ABSTRACT
In line with the so-called ‘broadening’ of the concept of security, the notion of resilience has become more and more encompassing of several forms of shocks, ranging from environmental hazards to violent conflict, and idioms such as ‘climate and conflict resilience’ are gaining ground in global policy discourse. Similarly, when it comes to human mobility, prominent actors such as the IOM increasingly promote remittances and migration as a way of supporting the resilience of populations ‘in the context of natural or manmade catastrophes and crises’ (IOM 2014). The rationale behind this idea is that both conflict and large-scale natural disasters occur in context where informal work, precarious land rights, subsistence agriculture along with the lack of access to financial instruments and other forms of social protection severely limit the ability of people to cope with crisis and insure themselves against risks. This article contrasts this narrative with conditions on the ground, presenting a case study based on field work carried out in 2012 in the Swat and Lower Dir districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The study documents the perceived role of remittances in the wake of both natural shocks (the 2010 flood) and conflict (2009 Taliban insurgency). Remittances proved to be a crucial mean of survival for the affected population and labour migration acts as a form of self-insurance strategy against shocks. However, we argue that without the right policy, excessive emphasis on migration as self-help mechanism might actually lead to perpetuating both local and global disparities and vulnerabilities rather than help overcoming them.
