The Scale and Importance of South–South Migration

Although scholarly work on international migration overwhelmingly focuses on movements from the Global South to the Global North, South–South migration has been—and remains—a significant share of global population movements (Campillo-Batisai, 2022; Carrete, 2013; De Lombaerde et al., 2014; Gagnon, 2018; Leal & Harder, 2021; Melde et al., 2014; UNDESA, 2020). North–North and South–South migration showed surprisingly comparable volumes of international migration in 1990 and 2005, before a significant rise in South–South migration in 2020. As noted by Schewel and Debray (this volume), South–South migration was the predominant form of international migration in 1990, surpassed by South–North migration in 2005 and was slightly greater than South–North migration in 2020. International migration within the Global South appears to be on the rise, at least in terms of absolute numbers and now constitutes over one-third of international migration in 2020 (UNDESA, 2020). In other words, there are more people migrating from one country to another within the Global South than there are people moving from the Global South to the Global North. In some places, almost all migration is to a neighbouring country in the Global South. Take for example, migration from Burkina Faso to Cote d’Ivoire, one of the largest migration flows in the world and one that is rarely talked about or analysed by migration scholars outside the region (Cross, 2020; Dabiré & Soumahoro, this volume).

Reflecting this, South–South migration is also increasing in absolute terms (Nawyn, 2016). For example, African countries hosted 24.7 million migrants in 2017, up from 19.3 million in 1990, a 28% increase (Gagnon, 2018). Almost all these migrants were born somewhere else in Africa: despite perceptions to the contrary, more than 80% of African migrants do not leave the continent (IOM, 2020). As noted by Gagnon (2018), conditions are ripe for this trend to continue with a significant increase in the number of children and youth alongside an increase in women’s participation in the labour market and rapid urbanisation. When combined with increasing border controls in Global North, it seems almost certain that intra-regional migration within Africa will continue to rise. Within the Global South, Asia-to-Asia migration, especially that related to migration from slower-growing developing Asia to faster-growing developing Asia, is most significant. It is estimated that 87% of the 21 million migrants who entered the Asian region between 1990 and 2013 originated from other countries in Asia (Adil Khan & Hossain, 2017).

South–South Migration has a long history, albeit under differing economic and political conditions. Although South–South migration has always involved large numbers of people, the nature of these flows has changed over time. Historically, large scale migration South–South migration flows were mostly enforced and involuntary, involving both inter- and intra-regional destinations to various colonies of the Global North (Adil Khan & Hossain, 2017).Footnote 1 The transatlantic slave trade was one of the largest historical migrations between the countries of the Global South, taking place mainly between the countries of western, central and southern Africa and what is now known as Brazil (Bruey and Crawley, this volume). The forced migration of up to 14 million people as a result of the partition of India also represented a very significant intra-regional flow (Leaning & Bhadada, 2022). Contemporary South–South migration is characterised by features that reflect this history but are driven by the neoliberal modes of production that have come to dominate national, regional and global economies (Table 1.1). According to Adil Khan and Hossain (2017), contemporary South–South migration is more likely to be through choice—albeit that these choices are often made in contexts of poverty and limited economic opportunities—as well as being predominantly intra-regional, temporary and cyclical in nature due to relatively high transaction costs and low net returns.

Table 1.1 Features of colonial South–South and globalised South–South migration (after Adil Khan & Hossain, 2017)
Full size table

This raises the important question of whether South–South migration is different from South–North migration or migration between the countries of the Global North? While some question the distinctiveness of South–South migration (see, for example, Bakewell, 2009), others argue that South–South migrations have a number of features that are particular, and reflect the very different social, as well as economic and political, contexts within which migration takes place. These differences relate to: the distance of journeys; the nature of borders; the composition of migration flows; the migration–conflict nexus; regional migration governance; and the particularities of certain migration-related concepts and variables (De Lombaerde et al., 2014).

Firstly, contemporary South–South migration tends to take place over shorter geographical distances—often within countries or across immediate borders. This is mainly because the costs of migration are lower but also because of bilateral agreements between countries of the Global South. One example is the open border between Nepal and India, through which thousands of Nepalis migrate each year for work. Because of the open border agreement, Nepalis and Indians can move freely over the border, making it difficult to know how many Nepali migrants live and work in India at any time (Sharma & Thapa, 2013). Secondly, South–South migration is often irregular and those who move become undocumented, although this term can be misleading given that migration between countries, particularly neighbouring countries, has effectively become regularised over time even if it remains informal. The absence of documentation and formal regulation of flows means that estimations of South–South migration are likely far lower than the reality. This leads us to the third specificity of South–South migration: the nature of borders. Borders in the Global South have historically been less restrictive in terms of migration, not least because of weaker border enforcement capacities. This is particularly the case for Africa (Jonsson, 2009).

