Transnationalism in a Comparative Perspective: An Introduction

Since the publication of 'Nations Unbound' (Basch et al 1994), studies on transnationalism have mushroomed. Despite ongoing debates about the nature of the concept, and the newness of the phenomenon, there is a growing consensus about the importance of taking into account migrants' multi-stranded social ties which link together societies of origin and sett-lement. There is also a strong push to move away from 'methodological nationalism' in order to better understand the manifold ties, identifica-tions and activities of migrants and non-migrants across international bor-ders (Wimmer & Glick Schiller 2002; Vertovec 2009). The first generation of transnational studies focused strongly on trans-national practices, such as economic transnationalism (including remit-tances), political transnationalism (social movements, diaspora politics), and identity formation, social remittances and ethnic entrepreneurship (see e.g. Guarnizo et al 2003; Khagram & Levitt 2008). While many of these studies were based in the immigration-receiving context of the Uni-ted States (see e.g. Portes et al 1999; Itzighsohn and Saucedo 2002; Waldin-ger and Fitzgerald 2004), soon after transnationalism theory was also in-corporated into European migration studies (Snel et al 2006; De Haas & Fokkema 2011; Erdal & Oeppen 2013). The European context offers highly relevant research sites for transnational studies, mainly because many of the EU countries today can be considered immigration countries with considerably large permanent migrant groups and continuous inflows that create new connections with diverse countries of origin. In relation to this, it is important to mention that the European Union (EU) 2004 and 2007 enlargements created a borderless zone that boosted existing trans-national patterns within the EU and generated complex new ones. More-over, European welfare states offer particular structural conditions for both AUP – 156 x 234 – 3B2-APP flow Pag. 0255 255 ENGBERSEN societal integration and for transnational engagements. For example, while, marginal social security and social assistance schemes in the United States may make it more difficult for migrants who have a weak attach-ment to the labour market to engage in transnational activities, this is less likely to be the case in Europe. In European countries, like the Netherlands or Norway, where the welfare state arrangements are more robust, mi-grants may be less dependent on the labour market for their income and social position. The resources they receive from the state and the rights they have to social security, housing, education and health care can then be used both for societal integration and transnational activities. In the last decade, the idea of transnationalism has been connected to further issues such as citizenship, integration and return migration. At the same time, the first generation of qualitative and quantitative studies have been complemented by comparative studies, between groups and conti-nents, and studies focusing more on the country of origin. Increasingly studies of migrant transnationalism also cover other categories of mi-grants, such as refugees, second generation migrants, return migrants and intra-EU labour migrants (Al-Ali et al 2001; Horst 2006; Favell 2008; Eng-bersen et al 2013; White 2013; King and Christou 2014). Moreover, while in the first generation of transnational studies theory formation – including the introduction of sensitizing concepts and ideal types -was central, we now witness a stronger emphasis on testing some of the new theoretical perspectives, and on refining theoretical concepts, ty-pologies and social mechanisms that explain the complex interactions between transnationalism, integration and return (Erdal & Oeppen 2013; Carling & Pettersen 2014). As a consequence, general theories are being specified resulting in more precise typologies and more focused agendas for future research. The geographical contexts and dynamics of specific migration corridors between sending and destination countries and re-gions, including different migrant categories, are increasingly being taken into account. Furthermore, the refinement of theories also contributes to sensitivity toward the nature of categories in migration studies. Including central categories relating to the mobility of people, where it is increasingly becoming clear that it is, for instance, not always straightforward to define who is or is not a return migrant in the context of sustained transnationa-lism. This special issue analyses interrelated processes of immigrant integra-tion, transnational practises and return migration intentions and experien-ces through a comparative transnational lens. The aim is to unravel how processes related to integration, transnationalism, and return interact and AUP – 156 x 234 – 3B2-APP flow Pag. 0256