{ "items": [ "\n\n
Open immigration policy changes are often cast as a feature of democracy and restrictive immigration policy changes as a feature of autocracy. This paper shows that the relationship between political regime type and immigration policy change is not as clear cut. Empirical evidence suggests that the substance of immigration policy change \u2014 in terms of openness or restrictiveness \u2014 does not significantly differ between democracies and autocracies. However, political regimes shape immigration policy dynamics, with autocracies having more leeway than democracies to open (or restrict) immigration according to their economic, geopolitical, or domestic priorities. Autocracies can more easily enact open immigration policy reforms compared to democracies if they wish to do so, a dynamic I call the \u2018illiberal paradox\u2019 and illustrate with empirical examples from across the globe. I also outline the limits of the autocratic openings on immigration, related to policy implementation, sudden policy backlashes and migrants\u2019 integration rights. To move towards more global immigration policy theories, this paper suggests combining analyses that identify ideal types of democratic or autocratic immigration policymaking with studies of the nuances of real-life political practices. This would allow scholars to conceptualise immigration policy dynamics across the entire democracy-autocracy spectrum, for instance by capturing authoritarian practices within formal democracies and democratic practices within formal autocracies.
\n \n\n \n \nThe aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it attempts to provide a conceptual framework for the analysis of immigration policy effects. As pointed out by Hollifield (2008), the challenge of theorists of international migration is not simply to demonstrate that the state and politics matter, but to show how. By proposing an encompassing conceptualisation of the effects of immigration policy on the stock and flow of immigrants, the paper makes a first step in overcoming this challenge. However, as immigration policies have different effects on different categories of immigrants, the paper aims at providing clarity on the categorisation of immigrants and the relationship between the different categories. The categorisation of immigrants is thus discussed and the interplay between regular immigrants, asylum seekers and irregular immigrants is outlined. Secondly, immigration policy and immigration policy effects are defined and five types of immigration policy effects are identified: 1) admission effects, 2) deterrence effects, 3) deflection/substitution effects, 4) magnet effects and 5) a definition effect, and their effects on the three categories of immigrants are hypothesised.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper aims to improve the understanding of migration-development links by comparing the evaluation of Mexico-US and Morocco-EU migration over the twentieth century. Despite significant differences, Mexico and Morocco share a common geopolitical location on the global South-North migration frontier as well as their position as prime source countries of predominantly low-skilled migrants into the US and EU. The analysis highlights the large extent to which Mexican and Moroccan migration is determined by political-economic transformations in the US and EU. Persistent economic gaps and migrant networks partly explain why, instead of decreasing migration, the recruitment freezes in Mexico (1964) and Morocco (1973) have contributed to increased reliance on family and irregular migration and a diversification of migration origins and destinations. Simultaneously, policy-driven changes in labour market structure caused an increased demand for casual and informal labour in the service sector, agriculture and construction. In light of this evidence, it would be na\u00efve to expect the 2008 financial crisis to cause a fundamental shift in migration trends because political-economic conditions fuelling migration have remained unaltered. Similarly, in spite of the considerable contributions of Mexican and Moroccan remittances to the improvement of income and living standards in origin areas, it is unrealistic to assume that migration and remittances alone can overcome generically unfavourable development conditions. Therefore, improving general development conditions through structural political and economic reform seem the most viable policy to increase the development potential of migration. If such reform does occur, Morocco and, particularly, Mexico may transform into immigration countries in the medium to long term.
