Suchergebnisse

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 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 1st May 2004, ten new states – including the "A8" countries in Central and Eastern Europe – joined the European Union (EU). This paper explores the impact of EU enlargement on A8 workers who were already working in the UK before 1st May 2004 – legally or illegally. More specifically, the paper analyses the impact of the change in the legal (immigration) status that A8 workers experienced on 1st 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 (the Ukraine and Bulgaria), carried out one month before and 6-8 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.

The labour immigration policies of high‐income countries are characterized by trade‐offs between openness to admitting migrant workers and some of the rights granted to migrants after admission. This empirical observation lies at the heart of the author's 2013 book, The price of rights: Regulating international labor migration. In this article, he reviews its main findings, arguments and policy implications and responds to a critical review of the book that was published in the International Labour Review in 2015. He concludes with a plea for more open debate on the linkages between migrant rights, labour migration and development among national and international organizations concerned with these issues.

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.

When Romania and Bulgaria (the so-called A2 countries) joined the European Union in 2007, the United Kingdom imposed temporary restrictions on the employment and welfare entitlements of A2 citizens that lasted until January 1, 2014. This article analyzes the impact of the removal of these restrictions on the labor market outcomes and use of welfare benefits of A2 migrants. Applying difference-in-difference analysis to data from the UK's Labour Force Survey, the results suggest that acquiring unrestricted work authorization had a significant negative impact on the incidence of self-employment among A2 migrants but there are no discernible effects on other labor market outcomes or on their receipt of a range of welfare benefits. The article offers potential explanations for these results.

The protection of asylum seekers and refugees has become one of the most politically divisive issues in the European Union, yet there has been a lack of research on public preferences for asylum and refugee policies. This article analyzes which policies Europeans prefer and why. We advance a theoretical framework that explains how asylum and refugee policies that use limits and conditions enable individuals to resolve conflicting humanitarian and perceived national interest logics. Using an original conjoint experiment in eight countries, we demonstrate that Europeans prefer policies that provide refugee protection but also impose control through limits or conditions. In contrast to the divisive political debates between European Union member states, we find consistent public preferences across European countries.

Public attitudes towards the free movement of workers in the European Union vary substantially between countries and individuals. This paper adds to the small but growing research literature on this issue by analysing the role of national welfare institutions. We investigate the relationship between the degree of 'institutional reciprocity' in national systems of social protection and attitudes to EU labour immigration across 12 European countries. We do not find evidence of an effect of institutional reciprocity on opposition to EU labour immigration among the public at large. However, institutional reciprocity appears to matter for economically vulnerable groups. We identify an interaction effect indicating that higher degrees of institutional reciprocity in national social protection systems, and in unemployment insurance systems specifically, are associated with lower levels of opposition to EU labour immigration among unemployed people. Hence, reciprocity in welfare state institutions appears to shield free movement from opposition, at least among vulnerable groups.