Asylum-seekers and refugees within Europe and labour market integration

Abstract

German

French

This special issue seeks to investigate and understand the various experiences of asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees in accessing labour markets across the EU and EEA countries. The first section of this introduction provides an overview of the three groups of people who are the focus of this special issue and their relationship to the labour markets in the EU Member States and EEA countries. The second section provides insights into how the essential features of their labour market integration may be understood by using Levitas’ discourse analysis. The third section explores a range of different labour market access dimensions by focusing not only on the human capital aspects of migration in general but also on the contextual factors of civic stratification; the broader societal context, including public opinion and civil society; the background and situation of earlier migrants, especially asylum-seekers and refugees with respect to national/federal laws; and the countries of origin of migrants as well as demographic trends across the EU. The fourth and final section explains and justifies the focus of this special issue and emphasises the relevance of this topic.

Keywords

Labour market access asylum-seekers subsidiary protection refugees EU EEA precarious work

Asylum-seekers, refugees and labour market access in the EU

In late June 2018, Irish Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan announced that asylum-seekers¹ – who have been waiting more than nine months for a first-instance decision on their application for refugee status – would shortly be allowed to take up employment in Ireland, with the exception of posts within the police force, the Defence Forces or the civil service (Bardon, 2018; BBC, 2018). This shift in public policy stands in stark contrast to the previous regulations under which asylum-seekers were denied access to the labour market in Ireland. Asylum-seekers across the EU face different levels of labour market access, depending on the extent to which the Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU) has been transposed into each Member State’s legal framework. The following countries decided to opt out of the Reception Conditions Directive²: Denmark, the United Kingdom, Schengen Associated Countries and, until recently, Ireland (which opted in in June 2018). In an effort to harmonise ‘reception conditions’ (e.g. health-care provisions, housing and labour market access) across the EU Member States, the extent to which the Directive is implemented at a national level remains at the discretion of the Member States. While governments may decide not to grant asylum-seekers certain ‘conditions’ (or rights), the Irish example demonstrates that such decisions may be (successfully) challenged in the (national) courts. While granting labour market access to asylum-seekers may be one means of ensuring that this group of persons is not forced into undocumented work, such provisions may still exacerbate their vulnerabilities with respect to precarious work more generally.

This special issue focuses on asylum-seekers, refugees³ and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.⁴ In the context of this introduction, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees are grouped together in one category. These two groups are usually treated the same. While EU law stipulates that refugees are akin to nationals in terms of labour market access, and thus theoretically cannot be discriminated against when it comes to employment, both research findings and official statistics demonstrate that, in terms of being employed, refugees lag behind when compared to nationals. In the research, a number of different perspectives are used to explain why migrants in general, and refugees in particular, fare worse in the labour market compared to natives (Sarvimäki, 2017). The dominant research approach entails exploring differences in individual factors. Foremost is human capital theory, which focuses on education, work experience and individual merits (Becker, 1964). Human capital theory occasionally considers individual migration related factors, such as health. However, individual characteristics explain at best only some differences. Therefore, these explanations need to be contextualised (Castles, 2005). In an attempt to systematise contextual factors, Portes (1995) distinguishes between, first, civic stratification, second, societal context, including public opinion and civil society, and, third, the background and situation of migrants already residing in the country. Together, these factors influence how individual, especially human capital, characteristics will be evaluated in the country of immigration.

Despite a number of competing and complex perspectives on integration, and the substantial ‘gap’ in employment between natives and refugees, labour market access is increasingly seen as ‘the most crucial element in the successful integration of migrants’ (Poptcheva and Stuchlik, 2015: X). While some refugees succeed in finding highly skilled employment, this is not the case for the majority of asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees. The majority tend to find employment in what is considered the secondary labour market. Employment in the secondary labour market is generally characterised by low wages, long working hours and little to no job security and protection (commonly referred to as low-skilled, atypical and/or precarious work), employment which nationals tend to avoid. This also reflects policies among receiving countries that often combine the aims of rapid employment in sectors where labour shortages exist. The commonly held belief that integrating refugees and asylum-seekers in labour markets is one means to counteract shortages tends to overlook problems associated with such sectors, which include agriculture, hospitality, construction and care work. Problems associated with these sectors are the same for all workers, irrespective of their legal status, and include long working hours, high turnover rates, isolated employment and low wages. At the same time, the question whether asylum-seekers and refugees actually want to work in these sectors is seldom asked.

