<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LabMigGov - Labour Migration Governance in contemporary Europe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu</link>
	<description>Labour Migration Governance in contemporary Europe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 11:24:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Managing migration through the crisis &#8211; Evolving Patterns in European Policies on Labour Migration and Mobility</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/managing-migration-through-the-crisis-evolving-patterns-in-european-policies-on-labour-migration-and-mobility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/managing-migration-through-the-crisis-evolving-patterns-in-european-policies-on-labour-migration-and-mobility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Ferruccio Pastore &#8211; November 2010]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Ferruccio Pastore &#8211; November 2010<span id="more-124"></span></p>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download Working Paper</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MIGRATION-IN-UNCERTAIN-TIMES-_Working-Paper-FIERI-Dec-2010_.pdf" target="_blank">Managing migration through the crisis &#8211; Evolving Patterns in European Policies on Labour Migration and Mobility</a></div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/managing-migration-through-the-crisis-evolving-patterns-in-european-policies-on-labour-migration-and-mobility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nevertheless Attracting &#8211; Italy and Immigration in Times of Crisis</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/nevertheless-attracting-italy-and-immigration-in-times-of-crisis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/nevertheless-attracting-italy-and-immigration-in-times-of-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Ferruccio Pastore and Claudia Villosio &#8211; February 2011]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Ferruccio Pastore and Claudia Villosio &#8211; February 2011 <span id="more-120"></span>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download Working Paper</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/WP-Villosio-Pastore-ITALY-DA-MONASH-_maggio-2011_.pdf" target="_blank">Nevertheless Attracting &#8211; Italy and Immigration in Times of Crisis</a></div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/nevertheless-attracting-italy-and-immigration-in-times-of-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Country case: Italy</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-italy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-italy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:27:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Country cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the period 2000-2010 Italy has been one of the main destinations for immigrants in Europe, beside Spain and UK: the foreign resident population has almost tripled over the last decade and doubled over the last five years only. Notwithstanding the economic crisis, the inflows of permanent immigrants have kept growing between 2008 and 2010, although at a slower pace than in the previous years. Labour migration has been the leading force of the tremendous increase of foreign population in the country, despite the slow economic growth attained during the period considered. Massive immigration without a significant economic growth has been a paradoxical feature of the Italian model, only partially explained by the serious demographic challenges experienced by Italy in the recent years. However, some specific features of the Italian economic structure and labour market may contribute to explain this apparent contradiction: we refer primarily to the rapidly increasing labour shortages in the elderly care sector or to the structural demand for low- and medium-skilled workers in small and medium enterprises. How has Italy managed this complex phenomenon? Which were the main actors and their relative positions in the public debate on migration and more specifically on labour migration? To what extent have Italian labour migration policies been effective in satisfying existing labour needs through immigration while keeping State control over new inflows? What has been the role of non-economic migration in complementing labour migration for the satisfaction of existing labour needs? These are some of the key questions that we address in this research report on labour migration governance in Italy. While the main focus of the analysis has been on labour migration policies stricto sensu (i.e. policies managing the admission of third country nationals for employment purposes), some attention has been dedicated to policies managing what we have termed “functional equivalents”, namely all those migration flows that, although not officially admitted for working purposes, actually represent a considerable source of labour (e.g. family migration, international students migration, intra-EU mobility, etc.). The first section of the report outlines the general debate on labour migration in Italy since the early phases of Italian experience as an immigration country. Section II is dedicated to the detailed description and critical assessment of the Italian admission system for labour immigrants through annual quotas. Finally, policies related to functional equivalents to labour migration in Italy are the object of section III.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the period 2000-2010 Italy has been one of the main destinations for immigrants in Europe, beside Spain and UK: the foreign resident population has almost tripled over the last decade and doubled over the last five years only. Notwithstanding the economic crisis, the inflows of permanent immigrants have kept growing between 2008 and 2010, although at a slower pace than in the previous years.<span id="more-111"></span></p>
<p>Labour migration has been the leading force of the tremendous increase of foreign population in the country, despite the slow economic growth attained during the period considered. Massive immigration without a significant economic growth has been a paradoxical feature of the Italian model, only partially explained by the serious demographic challenges experienced by Italy in the recent years. However, some specific features of the Italian economic structure and labour market may contribute to explain this apparent contradiction: we refer primarily to the rapidly increasing labour shortages in the elderly care sector or to the structural demand for low- and medium-skilled workers in small and medium enterprises.</p>
