Abstract
AbstractStates struggle to establish multilateral cooperation on migration – yet they include more and more migration provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). This article sheds light on this phenomenon by introducing the Migration Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements (MITA) dataset. Covering 797 agreements signed between 1960 and 2020, this dataset offers a fine-grained coding of three types of migration provisions: those that facilitate the international mobility of service providers and labor migrants, protect migrant rights, and control unauthorized migration. Against the backdrop of limping multilateralism, we examine PTAs’ migration policy content with regard to two key cooperation dilemmas: conflicts of interest within developed countries and between them and developing countries. Facilitating business and labor mobility might be a possible way around the first dilemma, commonly referred to as the ‘liberal paradox': the tension between economic demands for openness and political calls for closure. Nevertheless, this facilitation is largely limited to highly skilled migrants and agreements between developed economies. Provisions for migration control tend to be included in agreements between developed and developing countries, which signals that states use issue-linkages to address the second dilemma, i.e. interest asymmetries. Finally, provisions for migrant rights stand out because they do not deepen over time. Our findings suggest that while PTAs have become an increasingly common venue for migration governance, the issue-linkage between trade and migration cooperation perpetuates entrenched divisions in the international system. The MITA dataset will allow researchers and policymakers to track the evolution of the trade-migration nexus and systematically investigate the motives for and effects of various migration provisions in PTAs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Political Science and International Relations
Reference64 articles.
1. Adamson, F. B., & Tsourapas, G. (2019). Migration diplomacy in world politics. International Studies Perspectives, 20(2), 113–128.
2. AFL-CIO. (2016). Trading away migrant rights: How the TPP would fuel displacement and fail migrant workers. AFL-CIO Report.
3. Ariel, J., & Haftel, Y. Z. (2021). Mostly in Its backyard: Security provisions in EU economic agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(6), 1419–1437.
4. Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254.
5. Betts, A. (2001). Global Migration Governance. Oxford University Press.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献