Search results

Scholars working in the field of the economics of education have long documented how investment in girls’ education delivers the greatest return in terms of societal wellbeing (see, e.g., Dollar & Gatti, 1999; Forbes, 2000; Klasen, 2002). Unfortunately, mainstream economists have quite a narrow interpretation of wellbeing, the rate of growth in gross domestic product (GDP) usually serves as the main barometer. The problem here is that higher rates of economic growth do not necessarily imply improved outcomes in terms of gender equality. Getting girls in school certainly represents progress. There are 129 million girls around the world who are not in school (UNICEF, 2022), and there are numerous obstacles to overcome if this problem is to be seriously addressed. The good news is that far more attention is being devoted to girls’ education and the empowerment of women today than in the past, as countless NGOs and charities have sprung up in recent years that focus on these issues. A key question, however, is whether it is sufficient just to get girls to attend school. Less attention seems to be paid to what they actually do when they get there. Admittedly, some education is better than none at all, but what if girls attended schools where the measure of success was less focussed on exam results, getting a good job, and growing GDP? In this chapter, we present the case for school education that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Green School for Girls (GS4G) – a pilot programme – seeks to implement a curriculum and pedagogy that will produce strong, independently minded, entrepreneurial young women, capable of earning a good living for themselves and their families in a fashion that is in harmony with the interests of the community and the natural environment.

In recent years, many Western states have moved towards funding the asylum processing and resettlement systems of countries in the Global South. These forms of outsourced migration governance are upheld by a vast industry of state and non-state actors. This chapter draws on fieldwork conducted in the Republic of Nauru to look at the people and places on the frontlines of the extractive asylum industry. Using Alexander Weheliye’s (2014) concept of ‘racialising assemblages’, the author argues that outsourced asylum regimes exacerbate the continuous subjection of Indigenous and migrant communities to toxic practices and discourses. Outsourced asylum is a contemporary practice of resource extraction (much like other forms of mining) that builds on colonial extractive projects that disproportionately target communities of colour. Ongoing processes of dispossession and displacement are occurring as people and places are rendered into resources and frontline sites for the extractive asylum industry. This chapter also shows how humanitarian and liberal democratic discourses are part of the mechanics of racialised geopolitical ordering. Racialised refugees are made into destitute victims, whereas locals become brutish villains, rather than political subjects. In attending to the politics of refusal, where Nauruans and refugees refuse ingrained racialising assemblages that deny them personhood, the author stresses the importance of intersectional advocacy that highlights the toxic effects of extractive asylum regimes on local and migrant populations alike.