Section 1: What are the key concepts and definitions in studying 19th and 20th Century Migration Governance?

In this section, we introduce the topic and consider the key concepts and definitions you will need in studying it.

1.1 Introduction to the topic

Migration governance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was shaped by multiple forces:

• international migration regimes;
• imperial exit and border policies;
• economic and social challenges;
• religious and ethnic persecution;
• the rise of modern transportation infrastructures.

In Eastern Europe – particularly within the multiethnic Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires – these dynamics triggered large-scale migration both within and beyond imperial borders.^[1]

At the same time, the legal and administrative mechanisms for managing migration were still underdeveloped and highly restrictive.

The Russian Empire, for instance, confined Jews to the Pale of Settlement, imposed quotas on education, and required internal passports for movement.^[2] Comparable constraints were placed on other minorities and political dissidents.

Borders were policed inconsistently; bureaucratic procedures were arbitrary; and local authorities frequently lacked both the resources and the interest in managing displacement.

Although emigration was officially restricted, particularly for Jews confined to the Pale of Settlement, the enforcement of these restrictions varied significantly depending on social status, literacy, economic means, and geographic location.

In practice, the imperial administration tolerated or overlooked the departure of certain minorities. This patchy implementation enabled many Jews to leave without official permission, often by crossing the border clandestinely.

Moreover, imperial authorities frequently lacked both resources and interest in managing displacement. In this vacuum, non-governmental organizations and migration businesses filled governance gaps. These ranged from local charities and mutual aid societies to transnational philanthropic organizations, such as the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Jewish Colonization Association.

NGOs carried out the following tasks:

• coordinated transportation;
• facilitated access to passports;
• arranged legal and medical services;
• helped with settlement in transit and receiving countries.^[3]

Many NGOs operated across imperial boundaries, creating transnational infrastructures of support long before the modern migration regime emerged.

One of the prominent cases of the role of non-state actors in historical migration governance is the Kyiv Jewish Emigration Society. Founded in 1909, the Society operated as a legal organization within the Russian Empire, assisting thousands of Jews emigrate, primarily through the Galveston Movement. While the organization concentrated on Jewish migration, its practices reflect broader patterns in the governance of population movements during this period.

1.2 Key Concepts and Definitions: Migration Governance

Understanding migration governance in late Imperial Eastern Europe requires a set of conceptual tools that frame the interaction between state policies, non-state actors, and transnational networks.

The following definitions provide the foundational language for analyzing the themes of this unit, beginning with Migration Governance.

Migration governance refers to the frameworks, institutions, policies, and practices that regulate and manage migration. It includes not only state actors but also international organizations, civil society institutions, and informal networks.^[4]

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in Eastern Europe, state migration governance was discriminatory and inefficient for large-scale migration, allowing migration businesses,^[5] NGOs, and diaspora organizations to take on crucial roles in facilitating and managing population movements.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

NGOs are legally or informally organized groups independent of the state and operate on a non-profit basis to provide social, humanitarian, or advocacy functions.

In migration contexts, NGOs may assist with:

• documentation,
• legal aid,
• transportation logistics,
• medical checks,
• financial support,
• post-arrival settlement services.

International and local migrants aid networks and emigration organizations exemplify how NGOs assumed quasi-governmental functions in managing migration during this period.

Diaspora and Transnationalism

Diaspora communities are dispersed populations that maintain emotional, familial, cultural, and institutional ties to their place of origin. These ties often evolve into transnational networks – ongoing flows of people, money, information, and practices that span nation-states.

Transnationalism played a central role in late imperial migration governance, with diaspora-based aid organizations in Paris, London, and New York supporting Jewish emigration from the Russian Empire.

Logistical, Moral, and Expert Authority

Scholars define different types of authority of NGOs in migration governance. Logistical authority refers to their ability to reach migrant groups, organize, and deliver services effectively, particularly in crisis situations. This authority is often demonstrated through establishing emergency relief and shelter, providing basic needs for migrants, and highlighting operational capacities.

NGOs influence migration governance through their expert authority, which stems from their specialized knowledge and experience in legal and procedural matters related to migration.

In contrast, moral authority derives from NGOs’ claims to advocate for humanitarian principles and the rights of particular groups of populations. This authority enables NGOs to influence policies by framing migration issues within broader human rights discourses, thus challenging the moral legitimacy of state actions that may neglect or harm migrants.^[6]

State Sovereignty and Governance Gaps

State sovereignty traditionally implies the state’s exclusive right to control borders and determine who may enter or leave. However, in practice, state capacity is often limited, remarkably in states facing administrative inefficiency, regional unrest, or political repression.

NGOs step into these governance gaps, assuming functions the state is unwilling or unable to perform.^[7] In the Russian Empire, these gaps were particularly noticeable in areas such as emigration documentation, medical certification, and transborder coordination.

Review Exercise

We have now come to the end of the first section in the unit. Complete the following exercise based on what you have learned.