Taken together, these characteristics – long working hours, isolated employment and low wages – may be deemed as tantamount to precarious work, a phenomenon which has spread rapidly since the 2008 financial crisis, although its origins may be traced back even further still (for example, to labour market deregulations following the Washington Consensus).⁵ Precarious work may affect any worker who is subject to such working conditions. However, asylum-seekers and refugees are more likely to be affected by such adverse working conditions not only because of a lack of employment opportunities resulting from a dearth in language skills and labour market knowledge and other individual characteristics, but also because of contextual factors, as mentioned above, that, in the case of asylum-seekers especially, include formal restrictions on labour market access. Although precarious work does not necessarily have to be unlawful, aspects of unfree labour, increasing the intensity of labour exploitation, often characterise it (Schierup et al., 2015). Nevertheless, asylum-seekers and refugees may actively consent to such unlawful/exploitative working conditions because of the absence of alternative employment opportunities.

Theoretical framework

Returning to the claim that labour market access is the most effective means of integrating persons in any society, insights from Levitas’ (2006) discourse analysis offer a different perspective on why EU Member States and EEA countries may be keen to help asylum-seekers and refugees into employment. This view reflects, in many ways, the focus on the avoidance of costs involved in and the usefulness of accepting migrants that has dominated EU and Member States’ policies. In her seminal effort to disentangle the political application of the term ‘social inclusion’, Levitas (2006) distinguishes among three different discourses that are commonly used, albeit often in contradictory and composite ways. First, the social integration discourse (SID) regards the process of wage labour as essential for creating economic self-sufficiency. Second, the moral underclass discourse (MUD) emphasises employment as vital in promoting the values of diligence and responsibility. Finally, Levitas argues that the redistribution discourse (RED), which was considered to be hegemonic in the heyday of the welfare state, addresses the type of rights that ensue from employment. Applying Levitas’ approach to the integration process of migrants, and despite the common emphasis on self-sufficiency as a key objective of social inclusion, tensions and political conflicts are manifest. In this connection, SID emphasises policies aimed at migrants rapidly securing employment, with the intent of this leading to at least a minimum level of self-sufficiency. MUD, in contrast, focuses on how the cultural ‘otherness’ of migrants can be rapidly turned into successful assimilation. Finally, RED emphasises the provision of welfare services that facilitate labour market integration.

Levitas’ approach is in line with a conclusion that we have reached after reviewing the literature on labour market integration regarding the absence of any definition of this key term. In the absence of theoretical definitions, indicators are often used in order to signify what a term means. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) lists the following indicators, among others, both to explain and assess labour market integration: (i) labour market participation and employment rates; (ii) earnings; (iii) freedom from poverty; (iv) occupational status; and (v) employment commensurate with experience and qualifications (Ott, 2013). Despite this comprehensive list of indicators, the lack of programmes to evaluate practical efforts at facilitating labour market integration contributes to the difficulties involved in measuring this particular process (Ott, 2013). The factor that appears to play a decisive role in the process of labour market integration is, however, the legal status of persons (see Anderson (2010), who meticulously outlines how the law can be the making or breaking of non-nationals’ labour market access and work experience).

