1

Muhammad Mohei Eddin

Social Theories of Migration:

Critical Analysis and Attempt to Develop Referential

Framework

09-May-09

2

Social Theories of Migration:

Critical Analysis and Attempt to Develop

Referential Framework

Muhammad Mohei Eddin

Professor of Sociology

April 2009

3

Introduction:

Social scientists have been studying the highly complicated migration pheno menon which comprises various dimensions and levels, and wide-scope long-term structural

impacts. Although research literature is not deficient, considerable number of disciplines is interested in this field, and the phenomenon is studied by each discipline from different views, fruitful scientific cross-discipline discussions of such

phenomenon are rare. Douglas Massey et al. expressed this eloquently as follows: "Social scientists do not approach the study of immigration from a shared paradigm,

but from a variety of competing theoretical viewpoints fragmented across disciplines, regions, and ideologies. As a result, research on the subject tends to be narrow, inefficient, and characterized by duplication, miscommunication, reinvention, and

bickering about fundamentals." (Massey, et.al. 1994).

The title of that research paper emphasizes, in a way or another, the form and content of the mentioned statement. Discussion of social theory (theories) explicitly implies that these excel other theories which approach migration phenomenon within the

framework of other disciplines; either in terms of explained variables, analysis units, or research tools and methodologies. A question arises here: to what extent the claim

that there is a social theory of migration may be deemed accurate? Actually, the answer is problematic. It implicitly assumes that the content and nature

of this social phenomenon are agreed upon! In other words, what is the special "Social" included in the Sociological Theory of Migration? Trying to answer this

question sociologically is enough to open the gates of hell. Three decades ago, in "New Rules of Sociological Method", Anthony Giddens (Giddens, 1976) reopened the discussion on social phenomenon nature. Since then, heated debates on this issue

have not been closed (for example, see, Greenwood, 1997; and Gilbert, 1991). Remarkably, although social scientists emphasize the importance of defining the

"Social", a limited number of them clarify the features or relations which could be deemed Social and common between varying phenomena. They insist that, for example, actions, communities, groups, systems, languages, development, emotions,

science, civilization, identity, and migration are social phenomena.

Durkheim is not an exception; as he has been very keen on defining the features of social phenomena. In "The Rules of Sociological Method" (Durkheim, 1895/1982: 50), Durkheim admits the importance of defining the phenomena explicitly described

as "social". However, a scrutinizing view of both features deemed common in all social phenomena, namely, being external to the individual (coercive) and compelling

(ibid. 59) shows that these features, indeed, characterize the subjects of natural sciences. Durkheim has only mentioned the features due to which the social phenomena are considered ones adding a scientific quality to sociology and adding it

to natural sciences. This is why he emphasizes their Reification, which does not characterize them as social phenomena.

Against this Durkheimian view, the Marxist one puts the social phenomenon within the context of the material basis of the society, i.e., the essential relations independent

from individual will in which people are obliged to form to produce and re-produce essentials of life (Marx, 1968, Orig. 1848).

4

In conclusion, theoretical fragmentation is not only a character of cross-discipline relations, but it also marks inter-discipline relations. This is more apparent in

sociology because the definitions of the "Social" are various. Thus, we should be aware of the problematic nature of the "Social" and its impact on determining the

theories which could be called the social theories of migration. This paper aims at developing a critical presentation of international migration

theories to find out the prerequisites of formulating a theory on migration. This aim contradicts with the author's tendencies, as he does not believe in the categorization

process which distinguishes between international and internal, regular and irregular, or permanent and temporary migration. The author thinks that the main feature of contemporary migration flows is the migration of manpower to supply the global

capital regime with labor required to change the potential surplus into actual one to secure the process of accumulation internationally. This issue carries an apparent

contradiction; while capital globalization increases, national border structure is supported to control emigrant flows.

This Paper contains four parts in addition to this semi-philosophical introduction. The second part presents a critical review of efforts made to categorize international

migration theories. Part three also develops a critical review of the development of theoretical contributions in understanding migration phenomenon. In this concern, it focuses on what may be called Sociological Theories. Part four demonstrates the

common grounds between different theoretical contributions, and the integration and contradiction among various levels of contributions, whether the common ones or

those based on different disciplines. Finally, the Conclusion presents the prerequisites of developing an International Migration Theory to overcome the specialistic "dumbness" characterizing international migration studies.

Efforts of Categorizing Migration Theories This problem is clear in categorization trials aiming at distinguishing the affiliation of different migration theories to disciplines. Tables 1 and 2 present the attempt of

Brettell and Hollifield, on the one hand, and Bijak, on the other hand, to categorize migration theories.

Table (1)

Brettell and Hollifield Categorization of Migration Theories

Discipline Dependent Variables Independent Variables

Anthropology Migrant behavior (external migration and migrant

integration)

Social and cultural context (transnational networks)

Demography Population dynamics (population distribution, and

fertility, death, and migration rates)

Migrant behavior and its impact on the population (fertility rates for

instance)

Economy Migrant behavior (immigration, integration, and

economic impacts)

Wages, wage discrepancies, supply and demand (attraction and expulsion

factors), human capital, and the proportion of the mentioned factors

5

History Migrant experiences Historical/social context of migration

Law Legal, political, social, and economic treatment of

migrants

Law or policies

Political Sciences Policies (tolerant, prohibitive) and their results (accuracy and integration)

Regimes and institutions, rights, and interests

Sociology Migrant behavior

(immigration and its causes)

Networks, social capital, and migrant

pockets.

Source: Brettell and Holifield, 2007: 17.

