Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

ISSN: 1369-183X (Print) 1469-9451 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Complex and dynamic integration processes

in Europe: intra EU mobility and international
migration in times of recession
Hans-Jrg Trenz & Anna Triandafyllidou
To cite this article: Hans-Jrg Trenz & Anna Triandafyllidou (2016): Complex and dynamic
integration processes in Europe: intra EU mobility and international migration in times of
recession, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1251013
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1251013

Published online: 10 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 146

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20
Download by: [Universitara M Emineescu Iasi]

Date: 03 December 2016, At: 10:32

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1251013

INTRODUCTION

Complex and dynamic integration processes in Europe: intra

EU mobility and international migration in times of recession
Hans-Jrg Trenza,b and Anna Triandafyllidouc
a

Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Kbenhavn, Denmark;

ARENA, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; cRobert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Robert Schuman
Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, Florence, Italy
b

The European laboratory of increased mobility

During the last 20 years migration in Europe has become more dynamic and complex,
creating a different socio-economic and political context within which ever changing
migrant integration challenges have to be addressed. In contrast to previous periods,
and especially the recession years of the mid-1970s and early 1980s, European governments have turned again more favourable towards labour migration in the 1990s and
the first decade of the twenty-first century. Labour migration and intra-European
Union (EU) mobility was seen as one of the driving forces of economic growth in the
process of the consolidation of the European Common Market (Geddes and Boswell
2011). Migration flows have not only increased globally and particularly towards the direction of Europe, they have also solidified internationally within the Europe of free movement and mobility. From an international migration perspective, we are witnessing a
multiplication of destination countries (which, for instance, include southern and
central-eastern European countries); a multiplication of origin countries; a diversification
of migration pathways that no longer follow the post-colonial logic as countries of origin
are increasingly integrated in global migration flows; and a higher level of mobility and
connectivity through faster and cheaper IT technologies and means of transport
(Castles and Miller 2009; Triandafyllidou and Gropas 2014). From an intra-European
migration perspective, we observe how the Europe of free movement is shaped by very
different groups of mobile citizens: rapidly changing patterns of EastWest (temporary)
migration, a revival of the old SouthNorth migratory route, but also pensioners migrating
from the North to the South, young Europeans who make use of education opportunities
and many working migrants from diverse backgrounds in both low-skilled and highskilled professions travelling across the European labour market.
Within this context, Europe presents itself as a natural laboratory of increased mobility, interconnectivity and complex patterns of integration of both EU citizens and non EU
migrants. The EU has coordinated its approach towards international migration, taking
into account the importance of integration and harmonising the conditions of entry, residence and work of legal migrants (such as qualified workers). Apart from providing
opportunities for legal migration and enhancing the integration of non EU national in
European societies, the EU has also taken joint action in relation to the so-called security
CONTACT Hans-Jrg Trenz

trenz@hum.ku.dk

2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

aspects of migration building up a regime of external border controls, coordinating shortterm visa policies as well as aspects of return policies and forceful expulsion (Papagianni
2014). At the same time, the EU offers numerous opportunities for the mobility of its own
citizens. Mobility as an integrative mechanism is closely related to practices of EU citizenship that allow EU citizens to travel, settle, study or work in other member states indiscriminately of their country of origin (Olsen 2015). The European area of free movement is
based on a set of unique legal entitlements that do not only stipulate the right to exit (free
travel) but also provide equal rights of entry to EU citizens (admittance, study, work,
settlement and access to services) (Baubck 2007; Olsen 2015). Even if the many obstacles
to the enjoyment of these rights are well-documented), cross border mobility has, in fact,
developed as one of the motors of European social integration that involves ordinary citizens as movers within the common market (Recchi and Favell 2009). The rights to free
movement and citizenship in principle make intra EU migrants particularly mobile and
interconnected, thus making palpable the changes that researchers have enunciated
with regard to international migration. Within the Europe of free movement, EU migrants
are redefined as mobile citizens, with a distinct status in terms of rights, which often
entails that they also develop different patterns of accommodation to their host society.
The European laboratory of increased mobility has been particularly successful in consolidating the Common Market in a context of economic growth, which offered opportunities for both low skilled and high skilled labour and facilitated a dynamic exchange of the
populations within and beyond the borders of Europe. These context conditions for the
European experiment of mobility and migration have changed with the Great Recession
of 20072009 with peaks of unemployment especially in the South of Europe and austerity
programmes bringing public expenditures to a hold (Roos and Zaun 2016). In the aftermath of the Great Recession, increased mobility can be seen, on the one hand, as an opportunity for those populations most affected by crisis with especially young people moving
from the South of Europe to the more affluent countries in the North, but also with continuing high levels of EastWest migration.1 On the other hand economic crisis erects new
barriers to mobility closing national labour markets, restricting access to welfare state services, disadvantaging particular groups (e.g. the less educated populations), widening
regional disparities (e.g. with regard to countries from the south and south-east of
Europe) and closing the doors towards third country nationals.
Indeed, as the financial crisis has been unravelling, European countries have seen their
growth models stall and, in some cases, fall into decline thereby exacerbating serious social
and demographic challenges. Since 2008, EU countries have experienced important immigration flows from third countries as well as increasing and diversifying intra EU flows.
Despite the global financial crisis (or perhaps precisely because of the global crisis that
has affected countries of origin too) and because of the Eurozone crisis and the internal
imbalances among EU member states we are witnessing a new dynamic of intra-EU
migration that develop along continuing international migration inflows. While it
remains debatable whether the current crisis has actually increased labour migration substantially recent figures indicate rather a slowdown of intra EU migration compared to
previous numbers in the post-enlargement period and, in some instances (e.g. Polish
migrants), even a return migration is observed (Recchi and Salamoska 2015) it is
clear that a qualitative shift has emerged. Thus while the 1990s and 2000s were characterised by a substantial East to West intra EU mobility, we see in the last years a notable South

