Migration Decision-Making and Its Key Dimensions

• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Author: Jakub Bijak,Toby Prike,Mathias Czaika
• DOI: 10.1177/00027162211052233
• Date: 01 September 2021

ANNALS, AAPSS, 697, September 2021 15

DOI: 10.1177/00027162211052233

Migration

Decision-

Making and Its

Key

Dimensions

By

MATHIAS CZAIKA,

JAKUB BIJAK,

and

TOBY PRIKE

1052233ANN The Annals of The American AcademyMigration Decision-Making and its Key Dimensions

research-article2021

Migration decisions are made in the context of personal

needs and desires, and the individuals making these

decisions face uncertain outcomes. Information about

future opportunities is incomplete, and whether migra-

tion turns out to be a personal success or failure

depends mostly on circumstances that are ex ante

unknown and ex post not fully under the control of

the individuals who migrate. This article elaborates on

four dimensions of the complex process of migration

decision-making: the formation of migration aspirations,

the cognitive rules for searching and evaluating

information about migratory options, the timing and

planning horizons for preparing and realizing migratory

decisions, and the locus of control and degree of

agency in making migration decisions. We review the

current state of evidence and identify opportunities for

future empirical research that can help us to better

understand these key dimensions of migration deci-

sion-making.

Keywords: aspirations; information; locus of control;

migration decisions; time horizon; uncer-

tainty

Understanding migration decisions is of

fundamental importance for broader

society and policy-makers, as well as migrants

and potential migrants themselves. Migration

decisions are made at important crossroads in

people’s lives, determine and are determined

Mathias Czaika is a professor in migration and integra-

tion and head of the Department for Migration and

Globalization at Danube University in Krems, Austria.

His research focuses on drivers, policies, processes of

migration in the context of globalization, development,

and inequality. He currently works on the QuantMig

and MIGNEX projects.

Jakub Bijak is a professor of statistical demography and

joint head of the Department of Social Statistics and

Demography at the University of Southampton. His

research focuses on applying quantitative methods to

illuminate uncertainty in population and migration

studies. He leads the Bayesian Agent-Based Population

Studies and QuantMig projects.

Correspondence: Mathias.Czaika@donau-uni.ac.at

16 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

by long-term life trajectories, and bring lasting consequences for the decision-

maker and people affected by the decisions. Migration scholars often presume

that due to their relative rarity and long-term implications, migration decisions

should be highly rational and characterized by the best possible assessment of

costs and benefits. In reality, however, migration decisions are often made in the

context of idiosyncratic personal needs, stress, urgency, and, above all, uncer-

tainty and limited information about livelihood opportunities. Imagine, for

instance, a government worker in Afghanistan trying to make sense of whether

she should try to leave the country, given the recent regime change, or a 20-year-

old son of a subsistence farmer in Honduras who is considering whether he can

contribute to better fortunes for his family by trying to find a job in the United

States. Information about the future and its opportunities is incomplete, and

whether migration turns out to be to a migrant’s benefit or a real failure depends

largely on circumstances that are ex ante unknown and ex post not fully under

control of the migrant.

In this article, we propose a typology of migration decisions that cuts across

four interrelated dimensions of cognition in migration decision-making pro-

cesses. We think of the formation of migration aspirations as a largely needs-

driven process and as a fundamental prerequisite for self-determined migration

decisions. To that end, we first review the state of knowledge regarding migration

aspirations formation and adaptation, and then specify established cognitive fea-

tures and biases that may be influential in migration decision-making.

Further, we examine migration decisions according to how informed they are

and how long the decision-making process takes. On one hand, migration decision-

making can be a highly conscientious multistep and gradual process of aspiration

formation, resource accumulation, search for life and livelihood opportunities, and

a decision among well-identified migratory options. This may ultimately lead to a

highly informed, self-determined, and comprehensive assessment of multiple

forms of costs and benefits, reducing the epistemic uncertainty surrounding the

decisions as much as possible. But migration can also be the result of ad hoc deci-

sions based on scarce information and minimal planning and preparation. All forms

of migration decisions are surrounded by often very high and possibly irreducible

uncertainty and are conceptualized as driven by some simple decision rules (heu-

ristics) and other shortcuts such as imitation, affect, norms, and commitments.

Toby Prike is a research fellow in the Department of Social Statistics and Demography at the

University of Southampton. His research background is in psychology, with specific focuses on

judgement and decision-making, reasoning, non-evidence-based beliefs, and metacognition. He

currently works on the Bayesian Agent-Based Population Studies project.

NOTE: This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research

and innovation programme; grants no. 870299 QuantMig: Quantifying Migration Scenarios for

Better Policy (MC and JB) and no. 725232 BAPS: Bayesian Agent-Based Population Studies

(JB and TP). A preliminary version of this article is available as QuantMig project report D1.3

from www.quantmig.eu. This article reflects the authors’ views, and the Research Executive

Agency of the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the

information it contains.