Critical transitions in migration studies: Comparative Migration Studies’ 10thanniversary issue

This inaugural issue marks the launch of the new journal Comparative Migration Studies (CMS). Over the past decades, and especially since the 1970s and 1980s, migration studies has evolved rapidly as a research fij ield rooted in various disciplines. Like the phenomenon of migration itself, migration research has become increasingly globalized, which is manifested by the many migration research institutes across the world where academics from various disciplines work together. CMS will promote comparative migration research based on the fij irm belief that comparative work will promote the theoretical development of migration research as only through comparison can we discover what is specifij ic to a case. We understand comparative research in a broad sense and is involving four main areas (a point developed by Marco Martiniello in his contribution to this issue). One type compares people, which can be groups or categories of migrants in a particular situation. Another compares places, which could, for instance, be nations but also supranational entities, regions, cities, municipalities or neighbourhoods. A third type involves comparisons between diffferent (historic) periods, adding a historical dimension to comparative research. Finally, as migration research is a multi-disciplinary fij ield drawing from various disciplines and competing theoretical perspectives, the fourth type involves comparisons between these diffferent disciplines and theoretical perspectives. CMS will promote engagement by scholars in all these areas of comparative research across disciplines and diffferent theoretical perspectives. CMS has no preferred geographical focus and intends to adopt a global approach to its search for the best comparative research on international COMPARATIVE MIGRATION STUDIES

Comparative migration is an actively developing research area that is situated at the intersection of various disciplines and national research traditions. The demand for a comparative historical analysis of migration processes is determined by the variety of reasons: intensification of human mobility in the modern world, changes in understanding of citizenship. The collapse of the USSR generated new visions and new perspectives in migration studies. The political and ethnic borders coupled with regional variety and complex migration processes make up the post-Soviet region as one of the most challenging for comparative migration studies. Moreover, despite the availability of various traditions of migration analysis in Russia, this region remains theoretically and empirically undiscovered in terms of comparative research. The materials presented in this special issue serve to fill in this gap. The objective of an Introductory piece to the special issue of the Public Opinion Monitor (MOM) Journal that is one of the first attempts in Russian literature to present comparative migration studies dealing with the post-Soviet societies has two foci. The first is to present the idea of comparative migration studies as it is developed in the West and to make a point of proposing such a tradition to Russian social sciences. The second is to help the reader to look at and take her/his bearings in the materials and studies presented in the volume. Three particular features of the volume have to be underlined. First, in terms of theoretical and methodological foundations materials are oriented toward American rather than European tradition of comparative migration studies. Second, ethnic (national) and racial facets as they are fostered in current migration studies in the West are also debated in the volume. Third, the issue includes publications discussing transnational migration — a relatively new phenomenon under review in Russian literature. Finally, this Special Issue of the «MOM» was envisaged as an invitation to further research and as a lead-in to the detailed discussions about comparative migration studies rather than a compendium of truths and finalized answers on the subject.

The emergence of a new research field or area of study in the social sciences always is fraught with controversy, fits and starts, theoretical, methodological, and even epistemological debates. Migration studies is no different, but some things are relatively unique about this ‘new’ field of study, while others are more conventional. The article on the ‘rise of migration studies’ by the CrossMigration team, Levy et al. (Comparative Migration Studies, 8 forthcoming), “Between Fragmentation and Institutionalization” under consideration here captures some of the controversies in migration studies, and poses some interesting questions about the direction of the field. Building on the ‘bibliometric analysis’ of journal articles by the cross-migration group, I ask what is unique about migration studies and what is conventional?

Newspaper data are popular in Comparative Migration Studies as they allow diachronic and cross-national comparison and are relatively easy and inexpensive to acquire. Critics, however, warn that newspaper data are hampered by selection, description and researcher bias. This article argues that research drawing on newspaper data can be improved by employing mixed methods to confirm and complement data and to analyze findings from different research paradigms. To demonstrate this claim, I ethnographically re-analyze part of the dataset of the Mobilisation on Ethnic Relations, Citizenship and Immigration (MERCI) project. I chose MERCI as publications based on its data, which I am well acquainted with, have inspired numerous researchers and European comparative research projects to pursue newspaper content analysis. This article shows how an ethnographic approach can address description bias and researcher unreliability, and reveal selection bias. It offers concrete suggestions for incorporating political ethnography into newspaper analysis. In doing so it advocates a new path for empirical research in Comparative Migration Studies, one that bridges the qualitative-quantitative divide. The conclusion encourages researchers on both sides of the quantitative-qualitative spectrum to reconsider habitual and safe research paradigms and move towards the middle to improve the quality of their work.

