Search

Additional file 2: Appendix Table 2. HIV-specific criminalization laws – National HIV Behavioral Surveillance, 9 U.S. sites, 2017.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3 Figure. Conceptual diagram of multivariable generalized hierarchical linear model combining individual and site factors.

Additional file 1: Appendix Table 1. Sexual behavior stigma scale items and responses by associated factors.

In 2017, preliminary data show that gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 67% of new diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, that MSM who inject drugs accounted for an additional 3%, and that African American/black (black) and Hispanic/Latino (Hispanic) MSM were disproportionately affected (1). During 2010-2015, racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence increased among MSM; in 2015, rates among black and Hispanic MSM were 10.5 and 4.9 times as high, respectively, as the rate among white MSM (compared with 9.2 and 3.8 times as high, respectively, in 2010) (2). Increased use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which reduces the risk for sexual acquisition of HIV infection by approximately 99% when taken daily as prescribed,* would help to reduce these disparities and support the Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America initiative† (3). Although PrEP use has increased among all MSM since 2014 (4), racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP use could increase existing disparities in HIV incidence among MSM (5). To understand racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP awareness, discussion with a health care provider, and use (steps in the HIV PrEP continuum of care) (6), CDC analyzed 2017 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) data. Black and Hispanic MSM were significantly less likely than were white MSM to be aware of PrEP, to have discussed PrEP with a health care provider, or to have used PrEP within the past year. Among those who had discussed PrEP with a health care provider within the past year, 68% of white MSM, 62% of Hispanic MSM, and 55% of black MSM, reported PrEP use. Prevention efforts need to increase PrEP use among all MSM and target eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP use.§.

In February 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a strategic initiative to end the human immunodeficiency (HIV) epidemic in the United States by reducing new HIV infections by 90% during 2020-2030* (1). Phase 1 of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative focuses on Washington, DC; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and 48 counties where the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection in 2016 and 2017 were concentrated and on seven states with a disproportionate occurrence of HIV in rural areas relative to other states.† One of the four pillars in the initiative is protecting persons at risk for HIV infection using proven, comprehensive prevention approaches and treatments, such as HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which is the use of antiretroviral medications that have proven effective at preventing infection among persons at risk for acquiring HIV. In 2014, CDC released clinical PrEP guidelines to health care providers (2) and intensified efforts to raise awareness and increase the use of PrEP among persons at risk for infection, including gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), a group that accounted for an estimated 68% of new HIV infections in 2016 (3). Data from CDC's National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) were collected in 20 U.S. urban areas in 2014 and 2017, covering 26 of the geographic areas included in Phase I of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, and were compared to assess changes in PrEP awareness and use among MSM. From 2014 to 2017, PrEP awareness increased by 50% overall, with >80% of MSM in 17 of the 20 urban areas reporting PrEP awareness in 2017. Among MSM with likely indications for PrEP (e.g., sexual risk behaviors or recent bacterial sexually transmitted infection [STI]), use of PrEP increased by approximately 500% from 6% to 35%, with significant increases observed in all urban areas and in almost all demographic subgroups. Despite this progress, PrEP use among MSM, especially among black and Hispanic MSM, remains low. Continued efforts to improve coverage are needed to reach the goal of 90% reduction in HIV incidence by 2030. In addition to developing new ways of connecting black and Hispanic MSM to health care providers through demonstration projects, CDC has developed resources and tools such as the Prescribe HIV Prevention program to enable health care providers to integrate PrEP into their clinical care.§ By routinely testing their patients for HIV, assessing HIV-negative patients for risk behaviors, and prescribing PrEP as needed, health care providers can play a critical role in this effort.

This paper argues that concerns about the resilience of essential services require a reassessment of the impacts of migrant workers and the design of labour migration and related public policies. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the high share of migrants among ‘key workers’ who deliver essential services, notably in agriculture and food production, health services and social care. We review existing insights on the role of migrant workers in essential services, which emphasise employers’ incentives as well as different national policies and institutional settings. We introduce the notion of systemic resilience to this context and outline key determinants of systemic resilience that have been identified in several disciplines but not yet applied in the field of labour migration. Given the importance of essential services, the paper argues that bolstering resilience should be a key objective for policy makers, and systemic resilience should be a criterion in impact assessments of migrant workers and in the design of labour migration and related policies. We find that this requires broader approaches to consider entire systems for the provision of essential goods and services, more attention to the medium and long run, and thinking beyond the protection of domestic workers. As an agenda for new migration research, we discuss three types of comparative analysis needed to examine the various ways in which migrant workers might affect systemic resilience.

