To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter examines how the growth of multiple visa categories created to accommodate labor shortages within South Korea’s restrictive immigration regime has led to the development of noncitizen rights hierarchies. I focus on three visa categories that represent the largest migrant groups in Korea: migrant workers, co-ethnic migrants, and so-called marriage migrants. Migrant claims to rights overlap with those made by citizens in their fundamental conceptions of human dignity and their appeals for state protections. But the scope of their claims has tended to be specific to their migrant subcategories or visa statuses: labor protections for migrant workers, equality among co-ethnic migrants, and state protections for marriage migrants. Even within the single national context of Korea, the struggle for rights by one migrant group does not necessarily make their claimed rights universal, or even accessible, to others.
Recent publications on Venice have started looking at the history of the migration from Dalmatia, Albania and Greece to Venice. The migrants came from the Balkans ravaged by wars and poverty to the metropolis which needed men for its army and rowers for its galleys. The increased influx of migrants began in the decade between 1430 and 1440 due to the Turkish threat. This chapter concerns itself with the manner in which the migrants affected the urban tissue of Venice in the fifteenth century. Which parts of Venice were inhabited by which migrant groups and what can this tell us about the socio-anthropological makeup of the city? After all, the impact the migrants was demographic and socio-economic. More specifically, the foundation of particular confraternities can be linked to particular ethnic groups. This chapter demonstrates the manner in which the cult of certain saints and devotional practices including the translation of relics affirmed Venice as the Mediterranean powerhouse.
The rise of top-heavy inequality—earnings concentration in a very thin layer of elites—calls into question our understanding of the distributional effects of the Liberal International Order. Far more people lose from globalization, and fewer gain, than traditional economic models suggest. We review three modern trade theories (neo-Heckscher-Ohlin-Stolper-Samuelson or H-O-S-S, new new trade theory, and economic geography) that each arrive at the conclusion of top-heavy inequality by introducing some form of unit heterogeneity—an assumption that the actors we once treated as identical actually differ from one another in important ways. Heterogeneity allows the gains from globalization to concentrate in a narrow segment of workers with superlative talents, extraordinarily productive firms, or heavily agglomerated cities. An analysis of European voting data shows that shocks from trade and migration elicit populist opposition only where the top 1 percent have gained the most. With few politically feasible alternatives to protectionism, most notably the failure of democracies to redistribute income, our analysis predicts a persistence of public support for antiglobalization parties, especially those on the Right.
Immigration surges have complex economic effects, and nationalist backlash has complex effects on social policy. The economic and fiscal effects of immigration are mixed in the short run, though clearly positive over the generations. There are four policy options relating to immigration and social safety nets: keeping immigration free, stopping it, discriminating again immigrants in entitlements, and selectivity in immigration. Chapter 11 weighs the political likelihoods.
Evidence that immigrants tend to be underserved by the health-care system in the hosting country is well documented. While the impacts of im/migration on health-care utilisation patterns have been addressed to some extent in the existing literature, the conventional approach tends to homogenise the experience of racialised and White immigrants, and the intersecting power axes of racialisation, immigration and old age have been largely overlooked. This paper aims to consolidate three macro theories of health/behaviours, including Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory, the World Health Organization's paradigm of social determinants of health and Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Use, to develop and validate an integrated multilevel framework of health-care access tailored for racialised older immigrants. Guided by this framework, a narrative review of 35 Canadian studies was conducted. Findings reveal that racial minority immigrants’ vulnerability in accessing health services are intrinsically linked to a complex interplay between racial-nativity status with numerous markers of power differences. These multilevel parameters range from socio-economic challenges, cross-cultural differences, labour and capital adequacy in the health sector, organisational accessibility and sensitivity, inter-sectoral policies, to societal values and ideology as forms of oppression. This review suggests that, counteracting a prevailing discourse of personal and cultural barriers to care, the multilevel framework is useful to inform upstream structural solutions to address power imbalances and to empower racialised immigrants in later life.
