Upload
alonso-pelayo
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 Global Labour
1/18
http://ann.sagepub.com
ScienceAcademy of Political and SocialThe ANNALS of the American
DOI: 10.1177/0002716202581001082002; 581; 74The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Henk OverbeekNeoliberalism and the Regulation of Global Labor Mobility
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/581/1/74The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Academy of Political and Social Science
can be found at:Social ScienceThe ANNALS of the American Academy of Political andAdditional services and information for
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/581/1/74Citations
http://www.aapss.org/http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/581/1/74http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/581/1/74http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.aapss.org/7/26/2019 Global Labour
2/18
74
Neoliberalism and the
Regulation of Global Labor Mobility
By HENK OVERBEEK
Henk Overbeek is an associate professor in international relations at the Free Uni-
versity,Amsterdam. He received his masters degree and Ph.D. at the University of Am-sterdam, where he taught international politics between 1976 and 1999. He is also an
adjunctprofessor
at Webster University in Leiden. His research interests areprimarilyin international political economy. He is coeditor of the RIPE Series in Global Political
Economy (Routledge) and serves on the international editorial board ofthe Review ofInternational Political Economy His publications include Global Capitalism and Na-tional Decline: The Thatcher Decade in Perspective (1990), Restructuring in theGlobal Political Economy (editor, 1993), and The Political Economy of European(Un)Employment (forthcoming).
ABSTRACT: Globalization involves the international expansion ofmarket relations and the global pursuit of economic liberalism. Theessential factor in this process is commodification, including the com-modification of human labor. Globalization integrates an increasingproportion of the world population directly into capitalist labor mar-kets and locks national and regional labormarkets into an integratedglobal labor market. We are on the threshold of global initiatives toshift the balance even further, especially regarding the managementof global migration flows. The answer cannot be a return to strictlynational forms ofmigration control and should not be a complete ca-pitulation to market-driven regulation ofmigration. One possible an-swer is a new, multilateral, democratically screened, global migrationregime to set forth and guarantee the general principles governingthe regulation of transnational migrations, ensure proper coordi-nation between regional and national migration regimes, and callinto existence new institutional forms of transnational democratic
governance.
7/26/2019 Global Labour
3/18
75
GLOBALIZATIONis a sociopoliti-
cal project involving the &dquo;world-
wide application of laissez-faire prin-ciples&dquo; (Munck 2002 [this issue]). Yetthe principles of laissez-faire are un-
evenly applied to different categoriesof commodities in the global politicaleconomy today The zeal with whichthe free movement of goods is pur-sued through the World Trade Orga-nization (WTO), or the free move-
ment of capital promoted by theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF),is contrasted by the hostility of most
governments and international orga-nizations toward the free movement
of labor.
A closer look at the real nature of
the globalization project will revealthat this paradox entails no contra-
diction.After all, the globalizationproject is about the freedom of capitalto maximize its accumulation poten-tial, not about libertarian ideals.
Second, this article investigatesthe emerging global and regionalregulatory structures whose purposeit is to accommodate capitals free-dom to accumulate as far as it con-
cerns the movement of labor. It willbe argued that these new modes of
governance are characterized bytheir informal and disciplinarynature, thus demonstrating the
severely negative implications fordemocratic accountability of thoseinvolved in policy making.
The final argument of this article
will be that there is a contradictionbetween untrammeled commodifica-
tion on one hand and emancipationfrom bondage and deprivation on theother. To prevent the regulation ofglobal migration from privilegingdeeper commodification over
emancipation, transparency and
accountability in the institutional
setup are indispensable. The articleadvocates consensual multilateral-
ism instead of de facto bilateralism.
NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION
AND MOBILITY
Neoliberal globalization is both
process and project. While it is
important to emphasize the role ofagency in globalization, it is equallyimportant to understand the processof structural transformation
involved. Globalization is a dialecti-
cal phenomenon simultaneously cir-cumscribed by agency and structure
mutually constitutive of each other,or to borrow Robert Coxs (1981)
phrase, a &dquo;historical structure.&dquo;Viewed in this way, globalization con-sists in the dialectic between the
expansion ofmarket relations on onehand and the pursuit ofeconomic lib-eralism on the other. In its late twen-
tieth/early twenty-first century man-ifestation, globalization is reachingnew highs, or should we say new
depths.Globalization entails a qualitative
transformation in the political, eco-
nomic, cultural, strategic, and tech-
nological worlds around us of which Imention three elements: the com-
pression oftime and space, the rise ofa market-oriented neoliberal polit-ico-economic order, and the transi-
tion in world politics from the bipolarcold war order of system rivalry tothe present unipolar NATO-Ameri-can order.
The essential moving factor ofthis
process is the expansion of the mar-ket : ever more people, countries, and
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
4/18
76
regions are incorporated into theglobal market economy (expansionas geographic widening), and moreand more spheres and dimensions ofhuman existence are invaded bymarket relations and subordinated
to the pursuit of private profit(expansion as deepening).
This deepening commodificationtakes place through three interre-lated processes, namely, the
transnationalization of production,the globalization of financial mar-kets, and the tendential emergence ofa global labor market. The first two
aspects of what is commonly called
globalization are abundantly docu-mented in much of the globalizationliterature. These aspects, althoughby no means beyond dispute, need
not be addressed here. For the pur-poses of this contribution, it is morerelevant to focus on the third
element.
