1. The Emerging ‘Migration State’
James F. Hollifield**
and
Rahfin Faruk
**Professor of Political Science
Ora Nixon Arnold Chair in International Political Economy
Director, Tower Center, SMU
Dallas, Texas USA
**Public Policy Fellow
Woodrow Wilson International Center
Washington, DC

2. States have evolved in their functions over time
The state
Type
Function
Garrison state
Absolutist
16th- 17th
Security
(subjects)
Trading state
Economic
(firms)
Nation
18th – 19th
The state always has a military and security function—Hobbes and the Garrison State—as September 11th reminded us—balance of power
At least since the 19th century, the state has had an economic function, which Rosecrance dubbed the Trading State—, commerce, power and interdependence (Keohane & Nye)
In the 20th and 21st century, we have seen the emergence of the Migration State where ‘embedded liberalism’ predominates and a ‘rights dynamic’ governs state actions (Hollifield)
Migration state
Rights
(citizens)
Liberal
post 1945

3. The migration state encompasses a number of characteristics
A state which is relatively open to immigration/emigration and returns
A state which manages mobility and regulates migration to maximize economic benefits
Gains for receiving states: manpower and human capital (Canada)
Gains for sending states: remittances and returns/brain gain/circulation (Philippines)
A state which clearly defines the status (rights) of foreigners (Canada)
A state which has legal provisions for settlement, naturalization, citizenship, and return migration.

4. We have formalized these characteristics into five dimensions that constitute an analytical framework 1
Institutional and legal capacity 2
Quantity and quality of rights 3
Safe and orderly migration 4
Market-based migration management 5
Regional and international cooperation

5. Weighted score (out of 100)
Dimension 2: States vary on the quantity and quality of their rights (and therefore outcomes)
Rights and outcomes, 2014
Equally weighted average across eight rights and outcome dimensions (labor market mobility, family reunion, education, health, political participation, permanent residence, access to nationality, anti-discrimination)
Ø 55
Weighted score (out of 100)
For states that give out more rights across critical dimensions (e.g.,
political participation, family reunification), we see that those same states perform well when it
comes to outcomes (e.g., education, health, upward mobility). While more analysis needs to be
done (and more data collected by the field), there is a connection between how a state manages
its migration population and how successful that migration population is across a number of
material dimensions. We also hypothesize that a success of a state’s migrant population could be
a linked to a state’s performance overall (e.g., political stability, social capital, long-term
economic performance.
Australia
Canada
Australia
Germany
USA
Spain
Italy UK
Korea
France
EU27
Greece
Japan
Poland
EU10
Turkey

6. States balance a number of factors in formulating migration policy (or the lack thereof)…
Security
Markets
Rights
Culture

7. International Migrant Stock (% population)
…but virtually all states, receiving and sending, must engage on the issue of migration (1/2)
International migrant stock1 by region,
Arab World
Latin America & Caribbean 
Central Europe and the Baltics
Middle East & North Africa 
East Asia & Pacific 
North America
Europe & Central Asia 
Sub-Saharan Africa 
European Union
South Asia
International Migrant Stock (% population)
Year

8. …but virtually all states, receiving and sending, must engage on the issue of migration (2/2)
Remittances by region,
Arab World
Latin America & Caribbean 
Central Europe and the Baltics
Middle East & North Africa 
East Asia & Pacific 
North America
Europe & Central Asia 
Sub-Saharan Africa 
European Union
South Asia
Remittances (% of GDP)
Year

9. Going forward, a more robust migration regime is critical, especially in the current ‘crisis’
Net migration between US and Mexico
US to Mexico
Mexico to US
Number of migrants (in thousands)
1995 to 2000
2005 to 2010
2009 to 2014
This trend continued between 2015 and 2017

10. Countries fall into three key types along the L curve: senders, receivers, and transition
Non-Northern Triangle
Northern Triangle
Case studies
SENDERS
El Salvador
Honduras
Philippines
HIGH
2010
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Morocco
LOW
Panama
Belize
TRANSITION
RECEIVERS
Mexico
Costa Rica
Thailand
United States
Turkey
LOW
HIGH
2010

11. Some countries are rapidly evolving on migration, which indicates increasing interdependence
All
Non-Northern Triangle
Norther Triangle
Case studies
Lao PDR
Change in remittances (% of GDP)
HIGH
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Panama
Guatemala
Rwanda
United States
Philippines
Cyprus
LOW
El Salvador
Mexico
Morocco
The rates at which states change—some shifting from receiving to transition or transition to sending—vary significantly and are empirically correlated with not only the rate of economic and political development but also a state’s willingness or ability to develop as a migration state (Figure 6). For example, some states like Nepal have used migration as an explicit development strategy while other states like Japan have limited the flow of migrants and the rights it gives to the small classes of migrants (low-skilled labor, university students, and temporary high-skilled workers) that are allowed into the country. In general, however, states cluster in terms of change in migrant stock and remittances (as a percentage of GDP) between 2005 and Some states, very clearly, are in transition, as their on migrants and / or remittances have increased over time; this increase could be the result of a concerted state policy (as the case of Lao PDR to greatly increase its remittance flow) or it could be the result of state’s inability to manage its migration flows (as in the case of Iraq’s inflow of refugees). Moreover, the movement of countries over time also gives us a sense of interdependence. While Mexico’s overall change in migrant stock has increased, Guatemala’s has increased at a far lower rate—this can be partially explained by the inflow of Central American immigrants into Mexico (an inflow Mexico has not effectively stopped).
Thailand
Zambia
South Africa
Turkey
Korea, Rep.
Costa Rica
LOW
HIGH
Change in migrant stock