Suchergebnisse

EUCROSS untersucht die Beziehung zwischen den vielfältigen Aktivitäten von Einwohnern der EU (Bürger im eigenen Land, mobile EU Bürger, Bürger aus Drittstaaten) über nationale Grenzen hinweg, sowie die Ausprägung kollektiver Identitäten.

Themen: 1. Grenzüberschreitende Praktiken: Regionen und Länder, mit denen der Befragte vertraut ist; Gründe für diese Vertrautheit (Arbeit, Studium, Familie, Partnerbeziehung, Freunde, Freizeit, Urlaub, andere); Motivation für die Entscheidung, sich im Land niederzulassen; Jemals in einem anderen Land für drei oder mehr aufeinander folgende Monate gelebt vor Erreichen des 18. Lebensjahres und jeweilige Länder; Jahr oder Zeitraum, in dem der Befragte in diesem Land lebte; Land sowie Jahr oder Zeitraum des längsten Aufenthalts; Anzahl der besuchten Länder für Auslandsreisen; Bereitschaft, in das Land der Geburt zurückzukehren zur Verbesserung der Arbeitsbedingungen und der Lebensbedingungen; Teilnahme an einem internationalen Austauschprogramm, das von der Europäischen Union finanziert wurde; eigene Kinder im Schulalter sollten einige Monate in einem anderen Land verbringen; Anzahl der Auslandsreisen mit mindestens einer Übernachtung in den letzten 24 Monaten; besuchte Länder; Hauptgründe für diese Reisen; Anteil der Familienmitglieder, Schwiegereltern und Freunde, die ursprünglich aus anderen Ländern stammen (Migranten: aus dem Land der Geburt, aus dem Land des Wohnsitzes, aus anderen Ländern); Anteil der Familienmitglieder, Schwiegereltern oder Freunde, die außerhalb des Landes leben und Herkunft dieser Personen; Häufigkeit der Kommunikation mit Familienmitgliedern, Schwiegereltern oder im Ausland lebenden Freunden; Kommunikationswege; Amtssprache des Landes ist die Muttersprache des Befragten; Muttersprache; primär gesprochene Sprache im Haushalt des Befragten; jemals andere Sprachen neben der Muttersprache und der Amtssprache im Land gelernt; Fremdsprachenkompetenz; Fremdsprache, die der Befragte am besten spricht; Prozentsatz aller erhaltenen privaten und geschäftlichen Mitteilungen aus dem Ausland; Aktivität in einer Organisation oder Gruppe, die auf andere Länder oder Kulturen ausgerichtet ist; Häufigkeit von Geldüberweisungen ins Ausland aus anderen Gründen als dem Kauf von Waren oder Dienstleistungen; Empfänger des Geldes (Verhältnis zum Befragten); Befragter erhielt Geld von jemandem, der in einem anderen Land lebt; Beziehung zu diesen Personen; Befragter oder sein Partner besitzt Eigentum im Land des Wohnsitzes oder in einem anderen Land; Land des Eigentums; Kauf von Waren oder Dienstleistungen von Verkäufern oder Anbietern im Ausland und deren Geschäftssitz (Land); Häufigkeit der Rezeption von Sportarten in den Medien; Rezeption von Sport auf nationaler Ebene oder in einem anderen Land; Häufigkeit des Empfangs von TV-Inhalten in anderen Sprachen (nicht synchronisiert) als die offizielle Landessprache oder die Muttersprache; präferierte Musikarten; präferierte fremde Küche; Lebenszufriedenheit.

