The literature on state responses to mass migration in the global South -- Categorizations and models for comparative analysis of refugee migration governance -- Patterns and stages of refugee governance in Turkey -- Understanding the shifts in refugee governance and refugee politics of Turkey -- Lebanon's responses to Syrian mass migration -- Forces behind Lebanese governance patterns and refugee politics -- Jordanian national refugee governance and its responses to Syrian mass migration -- Drivers of Jordanian refugee governance and refugee politics -- Comparison of refugee governance in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
The literature on state responses to mass migration in the global South -- Categorizations and models for comparative analysis of refugee migration governance -- Patterns and stages of refugee governance in Turkey -- Understanding the shifts in refugee governance and refugee politics of Turkey -- Lebanon's responses to Syrian mass migration -- Forces behind Lebanese governance patterns and refugee politics -- Jordanian national refugee governance and its responses to Syrian mass migration -- Drivers of Jordanian refugee governance and refugee politics -- Comparison of refugee governance in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
AbstractHow do host states attempt to speed up returns of refugees before peacebuilding and the lack of official arrangements with the home state? Building on the conceptual framework, which coalesces governing practices, strategic narratives, and issue linkages, the article explains the early stages of policy formulation and discourses on refugee returns. Empirically, it draws from Turkey's return initiatives targeting Syrians since 2016. It argues that the Turkish government seeks to advance in (1) practices promoting self-organized voluntary returns of a small number of refugees and (2) the preparation of ground for mass repatriation and resettlement back to Northern Syria. The strategic return narrative has 2-fold target audiences and aims. While keeping the domestic constituency stands as the main motivation by conveying the message of 'Syrians are returning', legitimizing unilateral cross-border interventions targets the international audience. The article contributes to the lack of research on the governance of refugee returns by examining the host states' strategic narrating in relation to the domestic and geopolitical interests.
Abstract Which conditions affect whether a state will choose to repatriate forcibly displaced populations residing within its borders? One of the most pressing issues related to the protracted Syrian refugee situation concerns the future of over 5 million Syrians who sought shelter in neighboring states. With host countries pursuing disparate strategies on Syrians' return, the existing literature has yet to provide a framework that is able to account for variation on host states' policies toward refugee repatriation. In this paper, we expand upon the concept of the refugee rentier state to theorize inductively upon the conditions shaping states' policymaking on repatriation. We draw upon multi-sited fieldwork across the three major refugee host states in the Eastern Mediterranean (Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey) to establish that a refugee rentier state's strategy is driven by domestic political economy costs related to the hosting of refugee populations as well as its geostrategic interests vis-à-vis these refugees' country of origin. Using a comparative case study approach, we note how a state is more likely to pursue a blackmailing strategy based on threats if it faces high domestic political economy costs and adopts an interventionist policy vis-à-vis the sending state, as in the case of Turkey. Otherwise, it is more likely to pursue a backscratching strategy based on bargains, as in the case of Lebanon and Jordan. We conclude with a discussion on how this framework sheds light on refugee host states' repatriation policies on a global scale.
AbstractVoting from abroad (VFA) is a complex norm and practice due to the multilevel processes, structures and actors involved. This article explores the reasons behind the eventual adoption of this practice within the context of a long and well‐known history of emigration in Turkey. During the 2014 Turkish presidential election, emigrants from Turkey were finally allowed to participate from abroad even though legislation giving them this right has been in place since 1995. Based on archival research and fieldwork in Germany and the United States, this article discusses the varying relevance of three central explanatory factors to the implementation of VFA: emigrant lobbying, the electoral expectations of potential benefit by the governing party, and the presence of broader, state‐led diaspora engagement policies. The first of these is important but insufficient, whereas the second factor is necessary. Moreover, the presence of broader, state‐led diaspora engagement policies is a mediating factor. This article finds that specific actors like political parties may play the crucial role, highlighting the need for critical examination of their role in the implementation process.
Chapter 1. Migration and Cities: An Introduction -- Part I: Emerging and Established Global Cities: Managing Diversity from Above and from Below -- Chapter 2. Governing Diversity Beyond City and State: Epistemic and Ethical Challenges of African Urbanisation -- Chapter 3. Urban Policy Modelling and Diversity Governance in Doha and Singapore -- Chapter 4. Urban Diversity and Spatial Justice: A Critical Overview -- Part II: Migration and Diversity Outside the Urban Core: Small and Mid-sized Cities -- Chapter 5 -- Multi-level Migration and Multiculturalism Governance Meets Migrant and Refugee Agency in Regional Australian Towns -- Chapter 6. Immigration Policy and Less-Favoured Regions and Cities: Comparing Urban Atlantic Canada and the US Rust Belt -- Chapter 7. New Zealand's Small-Town Disruptions and the Role of Immigrant Mobilities -- Chapter 8 -- Reflections on 'Welcoming' Second- and Third-tier Cities in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States -- Part III: Migration and Diversity Dynamics in the Suburbs -- Chapter 9. Suburbanisation and Migrant Entrepreneurship in the United States -- Chapter 10. Stuck in the Suburbs? Socio-Spatial Exclusion of Migrants in Shanghai -- Chapter 11. Settlement and Rental Housing Experiences Among Recent Immigrants in the Suburbs of Vancouver: Burnaby, Richmond, and Surrey -- Chapter 12. Suburban Migration: Interrogating the Intersections of Global Migration and Suburban Transformation -- Part IV: Bordering Migration in Cities -- Chapter 13. The Urbanisation of Asylum -- Chapter 14. 'Urban-itarian' Ecologies in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan After Displacement from Syria -- Chapter 15. Sheltering Extraction: the Politics of Knowledges Transitions in the Context of Shelter Organisations in Mexico and the Netherlands -- Chapter 16. Temporality and Permanency in the Study of Border Cities and Migration.
