SOCIAL CAPITAL AND MIGRATION POLICY

UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

SCHOOL OF LAW, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Master’s Program: “European and International Studies”

LESSON: MIGRATION TO EUROPE

PROFESSOR: A. KONTIS

Anna Karamanou’s Work

SOCIAL CAPITAL

AND MIGRATION

Athens, February 20, 2006

CONTENTS.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Ορισμός του Κοινωνικού Κεφαλαίου

1.2. δυνατότητες μέτρησης του κοινωνικού κεφαλαίου

2. HOW SOCIAL CAPITAL IS CREATED

2.1. οι προσδιοριστικοί παράγοντες

2.3. τύποι κοινωνικού κεφαλαίου

3. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND MIGRATION

3.1. η απόφαση για αποδημία

3.2. ο δρόμος προς την Ιθάκη….

3.3. εγκατάσταση στη χώρα υποδοχής

3.4. κοινωνική και πολιτική ενσωμάτωση

3.5. το καλό παράδειγμα της Σουηδίας

3.6. κοινωνικό κεφάλαιο και παλιννόστηση

4. POLICIES FOR STRENGTHENING THE SOCIAL CAPITAL OF MIGRANTS

4.1. Case study inGreece…

5. CONCLUSION – verification of the working hypothesis

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Ορισμός του Κοινωνικού Κεφαλαίου

What is social capital? In the sense given to the term by P. Bourdieu, J. Coleman, and R. Putnam, it refers to the sum of non-economic resources, real or imagined, that are attributed to individuals, groups, or a network of social relations and are characterized by trust, reciprocity, and commonly accepted rules of conduct, which facilitate cooperation and collective action among people, with the aim of the common good. Thus, social capital can be understood as a resource that has its source in collective action and can have results on a broad economic and social scale. The interest of the academic community in Social Capital has intensified over the last fifteen years, a period that coincides with the increase of migratory flows and the strengthening of the globalization of the economy.

Social Capital is not the property of an organization, the market, or the state, although everyone can contribute to its creation. It is a process “from the bottom up” and involves citizens of the same or different backgrounds and cultures, who are socially connected and create networks and associations. According to the definition of the World Bank, social capital is the cohesive “glue” that keeps societies together.

Many are indeed not familiar with the term, as we usually refer to “social fabric,” “social networks,” “conne,” or “civil society.” However, the term “Social Capital” carries greater weight because: a/ it places social networks on the same level as other forms of capital, such as economic capital, physical capital, and human capital, thereby gaining greater significance in a world with a rational economic perspective on things b/ Social capital shares common characteristics with other forms of capital, as one can invest in it and reap benefits later (Paul Bullen & Jenny Onyx, 1999). Certainly, this is a more modern, more comprehensive, and more “economic” term to describe civil society under ^21st-century conditions.

1.2. δυνατότητες μέτρησης του κοινωνικού κεφαλαίου

Theoretical and empirical research, within the framework of social, economic, and political sciences, has demonstrated that groups and areas with high social capital have much greater chances of achieving high levels of prosperity and solidarity, compared to areas with low trust index and weak civil society. Many argue that social capital is a prerequisite for economic development, as well as for effective governance. Christos Paraskevopoulos (2001) claims that social capital constitutes the critical qualitative variable that supports the work of regional institutions in the developed areas of Europe.

Regarding the role of social capital in international migration, Douglas Massey from the University of Pennsylvania in the USA has been conducting research since 1982 on the role of social capital in the movements of Mexican migrants, with very interesting and measurable findings. His research has included an unprecedented sample size of 93 communities, 16,000 households, and 81,000 individuals. Both the research on Mexicans and those he has conducted in Latin American and Caribbean countries since 1998, the initial results of which were recently published (2005), fully confirm the new theory of social capital.

Research with measurable data has been promoted by other research institutions, such as the University of New South Wales in Australia (researchers Jenny Onyx and Paul Bullen, 2000), to measure social capital in five ethnic communities. The results are approximately the same. In short, social capital matters. The World Bank claims that there is increasing evidence that trade, at a macroeconomic level, is influenced by the interaction between people and conducts relevant research using micro-level quantitative methods of data collection and analysis of trust and solidarity among groups and networks, collective action, cooperation, and political participation.

