Party Positions on Economic Criteria for Naturalization in Austria
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Jeremias Stadlmair |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12337 |
Party Positions on Economic Criteria for
Naturalization in Austria
Jeremias Stadlmair*
INTRODUCTION
In many European countries, access to citizenship is tied to a certain degree of economic achieve-
ment, e.g. via income requirements for naturalization or substantial naturalization fees. As at earlier
stages of democratic development, economic status serves as a condition for being part of the
demos and having access to electoral rights (Heater, 2004). The main difference is that such a con-
straint only applies to those who are not citizens of their country of residence by birth. Especially
in a context in which citizenship is not provided via ius soli, such permanent resident denizens
often make up a fair share of the overall population. Scholars of citizenship and democracy identify
a democratic deficit in form of an incongruence of those affected by decisions made in a polity
without being able to influence the making of these decisions via basic electoral rights (Goodin,
2007; Pedroza, 2015). With economic criteria for naturalization, the constitution of the demos is
not exclusively defined by categories of ethnicity or culture –which are addressed in the academic
debate on multiculturalism (Joppke, 2007; Banting and Kymlicka, 2013) –but also by economic
status. As these boundaries are not mutually exclusive, I look at the intersections of ethnicity and
economic status in this article.
Taking Austria as an example, this article sheds light on the debate about economic criteria for
naturalization by investigating the main proponents of economic constraints to citizenship, their
arguments and the transposition of these preferences into citizenship laws. Austria constitutes a typ-
ical case of strongly developed economic requirements for naturalization and high naturalization
fees. In line with recent scholarship on immigration and citizenship policy development, a focus is
put on the role of different political parties in shaping the way boundaries of membership are nego-
tiated (Bonjour, 2013; Akkerman, 2015). Immigration and citizenship were politicized issues in
Austria in the past two decades, leading to several policy reforms under different governments, in
which economic criteria for naturalization were amended (Howard, 2009; Stadlmair, 2014). There-
fore, Austria serves as a typical case (Seawright and Gerring, 2008) to investigate how economic
criteria for naturalization are addressed by political actors.
STATE OF THE ART
Recently several scholars have identified an increasing emphasis on economic achievement as a
condition for obtaining various immigration-related rights, such as permanent residence or family
reunion (Chauvin et al., 2013; Sirriyeh, 2015; Morris, 2016), which can be viewed as a return to
* Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vienna
doi: 10.1111/imig.12337
©2017 The Author
International Migration ©2017 IOM
International Migration Vol. 56 (4) 2018
ISSN 0020-7985Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
principles of granting full citizenship rights to self-sufficient persons only. These criteria usually
take the form of meeting an income threshold, not drawing certain welfare benefits, being in long-
term employment or paying substantial fees. While some studies provide a comparative perspective
on the development of such criteria (van Houdt et al., 2011; Stadlmair, 2014), this article focuses
on the arguments and narratives underlying such a conditionality of economic and legal status. In
recent scholarship on the politicization of immigration and diversity, two stances on the relation
between economic performance and access to rights can be highlighted: First, narratives of welfare
chauvinism denote a view in which only members of the ethnic community should be eligible to
draw welfare benefits (Bale, 2003). In order to avoid immigration into the welfare state, only eco-
nomically self-sufficient immigrants should have the full rights of citizenship, including social
rights. Second, access to citizenship can be viewed either as an instrument for immigrant integra-
tion or as reward for successful integration (de Hart and van Oers, 2006; Ersanilli and Koopmans,
2010). As participation in the economy is often viewed as a major marker of integration (Ager and
Strang, 2008), economic indicators may then serve as criteria for assessing integration requirements
for naturalization.
In a two-dimensional typology of positions of political parties, we may distinguish between eco-
nomic and socio-cultural lines of conflict: The economic dimension basically refers to the question
to which extent the state should intervene in the economy, while the socio-cultural dimension cov-
ers attitudes towards democratic freedoms and rights (Wineroither and Kitschelt, 2012; Bonjour,
2013; Bakker et al., 2015). Figure 1 illustrates the positions of Austrian political parties along these
cleavages.
FIGURE 1
EXPECTED NARRATIVES OF POLITICAL PARTIES ON ECONOMIC CRITERIA FOR NATURALIZATION
FPÖ
Greens
SPÖ
ÖVP
BZÖ
Equal
rights
Integration by
performance
Welfare
chauvinism
liberal authoritarian
Socio-cultural cleavage (GALTAN)
in favour of redistribution against redistribution
Economic cleavage (LRECON)
Note: Expected narratives on economic requirements for naturalization in italics; party positions in 2010; source: Bak-
ker et al. 2015;
64 Jeremias Stadlmair
©2017 The Author. International Migration ©2017 IOM
To continue reading
Request your trial