\n \n\n \n \nEn Afrique de l\u2019ouest, les migrations internationales animent, aujourd\u2019hui, une dynamique de r\u00e9gionalisation aux r\u00e9ticularit\u00e9s multiples qui sans perdre leur ancrage local se rattachent \u00e0 la mondialisation des circulations migratoires contemporaines. Le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de mondialisation n\u2019y est donc pas univoque et ne se substitue pas au processus de r\u00e9gionalisation ; au contraire l\u2019un et l\u2019autre s\u2019articulent de plus en plus par des routes, des espaces de vie provisoires, des pratiques et des acteurs nouveaux. L\u2019objectif de cette \u00e9tude est donc d\u2019appr\u00e9cier l\u2019\u00e9volution des processus migratoires en Afrique de l\u2019Ouest, de la p\u00e9riode coloniale au XXIe si\u00e8cle, et les recompositions spatiales induites, de comprendre la diversification et la mont\u00e9e en puissance des acteurs qui animent les dynamiques actuelles et d\u2019interroger le droit qui tente d\u2019opposer \u00e0 une \u00ab surabondance \u00bb de cat\u00e9gories sociales, \u00e0 des migrants aux profils de plus en plus flexibles, une norme juridique unique.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper aims to advance a conceptual framework on the developmental drivers of international migration processes and to provide an empirical test drawing on the global migrant origin database. Conventional ideas that development in origin countries will reduce international migration are ultimately based on \u201cpush-pull\u201d, neoclassical and other equilibrium models which assume an inversely proportional relationship between absolute levels and relative differences of wealth and migration. By contrast, another group of theories postulate that development leads to generally increased levels of migration and that societies go through migration transitions characterised by an inverted U-shaped pattern of emigration. \r\n\r\nThe paper discusses as yet unobserved conceptual parallels and differences between separately evolved \u2018transition\u2019 theories. It subsequently amends and synthesises prior theories, based on a criticism of their evolutionary character and sedentary bias, their inclination towards demographic determinism, their limited conceptualisation of structure and agency as well as the causal mechanisms underlying the correlations they describe. Sen\u2019s capabilities-based development concept is applied to migration to create analytical room to analyse most forms of migration within a single perspective. Structure and agency are incorporated by conceptualising migration as a function of (1) capabilities, (2) aspirations and, on a macro-level, (3) opportunity rather than income differentials. \r\n\r\nBecause of the contested nature of migration transition theory, the paper provides an empirical test. Drawing on the World Bank/University of Sussex global migrant origin database, it estimates the effect of theoretically relevant development indicators on immigrant, emigrant, net immigrant and total migrant stocks. The results largely confirm transition theory. Higher levels of economic and human development are associated to higher overall levels of migration and have the predicted U-curve effect on emigration. The results also suggest that demographic factors do not have a direct effect on migration. Although several empirical puzzles remain, particularly on the effects of political freedoms, the results suggest that take-off development in the least developed countries is likely to lead to take-off emigration. The analysis exemplifies the need to conceptualise migration as an integral part of broader development processes rather than as problem to be \u201csolved\u201d.
\n \n\n \n \nIn early 2006, the shores of Senegal became one of the main points of departure for the cayucos (boats) destined for the Canary Islands. While readmission agreements between Spain and Senegal are the focus of diplomatic preoccupations, the Senegalese government has taken up the argument of development versus the control of migratory flows in order to negotiate compensation from the Spanish authorities. This paper will show how, beyond these political negotiations, the development argument is also a core argument used by the deportee associations which are trying to become visible in the social arena in Senegal, and to acquire a number of resources.
\n \n\n \n \nAu tournant de l\u2019ann\u00e9e 2006, les c\u00f4tes s\u00e9n\u00e9galaises deviennent un des points de d\u00e9part privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s des \u00ab cayucos \u00bb \u00e0 destination des \u00eeles Canaries. Tandis que les accords de r\u00e9admission entre l\u2019Espagne et le S\u00e9n\u00e9gal sont au centre des pr\u00e9occupations diplomatiques, l\u2019argument du d\u00e9veloppement versus contr\u00f4le des flux migratoires est repris par le gouvernement s\u00e9n\u00e9galais pour n\u00e9gocier des contreparties aupr\u00e8s des autorit\u00e9s espagnoles. Au-del\u00e0 de ces n\u00e9gociations politiques, ce papier s\u2019attachera \u00e0 montrer comment l\u2019argumentaire du d\u00e9veloppement constitue \u00e9galement un \u00e9l\u00e9ment central du r\u00e9pertoire d\u2019argumentation des associations de refoul\u00e9s qui, au S\u00e9n\u00e9gal, cherchent \u00e0 obtenir une visibilit\u00e9 dans l\u2019ar\u00e8ne sociale et \u00e0 acqu\u00e9rir un certain nombre de ressources.
