The Age of Migration: International population movements in the modern world
By Stephen Castles, Hein de Haas & Mark J. Miller
Includes chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14
Chapter 1: Introduction
For origin societies of migration, the departure of people raises concern about the ‘brain drain’ on the
one hand, but it also creates the hope that the money and knowledge migrants gather abroad can
foster human and economic development. For receiving societies, the settlement of migrant groups
and the formation of ethnic minorities can fundamentally change the social, cultural, economic and
political fabric of societies, particularly in the longer run. The political salience of migration has
increased, which is reflected in the rise of extreme right-wing, anti-immigrant and inti-Islam parties
and a subsequent move to the right of the entire political spectrum on migration and diversity issues.
Economic woes often also lead to anti-immigration politics. In the global economic crisis which
started in 2008, many states tightened up immigration control measures and sought to send migrants
home.
The challenges of global migration
Migration took on a new character with the beginnings of European expansion from the 16 th century,
and the Industrial Revolution from the 19 th century, which set in motion a massive transfer of
population from rural to urban areas within and across borders. A defining feature of the age of
migration is the challenge that some politicians and analysts believe is posed by international
migration to the sovereignty of states, specifically to their ability to regulate movements of people
across their borders.
“Transnationalism”= as people become more mobile, many of them foster social and
economic relationships in two or more societies at once. This is often seen as undermining the
undivided loyalty some observers think crucial to sovereign nation-states. For the most part, the
growth of diversity and transnationalism is seen as a beneficial process, because it can help overcome
the violence and destructiveness that characterised the era of nationalism. But international
migration is sometimes directly or indirectly linked to conflict.
Most migration is not driven by poverty and violence: international migration requires
significant resources, and most ‘South-North’ migrants come neither from the poorest countries nor
form the poorest social classes. Class plays an important role in migration: destination countries
compete to attract the highly skilled through privileges rules on entry and residence, while manual
workers and refugees often experience exclusion and discrimination.
Contemporary migrations: general trends
Longstanding migratory patterns are persisting in new forms, while new flows are developing in
response to economic, political and cultural change, and violent conflicts. Yet, despite the diversity, it
is still possible to identify certain general tendencies:
1. The globalization of migration: the tendency for more and more countries to be significantly
affected by international migration.
2. The changing of dominant migration flows: while for centuries Europeans have been moving
outward to conquer, colonize and settle foreign land elsewhere, these patterns were reversed
after WW2.
3. The differentiation of migration: most countries are not dominated by one type of migration,
but experience a whole range of types at once.
4. The proliferation of migration transition: this occurs when traditional lands of emigration
become lands of immigration
, 5. The feminization of labour migration: in the past many labour migrations were male-
dominated. Since the 1960s, women have not only played an increasing role in labour
migration, but also the awareness of women’s role in migration has grown
6. The growing politicization of migration: domestic politics, bilateral and regional relationships
and national security policies of states around the world are increasingly affected by
international migration.
Ethnic diversity, racism and multiculturalism
Governance of international migration is one of the two central issues arising from the population
movements of the current epoch. The other is the effect of growing ethnic diversity on the societies
of immigration countries. Culturally distinct settler groups often maintain their languages and some
elements of their homeland cultures, at least for a few generations. Where governments have
recognized permanent settlement, there has been a tendency to move from policies of individual
assimilation to acceptance of some degree of long-term cultural difference. One of the dominant, but
empirically unjustified, images in highly developed countries today is that masses of people flowing in
from the poor South and the turbulent East, taking away jobs, pushing up housing prices and
overloading social services.
Chapter 2: Theories of migration
Wealthy, industrialized societies tend to experience simultaneous high immigration, substantial
emigration and internal movement. The volume and complexity of migration often increases with
development. This is because improved access to education and information, social capital and
financial resources increases people’s aspirations and capabilities to migrate, while improves
transport and communication also facilitate movement.
Explaining the migratory process
The concept of the migratory process sums up the complex sets of factors and interactions which lead
to migration and influence its source.
Functionalist theories: push-pull models and neoclassical theory
Push-pull models identify economic, environmental, and demographic factors which are assumed to
push people out of places of origin and pull them into destination places. ‘Push factors’ usually
include population growth and population density, lack of economic opportunities and political
repression, while ‘pull factors’ usually include demand for labour, availability of land, economic
opportunities and political freedoms. However, it is a purely descriptive model, and it is never entirely
clear how various factors combine together to cause population movement.
Neoclassical migration theory is also based on the assumption that social forces tend towards
an equilibrium. Rooted in modernization theory, it sees migration as a constituent of intrinsic part of
the whole development process, by which surplus labour in the rural sector supplies the workforce
for urban industrial economy. At the micro-level, neoclassical theory view migrants as individual,
rational actors, who decide to move on the bases of a cost-benefit calculation, maximizing their
income. At the macro-level, neoclassical theory view migration as a process which optimizes the
allocation of production factors. It has however been criticized because of the unrealistic nature of its
central assumptions. Because the assumptions are unrealistic, neoclassical theories are often
incapable of explaining real-life migration patterns, particularly if migration occurs in conditions of
poverty and high constraints.
