Abstract
It has been argued that nation‐states confront migrant protection with a highly diverse array of measures ranging from excluding strategies (often labelled as “welfare chauvinism”) to more inclusionary, post‐national approaches. While exclusionary strategies are often guided by nativist principles such as citizenship, post‐national approaches of social protection are usually based on residence. Building on an international comparative project with a focus on free movement within the European Union, and involving four pairs of EU member states, this article argues that the extremes of these two ways of understanding nation‐state approaches to migrant social protection are not mutually exclusive, as has been discussed so far, but, instead, are intertwined with one another. While there is a common (and globally unique) framework on the EU level for the coordination of mobile citizens’ social protection, EU member states determine their strategies using residence as a main tool to govern intra‐EU migration. We differentiate between three main intertwining strategies applied by nation‐states in this respect: generally, selectively, and purposefully gated access to social protection. All three potentially lead to the social exclusion of migrants, particularly those who cannot prove their residence status in line with institutional regulations due to their undocumented living situations or their transnational lifestyles.
Highlights
Issue This article is part of the issue “Transnational Social Protection: Inclusion for Whom? Theoretical Reflections and Migrant Experiences” edited by Elisabeth Scheibelhofer (University of Vienna), Anna Amelina (University of Cottbus), and Emma Carmel (University of Bath). How is it possible that the citizens of a European Union member state or a country within the European eco‐ nomic area (EEA) are still discriminated against in terms of their social protection when they migrate within the EU? Legally, they are protected by EU regulations for transnational social security that are unique com‐ pared to other nation‐states worldwide and based on post‐national policies enacted by the EU
Recent empirical research shows that equal treatment is not an unflawed social reality for EU migrants trying to access their social rights in another EU member state
Our empirical research concurs with other recent inves‐ tigations (Bruzelius et al, 2017; Ehata & Seeleib‐Kaiser, 2017; Heindlmaier & Blauberger, 2017; Kramer et al, 2018; Pavolini & Seeleib‐Kaiser, 2018; Shutes & Walker, 2018), showing that the intra‐European promise of social security in the event of migration frequently fails in prac‐ tice to lead to a post‐national model of social protec‐ tion
Summary
How is it possible that the citizens of a European Union member state or a country within the European eco‐ nomic area (EEA) are still discriminated against in terms of their social protection when they migrate within the EU? Legally, they are protected by EU regulations for transnational social security that are unique com‐ pared to other nation‐states worldwide and based on post‐national policies enacted by the EU. Welfare state chauvinism is based on the idea that social protection should be exclu‐ sively provided for those who are considered “natives” of the respective nation‐state Such a nationalist model is perceived by some as necessary in light of politi‐ cal movements towards closure and restriction against foreign‐born persons, both across Europe and in other parts of the world (De Koster et al, 2013; Hjorth, 2016; Mau, 2007). In light of recent developments within the EU (e.g., Brexit, the rise of right‐wing nationalist parties, and the difficulties of the EU to find more common ground in important policy areas such as migration), many scholars have criticised the analysis of the EU as a post‐national space (Auer, 2010; Edmunds, 2012; Koopmans, 2018; Pinelli, 2013; Tonkiss, 2019) Apart from these discussions on the post‐national character of the EU, the national dimension plays an important role for intra‐EU migrants’ welfare state pro‐ visions, as they are usually confronted with a multilay‐ ered policy outcome. Our research suggests that these two modes of dif‐ ferentiation, as to who should have access to national welfare and who should not, are, both at work when analysing the actual experiences of EU citizens who migrate to another EU member state
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
