Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Управление миграционными процессами в трудовой сфере. Учебно-методическое пособие
.pdf
4. Inequalities between rich and poor territories create incentives for
immigrants to cross frontiers. Many of the immigrants are well educated and
professionally qualified and yet, in the receiving societies, the work they do
is unskilled.
5. Welfare systems (including humanitarian protection systems)
constitute a pull factor for immigration. But these collective goods are also
an object of competition and in conflict with the demand for social
protection services exerted by the native population of the receiving
countries. It is for this reason that nation states have increasingly argued the
need for immigration controls.
The structure of the book
Chapter 1 contains analysis of the initial fundamental theoretical
concepts outlined above. Chapter 2 introduces the immigration policy of the
European Union and the specific features of the single market based on the
principles of free movement of goods, capital and persons. In chapter 3 the
authors examine the labour market, the status of work and its relationship
with unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. These three chapters
constitute the first part of the book in which irregular immigration is
analysed as an aspect of labour mobility within and between countries.
Labour mobility is understood as a necessary condition for improving
economic efficiency.
The second part of the book is devoted to the empirical work conducted
in London. Through interviews with illegal immigrants, the authors explore
the immigrants’ motives and their plans for the future. One of Jordan and
Düvell’s findings is that the immigrants’ motives and explanations are wideranging, the variety correlating to some extent with country of origin. In
spite of the variety of motives, one feature common to all is that these are
enterprising and hardworking persons with a high level of education and
who are keen to improve their standard of living and quality of life. At the
same time, most of them are engaged in work far below their level of
professional qualification and previous experience. These illegal immigrants
are employed in the textile industry, cafés and restaurants, domestic cleaning
and the building industry.
One distinguishing feature between different groups of irregular
immigrants relates to the reasons given for coming to London. The vast
majority entered the country legally, the illegal aspect being that some of
them took up work without a work permit. Others began to work when their
71
entry visa expired. The reasons given for migrating are three, as if in some
way implicitly inspired by the Rawlsian principle of global justice: first, the
right to visit the UK to study and obtain work experience for the purpose of
furthering their professional training before returning to their own country
(many of those who referred to this argument were Brazilian); secondly, the
right to work and save in order to purchase essential material goods (house,
car and the wherewithal to set themselves up in business) on their return
home to their own country; thirdly, the search for political freedom which
they lacked in their own country (a reason put forward especially by Turks).
These aspects are described in detail in chapter 4, while in chapter 5 the
authors analyse the survival strategies of the irregular immigrants to London,
looking at the function of the immigrants in the framework of flexible and
deregulated labour markets, in the underground economy and low-pay
sector. The harsh reality of their insecure conditions of labour frequently
causes immigrants to alter their plans to return home. Many of them did not
expect their living and working conditions to be so hard and they come to
feel trapped, lacking the resources to return home. In chapter 6 the authors
examine the response of the immigrant and refugee support organisations.
The third part of the book explores the responses of the institutions of
the receiving society in relation to the fact of illegal immigration. One of the
aspects that distinguishes the UK from other EU countries is the existence of
a more flexible and less regulated labour market, something which enables
irregular immigrants to find jobs easily in the low-pay sector and
underground economy. Though this aspect is also encountered in other
economies of southern Europe with extensive underground economies (see
Carlota Solé (2001) El impacto de la inmigración en la economía y en la
sociedad receptora, Barcelona: Anthropos), one of the specific features of
the UK is the existence of a culture of anti-discriminatory institutional
practices in the public services that has enabled irregular immigrants to be
treated as a minority ethnic group. Chapter 7 analyses the control system of
the UK. The field work consisted of a case study of a small office of the
Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), and of the
Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate (ISED). As a result of this
exploration of the control bodies, the book shows how the work of the ISED
is dependent on cooperation with the police and the anti-fraud squad. Not
only is this cooperation among the control services somewhat flimsy, but
illegal immigration is not a major priority for these departments. Chapter 8
72
describes the role of the health, education and other local community
services. Competition to obtain benefits from these social services
constitutes a point of tension and sometimes open conflict between irregular
immigrants and the local population. Though the immigrants have obtained
medical care from the health service and schools for their children, the
economic and social disadvantages suffered by irregular immigrants
continue as a result of several factors (linguistic, ethnic, class, gender, etc.).
Chapter 9 looks at the development of the policy to recruit foreign workers
and work permits. One of the differences identified is that foreign workers in
possession of work permits enjoy a better situation and more formal
recognition on the labour market than irregular workers, particularly in
relation to pay and working conditions.
