Many of the ‘essential workers’ during the Covid-19 pandemic are migrants, playing an important role for the continued functioning of basic services – notably health services, social care, and food ...supply chains. We argue that this role should be taken into account when assessing the impacts of migrant workers and in the design of labour migration and related public policies. Existing studies highlight how the employment of migrant workers in essential services is shaped by interests of employers, sectoral policies, and national institutions. Considerations of how migrants may affect the systemic resilience of essential services – in a pandemic or similar crises – are pervasively absent, not only in policy-making but also in research. Drawing on several disciplines, we outline the concept of systemic resilience and develop implications for the analysis and regulation of labour migration. We call for shifting the focus from the role of migrants in specific occupations and sectors in particular countries to transnational systems of production and service provision. To study how migrant workers affect systemic resilience, we propose an agenda for comparative research along three lines: comparing migrants to citizens within the same system, comparing migrants’ roles across systems, and comparing strategies for resilience adopted in different systems.
This paper examines the relationship between the number and rights of low-skilled migrant workers in high-income countries. It identifies a trade-off: Countries with large numbers of low-skilled ...migrant workers offer them relatively few rights, while smaller numbers of migrants are typically associated with more rights. We discuss the number-vs.-rights trade-off in theory and practice as an example of competing goods, raising the question of whether numbers of migrants or rights of migrants should get higher priority. There is no easy or universal answer, but avoiding an explicit discussion of the issue — as has been done in recent guest worker debates — can obscure an important policy choice.
The
UN General Assembly
decided in September 2016 that it would
start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration ...in 2018. The agreement to move toward this comprehensive framework is a momentous one. It means that migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.
Given the well-known and long-standing efforts of various high-income countries to prevent the development of a stronger and more effective global framework for the regulation of international migration, there are obvious reasons to be skeptical that the announced “Global Compact for Migration” will indeed bring about any major change. The ambition to achieve this “Global Compact” has, however, created a window of opportunity to rethink the current approach and debate alternative (or additional) mechanisms for protecting the rights of migrant workers.
What is the use of research in public debates and policy-making on immigration and integration? Why are there such large gaps between migration debates and migration realities, and how can they be ...reduced? Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy-making on Migration and Integration provides a unique set of testimonies and analyses of these questions by researchers and policy experts who have been deeply involved in attempts to link social science research to public policies. Bridging the Gap argues that we must go beyond the prevailing focus on the research–policy nexus by considering how the media, public opinion, and other dimensions of public debates can interact with research and policy processes. The chapters provide theoretical analyses and personal assessments of the successes and failures of past efforts to link research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration in six different countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States—as well as in European and global governance debates. Contrary to common public perceptions and political demands, Bridging the Gaps argues that all actors contributing to research, public debates, and policy-making should recognize that migration, integration, and related decision-making are highly complex issues, and that there are no quick fixes to what are often enduring policy dilemmas. When the different actors understand and appreciate each other’s primary aims and constraints, such common understandings can pave the way for improved policy-making processes and better public policies that deal more effectively with the real challenges of migration and integration.
This paper discusses why and how public attitudes should matter in regulating asylum and refugee protection in rich democracies, with a focus on Europe. Taking a realistic approach, I argue that ...public views constitute a soft feasibility constraint on effective and sustainable policies towards asylum seekers and refugees, and that a failure to take seriously and understand the attitudes of the host country’s population can have a very damaging effect on refugee protection and migrants’ rights in practice. Bringing together insights from political philosophy, the politics of asylum, and research on public attitudes, I develop my argument by discussing why ‘what the people think’ should matter in asylum and refugee polices; how public views can and should matter given the well-known challenges with measuring attitudes and policy preferences; and what the prevailing public views might mean for the reform of asylum and refugee policies in Europe.
