Missing links in migrant enfranchisement studies

Abstract

We identify four main strands of the migrant enfranchisement literature since 2010 and outline its main (debated) concepts. We pinpoint missing links among the strands, such as a tendency for scholars to study the electoral rights of foreign residents (immigrants) separate from nationals abroad (emigrants). Other missing links lie with actors and processes along the migrant enfranchisement legal path, with more studies focused on enacting or implementing rights versus fewer on why rights stagnate or fail to pass. Another missing link is geographic, favouring South–North over South-South enfranchisement. Despite an overall acceptance of transnational belonging and multi-territorial political participation, research agendas remain disparate across migration studies, political science, sociology, international relations, and other social sciences and humanities. Missing links are missed opportunities to merge disciplinary findings and find (causal) mechanisms to explain migrant enfranchisement. When analysing the four strands, we suggest researchers apply an immigrant-emigrant lens to include origin and residence countries and rights of both emigrants and immigrants. Each article in this Special Issue nuances one of the strands, combines them, or applies the immigrant-emigrant lens. The issue expands the geographic coverage of current studies and offers innovative comparative analyses of Africa, Europe, and Latin America.