Migration and Worker Fatalities Abroad

A. Ullah, M. Hossain, K. Islam

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137451170
• eBook ISBN: 9781137451187
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Social Sciences

This book investigates the alarming of fatalities among migrant workers. The authors argue that migrant workers are often powerless and unprotected by national laws, unearthing new truths on migrant workers as significant economic players.

1

Introduction: Understanding Migration and Fatalities

Abstract: Population migration across the world has not only brought blessings but also pain to many people. Drawing on the recent migration theories and debates the chapter lays out the theoretical framework to understand the relation between migration and fatalities. The chapter explains how a set of variables including workers’ access to basic services, level of stress, nature of politics and policy contribute to increased fatalities of the migrants. With the data from South Asia, the authors explore causes of health hazards and fatalities of the migrant. The Institutionalised Dependency Trap (IDT) is also elaborated upon in this chapter in order to explain why and how migrant casualties happen, especially in the Middle East and Gulf countries. Attention has also been drawn to the policies of the receiving countries that serve only to intensify the dependency trap for the mostly South Asian migrants. The chapter presents the methodology and concludes with the organization of chapters in the book.

Ullah, AKM Ahsan, Mallik Akram Hossain and Kazi Maruful Islam. Migration and Worker Fatalities Abroad. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. DOI: 10.1057/9781137451187.0005.

Every 15 seconds, a worker dies from a work-related accident or disease. Every 15 seconds, 160 workers have a work-related accident – International Labour Organization (ILO).

Population migration has not brought blessings equally to everyone. For some countries, migration has brought economic vibrancy while for others skill-drain has caused severe economic strain. At an individual level, some have gained immensely while others have lost miserably. What is this loss about? It comes in myriad shapes, forms, scales and patterns. The proliferation of people on the move globally, and the accompanying financial transfers we call remittances, have brought migration issues to the fore in the global development agenda.

Population mobility is as old as human history. Nonetheless, very little is known about the dynamics of its prehistory. Only the trajectory of gypsy mobility has been well documented, though clear reasons for their nomadic tradition remain largely unknown (Ullah, 2010a, 2011, 2011a; Kutasi, 2005). Globalization has triggered a process of worldwide integration, which was abetted by the massive influx not only of ideas, goods and capitals across borders, but also of people. The transfer of people has been less intense than any of the other elements, since it faces greater political restrictions and is subject to more explicit and implicit barriers (Alonso, 2011). The general assumption is that the introduction of modern communication technology, better economic opportunities, and secured life opportunities have enticed people to migrate. Therefore, peoples’ awareness about opportunities and networking possibilities has increased over the last 40 years as a consequence of the ongoing process of globalization. However, global, structural socio-economic characteristics such as income disparities, demographic imbalances and labour market discrepancies also rose up (IOM, 2008).

Different schools of thought offer different explanations as to why some people emigrate and why some do not. According to economic schools of thought, migration is a function of demand and supply. Demographers argue that it is a result of population pressure, that is, countries with surplus labour send and countries with deficient labour receive. However, the prior theory applies to the case of Bangladeshi emigration (Ullah, 2009). Within this “labor surplus-resource deficit” syndrome, the rate of labour migration is increasing rapidly. For a country like Bangladesh, with a 33.8 per cent underemployment rate, better job opportunities abroad could explain the increasing outward flow of migrant workers (BMET, 2010).

In the past four decades there has been a dramatic upward trend in both skilled and unskilled labour migration. In 1965 there were only 75 million international migrants; the figure of migration has shot up to about one billion at present (both national and international) (Ullah, 2010a, 2011; IOM, 2011). The total volume of international migrants represents almost 3 per cent of the global population (Susan, 2001; IOM, 2010). The mere numbers do not present the whole of the issue; the social and political dimensions of migration make it a matter of vital importance, “migration involves people, agents bearing life plans, dreams and frustrations, hopes, interests and cultures” (Alonso, 2011). Though international migration is a central feature of the present international economy, it has never received the same amount of attention lavished on the theory of international capital movements. The mass movement of migrants with few skills has generated a large descriptive literature. In more recent years, however, the problems of international migration have been analysed more and more on a theoretical and empirical level. No organization at the global level is currently responsible for systematically monitoring the number of deaths that occur.

