EU migration, out-of-work benefits and reciprocity: Are member states justified in restricting access to welfare rights?
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885118825360 |
| Date | 01 July 2021 |
| Published date | 01 July 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article EJPT
EU migration,
out-of-work benefits
and reciprocity: Are
member states justified
in restricting access
to welfare rights?
Dimitrios Efthymiou
Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
Abstract
This article examines whether restrictions on access to welfare rights for EU
immigrants are justifiable on grounds of reciprocity. Recently political theorists have
supported some robust restrictions on the basis of fairness. They argue that if
EU immigrants do not immediately contribute sufficiently to the provision of basic
collective goods in the host state, restrictions on their access to the welfare state
are justified. I argue that these accounts of the principle of reciprocity rely on an
ambiguous conception of contribution that cannot deliver the restrictions it advocates.
Several strategies open to those advocating reciprocity-based restrictions are consid-
ered and found wanting. This article defends that verdict from a number of objections.
Keywords
Brexit, EU migration, European Union, migration, out-of-work benefits, reciprocity,
social justice, social rights, welfare rights, welfare state
Introduction
Immigration is a permanent fixture in current debates about the nature and the
future of the EU. Freedom of movement and provisions for non-discrimination
Corresponding author:
Dimitrios Efthymiou, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, Frankfurt, 60629, Germany.
Email: efthymiou@em.uni-frankfurt.de
European Journal of Political Theory
2021, Vol. 20(3) 547–567
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885118825360
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
make skills-selective immigration difficult to implement within the EU. However,
UK-EU negotiations before and after the UK referendum brought forward argu-
ments to undermine the pertinence of both principles for the EU and to add
qualifications to their implementation. One measure is significant restrictions on
the access to welfare rights for EU migrants to discourage low-skilled EU migra-
tion and so-called benefit tourism (HM Government, 2014). Are member states
justified in restricting access to welfare rights for EU migrants as a matter of
justice? What normative reasons are used to justify these restrictions?
This article examines whether the restrictions are appropriate from a normative
point of view. The EU is unique and challenging for normative approaches to
migration in at least four ways. First of all, there is disagreement about whether
the EU constitutes an institutional structure that sufficiently approximates the
nation state (Nagel, 2005: 133–143; Van Parijs, 2003: 7–20). The EU clearly resem-
bles the institutional structures of a state in some policy areas but not in others, so
resolving disagreements is hard and drawing relevant thresholds of sufficient
resemblance can be challenging and arbitrary. Second, and more significantly for
our discussion, the EU has no internal border checks. Hence, it physically permits
freedom of movement for the citizens of its member states. But also in this case this
right is qualified in ways that freedom of movement within its member states is not
(De Witte, 2015). Those seeking work in other member states and those who are
not economically active or self-sufficient are increasingly subject to restrictions on
its exercise (European Union, 2004b). Third, and relatedly, an analogy between
EU workers and immigrant guest workers is a difficult one to draw, as EU law
gives all EU citizens who are working the same rights as nationals (European
Union, 2004a). Nonetheless, those seeking work and those who lack the means
to support themselves are entitled to a significantly smaller bundle of rights than
nationals and their bundle of rights increasingly resembles that of immigrants from
third countries (Attas, 2000). Fourth, EU immigrants are citizens of relatively
developed countries so discussions of brain drain in the EU are less pressing
(Brock and Blake, 2014; Oberman, 2013). Again, however, differences in economic
and social development among member states create incentives for movement
across borders that could have similar brain drain effects, especially during eco-
nomic crises. These four dimensions call for a tailored answer, drawn from the
current literature on the ethics of migration but attuned to the special circum-
stances of the European Union.
This article critically examines one of the most promising arguments in the
context of the four dimensions. This is the claim that reciprocity-based consider-
ations justify restrictions on access to the welfare state of host countries for both
EU students and jobseekers, as well as more generally for EU citizens who have
not made enough relevant contributions to the host member state (Sangiovanni
2013, 2017, forthcoming; as well as Carens, 2013: 281; Miller, 2016). Until then, the
argument goes, EU immigrants must not be treated as full members of the host
society’s system of social cooperation and their case must not trigger considera-
tions of reciprocity. This article shows that a concern for reciprocity does not
548 European Journal of Political Theory 20(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial