This article was downloaded by: [National Chengchi University]

On: 13 April 2015, At: 23:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Migrant Balancing Acts: Understanding

the Interactions Between Integration
and Transnationalism
a

Marta Bivand Erdal & Ceri Oeppen

a

Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

Geography , University of Sussex

Published online: 22 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Marta Bivand Erdal & Ceri Oeppen (2013) Migrant Balancing Acts:
Understanding the Interactions Between Integration and Transnationalism, Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 39:6, 867-884, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.765647
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.765647

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2013

Vol. 39, No. 6, 867884, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.765647

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Migrant Balancing Acts:

Understanding the Interactions
Between Integration and
Transnationalism
Marta Bivand Erdal and Ceri Oeppen

In this article, we explore ways of understanding the interactions between migrant

integration and transnationalism, based on a review of quantitative and qualitative
literature. Integration is taken as the starting point, and the assumption that integration
and transnationalism are at odds with one another is questioned. When considered as
constituents of a social process, we argue that there are many similarities between
integration and transnationalism. A typology for understanding these interactions is
developed, based on an acknowledgment of migrants agency in straddling two
societies*as a balancing act. This typology is presented as a tool to enable migration
scholars to move beyond simply acknowledging the co-existence of transnationalism and
integration and towards an analysis of the nature of interactions between the two*
understood in relation both to particular places and contexts and to the human beings
involved and their functional, emotional and pragmatic considerations.
Keywords: Transnationalism; Integration; Migration; Agency; Social Process
Introduction
Interactions between integration and transnationalism have received increased
attention over the past decade in both North America and Europe from scholars
of migrant transnationalism, who explore the empirical patterns of migrants
transnational practices, and observe whether they coexist with indicators of
integration (Itzigsohn and Saucedo 2002; Morawska 2003; Schans 2009; Snel et al.
2006; Tamaki 2011; Tharmalingam 2011). This article takes migrant integration as its
Marta Bivand Erdal is Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Correspondence to
Dr M. Erdal, PRIO, PO Box 9229, Grnland, NO-0134 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: marta@prio.no. Ceri Oeppen is
Lecturer in Geography at the University of Sussex. Correspondence to: Dr C. Oeppen, Dept of Geography,
School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SJ, UK. E-mail: c.j.oeppen@sussex.ac.uk.
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

868 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

starting point, and explores whether and how migrant transnationalism interacts
with it. Studies of integration have often focused on the perceived significance of
differences between groups. Depending on how nation, ethnicity and difference are
understood, transnational ties have been assumed to represent a challenge to
migrants successful integration (Snel et al. 2006). We argue that whether migrants
transnational ties are seen as a significant marker of difference is central to how the
impact of transnationalism on processes of integration is understood. Whether or not
migrants integration and their transnational ties are at odds with one another is a
politically sensitive issue and is our focus in this paper.
This article is based on a discussion of the literatures on migrant integration and
transnationalism and the interactions between them. Our argument is also informed
by our own qualitative empirical work in 200709, which has focused on the Afghan
diaspora in the US and the UK, and on Pakistani migrants in Norway, with their
respective ties to places and societies of origin. While we have researched migrant
groups where a majority of individuals are probably Muslim, issues relating to being a
Muslim in Western societies have (perhaps surprisingly) not been an important
feature of our interactions with migrants, and have not dominated our empirical
data, as neither of us chose to problematise this, nor assumed that being a Muslim
was the key identity marker for the individuals we spoke with. Rather, our approach
was to understand migrants own strategies with regard to their lives in the countries
of settlement, and in relation to sustaining transnational ties, by allowing their own
reflections and perspectives to come across. It is with this conceptual approach in
mind that we perceive the interactions of migrant integration and transnationalism:
as the balancing acts of migrants who can access opportunities*but who may also
have responsibilities*in two or more societies.
Integration is a contentious term that is understood in multiple ways on a range of
levels. Consequently, we first introduce the topic highlighting our understanding of the
term. Second, we review the existing literature on the interactions between integration
and transnationalism. We then discuss the similarities and differences between
integration and transnationalism as social processess, before presenting a typology of
interactions between them. Finally we introduce the papers which make up this special
issue of JEMS, and which provide us with different ways to perceive these interactions.
For many years, migration scholars have indicated that transnationalism and
integration are not mutually exclusive. When considering the opportunities and
demands which both transnational activities and integration processes entail,
focusing on how migrants maintain a balance between them enables us to move
beyond simply pointing out their co-existence and towards an understanding of how
they interact.

Perspectives on Migrant Integration

The nature of processes of migrant integration has been a preoccupation of social
scientists interested in the similarities, differences and interactions between groups

