Migration research

Migration research is an interdisciplinary scientific field of work that deals with permanent and cross-border relocations of human places of residence. Beginning in the 19th century, the great population movements of the 20th century brought growing interest in migration research.

The investigation of such migration processes is part of the research into spatial mobility . Geographers, economists, historians and social scientists understand spatial mobility to mean any change in position of an individual between different units of a spatial system. Spatial mobility is independent of the range of movement (long or short distances) and its frequency (once or regularly, rarely or frequently). One usually speaks of a migration process if the spatial mobility of an individual or a group takes place across an administrative border and is intended to be permanent, but at least for a longer period of time.

Historical migration research

Although migration is regarded as a general human phenomenon and humans are viewed by anthropologists as homo migrans , migration movements have only been systematically researched since the high industrialization at the end of the 19th century.

In ancient times and in the Middle Ages, territorial boundaries were relatively porous; cultural hybridization was often a result of migration . Migration movements were often caused by economic or climatic reasons, the threat of overpopulation or wars. Traders in particular (e.g. the Hanse merchants ) had been a highly mobile group since ancient times, and the educated elites were added in the Middle Ages. However, whether permanent migration resulted from mobility depended on the conditions in the receiving countries. This applies e.g. B. for the wanderings of the Vikings . Later there were also migrations because of religious persecution (e.g. the flight of the Huguenots from France).

A regulation and control of migration has only taken place since the age of the emergence of nation states and increasingly since the emergence of modern welfare states. Since the 19th century, the first wave of globalization gave rise to larger, mostly poverty-related transcontinental migratory movements. With the emergence of the labor movement and revolutionary movements in Europe, emigration for political reasons also increased.

Both internal migration in the course of industrialization and international migration have been analyzed by population and social scientists and urban researchers since the end of the 19th century, initially in England, the USA and Germany. Administrative interests were in the foreground. In comparison to international migration, however, internal migration was always considered to be less consequential and problematic.

In addition to the monographic treatment of the topic, the first theorizations such as B. Georg Simmel's theory of being a stranger (including the example of Jewish traders), Ernst Ravenstein's theory of step-by-step migration, which was later developed into the theory of chain migration (“transmigration”), and Robert E. Park's theory of marginalization and segregation of migrants.

In the 20th century, the wars and population shifts in connection with the redrawing of borders and decolonization were among the greatest triggers for migration. In the context of globalization and in connection with individualization and the pluralization of society, an increasing mobility of the individual people is postulated today, which increasingly enables individuals to cross territorial, social and cultural borders. But the collapse in the rates of (more or less) voluntary migration, which took place before the First World War , speaks against the linear trend of an increasingly mobile society. In the “post-modern networked world market”, national borders continue to act as barriers to the transfer of social and cultural capital (e.g. language, certificates, transferable skills) and act as a brake on voluntary mobility. In addition, since the interwar period and in particular the global economic crisis, the regulation of migration in important immigration countries, which has been circumvented by illegal migration, has been considerably tightened. In addition to voluntary return migration, involuntary return is also increasing in importance.

Modern works often concentrate on cultural or ethnic-religious aspects and the associated conflict zones of migration. At the urban level, increased segregation processes and risks were identified, the emergence of which cannot be prevented by entry bans and residence restrictions, as these are not compatible with the prohibition of ethnic discrimination or with European law. Similar segmentation trends can be seen in terms of participation in education and access to work. In contrast to this, the risk of the permanent entrenchment of an impoverished group of migrants (especially low-skilled immigrants) in Germany and other European countries, in contrast to the USA, has hardly been analyzed.

Interdisciplinarity and internationality

Due to the diversity of its subject, migration research requires the collaboration of scientists from different disciplines. In interdisciplinary teams, which have been increasingly emerging since the turn of the millennium, the individual scientists can guarantee a comprehensive presentation of the researched issues thanks to their subject-specific expertise and perspective.

International comparative migration research faces the challenge of making representative statements about a research subject, even if the respective data bases in the individual countries differ greatly from one another. National interdisciplinary teams should ensure that the respective subject-specific national data sources can be found and used. Migration science networks such as IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion) enable such interdisciplinary and international cooperation between scientists.

Indicators of the migration theory

The differences between emigration and immigration taking place at the same time are reflected in the migration balance. If the value is positive, immigration outweighs emigration. For example, in 2017 the immigration statistics counted a total of 1,550,721 immigrants from abroad to Germany and 1,134,641 emigrations abroad. The migration balance was therefore + 416,080.

The following units / indicators are used to measure and compare migration processes:

• Migration volume / gross migration = total of all migration processes: arrivals + departures
• Migration balance / balance = difference between immigration and emigration
• Migration rate = migration volume based on 1,000 inhabitants
• Mobility rate (s) = migration rates of certain population groups (e.g. younger / older population groups)

The migration processes described in this way can be further differentiated according to the range, motives and structural characteristics of the migrant.