Table (2)

Bijak Categorization of Migration Theories

Migration Theories

Social Economic Geographic

(Spatial

Interaction)

Unified

(among

Disciplines)

Macro-analysis level

Micro-analysis level

(1) Intervening opportunities,

Stouffer 1940, 1946

(2) Attraction/ expulsion factors, Lee

1966 (3) Migrant

networks, Taylor 1968

(1) Classicism, Louis 1940

(2) Neoclassicism,

Harris and Todaro, 1970 (3) Keynesianism,

hart 1975

(1) Neoclassicism,

Todaro 1970, Borjas 1980

(2) Value expectations, DeYoung and

Faust 1981 (3) New

Economies, Stark and Bloom 1984, including relative

impoverishment, Stark and Taylor

1989, and Stark 2003 (migration without wage

differences)

(1) Attraction, Stewart 1941,

Zipf 1946, Issard 1960,

Laurie 1966 (2) Ability to disappear,

Wilson 1967 (3)

Catastrophes, Wilson, 1981

(1) Migration systems, Kritz

et al. 1992 (2) Multi-

discipline trend + mobility transition

theory, Massey 2002

Cumulative Causation, Massey 1990;

Institutionalization, Massey 1993; World System, Wallerstein 1974

Mobility transition, Zelinsky 1971

Bijak, 2006: 5.

6

There are some notes on the above-mentioned categories. (1) While Brettell and Hollifield's list contains seven disciplines, Bijak's categorization contains three

disciplines in addition to cross-discipline category without an alternative in the first categorization. (2) Although Brettell and Hollifield's list contains seven categories, it

totally ignores the theoretical contributions of geography which is granted a separate category by Bijak. (3) It is clear from Brettell and Hollifield's categorization that migration theories are equally distributed in terms of analysis level/unites of interest.

They say that demography, politics, and sociology focus more on the macro level, while anthropology, economy, and history focus on the micro level. Law focuses on

both levels. (4) Brettell's categorization totally ignores worthy contributions of sociology which depend on bilateral labor market theory; for example, Saskia Sassen-Koob contributions (Sassen-Koob, 1980). Bijak's categorization does not mention

Marx theory contributions in understanding and explaining international migration (Amin, 1974; Bureway, 1976; Openheimer, 1974).

Social Theories of Migration

Migration and its impacts have been the core interest of the social theory ever since sociology has appeared as an independent science. Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and

Durkheim, deemed the representatives of pioneer era, have been preoccupied with migration. Durkheim focuses on migration impact on social solidarity deterioration in rural communities due to immigration to cities. On the contrary to the pioneers of

what is now known as the formal sociology trend (academic sociology) such as Comte and Durkheim, who described migration in peaceful and developmental terms,

Karl Marx considers migration a process with more violent impacts on the society. Migration uproots farmers from their lands mercilessly to fulfill the industrial demand on labor force. In this concern, Marx says that migration suddenly and forcibly

uprooted a mass of people from their means of labor and hurled on the labor market as free proletariat labor force lacking protection and rights. According to Marx, "Free

Proletariat" implies that workers are free from the relation to the means of production providing them with the prerequisite to sell their own property (labor power) in labor market (Marx, 1974: 630-66).

Modern additions to migration studies may be attributed to the concept of intervening

opportunities formulated by Stouffer (Stouffer, 1940, 1946). According to this concept, number of migration cases is proportionate to the number of attractive opportunities (e.g. jobs) available to migrants in the destination region, and contrarily

with opportunities found closer to the origin. Here, we should assert that this approach does not link migration and distance directly; thus, it may not be categorized under

pure geographical theories. Rather, it asserts the interaction between distance and opportunities available to potential migrants in different places. However, Stouffer's idea does not include a special feature to be deemed purely sociological according to

Durkheim's or others' definition. This idea could be equally economic or anthropologic.

"Available opportunities" idea has paved the way before Lee to develop his paper on attraction and expulsion factors. Lee's theory explains migration in the presence of

attraction factors in the destination and expulsion ones in the origin. Oberg (Oberg, 1961) argues that in international migration these (attraction/expulsion) factors could

be differentiated as solid and soft factors. Solid factors include all dramatic

7

circumstances such as human crises, armed conflicts, environmental catastrophes, etc. Soft factors include less acute problems such as poverty, social exclusion, and

unemployment.

The predominance of a factor determines the characteristics of migrant populations. Favorite attraction factors in destinations tend to support the selective nature of migration based on human capital and motivation standards. This does not apply

when expulsion factors dominate the countries of origin as the play the largest role in creating migration flows.

Taylor (Taylor, 1986) has observed a very important attraction factor: interpersonal relationship networks among migrants in countries of destination formed by kinships,

friendships, and local origin (see Massey et. Al. 1993: 448). Such networks help related migrants to deal with life problems and circumstances when they reach the

destinations. The primary role of these networks is to reduce various costs (not only material, but moral and other costs) and migration risks. These also facilitate migrant movement to and from countries of origin and destination. Thus, population flows are

greatly inertial: once they start, they become out of control of receiving country authorities and increasingly become relatively independent from the creating factors.

Hatton and Williamson used the number of foreign population as an approximate variable to estimate the volume of certain networks. They concluded that the network assumption is empirically credible concerning historic migration flows from Europe

to the United States during the period 1850–1914 (Hatton and Williamson).

Recently, the network idea has been disseminated within the context of transnational social field theory (Pries, 1999; Faist, 2000; Portes, 1996). It has, accordingly, developed a meso-level terms of reference to develop a comprehensive sociological

theory on international migration. The theory maintains the presence of cross-border links between individuals and groups. Faist (Faist, 2000: 199) defines the

Transnational social spaces as "combinations of ties, positions in networks and organizations, and networks of organizations that reach across the borders of multiple states. These spaces denote dynamic social processes, not static notions of ties and

positions." Besides network theory, Faist understanding is based on Social Capital concept that he defines as "those resources that help people or groups to achieve their

goals in ties and the assets inherent in patterened social and symbolic ties that allow actors to cooperate in networks and organizations, serving as a mechanism to integrate groups and symbolic communities" (Ibid. 102).

Social Capital included in social and symbolic ties among individuals and groups

(such as exchange, solidarity, and mutual obligations) is a part of nation roots. Thus, it cannot cross borders, giving an explanation for immobility of some social groups (they do not migrate). This explanation is specifically what the Network Theory lacks.