The underlying logic behind giving labour market access to asylum-seekers is worthwhile investigating, as it may involve the following factors: preventing asylum-seekers from becoming welfare dependants (MUD); helping them to become self-sufficient and, as a result, not be a burden on public finances (SID); or assisting asylum-seekers with their enrolment in employment-related welfare programmes (MUD). However, while the EU Reception Conditions Directive stipulates the nine-month rule, it is up to the discretion of EU Member States as to how this should be implemented in the national context. Currently, the length of time asylum-seekers wishing to seek work within EU labour markets are obliged to wait before being allowed to do so varies from one Member State to the next – ranging from one month, such as in the case of Greece and Sweden, to over a year or longer, as is the case in Bulgaria, Croatia and Malta. In Lithuania, asylum-seekers are prohibited from entering the labour market until their asylum claim has been approved (Fric and Aumayr-Pintar, 2016).⁶

Exploring the different dimensions of labour market access

Labour market access consists of a range of dimensions. The distinctions outlined by Portes (1995) – civic stratification; the broader societal context, including public opinion and civil society; and the background and situation of earlier migrants, including refugees – will be addressed here in order to provide a better understanding of the factors that influence labour market access. However, before discussing these dimensions, we will begin by outlining a few specific features of this focus on asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees in relation to other groups of migrants – perhaps better explained as the distinction between voluntary and involuntary migration. With this approach comes a word of caution: while this distinction is important in a number of ways, it is, at the same time, crucial to recognise the difficulties inherent in categorising migrants (and whether such categorisation is based on the perception of the migrants themselves, on an evaluation undertaken by the country of immigration or on some other more analytical approach). Voluntary migrants are those who have ‘freely’ decided to migrate, often in search of better economic opportunities and livelihood, education, marriage, etc. The second group, which provides the focus for this special issue, encompasses three categories of persons (asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees) whose departure from their country of origin was, in contrast to the other group, unplanned (Stark, 2008). The main difference between these two groups of migrants, it is argued, lies in the former having been able to make preparations for their move and acquire, adapt and, to some extent, translate human capital, while the second group of migrants – because of the unplanned nature of their departure – did not have the opportunity to do so.

Despite the perceived disadvantage of the second group of migrants in terms of their capacity to integrate into labour markets, there are counterarguments to this view. For instance, according to the ‘Stackelberg-type game’ referred to by Stark (2008), governments may choose to invest in asylum-seekers by granting them naturalisation in an attempt to increase future productivity, tax revenue and income. At the same time, asylum-seekers may, to varying degrees, accept governments’ prerogative to decide on a feasible level of investment in terms of human capital. This form of exchange between asylum-seekers and governments may result in asylum-seekers’ increasing their net income, provided they are given the opportunity to integrate into labour markets, while governments, in turn, maximise their net tax revenue (Stark, 2008). In order to take a closer look at the processes that have an impact on involuntary (or forced) migrants beyond their human capital, we will now turn to and briefly illustrate the contextual factors involved.

Civic stratification: the federal dimension and the German example

The concept of civic stratification was developed in order to take into account an increasing differentiation of migrant populations and a complex and overlapping array of legislation regulating the entry, residence and employment status of migrants based on a system of stratified rights (Kofman, 2002; Morris, 2001). Research focusing on asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees has identified two central issues. The first concerns the right to stay that, as explained in this special issue, is granted to asylum-seekers while their claim is being processed and, in the event of a successful claim, is confirmed by the issue of a temporary or permanent residence permit.⁷ The second concerns the rights of migrants during the period of their stay, especially their employment rights but also their associated welfare rights.

