The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Crossroads: Comparative Immigration Regimes in a World of Demographic Change
Abstract
In this ambitious study, Anna K. Boucher and Justin Gest present a unique analysis of immigration governance across thirty countries. Relying on a database of immigration demographics in the world's most important destinations, they present a novel taxonomy and an analysis of what drives different approaches to immigration policy over space and time. In an era defined by inequality, populism, and fears of international terrorism, they find that governments are converging toward a 'Market Model' that seeks immigrants for short-term labor with fewer outlets to citizenship - an approach that resembles the increasingly contingent nature of labor markets worldwide.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Characterising them as ' neoliberal ' migration regimes, along with Canada and New Zealand, Boucher and Gest (2018, 141) argue ' [O]nly Kafala and quasi-Kafala regimes more actively select and exclude immigrants in the interest of maximising their economic contribution and minimising the risk of their fi nancial dependence on state resources ' .”
From Conditioning grandparent care-labour mobility at the care-migration systems nexus: Australia and the UK (2024) · cites this paper as Boucher and Gest 2018, 141
In the citing paper
“Neoliberalism is also driving migration regimes across the globe towards convergence around a ' market model ' characterised by selectivity in the national interest (Boucher and Gest 2018).”
From Conditioning grandparent care-labour mobility at the care-migration systems nexus: Australia and the UK (2024) · cites this paper as Boucher and Gest 2018
In the citing paper
“Boucher and Gest (2018) see the selective and competitive turn as part of a ' market model ' of migration, which like its post-war predecessors, preferences economic-related migration over family migration, but which extends this preference to highly-skilled workers too.”
From Conditioning grandparent care-labour mobility at the care-migration systems nexus: Australia and the UK (2024) · cites this paper as Boucher and Gest 2018
Citations
Cited by
Ho, E. L., & Chiu, T. Y. (2020) · Population Space and Place · doi:10.1002/psp.2365 · Cited by 42
Kilkey, M., & Baldassar, L. (2024) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2023.2279732 · Cited by 15
“Characterising them as ‘ neoliberal ’ migration regimes, along with Canada and New Zealand, Boucher and Gest (2018, 141) argue ‘ [O]nly Kafala and quasi-Kafala regimes more actively select and exclude immigrants in the interest of maximising their economic contribution and minimising the risk of their fi nancial depend…”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Boucher, A. K., & Gest, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2018-04-30
- OpenAlex
- W4239206923
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 10.65
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Labor Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Law › Immigration Law and Human Rights
- Keywords
- immigration policy, immigration governance, labor migration, citizenship, populism, international terrorism, inequality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
