UEF//eRepository
DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
2018
Rethinking Self-Initiated Expatriation in International Highly Skilled Migration
Habti, Driss
Springer International Publishing
Artikkelit tieteellisissä kokoomateoksissa
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 All rights reserved
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95056-3_1
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/23689
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
8
Chapter 1
Rethinking Self-initiated Expatriation in International Highly Skilled Migration
Driss Habti1 and Maria Elo2
Abstract: International migration, international mobility, and the concept of self-initiated expatriation (SIE)[1] are intensively debated, ranging from research and politics to families and corporate recruiting strategies. Today, previously inexistent possibilities and contexts enable and advance new processes and patterns of highly skilled mobility, such as self-initiated expatriation. An emerging field of study examines the concept of SIE and boundaryless career building processes from the perspectives of highly skilled people and their human resources.
The importance of ‘global talents’, the demand for skills in globalizing labour markets, and the phenomenon of individualization influence policies on multiple levels and pull highly skilled people in diverse destinations. International opportunities beyond traditional corporate assignments generate various life- and career options for these ‘talents’. The aim of the chapter is to foster the conceptualization and contextualization of SIE and its cross-dissemination. It provides an overview of the approaches and debates in international migration and mobility research and focuses on the highly skilled people as embedded individuals. The chapter addresses recent theory discussions, such as the ‘mobility turn’ and the ‘big data’ in empirical social research, and it synthesizes a theory landscape on SIE research. It incorporates various disciplinary angles, interlinking different lenses, framings and mechanisms to trigger future research. The contributions broaden the understanding of SIE concept both empirically and theoretically with particular insights from the Finnish context.
Keywords: Self-initiated expatriation, expatriation, highly skilled migration, globalization, mobility turn, global talent
1.1. Globalization and Contextual Development
Human mobility (also referred to as the migration of people), has increasingly helped shape and reshape our social, familial, political, cultural, economic and geographical landscapes (Faist et al. 2013; Favell 2015). The past few decades have witnessed a growing trend of international migration and mobility, mainly due to the structural forces of globalization and an increasingly globalized world. Theoretically, globalization incorporates numerous dynamic elements such as flows of capital, people, information, technology and trade. Since the 1990s, the mega-trend of globalization has changed the global context, influencing international business and the economic environment. But, it has also contributed to an increase of international migration, global career development, and the emergence of transnational forms of human capital (Mahroum 2000; Morrison 2006; Cohen 2008). World Bank reports highlight the fundamental
1D. Habti, Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland. driss.habti@uef.fi.
2 M. Elo, School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland, Shanghai University, School of Economics, Shanghai, China. maria.elo@utu.fi.
[1]SIE as abbreviation is used for self-initiated expatriation as a concept, but also for a self-initiated expatriate (SIE) or self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) at the individual level.
9
changes in global labor market developments, triggered by labor-saving and labor-linking technologies that influence the flows of people and human capital between and across developing and developed countries3 (Basu 2016). Reference is also made to an increasingly integrated global economy and labour market, which have been described as “transitional”
(Schmid 2008), “risky” and “more individualized” (Beck 2000), and possessing more porous geographic, institutional and cultural boundaries. These global developments have coincided with an accelerated pace of international highly skilled mobility across the world (Beaverstock 2005, 2011; Lowell 2008; Beechler and Woodward 2009; Bertoli et al. 2012; Favell et al. 2015).
As a result, the mobility of highly skilled talent has become a vital issue to understand and govern. The access and availability of competitive human capital (Chiswick and Miller 2009;
Bertoli et al. 2012; Roos 2013; Czaika 2018) has become a concern for countries and regions, and also for large and small firms. International highly skilled mobility has caused debate at political and scholarly levels in developed, emerging and developing countries alike, not only about the so-called ‘global war for talent’ (Shachar 2006; OECD 2008; Beechler and Woodward 2009; Harvey 2014), but also on the supply mechanisms of skills (Mahroum 2000;
Basu 2016; Czaika 2018). In economic and development discussions, these flows are addressed as brain drain and brain gain (e.g. Beine et al. 2008; Boeri et al. 2012). These issues are relevant in all combinations of contexts (North-North, South-South, South-North and North-South;
East-West and West East). The supply of high-level skills is needed to boost country and corporate competitiveness (Tung 2008), labour shortages, and productivity and efficiency in areas such as Research and Development (R&D), business, Science and Technology (S&T) and in healthcare sectors (Millar and Salt 2007; OECD 2008; Basu 2016; Czaika 2018). Different drivers4 lie behind the increasing mobility and migration trends (cf. UNCTAD 2009), and feature at a macro-societal level, including conflict and political instability, demographic change and lack of economic opportunity in origin countries, free international mobility in regional zones or intra-regional zone such as the EU (Recchi and Favell 2009), cultural exploration and adventure (O’Reilly 2012; Saar 2018), or career progression (Mahroum 2000;
Chiswick and Miller 2009).
The global circulation of “brain” or “talent” has particular implications on the knowledge economy and on the global business context (Saxenian 2005; Goldin et al. 2011; Bertoli et al.
2012). At an organizational level, highly skilled expatriates (HSEs) constitute an important part of today’s global talent pool, contributing to the competitive advantage of global organizations in the receiving countries (Goldin et al. 2011; Al Ariss 2013; Harvey 2014; Favell et al. 2015), and also to the broader potential of cross-border economic exchange and development (e.g.
Solimano 2008; Riddle, Brinkerhoff and Nielsen 2008; Kotabe et al. 2013). Because of the importance of HSEs to receiving and sending countries and organizations, more research on the management and governance of this potential resource is needed (Riddle et al. 2010; Doherty 2013; Al Ariss et al. 2014). Corporate perspectives and international human resource management (HRM) streams have investigated international career development, together with its forms and implications. Yet, there are issues that need to be revisited (e.g. Minbaeva and Collings 2013; Baruch, Altman and Tung 2016). The nature and consequences of international mobility have been amply investigated in the existing literature of international skilled mobility (see Beaverstock 2005; Solimano 2008; Castles et al. 2014; Ryan et al. 2015a; Favell 2015; van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017). However, despite the existing literature on HSEs that apparently converge in similar research tracks, but so far falls short of approaching the subject from the new theorization of the ‘mobility turn’ (Sheller and Urry 2016) and life-course approach, as methodological means to develop in-depth empirical research (Wingens et al. 2011; Kou et al.
3 In other words, across the ”Global South” and the ”Global North”, see more in www.worldbank.org
4 The drivers and patterns of mobility of SIEs are not necessarily similar to those in migration studies (cf.
UNCTAD, 2009).