In short, the experts conclude that while social capital belongs to microeconomics, it nonetheless has implications for migration and trade, for economic reforms, for economic development, for security, and even for how new technologies impact. Therefore, it follows that since social capital can be measured, we can also calculate the benefits it entails and avoid losses.

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the benefits and analyze the role of social capital in migration, as well as in shaping effective migration policy, through the following hypothesis: “The stronger the social capital that the migrant possesses abroad, the greater the chances of deciding to emigrate and the success of the migration, while the process of moving, settling, and smoothly integrating into the destination country is facilitated, reducing the likelihood of repatriation.”

From a methodological perspective, based on this working hypothesis, in section 2 we will explore the determinants of the birth and devaluation of social capital, in section 3 how social capital affects the decision to migrate and in what ways it influences movement, settlement, integration into the host country, or the potential decision to return, in section 4 which policies contribute to the strengthening of the social capital of migrants (case study: Greece..) and in section 5 the general conclusion. Obviously, the analysis that follows will lead to the verification or refutation of the working hypothesis.

2. HOW SOCIAL CAPITAL IS CREATED

2.1. οι προσδιοριστικοί παράγοντες

Although social capital shares many common characteristics with other forms of capital, it is radically different from at least one perspective, in that its creation requires interaction between at least two individuals and usually between a large group of people. The relevant literature (Putnam, Massey, Cox, etc.) has demonstrated that it is a complex process influenced by historical, social, political, and cultural factors, as well as by the dominant model of economic development. The existence or absence of social capital, as we will see, seriously affects the decision to migrate, the place of settlement, and social integration in the host country.

Social capital increases when people collaborate in voluntary organizations and when they communicate with each other. Eva Cox (1995) argues that the accumulation of social capital even facilitates the resolution of disputes and the reconciliation of different interests and viewpoints. In summary, we can say that the accumulation of social capital is achieved through:

Voluntary participation in networks, of individuals or groups, based on the equality of members. Social capital concerns horizontal relationships (between community members and families) as well as vertical relationships between communities and various institutions and organizations (including governmental ones) (Grand, 2001). It is almost self-evident how important a role networks play in international migration. A related theory has been developed, known as “Network Theory.”

Reciprocity: Individuals provide services to others or act for the benefit of others at a personal cost, generally and vaguely expecting that there will be a return at some unspecified time in the future, when they themselves will need it. In other words, a combination of short-term altruism and long-term self-interest is created (Cox).

Trust: Trust allows for the assumption of risk when there is a belief that others will react positively and supportively or at least will not undermine the initiative. Fukuyama (1995, p. 26) defined trust as follows: “Trust is the expectation that arises within an organization for normal, honest, and fellow-feeling behavior from other members of the organization, based on common rules.” At the state level, therefore, the greater the social consensus (that is, the greater the trust among social partners), the greater the progress of the country.

Rules (norms): They are usually unwritten but understood social rules and principles that provide the framework for informal social control, without resorting to institutional sanction enforcement procedures. Many argue that where there is strong social capital, crime is low, as is the need for policing (Halpern, 2001).

Community: The combined result of trust, networks, rules, and reciprocity creates a strong community, capable of removing the risk of any aspiring opportunist who would attempt to exploit the social capital of the community without having offered anything themselves (Cox, 1999). The community is not owned by anyone, but is utilized by all. Only where there is a strong ethos of trust, reciprocity, and effective social sanctions against offenders and “free riders,” can the community be maintained indefinitely for the benefit of all (Putnam, 1993).

Human and Social Capital: Human capital represents valuable resources, such as knowledge and skills that stem from education, training, and experience. Some types of human capital, such as teamwork and communication skills, support social capital. Therefore, investments in human capital contribute to the development of both types of capital (OECD, 2001).

In recent years, the gradual awareness that neither the state nor the market can exclusively solve economic and social problems has brought to the forefront the concept of social capital, as a “third way” that bridges the public and private spheres. The first to use the term among European politicians was Tony Blair in 1995. However, it is not certain that it is understood by the others, particularly when used in the context of international migration.

