An Appraisal of the Conflict Model of Migration with Reference to Democratic, Development and Demographic Deficits
İbrahim Sirkeci, Deniz Eroğlu Utku, Mustafa Murat YüceşahinGöç Çatışma Modelinin Katılım, Kalkınma ve Kitle Açıkları Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirmesi
İbrahim Sirkeci, Deniz Eroğlu Utku, Mustafa Murat YüceşahinMigration and the impact of immigrants in receiving countries have been a key concern in many countries. The USA’s restrictions on rights of Mexican immigrants, the role of anti-immigration propaganda behind the Brexit decision in the UK, European countries efforts to curb migration by erecting walls are reflections of increasing xenophobia. The rise in the anti-immigration sentiment is also fuelled by neo-liberal policies and understanding of migration. Such understanding places a lot of emphasis on the destination and benefits in the destination while also focusing mostly on economic aspects. The rights are also open for commodification and applied in a selective fashion while excluding most of ‘others’. Such restrictive approach towards the rights of ‘others’ is leading to what is called ‘neo-liberal paradox’ and immigration in this context formulated as a problem to be ‘curbed’.
In this study, we draw attention to the roots of migration in the origin, not in the destination in contrast to the neoliberal approaches. Cohen and Sirkeci’s (2011) ‘Conflict Model of Migration’ aims at a holistic approach to migration and examines the factors affecting migration decision making. The root causes of conflict is formulated as reflection of conflict resulting from inequalities, deficits in three areas: The 3Ds (Democratic Deficit, Development Deficit and Demographic Deficit). The 3Ds are in the roots of individuals perception of human insecurity. We statistically show the impact of 3Ds on international migration flows. Thus this study contributes to migration studies by offering empirical analysis of macro level influences on international migration with reference to the Conflict Model.
In this system, nation-states need to establish new walls, adopt strict border controls by focusing on the concepts of ‘security’ and ‘interest’. What is more, by defining some as ‘others’ –and producing several similar arbitrary concepts, such as economic migrant, refugee, and asylum seeker, these countries try to curb migration and want to select migrants. These classifications of migrants also pave the way for discriminatory practices. Despite the fact that motivations behind migration are categorically the same, this approach favours some migrants over others.
By creating dichotomous migration categories, focusing on destination countries and their economic prosperity and largely overlooking the conflicts triggering migration, neo-liberal approaches, perhaps unintentionally, pave the way for othering and discriminatory discourses. Consequently migration is considered as a ‘problem of receiving countries’. Then governance of migration focuses on efforts in border security and control. At the end, such focus on secure borders leads to human rights abuses, crime and vulnerability. In such a picture, migration is often associated with ‘crisis’ ‘problem’ ‘threat’ with a focus on the destination. The conflicts in the countries of origin are largely overlooked. Therefore such approaches fail to capture the whole picture as well as missing the dynamic nature of mobility.
This study critically approaches neo-liberal stereotypes that define the migration as a problem and examines human mobility with a focus on the country of origin. In the light of ‘Conflict and Culture of Migration Model’ (Cohen and Sirkeci 2011), we aim at understanding the macro level indicators of migration. According to the ‘Conflict and Culture of Migration Model’ migration is a function of conflicts therefore all categorizations of migration are arbitrary. These categorizations often hide the importance of the beginning of migration processes. Perceived level of human insecurity is the key driver for human migration and of central importance in the Conflict Model of Migration. In this regard, we investigate the role of conflicts leading to insecurity in relation to the 3Ds. 3Ds corresponds democratic, development and demographic deficits. 3Ds pave the way for the emergence of an environment of human insecurity in the origin countries. Due to the demographic, development, democratic deficits that people in the countries of origin face, migration pressures rise. These deficits individually or cumulatively affect the conditions in the origin countries and create concerns for those living there. We show statistically that there are correlations between these 3Ds and international migration.