Workshop 12: Diaspora Politics and Diaspora Policies
Insert webpage content here
Abstract
The general theme of this workshop revolves around the nation-state in the age of globalization and migration. The main topic could best be summarized by the terms of ‘Diaspora politics’ and ‘Diaspora policies’ reflecting the perspective of the diaspora communities and that of the sending states. By adopting this twofold perspective, we attempt to deepen our understanding of transnational political practices, and to analyze common patterns, as well as differences, between diaspora communities and their states of origin engaging in diaspora politics.
The workshop will bring together researchers from different disciplines and backgrounds, most importantly political science, sociology, anthropology, history and legal studies. We anticipate that the common thread running through all the research papers of the participants will focus on the relationship between the Diaspora and its country of origin in the domain of politics and policy making. The aim is also to do a comparative analysis of this relationship in different countries and at different times by using a multidisciplinary approach if possible.
Description
There is a strong tradition in the current literature on nation-states that ‘portrays it as the combined legal and institutional structures governing the people, economy and political processes contained inside a recognized border’ (Vortevec 2009:85). On the other hand, scholars in the last few decades have challenged this strongly-entrenched idea in the literature of social sciences arguing that processes of globalization have affected this conventional nation-state model and have rendered it an outdated form of social and political organization (Albrow 1997; Strange 1996; Sassen 1996; Carnoy and Castells 2001; Vertovec and Cohen 2002). In fact, some scholars have taken an extreme position in this debate by concluding that we are witnessing the ‘death of the nation-state’. In response to this argument, Vortevec takes the transformationalist position in the current debate on globalisation by claiming that ‘while not necessarily dying, the nation-state is transforming into a type of political organization or apparatus involving more multiple and overlapping jurisdictions, sets of identities and social orders no longer really contained by borders (cf. Beck 2002)’ (2004:25).
Scholars of International Relations and Migration Studies (Albert et al. 2001) have used the ‘analytical triad’ or ‘dynamic nexus’ between the concepts of ‘identities-borders-orders’ and argued that “in order to appreciate changes happening in any one of these three conceptual domains, it must be assessed in relation to the other two’ (Vertovec 2004:26). Apart from the fact that various processes of globalization assail essential components of national ‘identities-borders-orders’, migration itself confronts the same triad. In this context, Martin Heisler concludes, ‘migration tends to attenuate territorial sovereignty, monolithic order, and identitive solidarity’ (2001:229). We suggest adopting the transformationalist position and the ‘dynamic nexus’ ‘identities-borders-orders’ in order to cross-examine ‘diaspora politics’ and ‘diaspora policies’.
Our workshop aims is to study comparatively the relationship between diaspora and homeland as a two-way relationship. We invite papers dealing with one particular country using a chronological perspective, or papers comparing specifics aspects of such relationship between two or more countries. We particularly encourage papers attempting to cross-examine diaspora politics and diaspora policies. Finally, all participants are encouraged to use quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
As Vertovec reminds us, ‘homeland politics’ is sometimes referred to in the literature as ‘long distance nationalism’ (e.g. Anderson 1995), ‘deterritorialised’ nations (Basch et al. 1994) or ‘the globalisation of domestic politics’ (Koslowski 2001). He also point out that ‘homeland politics’ takes a variety of forms including: “exile groups organizing themselves for return, groups lobbying on behalf of a homeland, external offices of political parties, migrant hometown associations, and opposition groups campaigning or planning actions to effect political change in the homeland. Some migrant associations also manage to carry out dual programmes of action aimed at both sending and receiving countries.” (2009:94).
We suggest adopting the description of the major modes of transnational political participation proposed by Guarzino et al. (2003:122) in an attempt to clarify the domain from which topics of the research papers could be selected: ‘Transnational electoral participation includes membership in a political party in the country of origin, monetary contributions to these parties, and active involvement in political campaigns in the polity of origin. Transnational non-electoral politics includes membership in a hometown civic association, monetary contributions to civic projects in the community of origin, and regular membership in charity organizations sponsoring projects in the home country. Non-electoral activities are political because they influence local and regional governments by determining which public projects receive migrants’ financial support. By so doing, they compel authorities to take immigrant wishes and priorities into account.’
Moreover, when referring to ‘diaspora policies’ we consider ‘policies of the emigrant state’ (Gamlen 2008) willing to manage labor migration and/or to reach post-migration population (2nd/3rd generation), as well as policies of kin states willing to maintain ties with religious or ethnic communities separated from their kin-state resulting from border changes (Waterbury, 2010). Rather than proposing a strict definition of diaspora, on which research papers should rely, we insist on the importance of defining diaspora according to the empirical and analytical needs of each study.
We expect papers to analyze why and how governments develop diaspora policies, but also why they do not engage in such policies. We suggest focusing on one or more of the various goals of diaspora policies (economic, political, cultural) and on the common means of such policies, in particular institutional frameworks, legal frameworks and political narratives. Attention should be paid to the exact competences of the various institutions involved, and to connections with other policies (economy, tourism, foreign affairs, etc). Attention should also be paid to legal provision facilitating the transmission or the acquisition of citizenship by members of the diaspora (or specific status for diaspora members), and to specific mechanism for the political representation of the diaspora, in particular external voting provisions.
We invite contributions on the following themes:
Diaspora relationship with the country of origin
• Diaspora role in homeland politics: support to political party, religious organization; professional and cultural networks; transnational clientelist relationships; returnees becoming active in homeland politics)
• Diaspora roles in homeland elections: overseas nationals voting behavior in countries with provision for external voting (e.g. Algeria), overseas nationals returning to vote in election (e.g. Lebanon, Greece).