While migrants’ residence, labour and welfare rights are generally decided at a national level, the handling of the labour market integration process and access to rights may be devolved to the level of the provinces and/or municipalities (Ambrosini and Boccagni, 2015; Caponio and Borkert, 2010; Gebhardt, 2016; Walker and Leitner, 2011). In Germany, for example, the Länder enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from the Federal Government with respect to how they handle this process. As such, the labour market integration of asylum-seekers and refugees in Germany may differ from one Land to the next. Alongside the inter-variations between Länder, it is also necessary to look at intra-variations, which involves examining how different municipalities within one Land support, or fail to support, the labour market integration of asylum-seekers and refugees (Degler and Liebig, 2017). By considering both inter- and intra-variations, researchers are able to paint a fuller picture of the process of labour market integration in the various states and at regional levels. The migration (or solidarity) crisis of 2015 and 2016 accentuated the issue of civic stratification in a number of ways (Anderson, 2016). First, it became increasingly and deliberately difficult to claim asylum; second, there was a shift towards (shorter) temporary residence permits; and, third, there was an increase in restrictions on welfare rights available to migrants. These processes went hand in hand with an increase in discourses and, to some extent, regulations aimed at converting asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees as quickly as possible into economically independent citizens by means of wage labour. In Austria, for instance, discussions about the remuneration of asylum-seekers and applicants for refugee status hit rock bottom when the head of the Economic Chamber spoke out in favour of not remunerating them for their work, ‘so as to counter populist allegations that asylum-seekers only use services free of charge without giving something back’ (John and Weissensteiner, 2016: 1). Similar discussions have taken place in other EU Member States, such as Finland (Reuters, 2015), Germany and Sweden (Hansen, 2017). The topic of asylum-seekers and refugees' labour market integration makes feelings run high, especially in the weeks preceding elections. Whereas the first round of restrictions were, in many ways, associated with a moral underclass discourse emphasising the threat posed and overburdening caused by migrants, the focus on employment was very much in line with the social integrationist discourse outlined by Levitas (1998).

The societal context

The processes of civic stratification through migration and integration legislation and inconsistencies in its application between countries are central in shaping labour market integration. At the same time, the more general social context mediates the effects of civic stratification. The research on social context highlights two different aspects. The first concerns the institutional structure of labour markets and working life, while the second deals with issues relating to discourses and opinions on migrants (Castles, 2005; Portes, 1995). In this special issue our focus is mainly on the institutional setting, although noting the importance of discourse and opinions, especially as these have developed in a more restrictive way in line with both a moral underclass and a social integrationist discourse.

Previous research has demonstrated that newly arrived immigrants tend to fill positions shunned by indigenous workers (Bauder and Jayaraman, 2014). This observation is in line with dual labour market and segmentation theories (Bauder, 2006; Castles and Kosack, 1973; Piore, 1979). This approach stipulates that vulnerable groups tend to find less secure and more short-term employment opportunities in the secondary segment of the labour market, in contrast to indigenous workers who find employment that is deemed to be secure and qualitatively better in the primary segment. Workers in the second labour market segment, according to Marx (2001 [1867]), represent a ‘reserve army of labour’, whose entitlement to basic rights and services is curtailed (Bauder and Jayaraman, 2014; Castells, 1975). Research has demonstrated that foreign workers in the secondary segment experience fewer opportunities to advance their careers as a result of the quality of their employment conditions. Labour market policy, as well as state policies that do not grant citizenship to foreigners, may actively influence non-indigenous workers’ employment prospects. Variations in labour market integration processes may also be explained by other factors, such as employers and employers’ associations (Bonfanti, 2014; Wright et al., 2017), as well as trade unions’ engagement in policy formation (Marino et al., 2017). While the uncertainty regarding asylum-seekers’ ability to remain in the host country may be seen as a potential impediment for employers, in terms of not having a long-term workforce (Hainmueller et al., 2016), employers and their associations have recently spoken out in favour of facilitating the integration of asylum-seekers within labour markets (Lundborg and Skedinger, 2016; Marston, 2004).

In exploring the situation of refugees in relation to EU labour markets, the findings seem to be more complex than the straightforward reading of the official situation – i.e. being entitled to integrate without any restrictions – would suggest. Indeed, despite refugees enjoying the same rights as nationals, it is questionable whether, in practice, their experiences of obtaining and maintaining employment in their host country are similar to those of actual nationals. Two additional processes influence (labour market) integration, alongside the issue of being formally granted the right to permanent residence, as well as the tensions that exist between EU regulations and varying national regulations of the Member States. The first is linked to migration as movement from one country to another, involving issues related to settlement, language and validation of refugee status, whereas the second concerns the various forms of potential discrimination that refugees may face.