Migration factors

Adam Smith already dealt with the causes of rural-urban migration and saw them in overpopulation and land scarcity on the one hand, and in the labor shortage in the emerging industrial cities on the other.

With the onset of the great overseas migrations from Europe from around the middle of the 19th century, scientific interest in researching and explaining such migration processes arose . At first, attempts were made to explain migration processes in a summary manner, later explanatory approaches were added that attempted to explain migration based on the subjective decision of individual individuals ( behavioral approaches). The focus of migration research shifted in the 20th century from a state-oriented analysis framework to investigate individual actions with an emphasis on differentiating different migration behavior according to categories such as gender , ethnicity , class or age .

Ernst Ravenstein founded the migration theory in 1885 by looking at internal migration in the United Kingdom. Using his statistics, he proved for the first time that hikes follow rules. Although various formal models for describing migration were subsequently developed, none of them provide a comprehensive and satisfactory theoretical description of the phenomenon of migration. All models are based on the idea that the migrant makes a rational decision to migrate. But it was precisely the simplicity of Ravenstein's push-pull model (the term was first used by Gunnar Myrdal in 1944 ) that seemed attractive. The model, which is based on the comparison between factors at the place of origin and destination and also includes migration barriers and personal factors, was developed by Everett S. Lee in 1966 and can also be found in today's migration discourses. The smaller the differences between the country of origin and the destination country are perceived, the lower the tendency to migrate, according to Lee.

The subjective perception thus plays an important role; it can be severely distorted. The thousands of Filipino nurses employed in the USA show how different the assessment of the individual factors can be . Many of them are trained doctors who prefer to work underqualified because they see no prospects in their home country.

Macroeconomic gravitational models

The macroeconomic models attempt to clarify migration at the aggregate level and to determine indicators to explain the migration behavior of entire populations. The migrations are reduced to economic or geographical factors , for example . While these generalizing and incomplete approaches work well, on closer inspection they also harbor some inconsistencies and unexplained occurrences.

Gravitation models based on the law of gravitation from physics were created as early as the 1940s . The most important finding was that the distance between the place of origin and the destination of the migration plays an important role in terms of the migration volume. The farther apart the locations are, the fewer members of a population set out.

In the 1960s, on the other hand, there was recourse to classical economics . The wage gap between two regions explained the extent of migration, with migrant workers moving from the poorly paid place of origin to the destination with higher wage levels . The theory was that the wage levels in both regions would converge. Ultimately, the number of workers in the immigration area rose and thus the wage level fell, and at the same time wages rose in the area of ​​origin due to the lack of workers.

IS Lowry in turn expanded this model to include economic indicators . The respective unemployment in the various regions is an indicator of the willingness of migrants to make the decision to migrate in order to increase their income.

In the meantime the connection between attractive wages and high immigration has been proven, but not the reverse proof between low wage levels and high emigration rate. According to globalization researcher Saskia Sassen, this can be explained by the incalculability of complex and variable social factors. Many people only have a chance to hike when they have freed themselves from the greatest need. Michael Vogler from the Institute for the Future of Work in Bonn, on the other hand, examined the migration flows for 86 countries over 15 years. He came to the conclusion that migration does not start until the region has reached a certain level of development. When a certain level of prosperity is reached, the numbers level off again. First people emigrate from rural areas to cities and later abroad.

Historical approach

One of Ernst Ravenstein's first explanations was based on the empirical findings of the migration itself. In the second half of the 1880s he published his migration laws , which he had obtained from the analysis of data from censuses . These laws aroused the interest of other researchers, who partially confirmed and supplemented Ravenstein's laws. Correspondingly, these theorems read :

1. The majority of migration processes take place over short distances,
2. Hikes over longer distances often take place in stages (chain hike),
3. Large industrial and port cities are preferred as destinations when hiking over longer distances.
4. Migration flows always consist of two opposing components,
5. The rural population is over-represented in migration flows,
6. Women tend to hike shorter distances, men tend to hike longer distances,
7. The majority of migrants are single people,
8. The population increase in cities is due more to migration gains than to natural population movements,
9. The volume of migration increases in sync with industrial and transport developments,
10. Most migration processes are triggered by economic reasons.

Another fundamental approach to explaining migration is Zelinski's model of the mobility transition (1971), which relates a society's mobility behavior to its socio-economic level of development. In analogy to the demographic transition model, a distinction is made between five development phases.

