Search

Official discourses of Development are being redefined. If the key geopolitical contexts shaping the post‐war Development project were decolonisation and the Cold War, the defining world‐historical transformations shaping the emerging vision of Development are the expansion of state capitalism and the rise of China. The IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the G20, other multilaterals, and bilateral partners are increasingly taking stock of the rise of state capitalism, and acting as ideational vectors of this emerging regime. However, this new “state capitalist normal” is also portrayed as carrying risks. There is anxiety regarding the direction the political form of global capital accumulation is heading: with the unchecked proliferation of state capitalism possibly blunting competition, politicising economic relations, and intensifying geoeconomic tensions. This anxiety underwrites the current re‐articulation of Development, one which embraces the state as promoter, supervisor, and owner of capital; even as it critiques China’s use of similar instruments.

Crisis narratives surrounding Europe's 2015 migration influx fuelled demands for new ways of tracking, mapping and predicting human mobility. We explore how market opportunities for technology firms and data analytics start-ups created by the EU's Global Approach to Migration led to solutionistic approaches to compiling and analysing migration statistics. We show that initiatives such as the rebranding of existing platforms and services as migration prediction systems are consolidating policy conceptualisations of migration as risk. Despite the promise of greater granularity, this "big data approach" cannot offer greater certainty about who is on the move and why. Instead such approaches are ill-suited to understanding the complex dynamics of migration and to offering protection to vulnerable people. The marketisation of migration statistics through big data offers a key case for advancing progressive approaches to both migration statistics and global data justice.Los relatos de crisis en torno a las corrientes migratorias hacia Europa del año 2015 han impulsado la demanda de nuevas formas de seguimiento, mapeo y predicción de la movilidad de personas. Exploramos cómo las oportunidades de mercado para las empresas de tecnología y las nuevas empresas de análisis de datos creadas por el Enfoque Global de la Migración de la UE han causado enfoques simplificadores al compilar y analizar las estadísticas migratorias. Mostramos que iniciativas tales como el cambio de nombre de ciertas plataformas y servicios existentes en los sistemas de predicción migratoria están transformando la conceptualización de las política migratoria como un riesgo. A pesar de la promesa de una mayor granularidad, este “enfoque big data” no logra ofrecer una mayor certeza sobre quién está en movimiento y por qué. Al contrario, estos enfoques no son adecuados para comprender las complejas dinámicas migratorias ni para ofrecer protección a las personas vulnerables. La comercialización de las estadísticas migratorias a través de Big Data ofrece un caso clave para avanzar sobre enfoques más progresivos tanto para las estadísticas migratorias y como para la justicia global de datos.

What do measures of management during this exceptional and volatile time tell us about the regulation of migrant‐driven diversity and its implications in the arrival city? Using the term “differential diversification” from Singapore, I examine how the socio‐political life of the pandemic is deeply entangled with the management of low‐waged labour migrants. Techno‐political discourses and practices of pandemic management accelerated the state’s attempts to differently include migrant workers, revealing the bare viscerality of biopolitics already in place prior to the pandemic. I argue that diversity is ordered through a striking co‐production of migrant management and pandemic management. This paper draws upon government discourses to demonstrate that measures of pandemic management contribute not only to the spatial regime of migrant management. They also articulate and rationalise the subject transformation of the low‐waged migrant to the extent that, on top of being a moral risk, they are also now a medical risk.

This multi‐authored contribution explores what the COVID‐19 pandemic demands of critical inquiry with a focus on the more‐than‐human. We show how COVID‐19 is a complex series of multispecies encounters shaped by humans, non‐human animals, and of course viruses. Central to these encounters is a politics of difference in which certain human lives are protected and helped to flourish while others, both human and animal, are forgotten if not sacrificed. Such difference encompasses practices of racialisation and racism, healthcare austerity, the circulation of capital, border‐making, intervention into non‐human nature, wildlife trade bans, anthropocentrism, and the exploitation of animal test subjects. The contributions highlight how COVID‐19 provides a needed opportunity to unite new materialist and anti‐racist, anti‐colonial scholarship as well as reimagine more radically sustainable multispecies futures. This requires embracing anti‐colonial humility, confronting debts owed to lab animal frontline workers, and rethinking economic systems that helped unleash COVID‐19 and ensured it became a disaster.