移民管理的“长春”:大流行引发的欧盟边境制度中的劳动力供应

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Politics Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI:10.1177/02633957231162822
Cecilia Vergnano
{"title":"移民管理的“长春”:大流行引发的欧盟边境制度中的劳动力供应","authors":"Cecilia Vergnano","doi":"10.1177/02633957231162822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pandemic-induced border lockdowns in the spring of 2020 severely disrupted the migrant-labour supply in Western EU economies. This disruption of the EU border regime took place for different, even opposite reasons than the so-called ‘crisis’ of 2015, which is also known as the ‘long summer’ of migration. Indeed, where the latter originated from migrants’ massive appropriation of mobility, the disruption of 2020 resulted from state-imposed restrictions on mobility. However, by comparatively analysing two models of work organisation in the agro-industrial sector, characterised by a strong reliance on mobile labour and thus particularly affected by the border lockdowns of 2020 (harvest of crops in Italy and meat processing in the Netherlands), I argue that states’ response to the disruption of border regime in 2020 relied on a pre-existing logistical approach in migration management, adopted in the aftermath of 2015. More specifically, during the pandemic the ethical minimalism intrinsic in the logistical approach allowed a decoupling of migrant workers’ right to mobility, on one hand, and social and economic rights, on the other, thus resulting in increased discipline in the workplace, exposure to infections, exploitation, and dependency on the employer, to which migrant workers opposed more or less visible forms of resistance.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘Long Spring’ of migration management: Labour supply in the pandemic-induced EU border regime\",\"authors\":\"Cecilia Vergnano\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02633957231162822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Pandemic-induced border lockdowns in the spring of 2020 severely disrupted the migrant-labour supply in Western EU economies. This disruption of the EU border regime took place for different, even opposite reasons than the so-called ‘crisis’ of 2015, which is also known as the ‘long summer’ of migration. Indeed, where the latter originated from migrants’ massive appropriation of mobility, the disruption of 2020 resulted from state-imposed restrictions on mobility. However, by comparatively analysing two models of work organisation in the agro-industrial sector, characterised by a strong reliance on mobile labour and thus particularly affected by the border lockdowns of 2020 (harvest of crops in Italy and meat processing in the Netherlands), I argue that states’ response to the disruption of border regime in 2020 relied on a pre-existing logistical approach in migration management, adopted in the aftermath of 2015. More specifically, during the pandemic the ethical minimalism intrinsic in the logistical approach allowed a decoupling of migrant workers’ right to mobility, on one hand, and social and economic rights, on the other, thus resulting in increased discipline in the workplace, exposure to infections, exploitation, and dependency on the employer, to which migrant workers opposed more or less visible forms of resistance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231162822\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231162822","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2020年春季由大流行引发的边境封锁严重扰乱了西欧经济体的移民劳动力供应。与2015年所谓的“危机”(也被称为移民的“长夏”)相比,欧盟边境制度的破坏有着不同的原因,甚至是相反的原因。事实上,后者源于移民对流动性的大规模占用,而2020年的混乱源于国家对流动性的限制。然而,通过比较分析农业工业部门的两种工作组织模式,其特点是强烈依赖流动劳动力,因此特别受到2020年边境封锁的影响(意大利的作物收获和荷兰的肉类加工),我认为,各国对2020年边境制度中断的反应依赖于2015年之后采用的移民管理中预先存在的后勤方法。更具体地说,在大流行期间,后勤办法中固有的伦理极简主义使移徙工人的流动性权利与社会和经济权利脱钩,从而导致工作场所的纪律加强,易受感染、受剥削和对雇主的依赖,移徙工人或多或少反对明显的抵抗形式。
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
The ‘Long Spring’ of migration management: Labour supply in the pandemic-induced EU border regime
Pandemic-induced border lockdowns in the spring of 2020 severely disrupted the migrant-labour supply in Western EU economies. This disruption of the EU border regime took place for different, even opposite reasons than the so-called ‘crisis’ of 2015, which is also known as the ‘long summer’ of migration. Indeed, where the latter originated from migrants’ massive appropriation of mobility, the disruption of 2020 resulted from state-imposed restrictions on mobility. However, by comparatively analysing two models of work organisation in the agro-industrial sector, characterised by a strong reliance on mobile labour and thus particularly affected by the border lockdowns of 2020 (harvest of crops in Italy and meat processing in the Netherlands), I argue that states’ response to the disruption of border regime in 2020 relied on a pre-existing logistical approach in migration management, adopted in the aftermath of 2015. More specifically, during the pandemic the ethical minimalism intrinsic in the logistical approach allowed a decoupling of migrant workers’ right to mobility, on one hand, and social and economic rights, on the other, thus resulting in increased discipline in the workplace, exposure to infections, exploitation, and dependency on the employer, to which migrant workers opposed more or less visible forms of resistance.
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
Politics
Politics Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.
期刊最新文献
Legacies of States and Social Revolutions Decolonising politics curricula: Exploring the experiences and views of racially minoritised students ‘Importing’ the personal vote to maximise the party vote? ‘Parachute personalization’ in an intraparty preference electoral system The European Union, immigration and the Left–Right divide: Explaining voting preferences for Western European radical right parties Reflections on an anniversary
×
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