Distance and gravity models

In the empirical examination of migration processes between a source location and different, differently distant destinations over a longer period of time, a strong connection between migration volume and distance becomes clear, as already recognized by Ravenstein. In the search for a suitable model for the explanation of this relationship recognized geographer (Kant 1946; Stewart 1941; Zipf 1949) in common with the physical law of gravitation of Newton . The relationship between the migration volume, which decreases with the distance between the source and destination, can be well described with this distance model (which, however, still lacks the "mass" as properties of the source and destination, see below):

${\displaystyle F_{ij}={k \over {d_{ij}^{b}}}}$

Here, F is the migration rate between locations i and j , d is the distance between i and j , k is an empirically determined constant (mostly = 1) and b is an exponent weighting the distance (mostly = 2). If k = 1 and b = 2, then a given migration volume decreases with the doubling of the distance to a quarter of the original volume (quadratic decrease). While this model can model well-observed migration flows with suitable adaptation of k and b , it says nothing about the motives and causes of migration processes.

When comparing empirically and mathematically determined values, it is noticeable that the above model overestimates the migration volumes for short distances. G. Zipf and J. Stewart therefore further developed the initial consideration contained in the model and expanded it to a modification of Newton's law of gravitation suitable for the purposes of demography .

${\displaystyle F_{ij}={k\times {{M_{i}\times M_{j}} \over {d_{ij}^{b}}}}}$

where the “mass” of the place i and the “mass” of the place j is. ${\displaystyle M_{i}}$ ${\displaystyle M_{j}}$

Most of the time, “mass” is equated with population figures, which can easily be found in official statistics. So the migration volume will not only increase if the distance is reduced, but also if the mass of two regions under consideration is greater than the mass of other regions. Certainly the population figure alone will not produce a satisfactory model, because different population compositions in the regions under consideration also have an impact on migration flows. A densely populated region in which there is high unemployment certainly has less attraction and therefore less mass than a region of the same size with very low unemployment. One suggestion (Haggett 1991) is therefore to find mass as the product of population and average income. ${\displaystyle d_{ij}}$

Gravitational models can describe migration well, but cannot fully explain it. The only properties of the source and target area are population and distance in these models. In addition to the mass of interacting regions, there are a number of other features that determine the properties (push and pull factors) perceived by the individual as positive or negative and influence migration processes as well as the gaps between the regions, which either being able to inhibit a hike (intervening obstacles) or distract it (intervening opportunities).

Push and pull factors

→ Main article : Push-pull model of migration

The suction theory uses the push-and-pull model to explain the emergence of migratory pressure from the economic gap between two countries. The country of origin pressure factors act as unemployment , low wages , poverty and the host country provides pull factors such as jobs, higher salaries and social security . The reporting on the destination country and the exchange of experiences with those who have already emigrated or their relatives who have stayed at home also influence the decision to migrate. The latter incentive effect, according to Treibel a group migration .

For migrant workers , “material deprivation ” is in the foreground. The decision to migrate is closely linked to conflicts between those who want to emigrate and those in their immediate vicinity, with which they have to deal and negotiate. According to Thomae, the positive decision to emigrate is therefore always a conflict solution. Often, obligations of the emigrant are linked to it, such as the obligation to return “as a kind of securing balance between the motivational and cognitive system”.

The push and pull paradigm, however, does not correspond to an independent theoretical approach, but rather suggests the connections, since despite the plausible assumption of suction factors and pressure factors, the assumptions relating to the individual are purely hypothetical . The micro-theoretical approach of push and pull is used in the macro-theoretical approach to explain individual migration decisions.

The most important reasons for migrating from Mexico to the USA were for example:

• Push factors
  • Precarious labor market
  • Lack of raw materials
  • Low wages
  • Children as a pension
  • Risk of overturning the political system
  • Inadequate education system
  • Poor health system
  • Strong social gradient
• Pull factors
  • Better humanitarian care
  • Safe workplace
  • High wages
  • Better education system
  • Better health system
  • Opportunities for social advancement
  • Safe political system
  • Financial support
  • Better prospects for children
  • Proximity to home

Labor market segmentation theories

Michael Piore assumes that industrial societies have a permanent demand for low-skilled workers, the cause of which is the segmentation of the labor markets in the target countries. He justifies the fact that migrants are also willing to take poorly paid and unstable jobs by stating that they are target earners , i.e. that they work towards a certain monetary goal and are not interested in a higher status. He can thus explain the coexistence of unemployment and immigration, but not the lingering immigrants in the destination country and their social advancement.

George J. Borgas (1999) showed that migration to the USA had reduced skill levels since the 1960s and increased inequality in income distribution. But the incentive to migrate continues to work through welfare state benefits.

Migration system theory

The Nigerian sociogeographer Akin Mabogunje and Mary Kriz, Lin Leam Lim and Hania Slotnik founded the theory of migration systems. Different social spaces and subsystems are delimited, which differ according to the type and origin of migration (e.g. migration from former colonies to the mother countries France, Great Britain; from Turkey, from Eastern Europe and the Balkans to Germany; from Latin America, Morocco, Romania to Spain) or within which internal migration is particularly high (e.g. within Scandinavia).