Fourthly, it has been observed that there are differences in the average composition of South–South compared with South–North migration flows, with the former being characterised by lower skills and educational levels (Hujo & Piper, 2007) and generally of a younger age. A fifth feature is related to conflict–migration nexus, which is likely to be more present in contexts of South–South migration (Jonsson, 2009). This is reflected in the fact that low- and middle-income countries in the Global South hosted 76% of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection in 2022, a figure which was for a long time more than 85% (UNHCR, 2023).Footnote 2 Finally, migration takes place in the context of family and community structures which are often more important to decision-making than in the Global North where these processes are often more individualistic. Religion and spirituality (in varying forms) are also likely to play a more significant role.

Focusing on South–South migration therefore allows for the testing and either affirmation or modification of theories developed by migration scholars in an effort to understand why people migrate, who migrates, where they choose to migrate to and why and how well or poorly they integrate into the destination country. Studying South–South migration dynamics also allows us to re-consider and/or question the meaning and relevance of other social concepts and variables, and their relationship to other variables that have often emerged in a Northern context and were then uncritically transported into other contexts, for example, the nature of family/social networks, the role of religion and spirituality and the idea that migration might be a collective rather than individualised project (see De Lombaerde et al., 2014; Feyissa et al., this volume). Like Batisai (2022), many of the contributions to this Handbook examine the extent and ways in which emerging South–South theorisations resonate with migration realities in the broader Global South context, exposing, where necessary, gaps in existing theorisations which have originated in the Global North.

None of which is to say that South–South migration, or the countries in the Global South between which people move, are monolithic. As several of the authors in this Handbook note, the term “Global South” is contested (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh; Casentini, Hammond and Bakewell; Carella). It can be criticised for “flattening out” the vastly different histories of the countries of the Global South, implying that there is something inherently different about these countries from those of the Global North. For the purpose of this Handbook, we use the term “Global South” as “a territorial, relational, structural and political construct [which] is fundamentally about the distribution of power in the global system” (Sud & Sánchez-Ancochea, 2022, 1123). Like Sud and Sánchez-Ancochea (2022), we have chosen to approach the term Global South and, in turn, South–South migration, critically and with a recognition of the sometimes-contradictory meanings and uses of the term. We consider critical engagement with the term to be more important than discursive attempts to replace it. When not simplistically used to represent geographical space, we believe that this term has significant potential to consolidate and empower the various social actors that consider themselves to be in subalternised positionalities within global networks of power (Kloß, 2017). As Kloß (2017, 1) suggests, the Global South is not an entity that exists per se but has to be understood as something that is created, imagined, invented, maintained and recreated by the ever-changing and never fixed status positions of social actors and institutions. Reflecting this, we recognise the territorial South as dynamic, produced through the workings of history, geography and time, and as a place in which there are both centres and peripheries when it comes to political and economic power, for example South Africa in the context of the African continent and Brazil in the context of South America. In Asia, where the bulk of South–South migration occurs, two sets of countries provided the demand nodes of migration in the region—namely, the slow-growing Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal on the one hand, and faster-growing countries such as the oil-producing Middle East, fast-growing Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand on the other (Adil Khan & Hossain, 2017). One of the most significant reasons for these patterns is that the countries of the Global South have experienced different growth trajectories, creating inequalities between and within the countries of the Global South as well as between South and North.

The Relationships Between Migration and Inequality

There is growing interest in the extent and ways in which migration can contribute to positive development outcomes and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Ratha et al., 2013). This is reflected in the fact that development agencies and policy makers in the Global North are devoting significant resources to understanding migration’s potential and implementing policies to reduce the associated costs. There has been rather less focus on the relationships between South–South migration and inequality.

As noted by Black et al. (2006) international migration is a powerful symbol of global inequality, whether in terms of wages, labour market opportunities, or lifestyles. But the potential for migration to reduce inequality and contribute to development is neither straightforward nor inevitable. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, not everyone has access to the benefits of migration. The ability to migrate, and the conditions under which migration takes place, often reflects and reinforces existing spatial, structural and social inequalities including those related to gender, nationality, race, age and income. As many of the chapters in this Handbook show, these inequalities are often intersectional. They determine who is and is not able to migrate and under what conditions, as well as where people move to and the rights and the resources that they are able to access. Importantly, migration can increase as well as reduce inequality. For example, income inequalities in countries of origin can be expected to increase with international migration, particularly for the most marginalised groups in society, for example, women. This is because the poorest of the poor seldom have the means to migrate (McKenzie, 2017).

