Temporary migration and inequalities in the Asian

Abstract

Temporary migration (TM) has always been central in the global history of migration (Oltmer, 2016). In the 20th century, after the Second World War, the most common form of TM took place in the context of bilateral worker programs, such as the Bracero program between the United States and Mexico (Driscoll, 1999), the guest worker programs in Europe (Castles and Kosack, 1973), or in the temporary recruitment of migrant workers, mostly from Asia, by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (Battistella, 2015). While the guest worker schemes have been abandoned in Europe during the 1970s, which consequently led to a gradual decline of temporary labor movements, it expanded and continues to dominate population movements in the GCC and Asia.

In comparison to these migration contexts, movements in the Asian-European system were, with few exceptions (e.g. migration from India and Pakistan to the UK), less significant and might have received, therefore, only modest research attention. The volumes edited by Pitkänen et al. (2017, 2019), which compiled diverse studies on the two-way migration processes between Asia and Europe, are a notable exception. Some other studies have probed TM of specific migrant categories in the Asia-Europe migration system: European expatriates in China (Cai and Su, 2020), mobile academics returning to China (Wang, 2020), international students moving from Asia to Europe (Aksakal et al., 2019) and from Europe to Asia (Baas, 2019), or Thai berry-pickers working seasonally in Sweden and Finland (Niyomsilpa et al., 2017), have been scrutinized. Despite these efforts to understand the reasons for and the outcomes of TM, the question remains: what exactly is temporary migration?

This question has been answered in different ways in policy and in academic debates. From a policy perspective, TM is often defined as a specific form of migration with a return or onward movement intention after having resided for a limited period in the country of destination (European Commission, 2020). This period is often considered as a time, in which migrants are taking up a job and sending money back home (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015). In many discourses, the phenomenon is seen as an economically motivated movement (e.g., seasonal workers and intra company transferees). In more recent policy discourses, however, spouses of temporary migrants, international students or working holidaymakers are also included into the category of TM (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019), showing the recognition of non-labor migrant categories.

From an academic viewpoint, TM has been distinguished from permanent migration by conceptualizing temporary movers as guest workers or “sojourners”, as compared with settlers (Uriely, 1994). Moreover, it has been differentiated from other forms of non-permanent migration, for instance, circular migration, which is defined as “regular, repeated temporary migration” (Vertovec, 2007: 3) or liquid migration, which is understood as “temporary, flexible and unpredictable […] with workers ‘trying their luck’ in different European labor markets before settling or moving on or moving home” (Engbersen, 2018: 63–64). Also, the term “mobility” (Urry, 2012) was created to refer to the increasing trend towards temporary stays at the destination (King et al., 2016).

In these discussions, TM is often framed as driven by factors at the macro, meso or micro-levels. Also, the outcomes of temporary stays abroad have been studied, and findings have shown that different aspects of people’s life course trajectories, such as labor market opportunities, social belonging and emotional well-being during the stay abroad (Faist et al., 2017) and after their return (Wang, 2020), can be affected.

The objective of this special issue is to systematically analyze the dynamics shaping temporary migrants’ trajectories in the Asian–European system. To this end, this introduction proposes over the next sections a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the political, relational and subjective dimensions of TM, and relates these to processes generating social inequalities.

The political dimension: Migration management and inequalities

Political dynamics expressed in discourses, policies and institutional practices related to migration management can shape migration trajectories. Two sub-areas can be considered of particular relevance for TM: the securitization of migration; and the migration and development nexus.

Concerning the securitization of migration, Nyberg Sørensen (2012: 66) observes that in many policy discourses, “international migration is assumed to affect national security—either by posing a traditional security threat to territorial integrity, political independence, and peace or by posing a non-traditional security threat to cultural identity and social stability and coherence.” Managing migration means, from this vantage point, not only to control the quantity (how many), quality (who), but also the duration of stay through residence permits to govern the temporality (how long). Accordingly, many receiving countries restrict the entrance of foreign people by creating “protective walls” with solely “small doors that allow for specific flows” (Zolberg, 1989: 405). These narrow gates are often available for more privileged migrant categories (Ruhs and Martin, 2008). Within these selective immigration policies, obtaining a visa is relatively easy for international students and highly qualified professionals, who may plan to stay in the destination country for a limited period of time, until they graduate or finish their work assignment (Faist et al., 2017). In contrast, people who seek asylum or who intend to settle in the destination country for the purpose of family reunification—and therefore want to stay for a longer period of time or permanently—face major hurdles (Schmidt, 2020).

