Inclusion Management vs.

Insecurity in Europe
Theorethical Approaches on International Migration: A Brief Overview
Adrian POP
Abstract.
The paper aims at reviewing some of the main theoretical approaches regarding
international migration. Firstly, it introduces the subject by briefly outlining the advantages
and disadvantages of migration for both sending and receiving states and its particular
significance in the current European situation. Secondly, it underscores the most influential
strands of migration theory associated with the migration-development nexus, including the
balanced growth and equilibrium perspective inspired by the functionalist neoclassical
economic theory, the asymmetric growth perspective inspired by the historical structural
theory, and the pluralist perspectives represented by the new economics of labour migration,
the livelihood approaches, the transnational turn in migration studies and the transitional
migration theory, which try to reconcile structure and agency. Thirdly, it reviews the main
tenets of the scholarly works associated with the migration-security nexus and the impact of
the Copenhagen School of security on migration studies. The paper concludes by arguing for
the need to view the developmentalist perspectives and the securitization of international
migration not as mutually exclusive theoretical lenses, but ones that are actually
complementing each other, allowing for a better comprehension and explanation of a rather
complex and heterogeneous social phenomenon.
Keywords: migration, development, remittances, securitization, social theory.
Introduction
Traditional approaches maintain that international migration represents a phenomenon
which has had advantages and disadvantages for both sending and receiving states. For the
country of origin, the migration of its citizens has relieved some social pressures, such as
peasant poverty; emigrant remittances have been economically helpful; and the departure of
numbers of malcontents has aided political stability. The disadvantages of emigration involve
the loss of the energies and potential skills of young and talented migrants, the economic loss
of those already trained, and a loss of military manpower. For the receiving country,
immigrants provided necessary skills and manpower, filled up empty lands, and speeded
economic development. On the other hand, immigrants created problems of assimilation,
caused increasing pressure on job markets, and frequently complicated political relations
between sending and receiving countries.
As for the 1st of January 2015, the number of people living in the EU-28 who were
citizens of non-member countries was 19.8 million, while the number of people living in the
EU-28 who had been born outside of the EU was 34.3 million. [a] When one adds the large
number of illegal immigrants and immigrants who have become nationals through
naturalization or marriage, it is apparent that Europe (particularly its western half) has become
a powerful magnet for individuals from across the world looking for economic opportunity
and refuge from domestic insecurity. Increasing numbers of European citizens are
disillusioned by what they view as their government’s inability to protect them from
foreigners who threaten their social values and undermine their economic development. In
this context, anti-immigrant radicalism, revolving around the idea that the EU should close its
gates to further immigration, has its roots in threatened identitie and the sense that national
leaders have opened borders and pushed ahead with EU enlargement and open-door migration
policies without consulting public opinion.
Lately, immigration has become a matter of marked European concern as millions of
refugees are fleeing conflict, chronic poverty, inequality, weak governance and climate and
environmental changes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia.[b] The main security risks
associated with the flow of these refugees include the risk of civil unrest in the host or transit
societies; the rise of populist and far-right extremist political parties in host societies; the
increased risk of home-grown terrorists due to augmented radicalization of the Muslim youth
and the presence of ISIL returnees in Western European societies; and the risk of the next
generations of the present Muslim refugees experiencing discrimination, marginalization and
poverty becoming potential recruits for Islamists.[c]
As a process with multiple facets and major economic, societal, political and security
implications, migration has been a research topic for scholars belonging to various strands of
academic research and with different backgrounds, including geographers, economists,
demographers, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and International Relations
(IR) and security studies experts. The difference in their level of analysis and theoretic and
thematic orientation as well as the frequent inability to embed empirical work into a broader
theoretical perspective are part of the explanation why migration studies are still a research
field characterized by a conspicuous lack of coherence.
Theorizing the migration-development nexus
The Laws of Migration put forward by the late 19th century British geographer of
German extraction Ernst Georg Ravenstein are considered to be one of the first serious
theoretical approaches on migration. In relation to internal migration, Ravenstein believed
that: “1. (…) the great body of our migrants proceed a short distance, and that there takes
place consequently a universal shifting or displacement of the population, which produces
„currents of migration” setting in the direction of the great centres of commerce and industry
which absorb the migrants. (..) 2. (…) The inhabitants of the country immediately surrounding
a town of rapid growth, flock into it; the gaps thus left in the rural population are filled up by
migrants from more remote districts (...) Migrants enumerated in a certain centre of
absorption will consequently grow less with the distance proportionately to the native
population which furnishes them (..) 3. The process of dispersion is the inverse of that of
absorption, and exhibits similar features. 4. Each main current of migration exhibits a counter
current. 5. Migrants proceeding long distances generally go by preference to one of the great
centres of commerce of industry. 6. The natives of town are less migratory than those of the
rural parts of the country. 7. Females are more migratory than males.” [d] Focusing on the
relationship between sending and receiving migration locations and the presumed symmetry
of in and out moves, Ravenstein saw migration as an inseparable part of the development
process. Later on, his theory has been largely used as a starting point for developing the
migration theoretical models of push-pull type.
