دانلود کتاب آیا کارفرمایان به تأثیر خود بر مهاجرت نیروی کار اهمیت می‌دهند؟

The title of this book (Do Employers Matter? Their Impact on Labour Migration) may seem provocative. After all, how can one imagine employers not having a significant impact on labour migration when, ultimately, it is they who create the demand for migrant labour? Yet there is an important reason for posing such a question: the almost complete absence of employers in migration theory . International migration remains an under-theorised area of social research, at least when compared to other fields of human activity. The reasons for this shortcoming were thoroughly discussed by Stephen Castles (2010). Nevertheless, the question of the determinants and mechanisms of labour mobility remains at the very core of several theories of international migration; yet these same theories barely mention employers in the receiving countries, thus failing to attribute to them the role which they deserve—as a group of players who are major beneficiaries of labour migration and who take direct actions to recruit and employ foreign workers In general, international migration theories can be divided into two main strands: the functionalist strand, focusing on the agency and rationality of actors—specifically migrants and their families optimising their economic strategies—and the historical-structural, which concentrates on structural economic and power inequalities, which ineluctably lead to conflicts within and across societies. While in the former, the employers never appear as influential actors, in the latter, their role is hidden behind macrostructural determinants of labour migration, such as the unequal endowment of countries with factors of production, leading to wage differentials or high labour demand that cannot be satisfied by native workers in times of economic boom or in a specific labour-market segment. In 1993, an article was published which meticulously reviewed and conducted an in-depth assessment of the state of migration theory. This product, from a team of eminent migration researchers serving on one of the committees of the International Union for Scientific Study of Population (Massey et al., 1993), has since received over 10,000 citations. The authors were prompted to create it by the new post-World War II reality of migration: the intensification of international mobility in a growing number of areas of the world, the emergence of many new immigration countries and the accompanying strong involvement of researchers making various attempts to explain this phenomenon. The list of theories compiled by Douglas Massey and his co-authors, together with their systematisation, was the canon of knowledge on contemporary migration mechanisms for many years and was usually accepted without major modification (and criticism) by researchers.1 Over time, there was a growing conviction that the fragmentation of theory, which they identified, was an inevitable consequence of the complexity and heterogeneity of the migration phenomenon. At most, as evidenced in essays by Massey (1999, 2012), de Haas (2014) and other publications, there was a recognition that different theories were complementary to each other and that explaining migration required referring to multiple theoretical concepts simultaneously. Among the groups of theories identified by the authors of the above seminal paper, as well as among the plethora of individual concepts which they considered, not one focused on employers as its significant object. With one single exception, however— Massey and his co-authors refer to Michael Piore’s (1979) concept of the dual labour market and recognise the relevance of employers as agents at the origin of labour inflows. Due to the uniqueness of this concept and the not always mutually compatible interpretations of it, let us clarify its main postulates here. First of all, its historical and institutional context is important—it refers to labour movements from economically relatively backward areas to highly developed areas with economies dominated by mass industrial production. In general, these flows of people are initially and inten-tionally temporary in nature. Such migration is distinguished by four features: firstly, it is directed to specific jobs, usually occupied by migrants and belonging to the infe-rior segment of the labour market; secondly, the strategic role in initiating movements to reach these jobs is played by the active recruitment of migrants by employers in highly developed areas or by their agents; thirdly, the initiation of new inflows of foreign workers through their recruitment comes easily to employers because the supply of potential migrants is perfectly elastic and virtually inexhaustible; and fourthly, new flows, once initiated, are extremely difficult to stem, even when the state takes radical legal and administrative measures.