Beach Haven

Bibliography
​Vifell, A. C., & Soneryd, L. (2013). Organizing Matters: How 'the Social Dimension' Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 104-113.

Review by Michael Beach

The authors examine sociality in sustainability projects from a specific framework of their own design. “We argue that the way sustainability projects are organized will affect how the social dimension is taken into consideration” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 104). They describe projects based on three dimensions they call pillars: economic, ecological, and social. They note how organizations often have set project group forms and structures so reflection on whether those set social forms meet project requirements of the task at hand “is a rare phenomenon” (Ibid.). The authors assert that “a practice cannot be fully sustainable until all three dimensions are fulfilled” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 106) meaning the three pillars, but they don’t really define the dimensions beyond their basic titles.

In order to examine the social dimension, they examine two case studies in Sweden: The Action Plan 2010 to Increase Organic Consumption and Production of Food Products and A Safe Radiation Environment. The first is a non-governmental campaign by The Ecological Forum to encourage increased ecological food production and a varied agricultural landscape. The second is a government response by The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority to public opposition to increasing 3G cellular services throughout the country of Sweden. Yes, this is about 3G cellular, but remember this study is from 2013.

The authors assume tasks associated with the two case studies are organized into projects, and that the sociality of groups working on the projects are reflected in the group ‘mind-set’. They examine how such mind-sets are defined and incorporated into project teams. The forms of mind-set they define are: open or narrow framing, action orientation, participation, and lastly knowledge gathering and production. The authors spend several pages defining in their own way what they mean for each of these dimensions. The paper then reviews each of the four dimensions are they are exhibited in the two specific cases.

Open/Narrow Framing - In the food production case, certain farming approaches were excluded as they became politically charged in Sweden. As a result, some specific groups advocating these farming approaches were also excluded. This leads the authors of this paper to put the effort more on the side of narrow project scope definition. There was no definition of ‘sustainable’ given as part of the project charter which made this part of the process more on the open side. In the radiation case, social sustainability was never specifically addressed. The points to be addressed by the project were given in a very specific list. The list related to already ongoing projects, so the authors consider that project as operating in a narrower frame.

Action Orientation - This question is couched by contrasting what might be done as opposed to encouragement to do what has already been decided to be done. In the food case, there had been several failed projects previous to this one. The steering group of the first version of this project resigned as a result. The new project focused on moving forward to finish the original plan, so clearly a desire to take some measurable action as a project group and not just encourage others to act. The action, though, was to complete previous decisions, so not necessarily action to come up with new approaches. In the radiation project, the group in charge, called the SSI, came up with a clear project plan that included tasks. Before they even involved other groups, they had an idea of what needed to get done.

Participation - As mentioned above, there were a number of organizations that participated in the agricultural project, but some specific ones with agendas that seemed to be too entrenched on politically hot issues in Sweden at the time were excluded. There was a steering group that headed the project with representation from more than one concerned organization involved in the related topics of encouraging increased food production at all levels. In addition, there were synthesis groups used to gather relevant knowledge. No socially focused group was created as the goal was to find equilibrium between food supply and demand. When the first steering group felt as if they could not meet the goals they dissolved. The second group did not change the focus, but sought to complete the original approach. They felt like the most extreme views were getting in the way of the first steering committee and decided to take out group members with those views to allow progress. In the radiation case, all the participants were officials at SSI so they invited some additional actors with a wide range of perspectives to join the conversation. The idea was to create an approach as “a forum for tuning the suggested measures or new or re-formulated objectives” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 110).

Knowledge Production - In the agriculture example, content was produced by the six synthesis groups on various topics. The group indicated a need for some statistics to help inform decisions. As it turned out, industry organizations were skeptical the data could be produced. The second steering committee took the synthesis group reports, tacked them onto the end of the steering committee plan as appendices, then stuck to their own plan. Knowledge was a highly contested issue in the radiation case. Trust in information from specific organizations was deemed suspect by some committee members. The group organized sub-groups to participate in brainstorming sessions on specific topics, noting problems and potential solutions. Later ideas were distilled to more realistic approaches. Since the goal was to reduce or control radiation, in the end, social issues raised were simply declared as out of scope.
​
The paper’s conclusions are helpful if one adopts the specific three sustainability dimensions and the four frames as the authors describe them. It’s one way to try to account for the aimed-for social dimension of the two projects reviewed. It could be more helpful for project teams, such as those involved in the agriculture and radiation projects in Sweden, to include some similar framework in their own up-front project planning. Even if such a project team chooses to ignore social factors on their decisions, at least they would be doing so consciously.

 

Bissonnette, Andréanne. 2020. ""Caged Women": Migration, Mobility and Access to Health Services in Texas and Arizona." Journal of Borderlands Studies 1-22.
 
