International Migration,

International Relations and

Foreign Policy]

Christopher Mitchell
New York University

Recent literature on migration, international relations and foreign

policy is reviewed in this article, stressing applications of global sys-
tems paradigms, studies of state entry and exit rules, and anatomies
of domestic policy-setting processes on migration. After a concise
assessment of the contemporary theory of global political economy,
the paper argues for seeking midrange generalizations on the inter-
national relations ofmigration. It also suggests that analysis begin with
the policy-setting processes of the state. Especially through the use of
comparative perspectives available from domestic policymaking
studies and from the field of international comparative public policy,
this approach offers the opportunity to fix empirically the political
roles of transnational social forces, which often present themselves as
participants in domestic policy contests. Promising future directions
in the study of state-to-state relations are also evaluated, with the
anticipation that verifying regional or other intermediate patterns of
world migration politics may contribute to more general theories of
international political economy.

Political science and international relations scholarship come rather late to

the study ofinternational migration. For the most part, modern migration
studies have centered in the disciplines whose approaches most clearly
addressed certain evident characteristics of large scale population move-
ments. The small group settings for many migration decisions have helped
to draw anthropologists' attention, while the frequent presence of material
motivations engages the interest of economists. Sociology is well placed to
assess the structural social changes related to migration, while demography
is equipped to measure it quantitatively and to assess some of its future
implications. While these research traditions were advancing and sharing

1 Revised version of a paper presented at the Conference on "International Migration

Review, at the Rockefeller Foundation's Study and Conference Center, Bellagio, Italy, July
11-15, 1988. Research for this essay was assisted by a grant from the Ford Foundation.

IMR Volume xxiii, No.3 681

 682 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

analytic insights, students of politics often limited themselves to exploring

roots and implications of migration within one country, or to analyzing the
goals and application of national immigration laws.
Events, however, have a way - effective, ifsometimes untidy - ofcalling
forth reconceptualizations to match the urgency of social reality. It has
become increasingly evident that, to borrow a term from the law of public
utilities, international migration is "affected with an international political
interest". While it might once have been heuristically useful to view popula-
tion movements as social or economic phenomena divorced from influence
by (or upon) world politics, that approach is no longer viable. Both ex-
perience and research have demonstrated numerous ways in which
migration is intertwined with international politics. Just a few of these
diverse relationships (together with briefexamples) may be summarized as
follows.
International relations help to shape international migration: The potential
importance ofstate action to the process of migration has been vividly
underscored in the complex migration relationship between the
United States and Cuba since 1959. In analyzing this process which
has brought more than one million Cubans to U.S. shores, one moves
far beyond the obvious remark that politics may help spur migration
as authoritarian governments limit their citizens' liberties. Direct and
indirect dealings between the Cuban and U.S. governments have
played major roles in determining the timing, size and social character
ofthe Cuban exodus. A keen observer of the Cuban migration process
was recently moved, by a comparison of that case with migration from
Mexico, to a generalization that may be more widely applied: "the
defining characteristics of migration flows are found at the level of
social and economic organization and international politics, not
among individual perceptions and motivations" (Bach, 1987:110).

Migration may influenceand servethegoalsofnationalforeign policies: Both

sending and receiving governments have found that migration may
acquire marked importance in their bilateral dealings, serving varied
roles as stakes or instruments in state-to-state interaction. Migration,
in such situations, loses its traditional image as a sector of "low
politics", and may alter or advance other priorities in international
competition. The rapid upgrading of migration as a stake - to the
point where it outweighed other U.S. political concerns - is well
illustrated by United States-Haitian relations during the 1970s. In
another region, neighboring territories have argued for more than ten
years that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam sanctions mass depar-
tures of sea-borne refugees in order to weaken or embarrass its
regional rivals (Teitelbaum, 1984b). At the ideological divide in
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 683

Europe, migration from East to West Germany (1948-1961) was

viewed by both states as a major political as well as economic stake,
with decisions on admittance and restriction calculated accordingly.
"Domestic" immigration laws and policies may have an unavoidableinterna-
tionalpoliticalprojection: An enduring feature of the "policy culture" in
most nations is the view that immigration is an internal concern, firmly
in the realm ofnational sovereignty. However, such ostensibly internal
policy changes frequently have considerable international repercus-
sions. Scholars have pointed out that domestic "immigrant policies"
on housing, employment and education form an unavoidable part of
West European nations' immigration policies (Hammar, ed., 1985).
The treatment accorded labor migrants to Europe has become the
subject of detailed international dealings with sending nations, espe-
cially Turkey and Algeria (Heisler and Heisler, 1986; Rogers, 1985).
More contemporaneously, the United States Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 provoked lobbying, protests and moves towards
joint diplomatic efforts among sending nations in Central America and
the Caribbean (Inter-American Dialogue, 1988:60).
To order and better understand these interrelated but diverse political
facts, it would be helpful to be able to draw upon theoretical models which
displayed (pursuing only moderately utopian goals!) these characteristics:
1) a broad conception of the nature of international relations, not limited
to diplomatic dealings or traditional state-to-state interactions, but address-
ing newly recognized regularities in the international political economy; 2)
a multi-level analytic embrace, integrating the study of migration-related
domestic policymaking, foreign policymaking, and international relations;
and 3) openness to and integration with the findings of other disciplines in
the field of migration, especially those of economics, sociology and
anthropology. A model of migration and world politics which ignored
transnational trends identified by other research traditions would have very
limited usefulness.
Scholars of migration - including both political scientists and specialists
in other disciplines - have made considerable progress in developing
theories to understand the complex links between migration and interna-
tional relations. The broad purposes of this article are 1) to assess the
advances made thus far and 2) to suggest ways that scholars may build upon
current concepts. The following analysis will be divided into several sections.
First, the existing literature on migration and world politics is reviewed,
noting its concerns, central analytic instruments, and insights into sig-
nificant political relationships. Then the progress thus far made is evaluated,
especially in the light of recent theoretical explorations of international
political economy. The next section argues for a focus on the role of the
 684 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

state, and suggests two promising research techniques which might speed
analytic progress on that theme. The last section advocates a search for
mid-range generalizations about interstate dealings on migration and
points out a number of specific research subjects that may exemplify the
more crucial of these patterns.

REVIEWING THE EXISTING LITERATURE ON MIGRA-

TION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Migration and the Nation-State System
Some of the most penetrating writings on migration and international
relations utilize the concept of an interdependent, global social system. In
the influential view of Wallerstein (1974,1979), this transnational pattern
ofsocial interaction arose with the dynamism of market capitalism after the
seventeenth century, and has spawned very marked asymmetries of power
between states in the economic "core", "semi-periphery" and "periphery"
of the world economy. Robert L. Bach has utilized this general approach,
though without referring to Wallerstein specifically. Bach (1985) conceives
of "the interstate system" as fundamentally allied with an economically
rooted division oflabor which engenders "the simultaneous flow oflow wage
labor from the periphery and semi-periphery to the core, and the emigra-
tion of core capital to the migrants' countries of origin...Together these
[forces] constitute the world capitalist system, and only in combination can
we understand the tendencies toward a new international division of labor
(pp.95-96)."
However, the alliance ofstates' power and international capital, control-
ling migration as well as other factor movements, proves to be vulnerable
as Bach pursues his analysis. The bond between states and capital may be
weakened by "a crisis of interstate relations" (ending the post-World War
II period ofU.S. international hegemony) and by domestic political change:
"Following a climactic decade of reform in the 1960s, u.S. immigration
policy, which had been successfully reshaped by New Deal liberalism to
overcome the most blatant forms of racism, became increasingly unable to
control the diverse global flows centered on the United States" (Bach,
1985:102,103).
Aristide Zolberg (1981) presents a wide ranging and more pluralistic
theory, after setting aside more traditional approaches to understanding the
politics of migration (such as the analysis of national migration policies or
ofrelated international law). He criticizes Wallerstein's world-system con-
cept as omitting important political factors in the evolution and operation
ofglobal social processes (See, Zolberg, 1981 b). For Zolberg, it is important
to emphasize the power of state action in structuring international migra-
tion flows, and he argues for "an approach to international migrations
 INTERNATIONAL RElATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 685

that...views human beings in their roles as economic, political and cultural

actors, and conceptualizes the international system in a congruent manner,
as structured into states, markets and societies" (1981a:20-21). Zolberg,
Suhrke and Aguayo, in a development of the same viewpoint, postulate that
"the globe constitutes a comprehensive field of social interaction, concep-
tualized as a network of interdependent political and economic structures,
but with some autonomy in relation to each other" (1986:156; See, also,
Zolberg, 1983:16).
Miller and Papademetriou (1983) opt for a less restrictive view of global
processes. Approaching the problem from the standpoint of U.S. foreign
policy, they implicitly reserve a place for action by individual states, even as
transnational processes simultaneously demonstrate influence over migra-
tion. Citing Keohane and Nye (1977), they assert:
The conceptual key to grasping the relationship between global politi-
cal, economic and social trends and the foreign policy implications of
U.S. immigration policy is the notion ofinterdependence. Interdepen-
dence can be defined as a relationship of mutual relevancy. It 'refers
to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or
among actors in different countries' (1983:159).
Miller and Papademetriou also present a thought provoking critique of
mainstream foreign-policy analysis within political science, drawing a paral-
lel between that tradition's neglect of immigration and its relative
inattention to "the foreign policy significance ofenergy, finance and politi-
cal terrorism issues ..." (1983: 156).
The concept ofa world system represents a fundamental analytic advance
over earlier approaches, and it will probably remain the bedrock for
analyses of migration as an international political process. It permits the
scholar to focus on the real sources, goals and uses of power in a process of
migration that by definition transcends national boundaries. But it brings
with it - at this stage in the development of the theory of international
political economy - certain problems as well. Most significantly, what
account can we give of the relationship among the economic, social and
political forces that operate at a global level, across national boundaries?
How much mutual autonomy exists among the interdependent economic
and political structures described by Zolberg, Suhrke and Aguayo? What
patterns can we discern in state-to-state dealings, across the globe, affecting
migration? Presumably hegemonic relations form one such pattern of
international political relations, but others surely exist and could be
mapped. Finally, what different roles are allocated to state power and to
interstate configurations of influence? Individual states appear to retain
some margin for maneuver even in a period of growing interdependence:
how are constraints and latitudes for action balanced at this historically
 686 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

unprecedented juncture?
Some related limitations of the world-systems paradigm, primarily as
formulated by Wallerstein, were recognized by Portes and Walton (1981).
They argued that "the lack ofattention to intermediate subprocesses within
the global system leads to interpretive failures and to frequent 'surprises' as
concrete events overtake the theoretical axioms" (p. 14). While their work
does not explicitly address the problem of international relations, its
theoretical orientation is highly relevant to our concerns. They also suggest
a line ofimmediate action, even during a period when major paradigms are
not fully defined: "...intermediate level analyses are necessary to bridge the
gap between grand theory and concrete situations" (p. 18).
An important additional strand in the literature on migration and inter-
national relations in fact undertakes such mid-range studies, and begins to
prospect for patterns of interstate relations. This is the analysis of state
action in the form of entry and exit rules (Weiner, 1985; Zolberg, 1981;
Zolberg, Aguayo and Suhrke, 1985). Weiner notes the deep political and
theoretical roots for states' assertion ofthe right to make such rules. He also
elegantly catalogues (1985:447-8) some of the patterns of interstate rela-
tions that may be formed by combinations of such regulations; e.g., the
juxtaposition of permissive exit rules with prohibitive entry laws
(Bangladesh and India, Mexico and the United States), or the inverse
junction of forbidden exit with encouraging entry rules (U.S.-Soviet ten-
sions over Jewish emigration).
Interestingly, most paradigms of migration and the nation-state system
(Bach, 1985; Miller and Papademetriou, 1983; Zolberg, 1981) seek to
encompass both refugee flows and labor migrations within a single theory.
This is rather to be expected since even a modified world-system approach
sets out to encompass global social, economic and political dealings. It
should include ample room for economically motivated and politically
driven longterm population movements. As we will see, most scholars
assessing migration's role in foreign policy also adopt this broad viewpoint,
braving the criticism of many official decisionmakers.

Migration and Foreign Policy

For the most part, discussions of migration as a theme in foreign policy are
less theoretically sweeping than those focusing on migration and interna-
tional relations. Most of the writings to be surveyed here deal with United
States migration policy and its international projection. In addition, studies
have illuminated the links between migration and foreign policies in some
European nations; some elements of the literature include certain sending
nation policies in their analyses as well.
Not surprisingly, a number ofwriters make cases for considering migra-
 INTERNATIONAL RElATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 687

tion policy as relevant to foreign policy - a heterodox view in the develop-

ment of foreign-policy studies.f Miller and Papadernetriou (1983) trace the
foreign policy importance of migration to the impact of population move-
ments on U.S. society, and to the impact upon other states of policies chosen
by a nation with the influence enjoyed by the United States. Teitelbaum
(1984a:222) illustrates this latter point vividly by noting the Mexican
government's strong reaction to consideration of immigration reform bills
by the U.S. Congress.
Aristide Zolberg (1978, 1984:212-217) also addressed a basic analytic
issue in a striking reassessment of the recent history of U.S. immigration
law. That issue is what constitutes "policy"? For most writers on migration,
in common with analysts of foreign policy more generally, the answer is
found in some combination ofactions and declarations directly linked to an
issue-area (See, Destler, 1972; Allison and Halperin, 1972). Zolberg
broadens this definition by including distinct (but in his view patterned)
actions affecting labor migration over many decades. The combination of
strict rules for legal immigration, perennially inadequate funding for bor-
der enforcement and the tacit acceptance of large scale temporary labor
migrations across the nation's Southern border constitutes for Zolberg a
policy sanctioning backdoor admissions to meet the labor needs of regional
U.S. industries, especially agribusiness. (Few other scholars have followed
Zolberg's daring lead into such broad gauge policy analysis).
A second important question follows, once one has fixed on a definition
of policy: what are the relationships between immigration policy and
foreign policy? Are the two lines of public action distinct, and ifso, how may
they interact? Miller and Papademetriou undertake the experiment of
considering "immigration policy as foreign policy", in order to determine
whether better lines of public action could be designed by that procedure
(1985: 165-182). While their theoretical venture has notable heuristic value,
it might well be hard to sustain as a guide to empirical or policy-oriented
research. There is an intuitive strength to the distinction between immigra-
tion policy and foreign policy, bolstered by the domestic concerns that have
long affected the former and by the widespread perception among U.S.
policy practitioners that the two realms are separate. Most writers use some
version of the postulate that the two policies are distinct but increasingly
interacting, and seek to describe the sources and structure of those relations
more accurately.
With these quasi-definitional questions dealt with, one may divide the
available analyses according to their principal substantive interests. These
2 As a number of authors note (e.g., Miller and Papademetriou, 1983:156), standard
treatments of u.s. foreign policy by political scientists uniformly omit immigration policy as a
subject for discussion; See, Spanier, 1985.
 688 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

are: the influence of foreign policy on immigration policies'l, the role of

actions on migration in the execution of foreign policies; and the making
of migration policies that possess international projections.
On the first of these themes, the influence of imperial foreign policies
upon immigration actions has been well-established for Western Europe.
Even declining colonial powers such as Great Britain, France and the
Netherlands, in the two decades after World War II, perceived commitments
to admit overseas subjects ranging from Jamaicans to Indians to Moluccans
from the Dutch East Indies (Hammar, 1985). In some ways these immigra-
tion policies were made more liberal by the very speed of imperial decline,
offering an interesting possible parallel with U.S. policies towards Southeast
Asian refugees after 1975.
Pursuing the same subject, one group of writers has no difficulty in
asserting the migration-foreign policy link - historians and political
analysts of U.S. policy towards refugees. Loescher and Scanlan's thorough
chronicle ofU.S. refugee actions states categorically that "over the last four
decades, it has become increasingly clear that foreign policy choices or-
dinarily have played the key role in determining which refugees will be
permitted to enter the United States" (1986:xvii). Zucker and Zucker modify
that conclusion only by noting that numbers of applicants and predicted
domestic response play some role as well:
When a particular group of refugees serves our foreign policy goals,
does not threaten to overwhelm us with its numbers, and can be
resettled with little cost or domestic resistance, the members of that
group are usually assured of admission. Conversely, members of a
group that does not meet any of these criteria may be certain that
admission will be denied (1987:xvii).
This finding of foreign policy influence upon immigration policy is
confirmed and extended by the studies in Mitchell et al. (forthcoming),
focusing on U.S. immigration relations with Mexico, the Caribbean and
Central America. Concerns rooted in foreign policy were found to have
influenced immigration policies in bilateral dealings between Washington
and Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. This influence
was largely channeled through administrative mechanisms, including speed
of visa processing, handling of asylum claims and special immigration
3 The reader should note certain limits on the analytic point being made. Foreign policy is
far from being the only influence upon immigration policy, nor (if such influence is present) is
it by any means decisive. Those with experience in immigration policymaking, on the other
hand, often resist the idea that foreign policy plays any influential role in that sphere. Though
such a view has some plausibility in analyzing West European experience during the past two
decades, it also sometimes derives from the traditional sense of institutional autonomy in
functional immigration bureaucracies. It has a notable and often praiseworthy legal context as
well, since decision-makers frequently view foreign-policy concerns as contravening orderly and
fair administration of immigration rules.
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 689

statuses for arrivees from Cuba and Haiti.

Mitchell et at. inquires without a priori distinction into policymaking
towards refugees and labor migrants alike. This orientation derives partly
from a concern to produce broad coverage of U.S. migration dealings with
a diverse region. It primarily stems, however, from the view that classifica-
tion (as labor migrant or refugee) is often itself the subject of ideological
reasoning and political debate within the United States, and that to accept
standard categorizations would be to omit key political forces shaping policy.
This approach accords with that adopted by Bach in analyzing Cuban
migration to the United States: "...there is an ideological taint to the
politicaVeconomic distinction. The foundations ofthe distinction lie with the
administrative practices of the United States government" (1987:109).
Turning to the second theme in the study of migration and foreign policy,
Michael S. Teitelbaum (1984b and 1985) has produced a global catalogue
of the ways in which migration movements and migration policies may be
turned to account by states as policy instruments. Showing a Hobbesian
subtlety in the understanding of power, Teitelbaum distinguishes (with
examples) among: "mass migration for unarmed conquest or assertion of
sovereignty" (Morocco/Spanish Sahara, U.S./Mexico before Texas inde-
pendence, Britain/white dominions" and Israel/West Bank); and "uses of
migrant groups for foreign policy purposes" (sending: Vietnam sending
boat people to destabilize or embarrass neighbors, Cuba/U'.S. in 1980;
Pakistan and India/Middle East to establish positive political relations;
receiving: U.S. accepting refugees from Communist nations to embarrass
or discredit them, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Thailand, Angola and others
welcoming sometimes violent cross-border refugees to weaken a neighbor
state) (1984:437-441).
Taking up the third theme, the processes by which states devise immigra-
tion policies clearly constitute a legitimate interest for analysts of
international relations. These processes may offer clues not simply to the
social and political interests being pursued, but also to the insertion of those
subnational interests in the global configuration of immigration issues.
There is notable consensus among scholars on the basic structures and
dynamics of the policymaking mechanism; let us first examine the making
of United States immigration policies, before turning to evidence on West
European nations.
The active U.S. social interests on issues of international migration are
agreed to be highly pluralistic, ranging from strawberry growers in the
Pacific Northwest to electronics entrepreneurs in San Diego, from
proponents of zero population growth to defenders of Central American
refugees (Teitelbaum, 1980; Zolberg, 1981a). Immigrants and their de-
scendents have traditionally been active lobbyists on admissions from
 690 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

abroad (Keely and Tucker, forthcoming). Both material and ideological

interests motivate the "attentive publics" on immigration questions (Bach,
1985). Further, the keenest observers note that the alignments among
interest groups on migration questions tend to be unique to that issue area,
not duplicating cleavages on other public policy questions (Teitelbaum,
1980).
Government institutions may well initiate changes in immigration
policies, and they must at all events process such alterations even if under
pressure from social interests. At the governmental level, pluralism again
is encountered. Both the executive and legislative branches are recognized
to take part in the making of internationally relevant immigration policy.
This pattern is found whether one considers the history of presidential/con-
gressional contention over many decades (with presidents usually proving
more liberal on labor and refugee admissions than legislators have been),
or one examines shorter term policy stances on flows from specific nations
(Mitchell et al., forthcoming). The administrative mechanism, too, is com-
plex, relatively fragmented and often short of resources to execute policies
effectively (Morris, 1985).
Most observers agree, finally, that the shambling process by which im-
migration actions are determined takes place - in "normal" though not all
significant circumstances - in relative isolation from widespread public
interest or pressures. Although public opinion polls for more than forty
years have revealed opposition by the general U.s. public to more liberal
immigration policies, "the attitudes of the general public have been less
influential in shaping immigration policy than those of a much smaller
segment of the population consisting of activists operating in pressure
groups" (Morris, 1985:25-27). It requires a set of international immigration
crises, most vividly exemplified by the conjunction of debates over Iranian,
Cuban and Haitian migrants in 1979 and 1980, to mobilize influential mass
publics on immigration questions in the United States.
In Western European nations, relevant social interests tend to be less
pluralistic than in the United States, and the state's authority is usually less
fragmented. The West German and French cases have represented the
"extreme points" on these variables. Germany has relatively strong state
control of labor recruitment for a limited number of enterprises, while in
France for two decades prior to 1973 there was little coordinated control
and many migrants diffused through many sectors of the French economy
were, in effect, illegal (Hammar, 1985).
As in the United States, European governments' policies on admissions
levels and border control are seldom well-integrated with lines ofaction on
the assimilation (or isolation) of international migrants. This relative
autonomy for specific functional bureaucracies tends to be broken down
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 691

only when a widely perceived immigration challenge faces the entire nation
or even the whole continent; one recent example ofsuch a conjuncture was
the 1973 petroleum crisis and ensuing West European recession. In six
recently studied European nations, the early 1970s marked a clear water-
shed, beginning a trend towards more restrictive immigration policies. The
comparatively greater social autonomy and authoritativeness of European
states (in contrast to the U.S.) was shown by this vigorous and effective
governmental response to a primarily economic crisis.
In a few instances, immigration has served as the focal issue around which
"latent publics" were mobilized in Western Europe. The xenophobic ap-
peals of Enoch Powell in Britain (1960s) and ofJean-Marie Le Pen in France
(1980s) were indubitably influential. On the other hand, the relative rarity
ofthese nativist movements suggests that public concern about immigration
questions is only slightly easier to arouse on the eastern than on the western
shore of the North Atlantic basin.

CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL

POLITICAUECONOMIC MODELS
The diverse literature just reviewed has yielded key insights. These include
the influences of state action and of interstate relations in shaping interna-
tional migration, the varied uses of migration decisions as levers in
international relations and the importance ofdomestic interests and interest
groups in affecting a process that cuts across nationallsocial boundaries. We
have found that the work ofpioneering researchers provides for the analysis
of labor and refugee flows on the same analytic level. We have also en-
countered considerable openness in political studies to the findings and
approaches of other disciplines.
At the same time, the writings surveyed follow a pattern characteristic of
the early stages in examining almost any new problem: they tend to
emphasize classification over dynamics and taxonomy over the develop-
ment of an integrated paradigm. Thus progress has been made in
cataloguing the uses of migration as an instrument in foreign policy (Teitel-
baum, 1984b) and in mapping the observable combinations among types of
entry and exit rules (Weiner, 1985). While working on these building-
blocks, many scholars (except analysts of global political economy) have
irnplicitlypostponed work on a coordinated theoretical edifice. Most authors
can be said to recognize the value of broad-gauge models in analyzing
international relations, and most remain open to the apposite findings of
other disciplines. At the same time, relatively few have yet been able to knit
together distinct analytic levels, relating the spheres of domestic politics,
foreign policy creation and international relations.
The sections which follow move from the review of available research to
 692 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

suggestions for useful future approaches to studying the links among

migration, foreign policy and international relations. We begin by con-
sidering the implications of the political-economy model which - as a
source of partial hypotheses on migration's role in global politics - stands
out as an exception to our general theoretical critique. Once that inquiry is
completed, we will be able to suggest some viable research procedures and
subjects. We will draw in part on analytic developments in pertinent fields
of political science, including global models of the international political
economy, comparative analysis of the state as policymaker, study of the
domestic politics of international economic issues and patterns in interna-
tional political dealings. The analysis will conclude with a note on the
reciprocal contribution that migration studies may make to theory building
in international political economy.
As we have noted, the migration/international relations literature leaves
an inquirer somewhat tantalized on the politics of worldwide social proces-
ses. Conceptualizing migration as a global process has a liberating effect,
freeing analysis to note the effects of supra-national trends in production,
technology, communications and numerous other circumstances affecting
population movements. At the same time, the goal of pinning down the
specifically political elements in this network of social development seems
to recede continually.
When we turn to recent examinations of the tasks confronting theory
builders in global political economy (Spero, 1985; Gilpin, 1987; Hart, 1983),
the skepticism ofZolberg (1981, 1983) and ofPortes and Walton (1981)-
about applying "world systems" models to the political analysis of migration
- is both reinforced and clarified. In updating a survey of the field of
international political economy that was initiated in the mid-1970s, Spero
refers to the subject as "still inchoate". Rather than pursue an integrated
global model, she focuses chiefly on three international subsystems - the
Western economic regime, North-South relations, and East-West dealings
- in delineating "the way in which international politics shapes interna-
tional economics" (1985:vii,4). Hart, seeking to explain the major changes
in North-South economic relations in the mid-1970s, found that models of
power at the international level had to be supplemented with attention to
the interests of individual nations and to the cognitions of groups within
nation-states (1983:Chapter 3).
Gilpin is more direct and theoretically comprehensive in discussing the
limitations of available broadscale global theories:
Although the approaches to political economy based on the application
of the method and theory of economic science are very helpful, they
are as yet inadequate to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory
framework for scholarly inquiry. Concepts, variables, and causal rela-
 INTERNATIONAL RElATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 693

tions have not yet been systematically developed; political and other
noneconomic factors are frequently slighted. In fact, a unified
methodology or theory of political economy would require a general
comprehension of the process of social change, including the ways in
which the social, economic, and political aspects of society interact
(1987:8-9).
Pursuing basic theoretical concerns in one of the most comprehensive
recent works, Gilpin develops an argument as to why a consensus model of
the world political economy is currently out of reach. Three basic ideologies
or paradigms - economic liberalism, Marxism and economic nationalism
-compete, he contends. They focus most of their analysis (respectively) on
1) the purported diffusion of productive technology to create a global
market, 2) the "Modern World System" relating states of the center,
periphery and semi-periphery, and 3) the view that a liberal international
economic order depends on the existence of a hegemonic economic power
willing and able to sustain the system. Because the paradigms rest on
untestable assumptions about human nature, can be adapted to uncomfort-
able facts through ad hoc theories and exist at different analytical levels,
"these perspectives can be neither proved nor disproved through logical
argument or the presentation ofcontrary empirical evidence" (1987 :Chapter
2, quoted at 41).
This paucity ofagreement on models of the global political economy, and
on how specifically political power relates to other forces at the global level,
may well impose strategic choices on those who would understand the
international relations of migration. First, the researcher's observation is
attracted to the role of the state, as a basic building block in the structure of
researchable migration dealings in world politics. This is not to embrace a
simple model ofinternational politics based on states as the only significant
political actors, pursuing national "interest defined as power" (Morgenthau
1967:5). It is, rather, to recognize that state actions represent one clear
strand of political data in a complex web of international linkages. States
contribute important political threads to the overall pattern, even as they
spur or respond to the transnational social, economic and cultural processes
of migration. (See, Heisler and Heisler, 1986: 16).
Second, analytic attention is drawn to mid-range patterns of migration
related behavior among nations - types of international relationships
which significantly affect major population movements, but whose bearing
upon global migration trends must still be specified and demonstrated.
Without an available overarching politicaVeconomic paradigm, research
efforts may well be most fruitful if they seek to make intermediate
generalizations. The roles of non-state and sub-state forces should receive
due attention in studies of this kind. One section below further defines the
 694 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

concept of mid-range behavior patterns, and suggests examples of such

patterns that invite further investigation.

