Upload
zivka-deleva
View
224
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Theoretical perspectives on migration
Citation preview
Abstract
This paper presents a critical review of theories of
migration, their welfare and policy implications and their
empirical relevance. Theories have been developed to
explain the onset, continuation and (self)selection of
migration flows, as well as the socioeconomic and socio-
cultural integration of immigrants in receiving societies.
They show that migration does not flow automatically in
response to wage differentials. Characteristics of
migrants and the process of self-selection are found to be
important determinants of the rate of migration.
Explanations are sought at the micro-level of individual
immigrants, their personal backgrounds, motives and
qualifications, at the meso-level of immigrant
households, networks and community building, or at the
macro-level of sending or receiving societies.
This working paper refers to Douglas Massey and
Stephen Castles as migration theoreticians that have
described how today’s migration differs from yesterday’s
and what these changes imply for classic explanations of
migration from microeconomic motives and from push
and pull factors. Apart from a simplified review of the
existing theories the paper aims to contribute to the
theoretical discussion of migration by presenting the
diverse see of theories applicable on migration. Each
theoretical piece of the puzzle leads to a set of testable
predictions, linking theories to circling questions that
deserve further attention.
2
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary migrations
Globalization has changed the face of migration.
Climate change effects have changed the reasons for
migration. Development programmes aimed to bring
about the development of the sending countries with the
‘know-how’ technology hasn’t achieved its goal of
stopping migration. A solution of this kind is maybe a
desire for some but it is not likely to be found, as if
migration can ever be stopped. Not as regularly as the
birds but people have always migrated. From the
beginning of mankind and the nomadic order in search of
more fruitful territories and better surrounding and
opportunity people have wanted the best for themselves.
Europe and the challenges of international
migration
3
The fact that the European mainland has
erupted as an immigration destination in the last
three decades has made it almost impossible for some
countries to change their status and recognize that
they have become immigration countries, Germany
being the leading example. It has been the leading
immigrant attractive country in the European Union
counting the biggest number of immigrants and it
maintained its status of non-immigration country
until 2002. Until than although de facto it has became
a country of immigration Germany has maintained de
jure systems that deny this reality. Immigration is a
major challenge for Europe and in general a priority
in governmental agenda and international
organizations. Immigration policies should be linked
more and more to the reality and should be the
foundation stone of integration at all levels, in
combination with intelligent migratory flow controls.
It is important to establish commitments in areas such
as work, social, security, housing, health, education
and justice in a transversal perspective on one hand,
and on the other regarding discrimination, gender
4
equity, equal opportunities, citizenship rights, as an
example.
The European countries (and usually host
countries) control their migratory flows by creating laws
that try to restrict the immigration from third countries.
Research shows that Europe, due to demographic and
labour reasons, needs immigration. Nevertheless, besides
the political acceptance of immigration due to the above-
mentioned reasons, there is a populist and security-
centred argument that is sceptic to the values of
immigration and is discriminatory in the selection of the
few who are allowed to enter a country and furthermore
is resistant to an intercultural and inter-religious society
as one can see for example in the recent depiction of the
Kingdom of Netherlands drowning in minarets.
According to OECD statistics 33.6% of the
immigrants of the world live in Europe (28% in Asia,
26.8% in America, 9% in Africa and 2.6% in Oceania).
Hence, it is clear that Europe, since 1960s, has become a
principal destination of worldwide migration flows.
5
A unified Europe should strive to have common
parameters regarding reception, legalization and
naturalization of immigrants (i.e. there are common
policies about expulsion of immigrants in illegal situation
but no policies about the chance for them to legalise the
situation.)
Different naturalisation produces inequality in
rights
Focusing on the naturalisation law in some
European host countries, the right to acquire nationality
(naturalisation) varies widely, which produces
inequalities in the attribution of rights. Examples for
these are voting and movement of immigrants in Europe
and abroad depending on the receiving country’s
policies. According to the political scientist Rainer
Bauböck, Austrian Academy of Science, the authors (in
particular policy makers) of the concept of the European
citizenship were not aware of some tensions in the
attribution of nationality. Bauböck presents in the
following examples the reason for this: During the 1990s
Italy granted the Italian nationality to people with Italian
6
ascendancy while at first not requiring that people live in
the country. That resulted in many Brazilian and
Argentineans acquiring the citizenship without even
having been to Italy or Europe. After receiving the
European passport they could immigrate to Spain, UK
and United States.
The distinction between the attributions of
nationality by jus soli (by the place of born) or jus
sanguini (nationality of parent, by blood connection) is
important. For example, when a child of a non-EU citizen
mother is born in an EU country that applies jus soli, the
mother will receive a residence permit or nationality
(depending on the country) in order to take care of the
European citizen (a minimum time spent in the respective
EU country may be required for jus soli to be applicable.)
Hence it is possible that a child receives the nationality
automatically while for example a Spanish that
immigrates to Portugal might have to wait 6 years until
becoming eligible for naturalisation.
The attribution of nationality by jus soli or jus sanguini,
double nationality or rejection of one of the nationalities,
the time needed to receive the citizenship as an
7
immigrant should be similar or even equal in a unified
Europe.