Andréanne Bissonnette described to us the concept of the ‘golden cage’. It’s a zone from the US and Mexico border internal within the first 100 miles inside the US side of the border. Within that zone there are numerous checkpoints. Within the golden cage, presumed migrants can be stopped and questioned without probable cause. If a migrant attempts to leave the zone they risk running the checkpoints, yet healthcare is essentially impossible for them within the area.
 
Bissonnette also pointed out that healthcare is difficult outside the golden cage for a host of reasons. Many lack of insurance. Fear of accessing healthcare, lack of language skills, and fear of having their immigration status checked at a clinic are examples of difficulties. Many immigrants are often unaware of where to access medical care. They may believe they need insurance for COVID vaccine.
 
Location matters. There are different laws from one state to another. Despite what laws exist in a given state, application of laws varies among locations within a state. Hesitancy by migrants to access healthcare could cause them to wait until a health issue becomes acute, putting increased strain on trauma centers and emergency rooms in locations with high migrant populations.
 
One area of a conversation I attended with Bissonnette was about how healthcare might encourage circular migration. On either side of a border different types of healthcare are available. For example, some medicines may require a prescription on one side and not the other. If an immigrant has a US social security number (their own or one they have assumed) they may be able to better access some aspects of healthcare on the US side of the border. With or without it, there may be better access on the Mexican side to other types of healthcare. An immigrant may be motivated to live closer to the border if they have healthcare needs that would be better addressed on the Mexican side.
 
I’d like to combine the ideas of healthcare and circular migration to question the concept of the golden cage. In class I shared my experience working in a high-end hotel while an undergraduate student. Much of the housekeeping and janitorial staff at the time were Hispanic. One day the US immigration services (‘la migra’) showed up at the hotel in force. They went through the hotel checking identification for Hispanic staff. This was well outside the golden cage region so they must have had some sort of warrant based on previous investigation, or at least one would hope that was the case. I saw the officers load about a dozen young male Hispanics into a large van waiting outside the hotel about an hour after they first entered the building. I had been friends with many of those taken away, often practicing speaking Spanish with them.
 
Several weeks passed, then suddenly these same employees were back working at the hotel in the same jobs they had been taken from. I asked several of them what had happened. Their answers were all the same. The US immigration officers had transported them back to Mexico City. From there they used their own money to visit family for a few weeks, then made the same journey they previously had in crossing the border into the US and back to the hotel. Management at the hotel allowed them to resume their jobs using the same documentation previously on file with Human Resources. One could question that management ethic, yet it is likely not unique to this specific employer. Clearly this was a circular migration. The original migration to the US was economic-based. The migration back to Mexico was forced. The return to the US was again economic. They were obviously not limited in mobility by the idea of the golden cage.
 
How about healthcare? The hotel did offer health insurance to full-time employees. I have no idea if any of these young men were full-time or part-time, but with whatever documentation offered to the hotel that was good enough for employment, one would presume the same documentation was good enough for the employer to provide the insurance benefit. It’s clear this same documentation was not good enough for immigration service officers. At the same time, one could imagine that young healthy people with no healthcare mandate as we have today might simply opt out of health insurance, perceiving no need as so many other young people do.
 
Given this experience, it’s clear there are reasons for circular migration that are completely unrelated to healthcare. In fact, healthcare in my example likely played no part of migration in either direction, and may have had nothing to do with the thoughts of these migrants.
 
In the case of these particular young immigrants, the checkpoints of the golden cage were basically meaningless. They were able to easily circumvent them at least twice. The fact that so many who cross the border illegally end up in literally every part of the US is itself evidence that checkpoints are not effective in containing migrants within the 100-mile zone. In this sense, perhaps healthcare does act as some incentive for migrants who feel a need to access clinics south of the border. Mobility may be possible for longer distances from the border, but likely becomes more difficult as distance from the border increases. If this is true, the golden cage might be less about being ‘trapped’ by check points and more about the cost and time required to voluntarily engage in circular migration for healthcare purposes, or any other motivation.
 
One related point, as many migrant workers have some documentation, valid or not, which allows them to work, they can also share their earnings as remittances to family in their home country. That may also mean they manage a bank account that allows them to transfer money. In the case of my former hotel associates, having a bank account would have facilitated accessing funds from within Mexico needed to return to the US. That same money and documentation, one could presume, could permit them to access healthcare outside the golden cage. This particular community was close knit. Most were bilingual. It’s very likely they shared information with each other on how and where they could best access healthcare if needed. The bilingual skill was not true for all of them, and there are plenty examples of migrants who don’t speak English, but I wonder how strong the language impact is. So long as some of the community can research on behalf of others, the language barrier may be less impactful. In the case of long-term migrant residents where their children grow up in the US, children become the interpreter on behalf of their non-English-speaking parents. I have seen this over the years where fairly young migrants must help their parents navigate a number of services. This can reverse family dynamics by reversing family roles.
 
My conclusion is the idea of a golden cage may be less impactful than Bissonnette’s research suggests. It’s true my logic is based on anecdotal experience and may be lacking, but the experience is real and not isolated.