\n \n\n \n \nThis working paper offers a local perspective on the dynamic nature and recent transformations of the Saharan migration system, showing how such policies affect those who live or travel through these areas. An illustration of the historical significance of intra-African migration systems for the economic development of North-West Africa is followed by an analysis of new patterns of migrations that have emerged since the 1990s throughout central Sahara, and by a critical appraisal of media and government fears about human trafficking and smuggling in the region. A brief outline of the externally driven legal and institutional frameworks that govern the movements of people in this area is provided, followed by a discussion of how people succeed in crossing the borders between Niger, Algeria and Libya, highlighting how state representatives deal with (and partake in) local migration systems. The various strategies adopted by migrants and facilitating agents to cope with hardened migration policies are presented in light of their possible local impacts in central Sahara.
\n \n\n \n \nThis working paper is part of a comparative research project looking at three immigrant groups (two North African Berber groups: the Moroccan Chleuhs and the Algerian Kabyles; and the Sikh Punjabis from India) residing in two receiving countries (France and the UK). This work seeks to explain the emergence since the early 1990s of hometown associations committed to the development of their place of origin. This research draws on a previous doctoral study on Moroccan Berber immigrants in France. Since then, I have extended this research to the other two groups. This choice has been underpinned by the prospect of comparing this first group with one which displays strong similarities (the Berber Kabyles from Algeria) and another which presents distinct features (the Sikh Punjabis). The three migrations have been spurred by British and French colonisation. They are three ethnic minority groups in their origin countries which have become the forerunner of the Indian and North African migration systems. However, the conditions of their settlement in the arrival countries are obviously different. The Berber groups have predominantly remained working-class groups while the Punjabis have enjoyed a better economic integration into multicultural Britain. However, despite their common cultural, religious and historical features, Algerian Kabyles turn out to be far less committed to transnational practices than their Moroccan counterpart. Conversely, Moroccans and Indians both display a high level of engagement in cross-border development projects. Relying on Mill\u2019s laws of comparison, my intention is to uncover the common factors which have led these two distinct groups to engage in similar practices. The Kabyle/Chleuh comparison is likely to help us highlight why some groups form developmental hometown groups while others do not.\r\nThe analysis initially rests on the structure agency approach. However, the research has been heavily influenced by the theory of communicative action of J\u00fcrgen Habermas, which offers a better framework to address the coordination of collective actions. This has led me to unravel the symbolic framework which underpins the implementation of a development project, a symbolic framework which allows migrants to use remittances as a means of expression of who they are and how they position themselves within and toward the spaces of departure and arrival.\r\nThis paper is the first of three working papers addressing the different layers of structural\r\nconstraints which were conducive to the implementation of collective remittances of development: the moral-practical infrastructures, the agential structures and the institutional superstructures.
