Migration Studies at a Crossroads: A Critique of Immigration Regime Typologies

Öz

International migration and its scientific examination have reached a crossroads. Today, migrants are pursuing opportunities in new destination societies with growing economies and different forms of governance from democratic states—transformations that complicate established understandings about national immigration models and their evolution. In light of these transformations, this article reviews the field of migration studies and its sketching of immigration patterns in the contemporary period. It critically examines existing systems of classification in a way that creates space for revised approaches. In doing so, this article identifies three key limitations with existing approaches. First, existing classifications largely focus on Western states, and especially traditional destination countries. Second, existing classifications are weakened by unclear or poorly defined indicators. Finally, even those classifications with improved indicators are hindered by approaches that examine admission and citizenship/settlement regimes independently of each other, ignoring a possible migrationintegration policy nexus

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Migration, integration, regime, typology, crossroads, global

Göç Çalışmaları Dönüm Noktasında: Göç Rejimi Tipolojilerine İlişkin Bir Eleştiri

Öz

Uluslararası göç ve bilimsel incelemeleri bir dönüm noktasına ulaşmıştır. Günümüzde göçmenler gelişmekte olan ekonomileri ve demokrasiden farklı yönetim biçimleri bulunan yeni hedef toplumlardaki fırsatlara yönelmekte ve bunun neticesinde de ulusal göç modelleri ve bu modellerin evrimi hususundaki alışılagelmiş fikirleri zorlayan dönüşümlere neden olmaktadırlar. Bu dönüşümlerin ışığında bu makale, göç çalışmaları alanını ve bu çalışmaların çağdaş dönemde çizdiği göç modellerini gözden geçirmektedir. Mevcut sınıflandırma sistemlerini revize edilmiş yaklaşımlara yer bırakacak şekilde eleştirel bir yaklaşımla incelemekte, bunu yaparken de mevcut yaklaşımlardaki üç temel sınırlamayı ortaya koymaktadır. İlk olarak, mevcut sınıflandırmalar büyük ölçüde Batılı devletlere ve özellikle de geleneksel hedef ülkelere odaklanmaktadır. İkinci olarak, mevcut sınıflandırmalar belirsiz ya da yetersiz tanımlanmış göstergeler tarafından zayıflatılmış durumdadır. Son olarak da geliştirilmiş göstergeleri olan sınıflandırmalar bile kabul ve vatandaşlık/yerleşim rejimlerini birbirinden bağımsız olarak ele alarak olası bir göç entegrasyon politikasını göz ardı eden yaklaşımlar yüzünden ilerleme sağlayamamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Göç, entegrasyon, rejim, tipoloji, dönüm noktası, küresel

