Glick Schiller 2009

7/30/2019 Glick Schiller 2009

1/25

A GlobAl PersPectiveon MiGrAtion

And develoPMent

Nina Glick Schiller

Abstract: Questioning the units o analysis o contemporary migrationtheorythe nation-state, the ethnic group, and the transnational com-

munitythat structure discussions o migration and development, Iargue or a global perspective on migration. In deploying these units o

analysis, current discourses about migration and development reect aproound methodological nationalism that distorts present-day migra-

tion studies. The global perspective advocated in this article addresses

the reproduction and movement o people and profts across nationalborders. Such a perspective places the debates about international

migration and development and the contemporary polemics and poli-cies on immigration, asylum, and global talent within the same ana-

lytical ramework, allowing migration scholars to address the mutualconstitution o the local and the global.

Keywords: assimilation, development, globalization, locality, methodo-

logical nationalism, migrant incorporation, transnational migration

On a phone booth in Manchester, Englandwhere I now live as a transmi-grantI saw an advertisement that read Send money home rom closer tohome. It went on to announce that you can now send unds to locationsaround the world rom any British Post Ofce. The Post Ofce, whose salesoperations have now been privatized, has joined businesses around the worldthat seek to proft rom migrant remittances. Spanish banks extend mortgagesto migrants living in Spain who are building houses back home in Ecuadorand elsewhere in Latin America, while appliances stores in Brazil process

orders or customers whose source o payment comes rom amily membersliving abroad (Lapper 2007a). Migrants money transers, purchases o costlycommodities and homeland investments fgure large in the recent policies o


2/25

A Global Perspective on Migration and Development | 15

have proclaimed migrant remitters as the new agents o international develop-ment (de Haas 2007; Fajnzylber and Lpez 2008; Lapper 2007b; World Bank2006). Meanwhile, researchers o development and migration, while noting the

possibilities and contradictions o migrant remittances on sending and receiv-ing localities, take or granted that migrants are both local and transnationalactors (Dannecker 2007; Faist 2008; Fauser 2007; Guarnizo 2007; stergaard-Nielsen 2007; Preis 2007; Raghuram 2007).

Yet at the same time that the transnationality o migrants is being both rou-tinely documented and celebrated, politicians and the mass media in Europeand the United States are ocusing their concern primarily on questions o inte-gration, portraying migrants transnational ties as threats to national security.In these discourses, migrants are attacked or their supposed lack o loyalty to

their new homeland. Politicians, demagogic leaders, and media personalitiesblame migrants or national economic problems, including the growing dispar-ity between rich and poor, the shrinking o the middle class, the reduction inthe quality and availability o public services and education, and the risingcosts o health care and housing. Calls or tightening borders and ending theinux o migrants are widespread, and countries around the world are shuttingtheir doors in the aces o people desperately trying to ee war, rape, and pil-lage. In the meantime, rates o deportation are rising dramatically.

Within these anti-migration discourses, little is said about migrants provi-sion o vital labor, services, and skills to their new land or their role in thereproduction o workorcesincluding their sustenance, housing, education,and trainingin countries around the world. It is true that there is some appre-ciation or one current in the migrant stream. States as diverse as Singaporeand Germany welcome global talent in the orm o proessional and highlyskilled immigrants. Yet this dierentiation only serves to reinorce the view-point that most migrants are undesirable and that migration should cease.

What is the response o migration theorists to the present contradictorypositions on migration whereby migrant remittances are defned as a vitalresource, and yet those who send remittances are castigated and increasingly

denied the right to move across borders? To date, I would argue, migrationscholars have not established a critical perspective that can adequately makesense o the contradictions. They have not developed a global perspective thatcan place within the same analytical ramework debates about internationalmigration and development, national rhetorics on migration and reugee poli-cies, and migration scholarship. Instead, migration scholars have adopted theperspective o their respective nation-states.

Much o the European and US scholarship on migration confnes itsel toquestions such as how well do they ft into our society, what are the barriers

that keep them rom ully joining us, or which cultures or religions do not ftin? In the United States, migration scholars who see themselves as pro-immi-


3/25

16 | Nina Glick Schiller

immigrants becoming an integral part o their new society (Alba and Nee 2003;Heckmann 2003; Joppke and Morawska 2002; Morawska 2003). Although thesescholars accept the persistence o ethnic identities, home ties, and transna-

tional networks as in some cases compatible with integration, they continue tosee migration as a potential threat to the nation-state. They believe that interna-tional migration warrants investigation because it is undamentally problematicor the social cohesion o the host society. For example, Michael Bommesand Andrew Geddes (2000: 6) are concerned that migration can be taken aspart o a process that erodes the classical arrangement by which welare statesprovide an ordered lie course or the members o the national community,i.e., or their citizens in exchange or political loyalty. As Bommes (2005) hasnoted, assimilationists conceptualise society as a big national collective.

In Europe, the term used is integration, which is oten dierentiated romassimilation (Esser 2003, 2006). However, whether the concept being deployedis integration or assimilation, most scholars o migration reect and contributeto an approach to the nation-state that depicts a nation and its migrants asundamentally and essentially distinctboth socially and culturally.1

It is likely that uture scholars will demonstrate that the revival o theassimilationist theory and the new integrationism at the beginning o thetwenty-frst century, rather than representing an advance in social science,reected the neo-liberal project o the restructuring o nation-states. Rescaledbut not replaced in relation to regional and global reorganizations o eco-nomic and political power, nation-states began, as they did at the turn o thetwentieth century, and with the assistance o migration scholars, to buildnational identities at the expense o immigrants. Even scholars o transnationalmigration, including those who highlight the role o migrants in transnationaldevelopment projects, are now concluding their articles with reassurancesthat migrants transnational activities are relatively minimal or contribute totheir integration into the nation-state in which they have settled (Guarnizo,Portes, and Haller 2003; R. Smith 2006). They have not provided a perspec-tive on migration that explains why major global fnancial institutions, which

portray migrants as agents o development through remittances that sustainimpoverished communities, seem unconcerned that these very same people areincreasingly disdained and excluded in their countries o settlement.

In this article, I build on scholars who advocate an institutional analysis ocontemporary migration policies and discourses, but I continue the argument ur-ther by proposing a global power perspective that can link contemporary orceso capitalist restructuring to the specifc localities within which migrants liveand struggle. Ater a postmodern period in which any attempt to use or developglobe-spanning perspectives was dismissed as a grand narrative, scholars in an

array o disciplines, and with very dierent politics, have once again tried to con-nect the local and particular with an analysis o broader orces. Contemporary


4/25


building projects. These projects obscure the past and contemporary transna-tional felds o power that shape political and economic development.

A global power perspective on migration could acilitate the description o

social processes by introducing units o analysis and research paradigms thatare not built on the methodological nationalism o much migration discourse. Itwould allow researchers to make sense o local variation and history in relationto transnational processes and connections. Such a ramework would allowus to identiy contradictions and disjunctures in contemporary scholarship, aswell as orms, spaces, ideologies, and identities o resistance to oppressive andglobal relations o unequal power.

