Debating temporary labour migration policies

Abstract

This working paper combines Rainer Bauböck and Martin Ruhs’s article “The elusive triple win: addressing temporary labour migration dilemmas through fair representation” with four critical responses as well as a rejoinder by the authors. Bauböck and Ruhs argue that Temporary Labour Migration Programmes (TLMPs) face a dilemma between global justice, which supports expanded labor market opportunities and remittances for poor countries, and domestic justice, which may be compromised by affording migrant workers fewer rights than other citizens. Despite this tension, the authors claim that TLMPs can be morally justified if they ensure fair representation in policy design, meet democratic legitimacy conditions, and provide benefits for destination and origin countries as well as migrants, achieved through cooperative transnational governance and fair representation. Valeria Ottonelli and Tiziana Torresi view Bauböck and Ruhs’s analysis of TLMPs as significant for emphasising democratic legitimacy in evaluating these programs. However, they argue that fair representation alone cannot guarantee the voluntary nature of migration without exit options, which should include both the possibility to return to the country of origin and the option to stay in the host country. They assert that the presence of an option to stay is crucial for voluntariness and the democratic integrity of TLMPs and that without it, migrants lack sufficient political leverage and enter negotiations with diminished status. The response by Mario J. Cunningham M. focuses on democratic legitimacy within TLMPs. It argues that the triple-win rationale, which promotes benefits for destination countries, origin countries, and migrant workers, does not adequately ensure equal legal protection for migrant workers. This critique suggests that the triple-win framework may not meet the democratic legitimacy standards necessary for morally justified TLMPs. Fabiola Mieres and Sophia Kagan’s response criticises the assumption of a level playing field in TLMPs due to existing power asymmetries among countries and between capital and labour. They argue that these asymmetries influence fairness in programme design and implementation. Additionally, they question the adequacy of representation, especially with regard to migrant workers, and highlight ongoing challenges to the goal of improving such representation. In the last response, Christine Straehle raises concerns about the potential implications for individual temporary migrants, especially women, in both the host society and their country of origin. She argues that emphasising triple benefits might turn migrants into commodities for economic gain rather than ensuring the protection of their rights, emphasising that access to citizenship is crucial for safeguarding the full range of rights that protect the benefits of migrants from their migration endeavors. In their rejoinder Bauböck and Ruhs gratefully acknowledge the points raised by their critics, further delving into questions such as: Can temporary labour migration programmes (TLMPs) contribute to goals of global social justice without undermining receiving states’ commitments to domestic social justice? Can they be beneficial for migrants, receiving and sending states?