The definition seems too narrow. Why only hardships? What about hearing stories of wonderful opportunities in some other location? What about efforts to persuade people to migrate (e.g. by employers in the destination, people traffickers) and without which there would be much less migration?
@l.sch-2229 күн бұрын
You are right, migration is not "caused" by only one factor. Usually it is the combination of many different forces that increase people's aspirations to migrate. This can be employment in destination countries, as well as a facilitating infrastructure. These factors are often specific to the individual and dictate the decision to migrate on a micro-level. That's why, a job offer in a destination country, for example, does not count as a root cause (the most narrow category of all the factors influencing migration), but it still plays a role in someone's individual choice to migrate.
@matthewleitch129 күн бұрын
@@l.sch-22 I'm saying that is a problem with defining 'root causes' so that only negatives in the source country are included. The word 'root' gives those particular causes a special status, a kind of privilege over other causes, seeming to make them less important. When people are wondering what to do about migration they, of course, are excited by insights about 'root causes' and want to focus on tackling the 'root causes'. That's misleading when some causes excluded from this definition of 'root causes' are also powerful and deserving of action.
@ahmadreshad530510 ай бұрын
Hello madam, I have sent you an email. I still await for your answer.