Hyper-precarious lives : Migrants, work and forced labour in the Global North

This paper unpacks the contested inter-connections between neoliberal work and welfare regimes, asylum and immigration controls, and the exploitation of migrant workers. The concept of precarity is explored as a way of understanding intensifying and insecure post-Fordist work in late capitalism. Migrants are centrally implicated in highly precarious work experiences at the bottom end of labour markets in Global North countries, including becoming trapped in forced labour. Building on existing research on the working experiences of migrants in the Global North, the main part of the article considers three questions. First, what is precarity and how does the concept relate to working lives? Second, how might we understand the causes of extreme forms of migrant labour exploitation in precarious lifeworlds? Third, how can we adequately theorize these particular experiences using the conceptual tools of forced labour, slavery, unfreedom and precarity? We use the concept of ‘hyper-precarity’ alongside notions of a ‘continuum of unfreedom’ as a way of furthering human geographical inquiry into the intersections between various terrains of social action and conceptual debate concerning migrants’ precarious working experiences

European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence-sitting, or adaptation?

Motivation The article examines the advocacy strategies of European non‐government development organizations (NGDOs). The development aid literature has not put much emphasis on understanding NGDOs’ aid‐related advocacy strategies, and the literature on interest groups has so far neglected to explain why groups select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area. Purpose The article explains how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to attempts by the European Union (EU) to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation (CCA), and funding the private sector. Approach and methods The article develops a framework explaining NGDOs’ strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs’ funding, and its relation to the groups’ normative positions. The article uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff of NGDO networks based in Brussels. Findings NGDOs used different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence‐sitting in case of CCA; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases. Policy implications The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, allowing them to become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments