| |

Received: 30 January 2021    Revised: 5 July 2021    Accepted: 12 December 2021

DOI: 10.1111/imig.12994

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Unsettling the migration and development

narrative. A Latin American critical perspective

Raúl Delgado Wise

Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

–­Unidad Académica en Estudios del
Desarrollo, Zacatecas, Mexico
Correspondence
Raúl Delgado Wise, Universidad Autónoma
de Zacatecas –­Unidad Académica en
Estudios del Desarrollo, Faroles 104
Zacatecas Zacatecas 98000, Mexico.
Email: rdwise@uaz.edu.mx
Abstract
The efforts to build an institutional framework for the
governance of migration followed a complex and uncer-
tain route. Since 2006, these efforts—­which culminated in
the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and
Secure Migration in 2018—­focused on the relationship be-
tween migration and development in an attempt to avoid
the negative connotations surrounding human mobility,
particularly across the North-­South divide. At the heart
of the debates is an attempt to reconcile two irreconcil-
able positions: a human-­rights centred approach and the
securitization question which reaffirms the right of states
to criminalize migrants under the façade of the right of
states to control “illegal” migration. The aim of this paper
is to delve into these issues by upsetting the migration and
development hegemonic narrative from an alternative per-
spective rooted in the critical Latin American development
school of thought.

I NTRO D U C TI O N

Humanity is facing one of its most severe and distressing crises with more uncertainties than ever before in
the history of capitalism. This crisis, envisioned by John Bellamy Foster (2013) as an epochal crisis, involves
the convergence of economic and ecological contradictions to such a degree that they pose a threat to the
survival of our societies on a planetary scale. According to David Harvey (2020) ‘…COVID-­19 is nature's
revenge for over forty years of nature's gross and abusive mistreatment at the hands of a violent and un-
regulated neoliberal extractivism.’ The force of the pandemic is expanding at an exponential rate, leading
to a global recession that portrays the features of a class, gendered and racialized pandemic. This sparked

© 2022 The Authors. International Migration © 2022 IOM

International Migration. 2022;00:1–11.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/imig  |  1

 |
2      DELGADO WISE

the sirens of nationalism, populism and closure, enhancing the xenophobic wave triggered by the European
refugee crisis and positing new and critical challenges to the United Nation's (UN) efforts to institutionalize
a global migration regime.
The efforts to build an institutional framework for the governance of migration followed a complex and
uncertain route. The non-­r atification of the 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their
Families by most migrant-­r eceiving countries exemplifies the inherent complexity and limitations of this en-
deavour. Derived from the need to discuss pressing issues on the international migration agenda, a broader
initiative for building a global migration regime was envisaged at the UN General Assembly in 2006 with its
launch of the High-­L evel Dialogue on Migration and Development (UN-­H LD). This initiative entailed focusing
on the relationship between migration and development, in an attempt to avoid the negative connotations
surrounding human mobility, particularly across the north–­s outh divide. The first UN-­H LD gave rise to the
creation of a yearly state-­led, non-­b inding, related Forum, alternatively hosted by migrant-­receiving and
migrant-­s ending countries: The Global Forum on Migration and Development. In September 2016, the New
York UN Declaration for Refugees and Migrants was adopted, giving rise to an intergovernmental consultation
and negotiation process that culminated with the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Secure
Migration on December 18, 2018. The United States did not participate in the negotiation process and 14
countries did not attend the international conference in Marrakesh where this non-­b inding agreement was
embraced. At the heart of the debates surrounding the final adoption of the Global Compact for Migration
was the attempt to reconcile two irreconcilable positions: a human rights-­centred approach and the securi-
tization question which reaffirms the right of states to criminalize migrants under the façade of the right of
states to control ‘illegal’ migration.
The main aim of this paper is to delve into these issues by upsetting the migration and development hegemonic
narrative regarding the global governance of migration from an alternative perspective rooted in the critical Latin
American development school of thought.

A CO U NTE R H EG E M O N I C PE R S PEC TI V E O N TH E M I G R ATI O N A N D

D E V E LO PM E NT D E BATE

The dominant perspective

The debate regarding the relationship between migration and development has been dominated by the al-
most sacrosanct belief that migration contributes to development in places and nations of origin. This view—­
promoted by the World Bank in line with the implementation of neoliberal policies—­p osits that remittances
sent by international migrants have a positive effect on development within countries and regions of origin
(IADB, 2006; World Bank, 2012). Rooted in neoclassical and monetarist economic theories, this approach con-
ceives of migration as an independent variable, and the link between migration and development is approached
as a one-­way scheme in which remittances serve as a key source of development for countries of origin (Bate,
2012; Chami et al., 2005; Orozco, 2003; Ratha, et al., 2011; Terry & Wilson, 2005). This optimistic line of rea-
soning portrays the global market as the culmination of capitalist modernity and the end point of an inevitable
process that has no reasonable alternative. Social concerns associated with development are overlooked or
ignored, as it is generally assumed that a ‘free’ global market—­ignoring the outrageous concentration and cen-
tralization of capital in a handful of large multinational corporations that control and regulate the global market
in contemporary capitalism—­will operate as an inexhaustible source of economic growth and social welfare (De
Haas, 2010; Glick Schiller, 2009).
This dominant approach encompasses the following core propositions:
UNSETTLING THE MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE |
      3

1. Remittances are an instrument for development: In the absence of effective development policies in less
developed, migrant-­sending nations, the migrants themselves become agents and catalysts for development
in places of origin. Remittances serve as the primary tool (Ratha et al., 2011).
2. Financial instruments should be democratized: massive remittance flows across the globe produce an at-
tractive market for financial enterprises offering banking services to marginalized groups. Remittance-­
based savings and credit are viewed as an attractive platform for development under microfinance schemes
(Orozco, 2003).
3. The poor have economic power: Remittances provide migrants and their dependents with access to resources
that can bring them out of poverty, transforming them into agents of global capitalist development (Escobar,
2009; World Bank, 2002).

Ultimately, the dominant approach, supported by the main principles and postulates of the neoliberal school
of thought, is conceptually limited. It ignores the historical and political context of contemporary capitalism and
fails to consider critical aspects of the relationship between migration and development (Canales, 2011; De Haas,
2005). It disregards the root causes of migration, ignores the human rights of migrants, downplays the contribu-
tions of migrants to receiving societies and overlooks the risks and adversities they face in countries of transit.
This approach encompasses an optimistic view that fails to address the meagre—­and often unbearable—­living
and working conditions experienced by migrants in receiving societies and the high socioeconomic costs that
migration imposes on sending countries. It also fails to appreciate any potential connection between internal and
international migration.
This approach has also been referred to as migration management (Geiger & Pécoud, 2010; Gosh, 2000).
In fact,

[t]hrough the umbrella of an apparently “neutral” notion … new narratives have been promoted.
These narratives attempt to depoliticize migration, obfuscate the existence of divergent interests
or asymmetries of power and conflicts, avoid obligations imposed by international law, and promote
the idea that managing migration can be beneficial for all stakeholders: countries of destination
countries of origin, the migrants themselves and their families. This unrealistic triple win scenario
clearly favours the interests of the migrant-­receiving countries and the large multinational corpo-
rations based in such countries.
(Delgado Wise et al., 2013: 433–­34)

It is an approach to the relationship between migration and development that engenders—­as mentioned before—­
contrasting views of migrants. In origin countries, they are portrayed as national heroes (Levitt, 2015) with the political
purpose of ensuring the flow of remittances; in transit and destination countries, they are characterized as a burden
and, more and more often, as a negative and polluting cultural and racial influence. The underlying purpose of this
stigmatization is to guarantee the supply of cheap and disposable labour.
From this viewpoint, international migration has been analysed in destination countries in a decontextualized
manner. This ethnocentric and individualistic stance has resulted in an incomplete understanding of the complex
and multidimensional nexus between migration and development (Portes, 2015). It has promoted a kind of meth-
odological imperialism with a nativist focus on salary disparities, the displacement of native workers, illegality
and border security. This vision not only distorts reality but also obscures the underlying causes of migration and
development-­related problems that are intrinsic to neoliberal globalization. Through this lens ‘… remittances have
become a new “development mantra: The belief that remittances can be channelled into economic investments
that will overcome underdevelopment.” Or to put it less positively, the idea is that some of the most exploited
workers in the world can make up for the failure of mainstream development policies’ (Castles & Delgado Wise,
2008: 7).
 |
4      DELGADO WISE

An alternative perspective

In contrast to the dominant view, an alternative, counterhegemonic approach to conceptualizing the relationship
between migration and development rooted on the Latin American critical development school of thought has
been brought into the debate. This school of thought has left an indelible mark on the field of development studies:

ECLAC’s structural school introduced a fundamental paradigmatic shift in the field. For the first
time, the theory and practice of development was analysed from a Southern perspective. This
paradigmatic turn did not merely imply a negation of the North, but a negation of the negation
in dialectical terms: a search for a more systematic analysis of the dynamics of development and
underdevelopment, and for a more equitable form of development or post-­development. With the
advent of the dependency school, an emancipatory angle was incorporated into the debate: the
necessity to transcend the limits of capitalism.
(Veltmeyer & Delgado Wise, 2018: 347–­348)

This perspective, also referred to as a southern perspective, was also incorporated into the field of migration and
development studies in an attempt to build a comprehensive, inclusive, emancipatory and libertarian approach to the
nexus between migration and development (Aragonés et al., 2009; Delgado Wise, 2014). From this analytical prism,
the nexus between migration and development is characterized as a dialectical rather than a unidirectional relation-
ship and approached from a multidimensional framework that encompasses economic, political, social, environmental,
cultural, racial, ethnic, gender, geographical and demographic factors (Canales, 2020; Canterbury, 2010; Castles &
Delgado Wise, 2008).
While the mainstream perspective also regarded as the dominant approach only focuses on the horizontal axis
of Chart 1 (above), from a decontextualized, ahistorical, reductionist and unilateral standpoint, the alternative/
counterhegemonic perspective attempts to cover the whole spectrum of dialectical relationships. It also consid-
ers the ample spectrum of impacts along countries of origin, transit and destination, and incorporates, as a key
analytical dimension, the vertical axis. This axis—­intentionally hidden by the dominant/conservative approach—­
incorporates two fundamental dimensions: (i) an analysis of the multiple violations of human and labour rights
suffered by the migrants themselves and their families in origin, transit and destination countries; and (ii) the root
causes of the complex relationships between migration and development under neoliberal globalization.
A major aspect of the current form of capitalism, neoliberal globalization, is uneven development. The global
and national dynamics of contemporary capitalism, the concomitant international division of labour, the impe-
rialist system of international power relations and the conflicts that surround the capital–­labour relation and
the dynamics of extractive capital have made economic, social, political and cultural polarization more extreme

Impact on migrants
and their families

Impact on Transit Impact on

countries countries destination
of origin countries

ROOT
CAUSES

Neoliberal Globalization

C H A R T 1   The Counterhegemonic Perspective: Key analytical dimensions

UNSETTLING THE MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE |
      5

between geographical spaces and social classes than ever before in human history. A conspicuous outcome of this
scenario is the disproportionate concentration and centralization of capital, power and wealth in the hands of a
small cluster of large multinational corporations. In the expansion of their activities, these corporations have cre-
ated a global network and a process of production, finance, distribution and investment that has allowed them to
seize strategic and profitable segments of peripheral economies and appropriate the economic surplus produced
at enormous social and environmental costs.
This strategic shift entailed what has been described as the new ‘nomadism’ in the global production system,
including commercial and services endeavours, that are supported by the enormous wage differentials that exist
and are reproduced along the north–­south divide—­the so-­called global labour arbitrage (Foster et al., 2011a: 18).
This, in turn, led to a reconfiguration of global value chains, or more precisely, global networks of monopoly capi-
tal, through the establishment of export platforms that operate as enclave economies in peripheral countries. The
resulting strategic shift in the organization of industrial production has been spectacular: ‘The top one hundred
global corporations had shifted their production more decisively to their foreign affiliates [mainly in the South],
which now account for close to 60 per cent of their total assets and employment and more than 60 per cent
of their global sales’ (UNCTAD, 2010). In a similar vein, it is estimated that in the periphery around 100 million
workers are directly employed in assembly plants established in more than 5,400 processing zones that operate
in at least 147 countries (UNCTAD, 2020). This significantly transformed the global geography of production to
such an extent that most of the world's industrial employment (more than 70%) is now located in countries on the
periphery (Foster et al., 2011b).
Through the mechanism of global labour arbitrage, social and geographic asymmetries are reproduced on a
global scale. Social inequalities are one of the most distressing aspects of this process, given the unprecedented
concentration and centralization of capital, power and wealth in a few hands while a growing segment of the
population suffers poverty, (super) exploitation and exclusion. Increasing disparities are also expressed, ever more
strongly, in terms of racial, ethnic and gender relations; reduced access to production and employment; a sharp
decline in living and working conditions; and the progressive dismantling of social safety nets (Kiely, 2018; Klasen,
et al., 2018).
The referred features imply an unprecedented attack on the labour and living conditions of the working class.
With the dismantling of the former Soviet Union, the integration of China and India into the world economy, and
the implementation of structural adjustment programmes (including the opening of tariff barriers, privatizations
and labour reforms) in the Global South, the supply of labour available to capital over the last two decades has
more than doubled from 1.5 to 3.25 billion, in what Richard Freeman calls the ‘Great Doubling’ (Freeman, 2005).
This has led to an exorbitant oversupply of labour that has scaled down the global wage structure and increased
the overall precariousness of labour. According to estimates of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the
number of workers in conditions of labour insecurity rose to 1.5 billion in 2017—­encompassing nearly half of
the world's labour force—­with 800 million receiving a salary of less than three U.S. dollars per day, while the
global number of unemployed continues to rise (ILO, 2018). These conditions—­which are unevenly distributed
worldwide—­have led to growing structural pressures to emigrate internally and/or internationally under condi-
tions of extreme vulnerability. In this regard, the overwhelming growth of the global reserve army of labour and
its uneven distribution in the north–­south horizon, stands out as the main engine of contemporary migration.
The latter entails a new modality of unequal exchange: the exportation of labour power (Delgado Wise, 2020).
This notion encompasses two export categories: direct—­via labour migration—­and indirect or disembodied. In this
regard, through the assembly plants installed in peripheral countries—­operating with imported inputs and tax ex-
emption regimes—­the substance of the manufacturing goods exported is the labour power incorporated into the
productive process. Hence, it entails an indirect or disembodied export of labour power in the guise of exporting
manufactured products.
With the upsurge of south–­n orth highly skilled migration and the emergence of scientific-­technological
platforms in peripheral countries, the export of labour power acquires a broader connotation with the inclusion
 |
6      DELGADO WISE