In their path-breaking study ofthe new international division of
labor of the 1970s, the Germanresearchers Fr6bel, Heinrichs, andKreye (1977) observed an accelerat-
ing relocation of labor-intensive pro-duction processes from the older
industrial economies to low wagecountries inAsia and LatinAmerica.
Three preconditions made this relo-cation drive possible: the existence ofa sheer inexhaustible reservoir of
cheap labor in large parts of theThird World, new production tech-
nologies making it possible to sepa-rate the labor-intensive parts of the
production process from the capital-intensive parts, and new transportand communication technologiesfacilitating the coordination of dis-persed production and assembly
establishments. The authors con-
cluded that &dquo;the conjuncture ofthese
three conditions ... has created a sin-gle world market for labor power, atrue worldwide industrial reserve
army, and a single world market forproduction sites&dquo; (p. 30, authorstranslation). Crucial for this argu-ment is that as a consequence of the
rapid development ofnew communi-cation and information technology,
foreign direct investment (FDI)became a functional alternative not
only to trade but also to labor migra-tion. (Mobility of capital can substi-tute for the mobility of goods andlabor power.)
In the core ofthe global system, inthe Organization for Economic Coop-eration and Development (OECD)
countries, globalization has trans-formed the economy from a Fordistmodel (with mass production andmass consumption sustained by oneor another form of welfare state) intoa model of flexible accumulation
(with lean production and just-in-time delivery supported by a compe-tition state). This has had the funda-
mental consequence for the labormarket of establishing a &dquo;core-pe-riphery&dquo; structure within the ad-vanced capitalist economies (Cox1987), reflected particularly in the&dquo;peripheralization&dquo; of labor in the
global cities (cf. Harris 1995; Sassen1996a). One element of this has been
the reemergence of domestic labor,another the
reappearanceof sweat-
shop production in the garmentindustry:
There exists within New York, the globalcity, a substantial growing segment of thelabor force whose conditions of produc-
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
5/18
77
tion resemble those of the labor force in
the Third World.... Sweatshops in NewYork are the
logical consequenceof the
global restructuring of production in the
garment industry and the consequentcompetition forjobs between segments ofthe global reserve of labor. (Ross andTrachte 1983, 416)
These developments go hand in hand
with, and are enhanced by, aneoliberal offensive of deregulation,liberalization, and flexibilization.While undermining the bargainingpower oforganized labor and helpingto depress wage demands, it simulta-neously creates and/or reinforces thedemand for various forms of un-
skilled and semiskilled labor, em-
ployed under increasingly precariousconditions (Cox 1987; Sassen 1996a;Castells 1998). Undocumented im-
migration is quite functional fromthis perspective. The employment ofundocumented foreign labor hasthus in many cases become a condi-
tion for the continued existence of
small- and medium-size firms, creat-
ing a substantial economic interestin continued (illegal) immigration(Brochmann 1993, 119-20; see alsoPapademetriou 1994, 27).
In more peripheral areas of theworld (e.g.,Africa, eastern Europe,and CentralAmerica), the two mostimportant changes since the mid-seventies (often interacting) havebeen the debt crisis, the ensuingimposition of structural adjustment
policies, and the end of the cold war.The StructuralAdjustment Pro-
grams of the IMF and the World
Bank and the withdrawal ofmilitaryand economic assistance by the
superpowers both resulted in a sub-
stantial reduction of external sources
of finance availablefor redistribution
by the state. In many cases, this seri-
ously affected the ability of govern-ments to co-opt rivaling elites intothe power structure, resulting inserious social and political crises,economic disasters, and regimechange or state collapse. These com-
plex processes largely explain thesurge in forced movements ofpeoplesince the mid-seventies across the
globe, in search of protection and insearch of a new and better life (cf.
Cohen and Deng 1998; Loescher
1993; United Nations High Commis-sioner for Refugees 1997; Zolberg,Suhrke, andAguayo 1989). In other
cases, governments of Third World
countries have turned to other
sources of external income and have
become intricately involved in thebusiness of promoting outward
migration ofskilled workers and pro-fessionals. Through workers remit-
tances, the inflow ofhard currency is
thus increased. Worldwide, remit-tances have surpassed developmentaid as a source of foreign exchange. In
1995, worldwide remittances ran to$70 billion; in the same year, develop-ment aid total ran to $66 billion(World Bank 1997). India and Egyptare two examples of countries inwhich the government has taken an
active role in this trade. In the 1970s,the Egyptian government &dquo;plannedto expand the output of teachers in
order to supply 14,000 ofthem to theoil-producing countries&dquo; (Harris1995, 151). The Indian governmentrecently announced plans to spend$650 million to double Indias cur-rent annual output of 100,000 infor-mation technology graduates by
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
6/18
78
2002 and reach 500,000 by 2005
(Chanda 2000).
These developments in variousparts of the world show that global-ization indeed integrates an increas-
ing proportion of the world popula-tion directly into capitalist labormarkets and locks national and
regional labor markets into an inte-grated global labor market. Themechanisms that produce this effect
are of three kinds.First, we witness various forms of
commodification of labor power,which was not previouslybought andsold on &dquo;free&dquo; labor markets. We can
think ofthree forms in particular:
~ incorporation of previously discon-nected areas (primarily former so-cialist economies but also the re-
maining precapitalist societies onthe outskirts of the modern world)into the capitalist world market,
~ continuing proletarianization of theworlds population through urban-ization and the disintegration ofsubsistence economies in the Third
World and through increasing labormarket participation in the indus-
trial economies, and~ privatization of economic activitieswithin capitalist societies previ-ously organized outside the market.
