The choice for the country of destination in
international migration:
How social networks, imagination and cost-benefit thinking impact the choice of the UK as the country of destination for migrants camping around Calais and
Dunkerque Maximilian Schiele (11128186)
Master thesis in Sociology, Comparative Organization and Labour Studies First reader: Dr. Johan De Deken
Abstract:
Settlements on the coast of France of third country nationals from the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia on the move to the UK have been a phenomenon since the 1990s, but have just recently been rediscovered for a wider public discourse due to its sudden increase in size and number during the so called “refugee crisis.” To explain this migration flow, this paper tries to establish an integrated model using theories from economical cost-benefit calculations of bounded rational actors, social networks and social network externalities, as well as geographic imagination. This paper finds that the major reasons for migrants to choose the UK over France are related to economic and family matters. The study finds signs that the economic benefits for migrants to move to the UK is partly rooted in opportunities provided by the unofficial labor market. Family connections to the UK thereby seem to reduce the estimated financial benefit of migration to a more realistic level. The paper finds that ethnic communities in the UK play the biggest role for migrants with connections of friendship followed by family connections. No effect of social ties to the UK on how positive/negative the migrants view about the UK is was found. The generally overestimated benefit of migration was found to be related to a general positive geographic image that consists of notions of opportunity, security and a well-organized and functioning government. On the contrary, the negative view on France, which might have been established due to clashes with local citizens and police forces, led to an underestimation of the benefits of staying in France.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
CHAPTER 1: HISTORY OF THE CAMPS IN CALAIS, DUNKERQUE AND OTHER SIMILAR CAMPS IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE REFUGEE CRISIS 14
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF MIGRATION FROM A SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE 20
2.1 GEOGRAPHIC IMAGINATION 21
2.2 COST-‐BENEFIT THINKING OF BOUNDED RATIONAL ACTORS 23
2.3 THE ROLE OF NETWORKS, NETWORK EXTERNALITIES AND HERD EFFECTS IN MIGRATION PROCESSES 27
2.4 INTEGRATION OF THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND FORMING THE HYPOTHESIS 31
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN 37
3.1 A “SUPERVISED” QUESTIONNAIRE 37
3.1 BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE SURVEY 41
BLOCK 1: BACKGROUND: 41
BLOCK 2: NETWORK: 42
BLOCK 3: GEOGRAPHIC IMAGINATION: 42
BLOCK 4: ETHNIC COMMUNITY: 44
BLOCK 5: COST-‐BENEFIT 45
MOTIVATION OVERVIEW 49
INTERVIEWER REMARKS 50
QUESTIONS ADDED AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF COLLECTION 50
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA 53
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BACKGROUND VARIABLES 53
4.2 WHY THE UK? -‐ AN OVERVIEW OF THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE MIGRANTS 60
4.3 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION NETWORKS AND ETHNIC COMMUNITY 63
4.4 COST-‐BENEFIT THINKING 70
4.5 GEOGRAPHIC IMAGINATION 92 CONCLUSION 101 APPENDIX 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY 119
Introduction
“Calais is considered the shame of France” (Holzer, 2016) headlines the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Since the very first appearance of smaller settlements of migrants that want to cross from France to the UK, starting in the 1990s, the issue has made worldwide headlines. Thereby the question on how to treat the migrants was controversially debated in the public discourse. One side argues that increasing the quality of life in the camps would attract even more migrants, and if the NGOs would merely stop providing food and other necessities, the migrants already in France would be inclined to ask for asylum there, while new flows of migrants that try to get to the UK, and thereby cross the coastal region of France, would stop or at least slow down. The other side argues from a standpoint of human rights; that it is shameful for a country as wealthy as France to not even provide for the basic needs for the migrants.
Figure A-1 shows the google search trend for the term “Calais Jungle” for the last ten years. One can see how the ‘Jungle of Calais’ was put in public focus in 2009 and 2015. The spike in 2009 is connected to the demolition of the biggest part of the Jungle. In 2015 the camp again became the subject of a wider public debate when numbers in the camps increased drastically in the course of the resent refugee crisis. Related to the debate on how to treat the migrants and how to efficiently stop the flow of undocumented migration, is the debate on why these migrants want to go to the UK in the first place. While people on the left of the political spectrum tend to argue that what drives the migrants are family ties to the UK and idealized views about the UK as a country stemming from past eras of colonization. People on the
right side of the political spectrum tend to argue that it is mainly the possibility of illegal work that drives the migrants. They argue that the possibility of work on the unofficial labor market are especially high in the UK, because of generally low unemployment and the lack of laws that force one to carry an ID card.
The same issue is debated in the field of social science where different theories on what ground migrants decide for a country of destination compete. Neoliberal economists often see the only reasons for migration to be in the differences of the labor markets and the different price for labor connected to it. They dismiss the idea of migration for the sake of social relationships (see e.g. Sjaastad, 1962; Todaro & Maruszko, 1986; Ranis & Fei, 1961; Harris & Todaro, 1970; Todaro, 1976). When it comes to predicting labor migration, most studies rely on economic models of migration that use economic factors as their main determinants for the size of the migration movement (see e.g. Alvarez-Plata, Brücker, & Siliverstovs, 2003; Bauer & Zimmermann, 1999; Brücker, 2001; Faini & Venturini, 1995). While some of these models include factors such as cultural similarity or shared language for their predictions, it is clear that the main driving factor in these models is of economic nature. Depending on the model used, the estimations of these predictions vary substantially. While the proponents of an integrated model that reaches beyond economic factors have themselves not come up with a model to predict future migration movements, they are able to point out the inaccuracy of the neoliberal perspective on migration.
The migration movements of refugees, which is how many would categorize those migrants on the coast of France, was originally viewed to be a separated issue from
labor migration, the concept of freedom of choice for a country of destination in forced migration points out that the two should not be separated. This school of ideas argues that political and economic reasons to move work together in creating a migration flow between countries (see e.g. Kunz, 1981; Zolberg ef al., 1989; Suhrke, 1995). While political and economic reasons certainly play a role in creating migration flows, the role of social networks and their network externalities are mostly ignored.
