Speranta Dumitru

Methodological nationalism assumes that, to understand a phenomenon, nation- states are the relevant units of analysis. This assumption has been recognized as a source of bias in most of the social sciences. Does it bias Rawls' understanding of justice, too? This paper argues that it does for at least two reasons. Firstly, what Rawls thinks justice requires on a global scale falls short of what states and international organisations actually do. Secondly, framing the difference principle in national terms, as Rawls did, is a way to increase the “citizenship rent”, or the revenue a person receives just by being citizen of a rich country The paper argues that methodological nationalism biases Rawls’ understanding of justice by affecting both the plausibility and the coherence of his theory.

Migrant women are often stereotyped. Some scholars associate the feminization of migration with domestic work and criticize the “care drain” as a new form of imperialism that the First World imposes on the Third World. However, migrant women employed as domestic workers in Northern America and Europe represent only 2% of migrant women worldwide and cannot be seen as characterizing the “feminization of migration”. Why are migrant domestic workers overestimated? This paper explores two possible sources of bias. The first is sampling: conclusions about “care drain” are often generalized from small samples of domestic workers. The second stems from the affect heuristic: imagining children left behind by migrant mothers provokes strong feelings of injustice which trump other considerations. The paper argues that neither source of bias is unavoidable and finds evidence of gender stereotypes in the “care drain” construal

he paper analyses migration flows from the Philippines in two gendered occupations: domestic helpers and computer programmers. The international division of labour theory claims that foreign investment determines migration from developing countries, especially of women, towards low-skilled gendered occupations in developed countries. This paper shows that the division of labour is neither gendered nor international in the predicted sense. For instance, data from Philippines Overseas Employment Agency shows that the theory is Eurocentric as Northern America and Europe are destinations for only 3 per cent of domestic workers’ flows. The paper argues that neo-Marxism creates bias in gender and migration research and hinders understanding of important gendered effects concerning migrants. Two examples of such gendered effects are highlighted here: the higher vulnerability to legislative change of migrant men employed as domestic workers in Italy and the higher penetration of women into computer programming in the migrant flows to the U.S.

The metaphor of “care drain” has been created as a womanly parallel to the “brain drain” idea. Just as “brain drain” suggests that the skilled migrants are an economic loss for the sending country, “care drain” describes the migrant women hired as care workers as a loss of care for their children left behind. This paper criticizes the construction of migrant women as “care drain” for three reasons: 1) it is built on sexist stereotypes, 2) it misrepresents and devalues care work, and 3) it misses the opportunity for a theoretical change about how skills in migration contexts can be understood.

This article argues that there are at least three different versions of methodological nationalism: state-centrism (unjustified supremacy granted to the nation-state), territorialism (understanding space as divided in territories), and groupism (equating society with the nation-state’s society). If these three versions are logically distinct, as it will be shown, the typology can serve as a tool to weight the influence of methodological nationalism in the social sciences. The paper has three sections arguing that 1) the three versions are all present in the literature on methodological nationalism without always being distinguished; 2) the epistemological problems raised by methodological nationalism are sometimes misunderstood as ontological or normative questions about globalization and national borders; 3) the three versions of methodological nationalism can be shown to be logically independent by a few examples.

If migration is more effective than aid for fighting poverty, should it replace aid? Not always. This article proposes a criterion that may be used to distinguish between cases where migration should serve as a substitute for development assistance and cases where it should supplement such aid. According to this criterion, development agendas are poverty-efficient when they lift the largest possible number of people out of poverty. Therefore, to be poverty-efficient, development agendas should always aim to complement aid with policies for pulling people out of poverty. Development assistance that is not poverty-efficient should be abandoned and replaced by migration and other policies that can effectively fight poverty.

Are intellectual property rights for talented people justified by Rawls’ criteria of justice? In this paper, I argue that Rawls’ theory of justice is ill-equipped to answer this question. Tailored for rival goods and, as a result, centred on the distribution of benefits, it tends to restate questions of justice about unequal rights as questions about economic inequalities. Therefore, it lacks the tools necessary to distinguish among different forms of incentives for talented people. Once social and economic inequalities observe equality of opportunity and improve the least advantaged, the theory is indifferent as to whether talented people are allowed to compete for monopoly rights or for direct financial reward.

Au regard du vieux débat sur la « fuite des cerveaux », le devoir de promouvoir le développement des pays pauvres semblait incompatible avec le droit humain à l’émigration. A l’encontre de cette idée, Jagdish Bhagwati a proposé dans les années 70 une mesure qui permettait au personnel qualifié de quitter les pays pauvres, tout en taxant leur revenu au bénéfice de leurs pays d’origine. Cet article discute (et rejette) trois justifications possibles de la taxe Bhagwati. Il conclut qu’une telle mesure ne peut être défendue ni comme une compensation pour ce que le pays aurait gagné si les diplômés n’avaient pas émigré, ni comme une obligation de réciprocité basée sur l’investissement dans l’éducation, ni comme une mesure de diminution de l’inégalité entre les opportunités des migrants et de ceux qui restent au pays. Si la mobilité géographique va de pair avec la mobilité sociale, taxer les migrants revient à taxer la mobilité sociale, plutôt que les hauts revenus eux-mêmes.

