Diaspora Capital, Capacity Development and African Development: Role of Nigerian Migrants in Australia
This thesis examines the role of Australian-based skilled migrants from Nigeria in the capacity development of their country of origin. The dataset that formed the basis for the analysis was collected through semi structured interviews and surveys with two cohorts of skilled migrants. The first set of data is about the lived experiences of forty-five skilled migrants and two Nigerian diplomats in Australia. The trans-national activities, emotional ties, and social and professional networks that these sets of skilled migrants maintain across Nigeria and Australia are examined to ascertain their relevance for the capacity development of Nigeria through the transfer of professional skills. The second set of data consists of survey responses and semi- structured interviews obtained from twenty-two returned migrants who have gone back to Nigeria after their studies or employment in Australia. Underpinned by a qualitative approach to research design and a thematic approach to data analysis, the professional skills, and knowledge, economic, social, cultural and human capital of these skilled migrants are discussed as a form of migrants' social remittances and diaspora capital in the context of capacity development. Capacity development of Nigeria is discussed as an independent process that can be achieved with the contribution of migrants' diaspora capital. The thesis introduces the new concept of non-financial remittances, which marks its significance and contribution to research on migration and diaspora capital.
This thesis is important because it examines the lived experiences of Nigerian diaspora members in Australia, trans-migrants and return migrants who have returned to Nigeria after spending extended periods of time studying and working in Australia. The diaspora capital of these diaspora members and returned migrants is examined in terms of their contributions to capacity development through their transfer of skills for the capacity development of Nigeria. Diaspora capital in the context of this study is defined to have an encompassing meaning that entails several benefits that the Nigerian diaspora own and can be used to contribute to capacity development of Nigeria. This thesis looks beyond the argument of the negative effects of brain drain of skilled migrants by highlighting the idea that financial and social remittances can compensate for brain drain and migration of skilled migrants in developing countries. The diaspora option to enhance capacity development, migrant's social networks and trans-national activities are suggested as countervailing trends that may mitigate the negative effects of skilled migration from the homeland.
The framework of analysis for the study is built around Bourdieu, Putnam and Coleman's idea of social capital theory to examine migrants' bonding, bridging, linking and digital social capital and their effects on social network formation transfer of professional skills and capacity development. The research findings highlighted six major themes that include diaspora capital, modes of professional skills transfer and challenges that impede the use of diaspora capital for capacity development. Based on these analyses, the thesis argues that social networks, professional networks and transnational activities of skilled migrants such as professional visits to Nigeria, virtual online activities and volunteering can counter-balance the negative effects of brain drain and the exodus of skilled migrants on the capacity development of Nigeria. The study found that there are several inefficiencies and structural weaknesses that hinder the optimal utilisation of the skills of these groups of skilled migrants for capacity development. In the concluding chapter, the thesis provides policy recommendations on how the Nigerian government might more fully harness and utilise the skills of the Nigerian-born migrants of the diaspora.
Seeking Refuge: Asylum Seekers and Politics in a Globalising World
The tragedy facing refugees is man made at all levels. People do not easily leave their homes, communities, friends, relatives, and often the familiarity of their first language, culture and religion. Yet the extreme circumstances which cause refugees to do so are not 'natural' events-earthquakes, floods or droughts. In the most immediate sense we can blame local elites, dictators or ethnic hatreds for these millions of personal tragedies which make up the refugee 'crisis'. But they are more than that. The behaviours of these elites and dictators and the revival or acceleration of ethnic hatred are not purely the result of local conjunctions. There is far too much similarity across many tragedies-from Rwanda to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Sri Lanka-for that to be an adequate explanation. They are a product of a world system in which 'zones of instability' are a predictable result of the workings of a market system, now more aggressive and unforgiving than ever.
In Their Voice: Experiences of Australia's Mandatory Detention Policies
The Australian Government's approach to asylum seekers since the Australian Labor Party introduced mandatory detention in 1992 has been increasingly harsh and punitive. Legally, asylum seekers are dealt with under the 1958 Migration Act, which incorporates Australia's obligations as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Since the influx of Asian asylum seekers in the 1970s the Act has been systematically politicised. One example of this is that the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs no longer accepts the group determination process of the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) whereby whole groups found to be persecuted could claim asylum. Instead the Department requires asylum seekers to prove individually their claims for asylum. The politicised approach coupled with indefinite mandatory detention means Australian refugee laws and practices are a tool of deterrence and punishment.
Neoliberalism by Stealth: Exposing the flaw of neoliberal understandings of 'freedom'
A foundational principle of classical liberalism was freedom from social and economic oppression. The contemporary neoclassical, or neoliberal, manifestation of classic liberalism applauds freedom but seems vague about the oppression it rejects. This is particularly evident when justifying neoliberal demands for deregulation, small government and market facilitation. In embracing neoliberal ideas, successive Australian governments have ignored these logical weaknesses regarding freedom and oppression while normalising free-market public policy. This paper argues that in government and public opinion, neoliberal principles continue to dominate by stealth without acknowledgement that they are oppressive rather than liberating. Policy based on such theories needs reconsideration as the logic that justified its precursor, classical liberalism, has been generalised as justification for neoliberal policy that is not grounded in the need for freedom from oppression.
Mandatory Detention: Twenty Years of Inhumane Public Policy
Yesterday, May 6th, marked the 20th anniversary of Australia's policy of mandatory detention. The policy has eroded Australia's standing as a good middle power global human rights actor. More precisely, the inclusion of children within the mandatory detention regime has bought national and international condemnation. Mandatory detention legislation was first introduced in Australia in 1992. Legislation was amended in 1994 to reinforce indefinite detention. The Labor government's policy ensured that all asylum seekers arriving in Australia without prior authorisation could be detained for unspecified and prolonged periods of time. Amnesty International has consistently argued that prolonged mandatory detention causes untold psychological damage to detainees, especially for children. Of the estimated 200 million asylum seekers who crossed international borders in 2010, approximately one quarter were children. Australia is the only country in the world with a policy of mandatory detention of children. Greece, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and the US do detain children in immigration facilities, however in these countries child detention is not the first resort but the last resort.