It is the sociological perspective with its theories of herd behavior, the concept of social networks and positive network externalities that highlights the importance of social factors to explain migration flows (see e.g. Salaff, 1990; Bauer, Epstein, & Gang, 2002; Epstein, 2008; Bartram, Poros, & Monforte, 2014; Honohan, 2009; Harbison, 1981; Massey et al., 1987; Massey & Zenteno, 1999; Boyd, 1989; Fawcett, 1989; Kritz ef al., 1992; Clark & Maas, 2015). The herd behavior theory in a nutshell suggests that individuals migrate where others have migrated before because of their limited information and the belief that the other migrants must have good reasons to choose the country that they have. The concept of social networks is based on the observation that individuals often migrate to countries were other individuals from their social network have migrated before. Those social networks ease the migration process and increase the benefit stemming from migration. Positive network externalities, such as existing ethnic communities in the country of destination, work in a similar way and decrease the emotional costs of integration while also increasing the expected return by providing access to social capital. And while sociologists think that labor market conditions are an important factor when it comes to explaining migration flows, they urge not to exclude other social factors. For
example Clark and Maas (2015) conclude that “jobs matter but it may be that they are the context within which migration occurs rather than simply an adjustment mechanism in the labor market” (Clark & Maas, 2015). While these sociological concepts can explain why migration, once a link between sending and receiving countries is established, is a relatively enduring process, they fail to explain why this link between sending and receiving countries gets established in the first place. Humanistic Geography explains migration by the kind of image migrants hold of a place and how this image motivates them to migrate (see e.g. Marcus, 2009). This theory, on the other hand, focuses solely on the micro level and by that ignores the macro structure in which these individuals are embedded and form this image in. More recently in the field of migration studies is the idea to integrate all of the available models from all levels and disciplines to construct a model that is truly able to explain the migration movement (Massey, 2012, p. 12).
The migration flows from central and south America have been extensively studied by longitudinal studies such as the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) or the Latin American Migration Project (LAMP). In the context of the migration movement from Mexico into the USA, the longitudinal study MMP lead by Douglas Massey finds that “the foregoing analysis suggests that the initiation of undocumented migration to the U.S. from Mexico was driven largely by U.S. labor demand and by the existence of well-developed migrant networks that provided migrants with access to U.S. labor markets despite a rising enforcement effort” (Massey, Durand, & Pren, 2014, p. 1053). In the context of migration from Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region and from Sub-Saharan Africa to the European Union, similar patterns were
spotted. A study by Eurostat from 2000 found family connection as well as economic reasons to determine Europe as a destination (Eurostat, 2001). An important aspect of social networks is the access to social capital connected with them. Haug finds that access to social capital in the country of destination increases the emigration intentions and the likelihood to migrate (Haug, 2008). And while labor market conditions as well as social networks, and with them access to social capital, are thought to be the main drivers behind migration between Mexico and the USA as well as between countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Ghana and Senegal to the EU, the connection between social networks and perceptions about the labor market conditions and the price for labor in the country of destination needs further investigation.
Quite some research on social networks and the effects on the labor market outcome have been done. Thereby, “the verdict is still out on whether or not reliance on social networks enhances or constrains labor market performance” (Tegegne, 2015, p. 1396), but whether or not social networks improve a migrant’s labor market performance in reality might not overlap with the migrant’s perception of this connection. Being embedded in a social network that spans to the country of destination might influence the migrant’s beliefs of his labor market opportunities, in that he believes his consequently eased access to social capital increases his chances for finding a job and increases his income. Furthermore, it could be that stories of success are more deliberately shared over the social network and alter the believes about the labor market in the country of destination. Studying the motivations of migrants camping around Calais and Dunkerque on their way to the UK can therefore improve our understanding about migration by measuring the
connection between social ties to destination country and perception of the labor market of destination.
While the economic differences between Mexico and the USA, as well as between Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Turkey and the European Union are substantial, the economic differences between the UK and continental Europe are far smaller. Therefore, the question arises if economic factors also play such an important role for the phenomenon of migration of undocumented third country nationals from France to the UK. No empirical study about these migrants’ motives has been done as of yet. The study of this research paper can therefore add to the understanding of migration studies by analyzing a yet to be explained migration flow.
Studies done under the flag of Humanistic Geography aim to describe the imagination that drove individuals to migrate, but by doing so they ignore what factors might influence these images and beliefs. Furthermore, measuring a migrant’s geographic imagination that led them to migrate prior to arrival is a difficult undertaking. While Marcus (2009) describes the geographic picture about the USA held by Brazilian Migrants to the USA, the qualitative interviews are done retrospectively which holds the danger that the captured images about the USA are retrospectively rationalized. Marcus’ findings are that “geographical imagination may come with unrealistically high expectations […] before they migrate to the United States, Brazilians will imagine a rich and developed country where anything is possible” (Marcus, 2009, p. 487), but stops there and does not expand on how geographic imagination can alter an individual’s cost-benefit calculation about migrating. Beliefs about future income opportunities are part of the geographic
imagination and by that are formed in the mental process of establishing the geographic image. Certain beliefs and images about a country, such as the image of a ‘country of opportunity’ where ‘everything is possible’ might lead one to overestimate future returns for labor or other perceived benefits of migration.
Although the movement of behavioral economics with the argument that “psychological components, and within them the emotions, play an important and influential role in the decision making process” (Virlics, 2013, p. 1014) has been well established (see e.g.: Rabin, 1998; Kahnemann, 2003; Barberis & Thaler, 2003; Virlics, 2013), the role of psychological components in decisions to migrate remain wildly ignored in migration studies.
If this connection between certain geographic images about the country of destination and estimated financial benefits of migration to that country holds to be true, commonly shared positive images about a country could be an important factor that leads to migration movements, since the positive image does not only work as a pull factor in that it includes positive views and feelings towards a place, but also overly optimistic beliefs about future income opportunities.
Tests that aim to measure the migrants’ reasons for migration could end up capturing economic reasons as the main driver but might overlook the general image about the place that led the migrant to overestimate the economic benefits he states as reason for his move. To study the role of emotions linked to a geographic image and their influence on the beliefs about financial benefits of migration, studies have to be done before arrival, since image and emotions about a country as well as beliefs about income opportunities might change after the migrant’s arrival. It might be due to the
lack of research opportunities to study migrants that are determined to migrate but have not yet reached their destination, or due to the predominant view of humans as rational actors that excludes emotions as a factor in individuals’ decision making, that this link between image and beliefs about post migration income in that country has not yet been studied.