<p>How has Italy managed this complex phenomenon? Which were the main actors and their relative positions in the public debate on migration and more specifically on labour migration? To what extent have Italian labour migration policies been effective in satisfying existing labour needs through immigration while keeping State control over new inflows? What has been the role of non-economic migration in complementing labour migration for the satisfaction of existing labour needs? These are some of the key questions that we address in this research report on labour migration governance in Italy. While the main focus of the analysis has been on labour migration policies stricto sensu (i.e. policies managing the admission of third country nationals for employment purposes), some attention has been dedicated to policies managing what we have termed “functional equivalents”, namely all those migration flows that, although not officially admitted for working purposes, actually represent a considerable source of labour (e.g. family migration, international students migration, intra-EU mobility, etc.).</p>
<p>The first section of the report outlines the general debate on labour migration in Italy since the early phases of Italian experience as an immigration country. Section II is dedicated to the detailed description and critical assessment of the Italian admission system for labour immigrants through annual quotas. Finally, policies related to functional equivalents to labour migration in Italy are the object of section III.</p>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download country case</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><em>Labour migration governance in contemporary Europe.</em><br />
<a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LABMIGOV_WP1_Italy_Final-report.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>The case of Italy</strong></a>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-italy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Country case: UK</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-uk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Country cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the past decade, the UK received historically high levels of net immigration and a larger proportion of labour immigration, as a result of strong economic growth and a liberal immigration policy. Since the mid-1990s, net immigration has exceeded 100,000 people per year, rising above 200,000 in some years since 2000. This working paper focuses on how UK governments have attempted to manage labour immigration over this period. In particular, how does the UK system select foreign workers for admission and how does the UK state attempt to respond to demand for migrant workers in high and low skilled occupations? During the Labour governments in office between 1997 and 2010 and the current Coalition government, in office since May 2010, the labour immigration system has been the object of constant reform. There have been three main phases of reform: phase 1 (1998-2004) involved liberalising and expanding the existing demand-led system, as well as introducing some new supply-side channels; phase 2 (2005-2008) was one of restructuring and consolidating previous policy innovations into a &#8216;points-based system&#8217; (PBS), which aimed at better control of immigration and increased objectivity in admission decisions; and phase 3 (2009-) has involved qualitative adjustments to entry criteria and quantitative restrictions on entry, both with the pronounced aim of reducing levels of non-EEA labour immigration.However, while it is has been in constant evolution, UK labour migration policy has solidified over the past decade into a highly articulated policy, the aims of which are more constant then may appear if one focuses on shifts in political rhetoric. This case study is divided into four sections. I first chart the evolution of the debate on labour immigration in the UK between the late 1990s and 2011. Then I explore and assess the labour immigration system, in particular the use of qualitative selectivity and quantitative limits and the system’s outcomes in terms of migrant inflows. The third section is dedicated to an analysis of the use of functional equivalents and alternatives to foreign migrant labour admission in the UK. Functional equivalents refer to policy on the labour market access of migrants who enter the UK outside of labour migration channels (e.g. students or family members of resident immigrants). Functional alternatives refer to policies which attempt to respond to labour shortages by means other than facilitating labour immigration, for example by upskilling the resident labour force. Finally, in the last section, I provide a summary and assessment of the UK labour immigration regime.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the past decade, the UK received historically high levels of net immigration and a larger proportion of labour immigration, as a result of strong economic growth and a liberal immigration policy. Since the mid-1990s, net immigration has exceeded 100,000 people per year, rising above 200,000 in some years since 2000.<span id="more-106"></span></p>
<p>This working paper focuses on how UK governments have attempted to manage labour immigration over this period. In particular, how does the UK system select foreign workers for admission and how does the UK state attempt to respond to demand for migrant workers in high and low skilled occupations?</p>
<p>During the Labour governments in office between 1997 and 2010 and the current Coalition government, in office since May 2010, the labour immigration system has been the object of constant reform. There have been three main phases of reform: phase 1 (1998-2004) involved liberalising and expanding the existing demand-led system, as well as introducing some new supply-side channels; phase 2 (2005-2008) was one of restructuring and consolidating previous policy innovations into a &#8216;points-based system&#8217; (PBS), which aimed at better control of immigration and increased objectivity in admission decisions; and phase 3 (2009-) has involved qualitative adjustments to entry criteria and quantitative restrictions on entry, both with the pronounced aim of reducing levels of non-EEA labour immigration.However, while it is has been in constant evolution, UK labour migration policy has solidified over the past decade into a highly articulated policy, the aims of which are more constant then may appear if one focuses on shifts in political rhetoric.</p>
