P.I.G.S, the Economic Crisis and the Rise of Populism
14 Replies to “P.I.G.S, the Economic Crisis and the Rise of Populism”
This week’s readings take me back to the second week of class when we first read about the Maastricht Treaty and the goal of the EU. In the blog posts that week, many of us spoke of the contrast between the idealized image of European unity that those like Rousseau had and the real failures of the EU. Some spoke of how the goal of minimizing economic inequalities were never achieved, some discussed the employment rate, and others characterizes the EU as “stuck” or a “means to an unsuccessful end.” The evidence for all these statements are present in this week’s readings and films, as we officially address the Eurozone crisis in our reading and film materials. With the discussion on borders and sovereignty this past week, an added element of the costs of giving up sovereignty, which we had not closely discussed in the second week, enters the discussion. As early as the second week, we had seen the failures of the EU, so is the widespread sentiment of Euroscepticism highly valid?
While watching the documentary, my first instinct was to write a blog post about how En Tierra Extrana shows that the struggles of the immigrant are shared, that, because of the economic crises that the P.I.I.G.S. countries endure, the differences between internal European migrants and non-European migrants are not as vast as one would have imagined. This sentiment is also echoed by some of the subjects interviewed in the documentary, some of whom spoke of how they have come to realize that migrants coming in are just like them.
But are they?
The struggles that the migrants interviewed in En Tierra Extrana had to endure cannot be understated. They spoke of the struggles of loneliness, hopelessness, of struggling to find a livelihood and a source of income. But one aspect of immigration that none addressed was the struggle of getting into Scotland in the first place. Meanwhile, the process of immigration itself and the deaths and injuries suffered along the way were the focus of last week. For the migrants crossing by Ceuta and Melilla, for example, their actual lives were on the lines, rather than their source of income. Is risking one’s life and risking one’s livelihood the same? And if it is or isn’t, what does this say about the success of the EU from the perspective of those within it?
“In a Foreign Land” is a documentary that takes an intriguing and unorthodox approach to migration in Europe.
The documentary depicts the struggles and frustrations of a large Spanish community in Edinburgh, which is embodied by the “Neither lost nor silenced”, a movement where Spaniards collect lost gloves in the city to show that they indeed are a part of Edinburgh and deserved to be acknowledged by locals. Furthermore, the documentary sheds light on the fact that many of the Spaniards did not want to leave their home country, but instead felt like they were forced out as the government neglected them. The viewer sees heartbreaking interviews where the Spanish migrants share stories about how they have left their families behind in an act of desperation in order to find employment.
By observing the reasoning behind the Spaniards’ decision to leave their country, along with their struggles to be accepted as a part of the Scottish community, we gain more of an understanding of their hardship. I believe this is even further emphasized by the title of the documentary itself – “In a Foreign Land”. This underlines the fact that even though locals living in Scotland often see Spanish immigrants as foreigners or even “others”, it is a notion that goes both ways. Spaniards see Scotland as “foreign”, showing that they are also thrown into an uncomfortable situation.
Moreover, I believe that the documentary is trying to communicate a larger message than simply the struggles of Spanish immigrants in Scotland. It tries to relate to the issue of the adversities of all immigrants in Europe. We observe in several interviews how the Spanish migrants state how they can relate and feel solidarity with the African immigrants in Spain, and the irony of how they would express fear of these immigrants, only to realize the importance of a welcoming and integration-focused nation such as Scotland.
However, I still question if this documentary’s depiction of the Spanish community in Scotland is the most effective way of sparking action. The viewer is left with more of an understanding of the mindset and struggles of Spanish immigrants in Scotland, but will that lead to a growing acceptance of immigrants overall in Europe? It is a vital question to pose, as spreading awareness of the truth of migration in Europe effectively could be the key to combating xenophobia.
I often tend to question if the EU works in the unity that it was imagined when it was first created. I agree with Ha in that everything in this week’s readings point to the fact that no, the EU does not necessarily work in glorified unity and cohesion, especially when one country is struggling economically and others refuse to help. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, refused to help Greece after its economy came crashing down. She came out of the December 2009 European Council meeting saying that “assistance for Greece was not on the table” and the Greek government would essentially have to accept responsibility and figure it out (344). There is power superiority in this statement. The German economy, clearly doing better than others, is denying help that it could potentially give. Wasn’t this the whole point of the EU? One of the main goals listed on the EU website is to “enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among EU countries.” The economic crisis should have called for more economic cohesion, not dismantle all hopes of such.
The documentary we watching, “In Foreign Land,” also showed the lack of economic cohesion within Spain, and the effects this had on Spanish citizens. I thought the documentary did an excellent job in evoking an emotion response from the audience, and making us empathize with the Spaniards who have fled to Edinburgh to seek a better life. I think something that the documentary did especially well is emphasizing the previous education or specialities of the immigrants, and their current jobs. Chemical engineers are now maids and people with several degrees are subjected to doing physical labor. I agree with one of the interviewee’s that this is simply a waste of time, money, and person, in that these people are educated to specialize in an academic field, and all the effort they have put in to creating a future for themselves has led to them cleaning dishes in a kitchen in Scotland.
But one this that I would pick at to critique in the documentary is that I honestly think it undermines the immigrant experience. I do not want this taken as an undermining of the Spanish immigrant experience, because their struggles are more than valid. But I think it undermines the immigrant experience in general. For them it was as simple as packing a suitcase and going to Scotland, or at least that is how the documentary presented it. People from outside the EU do not have the privilege to travel so easily between countries, and deciding the leave when things get rough is not always an option. I could not help but think of Welcome and Bilal’s immigrant experience. Although that was a fictional film, I felt more informed on the full immigrant experience with him having to travel three months of foot before even reaching France and having to constantly fear rejection or death. These are two completely different immigrant narratives, and in no way is one “worse” than the other, but I think that “In Foreign Land” could have done a better job explaining the immigrant journey to Scotland.
Throughout “In a Foreign Land,” I felt as if the Bollain very much focused on the disparities in individuals working conditions vs qualifications in Spain and Scotland while this was contrasted by Balibar’s larger societal critique of shifting migration patterns which causes the middle classes of Europe to collapse. For the film, I was initially surprised to see how generally free of the stereotype of the “lazy, southern workers” from PIIGS economies that Spaniards felt they received in Edinburgh and even more surprised by how much more “dignity” Spaniards felt they received in their blue collar work in Scotland than the their degree-necessary jobs in Spain. This raised the question for me if these Southern economies perhaps had internalized their negative perception that was impressed upon them by wealthier Northern economies after the economic depression of 2008, even more so than said Northern economies. Moreover, it generally seemed that these Spanish migrants had less of a negative perception of immigrants from non-EU economies than we had previously discussed, and I believe this challenges the common assumptions we’ve seen in films such as “Bread and Chocolate” which suggest that EU immigrants, by and large, feel superiority to non-EU immigrants. This film raised the question of how immigration is different from immigration even though they are often 2 sides to the same coin, and how perhaps perceiving someone as an immigrant may look different if someone else considers themself an emigrant.
Then to Balibar’s critique of the common currency and how it has negatively affects societies that force EU immigrants to move for work, I also think this film poses an interesting dilemma. In general, I feel as if there is a perception that countries aren’t willing to take unskilled labor into their economies because they feel as if they are “taking jobs away” from the working class, whereas often times they are much more receptive towards taking well-educated individuals. This film suggests that countries, such as UK, aren’t quite opposed to taking skilled-labor but suggests that in the eyes of this government, these skilled-labours that lack language skills are essentially just as valuable (or lack thereof) as unskilled workers. This seems problematic, not just because these Southern economies that are already financially worse off are losing their educated individuals to other societies, but also that in said wealthier countries, they aren’t even allowing these individuals to give the benefits of a so-called “Brain Gain”. How then, should EU countries choose to address this disparity between education level and job acquisition? Would these Southern economies by more receptive towards making agreements to help their educated individuals find skilled work abroad in the hopes that some of this money returns to them, or is this too politically damaging in the sense that they would be promoting Brain Drain?