Microeconomic models

Compared to the gravitational model and other structural explanations of migration, the micro-theoretical approach does not focus on the collective but on the individual in order to examine the respective migration decision. He takes international wage differences for granted and tries to explain the probability of migration through the individual chances of finding a job, the individually expected wage level and the migration costs. These approaches include the actor-centered neoclassical Harris-Todaro model (1970), which u. a. postulates that if wages are balanced between two regions, migration will come to a standstill.

One of the limits of many micro-theoretical approaches is their blindness to the fact that migration decisions are often not individual, but decisions by households or even (extended) families that determine who they send to the destination country on which “mission”. The expectation of value theory takes this into account. In particular, research approaches from the sociology of migration should also be used to understand collective decisions.

Individualized suction theory

In 1972 Lee individualized the macro-theoretical paradigm of push and pull and identified four causal and simultaneously effective layers in migrations:

• Features related to the region of origin
• Factors related to the target area
• Blockage factors
• individual parameters

The area-related characteristics include not only wages and unemployment rates, but are refined to include structural factors such as climate, quality of living, public safety, access to education and the quality of medical care. As a blocking factor, distance is no longer the decisive factor, but rather intervening obstacles such as the construction of the Berlin Wall or restrictive immigration legislation.

In addition to the objective and purely structural features, there are also individual parameters. The individual characteristics include gender, age, level of education, occupation or ethnic origin. This also includes the question of personal perception of the other factors. For example, single people often avoid rural areas because of long journeys and limited leisure activities, while families appreciate this environment as long as the environment is intact and the schools are happy.

According to ES Lee , a migrant only makes a decision to migrate after comparing all these characteristics. Accordingly, this model cannot be converted into a general formula.

In 1966, Lowry linked the older gravitational model with essential economic factors in order to calculate migration behavior.

${\displaystyle M_{i\rightarrow j}=k*{\frac {U_{i}}{U_{j}}}*{\frac {W_{j}}{W_{i}}}*{\frac {L_{i}*L_{j}}{D_{ij}}}+e_{ij}}$

With

${\displaystyle M_{i\rightarrow j}}$as the number of migrants from i to j

${\displaystyle {\frac {U_{i}}{U_{j}}}}$ respective unemployment rates

${\displaystyle {\frac {W_{j}}{W_{i}}}}$ the respective wage level (wages)

${\displaystyle {L_{i}*L_{j}}}$ Persons in the non-agricultural sector

${\displaystyle {D_{ij}}}$Distance between i and j (distance)

${\displaystyle e_{ij}}$as an error term

Thus, the number of people willing to migrate increases from i to j , the more unemployed people, the higher the employment and the less attractive the wages in i and the closer the two places are.

Human capital model

In 1962 LA Sjaastad developed the so-called human capital model of the migration theory (see human capital ). In his Human Capital Migration Theory, he focused on the individual qualifications of migrants who regard their skills and other characteristics as investments and want to use them to maximize benefits. Hiking is also synonymous with a personal investment in human capital. From this point of view, migration is a balance sheet with expenses and income, each of which can be of monetary value.

• Monetary expenses arise for a move or, alternatively, long journeys.
• Non-monetary expenses stand for giving up family and friends.
• Monetary income is generated, for example, from higher wages.
• Non-monetary income results e.g. B. from a better climate.

The model does not assume immediate realization of the income, but also takes into account a decision to migrate because of a professional perspective through the hope of better opportunities for advancement, as offered by many authorities or corporations .

Formally, the non-monetary aspects are taken into account, but are given much less weight than the monetary parameters.

${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}{\frac {Y_{d\,j}-Y_{o\,j}}{(1+r)^{j}}}-T}$

With

${\displaystyle Y_{d\,j}}$and income in the target region (destination) or in the home region (origin) ${\displaystyle Y_{o\,j}}$

T = cost of migration

N = number of years until benefits can be expected

r = rate to discount the expected income

The income stands for the subjective assessments of the expected income.

According to the formula, the decision to migrate is more likely

• the higher the wage level in the other region,
• the more time there is until the end of working life and
• the less the migration costs or the fewer assets that have to be left behind in the country of origin.

The model thus also records differently motivated migration behavior of different social groups, since the various parameters can relate to individual factors such as occupation, age and gender. However, when analyzing migration decisions, not only gross income but also the effect of government redistribution measures through taxes, social contributions, etc. must be taken into account.