GRASPING THE STATE'S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL

MIGRATION RELATIONS
Though all states assert immigration control as a central attribute of
sovereignty (Weiner, 1985:442), the effort to exercise that claimed power
often begins with a limited contest between the state and interested social
forces. Chronicles and analyses ofthe making of U.S. migration policies, for
example, regularly describe the dense interaction between the United States
government- itselfpluralized among branches and agencies -and interest
groups including crop growers, organized labor, factory owners, local public
officials, ethnic organizations, humanitarian groups and ideological restric-
tionists (Divine, 1957; Craig, 1971; Garcia y Griego, 1983; Higham, 1984;
Cornelius and Anzaldua, 1983; Zucker and Zucker, 1987; Loescher and
Scanlan, 1986).
Clearly our understanding would benefit from more detailed studies of
this complex set of pressures and cross-pressures. For example, the 1965
revisions to the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act -laden with interna-
tional concerns and consequences - have been remarkably understudied, as
have U.S. migration relations with such major labor-sending nations as the
Philippines, Korea and Taiwan. Our comprehension of the social-political
matrices that structure policies by migrant sending nations ought to be
expanded as well, especially with the participation of source nation scholars
(See, Cardona et al., 1980; Heisler, 1985; Rogers, 1985).
A focus on the process of policymaking - in which the state interacts with
concerned social forces - has two very notable advantages for the theory
builder interested in migration and international power. First, one may in this
way finesse the question of whether specific migration issues - or migration
matters in general - lie in the realm of "high politics" or "low politics",
"domestic" or "foreign" concerns. If action affecting migration appears on the
policymaking stage, it is simply taken on its own terms and its political
significance and external projection are evaluated straightforwardly.
Second, this analytic style creates a setting in which issues of labor
migration and refugee admissions may be evaluated on the same plane. As
we have seen, the research community has already embarked in that
direction. But - at least in the United States - most persons with policy
experience are quite antipathetic to a combined approach, perhaps as a
legacy of long experience with legal and bureaucratic embodiments of the
distinction between "normal" labor flows that are subject to mere "ad-
ministration", and "political" refugee streams. A focus on the interface
between state and society frees the analysis from such specialized view-
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 695

points, permitting one to consider such categorizations (and change in their

content and importance) as simply one question among many to be asked
about the evolution of a specific policy.
Yet some new theoretical tools now seem needed for us to derive the most
benefit from more extensive mapping of the state's efforts to forge an
international migration policy. Frequently, current research provides an
analytic product well-described by the Zuckers in their astute review of U.S.
refugee policy:
Why the gate [to the United States] was, and is, open to some [refugees]
and closed to others is a blend of many elements: presidential and
congressional personalities and policies, judicial decisions,
bureaucratic agendas, prejudices and conventional wisdom, pressure
from groups and public opinion, the health of the economy and the
happenstance of history. Together these elements are like the bits of
colored glass in a kaleidoscope. Shaken at one time, they form a
particular immigration and refugee policy. Shaken at another time,
they take shape as another immigration and refugee policy (1987: 1-2).
With such a marked empiricist bent, policymaking outcomes appear
almost capricious. One is hard-pressed to discern broader causal patterns
that would give theoretical significance to available findings, and the analyst
posing questions of migration policy, social power or transnational develop-
ment is cast largely adrift.
Two analytic undertakings may be suggested to address this problem.
Both set out to sharpen our categorization of existing data on the state as
maker of international migration policy, and to orient new research in the
field:

Attention to Studies ofAnalogous Issues in Political Economy

Migration is far from unique as a public policy issue. It is comparable in
many respects to the questions of international trade, international invest-
ment (both portfolio and productive) and technology transfer among
societies. In broad terms, these policy concerns share a number of charac-
teristics: 1) They have roots in cross-national social and economic processes,
providing a degree of autonomy from state power; 2) State policies towards
them are difficult to limit to the domestic or international sphere; "national"
steps may have international ramifications, and vice versa; 3) They may lend
themselves, as the state seeks to maximize its autonomy, to use as interna-
tional levers or weapons; and 4) They may awaken diverse domestic
constituencies, relatively unconstrained by norms of"national unity" linked
to more obviously security related issues. While the family resemblance
among migration and other issues of political economy is quite clear, the
making of migration policy has been studied almost completely in isolation
 696 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

from research on its "cousins". Ifcross-field comparisons were undertaken

systematically, students of migration's links to international relations might
acquire a keener understanding of issues, including the degree of state
autonomy in setting migration policy, the effects of ideology upon it, the
role of social interests, and the effect of the particular state's broader
international role. These available theoretical advantages may be briefly
illustrated by considering a few points to be gleaned from examining the
making of U.S. policy on international bank lending and on foreign trade.
The issue ofbank lending abroad presents a sharp contrast to the diverse set
of U.S. governmental and social interests aroused by international migration.
Although the sums at stake are enormous (in 1988, U.S. banks reported $83
billion worth ofproblematic loans to governments ofless developed countries),
the effective interest groups mobilized around the issue are few in number and
highly coordinated. The most active are the lenders themselves, highly
stratified between more influential Money Center Banks and smaller lenders
whose occasional tendencies to dissent are usually well controlled by their larger
partner institutions (Lipson, 1985). Also active are a few intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs) such as the International Monetary Fund and the Bank
for International Settlements; both deal primarily with only one U.S. govern-
ment agency, the Department of the Treasury (Oliveri, 1987). This pattern
produces a strong tendency for the U.S. government to loan or cede effective
power in multinational debt questions to the banks or the IGOs, participating
in the issue area primarily as a lender oflast resort in dire emergencies such as
the Mexican debt crisis of 1982.
In U.S. policymaking on international trade, there is a notable diversity
of what I.M. Destler terms "policy values", including industrial policy,
domestic economic policy and foreign policy. "These concerns, with bases
in the broader society, are reflected (and to some degree generated or
amplified) by particular government institutions" (Destler, 1980:132). Be-
tween 1930 and 1980, U.S. trade policy (and politics) created a system of
overall trade liberalization, in which Congress relinquished considerable
power to the executive. The president, through his Special Representative
for Trade Negotiations and other mechanisms, was empowered to negotiate
mutual tariff reductions with other nations, deflecting many producer
pressures for high tariffs away from Congress. Another advantage of this
system to the proponents of liberalization was that it mobilized favorable
exporter interests, and marshalled the president's power over foreign affairs
to justify a partial waiver of Congress' constitutional power over trade
(Destler 1986:9-36).
Since the late 1960s, and with particular force during the decade of the
1980s, diverse developments have put great stress upon this system without
undermining it completely. These trends have included changes in the
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 697

world economy, the overvaluation of the u.s. dollar and the liberal trade
system's own success in extending trade's economic impact in the United
States and in reducing the potential benefits to be gained from trading
partners' tariff concessions. Congress and the presidency have resorted
more and more frequently to "special deals" for "special cases", to provide
protection for certain industries through legislation or "voluntary" quan-
titative restraints by partners in international trade. By 1986, these
arrangements affected more than 25 percent of manufactured imports into
the United States (Destler, 1986: 165-175).
It is not difficult to discern, given this background, that a systematic
comparison between the making of U.S. policies on immigration, debt and
trade would shed light on the differential effects ofsocial interests, relevant
state structure and applicable ideologies. In the debt field, the United States
has been able to minimize its overt policy involvement, since domestic
depositors' interests are not effectively represented and relevant
bureaucracies can rely on technocratic prestige. These factors help to
explain why - running counter to the standard ideology of capitalism -
some official steps towards debt forgiveness have been sanctioned (especial-
ly towards African nations). The array of influential pressure groups on
trade policies has increased greatly during the past twenty years, coming to
match in complexity the set ofless powerful concerns voiced on immigration
policy. Congress has never been willing formally to yield extensive power
over immigration to the executive, and periodically seeks to retrieve powers
lost through such presidential devices as the growth of the parole power
during the 1950s. Nor has the sphere ofimmigration policy known the kind
of dominant "policy ideology" that "modified free trade" has constituted in
the realm ofinternational commerce. Humanitarianism, anti-communism,
"Statue of Liberty" values and restrictionism of varied sorts have contested
to shape American immigration law and policy.
One modest comparative study suggested by these considerations would
be to examine the relative strengths of the President's Special Repre-
sentative for Trade Negotiations and the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee
Affairs, recognized by the Refugee Act of1980. The latter has never achieved
the influence, autonomy and prestige of the former (Zucker and Zucker,
1987:57-69), in part because the bureaucratic, political and interest group
forces in play did not share the willingness (present in the trade realm) to
create a deus ex machina with real policymaking power.

