The Experts below are selected from a list of 113613 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
no welfare magnets Free Movement and cross border welfare in germany and denmark compared
Journal of European Public Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Benjamin WernerAbstract:A ‘dually open’ Free Movement system has evolved in the European Union (EU), granting EU citizens the right to Free Movement within the Union as well as cross-border welfare rights. Some scholarly ...
-
Free Movement of people and cross border welfare in the european union dynamic rules limited outcomes
Journal of European Social Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Gabriel Pons Rotger, Jessica Sampson ThierryAbstract:For decades, the European legislators and the Court of Justice have extended the rights to Free Movement and cross-border welfare in the European Union (EU). Strong assumptions on the impact of the...
-
Free Movement and equal treatment in an unequal union
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Susanne K. Schmidt, Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg MartinsenAbstract:The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of Free Movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of Free Movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of Free Movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.
-
no welfare magnets Free Movement and cross border welfare in germany and denmark compared
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Benjamin WernerAbstract:A ‘dually open’ Free Movement system has evolved in the European Union (EU), granting EU citizens the right to Free Movement within the Union as well as cross-border welfare rights. Some scholarly literature and public debates have characterized the system as corrosive to the nationally organized welfare state, which will become a ‘magnet’ for the European poor. This paper examines how the German and Danish welfare states have responded to the ‘dual open’ system and its outcomes in terms of EU citizens’ take-up rate of non-contributory benefits between 2007 and 2015. We show that the domestic responses were mostly restrictive and that outcomes remained rather stable. Our findings do not support the welfare magnet thesis but instead identify a tendency to a bifurcated social protection system for EU citizens in Germany.
-
Free Movement and equal treatment in an unequal union
Journal of European Public Policy, 2018Co-Authors: Susanne K. Schmidt, Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg MartinsenAbstract:The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of Free Movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship betwe...
Martin Ruhs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
shielding Free Movement reciprocity in welfare institutions and opposition to eu labour immigration
Journal of European Public Policy, 2021Co-Authors: Moa Martensson, Martin Ruhs, Joakim Palme, Marcus OstermanAbstract:Public attitudes towards the Free Movement of workers in the European Union vary substantially between countries and individuals. This paper adds to the small but growing research literature on thi...
-
institutional contexts of political conflicts around Free Movement in the european union a theoretical analysis
Journal of European Public Policy, 2018Co-Authors: Martin Ruhs, Joakim PalmeAbstract:ABSTRACTThe Member States of the European Union (EU) have been engaged in highly divisive debates about whether and how to reform the rules for the ‘Free Movement’ of EU workers and their access to national welfare states. While some countries have argued for new restrictions on EU workers’ access to welfare benefits, many others have opposed policy change. What explains EU Member States’ different policy positions on this issue? Existing accounts have focused on populist political parties and the media. In contrast, this article provides a theoretical institutional analysis of how cross-country differences in the regulation of national labour markets and welfare states can contribute to divergent national policy responses to Free Movement. We argue and explain how labour market and welfare state institutions can affect national policy actors’ positions on Free Movement directly, and/or indirectly via inter-actions with normative attitudes and the characteristics of EU labour immigration.
-
institutional contexts of political conflicts around Free Movement in the european union a theoretical analysis
Journal of European Public Policy, 2018Co-Authors: Martin Ruhs, Joakim PalmeAbstract:The Member States of the European Union (EU) have been engaged in highly divisive debates about whether and how to reform the rules for the ‘Free Movement’ of EU workers and their access to nationa...
-
Free Movement in the european union national institutions vs common policies
International Migration, 2017Co-Authors: Martin RuhsAbstract:The current rules for “Free Movement” in the European Union (EU) facilitate unrestricted intra-EU labour mobility and equal access to national welfare states for EU workers. The sustainability of this policy has recently been threatened by divisive debates between EU countries about the need to restrict welfare benefits for EU workers. This article develops a theory for why the current Free Movement rules might present particular challenges for certain EU member states. It focuses on the potential roles of three types of national institutions and social norms in determining national policy positions on Free Movement in the EU15 states: labour markets (especially their “flexibility”); welfare states (especially their “contributory basis”); and citizenship norms (focusing on the “European-ness” of national identities). I show that these institutions and norms vary across member states and explain why we can expect these differences to contribute to divergent national policy preferences for reforming Free Movement.
Benjamin Werner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
no welfare magnets Free Movement and cross border welfare in germany and denmark compared
Journal of European Public Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Benjamin WernerAbstract:A ‘dually open’ Free Movement system has evolved in the European Union (EU), granting EU citizens the right to Free Movement within the Union as well as cross-border welfare rights. Some scholarly ...
