The aspirations-capability framework (and its sibling, the aspirations-ability framework) has found widespread application in the analysis of migration decision-making and outcomes. Much less attention has been paid to using the aspirations-capability framework to understand migrants’ decision-making following their departure from a country of origin – i.e., whether to stay in a country of destination, return (to a country of origin or previous residence), or indeed migrate onwards to another country.
Prompted by an opportunity to reflect on theorising return decision-making, and inspired by recent contributions by , which build on eminent scholarship by Hein de Haas, Jorgen Carling and Kerilyn Schewel, amongst others, in this blog I highlight some aspects of the ‘capabilities’ part of this framework that I consider under-acknowledged or ambiguous.
Recent scholarship has emphasised that, in a migration context: i) ; ii) these aspirations are ; and iii) (‘life aspirations’). In contrast to these understandings of migration aspirations, and as , efforts to theorise migration capabilities lag behind.
First, with some exceptions, discussions and visualisations of migration aspirations and capabilities tend to implicitly assume that people have the capabilities to stay. This may be broadly true if we conceive capabilities in terms of someone’s de facto immobility. But the concept of forced migration or displacement rests on the idea that a refugee or other forced migrant was not able to stay – in other words, they did not have the capabilities to stay – due, for example, to threats to their life, physical integrity, or livelihood. So, the capability to stay or migrate would seem to encompass more than simply the physical ability to stay put or cross an international border. Indeed, that the ‘capability (freedom) to choose where to live’ depends on having a ‘realistic option to remain.’
Once someone has left their country of origin, it becomes perhaps more obvious to question whether they have the capabilities to stay in a country of destination. If they do not have the legal right to residence there, they may be physically removed via deportation. And yet some migrants stay, living and working, even without the legal right to do so. In contrast, others may decide that they cannot stay because they do not want to live as an irregular migrant. Or, even if they have legal status, they may consider that they cannot stay because they cannot find (decent) work in the country of destination, or because they cannot bring their family to join them. This point about the nature of the options that someone has available to them relates back to scholarly discussions of forced and voluntary (return) migration as a continuum, rather than a binary distinction. But it also highlights that both aspirations and capabilities must be understood in relation to the individual’s life aspirations – i.e., what they conceive for themselves as the ‘good life’, or even just an acceptably decent life.
Therefore, if we are interested in decision-making processes (i.e., the formation of preferences and intentions, regardless of whether someone then manages to migrate or stay), capabilities to stay and to migrate should be understood as individual, subjective and relative in three ways. Capabilities to migrate are relative, first, as , to a particular migration corridor; and second, as , to a ‘mode of migration’ (i.e., via a certain legal pathway, or irregularly). Different migration pathways require different types and degrees of capabilities – for example, accessing a high-skilled employment visa requires certain educational qualifications, while crossing a difficult land border irregularly may require good physical health. Reflecting these different options and their implications, capabilities are relative, third, to the individual’s life aspirations. Someone who would be able to enter or reside in a country irregularly, if they tried to, may nonetheless decide that they cannot migrate because they do not have access to the kind of residence and work permit that would allow them to pursue their career, or live comfortably, there. Whether someone assesses that they have the capabilities to stay or migrate will therefore depend on the kind of life they aspire to lead in the country of intended residence.
I therefore end with three propositions for future work on migration decision-making:
- Capabilities to stay or migrate should be understood as encompassing more than simply the physical ability to stay put or cross an international border;
- Capabilities to migrate or stay should therefore be understood as subjective assessments in relation not only to a certain migration corridor and mode of migration, but also in relation to broader life aspirations;
- Narrative and visual frameworks of migration decision-making should explicitly incorporate capabilities to stay.
Suggested citation: Dubow Talitha., "Reflections on capabilities in decisions to migrate or stay," 糖心Vlog破解版-MERIT (blog), 2025-06-30, 2025, /merit/blog-post/reflections-capabilities-decisions-migrate-or-stay.