Finally, in chapter 10, Jordan and Düvell return to the topic dealt with
at the outset: the notion of global justice to be derived from the thought of
John Rawls. The right to choose the community in which one lives and
works is a fundamental tenet of liberal democracy and its version of political
and distributive justice. Other rights, those concerning access to the
advantages of the welfare system, are meanwhile curbed and made more
difficult in practice. The reaction of the local community to the arrival of
illegal immigrants is to demand stronger entry controls. Disputes and
competition over access to the goods provided by the ‘welfare club’ throw
into relief the contradictions between labour mobility and active and passive
citizenship rights. In short, globalization of the labour market has a
destabilizing effect on welfare services which have grown up and developed
on a primarily territorial basis. Accordingly, the authors call, in the book’s
conclusions, for the pursuit within the European political community of a
better balance between “exit, voice and loyalty” (to paraphrase Hirschman),
a demand that accords more closely with the principles of global justice than
with the existence of border controls. I found this book an interesting piece
of empirical research whose findings offer the reader a theoretical discussion
of some of the principles of political democracy and justice, but also of the
moral dilemmas associated with the plight of irregular migrants, the losers of
the global economy.
Translation from the Spanish by Kathleen Llanwarne
73
Book reviews. Towards a fair deal for migrant workers in the global
economy
Antonio Martín Artiles.
(Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 2008 14: 706, DOI:
10.1177/102425890801400417. The full version of this article can be found at:
http://trs.sagepub.com/content/14/4/706.citation)
This ILO report provides a valuable review of the specialist literature
analyzing the impact of migration on the host society. Drawing on various
studies carried out in different countries, it presents an excellent overview of
the current debate. This can be summarised in the following five key
arguments, that serve to highlight the main areas on which research into this
subject has focused:
Argument 1: Immigration has beneficial effects in terms of
lowering the average age of the population and stimulating growth
without inflation. There are two sides to this argument. First, immigration
significantly reduces the average age of the population thereby helping to
guarantee the future labour supply, or indeed to expand the existing labour
supply directly without having to pay training costs. This benefits
productivity directly. Secondly, an abundance of migrant workers in lowpaid jobs allows or contributes to a model of non-inflationary growth.
However, these two features tend to be overlooked by public opinion in
the receiving countries. The public debate usually focuses on the social
integration of immigrants, the problems associated with multiculturalism and
the danger or threat that immigration may pose to national identity.
Although, strictly speaking, the economic impact of immigration is
positive, it can also be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory: ‘It is
commonly assumed that during times of economic expansion immigrants
bring net benefits. This can come about for example by meeting general
labour shortages and helping prevent inflation, and also by providing
particular skills that are in great demand, as has happened in recent years
with information technology specialists.’ (p. 35)
Argument 2: The countries with the highest levels of immigration
are among the most successful economically – the United States,
Canada, Australia and South Africa. In Europe, Germany, Switzerland
and Luxembourg. This argument is based on a number of studies. ‘A
74
statistical analysis for 15 European countries over the period 1991-95 found
that for every 1 per cent increase in a country’s population through
immigration there was an increase in GDP of 1.25 to 1.5 per cent. See, for
example, S. Glover, C. Gott et al.: ‘Migration: An economic and social
analysis, London, Home Office’, RDS Occasional Paper No 67, 2001.’
Argument 3: Immigration has an impact on wages and job quality.
It is usually argued that immigration depresses wages for local workers and
tends to increase job insecurity, in other words that an influx of migrant
workers leads to a reduction in the incomes of native workers. However, the
report concludes that there is no significant empirical evidence to back up
this assertion. Various studies show that wages tend to resist downward
pressure from the expansion of the labour supply, and that the impact of
immigration on wages is extremely limited and may often be confined to
certain sectors or segments. Any pressures are counteracted by institutional
measures to regulate markets. Immigration does appear to have some impact
on unskilled wages, but at the same time may actually raise the wages of
skilled workers since it enables a transfer of resources to these workers as a
result of the fact that it causes wages in the lower segments of the labour
market to fall slightly. A range of studies all conclude that the negative
repercussions of immigration on wages are small and limited in scope. A
study in Germany in 1995 based on household panel data shows that a 1%
increase in the share of foreign citizens in the population has a small positive
impact (0.6%) on domestic wages. Wages of the highly skilled native
workers increase even more, by 1.3% (see, for example, Zimmerman 1995).
Other studies found negative but very small effects, ranging from -0.3
to -0.8% according to G. Hanson et al. (2002). In the United States, it is
estimated that a 10% increase in the proportion of immigrants in a region
lowers native wages by less than 1% and often by an amount close to zero
(Brücker et al. 2002).
On the whole, the wages for immigrants are lower than those for native
workers. For example, the hourly wage for immigrant men was 23% less
than that for native men, largely because of the concentration of immigrants
with low levels of education. As far as employment is concerned, it appears
that migrant workers do displace low-skilled native workers. Businesses tend
to replace native workers with migrants who work for lower wages and have
fewer de facto rights.
