Commodifying migration: excluding migrants in Europe's emerging social model

Modes of social inclusion and the dominant ways of perceiving related issues of social justice are in a state of transformation in contemporary Western societies. Traditional features of the European social model are called into question by a neoliberal logic that favours market solutions to manage social inclusion. As Yasemin Soysal convincingly argues, this transformation affects the very core of citizenship rights which in the postwar perspective of TH Marshall, were meant to promote a more cohesive and just society. Soysal claims that in the current neoliberal climate, social policies are guided by the principle of ‘individuality’ (understood as the imperative to ‘invest’ into individuals' marketable capabilities) rather than the traditional notion of redistributive social justice. According to her interpretation, the nascent social model in Europe paves the way for the gradual withering away of rights of citizens as primarily granted through the status of communal membership. Built on this diagnosis, Soysal's article poses the question regarding how this transformation affects migrants. Already under regular circumstances, migration is associated with a heightened sense of uncertainty especially within the labour market: Moving from one country to another often constitutes challenges pertaining to the recognition of qualifications, learning the codes of the labour market, finding a new supportive social network, etc. In hindsight, one could argue that the relatively robust welfare state and low levels of unemployment in the 1960s–70 period were instrumental in promoting the social inclusion of the postwar ‘guest worker’ migrants. And beyond relatively generous social policies at the time, work-based forms of (union-supported) solidarity helped to link the demand for successful social inclusion and citizens' rights to the regulative idea of redistributive social justice. Yet, this situation has changed dramatically: Manifestly, the neoliberal adjustment of labour market relations and social policy perspectives has called into question this traditional mode of inclusion. In particular the less privileged migrants are extremely vulnerable to the imponderability of the increasingly deregulated labour market and the gradually eroding social safety net in Europe. Yet, in this commentary, I propose that Soysal in her analysis of the distinct status of migrants in Europe, could have been more explicit about the implications of Europe's new ‘social project’. I will argue that migrants are not simply exposed to this project's endemic forms of social exclusion and inequality in a more pronounced way than most other groups in society. Beyond this new sense of socio-economic vulnerability, we witness a far-reaching shift in the discursive representation of migration that is likely to have a critical impact on the politics and policies of migration. In my view, Soysal's succinct account of how the transformation of rights and obligations contributes to the reproduction of social inequalities could have benefited from acknowledging how migrants' struggle for justice is also intimately linked to struggles over recognition and symbolic inclusion. In this respect the neoliberal discursive paradigm has a profound impact on the socially dominant perception of migrants and their sense of entitlement as newcomers. In a second step, I will critically discuss Soysal's claim regarding the steady erosion of migrants' rights at the national level which could be counterbalanced by a new set of international, EU-sanctioned rights and social privileges. Corresponding to the adjustment of (social) citizenship rights to the neoliberal rationale of ‘individuality’, we find a distinct discursive representation of migration as a socio-economically beneficial policy. The rapidly-changing demographic realities of most European countries have compelled these nations to perceive a state-managed form of migration as an appropriate answer to the challenges of ageing societies and the demands of the labour market. In this view, the desire for modern migration and integration policies is routinely legitimized by making reference to a utilitarian logic which advocates the boosting of the country's economic competitiveness and potential for innovation. Migrants provide a form of ‘human capital’ that has become an increasingly rare resource within European societies. If we follow Marshall's perception of rights as a doctrine, we can assume that the critical shift in public and elite discourse vis-à-vis migrants will yield structural effects on modes of including migrants into European society. On the one hand, one can assume that such a depiction of migration contributing to the socio-economic well-being of society at large has an enabling effect: it makes possible the promotion of a more widespread social acceptance of migration, and further calls into question traditional practices which exclude migrants from equitable opportunities especially within the labour market. However, at the same time, the utilitarian logic driving such a marketization also operates on the basis of a momentous normative binary; it endorses the inclusion of highly-skilled migrants – the active and productive individuals – as beneficial for society as they are deemed directly compatible with the expectations in the qualified labour market, while conversely, it portrays refugees and asylum seekers as non-‘marketable’ entities. Thus, under the auspices of a strict utilitarian, market-based logic, human rights concerns and the commitment to social justice, at best, occupy a secondary status. This perception has contributed to shaping public policies in the field of European migration: It has not only increasingly relegated refugees' concerns to the margins of public authorities' attention, but has further impelled them to refer to refugees and asylum seekers primarily as national security threats and a burden to limited state resources, thus necessitating the need to protect Europe's borders from unwanted migration (the current refugee crisis in the Mediterranean is a case in point). Similarly, there is a clear trend to refrain from developing coherent and long-term integration policies for migrants in Europe. In view of this ‘utilitarian’ shift of depicting migrants as mere subjects of economic interests Castles (2006) speculates about the resurrection of the guest worker scheme. Temporary migrants cause low costs, can be used flexibly in the labour market, and relieve the state of the task of taking responsibility for a lengthy integration process. If the selection and integration of migrants primarily follows the imperatives of market rationality, a growing group of migrants are prone to be treated as an adaptable and dispensable commodity. From this perspective, the task of integration is predominantly left to market forces and to the resourcefulness