The model was later refined several times by Borjas by taking into account the different economic assessment of visible (e.g. certified schooling) and less easily visible features in the country of origin and destination. According to this, an increase in school education in a country of origin would intensify the pull effect. Borjas also showed that the younger cohorts of immigrants to the United States invested less in learning the new language and in education than earlier generations of immigrants and thus had lower incomes. However, Chiswick denies these findings: What Borjas calls declining “quality” is actually due to the decreasing transferability of the skills of the new immigrants who come from culturally more distant countries. In any case, however, the marginal utility of additional investment in human capital is likely to decline as the number of immigrants increases, that is, as the number of potential competitors increases. As a result, the migrants' educational efforts are decreasing and the number of school dropouts is increasing. Other authors attribute this effect to the decrease in migration and information costs through the support of extensive kinship networks in the target country. This reduces the pressure on migrants to make additional investments in human capital and reduces the wage and return expectations associated with such high investments.

Barry Chiswick tried to show that migration is only worthwhile for highly qualified, highly motivated people who accept low returns on their human capital investments over a long period of time. They do not expect to reach the average income of the local population for around 10 to 15 years.

Bodvarson and Van den Berg attempt to summarize these theories and provide a unified human capital theoretical justification for migration movements.

If one regards migration itself as an investment that has to be carefully prepared and (often collectively) pre-financed, the conclusion that can be drawn from the human capital theory is that a certain level of income and thus a certain level of education must first be achieved in the regions of emigration To be able to finance emigration at all. As a result, emigration can initially increase even when the wage level of the destination country is approached, and then decrease again when relative prosperity is achieved with an average per capita income of perhaps 20,000 US dollars.

However, even the most elaborate approaches suffer from neglecting the fact that migration decisions are often budgetary decisions. It is often not the expectation of an individual higher wage on the part of the migrants themselves, but their hope for higher educational and income opportunities for their children that is decisive for the decision to migrate. The expectation of value theory tries to take this into account, which also takes budget decisions into account.

Value expectation theory

The approach of the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU, subjectively expected benefit, value expectation theory) represents the attempt to unite the various theoretical migration models. The model is based on the expectation of value theory and combines the subjective characteristics with classical socio-economic motives. Classical macro-theoretical motivations such as climate and wage level influence the formula, but personal perception and consideration determine how the decision to migrate is made.

The cost-benefit analysis tacitly assumes that decision-makers prefer to select the options that bring them the greatest benefit in order to maximize personal expected total benefit (SEU). Any expenses are in turn included in the calculation as a negative advantage (evaluation). The personal expectation of the likelihood of success is also included in the overall assessment.

${\displaystyle {\hbox{SEU}}(i)=\sum p_{ij}*U_{j}}$

"The expression says that the subjectively expected total utility (SEU) of a certain action ( i ) is composed of the sum of the subjective utility ( U ) that this action has for the achievement of various individual goals ( j ), multiplied by the respective subjective expected probabilities ( p ) that these benefits will actually be realized. "

Confronted with variable possibilities, the selection of the action which has the highest value SEU (i) takes place. If the SEU is higher than that of sedentariness, the decision to migrate is made.

The core of the model is a benefit maximization based on individualistic and rational considerations. So it only takes into account individuals. When it comes to the complex migration decision of several participants such as entire households, the joint decision goes beyond the purely egotistically structured explanatory approach. For example, when making budgetary decisions, the interests and benefits of those involved can contradict one another. It is a proven fact that most household decisions are made against the career of the female partner.

Decision-theoretical migration models

The models presented so far serve to describe and explain summary migration effects. However, mathematical causal relationships can not be formulated at the micro level of the decisions of individual individuals . Migration decisions can be here - as all individual decisions - only on probabilistic basis ( probabilistic forecast). Probabilistic models take into account the different degrees of information of the migrants when making location decisions.

Appropriate models attempt to depict the process of information acquisition and evaluation that (possibly) leads to a relocation. The information included in a decision for or against a hike, mostly come from the typical weekly range ( activity space ) an individual or a household. Dissatisfaction with the initial situation can be based on various factors that can be broken down according to the basic functions of existence (living, working, supply, education, recreation). From each factor area, individual environmental stimuli as stressors can influence the assessment of the current residential location.

The models depict - mostly in the form of flow charts - the decision alternatives of the individual / household, which are each made randomly, at least non-deterministically. In principle, four alternative courses of action can be distinguished when stressors occur:

1. By increasing the tolerance limit, the individual / household adapts to the circumstances.
2. Active influencing attempts to reduce the stressors (e.g. commitment to a higher environmental quality).
3. It starts an active search for a new place to live.
4. A decision is made in principle for a change of location, which, however, is only actually carried out when the opportunity arises and may be additionally influenced by various external factors.

In addition, the actors' individual risk appetites can be included in probability and game theory models.

