![]()
Migration, transnationalism and development on the Southeastern flank of Europe
Russell Kinga,b, Maja PovrzanoviÄ Frykmanc and Julie Vullnetaria
aSussex Centre for Migration Research, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK; bMalmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden; cDepartment of Global Political Studies, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
The South-east Europe and Black Sea region presents a fertile terrain for examining recent international migration trends. A wide range of types of migration can be observed in this region: large-scale emigration in many countries, recent mass immigration in the case of Greece, return migration, internal migration, internal and external forced migration, irregular migration, brain drain etc. These migratory phenomena occur within the context of EU migration policies and EU accession for some countries. Yet within this shifting migration landscape of migrant stocks and flows, the fundamental economic geography of different wealth levels and work opportunities is what drives most migration, now as in the past. This paper sets the scene for the special issue in three ways: first, by defining the three key concepts of migration, transnationalism and development; second, by setting the geographical scene, with the aid of relevant statistics on the migration, development and remittance trends in the various countries of the region; and third, by summarizing the highlights of the papers in this issue of the journal, which range in their coverage from Ukraine and Moldova in the north, to Greece and Albania in the south.
Introduction
The geographical area covered by this journal â especially the line of countries running from Ukraine and Moldova down to Albania and Greece â corresponds to the Southeastern flank of Europe and to a corridor of countries which have been witness to a variety of intense migration processes in recent decades. Some of these migrations â for instance those from Former Yugoslavia â have their origins in the European âguest-workerâ recruitment of the 1960s; others, including population movements in âpost-Yugoslaviaâ, are more recent flows of the 1990s and 2000s. The purpose of this special issue is to present a coherent but diverse set of papers which explore several aspects of the migration dynamics of this border zone.
The papers derive from a workshop entitled âMigration, transnationalism and development in the Balkans and South-East Europeâ held in Amsterdam on 29 August 2012 within the framework of the Ninth Annual IMISCOE conference (IMISCOE is a European research network on âInternational Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europeâ).1 Much of IMISCOEâs work to date has concentrated on the situation of migrants in the main European destination countries and has focused on such issues as the labour market, citizenship, social integration, identity and migration policy. Our workshop was part of a recent initiative within IMISCOE to shift attention to some of the secondary countries, especially those positioned close to Europe, and to the interplay of emigration, return migration, transnationalism and development within these âborderlandâ countries.
The call for papers yielded 33 abstracts â far more than we anticipated and far more than could be accommodated within our allotted conference time for one day. In the end, we squeezed 13 papers into the programme: all had pre-circulated drafts to facilitate discussion at the workshop and rapid publication thereafter. The refereeing process honed the papers down to the nine included in this special issue.
The purpose of this introductory paper is threefold: to define the key terms of migration, transnationalism and development; to set the scene in terms of the wider phenomena of migration, geopolitics and development in the European arena; and to overview the papers that follow, highlighting their most significant contributions.
Migration, transnationalism and development
These three concepts and their interactions constitute the raison dâĂȘtre of the collection. Although we never âimposedâ these definitions and understandings on the contributors, all of them subscribed to a more or less common interpretation, with only minor deviations, which are usually context dependent. And all of the papers, each in their own way, address the triple nexus of migrationâtransnationalismâdevelopment.
For the purpose of the papers in this special issue, migration means international migration. In affirming this, we follow the general tendency to equate migration with international migration evidenced in many recent textbooks â for example The Age of Migration (Castles and Miller 2009). But we are also conscious that this is an unfortunate elision which ignores the fact that, on a global scale, as well as in most of the countries within âourâ region, internal migration is on a larger numerical scale than international migration (King and Skeldon 2010).2 All the papers which follow concern themselves with international migration and leave aside internal movements, except for the briefest mentions. Yet we also acknowledge that blurring the distinction between the two can occur. Movements within the European Schengen area are seen as âinternalâ and are unfettered by border controls or even visible borders, yet such movements do cross international borders. In the case of the Former Yugoslavia, what was once internal migration has become international through the creation of new states and national borders, some of them, like Croatia and Slovenia, not so easy to cross.
