Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The first keyword, Welfare State, sets out to problematise the term itself. The welfare state is a national construct, a ‘national social state’ as Etienne Balibar calls it. Thus, transnational or global migration is often construed as a disruptive force, potentially destabilising the welfare state and the nation. This keyword entry critically examines common conceptions of what the welfare state should provide. It delineates some of the ways that migrants (and, more broadly foreign nationals who are not themselves necessarily migrants) are excluded or partially included, with a focus on contemporary EU social policies.

Keywords

institutionalisation social policy welfare chauvinism welfare nationalism welfare state

What is the welfare state?

The decision to provide welfare, to whom and under what conditions, is always a political choice. The same can be said about migration control: in the absence of a universal right to migrate, who is allowed entry and under what conditions is a matter of political decision-making. Crucially though, political choices about welfare and migration are made only by people who are formal citizens and within specific institutional settings, informed by national and – in EU member states – increasingly European preferences. Therefore, as Etienne Balibar (2017: 38) notes, the welfare state is more accurately conceptualised as a ‘national social state’ linked to national citizenship.

With this keyword, we seek to problematise the relationship between ‘the welfare state’, understood as a national construct, and migration, which is often construed as a disruptive and destabilising force in the welfare state. Let us start by specifying that there is no widely accepted definition of the welfare state (Degen, 2015; Greve, 2014; Leisering and Leibfried, 1999; Øverbye, 2010; Tabin, 2022). Different definitions overlap and are sometimes in competition, each definition envisaging the object differently and each carrying different implications for migration research and policy. For some scholars, the welfare state is about regulating the market economy (e.g. Briggs, 1961; Marshall, 1970; Polanyi, 1944). For others, it is a political compromise between forces that want to overthrow capitalism and those that aim to perpetuate it (e.g., Castel, 1995; Ewald, 1986; Join-Lambert et al., 1994), while for others it is an instrument of government to protect populations from social risks (e.g., Bonvin and Maeder, 2020; Girod, 2002; Lengwiler, 2015; Merrien, 2006, 2007). The welfare state has also been approached as an apparatus used for the (re-)production of social relations (e.g., gender, class, age, race, ability, and their intersections; see Campbell, 2009; Crenshaw, 2017; Daly, 2020; Goodley, 2014; Jenson, 2015; Lewis, 1992, 1997; Orloff, 2009; Perriard and Tabin, 2017; Tabin and Leresche, 2019; Tabin et al., 2019). We follow this last definition because social relations (re-)produced by welfare states impact migrants (and, more broadly people who are categorised as not-belonging) in particular, and because citizens are globally favoured by welfare states (Tabin, 2021). The terms migrant and foreign nationals in the present text refer to the legal-administrative status (see ‘Introduction’). We consider the welfare state as historically and geographically situated, taking different forms in different countries, and we start from the point of view that these social relations evolve differently according to their context and overlap in unexpected ways.

Gender and race relations are ingrained in welfare states, which have historically played an important role in reproducing and recommodifying the adult male workforce, and in keeping wives and children fed and sheltered when husbands and fathers were unable to play their breadwinner role (e.g., because of death, illness, accident, or old age). The gendered character of welfare states has been partially diluted through the incorporation of women into the formal labour market, a process generally understood to have freed up labour power by shifting the responsibility for the care of children, persons with disabilities, and the elderly to the state. However, this perspective has been unresponsive to race relations and to the fact that race and gender are interdependent with other forms of oppressive constructs. In some countries, care work is largely assigned to migrant women to enable women from the majority population to enter the workforce. Many of those working as domestic or care workers in private (white) households (Horn, 2021; Kofman, 2012; Lutz, 2018) or public institutions (e.g., for the elderly) are women and migrants. Their work is undervalued, poorly paid, and often decoupled from social protection and labour protection standards, prompting its designation as ‘unfree labour’ (Arat-Koç, 2018). The vulnerability of migrant domestic workers was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many became unemployed, homeless, and without access to social protection (Leiblfinger et al., 2021). Their experiences with the welfare systems of European nation-states show that they are not entitled to the rights of social citizenship (see Marshall, 1950).

Tom Bottomore (1992) and Ruth Lister (1990), among others, have shed light on exclusionary mechanisms and inequalities in access to rights due to legal migration status, gender, ethnicity, class as well as their intersections. We can see such exclusionary mechanisms and inequalities at work as well as their intersectional character in the social welfare responses put forward by EU states during the COVID-19 pandemic. EU states adopted various social protection measures for persons who lost their jobs or had a reduced income because they had to quarantine, for example. Research in the Netherlands shows that social measures most often failed to reach migrants because of the effects of intersectional discrimination generally experienced by migrants. As such, undocumented migrant workers (e.g., female domestic workers, workers in construction and hospitality) were by default excluded from compensatory payments and had to rely on informal social support. Documented migrant workers in secondary labour markets were constructed as vulnerable (because of lack of familiarity with Dutch systems) and temporary (because of their employment relations) as well as racialised as Eastern Europeans performing low-skilled and low paid jobs (Berntsen et al., 2023; De Lange et al., 2020). Their access to social rights and protection was shaped by legal, administrative and cultural barriers that have structurally exclusionary effects.

