Migrant Labor Conditions

Some of the criticisms have to do with migrant labor conditions, a topic which most people know little about. There was an attempt to depict Qatar as an exploitative, dangerous place to work. Indeed, and unfortunately, there have been cases of exploitation. Some migrants have also suffered serious or fatal injuries during their time in Qatar. However, there has also been a fair amount of exaggeration and misinformation related to these topics. All of this was amplified by a social media mob that lacked motivation to do any significant background research. 

There are migrants all over the world, taking jobs in other countries for salaries greater than what they can earn back home. Some of the work is difficult, even dangerous; that is often one reason why it is outsourced in the first place. Construction work in particular can be more dangerous than other types of jobs; a fact that is true even within developed countries. In harsh climates, with less skilled labor, the challenges only increase. Health and safety regulations can help to moderate some of the issues, but fundamentally, this work is always going to involve some risk. 

A significant part of the workforce in the Middle East is dependent on migrant labor; in some countries, migrants outnumber locals by a significant margin. Accommodating this workforce, and ensuring that it is properly treated, presents a number of logistical and administrative challenges. This task is often outsourced to private companies, particularly when it lies beyond the capacity of local authorities. As in any country, there are cases of exploitation and abuse that arise, and there is an ongoing struggle to regulate and enforce rules that are fair to all parties involved. 

It is important to acknowledge that such offenses are often committed not by locals (ie. Qataris) but by foreigners working for international companies to whom work is outsourced. Some can even be committed by those in the migrants' countries of origin (for example, recruiters lying about potential future wages, or charging fees to potential laborers that make them indebted). Such activities are illegal, but difficult to police/enforce, as the offense is often committed elsewhere.

Qatar has acknowledged that improvements can be made, and it has, in fact, been making them. It has - for an extended period that goes back 20 years - been doing significantly better than its neighbors in the region, and it has been improving over time. 

Available data indicates that so-called "death rates" (# deaths per 1,000 workers) among migrant laborers during this period were in the range of what would be expected for this type of work in much of the world (ask a demographer or a statistician, not an activist or a reporter; the media business, which now relies on headlines that drive 'clicks', should not be the only source of truth). Moreover, the figures were not excessive compared to what they would have been in the home countries of the migrants (the government of India, the source of the largest number of migrants, has admitted as much). In fact, they were not even excessive compared to Qatari citizens themselves. 

This topic is complex. Anyone researching it soon realizes there are a lot of variables; each case is different in terms of the person affected: their age, health, sector of employment, type of job, and the specific circumstances of what may have happened, where and when. The data is also not always available at the level preferred, making study of the issue difficult at times (which often leads to accusations of a conspiracy, eg. to hide what might be unfavorable information). Determining what is an 'acceptable' rate of loss is itself a moral/ethical question, as well as political and economic one. Most of the public has no idea how these calculations or decisions are made, but indeed they are made everywhere, eg. by actuaries in the insurance industry trying to assess risk, not to mention migrants themselves. 

I suspect the figures for injury and loss of life are somewhat higher than what would be typical in the West (albeit lower than much of the developing world). Given that it is a relatively wealthy country, some will argue that Qatar can do better: better in terms of implementing safety measures for workers and protections against exploitation, and better at providing compensation to the families of anyone affected. That may be true and the issue deserves to be studied.

However, it would be a mistake to always assume malice or neglect, or to assign all blame solely on Qatar, when it has had to outsource so much of the work to others. In many cases they have had to rely on industry experts from elsewhere (including westerners) to determine what is appropriate. When local citizens comprise a mere 5% of the total workforce (and much less when it comes to those in construction), there are practical limitations on how much they are able to monitor. 

It is certainly worth acknowledging that many migrants have difficult lives. There have definitely been cases of abuse. No one is denying the existence of exploitation, or defending anyone who has engaged in it. However, critics should reflect carefully on the facts and not get carried away - catastrophizing the situation and blaming an entire people or culture, when the truth is likely more nuanced and complicated. 

The world can seem to be an unfair place. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, the phone you use - all of these likely involve labor conditions which might seem exploitative from the perspective of someone in the developed world (even if the salaries earned by migrants engaged in such work are multiples of what they would have made at home). While it is definitely possible to find those who are not happy - including some with legitimate reasons for being so - most workers find the arrangements, and the trade-offs, tolerable. Many choose to extend their stay and even encourage friends and family to follow. They are thankful for the opportunity, as conditions at home are sometimes worse. 