It is worth noting that the new theory of economic growth, according to Putnam, shows much greater interest in social capital and the “externalities of human capital” than conventional neoclassical models do. Robert Lucas, the founder of the economic theory of “rational expectations,” admits that “the accumulation of human capital is fundamentally a social activity, involving groups of people in a way that is unprecedented in the accumulation of physical capital” (Putnam, 1993).

2.2. πως απαξιώνεται το κοινωνικό κεφάλαιο

So far, only the positive aspects of social capital have been reported. However, the relevant literature, as well as the experience one has from their daily life, reveals that a series of unfortunate handling can lead to the devaluation of social capital, just as can happen with other forms of capital. It is a common finding that problems often arise when a group uses its capital against others for reasons of narrow personal or selfish interest. Therefore, it is necessary for one to be aware of the potential negative sides of it when planning policies for the development of social capital, especially when one wishes to illuminate, as this paper does, the positive and negative aspects of social capital in the lives of migrants.

Some groups and organizations can set up networks or associations in order to promote guild interests, undermining the public interest and social welfare. As Aldridge and Halpern (2002) remind us, two centuries ago Adam Smith warned that people of the same profession or craft would meet to conspire against the public interest and to plot how to raise prices. In more recent times, Markur Olson (1982) also pointed out the actions of guild and lobbying organizations that make economies less efficient.

It is therefore necessary to distinguish between social capital/public good and social capital/club that promotes the interests of one group at the expense of others. Thus, in order for social capital not to ultimately become anti-developmental, it must be disseminated throughout society. The reservations certainly concern a wide range of activities, from trade unions to charitable organizations (Albridge and Halpern). Vertical relationships, primarily among citizens or organizations, with political networks and parties often result in clientelist relationships.

Speaking about negative social capital, we must of course keep in mind the criminal and terrorist international networks, which use their capital to serve their criminal purposes. In the Balkans, for example, there are social networks of organized crime that have powerful channels for the trafficking of weapons, drugs, or even women.

Consequently, the great challenge for the research and theory of social capital is to identify and highlight the terms and conditions under which its many positive aspects can be utilized and the negative ones can be limited or eliminated. In the case of international migration, the issue becomes particularly interesting, as it plays, as we will see, a decisive role in all stages of the migrant’s life, from the decision to migrate to the possibility of their return.

The process of production, as well as the devaluation of social capital, could be fully understood through qualitative and in-depth studies. Quantitative studies, with many variables, could then be used to empirically test specific aspects of the production process revealed by the qualitative studies (Groutaert, Narayan, Nyhan-Jones, Woolcock, 2004).

2.3. τύποι κοινωνικού κεφαλαίου

In examining the role of social capital in international migration, it is helpful to take into account the three main types of social capital as identified by subject matter experts, Gittel & Vidal (1998), Natayan (2002), Putnam (2000), Woolcock (1999), and the World Bank (2000):

BONDING: the ties between family members, members of the same group, or friends (the close ones..).

BRIDGING: the bridging of differences and the interaction between different ethnic groups, ages, partners, or even states (intercultural cooperation).

LINKING: link and communication between various social and political levels, e.g. between political elites and voters – vertical structure (clientelistic relations).

Let us not forget that trust is the safest criterion for the existence of social capital (Aldridge & Halpen, 2002).

3. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND MIGRATION

What we have examined so far helps in understanding the particular role that the development of social capital plays in people’s lives. It is important to see to what extent social capital influences decisions about migration and what its contribution is throughout the entire migration chain.

The relationship between social capital and migration is quite complex; however, as we have already mentioned, distinguished researchers from various academic fields have investigated several aspects of it. Nevertheless, the international literature on the topic “social capital and migration” is rather limited. The studies conducted so far have indicated that there are opportunities and challenges, and that the quality of social capital – in the sending and receiving country – determines the success of migration. The creation of networks, economic and social ties, and the establishment of trust appear to facilitate the achievement of migration goals.