, Neither push-pull nor neoclassic theories have much room for human agency, which is the
limited, but real ability of human beings to make independent choices and to change structural
conditions.
Historical-structural theories
Historical-structuralists interpret migration as one of the many manifestations of capitalist
penetration and the unequal terms of trade between developed and underdeveloped countries. They
criticized neoclassical approaches by arguing that individuals do not have free choice because they
are fundamentally constrained by structural forces. Historical-structural theory assumes that
economic and political power is unequally distributed among wealthy and poor countries, that
various classes and groups have highly unequal access to resources and that capitalist expansion has
the tendency to reinforce these inequalities.
Related is dependency theory, which sees the underdevelopment of the ‘Third World’ as a
result of the exploitation of their resources through colonialism, while in the postcolonial period
dependency was being perpetuated by unfair terms of trade with powerful developed economies. In
the 1970s, a more comprehensive world systems theory developed, which focused on the way less
developed ‘peripheral’ regions have been incorporated into world economy controlled by ‘core’
capitalist nations.
Historical-structural theories view the control and exploitation of labour by states and
corporations as vital to the survival of the capitalist system. So, they see states, multinational
corporations and employment agencies as key causes and drivers of migration processes.
Historical-structural theories stress structural constraints and the limited extent to which
migrants are free to make choices. This has led to the criticism that some historical-structural views
largely rule our human agency by depicting migrants as victims of global capitalism who have no
choice but to migrate in order to survive.
Globalization theory
Globalization theories also stressed the need to understand migration as an intrinsic part of much
broader relationships between societies. One definition for globalization is: “the widening, deepening
and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life.”
Globalization is also seen as an ideology about how the world should be reshaped – summed
up in the ‘Washington consensus’ on the importance of market liberalization, privatization and
deregulation. International institutions, especially the IMF, WB and WTO are seen as key instruments
to impose this new neoliberal economic world order, for instance though ‘structural adjustment
programmes’.
Putting migrants first: agency, identity and the perpetuation of migration
Neoclassical approaches neglect historical causes of movement and downplay the role of the state
and structural constraints, while historical-structural approaches put too much emphasis on political
and economic structures, and often see the interests of capital as all-determining. The new economic
of labour migration (NELM) emerged as a critical response to neoclassical migration theory. Migration
decisions are often not made by isolated individuals, but usually by families or households. NELM
highlights factors other than individual income maximization as influencing migration decision-
making.
Network, transnationalism and migration system theories
By Stephen Castles, Hein de Haas & Mark J. Miller
Includes chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14
Chapter 1: Introduction
For origin societies of migration, the departure of people raises concern about the ‘brain drain’ on the
one hand, but it also creates the hope that the money and knowledge migrants gather abroad can
foster human and economic development. For receiving societies, the settlement of migrant groups
and the formation of ethnic minorities can fundamentally change the social, cultural, economic and
political fabric of societies, particularly in the longer run. The political salience of migration has
increased, which is reflected in the rise of extreme right-wing, anti-immigrant and inti-Islam parties
and a subsequent move to the right of the entire political spectrum on migration and diversity issues.
Economic woes often also lead to anti-immigration politics. In the global economic crisis which
started in 2008, many states tightened up immigration control measures and sought to send migrants
home.
The challenges of global migration
Migration took on a new character with the beginnings of European expansion from the 16 th century,
and the Industrial Revolution from the 19 th century, which set in motion a massive transfer of
population from rural to urban areas within and across borders. A defining feature of the age of
migration is the challenge that some politicians and analysts believe is posed by international
migration to the sovereignty of states, specifically to their ability to regulate movements of people
across their borders.
“Transnationalism”= as people become more mobile, many of them foster social and
economic relationships in two or more societies at once. This is often seen as undermining the
undivided loyalty some observers think crucial to sovereign nation-states. For the most part, the
growth of diversity and transnationalism is seen as a beneficial process, because it can help overcome
the violence and destructiveness that characterised the era of nationalism. But international
migration is sometimes directly or indirectly linked to conflict.
Most migration is not driven by poverty and violence: international migration requires
significant resources, and most ‘South-North’ migrants come neither from the poorest countries nor
form the poorest social classes. Class plays an important role in migration: destination countries
compete to attract the highly skilled through privileges rules on entry and residence, while manual
workers and refugees often experience exclusion and discrimination.
Contemporary migrations: general trends
Longstanding migratory patterns are persisting in new forms, while new flows are developing in
response to economic, political and cultural change, and violent conflicts. Yet, despite the diversity, it
is still possible to identify certain general tendencies:
1. The globalization of migration: the tendency for more and more countries to be significantly
affected by international migration.
2. The changing of dominant migration flows: while for centuries Europeans have been moving
outward to conquer, colonize and settle foreign land elsewhere, these patterns were reversed
after WW2.
3. The differentiation of migration: most countries are not dominated by one type of migration,
but experience a whole range of types at once.