Therefore, Europe should decide upon a common
approach on migration, especially regarding:
Designing a European law regarding the
attribution of nationality
Homogenising the rules of access to European
host countries
Creating an efficient European governmental
network on migration
Monitoring the European common migration
policies
Viewing the current diversity in European
immigration laws on the one hand and the European
common market and Schengen on the other hand and the
need for immigration to satisfy Europe’s economic
needs, a common approach to immigration becomes
more important.
This does not only mean a common approach to
prevent people coming into the EU but much more a
common approach on what grounds working in residence
permits and finally citizenship should be granted. This
8
would not only allow potential immigrants to better
understand the policies but as well business would
benefit as it would be much easier to employ the
immigrant where needed and not where the immigrant
entered the EU. This would not only be a benefit for the
individuals but also for society as a whole, as integration
and social inclusion would be facilitated, and therefore
European ideal supported.
9
Theories of migration
Interdisciplinary approach
Before starting with the elaboration on the
complex of applied migration theories one must get
acquainted with the diverse approach towards migration
offered by the different social sciences. The importance
of knowing this comes from the fact that if unaware of
the interconnection and overlapping between two or three
different social sciences on the issue of migration would
leave us blinded and short of possible solutions of a
certain problem. According to Brettell and Hollifield,
sometimes intense disagreements and debates about the
interpretation of the same body of data exists within
single disciplines. Sometimes there can be an agreement
across disciplines on the nature of the problem, or even
on the methodology. But to believe that a single
explanation or model can be agreed upon is almost
impossible, even a hypothesis which is multidisciplinary
10
is hard to identify, since each discipline has its favoured
or suitable list of questions, hypothesis, and variables.
Similarly, Castles points to the intrinsically
interdisciplinary research of migration, since disciplines
such as sociology, political science, history, economics,
geography, demography, psychology, cultural studies and
law look at different aspects of population mobility and
full understanding requires contributions from all of
them.
Traditional approaches
Migration is a collective action, arising out of
social change and affecting the whole society in both
sending and receiving societies. The theoretical approach
that has prevailed in the past fifty years does not suffice
its explanatory purposes to the complex changes that this
phenomenon has undergone since. As found in Massey,
scientists have started to question the conceptualization
of migrants as rational actors responding to economic
disparities between countries at micro-level, and question
the ‘push-pull’ approach which views migration as a
11
means of establishing equilibrium between regions of
labour supply and demand at macro-level.
Rational Expectations
In the core of reasons to migrate since the very
beginning of researching migration has been found the
economical reason, the one which states that migrants as
rational actors are responding to economic disparities and
thus they are moving. In the post-industrial era examples
can be found of similarly developed neighbouring
countries can have completely opposite experiences with
migration, in which one has a high rate of emigration
while the other one doesn’t, or maybe that migrants do
not migrate where salaries are highest, on the contrary,
according to neoclassical economic theory, the departure
of migrants raises wages in sending areas and increases
them in receiving areas. Thus this will continue until the
wages are equalized and than migration should stop. But
even without any increase in developed country wages,
the number of candidates for international migration has
steadily grown throughout the world. Reasonable
expectation of such behaviour should be as null
12
migration among the citizens of the member states of the
European Union. Although aiming towards unified
centralized governance without physical borders,
migration still appears within. Noted in Massey (1998),
migration typically has not ended with the equalization of
wages, but with the attainment of bearable conditions of
life in areas of origin, after which people find migration
not worth the effort. Thus an example of ceased
migration appears in the early 1970s between Spain and
Germany, but not for long, proving that human
motivations can not simply be found in the desire to gain,
but by an aversion to risk, a desire to be comfortable, or
simply an interest in building better lives at home.
(Massey et al., 1998) The influence of material growth
on the inclination to migrate is deep, but it is not
sufficient to explain international migration or even to be
presented as the core of the conditions to emigrate. With
the information and transportation revolution in the
previous century, causing dramatically lowered travel
and information costs can not be ascribed as reasons for
an ongoing migration in some cases where these costs
13
were low even before, examples to be found between
Southern and Northern Europe migration.
Push and pull theories
Ernest Ravenstein is widely regarded as the
earliest migration theorist. Ravenstein, an English
geographer, used census data from England and Wales to
develop his “Laws of Migration” (1889). He concluded
that migration was governed by a “push-pull” process;
that is unfavourable conditions in one place (oppressive
laws, heavy taxation, etc.) “push” people out, and
favourable conditions in an external location “pull” pull
them in. Revenstein’s laws stated that the primary cause
for migration was better external economic opportunities;
the volume of migration decreases as distance increases;
migration occurs in stages instead of one long move;
population movements are bilateral; and migration
differentials (e.g. gender, social class, age) influence a
person’s mobility. As opportunities for migration have
grown, as it will be shown further on these ‘general
theories’ have modified but still it can be said that most
of the scholars researching migration have followed
14
Ravenstein’s laws and the most dominant contemporary
theories are more or less variations of his conclusions.