Secondly, increased barriers to migration, irregular and precarious journeys, poor labour conditions, and a lack of rights for migrants and their families can create new inequalities. In other words, vulnerability and violence is not inherent to migration but is also created (or allowed) by States, for example, by refusing or failing to provide access to a legal status and documentation, by failing to provide access to safe and legal migration routes or by choosing not to effectively regulate employers and businesses who exploit migrant workers. Disjointed and top-down policy and legal frameworks can also serve to dehumanise migrants by focusing on economic outcomes to the neglect of human experiences and well-being.

Thirdly, the countries of the Global South are locked into unequal relations with the Global North because of colonialism and their incorporation into systems of unequal exchange (Hickel et al., 2022). Recent research by Hickel et al. (2022) confirms that the “advanced economies” of the Global North rely on a large net appropriation of resources and labour from the Global South, extracted through induced price differentials in international trade. When measured in Northern prices, the drain amounted to $10.8 trillion in 2015, and $242 trillion over the period from 1990 to 2015—a significant windfall for the North, equivalent to a quarter of Northern GDP and similar to the windfall that was derived from colonial forms of appropriation. Unequal exchange is a major driver of underdevelopment and global inequality which limits the potential contribution of migration to development.

The depth and extent of the inequalities facing migrants globally was revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As reflected in some of the contributions to this Handbook, COVID-19 was not the “great equaliser” some claimed, but rather served as an amplifier of existing inequalities, including those associated with migration (Crawley, 2020). The pandemic severely disrupted access to the opportunities associated with migration, undermining the potential developmental benefits and creating new challenges for policy efforts aimed at securing improved outcomes for migrants and their families. Refugees and displaced populations living in crowded and unhygienic conditions were often unable to protect themselves from the virus, faced increasing economic precarity and found themselves excluded from measures to alleviate poverty and hunger. The threat to refugees came not only from material (in)security, but from increasing exclusion and exceptionalism associated with the politics of protection with governments in Europe, the US and some countries in the Global South who used the pandemic as an excuse to double-down on border closures and/or dip into their migration policy toolboxes to demonstrate the robustness of their response to it (Crawley, 2021).

Although the relationships between migration and inequality are profound, they remain largely under-analysed in the context of the Global South, and indeed more generally. While the migration and inequality have been studied extensively as separate theoretical and conceptual domains, few have theorised the direct links between them (Bastia, 2013; Muyonga et al., 2020). Moreover, where inequality is considered there is a tendency to focus on income inequalities to the exclusion of all others (Palmary, 2020). Indeed, the majority of studies on inequality are based on analysis at the individual level, often focusing on remittances and generally using income as the measurement parameter. There is a neglect of broader structural inequalities that limit possibilities and opportunities and place some population groups in precarious conditions while maintaining others in areas of privilege that provide them with greater access to social services and, therefore, greater social mobility. There is clearly a need for more in-depth investigation of the nexus between non-income inequalities and migration as well as the unpacking of the contextual factors behind inequality and migration using both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Muyonga et al., 2020). Additionally, Muyongo et al. (2020) strongly encourage the use of specialist migration surveys to improve the body of knowledge on this subject. This Handbook addresses these gaps, and it does so primarily by drawing on the knowledge of scholars and practitioners living and working in the countries of the Global South.

The Importance of Global South Perspectives

Migration scholarship is heavily skewed towards the Global North where research is largely designed and led, and where governments and international organisations increasingly fund research to inform policy development (Nawyn, 2016). As a result, the Global North’s interests shape dominant research themes, producing a disproportionate focus on South–North migration and categories of migrant defined in law and policy to make sense of—and increasingly contain—migration flows. This picture is inevitably partial. In the case of Africa, for example, numerous works produced across disciplines—from history (e.g., Ibadan School of Historiography) to African Studies (e.g., Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana Law, Makerere University)—do not form part of the literature or archive of migration studies (Crawley et al., 2022). The result is that important and path-breaking conceptual and theoretical works on the making of political communities that span North Africa and parts of the Arab world seldom inform thinking in the field of African migration and the contemporary making of societies. As noted previously by Teye (2021):

[s]cholars in the Global North tend to misunderstand or misinterpret mobility patterns. For instance, because they are in Europe, they just see an influx of people coming to Europe, especially since 2015…So, when the story is led by people that only see the people coming and they don’t see the other people that are circulating within the region, they will not be able to tell our story better than we can. That is why we think the knowledge production has to shift towards the Global South, so that we decolonise that knowledge.

