This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]

On: 18 August 2013, At: 11:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Twenty-First-Century Migration as a
Challenge to Sociology
Prof Stephen Castles
Published online: 07 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: Prof Stephen Castles (2007) Twenty-First-Century Migration as a Challenge to
Sociology, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33:3, 351-371, DOI: 10.1080/13691830701234491
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830701234491

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Vol. 33, No. 3, April 2007, pp. 351
371

Twenty-First-Century Migration as a
Challenge to Sociology

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Stephen Castles

International migration is, by definition, a social phenomenon that crosses national

borders and affects two or more nation-states. Its analysis requires theories and
methodologies capable of transcending the national gaze. This applies more than ever in
the current epoch of global migratory flows and growing South
North mobility.
Sociology claims to be based on the work of scholars from around the world and to have
theories and methods valid for all societies. It should therefore have an important role in
the development of global migration studies. Yet national approaches, deriving from
historical projects of nation-building, have often been dominant. Moreover, the study of
migration has been peripheral in national scientific discourses and hierarchies. This has
often led to the diverging dual roles of the sociology of migration either as an
administrative tool based on micro-analyses of social problems, or as a form of social
critique cut off from actual struggles in institutions, workplaces and neighbourhoods.
This article argues for a global sociology of migration, devoted to analysis of migration as
part of the social transformations associated with globalisation, and based on global
networks of scholars.
Keywords: Migration; Sociology; Social Transformation; Policy; Theory; Methodology
Introduction
Most sociological studies of contemporary international migration are concerned
with specific aspects of cross-border mobility and their impacts on individuals,
groups, communities and societies. In this article, by contrast, my aim is to step back
from the empirical level, to present some reflections on the general challenges faced
by the sociology of migration in the early twenty-first century. I will address the
following seven questions:
Stephen Castles is Senior Researcher at the International Migration Institute and Professor of Migration and
Refugee Studies at the University of Oxford. Correspondence to: Prof. S. Castles, International Migration
Institute, Dept of International Development (QEH), University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB,
UK. E-mail: stephen.castles@qeh.ox.ac.uk
ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/07/0300351-21 # 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13691830701234491

352 S. Castles

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

. How do globalisation and transnationalism change the conditions and objectives

of sociological research on migration?
. Should migration research generally be interdisciplinary?
. What are the specific topics and analytical tasks of migration sociology?
. If the roots of sociology lie in the development of national industrial societies,
what effects has this had on the development of the sociology of migration?
. How can sociologists of migration move beyond the fixation on the nation-state to
conceptualise processes of global integration and social transformation?
. To what extent has the sociology of migration been driven by the influence of
politics and policy on the research enterprise, and the corresponding imperative of
policy-relevance?
. What theoretical, methodological and organisational principles are needed for a
critical and socio-politically engaged sociology of migration?
This paper is an attempt to stimulate discussion among sociologists working on
migration. However, the questions raised have parallels in other disciplines and may
therefore also be of interest to other social scientists working in this area. Because
these ideas are work-in-progress and need more debate, I am using the format of
stating and arguing a number of propositions, rather than the more usual academic
paper format. My seven propositions correspond to the questions listed above.
One further preliminary remark is needed. The study of international migration
has usually fallen into two rather separate bodies of social scientific investigation:
first, research on the determinants, processes and patterns of migration; and second,
research on the ways in which migration brings about change in both sending and
receiving societies. In view of the dominance of developed (or Northern) country
perspectives in the social sciences, this second area has mainly focused on issues of
immigrant incorporation in receiving societies, although studies on sending countries
(especially in the context of migration and development) are now becoming more
common. Together with Mark Miller, I have argued for many years that this
distinction is artificial, and detrimental to a full understanding of the migratory
process (Castles and Miller 2003). In this article migration studies and the sociology
of migration are used in the widest sense, to embrace both bodies of investigation.
Proposition 1: Migration research in the era of globalisation is a transnational
undertaking, which requires theoretical frameworks and analytical tools that
transcend the nation-state.
This seems like stating the obvious. Indeed, since international migration, by
definition, involves the crossing of national borders, one could argue that it has
always been necessary to take an international perspective. However, as will be
discussed later, migration research has in fact been very much based on specific
national intellectual assumptions and modes of research organisation*which have
been linked to national policy models on migration and incorporation. In recent

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

353

years, a lot of effort has gone into cross-national comparative studies, but these do
not necessarily overcome the dominant influence of national models and assumptions: comparing national experiences can still imply that these are separate and
different. International networking through the International Sociological Association (ISA) and regional associations has also developed, but the research enterprise is
still largely constituted within national frameworks of funding and discourse.
Today there are new reasons why our research undertaking should emancipate
itself from national divisions. Until recently, most migration tended to be from one
nation-state to another, and usually led either to permanent settlement, or to return
to the country of origin after a period abroad. In the era of globalisation, there is a
proliferation of patterns of recurring, circulatory and onward migration, leading to
greater diversity of migratory experiences as well as more complex cultural
interactions. The emergence of transnational communities is one of the most
obvious expressions of such trends. Research approaches centred on the nation-state
are not adequate to understand such trends. It is increasingly important to develop
new theories, methods and modes of cooperation to understand all the interlinked
aspects of such migratory processes.
Proposition 2: Migration research is intrinsically inter-disciplinary.
The experience of migration embraces every dimension of human existence, and thus
provides descriptive and analytical tasks for all the social sciences, from the macrosocial perspectives of economics and demography through to the micro-level
approaches of anthropology, psychology or cultural studies. It is hard to do a useful
study on any migratory phenomenon from a mono-disciplinary perspective, and to
avoid trespassing on the territory of some other social science. For example,
economists who use neo-classical individual income-maximisation models to explain
migration without any understanding of social networks tend to produce misleading
results. Similarly, legal scholars who ignore human agency find it hard to explain why
there is so much irregular migration, while sociologists who stress class and ignore
culture tend to be baffled by the persistence of ethnic conflict.
All this is obvious and well known (see, for instance, King 2002). An analysis of the
usefulness and limitations of the various disciplines and paradigms can be found in
the excellent survey of Massey et al. (1998). Yet the fact remains that much of the
research done on migration is mono-disciplinary*especially the research commissioned by and listened to by governments, where neo-classical economics still holds
sway. However, in academic migration research circles, interdisciplinarity is widely
accepted. But this does not mean that we can dispense with the disciplines. Each has
its own subject matter, methods and theory. Inter-disciplinarity does not mean
putting them all together in a bland mixture, but rather building on and integrating
the insights of the different approaches, to give a general understanding of migratory
phenomena*talking across disciplines, as Brettell and Hollifield argue (2000). As
sociologists, therefore, we must be explicit about the special nature of our own

354 S. Castles

undertaking, and about how best we can combine it with the work of others. Such
discussions are clearly needed in other disciplines too: each needs to fulfil a specific
role as well as contributing to migration studies as an interdisciplinary enterprise.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Proposition 3: Despite the principle of interdisciplinarity, sociology has particular

tasks within migration research (and in social science more broadly), both with
regard to a focus on specific topics, and at the meta level of providing an
overarching framework for the analysis of global social change.
Where does the sociology of migration fit into the social-scientific division of labour?
Does it simply address the classical themes of sociology as they affect migrants and
ethnic minorities resulting from migration? Such classical themes include the tension
between individual and society, the behaviour of people in groups, and the
relationships between social structure and social action. Key traditional analytical
categories include institutions, class (or stratification), integration, anomie, solidarity, power, social order and social conflict. More recent categories include gender,
ethnicity, identity, agency, networks, social exclusion/inclusion and social capital. In
this understanding, the role of sociology would be to address the significance of
migration for stability and change in social relationships. For example:
. the tension between individual and society should be analysed with regard to
processes of migration decision-making, incorporation into receiving societies and
re-integration of returnees into societies of origin;
. the behaviour of people in groups takes on specific forms in migration networks,
transnational communities and collective interaction between the various groups
in the migratory process;
. the dynamics of structure and action can be analysed in the context of the effects
of migration laws and policies on migrant behaviour (and vice versa), and with
regard to changes in cultural and social practices through cross-cultural contact.
The sociology of migration does indeed need to address such specific themes, but
in my view it also has an overarching task. This could be characterised as the metasocial-scientific role of addressing society as a whole*particularly the way a specific
aspect of society*migration*is shaped by the societal totality, and in turn shapes
this. In this understanding, sociology would examine the broad universe of social
actions and meanings, in which specific forms of sociality are then to be analysed in
detail by specific social sciences*including sociology itself in its specific research
topics.
Despite the established social-scientific division of labour, it does seem essential
that there should be a body of theory and research designed to address the
overarching dynamics of social transformation at the broadest thematic and
geographical levels. Economics, political economy or even cultural studies might
lay claim to that role, but it could be argued that sociology is best fitted for it, due to
its tradition of analysing and theorising the totality of societal relationships and

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

355

structures. The overarching project of the sociology of migration would thus be to

analyse two key dynamics:

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

. the ways in which social structures, institutions and relationships (and changes in
these) help cause migration and influence the conditions under which it takes
place;
. the ways in which international migration (including incorporation in receiving
countries or return to places of origin) affects social structures, institutions and
relationships in all the localities involved (including sending, transit and receiving
areas).
Obviously these aspects are interrelated in complex ways, so that in practice it is often
hard to separate cause and effect. This leads to such questions as: does development
cause migration, or does migration cause development? The answer is that these are
generally interactive processes, with complex feedback mechanisms. Equally
obviously, these meta-social-scientific questions must be asked not only at the global
level, but at a range of other spatial levels too: the local, the regional, the national and
so on. One specific task of sociology is to analyse the relationship between social
structure and human agency. Another is to study processes of mediation between
spatial levels: for instance, how are global economic or political phenomena
transformed by local cultural and social patterns?
Proposition 4: Sociology developed as a means of understanding social change in a
period of rapid industrialisation within Western nation-states in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. Despite claims to universalism in theory, methods
and knowledge, sociology has been slow to shake off the tyranny of the national.
The strength of nationalist models has been particularly marked in the sociology of
migration.
Until at least the 1970s, most migration sociologists saw their central task in analysing
the experience of people as they exited one specific society and became part of
another. Changes in the character of migration as global economic, political and
cultural integration gathered pace made this approach inadequate. If the dynamics of
social relations transcend borders, then so must the theories and methods used to
study them. Such insights led, from the 1970s, to a new interest in cross-national
comparative studies and to attempts at constructing more generally applicable
frameworks such as migration systems theory (Kritz et al. 1992). In the 1990s,
transnationalism emerged as a new paradigm for analysing migration in the context
of economic and cultural globalisation (Basch et al. 1994; Portes et al. 1999). Despite
such trends, national models and research frameworks remain influential in
migration sociology.
Globalisation and transnationalism present special problems for mainstream
sociology, which developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the
science of national industrial societies (Wieviorka 1994). Sociology was concerned

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

356 S. Castles

with problems of integration and order in emerging industrial societies, which were
politically and culturally framed by the nation-state. A central issue was to
understand the contradictory nature of industrial society, with growing productivity
and wealth on the one hand, but social misery and class conflict on the other.
Another central characteristic of Western nation-states was their competition to
colonise the rest of the world. Sociology and its sister discipline, anthropology, were
thus concerned with understanding societies and cultures, in order to control
dangerous classes (i.e. the industrial workers) and dangerous peoples (i.e. those
who resisted colonialism) (Connell 1997). Prominent early sociologists, such as
Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim, put forward developmental models based on
teleological assertions of the superiority of the Western industrial nation-state. The
later work of Parsons and other functionalists contained models of integrated social
systems and rational social order, reflecting an idealised image of the mid-twentiethcentury USA. The exception to this preoccupation with the national was Marxs
political economy, which foreshadowed globalisation theory. Yet later critical
sociology, while drawing on Marxist ideas, often implicitly took the nation-state as
the framework for class analysis*partly because a key aim was the creation of
national welfare states.
This had two consequences. First, the stranger or other was seen as deviant and
potentially dangerous. This can be seen most clearly in the assimilation theories
developed in the USA in response to the mass immigration of the early twentieth
century (Gordon 1964). Park and the Chicago School studied inter-group relations
in the 1920s when Chicagos population was over one-third foreign-born (Park 1950).
Migrants pre-migration cultures were seen as inappropriate and even harmful in the
new setting. They had to undergo a process of acculturation to renounce their
original culture and adopt the values, norms and behaviour of the receiving society.
In the dominant functionalist model, Western societies were portrayed as essentially
homogenous and harmonious. Immigrants had to be assimilated to restore this
harmony. Migrants who maintained their own languages, religions and cultures and
who clustered together were seen as a threat to social cohesion.
Clearly such sociological theories must be understood in the context of nationalist
myths of monoculturalism. In the US case, this took the special form of the idea that
culturally diverse peoples could be brought together in a great melting pot to form a
common American culture. But assimilation was also the dominant paradigm in
Western European immigration countries, and it was supported by mainstream
sociology.1 In the 1960s and 1970s, such ideas were questioned by minority struggles
against racism and for cultural recognition and social equality. In the USA, the Black
Power Movement and the ethnic revival paved the way for a new politics of
affirmative action and multiculturalism. Similarly, migrant and minority actions
against discrimination and racism in Western European led to new approaches. The
rise of a critical sociology of race, ethnicity, gender and class went parallel to such
social movements, with much cross-fertilisation between political action and socialscientific analysis. Comparative migration research can be seen as part of this process,

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

357

while transnational theory emerged as a later variant, strongly influenced by the poststructuralist theories of the late twentieth century.
Yet assimilationist approaches have never lost their power in commonsense ideas
that immigrants should adopt our ways, as well as in mainstream political discourses
concerned with preserving national sovereignty. Such principles always remained
dominant in the French republican model, and have recently made a comeback in
countries that had tried more pluralist approaches, such as the Netherlands
(Entzinger 2002) and Sweden (Schierup et al. 2006, Chapter 8; Westin 2000).
Moreover, assimilation has remained an underlying (albeit generally unstated)
principle in quantitative sociological research concerned with integration and social
status within national welfare states. In recent years, concerns about difficulties in
multicultural approaches have led to a revalorisation of assimilation theory in
migration studies (Alba and Nee 1997).2 Thus the debate between national and
transnational approaches to the analysis of migration is far from over.
Second, if sociologists see the nation-state as the container (Faist 2000) for all major
aspects of social life, this implies the need for distinct bodies of social-scientific knowledge
for each country. Despite international interchange between sociologists, there was
(and still is) considerable national specificity in the modes of organisation, the
theoretical and methodological approaches, the research questions and the findings
of the social sciences. Within the container of each country, there are competing
schools or paradigms, yet these function within distinct intellectual frameworks with
strong historical roots in national religious, philosophical and ideological traditions
linked to the historical roles of intellectuals in constructing national culture and
identity (Faist 2000). These are reflected in specific modes of interaction between
academics and the state in migration and minority policy formation. Until recently,
funding for social research through national research councils or research institutions
has constituted a barrier to cross-national research cooperation, since financial
support has generally been restricted to researchers based in the country concerned.
Now, European Union initiatives and the greater openness of national research
councils to cross-border networking are beginning to change this, but national
isolation remains entrenched in the academic structures of many European countries.
An example of the difficulties of cross-national migration research was provided by
a comparative project on the impacts of migration on society in Australia, Germany
and France in the late 1990s. The three research groups started with the assumption
that the theoretical insights, methodology and research tools of the social sciences
were universal in scope and a common good of researchers in the different countries.
In the course of comparative work, the researchers discovered that this was not the
case. In each country there seemed to be a distinct model of how migration and
migrants were perceived, and of how the state and society should react to migratory
phenomena. Even concepts that seemed to be held in common like integration had
differing meanings in the three countries (Vasta and Vuddamalay 2006).
This points to a fundamental contradiction: sociology claims to be an international
discipline, based on universal theories and an international community of scholars,

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

358 S. Castles

yet its main organisational form has been the national academic framework, each
with its own perspectives. Nowhere is the conflict between the universalistic ideal and
the nationally-specific reality stronger than in migration studies. Fundamental ideas
on the nature of migration and its consequences for society arise from specific
historical experiences of population mobility and cultural diversity. Past experiences
with internal ethnic minorities, colonised peoples and migrant labour recruited
during industrialisation have helped shape current attitudes and approaches.
Historical precedents have led to stereotypes and practices which are often deeply
embedded in political and cultural discourses, so that they have become an
unquestioned common sense (Goldberg 1993: 41
3), which affects even the most
critical researchers.
Despite the importance of studying migratory flows and networks as transnational
processes, this is still not the dominant research approach. Apart from conceptual
differences, another reason is that international migration research is still largely based
on data collected at the national level, which is not easily comparable with the statistics
of other countries*despite years of efforts to improve comparability through the
OECDs SOPEMI reports and, more recently, EUROSTAT. Such problems are not
unique to the three countries just mentioned*one can also speak of the British,
Dutch, US, Canadian, Japanese or Swedish models of immigration and diversity. The
situation is similar in countries of origin like the Philippines or Mexico, where the main
focus has been on the effects of emigration at the national level. Methodological
nationalism*the dominance of research frameworks based on nation-state
boundaries*is still powerful in migration research (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003).
The strength of the national gaze in migration studies is hardly surprising. Control
of belonging to the national community*both through border restriction and
through regulation of access to citizenship *has always been a key element of
sovereignty, and remains so today, as the current politicisation of migration shows.
Policy-makers in immigration countries continue to see social scientific research as an
instrument for understanding (and hence controlling) the dangerous immigrant
other. As will be discussed below, this helps explains the strong principle of policy
relevance in this field. The challenge for migration sociologists is to overcome
methodological nationalism and to study global and transnational phenomena
without losing sight of the continuing significance of national and local factors.
Proposition 5: A central theme for contemporary sociological analysis should be the
processes of social transformation, which take place in the context of reconfigurations of economic and political relationships in the new global order. Accelerated
social transformation processes are the main driving factors in the growth and
diversification of international migration, and therefore constitute key themes of a
transnational sociology of migration. However, global forces are experienced at the
local, national and regional levels, where they are mediated by varying historical
and cultural constellations. Global transformations must therefore be analysed on
multiple spatial levels.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

359

If classical sociological theory was based on the emerging national-industrial society

of the past, then todays sociology should take as its starting-point the major social
transformations occurring at the beginning of the current new century. The idea of
transformation implies a fundamental change in the way society is organised that
goes beyond the continual processes of social change that are always at work (cf.
Polanyi 1944). This arises when there are major shifts in the dominant economic or
political relationships. At present we have to deal with both economic and political
step-changes: the process of economic globalisation and the emergence of a new
political and military order. Understanding these shifts can help us map out the tasks
of a transnational sociology of migration.
I understand economic globalisation (following Castells 1996) as a differentiated
process of inclusion and exclusion of particular regions and social groups in world
capitalist market relations. Penetration by global capital means economic restructuring, in which some groups of producers are included and experience higher incomes,
while other groups find their workplaces destroyed and their qualifications devalued.
This means that globalisation leads to enormous increases in human insecurity and
inequality (Freeman 2004). In 1970 the advanced countries (according to the IMF
classification) received 68 per cent of world income, the rest of the world 32 per
cent. By 2000 the advanced countries received 81 per cent of world income, while the
rest of the world got 19 per cent. Moreover, in the same period the world population
share of the advanced countries fell from 20 to 16 per cent.
So one aspect of this is North
South inequality, but growing inequality is also to
be found within all regions, with new elites in the South gaining from their role in the
transnational circuits of capital accumulation, while workers in former Northern
industrial centres lose their livelihoods. Thus economic globalisation means profound
transformation of societies. This is recognised by leading liberal economists, like
Stiglitz, who argues that ignorance of this connection on the part of the IMF and
similar bodies led to failures, which have set back the development agenda, by
unnecessarily corroding the very fabric of society (Stiglitz 2002: 76
7).
Such dramatic economic and social transformations can be contained without
major international political crises or conflicts because of the emergence of a global
political and military order based on US hegemony since the end of the Cold War. The
bipolar world system, which long served as a limitation on the dominance of global
markets and corporations, has been replaced by a unified system based on a single
hyper-power. This does not mean that this system is unitary and conflict-free. Rather,
as I have argued elsewhere (Castles 2005a), a novel characteristic of the new order is
that its components are defined not as the colonies or protectorates of an empire, but
as nation-states with all the formal trappings of independence and*usually*
democracy (even if these are mere facades for tyranny). Similarly, for the first time
in history, most people are defined as citizens, with all the rights this entails (in
theory though often not in practice). However, this formally equal status of nationstates and citizens hides complex new hierarchies of power, social status and rights.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

360 S. Castles

What does this mean for the sociology of migration? Globalisation essentially
means flows across borders*flows of capital, commodities, ideas and people.
Nation-states welcome the first two types, but remain suspicious of the last two.
Differentiated migration regimes have been set up which encourage elites and the
highly skilled to be mobile, while low-skilled workers and people fleeing persecution
are excluded. As Bauman has argued, in the globalised world mobility has become
the most powerful and most coveted stratifying factor. However, the riches are
global, the misery is local (Bauman 1998: 9, 74). The new transnational class
structure being created in this way should be a pre-eminent topic for a transnational
sociology of migration.
At the same time, a new legitimating ideology is being developed to justify
inequality. The hierarchisation of the right to migrate can be seen as a new form of
transnational racism. Its intellectual basis lies in discourses on the naturalness of
violence in less-developed regions and the cultural incompatibility of their peoples
with Western-Christian civilisation. Such discourses developed in the early 1990s
during the wars accompanying the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union
(Kaplan 1996). The implication was that groups with different cultures and histories
could not share a single territory (Gallagher 1997; Turton 1997) and that a clash of
civilisations was inevitable (Huntington 1993). This led to the idea of a new
tribalism in which people in less-developed areas retreat from universalistic to
localistic outlooks, and chaos dominates much of the world (Global Commission
1995). Such ideas have been further reinforced by fears of terrorism and
fundamentalism since 11 September 2001. In this context, migration control is
seen increasingly as an issue of national security (Weiner and Russell 2001).3 Older
racist ideologies about the need to exclude the other to prevent pollution of the
nation thus take on a more modern and acceptable form. Understanding such new
ideologies and the way they influence popular attitudes and official policies would be
another important task of a transnational sociology of migration.
However, globalisation also creates pressures and mechanisms which facilitate
migration. The growth in inequality is a powerful incentive to mobility. The new
media associated with globalisation provide images of first-world prosperity to
potential migrants. Electronic communications facilitate the dissemination of
knowledge of migration routes and work opportunities. Thus globalisation creates
the cultural capital needed for mobility*again providing an important theme for
the sociology of migration. Many of the worlds excluded perceive that mobility
brings the chance of prosperity, and are desperate to migrate. This helps explain the
upsurge in asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants since about 1990. Such is the
underlying reality behind the recent observation of the Global Commission on
International Migration that international migration is driven by development,
demography and democracy (GCIM 2005: 12).
Globalisation also creates the necessary social capital, for another key characteristic
of globalisation is that power is diffused through networks (Castells 1996). Network
organisation characterises the globalisation from above of transnational corpora-

