Summary readings week 3 M&C
Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants’ social rights in comparative
perspective: welfare regimes, forms of immigration and immigration
policy regimes
Goal: offer an alternative perspective to the scholarship that highlights commonalities and
convergence using Esper-Andersons welfare typology.
Research question: how do the welfare state, the form of immigration, and the immigration regime
have patterned immigrants’ social rights across countries?
Immigration policy regime regulated immigrants’ inclusion in or exclusion from society.
Type of migration and entry categories are: labour migrants or economic immigrants, refugees and
asylum seekers or political immigrants, family members, ethnic ‘citizens’, and undocumented
immigrants.
Entry categories create a hierarchical differentiation of immigrants’ social rights.
The liberal (US)
- Welfare state liberal, social rights based on needs, only for the deserving, no universal
right
- Immigration regime inclusive, citizenship based on birthplace (ius soli)
- Entry categories open immigration, economic immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers,
family members and undocumented immigrants
The conservative corporatist (Germany)
- Welfare state conservative, entitlement for social security is labour market participation
(Bismarckian social insurance schemes), work is crucial
- Immigration regime exclusive, citizenship based on ethnicity (jus sanguinis)
- Entry categories after-war immigration: 1) ethnic Germans, 2) guest workers and family
members, 3) asylum seekers and ethnic German. Asylum seekers have little social benefits
The social democratic (Sweden)
- Welfare state social democratic, social rights based on citizenship and universal policy,
equal entrance to welfare system, everybody has the same social rights
- Immigration regime inclusive, citizenship based on residence (jus domicilii), naturalization
is relatively easy
- Entry categories guest workers until 1972, family and refugees, since ‘90s asylum seekers
Conclusion
- The role of welfare states, form of immigration and immigration regime all differ in the three
countries and therefore show divergence rather than convergence. Although there is some
convergence in the countries, a comparison of the key features of the regimes in the early
2000s reveals significant differences.
- Different immigration regimes exhibit diverse responses, reflecting in part the strength of
dissimilar policy legacies and differing policy logics of exclusion and inclusion
Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants’ social rights in comparative
perspective: welfare regimes, forms of immigration and immigration
policy regimes
Goal: offer an alternative perspective to the scholarship that highlights commonalities and
convergence using Esper-Andersons welfare typology.
Research question: how do the welfare state, the form of immigration, and the immigration regime
have patterned immigrants’ social rights across countries?
Immigration policy regime regulated immigrants’ inclusion in or exclusion from society.
Type of migration and entry categories are: labour migrants or economic immigrants, refugees and
asylum seekers or political immigrants, family members, ethnic ‘citizens’, and undocumented
immigrants.
Entry categories create a hierarchical differentiation of immigrants’ social rights.
The liberal (US)
- Welfare state liberal, social rights based on needs, only for the deserving, no universal
right
- Immigration regime inclusive, citizenship based on birthplace (ius soli)
- Entry categories open immigration, economic immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers,
family members and undocumented immigrants
The conservative corporatist (Germany)
- Welfare state conservative, entitlement for social security is labour market participation
(Bismarckian social insurance schemes), work is crucial
- Immigration regime exclusive, citizenship based on ethnicity (jus sanguinis)
- Entry categories after-war immigration: 1) ethnic Germans, 2) guest workers and family
members, 3) asylum seekers and ethnic German. Asylum seekers have little social benefits
The social democratic (Sweden)
- Welfare state social democratic, social rights based on citizenship and universal policy,
equal entrance to welfare system, everybody has the same social rights
- Immigration regime inclusive, citizenship based on residence (jus domicilii), naturalization
is relatively easy
- Entry categories guest workers until 1972, family and refugees, since ‘90s asylum seekers
Conclusion
- The role of welfare states, form of immigration and immigration regime all differ in the three
countries and therefore show divergence rather than convergence. Although there is some
convergence in the countries, a comparison of the key features of the regimes in the early
2000s reveals significant differences.
- Different immigration regimes exhibit diverse responses, reflecting in part the strength of
dissimilar policy legacies and differing policy logics of exclusion and inclusion
