Abstract
The ways border regimes affect migration patterns remain ambiguous. Closed borders may constrain migration but also encourage migrants to pursue alternative migration channels and destinations. While open borders may be associated with higher migration, oftentimes they promote circulation and return. To clarify how different border regimes influence migration patterns, this article examines the impact of open and closed border regimes on migration outcomes in Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana in the 1950s–1980s period, when all three gained independence or non-sovereign status and colonial ties were strong. The article
proposes a conceptual schematic model that can accommodate varied post-colonial political and border regime transitions and explains changes in the timing, destination and composition of migration. The analysis finds that, counterintuitively,
closed borders can lead to high emigration while open borders can encourage people to stay. The proposed model also illustrates the relevance of three dimensions of time: the historical juncture, the sequence of change and the time span. In sum, rather than preventing migration, border regimes yield important effects that lead to migration diversification.
proposes a conceptual schematic model that can accommodate varied post-colonial political and border regime transitions and explains changes in the timing, destination and composition of migration. The analysis finds that, counterintuitively,
closed borders can lead to high emigration while open borders can encourage people to stay. The proposed model also illustrates the relevance of three dimensions of time: the historical juncture, the sequence of change and the time span. In sum, rather than preventing migration, border regimes yield important effects that lead to migration diversification.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Comparative Migration Studies |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Mar 2021 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Funding:The research leading to these results was part of the DEMIG (The Determinants of International Migration) project and
received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007–2013) / ERC Grant Agreement 240940. The reconceptualization and revision of this article are
supported by the MADE (Migration as Development) Consolidator Grant project, receiving funding from the European
Research Council under the European Community’s Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020/2015–2020)/ERC Grant
Agreement 648496.