of the skilled and highly skilled labour force segment. This, in turn, has led to new and extreme modalities of
unequal exchange and to a fundamental reframing of the migration and development question in the face of
the 21st century.
The international debate on migration and development—­associated with the need to establish a global gover-
nance migration regime—­has not been linear. Several disruptive events have influenced the course of the debate:
the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent dismantling of the former Soviet Union; the attacks on the
twin towers of September 11, 2011; and the refugee crisis in Europe triggered in 2015. These events have contrib-
uted to accentuate nationalistic, xenophobic and racial prejudices in the main migrant-­receiving countries, positing
the need not only to advance towards a periodization of the phenomenon, but also to address an increasingly
important and pressing topic in the debate: the securitization issue.

TH E S ECU R ITIZ ATI O N I S S U E I N TH E AG E O F G LO BA L CO M PAC T S ( A N D

COV I D -­1 9)

Today´s right-­wing populist rhetoric embraces a critical shift in the social construction of the ‘other’.

… contemporary populism does not so much mobilize against the (perceived) enemy above but
more against the (perceived) enemy from abroad. Populism has become more and more ethno-­
nationalistic. Populist anti-­elitism today is directed against those who seem to be responsible […]
for mass migration, against élites who have opened the doors to foreign influence and to foreigners.
(Pelinka, 2013: 9)

The securitization issue in the early 21st century has been boosted by this xenophobic and populist/nationalistic
wave (Bello, 2020). It adopts the national security doctrine as a core element of the dominant or mainstream perspec-
tive on the relationship between migration, development and human rights. This perspective ignores the context in
which contemporary migration is embedded and focuses on the control of ‘illegal’ migration. In other words, it is an
approach that criminalizes migrants in line with the right-­wing populist discourse.
Paradoxically, this approach generates divergent views of migrants in their countries of origin, transit and des-
tination. For the former, migrants have become the new face of development; once a forgotten population, they
are now portrayed as national heroes. This view has a political, exploitative raison d’être: Cordial relations with
the diaspora ensure the flow of remittances. Conversely, transit and receiving governments discursively paint mi-
grants as a burden and, at times of crisis—­such as the so-­called refugee crisis in Europe and the current COVID-­19
crisis (Vega, 2021)—­a negative and ‘polluting’ cultural and racial influence. In the interstices of this dichotomy, mi-
grants are also among the most tormented victims of the systemic violence generated by neoliberal globalization.
The worst stigmas attached to foreigners are those of illegality and criminality. In extreme cases, migrants
are linked to terrorism and drug trafficking. Furthermore, in periods of economic depression, migrants are often
held responsible for the economic decline. On the one hand, a type of extractivism identifies migrants as he-
roes; on the other, a punitive approach paints them as criminals. These, however, are two sides of the same coin:
Migrants are cheap labour merchandise, a disposable population that contributes to the dynamics of accumula-
tion. Extractivism is therefore also present in the stance taken by receiving nations: The more vulnerable migrants
are, the more their employers benefit; their social exclusion leads to increased profits and fiscal gains for both em-
ployers and host governments. Both of these portrayals demean migrants with a specific political intent. They also
nullify them as social, rights-­bearing subjects. The migration management discourse also plays an important role in
this regard. ‘Many measures to stop unauthorized migration or to prevent refugees from claiming asylum are, for
example, presented as “necessary” to fight human smuggling and trafficking […] This victimhood approach seems
to have replaced any kind of binding commitments to safeguard migrant's rights’ (Geiger & Pécoud, 2010: 13).
UNSETTLING THE MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE |
      7

It is crucial to understand that migration is not merely the product of individual or family decisions—­as postu-
lated by the neoclassical school of thought—­but a phenomenon with its own patterns, embedded in a set of social
networks and transnational relations (Faist, 2018; Glick Schiller &Salazar, 2012). The massive scale of migration in
the neoliberal era and the bond between domestic and international flows are fundamentally determined by the
contradictory and disorderly dynamics of uneven development. Migration thus adopts the mode of ‘compulsive
displacement’, that is a new modality of forced migration (Delgado Wise, 2019), possessing the following two char-
acteristics: First, migration is essentially an expulsion process resulting from a downward spiral of social regression
triggered by the deprivation of production means and subsistence, pillaging, violence and catastrophes that jeop-
ardize the survival of large segments of the population in places of origin. This is not simply a cumulative or gradual
process, but an actual breakdown of the social order brought about by neoliberal structural adjustment policies,
domination and wealth concentration strategies, which have attained extreme levels and are forcing massive con-
tingents of the population to sell their labour power both nationally and internationally to guarantee their families’
subsistence. Second, compulsive displacement imposes restrictions on the mobility of the migrant workforce,
depreciating and subjecting it to conditions of high vulnerability, precariousness and extreme exploitation. If the
process of expulsion is a reprisal of the original accumulation modes characteristic of the first historical stages
of capitalism, the current liberalization of the workforce—­described by David Harvey (2005) as accumulation by
dispossession—­is fated to face obstacles in the labour market internationally. Migrant-­receiving states regulate
immigrant entry with punitive and coercive instruments that devalue labour, in addition to violating human rights
and criminalizing migrants. Conditions for labour exploitation and social exclusion, as well as risks experienced at
different stages of transit and settling, endanger the lives of migrants.
Under the above circumstances, closely related to the impacts of neoliberal policies across the North–­South
horizon, migration has acquired a new role in the national and international division of labour. Uneven devel-
opment generates a new type of migration that can broadly be characterized as forced migration. Although the
conventional concept of forced migration does not apply to all migrants, most current migration flows are forced
displacements, and therefore require a more accurate descriptor. In the field of human rights, the term forced
migration refers specifically to asylum seekers, refugees or displaced people. However, the dynamics of uneven
development have led to structural conditions that foster the massive migration of dispossessed, marginalized and
excluded populations. Under these circumstances, migration has essentially become a forced population displace-
ment encompassing the following modalities: (a) migration due to violence, conflict and catastrophe; (b) human
trafficking and smuggling; (c) migration due to dispossession, exclusion and unemployment; (d) return migration in
response to massive deportations; and, in a less strict sense, (e) migration due to over-­qualification and a lack of
opportunities (Delgado Wise & Márquez, 2009).
While the dominant position in the migration and development debate is located within a national security
doctrine, the alternative/counterhegemonic approach prioritizes a human security framework. The former is
tailored by a pattern that disregards human rights, vindicating corporate-­driven public policies and temporary
worker programmes as mainstream migration policies. This approach also embraces the remittances myth as a
façade to hidden growing asymmetries among regions and countries and social inequalities as root causes of con-
temporary migration. In contrast, the alternative approach is based on an overarching human rights-­based vision
that promotes equitable and sustainable human development. Rather than opposing national sovereignty (vs the
national security doctrine), it attempts to tackle the root causes of the problematic and not only its consequences,
encouraging free circulation regimes and decent work for everybody.