As Germany marks the 60th anniversary of admitting its first Gastarbeiter (guest workers) from Turkey in 1961, it is important to recognize that guest-worker policies have a long and global history ...that predates Germany's post-war policies (e.g. Hahamovitch, 2003) and that they are, despite various ‘obituaries’ (e.g. Castles, 1986), still very much alive today. While the terminology and aspects of policy design have evolved over time – from ‘guest-worker programmes’ (e.g. Martin & Teitelbaum, 2001) to ‘temporary labour migration programmes’ (e.g. GCIM, 2005), ‘circular migration programmes’ (e.g. European Migration Network, 2011) and, most recently, ‘international skills partnerships’ (e.g. Clemens, 2015) – the fundamental idea of admitting migrant workers on a temporary basis to help address perceived labour and skills shortages has become an enduring feature of the migration policy landscape of the world's rich countries (Ruhs, 2013). This is unlikely to change in the near future, given that permanent labour immigration programmes (that provide migrant workers with permanent residence and work permits on arrival) are typically limited to the most highly skilled workers and have declined in importance in countries where they used to play a large role.
This paper analyzes how and why labor immigration policies in high-income countries vary across political regimes (democracies versus autocracies) and types of capitalism (liberal versus coordinated ...market economies). I investigate these policy variations using a unique data set of the characteristics of 77 labor immigration policies in 33 high-income countries. Compared with policies in democracies, labor immigration programs in autocracies are characterized by greater openness to labor immigration, more restrictions of migrants’ rights, and stronger trade-offs between openness and rights. With regard to variations across types of capitalism, I find that immigration programs in liberal market economies (LMEs) impose fewer limits on the employment conditions of migrants, but they place more restrictions on migrants’ social rights than policies in coordinated market economies. Policy trade-offs between openness and social rights are more likely to occur in LMEs with liberal welfare states than in countries with other types of welfare states.
The Member States of the European Union (EU) have been engaged in highly divisive debates about whether and how to reform the rules for the 'free movement' of EU workers and their access to national ...welfare states. While some countries have argued for new restrictions on EU workers' access to welfare benefits, many others have opposed policy change. What explains EU Member States' different policy positions on this issue? Existing accounts have focused on populist political parties and the media. In contrast, this article provides a theoretical institutional analysis of how cross-country differences in the regulation of national labour markets and welfare states can contribute to divergent national policy responses to free movement. We argue and explain how labour market and welfare state institutions can affect national policy actors' positions on free movement directly, and/or indirectly via inter-actions with normative attitudes and the characteristics of EU labour immigration.
The current rules for “free movement” in the European Union (EU) facilitate unrestricted intra‐EU labour mobility and equal access to national welfare states for EU workers. The sustainability of ...this policy has recently been threatened by divisive debates between EU countries about the need to restrict welfare benefits for EU workers. This article develops a theory for why the current free movement rules might present particular challenges for certain EU member states. It focuses on the potential roles of three types of national institutions and social norms in determining national policy positions on free movement in the EU15 states: labour markets (especially their “flexibility”); welfare states (especially their “contributory basis”); and citizenship norms (focusing on the “European‐ness” of national identities). I show that these institutions and norms vary across member states and explain why we can expect these differences to contribute to divergent national policy preferences for reforming free movement.
On 1 May 2004, 10 new states — including the ‘A8’ countries in Central and Eastern Europe — joined the European Union (EU). This article explores the impact of EU enlargement on A8 workers who were ...already working in the UK before 1 May 2004 — legally or illegally. More specifically, the article analyses the impact of the change in the legal (immigration) status that A8 workers experienced on 1 May 2004 on their earnings in the UK. The empirical analysis employs difference‐in‐difference estimation using data obtained from a relatively small but unique survey of migrant workers from four of the A8 countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania) and two other East European countries (Ukraine and Bulgaria), carried out one month before and six to eight months after EU enlargement in May 2004. The results of this exploratory analysis suggest a statistically significant and positive impact of acquiring EU status on earnings. The data further indicate that, in part, this effect was brought about by A8 workers gaining the right to freely change jobs after EU enlargement. There is no evidence of a ‘legalization effect’ on earnings.
PDF
