Advertisement

Third Sector Organizations and Migration: A Systematic Literature Review on the Contribution of Third Sector Organizations in View of Flight, Migration and Refugee Crises

  • Michael Garkisch
  • Jens Heidingsfelder
  • Markus Beckmann
Original Paper

Abstract

Long before the current refugee crisis, third sector organizations (TSOs) have played a pivotal role in dealing with the multifaceted challenge of migration. Researchers have analyzed this role in many ways. What is missing, however, is a comprehensive overview of how the third sector contributes to dealing with migration. To close this gap, we conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) that maps the scholarly debate on TSOs and migration. Our SLR identifies four domains of TSO migration engagement: first, the direct provision of basic services and social welfare; second, migrant-oriented capacity development; third, system-oriented advocacy; and fourth, complementary research activities. We propose a conceptual framework that highlights the contribution of TSOs with regard to individual-oriented and system-oriented services that are necessary for a successful integration of migrants. A key implication of our derived framework is to understand migration as a holistic challenge that requires contributions by different actors on different levels, thus highlighting the need for coordination and communication between the TSOs, the state and other stakeholders.

Keywords

Third sector Nonprofit Flight Migration Refugee Asylum seeker Systematic literature review Conceptual framework 

Résumé

Les organismes du tiers secteur (OTS) jouent un rôle essentiel dans la résolution des problèmes complexes de la migration, et ce, depuis longtemps, bien avant la crise des réfugiés. Les chercheurs ont analysé ce rôle de plusieurs façons, mais nul n’a cependant élaboré un aperçu complet de la manière dont le tiers secteur contribue à la gestion de la migration. Pour combler cette brèche, nous avons réalisé une revue systématique de la littérature pour cartographier le débat académique sur les OTS et la migration. Notre revue identifie quatre domaines d’engagement des OTS : la prestation directe de services de base et de protection sociale, le développement des capacités des migrants; la défense du système; et des activités de recherche complémentaires. Nous proposons un cadre conceptuel permettant de mettre les contributions des OTS en valeur relativement aux services axés sur les personnes et le système requis pour une intégration réussie des migrants. Une des implications clés de notre cadre de travail dérivé est la capacité de traiter la migration à titre de défi holistique auquel différents intervenants de niveaux variés doivent contribuer, exacerbant ainsi le besoin de coordonner les activités des OTS, de l’État et d’autres parties prenantes, ainsi que l’importance des communications entre ces derniers.

Zusammenfassung

Schon lange vor der aktuellen Flüchtlingskrise spielten Organisationen des Dritten Sektors eine wichtige Rolle im Umgang mit den vielseitigen Problemen der Migration. Forscher haben diese Rolle auf viele Art und Weise untersucht. Was allerdings fehlt, ist ein umfangreicher Überblick darüber, wie der Dritte Sektor einen Beitrag zum Umgang mit der Migration leistet. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, führen wir eine systematische Literaturrecherche durch, die die wissenschaftliche Debatte zum Thema Organisationen des Dritten Sektors und Migration ausarbeitet. Unsere Recherche stellt vier Migrationsbereiche heraus, in denen sich die Dritter-Sektor-Organisationen engagieren: erstens die unmittelbar Bereitstellung grundlegender Dienst- und Sozialleistungen, zweitens die migrantenorientierte Kapazitätsentwicklung, drittens die systemorientierte Interessenvertretung und viertens ergänzende Forschungstätigkeiten. Wir schlagen ein konzeptuelles Rahmenwerk vor, das den Beitrag der Organisationen des Dritten Sektors mit Hinblick auf personenorientierten und systemorientierten Dienstleistungen hervorhebt, die für eine erfolgreiche Integration von Migranten erforderlich sind. Eine wichtige Implikation unseres abgeleiteten Rahmenwerks ist das Verständnis der Migration als ein ganzheitliches Problem, das Beiträge von verschiedenen Akteuren auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen erfordert und so den Bedarf an der Zusammenarbeit und Kommunikation zwischen den Organisationen des Dritten Sektors, dem Staat und anderen Stakeholdern hervorhebt.

