Part 1: Migration and refugee studies: A basic introduction

In this section, we will explore a set of fundamental questions surrounding migration, as we look into issues such as:

• Central theories about why and how people move.
• How do governments and supranational institutions respond to peoples’ movement within and across borders?
• Which mechanisms and legal frameworks are put in place to facilitate or contain their movements?
• How are mobile people categorized, and how do labels and categorizations shape people’s possibilities to reside, settle down, make a living, and create a new life for themselves in a different place?

Labels and concepts, institutions, and frameworks

When we study people on the move, we need to be aware of the labels we use to categorize them. These categories are closely tied to legal definitions and to the social and political world, as well as to the connection between knowledge and power. Our choices in research can unintentionally reproduce stereotypes and inequalities, and ultimately be used by the political forces that influence these people’s possibilities of moving in the world and their ability to construct decent lives as they move. Legal categories can be instruments of inclusion but also of exclusion. They can be used to discipline people or groups, and to shape our knowledge about them, in order to support the interests of the majority.

Migrant vs Refugee

One of the central debates is the use of the word, and choice of focus on “migrant” vs “refugee”. Migrant describes people who move by choice, often motivated by economic necessity. A refugee is someone who is forced to move due to war or political persecution. However, these are problematic terms. Reality is much more complex. Research shows that people’s decision to leave is often a combination of force and choice. Their reasons for crossing borders can also change throughout their migration journey, sometimes changing their categories or statuses.

Furthermore, the distinction between migrant and refugee produces the idea that some people deserve protection - refugees who flee from violence and prosecution – whereas others – so-called economic migrants – are seen as mere fortune seekers. Although the sharp distinction between these two terms is problematic, most researchers acknowledge the importance of addressing the specific challenges of people who are forcibly displaced. Hence, some talk about refugees and other migrants.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has voiced a firm stance that refugees are not migrants, whereas the International Organization for Migration has been more ambiguous in their statements.

Janine Dahinden proposes de-migranticisation because the way we use the word migrant today suggests that ‘being a migrant’ is naturally given,  rather than a social and political construct linked to the concept of nation states and borders. When researchers focus specifically on migrants’ experiences, they might risk reducing people on the move to their migrant status, overlooking other important aspects of their personhood.

In a field where nation-state migration institutions benefit from the perception that migrants are essentially different from non-migrants, this is a critical approach.  Other researchers agree with Dahinden but suggest using the categories of refugees and migrants as “strategic essentialisms”, which means that we recognize that these labels are simplistic and constructed, but that we use them strategically to highlight the specific challenges of this group, to advocate for their rights and to challenge power structures.

Definitions of refugees

Debates about definitions are central to the field, but the label refugee does have a particular legal context as an internationally settled legal category with very specific rights. The internationally recognized definition of refugee has been adopted by 148 signatory states.

The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as

“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”.

However, the history of this definition is one of exclusion. The original Convention limited the definition of refugees to those who had been impacted by the events of WWII in Europe. In 1967, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees was implemented, removing limitations on where and when someone could be recognised as a refugee. While there are competing definitions of refugees, especially the African Charter – which expands the definition to include environmental and economic factors for displacement, the UN definition is the most widely accepted. UNHCR, the central body in international refugee governance uses the definition above. Their application is criticized for being too simplistic because it does not recognise the political and context-specific nature of the refugee category but rather treats it as a neutral legal category. However, for refugees, being officially recognised can play an immensely important role since international law protects them from being sent back to the place they fled from, a practice known as refoulement. Yet, since the beginning, the refugee protection framework has been disputed and implementation inconsistent, and there is a disturbing, global trend of increasing reluctance to provide protection and follow international law. 

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement define IDPs as “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”. As mentioned, some of the challenges with focusing mostly on refugees in legal and academic discussions are that other types of displacement, like forced displacement within ones’ country of residence have become less visible, and less addressed by policy. A central issue here is that crossing international borders may require a lot of resources, which in practice means that those least privileged may also be those least able to cross borders. IDPs are not protected under international law in the same way as refugees. While they are protected by international human rights and humanitarian principles, IDPs remain under the governance of national governments and local authorities. The guiding Principles on Internal Displacement reflect and are consistent with international humanitarian law, human rights instruments and refugee law and provide guidelines for states and international organisations to protect and assist this group. In Sudan, the vast majority of people displaced by war are internally displaced. 