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

869

since the 1920s (Kivisto 2005a). Even in this early work, the complexities that
underlie migrant adaptation processes are noted, in particular the difficulties of
defining and naming them. At the same time, the fact that societies and migrants
inevitably do adapt to each other*and make their lives function in one way or
another*is also recognised (Kivisto 2005b).
The concepts used when referring to processes of migrant adaptation have varied
across time and space, with assimilation being more common in North America and
integration in Europe (Modood 2005), whilst alternatives such as inclusion,
incorporation and social cohesion are also used. Some terminology*such as
multiculturalism and assimilation*has been linked with particular political and
normative views. Integration has been used as a normative description of a middle
ground between multiculturalism and assimilation. It has then focused on migrants
full participation in the labour market and their formal citizenship, but left matters of
social membership and cultural preferences open to personal choice. However,
proponents of a re-assessment of assimilation argue that canonical accounts of
assimilation properly understood also make allowances for individual freedoms in
terms of cultural and religious preferences, even though they have been interpreted as
a melting pot idea (Alba and Nee 2003; Kivisto 2005b). Despite calls for a
rehabilitation of the term assimilation, in Europe integration is the most common
way of referring to migrant adaptation processes, not only when discussing normative
dimensions of policy, but also when discussing empirical patterns or migrants own
experiences. Consequently, we have chosen to use the term integration in this article.
The study of migrant integration has evolved over time, as part of developments
within the social sciences, and with evolving migration patterns set in the context
of wider historical changes. The study of integration has been closely linked to the
issue of migrants legal status(es)*for instance as citizens of colonies or former
colonies*which provide particular sets of rights to migrants. Legal status and
questions of citizenship continue to be important in the study of migrant integration
at a time when options for regular migration from the Global South to the North are
increasingly curtailed (Strang and Ager 2010). The requirement that prospective
migrants pass tests on language skills and socio-cultural knowledge prior to being
granted entry and/or undertake programmes focusing on language and societal
knowledge on arrival indicates the importance which governments place on
particular indicators of integration (Joppke 2007). Such a perspective on immigration and integration is politically grounded in governments need to be seen as
managing migration and community cohesion in the context of increased global
mobility. However, this perspective regards integration as a one-way process, with the
onus on migrants to integrate into societies of settlement. A one-way view of
integration is revealing of an asymmetric understanding of social process, where
structures (such as a states integration requirements and territorial boundaries) are
rigid, with little room left for the agency of the actors involved, including that of the
migrants themselves (Strang and Ager 2010).

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

870 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

Studies of migrant integration often focus on differences between groups*in

particular between ethnic minority migrant groups and the majority population. This
approach has been critiqued inter alia because of essentialising the national both in
relation to the majority population, who are never one homogenous entity, and in
relation to minority groups (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003). Studying the
differences between groups may also be critiqued for sampling on the dependent
variable*if you are looking for differences, you are more likely to find differences
rather than similarities. More recently, scholars have conceptualised integration as a
process of negotiation and a dialectical relationship between groups or individuals
(Ehrkamp 2006; Nagel 2009). In this context it has been suggested that the issue is
not differences between groups as such, but the importance that is placed on
particular differences*and whether they are seen as acceptable or deviant (Nagel
2009). The question of whether transnational identification and identities are seen as
acceptable or not is part of this debate, and part of the hierarchy of differences that is
implicit within discussions of migrant integration.
Visual differences are often of greater importance than invisible differences (Ezzati
2011; Juul 2010). The most obvious and perhaps most sensitive issue is that of race,
despite being a continuing challenge in European societies. Race and racism are often
unacknowledged in debates about migrant integration. This lack of focus may be
explained in relation to the sensitivity of these issues in contemporary multicultural
society. The near taboo-like status of race is pointed out by Lentin and Titley (2011)
who argue that, in the midst of the crisis of multiculturalism, culture is being used
as a proxy for race. Conflating race with culture*as markers of difference*poses
challenges to the enabling of peaceful co-existence in multicultural societies. Since
9/11, symbols of Muslim identity*such as wearing a hijab*have also become
important visual markers of difference and points of contention that reflect conflicts
related to migrant integration. Meanwhile, differences that have been accepted,
normalised and even celebrated include particular food types and music. Differences
between groups as the entry point to the discussion of migrant integration contrast
with perspectives that emphasise diversity, super-diversity and cultural complexity as
key aspects of particular societies and places (Eriksen 2011; Tharmalingam 2011;
Vertovec 2007). While sometimes associated with the multicultural approach to
migrant integration, these perspectives allow an open inquiry into the societal
transformations which are taking place in many contemporary European contexts.
Youth of migrant or mixed backgrounds, for instance, are not defined by their
parents national origins, but more by the new types of hybrid identity they represent
(see also Vathi 2013).
An important distinction should be made between empirical observations of
integration as a process that affects migrants and the societies in which they live, and
the politically loaded idea of integration as an identifiable endpoint that social
policy can implement. Integration policies may be expressed in a variety of ways and
may be described as having, for example, a multiculturalist or an assimilationist
slant*as such they clearly have goals attached (see Vancluysen et al. 2009).

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

871

In contrast, migrants integration efforts, including their interaction with measures

set out by integration policies, do not necessarily have a normative dimension. This is
an important distinction to reflect on, as often the term integration is used in such a
way that it bundles analytic concepts together with normative notions or idealised
projections of society, which are weighed with very different emotional and attitudinal valences in different groups and contexts (Phalet and Swyngedouw 2003: 779).
In this article and in the other contributions to this special issue, the focus is on
migrants integration rather than integration policies per se, and integration is
understood as a process rather than an identifiable endpoint.
Another important distinction to be made acknowledges the different aspects of
integration and involves deconstructing the idea of integration into two separate
dimensions*structural and socio-cultural integration. The former encompasses the
more functional (and more easily measurable) aspects of integration, including how
migrants are incorporated into societal structures (e.g. labour market, education); the
latter, the more complex (and more difficult to measure) aspects of integration, such
as social networks that incorporate migrant and majority populations, and emotions
of belonging/being at home (Snel et al. 2006).
Finally, studies of integration need to focus more on the contexts for integration
and the corresponding cultural, social and political expectations about membership,
and how they are organised through citizenship. For example, in the European
context, the two traditional contrasting cases have been the so-called French model,
with demos-nationalism, and the German model with ethnos-nationalism. While in
the first, citizenship*and thus full membership in society*could be obtained
regardless of ethnicity, in the second, citizenship and membership rights were linked
to ethnicity and blood ties (Brubaker 1992). The relative importance placed on social
diversity within a particular context is also crucial. Writing about Sweden, Akesson
(2011) suggests that difference or diversity, including having transnational connections, may be an integral part of integration, where integration is gaining
membership in a multicultural society. However, the nature of the difference is
important*which differences are acknowledged, how are they defined and by whom?
Reflecting on responses to integration in the USA, Waldinger (2007: 141) states that
holding onto earlier identities and cultures is perfectly acceptable as long as these are
additions to a fundamentally American core; in other words, some differences are
acceptable while others are not.
In this article the process of integration is understood as one whereby actors
negotiate membership in a particular place. We also understand the term integration
to encompass a wide range of more-or-less tangible indicators ranging from the
structural to the socio-cultural. Our understanding of transnationalism follows that
of Vertovec (1999) and Levitt and Glick Schiller (2004), whereby we include as
transnationalism both ways of being and ways of belonging. Further discussions on
the limititations and scope of transnationalism are beyond the remit of this paper, but
are well covered elsewhere (Vertovec 2009; Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004).