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

to North migration dynamic emerging within the EU (Gropas and Triandafyllidou 2014;
Triandafyllidou and Gropas 2014). These flows co-exist with continuing non-EU
migration not only to the wealthy countries of the North, but also the Southern and
Central-Eastern parts of Europe becoming main destination countries for international
migrants and refugees. While some migrants especially from the Eastern parts of the
EU return to their home countries, others keep coming, given the dire economic and political situation in their countries of origin.
It is thus important to emphasise that economic recession since 2008 has not led to a
sudden halt of labour migration but has rather diversified migration flows both within the
EU and from the outside. Economic recession has arguably also diversified integration
approaches towards labour migrants that are developed and applied by the EU and its
EU member states. Despite the pressures for a comprehensive and effective EU strategy
of integration, the EU is still in an experimental mode with regard to practices and experiences of accommodating labour migrants. There is an unbroken diversity of policy
approaches that reflect very dissimilar views and preferences between EU member
states, and sometimes even within them. Strong political forces, for instance, in the
U.K. during and after the referendum on leaving the EU, but also elsewhere in Europe
have argued for a revocation of rights that give non-discriminated access to labour
markets and welfare to EU citizens (Graeber 2016). At the same time, there is a new complexity of migratory flows that translates into complex patterns of adaptation and socialisation of individual migrants into their (temporary) host society. To the same degree
that classical distinctions, as those between countries of origin and countries of destination
no longer apply, also migrant communities are no longer neatly distinguishable along patterns of class or ethnicity. As assimilation into welfare state regimes is increasingly barred
or becoming less attractive, new groups of migrants develop strategies of flexible adjustments to the rules and opportunities of the labour market and socialise through
complex inter-personal and cross-cultural relations that replace stable group belonging
(Faist 2008).
This special issue takes stock of these complex patterns of intra EU mobility and international migration taking place in different EU countries within the wider context of the
post 2008 economic crisis. The question to be discussed is how crisis translates into
unequal opportunities for different groups of EU citizens who move within the EU territory and for third country nationals who come to the EU. In particular, we investigate how
differences in status are translated into differences of practice and experience of settlement
and integration, as they happen in a period of fragile recovery after a stark economic crisis
which has put the European regime of migration and mobility under stress. We thus
provide a comparative view of the complex integration landscapes and the intertwined
social and economic cleavages that emerge in European countries and between different
groups of migrants within these countries. While intra EU mobile citizens seek to position
themselves in the local context, along natives (also EU citizens, some of whom of immigrant background), non-EU migrants can often build on longer migration and settlement
experiences, including post-colonial ties, in a specific destination country but often also
face the threat of marginalisation and exclusion through status differences that clearly distinguish them not only from natives but also from other EU citizens). How has economic
and financial crisis defined new challenges for integration of these different groups of
migrants in different national contexts and beyond? Also what kind of tensions and

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

new cleavages become salient as new flows of intra EU migrants (South to North) emerge
alongside the earlier typical East to West or East to South flows and how do these relate to
overall integration challenges faced by non-EU migrants? What kind of complex integration landscapes emerge in European cities where most migrants (whether EU or non
EU) head to? Even if countries begin to recover from crisis, more uncertainties lie
ahead with increased international migrations, refugee movements directed towards
Europe, more ingrained regional disparities among the member states and likely restrictions of free movement to follow (e.g. the Brexit scenario).