Concepts at the meso level

For the New Economy of Labor Migration , mainly represented by Odet Stark (1991), it is not the individual but the family that is the decisive actor in migration decisions and strategies. Migration decisions are always made in the context of social dependency. In this perspective, migration without a wage differential can also make sense, if z. B. a risk diversification is sought or the temporary migration (especially of the heads of household) serves as a substitute for the lack of credit options in the country of origin, to z. B. starting a business. More recent studies have also confirmed Mincer's other findings that a high income and better education, especially among women, dampen the willingness to migrate.

The meso level also includes approaches that assume the risk-reducing effect of the existence of networks of migrants in the destination countries. Chain migration is defined by the fact that the migration of individual actors results in the migration of other actors who are connected to this actor through direct family or acquaintance relationships. In addition to the supportive effect of networks, the risks that established kinship networks can cause non-acceptance of migrants are also discussed . Fights over status, power distribution or gender conflicts often set in within these networks.

Global importance

Migration is an essential element for population changes, in particular because they have a much shorter effect than natural population movements. In the early industrialized countries, migration processes predominantly determine the population movement as a whole. The dimensions as well as the social and economic consequences of large migratory movements occur in the face of one

• increasing prosperity gap between the highly developed industrial nations and the so-called developing countries,
• steadily increasing population numbers worldwide as well
• a multitude of current armed conflicts

more and more into the public consciousness.

Explanatory approaches for current migration movements and models for forecasting future migration are therefore more than just scientific . They are increasingly being taken into account in current political fields of action (see Immigration Act ).

Problem of migration statistics

Investigation and comparison of migration in Europe or the individual member states are usually problematic:

• definitional problems:
  • There is no common binding definition for “migrants”. For some countries, immigrants are those who have been resident for a year, for others the length of stay stated on entry and still other countries differentiate between immigration from foreigners and remigrating former citizens. France, on the other hand, does not collect any official immigration statistics at all. Migration and the category “migrant” are therefore socially constructed and historically changeable, which has a direct impact on migration statistics and their comparability.
  • The assignment of migrants to foreigners is incorrect. From a legal point of view, anyone who does not have German citizenship is a foreigner . On the one hand, not all foreigners living in Germany are also migrants - many children of the second and third generation grow up in Germany and in some cases do not know the original language or even the country of origin. On the other hand, not all migrants are foreigners, as is the case, for example, with re-naturalized repatriates. States with a colonial background such as France or Great Britain naturalise immigrants from the former colonies and do not record them in the respective foreigners statistics.
• Different procedures for the preparation of the numerical material:
  • In contrast to statistics, which take into account the ratio of immigrants to the resident population, absolute figures are only of limited significance. Immigration figures by no means prove the number of foreign residents living in Germany. The German immigration statistics also include repatriates.
  • The number of immigrants in no way implies population growth, unless the figures take account of net migration, i.e. the ratio to the emigration rate. The death rate and birth rate should also be checked.
  • Foreigners can be citizens of the EU or come from a non-member state.
• illegal migration
  • In southern Europe, the proportion of illegal migration tends to be higher. This has to do with long, difficult-to-control maritime borders and leads to statistical underrepresentation in migration statistics.

Institutions for migration research

• Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrück (Head since 1982 Klaus Bade , since 2005 Michael Bommes , since 2009 Andreas Pott)
• European forum for migration studies (efms), University of Bamberg, until 2019 (founded and led by Friedrich Heckmann )
• Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research , Rostock
• Berlin Institute for Population and Development
• Institute for Regional and Migration Research, Trier
• Bonn Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Learning (BIM)
• Berlin Institute for Empirical Integration and Migration Research (BIM), Humboldt University Berlin

See also

Portal: Migration and Integration  - Articles, categories and more on migration and flight, intercultural dialogue and integration

• Population geography
• Post-migrant society
• Refugee crisis in Europe from 2015
• Harris-Todaro model
• Central and Eastern European Migration Review

literature

Bibliographies

• Davoud Gharagozlou: Sources for Migration Research. A selected comparative bibliography in three languages ​​about the USA, Germany, France and England. Compiled and provided with a brief description of American migration history . Lit, Münster 2004, ISBN 3-8258-7881-3 (= Sources of migration research ).
• R. Paul Shaw: Migration Theory and Fact: A Review and Bibliography of Current Literature . Philadelphia 1975.