10
2015; Rogaly 2015; Ryan and Mulholland 2015; Findlay et al. 2015; Barrett 2015). Moreover, there are a number of areas that require further research, such as the geographical expansion of mobility, and new forms and patterns of highly skilled mobility (see Docquier and Marfouk 2006; OECD 2008; Boeri et al. 2012; Czaika 2018). Both permanent and temporary migration as well as international recruitment are on the rise (OECD 2016; Czaika 2018), thus, a better understanding is required that accounts for subsequent implications and challenges from a mille-micro (family) level to macro-economic (nation-state) levels.
Mobility through international migration across places has generated the notion of a boundaryless global career and work (Reis and Baruch 2013; Dickmann and Baruch 2011;
Baruch, Altman and Tung 2016). The increase of this mobility has culminated in the transnationalization of society in terms of work life and the meaning of national borders, which is referred to by several scholars (mentioned above) as careers without borders, global careers and boundaryless careers. Similarly, the role of the nation-state as the unit of governance and as a locus of career building is shifting, partly as a result of migration, trade and other political agreements, partly in response to regionalism, and partly under the pressures exerted by a global economy and its needs for a talented workforce (e.g. Appadurai 1996; Ong 1999; Morrison 2006; Favell et al. 2015; Czaika 2018). As a result, not only has the mobility of the individual changed, but also the work and workplace per se has changed its nature towards a more multinational and transnational context (cf. Jain and Costa e Silva 2015). Furthermore, there are many individual level drivers behind these developments, such as marriage migrations, mixed and transnational families, and other relational structures that contribute to a changing locus of life and the development of a boundaryless lifestyle (Heikkilä 2017).
Over the last two decades, debates and research from a variety of theoretical perspectives and practical approaches has addressed the question of the international mobility of highly skilled people. However, these efforts appear to be embedded in a particular academic tradition, such as the interplay between globalized economy and the labour market (Florida 2005; Favell et al. 2015; Cerna 2016). In the Finnish context, labour markets have been focal to several disciplines and research streams, when explaining mobility related to working life (e.g. Raunio and Forsander 2009; Habti 2014; Koikkalainen 2013; Heikkilä 2017).
Both the labour and corporate perspectives on expatriation are too limited to explain the dynamics and experiences of SIEs. Importantly, a focus that is too specific or narrow may overlook systemic multi-level intersections, and the interaction between different factors that guide and shape complex phenomena such as global migration and mobility (de Haas 2010; van Hear et al. 2017). Within this debate, the experiences of highly skilled migrants (whether expatriates or other) are not considered from a holistic perspective that would address the complexity of the context. Furthermore, there is rather limited cross-disciplinary academic discussion and cross-dissemination regarding the broader landscape of contemporary mobility, migration and the formation of highly skilled groups and Knowledge diasporas, and their interconnections (cf. Mahroum 2006; Kuznetsov 2006; Meyer 2011; Siar 2014). Such siloed research traditions do not foster the generation of a more holistic body of knowledge and understanding that per se crosses boundaries, perspectives and levels of analysis. Moreover, the research often focuses only on corporate interests, and fails to address other scapes and levels of the phenomenon, such as the challenges experienced and the benefits produced by individuals and groups (Appadurai 1996). The individual context and viewpoint on this new mobility has a different ontology and epistemology, dependant on the disciplinary perspectives.
There is significant extant literature on these new dimensions and the transnational element influencing individual contexts and life on the move (e.g. Appadurai 1996; Levitt 2001; Fechter 2007; Chacko 2017). The digital and mediatized layer of life is further advancing the complexity of understanding the context in which it is conducted (cf. Brinkerhoff, 2009; Hepp, Bozdag and Suna 2011). In short, we are facing an era of multiple transformations regarding
11
the contexts, levels, dimensions and dynamics that influence highly skilled people and their mobility. Therefore, there is a need to discuss the conceptualization of SIE.
1.2 Conceptual Development and Diverse Viewpoints
Many disciplines employ the same words, and as such, the ontological and epistemological viewpoints that lie behind certain concepts may vary. As concepts in current literature on highly skilled people, ‘migration’ and ‘mobility’ are referred to and used in different ways. Sometimes, they are used interchangeably, and in other settings they have different meanings. The term migration entails movement from one country (international migration) or location (internal migration) to another. This has both positive and negative driving forces (ranging from global opportunity to refugeeness) which are referred to as push and pull factors.5 Migration is a generic term that technically embodies all subcategories of movement across borders. Similarly, the term ‘migrant’ is equally generic, denoting any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) the causes for movement; or (4) the length of stay (see IOM 2018).
Mobility in the labour market and career development discussions strongly focus on the human capital from an international human resources angle, and also from a global perspective (e.g. Dickmann and Baruch 2011; Minbaeva and Collings 2013; Collings 2014). Here, mobility is often linked to the talent management system, and the firm view that human capital can be considered more as an object (e.g. labour-talent, staffing, skill generated contribution) than as the central agency behind the migration of an individual person (i.e. the agency-actor may be on the firm-employer side, not on the people-employee side) (cf. Collings 2014). International human resource management (HRM) literature refers to the term mobility, inferring a free and often self-initiated movement to another country (see Al Ariss 2010; Habti and Koikkalainen 2014) or a corporate-initiated movement to the destination for career purposes (Salt and Wood, 2012; McNulty and de Cieri, 2016). Both the meaning of the location and the time spent there, as well as of individual agency and reasoning are changeable in nature, and SIE processes evolve beyond career progression to include alternative or parallel reasons such as studies or marriage (Heikkilä and Rauhut 2015; Hawthorne 2018). Thus, SIEs can be both short- or long- term migrants in a receiving society.
Regarding regions and locations, Salt and Wood (2012) point out that contemporary portfolios of mobility are shifting due to intensified virtual communication and the growing localization of recruitment in the regions where production and the market are developed.
Despite these fundamental changes, the international mobility of the personnel of multinational enterprises has increased through traditional forms of expatriation, short-term assignments and business travel (Salt and Wood 2012). This form of mobility concept is referred to as global talent management (GTM) (McNulty and de Cieri 2016), and conceptually linked to a shorter stay abroad, for example, for a particular assignment (e.g., Carr, Inkson, and Thorn 2005). If examined critically, some studies assume the regime and migration policy regulating migration into the new setting to be an open system. However, this is an incorrect assumption and incomplete. Debates often take place within a particular type of systemic framing of free movement (such as the European Union or the issue of highly skilled expatriate visas), and for external SIEs this freedom of migration is not always applicable. The legal framing also makes a distinction in these concepts (IOM 2018), in that laws and regulations define what constitutes a requested talent, and how an individual may integrate into the local work life according to certain demands and their respective skills. Depending on the context, the role of the nation state or the corporation may be central in influencing visa issues. On a societal level, the
5 See more at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/international-migration/
12
different visa categories also influence the integration process, as they regulate issues such as family unification, length of stay, and the roles that are available for the highly skilled migrant (cf. de Haas 2010; Cerna 2016; Czaika 2018).