Finally, to the Jones and Fuller article, I was shocked to learn about the drastic differences that caused the economic downturns in Portugal and Greece relative to Italy, Ireland, and Spain. I noticed that when I had watched the film, prior to reading the articles, I easily assumed the situation for Spaniards must also be true for all the other PIIGS economies, and yet, while the end result seems to be this lack of economic opportunity within these countries for young individuals, their initial causes are very counter to the “lazy, southern” stereotypes in certain circumstances. This film made me wonder if the discursive language to separate the south to the north is mostly based on a political agenda rather than a true economic argument. Finally, I noticed that many of these governments that seemed to fair badly during the economic depression were parliamentary systems, and I am also curious to learn if there is a correlation between how an economy performs during an economic decline if it has a parliamentary system in which the government has to try to appease more individuals, if a 2-party presidential system is slightly more effective as there is less negotiation that might have to occur, or if there isn’t a relationship at all.
The 2008 financial crisis rattled Europe to the core. The Southern European PIIGS were hit hardest. Unable to access debt markets due to soaring bond yields, Southern European nations faced collapsing economies and political turmoil. Youth unemployment rates sky rocketed and many young, educated Southern Europeans were hopeless. The 2008 financial crisis and following currency crisis was in many ways inevitable. Major manufacturing emerged in the Northern Eurozone leading to an export based surplus economy. Agriculture and service based economic conditions emerged in the Southern Eurozone leading to an import-based economy. With different economic conditions and different bond yield spreads as result, it was easy for Northern European banks to deposit money in higher interest rate environments in the PIIGS nations without needing to worry about a currency risk. When the crisis exploded the Southern European nations were extremely economically vulnerable and the economy began contracting immediately. These contributed to the tense bailout packages, strict austerity, and collapsing way of life for many in Southern Europe.
Lack of hope and strict austerity measures translated in two ways: rise of radical political parties and brain drain. Educated Southern Europeans with multiple graduate degrees were left with no job prospects, dwindling unemployment benefits and little hope.
Many of these Southern Europeans left their home countries and moved to Northern wealthier Europe in search of employment. This week’s film, In A Foreign Land depicts Spaniards forced to move to Edinburgh in Scotland to find work. The film shows many different case studies of people who have earned numerous degrees and now work jobs as cleaning staff, restaurant workers, and other inglorious jobs.
These different people provide fascinating perspective on life. Many say that they actually feel more respected working in the UK as a cleaner than in Spain unemployed. The fact that these Spanish economic emigrants feel more respected as cleaning staff in the UK shows in many ways just how unimaginably bad conditions were in Spain. While it is easy following the crisis to simply look at the struggles of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East, the film makes clear just how miserable life in Spain and the rest of the PIIGS nations.
A second fascinating element these people discuss is how they are no different than the economic emigrants who come from the “global south” to Spain. One particularly interesting interviewee discusses how just because Spaniards are European Union citizens, they are still just the same economic emigrants who are forced into jobs that are typically reserved for the lowest rungs of society. Emigrants from the global south to Spain do the same jobs in Madrid that Spanish emigrants to the UK do in Edinburgh. This concept is really interesting because it directly depicts the national tiers present in the European Migration model. Global South PIIGS Northern Europe. Is this model sustainable? Is it inevitable? Is it practical?
The main questions I will pose this week is “what does it say about the European Union if inequality between nation states is so great a well-educated engineer in Spain feels more valued working as a dish washer in Edinburgh?” The European Union is certainly complex and the size and Governing difficulties are well discussed but the inequality between nations and emigration tier are crucial elements that should be discussed.
I felt a similar sentiment that some of the posts above have mentioned about how this story of immigration contrasts so starkly with that of immigration from the global south. In addition the ease of the actual “immigration” process, since Spanish citizens are EU citizens and can easily move to any other EU nation, the contrast in how these Spanish immigrants are treated is startling. The subjects of the film generally express positive sentiments towards how they’re treated in Edinburgh. Although they face hardships in obtaining fluency in English and competing for jobs, the immigrants feel welcomed and that their work is appreciated.
On another note, I found myself pondering the question of who is to blame for the Spain’s economic problems. Is it the wealthier EU nations exploiting smaller countries with weaker global economic influence? Or is it Spain’s corrupt politicians, inefficient bureaucracy, and generally bad governance? Or is it the Spanish people being “lazy”?
The Spanish immigrants in the documentary seem to generally blame their state. They say that it is a badly functioning system; and that although other systems have their problems, Spains system of governance is significantly more broken. In my opinion, this answer begs the question. Why is the Spanish state broken, and why can’t it be fixed?
I think the documentary’s director prefers blaming the EU and globalism/capitalism. This is evident in the scene where the comedian tells the story of Spain joining the European Economic Community, and the scenes that follow of Spanish technocrats/politicians before the 2008 financial crisis.
The overall message seems to be that capitalist greed combined with a corrupt/dysfunctional state caused the mass unemployment of Spanish people. I don’t disagree with this idea. However, I think it’s too broad and simplistic, and doesn’t clarify the cause of the economic problem to the point where a solution is visible. Furthermore, globalism by itself can’t be to blame because lots of nations see tremendous benefits from it. Some may even argue that the world overall has been a better place since globalism. Although it was nice to see some anecdotes, I found the message of this documentary to be broad and therefore unsubstantial in understanding Spain’s economic problems.
The economic crisis in Europe was very widespread, especially in the southern nations. The unemployment, especially youth unemployment, was astronomical high even after the crisis ended, and led to emigration from the southern countries abroad, especially among the youth as we see in the movie. In a lot of Europe there is a trend for the youth to stay in school longer and get additional degrees. However, with unemployment so high for youths these degrees mean less and less and thus many people in the Spanish youth are emigrating. This has been called a “brain drain” and is also making countries worried about an aging population. Within the European Union migrating is relatively easy, however, while there is occupation, these educated youths are vastly overqualified and are relegated to menial tasks. These opportunities, while they often are unskilled positions, often pay better than the higher skilled jobs requiring multiple degrees back in Spain, and thus they stay and try to make their way in a foreign country, forced to leave behind their family, friends, and culture. And although they are all European citizens, language barriers and cultural differences can make it difficult to integrate, as well as limiting the level of jobs they were hired for. This does not seem to encompass the open borders of the Schengen Treaty. The whole economic crash really affected the youth of the PIIGS, and with no options at home they were forced to leave and work at low paying jobs without any room for elevation, and they are still feeling the effects of the crisis now. This shows the importance of the EU in managing their connected economies and doing everything they can to prevent another crash in these still relatively weak economies. However, in many of the northern countries there is a reluctance to help the south economically, due in part to stereotypes about laziness. This in part is causing southern countries to want to leave the EU, because they don’t feel the benefits of being a part of a union where economically they appear to have gotten the short straw. To fix these issues the EU must try to help the southern economies and also make migration between the EU easier, removing language barriers and allowing migrants to work at higher level jobs.
