Conceptual Framework for the Study of the Subjective Well-being–Migration Nexus

Conceptual Framework for the Study of the Subjective Well-being–Migration nexus Research Report Ádám Németh, Borbála Göncz, Josef Kohlbacher, György Lengyel, Zsolt Németh, Ursula Reeger, Lilla Tóth August 2022 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 1 This working paper was developed in the context of the project MIGWELL – Well-being and Migration: the Hungary – Austria Migration Nexus Work Package 1: ‘Setting the framework’ MIGWELL is an FWF–NKFIH International Joint Project. In Austria the project is funded by the Austrian Science Fund. In Hungary the project has been implemented with the support provided by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary), financed under the ANN funding scheme. Project code: I 5616 (in Austria), 139465 (in Hungary) Project duration: 01.02.2022 – 31.07.2025 (in Austria), 01.12.2021 – 31.05.2025 (in Hungary) Project Partners: Institute for Urban and Regional Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences Centre for Empirical Social Research at the Corvinus University of Budapest Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies, University of Vienna Scientific Advisory Board: Department of Sociology, University of Vienna Hungarian Demographic Research Institute Hungarian Central Statistical Office MIGWELL’s website: LINK MIGWELL’s outputs will be uploaded to: LINK Inquiries can be directed to: Institute for Urban and Regional Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, [email protected].at or Centre for Empirical Social Research at the Corvinus University of Budapest, [email protected] Suggested citation: Németh, Á., Göncz, B., Kohlbacher, J., Lengyel, Gy., Németh, Zs., Reeger, U., and Tóth, L. (2022) Conceptual Framework for the Study of the Subjective Well-being–Migration Nexus. MIGWELL Working Papers, No.1. 61 p. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 2 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 3 Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2. The main types of spatial mobility and the focus of MIGWELL ........................................................ 5 2.1 Migration: an overview of definitions and typologies .............................................................................. 5 2.2 The focus of the MIGWELL project ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Return migration ....................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Relevant migration theories ................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Push-and-pull model ............................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Neoclassical models ................................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 A mosaic of contemporary migration theories ........................................................................................ 12 3.4 The new economics and sociology of migration: a micro-level approach .............................................. 13 3.5 Macro-structural models ......................................................................................................................... 14 3.5.1 Dual labor market theory ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.5.2 World-systems theory ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.5.3 Migration transition model ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.4 Migration cycles ...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Network theory: a meso-level approach .................................................................................................. 17 3.7 Aspirations and capabilities: a meta-theoretical framework ................................................................... 19 3.8 Migration theories and their potential expansions .................................................................................. 20 4. Conceptual frameworks of well-being ................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Objective indicators approach ................................................................................................................. 21 4.2 The evolution of the concept of subjective well-being ........................................................................... 22 4.2.1 Happiness approach ................................................................................................................................ 22 4.2.2 Capability approach ................................................................................................................................ 23 4.2.3 The OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being ................................................................. 24 4.3 Integrated, multidimensional well-being frameworks ............................................................................. 25 4.3.1 The OECD well-being framework .......................................................................................................... 27 4.3.2 The WeD framework .............................................................................................................................. 29 5. Well-being and migration ..................................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Relationship between the objective and subjective dimensions of well-being ........................................ 30 5.1.1 Theories on the nexus of income and subjective well-being ................................................................... 30 5.1.2 The role of reference groups and social comparisons ............................................................................. 31 5.2 The subjective well-being – migration nexus.......................................................................................... 32 5.2.1 Empirical studies and generalized conclusions ....................................................................................... 32 5.2.2 Social connectedness and subjective well-being ..................................................................................... 34 5.2.3 Migratory aspirations, capabilities and subjective well-being ................................................................ 36 5.3 Subjective well-being and migration plans under conditions of extreme uncertainties .......................... 36 6. The conceptual framework of MIGWELL ......................................................................................... 38 6.1 MIGWELL and the migration theories ................................................................................................... 38 6.2 MIGWELL and the concept of well-being ............................................................................................. 39 6.3 Research questions and methods ............................................................................................................. 41 6.4 Expected results ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Literature ............................................................................................................................................................... 47 FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 4 MIGWELL at a glance The MIGWELL project focuses on the nexus of migration and well-being in Hungary and Austria. Using quantitative and qualitative research methods, it seeks to explore the impacts of migration on subjective well-being in the case of Hungarian immigrants in Austria as well as the effects of subjective well-being differences on emigration potential in Hungary. The approach of this project is innovative not only because it links the concepts of ‘well-being’ and ‘migration’, but also because it interprets their two-way causal relationship within one research framework. Since the Covid-19 pandemic might have a profound impact on both pillars, MIGWELL will also reflect on the rapidly changing socio-economic and well-being related issues that have emerged due to the epidemic throughout the life cycle of the project. The theoretical expansion of these concepts and the empirical findings of the project may contribute to more effective policies in both countries. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 5 1. Introduction This concept paper, as the main deliverable of WP1, aims to present and critically analyse the relevant theoretical frameworks of migration and well-being, the two pillars of MIGWELL. It is a presentation of the research state, which reveals the strengths as well as the weaknesses of these concepts and, above all, does not omit critical reflections. This paper aims to serve as a well-founded theoretical basis for the further empirical steps in the next work packages of the project, which is primarily concerned with the migration and remigration of Hungarian citizens to and from Austria, and the consequences thereof for their well-being. The project is primarily oriented towards the social sciences, but by no means excludes the importance of economic theories and psychological approaches. The latter play a role especially for well-being, a concept that has so far been analysed mainly in terms of social psychology. With the increasing complexity of international migration processes, migration research has also begun to take a greater interest in the ways in which diverse migration situations influence individual well-being. In view of the abundance of related concepts in the scholarly literature, this specification is necessary to guarantee the concise operationalization of the concepts in the form of question batteries in quantitative surveys in the next steps of the project. The project does not build on one specific theoretical approach; it rather takes appropriate elements from different approaches, which are linked accordingly. After a short review of the relevant theoretical frameworks of migration (Chapter 3) and well-being (Chapter 4), a brief explanation will also be provided of how MIGWELL conceives these concepts and the relationship between them. 2. The main types of spatial mobility and the focus of MIGWELL 2.1 Migration: an overview of definitions and typologies Whereas spatial mobility generally refers to the movement of people across different physical locations, migration is considered a “relatively permanent movement of individuals, families, and groups from their place of usual residence” to another settlement (Boyle 2009). Distinguished from shorter-distance forms of spatial mobility, which are dominated mainly by housing-related moves, migration tends to take place over longer distances, either within or between countries. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs defines an international migrant as “any person who changes his or her country of usual residence”, excluding movements due to “recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimages”. Persons who are absent from their country of origin for a period of three to twelve months are considered short‐term international migrants. If this period exceeds twelve months, they appear in statistics as long‐term international migrants (UN 1998: 17). The term “usual residence” is used to refer to the place “at which a person normally spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary absence for purposes of recreation, FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 6 business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage or, in default, the place of legal or registered residence” (EC 2007). There are several other ways of typifying migration processes. For instance, migration can be voluntary or forced (see asylum seekers and refugees), 1 regular or irregular. Migration is considered irregular when the movement of persons takes place in breach of the laws, regulations, or international agreements governing entry into or exit from the country of origin, transit, or destination). Beside these legal categories, migration can furthermore be classified according to different motivations: working or enrolling in education abroad, unifying family, and so forth. Based on the direction of movement, we can distinguish between emigration, immigration, return migration (see in detail: Chapter 2.3), re-emigration, second-time emigration, transilient migration, and circular migration (King 1986, Fassmann et al. 2018). However, a new form of migration has also become prevalent in the last few decades, due to the higher permeability of national borders and new technologies in transport and communication, such as low-cost airlines and web-based VoIP applications, e.g. Skype or Viber. Moving between two countries despite never really leaving and never really arriving, and belonging to more than one community at the same time, instead of living in one country according to one set of national and cultural norms, has been described as transnational migration in the literature. This “liquid” form of migration often leads to the permanent splitting of families and the maintenance of two households over a longer time period, the development of hybrid identities, and a high interaction with the countries of origin and destination at the same time (Fassmann 2002, Glick Schiller et al. 1995, Upegui-Hernandez 2014 etc.). In official statistics, the term “migration background” refers to the ancestry of the parents of the persons concerned. (According to Statistics Austria, persons whose parents were both born abroad are defined as people with a migration background.) Similarly, children who arrive in another country together with family members are labeled as the “in-between” or “1.5 generation” in the literature (Schneider and Crul 2012). Although all of these generations would be worth of investigation, the MIGWELL project has been designed to analyse the subjective well-being of Hungarians who have decided to move to Austria or who intend to leave Hungary. 2.2 The focus of the MIGWELL project Therefore, MIGWELL focuses on potential stayers and potential emigrants in Hungary, firstgeneration, permanent (long-term) immigrants in Austria who have arrived from the territory of Hungary 2 , as well as return migrants who have decided to move back to Hungary from 1 It must be noted that it is not always possible to distinguish between voluntary and forced migration. Although the lines are routinely drawn to separate forced from voluntary migrants in everyday practice, the boundaries between the two categories in fact are often blurred (Bakewell 2021). 2 Migrants with Hungarian ethnic identity and/or Hungarian citizenship from other neighbouring countries (Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia) do not belong to the main target groups of the project. However, their experience might also contribute to the better understanding of the migration–subjective well-being FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 7 Austria. Daily or weekly cross-border commuters are not included. Therefore, studies on this form of spatial mobility will only be mentioned in passing. Similarly, although we are aware of the current immense numerical dimensions and the importance of forced migration, this migration type is deliberately excluded from MIGWELL. However, the project may cover transnational migrants, should we reach a reasonable number of them during the next work packages (Figure 1). Figure 1. The main types of spatial mobility and the focus of the MIGWELL project (Source: own design) 2.3 Return migration Since Hungarian return migrants constitute a target group of the project, it is worth dedicating a subchapter to the conceptualization of the phenomenon. Until the 1970s, migration was typically seen as a linear process, ending with the final, lifelong decision to leave one country and settle in another. Empirical studies started to pay attention to return migration due to the increase in the number of returnees from North America and Australia to Europe and due to the return of guest workers during the economic recession (King 1986). Today, return migration is often seen as a potential means of returning financial, social, and cultural capital and knowledge to the country of origin (Gruber and Németh 2020). Yet, in the literature, considerably less attention has still been paid to decision-making processes in the context of return migration (see e.g. Dumont and Spielvogel 2008, Lados and Hegedűs 2016). Cerase (1974) has developed a typology based on the empirical observations of Italian returnees nexus in a Central European context. They will not be strictly excluded from the qualitative interviews but they will represent a minority among the interviewees. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 8 from the USA. “Return of failure” and “return of conservatism” mainly pertain to people who have spent 1-5 and 5-10 years in the target country. The former is predominantly the result of unsuccessful integration into the new society and the existence of strong social ties with the country of origin. Returnees within the second category were typically target earners who migrated with the explicit goal of earning and saving money. Although they mostly succeeded in overcoming their initial difficulties in the host country, they returned with the intention of enjoying a better life in their country of origin. From an economic point of view, the “return of innovation” (after 10-20 years of living abroad) is the best-case scenario for the country of origin. These returnees frequently run transnational businesses and play an important role in connecting their countries of origin and destination in the transnational space (e.g. Driori et al. 2010, Predojevic-Despic et al. 2016). “Returning for retirement” is the fourth category. At the end of their working period, people often decide to return because of nostalgia, their social ties that still exist, and the more affordable housing conditions in their country of origin. Although Cerase’s typology is a good starting point for further empirical studies, it must be noted that these categories are certainly not universal. Due to its geographical proximity, Austria for instance acts as a kind of “migration laboratory” for Hungarian migrants, since they can easily move back if their migration project should fail. Thus, in this specific nexus, the time frame of the categories may differ remarkably. Beyond the decisions of leaving vs. staying, or returning vs. remaining in the target country, there always is an additional, personal and/or household-level consideration of several aspects. These may range from family ties to labour-market opportunities. The decision-making process can altogether be seen through the prism of well-being. The objective factors and subjective evaluation of well-being, as well as its current and expected levels in the future must be considered (about the conceptualization of the SWB – migration nexus cf. Chapter 5.1 in detail). 3. Relevant migration theories Migration is driven by various complex factors: earning a better living, finding a safer and more agreeable environment to live in, bettering one’s career perspectives, searching for new experiences, or joining one’s family or ethnic network abroad. The factors motivating people to migrate have been explored extensively in extant literature. However, there is no general theory that explains the initiation and perpetuation of migration. Instead, as research on migration is intrinsically interdisciplinary and because each discipline considers different aspects of population mobility, a multitude of theories, explanatory models, and empirical approaches have emerged (e.g. Arango 2000, Bretell and Hollifield 2014). These concepts help us to understand why some people migrate from a certain country or region and others do not. They furthermore explain the individual and external factors that affect such decisions to move or stay, as well as the circumstances under which migration can be associated with benefits – or costs – for the migrants and their places of origin and destination. Each of these models FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 15 with the rise of proportional wages in the secondary sector, which makes these jobs unattractive for native workers. Generally, the dual labour-market theory does not conflict with the neoclassical approaches and NELM, but it presents a demand-driven concept. It suggests that the main driver of international immigration is, in fact, the developed economies’ recruitment of a foreign labour force to fill jobs on the secondary labour market, which is necessary for the functioning of the overall economy (Jennissen 2004). This pull factor has a stronger explanatory power than do the international wage differentials or the wishes of individuals or households – as potential migrants – in the countries of origin (Massey et al. 1993). This is the main source of criticism: the dual labour-market theory largely ignores the push factors in migration systems. Secondly, at the beginning of the 21th century, labour recruitment is less important than it used to be some decades earlier. The theory furthermore cannot explain different migration rates, i.e. “why different advanced industrial economies, which have similar economic structures, exhibit rates of immigration that may vary by a factor of ten, say between Denmark and Norway on the one hand and Switzerland or Canada on the other” (Arango 2000: 290). 3.5.2 World-systems theory The world-systems theory (Sassen 1988, 1991) argues that international migration is a byproduct of global capitalism, created by direct foreign investment in developing countries and the disruptions that such investment brings. On a global scale, most international migrants move from the periphery (poor countries) to the core (rich countries) because factors associated with industrial development generated structural economic problems, and thus push factors, in the Third World. The routes of major international migration corridors are determined by former colonial relationships. As a historical-structural paradigm, world-systems theory mainly focuses on “how powerful elites oppress and exploit poor and vulnerable people, how capital seeks to recruit and exploit labour and how ideology and religion play a key role in justifying exploitation and injustice by making them appear as the normal and natural order of things” (De Haas 2021: 4). The world-systems theory does not consider the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis, and it demonstrates a complex and nuanced model of global inequalities (Coccia 2019). Yet it has been criticized for presenting too many broad generalizations and for failing to present a falsifiable hypothesis (Massey et al 1993). Because of its wide scope, there still is a lack of empirically grounded studies justifying the hypotheses. In putting forward the notion of a unified world connected by networks of global capital, it makes two assumptions that do not always hold true. On the one hand, the world-systems theory overemphasizes the role of globalization and capitalism. On the other hand, even though it claims to be a unified approach combining the spheres of economy, politics, and society, it ultimately relies too heavily on FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 16 economic causes of migration, while largely ignoring other factors, for instance social networks and socio-cultural moderators (Frank and Gills 1993). As Massey et al. (1993) underlined, to test the world-systems theory one should include indicators of prior colonial relationships, the prevalence of common languages, the intensity of trade relations, the existence of transportation and communication links, the relative frequency of communications and travel between countries, etc. 3.5.3 Migration transition model In the migration transition model, Zelinsky (1971) has described how migration patterns change over time with the change of economic and political systems. This concept is the extension of the “classic” demographic transition model with five distinct phases. A pre-modern traditional society is characterized by high fertility and mortality rates and slow natural increase, while the extent of permanent migration is generally low. In an early transitional society, the growing concentration of employment in urban centres induces distinguishable rural-urban migration. Whereas fertility rates are still high, industrialization is coupled with the improvement of public health and reduced mortality rates. In a late transitional society (stage three), population growth slows down considerably due to lowering fertility rates, while spatial mobility becomes more intense. New forms of spatial migration appear, such as circular migration patterns, commuting, retirement migration, etc. (Fassmann 2011: 80). In general, urban-to-urban migration overtakes rural-to-urban migration. Today, all European countries find themselves in the 4th or 5th phase according to Zelinsky’s model: they belong to the “advanced” or “super-advanced” societies. Stage four is characterized by the movement of people within metropolitan regions: from city to city and from city to suburbia. The rate of natural increase is close to zero. In stage five, the size of the post-industrial society decreases in absolute terms. Apart from the earlier movements of people within agglomerations, urban-to-rural migration becomes more important on account of better transportation and new telecommunication technologies (internet, home office). 3.5.4 Migration cycles As Fassmann et al. (2014) have underlined, international migration seems to follow partially overlapping and partially time-lagged migration cycles. The migration cycle theory can be considered a revised version of the transition model, which focuses on the process of the transformation of emigration countries into immigration countries, and of the adaptation of their social and legal systems to the new conditions (Fassmann and Reeger 2012: 66-68). The specific element of the model is the gradual accommodation to the new migratory circumstances, affected by changes in demography, economy, the labour market, etc. In the initial phase, the demographic situation long remains relatively constant, and emigration is typically more important than immigration. In the transition stage, a former emigration country FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 17 gradually becomes an immigration country, without the “official” acknowledgment of this transition in the political realm. In the adaptation stage, the legislative gap concerning migration and integration issues decreases, and immigration becomes acknowledged as a necessary supplement to the economic growth and the demographically diminishing labour market. “A new political rationality emerges by integrating a means of controlling international migration into a differentiated legal system” (Fassmann et al. 2014: 24-25). Fassmann and Reeger (2012) concluded that most European countries seem to be developing in a similar direction and that countries in the southern and eastern parts of the continent will in time also become immigration countries. Among the key factors of entering the migration cycle, they highlighted demographic and economic circumstances, the segmentation of a developed labour market into a primary and a secondary sector (see again the dual labourmarket theory in Chapter 3.5.1), and modes of regulation concerning international migration. According to Engbersen (2012), this “historical, path-dependent approach” fails to explain the new, liquid forms of contemporary migration flows to Western Europe. Current intra-EU migration patterns differ remarkably from earlier ones because Central and Eastern European migrants have more freedom “to develop their own migration trajectories than in the pre-EU enlargement period with its restrictive West European migration regimes” (ibid: 98). Many of them do not settle permanently but move back and forth from their source country to receiving countries. Since the official statistical data are inadequate, and liquid migration is more unpredictable, new research designs would be necessary to document these flows, and more flexible policies are needed to deal effectively with the new patterns of “lasting temporality” (Grzymała-Kazłowska 2005). 