It should be obvious that a large-scale, long-term national development program of infrastructure and urban development - lasting decades - was not driven solely by a one-time event such as the World Cup (it pre-dates it and will continue long after), but for whatever reason, that is often how it has been reported. Some have quoted figures for all this work as high as $220 billion, but that figure includes a new port ($8 billion), a new/expanded airport ($28 billion), a rail transit network ($40 billion), new roads ($28 billion), new hotels and accommodations ($17 billion), the new city of Lusail ($45-50 billion), and of course the stadiums and associated facilities ($10-15 billion). Differences of opinion about what projects to include when addressing the impacts have led to a range of numbers being cited.

Regardless of how they are attributed, statistics show that the costs of Qatar's recent growth, in terms of injuries and loss of life - have paled in comparison to many 'mega-project' infrastructure and development efforts throughout history. Perhaps the figures were not as good as they could have been, but that doesn't mean they were inherently bad. Certainly they were not nearly as bad as some have suggested, nor were they as bad as they have been in the past. They were in all likelihood an indicator of significant progress, as the industry has been getting better over time. 

If nothing else, the issue is more complex and less nefarious than has been reported.

Of course, none of this will likely change the views of those who are convinced - for a range of reasons, including prejudice - that Qatar is problematic. 

Cultural Differences

Setting aside the issues with migrant labor, other negative stories about Qatar have been focused on cultural or religious differences between the Middle East and the audience in the West. Some of these issues are real, but others exist largely in the imagination of people who have never been to the region or made any meaningful attempt at understanding the people who live there. 

Assumptions about the treatment of women or LGBT have often been wildly misinformed and way off-the-mark. It is of course a conservative society with a different approach to various cultural issues: for example, different attitudes about "modesty" when it comes to clothing, public displays of affection, extramarital relations (restrictions which apply to all: male or female, gay or straight). Consumption of alcohol is limited and recreational drug use is forbidden. Even pork is restricted. Clearly the rules are different here, as they are in many parts of the world. 

If the West assumes an alternative approach to such issues is correct, then by that standard, the region may be a little bit behind, perhaps where the West itself was a few decades ago. That is almost to be expected: most of the region does not have access to the progressive elements of western popular culture, eg. TV and movies (or didn't until recently); that is in many cases what led people to greater understanding and acceptance, and served as a counterpoint to more conservative traditions. The latter have held sway for thousands of years though, so change is not going to happen overnight.

However, Qatar is changing rapidly. People have an increasingly global perspective driven by media, travel, and cultural exchange. As a result, there has been and will likely continue to be progress on many such issues, despite the political and religious differences we might have. It seems strange and arrogant to pass judgement on people who are evolving at their own pace; to cast stones in their direction when our own cultures have committed the same offenses in the past. It is particularly ironic when one considers that Qatar can sometimes be more progressive than its neighbors. 

Is it not possible that local leaders understand more about how to move the country forward than outsiders do? Perhaps gradually implementing reforms, investing heavily in education, and opening up to tourists will lead to progress, while avoiding the backlash that has occurred elsewhere (eg. Iran, Afghanistan). 

There is a delicate balance in the Middle East between political and religious leaders; questions of legitimacy only become more difficult if abrupt changes in rules dealing with sensitive cultural issues - particularly if seen as imposed by outsiders, eg. the West - go against prevailing local cultural norms. While exerting direct pressure on people appears to promote greater understanding and acceptance in some places, it tends to backfire in others. Those interested in promoting change might want to consider the most effective approach, one that reflects the realities on the ground in different parts of the world. 

In any case, passing judgment on a place without any knowledge of the historical or cultural context is always problematic. It also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how the West - and its views on how the world should be - are viewed elsewhere. 

Most of the media has ignored the merits of Qatar's hosting of the World Cup, or the use of the event as a catalyst for other changes. It has also dismissed the understandable local/regional pride in what has been achieved, as well as any hopes attached to the future that such investments may bring. 

The poisonous invective leading up to the event showed just how little people know about how to change anyone's mind. This was a terrible strategy by any measure: ineffective at best, potentially damaging long-term.