Temporary migration also received some attention in migration and development discourses, embraced as a strategy to achieve a “triple win situation” (Battistella, 2017). For countries of destination, international migration helps overcome challenges related to the demographic and economic development within the global economy. Temporary, along with circular migrants, are considered as the most effective actors to stimulate development in their home countries. They send remittances during their stays abroad as well as invest in the place of origin during and after their movements (Glick Schiller and Faist, 2010). Temporary migrants are also expected to gain human capital, professional knowledge, and skills during their stays in developed societies, which they can transfer to their home countries upon their return.

This “migration–development–security complex” (Nyberg Sørensen, 2012) within the framework of migration management has been criticized by several scholars. For instance, Castles argued that the management of migration is likely to depend on multiple dynamics, including on “factors arising from the social dynamics of the migratory process […] linked to globalization, transnationalism and North–South relationships and [on] factors within political systems” (Castles, 2004: 857). Rather than top-down processes, in fact, migration management requires the involvement of diverse actors especially from the civil society. Human rights concerns have been raised in relation to TM, including the curtailing of human and labor rights (e.g., participating in trade unions, or having access to social benefits) (Battistella, 2017). Similar reservations about TM have surfaced in Europe, including concerns that limiting migrants’ rights can result in longer-term mobility traps (Pitkänen et al., 2017). Therefore, discourses, policies, and programs promoting TM in Asia, Europe, and between the two regions can be considered as a “flawed system in need of reform” (Battistella, 2017).

The relational dimension: Interactions and inequalities

In general terms, interactions emphasizing the relationships and exchanges between migrants and the local population in both destination and origin countries represent a central sub-category of migrants’ integration. Most policy discourses and academic research on migrants’ integration has focused on permanent migrants’ incorporation in the destination country. From a policy viewpoint, temporary migrants are seen as unwilling, unable or not in need to be integrated. As Ottonelli and Torresi (2016) argue, temporary migrants are often perceived as foreigners with minimal cultural, political, and social participation in the receiving society.

However, there is much evidence showing that, migrants, from the very beginning of their stay in destination countries, are involved in integration processes as they confront various challenges. For a differentiated view of integration-related effects on temporary migrants, Esser’s (2001) classical model is useful (see also the contribution by Takuma Fujii in this special issue). It comprises four sub-fields: acculturation (linguistic and cultural resources); placement (social positioning in society); interaction (relationships); and identification (belonging). Several papers in this special issue particularly address the interactions between migrants and the local residents in different social contexts or relationships, such as, neighborhoods, workplaces or universities. These encounters can facilitate integration processes in other sub-fields and be supportive in achieving personal goals. For instance, frequent interaction between migrants and locals at work or at school can help migrants gain cultural insights into the working culture or the educational system in their destination countries. As migrants acquire cultural and social capital, their acculturation process is facilitated and migrants are better able to attain to their professional or lifestyle goals (e.g., gaining pertinent work or university experiences in the destination countries).

However, interactions do not necessarily have positive outcomes for mobile people. Temporary migrants are often left out in integration policies and particular programs because their integration is “not considered necessary, given their intended temporary residence or employment in the country” (Collyer et al., 2020: 2). For example, in Portugal, except for language courses, integration support to temporary migrants is minimal (Sousa et al., 2020). In the UK and Canada, there is hardly any support given to low-skilled migrant workers (Samuk, 2020). This “integration vacuum” (Aksakal and Reslow, 2019) for temporary migrants can have negative consequences. For instance, the lack of linguistic and cultural capital may lead to stigmatization (i.e., a negative stereotyping) and discrimination (i.e., unequal treatment and social exclusion from social memberships) of newcomers by the local population (Massey, 2007).