\n \n\n \n \nThis working paper is part of a comparative research project looking at three immigrant groups (two North African Berber groups: the Moroccan Chleuhs and the Algerian Kabyles, and the Sikh Punjabis from India) residing in two receiving countries (France and the UK). This work seeks to explain the emergence of hometown associations committed to the development of their place of origin since the early 1990s. This research draws on a previous doctoral study on Moroccan Berber immigrants in France. Since then, I have extended this research to the other two groups. This choice has been underpinned by the prospect of comparing this first group with one which displays strong similarities (the Berber Kabyles from Algeria) and another which presents distinct features (the Sikh Punjabis). The three migrations have been spurred by British and French colonisation. They are three ethnic minority groups in their origin country which have become the forerunner of the Indian and North African migration systems. However, the conditions of their settlement in the arrival countries are obviously different. The Berber groups have predominantly remained working-class groups while the Punjabis have enjoyed a better economic integration into multicultural Britain. However, despite their common cultural, religious and historical features, Algerian Kabyles turn out to be far less committed to transnational practices than their Moroccan counterpart. Conversely, Moroccans and Indians both display a high level of engagement in cross-border development projects. Relying on Mill\u2019s laws of comparison, my intent is to uncover the common factors which have led these two distinct groups to engage in similar practices. Conversely, the Kabyle/Chleuh comparison is likely to give us the possibility of highlighting the obstacles which explain why some groups form developmental hometown groups while others do not. \r\nThe analysis initially rests on the structure agency approach. However, the research has been heavily influenced by the theory of communicative action of J\u00fcrgen Habermas, which offers a better framework to address the coordination of collective actions. This has led me to unravel the symbolic framework which underpins the implementation of a development project, a symbolic framework which allows migrants to use remittances as a means of expression of who they are and how they position themselves within and toward the spaces of departure and arrival. \r\nThis paper is the second of three working papers addressing the different layers of structural constraints which were conducive to the implementation of collective remittances of development: the moral-practical infrastructures, the agential structures and the institutional superstructures.
\n \n\n \n \nUntil recently, discussions with Libya on migration have taken place largely at bilateral level, i.e. almost exclusively with Italy. Since the late 1990s, Italy has engaged in a number of formal and informal diplomatic initiatives with the northern African country in order to bring under control irregular migration across the Mediterranean. This has started to change with the increasing role being played by the European Union (EU). Notably, on 12\u201313 November 2008 the negotiations for the EU\u2013Libya framework agreement were officially launched. These aim to strengthen relations between the European Community, its member states and Libya. The deepening interaction between Libya and the EU alongside established bilateral cooperative arrangements is one of the main concerns of this paper. Our analysis seeks to unpack and understand the gradual intertwining of bilateral relations between two states \u2013 Italy and Libya \u2013 and those between states and supranational actors that we shall here qualify as \u2018supralateral\u2019. In questioning prevailing accounts of the manner in which the EU externalises migration control policies, this paper draws attention to the multiple reciprocal interactions at the levels of migration framing, institutional setting and modes of compliance.
\n \n\n \n \nMigration is not a natural phenomenon, completely independent of historical and political contexts on the one hand and individual and collective reactions to them on the other. And development does not appear suddenly, as the result of impersonal forces driving migrants to directly or indirectly support it. Migration can generate development only through intentional actions, with community wellbeing in migrants\u2019 home countries acting as the anchor for individuals, associations and governments; and by providing a wider setting in which this \u2018intention\u2019 is played out, revealing the place for cultural, symbolic and moral dimensions of transnational community belonging and membership. Community acts as a cultural \u2018compass\u2019, determining migrants\u2019 attitudes towards the development of their home country. Strong communitarian membership is generally associated with real engagement in the development issues of members left behind (as part of the collective self), but varies according to the structural features of the migrants\u2019 networks, the way in which migrants define networks as their own communities, the results of past communitarian memories and future communitarian imaginations on actual communitarian experience and perceptions. I discuss these issues in the light of recent theoretical debates on structure-agency dynamics.
\n \n\n \n \nNew Zealand, like many countries, has recently shifted from disparaging emigrants to celebrating expatriates as heroes. What explains this change? The new government initiatives towards expatriates have been attributed to a neoliberal \u2018diaspora strategy\u2019, aimed at constructing emigrants and their descendants as part of a community of knowledge-bearing subjects, in order to help the New Zealand economy \u2018go global\u2019 (Larner 2007: 80). The research in this paper confirms that the new diaspora initiatives emerged from a process of neoliberal reform. However, it also highlights that, in the same period, older, inherited institutional frameworks for interacting with expatriates were being dismantled as part of a different dynamic within the same wider neoliberalization process. In this way, the research builds on and refines the \u2018diaspora strategy\u2019 concept by placing it within a broader analysis of institutional transformation through \u2018creative destruction\u2019. At the same time, this study opens up a wider research agenda aimed at revealing, understanding and explaining how states have related to diasporas before and beyond the era of neoliberalism.
