Introduction

This contribution reflects on the experiences presented in this Special Issue and the lessons we can learn about the potential role of migrants in encouraging regional development or, more specifically and related to Europe,Footnote 1 how to contribute to the revitalization of declining remote areas while also offering space for the successful hosting of non-EU migrants, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (‘leaving no-one behind’). What are the possibilities for killing two policy challenges with one stone, namely achieving the successful emplacement of migrant newcomers (Schiller et al., 2013) while fostering shrinking areas and laying a new foundation for inclusive and sustainable development?

Over the last decade, Europe (after many years of rapid urbanization) has experienced, along with globalization, a growing gap between prospering metropolitan areas and bypassed places, often in rural, remote and/or mountainous areas. This is reflected in the Long-term Vision for Rural Areas initiative (European Commission, 2021), which was launched in the summer of 2021 and points to the urgent need to reinvest in rural ‘left-behind’ areas that have been overlooked by policymakers. As noted by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von Der Leyen, ‘Rural areas are the fabric of our society and the heartbeat of our economy – they are a core part of our identity and our economic potential’ (European Commission, 2021, p. 1). Rural areas are now presented as crucial for the EU’s future. Given their multiple functionalities, namely producing our food, safeguarding our heritage and protecting our landscapes, such areas have a key role to play in the green and digital transition. The Long-term Vision is considered a first step towards transforming European rural areas; the challenge is to provide the right tools for these rural communities to take full advantage of the opportunities ahead and tackle the challenges they are currently facing. There is an urgent need to redefine the future of marginal (often remote) areas, which are home to 137 million people. In recent decades, many of these areas have become pockets of poverty—left-behind people have been confronted with deteriorating levels of wellbeing.

This growing interest and reinvesting in left-behind areas coincide with the rapid inflows of non-EU migrants. Even though anti-migration is still the norm in EU external migration policies, in the last 10 years, the intensity of global migration has rapidly increased, fuelled not only by voluntary migrants looking for opportunities to improve their lives but also by people forced to migrate due to wars, political instabilities, the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. The usual way for refugees to enter host societies is via reception centres and/or urban centres (much has been written about migrant integration in urban settings). We see however that left-behind rural areas are playing an increasingly important role in welcoming migrant groups. There are many examples of small towns and villages offsetting their declining populations by attracting non-EU international migrants. Going against current anti-migration attitudes, we see many welcoming spaces emerge. These initiatives to actively host newcomers are often citizen-based but can also be the outcome of initiatives by governments, NGOs and businesses or be migrant-based. Their success seems to depend on a combination of collective action, multi-stakeholder collaboration and institutional innovations.

In this Special Issue, various authors explore the challenge of nudging migrants to move to left-behind places in the European Union, as well as in Canada, Georgia and Turkey, in such a way that they can contribute to revitalization and local development. In recent decades, despite suffering from de-investment and marginalization, many shrinking, often remote, areas have shown exceptional levels of resilience. Although they are overlooked by national governments and receive little or no public funding and suffer from outmigration and ageing, there are multiple cases where the left-behinds and the newcomers have been able to fight declining levels of wellbeing. Such cases show the potential of remote, often forgotten, areas to become the cradle for new citizen initiatives focusing on providing care, maintaining biodiversity and/or developing new sources of income. The various contributions in this Issue show how in the last 10 years remote areas suffering from depopulation and ageing have become a crossroads of diverse populations: original residents, with or without children; labour migrants working in tourism and agriculture; different refugee groups with diverse ethnic backgrounds; leisure and amenity migrants (including pensioners and tourists); and digital nomads and new categories of urban farmers. Especially since the Covid pandemic and the attendant obligation to maintain social distancing and the new normal to be allowed to work from home, remote areas are increasingly seen as interesting places to be, offering space for alternative development and new forms of sociability. Despite their hospitality and growing attraction, the existing literature is less clear about the migration–development nexus, that is, the potential of different groups of newcomer migrants to contribute to regional development. In many cases, migrants settled as part of dispersion policies and are not in their preferred area of destination, and livelihood options are limited. The core question is how to transform welcoming spaces into places to flourish with sufficient opportunities for people to stay and lead the lives they value and aspire to.