Moreover, much migration scholarship has been dominated by a “paradigm of absence” (de Souza e Silva, 2021), which focuses on what the Global South (and its people) lack in relation to an idealised (but deeply flawed) colonial cultural and educational model. This approach can serve to stigmatise migration and those that move in ways that simply reinforce rather than challenge dominant (anti-) migration narratives.

This Handbook, by contrast, is dominated by the views and perspectives of those living in, or originating from the Global South with more than two-thirds of the chapters being written by Global South scholars. These contributions provide new insights into migration processes in the Global South and some of them directly challenge dominant migration theories developed by scholars in the Global North which ignore context specific economic, political and social processes. By assembling a set of empirically informed works that grapple conceptually with the relationship between migration and inequality from diverse Southern locations, this Handbook ensures both local relevance and trans-local comparative work that takes the South (in its varied specificities) as a serious analytical category (see also Crawley et al., 2022). Many of the contributors are part of the Migration for Development and Equality Hub—otherwise known as MIDEQFootnote 3—which unpacks the complex and multi-dimensional relationships between migration and inequality in the context of the Global South. MIDEQ’s work directly addresses knowledge gaps, decentring or decolonising the production of knowledge about migration and its consequences away from the Global North with the aim of ensuring that policy makers, programme specialists and donors have the understanding and evidence they need to harness the development potential of migration for individuals, households, communities and the countries of the Global South. The Hub’s overarching vision is thus to disrupt dominant assumptions about the reasons why people move and the consequences of migration, deepening knowledge and understanding of the relationships between South–South migration, inequality and development. It does this by building interdisciplinary migration research capacity in the Global South that can challenge dominant narratives on migration and improve the lives of migrants, their families and the communities of which they are a part.

The Contributions to this Handbook

The Handbook is divided into four parts, each highlighting often overlooked mobility patterns within and between regions of the Global South as well as the intersectional inequalities faced by those who move. While most books on South–South migration focus on only one country or region, the Handbook takes a regional approach which allows for the comparison of findings from different geographical areas. A number of chapters employ the idea of “corridors” to describe the movement of people, goods, money, knowledge and skills between two places with socio-cultural, economic, political and historical dynamics that transcend national borders. This focus on corridors enables the contributors to the Handbook to examine the relationships within and between countries, countering the focus of much migration research on processes and outcomes in individual countries. Several chapters also analyse migration flows between different regions of the Global South (Teye et al., Freier et al., this volume).

Part I focuses on conceptualisations of South–South migration and begins with a historical perspective on migration between the countries of the Global South. Examining the lasting impacts of the transatlantic enslavement of Black African peoples as a precursor of contemporary forms of South–South migration, Bruey and Crawley argue that is impossible to understand contemporary forms and experiences of South–South migration without first understanding the history of migration between countries generally classified as the Global South and the enduring effects of slavery. The authors also highlight the impacts of slavery on contemporary inequality within Africa, including Liberia, where the return of captured and emancipated slaves led directly to the civil wars that devastated the country between 1989 and 2003, and significant displacement into other parts of West Africa.

Having situated South–South migration firmly in its historical antecedents of slavery and colonisation, the Handbook then turns to inequalities in the production of migration knowledge. As noted by Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, it has become increasingly mainstream to argue that redressing the Eurocentrism of migration studies requires a commitment to decentring Global North knowledge, however it is not clear what this means in practice for Global South scholarship. Her chapter highlights the diverse ways in which scholars have sought to redress Eurocentrism in migration studies, by challenging the relevance and applicability of classical concepts and frameworks in the South, addressing knowledge “blind spots” by studying migration in the South and South–South migration, and engaging critically with the geopolitics of knowledge production. The geopolitics of knowledge production are also explored by Landström and Crawley, who take stock of existing critiques of contemporary migration research and bring these debates into contact with ongoing debates among decolonial scholars and in feminist social epistemology. Drawing on the framework of epistemic injustice and oppression, the authors highlight issues of undue epistemic marginalisation, suggesting that these issues should be centred as a core concern as migration scholars who need to critically reflect upon the knowledge production and dissemination practices of their field. Understanding the processes through which epistemic injustices happen, rather than just the epistemic outcomes, can help us to identify ways to address the structural inequalities with which the production of migration knowledge is often associated. Structural inequalities in the production of knowledge are picked up in the chapter by Vanyaro, who explores how the distinction(s) implied by the term “fieldwork’”, gives rise to false and misleading dichotomies that are problematic for any decolonial migration research praxis that tries to undo the bureaucratic damage of hegemonic ideas about research ethics. Exploring how “fieldwork” is undertaken in practice, Vanyaro argues that the dichotomies of “home” and the “field” conjured by this term negate an intermediate space between these two extremes in which social relationships, kinship ties and social value define the possible extent of the risk of migration research to further marginalise or protect migrants. What is needed, he suggests, is a paradigm shift in the kinds of ethics procedures as well as considerations in partnerships on migration studies which presume that power relationships between the researcher and the researched are somehow evened out when research is undertaken by African researchers working in African academic institutions.

