Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

The paper explores the political economy of migration policies and geopolitical dynamics rooted in neo-colonialism. It lays bare the asymmetrical power between the global North & South reflected in international migration policies. In a way, this fails to acknowledge the complexity of migration.

Paper long abstract:

Migration, an age-old phenomenon, has surged with globalisation and underpinned by technological advancements. Africans historically engaged in intra-continental migration, pastoral agriculture, and batter trade. They were content with their economic lifestyles until the arrival of missionaries. Notably, migration from the global South to the North originated from the former. It is crucial to note that historically, global North migrants freely entered Africa, whereas those from the South were compelled to move into, for example, Europe, as ‘slave labour’. Today, the global North is deemed 'developed,' contrasting with the 'under-developed' or 'developing' global South due to cheap slave labour that played a central role in building the former’s economies. Of concern is the introduction of restrictive migration policies to preclude the free movement of people from the global South to the global North. Paradoxically, migrants from the North enjoy the right to free movement and visa privileges in the South, reflecting skewed migration policies. This imbalance raises questions about class, power, and racial dynamics. Based on desktop review and archival research, the paper explores the political economy of migration policies, examining contemporary geopolitical dynamics rooted in historical and neo-colonialism. Furthermore, it questions the unilateral decision-making and crafting of international migration policies by the global North. In a way, the exclusionary approach fails to acknowledge the agency of the global South and the complexity of migration premised on geo-politics. This begs the question, “Whose interest do these international migration policies serve? Could this be a new form of subtle colonialism?