This Deliverable explores the relation between justice and social assistance, a means-tested state benefit that is in principle non-contributory. It is the last of three fieldwork based Deliverables in ETHOS Work Package 5 on justice as lived experience. The experiences foregrounded in this strand of research are those of frequently excluded or oppressed sections of the population. Theories of justice often imply, and in some cases explicitly express, rationales for a welfare state in Europe. D5.5 examines what attention to policy and to stakeholders reveals about the relationship between social assistance and justice. The Deliverable is informed by, and meant to be read alongside, six case studies on Turkey, Hungary, Austria, Netherlands, Portugal and United Kingdom. Prior to analyzing the national case studies, the authors extracted from previous ETHOS Deliverables key theoretical insights to be tested and interrogated through experiences of social assistance, with particular attention to Deliverable 2.1 Report on the European Heritage of Philosophical Theorizing about Justice (Rippon et al, 2018), an introduction to the European heritage of philosophical theorizing about justice, including contemporary debates. The structure of this Deliverable reflects the structure of the previous philosophical Deliverable D2.1 following its headings: 1) What are the grounds of justice? (i.e., how can the existence of claims of justice be explained); 2) What is the shape of justice? (i.e. what are the main concerns of justice, and what kind of principles should regulate these); 3) What is the site of justice? (i.e. is justice a feature of political institutions, personal character and actions, or social relations?); 4) What is the scope of justice? (i.e. who has claims of justice on each other and are there distinctive claims of global and/or domestic justice).We find that ideas of justice are mobilised, not to support claimants, but to support the ‘taxpayer’ and the citizen working poor who are represented as the losers if the welfare state is too generous. Respondents’ ideas about social assistance call on ideas of appropriateness or fittingness of treatment and might be seen to draw on Aristotelian ideas of moral character or virtue as a desert basis for economic distribution. This is particularly evident when considering the pattern of distribution. Using Van Oorschot’s (2000) ‘CARIN’ criteria: Control, Attitude, Reciprocity, Identity and Neediness we explore how reciprocity trumps deservingness and the implications of this for recognition. While the welfare state is often represented, in both political theory and practice, as one of the pinnacles of achievement of European citizenship, to be in receipt of social assistance is neither experienced nor viewed as the imprimatur of citizenship, but rather it raises serious questions of misrecognition. The emphasis on need means that those in receipt of benefit often feel the weight of social judgement on their personal behaviour, choices and values, or that they are the object of pity; the imposition of symbolic reciprocity, which may also be represented as enhancing capabilities, is undermined by the failure to recognise activities as work, and, in some cases, by imposing activities that are considered socially demeaning. Furthermore, we argue that attention to outcomes is not sufficient for justice concerns, and that in many cases the procedures for claiming were themselves experienced as an injustice even if the outcome was not.

In this paper I consider how the construction of migration as a problem poses both ethical and epistemological challenges to migration scholars and how this is related to both political and methodological nationalism. I briefly outline two paradigm shifts that have been highly generative in our field and beyond – methodological transnationalism and the mobilities turn, both of which have as their starting point a critique of the nation state as a container of social processes. Building on these critiques and alternatives to methodological nationalism I go on to propose an approach I’m calling ‘methodological denationalism’ which takes as its starting point the migrant/citizen distinction. Key to this approach is to ‘migrantize’ the citizen, and I go on to give some examples of how this is done, not only to citizens of colour, but also to those who support non-citizens or who are the partners of non-citizens. Finally, I suggest that migrantizing the citizen enables us not only to look at the ways in which immigration controls affect citizens, but also how we might begin to make connections between the formal exclusions of noncitizenship and the multiple, and sometimes informal exclusions within citizenship.

This Working Paper was written within the framework of Work Package 5 (justice as lived experience) for Deliverable 5.2 (comparative report on institutionalised political justice and experienced (mis)recognition). The material contained in this document comes from ETHOS WP5 on justice as lived experience, and more specifically from the work conducted for Deliverable 5.2 on institutionalised political justice and (mis)recognition. For this joint publication, research teams were asked to draft national case studies detailing state attempts to respond to minority claims for political recognition and justice, and the context for these responses given the national history of state formation and bordering. For each national case study researchers wrote a history of minoritization in their respective countries, its relation to state formation and to how states institutionalised claims for political justice. The material produced for this historical context was extremely rich and an important context for other ETHOS workpackages as well as a resource for other researchers interested in the historical roots of minoritisation in the UK, Turkey, Portugal, Netherlands and Austria. To keep the national case studies conducted as part of the D5.2 work focussed and retain this important material, WP5 co-ordinators requested that national teams present directly Roma relevant material only for their case study, and edited the additional material to produce this reference document. We do not attempt to make a particular theoretical point and have not developed an overarching narrative for this case study material. Nevertheless, it provides useful background information for the analysis of inclusion/exclusion processes in selected European countries