3.6 Network theory: a meso-level approach Beside macro-structural impacts and micro-level circumstances, the intermediate level has also been gaining increasing attention in the literature. Among the so-called meso-level factors, the response of national and local policies to macro-economic, macro-environmental and recently global epidemiological processes (e.g. Guadagno 2020), as well as certain migration steering institutions such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) or the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) may also affect migration processes. Social networks also play an essential role in stimulating migration by reducing the risks of migration, e.g., getting to know about possibilities of working or studying in a foreign country. In this chapter we will focus on network theory, which focuses on the explanation of the “perpetuation”, instead of the “initiation” of international migration (Massey et al. 1993). According to this hypothesis, government policies and other macro-structural factors shape geographically bundled pathways, linking particular social groups and places over space. Once such initial patterns are set, migrant networks and feedback processes known as “cumulative causation” tend to give migration processes their own momentum and thereby reproduce such FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 18 patterns (Massey 1990, De Haas 2021). Thus, migration forges networks which then feed the very migration that produced them. These networks can be interpreted 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.” (Massey 1988). The network itself emerges as an actor in the migration process because it influences migrants’ decisions regarding their migration destinations. Network effects can be classified as first-order feedback mechanisms, which are endogenous to the migration process itself (De Haas 2010: 1590). Networks influence both the scale of migration and the sorting of migrants across countries, as they provide an “incentive to replicate the destination choices of earlier migrants” (Bertoli, 2010: 262). Migration processes practically rise above the conditions that had originally caused them. They tend to develop an independent existence, among other things due to network formation (Light et al. 1990). The concept of networks includes the assumption of a risk-diversification model and addresses the cumulative causes of migration as a result of reduced social, economic, and emotional costs of migration pursuant to the formation of migration networks (Light et al. 1990). These provide support to would-be as well as newly arrived migrants in their new context. Such support could take the form of financial help, practical information that eases the migration process, job opportunities, etc. (Massey et al. 1993). According to this model, families allocate labour among their members within the constraint of their own needs and aspirations in a cost-efficient and risk-minimizing way. Given that choice, the reduced cost of migration enhances the number who can and will choose to leave, thus increasing the volume of migration (Van Meeteren and Pereira 2013). Therefore, whatever macro-societal political or economic conditions may initially have caused migration, expanding migratory process becomes “progressively independent” of the original causal conditions. Much of the existing literature has focused on the ways in which strong ties to the destination community can facilitate migration by providing access to information about jobs (Munshi 2003, 2014, Borjas 1992) and material support for recent arrivals (Munshi 2014). The role of the home network is ambiguous. On the one hand, robust risk-sharing networks can partially provide insurance against the risk of temporary migration (Morten 2015), making it easier for people to leave. On the other hand, strong source networks can also discourage permanent migration if migrant households are subsequently excluded from risk-sharing networks. Because it introduced a sociological dimension, network theory has improved the mechanical and economistic push-and-pull models as well as the world-systems concept (De Haas 2010:1587). However, although there is general consensus that social networks play an important role in migration decisions, the exact nature of this role is still unclear. This ambiguity stems from a lack of reliable data on both migration and the structure of social networks (Blumenstock and Xu Tan 2016). Existing research explains the expansion of established migrant networks, but generally fails to explain their initial, selective creation and different trajectories. Through its focus on networks, this research has obscured migration-facilitating FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 19 feedback mechanisms operating through changes caused by migration in the sending and receiving contexts. Van Meeteren and Pereira (2013) criticized that the central argument of network theory is largely circular, assuming that migration continues ad infinitum. Thus, it provides little insight into migration-undermining feedback mechanisms that can lead to the breakdown of network systems over time (De Haas 2010:1612). Other critiques of this approach have pointed to the relevance of ties beyond community, such as employers, government officials, traffickers, and migration brokers (e.g. Krissman 2005:4 ff.). Elrick and Lewandowska (2008: 718), for example, found that “agents” are significant actors in migrant networks, who can be regarded as perpetuators of migration within these networks. Collyer (2005: 699ff) emphasized that social network theory cannot explain migration flows of refugees and asylum seekers at all. 3.7 Aspirations and capabilities: a meta-theoretical framework Based on his empirical observations in Morocco, De Haas (2021) pointed out that although local living conditions improve significantly, people’s general life aspirations may increase even faster. The growing aspirations – and, in parallel, the growing capabilities – to migrate seem to be responsible for an increasing number of emigrants “despite, or paradoxically rather because of, significant improvements in local living standards”. This line of thought does not fit within the mainstream migration models. This meta-theoretical framework conceptualizes different forms of migration as a function of aspirations 3 and capabilities to migrate. While “migration aspirations are a function of people’s general life aspirations and perceived geographical opportunity structures”, migration capabilities “are contingent on positive (freedom to) and negative (freedom from) liberties” (De Haas 2021: 17). These are conceptually distinct but empirically interconnected notions. For instance, improved education and growing media exposure may increase migration aspiration because they expand pupils’ awareness of alternative lifestyles and the relative nature of wealth. In other words, the access to information per se tends to change people’s ideas about the “good life”. In this way, increasing capabilities can increase aspirations. According to the aspirations-capabilities framework, migration should be seen as people’s capability to choose where to live – including the option to stay – rather than as the act of moving itself. Therefore, moving and staying are, in fact, complementary manifestations of migratory agency. As De Haas (2021: 30-32) argued, the research focus on people’s migratory aspirations and capabilities would help us understand better how the processes of social transformation and development shape international migration patterns. In this meta-theoretical 3 As De Haas has emphasized, migratory aspirations have two broad dimensions: instrumental (means-to-an-end) and intrinsic (i.e. well-being-affecting). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 20 framework, the interconnection between migration and well-being is stronger than any other migration theories in the past (see further: Chapter 5.2.3). 3.8 Migration theories and their potential expansions Contemporary migration theories play an essential role in understanding international migration patterns and the decision-making processes behind them. However, as Arango emphasized (2000: 293), the theoretical attention should shift from searching the causes to investigating other relationships of international migration in the future. These relationships could include political factors (e.g. admission policies that considerably shape the direction and volume of migratory flows), cultural consequences (e.g. the costs of cultural adaptation or the modes of migrant incorporation), or societal transformations, including changed family and kinship ties, transnationalisation, etc. One of the potential directions of this theoretical expansion might be a stronger linkage between the concept of migration and the concept of well-being. 4. Conceptual frameworks of well-being From the 1950s onwards, concern has been growing that the dominant frameworks in economics cannot address the challenges of our society in a rapidly changing world adequately. The insight that a narrow focus on economic factors and some widely used indicators such as GDP do not reflect people’s welfare has played a key role in the rise of the concept of wellbeing (Stiglitz et al. 2009, OECD 2011, Adler and Seligman 2016, Coulthard et al. 2018). The word itself is not new at all. It has been used loosely and abstractly for centuries (MilnerGulland et al., 2014). The roots of the concept dating back to Aristotle, later revived especially by Bentham (Aristotle 2009, Bentham 2013). During the last decades of the 20th century, the general interest in well-being research grew remarkably (see e.g. Easterlin 1974, Diener 1984, Kahneman et al. 1999), and the topic received additional attention following the final report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, chaired by Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi (Stiglitz et al. 2009). In the wake of the global financial crisis, the world-famous economists emphasized the urgent necessity of shifting the focus of policy makers’ and scientists’ attention from production and growth to a concern for sustainable human well-being. However, without conceptualization, the term might represent a multitude of ways in which well-being is conceived, and this is a potential source of confusion and misunderstanding. The Stiglitz report stimulated initiatives around the world to develop a coherent framework for the understanding of well-being (see e.g. Allin and Hand, 2014, McGregor and Sumner 2010, OECD 2011, UK ONS 2011), and an increasing number of statistical agencies have launched targeted surveys to measure it. Although there is still no universally accepted theoretical framework, the views that well-being must be understood as multidimensional, and that apart FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 21 from the objective aspects of living conditions, it must be considered how people feel about their lives – i.e., their subjective well-being (SWB) – seem widely accepted as common denominators. 4.1 Objective indicators approach The attempts to quantify well-being initially relied on easily measurable objective components that reflected people’s life circumstances on a national level. The idea of compressing information on economic and social attributes into one composite index date back to the mid20th century (see e.g. Bauer 1966). The popular metrics, such as the Physical Quality of Life Index (Morris, 1979), the Human Development Index, HDI (UNDP 1990), the Human Poverty Index (UNDP 1997), the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index, MPI (Alkire and Foster 2011) or the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW (Daly and Cobb, 1989) are good examples of these efforts. Most of these indices have been suggested to replace or supplement GDP as the key indicator for economic policy worldwide. Aggregating various objective indicators (e.g. in the case of HDI: gross national income per capita, life expectancy at birth, mean years of shooling and expected years of schooling) across different domains is a shared characteristic. These are not explicitly well-being measures but they already deal with a limited range of factors that might be relevant for well-being. From a narrow focus on objective measures of development or welfare, the indicators have become more complex and multidimensional over the last decades, expanding to include subjective components (reviewed in King et al. 2013). Indices such as the Happy Planet Index, the National Well-being Index, and the Better Life Index represent transitions toward integrated well-being frameworks (see Chapter 4.3) because they already contain life satisfaction or happiness data as subjective elements. However, they place strong emphasis on quantitatively measurable, objective dimensions, and they still aim to provide one or only a few comparable indices on a national level. In 2006, the New Economics Foundation introduced the Happy Planet Index (HPI) by aggregating life expectancy at birth, ecological footprint per capita, and subjective life satisfaction (see e.g. Marks et al. 2006). Conceptually, it approximates multiplying life satisfaction and life expectancy and dividing that by the ecological footprint. The index is weighted to give higher scores to nations with lower ecological footprints. In the same year, Vemuri and Constanza (2006) published the National Well-being Index (NWI). One of the bestknown indicators is the Better Life Index (BLI), which relies on best practices for building composite indicators (OECD 2008; see in detail: Chapter 4.3.1). Although well-designed composite indices are useful for distilling complex topics into easy-tocommunicate numerical values, they have limitations and they “cannot be used for policy evaluation” per se (OECD 2011: 26). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 22 4.2 The evolution of the concept of subjective well-being Beside the relatively easily measurable objective components of well-being, research on the subjective factors has also been gaining increasing attention over the past decades (Diener 1984, 1994, Easterlin et al. 2010, Kahneman and Krueger 2006 etc.). Subjective well-being (SWB) generally captures people’s thoughts and feelings about the quality of their life circumstances. It is usually measured according to psychological responses, such as life satisfaction, autonomy, social connectedness, or personal security (Diener 2012, Ryff and Keyes 1995). Although notions such as “happiness” have been widely recognized as central elements of quality of life in everyday parlance, they were deemed beyond the scope of statistical measurement until recently. Over the last three decades, an increasing body of evidence has shown that the slippery term of subjective well-being can be operationalized and measured in practice. The investigation requires quantitative as well as qualitative methods (e.g. Camfield et al. 2009, Diener and Suh 1997). The international surveys and the scientific investigations based on them are able to support policy-making because they go beyond objective information about living conditions and resources, and see well-being through the eyes of the people. The evolution of the concept has entailed numerous interpretations since the 1970s, when the first attempts were made to associate happiness and satisfaction with welfare (Easterlin 1974, Scitovsky 1976). Since then, the approaches and methods aiming at understanding what people believe they need in order to achieve a good quality of life, and measuring their degree of satisfaction with the extent to which these needs are met, have become more sophisticated (King et al. 2013, McGregor et al. 2009, Veenhoven 2008 etc.). While the terms “utility”, “pleasure”, “happiness” and “subjective well-being” were used more or less interchangeably in the past, 4 today there is a general agreement that subjective well-being should be “an umbrella term for the different valuations people make regarding their lives, the events happening to them, their bodies and minds, and the circumstances in which they live” (Diener 2006). The following paragraphs summarize the most important approaches that focus on the cognitive, affective, or psychological elements of subjective well-being. 4.2.1 Happiness approach The happiness approach and the capabilities approach provide different answers to the question whether happiness is an ultimate goal or just one component of a good life. Within the happiness approach there are two main streams of scientific investigation. The hedonic interpretation of subjective well-being relies on the utilitarian concept of pleasure and it is frequently operationalized in terms of life satisfaction and affects. The life satisfaction interpretation is cognitive as well as evaluative and requires of the individual to make evaluative statements about different areas of life and about life as a whole (Boyce et al. 2010, Christoph 4 On their differences see Camfield and Skevington 2008 or Selezneva 2011. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 23 2010, Dumludag, 2014 etc.). Satisfaction is usually understood a lasting state of well-being. Happiness is closer to the terms ‘affect’ or ‘affective well-being’ used in psychology literature (Di Fabio and Palazzeschi 2015, Graham 2009, Layard 2005, etc.). Positive and negative emotions reflect a more corporeal and transitory state of well-being, which are typically surveyed with reference to a shorter timeframe, for instance the most recent two weeks. Nevertheless, it is important to underline that satisfaction and emotions can be separated in theory, but they might be interrelated in practice, since people’s emotional experiences influence their evaluation of life satisfaction (Dragolov et al. 2018). As Kahneman et al. (1999) summarized: in a hedonic approach, subjective well-being can be seen as an index of psychological wellness, while happiness refers to the accumulated moments of experiencing pleasure, and the absence of pain (Diener et. al 1999, Selezneva 2016). Eudaimonic well-being is expounded in the tradition of humanistic psychology. This component of SWB does not correspond to one internal state only in the way that emotions or satisfactions do; rather, it utilizes individuals’ self-reports on a broader suite of elements that are necessary for people to flourish and to fulfil their potential. Eudaimonic well-being reflects the feeling of meaning and purpose in life, accomplishment, as well as the aspects of belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualisation (Clark et al. 2008, Di Fabio and Palazzeschi 2015, Vittersø 2016). As Ryan and Deci (2001) pointed out, the eudaimonic approach is based on the view of people living in accordance with their true self (daimon) and getting material and non-material rewards while constructing a good life. “Some of the actions might produce pleasure (happiness), but not enhance well-being if the actions contradict the daimon” (Selezneva 2016). Migration can be interpreted as an escape from an anomic society (which can manifest itself in status discrepancy) or as an innovation, as finding new means for reaching goals in society (Merton 1957). Some analysts, such as Diener (1984), Kahneman et al. (1999), or Kahneman and Krueger (2006), tend to use the hedonic approach, while others opt for a definition that includes measures of good psychological functioning as well as purpose in life (e.g. Vittersø 2016). 4.2.2 Capability approach There is yet another concept used in subjective well-being research, known as the capability approach, which criticizes utilitarian happiness and instead brings individual-specific capabilities into focus. It emphasizes the importance of a person’s autonomy in achieving valued “functionings”. According to Sen (1985), “the standard of living is really a matter of functionings and capabilities and not a matter directly of opulence, commodities, or utilities”. To put it simply: it is not the things that people have that make them well, but what they are able to do and achieve with those things. One of the chief strengths of Sen’s framework is that it is flexible and exhibits a considerable degree of internal pluralism, which allows researchers to develop and apply it in many different FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 24 ways (Alkire 2002: 8-11, 28-30). Sen refuses to endorse a fixed or definitive list of capabilities as objectively correct for practical and strategic reasons (Clark 2002: 54). Instead, he argues that the selection and weighting of capabilities depend on personal value judgements (which are partly influenced by the nature and purpose of the evaluative exercise). Sen also indicates that his approach can be used to assess individual advantage in a range of different spaces. Criticism casts doubt on the usefulness of the approach for making interpersonal comparisons of well-being in the presence of potential disagreements about the valuation of capabilities, including the relative weights to be assigned to these capabilities (e.g. Beitz 1986). Sen was optimistic about achieving agreement about evaluations: he suggested that the intersections of different people’s rankings are typically quite large (Sen 1985: 53-56). He has also proposed a range of methods, including the intersection approach for extending incomplete orderings (Saith 2001). Finally, the informational requirements of Sen’s approach can be extremely high (see Alkire 2002: 181, Sen 1994). Evaluating social states typically depends on acquiring data on multiple functionings. In some cases, however, the relevant social indicators aren’t available. Moving from functioning to capability complicates the exercise drastically, as additional information is required on counterfactual choices (which cannot be observed) as well as actual choices (Clark 2005). Despite these operational difficulties, many credible innovative attempts have been made to measure well-being in the functioning and capability space (e.g. Clark 2002). 4.2.3 The OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being While subjective well-being has been examined extensively in the academic literature for decades, the lack of a consistent set of questions has hampered the international comparability of data for a long time. Bridging this gap was the main motivation for the OECD (2013a) to elaborate the Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. These Guidelines offer an integrated approach and propose a solution for statistical agencies to follow a standardized survey structure with standardized methodology. The role of the document is primarily to provide advice on best practice and “assist data producers in meeting the needs of users by bringing together what is currently known on how to produce high quality, comparable measures of subjective well-being” (ibid: 9). Subjective well-being is taken to be “good mental states, including all of the various evaluations, positive and negative, that people make of their lives and the affective reactions of people to their experiences”. This broad definition encompasses the three elements of SWB mentioned above: • Life satisfaction – a reflective assessment of a person’s life or some specific aspect of it. • Affect – a person’s feelings or emotional states, typically measured with reference to a particular point in time. • Eudaimonia – a sense of meaning and purpose in life, or good psychological functioning (ibid: 10). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 31 Dumludag 2014, and Chapter 5.1.2 below). The negative impact portrayed by the relative income hypothesis is in sharp contrast with the tunnel effect (Hirschman and Rothschild 1973), which occurs when the success of a reference group creates a base for optimistic expectations and contributes to a positive SWB change. (The authors used the metaphor of a traffic jam in a tunnel. When the traffic in a lane starts to move, drivers in the others lane takes this signal as an indication of “light at the end of the tunnel”.) Thus, as Caporale et al. (2009) pointed out, people may interpret any positive signals in adverse and uncertain situations to predict an improvement in their own situation to occur sooner or later. The presence of the tunnel effect has been confirmed by, among others, Caporale et al. (2009) and Senik (2008). The income rank hypothesis states that people’s self-rated life satisfaction is primarily influenced by the relative ranked position of their income within their social comparison group. “Income and utility are not directly linked: Increasing an individual's income will increase his or her utility only if ranked position also increases and will necessarily reduce the utility of others who will lose rank” (Boyce et al. 2010: 471). In other words, the ranked position of an individual’s income, rather than the income per se or its relation to a reference income, is beneficial for well-being (Quispe-Torreblanca et al. 2021). Several studies support the income rank hypothesis, including Clark and Senik (2014), Quispe-Torreblanca et al. (2021) and Wood et al. (2012). It must be noted that causal effects are still under debate in the scientific literature, and that the hypotheses mentioned above have rarely been tested in the context of migration until now. 5.1.2 The role of reference groups and social comparisons Reference groups seem to play a key role in evaluating subjective well-being. Since the term itself has been coined by Herbert Hyman (1942), it has provided useful insight into social behaviour and has been used in the explanation of various behaviour patterns. A reference group is a group against which an individual evaluates his or her situation or conduct. The membership group and reference group can be the same, but they can also be different; they are not mutually exclusive. The term reference group has been used in two ways, to mean either a group of which the individual aspires to membership or a group whose values, norms, and attitudes serve as points of reference for the individual. In either case, the crucial feature is that the individual adapts his/her attitudes and behaviour to model those of the members of the reference group. The current understanding of the reference group assumes that reference groups change over the course of an individual’s life and that we select from a specific set of reference groups for comparison at a given time and in a given situation. A previously positive reference group may become negative over time (Newcomb 1943). For some issues, a particular reference group will provide the basis for comparison, for other issues, the reference group will be different. For example, our political attitudes are measured against a different group than our holiday habits. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 32 The directions of comparison stems from various personality needs and motivations and have different consequences regarding the psychological balance and SWB of a person. Wills (1981) introduced the concept of downward comparison. Downward social comparison is a defensive tendency that is used as a means of self-evaluation. When people look at another individual or group that they consider to be worse off than themselves in order to feel better about themselves or their personal situation, they are making a downward social comparison. Research has suggested that social comparisons with others who are better off or superior, or upward comparisons, can lower self-esteem, whereas downward comparisons can elevate self-esteem. Downward comparison theory emphasizes the positive effects of comparisons in increasing one’s subjective well-being (ibid). Although social comparison research has suggested that upward comparisons can lower self-regard, Collins (1995) indicates that this is not always the case. Individuals make upward comparisons, whether consciously or subconsciously, when they compare themselves with an individual or comparison group that they perceive as superior or better than themselves in order to improve their views of self or to create a more positive perception of their personal reality. Upward social comparisons are made to self-evaluate and self-improve in the hope that self-enhancement will also follow. In an upward social comparison, people want to believe themselves to be part of the elite or superior group, and make comparisons highlighting the similarities between themselves and the comparison group, unlike a downward social comparison, where similarities between individuals or groups are disassociated (Suls et al. 2002). Regarding the circumstances that determine the direction of social comparison, Aspinwall and Taylor (1993) emphasized the dynamic relationship between affect/mood, self-esteem, and threat as key moderators of choosing upward or downward comparisons. 5.2 The subjective well-being – migration nexus 5.2.1 Empirical studies and generalized conclusions Although there is still no universal definition of happiness or life satisfaction, it is firmly believed that individuals usually act to improve their well-being and that this is the final goal of their choices and actions (Selezneva 2011: 140). From this perspective, voluntary migration can be considered a tool to reach the desired outcome of increasing well-being. However, whereas there is a vast amount of literature examining the nexus of material life conditions and migration (Chapter 3) as well as the material and subjective aspects of well-being separately (Chapter 5.1), the third vertex of this theoretical triangle, the SWB-migration nexus, has just started gaining attention in the last years (e.g., IOM 2013, OECD 2017, Hendriks and Bartram 2018). Since very few international surveys are explicitly designed towards measuring migrants’ wellbeing outcomes, little is yet known about the consequences of migration for subjective well- FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 33 being and particularly about the effects of SWB on migration intentions and/or decisions. 9 Empirical results suggest that migrants experience lower levels of life satisfaction than natives do in general (Baltatescu 2007, Bobowik 2011, OECD 2017), that second-generation immigrants seem to be unhappier than their first-generation counterparts (Safi 2010, Senik 2011), and that emigrants are usually less satisfied with their lives than stayers (Bartram 2011, Knight and Gunatilaka 2010). These conclusions and explanations however are far from consistent, and other studies even show opposite results (e.g. Lengyel 2012, Erlinghagen 2012, Ivlevs 2015). The divergence of findings not only arises from obviously different historical and geographic contexts but also from the lack of a standardized, coherent theoretical framework. The investigations have predominantly used cross-sectional data to compare immigrants and natives in host countries (Baltatescu 2007, Bartram 2010, Safi 2010, Göncz et al. 2012) or emigrants from and stayers in the sending countries (Bartram 2013, Erlinghagen 2012). Although both approaches provide useful information, none of them can adequately demonstrate a causal impact per se. On the one hand, simply comparing emigrants with similar people who remained in their country of origin can be misleading, since well-being gains may reflect unobserved differences in ability, risk tolerance, or motivation (McKenzie et al. 2010). On the other hand, neglecting pre-migration experiences obscures reverse causality, i.e., it does not rule out selectivity biases, whereby dissatisfied people may be more likely to migrate (Stillman et al. 2015). In the absence of longitudinal data, there are two alternative options 10 : to create a twoperiod synthetic panel with statistical matching (e.g., Nikolova and Graham 2015) or to ask respondents to estimate their general life satisfaction retrospectively, prior to and after migration (e.g., Amit and Riss 2014). In spite of these methodological concerns and somewhat divergent conclusions, a growing number of academic papers has demonstrated that the separation of material and immaterial determinants and their subjective perceptions does make sense because they can influence migration decisions and the post-move evaluations in different ways (e.g. Graham and Markowitz 2011). Two directions of SWB alterations are generally taking shape in the literature, namely increased versus decreased post-move life satisfaction (De Jong et al. 2002). Even though migrants’ absolute incomes may rise, their original expectations can be met with disappointment and their SWB may be reduced. Reasons for this phenomenon can include the physical distance from their safe social and family networks, the linguistic and cultural distance 9 Previous studies diverge in their estimation of the degree to which migration intentions can be considered a good indicator of the actual act of migration. Nevertheless, if migration is conceived as a selection process, then intentions and the actual act can be considered different phases of the whole process (Gödri and Feleky 2013). There are not many longitudinal studies that can measure whether and to what extent intentions turn into the real act. According to a study done in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2007/2010, 24% of the expressed intentions had turned into actual migration by 2007 and 34% by 2010 (Van Dalen and Henkens 2013), and migration intention was found to be the main predictor of the actual act. A similar study in Hungary found that 20% of men and 12% of women had turned their migration intentions in 2003 into the act by 2007 (Hárs 2008). 10 For a unique exception see Stillman et al. 2015. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 34 from the host society, or the unexpectedly emerging frustration that stems from finding themselves in a lower position compared to members of the native population (Bartram 2010:2, Stillman et al. 2015:86). 11 While the set-point theory claims that individuals have their own set points of SWB and revert to that set point once the psychological impact of major life events has dissipated, substantial and permanent upward or downward changes in life satisfaction are also observable in the context of migration (Headey 2008). As Nowok et al. (2011) have summarized, migrants often experience frustration and dissatisfaction before their departure, whereas they feel happiness and high expectations during the process of migration but reduced SWB in the post-move phase. It also means that not only people’s own past income and the reference group’s living standard but also their expectations for the future is an important element of SWB-related comparisons. The dynamics of these changes causes the temporal fluidity of well-being, which presents a remarkable methodological challenge for empirical studies (McGregor 2007). This phenomenon is consistent with the relative income hypothesis mentioned in the previous chapter, and has “similar DNA” with Brickman and Campbell’s (1971) “hedonic treadmill” hypothesis from the psychology literature as well as “preference drift” from the economics literature (Van Praag 1971). As Headey et al. (2008: 68) pointed out, people tend to “change their preferences in response to what others have and want”. Since people’s aspirations and social relationships are permanently changing, what really matters to them in the assessment of their quality of life may also change as a consequence of adaptation to the new external circumstances (Easterlin 2005, Nussbaum 2001, Quizilbash 2006). In the context of migration, this process entails the change of the reference groups too – e.g., new neighbours, new colleagues, and a new host society, very often with higher average living standards – which play the role of a benchmark for comparisons. Thus, when immigrants change their reference group (see again Chapter 5.1.2), the comparisons they make may become less favourable, so that they may be more miserable than before, regardless of the fact that their objective situation might have improved significantly. The theoretical background of the mechanisms mentioned in this chapter, including differences between the short-term and long-term dimensions of evaluation, is still not well grounded. Qualitative methods can provide important insight into the dynamics of the adaptive preferences, the changing reference groups, the relational dimension of well-being, etc. 5.2.2 Social connectedness and subjective well-being The nexus between subjective well-being and the concepts of social capital (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1990, Putnam 1995, Tzanakis 2013 etc.) and social cohesion (e.g. Chan et al. 2006, 11 Cultural and linguistic differences create barriers implying “costs that potential migrants likely consider in deciding whether to migrate and where to go” (Adserà 2015) but the existence of large immigrant communities may encourage further moves and decrease migration costs (Pedersen et al. 2008). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 35 Dragolov et al. 2016, Schiefer and Noll 2017) has been gaining increasing attention in the literature. These are closely interrelated concepts, but aggregated indicators of cohesion are more appropriate for macro analyses, whereas data on the individual level should be used to analyse the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being (Klein 2013). Nevertheless, while studies have found positive links between social connectedness and life satisfaction in general (e.g. Anheier et al. 2004, Bjørnskov 2003, Dragolov et al. 2018), relatively few have considered how social networks affect SWB within immigrant communities (e.g. Xu and Palmer 2011, Tegegne and Glanville 2018). Familial relations definitely belong to the key factors that potentially shape migrants’ subjective well-being and its relationship with their decisions to move or stay. Preliminary qualitative studies have already revealed that not only the way migrants narrate their life history is shaped by gender-specific differences, but their perceptions of subjective well-being is also often “gendered”. Central-European migrants tend to frame their own migration in terms of wellbeing, and the narrative of familial well-being is quite common, particularly in the case of female respondents (Kovács and Melegh 2001, Melegh and Kovács 2008). The success of integration might also be an important factor for migrants’ SWB changes. In general, integration refers to the process by which migrants become accepted into society, both as individuals and as groups. It is a two-way process of adaptation – and a form of acculturation 12 – that requires efforts both from migrants and from the host society. Ultimately it is useless for a person to be ready to integrate if the host environment does not support him or her in this process. The changes that immigrants undergo involves at least six areas: language, cognitive styles, personality, identity, 13 attitudes, and acculturative stress. The cause of problematic outcomes often stems from the different acculturation expectations of the host society and the acculturation orientation adopted by the immigrants (Bourish et al. 1997, Van Oudenhoven et al. 1998). Investigating the social connections between migrants and members of the host population (and the subjective perceptions of these relationships) is essential for a better understanding of the SWB–migration nexus. 