One article cannot, o course, do more than outline such an alternative ana-lytic ramework. In sketching a dierent approach to migration and develop-

ment that builds on a global power perspective, this article briey (1) critiquesmethodological nationalism; (2) addresses neo-liberal restructuring o localitieso migrant settlement and ongoing connection; (3) situates the topic o remit-tances within transnational social felds o uneven power; and (4) analyzes thecountervailing hegemonic processes that are encapsulated in state migrationpolicies and development discourses.

I want to be clear rom the very beginning that by eschewing methodologi-cal nationalism and establishing a global ramework or the study o migrantsettlement and transnational connection, I am not sayingand have neverarguedthat the nation-state is withering away.2 I am asserting that to under-stand the restructuring o globe-spanning institutional arrangements, includingthe changing role and continuing signifcance o states, we need a perspec-tive that is not constrained by the borders o the nation-state. This is becausenation-states are positioned and transormed within global felds o power, andconsequently these felds aect the migration process, including movement,settlement, and transnational connection. At the same time, through their con-nections between places and their actions that aect places, migrants are activeagents o contemporary transormations on local, national, and global scales.My particular interest is the way in which migrants settlement and transna-

tional connections both shape and are shaped by the contemporary restructur-ing o capital and the scalar repositioning o specifc localities (Glick Schiller,Caglar, and Guldbrandsen 2006).

Tracing the Lineages of Methodological Nationalismin Migration Scholarship

A growing number o social theorists have argued that methodological nation-

alism has been central to much o Western social science (Beck 2000; Martins1974; A. Smith 1983; Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002a, 2002b). Methodological


5/25


social customs, and institutions. Some writers label this orientation the con-tainer theory o society to highlight that most social theorists, including EmileDurkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons, have contained their concept o

society within the territorial and institutional boundaries o the nation-state(Basch, Glick Schiller, and Szanton Blanc 1994; Urry 2000; Wol 1982). A meth-odological nationalist perspective in migration scholarship led to the separationo development studies rom the study o immigrant incorporation into a newcountry. To reject methodological nationalism requires migration scholars torecover an approach to migration that does not use nation-states as units oanalysis but rather studies the movement o people across space in relationshipto orces that structure political economy. These orces include states but arenot confned to states and their policies. Furthermore, national and international

policies are considered within the same analytical lens (Nye 1976).I am calling or scholars to recover rather than develop a global perspectiveon migration, since aspects o this approach were widespread during the periodo globalization that took place rom the 1880s to the 1920s. At that time, therewas broad interest in the diusion o ideas and material culture through themigration o people. Scholars such as Friedrich Ratzel (1882) treated all move-ments o people over the terrain as a single phenomenon linked to the distri-bution o resources across space. Ratzels writing reected the assumptionso his times, namely, that the movements o people were normal and natural.The act that migrants came and went and maintained their ties to home bysending back money to buy land, initiate businesses, and support amiliesand village projectsall this was understood as a typical aspect o migration.Workers migrated into regions in which there was industrial development andreturned home or went elsewhere when times were bad. England, Germany,Switzerland, France, the United States, Brazil, and Argentina built industrial-ized economies with the help o millions o migrant labors, who worked inactories, felds, mills, and mines. In general, during that era o globalizationand imperial penetration, most European countries abolished the passport andvisa system that they had installed in the frst hal o the nineteenth century

(Torpey 2000). The United States did not restrict migration rom Europe andrequired neither passports nor visas.3

This period o unequal globalization was shaped by ferce competitionamong many states or control o ar-reaching transnational commercial net-works. The wealth and workorce o many nations were produced elsewhere,and colonial projects were the basis o the accumulation o nationally basedcapital. Governmental regimes increasingly deployed the concepts o nation,national unity, and national economy in ways that obscured the transnationalbasis o their nation-state building projects. The people who lived in these

states aced increasing pressure to use a single national language, to identiywith a national history, to understand their practices and belies to be part o


6/25


social movements that could speak to global transormations ourished, includ-ing international socialism, anarchism, pan-Aricanism, eminism, nationalism,scientifc racism, and anti-imperialism (Bodnar 1985; Gabaccia and Ottanelli

2001; Gilroy 1992; Potts1990; van Holthoon and van der Linden 1988). However,state ofcials, politicians, and intellectuals supported nationalist ideologies thatportrayed individuals as having only one country and one identity. In so doing,they contributed to the view that immigrants embodied cultural, physical, andmoral characteristics that dierentiated them rom their host society and there-ore merited study. It was at that momentand in conjunction with the mount-ing pressure to delineate national borders more frmly by closing themthat ascholarship o immigrant settlement became delineated. The transnational socialfelds o migrants and their engagement in internationalism and other orms o

non-state-based social movements increasingly were seen as problematic andfnally disappeared rom view. The study o migration was divided betweendemographers and geographers, who studied movement between nation-states,and sociologists, who studied settlement and assimilation.

As a result o that moment, several complementary but dierentiated logicswere deployed: (1) the sociology o migration was situated exclusively withinnational territories; (2) the notion o national origin was racialized through thepopularization o the concept o national stocks; (3) assimilationist theory wasdeveloped within the hegemonic narrative o race and nation; and (4) nationalstocks came to be seen as dierentiated by culture and were designated eitheras nationalities or as national minorities who resided within a state o settle-ment. Current scholarship on migrant incorporation and transnational connec-tion continues to be shaped not only by these past approaches but also by thecurrent historical conjuncture in which the leaders o migrant-receiving statesare emotively legitimating national discourses and narratives.

Today, the ethnic group continues to serve as the primary unit o analysiswith which to study and interpret migration settlement, transnational migra-tion, and diaspora. Oten termed communities, the ethnic group has becomethe bedrock o studies o migrant settlement. This remains true despite a volu-

minous historical and ethnographic literature that (1) identifes the constructednature o ethnic identities and ethnic group boundaries, (2) includes detailedethnographies o institutional processes through which ethnic categories andidentities are constructed and naturalized by local and transnational actors,and (3) provides copious accounts o divisions based on class, religion, regiono origin, and politics among the members o the supposedly same group(Barth 1969; Brubaker 2004; Caglar 1990, 1997; Glick Schiller 1977, 1999; GlickSchiller et al. 1987; Gonzalez 1988; Kastoryano 2002; Sollors 1989). The use oethnic groups as units o analysis is a logical but unacceptable consequence o

the methodological nationalism o mainstream migration studies.The problematic raming o migration research in terms o ethnic groups


7/25


trajectories and have said little about the ways in which the restructuring o eco-nomic, political, and social capital aects specifc orms o migrant settlementand transnational connections. Few researchers have noted the signifcance o

locality in shaping migrants transnational social and economic felds.4

In short, the methodological nationalism o many migration scholars, reect-

ing the entanglements o disciplinary histories with nation-state building proj-ects, precludes them rom accurately describing the transnational social felds ounequal power that are integral to the migrant experience. Because their schol-arship is built on units o analysis that developed within nation-state buildingprojects, ew migration scholars situate national terrains and discourses withinan analysis o the restructuring o the global economy, the rescaling o cities,and the rationalization o a resurgent imperialist agenda.5

Addressing the Neo-liberal Restructuring of Localities ofMigrant Settlement and Ongoing Connection

Working within a Marxist ramework, David Harvey (2003, 2005) and a num-ber o geographers have emphasized that while one can talk about the inten-sifcation o global processes o capital ow and exible accumulation, capitalreproduction always comes to ground somewhere. Since capital is ultimately

a social relationship, when it is reconstituted in a specifc place, the processdestroys previously emplaced social relationships and the inrastructures andenvironments in which they were situated and constructs others. Although di-erentiated in terms o the path-dependent trajectories o a specifc place, theeects o the restructuring o capital are not confned to only one place; rather,the transormation o one place aects many others. The reconstitution o capi-tal disrupts previous arrangements o power and structures new relationshipso production, reproduction o labor, distribution, and consumption that extendinto other localities.

