Political economy of immigration policy in GCC countries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Jaeck
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Gcc Countries

scholarly journals You're not welcome here: examining the intersections of migration and neoliberal immigration policy in Canada

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind V. Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Global South ◽  
Human Smuggling ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Canadian Immigration Policy ◽  
The North ◽  
Canadian Immigration ◽  
Global North

This analysis examines the intersections of migration and neoliberal immigration policy in Canada through a political economy lens. It looks particularly at the increasing phenomenon of human smuggling and it asks how the emergence of neoliberalism has shaped Canadian immigration policy and how has this impacted working peoples’ lives and forced them to become migrants. Canada increasingly treats migrants with suspicion and seeks to prevent the less “profitable” ones from entering. Today’s policies are the result of a historical process of entrenching a North-South divide as some sort of unavoidable truth, and the fruits of the global North as requiring protection from “needy” and “lazy” poor in the global South. It is this paradigm which the following analysis seeks to problematize and deconstruct by examining the historical roots of the North-South divide.

scholarly journals You're not welcome here: examining the intersections of migration and neoliberal immigration policy in Canada

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind V. Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Global South ◽  
Human Smuggling ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Canadian Immigration Policy ◽  
The North ◽  
Canadian Immigration ◽  
Global North

This analysis examines the intersections of migration and neoliberal immigration policy in Canada through a political economy lens. It looks particularly at the increasing phenomenon of human smuggling and it asks how the emergence of neoliberalism has shaped Canadian immigration policy and how has this impacted working peoples’ lives and forced them to become migrants. Canada increasingly treats migrants with suspicion and seeks to prevent the less “profitable” ones from entering. Today’s policies are the result of a historical process of entrenching a North-South divide as some sort of unavoidable truth, and the fruits of the global North as requiring protection from “needy” and “lazy” poor in the global South. It is this paradigm which the following analysis seeks to problematize and deconstruct by examining the historical roots of the North-South divide.

Immigration and International Political Economy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret E. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Service Sector ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Social Welfare System ◽  
Additional Costs ◽  
Openness To Trade

Immigration has largely been neglected as part of the study of International Political Economy (IPE) until recently. Currently, IPE scholars have focused on two questions regarding immigration: what explains variation in public opinion on immigration and what explains variation in immigration policy. The scholarship on public opinion on immigration has largely been divided into two camps, those who argue that economic factors drive opinion and those who argue that cultural factors are the driver. Those who study the role economic factors have played in shaping opinion on immigration often start with the Stolper-Samuelson theorem. The Stolper-Samuelson theorem shows that while immigration increases the overall size of the economy, it has different distributional effects. Immigration increases the size of the labor pool and, thus, should increase the returns to capital while decreasing wages. As such, those who derive most of their income from capital should favor immigration while those who derive most of their income from wages should oppose immigration. Additionally, the Stolper-Samuelson model shows that openness to trade should have the same effects as open immigration; thus, people should oppose or favor both trade and immigration. Early scholarship examined these predictions and found that opposition to immigration was much higher than opposition to trade and that those who derive much of their income from capital also oppose immigration at high rates. In response, one set of scholars focused on the additional costs that immigration, but not trade, brings. Immigrants, unlike goods, may place a burden on the social welfare system and thus, opposition to immigration especially by the wealthy may be driven by these costs. Other scholars noted that immigrants work in many industries that are unaffected by trade—most notably the service sector—and this may explain opposition to immigration. Finally, a third group has argued that opposition to immigration is largely driven by cultural concerns and xenophobia. Currently, this debate continues with both sides examining more nuanced survey data. Scholarship on immigration policy has similar divides. Immigration policy has become more restrictive since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when most countries had very few restrictions on immigration. To explain these restrictions, one school of scholars has argued that labor unions oppose immigration, as it hurts the wages of their members. As unions gain strength, immigration should become more restricted. Others focus on the rise of the welfare state, arguing that immigration has been restricted to keep costs low. A third group has argued that greater political rights in the early and mid-20th century for the generally xenophobic working class has led to the restrictions. Finally, new scholarship argues that increased globalization—in the form of increased trade and increased foreign direct investment—has sapped business support for immigration, which has allowed anti-immigrant groups to have more say. Using a wealth of newly collected data, scholars are testing these different theories.

scholarly journals The Political Economy of Immigration Policy: The Example of Scotland

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-529
Author(s):  
David McCollum ◽  
Scott Tindal ◽  
Allan Findlay
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
General Public ◽  
The Political ◽  
Immigration Policies ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
Conceptual Understandings

The inward mobility of labour can serve as a driver of economic growth and the immigration policies of many countries are orientated towards this end. However immigration is also a contentious issue, with the general public often displaying hostility towards liberal immigration policies. The compromises between economic and political considerations that states make when developing immigration policy are poorly theorised in academic literature. The study contributes to conceptual understandings of the voices of ‘elites’ in the political-economy of immigration policy through a critical interrogation of the narratives and preferences of employers in the context of the ongoing Scottish constitutional change debate.

The Immigrant as Bogeyman: Examining Donald Trump and the Right’s Anti-immigrant, Anti-PC Rhetoric

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Finley ◽  
Luigi Esposito
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Political Correctness ◽  
Job Security ◽  
Social Injustice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Trade Deals ◽  
Offensive Language

This article examines the rhetoric used by President Trump and his administration with respect to immigrants and immigration policy. We argue that Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric can be understood as (1) a response against current norms associated with political correctness, which include a heightened sensitivity to racially offensive language, xenophobia, and social injustice, and (2) a rejection of the tendency to subordinate patriotism, U.S. sovereignty, and national interests to a neoliberal political economy that emphasizes “globalism” and prioritizes “free trade” over the interests of working Americans. In order to highlight how much of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is developed as a response to political correctness and the neoliberal tendency toward globalism, we employ the concept of “collective action frames” to suggest that Trump’s (and much of the Right’s) efforts to legitimize their strict agenda on immigration relies on frames related to (1) crime and the threat immigrants pose to Americans’ safety, (2) the notion that immigrants and free trade deals lower Americans’ wages and compromise their job security, and (3) the claim that Democrats and other liberals are driven by a politically correct orthodoxy that hurts American workers by being “weak on immigration” and supportive of “open borders.” The article concludes with recommendations for fighting the normalization of scapegoating immigrants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document