According to Massey, the ‘push-pull’ theories
have always been an inseparable companion to the
economic approach to migration and they have always
been exclusively economic. The push-pull framework
assumed that migration enabled certain equilibrium to be
achieved between forces of economic growth and
contraction in different geographic locations. (Massey et
al., 1998)
Contemporary theories of international migration
Economic theories of migration
Neoclassical Economies - Present day dominant
school of economies thought is built on the foundation
laid by the 18th century (classical) theories of Adam
Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823), and
refined by the 19th and 20th century theories of Alfred
Marshal (1842-1924), Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), John
Clark (1847-1938), and Irving Fisher (1867-1947). It is
‘classical’ in the sense that is based on the belief that
15
competition leads to an efficient allocation of resource,
and regulates economic activity that establishes
equilibrium between demand and supply through the
operation of market forces. It is ‘neo’ in the sense that
departs sharply from the classical viewpoint in its
analytic approach that places great emphasis on
mathematical techniques. In opposition to Keynesian
economics1, this school states that savings determine
investment (not the other way round), and is concerned
primarily with market equilibrium and growth at full
employment instead of with the under-employment of
resources.2 As stated in Castles work the neoclassical
perspective has its antecedents in the earliest systematic
theory on migration: that of the nineteenth – century
geographer Ravenstein, who formulated statistical laws
of migration (Castles and Miller, 2009). Borjas managed
1 Keynesian Economics – Named for economist John Maynard Keynes. An economic theories which advocates government intervention, or demand-side management of the economy, to achieve full employment and stable price (definition taken from: http://www.investorwords.com/2693/Keynesian_Economics.html on the 12.01.2010)2 Definition taken from the Business Dictionary on the 01.12.2009 available at www.businessdictionary.com
16
to use this particular theory in modelling an “immigration
market”:
Neo-classical theory assumes that individuals
maximize utility: individuals ‘search’ for the country
of residence that maximizes their well-being … The
search is constrained by the individual resources, by
the immigration regulations imposed by competing
host countries and by the emigration regulations of the
source country. In the immigration market the various
pieces of information are exchanged and the various
options are compared. In a sense, competing host
countries make ‘migration offers’ from which
individuals compare and choose. The information
gathered in this marketplace leads many individuals to
conclude that it is ‘profitable’ to remain in their
birthplace … Conversely, other individuals conclude
that they are better off in some other country. The
immigration market nonrandomly sorts these
individuals across host countries. (Borjas 1989, p.
461)
17
In the same line, Chiswick claims that migrants are
positively self-selected: the more highly skilled are more
likely to move because they obtain a higher return of
their human capital investment in mobility. This has
negative effects for countries of origin, by causing a
‘brain drain’ (Chiswick 2000). To sum up, as Massey
points out, the neoclassical theory has two distinguishing
waves, one offering a macro view stating that due to the
differential in wages, “workers move from low-wage or
labour-surplus country to the high-wage or labour-scarce
country” and by causing this movement the result is that:
The supply of labour decreases and wages eventually
rise in the capital-poor country, while the supply of
labour increases and wages ultimately fall in the
capital-rich country, leading, at equilibrium, to an
international wage differential that reflects only the
costs of international movement, pecuniary and
psychic. (Massey 1998, p. 18)
On the other side, Massey (1998) offers a micro
approach emphasizing that the individuals “decide to
migrate because a cost-benefit calculation leads them to
18
expect a positive net return, usually monetary, from
movement.” (p. 19)
Critiques on the neoclassical theory - studies of specific
migration experiences cast doubt on neoclassical theory.
In spite of the actual assumptions that the poorest people
are the one that are moving to the richest countries it is
the people of intermediate social status that come from
countries that are undergoing social and economic
changes that we can call migrants. In the same way push
and pull theories predict movements from densely
populated to scarcely populated areas, but that doesn’t
give a solution to the extensive immigration that exists in
the Netherlands and Germany, although they are one of
the most densely populated countries in Europe. The new
migration reasons that appear on daily basis are not
possible to be explained only by applying the
neoclassical theory nor it is possible to identify possible
migration trends for the future (see Sassen, 1988; Boyd,
1989; Portes and Rumbaut, 2006; Castles 2009, p. 23). It
almost is absurd to look at migrants as individuals who
are well acquainted with their options and freedoms but
on the contrary they have limited and often contradictory
19
information, especially in the eyes of the employers and
governments. As proof of belonging they build up their
culture and social capital. As claimed by historians,
anthropologists, sociologists and geographers, migrants’
behaviour is strongly influenced by historical experiences
as well as by family and community dynamics. (Portes
and Bӧrӧcz, 1989 in Castles 2009, p. 23)
The new economics of migration – The biggest
difference between the neoclassical economies and the
new economics of migration is that the migration
decisions are not made solely by the individual
concerned but are collectively decided usually by
families or households, and not only them, but whole
communities as well. This is due to the fact that in the
process of working together the decisions made are
trying to minimize the risks and maximize the expected
income by predicting the possible market failures, apart
from those that are related to the labour market. (Stark
and Levhari 1982; Stark 1984a; Katz and Stark 1986;
Taylor 1986, 1987; Lauby Stark 1988; and articles by
various authors reprinted in Stark, 1991, and in Massey
20
1998). The manner in which the households are able to
control risks that are being taken by the individual is
through diversification. That is they first maintain
security in the home country, and in case if this market
does not provide sufficient income than they rely on the
migrant remittances for support. In case of examining
highly developed countries than risks to the households
are in general secured by private insurance and credit
market or at times even governmental programmes, but if
we change the developed countries with developing
countries than we would notice that these institutional
measurements “are imperfect, absent or inaccessible to
poor families, giving them incentives to diversify risks
through foreign wage labour.” (Massey, 1998) In order
to prove the possible differences in the developed and the
developing countries we should take a look at particular
examples that will vividly illustrate not only the links
between various market failures and international
migration but will also provide in some extent the
motivation for why certain people move and where do
they move.