V I O L ATI O N O F H U M A N R I G HT S

While the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights stipulates member states’ commitment to upholding the
fundamental rights of humankind, these are currently undermined by the economic and political dynamics of
 |
8      DELGADO WISE

neoliberal globalization. The discourse of neoliberal globalization involves a critical paradox: while it promotes
the free circulation of capitals, goods and services across borders, it imposes—­in line with the national secu-
rity doctrine—­barriers to the free circulation of labour. This discourse rests on the ideology of the ‘free’ market,
the end of history, representative democracy and more recently, the war on terrorism. In practice, however, it
promotes the interests of large corporations and a single, exclusive mode of thought, nullifying all alternatives.
Although the prevalent discourse exalts the notion of citizenship and citizen rights and opportunities in a democ-
racy with an open economy and full political participation, the latter is constrained to a limited electoral offer-
ing and is often curtailed by an exclusionary political system that stimulates xenophobic and ethnic-­nationalistic
prejudices. At the same time, fundamental human rights are systematically undermined and subverted by the
doctrine of national security and the demands of a market economy at the service of multinational corporate inter-
ests, which turns the vast majority of the population into cheap means of production and objects of consumption.
In addition, the so-­called welfare state has been increasingly dismantled under the sway of mercantilism, and the
satisfaction of most basic needs is conditioned by the market, where communal goods and public services are of-
fered as new spaces for privatization. Labour flexibility, sustained by a massive global workforce surplus and the
systematic deprivation of labour rights along the North–­South divide, becomes a mechanism through which to
increase competitiveness and extraordinary profits. All of this, in turn, seriously undermines the social, economic,
political and environmental fabric, leading to considerable damage. The advancement of structural reform in pe-
ripheral countries has led to increasing social debt, a fact that remains unacknowledged by governments and the
entrenched powers.
Forced migration is a logical consequence: Human rights violations multiply along migration paths, and the vic-
tims include women, children and entire families (De la Garza, 2010; Herrera, 2008). The human drama underlying
current dynamics threatens the integrity and the lives of migrants, exposing them to robbery, rape, extortion, kid-
napping, detention, deportation, murder, labour and sexual exploitation, insecurity, and social exclusion. Despite
the seriousness of the situation, migrants’ human rights remain at the margin (Ghosh, 2008; Gzesh, 2008).
Receiving, transit and sending countries should all be held accountable. In most receiving countries, there is a
tacit disavowal of labour and human rights where migrants and their families are concerned. Legal residence and
citizenship are also obstructed, under the stigma of illegality, either for reasons connected to racial prejudice or,
more commonly, for reasons associated with economic interest.

TOWA R DS A N I N C LU S I V E AG E N DA

The concept of human development coined by Sen (2000) and adopted by the UN (UNDP, 2009) represents
a positive step in the furthering of the development debate; it cannot, however, adequately address the
complex dynamics of unequal development, forced migration and human rights infringements under con-
temporary capitalism. There is a need for further contextualization; a clear identification of the competing
social projects; the creation of viable pathways that lead to the political and institutional strengthening of
social organizations, movements and networks; and the definition of alternative and transformative agen-
das. This implies the need to rethink development in a much deeper way in order to understand the dynamics
of uneven development. In this regard, the Latin American critical development school of thought has made
important contributions for advancing towards a counterhegemonic agenda on migration and development,
capable of envisioning, in theory and practice, avenues to overcome—­a nd transcend—­L atin America's asym-
metrical and subordinated integration into the world capitalist system (Canterbury, 2010; Delgado Wise,
2014; Fox & Gois, 2010). At the same time and counterposed with the regressive model of development
propelled by neoliberal globalization, it is crucial to rethink development from a post-­n eoliberal perspective
(Veltmeyer & Záyago, 2020).
UNSETTLING THE MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE |
      9

The consequences of the COVID19 pandemic are uncertain. An immediate effect of the pandemic has been
the mass unemployment of broad segments of the population, exacerbating nationalist, xenophobic and racial
prejudices. Most likely, this situation will be further aggravated by the strong tendency to deepen automation in
the face of population confinement. It will also accelerate the current trend towards monopolization. The pan-
demic is also having devastating effects on social security, health systems and all sectors associated with human
mobility; a situation that is already having severe impacts on millions of migrants and refugees, including fatal
victims of the disease (Foladori & Delgado Wise, 2020). Beyond its adverse implications for the working class and
particularly for its most vulnerable segments such as that made up of forced migrants, it is engendering the worst
economic recession in the history of capitalism. The impacts of the recession on the migrants’ countries of origin
will be even more devastating due to their structural weaknesses. The current decline of remittances is already
affecting both the migrant family's income and the balance of payments in the migrant-­sending countries. Access
to foreign exchange becomes particularly critical in times of COVID-­19 not only to face the contingency, but also
for a possible economic recovery in the medium and long term.
What may come out from this epochal crisis—­for its metabolic relation with nature—­is unpredictable, but what
is certain is that it will radically transform the current economic and geopolitical global landscape.