Second, nationally or regionallybounded labor markets are increas-
ingly integrated by the internation-alization of production. The impor-tance of this new form of inter-
nationalization as contrasted with
the earlier phases ofglobalization inwhich commercial capital and moneycapital moved across borders cannotbe overstated. Whereas money capi-tal imposes an abstract and indirect
discipline on labor, FDI directly re-
produces capitalist relations of
production within the host countries(Poulantzas 1974).2 Transnationalproduction has indeed become by farthe most important engine of accu-mulation in the global economy, as isconfirmed by a few key statistics:
~After a slowdown in the early 1990s,direct investments were growing
explosivelyin the
closing yearsof
the century.As a consequence, theshare of foreign investment inflowsin world gross fixed capital forma-tion has grown rapidly, from 1.1 per-cent in 1960 via 2.0 percent in 1980
to 7.4 percent in 1997 (United Na-
tions Conference on Trade and De-
velopment [UNCTAD] 1994,1998).~ By 1997, total assets offoreign affil-
iates of transnational corporationsstood at $12.6 trillion. Sales by for-
eign subsidiaries reached $9.5 tril-lion (UNCTAD 1998, 2). In additionto FDI, through strategic alliancesand other nonequity arrangements,transnational corporations gaincontrol over assets and markets that
are not measured in the statistics.~ In 1960, worldwide sales by foreign
affiliates of transnational corpora-tions were smaller than world ex-
ports, but in 1997, they stood at 148
percent ofworld exports (UNCTAD
1998, 2).~ One-third of world exports are ex-
ports offoreign affiliates (UNCTAD1998, 6).
~ Transnational corporations have astrong impact on the shape of the
world economy: &dquo;they organize theproduction process internationally:by placing their affiliates world-wide under common governance
systems, they interweave produc-tion activities located in different
countries, create an international
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
7/18
79
intra-firm division of labor and, in
the process, internalize a range of
international transactions that
would otherwise have taken placein the market&dquo;(UNCTAD 1994, 9).
~ The rapid expansion of FDI is in-
creasingly tied up with the explo-sive increase in mergers and acqui-sitions in the world. The total value
of cross-border mergers and acqui-sitions in 1997 was approximately$342 billion (up from less than $100
billion in 1992), representing 58percent of FDI flows (UNCTAD1998, 19-20).
~ Cross-border mergers and acquisi-tions are mostly concentratedwithin the developed world, thus re-inforcing tremendously the processof transnationalization, the rapidlyintensifying interpenetration oftheeconomies (capital markets but
also labor markets) of the OECDcountries.
Third, nationally or regionallybounded labor markets are further
integrated by increased interna-tional labor mobility in its variousforms:
~ thespread
of transnationalcorpo-rations brings with it increased in-
ternational mobility of top- and in-termediate-level managers and
executives;~ the internationalization of services
(engineering, advertising, softwaredevelopment) creates increased in-ternational mobility of technicaland commercial experts;
~
the combination ofmore
restrictiveimmigration policies and labor mar-ket flexibilization and deregulationin the OECD countries creates in-
creased opportunities for illegal im-migration (increasingly throughthe intervention of organizedcrime); and
the economic and political crisis ofthe state inmany ThirdWorld coun-
tries and the
resultingintensifica-
tion of social and ethnic conflicts
swell the ranks ofinternational ref-
ugee movements and the outward
flow of migrant workers.
With the tendential formation ofa
global labor market and the in-creased labor mobility it implies, the
question ofthe internationalregula-tion of that mobility has gradually
become a more prominent issue onthe international agenda. Before wecan turn to a discussion ofthe emerg-
ing framework for the regulation ofglobal migration, however, we mustbriefly address some general issuesof global governance in the neoliberal
age.
GLOBALIZATION
AND GOVERNANCE
Changes in production organiza-tion and locationhave been accompa-nied by attempts at the political and
ideological levels to create more
transnational forms of governance.The key elements of the emergingstructure ofglobal governance can besummarized as follows (see Cox
1987; Gill 1995; McMichael 1996):
1. emerging consensus amongpolicy makers favoring market-based over state-managed solutions,
2. centralized management ofthe global economy by the G-7 states,and
3. implementation and surveil-lance by multilateral agencies suchas the World Bank, the IMF, and theWTO.
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
8/18
80
The key development in this respectis the reconfiguration of the state.
State forms and functions are beingtransformed under the impact of, butin turn itself furthering, globaliza-tion. Global restructuring leads to (orimplies) the creation of additionalformal and informal structures ofau-
thority and sovereignty besides and
beyond the state. With globalizationand the progression ofthe neoliberal
ideology, there has also been astrengthening of(quasi-) authoritar-ian structures and practices and anassault on established forms of pro-
gressive or Left popular participa-tion. In the core areas of the world
economy, this discipline appears inthe shape of voluntary programs of
competitive deregulation and auster-
ity that are codified and constitu-tionalized in such arrangements as
the Economic and Monetary Union
stability pact or the WTO liberaliza-tion regime.
In peripheral areas, the disciplineof the market is often externallyimposed through the financial powerexercised by the IMF and the World
Bank, which was tremendouslyintensified after the debt crisis ofthe
1980s.
