The Microfoundations of Diaspora Politics

Alexandra Délano Alonso, Harris Mylonas, Alexandra Délano Alonso, Harris Mylonas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000454987
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Educazione civica e cittadinanza

The Microfoundations of Diaspora Politics examines the various actors within and beyond the state that participate in the design and implementation of diaspora policies, as well as the mechanisms through which diasporas are constructed by governments, political parties, diaspora entrepreneurs, or international organisations.

Extant theories are often hard-pressed to capture the empirical variation and often end up identifying 'exceptions'. The multidisciplinary group of contributors in this book theorise these 'exceptions' through three interrelated conceptual moves: first, by focusing on understudied aspects of the relationships between states as well as organised non-state actors and their citizens or co-ethnics abroad (or at home - in cases of return migration). Second, by examining dyads of 'origin' states and specific diasporic communities differentiated by time of emigration, place of residence, socio-economic status, migratory status, generation, or skills. Third, by considering migration in its multiple spatial and temporal phases (emigration, immigration, transit, return) and how they intersect to constitute diasporic identities and policies. These conceptual moves facilitate comparative research and help scholars identify the mechanisms connecting structural variables with specific policies by states (and other actors) as well as responses by the relevant diasporic communities.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

INTRODUCTION

Unpacking the state and disaggregating the diaspora: The microfoundations of diaspora politics

Alexandra Délano Alonso and Harris Mylonas

ABSTRACT

Recognising the need to unpack ‌the ‘state’ and‌ ‌problematise‌ the term‌ ‘diaspora’, in this special issue we examine the various actors within (and beyond) the state that participate in the design and implementation of diaspora policies, as well as the mechanisms through which ‌‌‌diasporas‌‌ are constructed by governments, political parties, diaspora entrepreneurs, or international organisations‌. Ex‌‌tant theories are often hard-pressed to capture the empirical variation and often end up identifying ‘exceptions’. We‌‌ theorise these ‘exceptions’ through three interrelated‌ conceptual moves: First, ‌‌we focus on‌ ‌‌underst‌udie‌d‌ aspects of the relationships between states as well as organised non-state actors and their citizens or co-ethnics‌ abroad (‌‌or at home – in cases of return migration).‌ Second, ‌‌we‌ ‌‌examine dyads of ‌origin states and specific diasporic communities differentiated by time of emigration, place of residence, socio-economic status, migratory status, generation, or skills. T‌hird‌‌,‌ ‌we ‌consider‌ migration in its multiple spatial and temporal phases (emigration, immigration, transit, return‌‌)‌ and ‌how the‌‌‌y‌‌ inter‌sect to‌‌ constitute diasporic identities‌‌ and policies. ‌‌These‌ conceptual moves contribute to comparative research in the field and allow us to identify the mechanisms‌ connect‌ing structural variable‌‌s with ‌ specific policies by states ‌(and other actors‌) as well as responses‌ by the relevant ‌diasporic ‌communi‌ties‌‌.

Introduction

The field of diaspora studies has changed dramatically since the time when the concept was primarily applied to historical diasporas, such as the Jews, the Greeks, or the Armenians (Armstrong 1976). Moreover, while the study of diasporas was traditionally more popular within history and anthropology, in the past three decades it has received increasingly more attention by economists and political scientists. Diasporas have been linked to economic development (Smart and Hsu 2004), capital flows (Leblang 2017), war and conflict (Adamson 2013), and foreign policy (Shain 1994; Mearsheimer and Walt 2007). Relatedly, while case studies and ethnographic work dominated the field in its early stages, the comparative method, statistical analyses, and a focus on the microfoundations of diaspora politics – the ways that various actors participate in the design and implementation of diaspora policies at local, state, national, and regional levels, and their interactions with different groups that constitute the diaspora (or diasporas) – have been gaining ground. Our microfoundations approach is a call to start thinking about diaspora politics both as a local and a global phenomenon.¹

Recognising the need to unpack and problematise the categories ‘state’ and ‘diaspora’ – both challenged in the existing literature – in this special issue, we move away from these static categories. Instead we examine the various actors within (and beyond) the state that participate in the design and implementation of policies categorised as ‘diaspora engagement’ (Gamlen 2006), as well as how emigrant or co-ethnic groups are constituted (or not) by government bureaucracies at different levels, as well as by political parties, diaspora entrepreneurs and diaspora groups, or by international organisations as ‘diasporas’. We hold that this approach contributes to comparative research in this field and allows us to focus on the mechanisms that connect structural variables with the actual policy choices by states and other actors as well as the responses to them by specific groups within the diaspora.

