Bu makale yapı ve fail kavramları arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi ve bunların göç kuramına nasıl dahil edildiğini incelemektedir. Makalede tutarlı ve sağlam bir göç kuramı temeli geliştirme çabalarının yapı-fail çıkmazı tarafından engellendiği savunulmaktadır: bu bağlamda bazı yaklaşımlar işlevselciliğe fazla eğilirken diğerleri ise yapısalcılığa kaymaktadır. Orta yol arayanlar ise göç süreçlerinde yapı ve fail kavramları arasındaki dengeyi ortaya koyma açısından Giddens'ın yapılaşma kavramından yararlanmaktadırlar. Bu makale yapılaşmanın başta aldatıcı olsa da göç kuramı için önemli gelişmelere ön ayak olmayı başardığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu da yapılaşma kuramının uygulamasındaki başarısızlıktan ziyade yapılaşma kuramındaki kuramsal zayıflığın bir sonucudur; bu sav da yapılaşmada bulunan ikiye bölünmüşlüğün eleştirel gerçekçi kritiğine dayanmaktadır. Eleştirel gerçekçiliğin yapı ve fail kavramlarının göç süreçlerinde daha kapsamlı incelenmesi için daha verimli bir yol sunduğu öne sürülmektedir. Makale göç kuramına eleştirel gerçekçi bir yaklaşımın kısa bir taslağını sunarak bitmekte ve bu yaklaşımın yapı-fail çıkmazını aşmak için bir çözüm yolu sunacağını savunmaktadır.

No abstract

While there has been an explosion of academic and practitioner interest in the relationship between migration and development in the past decade, this article poses the neglected question of what is meant by development in this literature. It focuses on the ideas of development underpinning development interventions across Africa and shows how they have sedentary roots which are focused on the control of mobility and tend to cast migration as a symptom of development failure. This can be seen in the ongoing ambivalence of many development actors towards migration across Africa. The article argues that the current initiatives to link migration and development will remain fundamentally flawed until the concept of development is reconceptualised for a mobile world. In particular, it calls for the reconsideration of the ideas of the good life envisaged in development initiatives, moving beyond models of development based on the nation-state and abandoning the paternalist paradigms that fail to recognise the agency of migrants from poor countries.In the past decade migration has risen to the top of the development agenda after being of marginal interest to development studies and development policy and practice for many years. Today the potential contribution of migration to development is being trumpeted by states-especially industrialised states-multilateral organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), wider civil society and academics. The old rhetoric of migrants' remittances being used for 'conspicuous consumption' is being supplanted by an analysis which highlights both the scale and the economic multiplier effects of the money sent home. Migrants who, having left their country, were once seen as embodying the problem of the 'brain drain' are now being courted as agents of development.The ongoing search for approaches to migration that simultaneously maximise its benefits for areas of origin and destination and for the migrants themselves has generated a huge volume of new research, policy initiatives Oliver Bakewell is at the

No abstract

Drivers can be understood as forces leading to the inception of migration and the perpetuation of movement. This article considers key drivers of migration and explores different ways that they may be configured. We modify existing explanations of migration to generate a framework which we call push-pull plus. To understand migration flows better, analysts could usefully distinguish between predisposing, proximate, precipitating and mediating drivers. Combinations of such drivers shape the conditions, circumstances and environment within which people choose to move or stay put, or have that decision thrust upon them. In any one migration flow, several driver complexes may interconnect to shape the eventual direction and nature of movement. The challenge is to establish when and why some drivers are more important than others, which combinations are more potent than others, and which are more susceptible to change through external intervention. Drawing on Afghan and Somali movements featuring 'mixed migration', the article concludes that proximate and mediating drivers, rather than those in the structural and precipitating spheres, appear to offer greater potential for intervention. To be effective, though, migration policy should be understood not simply as a stand-alone lever, but within the wider political economy.

The concept of the migration system, first popularised in the 1970s, has remained a staple component of any review of migration theory. Since then, it has been cast somewhat adrift from its conceptual moorings; today in the literature migration systems are generally either conflated with migrant networks or elevated to the heights of macro-level abstraction which divorces them from any empirical basis. At the same time, by taking on board more sophisticated notions of agency, emergence, and social mechanisms, the broader concept of the social system has moved on from the rather discredited structural-functionalist marina where it was first launched. In recent years, having been rejected by many social theorists, the social system has been subject to major reconstruction prior to its re-launch as a respectable and valuable area of social enquiry. This paper argues that, for the most part, these developments in systems theory have been ignored by those applying the concept of systems to the analysis of migration. It addresses the question of how the concept of the migration system can be reformulated in the light of these theoretical advances and what implications this may have for our research and analysis. Non-technical summaryIn recent years debates about the idea of the 'social system' have been reinvigorated by accounts drawing on notions of agency, emergence, and social mechanisms. This paper argues that these developments in systems theory have largely been ignored by those applying the concept of systems to the analysis of migration. The paper addresses the question of how the concept of the migration system can be reformulated in the light of these theoretical advances and what implications this may have for our research and analysis.

No abstract

No abstract