Claiming control: cooperation with return as a condition for social benefits in Austria and the Netherlands

Abstract Theoretically embedded in the migration/social policy nexus, this paper investigates cooperation with return (CWR) as a policy tool to remove practical deportation barriers for third-country nationals pending removal. Based on legal and policy documents and expert interviews with stakeholders in Austria and the Netherlands, the paper asks how CWR is implemented and what influence it has, both on migration control aims and on access to social rights. We argue that the politicization of the issue and diverging interests between policy networks of welfare and migration affect the regulat... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Sieglinde Rosenberger
Sabine Koppes
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Comparative Migration Studies, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 1-18 (2018)
Verlag/Hrsg.: SpringerOpen
Schlagwörter: Cooperation with return / Migrants in limbo / Social benefits / Migration-social policy nexus / Austria / The Netherlands / Social Sciences / H / Communities. Classes. Races / HT51-1595 / Urban groups. The city. Urban sociology / HT101-395 / City population. Including children in cities / immigration / HT201-221
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27582903
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-018-0085-3

Abstract Theoretically embedded in the migration/social policy nexus, this paper investigates cooperation with return (CWR) as a policy tool to remove practical deportation barriers for third-country nationals pending removal. Based on legal and policy documents and expert interviews with stakeholders in Austria and the Netherlands, the paper asks how CWR is implemented and what influence it has, both on migration control aims and on access to social rights. We argue that the politicization of the issue and diverging interests between policy networks of welfare and migration affect the regulation and implementation of the tool. By comparing the use of CWR within two country contexts, the analysis presented here adds valuable insights on features of governmental instruments in response to the “deportation gap”. The paper further adds to the literature on sanction-oriented, personalized migration policies.