Existing typologies of states and diasporas are often hard-pressed to capture the observed empirical variation and often end up identifying ‘exceptions’. We strive to theorise these ‘exceptions’ by examining dyads of states and specific diasporic communities differentiated by time of emigration, place of residence, socio-economic status, generation, or skills. This special issue also gathers research that deals with different aspects of the relationship between states, as well as organised non-state actors, on the one hand, and their citizens and/or co-ethnics/affiliates abroad (and at home – in cases of return migration), on the other. In part, this special issue is a response to calls for research exploring the multiple actors that participate in shaping and implementing diaspora policies (governments, diaspora organisations, political parties, international organisations, the media, businesses, NGOs) (Adamson and Demetriou 2007) and at multiple levels of analysis (local, national, transnational, regional, and global) (Délano and Gamlen 2014). Finally, it is also a response to calls for theoretical and empirical approaches that consider migration in its multiple spatial and temporal phases (emigration, immigration, transit, return) and how the intersect and constitute migrant identities and practices, as well as political and societal responses to migration (Ho 2016).

The contributions included in this issue centre around three main questions:

(1) Given that the analysis of state-diaspora relations has now been established over three decades, with typologies that help clarify existing policies and the interests that drive them, how do we evaluate which diaspora engagement strategies have been favoured by state and non-state actors and why? Are existing typologies useful to understand the interests of non-state actors in diaspora engagement? How do factors – including the characteristics of the diaspora – shape these policies and practices, their variations, and changes over time? Which state and non-state actors (including the diaspora itself) are driving processes of policy diffusion (Jörgens and Neves 2017)? While most of the existing literature focuses on examining why more than half of the UN member states have some sort of institutionalised diaspora engagement policy (Levitt and Schiller 2004; Gamlen 2014; Ragazzi 2014; Délano and Gamlen 2014; Weinar 2017), there is very limited analysis of the reasons for the absence of such policies in the other half of states, described as ‘disinterested’ (Levitt and Glick-Schiller 2004) or ‘indifferent’ (Ragazzi 2009). What do these ‘negative’ cases tell us about broader patterns in the development of diaspora policies? The cases presented here contribute to our understanding of policy diffusion and the way it operates, vertically and horizontally, the different actors involved (from international institutions, neighbouring countries and regional governments to the church, political parties and diaspora organisations) and its limits. After all, not all states are moving in the direction of adopting such policies. Moreover, they propose that institutionalisation may not always be a measure of the success of such policies, providing examples of informal practices that offer flexible and adaptive frameworks to respond to the realities of limited resources without compromising the broader goals of supporting migrant populations in their access to a better quality of life in another country and/or maintaining links to their communities in the origin country.

(2) What are the logic(s) underpinning the differential treatment by the state of various communities within a diaspora? Why are some diasporic communities recognised/nurtured while others are neglected/denied by nation-states and other actors (i.e. international institutions, political parties, churches, non-profit organisations, and different levels of government)? Building on the work by Mylonas (2013b), Mullings (2011), Ho (2011), Campt and Thomas (2008), the articles in this collection provide examples of how diaspora engagement activities have the potential to disrupt existing class, racial, gender, or ethnic hierarchies but, at the same time, can reinscribe or create new forms of inequality between states and among emigrants/co-ethnics. Moreover, the cases presented here demonstrate that this differentiation in terms of the value and interest of state or non-state actors in what they identify as the diaspora does not only occur while members of this group reside in another country, but also (or perhaps only) when they return.

