Periodic Reporting for period 5 - RIGHTS (The bargaining power of sending countries in influencing the rights of their low skilled migrant workers)
Reporting period: 2024-03-01 to 2024-12-31
Migrants performing low-waged work are often in a precarious position. Working in sectors such as construction, domestic work, agriculture, or manufacturing these migrants face problems such as underpayment and non-payment of wages, forced over hours, poor housing, restrictions on their movement, threats to their health and safety at work, and even violence. The rights of low-waged migrant workers are usually analysed from the destination country perspective, ignoring the role of origin countries in protecting the rights of their citizens abroad. The RIGHTS project sought to understand why origin countries push for rights and why destination countries respond to these demands. We also looked at the role played by CSOs and IOs
It may seem counterintuitive to study the role of origin countries as they appear to have a weak bargaining position. The perception is that the worldwide ‘supply’ of low-skilled migrants exceeds ‘demand’. Many countries are looking to stop or severely limit the arrival low-skilled migrants. Origin countries furthermore rely on migrant remittances for a substantial share of their GDP and foreign exchange. Pushing for more rights for their migrants could endanger this cash flow. Yet our findings show that origin countries do act in various ways and that can successfully bargain for more rights.
It may seem counterintuitive to study the role of origin countries as they appear to have a weak bargaining position. The perception is that the worldwide ‘supply’ of low-skilled migrants exceeds ‘demand’. Many countries are looking to stop or severely limit the arrival low-skilled migrants. Origin countries furthermore rely on migrant remittances for a substantial share of their GDP and foreign exchange. Pushing for more rights for their migrants could endanger this cash flow. Yet our findings show that origin countries do act in various ways and that can successfully bargain for more rights.
Data collection focused on two parts.
Firstly, the RIGHTS project developed a database on labour emigration policies, defined as ‘policies aimed at restricting, facilitating or directing migration of citizens for the purpose of labour, including policies on living and working conditions of migrant workers once abroad’.
The database covers 50 countries in Asia, Latin-America, Eurasia and Africa receiving substantial remittances (as % GDP) or that are actively engaging in migration dialogues and are known to have a recruitment industry. The database covers over 20 indicators, such as institutional structure, international engagement, predeparture policies (e.g. regulation of recruitment firms), services in destination countries (e.g. labour attachés), support of returnees and bilateral agreements on labour migration (incl. MoUs). Context variables that may influence policies—such as remittance income as a percentage of GDP, GDP, and level of democracy—are also included.
The database is available open access through OSF.
Analysis of this database shows that nearly all countries covered have a diaspora institution (a ministry, department, or agency). For many policies, countries in Asia -particularly the Philippines-, were innovators or early adopters. Legislation governing labour migration is most widespread in Asian countries, often dating back to the 1970s and 1980s and is least common in Latin-American countries. Bilateral agreements on labour migration are common in African, Asian, and Eurasian countries but comparatively rare in Latin America. The use of migration bans was found only in African and Asian countries, likely related to destination-specific factors. Migration bans were mostly instituted for countries in the GCC and East-Asia.
Secondly, the team conducted case studies of six countries of origin (Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda) and one destination country (the Republic of Korea). For each country, we interviewed policy makers, CSOs, IOs and other stakeholders and collected policy documents and news items.
Key insights emerging from these case studies include:
- Additional to national variation, there is subregional variation in policies protecting labour migrants. Subregional policies are inspired by both economic and identity logics.
- Origin countries rely on citizen intermediaries -predominantly highly skilled ones- on the ground for providing protection to low-waged labour migrants in destination countries.
- When it comes to the protection of low-waged migrant workers, origin countries have more negotiating leverage than is often believed. They can do so by exploiting the migration interdependence of the destination country through implementing restrictions on labour outmigration. This strategy does bear risks, which can be mitigated through collaborations with other origin countries or broader labour migration and economic policies.
- Origin countries face domestic pressure from CSOs and the wider population to protect the rights of their labour migrants. At the same time, they experience pressure from destination countries to reduce rights protections. This may lead countries to adopt a discourse of protection while, in practice, prioritizing promotion (numbers) over protection (rights).
The project conducted three stakeholder workshops with a twofold goal: assessing the extent to which our preliminary conclusions resonated with stakeholders, and facilitating knowledge exchange by sharing results from multiple cases.
Results were also disseminated at academic conferences and through academic papers, a comparative policy brief (based on the database analyses), and five policy notes (on Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda).
Firstly, the RIGHTS project developed a database on labour emigration policies, defined as ‘policies aimed at restricting, facilitating or directing migration of citizens for the purpose of labour, including policies on living and working conditions of migrant workers once abroad’.
The database covers 50 countries in Asia, Latin-America, Eurasia and Africa receiving substantial remittances (as % GDP) or that are actively engaging in migration dialogues and are known to have a recruitment industry. The database covers over 20 indicators, such as institutional structure, international engagement, predeparture policies (e.g. regulation of recruitment firms), services in destination countries (e.g. labour attachés), support of returnees and bilateral agreements on labour migration (incl. MoUs). Context variables that may influence policies—such as remittance income as a percentage of GDP, GDP, and level of democracy—are also included.
The database is available open access through OSF.
Analysis of this database shows that nearly all countries covered have a diaspora institution (a ministry, department, or agency). For many policies, countries in Asia -particularly the Philippines-, were innovators or early adopters. Legislation governing labour migration is most widespread in Asian countries, often dating back to the 1970s and 1980s and is least common in Latin-American countries. Bilateral agreements on labour migration are common in African, Asian, and Eurasian countries but comparatively rare in Latin America. The use of migration bans was found only in African and Asian countries, likely related to destination-specific factors. Migration bans were mostly instituted for countries in the GCC and East-Asia.
Secondly, the team conducted case studies of six countries of origin (Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda) and one destination country (the Republic of Korea). For each country, we interviewed policy makers, CSOs, IOs and other stakeholders and collected policy documents and news items.
Key insights emerging from these case studies include:
- Additional to national variation, there is subregional variation in policies protecting labour migrants. Subregional policies are inspired by both economic and identity logics.
- Origin countries rely on citizen intermediaries -predominantly highly skilled ones- on the ground for providing protection to low-waged labour migrants in destination countries.
- When it comes to the protection of low-waged migrant workers, origin countries have more negotiating leverage than is often believed. They can do so by exploiting the migration interdependence of the destination country through implementing restrictions on labour outmigration. This strategy does bear risks, which can be mitigated through collaborations with other origin countries or broader labour migration and economic policies.
- Origin countries face domestic pressure from CSOs and the wider population to protect the rights of their labour migrants. At the same time, they experience pressure from destination countries to reduce rights protections. This may lead countries to adopt a discourse of protection while, in practice, prioritizing promotion (numbers) over protection (rights).
The project conducted three stakeholder workshops with a twofold goal: assessing the extent to which our preliminary conclusions resonated with stakeholders, and facilitating knowledge exchange by sharing results from multiple cases.
Results were also disseminated at academic conferences and through academic papers, a comparative policy brief (based on the database analyses), and five policy notes (on Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda).
The project moved beyond the state of the art by
- Creating an overview of the policies employed across time and across different regions
- Unearthing evidence of the leverage that origin countries have to push for more protection of their labour migrants and the circumstances under which they can(not) successfully use this leverage
- Creating an overview of the policies employed across time and across different regions
- Unearthing evidence of the leverage that origin countries have to push for more protection of their labour migrants and the circumstances under which they can(not) successfully use this leverage