Abstract
This article applies the term ‘migrant humanitarianism’ for the hitherto neglected humanitarian activities of migrant organisations (MOs). First, it assesses the state-of-the-art on MOs in migration research and recognises common shortcomings within the existing literature. Second, it reviews humanitarian studies literature on aid actors and shows that local or non-Western forms of aid, as well as MOs have so far received only limited attention. Third, it presents the development studies on MOs’ role in their members’ country of origin, which focus mainly on remittances and the migration-development nexus. Fourth, it examines organisational studies which offer frameworks for analysing MOs in multiple countries and crises. Fifth, it discusses how neo-institutional and associational theory, as well as the transnational approach, can help fill gaps in research on MOs in humanitarian action. It then applies these theories to the Islamic Community Milli Görüs (IGMG) as a case study of MOs in humanitarian action. It shows that IGMG is a strong, autonomous actor, despite the fact that it does not fully adhere to the traditional humanitarian principles. Finally, it indicates themes for further research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An organization is defined as a migrant organization if: (a) more than half of its members are migrants or persons with migration background, (b) it has an enduring, stable and visible vertical and horizontal structure (a statute, organizational, functional and/or administrative organs, such as an executive committee could indicate the existence of such structures), (c) more than half of its leaders are migrants or persons with migration background and (d) issues regarding migration and migrants are an important part of its aims, activities and claims (Pries and Sezgin 2012).
Islamic MOs in particular are often active in their countries of origin and in third countries because their faith motivates them for providing aid to the people in need, especially to the worldwide Muslim community (ummah) (De Cordier 2009).
IGMG is hierarchically structured and divided into national, regional and local facilities. Local facilities, such as mosque communities, are bound together under regional organizations. Regional organizations coordinate the work between local facilities and also constitute a bridge between local and national facilities. IGMG is centrally managed: The central administration in Kerpen is responsible for the coordination of all associated organizations, and its decisions are binding for all facilities in Europe.
Erbakan’s movement was organized in the form of a political party, which was banned and reestablished several times under different names.
Today, more young Muslims become members and attain positions within IGMG. Many hold German citizenship and consider themselves an integral part of German society. The change in organizational aims and structures responds to the expectations of this generation, which is not interested in Turkish politics to the same extent as its parents but rather expect organizational activities to institutionalize Islam in Europe and help Muslims throughout the world (Schiffauer 2010: 327ff).
The traditional humanitarian principles are humanity (to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found), impartiality, neutrality and independence (ICRC 1986).
The regional and federal Offices for the Protection of the Constitution monitor organizations that hold sharia as ‘an eternally valid system of law for all areas of life’ and hence try to enforce sharia in Germany or in the countries of origin in order to practice ‘true’ Islam (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz undated). Furthermore, Islamist organizations are monitored if they: (a) “have been carrying out terrorist actions worldwide and are committed to the violent Jihad (Holy War)”, (b) strive “to change the social system and the conditions of domination in their countries of origin with violent means (terrorist actions or guerrilla warfare)”, and (c) exploit the legal instruments of the state “to impose Islamist positions in social life in Germany” or “to achieve freedom for organized Islamist activities in Germany” and thereby disturb the integration process by trying to establish an “Islamist sub-society” (ibid).
The difference between a faith-based MO and a faith-based humanitarian organization is that the aims and activities of a faith-based MO are focused primarily on migration and migrant-related issues, whereas the aims and activities of a faith-based humanitarian organization are focused mainly on providing help to the people in need.
We would like to thank Ludger Pries who initially helped formulating these ideas on the roles and activities of humanitarian (migrant) organizations.
There are other theories to help understand the relationships between MOs and their environment. For example, political opportunity structures theory can be useful in studying cross-national variations of MOs in liberal, corporatist, statist and fragmented political structures (Soysal 1994; Vermeulen 2007). Alternatively, social network theory can be useful for understanding transnational social contacts and structures of MOs and for measuring their social capital (Scott 2000). Finally, contingency theory can be useful in discussing the relation between efficiency and legitimacy of MOs (Pries and Sezgin 2012; Rosenow 2011). Although these theories are relevant for future research on MOs, we do not apply them in our analysis. In line with our goal of analysing the legitimacy of IGMG in humanitarian action, we focus only on transnationalism, neo-institutionalism and the associational approach.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983: 143) define an organizational field as “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products”. Scott (2000) adds the aspects of shared cognitive or normative frameworks and a common regulatory system. The well-established humanitarian NGOs (e.g. MSF, Oxfam, Care), UN organizations (e.g. UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP), the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and donor government agencies often play an important role in international humanitarian debates, coordination bodies, advocacy campaigns and funding appeals, as well as in obtaining media attention. These actors “dictate the language and the rules of the game of humanitarian action” (Donini 2010: 220 f.). In organizational terms, this oligopolistic set of organizations and donor governments determines habitually the organizational field and could be considered as the official face of the humanitarian world.