Two of the contributions in Part I challenge migration scholars to find alternative ways of looking at South–South migration from non-economic perspectives and from the perspectives of those who move, including those who are forced to move due to conflict and human rights abuses. The contribution by Qasmiyeh and Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, combining critical reflections with poetry, is framed around the correspondence between the refugee camp and the process of writing—here, writing from the South—positing that writing the refugee camp into literature is both witnessing and archiving, and that refugees are not only wait-ers but makers of time. The chapter by Phipps and Yohannes questions what it means to move and critiques the Global North’s measurement-heavy and largely economistic perceptions of migration which, the authors argue, obscure the humanity of forced migration. The chapter considers how art and cultural works serve as methods practised daily by migrants in contexts of violent (b)ordering, (dis)counting and survival, to maintain their identities and humanity, and to resist. The chapter concludes by stressing the need for cultural work mediated by arts-based research to unmask not only the humanity within the South–South migration but also the potent forces of comfort and discomfort.

The contributors in Part II unpack “the South” in South–South migration by providing both an overview of migration patterns and trends across the regions of the Global South—Africa, Asia and South America—and exploring the differences between them. Collectively these chapters highlight the existence of centres and peripheries within the Global South and the ways in which inequalities shape migration patterns and outcomes. In their contribution to global trends in South–South migration, Schewel and Debray review global, regional and county-level trends between 1990 and 2020 using the most geographically comprehensive database available on international migrant stocks (UN DESA, 2020). The author notes that over one-third of all international migration is between countries of the Global South, a greater share than South–North migration in 2020. This chapter shows most migrants from the Global South move to countries within their home region, particularly in areas like Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South America. However, extra-regional migration is on the rise as more international migrants travel further distances. Migration from South Asia to the Middle East is now the largest South–South intra-regional migration corridor in the world.

These trends are then unpacked at the country and regional levels. The first three chapters examine the relationships between migration and inequality in the context of the context of Africa. We begin with a chapter from Yaro and Setrana on the dynamics of South–South migration in Africa. Historically, colonialism has shaped movements within the African continent through inequalities in development processes and outcomes as well as infrastructural imbalances and forced movements. More recently, efforts by African states to enhance regional integration have played an important role in facilitating intra-African movements. The authors point out that while Africa is commonly represented as a continent of exodus, the vast majority of African migration occurs within the continent. This point is picked up by Feyissa, Zeleke and Gebresenbet who explore the idea that migration is a collective rather than an individual project, as typically assumed by migration scholars in the Global North. Their chapter, which draws on the case study of Hadiya migration to South Africa, critiques the individualist thrust in migration studies and the assumed “autonomous agency” of prospective migrants, especially in the context of the Global South. Finally, Dabiré and Soumahoro examine the sometimes-contradictory impacts of migration on inequalities in Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire which represents one of the largest migration flows in the world with the cross-border movement of migrant workers to the cocoa plantations established by the colonisers in the northern areas of Côte d’Ivoire. The authors suggest that while this migration helps poor households through the transfer of resources, it also creates inequalities: inequalities between children whose parents migrate and those who do not, inequalities between households that do and don’t receive remittances, and gender inequalities. In addition, once they arrive in Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso migrants (Burkinabè) often face difficulties in securing good working conditions and rights.

