Political situation, repression and regime transitions

More than 51 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced today as refugees, asylum seekers, or internally displaced persons. According to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to be recognized legally as a refugee, an individual must be fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, race, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group, and must be outside the country of nationality. However, the contemporary drivers of displacement are complex and multilayered, making protection based on a strict definition of persecution increasingly problematic and challenging to implement. Many forced migrants now fall outside the recognized refugee and asylum apparatus. Much displacement today is driven by a combination of intrastate conflict, poor governance and political instability, environmental change, and resource scarcity. These conditions, while falling outside traditionally defined persecution, leave individuals highly vulnerable to danger and uncertain of the future, compelling them to leave their homes in search of greater security. In addition, the blurring of lines between voluntary and forced migration, as seen in mixed migration flows, together with the expansion of irregular migration, further complicates today's global displacement picture. This report details the increasing mismatch between the legal and normative frameworks that define the existing protection regime and the contemporary patterns of forced displacement. It analyzes contemporary drivers and emerging trends of population displacement, noting that the majority of forcibly displaced people – some 33.3 million – remain within their own countries, and that more than 50 percent of the displaced live in urban areas. The author then outlines and assesses key areas where the international protection system is under the most pressure, and finally examines the key implications of these trends for policymakers and the international community, outlining some possible policy directions for reform.

"(1) Aspirations: In the absence of reliable, internationally available migration flow data necessary for statistical forecasting, policymakers increasingly turn to survey data on emigration intentions to evaluate future migration trends. The important assumption – i.e. that there is a measurable and systematic relationship between the intention to migrate and actual migration – has not been firmly established at the international level. In a first step, we examine the association between estimated population averages of emigration intentions and official migration flow data based on data for more than 160 countries. First results show a strong association between emigration intentions and recorded bilateral flows to industrialized countries, as well as between intentions and aggregated out-migration. The results provide policymakers with a reliability assessment of survey data on emigration intentions and encourage future attempts to incorporate survey data in formal statistical migration forecasting models. (2) Policies: Furthermore, we want to explore to what extent migrants consciously decide to migrate to countries that allow them to improve their economic situation taking into account the difficulties to migrate to this country. In particular, we would like to know how the difficulty to immigrate into a country prevents potential migrants from moving to this country. Might it be that migrants decide to move to more liberal countries to increase the chances to be accepted? We already know that migration flows increase when the destination country is economically more attractive (Borjas 1989; Hatton and Williamson 2003) and decrease when immigration policies are more restrictive (Helbling and Leblang 2018). These effects are to some extent due to rejections during the migration processes when for example visa applications are declined or people are not allowed to enter a country when they arrive at the border. (3) Corruption: Eventually, besides immigration policies in potential destination countries, the formation and subsequent materialization of migration aspirations is determined by various factors in the country of residence. However, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence on factors outside the pure economic sphere. For instance, the link between corruption and emigration has received growing attention. Until now, the evidence claiming a strong relationship relies on individual case studies and correlational analysis which severely limits generalizability. In our study, we apply quasi-experimental methods including instrumental variables and propensity score matching to global survey data on 130 countries over 6 years, covering almost 600’000 individual respondents. We find support for the notion that corruption – systematically and strongly - induces emigration plans across countries, across various model specifications and estimation methods. Strengthening causal claims about the link between corruption and emigration is important for further research in this field. Results are also relevant for policy-makers exploring options to address irregular migration in the context of development and trade agreements. "

