移民难题:欧盟移民原籍国在融合与划界之间徘徊

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Christof Roos, Max Nagel, Hanna Kieschnick, Kseniia Cherniak
{"title":"移民难题:欧盟移民原籍国在融合与划界之间徘徊","authors":"Christof Roos, Max Nagel, Hanna Kieschnick, Kseniia Cherniak","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on an analysis of parliamentary debates and party manifestos from 2000 to 2022 in three EU countries of emigration, this article responds to the following question: How emigration is discussed in the political discourse, by whom and why? The research on Poland, Portugal and Romania reveals that parties of the left and right address the societal impacts of emigration whilst simultaneously acknowledging the appreciation of citizens of EU freedoms. Tackling this conundrum, parties call for domestic demarcation for an issue that is partially European. They advocate for state intervention to improve working and living conditions and express concern for the sustainability of the national community responding to demographic changes. The variation amongst the case countries is evident in the dominance of a rightist framing in Central and Eastern Europe, emphasizing state intervention and concerns for the nation, and a leftist framing in Southern Europe, advocating solely for state intervention into the economy. Differently structured party systems and strength of cleavages explain this variation.","PeriodicalId":51369,"journal":{"name":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Emigration Conundrum: EU Countries of Origin of Migrants Between Integration and Demarcation\",\"authors\":\"Christof Roos, Max Nagel, Hanna Kieschnick, Kseniia Cherniak\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcms.13637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on an analysis of parliamentary debates and party manifestos from 2000 to 2022 in three EU countries of emigration, this article responds to the following question: How emigration is discussed in the political discourse, by whom and why? The research on Poland, Portugal and Romania reveals that parties of the left and right address the societal impacts of emigration whilst simultaneously acknowledging the appreciation of citizens of EU freedoms. Tackling this conundrum, parties call for domestic demarcation for an issue that is partially European. They advocate for state intervention to improve working and living conditions and express concern for the sustainability of the national community responding to demographic changes. The variation amongst the case countries is evident in the dominance of a rightist framing in Central and Eastern Europe, emphasizing state intervention and concerns for the nation, and a leftist framing in Southern Europe, advocating solely for state intervention into the economy. Differently structured party systems and strength of cleavages explain this variation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13637\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jcms-Journal of Common Market Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13637","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文基于对三个欧盟移民国家2000年至2022年的议会辩论和政党宣言的分析,回答了以下问题:政治话语中是如何讨论移民问题的?对波兰、葡萄牙和罗马尼亚的研究表明,左翼和右翼政党在讨论移民对社会的影响的同时,也承认公民对欧盟自由的赞赏。为解决这一难题,各政党呼吁在国内对这个部分属于欧洲的问题进行划界。他们主张国家干预,以改善工作和生活条件,并对国家社会应对人口变化的可持续性表示担忧。案例国之间的差异明显体现在中欧和东欧的右派框架占主导地位,强调国家干预和对民族的关注,而南欧的左派框架则只主张国家干预经济。不同结构的政党制度和分裂的力量解释了这种差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Emigration Conundrum: EU Countries of Origin of Migrants Between Integration and Demarcation
Based on an analysis of parliamentary debates and party manifestos from 2000 to 2022 in three EU countries of emigration, this article responds to the following question: How emigration is discussed in the political discourse, by whom and why? The research on Poland, Portugal and Romania reveals that parties of the left and right address the societal impacts of emigration whilst simultaneously acknowledging the appreciation of citizens of EU freedoms. Tackling this conundrum, parties call for domestic demarcation for an issue that is partially European. They advocate for state intervention to improve working and living conditions and express concern for the sustainability of the national community responding to demographic changes. The variation amongst the case countries is evident in the dominance of a rightist framing in Central and Eastern Europe, emphasizing state intervention and concerns for the nation, and a leftist framing in Southern Europe, advocating solely for state intervention into the economy. Differently structured party systems and strength of cleavages explain this variation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
137
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信