872 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Interactions Between Migrant Integration and Transnationalism

What is the relationship between integration and transnationalism? It is possible to
identify four different (but often overlapping) positions in the literature: alarmist, less
alarmist but pessimistic, positive and pragmatic.
The alarmist view is that functional or symbolic transnational ties put migrants in a
position of dual loyalty that challenges, or even prevents, their integration in the place
of settlement. This fear is especially pronounced if there is perceived to be an
ideological or actual conflict between the country of settlement and the place(s)*or
transnational spaces such as the Islamic ummah*that the migrant (also) identifies
with. The war on terror and fears of home-grown terrorists have exacerbated this
viewpoint. Even putting aside the extremes of violent conflict, transnational
connections may still be seen as a threat to the imagined cultural cohesion of the
majority population. The perceived cultural difference of ethnic minorities may
engender fear and mistrust in the majority population. This can be linked to local
activities*attending festivals and wearing culturally specific dress*transnational
activities like remittance-sending and visits, or activities which are neither entirely
transnational nor locally oriented, such as watching diaspora satellite-TV channels.
As Nagel (2009) indicates, it is not difference per se that is the issue, but the particular
types of difference that are socially constructed as significant reasons for mistrust.
This can have a circular effect in that the more the majority population mistrusts the
minority, the more likely it is that minorities will have to foster links to co-ethnics,
whether in the destination country or transnationally, to the country of origin or the
diaspora (Faist 1999; Waldinger 2007).
A less alarmist but also pessimistic position is that, where functional integration is
difficult, migrants*particularly those whose language skills and human and cultural
capital are not immediately applicable in the country of settlement*may have to
engage in transnational livelihood strategies. Earlier studies of transnationalism tend
towards this understanding (see, for example, Appadurai 1990; Basch et al. 1994;
Faist 1999). Cohen and Sirkeci (2005) suggest that the necessity of relying on
transnational networks especially in the early stages of settlement*for example, in
finding a job and accommodation*leads to ethnic enclaves and ghettoisation, thus
limiting integration. One critique of this position is that Cohen and Sirkeci are
conflating transnational networks with ethnic networks, which is problematic
because analytically it makes sense to not confuse the two (Carling 2007: 18).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that participation in transnational activities and
networks can involve major demands of time, resources and energy . . . the
[transnational] community competes with the civic society of the host society for
them (Kivisto 2001: 571; see also Smith 2006).
The third position on the interaction between integration and transnationalism
could be described as a positive position; the idea that processes of integration and
transnationalism could be mutually supportive. For example, Oeppen (2013) shows
how transnational return visits generate resources that can be invested in integration.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

873

Levitt (2003) looks at interaction from the other direction and gives the example of
how successful integration into the economic mainstream may fund transnational
activities such as investment and return visits, although she also highlights how some
other combinations of transnational activities and integration may not be beneficial
to each other. In addition, as some quantitative studies indicate, commonly used
markers of structural integration such as time spent in the destination country,
financial stability and education levels seem to be positively associated with
transnationalism, at least with transnational entrepreneurship and political activism
(Hammond 2013; Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo 2005; Vertovec 2009). Jayaweera
and Choudhury (2008) looked at indicators of social, political and economic
integration for migrants in the UK and found that higher levels of social interaction
were associated with a higher number of transnational involvements. These
associations are difficult to unpick*a causal relationship has not been established.
There could be other reasons why there appears to be a correlation between
transnational entrepreneurship and integration; for example, it is also possible that
there is a link between higher levels of human capital and corresponding levels of
both transnational economic activity and structural integration.
Given the difficulty of identifying a causal relationship in such studies, Vertovec
(2009) is correct in saying that the reasons for correlations between levels of higher
integration and transnational involvement are unclear. He goes on to say that a
possible reason is that engagement in any social interaction, whether locally or
transnationally, gives an individual the confidence to interact and engage with others.
Both Vertovec (2009) and Kivisto (2001) hypothesise that any positive relationships
might be to do with self-esteem. In so doing, Kivisto explicitly builds on Lals
ethnicity paradox*which suggests that the support of local ethnic communities
helps immigrants to adapt to host societies (Lal 1990 in Kivisto 2001: 572)*and
posits that confidence (and social capital) can be built through the support of both
transnational and local communities and networks. He suggests that this confidence
(or self-esteem) may be key to understanding why empirical findings show that those
who are more involved in transnational activities are more likely to show indicators
of successful integration and vice versa. This is also found to be the case among
Tamils in Norway, who build up self-esteem through transnational engagements,
which strengthens their position with regard to integration efforts (Tharmalingam
2011).
The fourth (and dominant) position in the literature on transnationalism and
integration is a pragmatic approach. The pragmatic position is that the likely reality
for the majority of migrants is more nuanced than an either/or choice between
transnationalism and assimilation. This is increasingly recognised both in the moretheoretical discursive literature (Joppke and Morawska 2003; Kivisto 2001, 2005a;
Lucassen 2006; Vertovec 2009) and the empirical literature (de Haas and Fokkema
2011; Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo 2005; Jayaweera and Choudhury 2008;
Levitt 2003; Mazzucato 2008; Morawska 2003; Nagel and Staeheli 2008; Smith
2006; Snel et al. 2006). The consensus of these authors is that transnational ties can