Later on, revisiting Ravenstein’s migration laws, Everett S. Lee identified four types
of factors contributing in a synergetic manner to the migration decision: factors attributable to
the area of origin; factors attributable to the area of destination; intervening obstacles of a
physical or non-physical kind; and personal factors. He argued that migration occurs in
“streams” from specific places of origin to specific places of destination both because
opportunities have the tendency to be highly localized and the flow of knowledge back to
places of origin facilitates later on new migration waves. [e] He also put a premium on the
individual characteristics of migrants and their different abilities to cope with the intervening
variables as the factor explaining why migrants respond differently to challenges and
opportunities presented to them by the area of origin and destination.
Following this line of reasoning, a considerable number of migration theories have
been concerned with the migration-development nexus. According to Hein de Haas, this type
of migration theories encapsulates two main opposite views: an optimistic one, referred to as
the “balanced growth and equilibrium” perspective; and a pessimistic one, referred to as the
“asymmetric growth” perspective. Whereas in the optimistic view the migration is seen as a
win-win positive sum game, the pessimistic view conceives of it as a negative sum game. The
optimistic theories, inspired by the neoclassical economic theories are supportive of the idea
that migration has positive outcomes on both the countries of origin and the countries of
destination through factor price equalization and counter flows of capital (remittances and
investment) and knowledge. By contrast, the pessimistic theories on migration, inspired by
structuralist social theory are inclined to view the migration phenomenon as having a negative
impact on the countries of origin, leading to social inequality, economic dependency and
further underdevelopment. [f] Overcoming the limitations of both the “balanced growth and
equilibrium” and “asymmetric” perspectives, somehow in-between stands the pluralist
perspective on migrationdevelopment interaction which aims at reconciling structure and
actor perspectives.
Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, the neo-classical economic theory tends to explain
migration in terms of geographical differentials in the supply and demand for labour.
Migrants are seen as rational actors, who choose to move taking into account a cost-benefit
calculation. Within this approach very influential proved to be the so-called “Harris-Todarro
model”, which tried to explain the rural-to-urban labour migration by looking not only at the
wage differentials between the rural and urban areas, but also at the probability of
employment. [g] Initially conceived for comprehending internal migration, later on the model
was further developed, refined and adapted to explain international migration, too. Revolving
around the factor price equalization argument which assume that economic forces tend toward
equilibrium, but largely ignoring the structural constraints on development, including the
existence of market imperfections, the neo-classical economics-inspired migration theory is to
be ascribed to the functionalist strand of social theory.
In response to the weaknesses and drawbacks of the functionalist neo-classical theory,
especially the idea that individuals are presumed to have free choice, the historical-structural
strand of social theory has been gaining ground since 1960s. Eventually, throughout the 1970s
and most of the 1980s, it has come close to be perceived as the mainstream approach on
migration studies. The historical-structural theory on migration assumes the unequal
distribution of power and resources between developed and under-developed countries, and
the in-built capitalism’s propensity to reenforce them. Thus, migration is conceived of as part
and parcel of the dislocations that are intrinsic to the process of capitalist penetration.
An influential role among those theories was played by the so-called “dependency”
theory promoted by Andre Gunder Frank which posits that migration is one of the main
causes of the underdevelopment of underdeveloped countries. [h] Migration is seen as ruining
stable peasant societies, undermining their economics and uprooting populations, thus
contributing to the reinforcement of the underdevelopment of underdeveloped countries.