Resumen

Mucho antes de la actual crisis de refugiados, las organizaciones del sector terciario (TSO, por sus siglas en inglés) han desempeñado un papel esencial en el tratamiento del desafío multifacetas de la emigración. Los investigadores han analizado este papel de muchas formas. Sin embargo, lo que falta es una descripción general integral de cómo el sector terciario contribuye a tratar la emigración. Para cerrar esta brecha, realizamos una Revisión Sistemática del Material Publicado (SRL, por sus siglas en inglés) que cartografía el debate erudito sobre las TSO y la emigración. Nuestra SRL identifica cuatro campos del compromiso de las TSO con la emigración: en primer lugar, la provisión directa de servicios básicos y bienestar social; en segundo lugar, el desarrollo de capacidad orientado a los emigrantes; en tercer lugar, la defensa orientada al sistema; y en cuarto lugar, las actividades de investigación complementarias. Proponemos un marco conceptual que destaca la contribución de las TSO con respecto a los servicios orientados al individuo y orientados al sistema que son necesarios para una integración satisfactoria de los emigrantes. Una implicación clave de nuestro marco derivado es comprender la emigración como un desafío holístico que requiere contribuciones por parte de diferentes actores en diferentes niveles, resaltando de este modo la necesidad de coordinación y comunicación entre las TSO, el estado y otras partes interesadas.

Chinese

在当前的难民危机之前,第三部门组织(TSO)在应对移民问题的多方面挑战时发挥了关键作用。研究人员通过许多方法分析了这种作用。然而,缺乏的内容是全面了解第三部门如何帮助处理移民问题。为了弥补这一差距,我们进行系统性文献综述(SLR),其中介绍了关于 TSO 和移民问题的学术争论。我们的 SLR 确定了 TSO 参与移民工作的四个领域:第一,直接提供基本服务和社会福利;第二,是面向移民的能力开发;第三,面向系统的宣传;第四,补充研究活动。我们提出了一个概念框架,突出了 TSO 在面向个人和面向系统的服务方面的贡献,这对于成功融合移民来说是必需的。我们派生框架的一个关键因素是将移民理解为一个需要不同行动者在不同层次上做出贡献的全面挑战,因此强调了 TSO、国家和其他利益相关方之间协调和沟通的必要性。

Japanese

第三セクター組織(TSO)は、現在の難民危機において、多面的な移民の問題に対処する極めて重要な役割を果たしてきた。研究者は多くの方法でこの役割を分析した。しかしながら、第三セクターがどのように移民の対処に貢献しているかの包括的概念は欠如している。このギャップを埋めるために、TSOと移民における学術的な議論を明確にするシステム文献の見直し(SLR)を実施する。SLRでは、TSOの移民関与における4つのドメインを特定する。第1に直接的な基本サービスと社会福祉の提供、第2に移民中心の能力開発、第3にシステム中心の擁護、第4に補充的な研究活動である。移民における良好な統合に必要な個人および組織を中心とするサービスに関して、TSOの貢献を強調する概念的な枠組みを提案する。生じた枠組みにおける中心的な意味合いとしては、異なるレベルにおける異なる参加者による貢献を必要とする総体的な課題として移民を理解して、TSO、国家、その他の出資者における協力とコミュニケーションの必要性を強調することである。

