Common Good or Common Curse? A Public Goods Approach to the South American Migration Crises

Latin America has experienced significant migratory movements in its recent history: the Central American crisis (1970s–1980s) and the Venezuelan exodus (2010s–ongoing). Although both crises presented policymakers with similar challenges, they resulted in very different policy decisions. The Central American crisis elicited a collective response that culminated in the crystallization of an extended definition of refugee. Conversely, the response to the Venezuelan crisis was characterized by individual actions that primarily prioritized second-best solutions for people on the move. Why has the region exhibited disparate behaviours in the face of analogous crises, and why has a unified policy response not materialized in the Venezuelan case? Using historical archives from the Cartagena Convention (1984) and the Conference on Central American Refugees (1989), as well as elite interviews, this chapter sheds light on the prevailing normative frameworks that influenced the differences in collective action. I argue that a constructivist approach to common good theory is useful to understand that the lack of perception of the common good nature of asylum policies led to the prioritization of autonomy over collective action in the Venezuelan crisis, unlike the Central American experience.