On the other hand, once migration flow starts, social capita l facilitates both adaptation to the receiving society and protection of ties to the country of origin (Faist, 2000:

195-241). Transnational Social Space Theory is greatly general. It can explain some

phenomenon such as successive migrations, returning migrations, continuous migrant flows, and saturation of population flows at a certain point. However, although the

8

theory is attractive, it is still recent and far from reaching a procedural formulation to be used in practical forecasting of migration trends.

The institutional theory formed by Massey and his colleagues about legal migration

and illegal migration (smuggling migrants and human trafficking) shows the important role of institutions in facilitating population flows. This idea coincides with the theory of networks where it expands the range of a group of factors that facilitates

migration to embrace several institutions that ranges between Non-profit organizations, firms that facilitates legal and illegal migration, humanitarian and non-

governmental organizations. According to this theory the process of institutionalizing migration flow seems to be independent and permanent than the prevalent and persistent factors of regulation that generated the migration current (Massey et. al.,

1993:451).

According to the theory’s recognition of the important role of institutions, we can safely say that these notes can be seen as derived of this Institutional Economy theory, therefore it is considered a mix between the perspectives of Sociology and

Economics. The idea of cumulative causation (Massey, 1990) which is based on the theoretical ideas of Veblen represents the intersection of theoretical perceptions

through different disciplines. The theoretical construction here is based on the hypothesis that states that migration is an evolutionary process which contributes in the socio-economic institutional change in all the countries of origin and the countries

of destination through feedback mechanisms. Redistributing household income, as well as redistributing the land and capital whether absolutely or relatively within

families which informed about the migration of some of its members, is considered an obvious example on this theory that resulted in social changes. Massey tends to believe that the consequences of this process is social stratification changes because

returning migrants usually own a larger amount of human and financial capital more than their counterparts who did not migrate.

The above mentioned factors refer to existence of a sub-culture related to "the migrants' culture" where migration is realized as an activity of a positive expected

effect that leads to changes in the distribution of human capital in the countries of origin; by this way the brain drain from the sending countries of labor is turned to be a

positive activity "From Brain Drain to Brain Gain". Stark and Wang expanded this theoretical capability within the framework of their analysis which is based on principles of micro-economic analysis; they tend to believe that the positive expected

benefits from migration represent external sources to enlarge human capital in the migrants' regions of origin. It is worth mentioning that the principle of cumulative

causation is considered an important component of the transnational social space theory (Faist, 2000:129-132).

Alejandro Portes, the famous sociologist and professor in Princeton University, is mainly responsible for the prevalence of the transitional migrants theory within the

field of studying migration particularly in sociology and other disciplines in general (Portes, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2006, 2008; Portes and Rumbaut, 1997; Portes and De Wind 2004; Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt 1999; Portes and

Zhou 1993, 1999). Portes focuses mainly on the modern migrations - post 1965- to the United States of America. Portes sought to expand our understanding to the Ethic

Enclaves in the life of new migrants (Portes and Zhou, 1999). He shows us a more

9

complex image of practical results that represents migrants in the receiving societies by putting forth the idea of Segmented Assimilation (Portes, 1995), he insists on the

necessity of shifting the research agenda from focusing on the first generation of migrants to the second generation situation (Portes, 1998).

Despite that Portes did not apply researches based on primary empirical material on the great last wave of migrating to the Unites States of America as he reveals in his

book that he authored in association with Rumbaut (Portes and Rumbaut, 1996); it reveals his experienced understanding for modern migration from a comparative

prospective that most of the migration theories lack in the field of Anthropology. I will focus here on examining one side of Portes' ideological structure which is his attempt to prove the aim of using transnational trend in analyzing and understanding

the new migrants' communities. Portes expressed his ideas in this regard clearly in two articles: a preface that he wrote in association with others and an epilogue that he

wrote alone and were published in a special edition of Ethnic and Racial Studies Magazine that was specified for studying the transnational trend.

In these two articles Portes explains what he means by "transnational" and justifies his belief in the added value that this trend might add to our understanding to the ethnic

and migration phenomena (Portes, Guarinzo, and Landolt, 1999; Portes, 1999a). I will mainly emphasize these two articles, but I will also refer to his use to the expression in several writings that he previously published (Portes, 1996a, 1996b,

1998).

Portes initiates his demonstration to his understanding to the transnational trend by emphasizing its uniqueness; he uses expressions and comparative historical examples for his demonstration:

"While back-and forth movements by immigrants have always existed, they have not

acquired until recently the critical mass and complexity necessary to speak of an emergent social field. This field is composed of a growing number of persons who live dual lives: speaking two languages, having homes in two countries, and making a

living through continuous regular contact across national borders." (Portes, Guarinzo and Landolt, 1999: 21).

Despite that Portes used the expression in several and sometimes contradicting meanings; he and his colleagues seek to develop mid-term theory about transnational

trend that can guide the research agenda. They were guided by Robert Merton (Merton, 1987) to justify the conditions that they consider proper to develop new

concept: (1) if there are large number of migrants involved in the process (transnational immigrants); (2) If the activities they are involved in are relatively stable through time; (3) If the preexisting concepts fail to understand and describe the

context of these activities (Portes, Guarinzo, and landolt, 1999: 218-19).

Assuming that all the abovementioned criteria are met based on empirical facts, Portes et al then start to refine and assign a more accurate wide-ranging definition to transnationalism, the one developed by Sheller et al and commonly used in literature.

First, the term “trans-migrants” is abandoned on the ground that the word “immigrant” is sufficient and does not need further description or substitution thereof.

Moreover, they restrict the use of “transnationalism” to refer to such activities as in

10

social relationships sustainable over borders and time. In other words, and unlike Sheller et al, Portes believes that only some, not all, immigrants are considered

“transnational”. Examples of those excluded from their range of interest are immigrants who occasionally send presents to their families and friends in their

homeland. It is yet unclear whether this definition includes Philippians who send “Balikbayan boxes” to their families in Philippines as these boxes are occasionally sent to their families though they have come to be viewed as a regular custom.