In recent years, policymakers, researchers and academics have given growing attention to migration issues, which has helped discourse flourish on both the negative and positive effects of migration to a country’s development. It is a well-researched phenomenon; however, most of the works have focused on one specific aspect, that is, the migration (economic) development nexus, ignoring the very fact that migration is a multidimensional development issue. More precisely, no significant amount of research is found on the fate of the migrant workers in terms of their social and cultural well-being, their survival and coping strategies, and most importantly, the status of rights and entitlements they are allowed to enjoy in the destination country. Clearly, there is a dearth of research on the numbers of migrant workers who die abroad, the cause of their deaths and the manner of how their families are compensated. This research investigates the reasons for the deaths of migrant workers abroad. It also studies the impact that a migrant’s demise can bring to the left-behind family.

The incidences of death are escalating in numbers dramatically, and are rightly a growing cause of concern. A recent study reports that the average number of dead bodies returned from abroad to Bangladesh per day is about eight (Daily Naya Diganta, 18 July 2009). Between 2003 and 2012, a staggering 15,752 dead bodies arrived from abroad, mostly from the Middle East and Malaysia. This is without doubt a horrific picture (Shariful, 2012; Ullah and Hossain, 2013).

The primary causes of the deaths, as documented by death certificates, are cardiac arrests, workplace accidents, road accidents, mental stress and other illnesses. Cardiac arrest recorded the highest number of casualties. Death certificates claim that almost all of the Bangladeshi workers who returned home in coffins between 1 January and 9 May in 2009, died of cardiac arrest in Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries (Charles, 2009). Relevant ministers as well were heard to say that these were natural deaths. However, most family members who were left behind did not accept the stated reasons for their death. Of course, the rate is more than 20 times higher than the national rate. Some experts now believe that for every dead body discovered, there are at least two others that are never recovered.

Media outlets continuously report that Bangladeshis live and work in precarious conditions in the Middle East and the Southeast Asian countries. We are reminded that in Saudi Arabia, six Bangladeshis were burned alive in their workplace (Prothom Alo, 2009). They were not able to escape. There was no “exit” point. They had surrendered themselves to death helplessly. This incident is an example of how significant abuses are inflicted on the migrant workers. It illustrates how abject is the work environment. The notorious “3-D jobs” – dangerous, dirty and demeaning – elucidate the overall standard of labour safety (Palma, 2008). Extremely low wages, unpaid wages for months, and the confiscation of passports as “security” to prevent workers from quitting are part of the realities of the Bangladeshi migrants. Despite the miseries subjected on their nationals, Bangladesh’s efforts to end the abuses have been insignificant.

The motivation for migration has a direct association with the wage differential, but, conversely, has an inverse ratio to the distance (Kutasi, 2005). Quite surprisingly, psychological and opportunity costs are in general not taken into account when they make their decision to migrate.

A framework of analysis

In the current globalized world, patterns and dynamics of migration have become highly varied, complex and context specific (Collinson, 2009). Explaining and understanding this complex process, thus, calls for multidisciplinary approaches. While classical and contemporary theories of migration explain the factors that shape migration behaviour, a detailed framework has yet to be developed to produce plausible explanations of what happens to the migrant workers, and why and how it happens after migration. Notwithstanding the fact that by the end of the 20th century all industrially developed countries, all of the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries and a certain number of newly industrialized countries, have become countries of immigration, all of them have not been able to put well-defined policies, legal frameworks and institutions in place to deal with the incoming migrants. To put simply, not all of the destination countries are equally institutionally equipped to handle the situation of the migrants, especially the migrant workers. While some countries, for example, United States and Canada, have well-developed legislative and policy framework, countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have deliberately avoided establishing any such institutional set-up (Massey, 2009).

