This chapter set out to achieve three aims. The first was to locate within the literature on migration and labour the terrain within which temporary migrant worker programmes (TMWPs) are most usefully studied, particularly with reference to seasonal agriculture. The chapter provided a
theoretical and historical framework within which the RSE may be examined in its labour dimension. I have suggested that there is a distinct body of economic migration which is not necessarily defined by the crossing of international borders but by the temporary loss of substantive citizenship and the associated risk of exploitation. The short term and often seasonal nature of the migration means that the social security functions remain in the sending region. Contract migrant worker programmes such as the RSE fall within this description, and a sharper focus is provided than the somewhat vague context of circular migration. Secondly, the RSE scheme has arrived in the era of ‘post-Cold War’ contract labour schemes. There are close similarities between the RSE and the Canadian SAWP scheme, which may be regarded as a forerunner to twenty-first century schemes. However there is a considerable body of literature highlighting the exploitative nature and abusive practices within this widely respected work scheme. Thirdly, the source region for this labour may be of two kinds. The first has been described as the “peasant-worker” and examples are found in such places as Mozambique, interior China, and the Pacific Islands. The second source is generally found in the “slums” of southern cities. This labour may or may not be fully dislocated from the agrarian sector.
The second aim was to examine the issue of exploitation in the context of migrant labour to enable a critical examination of the RSE scheme. There are several overlapping discourses which inform the issue of exploitation. Firstly, the loss of substantive citizenship, the growth of a secondary labour market which offers precarised employment, the unfree labour relationship, and the ‘race to the bottom’ under global capitalism, are phenomena which intersect in complex ways. Within these general approaches each situation must be studied in a nuanced way. Secondly, agricultural work is noted as having a high rate of precarisation. All workers, including
both migrant and domestic workers, have remained within the sector at low rates of pay, and in some cases deprived of the rights which workers enjoy under most rights-based treaties, for culturally specific reasons. The seasonal demand for extra labour for harvest cannot be met at these rural pay rates using free labour in current conditions. Unfree migrant labour provides not only a guaranteed compliant work force at modest pay but also a work force which is effectively on call seven days a week. Thirdly, the studies of the ILO on forced labour in the twenty-first century suggest that a simple linear progression in human rights cannot be assumed. A common thread throughout all the literature is the notion that migrant workers whose pay and conditions and entitlements are less than those of nationals are being exploited. This definition of exploitation is explicit in a number of rights-based treaties, to which there is resistance from northern countries to sign. However, when an entire sector is low paid and under entitled in relation to other sectors, it cannot necessarily be claimed that there is no exploitation.
The third aim was to clarify which aspects of the RSE programme are worth closer examination in the light of the above discussion. Particular emphasis in primary research was placed on the following questions:
1. What does a detailed examination of the recruitment process tell us about levels of empowerment/disempowerment within the RSE and between the RSE and other schemes?
2. What are the relative negotiating positions between employer and employee in relation to such matters as the rights of an employer to summary dismissal?
3. How does the “indentured” aspect which ties the employee to one employer during a season impact on the worker’s experience, and is this aspect used?
4. Does the lack of citizenship have real impacts on the lives of the workers?
5. Is the practice of the RSE in accordance with the covenant New Zealand has signed? 6. Does the RSE lead to more or less precarised conditions in the horticultural/viticultural
sector?
7. Do the workers become dependent on the programme for basic livelihoods or are they using it strategically?
Chapter Three. The RSE, The Pacific, and the
Migration/Development Nexus
3.1.
Introduction
Just as the previous chapter sought to provide theoretical and historical context in which the RSE could be examined in its labour dimension, this chapter seeks to provide theoretical context in which the RSE may be examined in its development dimension. It is in part a search for what is ‘meaningful development’ in a Pacific context33, and consequently for indicators which might be used to define
and measure development processes resulting from temporary migrant worker programmes (TMWPs) in the Pacific. The temptation to rely on a single recognised development framework to gauge the ‘success’ of the RSE programme34 could invite tautology and has been resisted, but the
meaning of a critical approach will be examined. Firstly, however, a brief overview is presented on the source countries for the RSE.
