Emma Carmel, Alfio Cerami and Theodoros Papadopoulos (eds), Migration and Welfare in the New Europe: Social protection and the challenges of integration

Emma Carmel, Alfio Cerami and Theodoros Papadopoulos (eds), Migration and Welfare in the New Europe: Social protection and the challenges of integration, Policy Press, 2011, xiv + 261 pp, hbk, 1 847 42644 4, £70

The introductory chapter of this timely edited collection outlines the issues to be discussed throughout: policy combinations, institutions and political structures, and the resulting integration and inclusion of migrants. This is followed by a discussion of the role of emotions, beliefs, preferences and opportunities in policy-making.

The first part of the book contains chapters on the differences between different national migrant integration regimes (always the result of different political economics of labour and welfare); on the European Union’s attempt at a coherent migration policy which links utility, security and integration policies; on the contradiction between the right to emigrate and a destination country’s ability to deny entry (meaning that we need a new European migration morality); and on the causes of migration and of different degrees of labour market integration.

The second part contains studies of migration and social protection policies in different EU countries. In Italy, the relative importance of social protection provided to employees in large companies disadvantages migrants, who tend to work in smaller companies. Migrants are also disadvantaged by their weaker position in relation to welfare rights and their security of residence. Germany practises differential inclusion, with guest workers the least included, second-generation German-born people somewhat more included, and ethnic German repatriates the most included. The social security regime, being based largely on contribution records, disadvantages migrants. In Hungary, EU accession has added new elements to an already complex migration pattern.

The chapter on Finland contains the most detailed study of a social security system and its relationship to migration. In Finland’s case residency is a more important criterion than employment status or length of labour market participation. Because immigrants often don’t achieve rights to residency, their access to the main social security provisions remains employment-based and thus precarious, leaving them reliant on a low-level means-tested safety net.

The chapter on the UK, accurately entitled ‘wilful negligence … the absence of social protection in the UK,’ details UK immigrants’ lack of access to the labour market and to social security benefits, and also a detention regime which includes the incarceration of children. The UK has a long history of both permanent and temporary immigration, which has resulted in complex and differentiated labour market patterns. It’s a pity that a detailed case study doesn’t include a section on immigrants’ social security experiences. What does emerge is a picture of insecure recent immigrants and of exploited migrant workers.

The final section of the book integrates into an understanding of migrant experience of a number of disparate cultural and political factors, and here the UK’s multicultural policies fare rather better than our treatment of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers awaiting determinations of their status. The first chapter in this section asks that welfare right should be viewed in the context of each cultural situation; the second studies the influence of urban, sub-national policy actors; and the third compares Israel’s positive attempts to integrate (certain groups of) immigrants with Europe’s more patchy experience.

The concluding chapter finds social security regulations to be discriminating, and it puts to us the challenge of creating ‘inclusion, integration and social protection’ (p.253) for migrants across Europe. Advocates of a Citizen’s Income approach to benefits reform will recognise this as a challenge which a Citizen’s Income would meet, but only if a Citizen’s Income is to be paid to every current resident, including new arrivals.

Welch, Mary Agnes “An End to the Perpetual Welfare Trap: Guaranteed Incomes Debated.”

In the article published in Winning Free Press, Mary Agnes Welch argues that an experiment done in Dauphin province of Canada around 40 years ago regarding the experiment of unconditional basic income was a success and should be reapplied. The topic was discussed in a conference hosted by Winnipeg Harvest at University of Manitoba. The experiment provided an unconditional basic income guarantee to every low-income person in Dauphin whether or not they were eligible to receive welfare. The results of the Dauphin experiment showed an improvement in health, a lower high school dropout rate, and people did not stop working just because they were receiving a guaranteed income. The experiment was stopped because the government lost interest in it. Welch further informs that the city of Dauphin is interested in having the experiment again. However, it does not fit the new strategy of the government that follows the policy of moving people back to work.

Welch, M. A. (2012). An End to the Perpetual War Trap: Guaranteed Incomes Debated. Winning Free Press, retrieved from: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/an-end-to-the-perpetual-welfare-trap-167004295.html.

Stern, Erik “Growing need for fairness and respect. Negative income tax is better than welfare or workfare for the unemployed”

SG Hard Truth: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, July 24, 2012

This article argues that negative income tax is a bold alternative that fits Singapore better than other policies. Erik Stern writes, the negative income tax, “lets the labour market determine the wage that matches the skill set. It allows the government to decide what the base wage should be, for each level of employee or type of job, not only the minimum level.” The writer is president of Stern Stewart & Co, a business consultancy

This article was originally posted on Business Times Premium at:
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/editorial-opinion/opinion/growing-need-fairness-and-respect
It was reposted and is currently online at:
https://sghardtruth.com/2012/07/25/growing-need-for-fairness-and-respect-negative-income-tax-is-better-than-welfare-or-workfare-for-the-unemployed/

Foligno, Italy, 14th July 2012: Training Workshop on the Italian Welfare State

On  Saturday 14th of July 2012 at 5.30 pm a training workshop titled “Our Welfare: guaranteed income in Italy and Europe” will be held in Foligno (Italy) within the summer festival of the political party SEL – Sinistra Ecologia  Libertà (Left Ecology Freedom). The event will be hosted by Elisabetta Piccolotti (member of the National Committee of SEL and member of the local government of Foligno) and Ivano Bruschi (Councillor of the town council of Foligno). The event will be also attended by Titti Di Salvo (member of the National Committee of SEL, and spokeswoman for the Forum Environment, Economics, Labour), and Sandro Gobetti (BIN Italia – Basic Income Network Italia). During the event there will be the screening of the video ‘Reinventing the Welfare State: a European perspective’.

Ryan, Anne B. “Column: Our Welfare System is Broken. We can Fix it… By Paying Everybody”

In her this column, Anne B. Ryan, of BIEN Ireland, argues that the current welfare system is not applicable anymore and it needs to be replaced by new system, Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is a regular and unconditional income whether one is employed or not. The current welfare system was designed to benefit small number of people that became temporarily unemployed. We need a new system, argues Ryan, UBI, which can benefit everybody and allow one to live up to the decent living standards. Ryan believes that UBI will give people power over decisions in their work life.  People with low income, or socially or environmentally hazardous work can have a power of decision whether to leave or stay in their workplace. UBI would also benefit small business entrepreneurs, young people, and volunteers. UBI can be founded by social resource payment paid by employers and the rest can come from increase in income tax. The article stresses that this system can help in combating inequalities and divisiveness persisting in society due to differences in current levels of security.

Ryan, A. B. (2010). “Column: Our Welfare System is Broken. We Can Fix it… By Paying Everybody.” In The Journal. Retrieved June 7, 2012 from https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-our-welfare-system-is-broken-we-can-fix-it%E2%80%A6-by-paying-everybody/