Chapter 9 extends our examination of Group Empathy Theory outside the United States using data from the British Election Study (BES) in May 2018. The BES included our short version of the Group Empathy Index (GEI). It also included a ten-item individual-level empathy scale, which allowed us to compare the predictive power of intergroup empathy versus interpersonal empathy. Group empathy significantly predicts the British public’s opinion across a myriad of policy issues, including opposition to Brexit, favorable perceptions of immigration, support for equal opportunity policies, social welfare, and foreign aid. By comparison, individual empathy has very little effect on most of these policy views. In line with our theory and consistent with the findings from the United States, nonwhite minorities in the United Kingdom score higher on the GEI than whites do, while no significant intergroup differences are observed when it comes to individual-level empathy. The data indicates large gaps in policy opinions between whites and nonwhites, and group empathy once again helps explain these differences.
The book opens with a puzzle: What would compel members of one group to stand in solidarity with an outgroup in their fight for justice and equality, even when that act carries great personal risk and material sacrifice? We think a central piece of this puzzle is what we call group empathy: the ability and motivation to take another group’s perspective, feel emotionally connected to their struggles, and care about their welfare even when the individual’s interests, or those of his or her group, are at risk. We continue the discussion of this puzzle in two contemporary threat contexts: terrorism and immigration. Specifically, we ask why African Americans – who perceive a greater risk of terrorism on average – are less willing to support punitive homeland security policies that profile Arabs. Or, why are Latinos more supportive of foreign aid and more welcoming of refugees even if this means greater competition for jobs and social welfare? Once again, we think the answer lies in group empathy. We review the empirical studies used to test our theoretical expectations, followed by an outline of the book that provides a brief summary of each chapter.
What causes some people to stand in solidarity with those from other races, religions, or nationalities, even when that solidarity does not seem to benefit the individual or their group? Seeing Us in Them examines outgroup empathy as a powerful predisposition in politics that pushes individuals to see past social divisions and work together in complex, multicultural societies. It also reveals racial/ethnic intergroup differences in this predisposition, rooted in early patterns of socialization and collective memory. Outgroup empathy explains why African Americans vehemently oppose the border wall and profiling of Arabs, why Latinos are welcoming of Syrian refugees and support humanitarian assistance, why some white Americans march in support of Black Lives Matter through a pandemic, and even why many British citizens oppose Brexit. Outgroup empathy is not naïve; rather it is a rational and necessary force that helps build trust and maintain stable democratic norms of compromise and reciprocity.
Conjoint experiments are quickly gaining popularity as a vehicle for studying multidimensional political preferences. A common way to explore heterogeneity of preferences estimated with conjoint experiments is by estimating average marginal component effects across subgroups. However, this method does not give the researcher the full access to the variation of preferences in the studied populations, as that would require estimating effects on the individual level. Currently, there is no accepted technique to obtain estimates of individual-level preferences from conjoint experiments. The present paper addresses this gap by proposing a procedure to estimate individual preferences as respondent-specific marginal component effects. The proposed strategy does not require any additional assumptions compared to the standard conjoint analysis, although some changes to the task design are recommended. Methods to account for uncertainty in resulting estimates are also discussed. Using the proposed procedure, I partially replicate a conjoint experiment on immigrant admission with recommended design adjustments. Then, I demonstrate how individual marginal component effects can be used to explore distributions of preferences, intercorrelations between different preference dimensions, and relationships of preferences to other variables of interest.
Analyses of embedded liberalism have focused overwhelmingly on trade in goods and capital, to the exclusion of migration. We argue that much as capital controls were essential components of the embedded liberal compromise, so too were restrictions on the democratic and social rights of labor migrants. Generous welfare programs in labor-receiving countries thrived alongside inclusionary immigration policies, but this balanced arrangement was only tenable if migrants were politically excluded in their destination countries. That is, embedded liberalism abroad rested on exclusionary political foundations at home. In bringing together the IPE literature on the “globalization trilemma” with the comparative politics of citizenship, we provide a novel account of how embedded liberalism worked politically, with implications for current debates about the fate of the liberal order in a time of populist resurgence.