-
no welfare magnets Free Movement and cross border welfare in germany and denmark compared
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Benjamin WernerAbstract:A ‘dually open’ Free Movement system has evolved in the European Union (EU), granting EU citizens the right to Free Movement within the Union as well as cross-border welfare rights. Some scholarly literature and public debates have characterized the system as corrosive to the nationally organized welfare state, which will become a ‘magnet’ for the European poor. This paper examines how the German and Danish welfare states have responded to the ‘dual open’ system and its outcomes in terms of EU citizens’ take-up rate of non-contributory benefits between 2007 and 2015. We show that the domestic responses were mostly restrictive and that outcomes remained rather stable. Our findings do not support the welfare magnet thesis but instead identify a tendency to a bifurcated social protection system for EU citizens in Germany.
Susanne K. Schmidt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free Movement and equal treatment in an unequal union
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Susanne K. Schmidt, Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg MartinsenAbstract:The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of Free Movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of Free Movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of Free Movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.
-
Free Movement and equal treatment in an unequal union
Journal of European Public Policy, 2018Co-Authors: Susanne K. Schmidt, Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg MartinsenAbstract:The European Union’s (EU) fundamental principles of Free Movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship betwe...
-
Welfare migration? Free Movement of EU citizens and access to social benefits
2015Co-Authors: Michael Blauberger, Susanne K. SchmidtAbstract:This article analyzes the political impact of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law concerning the Free Movement of EU citizens and their cross-border access to social benefits. Public debates about ‘welfare migration’ or ‘social tourism’ often fluctuate between populist hysteria and outright denial, but they obscure the real political and legal issues at stake: that ECJ jurisprudence incrementally broadens EU citizens’ opportunities to claim social benefits abroad while narrowing member states’ scope to regulate and restrict access to national welfare systems. We argue that legal uncertainty challenges national administrations in terms of workload and rule-of-law standards, while domestic legislative reforms increasingly shift the burden of legal uncertainty to EU migrants by raising evidentiary requirements and threatening economically inactive EU citizens with expulsion. We illustrate this argument first with a brief overview of the EU’s legal framework, highlighting the ambiguity of core concepts from the Court’s case law, and then with empirical evidence from the UK, Germany and Austria, analyzing similar domestic responses to the ECJ’s jurisprudence. We conclude that EU citizenship law, while promising to build the union from below on the basis of equal legal entitlements, may, in fact, risk rousing further nationalism and decrease solidarity across the union.
Jessica Sampson Thierry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free Movement of people and cross border welfare in the european union dynamic rules limited outcomes
Journal of European Social Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Gabriel Pons Rotger, Jessica Sampson ThierryAbstract:For decades, the European legislators and the Court of Justice have extended the rights to Free Movement and cross-border welfare in the European Union (EU). Strong assumptions on the impact of the...
-
responding to Free Movement quarantining mobile union citizens in european welfare states
Journal of European Public Policy, 2018Co-Authors: Dion Kramer, Jessica Sampson Thierry, Franca Van HoorenAbstract:It is often held that Free Movement within the European Union and the expansion of social rights of mobile citizens by the European Court of Justice place national welfare states under pressure, potentially leading to welfare retrenchment. Yet thorough empirical investigation of this claim has been surprisingly limited. In this article, we distinguish three possible responses to such pressures: ‘embedding’, the inclusion of Union citizens in the welfare system; ‘quarantining’, restrictive measures excluding mobile Union citizens; and ‘retrenchment’, general cutbacks in benefit programmes. Through a longitudinal comparative case study of generous non-contributory welfare benefits in Denmark and the Netherlands, we find general welfare retrenchment in response to Europeanisation strikingly limited. Instead, welfare states remain resilient by creatively quarantining mobile Union citizens from the coverage of social benefits. Legal cultures and degrees of politicization are important factors, shaping the pathways towards these creative but exclusionary responses.
-
Free Movement of people and cross border welfare in the european union dynamic rules limited outcomes
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Gabriel Pons Rotger, Jessica Sampson ThierryAbstract:For decades, the European legislators and the Court of Justice have extended the rights to Free Movement and cross-border welfare in the European Union (EU). Strong assumptions on the impact of these rules have been posed, by some held to lead to welfare migration and thus to be a fundamental challenge to the welfare state. However, studies of how these rules are implemented and what become the de-facto outcomes hereof remain scarce. We address this research gap, by examining domestic responses to and outcomes of dynamic EU rules. Based on a unique set of administrative data, we do so for all EU citizens residing in the universalistic, tax-financed welfare state of Denmark between 2002-2013. We find that domestic responses have been restrictive and outcomes limited.