This open access book brings together different perspectives on migration and the city that are usually discussed separately, to show the special character of the urban context as a territorial and political space where people coexist, whether by choice or necessity. Drawing on heterogeneous situations in cities in different world regions (including Europe, North America, the Middle East, South, Southeast and East Asia and the Asia Pacific) contributions to this volume examine how migration and the urban context interact in the twenty-first century. The book is structured in four parts. The first looks at cities as hubs of cultural creativity, exploring the many dimensions of cultural diversity and identity as they are negotiated in the urban context. The second focuses on what lies outside the large urban centres of today, notably suburbs, while the third part engages with migration and diversity in small and mid-sized cities, many of which have adopted strategies to welcome growing numbers of migrants. Last but not least, the fourth part looks at the challenges and opportunities that asylum-seeking and irregular migration flows bring to cities. By providing a variety of empirical cases based on various world regions, this book is a valuable resource for researchers, students and policy makers.
Based on the meta-analysis of thematic country and comparative reports produced in the EU Horizon 2020 RESPOND project, this report seeks to revisit multilevel governance as a theoretical framework in comparative migration research. Focusing on the period of 2011-2018 where the governance of migration has been very much affected by the 'crisis' climax, we question the adaptability of multilevel governance in describing main patterns in governance, their drivers and consequences. The report problematizes the generalized notions of local, nationalist, centralist turn in migration management, instead offering more nuanced understanding that highlights the dynamism and tensions within spatial and temporal axes.Firstly, we propose that when migration is managed through and in a crisis, such as in mass migration or protracted refugee situations, actors at multilevel governance settings choose from a repertoire of possible and available actions, including strict non-admission, deterrence, restriction, ad hoc or welcoming responses.Second, we contend that four characteristics have increasingly marked the inscription of 'crisis' in the multilevel governance of migration, including: 1) complicated and fragmented legal systems, 2) multiplicity of actors, 3) re-nationalisation and restrictiveness and 4) increased complexity and uncertainty.Lastly, we conclude that multilevel governance in and through crisis inevitably leads to temporary governance models that become visible through policy convergence in strengthening restrictive measures, sophistication of remote controls, eradication of the norms and rights-based procedures of the refugee regime. The temporality of these governance modes runs the risk of governance failure and gridlocks in developing common solutions (for example, the EU's internal solidarity crisis or problems in relocation quotas).
Based on the meta-analysis of thematic country and comparative reports produced in the EU Horizon 2020 RESPOND project, this report seeks to revisit multilevel governance as a theoretical framework in comparative migration research. Focusing on the period of 2011-2018 where the governance of migration has been very much affected by the 'crisis' climax, we question the adaptability of multilevel governance in describing main patterns in governance, their drivers and consequences. The report problematizes the generalized notions of local, nationalist, centralist turn in migration management, instead offering more nuanced understanding that highlights the dynamism and tensions within spatial and temporal axes. Firstly, we propose that when migration is managed through and in a crisis, such as in mass migration or protracted refugee situations, actors at multilevel governance settings choose from a repertoire of possible and available actions, including strict non-admission, deterrence, restriction, ad hoc or welcoming responses. Second, we contend that four characteristics have increasingly marked the inscription of 'crisis' in the multilevel governance of migration, including: 1) complicated and fragmented legal systems, 2) multiplicity of actors, 3) re-nationalisation and restrictiveness and 4) increased complexity and uncertainty. Lastly, we conclude that multilevel governance in and through crisis inevitably leads to temporary governance models that become visible through policy convergence in strengthening restrictive measures, sophistication of remote controls, eradication of the norms and rights-based procedures of the refugee regime. The temporality of these governance modes runs the risk of governance failure and gridlocks in developing common solutions (for example, the EU's internal solidarity crisis or problems in relocation quotas).
Across the destination countries of migration, i.e. migrant-receiving countries, in Europe there has been an increasing emphasis on return and reintegration programmes. These programmes particularly target rejected asylum-seekers forced to return, irregular migrants unable to legalise their stay in the migration country and migrants wishing to return of their own volition. Reintegration commonly refers to the processes that unfold after the return of migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons to their country of origin or place of residence as they set about trying to re-establish their lives. However, the reintegration trajectories of assisted and non-assisted returning migrants in different contexts have scarcely been researched. Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) under a Special Initiative on "Tackling the root causes of displacement and (re-)integrating refugees", BICC has undertaken over the past four years (2019-2022) a qualitative research project entitled "Trajectories of reintegration" designed to tackle this desideratum. This Synthesis Report brings together selected findings of the project's empirical studies in the Western Balkans (Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo), West Africa (Ghana, Senegal, the Gambia) and the Middle East (Iraq). The BICC project team conducted an in-depth, long-term investigation into reintegration trajectories focusing on the perceptions, experiences and strategies of returning migrants. We collected data through in-depth qualitative interviews, life-stories, informal conversations and observations. The interview sample includes returnees who were displaced persons (refugees, rejected asylum-seekers), long-term labour migrants, 'irregular' migrants, student migrants, and circular or seasonal migrants. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including government officials, municipal actors and representatives of local NGOs and development agencies. The project team also cooperated closely with local researchers and research assistants, integrating their feedback into the ongoing research findings. To this end we ran training courses and organised several stakeholder workshops in the countries of research.
