A theory of migrationthe aspirations-capabilities framework

OverviewBalancedalloy voice

Let me start with a simple tension that has tied migration theory in knots for decades. On one side, you have the optimization story: people weigh wages and costs and move until things balance out. On the other, the power story: global capitalism, border regimes, and elites move the pieces, and migrants are the pieces. Both capture something real, but neither captures the whole. Hein de Haas has been arguing for a way out of that stalemate, not by picking a winner, but by stitching the pieces into a single fabric built around two everyday ideas: what people want and what they can do. He calls it aspirations and capabilities. Aspirations are your imagined futures and the places you think might let you live them. Capabilities are the resources and freedoms that make acting on those dreams possible. If you have a cousin in the city, a passport, a little savings, and a phone full of WhatsApp chats, your capability set looks very different from someone with the same dreams and no tools. And here's the twist that reframes the whole debate: moving and staying are both forms of agency. The freedom to choose where to live includes the freedom to remain. That sounds philosophical, but it's also practical. Roughly 3 percent of the world's population has crossed an international border, and about 12 percent has moved within their own country, as de Haas and colleagues tallied. Even people who never move live inside mobility systems that shape their lives — remittances, new job ladders, the pull of cities. So a framework that treats mobility and immobility as two sides of the same freedom doesn't just feel right; it fits the scope of the phenomenon. Under the hood, this is Amartya Sen's capabilities approach brought into the migration world and paired with Isaiah Berlin's two kinds of liberty. Think of negative liberty as freedom from external constraints — no exit bans, no predatory middlemen, and no hostile visa regime. Positive liberty is freedom to act — actual access to schooling, cash, networks, information, and legal status. You need both. You can have open borders in theory, but if you can't pay for the bus to the capital, you're stuck. And you can have money and a passport, but if a civil war makes staying untenable, your freedom is still curtailed because the option you might have preferred has been taken off the table. That pairing helps clarify something people often muddle: why development and social change don't push migration neatly up or down. When education spreads, infrastructure improves, and media widen the horizon of "what a life could be," aspirations rise. And as incomes tick up, networks thicken, and information gets cheaper, capabilities rise too. De Haas leans into what he calls the migration transition: in poorer contexts, early development often fuels more migration, not less, because aspirations outpace local opportunities and capabilities finally make leaving possible. Over the long run, as opportunities at home start to match those aspirations, emigration can level off and eventually fall, while immigration rises. That's not a law of nature. It's a pattern we observe when transformation is uneven — and it explains why the same policy that seems to "work" at one moment can fizzle at another. There's another piece worth making concrete, because it gives us a map rather than a slogan. Cross those two liberties — negative and positive — and you get four stylized kinds of mobility. When both are low, you see precarious movement: short hops, often internal, by people with few resources and few protections. Think rural to urban moves into informal work, or undocumented crossings that end in exploitation. When negative liberty is high — the legal door is relatively open — but positive liberty is low, you get what de Haas calls improvement migration: the person can, on paper, go, but is constrained by thin resources and skills, so they ladder up slowly once they arrive. Flip it: high positive liberty but low negative liberty and you're in the terrain of distress migration. Those are refugees and others with the means and networks to get out, but facing a deprivation of freedom because staying safely is not a real option. And when both liberties are high, you see free migration: the student who picks among universities on three continents, the retiree who splits time between cities, the software engineer toggling visas. These aren't bins you're stuck in. They're positions people move through as lives and policies shift. Now, if the four-quadrant map gives you landmarks, the road that runs through it is the continuum from forced to voluntary, not as labels to judge people, but as a way to think about constraints. Jørgen Carling named one anchor involuntary immobility — being trapped in place even when you want to go. Marcia Schewel added another, acquiescent immobility — not resisting constraints because hope has dimmed and staying becomes the least bad option you can picture. There's voluntary immobility too, a real choice to remain, and of course voluntary mobility. But the key is the gray area in between: involuntary mobility, when constraints and compulsion drive movement, and the opposite, when a nudge in rights or resources changes not just whether someone moves, but which migration they undertake. Cases that look paradoxical start to make sense seen this way. Spain's introduction of visas for Moroccans in 1991 hardened the legal channel and, in the short run, stoked irregular routes and the urgency of leaving now rather than later. Restrictions did not kill movement; they reconfigured it. In the Guianas, neighbors with different regimes and opportunities have long produced diverging streams that reflect those liberty mixes more than a single push and