This chapter considers the contemporary novel in French within the context of the broadly defined field of women’s writing, a diverse, engaged and vibrant space where innovative literary forms are mobilised in ways that continue to stretch the possibilities and meanings of female experience. Exploring an array of texts by award-winning, bestselling and emerging novelists, the chapter discusses three key thematic areas. In the first part, it considers the intimacy long associated with women’s writing, showing how recent novels have tended to move beyond the tropes of sentimental romance, imagining instead a distinct, female-focused erotics, or otherwise engaging themes of love with wider, philosophical and political concerns. In the second part, the chapter looks at representations of the family, focusing on the turbulent, transformative times of adolescence, on perspectives on mothering, and on new patterns of kinship, that create new dialogues surrounding the cultural ideals and social pressures embroiled within the family in twenty-first-century France. In the final section, the chapter draws attention to the intersectional conversations in recent women’s writing in French between feminist concerns, the representation of queer and trans subjectivities, social inequalities, immigration and race relations.
Challenging the myth of premodern Korea as ethnically homogenous, this study focuses on immigrant marriages in Chosŏn Korea following Japanese invasions (Imjin War, 1592–1598). By examining household registers and genealogies, I investigate the status of women who married into the families of Japanese and Ming Chinese immigrants and the social consequences of such marriages. The results unexpectedly indicate that immigrant families rarely intermarried, preferring integration with local families. As a means of acquiring social and cultural capital, Korean brides from elite families were vital to the success of immigrant families in forming social networks and in producing candidates for the civil service examinations, with failure to obtain such a bride proving a potential long-term obstacle to social advancement. There is a noticeable difference between families of Chinese and Japanese origin in this context due to the preference shown by Korean families for the descendants of Ming generals over Japanese defectors. Contributing to a growing number of studies that question whether the Korean family was fully “Confucianized” in the seventeenth century with a consequent decline in the status of women, this study argues that women possessed social and cultural capital and held particular value for immigrant families.
While US military and economic interventions in the Caribbean as well as the protectorates of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands link these regions, categorizing the writing of Caribbean immigrants to the US is less clear. Contemporary Caribbean-American writing remains an amorphous category bounded by issues of language and ethnicity. Higher education and publishing practices frequently group Caribbean writers by their linguistic heritage or former European colonizer than by their status as migrants to the US. In addition, racial or ethnic identities mean that some writers are subsumed under an established racial category, like African American, while writers with Asian ancestry fit uneasily within established frameworks for Asian American literature. Despite these divisions, Caribbean-American writing shares many commonalities including critiquing US neo-imperialism, addressing the racism experienced by immigrants, and innovative uses of form and genre.
We assessed long-term incidence and prevalence trends of dementia and parkinsonism across major ethnic and immigrant groups in Ontario.
Linking administrative databases, we established two cohorts (dementia 2001–2014 and parkinsonism 2001–2015) of all residents aged 20 to 100 years with incident diagnosis of dementia (N = 387,937) or parkinsonism (N = 59,617). We calculated age- and sex-standardized incidence and prevalence of dementia and parkinsonism by immigrant status and ethnic groups (Chinese, South Asian, and the General Population). We assessed incidence and prevalence trends using Poisson regression and Cochran–Armitage trend tests.
Across selected ethnic groups, dementia incidence and prevalence were higher in long-term residents than recent or longer-term immigrants from 2001 to 2014. During this period, age- and sex-standardized incidence of dementia in Chinese, South Asian, and the General Population increased, respectively, among longer-term immigrants (by 41%, 58%, and 42%) and long-term residents (28%, 7%, and 4%), and to a lesser degree among recent immigrants. The small number of cases precluded us from assessing parkinsonism incidence trends. For Chinese, South Asian, and the General Population, respectively, prevalence of dementia and parkinsonism modestly increased over time among recent immigrants but significantly increased among longer-term immigrants (dementia: 134%, 217%, and 117%; parkinsonism: 55%, 54%, and 43%) and long-term residents (dementia: 97%, 132%, and 71%; parkinsonism: 18%, 30%, and 29%). Adjustment for pre-existing conditions did not appear to explain incidence trends, except for stroke and coronary artery disease as potential drivers of dementia incidence.
Recent immigrants across major ethnic groups in Ontario had considerably lower rates of dementia and parkinsonism than long-term residents, but this difference diminished with longer-term immigrants.