The reasoning behind the concepts of migration and mobility matters presenting distinct categories. Migration is integrative and inclusive term that incorporates all types of people on the move, including refugees and settlers, while ‘mobility’ incorporates people who migrate based on volition, free will and mostly for shorter periods of time (Al Ariss 2010; Habti and Koikkalainen 2014). However, it is important to notice that when these concepts applied to individuals, they require rethinking, as temporary migrants may also choose to settle abroad for career, marriage, cultural experience or economic reasons. Self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) are often described as having a ‘temporariness’ in their receiving country (Agullo and Midori 2009), or as staying ‘with no definite time frame in mind’ (Tharenou 2010). This may stem from the linkage to GTM research on expatriates that underlines corporate assignments, staffing and the short-term career development phase within a global setting, instead of the context of individual life planning over time. Like other migrants, expatriates may decide to stay permanently if the setting allows, and thus turn migrants into immigrants with a more permanent settlement (Al Ariss and Özbilgin 2010). Immigration refers to the process by which non-nationals move into another country than their country of origin for the purpose of settlement, i.e. long-term permanent residence (IOM 2018). These ontological and epistemological differences in how the terms are approached in different disciplinary settings and discussions may cause confusion and ambiguity, as they are not exclusive or distinct, but often rather overlapping concepts (cf. Cohen 2008).
The conceptual discussion behind “who” is an SIE is quite interesting, since what is meant by highly skilled or highly qualified persons who expatriate by their own volition and agency, without corporate support, differs. Moreover, the literature coins the sending context of highly skilled expatriates to the global North, while mobility from and across the global South is referred to as ‘migration’ rather than ‘expatriation’ (cf. Klekowski 2014; Recchi 2015, p. 1;
Cranston 2017). Interpretations thus can be very fuzzy (Cranston 2017). For example, British highly skilled expatriates describe themselves as “good” migrants (Cranston 2017), in contradistinction with other migrants with nationalities from the “global South” (cf. Al Ariss and Özbilgin 2010; Klekowski 2014). These debates on the racialized categorization, political discrimination and context-specific considerations which form methodological nationalism (see Wimmer and Glick-Schiller 2003; Sager 2016) suggest that there is even bias in approaching different types of people, regardless of their recognized skills and qualifications (Cranston 2017; also Koutonin 2015). The wording and terminology of such inquiries are loaded (e.g.
with political and socio-economic inferences), and as a result, the comparability across terms suffers from ambiguity and loadedness, as well as from underpinnings of diverse disciplinary traditions. In addition to debates on formal qualifications (i.e. educational and professional attainments) and the “carrier” of the skills, the terms describing the accumulated skills also have their own epistemological origins. Indeed, the group of “highly skilled migrants” is heterogeneous and not universally defined, partly because there are definitional variations across countries on the institutional approach to what constitutes ‘skills’ (Lowell 2008). Skills is a broad and inclusive term involving the capabilities of an individual, rather than their qualifications. Further, skills are more universally employable than qualifications that relate to regulation. For example, the United Nations, the International Organization for Migration and the World Bank use the term skills, and not qualifications, in their studies and discussions.
Qualifications are more central in the corporate context. They are used more in career related research where diplomas, diploma recognition and formal certifications are particularly relevant to placement on the corporate ladder. The terms skills and qualifications are often used synonymously and interchangeably. Both Eurostat and the OECD (2008; also Lowell 2008)
13
define a highly skilled person as having either tertiary education or equivalent experience.
Widely used definitions consider education, (at least tertiary education), occupation (e.g.
professionals, managers) and salary level. However, migration and minority research may integrate non-codified qualifications and skills. The definitions of ‘skills’ differ between countries as governments use idiographic approaches, such as selection through points-based immigration system, and build their migration policies accordingly to pull particular skills and talent. Cerna (2016, p. 78) mentions that skill can be defined as a combination of education and occupation, and be used to omit highly skilled migrants that work in low-skilled jobs. The time dimension and the role in the country is also combined with skills, and for example Cerna (2016) excludes undergraduate students and intra-company transferees who may stay temporarily abroad, as the specific policies regarding their permissions are often more flexible than for other kinds of labour migrants or immigrants. Thus, is it important to discuss the assumptions that surround the concepts, their subcategories and their respective underpinnings.
When shifting from the viewer perspective to that of the object of observation, the experience offered by international migration and expatriation provides other insights and perceptions, aside from the considerations of benefits. Global mobility is usually seen as a space of transnationalism and cosmopolitanism for highly skilled migrants (see Ho 2011; Beaverstock 2011; Faist et al. 2013; Yeoh 2013; Harvey and Beaverstock 2017), and the affordances of a
‘connected world’ can feature different forms of mobility (see Portes 1996; Favell et al. 2015), embodying different drivers and patterns along the career trajectories of highly skilled migrants (see Levitt 2001; King 2002; van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017; Czaika 2018). In this respect, the possession of high skills and international experience combines with the individual agency that shapes the dynamics of how these human resources are employed (cf. Al Ariss and Crowley- Henry 2013). Favell, Feldblum and Smith (2015) recognize individual ‘human’ agency in the conceptualization of globalization and transnationalism from below. The individual agency of highly skilled expatriates forms the contours of their mobility, and hence their career trajectories and social integration, which subsequently affects their personal life and circumstances, alongside their professional experience and career orientation. Through individual migrant’s agency (Harvey 2011; Favell et al. 2015; McAuliffe et al. 2018), people negotiate the value of their accumulated skills and qualifications, their social capital such as family, social networks and ties, or their professional networks (Harvey 2008, Ryan 2014; Ryan et al. 2015a; Harvey and Beaverstock 2017) that may benefit their social and professional integration process in their migration experiences.
1.3 Revisiting Migration, Expatriation and the Development of Self-initiated Expatriation Migrants feature as a solution for GTM in many discussions, still, who initiates what and how are under-investigated themes, and lack critical and multi-disciplinary exploration. The globally evolving geopolitical, demographic and economic environments (see Bozkurt and Mohr 2011) are experiencing an increasing presence and prevalence of significantly different forms of international mobility, especially relating to highly skilled people on the move (Minbaeva and Collings 2013; Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry 2013). Since Ravenstein’s (1885) seminal work on international migration, forms of international mobility such as expatriation, contemporary labour diasporas, marriage migration and student migration have attracted increasing attention, all including forms of SIE and addressing areas with particular sending country histories (Kolb 2015; Heikkilä 2017; Elo 2017). Scholarly work has addressed these formations using particular disciplinary lenses, particularly through expatriation when career and work have been focal issues. International human resource research has been central in the development of expatriation research, and the lens of a career ecosystem further fosters this approach (cf.
