Full Version Mmmayer Revisions 08-2011 FINAL
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Governmental Preferences on Liberalising Economic Migration Policies at the EU level: Germany’s Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Labour Market Matthias M. Mayer A thesis submitted to the European Institute of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, May 2011 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract The academic debate about European cooperation on immigration has focused on big treaty negotiations, presented an undifferentiated picture of the subfields of immigration, and has only recently begun to make use of the abundant literature on national immigration policies. As a macrostructure, this study uses a bureaucratic politics framework to understand the preference formation of national governments on liberalising economic migration policies. This allows unpacking the process of preference formation and linking it to a number of causal factors, which, by influencing the cost and benefits distribution of the relevant actors – intra-ministerial actors, employer associations, trade unions, and other sub-state actors – shape the position of the government. The influence of the causal factors is underpinned by different theories derived from the literatures on Europeanisation, immigration policy-making, and foreign policy. Germany is used as a longitudinal case study with four cases within it, as it has undergone a U-turn in a way no other relevant Member State has, from a keen supporter of EU involvement to being highly sceptical with regard to economic migration policies at the EU level. The empirical data is based on 43 open-ended interviews, archival research and newspaper analysis. The bureaucratic politics framework supplanted with the theoretical strands of domestic politics and foreign policy concerns provides a number of themes that can explain why and under what conditions a Member State supports liberalising economic migration policies at the EU level from 1957 until the Treaty of Lisbon. The thesis argues that if the European policy measure applies to a particular group of sending countries and the domestic salience of immigration is low, sending countries can lobby Member State governments to support EU-level liberalisation of immigration policies. The misfit between the existing national regulations for economic migration and European-level policies cannot be 3 significant as otherwise the economic and political adaptation costs for actors involved are too high. A heated national debate on immigration is negatively related to governmental support for such measures as the political costs of support skyrocket. Conversely, if the decision-making process happens bureaucratically, this helps to attain governmental support as the political costs of doing so are kept minimal. 4 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I have to thank my parents, Jutta Katharina and Heinz Werner Mayer for their unlimited support and love. They stood behind me like a rock of granite in times of success but also in times of doubt and despair. Without their support, I would not have been able to write this PhD dissertation. Secondly, I am greatly indebted to my two supervisors, Gwendolyn Sasse and Eiko Thielemann, for embarking with me on this project, their highly professional guidance, their pertinent comments, the countless inspiring and kind discussions, their willingness to read yet another draft, and their continuous encouragement. "That he kept his sanity he must have owed to his capacity for friendship..." Mary Renault in "the Nature of Alexander" In addition, there are countless people to whom I am greatly indebted: My friends for keeping me happy and sane and my fellow PhD students at the LSE and Goodenough College London for sharing the PhD experience. This was very important for me and helped to keep pushing ahead with a project and a life that sometimes felt rather odd (Why would anyone spend the entire day in the library at one of these rare London summer days?). Moreover, I am grateful to all the people who, during the course of the PhD, provided me with useful comments and inspiration in research seminars, conferences, and public lectures. A few names shall be mentioned: Waltraud Schelkle, Helen Wallace, Bob Hancké, Damien Chalmers, Willem Buiter, and Simon Glendinning. In addition, I would like to thank Elaine Hemmings, Ryan Mahan, and Vivian Winterhoff for their organisational support giving me the feeling that the European Institute bureaucracy was always pretty efficient. 5 A further thank you is extended to the European University Institute in Florence, where I spend four months of my PhD, in particular to Rainer Bauböck, Bruno De Witte, the Migration Working Group, the large number of highly inspiring people I met there, and, of course, the EUI rowing team. I also would like to thank all the organisations that provided financial support for my project: the Economic and Social Research Council, the European Institute of the London School of Economics and Political Science, the European Academy of Yuste Foundation, the University Association for Contemporary European Studies, and the Central Research Fund of the University of London. Without this support, I would not have been able to write this PhD dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank the people who very kindly proof-read my dissertation, making it much more readable: Alison Johnston, Carina Bachofen, Jessica Schulberg, John Bacon, Katrina Waters, Maeve O’Hare, Rosie Ibbotson, Ryan Mahan, and in particular NicholasThompson. I also would like to thank everyone I forgot. Please accept my apologies. 6 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 7 Glossary of Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 11 List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. 13 Tables ............................................................................................................................. 13 Figures ........................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 15 Research Question ..................................................................................................... 18 Puzzle ......................................................................................................................... 18 Case Selection ........................................................................................................... 20 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 20 Themes ...................................................................................................................... 22 Existing literature ........................................................................................................ 24 Alternative Explanations ............................................................................................. 32 Aims, Goals, and Objectives ...................................................................................... 36 Contribution ................................................................................................................ 36 Outline of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 41 Chapter Two – Theoretical Framework: Bureaucratic Politics, Foreign Policy and Labour Markets ............................................................................................................................... 45 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 45 Bureaucratic Politics ....................................................................................................... 46 I. Immigration and labour market needs ......................................................................... 48 Economic benefits of immigration ........................................................................... 49 General vs. sectoral labour shortages .................................................................... 52 Link between labour shortages and liberalisation of economic migration policies. 54 II. Domestic Politics ........................................................................................................ 56 The role of national legislation .................................................................................... 56 Fit/Misfit .................................................................................................................