3.1. η απόφαση για αποδημία

Social capital plays an important role in the decision to migrate, possibly more significant than that attributed to it by neoclassical theory. The empirical research of Douglas Massey on Latin America (2005) has shown that the migrant is not just a homo economicus, but makes decisions based on criteria related to “social capital,” both in the country of origin and in the destination country. Studies, such as the one conducted on the dynamics of Mexican-American migration by Douglas Massey and Richard Mines (1985), have shown that beyond economic and human capital, to understand the phenomenon of international migration, we must investigate the ways in which migrants create bonds, as well as their evolution. At the same time, Hillman and Weis (1999) insist that personal relationships and cultural preferences should be part of migration theory, beyond the classical theories that focus on economic motives.

Social and family ties explain micro and macro patterns of migration as well as the psychological cost of separation. Spilimbergo & Ubeda (2003) investigate the relationship between family and the decision to migrate and argue that unemployment and low income affect migration less than family ties do. The research reveals that for an average American, the likelihood of moving is 4.5 times greater if the family variable is 0 rather than 1. Therefore, the role of family ties is very strong.

Cashin and Sahay (1996) investigated the determinants of migration among the federal states of India. They discovered that income in the destination state had a much smaller effect on internal migration during the period 1961-1991 than that revealed by studies on inter-state migration in the US during the period 1900-1985 and in Japan during 1955-1985. We find, somewhat surprisingly, that the impact of income as a motivation for migration in India is similar to that of migration among European countries. This means that neoclassical theories, which state that the key factors for the decision to migrate are a/ expected income b/ the riskiness of the endeavor and c/ the time horizon (Kontis, lecture notes, 26.10.2005), are refuted, at least for the EU and India!

Cashin and Sahay argue that the most significant reasons explaining these differences, on one side between the US and Japan and on the other between Europe and India, are the social, cultural, and linguistic differences, which are also responsible for the low labor mobility in the EU. This assumption is supported by the fact that Greece’s integration into the Community, and subsequently that of Spain and Portugal, was not followed by a wave of migration to the more developed areas of Europe, as Europeans feared and predicted, because in these cases, the social capital they would leave behind (family and friends) played its role. Certainly, the same will happen with the ten new member countries of the EU and with others in the future. In the case of the EU, the good prospects for economic and social development of the countries joining the Community act as a deterrent to migration, despite the large income differences. Thus, in the case of the EU, the theory of social capital is also present.

Certainly, international connections play a significant role in the decision to migrate, as they mitigate the costs of migration, as well as the securing of information that facilitates relocation, finding housing, employment, etc. (Latapi research on migration between the USA and Mexico). The existence, namely, of social capital (bonding and bridging social capital) has a substantial impact on the decision to migrate, beyond economic incentives. The concentration

This view is further reinforced by the fact that among the migrants, there are also successful entrepreneurs, for whom social capital plays a major role in their decision-making. This category of migrants, which is certainly not numerous, seeks not so much economic opportunities

Finally, all the factors that affect individuals in their decision to migrate depend on their personal characteristics and vary from person to person and from area to area. The differences are due to the different levels of education, history, culture, and previous experiences.

3.2. ο δρόμος προς την Ιθάκη….

Economists argue that the movements of migrants are the response to the “push & pull” forces of the globalized market. Regarding more practical issues, migration certainly requires preparation and organization, in terms of space and time. Migration needs communication, transportation, and procedural infrastructures that will facilitate movement. Transportation infrastructures affect cost, risk, speed, and purpose (Held & McGrew, 1999).

The processes of migrant movement are regulated either officially or unofficially. However, the help of relatives and other social networks is also needed, both in the country of origin and in the host country, which can make migration less costly, dangerous, and uncertain. Research conducted in the countries of the former Central and Eastern Europe has shown the relationship between underdeveloped transport systems, access to information, the action of networks, and migration flows to and from the region (Romaniszym, 2002, p.100). Thus, the presence of social capital is an important factor in the journey to Ithaca…

Massey (2003, p. 15) argues that the forces of globalization that drive the flows of migrants and create demand for their services are the same ones that contribute to the creation of networks of movement and communication, as well as the means and culture to make international movements of people cheaper, faster, and easier (the theory of global systems). Held & McGrew (1999) claim that to the extent that the processes of movement and the infrastructures acquire inter-regional and international dimensions, they influence and shape globalization and migration.

