Abstract:
In contemporary global governance, narratives of “partnership” between donors in the Global North and aid recipients in the Global South characterize these relationships as equal. Yet, recent ethnographies reveal that hierarchical relationships and structural inequalities between the Global North and South remain unresolved. The emergence of non-state actors from the Global South, diasporas, signify different forms of aid relationships from North-South relationships, while obscuring the involvement of the Global North. On the one hand, bilateral donors, multilateral agencies, international development banks, and migration scholars celebrate diasporas as new development agents due to diaspora remittances: In 2016 the Official Development Assistance (ODA) contributed $142 billion, whereas diaspora remittances reached $466 billion. On the other hand, literature has scarcely addressed how the involvements of the Global North affects diasporas’ homeland development by examining relationships between diasporas and their host societies. This research explores the Burmese diaspora’s transnational engagements and Japanese norms and helpers’ compassionate practices in Japan as a case study to examine the South-North partnership. The theoretical framework of governmentality and insights from the anthropology and sociology of humanitarianism are employed to examine sovereign powers. Voices both from the Burmese diaspora and Japanese benefactors are obtained via participant observation and semistructured interviews. Burmese transnational development initiatives in Japan are not influenced by their Japanese benefactors due to the Japanese/foreigner binary. This differentiation resists assimilation of Burmese individuals while allowing the Burmese diaspora its ideological autonomy. However, the Burmese diaspora disseminates Japanese discipline and values, reflecting postcolonial relationships between Burma/Burmese and Japan/Japanese. Considering partnerships not only requires analysis of power differentials but also the historical, political, social, and economic contexts that both sides maintain.