In the context ofglobalization, thefunctions of the state dealing withtransnational processes are increas-
ingly performed transnationally by avariety of state, interstate, andnonstate institutions. The state is no
longer the proverbial Westphaliannation-state in which sovereigntyand territoriality are exclusivelycombined. Indeed, the &dquo;unbundling&dquo;of sovereignty and territoriality(Ruggie 1993, 165) makes it possiblefor governments to circumvent the
need to account for the international
agreements they conclude in their
own national parliaments. Ithas alsocreated a greater space for social
forces outside the state to become
involved in new forms of regulation.The boundaries between public andprivate regulation and betweennational and international relations
are becoming increasingly blurred,and policy formation in international
contexts is increasingly informal-ized, opening up the channels ofgov-ernance to nongovernmental organi-zations of various kinds. In a
reference to the manifestation ofthis
tendency in the area of migration pol-icy, Saskia Sassen (1996b) observedthat &dquo;we are seeing a de factotransnationalizing of immigration
policy&dquo; in which there is &dquo;a displace-ment of government functions on tonon-governmental or quasi-govern-mental institutions and criteria for
legitimacy&dquo; (pp. 1, 24). It is to this
particular area of global governancethat we now turn.
THE EMERGENCE OFA
NEOLIBERAL FRAMEWORKFOR
THE MANAGEMENT OF MOBILITY
In the postwar order, interna-tional labor migration was hardlyregulated. This provided a sharp con-trast with the regulatory frameworkfor financial relations (IMF, Bank forInternational Settlements) and for
international trade (GATT). To besure, there are international organi-zations that are concerned one wayor another with the international
mobility ofpeople, such as the Inter-national Labor Organization, theInternational Organization for
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
9/18
81
Migration, and of course the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Ref-
ugees. However, the regime theyform (if we may call it that) has beenfar weaker than the financial and
trade regimes. Several explanationsare possible for this state of affairs.For one, as is often observed in the
migration literature, the sovereignstate is assumed to be unwilling to
relinquish control over who crosses
its borders: &dquo;Since the developmentof the modern state from the fif-
teenth century onward, governmentshave regarded control over their bor-ders as the core of sovereignty&dquo;(Weiner 1995, 9). The argument doesnot convince, because state sover-
eigntyhas never been absolute, nor isthis an argument that would apply
exclusively to migration as opposedto other cross-border traffic such as
trade.A second possible explanationis the modest scale of international
migration in the twentieth century.The United Nations estimated the
worlds foreign-born population for1995 at 125 million or about 2 per-cent of the worlds population
(UNCTAD/International Organiza-tion for Migration 1996). Finally, dur-
ing the post-1945 decades ofembed-ded liberalism, foreign labor wasavailable in surplus quantities, andas a consequence, states did not need
to compete for scarce sources when
organizing their recruitmentschemes in the 1960s and 1970s
(Zolberg 1991, 309, 313-4).With the effects of globalization on
the mobility of people becomingstronger, the call for an effective in-ternational migration regime also
gained strength (for a survey, seeGhosh 2000). Four effects stand out:
o the growth of asylum migration tothe OECD countries;
o the
growingdemand for
cheapun-
skilled labor, the growth of illegallabor immigration, and the increas-
ing involvement of organized crimewith smuggling people across
borders;9 the shortage ofhighly skilled labor
in the OECD in sectors such as in-
formation and communication tech-
nology ; and9
the increased mobility of upper-level managers in transnational
corporations.
As a result, two seemingly contradic-
tory tendencies are visible in the on-
going policy discussions, namely, theeffort to control and reduce asylummigration and illegal migration and
the call (especially since the mid-1990s) to liberalize forms of migra-tion that are deemed economicallydesirable. To understand better how
this contradiction translates into
regulation, we must briefly analyzethe interface between the various
forms offactor mobility in the globaleconomy, especially in theAmericas
and in Europe.The idea ofmobility is, as we have
seen, usually associated with themovement of capital more than ofpeople. In theAmericas, some twentybilateral agreements have been
signed since 1990 that serve to liber-alize trade and investment between
South, Central, and NorthAmerican
countries. Here the emphasis is pri-marily on the subordination ofmigration management to the needsofcapital. In Europe, the significanceof arrangements facilitating themobility of capital within the region(primarily the completion of the
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
10/18
82
Single Market and the flexibilizationof labor markets) has overshadowed
the number of initiatives whichEuropean capital developed in
peripheral economies. Nevertheless,in the framework ofincreasing coop-eration and economic aid, the Euro-
pean Union has signed a series ofaccession and association agree-ments with countries of central and
eastern Europe, with the Mediterra-
nean countries, and with the remain-ing states of the former Soviet Union.These agreements all have in com-
mon a number of regulations with
respect to the freedom of movementofpeople insofar as this movement isconnected to capital mobility. Free-dom of establishment, freedom to
migrate to set up businesses as self-
employed individuals, and nondis-crimination (national treatment) of
legally established firms, workers,and their families (cf. Niessen and
Mochel 1999) are the key elements.33
These rules about national treat-
ment for investments and labor tend
to have repercussions on labor mar-kets, on industrial policies, and on
judicial systems. The movement ofcapital requires some mobility of peo-ple as well, for labor market pur-poses, but also for access to land and
to markets. Especially relevant hereis the movement ofprofessionals andbusiness people whose professionsare related to trade in services. Their
movement is encoded in bilateral or
trilateral treaties, regional agree-ments (NAFTA, European Economic
Area), and global agreements (Gen-eralAgreement on Trade in Services[GATS]) (see Ghosh 1997; OECD
Syst6me dobservation permanentedes migrations 1998).
