During the past decade, much attention has been paid to the migration–development nexus, both in academia and in the global development community. This has created what we argue in this paper can be characterized as an “international buzz” around the issue. In this paper, we explore how two donor countries, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have approached the nexus in their policies and practices in recent years. We examine in what ways it has been feasible to work with migration–development links, taking into account various interests and the national political climates regarding development aid and immigration policies. Important themes of the nexus, which are discussed in detail going through the policies, are remittances, engagement with migrant associations, and temporary migration schemes and programmes addressing the so‐called “brain drain” problem. We argue that the two countries represent two different trends among donors: the one does not directly link migration management with migration and development policies, as these are conceived within the national donor agencies; while the other appears to be more focused on providing better migration management through development cooperation. In the conclusion, we argue that the consensus‐orientated simplicity of the buzz surrounding migration and development can be said to have had a somewhat restricting effect on the policies, in the sense that it seems to have discouraged conflicting parts of the migration–development nexus from being taken up in the national contexts. Based on our analysis of the two countries’ policies, we discuss possible implications for the future, reflecting on the tendency of buzzwords to dip in and out of fashion.

No abstract

This article sheds novel, light on how Senegalese men and women adapt to European border governance by finding new ways to 'look for life' (chercher la vie) in Latin America, as an alternative to the perilous clandestine routes to Europe. The article follows how Senegalese migrants' mobility to Argentina has evolved over the last two decades. It particularly focuses on the migrants' journey to Argentina and explores the migrants' accounts of their experiences en route and compares them to how different intersecting state-driven national and supranational migration policies become entangled in their mobility. By analytically focusing on the changing migration infrastructure and the different forms of friction the migrants encounter and respond to while moving, the article shows how the risk and uncertainty along the journey increasingly mirror the struggles which African migrants face at EU-African borderlands, and thus how similar features of global mobility regimes seem to be reproduced along this new route from West Africa to Latin America. In this way the politics and hierarchies of mobility are brought to the fore. Yet the article also points to how migrants find new openings and ways to contest the hindrances that aims to stop them as they move through these newly traversed borderlands.

Since the 1990s, the European Union (EU) and its Member States have been funding information and awareness-raising initiatives to deter irregular immigration. These programmes increasingly rely on the involvement of intermediaries with a migration background in so-called "peer-to-peer" information dissemination activities. Their "peerness" is considered an efficient tool to gain (potential) migrants' trust, and ultimately enforce migration and border control. However, while "peerness" between migrants and intermediaries is generally taken for granted by migration and border studies, it is crossed by conflicting dynamics and generates contrasted effects on the ground. This paper interrogates how various migration experiences are captured and defined as "peerness" for control purposes, and, simultaneously, how it is mobilized and enacted by migrant actors in different contexts. Empirical insights from three case studies are brought together, each of which engaging with an emblematic figure of "migrant intermediation": the Senegalese "diaspora" in the EU, "transit migrants" in Morocco, and "returnees" in Senegal. The paper argues that "peer-to-peer" information dissemination entails inherent tensions and contradictions which can ultimately come to challenge borderwork. Finally, it demonstrates that beyond the question of its efficiency, "migrant intermediation" transforms and reinforces both social hierarchies and relations of power within local migration industries.

¿A quién le importa? Las familias transnacionales en los debates sobre la migración y el desarrollo RESUMENLa migración internacional pone en marcha una serie de procesos transnacionales significativos que conectan países y personas. Desde el inicio del nuevo milenio, el modo en como la migración interactúa con el desarrollo, y cómo las políticas públicas pueden promover y enriquecer tales interacciones, han captado la atención de la agenda internacional. Forma parte de este debate reconocer que las prácticas transnacionales conectan a los migrantes y a sus familias a través de sociedades que envían y reciben personas. Sin embargo, siguen sin explorarse las maneras por medio de las cuales el debate político utiliza y comprende esos lazos familiares transnacionales. Este artículo pretende aproximarse a la comprensión de estas familias situándolas en dos debates, frecuentemente entremezclados, relacionados con las interacciones transnacionales. El primero remite al discurso estatal y político sobre los beneficios potenciales de la migración en el desarrollo económico. El segundo se refiere a las familias transnacionales, y se centra en los cuidados y en las micro-políticas de género y generacionales, cuestiones estas a las que se ha dedicado una gran literatura académica. Focalizando la atención en la relación entre las diversas dinámicas de desarrollo migratorio y las posiciones familiares específicas, nos preguntamos, más concretamente, si la elección de un punto de partida analítico con respecto a la maternidad, la paternidad o la niñez transnacionales puede vincularse con el énfasis en un determinado tipo de resultados. Concluimos, haciendo una descripción de distintas inclusiones o exclusiones de los asuntos familiares en el discurso _____________ 1 Nota del traductor: la primera parte del título en inglés "Who cares?", establece un juego de palabras entre la expresión de "¿A quién le importa?" y el verbo To care que remite a 'cuidar'; en cuyo caso, la expresión también dice: ¿Quién cuida? Una edición previa de este artículo puede encontrarse en SORENSEN, NINNA NYBERG y VAMMEN, IDA MARIE (2014), New Diversities, 16, 89-108. Las autoras agradecen a New Diversities la autorización para publicar esta versión del texto en castellano. Asimismo, agradecen a Rosario de Monzon, Carlos Abaunza, y Margarita Barañano Cid la ayuda en la traducción del artículo en varios momentos, así como a las demás personas que han contribuido con sugerencias al respecto. Ninna Nyberg Sørensen & Ida Marie Vammen Las familias transnacionalesInvestigaciones Feministas 192 Vol. 7 Núm 1 (2016) 191-220 político, y sugerimos formas para integrar de una manera más adecuada la perspectiva de la familia transnacional en las políticas públicas de migración y desarrollo a nivel global. Palabras clave: Migración, desarrollo, relaciones familiares transnacionales, género, cadenas globales de cuidado Understandings of transnational families in debates on Migration and development ABSTRACTInternational migration sets in motion a range of significant...