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

874 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

exist alongside processes of integration, so that the two are not necessarily a zero sum
game. Even those who propose transnationalism as an alternative to integration still
recognise that transnationalism, properly understood, is a two-sided coin. To be
transnational means that migrants develop some significant social and symbolic ties
to the receiving country as well as to co-ethnics elsewhere, in the diaspora or in the
sending country (Faist 1999: 10). Lucassen (2006) suggests that the continuing
confusion over the meaning of integration is the remaining stumbling block to a
greater acceptance of the pragmatic position that there is no either/or between
transnationalism and integration. If assimilation is understood as a programme,
something that migrants are pushed into and expected to achieve within a given
timeframe, then integration and transnationalism are not compatible. However, if
integration is seen as a process, as we understand it, then there is no conflict.
Much of the empirical work on interactions between migrant integration and
transnationalism tends to support the pragmatic approach. Snel et al. (2006: 285) ask
[w]hat do . . . [the] transnational activities and identification of modern transmigrants imply for their incorporation or integration into the host society? They
examined this issue through a survey of 300 migrants from six countries (Morocco,
the Dutch Antilles, Iraq, Former Yugoslavia, the USA and Japan) in the Netherlands.
They concluded that transnationalism does not necessarily impede integration but
that the association between the two varies by sending country. Their study is
interesting in a number of ways. It was carried out in the European context, in
contrast to a majority of similar studies that have been based on the USA/Latin
America migration corridor. It mixed different migration trajectories*refugees,
labour migrants, established ethnic minorities, and groups originating from the
Global North and South*and differentiated between structural and socio-cultural
integration (see also Carling and Hoelscher 2013).
Dynamics within communities are an important consideration. Mazzucatos
(2008) study of Ghanaians in the Netherlands demonstrates how migrants
engagements with countries of origin and settlement change over time and according
to situation. Mazzucato shows that, whilst the migration aim might be to send
remittances, the age of many Ghanaian migrants means that they are also likely to
have children whilst in the Netherlands. This changes migration dynamics, as
children attend Dutch schools and become acculturated in the Dutch way of life
(Mazzucato 2008: 206). This supports Levitt et al.s (2003) call for a greater awareness
of how an individual migrants position*in terms of stage in the life-cycle, human
and social capital resources, class, and sending- and receiving-country contexts*may
affect their ability and desire to have transnational ties and the type of
transnationalism they engage in (see also Binaisa 2013). Levitt (2003) argues that
the same factors should be applied to any study of migrants integration process.
Despite the attention given to the challenge it poses in migration studies (Glick
Schiller 2005; Glick Schiller et al. 2006), migration scholars continue to look at
migrant groups firstly as homogenous and defined through an ethnic lens and,
secondly, as stuck in time. Too often there is not enough recognition of multiple

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

875

group memberships or affiliations or of the fact that migrants priorities may change
over time. The empirical evidence on interactions between migrant integration and
transnationalism clearly points to the co-existence of these phenomena. At times they
interact with one another, and at times they do not, dependent on a diversity of
experiences that vary according to time, context and migration histories (see
Engbersen et al. 2013). The rich body of work exploring co-existence and potential
interactions, however, does not ask many questions about the nature of these
interactions. Based on the dominant pragmatic view in the literature, we argue that
more attention needs to be given to actors agency in order to understand more of the
nature of interactions between processes of integration and transnationalism. The
agency both of migrants and of others living in societies of settlement needs to be
included in the analysis, which then focuses on social process rather than on cultural
difference. In the following section, we explore the ways in which migrant integration
and transnationalism are both similar and different whilst being part of a social
process.

Migrant Integration and Transnationalism as Social Processes

Both integration and transnationalism are parts of ongoing social processes, whereby
individuals and groups, their cultures and their organisational methods, can undergo
change or be preserved over time. As a result, we find that there are a number of ways
in which migrant transnationalism and integration can be seen as similar. Both are
essentially forms of a social process whereby people adapt to changing circumstances
due to spatial movement by themselves or others. Migrant integration refers to
adaption in a new locality, set within its particular territorial and political context.
Transnationalism refers to an adaptation to changed circumstances resulting
from migration across spatial distances (Ley 2004). Transnational ties are ways of
continuing existing pre-migration relations to people and places which are now
separated from the migrant by great distances (although transnational activities can
also generate new ties). Migrant integration and transnationalism are both about
interactions and negotiations between migrants and non-migrants, individuals,
groups and societies, and both are multifaceted. Individuals integration processes
and transnational ties develop in multiple and varying ways, according to particular
life histories (see also Ley 2013). Not surprisingly, then, integration and transnationalism are processes that can occur at the same time*the pragmatic approach, as
outlined above.
When examining the different spheres of migrants lives, we find that there are
clear similarities and parallels in the ways that integration and transnationalism
operate, have significance and present opportunities (as set out in Table 1). These
similarities are particularly striking when adopting an actor-centred approach at the
individual level, where the only striking difference is the spatial scale at which they
play out*i.e. whether or not they cross an international border.

