Conference Paper: 'Migration Transitions Revisited: Their Continued Relevance for the Development of Migration Theory'

Conference Paper: ‘Migration Transitions Revisited: Their Continued Relevance for the Development of Migration Theory’

9 11 2012

To read this article and the associated commentaries for free just click on the PDF links below.

Migration Transitions Revisited: Their Continued Relevance for The Development of Migration Theory

In order to post your comment and response, please use the comments box at the bottom of this post. All comments are moderated and will appear shortly after they are submitted.

——————————————————————

Abstract

This paper is a reflection on the idea of transitions as explanatory frameworks for the study of population migration. Global transitions in fertility, mortality, and urbanisation are examined as background to the idea of a migration transition and its variants. The strengths and weaknesses of a transition approach to migration are outlined, focusing on the diffusion of a demographic process across space and through time. The concepts of ‘mobility’ and ‘migration’ transitions are assessed with the benefit of hindsight. In order to enhance the explanatory power of such transitions, I argue that they need to be linked with other economic, social, and political processes that are also diffusing in space and time. Agrarian, health, and gender transitions are briefly considered in this context, as is the whole question of migration and development. While no single pathway through any migration or developmental transition exists, it nevertheless needs to be accepted that a retreat to total relativism is counterproductive. The paper concludes by arguing that a transitional framework, which allows migration systems to be linked to wider socio-economic change, provides a fertile environment in which to generate future theories of migration.

——————————————————————

Population, Space and Place

This article originally appeared in Population, Space and Place.

About these ads

Actions

Information

Date : November 9, 2012
Tags: demographic change, Josh DeWind, migration theory, mobility, Population, Ronald Skeldon, Samantha Punch, socio-economic change, Space and Place, transitions
Categories : Conference Paper

2 responses

9 11 2012: Tamara (15:36:57) :

A good combination of a reflective paper and thought-provoking commentaries – it would have been interesting to hear these authors discuss these issues live!

The main problem I have with DeWind’s hopeful view of the potential for macro-level development transitions to explain migration transitions is just that, that development is seen to explain migration not the other way around, thus depreciating migrants to simple pawns driven by development. It risks simplifying migration drivers to such an extent that it no longer serves to explain the phenomenon or process of migration at all. Although we may observe that in many places industrialisation coincides with a disruption in traditional farming and increased rural-urban migration, causation is difficult, if not impossible, to establish. Moreover, if we presume that industrialisation disrupts traditional farming pushing migrants into cities, then there is little motivation left to explore what kind of industrialisation disrupts what kind of traditional farming resulting in what kind of changes in migration patterns, or indeed what kind of resistance to the ‘inevitable’ migration predicted by the development transition. The macro-level explanation would end up being riddled with exceptions and qualifications, thus making it rather useless. In the end, we would be left with exactly what Skeldon is proposing: that global transitions may provide a framework or outline of variables within which to theorise migration.

I also agree with Skeldon’s comment that “the role of policy and politics in influencing the directions of the transitions seems unclear at best or unexamined at worst” (p162). To what extent does belief in a particular transition model drive policy and what are the unintended consequences? What is the relationship between policy and transitions, in fact, because if transitions are chain reactions (industrialisation –> disruption of traditional livelihoods –> rural-urban migration), what effect does policy have in trying to change or perpetuate the transition? I think this issue could feature more prominently in the discussion of the explanatory power of transitions.

Punch’s comments on youth and lifecourse transitions was thought-provoking, and I would be interested to hear Skeldon’s response to her suggestions. Unlike macro-economic transitions (“development”, urbanisation, wealth accumulation, industrialisation), youth/lifecourse transitions better reflect the multiple, complex and fragmented nature of human behaviour and treats people as more than simply pawns of macro-economic or political forces.

Reply
10 11 2012: Ronald Skeldon (14:28:06) :

First of all, a big thank you to the two commentators for the very useful points they have raised on the paper. Let me at this stage attempt to draw attention to a few of the points they raise in the context of Tamara’s very perceptive questions. She is interested in my response to Samantha’s comment on the importance of youth and lifecourse transitions. Absolutely, I could have made much more explicit the implications of youth transitions, perhaps focusing on their political implications. However, I guess that I assumed that this was an integral part of the demographic transition and the changing age structures that accompany the shifts in mortality and fertility. One of the few generalizations about migration we can make is that the majority of those who move are young adults and, therefore, the number of migrants in any population will be a function of the number of young adults in that population. I am not looking for any simple causation here as the reality is much more complex but the changing age structure clearly provides the context in which migration is taking place. Certainly, the changing gender and generational relations to which Samantha makes reference need to be an integral part of the transition and, thanks to her comments, need to be built into any subsequent iteration.

I would doubt that policy is driven by any particular belief in a transition as such, to address Tamara’s question. Certainly, targets of levels of industrialization or urbanization might be set but these would be subsumed under the term “development” rather than an idea of a transition. However, it is interesting to reflect on how successful policy is either in accelerating or slowing movement through a transition. To look at fertility, population policies can accelerate an existing trend (or inhibit it) but are unlikely significantly to change the overall direction of fertility change over all but the short term. Similarly, with migration a policy question is whether policies to encourage circulation can maintain these circular movements over all but the short term to prevent them from shifting towards more permanent forms of mobility. Or even, of course, whether it is ethically correct to do so. I think our history of attempts to influence the volume and direction of internal migration should caution us against easy optimism towards the likelihood of their success.

Lest this response become too lengthy, let me just attempt to link one of Josh’s comments to a point made by Tamara about types of industry, the disruption of farming and causation. I think that we need to look at systems of labour recruitment. In the early phases of industrialization, rural folk did not automatically up and leave the land. Early industrialists often faced labour shortages and the critical issue was the pattern and methods of recruitment. It was often through recruitment into urban labour or the military that the networks, those meso-level variables to which Josh refers, were established. When we talk about peasants being forced or pushed to move, initially, at least, it was the pull of the recruiter and how he (and it was primarily a he) cajolled villagers to sign up that was such an essential part of the process. Hence, I think causation is fairly clear here.

As the system evolves, entrepreneurs will be attracted to the areas to which migrants are going to take advantage of the labour so that migrants and industrialists are linked in an interactive way. I am skating over the very real exploitation that can and does take place within such a system but the broad features of such a transition seem reasonably clear. As the nature of the industrialization changes so, too, does the nature of the recruitment change.

Reply