Arabic

قبل وقت طويل من أزمة اللاجئين الحالية، لعبت منظمات القطاع الثالث ((TSOs دورا” محوريا” في التعامل مع التحدي المتعدد الأوجه للهجرة. قد حلل الباحثون هذا الدور بطرق عديدة. مع ذلك، فإن الذي ينقص هو عرض شامل لكيفية مساهمة القطاع الثالث في التعامل مع الهجرة. لإغلاق هذه الفجوة، نقوم بإجراء مراجعة منهجية للأدب (SLR) الذي يحدد النقاش العلمي حول منظمات القطاع الثالث (TSOs) والهجرة. تحدد مراجعتنا المنهجية للأدب (SLR) أربعة مجالات من منظمات القطاع الثالث ((TSOs للهجرة المشاركة: أولا”، توفير الخدمات الأساسية والرعاية الإجتماعية مباشرة؛ ثانيا”، تنمية القدرات الموجهة نحو المهاجرين؛ ثالثا”، الدعوة الموجهة نحو النظام؛ و رابعا”، أنشطة البحوث التكميلية. نقترح إطار مفاهيمي يسلط الضوء على مساهمة منظمات القطاع الثالث((TSOs فيما يتعلق بالخدمات الموجهة نحو الأفراد والموجهة نحو النظام والتي تعتبر ضرورية لنجاح إدماج المهاجرين. مفتاح تأثير إطار عملنا المستمد هو فهم الهجرة بإعتبارها تحدي شامل يتطلب مساهمات من جهات فاعلة مختلفة على مختلف المستويات، مما يسلط الضوء على الحاجة إلى التنسيق والإتصال بين منظمات القطاع الثالث((TSOs ، الدولة، وأصحاب المصلحة الآخرين.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper, which were of great help in revising the manuscript. Our thanks goes to Prof. Dr. Clemens Werkmeister (Professorship Business Administration Wilhelm Löhe University of Applied Sciences) for his valuable remarks on a draft of this paper. Additionally, we thank Dr. Dimitar Zvezdov, Roya Akhavan and Peter Wehnert for their peer feedback.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Michael Garkisch, Jens Heidingsfelder and Markus Beckmann declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. The publications that are included in the systematic literature review are marked with an asterisk (*).Google Scholar
  2. Abel, G. J., & Sander, N. (2014). Quantifying global international migration flows. Science, 343(6178), 1520–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akbari, A. H., & MacDonald, M. (2014). Immigration policy in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: An overview of recent trends. International Migration Review, 48(3), 801–822. doi: 10.1111/imre.12128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akashi, J. (2014). New aspects of Japan’s immigration policies: Is population decline opening the doors? Contemporary Japan, 26(2), 175–196. doi: 10.1515/cj-2014-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *Ambrosini, M. (2015). NGOs and health services for irregular immigrants in Italy: When the protection of human rights challenges the laws. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 13(2), 116–134. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2015.1017631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amrith, S. S. (2014). Currents of global migration. Development and Change, 45(5), 1134–1154. doi: 10.1111/dech.12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. *Anderson, J., Chaturvedi, A., & Cibulskis, M. (2007). Simulation tools for developing policies for complex systems: Modeling the health and safety of refugee communities. Health Care Management Science, 10(4), 331–339. doi: 10.1007/s10729-007-9030-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Ashutosh, I., & Mountz, A. (2011). Migration management for the benefit of whom? Interrogating the work of the international organization for migration. Citizenship Studies, 15(1), 21–38. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2011.534914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. *Babcock, E. C. (2006). The transformative potential of Belizean migrant voluntary associations in Chicago. International Migration, 44(1), 31–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2006.00354.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. *Bada, X., & Gleeson, S. (2015). A new approach to migrant labor rights enforcement: The crisis of undocumented worker abuse and Mexican consular advocacy in the United States. Labor Studies Journal, 40(1), 32–53. doi: 10.1177/0160449X14565112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. *Bado, A. B. (2016). Assessing advocacies for forcibly displaced people: A comprehensive approach. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(2), 593–603. doi: 10.1007/s12134-015-0413-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Barros, C. P., & Serafim, J. (2016). The Tiebout hypothesis in Africa: Evidence from Angola. African Development Review, 28(2), 192–200. doi: 10.1111/1467-8268.12189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Berry, S. E. (2012). Integrating refugees: The case for a minority rights based approach. International Journal of Refugee Law, 24(1), 1–36. doi: 10.1093/ijrl/eer038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *Bianco, A., Larosa, E., Pileggi, C., Nobile, C. G. A., & Pavia, M. (2016). Utilization of health-care services among immigrants recruited through non-profit organizations in southern Italy. International Journal of Public Health. doi: 10.1007/s00038-016-0820-1.Google Scholar
  15. Bidet, E. (2002). Explaining the third sector in South Korea. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(2), 131–147. http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/09578765/v13i0002/131_ettsisk&form=pdf&file=file.pdf.
  16. Boubtane, E., Dumont, J. C., & Rault, C. (2016). Immigration and economic growth in the OECD countries 1986–2006. Oxford Economic Papers, 68(2), 340–360. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpw001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *Boenigk, S., Mews, M., & de Kort, W. (2015). Missing minorities: Explaining low migrant blood donation participation and developing recruitment tactics. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1240–1260. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9477-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organisational research methods. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *Cabot, H. (2013). The social aesthetics of eligibility: NGO aid and indeterminacy in the Greek asylum process. American Ethnologist, 40(3), 452–466. doi: 10.1111/amet.12032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. *Cambridge, P. (2004). Approaches to advocacy for refugees and asylum seekers: A development case study for a local support and advice service. Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1093/jrs/17.1.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. *Carella, M., Gurrieri, A. R., & Lorizio, M. (2007). The role of non-profit organisations in migration policies: Spain and Italy compared. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(6), 914–931. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2007.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Carlton, S. (2015). Reprint of: Connecting, belonging: Volunteering, wellbeing and leadership among refugee youth. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carrera, S., Blockmans, S., Gros, D., & Guild, E. (2015). The EU’s response to the refugee crisis: Taking stock and setting policy priorities. CEPS Essay, 20.Google Scholar
