Codevelopment: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:34, 8 May 2008

Revision as of 19:08, 3 June 2008

Line 4:

Although it is widely accepted that it was [[France|French]] scholar [[Sami Naïr]] who first coined the word codevelopment, it is believed this phenomenon has existed alongside migrations since they exist. Traditionally, immigrants (especially those who migrate for economic reasons) have, collectively or individually, supported their communities of origin.

In [[1997]] Sami Naïr, while directing the Interministerial Mission on Migration/Codevelopment, defined this last concept as ''a proposal for integrating immigration and development in a way that migration fluxes will benefit both the country of origin and the country of destinydestination. This is, a consensual relationship between two countries that will allow migration to the country of destiny not to imply an equivalent loss in the country of origin''.

Adherents to this model believe that it fosters mutual collaboration among countries in a way that traditional, and hierarchical, north-south development focus did not.

In this context, immigrant initiatives enrich the countries of origin both from a cultural and a [[human resources]] perspective. Their condition as transnational citizens would allow them a better understanding of the needs of both the communities of origin and destinydestination.

For this reason, their participation in projects involving members of their communities, in both “their” countries would be more effective, as priorities and needs would be correctly identified.

On the other hand, this participation would also work as an integrating force in the destination countries of destination, as they would be perceived as an enriching factor by the public opinion and institutions.

== Codevelopment and migration control ==

Line 16:

At a European level, codevelopment was first mentioned during the [[Tampere Summit]] held in [[October 1999]], when the [[European Council]] defined 5 guidelines for the new European migration policy aimed at a common space of ''"Liberty, Security and Justice".''

Anyhow, critics consider that Tampere quiqlyquickly shifted towards a [[Fortress Europe]] mentality, limiting [[development aid]] to those countries willing to implement migration control measures and accpetingaccepting repetraitesrepatriations.

An example of this tendency may be found in the imbalance between de 23 million euro budget that the [[EU]] plans on investing in the [[Schengen Information System]] and the [[Visa Information System]] (aimed at a further immigrant identification and control) with the 3 million euro budget (4 million in its second year) granted to codevelopment projects.

Line 24:

Since the late nineties, codevelopment has been the subject of postgraduate studies, specialist courses, discussions and forums among multiple actorsstakeholders, as well as calls for project grants by some local and regional administrations, beginning with the Municipality of Madrid. These authorities were quickly became aware of the local impact of the presence of new immigrant communities, the importance of the links that bind them with their communities of origin, and the desirability of relating them in any future action to support the policies of cooperation. Codevelopment policies had a much stronger presence and development in the regional and local levels.

At the state level, in accordance with Tampere Summit on Migration, the GRECO Plan on migration management (Programa Global de Regulación y Coordinación de la Extranjería y la Inmigración 2000-2004), was launched by the Interior Ministry in 2001. This Plan devoted an important space for “joint development”, in line with the policies of Tampere and the French government. GRECO insisted on technical and educational cooperation, the voluntary return of migrants, the channelling of migrants’ remittances to development projects, and finally, on the cooperation with those governments that were ready to accept the returned illegal migrants, as well as to control the exit of their citizens with destination Spain. However, codevelopment was not even mentioned as a policy line in the AlienImmigration law passed in 2000, and did not receive proper funding within the GRECO’s framework.

Since ending 2004, codevelopment policies have been open to discussion, including the contents, limits, and plans. Two state agencies claimed their space in codevelopment actions: the State Secretary for International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the brand new General Directorate of Immigrants’ Integration, at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

Line 44:

According to Graciela Malgesini , spontaneous codevelopment could be defined as the win/win effect, the linkage between migration and development, which generates mostly positive impacts on both the society of origin of immigrants, and the host society. This definition presumes the role of immigrants as actors and vectors of development, in "both sides", and the understanding of the relations between host countries (North) and sending countries (South) in a horizontal way. Codevelopment is directly related to Transnationalism.

Carlos Gimenez pinpointed other two characteristics of codevelopment: (1) The multiplicity of stakeholders (a network of actorsparticipants that surpasses both quantitatively and qualitatively the traditional actorsagents in the traditional development cooperation projects, as it includes authorities, social organizations, trade unions, universities, training institutes, businesses and immigrant associations). (2) The transnationalTransnational citizenship (immigrants acting in codevelopment activities, embedded in a transnational dynamic, are also transnational citizens, to the extent that they have a dual presence. This dual space of belonging, in turn, encourages decision making, influences on the economic, political and social development, and allows the formation of a separate identity, based on two geographical areas, the country of origin and the country of destination)

== External links ==