876 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Table 1. Spheres of integration and transnationalism for an individual migrant

Integration

Transnationalism

Socio-cultural Emotional
Cultural and
religious
Social

Degree of belonging
Possible to practice culture
and religion
Ability to develop new social
networks/capital

Degree of belonging
Possible to maintain cultural
and religious connections
Ability to maintain social
networks/capital

Structural

Economic

Access to appropriate
employment/income

Political

Opportunities for political

participation
Possibility of (dual)
citizenship and regularised
status
Perceived measures taken
against discrimination

Access to financial resources

and opportunity to transfer
and invest internationally
Opportunities for political
participation
Possibility of (dual)
citizenship and regularised
mobility

Legal

Interestingly, parallels could also be drawn between the transnational ties of nonmigrants (in both countries of origin and of settlement) and internal migrants and
their integration processes in places within their country of origin, at different subnational spatial scales (King and Skeldon 2010; Rogaly and Taylor 2009).
There are also, however, important differences between integration and transnationalism as social processes when considering their meaning and normative aspects,
particularly when lifted above the micro level. The political normative aspect of
integration is strong. Integration may be understood as a social process, but it can
also be politically construed as a goal, an end to a process which leads to a fully
integrated citizen. Whilst we consider integration as an empirical social process, there
is no doubt that the term integration is often used by others to refer to this larger
societal and political goal*as a normative programme. Transnationalism may also
have normative and political aspects, for instance in the context of long-distance
nationalism (Koser 2003) or migration and development (de Haas 2010), where
migrants may be expected to contribute to their country of origin. However, in
contrast to integration, transnationalism in migration studies usually refers to the
micro-level individual practices and identifications of migrants, rather than to any
larger normative programme.
These differences may be explained in terms of the conceptual and spatial frames
for integration and transnationalism. Integrations conceptual frame is primarily
about centripetal flows within a bounded territory, whereas transnationalisms
conceptual frame focuses on centrifugal networks, flows and spaces in-between.
The differences also reflect the scales of analysis common to both concepts; studies of
transnationalism commonly examine the micro and meso levels, with a focus on
individuals, families and networks, whereas, in studies of integration, the macro level
of the nation-state is the most common unit of analysis (see Lacroix 2013). This latter
is often driven by an interest in analysing the effect*or lack thereof*of particular

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

877

integration policies. In our analysis of integration and transnationalism as social

processes the activities of actors with agency are the object of study (see also Erdal
2013). These actors make choices, and the patterns of activity which these choices lead
to are the subject matter of the empirical studies of interactions between integration
and transnationalism discussed above. Yet these objects of study are also human
beings, who act according to their feelings*of security and self-esteem*which are
usually linked with human relationships, locally or transnationally (Ho 2008).
For both integration and transnationalism it has been shown that security in the
sense of a legal and regularised situation is important. The emotional dimensions
have also been noted in relation to how citizenship is understood (Ho 2009) and with
regard to the human dynamics of transnational relationships (Carling 2008).
However, existing analyses of the interactions of migrant integration and transnationalism only acknowledge to a limited extent the human nature of these
interactions.1 Strategies of integration (getting an income, managing your everyday
life, helping your children at school), as well as transnational practices (keeping in
touch with your parents, paying your friends hospital bill or your nieces school fees),
are personal choices made by individual human beings. The personal and human
nature of these choices, which are affected by practical and emotional factors but are
also pragmatically considered, should be integrated in any analysis of interaction
between integration and transnationalism.
We argue that the nature of interactions between integration and transnationalism,
when viewed from an actor-centred point of view, can be described as migrants
balancing acts*as migrants straddle societies of settlement and origin, living their
everyday lives locally, but also connected within a transnational social field. As actors,
migrants and the populations of the societies they live in locally and transnationally,
relate and respond to the structural constraints and opportunities provided by these
societies, including the legal, political and socio-economic dimensions. At times
structural constraints limit actors agency; at other times particular structural features
lead to counter-intuitive choices based on pragmatic considerations. Whatever the
case, the choices are the individual actors own, as are the lived consequences*
including emotional ambivalence towards what used to be home (Kivisto and La
Vecchia-Mikkola 2013). In the next section we propose a typology of the interactions
of integration and transnationalism, based on an understanding of these as part of a
social process, and placing migrants, with their human and personal considerations,
as actors, centre-stage.

Migrants Balancing Acts

Morawska (2003) makes the case for a three-stage strategy to develop understandings
of the interactions between integration2 and transnationalism: collecting examples of
these interactions, identifying patterns of similarity and difference across cases, and
developing middle-range theoretical models to explain the interactions. Morawska
initiates the first stage of this process through a review of empirical evidence and by

