The Vision of European Integration Through Migration

By Victoria Mancuso

University of San Diego Department of Political Science Dr. Pfau May 2013

ABSTRACT:

Globalization, defined as a proliferation of cross-border flows and transnational networks, has changed the context for migration. New technologies of communication and transport allow frequent and multi-directional flows of people, ideas and cultural symbols. The erosion of nation-state sovereignty and autonomy weakens systems of border-control and migrant assimilation. The result is a transformation of the migratory process with new forms of mobility and incorporation. The evolving nature of this cultural context inherently conditions the relations and reactions amongst nations and its peoples. However, whether or not this context improves interactions amongst these State actors is a point of contention for modern political theorists. This study seeks to unravel the perplexities of the relationship between migration and integration, specifically as seen in the European region.

INTRODUCTION:

Ensuing from the current trend towards globalization, the international landscape of our world today is transforming. With technologies advancing and countries developing, it seems that the world is more connected than ever. Consequently, international integration, defined as a proliferation of cross-border flows and transnational networks, has changed the context for migration. New technologies of communication and transport allow frequent and multi-directional

flows of people, ideas and cultural symbols. The erosion of nation-state sovereignty and autonomy weakens systems of border-control and migrant assimilation. The result is a transformation of the migratory process itself with a new form of mobility and incorporation. The evolving nature of this cultural context inherently conditions the relations and reactions amongst nations and its peoples. However, whether or not this context improves interactions amongst these State actors is a point of contention in the realm of international relations. Being a region commonly categorized by its proximity politically, economically, and socially, Europe stands at the forefront of the dialectical duality between migration and integration. Given this matrix of proximity in Europe, the relation between migration and integration can be seen in its most extreme form. Ultimately, with the increasing ease of communication and travel, transnational forms of ethnic and migrant organization have emerged as a side-effect of the increased interdependency and porousness of the European nations. In effect a new age of migration has manifest, in which multiculturalism and a multilayered citizenry has challenged the sovereignty and primacy of the European nation states. The continued flow of new and increasingly diverse migrants to the European continent has challenged the nation states unambiguous control over territorially defined policy-making, population movement, and citizenship. As a result, the EU seems caught between two contradictory roles: as a forum for intergovernmental cooperation to save the declining powers of the nation state; or, alternately, the context for establishing a genuinely new, regional supranational body, in which forms of transnational social and political action are enabled beyond the classic

confines of national political and societal arenas. Pitted between these two polarities, the current dilemma facing the EU begs the question; does migration promote or hinder integration? If the former premise of the question reigns true, nation-states will relinquish a degree of their national sovereignty to the hands of the European Union. However, if the latter premise prevails, nation-states may rescind from the EU in an attempt to reinforce their national power. Ultimately, while migration may incorporate nations and peoples, it does not necessarily integrate them. Hereby, this study seeks to unravel the perplexities of the paradoxical relationship between migration and integration, specifically as seen in the European region.

LITERATURE:

Vexed between the grapples of the evolving international landscape, Europe is at the crux of political thought and theory regarding the nature of migration and integration. Grappling with the many complexities of the European context, modern political theorists are divided on the affect and hold migration has on integration. At one end of the spectrum theorist argue migration is a detriment to European integration, while at the opposite end of the spectrum others assert that migration is actually a benefit to European integration. Ultimately, the broad scope of literature on the matter reflects a number of diverging, overlapping, and converging approaches to the relationship between migration and integration.

Standing in the camp that favors a positive relation between migration and integration, Stephen Castless Migration and Community Formation Under Conditions of Globalization rethinks the dynamics of the migratory process under the new context of a globalized world. Following from this framework, Caste highlights two main models of migration and incorporation that have dominated academic and policy approaches to migration. First the settler model, according to which immigrants gradually integrated into economic and social relations reunited or formed families and eventually became assimilated into the host society. Second, the temporary migration model, according to which migrant workers stayed in the host country for a limited period, and maintained their affiliation with their country of origin. However, as globalization erodes nation-state sovereignty and autonomy weakens systems of border-control and migrant assimilation, there is a resulting transformation of the material and cultural practices associated with migration and community formation. Consequently, boundaries are blurred between different categories of migrants and there is an emergence of transnational communities, multiple identities, and multilayered citizenship. Hereby, Castles asserts that within this context the settler migration model will become more dominant, breeding a higher degree of incorporation and integration. Thus, for Castles, migration does in fact promote integration. Following from this notion, in Migrating North: Crisis Pushes European Integration in Unexpected Ways Tony Danaher argues that the European debt crisis has roused an influx of migrants, which has strengthen integration in Europe, particularly for the EU. Accordingly, this mass migration has had profound

ramifications on integration weaving together demographics, labor markets, and the political dynamics of nation-states. Moreover, Danaher observes that this wave of migrants is more conducive with the settler migration model, and thus will evade some of the negative implications the temporary migrant model has offered in the past. The current trend is attracting young highly educated workers who will not only contribute more to dynamic and productive corporate cultures, but also be more likely to establish roots and set up a life for themselves. As a result, nationstates will reap the economic benefits of a GDP growth and a broader tax base. Consequently, there will be inclination to craft more ways to encourage migrates to stay, and thus integration will spike. Ultimately, Danaher asserts that the migration encouraged by the Euro crisis may well be forcing the rapid development of a united and integrated Europe. Similar to Danahers argument, in Regional and Global Economic Integration Vikas Shah reasons that migration has not only yielded financial benefits in Euro, but it has also fostered financial integration within the EU. Citing the EUs incredible degree of trade and financial integration, Shah argues that the mobility in and of Europe has aided the EU in establishing a single currency and set the foundations for its success. Primarily, this mobile integration, or foot traffic, has not only worked to blur the borders of national boundaries but also of domestic fiscal policy. Subsequently the EU has been successful in achieving complete exchange rate stability across the Euro area. Ultimately, Shah asserts that migration has helped establish economic unity in the EU, and thus increased European integration.

While there is clearly a strong argument for the positive side of the debate on the relationship between migration and integration, the opposing argument has an equally strong bearing that proves to be just as warranted. At the head of this position, Alfred C. Aman Jr. asserts that migration and integration actually have a negative relationship. Accordingly, as globalization takes hold in some domains, nation-states resist in others, notably in the control of migration. As transnational networks proliferate, integration appears to infringe upon national sovereignty. Subsequently, nation-states attempt to resist this loss of autonomy by limiting the influx of immigrants, who can be seen to undermine their national interests and identity. Consequently, as integration increases migration decreases. Thus, there is a negative relationship between migration and integration. Following from Amans rationale, In Immigrant Integration in Europe in a Time of Austerity, Elizabeth Collett propounds that the Euro debt crisis has challenged the multiculturalism model of integration, leading nation-states to tighten their reigns on migration. As it follows, Collett argues that migration is fueling native unemployment, unraveling national identities, and undermining the solidarity inherent in national social models. Highlighting the impact immigration has on the labor market, she further argues that migration compromises economic opportunity and thus induces animosities, which spur reclusive tendencies that are contrary to integration. Capitalizing on the economic detriments of migration, Collett asserts that migration ultimately impedes integration and entrenches financial devastation.

Offering the political counterpart to Colletts economic rationale, In Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship, Rainer Baubck and John Rundell focus on the multicultural aspect of migration, unveiling the complications it presents for integration. Accordingly, ongoing immigration from diverse origins has inserted new ethnic minorities into formerly homogenous populations. Stronger claims for cultural rights and escalating hostilities between ethnic minorities and national majorities follow from this proliferation of mixed identities. Thus, in many countries multiculturalism is perceived as a challenge rather than an enrichment. Consequently, Baubck and Rundell argue that migration goes together with escalating hostilities between ethnic minorities and national majorities, providing a challenge to integration. While the international community remains divided on the implications migration has on integration, it seems that amongst these diverging positions there is one common current. This commonality is the notion that the relationship between migration and integration operates in two distinct manners, both politically and economically. Hereby, in order to adequately assess international reality, migration and integration must be examined along these two separate baselines.