It is self-evident that (international) migration involves crossing an international border; less straightforward is deciding on the amount of time that has to pass before a âvisitorâ or âtouristâ becomes a âmigrantâ. Many authors defer to the United Nationsâ threshold of 12 months, but this overlooks short-term migrations which are seasonal or temporary. Particularly around the eastern fringes of Europe, there are forms of cross-border movement, variously called shuttle migration, pendular migration, to-and-fro migration etc., which are constrained by the short time limits set on visitor or tourist visas, the only means of legal entry. Are these to be considered âtrueâ migration, or do they exemplify some other regime of hybrid mobility? There are few widely accepted definitions or criteria in this area, and our reaction therefore is to promote a flexible conceptualization of migration (sometimes substituting the more apt terms âmovementâ or âmobilityâ) and not to get too hung up on precise statistical criteria.3 Having said that, we can clearly distinguish between temporary and permanent migration, with or without return, even if what is intended as temporary migration often subsequently becomes permanent settlement. We also recognize the widespread diffusion, especially in many of the countries considered in this collection of articles, of back-and-forth migration and mobility â which leads us to the next term.
Transnationalism has come to be the defining optic in anthropological and sociological studies of international migration over the past 20 years. Although the term had early incarnations in international relations and in studies of multinational firms or âtransnational corporationsâ, its main thrust came from grounded studies of migrantsâ everyday lives that revealed, to quote a well-worn definition, âmulti-stranded relationships â familial, economic, social, religious and political â that span borders and link societies of origin and settlementâ (Basch, Glick Schiller, and Szanton Blanc 1994, 7). The transnational paradigm was effective in countering a simplistic linear vision of international migration whereby migrants moved to another country where, over time, they integrated or assimilated, with some, those either who âfailedâ to integrate or who achieved their âtargetâ, returning to their home country at some point in their migration trajectory (cf. Cerase 1974).
Most literature on transnationalism has been crafted in the US context, via studies of Latin American or Caribbean migrants such as Levittâs The Transnational Villagers (2001), about Dominican migrants, and Smithâs Mexican New York (2006). These are studies of long-distance transnationalism where physical distance is a barrier to be overcome for migrants and their non-migrant kin â although recent advances in communication technologies help to overcome the frictions of distance and cost, for those who have access to them. Studies of migrant transnationalism have also been conducted in Europe (see, e.g. Bryceson and Vuorela 2002; Faist 2000); this special issue helps to enrich this field. Particularly relevant in the latter context is the aspect of physical distance between the region under focus here and areas of destination in Europe, enabling travel over relatively short distances, reachable via cheap flights within an hour or two, or by low-cost coach trips of a day or so. Moreover, the possibility of cheap and frequent travel (except where irregular status or homeland conflict prevents this) gives rise to a greater range of intensity of transnational links, including those who do not move but are deeply imbricated in transnational relations. Brunnbauer (2012) endorses the utility of the transnational approach to the study of migration from and within the Balkans and South-east European region, with the proviso that the term be used carefully since ânationâ and âstateâ, let alone ethnicity, are not synonymous or coterminous in this part of Europe (see also PovrzanoviÄ Frykman 2008).
Boccagni (2012, 297) has set out a useful typology of transnational links and activities. Economic transnationalism embraces the sending and receiving of remittances, both financial and in-kind (gifts etc.); investments in land, housing and businesses in the country of origin; and the trading and consumption of goods from the home country (whilst abroad) and from abroad (for those in the homeland). Political transnationalism includes patriotism, long-distance nationalism, homeland-related political activism, distant voting, and the exercise of dual citizenship. Social and cultural transnationalism comprises the largest list: nostalgia and identification with the culture and folklore of the homeland; the âmyth of returnâ (always waiting or intending to return but never doing so); visits to kin and friends left behind; various forms of non-corporeal communication (phone, email, Skype, Facebook etc.); participation in or support for a variety of civic, recreational, religious or cultural initiatives and events. It is worth noting that the transnational linkages can also flow in the âotherâ direction, i.e. from homeland to migrants abroad. Examples are âreverse remittancesâ, the sending of âethnicâ goods such as foodstuffs, visits by non-migrants to migrants abroad, and the âreversalâ of transnational links when migrants return-migrate and want or feel the need to keep in close touch with relatives and friends who are still abroad.