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

878 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

listing factors that can influence the interaction between integration and transnationalism. Since the publication of Morawskas paper, migration scholars have
generated a critical mass of empirical evidence supporting the pragmatic approach
that processes of transnationalism and integration co-exist. Arguably it is now no
longer sufficient simply to point out their co-existence*the time has come to
consider the nature of that co-existence and interaction, to work towards the second
and third stages of Morawskas strategy.
One reason why this question may not have received much attention yet is the
challenge of the two processes being dynamic, simultaneous and interacting.
While, on the surface, it seems simple to disentangle*integration happens here,
transnationalism happens there*there are, in fact, many dimensions of migrants
lives which relate both to integration and to transnationalism, a selection of which
were shown in Table 1. This is then also a challenge for the typology which we
present*lived reality is never clear-cut and simple to categorise*yet we believe that
a categorisation will help to improve the possibilities of future analyses of interactions
between migrant integration and transnationalism.
There are three ways in which interactions between integration and transnationalism could play out: as additive (the result of the interaction is the sum of the two
parts), as synergistic (the result is greater than the sum of the two parts), and as
antagonistic (the result is less than the sum of the two parts, or one part even cancels
out the other). Applying this typology to examine the interaction between processes
of integration and transnationalism raises a number of interesting (and potentially
problematic) points. Table 2 is an illustration of how this understanding of
interactions could be applied. Whilst we recognise that migrants connections and
identifications may encompass an array of places taking in the country of origin,
country of settlement and elsewhere, for simplicitys sake we have limited our
typology to a straightforward here/there situation; in other words, to the situation of
a migrant with possible connections to places in a) the country of origin and b) the
country of settlement.
Table 2. Typology of interactions between integration and transnationalism
Type of interaction
Additive

Synergistic

Antagonistic

Socio-cultural
integration and
transnationalism

Feeling of belonging and

socio-cultural
connections in country
of origin and of
settlement

Feeling of belonging
and connections in one
place give confidence to
further develop
connections in other

Feeling of belonging and

socio-cultural
connections in one place
displace feelings of
belonging in other

Structural
integration and
transnationalism

Economically active in
country of origin and of
settlement
(Dual) citizenship 
regularised mobility

Resources gained in one

place are invested to
develop further
resources in the other

Demand for resources in

one place limits ability
to meet demands in
other

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

879

A typology of interactions between integration and transnationalism which takes

spheres of migrants lives*relevant to social processes overall*as its starting point,
and disaggregates both integration and transnationalism into structural and sociocultural aspects accordingly, better enables examination of the interactions without
being tied to particular normative formulations of integration. Because integration as
a normative programme is contested, it is important to be able to provide analysis
which is not biased by a particular political stance but, rather, empirically based on
individual-level analysis. Our typology is an improvement from the basic typologies
often adopted in the quantitative literature, which determine whether measures of
integration and transnationalism have the effect of decreasing or increasing one
another, as positive or negative causal forces.
Discussions of interactions between integration and transnationalism (or each
separately) often randomly conflate multiple scales, which is analytically confusing.
Our typology provides a one-scale view at the individual-actor level. It should be
possible to use this with both qualitative and quantitative data. Also, by being explicit
about the individual micro level of our typology, we show the need for further
typologies which look at these interactions*for instance, from a macro level. In
current work on migrant integration and transnationalism, there is a lack of focus on
the multiplicity of scales, leading to a conflation of different scales. Recent work in
urban studies has acknowledged this, and focused on the social processes happening
within particular locations*in cities*and considered, for instance, belonging as a
primarily local issue, not to be confused with consideration about national loyalties
(Hamaz and Vasta 2009).

Conclusion
Interest in integration has been a consistent presence in migration studies but, since
the mid-1990s, many studies of the migrant experience have explored migrants
transnational connections (actual or imagined)*for example, the sending of
remittances or the consumption of transnational media. However, it is apparent
that, for the majority of migrants, transnational activities make up only part of their
everyday lives. In particular, very few migrants have the capacity to undertake the
to-and-fro physical and social mobility required to sustain a high-intensity
transnational life, as imagined by early more-celebratory texts on transnationalism.
For most migrants, their physical presence most of the time in the place of settlement
means some form of integration is inevitable. Nevertheless, migrants have to balance
the resource demands of transnational ties with those of negotiating membership in
their (new) place of settlement.
This article has explored this balancing act, going beyond a simple acknowledgement of the co-existence of transnationalism and processes of integration to
propose a typology for understanding the nature of the interaction between them. We
argue that the nature of interactions between integration and transnationalism is
formed by the fact that the two are both constituents of a social process, and that the

880 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

nature of interactions is further shaped by the human and personal considerations of

key actors*the migrants and those with whom they interact. We base our typology
on a view of migrants as actors with agency, who act according to choices based on
functional, emotional and pragmatic considerations.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

The Papers in this Special Issue

This special issue of JEMS presents papers that use a variety of methods in different
empirical settings to explore the interactions between transnationalism and
integration. In so doing, it brings together a selection of research that explicitly
addresses questions that have previously only been mentioned in passing or covered
by studies published in isolation from each other. This collection is a timely addition
to the literature, combining issues which are both academically significant and high
on the agenda of policy-makers*in particular, the persistent question of whether
transnationalism and integration can operate alongside each other or whether
migrants transnational activities prevent or slow down integration. The approaches
presented range from large-scale quantitative surveys to small-scale ethnographic
studies. The papers consider individuals and groups at various points on the forced
voluntary migration spectrum and cover a wide geographical range of short- and
long-distance migration trajectories (Eastern to Western Europe, Uganda to the UK,
East Asia to North America, Albania to Italy, multiple migrant groups in Norway,
North Africa to France, and Somalia to the UK). Taken together, the papers provide a
series of complementary takes on the interactions between transnationalism and
integration.
The first three articles explore the ways in which gender, age and family affect the
interactions between transnationalism and integration, and the implications for
feelings of belonging. Binaisa looks at the way in which colonial and post-colonial
history interacts with migrants education and employment strategies as part of their
integration process. Vathi looks beyond the nation-state as a container of belonging
and explores how a globalised youth culture shapes the relationship between
transnationalism and integration. Leys paper suggests that transnational activities
can predict a lack of belonging but that this may differ for family members as they
follow differing migration trajectories. The next two articles look at multiple groups
of migrants and their transnational ties and integration, using quantitative data from
Norway and the Netherlands, respectively. Carling and Hoelscher consider how
certain types of integration impact upon migrants ability to take part in
transnational activities, particularly remittance-sending. Engbersen et al. develop a
typology of labour migrants attachments to countries of origin and settlement,
demonstrating the significance of differing migration patterns. The last three articles
focus on migrants agency in negotiating transnationalism and integration. Erdal
looks at different layers of integration, and at how migrants themselves express their
reflections on the interactions between transnationalism and integration. Hammond
explores the case of Somali refugees in the UK and the ways in which integration and