Chapter 5 indicates that migration to and from Liberia in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries profoundly modified the meaning and practice of citizenship by creating categories of Liberians that have defied the legal definition of citizen. In 1847, Liberia was a country of relative immigration yet citizenship norms were biased against those considered ‘rooted’—primarily the 16 ethnic groups already occupying the territory were formally excluded from the institution of citizenship. In 2019, however, while Liberia exemplified a country of relative emigration citizenship norms were biased against those deemed ‘rootless’—essentially jus soli Liberians who naturalised abroad and jus sanguinis Liberians who maintained their birthplace citizenship remained excluded from formal Liberian citizenship.
This chapter moves beyond the rhetoric of politicians and policy makers to underscore that ordinary Liberians’ contemporary notions of rootedness and rootlessness represent a continuum of sedentarist and nomadic metaphysical thinking thereby simultaneously challenging and strengthening claims for dual citizenship. While motivations for not naturalising abroad—largely based on sedentarist metaphysics—have challenged core assumptions about the necessity of dual citizenship for Liberia, motivations for naturalising—largely based on nomadic metaphysics—have galvanised proponents of such a policy prescription and development intervention.
Emily Balch is a familiar figure to historians of the early twentieth-century transnational women’s movement, not least because of her central role in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Yet, there is no doubt that Balch was also a thinker engaged in conversations now recognized as squarely belonging to the history of international thought. These include debates on race and immigration, economic interdependence, the reform of colonialism, and visions for a world society. There were contradictions within Balch’s thought but her empirical research nonetheless challenged some of the racist stereotypes within American International Relations in the 1910s and 20s. Balch was never interested in separating the domestic from the international. Her starting point remained her ‘fellow citizens’ and the contexts that shaped their lives, whether these were the ethnographic realities of East-Central Europe or the impact of the United States’ occupation of Haiti.
The Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016 mark a deep caesura in the history of liberal societies. It is no longer sufficient, if it ever was, to look at Western states' immigration and citizenship policies through the single lens of advancing liberalism. Instead, two additional forces need to be reckoned with: a new nationalism, but also the neoliberal restructuring of state and society in which it is generated. Joppke demonstrates that many of the new policies have their roots in neoliberalism rather than the new nationalism. Moreover, some of them, such as 'earned citizenship', are the product of neoliberalism and nationalism working in tandem, in terms of a neoliberal nationalism. The neoliberalism-nationalism nexus is complex, its elements sometimes opposing but sometimes complementing or even constituting one another. This topical book will appeal to students and scholars of populism, nationalism, and immigration and citizenship, across comparative politics, sociology and political theory.
The relationship between immigration and terrorism is an important public policy concern. Using bilateral migration data for 174 countries from 1995 to 2015, we estimate the relationship between levels of immigration and terrorism using an instrumental variables (IV) strategy based on the initial distribution of immigrants in destination countries. We specifically investigate rates of immigration from Muslim-majority Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries and countries engaged in conflicts. We find little evidence of a relationship between stocks of immigrants and terrorist attacks in destination countries.
We searched for the institutional negative externality posited by the new economic case for immigration restrictions in a variety of ways in this book. We did not find it. In fact, instead we have often found that immigration creates a positive externality that improves institutions related to productivity. There are limitations to all of the methods we have employed in this book. Thus, there is no QED here. We cannot rule out that, in some cases, in some places, from some particular immigrant flows, that a negative externality that undermines formal and informal institutions or norms related to productivity does exist. However, in general, our findings should make scholars skeptical of how widely relevant the new case for immigration restrictions is. Thus, our findings also bolster the standard economic case for free immigration by increasing our confidence that most of the global economic gains that would stem from free immigration do, in fact, exist.
This chapter examines how immigration has impacted US institutions related to economic freedom throughout the country's history. We find that immigration was generally associated with smaller government and growth in government. Immigrants weakend the strength of unions during the period of free immigration prior to the 1920s and unions were often a source of agitation for socialism and bigger government. Government spending and taxation tends to be negatively correlated with immigration. During the period of the US's most restrictive immigration policy, 1920 to 1965, government growth was largest.