Minbaeva and Collings 2013; Baruch et al. 2016). Thus, there are two streams of embedded interest; one with a corporate lens with underpinnings in international HRM and GTM, and
14
another focusing on the expatriation experience, and the new mobility of individuals and their experiences, which has various research traditions and angles ranging from anthropology to boundaryless career building and development (cf. Tung 2008; Heikkilä 2017). Put simply, there are two agencies, where one addresses corporate work and individual career related agency, and the other addresses individual and family related agency that is socially embedded.
However, these two forms of agency are not necessarily similar in their workings, and the corporate governance related agencies also differ in their motivations.
The concept of expatriation is traditionally referred to as organizationally-driven international assignments which are undertaken on a temporary basis (Suutari 2003; Dowling and Welsh 2004). Corporate expatriation was the norm until the 1990s, and scholars amassed substantial knowledge on the subject that could later be used to inform human resource practices and GTM. The careers of highly skilled professionals have become much more independent from organizations or institutions than in previous times (Harvey 2011; 2014; Harvey and Beaverstock 2017; Bauder 2017), and this has led to an emergence of the concept of the self- initiated expatriate in international HRM literature (see Suutari and Brewster 2000). While labor mobility encompasses the whole spectrum of competences and resource availability (also addressing lower-level jobs), the expatriate concept has typically represented highly skilled people. As Baruch et al. (2016) point out, in comparison to corporate-driven expatriates (e.g.
company-initiated, with a relocation package and a pre-determined time scope), self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) are driven by individual purposes which lie behind their migration, and feature self-directed careers that present the diverse types and nuances of this kind of expatriate mobility. In fact, they consider that self-initiated expatriates are the most significant development in career mobility, and represent a pivotal change in the direction of expatriation studies and practices (Baruch et al. 2016).
Migration, labour, mobility and expatriation forms are related lenses and related concepts.
This discourse on the labor mobility of professionals and highly skilled labor and their human capital development, together with the theory and practice of people management, forms a backdrop against which expatriation and self-initiated expatriation can be reflected upon (Baruch et al. 2016). Mostly, the term ‘self-initiated expatriate’ is used to refer to an individual who undertakes his international work experience with either very limited or no company transfer or secondment (cf. Cerdin and Selmer 2014; Suutari et al. 2017). SIEs move from one country to another either on their own, or with the aid of expatriate opportunities provided by the corporate world. SIE has increased much more than corporate expatriation (Jokinen et al.
2008), and today, SIEs move for different reasons and durations of stay, experience different outcomes, and often shift from one form of mobility to another (Ackers and Gill 2008; Chacko 2017). The existing international HRM literature has been criticized for not researching the SIE of highly skilled people beyond a restricted management perspective, by taking wider cross- disciplinary meta-theoretical approaches (see Berry and Bell 2011; Harvey 2011; Cerdin and Selmer 2014). This shift has been more substantially addressed in other fields that have examined the transnational migration of highly skilled expatriates (Beaverstock 2005; 2011;
van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017). Moreover, there are similarities between the concept of SIE and sojourners (who are short term or non-settling visitors), but these concepts share different research traditions (Gurău et al. 2018).
Expatriation is directly related to the corporate world and its dynamics, and follows, empirically and conceptually, disciplinary paths such as HRM and career development (Suutari and Brewster 2000) and the social psychology of work (e.g. Selmer 1999). Theoretically, in the concept of SIE, the location of agency is deeply rooted in the individual and her/his context (cf.
Baruch et al. 2016). The term agency is often used simply to refer to an individual’s freedom of choice, as it is exercised in the face of macro-level social structures that serve to both enable and constrain their action. As van Hear et al. (2017, p. 3) argue:
15
This tends to reduce the discussion to one level of analysis: the micro versus the macro – say, the plucky individual working with or against the larger impersonal forces they encounter. This individualistic account of agency tends to obscure how individuals’
ability to act depends on the social milieu in which their action is performed.
Hence, agency needs to be considered not only in terms of an individual’s power to act in and of themselves, but also from a relational perspective (cf. Al Ariss and Özbilgin 2010; Habti 2012; McAuliffe et al. 2018). In other words, agency is concerned with people’s capabilities to take their aspirations and transform them into positions in the social and geographical spaces they inhabit (van Hear et al. 2017, p. 3-4). However, agency is still facilitated and constrained by structural conditions beyond the scope of the individual’s social relations. This does not mean that structural conditions arise from the outside world because they may include an individual’s social cleavages when the decision is made, such as ethnicity, gender, age, generation and education level. The influence of other actors, such as national and local government officials, businesses, international agencies, civil society organizations and various kinds of brokers, also needs further analysis.
The concept of SIE is a pure representation of the contemporary mobility of highly skilled people. Its context is significantly different from corporate-driven expatriation -- as chapters two and three illustrate -- which contributes to the development of a more holistic phenomenological understanding of how SIE is constructed and lived, and how it evolves over time as a life concept. At the same time, it should be noted that SIE is neither approached nor studied as being part of any collectivistic labor diaspora formations of many highly skilled migrants in this new context, because SIEs are perceived and addressed being strongly individualistic in their agency. This lack of embeddedness and social context is both a limitation and a potential for inquiry. Thus, SIE integration and acculturation is often neglected as an avenue of research, although their choices of acculturation are similarly shaped by the dimensions of attraction of the host culture, and also the importance of their cultural preservation (e.g. Baruch et al. 2016). Particular patterns of behavior have been found suggesting that expatriates in similar contexts to their own employ assimilation and integration modes, but in contexts that are culturally distant or when the receiving country is a developing country, they are more likely to employ a separation mode (Tung 1998).