The majority of source countries are small Pacific Island nations. At the beginning of 2009, the kick start states (Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, Kiribati, and Tuvalu) provided three quarters of all RSE workers, a figure only marginally altered with the entry of the Solomon Islands (MBIE statistics, see table 3.1). An analysis of how the RSE impacts on development therefore requires an understanding of small islands. Malaysia and Thailand do continue to contribute around 15% of the RSE workforce and Malaysia in particular has a higher position on most commonly used development indices.
Although the Pacific Islands exhibit some unique features which do not comfortably fit with much of mainstream development discourse, not all would see the need for a nissology (Christensen & Mertz, 2010). Pacific Island realities documented by Connell (2011) are not substantially different from the realities for most developing countries: permanent urban migration, growing slums,
underemployment, attendant violence, and disproportionate numbers of youth. Armstrong and Read (2006) claim, using regression analysis, that smallness is not, of itself, the likely cause of a slowly growing economy, although remoteness could be. However, most studies of Pacific
development have found an awkward fit between Pacific realities and major paradigms (see Hayes,
33 It could be suggested that the choice of development alternatives belongs to the island communities
themselves, not the researcher, but this is simplistic. At first there is the choice of the unit of analysis, and depending whether this is set at the level of the nation, the island, or the village community, the household, or individual, the same development perspectives will not necessarily be preferred. A responsible researcher will be receptive to the perspective of the researched but will not be morally vacuous.
34 The sustainable livelihoods framework has been used in this way by PhD researchers in development studies (see, for example Cahn, 2006).
1991). A growing volume of literature specific to the needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), has been particularly evident in the climate change (Barnett & Campbell, 2010; Wong, 2011), and tourism (de-Miguel-Molina, de-Miguel-Molina, & Rumiche-Sosa, 2014; D. Lee, Hampton, &
Jeyacheya, 2015) contexts. Within a United Nations framework, the third international conference of SIDS took place in Samoa from 1-4 September 2014. The conference report (SIDS Accelerated
Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway, 2014) is eclectic in its approach to development, but emphasises green sustainable development against a background of climate change in aspirational terms.
Table 3.1 shows the positions occupied on commonly cited development indices by countries providing the majority of workers for the RSE programme. An additional column gives an indication of the impact of remittances on each of the island economies.
Table 3-1: Development Indices for Source Countries
COUNTRY % of RSE workers (2011/12) HDI RANKING (2014) HDI INDEX (UNDP 2014) GNI $US / capita (WB, 2013) % of GDP from all remittances (WB,2012)** Tonga 20 100 0.705 4490 24 Malaysia 5 62 0.773 10430 0.5 Thailand 9 89 0.722 5340 1 Samoa 17 106 0.694 3970 20 Indonesia 4 108 0.684 3580 1 Vanuatu 34 131 0.616 3130 2.5 Solomon Islands 6 157 0.491 1600 2 Other, e.g. PNG 2 Kiribati 2 133 0.607 2620 7 Tuvalu 1 * * 5840 9
Source: author (using MBIE, World Bank, UN databases)
https://data.undp.org/dataset/HDI-Indicators-By-Country-2014/5tuc-d2a9 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
*not HDI listed. The micro state of Tuvalu was examined by Gani (2010) across a range of measures such as child mortality rates which showed only minimal improvement over time.
** It is acknowledged that unofficial flows may give a different perspective. Such figures must be treated with caution, as for some countries estimates fluctuate widely.
An awareness of “smallness” does not avoid engagement with the major discourses of development. This project looks at development through a critical lens, and the remaining part of this chapter seeks to understand what a critical lens might look like in a small Pacific Island context. Section 3.2 explores the meaning of critical development from several perspectives to set a broad platform from which to build the search for development indicators. Section 3.3 then examines the meaning and significance of culture, and shows how different understandings of culture lead to very different notions of what constitutes progress. Section 3.4 examines how migration discourses have
overlapped with development discourse in the Pacific context, and how this synthesis has fed into a dominant rhetoric which has placed Pacific migration in a positive light. The purpose of highlighting this rhetoric is not necessarily to discredit it but to place it in the frame as an object of study rather than a presumed framework of study. In summary, whereas section 3.3 is about the confluence between anthropological discourse and development, section 3.4 is about the confluence between migration studies and development. Section 3.5 is more ambitious, and may contain an original element. It argues for the continued relevance of dependency theory and underdevelopment literature, by suggesting that development initiatives can be audited in terms of functionality. From each of these sections (3.3-3.5) development indicators are produced which are referred to as cultural protection, material benefits, sustainability, and congruence.