<p>This case study is divided into four sections. I first chart the evolution of the debate on labour immigration in the UK between the late 1990s and 2011. Then I explore and assess the labour immigration system, in particular the use of qualitative selectivity and quantitative limits and the system’s outcomes in terms of migrant inflows. The third section is dedicated to an analysis of the use of functional equivalents and alternatives to foreign migrant labour admission in the UK. Functional equivalents refer to policy on the labour market access of migrants who enter the UK outside of labour migration channels (e.g. students or family members of resident immigrants). Functional alternatives refer to policies which attempt to respond to labour shortages by means other than facilitating labour immigration, for example by upskilling the resident labour force. Finally, in the last section, I provide a summary and assessment of the UK labour immigration regime.</p>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download country case</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><em>Labour migration governance in contemporary Europe.</em><br />
<a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/UK-case-study-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>The case of UK</strong></a>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Country case: Sweden</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-sweden/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-sweden/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:14:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Country cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to a rapid industrialization starting in the 1930s, in the post-war years Sweden turned from an emigration country into an immigration country, due first to labour migration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and, when this was stopped in the early 1970s, to the growing flows of asylum seekers and other groups with protection status afterwards. After an introductory chapter on immigration policies on one hand, and integration policies on the other hand, this report focuses on the reform of the labour migration policy passed in 2008 by the centre-right government headed by Fredrik Reinfeldt, with the support of the Green Party. The background of the reform was the debate, starting in the early 2000s and still ongoing, on the challenges issued by population decline, labour market failures and pressures for Welfare State sustainability. The discussion on the need of new rules for labour migration occurred in a time of deep changes in Swedish political culture and power relations, witnessed by the defeat of the Social Democrats (in power since 1994) in the 2006 general election. Thus the need for a reform and the content of it was debated in the context of a more general confrontation on the competitiveness and sustainability − and therefore on the fate – of the Swedish model. After following (in Chapter II) the driving arguments and the driving actors pushing for new rules on labour migration – and at the same time the criticisms from the trade unions and the Left − this report analyses in Chapter III how the 2008 law has been implemented and what polemics this implementation has raised (coming not only from Swedish actors but also from the OECD, which has devoted an ad-hoc report to the new Swedish system). In Chapter IV a survey of current functional equivalents (i.e. asylum seekers and international students) as well as of possible functional alternatives to labour migration is carried out. Finally, the Conclusions focuses on Swedish attitudes to labour migration, and to migration in the whole (with regard to EU citizens on the one hand and third country nationals on the other hand), in the face of globalization and economic crisis.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to a rapid industrialization starting in the 1930s, in the post-war years Sweden turned from an emigration country into an immigration country, due first to labour migration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and, when this was stopped in the early 1970s, to the growing flows of asylum seekers and other groups with protection status afterwards.<span id="more-98"></span><br />
After an introductory chapter on immigration policies on one hand, and integration policies on the other hand, this report focuses on the reform of the labour migration policy passed in 2008 by the centre-right government headed by Fredrik Reinfeldt, with the support of the Green Party. The background of the reform was the debate, starting in the early 2000s and still ongoing, on the challenges issued by population decline, labour market failures and pressures for Welfare State sustainability.</p>
<p>The discussion on the need of new rules for labour migration occurred in a time of deep changes in Swedish political culture and power relations, witnessed by the defeat of the Social Democrats (in power since 1994) in the 2006 general election. Thus the need for a reform and the content of it was debated in the context of a more general confrontation on the competitiveness and sustainability − and therefore on the fate – of the Swedish model.</p>
<p>After following (in Chapter II) the driving arguments and the driving actors pushing for new rules on labour migration – and at the same time the criticisms from the trade unions and the Left − this report analyses in Chapter III how the 2008 law has been implemented and what polemics this implementation has raised (coming not only from Swedish actors but also from the OECD, which has devoted an ad-hoc report to the new Swedish system). In Chapter IV a survey of current functional equivalents (i.e. asylum seekers and international students) as well as of possible functional alternatives to labour migration is carried out.</p>
<p>Finally, the Conclusions focuses on Swedish attitudes to labour migration, and to migration in the whole (with regard to EU citizens on the one hand and third country nationals on the other hand), in the face of globalization and economic crisis.</p>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download country case</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><em>Labour migration governance in contemporary Europe.</em><br />
<strong><a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CASE-STUDY-SWEDEN-FINAL-REPORT1.pdf" target="_blank">The case of Sweden</a></strong></div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/27/country-case-sweden/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Country case: Spain</title>
