Free Movement? The Impact of Legislation, Benefit Generosity and Wages on the Pensions of European Migrants

Abstract

European (EU) economic integration has always involved a commitment to the free movement of labour, services and capital. However, the development by EU institutions of specific rights with respect to labour mobility has been slow. This paper explores this issue from the perspective of pension rights, among the most long‐lasting for citizens. It shows that the literature on this topic has focussed mainly on EU regulations, their scope and limitations. The paper argues that, although important, this work has led to the neglect of a more fundamental issue: the potential impact on mobility of the relative generosity of pension schemes and large national wealth variations, an increasingly salient issue since the expansion of the EU into Eastern and Central Europe. Thus, on the basis of a detailed review of dominant intra‐EU migratory patterns, the paper investigates the impact on pension rights of movement between Beveridgean and Bismarckian pension systems and between countries of substantially different wealth. It shows that lower income workers who move from Beveridgean to Bismarckian countries would be most at risk of pension losses. However, such movement is unusual; instead, the majority of intra‐EU migrants move from Bismarckian systems of low generosity in the poorer east to Beveridgean and more generous Bismarckian in the richer west. Workers who make this move are more likely to experience pension gains than losses. For them, free movement is achieved. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Migration and Demographic Change

“…If demographers interested in births and deaths take particular interest in the processes governing fertility and mortality, it is not surprising that demographic interest in mobility has paid particular attention to the structuration of movement through particular channels or networks. Meyer et al (2013), like many other migration researchers, note that the patterns of movement within an area such as the European Union are far from random. They are not shaped purely by the forces of spatial propinquity.…”

“…Meyer et al . (), like many other migration researchers, note that the patterns of movement within an area such as the European Union are far from random. They are not shaped purely by the forces of spatial propinquity.…”

What We Need to Know About Retirement: Pressing Issues for the Coming Decade

“…Even immigrants who arrived at a young age can suffer labor market disadvantages when they enter the workforce, which can later spill over into retirement. National pension systems differ starkly in terms of how benefit calculations affect migrants (Heisig, Lancee, & Radl, 2016;Meyer, Bridgen, & Andow, 2013). Several dimensions merit additional scholarly attention, including the social connectedness of retired immigrants, their living arrangements, and their attitudes towards the institutions found in their countries of residence.…”

How portable is social security for migrant workers? A review of the literature

“…This is why, in general, migrants moving from lower‐income, lower level of entitlement, Eastern European member countries benefit from moves to richer, more generous entitlement, Western European member states, whether Bismarckian or Beveridgean. The authors show that the majority of intra‐EU migrants move from Bismarckian systems of low generosity in the poorer east to Beveridgean and more generous Bismarckian in the richer west, and therefore benefit from the move (Meyer, Bridgen and Andow, ).…”