The Price of Mobility

When Kenya and Germany signed their bilateral migration agreement in September 2024, it was presented as a mutually beneficial partnership providing a chance to expand employment opportunities for young Kenyans while easing Germany’s growing shortage of health and care workers. A year later, as the first cohorts of Kenyan nurses, caregivers, and trainees begin to depart, it has become clear that the agreement reflects not only hope but also deep structural contradictions that define the global labour economy. At its core, the Kenya-Germany agreement illustrates how labour mobility continues to mirror the asymmetries of the global order. For decades, the migration of skilled professionals from the Global South to the North has been celebrated as an opportunity for skills transfer and remittances. Yet beneath this optimism lies a political economy of extraction. Countries like Kenya invest heavily in education and professional training, only to see that public investment flow outward through the export of human capital. The result is a transfer of value that benefits already advanced economies while weakening domestic health systems.
 

The workers themselves have limited voice in how their mobility is governed.

Germany’s need for migrant labour is undeniable: an ageing population and shrinking workforce have created pressure to import skills, particularly in health care. Kenya’s motivation is equally real, the country suffers a shortage of local opportunities, wage stagnation, exacerbated by the state's persistent underinvestment in health and education sectors. This eventually pushes skilled workers to seek livelihoods abroad. But the terms of engagement remain unequal. The migration process is not symmetrical but is rather shaped by scarcity: Germany recruits out of necessity, while Kenya exports out of desperation. Ethical recruitment provisions in such agreements are important, but they remain insufficient without transparency and enforceable standards. Reports of opaque selection processes, prohibitive migration fees, and delayed recognition of professional qualifications show how easily exploitation can occur even within formal frameworks. In this context, the language of “partnership” risks concealing power especially when the people most affected, the workers themselves, have limited voice in how their mobility is governed.
 

It is a labour issue, and therefore a union issue.

The first year of implementation has revealed another critical gap: the absence of trade unions and professional associations from the design and monitoring of the agreement. Labour migration cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic or technocratic exercise; it is a labour issue, and therefore a union issue. Without organized worker participation, there are no institutional mechanisms to monitor contract compliance, resolve disputes, or ensure that migrant workers abroad remain connected to the protection of collective representation. This exclusion also weakens accountability within Kenya, where the outflow of trained personnel continues to undermine already stretched public services.

To make such agreements truly fair, both governments must embrace an inclusive governance model. This means establishing joint Kenya-Germany monitoring committees with representation from trade unions and employers organizations to ensure transparency over recruitment, wages, and working conditions. It also means creating pre-departure and post-arrival orientation programs where unions can prepare migrant workers for their rights and link them to networks of solidarity in both countries. At the multilateral level, collaboration between global and national labour organizations could help develop a “Decent Migration Charter”. We propose a framework grounded in ethics, equity, and gender inclusion. Such a charter would translate the principles of fair recruitment and decent work into binding obligations for all actors involved in labour mobility. Ultimately, the success of the Kenya-Germany migration agreement will not be measured by the number of visas issued or remittances received. It will be measured by whether it advances dignity and justice for workers, sustains public health systems, and strengthens rather than erodes social protection at home. Fair migration cannot rely on the movement of people alone; it must also guarantee the movement of rights, protections, and voice across borders.
 

Fair migration must also guarantee the movement of rights, protections, and voice across borders.

One year on, this agreement offers both a milestone and a mirror. It reflects a moment of ambition but also exposes enduring inequalities in the global division of labour. The work ahead is to turn this bilateral arrangement into a model of shared responsibility where workers are architects of its future beyond just being mere participants.