Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe authors argue that Russian migration policy reflects the functioning of contemporary Russia's entire bureaucratic machine. The bureaucracy's Soviet‐era governance techniques on the one hand and the material interests of particular pressure groups on the other, shape the manipulation of immigration regulation that has occurred since the early 2000s. Therefore, attempts to liberalize migration regulation, i.e., to simplify the legalization of foreign workers, have always been incoherent, accompanied by reservations and limitations. Additionally, Russian actions are riddled with conflict between 'geopolitical' and domestic policy rationales. The authorities' occasional attempts to use immigration regulation as a foreign policy tool acquire primarily symbolic value in the 'domestic political market' rather than serving any instrumental purpose. The effort to enhance Russian influence in the post‐Soviet space through the 'reintegration project' (Eurasian Economic Union) collides with the goal of national labour market protection, since integration entails the removal of barriers to labour movement.

This paper reviews changes in migration policies as a response to the 2008 financial and economic crisis and examines issues of migration governance. Countries in Europe opted to make new immigration more difficult, protected their labour markets for native born workers, encouraged the return of migrant workers and intensified efforts to curb irregular migration. Clear patterns or reasons for variation in policy responses are not discernible, but it is safe to say that only countries with a significant recent influx of migrants have taken high profile measures at all. The crisis has led to a shift in perspective of the State and its role in economics which is now seen as useful instead of undesired. Previously prevailing neo-liberal thought relegated the State to the "high politics" of sovereignty and security issues. The crisis has highlighted labour market issues, and migrants are now increasingly portrayed as economic agents instead of security threats. This offers room for the State to assert its protective role vis-à-vis migrant workers – a welcome development. The analysis has an International Relations/Political Economy perspective and is largely based on (official) news releases and secondary sources.

This paper reviews changes in migration policies as a response to the 2008 financial
and economic crisis and examines issues of migration governance. Countries in Europe
opted to make new immigration more difficult, protected their labour markets for native
born workers, encouraged the return of migrant workers and intensified efforts to
curb irregular migration. Clear patterns or reasons for variation in policy responses
are not discernible, but it is safe to say that only countries with a significant
recent influx of migrants have taken high profile measures at all. The crisis has
led to a shift in perspective of the State and its role in economics which is now
seen as useful instead of undesired. Previously prevailing neo-liberal thought relegated
the State to the "high politics" of sovereignty and security issues. The crisis has
highlighted labour market issues, and migrants are now increasingly portrayed as economic
agents instead of security threats. This offers room for the State to assert its protective
role vis-à-vis migrant workers – a welcome development. The analysis has an International
Relations/Political Economy perspective and is largely based on (official) news releases
and secondary sources.

AbstractMore than 8 years ago the Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009, which is also (and much better) known as Blue Card‐directive, came into effect. Although in general the passing of the directive can be regarded as a milestone in the history of EU migration policy, the first proposals of the directive brought forward by the European Commission envisaged a much deeper and more binding framework including less room for maneuver for the member states. It is well known that particularly the German government at that time spoke out against a (more) extensive Europeanisation of labour migration policy. In sharp contrast to this rather reluctant stance towards ?more Europe? in this area recent developments indicate a significant policy change in the German way of dealing with the question of how much Europe is necessary in labour migration policy. This article seeks to retrace this rather sudden shift and to put it into a broader context of migration policy change in Germany.

International audience ; This paper is part of the joint project between the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission and the OECD's Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs on "Review of Labour Migration Policy in Europe". This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Grant: HOME/2013/EIFX/CA/002 / 30-CE-0615920/00-38 (DI130895) A previous version of this paper was presented and discussed at the OECD Working Party on Migration in June 2015.The paper investigates the notion of the "community preference" which in filling job posts gives a priority to EU-nationals over third-country nationals. Analysing the impact of the principle on the European labour migration policy, the report presents a brief history of the notion, and discusses how it is referred to in EU labour migration policy documents. It also examines the challenges that the principle is facing as the EU immigration policy develops, tending to give increasing rights to third-country nationals.