After exploring the migration and development debate, I will try to draw lessons about under what conditions migrants could play a role in regional development, and what the EU and its Member States could do to achieve spatial justice while making marginalized areas more inclusive. I will show that although turning left-behind areas into welcoming spaces is a positive move, it is not a sufficient one. The question is how to ensure that attractive opportunities arise and transform left-behind areas into preferred destinations.

Exploring the Migration–Development Nexus

This Special Issue critically focuses on various attempts to merge two policy challenges: offering space for migrant reception and integration while simultaneously resolving the problem of depopulation and ageing in marginalized areas. However, it is important to also consider a third dimension: recent debates about the migration–development nexus.

Although the EU is trying to reduce immigration to a minimum, policymakers have embraced the idea that international migration can contribute to development. International migration and the counterflow of remittances have increasingly been identified as alternative sources for development projects. As a result of the rapid growth in refugee movements and migration in recent years, the UN has emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility and enhanced cooperation at the global level. This resulted in 2018 in the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), which was adopted by the majority of the 193 UN member states (including many EU countries).Footnote 2 There is consensus that ‘If well governed, migration is an engine of economic growth, innovation, and sustainable development. It allows millions of people to seek new opportunities each year, creating and strengthening bonds between countries and societies’ (United Nations, 2018). According to the GCM, ‘well-governed regular migration can contribute, through coherent and comprehensive responses, to sustainable development for countries of origin, transit and destination, including by supporting the development of countries of origin through social and financial remittances’.

In the context of the GCM, the EU called for employment creation, labour mobility at all skill levels, circular migration, family reunification and education-related opportunities to be enabled while recognizing national competences and the situation and needs of the labour market in host countries.Footnote 3 International migration (and particularly circular migration) is increasingly seen as an important driver for a triple win, allowing destination countries to tackle labour shortages by welcoming a flexible workforce, migrants to earn higher incomes and benefit from skills upgrading and origin countries to benefit from remittances and the newly acquired skills of returning migrants.

This positive link, namely endorsing migration as a tool to promote development, is reflected in the academic literature. Following a period in which migration was seen as an outcome of poverty and underdevelopment—and development projects were carried out as a way to stop migration (migration or development)—the positive implications (migration and development) have received increasing recognition. Migration is seen as a positive factor, since ‘sending sites and the migrants themselves benefit because migrants get jobs, develop their skills, earn some money and remit part of it to their places of origin while destination sites benefit from the skills and labour they get from migrants’ (Mafukidze, 2006, p.105). It leads to a balance in the labour market while contributing to the elimination of inequality and a better distribution of aspects of globalization. According to Adams and Page (2003), migration through remittances has a direct effect on poverty reduction: a 10% increase in a country’s share of international migrants leads to a 2% decline in dollar-a-day poverty (Adams, Page, 2003; in de Haan, 2005, p. 2). In addition to financial remittances, a positive value is also attributed to social remittances (e.g. the flow of information and ideas): countries of origin can benefit from brain gain, in addition to the positive effects of return migration (Zoomers, 2007).

