| Review of: | Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma by Mikhail Alexseev |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Chris Rudolph |
| Reviewed in: | The Journal of Politics |
| Date accepted online: | 14/01/2008 |
| Published in print: | Volume 69, Issue 04, Pages 1210-1230 |
Book Reviews
International migration is an increasingly important phenomenon in world politics, yet our understanding of the determinants of state behavior regarding migration remains extremely limited and generally undertheorized. This is particularly the case among international relations scholars who have long ignored migration and its implications. Mikhail Alexseev's book,
Alexseev draws on core principles/theories of the IR/security studies canon to answer an important question: What are the sources of xenophobia and hostility toward immigrants in receiving societies? The most general of these is the notion of international politics as being constituted by the effects of structural anarchy. As utilized by Alexseev, "anarchy" reflects the capacity of the state to effectively manage global migration flows, or put more accurately, the state's lack of capacity. Just as international anarchy engenders a security dilemma among states in a self-help system, the book argues that state capacity to control flows engenders a security dilemma that affects attitudes about immigration. He combines this dynamic with elements that affect perceptions of cultural/social distance: "Immigration phobia in host societies is likely to be more intense, the more acute perceptions of emergent anarchy, the more ambiguous the sense of migrant intentions, and the more distinct and cohesive the perceived 'groupness' of migrants" (p. 69). These variables speak directly to the discourse regarding migration as a threat to host-country identity and social cohesion put forth in works such as Samuel Huntington's controversial book,
To test these hypotheses, Alexseev estimates hierarchical OLS regressions using original and published survey data from Russia and the EU as well as anecdotal evidence drawn from the United States in the early 1990s. The results of these regressions are presented in the case chapters, but he also supplements this more formal/quantitative approach with some qualitative analysis of the empirical evidence available. From this analysis, Alexseev finds confirmation of his hypothesis that anarchy, intent, groupness and socio-economic impact are significant predictors of both perceptions of threat and hostility toward immigrants in receiving societies.
Though there is much to praise in the book, there are a few issues of concern. The first involves the author's expropriation of terminology, some of which does not always fit particularly well in the context in which they are used. For example, "anarchy" as applied by Alexseev is more reminiscent of Stephen Krasner's (1999) notion of "interdependence sovereignty" than it is of the term as used by structural realists. More problematic is the use of the concept of the "security dilemma." At one level, the term is very useful in the context of attitudes about migration. The logic of the security dilemma suggests that due to the lack of knowledge about the intent of potential rivals, risk-averse states will "play it safe" and presume belligerence should relative power balances shift or resources be mobilized. Alexseev rightly notes that this dynamic also plays out in attitudes regarding migration. Where information about effects and motives is weak, risk-averse societies will seek to minimize exposure to phenomenon whose impacts are likely difficult, if not impossible, to roll back once they have taken place. Where the author's use of the term is more problematic concerns the spiral logic of the security dilemma. In a security dilemma, this cautious preemptive behavior is reciprocal-each actor responds in kind to the actions of the other, the likely result of which is a propensity for escalation and violent conflict. But where is the spiral logic in migration attitudes? Alexseev attempts to insulate the study from such critiques by noting that his focus is on initial attitude formation. However, he subsequently seems to suggest that understanding the factors that generate initial attitudes are, in fact, likely to create a security dilemma dynamic. If we grant the author this possibility for the moment, we must ask: What are the "hostile actions" that migrants would present? Or, put differently, if migration generates perceptions of threat and hostility in receiving societies, would their response come in the form that exacerbates such fears (i.e., increasing levels of such migration flows)? Logic would suggest that migrants would be less willing to move to hostile locales.
Though the book succeeds in outlining a logic that explains how structural dynamics can shape internal sociopolitical dynamics, it will surely raise questions among those scholars that emphasize societal actors. In the model, the role of the state is underconceptualized and the potential impact of political entrepreneurs is not captured. This raises an important question that remains unanswered in the book: What about the role of propaganda in shaping attitudes, whether these originate from the state, political parties, interest groups, or political entrepreneurs? Indeed, the "anarchy" (lack of control) that plays such a central explanatory role in Alexseev's model has often been manipulated for political purposes (for example, the 1994 campaign ads in the California gubernatorial election).
Many of these concerns are aimed less at the author and more at those scholars who continue the interesting research agenda to which Alexseev's book points. Indeed, the strength of this book and other recent books that examine international migration from an IR perspective lies in providing an alternative framework to those that are limited to single cases, offering innovative ways to theorize outcomes across cases, and providing guidance in terms of how scholars should go about testing such explanations. Alexseev offers a highly innovative model in a very readable book. Moreover, his combination of quantitative and qualitative methods serves to "bring people back in" to issues of international relations.