Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Cecilie Gunilla Prindahl 52069 Henning Møller Christensen 52104 Ahmad Wesal Zaman 52662 Tobias Lund Sørensen 53134 Thea Grønnegaard Larsen 53399 23895 keystrokes Social Rights for Irregular Immigrants in the Universal Welfare State Introduction According to Freeman (1986), there is an inherent conflict between the welfare state and migration. He argues that a welfare state – as the provider of political, civil and social rights to all its residents – has to be a closed system with “...boundaries that distinguish those who are members of a community from those who are not.” (Ibid.: 52). Joppke argues in this regard, “[b]ecause rights are costly, they cannot be for everybody” (1999: 6). Hence the boundaries of who belongs to society and who does not have to be clear. This seems to place the welfare state in a conflictual relationship with international migration as migrants have lesser rights than other citizens of their host societies. This conflict is intensified when turning to irregular migration and the universal welfare state. Standing, summing up the conflict, argues that “[t]he structure that leaves taxpayers feeling they are paying the bills for poor migrants means tensions cannot be dismissed as racial prejudice. They reflect abandonment of universalism and social solidarity.” (2014: 193). This literature review evolves around the investigation of two main questions concerning this conflict. First, it seeks to illuminate how the contemporary literature frame the welfare and universal welfare state. Following this, attention will be given to how the existing literature frame migration and irregular migration and the paradox that exists between irregular immigrants and their access to social rights in the universal welfare state. This latter inquiry will thereafter be investigated in the mini-project by analysing irregular migrants and their possibility for access to the healthcare system, which is a key social right in a universal welfare state. 1 The Welfare State The national welfare state “Despite recent challenges posed by globalization and transnationalism, the nation-state continues to exert a high degree of control over global population mobility.” (Waters 2009: 301). Sovereignty is of key importance and points to control over movement to and within territory which constitutes the essence of immigration policy (Joppke 1999). Consequently, the majority of states have an immigration policy and nation-state's immigration and economic policies are interlinked. (Waters 2009). If social redistribution is high, immigration policy, accordingly, must be tight - serving as a means to limit outsiders’ access to costly social rights. Hence, citizenship becomes another key element of the nation-state, and according to Joppke, it “...refers to the modern state not as a territorial organization, but as a membership association.” (1999: 5). This ‘membership association’ or maybe rather, welfare state - provides equal rights and obligations on all members (ibid.: 6). According to Marshall (1950) citizenship, following a long historical development, consists of three main elements – namely, civil, political and social elements. Each has certain kinds of rights related to it. The civil element of citizenship, for instance, consists of rights necessary for personal freedom, whereas the political element consists of rights related to issues of participation. The social element of citizenship consists of rights to a minimum level of economic welfare and social security, with the aim of reducing social inequality and class divisions in society. Institutions closest connected to this social element are educational and healthcare institutions, as well as other social services (Marshall 1950). Furthermore, according to Holmwood (2000), Marshall sees the national welfare state as the embodiment of social rights and as the product of democratisation, and thus contrasts the view of the neoliberal. The recent debates concerning the national welfare state are dominated by the “...neoliberal view of market exchange relationships as a system of economic freedom against what state-provided services are seen as bureaucratic and 2 negative character.” (ibid.: 25). Polanyi's argument is, according to Holmwood, that the fundamental problem with the neoliberal view of the market being self-regulating is that it is anti-society. Therefore, “...the anti-social nature of the self-regulating market economy gives rise to the self-protection of society.” (Holmwood 2000: 33). This self-protection of society is what is also known as the welfare state. Even though Polanyi does not use the term ‘social rights’, his research looks at the process and the democratisation together with of the ‘self-protection’ of society under it and thereby seem similar to the work of Marshall. Esping-Andersen (1990) classifies post-industrial nations into three categories - namely, the ‘liberal’, the ‘corporatist’, and the ‘social democratic’ worlds. The first world described is the ‘liberal world’. Within this world, social reforms are limited by liberal work-ethic norms understood as the limits of welfare. This equals the marginal propensity to opt for welfare instead of work. The entitlement rules are often strict, and the clientele consists mainly of the working-class, and low-income households. In this model, the most predominant methods of redistribution is modest universal transfers, modest social insurance, or means-tested assistance. Furthermore, the state encourages the market by either guaranteeing only a minimum or by subsidising private welfare schemes. (Esping-Andersen 1990). The consequences of this model are that it minimises decommodification-effects, and “…erects an order of stratification that is a blend of relative equality of poverty among state-welfare recipients, market-differentiated welfare among the majority, and a class-political dualism between the two.” (Esping-Andersen 1990: 27). The second