From their side, states are trying to control the movement and flows of legal or illegal migrants by fortifying their borders (Fortress Europe) and imposing fines on employers who use illegal labor. It is evident that the free movement of capital and goods creates a new significant contradiction between people’s desire to move freely and states’ desire to hinder this movement. This is one of the major problems that migrants face once they have made the decision to migrate. Social capital, in this case, comes to provide a helping hand. The process of migration primarily relies on ties of friendship, blood, and common origin, from the country of origin to the intermediate stages and the final destination.

3.3. εγκατάσταση στη χώρα υποδοχής

Contacts and acquaintances in the destination country, as we have seen, constitute important social capital. Migrants usually choose to settle in specific areas where there is a system of social support or the possibility of creating a supportive network for the reception of migrants and the reduction of settlement costs (finding housing, issuing certificates, etc.). Over time, the expansion of networks is self-reinforcing and creates the social infrastructure for attracting other “brother” migrants, usually from the same country (this is how Chinatown in San Francisco, Little Italy in New York, and Greektown in Chicago were created…). Migrants settle in areas where they can establish social, economic, political, and emotional ties.

Massey insists that the restrictive immigration policies of states not only do not curtail the flow of migrants but, on the contrary, contribute to the strengthening of supportive networks, intermediaries, agents, and carriers who devise ways that meet both the market’s demand for migratory potential and the maintenance of international mobility! Massey’s viewpoint was confirmed by a carrier speaking to journalist Jeremy Harding (2000, p.21) “what matters is that the doors are closed…but we manage to open them.”

It is a fact, however, that problems arise in the country of origin of migrants, which experiences a loss of social capital due to the reduction in the number of people with a shared history, values, customs, and culture, as well as in the host country. There, according to Maurice Schiff of the World Bank, social capital often negatively depends on the level of migration because the local population and migrants differ in terms of language, customs, values, and culture, resulting in increased migration leading to a reduction of social capital in the host country. Of course, this cannot be the case when migration is at low percentages, where it may have a positive effect on local social capital. It should also be emphasized that to avoid the negative impacts of migration and limit the potential accumulation of negative social capital, migration policy and generally the quality of democracy in the host country can play a decisive role.

3.4. κοινωνική και πολιτική ενσωμάτωση

It is a long-term process of interaction between migrants and the host country. High levels of social capital are associated with high levels of social and political integration and recognition of rights (e.g., the right to vote in local and European elections, participation in political life). Migrants with social and economic capital are greatly facilitated in their smooth integration into the host country as well as into the ethnic-migrant community or even in “dual integration,” while conversely, the lack of adequate economic and social capital leads to a state of marginalization. Depending on the stock of economic and social capital of the migrant groups, a different rate of their integration is expected (Kontis, 2001).

Regarding the political integration of migrants, Dutch political scientists Fennema and Tillie (1999-2001) argue that differences in political participation among ethnicities are linked to the differences that exist within the “political community,” that is, with the “ethnic” social capital of the specific group. The more cohesive the specific group is, the greater the political trust and their political participation. Research in Amsterdam confirmed this close relationship (Jacobs & Tillie, 2004). As an example, they mention the fact that the Turks in Amsterdam have denser networks of organizations than the Moroccans, because the Turks demonstrably have greater political faith and more active participation in politics. Similar results, linking the social capital of migrant groups to their political participation in host countries, were also found for Surinamese and Antilleans.

Dutch researchers, inspired by Putnam, claim that voluntary organizations enhance social trust, which spills over and strengthens trust in political action and political participation. Furthermore, they argue that the more mass communication of ethnicities occurs through “national television” and “national publications,” the greater their politicization and participation in political events becomes. In other words, the scientists tell us that there is a direct relationship between social capital, political credibility, and political participation. If this is the case, the question that needs to be answered is why and what exactly creates this effect. At this point, we could emphasize the particular role and value of “bridging social capital” in the relationships between migrants and the host country.

