Today the inclusion of non-citizens in the electorate is an increasingly common phenomenon. Yet, we know relatively little about under what conditions some states extend such voting rights to non-citizens earlier than others. In this paper, we investigate the timing of local enfranchisement policies for noncitizens in 28 democracies from 1980 to 2010 using event-history analysis. Adding to the conditions studied in earlier work, we examine the extent to which demographic composition, immigration policy regimes, and political partisanship relate to the timing of non-citizen suffrage. We find that higher shares of immigrant residents delay whereas EU membership and economic openness advance the timing of voting rights for non-citizens. At all demographic heterogeneity conditions, less permissive immigration regimes have been able to enfranchise non-citizens earlier. The findings suggest that, over time, having more leftwing parties in the government accelerates the timing of enfranchisement, while right-wing parties contribute to delays. The article brings forward new data and an original explanatory framework emphasising relevance of partisanship and immigration policy at different demographic contexts. Our analysis sheds light on the idiosyncratic state practices in the timing of enfranchisement reforms adding to the debates in migration and citizenship studies and the broader comparative politics field.

Why do some countries have more skill-selective labour immigration policies than others? Despite general agreement that high-skilled immigrants are economically and socially desirable, some countries extensively select high-skilled from low-skilled labour immigrants, while others do not. While most political economy accounts indicate an explicit connection between relative skill selectivity and welfare states, two different hypotheses emerge regarding the direction of this relationship. The fiscal cost hypothesis puts forward that the tension between welfare state generosity and immigration motivates greater selectivity as states try to reconcile fiscal pressures for closure with continuing needs for immigration. The decommodification hypothesis, in contrast, holds that the capabilities of generous welfare states to decommodify their citizens also decrease rationales to be more skill-selective towards labour immigrants. Developing an original measure of skill selectivity in labour immigration policies for 20 developed democracies from 2000 to 2010, we test these two hypotheses. Our results indicate that differences in decommodification levels appear to be substantively and negatively associated with differences in skill selectivity levels, while changes in welfare spending over time, particularly among high-spending countries, rather than differences in spending levels, seem to be positively associated with increasing skill selectivity. This suggests potential tensions between the political responses to economic and demographic changes in the form of immigration policy adjustments and the underlying social logic of modern welfare states. The findings contribute not only to the study of high-skilled immigration, but also advance the current research on the tension between immigration and the welfare state.

PurposeTo analyse the policies, posting trends and worker experiences during the pandemic, this study uses the concept of motility, i.e. workers' mobility capital, and examines how posted workers' geographical mobility, their access to and conditions of employment and social protection were impacted. The authors discuss how the measures against the pandemic undertaken at the European Union (EU) and national level have affected labour mobility, the impact these measures have had on macro trends of posting to Austria, and lastly, how the pandemic and the actions against it have influenced the lives of posted workers at the individual level.Design/methodology/approachIn this article, the authors focus on the specific case of posting to Austria. The authors ask whether, and if so, how EU and national policies which came about during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the motility of posted workers, and how these workers used their mobility capital in this unfolding context. The authors address the research questions with analyses of EU and national level policies, use administrative data on posting, and individual-level data based on interviews with posted workers and public authorities.FindingsThe authors find that the Austrian government's public health and economic priorities were jointly influential on the motility of cross-border workers. The specific case of the posted workers shed new light on the limits to such a national sovereignty approach when it comes to economic interests in an increasingly interdependent European labour market. This study’s findings show that despite the access provided at the policy levels, the motility of posted workers was also affected by their individual circumstances, or competences, which produced different forms of appropriation.Originality/valueThe authors apply the theoretical framework of motility by studying policy developments through the element of access options and conditions, and the posting trends to Austria and worker experiences at the individual level through the lenses of appropriation and competences. The authors find that while the EU and national public policy in enhancing access options have been successful during the COVID-19 period, amelioration attempts in access conditions have not been realised as observed in our analysis of the competence and appropriation dimensions of the posted workers in Austria. This highlights the need for a more integrated approach in the study of policies by exploring beyond the national and EU level policies and focussing on the implementation and observations at the individual level.

No abstract

Political debates about immigration provoke strong nationalistic pushback from citizens, constraining the policymaking capacity of states. This paper investigates to what extent labour market policies shape economically motivated preferential divides among European citizens. On the one hand, I concentrate on prospective job loss threats indicative of economic grievances and assess the impact of unemployment risk exposure on immigration policy attitudes. On the other hand, as the original contribution of the paper, I contend that, if such an economically motivated explanation holds, this relationship should vary based on the labour market institutions in each country. Multi‐level analyses of 16 European countries over a decade since 2002 reveal a remarkably robust relationship between unemployment risks and more restrictive immigration policy attitudes. Importantly, more protective employment regulations seem to have a dampening effect on the impact of job loss threats on immigration policy attitudes. Conversely, there are larger attitudinal divides between the risk‐exposed and the more secure workers in countries with generous and expansive unemployment compensation policies. Overall, the paper helps explain the cross‐national variation in economically motivated cleavages about immigration policy attitudes in Europe.