2. Europäische Identifizierung und kosmopolitische Werte: Identifizierung als Bürger der Stadt des Wohnsitzes, der Region, des Landes, Europas, der Welt); Identität (nur regionale, regionale und europäische, europäische und regionale, nur europäische, Geburtsland usw.); Assoziation mit dem Begriff Europa (der europäische Kontinent, die Europäische Union, eine gemeinsame europäische Kultur und Geschichte, die christliche Religion, keine); Teilnahme an den letzten Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlaments im Juni 2009 (nicht im türkischen Fragebogen enthalten) und bei den letzten nationalen Wahlen im Land; Wahrnehmung der Flagge der Europäischen Union oder eines Bildes der Flagge während der letzten sieben Tage und Gelegenheit (z.B. Fahne als solche, Piktogramm auf Pass, Ausweis, Führerschein usw., Links-Rechts-Selbst-Selbsteinstufung; gute Sache für eine Gesellschaft, die sich aus Menschen aus verschiedenen ethnischen Gruppen, Religionen und Kulturen zusammensetzt; steigende Verbreitung von ausländischen Filmen, Musik und Büchern schadet der nationalen und lokalen Kultur; Wichtigkeit ausgewählter Ziele der Europäischen Union (Solidarität zwischen den Völkern in der EU, Demokratie und Menschenrechte in den einzelnen EU-Ländern, wirtschaftliche Stabilität in den einzelnen EU-Ländern, das Recht, in jedem Land der EU zu arbeiten, eine gemeinsame Währung); die EU sollte keine neuen Mitgliedstaaten akzeptieren; EU-Institutionen sollten einige ihrer Entscheidungsbefugnisse zurück übertragen auf ihre Mitgliedsstaaten; Meinung zum Beitritt ausgewählter Länder zur Europäischen Union (Türkei, Kroatien, Ukraine, Norwegen sowie retrospektiv: Finnland, Griechenland, Polen und Bulgarien); finanzielle Unterstützung im Falle einer Naturkatastrophe im regionalen Verwaltungsbezirk (nur die jeweilige Verwaltung der Landesregion versus das Land als Ganzes); finanzielle Unterstützung im Falle einer Naturkatastrophe eines anderen EU-Mitgliedsstaates (nur durch das jeweilige Land versus durch alle EU-Mitgliedsstaaten); Meinung zu nationalen staatlichen Hilfsfonds, um EU-Ländern zu helfen, die Schwierigkeiten bei der Rückzahlung ihrer Schulden haben; Meinung im Falle der Auflösung der Europäischen Union (Bedauern, Gleichgültigkeit, Erleichterung).

Migranten zusätzlich: Selbsteinschätzung der Sprachkenntnisse zum Zeitpunkt der Einwanderung und jetzt; erfahrene Diskriminierung wegen der Geburt in einem anderen Land.

Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (Geburtsjahr); Staatsbürgerschaften; Geburtsland; Jahr der Übersiedlung; Familienstand; Partner; Partner lebt im Umfrageland; Land des Wohnsitzes des Partners; höchster Bildungsstand; Beschäftigungsstatus oder aktuelle Situation; jemals erwerbstätig; Hauptberuf; Name oder Titel des Hauptberufs; Häufigkeit der beruflichen Interaktion mit Menschen im Ausland (z. B. Geschäftspartnern, Klienten, Kollegen); nationale Staatsbürgerschaft von Vater und Mutter bei ihrer Geburt; höchstes Bildungsniveau der Eltern; als der Befragte 14 Jahre alt war: Elternteil, der am meisten zum Haushaltseinkommen beitrug; Vater / Mutter war Angestellter, selbständig oder arbeitete nicht; Name oder Titel des Hauptberufs von Vater / Mutter; finanzielle Situation des Haushaltes, als der Befragte 14 Jahre alt war; Partner: Geschlecht des Partners; Jahr des Beziehungsbeginns; nationale Staatsbürgerschaft des Partners bei seiner Geburt; höchstes Bildungsniveau des Partners; Beschäftigungsstatus oder aktuelle Situation des Partners; Erwerbstätigkeit des Partners in der Vergangenheit; Partner ist / war Angestellter, selbständig oder arbeitete für das Unternehmen seiner Familie; Name oder Titel des Hauptberufs des Partners; derzeitige finanzielle Situation des Haushalts.

Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Eindeutige Nummer; Internationale Standardklassifikation der Berufe (ISCO 2008); Internationaler sozioökonomischer Index des beruflichen Status (ISEI, nach Ganzeboom); Stichprobengruppe.

The purpose of this working paper is twofold: to consider whether and how the European Union (EU) play a major role in global cultural politics and economy (taking as case study the film sector) and to analyze whether the United States keep playing a key role in global cultural flows or their dominance is challenged by other countries - such as China - or by main digital players. Thus, the article offers a first investigation in order to understand the influence of the EU in global governance of trade and culture, paying special attention to the nexus between culture and digital platforms and to analyse whether this influence is translated into a change of balance of power in the global cultural economy.

This brief paper locates the EUCROSS project within the field of studies on European identity, sharpens its theoretical underpinnings and outlines policy scenarios in line with its general hypotheses. In the broad literature on European identity, a basic distinction between speculative research on civilisational identities and empirical social science research on collective identifications must be drawn. Focusing on the latter, to which the EUCROSS project belongs, it is argued that there are two distinct logics underlying existing inquiries. These are grounded in models of collective identity formation that stress either cultural messages inscribed in discursive processes or practices situated in socio-spatial relations. They are called respectively, the 'culturalist' and the 'structuralist' models of identification. The first one considers identity as a direct outcome of the exposure to content-specific messages; the second, as an emerging property of socio-spatial interactions that are content-free of identity references. The EUCROSS project adopts and advances the second and less developed research tradition which studies the effects of transnational practices on European identification. This paper discusses the potential of this approach from a policy-oriented perspective. In this last respect, it is held that the culturalist model encourages the development of narratives 'selling' the Union to its citizens, while the structuralist model suggests a content-neutral emphasis on the facilitation of cross-border practices.

While the first EUCROSS working paper (Favell et al. 2011) laid down the theoretical groundwork of our project in a 'State of the Art Report' (SoA) and the second one (Hanquinet and Savage 2011) discussed issues around the operationalisation of three key concepts – European identity, cosmopolitanism and cross-border practices – this paper elaborates on the measurement instruments which have ultimately been chosen and, thus, form the core of the EUCROSS questionnaire. Hence, as the title suggests, the paper describes how we measure 'transnational' behaviours and identities. In particular, it outlines the questionnaire items developed to capture those phenomena, which the SoA referred to as 'cross-border practices', and their influence on individual identification with Europe or a cosmopolitan stance.

Drawing on earlier works in the EUCROSS series, this working paper proposes a comprehensive picture of physical and virtual mobility practices. Physical mobilities are characterised with regards to the time factor, thus distinguishing between high and low permanence practices (or 'migrationlike' and 'tourism-like' mobilities). Virtual mobilities may have personal or impersonal character (taking a 'facebook-like' or an 'eBay-like' form). A short discussion of each mobility type is additionally described with existing sources (mainly from Eurostat). This range of cross-border practices is then mapped within the European countries in which the EUCROSS survey was carried out (Germany, the UK, Denmark, Italy, Spain and Romania). Quite against conventional wisdom which suggests that EU citizens make modest use of their free movement rights and are rather immobile, we found that one in six Europeans of the EUCROSS sample has spent at least three months in another EU country in their lifetime. Furthermore, 51 per cent have visited another EU member state, even if for a short vacation, in the last two years. Europeans cross borders in a nonphysical sense as well (almost three quarters of our sample), when they connect online or on the phone with significant others who migrated or with friends they met during their physical trips. Finally, Europeans increasingly engage in cross-border transactions (almost one third of EUCROSS sample), shopping online but also transferring money abroad. All these practices are socially structured, their likelihood depending significantly on education, socioeconomic status, gender and age in differing degrees, as multivariate analyses detail. National contexts matter as well. Danes are most mobile when it comes to low permanence physical mobility and impersonal virtual moves. In turn, Britons and Romanians – possibly with different purposes – have definitely higher odds of having migrated, even in the wider sense of migration as 'long-permanence mobility' that we used. This reverberates on being more strongly networked with other persons abroad than any other nationality examined.

