Revisiting aspiration and ability in international migration

Abstract

It is a refreshingly simple thought that migration is the combined result of two factors: the aspiration to migrate and the ability to migrate. Without having to resort to overly structural or individualistic explanations, this analytical distinction helps disentangle complex questions around why some people migrate but others do not. Still, aspiration and ability raise their own thorny theoretical and methodological questions. To begin with, what does it mean to have migration aspirations? How can such concepts be objects of empirical research? And is it meaningful to say that individuals possess the ability to migrate if their preference is to stay? The aspiration/ability model was originally proposed in this journal and has since been diversely applied and adapted. In this article, we look back at more than a decade of research to examine a series of theoretical and empirical developments related to the aspiration/ability model and its extensions. We identify two-step approaches as a class of analytical frameworks that share the basic logic of the aspiration/ability model. Covering expansive theoretical, methodological and empirical ground, we seek to lay a foundation for new research on global migration in its diverse forms.

Formal Education and Migration Aspirations in Ethiopia

“…Concerning migration, there is inevitably a discrepancy between those who express an aspiration to migrate and those who actually do. The degree to which the aspiration to migrate translates into actual migration depends on context‐specific obstacles and opportunities, which vary across social groups (Carling and Schewel ). Many of those who aspire to migrate may not realize their aspirations—perhaps because they lack the capability to move or develop other conflicting aspirations, desires, and goals.…”

“…Further, many who do not aspire to migrate may find themselves on the move in response to an unexpected opportunity or change in circumstance (Lu ; De Groot et al ). Two‐step approaches to migration research, which distinguish the evaluation of migration and the realization of mobility or immobility at a given moment (Carling and Schewel ), hold promise for disentangling the links between aspirations and actual migration behavior. Docquier, Peri, and Ruyssen (), to give one example, in a cross‐country analysis of the determinants of “potential” and “actual” international migration, find that tertiary education levels are one strong predictor of whether “potential” migration becomes realized.…”

“…; Wood et al. ; Becerra ; Creighton ), though not without some conceptual difficulties (see Carling and Schewel ). One limitation to these surveys—something we overcome in our analyses here—is the almost exclusive focus on international migration aspirations, which misses the diversity of migration trajectories considered by potential migrants, within their country or without.…”

“…A third perspective, overlapping with the previous two, presents expanding formal education as a potential driver of both the aspiration and capability to migrate. A growing number of studies, referred to as “two‐step approaches” to migration (Carling and Schewel ), separate the migration process along two dimensions: the evaluation of migration as a potential course of action and the realization of actual mobility or immobility at a given moment (e.g. Carling ; Docquier, Peri and Ruyssen ; Koikkalainen and Kyle ; Creighton ; Coulter et al.…”

Who’s About to Leave? A Global Survey of Aspirations and Intentions to Migrate

“…In the last decade, there has been a growing interest from both policy and academic communities in the intentions to migrate, their determinants, and the eventual consequences. Social scientists provided conceptual frameworks to explain how migration decisions come about, by distinguishing between the aspirations to migrate, and the capabilities and opportunities to do so (de Haas, ; Carling and Schewel, ). More precisely, scholars have theorised that migration should be interpreted “as a basic response to perceived opportunity differentials” (Czaika and de Haas, , p. 424), combined with individual aspirations, and showed how the result of this interaction varies according to national and local context, but also households and individual characteristics.…”