Migrants observe these dynamics and interpret them at the individual level. In doing so, they subjectively create certain structures of relevance that guide their future social actions (Blumer, 1973). Consequently, they adjust their individual behaviors, including their interactions with others, accordingly. This can lead to migrants increasingly building relationships with other non-native people or with co-nationals. At the same time, it can lead to dissociation from the majority society or social segregation (Musterd, 2005). The geographic separation of the population according to their ethnic and socioeconomic positions can have, as shown for the US, long-term inequality-related outcomes (Portes and Zhou, 1993). As addressed by some papers in this special issue, these processes can not only affect relationships and social positions of migrants but also shape aspirations toward future migration plans, which can be especially relevant for highly qualified migrants.

The integration into countries of migrants’ destination represents one important field in the context of (temporary) migration and inequalities. Yet, by addressing integration as a process deeply embedded in national frameworks, namely, the receiving society, many classic integration approaches fall into the trap of “methodological nationalism” (Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2003). The recognition of the importance of migrants’ transnationality since the beginning of the 1990s was accompanied by the realization that mobile people are often intensively connected with societies of migrants’ origin (Glick Schiller et al., 1992).

Recent research has uncovered different kinds of “transnational social practices” among family members, friends, or community members that potentially solidify cross-border social spaces among mobile and non-mobile people (Faist et al., 2013). Transnational ties and practices especially matter among temporary movers. These social spaces represent particular bidirectional channels of social support and protection. In the case of Asian temporary migrants in the Netherlands, Reslow (2017) noted that migrants not only had frequent communication with their families and friends back home but they also received occasional financial remittances to overcome hardship during their stays abroad. However, transnational involvements can also be linked to inequalities. As shown by Aksakal in this special issue, the capability and the particular form of using cross-border social capital can facilitate career development in some cases, and in other cases, hardly have any influence, resulting in uneven professional paths among the studied migrants.

The subjective dimension: Migration aspirations and inequalities

Most theoretical approaches focusing on the individual level aim to explain how rational choices lead to decisions to emigrate. The neoclassical micro theory considers that would-be migrants use their human capital as profitably as possible, and therefore, engage in cost–benefit calculations before migration (e.g., Borjas, 1989). The expectancy–value theory that represents a sociological variant of rational choice approaches expands this idea and claims that individuals often make decisions and take actions against the background of certain personal intentions and personal evaluations about the questions of if and how these intentions can be best realized (De Jong and Fawcett, 1981). In short, would-be migrants will prefer the action that has the highest evaluated benefit (value) and the highest subjective probability of achievement (expectation). This short analysis indicates the relevance of motivation-based psychological tendencies on the subjective level that can determine deliberate behaviors (Albarracín et al., 2008). The development and translation of these attitudes, which has been frequently discussed as migrant aspirations (Carling and Collins, 2018), into concrete decisions and practices might depend on many factors. This includes the capabilities within a broader opportunity structure (De Haas, 2011) that are often related to or shaped by an individual’s achieved and ascribed characteristics. Many studies have focused on aspiration as a factor for decision-making before migration takes place. However, aspirations might also be relevant even after migration has been undertaken. Portes et al. (1978) address the characteristics and determinants of aspirations of immigrants after arriving in the destination, and these are often shaped by immigrants’ rational evaluation of their own skills and achievements in the past.

Discussions on temporary migrants’ aspirations however often overlook motivations to further involve in spatial mobility (e.g., onward or return migration). This might be linked to overall aspirations since the beginning of the sojourn or to changes in intentions during the stay abroad. Cerase (1974) identifies among Italians who have previously lived in the US four types of return aspirations: “failure” (i.e., due to dissatisfaction and issues in the host country); “conservatism” (i.e., due to strong feeling to the homeland); “retirement” (i.e., due to the reason to live in old age in the place of origin); and “innovation” (i.e., due to the idea to promote the development and social change in the home community).

Migration aspirations can change over time. This idea is illustrated by research into the changing aspirations of Syrian refugees in Turkey, who developed a sense of feeling at home in Turkey after some time, while their imaginations of Europe changed. As a consequence, the desire to reach Europe by some Syrian refugees diminished and was replaced by the wish to stay in Turkey (Rottmann and Kaya, 2020). In a similar vein, in this special issue, Odynets critically addresses the concept of “transit migration” to Europe by drawing on empirical fieldwork in Ukraine.

