Suchergebnisse

Temporary Labour Migration Programmes (TLMPs) are controversial because they are caught in a dilemma between global and domestic justice. From a global justice perspective, TLMPs expand opportunities for workers in poor countries to access labour markets of rich countries and they improve the situation of origin countries through remittances. From a domestic justice perspective, TLMPs violate principles of domestic equality because they always afford migrant workers more restricted rights than those enjoyed by citizens and long-term residents of the host country. Although this dilemma cannot be fully resolved, we argue that TLMPs can be morally justified and recommended if they are characterized by 'fair representation' in policy design and implementation and also meet certain democratic legitimacy conditions. TLMPs can be justified if they provide triple benefits for destination and origin countries as well as for migrants themselves, yet the relevant benefits can only be achieved cooperatively through transnational governance in which each of the three groups of actors is fairly represented. This conclusion is supported by our interpretation of the democratic principle of including all affected interests. Under such conditions, some rights of temporary migrant workers in host countries can be regarded as a legitimate outcome of negotiations, while others need to be fixed in advance under a democratic principle of equal protection of all subjected to the laws. Democratic legitimacy also requires that migrants enjoy protection and participation rights as citizens of their countries of origin as well as local citizenship in their countries of residence.

AbstractThe Global Compacts on Migration (GCM) and Refugees (GCR) include policy recommendations that aim to increase opportunities for legal labour migration, improve protections for migrant workers, and provide refugees with 'complementary pathways' to enhanced protection via labour mobility. This paper explains why there are large gaps between these policy recommendations and the labour market policies and realities in the countries that host most of the world's migrant workers. These gaps between ideals and realities are likely to limit the effective implementation of the GCM/GCR recommendations on labour migration. More 'labour market realism' is needed to incrementally but effectively improve protections for migrant workers.

This working paper provides an overview and basic descriptive analysis of key indicators of national labour markets and welfare states in the European Union (EU). The overview of labour market indicators uses standard variables and "off-the-shelf" data provided by Eurostat and the OECD. Our discussion of national welfare states draws on a range of indicators specifically coded for the REMINDER project and compiled into a new dataset called "Social Protection in Europe Database" (SPEUDA). The aim of the deliverable is to support two different work packages within the larger REMINDER research project by providing institutional and other indicators to be used in subsequent analyses. Work package 7 investigates the role of variations in formal and informal national institutions (specifically labour markets; welfare states; and normative attitudes to welfare, work, Europe, and immigration) in explaining divergent national policy positions among EU countries on reforming the current rules for the free movement of labour in the EU (see Ruhs and Palme 2018).2 Work Package 4 investigates the fiscal effects of EU mobility and the consequences of differences in national institutions (see Nyman and Ahlskog 2018).

Published online: 27 Jun 2018 ; 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.

This article discusses employer demand for migrant labour. We argue that the UK's growing reliance on migrant workers cannot simply be explained by lax immigration controls or migrants' superior 'work ethic'. It arises from the complex interactions between institutions, public policies and social relations. A wide range of public policies have contributed to a growing demand for migrant workers in the UK

Comprehensive U.S. immigration reform proposals have three major elements: improved border and workplace controls, dealing with the 11 million unauthorized foreigners in the U.S., and managing "future flows" of foreign workers requested by U.S. employers. Improved controls and dealing with unauthorized foreigners were discussed extensively in the U.S. Senate in 2006 and 2007. Future flows were not. This article reviews the decisions governments face when employers request migrant workers, Britain's independent Migration Advisory Committee, and the promises and perils of a similar U.S. commission to manage labor migration. We conclude that a U.S. commission could help to clarify the trade-offs involved in migrant labor policy, but cannot replace the need for inherently political choices between competing policy objectives.

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.

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.