There is another dimension to this restriction of definition, that is, it views individuals

and networks supporting immigrants as adequate units of analysis. Thus the more general structural units and local communities such as international organizations, governmental and non-governmental agencies are ruled out from their range of

interest (Portes, Guarinzo, and Landlot 1999: 219-20) Portes’s distinction of these units is supported by the notion that transnationalism with regard to immigrants is

only a transnational trend “from below” as opposed to transnationalism from above as exemplified in multinational corporations or governments (Guarinzo, 1997; Smith and Guarinzo, 1998).

Hence, it is reasonable to ask why communities are excluded; especially that Portes

had - in a previous essay – openly discussed transnational communities. In his exclusion of local communities, Portes cites reasons not related to concepts but rather to the inability of the concept to describe the phenomenon. He gives reasons

associated with methodological strategy based on his conviction that at the current stage of the study of transnationalism, it is more useful to focus on individuals and

families and not on local communities. It must be noted, nevertheless, that studies on immigrants should not be limited to individuals and their families but should moreover take into consideration – throughout its all stages – the social life context in

which these individuals and families are rooted. In this sense, Portes’ strategy seems to be problematic. Therefore, transnational communities should be regarded as crucial

subject matter for the study of those interested in the manifestations of the transnational phenomenon “from below”.

Portes et al (portes, Guarinzo, and Landlot, 1999: 221) differentiate between 3 patterns of transnationalism; 1) Economic, 2) Political and 3) Socio-cultural. The

economic transnationalism includes investors whose networks of suppliers, clients, capital, and markets go beyond national borders. Noticeably, Portes in more than one occasion (Portes, 1996: 71; Portes, 1996, b: 151) stresses that the aphorism “capital

is global, labor is local” has to be questioned after the eme rgence of transnational communities which he calls “labor alternative for transnational enterprises. However,

this definition of economic transnational phenomenon does not refer to the migrating workforce – globalized proletariat, it rather refers to the mobility of capitalist investors who represent the only aspect of this pattern of the transnational

phenomenon. This definition lacks any indication to members of the working middle class or what is called “brain drain” which proved to be an essential compo nent in

contemporary immigrant communities. Consequently, such definition largely restricts the numbers of immigrants whose activities might be considered transnational given the fact the overwhelming majority of immigrants are workers who cannot be labeled

as transnational.

11

Poters, moreover, argues that the political transnational pattern involves political activities practiced by party representatives, government officials and civil society

leaders who mainly seek political leverage to influence receiving and sending societies of migrants (Portes, Gurinzo, and Landlot 1999: 211) Remarkably, the first

two categories (party representatives and government officials) do not belong to immigrant communities, rather they are people who are interested in influenc ing or controlling such communities or having a say in the process of decision-making or

government procedures in receiving societies.

“Community leaders”, however, refers to leaders in immigrant communities though it might include local society leaders in native countries too. The question is; why attention should be given only to community leaders? Why should the activities

practiced by public bases concerned with home town issues be excluded from the scope of attention? Portes et al do not provide a clear answer. Proceeding with this

view shatters the claim upon which Portes insists, namely that it is important to differentiate between transnational communities “from above” and “from below”.

The socio-cultural aspect includes the activities designed to cement national identity abroad or to provide a collective enjoyment of cultural realities and commodities

(Ibid). The latter part of the sentence refers to those activities dominant during earlier flows of migration which reflected the desire of these immigrants to transfer some select aspects of their cultural heritage. First, second and even later generations

remain attached to these activities. As Gans puts it (Gans, 1979) these activities is a means to preserve ethnic traits or otherwise called “ethnic nostalgia”. The former part

of the phrase, nevertheless, is rather vague and more difficult to break down; do authors use the terms “national identity” and “ethnic identity” synonymously as was common among sociologists and historians in the 1960s? Or do they mean to say that

modern immigrants want to retain their native nationalities, and thus refuse to become naturalized citizens of the receiving countries or seek dual nationality?

If the first assumption be true, this means that there are no substantia l differences between contemporary immigrants and those of earlier generations. Yet should the

second be the case, this involves a new component that may be closely related to a thesis proposed by Yasemin Soysal (Soysal, 1994) regarding the “limits of

citizenship”. The end result of this procedural definition is that it is no longer necessary to regard contemporary migration as different from the earlier flows. In their description of the transnationalism requirements, Portes et al refer to the

development of transportations and communications which made possible the integration of time and place in a manner hardly known before. Therefore they claim

that vision of transnationalism has become wider than it was a century ago (Portes, Guarinzo, and Landlot, 1999: 223-27).

At the same time, it appears that not all contemporary immigrants are transnational; those who show higher levels of social capital possession are more inclined to form

transnational ties than those who have less social capital. Geographic pro ximity still has its significance; groups of the same countries of origin which are nearer to their countries of destination are the most likely to form transnational ties. ( Ibid: 224). In

the light of this argument, it appears that those who are indentified as transnational citizens are only a minority with relation to the overall immigrant population in

today’s world.

12

Despite the limited number of actual transnational immigrants, the authors of this

essay believe their potential impact on the emergence of new transnational social areas as facilitators is that they enable the development and institutionalization of

economic, political and cultural transnational ties. (Ibid: 228-29). Portes et al argue that different forms of the cultural assimilation theory need to be

reviewed in order to embrace the new forms of adjustment in the receiving countries. They set four potential outcomes of cultural assimilation, only one of which indicates

that transnational experience is a new concept that is relatively ever- lasting; it denotes there is an inter-generational transfer of the transnational experience that, according to Portes et al, is going to be the most prevalent among immigrants in the future.