EUMAGINE is a collaborative European research project aimed at investigating the impact of perceptions of human rights and democracy on migration aspirations and decisions. Project description The EUMAGINE project aims to study how Europe is perceived from outside the EU, and how these perceptions affect migration aspirations and decisions. The project focuses on how people’s perceptions on democracy and human rights – in relation to their regions and countries of origin as well as places abroad – affect their perceptions on and attitudes to migration. We are also interested in investigating how perceptions on human rights and democracy interact with other determinants of migration aspirations, to what extent migration is perceived as a valuable life project, and how potential migrants compare Europe to other migration destinations. EUMAGINE studies migration-related perceptions among people aged 18-39 in four countries of origin and transit: Morocco, Senegal, Turkey and Ukraine. Conceptual framework The theoretical starting point for the project is two-fold: First, we assume that different types of discourses on human rights and democracy influence how individuals in countries of origin and transit perceive issues of human rights and democracy. Secondly, we expect that individuals’ perceptions in turn influence their migratory aspirations and decisions. The EUMAGINE project explores two types of imaginations: “migratory imaginations” and “geographical imaginations.” The term “migratory imaginations” refers to people’s attitude to migration as a valuable life project. Migration-related perceptions and aspirations develop within a specific cultural, political-juridical and economic setting, known as the “emigration environment.” Migration aspirations are linked with socially and culturally constructed perceptions. These include ideas and meanings attached to the migration project, subjective images of one’s current environment, and thoughts about potential destinations. We assume that perceptions on human rights and democracy have an impact on what Massey (1998) has termed “cultures of emigration,” where migration becomes deeply rooted into people’s behavioral repertoires. By “geographical imaginations” we refer to the meanings and images that make up people’s subjective conception of particular places, including Europe. We assume that migratory and geographical imaginations are influenced by different types of discourses: macro-level discourses (e.g. from policy and media sources) and meso-level discourses, (e.g. disseminated through popular culture and social networks). We also expect migratory and geographical imaginations to be shaped by individual-level factors, such as gender or age. Research questions The project is informed by five overarching research questions: 1) How are human rights and democracy related to imaginations in migrant sending countries constructed? 2) How are perceptions on human rights, democracy, migration and possible destination countries affected by various factors? 3) How do perceptions on human rights and democracy and ‘geographical imaginations’ relate to migration aspirations and migration? 4) How to develop a better informed migration policy, taking into account human rights and democracy as important migration determinants? 5) How to contribute to local capacity building in source countries, in order to prepare the ground for locally based research initiatives in the future? Methodology The project systematically analyzes migration aspirations and decisions, following a case-study approach: it compares and contrasts a diversity of important international emigration countries; various types of regions within these countries; several modes of migration; various types of influential discourses; and different profiles of potential migrants. This allows the project to make analytical generalizations about how migration-related perceptions, aspirations and decisions are formed. EUMAGINE has a multidisciplinary approach and combines the varied disciplinary background of its researchers: sociology, law, anthropology, economics, human geography and political science. The field research follows a mixed-method approach with three main methodological components: 1) ethnographic fieldwork in the community, 2) a large-scale quantitative survey, and 3) semi-structured qualitative interviews with selected survey respondents, directed by an interview guide. The research uses between- as well as within-method triangulation. Between-method triangulation is reached through combining qualitative as well as quantitative research methodologies. For within-method triangulation, we use two types of qualitative research, namely in-depth interviews and observation in communities. In each country, fieldwork is undertaken in four diverse regions, selected on the basis of the following model: 1) An area characterized by high emigration rates; 2) A second, comparable socio-economic area with low emigration; 3) A comparable area with a strong immigration history; and 4) A location with a specific human rights situation.

Poor countries are often plagued by civil wars. They are also, in many cases, emigration countries. Anybody interested in the development of such countries must understand to what extent these phenomena are interrelated, and how they interplay with each other. If it is pretty clear that civil wars push people to leave the country, it remains understudied how diasporas play a role in the emergence and evolution of violent conflicts. Indeed, the interactions between diasporas and conflict have roughly been overlooked by the economic literature to date, in spite of the very suggestive pieces of evidence provided by related research fields and of the very important policy questions that it raises – in particular, how to optimize the contribution of diasporas to peaceful development. Based on case studies such as those of Erytrea or of Sri Lanka, the literature in history and political science underlines diverse mechanisms through which diasporas have intervened in the evolution of violence in their home country, either as peace-builders or as peace-wreckers. On the other hand, in these case studies, the evolution of civil wars also appears to have been determinant of emigration and return migration patterns and, eventually, of the nature of diasporas’ involvement in the political situation in the homeland. This project will investigate the joint dynamics of civil conflicts and migration in developing countries. It will first build a theoretical framework to characterize how diasporas and civil wars interact together, accounting for the endogeneity of both migration and violence. The theoretical predictions derived from this framework will then be empirically tested, relying on recent and original data. Through a multi-disciplinary perspective, nourished by the findings of the qualitative research and relying on economic tools – both theoretical and empirical – this project will allow to build the first comprehensive investigation of the diasporas – conflict nexus.

Le projet MOBILISE demande: Quand mécontents avec le situation economique ou politiquoi, pourquoi certains individus protestent tandis que d'autres quittent les frontieres? En reliant les intuitions théoriques de la littérature sur la migration internationale et de celle sur les mobilisations collectives, nous examinons a) Si des facteurs similaires soustentend le choix de migrer et/ou de protester au niveau individuel b) Comment le contexte influence ces mobilisations c) Dans quelle mesure ces choix sont-ils independants l'un de l'autre ou ils se renforcent / se découragent l'un l'autre. MOBILISE utilise une methodologie mixte (des enquêtes quantitatives representatives au niveau national, des enquêtes en ligne auprés des migrants, des enquêtes auprès des protestataires, des focus groups, des entretiens retrospectifs et de l'analyse des réseaux sociaux) ainsi qu'un design multi-situé. Le projet couvre l'Ukraine, la Pologne, le Maroc et le Bresil, qui ont tous récemment connu des protestations de masse ainsi qu'une forte émigration. Nous suivons des emigrés de ces pays en Allemagne, la Grande Bretagne et l'Espagne. Le projet offre quatre innovations clés 1) Il combine les protestations et la migration 2) Il capture tous les groupes pertinents pour la comparaison (des protestataires, des migrants, des migrants protestataires et des individus qui ne font ni l'un ni l'autre) 3) Il suit des individus au fil du temps en utilisant des methodes de panel 4) Il inclut dans l'analyse l'utilisation des réseaux sociaux en fournissant de l'information sur le role des réseaux et des transferts politiques en temps réel. Ces innovations nous permettent d'apporter une contribution importante au développement théorique autant dans l'étude des migrations que des protestations. De plus, le projet fournit des connaissances centrales aux hommes politiques sur les facteurs qui influencent la stabilité politique et économique.

