Suchergebnisse

"Der Wunsch nach einem sozialen Aufstieg ist eine wesentliche Triebkraft für die geografische Mobilität von Menschen. Dennoch erfahren die meisten Migranten zunächst eine Abwärtsmobilität (Chiswick 1979; Evans/Kelley 1991; McAllister 1995; Bauer/Zimmermann 1999). Das ist schon deshalb häufig der Fall, weil die Nachfrage nach Arbeitskräften zumindest in der Vergangenheit in der Regel bei unqualifizierten Tätigkeiten am größten war. Auch sind Migranten in der Regel in den Einwanderungsländern aus einer Reihe von Gründen benachteiligt. Ihr Human- und Sozialkapital ist in dem neuen Kontext teilweise entwertet (Sprachkenntnisse, soziale Normen, Ausbildungsabschlüsse) und sie sind oft Diskriminierung beim Zugang zu Arbeitsplätzen, Wohnungen und Sozialleistungen ausgesetzt. Zunächst wirkt allein das starke Lohngefälle zwischen Herkunfts- und Zielland ausgleichend. Die Migranten können dadurch ein höheres Einkommen als in ihrem Heimatland erzielen. Allerdings wird häufig davon ausgegangen, dass es im Laufe der Zeit doch zu einem sozialen Aufstieg kommt - spätestens in der zweiten oder dritten Generation. Insgesamt kann man davon ausgehen, dass Migranten auch sozial mobiler sind als Nicht-Migranten (Bauer/Zimmermann 1999)." (Autorenreferat)

This paper illustrates the research questions, the main underlying concepts and therelevant literature of the EUCROSS project. It reports on the existing literature in sociology, anthropology, political sciences and social psychology related to the project which seeks to examine the relationship between the manifold activities of EU residents (nationals, mobile EU citizens, and third country nationals) across the borders of nation states and their collective identities. It raises questions about 1) how to map out individuals' cross-border practices as an effect of European integration and globalisation; and 2) assess the impact of these practices on collective identifications, while 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 likely to adopt a European mindset in the wake of the Europeanisation of everyday life? While substantial separate literatures about 'Europeanisation', 'European identity', 'cross-border practices' and 'cosmopolitanism' can be found, we argue that seldom are these concepts treated altogether to specify 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 include simultaneously native and immigrant populations, who in fact may attest of different modalities in which the behaviour-identity link can take place.

This paper illustrates the research questions, the main underlying concepts and therelevant literature of the EUCROSS project. It reports on the existing literature in sociology, anthropology, political sciences and social psychology related to the project which seeks to examine the relationship between the manifold activities of EU residents (nationals, mobile EU citizens, and third country nationals) across the borders of nation states and their collective identities. It raises questions about 1) how to map out individuals' cross-border practices as an effect of European integration and globalisation; and 2) assess the impact of these practices on collective identifications, while 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 likely to adopt a European mindset in the wake of the Europeanisation of everyday life? While substantial separate literatures about 'Europeanisation', 'European identity', 'cross-border practices' and 'cosmopolitanism' can be found, we argue that seldom are these concepts treated altogether to specify 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 include simultaneously native and immigrant populations, who in fact may attest of different modalities in which the behaviour-identity link can take place.

This paper illustrates the research questions, the main underlying concepts and therelevant literature of the EUCROSS project. It reports on the existing literature in sociology, anthropology, political sciences and social psychology related to the project which seeks to examine the relationship between the manifold activities of EU residents (nationals, mobile EU citizens, and third country nationals) across the borders of nation states and their collective identities. It raises questions about 1) how to map out individuals' cross-border practices as an effect of European integration and globalisation; and 2) assess the impact of these practices on collective identifications, while 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 likely to adopt a European mindset in the wake of the Europeanisation of everyday life? While substantial separate literatures about 'Europeanisation', 'European identity', 'cross-border practices' and 'cosmopolitanism' can be found, we argue that seldom are these concepts treated altogether to specify 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 include simultaneously native and immigrant populations, who in fact may attest of different modalities in which the behaviour-identity link can take place.