The processes o the creation and destruction o capitalas it represents theconcentration o relationships o production within time and spaceis an ongo-ing eature o capitalism. However, beginning in the 1970s, this general processwas reconfgured on a global scale through the uneven and disparate imple-mentation o a series o initiatives widely known as the neo-liberal agenda.Neo-liberalism can be defned as a series o projects o capital accumulation thathave reconstituted social relations o production in ways that dramatically cur-tail state investment in public activities, resulting in the reduction o state ser-vices and benefts and the diversion o public monies and resources to developprivate service-oriented industries rom health care to housing (sometimes in

arrangements termed public-private partnerships). At the same time, the neo-liberal project also relentlessly pushes toward global production through the


8/25


replacing previous relations o production, consumption, and distribution andby generating new orms o desire. These transormations have aected thequality o lie o migrants and natives alike.

Neo-liberal projects take the orm o specifc sets o ideas and policies thatmay or may not be successully implemented. These ideas are held, shaped,deended, and contested by a range o actors, including social scientists,whether or not they are directly linked to policy. The broader projects involvenot just the domain o economics but also politics, cultural practices, ideasabout sel and society, and the production and dissemination o images andnarratives. Neo-liberal plans are implemented on the ground and dierentially,depending not just on dierent national policies but also on specifc local his-tories, including that o migration.

The work o geographers on the neo-liberal restructuring o capital andspace highlights the various mechanisms that require all places to competeor investments in new economies (Brenner 2004; N. Smith 1995). All o theresources that cities have, including their human resources, which encompassthe migrants and their skills and qualities, acquire a new value and becomeassets in this competition. Migrants are not only part o the new, just-in-timesweatshop industries that accompany the restructuring o some cities. Theyprovide highly skilled labor that also contributes to the human capital profleo various cities. The cultural diversity o migrants is an important actor inthe competitive struggle between the cities. Beyond the marketing o ethnicculture, migrants contribute to the cultural industries o the cities in which theyare settling, rom media to cuisine, ashion, and graphic design (Caglar 2005,2007; Scott 2004; Zukin 1995). The place and role o migrants in this competi-tion might dier, depending on the scalar positioning o these cities.

The implementation o neo-liberal agendas had disrupted fxed notions onested, territorially bounded units o city, region, state, and globe. The scholar-ship on neo-liberalism documents the ways in which all localities have becomeglobal in that none are delimited only by the regulatory regime and economicprocesses o the state in which they are territorially based. The state itsel is

rescaled to play new roles by channeling ows o relatively unregulated capitaland participating in the constitution o global regulatory regimes enorced bythe World Trade Organization (WTO) and international fnancial institutions.To emphasize the processual, competitive, and political aspects o the spatialrestructuring o capital, some geographers speak o rescaling. They note thatwhen localities change the parameters o their global, national, and/or regionalconnectedness and lines o power that serve to govern territory, they in eectjump scale (Swyngedouw 1997). Rather than understanding the local andglobal scale as either discrete levels o social activities or hierarchical analytical

abstractions, as in previous geographies o space, the global and the local (aswell as the national) are [understood to be] mutually constitutive (Brenner


9/25


skilled new economy workersshapes the incorporation, i dierentially, oall residents o that locality. Hence, the research ramework I am suggestingwhat I call a locality analysis o a global power paradigmplaces migrants

and natives in the same conceptual ramework. Locality analysis turns ourattention to the relationships that develop between the residents o a place andinstitutions that are situated locally, regionally, nationally, and globally, with-out making prior assumptions about how these relationships are shaped byethnicity, nationality, or national territory. All o these actors and others thataect opportunity structures remain a matter o investigation.

Although scale theorists have said almost nothing about migrant incorpo-ration, it is evident that a locality analysis built on that scholarship providesimportant theoretical openings with which to approach the signifcance o

locality in migrant incorporation. The relative positioning o a place withinhierarchical felds o power may well lay the ground or the lie chances andincorporation opportunities o migrants and those who are native to the place.In order to understand the dierent modes and dynamics o both migrant andtransnational incorporation, we need to address the broader rescaling pro-cesses aecting the cities in which migrants are settling. A scalar perspectivecan bring into this discussion the missing spatial aspects o socio-economicpower, which is exercised dierently in various localities. The concept o scalarpositioning also introduces socio-spatial parameters to the analysis o localityin migration scholarship (Glick Schiller and Caglar 2009, 2010).

For students o migration, this perspective reminds us that migrants, aspart o the processes o capital reproduction, are agents o the reshaping olocalities. Migrants become part o the restructuring o the social abric othe several localities to which they may be connected through their transna-tional networks and become actors within new orms o governing territory. Ocourse, migrants roles in each place are themselves shaped in the context orescaling processes themselves. At the same time, pathways o migrant settle-ment are shaped by the opportunity structures and restrictions o particularplaces, including the type o labor needed and the way that labor is recruited

and organized within those places.It is through making this type o locality analysis that we can assess the

variety o ways that migrants contribute to the opportunity structures o vari-ous locations and the degree to which they become one o several actors in therestructuring o a place. This places the migrants as actors within larger globalorces and moves our discussion beyond the limitations o a model o migration,development, and remittances. Some o the roles that migrants play as agents oglobal restructuring are described in the transnational migration literature butare not sufciently analyzed within broader processes o capital development

and destruction. Other migrant contributions are rarely acknowledged becausethey are not clearly visible through an ethnic lens. My list o orms in which


10/25


Contingent on the positioning o a place globally, migrants make dierentkinds o contributions, which, depending on the stance o the observer, maybe judged good or bad. Take, or example, the role o migrants as gentrifers

both in their place o settlement and in localities to which they are transnation-ally connected. In cites o settlement, which are in the process o successulrestructuring, migrants may contribute to the reinvention o urban neighbor-hoods previously considered undesirable by buying property in particularlocalities where property values have been low (Goode 2010; Salzbrunn 2010).Migrants may be well placed to buy property because they are able to draw onamily credit or pooled resources to invest in and improve the housing stockor local neighborhood businesses (Glick Schiller, Caglar, and Guldbrandsen2006). Thus, migrants may stabilize, restore, or gentriy neighborhoods and

may even contribute to the global marketing o a city. Migrant investments inhousing and property may transorm neighborhoods within their transnationalsocial feld in ways that increase economic opportunities or economic dispari-ties between localities.