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

361

tions and global governance as well as the globalisation from below of migrants and
their communities (Portes et al. 1999). Informal networks facilitate migration even
when official policies try to prevent it (Castles 2004a; 2004b). Some of these networks
take on institutionalised forms in the migration industry*one of the fastest
growing forms of international business. This term embraces the many people who
earn their livelihood by organising migration as travel agents, people smugglers,
bankers, lawyers, labour recruiters and housing agents. As King has pointed out, this
privatisation of migration is entirely consistent with dominant trends to liberalisation and deregulation in the global economy (King 2002: 95). Migration networks
help to re-connect South and North at a time when many areas of the South have
become economically irrelevant to the globalised economy (Duffield 2001). The
growing understanding of the importance of migration networks can be seen as one
of the major contributions of the sociology of migration (Massey et al. 1998).
Network theory is based on traditional sociological preoccupations with the relation
between structure and action, as well as on the anthropological notion of human
agency and the way it helps shape communities.
Like other forms of social transformation, migratory processes are linked in
complex ways to globalising forces and transnational processes. As pointed out above,
research confined to national frameworks is hardly ever likely to reveal the whole
picture. However, it would be equally wrong to concentrate exclusively on the
transnational level. The flows and networks that constitute globalisation take on
specific forms at different spatial levels: the regional, the national and the local. These
should not be understood in opposition to each other, but rather as elements of
complex and dynamic relationships in which global forces have varying impacts
according to differing structural and cultural factors and responses at the other levels
(see Held et al. 1999: 14
16). Historical experiences, cultural values, religious beliefs
and social structures all mediate the effects of external forces, leading to forms of
change and resistance that bring about very different outcomes in specific
communities or societies.
For most people, the pre-eminent level for experiencing migration and its effects is
the local. This applies especially where social transformations linked to economic
globalisation make it necessary for people to leave their community and move
elsewhere: for instance through changes in agricultural practices or land tenure,
through reconfiguration of production by multinational corporations, or through a
development project (such as a dam, airport or factory) which physically displaces
people. The departure of young active people, gender imbalances and financial and
social remittances all transform conditions in the local community that is the focus of
everyday life. Similarly, the impact of immigration in host areas is felt in the way it
affects economic restructuring and social relations in local communities.
Nor should the national dimension be neglected. Despite postmodern ideas about
the erosion of the nation-state, the number of nation-states has increased four-fold in
the last half-century. Nation-states remain important and will do so for the
foreseeable future. They are the location for policies on cross-border movements,

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

362 S. Castles

citizenship, public order, social welfare, health services and so on. Nation-states retain
considerable political significance and have important symbolic and cultural
functions. But the autonomy of the national governments is being reduced, and it
is no longer possible to ignore transnational factors in decision-making and planning.
One result of this is the growing importance of regional cooperation on many issues
including migration. Regional organisations like the European Union are rooted not
only in spatial proximity and economic interests but also in historical and cultural
affinities.
Social transformation research must therefore give as much weight to the local as
to the global, while not forgetting the national and regional levels in between.
However, understanding the social experience of social transformation often requires
specific research approaches. Methods are not neutral and their choice is based on
specific conceptual frameworks and objectives, and may lead to widely varying
findings. One can differentiate between top-down and bottom-up approaches. These
in turn can be linked to differing ideas on social power and agency. I will return to
this below.
Clearly, global change and the increasing importance of transnational processes
require new approaches from the sociology of migration. These will not develop
automatically out of existing paradigms, because powerful academic traditions tend
to resist a shift away from established institutional and conceptual frameworks.
Migration is amongst the most important social expressions of global connections
and processes. The sociology of migration is therefore important not only as a field of
sociological enquiry in itself, but also as an area with the potential to make major
contributions to global sociology as a whole (Cohen and Kennedy 2000).
Proposition 6: Research on migration has often been driven by the needs of
governments and bureaucracies frequently expressed in the call for policyrelevance. This has been linked to a situation of marginalisation within
mainstream social theory. Sociologists who wish to achieve a critical but socially
engaged sociology of migration need to find ways of bridging the divides between
theory, practice and policy.

Until the late twentieth century, it was possible to observe a dual marginality of the
sociology of migration. First, in the nation-state model, crossing the borders that
delineated national sovereignty and belonging was seen as exceptional. Therefore
control of migration and incorporation of immigrants were not central areas of
politics. Second, issues of mobility and difference were not central themes of
sociology. They played little part in the grand theories of classical sociology *except
perhaps with regard to understanding colonised peoples, or in exceptional situations
of mass inflows (as in the USA from 1870 to 1920).
Clearly things have changed today. Only about 3 per cent of the worlds population
are migrants (United Nations Population Division 2002), but in industrial countries
migrants and minorities make up 10 per cent or more of the population, and are

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

363

often 25 per cent or more of the inhabitants of fast-growing global cities. Here
migrants are no longer marginal, but rather a major population group and a powerful
ferment for social and cultural change. Policy-makers at the local and national levels
have had to find strategies to respond to these changes, and the result has been a large
volume of research commissioned to answer administrative questions and to provide
policy options. The first type of marginality has been superseded by a massive
politicisation of migration issues.
The benefit of policy-oriented research is that it provides social scientists with the
resources to carry out empirical research on important emerging issues. The danger,
on the other hand, is that research designed to answer policy questions may be
narrowly focused, and take a short-term perspective*dictated by a time-frame that
corresponds with the electoral cycle of 3
5 years. Research questions, methods and
even findings may be shaped by the political interests of governments, local
authorities and funding bodies. Such research is too narrowly focused to pay
attention to the global social transformations which form the context for
contemporary migration. It cannot explain the mediation between global trends
and local forms of response and resistance. Thus policy-driven research may be
providing simplistic, short-term administrative remedies to complex, long-term
social processes.
This helps to explain the dismal record of many recent migration policies. Policydriven research is not only bad social science*it is also a poor guide to successful
policy formation, as many observers have noted (Bhagwati 2003; Cornelius et al.
1994). Migration policies fail because policy-makers refuse to see migration as a
dynamic social process linked to broader patterns of social transformation (Castles
2004b). Ministers and bureaucrats still often see migration as something that can be
turned on and off like a tap through laws and polices. By imposing this paradigm on
researchers, the policy-makers have done both social scientists and themselves a
disservice.
But it is also necessary to ask: why are migration studies so dependent on policy
agendas? This brings us back to the second form of marginality mentioned above: the
relative absence of the sociology of migration in the mainstream of the discipline. It
appears that many migration sociologists have become dependent on government
consultancies and policy-linked funding just because the topic is still seen as rather
marginal within the discipline. To understand this fully would require a detailed
country-by-country study of the extent to which sociological theory includes
migration in analyses of contemporary society. In British sociology, for instance,
the initial response to the New Commonwealth immigration of the 1950s and 1960s
was the reworking of Chicago School theories of assimilation and acculturation.
However, by the 1970s, issues of racism, cultural identity, class and gender*
influenced considerably by black, feminist and Marxist scholars*began to play an
important role in sociological discourse. In the meantime such approaches have
become parts of the accepted body of sociological analysis, but have not always
moved on to embrace the newer complex forms of global mobility affecting the UK.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