3.5. το καλό παράδειγμα της Σουηδίας

In Sweden, the idea of the collective organization of immigrants and how they can influence Swedish society and improve their lives is promoted in every way, even through the leaflets on immigration that the government distributes (data 1994). There are about 1,200 immigrant organizations with 175,000 members, and more than half are under 34 umbrella associations, based on ethnicity. Most of the immigrant organizations were created in the 1970s, and 22 of them after 1977, when the Swedish government began to subsidize immigrants and also offer them related educational and advisory programs to help them organize (Yasemin Nuhoglu Soysal, 1994, p.89).

As the representatives of the organizations themselves state, the main purpose of the unions and their federations is to promote the interests of their communities, to negotiate with the authorities, and to showcase their cultural identity. Sweden has a comprehensive funding scheme to enhance the self-organization of migrants and facilitate their cooperation with Swedish institutions. One of the prerequisites, of course, is that the organization must have at least 1000 members, must have branches in the region, and its structure must be democratic, with an elected governing board, etc. Consequently, Sweden has incorporated the theory of social capital into its immigration policy.

3.6. κοινωνικό κεφάλαιο και παλιννόστηση

Russel King (2005), who has studied Albanian migration, certifies that there are many types of returns. Aside from visits for vacations, there are permanent resettlements as well as temporary ones. Many Albanians, especially those residing in Greece, travel back and forth, alternating periods of residence in Albania and Greece (dual integration). Regarding the economic benefit to the sending country, opinions differ. Some argue that repatriation creates a positive force for development, because the migrant brings with them capital—both economic and social—experience from abroad, and new ideas. In this case, of course, the migrant will need to reclaim the social capital they left behind when they made the decision to migrate.

The other perspective refers to the “failures” of those who return, either because they were forced to repatriate, or due to health, nostalgia, or retirement. Certainly, in the case of Albanians, an early or forced return is considered a failure. The successful migrant is one who stays abroad and sends nice remittances to their family (op. cit.). Of course, the issue remains open as to whether the remittances are invested for development or end up being used for home repairs or, at best, for taxis and greengrocers. Furthermore, speaking about Albanian migrants, it would be an omission not to point out the stigma they have suffered, (most of them obviously unjustly), due to the accumulation of negative social capital from the participation of many in networks of organized international crime, which excels in the trafficking of drugs, weapons, women, and underage girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

In Africa, repatriation policies are promoted for skilled scientists and technicians in an effort to reduce brain drain. As part of a program by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), between 1983-1999, 2000 Africans returned to their homeland, while countries like Ghana and Nigeria have organized international conferences aimed at facilitating the return and providing incentives for returnees. For example, Ghana organized a “homecomingsummit” in 2001 for those who had returned or intended to return(SussexCentreforMigrationResearch, 2002). It is evident that the initiatives being undertaken, whether by international organizations like the IOM or by national entities, objectively address gaps and needs in social capital that migrants have lost due to their prolonged absence. It is precisely this deficiency that often compels returnees to return and resettle in host countries, where they already possess rich social capital.

In general, the rates of repatriation, if we judge by the Greek diaspora, remain at low levels. This is mainly due to the cost of repatriation (double migration).

4. POLICIES FOR STRENGTHENING THE SOCIAL CAPITAL OF MIGRANTS

From the analysis that preceded, it clearly emerges that governments, particularly in host countries for migrants, have an interest and must take care (due diligence), in order to provide opportunities for migrants to communicate and develop relationships among themselves and with their countries. Therefore, we need effective policies for the economic and social integration of migrants and equality of opportunities, in order to strengthen social capital, which according to the analysis can significantly contribute to the competitiveness and efficiency of the economy (Lisbon Strategy).

At the European level, the “Common European Policy on Migration and Asylum,” which, according to the Treaty and the Tampere Program (1999), should have been completed by May ¹, 2004, is still dragging on. European leaders, clinging to outdated ideas of a “Fortress Europe,” are still contemplating whether to allow family reunification for migrants or not. European policy has essentially been limited to the exorcism of discrimination. But this does not constitute a coherent policy on migration, nor even for the smooth functioning of the internal market.