In terms of post-migration integration, the self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) face similar challenges to many other migrants and sojourners. Currently, it is understood that highly skilled SIEs have higher education degrees and credentials, knowledge and savoir-faire, and/or extensive professional experience, and often use them for career progression and personal development (cf. Shachar 2006; OECD 2008; Chiswick and Miller 2009; Harvey and Beaverstock 2017). When considered in the modern day context of the most ‘wanted’ workforce for global economy (Millar and Salt 2007; Triadafilopoulos 2013; Harvey 2014; Czaika 2018), the experiences of highly skilled migrants may fall short of their expectations due to the various challenges and barriersthey encounter (Bauder 2008, 308), and these may ultimately lead to unprivileged transitions in their life-work trajectory. Especially, a lack of corporate support and framework may provide additional difficulties for SIEs, when compared to expatriates who enjoy these privileges. Despite the accumulated skills, there are various forms of work, career, social and even systemic discrimination that feature in their experiences, representing vulnerabilities that are often linked more towards underprivileged migrants, as their accumulated skills and work experience do not automatically converge in totsal labour market integration of the receiving countries (cf. Bauder 2005; Somerville and Walsworth 2009; Habti 2014; Heikkilä 2017; Elo 2017)
Research on SIEs is still in its ‘pre-paradigm state of development’, particularly if we consider the absence of a clear-cut and generally accepted definition distinguishing SIEs from
16
‘assigned expatriates’ or ‘migrants’, or the underlying discussions illustrating the misconceptions that are present in the field (Al Ariss 2013; Andresen et al. 2014). For example, literature has traditionally designated highly skilled expatriates from developing countries as
‘immigrants’ (see Klekowski 2014; Cranston 2017), and those moving from developed to developed countries as SIEs (Al Ariss and Özbilgin 2010; Al Ariss 2013). The inherent bias in some of the research literature is a product of a particular lens, and partly reflects certain eras and traditions. In her book, Klekowski von Koppenfels (2014) raises some questions and challenges regarding the dichotomization of both concepts. The conceptual framework of SIE in this volume encompasses highly skilled SIEs from both developed and developing countries, who have migrated to different regions of the world, whose decisions and experiences abroad have diverse drivers, logics and goals, and who have an unspecified duration of stay. Thus, more mainstreaming of the SIE research regarding context and post-migration settings can foster development and implications in this particular research field (cf. Scholten, Collett &
Petrovic, 2017).
Time --or the temporal aspect-- has a dual meaning in the context of SIE research. Firstly, time relates to the contextual setting of the migratory event that an individual experiences, and may illustrate a broader spatial-temporal phenomenon, even waves of migration, explaining partly why and how people become SIEs or part of a new labour diaspora movement. For example, the economic crisis and troika implications in Greece have triggered a wave of highly skilled medical personnel to migrate to Germany as SIEs. Secondly, time refers to the duration of stay in the country of immigration, and is a measure used to address the temporary or permanent nature of the stay. Expatriation supported by corporate assignment systems is per se distinctively defined in terms of time-frame, while SIEs might employ a more individual framing of their time in a particular place. As an example, studies in international migration and diaspora research tend to give much less consideration to the temporal aspect of one’s stay, despite it being among the key elements that make SIEs a distinct category of international migrants and reflecting that they are not necessarily embedded in the long-term or permanent social structures that provide gravity effects on their decision making (cf. Kultalahti et al. 2006).
Thus, we consider that time and the timing of migration are crucial dimensions to understand in SIE research (cf. Findlay and Stockdale 2003).
Time, place, type of settlement and the reasons for migration are important dimensions that reflect upon a highly skilled expatriate’s career and migration experiences (see Ryan and Mulholland 2015; Ryan et al. 2015b). The migration trajectories of expatriates may be temporary or long-term, and may well cause them to be termed as ‘accidental migrants’
(Klekowski 2014, 43), whose actual stay far exceeds their original intended length of stay. The terms ‘self-initiated expatriate’ and ‘migrant’ are often used interchangeably. Some studies in HRM emphasize the migration element in the context of SIEs (cf. Howe-Walsh and Schyns 2010; Al Ariss 2010; Al Ariss 2013; Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry 2013; Andresen et al. 2014).
However, the existing theoretical literature still lacks an all-encompassing theoretical perspective on SIE that provides a framework for interpreting its different forms of mobility.
This book extends the conceptualization of SIEs as highly skilled migrants who expatriate (i.e. migrate across national borders) for a variety of reasons (Klekowski 2014) and in a variety of career settings (between work and career, self-employment, entrepreneurship and other self- realization), broadening the international human resource perspective (cf. Baruch et al. 2016).
In addition, it incorporates the individual SIE in a socially embedded context, providing additional dimensions and dynamics regarding family and life, but also those of the participants in SIE life. This enrichment permits the construction of a more precise and nuanced categorization and understanding of global highly skilled people across different streams and traditions. Additionally, this more inclusive view reflects that notion that all expatriates have a life context beyond their career (e.g. family) and that they are inherently migrants operating
17
within various nation state institutional boundaries and migration policies.6 This view points out that the forms of agency employed are relational and multiple depending on viewpoint, from a nation state shaping its people flows, to individuals deciding on their life options (cf.
Klekowski 2014; van Hear et al. 2017; van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017; Bauder 2017). To fully understand the ‘forces and frictions through which migration comes about and is experienced’, Carling and Collins (2017, p. 1) argue that it is important to have a critical research approach to uncover the complexity of global migration, and the way in which it is embedded in social relations, imaginations of the world, economic settings and opportunities, and political agendas.
The contributions in the book offer insights and enrichments to these theory debates, and highlight the need for a cross-disciplinary approach and multi-layered understanding.
A more dialectic approach suggests that a heterogeneous view on international mobility and migration dynamics challenges the taken-for-granted differentiations, and enables a better understanding of what constitutes a highly skilled ‘migrant’, ‘expatriate’ or ‘self-initiated expatriate’, and how they differ conceptually and contextually. A broader discourse of this type may support an important dissemination and cross-fertilization of scholarship. Conversely, rigid category approaches may offer very little to migrating highly skilled people, industry, business and countries, or to scholars trying to capture the dynamics of a certain aspect of the phenomenon. Instead, systemic and more holistic views may provide interesting and useful lenses, such as the consideration of a career ecosystem approach (Baruch et al. 2016). After all, expatriation and international migration may be organizationally-driven; but they may also be fully individually driven, or involve a combination of both over time and in any order.
1.4 Moving on the ‘Mobility Turn’ in Self-initiated Expatriation
Cross-disciplinary scholarship on global highly skilled mobility and migration has burgeoned in the past two decades (e.g. Brettell and Hollifield 2014; Beaverstock 2011; Favell et al. 2015;
Czaika 2018). Much has been left unpacked in the field of SIE, that redresses the multi-faceted nature of highly skilled mobility in a rapidly globalized world, and challenges the ‘sendentarist’
and ‘nomadic’ mobility of this population and their produced knowledge and capabilities (see Sheller and Urry 2006; also Gurău et al. forthcoming). These important theoretical and empirical developments in Social Sciences has come be called the ‘mobility turn’. The post- disciplinary ‘Mobility turn’ (Hannam et al. 2006; Urry 2006, 2016; Cresswell 2006; Sheller and Urry 2006; 2016) is a major paradigm that examines the mobility of individuals, ideas, goods and capital, and their implications in the postmodern world. Mobilities research was born as a result of the way that Social Sciences had overlooked ‘the importance of the systematic movements of people for work and family life, and for leisure and pleasure’ (Sheller and Urry 2006, p. 208). Individuals and communities have been viewed as static and tied to specific places, whereas the mobility turn considers the movements of individuals and communities, and the drivers that trigger, restrain and which are produced by those movements. The mobility turn has become prominent since the 1990s because of the increasing importance of new forms of mobility for individuals and societies in the current social world. In the last two decades, the conceptualization and empirical analysis of the mobilities of people (including expatriation) has become a legitimate component of Social Sciences.