A similar approach and arguably an even more influential one belonging to the
historical-structural school of social theorizing is Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system
theory. According to him, the world-system has emerged in the 16 th century from the
embryonic core of Western Europe gradually expanding using its maritime power. [i] He
distinguishes between three categories of nations according to their degree of dependency,
compounding each a concentric circle: the capitalist “core” consisting of major powers; the
semi-periphery composed of former great powers in decline, emerging powers and regional
sub-systemic powers; and the periphery composed of states which have weak economies
based on raw materials exports and industrial imports and which are dependent to a large
extent on the security arrangements of the great powers. Wallerstei views the world-system as
a set of mechanisms of redistributing resources from the periphery to the core. [j] According
to this viewpoint, the incorporation of the periphery into the capitalist economy is associated
with a gradual, but massive migration drain. Contrary to the viewpoint of the functionalist
neo-classical theory which maintains that labour flows in the opposite direction of capital,
Wallerstein’s neo-Marxist inspired “dependency” theory states that labour follows capital
wherever it goes.
 Another theory belonging to the same school of thought is the cumulative causation
theory developed by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal. Its main argument is that
without a strong state policy, the capitalist system is bound to increase regional inequalities.
The reason for that is that “once differential growth had occurred, internal and external
economies of scale will perpetuate and deepen the bipolar pattern characterized by the vicious
circle of poverty in the periphery and the accelerated growth of the core region.” [k]
Contrary to the neo-classical migration theory, the historical-structural theory has
emphasized the fact that rather than a matter of free choice, people are constrained by
structural forces to move because traditional economic structures have been undermined as a
result of their incorporation into the global economic and political system.
Historical structuralists have been criticized precisely for being excessively
deterministic and rigid in their conceiving of individuals as victims that passively adapt to
macro-forces, thus to a large extent ruling out individual agency. Furthermore, a series of
historical cases in recent history, including most southern European countries and some
“Asian tigers”, have demonstrated, contrary to historical structuralists’ expectations, that it is
actually possible for formerly developing and labour exporting countries to achieve sustained
economic growth by their firm connection to the global economic capitalist system.
Towards the end of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s there was a general paradigm
shift in contemporary social theory, away from structuralistinspire grand theories towards
more pluralist, hybrid approaches. This general paradigm shift in social theory has also deeply
impacted the migration-development debate. Most migration studies have departed from a
structuralist stance, and increasingly acknowledge the differentiated, nondeterministi nature of
the migration impacts. Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s the combined contributions of
the new economics of labour migration (NELM) theory, the “livelihood approaches” and the
perspective on migrant transnationalism have provided a more nuanced view on the
migration-development nexus, which leave room for both structure and actor perspectives.
By placing the behaviour of individual migrants in a wider societal context and taking
into consideration not the individual, but the family or the household as the most appropriate
decision-making unit, NELM has allowed for integrating factors other than individual income
maximization as influencing migration decision-making. More exactly, the NELM has re
conceptualized migration as a household strategy aiming at not only maximizing income but
also at minimizing and spreading risks by diversifying the household’s income portofolio,
increasing household income, and overcoming constraints on economic activities and
investments in the region of origin. [l]
A quite similar approach to the NELM are the “livelihood approaches” developed
starting late 1970s by geographers, anthropologists, and sociologists conducting empirical
research in developing countries. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets – natural,
social, human, physical, and financial – and activities required for a means of living.
According to this perspective, migration is a household livelihood strategy to acquire a wider
range of assets which insure against future shocks and stresses. [m]
Equally important, the transnational turn in migration studies acknowledged the
increasing scope for migrants to foster double or even multiple loyalties, to travel back and
forth, to relate to various people, and to work and to do business simultaneously in faraway
places – in short to pursue transnational livelihoods. [n] The implications of this is that in a
world increasingly characterized by circular migration and simultaneous commitment to two
or more societies, integration in receiving societies and commitment to origin societies are not
necessarily in opposition. Furthermore, it has become difficult to make clear-cut distinctions
between traditional migration categories such as “origin” and “destination”, and “permanent”,
“temporary” and “return” migration. [o]
 Last but not least, largely influenced by the three above-mentioned pluralist
perspectives, and linking theories on the developmental causes and consequences of
migration, Hein de Haas put forward his own pluralist perspective – the transitional migration
theory – conceived as a single dynamic perspective approaching the migration-development
relation as reciprocally related processes. Understanding „development” in a more
comprehensive way as referring to „the more general increase of people’s capabilities”, he has