Migrant workers

Labour migration is generally viewed as voluntarily migrating for work and economic gain, but there are complex reasons for migrating also in these cases. A migrant worker may be a victim of human trafficking; or may have been lured with false promises; or may be an ad-hoc refugee. While international frameworks govern the treatment of refugees, migrant workers are generally governed by national policies and bilateral agreements. Migrant workers are sometimes portrayed as powerless and vulnerable, but they can also hold important positions. Some of them have a significant impact on their host states or, as part of the diasporas, impact on their home states. They may also play important economic roles as senders of remittances (money and goods) that diasporas (both labor migrants, refugees and others) send to their families and social networks in their country of origin, or other places. For example, Sudanese diasporas are providing important economic support to recently displaced Sudanese both within Sudan and outside.  The global estimates of remittances are considered to be significantly lower than the real rates as it is difficult to monitor and trace, but remittances do on average surpass foreign direct investments and aid in most countries. The opportunity to send money back home can be a key reason for migrating, showing that the decision to leave is often not just an individual decision but one made with family and others in mind. Research from the Arabian Gulf is particularly relevant to these debates.

“Illegal”, irregular, unauthorized or undocumented?

In public and political discourse, we often encounter the term “illegal migrant”, which carries negative connotations. Researchers and humanitarian workers often disagree with this label, arguing that people themselves cannot be illegal. The focus has rather been drawn to the processes that label people as ‘illegal’, since it is states and legal frameworks that place them in this category. Migrants often also move in and out of illegality. Scholars and journalists concerned with the ethics of language have instead started using alternative terms like irregular, irregularised, unauthorized migration and undocumented migrant. These terms are value-neutral and refer to  nation states’ and migration regulations’ role in producing the irregular or illegal status and to the documents these people carry, rather than to the persons themselves.

Refugee studies or forced migration?

The sub-field refugee studies has developed alongside nation-states’ struggles to solve the challenges of managing people on the move. The system of refugee protection was originally created to address issues from the period between World Wars I and II (1914-1945) and to deal with and manage refugees during and after WWII. It later expanded along with Western states’ growing worries over the increase of asylum seekers moving from the Global South to the Global North. The mid-1990s witnessed a turn from refugee studies to forced migration studies, reflecting the shift of focus.

The turn to forced migration addressed other kinds of involuntary displacements not captured by the international legal definition of a refugee and broadened the scope of research. It responded to researchers’ calls for attention to the needs and rights of not only people who cross borders as they flee violence and persecution but also of those who find themselves internally displaced (IDPs) as well as those who have been displaced due to non-political circumstances, such as climate change. Critics of this turn have pointed to the risk of losing sight of the unique challenges of refugeehood and the specificities of refugees’ circumstances and argue that the term forced migration undermines the agency of migrants and creates a divide between those seen as "deserving" (forced migrants) and "undeserving" (voluntary migrants).

Postcolonial critics have argued that forced migration studies developed as part of a project of neocolonial humanitarianism, in which humanitarian efforts formed part of a civilizing project which sought to “reform” Global South states in alignment with priorities of the Global North, including economic interests, political containment strategies and military action.

Why do people migrate? A very brief introduction to central theories

The question “Why do people migrate?” has been central to the study of migration, and research has moved from simple push-and-pull theories (economic, environmental, and demographic factors that presumably push people away from their place of origin—e.g. poverty— and pull them to other countries—e.g. demand for labor) to a more complex understanding of why people cross borders.

In the following, we will introduce the most important theoretical approaches to why migrants cross borders.

Macro theories rooted in neoclassical economics explain migration applying a cost-benefit logic, explaining international migration movements with differences in labor supply and demand between sending and receiving countries. The corresponding micro theories point to migrants as rational actors who make the calculated decision of moving from a country with low wages to a country where the wages are higher and where they can be more productive. Hence, it is assumed that migrants move to countries where their investment in transnational migration can offer them the highest (monetary) return. As an example, we could think of Filipino women who migrate to the United Arab Emirates or Singapore to take up employment as domestic workers. They fulfill the demand of labor in these countries while earning higher wages than those available in the Philippines. Neoclassical economic approaches, however, have ignored the historical reasons behind migration as well as the role of governments and structural constraints. Instead, they have tended to view individuals as rational actors who primarily migrate to increase their income.

By developing historical-structural approaches, researchers have shifted the focus to the role of state actors and how factors like historical connections, recruitment practices, and structural inequalities and past migration pattern shape migrants’ decisions and behaviors.

