Loading...
Date of Award
Spring 2020
Degree Name
Bachelor of Arts
Department
Historical & Political Studies; College of Arts & Sciences
First Advisor
Dr. Jennifer Riggan
Abstract
Faced with an influx of migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, US policymakers adopted a development-oriented approach intended to deter migration by addressing its root causes like poverty and violence. This thesis argues foreign aid sent to the three countries through the US Strategy for Engagement in Central America cannot reduce migration in the short-term. The approach is built upon three flawed assumptions: that economic underdevelopment leads to migration, that foreign aid promotes economic growth and development, and that migration is undesirable. Framing migrants from the region as phony asylum seekers taking advantage of the asylum system and threating national security, policymakers justify the use of development aid to curb migration. However, research on the effects of aid on migration is inconclusive. The Strategy is implemented under a series of coercive conditions which leverages aid in exchange for recipient states’ cooperation in facilitating greater forced repatriations. By prioritizing repatriation and limiting the amount of aid actually spent on projects, these conditions effectively constrain development goals. Coupled with a narrow time frame and insufficient funding, the Strategy is incapable of accomplishing its objectives. The preventative nature of the development initiative is then transformed into a coercive policy that prioritizes immediate migration targets over the long-term stability and development of the region.
Recommended Citation
Weisner, Claire B., "Development Aid as Migration Management: A Case Study of the US Strategy for Engagement in Central America" (2020). Capstone Showcase. 6.
https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/showcase/2020/is/6
Development Aid as Migration Management: A Case Study of the US Strategy for Engagement in Central America
Faced with an influx of migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, US policymakers adopted a development-oriented approach intended to deter migration by addressing its root causes like poverty and violence. This thesis argues foreign aid sent to the three countries through the US Strategy for Engagement in Central America cannot reduce migration in the short-term. The approach is built upon three flawed assumptions: that economic underdevelopment leads to migration, that foreign aid promotes economic growth and development, and that migration is undesirable. Framing migrants from the region as phony asylum seekers taking advantage of the asylum system and threating national security, policymakers justify the use of development aid to curb migration. However, research on the effects of aid on migration is inconclusive. The Strategy is implemented under a series of coercive conditions which leverages aid in exchange for recipient states’ cooperation in facilitating greater forced repatriations. By prioritizing repatriation and limiting the amount of aid actually spent on projects, these conditions effectively constrain development goals. Coupled with a narrow time frame and insufficient funding, the Strategy is incapable of accomplishing its objectives. The preventative nature of the development initiative is then transformed into a coercive policy that prioritizes immediate migration targets over the long-term stability and development of the region.