Those Who Came and Those Who Left the Territorial Politics Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Department of Political and Social Sciences Those who came and those who left The Territorial Politics of Migration in Scotland and Catalonia Jean-Thomas Arrighi de Casanova Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Florence, February 2012 EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE Department of Political and Social Sciences Those who came and those who left The Territorial Politics of Migration in Scotland and Catalonia Jean-Thomas Arrighi de Casanova Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Examining Board: Prof. Rainer Bauböck, EUI (Supervisor) Prof. Michael Keating, EUI (Co-supervisor) Dr Nicola McEwen, University of Edinburgh Prof. Andreas Wimmer, UCLA © 2012, Jean-Thomas Arrighi de Casanova No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author ABSTRACT Whilst minority nationalism and migration have been intensely studied in relative isolation from one another, research examining their mutual relationship is still scarce. This dissertation aims to fill this gap in the literature by exploring how migration politics are being fought over not only across society but also across territory in two well-researched cases of protracted nationalist mobilisation, Catalonia and Scotland. It meets three objectives: First, it introduces a theoretical framework accounting for sub-state elites’ and administrations’ boundary-making strategies in relation to immigrants and emigrants. Second, it systematically compares the evolution of boundary-making strategies in Catalonia and Scotland, prior to and after the establishment of self-governing institutions. Third, it identifies the circumstances under which nationalists came to adopt a predominantly territorial conception of national membership, privileging the inclusion of immigrants over that of emigrant populations. The main hypothesis states that minority nationalists have a vested interest in emphasizing residency as a significant criterion of national membership irrespectively of one’s place of birth and degree of attachment to the land in order to enhance their internal and external legitimacy. In addition, the location of the membership boundary depends upon the relative openness of the Territorial Opportunity Structure, which comprises three dimensions: the formal distribution of migration-related competencies, the initial boundary and its implications for later developments, and the dynamics of party competition at sub-state level. The empirical analysis shows that the attitudes of political elites in Scotland and Catalonia towards immigrants and emigrants have been shifting through time. This illustrates how nations are constantly constructed and reconstructed through processes of boundary-building, in a context also shaped by state-wide nationalism. The findings corroborate to a considerable extent the main hypothesis and show that dynamics of party competition have played a greater role in affecting boundary-making strategies in relation to immigrants and emigrants than historical path dependencies or the formal distribution of competencies. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most would agree that writing a PhD dissertation is a solitary endeavour, punctuated of personal doubts and great intellectual joys which can hardly be shared with anyone. However, no thesis is ever the product of one person's efforts, and certainly this one was no different. Looking back at the four years I spent writing it, I realize how much it owes to the help and support of many friends and colleagues. My biggest thanks go to my supervisors, Rainer Bauböck and Michael Keating, who provided me with patient and constant guidance and kept spurring my interest for the discipline over the years. I was also given the opportunity to spend extensive periods of time doing fieldwork in Scotland and Catalonia. I am grateful to Ricard Zapata-Barrero who invited me to spend three months in the department of Political and Social Sciences of the Pompeu Fabra University, and Charlie Jeffery who offered me a visiting scholarship at the Institute of Governance of the University of Edinburgh. Robert Liñeira initiated me to the subtleties of Catalan and Spanish politics and David Ralph introduced me to some of the finest ales in Scotland. I would like to thank both of them for making my stay on the field so enjoyable. The European University Institute is a peculiar institution where one learns as much about politics having casual conversations on the terrace of the Badia or in the bars and restaurants of Florence as in seminar classrooms. I would like to acknowledge the debt I owe to Dejan Stjepanović, Charles Gottlieb, Sylvain Gambert, Sergi Pardos, and Adrien Costes for offering me so many opportunities to escape the library and discuss the little contrarieties of life in good company. My special thanks go to Anders Herlitz who listened to me repeating the same ideas over and over again without ever showing the slightest sign of boredom. Magda Cyprys spent way too many sunny Sunday afternoons hearing about nationalism and migration and became, albeit reluctantly, an expert in the field. For that and many other things, I am profoundly grateful to her. Last but not least, I dedicate this dissertation to Daddy, Silvère, and Ferréol, three men of good will the conversation with whom I truly miss. ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1. CONCEPTUAL AND EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK .........................................7 1.1. Migrations, stateless nations, and the state ....................................................................................... 7 1.1.1. The multicultural perspective and its limits ..................................................................................... 8 1.1.2. The nationality question................................................................................................................ 13 1.1.3. The migration question ................................................................................................................. 17 1.2. The puzzle: the territorial politics of migration.............................................................................. 20 1.2.1. The root causes of migration: a territorial politics perspective ........................................................ 21 1.2.2. The territorial politics of migration................................................................................................ 24 1.3. The making and unmaking of political boundaries ........................................................................ 26 1.3.1. Civic or ethnic?: between ambiguities and normative bias ............................................................. 26 1.3.2. A more promising avenue: the boundary-making approach ............................................................ 29 1.3.3. Boundary-making strategies: territorializing and ethnicizing ......................................................... 31 1.4. Explanatory framework .................................................................................................................. 36 1.4.1. Main hypothesis ........................................................................................................................... 36 1.4.2. The territorial opportunity structure ............................................................................................... 40 2. ANALYTICAL AND COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK ........................................ 49 2.1. Analytical framework ..................................................................................................................... 49 2.1.1. Boundary-making strategies in a historical perspective .................................................................. 50 2.1.2. Immigration policies: those who will come .................................................................................... 56 2.1.3. Immigrant policies: those who came .............................................................................................. 61 2.1.4. Emigrant policies: those who left ................................................................................................... 64 2.2. Comparative framework ................................................................................................................. 70 2.2.1. The territorial politics of migration in Québec ............................................................................... 70 2.2.2. Scotland and Catalonia compared.................................................................................................. 82 3. THE MONGREL NATION ....................................................................................... 89 3.1. 1800 - 1914: the Workshop of the Empire ...................................................................................... 91 3.1.1. Highland clearances and Lowlands lure of opportunity .................................................................. 91 3.1.2. The Irish exodus ........................................................................................................................... 95 3.2. 1914-1960: The years of lead ........................................................................................................... 97 3.2.1. From opportunity to exile.............................................................................................................