Migrant group backgrounds: path dependencies and trajectories of migration

The third contextual factor relates to migrants’ backgrounds. The starting point, in addition to civic stratification, as well as the institutional setting and discourses of the ‘others’, is that migrants’ establishment in the labour market is influenced by the experience of those who came before. While these backgrounds are mediated by how the other contextual factors influenced earlier migration, we also know that new migration (including that of asylum-seekers) is influenced by communication over time and space. This is often referred to as chain migration (Haug, 2008) and affects both the decision of where to migrate, to the extent that the element of choice exists, and the processes of overall integration and, more specifically, labour market integration. Diasporic communities and remittances are two of the processes in which earlier migration is reproduced.

The social networks that form within this context are of greater interest for understanding labour market integration. It is through the contacts that arise within these spheres of human relations and that are often linked to refugees’ origins, but also to ethnic, religious and language dimensions, that migrants gain access to social networks of which some are more resourceful than others. These social networks are often at least partially structured by housing strategies that are influenced by a variety of government directives and migration policy decisions. Research has explored the extent to which government policies have a tendency to allocate housing to asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees on the basis of availability (often negatively correlated to employment opportunities) or in areas where employment opportunities are somewhat better. In a similar vein, with regard to possibilities for migrants to decide where they would like to live, research has also explored how refugees’ social networks can influence housing decisions. Does the emergence of ethnic housing communities, formed as a result of migration trajectories, aid or hinder labour market integration, and what form of labour market integration emanates from social networks?

Building on ideas put forward by Granovetter (1995) and Bourdieu (1997), an increasing body of research has highlighted the role played by social networks and social capital in the labour market integration of asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees. It highlights both that the background of certain groups of migrants may be used in forging communities of solidarity that are helpful for (labour market) integration, while other migrant groups represent the first generation of migrants and are thus more vulnerable to becoming isolated without the benefit of community-based knowledge of integration processes. By shifting from social networks to the concept of social capital, this research also demonstrates that the problem is not necessarily the lack of social networks for migrants but rather the limited resources that are available through their social networks. The consequence is thus that the same social relationships that may benefit natives in finding employment (access to social networks with valuable resources) may prevent or limit opportunities for migrants not because of a lack of contacts but because they do not have access to those contacts that form part of a valuable resource network (Granovetter, 1995). They are thus punished for aspects (‘who they are’) that are not directly linked to their productivity-related characteristics (‘what they can do’), i.e. discrimination ‘in contact’ that indirectly produces effects that are analogous to discrimination ‘in contract’ (Loury, 2002).

Focus of this special issue

Despite an accumulating body of research that challenges the welfare chauvinist thesis (Boräng, 2015; Mau and Burkhardt, 2009) with which media, politics and policy discourses are increasingly infused, issues linked to migration and especially asylum-seekers and refugees continue to be portrayed in negative terms. There is therefore a need to transcend, through empirically based research, what we see as a superficial and, in many ways, confusing debate informed by notions of crisis and threat. In this special issue, the focus is on exploring the implications of such normative ideas and policies on integration, employment and workers’ rights – particularly with regard to the complexity that results from the existence of various categories of migrants enjoying different rights and subject to varying restrictions at a time of change.

Taking into account discussions on the legal status of migrants, this special issue of Transfer brings together a diversity of articles that explore the issues surrounding the labour market integration of asylum-seekers and refugees. The articles vary in terms of their topical focus but also in their methodological or stylistic approach, some consisting of specific case studies, while others are more general in character. Indeed, one aim of this collection is to attempt to bridge the gap between these two approaches and to capitalise on their respective strengths. General discussions have an occasional tendency to fall short on providing specific examples for the purpose of illustrating arguments, while case studies, necessarily context-specific, sometimes encounter difficulties in relating the implications of their findings to wider debates. As such, this special issue aims at combining the two approaches based on general discussions and case studies in the hope of contributing to a more encompassing understanding of the issues involved.

The focus of this issue is on asylum-seekers, refugees and recipients of subsidiary protection in the European Union and the EEA, which excludes other migrant categories, such as persons who are not EU citizens but who decide to come to the EU for other reasons and irregular migrants. As stated above, before a person is granted refugee status, he/she is an asylum-seeker. As such, it is central to explore whether and in what way the change in legal status may facilitate labour market integration.

