Final Report Summary - DEMIG (The determinants of international migration: A theoretical and empirical assessment of policy, origin and destination effects)
The DEMIG project (2010-2014) funded by the European Research Council (ERC) and hosted at the International Migration Institute (IMI) at the University of Oxford investigated the role of states and migration policies of destination and origin countries in affecting the (i) volume, (ii) spatial orientation, (iii) composition (i.e. legal channels and migrant characteristics), and (iv) timing of migration. Initial theoretical work focused on conceptualizing the role of origin and destination states in migration processes, as well as defining and operationalizing migration policy effectiveness. The empirical analysis of the role of states and policies was embedded in a theoretical framework of the macro- and meso-level forces driving international migration. The analysis drew on several databases compiled by the project, covering a unique number of countries and years: DEMIG C2C comprises bilateral migration flows from 1946 to 2010 for 33 countries; DEMIG TOTAL covers total immigration and emigration for up to 163 countries from the turn of the 20th century; DEMIG POLICY captures over 6,500 migration policies in 45 countries over the 1946-2013 period; DEMIG VISA is a global panel dataset tracking annual travel visa requirements for 214*237 countries over the 1973-2013 period.
Descriptive analysis of migration data challenged common (Eurocentric) ideas that global migration has accelerated or diversified over past decades. Migration has not become more globalized, but instead migration from an increasing number of origin countries has concentrated in a decreasing set of prime destinations in Europe and North America, reflecting the asymmetric nature of globalisation processes.
Analyses of DEMIG POLICY and DEMIG VISA defied the widespread assumption that immigration policies have become more restrictive. While there has been an overall liberalization of entry policies and many origin states have largely abandoned attempts to prevent the exit of their own citizens, the key analytical insight is that migration policies should be understood as a tool of migrant selection rather than as an instrument affecting numbers, despite political rhetoric often suggesting the contrary. Instead of growing restrictiveness, the essence of post-WWII migration policies is about encouraging or discouraging migration of people from specific educational, wealth and national backgrounds through increasingly complex policy instruments. While entry and integration policies have become more liberal for most migrant groups (such as low- and high-skilled workers, family member and students), restrictive measures have mainly focused on border control, visas and expulsion targeting groups such as (potential) asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
The theoretical and empirical work of DEMIG questioned the idea that migration policies have generally failed. ‘Discursive gaps’ can explain perceived ‘migration policy failure’, and may suggest that policies are less effective than they are in practice. Although extensive media coverage and the political salience of irregular migration and smuggling may suggest the contrary, most migration regimes seem to work reasonably well since the majority of migrants migrate legally. However, the project also found that the effects of migration policies seem relatively small compared to other migration determinants. DEMIG identified four ‘substitution effects’ which can significantly reduce or undermine the effectiveness of migration restrictions: (1) spatial substitution through the diversion of migration to other destination; (2) categorical substitution through a re-orientation of migration towards other legal or unauthorized channels; (3) inter-temporal substitution affecting the timing of migration such as ‘now or never migration’ in the expectation of future tightening of policies; and (4) reverse flow substitution when the immigration-reducing effect of immigration restrictions is counterbalanced by reducing return migration, interrupting circulation and pushing migrants in permanent settlement. The analysis also revealed that policy effects can be asymmetric: While liberal policy changes are generally followed by an almost immediate increase in migration, restrictive policy changes tend to have a delayed effect in significantly reducing immigration, presumably reflecting the role of migrant networks.
Such substitution effects particularly occur when policies work against structural migration drivers in origin and destination countries, such as aspirations- and capabilities-increasing development processes (paradoxically often leading to more migration), conflict in origin countries, or the persistent demand for low-skilled labour in destination countries. This highlights the importance of the indirect, but powerful ways in which destination and origin states affect migration through non-migration policies such as labour market or social welfare policies. Therefore, improved future assessment of migration policy effectiveness can only be achieved by embedding such analysis in a better understanding of the ways in which development processes as well as states shape migration dynamics.
Descriptive analysis of migration data challenged common (Eurocentric) ideas that global migration has accelerated or diversified over past decades. Migration has not become more globalized, but instead migration from an increasing number of origin countries has concentrated in a decreasing set of prime destinations in Europe and North America, reflecting the asymmetric nature of globalisation processes.
Analyses of DEMIG POLICY and DEMIG VISA defied the widespread assumption that immigration policies have become more restrictive. While there has been an overall liberalization of entry policies and many origin states have largely abandoned attempts to prevent the exit of their own citizens, the key analytical insight is that migration policies should be understood as a tool of migrant selection rather than as an instrument affecting numbers, despite political rhetoric often suggesting the contrary. Instead of growing restrictiveness, the essence of post-WWII migration policies is about encouraging or discouraging migration of people from specific educational, wealth and national backgrounds through increasingly complex policy instruments. While entry and integration policies have become more liberal for most migrant groups (such as low- and high-skilled workers, family member and students), restrictive measures have mainly focused on border control, visas and expulsion targeting groups such as (potential) asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
The theoretical and empirical work of DEMIG questioned the idea that migration policies have generally failed. ‘Discursive gaps’ can explain perceived ‘migration policy failure’, and may suggest that policies are less effective than they are in practice. Although extensive media coverage and the political salience of irregular migration and smuggling may suggest the contrary, most migration regimes seem to work reasonably well since the majority of migrants migrate legally. However, the project also found that the effects of migration policies seem relatively small compared to other migration determinants. DEMIG identified four ‘substitution effects’ which can significantly reduce or undermine the effectiveness of migration restrictions: (1) spatial substitution through the diversion of migration to other destination; (2) categorical substitution through a re-orientation of migration towards other legal or unauthorized channels; (3) inter-temporal substitution affecting the timing of migration such as ‘now or never migration’ in the expectation of future tightening of policies; and (4) reverse flow substitution when the immigration-reducing effect of immigration restrictions is counterbalanced by reducing return migration, interrupting circulation and pushing migrants in permanent settlement. The analysis also revealed that policy effects can be asymmetric: While liberal policy changes are generally followed by an almost immediate increase in migration, restrictive policy changes tend to have a delayed effect in significantly reducing immigration, presumably reflecting the role of migrant networks.
Such substitution effects particularly occur when policies work against structural migration drivers in origin and destination countries, such as aspirations- and capabilities-increasing development processes (paradoxically often leading to more migration), conflict in origin countries, or the persistent demand for low-skilled labour in destination countries. This highlights the importance of the indirect, but powerful ways in which destination and origin states affect migration through non-migration policies such as labour market or social welfare policies. Therefore, improved future assessment of migration policy effectiveness can only be achieved by embedding such analysis in a better understanding of the ways in which development processes as well as states shape migration dynamics.