Also, migrants’ aspirations can be related to inequalities in various ways. For example, in their encounters, both migrants and locals are involved in processes of social cognition, representing schemas to assess themselves, as well as the individuals and social groups surrounding them. This basic idea is expressed in the stereotype content model, which identifies “warmth and competence” (Fiske, 2014) as two dimensions through which (mobile) people are stereotyped, that is, categorized, judged and labeled. Negative stereotyping is often expressed in the abovementioned introduced dynamics of stigmatization and discrimination of people and groups with different attributes (Link and Phelan, 2001). This implies that temporary migrants’ experiences of stigmatization and discrimination in everyday life, in the labor market, or by institutions can lead to feelings of relative deprivation and can hinder their integration as well as their career development. As a consequence, this can result not only in a mismatch between the initial aspirations and the real experiences abroad, but also in frustration and disincentives to pursue initial goals associated with migration (Aksakal and Schmidt, 2020). In addition, these dynamics can result in changing migration plans (e.g., return or onward migration).

Both dynamics can have an important effect on temporary migrants’ social position in the country of destination and may have implications for intra-generational social mobility. The aspirations among temporary migrants and changes in plans are discussed by several papers in this special issue. By focusing on migrants’ subjective viewpoints, they also pay attention to the aspirations during their stay in the countries of destination.

The papers in this special issue provide empirical support for the operation of these different dimensions of TM at different levels. This means, for instance, that global discussions on TM (macro-level) can shape national policies and institutional practices on immigration policies and integration measures (meso-level). This, in turn, can lead to particular migration experiences that influence the aspirations of migrants and the social and professional outcomes related to the migration project (micro-level).

The contributions in this special issue

In this special issue, we bring together five case studies of temporary migration in the Asian–European transnational social space. Three contributions—by Mustafa Aksakal, Karen Anne Liao and Maruja Asis, and Svitlana Odynets—are based on data gathered from the collaborative research project “Transnational Migration in Transition: Transformative Characteristics of Temporary Mobility of People (EURA-NET).” The articles by Tomoko Hayakawa and Takuma Fujii complement the discussions by focusing on topics that were not explicitly addressed by the EURA-NET project.

In her paper, Hayakawa discusses how the increasing selectivity of migration policies in the UK, that admits some skilled temporary migrants but restricts the immigration of low-skilled temporary migrants, has led to a situation, in which temporary migrants are suffering from severe disadvantages in their migration experiences. Drawing on qualitative interviews with Filipino migrants, employers, local and national authority officials, and support groups in the UK, she shows that the alleged dichotomies “skilled” and “low-skilled” are arbitrary and fluid in the context of temporary migration. Due to the very dynamic nature of changes to the temporary migration schemes in the UK, temporary migrants face difficulties in planning their stays and their future careers, and are often forced into illegality. The author also concludes that existing inequalities between temporary migrants with regards to their socioeconomic status are, in many cases, strengthened by the UK’s immigration and social policies.

The integration processes of Japanese music students in Germany into German and transnational art worlds is probed by Fujii’s article. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Japanese music students in Germany, he stresses the importance of a transnational perspective for understanding the reasons for this form of temporary migration, as well as its effects on music practices. The author argues that the art practices of aspiring Japanese students not only depend on institutional conditions in Germany, but also on Japanese students’ transnational networks, including contacts in Germany, in Japan, and elsewhere. With regards to academic and policy debates about temporary migrants’ integration this means that Japanese music students’ integration success should not be measured based on their acquisition of the German language and culture and neither on their efforts to adapt German traditions in the way how music is taught and performed. In contrast, the evidence suggests that integration, needs to be understood as a process of incorporation of music students into the transnational social spaces of aspiring artists.