		<link>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/11/country-case-spain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/11/country-case-spain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>labmiggov</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Country cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.labmiggov.eu/?p=70</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since the beginning of the new century, Spain has experienced spectacular economic and demographic growth, and in the space of a few years its foreign population has increased from 800,000 to about 5 million. Spain’s economic and demographic upsurge was sustained by profound changes in labour migration policies, with the aim of responding more effectively to the rapidly increasing structural demand for (mainly) foreign low-skilled labour. The migration policy reform consisted in a mix of individual recruitment schemes in the country of origin, entry quotas, and individual ad hoc regularization tools for specific cases, as well as a special entry channel for highly skilled workers. The new regime was welcomed by both Spanish scholars and policy makers as valuable progress, and in international debate Spain was often referred to as a “model for Southern Europe”. The collapse of the construction bubble and the consequences of the global financial crisis, however, have dampened much of this enthusiasm. In a very short period of time, Spain has gone from being one of the largest labour importers in the European Union to being the member state with the highest unemployment rate among both natives and foreigners. Due to the economic crisis, the labour migration model that once seemed to be one of the most successful in Europe was blamed for having favoured the entry of a large number of foreign workers unable to adapt to the rapid changes in the economy. How has this come about? Is Spain the ultimate proof of the inefficiency of employer-led models and their inability to respond to the economic needs of our societies? Or is the Spanish unemployment rate more the consequence of an economic model overly reliant on the use of cheap labour? The aim of this report is to analyse the Spanish labour migration regime in detail, in order to identify both its strengths and weaknesses. The report takes into account both the implementation of recruitment tools for foreign workers and the use of other channels, such as family reunion or student migration, as the functional equivalents of “traditional” labour migration channels. The first section of the report outlines the general debate on labour migration in Spain since the 1990s. Section II offers a detailed description and analysis of recruitment schemes for both low-skilled and highly skilled workers, devoting special attention to the issue of the recognition of foreign credential and the role played by the governments of the Autonomous Communities. Section III examines policies regarding the functional equivalents of labour migration, and effective alternatives, such as Spain’s new business strategies.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the beginning of the new century, Spain has experienced spectacular economic and demographic growth, and in the space of a few years its foreign population has increased from 800,000 to about 5 million. Spain’s economic and demographic upsurge was sustained by profound changes in labour migration policies, with the aim of responding more effectively to the rapidly increasing structural demand for (mainly) foreign low-skilled labour. <span id="more-70"></span></p>
<p>The migration policy reform consisted in a mix of individual recruitment schemes in the country of origin, entry quotas, and individual ad hoc regularization tools for specific cases, as well as a special entry channel for highly skilled workers. The new regime was welcomed by both Spanish scholars and policy makers as valuable progress, and in international debate Spain was often referred to as a “model for Southern Europe”.</p>
<p>The collapse of the construction bubble and the consequences of the global financial crisis, however, have dampened much of this enthusiasm. In a very short period of time, Spain has gone from being one of the largest labour importers in the European Union to being the member state with the highest unemployment rate among both natives and foreigners. Due to the economic crisis, the labour migration model that once seemed to be one of the most successful in Europe was blamed for having favoured the entry of a large number of foreign workers unable to adapt to the rapid changes in the economy.</p>
<p>How has this come about? Is Spain the ultimate proof of the inefficiency of employer-led models and their inability to respond to the economic needs of our societies? Or is the Spanish unemployment rate more the consequence of an economic model overly reliant on the use of cheap labour? The aim of this report is to analyse the Spanish labour migration regime in detail, in order to identify both its strengths and weaknesses.</p>
<p>The report takes into account both the implementation of recruitment tools for foreign workers and the use of other channels, such as family reunion or student migration, as the functional equivalents of “traditional” labour migration channels. The first section of the report outlines the general debate on labour migration in Spain since the 1990s. Section II offers a detailed description and analysis of recruitment schemes for both low-skilled and highly skilled workers, devoting special attention to the issue of the recognition of foreign credential and the role played by the governments of the Autonomous Communities. Section III examines policies regarding the functional equivalents of labour migration, and effective alternatives, such as Spain’s new business strategies.</p>
<ul class='gdl-accordion'>
<li class='gdl-divider'>
<h2 class='accordion-head title-color gdl-title'><span class='accordion-head-image'></span>Download country case</h2>
<div class='accordion-content'><em>Labour migration governance in contemporary Europe.</em><br />
<a href="http://www.labmiggov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LABMIGOV_WP1_SPAIN_Final-report.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>The case of Spain</strong></a></div>
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.labmiggov.eu/2012/04/11/country-case-spain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