According to world systems theory or dependence theory, global economic processes can force people to look for jobs elsewhere, hence triggering migration. For example, efforts of mechanisation, modernization and development have affected the job possibilities for agricultural workers. These processes have also been accompanied by multinational companies being established in the Global South and by investments in infrastructure, such as railroads, which further has facilitated the movement of people. Moreover, these dynamics have fostered trade and cultural links between sending and receiving countries, some of these stemming back to colonial times, which also have contributed to driving migration.

Historical-structural approaches often view migrants as passive victims of global capitalism. These approaches have been criticised for ignoring migrants’ agency and the way they make their own choices and resist structural pressure when deciding to migrate.

Scholars have, for example, pointed to how global processes leading to segmented or dual labor markets prompt migrants from labor markets in the Global South to search for jobs in labor markets in global cities where there is a strong demand of workers. This is related to what has been called segmented or dual labor market theory, where a two-tier labor market emerges with one segment finding high-paid, safe, stable jobs; and another segment being pushed into low-paid and unstable jobs. The separation is often along racial and gendered lines, and is entangled with immigration status. This is further embedded in visa regimes that favor people with high levels of education and income. Dual labor market theory emphasizes the strong demand for so-called “low skilled” workers in wealthy nations. And so, rather than being pushed to migrate due to conditions in the sending country, the demands of the economies of wealthy nations for workers with low levels of education pull people from low-income countries to these destinations. While this approach relies on a cost-benefit logic of motivations for migration, it also includes a structural analysis of how local labor markets become entangled with processes of migration and global capitalism.

The new economics of labor migration (NELM) was also developed as a reaction to the dominant perspectives of neoclassical economics. This approach emphasized that people are not isolated actors. They are part of larger collectivities like families, households, and communities, and the decision to migrate is often made collectively within these entities. One strategy can be to send one family member to work in a nearby city, another to work abroad, while the other members stay behind to work in the local labor market.  By doing this, the household reduces its risks. Other scholars have criticised the household model for assuming that the household is a unified unit. This view fails to acknowledge how households and families can be places of power struggles and conflict, often based on gender, but also on age and generation.  Focusing on the household as a unit of analysis obscures the importance of social relations and networks that migrants draw upon outside the family.

The renown sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, pointed to the different forms of capital or resources people have access to and draw upon for different purposes: Economic capital (money, wealth, material assets), cultural capital (education, skills, knowledge), social (relationships and networks) and symbolic (recognition, prestige and status). Bourdieu’s social capital theory has been used to explain why and how people migrate. As people acquire social capital their social networks may connect them with people located in other places. Immigrants often rely on these networks because they make it easier and less costly to move and resettle. Social capital may also accumulate over time, according to the cumulative causation of migration approach, which describes how migration often becomes “self-perpetuating” as migration tends to continue through the same networks, creating migration flows (or “corridors”) from one specific origin context to a specific receiving destination. However,  people’s access to these networks depend on factors such as their gender and age, which creates differentiated opportunities of migration through social networks.

Governing refugees: legal instruments and institutions

The following frameworks and agreements play vital roles in shaping the legal and policy landscape for the governance of refugees at both the international and regional levels.

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee convention)

Together with the Refugee protocol, this is the key legal document designed to protect refugees, and it constitutes the foundation for the work conducted by the UNHCR.

1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee protocol)

The 1967 Protocol was an amendment to the 1951 Convention, as it removed its geographical and temporal restrictions and made it applicable on a global scale.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

The UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, was established in 1950 and operates currently in 135 countries. It is the main international organization which coordinates and assists refugees and stateless persons.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM)

The IOM was established in 1951 as the migration agency of the United Nation and works to ensure humane and orderly migration. It has 175 member states and is present in 171 countries.

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement

These principles target the specific needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs).

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW)

Defines categories of migrant workers and sets out their rights. It is more recent and is primarily ratified by sending-countries, not by Global North states, nor any of the states in the Arabian Peninsula.

The New York Declaration

This declaration was adopted in 2016 by all 193 Member States of the United Nations, and led to the following frameworks:

The Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF):

It emphasizes the need for sustainable support to both refugees and host communities. Focuses on alleviating what is perceived as a high pressure on large hosting communities, increasing the self-reliance of refugees, extending the possibility of third country solutions, and supporting conditions in sending countries.

The Global Compact on Refugees:

In 2018, The Global Compact on Refugees was adopted by all Member States of the UN. This non-binding international agreement aims to strengthen the response to large movements of refugees and protracted refugee situations. It encourages so-called “burden-sharing” and support for host countries.

African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention)

Arabic version

While focusing on IDPs, this convention is crucial for the broader understanding of displacement-related governance on the African continent.

Casablanca Protocol on the Treatment of Palestinian Refugees 1965

Provides a response from the Arab states on the issue of Palestinian refugees.

Declaration on the Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Arab World 1992

Expands on the protection of refugees in the Arab region, beyond the Palestinians

Arab Convention Regulating the Status of Refugees in the Arab Countries 1994

Borders, bordering and the politics of belonging

Borders are not ‘natural’ and objective. They are the result of active politics of ongoing bordering processes  - that is the production of differentiated rights and opportunities between populations and groups. Borders are made by states in their effort to exercise sovereignty. One can say that refugees are a legally privileged group because they are protected by international law when crossing borders. Hence, they are an exception to the rule that states have a sovereign right to control their borders. In the case of refugees, international law can be a tool for protection, but also a tool for the suppression of other states. And with the increasing border externalization projects of Europe – also a way for wealthy, powerful states (such as the EU-members) to outsource, or refuse their obligation to protect refugees. Within the MENA borders are further linked to colonial processes of the post-Ottoman collapse, and the colonial projects of extraction across Asia and Africa, and as such borders gain other dimensions. Pre- and post- colonial history shapes the way migration is and has been governed in the MENA region, The now suspended Four Freedoms agreement between Sudan and Egypt is one example. Another is the so-called externalisation of European borders.

Social scientists claim that bordering is not only about the political governance of a territory (who has the right to entry and residence), but also about the politics of belonging (processes of inclusion/exclusion; who are entitled to be a member of and to belong to a society, including access to rights and basic services). As such, bordering processes seek to control both the political and the social order.

External borders are central to the study of migration, but we must also examine how borders and bordering processes have moved from the geographical and political borders demarking a national territory to the center of political and social life. This phenomenon is called internal borders and acts of everyday bordering. It highlights how ordinary citizens, such as employers, bank clerks, hospital workers, and street-level bureaucrats, are expected to act as border agents and perform border work.  These individuals often make decisions and exercise discretion while interpreting vaguely defined laws and regulations, determining, for example, who can access healthcare services, qualify for social benefits, or obtain a social security number and a bank account. In doing so, they contribute to the creation of differentiated access to rights, effectively shaping who is included and excluded from various forms of social protection. Stereotyping of ethnic and racialised minorities is central to such border work and places certain populations in a vulnerable position. Because they are profiled as “non-belonging”, they constantly have to prove that they have the right to work and to access public services, such as education and health care, while others never even have to show their passport to get a job. For racialized minorities, such bordering practices become a common part of everyday life.

Settling in a new place

Frameworks of assimilation and integration have dominated much of the research on the processes of migrant settlement, particularly in the Global North where governments often actively promote or outline requirements for the integration of immigrants. Assimilation refers to the way immigrants give up their own culture to fit in with the majority. Integration is harder to define but generally refers to how well immigrants are able to meet expectations from the majority society, like getting a job and an education, and participating in political and social activities. These frameworks have been criticized for oversimplifying what “majority society” is, missing how it changes over time as immigrants bring new ideas and influence national identity. The concept of integration has also been criticized for reinforcing the divide between an “us” and “the Other”, raising the question: “Who is to be integrated into what?”. In several countries in the MENA region, however, immigrant integration is ignored in policies of migration governance. Migrants are often left to their own survival and their possibility of becoming full citizens is largely absent. Recently scholars have argued that we need a new, decolonial perspective on the concept of integration, pointing out that the central concepts and ideas in migration research are often linked to “immigration research”, reflecting the political concerns of the global North.

Moving beyond debates about assimilation and integration, the discussion about transnationalism showed that migrants keep strong connections with their country of origin. This view opens up for an understanding of migration as more than a one-way process and challenges what has been labelled methodological nationalism – the assumption that the nation-state is the natural concept through which we should understand all social processes, such as the study of migration.  The transnationalism literature shows how migrants maintain a foot in their country of origin, while also participating in their new local communities.

Researchers adopting a transnational approach have for example focused on the role of the diaspora, which is often a force to be reckoned with both within host- and home-country in economic (on remittances), political and social dimensions.

More recently, scholars have called for an approach that focuses on migration from the point of view of migrants themselves, rather than on the expectations of the host society. These researchers highlight the concepts of home, homemaking and belonging.