Aksakal’s paper analyzes the life stories of highly qualified migrants from China and India who study, work or transit from university to work in Germany. For a better understanding of the career development among these professionals, the paper focuses, on the one hand, on the use of social capital in entrepreneurial activities, and on the other hand, on policies and institutional practices to assess migrants in general, and those with temporary permits in particular. In the analysis of the two coins of the career medal, it is highlighted that while some temporary migrants can incorporate easily into the host country, many others do not achieve this due to diverse factors. The author concludes that in contrast to some policy discourses, highly qualified migrants’ professional trajectories are neither uniform nor linear processes; rather, they can be shaped by very diverse factors.

Liao and Asis apply the concept “migrant aspirations” to the context of Filipino graduate students who returned from Europe to the Philippines. Based on qualitative interviews with Filipino temporary migrants who graduated in Europe, the authors find that return aspirations were shaped by career and family-related factors. In addition, the possibility to apply the skills and knowledge that they obtained during their studies in Europe in the labor market influenced the desire of returnees to stay or to leave the Philippines again. The paper thus, on the one hand, reveals the desires, motivations and meanings that international students attach to overseas education. On the other hand, the authors show the importance of social remittances for a successful re-integration into the Filipino labor market. They find that, attempts to change the work culture by returnees are challenged by diverse factors, including the resistance by their employers or by inflexible policies and institutional practices.

Finally, Odynets’ contribution analyzes how migrants from former Soviet and South Asian countries adapt to the life in Ukraine when their plans for onward migration to the European Union (EU) or the US do not work out. Drawing on qualitative interviews with these initially temporary migrants, who might become permanent residents in Ukraine, she elaborates on the importance of social capital in light of the lack of sufficient state support. Based on her findings, she problematizes the concept “transit migration” and the way Ukraine is often portrayed as a “transit country” in academic and policy documents. The author argues that this concept is ambivalent in the context of Asian migrants, who initially intended to pass through Ukraine but who had to adapt to a permanent stay in the country when their intentions to cross the border into the EU failed. She identifies three strategies that these migrants apply: going underground; using existing networks to attempt the legalization of their stay; or continue intending to move on to the EU.

The five papers highlight the structural, relational and subjective dynamics that shape TM and outcomes for migrants. Table 1 summarizes how the papers surface the different dimensions of TM.

Table 1.

Overview of the papers and their relation to the temporary migration (TM) dimensions.

Author(s)	Title	Relation to introduced dimension(s)
Tomoko Hayakawa	Skill levels and inequality in migration: A case study of Filipino migrants in the UK	Political: Arbitrary distinction between skilled and low-skilled forms of TM leads to disadvantages.
Takuma Fujii	Integration of aspiring artists: Japanese music students in Germany	Relational: Japanese music students’ in Germany integration into transnational art worlds.
Mustafa Aksakal	Uneven professional paths: A study on highly qualified Chinese and Indian migrants in Germany	Political: Temporary schemes and assessment hamper career development Relational: The relevance of social capital for career development Subjective: Aspiration can change due to issues caused by political assessment
Karen Anne Liao and Maruja Asis	Back to the Philippines: Connecting aspirations, return and social remittances in international student migration	Subjective: Mismatches between aspirations and the transmission of social remittances upon return and desires to remigrate Political/institutional: Workplace factors, policies and institutional practices as factors affecting Filipino returnees’ decisions to stay or to remigrate
Svitlana Odynets	Not really at home: Adaptation strategies of Asian migrants in Ukraine	Subjective: Migrants’ adaptation to the life in Ukraine when initial intentions to move on fail Relational: The relevance of networks in the adaptation of migrantsPolitical: Migration policies of the European Union which hinder migrants from continuing their journey; failure of migration policies in Ukraine

Source: Authors’ compilation.

It is hoped that the focus on the Asia–Europe transnational space has provided new insights, or findings specific to this migration corridor, that will further our understanding of TM and how temporary migrants respond to the opportunities and challenges it presents for them.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this paper.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aksakal

Schmidt

(2020) Integration needs and support offered: The effects of support on young Spaniards in Germany. International Migration 58(1): 119–135.