Social scientists use the literature of this paradigm by incorporating new ways of theorizing.
With the increasingly diverse forms and patterns of mobility, new ways of thinking and theorizing in different disciplines have been found, which foreground mobility as a global, local and trans-local fact of everyday life. These approaches transcend established concepts of
‘societies’ and ‘nations’ (Kaufmann 2002) and propose a ‘sociology beyond societies’ (Urry 2000) which highlights the influence of social relations (e.g. networks). Cross-disciplinary
6 A person who migrates from one country to another is considered as a migrant (see OECD 2008; de Haas 2010).
18
contributions to global mobility have burgeoned along the lines of anthropology, sociology, political sciences, cultural studies, economics, human geography, demography, ethnography and international migration (Sheller and Urry 2006, p. 207). In the spirit of the ‘mobility turn,’
research needs to examine ways of life and walks of life (especially careers and jobs without borders) in a global world of “high mobility” (Viry and Kaufmann 2015), interconnectivity and/or disconnectivity (cf. Ryan et al. 2015b; Ryan and Mulholland 2014; Czaika 2018). In the same vein, Urry (2016, p. 13) finds that Social Sciences need ‘to reflect, capture, simulate and interrogate movements across variable distances’ because “social relations are never only fixed or located in place, but are, to very varying degrees, constituted through various entities or what Latour terms ‘circulating entities’.”
Theoretically, the increasingly diverse global highly skilled migration still requires an identification of the emerging processes, patterns and outcomes of mobility, in order to promote increased clarity and theorizing. It needs to determine assumptions and implications, and draw conclusions for the development of theory and debate on international migration and expatriation. This book aims to establish the dimension of the ‘mobility turn’ as a linking component in analyzing self-initiated expatriation, providing a theoretical breadth that links self-initiated expatriation and highly skilled mobility within the changing forms of global mobility, its actors and respective societal dynamics. By doing so, this book broadens the debates beyond the lenses of HRM and a pure career. It provides an inclusive scope that underscores various aspects of the mobility turn in the experiences of highly skilled SIEs. This way, the contributing studies and the implications of findings are linked within a larger frame of reference.
In this regard, we seek the reconceptualization and theorization of SIEs as migrants who employ, embedded in their contexts, their human resources across borders or without borders.
We explore new questions about the trends and patterns of highly skilled migration that challenge commonly held views on the characteristics of highly skilled migrants, the perceived costs and consequences of their migration and integration experiences, and lend scrutiny to the interactive multi-level factors shaping and reshaping these experiences. The chapters reflect the
‘new interdisciplinary mobility turn’ (Hannam and Butler 2012, p. 127) to provide cross- disciplinary approaches that examine how SIEs experience and organize their international migration, careers and life strategies. Within this, it is identified that the coping mechanisms of SIEs differ in both theory and practice from those of corporate driven expatriates, even when looked at through the lens of career ecosystems (cf. Baruch et al. 2016).
Studying the international migration of SIEs through the lens of ‘mobility turn’ provides vital theoretical dynamism to this topic. Although existing theorizations have been attentive to mobilities research, they have tended to implicitly ground their understandings on human and capital mobility schemes, as well as on economic drivers, gravity effects and career development (Greenwood 1985; Mahroum 2000; Arthur et al. 2005; Fang et al. 2009; Kotabe et al. 2013). Research has yet to adequately address cross-disciplinary approaches which can be used to explore highly skilled migrants and their mobility motives and patterns over time and contexts. Moreover, we need to explore how different interactions of factors are part and parcel of the broader regimes which foster and affect highly skilled migration as a main frame of policy. These multi-level migratory processes range from nation state policy to family coping, and need a deeper understanding. Additionally, these migration processes may contain several entry and exit phases, instead of involving one-way migration, and this is particularly usual for highly skilled SIEs. The mobility turn provides the theoretical, methodological and analytical grounds to approach and mainstream such research features. The advantages of the broader research agenda of this paradigm in understanding international highly skilled expatriation pertain to linking different interactive levels of migration, unlike more traditional disciplinary approaches of migration research that often focus on specific forms of mobility
19
(see Cresswell 2010, p. 551; Buscher et al. 2016). At the methodological level, mobility turn advocates the necessity to use what Cresswell (2006) calls a ‘mobile methodology’ such as life- course, in order to avoid addressing mobility from the perspective of boundedness. Further methodological concerns relate to the ontology and epistemology of the selected views, which create additional difficulties for post- and inter-disciplinary research.
Another key difference in focus is the type of mobility dynamism that is of interest in the study of SIEs. The mobility turn not only draws attention to how a panoply of ‘mobilities’
defines the way social and cultural lives take shape, but it also raises questions about some of the more fundamental principles underpinning the research of global mobility. We consider that multiple mobility is not just a question of circulation, but also a complex feature typical of many expatriates. However, the issue is often neglected in research (see also Ackers and Gill 2008;
Chacko 2017). Therefore, this book involves empirical studies that shed light on the question of how this ‘mobility turn’ can benefit scholarship on highly skilled SIE migration. Examining the ‘traditional’ paradigm of leaving-arriving-integrating/belonging (in a destination context) that still underpins most scholarly and economic-political thinking on migration, the book problematizes this issue by demonstrating that migration, expatriation and transnationalism can be thought of as part of an individual’s ‘mobilities map.’ The dimensions of this ‘map’ vary from the physical (e.g. local, international/transnational), through the social and professional (e.g. horizontal, vertical, diagonal) to the cultural and political (e.g. bi- or multiculturalism, transnationalism). Lately, research has shown that highly skilled migration is overwhelmingly determined by interactive multi-level factors, rather than the traditionally assumed push-pull factor nexus (de Haas 2010; Ryan and Mulholland 2015; van Hear et al. 2017). This evidence suggests that complex embeddedness and multi-layeredness always play an elemental role in highly skilled mobility experiences that can either facilitate or hinder life-work career trajectories (see Ryan et al. 2015a; Findlay and Cranston 2015; Ryan and Mulholland 2015;
van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017). Focusing on various professional categories which have emerged as a result of the global economy workings, the authors explore how these diverse migrants strategize towards social mobility and career progression as SIEs, cope with the challenges they face, or else simply enjoy the cultural experiences they encounter.