While outmigration has long been explained as utility-maximizing behaviour by individuals (push–pull), many studies have shown the importance of seeing migration as a collective strategy aimed at risk-reduction and shared benefits, showing how migrants help left-behinds to reduce pressure on scarce resources in the areas of origin by leaving and help to overcome capital constraints by sending remittances or sharing resources after return. According to Massey (1988, p.396), for a proper understanding of migration and development, attention should be paid to migration networks as ‘sets of interpersonal ties that link migrants, former migrants, and non-migrants in origin and destination areas through the bonds of kinship, friendship, and shared community origin’. This is also reflected in the new economics of labour migration (NELM) theory, which shows how households and families (rather than individuals) use migration to spread income risks and to overcome capital constraints on family production activities (de Haan, 2005; Stark, Levhari, 1982; Stark, 1984; Taylor, 1986; Stark, 1991; Massey et al., 1993). According to this theory:

(…) households send out the best-suited individuals to gain an income elsewhere (…). The money they remit serves to spread income risks, to increase income, to improve living conditions and to enable them to invest (…). If the prime motive for migrating is to improve the situation at the origin, migrants will only return once they have succeeded to amass, save and remit enough financial and human capital in order to realize their investment plans. (de Haas, Fokkema, Fassi Fihri, 2015, pp. 416-417).

This is also confirmed by Massey et al. (1993, pp. 433-434) as illustrated in the following:

On the one hand, migrants fulfil an insurance function for the people who stay behind. In the event that local economic conditions deteriorate and activities there fail to bring in sufficient income, the household can rely on migrant remittances for support (…). On the other hand, from a household perspective, they are also a source of investment. They are prepared to invest or continue to invest in the area of origin because they will ultimately benefit from this in the form of an inheritance.

Flows of remittances can also be reversed, depending on whether migrants manage to find work. Spreading the different components of households geographically can diversify income sources, build social networks and increase access to social services. Focusing on the livelihoods of people in rural sending-areas, we often see huge dynamics: processes of agricultural change, mediated to varying degrees by flows of remittances, loss of labour, socioeconomic stratification, gender dynamics and cultural factors. In many African countries, as well as within Europe, rural–urban and international migration has contributed to, for example, the feminization of agriculture (Leder, 2022).

Looking at the link between migration and development from the perspective of sending areas, it is clear that those who leave are often seen as agents of development: it is often the best and the brightest—the young, able-bodied people—who are the first to leave. Migrant social networks help to build social capital, which helps increase the social resilience in the communities of origin and trigger innovations across regions through the transfer of knowledge, technology, remittances and other resources. These could increase the flexibility, diversity and creativity of communities in addressing climate stress and open new pathways for co-development connecting home and host communities (Scheffran, Marmer, Sow, 2012). This positive link between migration and development—and the importance of transnational networks—is also illustrated by many studies on transnational migration. In her book The New Argonauts, Saxenian (2006) shows how the ‘brain circulation’ is a powerful economic force for the development of formerly peripheral regions. Globalization has gone hand in hand with the appearance of all kinds of new forms of non-territorial affiliation and solidarity (Appadurai, 1996), which are increasingly playing out as new sources of translocal development (Zoomers et al., 2021).

Discussion

Comparing this international debate about the migration–development nexus with the situation in Europe’s left-behind areas, we see that the tone is very different. Rural–urban migrants are not presented as ‘heroes of development’; those who left are generally not seen as part of the solution—the focus is on ‘local people’ without paying much attention to social interaction with networked space (Zoomers, van Westen 2021). In the Long-term Vision for Rural Areas, the dominant picture is one of abandonment and loss: Europe’s left-behind areas are presented as suffering from depopulation, ageing and the subsequent loss of services such as schools and shops. To the extent that attempts are made to revitalize such areas, the focus is not on how rural–urban migrants can play positive roles by sending remittances, making investments or returning to their areas of origin. There are not many examples of diaspora-generated investment booms or hometown associations playing an active role in initiating social and productive projects in their areas of origin (Levitt, Glick Schiller, 2004; Portes, 2015). After a period of ‘adjusting, coping, creating and recreating their livelihoods’ (Ellis, 2000, pp. 14-15), many seem to have left without aspirations to return—the way left-behind areas are described suggests that those who left do not maintain relations with their home communities and those who remain seem rather disconnected from other places and do not seem to function in larger networks.

