It is widely assumed that people generally act with the aim of enhancing their subjective well-being (SWB), which is regarded as a final goal of choices and actions (Selezneva 2011). From this perspective, voluntary migration can be considered a tool to reach this desired outcome. Therefore, to better understand the causes, consequences, and spatial aspects of migration, investigating the dynamics of subjective well-being (operationalized mostly by life satisfaction, happiness, and other affective or eudaimonic variables – OECD 2013) and its material and non-material drivers is essential.
The spatial analysis of the migration–SWB nexus is a challenging task, particularly for migrant transnationalism, a phenomenon in which people simultaneously belong to different social ‘fields’ in different countries (e.g., Glick Schiller et al. 1992, Boccagni 2012). International surveys often lack relevant migrant-specific background information, and the results are rarely meaningful at the subnational level. Empirical studies are far from consistent (Bartram 2013, Stillman 2015, Guedes Auditor and Erlinghagen 2021 etc.) due to the absence of a unified theoretical framework and the fact that the circumstances and consequences of migration are heterogeneous. The entire phenomenon is deeply shaped by the historical, socio-economic, and geographic contexts in which it occurs.
This session seeks to unpack the multi-faceted relationship between migration, migrant transnationalism, and subjective well-being through the discussion of various topics, including the following.
– Inequalities: The SWB gap between certain social groups (e.g. native- and foreign-born people) and its changes over time and space.
– Causal relationships: The impact of SWB on migration intentions/decisions and impact of migration on SWB changes.
– Migrant transnationalism: The way the transnational economic, political and sociocultural ties affect spatial behaviour and SWB.
– Urban environment: The way certain spatial factors influence SWB in cities, such as housing affordability, access to public services, proximity to green spaces, residential segregation, and perceived social cohesion.
We invite scholars to present theoretical and empirical analyses in these topics, with special attention to the spatial relationships. Contributions with diverse methodological approaches are welcome. Submissions may address also policy analyses that illuminate the interrelations between the key concepts.
References
Bartram, D. (2013). Happiness and ‘economic migration’: A comparison of Eastern European migrants and stayers. Migration Studies, 1(2), 156–175.
Boccagni, P. (2012). Revisiting the “transnational” in migration studies: A sociological understanding. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales (online), 28(1), 33–50.
Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992). Towards a transnational perspective on migration: Race, class, ethnicity, and nationalism reconsidered. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Guedes Auditor, J., & Erlinghagen, M. (2021). The happy migrant? Emigration and its impact on subjective well-being. In M. Erlinghagen et al. (Eds.), The global lives of German migrants (pp. 189–204). IMISCOE Research Series, Springer International Publishing.
OECD (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing.
Selezneva, E. (2011). Surveying transitional experience and subjective well-being: Income, work, family. Economic Systems, 35(2), 139–157.
Stillman, S., Gibson, J., McKenzie, D., & Rohorua, H. (2015). Miserable migrants? Natural experiment evidence on international migration and objective and subjective well-being. World Development, 65, 79–93.