As I have argued elsewhere (Glick Schiller and Caglar 2009, 2010), migra-tion scholarships binary division o oreigner and natives, which is legitimatedthrough the adoption o the nation-state as the unit o both study and analysis,leaves no conceptual space to address questions o the global restructuringo region and locality that serves as the nexus o migrant incorporation andtransnational connection and to which migrants contribute in ways that mayrescale cities. Except or global cities theory, the insightul and powerul socialtheorizing o locality and scale produced by urban geographers has not enteredinto either migration theory or discussions about migration and development.To note that migrant departure, settlement, and transnational connections areshaped by the positioning o localities and regions within globally structuredhierarchies o economic and political power would disrupt the homogeniza-tion o the national terrain that is imposed by migration theory and echoed indevelopment discourses.

Placing Remittance Flows within Transnational Social Fieldsof Uneven Power

A transnational social feld is a complex o networks that connects peopleacross the borders o nation-states and to specifc localities (Glick Schiller 2003,2006). Here I use the term social feld to reer not to a metaphoric space butto a set o social relations, unequal in terms o the power o the various actors,through which people live their lives. Migrants who send remittances may

reconfgure social relations as part and parcel o the transnational processesthat reconstitute localities. These localities may be hometowns, but migrants


11/25


Migration processes cannot be seen as a sui generis activity with an internaldynamic that can be studied in its own right, without reerence to the global-local interace o the reconstitution o capital. This is not to deny that one can

track the development o an internal logic within a migration stream, as Doug-las Massey (Massey et al. 1998) has done so well in his research on Mexicanmigration. As migration takes on its own logic with transnational networks,a specifc migration trajectory and the networks that connect places becomepart and parcel o the restructuring o those places. And each place has itsown particular history, as Jennier Robinson (2006) has argued in calling oran appreciation o each city as ordinary. However, in order to make senseo migration processes and their variations, we need to theorize not only theagency o migrants, whose networks restructure a specifc locality, but also the

global ows o capital o various kinds, which contribute to stark dierencesbetween the competitive positioning o dierent localities with consequencesor all the inhabitants o each city and town involved.

A global power perspective that addresses migration and its relationship tothe neo-liberal restructuring o locality leads us to a more nuanced view o theimpact o remittances than is currently available in the migration and develop-ment feld. This global perspective highlights the dual role played by migrantremittances in relation to the impact o neo-liberal restructuring. On the onehand, the impact o the privatization o public services is somewhat deectedas migrant remittances pay or vital needs, such as health care, education, andinrastructure. On the other hand, remittance ows within a neo-liberal contexthighlight locational disparities that are no longer addressed by state policiesthat would aim to even out regional disparities. On the contrary, as the owo wealth becomes concentrated in specifc localities, and as these towns andcities reposition themselves within local and even global economies throughthis restructuring, states may urther these disparities. For instance, they mayacilitate air travel and other inrastructural developments and industries suchas tourism in areas developed through migrant remittances, while other placesbecome backwaters whose residents are severely disadvantaged. Yet studies

o development and migration tend to ignore both the specifcities o locali-ties that migrants connect through their networks o social relations and theinsertion o these locations within broader structural disparities o wealth andpower. It is important to assess how we rame our questions and analyses andto identiy which migrants and which localities are winners or losers becauseo the role played by migrants in restructuring processes.

The implications o this perspective are many or the study o processestermed development in sending countries and urban restructuring in settle-ment countries. Migrants are seen as remittance senders without sufcient dis-

cussion o how migrants are positioned in a new locality in terms o class andoccupation, why migrants should want to send remittances, and to whom and


12/25


concepts o amily and moral obligationengage in very similar behaviorwhen conronted by similar migration contexts.

The contexts that acilitate migrants sending remittances and investing in

localities within their transnational feld seem to be related to the conditionsaced by migrants in their place and country o settlement, as well as thosethat conront relatives and other members o their social network who havebeen let behind or who are living elsewhere. Because discussions o migra-tion and development have increasingly taken the sending o remittances orgranted, we have too little research on this subject. However, existing ethnog-raphies and surveys about the remittance-sending contexts have indicated thatremittances are sent under one or more o the ollowing conditions: (1) whenchildren, spouses, or parents are let behind; (2) when migrants ace insecure

conditions in a place o settlement because o racism, anti-immigrant senti-ment, or other orms o political, social, or economic discrimination; (3) whenmigrants secure a steady income in their place o settlement, whatever its sizeor source; (4) when migrants suer great status loss through the migrationprocess and a remittance-receiving economy provides them with opportunitiesto maintain or improve their status and class position; and (5) when a possibleremittance-receiving localitywhether a hometown or elsewhereprovidesalternative economic possibilities, allowing the migrants to hedge their bets.These actors taken together help explain whether or not a migrant establishesand maintains a transnational social feld.

By linking migrants remittance-sending patterns and motivations to theconditions that they experience in specifc localities, we can better account orwhy some people remain committed to sending remittances or making invest-ments transnationally, while others disengage. The restructuring o localitiesthrough neo-liberal processes described above may acilitate or diminish theability o migrants to send remittances. For example, neo-liberal policies maylead to the increased hiring o part-time workers and the inability o migrantsto fnd steady employment. Or the privatization o public services may meanthat there is more demand or low-wage migrant labor and more possibilities

or migrants to send money regularly to their hometown or homeland. Andin the home locality, structural adjustment policies may lead to the reductiono transportation services and increased public insecurity, which would curbinvestments in businesses or new housing.

The Countervailing Hegemonic Processes Encapsulated inState Migration Policies and Development Discourses

Culture remains an important variable in a global power analysis o migration,but cultural dierences between natives and migrants within a nation-state are


13/25


oten ail to address daily social activities that unite migrants and nativeswithin workplaces, neighborhoods, and leisure activities. They also disregardthe orces that construct dierences, such as the intersections o the global-

political economy and local orms o dierentiating power, including those thatracialize, eminize, and subordinate regions, populations, and localities. As ameans o addressing these concerns, Ramn Grosoguel (2008) argues or ananalytical ramework that he calls the colonial power matrix. He is devel-oping a scholarship that analyzes the role o repressive orce and discursivepower with regard to the North/South divide. Building on the work o AnibalQuijano (2000), Grosoguel (2008: 2) speaks o the coloniality o power as anentanglement or intersectionality o multiple and heterogeneous globalhierarchies (heterarchies) o sexual, political, epistemic, economic, spiritual,

linguistic and racial orms o domination and exploitation [T]he racial/eth-nic hierarchy o the European/non-European divide transversally reconfguresall the other global power structures.

Grosoguel (2008) emphasizes that the concepts o racial and gender dier-ences and the hierarchies that they substantiate are central to the legitimiza-tion o the location and dominance o fnance capital in Northern states andinstitutions. The coloniality o the power ramework addresses the disparitieso wealth and power that link together the lack o development in the globalSouth, the root causes o migration ows, and the interests o migrants andfnancial institutions in investments in remittance ows. This ramework bringstogether in a single analytical structure the processes o capital accumulation,nation-state building, the restructuring o place, and the categorization o laborby race and gender.