Furthermore, if commonly shared imaginations about a place are an important force in creating migration flows, studies need to focus on how these imaginary pictures come about. While Marcus (2009) quotes examples on how social networks, as they transmit information, can help form the migrants’ geographic imagination, the question about how social networks shape the nature of migrants’ geographic imagination stays unanswered. Do stories and pictures transported by social networks lead to a more positive, more optimistic view on the country of destination? Overall, besides explaining the migration movement which could help to rationalize the public debate about the issue, the subject of analysis also provides the rare opportunity to test an integrated model of migration that includes the concept of geographic imagination and perceptions prior to arrival. When testing for reasons why migrants choose to migrate to a specific place, the vast majority of studies have been done retrospectively. Testing for reasons to migrate after arrival at the destination of migration has the inherited difficulty that these tests “represent post hoc reflections of migrants about their prior behavior. […] Reasons for moving statements may effect pre-move motivations, but they may also be a rationalized proxy […]” (DeJong & Gardner, 1981, p. 34f.). Because post arrival questionnaires might just measure the retrospectively rationalized motives rather than the influence
of idealized mental pictures and emotions on the individual’s decision to migrate, retrospective tests for motives to migrate can insufficiently measure the influence of geographic imagination on the migrant’s decision to migrate to a specific destination. This paper aims to find out how the migration movement of third country nationals1 from the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia on the move from France to the UK compares to other somewhat similar migration flows in the migrants’ decision for destination. The paper tries to do so by formulating and testing an integrated model using theories concerning economical cost-benefit calculations of bounded rational actors, social networks and social network externalities, and geographic imagination, to explain why migrants choose the UK as their country of destination. While the different perspectives on migration from Sociology, Economics and Human Geography are often treated as separately competing theories, this paper argues that the three perspectives can go together in forming one integrated model. The strength of the paper thereby lays in the measuring of the perceptions of migrants before they arrive. The study can therefore provide insights on perceptions of the migrants that lead to choosing the UK as their country of destination and how these perceptions that form the geographic imagination might interrelate with social ties and cost-benefit thinking of the migrant. These perceptions and beliefs will be measured in a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods.
What are the perceptions about the UK held by the migrants? How much of a role does geographic imagination play in their motivation to move to the UK? How big
of a factor are family ties to the UK, and how do these family ties influence the migrant’s perceptions? What is the cost-benefit calculation of the migrants?
To answer these questions a short introduction about the history of migration camps on the coast of France will be given. This is so to understand the environment and tensions in which the camps (and with them the migrants) are embedded. Then the theoretical model with which this paper aims to explain the migration movement will be explained, followed by an explanation of the survey template with which the model will be tested. After that, the results of the survey and the final conclusion of the paper will be presented.
Chapter 1: History of the camps in Calais, Dunkerque and
other similar camps in the context of the refugee crisis
Camps on the French side of the border crossing between France and England have been an issue of European politics long before the current refugee crisis which could be dated to have started in 2014 or 20152. Already in the 1990s, big migration movements reached the region of Calais in attempts to cross the border to the UK. In reaction to the rising numbers of migrants sleeping on the streets and camping around the area of Calais, French authorities decided to erect a refugee camp run by the Red Cross in the area of Sangatte, inside an old Euro tunnel factory in 1999. The Camp of Sangatte became increasingly overcrowded and made headlines for its low standards of sanitation.3 From the very beginning the camp was seen as a burden to the locals of Calais, from which many held negative opinions about the camp as well as the British authorities which they felt did not lift their fair share of the burden. After coming under increased pressure from the UK government, Euro tunnel officials and public opinion, the camp was closed in 2002 under the presidency of
Jacques Chirac and led by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister during this time.
Besides the official camp run by the Red Cross, there was also an unofficial camp of make-shift huts in the woods near the industrial area close to Sangatte, which will henceforth be referred to as the “Old Jungle”. As part of the continued crackdown on
2 Numbers of migrants claiming asylum in the EU increased steadily over the years with a sharper increase starting in
2014. The topic gained wider public attention and with it the label ‘crisis’ through the media in 2015
3 For more on this read:
illegal migration, the official camp of Sangatte was shut down and the unofficial camp was razed by force.
While it is reported that the strict line against illegal migration led by Sarkozy reduced the migration for a while, the destruction of the ‘Old Jungle’ and the official camp in Sangatte also led to the erection of multiple smaller camps in the wider area around the entrance of the Euro Tunnel and the ferry ports of Calais, which then continued to grow. This cluttered area of more or less connected camps of different sizes was referred to as ‘the Jungle’. The increasing population of ‘the Jungle’ between 2001 and 2009 was thereby accompanied with tightening restrictions on aid provisions and crackdowns on border controls in Europe (Millner, 2011). In 2009, following through with his strict policy to fight undocumented migration, the French government under Sarkozy, now elected president, flattened the biggest of ‘the Jungle’ camps, which is thought to have housed around 1,500 migrants at the time. In the process, 278 migrants were arrested. However, the strict policy did not prevent the camp from further growing over the years and reaching the size of 3,700 to 5,4974 migrants in February 20165.
Starting in the beginning of 2016, French authorities started to install homes made out of shipping containers in the northeast part of the camp. In the course of installing these containers, makeshift tents that were located where the containers were to get installed got cleared. The installed containers were made to house around 1,500 migrants.
4 The numbers thereby vary depending on the organization that does the counting estimation:
Calais officials state 3,700 while the Refugee Rights Data Project states 5,497 at the time.
In February 2016, after receiving approval from the court in Lille, the south side of the camp was bulldozed by force. While French authorities claim that 1,000 migrants were living in the cleared area, the group of Refugee Rights Data Project (RRDP) state that 3,455 Refugees were living in the concerned area.
Figure 1: Change of Migrants in the Camp before and after Eviction
Source: Refugee Rights Data Project
According to the RRDP, the number of refugees was only slightly reduced through the eviction and continued to grow afterwards.
Overall the history of migration settlements in the Calais area shows a picture of conflicts between migrants and the French state authorities. The multiple substantial efforts of the French government to reduce and control the numbers of migrants in the area, for which they were often strongly criticized by human rights organizations as well as help organizations, could not prevent ‘the Jungle’ from growing over time.
Another refugee camp on the French-English border crossing is the ‘la Liniere Camp’ in the industrial area of Grande-Synthe. This camp is often referred to as the Dunkerque camp in the media6, even though it is about 20 minutes away from the center of Dunkerque, in the industrial area of the neighboring town of Grande-Synthe. Since the 1990s, when migrants started to try to cross the border into the UK, a share of migrants camped in the Dunkerque/Grande-Synthe region in the attempt to hide on one of the many ferries leaving for the UK every day. The numbers were always relatively small when compared to the Calais area, and it is estimated that the numbers varied around 60 migrants that stayed in the the so called ‘Basroch Slum.’7 But with tightening controls on the boarder and less migrants being able to cross to the UK, the numbers increased drastically to an estimated number of 2,800. With the worsening sanitary situation in the ‘Basroch Slum,’ which was only managed by Doctors Without Borders along with other NGOs, authorities were put under increased pressure to act. The mayor of Grand-Synthe opposed the destruction of the slum by French authorities.
Instead of choosing the approach taken in Sangatte, the mayor’s office formed an alliance with Doctors Without Borders to erect a more tractable camp. Doctors Without Borders and the mayor’s office bought an industrial area near Grand-Synthe8 in order to manage the camp and to coordinate between the multiple NGOs and the mayor’s office, thus a new NGO called Utopia was founded.
6 The camp will also be referred to as the ‘Dunkerque camp’ in this paper for the sake of using the established
reference.
7 The numbers of this paragraph (60 migrants in the Basroch Slum; 2800 migrants at the peak) are from an
information brochure handed out to volunteers from the NGO Utopia
Today the camp in Grand-Synthe houses about 1,000 migrants. The sanitary situation in this camp is much better than in ‘the Jungle.’ Migrants have regular access to food, water, toilets, showers, a landline connection, electricity, waterproof housing and medical services. Utopia provides security personnel and a small number of policemen guard the camp. This provides for a more sanitary and safe living situation for migrants in Grande-Synthe than for migrants living in ‘the Jungle.’ This might be one of the reasons that there is a far higher share of females and families living in the camp of Grande-Synthe than in ‘the Jungle.’
While the situation in Grand-Synthe is a great deal better than in ‘the Jungle’ of Calais, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the situation in Synthe is without problems. As is the case in Calais, the local population of Grand-Synthe and Dunkerque often also hold negative views about the immigrants. Workers for the NGOs report problems with what they call the ‘mafia:’ human smugglers and other individuals that use the situation to generate profit. These human traffickers are reported to charge immigrants for the shelters that, in principle, are provided for free by the NGOs and the local municipality. While the NGOs hold very unfavorable views about the ‘mafia’ and therefore try to cut into their business model wherever possible, a significant part of the migrant community, because they often depend on the smugglers, prefer no intervention in this shady business. This leads to tensions between the NGOs and the migrants. At the time of the survey, migrants and workers of the NGOs feared that the local government might change its stance and close the refugee camp in the coming weeks.
Overall one can say the camp ‘La Liniere’ has existed for a shorter period of time and is smaller and better managed than ‘the Jungle’. The biggest problems in the camp seem to result from the human traffickers, on which in the end many of the migrants that want to cross to the UK depend.
Chapter 2: Theoretical overview of migration from a social
science perspective
“The attempt to explain regularities in migration by some integrated theory that does not acknowledge the differing origins of gross regularities, is like trying to pick a winner of a horse-race by crystal-gazing, rather than by examining the characteristics of the jockeys, the horse, the course, and the competition, and then attempting to relate these to each other” (Sartup, 1971, p. 189). This thesis therefore sets out to investigate the phenomenon using a variety of theoretical approaches, because such a synthesis of theoretical approaches is thought to provide a more integrated theoretical approach to the study of international migration (O'Reilly, 2012, p. 5). In general, social science has come up with five different basic categories of a motivation for an individual to migrate: “material improvement, risk management, symbolic gratification, social connection, and threat evasion” (Massey D. S., Migration: Motivations, 2015, p. 452). While these are categories of motivations that may induce migration, the question of this paper is how migrants decide for a country they want to migrate to. These two questions; “why do people migrate?” and “where do people migrate to?” do somewhat overlap. For example, material improvement explains why people leave their home country but also where they migrate to – to a country where they can generate a higher income. While some of these categories of motivations to migrate might overlap with the aspects that decide where to migrate to, they are certainly not the same. Thus, micro theories mostly distinguished between the decision to move, the destination choice, and the interrelation between the change of residence and other changes in the status of the migrant (Newbold, 2014, p. 135). The focus of this paper is on theories related to the destination choice.
“Migration movements have been studied principally in the field of social science, including economists, demographers, geographers, and sociologists” (Nagurney, Pan, & Zhao, 1992, p. 262).
To explain the phenomenon of migrants around Calais and Dunkerque and why they opt for the UK as their destination, the geographic imagination theory from the field of human geography, the cost-benefit approach from the economic field and migration networks from the field of sociology will be integrated into a more comprehensive explanatory framework
To gain a comprehensive view, the three theoretical concepts will first be individually explained to then, in the final section, lay out how they work together in forming the migrant’s choice of destination. Furthermore, the final section will conclude the hypothesis drawn from this theoretical outline.
2.1 Geographic imagination
One perspective that helps to understand why people migrate and how they make their decision for a specific destination country is provided by humanistic geography. “Humanistic geography studies people’s relations with nature, their geographical behavior as well as their feelings and ideas in regard to space and place” (Tuan, 1976, p. 266). Thereby, “contrary to the concept of space, place is less abstract, as it is a site of meanings. In other words, what makes places are the social meanings that individuals and groups assign to any given space” (Sánchez-Ayala, 2012, p. 121). The concept of geographic imagination aims to capture these social meanings, feelings and ideas individuals or groups hold and are assigned to a given space.
