The Role of the State in (Internal) Migration

2.1.5 The Role of the State in (Internal) Migration

Most literature on the role of the state in migration concerns the international migration. In account of the growth of the North-South migration in the last decades, political debates on migration mostly refer to migration in that certain direction (Laczko, 2008, p.9) Generally, states in migration research are analytically distinct in receiving, developed countries and in sending developing countries. (Massey, 1999, p.303)

While the focus in migration studies for a long time lied on receiving states in the north, recent studies pay more attention on the impacts of migration in the south, especially on the effect of remittances (IOM, 2013, p.21). Further there is growing attention on South-South migration as it becomes acknowledged as the major migration flow next to South-North migration which was long the major object of research (IOM, 2013, p.55). However, migration within the borders of a nation state – internal migration – remains underexamined. Despite the estimated high quantitative significance of that migration type it is hardly mentioned in the recent World Migration Report (IOM, 2013). The processes of internal migration were more analysed in the terms of urbanization or population distribution. The lack of data on internal migration also challenges the research on it. The exact extent of internal migration is unknown, but most probably it exceeds the extent of international migration by numbers (Laczko, 2008, p.9). According to a conservative estimation by the UNDP (2009, p.1) there are 740 Million internal migrants worldwide which would be four times more than international migrants.

The difference between Internal and international migration is defined by the relation to the border of a nation state. While international migration crosses borders of nation states, internal migration takes place within the borders of a state. The distinction between internal and international migration can become blurred if the borders of nation-states are transformed. For example “27 million persons became international migrants upon the break-up of the Soviet Union whereas previously they were internal migrants ” (Skeldon, 2008, p.29). In that example the definition of the type of migrants changed while the movement of the people remained the same. On the other hand, open borders blur the distinction between internal and international migration as well, e.g. with Schengen in Europe. If a migrant crosses open borders between two nation-states, is he still an international migrant? Moreover internal and international migrati on aren’t always distinct of each other as they can be parts of the same process. For example, international migration can leave gaps in the place of origin which are filled by internal migrants (Skeldon, 2008, p.37). Because of these interlinkages and the blurred boundary between internal and international, these two kinds of migration shouldn’t be analysed isolated and partially can be analysed by common approaches. Because they are interlinked to each other and the difference between them is more defined through the borders of the nation-state than through the characteristics of the process, internal migration should be more included in migration studies. (King and Skeldon, 2010, p.1640) Arguments are mostly only formulated for international migration, but they might be valid for internal migration as well. Massey (1999, p.307) argues that immigration policies can “encourage, discourage or otherwise regulate the flow of migrants”. Considering that states also have to handle internal migration in a certain way, these are also the parameters for policy on internal migration. However, even if there are numerous approaches which can be applied for both internal and The difference between Internal and international migration is defined by the relation to the border of a nation state. While international migration crosses borders of nation states, internal migration takes place within the borders of a state. The distinction between internal and international migration can become blurred if the borders of nation-states are transformed. For example “27 million persons became international migrants upon the break-up of the Soviet Union whereas previously they were internal migrants ” (Skeldon, 2008, p.29). In that example the definition of the type of migrants changed while the movement of the people remained the same. On the other hand, open borders blur the distinction between internal and international migration as well, e.g. with Schengen in Europe. If a migrant crosses open borders between two nation-states, is he still an international migrant? Moreover internal and international migrati on aren’t always distinct of each other as they can be parts of the same process. For example, international migration can leave gaps in the place of origin which are filled by internal migrants (Skeldon, 2008, p.37). Because of these interlinkages and the blurred boundary between internal and international, these two kinds of migration shouldn’t be analysed isolated and partially can be analysed by common approaches. Because they are interlinked to each other and the difference between them is more defined through the borders of the nation-state than through the characteristics of the process, internal migration should be more included in migration studies. (King and Skeldon, 2010, p.1640) Arguments are mostly only formulated for international migration, but they might be valid for internal migration as well. Massey (1999, p.307) argues that immigration policies can “encourage, discourage or otherwise regulate the flow of migrants”. Considering that states also have to handle internal migration in a certain way, these are also the parameters for policy on internal migration. However, even if there are numerous approaches which can be applied for both internal and

States usually record internal migration through a registration system. Though, according to the OSCE (2009, p.20) “the population-registration system should facilitate freedom of movement and avoi d managing population movements by putting limits on the free choice of place of residence.” The majority of countries perform a notification-based registration system, which should not restrict the movement of people but enable the state to contact its citizens, and to gather data on population size and movements for planning purposes. If the numbers and the demographic data of inhabitants are known, the distribution of resources and infrastructure like schools, hospitals etc. can be allocated (Hatcher, 2011, p.6). Notification-based registration systems are usually complying with those OSCE guidelines and other Conventions like the UN human rights, since they don’t restrict the freedom of movement or residence. The process of registration is usually unproblematic and possible to conduct for everyone, and most notably no basic services and rights are linked to that registration (Schaible, 2001, p.350). For example in Switzerland, the laws on registration are regulated on a cantonal level. Someone who changes his place of residence needs to deregister in the place of origin and register in the place of destination within 14 days. (S)he has to bring the documents which are deposited in the municipal office in the place of origin to the municipal office of place of destination (Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, 2006). There are even countries without any mandatory registration system, e.g. the United Kingdom (Hatcher, 2011, p.5). In that way, internal migration is neither restricted nor enforced. Moreover state has an overview about the movement and the place of residence of its citizens.

However there are some countries – mainly those with a post-socialist background (Hatcher, 2011, p.2) – with a more restrictive registration system which might discourage people to migrate within their country. As Deshingkar and Grimm (2005 cited in Laczko, 2008, p.10) show in their report, internal migration seems to have a mainly negative connotation for the state, even if there are numbers of evidences that it can contribute to the welfare of a country. They see following reasons for that:

“…that internal migration is an “administrative and legislative nightmare”: it crosses physical and departmental boundaries confusing rigid institutions which are not used to cooperating with each other. The authors argue that by not acknowledging the vast role played by internal migrants in driving agricultural and industrial growth, governments escape the responsibility of providing basic services to millions of poor people who are currently bearing the costs of moving labour to locations where it is most needed.” (Deshingkar and Grimm 2005 cited in Laczko, 2008, p.10)

This negative connotation in turn can state a reason for a restrictive handling of internal migration. In the following section, two prominent examples for a restrictive registration system should be introduced: The Hukou system in China which is – although alleviated – still performed, and the Propiska System which was performed in the Soviet Union.