Historically, the fusion between the nation state and social citizenship, as well as between the nation and citizenship (Wicker, 1997), has provided the ideological and material basis for collaboration between social classes based on common membership in a given nation, such that the domestic working class has come to understand their interests as being linked to those of the capitalist class (cf. Turner, 2009; Wicker, 1997), particularly concerning the exclusion of certain migrants from full access to social rights. This helps explain the marginalised position of migrants concerning social citizenship and their marking as a threat to national workers, an issue that also figures in the struggles of national labour movements to ‘internationalise’ and co-opt migrant workers (Doellgast et al., 2018). In her recent work, Inés Valdez (2021) traces the links between race, empire, labour, and capitalism and shows how ‘white workers claimed a right to move and settle while objecting to the mobility of non-white labour, which they saw as threatening’ (Valdez, 2021: 905). This led to segregated labour spaces that fit with racial capitalism's goals of controlling labour through differentiation and separation (Valdez, 2021: 906). Valdez’ argument is that the current migration policies of the Global North, which create the conditions for migrants’ legal vulnerability and exclusion, are best understood in light of ‘the convergence between capital's efforts to regulate mobility for the purpose of exploitation and understandings of popular sovereignty as containing a right to exclude’ (Valdez, 2021: 920).

Welfare chauvinism/nationalism

Mainstream categorisations of different welfare states rely on generalisations about differences between such states. Gøsta Esping-Andersen's (1990) distinction between liberal, conservative and social-democratic welfare states has been used widely, with the consequence of a normative ranking between welfare states based upon the idea of their more or less important degree of decommodification (e.g., the US welfare state with only a selective decommodification, France and Germany with a corporatist decommodification, and Scandinavian countries with a generalised decommodification; Esping-Andersen and Korpi, 1987; see also Esping-Andersen, 1990: 12–29; Rothstein, 2017: 27f). This perspective, however, does not address the situation of migrants in welfare states, and tends to occlude the social relations they (re)produce.

While mainstream perspectives focus on differences between states, we want to highlight that welfare states share commonalities (Tabin and Enescu, 2012) that affect migrants in similar ways. Indeed, if the ideas about social policies are diverse, and if the reasons for developing them are multiple and sometimes contradictory, they have at least three common characteristics. First, in the Global North, social policies are conceived at the national level; that is, they always intend to change the situation inside the borders of states, even if the borders are sometimes regional or local (hence the term welfare state). Second, domopolitics (Walters, 2004) and welfare chauvinism (Huysmans, 2000) characterise welfare states, irrespective of their features and differences. Domopolitics refers to efforts to govern the state as a home, where the state is imagined precisely as a homely space of community and safety that needs to be protected against a chaotic outside where forces threaten the sanctity of home (Darling, 2011; Walters, 2004). Welfare chauvinism refers to an ideology of welfare that centres on a notion that ‘welfare’ ought to be reserved ‘for our own’, often defined and demarcated based on (ethno)nationalist and otherwise racialising criteria (Keskinen et al., 2016; more on this below). The consequence of the predominance of these modes of thinking about and of governing welfare states is that migrants are, to varying degrees, excluded (Tabin, 2021). This means that formal citizenship and social policies are interlinked, and that the metamorphoses of the former influence the latter, as we can observe in many European nation-states and in the EU (Clasen, 2007; Huysmans, 2000; Kazepov, 2014; see keyword ‘Citizenship’). Third, marginalised recipients of welfare – citizens, migrants alike – are excluded from the spheres in which welfare law is produced and applied, either because their social position does not allow them to take an interest in politics (citizens) or because of their legal status (migrants). They ‘are […] “caught” inside law's rules but are, at the same time, excluded from its interpretive community […] Their law is [thus] a law of power and of compulsion, and their experience of being inside, excluded, is one indication of the way that power is exercised’ (Sarat, 1990: 345). This is a form of double epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007, 2017): the voice of recipients has no room, it is inaudible. Simultaneously, it is important to remember that if we leave aside citizenship as a legal category, various forms of transnational lives can be observed in welfare states, such as active participation in society and so-called acts of citizenship (Isin, 2015), including manoeuvring for access to formal and informal welfare (Faist et al., 2015).