The most relatable piece of this whole documentary was the part about missing the sun. Good golly is Scotland cloudy. I studied there last semester and feel like there is a contrast of experience that is fascinating to analyze. When I took a trip to Edinburgh (I was studying in Glasgow), I did a ghost tour with a rather large group. There must have been at least 30 of us following some English bloke through the quite lovely, windy streets of Edinbrugh. Anyway, my point here is that Edinburgh is an incredibly tourist-centric city. I stayed in a hostel room with a dozen beds. Some friends were with me, but also some random youngins who I thought were speaking Spanish, though I barely saw them. So much of Edinburgh is set up to serve tourists. From all the Harry Potter themed tourist destinations, such as the graveyard and cafe where the books were written, to the windy cobble roads and alleys with cute little bars and niche topical stores. The experience of a tourist in Edinburgh is clearly different from that of an immigrant from Spain and this documentary highlighted how all these individuals were there more by necessity than choice. They are right, the Scots are welcoming, but in ways like the tourist, these immigrants may contribute to the economic system of Edinburgh in ways that surely shape the entire city.
The trouble then is that Spaniards hometowns aren’t benefiting from that economic activity. How does one solve unemployment and weak economic growth? According to Keynesian economics, the government needs to stimulate the economy through government spending and lower taxes. Another common tactic is lowering interest rates, which is meant to encourage increased borrowing and thus drive economic activity. These are actions that the Spanish government has been unable to perform in the same way the US has done. As in the documentary, many blame this on the ‘Troika’ of the EU. Because Spain shares a common currency it cannot unilaterally set its own monetary policy, ie lowering interest rates, which is instead controlled by the European central bank. This might all be good and fine if the EU had the capacity to redistribute within the EU and enact the sort of growth policies that Spain needs, but it doesn’t. At the same time, Spain can’t really pass the policies it needs either. This all leads to a situation where the populace blames the corrupt politicians and denigrates them all as incompetent. Everyone is looking for someone to blame for the youth unemployment in Spain. Whether that be immigrants, politicians, the troika, neoliberalism, Franco, or what have you, this is precisely the sort of situation that feeds populism. So much anti-establishment sentiment has led to the rise of populists along the left and right in Southern Europe. I would argue that precisely because of the more acute economic struggles of the Southern European countries, these countries have formed more along the Left then the Right as compared to other European countries (obviously there are still prominent Right-wing nationalists for sure, see Lega and Golden Dawn for instance). My point is merely that given the attacks on the economic elites in Southern Europe (think of attacks on the 1%), there has been greater left wing populism in this region as compared to other Western countries.
Brack and Startin’s assessment of the ways in which Euroscepticism moved from the margins to the mainstream of the political sphere throughout Europe draws significant parallels with the way US politics has shifted in the past few years.
According to Brack and Startin, opposition to Euroscepticism originated on a small scale, with the majority “passively” accepting the formation and strengthening of the EU over the years. However, as media outlets throughout Europe transformed, Euroscepticism sentiment mirrored that shift. Before the past six(ish) years in the US, citizens holding extremist, far-right ideals remained in the minority, others vehemently leaned left, and then the majority seemed to marinate in the middle, somewhat passively accepting what was given to them. It was not until the surge of social media throughout the US that suddenly, those on the outskirts of the political conversations, whose opinions were deemed sparse, suddenly found themselves at the forefront. Seemingly out of nowhere, all of those “passive” citizens suddenly shifted to become this new majority (or almost majority). This partisan shift exactly followed the path of US media shift, which moved from informative and somewhat impartial to targeting, aggressive, and opinion-driven.
The surge of the tabloid press in the UK feels similar, especially given that tabloids are somewhat similar to social media in that they do not convey ‘sophisticated’ news but cater to the masses. Just like social media, tabloids media is accessible, and somewhat addictive, to everybody. Suddenly, these tabloids have provided a platform for citizens to egg each other on regarding their frustrations towards the EU, whether that be regarding immigration, lack of unity, and more. These mass-received media outlets have the ability to incite panic, which seems to erupt out of nowhere to take over the political sphere in a flash.
Another parallel between the US and European media’s impact on the political climate becomes clear in examining the increased panic of the now-minority. As Brack and Startin tell us, unlike many Western European countries being swayed one way by the media, Germany is being swayed the other way—pro-EU—due to a post-WW2 “moral panic” within Germany that the media is feeding. In a similar manner, in the US, while one side of the media has propelled these extremist right-wing supporters to develop increasingly radicalized ideas, the other side is leading to an eruption of moral panic amongst middle/left-leaning citizens. These citizens have developed a panic-driven hostility towards the pro-Trump majority due to media outlets (especially on Facebook) increasing their panic about the values of the country which they see as being pummeled.
I would be interested to learn more about how the transformation and growth of the media in Europe focused more on tabloid news rather than on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. While cable news largely only impacted American viewers via videoclips of their coverage posted on social media, it seems as though Europe’s approach to news has remained focused directly on the news outlets themselves, rather than third-party platforms.
What was most surprising to me about In a Foreign Land was that while the educated, Spanish emigrants were certainly disappointed to be working in Edinburgh and in unskilled jobs, many did not find the idea of doing physical labor as an occupation to be demeaning. I felt that while there was arrogance at time with certain interviewees, some mentioned in their testimonials that they felt more respected working in their unskilled jobs than as teachers or scientists in Spain. I felt that many emigrants were not indignant that they had to do unskilled work, but rather were angry that they did, as we put in class, “everything they were supposed to,” and still ended up being unemployed and forced to emigrate. Balibar urges a movement of the masses as a solution to European crisis, and I am not sure of how quickly or effectively a political movement that drastic would take or be. In the U.S., there is also an issue with unemployment among educated youth, and some argue that this is due to an over-emphasis on college over trade school. The classic advice for young people is to receive an education, maybe an advanced degree, and then finding a job would be easy. We saw in the film that this isn’t the case in Spain, or anywhere for that matter really. I wonder if a shift in this cultural paradigm from encouraging people to go into specialized work to encouraging more people to consider physical work would help. Perhaps a greater emphasis on vocational schools would better prepare Spanish citizens for the job market, or if there continues to be a lack of employment, it would at the very least make them more qualified for work outside of
Euroscepticism may not be exclusive to the European organization, seen with the documentary In a Foreign Land, in the sense that many populations throughout the globe are living through and reacting to inefficacies within their nation’s respective governments. Examples which come to mind immediately are the inability and/or resistance of European nations to either fully accept or reject migrants in all their categories (be it illegal entrants, asylum seekers, and even intra-European guest-workers), governments unable to properly manage labor and economy (as with southern European unemployment), unable to diplomatically and fairly address laws regarding religious affiliations (as in France and elsewhere), etc. In essence, the idea of Euroscepticism is simply a specific adaptation of the recognition of the imperfections of an organization, in this case supranational as opposed to national. Bollain makes Spanish criticisms clear in her production through the discourse of the ‘talking heads’, which we went over in class. I’m noticing that this vocalization of problems which exist within national governments relate to similar categories as those proposed for the scope of Euroscepticism by Sorenson (2008) – namely the categories of economy, democracy, sovereignty, and socio-politics, further suggesting that Euroscepticism fits within the same subset of awareness of institutional faults as national-skepticism, and honestly skepticism of political organizations on any scale. Does idea of general skepticism act as proof of the inexistence of a perfect system? At the very least provides evidence that none of the systems or level of organization we’ve studied this semester are ideal for everyone under their power. It also helps us to see, as we already have, that there are many ways in which both individuals and larger ideological movements can feel slighted, wronged, or otherwise unsupported by the societal, political, and economic system around them.
