The Pull-Push Migration Theory

 

Migration is the relocation of individuals from one place to another and it involves a situation where there is the spread of ideas, innovations, and behaviors. The reasons why individuals migrate are based on the push and pull factors, which essentially oblige individuals to move from their current place of residence to others. This is especially considering that these factors involve political, economic, environmental, or cultural ones, which inspire individuals to seek out better opportunities elsewhere. Push factors are situations that are essentially related to instances where individuals are forced to leave their homes, and these are often in relation to the countries from which these individuals migrate. Pull factors, on the other hand, involve the direct opposite of push factors because they are the conditions that attract individuals to certain locations. This paper will be making an analysis how the push-pull migration theory explains the movement from Europe to America in the 1600s.

Political

One of the most significant factors that involved the migration of Europeans to America in the 17^th century was political. This is important because it shows that some of these individuals were forced to migrate because of some push factors that made their lives in Europe unbearable. Among the most important of these was that those who migrated did so in order to avoid the religious persecution that they faced in their home countries. They sought to ensure that they lived in a manner that they believed was right for them rather than being forced to conform to the rules or religion that were imposed on them at home. In addition, migrants sought to make sure that they escaped the increasingly autocratic or absolutist forms of monarchies that had emerged in Europe following the Middle Ages. These had denied people a considerable number of their rights and had ended up making some of them to essentially become a people without basic rights and freedoms in their own lands (Campbell, 2015). Therefore, the move to America was a pull factor because it provided these individuals with an opportunity to start over in an environment that was far from the political and religious persecutions that they had encountered in their home countries. In this situation, the push and pull factors of migration worked hand in hand to mitigate increasingly unbearable political and religious situation in the migrants’ home countries which made their lives difficult. They instead provided these individuals with an opportunity to restart their lives away from their fears.

Economic

Changes that were occurring in the economy of Europe at the time also inspired some individuals to choose to migrate to America. The European economy was in transition from a feudal one to one that was based on capitalism, and these changes had led to a situation where a considerable number of people ended up not having employment opportunities. Despite many of them leaving the rural areas to cities in order to find jobs, their lives did not get any better and in fact, many of them experienced a considerable reduction in their quality of life. The bad life conditions ended up becoming the push factors that made them want to migrate to America, because this was considered a new and untamed land that could provide them with the opportunities that they missed in Europe. America functioned as a pull factor because the land itself was rich in natural resources, and it also inspired some individuals to believe that it was a place that had a lot of gold and other valuable metals that could make one instantly rich. Such dreams of swift wealth inspired individuals to want to leave Europe and this ensured that a lot of Europeans went to America in order to attain their ambitions (Kulikoff, 2014, p.9). The desire to have the same quality of life as the members of the nobility in Europe inspired a considerable number of individuals to migrate to America where they believed they would be able to make their dreams come true.

Environmental

Environmental factors also contributed to the migration of people from Europe to America in the 17^th century. During this period, most of the natural environment on the continent had essentially been destroyed because of the considerable population pressure. The remaining parts of the natural environment, especially forests and wildlife had been put into the private hands of the nobility and this was to such an extent that if anyone outside of this class was caught hunting in these private preserves, they would be severely punished. The severe depletion of natural resources because of the massive population that had developed, as well as the numerous conflicts that took place on the continent ensured that individuals had a push factor to migrate. The push factor, on the other hand, was the vast and untouched forests and wildlife that could be found in America. These were able to attract individuals because in the colonies that had been established in the Americas, they were free to make sure that they hunted as much as they wanted while at the same time having access to such resources as timber that they could make use of without having to obtain the permission of the local lord (McCusker & Menard, 2014, p.314). American promised to have a capacity to support those individuals who were willing to migrate from Europe; meaning that they were inspired to move away from their home nations because the desire to take advantage of the massive space promised by America.

Conclusion

The push-pull migration theory is extremely pertinent in explaining the reasons behind why individuals sought to migrate from Europe to America in the 1600s. This theory is important because it shows the various factors, including environmental, cultural, political, and economic factors that influenced these individuals to want to move from their homelands to a new place that was completely unknown. Therefore, the diversity of factors that are involved in the push-pull migration theory have shown the manner through which Europeans ended up seeking to enhance the quality of their lives through moving to America; a place that had attributes that they could no longer find in Europe.