In analyzing the motivation for Brazilians to migrate to the USA, Marcus defined geographic imagination as: “[…] ‘the spatial knowledge- real or abstract- that allows individuals to imagine place:’ and I examine it here as a significant, and mainly noneconomic, component propelling migrants to leave for the United States” (Marcus, 2009, p. 481). While Marcus focuses mainly on non-economic images, in this thesis the concept of geographic imagination will also include beliefs related to economic concerns. These imaginings of what life looks like at a specific place held by a potential migrant can act as powerful factor in their decision to migrate (Marcus, 2009, p. 481). Therefore, geographical imagination influences the migrant’s decision of where to migrate to.
In the logic of geographic imagination, migrants would prefer the UK over other European countries because the UK is, in their mind, connected to powerful emotions and ideas about the place. In Marcus’ (2009) study about why Brazilians chose to emigrate to the USA, she finds that their geographic imagination about the USA was often developed via the consumption of cultural goods such as movies as well as stories and pictures of former immigrants. Furthermore, Marcus (2009) finds that geographic imagination may come with unrealistically high expectations about the destination country (Marcus, 2009, p. 487). These unrealistic expectations would be one possible explanation of why these immigrants prefer the UK over other European countries even if their lives in the UK might not end up being substantially better than in France and in spite of the fact that they have to struggle to get in.
2.2 Cost-Benefit thinking of bounded rational actors
In economics the predominant theory to explain migration is the human capital theory. The human capital theory as used by most economists defines migration as an investment in human capital, whereby the costs of migration are balanced against future expected returns measured by lifetime earnings (Newbold, 2014, p. 136). In human capital theories of migration, migrants are rational actors that make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis of their options. Since these benefits are measured by the earnings the migrant might expect to gain on the labor market of the destination country, migration in this theory is by definition a form of labor migration.
Economists have always had an interest in analyzing the movement of labor and the determinants and consequences of location choices (Martiniello & Rath, 2012, p. 25). To do so, “most economic studies that empirically analyze the determinants of labor limit their sets of explanatory variables to conventional socio-economic characteristics at the micro level and to income and unemployment discrepancies at macro level” (Martiniello & Rath, 2012, p. 29f.).
Economists try to explain migration movements with the help of a market-based approach embedded in neoclassic economics, economic group decisions which are also referred to as the new economics of migration, and a theoretical framework of segmented labor markets.
The neoclassic approach “argues that migration is caused by geographic differences in the supply of and demand for labor” (Massey D. S., 2015, p. 466). These
differences in demand of and supply for labor generate different rewards for labor and thus “rational actors decide to migrate because a cost-benefit calculation leads them to expect a positive net return, usually monetary, from movement” (Massey D. S., 2015, p. 466).
The basic model of such a cost-benefit approach in the neoclassic framework looks like this:
“The decision of individual i (i = 1…n) in source country h to migrate to destination f can be expressed as:
d
i= w
f,i–
w
h,i–
z
i –c
>
0where wf,i,
w
h,i are the earnings of that individual in destination (f for foreign) and source (h for home) countries, respectively,z
i is the individual’s compensating differential in favor of h and c is the direct cost of migration” (Borjas & Crisp, 2005, p. 18). In such a simple model the migrants would choose the UK as their destination country because they expect the highest return in wages there.The key idea behind the new economics of migration is that migration decisions are often done by social groups rather than singular actors. These groups make rational decisions for members of that group to migrate in order to maximize expected household income, but also to maximize status within an embedded hierarchy to overcome barriers to capital and credit, and to minimize risk (Massey D. S., 2015, p. 466). When the household income is, for example, generated on various different labor markets with weak correlation between those labor markets, the risk of total
household income failure gets minimized. This theory therefore suggests that rational groups, when faced with high risks of total income failure, spread their members over various countries to establish independent income sources.
The segmented labor market theory approach argues that in any hierarchical structure there must always be some at the bottom. These hierarchies are connected with prestige and status rather than just income alone. Because status and prestige can only insufficiently be generated at the jobs on the bottom, there is less demand for them than the market forces would predict. To fill this lack of demand, “employers need workers who view bottom-level jobs simply as a means to the end of earning money, and for whom employment is reduced solely to income, with no implications for status or prestige. For a variety of reasons, migrants satisfy this need” (Massey D. S., 2015, p. 466). Thus, migration takes place because there is a gap between labor demand and supply at the bottom end of the labor market. These bottom end jobs might still generate relatively high wages and prestige when compared with the average obtainable job in the migrant’s country of origin.
In the end all three of these theories come down to a cost-benefit decision made either by the migrant himself or the social group he is a part of. In the new economics of migration, the risk minimization of total income failure by the household is seen as an additional benefit. The migration process is connected with plenty of costs and the higher reward in income for labor generated by the demand of labor poses as the benefit. In this theoretical scheme, rational individuals migrate when the benefits outweigh the costs.
rational basis. This assumption of perfect rationality gets extended by the concept of bounded rationality. The concept of bounded rationality accounts for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are often not feasible in practice due to the finite computational resources available for making them (Coralio & Hernández, 2012, p. 28). In this logic, actors choose the option according to their preferences on the information available and their capability to compute this information.
But these models with a focus on labor migration exclude all the other various factors that might come into play when migrants choose their destination country. Therefore, a broader framework to analyze various kinds of migration movements, other than just labor migration, has been adopted by the theoretical framework of Push and Pull factors.
In the Push-Pull Model, “migration is the result of the interplay of various forces at both ends of the migratory axis. Some of these forces are political, social, economic, legal, historical, cultural, and educational. The authors classified the forces as “push” and “pull” factors. Push factors are generally present in donor countries, and pull factors pertain to receiving countries. Both forces must be operating for migration to occur” (Kline, 2003, p. 108).
For the migrants camping in France on their way to the UK, the push factors (whatever they may be in detail) seem to be prevalent since those migrants already left their home country. In the logic of pull factors, migrants would prefer the UK over other E.U. countries because they conclude from their computing of the available information that the UK holds the biggest pull factors form the perceived options.
2.3 The role of networks, network externalities and herd effects in migration processes
“Networks connect migrants and non-migrants across time and space. Once begun, migration flows often become self-sustaining, reflecting the establishment of networks of information, assistance and obligations which develop between migrants in the host society and friends and relatives in the sending area” (Boyd M. , 1989, p. 641). These networks are thought to develop because of immigration and emigration flows of people between areas or countries, as well as by economic and political relations between countries or areas (Boyd M. , 1989, p. 641). Following this strain of ideas, individuals migrate to certain places because their networks can provide information for that country as well as provide assistance once they are in that country.
