Advertisement

Legitimating intra-European movement discourses: understanding mobility and migration

  • Mark M. A. C. van OstaijenEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Free movement of people can be considered as a contested issue. While the European Commission stimulates a further ‘harmonization’ of citizen ‘mobility’, some member-states question the ‘burdens’ of ‘EU migration’. To understand these differences, it contains a multi-level focus on the meaning-making practices of policy actors at the European Commission and in the Netherlands. The analysis reveals a European legal discourse legitimated by expert authorization which differs with a Dutch national discourse legitimated by mythopoesis. As such, it displays the significance of a discursive approach since it shows the contested meaning-making practices and its policy consequences around intra-European movement.

Keywords

Discursive legitimacy Discourse Meaning-making Migration Mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Karin Zelano (Gothenburg University) in doing an important part of the fieldwork and sharing the interview transcripts for the purpose of this article.

Funding

This work was supported by the Joint Program Initiative Urban Europe under Grant Number 438-12-412 (IMAGINATION).

References

  1. Anderson, B. 2010. Migration, immigration controls and the fashioning of precarious workers. Work, Employment and Society 24 (2): 300–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asscher, L., and D. Goodhart. 2013. Code oranje voor vrij werkverkeer binnen de EU. De Volkskrant August 17, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J.L. 1962/1975. How to do things with words. Lectures delivered at Harvard University at 1955, ed. J.O. Urmson and M. Sbisa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Balch, A. 2010. Managing labour migration in Europe: Ideas, knowledge and policy change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Béland, D. 2007. The social exclusion discourse: Ideas and policy change. Policy & Politics 35 (1): 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, B., and H. Lune. 2004. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Bevir, M., and R. Rhodes. 2006. Defending interpretation. European Political Science 5: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blatter, J., and M. Haverland. 2012. Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Boswell, C., and A. Geddes. 2011. Migration and mobility in the European Union. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callon, M., and B. Latour. 1981. Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Advances in social theory and methodology, eds. K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel, 277–303. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Carrete, B.C., and D. Gasper. 2010. Managing migration in the IOM’s world migration report. Working Paper No. 498. The Hague: ISS.Google Scholar
  14. Connolly, W.E. 1983. The terms of political discourse. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
  15. Daalder, H. 1984. On the origins of the consociational democracy model. Acta Politica 29 (1): 97–116.Google Scholar
  16. Engbersen, G., A. Leerkes, I. Grabowska-Lusinska, E. Snel, and J. Burgers. 2013. On the differential attachments of migrants from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39 (6): 959–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. 2002. Free movement of workers-achieving the full benefits and potentials. COM 694. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 2007. Mobility: an instrument for more and better jobs: European Job Mobility Action Plan 2007–2010. COM 773. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  19. EY. 2014. Evaluation of the impact of free movement of EU citizens at local level—Final Report. Brussels: Ernst and Young.Google Scholar
  20. Favell, A. 2008. The new face of East-West migration in Europe’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34 (5): 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Favell, A., and E. Recchi (eds.). 2010. Pioneers of European identity: Citizenship and mobility in the EU. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, F. 2003. Framing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., and H. Gottweis. 2012. Introduction: The argumentative turn revisited. In The argumentative turn revisited, eds. F. Fischer and H. Gottweis, 1–30. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forester, J. 1999. Deliberative practitioner. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. 1981. The order of discourse. In Untying the text. A post-structuralist reader, ed. R. Young. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. 1994. The order of things, archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Reissue.Google Scholar
  27. Geddes, A., and P. Scholten. 2016. The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gladwell, M. 2006. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  29. Glorius, B., I. Grabowska-Lusinska, and A. Rindoks (eds.). 2013. Mobility in transition: migration patterns after EU-enlargement. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gottweis, H. 2003. Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: towards an analytics of government. In Deliberative policy analysis, ed. M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, 247–265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hajer, M.A. 1995/1997. The politics of environmental discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hajer, M. 2003. A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, 88–110.Google Scholar
  33. Hajer, M.A. 2005. Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE. In Discourse theory in European politics, eds. D. Howarth and J. Torfing, 297–315. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen, P. 2015. Undermining free movement: Migration in an age of austerity. Eurozine. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2015-02-06-hansenp-en.html. Accessed 25 Jan 2017.