364 S. Castles

In other European countries, sociology has been involved in debates on migration,

integration and multiculturalism, but these seem to have had little impact on core
theories of social order and differentiation (Favell 1998).
Globalisation theory is now at the centre of sociological debate, and the mobility of
people is a crucial form of globalisation. Yet some of the seminal works on
globalisation, like those of Castells (1996; 1997; 1998), Albrow (1996) and Beck
(1997), pay scant attention to the mobility of people. There are contrasting examples
of course, such as the works of Bauman (1998), Held and collaborators (1999) and
Cohen and Kennedy (2000). The point here is that analysis of migration as a central
element of global social change is still the exception. The sociologists who specialise
in such themes*in Europe at least*tend to be located in migration research centres
rather than in sociology departments.
This issue of marginalisation within their discipline does not, of course, apply to
sociologists alone: it affects migration researchers of all disciplines. It is important to
seek ways out of this dilemma. Some sociologists seem to have sought a solution by
withdrawing from the empirical level and focusing on increasingly abstract
theoretical accounts rooted in post-structuralism, which are mainly of interest to
fellow academics (Papastergiadis 2000; Urry 2000). Such efforts may strengthen the
inclusion of migration issues within mainstream social theory, but there is a danger of
concentrating on formalistic theories and becoming irrelevant to processes of social
change. The real challenge is to develop a sociology of migration which is both critical
and engaged with social reality, both empirical and grounded in theory. This means
remaining close to specific research issues without losing sight of the societal totality,
and using sociological analysis to address issues of practical concern to a wide range
of social actors.
How can this be achieved? The answer is not to choose the one side or the other of
the policy/academic divide, but to seek news ways of integrating them through the
linking of empirical research to broader theories of social relations, structures and
change. Even where policy-driven projects only address narrow, immediate questions,
there is no reason why researchers should not use their empirical findings as the basis
for more fundamental analyses, linked to long-term processes. Sociologists of
migration need to adopt a wider definition of the actors in processes of change
and policy formation. If official policies often have unintended consequences because
they ignore the human agency of migrants, sending communities and receiving
communities, then it is up to sociologists to recognise such processes of globalisation
from below and grass-roots activism, and to draw all those concerned into the
research process. Thus researchers should relate not only to official policy-makers,
but also to non-governmental organisations and to civil-society groups of all kinds
(both formal and informal). In the end, the aim must be to make it clear that
independent research, based on participatory methods as well as theoretical,
historical and comparative principles, leads to more useful public knowledge than
short-term policy-oriented studies.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

365

Proposition 7: A critical and engaged sociology of migration is not an abstract

postulate, but something that many sociologists have been trying to create through
their research, writing, teaching and networking. To develop migration studies
further it is necessary to work through the consequences for theory, methodology,
and the organisation of the research enterprise.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Theory
The task of the sociology of migration is indeed broad, because it needs to elaborate a
theoretical framework for understanding the dynamics of international migration
and incorporation in a situation of rapid and complex transformations. Moreover,
this framework must be capable of including the various spatial levels at which these
processes work and the mediations between them.4 In view of this complexity, Portes
has pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect the emergence of a single all-embracing
sociological theory of migration. A theory that took account of all the complex forms
and permutations of migration would be so abstract as to be without any useful
explanatory content. Indeed it would end up redefining the problem until it was
coterminous with its explanation (Portes 1997: 811). Thus the sociology of migration
needs to eschew attempts at grand theory and to focus instead on complexity,
contradictions and the unintended consequences of social action (Portes 1997; Portes
and DeWind 2004). Portes argues for the idea of sociology as analysis of the
unexpected (Portes 1999). This implies returning to Robert K. Mertons concept of
theories of the middle-range: special theories applicable to limited ranges of data*
theories for example of class dynamics, of conflicting group pressures, of the flow of
power and the exercise of interpersonal influence . . . (Merton 1957: 9). Portes
characterises this mid-range theory approach as:
. . . narratives about how things got from here to there including the multiple
contingencies and reversals encountered in the process. At this level of analysis, it is
possible to delineate, at least partially, the structural constraints and other obstacles
affecting a specific individual or collective pursuit (Portes 1999: 13).

Thus the starting point for middle-range theorisation of contemporary migration

could be the analysis of a particular migration system linking specific countries of
origin, transit and destination, within the context of the wider social relations of
globalisation and social transformation. This could lead to theoretical frameworks
incorporating both structure and agency. Structure here would include macro-social
structures (states, corporations, international agencies), micro-social structures
(families, groups, social networks, local communities), and meso-social structures
(intermediate networks or collectivities like the migration industry, or transnational
communities). Agency refers to individual and group action, which helps people to
survive and cope in specific situations of change or crisis. All these factors should be
examined in a broader temporal and spatial context. Including temporal dimensions
means considering issues of path-dependence*the way particular historical, political

366 S. Castles

and cultural experiences shape understandings and actions. Spatial dimensions refers
to the multi-level influence of global, national, regional and local patterns.
It is interesting to compare this type of approach with Massey and his colleagues
(1998) attempt to integrate the various components of contemporary migration
theory. After summarising, discussing and criticising the various approaches, they
come to the conclusion that:

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

. . . all theories play some role in accounting for international migration in the
contemporary world, although different models predominate at different phases of
the migration process, and different explanations carry different weights in
different regions depending on the local circumstances of history, politics and
geography (Massey et al. 1998: 281).