Since race was scientifically invalidated in the aftermath of the Holocaust, there has been extensive academic debate about its conceptual significance particularly in the ‘Global North’ where alternative terms and concepts have been offered up to classify group differences and understand forms of inequality in societies once structured explicitly by racial regimes. In earlier debates, an alternative focus on ethnicity, culture, class, and nationality drew criticism from scholars who saw the abandonment of race discourse as glossing over enduring power structures that perpetuated racism. Today, debates about the salience of race now also grapple with how different kinds of human mobility (and immobility) are further making complex relations of power and inequality especially in diverse immigrant-receiving societies. While older forms of migration, including the forced and violent movements of people in the transatlantic slave trade through to indentured labour migrations, came to underlie a colour-line created by nation-states principally formed around racial logics, newer forms of South to North migrations either forced or voluntary and as well accelerated South to South border crossings, now make even more complex the terms of difference. This chapter locates conceptualisations of race in migration and diversity studies, drawing from intersecting fields of scholarship such as studies of race and ethnicity, critical race theory, comparative migration studies and diversity research. It traces the wider genealogical history of the term in the ‘Global North’ then discusses how race as a concept is applicable to the ‘Global South’ where existing understandings about race are reaffirmed and unsettled. This chapter demonstrates the continued importance of considering race not just as a variable, but a key discursive framework in understandings of migration and diversity.

The introductory article of this Special Issue explores the potential of an organisational perspective in comparative migration studies and for migration studies more broadly. Although organisations shape migration processes and the in/exclusion of migrants and their descendants in multiple ways, their role has long received surprisingly little attention in migration studies. Taking stock of the research engaging with organisations, we outline the main contours of the literature and suggest several conceptual perspectives that migration scholarship may benefit from. Based on the contributions included in this Special Issue, which focus on different types of organisations in diverse empirical contexts, we discuss three main patterns of organisational practices influencing migration and migrants’ trajectories. These pertain to (1) decision-making about in/exclusion and underlying categorisations, (2) the (re-)production of ‘migrant figures’, and (3) rationalities and structures shaping organisational practices.

An ideal of universal citizenship has driven the emancipatory momentum of modern political life. Ever since the bourgeoisie challenged aristocratic privileges by claiming equal political rights for citizens as such, women, workers, Jews, blacks, and others have pressed for inclusion in that citizenship status. Modern political theory asserted the equal moral worth of all persons, and social movements of the oppressed took this seriously as implying the inclusion of all persons in full citizenship status under the equal protection of the law. Citizenship for everyone, and everyone the same qua citizen. Modern political thought generally assumed that the universality of citizenship in the sense of citizenship for all implies a universality of citizenship in the sense that citizenship status transcends particularity and difference. Whatever the social or group differences among citizens, whatever their inequalities of wealth, status, and power in the everyday activities of civil society, citizenship gives everyone the same status as peers in the political public. With equality conceived as sameness, the ideal of universal citizenship carries at least two meanings in addition to the extension of citizenship to everyone: (a) universality defined as general in opposition to particular; what citizens have in common as opposed to how they differ, and (b) universality in the sense of laws and rules that say the same for all and apply to all in the same way; laws and rules that are blind to individual and group differences. During this angry, sometimes bloody, political struggle in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many among the excluded and disadvantaged thought that winning full citizenship status, that is, equal political and civil rights, would lead to their freedom and equality. Now in the late twentieth century, however, when citizenship rights have been formally extended to all groups in liberal capitalist societies, some groups still find themselves treated as second-class citizens. Social movements of oppressed and excluded groups have recently asked why extension of equal citizenship rights has not led to social justice and equality. Part of the answer is

This article contends that our ability to study migration is significantly enhanced by carefully conceived comparative research designs. Comparing and contrasting a small number of cases—meaningful, complex structures, institutions, collectives, and/or configurations of events—is a creative strategy of analytical elaboration through research design. As such, comparative migration studies are characterized by their research design and conceptual focus on cases, not by a particular type of data. I outline some reasons why scholars should engage in comparison and discuss some challenges in doing so. I survey major comparative strategies in migration research, including between groups, places, time periods, and institutions, and I highlight how decisions about case selection are part and parcel of theory-building and theory evaluation. Comparative research design involves a decision over what to compare—what is the general class of ‘cases’ in a study—and how to compare, a choice about the comparative logics that drive the selection of specific cases.

This multidisciplinary volume analyses key themes and topics related to the cultural encounters between Italy and its former colonies in the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia). The multi-faceted relations between the Horn of Africa and Italy were initiated during the colonial period but have also been shaped more recently through migration. In eleven chapters by experts in comparative literature, cultural studies, history, migration studies, political philosophy and postcolonial theory, the volume highlights how the legacy of colonialism permeates Italian society as well as influencing the construction of national identities in the Horn of Africa. The analysis of this transnational encounter opens up new possibilities for comparative research and critical synergies in Italian studies, African studies and beyond.