RESEARCH DESIGN: This study is carried out using the MicroCase Analysis System, the statistical analysis and data management software for political and social scientists. The unit of analysis used is the Global file, containing data for the worlds largest 172 nation-

states. However, the cases studied were limited to the nation-states exclusive to the European region. The question at hand whether or not migration promotes or hinders integration was divided into two apparatuses one being a political lens the other being an economic. Conceptually, the dependent variable, integration, is politically defined as political engagement via membership in international organizations and incorporation in transnational networks. Conversely, integration is economically defined as economic interdependence via trade relations. Mirroring this structure, the operational definitions are as follows; political engagement measures globalization in terms of a country's memberships in international organizations, military and financial contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, ratification of treaties, and governmental transfer payments and receipts (KEARNEY, 2005), while economic interdependence measures total trade as exports plus imports in a percentage of GDP (WDI,2005). Migration, being the one and only independent variable, is conceptually defined as a nation-states influx of emigrants and immigrants and operationally defined as the net average annual number of migrants during the period. (WDI, 2005).

For the political model the variables denoted are as follows; Independent Variable: Net Migration Level of Measurement: Ratio Unit of Measurement: One migrant Range: -2000000 to 6200000 N: 38

Dependent Variable: GLOBAL-POL Level of Measurement: Ordinal Unit of Measurement: Scale points Range: 1= Low globalization to 62=High globalization N: 23 Subset Variable: REGION (Europe) Level of Measurement: Nominal Unit of Measurement: N/A Range: N/A N: 38

For the economic model, the variables are denoted as follows; Independent Variable: Net Migration Level of Measurement: Ratio Unit of Measurement: One migrant Range: -2000000 to 6200000 N: 38 Dependent Variable: Trade%/GDP Level of Measurement: Ratio Unit of Measurement: Percent Range: 0 to 100 N: 37 Subset Variable: REGION (Europe)

Level of Measurement: Nominal Unit of Measurement: N/A Range: N/A N: 38

THEORY: Historically, the relationship between migration and integration functions in two separate and distinctive manners. Politically, the cross-cultural exchange migration evokes provides a viable route for European integration. As countries open their borders to migration, ethnic boundaries and national identities become blurred and diversified, thus yielding a more broad and dynamic constituency. As a result, nation-states are adopting a more inclusive ideology that deepens the roots of multiculturalism and promotes further integration. However, this inclusivity can be seen to hinder the economic fraction of integration. Accordingly, as immigration increases so too does economic competition. Consequently, migration can be perceived as a threat to individual prosperity and autonomy, evoking anxieties and hostilities amongst the domestic citizenry. In this vision, migration breads reclusive sentiments and protectionist mentalities that have been seen to thwart integration. Ultimately, migration and integration share a positive relationship politically, but a negative relationship economically.

HYPOTHESIS: For the political model, the hypothesis is as follows; in Europe, if migration increases, then integration will increase.

For the economic model, the hypothesis is as follows; in Europe, if migration increases, then integration will decrease.