\n \n\n \n \nThe effectiveness of migration policies has been widely contested in the face of their supposed failure to steer immigration and their hypothesized unintended, counter-productive effects. However, due to fundamental methodological and conceptual limitations, evidence has remained inconclusive. While the migration policy research is often descriptive and receiving-country biased, migration determinants research tends to be based on obsolete, theoretically void push-pull and gravity models which tend to omit crucial non-economic, sending-country and policy factors. More fundamentally, this state-of-the-art reveals a still limited understanding of the forces driving migration. Although there is consensus that macro-contextual economic and political factors and meso-level factors such as networks all play \u2018some\u2019 role, there is no agreement on their relative weight and mutual interaction. To start filling that gap, this paper outlines the contours of a conceptual framework for generating improved insights into the ways states and policies shape migration processes in their interaction with structural migration determinants in receiving and sending countries. First, it argues that the fragmented insights from different disciplinary theories can be integrated in one framework through conceptualizing virtually all forms of migration as a function of capabilities and aspirations. Second, to increase conceptual clarity it distinguishes the preponderant role of states in migration processes from the hypothetically more marginal role of specific immigration and emigration policies. Subsequently, it hypothesizes four different (spatial, categorical, inter-temporal, reverse flow) \u2018substitution effects\u2019 which can partly explain why polices fail to meet their objectives. This framework will serve as a conceptual guide for the DEMIG (The Determinants of International Migration) research project.
\n \n\n \n \nIn the face of the apparent dispute in migration research about the effectiveness of migration policy, this paper scrutinizes the nature, evolution and effectiveness of immigration policies and provides an analytical framework for future research. In order to reduce analytical confusion and reconcile apparently conflicting views, this paper defines what constitutes migration policy and distinguishes policy effectiveness and policy effects. It identifies three policy gaps which can explain perceived or real policy failure. First, the \u2018discourse gap\u2019 is the considerable discrepancy between the stated objectives of general public migration discourses and concrete policies. Second, the \u2018implementation gap\u2019 is the disparity between policies on paper and their actual implementation. Third, the \u2018efficacy\u2019 gap is the extent to which an implemented policy has the capacity to affect migration flows. The paper argues that studies should use concrete policies rather than public discourses as the evaluative benchmark. While we question the received idea that immigration policies have necessarily become more restrictive, available evidence suggests that migration policies have a significant effect on migration, but that the effect is limited compared to other migration determinants. Their effect might be further limited through various spatial, categorical and inter-temporal \u2018substitution effects\u2019. The paper hypothesizes that policies seem more effective in determining the selection and composition of migration rather than the overall volume and long-term trends of migration. However, robust evidence is still scarce and existing studies are generally unable to test for various \u2018substitution effects\u2019. The paper also suggests conceptual and methodological avenues for improving insights into policy effectiveness and effects.