of migrants themselves; the state and society at large therefore are widely absolved of taking any responsibility. This narrative rationale of depicting migration also entails a detrimental impact on the status of those skilled-migrants that are deemed to be as highly attractive by the state. In this respect, European countries show a socially and politically troubling paradox: On the one hand, demographic developments have driven them toward implementing policies that are aimed at attracting highly-skilled migrants in an increasingly competitive international labour market. Ironically however, these states have largely failed to take full advantage of the educational and professional experiences that migrants bring to their countries. Newcomers often face various forms of exclusion from the labour market and end up working in jobs for which they are overqualified. Recent data suggest that there is a considerable gap between the economic performance and professional achievements of migrants as opposed to the domestically-born population. While there is variation across Europe, the structural disadvantages faced by migrants in the educational system and the labour market is a social reality which spans across the continent and are often reproduced well into the second generation (Kogan 2007). The result is a ‘brain waste’ that is not only counterproductive to the socio-economic objectives of migration, but also highly detrimental to the overall objective of successfully integrating newcomers into the fabric of European society (Schittenhelm and Schmidtke 2011). The decisive shift associated with the discursive representation of this policy field is far-reaching and touches two dimensions of the European social project. First, such a neoliberal ‘doctrine’ of excluding migrants largely from the normative promises of an inclusive and just citizenship regime, allows for the reproduction of a growing underclass of legally and/or socially excluded migrants. In Europe's urban centres, migrants are represented in overwhelming numbers among those groups of the population with low educational achievements, high unemployment rates and/or precarious employment situations and resulting poverty levels. This reality was a driving force behind the recent youth riots in Paris and London which according to Wacquant (2006) elicited a response by the French political elite to combat the poor rather than poverty. Second, there is an additional layer of symbolic exclusion that precludes European nations from recognizing migrants as social entities and that poses a direct challenge to the normative self-understanding of these contemporary liberal societies. Soysal speaks about the tendency toward an increasingly moralized individual as the main agent responsible for social cohesion. In the case of migrants this does not simply refer to a plea for an ‘active and able citizenry’. When it comes to migrants – both in terms of the discourse on integration and policy approaches – the issue of active participation and inclusion has widely been shifted to the question of cultural identity. The introduction of mandatory integration courses, alluded to by Soysal, is a case in point: Integration here is primarily depicted as a matter of dealing with cultural diversity and religious practices. Migrants in general, are requested to demonstrate that their cultural and religious values are compatible with the norms of Western liberal democracies. Hence, under the auspices of the backlash against multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010), integration has increasingly become an expectation, a commitment demanded from migrants, and a test of their loyalty rather than a promise for equitable inclusion that they can rely on in terms of tangible entitlements. The issue of integration is regularly dramatized as a potential conflict between fundamentally different cultures and, driven by a populist agenda, portrayed as an alleged ‘failure of multiculturalism’. Shifting to the culturalist agenda and popularizing threatening identities of migrants is complementary to the commodification perspective. Both shield the issue of social cohesion and integration from considerations of social justice in terms of equitable access to professional opportunities and life chances. Cultural identities are primarily portrayed as the causes for the relative depravation of migrant communities, and not as the medium through which modes of social and symbolic exclusion are justified. It is against this background that the neoliberal turn has also produced palpable political implications for managing migration in Europe. A utilitarian argument regarding the overall positive economic impact of migration can thus be considered as a potent instrument to justify a more liberal migration policy. As a matter of fact such an argument has historically been critical for generating solid support for sustained immigration in countries such as Australia, Canada or the USA. However, what we are likely to find in the European context is contrary to this expectation and at odds with the intentions of those advocating migration as part of a neoliberal strategy. The results can be described in terms of a counter-intuitive effect which deprives migrants of equitable access to educational and professional opportunities. The ensuing forms of social exclusion often extend well into the second generation – thus running the risk of augmenting popular sentiments that view migrants as a costly burden to society and the welfare state. As a result, the less successful such integration policies are in including migrants into the social and economic fabric of a society, the more such policies run the risk of losing their legitimacy in broader public debate and competitive party politics. What we find in the European context is a highly selective adoption of the basic rationale of established settler societies (namely the idea that immigration is beneficial in socio-economic terms) while neglecting the promise of multiculturalism – as found in the Canadian context for instance – for equitable inclusion of migrants into the fabric of society (related to the educational system, labour market, etc.). This finding can explain the current paradox found within Europe: most parties in the centre left and right endorse migration in principle, while a number of political elite – not only from the extreme right, but also from the ranks of prominent political figures such as Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron – continue to engage in a politically-driven backlash against multiculturalism. In this process, the distinct emphasis on economic benefits of migration in public discourse, combined with the relative marginalization of immigrants, can itself trigger a negative feedback loop reinforcing negative stereotypes against migrants and further fuel anti-foreigner sentiments. Toward the end of her article, Soysal qualifies her