It is often argued that development aid can and should compensate the restrictions on migration. Such compensation, Shachar has recently argued, should be levied as a tax on citizenship to further the global equality of opportunity. Since citizenship is essentially a ‘birthright lottery’, that is, a way of legalizing privileges obtained by birth, it would be fair to compensate the resulting gap in opportunities available to children born in rich versus poor countries by a ‘birthright privilege levy’. This article sets out a defence of three theses. The first states that equality of opportunity is incompatible with, and cannot be achieved in, segregated territories. The second posits that to believe that material equality compensates the injustice of restrictions on movement is to commit a ‘sedentarist mistake’. The third affirms that any citizenship levy, including the egalitarian and non-sedentarist formula I’m proposing, would be better understood as a penalty rather than a tax.

Brain drain critiques and human rights advocates have conflicting views on emigration. From a brain drain perspective, the emigration harms a country when emigrants are skilled and the source country is poor. From the human rights perspective, the right "to leave any country, including one's own" is a fundamental right, protected for all, whatever their skills. Is the concern with poverty and social justice at odds with the right to emigrate? At the beginning of the l970s, the economist Jagdish Bhagwati replied in the negative. He imagined a tax on the income earned by the skilled migrants in the destination country, to the benefit of the source country. He thus sought to reconcile the right to emigration and the brain drain effects. This article argues that there is no need to tax skilled migrants in order to reconcile the right to emigration and social justice. Social justice is not incompatible with the right to emigration but rather with restrictions on mobility. If it is both the case that equal opportunities are a minimal requisite for social justice, and that access to opportunities implies freedom of movement, as I shall argue, then the brain drain criticism doesn't satisfy the minimal requirements of social justice. The article is divided into three parts. Each part rejects one of the possible justifications of the Bhagwati tax, that is, as a way, for skilled migrants, (i.) to compensate the welfare loss occasioned to their country of origin; (ii.) to discharge for their obligation to the national community when it publicly financed their education; and (iii.) to compensate for the resulting inequality of opportunities between themselves and their non-migrant compatriots.

This paper argues that by overestimating the importance of citizenship rights, the ethics of immigration turns away from the more serious problem of closed borders. Precisely, this contribution is a threefold critique of Carens’ idea that "justice requires that democratic states grant citizenship at birth to the descendants of settled immigrants" (Carens, 2013: 20). Firstly, I argue that by making 'justice' dependent on states and their attributes (birthright citizenship), this idea strengthens methodological nationalism which views humanity as naturally divided into bounded nation-states. Secondly, I analyze its justification and argue that grounding (citizenship) rights on the existence of social connections is logically and morally problematic. Thirdly, I analyze its scope (granting rights to the descendants of the ‘settled’) and its method of implementation (granting citizenship rights automatically ‘at birth’). While from a less sedentarist perspective, no one can be considered ‘settled’ in advance, I will express some doubts that granting citizenship rights is always automatically a way to extend people’s rights. All in all, I argue that by its justification, scope and method of implementation, this idea moves us away from, rather than gets us closer to, an open-borders world

This article is devoted to analysing the ethical commitments underlying research methodology on “brain drain” and leading participants in the public debate to deny the human right of emigration for skilled persons. Here, we identify five such commitments : to consequentialism, prioritarianism and nationalism, we add sedentarism and elitism. Based on this analysis, we argue that even though the emigration of the most talented would be a loss for the country of origin, this loss is not sufficient to require that migrants themselves compensate it – either by tax payments (e.g. Bhagwati’s tax proposal) or by not exercising their right to emigrate. Moreover, to interpret public investment in education as the source of migrants’ further obligations to their country is to view education rather as a source of dividends than an access to opportunity that present generations owe to futures ones.