In addition to the formal arrange-ments the European states (east and
west) have developed, there is a par-allel system of informal consulta-tions on migration issues, the so-called Budapest Group.4 The originsof the Budapest Process go back tothe events leading up to the fall of theBerlin Wall in 1989 and the disinte-
gration ofthe Soviet Union. The pri-mary objective of the consultations
was to discuss measures for checkingillegal migration from and throughcentral and eastern Europe. Much
emphasis was put on the need to
strengthen the surveillance of bor-ders, the conclusion of readmission
agreements, and the harmonizationof visa policies. Technological andfinancial aid was promised. During
follow-up meetings, the themes thatwould dominate subsequent confer-ences became clear: criminalization
of trafficking and improvement ofpolice forces and border controls,imposition of carrier sanctions onairlines, exchange of information,conclusion of readmission agree-
ments, and financial assistance to
the central and east European coun-tries (which were in reality the tar-gets of these measures given theirdeficient or totally absent relevant
legislation and policies). The statu-
tory meeting of the Budapest Group(December 1993) reconfirmed these
objectives and decided that the groupwould comprise senior officials from
all participating states, making theBudapest Group into the only pan-European discussion forum for theseissues. The issue of visa approxima-tion was taken up at a special meet-ing in Portoroz (Slovenia) in Septem-ber 1998. The harmonization of visa
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
11/18
83
policies is to be achieved by the cen-tral and east European states align-
ing their policies with those of theEuropean Union member states. Inrecent years, the Budapest Grouphas also set up an elaborate monitor-
ing system to keep track ofthe prog-ress with the implementation of
agreed measures, thus acquiring a
very real influence over national pol-icy making.
In theAmericas, most of theregional integration processes ignoreor sidetrack the question of the move-ment ofpeople. This is the case withthe Mercado Comun del Sur (South-
ern Cone Common Market), with
NAFTA, and with the series of bilat-eral treaties on free trade in the
region. Yet despite limited state reg-
ulations, labor migration repre-sented a significant dimension oftransborder economic activities, con-trolled mostly by the private sectors.The Puebla Process, which started in1996 under the name Regional Con-ference on Migration (RCM), marks asignificant step in the region-alization trend in migration control.5
5
Officially, the direct trigger of theRCM was the population conferencein Cairo in 1994, but it was alsolinked to the plans for the Free Trade
Area of theAmericas, which is toextend the liberalization of national
economies to Central and South
America. The immediate initiative
for the Puebla Process came from
Mexico, a country facing importantpressures from both its northern
partners, particularly the UnitedStates, to control the flows of peoplecrossing the border and from itssouthern neighbors in the form oftransit migration. The RCMs plan of
action, adopted in 1997 during itssecond annual meeting in Panama,
focused on information gathering aswell as on five areas of activities: (1)the formulation ofmigration policies(both emigration and immigration)that would respond to the commit-ments of the conference, (2) migra-tion and development, (3) combatingmigrant trafficking, (4) collaborationfor the return of extraregional
migrants, and (5)human rights. Mostof the work of the RCM has been
devoted, since then, to the combatingofmigrant trafficking while the areaof activity that received the leastattention was the formulation of har-
monized migration policies. Yet para-doxically, some form of coordinationof these policies does take place, but
indirectly, notably through the pro-motion by the RCM of transborderand labor market cooperationschemes.
There is obviously a clear analogybetween the Puebla Process and the
Budapest Process in terms of whichissues are central to their work. Theyshare, in particular, emphases on the
coordination of visa and migrationpolicy, on the combating of illegaltrafficking, and on the promotion ofasystem of readmission agreements.These informal modes of governancefulfil very specific functions. Theyfirst of all serve as channels for com-
munication between policy makers,experts, and interested third parties.
This is especially important for thosecountries (e.g., several of the Com-monwealth of Independent Statescountries) whose officials have littleor no direct contact with their coun-
terparts in the OECD world. Beyondthat, they further serve to socialize
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
12/18
84
the officials, experts, and policy mak-ers of peripheral states into the exist-
ing epistemic communities in themigration field within the OECD,and they help to moor the policyreforms desired by the OECD part-ners within the associated states:
migration policies deemed desirableby the OECD partners are thuslocked in within the dependentstates. Finally, in the case ofthe rela-
tionship between the EuropeanUnion and a number of the central
and east European states involved,the Budapest Process is clearly com-plementary to the ongoing accession
process and prepares the ground, inthe area ofthe regulation ofpeoplesmobility, for ultimate full member-
ship of the European Union.
These neoliberal forms ofmobilitycontrols will not disappear with
political changes in countries at the
receiving end. Because oftheir inclu-sion into regional frameworks ofintegration, these mechanismsbecome locked in, and it would be
extremely costly, both economicallyand politically, not to respect them
(Gill 1998).Accordingly, statesbecome more accountable to external
than to internal forces. States are
made responsible for maintainingthe direction or the orientation taken
by the regional system and to uphold-ing the principles or social purpose ofthe agreements signed. Both theBudapest Process and the Puebla
Process have developed mechanismsto strengthen these tendencies andto monitor the compliance ofthe par-ticipating states. Particular empha-sis is placed in both contexts on theselective criminalization of
migration.