21
Crop insurance market – The incentives of one
family or farm household investing in crop sowing can be
seen as the products or the food that they are able to sell
or to directly consume once the sowing is done. But from
the moment of planting the seed to the moment of sowing
the crop can undergo some substantial risks (introduction
of new agricultural technology, new seed variety which
can be either good or bed). In developed countries these
risks are insured, through formal insurance arrangements,
for which insurance the farmers pay only a fee to
companies or governmental agency to have their crop
insured against future loss (possible drought or flood)
(Massey et al. 1998). In developing countries, sometimes
there is no possibility for a small amount for the
agricultural families to insure their crop so they see the
insurance in sending one or two workers abroad to be
insured by remittances in case of crop failure.
Futures markets – In case of no harm done and
crop has been sowed, it is assumed that the crop will
bring cash in the household if it is sold for a price
sufficient to sustain the family or even improve their
financial situation. But a problem may arise if the price
22
for the crop falls below the expected levels so that the
remunerative incentives are not achieved. In cases like
this, ‘in developed countries, the price risk is managed
through futures markets that allow farmers to sell all or
part of their crop for future delivery at a guaranteed
price,’ while in most developing countries future markets
can not be identified within the system, or they are not
accessible to the poor agricultural households (Massey,
1998). Again migration becomes an insurance solution
for risks of price fluctuations.
Unemployment insurance – Most working people
are dependent on the wages they earn through the
working years without many possibilities to save some
substantial amount of money for “dark” times. In case of
weaken economic situation, and decrease of employment,
or if a family member looses its ability to work due to
injury or medical condition, the living conditions can
suddenly worsen the state in a household. In rich
countries the government takes care of the workers and
their families through the development of special
programmes aimed at the protection of such risks, but in
poorer countries ‘such unemployment and disability
23
programmes are absent or incomplete in their coverage’
(Massey, 1998), thus one more time presenting migration
as a self-insurance programme.
Retirement insurance – The inevitable question of
how one can support himself/herself after he/she
withdraws from productive activities is being differently
solved in developed versus developing countries. While
the developed countries have evolved a mix of private
pensions and government security programmes to reduce
or eliminate the risk of penury in old age, most of the
developing nations, have rudimentary or even non-
existent private and public schemes able to provide for
retiring individuals and families. International migration
here plays the role of a helping hand in time of such
necessity, in manners such as money being saved in
foreign accounts, or invested in some production lines
during the years of migration for future income. These
money can make a difference not only in old age, but
through years of earning different scale salaries
compared with the regular surrounding, they can provide
for significantly better opportunities and livelihood
during the working age as well. (Massey, 1998)
24
Capital markets - Sometimes in order to achieve
greater productivity of our own assets we are forced to
make an investment. In order to makes such investments
we should accumulate capital. In developed countries,
such capital can be acquired and accessed through the
functioning sound and efficient banking system, but on
the other hand, in the developing countries these kind of
saving institutions are not the safest place to entrust your
long saved capital, or the possibility to become loan
eligible is not so easy for the poor families, for whom the
only way to get the amount of capital they are in need of
future investing it, are through the local moneylenders,
charging them with high interest rates, making these
transactions law prohibited. Been forced to accumulate
savings, international migration becomes the strongest
incentive to send one or more workers abroad to fulfil the
duty of capital providers.
Credit markets – Developed countries offer their
citizens the possibility to have an immediate loan just by
owning an ordinary Mastercard or Visa, while
developing countries by not providing this service push
people in short term migration, due to the fact that the
25
family in concern or individual has the necessity to
provide himself with the expensive but necessary
appliance, and other way it is not possible. While
sometimes we are talking about appliances the penetrate
the developing market making people eager to own the
same things as the ones in the developed countries (TV,
stereo, refrigerator, stove), others we talk about the most
necessary investment, and that is buying a home.
Developed countries offer possibilities beginning with
the smallest down payment of 10% and than having a
long term contract in which they continue paying the
instalments of a mortgage. Developing countries not able
to provide the same service sometimes can offer evidence
of houses that are started building but never finished or
finished year by year as the person who is building it has
returned to the foreign country to accumulate more
capital so that he can cover the expenses of building a
home.