Several reports have recently been published that investigate strategies and models of labour market integration for refugees (Konle-Seidl and Bolits, 2016; Ott, 2013). While these reports are important contributions towards a better understanding of the labour market integration processes of asylum-seekers, refugees and recipients of subsidiary protection, they do lack a multi-dimensional approach. As such, the novel character of this special issue lies precisely in adopting such an approach. From the term ‘multi-dimensional’, we distinguish three different meanings in broad perspectives that apply to their work on labour market integration. The first perspective focuses on the actors and institutions (such as the state, employers and trade unions) that influence asylum-seekers, refugees and recipients of subsidiary protection (work) experiences in the European Union. The second such perspective involves investigating patterns of (third-country) migration, to the EU in general and to Member States in particular. These patterns may differ according to a country’s labour market openness/flexibility, the likelihood of being granted a residence permit, and whether or not a significant migrant community already exists in the country. Finally, the third perspective involves comparing similarities and differences between EU Member States with regard to policies that address asylum-seekers and refugees, both generally and specifically in relation to labour market integration, and the practical implementation and outcomes of such policies. All three perspectives are reflected in this special issue to varying degrees. Each article approaches the process of the labour market integration of refugees and asylum-seekers from a particular angle, thus allowing the reader to see how findings from articles exploring different questions in different settings may relate to each other. To this end, the articles will demonstrate the heterogeneity of labour market integration in the EU and EEA context, as well as add to understandings of how and why this is the case.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Ambrosini

Boccagni

(2015) Urban multiculturalism beyond the ‘backlash’: new discourses and different practices in immigrant policies across European cities. Journal of Intercultural Studies 36(1): 35–53.

Anderson

(2010) Migration, immigration controls and the fashioning of precarious workers. Work, Employment and Society 24(2): 300–317.

Anderson

(2016) How could research have better anticipated the migration crisis? Available at: https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2016/how-could-migration-have-better-anticipated-the-migration-crisis/ (accessed 4 November 2018).

Bardon

(2018) More than 500 asylum-seekers have been granted work permits. Available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-500-asylum-seekers-have-been-granted-work-permits-1.3590215 (accessed 4 November 2018).

Bauder

(2006) Labor Movement: How Migration Regulates Labor Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bauder

Jayaraman

(2014) Immigrant workers in the immigrant service sector: segmentation and career mobility in Canada and Germany. Transnational Social Review 4(2): 176–192.

BBC (2018) Asylum-seekers in Ireland to be allowed to work. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44637569 (accessed 4 November 2018).

Becker

(1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia UP.

Bonfanti

(2014) ‘New rules for labour immigration’: Delving into the 2008 Swedish reform of labour migration and its effects on migrants’ well-being. Journal of International Migration and Integration 15(3): 371–386.

10.

Boräng

(2015) Large-scale solidarity? Effects of welfare state institutions on the admission of forced migrants. European Journal of Political Research 54(2): 216–231.

11.

Bourdieu

(1997) The forms of capital. In: Halsey

Lauder

Brown

Stuart

Wells A

(eds) Education: Culture, Economy, Society. Oxford: Oxford UP, pp. 241–258.

12.

Caponio

Borkert

(2010) The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

13.

Castells

(1975) Immigrant workers and class struggles in advanced capitalism: the western European experience. Politics & Society 5(1): 33–66.

14.

Castles

(2005) Nation and empire: Hierarchies of citizenship in the new global order. International Politics 42(2): 203–224.

15.

Castles

Kosack

(1973) Immigrant workers and class structure in Western Europe. London: Oxford University Press.

16.

Degler

Liebig

(2017) Finding Their Way: Labour Market Integration of Refugees in Germany. Paris: OECD.

17.

Fric

Aumayr-Pintar

(2016) Approaches towards the labour market integration of refugees in the EU. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/eu-member-states/approaches-towards-the-labour-market-integration-of-refugees-in-the-eu (accessed 10 January 2019).

