EpiCenter
EpiCenterThe following are introductory and concluding excerpts from a report commissioned by the U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, entitled "Migration Systems in Comparative Perspective: An Analysis of the Inter-American Migration System with Comparative Reference to the Mediterranean-European System," authored under the auspices of the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship by Aristide Zolberg, New School for Social Research, and Robert C. Smith, Barnard College.
This report was undertaken to analyze the origins, nature and operation of a migration system linking the United States, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, while making comparative reference to a similar system linking Western Europe to the Maghreb and Turkey. A systemic approach allows for a macro-analysis of processes which have produced an interactive migration network. Although self-perpetuating in significant measure, the operation of this system is nonetheless subject to governmental influences as well as factors that "push" or "pull" migrants from less developed countries to the United States and Europe.
This migration system has been created through the interaction over time of 1) government policies that have created conditions favoring migration, including those focused on economic development, and immigration control and regulation; 2) changes in local, national and global economies that have produced structural changes and created incentives to migrate; and 3) the internal logic by which migration becomes a semi-autonomous process once it has become established through immigrant social networks.
With regard to the causes of migration, this study confirms well established understandings: international migration, both driven by economic necessity and by political upheavals, reflects very general world conditions, notably wide disparities in conditions between countries. However, poverty, crowding, persecution, or general violence, do not produce emigration unless people have a place to go and the means to get there. The migratory networks that link Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean with the United States, and North Africa and Turkey with Europe, are largely of the receivers' own making as well.
Of late, many decision makers on both sides of the Atlantic, media analysts, much of the general public, as well as a number of academic specialists, are persuaded that there is a generally declining capacity on the part of the major industrial countries to control immigration flows. However, evidence on the matter is mixed at best. A basic observation is that, although the pool of potential migrants from the regions that have been selected for consideration is continuing to expand, and networks linking the countries of origin and of destination are well established, nowhere does one find massive increases in unauthorized immigration from those countries. On the European side, immigration from the Maghreb and Turkey appears to be effectively regulated; and while the United States continues to receive a substantial flow of undocumented immigration from Mexico, there is no evidence that it is growing by leaps and bounds. This suggests that there is no cause for panic, and that proposals for improving on the present situation should take into account costs, including not only the fiscal ones ultimately borne by the taxpayers, but also political and humanitarian ones, borne by both citizens and foreigners.
Although there are reports of illegal entries and residence in all the European countries examined, so far one does not encounter anywhere U.S.-style illegal immigration of large numbers slipping surreptitiously across borders. In fact, the mere possibility that this might occur following the fall of Communism was countered very quickly by a variety of deterrents, notably the elaboration of a buffer by coopting immediate neighbors such as Poland and the Czech Republic in the containment of their own eastern neighbors. So far, this has proved quite effective. Rather than massive illegal immigration, in the late 1980s the Europeans were confronted with an "asylum crisis," somewhat comparable to the one which arose in the United States a few years earlier with regard to Central Americans, with Germany most seriously affected. However, this too was quickly brought under control.
A striking similarity of the situation on both sides of the Atlantic is that receivers are constrained from increasing the degree of internal police control over foreigners inside the country as an instrument for deterring unauthorized entry or residence. One reason is a general trend in the legal climate of democratic nation-states, involving increased protection for the rights of "persons," which includes foreigners as well as citizens. While this particular formulation is specific to the United States, which also lacks the requirement of an identity card, and where there is considerable resistance to the establishment of even "foolproof" social security identification, a similar trend has been noted in many European countries, despite the unquestioned prevalence of identification documents. This is attributable to the broadening of individual rights under the various constitutional systems (written or unwritten) in the post-World War II period, enhanced by international commitments and resulting obligations, notably to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as to regional instruments and organizations, notably the Council of Europe. As a result, foreigners on both sides of the Atlantic benefit from many of the same legal rights as citizens. Beyond this, it is also evident that except in situations of emergency (as in the wake of acts of terrorism), the majority of citizens --even if they deplore immigration-- generally will not tolerate on the part of public officials practices associated with "police state" methods. Finally, law enforcement agencies are also constrained by the law of diminishing returns, and it appears that stepping up a variety of internal control measures to catch a few more illegal residents is not cost effective; and this is compounded by the high cost of ordinary deportation proceedings. Although a number of European countries have recently enacted measures to lower these costs, and some have engaged in spectacular operations to demonstrate their clout --notably France, by deporting plane loads of Africans under the "Pasqua laws"-- it is too early to evaluate their long-term effectiveness.
