Search

Although the debate on the migration–remittances–development nexus in Latin America has advanced considerably in recent years, the literature has yet to analyse the socio-political implications of the process of Financialisation of Remittances (FOR) in the region. This paper sheds light on the relationship between the FOR and diaspora engagement policies in Colombia, thus contributing to a growing body of critical analyses on diasporas as agents of development and processes of financialisation beyond the global north. Since the turn of this century, Colombian governments have invested in consolidating part of the state apparatus to capture and maintain the diaspora and their resources connected to the motherland. The paper uses a case study approach centred on a systematic examination of the political–institutional apparatus developed to engage the diaspora and financialise remittances in Colombia over the past 20 years, incorporating a temporal and historical perspective of the triad migration–development–financialisation trends at the national level. It argues that the FOR is a centrepiece of the state's broader strategy for the symbolic and material redefinition of (transnational) membership, in which both, embracing – by extending social and political rights – and tapping – into migrant households' connections to global circuits of capital and finance – elements co-exist This case is illustrative of how a growing number of states are adopting models of diaspora engagement that, on the one hand, feed into the dominant financialised model of development; and on the other, serve as an instrumental strategy in the emerging architecture of the global governance of migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fleeing from the country's humanitarian crisis, around 224,000 Venezuelans, half of whom requested protection as refugees, had crossed the border into Brazil as of December 2019. The paper uses a case study approach combining quantitative and documentary evidence to systematically examine the Brazilian political‐institutional response to this mass displacement. Although Brazil has been internationally praised as a model, its policy response has been far more complex and ambiguous, lacking the clear progressive character ascribed to it. Despite having a 'progressive' migration and refugee legal framework, the state's framing of this displacement as a temporary 'migration crisis' has led to the militarization of migration management and the adoption of ad hoc regularization mechanisms for the temporary settlement of Venezuelans, with little articulation with other long‐term intersectorial socio‐economic policies. This case illustrates how countries in the global south manage the tensions between securitization and human rights concerns in their migration governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 health crisis has put to the test Latin America's already precarious social protection systems. This paper comparatively examines what type of social protection has been provided, by whom, and to what extent migrant and refugee populations have been included in these programmes in seven countries of the region during the COVID-19 pandemic, between March and December 2020. We develop a typology of models of social protection highlighting the assemblages of actors, different modes of protection and the emerging migrants' subjectification in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay in relation to Non-Contributory Social Transfer (NCST) programmes and other actions undertaken by state and non-state actors. The analysis is based on 85 semi-structured interviews with representatives of national and local governments, International Organisations, Civil Society Organisations, and migrant-led organisations across 16 cities, and a systematic review of regulatory frameworks in the country-case studies. The proposed typology shows broad heterogeneity and complexity regarding different degrees of inclusion of migrant and refugee populations, particularly in pre-existing and new NCST programmes. These actions are furthering notions of migrant protection that are contingent and crisis-driven, imposing temporal limitations that often selectively exclude migrants based on legal status. It also brings to the fore the path-dependent nature of policies and practices of exclusion/inclusion in the region, which impact on migrants' effective access to social and economic rights, while shaping the broader dynamics of migration governance in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]