Migration, work, and economic livelihood

A lot of research focuses on how refugees and other immigrants enter the job market, which is also of enormous interest to national governments. Immigrant and ethnic entrepreneurship has been of interest especially in the Global North but has increasingly made its way into policies to help refugees become self-sufficient in places like Jordan. The Global Compact for refugees plays a particular role here. According to the so-called blocked mobility hypothesis, immigrants are more likely than others to start their own businesses because of the barriers they face in the job market, like language challenges and problems with getting their education documents approved in their host countries.

The ethnic solidarity thesis states that social networks consisting of people belonging to the same ethnic (or national) group are important because they counteract the effects of discrimination and can compensate for lack of money and business contacts among immigrants. Scholars have pointed out, however, that the ethnic economy does not always produce solidarity and trust but can also lead to exploitation and oppression.  Interactive approaches to understanding ethnic entrepreneurship are more complex and combine individual (like education and work experience), group (the composition of the ethnic community), and broader institutional and societal factors (like migration policies, labor market opportunities and the level of acceptance/discrimination immigrant groups experience in a given context). While ethnicity, nationality and immigration status strongly affect the entrepreneurial journey, other factors like gender, race and class shape refugees and other migrants’ access to resources and can create (additional) barriers to business success. The literature on immigrant entrepreneurship is extensive. Refugee entrepreneurship is less studied. Recent research on refugees’ entrepreneurial activities, however, highlights how within large refugee populations lack of services and support for basic needs forces people into running their own businesses to make ends meet. This has been characterized as “necessity entrepreneurship” or “survival entrepreneurship” and is observed within large refugee populations, such as Syrians in neighboring countries. These businesses typically have low profits and are very unstable, but they also show creativity and industriousness in the face of limited opportunities. The Syrian crisis has been at the center of this emerging field, with research looking into Syrians’ livelihood strategies in the MENA region and within EU host countries. The majority of research is qualitative and suggests that refugees are more likely to start businesses than other immigrants, though the reasons for this are not fully understood and explanations provided often draw on theory produced in the Global North. New theoretical approaches developed from empirical experiences in the Global South and in the MENA region will be useful to understand the entrepreneurial experiences of immigrants, refugees and displaced people in the region.

Gendered migration and settlement processes

Gender affects mobility- from (deciding) who moves, where, to do what; as well as the perceived risks, and experienced vulnerabilities. Migration research has tended to focus on men as the principal actors of migration. Since the 1980s, however, scholars have pointed to the feminization of migration, as women constitute nearly half of the migrant population globally. This is connected to the growth of a female labor force. A topic that has received considerable attention is women’s participation in global care chains, as women, particularly from Arab countries, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean make up a large part of the world’s domestic workers.

Generally, women are perceived as vulnerable due the risk of sexual violence, with sometimes dramatic effects: The perceived risk of girls and women put in harm’s way while on the move has for example led to an increase in early and child marriage within displaced populations such as the Syrians. Historically, men have benefitted more from international protection as refugees. However, their refugee status often challenges their social positioning and identities, as victimhood is commonly seen as a feminine trait. Thus, men may be viewed both as threatening and as insufficiently masculine—especially if they are from Africa or the Middle East—illustrating how gender and race/ethnicity intersect to shape perceptions of victimhood in the context of displacement.

Men and masculinities are often entangled with xenophobic discourses, and expressed fear of demonized male migrants has been seen as integral to European discourses about migration from (especially) Muslim countries. Also in the North American context, masculinities, and ideas of unchecked sexualized, predatorial migrant men have shaped discourses about the need for border securitization and are central to some of the processes referred to as internal bordering.

Whereas unequal gender relations organize migration, the migration process also challenges gender relations and reconstructs patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a static construct, and although norms and expectations can influence who migrates and who stays back, structural rearrangements caused by migration may prompt the renegotiation of gendered relations within the family in a context of migration or displacement.

Migrating may mean risk for marginalized populations especially those not conforming to gender and sexual norms. In some instances, persecution on this basis may lead to displacement, and in other instances may become more marginalized by displacement. LGBTQIA+ persons may face discrimination and violence in border-passages or transit; may be more vulnerable to violence both from people seeking to abuse of their vulnerability, but also from others seeking to flee to safety. Beyond this the lack of access to medical care may also mean that people with female reproductive organs may be at risk for unwanted pregnancies, whether based on consensual sex or rape, but it may also mean that transgender persons undergoing transitions may be unable to access necessary medications or necessary care. In some instances displacement may mean reentering the closet or reversing transitions.