Search results

The prevalence of anti-EU integration and anti-immigration rhetoric across the continent, the increased presence of Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, and most importantly Brexit suggest that the European Union is having an existential crisis. This chapter debates the role of the EU citizenship regime on this crisis, by resting its central thesis that there is a fundamental mismatch between the way that EU citizenship is at present derived from Member State citizenship, and the transnational affinity of the EU citizenry that is invited by the internal market and migration. As a remedy, the chapter projects a supranational EU citizenship regime that coexists with the current EU citizenship regime. Focussing on the social and political imperatives, the chapter brings forward tangible policy recommendations for the proposed EU citizenship regime and expounds how it can be an effective policy instrument for the EU’s internal and external struggles.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine and reformulate T.H. Marshall's concept of industrial citizenship, and apply the reformulated model to a case study of the UK.

Marshall's conceptualisation of industrial citizenship is criticised for neglecting the rights of unions as collective rights and for treating industrial citizenship as an aggregation of individual rights. Subsequent attempts to use the idea of industrial citizenship are similarly flawed. A case study of changes to industrial citizenship in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s is used to develop the new model and provide evidence in support of it.

An alternative conceptualisation of industrial citizenship is presented that outlines collective and individual powers, obligations, liberties, constraints, immunities and liabilities. This model is illustrated using examples from the Conservative governments' industrial relations legislation of the 1980s and 1990s.

Discussions and applications of T.H. Marshall's concept of industrial citizenship are few and far between. The paper proposes an original re‐conceptualisation specifying the collective rights of unions in the British regime of industrial citizenship. This new concept of industrial citizenship is then applied to the radical changes in industrial relations legislation in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s.

This volume looks at the construction of gendered citizenship in different rural contexts: under different welfare and gender regimes, and different rural and agricultural conditions. Through applying the concepts of the welfare state and gender regimes within rural research, this book contributes to the further development of a comparative theoretical framework for rural gender studies. The importance of integrating rural gender studies into both the mainstreams of rural and feminist research has been emphasized in previous volumes, as has that of developing comparative analytical frameworks (Whatmore, Marsden, & Lowe, 1994, p. 2; Brandth, 2002; Shortall, 2006). The conceptual framework adopted in this volume sets out to meet this challenge by approaching rural gender relations as the meeting point of two core research areas: feminist research into gender regime studies and research on rural transformative processes. Research into gender regimes offers a promising analytical framework for comparing gender relations in diverse rural settings. By formulating gender relations in terms of citizenship rights, this approach elevates the concerns of rural gender relations to broader discourses located at the nation state level (Werbner & Yuval-Davis, 1999; Asztalos Morell, 1999a). The evolution of citizenship rights at the nation state level has created hegemonic frameworks that are able to influence and transform rural gender relations. At the same time, by addressing rural concerns, deriving from the specificity of rural transition processes and gender regimes, the approach also contributes to an elucidation of the complexity of citizenship. In accordance to current debates emphasizing the embedded nature of gender relations with other social forces of differentiation, such as age, class and ethnicity (Walby, 1997; Hobson & Lister, 2002) we aimed to elucidate how gendered citizenship is constituted in the rural context.

Marshall (1950, p. 10) saw civil citizenship rights as concerning individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, property ownership rights, personal liberties and rights to justice. Women obtained many of these rights only after the acknowledgement of their political citizenship (Walby, 1997, p. 175) and much later than men did. Civil citizenship includes a whole range of issues which cannot be covered in this book. This book focuses on the gender aspects of ownership and land succession. Land succession is interrelated with a series of other civil citizenship rights issues such as access to training and education. While succession is also interrelated with issues of social (social security eligibility), economic (division of labour in the families) and political (political participation and representation) citizenship issues, these relations are to be discussed later.

This article seeks to consider the links between emerging concepts of citizenship in the twenty‐first century and the legitimization of this agenda by providing an overview of UK policy as it relates to adult protection as well as consideration of concepts of citizenship and the links between the two areas.

The paper provides an overview of adult protection in the UK and then takes the reader through concepts of vulnerability and citizenship and considers the implications of these concepts on the citizenship of those most likely to be subject to adult protection procedures in the UK.

This article shows how models of citizenship have altered over time to reflect societal norms and customs and in particular how this paradigm shift has legitimized intervention in the lives of adults. It further highlights the likely impact of adult protection procedures on the citizenship rights of those most likely to experience them.