When applied to migration scholarship, the coloniality o power approachallows us to understand better the current contradictory orces that denigratemigrants while celebrating migrant remittances. We can assess how construc-tions o migrants are used to dehumanize certain sectors o the workorce inorder to legitimate more readily their insertion in neo-liberal labor demands.The national discourses o exclusionwhich portray migrants as unskilled,

threatening, and disruptive invaders and which seem rampant in states aroundthe world, rom Singapore to Italycontribute to the current neo-liberal laborregime. Dehumanized through rhetorics o national dierence, migrant labor,which is increasingly contractual, meets the needs o localized neo-liberalrestructuring more efciently than the previous, and still current, situation oamily reunion, asylum, and the use o undocumented workers as a orm oexible and politically silenced labor.

Over the last ew decades, growing international competition led to thedevelopment o global assembly lines, with de-industrialized centers o capi-

tal in North America and Europe and the movement o actories to ar-ungregions, where labor is cheap and unregulated. Tari barriers were demolished,


14/25


the huge rise in the price o oil and hence transport, which means it is moreproftable to locate production processes closer to areas o high consumerdemand. One increasingly popular solution is to use a workorce that is cheap

and controllable. As many observers in Europe have pointed out, these con-tradictions will be heightened by the low birth rate and aging composition oEuropean and North American populations (Castles 2006).

For several decades, undocumented migrantsfrst in the United Statesand increasingly in Europemade up the quiescent, hyper-exploited, and ex-ible workorces needed within urban restructuring processes. They urnishedlabor not only or agriculture but also or just-in-time production close tocenters o capital and or the various domestic and service industries neededin restructured cities geared toward consumer industries and tourism. In some

countries in Europe, such as the United Kingdom, asylum seekers and reugeeshave provided this orm o labor, both legally and illegally. The denigration andcriminalization o asylum seekers and the growing capacity o bio-surveillancemeasures to limit mobility are essential eatures o a transition to a orm olabor more ftted to the production needs o neo-liberal economies.

It seems likely that we are witnessing a movement toward an EU laborregime made up o circulating labor rom within the European Union and newand very controlled orms o contract labor rom elsewhere. As Steven Vertovec(2007: 2) has pointed out: Circular migration is being advocated as a poten-tial solution (at least in part) to a number o challenges surrounding contem-porary migration. The expansion o the EU labor market by the inclusion oaccession states with labor policies that emphasize the merits o circulation arepart o this larger policy shit. Contract workers and labor circulation are nowhailed as arrangements that beneft all parties, and short-term labor contractsare increasingly part o the production process or agricultural and actorywork in places as disparate as Canada and Albania.

Migration researchers are contributing to the legitimization o new ormso exploitation by emphasizing the benefts o transnational remittances whileneglecting to address the severe and permanent restriction o rights that accom-

panies short-term contract work and the decreasing access o migrants tonaturalization. Some migration scholars have continued to sing the praiseso circular short-term migration with regard to development. For example,Alejandro Portes (2007: 272) has asserted: Cyclical migrations work best orboth sending and receiving societies. Returnees are much more likely to saveand make productive investments at home; they leave amilies behind to whichsizable remittances are sent. More important, temporary migrants do not com-promise the uture o the next generation by placing their children in danger odownward assimilation abroad.

This kind o rosy picture reinorces the desirability o the new migrationregime o contract labor, which makes migrant settlement increasingly difcult.


15/25


restrictions on, or denial o, rights and privileges to the individuals who areproducing wealth, paying taxes, and sustaining inrastructures and services towhich they have no entitlement. The mantras about migrants as major agents

o development are also part o this new global labor regime. Internationalfnancial institutions have made migrant remittances a growing industry just atthe moment when migrants may be less interested in transnational strategiesand yet less able to choose to settle permanently in a new land.

Transnational migration has in part reected a strategy on the part o migrantsto avoid committing themselves since they were unsure o the long-term wel-come they might receive in the states in which they were settling, even i citizen-ship rights were available and utilized. However, migrants sending remittancesdid make certain assumptions about the viability o local economies in the send-

ing states. They assumed that there would be enough security o persons andenough o an opportunity structure or those with capital to support their owninvestment in a home and amily. Increasingly, these assumptions no longer holdin many regions o the world due to environmental degradation, destabilizationbecause o structural adjustment policies, and the hollowing out o nationaleconomies through trade agreements such as NAFTA and WTO restrictions. Theresult is continuing waves o migration as well as a possible growing disinterestamong migrants to invest in their homelands. This may be linked to an increaseddesire to reunite amilies in the country o settlement and to unilateral ratherthan simultaneous incorporation. Transnational migration and connection are notinherent eatures o migration but rather reect conditions in both localities.

By examining the relations between the neo-liberal restructuring o capitaland the need or an ever more controllable and exible workorce, the connec-tions between the various and seemingly disparate trends in migration policyand discourse begin to emerge. Nationalist rhetoric and exclusionary policiespave the way or production regimes that rely on the capacity to control labor.The aceless migrating workorce is portrayed as potentially lawless borderinvaders who require restriction, regulation, and contractual constraints thatlimit their rights to change employers or challenge working conditions. The

depersonalizaton o labor as contractual services allows or labor policy state-ments in which the separation o workers rom home and amily, withoutrights o settlement and amily reunion, becomes good economic policy. Thedepersonalization o the process allows such workers to be categorized asunskilled, despite the act that many o them have relatively high degrees oeducation and may be nurses, doctors, teachers, or university proessors. Theirwillingness to migrate is integrally related to the structural adjustment andprivatization policies in their home localities that reduced wages and endedstate-unded public services that had provided employment or proessionals.

At frst glance, the global war or talent, in which multinational corpora-tions compete or highly educated workers, would seem to stand outside the


16/25


ensure that the current workorce gives way to the next wave o newly educatedand eager bodies and brains. Moreover, the very prominence and desirability othe sought-ater ew highlight the disposability o the aceless many, despite the

act that both labor streams are needed to sustain many contemporary cities.The dehumanization o migrants allows or them to be manipulated and

controlled as various orms o unree contracted labor. Meanwhile, migrantproessionals can be welcomed in specifc places as contributors to the neo-lib-eral restructuring and rescaling o various cities. Also, migrant remittances canbe relied on to transmit oreign currency to amilies, localities, and regimes letbehind, enabling their inclusion, however unequally, in global patterns o con-sumption and desire. In short, these seemingly discrepant narratives are parto the globally structured and locally situated mutual reconstitution o social

relationships and values that a global power perspective allows us to analyze.Such a perspective acilitates advocacy o alternative policies and agendas.It is insufcient, however, to reduce the ood o anti-immigrant sentiments

to a justifcation or exploitative labor. Returning to the coloniality o powerramework and using it as part o our global perspective on migration can yieldurther insights into the current moment o anti-immigrant attacks and contra-dictory discourses. At the same time, this perspective highlights how US andEuropean imperialist projects are simultaneously justifed and obscured througha politics o ear that portrays migrants as the chie threat to national security.