  24. *Castañeda, H. (2011). Medical humanitarianism and physicians’ organized efforts to provide aid to unauthorized migrants in Germany. Human Organization, 70(1), 1–10. doi: 10.17730/humo.70.1.a16566172p238244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Catford, J. (1998). Social entrepreneurs are vital for health promotion—but they need supportive environments too. Health Promotion International, 13(2), 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. *Christensen, R. A., & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 195–209. doi: 10.1002/nml.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. *Chun, J. J. (2016). Building political agency and movement leadership: The grassroots organizing model of Asian Immigrant Women Advocates. Citizenship Studies, 20(3–4), 379–395. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2016.1158353.Google Scholar
  28. *Cicognani, E., Albanesi, C., Mazzoni, D., Prati, G., & Zani, B. (2016). Explaining offline and online civic engagement intentions between Italian and migrant youth. International Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 282–316. doi: 10.1080/02134748.2016.1143177.Google Scholar
  29. *Cleaveland, C. (2010). We are not criminals: Social work advocacy and unauthorized migrants. Social Work, 55(1), 74–81. doi: 10.1093/sw/55.1.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *Cook, M. L. (2011). Humanitarian aid is never a crime: Humanitarianism and illegality in migrant advocacy. Law & Society Review, 45(3), 561–591.Google Scholar
  31. *Cordero-Guzman, H., Martin, N., Quiroz-Becerra, V., & Theodore, N. (2008). Voting with their feet: Nonprofit organizations and immigrant mobilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(4), 598–617. doi: 10.1177/0002764208324609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. *Crosby, A. (2007). People on the move: Challenging migration on NGOs, migrants and sex work categorization. Development, 50(S4), 44–49. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.development.1100424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Cullen, P. P. (2009). Irish pro-migrant nongovernmental organizations and the politics of immigration. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(2), 99–128. doi: 10.1007/s11266-009-9084-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2011). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (1st ed., pp. 671–689). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Domínguez-Mujica, J., Guerra-Talavera, R., & Parreno-Castellano, J. (2012). Migration at a time of global economic crisis: The situation in Spain. International Migration, 52(6), 113–127. doi: 10.1111/imig.12023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. *Ellis, B. A. (2013). Freelancing eagles: Interpretation as a transient career strategy for skilled migrants. Journal of Management Development, 32(2), 152–165. doi: 10.1108/02621711311305665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Engel, L. C., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2014). Global mobility and rising inequality: A cross-national study of immigration, poverty, and social cohesion. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(1), 123–140. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2014.862480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Erickson, J. (2012). Volunteering with refugees: Neoliberalism, hegemony, and (senior) citizenship. Human Organization, 71(2), 167–175. doi: 10.17730/humo.71.2.152h5843163031pr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. *Espadas, M. Á., Aboussi, M., & Lozano, E. R. (2013). Associations of immigrants in the third sector in Andalucia: Governance and networking issues. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 441–460. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9277-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Esses, V. M., Brochu, P. M., & Dickson, K. R. (2012). Economic costs, economic benefits, and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 133–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01269.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. European Commission. (2015). Forced displacementrefugees and internally displaced people (IDPs). Facts and figures. http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/refugees_en.pdf.
  44. Eurostat. (2016). Almost 90,000 unaccompanied minors among asylum seekers registered in the EU in 2015. Pressrelease (vol. 87). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7244677/3-02052016-AP-EN.pdf/19cfd8d1-330b-4080-8ff3-72ac7b7b67f6.
  45. *Fong, E., & Shen, J. (2016). Participation in voluntary associations and social contact of immigrants in Canada. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(5–6), 617–636. doi: 10.1177/0002764216632833.Google Scholar
  46. *Forde, S. D., Lee, D. S., Mills, C., & Frisby, W. (2015). Moving towards social inclusion: Manager and staff perspectives on an award winning community sport and recreation program for immigrants. Sport Management Review, 18(1), 126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. *Fouskas, T. (2014). Low-status work repercussions on Egyptians’ collective organisation. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 34(7/8), 418–437. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-04-2013-0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. *Frates, J., Diringer, J., & Hogan, L. (2003). Models and momentum for insuring low-income, undocumented immigrant children in California. Health Affairs, 22(1), 259–263. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Funk, N. (2016). A spectre in Germany: Refugees, a “welcome culture” and an “integration politics”. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(3), 289–299. doi: 10.1080/17449626.2016.1252785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. *García Agustín, Ó. (2012). Enhancing solidarity: Discourses of voluntary organizations on immigration and integration in multicultural societies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 81–97. doi: 10.1080/17447143.2011.570344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. *Geiger, M., & Pécoud, A. (2014). International organisations and the politics of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(6), 865–887. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.855071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. *Gleeson, S., & Bloemraad, I. (2013). Assessing the scope of immigrant organizations official undercounts and actual underrepresentation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 346–370. doi: 10.1177/0899764011436105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. *Gray, E., & Statham, P. (2005). Becoming European? The transformation of the British pro-migrant NGO sector in response to Europeanization*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(4), 877–898. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2005.00600.x.Google Scholar
