because they have not crossed an international border, or because they are fleeing war or generalized human rights violations, rather than individual persecution” (Castles, 270-271). Most forced migrants, therefore, are not entitled to the security that the Geneva Convention’s definition entails, since the convention does not recognize local forced displacement, nor displacement due to war and human rights violations. There is a definition for locally displaced persons, or “Internally displaced persons”, which are defined as “persons who, as a result of persecution, armed conflict or violence, have been forced to abandon their homes and leave their usual place of residence, and who remain within the borders of their country” (Castles, 272), but such persons are not legally entitled to the aid and protection that those recognized as refugees are; “there are no comparable international regimes for IDPs, asylum seekers, or returnees” (Castles, 284). The convention’s definition, therefore, can be considered quite discriminatory, since it is able to masquerade as helpful, while leaving most of the world’s forced migrants without its entailed protection. In conclusion, though the events of World War II have led to the creation of more specific definitions of migrants, which has contributed to providing displaced persons with aid and protection, those definitions are not inclusive enough. Most of the world’s forced migrants do not fit into the exclusive definition of the term “refugee” and are thereby unqualified for the assistance that fitting into this definition entails. Building on existing definitions, expanding them, and making the use of them more common is vital in providing all displaced persons with aid and protection. Works Cited Castles, S. (2017). Migration, Citizenship and Identity: Selected Essays. Edward Elgar Pub. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112376 Ryniker, D. (2020). zoom_SOCI303_synchronous_lec_03. Personal Collection of D. Ryniker, UBC, Vancouver, BC.

Ryniker, D. (2020). ASYNCH PRES 02 TERMS OF REFERENCE. Personal Collection of D. Ryniker, UBC, Vancouver, BC.