The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_M Date:1/4/
09 Time:15:19:40 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/
revises/9781405132879_4_M.3d

complex contours ofmigrancyand the web

ofdiasporicpopulations thus requires both

critical analyses of the institutions that frame

and facilitate, entrap and exclude migrants,

but also careful and intrinsically spatialized

ethnographiesof the migrant condition.

dg/vg

Suggested reading

Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan (2003); Mills

(1999).

migration The residential relocation of an

individual, family or group from one place to

another (see alsomigrancy). It is distinct

fromtourismor other short-term visits that

do not involve a change in residence.

Geographers have been particularly interested

in migration, since it is so clearly related to

both the development ofplacesand the rela-

tionships between them (Skeldon, 1997;

Black, 1998). According to the most recent

figures, there are nearly 200 million migrants

in the world, defined as people who are living

outside their country of birth (Global

Commission on International Migration,

2005). Traditionally, migration is classified

according to four broad criteria: intra-national

versus international; temporary versus per-

manent; forced versus voluntary; and legal

versus illegal (Bailey, 2001; Castles and

Miller, 2003). Withingeographyand other

social science disciplines, scholars tend to spe-

cialize according to these distinctions. For ex-

ample, the field of intra-national migration

(also known asmobility) is generally distinct

from that of international migration. Similarly,

largely separate groups of researchers study

forced migration, or the movement ofrefu-

geesandasylumseekers, versus those who

study migration arising from economic motiv-

ations. If nothing else, these categories reveal

that migration is a complex phenomenon that

can be generated by a number of processes.

Just as there are many causes of migration,

there are also many consequences. Recently,

critical geographers and other progressive

scholars have called these sharp distinctions

into question, noting that most migrants take

a variety of factors into account when making

their decision to move (Bailey, 2001). While it

may seem an obvious point, this is a crucial

issue, since all of the systems that seek to

regulate migration are based on the assump-

tion that the causes of each individual move-

ment are identifiable and discrete.

Ernest George Ravenstein is acknowledged

as the first person to theorize migration and he

introduced a number of ‘laws’ – in the 1880s –

that he believed captured the most important

processes involved (Grigg, 1977). For exa-

mple, he stated that: the tendency for migra-

tion varies inversely with the distance between

source and destination (i.e. there are far more

short-distance moves than long-distance

ones); the majority of migrants move in order

to improve their economic circumstances;

therefore migration is mainly directed to

places of concentrated economic opportunity,

particularly cities; migration accelerates when

movement becomes easier (e.g. oncetrans-

portationinfrastructure is in place); women

tend to move shorter distances than men; and

migration in one direction eventually gener-

ates its opposite – movement in the opposite

direction. These early generalizations are still

seen as relevant and form the basis of the most

prominent model of migration. Thegravity

modeluses a simple mathematical equation to

predict the amount of migration between any

two places, which is projected as the product

of the population size of the two places divided

by the distance, squared, between them. More

elaborate versions of the gravity model take

more factors into consideration and are cor-

respondingly more mathematically complex.

Migration theories today are dominated by

three strands of thought. The first is a legacy

of the Ravenstein approach, but informed by

more recent economic theories. It posits that

individuals migrate when it is in their eco-

nomic interest, and will go to the place that

maximizes their life-long earning potential.

Meanwhile, governments create migration

policies to attract the talents that they lack

(cf.public policy). The world is therefore

seen as a kind of ‘migrationmarket’, much

like the labour market, with rational actors and

predictable outcomes (Borjas, 1989). Individ-

uals with high levels of human capital (educa-

tion and work experience) go to places that

provide the highest wages for that group.

Meanwhile, less-skilled individuals gravitate

to countries with the least polarized wage

rates and the most generous welfare policies.

These types of migration are labelled, respect-

ively, ‘positive’ versus ‘negative selection’.

There is also an emergingneweconomic the-

ory of migration that considers families the

basic unit of decision-making rather than

individuals. According to this theory, families

seek to enhance their survival through minim-

izing risk (as opposed to atomized individuals

seeking to maximize their earnings), and

therefore attempt to place individual family

members in several countries at the same

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_M Final Proof page 462 1.4.2009 3:19pm

MIGRATION