• Diaspora roles in homeland conflict: financial and human support to guerrilla movements (e.g. Kurds), national struggles (e.g. Palestinians), terrorist actions (e.g. Tamils)
• Diaspora roles in consciousness-raising: lobbying and massive demonstrations bringing attention to specific issues related to the homeland (e.g. recent demonstrations by Tunisian and Egyptian migrants in the EU in support of the revolutions in their country; demonstrations among Kurdish diaspora after the capture of Abdullah Ocalan in 1999).
Countries of origin policies toward their diaspora
• Reasons for increased engagement with the population abroad: ideological (nationalism, reaction against assimilation and acculturation in the host society, etc.), political (lobbying, controlling political opponent, etc.), economic (remittances, scientific/technical exchanges, investments, labor supply, etc.), and social (culture, language, religion, etc.)
• Means of such engagement: institutional frameworks (dedicated institutions; committee, etc.); state policies with issues related to the diaspora (tourism, foreign investment, employment, etc.); legal frameworks (citizenship, political representation, access to socio-economic rights; multilateral/bilateral agreement protecting nationals abroad, etc.); political narratives (official discourse, media coverage, etc.)
• Specific context of such engagement: conflicts (civil strive; territorial conflict with neighbors; etc.); political changes (regime change; economic reforms; diplomatic alliance reversal, etc.); changes within the diaspora (size, financial and human capital, relationship with the host society, etc.)
• Consequences of such policies: political change (balance of power, electoral outcomes, etc.); policy change (foreign affairs, citizenship, education and culture, economy, etc.)
Bibliography
Albert, M., D. Jacobson and Y. Lapid (eds) (2001) Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Albrow, M. (1997) The Global Age: State and Science beyond Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press
Anderson, B. R. (1995) ‘Ice empire and ice hockey: Two fin de siècle dreams’, New Left Review, n°214, pp. 146-50
Basch, L., N. Glick Schiller and C. Szanton-Blanc (1993) Nations Unbound: Transnational projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States, New York: Routledge
Bauböck R. (2007) ‘Stakeholder citizenship and transnational political participation: a normative evaluation of external voting’, Fordham Law Review, 75(5), pp. 2393-2448
Beck, U. (2002) ‘The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology in the Second Age of modernity’, in Conceiving Cosmopolitanism, S. Vertovec and R. Cohen (eds) Oxford University press, pp. 61-85
Brand, L. (2006) Citizens Abroad: Emigration and the State in the Middle East and North Africa, New York: Cambridge University press.
Carnoy, M. and M. Castells (2001) ‘Globalization, the knowledge society, and the network state: Poulantzas at the millennium’, Global networks 1 (1), pp. 1-18
Cohen, R. (1997) Global Diaspora: an Introduction, London: UCL press
Dufoix, S., C. Guerassimof and A. de Tinguy (eds.) (2010) Loin des yeux, près du cœur. Les Etats et leurs expatriés, Paris : Les presses de SciencesPo.
Faist, T. (2001) ‘Dual Citizenship as overlapping membership’, Malmo: School of International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers 3/01
Foner, N. (1997) ‘What’s new about transnationalism? New York immigrants today and at the turn of the century’, Diaspora 6 (3), pp. 355-75
Gamlen,A. (2006) Diaspora Engagement Policies: What are they, and what kinds of
states use them? Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 32, University of Oxford.
Gamlen, G. (2008) Why Engage Diasporas? ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 63, University of Oxford.
Gamlen, A. (2008) The emigration state and the modern geopolitical imagination
Political Geography 27 (2008) 840-856
Gilroy, P. (1993) The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness, London: Sage
Guarnizo, L. E., A. Portes and W. Haller (2003) Assimilation and transnationalism: Determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants’, American Journal of Sociology 108 (6), pp. 1211-48
Hall, S. (ed.) (1996) Questions of Cultural Identity, London: Sage
Hansen, R. and P. Weil (2002) Introduction: Dual citizenship in a changed world: Immigration, gender and social rights’, in Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the U.S. and Europe, R. Hansen and P. Weil (eds), Oxford: Berghahn, pp.1-15
Itzigsohn, J. and S. Giorguli-Saucedo (2002) ‘Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationalism’, International Migration Review 36 (3), pp. 766-98
Itzigsohn, J. and S. Giorguli-Saucedo (2005) ‘Incorporation, transnationalism, and gender: Immigrant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered processes’, International Migration Review 39 (4), pp. 895-920
Itzigsohn, J., Dore Cabral, E. Hernandez Medina and O. Vazquez (1999) ‘Mapping Dominican transnationalism: narrow and broad transnational practices’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (2), pp. 316-39
Koslowski, R. (2001) ‘Demographic boundary maintenance in world politics: Of international norms on dual nationality’, in Identities, Borders, Orders, M. Albert, D. Jacobson and Y. Lapid (eds), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 203-23
Orenstein, M. A. and H. P. Schmidtz (2006) ‘The new transnationalism and comparative Politics’, Comparative Politics 38 (4), pp. 479-500
Safran, W. (1991) ‘Diaspora in Modern Societies: Myth of Homeland and Return’, Diaspora, spring 1991, pp. 82-98
Sassen, S. (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, New York: Columbia University Press
Sheffer, G. (1986) Modern Diasporas in International politics, London: Croom Helm
Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, New York: Cambridge University press
Vertovec, S. and Cohen R. (eds) (2002) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism, Oxford: Oxford University press
Vertovec, S. (2004) ‘Trends and Impacts of Migrant Transnationalism’, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper n°3, University of Oxford.
Vertovec, S. (2009) Transnationalism, New York: Routledge
Waterbury, M. A. (2010) ‘Bridging the divide: Towards a comparative framework for understanding kin state and migrant-sending state diaspora politics’, in Bauböck R. and T. Faist, Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts, Theories and Methods, Amsterdam University Press
Page last updated on 04 September 2018