Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

One of the cornerstones of the development of the European Union is the principle of free movement within the EU. The EU has created an unprecedented area in which not just capital, goods and services but also people can move around relatively freely. This freedom of movement is guaranteed by EU law and enshrined in the principles of the Lisbon strategy with the objective of creating ‘more and better jobs, by reducing obstacles to mobility’ (European Commission 2004, 2007). Especially after the EU enlargements in 2004 and 2011 with various Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, the scale of EU movement has grown significantly. Migration from the EU Member States in Central and Eastern-Europe (CEE) has evolved into one of the main migration flows within Europe (Black et al. 2010). For instance, it resulted in more than 2.2 million people from Poland engaged in international migration or mobility between 2004–2007 (Grabowska-Lusinska and Okolski 2009). This contributed to a ‘new face’ of East-West migration in Europe (Favell 2008; Favell and Recchi 2010). It is therefore important to know more about migration from Central and Eastern to Western parts of Europe. Because this ‘new face’ has not remained without consequences (Van Ostaijen et al. 2017).

The literature on free movement among the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) divides along two main themes. The first set of studies analyses the nature and type of intra-European movement. Here, the central focus tends to be one of the main migration flows within Europe – namely, the movement of Central and Eastern Europeans (CEE) who are mostly citizens of the EU (Black et al. 2010). In migration studies, this freedom of movement within the EU is increasingly articulated in terms of ‘East’ to ‘West’ migration. Many studies show how this migration pattern within Western Europe is expanding beyond the seasonal and circular forms of labour migration that initially characterized CEE migration, to one characterized by more permanence (e.g., Recchi 2008; Favell 2008; Eade et al. 2006; Düvell and Vogel 2006; Engbersen et al. , ; Castro-Martin and Cortina 2015). To illustrate, Engbersen et al. (, ) contend that along the two axes of attachment to country of origin and destination, there are now four categories of intra-European movement: (1) bi-national; (2) circular; (3) settlement and; (4) “footloose”. This typology captures the fact that some migrants preserve transnational ties that attach them to their region of origin as well as their host countries while others remain permanently in receiving societies, later reuniting with family members or establishing new families in the receiving country (ibid.). Others still may continue their expedition to other parts of Europe or may rather end up “footloose”, experiencing problems accessing the labour market in the receiving country as their ties with the home country fade (ibid.). Studies also show that different types of migration are related to different stages of migration, moving from an initial stage of temporary work abroad, through transnational commuting to permanent settlement, where these phases largely depend on the labour market opportunities in the destination regions (Friberg 2012).

In Europe today, EU citizens are free to move within the entire EU and may take up jobs, enter universities, enjoy retirement or try their luck wherever they want to. As many scholars have pointed out (Favell 2008, 2009; Ciupijus 2011; Castro-Martin and Cortina 2015) this complete freedom of movement marks a turning point in European history, and the predominant direction of movement is currently from East to West. Post-accession migration from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) thus brings back old European migration patterns, in which CEE migrants are making use of this still quite new freedom of movement. So, being mobile as such is simple and easy without any legal constraints whatsoever, as nowadays even more sceptic EU 15 countries like Austria and Germany have abolished most of the transitional provisions regulating access to their labour markets. One might exaggerate and say that the official term “mobility” implies that internal EU migrants never really arrive anywhere, but are rather floating freely through the EU, which of course is a completely inaccurate picture. With the national level becoming less important in the present setting, having been “taken out of the equation”, CEE migrants are arriving at and settling within varying periods of time in cities and urban regions, which are still the most important destinations, though rural areas, e.g. in Southern Europe, are also becoming more attractive destinations (see Caglar 2014). Still, CEE migration to Western Europe is to a large extent an urban issue.

This chapter addresses the notion of ‘liquid migration’ in relation to intra-European movement. Does intra-European movement challenge our conventional understanding of temporary versus permanent intra-European migration? And what does this mean in terms of the central dilemma of ‘mobility’ versus ‘integration’?