The focus then turns to South America, starting with a chapter from Rosas and Zapata outlining trends and characteristics of migrants’ social and economic inclusion in six countries: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay. These countries have recently witnessed rising levels of intra-regional migration, diversification in the origins and motivations of flows, and/or have suddenly become immigration and transit countries. The authors argue that these transformations have added a layer of complexity to our understanding of the historic—and persistent—socio-economic inequalities that characterise the region, posing additional challenges to migrants’ social and economic inclusion. These inequalities are reflected in the chapter by Marcelin and Cela which explores the making of migrant trails in the Americas through ethnographic tracing of Haitians on the move. The authors argue that migrant vulnerability often begins at home, signalling to governments and communities in transit and destination countries that they are people who are unprotected and easy to exploit. Haiti, they are, epitomises this continuum of intersectional inequities which create a path dependency for vulnerability. The authors use the concept of “circulation” to frame the fluid patterns of migration by Haitians who are caught on different migrant trails across the Americas, arguing that Haitians on the move—already unprotected and deprived of basic rights at home—carry their path dependency to complex vulnerability across the Americas where they experience unequal access to rights and social protection.

The final three chapters in Part II take us first to Southeast Asia for a chapter by Yeoh and Ghimire on migrant labour and inequalities in the Nepal–Malaysia corridor and beyond. Malaysia is an upper middle-income country heavily reliant on migrant labour from 15 different countries to work in the manufacturing, construction, plantation and service sectors. For Nepali citizens, Malaysia is a popular destination country in addition to the Gulf Co-operation Council (GOC) states, Nepalis constitute the third largest migrant labour force in Malaysia after Indonesians and Bangladeshis. Drawing on the concept of “migration infrastructure” (Xiang & Lindquist, 2014) as a point of departure, this chapter examines the range of pre-existing everyday and structurally imposed migration inequalities faced by Nepalis. It also elaborates on how these inequalities, which were relatively ignored or underplayed in the past, became accentuated and brought into public view during the COVID-19 global pandemic, and in its wake set in motion long overdue policy reforms.

The Handbook then turns to the topic of inter-regional migration in the Global South with two chapters that highlight the growing but under researched topic of those for whom South–South migration means moving between continents rather than just countries. In their chapter on the growing phenomenon of Chinese migration to Ghana, Teye, Lu and Crawford suggest, as earlier authors do, that migration has both positive and negative impacts on equality. Positively, the incomes and livelihoods of some Chinese migrants and Ghanaians who work for Chinese investors have improved, however, financial rewards have benefited some more than others, with increased income inequalities along gender and social class lines. Negative impacts also include environmental degradation, violation of Ghana’s trade and mining laws, and exploitation of some Ghanaians by Chinese migrants. While Chinese migrants and their families left behind benefit through improved incomes and remittances, migration and associated financial flows contribute to a deepening of inequalities in migrants’ sending areas. The drivers of African migration to South America are explored by Freier, Oba and Bautista who note that despite the media focus on African migration to Europe, African migrants are also undertaking longer and riskier journeys in search of better opportunities in destinations such as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. The authors explain why African migrants are choosing South American host or transit countries, offering a refutation of classical “push–pull” models and instead, proposing that Africans migrate for a variety of reasons including personal aspirations. In so doing, the chapter aims to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of African migration to non-traditional destinations, and highlight avenues for further research in the field of African migration studies. It also emphasises the need to move away from simplistic explanations based on push–pull models and to recognise the agency and diversity of African migrants.

Having explored South–South migration patterns and trends, Part III of the Handbook turns to the inequalities associated with migration, drawing on data from the MIDEQ Hub and other research in the Global South, starting with three chapters that examine inequalities associated with poverty, gender and race from an intersectional perspective. In their overview of the relationships between poverty, income inequalities and migration in the Global South, Casentini, Hammond and Bakewell assess the ways in which income inequalities contribute to patterns of migration, the mechanisms by which resources are transferred back to places of origin and their impacts on poverty and income inequalities, and the impacts of migration on patterns of inequalities in places where people move. Reflecting the contributions in Part I, the authors take a critical approach which highlights the need to consider the historical dimensions involved in the political construction of the Global South as a category. In their contribution, Bastia and Piper explore the comparative dynamics of gendered processes and outcomes in the context of South–South migration with the aim of redressing an existing bias towards destination countries by placing greater emphasis on countries of origin and transnational social fields. By focusing on migrant precarity as workers, the analysis in this chapter also moves beyond the overwhelming focus on domestic work to highlight other overlooked sectors in which there are highly gendered patterns of migrant employment, such as manufacturing, agriculture and tourism. This theme is continued in the chapter on Haitian migration and structural racism in Brazil by Souza e Silva, Barbosa and Fernandes. Highlighting the socio-historical foundations of Brazilian structural racism, and in particular its articulation with sexism and institutional patrimonialism—the authors argue for the need to better understand how experiences in diverse socio-cultural and political contexts may influence perceptions, and even a supposedly “naïve” views on race and inequalities. They also emphasise the need to acknowledge the distinct strategies adopted by Black migrants in contexts of structural racism.

