How far can we compare? Migration studies, comparative urbanism and the potential of a trans‐Mediterranean perspective

Abstract

AbstractThrough an analysis of migrant incorporation in Rome and Rabat, this article investigates the theoretical, methodological and policy consequences of comparing across the fault lines around which urban migration research is conventionally structured. It critically brings into conversation the “local turn” in migration policy research with debates around comparative urbanism, and discusses how the Mediterranean region and a reconsideration of temporal frames in migration studies can offer a generative framework for comparing cities across the Global “North” and “South.” The comparative analysis considers how, inter alia, legacies of internal mobility, non‐state service provision and divergent public discourses about “diversity” illuminate the different ways in which contemporary migration has been negotiated in the two cities. In doing so, the article challenges assumptions about policy path dependency or the smooth transfer of “best practices” and instead points to the possibility of learning from any city, be it Rome or Rabat.