  54. *Guerin, P. B., Allotey, P., Hussein Elmi, F., & Baho, S. (2006). Advocacy as a means to an end: Assisting refugee women to take control of their reproductive health needs. Women and Health, 43(4), 7–25. doi: 10.1300/J013v43n04_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. *Handy, F., & Greenspan, I. (2009). Immigrant volunteering: A stepping stone to integration? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 956–982. doi: 10.1177/0899764008324455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. *He, A. J., & Huang, G. (2014). Fighting for migrant labor rights in the world’s factory: Legitimacy, resource constraints and strategies of grassroots migrant labor NGOs in South China. Journal of Contemporary China, 24(93), 471–492. doi: 10.1080/10670564.2014.953851.Google Scholar
  57. Henriksen, L. S., Smith, S. R., & Zimmer, A. (2012). At the eve of convergence? Transformations of social service provision in Denmark, Germany, and the United States. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 458–501. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9221-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. *Hilhorst, D., Weijers, L., & van Wessel, M. (2012). Aid relations and aid legitimacy: Mutual imaging of aid workers and recipients in Nepal. Third World Quarterly, 33(8), 1439–1457. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2012.698126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Howell, J. (2015). Shall we dance? Welfarist incorporation and the politics of state-labour NGO relations. The China Quarterly, 223, 702–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Hsu, J. (2012a). Layers of the urban state: Migrant organisations and the Chinese state. Urban Studies, 49(16), 3513–3530. doi: 10.1177/0042098012443860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Hsu, J. (2012b). Spaces of civil society: The role of migrant non-governmental organizations in Beijing and Shanghai. Progress in Development Studies, 12(1), 63–76. doi: 10.1177/146499341101200104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Hung, C.-K. R. (2007). Immigrant nonprofit organizations in US metropolitan areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 707–729. doi: 10.1177/0899764006298962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hvenmark, J. (2015). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9605-z.Google Scholar
  64. *Ihlen, O., Figenschou, T. U., & Larsen, A. G. (2015). Behind the framing scenes: Challenges and opportunities for NGOs and authorities framing irregular immigration. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 822–838. doi: 10.1177/0002764215573254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. IOM. (2015). World Migration Report 2015 Migrants and Cities: New Partnerships to Manage Mobility. Geneva.Google Scholar
  66. Jeandesboz, J., & Pallister-Wilkins, P. (2016). Crisis, routine, consolidation: The politics of the mediterranean migration crisis. Mediterranean Politics, 21(2), 316–320. doi: 10.1080/13629395.2016.1145825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *Jensen, L. A. (2008). Immigrants’ cultural identities as sources of civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 12(2), 74–83. doi: 10.1080/10888690801997069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. *Jones, C., & Williamson, A. E. (2014). Volunteers working to support migrants in Glasgow: A qualitative study. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 10(4), 193–206. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-10-2013-0034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. *Khvorostianov, N., & Remennick, L. (2016). By helping others, we helped ourselves: Volunteering and social integration of ex-soviet immigrants in Israel. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9745-9.Google Scholar
  70. *Kim, J., Heo, J., & Lee, C. (2015). Exploring the relationship between types of leisure activities and acculturation among Korean immigrants. Leisure Studies, 35(1), 113–127. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2015.1055295.Google Scholar
  71. Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Knight, J. (2015). Migrant employment in the ethnic economy: Why do some migrants become ethnic entrepreneurs and others co-ethnic workers? Journal of International Migration & Integration, 16, 575–592. doi: 10.1007/s12134-014-0357-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Komine, A. (2014). When migrants became denizens: Understanding Japan as a reactive immigration country. Contemporary Japan, 26(2), 197–222. doi: 10.1515/cj-2014-0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. *Kremers, D. (2014). Transnational migrant advocacy from Japan: Tipping the scales in the policy-making process. Pacific Affairs, 87(4), 715–741. doi: 10.5509/2014874715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kyriakides, C. (2016). Words don’t come easy: Al Jazeera’s migrant-refugee distinction and the european culture of (mis)trust. Current Sociology. doi: 10.1177/0011392116658089.Google Scholar
  76. *Lacomba, J., Boni, A., Cloquell, A., & Soledad, C. (2015). Immigrant associations and co-development policies. Among the opportunities for strengthening and the risks of cooptation in the case of Valencia region (Spain). VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1852–1873. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9491-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. *Landy, D. (2014). Challengers in the migrant field: Pro-migrant Irish NGO responses to the immigration, residence and protection bill. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(6), 927–942. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2014.946939.Google Scholar
