Rethinking the migration-development nexus in the post-COVID-19 era

Abstract

This concluding article serves as an epilogue summing up key issues about migration, labor migrants and development amid a crisis of public health. We predict the forging of an age of sanitization in which different kinds of sanitizing policies will still be in place, especially in Asia, to deal with the sporadic changes of the pandemic. Sanitization politics will continue to intersect with different policy sectors and powers, which will extend beyond the medical understanding of a pandemic and blur the division between science and politics. It will have varied impacts on the migration regime and global governance as a whole.

Returning empty-handed or going somewhere? Tales from social division networks of re-migrants in the polarized post-COVID-19 era: A phenomenological study

“…Bouchet and Duvoux (2022) and Maviza and Nzima (2022) noted that network capital forms a sense of trusted, functional, and supplied networks. In cross-border studies, most network capital research focuses on individuals (egocentric), relationships (work ties), and linkages (network members) to map migration (Chan and Lan, 2022; Ikotun et al, 2021; Radil et al, 2021). Gunn et al (2021), Mansouri (2023), and McAuliffe et al (2021) reconceptualized “essential forms of supplying labor, choices, strategies, and social networks” that reinforce re-migration in the polarized post-COVID-19 era.…”

“…Transnational re-migration has become the main driver of population change, shaping patterns of human settlement, both between and within countries (Cresswell, 2021; Ikotun et al, 2021; Radil et al, 2021). The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to reflect upon many of the existing issues in global re-migration, including labor policies, mobility patterns, migration regulation, and development strategies (Chan and Lan, 2022; Chiozza and King, 2022; Crawley, 2021).…”

“…Intarapanya et al (2022) identified types of re-migrants (newly registered, awaiting a permit extension due to COVID-19 impacts, and nationality verification to regularize status) among Thailand’s neighboring countries, including Myanmar, Lao PDR, and Cambodia. According to extant research, irregular re-migrants are categorized as cheap low-skilled workers who enter to fill labor shortages in host-receiving countries (Chan and Lan, 2022).…”

“…In the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), Thailand is the third-largest “importer” of low-skilled migrants from Lao PDR (Cámbara, 2022; Daovisan et al, 2022; Kunpeuk et al, 2022). Suhardiman et al (2021) clarified that re-migrant outflows in the “polarized post-COVID-19 pandemic era is closely intertwined with their illegal status work permits and awaiting a permit decision.” This has involved investigating the role of social divisions (Chan and Lan, 2022), network capital (Koltai et al, 2020), transnational re-migration (Withers et al, 2022), and sustainability of the re-bordering system in polarized post-COVID-19 countries (Cresswell, 2021; Ikotun et al, 2021). For instance, Hooren (2018), Khan and Arokkiaraj (2021) found that the use of social divisions with network capital, facilitates transnational re-migration flows from home-sending to host-receiving countries.…”

“…Most studies have focused on social divisions (He et al, 2022), research agendas (Ho and Maddrell, 2021), theoretical frameworks (Hooren, 2018), comparative studies (Khan and Arokkiaraj 2021), and network capital in relation to international re-migration (Koltai et al, 2020). While a few qualitative phenomenological studies have explored the social divisions of re-migrants due to reopened borders (Chan and Lan, 2022; Cresswell, 2021; Gunn et al, 2021; Radil et al, 2021), little is known about the role of their network capital in accessing the informal economy in polarized post-COVID-19 Thailand (Komin et al, 2021; Suhardiman et al, 2021; Wisaijorn, 2022).…”