(VLID)4959523 Version of record

[no abstract]

Recent migration ‘crises’ raise important geopolitical questions. Who is ‘the migrant’ that contemporary politics are fixated on? How are answers to ‘who counts as a migrant’ changing? Who gets to do that counting, and under what geopolitical circumstances? This forum responds to, as well as questions, the current saliency of migration by examining how categories of migration hold geopolitical significance—not only in how they are constructed and by whom, but also in how they are challenged and subverted. Furthermore, by examining how the very concepts of ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ are used in different contexts, and for a variety of purposes, it opens up critical questions for geopolitical research about mobility, citizenship, and the nation state. Collectively, these contributions aim to demonstrate how problematising migration and its categorisation can be a tool of enquiry into other phenomena and processes.

In its previous research, Work Package 10 of bEUcitizen examined the rise of the worker-citizen and found that work can shape differential inclusion into the community. However, people may also be differentially included and excluded from the world of work. Deliverable D10.3 explores these processes with regard to specific groups of people or individuals that engage in specific types of labour. Five case studies of different social groups (both citizens and migrants) serve to examine the relationship between work, citizenship and inclusion/exclusion. The case studies are a mixture of a single state focus, or a comparative focus of particular groups in select countries involved in WP10: Croatia, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands and the UK.1 Deliverable D10.1 analysed the ways in which the ‘worker citizen’ underpins national and EU citizenship with respect to policies regarding entry to and residence in a nation state, naturalisation, and access to social security provisions, policies which cut across citizens and migrants. We examined how citizenship is increasingly cast as being deserved by hard-working, self-reliant individuals prepared to take responsibility for themselves and demonstrated that citizenship requires having the status of a worker (Anderson, Shutes, Walker 2015). For the purposes of this report, we refer to ‘worker’ as both a legal and social status. Under EU Law, to attain worker status, work has to be deemed to be “genuine and effective” and not on such a small scale as to be “marginal and ancillary” (See Anderson, Shutes, Walker, 2015: 52 for further discussion). Thus understanding the relation between inclusion and exclusion and the spaces in between (which we described as ‘differential inclusion) requires us to analyse how people are differentially included in labour markets and in the world of work. Analyses of the relationship between citizenship and the labour market have tended to examine the exclusions of migrants and the exclusions of those who have the legal status of citizenship separately. For example, the literature on the impact of immigration policies on the labour market participation of migrants has tended to sit apart from the literature on the impact of welfare-to-work policies on the labour market participation of citizens. In keeping with the theme of this work package, we are interested in examining citizens and migrants together, taking as our starting point inclusion/exclusion from the labour market, rather than the migrant/citizen binary. This deliverable (D10.3) examines how the labour of different groups is differentially included – how different groups are differentially included as ‘workers’ – and discusses the implications for understanding the relationship between citizenship and work, and the barriers to citizenship, for both citizens and migrants. We have five case studies which focus on different social groups and the ways in which they are differentially included in the labour market (in different national contexts). They comprise: (1) people with disabilities as participants in the adjusted wage programme in Israel; (2) EU migrant women in the UK; (3) refugees in Croatia and Ireland; (4) domestic workers in the Netherlands. The fifth case study, beggars/begging in the UK and Croatia, was chosen to explore exclusion from the world of work and the delineation of the boundaries of labour itself, as well as its relation to honour and to community.

