Neoliberalism and Refugees
by Natasha Tracy
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, an ideology defined by the proliferation and deregulation of financial markets, free market trade, cutting state welfare and taxes, and the commodification of health, rose to prominence in the 1980’s with Reagan and Thatcher (1). The problems of inflation and rising oil prices were compounded when industrial production in the global north declined, thus decreasing the demand for raw goods and agricultural commodities from countries across Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Packard, 2016). With the cost of money rising (as banks charged higher interest rates), international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank stepped in to prevent these countries from defaulting on their loans. As part of their conditions, they enforced austerity measures known as Structural Adjustment Policy (SAPs) on these cash-starved countries.
The goal of SAPs was first and foremost to secure the international financial system, catering to the lender banks of the global north. They also served to transform economies of developing countries to free-market economies (Sayson, 2006). This was achieved through peeling back necessary public institutions; for example, limiting the development of public infrastructure, cutting federal paychecks, halting investment in social programs and hospitals, and more. This crippling of local infrastructure would pave the way for millions to die due to cholera, Ebola, and AIDS crises.
As Keshavjee puts it, “these loans were seen as a way to reward loyalty in the face of perceived Soviet aggression and expansion. For example, Jordan, which had previously been turned down on loans for water and sanitation in 1958, was given a loan in 1960 after the pro-Nasser coup in Iraq” (2014). These forced regime changes were usually orchestrated by the World Bank’s debt enforcer (and largest doner) the United States. After decades of political and financial infiltration, neoliberalism became successfully ingrained in countries across the globe. This political ideology perpetuated hostility towards the working class, minorities, and some of the world’s most vulnerable population – refugees.
How Neoliberalism Has Affected Refugees
Refugees are a particularly vulnerable population – after fleeing their country due to war, persecution, and violence, they often face additional problems in host countries. These problems are often caused or exacerbated by neoliberalism, as demonstrated by the European migrant
crisis of 2015 and many countries’ unwillingness to accept refugees. A study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that strong levels of neoliberal ideology in American individuals were significantly related to exclusion of Central American asylum seekers, low rates of willingness to support the rights of asylum seekers, and higher rates of ethnocentrism (Dutt and Kohfeldt, 2019). But this problem, due to America’s economic influence around the globe, is not localized.
Kenya currently hosts half a million refugees from Somalia, but treats them with hostility, as they are seen as “security and economic threats to the Kenyan state” (Bhagat, 2019). These feelings culminated until the Dadaab camp – which has hosted Somalis since 1991 – was dismantled and over 75,000 refugees were returned to Somalia.
Kenya is willing to accept refugees, as hosting them attracts aid money, but unwilling to let them join mainstream society due to resource scarcity and poverty caused by SAPs (Bhagat, 2019). Kenyan neoliberalism uses three main methods to keep refugees on the fringes of society: citizenship, housing, and income. Refugees are by no means helpless people, but the systemic obstacles placed before them in host countries contribute to their vulnerability and disposability, as evidenced by the mass return of refugees to Somalia. Bhagat also proposes that neoliberalism contributes to “racial disposability” to exclude as many people as possible from state responsibility (2019). This idea of racial disposability is evident in refugee discourse in America and Europe and will be discussed at length.
As mentioned previously, citizenship is one of the obstacles placed before refugees. With the commodification of citizenship, the idea and purpose of belonging has changed. As Mevalli states, the neoliberal process of citizenship “turns states and individuals into entrepreneurial actors that attempt to maximize their value, not just in economic and financial but also in moral and emotional terms” (2018). The market becomes master over the governance of the state, with the term “economization” describing the application of neoliberalism to all spheres of life, molding individuals into the competitive neoliberal order (Foucault, 2010). While talented and wealthy refugees may face an easier path to citizenship (exemplified by America’s O1 visa), borders for undocumented migrants and “ordinary” refugees harden. This logical framework makes the admission of a few thousand refugees applaudable and the condemnation of tens of thousands of others to death along migratory routes and overcrowded, dehumanizing camps easily made acceptable in the eyes of these states -- all for the lack of these refugees’ capital value.
The European Migrant Crisis – a dehumanizing name in and of itself – referred to the heightened migration of asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016. Most of these 2.5 million refugees were from North Africa and the Middle East fleeing political and socioeconomic conflict. Attitudes towards these refugees were often characterized with contempt, ethnocentrism, and racial biases – the resurgence of far-right politics during this time reinforced these attitudes. The European Parliament found that 73% of EU citizens felt that migration management should be stricter, calling for “greater reform, stronger borders, equitable distribution of migrants, and an increased effort to fight terrorism” (European Parliament, 2017).