(3) How do different groups within the diaspora respond to attempts at engagement from the state and other actors (or the lack of interest in doing so)? While the term diaspora and its uses continue to be debated, the heterogeneity within diaspora groups and the need to move beyond generalisations is clear in order to understand the drivers of diaspora policies as well as responses to them (Bauböck 2005; Koinova 2017; Délano and Yescas 2014; Délano Alonso Forthcoming). A closer look at the characteristics of specific groups (including migration status, generation, socio-economic position, class, race, gender, level of organisation, among other factors) reveals the need for analytical distinctions, which are presented in some of the articles in this issue as a step toward a more nuanced understanding of the design and implementation of diaspora policies, as well as the varying responses to them by members of the diaspora. This approach allows us to further examine the interests that drive these policies as well as their results, both from the perspective of the state and its various components as well as the perspective of the intended or unintended recipients of such policies.

These three broad focus areas are examined from a multidisciplinary perspective, through the lens of geographers, historians, political scientists, anthropologists and through a number of policy areas, including the extension of voting rights, ethnic return migration policies, remittances and investment policies or homeland sponsored educational trips. The empirical cases span the globe geographically. The works included in this special issue compare and contrast dynamics across a wide range of geopolitical and economic contexts including Morocco, Germany, Israel, Greece, Serbia, Egypt, the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and Belgium using a variety of methods that contribute to academic and policy debates through theoretical, methodological, and empirical innovations.

I. Unpacking the state

One of the main contributions of the existing literature on state–diaspora relations has been to ‘bring the state back in’ to transnational studies and focus on emigration policies in response to a field dominated by approaches focusing predominantly on developed immigration countries. Origin countries (or emigration states) are often developing countries, and thus the literature assigns to them limited agency to respond to the pressures that generate out-migration or to advocate for the rights of their emigrant populations in destination countries that may hold an economic or political advantage over them. Work by Gamlen (2006) and Agunias (2009), however, has challenged these assumptions pointing to the similarities between diaspora engagement policies across developed and developing countries. The studies presented in this special issue add to this debate by demonstrating the similarities in interests and strategies across states but also introducing a more nuanced approach while explaining empirical puzzles, moving beyond explanatory factors such as the economic or political power of the state, or its position in the international system, as well as distinguishing between actors within the origin country that participate – formally or informally – in the planning and implementation of diaspora policies, without necessarily sharing the same goals.

As Délano and Gamlen (2014) note, up to now, the field has been mostly dominated by single-case studies. There is still room for theory-building (as noted by Brand 2006; Varadarajan 2010) as well as for more comparative studies (exceptions include Smith 2003; Levitt and de la Dehesa 2003; Brand 2006; and, more recently Lafleur 2013; Gamlen 2014; Ragazzi 2014; and Pedroza, Palop, and Hoffmann 2016). Through case studies as well as large-N studies from various disciplinary approaches, the existing literature has established typologies to make sense of variation in policies across states (Levitt and Schiller 2004; Gamlen 2014; Ragazzi 2014; Mylonas 2013b). It has provided us with a complex and nuanced understanding of the reasons why states engage their diasporas (political or economic), when they do so (considering regime change, a changed position in the international system, the influence of international organi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Unpacking the state and disaggregating the diaspora: The microfoundations of diaspora politics
• 2 Explaining the rise of diaspora institutions
• 3 Where and why can expatriates vote in regional elections? A comparative analysis of regional electoral practices in Europe and North America
• 4 Competing for the diaspora’s influence at home: party structure and transnational campaign activity in El Salvador
• 5 Diaspora policy in weakly governed arenas and the benefits of multipolar engagement: lessons from the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt
• 6 Bifurcated homeland and diaspora politics in China and Taiwan towards the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia
• 7 The disinterested state: negative diasporic policy as an expression of state inclusion and national exclusion
• 8 Foreign policy priorities and ethnic return migration policies: group-level variation in Greece and Serbia
• 9 States and standardisation: constructing the co-ethnic migrant story in Germany
• 10 Securing the diasporic ‘self’ by travelling abroad: Taglit-Birthright and ontological security
• 11 ‘We’re not coming from Mars; we know how things work in Morocco!’ How diasporic Moroccan youth resists political socialisation in state-led homeland tours
• Index