With the increasing value placed on data collection, and the growth of migration control as a policy topic, this report as part of WP10 of bEUcitizen, Barriers to EU citizenship: insiders and outsiders, seeks to explore how migrants are captured in datasets and what this can tell us about the in/exclusion of different groups as explored in our previous report, D10.1 Report on the rights and obligations of citizens and non-citizens in selected countries1. For this report, WP10 partner countries (Ireland, Netherlands, UK, Spain, Croatia and Israel) explored their national datasets, in the form of national labour force surveys (LFS), administrative and register datasets. We also looked at Eurostat harmonised data sources: the European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) and European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) as well as the publicly available Eurostat database on migration statistics. Comparing different states’ datasets it becomes clear that it is necessary to engage with their political history. For example, while there were understandable concerns about migration data and representativeness, data on asylum seekers was far easier to come by. The perceived importance of collecting data on asylum (required under EU harmonisation of asylum procedures) has resulted in it being hypervisibilised. While for the purposes of our next deliverable, D10.3 which will develop more in-depth case studies on groups that have been invisibilised in data, this does not mean that making groups visible in data is necessarily a good thing for them. Identifying a population as a population can stigmatise and risk reducing complex social processes to matters of identity. The politics of visibility are complex and also nationally particular. As this report shows, it is thus important to remember that statistical processes are not necessarily the neutral and benign form of enumeration they can be taken to be (Sussman, 2004), but can contribute to processes of ‘othering’ and normalised ideas of in/exclusion. Data about populations can “render rigid new conceptualizations of the human being” through their categorization (Hacking, 1982 in Sussman, 2004: 102). Processes of labelling can lead to the construct of bureaucratic identities (Zetter, 1991) and Werbner (2000) similarly argues that some ethnic minority categorisation is ‘imagined’ by the state for the control of populations. Population data systems in European colonies, for example, were used to control colonial subjects (Anderson, 1991 in Selzer & Anderson, 2001). Thus, one needs to look behind the numbers at the framing of concepts embedded in statistical systems and what the data may be masking.

This report derives from the work of partners involved in Work Package 10 of the FP7 programme bEUcitizen: Utrecht University (The Netherlands); the University of Zagreb (Croatia); University College Dublin (Ireland); the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel); the University of Oviedo (Spain) and the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford (UK). The report explores the complex dynamics of insiders and outsiders, and their mutual dependence. For inclusion and exclusion are in practice seldom binaries, but marked by shades of difference, by differential inclusion and exclusion. WP10 focuses on the three key axes of mobility, naturalisation, and welfare benefits, all of which intersect to explore the ways in which ‘citizenship’ is both a legal and a normative status, that is, how formal in/exclusion is related to ideas of deservingness and ‘Good Citizenship’. This report explores the interactions of these axes and the differential in/exclusions that result via the six states under study, which enable us to examine EU15 (Ireland, Netherlands, UK, and Spain as a Southern EU state), new member (Croatia) and non-EU (Israel) states. Access to state territory (mobility). In EU member states hierarchies of entry are dependent upon citizenship status, wealth or skills except for those considered part of the diaspora understood as shared ethnicity/common descent (Croatia, Spain, Ireland), or religion (Israel: Law of Return). There is an evident move towards a knowledge-based economy and attracting the ‘brightest and the best’ across the EU, with resultant restricted access for family migration and lower skilled workers. Thus, access revolves around the management of the mobility of ‘the poor’, except where co-ethnicity/ religion provides access to ‘poor’ but in some cases this is curtailed by EU membership. Access to citizenship (naturalisation) Increasingly, in what has been termed the commodification of citizenship, citizenship is premised upon wealth and income, under the guise of ‘integration’. However, there is a difference between those for whom naturalisation is a prize and those for whom it is an entitlement. For those whose access to naturalisation is not shaped by ethnicity/diaspora, naturalisation is a ‘privilege’. In contrast, those whose access is shaped by ethnicity/diaspora often have facilitated naturalisation processes. Thus preferential access to citizenship is evident for some groups. Formal citizenship is an acknowledgment of a prior community. Access to Social Security European citizenship not only reinforces but extends the worker-citizen model: Work (effective and genuine) is increasingly a central requirement to access welfare for both citizens and EEA, save for those whose access is shaped by ethnicity/diaspora. Conclusions Differential inclusion and exclusion: EU nationals residing in an EU state of which they are not a citizen are not totally included – but, neither, necessarily, are nationals (e.g. Roma). Neither are TCNs totally excluded: e.g. TCNs with legal permanent residence have many of the rights of citizens (though not rights as EU nationals). A clear disjuncture between state and nation: for nations large populations are good and lend credibility; for states large populations are expensive. Concerns about the instrumental use of EU citizenship (access to work and benefits) have consequences for member states’ national social security and naturalisation policies.