Who exactly are the ‘members’ who should be entitled to welfare state provisions? This is at the crux of discussions about welfare and migration control. Social welfare is provided by the state to citizens and some categories of residents, through various forms of social security systems, to minimise or mitigate risks recognised as social risks (Gusfield, 1980), either through more universal or more selective security systems, such as needs-based benefits and insurances (Walker, 2009). Historically, European nation-states have been both inclusionary and exclusionary, especially in relation to those perceived and/or legally defined as foreigners. For instance, the notion of ‘the social enemy, the poor foreigner’ emerged in tandem with the transition from local (often parish-based) poor relief to national welfare and social security systems (Walters, 2002). Presently in European nation-states, rights are not only based on citizenship, but also on the human rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as various United Nation conventions. Yet, legal debates about the justiciability and realisation of social rights continue, despite their anchoring in legal instruments (Boyle, 2020), highlighting their intrinsically contested nature, especially when the holder is not a ‘citizen’.

Migrants, as simultaneous holders of social rights and subjects to migration control, are perceived to threaten the national welfare state. Consequently, although international migration contribute substantially to the economies of their host and home countries via employment in formal and informal labour markets, migrant workers are often excluded from social protections (ILO, n.d.) even if they have to contribute to their financing via taxes. The exclusion of this group also has to do with the unwillingness among high-income countries to ratify the UN migrant worker convention – which sets minimum standards for migrant workers and members of their families, including undocumented migrant workers. Various legal, socioeconomic and political arguments have been put forward for explaining why states in the Global South accept this system, while states in the Global North refrain from ratifying the convention without major protest. Antoine Pécoud (2017) stresses that the rejection of the convention is not only linked to cost-benefit analyses that emphasise the difficulty of reconciling migrant rights and market logics, to financial transactions between sending and destination states linked to remittances (Noll, 2010), or to the difficulty of reaching multilevel legal agreements on migrants’ rights. Rather, this rejection is equally rooted in racist political discourses that present migrants as almost ontologically different from citizens and in competition with them for rights, reinforcing their position as outsiders, rather than fellow ‘workers’ (Noll, 2010: 59).

Furthermore, welfare can be understood as conveying strong symbolism concerning a state's self-perception as a political community. Many Scandinavian countries are currently facing the challenges of austerity politics (Kamali and Jönsson, 2018; Scarpa and Schierup, 2016; Therborn, 2020), welfare chauvinism and nationalism (Larsen et al., 2018, also see Careja and Harris, 2022), and growing-right wing populism (Mulinari and Neergaard, 2017). Still, the idea of the welfare state remains relevant in that welfare is still very much part of the national identities of those countries. Nonetheless, research highlights how ideas about, for example, Swedish exceptionalism, informed by perceptions of welfare generosity, fell apart in the winter and spring of 2015–2016, when the Swedish government decided to close its national borders to prevent migrants from entering (Barker, 2018).

Nicholas Barr (2001) has discussed how welfare chauvinism/nationalism relies on and reproduces an imaginary of the (welfare) state as a ‘piggy bank’, a closed circuit of tax contributions and government expenses. This imaginary is central to the welfare chauvinistic idea that national populations are uniquely entitled to welfare while non-nationals may legitimately be excluded. It is also part and parcel of discourses (and theoretical models) that understand ‘immigration’/’immigrants’ first and foremost as a potential burden on the (welfare) state in terms of social expenses (see keywords ‘Solidarity’ and ‘Suspicion and Surveillance’). The problem with the ‘piggy bank’ imaginary is that it disregards the experiences and the claims amongst those who are not included, as well as the history of how the Western and Northern European nation-states accumulated (and continue to accumulate) their wealth, especially the legacy of colonial dispossession and plunder which, by extension, has also fuelled climate change, leading to people being displaced today (see El-Enany, 2020, about British wealth as the ‘spoils of empire’; Hardt and Negri, 2000). Discourses and theoretical models that focus solely on poor immigrants as a burden on the welfare state also overlook their contributions to the funding of welfare states and more generally to the economy, considering them only as disenfranchised and precarious labour without equal rights to benefits.