During its 2008/2009 Eid al-Adha campaign, 82.363 animals were donated to poor families in 78 countries (IGMG 2009b).
A number of verses in the Quran (e.g. Sura 4, Verse 10 and Sura 107, Verse 3) demand kindness on behalf of orphans, promising the worst punishment for those who ill-treat orphans and equally promising the highest rewards for those who look after them (Krafess 2005).
According to the Turkish National Security Council, Turkish political parties are not allowed to receive financial support from abroad. Turkish NGOs, which want to obtain financial support from outside Turkey, have to receive permission from the Civil Administration Authority for Associations (Sezgin 2010). This policy is mainly due to the history of diaspora support for opposition groups in Turkey (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Islamists). IGMG is also carefully monitored by the Turkish government as it had close ties with the Islamist ‘Milli Görüs’ movement and lobbied against the separation between State and religion, as established by Kemal Atatürk.
For the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, see http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/idrl/I259EN.pdf. The Sphere Project (http://www.sphereproject.org/ ) is a voluntary initiative that brings a wide range of humanitarian agencies together to improve the quality of humanitarian assistance and the accountability of humanitarian actors to their constituents, donors and affected populations. The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response provides a set of common principles and minimum standards of humanitarian response.
Although some of the countries in which IGMG provides humanitarian and development aid cannot be considered as Islamic countries, IGMG often provides aid in certain regions of these countries that are populated by Muslims (e.g. Malays in southern Thailand).
During its Gaza campaigns, several controversial demonstrations against the Israeli military operations were held. In some, anti-Semitic incidents occurred. For example, in Duisburg, Germany, the local IGMG community organized a demonstration during which large numbers of demonstrators attacked a house where residents had Israeli flags hanging in their windows. IGMG distanced itself from these demonstrators and claims that its own security personnel tried to prevent the attack (IGMG 2009c; Pries and Sezgin 2012). Bali (2009) contends that these incidents correspond with a tradition of anti-Semitism in Turkish Islamist thought.
Professionalization does not automatically lead to a higher degree of impartiality. Some professionalised organizations, such as Muslime Helfen (Muslims Help), focus mainly on Muslims in countries, where they constitute a minority.
References
Avant, D. (2005). The market for force: The consequences of privatizing security. Cambridge: University Press.
Bali, R. N. (2009). Present-day anti-Semitism in Turkey. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3048&TTL=Present-Day_Anti-Semitism_in_Turkey. Accessed 17 October 2011.
Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–854.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders. London: Hutchinson Business Books.
Beneditti, C. (2006). Islamic and Christian inspired relief NGOs. Journal of International Development, 18(6), 849–859.
BMI. (2010). Verfassungsschutzbericht 2009. Berlin: BMI.
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (undated). Islamism. http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work/islamism. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Caglar, A. (2006). Hometown associations, the rescaling of state spatiality and migrant grassroots transnationalism. Global Networks, 6(1), 1–22.
CEC. (2005). Migration und entwicklung. Brussels: Commission to the Parliament.
Child, J. (1976). Organizational structure, environment and performance. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.
Collier, P., Elliot, L., Hegre, H., Hoeffler, A., Reynal-Querol, M., & Sambanis, N. (2003). Breaking the conflict trap. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
Daume, H., Baraulina, T., Bommes, M., El-Cherkeh, T., & Vadean, F. (2007). Egyptian, Afghan, and Serbian diaspora communities in Germany. Hamburg: HWWI.
De Cordier, B. (2009). The third pillar. Islamic development and relief organizations and the humanitarian frontline. Doctoral Dissertation, Ghent University.
De Haas, H. (2006). Engaging diasporas. Oxford: IMI.
De Waal, A. (2003). Human rights organizations and the political imagination. Journal of Human Rights, 2(4), 475–494.
Diehl, C. (2002). Die partizipation von migranten in Deutschland. Wuppertal: Leske and Budrich.
Dijkzeul, D. (2008). Transnational humanitarian NGOs? In L. Pries (Ed.), Rethinking transnationalism: The meso-link of organizations (pp. 80–103). London: Routledge.