underlined that „socio-economic development tends to increase people’s capabilities and
aspirations to migrate. However, while the effect of development on capabilities to migrate is
more or less linear, the effect on people’s aspirations to migrate is more likely to resemble a J
or inverted U-curve as a consequence of decreasing levels of relative deprivation.” [p]
Theorizing the migration-security nexus
International migration is also increasingly seen through security lenses. In one of the
first post-Cold War academic accounts of the links between international migration and
security, Myron Weiner saw security as a social construct. He identified five circumstances in
which receiving states may perceive migrants as security threats. The first is when migrants
contribute at straining relations between sending and receiving countries, a situation that may
evolve when migrants, i.e. refugees oppose themselves to the political regime of their country
of origin. The second is when migrants are viewed as a political threat or security risk to the
regime of the receiving country. The third is when migrants are seen as a threat to the culture
of the receiving country. The fourth is when migrants are perceived as a social or economic
problem in the host country. Finally, the fifth is when the host country uses migrants as a tool
for exercising threats against the country of origin. [r]
Later on, Reinhard Lohrmann identified four ways in which migrants are viewed as
posing a security threat. First, when they are allegedly involved in organized crime activities
and terrorism and so perceived as posing a security threat to public order. Second, when
migrants with different cultural lifestyles are perceived as a threat in identity terms by the host
country. Third, migrants are seen as influencing the domestic and foreign policies of receiving
country, which can generate unwanted political tensions between their host country and the
country of origin. Fourth, irregular migration, especially combined with trafficking in human
beings, is increasingly considered a significant security issue. [s]
The Copenhagen School of security has greatly contributed to expanding our
understanding of migration through security lenses, especially by rethinking the referent
object of security in relation to identity in the form of „societal security” concept and by
developing the post-structuralistinspired concept of „securitization”.
Regarding „societal security”, Barry Buzan’s original formulation of five major
sectors of security had as its referent object the state; the society was treated only as a sector
where the state might be threatened. Reconceptualizing Buzan’s conception of security and
distancing from its state-centric approach, Ole Waever has developed a concept of security
based on a duality of state security and societal security. Both are about survival, but whereas
the former has sovereignty as its decisive criterion the latter is being held together by
concerns about identity. According to Weaver, societal security refers to “the ability of a
society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual
threats. More specifically, it is about the sustainability, within acceptable conditions for
evolution, of traditional patterns of language, culture, association, and religious and national
identity and custom. […] Societal security is about situations when societies perceive a threat
in identity terms.” [t] Thus, the concept of societal security underlines that there are in fact
many circumstances in which the security of the state and the security of society do not line
up and may well even be opposed to one another.
Several IR scholars have questioned the premise that “society is about identity” [u] on
which the concept of societal security has been developed on the grounds that the concept
neglects a range of values – economic welfare being one of them – that collectivities may also
see as significant. [v] Other academics have questioned not only the concept of societal
security per se, but also the distinction between state security and societal security,
underlining the fact that this distinction does not appear when analyzing discourses or
practices of various security actors, politicians or bureaucrats. [x]
With regards to „securitization”, according to the Copenhagen School, security is self
referential, because it is not necessarily defined by the presence of a real existential threat but
by the presentation of a security problem as a threat – process called „securitization”. In
Waever’s view, in line with the post-structuralist and linguistic turn in IR theory, there are no
security issues in themselves, but only issues constructed as such by certain actors – called
„securitizing actors” – through „speech acts”. By framing a particular issue as presenting an
existential security threat – an act called the „securitizing move” – securitizing actors can
move the issue into a specific area and claim the right to use exceptional measures to block it.
In order to have a successful securitization, „essential is the designation of an existential
threat requiring emergency action or special measures and th acceptance of that designation
by a significant audience”. [y] But the issue is securitized only „if and when the audience
accepts it as such.” [z] Given the role of the „audience” of the „speech act”, securitization
could be considered an inter-subjective process. In order to have a successful securitization,
two constitutive rules pertaining to the linguistic competence of the actors involved should be
observed: the internal, lingusitic-grammatical (to follow the grammar of security, i.e. the
speech should contain a plot with an existential threat); and the external, contextual and social
(to hold a position of authority from which the act can be made).[aa] If the securitizing actor
is effective in mobilizing support around the security reference, then she/he can legitimately
operate in another mode she/he would have otherwise. In sum, securitization can be viewed as
„a more extreme version of politicization”, [bb] the staging of existential issues in politics to
lift them above politics.
