Do EU Member States Care About their Diasporas’ Access to Social Protection? A Comparison of Consular and Diaspora Policies across EU27

Abstract

Despite the growing literature on sending states’ engagement with their populations abroad, little is known so far about their role in helping the diaspora deal with social risks. As argued in this chapter, this is mainly because past studies on sending states’ policies and institutions for the diaspora have failed to systematically focus on social protection, while also ignoring that regional integration dynamics often constrain domestic responses to the welfare needs of nationals residing abroad. This volume aims to fill this research gap by comparatively examining the type of diaspora infrastructure through which EU Member States address the vulnerabilities faced by populations abroad in five core areas of social protection: health care, pensions, family, unemployment, and economic hardship. Drawing on data from two original surveys with national experts, we operationalize the concepts of descriptive infrastructure for non-residents (i.e. the presence of diaspora-related institutions) and substantive infrastructure (i.e. policies that provide and facilitate access to welfare for nationals abroad) in order to propose a new typology of states’ engagement with their diaspora in the area of social protection.

Repatriation of Slovenian Nationals During Mobility Lockdowns Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…The role of consulates and sending states' policies in assisting emigrants to deal with risks abroad have, in general, not received significant scholarly attention (Lafleur & Vintila, 2020;Vah Jevšnik & Cukut Krilić, 2020). However, the body of literature will undoubtedly continue to grow given the transnational turn in migration studies, the increasingly emerging diaspora engagement policies by which the sending states' governments seek to engage with nationals and their descendants abroad (Lafleur & Vintila, 2020;Vah Jevšnik & Cukut Krilić, 2020), and in light of the pandemic that has raised numerous issues relating to the engagement with the diaspora in times of need. Further research is also needed about return migration in the context of pandemics.…”

“…In the context of this article, transnational social protection refers to emigrants' entitlements to sending countries' social protection policies(Lafleur & Vintila, 2020). 4 This period overlaps with the beginning and end of the mobilization of the Consular Crisis Cell to deal with emergency repatriations due to the COVID-19 outbreak.…”

Migration Policy Indicators

“…The number of integration policy indexes and indicators reflects the long-standing academic debate about the supposed centrality of integration and citizenship 'models' and their determinants and effects on integration outcomes. Several of these indexes attempt to conceptualise different models and dimensions of integration: multiculturalism by the Multicultural Policy Index (Banting & Kymlicka, 2013), individual vs. cultural rights by the Index of Citizenship Rights for Immigrants (ICRI: Koopmans et al, 2012), civic integration by CIVIX (Goodman, 2010), social protection by MiTSoPro (Lafleur & Vintila, 2021) or emigrant vs. immigrant integration policies by IMISEM. These indexes are some of the most in-depth sets of indicators.…”

Migrant organisations, belonging and social protection. The role of migrant organisations in migrants' social risk‐averting strategies

“…According to the recent ILO report (2021), social protection is a ‘basic social right’. However, millions of migrants worldwide face various legal and practical challenges in dealing with social risks that may impede the realisation of life opportunities and well‐being (ILO 2021; Lafleur & Vintila, 2020: 1). International migration tends to exacerbate vulnerabilities of this kind, especially of those forced to move due to external threats, including war or violent conflicts (Motte‐Baumvol et al, 2022).…”

“…This study engages in these debates by assessing enabling factors that provide migrants with opportunities to organise their social protection according to their personal challenges and needs. From this perspective, scholars have specifically emphasised the role of informal sources of social protection, including family and kin networks, communities, neighbourhoods, and religious associations, as well as local and transnational NGOs (Amelina et al, 2020; Dankyi et al, 2017; Faist et al, 2015; Godin, 2020; Lafleur & Vintila, 2020; Levitt et al, 2017; Mumtaz, 2021; Sabates‐Wheeler & Feldman, 2011; Saksela‐Bergholm, 2019). In fact, relationships, community ties, and social networks are often equally important components of migrants' social protection assemblages (Bilecen, 2020; Bilecen & Barglowski, 2015; Boccagni, 2017; Faist et al, 2015).…”