The chapters that follow explore the inequalities that shape decisions to migrate and the role of specific drivers including climate change, food insecurities, as well as the role of intermediaries in the migration process. Boas, Olayiwola and Gautam provide a socio-political account of the ways in which the relations between climate change and human mobility manifest themselves in different regions of the Global South. Moving away from Global North assumptions that the relationships between climate change and mobility are straightforward, even obvious, the chapter demonstrates how climate mobility patterns are embedded within often uneven social and political dynamics which shape whether, how and to where people move. This involves socio-economic dynamics such as gender inequality, or policy developments such as donor agendas impacting local manifestations of climate mobility in the Global South, as well as the political role of state borders and how these influence the ways people can move in the context of climate risk. Crush and Ramachandran continue this theme by drawing attention to the underexplored linkages between food security, inequality, migration and development with respect to South–South migration. Building on core arguments reflecting on these ties and empirical studies from diverse sending and receiving contexts, they outline five distinctive ways in which these multi-dimensional relationships and interactions operate. Their analysis problematises the often-positive framing of the migration–development nexus.

The theme of inequalities in decisions to migrate is picked up in Mazzilli, Hagen-Zanker and Himmelstine’s exploration of the ways in which migration decision-making intersects with both tangible and intangible inequalities. The emerging literature from the Global South shows that perceptions of inequality are multi-dimensional, intersectional and overlapping, and that they are shaped and experienced by migrants at different stages of the migration cycle. The authors argue that focusing on these perceptions can dramatically increase our understanding of migration decision-making. Building on this analysis, Jones, Sha and Bhuiyan argue that intermediaries play a critical role in understanding migration processes and outcomes, not least because increasing border controls and restrictions on movement mean that intermediaries make mobility possible in a world in which immobility is often the norm.

The final set of chapters in Part III examines the impacts on South–South migration including the ways in which digital technology is harnessed to overcome inequalities (but can also create them), the relationships between migrant resource flows and development in the Global South and the extent and ways in which South–South migration both expands the challenges and increases the opportunities for children to access education. According to Harindranath, Unwin and Lorini, the use and design of digital technologies plays an important role in South–South migration, from migrant decision-making, orientation and route planning, to integration into host communities and connecting with those left behind. Digital technologies can be leveraged to increase access to opportunities and rights for migrants, thereby boosting migration’s developmental benefits at the interface between migrants and host communities. However, the authors argue that structural inequalities in migration contexts mean that access and use of digital technologies are almost always socially contingent, often leading to further inequalities. In their chapter on migrant resource flows and development in the Global South, Asiedu, Tapsoba and Gelb examine three types of resource flows in South–South migration—financial flows of remittances and diaspora investment, trade flows of goods and services, and knowledge flows relating to skills development and production and organisational technology for enterprises. The authors point out that the South–South component of resource flows has barely been addressed in the existing literature, focusing overwhelmingly on North–South flows with greater aggregate value and ignoring the migrant and diaspora population from the Global South. They also argue that many resource flows are informal and that trying to “formalise” these will leave many—both migrants and citizens—in jeopardy because they will not have access to flows of finance, trade and knowledge. Taking account of South–South flows will be critical to harness the developmental benefits of migration and manage the potentially unequalising impacts of these flows. Nyamnjoh, Seaman and Zeleke examine the impacts of South–South migration on children’s education, arguing that migration produces, mitigates and transforms educational inequalities, with such shifts generating impacts across generations and geographies. Through two case studies on South–South migration which focus on first-generation children born to Ethiopian parents and Ethiopian children who reunited with their parents in South Africa, and children in Ethiopia whose parents are migrants in South Africa, the authors explore migration’s nuanced impacts on educational opportunities, aspirations and attainment, and how this in turn effects social mobility and inequalities.