Dijkzeul, D., & Moke, M. (2005). Public communication strategies of international humanitarian organizations. International Review of the Red Cross, 87(860), 673–691.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationalities in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Donini, A. (2010). The far side: The meta functions of humanitarianism in a globalised world. Disasters, 34(2), 220–237.
Elwert, G. (1982). Probleme der ausländerintegration. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 4, 717–731.
Esser, H. (1996). Ethnische kolonien. In J. Hoffmann-Zlotnik (Ed.), Segregation oder integration (pp. 64–99). Mannheim: Forschung Raum und Gesellschaft.
Fassin, D., & Pandolfi, M. (2010). Contemporary states of emergency. New York: Zone.
Gabriel, K. (2006). Caritas und sozialstaat unter veränderungsdruck. Analysen und perspektiven. Münster: Lit Verlag.
Galatowitsch, D. (2009). Co-development in Mali. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/737. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Glick Schiller, N., & Faist, T. (Eds.). (2010). Migration, development, and transnationalization. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Goodhand, J. (2006). Aiding peace? Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Halm, D., & Sezgin, Z. (2012). Migration and organized civil society—Rethinking national policy. London: Routledge.
Harmer, A., & Macrae, J. (2004). Beyond the continuum: The changing role of aid policy in protracted crises. London: ODI.
Horst, C., & Gaas, M. (2008). Remittances for peace? The transnational political engagements of Somalis in Norway. Oslo: PRIO.
IGMG. (2009a). Introductory brochure. Kerpen: IGMG.
IGMG (2009b). IGMG Kurban’da Ümmetle Buluştu. http://www.igmg.de/tr/haberler/yazi/2009/12/17/igmg-kurbanda-uemmetle-bulustu-2009-kurban-kampanyasi-tamamlandi.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (2009c). 11.000 kamen zur Gaza-Demonstration in Duisburg. http://www.igmg.de/nachrichten/artikel/11000-kamen-zur-gaza-demonstration-in-duisburg.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (2009d). IGMG eröffnet Studentenwohnheim in Pakistan und drei Waisenhäuser in Bangladesch. http://www.igmg.de/nachrichten/artikel/2009/04/18/9553.html?L=.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (2010a). Die Wunden sind tief in Pakistan. http://www.igmg.de/nachrichten/artikel/2010/08/26/die-wunden-sind-tief-in-pakistan.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (2010b). IGMG und Soziale Dienste. http://www.igmg.de/nachrichten/artikel/2010/08/14/igmg-und-soziale-dienste-interview-mit-ali-bozkurt.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (undated a). Brosür Zekat Fikre 2010. http://www.igmg.de/uploads/media/Zekat_burosur_2010_ingilizce_1.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012.
IGMG (undated b). IGMG Hilfsteam im Gaza-Streifen. http://www.igmg.de/verband/presseerklaerungen/artikel/2008/02/03/igmg-hilfsteam-im-gaza-streifen-wir-werden-vor-dem-drama-im-gaza-streifen-nicht-schweigen.html. Accessed 6 September 2011.
InWEnt. (2007). Migration und kommunale entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Bonn: InWEnt.
Johnston, R. (2009). The influence of the ethnic association on the assimilation of its immigrant members. International Migration, 5(2), 147–151.
Korff, V. P. (2012). Between cause and control: Management in a humanitarian organization. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Groningen.
Krafess, J. (2005). The influence of the Muslim religion in humanitarian aid. International Review of the Red Cross, 87(858), 327–342.
Landolt, P., & Goldring, L. (2010). Political cultures, activist dialogues and the constitution of transnational social fields: Chilean, Colombian and Canadian organizing in Toronto. Global Networks, 10(4), 443–466.
Levitt, P., & Lamba-Nieves, D. (2011). Social remittances revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 1–22.
Lindenberg, M., & Bryant, C. (2001). Going global. Transforming relief and development NGOs. Bloomfield: Kumarian.
López, F., Escala-Rabadan, L., & Hinojosa-Ojeda, R. (2001). Migrant associations, remittances and regional development between Los Angeles and Oaxaca, Mexico. LA: North American Integration and Development Centre.
