Search

Much of the scholarship in development studies focuses on developing countries. However, many of the same issues can be seen in developed countries, where migrants now constitute a sizeable proportion of the poor and politically disenfranchised. In immigrant receiving countries such as Australia, temporary migrants in low-income households are most at risk of poor social and health outcomes. This research explores the experiences of temporary migrant workers from Southeast Asia in Australia, demonstrating that migrant workers, on the whole, live without a political voice or clear pathway to permanent residency and citizenship. The research is informed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's theoretical framework of capabilities. One of the most critical capabilities is having a sense of political agency and control over one's environment. Given the significant increase in temporary migration flows around the world, this Element draws attention to the necessity of migrants to be provided with political capabilities.

How do migrants evaluate democracy in Australia? While prior studies have examined migrant support for democracy in Australia, less is known about how migrants evaluate the performance of democracy, as captured by indicators on political trust and satisfaction with democracy. Would migrants have lower levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy as a result of political exclusion, including under-representation in parliament? Or would migrants from less democratic countries, socialised in regimes where critical attitudes towards political authorities are discouraged, be more allegiant citizens with relatively positive evaluations of democracy? Using data from the 2010 to 2019 Australian Election Study surveys, combined with Freedom House regime classifications of migrant origin countries, we examine migrant attitudes towards Australian democracy. The results show that while migrants to Australia from other democratic countries have similar attitudes to those born in Australia, those from less democratic countries have higher levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy. This suggests that despite political exclusion, migrants from less democratic countries are more allegiant citizens than those born in Australia or another democracy.

International migration is an important source of population change and economic development for Pacific Island countries. Migration from the Pacific Island region contributes to labour recruitment in countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United States. However, there are substantial gaps in the understanding of overall migration patterns in this region, impeding the development of relevant policies. In the absence of good migration statistics, we propose and present an alternative approach to examining the levels of migration in the Pacific Island region using model-based estimates. Three sets of recently produced migration flow estimates are consulted to explore the immigration and emigration levels and key migration corridors in the Pacific Island region between 2000 and 2019. Where reported migration statistics are available, we evaluate the performance of model-based estimates and highlight if there are problems with the reported data. This research brief demonstrates the value of model-based estimates to inform migration in the Pacific Island region.

The racial and ethnic landscape in Australia has changed markedly since the beginning of the postwar migration period in which migrants arrived from Europe, and later from Asia in the late 1970s. While Australians with European ancestry have gradually made it into state and federal parliament, there has been less visibility for Australians of Asian descent. This article provides an overview of demographic migration trends and levels of Asian-Australian political representation in state and federal politics, drawing on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and parliamentary websites. In doing so, we reflect on why political representation of Asian-Australian populations appears to be lagging so far behind.

In terms of Asian Migrant and Ethnic Minority (MEM) representation, the Australian Parliament is one of the most unrepresentative when compared to other similar settler societies such as Canada and the United States. This article examines why the Australian Parliament still predominantly comprises members of parliament from British and European Backgrounds despite Australia’s rich multicultural heritage involving a long history of non-British and European migration. One of the main reasons put forward for the low participation of Asian migrant and ethnic minorities in the Australian Parliament is the lack of geographical concentration of Asian migrants and the declining importance of the ‘ethnic vote’, which in other similar settler countries has led to the selection and recruitment of MEM candidates to competitive seats. This article explores the geographical concentration of Asian migrants in competitive seats as well as voting patterns among Asian Australians using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Election Studies. In doing so, this research considers whether there is potential for the incorporation of MEM interests in the future through descriptive and substantive representation.

In recent years much has been said about how new democracies are backsliding or have regressed since the turn of the century when hope and optimism about the future spread of democracy was widespread. However, ideas that democracy would spread were based on institutional and governance indicators rather than from the perspective of everyday citizens. When we look at public attitudes towards democracy during this period, we can see that such optimism was perhaps misplaced or premature. Drawing on findings from the AsiaBarometer and the World Values Survey, this research finds that public attitudes during this time were not overly convinced by democracy and certainly not yet satisfied with their government's performance in terms of providing basic democratic freedoms and independence.

The political trajectories in Southeast Asia are much more complex than neat theoretical models would suggest. In particular, the diverse experience of post-authoritarian states are far from linear – often moving forward, backward, and forward again, or stalling for a number of years. Political trajectories can thus be uneven and erratic, as exemplified by Thailand's military coups, graduating from hegemonic to competitive electoral authoritarian rule in Singapore and Malaysia and lingering within the zone of low-quality democracy as characterized by Indonesia's poor governance and neo-patrimonial dynamics. Indeed, since 2014, Freedom House no longer classifies Indonesia as ‘Free’, following the passage of legislation restricting the activity of civil society and the human rights violations against religious minorities. Similarly, Thailand lost its ‘Free’ ranking in 2006 and the Philippines in 2007.