75
Argument 4: Immigration causes higher unemployment among
natives. At micro or enterprise levels there are ‘undoubtedly’ displacements
that take place when firms restructure and foreign workers are hired to take
the place of native workers. What is difficult to assess is whether there is
higher unemployment among natives after immigration than before. The
OECD examined the experience of several countries between 1984 and 1995
and concluded that there was no evidence of a negative impact. Indeed some
studies even show that immigration has led to an increase in employment as
a result of an expansion in production. The arrival of skilled labour makes
such an increase still likelier. By comparing two periods of time it is possible
to see if an increase in immigration is matched by an increase in
unemployment. It turns out that there is insufficient statistical evidence to
suggest that it actually has any effect at all. The OECD has carried out a
study for a range of countries for the periods 1984- 1989 and 1990-1995
(OECD 1997), with a view to observing the correlation between annual
unemployment and immigration figures.
1984-89
Average
inflows
(thousand
s)
Unemplo
yment
rate %
1990-1995
Average
gross inflows
(thousands)
Unemplo
yment
rate %
Percentage
point
difference in
unemployme
nt rates
United States 675 6.4 1.128 6.4 0.0
Germany 520 7.6 920 8.1 +0.5
Japan 183 2.6 284 2.5 -0.1
Switzerland 69 0.7 101 2.0 +0.2
France 45 10.0 93 10.7 +0.7
United
50 8.6 54 9.4 +0.8
Kingdom
Norway 18 3.0 18 5.5 +2.5
Argument 5: Immigrants are a burden on the host society. The
most frequently cited argument is that immigrants are a burden on host
societies since they extract more from public services and welfare payments
than they contribute in terms of taxes and social security contributions. A
typical example of this argument is Borjas’ 2001 study. ‘In Denmark, the
Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria and Switzerland welfare dependency
of immigrants is significantly higher than that of natives. This seems to
76
correlate with the amount of benefits granted under the welfare systems.’ (p.
39).
On the one hand, the welfare state attracts immigrants, a risk
sometimes described as the ‘welfare magnet’. This has led some people to
claim that the solution is to limit the welfare benefits that new immigrants
can claim. On the other hand, the fiscal impact of immigration depends on
the age at which immigrants arrive in the host country. The majority come at
working age, while very few come as young children or senior citizens. A
study in Germany shows that someone who immigrates at age 30 will
contribute €110 000 over his or her lifetime, while someone who immigrates
before his or her first birthday will create a net burden on public finances of
€60 000. Since 78% of immigrants in Germany are of working age, the
representative migrant makes a positive net contribution of some €50 000 in
his or her lifetime. Immigration therefore helps Germany to close the gap
between expected tax revenues and public spending and debt servicing (no
source is quoted for these figures, see p. 39). In the United States some
studies have observed that immigrants make more use of welfare and free
services than do natives.
Another study in the US has concluded that although immigrants will
in the early years add to costs, particularly for education, eventually each
immigrant, with his or her descendants paying taxes, will make a net positive
contribution to the national budget of US $80 000 (Smith and Edmonston
1997).
In conclusion, immigration has contradictory effects on the host
society. The diverse nature of migrants contributes to fragmentation of the
working classes and segmentation and stratification of the labour market,
especially if they have very different ethnic origins. The growth in numbers
of migrants in an irregular situation has only exacerbated this trend.
Immigration transforms the host society’s institutions and society as a whole,
while at the same time raising fears about a loss of national identity.
However, it also lowers the average age of the working population and
contributes to economic growth and the maintenance of the welfare state.
Translation from the Spanish by Joaquín Blasco
References
Borjas, J. B. (2001) Heaven’s door: immigration policy and the
American economy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
77
Brücker, H. H. et al. (2002) ‘Managing migration in the Welfare State’,
in Boeri, et al.
Hanson, G., K. F. Sheve et al. (2002) ‘Immigration and the US
economy’, in T. Boeri, G. Hanson and B. McCormick Immigration policy
and the welfare system, Oxford: Oxford University Press
OECD (1997) Trends in international migration, Paris: Sopemi.
Smith, J. and B. Edmonston (1997) The New Americans: Economic,
demographic and fiscal effects of immigration, WashingtonDC: National
Academy Press.
Zimmerman, K. (1995) ‘Wage and mobility effects of trade and
migration’, London, CEPR Discussion Paper No 1318, January 1995.