How many ‘Europeans’ are satisfied with the intersection of their lives and their government? The increasing nationalism and Euroscepticism indicates a decline in Europe, but I’m still curious on a global scale if there are larger trends of satisfaction or the lack thereof as political parties rise and fall over time. Is national and regional ‘governmental’ satisfaction a function exclusively of the context within which a nation or region exists (based on stasis, change, basic human needs met and maintained, comparison with other nations or regions etc)? My idealistic mind hopes that in some way there is a general improvement of the overall human condition. However, learning more about the economic situation in Spain and the discourse of returning to “Espagnistad” shows that despite arguable ‘progress’ in the last 100 years (a whole argument and discussion in its own right), there is still the potential for developed nations to severely disadvantage their own citizens.
Throughout “In a Foreign Land” Bollain uses the lives of Spanish immigrants in Edinburgh to give insight on the socio-economic circumstances that surround migrants everywhere. In this specific case, an economic crisis in Spain caused hundreds of thousands of people to migrate to different countries. Many had hopes and dreams to get a college degree or become professionals. However, what we learn is that most of the time the opposite happens.
What occurred to me during this film is what we have spoke about so many times in this course: the false image of what immigrating is. Many believe it to be a fresh start, full of opportunity and promise. However, history is only told by the winners, thus most people have only heard of the success stories. In reality, often times immigrants are forced to take low paying jobs with little room for better opportunities in the future. And while most documentaries would stop at just showing the hardships of immigrants to gain empathy, this one goes beyond.
Unlike most other documentaries, this tracks the personal lives and interests of those who are interviewed. For example, Bollain tracks the progress of an art project by one Spaniard made from thousands of gloves from migrants. This installation is crucial in representing the thousands of immigrants, as the focus of the film is that immigrants seem to be losing many important aspects of their lives. From leaving their families and friends, their homes, and their current jobs, all that the immigrants have left is their culture and history. This piece is central to maintaining the last thing that they can call their own.
This documentary makes me think of the media’s representation of immigrants and its role in making immigrants assimilate. Often times immigrants are blamed for a country’s problems, and choose to try to assimilate as much as possible in order to avoid being targeted. However, at that point you basically lose everything you ever had. When news outlets display crimes and wrong doings by immigrants, it creates a nationalistic sentiment that promotes assimilation and takes away culture.
“I’m a European girl and finally I’m going to be a success.” This has got to be my favorite quote from all of the films and readings we have been assigned this semester. It is so ironic given the current situation of many people in Spain, specifically the ones we see in the documentary, but it also makes me wonder about what it means to “be a success?” Is it different for immigrants? Does it depend on the person? Would the women singing the song or the songwriter think Spanish people today were successful Europeans?
Are the Spanish immigrants successful as cleaners, maids, and nannies? For the most part, they seemed more upset that they had to leave Spain than the positions they had to take in Edinburgh, but that does not necessarily mean they consider themselves successful. Though, many do also mention the fact that in Scotland they have more opportunities to move up the ladder and they are treated better doing a low-skill job. Does that make them successful? Or is it no longer about becoming a success story and more about providing themselves and their families with food and shelter, even if that means taking on jobs they would not normally? From what we were shown in the documentary that does seem to be the case, but there is still a lot of resentment toward Spain and how they feel as though they were forced out of their home (debatable, but…).
In class we talked about the arrogance and hypocrisy the filmmakers have by comparing Spanish immigrants to those from Africa or the Middle East. Though I do agree that transitioning from Spain is much easier and should not be compared to the transition from Africa or the Middle East, I can understand some of the thought process behind the comparison. I saw it in maybe more of a positive way than some others, I think the director saw this as a way to say “we are European, and yet, we are forced to leave our home country for better opportunities.” I do think it is still a bit arrogant to compare it to other migrant experiences because I do not think the Spanish immigrants really know or understand how other immigrants feel, like many of them said they did in the documentary. At the same time though, I think the main goal was to call attention to how some feel as though the Southern countries, in this case Spain, have been forgotten or neglected by the Northern countries or even possibly by the EU. Was it done in the right or the best way? Not really, but it’s a little too late to fix that.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, I know the US has bounced back pretty well, but based on the readings and In a Foreign Land it seems that a lot of Europe has not fared nearly as well. I’m curious to find out what has caused eurozone countries to not completely get back on their feet following the global financial crisis, and what does that say about the rationale of the EU as an entity? We have talked a lot about how the European debt crisis provided fertile ground for the rise of populism across Europe, but I’m really interested in the economics of the crisis, specifically what caused the crisis and how it was handled reflects on the EU and the idea of Europe as a unified, supranational entity.
One of main causes of the crisis was overspending by governments relative to their GDPs. Eurozone countries have massive social programs and as a result have enormous expenditures, creating a significant imbalance between government expenditures and revenue. For example, in 2000, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain spent on average 23% of their GDP on things like social assistance and pensions. To keep their governments afloat, European countries had to (and still do) borrow because not enough revenue was generated from the private sector via taxation. This was enabled by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, which is a separate layer of administration within the eurozone that sets monetary policy for the eurozone countries, which enabled artificially low risk premiums on interest rates of government debt belonging to PIIGS countries. This not only opened to door for overspending but encouraged it. Then in 2008 when the financial crisis hit this problem was exacerbated, as a shrinking economy meant less tax revenue.
Instead of working towards fiscal discipline, the ideal balance between expenditures and revenues, countries, especially PIIGS countries, were essentially indirectly bailed out by the rest of the eurozone, especially northern countries, via bonds. Eurozone countries’ bond ratings are backed by the belief that they will be supported by other Eurozone member states when they get into fiscal trouble. The European Central Bank accepts these government bonds as collateral for their lending operations, which allows countries to pay significantly lower interest rates for their bonds than if otherwise, giving them a cheap way to stay afloat without doing something to close the wide gap between annual expenditures and revenue.
One of the problems with this solution, however, is that it is a band aid solution that did not address the root of the problem. It gave these countries no incentive to make structural reforms, such as reducing social program expenditures, which would have gone a long way to advance a sustainable recovery. As a result, there are high unemployment rates and GDP to debt ratios across Europe today, over 10 years since the beginning of the crisis. In essence, the euro and eurozone do not disincentive irresponsible reckless fiscal behavior. There was and is no good reason for eurozone countries to pay for there expenditures by raising taxes, or to not issue bonds that will be purchased by the creation of new money, resulting in price increases across the entire eurozone.
Another problem with this, especially from a political perspective with this is that other eurozone members footed the bill. Government bonds were traded with the European Central Bank in exchange for essentially new euros, the creation of which increased prices all throughout the eurozone. This has the potential to create conflict between economically struggling countries and more economically strong countries.
By its very nature the eurozone discourages fiscal discipline, not to mention forces European taxpayers to pay for the profligate decisions made by countries hundreds of miles away. When all of this is taken into consideration, the euro is clearly an incredibly expensive currency, raising doubts about the sensibility of a supranational currency in Europe. Does it really make sense for Germany, a country with the fourth strongest economy in the world, to be in the same currency union as and have its fiscal policy determined by the same rules that apply to Greece, a country that has defaulted four times in its relatively brief existence as a modern nation?
After researching the economics at play in the European debt crisis and its aftermath I can see why there is a ‘Eurosceptic tsunami in the EU’, as Brack and Startin said (from an economic point of view at least, I’m not sold on the immigration and social components). From an economic (specifically currency) perspective, it seems that having a supranational European entity may not be the best idea, which is something to think about when we talk about a supranational European political entity as economics and politics are closely intertwined. Just like PIIGS countries and northern countries in the debt crisis, having countries in such different situations be governed (to a degree of course) by the same supranational organization has the potential to create strife within Europe. It’s no coincidence that a large portion of the U.K., a northern nation, is Eurosceptic and wants to exit the EU, a common argument being that membership of the EU is an obstacle to legislating in their best interest much like being in the eurozone forced northern countries to act in a way that didn’t align with their own interests.