When looking at the form of such migration networks, many authors come to the conclusion that the migrant’s household in the country of origin works as an important component in migration networks (Boyd M. , 1989, p. 642). This is because “families represent a social group geographically dispersed. They create kinship networks which exist across space […]. Shadow households in the place of destination consist of persons whose commitments and obligations are to households in the sending area. Such persons may be especially likely to assist in the migration of other household or family members […] (Caces et al., 1985)” (Boyd M. , 1989, p. 643). Having direct family ties to the destination country further benefits the migrant because family members often work as sources of information and sponsors in the job market for the newly arrived migrant (Salaff, 1990, p. 1952).
Applying this framework to the the case of migrants that want to get into the UK, one would suggest that these migrants prefer to migrate to the UK over other EU countries because of their social network connections to the UK. These network connections benefit the migrant in three ways: 1) provide useful information 2) assist in the settling process 3) act as sponsors for family members in the job market. In most cases these networks of the migrant on the move are likely to be built around the migrant’s family or household in their home country. Either because of a direct, so-called ‘shadow household connection’ to the domestic household unit or through links over the extended family network.
A second important aspect of migration networks lay in network externalities. “A striking characteristic of international migration is the clustering of immigrants in ethnic communities. Among others, prominent examples of the clustering of migrants are the concentrations of Turks in Germany, Tamils in Switzerland, Moroccans in the Netherlands and Belgium, Italians in Argentina, Greeks in Australia, and Ukrainians in Canada” (Bauer, Epstein, & Gang, 2002, p. 2). There are also many more examples of clustering of certain ethnic migration groups within countries where they do not spread evenly but rather cluster in certain areas. “These concentrations of migrants often get explained by the existence of beneficial network externalities” (Bauer, Epstein, & Gang, 2002, p. 2). Such “beneficial network externalities arise when the stock of previous immigrants is sufficiently large [enough] to provide accommodation and work, other economic assistance and/or reduce the stress of adapting to a foreign culture” (Epstein, 2008, p. 568). The link here from migration networks to the cost-benefit analysis is straight forward. By reducing the stress of adapting to a foreign culture, for example, the networks
decrease the assimilation costs of migration, and by providing a job, they increase the benefit. On the other hand, network externalities can also hold negative effects. There is, for example, the possibility that increased migration, induced by the networks, and with that increased competition, has a negative effect on wages for the immigrants. A further possible adverse network effect could be that with a rising number of immigrants, the host countries population has an increasingly negative attitude towards the immigrant population as whole.
The beneficial externalities of migration networks can be described as benefits arising from social capital. Bourdieu defines social capital as follows: “Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group – which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity – owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 50). But to profit from the social capital of a group one has to first become a member of said group.
Some migrants might already hold a strong or weak tie connection to the network of former immigrants in his destination country, some others might not. The migrants that already have a connection to the community from former migrants to the country of destination have an advantage in that they can integrate themselves into said community faster, and by that profit from the social capital of the group to a greater extent. Migrants that hold no connection to the community abroad need to first invest in social capital and establish social ties before they can gain from the community.
Applying this theory to the migration process into the UK, the migrants would want to move to the UK because of the hope that the existing stock of former immigrants that are already there can help them find their way in the new country.
While “network externalities imply ‘I will go where my people are, since they will help me’. An alternative explanation for clustering of immigrants from the one location is ‘herd behavior’. Herd behavior implies: ‘I will go where I have observed others go, because all those who went before me cannot be wrong, even though I would have chosen to go elsewhere’” (Epstein, 2008, p. 568). In the model of herd behavior “emigrants may have some private information, but are imperfectly informed about the attributes of alternative foreign locations, and pay attention to previous emigrants’ decisions” (Epstein, 2008, p. 568). Herd behavior can thereby be seen as rational under the working assumption of bounded rationality and if the migrant believes that previous immigrants enjoyed better information than he does himself.
The last aspect to address regarding networks in the context of migration is migration with the goal of reestablishing social ties. This aspect is mainly seen to play a role in the process of family reunification. Family ties are seen as a “key component of the networks that help turn migration into a self-sustaining phenomenon” (Bartram, Poros, & Monforte, 2014, p. 65). Thereby, migration processes where single males migrate first and are then later joined by their families are often the norm but this phenomenon also includes “female-led migration where husbands are joining, and […] cohabiting partners, both heterosexual and homosexual; parents and grand- parents; other dependents of various ages and degrees of relationship; the parents of
minor children who are citizens (born in jus soli countries); and members of dissolved or reconstituted families. It gives rise to a range of issues thrown up by the fact that migration is no longer typically a single movement but a ‘transnational’ process involving repeated mobility, both circular (between receiving and original countries) and to third countries” (Honohan, 2009, p. 770). Other forms of reunification, for example reunion with a friend, have found little attention and are thought to play a minor role.
If the separated family member in the destination country holds legal resident status, migrants that seek to reunite with their family normally try to do so by using legal ways of entry into the country9. But family reunification can also takes place in an undocumented way (Bartram, Poros, & Monforte, 2014, p. 67). The phenomenon of migration is often viewed as mere economic fact, but migration movements consists of people, and these people are embedded in complex social relations (Bartram, Poros, & Monforte, 2014, p. 68). This means that family re-unification is not only done for economic means but can also be due to the felt value of these social relations. In the case of migrants that want to enter the UK illegally, family reunification only plays a role when legal reunification possibilities are unavailable.
2.4 Integration of the different perspectives and forming the hypothesis
In this section, links between the concepts and how they can work together in forming the migrant’s choice for a destination country get described.
9 For a description of the conditions in the UK for both family members in the destination country and family
members that wants to resettle visit:
The link between the role of migration networks and the migrants cost-benefit calculation is straight forward: “Networks increase the likelihood of movement because they lower the costs of relocation and, assuming a positive earnings differential between origin and destination areas, increase the expected net returns to migration” (Massey D. S., 1988, p. 397).