Representations

• Klaus J. Bade, Peter C. Emmer, Leo Lucassen, Johne Oltmer (eds.): Encyclopedia Migration in Europe. From the 17th century to the present , Paderborn 2007, ISBN 978-3-506-75632-9
• Klaus J. Bade: Socio-historical migration research. (Studies on historical migration research). V&R Unipress, 2004, ISBN 3-89971-172-6 .
• Wassilios Baros: Families in Migration. A qualitative analysis of the relationship structure between Greek adolescents and their parents in the context of migration. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2001, ISBN 3-631-37544-1 (At the same time dissertation at the University of Cologne 2000 under the title: The structure of relationships between Greek adolescents and their parents in the context of migration ).
• Harald Bauder: Labor movement - how migration regulates labor markets. Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.
• Zygmunt Bauman : The fear of others. An essay on migration and scaremongering. Edition Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-518-07258-5
• Gudrin Biffl (Ed.): Migration and Integration - Dialogue between Politics, Science and Practice . omninum, Bad Vöslau 2010, ISBN 978-3-9502888-1-0 .
• Ljubomir Bratić with Eveline Viehböck : The second generation , migrant youth in German-speaking countries, Innsbruck: Österr. Studien-Verlag 1994, ISBN 3-901160-10-8 .
• GF De Jong, JT Fawcett: Motivations for Migration: An Assessment and a Value-Expactancy Research Model. In: GF De Jong, RW Gardner (Ed.): Migration Decision Making. New York 1981.
• Jared Diamond : Collapse . (Original title: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. 2004, translated by Sebastian Vogel), Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-10-013904-6 , as paperback 2006, ISBN 978-3-596-16730- 2 .
• Maria Dietzel-Papakyriakou: Aging in Migration. Lucius, Stuttgart 1993, ISBN 3-432-25901-8 .
• Petrus Han: Theories on international migration: Selected interdisciplinary migration theories and their central statements. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-8252-2814-2 .
• Felicitas Hillmann: Migration. An introduction from a socio-geographical perspective. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-515-10636-8 .
• Kirsten Hoesch: Migration and Integration. Wiesbaden 2018.
• Jacqueline Knörr (Ed.): Women and Migration. Anthropological Perspectives. Campus, Frankfurt am Main / New York, NY 2000, ISBN 3-593-36604-5 ( English ).
• Jacqueline Knörr (Ed.): Childhood and Migration. From experience to agency. Transcript, Bielefeld 2005, ISBN 3-89942-384-4 .
• Steffen Kroehnert: Theories of Migration. Berlin Institute for World Population and Global Development, 2003 (online)
• Everett S. Lee: A Theory of Migration. In: G. Széll (Ed.): Regional mobility. Munich 1972.
• Jürgen Leibold: Immigrants between naturalization and emigration - an empirical study on the binding effect of social integration . Göttingen 2007. (online at webdoc.sub.gwdg.de, accessed February 22, 2009)
• Ira South Lowry: Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytical Models. San Francisco 1966.
• Larry A. Sjastaad: The Costs and Returns of Human Migration. In: The Journal of Political Economy. 70, 1962.
• Anette Treibel: Migration in Modern Societies. Juventa, Weinheim 1999, ISBN 3-7799-0385-7 .
• Heike Wagner, E. Petzl: Construction of Migration in Statistics, Discourse and Practice. In: M. Becka, A.-P. Rethmann (Ed.): Migration and Ethics. Schöningh, Paderborn 2010, pp. 25–50. ISBN 978-3-506-76939-8 .
• Hans-Rudolf Wicker: Migration, Difference, Law and Pain. Social anthropological essays on a vanishing modernity, 1990–2010. : Seismo, Zurich 2012, ISBN 978-3-03777-110-5 .
• Zeithistorische Forschungen / Studies in Contemporary History 2 (2005), Volume 3: Migration .