Finally, Part IV explores responses to South–South migration, returning to a regional perspective in order to highlight the very significant differences that exist in migration policy approaches in Africa, Asia and South America where histories of migration, relationships to the Global North and governance structures vary significantly. The chapters also draw attention to the experiences and responses of migrants, including their ability (or otherwise) to access justice and rights and efforts to mobilise politically and build new forms of transnational solidarity that bridge both geographical and sectoral boundaries. Carella begins by asking the important question of whether the governance of South–South migration is, or should be, different from that taking place both to and within the Global North. The author approaches South–South migration as a complex and diverse phenomenon, the governance of which is rendered particularly challenging by inequalities at the global level, as well as between southern countries and within them. He argues that since South–South migration often occurs in challenging contexts characterised, among others, by the prevalence of labour market informality, irregular status and/or temporariness, it requires southern responses adapted to specific needs.

The specificities of migration governance in the Global South are reflected in the chapters that follow. In their analysis of policies towards migration in Africa, Teye and Oucho provide an overview of the measures taken by the African Union Commission and Member States to promote free movement of persons but note the slow and uneven process of implementation due to a lack of political will and resource constraints. Espinoza takes us to South America, providing us with an overview of recent South American migration governance in the context of significant shifts in migration patterns and dynamics associated, in particular, with the exodus of more than seven million Venezuelans. The author suggests that the changes in migration governance in South America over the last decade have been framed and justified through the lens of “multiple crises” and is characterised by fragmented and reactive measures, with practices that evidence both continuity and change. The development of this approach is leading to more control, the criminalisation of migration, increased migrant irregularity and less protection for people on the move. The focus on Venezuelan migration continues with the chapter by Mazza and Villarreal, who examine the arrival of large numbers of Venezuelans in Perú, where migration policies have changed dramatically over the course of the crisis. The authors find that Perú’s restrictive policies have been both ineffective in reducing forced migration flows and counterproductive by inducing the increased marginalisation of Venezuelan migrants, inequalities which were further deepened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

We then move to southeast Asia, where Asis and Maningat provide an overview of what they describe as “the ASEAN way” in migration governance, which reflects both the refusal of Asian states to be part of international migration conventions while at the same time making efforts towards cooperation at a regional or sub-regional level. The authors explore the complex migration governance mechanisms in southeast Asia, highlighting the particular roles of national governments, civil society organisations, migrant workers and private recruitment agencies as well as the nuances that exist in between these actors. The limits and potential of “contestations from below” are also discussed. This theme continues with an analysis of temporary labour migration programmes in and from Asia and the Pacific by Oberoi and Sheill. The authors argue that while temporary labour migration programmes are a wide option for regular migration available to low-wage migrant workers from Asia and the Pacific, these programmes bring considerable risks to the well-being of the migrants and for their families including in their access to justice. Many, they argue, are consistently excluded by policy or practice from access to justice and remedies for human rights abuses whether in the workplace or outside. The authors argue that it is necessary to build an understanding of social justice as a societal organising principle that centres fairness in relations between individuals within society. This approach is emphasised in the final chapter of the Handbook in which Awumbila, Garba, Darkwah and Zaami examine the ways in which migrants within the Global South organise at the meso-level to defend and access their rights, and the solidarity that they build among themselves as migrants and with social movements, working class organisations and other civil society actors. Using the example of trade unions, the authors urge the need for political mobilisation actions to move away from conceptualisations of migrants as victims but rather as actors, capable of various initiatives and with whom they can build solidarity movements.

Taken as a whole, this Handbook represents an important contribution to our understanding of the nature of South–South migration in general, and its relationship to inequalities in particular. It moves us away from the frequently examined South–North and North–North movements to look instead at human mobility within the Global South, challenging dominant conceptualisations of migration and offering new perspectives and insights that can inform theoretical and policy understandings. As noted above, two-thirds of the chapters have been written by scholars living or, or originating from, the Global South, centring this knowledge and understanding in a way never previously seen. Moreover, because the Handbook takes a corridor and regional approach, it allows for a comparison of findings from different geographical areas, enabling us to consider whether South–South migration, in its forms and processes, outcomes and governance, different from those seen in the Global North.

One of the clearest conclusions we can draw from the Handbook is that the relationships between migration and inequality are varying and sometimes contradictory. As noted by others (see, for example, Palmary, 2020), there is little clear agreement about whether migration indeed reduces poverty or inequality. Rather what emerges from this Handbook, and from the wider literature, is an understanding that whether migration increases or decreases inequality is shaped by a large number of contextual and political factors as well as the historical contexts within which migration has developed and the responses of politicians and policy makers to this phenomenon. Understanding the relationships between South–South migration and inequalities in these contexts is a critical first step in harnessing the benefits of migration for development, and for the well-being of migrants and their families.