There has been rising interest on both sides of the Atlantic in harnessing trade and aid policies to the containment of "immigration pressures." However, as noted in the national analyses, in the short term development should be expected to increase the pool of potential migrants, notably by way of increased productivity in the agricultural sector, propelling surplus labor in search of employment outside their localities of origin, as well as the capacity of those so inclined to actually relocate, by providing them with the financial means and transportation facilities for doing so. Moreover, there is little indication that any of the developed countries will in the foreseeable future increase their general contributions to overseas assistance to the level required to produce significant change of conditions in the source countries, and within existing levels, a shift from development to humanitarian assistance.
However, there is very solid evidence that development assistance directed toward the achievement of lower population growth is highly effective, both in terms of the cost effectiveness of achieving the objective itself, and in contributing to the lowering of emigration pressures by reducing over the medium-term the size of the age groups entering into the source country's labor market, thereby also facilitating the transition to higher productivity economic activities. It is also evident that the removal of barriers to trade in commodities in which the source countries have or might develop a comparative advantage is a sine qua non for their growth, which over the longer term will reduce outgoing flows.
This leads to a final question regarding the mutual relevance of the regional integration experiences of Europe and the United States. Any attempt to draw lessons one way or the other must take into consideration the profound differences between the comprehensive objectives of the EEC (now EU) --in effect, to trade in order to avoid making war, and to establish the bases for political integration-- and the limited objectives of NAFTA; the historical distance between the two (post-war Europe in the era of the "Bretton Woods boom" and the Cold War vs. post-boom, post-war North America); and the size of the development gap between the partners. Moreover, as indicated in Section II, the free movement of persons --envisioned as a key "factor of production"-- was specifically provided for in the Treaty of Rome, whereas that is not the case in NAFTA. Consequently, the question might be disaggregated into two: What is the relevance of the integration of lower income countries into the EU (initially Italy, later Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland) for NAFTA, and what is the relevance of NAFTA for the EU's evolving special relationships with non-member immigrant source countries, notably the North African states and Turkey?
A major argument for the integration of lower income countries into economic markets led by higher income ones is that this will result in a narrowing of the wage gap between them, and that this in turn will dampen migration. In this regard, some have argued that the European experience suggests that it is not necessary to achieve wage parity, but rather that differentials as high as 4:1 or 5:1 will suffice. This is attributable to the "hope factor," whereby if conditions are perceived to be improving, potential migrants are more likely to stay at home in the expectation that they will get better yet. For example, in the early 1960s it was feared that the removal of restrictions to the movement of labor would occasion massive Italian migration to the rest of Europe; yet despite the presence of well-established networks, this did not occur because the restructuring of the Italian economy that resulted generated many new jobs, and the hope of higher wages inhibited potential migrants from making their first trip. One suggestive inference is that it was precisely the absence of the "hope factor" which hitherto induced such a great exodus among the U.S.'s neighbors.
It should be noted as well that EU agreements provide for large aid transfers to its lower income members. Another consideration is that at the time of accession the populations of the southern EU member states were growing more slowly than Mexico's today. Finally, during much of the period of their transition to higher growth economies, the southern Europeans had other emigration possibilities, including North and South America --for which there is no equivalent available to Mexicans and other lower income neighbors of the United States today.
Hence, although it is likely that, thanks to economic integration, over the long term the Mexican wage gap will be reduced to a point where incentives to northward migration will be significantly reduced, this long term is nowhere in sight. In the intervening period, much depends on how NAFTA is implemented, particularly with regard to job creation in the traditional emigration areas in the interior of Mexico. For the most part, these observations are also applicable to special relationships that might be elaborated between the EU and lower income, emigrant-producing neighbors in the Mediterranean rim.