Several academics have criticized Waever’s concept of securitization from the
viewpoint of practice. For instance, Thierry Balzacq claims that securitization is “better
understood as a strategic (pragmatic) practice that occurs within, and as part of, a
configuration of circumstances, including the context, psycho-cultural disposition of the
audience and the power that both speaker and listener bring to the interaction.” [cc]
Other scholars have particularly criticized two aspects of the securitization theory: the
conceptualization of Copenhagen’s School security concept per se; and the focus on the
“speech acts” at the expense of other forms of non-discursive practices. Regarding the first
aspect, it was argued that “given the different nature of the sectors and referent objects
concerned (e.g. state, environment, society, etc.), one should not necessarily assume that all
sectors are governed by security dynamics which can be reduced to those characterising the
military sector.” [dd] Moreover, it was contended that the securitization theory fails to
theorize the processes by which an issue can move from normality/ everyday politics to the
realm of security characterized by emergency/extraordinary measures. Therefore, in order to
adequately conceptualize security as a process, a re-conceptualization of security was
proposed. Instead of confining security to the extreme situations of “existential threats” and
“survival”, security issues should be seen as moving “on a continuum from normalcy to
worrisome/troublesome to risk and existential threat – and conversely, from threat to risk and
back to normalcy.” [ee] Regarding the second aspect, it was argued the necessity to extend the
framework for comprehending the securitization processes “to non-discursive practices, that
is, non-discursive acts such as the creation and functioning of bureaucracies, the development
of public policies, or the implementation of procedures.” [ff] Didier Bigo, for example,
contends that securitization processes are not circumscribed to speech acts, but also include
the specific practices of security professionals. Pertainin to migration, Bigo argues that: “The
securitization of immigration […] emerges from the correlation between some successful
speech acts of political leaders, the mobilization they create for and against some groups of
people, and the specific field of security professionals […]. It comes also from a range of
administrative practices such as population profiling, risk assessment, statistical calculation,
category creation, proactive preparation, and what may be termed as a specific habitus of the
“security professional” with its ethos of secrecy and concern for the management of fear or
unease.” [gg] Bigo contends that by focusing on the security practices of security
professionals at the micro-level rather than exclusively on political discourses at the macro
level, one can highlight significant deviations from official discourses and policies. [hh] With
regards to irregular/ illegal migration and border controls, such an approach would imply
complementing the discourses on irregular/illegal migration and borders with an analysis of
the way they are being dealt with in practice.
Building upon Bigo’s argument and inspired by Michel Foucault’s interpretation of
the modern modalities of government, Jef Huysmans makes a similar argument about the
significance of security practices with regards to technology. He claims that securitization
discourses are embedded in technology, that technological devices are not merely instruments
used to implement policy decisions, but also tools that actually shape the policy options
available to decision-makers. [ii] The relevance of this argument for migration is highlighted
by Sarah Leonard: „Over the last decade, Western states have increasingly invested in
expensive and sophisticated technological devices in order to enhance border surveillance.
[...] Those had generally been developed for other purposes, such as counter-terrorism actions,
but their very existence and availability on the security market has led to their adoption and
use for border controls. Another example is the large databases that have been created in the
European Union to store information relating to migrants and asylum-seekers, such as SIS
(Schengen Information System), VIS (Visa Information System), and Eurodac. [...]. In some
instances, decisions seem to be taken not so much because there is precise objective to attain,
but rather because it is technologically feasible to do so. For this reason, it is imperative to
also consider technological issues in any analysis of the securitization processes of
migration.” [jj]
Be it as it may, the securitization has not only imposed itself as a pertinent theoretical
framework in security studies, but has also increased its relevance against the background of
the current international and European security setting.
Conclusions
This paper has identified two major strands of migration theorizing: the
developmentalist perspectives associated with the migration-development nexus, comprising
an optimistic view (the balanced growth and equilibrium perspective), a pessimistic view (the
asymmetric growth perspective), and a pluralist one as represented by the new economics of
labour migration, the livelihood approaches, the transnational turn in migration studies, and
the transitional migration theory which aim at reconciling structure and agency; and the
increasing body of scholarly works concerned with the migration-security nexus,
whichinclude those associated with the pros and cons of the securitization of migration. As
migration has its advantages and disadvantages for both sending and receiving states and there
is the need to consider the causes and consequences of migration within a single theoretical
framework, on the one hand, as well as because the trend towards the securitization of
migration, especially in relation to terrorism, is increasingly gaining ground in the EU against
the background of the refugee crisis, on the other, one should view the developmentalist
perspectives and the securitization of international migration not as mutually exclusive
theoretical lenses, but ones that are actually complementing each other allowing for a better
comprehension and explanation of a rather complex and heterogeneous social phenomenon.