Derya Ozkul

Circular Migration: Triple Win, or a New Label for Temporary Migration?

It is important to distinguish between circular migration schemes that allow participants to make free choices about movements between origin and destination countries, and those that are really temporary migration programs under a new label. The term ‘circular migration’ has only been used for international migration since the early 2000s. Its proponents claim that it brings a ‘triple win’ for destination countries, origin countries and the migrants themselves. However, as we argue in this chapter, some circular migration programs reflect the desire of destination countries to ‘bring in labour but not people,’ like past ‘guestworker’ schemes and current contract labor recruitment. The chapter examines social scientific understandings of circular migration, as well as policy models. Brief case studies of Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia and South Korea are provided. Strictly managed circular migration may have the unintended consequence of helping to create transnational identities, which can transform traditional nation-state loyalties. The ‘triple win’ claim is examined with regard to developmental impacts of circular migration; effects for migrants, their families and communities; and benefits and problems for various groups in destination countries. The chapter concludes by arguing that migration policies are bound to fail if they do not consider the social dynamics of migration.

Irregular Migration: Causes, Patterns, and Strategies

Irregular migration was spotlighted at the Puerto Vallarta Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) as a critical theme for development: it reduces the potential of migration to contribute to development but can also result from the lack of development-friendly policies of country of origin and destination. The main cause of irregular migration is less a disregard of regulations by migrants than a continuing inequality within and between countries, and the failure of states to create adequate migration regimes to meet economic demand. Mismatches between entry rules and labor demand, bureaucratic complexities, and delays contrast sharply with rapid transport and communication technologies that facilitate cross-border labor flows and take little account of the changing social dynamics of migration. This chapter examines regional patterns of irregular migration and policy responses and offers some brief case studies on Mexico, Italy, Turkey, the Republic of Korea, and Malaysia. Reflecting the discussions in the GFMD, the paper shows how most efforts at combating irregular migration have been difficult to implement and produced mixed results. Comprehensive, inclusive, and cooperative approaches were needed, and the GFMD had succeeded in bringing more countries of destination to the table on this issue.

Alevi “Openings” and Politicization of the “Alevi Issue” During the AKP Rule

AbstractThis article reviews recent government efforts to address the “Alevi issue” and identify their successes and failures. It demonstrates that the “Alevi openings” constituted paradoxical processes: tracing various components of the “openings” through news media, it shows that, on one hand, they enabled the “Alevi issue” to be brought to public attention. On the other hand, once Alevis were made more visible in public, non-sympathizers could mobilize their representation for their own ends. These empirical findings have profound theoretical implications. They show that “discursive claims of democratization” at the state level do not necessarily result in democratic mechanisms, which can resolve the demands of a pluralistic civil society. The author argues that what she calls the “tutelary secularism” in Turkey, in other words, the management and disciplining of religious groups, continues under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) rule. This model not only fails, but also produces new sources of c...Abstract This article reviews recent government efforts to address the “Alevi issue” and identify their successes and failures. It demonstrates that the “Alevi openings” constituted paradoxical processes: tracing various components of the “openings” through news media, it shows that, on one hand, they enabled the “Alevi issue” to be brought to public attention. On the other hand, once Alevis were made more visible in public, non-sympathizers could mobilize their representation for their own ends. These empirical findings have profound theoretical implications. They show that “discursive claims of democratization” at the state level do not necessarily result in democratic mechanisms, which can resolve the demands of a pluralistic civil society. The author argues that what she calls the “tutelary secularism” in Turkey, in other words, the management and disciplining of religious groups, continues under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) rule. This model not only fails, but also produces new sources of conflict in Turkey.

International Migration in an Era of Neoliberal Social Transformation

Migration has been a fact of human life throughout history, yet recent decades have seen the development of new types of migration flow across the globe amid a broader process of neoliberal globalization. In the first chapter of this book, Stephen Castles argued that Karl Polanyi’s study of the ‘Great Transformation’ of European societies, resulting from the ideological dominance of nineteenth-century market liberalism, provided a way of understanding the crises of modernity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Attention was also drawn to the way in which influential social scientists have updated and broadened Polanyi’s approach to provide a conceptual framework for understanding twenty-first-century neoliberalism and its impact on societies around the world. In this book, most of the authors apply a social transformation analysis in order to understand processes of international migration.

Book Review: The Politics of European Citizenship: Deepening Contradictions in Social Rights & Migration Policy

‘hard’ targets of the Lisbon process, in particular a decisive reduction in the at-risk-of-poverty rate, have not been achieved. Further, the ‘soft’ governance approach of the OMC, often regarded as one of its strengths, also represents its weak side as there have been no sanctions against member states who have failed to achieve the social policy targets. Moreover, many member states have used the OMC ‘as a reporting device rather than one of policy development’. Nevertheless, according to Jonathan Zeitlin the method should be regarded a ‘qualified success’ as it has made an impact by introducing concepts such activation, lifelong learning, and social inclusion into national debates. There is even some evidence that the process has affected some social policy changes at the national level in areas such as tax-benefits reforms, childcare and pension reform. All in all, the authors make a convincing case for strengthening the social dimension at EU level, not as an add-on to the single market and ‘competiveness’ but as a central pillar of the new ‘Europe 2020’ strategy. Having said this, the book should not be seen as a substitute for a comprehensive academic analysis of the Europeanisation of social policy that still is to be written. Nevertheless, the book represents a timely contribution to the debate about the future of ‘Social Europe’ at a time of huge political and financial upheavals.