pull number. Urbanization is the loudest amplifier of all of this. Since the industrial revolution, cities have been where jobs cluster, but they're also where imaginations update. As Mabogunje argued decades ago, rural to urban migration is not just about wages; it's about remaking a life course in a system that's changing under your feet. Schewel put it plainly: policies that try to keep people in the countryside with modest rural programs rarely change the story because they don't change the opportunity structure people perceive. The city is where your cousin just landed a gig. It's where you can try three things in a year. So even as roads and education reduce the cost of movement, they also increase the desire to move. That's why we see a boom in internal migration as countries develop, followed by rising international migration when capabilities spread and networks mature. Later, when opportunities at home finally start to catch up — when the new factory is not just in the capital but in your town, when your degree pays off locally — the tilt toward emigration can ease. What makes de Haas's proposal more than a tidy schema is that it is designed to travel. He's explicit about not replacing earlier theories but situating them. Neoclassical ideas about wage gaps have real bite in the high-liberty quadrants. Historical and structural accounts of global power and state control explain why negative liberty narrows for some and widens for others. Network theory illuminates how capabilities compound over time through social ties. Rather than force a choice, the framework asks us to pick the right lens for the level we're studying — individual, household, community, state — and to be honest about context, group differences, timing, and disciplinary angle. That is the meta-theoretical move: a way to integrate without pretending there's a single universal law. There are limits, and the paper does not hide them. Aspirations are slippery; they're not a fixed variable you can pluck out of a survey and drop into a model. Intrinsic and instrumental motives blend together in a person's life. The neat typology is a teaching tool, not a prediction machine, and real-world categories blur. And because macro-structural shifts are non-linear, the same change — say, expanding secondary education — can raise aspirations faster than capabilities in one decade and then flip the next, changing the migration response. That's messy. It's also how social change works. The bidirectionality here matters. Migration does not only reflect development; it reshapes it. Remittances rewire household budgets and education plans. Return migrants carry skills and expectations home. Labor markets adjust when a cohort leaves and when another arrives. So when you hear that migration "causes" inequality to shrink or rise, the right instinct is to ask: in which quadrant, for which groups, and at what point in the transition? As Massey and colleagues noticed back in the early 1990s, migration can reproduce disparities in one context and cut through them in another. De Haas is giving us a way to organize those observations without flattening them. If you're keeping a mental ledger of numbers, keep just two. About 3 percent of people live outside their birth country. Around 12 percent have moved within it. The rest are not off the hook. They are part of mobility systems that generate options, reroute aspirations, and change what "staying" even means. A teenager who stays put in a town transformed by migration is not making the same "stay" as her parents did. She's choosing within a different opportunity structure. What does this do to policy conversations? It reframes the target. Restricting movement in the absence of real capability building often entrenches deprivation and can channel movement into riskier paths rather than stop it. Opening opportunities — through education, safer legal routes, recognition of skills, and social networks — reshapes which migrations happen and who undertakes them. You can hear echoes of this in Spain's 1991 visa policy for Moroccans. Clamp down on one liberty, and the pattern of movement changes quickly, but the underlying aspirations don't evaporate. By the same token, when real opportunities at home expand and become believable, the fixation on leaving can ease without a single checkpoint being built. Measurement has to catch up too. If mobility is the freedom to choose where to live, then statistics that only track border crossings miss a lot of the action. We need to make room for Carling's involuntary immobility, for Schewel's acquiescent immobility, for voluntary staying that is a genuine preference, and for the many shades of movement shaped by constraint. And we should treat "free migration" not as a moral category but as a description of a liberty mix that only some people enjoy. Let's end where we began. Agency and structure are not opposing teams. People imagine futures and act on them, but they do so inside systems that enable and constrain. De Haas's aspirations and capabilities framework does not solve every argument in migration studies. It gives us a common language to ask better questions: What are people aiming for? What can they actually do? Which liberties are shaping that intersection right now? And where is the system headed along its uneven transition? There's plenty we don't yet know, especially about how to measure aspirations in a way that travels across cultures and how to predict when rising capabilities will tip a system from emigration to return or to immigration. That's an invitation, not a failure. The pay-off is a more coherent narrative, one that is actor-centered and structurally aware at the same time — a way to talk about the world as it is and to design policies that work with the grain of human freedom rather than against it.