Due to this tension, refugees experienced high rates of violence and even expulsion from their initial host country – a phenomenon known as “third country displacement” (Bhagat, 2019). This is not surprising, as this time also saw a right-wing resurgence, evidenced by protests and electoral successes. In Germany, there were weekly protests from the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident, and Alternative for Germany became the third most popular party, inciting more than 1,000 attacks on refugee homes in 2015 (Georgi, 2019). Norbert Hofer of Austria, a far-right presidential candidate, was defeated only narrowly, and anti-migrant sentiment fueled Brexit in Britain. Poland and Hungary used anti-Muslim rhetoric to fuel the growth of their right-wing parties as well (Georgi, 2019). Despite Merkel’s opening of German borders in late summer and fall of 2015 (which was followed by other EU countries except Hungary), conservative forces lashed out against this humanitarian movement, and migration policies became stricter than they originally were – even after the deadly Lampedusa shipwreck. Amnesty International condemned the new policies, stating “This reckless European strategy is not just failing to deliver the desired outcome of stopping departures and preventing further loss of life, but is in fact exposing refugees and migrants to even greater risks at sea and, when intercepted, to disembarkation back in Libya” (2017).
While examples of individuals partaking in racially motivated protests were described previously, racism is material and systemic, inseparable from the function and reproduction of society. It is part of how people learn to understand themselves and their position in the world – a disturbing concept given race has been twisted as a biological concept to meet political needs, originally cemented into law after Bacon’s Rebellion to prevent class solidarity (Roberts, 2011). The resurgence in racism during the Migrant Crisis can be understood as a result of a) political, cultural, and social gains recently made by racial minorities b) autonomy of migrants, and c) crises of capitalism, including severe global overaccumulation, (2) climate change, labor crises, and more. Europe has become increasingly diverse in the last thirty years, and with transparent racism (recently) deemed unacceptable in the eyes of liberals, right-wing politicians instead devise strategies relating to migration, resource distribution, and opportunity for racial minorities. In addition, asylum claims rose despite European pushback, illustrating that humans will not passively accept negative conditions. Lastly, the global North has inflicted severe damage on the economic, environmental, and political landscape of the global South, resulting in crises that are often characterized by ethnic, religious, and racial struggles.
Conclusion
Refugees undergo formidable political turmoil in their native country and must make the daunting decision to leave, only to face additional problems in their host country. We owe it to those we have exploited for decades to welcome them and ensure their basic needs – if for no other reason, simply because they are human and inherently deserve the right to participate fully in society. The barriers placed before them, whether in the form of citizenship, housing, income, protests, or quotas, are unacceptable. After exploring some of the causes for this backlash, it is inevitable to conclude that that neoliberalism creates the environment for racial and political attacks to be made against this vulnerable group. Moving forward, we should advocate for a society that uplifts the working class and embraces human life as something more than just a use-value. Such a society simply cannot exist within a capitalist economy.
Works Cited
Amnesty International. “A perfect storm: the failure of European policies in the central Mediterranean”. Amnesty International, 2017.
Bhagat, A. “Governing Refugee Disposability: Neoliberalism and Survival in Nairobi.” New Political Economy, 2019, pp. 1-14.
Bhagat, A. “Displacement in ‘actually existing’ racial neoliberalism: refugee governance in Paris.” Urban Geography, 2019, pp. 1-21.
Dutt, A., & Kohfeldt, D. “Assessing the Relationship between Neoliberal Ideology and Reactions to Central American Asylum Seekers in the United States.” Journal of Social Issues, 2019.
European Parliament. “Migration Crisis: 73% of Europeans want EU to do more.” Europa, 2017.
Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. Translated by Graham Burchell, 2010. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Georgi, Fabian. “The role of racism in the ‘European migrant crisis’: a historical materialist perspective”. Racism after apartheid: challenges for Marxism and anti-racism, edited by
Vishwas Satgar, Democratic Marxism Series, 2019, pp. 96-117.
Keshavjee, Salmaan. Blind Spot: How Neoliberalism Infiltrated Global Health. University of California Press, 2014.
Mavelli, Luca. “Citizenship for Sale and the Neoliberal Political Economy of Belonging.” International Studies Quarterly, 2018, (0), pp. 1-12.
Packard, Randall. A History of Global Health: Interventions into the Lives of Other Peoples. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Roberts, Dorothy. Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century. New Press, 2011.
Sayson, Jiah. “Structural Adjustment Programs: Whose Colonizing Instrument”? Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 34(1), 2006, pp. 53-64.
World Health Organization. “WHO called to return to the Declaration of Alma-Ata”. World Health Organization, n.d.
Footnotes
1: A key component of neoliberalism was Selective Primary Healthcare (SPH), contrasting Alma Ata conference of 1978 in which Universal Primary Healthcare was deemed the gold standard to obtain the Health For All goal. This goal stated that “an acceptable level for all people of the world by the year 2020 can be obtained” (WHO, n.d.). Needless to say, this goal was not met. SPH sought to provide cost-effective selective care, allowing commodification of health and lives to become acceptable.
2: Overaccumulation leads to the contradiction that occur under capitalism in which businesses are incentivized to maximize profit, and the more successful they are, the more labor and capital become devalued. The most notable example is the Great Depression.