Scholars problematising the dominant discourse about migration as a problem point to how long-term austerity politics (Scarpa and Schierup, 2016), as well as perceptions about ‘the Other’, increasingly shape how issues are publicly debated (Dahlstedt and Neergaard, 2019). Jef Huysmans (2000) places the political process within the European Union of connecting migration to terror and criminality in a broader politicisation, in which migrants have been portrayed as a challenge to the protection of both national identity and welfare provisions. By inflating the political construction of migration as a security issue, the politics of belonging in Western Europe is produced and reproduced (Waever, 1995; see keywords ‘Suspicion and Surveillance’ and ‘Discipline’). This imagined belonging constitutes an integral part of a wider technocratic and political process – involving the police and migration authorities, as well as certain social movements and political parties – in which bureaucracies negotiate and decide the criteria for legitimate membership in Western European societies (see keywords ‘Suspicion and Surveillance’ and ‘Welfare Governance’). Anouk de Koning and colleagues have shown how, for migrant parents in several European cities, social citizenship is enacted and claimed in welfare landscapes that involve ‘highly personalised, yet unequal encounters between white middle-class female professionals and non-white working-class migrant mothers’ (De Koning et al., 2023: 436). Such encounters reproduced the gendered nature of citizenship and of the welfare state and mobilised ideas concerning ‘good family lives and good futures for children’ as well as the division of responsabilities between parents and the state (De Koning et al., 2023: 437; see also keyword on ‘Welfare governance’ for responsabilisation). Migrant parents experienced the welfare states they engaged with as ‘disjunctive, contradictory and erratic’ leaving them wondering whether it was their migrant and/or ethnoracial difference that explained their encounters (De Koning et al., 2023: 437).

Citizens and migrants in the EU(ropean) welfare state(s)

In the previous section, we showed how migrants often are perceived as posing a challenge to the welfare state, understood as a nationally bounded construct. Below, we explore the development of transnational forms of welfare in the context of the European Union, which allow migrants – EU citizens and third-country nationals – to be included in the welfare systems of their host states. The EU started as an economic integration project among nation-states built around four fundamental freedoms, including the free movement of European workers and an internal market. Although the EU aspires to be a ‘highly competitive social market economy’ (Article 3/3 Treaty on the European Union), its social dimension has always been considered weaker and secondary to achieving economic integration (Scharpf, 2010; see also Dale and El-Enany, 2013; Iossa and Persdotter, 2021; Menz, 2015), because its main objective is to remove barriers to the free movement of European workers. Under criticism is the EU's willingness to sacrifice social considerations in favour of ‘market’ integration – for example by allowing its rules on the free movement of services and posting of workers to take precedence over social policy considerations leading to social dumping (Jacqueson and Pennings, 2019). More recent analyses (Claassen et al., 2019; Crespy, 2022) highlight the many initiatives that the EU has taken to strengthen its social agenda, while equally stressing that the success of such initiatives depends on political choices and efforts to transcend a purely national vision of ‘the social’. Another set of criticisms is that the EU focuses on social policy (the macro level), rather than on social rights as fundamental rights (the individual level) that would, for example, award migrants and mobile EU citizens (and not only workers) social rights in the host EU state as a matter of EU fundamental rights (Alston and Weiler, 1998).

Nonetheless, Maurizio Ferrera (2018) argues that it is possible to speak about the notion of a ‘European social union’ as built on national social spaces, transnational social spaces, the EU mobility space, EU social policy, and the EU's fundamental social principles. Because of the more limited competences that the EU enjoys in the field of social policy as opposed to internal market policy, the EU cannot, for example, harmonise the national welfare states of its member states into an EU welfare state. The EU's ambition is limited to coordinating their social security systems to ensure that the exercise of EU free workers’ movement rights does not lead to loss of social security coverage. The underlying logic of this social security coordination effort is that EU workers would not be willing to move should they fear that such movement would have negative consequences for their entitlement to social benefits. Besides incorporation into the EU citizen's host welfare state, the rules on social security coordination also allow for the limited exportation of some social benefits (such as unemployment benefits, healthcare, or pensions; see Bruzelius et al., 2017), in countries that are not members of the EU, such as Switzerland.

Andrew Geddes and Leila Hadj-Adjou (2016) have described the EU as a ‘radical experiment in open borders’, the consequences of which for European nation-states are essentially contested. This is observable in the partial extension of the social dimension of EU labour mobility to economically inactive EU citizens after the introduction of EU citizenship in 1992, and to the mobility of ‘third-country’ nationals, but never to people who are unable to support themselves. Moreover, EU law allows a derogation from the equal treatment of EU nationals during the first months of residence in another country, as the right to reside in another EU state is granted only if individuals do not become an ‘unreasonable’ burden on the welfare system (Verschueren, 2014). The European Commission, therefore, supports the idea that states must financially support their poor, who are also clearly asked not to leave their national territories (Lhernould, 2017). This has led to frictions that were exacerbated by the 2008 economic crisis and the reform/shrinking of national welfare states, as national authorities sought to exclude economically inactive mobile migrants (EU and ‘third-country’ nationals) from entitlement to social rights (Mantu and Minderhoud, 2019; Minderhoud and Mantu, 2017). Another criticism is that the EU system reifies the exclusionary dimensions of national welfare states without making them more inclusive or generous towards migrants and other vulnerable categories. This is observed with the differentiated inclusion of EU citizens in their host state's welfare system, depending on whether or not they are economically active (Mantu, 2018) and the different rules applicable to third-country nationals in terms of how their legal status regulates access to social rights, with highly skilled migrants having different entitlements than seasonal workers, for example (see keyword ‘Welfare Governance’). Giving preferential treatment to highly skilled migrants and EU workers is linked to ideas about what types of migration are desirable. Social rights are thus stratified depending on the migrant's desirability for the EU economic project which is reflected by their legal status. Generally, while EU states pay lip service to the idea of a ‘social market economy’, they continue to restrict migrants’ access to the welfare state.