At a series of local round tables this past spring, local scholar-researchers retained by the Center to prepare papers in connection with the NYCT project presented their preliminary findings and recommendations. The first of these round tables featured a presentation by Suzanne Michael of the Hunter College (CUNY) Center for the Study of Family Policy and the New York Task Force on Immigrant Health. In her paper, Ms. Michael provides a summary of the current issues challenging immigrants, health providers, advocates and policy makers in both maintaining and improving the health status of New York's immigrant communities. Perhaps the key finding emerging from her comprehensive review of the existing literature on this subject is that "New York remains understudied in the area of immigrant health." Ms. Michael notes, for example, that "despite the increased concern about immigrants' use of health and social welfare services, surprisingly little is known about the health care utilization patterns of immigrants" in the city (or, for that matter, the country at large). This makes it extremely difficult to forecast what impact the prospective or actual privatization or closure of public hospitals in New York, other changes stemming from the larger, ongoing restructuring of the U.S. health care delivery system, or proposed federal legislation that would further restrict immigrants' eligibility for a range of health and social services, may have on immigrants' access to and utilization of health services.
In order to address gaps in our current understanding of immigrant health issues as these affect newcomers to New York, and to enable concerned parties to better assess the possible implications of pending changes in the larger environment affecting immigrant health, Ms. Michael has tentatively identified four "major research questions" to guide future research in this area: (1) What are the insurance statuses and patterns of coverage in New York's major immigrant communities? (2) What are the patterns of health care utilization of different immigrant populations, and what are the determinants for their choice of provider/institution? (3) What are the risks of morbidity and mortality in each of New York City's major immigrant communities? And, (4) What are the public health costs and the costs in terms of lost productivity if immigrants are further restricted in their use of publicly-funded health and social services? Ms. Michael has also identified several areas for policy and programmatic action, including, for example, proposals to develop requirements that managed care networks provide cross-cultural and cross-linguistic services, and to institute monitoring of such services in terms of access and quality assurance.
Francisco Rivera-Batiz of Columbia Teachers College (Institute for Urban and Minority Education), whose paper focuses on the education of immigrant children in New York City, presented at the second NYCT project round table, convened at the New School on May 3. In his presentation Rivera-Batiz cited recent data that underscores the deep impact that immigration to New York is having on the city's public school system. He noted, for example, that between October 1989 and October 1995, at least 131,207 foreign-born schoolchildren entered the system on net basis, accounting for all the enrollment growth during this period, and that the most recent (March 1996) Emergency Immigrant Education Census reveals that these students come from 204 countries (!), with the largest influxes from the Dominican Republic, Russia, Jamaica, China, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, and Mexico. Rivera-Batiz's paper examines the impact that this large influx of increasingly diverse immigrant schoolchildren is having in contributing to problems of overcrowding in the city's public schools. It also addresses issues having to do with the system's capacity (or lack thereof) to deal with the linguistic diversity represented by these newcomers, including the efficacy of existing bilingual and ESL programs, as well as the educational attainment and achievement of immigrant students and the appropriateness of the testing and measurement instruments currently being used to assess immigrant student performance.
A separate section of the Rivera-Batiz paper provides an evaluation of schools for immigrant children, of which there are currently seven in New York City. In this context, the author observes that "a great deal of evidence suggests that the closer and/or faster the school for immigrants works in following the mainstream curriculum in content areas, the more likely it is to succeed. The objective must therefore be the integration of linguistically diverse students with the general student population, not their segregation into special' schools." As with Suzanne Michael, the paper being prepared by Rivera-Batiz promises to make a major contribution in setting forth a concrete agenda for future action-oriented research while also focusing attention on urgent policy and programmatic issues that are, or ought to be, of concern to newcomers and established residents alike.
Another paper being prepared in connection with the NYCT project, by Professors David Howell and Elizabeth Mueller of the New School's Robert J. Milano Graduate School School of Management and Urban Policy, focuses on "immigrants as workers" in New York City. The Howell-Mueller paper reviews recent evidence regarding immigrants in the city's labor force -- specifically, who they are, how they fit into the current economy, and whether they affect the economic status of native born workers -- with a view to elucidating what is known about these matters and what remains to be investigated. At a third NYCT project round table convened on May 28, Howell and Mueller reported that, "as a whole, the available literature leaves important gaps in our knowledge of the dynamics of industries employing many immigrants [and] the link between immigrant communities and employers, and may overemphasize certain paths/modes of incorporation (such as small business employment or enclave employment). There is relatively little work on the place of immigrants in the general labor market and what does exist is based on 1970 and 1980 data. Although there are a number of important case studies, given recent changes in public sector employment and the transformation of the health services industry, the existing literature strikes us as dated and limited in coverage."