Editorial
Antonio Martín Artiles and Carlota Solé
(Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research Autumn 2003 vol. 9 no. 3 389-392, doi:
10.1177/102425890300900301. The full version of this article can be found at:
http://trs.sagepub.com/content/14/4/541.citation)
The study of immigration is a complex matter presenting numerous
facets. The purpose of this issue of TRANSFER is to explore some of these
facets, focusing on both qualitative and quantitative aspects of this ingredient
of our societies. Issues examined include policies of control and integration as distinct from assimilation - conducted in the framework of the European
Union; the factors, regarded from the standpoint of labour market supply as
well as demand, which contribute to making immigration attractive; the
gender dimension of immigration; as well as trade union positions and
discourse in relation to immigration.
There are some 19 million immigrants in the EU, amounting to 5.1% of
the total population. Of this total immigrant population, some 30% (around 6
million persons) are citizens of other EU member countries. The largest
numbers of immigrants belonging to this category are found in Germany and
France, with 1.8 and 1.3 million respectively, followed by the UK with 800
000 and Belgium with 500 000. These migrants benefit from rights of
freedom of movement, residence and family reunification within the EU; but
there are a further 13 million non-EU immigrants who do not enjoy these
rights. Some 65% of the total foreign population of the EU lives in Germany,
France and the UK The countries with the highest immigration measured as
78
a proportion of their population are Austria (9.3%), Germany (8.9%) and
Belgium (8.3%). The largest groups of immigrant workers in Germany come
from Turkey, Yugoslavia and Italy; in France from Portugal, Algeria and
Morocco; while in the United Kingdom the largest group is composed of
Irish immigrants.
According to Eurostat figures, immigration in the EU has increased by
around 27% since 1988. One new development, examined in this issue of
TRANSFER, is the increase, since the 1980s and 1990s, in immigration to
the countries of southern Europe. These societies have economies with a
high concentration of labour-intensive sectors such as agriculture, tourism,
personal services and construction. Immigrants, meanwhile, are choosing to
come to these countries in order to flee poverty, demographic imbalance,
economic crisis and political, religious or ethnic conflict in their countries of
origin. As highlighted in this issue of TRANSFER the fact that these
immigrants are in search of jobs enables employers and governments to
spend less on recruitment and active labour market programmes, thereby
reducing labour costs.
Immigrants tend to be employed in the most precarious segments of the
labour market, generally performing the least skilled work for the lowest pay
in sectors such as agriculture, cleaning, domestic work catering and
construction. Generally speaking, immigrants have fixed-term contracts,
atypical contracts, or are working in the informal economy. Temporary
contracts among immigrants in the EU average 20%, whereas the average
among national workers is 13%. Moreover, immigrants constitute the most
vulnerable group in the face of unemployment. At the same time, however,
there are other groups of highly skilled immigrants, occupying professional
positions with better working conditions, as is the case for example in the
United Kingdom in sectors like health. These highly qualified immigrants
come, in particular, from the countries of eastern Europe.
Immigration and the trade unions
Viewed in a historical perspective, migration and geographical mobility
are the phenomena which have constituted the world of labour and the
proletarian movement since the 19th century. The European working class
took shape through successive waves of migration. Industrialisation was
accompanied by a process of rural exodus and concentration of the
population in cities where the working class and trade union movement came
79
gradually into being. Trade unions were the first forum enabling the
integration of immigrant workers; they offered an opportunity for sociopolitical participation and involvement, as well as social advancement, for
numerous generations of immigrants.
Nevertheless, migration has not always been a visible phenomenon.
Frequently, and systematically, it has been concealed by European nation
societies and the position of trade unions in the course of their history has
not been exempt from a certain ambiguity. The unions have called for
equality of social and economic rights between immigrant and local workers
as a strategy to oppose capitalism and competition among different groups of
workers. At the same time, they have adopted a defensive stance in the face
of immigration, demanding restrictive state controls and calling for
protection against labour market competition. Both positions have been part
of the history of trade unionism towards the phenomenon of immigration.
Currently, unionisation rates among the immigrant population in
European countries are lower than average. Though reliable comparable data
for immigrant unionisation rates across the EU are not available, in recent
years immigration has acquired greater social visibility in the labour market
environment and the positions adopted by trade unions. The European Trade
Union Confederation calls for a common European policy characterised by
solidarity and responsibility in the face of immigration movements and
populations.
The ETUC has maintained a critical stance towards official EU
immigration policy. In 1999, with the entry into force of the Amsterdam
Treaty, immigration policy became a Community competence. In the same
year, the EU Tampere summit established general objectives for the
development of Community policy and legislation on immigration and after
2004 such legislation should be developed in more detail. The European
Commission subsequently presented various legislative proposals covering
matters such as regulation of migrant flows, rights of third-country nationals,
measures to combat illegal immigration, etc. In some respects these
regulations entail improvements in the rights and treatment of immigrants.
However, four years on from the Tampere Summit, very few proposals have
been adopted by the EU Council. What is more, the policies of individual
EU Member States do not always appear compatible with the declared
objectives of the European Commission.
80
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]