Defining and analyzing geoepidemiology and human autoimmunity

European employers are rediscovering liberalised labour migration and are attempting to lobby governments to modify previously restrictive regulatory approaches. This article analyses these newly embraced interest positions, drawing on empirical evidence from the United Kingdom and Germany. Employers do not simply desire more migrants or are indifferent to their skills profile, but rather seek newcomers who can be easily accommodated and complement existing corporate strategies and skills requirements. However, they may also seek to ‘import’ missing skills that domestic educational facilities do not generate. The profile of ‘desirable’ economic migrants varies and is conditioned by production strategies and education and training schemes associated with different varieties of capitalism. This article proposes bridging the gap between comparative political economy and migration studies.

European governments have rediscovered labor migration, but are eager to be perceived as controlling unsolicited forms of migration, especially through asylum and family reunion. The emerging paradigm of managed migration combines the construction of more permissive channels for desirable and actively recruited labor migrants with ever more restrictive approaches towards asylum seekers. Nonstate actors, especially employer organizations, trade unions, and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, attempt to shape regulatory measures, but their success varies depending on organizational characteristics. Labor market interest associations' lobbying strategies regarding quantities and skill profile of labor migrants will be influenced by the respective system of political economy they are embedded in. Trade unions are generally supportive of well-managed labor recruitment strategies. But migration policymaking also proceeds at the European Union (EU) level. While national actors seek to upload their national model as a blueprint for future EU policy to avoid costly adaptation, top-down Europeanization is recasting national regulation in important ways, notwithstanding highly divergent national regulatory philosophies. Based on field work in and analysis of primary documents from six European countries (France, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and Poland), this book makes an important contribution to the study of a rapidly Europeanized policy domain. Combining insights from the literature on comparative political economy, Europeanization, and migration studies, this book makes important contributions to all three, while demonstrating how migration policy can be fruitfully studied by employing tools from mainstream political science, rather than treating it as a distinct subfield.

Suffrage is a central element of democracy. Over time, electoral rights have increasingly become available to migrants—both as non-citizen residents (NCs) and as non-resident citizens (NRs). However, existing datasets either focus on only one of those categories, exclude candidacy rights, or have limited temporal and geographic scope. This article introduces the GLOBALCIT Dataset of Migrant Electoral Rights (MER), the most comprehensive dataset on migrant suffrage to date. MER covers voting and candidacy rights for both NCs and NRs. The coding differentiates between different types (legislative, executive, referendum) and levels (local, regional, national) of elections, as well as a range of eligibility, access, and modality conditions attached to these rights. Overall, the dataset contains up to 488 indicators across 165 countries from 1960 to 2020. By offering unparalleled data coverage and transparent documentation, MER facilitates the study of global trends in the political inclusion and exclusion of migrants, thus contributing to comparative political science, migration studies, and electoral policy analysis.

The notion of national models of integration is a very popular one in comparative migration studies as well as in the making of integration policy. A key trait of such national models is that they assume policies to be formulated and coordinated in a strongly state-centred way, reflecting national institutional legacies, national politics and public perceptions of national identity. In this respect, the literature distinguishes, for instance, the French republican model, the British race-relations model and the Dutch multicultural model. In this chapter two such models, those of France and the Netherlands, are described, analysed and critically assessed. The conclusion is that national models of integration are an inappropriate tool for the comparative study of integration inasmuch as the objective of such research is to assess the success or failure of a national approach to integrating migrants. The notion of national models is tainted by normative (if not moral) connotations that hinder the ability of social scientists to address empirical reality.

Politically motivated violence has plagued Guatemala since 1966. The first wave of terror coincided with an antiguerilla offensive launched by the government in late 1966. 2 waves of terror began in 1969 and 1970. The 4th wave of terror began in 1978 with the highest level of political violence ever. 1524 individuals were killed by the guerrillas the military and death squads during the 1966-76 period but a recent study estimated that in 1986 100000-250000 individuals had moved within Guatemala to escape political violence. Another 150000-360000 had fled guatemala to live in other countries between 31. and 7.5% of the national population. The analytical core of Harris-Todaro-type model was modified to analyze the effect of violence on the migration decision. The most common dependent variable used in reduced-form migration equations was the probability of migrating from one location to another. Source and destination unemployment were entered into the migration equation from the 1981 census. Per capita government spending was entered into the migration equation to test whether governments contribution to aggregate demand was important in attracting migrants. The first measure of violence used in the regressions was the number of politically motivated killings carried out in a department from 1966-1976. The second violence measure was per capita corpses found of individuals who had been killed for some political end. Violence did have an impact on migration flows at least when measured by assassinations. The percentage difference between per capita assassinations in origin and destination areas was statistically significant. The sign and 5-statistic on the assassinations-squared variable suggested that higher levels of violence might cause the migration response to intensify but this variable was significant only at the 20% level. Both violence variables were statistically significant and increased origin violence did spur out-migration.