Ultimately, in terms of theory development, we aim to enrich the theoretical landscape by debating different views and broadening the lenses through which the SIE phenomenon is approached. The concept of the ‘self-initiated expatriate’ has been demarcated in the literature of international HRM, rather than the cross-disciplinary and multi-level perspectives of international migration or the transnational diaspora. Scholarly work based on a single discipline often represents the norm in the literature, but we see a demand for a cross- dissemination of research and a better interaction across disciplines. The overall aim of this book is to bridge the gap between different research disciplines in the Social Sciences and other fields of international migration studies, including HRM, which have, heretofore, engaged in parallel research on similar populations, and to highlight what we can learn from bringing the fields together. We draw on extant literature and synthesize the theory which makes the links between the fields of mobility, migration, diaspora, expatriation and SIE explicit (see Figure 1). The landscape model below is a novel attempt to position and bring together related fields, and illustrates how these research streams partly overlap while they all address one overall phenomenon within their particular traditions. The movement across national borders of highly skilled people undergoing different migration and integration experiences is embedded in several debates and approached with various theory lenses. Importantly, the role of individual agency (the will and decision making power of a person) and of freedom in migration (e.g. free movers, globetrotters, neo-nomads, sojourners) are central for global mobility, and in SIE research and an investigation of their dynamics.
Figure 1. SIE and the theory landscape
20
We seek to deepen conversations at the intersections between the mobility turn and the international migration of highly skilled expatriates at an analytical level, in the selection of relevant contributions. We follow analytical orientations, theoretical frameworks and adjacent fields though their movements in cross-disciplinary directions, in order to provide a set of interrelated perspectives. We have included views on topics ranging from regulatory macro- level and regime levels to the mille-micro family level (e.g. between individuals in the family).
The studies position SIE on the free movement landscape (i.e. in having access to host countries with no or minor impediments from migration policy), and also in regard to expatriation (Favell and Hansen 2002; Tung 1998, 2016; Reitz et al. 2014). The contributing authors address the questions of freedom and decision making, and reflect on these over time. The way authors incorporate individual agency for mobility follows their respective disciplinary-bound issues regarding e.g. personal wellbeing, labour market integration, multicultural adjustment, drivers of expatriation, humanitarian migration, as well as historical developments and globalization and their framings (Brubaker 2005; Brettell and Hollifield 2014). The book presents new research findings on these migrant groups through an overall lens of the mobility turn, and in so doing, brings together different perspectives focusing on the complex international migration of highly skilled expatriates. The empirical contents of the book comprise eleven studies that explicate these linkages with numerous perspectives such as law, entrepreneurship, family etc.
This gives an impetus for moving forward towards less rigid discussions on the phenomenon, and to overcoming conceptual paradoxes.
1.5 Aim and Scope of the Book
The book addresses the phenomenon of SIE as a form of international highly skilled migration and mobility. It captures the interaction between migration and expatriation research literature.
We aim to develop further the field of research on expatriation and highly skilled mobility within a broader multi-level and cross-disciplinary perspective in the specific context of the Nordic country of Finland. Moving beyond the traditional focus on different migrant groups from different nationalities, this book takes Finland as both a departure country for Finnish highly skilled expatriates, as well as being a destination for non-Finnish migrants. The book covers different groups of expatriates belonging to different professions and who have different
21
personal and working conditions. We address the processes of international highly skilled migration from various stages of migration. We provide insights into their lived experiences at personal and professional levels, including their migration and integration processes.
Traditional migration theories do not fully explain international skilled migration processes, patterns and outcomes (see O’Reilly 2012; Ryan and Mulholland 2015; van Riemsdijk and Wang 2017, p. 2; Czaika 2018). Despite the significant scholarly contributions aimed to help understand SIE, particularly in HRM discipline, a coherent theoretical framework is missing to explain the multiple dimensions, dynamics and forms of social embeddedness in the experiences of highly skilled SIEs. These dimensions serve to shape and reshape these experiences through different intersections at different stages of migration, at multiple levels, and as expressed through their daily lives. Hence, the book foregrounds the role of relational and intersectional factors in the highly skilled migration process. Gathering perspectives from different research disciplines, the book rethinks established theories on highly skilled migration through a range of case studies that investigate SIE experiences.
This book captures and expounds on the developments, dynamics and outcomes of the international experiences of SIEs, namely the individual (personal), professional and socio- cultural experiences of SIEs abroad. As empirical case studies, the chapters use the notion of SIE to articulate a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of expatriation, integration, lifestyle and migration outcomes. The authors employ different theoretical concepts and cross- disciplinary approaches, and draw on the ‘mobility turn’ to theorize the experiences of SIEs in relation to their agency, career progression, labour market integration, social integration and the transferability and mobilization of different forms of capital (cultural, social, intellectual, symbolic) (see Bourdieu 1986; 1990), forms of self-identification, social acculturations and adjustment, gender role, career, family life and wellbeing. Collectively, the studies raise questions such as: Do SIEs move abroad for higher remuneration, career progression, a global career, family reasons, or for cultural adventure? How far are their aspirations, goals and expectations reached? What are the migration patterns and outcomes of their personal and professional life experiences as highly skilled SIEs? What are their career and personal life prospects? How do they perceive the professional and personal life-work experiences, challenges and opportunities that relate to their lives and practices? Each of the featured case studies makes a significant contribution to the research on international highly skilled migration, and towards understanding Finland’s position as receiving and sending country, with reference to a changing society, globalized economy, innovation, human capital development, and growing technology sector.
By focusing on one key country which has developed into both a receiving and a sending country, this book draws broader conclusions about SIE, looking at the Finnish context and then expanding to provide a broader approach that covers a large geographical canvas. The book explores local issues of global significance with important theoretical and empirical implications, thus giving it national and international relevance. It highlights the ongoing dynamics governing the SIE of Finns abroad and foreign-born expatriates in Finland. It places the findings in the context of the recent scholarship on ‘mobilities’, and offers an opportunity to think through an integrated framework that facilitates a new way of understanding the international migration of SIEs. Currently, we still do not know much about this highly skilled category in Finland. In their chapters, the contributing authors shed light on what are often overly simplified discussions and debates on highly skilled migration. The chapters chiefly look at questions pertaining to group and individual experiences. The migration experiences of highly skilled SIEs and their social relations are formed by the relational nature of places (Urry 2007; Williams et al. 2011; Findlay et al. 2015; Ryan et al. 2015b; Ryan and Mulholland 2015).
As such, the real-life contexts where these SIEs live and work play a crucial part in the
22
structuring of their social and professional life, and their social relations build upon the intersection of three major fields: the workplace, family and community.