This paper examines how immigration policies on migrant care workers are both pragmatic ‘policy solutions’ and also reflect and construct social ideas and relations about gender, labour and nation, with a particular focus on the UK. It first considers the regimes that construct the supply and demand for low waged workers in social care to analyse how the creation of a migrant workforce results from the intersection of a wide range of policies and ‘systems effects’. The role of migrant labour in the care sector is however, not reflected in immigration policy, and the paper examines the crucial symbolic dimension which can be overlooked in policy literature. To look at this more closely it considers the two immigration categories that have been available for care work in private homes, au pairs and domestic worker visas, which reflect and construct assumptions about the doing of domestic work in the UK, about the relation between family and work, and ideas of equality, slavery and freedom. Este artículo examina cómo las políticas de inmigración sobre los trabajadores migrantes del sector de los cuidados son "soluciones políticas" pragmáticas, a la misma vez reflejando y construyendo ideas y relaciones sociales en torno al género, el trabajo y la nación. El texto se centra fundamentalmente en el caso del Reino Unido. En primer lugar, considera los regímenes que construyen la oferta y la demanda de trabajadores, con bajos salarios, del sector de los cuidados, analizando cómo la creación de una fuerza de trabajo migrante resulta de la intersección de una amplia gama de políticas y “efectos de los sistemas". El papel de la mano de obra migrante en el sector de los cuidados no se refleja, sin embargo, en la política de inmigración. El artículo examina la dimensión simbólica crucial que se puede pasar por alto en la literatura política. Para ver esto más de cerca, el texto considera las dos categorías inmigratorias que han estado disponibles para el trabajo de cuidados en casas particulares, au pairs y visas de trabajadoras domésticas, que reflejan y construyen supuestos sobre el trabajo doméstico en el Reino Unido, sobre la relación entre la familia y el trabajo, así como ideas de igualdad, esclavitud y libertad.

This report examines climate change impacts to U.S. national security by quantifying select impacts globally at the national level and identifying countries that are both at high risk from projected climate change and possess risk factors associated with political instability. Exposure to global sea‐level rise risk exposure is quantified by identifying low‐elevation coastal zones (LECZ), at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 meters of elevation. Countries with high risk factors for instability that also have the most people exposed to sea‐level rise include China, Philippines, India, and Indonesia. Those with the greatest percentage of population so exposed include Philippines, Egypt, and Indonesia. Within these countries, Egypt has especially high rates of population growth within the LECZ. Aggregate climate change vulnerability is quantified by using an index that takes into account both projected temperature change and adaptive capacity. For countries with high risk factors for instability, the most vulnerable countries are South Africa, Nepal, Morocco, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Paraguay, Yemen, Sudan and Côte d’Ivoire. Water scarcity is examined by comparing numbers of people living under conditions of water in the present with three future scenarios – one in which the climate remains unchanged but population changes; one in which population changes but the climate remains static; and one in which both population and climate change. Countries with high risk factors for instability that are projected to have the biggest increases in water scarcity are Mozambique, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Iraq, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia, China, Syria and Algeria.

This article considers whether there is a specific demand for migrant domestic workers in the UK, or for workers with particular characteristics that in theory could be met by citizens. It discusses how immigration status can make it easier not only to recruit domestic workers, but also to retain them. `Foreignness' may also make the management of the employment relation easier with employers anxious to discover a coincidence of interest with the worker. Employers are not only looking for generic `foreignness' however, but typically also seek particular nationalities or ethnicities of worker, which can raise difficulties for agencies who are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of `race'.

Drawing on research conducted during the project, this policy brief examines the current status of mobility and access to rights of residence for European Union citizens and non-European Union citizens. The establishment of European Union citizenship in 1992 entailed the establishment of both the European Union citizen and the ‘Third Country National’ (the non- European Union citizen). As citizens of European Union member states became European Union insiders, so citizens of non-European Union states were turned into European Union outsiders. However, inclusion and exclusion are, in practice, seldom binaries but marked by shades of difference. Those holding the nationality of a member state may, in principle, all be citizens of the European Union. But they are differentially included in terms of their access to rights under European Union law, including rights to move and reside freely across the member states.1 Similarly, non-European Union citizens are residence in a member state, on which basis they can enjoy many of the rights of citizens of that state (though not rights as European Union citizens). This policy brief focuses on the relationship between citizenship and work. Specifically, it highlights the ways in which mobility and access to rights of residence for European Union citizens and non-European Union citizens is controlled in relation to work and self-sufficiency. This has implications for inequalities between particular groups in terms of their relative inclusion within the labour market, and thus their access to citizenship and residence rights. But it also has much wider implications regarding the extent to which European Union citizenship serves to reinforce divisions and inequalities among Europe’s populations or to promote greater solidarity. First, we consider the ways in which work is framed as a right and/or an obligation for European Union and non-European Union citizens in terms of their mobility and access to rights of residence in European Union member states. We highlight the ways in which the ‘worker-citizen’ model underpinning citizenship in Europe establishes inequalities among European Union citizens and among non-European Union citizens in terms of their relationship to the labour market, placing some groups at greater risk of exclusion from the rights and protections of European citizenship. Second, we consider two possible policy scenarios as regards the development of a more or less inclusionary European Union citizenship.