Aksakal

Reslow

(2019) (Un)intended Consequences in High-Skilled Migrants’ Integration and Inequalities: A comparison of Policy in Germany and the Netherlands. COMCAD working papers, No. 166. Beilefeld University. Available at: https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(en)/soz/ab6/ag_faist/downloads/WP_166.pdf

Aksakal

Bilecen

Schmidt

(2019) Qualitative sampling in research on international student mobility: Insights from the field in Germany. Globalisation, Societies and Education 17(5): 610–621.

Albarracín

Wang

Li H, et al. (2008) Structure of attitudes: Judgments, memory, and implications for change. In: Prislin R and Crano WD (eds) Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York; London: Psychology Press, 19–38.

Baas

(2019) The education–migration industry: International students, migration policy and the question of skills. International Migration 57(3): 222–234.

Battistella

(2015) Labour migration in Asia and the role of bilateral migration agreements. In: Panizzon

Zürcher

Fornalé

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of International Labour Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 299–324.

Battistella

(2017) Temporary labour migration: A flawed system in need of reform. In: Carerra S, Geddes A, Guild E, et al. (eds) Pathways towards Legal Migration into the EU: Reappraising Concepts, Trajectories and Policies. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 15–19.

Blumer

(1973) Der methodologische Standort des symbolischen Interaktionismus [The methodology of symbolic interactionism]. In: Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (ed.) Alltagswissen, Interaktion und Gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit [Everyday Knowledge, Interaction and Social Reality]. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 80–101. [In German.]

Borjas

(1989) Economic theory and international migration. International Migration Review 23(3): 457–485.

10.

Cai

(2020) Dwelling-in-travelling: Western expats and the making of temporary home in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies: 1–18. Epub ahead of print 7 April 2020. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2020.1739392.

11.

Carling

Collins

(2018) Aspiration, desire and drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(6): 909–926.

12.

Castles

(2004) The factors that make and unmake migration policies. International Migration Review 38(3): 852–884.

13.

Castles

Kosack

(1973) Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. London: Oxford University Press.

14.

Cerase

(1974) Expectations and reality: A case study of return migration from the United States to Southern Italy. International Migration Review 8(2): 245–262.

15.

Collyer

Hinger

Schweitzer

(2020) Politics of (dis)integration – An introduction. In: Hinger S and Schweitzer R (eds) Politics of (Dis)Integration. Cham: Springer, 1–18.

16.

De Haas

(2011) The determinants of international migration: Conceptualising policy, origin and destination effects. IMI Working Papers Series, No 32, April. Oxford: International Migration Institute. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/migpractice/docs/225/Determinants.pdf

17.

De Jong

Fawcett

(1981) Motivation for migration: An assessment and a value-expectancy research model. In: De Jong GF and Gardner RW (eds) Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. New York: Pergamon Press, 13–58.

18.

Driscoll

(1999) The Tracks North: The Railroad Bracero Program of World War II. Texas: University of Texas Press.

19.

European Commission (2020) European Migration Network Glossary. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/temporary-migration_en

20.

Engbersen

(2018) Liquid migration and its consequences for local integration policies. In: Scholten P and Van Ostaijen M (eds) Between Mobility and Migration: The Multi-Level Governance of Intra-European Movement. IMISCOE Research Series. Cham: Springer, 63–76.

21.

Esser

(2001) Integration und Ethnische Schichtung [Integration and Ethnic Stratification]. [In German.] Available at: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-40.pdf

22.

Faist

Aksakal

Schmidt

(2017) Indian High-Skilled Migrants and International Students in Germany: Migration Behaviors, Intentions and Development Effects. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

23.

Faist

Fauser

Reisenauer

(2013) Transnational Migration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

24.

Fiske

(2014) Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. 3rd. ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

25.

Glick Schiller

Faist

(2010) Introduction: migration, development, and social transformation. In: Glick Schiller N and Faist T (eds) Migration, Development and Transnationalization. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1–21.

26.

Glick Schiller

Szanton-Blanc

Basch

(1992) Toward a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

27.

King

Lulle

Morosanu

, et al. (2016) International Youth Mobility and Life Transitions in Europe: Questions, Definitions, Typologies and Theoretical Approaches. Working Paper No. 86. Brighton: University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research. Available at: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/61441/1/mwp86.pdf

28.

Link

Phelan

(2001) Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 363–385.

29.

Massey

(2007) Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

30.

