This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 320294


WP10 Balancing Citizenship of ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’

Central to the emergence of European citizenship has been the reconstruction of the boundaries of citizenship and its relationship to nation states, welfare states and labour markets. This has involved changing  institutional  relations  at the  interstate  level  with  regard  to the  legal  construction  of EU citizens (and different categories of EU citizens, including A8 and A2 nationals) and non-EU citizens, and the associated rights of citizenship. At the same time, at the level of individual member states’ citizenship  policies  and  immigration  controls,  there  has  been  a continuing  diversification  of legal statuses and associated  rights, not simply between citizens and non-citizens  of those states, but also among non-citizens (such as work permit holders, asylum seekers, students).

There has been some theorising concerning immigration controls and citizenship policies as constructive of certain types of social and employment relations (Anderson, 2010; De Genova, 2002; Bosniak,  2006;  Ngai,  2005),  but this  has  not  been particularly  well  developed  empirically.  There tended to be ‘a now you see it, now you don’t analysis’ of immigration controls, coming to the fore in matters of illegality and vulnerability, when they are used as a critical explanatory variable for abusive and  exploitative  conditions,  but  they  are  often  overlooked  as  structural  features  impacting  legal migrants’ relationships  to labour  markets.  As a result,  the ways  in which  migrants  are or are not permitted access to labour markets and welfare states, and how this affects their labour market and life choices in the receiving States, can be ignored.

Moreover, while attempts have been undertaken to consider how ‘the migrant’ is for the most part a legal creation (rather than, as is commonly  imagined,  regulated by law), ‘the worker’ is also created in this manner and the law is critical in outlining the boundaries of markets as well as of states (Zatz, 2008). There has been no examination  of the ways in which these two work together, though Weicht (2010; 2011) and Anderson  (2013 forthcoming)  have opened the debate by considering  the social relations surrounding work in private households. This could fruitfully be taken forward by comparison  with the situation of citizens who are subject to ‘workfare’,  which is not subject to the usual employment protections  because it is not constituted  as a market relation. In other words, the borders of markets, of welfare and of states, are volatile rather than fixed, and the notion of insiders and outsiders (troubled as they are) are revealed to not merely be a binary national/non-national  divide and citizenship is permanently under construction. The blurring of these borders, involving processes of  ‘marketisation’  within  European  welfare  states,  have  likewise  brought  to  the  fore  conflicting dynamics  in the reconstruction  of economic  and social  rights.  These  tensions  concern,  on the one hand, emphasis on the rights of individual ‘consumers’ of welfare provisions to services that are responsive to their needs and preferences (in the context of market reforms to welfare states), and on the other, the rights and obligations of work for citizens and non-citizens in low-wage labour markets (Shutes 2011; Shutes 2012; Shutes and Walsh 2012). These dynamics point to the importance of the comparative  analysis  of  the  interactions  between  the  restructuring  of  labour  markets  and  welfare states, citizenship and immigration, across and within European states.

WP10 focuses on the construction of the boundaries of the rights to ‘work’ and ‘welfare’ for specific categories of citizens and non-citizens who are excluded from the economic and social rights of citizenship. It will examine the increasingly complex institutional framework through which rights (and obligations) within welfare states and labour markets are stratified among formal citizens as well as between  citizens  and non-citizens.  WP10 therefore  complements  WP 5 (economic  rights) and 6 (social rights) by focusing in depth on the interactions between immigration controls and citizenship policies, labour markets and welfare states, the conflicting processes that those interactions entail and the implications  for rethinking  rights-based approaches  to work  and welfare  for citizens  and non- citizens.

‐  Anderson, B. (2010), ‘Migration,  immigration  controls and precarious labour’, Work, Employment and Society, 24: 300-317
‐  Anderson,  B. (2013 forthcoming),  Us and Them? The dangerous  politics of immigration  controls (Oxford: OUP)
‐  Bosniak, L. (2006), The Citizen and the Alien: dilemmas of contemporary  membership (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
‐  De Genova,  N. (2002),  ‘Migrant  illegality  and deportability  in everyday  life’, Annual  Review  of Anthropology, 31:419-447
‐  Ngai, M. (2005), Impossible subjects: illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
‐  Shutes, I. (2011), ‘Welfare-to-Work and the responsiveness of employment providers to the needs of refugees’, Journal of Social Policy, 40:557-574
‐  Shutes, I. (2012), ‘The employment of migrant workers in long-term care: dynamics of choice and control’, Journal of Social Policy , 41:43-59
‐  Shutes,  I.  and  Walsh,  K.  (2012), ‘Negotiating  user  preferences,  discrimination and  demand  for migrant labour in long-term care’, Social Politics (published online Jan 19, 2012)
‐ Weicht, B (2011), ‘Embracing dependency: rethinking (in)dependence in the discourse of care’, The Sociological Review, 58:205-224
‐  Weicht,   B  (2010),   ‘Embodying   the  ideal  carer:  the  Austrian   discourse   on  migrant   carers’, International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 5:17-52
‐  Zatz, N. (2008), ‘Working at the boundaries of markets: prison labor and the economic dimension of employment relationships’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 61:857-958