This week’s readings take me back to the second week of class when we first read about the Maastricht Treaty and the goal of the EU. In the blog posts that week, many of us spoke of the contrast between the idealized image of European unity that those like Rousseau had and the real failures of the EU. Some spoke of how the goal of minimizing economic inequalities were never achieved, some discussed the employment rate, and others characterizes the EU as “stuck” or a “means to an unsuccessful end.” The evidence for all these statements are present in this week’s readings and films, as we officially address the Eurozone crisis in our reading and film materials. With the discussion on borders and sovereignty this past week, an added element of the costs of giving up sovereignty, which we had not closely discussed in the second week, enters the discussion. As early as the second week, we had seen the failures of the EU, so is the widespread sentiment of Euroscepticism highly valid?
While watching the documentary, my first instinct was to write a blog post about how En Tierra Extrana shows that the struggles of the immigrant are shared, that, because of the economic crises that the P.I.I.G.S. countries endure, the differences between internal European migrants and non-European migrants are not as vast as one would have imagined. This sentiment is also echoed by some of the subjects interviewed in the documentary, some of whom spoke of how they have come to realize that migrants coming in are just like them.
But are they?
The struggles that the migrants interviewed in En Tierra Extrana had to endure cannot be understated. They spoke of the struggles of loneliness, hopelessness, of struggling to find a livelihood and a source of income. But one aspect of immigration that none addressed was the struggle of getting into Scotland in the first place. Meanwhile, the process of immigration itself and the deaths and injuries suffered along the way were the focus of last week. For the migrants crossing by Ceuta and Melilla, for example, their actual lives were on the lines, rather than their source of income. Is risking one’s life and risking one’s livelihood the same? And if it is or isn’t, what does this say about the success of the EU from the perspective of those within it?
“In a Foreign Land” is a documentary that takes an intriguing and unorthodox approach to migration in Europe.
The documentary depicts the struggles and frustrations of a large Spanish community in Edinburgh, which is embodied by the “Neither lost nor silenced”, a movement where Spaniards collect lost gloves in the city to show that they indeed are a part of Edinburgh and deserved to be acknowledged by locals. Furthermore, the documentary sheds light on the fact that many of the Spaniards did not want to leave their home country, but instead felt like they were forced out as the government neglected them. The viewer sees heartbreaking interviews where the Spanish migrants share stories about how they have left their families behind in an act of desperation in order to find employment.
By observing the reasoning behind the Spaniards’ decision to leave their country, along with their struggles to be accepted as a part of the Scottish community, we gain more of an understanding of their hardship. I believe this is even further emphasized by the title of the documentary itself – “In a Foreign Land”. This underlines the fact that even though locals living in Scotland often see Spanish immigrants as foreigners or even “others”, it is a notion that goes both ways. Spaniards see Scotland as “foreign”, showing that they are also thrown into an uncomfortable situation.
Moreover, I believe that the documentary is trying to communicate a larger message than simply the struggles of Spanish immigrants in Scotland. It tries to relate to the issue of the adversities of all immigrants in Europe. We observe in several interviews how the Spanish migrants state how they can relate and feel solidarity with the African immigrants in Spain, and the irony of how they would express fear of these immigrants, only to realize the importance of a welcoming and integration-focused nation such as Scotland.
However, I still question if this documentary’s depiction of the Spanish community in Scotland is the most effective way of sparking action. The viewer is left with more of an understanding of the mindset and struggles of Spanish immigrants in Scotland, but will that lead to a growing acceptance of immigrants overall in Europe? It is a vital question to pose, as spreading awareness of the truth of migration in Europe effectively could be the key to combating xenophobia.
I often tend to question if the EU works in the unity that it was imagined when it was first created. I agree with Ha in that everything in this week’s readings point to the fact that no, the EU does not necessarily work in glorified unity and cohesion, especially when one country is struggling economically and others refuse to help. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, refused to help Greece after its economy came crashing down. She came out of the December 2009 European Council meeting saying that “assistance for Greece was not on the table” and the Greek government would essentially have to accept responsibility and figure it out (344). There is power superiority in this statement. The German economy, clearly doing better than others, is denying help that it could potentially give. Wasn’t this the whole point of the EU? One of the main goals listed on the EU website is to “enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among EU countries.” The economic crisis should have called for more economic cohesion, not dismantle all hopes of such.
The documentary we watching, “In Foreign Land,” also showed the lack of economic cohesion within Spain, and the effects this had on Spanish citizens. I thought the documentary did an excellent job in evoking an emotion response from the audience, and making us empathize with the Spaniards who have fled to Edinburgh to seek a better life. I think something that the documentary did especially well is emphasizing the previous education or specialities of the immigrants, and their current jobs. Chemical engineers are now maids and people with several degrees are subjected to doing physical labor. I agree with one of the interviewee’s that this is simply a waste of time, money, and person, in that these people are educated to specialize in an academic field, and all the effort they have put in to creating a future for themselves has led to them cleaning dishes in a kitchen in Scotland.
But one this that I would pick at to critique in the documentary is that I honestly think it undermines the immigrant experience. I do not want this taken as an undermining of the Spanish immigrant experience, because their struggles are more than valid. But I think it undermines the immigrant experience in general. For them it was as simple as packing a suitcase and going to Scotland, or at least that is how the documentary presented it. People from outside the EU do not have the privilege to travel so easily between countries, and deciding the leave when things get rough is not always an option. I could not help but think of Welcome and Bilal’s immigrant experience. Although that was a fictional film, I felt more informed on the full immigrant experience with him having to travel three months of foot before even reaching France and having to constantly fear rejection or death. These are two completely different immigrant narratives, and in no way is one “worse” than the other, but I think that “In Foreign Land” could have done a better job explaining the immigrant journey to Scotland.
Throughout “In a Foreign Land,” I felt as if the Bollain very much focused on the disparities in individuals working conditions vs qualifications in Spain and Scotland while this was contrasted by Balibar’s larger societal critique of shifting migration patterns which causes the middle classes of Europe to collapse. For the film, I was initially surprised to see how generally free of the stereotype of the “lazy, southern workers” from PIIGS economies that Spaniards felt they received in Edinburgh and even more surprised by how much more “dignity” Spaniards felt they received in their blue collar work in Scotland than the their degree-necessary jobs in Spain. This raised the question for me if these Southern economies perhaps had internalized their negative perception that was impressed upon them by wealthier Northern economies after the economic depression of 2008, even more so than said Northern economies. Moreover, it generally seemed that these Spanish migrants had less of a negative perception of immigrants from non-EU economies than we had previously discussed, and I believe this challenges the common assumptions we’ve seen in films such as “Bread and Chocolate” which suggest that EU immigrants, by and large, feel superiority to non-EU immigrants. This film raised the question of how immigration is different from immigration even though they are often 2 sides to the same coin, and how perhaps perceiving someone as an immigrant may look different if someone else considers themself an emigrant.
Then to Balibar’s critique of the common currency and how it has negatively affects societies that force EU immigrants to move for work, I also think this film poses an interesting dilemma. In general, I feel as if there is a perception that countries aren’t willing to take unskilled labor into their economies because they feel as if they are “taking jobs away” from the working class, whereas often times they are much more receptive towards taking well-educated individuals. This film suggests that countries, such as UK, aren’t quite opposed to taking skilled-labor but suggests that in the eyes of this government, these skilled-labours that lack language skills are essentially just as valuable (or lack thereof) as unskilled workers. This seems problematic, not just because these Southern economies that are already financially worse off are losing their educated individuals to other societies, but also that in said wealthier countries, they aren’t even allowing these individuals to give the benefits of a so-called “Brain Gain”. How then, should EU countries choose to address this disparity between education level and job acquisition? Would these Southern economies by more receptive towards making agreements to help their educated individuals find skilled work abroad in the hopes that some of this money returns to them, or is this too politically damaging in the sense that they would be promoting Brain Drain?