Economic Policies and How they Work

 

In most developing countries, there are three main models of economic growth that have been implemented in varying levels. Among these are import-substitution industrialization (ISI), structural adjustment programs (SAPs), and the developmental state. These economic policies differ in a diverse number of ways, and this is especially in the manner through which they are implemented. ISI involves countries seeking to ensure that there is the imposition of import restrictions in order to bring about the promotion and protection of domestic industries. This economic policy aims at making sure that there is the establishment of measures aimed at advancing domestic consumption of locally made goods and services. SAPs, on the other hand, essentially promote a liberal economic policy in which governments are not directly involved in any economic activities and the economy is left in the hands of the free market (Orvis and Drogus 532). The free market ensures that only the strongest and most viable industries are able to survive while the weaker ones, because of the competition from international businesses, are forced towards improving their performance to ensure their survival. The developmental state is a situation where the government makes a direct intervention in those industries that it considers critical to the economy. It ensures that these industries are protected to further their growth, but take the necessary steps to remove the protective measures as soon as possible.

The developmental state has been the most successful economic model because it involves government support for industries until such a time that they are ready to stand on their own feet. This model is fundamentally important because it ensures that the economy has the necessary freedoms it needs to compete with others while at the same time allowing individuals to undertake their business activities without government interference. The implementation of this policy has especially been successful in Japan and South Korea, both of which rose from the economic devastation of the Second World War to become among the greatest success stories of the twentieth century. Both of these countries, especially the latter adopted export oriented policies, which sought to encourage the growth of local industries that were able to produce high demand goods that could be exported to other countries. A consequence is that the countries that have adopted the developmental state model have been successful in the achievement of rapid economic growth to such an extent that it has become possible for them to achieve the status of developed states. Thus, while South Korea and Ghana were essentially at the same economic level in the 1960s, the former has been able to achieve a per capita gross domestic income of $22,670 in comparison to the latter’s $1550 today (Orvis and Drogus 536). This achievement by South Korea shows the considerable success that can be brought about by the developmental state model as well as the need to balance between government intervention and the free market. Without the interventions undertaken in the developmental state model, the system becomes highly unstable to such an extent that critical sectors become subservient to international competition.

In most cases, regime type often has a lot to do with economic outcomes. This is especially the case when it comes to the manner through which the regime makes decisions concerning how the economy should be managed. In stable democracies, for example, there are often greater economic freedoms to such an extent that they end up in a situation where markets are freer and different sectors are forced to improve themselves in order to remain competitive. Authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, tend to have a tighter grip on the economy to such an extent that it is the state, rather than private businesses, that are major players in the economy (Orvis and Drogus 432). This situation can be considered to be the reason behind such a country as North Korea is having considerable economic problems that are essentially unsustainable. The communist regime within this country, because of lack of competition for the domestic industry, has essentially made its economy quite weak because there are hardly ever any improvements in the locally produced products.

In conclusion, the North Korean economic situation can be contrasted with that of Japan, which has achieved considerable growth over the years because it has adopted a developmental state model where the government only intervenes when the sector involved is critical to the economy and lets it go as soon as it achieves a level of stability. Japan is a democratic state with all the freedoms that come with it; ensuring that its people in the private sector, rather than the government, are the main drivers of the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Orvis, Stephen, and Carol Ann Drogus. Introducing Comparative Politics: Concepts and Cases in Context. CQ Press, 2013. Print.

 

Reining in Executive War Powers

 Introduction

The last few decades have seen Congress essentially relinquish its powers to declare war to the Executive branch of government. This has led to a situation where it has become difficult to ensure that executive war powers have the necessary checks required to bring about more responsible practices (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 18). The declaration of war is an action that cannot be undertaken lightly because it involves considerable use of national resources, as well as armed personnel. It is also a situation where there has to be careful deliberation and thinking about national interests in order to ensure that there is the careful use of the armed forces. Therefore, this paper argues that it is essential that executive war powers should be significantly reduced and that these powers are returned to Congress. It provides a diverse number of reasons why Congress has to be the custodian of war powers because it is through its oversight that it will be possible for these powers to be used more effectively without abuse.

Potential of Overreach

Reining in executive war powers is critical in preventing overreach. This is especially considering that the United States has, since 2001 been involved in conflicts in the Middle East. The results of these wars have not been what were expected because in the end, the objectives that were set were not achieved. One of the most significant conflicts that the United States initiated using the executive war powers was the war in Iraq. A considerable number of servicemen and women ended up losing their lives while other were physically and mentally scarred during the conflict. These afflictions cannot be underestimated because they show that despite the country having been willing to undertake the achievement of national security, the end result was that it ended up creating more enemies than it had before. Furthermore, the country was forced into a situation where it invaded Iraq under false pretenses (Rabkin, 2004, p. 2); resulting in the destruction of a fairly stable state, and the instigation of a sectarian conflict that still plagues Iraq to this day. If executive war powers are not reined in as soon as possible, it is likely that the United States could find itself in another war, only this time; it will not be able to extract itself easily. One of the most likely conflicts that could take place if executive powers are left as they are is a war with North Korea, which is a country that has greater military capabilities than both Afghanistan and Iraq. If such a conflict were to take place, it would not only be prolonged, but it would also lead to the considerable loss of life for both Americans and its allies Japan and South Korea. The last would especially be negatively affected because of their close proximity to the conflict. Such a conflict, while the United States is still actively involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, could lead to a level of overreach from which the country might not recover.