This sounds at first almost like a restatement of the difficulties of grand theory and
the need to rely on middle-range theories in migration studies. However, Massey and
colleagues go on to say that: Our review suggests the outlines of what an integrated
theory of international migration should look like (Massey et al. 1998: 281).
Apparently it is a matter of taking parts of the various paradigms and using them
when and where they fit the various stages and specific situations. It is hard to see this
eclectic approach as an integrated theory. Indeed there seems to be a risk of making
fairly arbitrary choices about which bit of theory to use in which circumstances. In
any case, it is important to heed Mertons warning that:
To concentrate entirely on the master conceptual scheme for deriving all subsidiary
theories is to run the risk of producing 20th century sociological equivalents of the
large philosophical systems of the past, with all their varied suggestiveness, all their
architectonic splendour and all their scientific sterility (Merton 1957: 10).

Following the spirit of these ideas of Mertons and their reprisal by Portes, it seems
important to abandon ideas of grand theory and integrated systems. A credence in
comprehensive systems of knowledge can all-too-easily lead to belief in all-embracing
policy models of top-down social engineering to manage migration and its
consequences. Instead we as sociologists should focus on the unintended consequences of human action, the self-fulfilling prophecies (both Mertonian concepts),
the complexity of migratory systems and the importance of human agency. In other
words, our theoretical approaches should help us understand why things go wrong in
social planning, why top-down policy models fail*and how more participatory
approaches might avoid such pitfalls.
Methodology
Methodology refers not to specific techniques of investigation but to the underlying
principles for research and analysis. The development of migration sociology cannot
be based simply on an accumulation of data through a proliferation of empirical
studies. The research needs to be guided by new questions and approaches, based on

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

367

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

broader theoretical understanding. Moreover, it must use information-collection

methods that correct frequent practices of exclusion based on class, gender or race.
Top-down approaches to understanding social transformation tend to focus on the
realities of powerful institutions and privileged groups at both the global and local
levels, and may be blind to the differing realities of disempowered groups. Research
concerned with sustainability, equality and human rights requires approaches that are
sensitive to the needs, interests and values of all the groups involved in processes of
change. Such methods*known as participatory approaches*imply reducing
reliance on official data sets and pre-formed questionnaires in favour of techniques
that allow disadvantaged groups to help define the issues and engage in research
processes (Chambers 1997).
Some basic methodological principles for a critical migration sociology include:
. Interdisciplinarity: sociologists should work in interdisciplinary teams in larger
projects, and make use of the research findings of other disciplines in smaller ones.
. Historical understanding of sending, transit and receiving societies is vital in
understanding any specific migration situation.
. Comparative studies of experiences in different societies can increase awareness of
general trends and alternative approaches.
. Migration researchers need to take a holistic approach, linking their specific
research topic to broader aspects of migration and its embeddedness in social
relations at various spatial levels.
. In this era of globalisation it is essential to examine transnational dimensions of
social transformation as a key factor in migration. However, social transformation
is always an interaction between global, national, regional and local factors, which
together shape economic, political, social and cultural relations. Thus multi-level
analysis is essential.
. It is vital to investigate the human agency of the migrants and of sending and
receiving communities, and the way this agency interacts with macro-social
organisations and institutions.
. This implies the need for participatory research methods, which give an active role
to migrants and other persons affected by migration in research processes.
Organisation of the Research Enterprise
Academic funding bodies and universities often replicate the hierarchical structures
of traditional bureaucracies or corporations. If the network has become the key
organising principle of global economic and social relationships, then we should
examine how it can be best applied in organising research on migration. International
networks of researchers could help overcome the nationalist and colonialist legacy of
the social sciences. Network research implies a new approach, in which researchers in
a range of countries, both Western and non-Western, become equal partners in the
research process. Instead of first-world social scientists going out to conduct studies

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

368 S. Castles

of other peoples, research becomes a collaborative process of equals. The researchers

of each country can apply their understanding of local social structures and cultural
practices, while Western values and methods cease to be the yardstick; instead they
themselves become objects for study and critique.
Research is not a neutral activity, and researchers can make conscious choices
about goals, such as providing information and analysis to groups demanding
measures to combat inequality and exploitation and to increase social and political
participation by disadvantaged groups. Working with migrants and their associations,
as well as with civil society organisations representing the various communities
affected by the migration process, could be an important counterweight to the power
of policy-makers and funding bodies.
In recent years there has been a trend towards increased international cooperation
and networking in the social sciences. Some national research councils have also
looked favourably on projects that stress international collaboration. But many
researchers who participate in international networks have found that the going is not
always easy. Language remains an important barrier*often in subtle ways: the
translation of concepts from one language to another may mask quite different
cultural meanings and historical connotations. Researchers who have been trained in
different national academic cultures often ask questions in rather different ways, use
differing methods, and interpret findings in specific ways. Some international
collaborative projects have collapsed because of failure to grasp such differences.
Indeed, one aspect of network research is bringing these issues into the open, and
making their analysis part of the research process.
Despite all the difficulties, it seems to me that these approaches could take us
forward. Choices about theory, methodology and research collaboration are not
dictated simply by scientific logic: they are also normative questions, linked to our
understanding of the role of social science in society. I believe that the principles
outlined here could lead not only to better empirical research and theoretical
analyses; they might also help to make our work as migration researchers more
relevant to societies that are looking for understanding and solutions in this period of
rapid change.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a paper given at the International Sociological Association
Research Committee 31: Sociology of Migration Conference: From Emigration to
Immigration in Europe, Cerisy, France, 2
6 June 2005. An earlier version was
published in French in Migrations
Societe (Castles 2005b). I thank the organiser,
Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, and the participants for their comments. I also thank
Ellie Vasta of COMPAS, University of Oxford, for her suggestions. Finally, I thank two
anonymous JEMS referees for their comments.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

369

Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

[4]

For an example see Patterson (1965). For other references and a critique of such approaches
see Castles and Kosack (1973, especially Chapter 10).
A more critical variant of this is the attempt to re-think incorporation into societies marked
by racial and class inequality through the notion of segmented assimilation (Zhou 1997).
This was one reason for President Bushs proposal for a new US guestworker programme in
2004. Since Mexican workers were essential for the US economy, he thought it better that
they enter legally so that their identities and records could be controlled (Migration Policy
Institute 2005). In the meantime, such plans have been overtaken by a growing politicisation
of migration, with large-scale demonstrations by undocumented workers on the one hand,
and calls for high walls and military patrols on the border by Republicans on the other.
For an insightful treatment of similar issues from a geographical perspective see King (2002).

References
Alba, R. and Nee, V. (1997) Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration,
International Migration Review, 31(4): 826
74.
Albrow, M. (1996) The Global Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Basch, L., Glick-Schiller, N. and Blanc, C.S. (1994) Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, PostColonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (1997) Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Bhagwati, J. (2003) Borders beyond control, Foreign Affairs, 82(1): 98
104.
Brettell, C.B. and Hollifield, J.F. (eds) (2000) Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. New York
and London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998) End of Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castles, S. (2004a) The factors that make and unmake migration policy, International Migration
Review, 38(3): 852
84.
Castles, S. (2004b) Why migration policies fail, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2): 205
27.
Castles, S. (2005a) Nation and empire: hierarchies of citizenship in the new global order,
International Politics, 42(2): 203
24.
Castles, S. (2005b) La migration du XXIe sie`cle comme defi a` la sociologie, Migrations
Societe,
17(102): 19
44.
Castles, S. and Kosack, G. (1973) Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. London:
Oxford University Press.
Castles, S. and Miller, M.J. (2003) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the
Modern World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (3rd edition).
Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2000) Global Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Connell, R.W. (1997) Why is classical theory classical?, American Journal of Sociology, 102(6):
1511
57.
Cornelius, W., Martin, P.L. and Hollifield, J.F. (1994) Introduction: the ambivalent quest for
control, in Cornelius, W., Martin, P.L. and Hollifield, J.F. (eds) Controlling Immigration: A
Global Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 3
41.
Duffield, M. (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security.
London and New York: Zed Books.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

370 S. Castles

Entzinger, H. (2002) The rise and fall of multiculturalism: the case of the Netherlands, in Joppke,
C. and Morawaska, E. (eds) Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigration in Liberal
Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 59
86.
Faist, T. (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social
Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and
Britain. London: Macmillan.
Freeman, A. (2004) The inequality of nations, in Freeman, A. and Kagarlitsky, B. (eds) The Politics
of Empire: Globalisation in Crisis. London and Ann Arbor MI: Pluto Press, 46
83.
Gallagher, T. (1997) My neighbour my enemy: the manipulation of ethnic identity and the origins
and conduct of war in Yugoslavia, in Turton, D. (ed.) War and Ethnicity: Global Connections
and Local Violence. New York: Rochester University Press, 47
75.
GCIM (2005) Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action: Report of the Global
Commission on International Migration. Geneva: Global Commission on International
Migration.
Global Commission (1995) Our Global Neighbourhood: Report of the Commission on Global
Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, D. (1993) Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gordon, M. (1964) Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics,
Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Huntington, S. (1993) The clash of civilisations, Foreign Affairs, 72(3): 22
49.
Kaplan, R. (1996) The Ends of the Earth: A Journey at the Dawn of the 21st Century. New York:
Random House.
King, R. (2002) Towards a new map of European migration, International Journal of Population
Geography, 8(2): 89
106.
Kritz, M.M., Lin, L.L. and Zlotnik, H. (eds) (1992) International Migration Systems: A Global
Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. and Taylor, J.E. (1998) Worlds in
Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press.
Migration Policy Institute (2005) A New Century: Immigration and the US. Online at http://
www.migrationinformation.org/, accessed: 11 February 2006.
Papastergiadis, N. (2000) The Turbulence of Migration. Cambridge: Polity.
Park, R.E. (1950) Race and Culture. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Patterson, S. (1965) Dark Strangers. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. New
York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Portes, A. (1997) Immigration theory for a new century: some problems and opportunities,
International Migration Review, 31(4): 799
825.
Portes, A. (1999) The hidden abode: sociology as analysis of the unexpected *1999 Presidential
Address to the American Sociological Association, American Sociological Review, 65(1): 1
18.
Portes, A. and DeWind, J. (2004) A cross-Atlantic dialogue: the progress of research and theory in
the study of international migration, International Migration Review, 38(3): 828
51.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L.E. and Landolt, P. (1999) The study of transnationalism: pitfalls and
promise of an emergent research field, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2): 217
37.
Schierup, C.-U., Hansen, P. and Castles, S. (2006) Migration, Citizenship and the European Welfare
State: A European Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. London: Penguin.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2007.33:351-371.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

371

Turton, D. (1997) War and ethnicity: global connections and local violence in North East Africa
and former Yugoslavia, Oxford Development Studies, 25(1): 77
94.
United Nations Population Division (2002) International Migration Report 2002, AT/ESA/SER.A/
220. New York: United Nations.
Urry, J. (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London:
Routledge.
Vasta, E. and Vuddamalay, V. (eds) (2006) International Migration and the Social Sciences:
Confronting National Experiences in Australia, France and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Weiner, M. and Russell, S.S. (eds) (2001) Demography and National Security. New York and Oxford:
Berghahn.
Westin, C. (2000) Settlement and Integration Policies towards Immigrants and their Descendants in
Sweden. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Wieviorka, M. (1994) Introduction, in Wieviorka, M., Bataille, P., Couper, K., Martuccelli, D. and
Peralva, A. (eds) Racisme et Xenophobie en Europe: Une Comparaison Internationale. Paris: La
Decouverte, 7
25.
Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2003) Methodological nationalism, the social sciences and the
study of migration, International Migration Review, 37(3): 576
610.
Zhou, M. (1997) Segmented assimilation: issues, controversies, and recent research on the new
second generation, International Migration Review, 31(4): 975
1008.