It needs to be acknowledged that the transnational paradigm has not been without its critics. This is not the place to enter into this wide-ranging debate with its merry-go-round of exhaustive citations. Key elements of the critique include a tendency to over-extend the term to all international migrants (Portes 2003, 876 affirmed that âregular involvement in transnational activities characterizes only a minority of immigrantsâ); an over-exaggeration of the newness of the phenomenon (migrants were also transnational in the past, we just did not use the term); and a tendency to deterritorialize transnationalism and therefore the need to bring back space, place and territory (Mitchell 1997).
This last point is certainly taken on board in several of the articles that follow; moreover, the papers also develop new elaborations on the transnational concept. Anna Amelina, in the next paper, extends the notions of transnational social space (Faist 2000; Pries 2001) and transnational social field (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004) to arrive at her key concept of âtransnational scientific fieldâ which she then applies to the mobile behaviour of Ukrainian scientists. In the paper that succeeds Amelinaâs, Gabriela Tejada, Vitalie Varzari and Sergiu Porcescu talk about âscientific diasporasâ and âtransnational communities of knowledgeâ when referring to the Moldovan scientific and professional migrants studying and working abroad. In another article in the set, Eralba Cela, Tineke Fokkema and Elena Ambrosetti quantify transnational behaviour by a series of survey variables converted into a single index of transnationalism which is then correlated with different types and measures of migrant integration. And finally, Ivaylo Markov points out the inappropriateness of the concept of transnationalism when applied to ethnic-Albanian migrants from the Republic of Macedonia, preferring instead notions of âtranslocalityâ and âtransterritorialityâ.
Boccagniâs (2012) categorization of transnational linkages into economic, political and socio-cultural provides us with a bridge to our third key term: development. It is through transnational practices such as sending remittances to support family members, making business investments in the homeland, returning and developing an enterprise or contributing new ideas and behavioural norms (âsocial remittancesâ, Levitt 1998) that migrants have the potential to stimulate the development of their home communities and countries. But what, exactly, do we mean by âdevelopmentâ?
Traditionally, development was considered a purely economic concept and was therefore measured in strictly economic terms, using indicators such as per capita income and the growth rate in gross domestic product (GDP). The economic approach, however, paid no explicit attention to the distribution of income and resources within a country, nor to the broader social components of development such as health, education and other aspects of âwell-beingâ. Increasingly, however, development has come to be conceptualized as a process which is much broader than economics alone â although economic aspects do remain crucial. Some 20 years ago the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), inspired by the work of âsocial economistsâ Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen, introduced the Human Development Index (HDI). The standard HDI4 is an amalgam of three elements: a long and healthy life (measured by life expectancy at birth), access to knowledge (school enrolment and literacy rate), and a decent standard of living (GDP per capita at âpurchasing power paritiesâ, i.e. adjusted for different countriesâ costs of living). The HDI ranges from 0 to 1. A value of 0.9 + indicates very high development, above 0.8 is high, above 0.5 medium and below 0.5 low development (UNDP 2009, 15).
The reconceptualization of development away from a concern only with economic growth and towards recognizing the social, cultural and human rights dimensions of life corresponds to a shift in focus from measuring the wealth and commodities owed by people in a country to evaluating the broader well-being and freedoms of people â âhow human lives are goingâ. In the view of Dannecker (2009, 121), development is increasingly conceptualized as a dynamic, multidimensional and multiscalar process whose progression is not âneutralâ, nor indeed irreversible, but mediated and transformed by the...