Mercer, C., Page, B., & Evans, M. (2009). Unsettling connections: Transnational networks, development and African Home Associations. Global Networks, 9(2), 141–161.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. Meyer & W. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 199–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mezzetti, P., Saggiomo, V., Pirkkalainen, P. and Guglielmo, M. (2010). Engagement dynamics between diasporas and settlement country institutions: Somalis in Italy and Finland. http://www.diaspeace.org/WP6_D19_final.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Orozco M. (2003). Remittances, markets and development. http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdr_net/ACFEE1A.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Østergaard-Nielsen, E. (2003). Transnational politics: Turks and Kurds in Germany. London: Routledge.
Ozkan, M. (2011). Transnational Islam, immigration NGOs and poverty alleviation: The case of the IGMG. Journal of International Development. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.1766/abstract. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolution of multinational enterprises. Columbia Journal of World Business, 1, 9–18.
Pirkkalainen, P. and Mahdi, A. (2009). The diaspora–conflict–peace–nexus. http://www.diaspeace.org/D-Working_paper_1_Final.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012.
Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Walton, R. (2007). Immigrant transnational organizations and development. International Migration Review, 41(1), 242–281.
Pries, L. (2008). Transnational societal spaces. In L. Pries (Ed.), Rethinking transnationalism (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge.
Pries, L. and Dijkzeul, D. (2011). Activities of migrant organizations in humanitarian crises in Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (AMOHC). Proposal for DFG Research Grant.
Pries, L., & Sezgin, Z. (Eds.). (2010). Jenseits von ‘Identität oder Integration’ grenzen überspannende migrantenorganisationen. Wiesbaden: VS.
Pries, L., & Sezgin, Z. (Eds.). (2012). Cross-border migrant organizations in comparative perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Proudlock, K., Ramalingam, B., & Sandison, P. (2008). Improving humanitarian impact assessment: Bridging theory and practice. London: ALNAP.
Rauh, K. (2011). NGOs, foreign donors, and organizational processes: Passive NGO recipients or strategic actors? McGill Sociological Review, 1, 29–45.
Reindorp, N. (2002). Trends and challenges in the UN humanitarian system. In J. Macrae (Ed.), The new humanitarianisms: A review of trends in global humanitarian action (pp. 29–39). London: ODI.
Rosenow, K. (2011). Organizing Muslims and Integrating Islam. Muslim Umbrella Organizations in Germany in the 21st century. PhD thesis, Ruhr-University Bochum.
Rosenow, K. and Sezgin, Z. (2011). Activities of Muslim migrant organizations in humanitarian crises. Paper presented at 2nd World Conference on Humanitarian Studies at Tufts University, 2 June 2011.
Savage, K., & Harvey, P. (Eds.). (2007). Remittances during crises: Implications for humanitarian response. London: ODI.
SCF UK. (2004). Global impact monitoring guidelines 2004. London: SCF UK.
Schiffauer, W. (2010). Nach dem islamismus: Die islamische gemeinschaft milli görüs. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Schmelz, A. (2007). Die kamerunische diaspora in Deutschland. Eschborn: GTZ.
Schmitter, P., & Streeck, W. (1999). The organization of business interests. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
Seybolt, T. (2007). Humanitarian military intervention: The conditions for success and failure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sezgin, Z. (2008). Umbrella organizations of Turkish migrants: A comparative analysis of migrants’ claims-making in Austria and Germany. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig.
Sezgin, Z. (2010). Turkish migrants’ organizations in Germany and their role in the flow of remittances to Turkey. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 12(3), 231–251.
Singer, P. W. (2007). Corporate warriors: The rise of the privatized military industry. NY: Cornell University Press.
Soysal, Y. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Stoddard, A. (2002). Trends in US humanitarian policy. In J. Macrae (Ed.), The new humanitarianisms: A review of trends in global humanitarian action (pp. 39–49). London: ODI.
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–640.
Thränhardt, D., & Weiß, K. (Eds.). (2005). SelbstHilfe. Wie migranten netzwerke knüpfen und soziales kapital schaffen. Freiburg: Lambertus.
UN (2006). International Migration and Development. Report of the Secretary General A/60/871.
Vermeulen, F. F. (2007). The immigrant organizing process: The emergence and persistence of Turkish immigrant organizations in Amsterdam and Berlin and Surinamese organizations in Amsterdam, 1960–2000. Amsterdam: IMISCOE Dissertations.
Yurdakul, G. (2009). From guest workers into Muslims: The transformation of Turkish immigrant associations in Germany. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sezgin, Z., Dijkzeul, D. Migrant Organisations in Humanitarian Action. Int. Migration & Integration 15, 159–177 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-013-0273-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-013-0273-9