The theoretical and empirical ground of the book hinges on multi-level and cross- disciplinary approaches to highly skilled migration, and is in line with the post-disciplinary lens of the mobility turn (Sheller and Urry 2006; 2016). In the same vein, the focus of recent literature in the field has moved from macro-level perspectives to a micro-level life-course approach (see Findlay and Stockdale 2003; Wingens et al. 2011; O’Reilly 2012; Habti 2014;
Erel 2015; Kou et al. 2015; Worth and Hardill 2016), with a broader multi-level approach (see Findlay et al. 2015; Ryan and Mulholland 2015). The chapters in this book mostly employ a micro-level analysis, as it enlightens the reasons why individual agency is theoretically predominant in multi-disciplinary research. As Carling and Collins (2017, p. 3) claim, theory needs to find an alternative approach towards framing migration that addresses its complex multi-level components in terms of social relations, the way it is contextualized in terms of imaginative geographies, emotional weight, politics and power relations, and economic considerations. Using life-course approach indicates how SIEs see themselves as free movers - - not constrained by migration policies -- who make their own decisions in their personal and professional life trajectories. The book thus expands on recent scholarly discussion on the trends and forms of contemporary migration, and points to the possible challenges faced by policy reform (cf. Harvey 2014; Cerna 2016; Czaika 2018). To advance the knowledge on the topic, this book provides a broader understanding of the migration of highly skilled people and the multi-level aspects within the spatial, temporal, social and professional contexts that shape their lived daily life practices. Both the context in which this book plays out and the ways in which the authors have chosen to approach their questions are important.
Together with other migrants, SIEs influence societal, market- and country-level dynamics that affect both the sending and receiving country contexts with the shift in human capital.
Currently, high-income countries host more than two thirds of all the international migrants, and are experiencing unforeseen interconnections of multiple human dynamics and issues of contextual embeddedness (de Haas 2010; Almond 2011; UNPD 2016). This book contributes to the dialogue on theoretical approaches, with empirical findings and novel viewpoints.
Importantly, it fuels the current debates on the topics and methodologies which are relevant to achieving a deeper understanding of an expanding disciplinary research area that tries to demarcate self-initiated expatriates and international highly skilled migrants in relation to their international work experience. However, this literature often provides unclear and prescriptive criteria of their demarcation (cf. Doherty et al. 2013; Andresen et al. 2014; Tharenou 2015;
Crowley-Henry and Al Ariss 2016;Baruch et al. 2016; Bonache et al. 2017). The design of the book is unique as it provides a platform for research around this phenomenon as a concept in evolution, allowing a theoretical engagement of multiple voices. Each author takes a stance and creates a part of the evolution in their respective contribution. The idiosyncratic experiences and views of SIEs --particularly from outside the corporate and career management perspective- - illustrate the multifaceted and complex nature of this phenomenon.
Migration literature addresses the general theoretical and conceptual landscape around the migration of highly skilled people, but the theory contribution of this book is not on an overall migration level. Instead, its key contribution rises from the dialogue between international migration and SIE mobility. The interconnectedness between different terms and views is approached in an inclusive, rather than fragmented or compartmentalized manner to allow diverse and broader viewpoints. Hence, the book engages and positions the theoretical and analytical concepts of SIE in a cross- and multidisciplinary setting, and as a dynamic phenomenon within a global setting. Shifting from global migration towards a mobility theory perspective, the book provides different approaches to the (re)conceptualization required to address, theoretically and analytically, the highly skilled SIEs who are de facto migrants. The
23
conceptual interest of the work is focused on the concept of SIE within the lenses of expatriation and international migration.
1.6 The Finnish Context: Experiencing Mobility, Mobilizing Experience
There is a call for better contextualization regarding globalization, international business, international entrepreneurship and international actors (e.g. Zahra 2007; Michailova 2011). As a particular context,Finland is highly relevant, as it provides a case with an inherent dynamic change in migration behaviour from being a relatively remote Nordic country with historically low-skilled labour diasporas abroad, to a sending country of young highly skilled people (e.g.
Koikkalainen 2013; Elo 2017). Finland is a small Nordic country with a population of 5.4 million, with an arctic climate and peripheral location, but one that is intensively involved in the global economy, global higher education, and international business. Known as the home of Nokia and other high-tech companies, Finland is in many ways representative of other recent immigration countries, with incoming numbers that remain relatively low but deeply involved in a regionalization process as a member of the EU. Finland has traditionally been an emigration country, and its history is rich in sending labour migrants, creating notable labour diasporas in countries like Sweden, USA and Canada. Since becoming an EU member, Finland has turned from being an emigration country to an immigration country (Heikkilä 2005; Martikainen et al.
2013; Habti and Koikkalainen 2014), attracting a positive net migration as the number of migrants entering the country per annum is higher than the number of out-migrants (Eurostats Statistics Explained 2012). However, latest statistics indicate that Finland has suffered a ‘brain drain’ of young and educated Finns, compared with the returnees in 2017 (Elo, 2017) and the incoming immigrants (Statistics Finland 2017).
Forsander (2003, p. 56) indicates that ‘Finland’s immigration policy has not been determined by labor market considerations; instead it has developed as a result of external pressures, such as international agreements, or on the basis of ethnic loyalty.’ In 2012, more than half of the workers attracted to the Finnish labour market were from the neighboring countries of Sweden, Estonia and Russia, and other EU countries (see Habti and Koikkalainen 2014). Since the 2000s, the state started to show interest in highly skilled labour migration and implemented some initiatives, rather than policies, towards attracting this category of labour. These moves were aimed to fill the labor deficit in certain sectors, mainly in ITCs and healthcare, and though slow in pace, the selective and managed migration regime served to strengthen Finland’s global competitiveness (Habti 2010; Komulainen 2013; Raunio 2015). The migration and attraction of highly skilled people from third-countries to Finland is a new phenomenon, and its immigrant population is very small (OECD 2004; EMN 2013; Koskela 2014). The exiting literature on immigrant labour market integration has revealed that a higher education level does not guarantee employment in Finland (cf. Heikkilä 2005; Kyhä 2011; Koskela 2014), but the extent of this is unknown as reliable register data and other statistics that show the trends and patterns of migration (Habti 2012; Koikkalainen 2013), and the impact of public measures directed at highly skilled migration are not available (see EMN 2013).
As with other Nordic countries with a competitive and open small economy, Finland is a theoretically relevant country for exploring the increasing phenomenon of SIE, mainly due to its rather recent and nascent nature of becoming a true SIE locus. The radical change in the SIE nature of the country provides an instrumental case that may assist policy makers, institutions and organisations to better manage the current reality of people who migrate internationally, following their paths without the a priori structures and security of corporate systems. Despite criticism for being late to respond to the need to attract foreign highly skilled people (EMN 2013), Finland has witnessed a growing mobility and migration of highly skilled people (see Raunio and Forsander 2009; Habti 2014; Raunio 2015), partly as a result of the late political- economic policy agendas to recruit this foreign labour category. The objective of the national