In fact, the selective criminaliza-tion of specific forms of migration
and the privileged treatment ofothertypes of mobility is functional notonly in the context of proliferatingneoliberal labor market reforms but
also in the context of redrawing theboundaries of the regions concerned.Both in the case oftheAmericas and
in the case of Europe, we observe therestructuring of regional hierarchies.
Certain countries or regions aregradually integrated into the OECDheartland (Mexico, Central Europe,and possibly in the long run, Turkey).These countries are themselves
becoming destination countries for
migrants from the outer layers ofthe
emerging new regional geohier-archies (just as a decade ago the
southern European countries madethe transition from migrant-sendingto migrant-receiving countries
against the background oftheir inte-
gration into the hegemonic struc-tures of the West). Other countries
are recast in the role of dependent(semi-) peripheries, whose migrantworkers are admitted to the heart-
land countries only on the strictestconditions, and who are themselvesburdened with the task of policingtheir borders with the external world
whose people can come in only as ille-gal migrants (and in decreasing mea-sure as asylum seekers) (cf. vanBuuren 1999).6
To summarize this section, Neo-
liberal restructuring of the globaleconomy involves both the deepeningand the widening ofmarket relationsand the transformation of gover-nance structures. Labor has a spe-cific role in this process: because
international labor migration is only
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
13/18
85
one way in which global capital canaccess the emerging global labor
market, the emerging global regimefor labor involves both the disciplin-ing of labor and the selective freeingof the mobility of labor. There is
clearly a tension between regulatingmigration under the auspices of
global neoliberalism on onehand and
upholding the values of democratic
governance on the other. When we
turn to discuss the contours ofa pos-sible new comprehensive frameworkfor the regulation ofglobal migrationin the next section, we shall therefore
emphasize the importance of demo-cratic multilateralism as a safeguardagainst downward harmonization
through disciplinary neoliberal pol-icy competition.
IMPLICATIONS FORA
FUTURE MULTILATERAL
AGREEMENT ON MIGRATION
We have, in the preceding analy-sis, argued that the contemporarymigration issues must be viewed
against the backdrop of globaliza-tion. Likewise, if we want to specu-late on the contours ofa future inter-
national migration regime, let usfirst look at the implications of glob-alization for such an enterprise.
First, unless an effort is made toaddress the underlying causes, espe-cially of all forms of involuntarymigration, any effort to create an
international migration conventionwill inevitably result in the codifica-tion ofthe existing extremely restric-tive immigration practices ofmost ofthe countries of destination. The
international community (this oftenabused eulogism) must address the
structural inequities in the globalpolitical economy producing and/or
reproducing poverty among two-thirds ofthe worlds population (suchas unequal exchange, the dumping of
agricultural surpluses, etc.). Itshould also look very critically at the
global arms trade that fuels many ofthe refugee-producing conflictsaround the globe. Especially wherearms trade and neocolonial political
interference with (ifnot initiation of)regional and local conflicts by majorpowers coincide, the results havebeen disastrous.
Second, the particular character ofglobalization as a process of deepen-ing commodification and as a projectofprivileging the market over publicregulation suggests that to be demo-cratic and responsive to the needs ofall people, certain fundamental prin-ciples must underlie any regulatoryproject. It is, first, of crucial impor-tance that the trend to further com-
modification is reversed and that
essential spheres of human life arewholly or partly decommodified. Thisimplies also that we must reassertthe primacy of public governance asopposed to the market-led gover-nance, which neoliberalism advo-
cates for those areas where the inter-
ests of capital predominate. Finally,these new forms of public governanceof global processes must provide fordemocratic decision making andgrassroots participation, not just at
the national and international levelsbut also in transnational settings.Atthe national level, the institutions to
implement democratic control and
popular participation exist, at leastin principle if not everywhere inpractice, in the form of political
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
14/18
86
parties, parliaments, and legal sys-tems.At the international level, we
have the institutions and practices oftraditional diplomacy, including theframework of the United Nations
system, to guarantee the representa-tion ofall sovereign states in the pro-cess. Notwithstanding its manyshortcomings, it should be obviousthat the United Nations is preferableas a framework for worldwide agree-
ments to other frameworks. This is sowhether these are international but
with representation based on eco-nomic strength (such as the IMF orthe WTO) or whether they are bilat-eral and skewed toward the stron-
gest economic power (as in the bilat-eral negotiations between the
European Union and the individual
candidate-members on their terms ofentry).
In such a new, democratic, multi-
lateral context, we might envisagethe creation of a comprehensive in-ternational migration frameworkconvention. The purpose of this con-
vention is to set forth and guaranteethe general principles governing the
regulation of transnational migra-tions, to ensure a sufficient degree ofcoordination between regional andnational migration regimes, and todeal with those migratory move-ments that cannot be covered in a re-
gional setting. There are three majorcomponents in such a regime.
1. The institutional frameworkto be developed at the world (and re-gional) level must be democratic,that is, transparent and responsiveto the needs ofmigrants as well as tothose ofthe participating states. Theorganizational forms for such an en-
terprise are still to be developed;theywill need to find a balance between
facilitating grassroots participationand democratic representation,which is often lacking in the litera-ture singing the praises ofglobal civil
society and of transnational
nongovernmental organizations.2. The asylum and refugee
framework providing the basis forthe existing international refugee re-
gime (i.e., the 1951 Geneva Conven-tion and the 1967 New York Protocol)
must be amended to take account of
the changed nature of international
refugee movements. Here the propos-als put forward by Zolberg, Suhrke,andAguayo (1989) may serve as a
starting point. They propose to intro-duce as the central principle &dquo;the im-
mediacy and degree of life-threaten-ing violence&dquo; (p. 270) to afford
protection to the &dquo;victims&dquo; on an
equal footing with the more commonsubjects of present asylum law, the&dquo;activists&dquo; and the &dquo;targets.&dquo;The asy-lum policies of the OECD countriesdeserve special mention here: thesetend to produce illegal immigrants in
large numbers through the practiceof denying official status to asylumseekers who cannot be returned to
their countries of origin because ofhumanitarian concerns.
3. An equivalent framework forvoluntary migration (permanent andtemporary) must be created in whichstates undertake to bring their na-
tional and regional immigration poli-cies in accordance with an interna-
tionally negotiated set of minimumcriteria formulated to safeguard theinterests of migrants as well as theinterests ofthe signatory states. The
existing provisions of international
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
15/18
87
labor organization conventions andthe GATS should be incorporated
into such a framework or replaced byit where they conflict with the funda-mental principles set out above. One
important principle to be obeyedhereis that the legal position of long-termresidents must be improved. Boththe return ofmigrants to their homecountries and their effective integra-tion into the host society are ob-
structed by their insecure status (i.e.,by the difficulty in many host coun-tries of obtaining full membership inthe welfare state and by the difficul-ties they encounter on return to theirhome countries). These problemscould be substantially reduced, forinstance, by expanding the possibili-ties for dual citizenship or by allow-
ing reimmigration with full retentionof rights in case of failed returnmigration.
On the basis ofsuch a comprehen-sive set ofprinciples, regional migra-tion conventions can then create the
institutional and operational set-tings for their practical implementa-tion. It is plausible that only in re-gional settings will it be possible todevelop effective instruments to dealwith such undesirable developmentsas the increasing role of organizedcrime in the trafficking of people (anddrugs and arms).As with Prohibitionin the 1930s, an exclusively repres-sive policy only raises the price ofthe
prohibited goods (in this case accessto the labor markets of the OECD
countries) without substantially re-ducing the flow. These regional re-gimes might be expected, dependingon specific circumstances, to incorpo-rate regional development, educa-
tional and employment initiatives,
preferential trade agreements, effec-
tive measures against trafficking inpeople, agreements on the readmis-sion of illegal migrants, arrange-ments for temporary labor migration,quota for permanent immigration,return migration schemes, and im-
provement ofthe legal position of mi-
grants in host countries.An integraland comprehensive approach is es-
sential. If certain elements, such astemporary labor provisions, are real-ized in isolation from the other ele-
ments and principles, such schemesare bound to serve only the interestsof the employers looking for cheapworkers. Public governance of these
processes must guarantee the bal-
ance between the various elements of
the conventions.
This article has put forward thatthere is a possibly irreconcilable ten-sion between commodification on one
hand and emancipation and depriva-tion on the other. The present trendin the global economy is to privilegeprivate market forces over publicregulation. We are presently on thethreshold ofglobal initiatives to shiftthis balance even further, especiallywith respect to the management of
global migration flows. This articlemaintains that the answer cannot be
a return to strictly national forms of
migration control and should not be acomplete capitulation to market-driven regulation of migration.
Polanyis (1957) &dquo;double movement&dquo;is now, more than ever, operative atthe global level, and this implies thatwe must actively develop globalforms of social protection (comple-menting, not replacing, nationalforms) to counter the destructive
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
16/18
88
effects of deepening commodifica-tion. Resisting the subordination of
international labor markets to theneoliberal regimes of the WTO (viaGATS and the MultilateralAgree-ment on Investment) must be an
integral component of the strugglefor a more democratic global eco-nomic order.
Notes
1. Remittances in India indeed cover more
than half of the negative balance of interna-tional trade.At the same time, India has illit-
eracy rates of some 35 percent for men and
more than 60 percent for women (World Bank
1997).
2. Financial globalization, that is, the
emergence and growth ofglobal financial mar-kets, is identified by many as the hallmark of
globalization. From the perspective of theoverall transnationalization of the circuits of
productive capital, the role of global finance isin a sense secondary, namely, to keep the sys-tem together and to lock the spatially dis-
persed sites of production and accumulationinto one global system. We will therefore notdiscuss this here.
3. Note that national treatment is also one
ofthe founding principles in the aborted Mul-tilateralAgreement on Investment and theGATS.
4. By 1997, the Budapest Group encom-
passed thirty-six European states (includingamong the republics of the former Soviet Un-ion the three Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine,Moldova, and the Russian Federation),Aus-
tralia, Canada, and the United States, as wellas the Central European Initiative, the Coun-cil of Europe, theEuropean Union Council Sec-
retariat, the European Commission, the Inter-
governmental Consultations onAsylum,Refugee and Migration Policies, the Interna-tional Center for Migration Policy Develop-ment (functioning as the secretariat of the Bu-dapest Group), the International
Organization for Migration, Interpol, theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Ref-
ugees, the International CivilAviation Orga-nization, and the United Nations Commissionon Crime Prevention. For more information as
well as sources on the work of the BudapestGroup and also of the Puebla Process, thereader is referred to Pellerin and Overbeek
(2001).5. The Puebla Process involved the partici-
pation of ten countries of Central and NorthAmerica (Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salva-
dor, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicara-
gua, Panama, and the United States).A fewcountries and international organizationswere invited as observers: Colombia, the Do-
minican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, andPeru, as well as the Economic Commission for
LatinAmerica, the United Nations High Com-missioner for Refugees, and the International
Organization for Migration.6. Of course, this process of regional
hierarchization intersects with processes of
geostrategic rivalry being played out partly inthe same region, such as NATO interventionin Kosovo, the involvement ofseveral Westerninterests in the Caucasus, and most recentlythe entry of Western forces in centralAsia
through the war inAfghanistan.