Kaynakça

1. Arzheimer, K. (2009), ‘Contextual Factors and the Extreme Right Vote in Wes- tern Europe, 1980 2002’, Amerika Siyasi Bilimler Dergisi, 53: 259–75.
2. Bader, V. (2007) ,‘The Governance of Islam in Europe: The Perils of Model- ling’, Etnik Çalışmalar ve Göç Çalışmaları Dergisi, 33: 871–86.
3. Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2005), ‘Labour Immigration and Labour Markets in the GCC Countries: National Patterns and Trends’. Kuveyt Kalkın- ma Programı, Governance and Globalization in the Gulf States. 2 Temmuz 2014 tarihinde erişildiği haliyle.
4. Banting, K. & Kymlicka, W., (editörler) (2006a), Multiculturalism and theWelfare State:Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary De- mocracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. (2006b), ‘Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Setting the
6. Context’, in Banting, K. ve Kymlicka, W. (eds), Multiculturalism and
7. theWelfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary De
8. mocracies, sayfa. 1–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Banting, K. ve ark. (2011), ‘Are Diversity and Solidarity Incompatible?’, In- roads, 28: 28–48.
10. Bauböck, R. ve diğ. (Editörler) (2006), Acquisitionand Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European States, Cilt 1. Amsterdam: Amster- dam University Press.
11. Benoit, K. & Laver, M. (2006), ‘Party Policy in Modern Democracies: Expert Survey Results from 47 Countries, 2003 2004’, 27 Ocak 2010.
12. Borjas, G. (1999), Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Boswell, C. (2007), ‘Theorizing Migration Policy: Is There a Third Way?’ Uluslararası Göç İncelemesi, 41/1: 75–100.
14. Brubaker, R. (1992), Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Castles, S. & Miller, M. J. (2009), The Age of Migration: International Popu- lation Movements in the Modern World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Caviedes, A. (2010), Prying Open Fortress Europe: The Turnto Sectoral Labor Migration. New York: Lexington Books.
17. Çin Giriş ve Çıkış İdaresi Ofisi (2011), 2009 Yılı Ana Çıkış ve Giriş İs- tatistikleri, Kamu Güvenliği Bakanlığı. 20 Eylül 2012.
18. Cohen, R. (Ed.) (2010), Cambridge Dünya Göç Anketi. Cambridge: Camb- ridge University Press.
19. Collier, D.,LaPorte, J. & Seawright, J. (2012), ‘Putting Typologies toWork: Concept-Formulation, Measurement, andAnalyticRigor’, Siyasi Bilimler Dergisi, 65/2: 217–32.
20. Coppedge, M. ve ark. (2011), ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach’, Perspectives on Politics, 9/2: 247–68.
21. Cornelius, W. & Tsuda, T. (2004), ‘Controlling Immigration: The Limits of Government Intervention’, in Cornelius, W. ve ark. (eds), Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. 2. basım. 3–48.
22. Ve diğ. (Eds) (2004), Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stan- ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. Devitt, C. (2011), ‘Varieties of Capitalism, Variation in Labour Immigrati- on’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37/4: 579–96.
24. Doomernik, J. & Jandl, M. (2008), Modes of Migration Regulation and Control in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
25. Ve diğ. (2009), No Shortcuts: Selective Migration and Integration. Was- hington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.
26. Dumbrava˘, C. (2007), ‘Citizenship Regulation in Eastern Europe: Acquisi- tion of Citizenship at Birthand Through Regular Naturalization in Sixte- en Postcommunist Countries’, CEU Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi, 2/4: 450-72.
27. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), Refah Kapitalizminin Üç Dünyası. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. New
29. York: Oxford University Press.
30. Avrupa Vatandaşlık Gözlemevi (EUDO) (2011), Avrupa Birliği Vatandaşlık Demokrasi Gözlemevi. 22 Temmuz 2014.
31. Finotelli, C. & Michalowski, I. (2012), ‘The Heuristic Potential of Models of Citizenship and Immigrant Integration Reviewed’, Journal of Immig- rant and Refugee Studies, 10/3: 231–40.
32. Freeman, G. (1995), ‘Modes of Immigration Policies in Liberal Democratic States’, International Migration Review, 29/4: 881–902.
33. (2006), ‘National Models, Policy Types and the Politics of Immig
34. ration in Liberal Democracies’, West European Politics, 29/2: 227–47.
35. (2011), ‘Comparative Analysis of Immigration Politics: A Ret
36. rospective’, American Behavioral Scientist, 55/12: 1541–60.
37. Geddes, A. (2003), ‘Migration and the Welfare State in Europe’, The Politi- cal Quarterly, 74/1: 150–62.
38. (2005), ‘Immigration and the Welfare State’, in Guild, E. and van
39. Selm, J. (eds), International Migration and Security: Opportunities and
40. Challenges, sayfa. 159–73.Abingdon: Routledge.
41. George, A. L. & Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. London: MIT Press.
42. Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) (2012), Ba- ckground Paper for RT 2.2: Addressing South South Migration and De- velopment Policies. Global Forum on Migration and Development.
43. Goodman, S. W. (2010), ‘Integration Requirements for Integration’s Sake? Identifying, Categorising and Comparing Civic Integration Policies’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36/5: 753–72.
44. Guiraudon, V. (2002), ‘Setting the Agenda on Immigration and Asylum in the EU’. Presented at Annual Meeting, American Political Science Asso- ciation, Boston, MA, 28 August 2002.
45. Hammar, T. (1985), European Immigration Policy: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Hawthorne, L. (2008), The Impact of Economic Selection Policy on Labour Market Outcomes for Degree-Qualified Migrants in Canada and Austra- lia. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
