|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
1 Introduction
Migration policies are based on a vision of the role of migration in socio-economic, political and cultural development. For that reason, they are among the most complex controversial policy issues in any country, their formulation being determined by socio-economic, cultural, political, strategic and security aspects. In addition, differences in national migration policies result from varying traditions in social organisations which are deeply rooted in the respective individual histories. It is therefore not surprising that a variety of migration policies and systems have developed in western European States over the course of time. In an ever integrated Union, however, national sovereign legislations and policies are increasingly inapt to handle the supranational problem of rising migration pressures. Current arrangements of near absolute restriction of economic migration, that followed the economic crisis in 1973 and are symbolically reflected in the term “Fortress Europe” are therefore facing an institutional crisis. Especially in times of economic instability, rising migration pressures are genuinely perceived as a “threat” to local employment, national identity and internal security. ... And whilst most European governments are still sticking to the mantras of the traditional right and responsibility of sovereign nation States to provide national solutions to national problems, both, the European Commission and the European Parliament are pushing for a more flexible and forward looking joint policy arrangement.
This paper aims to describe and analyse the emerging crisis of current national migration regimes in the European Union from a sociological point of view. ... Secondly, the crisis of the current migration systems in the European Union is reviewed in light of its field specific threats and challenges. ... In this context, the four conditions for stable systems (concepts of control, property rights systems, governance structures and the rules of exchange) are systematically analysed and evaluated in view of their existence and suitability for a future stable field of common migration policy. The paper concludes with a sceptical outlook concerning the likelihood of a comprehensive and harmonised migration policy in the near future.
2 Definition of the field and its collective actors
Migration policy as a field
The Theory of Fields is a generic theory of social organizations that examines the functioning of an economy and its components. As opposed to the standard neoclassical theory it takes into account social relationships between collective actors and focuses on stability enhancement and survival strategies rather than profit-maximization and efficiency as the main factors driving rational actions.
To apply the Theory of Fields to the crisis of national migration regimes in the European Union, an initial clarification of the concepts of fields and common players – both in general terms and with regard to our particular case - is necessary. ... More specifically, dominant players are assumed to take each other into account in their behaviour and are hence able to reproduce their position in this fixed power system on a period-to-period basis. For the concrete case under investigation, these organised groups of actors can be identified as the 15 member States of the European Union and their respective representatives. As it stands, however, despite ten year of feverish activism, no such fixed power system leading to a local (European) stable field has emerged so far. As will be shown in the following, the main reasons for this failure lies in the non-emergence of a shared understanding (concept of control) with regard to the proper handling of migration policies among member States. ... For now, it should be clear that the field of interest of this paper is the political field of integration with a particular focus on the creation of a future harmonised migration regime for the European Union. What such a (stable) field could eventually look like and whether it will come into existence at all, only the future will tell. ... Domination in the political context could be interpreted as the social skills or economic and political power of some actors to analyse and attain the kind and level of cooperation that is in line with their own interests. ...
Applying this logic to the concrete case of the European Union and the sphere of migration politics, the 15 member States can indeed be identified as the collective actors in the field, with the European Commission representing the (supra)national State-government. In this context, it is tempting to identify the larger European powers - notably Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain – as incumbents and the other member States as challengers. ... Fligstein characterises the incumbents by their efforts to reproduce their powerful positions in political and economic affairs through the creation of a common concept of control. Post-war European migration regimes, however, have not given proof of the existence of any such shared or commonly accepted local understanding. The only real common denominator found since the early 80s lies in the rigorous restriction of economically motivated migration by enforcing border controls and national legislation for political and social reasons. ... What we do observe, is that existing practices are indeed largely responsible for the difficulties encountered by the European Commission in its efforts to push forward a harmonisation of current national migration regimes. It will also be shown, that one of the largest obstacles to fruitful co-operation in the field, is the very precarious relation between the players (member States) and the State (European Commission).
It can be concluded that till this very day, no stable field has come into existence in the context of European migration policy. The leaves us with the question, whether a future harmonised European approach is likely to lead to the emergence of such stable structures, in which the survival of the national identity, economic welfare and internal as well as external security can be reproduced on a period to period basis. To effectively approach this question, it is first necessary to gain an understanding for the character and roots of the current crisis of national migration regimes in the EU.
3 The crisis of national migration regimes
The Theory of Fields predicts the evolution or transformation of fields in those cases where current arrangements are starting to break down, usually precipitated by some form of crisis. ... In the following, we will briefly examine the roots and characteristics of the current crisis of national migration regimes in the European Union.
The phenomenon of migration is nothing new in the history of human mankind. ... But whilst the causes of migration may not be new, the challenges and opportunities surely are. The increasingly perceived “threat” of rising migration pressures to the countries of the European Union cannot be studied in isolation but should be recognised as long-term results and unintended by-product of the global dynamics of rising economic integration, inequality and globalisation. Whilst the causes of most economically motivated migration are undeniably rooted in the dramatic and rising economic inequalities between North and South, European integration efforts have greatly facilitated the internal flow of labour through the abolishment of intra-EU borders following the Single European Act. ... Moreover, member States have shown increasing preoccupations with domestic policy issues in response to deepening economic uncertainty and perceptions of impending social chaos. ... This perception, in turn, has been nourished by increasing numbers in illegal immigration resulting from the near impossibility to enter the Union on legal grounds.
In addition to these (internal) dynamics, the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 - initially cheered and broadly welcomed - soon led Western European member States to shut their borders to the perceived “threat” of rising numbers of immigrants “flooding” their national labour markets. ...
At the same time, however, today’s skills shortages in the European labour markets are making member States increasingly dependent on the inflow of qualified foreign labour. ... The European Union is hence facing a dilemma, in which political and economic demands are pulling national governments in opposite directions. ... It is obvious, that in a Union without border, unilateral policies with respect to migration will necessarily affect other States. Given this inherently international dimension to the movements of persons across borders, the new approach must be based on the general principle of European co-operation and solidarity. ... This has neither resulted in an effective control of rising migration pressures, nor has it resolved any of the persistent and pressing demographic and labour market imbalances that Europe is currently facing. A shared concept of control represented by a harmonised, comprehensive and flexible migration policy, which successfully stabilises member State’s relation vis-à-vis one another by convincing common members not to challenge each other by unilateral policy enforcements, is therefore urgently needed.
4 The evolution of a European “concept of control”? ... For the concrete case for the European Union, this would imply dominant member States (notably Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain) to promote the establishment of a harmonised and comprehensive European migration policy. These member States , not surprisingly, are also the ones most affected by current migration pressures. ... The fact that most member States are still reluctant to (officially) acknowledge their status as immigration countries and their disparate interests and fierce opposition to any loss of national sovereignty in the field of domestic and security policy (fields typically associated with migration policy) make the ermergence of a European concept of control in the near future at best doubtful. ... Given the difficulty of this task, the Theory of Fields predicts actors to turn to a benevolent institution, here the European Commission, to provide stability enhancing structures. Most member States, however, remain deeply sceptical of the harmonisation of their national migration policies. ... Keeping this in mind, we will in the following systematically examine the four conditions for the establishment of stable fields and evaluate them in terms of their suitability to the successful creation of a European migration regime.
The existence of a conception of control
Underlying any future stable migration regime must be a set of rules and shared meaning that define social relationships, help define who occupies what position in those relationships, and guide interaction by giving actors cognitive frames or sets of meanings to interpret the behaviour of others.
Approximate Word count = 8223
Approximate Pages = 32.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|