(Ibid.229)

The other three outcomes are: 1) transnational immigrants’ return with their families to their countries of origin; 2) immigrants’ abandonment of transnationalism for full assimilation in the receiving societies; 3) rejection of transnationalism and

assimilation on the part of the children of transnational immigrants. (Ibid)

In the conclusion, solely written by Portes, (Portes, 1999a, 464 – 66) he addresses transnationalism as one of many potential results while summing up factors influencing individual choices. These factors include; what the driving forces of

immigration are, how long immigrants remain concerned with the issues of home land, and the role of the hostility on the part of receiving countries’ natives towards

immigrants. Definitely, these factors are nothing new to today’s immigrants; they were previously used for the interpretation of different patterns of adjustment and culturalization of earlier immigrants’ flows. What is new, however, is the role adopted

by countries of origin to boost communication with immigrant communities. A century ago, immigrants had to deal with openly aggressive governments and elites,

whereas contemporary governments and elites recognize the economic, political and cultural benefits of immigrants. So, instead of condemning their decision to migrate or persuade them to return, governments of countries of origin seek to build beneficial

relations with immigrants. The potential emergence of such transnational activities relies on how far the immigrants believe that such activities are worthwhile and the

subsequent mutual interest. Portes, at the same time, strongly believes in assimilation, notably for the second generation of immigrants and the others that follow. He therefore regards the transnational trend as a less important alternative for the

assimilation of immigrants, rather than a remedy for diminishing immigrant assimilation. In other words, he uses it to face the impact of what he elsewhere noted

as “segmented assimilation” (Portes, 1999a 446-73). Here Portes appears to be willing to address the transnationalism as one form of immigrant assimilation and, which is contrary to what he formerly stated; namely that he believed transnationalism

to be an alternative contradictory to immigrant assimilation.

Despite the fact that Portes’ argument overlooks many theses which discussed transnationalism (as in Sheller), these areas may be regarded as his distinguished style to enlarge the scope of migration sociology. More detailed discussion is needed to

illustrate what is precisely meant by transnational social areas.

International Migration Theories: Complementary or Contradictory

13

I will try in the coming lines to rephrase in brief – hopefully not too brief – the

migration theories discussed earlier with a view to put together a preliminary reference framework to study international migration from a sociological perspective

or more accurately from the perspective of social sciences. This attempt relies on linking different analytical levels and sometimes seemingly conflicting theoretical views, if not contradictory. Apparently, the fate of the migration theory is to be

eclectic.

Based on the above explication of the evolution of the migration theory, it seems that contemporary sociologists are concerned with different aspects of migration such as guest workers, the role of immigrant women in the international labor market together

with the social quality impact of migration. Just like economists, sociologists are mostly concerned with the part immigrant workers play in the labor market. Unlike

the dual labor market theory which prevailed over market literature of migrant labor markets, sociologists recently have given great attention to ethnic economy theory as well as the effects of returning migrants and transfers.

Sociologist theory aims to overlook shortcomings of the neoclassical theory which is

entirely focused on labor markets. This theoretical approach, centered on social relations on a meso- level analysis, depends on bridging the gaps between the Rational Choice theory which adopts a micro level of analysis, and the General Systems theory

which work on a macro level of analysis thus interpreting inter-personal processes which influence migration decision and the inter-temporal dynamics of international

migration flows. Enormous theoretical literature, therefore, grew about embracing immigrants in addition to empirical works concerned with immigrant networks which focus on social ties, social capital and social networks.

The deterministic model which focuses on a micro social level of analysis and the

migration decision-making is one of the most dominant patterns in the study of the phenomenon. Such deterministic theories developed by Ravenstein (Ravenstein, 1885) and later reformulated by Everett Lee (Lee, 1966) on analyzing relationship

between distance and migration potential.

Unlike this empirical approach, pragmatism develops theoretical explanation for migration decision-making. Its main maxim is that, out of two choices, the individual chooses the one that is more profitable. In the context of sociological theory, this

approach relies on individualistic methodological tendency where the social processes are the sum of individual actions, with the assumption that people have a natural

propensity towards rational behavior and the capacity to choose the most efficient solutions.

Unlike the pragmatic view, approaches which take the meso level of analysis as its basis rely on decision making process and conciliation of social groups and their role

in the migration decision instead of being an individual choice. At the same time, this approach underlines the fact that all social relationships – even on the household level – should not be regarded as one group sharing the same common interest. It is

therefore important to study the process that controls decision-making of social relationships as well as the variable dynamics of international migration. Thus the

decision to move or stay takes roots in a specific economic, political, social and

14

cultural context determined by larger structural relations on the leve l of the family, neighbors, local community as well as the national and international contexts.

Opportunities and structural impediments, moreover, largely determine other alternatives available for individuals.

Money (economic or cash capital), and human capital (cultural) are resources for potential migrants. Such migrants or non–migrants are immersed in social contexts

involving social ties; the latter being a series of reciprocations for which the involved parties have a specific understanding and connect such to expectations and

obligations. These social ties are a pre-condition to use different types of social capital which can be understood as an individual’s ability to have access to rare resources because of his/her membership in social networks or larger social structures. Douglas

Massey (Massey, 1987) differentiates between solid and flimsy relation. In this context, Massey developed a number of hypotheses regarding international migration:

1) People liked to others who have experienced international migration have a

greater inclination to migrate;

2) When a person experiences international migration once, he/she tends to repeat it – a tendency which grows with each migration experience. Thus such

a person has a stronger inclination to become transnational migrants than another who has never migrated before;

3) Given the increasing stock of social ties and international migrants, with the

passage of time migration will become less eclectic and moves from middle to lower classes of the socio-economic hierarchy of the sending societies.

