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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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