Relative deprivation – As shown in the previous
cases we are alleged to think that the new economics of
migration only serve to explain deficiency in capital and
credit and as such provide us with the motivation for
26
international immigration. But not to be mistaken, these
theories not only argue that, but also maintain a possible
other variant aiming at the enrichment of people, in order
to increase and improve their status compared to the
others in the reference group, as well as to reduce their
relative deprivation in eyes with the same reference
group (Spark et al. 1986, 1988; Stark and Yitzhaki 1988;
Stark and Taylor 1989; 1991a; Stark 1991 in Massey,
1998).
Segmented labour market theory – The two
previously described theoretical approaches take either
the individual or the collective household as the ones
who bring the decision towards indulging in international
migration, while there exists a utterly different approach
pushed most forcefully by Piore (1979) who argues that
international migration is caused by the undying need for
immigrant labour intrinsically represented in the
developed countries. Piore maintains that immigration is
not caused by the push factors that exist in the
developing countries but by the pull factors that develop
in the receiving countries depicted through the ‘chronic
27
and unavoidable need for foreign workers’ (Massey,
1998 p.28). The segmented (dual) labour market theory
offers a wider range of factors into economic research
and as Piore (1979) shows a division into primary and
secondary labour markets emerges. Sassen (1991)
supporting Piore’s theory makes a clear distinction
between the two markets that is, on one side we have ‘the
highly paid core workers in finance, management and
research, and the poorly paid workers who service their
needs’. Predisposition to the primary labour market is
given to the ones belonging to the majority ethnic group
in particular the ones who are considered to be worthy as
human capital (highly skilled and educated), male gender
and in connection to migration, the ones who have a legal
status when applying for a position. Opposite of this
practice is the recruitment of the workers for the
secondary labour market, offering candidates that lack
education and vocational training, sometimes overseeing
the gender, race, minority status and irregular legal status
(Castles, 2009). The importance of the segmented labour
theory for international migration can be found in
showing us the important role that the employers and
28
governments play even when the wage differentials
decline, a migration factor supported by the neoclassical
economic theory (Massey et al. 1998: 28-34) The
European migration system, as it will be shown below,
applies the segmented labour theory as the basic
economical theory and has its ups and downs in
maintaining a complex system as this is.
Historical-structural theory and world systems
Even though the historical-structural theory has
been developed since the 1950s it reaches its ‘peak of
influence’ in the 1960s and 1970s, and it argues that due
to the unequal distribution of economic and political
power among states, a consecutive uneven development
resulted in which the poor countries were ‘trapped by
their disadvantaged position within an unequal
geopolitical structure, which perpetuated their poverty’
(Massey et al., 1998: 34-41). The historical-structural
theory drawing its roots out of the dependency theory, a
concept based on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, ‘showed
that the underdevelopment of Third world countries was
a result of exploiting their resources, (including labour)’
29
through colonialism, and followed in the post-colonial
period by enforcing harsh and unfair trading terms with
the mighty and developed countries. Progress in line of
applying the historical-structural theory was made with
the appearance of Emmannuel Wallerstein’s (1974, 1980)
analysis of the global expansion of the capitalist system.
He maintains that all the countries are somewhat
dependent seen from different perspective. The
‘peripheral’ nations as he names them are the ones which
are the most dependent, than come the ‘semi-peripheral’
nations that are to a small extent independent in the
global market, moving to the top of the hierarchy where
the ‘core’ capitalist nations are situated, thus presenting
the expanding global capitalism, a line of thought that
later will become known as ‘world systems theory’. In its
beginnings the structural-historical theory cared more
about the internal migration, especially the rural-to-urban
migration applying the concept on ‘the displacement of
agrarian workers by the penetration of market forces, the
spatial concentration of population in cities, the rapid
growth of large urban agglomerations, and the rise of
informal economy’ (Massey et al., 1998 p. 35). But by
30
the time when the economic recession in the mid-1970s
ended (period crucial for the development of the
European migration as it will be shown below)
international migration took its turn and was not only
observed as a ‘temporary’ aberration. As Castles (2009)
points out, ‘world systems theories began to analyse
international labour migration as one of the ways in
which relations of domination were forged between the
core economies of capitalism and its underdeveloped
periphery’(p.26). The brain drain phenomenon that we
particularly are familiarized nowadays, draws its roots
back in the 1960s and 1970s in the work of many
historical-structural theorists (see Khoshkish, 1966;
Kannappan 1968; Adams 1969; Watanabe 1969; Glaser
1978) and it plays a big role in the discourse for the
creation of the European migration policy. Even at this
stage brain drain was defined as the process of selecting
talented and educated people for the purposes of
migration from poor to rich nations. The main difference
at that time was that it was still not recognized as such a
big problem due to the fact of not maintaining a high
number of such migration, but even at this point the
31
dependency theorist saw that the emigration of such
people robs poor countries of essential human capital,
thus supporting the notion of unfair trade between
developed and developing countries again proving that
global capitalism ‘developed underdevelopment’ as it did
only within the Third World itself (Massey et al., 1998:
35-41). To all intents and purposes world systems theory
stands on the pillar that penetrating capitalism in non-
capital or pre-capitalist nations presupposes mobile
population with the inclination to migration.