DATA:

Political:
Map 1: Political Engagement by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Graph 1: Regression Analysis of Political Engagement by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Table 1: Regression Analysis of Political Engagement by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Multiple R-Squared Unstandardized B Standardized B t Statistical Significance

0.375 + 0.000 0.612 3.547** 0.01

Economic:
Map 2: Trade by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Graph 2: Regression Analysis of Trade by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Table 2: Regression Analysis of Trade by Net Migration, controlling for Europe

Multiple R-Squared Unstandardized B Standardized B t Statistical Significance

0.066 - 0.000 -0.257 -1.57 0.10

RESULTS: Although the theoretical basis of the relationship between migration and integration is inherently subjective, the empirical research provides an objective approach to the nature of this relationship. Corresponding to the research design the data is operationalized through two separate models, the political verses the economic. Subsequently, the results will be examined in such a manner to maintain cohesion in the design by differentiate the two models, but also in such a way that they may overlap for comparison and juxtaposition. Starting at the political level, Map 1 visually represents the relationship between political engagement1 and migration2. The correlation in the coloring of the maps depicts the similarity in the trends of migration and political engagement. As the spectrum of coloring increases from shades of yellow to orange to red, so too

does the range of the variables. Thus, areas more darkly colored in red represent nation-states with a higher level of political engagement or migration, while areas more lightly colored in yellow represent lower levels. As both maps shades seem to mirror each other, it can be deduced that nation-states that experience less migration also appear to be less politically integrated, while countries that experience higher levels of migration appear to be more politically integrated. Dissimilarly, Map 2, which visually represents the relationship between trade3 and migration2, appears to have contrasting coloring. Areas that are darkly shaded on the migration side of the map are lightly shaded on the trade side. The polarized coloring between the two maps depicts a negative relationship between trade and migration. Accordingly, nation-states that experience a higher level of migration appear to be less economically integrated. Following from these results, Graph 1 depicts the correlation between migration and political engagement, or political integration. As the scatter-plot appears to gradually disperse upward, the visual results from Map 1 are further supported. In effect, countries with higher levels of migration that are positioned farther right on the graph are also positioned higher up demonstrating that they also have higher levels of political engagement. The regression line further solidifies this correlation, depicting a positive slope. Ultimately, both variables share a similar trend, meaning that as migration increases so too does political engagement. Hereby, migration and political integration share a positive relationship. Also paralleling the results from Map 2, Graph 2 demonstrates that there is a negative correlation between migration and trade, or economic integration.

Visually, the scatter-plot gradually disperses downward, meaning countries that experience higher levels of migration, positioned farther right on the graph, actually have lower levels of trade, falling lower down on the graph. The regression line, which represents the general trend of the graph, depicts a negative slope, meaning that as migration increases trade decreases. Thus, migration and trade operate in an opposite manner, sharing an inverse relationship. Delving deeper into the implications of these relationships, Table 1 summarizes the regression analysis for political engagement and migration, while Table 2 summarizes the regression analysis for trade and migration. As it follows, the multiple r-squared, or the coefficient of determination, measures the total variation in the independent variable that is explained by the dependent variable. In this case, the multiple r-squared in Table 1 is 0.375, meaning that 37.5% of political engagement is explained by migration. In other words, migration impacts 37.5% of political engagement. Conversely, in Table 2, the multiple r-squared is 0.066, meaning that 6.6% of trade is explained by migration, or migration impacts 6.6% of trade. Although it is now clear that migration has a bearing on both political and economic integration, it appears that it has far greater implications in the political realm of integration than in the economic. While multiple-r squared captures the scope of the relationship between the two variables, the unstandardized-b value discloses the nature of these implications. Accordingly, unstandardized-b represents the slope of the regression line, or the amount of change in independent variable due to a change of 1 unit of dependent variable. Subsequently, in Table 1 the unstandardized-b value is + 0.000, meaning