This dissertation is an investigation of young European Union (EU) citizens’ experiences of free mobility in precarious labour conditions. It seeks to understand situations in which young, university-educated Europeans move in search of work opportunities that would allow them to exploit their education, their skills and their passions, but who end up experiencing precarity. The research is located in a context in which young, educated workers across Europe face persistent difficulties in the labour markets and are disproportionately exposed to unemployment and precarious types of work. Meanwhile, various EU Member States have adopted policies that render EU migrants’ access to rights associated with EU citizenship increasingly conditional on their ability to demonstrate employment, self- sufficiency or ‘genuine’ employability. These policies resonate with workfarist welfare policies that stress the responsibility of individuals in managing the social and economic risks they confront in the labour market. However, they are in sharp conflict with the EU’s official discourse and policies, which seek to encourage mobility among young people by depicting it as a means to enhance their ‘employability’, while primarily focusing on unpaid labour options, such as internships and volunteering. The three articles that form the empirical foundation of the dissertation build on data obtained through narrative interviews in 2014-2015. Additionally, one of the articles also draws on a complimentary dataset based on answers to written questions the same participants were asked to respond to in 2018. The study is qualitatively comparative in a multi-contextual setting that includes one country of destination (Belgium) and four countries of origin, in which the institutional and economic conditions vary significantly. The empirical sample consists of 27 university-educated young adults originating from Italy (10), Spain (eight), Finland (seven) and Denmark (two). In order to maximise the study’s capacity to capture the effects of labour market precarity on mobility, the study focuses on the experiences of persons who had moved to Brussels to work but had subsequently experienced unemployment and worked under precarious arrangements. In the study, I adopt a cross-disciplinary approach in order to capture different dimensions of precarity in this specific context. The study combines theoretical insights from the fields of sociology of work, critical migration research, comparative welfare state research and governmentality studies, while also contributing to these fields of research. Whilst the articles draw on different theoretical discussions, they are interconnected, and all address the influence of neoliberal governance on precarity as experienced by young EU migrants. All three articles aim, from their distinct perspectives, to understand: (1) The reasons for which highly educated young EU migrants accept their precarious working and living conditions, and the implications of this acceptance. (2) The role of institutions in conditioning young EU migrants’ autonomy, independence and room for manoeuvre in precarious labour market conditions, and the possible inequalities emerging in this respect. A thorough contextualisation (i.e. a parallel reading of the legal and policy documents and the existing research addressing the legal-institutional environment etc.) formed an integral part of the analysis of the participants’ personal narratives. In Article I, I analyse the interplay of precarious employment, social and legal norms regulating EU citizens’ free movement, and the local bureaucratic implementation of these norms. The results point to a consequential role for administrations in producing precarious citizenship status for EU migrants in precarious work arrangements. Furthermore, in Article II, written jointly with Sirpa Wrede, we show how migration puts young EU citizens under the influence of several welfare models at the same time, making their access to social entitlements contingent not only on the conditionality of welfare and residence rights in their destination country, but also on the policies in their country of origin. Together, Articles I and II demonstrate how institutionally enforced barriers to rights and the uncertainty and