- Intermediaries themselves are a fragmented bunch. They come in lots of different shapes and sizes, for example, Deloitte, PWC, EY, and KPMG (the ‘big four’) all do some work facilitating immigration, there are also individuals who’ve set up their own businesses (again, these come in various shapes and sizes) which exclusively help would-be immigrants navigate the bureaucracy of trying to get a visa, some lawyers – primarily attorneys – also specialise in immigration law and engage in this kind of work. Unsurprisingly, given the differences in these kinds of intermediaries, there has been limited success in self-regulating or convincing the state for the need for regulation;
- Because the industry is fragmented and does not have a long history within South Africa, which obviously comes with it’s own legitimacy and credibility, it’s an easy space for political issues to be played out and an easy sector to simply be neglected by policy makers. For example, one of the reasons given for why the regulation that was put in place was rolled back was that it excluded would be black practitioners from accessing the sector. It’s difficult to see how this would be a reason given for getting rid of the ways in which say lawyers or accountants attain their credentials; and, finally
- Any moves around immigration and the management thereof in South Africa should be seen within the context of xenophobia, and because regulating and legitimising intermediaries may be perceived as indicating that immigration, and thus foreigners, are legitimate, the state is hesitant to do so. But, of course, it’s this same xenophobic climate and poor management of migration that will insure that intermediaries continue to be sought out by those trying to enter South Africa.
When I initially signed on to do my PhD, one of the things I most wanted to do was include a survey in the project. I’ve been almost exclusively trained as a qualitative researcher but felt, and continue to feel, that it’s important to learn new skills, skills that might actually help position me as a social scientist that someone might one day want to hire – what a thought! The real value of the method to the actual project was always going to be limited, but hey, you can’t let one conceptual question dictate everything.
But, today I reached a point where I actually had to acknowledge that the survey would not only have almost no benefit to my broader study, but that the emotional and financial costs mean that its probably not worth it. Over the last few days, since some #RealTalk from my supervisor, tears have been shed; pros and cons lists created, scrapped, more honestly recreated; a detailed flow chart of ‘to do if’ drawn up. But the reality is, you don’t need to be bound to your initial research plans. Especially if you’re not tied up in specific fundings terms and conditions, which I’m not, and if, as the initial research starts to come in, it becomes clearer that something different is required. If you want to be a good researcher, you have to respond to what you find along the way and acknowledge when your best laid plans are actually not going to work.
Wholly scrapping the plans for the survey and rethinking the project, how to move forward etc., will take a few days – there are several to do lists, timelines, and goals which need to be recreated – but deciding that it’s something which needs to be done has actually left me feeling quite liberated. It’s left some space for new ideas and plans. Space which will soon be filled with new stresses. But new stresses which will hopefully be more satisfying and productive to explore.
I’m currently up in Vhembe, where it’s a mild 31 degrees, so I thought I’d share three of my favourite things about being in the district with you.
(2) The food options are…interesting
The first couple of times I came up to Vhembe I was a committed vegetarian. So committed that I cumulatively ate four weeks worth of toasted cheese and tomatoes. Now that I eat meat, trips are far more pleasant culinarily speaking. Although, the nearest restaurant is sometimes still in the middle of the Kruger, and a fancy meal just means that you get olives liberally sprinkled on your chips.
(3) A lot of the time you’re just going ‘WHERE AM I?’
To be fair, you could be anywhere in a fairly large area which borders Zimbabwe. And you might be lost. But you definitely won’t be bored.
In December, in a post titled #Decrim: A call for evidence-based policymaking, I referred to work which I had done with Ingrid Palmary investigating the making of South Africa’s 2013 Trafficking in Persons Act. This project formed part of a larger project, funded by the Migrating out of Poverty Research Consortium (MOOP), which included three case studies. The first being our one on the processes and decision making which led to the creation, passing, and implementation of the TIP Act. The second case study was conducted by The Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) at the University of Dhaka in Bangladesh, and is an analysis of the Domestic Workers Protection and Welfare Policy (DWPDP), which was approved by the Bangladeshi government in 2015. And the third was undertaken by the Asia Research Institute (ARI) at the National University of Singapore and investigated the mandatory weekly day off policy for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) introduced by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in 2012.
The three case studies are obviously all quite different. They explore different contexts; different kinds of policy; and different political structures. However, what Ingrid and I were able to do in this working paper*, which has just been published, is explore the similarities and differences that could go some way in helping us to better understand policy making in post-colonial settings.
To be clear, a lot has been written about policymaking and policy processes. However, most of this has centred on understanding policy making in European and North American contexts – for example 84 % of studies using the Advocacy Coalition Framework to analyse policy making between 1987 and 2013 were conducted in Europe and North America.
But aside from trying to address this gap in the literature, the work highlighted three important things to bear in mind when trying to advocate for policy change in these contexts.
The first is that when trying to make interventions in the policy making process, being able to either harness or successfully address ideas and panics about morality, and women, is powerful. For example, the anti-trafficking movement in South Africa was helped enormously by its ability to use pre-existing normative ideas, which many South Africans have, about sex work and the inability of women, particularly poor women of colour, to make decisions about their own lives and, particularly, sex lives. Whilst I certainly don’t agree with these ideas or this tactic, it is important to acknowledge that this is a reason that many, what I would call, socially conservative causes are able to gain traction.
Secondly, building coalitions and relationships with those involved in policy making is important. Social and political capital go a long way when trying to convince policy makers of your cause. Policy makers often have their own personal agendas – this was clear in both the case studies focused on domestic work. Policy makers where, by-and-large, also employers of domestic workers and, therefore, more sympathetic to maintaining the status quo than incurring additional personal cost through implementing policy which gave more rights to domestic workers. Building coalitions and relationships with other organisations and individuals, both locally and internationally, who agreed and sympathised with the efforts of civil society in Singapore and Bangladesh was incredibly important in the fight for the two policies.