I have noted that states are still important within the globe-spanning eco-nomic processes that mark our contemporary world, but o course not all statesare equal. Unequal globalization rests on a ramework o imperial states thatserve as base areas or institutions that control capital, the productions o arms,and military power. These powerul states claim and obtain rights and privilegesin states around the world and defne the institutional limits o less powerulstates. The core imperial states also are the key players in institutions thatclaim to be global, including the World Bank, the WTO, and the United NationsSecurity Council. Increasingly, theorists on the right and the let have recentlyreturned to the concept o imperialism. They stress the signifcance o warare,

but oten ignore the relationship between neo-liberal restructuring, migration,and the construction o images o the oreigner as enemy and terrorist (Cooper2003; Ferguson 2004; Harvey 2003; Ikenberry 2002; Mann 2003; Reyna 2005).

In the ace o intense global economic, political, social, and cultural intercon-nections and o growing inequality due to racialized and gendered hierarchies,the popularization o the notion o the migrant as the outsider rehabilitates ear-lier myths that nation-states contain homogeneous cultures shared by nativepopulations. Once again, the migrant is constructed to reinorce and validatethe nationalism that continues to socialize individuals to identiy with their

nation-state. Once again, a discourse that presents the world as divided intoautonomous nation-states is becoming hegemonic.


17/25


18/25


observations and acilitates new ones. To do this, we need to discard method-ological nationalism so that our units o analysis do not obscure the presenceo imperial globe-spanning power and its internal contradictions, its inability to

provide consistent development, and its dependence on migrant labor.The new scholarship should popularize the concept that migration and

development processes are part o global orces experienced by people whomove and those who do not move. This means that migration scholars mustenter into the public debate about social cohesion by identiying the orces oglobalization that are restructuring the lives o migrants and non-migrants alikeand by speaking to the common struggle o most people o the world or socialand economic justice and equality. When delimited by their methodologicalnationalism, migration theorists confne their units o analysis to the nation-

state and the migrant. They are thus unable to track structures and processeso unequal capital ow that inuence the experience o people who reside inparticular localities. Migration scholars oten ail to look at the relationshipsbetween migrants and natives that are not ramed by concepts o cultural orancestral dierence. Furthermore, they ignore the way in which local institu-tions that incorporate residents o states in a variety o ways are confgured bypower hierarchies that interpenetrate in states and regions.

Development discussions that laud migrant remittances yet do not addresstransnational felds o unequal power serve to obuscate rather than promoteanalysis. Many states dominated by imperial power and its new regulatoryarchitecture are struggling because a sizable proportion o their gross nationalproduct is channeled into debt service, leaving migrants to sustain the nationaleconomy through their contributions. Meanwhile, remittances and the ow omigrant capital across borders contribute to the proftability o banks and otherfnancial institutions (Guarnizo 2003).

A global perspective on imperial power can also acilitate our ability associally engaged scholars to theorize the contradictions o imperial dilemmasand fnd ways in which they can contribute to progressive social transormation.But we can do this only i we set aside born-again assimilationism and other

orms o integrationist theory that posit migrants as disruptors o national com-munities. It is necessary or migrants and natives o countries around the worldwho fnd their lives diminished by unequal globalization to understand whatthe problem is and what it is not. It is not putative hordes o illegal aliens ormigrants transnational connections that are threatening the majority o peoplein the imperial core countries. Rather, we need to draw attention to the ways inwhich anti-immigrant rage and subjective eelings o despair, the precariousnesso lie, and lies unmet aspirations reect and speak to the global ragility andexploitive character o contemporary capitalism, its restructuring o economies,

labor regimes, and states, and its dependence on war and plunder.


19/25


Acknowledgments

Portions o this article are built on a co-authored paper with Ayse Caglar entitled

Migrant Incorporation and City Scale: Theory in the Balance, which was deliv-ered at the conerence MPI Workshop: Migration and City Scale, in Halle/Salle,Germany, in May 2005. Earlier versions o this article were delivered at the SecondInternational Colloquium on Migration and Development, Migration, Transnation-alism, and Social Transormation, in Cocoyoc, Mexico, on 2628 October 2006; theVolkswagen Foundation Conerence on Migration and Education, in Hamburg, Ger-many, on 2223 February 2007; the RDI Conerence on New Essentialisms, in Paris,France, on 2225 May 2007; and the ZiF Conerence on Transnational Migration andDevelopment, in Bieleeld, Germany, on 30 May1 June 2007. I wish to express mythanks to the conerence organizers and participants, who are not responsible or

the perspective o this article. Special thanks are extended to the James H. Hayesand Claire Short Hayes Proessorship o the Humanities, which I held; to Burt Fein-tuch, at the Center or the Humanities, University o New Hampshire, or summersupport; to Gnther Schlee, at the Max Planck Institute or Social Anthropology,or broader conceptualizations o integration and conict; to Hartwig Schuck, orormatting and Web site posting; and to Darien Rozentals, or editorial assistance.

Nina Glick Schiller is Director o the Cosmopolitan Cultures Institute and Proes-sor o Social Anthropology at the University o Manchester. Her felds o interestinclude transnational migration, diasporic connection, long-distance nationalism,and comparative perspectives on city rescaling and migration. The ounding editoro the journal Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Glick Schiller haspublished Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration (1992) and NationsUnbound (1994) (both with Linda Basch and Cristina Szanton Blanc), and GeorgesWoke Up Laughing(2001) (with Georges Fouron). Her research has been conductedin Haiti, the United States, and Germany, and she has worked with migrants romall over the globe.

Notes

1. As Peter Kivisto (2005) has pointed out, the new assimilationists are actually not thatdierent rom the old ones. Classic asssimilationists such Robert Park (1950) and MiltonGordon (1964) did not predict an inevitable melting away o cultural dierence withinthe American crucible. In arguing their case or the new integration or when attackingimmigrants or their supposed ailure to integrate, these scholars generally compare

statistics on education level, workorce integration, and criminality that continue thedivide between native and oreigner. They sometimes even compare dierent ethnicgroups without regard to questions o class background and national or local opportu-


20/25


Together with most scholars o transnational migration, I view nation-states, with theirlegal systems, migration policies, and institutional structures, as signifcant or the estab-lishment and persistence o transnational social felds (Basch, Glick Schiller, and SzantonBlanc 1994; Faist 2000; Glick Schiller 1999, 2003; Glick Schiller, Basch, and Blanc-

Szanton 1992; Levitt 2001a, 2001b; Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004; Pries 2007; M. Smithand Guarnizo 1998; R. Smith 1998). Despite the now extensive literature on this topic,some analysts persist in accusing these scholars o ignoring the persisting importance onation-states. See, or example, Bommes (2005) and Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2004).

3. The restrictions on the entry o persons rom China beginning in 1882 constituted theprecursor o US eorts at broader restrictive legislation. However, the gate was not shutagainst most migration until the 1920s. A law passed in 1917 not only continued the Chi-nese exclusion but orbade most Asian people rom entering. Until 1965, the bulk o therestrictive legislation that ollowed was based on nationality. Migrants were categorizedby country o origin, with tens o thousands o some nationalities being admitted, whileno more than 100 o those o other national origins, including Greece, Bulgaria, Palestine,and Australia, were allowed. Most public discussions o the 1920s identifed migrants bytheir nationality, popularizing the dividing line between Americans and those associatedwith other national origins.