The linking of austerity politics and migrants’ exclusion in the EU(ropean) welfare state resembles what in the UK context is known as the creation of a ‘hostile environment’ that cemented the relationship between immigration law and a long history of racism in the British welfare state (Vickers, 2021: 428). Vickers introduces the term ‘racial capitalism’ to describe a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, while ‘the exploitation of the majority are sustained through processes of categorisation and selection of labour that are heavily racialised’ (Vickers, 2021: 436). His observation that welfare policy and immigration policy are used to enforce ‘racialised relations of exploitation’ is pertinent for European nation-states and the EU more generally.

Conclusion

Departing from the debates on migration and welfare in Europe, Andrew Geddes (2003) argues that while social rights, cohesion and solidarity are often linked to immigration, these are not about whether newcomers should have access to welfare, but about economic change and how to uphold longer-term stability. Migration, he argues, still provides an important lens through which broader changes in welfare states in Europe can be viewed (Geddes, 2003: 152).

In this keyword, we have problematised the relationship between ‘the welfare state’ understood as a national construct and migration as a disruptive force. The starting point was that there are different understandings of the welfare state, such as that it is a reformist process aimed at achieving greater equality through class cooperation, or that it has a symbolic value. National welfare states have a lot in common in terms of (re-)producing social relations and considering the advantages they give to citizens vs non-citizens.

We have shown that political decisions lead to differences in the institutionalisation of welfare and the effects of social policy. As in other wealthy countries, EU member states’ political decisions on migration and social policy are to a large extent marked by a common base. Welfare is organised through national law, the regulation and distribution of which is characterised by a democratic deficit whereby migrants who are most directly subject to the regulations, are excluded from regulative processes. Welfare chauvinistic processes, directly and indirectly, lead to the exclusion from some welfare benefits of migrants and other groups that lack the resources to provide for themselves. While the EU has taken some initiatives to develop a transnational social protection system, access to this system is differentiated and the system continues to discriminate against unskilled labour migrants and citizens, and between EU and non-EU citizens.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by: the nccr – on the move funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant 51NF40-182897, and FORTE – Advanced Legal Practices grant 2019-00610.

Author biogrpahies

Anna Lundberg is Professor of Welfare Law (Linköping University) and Sociology of Law (Lund University). Her research is on critical human rights studies, migration control regimes, the intersection of welfare law and migration law, participatory critical research. Her work has appeared in, among others, the Feminist Legal Studies; Retfaerd; Human Rights in Practice; International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family; Peace Review; Nordic Journal of Migration Research.

Sandra Mantu is Assistant Professor of Migration Law at the Faculty of Law, of the Radboud University in The Netherlands and co-managing editor of the European Journal of Migration and Law. Sandra's research and teaching focuses on EU citizenship, free movement of persons, equality, welfare state, gender, and nationality law.

Maria Persdotter holds a PhD in Urban Studiess and is Senior Lecturer in Social Work and Local Government Studies at the Department of Culture and Society at Linköping University (SE). Her research concerns the intersections of social policy and migration policy, EU mobility issues, and the racialised politics of housing and homelessness. She is the co-editor of the anthology Housing Displacement: Conceptual and Methodological Issues (Routledge, 2021), and her work appears in the Journal of Common Market Studies, Nordic Social Work Research and movements.

Jean-Pierre Tabin is a social worker and a sociologist, honorary professor at the Haute école de travail social et de la santé Lausanne (HES-SO). He has published extensively about welfare, disability policies, unemployment, homelessness, non take-up, migration, etc. His last published books are Politiques sociales comparées. Éditions HETSL, 2022 and Luttter contre les pauvres. Les politiques de la mendicité: L’exemple suisse. En bas, 2023. He has also co-produced a serious game to fight stereotypes about the Roma ().