temporariness of status often negatively impacted the participants’ room for manoeuvre in the labour market, thus further exposing them to precarious work. Finally, in Article III, I analyse the participants’ migration as an expression of self-developing, self- entrepreneurial subjectivity, showing how this neoliberal mode is encouraged by EU mobility policies. In this context, the article demonstrates that, while young migrants very often perceived their migration as a means to, or even as the prerequisite for, finding work corresponding to their passion, they could be compelled to tolerate highly precarious and even injurious working and living conditions. All in all, the dissertation is an illustration of the ambivalence of autonomy and compulsion in the context of presumably ‘free’ mobility. It shows how the participants’ room for making choices regarding mobility and for acting upon their precarious conditions is bound to hegemonic discourses and policies informed by neoliberalism. The study also identifies institutional drivers of inequality emerging between young EU migrants from different national and social origins, affecting their financial security and access to independence, their exposure to precarity, and their ability to use mobility to pursue their passion. By acknowledging the implications of precarity in this context, the study advances new conceptual tools and approaches for future critical research on EU migration. Tutkimukseni koskee nuorten Euroopan Unionin (EU) kansalaisten kokemuksia vapaasta liikkuvuudesta prekaarin, eli epätyypillisen ja epävarman työn oloissa. Tutkimuksessa pyrin ymmärtämään tilanteita, joissa nuoret yliopistokoulutetut eurooppalaiset muuttavat toiseen EU-maahan tavoitteenaan löytää työtä, joka tarjoaisi heille mahdollisuuden hyödyntää koulutustaan, osaamistaan ja vastaisi heidän ’intohimoaan’, mutta päätyvätkin ehdoiltaan heikkoihin ja epävarmoihin työsuhteisiin. Myös koulutettujen nuorten aikuisten työurien alkutaipaleet ovat usein sirpaleisia ja pitkittyneen epävarmuuden sävyttämiä. Samanaikaisesti sosio-ekonomisesta asemasta on tullut yhä keskeisempi ehto, joka määrittää ’vapaasti’ liikkuvien EU-kansalaisten oikeuksia. Viimeisen kymmenen vuoden aikana lukuisat EU-maat ovat omaksuneet käytäntöjä, joiden seurauksena kyvystä osoittaa olevansa vakaassa työmarkkina-asemassa, omillaan toimeentuleva tai ’aidosti’ työllistettävissä on tullut keskeinen kriteeri oikeudelle oleskella pidempiaikaisesti toisessa EU-maassa. Esimerkiksi Belgiassa oleskeluoikeus on evätty henkilöiltä, jotka eivät pysty esittämään kriteerit täyttävää työsopimusta, ja tuhannet EU-kansalaiset ovat saaneet 'määräyksen poistua maasta'. Tällaisella politiikalla on yhtymäkohtia EU-maissa viime vuosikymmeninä yleistyneeseen workfare-tyyppiseen hyvinvointipolitiikkaan sikäli, että molemmat korostavat yksilöiden henkilökohtaista vastuuta hallita itse työmarkkinoilla kohtaamiaan sosiaalisia ja taloudellisia riskejä. Vapaata liikkumisoikeutta rajoittamaan pyrkivä politiikka on kuitenkin voimakkaassa ristiriidassa EU:n virallisen liikkuvuuspolitiikan kanssa. Unioni kannustaa nuoria ihmisiä liikkuvuuteen, jonka se esittää keinona parantaa yksilön ’työllistettävyyttä’. Silti EU-ohjelmienkin puitteissa nuorille tarjotut liikkuvuusmahdollisuudet muodostuvat pääosin palkattomista työn muodoista, kuten harjoittelusta ja vapaaehtoistyöstä. Väitöskirjan empiirisen perustan muodostavat kolme artikkelia, jotka pohjaavat vuosina 2014-2015 keräämääni narratiiviseen, eli kerronnalliseen haastatteluaineistoon. Lisäksi yhdessä artikkeleista on hyödynnetty täydentävää aineistoa, joka muodostuu tutkimukseeni osallistuneiden vastauksista heille vuonna 2018 lähettämiini kirjallisiin kysymyksiin. Tutkimus on laadullisesti vertaileva. Monikontekstisen tutkimusasetelman muodostavat yksi vastaanottajamaa (Belgia) sekä neljä lähtömaata, joissa vallitsevat institutionaaliset ja taloudelliset olosuhteet eroavat merkittävästi toisistaan. Empiirinen otos koostuu 27:stä yliopisto-koulutetusta nuoresta aikuisesta, jotka ovat lähtöisin Italiasta (kymmenen), Espanjasta (kahdeksan), Suomesta (seitsemän) ja Tanskasta (kaksi). Tavoitteenani on ollut maksimoida tutkimuksen kyky tavoittaa työmarkkinoilla koetun epävarmuuden seuraukset liikkuvuuskontekstissa. Tästä syystä tutkimus