ORCID
Raúl Delgado Wise  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9547-959X

REFERENCES
Aragonés, A., Salgado, U. & Rios, E. (2009) El trabajo Exportador y las Inversiones Extranjeras en la Relación México-­
Estados Unidos. Comercio Exterior, 59(1), 4–­15.
Bate, P. (2012) Un río de oro. El dinero que los inmigrantes envían a sus países sostiene a sus familias y refuerza la economía de la
región. ¿Podría hacer algo más? BIDAmérica: Revista del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Available from http://www.
iadb.org/idbam​erica/​index.cfm?thisi​d=734
Bello, V. (2020) The spiralling of the securitisation of migration in the EU: from the management of a ‘crisis’ to a
governance of human mobility? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–­18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691​
83X.2020.1851464
Canales, A. (2011) Las profundas contribuciones de la migración latinoamericana a los Estados Unidos. In: Migración
internacional en América Latina y el Caribe. Nuevas tendencias, nuevos enfoques. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL, pp. 257–­331.
Canales, A. (2020) Migration, reproduction and society. Economic and demographic dilemmas in global capitalism. The
Netherlands: Brill.
Canterbury, D. (2010) Repensando el debate sobre migración y desarrollo bajo el capitalismo neoliberal. Migración y
Desarrollo, 7(15), 5–­47.
Castles, S. & Delgado Wise, R. (Eds) (2008) Migration and development. Perspectives from the south. Geneva: IOM.
Chami, R., Fullenkamp, C. & Jahjah, S. (2005) Are immigrant remittance flows a source of capital for development.
International Monetary Fund, 52(1), 55–­81.
De Haas, H. (2005) International migration, remittances and development: myths and facts. Thirld World Quarterly, 26(8),
269–­1284.
De Haas, H. (2010) Migration and development: A theoretical perspective”. International Migration Review, 44(1),
227–­264.
De la Garza, R. (2010) Migration, Development and Children Left Behind, Working papers 1005, UNICEF, Division of
Policy and Strategy.
Delgado Wise, R. (2014) A critical overview of migration and development: The Latin American challenge. Annual Review
of Sociology, 40, 643–­663.
Delgado Wise, R. (2019) Forced migration and imperialism in the Neoliberal Era. In: Nees, I. & Cape, Z. (Eds), The Palgrave
Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-­Imperialism. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Delgado Wise, R. (2020) Replanteando la cuestión del desarrollo y su relación dialéctica con la exportación de fuerza de
trabajo de cara al siglo XXI. Migración Y Desarrollo, 18(35), 7–­24. https://doi.org/10.35533/​myd.1835.rdw
Delgado Wise, R. & Márquez, H. (2009) Understanding the relationship between migration and development: toward a
new theoretical approach. Social Analysis, 53, 85–­105.
Delgado Wise, R., Márquez, H. & Puentes, R. (2013) Reframing the debate on migration, development and human rights.
Population, Space and Place, 19(4), 430–­4 43.
 |
10      DELGADO WISE