The high frequency that the question “where are you from” gets asked in ordinary conversation, as well as the insistence on getting private information from people one hardly knows, reveal an interesting phenomenon: an exceptional reversing of the codes of politeness, where indiscretion becomes the rule while efforts to avoid it become impolite acts. In order to explain this phenomenon, this article compares the hypothesis of racial micro-aggression defended by the existing literature and supported by the results of the French survey Trajectories and Origins, to the hypothesis of methodological nationalism. The article shows that the second hypothesis provides a better explanation of how the “where are you from” question is actually practiced. The article’s thesis is that the importance of the “where are you from” question in ordinary conversations is a measure of the banalization of methodological nationalism

Dans l’opinion publique, la migration « irrégulière » est associée à l’entrée et au séjour non autorisés. Un nombre croissant d’études indiquent toutefois qu’elle résulte de la production de catégories légales de séjour autorisé. Le présent chapitre enrichit cette littérature, en montrant comment la construction de la catégorie légale de travail autorisé est productrice d’immigration « irrégulière ». En effet, la multiplication des conditions d’accès à l’autorisation de travail a pour effet de priver de droit au séjour des personnes autrement en situation régulière. La France, située en tête de classement en matière d’obligations de quitter le territoire et en fin de classement en matière d’immigration professionnelle, représente un cas d’école parmi les pays de l’Union Européenne

La « féminisation de la migration internationale » constitue la nouvelle formule magique de nombreuses études migratoires. Or, depuis un demi-siècle, la part des femmes dans la migration internationale n’a pas vraiment augmenté. En revanche, les femmes représentent aujourd’hui plus de la moitié des migrants diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur dans les pays de l’OCDE. Pourtant, cette féminisation de la migration qualifiée est moins souvent discutée. Comme si les diplômes des femmes migrantes devaient rester aussi invisibles dans la recherche que sur le marché du travail.

Methodological nationalism is the assumption that nation-states are the relevant units for analyzing social phenomena. Most of the social sciences recognized it as a source of bias, but not the ethics of immigration. Is this field biased by methodological nationalism—and if so, to what extent? This article takes nationalism as an implicit bias and provides a method to assess its depth. The method consists in comparing principles that ethicists commonly discuss when immigration is not at stake with principles advocated in the ethics of immigration. To interpret the results, a distinction between mild and heavy bias is established. When a basic principle in ethics is underdiscussed or absent from the ethics of immigration, the field is ‘mildly biased’. When its negation is commonly advocated, the field is ‘heavily biased’. Here, the method is illustrated with two principles: equal opportunity and reparation. They are common in theories of distributive justice and of corrective justice, respectively. But in the ethics of immigration, scholars often argue for the opposite. Instead of equal opportunity, they implicitly support discrimination based on national origin; instead of sanctions or amnesty for the offenders, scholars plead amnesty for those who they otherwise regard as victims. These preliminary results suggest that the field is heavily biased: methodological nationalism seems to turn ethics into its opposite.

The aim of this article is to show that refusing to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants who have been long-term residents is a serious violation of human rights. The "right to have rights" ­ a term coined by Hannah Arendt and developed by Sheila Benhabib ­ should be construed first and foremost as the right to a legal existence. We take issue with consequentialists who warn that legalizing the status of undocumented aliens will encourage further undesirable immigration, for withholding legal status in order to deter illegal newcomers is neither efficacious nor just. We conclude that "selective" as opposed to "endured" immigration policies are ethically untenable.

Cet article propose une évaluation éthique des institutions qui organisent la transplantation avec donneurs décédés, au travers du rôle qu’elles accordent à la famille survivante. Son objectif est double. Il s’agit, premièrement, de montrer que la famille possède un pouvoir de décision considérable en matière de prélèvement posthume bien que les législations soient habituellement décrites comme fondées sur le consentement ou l’opposition des personnes concernées. Deuxièmement, il s’agit de montrer que les politiques qui octroient un tel pouvoir aux familles manquent à un devoir d’équité, en négligeant les intérêts à la fois des personnes concernées et des malades en attente de greffe.

Este artículo analiza los compromisos éticos que implica la metodología de la investigación sobre la “fuga de cerebros” y que conducen a los que participan en el debate público a cuestionar el derecho a la emigración de personas calificadas. Se identifican cinco presupuestos de este debate : el consecuencialismo, el prioritarismo y el nacionalismo, así como lo que llamamos “sedentarismo” y elitismo. Este análisis muestra que, si bien la emigración de talentos representa una pérdida para el país de origen, ésta no es razón suficiente para exigir que los migrantes cualificados la compensen, ya sea mediante el pago de un impuesto (la tasa Bhagwati) o a través de la denegación del derecho a emigrar. Además, ver la inversión pública en educación como fundamento de obligaciones para los migrantes es considerar la educación más como una fuente de dividendos que como un acceso a oportunidades que las generaciones actuales deben a las que siguen.

Dans l'opinion publique, la migration « irrégulière » est associée à l'entrée et au séjour non autorisés. Un nombre croissant d'études indiquent toutefois qu'elle résulte de la production de catégories légales de séjour autorisé. Le présent chapitre enrichit cette littérature, en montrant comment la construction de la catégorie légale de travail autorisé est productrice d'immigration « irrégulière ». En effet, la multiplication des conditions d'accès à l'autorisation de travail a pour effet de priver de droit au séjour des personnes autrement en situation régulière. La France, située en tête de classement en matière d'obligations de quitter le territoire et en fin de classement en matière d'immigration professionnelle, représente un cas d'école parmi les pays de l'Union Européenne.