Musterd

(2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes, and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs 27(3): 331–348.

31.

Niyomsilpa

Kanchanachitra

Chuenglertsiri

, et al. (2017) Transnational migration between Thailand and Europe: Migrants’ experiences and perceptions. In: Pitkänen P, Korpela M, Aksakal M, et al. (eds) Characteristics of Temporary Migration in European–Asian Transnational Social Spaces. Dordrecht: Springer, 81–98.

32.

Nyberg Sørensen

(2012) Revisiting the migration–development nexus: From social networks and remittances to markets for migration control. International Migration 50(3): 61–76.

33.

Oltmer

(2016) Globale Migration: Geschichte und Gegenwart [Global Migration: Past and Present]. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck. [In German.]

34.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2019) International Migration Outlook 2019. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

35.

Ottonelli

Torresi

(2016) Temporary migration and the shortcomings of citizenship. In: Solé C, Parella S, Martí TS, et al. (eds) Impact of Circular Migration on Human, Political and Civil Rights: A Global Perspective. Cham: Springer, 153–172.

36.

Pitkänen P, Hayakawa T, Schmidt K, et al. (eds) (2019) Temporary Migration, Transformation and Development: Evidence from Europe and Asia. New York: Routledge.

37.

Pitkänen P, Korpela M, Aksakal M, et al. (eds) (2017) Characteristics of Temporary Migration in European–Asian Transnational Social Spaces. Dordrecht: Springer.

38.

Portes

Zhou

(1993) The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530(1):74–96.

39.

Portes

McLeod

Parker

(1978) Immigrant aspiration. Sociology of Education 51(4): 241–260.

40.

Reslow

(2017) Unfulfilled expectations: The contradictions of Dutch policy on temporary migration. In: Pitkänen P, Korpela M, Aksakal M, et al. (eds) Characteristics of Temporary Migration in European–Asian Transnational Social Spaces. Dordrecht: Springer, 193–212.

41.

Rottmann

Kaya

(2020) ‘We can’t integrate in Europe. We will pay a high price if we go there’: Culture, time and migration aspirations for Syrian refugees in Istanbul. Journal of Refugee Studies. Epub ahead of print 6 April 2020. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/feaa018.

42.

Ruhs

Martin

(2008) Numbers vs. rights: Trade-offs and guest worker programs. International Migration Review 42(1): 249–265.

43.

Samuk

(2020) Can integration be temporary? The (dis)integration of temporary migrant workers in Canada and the UK. In: Hinger S and Schweitzer R (eds) Politics of (Dis)Integration. Cham: Springer, 61–79.

44.

Schmidt

(2020) Formen und kategorisierungen von migration [Forms and categorizations of migration]. In: Faist T, Bilecen B, Schmidt K, et al. (eds) Soziologie der Migration [Sociology of Migration]. Sozialwissenschaftliche Einführungen, Berlin: DeGruyter Oldenbourg, 55--72. [In German.]

45.

Sousa

Rodrigues

Figueiredo

, et al. (2020) Rural temporary migrant workers: Adjustment and integration in Portugal. Psychological Thought 13(1): 146–168.

46.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2015) Glossary: Migrants and Migration. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/10611/20171126022441/http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/migrant/

47.

Uriely

(1994) Rhetorical ethnicity of permanent sojourners: The case of Israeli immigrants in the Chicago area. International Sociology 9(4): 431–445.

48.

Urry

(2012) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

49.

Vertovec

(2007) Circular migration: The way forward in global policy? Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.7064&rep=rep1&type=pdf

50.

Wang

(2020) Time in migration: Temporariness, precarity and temporal labour amongst Chinese scholars returning from the Global North to South. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46(11): 2127–2144.

51.

Wimmer

Glick Schiller

(2003) Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review 37(3): 576–610.

52.

Zolberg

(1989) The next waves: Migration theory for a changing world. International Migration Review 23(3): 403–430.

Temporary migration and inequalities in the Asian–European migration system

Abstract

The political dimension: Migration management and inequalities

The relational dimension: Interactions and inequalities

The subjective dimension: Migration aspirations and inequalities

The contributions in this special issue

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References