that for each additional migrant, the political engagement increases by 0.0 units on the scale. Comparably, in Table 2 the unstandardized-b values is -0.000, meaning that for each additional migrant, trade decreases by 0.000%. Although it appears that migration has zero impact on both political and economic integration, the results are deceivingly misleading due to the trivial scale unit of measurement for migration. Limited to a single migrant, there is a large discrepancy between the independent variable of migration and the dependent variables, which measures causations for an entire nation. Consequently, the impact one individual alone has on an entire nation is inherently negligible. Ultimately, migration is measured at an individual level, while integration is measured at a national level, and thus the two do not accurately translate into an unstandardized measurement. Although the unstandardized-b proves to be a futile measurement, the standardized-b offers an alternative measurement that more accurately conveys the nature of the relationship between migration and integration. Providing a common denominator for the variables in question, the standardized-b value presents the relative relationship of the two variables. The standardized-b value in Table 1 is 0.612, meaning that for every one additional standard deviation of migration political engagement increases by 0.612 on the scale. For Table 2 the standardized-b value is -0.257, meaning that for every one additional standard deviation of migration trade decreases by 0.257%. The relative importance of these results indicates that migration has more of an affect on political integration than it does on economic integration. Moreover, the net impact migration has on integration overall is positive, as the positive political results outweigh the negative

economic results. In other words, migration is a more effective than defective as a source of integration. Following from this determination, the t values translate into the statistical significance, revealing the validity of the results. According to Table 1, the t value for the relationship between migration and political engagement is 3.547**, which yields a statistical significance of 0.01. Hereby, there is less than a 1% possibility that the relationship between migration and political engagement is due to chance. In other words, there is a 99% certainty that migration impacts 37% of political engagement, and thus has a positive bearing on integration. Hereby, politically, the relationship between migration and integration is very significant. According to Table 2 the t-value for the relationship between migration and trade is -1.57, meaning that by MicroCases standards the relationship is not statistically significant. However, this value translates into a statistical significance of 0.10, meaning there is still less than a 10% probability that the relationship between migration and trade is due to chance. In other words, there is a 90% certainty that migration impacts 6% of trade, and thus has a negative bearing on integration. Consequently, migration is a better indication of political integration than it is of economic integration. Ultimately, the relationship between migration and political integration is stronger than the relationship between migration and economic integration and thus is an overall better measure of international reality.

CONCLUSIONS: Proceeding the data analysis, it is concluded that the relationship between migration and integration do operate in two distinct manners. Subsequently, the results support the initial hypotheses demonstrating that migration increases integration politically, but decreases integration economically. Thus, the null hypothesis for both the political and economic paradigms may be rejected. Furthermore, the positive correlation between migration and political integration proved to be far stronger than the negative economic correlation between migration and trade. Hereby, the results reveal that migration has a greater impact on political integration than it does on economic integration. Moreover, with a higher statistical significance, the results for political integration are also more sound than the results for economic integration, meaning migration is a more valid indicator of integration politically than economically. Herein forth, overall migration has a stronger bearing on political integration than economic integration. Therefore, when considering the trajectory of European integration as a whole, the political benefits of migration outweigh its economic detriments.

SIGNIFICANCE: Adhering to the long standing question of which comes first, political or economic unity it appears that in Europe, economics yield to politics. For the European Union this means political unity is foundational in the pursuit of successful and enduring integration. European integration is the political

supranationalization of sovereignty understood in its contemporary form as the overlapping of political powers and economic policy in a specifically European geographical space that is both responding to a globalizing transnational processes of associated powers, particularly those guided through international capital, while at the same time creating new political institutions which formalize the possibility of transnational action of a specifically delimited European kind. The essentially ambiguous dynamic of the European integration leaves the EU in a paradoxical relation with the forms of transnationalism, such as migration, trade and political engagement. As a regional entity - between nation state and united nations the EU and its Europeanization often cut across, or contradict these universalizing movements and the universalistic norms. This study suggests that while migration touches upon both the political and economic strategies of integration, the economic approach is ineffective and poorly suited for seizing the dynamics of Europeanization. Consequently, the EU must follow along the more viable route to unification, integrating along political lines. Only then may there be a push for an immigration policy that seeks to reconnect policy with the labor market mechanisms and market building needs that are actually the primary cause of migration flows. Ultimately, in Europe the recipe for unfaltering unity is a heaping tablespoon of politics left to marinate with just a dash of economics as a finishing touch.