In this document we explore how the three key concepts of the EUCROSS project can effectively be operationalised in survey research. We see this step as an essential precondition to the development of the survey instrument itself, and as a contribution to the operationalisation of these concerns by other researchers, including outside the EUCROSS project. On the former point, our survey is only a 20 minute phone interview, and this format will necessarily constrain our question range and depth. However, our pragmatic choices should still be guided by a wider recognition of what questions might ideally be asked in view of experiences and findings from other projects. On the latter point, all three concepts are ones that interest a great many social scientists, yet there remains a stand-off between theorists of these concepts and qualitative researchers on the one hand, and those who use such concepts in survey research. We hope our operationalisation document may usefully bridge this divide, to some extent at least.

It has become a commonplace in discussion on Europe to argue that European integration most benefits elites and upper classes - people most likely to have international connections - while being of much less benefit to lower classes. This fact in turn is then linked to the widespread mistrust and (sometimes) hostility among ordinary citizens to the European project. Related to this, and which also threatens the integrity of the EU, is growing Euroscepticism in countries which are politically and economically important to the European project's success: notably the UK and Denmark, who have positioned themselves as outsiders to the core of much of the EU. The 7th Framework Program EUCROSS research project provides new data to re-examine these issues and offer suggestions to how European policy makers might make a more constructive case for the positive effects of European integration, including in more Eurosceptic countries.

Transnational migration fields emerged in social research as a result of a tentative criticism of methodological nationalism with its focus on the national space as a homogeneous container of all the forms of social life. The new approach of methodological transnationalism is targeted to locate some sociocultural phenomena and processes in the framework of interactions among several societies. Cross-border practices, links and identities in this new approach put in relation not only nation-states but non-state actors that are structured at group, community and regional level. The three chapters of the working paper address the emerging social transnationalism (Mau, 2012) of Romanians by focusing on transnational fields, perceptions of the first trips abroad and the habitus of emigrants in relation with return intentions. Temporary or indefinite time emigration of Romanians abroad for work started, mainly, during the economic recession that hit Romania in 1997-1999. In spite of its young age, it largely contributed to the structuring of a social transnationalism by fields, actors and layers. EUCROSS and non-EUCROSS data at individual or aggregated level, of quantitative and qualitative nature are put to work for capturing the complexity of the Romanian transnationalism in the making.

The key idea of the first chapter is that regions at different levels, at origin and at destination, function as relevant frames in structuring migration fields. Transnational fields are not only dense interactions between pairs of societies having Romania as origin, but a configuration of interactions among clusters of sending microregions in Romania and receiving macroregions, formed by clusters of receiving countries. Changing the unit of analysis from national societies to regions at different levels allows for a dynamic picture of multisited and multilevel regionalism in understanding transnational migration. Survey and census data are aggregated to reach this picture. The multiregional model of transnationalism is developed by four axes or layers on migration streams, cross-border networks, transnational habitus and migration experiences at individual and family levels. This comprehensive, multilayer approach requires the use of multiple data sets (the EUCROSS survey on Romanian natives, the Romanian census data from 2011 and the Romanian subsample from the Eurobarometer 73.3 on New Europeans) that are able to capture the complexity of the model.

