Theories of understanding A prominent development in theoretical approaches to migration include the transnational approach to migration, focussing upon migrant communities in destination countries and their manoeuvring of transnational identity, integration, and globalisation. While the initial stages of the pandemic saw governments locally focussing on deglobalizing their economies, they quickly realised that this was possible in limited situations as the presence of emigrant and immigrant communities meant that macro-level, mesolevel and micro-level aspects of migration have to be effectively dealt with. Macro level drivers would include influential factors such as economy, legislation, infrastructure, social issues, politics and demography. The meso level of drivers looks at ‘dalals’/sub-agents, receiving and sending countries’ concerns and the micro level includes the individual aspirations of migrants. During the pandemic there was sufficient proof to suggest that despite the way macro level drivers were severely affected, meso and micro level drivers continued to spur migration and remigration trends as soon as travel routes opened up. The local development context determines to what extent people are able to pursue their aspirations (including, to migrate) through local livelihood activities. Another way that local development determines migration aspirations is through influencing financial, social, and human capital. In return, migration processes affect local aspects of development particularly labour supply consumption patterns, investments, as well as addressing inequality, social stratification, relative deprivation, local culture and aspirations. As De Hass discusses, the creation of social capital through the formation of migrant networks tends to facilitate additional movement. The concept of remittances becomes important to consider when discussing theorisation within the wage theft discourse. The fall in remittances (yet improvement of formal remittances) during the pandemic was implied as affecting the development of origin countries, some of whom derive a large portion of their national budgets from migrant remittances. Garza (2013) criticizes the remittance-based approach to understanding or theorising upon migration and development, particularly with respect to the capacity of remittances to generate growth, solve structural problems and economic/social insecurity. Although economically, remittance may allow for a certain level of stability, political and economic development would depend upon the economic climate in countries of destination and origin as well as working and living conditions of migrant workers. For instance, indirect taxation upon migrant workers, lack of price ceiling on remittance costs, improper monitoring of recruitment processes can all affect remittances and its capacity to spur the empowerment of migrant workers and their families. (Garza, 2013) The challenges in sending remittances and the phenomena of wage theft that prevailed during the pandemic provides further impetus to this argument. Remittances which were considered sustainable sources of income or ‘safety nets’ for those without social security, have proved to become dependent upon larger macro-level factors such as state action and policy in ensuring the safety and social protection of migrant workers, particularly for those deemed “essential workers”. When placing the context of abuse and exploitation of migrant workers that occurred during the pandemic, in line with the discourse of unfree labour, there is a clear dissonance from the liberal view that migrant workers are free and equal and have freely entered contractual relations. As Lerche (2007) discusses the Marxian discourse on migrant labour, he mentions that, “The sheen of equality provided by contracts covers the fact that all labourers are exploited through their production of surplus value 23 ”