4. In contrast to this general ailure o transnational migration scholarship to theorize local-ity, Michael Peter Smith (2001) has developed a concept o transnational urbanism,which is intended to generate a new category o urbanism. The weakness o Smithsconcept is that the category o transnational urbanism readily becomes an ideal type,rather than an analytical tool through which to study specifc localities and their variouspositionings as a result o regional history and global restructuring.

5. For important exceptions, see Dannecker (2007), de Haas (2007), Delgado Wise and

Mrquez Covarrubias (2007), Faist (2008), and Guarnizo (2007).

References

Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003.Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation andContemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barth, Fredrik. 1969.Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization o Culture Di-erence. Boston: Little Brown.

Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1994.Nations Unbound:Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorrialized Nation-States.New York: Gordon and Breach.

Beck, Ulrich. 2000. The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology o the Second Age o Moder-nity.British Journal o Sociology 51, no. 1: 79105.

Bodnar, John. 1985. The Transplanted: A History o Immigrants in Urban America.Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press.

Bommes, Michael. 2005. Transnationalism or Assimilation? http://www.jsse.org/2005/2005-1/transnationalism-assimilation-bommes.htm (accessed 30 December 2005).

Bommes, Michael, and Andrew Geddes. 2000. Introduction: Immigration and the WelareState. Pp. 112 inImmigration and Welare: Challenging the Borders o the WelareState, ed. Michael Bommes and Andrew Geddes. London: Routledge.

Brenner, Neil. 2001. World City Theory, Globalization and the Comparative-Historical


21/25


Brubaker, Rogers. 2004.Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Caglar, Ayse. 1990. Das Kultur-Konzept als Zwangsjacke: Studien zur Arbeitsmigration.

Zeitschrit r Trkei-Studien 1: 93105.______. 1997. Hyphenated Identities and the Limits o Culture. Pp. 169185 in The Poli-

tics o Multiculturalism in the New Europe: Racism, Identity and Community, ed. TariqModood and Pnina Werbner. London: Zed.

______. 2005. Mediascapes, Advertisement Industries: Turkish Immigrants in Europe andthe European Union.New GermanCritique 92: 3962.

______. 2007. Rescaling Cities, Cultural Diversity and Transnationalism: Migrants o Mardinand Essen.Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, no. 6: 10701095.

Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise o Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Castles, Stephen. 2006. Back to the Future? Can Europe Meet Its Labour Needs through

Temporary Migration? International Migration Institute, Oxord University WorkingPaper No. 1. http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pds/wp1-backtotheuture.pd.

Cooper, Frederick. 2003. Modernizing Colonialism and the Limits o Empire.Items andIssues 4, no. 4: 19.

Dannecker, Petra. 2007. The Re-ordering o Political, Cultural and Social Spaces throughTransnational Labour Migration. Paper presented at Transnationalization andDevelopment(s): Towards a North-South Perspective. Zentrum r interdisziplinreForschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.

de Haas, Hein. 2007. Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. Paper pre-sented at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-South Perspec-tive. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.

Delgado Wise, Ral, and Humberto Mrquez Covarrubias. 2007. The Migration andDevelopment Mantra in Mexico: Toward a New Analytical Approach. Paper presented

at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-South Perspective.Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.Esser, Hartmut. 2003. Ist das Konzept der Assimilation berholt? Geographische Revue 5

(Summer): 522.______. 2006. Migration, Language and Integration.AKI Research Review 4. http://www.

wzb.eu/zkd/aki/fles/aki_research_review_4_summary.pd.Faist, Thomas. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics o International Migration and Transna-

tional Social Spaces. Oxord: Oxord University Press.______. 2008. Migrants as Transnational Development Agents: An Inquiry into the Newest

Round o the Migration-Development Nexus.Population, Space and Place 14, no. 1: 2142.Fajnzylber, Pablo, and J. Humberto Lpez. 2008.Remittances and Development: Lessons

rom Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLACOFFICEOFCE/Resources/RemittancesandDevelopment.pd (accessed July 2009).

Fauser, Margit. 2007. The Local Politics o Transnational Development Cooperation: On theInteraction between Migrant Organizations and Local Authorities in Spanish Cities. Paperpresented at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-South Perspec-tive. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.

Ferguson, Niall. 2004. Colossus: The Price o Americas Empire. New York: Penguin.Gabaccia, Donna, and Fraser M. Ottanelli. 2001.Italian Workers o the World: Labor Migra-

tion and the Formation o Multiethnic States. Urbana: University o Illinois Press.Gilroy, Paul. 1992. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Glick Schiller, Nina. 1977. Ethnic Groups Are Made Not Born. Pp. 2335 inEthnic Encoun-ters: Identities and Contexts, ed. George Hicks and Philip Leis. North Scituate, MA: Dux-bury Press


22/25


______. 2003. The Centrality o Ethnography in the Study o Transnational Migration: See-ing the Wetland Instead o the Swamp. Pp. 99128 inAmerican Arrivals: Anthropology

Engages the New Immigration, ed. Nancy Foner. Santa Fe: School o American ResearchPress.

______. 2006. Introduction: What Can Transnational Studies Oer the Analysis o LocalizedConict and Protest?Focaal 47 (Summer): 317.

Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton, eds. 1992. Towards a Trans-national Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered.New York: New York Academy o Sciences.

Glick Schiller, Nina, and Ayse Caglar. 2009. Towards a Comparative Theory o Locality inMigration Studies: Migrant Incorporation and City Scale. Journal o Ethnic and Migra-tion Studies 35, no. 2: 177202.

______, eds. 2010.Locating Migration: Rescaling Cities and Migrants. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Glick Schiller, Nina, Ayse Caglar, and Thaddeus Guldbrandsen. 2006. Beyond the EthnicLens: Locality, Globality, and Born-Again Incorporation.American Ethnologist33, no. 4:612633.

Glick Schiller, Nina, Josh DeWind, Mare Lucie Brutus, Carolle Charles, Georges Fouron, andLuis Thomas. 1987. All in the Same Boat? Unity and Diversity among Haitian Immi-grants. Pp. 167184 in Caribbean Lie in New York City, ed. Constance R. Sutton andElsa M. Chaney. Staten Island, NY: Center or Migration Studies.

Gonzalez, Nancie. 1988. Sojourners o the Caribbean: Ethnogenesis and Ethnohistory o theGariuna. Urbana: University o Illinois Press.

Goode, Judith. 2010. The Campaign or New Immigrants in Philadelphia: Imagining Possi-bilities and Conronting Realities. In Glick Schiller and Caglar 2010.

Gordon, Milton. 1964.Assimilation in American Lie: The Role o Race, Religion and NationalOrigins. New York: Oxord University Press.Grosoguel, Ramn. 2008. Transmodernity, Border Thinking, and Global Coloniality:

Decolonizing Political Economy and Postcolonial Studies. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-07-04-grosoguel-en.html (accessed March 2009).

Guarnizo, Luis. 2003. The Economics o Transnational Living.International MigrationReview 37, no. 3: 666699.