Dynamic and complex integration processes

For many EU migrants, free movement has become almost a taken for granted reality
(Mau 2011). On the one hand, we find evidence that the Europe of free movement is
turned into a more contested field. Mobility might have disintegrating effects under conditions of enhanced diversity, socio-cultural cleavages and new redistributive conflicts that
divide member states and populations within the EU. Imbalances in European labour
markets have created new pressures for labour outflows and tensions on the so-called periphery are quickly transmitted to the core. This in turn, has created pressures at the receiving end of intra-EU migration: the increased number of involuntary migrants who move
under precarious conditions, for example, may mobilise protectionist movements as well
as enhance nationalism and populism. On the other hand, we find reverse evidence for
successful accommodation of diversity and expressions of European solidarity. EU mobility continues to be driven by high demands of the labour market in the core European
countries and creates shared experiences and networks that bind Europeans together.
Of course, this does not mean that all intra-EU migrants are well received by the other
EU host societies and economies, nor that they all experience their intra-EU migration
project in a positive manner.
The situation for non EU migrants is more complex and volatile: The socio economic
integration of international migrants includes a patchwork of legal provisions and there is
a large discrepancy of practices across EU member states, which generally offer only few
channels for migration of low-skilled workers, various exemptions made for high-skilled
workers and an increasingly discretionary practice of allowance of family members or political refugees (OECD 2015). Settlement and citizenship packages are no longer to be taken
for granted as the endpoint of the migrants trajectory. Destination countries have become
increasingly reluctant to provide such integration packages. There is a proliferation of
temporary and seasonal migration schemes, mobility partnerships and restricted visas
that do not offer a settlement perspective. Indeed the enthusiasm with which circular
migration was heralded in the EU reflects this shift from migration to mobility concepts,
even if the EU mobility partnerships do not seem to have been very successful so far (Pries
2009). Integration policies nonetheless remain tied to the original view of a national citizenship and civic integration therein (reinforced with integration packages upon arrival,
compulsory courses and tests) as either the mid-term milestone or the end point of a
linear path to integration at destination. With the economic downturn more recent
policy changes tend towards more coercive integration, considerable reduction of the
scale of labour migration from outside the EU and restrictions of family unification.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

Against this backdrop, dynamic and complex integration processes in the Europe of
free movement and mobility cannot be discussed separately from patterns of diversification of Western societies, which affect, populations, cultures and politics in a direction of what has been termed as super-diversity (Vertovec 2007) or complex diversity
(Kraus 2012). In the field of immigration, which is only one of the variables explaining
these deep structural changes, such a condition is distinguished by an increased
number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally connected, socio
economically differentiated and legally stratified immigrants who have arrived over
the last decade (Vertovec 2007, 1024). Our contributions provide numerous evidence
for an increase of diversification of migration flows within and from the outside of
Europe since 2008, partly as an effect of economic and financial crisis, but partly
also explained by global migration trends, wars and humanitarian disasters. This
relates to a reality in Europe where the either/or of assimilation and multiculturalism
is no longer applicable to the very different and often rapidly changing needs and exigencies of various groups of migrants, which populate the European space of mobility
and account for its dynamic development. There is thus a need to understand how
complex integration processes are unfolding no only within particular host societies
undermining the integration-assimilation paradigm, which often still dominates official
policy discourse at the national level (and in many countries is still considered as an
adequate normative response to meeting the challenge of enhanced mobility and diversity). There is also the need to conceptualise the transnational nexus of complex integration processes, which is made up by the experiences and practices of many citizens
(mobiles and non-mobiles) of living together in hybrid places and thus adapting to a
new constellation of complex diversity.
The contributions in this special issue add to the understanding of complex integration processes with regard to how processes of macro change (such as economic
recession) are confronted at the micro and meso level by mobile citizens and migrants
who experience diversity in their professional and daily lives and define flexible, ad-hoc
ways to deal with it. In many cases discussed by our authors, migration experiences are
no longer group based but individualised. These migrant-individuals are nevertheless
found to be highly creative in occupying new transnational spaces that offer opportunities for labour, education, cultural exchanges or building social relationships. Through
such practices of transnational conviviality (see Duru and Trenz 2016), migrants draw
on particular forms of social and cultural capital that is formed through mobility and
the experienced of diversity and that distinguishes them most clearly from the
immobile (and often underprivileged) local population. Complex integration is then
not only facilitated by legal entitlements and services provided by the host societies
but also by the sociability of individuals from diverse backgrounds, their encounters
in transnational places and their networks of interactions and relationships (Darieva,
Schiller, and Gruner-Domic 2014; Glick Schiller and Caglar 2010). In line with these
authors we explore in this special issue the ways in which transnational interactions
and networking between these mobile individuals of different origin take place, how
these occupy labour markets and city places (such as London, Paris and Copenhagen)
and how they enact their collective sense of belonging that distinguishes them from
both natives and co-nationals.