The concept of social exchange offers the social context required to develop social capitals. Unlike material calculations of economic benefits and revenues, social

exchange does not focus on capital or material commodities but rather on the social or moral indebtedness produced by the process of social interaction. Early migrants offer

aid to potential or later migrants by preserving social positions- a service which can be repaid in the future. Thus, exchange plays a significant part in the context of social capital; so individuals defer their present wishes for group expectations with the hope

of obtaining long-term benefits due to their affiliation to such group. These members remain loyal to their families that supported them to migrate and to the local

community. It is here that social solidarity plays an important role in immigrants’ networks where all participants have to have a strong faith in the political, national, religious, and ethnic ties that combine them though there is no personal acquaintance.

The study of migration networks had a strong impact on the theorization of

international migration dynamics which changed from being regarded as a causative one-way process determined by push/pull factors to the idea tha t asserts the increasingly complex, revolving, intricate and self-transforming pattern of migration

systems where any change of the components can be traced through the whole system. Structural analyses indicate that migration flows from certain provinces to another

which is called migration patterns that connect sending with receiving countries. The study of migration patterns shows how migration flows turn into “mass migration.” Focus is set on certain geographic areas due to the fact that migrants come from

specific countries and provinces. Once these large migration flows start to stream they soon become self-sustaining. With increasing flows of migration, growth of networks

reduces migration costs and risks. Thus, possibilities of migration growth increase

15

encouraging more mobility which ends in larger networks etc. until migration turns into an inescapable “spider web”. This is due to the fact that international migration

creates social structures necessary for sustainability. Circular migration network s turn into a regular circle in which immigrants preserve what they might consider their

rights and communication networks as they regularly return to visit their homelands, turning migration flows to chain migration.

The whole process becomes a snowball; the more immigrants of a certain countries, the more their fellow natives want to migrate to the same country. With time, these

migration flows form complete networks consisting of personal ties that hold current and former immigrants as well as non-immigrants in the country of origin through relations of kinship, friendship, and common local community.

Such networks, in the context of international migration, acquire great magnitude

given the hurdles that must be overcome. Charles Tilly points out that “Networks migrate” (Tilly, 1990) migration thus becomes a group activity where individuals employ their economic resources and social capitals which are activated through

networks that depend – for its development - on social capital. With time, these migration networks develop into organizations and general ties. Successful migration

stories quickly stimulate a migration tendency among friends, relatives and others, which supports migration strategies and social relationships that take roots there. Successful international immigrants tend to use their practical knowledge they gained

by experience to communicate information to potential immigrants. It should be noted that access to migration networks is selective where involvement depends on financial

resources and social status in addition to unconventional standards and customs of exchange. Hence, immigration basically depends on strong ties within and flimsy ties among social units in countries of origin and destination which in its entirety have

become a transnational process.

The coalition of circumferential areas of the international Capitalism lead to the transfusion of the non-capitalism forms of living (Amin, 1974, Wallerstien, 1974). Despite the fact that this operation was wide spread in the central areas more than the

circumferential areas, it was still wide spread enough in the circumferential areas in such a way that it could generate motion for broad sectors of population to enter the

labor market, thus generating a view for the potential labor force of migrant laborers. The general trait of Capitalism and the associated land shifting into commodity have brought a deliberated trait upon the migrations that resulted from these shifts. This

labor force shift towards international migration reflects the complicated nature of the internal variability in the global system.

The process of supporting the international Capitalism synchronized the growth of national power of the state and its importance as a basic political unit (Zolberg, 1979).

The state's relation to the international migration partially reflects its status within the global economy (Hanssen, 1961).

At first glance, supporting the national state and the associated setting of international borders seem to hinder international migration, however, borders do not hinder it but

they work as a mechanism that regenerates discipline through dividing the global work. The international Capitalism consists of several political units of national

countries, which guarantees that none of them would individually monopolize the

16

global economy. Consequently, the national state borders are considered a technique of facilitating international specialization and the highest proceeds of capital

accumulation, including human capital (Wallerstein, 1974).

Setting international borders contributes in the marginalization of some parts of the world and making their laborers as a reserve labor force, also it facilitates extracting the surplus via besmirching a sector of the working class by calling it "illegal

migrants". Foreign laborers weaken the national working population when the state considers that they lack the social and political power. At the same time, setting

borders meets the working class demands in the receiving countries of migrant labor. However, selective policies could reduce the influence of the borders policies, thus protects the Capital sector interests that depends on the migrant labor, which reveals

the contradicting role played by the country in the global accumulation process (Mohieddin, 1982).

At the time that the labor market circulation creates the necessary conditions for international migration as a supplying system for the global labor force as a result of

supporting international Capitalism, supporting the national-state structure creates the conditions that make the migrant labor a significant class with a variety of

characteristics for any country's labor force. Migrant labor is not just any labor, but it is the main component of the labor force supplying system that plays a unique role in the work process which is characterized by the following: (1) The institutional

difference of re-producing the labor force and reserving it. (2) It represents a form of power loss for being a foreign labor which makes it capable of meeting the

requirements of certain patterns of organizing labor based on the direct regulation of labor force instead of structural regulation.

Migrant labor provides several advantages for the receiving country; (1) it requires fewer services than the national labor, (2) it places less pressure on the demand for

goods and services as a result of low wages and thus levels of consumption, (3) It's relatively easy to get rid of when not needed or in times of capital turnover crises. (4) In addition to the issue of low wages, employers do not want to employ any kind of

labor but the one that could be used in certain ways to regulate the working process (Ibid.).

These regulation forms consist of methods to control the labor force which is assumed to lack power. This acquires significant importance in industrial capital developed

countries where the working class organized under trade unions was capable of grabbing a great deal of power and laborers acquired increasing political awareness.

Consequently, hiring migrant laborers reduce production cost directly through wages and indirectly through the low cost of organizing work. Besides, being foreigners, their lukewarmness to know about trade unions' policies and their seclusion from the

national work force at work and residence, their fragmentation to ethnic, national, religious, linguistic and other groups; all this combined makes the working migrants

dependent on their employers from one side and makes it more difficult for them to get involved in the class struggle on the other side.