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

881

transnationalism are mutually reinforcing processes. Finally, Lacroix discusses the

impact of integration on transnational activities related to development and
highlights the importance of the political context in both sending and receiving
countries.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Acknowledgements
This paper, and the special issue as a whole, was inspired by three linked sessions
which we organised at the 2010 Royal Geographical Society conference, entitled
Migrant Transnationalism, Integration and Place. We thank all the presenters and
the audience at those sessions, and Jrgen Carling and Russell King for encouraging
us to develop this special issue. We thank Ben Rogaly, Naluwembe Binaisa and the
JEMS editorial team and peer reviewers for comments on an earlier draft.
Notes
[1]
[2]

This is done, for instance, through including measures of self-reported feelings of belonging
to the country of settlement (see also Carling and Hoelscher 2013; Snel et al. 2006).
Although Morawska uses the term assimilation.

References
A kesson, L. (2011) Multicultural ideology and transnational family ties among descendents of Cape
Verdeans in Sweden, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(2): 21735.
Alba, R. and Nee, V. (2003) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary
Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Appadurai, A. (1990) Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy, Theory, Culture
and Society, 7(2): 295310.
Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N. and Blanc-Szanton, C. (1994) Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects:
Post-Colonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Langhorne, PA: Gordon and
Breach.
Binaisa, N. (2013) Ugandans in Britain making new homes: transnationalism, place and identity
within narratives of integration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 885902.
Brubaker, R. (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carling, J. (2007) Transnationalism in the Context of Restrictive Immigration Policy. Oslo:
University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, unpublished PhD
thesis.
Carling, J. (2008) The human dynamics of migrant transnationalism, Ethnic and Racial Studies,
31(8): 145277.
Carling, J. and Hoelscher, K. (2013) Capacity and desire to remit: comparing local and
transnational influences, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 93958.
Cohen, J. and Sirkeci, I. (2005) A comparative study of Turkish and Mexican transnational
migration outcomes: facilitating or restricting immigrant integration?, in Henke, H. (ed.)
Crossing Over: Comparing Recent Migration in the United States and Europe. Lanham MD:
Lexington, 14762.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

882 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

de Haas, H. (2010) Migration and development: a theoretical perspective, International Migration

Review, 44(1): 22764.
de Haas, H. and Fokkema, T. (2011) The effects of integration and transnational ties on
international return migration intentions, Demographic Research, 25(4): 75582.
Ehrkamp, P. (2006) We Turks are no Germans: assimilation discourses and the
dialectical construction of identities in Germany, Environment and Planning A, 38(9):
167392.
Engbersen, G., Leerkes, A., Grabowska-Lusinska, I., Snel, E. and Burgers, J. (2013) A typology of
labour migration on the differential attachments of migrants from Central and Eastern
Europe, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 95981.
Erdal, M.B. (2013) Migrant transnationalism and multi-layered integration: Norwegian-Pakistani
migrants own reflections, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 98399.
Eriksen, T.H. (2011) What is a society?, Ethnicities, 11(1): 1822.
Ezzati, R. (2011) Alle ser pa oss som utlendinger uansett: selvbilder og andre bilder av unge menn
med muslimsk bakgrunn etter 11 september 2001, in Hylland Eriksen, T. and Nss, H.E.
(eds) Kulturell Kompleksitet i det Nye Norge. Oslo: Unipub, 5767.
Faist, T. (1999) Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of
Citizenship and Culture. Oxford: University of Oxford, Transnational Communities
Programme Working Paper No. 9908.
Glick Schiller, N. (2005) Beyond the ethnic lens: transnational pathways of incorporation. Bochum:
Ruhr-Universitat, paper presented at international conference Emerging Patterns of
Transnational Migration and Organisations, 56 October.
Glick Schiller, N., C ag lar, A. and Guldbrandsen, T.C. (2006) Beyond the ethnic lens: locality,
globality, and born-again incorporation, American Ethnologist, 33(4): 61233.
Hamaz, S. and Vasta, E. (2009) To Belong or Not to Belong: Is That the Question? Negotiating
Belonging in Multi-Ethnic London. Oxford: University of Oxford, COMPAS Working Paper
No. 73.
Hammond, L., (2013) Somali transnational activism and integration in the UK: mutually
supporting strategies, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 100117.
Ho, E.E.L. (2008) Citizenship, migration and transnationalism: a review and critical interventions,
Geography Compass, 2(5): 1286300.
Ho, E.E.L. (2009) Constituting citizenship through the emotions: Singaporean transmigrants in
London, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4): 788804.
Itzigsohn, J. and Giorguli-Saucedo, S. (2005) Incorporation, transnationalism and gender:
immigrant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered processes,
International Migration Review, 39(4): 895920.
Itzigsohn, J. and Saucedo, S.G. (2002) Immigrant incorporation and sociocultural transnationalism, International Migration Review, 36(3): 76698.
Jayaweera, H. and Choudhury, T. (2008) Immigration, Faith and Cohesion: Evidence from Local Areas
with Significant Muslim Populations. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Joppke, C. (2007) Beyond national models: civic integration policies for immigrants in Western
Europe, West European Politics, 30(1): 122.
Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) (2003) Towards Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in
Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Juul, K. (2010) From Danish Yugoslavs to Danish Serbs: national affiliation caught between
visibility and invisibility, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(2): 23755.
King, R. and Skeldon, R. (2010) Mind the gap!: integrating approaches to internal and
international migration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10): 161946.
Kivisto, P. (2001) Theorizing transnational immigration: a critical review of current efforts, Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 24(4): 54977.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

