Labour Migration in the European Union

The Policy-Making Process

Gönül Oğuz

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9783030361846
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030361853
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

No analysis of migration in Europe today can avoid consideration of the role of the EU institutions, as well as the member states, in policy-making. This is because the obstacles for labour mobility which have confronted the EU in the post-enlargement period have been multi-dimensional in nature, have encompassed many different aspects of European integration process, and have operated at many different levels. Recent developments in the free movement of labour in Europe entail a comprehensive analysis of the dynamic of migration policy process, contextualising institutional change, cooperation, control and competition between the EU institutions and the member states. This book provides a picture of how governance of labour migration is constructed, managed, negotiated and decided at the European level. It brings together in an informed and well-organized way some of the key issues in the face of current migration crises and Brexit.

© The Author(s) 2020

G. OğuzLabour Migration in the European Unionhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36185-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: Labour Migration Policy-Making in the EU

Gönül Oğuz¹

(1)

Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey

Gönül Oğuz

Email: [email protected]

Keywords

European UnionFree Movement of LabourPolicy-MakingMultilevel Governance

End Abstract

Introduction

Mobility refers to excersing one of the four fundamental freedoms on which the European single market (ESM) has been built. As the Europeans recognise the importance of mobility and the value of freedom lof movement associated with it, most of them, do not have a real conviction, nor any plan to exercise the right in practice in the future (Ricceri 2011: 259). Attempts to understand these movements and policy-making in particular in the EU have often relied upon the regulatory framework with the resulting policies. Such policies adopted by the authorities of the area, are concerned about encouraging these movements or more commonly towards attempting to control or to reduce them. While this book is aimed at objectively exploring the dynamics of actors in migration policy-making, it is useful to examine the effects of policy and changes in policy, and assess the political consequences of labour movement in Europe. This in turn means to attempt to look at the effects of policy and changes in policy.

Generally, it is agreed that mobility and migration constitute complex phenomena, and their analysis proves increasingly to be interdisciplinary (Borjas et al. 1997: 73) multilevel governance, with a multitude of actors operating in the policy areana. The multilevel governance of migration is a concept that embraces a very wide span of institutional developments and institutions within which shifts in competencies and power occur. The degree to which this complexity, interdisciplinary approaches for deeper understanding of external constraints (regulations, laws, market demands, international events, and security threats etc.) can or ought to be employed. The significant bottom-up perspective is that the specific member states’ governments (as well as civil society actors) are provided an insight about the EU policy and policy-making process. Rather than dwell on the distinction between the different levels of government in migration policy-making processes, it is probably better to focus on a concrete competences of institutional actors and the member states.

Analysing the contemporary EU policy-making as a political system, the classical approach to the EU institutions touches upon attention to their functions, competences and relationship with each other and the member states. The proposed overall question is that which actors are more powerful in labour migration policy-making process. Although there are different set of actors influencing policy-process, this study is restricted to the institutional players, and to a lesser extent, the member states.

Labour Mobilityin the EU

The terms “immigrant” and “migrant” are taken to refer to any kind of movement of people which is not occasional, whatever the length, nature and cause of that movement. Second-and third-generation migrants are often still perceived as migrants themselves, even if they are born in the host country and have no link whatsoever with the parents’ country of origin (Henry and Pastore 2014: 1). In the literature, there is no clear differentiation between the terms “mobility” and “migration”. In some cases, they are even used synonymously. Nevertheless, the two terms should be differentiated as follows. The spatial (interregional) mobility of workers is, in general, any movement of labour from one region to another. The spatial movement of labour together with a simultaneous change of residence is migration. Thus, “migration” has the connotation of permanence. If the spatial movement of labour does not involve a change of residence, it entails commuting (Hönekopp and Werner 2000: 2). In short, “labour mobility” is taken literally to mean any change that diversifies one’s employment situation within certain geographical location.

The main objective of any labour migration policy is to facilitate the matching of supply and demand in the labour market: i.e. to ensure that there is a qualified pool of workers available in the market to match any job vacancy opening by employers without incurring too high transaction costs. This labour migration policy objective has to be reconciled with the main objective of labour market policies, which is to make the best use of human capital available in the country (and by virtue of the EU preference principle, in the whole EU), including human capital arriving from third countries outside the labour migration schemes. Their human capital profile needs to be systematically researched and developed for the sake of labour market efficiency. So labour migration policy and labour market policy are deeply interrelated, and cannot be defined independently from one another (Martín and Venturini 2015: 6).