  78. *Larruina, R., & Ghorashi, H. (2016). The normality and materiality of the dominant discourse: Voluntary work inside a Dutch asylum seeker center. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 14(2), 220–237. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2015.1131877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. *Lauer, S. R., & Yan, M. C. (2013). Voluntary association involvement and immigrant network diversity. International Migration, 51(3), 133–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00602.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. *Lee, J. (2015). Disciplinary citizenship in South Korean NGOs’ narratives of resettlement for North Korean refugees. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(15), 2688–2704. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1037781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. *Lee, Y., & Moon, S. (2011). Mainstream and ethnic volunteering by Korean immigrants in the United States. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 811–830. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9176-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. *Lee, S., & Pritzker, S. (2013). Immigrant Youth and voluntary service: Who serves? Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 11(1), 91–111. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2013.759058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. *Lester, E. (2005). A place at the table: The role of NGOS in refugee protection: International advocacy and policy-making. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 24(2), 125–142. doi: 10.1093/rsq/hdi030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. *Libal, K., & Harding, S. (2011). Humanitarian alliances: Local and international NGO partnerships and the Iraqi refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies Refugee Studies, 9(2), 162–178. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2011.567153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. *Lindén, T. S. (2015). Social accountability in immigration regulation: The inclusion of social actors in the asylum appeals process. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(13–14), 1009–1019. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1069843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Liu, G. (2009). Changing chinese migration law: From restriction to relaxation. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 10(3), 311–333. doi: 10.1007/s12134-009-0105-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. *Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2008). The civic engagement of immigrant youth: New evidence from the 2006 civic and political health of the nation survey. Applied Developmental Science, 12(2), 66–73. doi: 10.1080/10888690801997051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. *Macakova, L. (2013). Selected problems of integration of foreigners in the Czech Republic. Equilibrium: Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 8(1), 109–124. http://economic-policy.pl/index.php/archive%5Cnhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&AN=1463100&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
  89. *MacKenzie, R., Forde, C., & Ciupijus, Z. (2012). Networks of support for new migrant communities: Institutional goals versus substantive goals? Urban Studies, 49(3), 631–647. doi: 10.1177/0042098011431620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36(2), 172–192. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(I), 64–86. doi: 10.1177/0899764014561796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. *Manatschal, A. (2015). Reciprocity as a trigger of social cooperation in contemporary immigration societies? Acta Sociologica, 58(3), 233–248. doi: 10.1177/0001699315579923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Markus, A. (2014). Attitudes to immigration and cultural diversity in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 10–22. doi: 10.1177/1440783314522188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. *Martin, N. (2012). There is abuse everywhere: Migrant nonprofit organizations and the problem of precarious work. Urban Affairs Review, 48(3), 389–416. doi: 10.1177/1078087411428799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mason, D. P., & Fiocco, E. (2016). Crisis on the border: Specialized capacity building in nonprofit immigration organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9754-8.Google Scholar
  96. *Matikainen, J. (2003). The Finnish red cross in refugee settlement: Developing the integration timeline as a tool for integration in the kotopolku project. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 4(2), 273–295. http://www.springerlink.com/index/75327461MM880303.pdf.
  97. *McNamara, K. E. (2007). Conceptualizing discourses on environmental refugees at the United Nations. Population and Environment, 29(1), 12–24. doi: 10.1007/s11111-007-0058-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. *Milenković, N. (2011). The importance of involving NGO in poverty reduction strategies in Serbia. Megatrend Review, 8(2), 293–313.Google Scholar
  99. Miltner, B., & Fellow, W. (2015). The mediterannean migration crisis: A clash of the titans’ obligations? The Brown, 22(1), 213–237.Google Scholar
  100. Morgan, J. (2015). Agencies struggle with Europe’s complex refugee crisis. The Lancet, 386(10008), 2042–2043. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01032-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. *Moskovich, Y., & Binhas, A. (2015). NGOs helping migrants: An Israeli case study of counterculture. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35(9/10), 635–648. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-11-2014-0109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. *Newman, A. (2010). Improving reach: Promoting engagement by building bridges between refugee women and the voluntary sector. Diversity in Health & Care, 7(2), 139–147. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=2010708161&site=ehost-live.
  103. Ngo, B. (2008). Beyond “culture clash” understandings of immigrant experiences. Theory into Practice, 47(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1080/00405840701764656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. *Nijenhuis, G. (2010). Embedding international migration: The response of Bolivian local governments and NGOs to international migration. Environment and Urbanization, 22(1), 67–79. doi: 10.1177/0956247809356182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. *Olsen, L. (2009). The role of advocacy in shaping immigrant education: A California case study. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 817–850.Google Scholar