Social capital theory: migration networks and
systems
Migration networks are sets of interpersonal ties
that connect migrants, former migrants, and non-migrants
in origin or destination areas through ties of kinship,
friendship, and shared community origin (Massey et al.,
1998 p. 42). So according to the definition on migrant
networks offered by Massey, migrant networks can act as
an accelerator for future migration because they can
serve the potential migrants by reducing the costs and
risks of the perspective movement and increase the
32
expected net returns to migration. Before we take of with
the effects that migration networks are causing for the
perpetuation of migration, we must look back at a term
that has preceded the term network migration. Speaking
of chain migration, MacDonald and MacDonald defined
it as “that movement in which prospective migrants learn
of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and
have initial accommodation and employment arranged by
means of primary social relationships with previous
migrants” (MacDonald and MacDonald 1964: p.82).
But as such, migration networks are not sufficient
condition for migration to occur or to perpetuate,
although if access to migration networks is based on
kinship ties or ethnicity, according to de Haas (2009)
they can act as “bridgeheads” for perspective migrants
within the same group, they may also act as
“gatekeepers”, who are unwilling to assist outsiders.
A migrant network can be interpreted as a
location-specific form of social capital. Bourdieu
(1979, translated and reprinted in Bordieu 1985)
defined social capital as “the aggregate of the actual
or potential resources which are linked to the
33
possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance
and recognition – or in other words, to membership in
a group” (Bourdieu 1985: p. 248). Most theorists
have taken the social capital in its positive turn
towards migration networks thus emphasizing the
role that it has on them because it seen as ‘capital’
that can be converted into other forms of cultural,
human and economic capital (Bourdieu 1985;
Coleman 1988, Portes 1998, de Haas 2009). The
convertibility is important because it helps the
members of networks and social institutions to
improve or maintain their position in society
(Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1990; Massey 1998). The
established network connections establish a form of
social capital that people can draw upon to gain
access to various kinds of financial capital: foreign
employment, high wages, and the possibility of
accumulating savings and sending remittances. Even
though it presents a significant gain for the
sustainability of migrant networks it does not ad hoc
enable migration. Massey and his associates
34
following the definition given by Coleman (1990) on
social capital being formed when the relations among
individuals change in ways that ease action, have
pointed to the catalyst role that migration has in
shaping the social relations (1998: p.43) continuing to
state that:
Once someone in a personal network has migrated,
however, the ties are transformed into a resource that
can be used to gain access to foreign employment and
all that it brings. Each act of migration creates social
capital among people to whom the new migrant is
related, thereby raising the odds of their migration
(Massey et al. 1987, 1994).
As a logical threshold to the perpetuation of
migration due to the existence of networks can be seen in
the case of
Expanding networks cause the costs of movement to
fall and the probability of migration to rise; these
trends feed off one another, and over time migration
spreads outward to encompass all segments of
35
society. This feedback occurs because the networks
are created by the act of migration itself … Once the
number of network connections in an origin area
reach a critical level, migration becomes self-
perpetuating because migration itself creates the
social structure to sustain it (Massey 1990: p. 8).
Networks are being build in such a manner that in the
beginning the household or the family (connection with
the new economics of labour migration) brings the
decision on the pioneer migrant thus usually choosing a
young male or recently females are being the ones with
the primate status as they are considered to be more
reliable when it comes to sending remittances, thus
proving the feminization trend in migration and the
increased demand for female labour force (here we see
the connection with segmented labour theory). But the
more the network becomes established and well
developed the household looses its influence and than
even the ones that were considered to be at the very end
of the chain could migrate and can count on the network
to help them, in a way of diminishing or lowering the
36
expanses of migration and to make the migration risk
free.
While in sociology and anthropology scientists
worked with migration networks theory in geography we
can find the roots of migration systems theory. It has
been pioneered by the Nigerian geographer Akin
Mabogunje (1970) focusing on the role of feedback in the
form of flows of information and new ideas (such as the
“good life” and new consumption patterns) in shaping
migration systems. Such feedback mechanisms would
lead to situations of
almost organized migratory flows from particular
villages to particular cities. In other words, the
existence of information in the system encourages
greater deviation from the “most probable or random
state” … [The] state of a system at any give time is
not determined so much by its initial conditions as by
the nature of the process, or the system parameters …
since open systems are basically independent of their
initial conditions (Mabogunje 1970: p. 13-14).
37
The migration systems theory although initially was
developed to explain internal migration it can be applied
to international migration in such a way defining
migration system as a system constituted by two or more
countries which exchange migrants with each other3. In
light of this theory we can research the Western
European migration system as being a unified system
interconnected with different faraway systems, and we
can also observe each country in Europe as part of a
system, for example, Germany and Turkey, or the links
that exist between North and West Africa with France.
This theory suggests that all the linkages at both ends
should be inspected.