  35. Hay, C., and B. Rosamond. 2002. Globalisation, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy. 9 (2): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hollander, J. 2013. The incoming tide: Dutch reactions to the constitutionalisation of Europe. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  37. Howarth, D. 2000. Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hundstorfer, R., K. Peeters, F. Rebsamen, A. Nahles, N. Schmit, L. Asscher, and Y. Johansson. 2015. Letter to Ms. Thyssen. Posting of workers Directive. June 18, 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Iosifides, T. 2013. Qualitative methods in migration studies: A critical realist perspective. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Joutsenvirta, M., and E. Vaara. 2009. Discursive delegitimation of a contested Finnish greenfield investment project in Latin America. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lavenex, S. 2005. National frames in migration research: The tacit political agenda. In International migration research. Constructions, omissions and the promises of interdisciplinarity, eds. M. Bommes and E. Morawska, 243–264. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Letter to Parliament. 2011. Vrij verkeer van werknemers uit de nieuwe EU lidstaten. 29407 (132) November 18, 2011.Google Scholar
  43. Lijphart, A. 1968. The politics of accommodation. Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Luhmann, N., and S. Fuchs. 1988. Tautology and paradox in the self-descriptions of modern society. Sociological Theory 6 (1): 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Menz, G., and A. Caviedes. 2010. Labour Migration in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mikl-Leitner, J., H.P. Friedrich, F. Teeven, and H.T. May. 2013. Letter to Alan Shatter, Presidency of European Council.Google Scholar
  47. Potter, J., and M. Wheterell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Reding, V. 2013. Main message: Trieste citizens’ dialogue. Speech/13/706. European Commission, September 16, 2013. www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-706_en.htm.
  49. Roberts, M. 2018. Communication breakdown: Understanding the role of policy narratives in political conflict and consensus. Critical Policy Studies 12 (1): 82–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rojo, M., and T. van Dijk. 1997. ‘There was a Problem, and it was Solved!’: Legitimating the expulsion of 'Illegal’ migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse. Discourse and Society (8): 523–566.Google Scholar
  51. Schmidt, V.A. 2008. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmidt, V.A. 2011. Speaking of change: Why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Critical Policy Studies 5 (2): 106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmidt, V., and C. Radaelli. 2004. Conclusions. West European Politics 27 (2): 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scholten, P., G. Engbersen, M. van Ostaijen, and E. Snel. 2018. Multilevel governance from below: How Dutch cities respond to intra-EU mobility. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (12): 2011–2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scholten, P., and M. van Ostaijen. 2018. Between mobility and migration: The multi-level governance of Intra-European Movement. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Squire, V. ed. 2010. The contested politics of mobility: Borderzones and irregularity. Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, W.I., and D.S. Thomas. 1928. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  58. Timmermans, S., and I. Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to Abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30: 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Torfing, J. 1999. New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Vaara, E., B. Kleymann, and H. Seristö. 2004. Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies 41: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaara, E., and J. Tienari. 2008. A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. The academy of management review. 33 (4): 985–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaara, E., and J. Tienari. 2010. On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science 22 (2): 370–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Dijk, T. 1997. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. van Leeuwen, T. 2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication 1 (1): 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Leeuwen, T., and R. Wodak. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Ostaijen, M.M.A.C. 2017. Worlds between words. The politics of intra-European movement politics. Ridderprint: Ridderkerk.Google Scholar
  67. van Ostaijen, M.M.A.C., U. Reeger, and K. Zelano. 2017. The commodification of mobile workers in Europe. A comparative perspective on capital and labour in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden. Comparative Migration Studies 5 (6): 1–22.Google Scholar
  68. van Ostaijen, M., and P. Scholten. 2014. Policy populism? Political populism and migrant integration policies in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Comparative European Politics 12 (6): 680–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Verheul, W.J. 2012. Stedelijke iconen. Boom: Den Haag.Google Scholar
  70. Verloo, M. 2005. Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. The Greek Review of Social Research. 117 (B): 11–34.Google Scholar
  71. Wagenaar, D. 2015. Meaning in action. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Warner, J., and A. Van Buuren. 2011. Implementing Room for the River: Narratives of success and failure in Kampen, the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77 (4): 779–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wimmer, A., and N.G. Schiller. 2003. Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review 37 (3): 576–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zuidervaart, B. 2010. Zelfs mislukte Polen blijven gewoon in Nederland. Trouw, November 01, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Institute of GovernanceTilburg University (TiU)TilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations