Study asserts that controversial Gulf labour regime reduces global inequality
By James M. Dorsey
With the absence of labour rights in the Gulf under fire as
a result of Qatar’s successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup, Gulf states are
likely to take heart from a recent study that asserts that authoritarian
regimes in the oil-rich Middle East and China have contributed more to the
eradication of global inequality than Western nations.
Human rights and trade union activists, targeting Qatar as
well as the United Arab Emirates, have succeeded in persuading two major Qatari
institutions, the Qatar Foundation and the 2022 Supreme Committee for Delivery
& Legacy, to adopt significantly improved standards for the working and
living conditions of foreign workers, who constitute a majority of the Gulf
state’s population.
The activists’ campaign has also led the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) to adopt adherence to human and labour rights as a
condition in all of its future contracts with host cities. FIFA executive
committee member Theo Zwanziger moreover conceded earlier this year that human
rights would have to figure in future awarding of the World Cup.
The activists have yet to succeed in persuading Qatar to
enshrine the standards adopted by the foundation and the committee into
national law. Qatari Labour and Social Affairs Minister Abdullah Saleh Mubarak
Al Khulaifi told Qatari journalists earlier this week that the Gulf state would
revise its labour law by the end of this year. He suggested that the changes
would primarily involve obliging employers to pay employees through bank
transfers to ensure that they are paid on time.
The legal changes are likely to include only some of the
standards adopted by the two Qatari institutions and fall far short of
activists’ demands that Qatar abolish its kafala or sponsorship system that
puts employees at the mercy of their sponsors by among other things forcing
them to secure their employers’ permission to obtain an exit visa. Activists
have also insisted that Qatar allow the formation of independent trade unions
and endorse collective bargaining, measures that would challenge the Gulf state’s
autocratic rule.
Qatar and other Gulf states who have all begun tinkering
with their labour regimes as a result of the human rights and trade union
pressure on Qatar and the UAE are likely to counter activist pressure by employing
the argument recently put forward by University of Chicago law professor Eric
Posner in a book entitled The Twilight of Human Rights Law and a recent New
Republic article co-authored with law and economics professor Glen Weyl that their sponsorship systems contribute
significantly to the reduction of global inequality.
“Foreign migrant workers earn vastly more in the GCC (Gulf
Cooperation Council) nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and
Kuwait) than they would at home in Bangladesh or India, where they would make
around $1,000 per year. By welcoming migrant workers, the UAE and its neighbour
Qatar do more than any other rich country to reduce global inequality. Through
migration, Qatar’s per-person contribution to the reduction in global
inequality is almost three times that which would be achieved by eliminating
all inequality in the United States, and many times that created by taxes and
transfers in any of the rich countries that belong to the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to calculations by one
of us. If you take into account remittances—in UAE, for example, migrant
workers send home more than 75 percent of their salary—the reduction in
inequality is even greater,” Messrs Posner and Weyl argued in New Republic.
“Migration has such large benefits because people in poor
countries start from such a low base. If you give $4,000 to someone who earns
only $1,000, that person’s income increases fivefold, dramatically reducing
inequality. If you give the same amount to a poor person in the United States
making $12,000, the donation would increase his or her income only by a third.
In fact, increasing the income of a truly poor person in a poor country by a
factor of five is precisely what would allow her access to the basic goods,
like education and health that are the empty promises of human rights treaties.
This is why helping the poorest people in the world does so much more to reduce
global inequality than do the welfare states of OECD countries, where money is
shuffled around between the super-rich and (by global standards) the
not-so-poor,” Messrs Posner and Weyl wrote.
The two scholars acknowledge that Qatar and other Gulf
states are autocratic monarchies that boast some of the widest income gaps in
the world but argue that “reducing inequality will require uncomfortable trade-offs.
Qatar would not welcome so many migrant workers if it had to give them generous
political and civil rights...” They further note that the West’s emphasis on
human rights and the role of institutions such as the United Nations Human
Rights Council has failed to pre-empt growing global inequality.
Messrs. Posner and Weyl go a step further by advocating the adoption
of Gulf-style labour systems by Western nations. “If the OECD countries copied
the migration policies of the GCC countries, they would reduce global
inequality by much more than their welfare systems do within their borders,” they
wrote.
Leaving aside the morality of defending violations of human and
labour rights, Messrs. Posner and Weyl appear in arguing in favour of the
kafala system in Qatar and the Gulf to ignore research that counters their
assertions in terms of the economic and social impact of Gulf recruitment on
the lives of individual workers and therefore on efforts to reduce global inequality.
They also overlook the negative impact of the labour system on the development
of host countries like Qatar. Research in recent years has established that:
- Unskilled and semi-skilled workers frequently arrive in Qatar severely indebted because of fees they are forced to pay to middlemen that include kickbacks to corrupt agents and executives acting with or without the knowledge of the employer. As a result a significant portion of a worker’s wages goes to maintenance of a corrupt system rather than reduction of inequality;
- World Bank official Mary Breeding concluded from research in India that unskilled and low skilled workers are mostly recruited in rural rather than urban areas in South Asia where wages are often similar to those in the Gulf. Workers from rural areas with less access to information are more susceptible to the pitfalls of engaging middlemen who not only charge illegal fees but often lure them with promises of jobs and income that differ from what they are obliged to accept once they arrive in Qatar and other Gulf states;
- Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar researchers concluded that the cost of maintaining the kafala system has not only cost Qatar significant reputational damage but has also negatively impacted it’s ranking in the United Nation’s Human Development Index (HDI). The researcher said Qatar would rank near the top of the index if adjustments were made for its large population of migrant workers. With other words, the kafala system undercuts Qatar’s soft power effort designed to project the Gulf state as a cutting edge, 21st century knowledge-based society.
It also
lends itself to continued promulgation of autocracy in a region that is
clamouring for change. Finally, it would undermine chances that the 2022 World
Cup would emerge as a badly needed engine of change in a region in which
ensuring regime survival at whatever cost suffocates widespread popular
aspirations.
James M.
Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
co-director of the University of Wuerzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the
author of The Turbulent World of Middle East
Soccer blog
Thank you for this information but it would be useful to know about the study’s authors and their beliefs and values. Posner is a staunch supporter of the endless spying-snooping-state, offering his backing, in many articles and talks, to the idea that it is OK for the NSA to collect all information on everyone, monitor all our phone calls and e-mails, offering the feeble excuse that we already provide personal information to the IRS and health providers. A quick web-search would show his often repeated statement that he “doesn’t see a problem” with this shredding of the US Constitution because he cannot think of a single instance where the government “used information obtained for security purposes to target a political opponent, dissenter, or critic;” He has also said that “Mass surveillance—where emails and other communications are vacuumed up, stored in databases, and then searched for keywords—doesn’t harm anyone in itself. The problem only arises when the information is used to detain, interrogate, or harass people.”
ReplyDeleteIn a New Republic book review he wrote that “The United States remains a pretty safe place and a pretty free place—one where the pervasive social control of 1984 is as remote today as it was twenty-nine years ago. Although the NSA has recently admitted certain illegalities, the flood of disclosures has not yet revealed concrete abuses—the spying on political opponents or the harassment of dissenters—comparable to those of the 1970s.” He must have been hiding at his university office for the past few decades if he has not heard about indefinite detention without trial or “extraordinary rendition” or death by drones. I would recommend he spend a little more time reading The Guardian and some of the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation’s well-researched reports about the violation of constitutional and human rights before he writes reports on workers in the Gulf states.