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

Mobility, migration and diversity in the EU: the contribution of this special
issue
Our contributors engage with the relevant scholarly literature in several ways. To
approach the dynamics and complexity of recent migration and integration experiences,
our authors report from the field and look both at particular ethnic groups and professional sectors, and offer important insights into the strategies of individual adaptation
and resilience that are developed and applied by mobile citizens and migrants in times of
crisis.
The cases of recent migration analysed in this special issue include: Polish, Ukrainian
and Georgian housekeepers in Italy, self-employed EU migrants in Poland, high-skilled
emigrants from Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, so-called expats (both EU and non
EU) in Denmark, Romanian and Turkish migrants in the U.K., Russian-speaking migrants
from the Baltics in the U.K., and Italians in Paris.
New migrants do however rarely opt for communal segregation in their host societies
and strongly depart from ethnicised patterns of integration. Andrejuk, for instance, studies
different types of migrant entrepreneurship among intra EU mobile citizens in Poland.
She contrasts the experiences of EU citizens from the old and the new member states
showing how they mobilise their cultural and social capital for both economic activities
and socio-cultural integration in Polish society. This is also confirmed by Bartolini,
Gropas and Triandafyllidou who look at new emigration flows of highly skilled young
men and women from southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal) going north
and west in other EU countries. Duru and Trenz show how new migrants in Denmark
self-identify as expats and adopt international life styles and attitudes.
Marchetti illustrates how Ukrainian, Romanian and Polish workers in the service sector
in Italy secure their integration and job opportunities through engagement in transnational networks of women migrants. The papers by Lulle and Hobein, and by Dubucs,
Recchi, Pfirsch and Schmoll study processes of identity negotiation and socio-economic
positioning of two intra EU migrant groups, notably Italians in Paris and Latvians in
London respectively. Lulle studies Russian-speaking Latvians in London. She looks at
the identity construction and social integration process of these intra EU migrants who
are mainly economic migrants but who also negotiate their position as EU citizens in
the British multicultural framework which allows them to no longer be a minority
within Latvia but rather one among many ethnic minorities in the U.K. Dubucs and
co-authors investigate new Italian emigrants in Paris and their identity negotiation and
socio-economic positioning torn between the feeling that they are the children of recessions and a lost generation and the view that they are highly skilled mobile Europeans
exploring new career and lifestyle opportunities in a large European metropolis like
Paris and as such to do not find it contradictory to identify mainly as Parisians and to
adopt similar lifestyles in the city.
Last but not least, Duru, Hanquinet, and Cesur compare the perceptions of diversity of
Romanian, Turkish and native British citizens living in the U.K. contrasting the real life
experiences of Romanians and Turks with the broader categorisations among natives,
EU and non EU enacted by Brits.
A number of common themes emerge from the contributions to this special issue which
both offer new insights into the diversity of migrant integration processes in the EU today

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

and to the need for further research and new concepts for making sense of such integration
processes.
First and foremost we witness the emergence of new forms of transnational engagement
that seem to push the discussion of integration beyond or above concerns about cultural/
ethnic segregation. The different types of new migrants distinguish themselves through the
innovative and highly creative ways they engage in transnationalism, that is, take actions,
make decisions, and feel concerns, and develop identities within social networks that
connect them to two or more societies simultaneously (Glick Schiller, Basch, and
Blanc-Szanton 1992, 12; original emphasis).
Transnationalism is experienced not only at the intersection between different societies,
but also locally through the daily encounters, professional and cultural exchanges and
interpersonal relationships between EU and non EU migrants and locals, who often
share similar transnational experiences (see Duru and Trenz (2016), Lulle and Hobein
(2016), but also Dubucs et al. (2016)). The European economic and financial crisis has
in this sense broadened considerably the horizon of social transnationalism as an everyday
experience of many Europeans (mobiles and non-mobiles) (Mau 2011).
In the current debate on migration and integration, these findings have important
implications at the theoretical level in terms of how the integration-transnationalism
linkage is to be perceived (Ambrosini 2014; Carling 2008; Dekker and Siegel 2013;
Lacroix 2014; Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004). There is a need to classify overt and
more hidden forms of transnational engagement and how such engagement transforms
traditional bipolar relationships between host societies and countries of origin.
There is further also a need to conceptualise how and under what conditions migrant
engagement in transnationalism and integration in their host societies can be mutually
reinforcing. New insights in the mechanisms of integration through transnationalism
are further highly relevant for the search of practical solutions and the formulation of
policy programmes, for example, at the municipal level where migrants transnational
experiences are often used as positive reference points.
Last but not least, there is a need to invest in methodological innovation for the study of
social transnationalism, because cross-border movements are increasingly an insufficient
measurement of the complex reality transnationalism and integration in Europe. This
methodological challenge is taken up in an exemplary way in the contribution by Duru
et al. who are very skilful to develop and apply variables of transnational experiences,
measure degrees of transnationalism and how these results in attitudinal changes with
regard to openness and embracing diversity (here discussed for the case of non-privileged
groups of Rumanians and Turkish migrants in the U.K., and therefore certainly also applicable beyond these cases).
Such experiences and practices of transnationalism, which develop from below, ultimately also shed a different light on questions of multiculturalism (Uberoi and Modood
2015) as well as the possibility of plural nationalism (Triandafyllidou 2013). There is a
growing concern in countries like the U.K. or Denmark about multiculturalism based
on a politics of difference. Migrants, especially of Muslim origin, have been suspected
to lead parallel-lives and posing threats national unity. This has induced governments
in these countries to redefine policy agendas, to withdraw from the active promotion of
diversity and, in the worst cases, discriminate and sanction migrants non-assimilationist
life-styles and behaviour. In the context of economic and finiancial crisis, emerging