The fate of migrant workers is continuously being shaped and governed by the social, political and economic forces, the legislative framework and institutional configurations in the receiving countries. The degree and pattern of interactions among these forces and institutions is largely determined by the state. And the state does so through its immigration policy. Massey argues that the immigration policy is the “outcome of a political process through which competing interests interact within bureaucratic, legislative, judicial and public arenas to influence the flow of immigrants” (Massey, 2009, p. 31). Drawing upon the point Massey made, we argue immigration policy not only controls or regulates the “flow of immigrants”, but also influences the fate of the immigrants in the receiving country. After reviewing Massey (2007, 2009), Collinson (2009), Massey et al. (1993) and King (2012) and other evidence, we propose the following analytical framework to explain the condition of migrant workers in the receiving countries:

1The condition of migrant workers in general and in particular the degree of fatalities of migrant workers can be viewed as a political–economic outcome in the receiving country;

2The immigration policy of the receiving country directly influences the flow and fate of migrant workers;

3The immigration policy reflects competing interests, attitudes and perception of major social, political and economic groups in the country, towards the immigrants. The fatalities of migrant workers, therefore, could be viewed as an outcome of social, political and economic stresses;

4The level of social stress depends on two factors: firstly, the pattern of social relationship a migrant worker is able and allowed to build in the receiving society and secondly, the degree of access to social services such as housing, health care and psycho-social counselling. The level of political stress depends on the range of political and legal rights the migrant workers are granted to enjoy, for example, the right to form a trade union, the right to protest. Similarly, the level of economic stress depends on a couple of factors related to their livelihood, for example, the amount and regularity of the earnings, the right and opportunity to change their job and the status of their working conditions. In summary, the level of stress and number of fatalities are positively correlated; the higher the stress level, the higher the number of fatalities.

With reference to the condition of migrant workers in the receiving country, this framework allows us to refocus our attention on the politics of migration. In the migration politics the state plays the central role. The main function of the state is to formulate the migration policy, law and regulations to manage the transnational inflow of migrant workers and also the conditions they work and live in. In terms of the nature of the influence on migrant workers’ work and living conditions in receiving countries the immigration policy could be categorized in two policies: repressive and progressive. Under the repressive immigration policy regime the migrant workers are allowed to enjoy limited access to social, political and economic opportunities and services, thus the level of stress goes high and eventually contributes to increased fatalities. Under the progressive policy regime migrant workers are allowed to live and work in more humane conditions with their rights ensured. Because of this humane and relatively liberal social environment their levels of stress reduce and the likelihood of fatalities gets decreases.

FIGURE 1.1 The relation between workers’ access, stress and fatalities

The nature of the immigration policy and worker fatalities is arguably associated. However, the numbers of migrant worker fatalities substantially vary from country to country and this is because the policies vary. And the policies vary because there is a marked contrast between the countries in terms of their system of governance and politics. In other words, the nature of the policy is directly associated with the system of governance and politics in the receiving country.

Building on Massey’s (2009) propositions, we argue the nature of the governance system determines the nature of the policy. Broadly speaking, a system of governance can be categorized as democratic and non-democratic. These categories are developed based on a maximalist conception of democratic governance. The term “democratic governance” is perceived as a system of politics and government that promotes rule of law, independent judiciary, free, fair and competitive election, voice and accountability and observance of human rights. The dynamic interrelation among these five factors creates a continuum of governance. As argument flows, the countries that score high in the continuum take relatively progressive immigration policy. Meaning, in these countries, the migrants can enjoy civic, social and political rights. For example, they are granted legal access to housing, health care, family reunification and social benefits. For any kind of violation of rights, the migrant workers are entitled to go to court where their rights are constitutionally protected. In these countries the migrant workers are also allowed to form their own social organization. In this situation the workers are allowed to enjoy working life with less stress; thus, the risks of accidents and health hazards appear to be relatively low. The numbers of fatalities among them, therefore, do not increase alarmingly. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Scandinavian countries fall under these categories. On the other extreme, there are countries featured with no or limited constitutional protection of social and political rights, authoritarian non-representative government, a poor rule of law and human rights record. In these countries the migrant workers are denied their access to social services like health care and their right to appeal to decisions about their status. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and countries in the Gulf are some examples of this category. As Massey mentioned, none of the Gulf States recognizes the right to asylum or allows residence without a job. The migrant workers in these countries are explicitly excluded from their social and political structures (Massey, 2009). As a result of denial of the rights, lack of access to services and exclusion from political and social entitlements happen to the migrant workers. For them, hence, the level of stress goes high and eve...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction: Understanding Migration and Fatalities
• 2  Migrants Rights and Gaps in Protection
• 3  Profiling the Deceased Migrants
• 4  The Price Migrants Pay, and Policies in Place
• 5  Conclusions and Recommendations
• References
• Index