12 Depending on the degree to which migrants maintain their cultural heritage and/or their relation with the host society, Berry (1997) identified four main acculturation strategies: assimilation (positive relations with the host society are dominantly important), separation (maintaining one’s own culture is of sole importance), marginalization (none of these outcomes is important) and integration (it is important both to maintain cultural identity and to have positive relations with the host society). 13 Acculturation is connected with the issue of identity change (Dovidio et al. 2005). The model of decategorization describes the process that takes place when earlier social identity categories lose their importance and individuals find other more personalized categories to identify with. Ethnic or national identity categories in the EU can for instance be replaced by more individualistic or idiosyncratic categories such as professional performance, lifestyle, or ideology (Brewer and Miller, 1984; Wilder, 1981). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 36 5.2.3 Migratory aspirations, capabilities and subjective well-being In the aspirations-capabilities framework (Chapter 3.7) migration and SWB are connected on two levels. On the one hand, De Haas’ concept is heavily inspired by Amartya Sen’s (1999) capabilities approach of human well-being (Chapter 4.2.2). De Haas emphasized that people could derive well-being from having potential access to mobility freedom, irrespective of whether they applied these freedoms. “The central idea is that the very awareness of having the freedom to move and migrate can add to people’s life satisfaction, in the same way that freedom of speech and religion, the right to organise protest marches or to run for office can contribute to people’s well-being, irrespective of whether or not they eventually use those freedoms. Conversely, if people do not enjoy such freedom, they are likely to experience this as a form of well-being-decreasing deprivation” (De Haas 2021: 18). Regarding migratory aspirations, De Haas expanded the notion of migratory agency into the subjective realm. Migration aspirations reflect people’s general life preferences and their subjective perceptions of the quality of life in the current place of living as well as their perceptions about opportunities elsewhere. This line of thought is consistent with many other well-being approaches, summarized in Chapter 4. 5.3 Subjective well-being and migration plans under conditions of extreme uncertainties Climate change, pandemic, war, energy shortage, food crisis: people around the world are today facing serious physical and existential threats. In the wake of global “multicrises”, the sense of uncertainty may remarkably influence both subjective well-being and migration aspirations. However, in contrast to risk, which includes probabilistic chances, the outcomes of uncertainty are difficult to estimate (Knight 2006). From a conceptual point of view, it is advisable to distinguish between micro and macro sources of uncertainty. Within the latter category one can distinguish materialist and post-materialist problems, although the boundaries are blurred (Coleman 1990, Inglehart 1997, Lengyel and Vicsek 2004) (Table 3). In this context, insecurity can be interpreted as an extreme and permanent form of uncertainty. 14 The Covid-19 pandemic is one of the main current macro sources of worry and uncertainty. Table 3. A typology of some frequently mentioned sources of worry and insecurity. Source: Lengyel and Vicsek (2004) Micro Macro Materialist Own financial conditions Health Family life … Material conditions of the country Crime War Pandemic Energy crisis … Post-materialist Global environmental problems Development of science and technology … 14 For more details see e.g. Boehnke et al. 1998, Occhianero 1997, Schwartz and Melech 2000. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 37 Life has changed dramatically in most countries as a result of Covid-19. The pandemic’s worst effect has been the two million deaths in 2020; it represents a rise of nearly 4% in the annual number of deaths worldwide. There has been greater economic insecurity, anxiety, and disruption of every aspect of life (Helliwell et al. 2021). The implementation of restrictive measures to control the pandemic – including nationwide closures of schools and other public institutions – has challenged the physical and mental health of many people. Recent case studies from all over the world provide evidence that the pandemic negatively affected people’s psychological well-being (e.g. Gray et. al 2020, Otu et al. 2020, Patrick et al. 2020, GassmanPines et al. 2020). As O’Connor et al. (2020) underlined, based on a survey from the United Kingdom, the adult population was particularly strongly affected in the initial phase of the pandemic. While the levels of loneliness and the symptoms of depression did not change significantly during the Covid-19 waves, suicidal ideation increased over time. Subgroup analyses showed that women, young people (18–29 years), those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health problems had worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors. Greyling et al.’s (2021) results from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa showed that lockdowns were associated with a decline in happiness, regardless of the characteristics of the country or the type and duration of lockdown regulations. Lades et al. (2020) underlined that during lockdowns, the time spent outdoors (going for walks, gardening, pursuing hobbies etc.) was associated with markedly raised positive effects and reduced negative emotions. In Germany, the crisis lowered the life satisfaction of individuals, especially for parents with young children, for women, and for persons with lower secondary schooling qualifications. The largest decreases were seen for families with toddlers and preschoolers, and the life satisfaction rates increased with the age of the children (Huebener et al. 2021). Based on the annual data from the Gallup World Poll, global life evaluation and happiness rankings proved stable; the same countries remained on the top of the list (Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and Switzerland). Using data from 95 countries, the World Happiness Report 2021 (Helliwell et al. 2021: 13-56) 15 concluded that the number of people who said they were worried or sad grew significantly worldwide. Similarly, the reported frequency of stress showed a remarkable increase in 2020. However, while “the pandemic’s toll on negative emotions is clear”, the life evaluation scores proved almost unchanged from 2017-2019 to 2020 on a global scale; in 26 countries they have increased, in 20 countries they have decreased significantly (ibid: 24). Moreover, there was an increase in the share of people who felt well-rested and who had done something interesting on the day prior to their interviews. There was a significant drop in the reported frequency of health problems too. The measurements of Petrovic et al. 15 In 2020, the Gallup World Poll team could not conduct face-to-face interviews. The shift from computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) to computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) may have changed the pool of respondents in some countries. However, the “data suggest that the effects of the method change are unlikely to have been large enough for the world as a whole to mask any large drops” (Helliwell 2021:24). FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 38 (2021) yielded surprising results with increasing scores of happiness in the Czech Republic, compared to previous years. 2020 is expected to be a historical nadir for international migration, since migration flows in the OECD area are estimated to have fallen by 46 per cent in the first semester of 2020. In general, migrants seem to be disproportionally exposed to the socio-economic effects of the crisis; in all countries for which data are available, immigrants’ unemployment has increased, compared to their native-born peers (OECD 2020). Since Hungarian workers in Austria are concentrated in sectors that are more affected by the economic downturn (e.g., the hospitality industry, 24-hour home nursing) similar processes might be observable. The way in which the economic recession, as a consequence of the lockdowns and other political measures to control the pandemic, influences the career patterns, the migration decisions, and the well-being of migrants will be also studied in the MIGWELL project through a battery of targeted survey questions and interviews. Finally, we plan to ask the interviewees how uncertain they feel about the future and what they consider to be the main sources of uncertainty in the shadows of the pandemic as well as the economic and energy crisis caused by the Ukrainian war. 6. The conceptual framework of MIGWELL 6.1 MIGWELL and migration theories The migration theories that were summarized in Chapter 3 are not necessarily contradictory. The causal processes relevant to international migration might operate on multiple levels simultaneously. It is entirely possible that individuals engage in cost-benefit calculations to maximize income, that households act to minimize risks, and that the socioeconomic context within which these decisions are made is determined by structural forces operating at national and international levels (Papademetriou and Martin, 1991). As Castles et al. (2014) have stressed, each of these theories has its place, and a full understanding of migration requires contributions from many of them. Thus, instead of building on one specific migration theory only, MIGWELL takes elements from different concepts. For the purpose of the project, microand meso-level approaches are especially relevant. Although the concept of well-being has long not been linked explicitly to any migration theories, the new economics and sociology of migration (NELM) have already highlighted the importance of perceived deprivation and some other subjective aspects of migration decision-making. According to NELM, migration might be an option for households towards obtaining a sustainable livelihood by avoiding deterioration of household poverty and improving capabilities and resilience (De Haan et al. 2002). The push-and-pull concept is widely considered relatively outdated. Yet, push-and-pull factors might serve as useful tools during the MIGWELL interviews and focus groups. These notions might offer a meaningful, easy-to-understand way for people to evaluate and interpret their individual migration decisions in the context of subjective well-being. Since the existence of migrant networks can play a FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 39 significant role in the decision-making process as well as in post-move subjective well-being changes, people’s connections with the expatriate community will also be surveyed. This endeavour requires the consideration of network theory as a meso-level approach. Migration cycles provide a key macro-level concept to put the Hungary-Austria migration nexus into a wider context. Although European countries do not necessarily pass though these phases in this exact order or at the same pace, and although the model of migration cycles does not reflect explicitly on the liquid forms of migration, the concept helps us to grasp the dynamics of international migration transition in Europe. While Austria, for instance, already represents a typical immigration country where the socio-demographic challenges of the welfare state – such as an ageing population, leading to increased pressure on the healthcare and elderly care system (Katona and Melegh 2020) – induce an increasing demand for immigrant workers, Hungary is in a transition phase where both directions of migration flow are similarly important, although its migration balance is negative in relation to Austria and other Western countries. In relation to that, the dual labour market theory might also be relevant to MIGWELL. People’s labour-market positioning before and after migration, and their relationship with their income and subjective well-being is an important aspect of this project. Finally, the project will reflect on the aspirations-capabilities approach too, by investigating migration inclinations and intentions of Hungarians living in Hungary and of potential returnees from Austria. 6.2 MIGWELL and the concept of well-being Since the secondary data sources of the MIGWELL project (EU-SILC, Hungarian microcensus) principally follow the OECD Guidelines, all of their SWB variables are necessary for a comparative analysis. As the recommended question modules suggest, “overall life evaluations should be assessed first, followed by eudaimonic well-being, with more specific questions about recent affective experiences asked next and domain-specific questions last” (OECD 2013a: 161-171) (Table 2). Table 2. A simple model of SWB measurement and related question examples, based on the OECD Guidelines (2013a: 33, 253-262). The list of sub-components and questions is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Measurement concept Life satisfaction Affect Eudaimonic well-being Sub-components Overall life satisfaction, satisfaction with income, satisfaction with accommodation, satisfaction with health status, etc. Happiness, anger, worry, etc. Meaning and purpose, autonomy, competence Recommended question modules 1. Life satisfaction 4. Domain satisfaction 2. Affect 3. Eudaimonia Question examples Overall, how satisfied are you with life as a whole these days? (0-10) How satisfied are you with your income / accommodation / working conditions / health / personal relationships etc.? Overall, how often did you feel happy / calm / worried / tired / angry / depressed / sad / stressed etc. these days? To what extent do you feel: the things you do in your life are worthwhile / you are free to decide how to live your life / that you are optimistic about your future? etc. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 40 However, subjective well-being cannot be sufficiently measured on its own, without considering the resources that people have and the relationships that influence their actions (McGregor 2007). Therefore, subjective reflection on life satisfaction, affect, and eudaimonia will be our focal point – again, based on pre-defined EU-SILC variables that are essential for a comparative analysis – while additional sets of questions on the material and relational dimensions are expected to provide deeper insight into the dynamics of the migration-SWB nexus. (Previous examples of methodological adaptations can be found, e.g., in Britton and Coulthard 2013, Te Lintelo et al. 2018.) Therefore, MIGWELL applies a hybrid approach in conceiving well-being, inspired by both the OECD and the WeD concepts (Figure 4). Figure 4. The relationship between the objective and subjective dimensions of well-being on a personal level according to MIGWELL (Source: own design) In practice, our goal will be to identify some relevant, objective, observable factors of wellbeing (household income, employment status, housing quality, etc.) and the social connections that people perceive as the most important in terms of the degree of their influence on migration behaviour and SWB. Respondents should identify, evaluate, and rank their relationships by importance. On the one hand, the strongest influence on migration decisions might be associated with macro-level (e.g., dissatisfaction with salary or state bureaucracy), meso-level (e.g., tensions within the community, dissatisfaction with the quality of local public services) 16 or even micro-level relationships such as familial relations. 16 Migali and Scipioni (2019) pointed out that migration potential tends to increase significantly along with people’s decreasing satisfaction with local public services, e.g., healthcare or educational institutions, and that the influence of this relationship can be stronger than that of income. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 47 Literature Adserà, A. (2015), Language and culture as drivers of migration. Linguistic and cultural barriers affect international migration flows. IZA World of Labor, 164. Alkire, S. (2002), Valuing Freedoms: Sen‘s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alkire, S. and Foster, J. E. (2011), Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement, Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8): 476–487. Allardt, E. (1976), Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavian study. Acta Sociologica, 19(3): 227–239. Allin, P. and Hand, D. (2014), The Wellbeing of Nations: Meaning, Motive and Measurement, Chichester, Wiley. Amit, K. and Riss, I. (2014), The subjective well-being of immigrants: preand post-migration, Social Indicators Research, 119, 247–264. Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. (1976), Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press Anheier, H. K., Stares, S. and Grenier, P. (2004), Social Capital and Life Satisfaction. In: Arts, W. and Halman, L. (Eds.), European Values at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden/Boston, Brill, 81-107 Arango, J. (2000), Explaining migration: a critical view. International Social Science Journal, 52(165): 283-296. Aristotle (2009 [350 B. C.]) The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford. Aspinwall, L. G. and Taylor, S. E. (1993), Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (5):708–722. Averitt, R. T. (1968), The Dual Economy. N.Y.: W.W. Norton C. Bakewell, O. (2021), Unsettling the boundaries between forced and voluntary migration. In Carmel, E., Lenner, K. and Paul, R. (Eds.), Handbook on the Politics and Governance of Migration. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 124-136. Bache, I. and Reardon, L. (2016), The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing: Understanding the Rise and Significance of a New Agenda. Edward Elgar. Baltatescu, S. (2007), Central and Eastern Europeans migrants’ subjective quality of life. A comparative study, Journal of Identity and Migration Studies, 1(2), 67–81. Bartram, D. (2010), International migration, open borders debates, and happiness, International Studies Review, 12(3), 339–361. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 48 Bartram, D. (2011), Economic migration and happiness: comparing immigrants’ and natives’ happiness gains from income, Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 57–76. Bartram, D. (2013), Happiness and 'economic migration': A comparison of Eastern European migrants and stayers, Migration Studies, 1(2), 156–175. Bauer, R. A. (1966), Social indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bauer, T. and Zimmermann, K. (1998), Causes of International Migration: A Survey. In Gorter, C., Nijkamp, P. and Poot, J. (Eds) Crossing Borders: Regional and Urban Perspectives on International Migration, London, Routledge, 95-127. Beitz, C. R., (1986), Amartya Sen’s Resources, Values and Development, Economics and Philosophy, 2 (2): 282-91. Bentham, J. (2013 [1843]), Principles of Morals and Legislation, Fragment on Government, Civil Code, Penal Law. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, Indiana. Bernard, A., Bell, M. and Charles-Edwards, E. (2014), Life-course transitions and the age profiles of the internal migration. Population and Development Review, 40(2): 213-239. Berry, J.W. (1997), Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34. Bertoli, S. (2010), Networks, Sorting and Self-Selection of Ecuadorian Migrants, Annals of Economics and Statistics, 97-98, Migration and Development, January/June 2010, 261-288. Bjørnskov, C. (2003), The Happy Few: Cross-Country Evidence on Social Capital and Life Satisfaction. Kyklos, 56(1): 3-16. Blumenstock, J. and Xu Tan (2016), Social Networks and Migration: Theory and Evidence from Rwanda. LINK Bobowik, M. (2011), Personal values and well-being among Europeans, Spanish natives and immigrants to Spain: Does the culture matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 401–419. Boehnke K., Schwartz, S.H., Stromberg C. and Sagiv, L. (1998), The Structure and dynamics of worry: Theory, measurement and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality, 66: 745782. Borjas, G. J. (1990), Friend or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the US Economy. New York: Basic Books. Borjas, G. J. (1992), Ethnic Capital and Intergenerational Mobility, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (1), 123–150. Bourdieu, P. (1986), The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press. 241-258. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 49 Bourish, R.Y., Moïse, L. C., Pereault, S. and Senécal, S. (1997), Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386. Boyce, C., Brown, G. and Moore, S. (2010), Money and Happiness: Rank of Income, not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction, Psychological Science, 21(4): 471–476. Boyle, P. (2009), Migration. In: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, 2009, pp. 96-107, LINK Bretell, C.B. and Hollifield, J.F. (eds) (2014), Migration Theory. Talking across Disciplines. 3rd edition, Routledge, New York, 356 p. Brickman, P. and Campbell, D. (1971), Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In: Appley, M.H. (ed): Adaptation-level theory: A symposium. Academic Press, New York. Britton, E. and Coulthard, S. (2013), Assessing the social wellbeing of Northern Ireland’s fishing society using a three-dimensional approach, Marine Policy, 37, 28–36 Camfield, L. and Skevington, S. M. (2008), On Subjective Well-being and Quality of Life, Journal of Health Psychology, 13(6): 764–775. Camfield, L., Crivello, G. and Woodhead, M. (2009), Wellbeing research in developing countries: Reviewing the role of qualitative methods. Social Indicators Research, 90(1): 5–31. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. and Rodgers, W. L. (1976), The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundations. Caporale, G.M., Georgellis, Y., Tsitsianis, Y. and Yin, Y. P. (2009), Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1): 42–51. Castles, S., De Haas, H. and Miller, M. J. (2014), The Age of migration. International population movements in the modern world. Fifth Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cerase, F. P. (1974), Expectations and Reality: A Case Study of Return Migration from the United States to Southern Italy. The International Migration Review, 8(2): 245-262. Chan J., To H., Chan E. (2006), Reconsidering social cohesion: developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research, Social Indicators Research, 75, 273-302 Christoph, B. (2010), The relation between life satisfaction and the material situation. A reevaluation using alternative measures, Social Indicators Research, 98(3): 475–499. Clark, A. and Oswald, A. (1996), Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61, 359-81. Clark, A. and Senik, C. (2011), Is happiness different from flourishing? Cross-country evidence from the ESS. Working Paper 2011-04, Paris, School of Economics. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 50 Clark, A. E. and Senik, C. (2014), Income comparisons in Chinese villages. In A. E. Clark and Senik, C. (eds), Happiness and Economic Growth: Lessons from Developing Countries, 216236. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P. and Shields, M.A. (2008), Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles, Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1): 95–144. Clark, A.E., and Senik, C. (2010), Who compares to whom? The anatomy of income comparisons in Europe. The Economic Journal, 120(544): 573–594. Clark, D. A. (2002), Visions of Development: A Study of Human Values. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Clark, D. A. (2005), The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances. Global Poverty Research Group Working Paper Series (GPRG-WPS-032) (https://base.socioeco.org/docs/developments_critiques_advances.pdf; retrieved 30-05-2022). Coccia M. (2019), Comparative World-Systems Theories. In: Farazmand A. (ed), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. New York: Springer. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3705-1; retrieved 30-05-2022). Cohen, R. (2007), Creolization and cultural globalization: The soft sounds of fugitive power. Globalizations, 4(3), 369–384. Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Pr., Cambridge Collins, R. L. (1995), For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on selfevaluations, Psychological Bulletin. 119 (1): 51–69. Collyer, M. (2005), When do social networks fail to explain migration? Accounting for the movement of Algerian asylum-seekers to the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31 (4), 699-718. Daly, H. E. and Cobb, J. B. (1989), For the common good: redirecting the economy towards community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, Boston. 482 p. De Haan, A., Brock, K. and Coulibaly, N. (2002), Migration, livelihoods and institutions: contrasting patterns of migration in Mali. Labour Mobility and Rural Society, 38(5), 37-58. De Haas, H. (2008), Migration and development. A theoretical perspective. IMI International Migration Institute, Working Papers, No. 9. 57 p. LINK De Haas, H. (2010), Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. The International Migration Review, 44(1): 227-264. De Haas, H. (2010), The Internal Dynamics of Migration Processes: A Theoretical Inquiry, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (10), 1587-1617. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 51 De Haas, H. (2021), A theory of migration: the aspirations–capabilities framework, Comparative Migration Studies, 9(8): 1-35. De Jong, G. F., Chamratrithirong, A. and Tran, Q.-G. (2002), For better, for worse: life satisfaction consequences of migration, International Migration Review, 36(3), 838–863. Di Fabio, A. and Palazzeschi, L. (2015), Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: the role of resilience beyond fluid intelligence and personality traits, Frontiers in Psychology: 6(1367). Diener, E. (1984), Subjective Well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 95: 542–575. Diener, E. (1994), Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31(2): 103–157. Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(4): 397–404. Diener, E. (2012), New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist, November 2012, 590–597. Diener, E. and Suh, E. (1997), Measuring the quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. Diener, E., Kahneman, D. Arora, R., Harter, J. and Tov, W. (2009), Income’s Differential Influence on Judgements of Life versus Affective Well-Being. In: Diener, E. (ed), Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener, Springer, Dordrecht. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. and Smith H. L. (1999), Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress, Psychological Review, 125: 276–302. Doeringer, P. B., Piore, M. J. (1971), Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, Ma.: Heath Lexington Books Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Hodson, G., Houlette, M.A., and Johnson, K.M. (2005), Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Recategorization and the Perception of Intergroup Boundaries. In: Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. and Marques, J.M. (eds), The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion. Psychology Press: New York. Hove. 245-265. Dragolov, G., Ignácz, Z. S., Lorenz, J., Delhey, J., Boehnke, K., and Unzicker, K. (2016), Social cohesion in the Western world: What holds societies together. Cham, Switzerland, Springer. Dragolov, G., Delhey, J. and Boehnke, K. (eds) (2018), Social cohesion and well-being in Europe. Eurofound, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Driori, I., Honig, B. and Ginsberg, A. (2010), Researching Transnational Enterpreneurship: an Approach based on the Theory of Practice, in: Honig, B., Driori, I. and Carmichael, B. (eds) Transnational and Immigrant Enterpreneurship in a Globalized World. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, pp. 3-30. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 52 Duesenberry, J. S. (1949), Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dumludag, D. (2014), Satisfaction and Comparison Income in Transition and Developed Economies, International Review of Economics, 61: 127–152. Dumont, J-Ch. and Spielvogel, G. (2008), Return Migration: A New Perspective. International Migration Outlook, SOPEMI – OECD. 161–222. Easterlin, R. A. (1974), Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. In: David, P. A. and Reder, M. W. (eds.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, Academic Press, New York, 89–125. Easterlin, R. A. (1995), Will Raising the Incomes of all Increase the Happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 27, 35–47. Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O. and Zweig, J. S. (2010), The happiness–income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(52): 22463–22468. EC (=European Commission) (2007), Regulation 862/2007. LINK Elrick, T. and Lewandowska, E. (2008), Matching and Making Labour Demand and Supply: Agents in Polish Migrant Networks of Domestic Elderly Care in Germany and Italy, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38 (5), 717-734. Engbersen, G. (2012), Migration transitions in an era of liquid migration. In: Okólski, M. (ed.): European immigrations. trends, structures and policy implications, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 91-106. Erlinghagen, M. (2012), Nowhere better than here? The subjective well-being of German emigrants and remigrants, Comparative Population Studies, 36(4), 899–926. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fassmann, H. (2002), Transnationale Mobilität: Empirische Befunde und theoretische Überlegungen. Leviathan, 30: 345-359. Fassmann, H. (2011), Konzepte der (geographischen) Migrationsund Integrationsforschung, In: Fassmann, H. and Dahlvik, J. (eds.), Migrationsund Integrationsforschung – multidisziplinäre Perspektiven, Vienna: Vienna University Press. Fassmann, H. and Reeger, U. (2012), Old immigration countries in Europe. The concept and empirical examples, In: Okólski, M. (ed.): European immigrations. trends, structures and policy implications, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 65-90. Fassmann, H., Gruber, E. and Németh, Á. (2018), Conceptual framework for the study of youth migration in the Danube region. YOUMIG Working Papers, No.1. LINK FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 53 Fassmann, H., Musil, E., Bauer, R., Melegh, A. and Gruber, K. (2014), Longer-Term Demographic Dynamics in South-East Europe: Convergent, Divergent and Delayed Development Paths. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 3(2), 150-172. Frank, A. G. and Gills, B. K. (1993), The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? London: Routledge. Frey, B. S. and Stutzer, A. (2002), What can Economists Learn from Happiness Research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 42–435. Gábor R. I. (1997), Belső versus foglalkozási munkaerőpiac - a posztszocialista átalakulás elhanyagolt dimenziója. Közgazdasági Szemle, 6. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Szanton Blanc, C. (1995), From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1): 48-63. Gödri, I. and Feleky, G. A. (2013), Migrációs tervek és megvalósulása egy követéses vizsgálat tükrében. Az előzetes migrációs szándék, a várakozások és a külső elvárások szerepe, Demográfia, 56(4), 281–332. Göncz, B., Lengyel, Gy. and Tóth, L. (eds.) (2012), Migrants and the Hungarian Society. Dignity, Justice and Civic Integration. CUB, Budapest. LINK Gough, I. and McGregor, J. A. (eds.) (2007), Well-being in developing countries: from theory to research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Graham, C. (2009), Happiness Around the World: The Paradox of Happy Peasants and Miserable Millionaires. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Graham, C. and Markowitz, J. (2011), Aspirations and happiness of potential Latin American immigrants, Journal of Social Research and Policy, 2(2), 9–25. Gray et al. (2020), The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Well-Being and Psychological Distress: Impact Upon a Single Country. Psychiatry, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.594115 Greyling, T., Rossouw, S. Adhikari, T. (2021), A Tale of Three Countries: What is the Relationship Between COVID‐19, Lockdown and Happiness? South African Journal of Economics, 89(1): 25-43. Gruber, E. and Németh, Á. (2021), EU’s Mobile youth in the European Danube region: how transnational cooperation can help to deal with migration challenges. In: Rauhut, D., Sielker, F. and Humer, A. (eds.), EU Cohesion Policy and Spatial Governance. Territorial, Social and Economic Challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing, 230-243. Grzymała-Kazłowska, A. (2005), From ethnic cooperation to in-group competition: Undocumented Polish workers in Brussels, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4): 675-697. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 54 Guadagno, L. (2020), Migrants and the COVID-19 pandemic: An initial analysis. IOM Migration Research Series, 60, Geneva. LINK Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, J. and Vogel, J. (2001), Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and Agenda for Research. Social Indicators Research, 55: 1–96. Harris, J. R. and Todaro, M. P. (1970), Migration, Unemployment and Development: a TwoSector Analysis. The American Economic Review, 60(1): 126-142. Hárs, Á. (2008), Migrációs tervek és megvalósulásuk. Okok, ösztönzők és visszatartó erők. Kopint Konjunktúra Kutatási Alapítvány, Kézirat. Headey, B. (2008), The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being: Negative Results and Consequent Revisions, Social Indicators Research, 85, 389–403. Headey, B., Muffels, R. and Wooden, M. (2008), Money does not buy happiness: Or does it? A reassessment based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption. Social Indicators Research, 87(1): 65–82. Helliwell, J.F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. and De Neve, J. (eds) (2021), World Happiness Report 2021. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York. LINK Hendriks, M. and Bartram, D. (2018), Bringing Happiness into the Study of Migration and Its Consequences: What, Why, and How? Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, May 2018 Hirschman, A. and Rothschild, M. (1973), The Changing Tolerance for Income Inequality in the Course of Economic Development, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(4), 544–566. Hodson, R. and Kaufman, R. (1982), Economic Dualism: a Critical Review. American Sociological Review, 47. Huebener, M., Waights, S., Spiess, C.K., Siegel, N. A. and Wagner, G. G. (2021), Parental wellbeing in times of Covid-19 in Germany. Review of Economics of the Household, 19: 91–122. Hyman, H. H. (1942), The psychology of status. Archives of psychology, 269. New York. Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization, Postmodernization and Changing Perceptions of Risk, International Review of Sociology, 7 (3), 449-460. IOM (2013), World Migration Report 2013: Migrant Well-Being and Development. Geneva. Ivlevs, A. (2015), Happy Moves? Assessing the Link Between Life Satisfaction and Emigration Intentions, Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP, 9017. LINK Jennissen, R. P. W. (2004), Macro-Economic Determinants of International Migration in Europe. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 55 Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N. (eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 3-25. Kahneman, D. and Krueger, A. B. (2006), Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1): 3–24. Katona, N. and Melegh, A. (2020), Towards a scarcity of care? Tensions and contradictions in transnational elderly care systems in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Napvilág Kiadó. Katz, L. and Monk, J. (1993), Full Circles – Geographies of Women Over the Life Course. London: Routledge. King, M. F., Reno, V. F and Novo, E. (2014), The Concept, Dimensions and Methods of Assessment of Human Well-Being within a Socioecological Context: A Literature Review, Social Indicators Research, 116(3): 681-698. King, R. (1986), Return Migration and Regional Economic Problems. Routeledge. London. King, R., Lulle, A., Morosanu, L., and Williams, A. (2016), International Youth Mobility and Life Transitions in Europe: Questions, Definitions, Typologies and Theoretical Approaches. Working Paper, 86, University of Sussex, Sussex Centre for Migration Research. Klein, C. (2013), Social Capital or Social Cohesion: What Matters For Subjective Well-Being? Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, 110(3), 891-911.. Knight, H. F. (2006 [1921]), Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit: The Economic Theory of Uncertainty in Business Enterprise, and Its Connection to Profit and Prosperity in Society. Dover Publ. Inc. Knight, J. and Gunatilaka, R. (2010), Great expectations? The subjective well-being of ruralurban migrants in China, World Development, 38(1), 113–124. Kovács, É. and Melegh, A. (2001), It could have been worse, we could have gone to America. -- Migration Narratives in the Transylvania-Hungary-Austria Triangle In: Nyíri, P. et al. (eds). Diasporas and Politics. MTA Politikai Tud. Int. Nemzetközi Migráció Kutatócsoport Évkönyve, 108-138. Krissman, F. (2005), Sin coyote ni patrón: Why the ‘migrant metwork’ fails to explain international migration, International Migration Review, 39 (1), 4-44. Krüger, H. and Baldus, B. (1999), Work, gender and the life course: social construction and individual experience, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 24(3): 355-379. Lades, L.K., Laffan, K., Daly, M. and Delaney, L. (2020), Daily emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4): 902-911. FWF–NKFIH Joint Project 56 Lados, G. and Hegedüs. G. (2016) Returning home: An evaluation of Hungarian return migration. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 65(4): 321-331. Layard, R. (2005), Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Allen Lane, London. Lee, E. S. (1966), A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1): 47-57. Lengyel, Gy. (2012), Action Potential, Dignity, Civic Participation and Subjective Well-Being. In: Göncz, B., Lengyel, Gy. and Tóth, L. (eds) (2012), Migrants and the Hungarian Society. Dignity, Justice and Civic Integration. CUB, Budapest, 133–154. Lengyel, Gy., Göncz, B. and Tóth, L. (2017), Expected Long-Term Labour Market Resilience and the European Union’s Perceived Role. Results of an Online Policy Delphi, Society and Economy, 39(2): 165-182. Lengyel, Gy. and Vicsek, L. (2004), The Individual and Social Components of Insecurity. In: Kolosi, T., Vukovich, Gy. and Tóth, I. Gy. (Eds), Social Report 2004, Budapest: TÁRKI, 469– 483. Light, I., Bhachu, P. and Karageorgis, S. (1990), Migration Networks and Immigrant Entrepreneurship, The Conference Papers, Volume V, April 1990, California Immigrants in World Perspective, Institute for Social Science Research, UC Los Angeles. LINK Marks, N., Simms, A., Thompson, S. and Abdallah, S. (2006), The Happy Planet Index: An index of human well-being and environmental impact. London: New Economics Foundation. Massey, D. S. (1988), Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective, Population and Development Review, 14, 383-413. Massey, D. S. (1990), Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56(1), 3–26. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. and J. E. Taylor (1993), Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal, Population and Development Review, 19(3): 43-166. McGregor, J. A. (2007), Researching human well-being: from concepts to methodology. In: Gough, I. and McGregor, J. A. (eds.) (2007), Well-being in developing countries: from theory to research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 316–350. McGregor, J. A. and Pouw, N. (2017), Towards an economics of well-being, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41, 1123–1142. McGregor, J. A. and Sumner, A. (2010), Beyond business as usual: what might 3-D well-being contribute to MDG momentum? IDS Bulletin, 41(1): 104–112. McGregor, J. A., Camfield, L. and Woodcock, A. (2009), Needs, wants and goals: Wellbeing, quality of life and public policy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4(2): 135–154.