883

Kivisto, P. (2005a) Social spaces, transnational immigrant communities, and the politics of
incorporation, in Kivisto, P. (ed.) Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a
Multicultural Age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 299319.
Kivisto, P. (2005b) The revival of assimilation in historical perspective, in Kivisto, P. (ed.)
Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm, 329.
Kivisto, P. and La Vecchia-Mikkola, V. (2013) Immigrant ambivalence toward the homeland: the
case of Iraqis in Helsinki and Rome, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 11(1): 119.
Koser, K. (2003) Long-distance nationalism and the responsible state: the case of Eritrea, in
stergaard-Nielsen, E. (ed.) International Migration and Sending Countries. Perceptions,
Policies and Transnational Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 17184.
Lacroix, T. (2013) Collective remittances and integrations: North African and North Indian
comparative perspectives, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 101935.
Lal, B.B. (1990) The Romance of Culture: Robert E. Park on Race and Ethnic Relations in Cities.
London: Routledge.
Lentin, A. and Titley, G. (2011) The Crises of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age. London:
Zed.
Levitt, P. (2003) Keeping feet in both worlds: transnational practices and immigrant incorporation
in the United States, in Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) Toward Assimilation and
Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 17794.
Levitt, P. and Glick Schiller, N. (2004) Transnational perspectives on migration: conceptualizing
simultaneity, International Migration Review, 38(3): 100239.
Levitt, P., DeWind, J. and Vertovec, S. (2003) International perspectives on transnational
migration: an introduction, International Migration Review, 37(3): 56575.
Ley, D. (2004) Transnational spaces and everyday lives, Transactions of the British Institute of
Geographers, 29(2): 15164.
Ley, D. (2013) Does transnationalism trump immigrant integration? Evidence from Canadas links
with East Asia, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 92138.
Lucassen, L.A.C.J. (2006) Is transnationalism compatible with assimilation? Examples from
Western Europe since 1850, IMIS-Beitra ge, 29: 1536.
Mazzucato, V. (2008) The double engagement: transnationalism and integration. Ghanaian
migrants lives between Ghana and the Netherlands, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
34(2): 199216.
Modood, T. (2005) Remaking Multiculturalism after 7/7. Online at: http://www.opendemocracy.net:
June 2007.
Morawska, E. (2003) Immigrant transnationalism and assimilation: a variety of combinations
and the analytic strategy it suggests, in Joppke, C. and Morawska, E. (eds) Towards
Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 13376.
Nagel, C. (2009) Rethinking geographies of assimilation, The Professional Geographer, 61(3): 4007.
Nagel, C.R. and Staeheli, L.A. (2008) Integration and the negotiation of here and there: the
case of British Arab activists, Social and Cultural Geography, 9(4): 41530.
Oeppen, C. (2013) A stranger at home: interactions between transnational return visits and
integration for Afghan refugees, Global Networks, 13(2): in press.
Phalet, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2003) Measuring immigrant integration: the case of Belgium,
Studi Emigrazione, 40(152): 773803.
Rogaly, B. and Taylor, B. (2009) Moving Histories of Class and Community: Identity, Place and
Belonging in Contemporary England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schans, D. (2009) Transnational family ties of immigrants in the Netherlands, Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 32(7): 116482.

Downloaded by [National Chengchi University] at 23:53 13 April 2015

884 M.B. Erdal & C. Oeppen

Smith, R.C. (2006) Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Snel, E., Engbersen, G. and Leerkes, A. (2006) Transnational involvement and social integration,
Global Networks, 6(3): 285308.
Strang, A. and Ager, A. (2010) Refugee integration: emerging trends and remaining agendas,
Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(4): 589607.
Tamaki, E. (2011) Transnational home engagement among Latino and Asian Americans: resources
and motivation, International Migration Review, 45(1): 14873.
Tharmalingam, S. (2011) Homeland Orientation of War-Torn Diasporas: Remittances and Cultural
Practices of Tamils and Somalis in Norway. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Sociology
and Human Geography, PhD thesis.
Vancluysen, K., Van Craen, M. and Ackaert, J. (2009) Transnational activities and socio-cultural
integration of Moroccan and Turkish descendants in Flemish Belgium. Marrakech: paper
presented at XXVI IUSSP International Population Conference, 27 October2 November.
Vathi, Z. (2013) Transnational orientation, cosmopolitanism and integration among Albanianorigin teenagers in Tuscany, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 90319.
Vertovec, S. (1999) Conceiving and researching transnationalism, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2):
44762.
Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 102454.
Vertovec, S. (2009) Transnationalism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Waldinger, R. (2007) Transforming foreigners into Americans, in Waters, M.C. and Ueda, R. (eds)
The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965. London: Harvard University Press,
13748.
Waldinger, R. and Fitzgerald, D. (2004) Transnationalism in question, American Journal of
Sociology, 109(5): 117795.
Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2003) Methodological nationalism, the social sciences and the
the study of migration: an essay in historical epistemology, International Migration Review,
37(3): 576610.