流动和地点的观点:重新思考政策制定中的移民和流动概念

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Pub Date : 2023-11-11 DOI:10.1080/1369183x.2023.2278400
Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik
{"title":"流动和地点的观点:重新思考政策制定中的移民和流动概念","authors":"Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik","doi":"10.1080/1369183x.2023.2278400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do some migration policies cause controversial debates while others are barely noticed? And why do migration policies consistently fail to meet their stated objectives? This paper argues that identifying the underlying perspective that informs migration policy-making can be a productive tool to answer these questions. I start by reviewing notions of ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ used in political and scholarly discourse and argue that the ways of differentiating between the two entail not only biases related to norms of sedentariness or social hierarchies, but also blind spots for how states and individuals perceive cross-border movements. As an alternative, I propose to conceptualise ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ as categories reflecting perspectives that either normalise sedentariness and fixed borders or movement and fluidity. In a second step, I combine the two perspectives with the perceptions of the state as the main regulator of movement and the individual on the move, leading to four ideal-typical situations of aligned and non-aligned perspectives on human movement. This notion of intersecting perspectives can help us explain both policy-making processes and the impact of migration policies. This is illustrated through two examples of EU-level policies on intra-corporate transferees on the one hand and family reunification on the other.","PeriodicalId":48371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","volume":"18 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives of flow and place: rethinking notions of migration and mobility in policy-making\",\"authors\":\"Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1369183x.2023.2278400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Why do some migration policies cause controversial debates while others are barely noticed? And why do migration policies consistently fail to meet their stated objectives? This paper argues that identifying the underlying perspective that informs migration policy-making can be a productive tool to answer these questions. I start by reviewing notions of ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ used in political and scholarly discourse and argue that the ways of differentiating between the two entail not only biases related to norms of sedentariness or social hierarchies, but also blind spots for how states and individuals perceive cross-border movements. As an alternative, I propose to conceptualise ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ as categories reflecting perspectives that either normalise sedentariness and fixed borders or movement and fluidity. In a second step, I combine the two perspectives with the perceptions of the state as the main regulator of movement and the individual on the move, leading to four ideal-typical situations of aligned and non-aligned perspectives on human movement. This notion of intersecting perspectives can help us explain both policy-making processes and the impact of migration policies. This is illustrated through two examples of EU-level policies on intra-corporate transferees on the one hand and family reunification on the other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2023.2278400\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2023.2278400","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为什么有些移民政策引起了争议性的争论,而另一些却几乎没有引起注意?为什么移民政策总是不能实现其既定目标?本文认为,确定为移民政策制定提供信息的潜在视角可以成为回答这些问题的有效工具。我首先回顾了政治和学术话语中使用的“移民”和“流动”的概念,并认为区分这两者的方式不仅涉及与久坐或社会等级规范相关的偏见,而且还涉及国家和个人如何看待跨境流动的盲点。作为一种替代方案,我建议将“迁移”和“流动”概念化,作为反映观点的类别,这些观点要么使久坐和固定边界正常化,要么使运动和流动性正常化。在第二步中,我将这两种观点与国家作为运动的主要调节者和运动中的个人的看法结合起来,得出了四种理想的典型情况,即关于人类运动的一致和不一致的观点。这种交叉视角的概念可以帮助我们解释政策制定过程和移民政策的影响。这是通过两个例子来说明的,一个是欧盟层面的企业内部转移政策,另一个是家庭团聚政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perspectives of flow and place: rethinking notions of migration and mobility in policy-making
Why do some migration policies cause controversial debates while others are barely noticed? And why do migration policies consistently fail to meet their stated objectives? This paper argues that identifying the underlying perspective that informs migration policy-making can be a productive tool to answer these questions. I start by reviewing notions of ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ used in political and scholarly discourse and argue that the ways of differentiating between the two entail not only biases related to norms of sedentariness or social hierarchies, but also blind spots for how states and individuals perceive cross-border movements. As an alternative, I propose to conceptualise ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ as categories reflecting perspectives that either normalise sedentariness and fixed borders or movement and fluidity. In a second step, I combine the two perspectives with the perceptions of the state as the main regulator of movement and the individual on the move, leading to four ideal-typical situations of aligned and non-aligned perspectives on human movement. This notion of intersecting perspectives can help us explain both policy-making processes and the impact of migration policies. This is illustrated through two examples of EU-level policies on intra-corporate transferees on the one hand and family reunification on the other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
157
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS) publishes the results of first-class research on all forms of migration and its consequences, together with articles on ethnic conflict, discrimination, racism, nationalism, citizenship and policies of integration. Contributions to the journal, which are all fully refereed, are especially welcome when they are the result of original empirical research that makes a clear contribution to the field of migration JEMS has a long-standing interest in informed policy debate and contributions are welcomed which seek to develop the implications of research for policy innovation, or which evaluate the results of previous initiatives. The journal is also interested in publishing the results of theoretical work.
期刊最新文献
Noninvasive Biomarkers for Alcohol-Related Liver Disease-A Proteomic Related Preliminary Report. Experimental evidence on how implicit racial bias affects risk preferences Becoming white or becoming mainstream?: defining the endpoint of assimilation Mental wellbeing and ethnic brokerage in friendship networks of adolescents in German secondary schools ‘Not having a real life’: psychosocial functions of using and selling drugs among young Afghan men who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1