keskittyy sellaisten henkilöiden kokemuksiin, jotka muuttivat Brysseliin työn perässä, mutta sittemmin kohtasivat työttömyyttä ja työskentelivät eri tavoin epävarmoissa ja epätyypillisissä työsuhteissa. Tutkimuksen lähestymistapa on poikkitieteellinen. Se yhdistelee teoreettisia näkökulmia eri tutkimusaloilta, mukaan lukien työn sosiologia, kriittinen maahanmuuttotutkimus, vertaileva hyvinvointivaltiotutkimus sekä hallinnan tutkimus. Samalla se edistää näiden tutkimusalojen keskusteluja. Tutkimuksen empiirisen perustan muodostavat artikkelit pohjaavat eri teoreettisiin keskusteluihin, mutta kytkeytyvät toisiinsa. Kaikki kolme artikkelia pyrkivät ymmärtämään, millaisista syistä korkeakoulutetut nuoret EU-maahanmuuttajat mukautuvat heikkoihin ja epävarmoihin työskentely- ja elinolosuhteisiinsa, ja millaisia seurauksia tällä on heidän työurilleen, elämänkuluilleen ja hyvinvoinnilleen. Artikkelit tarkastelevat myös, kuinka paikallisen, kansallisen ja EU-tason institutionaalisten toimijat säätelevät nuorten EU-maahanmuuttajien autonomiaa, itsenäisyyttä ja liikkumavaraa työmarkkinoilla. Artikkeleista ensimmäisessä analysoin, kuinka EU-kansalaisten vapaata liikkuvuutta koskevan politiikan muutokset Belgiassa ovat vaikuttaneet tutkimukseen osallistuneiden asemaan työmarkkinoilla. Tulokset osoittavat, kuinka erityisesti politiikkaa paikallistasolla toimeenpanevien viranomaisten rooli on merkittävä prosesseissa, joiden seurauksena prekaareissa työsuhteissa työskentelevät EU-kansalaiset jäävät kohdemaassaan vaille lakisääteistä asemaa ja tähän asemaan liittyviä sosiaalisia oikeuksia. Lisäksi toisessa, yhdessä Sirpa Wreden kanssa kirjoittamassamme artikkelissa osoitamme, kuinka liikkuvien EU-kansalaisten sosiaaliturva on riippuvaista, paitsi heidän oikeuksiinsa sovelletusta ehdollisuudesta vastaanottavassa maassa, myös sosiaaliturvaan sovelletusta ehdollisuudesta heidän lähtömaissaan. Yhdessä nämä artikkelit tuovat esiin, kuinka lakisääteisen aseman ja sosiaaliturvan epävarmuus, ehdollisuus ja määräaikaisuus vaikuttivat usein negatiivistesti tutkimukseen osallistujien liikkumavaraan työmarkkinoilla, ja olivat näin omiaan lisäämään heidän alttiuttaan päätyä uusiin prekaareihin työsuhteisiin. Lopulta väitöskirjan kolmannessa artikkelissa lähestyn osallistujien päätöstä muuttaa toiseen EU-maahan itsensä kehittämiseen panostavan yrittäjä-subjektiviteetin ilmauksena. Osoitan, kuinka EU:n liikkuvuuspolitiikka kannustaa tätä uusliberaalin minuuden muotoa. Artikkeli näyttää, kuinka tutkimuksen osallistujat, jotka usein mielsivät maahanmuuton edellytyksenä heidän osaamistaan ja 'intohimoaan' vastaavan työn löytymiselle, olivat valmiita sietämään erittäin heikkoja työskentely- ja elinolosuhteita jopa siinä määrin, että nämä olosuhteet vahingoittivat heidän hyvinvointiaan ja terveyttään. Tutkimukseni osoittaa, kuinka uusliberaalista ajattelusta kumpuavat hegemoniset diskurssit ja politiikkakäytännöt muovaavat ja rajaavat tutkimukseen osallistuneiden nuorten EU-kansalaisten mahdollisuuksia tehdä autonomisesti liikkuvuuttaan koskevia päätöksiä ja vaikuttaa omaan tilanteeseensa työmarkkinoilla. Tutkimus tunnistaa ja nostaa esiin myös institutionaalisia tekijöitä, jotka kasvattavat epätasa-arvoa eri sosiaalisista ja kansallisista taustoista lähtöisin olevien nuorten EU-kansalaisten välillä. Nämä tekijät vaikuttavat heidän taloudelliseen turvaansa, mahdollisuuksiinsa itsenäiseen toimeentuloon ja elämään sekä heidän riskiinsä ajautua prekaariin työhön. Tämä kaikki vaikuttaa myös heidän edellytyksiinsä hyödyntää vapaata liikkuvuutta heidän etsiessään osaamistaan ja toiveitaan vastaavaa työtä. Nostamalla esiin prekaariuden seuraukset tässä kontekstissa tutkimukseni luo uusia käsitteellisiä työkaluja ja lähestymistapoja. Näin se edistää tulevaisuuden kriittistä tutkimusta EU:n sisäisestä maahanmuutosta.

Migration and bodies are linked: it is embodied persons who migrate, and who experience gains and tragedies in embodied forms. Our bodies are physical, biologically-based entities, but they are also our way of being in the world and of experiencing ourselves, other people, and the world around us.

Drawing on Woody Guthrie's autobiographical Bound for Glory, this short piece focuses on the employment of migrant workers in the industrialised food production sector.