4. The proliferation of migration transition: this occurs when traditional lands of emigration
become lands of immigration
, 5. The feminization of labour migration: in the past many labour migrations were male-
dominated. Since the 1960s, women have not only played an increasing role in labour
migration, but also the awareness of women’s role in migration has grown
6. The growing politicization of migration: domestic politics, bilateral and regional relationships
and national security policies of states around the world are increasingly affected by
international migration.
Ethnic diversity, racism and multiculturalism
Governance of international migration is one of the two central issues arising from the population
movements of the current epoch. The other is the effect of growing ethnic diversity on the societies
of immigration countries. Culturally distinct settler groups often maintain their languages and some
elements of their homeland cultures, at least for a few generations. Where governments have
recognized permanent settlement, there has been a tendency to move from policies of individual
assimilation to acceptance of some degree of long-term cultural difference. One of the dominant, but
empirically unjustified, images in highly developed countries today is that masses of people flowing in
from the poor South and the turbulent East, taking away jobs, pushing up housing prices and
overloading social services.
Chapter 2: Theories of migration
Wealthy, industrialized societies tend to experience simultaneous high immigration, substantial
emigration and internal movement. The volume and complexity of migration often increases with
development. This is because improved access to education and information, social capital and
financial resources increases people’s aspirations and capabilities to migrate, while improves
transport and communication also facilitate movement.
Explaining the migratory process
The concept of the migratory process sums up the complex sets of factors and interactions which lead
to migration and influence its source.
Functionalist theories: push-pull models and neoclassical theory
Push-pull models identify economic, environmental, and demographic factors which are assumed to
push people out of places of origin and pull them into destination places. ‘Push factors’ usually
include population growth and population density, lack of economic opportunities and political
repression, while ‘pull factors’ usually include demand for labour, availability of land, economic
opportunities and political freedoms. However, it is a purely descriptive model, and it is never entirely
clear how various factors combine together to cause population movement.
Neoclassical migration theory is also based on the assumption that social forces tend towards
an equilibrium. Rooted in modernization theory, it sees migration as a constituent of intrinsic part of
the whole development process, by which surplus labour in the rural sector supplies the workforce
for urban industrial economy. At the micro-level, neoclassical theory view migrants as individual,
rational actors, who decide to move on the bases of a cost-benefit calculation, maximizing their
income. At the macro-level, neoclassical theory view migration as a process which optimizes the
allocation of production factors. It has however been criticized because of the unrealistic nature of its
central assumptions. Because the assumptions are unrealistic, neoclassical theories are often
incapable of explaining real-life migration patterns, particularly if migration occurs in conditions of
poverty and high constraints.
, Neither push-pull nor neoclassic theories have much room for human agency, which is the
limited, but real ability of human beings to make independent choices and to change structural
conditions.
Historical-structural theories
Historical-structuralists interpret migration as one of the many manifestations of capitalist
penetration and the unequal terms of trade between developed and underdeveloped countries. They
criticized neoclassical approaches by arguing that individuals do not have free choice because they
are fundamentally constrained by structural forces. Historical-structural theory assumes that
economic and political power is unequally distributed among wealthy and poor countries, that
various classes and groups have highly unequal access to resources and that capitalist expansion has
the tendency to reinforce these inequalities.
Related is dependency theory, which sees the underdevelopment of the ‘Third World’ as a
result of the exploitation of their resources through colonialism, while in the postcolonial period
dependency was being perpetuated by unfair terms of trade with powerful developed economies. In
the 1970s, a more comprehensive world systems theory developed, which focused on the way less
developed ‘peripheral’ regions have been incorporated into world economy controlled by ‘core’
capitalist nations.
Historical-structural theories view the control and exploitation of labour by states and
corporations as vital to the survival of the capitalist system. So, they see states, multinational
corporations and employment agencies as key causes and drivers of migration processes.
Historical-structural theories stress structural constraints and the limited extent to which
migrants are free to make choices. This has led to the criticism that some historical-structural views
largely rule our human agency by depicting migrants as victims of global capitalism who have no
choice but to migrate in order to survive.
Globalization theory
Globalization theories also stressed the need to understand migration as an intrinsic part of much
broader relationships between societies. One definition for globalization is: “the widening, deepening
and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life.”
Globalization is also seen as an ideology about how the world should be reshaped – summed
up in the ‘Washington consensus’ on the importance of market liberalization, privatization and
deregulation. International institutions, especially the IMF, WB and WTO are seen as key instruments
to impose this new neoliberal economic world order, for instance though ‘structural adjustment
programmes’.
Putting migrants first: agency, identity and the perpetuation of migration
Neoclassical approaches neglect historical causes of movement and downplay the role of the state
and structural constraints, while historical-structural approaches put too much emphasis on political
and economic structures, and often see the interests of capital as all-determining. The new economic
of labour migration (NELM) emerged as a critical response to neoclassical migration theory. Migration
decisions are often not made by isolated individuals, but usually by families or households. NELM
highlights factors other than individual income maximization as influencing migration decision-
making.
Network, transnationalism and migration system theories