Les derniers écrits de John Rawls sont marqués à la fois par la reconnaissance du « fait du pluralisme » et par la défense d’une conception « politique » de justifica-tion publique, indépendante de considérations métaphysiques et épistémiques. Le but de cet article est de montrer que l’abstinence épistémique n’est ni une façon d’assurer le respect mutuel des citoyens, ni un moyen de diminuer le désaccord dans une société pluraliste. Faire de son mieux dans l’observance des normes épistémiques de la justification est une façon certes indirecte, mais plus solide de faire montre du respect dû à autrui, en tant que personne capable non seulement de former sa conception du bien, mais aussi de la réviser

En 2010, les femmes constituaient la majorité des migrants qualifiés présents dans 20 pays membres de l’OCDE. Comment expliquer l’absence d’intérêt pour le phénomène de « féminisation de la migration qualifiée » que ces statistiques permettent d’observer ? À l’inverse, comment comprendre l’engouement pour l’expression « féminisation de la migration » (tout court) alors que les données ne la confirment pas ? Pour répondre à ces questions, cet article analyse les usages de l’expression « féminisation de la migration » et identifie son origine dans la théorie de la division internationale du travail. Centrée sur une critique de la mobilité du capital, cette théorie prédit une féminisation de la migration et l’associe aux emplois peu qualifiés. Cependant, les recherches qui s’en inspirent risquent de perdre de vue le diplôme de l’enseignement supérieur qui représente le véritable passeport pour les femmes originaires des pays en développement.

Methodological nationalism is the assumption that nation-states are the relevant units for analyzing social phenomena. Most of the social sciences recognized it as a source of bias, but not the ethics of immigration. Is this field biased by methodological nationalism—and if so, to what extent? This article takes nationalism as an implicit bias and provides a method to assess its depth. The method consists in comparing principles that ethicists commonly discuss when immigration is not at stake with principles advocated in the ethics of immigration. To interpret the results, a distinction between mild and heavy bias is established. When a basic principle in ethics is underdiscussed or absent from the ethics of immigration, the field is ‘mildly biased’. When its negation is commonly advocated, the field is ‘heavily biased’. Here, the method is illustrated with two principles: equal opportunity and reparation. They are common in theories of distributive justice and of corrective justice, respectively. But in the ethics of immigration, scholars often argue for the opposite. Instead of equal opportunity, they implicitly support discrimination based on national origin; instead of sanctions or amnesty for the offenders, scholars plead amnesty for those who they otherwise regard as victims. These preliminary results suggest that the field is heavily biased: methodological nationalism seems to turn ethics into its opposite.

Rawls' original position is a thought experiment by which we are asked to imagine ourselves as rational agents choosing the principles of justice under specific informational and motivational constraints. In this paper, I am concerned only with the informational constraints and I shall argue that the way Rawls designed them reveals an implausible conception of mind and knowledge. This conception, of a mind separable from knowledge, as well as one of its correlates which I will call epistemic egalitarianism, is not an objection one may address uniquely to the original position. However, the failure to construct the original position as a one-solution problem renders its epistemology not only implausible but of no use for moral reasoning

This paper analyses the demands for abolishing passports after WWI. The international regime of obligatory passports, as it exists today, is a legacy of the Great War. After the Armistice, two Passport Conferences organized by the League of Nations considered its abolition. Before the second conference, a resolution of the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations stated that "public opinion is certainly waiting for at least one step towards the most generalized abolition of the passport system ". Was this just a diplomatic figure of speech, or is there really such an "expectation" to be found, for instance, in the press? If there was such an expectation in the press, what was the political orientation of the newspapers in favor of abolishing passports: was it left-wing? This article analyzes a corpus of over 600 articles published in the French press between the World Wars to show, firstly, that interest in the "abolition of passports" was not circumstantial. It's not because the League of Nations is discussing it that the press is discussing it - the opposite is true. The issue of the "abolition of passports" gave rise to a greater number of articles than the League’s "passport conferences". secondly, and more surprisingly, the newspapers that published the most articles on the abolition of passports were center-right and mostly regional.

The international system of obligatory passports, as it exists today, was established at the beginning of the First World War. After the Armistice, the League of Nations tried to abolish it, but several governments delayed it. This article analyzes how the French press of the interwar period called for the abolition of passports. Seen as a "vexation", the passport was deemed "useless" after the war. So why wasn’t it abolished? Among the reasons for maintaining passports, we explore the hypothesis of political “utility”: the regime of obligatory passports enabled governments to refuse passports and thus to control the transnational activity of political opponents.