Towards a Global Agenda on Migration and Development? Evidence from Senegal

Abstract

The migration-development nexus has been of increasing importance in international relations between African and European countries since 2000. Linking migration to development has spurred political interest in the development potential of migrants as a substitute for official development assistance. This paper analyses the convergence in discourse and practices on migration and development in the context of migration policies formulated to manage migration between Africa and Europe. The discourse on migration and development is mobilised by different actors to justify their actions; it stems from different migration management concepts and frameworks advocated by the European Union, particularly in its Global Approach to Migration. The migration and development discourse is sustained by increased funding from the European Union and some member states to instil a particular view of the nexus between migration and development. The case of Senegal in this paper illustrates the application of the dominant discourse. The first section provides an analysis of the discourse mobilised by different actors at the European and African levels to justify the promotion of the migration-development nexus. The second section scrutinises the practices and roles of the actors involved in the design and implementation of recent programmes in Senegal.

Irregular status, territorial confinement, and blocked transnationalism: legal constraints on circulation and remittances of Senegalese migrants in France, Italy, and Spain

“…Modern nation-states place contradictory demands on migrant's cross-border activities. On the one hand, many destination-country governments have started to recognize the role that migrants can and do play in the development of their homelands and have put in place "co-development" schemes (Kabbanji, 2013;Weil, 2002) to leverage transnational activities for the benefit of development programs. On the other hand, states have erected increasingly restrictive immigrationcontrol apparatuses that make it difficult to acquire secure legal status.…”

Migration and Development? The Gendered Costs of Migration on Mexico's Rural “Left Behind”

“…This is accompanied by strong tropes of the “good,” successful migrant whose hard work and self‐discipline are evidenced by home constructions and familial support, in contrast to those “bad” migrants who go in vain “to do nothing over there [in the U.S.],” and “drink away” or frivolously squander their earnings. However, in contrast to Faist's () “transnational development agents,” Rodriguez and Schwenken's () “ideal migrant” subjects or Delgado Wise and others's () “good” migrant, Tierra Azul's localized subjectivization of “good” migrants is more tied to notions of individual responsibility, work ethic, and self‐discipline as opposed to a moral responsibility to collective advancement, modernization, or development at the community, regional, or national scales as noted in other contexts (Raghuram ; Kabbanji ; Rodriguez and Schenken ).…”

“…Mexico's transition from a statist to a neoliberal economic development model draws heavily on the premise of migration as a vehicle for development (Delgado Wise and Márquez Covarrubias ; Delgado Wise and others ): an approach increasingly embraced by governments (for example OECD nation states, European Council), policymakers, multilateral agencies (for example, the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund [IMF]), civil society, demographers, and economists (Castles and Delgado Wise ; Faist ; Bailey ; UNCSD ; Geiger and Pécoud ; Kabbanji ; Pina‐Delgado ). Indeed, with remittances reaching over $22.7 billion dollars in Mexico during 2011 (Fundación BBVA Bancomer ), migration provides a critical social safety net for countless rural households through its direct support for basic food, housing, education, healthcare, and infrastructure needs.…”

Migrants as Knowledge Producers: Participatory Photography as a [Limited] Tool for Inclusion

“…Arguably, migration necessitates the production of planetary knowledge that challenges dominant epistemologies and ethnocentrisms (Connell, 2007). Yet, knowledge produced today is far from planetary in its epistemological breadth or depth (Kabbanji, 2013(Kabbanji, , 2014. In particular, global material inequalities are reflected in the hegemonic position wielded by North American and Western European languages, epistemologies, institutions and 'experts' in the global economy of knowledge production that permeates the social sciences (Alatas, 2003;de Sousa Santos et al, 2007) and excludes others -mainly academics from outside North America and Western Europe and migrants themselves -as knowledge producers.…”