an article by Melanie Kolbe and Elif Naz Kayran (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland) published in Journal of European Social Policy Volume 29 Issue 4 (October 2019)
Abstract
Why do some countries have more skill-selective labour immigration policies than others?
Despite general agreement that high-skilled immigrants are economically and socially desirable, some countries extensively select high-skilled from low-skilled labour immigrants, while others do not. While most political economy accounts indicate an explicit connection between relative skill selectivity and welfare states, two different hypotheses emerge regarding the direction of this relationship.
The fiscal cost hypothesis puts forward that the tension between welfare state generosity and immigration motivates greater selectivity as states try to reconcile fiscal pressures for closure with continuing needs for immigration.
The decommodification hypothesis, in contrast, holds that the capabilities of generous welfare states to decommodify their citizens also decrease rationales to be more skill-selective towards labour immigrants.
Developing an original measure of skill selectivity in labour immigration policies for 20 developed democracies from 2000 to 2010, we test these two hypotheses. Our results indicate that differences in decommodification levels appear to be substantively and negatively associated with differences in skill selectivity levels, while changes in welfare spending over time, particularly among high-spending countries, rather than differences in spending levels, seem to be positively associated with increasing skill selectivity.
This suggests potential tensions between the political responses to economic and demographic changes in the form of immigration policy adjustments and the underlying social logic of modern welfare states.
The findings contribute not only to the study of high-skilled immigration, but also advance the current research on the tension between immigration and the welfare state.
Showing posts with label migration_policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label migration_policy. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 October 2019
Tuesday, 1 October 2019
Immigration policy and the modern welfare state, 1880–1920
an article by Sara Kalm and Johannes Lindvall (Lund University, Sweden) published in Journal of European Social Policy Volume 29 Issue 3 (October 2019)
Abstract
This article puts contemporary debates about the relationship between immigration policy and the welfare state in historical perspective. Relying on new historical data, the article examines the relationship between immigration policy and social policy in Western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the modern welfare state emerged.
Germany already had comparably strict immigration policies when the German Empire introduced the world’s first national social insurances in the 1880s. Denmark, another early social-policy adopter, also pursued restrictive immigration policies early on.
Almost all other countries in Western Europe started out with more liberal immigration policies than Germany’s and Denmark’s, but then adopted more restrictive immigration policies and more generous social policies concurrently.
There are two exceptions, Belgium and Italy, which are discussed in the article.
Abstract
This article puts contemporary debates about the relationship between immigration policy and the welfare state in historical perspective. Relying on new historical data, the article examines the relationship between immigration policy and social policy in Western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the modern welfare state emerged.
Germany already had comparably strict immigration policies when the German Empire introduced the world’s first national social insurances in the 1880s. Denmark, another early social-policy adopter, also pursued restrictive immigration policies early on.
Almost all other countries in Western Europe started out with more liberal immigration policies than Germany’s and Denmark’s, but then adopted more restrictive immigration policies and more generous social policies concurrently.
There are two exceptions, Belgium and Italy, which are discussed in the article.
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Learning to live with irregular migration: towards a more ambitious debate on the politics of ‘the problem’
an article by Anne McNevin (The New School for Social Research, New York, USA) published in Citizenship Studies Volume 21 Issue 3 (2017)
Abstract
What might be gained by learning to live with ‘the problem’ of irregular migration, rather than attempting to solve it?
This article engages two senses of ‘the problem’ at stake: first, the ongoing nature of displacement and migration and second, the contested justice claims that sit behind different policy perspectives.
The second sense of the problem (its political dimension) is rarely addressed explicitly in public debate. Yet direct engagement with the political dimension offers the potential to unlock debate from a polarised impasse. To make this argument, I first diagnose debate on irregular migration in terms of three archetypal positions and examine their implicit justice claims.
I then argue for a more ambitious debate that pushes contending justice claims to their logical extensions.
Debate of this kind requires a more coherent defence of justice claims, whether they are based in communitarian, cosmopolitan, anti-capitalist or hybrid values with respect to citizenship and political community. The article concludes with an illustration of how this approach can generate momentum for less circular, more sustainable and politically achievable policy responses.
The argument is made with reference to illustrative examples from Australia and Europe but holds for a variety of contexts where ‘the problem’ is framed in similar ways.
Abstract
What might be gained by learning to live with ‘the problem’ of irregular migration, rather than attempting to solve it?
This article engages two senses of ‘the problem’ at stake: first, the ongoing nature of displacement and migration and second, the contested justice claims that sit behind different policy perspectives.
The second sense of the problem (its political dimension) is rarely addressed explicitly in public debate. Yet direct engagement with the political dimension offers the potential to unlock debate from a polarised impasse. To make this argument, I first diagnose debate on irregular migration in terms of three archetypal positions and examine their implicit justice claims.
I then argue for a more ambitious debate that pushes contending justice claims to their logical extensions.
Debate of this kind requires a more coherent defence of justice claims, whether they are based in communitarian, cosmopolitan, anti-capitalist or hybrid values with respect to citizenship and political community. The article concludes with an illustration of how this approach can generate momentum for less circular, more sustainable and politically achievable policy responses.
The argument is made with reference to illustrative examples from Australia and Europe but holds for a variety of contexts where ‘the problem’ is framed in similar ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