  106. *Osili, U. O., & Xie, J. (2009). Do immigrants and their children free ride more than natives? American Economic Review, 99(2), 28–34. doi: 10.1257/aer.99.2.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. *Ozkan, M. (2012). Transnational Islam, immigrant NGOs and poverty alleviation: The case of the IGMG. Journal of International Development, 24(4), 467–484. doi: 10.1002/jid.1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. *Pangsapa, P. (2015). When battlefields become marketplaces: Migrant workers and the role of civil society and NGO activism in Thailand. International Migration, 53(3), 124–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00559.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. *Paniagua, A., & D’Angelo, A. (2016). Outsourcing the state’s responsibilities? Third sector organizations supporting migrant families’ participation in schools in Catalonia and London. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2016.1152883.Google Scholar
  110. *Papadopoulos, A. G., Chalkias, C., & Fratsea, L.-M. (2013). Challenges to immigrant associations and NGOs in contemporary Greece. Migration Letters, 10(3), 342–358.Google Scholar
  111. Pastore, F., & Henry, G. (2016). Explaining the crisis of the European migration and asylum regime. The International Spectator, 51(1), 44–57. doi: 10.1080/03932729.2016.1118609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. *Pérez, M. (2012). Emergency frames: Gender violence and immigration status in Spain. Feminist Economics, 18(2), 265–290. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2012.704147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. doi: 10.1177/0266242607080656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Pittaway, L., Thorpe, R., Holt, R., & Macpherson, A. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium‐sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. In Lancaster University Management School Working Paper. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x/full.
  115. *Polzer, T. N. (2013). Collecting data on migrants through service provider NGOs: Towards data use and advocacy. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(1), 144–154. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fes034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. *Ponzoni, E. (2015). Reframing cooperation: Challenges in overcoming tensions between professional services and volunteer organizations providing parenting support in immigrant communities. Social Service Review, 89(1), 40–76. doi: 10.1086/680044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. *Popa, A. B. (2012). Learning about hardiness and servant leadership by accompanying refugees at a united nations resettlement camp. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 72–78. doi: 10.1002/jls.21231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. *Reading, R., & Rubin, L. R. (2011). Advocacy and empowerment: Group therapy for LGBT asylum seekers. Traumatology, 17(2), 86–98. doi: 10.1177/1534765610395622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. *Reynolds, S., & Lynch, M. (2014). Refugees international: A case study on NGO advocacy to venerate nationality rights. Tilburg Law Review, 19(1–2), 153–162. doi: 10.1163/22112596-01902015.Google Scholar
  120. *Robinson, K. (2013). Supervision found wanting: Experiences of health and social workers in non-government organisations working with refugees and asylum seekers. Practice: Social Work in Action, 25(2), 87–103. doi: 10.1080/09503153.2013.775238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. *Rodriguez, N. S. (2016). Communicating global inequalities: How LGBTI asylum-specific NGOs use social media as public relations. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 322–332. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. *Rosenow-Williams, K., & Sezgin, Z. (2014). Islamic migrant organizations: Little-studied actors in humanitarian action. International Migration Review, 48(2), 324–353. doi: 10.1111/imre.12061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Rousseau, D., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Science: assembling the field’ s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. AIM Research Working Paper Series, 67(8), 1–78. doi: 10.1080/19416520802211651.Google Scholar
  124. Roy, M. J., Donaldson, C., Baker, R., & Kerr, S. (2014). The potential of social enterprise to enhance health and well-being: A model and systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 123, 182–193. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Rupp, C., Kern, S., & Helmig, B. (2014). Segmenting nonprofit stakeholders to enable successful relationship marketing: A review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 76–91. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Salamon, L. M. (2010). Putting the civil society sector on the economic map of the world. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 81(2), 167–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2010.00409.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1515–1545. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. *Scotto, A. (2016). Focusing on the emergencies or on their roots? The role of nonprofit organisations in immigration policymaking in Italy. Religion, State and Society, 44(1), 51–64. doi: 10.1080/09637494.2016.1157322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Selanec, N. B. (2015). A critique of EU refugee crisis management: On law, policy and decentralisation. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 11(1), 73–114.Google Scholar
  130. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. *Sezgin, Z., & Dijkzeul, D. (2014). Migrant organisations in humanitarian action. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 15(2), 159–177. doi: 10.1007/s12134-013-0273-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sgrignoli, P., Metulini, R., Schiavo, S., & Riccaboni, M. (2015). The relation between global migration and trade networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 417, 245–260. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2014.09.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Shields, J. (2014). Nonprofit engagement with provincial policy officials: The case of NGO policy voice in Canadian immigrant settlement services. Policy and Society, 33(2), 117–127. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. *Sim, D., & Bowes, A. (2007). Asylum seekers in Scotland: The accommodation of diversity. Social Policy & Administration, 41(7), 729–746. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00582.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sirilak, S., Okanurak, K., Wattanagoon, Y., Chatchaiyalerk, S., Tornee, S., & Siri, S. (2013). Community participation of cross-border migrants for primary health care in Thailand. Health Policy and Planning, 28(6), 658–664. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czs105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. *Sirilak, S., Okanurak, K., Wattanagoon, Y., Chatchaiyalerk, S., Tornee, S., & Siri, S. (2013). Community participation of cross-border migrants for primary health care in Thailand. Health Policy and Planning, 28(6), 658–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2001). Quality management: Universal or context dependent? Production and Operations Management, 10(4), 383–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00083.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Studer, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9268-y.Google Scholar
