各校計畫成果

活動簡介

Managing risk, family responsibilities, financial matters, and social status across borders is complicated. The myriad attempts to provide where the state, the market, or family budgets fall short testify to the ways the structure and dimensions of social protection have fundamentally changed or been challenged. Systems of social protection that were state-driven, territorially limited, and nationally bounded have been increasingly transformed, involving multiple sectors and actors across international borders. This transformation constitutes what scholars call transnational social protection - the policies, programs, people, organizations, and institutions that provide for and protect individual migrants, whether they be voluntary “permanent,” short-term, or circular, across national borders. This new regime of transnational social protection has in some cases replaced, and in others operates in tandem with, earlier models. To rethink the interplay between migration and social safety nets, Dr. Lui initiated and organized a conference that brings renowned migration scholars to join the academic debates on transnational social protection. Doing so constitutes an important corrective to discussions which, up until now, have been largely dominated by experiences in the so-called Global North.

In addition to the Keynote Speech by Professor Peggy Levitt, we have three panels. The below is the summary of each panel.

Panel (1): State and Transnational Social Protection

This panel discusses the roles that different Asian states plays in social protection for many families, whether directly, through social spending and public benefits, or indirectly through labor regulations and immigration or repatriation policy. In the decades since T.H. Marshall laid out his framework for civil, political, and social citizenship, the social contract between citizen and state has radically changed. States are supersizing and downsizing. Many states that provided generous social protections to their citizens in the past are now reducing, restricting, or outsourcing service provision. At the same time, some—including several countries where social welfare was minimal in the past—now extend protections to emigrants who are citizens without residence. In some cases, they also include certain benefits to individuals living within their borders who are not legal residents or citizens. The rise of HTSP, then, raises complicated questions that policymakers must grapple with: Who should receive protection and what is the future role of states in providing basic care? How much inequality and exposure to risk should governments tolerate within their borders? To what extent should countries of origin be held accountable for protecting their citizens abroad? Should those who do not cross borders be prioritized over those who do?

The speakers in our first panel engage with these questions and point out that guaranteeing rights based on a constitutional/citizenship logic has its limits. First, the extent to which social rights are ensured in national constitutions varies considerably from one country to another and need to be understood in historically specific contexts. Nana Oishi explains how Japan increasingly stops seeing social protection as a constitutional right. They increasingly offer migrant newcomers access to formal membership in the national political community, seeking to recruit newcomers who are central to the country’s safety net. Karen Liao analyzes the diverse ways in which the Philippine government repatriates its citizens working abroad, further delineating the benefits, risks, and uncertainties that the sending state creates for their globally dispersed nationals. Chengshi Shiu analyzes transborder health service network for undocumented Myanmar migrants in Mae Sot, Thailand. The emphasis would be on the network structure, functions, and responses in face of two significant challenges of COVID-19 pandemic and the political upheaval following the 2021 coup in Myanmar. These cases demonstrate that policymakers concerned about addressing the discrepancy between insiders and outsiders might focus on fast-tracking naturalization or on strengthening policies that bolster multiculturalism and define national solidarity and inclusion in diversity-and immigration-friendly terms.

Panel (2): Transnational Labor and Family Protection

Our second panel explains why the old system of state-driven, territorially and nationally bounded labor protections is breaking down and has been unevenly hybridized for some time. Using the experiences of professional migrants from Taiwan and working-class migrant workers from Myanmar and Indonesia, this panel illuminates that while both capital flows and labor markets have become increasingly globalized, transnational resource environments that can potentially protect workers have yet to catch up. The breakdown of traditional labor protections is driven by changes in the global economy and in the domestic and global political economy—namely, shifting ideas about the role of the state in regulating commerce and business activity. These changes are interrelated: neoliberalism is a driving force behind both.

Our panelists demonstrate how the logics of human rights, citizen entitlements, market forces, and community provision often clash in the contexts of economic globalization, thereby exacerbating precarious conditions for laborers. Focusing on Myanmar domestic workers in Singapore, Elaine Ho and Ting Wen-Ching examine hybrid transnational social protection in the realm of labor rights. The increasing globalization of capital, labor, and production have given rise to fundamental transformations in where people work, how they perform their jobs, and what kinds of entities operating where are responsible for their protection. Andy Scott Chang examines the ways Indonesian migrant workers and their families create resource environments from a mix of protections in countries of origin and destination, which brings both opportunities and restrictions for members of transnational households. Yasmin Ortiga uses the case of Filipino cruise workers who lost their jobs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate why the workers preferred protection offered by their companies rather than by the Philippine state agencies. As these panelists reveal that the tension between support and vulnerability is a defining feature of the ever-changing global economy and the context within which its workers negotiate their labor rights.

Panel (3): Commodification of Transnational Social Protection

Our third panel highlights that when many states are downsizing, more and more people become consumers pursuing reliable, high-quality, and/or affordable care transnationally. In response, a flourishing market for social protection has emerged. Marketization allows for and expands choice, puts the power in the hands of individuals, and makes citizens into active consumers rather than passive recipients of care. It grants individuals greater control over deciding what they want and where to get it. For policymakers who seek to reduce state involvement in social protection and who see potential benefits in heightened competition over social protection provision, the market is an attractive option. Private providers just want customers who can pay. They do not distinguish between citizen and noncitizen, only between consumers with money in their pockets or those without it. Market solutions treat inequality as natural and expected. For that reason, they absolve the state of its responsibility to manage risk, thereby further linking social protection to individual planning and personal responsibility. It is up to individuals to make this work on their own.

Our panels emphasize the limitations of using market forces to ensure social protection and mitigate risk. Denise Tang explores why transgender men in Hong Kong seek much needed treatment and surgery in Bangkok, Thailand rather than in the homeland. She also examines how these transgender men articulate their rights as citizens in Hong Kong and as consumers transnationally. Using private consultants who advise Taiwanese students on their application to college and graduate school in western countries, Kenneth Chen points out how the rights to education has increasingly shifted from basic human rights and constitutional rights to the commodities that only individuals with sufficient economic resources can afford. Lake Lui, Yue Qian, and Monica Cai demonstrate that Chinese families achieve sociopolitical security through education and consequently acquiring permanent residency in Canada. They also explore how socioeconomic and political status in China can enable and/or constrain their mobilities. Lastly, comparing how the legal, social, and labor rights of migrant workers are conceptualized and constructed differently in South Korea and Taiwan, Yi-chun Chien delineates the resource environments that these workers are able to piece together across social protection regimes. As our panelists indicate, the market as a source of social protection is not merely highly stratified but also intersects and interacts with the state’s ability or willingness to remediate the issues migrants confront in their daily life. The state legislature can provide, regulate, and block resources, underscoring the enduring power of the state in the social protection marketplace.

Our panelists also emphasize that a perfect market does not exist. Information is never entirely available nor transparent, few consumers are able to make completely informed decisions, and the market rarely regulates itself or spontaneously addresses the negative spillover effects it produces. More importantly, market-based solutions are contingent upon individual resources and do little to address the collective problems people face nationally and transnationally. Too much reliance on the market, therefore, severely undermines the state’s commitment to protect the public good.