And finally, more work needs to be done to build the trust of policy makers and the public in research, whilst insuring that they maintain a critical perspective and understanding of the limitations of the research with which they are presented. In other words, we need to improve research literacy so that people are better equipped to figure out whether the evidence and (alternative) facts with which they’ve been presented are sound (this is obviously something which many people are advocating for in the age of Trump). And, so that people, who aren’t familiar with how research and universities work, are better placed to understand what peer reviewed research is able to bring to the policy making table.
*A working paper is quite different from a journal article: 1. They’re not peer reviewed; and 2. They generally report on an entire project, whereas a journal article would advance a particular argument drawing on some aspects of the project and possibly other work that the author(s) has done.
“When we reduce global concerns about women’s labour to questions of trafficking – which strips women of agency – we overlook the much bigger and more profound abuse undertaken by the global garment industry.”
Anne Elizabeth Moore has just published a great piece on the cost of focusing on human trafficking on real women in precarious positions. Check it out here: Rich in funds but short on facts: the high cost of human trafficking awareness campaigns | openDemocracy
One of the biggest reasons that has been given by the South African state for the continued criminalization of sex work has been that decriminalizing sex work would fuel the trafficking industry in the country. The problem with this reasoning is that it relies on assumptions about trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation that we have very little evidence to support. And, what’s particularly concerning is that these assumptions have effected the making of anti-trafficking policy in South Africa.
Let’s be very clear, the trafficking (recruitment, transport, and coercion) of anyone, regardless of purpose, is completely apprehensible and should be criminalized. BUT, it should also not be confused with sex work. Sex work is actively chosen by people as a livelihood, whether it be for economic reasons or simply because they enjoy the work.
Through research that Ingrid Palmary and I have done over the last two years, as part of the Migrating out of Poverty Research Consortium – tracing the development of the Trafficking in Persons Act of 2013 – it has become apparent that myths and misconceptions about trafficking and sex work drove both the emergence of an anti-trafficking movement in South Africa and the development of the Act.
A good example of one of these myths was the panic that emerged just prior to the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa about the fact that thousands of women and children would be trafficked in to South Africa for the purposes of sexual exploitation at the hands of soccer-loving tourists. This, thankfully, did not happen. But what’s concerning is that this panic was simply another panic in a long list that emerge prior to major sporting events and which never come to fruition.
Unfortunately, most of what we ‘know’ about trafficking is not evidence-based. But what’s concerning about our findings, is that these myths were and are accepted at face value by policy makers. It’s one thing that ordinary people are unable to effectively interrogate what they read, a global phenomenon. But it’s another thing entirely when our policy makers embrace the post-truth/ post-factual world and fail to sufficiently interrogate the information with which they are presented and upon which they make policy.
As it currently stands, the fight for the decriminalization of sex work and against trafficking in South Africa, and globally, seems to be one in which we won’t see the triumph of evidence-based policy making. Rather the triumph of conservative ideas, which advocate for the continued policing of women and men and their decisions in respect to their sexuality.
If we are serious about human rights, specifically the rights of people in deciding what to do with their bodies and not be exploited or trafficked, policy makers need to do a better job of taking into account the evidence-based case for #Decrim.
If you’d like to know more about the importance of and case for decriminalizing sex work, specifically in relation to the fight against trafficking, the New York Anti-Trafficking Network have produced a great video on the topic. Bhekisisa have also produced a great video on the importance of decrim in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Titled Exploring the migration profiles of primary health care users in South Africa**, the paper does just that. Based on a survey that we did with 229 patients at six clinics based in three districts, the paper argues that the idea that nationality accounts, exclusively, for patients’ bad experiences at clinics, is incorrect. The length of time that patients have spent in an area and the length of time that they’ve spent accessing health care at the facility in question mitigate or aggravate their ability to access health care far more than their nationality. This means that our health care responses not only need to take into consideration cross-border migration and cross-border migrants, but also inter-provincial and intra-provincial migration and migrants, who, in fact, make up a much bigger portion of the South African population than cross-border migrants do.
Aside from this being my first published journal article, this was also the first quantitative work that I’ve ever done. So the process involved a lot of learning and necessitated a lot of support from Jo and Mphatso. But, here we go!
**It’s open access, so enjoy!
I (finally!) presented my PhD proposal last week. After two or three delays I couldn’t wait to get it out of the way.
Let’s be clear, the actual presentation is only the second step in the proposal submission process. Write*; Present; Re-write; Submit; Cry over comments from readers; Rewrite; Submit; Pray. Nevertheless, it feels like a massive achievement, and it was good to present it and get constructive feedback. And by that I mean feedback which didn’t fundamentally question the relevance or theoretical underpinnings of the project. Because, let’s face it, no one EVER what’s that kind of feedback.
In celebration of this step (albeit only one of many), here is a picture of me just prior to presenting**
*this obviously involves multiple writings
**picture courtesy of Dave Francis’ amazing artistic skills
By Zaheera Jinnah, Thea de Gruchy and Goitse Manthata On 28 October 2016, maHp team members, Thea de Gruchy, Zaheera Jinnah, and Goitse Manthata, participated in an international symposium titled…
The visa gods looked kindly on Goitse and me yesterday, making sure we got our passports and visas a casual three hours before our flight (!).
So right now, we’re on our way to Ottawa, where on Friday (28 October), we’ll be participating in a symposium on Migration and Intersectionality.
I’ll be presenting a paper on local level policy making, arguing that if we’re serious about intersectional or transversal policy making, we need to think seriously about making policy at a district level in South Africa.