Redrawing the Contours of the Nation-State in Uruguay? The Vicissitudes of Emigration Policy in the 2000s

Abstract

This study analyzes Uruguay's recently launched emigration policy. It argues that the redrawing of the boundaries of the nation-state along non-territorial basis is still an incipient and contested process. The findings highlight some relatively under-explored explanatory factors: emigrants' profile; political junctures requiring immediate commitment; the impact of rhetorical changes and post-neoliberal projects; presidents as policy drivers and sources of inconsistencies; and institutional deficiencies, inertias, lack of reform, and society's conflictive notions of nation and belonging as brakes. The conclusions indicate that the sustainability of emigration policy is contingent on the state's progress toward internal reform and society's ability to acquire a greater voice and more organizational capacity. Exploring emigration policy characteristics and sources of setbacks in Uruguay unveils the inter-mestic character of state transnational outreach efforts, qualifies and refines existing explanations, expands our understanding of new governance techniques, and provides some insights into the requirements for emigration policies to work effectively.

Diaspora strategies: Actors, members, and spaces

“…The extension of civic, political, and socioeconomic rights upon diasporic or emigrant citizens (Barry, ; Fitzgerald, , ; Rhodes & Harutunuyan, ) prerequired their repositioning as legitimate state subjects (Martinez‐Saldaňa, ; Nyiri, ) as well as perceptual and discursive reconfiguration of state spaces, scales, and borders (Brenner, ). Although the majority of studies concentrated on the national level, examining the new spatial imaginary in countries as different as Ecuador and Israel, Argentina and Jamaica, and Mexico and Uruguay (Bocaggni, ; Cohen, ; Fitzgerald, ; Margheritis, , ; Sives, ), scattered attempts were made to contrast diaspora strategies cross nationally (Ancien et al, ; Gamlen, , ). Heeding to calls to “replenish their ‘methodological toolboxes’ and ‘broaden [their] the scope of comparison’ beyond single case studies” (Délano & Gamlen, , p. 48), Délano (), for example, used a “policy diffusions” to examine why and how strategies travel between Latin American nations and Regazzi () applied statistical methods to explain why some states have—and others do not—certain types of strategies.…”

Diaspora policies in comparison: An application of the Emigrant Policies Index (EMIX) for the Latin American and Caribbean region

“…Margheritis, 2011;D elano, 2014;Escobar, 2007;Hoffmann, 2010;Ragazzi, 2014aRagazzi, , 2014bMahieu, 2014;Shain, 1999;Baub€ ock, 2008;Bravo, 2014;Bermúdez, 2014;Padilla, 2011;Margheritis, 2014;Crosa, 2014;Hinojosa Gordonova & Alfonso, n.d.). However, this is not to say that rigorous cross-case empirical research is lacking.…”

“…More importantly, they differ in the range of cases they cover, and, most significantly, the theoretical insights they apply. A dense web of hypotheses on the contemporary interactions between state and emigrants has developed from several in-depth studies (D elano, 2011;Margheritis, 2011Margheritis, , 2014Ragazzi, 2014aRagazzi, , 2014b, studies with comparative perspectives (Lafleur, 2011;Martiniello & Lafleur, 2008;D elano & Gamlen, 2014;Ragazzi, 2014aRagazzi, , 2014bCollyer, 2013) and theoretical studies on the new conceptions of statehood and citizenship (Baub€ ock, 2007(Baub€ ock, , 2009Itzigsohn, 2000). What this fast-developing literature lacks so far is an understanding of emigrant policies that derives inductively from a systematic collection of policies for a whole region, allowing different profiles to emerge and display variations (i.e.…”

Sending Country Policies

“…European-based research has centred on the countries of origin of the larger migrant collectives from outside of the EU, such as Turkey (Østergaard-Nielsen 2009(Østergaard-Nielsen , 2003cMügge 2012b ) and Morocco (De Haas 2007 ;Brand 2002 ), or on the Eastern European countries that recently became EU members (Waterbury 2006 ). Of course, there are also studies on Latin American sending country policies, such as those of Ecuador (Boccagni 2014 ;Maisonave 2011 ), Bolivia and Mexico (Lafl eur 2012 ), and Argentina and Uruguay (Margheritis 2014 ), as well as Asia (China) (Pieke et al 2004 ). Recently, several studies have attempted a broad crossregional comparison in order to evaluate some of the core assumptions often made regarding why sending states reach out to their populations (Ragazzi 2014 ;Gamlen et al 2013 ;Gamlen 2008 ).…”