References
Brochmann, G. 1993. "Fortress Eu-
rope"A European immigration re-
gime in the making? In Migration: Thepolitics of contemporary populationmovements, 117-32. Papers presentedat the Sampol Conference 1993, Uni-
versity of Bergen, Norway, 21-22
September.Castells, M. 1998. The information age:
Economy, society and culture III: End
of millennium. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Chanda, Nayan. 2000. The tug ofwar forAsias best brains. Far Eastern Eco-
nomic Review, 9 November. Retrievedfrom http://www.feer.com/_0011_09/p038innov.html.
Cohen, R., and F. M. Deng. 1998. Massesin flight: The global crisis of internaldisplacement. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Cox, R. W. 1981. Social forces, states andworld order: Beyond international re-lations theory. Millennium:Journal ofInternational Studies 10 (2): 126-55.
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
17/18
89
. 1987. Production, power and
world order: Social forces in the mak-
ing of history. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Frbel, F., J. Heinrichs, and O. Kreye.1977. Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. StrukturelleArbeit-
slosigkeit in den Industrielndern unddie Industrialisierung der Entwick-
lungslnder. Hamburg, Germany:Rowohlt.
Ghosh, B. 1997. Gains from global link-
ages: Trade in services and movementsof persons. New York: Macmillan.
, ed. 2000. Managing migration.Time for a new international regime?Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gill, S. 1995. Globalisation,market civili-sation, and disciplinary neoliberalism.Millennium: Journal of InternationalStudies 24 (3): 399-423.
. 1998. European governance andnew constitutionalism: Economic and
monetary union and alternatives to
disciplinary neoliberalism in Europe.New Political Economy 3:1, 5-26.
Harris, N. 1995. The new untouchables:
Immigration and the new worldworker. London: Penguin.
Loescher, G. 1993. Beyond charity: Inter-national cooperation and the global
refugeecrisis.
Oxford,UK: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
McMichael, P. 1996. Development and so-cial change:A global perspective.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Munck, Ronaldo. 2002. Globalization and
democracy:A new "great transforma-tion" ?Annals of theAmericanAcad-emy of Political and Social Science581:10-21.
Niessen, J., and F. Mochel. 1999.EU ex-
ternal relations and international mi-
gration. Brussels, Belgium: MigrationPolicy Group.
Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development Systme dobserva-tion permanente des migrations. 1998.Trends in international migration.
Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Papademetriou, D.G. 1994.At a cross-
roads : Europe and migration. In Mi-
gration and the new Europe, edited byK.A. Hamilton, 12-36. Washington,DC: Center for Strategic and Interna-tional Studies.
Pellerin, H., and H. W. Overbeek. 2001.Neo-Liberal regionalism and the man-agement of peoples mobility. In Social
forces in the making of the new Europe,
editedbyA. BielerandA. Morton, 137-57. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The great transfor-mation: The political and economic or-
igins of our time. Boston: Beacon.
Poulantzas, N. 1974. Les classes socialesdans le capitalisme aujourdhui. Paris:Le Seuil.
Ross, R., and K. Trachte. 1983. Global cit-ies and global classes: The peripheral-ization of labor in New York City.Re-view 6 (3): 393-431.
Ruggie, J. G. 1993. Territoriality and be-yond : Problematizing modernity in in-ternational relations. International
Organization 47 (1): 139-74.Sassen, S. 1996a. Losing control? Sover-
eignty in an age of globalization. NewYork: Columbia University Press.
. 1996b. Transnational economies
and national migration policies.Am-sterdam : IMES.
United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD). 1994.Transnational corporations, employ-ment and the workplace:An executivesummary. New York: United Nations.
. 1998. World investment report1998: Trends and determinants. New
York: United Nations.United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development/International Organi-zation for Migration. 1996. Foreign di-rect investment, trade, aid and migra-tion. Current studies seriesA, no. 29,Unctad/DTCI/27. Geneva: United
Nations.
by alonso pelayo on April 13, 2009http://ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/7/26/2019 Global Labour
18/18
90
United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. 1997. The state of the worlds
refugees: Ahumanitarian
agenda. Ox-ford, UK: Oxford University Press.van Buuren, J. 1999. Quand lUnion
europenne sentoure dun cordonsanitaire. Le Monde Diplomatique(January):6-7.
Weiner, M. 1995. The global migrationcrisis: Challenge to states and to hu-man rights. NewYork: HarperCollins.
World Bank. 1997. World development re-
port: The state ina
changing world.Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zolberg,A. R. 1991. Bounded states in a
global market: The uses of interna-tional labor
migrations.In
Social the-ory for a changing society, edited by P.Bourdieu and J. S. Coleman, 301-25.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Zolberg,A. R.,A. Suhrke, and S.Aguayo.1989. Escape from violence: Conflictand the refugee crisis in the developingworld. Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.