47. Hollifield, J. F. (1986), ‘Immigration Policy in France and Germany: Out- puts versus Outcomes’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485: 113–28.
48. Howard, M. M. (2009), The Politics of Citizenship in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. International Migration Policy and Law Analysis Database (IMPALA) (2012), The International Migration Policy and Law Analysis Database, Project Description acces- sed 22 Jul 2014.
50. Janoski, T. (2010), The Ironies of Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
51. Joppke, C. (2000), Immigration and the Nation-State: The United States, Germany and Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. (2005), Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State.
53. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. (2010), Citizenship and Immigration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
55. Koning, E. & Banting, K. (2010), ‘New Inequality in Postnational Canada: Citizens, Denizens, and Temporary Residents in a Liberal Welfare State’. CCLA Conference ‘Who Belongs? Rights, Benefits, Obligations and Im- migration Status’ (Toronto, Faculty of Law).
56. Koopmans, R. et al. (2005), Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
57. , Michalowski, I. & Waibel, S. (2012), ‘Citizenship Rights for Im
58. migrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence
59. in Western Europe, 1980–2008’, American Journal of Sociology, 117/4: 1202–45.
60. Krasner, S. D. (1982), ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regi- mes as Intervening Variables’, International Organization, 36: 85–205.
61. Lucassen, L. (2005), The Immigrant Threat: The Integration of Old and New Migrants in Western Europe since 1850, Studies of World Migrati- ons. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
62. Massey, D. S. et al. (2006), ‘Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal’, in Messina, A. M. and Lahav, G. (eds), The Migration Reader: Exploring Politics and Policies, 34–62. London: Lynne Rienner.
63. Menz, G. (2006), ‘Useful Gastarbeiter, Burdensome AsylumSeekers, and the Second Wave of Welfare Retrenchment: Exploring the Nexus Between Migration and the Welfare State’, in Parsons, C. A. and Smeeding, T. M. (eds), Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, 393–418. Camb- ridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. (2009), The Political Economy of Managed Migration: Nonstate
65. Actors, Europeanization, and the Politics of Designing Migration Poli
66. cies. New York: Oxford University Press.
67. Messina, A. M. (2007), The Logics and Politics of Post-WWII Migration to Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
68. Meyers, E. (2004), International Immigration Policy: A Theoretical and Comparative Analysis. New York: Palgrave.
69. Migration Policy Group (2006 ve 2011), Migrant Integration Policy Index. (MIPEX). MIPEX homepageaccessed 22 Jul 2014.
70. Mİller, J. & Skaaning, S. E. (2012), ‘Assessing the Explanatory Power of Typological Theories’. New Orleans: Article presented at the Annual Me- eting of theAmerican Political Science Association.
71. Money, J. (1999), Fences and Neighbors: The Political Geography of Im- migration Control in Advanced Market Economy Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
72. Morissens, A. & Sainsbury, D. (2005), ‘Migrants’ Social Rights, Ethnicity and Welfare Regimes’, Journal of Social Policy, 34/4: 637–60.
73. Özden, C. ve ark. (2009), ‘The Evolution of Global Bilateral Migration 1960 2000’. Articleread at International Conference on Migration and Development, 10 September 2009, Washington, DC.
74. Papademetriou, D. G. (2002), ‘A Grand Bargain: Balancing National Secu- rity, . . .Mexico’. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
75. Ratha, D. & Shaw, W. (2007), South–South Migration and Remittances. World Bank working paper No. 102. Washington, DC: World Bank.
76. Rodriguez, F. & Rodrik, D. (2000), ‘Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic’s Guide to Cross-National Evidence’, in Bernanke, B. S. and Rogoff, K. (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77. Ruhs, M. & Martin, P. (2008), ‘Numbers vs Rights: Trade-offs and Guest Worker Programs’, International Migration Review, 42/1: 249–65.
78. Sainsbury, D. (2006), ‘Immigrants’ Social Rights in Comparative Perspec- tive: Welfare Regimes, Forms in Immigration and Immigration Policy Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16: 229–44.
79. Segal, U. A., Elliott, D. & Mayadas, N. S. (2010), Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices and Trends. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80. Skeldon, R. (2006), ‘Interlinkages between Internaland International Mig- ration in the Asian Region’, Population, Space and Place, 12/1: 15–30.
81. Solimano, A. (2010), International Migration in the Age of Crisisand Glo- balization: Historical and Recent Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. Thielemann, E. (2006), ‘The Effectiveness of Governments’ Attemptsto Control Unwanted Migration’, in Parsons, C. and Smeeding, T. (eds), Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, sayfa. 442–72. Cambri- dge: Cambridge University Press.
83. UN (2009a), World Population Ageing. New York: UN Department of Eco- nomic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
84. (2009b), Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revi
85. sion. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Popu- lation Division.
86. Wilson, C. A. (2000), ‘Policy Regimes and Policy Change’, Journal of Public Policy, 20/3: 247–74.
87. Wimmer, A. & GlickSchiller, N. (2002), ‘Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences’, Glo- bal Networks, 2/4: 301–34.