The chapter "First trip abroad: expectations, experiences and stories of transnational Romanians" analyses transnational Romanians' stories about their first trip abroad using the EUMEAN dataset. The concept of physical mobility is seen as a broader framework for understanding transnational and cosmopolitan behaviours as well as international migration. In order to distinguish between different types of travelling for the first trip abroad, the chapter is constructed keeping in mind the structural changes and constraints regarding physical mobility for Romanian citizens. During the transition from a communist country to a EU member state, Romanian citizens' stories about travelling abroad for the first time fundamentally changed. Labour migrants, asylum seekers, business travellers, students or tourists left the country with different expectations and faced different problems at destination. Their attitudes toward origin and destination framed their images about the first trip abroad. Using a qualitative approach and samples of Romanians who live in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom, the analysis emphasizes certain differences between different types of travelling for the first time abroad and reconstructs how Romanians started their transnational careers.

Romanian migration has a temporary and circulatory character: on the one hand, people are moving back and forth to and from a destination and, on the other hand, there are migrants who either resettle in Romania, come back in the home country and then emigrate to a different destination than the initial one or move to a new destination after spending time abroad without returning to Romania. The third chapter is concerned with the factors that shape these distinct possible strategies and types of mobility, with a special interest towards intentions and plans for return. In doing so, we look at the bonds Romanian migrants maintain with their home country and explore the different typologies and categories of migrants as moulded by their experiences, opinions and attitudes towards the country of origin. The main questions of interest concern how the experience of migration shapes the attitude towards the home country and the intention to return, how did the crisis influence such aspects (if it did) and what the main factors that appear as significant to one category of migrants or another from this point of view are. For this purpose, we use fifty one of the sixty one in-depth interviews realized with Romanians as part of the EUCROSS project in Denmark, UK, Spain, Italy and Germany (EUMEAN dataset).

Regional integration and the transportation and communications revolutions are changing the way individuals relate to place through increasing the opportunity for transnational movements, forming transnational bonds between individuals, and sustaining ties to the home country among those who migrate. Today, it is possible to live in a place physically while having one's mind and consciousness elsewhere. Most significantly, EUCROSS findings demonstrate that EU citizens are engaged in a wider and more complex array of cross-border activities than most people believe (Salamonska et. al. 2013). If this process has a significant impact on a large number of people, it may be consequential for the social cohesion in actual physical locations—i.e. towns, cities or countries—and the quality of democracy. Do these cross-border activities jeopardize democracy by way of weakening incentives to participate in elections? Does the EU, by promoting an open and borderless society, also weakens itself in political terms?
This policy brief addresses these questions by comparing political engagement of Europeans who lead transnational lives with those who do not. In doing so, it shows that individuals who lead more transnational lives participate at least as much in politics as those who are more anchored in their national societies.

Our paper will show preliminary results of the FP7 EUCROSS project to examine the scope and nature of cross-border practices within six European nations (Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Denmark and Romania), based on a quantitative survey undertaken on a random telephone sample of more than 6,000 EU residents. The paper presents the results of two hierarchical logistic regressions assessing the extent to which cross-border practices (mobility and consumption practices) can be associated with both European and global identities (feeling European - feeling citizen of the world). We show that transnational consumption practices are crucially associated with both European and global identities, and indeed are more important than socio-demographic variables and personal experiences of mobility. The systematic comparison of the results of both regressions helps us disentangle processes of cosmopolitisation and europeanisation of daily lives in the context of globalisation. Are the most mobile the most European? Or is it only some specific practices that trigger a higher affinity with the idea of Europe? Can cross-border practices be related to a greater cosmopolitan attitude defined as openness to diversity? We show that specific cross-border practices related to Europe (e.g. purchase in the EU – and not outside the EU, preferences for European cuisines, familiarity with specifically European countries) are associated with a stronger European identity. Other practices are associated with a global identity, such as listening to global music, indicating a certain degree of differentiation between the two processes.