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.

Jusqu'à quel point le Covid-19 perturbe-t-il notre vie de tous les jours ? Comment la population française vit-elle le confinement ? Dans quelles mesures les inégalités sociales sont-elles exacerbées et la cohésion sociale menacée ? Le projet CoCo apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions d'actualité en comparant les conditions de vie en France avant et après le confinement. Il s'agit du quatrième d'une série de rapports préliminaires couvrant maintenant l'ensemble de la période de confinement.La vie pendant le confinement a-t-elle été une parenthèse ou une forme de nouvelle normalité ? Au-delà du fait de savoir si les gens ont repris leurs activités traditionnelles après le 11 mai, ce rapport s'intéresse aux conséquences de l'expérience du confinement sur les attitudes et les opinions. Le confinement a-t-il accéléré des tendances sous-jacentes ou a-t-il permis l'émergence de nouvelles orientations sociales et politiques ?

Jusqu'à quel point le Covid-19 perturbe-t-il notre vie de tous les jours ? Comment la population française vit-elle le confinement ? Dans quelles mesures les inégalités sociales sont-elles exacerbées et la cohésion sociale menacée ? Le projet CoCo apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions d'actualité en comparant les conditions de vie en France avant et après le confinement. Il s'agit du quatrième d'une série de rapports préliminaires couvrant maintenant l'ensemble de la période de confinement. La vie pendant le confinement a-t-elle été une parenthèse ou une forme de nouvelle normalité ? Au-delà du fait de savoir si les gens ont repris leurs activités traditionnelles après le 11 mai, ce rapport s'intéresse aux conséquences de l'expérience du confinement sur les attitudes et les opinions. Le confinement a-t-il accéléré des tendances sous-jacentes ou a-t-il permis l'émergence de nouvelles orientations sociales et politiques ? - 75% des gens anticipent la survenue d'un second pic de l'épidémie, - Le sentiment de bien-être a augmenté pendant la période de confinement, - Un tiers des personnes travaillent toujours à la maison même après la fin du confinement, - Les deux tiers de la population ont l'intention de limiter leurs interactions sociales dans les mois à venir, - Le soutien à plus de dépenses publiques pour les hôpitaux est généralisé, - Les personnes les plus riches ont plus de chances de soutenir le principe d'une augmentation de salaire pour les infirmières, - Le sentiment de défiance à l'endroit de la mondialisation augmente, - Le souhait de protéger l'environnement est de plus en plus répandu. ; Policy brief n° 4. Projet "Faire face au Covid-19. Distanciation sociale, cohésion et inégalité dans la France de 2020". Ce projet a bénéficié d'un financement de l'Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR Appel Flash-Covid-19). Rapport également disponible en version anglaise.

Jusqu'à quel point le Covid-19 perturbe-t-il notre vie de tous les jours ? Comment la population française vit-elle le confinement ? Dans quelles mesures les inégalités sociales sont-elles exacerbées et la cohésion sociale menacée ? Le projet CoCo apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions d'actualité en comparant les conditions de vie en France avant et après le confinement. Il s'agit du quatrième d'une série de rapports préliminaires couvrant maintenant l'ensemble de la période de confinement.La vie pendant le confinement a-t-elle été une parenthèse ou une forme de nouvelle normalité ? Au-delà du fait de savoir si les gens ont repris leurs activités traditionnelles après le 11 mai, ce rapport s'intéresse aux conséquences de l'expérience du confinement sur les attitudes et les opinions. Le confinement a-t-il accéléré des tendances sous-jacentes ou a-t-il permis l'émergence de nouvelles orientations sociales et politiques ?