Escobar, A. (2009) Can migration foster development in Mexico? The case of poverty and inequality. International
Migration, 47(5), 75–­113.
Faist, T. (2018) The transnationalized social question: migration and the politics of social inequalities in the twenty-­first century.
Oxford: Oxford Scholarship.
Foladori, G. & Delgado Wise, R. (2020) Para comprender el impacto disruptivo del Covid-­19, un análisis desde la crítica de
la economía política. Migración y Desarrollo, 18(34), 130–­145.
Foster, J.B. (2013) The Epochal crisis. Monthly Review, 65(6), 1–­12.
Foster, J.B., McChesney, R.W. & Jonna, J. (2011a) The internationalization of monopoly capital. Monthly Review, 63(2), 3–­18.
Foster, J.B., McChesney, R.W. & Jonna, J. (2011b) The global reserve army of labour and the new imperialism. Monthly
Review, 63(6), 1–­15.
Fox, J. & Gois, W. (2010) La sociedad civil migrante: diez tesis para el debate. Migración Y Desarrollo, 7(15), 81–­128.
Freeman, R.B. (2005) What really ails Europe and America: The doubling of the global workforce. The Globalist, June 3.
http://www.thegl​obali​st.com/Story​Id.aspx?Story​Id=5026
Geiger, M. & Pécoud, A. (2010) The Politics of International Migration Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ghosh, B. (2008) Derechos humanos y migración: el eslabón perdido. Migración y Desarrollo, 10, 37–­63.
Glick Schiller, N. & Salazar, N.B. (2013) Regimes of mobility across the globe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2),
183–­200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691​83X.2013.723253
Glick-­Schiller, N. (2009) A global perspective on migration and development. Social Analysis, 53(3), 14–­37.
Gosh, B. (Ed.) (2000) Towards a new international regime for orderly movements of people. In: Managing migration: time
for a new international regime? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6–­26.
Gzesh, S. (2008) Una redefinición de la migración forzosa con base en los derechos humanos. Migración y Desarrollo, 10,
97–­126.
Harvey, D. (2005) The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2020) Anti-­C apitalist Politics in the Time of COVID-­19. Available from: https://jacob​inmag.com/2020/03/
david​-­harve​y-­coron​aviru​s-­polit​ical-­econo​my-­disru​ptions
Herrera, G. (2008) Políticas migratorias y familias transnacionales: migración ecuatoriana en España y Estados Unidos.
In: Herrera, G. & Ramírez, J. (Eds.) América Latina migrante: Estado, familias, identidades. Quito: FLACSO, pp. 71–­86.
IADB (Inter-­American Development Bank). (2006) Las Remesas Como Instrumento de Desarrollo. Washington, DC: IDB/MIF.
ILO (International Labour Organization). (2018) World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2018. Geneva: ILO.
Kiely, R. (2018) Development and inequality: a critical analysis. In: Fagan, G.H. & Munck, R. (Eds.) Development and in-
equality: a critical analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Klasen, S., Cornia, G.A., Grynspan, R., López-­C alva, L.F., Lustig, N., Fosu, A. et al. (2018) Economic inequality and social
progress. In: International panel on social progress. Rethinking society for the 21st century. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 83–­140. https://doi.org/10.1017/97811​0 8399623
Levitt, P. (2015) Social remittances: how migrating people drive migrating culture. In: Triandafyllidou, A. (Ed.) Routledge
handbook of immigration and refugee studies. London: Routledge.
Orozco, M. (2003) Remesas en la Región de América Latina y el Caribe. Un Análisis de su Impacto Económico. México: CONAPO.
Available from: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/work/model​s/CONAP​O/migra​cion_inter​nacio​nal/migint_desar​rollo/​11.pdf
Pelinka, A. (2013) Right-­Wing Populism: concept and typology. In: Wodak, R., KhosraviNik, M. & Brigitte, M. (Eds), Right-­
wing populism in Europe. Politics and discourse. Oxford: Bloomsbury.
Portes, A. (2015) Immigration, transnationalism, and development: the state of the question. In: Portes, A. & Fernandez-­
Kelly, P. (Eds.) The state and the grassroots: immigrant transnational organizations in four continents. Oxford: Berghahn
Books, pp. 1–­21.
Ratha, D., Mohapatra, S. & Scheja, E. (2011). Impact of migration on economic and social development: a review of evidence
and emerging issues. Policy Research Working Paper No. 558, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Sen, A.K. (2000) Desarrollo y libertad. Madrid: Editorial Planeta.
Terry, D.F. & Wilson, S.R. (2005) Beyond small change. Making migrant remittances count. Washington: Inter-­American
Development Bank.
UNCTAD (2010) World investment report 2010. Nueva York: United Nations.
UNCTAD. (2020). Special Economic Zones and Urbanization. Available from: https://unhab​itat.org/speci​al-­econo​mic-­
zones​-­sezs-­and-­urban​ization
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2009) Human development report 2009: overcoming barriers: human
mobility and development. New York: United Nations Development Programme http://hdr.undp.org/en/repor​t s/globa​
l/hdr20 ​09/
Vega, D. (2021) The COVID-­19 pandemic on anti-­immigration and xenophobic discourse in Europe and the United States.
Estudios Fronterizos, 22. https://doi.org/10.21670/​ref.2103066
Veltmeyer, H. & Delgado Wise, R. (2018) Rethinking development from a Latin American perspective. Canadian Journal
of Development Studies, 39(3), 335–­352.
UNSETTLING THE MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE |
      11

Veltmeyer, H. & Záyago, E. (2020) Buen Vivir and the challenges to capitalism in Latin America. London: Routledge.
World Bank (2002) Empowerment and poverty reduction: a sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2012) Migration and remittances factbook 2011. Washington, DC: World Bank.

How to cite this article: Delgado Wise, R. (2022) Unsettling the migration and development narrative. A
Latin American critical perspective. International Migration, 00, 1–­11. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1111/imig.12994