For a fee: the recruitment of migrant domestic workers
Various, including ILO Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (DfID and U.S. Department of Labour), International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Open Society Foundations, Humanity United.
ILO, IOM, Fair Hiring Initiative, Equip (Lebanon)
Dr. Katharine Jones, Marie Apostol, Leena Ksaifi, Daryl Delgado, Stephanie Morin, Patrick Dobree, Wangui Irimu.
A number of related projects have sought to document and explain how recruitment firms and brokers profit from organising migration, how and why recruitment firms engage in specific unethical/ abusive business practice, why it predominates as a means of organizing migration in some national contexts and not in others, and how recruitment abuses can be effectively challenged by governments and by migrants themselves. With various collaborators and team members, projects have been conducted in Indonesia, Singapore, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Lebanon, Jordan, Brazil, Paraguay and Kenya. The current project explores how male and female migrant workers are able to most effectively challenge exploitative labour recruiters, with research conducted globally, but especially in Qatar and Nepal.
In 2015, there were an estimated 244 million migrants worldwide, an increase of 41% since the turn of the millennium. Over the past two decades, ‘recruiters’ who organise labour migration across international borders have also dramatically increased in numbers. Recruiters are a well-documented source of exploitation of migrant workers. Their business practices are known to exacerbate the risk of abuse, forced labour and human trafficking. Among the most widely cited abuses perpetrated by recruiters are: deception about the nature and conditions of work, confiscation of passports, illegal wage deductions, debt bondage linked to extortionate recruitment fees, threats if workers want to leave their employers and physical violence.
Four studies (the recruitment of migrant women into domestic from Bangladesh, India, Nepal into Jordan and Lebanon) were conducted for the ILO Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (SAP-FL) between 2014 and 2015 as part of the Work in Freedom Initiative funded by UK DfID. This programme aimed to preventing the trafficking of women and girls in South Asia and the Middle East through promoting education, fair recruitment, safe migration and decent work. The study contributed to amendments to regulation in these countries, advocacy and campaigning, and the development of ethical recruitment principles with the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and employers’ bodies.
Two further studies were funded by the US Department of Labour under the auspieces of the ILO Fair Recruitment Initiative, launched in 2014. These contributed to the development of ILO and US Government programmes of work in these countries (Brazil, Paraguay and Kenya) to tackle exploitation of migrants, as well to advocacy on the ground.
A further study conducted for Open Society Foundations (Asia and Middle East Programme) explored the use of a “TripAdvisor” style project for migrant women to report back on and improve the practices of exploitative recruiters in Indonesia. This study influenced the further development of the project, and has fed into the development of a global “TripAdvisor for Migrants” soon to be launched by the ITUC/ ILO with funding from the US Government.
In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number of referendums and public votes. Here in Britain, we have held some of the most headline-grabbing ones; the Brexit vote and the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. More recently, there have been votes on immigration in Hungary, gay marriage in Australia and abortion in Ireland. Why have governments turned this form of public involvement? Is it a sign of populism? And what does it mean for representative democracy? Professor Matt Qvortrup will presents his findings based on more than 30 years of research in the field and his new publication Government by Referendum.
Life on the Breadline: Christianity, Poverty and Politics in the 21st Century city
The aim of the ‘Life on the Breadline…’ project is to understand how the social context resulting from the 'age of austerity' has affected Christian engagement with poverty in the UK and the theological motivations, which underpin it, in order to facilitate the development of better informed government policy and more effective faith-based activism thereby reducing urban social exclusion and inequality.
Rukshanda Naz Alumnus Reflection
I am an activist in the Pakistani women’s movement since the early 1990s. A lawyer by profession, I also worked with a number of NGOs on issues of violence against women and children and on women’s empowerment programs. My work for peace started with issues of Afghan Refugees and peace movements for India and Pakistan. As a professional, I have served one of the country’s leading civil society organizations for women’s rights, Aurat Foundation, as Resident Director from May 1993-May 2008 and Chief Operating Officer May 2008-Oct 2009.
Ernest Asigri Alumnus Reflection
I have over seventeen years of development management experience with specialties in Peacebuilding, Human Security and Refugee Livelihoods Sustainability. I’ve worked with a number of civil society and international organisations, including the UNDP both in Ghana and within the West African Sub-region. Currently I am working as the Programmes Manager at the Ghana Pentecostal and Charismatic Council...
Crisis, what crisis? Assessing international responses to refugees from 2010 to 2020
With around 22.5 million people are currently displaced across international borders by armed conflict, persecution or human rights violations and two thirds living in long-term, protracted displacement, there have been repeated political and media claims of an unprecedented ‘global refugee crisis’. But how useful is it to think of this as a global crisis? How have states and international organisations sought to address the issue? And what lies ahead for international politics and policy making?