These increased expected net returns appear mainly because migrants hope for their social connection in the destination country to help them in the job finding process. Migrants with family ties to the destination country might hope for their family member to work as a sponsor for them in the labor market. This family member can only act as sponsor because he himself works as an information source for his employee. Furthermore, social connections can help the migrant in the resettling process and by that reduce the costs of migration.
Thus, migration networks not only play a role in the migrant’s decision to migrate for the reason of re-unification, which plays a role mostly in the context of romantic partnerships and children, but also because they influence the migrants cost-benefit calculation about migration.
From this theoretical framework the first Hypothesis can be concluded:
A second aspect of how networks influence the migrant’s cost-benefit calculation lies in the beneficial network externalities.
H1: Migrants with social ties with their country of destination tend to expect a higher return from working in that country, compared to the expectations of migrants without such ties.
Since migrants that already hold a link to the community abroad are able to profit more from the social capital of that network, the community abroad poses a bigger incentive for them. Thereby, strong ties compared to weak ties or no ties increase the certainty of the migrant that this connection will help him in gaining access to the social capital of the group.
Following the logic of this theoretical framework the second Hypothesis is:
The theory of geographic imagination suggests that migrants choose a specific destination country because this place is connected with powerful positive feelings and ideas. These feelings and ideas are thought to idealize the country of destination. This idealization alters the cost-benefit calculation of the migrant. Thereby, chances of getting the asylum status are included in the migrants cost-benefit calculation, since the asylum status enables the migrants to gain access to the official labor market and many of the state’s social services.
H2: The stronger the ties of the migrants to the community in the country of destination, the more the migrant will be able to profit from the social capital of that community, and the more that community will help the migrant through emotional and material support. Therefore, the stronger the ties to the ethnic community in the country of destination, the more attractive this community will be.
Since family ties are thought to work as stronger ties than ties of friendship it is expected that:
1) The community forms the biggest attraction for migrants with family ties to the UK
2) The community forms the second biggest attraction for migrants with friendship ties to the UK
3) The community represents the lowest attraction for migrants without ties to the UK
Therefore, the third hypothesis is:
In the theory of geographic imagination lays a connection to the concept of social networks.
Migration networks link individuals in the home country with individuals that are already in the host country. These links can transmit information among family and friends (Hardwick, 2008, p. 172). Trans-national social networks can therefore transport cultural goods, stories and similar mediums that transport powerful images of a place to a person he himself has never been to. These imaginary pictures create expectations that are often idealized and unrealistically high. These unrealistically high expectations are also generated and enforced by stories of success that are shared over the migration networks. Stories of success are more deliberately shared and therefore reach a broader audience than stories of failure.
In these mechanisms that create an idealized geographic imagination lies a connection to the cost-benefit calculation of the migrant. The bounded rationality framework suggests that individuals are not perfectly rational in that they only hold
H3: Geographic imagination alters the cost-benefit calculation in such a way that, on average, the benefits of migration to the UK are perceived as higher than the country actually will offer to the migrants. Therefore, it can be expected that migrants will overestimate the financial gains stemming from state support or from work, as well as the chances of gaining the asylum status in the UK more so than in Continental European countries. As the migrants are already residing in France, their positive imagination about France can be expected to have a weaker effect on the migrant’s estimation of chances of asylum and the income they are able to obtain from state support or work. The income and the chance for asylum the migrants expect to obtain in France are therefore more realistically estimated than the prospect of incomes and chances for asylum when they would migrate to the UK.
spatial knowledge about their choices of destination. Furthermore, they are only able to compute a limited amount of that information. Thus, geographic imagination which could be seen as a result of the imperfect information and the limited ability of individuals to compute information perfectly rationally, alters the individuals cost-benefit calculation by increasing the perceived cost-benefit.
Following this string of ideas, the fifth hypothesis is concluded:
Figure 2, on the following page, shows how the choice of destination is formed by the three different mechanisms and how these mechanisms interplay with each other. Each of the three mechanisms create motivating factors for the migrants to choose a specific destination by considering only one of the mechanisms, but these motivating mechanisms can also overlap in that the decider will form the decision using a combination of all three. Furthermore, the mechanism that creates the incentive factors to choose a specific destination cannot be isolated since they influence each other. The social network thereby influences the migrants cost-benefit calculation as well as his geographic imagination. The geographic imagination influences the perceived benefits of migration and by that the cost-benefit calculation. Therefore, networks influence the cost-benefit calculation of the migrant directly (creating a higher benefit and lowering the costs) and indirectly (by increasing the perceived benefits over the geographic imagination).
H4: Migrants with social ties to the UK will have a more positive image of the UK than migrants without social ties.
Figure 2: Influences on the choice of destination
Chapter 3: Research Design
In this chapter the modulation of the survey concept is explained. This includes general thoughts about the kind of survey, the mode of collection and eventual selection errors, concepts of the survey items, eventual survey errors and eventual interviewer errors.
3.1 A “supervised” questionnaire
The research is done in a mixed-methods approach consisting of a quantitative survey as well as qualitative interviews. The surveys will be done in a person-to-person paper and pen style by using closed questionnaires. Questionnaires are used because they are seen as a valuable tool in gaining information about the general perception of the overall population (Sanchez-Ayala 2012). Qualitative interviews are used to gain a deeper understanding of the meanings of the migrant’s action as well as a deeper understanding of their perceptions.
For the quantitative survey, every male willing to participate in the survey with enough English skills (or a translator when one is available) will be targeted. The survey is restricted to only male participants because men form the majority of the migrants, and winning women over for the survey proved difficult. Since it is expected that women’s motives to migrate differ strongly from their male counterparts, including a small number of women (it is estimated that 3% of the Calais ‘Jungle’ population is made up of women, working with a desired sample size of 100. Thus, if the goal of the sample is to be representative of the overall population only about 3 women would have been included in the sample) cannot sufficiently
represent the women’s perspective but would rather diffuse the results. The quantitative interviews as well as conversations in the restaurants of the camp are used to induce qualitative interviews. The qualitative interviews will be done with migrants that speak fluent English and are willing to talk openly. The questions asked to the migrants in the qualitative interview were aiming at aspects of their migration that cannot be fully captured through the quantitative survey. Under A-4 one can see the specific aspects the interviewers were instructed to investigate. The insights gained through the qualitative interview were written down after the interview in little notebooks the interviewers were equipped with. This is because many migrants do not want to give meaningful insights about, for example, the illegal labor market when they are on record.