\n \n\n \n \nDebates on migration policies are strongly focused on immigration control, revealing a general receiving-country bias in migration research. To fill this gap, this paper reviews the nature, evolution and effects of emigration policies. Only a declining number of strong, authoritarian states with closed economies are willing and capable of imposing blanket exit restrictions. Paradoxically, while an increasing number of, particularly developing, countries aspire to regulate emigration, their capability to do so is fundamentally and increasingly limited by legal, economic and political constraints. The attitude of states is often intrinsically ambiguous, as they face a complex trade-off between the perceived economic and political costs and benefits of emigration, in which who leaves greatly matters. This motivates states to adopt more subtle policies to encourage or discourage migration of particular skill, gender, age, regional or ethnic groups. Since state policies simultaneously constrain and enable migration of different groups to different destinations, states can play a significant role in structuring emigration through influencing the (initial) composition and spatial patterns of emigration. Even \u2018laissez-faire\u2019 policies require active state agency to create the structural conditions for \u2018free\u2019 emigration. However, the effect of emigration policies on overall volume and long-term trends of migration seems limited or even insignificant because of the preponderance of other economic, social and cultural migration determinants. This review reveals the need to improve insights into how states and policies shape migration processes in their interaction with other migration determinants in sending and receiving countries.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper analyses the role of internal (within-country) and international (bilateral and global) relative deprivation and absolute deprivation in international migration. It is argued that these three forms of relative deprivation need to be simultaneously taken into account in order to advance our theoretical understanding of the complex drivers of migration processes. Empirical analysis based on 2000 global migrant stock data suggests that absolute deprivation constrains emigration while international relative deprivation and internal relative deprivation in destination countries fuel migration. The effect of internal relative deprivation in origin countries is small and rather ambiguous. The results highlight complex and often counter-intuitive ways in which relative and absolute deprivation affect migration. The paper suggests that it would be unfounded to expect that decreases in international and internal relative and absolute deprivation will lead to massive reductions in the volume of international migration.
\n \n\n \n \nThis study proposes a link between inequality, social fractionalization and the emigration propensity of a population. By assuming that perceptions of relative deprivation may increase migration propensities, I can argue that more fractionalized societies are characterized by lower or higher emigration rates depending on whether social comparisons are made within or across social groups. For intra-group comparisons, the average level of relative deprivation is decreasing with the number of social groups, whereas the opposite is true for inter-group comparisons. Consequently, whether social fractionalization corresponds with higher or lower emigration rates depends on the relative importance of the two concepts, and thus, it is an empirical question. This study finds significantly higher emigration rates for ethnically fractionalized countries, whereas countries with a relatively strong linguistic fractionalization are unequivocally characterized by lower migration propensities.
\n \n\n \n \nThis study disentangles the effects of feelings of relative deprivation and the capability of households in realizing their migration aspirations. For this purpose I deconstruct the concept of relative deprivation into intra-group and inter-group relative deprivation and test their relative importance together with levels of absolute deprivation in shaping migration decisions on a household level. The migration decision itself is modelled as a two-stage process which separates the decision on whether to migrate at all, and the decision where to migrate in terms of an internal or international destination. Our empirical analysis is based on a unique dataset referring to the recent 64th round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) in India. This large dataset covers around 125,000 households and about 100,000 former household members counted as out-migrants. I hypothesize that intra-group as well as inter-group relative deprivation influences migration decisions and the choice of destinations. I identify two factors as relevant in this migration decision-making process. First, intra-group as well as inter-group relative deprivations are strong predictors for migration decisions in general, and in terms of possible destinations, for short-distance intra-state movements in particular. The likelihood of out-migration towards international destinations is significantly higher for households with lower levels of intra-group and inter-group relative deprivation. Second, besides the effects of relative deprivation, absolute deprivation plays an ambivalent role: while economically better endowed households have a higher migration propensity to send (primarily male) migrants to distant inter-state and international destinations, the inverse is true for moves of shorter distance that are mainly dominated by (female) migrants stemming from poorer households.
\n \n\n \n \nWith immigration becoming a structural feature of nearly all industrialized countries, the\r\ntwentieth century saw a development of a set of theoretical approaches to study the\r\nrelationship between immigrants and the legal system of the host country. These\r\nframeworks \u2013 legal assimilation, legal transnationalism, legal pluralism, legal culture \u2013 legal\r\nconsciousness \u2013 have developed largely in isolation from one another, sometimes but not\r\nalways distinguished by disciplinary boundaries \u2013 law, anthropology, sociology, politics,\r\ninternational relations. The aim of this paper is to review and organize the scarce yet\r\nfragmented scholarship explaining the migration and law nexus in the context of migrants\u2019\r\nlegal adaptations to the new legal environment.
\n \n\n \n \n