In the concluding section of their paper, and with a view to addressing part of the existing gap in the literature, Howell and Mueller undertake to examine the employment and earnings shifts in New York City for foreign- and native-born workers by gender, race, and ethnicity both at the city-wide level and at the detailed, job niche, level. They begin by outlining a new labor market segmentation scheme, consisting of three job segments -- the best independent primary' jobs, good subordinate primary' jobs, and the worst secondary' jobs. They then describe changes in the employment shares and average earnings of foreign- and native-born workers within discrete job contours over the past decade, focusing especially on the secondary job contours and specific niches "owned" by immigrants and African-Americans. Among other advantages, this novel approach promises to provide New York City-specific data and analysis that will shed needed additional light on a much-debated topic, viz., the extent to which immigrant groups are replacing, or competing with and perhaps displacing native-born workers. The three papers being prepared for the NYCT project should be completed and available for distribution this coming September, whereupon the Center will convene a fourth and final round table with a view to facilitating informed discussion of the cross-linkages between these ostensibly separate set of research/policy areas. A concluding conference tentatively scheduled to take place in November 1996 will provide an opportunity for the Center and the commissioned paper-writers to present their proposals for future research and for policy/programmatic action to policy makers, journalists and other interested parties. Readers of "EpiCenter" are invited to contact the ICMEC if they would like to receive copies of the final papers and/or to participate in the fall round table or concluding conference (both events will be free and open to the public).
(1) Working Group on Global Migration. Faculty co-chairs: Peter Kwong, Asian-American Studies Program, Hunter College/CUNY, and Hector Cordero-Guzman, Robert J. Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School for Social Research. This working group will focus its efforts in four areas: (i) the role of migration in the contemporary world system -- in particular, contemporary patterns of global migration and their causes and consequences; (ii) the intersection and interaction between between the global circulation of capital and national, international and transnational labor migration flows; (iii) modes of migrant incorporation and adaptation into receiving societies with an emphasis on the process of migrant insertion into the socio-economic structure of urban centers; and (iv) Asian and Latino migration issues with an emphasis on similarities and differences between sending and receiving societies and regions.
(2) Working Group on U.S. and Canadian Immigration. Faculty co-chairs: Philip Kasinitz, Department of Sociology, Hunter College/CUNY, and Orlando Rodriguez, Department of Sociology and Center for Hispanic Studies, Fordham University. This group seeks to promote discussion on the processes of incorporation of new immigrants into North American societies with reference to the relationships between immigrant and native populations, including native minority populations. It will focus on how ethnic diversity is changing the self-conception of North American societies (i.e., what it means to be "American" or "Canadian"), the changing nature of citizenship and the relationships between societies that international migration fosters. Specific topics to be addressed include the politics of assimilation in multi-cultural nations, the new "transnationalism," and the role of the "second generation."
(3) Working Group on Refugees. Faculty co-chairs: Ines Miyares, Department of Geography and Geology, Hunter College/CUNY, and Pamela Goldberg, Queens Law School, CUNY.
(4) Working Group on Ethnicity and Nationalism. Faculty co-chairs, David Reimers, Department of History, and Martin Schain, Department of Politics and Center for European Studies, New York University. This working group will focus on the recent rise of nativism and anti-immigrant politics in both Europe -- especially France and Germany -- and the United States, seeking to isolate the factors that explain these developments. The dates covered are approximately 1980 to the present.
(5) Working Group on Immigrant Cities. Faculty co-chairs: Mehdi Bozorgmehr, Department of Sociology, City College/CUNY, and Cristina Szanton-Blanc, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. The immigrant cities working group focuses on issues related to the incorporation of immigrants in large metropolitan areas both in the United States and in Europe, Asia and other regions of the world. By sponsoring a range of comparisons across and within cities, the working group aims to develop a comparative framework that will explain variations in the behavior of foreign-born immigrants who arrive into very different kinds of city contexts and transform them in the process. Depending upon participants' interest, the working group may undertake to compare the experience of the same immigrant group in different cities within one nation (Koreans in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) and/or across nations (Filipinos in New York, Rome, Madrid and Tokyo; Caribbeans in New York, Miami and London). Alternatively, the group may focus its attention primarily on the experience of different groups within the same city and their different strategies of incorporation often also related to their background, timing and degree of transnational connections (Caribbeans, Haitians, Indians and Chinese in New York).