Some ideas for policies that can enhance the social capital of immigrants are summarized as follows:

Social and political integration programs for those with long residence and continuous employment (the European Parliament suggests 5 years)
Strengthening of NGOs according to the Swedish model
Establishment of legal migration channels and common rules in the EU for the reception and residence of migrants
Investments in dignified neighborhoods and human cities for all, without any discrimination.
Enhancement of the capabilities of migrants through the improvement of the training and skills they have acquired in their countries of origin.
Legislation – Respect for International Conventions
Social inclusion without homogenization
Alternative and flexible forms of citizenship – dual citizenship (Helliwell, 2003)
Unimpeded access to education and vocational training
Learning the language or languages of the host country
Access to social services and health services
Housing in decent environments
Social and political participation in the context of rights/obligations.
Respect for civil and human rights
Utilization of the capabilities offered by the Structural Funds and the CSFs for encouraging collective action and local development initiatives by migrants (Paraskevopoulos, 2001)
Enhancement of the role of local government authorities in the integration of immigrants.
Recognition and measurement of the positive contribution of immigrants to economic indicators (people produce more efficiently when their product has social impact and recognition)
Stability: Migrants are more willing to invest in social capital when the time horizon for staying is longer.
Employment, according to the qualifications of the immigrant – equal opportunities
Housing loans: home ownership improves levels of social capital
Combating social exclusion, racism, and xenophobia to ensure social cohesion and pluralism

To avoid misunderstandings, we emphasize that no one claims that social capital can substitute for an effective immigration policy, but rather that it constitutes a prerequisite for it and partially results from it. Ideologically and politically speaking, Putnam asserts that social capital is an idea that belongs neither to the right nor to the left. At the same time, Massey points out the postmodern paradox of the ^21st century: while the global economy unleashes tremendous forces that cause increasingly larger migratory flows from developing countries, it simultaneously creates conditions within developed countries that promote restrictive immigration policies. The most paradoxical point, we would add, is that these policies are promoted by countries (such as those in the EU) that face serious demographic problems and a shrinking labor force.

4.1. Case study inGreece…

In international literature, Greece is referred to as an example of a country with a weak civil society, vertical clientelistic relationships between citizens and the state, and lack of meritocracy. Recent studies reveal the lack of trust among citizens in key democratic institutions, as well as high levels of xenophobia and racism. Compared to other EU countries, Greece has the lowest rate of citizen participation in associations and informal networks (8.9%) compared to Scandinavian countries, which approaches 65% (Christoforou, 2004). Considering that the northern countries are also the most developed in the EU, it is certain that the culture and the strong civil society play their role in the process of development and social welfare. Therefore, if the conclusion is that there is a positive relationship between social capital and GDP, then the low levels of social capital in Greece can explain the conditions of low development and underachievement. This culture, of course, also has its implications on internal migration policy and the vacillations of governments.

The country currently has a migrant potential that represents approximately 10% of its population and remains essentially in limbo regarding its rights and obligations. Law 3386/2005, the third legislative attempt in the last fifteen years, reflects the bureaucratic operation of the administrative mechanism and the doctrinal perception of limited rights (Papadopoulos 2006). Unfortunately, the lack of political will (perhaps even knowledge) creates a crisis in the relations between the state and migrants and hampers the development of a capital of trust that facilitates social cohesion, as well as the country’s development.