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

tensions of liberal or nationalist intolerance have clearly intensified (Kouki and Triandafyllidou 2014; Olsen and Mouritsen 2013). Especially those countries with relatively open
labour markets combined with high levels of welfare (the paradigmatic cases, discussed by
Duru and Trenz and Duru et al., are Denmark and the U.K.) turn away from multiculturalism when the welfare state is under economic pressure. They promote instead an instrumental-nationalist and neoliberal ideology which embraces foreigners as individual labour
forces but not as culture. Instrumental neoliberal nationalism as this has been called by
Mouritsen (2006, 913) emphasises homogeneity and assimilation as a prerequisite for a
shared civic culture but at the same time praises the virtues of labour market flexibility and
individual economic initiatives.
It is interesting to note in this regard that the new assimilationist rhetoric has so far only
little practical relevance for those new migrants who decide to move, (temporarily) live
and work in these countries. The requirement of assimilation does not really apply to
them or can be safely ignored as they have a protected European citizenship status and
as such have the liberty to move in transnational spaces. As such they claim the prerogative to be multicultural-transnational which means for them to be better networked, rely
on richer experiences, be knowledgeable and economically successful (Duru and Trenz
2016). The new crisis migrants thus reintroduce the multiculturalism agenda through the
backdoor (see, for instance, Dubucs et al. (2016) or also Marchetti (2016)), but this relates
to a different from of multiculturalism that is promoted through bottom-up initiatives of
migrants and not as a top-down approach of integrated diversity that is steered by the legal
system through the formulation of multicultural rights and policies (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010).
One persistent finding is that economic and financial crisis throughout Europe has led
to a shift of emphasis from cultural diversity to economic inequality emphasising status
differences between different groups of EU and non EU migrants and between groups
of different origin within the EU (e.g. the South and the North of Europe). Identity strategies that become salient in the context of particular countries are therefore more explicitly
related to redistributive struggles between different groups of migrants and their host
society.
Several of our contributors further point to new and different integration challenges
that pertain to the new group of intra EU crisis migrants and that distinguish this
group from previous cohorts of EU migrants and from non-EU migrants. Behind the
promise of equal rights of EU citizenship, there are structural disparities and deepseated inequalities that European citizenship in times of economic crisis has not
managed to eliminate, or reduce, yet. Depending on their nationality, residence, education,
gender or class, European citizens encounter different life chances and face profoundly
different opportunities for prosperity (see Bartolini, Gropas, and Triandafyllidou
(2016), or Dubucs et al. (2016), compared to Marchetti (2016) or Duru, Hanquinet,
and Cesur (2016)).
Another main point of reference for our discussions is the literature concerning regimes
of mobility (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2014) and particularly intra EU mobility (e.g. Ralph
2014). On the one hand, we find evidence that crisis has accentuated the co-dependence
between the privileged movements of some and the stigmatised and forbidden movement
of others within the EU regime of mobility. In the case of EU migrants, for instance, the
socio-economic background of migrants remains embedded in what Andrejuk in her

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

contribution calls culture hierarchies. In her analysis of labour and entrepreneurial activities of EU migrants in Poland, she shows how implicit social rankings of cultures result in
stratified positions of different migrant groups in the labour market of their host society.
Duru and Trenz report similar findings from Denmark where high-skilled migrants (selfidentified as expats) make strategic use of their social and cultural capital for networking
and flexible accommodation strategies.
Mobility in crisis-ridden Europe remains also more closely connected to stasis in the
sense of few winners who take profit from entry opportunities in foreign labour
markets and many losers who find the doors closed. This explains findings reported by
Bartolini et al and Dubucs, Recchi et al about relatively low mobility in Southern
Europe despite of crisis induced high unemployment. On the other hand, we also recognise that EU mobiles are particularly apt to develop resilience, especially because EU citizenship and equality of rights help them to mitigate unequal opportunities and hidden
power relations within the EU regime of mobility. This is the case of young, highskilled mobiles from Southern Europe who as reported by Duru and Trenz can flexibly
adapt to the needs of the local labour market, and even, if they often end up to take
less privileged jobs or are even affected by unemployment in their destination countries
can compensate through claims for welfare and education.
Low skilled EU migrants, who typically come from economically less privileged areas
like the east and south-east of Europe have also successfully adapted to the EU regime
of mobility and citizenship by maintaining close network affiliations and imitate successful
adaptation strategies. While in countries most affected by economic crisis like Italy, competition and divisions among these groups of low-skilled migrants have clearly increased
and also exposed the more fragile groups among them to discrimination (e.g. Ukrainians
or Georgians non EU migrants as opposed to Polish EU migrants, see Marchetti (2016)),
we also find other examples as reported from Denmark by Duru and Trenz of how low
skilled migrants who improve their status through networking and opportunities for
getting a higher education in their host countries (often while working in parallel in the
service sector).
A slightly different picture is presented by the more recent migrations from highly educated, predominantly young people from Southern Europe discussed by Bartolini et al. In
these cases, the mobility of this generation, which is hit most by the crisis, is driven mainly
by non-economic factors, such as career opportunities, quality of life, and future prospects
and not only by the current employment situation. Even though many of these highly educated migrants have faced periods of unemployment in their countries of origin (and
sometimes also in their country of destination), mobility is for them a question of way
of life and part of their socialisation experiences as European citizens superseding all
other considerations in the decision to emigrate for these highly educated Europeans.
Mobility of young people from Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal is also not solely
explained by the opportunities offered by EU citizenship and free movement as a substantial group of these people migrated outside Europe and beyond the space of free movement
granted by the EU. Recent migration trends are therefore part of a broader and more
complex picture, which requires us to discuss the European/EU regime of mobility as
part of the contemporary globalisation process whereby societies and markets become
increasingly inter-connected facilitating mobility of labour in plural directions.