Comparisons among National Policymaking Patterns,

Witli Disciplined Attention to Transnational Forces
A second route to a firmer grasp of regularities in states' behavior on
migration questions would be to pursue structured comparisons among the
 698 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

national political processes which lead to migration policies. Such studies

would go beyond - or, perhaps more clearly, would go behind - the
comparative examination of migration policies themselves, already avail-
able on a general basis in Kubat et al. (1979), and with more issue specific
focuses in Miller and Martin (1982) and Meissner et al. (1988). Instead,
researchers into immigration policies would assemble for each nation what
Peter Gourevitch (1986:19) has termed, in an analogous comparative study
of governmental response to major economic crises, a "political sociology
of political economy". These profiles would provide a broad comparative
basis for understanding 1) the key variables that may influence national
policymaking on migration, and 2) the types of events and circumstances
that may change patterns ofgovernmental action on population movement,
causing state behaviors to differ or to converge.
An excellent illustration of what can be accomplished through compara-
tive policymaking studies is available in Hammar, ed. (1985). The editor
and contributors to that volume - comparing the immigration policies of
France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and West
Germany - recognize the importance of "preconditions" for migration.
Such factors may include economic, ideological and geographic com-
ponents, plus some rooted in the nation's international relations. Some of
these circumstances were found to affect the nations studied quite different-
ly. For example, international political commitments (largely those rooted
in past imperialism) influenced immigration actions by the British, French,
and Dutch governments while exerting little pull upon the other three
governments examined. To take another contrast, immigration policy was
found to be somewhat influenced by an ideological choice: did the nation
assume itself to be an "immigration country" (France) or not (all the other
nations studied)?
Some conditions or events, on the other hand, proved to be transnational
and relatively uniform in their impact - especially those rooted in the world
economy. The 1973 quadrupling of petroleum prices and the resulting
economic slowdown, to cite the clearest case, triggered a "turning point" in
immigration policy. Restrictions were tightened, guestworker programs
were ended, and state policies were often better-coordinated, as high rank-
ing policy makers retrieved control over immigration actions from the
hands of routine minded administrators.
While Hammar and his fellow researchers do not construct a rigid scheme
of comparative policy studies, they do provide a common framework that
identifies important variables, specifies forces influencing those variables
and constructs an implicit model of how states address immigration ques-
tions. Their analytic scheme suggests fruitful comparisons with U.S.
immigration practice, as their studies follow lines quite parallel to those of
 INTERNATIONAL RElATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 699

Mitchell, et al. (forthcoming).

At this juncture we should note - and indeed underscore - the contribu-
tion that comparative studies of immigration policymaking can make to
building and validating general theory on migration and world politics. In
investigating (to cite an example) how entry and exit rules (See, Weiner,
1985) and other key political decisions on migration are arrived at, the
researcher may well be focusing directly on cross-national causal influences.
As a number of current comparative studies in international public policy
have noted (Gourevitch, 1986; Evans et al., 1985), cross-national forces often
exert their influence through (and by becoming) domestic political actors.
In an unexpected "closing ofthe research circle", sweeping global issues are
illuminated by comparative micro-level inquiries.
We have seen that transnational interests and organizations played
significant roles in both examples of political-economy issues analogous to
international migration. Banks with global interests and IGOs hold impor-
tant influence in the making of policies towards poorer nations' debts, while
foreign governments and interstate structures such as the General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) wield power in the field of trade policy.
In like form, sending governments, cross-border economic interests and
international refugee institutions may become familiar figures - suscep-
tible of comparative analysis - in the making of migration policy. The
political scientist can, in effect, capture segments of that will 0' the wisp
called transnational social/economic phenomena, by carefully disaggregat-
ing a series of domestic policymaking processes, and then recombining the
segments through comparative analysis. One sees, at this juncture, the
fundamental importance of maintaining a strong linkage between studying
the making of foreign policies affecting migration and examining political
patterns of migration relations among states.

DESCRIBING PATTERNS OF INTERNATIONAL

MIGRA TION RELA TIONS
Our excursion into the role ofthe state and the process of "internal" policy
setting has located points oforigin for at least one key form ofpolitical power
- the strength ofstates - in global society. We may now turn to the pursuit
of mid-range patterns of migration related political behavior among na-
tions. Such patterns are defined concisely as regularities in state action or
interstate dealings affecting migration which have comparable roots in
domestic political economy and which are replicated either historically or
geographically. The areas of interest may roughly be divided between 1)
generalizations about patterns of state actions on migration, and 2)
regularities in behavior (relevant to migration) among states, along a wide
continuum ranging from conflict to cooperation. In each area, important
 700 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

research issues (often arising from advances made in the existing literature)
are connected to potential subjects for study or strategies of investigation.

Patterns of State Action on Migration

Teitelbaum's (1985b) emphasis on the uses of migration as a policy instru-
ment may be extended, with at least two broader gauge questions in mind.
Why do certain kinds of states choose to promote migration, especially the
movement ofrefugees? What can we say about the long term consequences,
for the regimes and persons involved, of using migration as a policy tool?
To address the first question, it helps to draw upon comparative theories
of domestic structure and especially of internal regime change. Zolberg,
Suhrke and Aguayo (1986, and forthcoming), for example, are advancing a
number ofintermediate generalizations in this field, focusing especially on
the links between the generation of refugees and two processes in the
developing world. These are sudden changes in domestic regime (especially
through social revolution) and the re-organization ofpolitical communities,
e.g. as nation-states emerge from colonial empires. Both processes may be
made more complex by outside military and political intervention. This
latter and widespread phenomenon broadens the scope ofstates covered to
include the superpowers and raises ethical issues to be discussed shortly.
In this connection, we would do well to avoid excessive rationalism or
voluntarism in gauging the possible connections between foreign policy and
immigration flows. Often international population movements have been
one of the major unintended consequences of international policy steps
initiated for altogether different purposes. To note examples from only one
region during the past quarter-century, U.S. military or "covert" interven-
tions in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Cuba have helped to trigger migratory
flows that clearly were not anticipated by policy planners.
In examining the longer term results of utilizing migration as a policy
instrument, we are fortunate to be able to draw on a good deal ofexperience
since World War II, which will likely repay more active investigation.
Mitchell et at. (forthcoming) examined this issue and found (in U.S. migra-
tion relations with the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico) that there
were cases in which migration actions exerted a "feedback" effect: migration
policy grew so important in bilateral foreign relations that it came to shape
overall United States foreign dealings with a sending nation. Analogous
studies might be undertaken ofthe long term effects ofAfghan refugee flows
on Soviet-Pakistani relations, or of how the waves of expellees from Viet-
nam have affected ties between Hanoi and receiving nations.
Relatively consistent lines ofstate action which (deliberately or not) treat
emigration as a goal or an instrument raise clear ethical questions. What
responsibility falls upon the migration generating state? What obligations
 INTERNATIONAL REI.ATIONSAND FOREIGN POLICY 701

may be incumbent on other nations or groups of nations, and on what

grounds? To supplement the emerging discussions of these issues (e.g.,
Hoffmann, 1981; Brown and Shue, 1981), scholars have little choice but to
emulate Zolberg's broad interpretation ofwhat constitutes "policy": without
stressing recriminations, the migration related consequences of action by
developing or belligerent states ought to be the starting point for analysis.
At the same time, it is only realistic to note that while states may well acquire
such obligations in theory, they (especially the most powerful ones) are not
likely to recognize and comply with abstract duties fully in practice.