All the interviews in Dunkerque were done at the entrance region and food tent since these were the only public spaces in that camp. In Calais the interviews were done in the beginning of the camp rather than far into the camp to ensure safety of all interviewers, this might result in the over and underrepresentation of certain ethnicities, since different ethnic groups tend to socialize together at different places in the camp. A-1 shows the locations in which the surveys were taken with a rough estimation of what share of surveys were collected at each specified location.
A team of interviewers read the questions to participants and completed the answers in the survey forms. Such “supervised questionnaires involve more interaction between the researcher and the respondent [than self-administered questionnaires], as the researcher interacts directly with the respondent” (Sánchez-Ayala, 2012, p. 124). This was done so as to reduce the likelihood of participants not taking the
survey seriously and to encourage interaction so that qualitative interviews can be done in a follow up. Furthermore, it decreases the sampling error by excluding migrants that cannot read or write. The survey participants were given a form with the single rating scales to make the communication of the demanded tasks easier10. Thereby a relatively large amount of individuals will be targeted by the quantitative survey so that descriptive statistics can be done with the data later on11. The variables captured in the survey were generated in a deductive way from the theory explained earlier on. The questionnaire consists of mostly closed-ended questions, because this type of question “provides more uniformity and are more easily processed” (Sánchez-Ayala, 2012, p. 124). Before the real survey got carried out, a test survey in the field was done, so as to adapt the mode of collection and the surveys to the specific nature of the camps. During the first round of collection done with two researchers over the timespan of one week, new insights were found. These new insights lead to the decision to extend the survey by a few questions for the second round of collection done with five interviewers over the course of two days12. During the first round of collection, 50 surveys were collected, during the second round 47. The completion of one quantitative questionnaire took an estimated time of about 30 minutes depending on the level of English of the interviewee. The survey was kept short, because the test survey13 showed that the migrants often have only very basic
10 The shown form of the scales is shown in the appendix A-1
11 While a sample size of 100 might be viewed as relatively small for a quantitative study, it is the maximum size of
what this study could reach with its limited resources.
12In the appendix under A-5 a few snapshots of the second round of collection is assembled, so to gain a feeling for
the collection process.
13 Prior to the main data collection, a test survey was conducted. The test survey consisted of 15 ‘bete version’
surveys and multiple informal talks with migrants in the camp. The test survey was done about two months before the main data collection.
knowledge of the English language. Long surveys in combination with poor English skills would lead to the completion of the surveys to take an unpractical amount of time. A long survey would therefore heighten the likelihood of the questionnaire to be broken.
Sampling errors may occur because migrants with little to no knowledge of the English language get excluded. This might over or under represents certain nationalities because the level of knowledge of the English language might differ over different nations and their history and schooling background. Furthermore, the fact that English is required to take part in the survey is thought to over represent people with higher education and underrepresent people with lower education. The language further alters the sample so that migrants with preexisting history of migration to England might be overrepresented, since those migrants are more likely to speak English.
The person-to-person interview style might produce some interviewer effects. Firstly, there might be effects of social desirability. This might pose a problem for Block 3 (listed below in section 3.1), where the test participants might feel like they should state very positive things about the UK since they want this country to host them. Furthermore, migrants seem reluctant to express economic reasons for their migration, since many believe that economic motives are seen as less legitimate than other motives.
3.1 Building blocks of the survey
In this part the conception of the survey questions is explained. This includes aim and concept of the question as well as general thoughts behind the items. The survey questions are thereby ordered in thematic blocks in order to make the understanding and communication between the interviewer and survey participant easier. Under A-7 one can see the complete template of the survey.
Block 1: Background:
The first part concerns the background variables. It captures the age, education, family status and immigration history to Europe. While there are no hypotheses involving these characteristics directly, other than the variables capturing the family status and location of said family members, it is thought that they play a role in the decision making of migration and should therefore be captured.
Block 1: Background Variables
1) Country of origin: ___________ 2) Age:_____
3) Years in school/university: _____
4) Job back home:__________________[ ]No job 5) Are you married [ ]Yes [ ]No
IF YES: Where is your partner: [ ]Home country [ ]UK [ ]Other______________ 6) Do you have children: [ ]Yes [ ]No
IF YES: Where are your children: [ ]traveling with me [ ]Home country [ ]UK [ ]Other______________
7) Have you been in the UK before? [ ]Yes [ ]No
8) Have you tried to settle down in another EU-Country before? [ ]Yes [ ]No IF YES: Where___________________?
Why did you move on? [ ]Didn’t get asylum [ ]Other___________________ 9) Do you speak any European language other than English? [ ]Yes [ ]No
Block 2: Network:
This block tries to capture if the migration network of the migrant has transnational links to the UK or other European countries.
Links to the UK are important for Hypothesis H1, H2 and H4. Links to other European countries other than the UK are important because they relativize the importance of family ties for the migrant’s decision to migrate to the UK.
Block 3: Geographic Imagination:
The scales that aim to measure the geographic imagination are formed around the observation of central tendency among test participants that are confronted with scales. Hollingworth (1910) explains this phenomenon: “Since the work of the early investigators of the time since the concept of the “indifference point’ (I.P.) has played
Block 2: Network
10) Do you have someone to contact in UK once you are there? [ ]Yes [ ]No
IF YES: Who?:
[ ]Family? [ ]No [ ]Husband/Wife/Romantic partner [ ]Children [ ]Father [ ]Mother [ ]Uncle [ ] Aunt [ ]Brother/Sister [ ]Cousin [ ]Grandpa [ ]Grandma
[ ]other_______________ [ ]Family friends
[ ]From the same village/town [ ]Somebody I know from work
[ ]Somebody I met during my travel to the UK
[ ]Other:_______________________________________________________________ 11) Do you have Family living in countries of the EU other than the U.K? [ ]Yes [ ]No
IF YES: Where___________?
Who? [ ]Husband/Wife [ ]Children [ ]Father [ ]Mother [ ]Uncle [ ]Aunt [ ]Brother/Sister [ ]Cousin [ ]Grandfather [ ]Grandmother [ ]Other