This legacy of the labour mobility principle traces back to the early years of the 1950s. At a time, the primary impetus of the European Economic Community (EEC) after World War II was, in political sense, to reconstruct Europe which would remain at peace, under democratic control, and free from any re-emergence of dictatorships. For the sake of economic integration, at the very least, the interests of many parties have worked together in this long road, while the clash of opposing national interests has been never evaporated. The post Europe necessitated cooperation between the former enemies (in the case of Germeny and France), although the political climate was not much credible. The first step towards consensus building was the creation of the common governmental institutions by the Treaty of Rome (1957). Undoubtedly, this inititation intended to reconcile differencies in the economic shephere and, in general, evoide the worst of all “political failures” that could not happen again Since then, the scale and the salience of labour migration has drawn scholarly attention. Rather, focus was differences over the fundamentals of policy in the European Community (EC).

The precise origin of labour mobility in the literature is rooted in the late 1970s. Prior to this date, statements of aims and objectives by the pioneers of the economic community did not touch upon obstacles to the free movement of people because there appeared far less diversified and heterogeneous landscape. One of the resulting pictures of the early stages of the formation of the Community policy was concerning the formation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which in the 1960s was the clash between France and West Germany. The influence of background conditions appeared to be larger, as Germany was an agricultural-importing country and drawbacks for the creation of an internal free market was the highest prices (i.e., cereals). The opportunities for decisive action by the political actors appeared to be somewhat more limited pointing to a “patchwork” of actors, priorities and instruments, and more importantly, a lack of institutional settings or inefficient functioning institutions. It was a burden upon the founding member of the EC those of whome agricultural producers that placed German imports from the third countries with their own exports. The successful establishment was the CAP to the extent of which turned out was helpful for integration. This was when consensus—that built on the existence of the CAP—was a result of a shared recognition that cooperation in public policy was fruitful. This brief remark on the CAP serves to demonstrate the clash of interests on the EU’s economic policy-making.

Over the last two decades, a common policy on borders, migration and asylum has been created amongs the EU member states. An important development of kind was the completion of the internal market by 1993, targeting the freeing labour force across the member states. Indeed, labour mobility has, economically, become one of the cornostones of the European integration process, despite the complicated political dynamics. Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) defined the free movement of labour as a fundamental principle of the Treaty. This freedom is developed by the EU secondary legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice for European Union (CJEU). The EU citizens are now qualified for look for a job work in another member state, without needing a work permit, reside there for that purpose and stay there, even after employment is finished. These entitlements must be understood that the Union citizens enjoy equal treatment with nationals regarding employment, working conditions, and all other social and tax advantages in which they have certain types of health and social security coverage transferred to the host country. This arrangement also applicable to the non-EU countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Norway) that are eligible for the principle of free movement of workers in the European Economic Area under the EU social security coordination rules. Hence, the scope and the depth of policy-making in the area of migration have increased immensely.

The problem of course is how to satisfy all the increased number of the member states with regard to labour migration, given more diversified and heterogeneous landscape in the late 2000s. Labour mobility from EU-13 (the countries which joined the EU between 2004 and 2013 and Croatia) to the EU aggregate continues to prevail over south-north flows. In particularly, there has been a boost in intra mobility. This was the result of a sharp fall due the crisis continued until 2011. Outflow of workers from the southern European countries is on the rise due to the impact of the crisis on intra-mobility. In spite of this, labour mobility is low. Figures from the Office of National Statistics in the UK suggest that the number of eastern European nationals working in Britain fell by 5%. The total number of the EU labour force rose by 101,000 in 2017 to 2.3 million. In 2016, these workers were accounted for just over 50% of the increase in employment, but has now ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction: Labour Migration Policy-Making in the EU
• 2. Theorizing the EU Policy-Making
• 3. The European Policy Approach to the Labour Migration Problem
• 4. Recent Trends in Labour Migration in the EU
• 5. Policy Process in the European Union
• 6. Institutional Decision-Making in the EU
• 7. Labour Migration Policy-Making in the EU
• 8. The EU as Efficient Polity in Migration: Conflict and Cooperation
• 9. Conclusion: The Present Realities and the Future of the EU’s Labour Migration Policy Process
• Back Matter