world is the ‘corporatist world’. In this world, the granting of social rights was never contested such as it was in the liberal regime, as there is no obsession with market efficiency and commodification. The corporatist regime is constructed on conservative ideas and the granting of rights are therefore often centered on class and status. This means that there is a bigger focus on social insurance rather than social assistance. Furthermore, the corporatist regimes are usually shaped by the church and is committed to 3 the preservation of the traditional family. Hence, the state will only interfere when the family is no longer able to accommodate its members (Esping-Andersen 1990). The third and last type of regime is the ‘social democratic world’. In this type of regime the principles of universalism and decommodification of social rights were extended to the middle-class. “The social democrats pursued a welfare state that would promote an equality of the highest standards, not an equality of minimum needs as was pursued elsewhere.” (Esping-Andersen 1990: 28). The driving force behind social change in this world was social democracy. In this regime, benefits are connected to citizenship and all citizens share a universal welfare insurance. Furthermore, there exists a ‘fusion’ of work and welfare. The state has to be committed to, and depending on full employment. As there is a huge expense in maintaining a universal and decommodified welfare regime, the state has to minimize the expenses, and maximize income. This is usually done by ensuring that as few as possible live of social benefits, and the country is as close to full employment as possible (Esping-Andersen 1990). Engelen uses this categorisation to demonstrate how differently these systems tackle the question of immigration. He argues that states will only focus on “...one horn of the ‘trilemma’ of unemployment, equality and balanced budgets at the expense of the other two…”(Engelen 2005: 314). The focus of the state, he argues, will be determined by the type of welfare regime. This leads to the conclusion that “…the basic policy choice appears to be between high immigration and high inequality on the one hand, and low or limited immigration and a high level of equality on the other, raising the intriguing question: what would a combination of the best of both worlds look like?” (ibid.: 320). Universal welfare state First, the universal welfare state is created by social democratic governments in the Scandinavian countries in order to have equal treatment of the citizens (Esping-Andersen & Korpi 1986). The goal was to have social policies that did not only generated poor relief, 4 but provided social rights to their citizens and where “...rights to a normal living standard are divorced from market criteria.” (ibid: 53). It entailed a decommodification of labour, and institualisation of social rights in order to have a society based on solidarity with means of equal rights to all citizens (Esping-Andersen & Korpi 1986). The universal welfare state therefore differs from the Anglo-Saxon and the liberal welfare state, as the benefits and social services are available for all citizens with no regard to age and workability (Rothstein 1998). Furthermore, as healthcare has been institutionalised in the universal welfare state, it creates a mutual dependency between the citizens and the society (Esping-Andersen & Korpi 1986). This can therefore lead to a conflictual relationship between the universal welfare state and irregular immigrants as they are non-citizens (Standing 2014). As argued above, sovereignty and citizenship are two key elements of the nation-state, both of which are put under pressure by vast immigration. Thus, migration and the welfare state is closely interlinked and interdependent. Aspects of Migration Migration Migration is a complex concept and an experience not easily captured in a simple definition. As Standing argues, “[t]he term ‘migrant’ comes with historical baggage and covers a multitude of types of experience and behaviour.“ (2014: 153). For instance, he argues, approximately one third of all modern migrants have moved from a poor to a rich country, another third from a rich to another rich, whereas the remaining third have moved from one poor country to another (Standing 2014: 155). “Migration is therefore a diverse and challenging topic. For individuals and families, it concerns everyday aspects of their lives, while migrant groups can challenge and influence the cultural and political underpinnings of communities and nations.” (Boyle 2009: 96). 5 The international debate concerning migrants regularly deals with the un-nuanced division of open borders against protected societies. Some people perceive migration as a threat to their culture and way of life, and therefore want to close the national borders in order to protect their values, whereas others see such measures as a hindering for trade and global economic growth. (Engelen 2005). However, reality is rarely so black and white. Engelen further argues that the “[p]roponents of closure often lose sight of the reality that closing borders is more likely to increase irregular migration, including human trafficking...” (ibid.:313). Proponents of openness, on the other hand, “...tend to downplay the challenges that market-led labour migration regimes pose for the sustainability of contemporary welfare states.” (ibid.: 313). As stated by Ghosh (2005), if approaching the issue of migration from the perspective of classical and neoclassical theories of economic migration, it seems to benefit everybody directly involved. According to the theories, receiving immigrants will bring a country closer to full utilisation of productivity leading to economic growth. The country ‘sending’ migrants can reduce unemployment and boost economic growth in that sense. The migrants can benefit from higher wages as they move to a resourceful country. These theories only work under the assumption that