______. 2007. The Migration-Development Nexus and the PostCold War World Order.Paper presented at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-SouthPerspective. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1

June.

Guarnizo, Luis, Alejandro Portes, and William Haller. 2003. Assimilation and Transnation-alism: Determinants o Transnational Political Action among Contemporary Migrants.

American Journal o Sociology 108: 12111248.Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000.Empire.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxord: Oxord University Press.______. 2005.A Brie History o Neoliberalism.New York: Oxord University Press.Heckmann, Friedrich. 2003. From Ethnic Nation to Universalistic Immigrant Integration:

Germany. Pp. 4578 in The Integration o Immigrants in European Societies: NationalDierences and Trends o Convergence, ed. Friedrich Heckmann and Dominique Schnap-per. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius.

Huntington, Samuel. 2000.Reconsidering Immigration: Is Mexico a Special Case?San Diego:

Center or Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back1100.html.Ikenberry, John. 2002. Americas Imperial Ambition.Foreign Aairs 81, no. 5: 4462.Jessop Bob 2003 The Crisis o the National Spatio Temporal Fix and the Ecological Domi


23/25


Joppke, Christian, and Ewa Morawska. 2002. Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immi-grants in Liberal Nations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Kastoryano, Riva. 2002.Negotiating Identities: States and Immigrants in France and Germany.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kivisto, Peter. 2005.Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age.Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Lapper, Richard. 2007a. Building Futures.Financial Times, 29 August. http://www.t.com/cms/s/0/1b0b258-55d3-11dc-b971-0000779d2ac.html (accessed 27 September 2007).

______. 2007b. The Tale o Globalisations Exiles.Financial Times, 27 August. http://www.t.com/cms/s/0/11c878de-54b-11dc-890c-0000779d2ac.html (accessed 15 Septem-ber 2007).

Levitt, Peggy. 2001a. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press.______. 2001b. Transnational Migration: Taking Stock and Future Directions. Global Net-

works 1, no. 3: 195216.Levitt, Peggy, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2004. Transnational Perspectives on Migration: Con-

ceptualizing Simultaneity.International Migration Review 38, no. 145: 595629.Mann, Michael. 2003.Incoherent Empire. London: Verso.Martins, Herminio. 1974. Time and Theory in Sociology. Pp. 248294 inApproaches to

Sociology: An Introduction to Major Trends in British Sociology, ed. John Rex. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaqun Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J.Edward Taylor. 1998. Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the

End o the Millennium. Oxord: Clarendon Press.Mittleman, James, ed. 1996. Globalization: Critical Refections. London: Lynne Reinner.Morawska, Ewa. 2003. Immigrant Transnationalism and Assimilation: A Variety o Com-

binations and the Analytic Strategy It Suggests. Pp. 133176 in Towards Assimilationand Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, ed. Christian Joppke and EwaMorawska. London: Palgrave-McMillan.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 1976. Independence and Interdependence.Foreign Policy 22 (Spring):130161.

stergaard-Nielsen, Eva. 2007. Perceptions and Practices o Co-development in Catalunya.Paper presented at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-South Per-spective. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.

Park, Robert E. 1950.Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Portes, Alejandro. 2007. Migration, Development, and Segmented Assimilation: A Con-

ceptual Review o the Evidence.Annals o the American Academy o Political and

Social Sciences Quick Read Synopsis 610: 270272. http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/610/1/266.pd.

Potts, Lydia. 1990. The World Labour Market: A History o Migration. London: Zed Books.Pries, Ludger. 2007. Transnationalism: Trendy Catch-All or Specifc Research Programme?

Paper presented at Transnationalization and Development(s): Towards a North-South Per-spective. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld University, 31 May1 June.

Quijano, Anibal. 2000. Coloniality o Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America.Interna-tional Sociology 15, no. 2: 215232.

Raghuram, Parvati. 2007. Which Migration, What Development? Unsettling the Edifce o Migra-tion and Development. Paper presented at Transnationalization and Development(s):Towards a North-South Perspective. Zentrum r interdisziplinre Forschung, Bieleeld

University, 31 May1 June.Ratzel, Friedrich. 1882. Anthropogeographie. Stuttgart: J. Engelhorn.Reyna Stephen 2005 American Imperialism? The Current Runs Switly Focaal 45 (Sum


24/25


Salzbrunn, Monika. 2010. Rescaling Processes in Two Cities: How Migrants are Incorpo-rated in Urban Settings through Political and Cultural Events. In Glick Schiller andCaglar 2010.

Scott, Allen. 2004. Cultural-Products Industries and Urban Economic Development. Urban

Aairs Review 39, no. 4: 460490.Smith, Anthony. 1983. Nationalism and Social Theory.British Journal o Sociology 34:

1938.Smith, Michael Peter. 2001. Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.Smith, Michael Peter, and Luis Guarnizo, eds. 1998. Transnationalism rom Below. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Smith, Neil. 1995. Remaking Scale: Competition and Cooperation in Pre-National and Post-

National Europe. Pp. 5974 in Competitive European Peripheries, ed. Heikki Eskelinenand Folke Snickars. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Smith, Robert C. 1998. Transnational Localities: Community, Technology and the Politics oMembership within the Context o Mexico and U.S. Migration. Pp. 196238 in M. Smithand Guarnizo 1998.

______. 2006. Black Mexicans, Nerds and Cosmopolitans: Key Cases or Assimilation The-ory. Paper presented at the Second International Colloquium on Migration and Devel-opment, Migration, Transnationalism, and Social Transormation, Cocoyoc, Mexico,2628 October.

Sollors, Werner, ed. 1989. The Invention o Ethnicity. New York: Oxord University Press.Swyngedouw, Erik. 1997. Neither Global nor Local: Glocalization and the Politics o Scale.

Pp. 137166 in Spaces o Globalization, ed. Kevin R. Cox. New York: Guilord Press.Torpey, John. 2000. The Invention o the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Urry, John. 2000. The Global Media and Cosmopolitanism. Paper presented at the Trans-national America Conerence, Bavarian American Academy, Munich, June. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ass/sociology/papers/urry-global-media.pd(accessed 20 September 2003).

van Holthoon, Frits, and Marcel van der Linden. 1988. Internationalism in the Labour Move-ment, 18301940. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Circular Migration: The Way Forward in Global Policy? WorkingPapers #4, International Migration Institute Oxord University. http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pds/wp4-circular-migration-policy.pd.

Waldinger, Roger, and David Fitzgerald. 2004. Transnationalism in Question.AmericanJournal o Sociology 109, no. 5: 11771195.

Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002a. Methodological Nationalism andBeyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. Global Networks 2,no. 4: 301334.

______. 2002b. Methodological Nationalism and the Study o Migration.Archives o Euro-pean Sociology 43, no. 2: 217240.

Wol, Eric R. 1982.Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University o CaliorniaPress.

World Bank. 2006. Global Economic Prospects: Economic Implications o Remittances andMigration. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/11/14/000112742_20051114174928/Rendered/PDF/343200GEP02006.pd (accessed July 2009).

Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures o Cities. Oxord: Blackwell.


25/25

Copyright of Social Analysis is the property of Berghahn Books and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Glick Schiller 2009