16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Changing Motivations or Capabilities? Migration Deterrence in the Global Context

      1 , 2 , 3
      International Studies Review
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Over the last thirty-five years, Western liberal democracies have exerted more control over their borders through an array of innovative migration-control practices. Scholars have taken stock of these efforts and referred to them collectively as “deterrence” measures, ignoring the fact that deterrence is an established concept with a focused definition and meaning. We argue that in the context of migration governance, the concept of deterrence has been stretched beyond meaningful parameters. In order to restore conceptual clarity and develop a more useful framework, we build on the fourth wave of deterrence literature and apply its insights to these new migration-control practices. We construct a theoretically informed typology that differentiates between deterrence and defense policies. Deterrence aims to change the motivations of migrants, whereas defense policies change migrants’ capabilities. We also differentiate between the timing and location of the interventions. We elaborate on each category of policy with examples drawn from various geographic regions and propose a framework for expanding this analysis through a systematic exploration of global practices. We conclude with a discussion of the implications stemming from these insights with respect to normative and practical debates in this research area.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics

            “To have mastered ‘theory’ and ‘method’ is to have become aconscious thinker, a man at work and aware of the assumptions and implications of whatever he is about. To be mastered by ‘method’ or ‘theory’ is simply to be kept from working.” The sentence applies nicely to the present plight of political science. The profession as a whole oscillates between two unsound extremes. At the one end a large majority of political scientists qualify as pure and simple unconscious thinkers. At the other end a sophisticated minority qualify as overconscious thinkers, in the sense that their standards of method and theory are drawn from the physical, “paradigmatic” sciences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.

              When scholars extend their models and hypotheses to encompass additional cases, they commonly need to adapt their analytic categories to fit the new contexts. Giovanni Sartori's work on conceptual “traveling” and conceptual “stretching” provides helpful guidance in addressing this fundamental task of comparative analysis. Yet Sartori's framework draws upon what may be called classical categorization, which views the relation among categories in terms of a taxonomic hierarchy, with each category having clear boundaries and defining properties shared by all members. We examine the challenge to this framework presented by two types of nonclassical categories: family resemblances and radial categories. With such categories, the overly strict application of a classical framework can lead to abandoning to category prematurely or to modifying it inappropriately. We discuss solutions to these problems, using examples of how scholars have adapted their categories in comparative research on democracy and authoritarianism.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Studies Review
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1521-9488
                1468-2486
                December 2020
                November 26 2020
                September 23 2019
                December 2020
                November 26 2020
                September 23 2019
                : 22
                : 4
                : 853-878
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Toronto
                [2 ]Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
                [3 ]University of Denver
                Article
                10.1093/isr/viz050
                1a00b927-eb1b-40d9-9b44-52540e625aa3
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article