17

Conclusion

Alejandro Portes once wrote commenting on the possibility of developing a general Sociology Theory about international migration, saying that "Any attempt to establish

one comprehensive theory is a pointless effort, but it is not even easy to integrate the magnified and the miniature typical analysis in a methodical approach or one theory". (Portes, 1997:10) Nevertheless, it is true that there is a dire need for developing a

reference framework that enables us to understand the multi- levels dynamics of international migration and absorbs in its context the rapid and complex changes. The

question is: Could one theory fulfill these requirements? The writer of these lines agrees with what Steven Castles said "The aim of developing a theory for international migration is formulating a reference framework designed to offer

theoretical and methodological orientations for social sciences' researchers who are interested in studying the different patterns of the migration process" (Castles,

2007:8). This frame should include the following characteristics: (1) Inclusion: This frame should include all the influential factors in the migration

processes, in addition to the linking between them and the context that forms them.

(2) Integration: The frame should cover all aspects of development of the migration processes through time and place; starting from the decision making processes in the migrants' countries of origin, passing through the experiences that the migrants pass

by in the entire stages of the actual migration process and ending by analyzing the absorption process or may be the return of migrants which might have an influence on

their countries of origin for long periods. (3) The ability to apply specific migration experiences to specific contexts: The

inclusion and integration of the reference framework doesn't mean that each researcher has to analyze entire migration currents, but instead study a specific

incident or group or case and to be aware of the dynamics and contexts in which the entire migration process occur.

(4) Expedience to analyze relations between multi-level socio-spatial levels: Global (globalization), local, national and regional (see Pries quoted from Castles,

Pries 2007). The global factors that form that migration currents practice different local effects in different regions due to the historical expertise and significant cultural patterns of different communities that play the role of the intermediary variables in

this complex process. This percept lies within the need to emphasize the features multi-specially for this reference framework, given that the different scientific

disciplines usually deal with different socio-spatial levels. (5) The ability to absorb the structure and the action in its context : Structures

include; Macro Social Structures (the government, companies and the international firms), Micro Social Structures (the household, groups, social networks, and the local

community), and Meso Social Structure (intermediate networks or gatherings such as transitional societies and employment agency and others). Whereas, the social action refers to individuals and groups' actions that help people to survive, harmonize and

adapt with the changing situations and crisis.

18

(6) Historical Trend: The reference framework does not arrogate forming a general credible theory about migration, but it works as a suitable analyzing tool for the time

being in the development of globalized capitalism and social transformations.

(7) Finally, Dynamics: Meaning that there is nothing called conclusive reference framework in social sciences, but it is just a mirror that reflects the recent status quo of our understanding to the migration phenomenon, which should be submitted to the

empirical test and developed continuously through its results (Ibid. 10).

Perhaps we can add another characteristic to Castles' suggestions which is bypassing

the contradictions that deepen the gaping of studying migration such as; internal migration verses external migration, legal migration verses illegal migration,

permanent migration verses temporary migration, voluntary migration verses forced migration and other, in such a way that we would reach a dynamic classification form

that reveals the mechanism in which the migrants move from one pole of these contradictions to the other, rather than the rigid stereotyping of these groups as if they were not related to each other. Migrants could start from their countries of origin as

illegal temporary migrants ending up by being legal permanent migrants and vise versa.

On that basis, the process of forming the migration theory could be briefed in four phases; the first phase consists of the empirical studies of specific cases, while phase

two includes reaching the formulation of medium-term theories about the migration process that connect specific countries of origin to countries of transit and countries of

destination in the broader context of social relations and social transformations of globalization. Whereas, the third phase works on concluding the main lessons of the medium-term theories in order to establish a broader and more general reference

framework that guides the future research in the field of international migration theoretically and methodologically. Accordingly phase four involves the use of this

reference framework as a point of departure for the development of theses, research questions and methodological tools for the next round of empirical research. It is obvious that this direction towards forming a theory that depends on empirical

research which is characterized by being circular as we are not starting from scratch. Social scientists could rely on the several years of experience in international

migration research in order to start working from any of the above phases. The main feature of this framework is that it is not limited to the study of migration in

the narrow sense of demography; instead it seeks for linking migration processes to the broader general social theory aiming to analyze the social transformation process

in general (see Portes, 2008). Therefore, in this stage of the migration theory evolution it should be related to the analysis of the social transformation processes on several socio-spatial levels; whether the research point of departure is local or

international or a point between both, as it needs to be based on the awareness of the relationship between local levels and interventions between different levels.

This is the bumpy road to form a migration theory. What this research is not trying to do is to pinpoint the components of the social transformation process framework to

study migration, and this is a mission that has not been accomplished yet, in fact, accomplishing it is considered a research project per se. This project seems to be

necessary to move along the way of forming a migration theory; the project will be

19

accomplished through the creative mutual efforts of researchers in the field of international migration; who belong to different disciplines, ideological schools and

geographical areas.

20

References - Amin, S. (1974). Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of

Underdevelopment. Vols. 1,2; New York: Monthly Review Press.

- Bach, R. L. (1978). "Mexican Immigration and the American State". International

Migration Review, 12 Winter: 536- 558. - Bijak, J. (2006). Forecasting International Migration: Selected Theories, Methods

and Models. Central European Forum for Migration Research (CEFMR) Working Papers NO. 4.

- Brettell, C. B; and Hollifield, J. F. (2007) Migration Theory: Talking Across

Disciplines. 2nd Edition, New York and London: Routledge.

- Buraway, M. (1976). "The Function and Reproduction of Migrant Labor". American

Journal of Sociology, 81 March" 1050-1087. - Castles, S. (2008). "Understanding Global Migration". Paper presented to the

Conference on Theories of Migration and Social Change. St. Anne's Collage, Oxford. 1-3: July.

- Durkheim. E. (1982, Orig. 1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.

- Faist, T. (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and

Transnational Spaces. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

- Gans, H. J. (1979)."Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures

in America". Ethnic and Racial Studies, (2) 1: 1-20. - Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of

Interpretative Sociology. 2nd edition; Cambridge: Polity Pres.

