Migration theories
1. Functionalist theories (‘migration as optimisation’)
2. Historical structural theories (‘migration as exploitation’)
3. Transition theories (‘migration as development’)
4. Aspirations-capabilities model
1. Functionalist theories (p. 45)
Functionalist perspectives:
- Migration as optimisation
- Society as a system, a collection of interdependent parts (body)
- Equilibrium – migration as positive – more equality
- Migration happens when in one country circumstances are better, wages are higher, which
attracts people to migrate. At some point there’s a surplus (because it attracts a lot of
people), wages go down. Workers are leaving; labour becomes scarcer, wages will rise in the
country of origin. It becomes more attractive to stay and the economy will thrive
Push-pull models: (p. 45)
Tendency to single out unlikely causes of migration (climate, population)
No analysis of migration as a social process
No room for agency (migrations as passive pawns)
Inability to resolve empirical paradoxes
o Most migration does not occur from poorest areas
o Most people move to degraded and populated areas
o A lot of return migration (how to explain in push-pull models?)
o Why most people stay is not explained
o Deterministic
Assumes that demographic, environmental, political and economic factors
‘cause’ migration, without takin account the role of other factors.
‘the disadvantage with the push-pull model is that… it is never entirely clear how the various factors
combine together to cause population movement. We are left with a list of factors, all of which can
clearly contribute to migration, but which lack a framework to bring them together in an explanatory
system… the push-pull theory is but a platitude at best.
This theory has difficulty explaining why many countries and regions simultaneously experience
substantial immigration and emigration, why migrants would return, or why most people do not
migrate at all. People have different perceptions, preferences and ambitions, and therefore react in
different ways to the same circumstances.
Lee: there are many factors that retain people in origin areas. Push-pull models also tend to feed in
to dichotomous, stereotypical worldviews in which the ‘Global South’ are unilaterally portrayed as
pools of poverty, violence and misery from which everybody wants to leave to go to the beacons of
prosperity and progress in the ‘Global North’.
Neo-classical Migration Theory (p. 46-47)
Migration as an outgrowth of geographical differences in the relative scarcity of capital and
labour
, Migrant workers move to capital abundant areas, capital to capital-scarce areas (cost-benefit
calculation). Migrant move to capital abundant areas, they leave the capital scarce areas. By
leaving, the capital scarce areas will improve.
Free migration leads to more efficient outcomes (better allocation of production factors).
Market idea: wages will go up, wages down, price equalization, less migration.
‘Factor price equalization’ lead to wage convergence, leading to decreasing migration
As part of the functionalist paradigm, neoclassical migration theory assumes that social forces tend
towards equilibrium (= a state of balance of opposing forces). It sees migration as a constituent part
of the whole development process, by which surplus labour in the rural sector supplies the workforce
for the urban industrial economy. It sees migration primarily as a function of geographical differences
in the supply and demand for labour. The resulting wage differentials encourage workers to move
from low-wage, labour-surplus areas to high-wage, labour-scarce areas.
Micro-level: migrants are individual, rational actors, who decide to move on the basis of a cost-
benefit calculation, maximizing their income: migrants expected to go where they can be most
productive and have highest wages.
Macro-level: migration is a process which optimizes the allocation of production factors. Migration
will make labour less scarce at the destination and scarcer in origin areas. Capital is expected to move
in the opposite direction, in search for cheaper labour, such as through outsourcing of industrial
production. This theory suggests that the process will eventually result in convergence between
wages and in the long run, migration should help to make wages and conditions in sending and
receiving countries more equal, lowering the incentives for migration.
Critique and assumption of neo-classical theory
Perfect markets and full information (free market idea, capitalist)
Inability to conceptualize group behaviour, culture and preferences
Ignores power inequalities, oppression and conflict as migration drivers
Deals with structure or costs or constraints rather than migration drivers themselves
Human capital theory (p.47)
Migration as an investment that increases the productivity of human capital (such as knowledge
and skills).
Explains why the young and the skilled tend to migrate more.
Explains the selectivity of migration (phenomenon that migrants tend to come from particular
sub-sections of origin populations).
Additional explanation of why migration increases with development: while lower skilled
workers can often find jobs nearby, specialized workers often have to move more often to find a
job that matches their skills and preferences.
Deals with migration as distortions of perfect markets which affect migration costs rather than as
migration drivers of their own right.
Critique of functionalist theories
While these theories are valuable in understanding the selective nature of migration, they are
unrealistic in its central assumptions.
The first is that people are rational actors who maximize income or ‘utility’ based on a systematic
comparison of lifetimes costs and benefits of remaining at home or moving to an infinite range of
potential destinations.