10

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

Finally, our contributions pay particular attention to the potential of cities as motors of
social transnationalism and hubs around which the EU regime of mobility dynamically
develops. The way cities are converted into places of superdiversity and conviviality is
not only limited to the big metropolis like Berlin, London or Amsterdam, but also
affects, for instance, Southern European intercultural cities such as Granada or Lisbon
(Padilla, Azevedo, and Olmos Alcaraz 2015). This potential of large urban centres as laboratories of diversity is confirmed in the works presented here. Cities often circumvent official state policies of assimilation by encouraging innovative ways of living together between
migrants of diverse background. In this special issue, our authors investigate conviviality in
London, Paris and Copenhagen where local authorities and city representatives embrace
and sometimes even celebrate diversity, often in opposition to the hostile, anti-immigrant
attitudes that become dominant in the rest of the country. Residents of these cities frequently interact through a transnational and intercultural lens, as, for instance, Russian
speaking migrants in London, for whom the city becomes a third space a multicultural
European metropolis (Lulle and Jurkane-Hobein 2016). Along the same lines Copenhagen
is transformed by its migrants into a place of conviviality where diversity is experienced as
a source of personal enjoyment, enrichment and even emancipation from more narrowly
defined mainstream Danishness (Duru and Trenz 2016). Other places like the metropolitan
area of Paris can build on an old, almost legendary history of migration and embracement
of foreigners as part of city life. Such old migration routes and histories can be used by newcoming migrants (such as Italians) to negotiate their multiplicity of identities in a way that
allows them to become part of the city space and identify primarly as Parisians (Dubucs
et al. 2016).
The study of social transnationalism and of the emergence of such hybrid places
requires the application of innovative research designs that look beyond single nation
states as a unit of analysis (Glick Schiller 2007). New methodologies for the study of transnationalism are proposed, for instance, in the form of multi-sited ethnographies (Padilla,
Azevedo, and Olmos Alcaraz 2015), the reconstruction of migration histories (Carling
2012) or the plurilocal analysis of social relations and networks (Pries 2009). Several contributors in this special issue use new networking sampling techniques to recruit respondents from transnational migrant communities, for example, through the use of networks
of friends and acquaintances, social networks, Facebook groups, and forums of foreigners
(Andrejuk, Lulle and Hobein and Duru and Trenz).
Variants of life history analysis are explored through the use of qualitative interviews
that prove useful to reconstruct biographical and family backgrounds, motivations and
identities, migratory and professional trajectories, and patterns of local incorporation
(e.g. Dubucs et al. (2016) on the case of Italians in Paris and Marchetti on the case of
Polish, Ukrainian and Georgian housekeepers). Insights into motivations that drive mobility and profiles of specific groups of migrants (e.g. high-skilled) can be gained through
survey techniques that allow for the control of variables and intervening factors (Bartolini
et al. (2016) on the case of highly educated South European migrants before and after
crisis). Finally, the analysis of transnational living arrangements, border-crossing and
place-bridging practices often requires cross-country research cooperation and comparison among researchers from different research institutions, for example, through the
application of survey techniques in comparative setting (see the data by Duru et al. that
is backed by the EU funded FP7 EUCROSS project, the data of Marchetti come also