Regularities in Interstate Dealings

In this field, three questions emerge from our grounding in international
political economy, questions which undertake to identify some elements of
power in the structure of global interactions. First, how is political power
distributed among states involved in well-established international
migratory flows? Second, how do national political power - and interna-
tional practice - relate to the handling of "labor" vs. "refugee" migrations?
Finally, how do international power distributions in the field of migration
change in relation to global economic and social trends?
On power distributions, contemporary political science offers ample
analytic "infrastructure" for mid-range generalizations about many sorts of
semi-cooperative behavior among nation-states. As Miller and
Papademetriou (1983) have noted, studies of what has become known as
"complex interdependence" (Keohane and Nye, 1972; Keohane and Nye,
1977; Keohane, 1983) provide a vocabulary that subordinates issues of
sovereignty to questions of how states and sub-state political actors behave.
Part of the "complexity" included in this concept refers to a recognition
which proves essential for the application of these notions to migration -
the insight that interdependent relations may be asymmetrical in benefits
and may include the sharing of vulnerabilities. The analyst may also draw
upon a reborn scholarly interest in international "spheres of influence",
exemplified in Triska (1986). It is doubtful indeed that any interstate
behavior patterns dealing with migration reach the level of international
"regimes", defined as "sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules
and decisionmaking procedures around which actors' expectations con-
verge in a given area of international relations" (Krasner, 1983:2). But the
existence and refinement of such models of international action may pro-
vide ideal-types in relation to which migration practices may be evaluated.
One quite traditional form of migration research offers useful access to
questions of power distribution: regional studies in zones such as the
Caribbean, the United States and the circum-Caribbean region, the
Southern Cone ofLatin America, East Africa and sections ofthe Middle East.
 702 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

Casting its empirical net widely, this form of research also has the occasional
advantage of working with a manageable array of cultural, religious and
linguistic differences within the region. Scholars might assess forms of
patterned interaction, ranging from the close and formal interstate coopera-
tion in the founding years of the West European labor importation system,
to whatJorge Dominguez (in Mitchell et al., forthcoming) terms the 25 year
record of "antagonistic cooperation" between the United States and Cuba
on migration issues. One of the most obvious comparisons - that between
the migration "sub-system" centered on Western Europe and that linked
with the United States - offers the chance to contrast the political charac-
teristics of a system with one "core" hegemonic state, with the impact of a
plurality oflabor importing strong economies. Regional migration research
can draw upon sizable existing literatures to test hypotheses on the sources
and significance ofpolitical action for population movement. A key theoreti-
cal challenge in regional migration studies will be to press for comparability
with power alignments affecting migration in other regions so as to avoid
"one-region theories".
Interstate migration dealings in the Western Hemisphere, one may note
to underscore the value of interregional comparisons, are in some ways
coming to resemble West Europe's relations with its migration "periphery".
In the four decades since World War II, a network of contacts and agree-
ments grew up between labor sending and European "host" governments
over migrants' legal and cultural rights, resident status, links with home
governments and other issues (Heisler and Heisler, 1986:34-50). Analogous
channels of "functional" negotiation on immigration matters are now
developing between the United States and Cuba, Haiti, EI Salvador and
Mexico. These new contacts result in part from the limitations placed on
illegal access to the U.S. labor market by the 1986 Simpson/Rodino im-
migration law.
Regional studies' coverage both of "labor" and "refugee" flows puts this
style of research in a good position to assess some of the points of contact
between international economic and political trends. There is likely to be
overlap between this inquiry and the examination ofstate action, as we have
seen. Research thus far (e.g. Bach, 1987; Hammar, 1985; Mitchell et al.,
forthcoming) also suggests that national ideologies - both in general and
those focused on migration - may well be key variables in the labeling of
migration flows, with major consequences both for individuals and societies.
Finally, the migration policy echoes ofchanges in the economic and social
components of the world political economy may be sought through histori-
cal migration studies. One need not define "historical" very restrictively in
this pursuit, since alterations in global patterns of production, social values
and economic interest are currently taking place rapidly. Major oppor-
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 703

tunities for analysis of changes over time, for example, are provided by the
juxtaposition of U.S. restrictionist measures since 1980 with the nation's
headlong emergence as the world's largest debtor state; the migration policy
effects connected with the development of "newly industrialized countries"
(NIC's), particularly in East Asia; and the alterations in political relations
linked with Western Europe's reduced appetite for temporary foreign
workers since the mid-1970s. 4
A CONCLUDING NOTE-
More than five years ago, Aristide Zolberg provided a compact theoretical
overview in which every word counts to situate migration among global
social changes:
The world can be conceptualized as a global field ofsocial interactions
structured by demographic, cultural, economic, and political processes
occurring within and among societies. Each of these processes simul-
taneously contributes to the shaping of the others and is in turn
conditioned by them. In any particular historical period, these inter-
actions form an identifiable configuration of world conditions that
pattern population movements into a migration epoch (1983:16).
Examining the political aspect of this problematic, path-breaking
scholars have not been especially perturbed by the absence of a full overar-
ching model of the world political economy as a framework to which they
might affix their findings. Instead, they have probed complex and often
initially puzzling political relationships within, among and transcending
nation-states. They have been drawn partly by what Portes and Walton
(1981) have called the "theoretical centrality" of migration as a field ofstudy,
by its potential (in the international as well as domestic spheres) to open
windows into key mechanisms of social change, and to do so in a way that
relates directly to the experience of identifiable and sometimes admirable
individuals. If efforts in this field have sometimes been stronger on clas-
sification than on the elucidation of basic political dynamics, one must keep
in mind that an enormous sweep ofsocial data - at several distinct political
and analytical levels -was being pursued.
As the study ofinternational migration politics advances, furthermore, it
may be able to establish a reverse flow of theoretical insights, contributing
to a clearer grasp of more universal processes. Mid-range generalizations
on the links among domestic change, external intervention and refugee
flows or on connections linking major trends in productive patterns with
regional population movements and national immigration policies have
4 The literature on direct foreign investment in the petroleum and mining sectors has
produced the possibly analogous concept of an "obsolescing bargain", as the host nation's
leverage increases (often along with its desire to use that leverage) once a big- ticket mine or oil
field has been constructed. See, Moran, 1974, Rodman, 1988, Heisler, 1985.
 704 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

obvious relevance to understanding the confrontations of states with

markets, and states with states, in international life. If better communica-
tions can be established between migration studies and broader research on
global change, findings on the political relations of migration may con-
tribute importantly to the general study of international political economy.
REFERENCES
Allison, G.T. and M. Halperin
1972 "Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications", World Politics.
Supplement to Volume 24. Spring.
Bach, R.L.
1987 "The Cuban Exodus: Political and Economic Motivations", In The Caribbean Exodus.
Edited by Barry B. Levine. New York: Praeger.

1985a "Political Frameworks for International Migration", In The Americas in the New Interna-
tional Division ofLabor. Edited by Steven E. Sanderson. New York: Holmes and Meier.

1985b "Western Hemispheric Immigration to the United States: A Review ofSelected Research
Trends". Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Hemispheric Migration Project,
Occasional Paper Series
Baldwin, DA.
1985 Economic Statecraft. Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press.
Basiuk, V.
1977 Technology, World Politics and American Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, P.G. and H. Shue, eds.
1981 Boundaries: National Autonomy and its Limits. Totowa, NJ.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Cardona, R. et at.
1980 El exodode colombianos:Un estudio dela corriente migratoria a los Estados Unidos y un intento
para propicior el retorno. Bogota: Ediciones Tercer Mundo.
Castles, S. and G. Kosack
1985 Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. London: Oxford University
Press (second edition).
Cornelius, W A. and R. Anzaldua Montoya, eds.
1983 America's New Immigration Law: Origins, Rationales and Potential Consequences. San Diego:
University of California at San Diego Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Craig, R.B.
1971 The Bracero Program: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Destler, I.M.
1986 American Trade Politics: System Under Stress. Washington, D.C.: Institute for
International Economics.