Protecting National Interests

The need to protect national interests should be a motivator towards ensuring that executive war powers are reined in. One of the biggest results of the wars that the United States has conducted in the twenty first century is that it has led to a loss of credibility for the country in some regions of the world. The United States has come to be viewed as an imperialistic power, which has the intention of enforcing its will on those countries that do not wish to follow its lead. A consequence of this perception has been that there are an increasing number of countries, such as Russia and China, which are essentially seeking to break away from the American-led world order and to instead embrace one of their own making (Ikenberry, 2013). It has therefore become essential for the executive war powers to be curtailed and brought under the direct oversight of Congress in order to make sure that the looming threat of war at any time does not shake the confidence of those countries that have followed the American lead for decades. It will be necessary to make sure that checks are placed on the executive’s ability to unilaterally declare war, especially in instances where such declarations could end up making the national interest to suffer rather than being advanced. An example of such a situation is that of Iraq where American intervention essentially created an opening for Iranian influence to become established in the country.

Allowing Other States to find their own Way

One of the most fundamental objectives of reining in executive war powers is the need to allow other states to find their own way. The United States, despite its objective to promote democracy across the world, is not obligated to get involved in all the internal conflicts that take place in the world. Instead, it is important that it gives space to conflicting countries to undertake their own initiatives towards the achievement of stability and democracy. America should look to its past as an inspiration that whatever conflicts take place in the world, they will eventually give way to political establishments where individuals’ human rights are observed. The American Civil War, despite its brutality, eventually ended and both sides of the conflict ended up coming together to form the United States as it is today (Weingast, 1998). The experiences of the Civil War ensured that the country would eventually grow into an industrial, military, and global political power in the twentieth century, with democratic institutions being its foundation. Other countries in the world should be allowed to develop in a similar way because imposed democracy tends to have the negative effect of not working as it should. Instead, because the people on whom it has been imposed, because they do not understand its full value, end up forgetting its importance. In a conflict such as the one taking place in Syria, the United States should have stayed out, and encouraged its allies in the region to do the same. Perhaps if the United States had not chosen to supply the rebels with weapons, the conflict would not have gotten out of hand, and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians. Instead, both sides of the Syrian conflict would have likely come together for the sake of achieving national unity through ending the civil war.

Potential of Creating More Enemies

As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has numerous enemies, including those states that are against its dominance. A consequence is that whenever the United States gets involved in a new conflict, these enemies get the fodder with which to argue their case that the country is an aggressive power that seeks to ensure that it controls other countries. Those countries that see the United States as a potential threat then take measures aimed at reducing the risk of a conflict with it through undertaking considerable military modernization and allying themselves with other powerful countries such as China and Russia. An example of a country that has adopted a stance similar to that described has been the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, who has essentially adopted a hostile attitude towards the United States, despite his country having been an ally for decades (Heydarian, 2017). With these circumstances serving as a background, reining in executive war powers can be a critical factor in ensuring that the potential of creating more enemies is significantly reduced. Instead, it will be possible to ensure that there is the advancement of American national interests through non-military means. The interventionist policies of the United States have done it more harm than good, and this is especially considering that most of these interventions have been ordered by the executive (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 51). It is therefore important that executive war power is reined in so that diplomatic means can be used in achieving national interests. Thus, when other countries see the United States leading by example, it is likely that they will be more willing to negotiate.

Reducing Incidents of Disastrous Conflicts

Executive war powers have to be reined in to ensure that there is the prevention of conflicts that end up having disastrous results for the United States. The original decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was justified by the executive as having been a reaction to Iraq’s having weapons of mass destruction as well as collaborating with Al Qaeda. The reality was that the Baathist regime in Iraq had ensured that Al Qaeda was kept at bay from the country and it was only after the American invasion and the fall of this regime that Al Qaeda gained a foothold. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has in recent years become the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can be considered one of the biggest threats to the United States today. Its presence came about because of the failure of American military interventionist policies in the Middle East. The failure of military intervention can be laid on the door of the executive branch of government, because it can arbitrarily declare war without necessarily consulting Congress (Rabkin, 2004, p. 47). The powers of this branch of government have to be significantly curtailed because to leave it as it is puts the entire nation in danger. Only Congress should have the power to declare war, and it is essential that this part of the constitution is enforced because the President can end up taking advantage of his war powers to undertake wars that have disastrous results for not only the United States, but its allies as well.