Both migration network theory and migration systems
theory are, as already mentioned developed to be
primarily used in researching internal migration and both
will be applied to international migration, but with one
note on the intermediate meso-structures. Institutions that
3 In further research the migration system theory will only be observed in light of international migration theory.
38
are aiming to assist the prospective migrants or to harm
them have developed on this level. And not only
institutions but also individuals and groups are mediating
between the migrants and the economic and political
institutions in the receiving society. This includes travel
agents, lawyers, bankers, labour recruiters, brokers,
interpreters, housing agents as well as human smugglers
and traffickers. For all of these the perpetuation of
migration means economic satisfaction which sometimes
opposes the firm and strict governmental policies and
attempts to control or stop migration.
Cumulative causation
Massey’s (1990) hypothesis of the cumulative
causation of migration argues that over time international
migration tends to sustain itself in ways that make
additional movement progressively more likely. Massey
reintroduced Myrdal’s (1957) old concept of circular and
cumulative causation. Causation is cumulative in the
sense that each act of migration alters the social context
within which subsequent migration decisions are made,
typically in ways that make additional movements more
39
likely (Massey et al. 1998: p. 45-46). Even though this
concept is rather similar to Mabogunje’s (1970)
migration system theory, Massey introduces eight ways
in which migration is affected in cumulative fashion:
- The expansion of networks
- The distribution of income
- The distribution of land
- Organization of farm production
- Culture of migration
- Distribution of human capital
- Social labelling
- Limits to cumulative causation
(When identified that a definition is necessary it
will be provided, otherwise I don’t want to burden the
reader with extensive theory and I don’t want to exceed
the limits of my research.)
Transnational theory
Drawing roots from the migrant networks theory
and followed consecutively with the globalized
development of technological improvement of the
transport and communication means has brought to the
40
field of migration one more theory to be researched
which unlike the migration networks needs to observed
on macro-level. Thus the newest theory on
transnationalism and transnational communities uses the
technological development to explain the intensified
‘circular or temporary mobility in which people migrate
repeatedly between two or more places where they have
economic, social or cultural linkages’ (Castles and Miller
2009: p.30). Debates on transnationalism have been
supported with Basch et al. (1994) work, who maintained
that ‘deterritorialized nation-states’ were emerging, with
important consequences for national identity and
international politics. Portes defines transnational
activities as
Those that take place on a recurrent basis across
national borders and that require a regular and significant
commitment of time by participants. Such activities may
be conducted by relatively powerful actors, such as
representatives of national governments and
multinational corporations, or may be initiated by more
modest individuals, such as immigrants and their home
country kin and relations. These activities are not limited
41
to economic enterprises, but include political, cultural
and religious initiatives as well. (Portes 1999: p. 464)
As defined, Portes and his collaborators
distinguish between transnationalism from above –
activities ‘conducted by powerful institutional actors,
such as multinational corporations and states’ and
transnationalism from below – activities ‘that are result
of grass-roots initiatives by immigrants and their home
country counterparts’ (Portes et al. 1999: p. 221).
An ancient Greek term grasping the notion of
transnational communities is Diaspora and it meant
‘scattering’ and referred to city-state colonized practices.
Diaspora is often applied to groups of people that have
settled due to different reasons in other countries than
their home country but are still maintaining close
contacts to the home country and in a way assist its
development. The emergence of these groups can be
because of different reasons, namely displaced or
dispersed by force (e.g. Jews; African slaves in the New
World) or open immigration policies for certain nations
(Yugoslavs in Australia and Canada) or intensive labour
42
recruitment (Yugoslavs in Germany after the Second
World War). What is interesting is that the term Diaspora
can evoke strong emotional ties with the home country,
while the notion of transnational community is far more
neutral, possibly explaining the distinction between the
first and second and consecutive generations of migrants.
In particular, small countries maintain close relations to
the Diaspora, seeking for their participation in decision
making processes as even to campaigning with intensity
during election periods in the Diaspora country.
Although firmly criticized the notion of
globalization nowadays exploits the possibility of
creation of transnational communities (Vertovec, 1999)
as they can help in the organization of activities,
relationships and identity for the growing number of
people with affiliations in two or more countries. Levit
and Glick – Schiller (2004: p. 1003) state that ‘the lives
of increasing numbers of individuals can no longer be
understood by looking only at what goes on within
national boundaries’. Having this notion on mind we are
in a way forced to elaborate again some basic
assumptions about social institutions such as the family,
43
citizenship and nation-states, and indeed, as Castles says
it calls for ‘a reformulation of the concept of society’.
Opposing to the regular use in explaining migration
networks as formed transnational communities is
Guarnizo et al. (2003) who argue that concepts such as
‘transmigrant’ or ‘transnational’ is not able to provide a
solid definition and it can not be applied to a group of
migrants. Thus not completely avoiding the use of it, but
seeking for an empirically proven case in which we can
apply them.
Conclusion
The existing theories derive from the initial push-
pull theory and move from the neoclassical economic
theory (Sjaastad 1962, Todaro 1969, Massey 1999) that
suggests that international migration is related to the
global supply and demand for labour. Nations with scarce
labour supply and high demand will have wages that pull
immigrants in from nations with a surplus of labour.
Second, segmented labour-market theory (Pjore 1979,
Massey 1999) argue that First World economies are
structured so as to require a certain level of immigration.
44
This theory suggests that developed economies are
dualistic: they have a primary market of secure, well-
remunerated work and a secondary market of low-wage
work. Segmented labour-market theory argues that
immigrants are recruited to fill these jobs that are
necessary for the overall economy to function but are
avoided by the native-born population because of the
poor working conditions associated with the secondary
labour market. Third, world-systems theory (Sassen 1988,
Massey 1999) argues that international migration is a by-
product of global capitalism. Contemporary patterns of
international migration tend to be from the periphery
(poor nations) to the core (rich nations) because factors
associated with industrial development in the First World
generated structural economic problems, and thus push
factors, in the Third World.
Rather important theories (citizenship theories,
nation state theories, theories on settlement (such as on
the formation of ethnic minorities, ethnicity, racism,
ethnicity, gender and life cycle, and culture, identity and
community) have been deliberately excluded from this
examination due to its vast areas of influence. The paper
45
that has been presented here offers only the beginning of
what should be considered when policy makers and
migration researchers work on making up acts and
policies. Recommendations for in depth analyses of the
theories are constantly advised as they present the
concrete ground on which we can build a sustainable
future perspective.
46
References
Bourdieu, P. 1979. Le Capital Social: Notes Provisoires.
Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 31:2-
3.
—. 1985. "The forms of capital," in Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. Edited by
J. G. Richardson, pp. 241– 58. New York: Greenwood
Brettell, Caroline B. and Holifield, James F. Eds. (2008)
Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines 2nd
ed., Routledge Taylor and Francis Group New
York
Castles S. and Alistair Davidson, 2000 Citizenship and
migration Globalization and the politics of belonging,
London: Macmillan Press Ltd. ISBN 0-333-64309-0
Castles, Stephen 2004. The Factors that Make and
Unmake Migration Policies International
Migration Review 38
Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller, 2009 The Age of
Migration International Population Movements in
the Modern World 4th ed., New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
47
de Haas, H. 2003. Migration and Development in
Southern Morocco: The Disparate Socio-
Economic Impacts of Out-Migration on the
Todgha Oasis Valley. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Radboud University.
—. 2007a. Remittances and social development: A
conceptual review of the literature. Geneva:
UNRISD.
—. 2007b. Turning the tide? Why development will not
stop migration. Development and Change 38:819-
841.
—. 2008. "The complex role of migration in shifting
rural livelihoods: The case of a Moroccan oasis,"
in Global Migration and Development. Edited by
T. van Naerssen, E. Spaan, and A. Zoomers. New
York/Londen: Routledge.
—. 2009a. Mobility and Human Development New York:
UNDP.
---. 2009b. Working paper: Migration system formation
and decline: A theoretical inquiry into the self-
perpetuating and self-undermining dynamics of migration
48
processes, Oxford: International Migration Institute,
University of Oxford
—. 2010. Migration and Development: A theoretical
perspective. International Migration Review 44
de Haas, H., and S. Vezzoli. 2009. Transatlantic
comparisons on migration and development
issues: Lessons from the Mexico-US and
Morocco-EU experiences. Oxford: International
Migration Institute, University of Oxford.
Hoffmann, Bernd Von Ed. (2002) Legal Policy
Symposium (Rechtspolitisches Symposium)
Herausgegeben im Institut für Rechtpolitik an der
Universität Trier von Brand von Hoffman und
Gerhard Robbers Towards a Common European
Immigration Policy: Reports and Discussions of a
Symposium Held in Trier on October 24th and
25th, 2002, Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der
Wissenschaften
Mabogunje, A. L. 1970. Systems Approach to a Theory
of Rural-Urban Migration Geographical Analysis
2:1-18.
49
MacDonald, J. S., and L. D. Macdonald. 1964. Chain
migration, ethnic neighborhood formation, and
social networks. Millbank Memorial Fund
Quarterly 42.
Massey, D. S. 1990. Social Structure, Household
Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of
Migration. Population Index 56:3-26
Massey, D. S., J. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouci, A.
Pellegrino, and J. E. Taylor. 1993. Theories of
International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.
Population and Development Review 19:431-466.
—. 1998. Worlds in motion: Understanding international
migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Massey, D. S., and F. G. España. 1987. The Social
Process of International Migration. Science
237:733-738.
Massey, D. S., L. Goldring, and J. Durand. 1994.
Continuities in Transnational Migration: An
50
Analysis of Nineteen Mexican Communities. The
American Journal of Sociology 99:1492-1533.
Massey, D. S., and R. M. Zenteno. 1999. The Dynamics
of Mass Migration. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 96:5328-5335.
McKenzie, D., and H. Rapoport. 2007. Network Effects
and the Dynamics of Migration and Inequality:
Theory and Evidence from Mexico. Journal of
Development Economics 84:1-24.
Myrdal, G. 1957. Rich Lands and Poor. New York:
Harper and Row.
51