the receiving country is in shortage of labour and the sending in abundance. As these balances out, migration will cease (ibid.). However, as Ghosh also points out, these theories only work under a specific set of assumptions. For example, it fails to take into account the shock effect a huge influx of people can have on a welfare system as it is designed for a specific capacity while not being very flexible. In addition it fails to take into consideration the implications it can have when cultural and religious backgrounds differ substantially from the local people (ibid.). Furthermore, this is very hard to generalise across different points in time as the demography (age, education, family status, cultural background, etc.) will vary from each wave of migration. The implication of this is that the level of use of welfare services and strain on the capacity of the system will be different (ibid.). 6 Freeman (1986), who has a rather negative view of immigration’s effects the welfare state, however also argues that not all kinds of migration are in conflict with the welfare state. He argues that as long as it is a limited period of migration, the fiscal circumstances of the welfare state programs will firstly be minimally damaged and secondly, probably be sufficiently improved. However, he argues, family immigration and family reunification are ‘kinds’ of migration that “...changes the financial picture of the welfare state in significant ways. By reducing the differences between migrants and nationals, family immigration tends to eliminate the fiscal bonuses that temporary migration brought with it.” (Ibid.: 60). The nature of the welfare state as a closed system places it, according to Freeman (1986) and Joppke (1999), in a position of conflict in regards to migration. Both argue that the inequality or difference between states is what fuels and motivates migration. “The migration of labor is a threat to the welfare state, but the very existence of inequality of benefits between states stimulates migration.” (Freeman 1986: 55). Not merely is the better wages in the country of migration a pull factor, but also the social wages (rights and benefits) are factors fueling migration. However, as Joppke (1999: 6) points out, many immigrants does not gain full citizenship, which leaves them in a vulnerable - or, to use the terminology of Standing (2014), precarious - position in society. Waters argue that “[t]he relationship between immigrants and the nationstate is partly mediated through citizenship.” (2009 : 304). However, “...much of today’s migration is not assimilation to new citizenship but more of a de-citizenship process.” (Standing 2014: 164). By this, Standing refers to the fact that migrants to a varying extent are being deprived of different right belonging to the status of citizenship (ibid.). Non-citizens deprived of formal access to social rights will be the object of the project which follows. 7 Irregular Migration The literature on irregular migration is divided into two main parts, one deals with the comprehensive analysis of irregular migration. It discusses the historical, sociological and economic aspects of irregular migration that includes field works, data collection, and empirical based analysis. The other part, takes the methodological, theoretical, conceptual development and empirical knowledge production into focus (Jørgensen & Thomsen 2012). The latter argues that the study of irregular migration has been highly politicised and is one of the most political and controversial issues in western governments (ibid.; Waters 2009). Therefore, the consequences of the politicisation of the methodological aspects have been the production of biased numbers and data on irregular migration. Furthermore, at times even deliberate expulsion of the subject for specific principles and convictions has happened. For instance, in Denmark there has been less interest in understanding the numbers and nature of the phenomenon, but more focus has been given on illegal border crossing and human smuggling (Jørgensen & Thomsen 2012; Jørgensen & Meret 2012). However, both typologies of literature provide a relatively comprehensive definition of irregular migration, which will be described below. Düvell argues that “...migration became irregular only by the introduction of protectionist immigration policies, according restrictions, and the criminalisation of unwanted migrants.” (2011: 81). He, therefore, understands irregular migration as a product of economic and political conditions. Waters (2009) refers to a ‘hidden’ economy targeting irregular migrants and Standing (2014) refers to a ‘shadow’ economy that they - the irregular migrants - live in. The shadow/hidden economy has not only been understood as a pull factor for irregular migrants, but also as the dehumanising system that is blamed for much of the depraved conditions of them. Standing further argues that irregular migrants “...have civil rights as human beings but lack economic, social or political rights.” (2014: 161). Besides lacking economic, social or political rights, irregular migrants face another problem - namely, being blamed inter alia 8 for social ills in society, crimes, unemployment, pressure on welfare state and terrorism (Standing 2014; Waters 2009). A blaming that evolve from the dynamics of an understanding of society and/or social benefits as something 'us' pays for 'them. The paradox The conflictual relationship between welfare state and international migration Freeman’s main concern with the welfare state/migration nexus is that too much diversity in society endangers the main objectives of the welfare state. “When the welfare state is seen as something for ‘them’ paid for by ‘us,’ its days as a consensual solution to societal problems are numbered.” (1986: 62). Investigating the consequences of understanding society as something consisting of ‘them’ and ‘us’, Alesina & Glaeser (2004) argue, that racial or ethnical heterogeneity (together with