In 2011, while conducting fieldwork for my master’s thesis in the South Wollo area of Ethiopia’s Amhara region, I came across a striking paradox that has continued to shape my research on migration governance. My focus was on understanding how rural Ethiopian households financed the journey to the Gulf countries, where the Kafala system – in which migrant workers are legally tied to their employers for entry, stay and return – governs labour migration It is a system where the responsibility for managing transnational labour recruitment is handed over to non-state actors, such as private citizens and recruitment agencies. This decentralized approach is based on sponsorship. While there have been efforts to reform the system recently, it remains highly restrictive and continues to enforce intersectional segregation.
To understand further the financial considerations for moving, I conducted a survey within which I asked “How do families pay for migration to the Gulf?” The answers were initially what I expected—selling livestock, savings from agriculture, or borrowing from family and friends. But as I delved deeper, an unexpected pattern began to emerge. Some respondents revealed that they had funded their migration using money from development programs like the Rural Productivity Safety Net Project and other cash transfer initiatives. These programs, funded by international donors, such as the European Union (EU), USAID, the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and the World Bank, were designed to stabilise rural economies and reduce migration pressures. They aimed to improve local livelihoods by boosting agricultural productivity and providing safety nets for vulnerable households. However, instead of curbing migration, these programs were indirectly enabling it. The funds intended to help families stay in their villages were being repurposed to pay brokers, recruitment agencies, and travel expenses for migration under the Kafala system in the Gulf.
Intrigued, I conducted follow-up focus group discussions. The participants explained how these development interventions had created financial capacity within households that allowed them to pursue migration. One respondent noted, “The cash transfer program helped us save enough to send my son to work in Saudi Arabia. Without it, we wouldn’t have been able to pay for the broker or his visa.” Another participant added that while they had initially used the funds to migrate to the Gulf, they were already planning to save for a future trip to Europe.
A Paradox of Migration Governance through Development Aid
This paradox highlights the unintended consequences of well-meaning development interventions. Programs, like the Rural Safety Net Project, were designed to address the root causes of migration by improving living standards and creating local opportunities. Yet, they inadvertently became tools for financing transnational labour migration. For many rural Ethiopian households, migration remains the most viable path to economic mobility despite the risks involved. This phenomenon underscores the complexity of migration governance in a globalised world, where policies and interventions often produce outcomes far removed from their original intentions. For example, while the EU has long invested in development aid to reduce irregular migration from Africa, the case of Ethiopia shows that this aid can also facilitate migration to regions with restrictive labour governance frameworks, like the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
Development Aid and the Kafala System
The Gulf’s Kafala system is notorious for its restrictive and exploitative practices. Under this system, migrant workers are tied to their employers, who have significant control over their legal status, mobility, and working conditions. Despite these challenges, the promise of better wages and employment opportunities drives thousands of Ethiopians, particularly women, to work as domestic workers in GCC countries every year. During my fieldwork in Ethiopia, I observed how development aid, primarily funded by Western institutions, inadvertently facilitated migration to the Gulf. The money from programs like the Rural Safety Net Project enabled families to cover the substantial costs associated with migration, including broker fees, visa applications, and airfare. In some cases, the funds were also used to repay loans taken out to finance earlier migration attempts. One woman I interviewed described how the safety net program transformed her family’s prospects: “We were able to send my daughter to Qatar to work as a housemaid. She sends money home every month, which has helped us build a new house and buy more land.” Her story illustrates the dual role of migration as both a survival strategy and a pathway to economic advancement for Ethiopian households.
From the Gulf to Europe: Migration as a Stepping Stone
Interestingly, some participants in my focus groups revealed that their ultimate goal was not to settle in the Gulf but to use it as a stepping stone for migration to Europe. For these migrants, the Gulf represented an intermediary destination where they could save money and gain the resources needed to pursue further migration. One young man explained, “My plan is to work in Saudi Arabia for a few years, save enough money, and then go to Europe through Libya.” This aspiration highlights the interconnectedness of global migration systems, where one region’s labour migration policies can influence migration flows to another. It also reveals the strategic agency of migrants, who navigate these systems to achieve their long-term goals.
Redirecting Migration Flows: A Latent Strategy?
The case of Ethiopia raises important questions about the role of external actors in shaping migration patterns. While the EU’s development aid aims to reduce migration pressures by improving local conditions, its focus on promoting “legal pathways for migration” has arguably diverted potential migrants to regions like the GCC, where the Kafala system governs labour migration. This dynamic reflects a latent strategy of migration redirection, where potential irregular migrants to Europe are encouraged—directly or indirectly—to pursue legal migration to the Gulf. In Ethiopia, the EU’s externalisation practices are evident in its support for capacity-building initiatives and migration management programs. These programs often prioritise the regulation of migration flows to destinations other than Europe, aligning with the EU’s broader goal of reducing irregular migration. However, this approach raises ethical questions about whether such policies genuinely serve the interests of migrants or primarily cater to the geopolitical priorities of receiving states.
A Broader Reflection
The intersection of development aid, migration governance, and labour migration under the Kafala system offers a compelling lens to examine the unintended consequences of external interventions. While programs like the Rural Safety Net Project are designed to stabilise communities and reduce migration pressures, they often end up facilitating the very migration they seek to prevent. This paradox underscores the need for more nuanced and holistic approaches to migration governance—approaches that consider the interconnectedness of global migration systems and the agency of migrants themselves. For policymakers, this means moving beyond narrowly defined objectives like curbing irregular migration to address the structural drivers of migration, including economic inequality and restrictive labour practices.
As the case of Ethiopia shows, migration is not merely a response to hardship, but a complex and strategic process shaped by a range of local and global factors. Understanding this complexity is crucial for designing policies that genuinely support the rights and aspirations of migrants while addressing the broader challenges of migration governance in an increasingly interconnected world. This narrative, rooted in my fieldwork, illustrates the intricate ways in which development aid and migration governance intersect, often in unexpected ways. It challenges us to rethink the assumptions underpinning external interventions and to consider how policies can be reimagined to create more equitable and sustainable outcomes for migrants and their communities.