Both capture something real, but neither captures the whole. Hein de Haas has been arguing for a way out of that stalemate, not by picking a winner, but by stitching the pieces into a single fabric built around two everyday ideas: what people want and what they can do.

He calls it aspirations and capabilities. Aspirations are your imagined futures and the places you think might let you live them. Capabilities are the resources and freedoms that make acting on those dreams possible.

If you have a cousin in the city, a passport, a little savings, and a phone full of WhatsApp chats, your capability set looks very different from someone with the same dreams and no tools. And here's the twist that reframes the whole debate: moving and staying are both forms of agency. The freedom to choose where to live includes the freedom to remain.

That sounds philosophical, but it's also practical. Roughly 3 percent of the world's population has crossed an international border, and about 12 percent has moved within their own country, as de Haas and colleagues tallied. Even people who never move live inside mobility systems that shape their lives — remittances, new job ladders, the pull of cities.

So a framework that treats mobility and immobility as two sides of the same freedom doesn't just feel right; it fits the scope of the phenomenon.

Under the hood, this is Amartya Sen's capabilities approach brought into the migration world and paired with Isaiah Berlin's two kinds of liberty. Think of negative liberty as freedom from external constraints — no exit bans, no predatory middlemen, and no hostile visa regime. Positive liberty is freedom to act — actual access to schooling, cash, networks, information, and legal status.

You need both. You can have open borders in theory, but if you can't pay for the bus to the capital, you're stuck. And you can have money and a passport, but if a civil war makes staying untenable, your freedom is still curtailed because the option you might have preferred has been taken off the table.

That pairing helps clarify something people often muddle: why development and social change don't push migration neatly up or down. When education spreads, infrastructure improves, and media widen the horizon of "what a life could be," aspirations rise. And as incomes tick up, networks thicken, and information gets cheaper, capabilities rise too.

De Haas leans into what he calls the migration transition: in poorer contexts, early development often fuels more migration, not less, because aspirations outpace local opportunities and capabilities finally make leaving possible. Over the long run, as opportunities at home start to match those aspirations, emigration can level off and eventually fall, while immigration rises. That's not a law of nature.

It's a pattern we observe when transformation is uneven — and it explains why the same policy that seems to "work" at one moment can fizzle at another.

There's another piece worth making concrete, because it gives us a map rather than a slogan. Cross those two liberties — negative and positive — and you get four stylized kinds of mobility. When both are low, you see precarious movement: short hops, often internal, by people with few resources and few protections.

Think rural to urban moves into informal work, or undocumented crossings that end in exploitation. When negative liberty is high — the legal door is relatively open — but positive liberty is low, you get what de Haas calls improvement migration: the person can, on paper, go, but is constrained by thin resources and skills, so they ladder up slowly once they arrive. Flip it: high positive liberty but low negative liberty and you're in the terrain of distress migration.

Those are refugees and others with the means and networks to get out, but facing a deprivation of freedom because staying safely is not a real option. And when both liberties are high, you see free migration: the student who picks among universities on three continents, the retiree who splits time between cities, the software engineer toggling visas. These aren't bins you're stuck in. They're positions people move through as lives and policies shift.

Now, if the four-quadrant map gives you landmarks, the road that runs through it is the continuum from forced to voluntary, not as labels to judge people, but as a way to think about constraints. Jørgen Carling named one anchor involuntary immobility — being trapped in place even when you want to go. Marcia Schewel added another, acquiescent immobility — not resisting constraints because hope has dimmed and staying becomes the least bad option you can picture.

There's voluntary immobility too, a real choice to remain, and of course voluntary mobility. But the key is the gray area in between: involuntary mobility, when constraints and compulsion drive movement, and the opposite, when a nudge in rights or resources changes not just whether someone moves, but which migration they undertake. Cases that look paradoxical start to make sense seen this way.

Spain's introduction of visas for Moroccans in 1991 hardened the legal channel and, in the short run, stoked irregular routes and the urgency of leaving now rather than later. Restrictions did not kill movement; they reconfigured it. In the Guianas, neighbors with different regimes and opportunities have long produced diverging streams that reflect those liberty mixes more than a single push and pull number.

Urbanization is the loudest amplifier of all of this. Since the industrial revolution, cities have been where jobs cluster, but they're also where imaginations update. As Mabogunje argued decades ago, rural to urban migration is not just about wages; it's about remaking a life course in a system that's changing under your feet.

Schewel put it plainly: policies that try to keep people in the countryside with modest rural programs rarely change the story because they don't change the opportunity structure people perceive. The city is where your cousin just landed a gig. It's where you can try three things in a year.

So even as roads and education reduce the cost of movement, they also increase the desire to move. That's why we see a boom in internal migration as countries develop, followed by rising international migration when capabilities spread and networks mature. Later, when opportunities at home finally start to catch up — when the new factory is not just in the capital but in your town, when your degree pays off locally — the tilt toward emigration can ease.

What makes de Haas's proposal more than a tidy schema is that it is designed to travel. He's explicit about not replacing earlier theories but situating them. Neoclassical ideas about wage gaps have real bite in the high-liberty quadrants.

Historical and structural accounts of global power and state control explain why negative liberty narrows for some and widens for others. Network theory illuminates how capabilities compound over time through social ties. Rather than force a choice, the framework asks us to pick the right lens for the level we're studying — individual, household, community, state — and to be honest about context, group differences, timing, and disciplinary angle.

That is the meta-theoretical move: a way to integrate without pretending there's a single universal law.

There are limits, and the paper does not hide them. Aspirations are slippery; they're not a fixed variable you can pluck out of a survey and drop into a model. Intrinsic and instrumental motives blend together in a person's life.

The neat typology is a teaching tool, not a prediction machine, and real-world categories blur. And because macro-structural shifts are non-linear, the same change — say, expanding secondary education — can raise aspirations faster than capabilities in one decade and then flip the next, changing the migration response. That's messy. It's also how social change works.

The bidirectionality here matters. Migration does not only reflect development; it reshapes it. Remittances rewire household budgets and education plans.

Return migrants carry skills and expectations home. Labor markets adjust when a cohort leaves and when another arrives. So when you hear that migration "causes" inequality to shrink or rise, the right instinct is to ask: in which quadrant, for which groups, and at what point in the transition?

As Massey and colleagues noticed back in the early 1990s, migration can reproduce disparities in one context and cut through them in another. De Haas is giving us a way to organize those observations without flattening them.

If you're keeping a mental ledger of numbers, keep just two. About 3 percent of people live outside their birth country. Around 12 percent have moved within it.

The rest are not off the hook. They are part of mobility systems that generate options, reroute aspirations, and change what "staying" even means. A teenager who stays put in a town transformed by migration is not making the same "stay" as her parents did. She's choosing within a different opportunity structure.

What does this do to policy conversations? It reframes the target. Restricting movement in the absence of real capability building often entrenches deprivation and can channel movement into riskier paths rather than stop it.

Opening opportunities — through education, safer legal routes, recognition of skills, and social networks — reshapes which migrations happen and who undertakes them. You can hear echoes of this in Spain's 1991 visa policy for Moroccans. Clamp down on one liberty, and the pattern of movement changes quickly, but the underlying aspirations don't evaporate.

By the same token, when real opportunities at home expand and become believable, the fixation on leaving can ease without a single checkpoint being built.

Measurement has to catch up too. If mobility is the freedom to choose where to live, then statistics that only track border crossings miss a lot of the action. We need to make room for Carling's involuntary immobility, for Schewel's acquiescent immobility, for voluntary staying that is a genuine preference, and for the many shades of movement shaped by constraint.

And we should treat "free migration" not as a moral category but as a description of a liberty mix that only some people enjoy.

Let's end where we began. Agency and structure are not opposing teams. People imagine futures and act on them, but they do so inside systems that enable and constrain.

De Haas's aspirations and capabilities framework does not solve every argument in migration studies. It gives us a common language to ask better questions: What are people aiming for? What can they actually do?

Which liberties are shaping that intersection right now? And where is the system headed along its uneven transition?

There's plenty we don't yet know, especially about how to measure aspirations in a way that travels across cultures and how to predict when rising capabilities will tip a system from emigration to return or to immigration. That's an invitation, not a failure. The pay-off is a more coherent narrative, one that is actor-centered and structurally aware at the same time — a way to talk about the world as it is and to design policies that work with the grain of human freedom rather than against it.

Related lectures