political institutions) negatively influences social spending. In other words, an understanding of society consisting of ‘us’ and ‘them’ along racial/ethnic lines negatively impacts the level of social redistribution in a society. Consequently, as migration increases racial/ethnic heterogeneity in society it provides an incentive for less redistribution and social spending. Putnam (2007) argues in a similar vein - migration creates diversity in society and thus less social cohesion. However, whereas Alesina & Glaeser (2004) pointed out that racial heterogeneity negatively affects the solidarity between racial/ethnic groups in society, Putnam argues that diversity has even greater societal consequences. “[P]eople living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle.” (Putnam 2007: 149). In the short to medium run, Putnam thus argues that “...immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital.” (ibid.: 138). According to these arguments, immigration and the welfare state is in a conflictual relationship - immigration might even be seen as a threat to the very existence of the welfare state. Brochmann & Hagelund (2011, 2012), however, point out that other 9 interpretations of the welfare state/migration nexus exists. Crepaz (2008), for instance, approaches the nexus with an institutional approach and while accepting the conflict he also points to solutions. Summing up his argument, Brochmann & Hagelund argues that “...institutions can shape the success of integration, indicating that it is up to the welfare stately design to encumber vicious effects of immigration-induced diversity.” (2011: 14). Alesina & Glaeser also paying attention to the institutions for a solution, further argue that political messages and will also can lessen (or increase) the hatred between societal groups and thus affect the will to accept (or reject) social redistribution (2004). Despite Putnam’s bleak predictions above in regards to the welfare state and immigration, he also sees a possible solution - namely, a reconstruction of ‘us’. “[N]ot by making ‘them’ like ‘us’, but rather by creating a new, more capacious sense of ‘we’, a reconstruction of diversity that does not bleach out ethnic specificities, but creates overarching identities that ensure that those specificities do not trigger the allergic, ‘hunker down’ reaction.” (Putnam 2007: 163-164). The literature reviewed above thus provides different approaches to intensify or reduce the inherent conflict between immigration and the welfare state. These three approaches namely, institutions, political will/discourse, and identity - provides key components for understanding and analysing the conflictual relationship. Irregular migrants in a universal welfare state The contradiction exists between the residents’ social rights and free access to social welfare benefits and services, on the one hand, and undocumented residents lack of access to these, on the other. Moreover, due to their status as ‘illegal’ this group of migrants are furthermore restricted in their access to important social benefits, such as for instance healthcare, which is needed in order to improve equity in health (Wahlberg et al. 2014: 7). Access to the healthcare system for all residents in a country (documented or not) is restricted by a combination of ‘formal’ (e.g. rights, health policies) and ‘informal’ (e.g. fear of authorities, lacking information, etc.) barriers (Hansen 2005). However, for 10 undocumented migrants the combination of restricted rights, lack of information (about rights) and fear of authorities prove a severe restriction, and they are consequently deprived of access to a vital social service. Wahlberg and her colleges argue that “illegal ambiguities regarding health care provision must be addressed if equity in health is to be achieved in a country otherwise known for its universal health coverage.” (Wahlberg et al. 2014: 1). A recent Swedish study of death causes among undocumented immigrants in Sweden shows that the status as ‘illegal’ has severe consequences for the health of people in this group (Wahlberg et al. 2014). The findings of the study point out that the life as irregular immigrant has severe negative impacts on life quality and implies severe insecurities. “As living and working conditions are linked to aspects of life-quality, such as health, these factors could be possible explanations for the high number of external causes, including suicides, accidents, and assault, among undocumented migrants in Sweden.” (ibid.: 7). The study consequently found there to be “...inequity in health as substantial differences in causes of death between undocumented migrants and residents were seen.” (ibid.: 1). Conclusion As it is argued above, different types of welfare regimes deliver social rights in different ways. Of all the rights managed by the state, social rights are different in the sense that they are redistributive. This creates a divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’, as rights cannot be for everyone. Furthermore, in the universal welfare regime, inclusion depends on citizenship rather than participation in work. This means that being an irregular immigrant - and thereby a non-citizen, when in a nation with a universal welfare regime - places the irregular immigrant in a very disadvantaged situation compared to a citizen in the welfare state.The literature has argued, as follows, that there exists a conflicting relationship between economic migrants and the welfare state. The welfare state is, on the one hand, constrained by its capacity, which comes under stress, when there is a large influx of 11 immigrants. On the other hand, post-industrialised nation-states are also economic dependent on migrants. Following this literature review will be an investigation into the consequences of the formal and informal barriers that lies within the Danish welfare regime. Furthermore, we intend to explore alternative solutions for this conflict in the project. 12