This paper examines the institutional logics of migration policy making at local city level, comparing four Danish municipal approaches. Using a theoretical framework on political opportunity structures, policy frames, and institutional logics, the paper argues that divergences between national and local level can be explained not only as an unsuccessful transposition of nationally formulated policies, but also as an outcome of divergence in alternative and competing policy frames, political rationales, and institutional logics. Investigating factors such as size, economy, and organizational structure, the paper offers three interrelated explanations for divergences between national and local level and between different local approaches. The paper argues that the difference in national and local level political opportunity structures makes a difference; that ideas diffused from outside the national context can inform local-level policy making; and that policies are situated within and adjusted to the broader cultural economy and city branding as part of competition between cities.In recent decades, migration and new mobility patterns have become a major global phenomenon demanding political attention from sending, transition, and receiving states. This almost trivial fact also describes the situation in Europe, and immigrant integration, regardless of definition, has become a salient policy problem in most Western European nation-states. There is a saying that policies are conceived at the national level, but problems are felt at the local level, and the local level has become increasingly important for the formulation and implementation of integration policies (Penninx, 2009; Capono and Borkert, 2010). Population statistics as well as research show that immigrants are not equally distributed within national borders, but are attracted to urban areas. Indeed, immigrants may often feel closer and more connected to the city they live in than to the country they have arrived in.Ignoring for a moment the financial crisis, there has been strong competition for qualified labor between nation-states, and European (the blue
This article examines categories of deservingness in social policy. It argues that immigrant groups are positioned differently according to their status and perceived 'value' for society. On the one hand, most states need several types of migrant labour; on the other hand, they wish to limit other types of migrants. The balance between humanitarian obligations and this urge to control has led to the development of ambiguous policy designs. This tendency can also be found in Denmark. Public policies and the attribution of public goods and rights are increasingly developed within a hierarchical system of civic stratification that legitimises welfare chauvinism, rather than defending the universalist principle embedded in a universal/social-democratic welfare state model. The article investigates welfare chauvinism in relation to unemployment/social security benefits for labour migrants and refugees.
The ongoing economic crisis that emerged in the wake of the global recession in 2008, and was followed by the more recent crisis of the Eurozone, has introduced new themes and remoulded old ways of approaching the welfare state, immigration, national belonging and racism in Northern Europe. This article identifies two main ways of understanding welfare chauvinism: 1) as a broad concept that covers all sorts of claims and policies to reserve welfare benefits for the ‘native’ population; 2) an ethno-nationalist and racialising political agenda, characteristic especially of right-wing populist parties. Focusing on the relationship between politics and policies, we examine how welfare chauvinist political agendas are turned into policies and what hinders welfare chauvinist claims from becoming policy matters and welfare practices. It is argued that welfare chauvinism targeting migrants is part of a broader neoliberal restructuring of the welfare state and of welfare retrenchment.
Guy Standing’s description of the precariat in his 2011 book has revitalized the debate on what the precariat is, and what it is not. Although the book faced criticism from labour studies, Marxist approaches and others, it opened up a new discussion of precarity under neoliberal capitalism. This article draws on understandings that link the notion of the precariat (and processes of precarization) to practices and investigates links between immigration and precarity. It argues that the analysis of what precarity is should be supplemented by an inquiry into what it does. Precarity is here understood as a mode for analysing economy and for rethinking heterogeneous identities and group formations. The article uses two cases, Lampedusa in Hamburg 2013–2015 and the “Freedom Not Frontex” action in June 2014, to illustrate how processes of precarization play out in everyday life situations and the economic, legal and social system for immigrants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.