Ulrika Wernesjö is Associate Professor of Social Work at the Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University. Her research is on belonging and social rights in the welfare state, with particular focus on migration, legal status and young age. Her work appears in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Journal of International Migration and Integration, Identities and Childhood.

Address: Department of Culture and Society (IKOS); Division of Social Work (SOCARB), Linköping University; SE-581 83 Linköping; Sweden

Email: ulrika.wernesjo@liu.se

References

Alston

Weiler

JHH

(1998) An ‘ever closer union’ in need of a human rights policy. European Journal of International Law 9(4): 658–723.

Arat-Koç

(2018) Migrant and domestic and care workers: unfree labour, crises of social reproduction and the unsustainability of life under ‘vagabond capitalism’. In: Elias

Roberts

(eds) Handbook on the International Political Economy of Gender. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 411–426.

Balibar

(2017) Reinventing the stranger: walls all over the world, and how to tear them down. symplokē 25(1–2): 25–41.

Barker

(2018) Nordic Nationalism and Penal Order: Walling the Welfare State. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Barr

(2001) The Welfare State as Piggy Bank: Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berntsen

Böcker

De Lange

, et al. (2023) State of care for EU mobile workers’ rights in the Dutch meat sector in times of, and beyond, COVID-19. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 43(3/4): 356–369.

Bonvin

J-M

Maeder

(2020) Politique sociale. In: Bonvin

J-M

Hugentobler

Knöpfel

Maeder

Tecklenburg

(eds) Dictionnaire de Politique Sociale Suisse. Zurich: Seismo, pp. 409–412.

Bottomore

(1992) Citizenship and social class, forty years on. In: Marshall

Bottomore

(eds) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press, pp. 53–93.

Boyle

(2020) Economic and Social Rights Law: Incorporation, Justiciability and Principles of Adjudication. New York: Routledge.

10.

Briggs

(1961) The welfare state in historical perspective. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie/Europäisches Archiv für Soziologie 2(2): 221–258.

11.

Bruzelius

Reinprecht

Seeleib-Kaiser

(2017) Stratified social rights limiting EU citizenship. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 55: 1239–1253.

12.

Campbell

(2009) Contours of Ableism. The Production of Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Careja

Harris

(2022) Thirty years of welfare chauvinism research: Findings and challenges. Journal of European Social Policy 32(2): 212–224.

14.

Tabin

J-P

(2021) Le côté obscur de l’État social/Die dunkle Seite des Sozialstaats. In: Caritas Suisse (ed.) Almanach social : La pauvreté exclut (p. 71-84)/Sozialalmanach : Armut grenzt aus (S. 69-84). Caritas. https://arodes.hes-so.ch/record/6942

15.

Castel

(1995) Les Métamorphoses de la Question Sociale: Une Chronique du Salariat. Paris: Fayard.

16.

Claassen

Gerbrandy

Princen

, et al. (2019) Rethinking the european social market economy: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Common Market Studies 57(1): 3–12.

17.

Clasen

(2007) Comparative social policy and the European Union. In: Baldock

Manning

Vickerstaff

(eds) Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 601–626.

18.

Crenshaw

(2017) On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press.

19.

Crespy

(2022) Can Scharpf be proved wrong? Modelling the EU into a competitive social market economy for the next generation. European Law Journal 26(5–6): 319–330.

20.

Dahlstedt

Neergaard

(2019) Crisis of solidarity? Changing welfare and migration regimes in Sweden. Critical Sociology 45(1): 121–135.

21.

Dale

El-Enany

(2013) The limits of social Europe: EU law and the ordoliberal agenda. German Law Journal 14(5): 613–650.

22.

Daly

(2020) Gender Inequality and Welfare States in Europe. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

23.

Darling

(2011) Domopolitics, governmentality and the regulation of asylum accommodation. Political Geography 30(5): 263–271.

24.

Degen

(2015) Politique sociale. Dictionnaire historique de la suisse. Available at: https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/016577/2015-07-01/#_hls_servicebox (accessed 8 February 2023).

25.

De Koning

Ruijtenberg

Chakkour

, et al. (2023) Migrants, welfare and social citizenship in postcolonial Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 50(2): 423–441.

26.

De Lange

Mantu

Minderhoud

(2020) Into the unknown. COVID-19 and the global mobility of migrant workers. American Journal of International Law Unbound 114(4): 332–336.

27.

Doellgast

Lillie

Puglinamo

(2018) Reconstructing Solidarity. Labour Unions, Precarious Work, and the Politics of Institutional Change in Europe. Oxford: OUP.

28.

El-Enany

(2020) (B)ordering Britain. Law, Race and Empire. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

29.

Esping-Andersen

(1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

30.

Esping-Andersen

Korpi

(1987) From Poor Relief to Institutional Welfare States: The Development of Scandinavian Social Policy. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Social Research.