This paper reports preliminary results on the interplay of cross-border practices and transnational identifications for Turkish migrants living in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Romania and the United Kingdom surveyed in the FP7 EUCROSS project. Quantitative data were collected by telephone and face-to-face surveys with 250 Turkish migrants in each of the five countries of residence. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 Turkish migrants in each country. We find remarkable differences between Turkish migrant groups in the surveyed countries both with respect to background variables, such as duration of sojourn, education and migration motives, and cross-border activities, such as travel experiences, friendship networks and communication abroad. Our analysis shows that the experience of cross-border activities did not influence the respondents' stance towards supra national entities, such as the European Union or the World as such. This might be due to the fact that the individuals surveyed here did not differ in the most important mobility experience: the migration to another country. A specific "Schengen area" effect on European identification did not emerge from our data. Quite the contrary: those respondents who live outside the Schengen zone (i.e., in the United Kingdom and Romania) are among those who identified most strongly with Europe. Moreover, most of the interviewed Turkish nationals were more likely to state a pronounced cosmopolitan stance than a strong identification with Europe. However, this might not come as an surprise, as the full rights associated with European citizenship have not yet been awarded to Turkish nationals in EU member states.

This paper illustrates the research questions, the main underlying concepts and the relevant literature of the EUCROSS project. The project examines the relationship between the manifold activities of EU residents (nationals, mobile EU citizens, and thirdcountry nationals) across the borders of nation states and their collective identities. Specifically, the project intends to:

1) map out individuals' cross-border practices as an effect of European integration and globalisation; 2) assess the impact of these practices on collective identifications (also controlling for the inverse causal process). Which cross-border practices are more likely to foster some form of identification with the EU – e.g., contacts with foreign friends and/or unwanted foreigners, periods of labour mobility abroad, business and tourist travel, or consumer relations with international companies? Under which contextual and individual conditions do these experiences promote a higher sensitivity to 'Europe' – rather than the 'local' or the 'global' – as an identity catalyst? Which social groups are more prone to adopt a European mindset in the wake of the Europeanisation of everyday life?

In addressing these questions, we use the concepts of 'Europeanisation', 'European identity', 'cross-border practices' and 'cosmopolitanism' drawing on and elaborating from their meaning in the contemporary social science literature – and especially in sociology, anthropology, political science and social psychology. Overall, we find that seldom are these concepts treated altogether specifying the link between spatially and culturally situated behaviours on the one hand and collective identifications and value orientations on the other. Moreover, few studies examine socio-cultural Europeanisation and supernational identifications comparatively, and none includes simultaneously native and immigrant populations, who in fact may attest of different modalities in which the behaviour-identity link can take place.

Conclusion8. Transnational Turkey: the everyday transnationalism and diversity of Turkish populations in Europe; Introduction; Transnational Turkey in Europe; Portrait of a diverse population: Turks in the EUCROSS survey; Social transnationalism: the everyday Europe of Turkish populations; Political transnationalism: Gezi Park and beyond; Conclusion; Epilogue. Is social transnationalism fusing European societies into one?; Introduction: one Europe for whom?; Unpacking 'society': four critical dimensions; Specifying 'social change': three ongoing processes

Includes supplementary materials for the online appendix. ; This article examines Albert Hirschman's exit, voice and loyalty hypothesis within a supranational context. It makes use of an original 2012 data set drawn from 'The Europeanisation of Everyday Life: Cross-border Practices and Transnational Identities among EU and Third Country Citizens' (EUCROSS) project, which was conducted across six European Union (EU) democracies. The article finds that supranational loyalty to an entity other than one's own nation state enhances citizen participation in national elections, while greater transnational mobility has no significant impact on national voter turnout. These findings have two important implications. First, supranational loyalties do not always discourage individuals from honouring their national political commitments. Second, member state nationals who are loyal to the EU may not show up at the supranational ballot box if national institutions are perceived to be more powerful to influence decision-making in Brussels. ; This research was conducted as a part of 'The Europeanisation of Everyday Life: Cross-border Practices and Transnational Identities among EU and Third Country Citizens' (EUCROSS) project, funded by the 7th framework programme (Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, Activity 8.5. The Citizen in the European Union, Section 8.5.2. Diversities and Commonalities in Europe).