Jusqu'à quel point le Covid-19 perturbe-t-il notre vie de tous les jours ? Comment la population française vit-elle le confinement ? Dans quelles mesures les inégalités sociales sont-elles exacerbées et la cohésion sociale menacée ? Le projet CoCo apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions d'actualité en comparant les conditions de vie en France avant et après le confinement. Il s'agit du quatrième d'une série de rapports préliminaires couvrant maintenant l'ensemble de la période de confinement.La vie pendant le confinement a-t-elle été une parenthèse ou une forme de nouvelle normalité ? Au-delà du fait de savoir si les gens ont repris leurs activités traditionnelles après le 11 mai, ce rapport s'intéresse aux conséquences de l'expérience du confinement sur les attitudes et les opinions. Le confinement a-t-il accéléré des tendances sous-jacentes ou a-t-il permis l'émergence de nouvelles orientations sociales et politiques ?

In the beginning of 2020, the idea of a worldwide pandemic was not on most people's minds, let alone the concept of a lockdown. But as this Covid-19 year comes to a close, governments around the globe have instituted stay-at-home orders and other restrictions. In France, people have now experienced two national lockdowns. The first spring lockdown, lasting two months, was severe with schools, outdoor public spaces, and most workplaces closed. The second fall lockdown was less drastic, as schools and many businesses stayed open. Yet for both lockdowns, everyone in France needed a self-written authorization to go outside only for essential outings. Public gatherings, bars, and restaurants remained shuttered.This policy brief analyzes how people in France navigated this past year, comparing the spring and fall lockdown experiences, with an eye toward tracking inequalities. As with previous Policy Briefs, we leverage the power of repeated surveys with the same pool of respondents who are all part of a longitudinal sample of the French population (ELIPSS).

How disruptive is COVID-19 to everyday life? How is the French population experiencing the lockdown? Is it magnifying inequalities and affecting social cohesion? The CoCo project sheds light on these pressing questions by comparing living conditions in France before, during, and after the lockdown. This is the second of a series of research briefs that we will publish in the forthcoming weeks. In this brief, we explore how French society has coped with the first month of the lockdown, particularly with the economy, self-reported health and well-being, and homeschooling. Are people more concerned with protecting each other from a deadly virus or minimizing the economic damages of a protracted lockdown? Compared to two weeks ago, people are more worried about the economy than they are about health, especially in the case of those living in high-income households. When looking ahead to the partial re-opening that the government has set for 11 May 2020, French residents show a high degree of uncertainty. People waver in their commitment to this date depending on which aspect of the crisis they are taking into consideration. Only 35% of the population would want to end the lockdown on 11 May knowing that the virus is still running rampant in the country. When made to consider a potential catastrophic economic scenario, however, the share of those wishing to follow through on this date rises to 65%. Those in high-income households also prioritise the possibility of adopting a mobile app to help control the spread of the epidemic. How do people assess their health and stress levels? The lockdown is not leading the French into depression. In self-assessments of their general health and well-being, people indicate higher scores than in previous years. We label this phenomenon the "eye of the hurricane" paradox: when a disruptive event breaks out, people seem to better appreciate their relative 'good health'. However, the lockdown seems to psychologically distress individuals who are both working from home and going out ...

In the beginning of 2020, the idea of a worldwide pandemic was not on most people's minds, let alone the concept of a lockdown. But as this Covid-19 year comes to a close, governments around the globe have instituted stay-at-home orders and other restrictions. In France, people have now experienced two national lockdowns. The first spring lockdown, lasting two months, was severe with schools, outdoor public spaces, and most workplaces closed. The second fall lockdown was less drastic, as schools and many businesses stayed open. Yet for both lockdowns, everyone in France needed a self-written authorization to go outside only for essential outings. Public gatherings, bars, and restaurants remained shuttered. This policy brief analyzes how people in France navigated this past year, comparing the spring and fall lockdown experiences, with an eye toward tracking inequalities. As with previous Policy Briefs, we leverage the power of repeated surveys with the same pool of respondents who are all part of a longitudinal sample of the French population (ELIPSS). ; Policy paper n° 5 - Project ''Coping with Covid-19. Social distancing, cohesion and inequality in 2020 France''. Funded by ANR (French National Research Agency), Call Flash Covid-19. Available in French Language.