31.

Ewald

(1986) L'Etat providence. Paris: Grasset.

32.

Faist

Bilecen

Barglowski

, et al. (2015) Transnational social protection: migrants’ strategies and patterns of inequalities. Population, Space and Place 21(3): 193–202.

33.

Ferrera

(2018) The European social union: How to piece it together. In: Vanhercke

Ghailani

Sabato

(eds) Social policy in the European Union: State of play 2018. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute and European Social Observatory, pp. 17–33.

34.

Fricker

(2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

35.

Fricker

(2017) Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In: Kidd

Medina

Pohlhaus

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. London: Routledge, pp. 53–60.

36.

Geddes

(2003) Migration and the welfare state in Europe. The Political Quarterly 74(S1): 150–162.

37.

Geddes

Hadj-Abdou

(2016) An unstable equilibrium: Freedom of movement and the welfare state in the European Union. In: Freeman

Mirilovic

(eds) Handbook on Migration and Social Policy. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 222–238.

38.

Girod

(2002) Politique sociale. In: Fragnière

J-P

Girod

(eds) Dictionnaire suisse de politique sociale. Lausanne: Réalités sociales, p. 239.

39.

Goodley

(2014) Dis/ability Studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism. New York: Routledge.

40.

Greve

(2014) Historical Dictionary of the Welfare State. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

41.

Gusfield

(1980) The Culture of Public Problems. Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

42.

Hardt

Negri

(2000) Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

43.

Horn

(2021) The Global Old Age Care Industry. Tapping into migrants for tackling the old age care crisis. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan Singapore.

44.

Huysmans

(2000) The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies 38(5): 751–777.

45.

International Labour Organization (n.d.) Social protection for migrant workers. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/policy-areas/social-protection/lang–en/index.htm (accessed 8 February 2023).

46.

Iossa

Persdotter

(2021) Cross-border social dumping as a ‘Game of Jurisdiction’ – towards a legal geography of labour relations in the EU internal market. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 59: 1086–1102.

47.

Isin

(2015) Theorizing acts of citizenship. In: Isin

Nielsen

(eds) Acts of Citizenship. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 15–43.

48.

Jacqueson

Pennings

(2019) Equal treatment of mobile persons in the context of a social market economy. Utrecht Law Review 15(2): 64–80.

49.

Jenson

(2015) Social innovation: Redesigning the welfare diamond. In: Nicholls

Simon

Gabriel

(eds) New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–106.

50.

Join-Lambert

M-T

Bolot-Gittler

Daniel

, et al. (1994) Politiques Sociales. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques & Dalloz.

51.

Kamali

Jönsson

(2018) Neoliberalism, Nordic Welfare States and Social Work. London: Routledge.

52.

Kazepov

(2014) Les nouvelles frontières de la citoyenneté sociale. SociologieS [en ligne]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologies.4819

53.

Keskinen

Norocel

Jørgensen

(2016) The politics and policies of welfare chauvinism under the economic crisis. Critical Social Policy 36(3): 321–329.

54.

Kofman

(2012) Rethinking care through social reproduction: Articulating circuits of migration. Social Politics 19(1): 142–162.

55.

Larsen

Frederiksen

Nielsen

(2018) European welfare nationalism: A democratic forum study in five countries. In: Taylor-Gooby

Leruth

(eds) Attitudes, Aspirations and Welfare. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–91.

56.

Leiblfinger

Prieler

Rogoz

, et al. (2021) Confronted with COVID-19: Migrant live-in care during the pandemic. Global Social Policy 21(3): 490–507.

57.

Leisering

Leibfried

(1999) Time and Poverty in Western Welfare States: United Germany in Perspective. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Lengwiler

(2015) Cultural meanings of social security in postwar Europe. Social Science History 39(1): 85–106.

59.

Lewis

(1992) Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 2(3): 159–173.

60.

Lewis

(1997) Gender and welfare regimes: Further thoughts. Social Politics 4(2): 160–177.

61.

Lhernould

J-P

(2017) L'Union européenne et ses pauvres. Droit Social 4: 350–354. halshs-02200198.

62.

Lister

(1990) The Exclusive Society: Citizenship and the Poor. London: Child Poverty Action Group.

63.

Lutz

(2018) Care migration: The connectivity between care chains, care circulation and transnational social inequality. Current Sociology 66(4): 577–589.

64.

Mantu

(2018) Controlling ‘poverty migration’- asserting gradations of EU citizenship. In: Mercier

Ni Chaoimh

Damay

Delledone

(eds) La libre Circulation Sous Pression, Régulation et Dérégulation des Mobilités Dans l’Union Européenne. Bruylant, pp. 170–184.