Web links

Wiktionary: Migration  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

• Berlin Institute for Population and Development (2009): Unused Potential. On the situation of integration in Germany.
• Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrück (recommended sub-item: publications)
• Barbara Lüthi: Migration and Migration History , Version: 1.0, in: Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte , September 28, 2010.
• European Forum for Migration Studies , University of Bamberg
• Working group "International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion" (IMISCOE)
• Research project "The Political Economy of Migration in an Integrating Europe" (PEMINT)
• Research group "International Migration Systems"
• GIGA Focus series of refugees and migration , GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 2016
• Network of critical migration and border regime research , interdisciplinary European networking between science, activism, art and NGO work
• Sven Rößler: Newer Approaches to Migration Research, in: POLIS. Report of the German Association for Political Education. Issue 3/2010, pp. 11–13 ( ISSN  1433-3120 )
• Movements. Journal for critical migration and border regime research.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b} Barbara Lüthi: Migration and Migration History . In: Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte , September 28, 2010, accessed July 30, 2012.
2. ↑ Michael Borgolt (Ed.): Migrations im Mittelalter: Ein Handbuch. Berlin 2014.
3. ↑ Jochen Oltmer: Global Migration: Past and Present. Munich 2017.
4. ^ Sylvia Hahn: Historical Migration Research. Frankfurt 2012.
5. ↑ James C. Scott: Seeing like a State. Yale University Press 1998.
6. ^ Douglas S. Massey ia: Worlds in Motion. Oxford 1988.
7. ^ Sonja Haus: Social capital and chain migration. Opladen 2000.
8. ^ Franz Nuscheler: Migration as a source of conflict and an international problem of order. In: P. Imbusch, R. Zoll (Ed.): Peace and Conflict Research. Wiesbaden 2006.
9. ↑ See Beck 1986, p. 125.
10. ↑ Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri: Empire: The new world order. Frankfurt 2002.
11. ↑ Thomas Faist: Migration and the transfer of social capital or: Why are there relatively few international migrants? In: Ludger Pries (Ed.): Transnational Migration. Soziale Welt special volume 12. Baden-Baden, pp. 63–83.
12. ↑ Serhat Karakayali: Ghosts of Migration: On the Genealogy of Illegal Immigration in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bielefeld 2015.
13. ↑ For Germany cf. Lena Friedrich: Housing and inner-city segregation of migrants in Germany. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Working Paper, December 2008.
14. ↑ For Germany cf. Working group on education reporting: Education in Germany 2016. Part H, p. 173 ff.
15. ↑ With a few exceptions such as B. Wolfgang Seifert: Migration as a Poverty Risk. In: Eva Barlösius (Ed.): The poverty of society. Berlin, Heidelberg 2001, p. 201 ff .; Eric Seils, Jutta Höhne: Poverty and Immigration. Risks of poverty by migration status and age. A brief evaluation of current data based on the 2016 microcensus. WSI Policy Brief 12, 08/2017.
16. ↑ See Caroline B. Brettell, James F. Hollifield: Migration Theory. Talking across disciplines . New York / London 2000.
17. ↑ IMISCOE website
18. ↑ BAMF (ed.): Migration report 2016/2017: Central results . 2019 ( bamf.de [PDF]).
19. ↑ Michael Jeismann: The risk means: the collapse of world society (interview with Jared Diamond ). In: faz.net , December 19, 2005, accessed February 22, 2009.
20. ^ Lowry 1966.
21. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Steffen Kroehnert: Theories of Migration ( Memento of September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), Berlin Institute for World Population and Global Development, 2003 (accessed February 22, 2009).
22. ^ Anette Treibel: Migration in modern societies . Juventa, Weinheim 1999, ISBN 3-7799-0385-7 , p. 33 f .
23. ↑ Thomae 1974.
24. ↑ Dietzel Papa Kyriakou 1993, p. 68.
25. ^ M. Piore: Bird of Passage. 1979.
26. ^ Mary M. Kritz, Lin Lean Lim, Hania Zlotnik: International migration systems: A global approach. Oxford 1992.
27. ↑ Lee 1972, pp. 115-129.
28. ↑ Sjaastad 1962, pp. 80-93.
29. ↑ George J. Borjas: Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality and the Earnings of Immigrants. In: Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 3: 463-489 (1985).
30. ↑ Barry R. Chiswick: Are Immigrants Favorably Self-Selected? An Economic Analysis. In: Caroline D. Brettell, James F. Hollifield (Eds.): Migration Theory: Talking Across the Disciplines. Routledge, New York 1999, pp. 52-75; here: p. 70, note 11.
31. ↑ George J. Borjas: The Slowdown in the Economic Assimilation of Immigrants: Aging and Cohort Effects Revisited Again. In: Journal of Human Capital, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 483-517.
32. ↑ George J. Borjas, Richard B. Freeman, Lawrence F. Katz: On the Labor Market Effects of Immigration and Trade. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3761, 1991. Online
33. ↑ Barry R. Chiswick: Are Immigrants Favorably Self-Selected? An Economic Analysis. In: Caroline D. Brettell, James F. Hollifield (Eds.): Migration Theory: Talking Across the Disciplines. Routledge, New York 1978.
34. ↑ Ö. B. Bodvarsson, Ö. B., H. Van den Berg: The Economics of Immigration: Theory and Policy. Berlin, New York 2013.
35. ^ De Jong / Fawcett 1981.
36. ↑ Roseman et al. a., see also the sociology of migration
37. ^ J. Mincer: Family migration decisions. In: Journal of Political Economy 86 (1978) 5, pp. 749-773.
38. ↑ Sonja Haug: Empirical research on chain migration and social networks. In: Social Capital and Chain Migration. Series of publications by the Federal Institute for Population Research. Volume 31. Wiesbaden 2000, p. 163.
39. ↑ Cecilia Menjívar: Immigrant Kinship Networks: Vietnamese, Salvadoreans and Mexicans in Comparative Perspective. In: Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 28 (1997), no. 1, pp. 1-24.
40. ↑ Marianne Haase, Jan C. Jugl: Migration in European Comparison - Numbers, Data, Facts? In: bpb.de , March 13, 2008, accessed on July 30, 2012.
41. ↑ Wagner / Petzl 2010, pp. 25–50.
42. ↑ Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) , Osnabrück.
43. ^ Berlin Institute for Population and Development .
44. ^ Institute for Regional and Migration Research , Trier.