Exploring of other Avenues to Protect National Interests

The biggest reason that is often given by presidents when they use executive war powers is that they are protecting American national interests. A considerable number of wars since Pearl Harbor have been waged by the United States because of this reason, and while for the most part it has been essential in the advancement of national interests, it has also led to considerable damage in some parts of the world. In the contemporary world, it is essential to ensure that avenues other than war are used to protect national interests. However, in order to achieve this objective, it is important that executive war powers are removed from the presidency and the power to declare war be given only to Congress. Congress, because of its deliberative role before making such critical decisions, has the ability to better measure those circumstances that require a military response. However, other avenues, such as the imposition of sanctions, undertaking bilateral relations, and the use of American soft power such as its economic might, could go a long way towards the achievement of its goals. Such initiatives could significantly reduce tensions with other countries while at the same time heading towards a situation where the United States essentially becomes an integral part of a rule-based international system.

Establishing a Strong Rule-Based International System

In the contemporary world, the United States has essentially become one of rather than the only center of power in the international order. A consequence of this situation is that there are a number of emerging powers which have arisen to challenge American power. The emergence of powers such as Russia, China, and India has the potential of changing the face of the world, with each essentially becoming dominant in its own region. The sooner the United States accepts this new reality, the sooner will it be able to take the necessary steps aimed at attaining moral leadership in the new order. Under such circumstances, it will be essential to ensure that there is the establishment of steps aimed at reducing executive war powers because the latter will no longer be needed in solving conflicts. A rules-based system will help to bring about greater global stability because all of the major players will have to adhere to specific guidelines and rules aimed at reducing conflict between them (Taylor, 2016). Being a part of this system would be extremely beneficial for the United States because it will no longer be forced into conflicts that come about because of a president’s whim or because of obligations that end up draining the nation’s resources.

Concentrating on Preventing Direct Threats

Executive war powers are aimed at preventing direct threats to the nation. However, over the years, these powers have been abused by various administrations, but rather than protecting American interests, they have made situations worse than they were before. It is therefore important that Congress takes the step of reducing executive war powers so that when decisions to go to war are made, they are made rationally. Executive war powers should be used for preventing direct or immediate threats, such as the current one that has been instigated by ISIS. The latter organization is one of the biggest threats to the United States and it is critical that it is dealt with effectively. This means that the executive has to be allowed the power to make use of the military to bring about an end to this threat, especially considering that ISIS has shown an uncanny ability to get targets far away from its base of operations in Iraq and Syria. Moreover, the executive must be prevented from being distracted by other conflicts when fighting ISIS. Among these distractions is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the rebels because many of the latter groups could easily be absorbed into ISIS (Bakke & Kuypers, 2016). Additionally, it is because of the weakening of the Syrian government through American and allied support of rebels that ISIS has been enabled to survive for so long in the country. Therefore, Congress’s restraining executive war powers will help in the prevention of such instances as the arbitrary use of military force as when President Trump ordered the bombing of a Syrian airbase as a response to the Assad regime’s alleged use of sarin gas on a rebel-held area. As stated above, the United States should concentrate on direct threats to it and should allow the Syrians to find their own path.

Conclusion

Reining in executive war powers has the potential of helping in ensuring that all military activities carried out by the United States are responsible and only in the national interest. In those circumstances where there has been the arbitrary use of the military, without any solid evidence as well as under false pretenses, the end result has been failed states and civil wars that have left a path of destruction. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen are areas where American or allied involvement have led to more harm being done than the original objectives that were intended. It is pertinent that the use of military power by the executive is placed under the oversight of Congress because the latter has a greater ability to curtail the excesses that the executive might indulge in when it declares war. The achievement of this goal would go a long way towards making sure that administrations make more responsible decisions when it comes to matters concerning engaging in conflicts in the name of protecting national interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bakke, P. C., & Kuypers, J. A. (2016). The Syrian Civil War, International Outreach, and a Clash of Worldviews. KB Journal, 11(2).

Goldsmith, J. (2012). Power and constraint: the accountable presidency after 9/11: WW Norton & Company.

Heydarian, R. J. (2017). Tragedy of Small Power Politics: Duterte and the Shifting Sands of Philippine Foreign Policy. Asian Security, 1-17.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2013). The liberal international order and its discontents After Liberalism? (pp. 91-102): Springer.

Rabkin, J. A. (2004). The case for sovereignty: why the world should welcome American independence: American Enterprise Institute.

Taylor, J. B. (2016). An International Monetary System Built on Sound Policy Rules. Paper presented at the Keynote Address International Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance, University of Crete, Greece. Crete: University of Crete.

Weingast, B. R. (1998). Political stability and civil war: Institutions, commitment, and American democracy. Analytic narratives, 148, 153-155.