65.

Mantu

Minderhoud

(2019) Exploring the links between residence and social rights for economically inactive EU citizens. European Journal of Migration and Law 21(3): 313–337.

66.

Marshall

(1950) Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Marshall

(1970) Social Policy in the Twentieth Century. London: Hutchinson University Library.

68.

Menz

(2015) Whatever happened to social Europe? The three-pronged attack on European social policy. In: Crespy

Menz

(eds) Social Policy and the Euro Crisis. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 45–62.

69.

Merrien

F-X

(2006) Politique sociale. In: Barreyre

J-Y

Bouquet

(eds) Nouveau Dictionnaire Critique D'action Sociale. Paris: Bayard, p. 429.

70.

Merrien

F-X

(2007) L'Etat-providence. Paris: PUF.

71.

Minderhoud

Mantu

(2017) Back to the roots? no access to social assistance for union citizens who are economically inactive. In: Thym

(eds) Questioning EU Citizenship. Judges and the Limits of Free Movement and Solidarity in the EU. Hart Publishing, pp. 191–208.

72.

Mulinari

Neergaard

(2017) Doing racism, performing femininity: Women in the Sweden democrats. In: Kötting

Bitzan

Petö

(eds) Gender and Far Right Politics in Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–27.

73.

Noll

(2010) Why human rights fail to protect undocumented migrants. European Journal of Migration and law 12(2): 241–272.

74.

Orloff

(2009) Gendering the comparative analysis of welfare states: An unfinished agenda. Sociological Theory 27(3): 317–343.

75.

Øverbye

(2010) Disciplinary perspectives. In: Castles

Leibfried

Lewis

Obinger

Pierson

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–166.

76.

Pécoud

(2017) The politics of the UN convention on migrant workers’ rights. Groeningen Journal of International Law 5(1): 57–72.

77.

Perriard

Tabin

J-P

(2017) L’âge dans les politiques sociales au début du 21^e siècle. L’exemple vaudois. Traverse, Revue D’histoire: 85–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-731219.

78.

Polanyi

(1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehar.

79.

Rothstein

(2017) Solidarity, diversity and the quality of government. In: Banting

Kymlicka

(eds) The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–326.

80.

Sarat

(1990) ‘… The law is all over’: Power, resistance and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities 2(2): 343–379.

81.

Scarpa

Schierup

C-U

(2016) Who undermines the welfare state? Austerity-dogmatism and the U-turn in Swedish asylum policy. Social Inclusion 6(1): 199–207.

82.

Scharpf

(2010) The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a ‘social market economy’. Socio-Economic Review 8(2): 211–250.

83.

Tabin

J-P

(2022) Politiques Sociales Comparées. Lausanne : Éditions HETSL.

84.

Tabin

J-P

Enescu

(2012) The normative impact of unemployment insurance: a european perspective. Journal of Comparative Social Work 7(2): 113–125.

85.

Tabin

J-P

Leresche

(2019) Une critique furtive de l’État social. Une perspective théorique pour comprendre le non-recours raisonné aux prestations sociales. Émulations. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14428/emulations.varia.026

86.

Tabin

J-P

Piecek

Perrin

Probst

(Eds.) (2019). Repenser la normalité. Perspectives critiques sur le handicap. Lormont : Le Bord de l'Eau.

87.

Therborn

(2020) Sweden’s turn to economic inequality, 1982–2019. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 52: 159–166.

88.

Turner

(2009) T.H. Marshall, social rights and English national identity. Citizenship Studies 13(1): 65–73.

89.

Valdez

(2021) Socialism and empire: labor mobility, racial capitalism, and the political theory of migration. Political Theory 49(6): 902–933.

90.

Verschueren

(2014) Free movement or benefit tourism: The unreasonable burden of Brey. European Journal of Migration and Law 16: 147–179.

91.

Vickers

(2021) Activist conceptualisations at the migration-welfare nexus: Racial capitalism, austerity and the hostile environment. Critical Social Policy 41(3): 426–446.

92.

Waever

(1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz

(eds) On Security. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 46–86.

93.

Walker

(2009) Social Security and Welfare. Concepts and Comparisons. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

94.

Walters

(2002) Deportation, expulsion, and the international police of aliens. Citizenship Studies 6(3): 265–292.

95.

Walters

(2004) Secure borders, safe haven, domopolitics. Citizenship Studies 8(3): 237–260.

96.

Wicker

H-R

(1997) Introduction: Theorizing ethnicity and nationalism. In: Wicker

H-R

(eds) Rethinking Nationalism and Ethnicity: The Struggle for Meaning and Order in Europe. Oxford: Berg, pp. 1–42.