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

11

from an EU funded fellowship while the data of Bartolini, Gropas and Triandafyllidou
come from a cooperative effort of four Universities).
In conclusion this special issue points to how integration dynamics become more volatile and fluid as EU and non EU migrants are faced with differentiated mobility regimes
and different sets of rights. Both groups of EU and non EU migrants engage in innovative
modes of transnational socialisation and integration that go beyond classical concepts of
diaspora and homeland. However, economic inequalities and hierarchies of cultures/
nationalities persist within the European space: not only in Western or Southern but
also in central Eastern Europe there is a distinction between first class and second class
intra EU migrants. Even if countries begin to recover from crisis, more uncertainties lie
ahead with the U.K.s decision to leave the EU. A complete opt-out of the U.K. from
free movement might seem like an unlikely scenario, as this would not only create
serious difficulties for U.K. citizens who live and work in other member states but also
affect the British labour market, which is back to pre-2008 recession unemployment
levels (standing at approximately 5% in 20152016) and hence still in significant
demand of both skilled and non-skilled labour. Brexit will nevertheless have serious repercussions with EU migrants likely to divert from the U.K. to other countries. In this new
situation, the European laboratory of mobility will need to confront greater inequality
and more differentiated rights with privileges for high skilled workers and increasing
restrictions of access to labour, welfare and citizenship for low-skilled workers (Graeber
2016). The discussions around Brexit show that while the financial crisis context is an
important factor shaping flows and labour market integration both within the EU and
as regards non EU migrants, it is only one of several more long-term elements that condition intra EU and non EU migrant integration in Europe. The crisis creates new flows
(especially highly skilled youth moving from south to north) but does not fundamentally
alter long term divisions between western and eastern Europe nor more long term processes of urban super diversity and transnational engagement. In the post-Brexit laboratory of mobility, low skilled labour will be at greatest risk also in other parts of Europe,
for example, in Denmark and Germany where mobility based on equal rights has
already started to shift to mobility guided by flexible demands of the labour market.

Note
1. See Dominguez-Mujica, Daz Hernndez, and Parreo-Castellano (2016) for the case of
young adults from Southern Europe and Wiesbck et al. (2016) and Janicka and Kaczmarczyk (2016) for the continuation of EastWest migrations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ambrosini, M. 2014. Migration and Transnational Commitment. Some Evidence from the Italian
Case. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. doi:10-1080/1369183X.2013.830883.

12

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

Bartolini, L., R. Gropas, and A. Triandafyllidou. 2016. Drivers of Highly Skilled Mobility from
Southern Europe: Escaping the Crisis and Emancipating Oneself. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249048.
Baubck, R. 2007. Why European Citizenship? Normative Approaches to Supranational Union.
Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8 (2): 453488.
Carling, J. 2008. The Human Dynamics of Migrant Transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies
31 (8): 14521477.
Carling, J. 2012. Collecting, Analysing and Presenting Migration Histories. In Handbook of
Research Methods in Migration, edited by C. Vargas-Silva, 1371162. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Castles, S., and M. J. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the
Modern World. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Darieva, T., N. G. Schiller, and S. Gruner-Domic. 2014. Cosmopolitan Sociability: Locating
Transnational Religious and Diasporic Networks. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dekker, B., and M. Siegel. 2013. Transnationalism and Integration. Complements or Substitutes?
UNU MERIT Working Paper Series, 2013071.
Dominguez-Mujica, J., R. F. Daz Hernndez, and J. M. Parreo-Castellano. 2016. Migrating
Abroad to Get Ahead: The Emigration of Young Spanish Adults During the Financial Crisis
(20082013). In Global Change and Human Mobility, edited by J. Dominguez-Mujica, 203
224. Berlin: Springer.
Dubucs, H., E. Recchi, T. Pfirsch, and C. Schmoll. 2016. Je suis un Italien de Paris: Italian migrants
incorporation in a European capital city. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. doi:10.1080/
1369183X.2016.1249051.
Duru, D. N., L. Hanquinet, and N. S. Cesur. 2016. Perceptions of Diversity and Attitudes of
Tolerance in the ragmented United Kingdom. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.
doi:10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249053.
Duru, D. N., and H. J. Trenz. 2016. From Diversity to Conviviality: Intra-EU Mobility and
International Migration to Denmark in Times of Economic Recession. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249049.
Faist, T. 2008. Diversity A New Mode of Incorporation? Ethnic and Racial Studies 32 (1): 171
190.
Geddes, A., and C. Boswell. 2011. Migration and Mobility in the European Union. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Glick Schiller, N. 2007. Beyond the Nation-State and Its Units of Analysis: Towards a New
Research Agenda for Migration Studies. Essentials of Migration Theory. Paper presented at
the conference on Transnationalisation and Development(s): Towards a North-South
Perspective, Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld, Germany, May 31June 01.
https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/tdrc/ag_comcad/downloads/workingpaper_33_Glick_Schiller.pdf.
Glick Schiller, N., and A. Caglar, eds. 2010. Locating Migration. Rescaling Cities and Migrants.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Glick Schiller, N., L. Basch, and C. Blanc-Szanton. 1992. Transnationalism: A New Analytic
Framework for Understanding Migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645:
124. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb33484.x.
Glick Schiller, N., and N. Salazar. 2014. Regimes of Mobility. London: Routledge.
Graeber, J. 2016. Citizenship in the Shadow of the Euro Crisis: Explaining Changing Patterns in
Naturalisation among Intra-EU Migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (10):
16701692.
Gropas, R., and A. Triandafyllidou. 2014. Emigrating at Times of Crisis. A Cross Country
Comparison. Accessed March 9, 2015. http://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2014/03/SURVEY-REPORT-Emigrating-in-times-of-crisis.pdf.
Janicka, A., and P. Kaczmarczyk. 2016. Mobilities in the Crisis and Post-crisis Times: Migration
Strategies of Poles on the EU Labour Market. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42
(10): 16931710.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES

13

Kouki, H., and A. Triandafyllidou. 2014. Naturalizing Racism in the Center of Athens in May
2011: Lessons from Greece. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies 12 (4): 353362.
doi:10.1080/15562948.2014.932477.
Kraus, P. A. 2012. Politics of Complex Diversity: A European Perspective. Ethnicities 12 (1): 325.
Lacroix, T. 2014. Conceptualising Transnational Engagements. A Structure and Agency
Perspective on (Hometown) Transnationalism. International Migration Review. doi:10.1111/
imre.12165.
Lulle, A., and I. J. Hobein. 2016. Strangers within? Russian-speakers Migration from Latvia to
London: A Study in Power Geometry and Intersectionality. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249054.
Marchetti, S. 2016. Networks Beyond Nationalities? Relationships Between Eastern European
Women Workers in Italy Facing the Economic Crisis. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249052.
Mau, S. 2011. Social Transnationalism: Lifeworlds Beyond the Nation-State. London: Routledge.
Mouritsen, P. 2006. The Particular Universalism of a Nordic Civic Nation. In Multiculturalism,
Muslims and Citizenship. A European Approach, edited by T. Modood, A. Triandafyllidou, and
R. Zapata Barrero, 7093. London: Routledge.
OECD. 2015. International Migration Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/migr_outlook2015-en.
Olsen, E. D. H. 2015. Eurocrisis and EU Citizenship. In Europes Prolonged Crisis: The Making or
the Unmaking of a Political Union, edited by H. J. Trenz, C. Ruzza, and V. Guiraudon, 85103.
Basingstoke: Routledge.
Olsen, T. V., and P. Mouritsen. 2013. Liberalism and the Diminishing Space of Tolerance. In
Tolerance, Intolerance and Respect: Hard to Accept?, edited by T. Modood and J. Dobbernack,
127156. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Padilla, B., J. Azevedo, and A. Olmos Alcaraz. 2015. Superdiversity and Conviviality: Exploring
Frameworks for Doing Ethnography in Southern European Intercultural Cities. Ethnic and
Racial Studies 38 (4): 621635.
Papagianni, G. 2014. EU Migration Policy. In European Immigration A Source Book, edited by
A. Triandafyllidou and R. Gropas, 377389. Ashgate.
Pries, L. 2009. Transnationalisation and the Challenge of Differentiated Concepts of Space. In
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografii 100 (5): 578588.
Ralph, D. 2014. Always on the Move but Going Nowhere Fast. Motivations for Euro-Commuting
between the Republic of Ireland and Other EU States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
41 (2): 176195.
Recchi, E., and A. Favell, eds. 2009. Pioneers of European Integration: Mobility and Citizenship in
the EU. Cheltenham: Elgar.
Recchi, E., and J. Salamoska. 2015. Bad Times, Good Times to Move? The Changing Landscape of
Intra-EU Migration. In Europes Prolonged Crisis: The Making or the Unmaking of a Political
Union, edited by H. J. Trenz, C. Ruzza, and V. Guiraudon. Basingstoke: Routledge.
Roos, C., and N. Zaun. 2016. The Global Economic Crisis as a Critical Juncture? The Crisiss
Impact on Migration Movements and Policies in Europe and the U.S. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 42 (10): 15791589.
Triandafyllidou, A. 2013. National Identity and Diversity: Towards Plural Nationalism. In
Tolerance, Intolerance and Respect. Hard to Accept?, edited by J. Dobbernack and T. Modood,
159186. London: Palgrave.
Triandafyllidou, A., and R. Gropas. 2014. Voting with Their Feet: Highly Skilled Emigrants from
Southern Europe. American Behavioral Scientist 58: 16141633. doi:10.1177/
0002764214534665.
Uberoi, V., and T. Modood. eds. 2015. Multiculturalism Rethought. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-Diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 1024
1054.

14

H.-J. TRENZ AND A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU

Vertovec, S., and S. Wessendorf, eds. 2010. The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses,
Policies and Practices. London: Routledge.
Waldinger, R. and D. Fitzgerald. 2004. Transnationalism in Question. American Journal of
Sociology 109 (5): 11771195.
Wiesbck, L., R. Verwiebe, C. Reinprecht, and R. Haindorfer. 2016. The Economic Crisis as a
Driver of Cross-Border Labour Mobility? A Multi-method Perspective on the Case of the
Central European Region. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (10): 17111727.