英国的“铁棒”福利与意大利的“漏勺”福利:了解无人陪伴的年轻移民和难民的欧洲内部流动策略

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of European Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-05-12 DOI:10.1177/09589287221095056
J. Allsopp
{"title":"英国的“铁棒”福利与意大利的“漏勺”福利:了解无人陪伴的年轻移民和难民的欧洲内部流动策略","authors":"J. Allsopp","doi":"10.1177/09589287221095056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The experiences of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees challenge the idea of a common European asylum policy but also show that traditional welfare typologies used to account for differences in welfare across states fail to account for the lived experiences of this group. They do not consider the shifting categorizations of young migrants in institutional terms, nor how the stratification of their social rights plays out over place and time. Moreover, current welfare typologies give inadequate attention to the increasing intersection of the labour market and opportunities for regularization, the relative importance and role of the state in the welfare mix, and the nexus of access to welfare and immigration enforcement. This article draws on qualitative longitudinal research in England and Italy to argue that rather than experiencing welfare through the lens of Liberal (England) versus Conservative or Mediterranean (Italy) regimes, unaccompanied young migrants and refugees in these countries are better understood as navigating different systems of ‘iron rod welfare’ and ‘colander welfare’. In England, the nexus between welfare and legal status is policed by an iron rod on one side of which exists a plethora of social rights, but on the other the risk of a proactive detention and deportation regime. In Italy, meanwhile, the holes of the colander denote gaps in protection but also possibilities to navigate alternative welfare strategies independently of the state. The ability to act independently of the state is an important but under-theorized capability for this population, for whom the state is a more ambiguous actor than is traditionally considered in European social policy.","PeriodicalId":47919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"English ‘iron rod’ welfare versus Italian ‘colander’ welfare: understanding the intra-European mobility strategies of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees\",\"authors\":\"J. Allsopp\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09589287221095056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The experiences of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees challenge the idea of a common European asylum policy but also show that traditional welfare typologies used to account for differences in welfare across states fail to account for the lived experiences of this group. They do not consider the shifting categorizations of young migrants in institutional terms, nor how the stratification of their social rights plays out over place and time. Moreover, current welfare typologies give inadequate attention to the increasing intersection of the labour market and opportunities for regularization, the relative importance and role of the state in the welfare mix, and the nexus of access to welfare and immigration enforcement. This article draws on qualitative longitudinal research in England and Italy to argue that rather than experiencing welfare through the lens of Liberal (England) versus Conservative or Mediterranean (Italy) regimes, unaccompanied young migrants and refugees in these countries are better understood as navigating different systems of ‘iron rod welfare’ and ‘colander welfare’. In England, the nexus between welfare and legal status is policed by an iron rod on one side of which exists a plethora of social rights, but on the other the risk of a proactive detention and deportation regime. In Italy, meanwhile, the holes of the colander denote gaps in protection but also possibilities to navigate alternative welfare strategies independently of the state. The ability to act independently of the state is an important but under-theorized capability for this population, for whom the state is a more ambiguous actor than is traditionally considered in European social policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221095056\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221095056","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无人陪伴的年轻移民和难民的经历挑战了欧洲共同庇护政策的想法,但也表明,用于解释各国福利差异的传统福利类型学无法解释这一群体的生活经历。他们没有考虑年轻移民在制度上的分类变化,也没有考虑他们的社会权利分层是如何随着地点和时间的推移而发挥作用的。此外,目前的福利类型学对劳动力市场和正规化机会之间日益增加的交集、国家在福利组合中的相对重要性和作用、以及获得福利和移民执法之间的联系关注不足。本文借鉴了英国和意大利的定性纵向研究,认为这些国家中无人陪伴的年轻移民和难民更好地被理解为“铁棒福利”和“漏勺福利”的不同制度,而不是通过自由(英国)与保守或地中海(意大利)政权的视角来体验福利。在英国,福利和法律地位之间的关系是由一根铁棒来监管的,铁棒的一边是大量的社会权利,另一边是主动拘留和驱逐制度的风险。与此同时,在意大利,漏勺上的洞表明了保护方面的差距,但也表明了独立于国家之外选择其他福利战略的可能性。对这些人来说,独立于国家行动的能力是一种重要但理论不足的能力,对他们来说,国家是一个比欧洲社会政策传统上所认为的更模糊的行动者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
English ‘iron rod’ welfare versus Italian ‘colander’ welfare: understanding the intra-European mobility strategies of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees
The experiences of unaccompanied young migrants and refugees challenge the idea of a common European asylum policy but also show that traditional welfare typologies used to account for differences in welfare across states fail to account for the lived experiences of this group. They do not consider the shifting categorizations of young migrants in institutional terms, nor how the stratification of their social rights plays out over place and time. Moreover, current welfare typologies give inadequate attention to the increasing intersection of the labour market and opportunities for regularization, the relative importance and role of the state in the welfare mix, and the nexus of access to welfare and immigration enforcement. This article draws on qualitative longitudinal research in England and Italy to argue that rather than experiencing welfare through the lens of Liberal (England) versus Conservative or Mediterranean (Italy) regimes, unaccompanied young migrants and refugees in these countries are better understood as navigating different systems of ‘iron rod welfare’ and ‘colander welfare’. In England, the nexus between welfare and legal status is policed by an iron rod on one side of which exists a plethora of social rights, but on the other the risk of a proactive detention and deportation regime. In Italy, meanwhile, the holes of the colander denote gaps in protection but also possibilities to navigate alternative welfare strategies independently of the state. The ability to act independently of the state is an important but under-theorized capability for this population, for whom the state is a more ambiguous actor than is traditionally considered in European social policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of European Social Policy publishes articles on all aspects of social policy in Europe. Papers should make a contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field, and we particularly welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analysis, as well as those which use or develop new methodological approaches. The Journal is interdisciplinary in scope and both social policy and Europe are conceptualized broadly. Articles may address multi-level policy making in the European Union and elsewhere; provide cross-national comparative studies; and include comparisons with areas outside Europe.
期刊最新文献
What works? Researching participants’ experiences of a social policy RCT through qualitative interviews Cross-class solidarity in times of crisis: the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on support for redistribution COVID-19 hits care homes: A cross-national study of mortality rates Targeted transfers, a left-wing policy? The impact of left-wing governments and corporatism on transfers to low-income families (1982–2019) Help or harm? Examining the effects of active labour market programmes on young adults’ employment quality and the role of social origin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1