Finally, to the Jones and Fuller article, I was shocked to learn about the drastic differences that caused the economic downturns in Portugal and Greece relative to Italy, Ireland, and Spain. I noticed that when I had watched the film, prior to reading the articles, I easily assumed the situation for Spaniards must also be true for all the other PIIGS economies, and yet, while the end result seems to be this lack of economic opportunity within these countries for young individuals, their initial causes are very counter to the “lazy, southern” stereotypes in certain circumstances. This film made me wonder if the discursive language to separate the south to the north is mostly based on a political agenda rather than a true economic argument. Finally, I noticed that many of these governments that seemed to fair badly during the economic depression were parliamentary systems, and I am also curious to learn if there is a correlation between how an economy performs during an economic decline if it has a parliamentary system in which the government has to try to appease more individuals, if a 2-party presidential system is slightly more effective as there is less negotiation that might have to occur, or if there isn’t a relationship at all.
The 2008 financial crisis rattled Europe to the core. The Southern European PIIGS were hit hardest. Unable to access debt markets due to soaring bond yields, Southern European nations faced collapsing economies and political turmoil. Youth unemployment rates sky rocketed and many young, educated Southern Europeans were hopeless. The 2008 financial crisis and following currency crisis was in many ways inevitable. Major manufacturing emerged in the Northern Eurozone leading to an export based surplus economy. Agriculture and service based economic conditions emerged in the Southern Eurozone leading to an import-based economy. With different economic conditions and different bond yield spreads as result, it was easy for Northern European banks to deposit money in higher interest rate environments in the PIIGS nations without needing to worry about a currency risk. When the crisis exploded the Southern European nations were extremely economically vulnerable and the economy began contracting immediately. These contributed to the tense bailout packages, strict austerity, and collapsing way of life for many in Southern Europe.
Lack of hope and strict austerity measures translated in two ways: rise of radical political parties and brain drain. Educated Southern Europeans with multiple graduate degrees were left with no job prospects, dwindling unemployment benefits and little hope.
Many of these Southern Europeans left their home countries and moved to Northern wealthier Europe in search of employment. This week’s film, In A Foreign Land depicts Spaniards forced to move to Edinburgh in Scotland to find work. The film shows many different case studies of people who have earned numerous degrees and now work jobs as cleaning staff, restaurant workers, and other inglorious jobs.
These different people provide fascinating perspective on life. Many say that they actually feel more respected working in the UK as a cleaner than in Spain unemployed. The fact that these Spanish economic emigrants feel more respected as cleaning staff in the UK shows in many ways just how unimaginably bad conditions were in Spain. While it is easy following the crisis to simply look at the struggles of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East, the film makes clear just how miserable life in Spain and the rest of the PIIGS nations.
A second fascinating element these people discuss is how they are no different than the economic emigrants who come from the “global south” to Spain. One particularly interesting interviewee discusses how just because Spaniards are European Union citizens, they are still just the same economic emigrants who are forced into jobs that are typically reserved for the lowest rungs of society. Emigrants from the global south to Spain do the same jobs in Madrid that Spanish emigrants to the UK do in Edinburgh. This concept is really interesting because it directly depicts the national tiers present in the European Migration model. Global South PIIGS Northern Europe. Is this model sustainable? Is it inevitable? Is it practical?
The main questions I will pose this week is “what does it say about the European Union if inequality between nation states is so great a well-educated engineer in Spain feels more valued working as a dish washer in Edinburgh?” The European Union is certainly complex and the size and Governing difficulties are well discussed but the inequality between nations and emigration tier are crucial elements that should be discussed.
I felt a similar sentiment that some of the posts above have mentioned about how this story of immigration contrasts so starkly with that of immigration from the global south. In addition the ease of the actual “immigration” process, since Spanish citizens are EU citizens and can easily move to any other EU nation, the contrast in how these Spanish immigrants are treated is startling. The subjects of the film generally express positive sentiments towards how they’re treated in Edinburgh. Although they face hardships in obtaining fluency in English and competing for jobs, the immigrants feel welcomed and that their work is appreciated.
On another note, I found myself pondering the question of who is to blame for the Spain’s economic problems. Is it the wealthier EU nations exploiting smaller countries with weaker global economic influence? Or is it Spain’s corrupt politicians, inefficient bureaucracy, and generally bad governance? Or is it the Spanish people being “lazy”?
The Spanish immigrants in the documentary seem to generally blame their state. They say that it is a badly functioning system; and that although other systems have their problems, Spains system of governance is significantly more broken. In my opinion, this answer begs the question. Why is the Spanish state broken, and why can’t it be fixed?
I think the documentary’s director prefers blaming the EU and globalism/capitalism. This is evident in the scene where the comedian tells the story of Spain joining the European Economic Community, and the scenes that follow of Spanish technocrats/politicians before the 2008 financial crisis.
The overall message seems to be that capitalist greed combined with a corrupt/dysfunctional state caused the mass unemployment of Spanish people. I don’t disagree with this idea. However, I think it’s too broad and simplistic, and doesn’t clarify the cause of the economic problem to the point where a solution is visible. Furthermore, globalism by itself can’t be to blame because lots of nations see tremendous benefits from it. Some may even argue that the world overall has been a better place since globalism. Although it was nice to see some anecdotes, I found the message of this documentary to be broad and therefore unsubstantial in understanding Spain’s economic problems.
The economic crisis in Europe was very widespread, especially in the southern nations. The unemployment, especially youth unemployment, was astronomical high even after the crisis ended, and led to emigration from the southern countries abroad, especially among the youth as we see in the movie. In a lot of Europe there is a trend for the youth to stay in school longer and get additional degrees. However, with unemployment so high for youths these degrees mean less and less and thus many people in the Spanish youth are emigrating. This has been called a “brain drain” and is also making countries worried about an aging population. Within the European Union migrating is relatively easy, however, while there is occupation, these educated youths are vastly overqualified and are relegated to menial tasks. These opportunities, while they often are unskilled positions, often pay better than the higher skilled jobs requiring multiple degrees back in Spain, and thus they stay and try to make their way in a foreign country, forced to leave behind their family, friends, and culture. And although they are all European citizens, language barriers and cultural differences can make it difficult to integrate, as well as limiting the level of jobs they were hired for. This does not seem to encompass the open borders of the Schengen Treaty. The whole economic crash really affected the youth of the PIIGS, and with no options at home they were forced to leave and work at low paying jobs without any room for elevation, and they are still feeling the effects of the crisis now. This shows the importance of the EU in managing their connected economies and doing everything they can to prevent another crash in these still relatively weak economies. However, in many of the northern countries there is a reluctance to help the south economically, due in part to stereotypes about laziness. This in part is causing southern countries to want to leave the EU, because they don’t feel the benefits of being a part of a union where economically they appear to have gotten the short straw. To fix these issues the EU must try to help the southern economies and also make migration between the EU easier, removing language barriers and allowing migrants to work at higher level jobs.