- Gilbert, M. (1991). On Social Facts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. - Greenwood, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). The Mark of the Social: Discovery or Invention?

Lanham: MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC.

- Guarinzo, L. E. (1997). "The Emergence of Transnational Social Formation and the Mirage of Return Migration among Dominican Transmigrants". Identities, 4 (2): 281- 322.

- Hansen, M. L. (1961). The Atlantic Migration, 1607- 1860. New York: Harper

Torchbooks. - Hatton, T. J. and Williamson, J. G. (1998). The Age of Mass Migration: Causes

and Economic Impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, E. S. (1966). "A Theory of Migration". Demography, 3 (1): 47-57.

21

- Marx, K. (1968, Orig. 1848). The German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

- Marx, K. (1974, Orig. 1859). Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production.

Volume 1, Moscow: Progress Publishers. - Massey, D. S. (1990). "Social Structure, Household Strategies and he Cumulative

Causation of Migration". Population Index, 56: 3-26.

- Massey, D. S. et. al. (1993). "Theories of International Migration: Review and Appraisal". Population and Development Review, 19 (3): 431-466.

- Massey, D. S. (1994). "An Evaluation of International Migration Theory; The North American Case". Population and Development Review, 20: 699-751.

- Merton, R. K. (1987). "Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebook: Establishing the Phenomena Specified Ignorance and Strategic Research Materials".

Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 1-28.

Mohieddin, M. (1982). The Capitalist World Economy and the Historical Forms of

Labor Migration: Toward a Conceptualization with Example from the Middle East

Case. Unpublished Manuscript.

- Oberg, S. (1996). "Spatial and Economic Factors in Future South-North Migration".

In: W. Lutz (ed.). The future Population of the World: What Can We Assume

Today? London: Earthscan, 336-357.

- Openheimer, M. (1974). "The Sub-Proletariat: Dark Skin and Dirty Work". The Insurgent Sociologist. 4 Winter: 6-2.

- Portes, A. (1995). "Children of Immigrants: Segmented Assimilation". In Alejandro - Portes (ed.). The Economic Sociology of Immigration. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

- Portes, A. (1996a). "Global Villagers: The Rise of Transnational Communities." American Prospects. 25: 74-77.

- Portes, A. (1996b). "Transnational Communities: Their Emergence and Significance in the Contemporary World-System." In Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz and William

Smith (eds.). Latin America in the World Economy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 151-168.

- Portes, A. (1997). Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities". International Migration Review, 31:799-825.

- Portes, A. (1998)."Divergent Destinies: Immigration, the Second Generation and the Rise of Transnational Communities". In Peter H. Schuck and Rainer Munz (eds.).

Paths to Inclusion: The Integration of Migrants in the United States and Germany. New York: Berghahn Books.

22

- Portes, A. (1999a)."Conclusion: Toward a New World- The Origins and Effects of Transnational Activities". Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22 (2): 463-477.

Portes, A. (1999b)."Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Prob lems and

Opportunities". In Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz and Josh De Wind (eds.). The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

- Portes, A. (1999c)."The Hidden Abode: Sociology and the Analysis of the

Unexpected". 1999 Presidential Address to the American Sociological Association. American Sociological Review, 65: 1-18.

- Portes, A. (2006)."Institutions and Development: A Conceptual Re-Analysis". Population and Development Review, 32: 233- 262.

- Portes, A. (2008)."Migration and Development: Some Conceptual Reflections". Keynote Address to the Conference on Theorizing Key Migration Debates. Oxford

University, July 1st.

- Portes, A. and De Wind, J. (2004)."Conceptual and Methodological Developments in the Study of International Migration". International Migration Review Special

Issue. 38 (3).

- Portes, A. Guarnizo, L. E. and Landolt, P. (1999)."The Study of Transnationalism:

Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22 (2): 217-237.

- Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (1996). Immigrant America. 2nd edition; Berkeley: University of California Press.

- Portes, A. and Zhou, M. (1993). "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth". The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 530: 74-96.

- Portes, A. and Zhou, M . (1999). " Entrepreneurship an Economic Progress in the 1990s: A Comparative Analysis of Immigrants and African Americans". In Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose (eds.). Immigration and Opportunity: Race Ethnicity

and Employment in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

- Pries, L. (1999). Migration and Transnational Spaces. Ashgate, Aldershot. - Sassen - Koob, S. (1980). "Immigrants and Minority Workers in the organization of

the labor Process". Journal of Ethnic Studies, 8 (Spring): 1– 34.

- Smith, M. P. and Guarinzo, L. E. (eds.). (1998). The Transformation from Below. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

- Stark, O. and Wang, Y. (2001). Inducing Human Capital Formation: Migration as

a Substitute for Subsidies. Economics Series No. 100. Vienna: Institute for Advanced

Studies.

23

- Stouffer, S. A. (1940). "Intervening Opportunities: a Theory relating Mobility and

Distance". American Sociological Review, 5 (6): 845-867.

- Stouffer, S. A. (1946). "Intervening Opportunities and Competing Migrants". Journal of Regional Studies, 2 (1): 187-208.

- Taylor, J. E. (1986). "Differential Migration, Networks information and Risk". In Stark, O. (ed.). Research in Human Capital and Development, Vol. 4: Migration,

Human Capital and Development. Greenwich, CT. JAI Press. - Tilly, C. (1990). "Transplanted Networks". In Yans - Mclauglin, V. (ed.).

Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology and History. New York: Oxford University Press, 79 – 95.

- Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World System. Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press.

- Zelinsky, W. (1971). "The Hypothesis f the Mobility Transition". Geographical

Review, 61 (2): 219-249. - Zolberg, A (1979). "International Migration in Political Perspective". In Kritz, M.

M. Keely, C. B. and Tomasi, S. M. (eds.). Global Trends in Migration: Theory and

Research in International Population Movements. New York: Center for Migration

Studies.