Earning Social Citizenship in the European Union: Free Movement and Access to Social Assistance Benefits Reconstructed

Kramer, Dion

doi:10.1017/cel.2016.10

Cited by 44 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Just as there may be trends at the Court, there may also be trends in the nature of litigants, and the behaviour of national judges and authorities. Trends in outcomes in Luxembourg may therefore be (partly) the product of trends at national level -just as it seems plausible that the cases on social assistance for noneconomically active mobile citizens are partly explained by changing migration patterns, and partly by national authorities seeking to circumscribe a difficult policy area by challenging unmeritorious claimants (Kramer 2016;Kramer et al 2018). It may be, to borrow a phrase, that national authorities and judges read the morning papers (Blauberger et al 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the latter, is that because the kind of mobile citizen needing public help is changing -because of enlargement, or the economic crisis -or are national authorities becoming more skilled, selective or strategic in choosing when to refuse benefits? (Blauberger 2012;Kramer 2016;Kramer et al 2018) This article does not answer those questions, but its findings suggest that they need to be asked.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Has the Court changed, or have the cases? The deservingness of litigants as an element in Court of Justice citizenship adjudication

Davies

2018

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent cases concerning mobile citizens and access to social assistance the Court has sided with Member States against the litigating citizens. Given that in early cases it sided with the litigants, this has created the impression of a change in judicial perspective. This article looks at the most discussed sub-set of cases, and argues that a more plausible explanation lies in the changing characteristics of the litigants themselves -recent claims for social assistance are based on less meritorious facts. This raises a broader issue about research into judicial decisions: Trends in outcomes cannot be analysed without taking account of possible trends in inputs. These may vary due to changes in skills or strategies at national courts or authorities, or social changes leading to different litigant characteristics. Unless accounted for, claims that a court is changing its approach will be unreliable.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Has the Court changed, or have the cases? The deservingness of litigants as an element in Court of Justice citizenship adjudication

Davies

2018

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reflecting such western concerns, the ECJ has been limiting the rights of economically inactive movers, starting with its decisions in Brey 47 and Dano (discussed below) (Myslinska 2019). This recent line of cases, consistent with the increasingly restrictive EU-15 policies targeting CEE movers (Eurofound 2014), propagates the notion of EU citizens' need to 'earn and deserve' their right to move and to draw on social benefits (Kramer 2016).…”

Section: Free Movement Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Quite Right: Representations of Eastern Europeans in ECJ Discourse

Myslinska

2020

Int J Polit Cult Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the increasing responsiveness of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the 'ECJ') jurisprudence to western Member States' concerns regarding Central and Eastern European ('CEE') nationals' mobility has garnered academic attention, ECJ discourse has not been scrutinised for how it approaches the CEE region or CEE movers. Applying postcolonial theory, this article seeks to fill this gap and to explore whether there are any indications that ECJ discourse is in line with the historical western-centric inferiorisation of the CEE region. A critical discourse analysis of a set of ECJ judgments and corresponding Advocate General opinions pertaining to CEE nationals illustrates not only how the ECJ adopts numerous discursive strategies to maintain its authority, but also how it tends to prioritise values of the western Member States, while overlooking interests of CEE movers. Its one-sided approach is further reinforced by referring to irrelevant facts and negative assumptions to create an image of CEE nationals as socially and economically inferior to westerners, as not belonging to the proper EU polity and as not quite deserving of EU law's protections. By silencing CEE nationals' voices, while disregarding the background of east/ west socioeconomic and political power differentials and precariousness experienced by many CEE workers in the west, such racialising discourse normalises ethnicity-and classbased stereotypes. These findings also help to contextualise both EU and western policies targeting CEE movers and evidence of their unequal outcomes in the west, and are in line with today's nuanced expressions of racisms. By illustrating the ECJ's role in addressing values pertinent to mobile CEE individuals, this study facilitates a fuller appreciation of the ECJ's power in shaping and reflecting western-centric EU identity and policies. Engaging with such issues will not only allow us to better appreciate-and question-the ECJ's legitimacy, but might also facilitate a better understanding of power dynamics within the EU. This study also makes significant theoretical and methodological contributions. It expands (and complicates) the application of postcolonial theory to contemporary intra-EU processes, while illustrating the usefulness of applying critical discourse analysis to exploring differentiation, exclusion, subordination and power within legal language.

show abstract

“…The obvious response to movement would be to make it less free, but this would be a major blow to EU policy, and would not necessarily work if it merely made movement more selective (Kramer 2016;Spaventa 2017). There would need to be significant restrictions on numbers too.…”

Section: Responses To Sortingmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Union Citizenship and the sorting of Europe

Davies

2020

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free movement is intended to bring Europeans together. This article suggests it may have the opposite effect: it may drive them apart. The mechanism involved is sorting. This happens when people are free to choose where to live, and choose a community which matches their preferences. This match can come about in different ways, but the result of them all is that people of particular preferences are clustered together, leading to society being structured as a series of adjacent mono-cultures. It is not a large step to suggest that this arrangement is likely to cause alienation between the communities. The fact of sorting means that they have less in common than they did before. For Europe, if sorting happens, this would imply that polarization between states would increase and the governability of the EU would be threatened. Free movement may be less a mechanism of integration than one of disintegration.

show abstract

Earning Social Citizenship in the European Union: Free Movement and Access to Social Assistance Benefits Reconstructed

Cited by 44 publications

References 39 publications

Has the Court changed, or have the cases? The deservingness of litigants as an element in Court of Justice citizenship adjudication

Has the Court changed, or have the cases? The deservingness of litigants as an element in Court of Justice citizenship adjudication

Not Quite Right: Representations of Eastern Europeans in ECJ Discourse

European Union Citizenship and the sorting of Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About