5. CONCLUSION – verification of the working hypothesis

The analysis that preceded shows that social capital is an important factor for all links in the migration chain. It is also a driver of economic and social development, as well as an element of prosperity and social cohesion. The hypothesis is verified at all stages and pathways of migration. However, further theoretical elaboration of this significant new economic theory of social capital remains, as well as its specification in specific policy action.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldridge St. & Halpen D., 2002, “SOCIAL CAPITAL: A Discussion Paper”, Performance and Innovation Unit, London
Cashin, P., & Sahay, R., 1996, “Regional Economic Growth and Convergence in India”, Finance & Development, March 1996
Christoforou, A., 2003, “Social Capital and Economic Growth – The case of Greece” The 1^st PhD Symposium on Social Science Research in Greece, Hellenic Observatory, European Institute, London School of Economics, 21.06.2003
Cox, Eva, 1995, “Promoting Australian Discussion”, Boyer Lectures on Social Capital
Fukuyama F., 1995, Trust-The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York, The Free Press, Simon & Schuster Inc.
Grand, Emma, 2001, “Social Capital and Community Strategies: Neghbourhood Development in Guatemala City”, Development and Change, vol. 32 (2001), 975-997
Grootaert, C. –Deepa, N. –Jones, V.N. –Woolcock, M., 2004, Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Approach, World Bank Working Paper No 18
Halpen D.S., 2001, “Moral Values, Social Trust and Inequality: Can values explain crime?” British Journal of Criminology, 2001
Harding J., 2000, the Uninvited, Profile Books Ltd. London
Held D. – McGrew A. -Goldblatt D. – Perrraton J., 1999, Global Transportations,People on the Move, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Helliwell, F.J., 2003, “Maintaining Social Ties:Social Capital in a Global Information Age”, Keynote address to the 75^th Anniversary Conference of the University of Tilburg, March 26-28, 2003
Hillman A.S.-Weis A., 1999, „A Theory of Permissible Illigal Immigration“, European Journal of Political Economy, 15, 585-604
Jacobs D. & Tillie J., 2004, “Introduction: Social Capital and Political Integration of Migrants”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol.30, No 3, May 2004, pp.419-427
King, R., 2005, “Albania as a laboratory for the study of migration and development”,Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 7 (2):133-155, 2005
Latapi Escobar A., Martin Ph., Castro Lopez G., Donato K., 1998, “Factors that influence Migration”
Marger, M., 2001, “Social and Human Capital in Immigrant Adaptation:the case of Cnadian Immigrants”, Journal of Socioeconomics, 30 (2001) 169-170
Massey S.D., 2003, “Patterns and Processes of International Migration in the 21^st Century”, Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa, 4-7 June, 2003
Massey S.D. & Aysa Maria, 2005, “Social Capital and International Migration from Latin America”, Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico City, 2.12.2005
Nusoglu- Soysal, Yasemin, 1994, Limits of Citizenship-Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, the University of Chicago Press
OECD: 2001, The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital
Onyx, J., & Bullen P., 2000, “Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol 36, (1), March 2000 23-42
Paraskevopoulos, Chr., 2001, “Social Capital, Learning and EU Regional Policy Networks: Evidence from Greece”, Government and Opposition, vol.36 (2), Spring 2001
Putnam, R., 1993, “The Prosperous Community-Social Capital and Public Life”, The American Prospect, vol. 4, (13), March 21, 1993
Putnam, R., 1996, “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America”, American Prospect, vol 7 (24), December 1, 1996
Putnam, R., 2004, “Education, Diversity, Social Cohesion and Social Capital”, Meeting of OECD Education Ministers, 18-19 March 2004
Romaniszym, Krystyna, 2002, in Triantafyllidou A. “Europeanization, National Identities and Migration”, London Routledge
Schif M., 2002, “Love thy neighbor: trade migrátion and social capital”, European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 18 (2002) 87-107
Spilimbergo Antonio & Ubeda Luis, 2004, “Family Attachment and the decision to move by Race”, Journal of Urban Economics, 55 (2004)478-497)
Sussex Centre for Migration, “Sussex Migration Briefing”, July 2002, No 1, University of Sussex at Brighton
Tillie J., 2004, “Social Capital of Organizations and their Members: Explaining the Political Integration of Immigrants in Amsterdam”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol 30, (3), May 2004, s.529-541
Kontis, A., 2001, “Economic Integration of Immigrants in the Host Country” in Legal and Socio-Political Dimensions of Migration in Greece, Amitsis-Lazaridis (eds)
Kontis, A., 2005, Lecture of Master’s Program, 26.10.2005
Papatheodorou, Th., 2006, “Pending Rights,” newspaper Eleftherotypia, 10.01.2006

Anna Karamanou, 20.02.2006