This chapter compares the movement of workers from Central and Eastern European countries to European Union member states after 1990 (CEES) with the Guest Worker System of the period 1955–1974 (GWS). Three factors are essential for the emergence and continuation of these migration systems. The first factor refers to the economic push-pull factors of labour migration. When measured in terms of GDP differentials between sending and receiving countries, of wage differentials and of work opportunities - these turn out to be quite comparable in both migration systems. The second factors specifies how individuals enter into a labour migration system: the information of migration alternatives that migrants have, the networks that may help them and the intermediaries and facilitators that take away barriers. In this respect, there seem to be some significant differences between the two systems. The third factor is related to the regulatory systems of international migration. Here the differences between the two systems are fundamental: GWS developed into a highly regulated system of labour migration, while migration in the CEES system prospered due to the unrestricted free movement within the EU in a neoliberal economic climate with less labour market regulation. It is the combination of differences in the latter two factors that makes for a different selection of who is moving and for what purpose and, ultimately, for a greater unpredictability of the CEE migration.

A Brussels correspondent allegedly described the general impression of the EU as ‘an animal that lives in Brussels’. Given that most EU regulations are implemented at national and subnational levels of government, it may be tempting to discard the metaphor as a misconception. But it is not entirely false. Governance, in the sense of negotiations and decisions guiding implementation, does take place in the corridors and conference rooms in Brussels. This chapter describes and analyses governance processes at the EU level in matters that relate to the free movement of workers and persons (hereafter free movement).

Free movement management is a challenge that emerged in a multi-level context, with policies developed at one level having unclear implications for actors working at other levels, and with questions of authority and competencies remaining highly uncertain. Broader issues of national and local contexts, as well as traditional institutional practices, all lay the groundwork for the need of clearly articulated governance solutions. As is clear from previous chapters, the flows of CEE migrants, as well as the social consequences of their presence in urban regions that are often unequipped in both policy and administrative terms, has led to substantial challenges for actors at all levels of government, both public and private, when it comes to free movement management.

The case of intra-European movement raises significant debate about multi-level governance (MLG). In analytical terms, it asks how governance of intra-European movement actually is, what actors are involved and how? In normative terms, it considers whether intra-European movement can be seen as ‘successful’ multi-level governance. Intra-European movement is an area that faces both and (Stephenson 2013, pp. 817) and as such, the governance arrangements are often correspondingly complex. This chapter will attempt to locate the case of intra-European movement within the broader literature on multi-level governance and try to draw out lessons for understanding MLG as a practical, analytical and normative concept. This is relevant to both the understanding of intra-European movement and the understanding of MLG. On the one hand, additional cases help to support or refute the robustness of our conceptualisation of multi-level governance; on the other hand, MLG as a concept can help us to understand the entanglement of a complex issue that cuts across political and policy bounds. The chapter will first develop a framework of multi-level governance that can be applied to intra-European movement. Then, the structural, relational and policy factors that affect MLG will be explored in the context of this specific case. The final section will try to craft some answers about what intra-European movement policy can tell us about multi-level governance, and vice versa.

The politicisation of free movement can be understood as the outcome of a dialectic between positions underpinned by ideas of solidarity or hospitality. This is clearly seen in the tension over the choice of language when describing individuals that cross the borders between the member states of the European Union. This chapter explores how the concepts of solidarity and hospitality operate to construct and deconstruct arguments over free movement. It then traces how these have shaped and characterised the developing political story around intra-European movement. Impacts on cities and the local level emerge as an important theme for all sides seeking to win political struggles over free movement, but in an instrumental rather than an evidence-based way.

The possibility of free movement for Poles has increased with Poland joining the European Union and the Schengen Area. This chapter provides the perspective of Poland as a migrant sending country on intra-European movement. It characterizes the migration corridors between Poland and urban regions in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden. It concentrates on the Dutch-Polish corridor, with the highest intensity and largest post-2004 movement of Poles. The chapter analyses the implications of intra-European movement of Poles for Poland, and in particular for sending urban regions to the Netherlands. It provides important examples of regional and trans-national migration governance from the Dutch-Polish corridor. It also reflects upon the link between the EU freedom of movement and the migration of third-country nationals to Poland.