Now that the groundwork has
been laid we anticipate that the above-described working groups will become
fully operational in the fall of 1996. Although these working groups are
intended primarily to support the professional development of local-area
faculty and (especially) graduate students, participation is open to all
interested parties. The Center's e-mail listservs continue to facilitate
information exchanges among working group members, regardless of geographic
location. To sign up for one or more of the groups, contact the Center
at: ICMEC@newschool.edu.
The harassments, beatings, and deaths of Mexicans in the United States are symptoms of the gradual, but irreversible, closing of our northern border. For centuries we maintained an open border with the United States, and the control points never really stood in the way of the movement of goods or people. Regulations depended, rather, on the supply and demand of labor, and in some extreme cases both governments assumed merely ornamental functions.
In Washington, whenever the White House threatened to apply strict migration policies, Congress would block the initiative in response to clearly defined economic interests. In Mexico, the northern border was an escape valve for the tension resulting from millions of poor and unemployed who not only send home a significant amount of dollars but also feed the voracity of corrupt officials. Even today, much of Mexico's official reaction to what is going on along the border is characterized by the belief that it will remain open. But they are mistaken. On Friday, March 29, the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship at the New School for Social Research organized a conference in New York on "The Future of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy." Dr. Phyllis A. Coven, Director of International Affairs for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), offered a detailed description of the new U. S. migration policy.
"Never before," Dr. Coven assured us, "had the Executive and Congress been in such close agreement concerning the new migration policy which centers around five important elements: effective control of all our borders -- on land, air, and sea; an efficient system for processing requests for asylum; application of migration policy beyond border areas; efficient mechanisms for deporting undocumented aliens; and furthering the legalization of immigrants."
This plan -- which received feedback from different sectors of the Executive branch -- was explained in detail, with statistics and data that confirm an important flow of financial resources, an intensive application of state-of-the-art technology, and the values that are behind all actions of the INS, which, under Doris Meissner, has raised its efficiency and prestige throughout the United States. Of one thing we Mexicans can be sure: in the U.S. there is both consensus and determination to control its borders and regulate population flows.
This new migration policy alters the concept of an "open border" and is the consequence of economic and demographic factors intellectually fed by the growing popularity of catastrophic thinking. Recently, analysts from several industrialized countries have put forward terrible scenarios for most of the planet. The strategist Martin Van Creveld, environmentalist Thomas Fraser Homer-Dixon, and journalist Robert D. Kaplan are among those who speak of depleted natural resources and rising crime rates.
Homer-Dixon, quoted in an article by Kaplan, summarizes this logic in a metaphor: "Think of a stretch limo in the potholed streets of New York City, where homeless beggars live. Inside the limo are the air-conditioned post-industrial regions of North America, Europe, the Pacific Rim, and a few other isolated places, with their trade summitry and computer-information highways. Outside is the rest of mankind, going in a completely different direction." (Robert D. Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy," The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994). This conception has been an important influence on the elite of industrialized countries, which then respond by closing their borders. Obviously, Mexico is not riding inside Homer-Dixon's limousine.
Jose Luis Perez Canchola, the first ombudsman in the state of Baja California, is a well informed source on the northern border: for more than 20 years he has protected immigrants, and he was one of the first to warn that the U.S. effort to regulate the border was not to be taken lightly. Perez Canchola, and other bajacalifornianos members of a non-governmental organization called "Coalition in the Defense of Migrants," are critical of the social costs of US immigration policy, and of the Mexican government response. Below, I summarize their points of view.
This NGO considers that Jose Angel Gurria, Mexico's minister of Foreign Relations, has been lukewarm regarding U.S. policy and indifferent to the plight of migrant Mexicans. The coalition mentions the disappearance of the ministry's office in charge of border affairs, the Direccion General de Fronteras, which had efficiently documented violations of human rights, while it points to the lack of commitment shown by certain government officials when defending migrants. It was wondered why the governmental National Commission for Human Rights is not an important presence along the northern border.