1. Functionalist theories (‘migration as optimisation’)
2. Historical structural theories (‘migration as exploitation’)
3. Transition theories (‘migration as development’)
4. Aspirations-capabilities model
1. Functionalist theories (p. 45)
Functionalist perspectives:
- Migration as optimisation
- Society as a system, a collection of interdependent parts (body)
- Equilibrium – migration as positive – more equality
- Migration happens when in one country circumstances are better, wages are higher, which
attracts people to migrate. At some point there’s a surplus (because it attracts a lot of
people), wages go down. Workers are leaving; labour becomes scarcer, wages will rise in the
country of origin. It becomes more attractive to stay and the economy will thrive
Push-pull models: (p. 45)
Tendency to single out unlikely causes of migration (climate, population)
No analysis of migration as a social process
No room for agency (migrations as passive pawns)
Inability to resolve empirical paradoxes
o Most migration does not occur from poorest areas
o Most people move to degraded and populated areas
o A lot of return migration (how to explain in push-pull models?)
o Why most people stay is not explained
o Deterministic
Assumes that demographic, environmental, political and economic factors
‘cause’ migration, without takin account the role of other factors.
‘the disadvantage with the push-pull model is that… it is never entirely clear how the various factors
combine together to cause population movement. We are left with a list of factors, all of which can
clearly contribute to migration, but which lack a framework to bring them together in an explanatory
system… the push-pull theory is but a platitude at best.
This theory has difficulty explaining why many countries and regions simultaneously experience
substantial immigration and emigration, why migrants would return, or why most people do not
migrate at all. People have different perceptions, preferences and ambitions, and therefore react in
different ways to the same circumstances.
Lee: there are many factors that retain people in origin areas. Push-pull models also tend to feed in
to dichotomous, stereotypical worldviews in which the ‘Global South’ are unilaterally portrayed as
pools of poverty, violence and misery from which everybody wants to leave to go to the beacons of
prosperity and progress in the ‘Global North’.
Neo-classical Migration Theory (p. 46-47)
Migration as an outgrowth of geographical differences in the relative scarcity of capital and
labour
, Migrant workers move to capital abundant areas, capital to capital-scarce areas (cost-benefit
calculation). Migrant move to capital abundant areas, they leave the capital scarce areas. By
leaving, the capital scarce areas will improve.
Free migration leads to more efficient outcomes (better allocation of production factors).
Market idea: wages will go up, wages down, price equalization, less migration.
‘Factor price equalization’ lead to wage convergence, leading to decreasing migration
As part of the functionalist paradigm, neoclassical migration theory assumes that social forces tend
towards equilibrium (= a state of balance of opposing forces). It sees migration as a constituent part
of the whole development process, by which surplus labour in the rural sector supplies the workforce
for the urban industrial economy. It sees migration primarily as a function of geographical differences
in the supply and demand for labour. The resulting wage differentials encourage workers to move
from low-wage, labour-surplus areas to high-wage, labour-scarce areas.
Micro-level: migrants are individual, rational actors, who decide to move on the basis of a cost-
benefit calculation, maximizing their income: migrants expected to go where they can be most
productive and have highest wages.
Macro-level: migration is a process which optimizes the allocation of production factors. Migration
will make labour less scarce at the destination and scarcer in origin areas. Capital is expected to move
in the opposite direction, in search for cheaper labour, such as through outsourcing of industrial
production. This theory suggests that the process will eventually result in convergence between
wages and in the long run, migration should help to make wages and conditions in sending and
receiving countries more equal, lowering the incentives for migration.
Critique and assumption of neo-classical theory
Perfect markets and full information (free market idea, capitalist)
Inability to conceptualize group behaviour, culture and preferences
Ignores power inequalities, oppression and conflict as migration drivers
Deals with structure or costs or constraints rather than migration drivers themselves
Human capital theory (p.47)
Migration as an investment that increases the productivity of human capital (such as knowledge
and skills).
Explains why the young and the skilled tend to migrate more.
Explains the selectivity of migration (phenomenon that migrants tend to come from particular
sub-sections of origin populations).
Additional explanation of why migration increases with development: while lower skilled
workers can often find jobs nearby, specialized workers often have to move more often to find a
job that matches their skills and preferences.
Deals with migration as distortions of perfect markets which affect migration costs rather than as
migration drivers of their own right.
Critique of functionalist theories
While these theories are valuable in understanding the selective nature of migration, they are
unrealistic in its central assumptions.
The first is that people are rational actors who maximize income or ‘utility’ based on a systematic
comparison of lifetimes costs and benefits of remaining at home or moving to an infinite range of
potential destinations.