  139. Tadesse, B., & White, R. (2015). Do immigrants reduce bilateral trade costs? An empirical test. Applied Economics Letters, 22(14), 1127–1132. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2015.1008756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. *Tomlinson, F. (2010). Marking difference and negotiating belonging: Refugee women, volunteering and employment. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 278–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00399.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Tsourdi, E., & Bruycker, P. (2015). EU asylum policy: In search of solidarity and access to protection. Florence: Migration Policy Centre Policy brief.Google Scholar
  144. UNHCR. (2010). Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. In UNHCR (Ed.), Text. Geneva, Switzerland: UNHCR. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.
  145. Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2013). The meaning of nonprofit advocacy: An ordonomic perspective. Social Science Journal, 50(3), 367–373. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2013.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. *Van der Leun, J., & Bouter, H. (2015). Gimme shelter: Inclusion and exclusion of irregular immigrants in Dutch civil society. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 13(2), 135–155. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2015.1033507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. *van Houte, M., & Davids, T. (2008). Development and return migration: From policy panacea to migrant perspective sustainability. Third World Quarterly, 29(7), 1411–1429. doi: 10.1080/01436590802386658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Velamuri, V. K., Neyer, A. K., & Möslein, K. M. (2011). Hybrid value creation: A systematic review of an evolving research area. Journal Fur Betriebswirtschaft, 61(1), 3–35. doi: 10.1007/s11301-011-0070-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. *Voicu, B. (2014). Participative immigrants or participative cultures? The importance of cultural heritage in determining involvement in associations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 612–635. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9355-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. *Voicu, M., & Rusu, I. A. (2012). Immigrants’ membership in civic associations: Why are some immigrants more active than others? International Sociology, 27(6), 788–806. doi: 10.1177/0268580912452172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. *Voicu, B., & Serban, M. (2012). Immigrant involvement in voluntary associations in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(10), 1569–1587. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2012.711046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. *Walk, M., Greenspan, I., Crossley, H., & Handy, F. (2015). Social return on investment analysis: A case study of a job and skills training program offered by a social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. doi: 10.1002/nml.21190/abstract.Google Scholar
  153. *Wang, L., & Handy, F. (2014). Religious and secular voluntary participation by immigrants in Canada: How trust and social networks affect decision to participate. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1559–1582. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9428-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. *Weng, S. S., & Lee, J. S. (2016). Why Do Immigrants and Refugees Give Back to Their Communities and What can We Learn from Their Civic Engagement? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 509–524. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9636-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. *Whitaker, J. (2009). Mexican deaths in the Arizona desert: The culpability of migrants, humanitarian workers, governments, and businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(S2), 365–376. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0283-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. *Wilson, C. (2013). Collaboration of nonprofit organizations with local government for immigrant language acquisition. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 963–984. doi: 10.1177/0899764012461400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits). Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. *Wren, K. (2007). Supporting asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow: The role of multi-agency networks. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(3), 391–413. doi: 10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Wright, K., & Black, R. (2011). Poverty, migration and human wellbeing: Towards a post-crisis research and policy agenda. Journal of International Development, 23, 548–554. doi: 10.1002/jid.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. *Yap, S. Y., Byrne, A., & Davidson, S. (2011). From refugee to good citizen: A discourse analysis of volunteering. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(1), 157–170. doi: 10.1093/jrs/feq036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Yazgan, P., Utku, E. D., & Sirkeci, I. (2015). Syrian crisis and migration. Migration Letters, 12(3), 181–192.Google Scholar
  162. *Zhizhko, E. (2015). Socia-educational programs for migrant farm workers in Mexico: Main features. Economics and Sociology, 8(1), 176–188. doi: 10.14254/2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Garkisch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jens Heidingsfelder
    • 1
  • Markus Beckmann
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business and Economics, Chair of Corporate Sustainability ManagementFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Social Infrastructure and Health, Chair of Innovation and Change-ManagementWilhelm-Loehe-University of Applied SciencesFürthGermany

Personalised recommendations