The Coalition also criticized Mr. Gurria for his indifference toward the development of an anti-Mexican climate in the U.S. and toward the tendency to treat Mexican undocumented as criminals (the "criminalization" of the phenomenon). This indifference contrasts sharply with the energy displayed by the Mexican government when promoting the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Further proof of the lack of the federal government's interest is its attitude toward the marked increase in the number of deportations. Humanitarian and emergency aid for Mexicans expelled from the United States to border towns without money (and some with signs of beatings worse than those filmed in Riverside) fell to border NGOs that never received the support of a government with other priorities. (The ministry of Social Development, Sedesol, finally offered 500,000 pesos -- close to US$66,000 -- to support existing private shelters.) Lastly, the restrictive policies that violate human rights that the government applies to foreigners -- especially along our southern border -- weaken the defense of undocumented Mexicans in the United States.
I agree with Mr. Gurria when he says that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' response to recent acts of violence involving Mexicans in the United States has been correct. However, so far it has been an isolated display of energy that in no way changes the lack of commitment characteristic of government policy when defending Mexican citizens. Mexico needs a comprehensive policy in this regard, one that fully recognizes the myriad implications of the gradual, but irreversible, transformation of our northern border by a decision taken in the United States. Liking it or not, we must say good-bye to the border.
International Advisory Council Meets For First Time
The inaugural meeting of the ICMEC's international advisory council was held at the New School on March 29, 1996. Eight members of the council attended this meeting, which was presided over by council chair Warren Zimmermann, former U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia, along with New School president Jonathan F. Fanton and Aristide Zolberg (Center director) and Peter Benda (associate director). Council members in attendance included: Sergio Aguayo, Professor of International Relations, El Colegio de Mexico (Mexico City); Cornelius Dennis de Jong, European Commission Secretariat-General, Task Force on Justice and Home Affairs (Brussels); Robert DeVecchi, President, International Rescue Committee (New York); Werner Blatter, Director, UNHCR Liasion Office (New York), representing the Honorable Sadako Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Enid Schoettle, National Intelligence Officer for Global and Multilateral Affairs, National Intelligence Council (Washington, DC); Fritz Stern, University Professor, Columbia University (New York); and the Honorable Silvano Tomasi, Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (Vatican City).
In general terms, council members expressed strong support for the Center's efforts to date and particularly commended the ICMEC's efforts to establish itself as a bridge between scholars and policy makers concerned about migration/immigration/refugees issues in North America and Europe. (Whether the Center ought to expand the geographic scope of its work to include other regions of the world -- including, e.g., Southeast Asia -- was the subject of much animated discussion.) Following the council business meeting the members of the advisory council attended a special panel discussion on "The Future of U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy," featuring presentations by Phyllis Coven of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Marguerite Rivera Houze of the State Department's Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration, and Michael S. Teitelbaum, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. Thereafter the council members, panelists and invited guests attended a festive dinner hosted by President Fanton, capping off a memorable and productive day.
As noted in the above "Center Update" article, the ICMEC's New York Community Trust project is generating a concrete agenda for action-oriented research on immigrant health, education, and employment/labor market issues as these affect newcomers to New York. The NYCT project (now scheduled to conclude in December 1996) will provide a strong foundation on which the prospective New York City program director can build in endeavoring to get the new Luce research program off to a productive start. However, while the immediate focus of this program will be on New York City, the ICMEC has an abiding interest in comparing the New York experience in incorporating newcomers to that of other major immigrant-receiving cities and states in the U.S., and will also look to the new program director to design and supervise one or more national comparative research projects. A formal job announcement and position description will be published in appropriate scholarly outlets (and also be made available through the Center) later in the fall.
The New School and the ICMEC wish to record their gratitude to the Henry Luce Foundation for its generous support for this new research program, which we believe will make an important contribution in advancing scholarly and public understanding of these important issues.
The first institute session, held July 16-28 at the New School, featured a series of presentations by leading scholars and practitioners from both sides of the Atlantic (see below) as well as individual and panel presentations by the Fellows themselves. With this intensive ten-day experience behind them, the Fellows will devote what time they can during the upcoming academic year to preparation of joint papers or proposals for collaborative research projects, to be presented at the second institute session in Germany next July. We will be providing updates on the GAAC summer institute in forthcoming issues of "EpiCenter."
Following is the list of Fellows (including institutional affiliations and disciplines) and of guest presenters for the first institute session (arranged by topic).