18.

Gebhardt

(2016) When the state takes over: civic integration programmes and the role of cities in immigrant integration. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 42(5): 742–758.

19.

Granovetter

(1995) Getting a job: a study of contacts and careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Hainmueller

Hangartner

Lawrence

(2016) When lives are put on hold: Lengthy asylum processes decrease employment among refugees. Science Advances 2(8): 1–7.

21.

Hansen

(2017) Asylum or austerity? The ‘refugee crisis’ and the Keynesian interlude. European Political Science 17(1): 1–12

22.

Haug

D S

(2008) Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(4): 585–605.

23.

John

Weissensteiner

(2016) Debatte über Stundenlohn für Asylwerber: Leitl gegen jegliche Bezahlung. Available at: http://derstandard.at/2000045372832/Stundenlohn-fuer-Asylwerber-Leitl-gegen-jegliche-Bezahlung (accessed 4 November 2018).

24.

Kofman

(2002) Civil rights and citizenship. In: Agnew

Mitchell

O’Tuathail

(eds) A Companion to Political Geography. New York: Blackwell, pp. 393–407.

25.

Konle-Seidl

Bolits

(2016) Labour Market Integration of Refugees: Strategies and Good Practices. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578956/IPOL_STU(2016)578956_EN.pdf (accessed 4 November 2018).

26.

Levitas

(1998) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

27.

Levitas

(2006) The concept of measurement of social exclusion. In: Pantazis

Gordon

Levitas

(eds) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press, Chapter 5.

28.

Loury

(2002) The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

29.

Lundborg

Skedinger

(2016) Employer attitudes towards refugee immigrants: Findings from a Swedish survey. International Labour Review 155(2): 315–337.

30.

Marino

Roosblad

Penninx

(2017) Trade Unions, Immigration and Immigrants in Europe in the 21st Century: New Approaches under Changed Conditions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar-ILO.

31.

Marston

(2004) A punitive policy: Labour force participation of refugees on temporary protection visas. Labour and Industry 15(1): 65–79.

32.

Marx

(2001) Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erstes Buch, der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals [Capital: Critique of political economy. First book, the production process of capital]. In: Marx

Engels

(eds) Werke [Works] (No. 23, 20th ed.). Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag. (Original work published 1867).

33.

Mau

Burkhardt

(2009) Migration and welfare state solidarity in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 19(3): 213–229.

34.

Morris

(2001) Stratified rights and the management of migration. National distinctiveness in Europe. European Societies 3(4): 387–411.

35.

Ott

(2013) The labour market integration of resettled refugees. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/5273a9e89.pdf (accessed 17 October 2016).

36.

Piore

(1979) Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor in Industrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Poptcheva

EMA

Stuchlik

(2015) Third-country migration and European labour markets. Available at: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/european-parliament_third-country-migration-and-european-labour-markets---integrating-foreigners-briefing-july-2015.pdf (accessed 4 November 2018).

38.

Portes

(1995) The economic sociology of immigration: essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

39.

Reuters (2015) Finland says asylum seekers should work for free and learn about women´s rights. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/12040552/Finland-says-asylum-seekers-should-work-for-free-and-learn-about-womens-rights.html (accessed 4 November 2018).

40.

Sarvimäki

(2017) Labour market integration of refugees in Finland. Nordic Economic Policy Review 7(1): 91–114.

41.

Schierup

C-U

Munck

Likic-Brboric

Neergaard

(2015) Migration, Precarity, and Global Governance: Challenges and Opportunities for Labour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42.

Stark

(2008) Labor movements: How migration regulates labour markets, by Harald Bauer. Journal of Regional Science 48(3): 660–663.

43.

Walker

Leitner

(2011) The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography 32(2): 156–178.

44.

Wright

Groutsis

Broek

DVD

(2017) Employer-sponsored temporary labour migration schemes in Australia, Canada and Sweden: enhancing efficiency, compromising fairness? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(11): 1854–1872.