The most relatable piece of this whole documentary was the part about missing the sun. Good golly is Scotland cloudy. I studied there last semester and feel like there is a contrast of experience that is fascinating to analyze. When I took a trip to Edinburgh (I was studying in Glasgow), I did a ghost tour with a rather large group. There must have been at least 30 of us following some English bloke through the quite lovely, windy streets of Edinbrugh. Anyway, my point here is that Edinburgh is an incredibly tourist-centric city. I stayed in a hostel room with a dozen beds. Some friends were with me, but also some random youngins who I thought were speaking Spanish, though I barely saw them. So much of Edinburgh is set up to serve tourists. From all the Harry Potter themed tourist destinations, such as the graveyard and cafe where the books were written, to the windy cobble roads and alleys with cute little bars and niche topical stores. The experience of a tourist in Edinburgh is clearly different from that of an immigrant from Spain and this documentary highlighted how all these individuals were there more by necessity than choice. They are right, the Scots are welcoming, but in ways like the tourist, these immigrants may contribute to the economic system of Edinburgh in ways that surely shape the entire city.
The trouble then is that Spaniards hometowns aren’t benefiting from that economic activity. How does one solve unemployment and weak economic growth? According to Keynesian economics, the government needs to stimulate the economy through government spending and lower taxes. Another common tactic is lowering interest rates, which is meant to encourage increased borrowing and thus drive economic activity. These are actions that the Spanish government has been unable to perform in the same way the US has done. As in the documentary, many blame this on the ‘Troika’ of the EU. Because Spain shares a common currency it cannot unilaterally set its own monetary policy, ie lowering interest rates, which is instead controlled by the European central bank. This might all be good and fine if the EU had the capacity to redistribute within the EU and enact the sort of growth policies that Spain needs, but it doesn’t. At the same time, Spain can’t really pass the policies it needs either. This all leads to a situation where the populace blames the corrupt politicians and denigrates them all as incompetent. Everyone is looking for someone to blame for the youth unemployment in Spain. Whether that be immigrants, politicians, the troika, neoliberalism, Franco, or what have you, this is precisely the sort of situation that feeds populism. So much anti-establishment sentiment has led to the rise of populists along the left and right in Southern Europe. I would argue that precisely because of the more acute economic struggles of the Southern European countries, these countries have formed more along the Left then the Right as compared to other European countries (obviously there are still prominent Right-wing nationalists for sure, see Lega and Golden Dawn for instance). My point is merely that given the attacks on the economic elites in Southern Europe (think of attacks on the 1%), there has been greater left wing populism in this region as compared to other Western countries.
Brack and Startin’s assessment of the ways in which Euroscepticism moved from the margins to the mainstream of the political sphere throughout Europe draws significant parallels with the way US politics has shifted in the past few years.
According to Brack and Startin, opposition to Euroscepticism originated on a small scale, with the majority “passively” accepting the formation and strengthening of the EU over the years. However, as media outlets throughout Europe transformed, Euroscepticism sentiment mirrored that shift. Before the past six(ish) years in the US, citizens holding extremist, far-right ideals remained in the minority, others vehemently leaned left, and then the majority seemed to marinate in the middle, somewhat passively accepting what was given to them. It was not until the surge of social media throughout the US that suddenly, those on the outskirts of the political conversations, whose opinions were deemed sparse, suddenly found themselves at the forefront. Seemingly out of nowhere, all of those “passive” citizens suddenly shifted to become this new majority (or almost majority). This partisan shift exactly followed the path of US media shift, which moved from informative and somewhat impartial to targeting, aggressive, and opinion-driven.
The surge of the tabloid press in the UK feels similar, especially given that tabloids are somewhat similar to social media in that they do not convey ‘sophisticated’ news but cater to the masses. Just like social media, tabloids media is accessible, and somewhat addictive, to everybody. Suddenly, these tabloids have provided a platform for citizens to egg each other on regarding their frustrations towards the EU, whether that be regarding immigration, lack of unity, and more. These mass-received media outlets have the ability to incite panic, which seems to erupt out of nowhere to take over the political sphere in a flash.
Another parallel between the US and European media’s impact on the political climate becomes clear in examining the increased panic of the now-minority. As Brack and Startin tell us, unlike many Western European countries being swayed one way by the media, Germany is being swayed the other way—pro-EU—due to a post-WW2 “moral panic” within Germany that the media is feeding. In a similar manner, in the US, while one side of the media has propelled these extremist right-wing supporters to develop increasingly radicalized ideas, the other side is leading to an eruption of moral panic amongst middle/left-leaning citizens. These citizens have developed a panic-driven hostility towards the pro-Trump majority due to media outlets (especially on Facebook) increasing their panic about the values of the country which they see as being pummeled.
I would be interested to learn more about how the transformation and growth of the media in Europe focused more on tabloid news rather than on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. While cable news largely only impacted American viewers via videoclips of their coverage posted on social media, it seems as though Europe’s approach to news has remained focused directly on the news outlets themselves, rather than third-party platforms.
What was most surprising to me about In a Foreign Land was that while the educated, Spanish emigrants were certainly disappointed to be working in Edinburgh and in unskilled jobs, many did not find the idea of doing physical labor as an occupation to be demeaning. I felt that while there was arrogance at time with certain interviewees, some mentioned in their testimonials that they felt more respected working in their unskilled jobs than as teachers or scientists in Spain. I felt that many emigrants were not indignant that they had to do unskilled work, but rather were angry that they did, as we put in class, “everything they were supposed to,” and still ended up being unemployed and forced to emigrate. Balibar urges a movement of the masses as a solution to European crisis, and I am not sure of how quickly or effectively a political movement that drastic would take or be. In the U.S., there is also an issue with unemployment among educated youth, and some argue that this is due to an over-emphasis on college over trade school. The classic advice for young people is to receive an education, maybe an advanced degree, and then finding a job would be easy. We saw in the film that this isn’t the case in Spain, or anywhere for that matter really. I wonder if a shift in this cultural paradigm from encouraging people to go into specialized work to encouraging more people to consider physical work would help. Perhaps a greater emphasis on vocational schools would better prepare Spanish citizens for the job market, or if there continues to be a lack of employment, it would at the very least make them more qualified for work outside of
Euroscepticism may not be exclusive to the European organization, seen with the documentary In a Foreign Land, in the sense that many populations throughout the globe are living through and reacting to inefficacies within their nation’s respective governments. Examples which come to mind immediately are the inability and/or resistance of European nations to either fully accept or reject migrants in all their categories (be it illegal entrants, asylum seekers, and even intra-European guest-workers), governments unable to properly manage labor and economy (as with southern European unemployment), unable to diplomatically and fairly address laws regarding religious affiliations (as in France and elsewhere), etc. In essence, the idea of Euroscepticism is simply a specific adaptation of the recognition of the imperfections of an organization, in this case supranational as opposed to national. Bollain makes Spanish criticisms clear in her production through the discourse of the ‘talking heads’, which we went over in class. I’m noticing that this vocalization of problems which exist within national governments relate to similar categories as those proposed for the scope of Euroscepticism by Sorenson (2008) – namely the categories of economy, democracy, sovereignty, and socio-politics, further suggesting that Euroscepticism fits within the same subset of awareness of institutional faults as national-skepticism, and honestly skepticism of political organizations on any scale. Does idea of general skepticism act as proof of the inexistence of a perfect system? At the very least provides evidence that none of the systems or level of organization we’ve studied this semester are ideal for everyone under their power. It also helps us to see, as we already have, that there are many ways in which both individuals and larger ideological movements can feel slighted, wronged, or otherwise unsupported by the societal, political, and economic system around them.
How many ‘Europeans’ are satisfied with the intersection of their lives and their government? The increasing nationalism and Euroscepticism indicates a decline in Europe, but I’m still curious on a global scale if there are larger trends of satisfaction or the lack thereof as political parties rise and fall over time. Is national and regional ‘governmental’ satisfaction a function exclusively of the context within which a nation or region exists (based on stasis, change, basic human needs met and maintained, comparison with other nations or regions etc)? My idealistic mind hopes that in some way there is a general improvement of the overall human condition. However, learning more about the economic situation in Spain and the discourse of returning to “Espagnistad” shows that despite arguable ‘progress’ in the last 100 years (a whole argument and discussion in its own right), there is still the potential for developed nations to severely disadvantage their own citizens.
Throughout “In a Foreign Land” Bollain uses the lives of Spanish immigrants in Edinburgh to give insight on the socio-economic circumstances that surround migrants everywhere. In this specific case, an economic crisis in Spain caused hundreds of thousands of people to migrate to different countries. Many had hopes and dreams to get a college degree or become professionals. However, what we learn is that most of the time the opposite happens.
What occurred to me during this film is what we have spoke about so many times in this course: the false image of what immigrating is. Many believe it to be a fresh start, full of opportunity and promise. However, history is only told by the winners, thus most people have only heard of the success stories. In reality, often times immigrants are forced to take low paying jobs with little room for better opportunities in the future. And while most documentaries would stop at just showing the hardships of immigrants to gain empathy, this one goes beyond.
Unlike most other documentaries, this tracks the personal lives and interests of those who are interviewed. For example, Bollain tracks the progress of an art project by one Spaniard made from thousands of gloves from migrants. This installation is crucial in representing the thousands of immigrants, as the focus of the film is that immigrants seem to be losing many important aspects of their lives. From leaving their families and friends, their homes, and their current jobs, all that the immigrants have left is their culture and history. This piece is central to maintaining the last thing that they can call their own.
This documentary makes me think of the media’s representation of immigrants and its role in making immigrants assimilate. Often times immigrants are blamed for a country’s problems, and choose to try to assimilate as much as possible in order to avoid being targeted. However, at that point you basically lose everything you ever had. When news outlets display crimes and wrong doings by immigrants, it creates a nationalistic sentiment that promotes assimilation and takes away culture.
“I’m a European girl and finally I’m going to be a success.” This has got to be my favorite quote from all of the films and readings we have been assigned this semester. It is so ironic given the current situation of many people in Spain, specifically the ones we see in the documentary, but it also makes me wonder about what it means to “be a success?” Is it different for immigrants? Does it depend on the person? Would the women singing the song or the songwriter think Spanish people today were successful Europeans?
Are the Spanish immigrants successful as cleaners, maids, and nannies? For the most part, they seemed more upset that they had to leave Spain than the positions they had to take in Edinburgh, but that does not necessarily mean they consider themselves successful. Though, many do also mention the fact that in Scotland they have more opportunities to move up the ladder and they are treated better doing a low-skill job. Does that make them successful? Or is it no longer about becoming a success story and more about providing themselves and their families with food and shelter, even if that means taking on jobs they would not normally? From what we were shown in the documentary that does seem to be the case, but there is still a lot of resentment toward Spain and how they feel as though they were forced out of their home (debatable, but…).
In class we talked about the arrogance and hypocrisy the filmmakers have by comparing Spanish immigrants to those from Africa or the Middle East. Though I do agree that transitioning from Spain is much easier and should not be compared to the transition from Africa or the Middle East, I can understand some of the thought process behind the comparison. I saw it in maybe more of a positive way than some others, I think the director saw this as a way to say “we are European, and yet, we are forced to leave our home country for better opportunities.” I do think it is still a bit arrogant to compare it to other migrant experiences because I do not think the Spanish immigrants really know or understand how other immigrants feel, like many of them said they did in the documentary. At the same time though, I think the main goal was to call attention to how some feel as though the Southern countries, in this case Spain, have been forgotten or neglected by the Northern countries or even possibly by the EU. Was it done in the right or the best way? Not really, but it’s a little too late to fix that.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, I know the US has bounced back pretty well, but based on the readings and In a Foreign Land it seems that a lot of Europe has not fared nearly as well. I’m curious to find out what has caused eurozone countries to not completely get back on their feet following the global financial crisis, and what does that say about the rationale of the EU as an entity? We have talked a lot about how the European debt crisis provided fertile ground for the rise of populism across Europe, but I’m really interested in the economics of the crisis, specifically what caused the crisis and how it was handled reflects on the EU and the idea of Europe as a unified, supranational entity.
One of main causes of the crisis was overspending by governments relative to their GDPs. Eurozone countries have massive social programs and as a result have enormous expenditures, creating a significant imbalance between government expenditures and revenue. For example, in 2000, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain spent on average 23% of their GDP on things like social assistance and pensions. To keep their governments afloat, European countries had to (and still do) borrow because not enough revenue was generated from the private sector via taxation. This was enabled by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, which is a separate layer of administration within the eurozone that sets monetary policy for the eurozone countries, which enabled artificially low risk premiums on interest rates of government debt belonging to PIIGS countries. This not only opened to door for overspending but encouraged it. Then in 2008 when the financial crisis hit this problem was exacerbated, as a shrinking economy meant less tax revenue.
Instead of working towards fiscal discipline, the ideal balance between expenditures and revenues, countries, especially PIIGS countries, were essentially indirectly bailed out by the rest of the eurozone, especially northern countries, via bonds. Eurozone countries’ bond ratings are backed by the belief that they will be supported by other Eurozone member states when they get into fiscal trouble. The European Central Bank accepts these government bonds as collateral for their lending operations, which allows countries to pay significantly lower interest rates for their bonds than if otherwise, giving them a cheap way to stay afloat without doing something to close the wide gap between annual expenditures and revenue.
One of the problems with this solution, however, is that it is a band aid solution that did not address the root of the problem. It gave these countries no incentive to make structural reforms, such as reducing social program expenditures, which would have gone a long way to advance a sustainable recovery. As a result, there are high unemployment rates and GDP to debt ratios across Europe today, over 10 years since the beginning of the crisis. In essence, the euro and eurozone do not disincentive irresponsible reckless fiscal behavior. There was and is no good reason for eurozone countries to pay for there expenditures by raising taxes, or to not issue bonds that will be purchased by the creation of new money, resulting in price increases across the entire eurozone.
Another problem with this, especially from a political perspective with this is that other eurozone members footed the bill. Government bonds were traded with the European Central Bank in exchange for essentially new euros, the creation of which increased prices all throughout the eurozone. This has the potential to create conflict between economically struggling countries and more economically strong countries.
By its very nature the eurozone discourages fiscal discipline, not to mention forces European taxpayers to pay for the profligate decisions made by countries hundreds of miles away. When all of this is taken into consideration, the euro is clearly an incredibly expensive currency, raising doubts about the sensibility of a supranational currency in Europe. Does it really make sense for Germany, a country with the fourth strongest economy in the world, to be in the same currency union as and have its fiscal policy determined by the same rules that apply to Greece, a country that has defaulted four times in its relatively brief existence as a modern nation?
After researching the economics at play in the European debt crisis and its aftermath I can see why there is a ‘Eurosceptic tsunami in the EU’, as Brack and Startin said (from an economic point of view at least, I’m not sold on the immigration and social components). From an economic (specifically currency) perspective, it seems that having a supranational European entity may not be the best idea, which is something to think about when we talk about a supranational European political entity as economics and politics are closely intertwined. Just like PIIGS countries and northern countries in the debt crisis, having countries in such different situations be governed (to a degree of course) by the same supranational organization has the potential to create strife within Europe. It’s no coincidence that a large portion of the U.K., a northern nation, is Eurosceptic and wants to exit the EU, a common argument being that membership of the EU is an obstacle to legislating in their best interest much like being in the eurozone forced northern countries to act in a way that didn’t align with their own interests.