Within Europe, debates about the migration–development nexus are not about the link between ‘those who left’ and their ‘areas of origin’: but about the resilience of local communities, the importance of migrant-citizen initiatives and the potential role of ‘migrant newcomers’ to stimulate innovation and local development. Different groups of newcomer migrants have been welcomed to fill the gaps resulting from the rural–urban exodus. This has helped the left-behinds to reconnect—making them part of new networks—strengthen their resilience and mitigate risks and try to keep up. The presence of these groups of newcomers, however, does not necessarily generate development: migration and development do not necessarily go together, also because left-behind areas are very different from normal areas of destination (usually preferred locations selected by migrants because they offer good opportunities). Expecting migrants to play a positive role in marginalized areas does not make sense, because most of these areas do not offer much in terms of services or employment. On top of this, in many cases, migrants did not settle voluntarily but were distributed by national governments. Depending on their areas of origin and their status, people are given (or denied) the right to work or even stay. The majority are not in their preferred destinations and are stuck in localities with limited possibilities to lead the lives they value and aspire to (Sen, 1999). In addition, in most cases, they are approached as individuals (or, in reception centres, as part of a heterogeneous group of ‘strangers’ they are not connected to) and very often the focus is on integration, while neglecting their role as champions of development for their own home communities.

In summary, in recent decades, a shrinking population has become the normal trajectory for many rural regions of Europe, as agriculture and industry have been restructured and population and employment have become increasingly concentrated in urban centres. According to migration theory, it is those who leave (rather than the newcomers) that play crucial roles in encouraging regional development by sending remittances or investing in their home communities. In the case of Europe’s left-behind regions, however, flows of remittances have not been strong enough to break the circle of outmigration or lead to the revitalization of areas of origin. In the case of rural–urban migration, discussions about the migration–development nexus failed to arise—the role of diasporas in revitalizing areas of origin has usually been very limited, and the standard of living has declined. This has been partly compensated for by the arrival of newcomer groups, but the developmental impact has been limited. They play positive roles in filling gaps, but from a migrant perspective, moving to marginal places is of course unnatural: livelihood opportunities are limited, to the extent that newcomer migrants are found in left-behind areas, many are forced to be there, and they have limited manoeuvring space to move or do the work they want. Many are willing to play a role as champions of development, but employment opportunities are limited, and many are unable to further engage with people in their own areas of origin.

Looking at policy frameworks, such as the EU Rural Pact, left-behind areas are presented as isolated places, and local communities are portrayed as homogenous groups of native people who belong there and have a common interest in staying. Moreover, their areas of residence are depicted as empty spaces, promoted as focal points for new investments (e.g. EU Green Deal) or suitable places for the reception of refugees. In migration policies, migrants are targeted as people in need of housing and assistance programmes; the emphasis is on integration rather than how to optimize the migration–development nexus. As we can see from the various case studies, however, communities are rather diverse. Newcomer migrants are very eager to contribute to development but do not have many opportunities to do so: job and educational opportunities are limited, and many have difficulty finding their feet without moving to new areas. The future is very much about the chicken or the egg; that is, whether communities will be strong enough to attract the right type of projects and investments: road development, industrial plants, conservation and forestry projects might provide new opportunities, but the inflows of new projects can also cause new outmigration and development-induced displacement and resettlement. To achieve the successful emplacement of migrant newcomers in combination with fostering local development, welcoming migrants is not enough: it is a matter of enhancing development and transforming welcoming spaces into preferred destinations. Far from the traditional notion of assimilation or integration, we consider newcomers and locals as two sides of the same coin. Rather than looking at them as separate groups, we see them as one community actively involved in practices of daily place-making. Demigrantizing debates, empowering communities (and putting people centre stage in development planning) and mobilizing social networks (Zoomers, Leung, van Westen, 2021) will help in redesigning the future of such areas, achieving spatial justice and leaving no-one behind. It is not migration that is the problem (there is no doubt about the positive role that newcomers can play or even the need to become dependent on newcomers in the longer term): the problem is growing poverty and inequality within Europe, a problem that cannot be solved without reallocating public funding, creating new solidarities and initiating people-based investment plans.

