The Impact of Host-states and Places Within Them on Diaspora Mobilizations

M. Koinova
{"title":"The Impact of Host-states and Places Within Them on Diaspora Mobilizations","authors":"M. Koinova","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848622.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Closer focused on host-states in which diaspora entrepreneurs live, Chapter 10 presents a comparative discussion. The empirical chapters (4–9) have demonstrated that analysts cannot make clear-cut comparisons of host-states, unless considering a transnational social field perspective: the UK has been the hub for mobilization for Palestinians, France for Armenians, and Switzerland and Germany for Kosovo Albanians in Europe, apart from the US. The chapter argues that host-states are not to be treated as units of analysis for controlled comparisons but should be considered as contexts of embeddedness that empower diaspora entrepreneurs in specific ways. Such approach is in line with scholarly efforts to analyse beyond methodological nationalism. The chapter argues, while a diaspora entrepreneur’s contextual embeddedness is not powerful enough to explain the contentiousness of diaspora mobilizations, it shapes the socio-spatial positionality of individual diaspora entrepreneurs. The discussion focuses on three dimensions: migration incorporation regimes, systems of interest representation, and decentralization patterns of these host-states. Empirical evidence from the Albanian, Armenian, and Palestinian diasporas shows that diaspora entrepreneurs are shaped in their migrant integration experiences, engagement through federal vs unitary systems of states, with trade unions, host-land political parties, and protest politics. Also, certain places within these host-states, such as London and Sheffield in the UK, Berlin and Stuttgart in Germany, Malmö and Gothenburg in Sweden, The Hague in the Netherlands, Paris in France, and Zurich and Geneva in Switzerland, play an important role for diaspora mobilizations but do not explain their contentiousness.","PeriodicalId":425816,"journal":{"name":"Diaspora Entrepreneurs and Contested States","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diaspora Entrepreneurs and Contested States","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848622.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Closer focused on host-states in which diaspora entrepreneurs live, Chapter 10 presents a comparative discussion. The empirical chapters (4–9) have demonstrated that analysts cannot make clear-cut comparisons of host-states, unless considering a transnational social field perspective: the UK has been the hub for mobilization for Palestinians, France for Armenians, and Switzerland and Germany for Kosovo Albanians in Europe, apart from the US. The chapter argues that host-states are not to be treated as units of analysis for controlled comparisons but should be considered as contexts of embeddedness that empower diaspora entrepreneurs in specific ways. Such approach is in line with scholarly efforts to analyse beyond methodological nationalism. The chapter argues, while a diaspora entrepreneur’s contextual embeddedness is not powerful enough to explain the contentiousness of diaspora mobilizations, it shapes the socio-spatial positionality of individual diaspora entrepreneurs. The discussion focuses on three dimensions: migration incorporation regimes, systems of interest representation, and decentralization patterns of these host-states. Empirical evidence from the Albanian, Armenian, and Palestinian diasporas shows that diaspora entrepreneurs are shaped in their migrant integration experiences, engagement through federal vs unitary systems of states, with trade unions, host-land political parties, and protest politics. Also, certain places within these host-states, such as London and Sheffield in the UK, Berlin and Stuttgart in Germany, Malmö and Gothenburg in Sweden, The Hague in the Netherlands, Paris in France, and Zurich and Geneva in Switzerland, play an important role for diaspora mobilizations but do not explain their contentiousness.
东道国及其境内对侨民动员的影响
第10章更密切地关注散居企业家居住的东道国,进行了比较讨论。实证章节(4-9)表明,除非考虑到跨国社会领域的视角,否则分析师无法对东道国进行明确的比较:除了美国之外,英国一直是巴勒斯坦人动员的中心,法国是亚美尼亚人动员的中心,瑞士和德国是科索沃阿尔巴尼亚人动员的中心。本章认为,东道国不应被视为受控比较的分析单位,而应被视为以特定方式赋予散居企业家权力的嵌入性背景。这种方法与超越方法论民族主义的学术分析是一致的。本章认为,虽然散居企业家的语境嵌入性不足以解释散居企业家动员的争议性,但它塑造了散居企业家个体的社会空间定位。讨论集中在三个方面:移民纳入制度、利益代表制度和这些东道国的分权模式。来自阿尔巴尼亚、亚美尼亚和巴勒斯坦散居侨民的经验证据表明,散居侨民企业家是在他们的移民融合经历中形成的,他们通过联邦制与单一制国家的参与,与工会、东道国政党和抗议政治的接触。此外,这些东道国的某些地方,如英国的伦敦和谢菲尔德、德国的柏林和斯图加特、瑞典的Malmö和哥德堡、荷兰的海牙、法国的巴黎、瑞士的苏黎世和日内瓦,在侨民动员中发挥了重要作用,但并不能解释它们的争议性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信