"Theoretical background and objectives The project continues research on the causal dynamics behind anti-immigrant violence in Germany during the 1990s. With a total of about a hundred deaths and many thousands of acts of violence over an extended period of time, this constitutes by far the most important outbreak of ethnic violence in post-war German or indeed West European history. In combination with the availability of a uniquely detailed event data set (see below) studying this wave of violence can make important contributions to our knowledge of the causal dynamics behind mobilisation processes generally, and ethnic mobilisation and violence in particular. Earlier research (e.g., Koopmans 2004; Koopmans and Olzak 2004) has shown that the violence was spurred by political opportunities in the form of highly mediatised controversies between government and opposition over immigration control. Although this connection is well-established, it is less clear, which social mechanisms linked opportunity structures to acts of anti-immigrant violence. The current project investigates two social mechanisms: spatial diffusion processes across localities and the role of bystander publics. The data on anti-immigrant violence display strong temporal clustering and a non-random geographical distribution, suggesting that diffusion processes have played an important role. We investigate whether violent events that were widely mediatised and that occurred during periods of intense immigration debates increased rates of violence in other localities; whether local opportunity structures affected variation in rates of violence across localities; and whether diffusion was more likely to occur between socially homophilous localities. We then investigate the role of bystander publics. On several occasions (e.g., Hoyerswerda, Rostock, but also less well-known instances) local bystander crowds were present when groups of right-wing youths attacked immigrant hostels. Sometimes these crowds ""just"" watched, at other times they signalled support by applauding or cheering, or signalled opposition by verbally or physically intervening in defence of immigrants. We investigate whether such bystander public reactions – which often received much media attention – contributed to the diffusion or containment of violence and acted as an intermediate mechanism between national political opportunities and local activism. Research design, data and methodology The data are drawn from content analyses of German newspapers, supplemented with violence statistics of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz and Reuters news agency data gathered by Ron Francisco. The newspaper data contain detailed information (including the exact timing and geographical location) on altogether around 12,000 events, including public statements on immigration control or the extreme right, political decisions on immigration issues, repression of the extreme right, as well as 700 violent attacks against immigrants, of which for 81 a bystander public reaction was registered. Data are analysed using event history analysis (diffusion across localities) and negative binomial regression (bystander effects). Findings Diffusion processes indeed played an important role in mediating between opportunity structures and anti-immigrant acts. Widely mediatised acts of violence, as well as those that occurred during periods of heightened immigration debate were more likely to lead to copycat events in other localities. Local opportunities also played a role: violence was less likely to occur where the moderate right (CDU or CSU), and even where extreme right parties were electorally strong. This goes against the common sense idea that strong right parties fuel anti-immigrant action, but fits political opportunity structure theories that state that extra-institutional mobilisation is more likely to occur when a constituency is less well represented in institutional politics (e.g., Kriesi et al. 1995). Further, we showed that the recurrent finding from diffusion studies that geographical distance matters can be made sociologically more meaningful when one substitutes – as Gabriel Tarde suggested long ago – geographical by social distance. We investigated three aspects of social homophily: socio-economic (% of the workforce in the agrarian sector), political (% CDU/CSU votes), and demographic (% immigrants). Diffusion was significantly more likely to occur across localities that were more similar along these dimensions and once this was taken into account geographical distance did not matter anymore. Regarding reactions of bystander publics, first results indicate that they were an extremely important mechanism. In particular bystander reactions that supported anti-immigrant activists had a strongly positive impact on the subsequent rate of violence. Bystander reactions that disapproved of the violence did not have a significant effect, probably because they inadvertently generated more media attention for the violence and its perpetrators. Importantly, once bystander public reactions are taken into account, effect sizes for the political opportunity variables become weaker and in some cases insignificant, suggesting that bystander public reactions were indeed important in signalling to activists the opening or closure of opportunities for successful mobilisation."