In conclusion

Since the summer of 2021, after many years of neglect, remote, marginalized areas have been increasingly targeted by the EU as focal points for implementing green-growth strategies, as well as reception areas for migrants, offering newcomers opportunities to move in and expecting them to contribute to the revitalization of such areas. Studies have shown that there are many welcoming initiatives and willingness to receive newcomers, but opportunities for people to lead good lives are very limited. The question is how to change welcoming spaces into places to remain: spatial justice requires the closing of rural–urban gaps, while also reducing the gap between migrants and the rest of the population. Sending newcomer migrants to marginalized areas is unethical and will contribute to higher levels of spatial injustice and poverty. The task is to transform welcoming spaces into places to flourish with sufficient opportunities that will encourage people to stay and allow them to lead the lives they value and aspire to.

In order to turn welcoming spaces into breeding grounds for green development and social innovation, priority should be given to strengthening the self-determination capacity of local communities. Communities are not homogeneous, and community empowerment is required in order for priorities to be set (and consensus to be built) regarding the desired pathways of change. Given the characteristics of these areas (e.g. the high levels of inflows and outflows of people), community building should be seen as a moving target. The renaissance of remote areas requires an open approach: rather than defining a local community on the basis of belonging to a particular territorially bounded space, it is important to include the people moving in and out of it. Given current realities, especially in rural and remote areas, part of the population will constantly cross boundaries (and regularly be outside them) but can still make important contributions to the flourishing of the so-called foundational economy.

Spatial justice extends beyond achieving ‘the fair and equitable distribution in space of socially valued resources and opportunities to use them’ (Soja, 2009). To achieve spatial justice, spatial containers must be broken open, and people must be provided with the right to stay. It is time to stop drawing stigmatizing distinctions between locals and newcomers, even when these distinctions are meant to serve strategic goals (e.g. justifying the settlement of migrants as a way to curb population decline or stagnation). It is also time to stop regarding the host population as the norm: there is no homogeneous community into which immigrants should integrate. What we urgently need are new criteria for a community belonging based on people’s actual contribution to economic, social, cultural and political life, instead of one based on only legal (e.g. based on formal citizenship) and normative (e.g. common origin or ancestry) assumptions of belonging. Hence, newcomers are part of the community as long as they perform acts of citizenship; that is, when through their work provision, civic engagement, cultural sharing and appropriation, they take an active role in the provision, defence and reproduction of the local commons. Adopting this stance means that we must distance ourselves from pre-established ideas about integration and assimilation and focus on ‘emplacement’, that is, the ability of migrants to forge a place for themselves within a specific locality (Schiller et al., 2013).

Moreover, we urgently require the abolition of top-down immigrant allocation schemes and/or dispersal policies. Sending immigrants to particular places without consultation, or confining them in reception centres or refugee camps, is inhuman as well as costly and counterproductive. Using this capital to set up employment schemes supporting foundational economies is much more productive, replacing current practices of pushbacks by welcoming newcomers to settle while contributing to an improvement in local wellbeing.

Finally, the dynamics and development potential of remote areas will usually not depend on local factors. Marginalized, often remote, areas cannot be seen as isolated stand-alone places. They form part of wider networks, and positionality is one of the major determinants of being able to attract the human and financial resources required to promote alternative development. Instead of focusing on the socially constructed confined space in which local people live, more attention should be paid to the relational aspects of livelihood and development, acknowledging that there is a need—even an urgency—to deal also with transformations coming from the outside. Instead of trying to keep people in place and focusing on local assets, the challenge is to have a trustful and productive relationship with the outside. Establishing an extended network with people in different localities will help to mobilize resources in multiple directions, getting the best from various worlds. A less territorial, more people-oriented and relational approach could help to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive society.