1980 Making Foreign Economic Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

1972 Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy: The Politics ofOrganizational Reform.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 705

Divine, RA.
1957 American Immigration Policy, 1924-1952. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Evans, P.B, et al., eds.

1985 Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia y Griego, M.
1983 "The Importation of Mexican Contract Laborers to the United States, 1942-64:
Antecedents, Operation, and Legacy". In The Border that Joins: Mexican Migrants and
U.S. Responsibility. Edited by P.G. Brown and H. Shue. Totowa, Nj: Rowman and
Littlefield.

Gilpin, R.
1987 The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Gourevitch, P.
1986 Politicsin Hard Times:Comparative Responsesto International Economic Crises. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.

Hammar, T., ed.

1985 European Immigration Policy: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Hart,jA.
1983 The New International Economic Order: Conflict and Cooperation in North-South Economic
Relations, 1974-77. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Haskins, C.P.
1964 The Scientifu:: Revolution and World Politics. New York: Harper and Row.

Heisler, B.S.
1985 "Sending Countries and the Politics of Emigration and Destination",
International Migration Review 19(3):469-84. Fall.
Heisler, M.O. and B.S.Heisler, eds.
1986 From Foreign Workers to Settlerst Transnational Migration and the Emergence of New
Minorities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 485.
May.

Higham,j.
1984 Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America. Baltimore: The johns Hopkins
University Press.

Hoffmann, S.
1981 Duties Beyond Borders. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Inter-American Dialogue
1988 The Americas in 1988: A Time for Choices. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies.

Keely, C.B. and R.Tucker, eds.

(forthcoming) Immigration and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Keohane, R.O., ed.

1986 Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.

1983 "Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond". In Political Science: The
State of the Discipline. Edited by A.W. Finifter, Washington, D.C.: American Political
Science Association.
 706 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

Keohane, R.O. andj.S. Nye,jr., eds.

1972 Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Keohane, R.O. andj.S. Nye,jr.

1977 Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.

Krasner, S.D., ed.

1983 International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kritz, M.M., ed.

1983 U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Kubat, D. et al., eds.

1979 The Politics ofMigration Policies: The First World in the 1970s. Staten Island, NY:
Center for Migration Studies.
Lipson, C.
1985 "Bankers' Dilemmas: Private Cooperation in Rescheduling Sovereign Debts",
World Politics, 38(1):200-225. October.

Loescher, G. andj.A. Scanlan

1986 Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America's Half-Open Door, 1945 to the Present.
New York: The Free Press.

Meissner, D.M. et al.

1986 Legalization of Undocumented Aliens: Lessons from Other Countries. Washington, D.C.

Meissner, D.M. and D.G. Papademetriou

1988 The Legalization Countdown: A Third-Q!J.arter Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace.

Miller, MJ. and P.L. Martin

1982 Administering Foreign-Worker Programs: Lessons from Europe. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.

Miller, M.j. and D.G. Papademetriou

1983 "Immigration and U.S. Foreign Policy". In The Unavoidable Issue: U.S. Immigration Policy
in the 1980s. Edited by D.G. Papademetriou and M.j. Miller. Philadelphia: Institute for
the Study of Human Issues.
Mitchell, C.
1988 "The Simpson/Rodino Act and the Inter-American Politics of Migration". Paper
presented at the Conference on Dominican Migration to the United States, sponsored
by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March.

Mitchell, C., et al.

forthcoming Immigration Policy and U.S. Foreign Relations with Latin America.
Moran, T.H.
1974 Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Morgenthau, H.j.
1948 Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace .New York: Knopf.

Morris, M.D.
1985 Immigration: The Beleaguered Bureaucracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Nichols,j.B.
1988 The Uneasy Alliance: Religion, Refugee Work, and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY 707

Nye, ].S., Jr.

1988 "Neorealism and Neoliberalism", World Politics, 40(2):235- 251. Jan.

Oliveri, E.J.,Jr.
1987 "The Latin American Debt Crisis: The Politics of Stress and Adjustment in the
Inter-American Finance Regime". Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.

pastor, R.A.
1984 "U.S. Immigration Policy and Latin America: In Search of the 'Special Relationship"',
Latin American Research Review, 19(3):35-56.

1983 "Migration in the Caribbean Basin: The Need for an Approach as Dynamic as the
Phenomenon," in U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy:Globaland Domestic Issues. Edited
by M.M. Kritz. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Pastor, R.A., ed.

1985 Migration and Development in the Caribbean: The Unexplored Connection. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Portes, A. andJ. Walton

1981 Labor, Class, and the International System. New York: Academic Press.

Rodman, K.A.
1988 Sanctity Versus Sovereignty: The United States and the Nationalization of Natural Resource
Investments. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rogers, R., ed.

1985 Guests Come to Stay: The Effects of European Labor Migration on Sending and Receiving
Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwartz, A.P.
1968 The Open Society. New York: William Morrow.

Spero,J.E.
1985 The PoliticsofInternational Economit;Relations. New York: St. Martin's Press, 3rd edition.

Spanier,].
1985 American Foreign Policy Since World War II. Tenth edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

Teitelbaum, Michael S.
1985 Latin Migration North. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

1984a "International Migration and U.S. Foreign Policy". In In Defense of the Alien, Vol. VI.
New York: Center for Migration Studies.

1984b "Immigration, Refugees and Foreign Policy", International Organization, Vol. 38 (4).'

1980 "Right versus Right: Immigration and Refugee Policy in the United States", Foreign
Affairs, 59:21-59.

Triska,].F., ed.
1986 Dominant Powers and Subordinate States: The United States in Latin America and the Soviet
Union in Eastern Europe. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Wallerstein, I.
1979 The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 708 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

1974 The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.

Weiner, M.
1985 "On International Migration and International Relations", Population and Development
Review, 11(3):441-455.

Zolberg, Aristide
1978 "The Main Gate and the Back Door: The Politics of American Immigration Policy,
1950-1976". Unpublished paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

1981a "International Migrations in Political Perspective". In Global Trends in Migration: Theory

and Research in International Population Movements. Edited by M.M. Kritz, C.B. Keely
and S. M. Tomasi, New York: Center for Migration Studies.

1981b "Origins of the Modern World System: A Missing Link", World Politics, 23(2):253-28l.
January.

1983 "Contemporary Transnational Migrations in Historical Perspective: Patterns and

Dilemmas", In u.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy. Edited by M.M. Kritz. Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath.

1984 "International Migration and Foreign Policy: When Does a Marginal Issue Become
Substantive?", In In Defense of the Alien, Volume VI: Immigration and Refugee Policy.
Edited by L.F. Tomasi. New York: Center for Migration Studies.

Zolberg, A., A. Suhrke and S. Aguayo

1986 "International Factors in the Formation of Refugee Movements", International
Migration Review 20(2):151-169. Summer.

forthcoming 1989 Escape from Violence: The Refugee Crisis in the Developing World.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Zucker, Norman L. and Naomi Flink Zucker

1987 The Guarded Gate: The Reality ofAmerican Refugee Policy. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.