Abstract
In Crossroads, Boucher and Gest argue that the “liberal turn” around immigration policies observed by scholars such as Freeman, Joppke, or Soysal in the late-20th century ultimately did not prevail. Instead, they find that by 2011 immigration regimes across a range of OECD and non-OECD countries converged toward a “Market Model,” which heavily relies on (temporary) labor immigration and free mobility arrangements — at the expense of family and humanitarian immigration, as well as naturalization. As they write, “the Market Model permits governments to have it both ways — effectively sanitizing globalization from its purported ills but exploiting the economic benefits of human movement” (p. 156). In that sense, immigration policy seems to have aligned with liberalization tendencies visible in other areas such as labor market, trade, or social policy.
Their argument, and the immigration regime typology that underpins it, rests on a thorough analysis of demographic migration data from 30 countries in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. The data collected encompass three core dimensions of immigration statistics: the “Visa Mix” (i.e., the distribution of permanent immigration visas alongside labor, family, humanitarian, or other migrant categories); the ratio of temporary labor migrants to total immigration; and the naturalization rate. The book’s core chapters investigate each of these three aspects in detail, as well as their interactions. Particularly innovative is Boucher and Gest’s attention to the shifting distribution of permanent immigration visas and the rise of temporary labor migration.
This discussion is followed by a cluster analysis on the basis of which they advance a seven-fold typology of immigration regimes: (a) Neoliberal regimes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom) are characterized by high and diverse migrant populations, high proportions of (temporary) labor migrants, and high naturalization rates. (b) Humanitarian regimes (Finland, Sweden, the United States) have high immigrant populations and naturalization rates, but admissions are a matter of entitlement (to family reunification or humanitarian protection) rather than an economic tool. (c) Intra-Union regimes (Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland) are characterized by high immigration from within the European Union and restricted immigration from third countries, as well as low naturalization rates. (d) Extra-Union regimes (Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain) have diverse immigration populations, in part because of their colonial histories, and among the lowest ratios of temporary immigration. (e) Constrained regimes (Brazil, Japan, Mexico, South Korea) showcase some of the lowest naturalization and immigration rates, and a large share of those immigrants who are admitted come on temporary visas. Lastly, (f) Kafala regimes (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia), and (g) Quasi-Kafala regimes (China, Russia, Singapore) are the most extreme example of disregarding migrants’ sociopolitical demands and selecting immigrants based on economic interests. They allow immigration primarily for short-term labor, severely restrict family reunification, and have almost no avenues for naturalization.
With this typology, Boucher and Gest contribute to the burgeoning debate within migration studies on the evolution, determinants, and effectiveness of immigration policy across the world. Yet, their approach fundamentally departs from previous research in that it takes demographic immigration outcomes as a basis to investigate immigration regimes, rather than immigration policy data. While this data choice does not diminish the typology’s value, it is potentially problematic to use immigration outcomes as a baseline to categorize immigration policy regimes. Indeed, as the literature on street-level bureaucracy and implementation shows, and as the authors themselves acknowledge, immigration policies are rarely translated on the ground in uniform ways. Therefore, a more thorough discussion of how the use of demographic data affects the categorization of immigration regimes would have been welcome.
Similarly, while the book provides a historical perspective by bringing together the vast literature on the evolution of migration regimes across the world, the typology itself ultimately relies on data from a single year. This decision was dictated by data limitations and did clearly not stem from the authors’ lack of effort to expand the analysis longitudinally. Yet, the analysis would have been strengthened by a reflection on the way in which the specific context of 2011 — notably the enduring economic crisis worldwide and start of political upheavals in the Arab world — shaped immigration demographics. This reflection would have also provided an opportunity for outlining hypotheses on potential future reconfigurations of the typology.
In sum, the book provides a highly welcome tour d’horizon of the dynamics that structure contemporary migration regimes and succeeds in delivering a strong argument on the increasing marketization of immigration. It will be highly useful to immigration scholars and practitioners who are keen to learn about the variations and convergence of immigration regimes around the world in a pedagogical and concise way. For junior scholars, the book offers a starting point for case selection rationales and a bundle of research ideas on the determinants and evolution of immigration regimes, such as the role of a common colonial past or the extent to which autocratic rule determines the openness or closure of immigration regimes. For policymakers, the book and its companion website crossroads.earth will serve as useful references to situate their own countries within broader international trends and to look for future immigration policy inspirations.