analysis of the profound change in the meaning of citizenship rights, by referring to the transformative capacity of the principles of individuality and active citizenry that could be set free in the trans-national European arena. In this respect, Soysal is the proponent of key normative expectations concerning the emergence of a cosmopolitan European identity and a transnational citizenship regime, which are – at least to a large degree – exempt from the exclusionary underpinnings of traditional national identities. In this view, a European citizenship regime is widely expected to provide an environment in which traditional modes of social closure and discrimination against the allegedly inferior ‘other’ become less and less acceptable as a social and political practice (Dell'Olio 2005). Concurrently, an emerging European citizenship regime remains highly ambivalent in terms of how it provides an enabling context for establishing rights and entitlements for migrants: there is indeed the ‘liberating’ effect of a European identity on the labour market inclusion of migrants. Being aware of the migrants' legal entitlements as well as their symbolic inclusion in the fabric of European society (both driven by a commitment to equality and non-discrimination), the EU has embarked upon important initiatives to empower migrants. The nascent European citizenship regime has institutionalized critical steps towards forms of recognition and legal entitlements beyond the logic of the Westphalian world of exclusive nation-states. In the same vein, the EU has established normative expectations regarding the appropriate treatment of third-country nationals – be it via the emerging European citizenship status (see Maas 2008) or its relatively recent initiatives in the field of integration. For instance, at Tampere, the EU committed itself to the principle of bringing third country nationals to ‘near equality’ with Union citizens (Halleskov 2005). Similarly, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) has called on Member States to include refugees in national and EU integration programmes. It is also worth noting that the issue of integration is closely linked to the EU's commitment to uphold fundamental individual rights (Bauböck 2009). The declaration of the European Ministerial Conference on Integration, champions human rights as the cardinal discursive context most conducive to promoting the inclusion of newcomers to the EU. The policies adopted in the field, such as the coordination of national initiatives, and the benchmarking of integration measures, clearly reflect this normative commitment. Of vital importance for the social inclusion of migrants, is also the EU's renewed commitment to fight racism and discrimination in a series of public and policy campaigns. Furthermore, by inaugurating the Vienna-based European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2007, the EU has made further commitments to forcefully protect fundamental human rights as enshrined in the European Charter. The EU's attempts to promote a European citizenship regime and its constitutive sense of belonging and identity, however, are caught in a logic of reproducing a form of symbolic exclusion that is not entirely dissimilar from traditional nation-state practices. In particular, this holds true with respect to third-country migrants who are subject to both forms of symbolic and legal exclusion. The normalcy of a transnational community in the European workforce has also produced the notion of the extra-communitari or étrangers extra-communautaires: the non-EU, non-Western migrant, whose status is largely defined by a newly emerging pejorative identity. Deliberate attempts to create a robust European identity that claims to be rooted in universalistic values is itself a driving force which reproduces certain forms of social exclusion. Thus, policies that seek to regulate the EU's external borders and its highly selective and exclusionary methods of recruiting migrants, have simultaneously produced a popularized and politically salient notion of who or what constitutes the non-European other (Bigo 2005). This commitment to strengthen a European identity as the social precondition for deepening European integration, both informs policies in the field of managing migration and simultaneously is shaped by these key policies. The larger policy framework within which the EU tackles the management of migration and integration is predominantly directed towards security concerns and border protection (Huysmans 2000). While the EU seeks to promote a more tolerant and inclusive society as part of its (Justice and) Home Affairs portfolio, it none the less remains a major player in fortifying its external borders and portraying potential immigrants from outside the member states as a veritable security risk. In its policy practice, the EU reproduces this hiatus between the wanted, highly-qualified, ideally Western migrants, and the unwanted ones from the non-European world; the latter are often portrayed as a genuine threat to society and communal well-being. Indeed, there seems to be a self-reinforcing dynamic at work between the precarious legal status of many non-European migrants, their depiction in public discourse, and the devaluation of their ‘human capital’ in the labour market. In a paradoxical move, a European project also reproduces a form of exclusion whose legitimacy, in view of traditional myths of national homogeneity, has become widely questionable. Non-European migrants are among the most vulnerable groups being exposed to the neoliberal definition of citizenship rights and the re-designing of social policies that to into the marketable of it is worth that migrants as a are highly in terms of their social status and thus are in different are those highly-skilled migrants – in numbers – as a on the labour market, have not only benefited from the commodification of labour and a degree of and opportunities across national the of migrants are indeed caught in of precarious employment and symbolic which various forms of argument is that Soysal's article only the implications of how the transformation of the European social project contributes to the socio-economic of this citizenship status in a neoliberal also for migrants to face renewed struggles for recognition and a of forms of What we are within the European social context – to the of citizenship rights to provide social protection – is a critical change in the socially and politically dominant perception of migrants. The commodification of migrants under neoliberal auspices can for a form of inclusion. Yet, in the European context with its of access to educational and professional opportunities for migrants the neoliberal logic of the responsibility for social cohesion to the individual is likely to more exclusionary approaches to managing migration and the of social

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.