The paper brings together conceptual discourses on citizenship and adult protection.

There are clear theoretical, policy and practice tensions in conceptualising social or long-term care as a “right”: an enforceable choice. The purpose of this article is to address the following questions: Do disabled and older citizens have the right to long-term care? What do these rights look like under different care regimes? Do citizens have the right or duty to *provide* long-term care? It is already known that both formal and informal care across all welfare contexts is mainly provided by women and that this has serious implications for gender equality.

In this article, the author takes a conceptual approach to examining the comparative evidence from developed welfare states with formal long-term care provision and the different models of care, to challenge feminist care theory from the perspective of those living in care poverty (i.e. with insufficient access to long-term care and support to meet their citizenship rights).

Drawing on her own comparative research on models of long-term and “personalised” care, the author finds that different models of state provision and different models of personalised care provide differential citizenship outcomes for carers and those needing care. The findings indicate that well-governed personalised long-term care provides the best outcomes in terms of balancing potentially conflicting citizenship claims and addressing care poverty.

The author develops new approaches to care theory based on citizenship and care poverty that have not been published elsewhere, drawing on models that she developed herself.

During the last decade of the Twentieth Century the advanced North Atlantic economies performed in a markedly profitable way seen from the perspective of corporate business. This has neither led, however, to the impediment of a deepening social crisis, nor to the arrest of a crisis for liberal political values and norms of citizenship. On the contrary social exclusion was exacerbated, increasingly racialized and associated with immigrants and new visible ethnic minorities. A perhaps more conspicuous, but closely related, manifestation of this crisis of welfare and political values has, within the European Union, been the upturn of new nationalist, racist-populist political movements centered on the “problem of immigration.” This change of the political spectrum, brought about by the new right nationalist-populist upsurge, may eventually jeopardize the whole project of European integration, and the current tightening up of European regimes of both immigration and the societal incorporation of immigrants obviously reflects such worries. Simultaneously, however, influential employers, politicians and public servants have, time after time, cried out for the need for continued and increased large-scale import of low- as well as high-skilled migrant labor, seen as a remedy to Europe’s imminent “demographic crisis.”

Across the Americas, public discussions of crime and penal practices have become increasingly punitive even as political struggles have resulted in a broad shift toward Constitutional democracy. In this chapter, we suggest that the spread of tough anti-crime talk and practice is, paradoxically, a response to efforts to expand and deepen democracy. Punitive crime talk is useful to political actors seeking to limit formal and social citizenship rights for several reasons. First, it ostensibly targets problematic behavior rather than particular social groups, and thus appears to be consistent with democratic norms. At the same time, crime talk often acquires coded meanings that enable those who mobilize it to tap into inter-group hostility, anxieties, and fear. In addition, the emphasis on the threat of crime and disorder offers those seeking to limit democratic expansion a way to legitimate truncated visions of the rights and entitlements of citizenship. Tough anti-crime rhetoric often resonates with those who have experienced or fear the loss of symbolic and/or material benefits as a result of democratic reform. In short, the broad shift toward hyper-penality is, at least in part, a consequence of struggles over political democracy, citizenship and governance across the Americas.

The purpose of the paper is to question the false dilemma of bread (the social and economic rights) or freedom (the civil and political rights), which amounts to a simplified ambivalent vision either for or against “China in Africa”, in the debate over African workers’ rights in Chinese enterprises. The paper, first underscores the importance of the constraining and enabling institutional conditions by deconstructing this normative approach, and then proposes an alternative institutional approach to address issues pertaining to employment relations.

In the tradition of deconstructive techniques, the paper draws three lines of institutional resistance to move the “China in Africa” controversy in employment relations beyond its normative approach. These lines of demarcation are an African ethnology as opposed to a Western modernist reference, a postcolonial analysis of power in lieu of liberal hegemony and informality as a legitimate source of legality.

The paper suggests the Chinese corporate strategy as implemented by managers notably through human resource management practices, the African institutional contexts where the protagonists’ power resources are deployed and the paramount importance of informality in discussing the impacts of Chinese investments on workers’ rights in sub-Saharan Africa.

The paper shows that the disconnect between “good investment” that should improve social and economic rights and “bad employment” that downplays civil and political rights is not a “foreign” (Western or Chinese) issue per se, but a challenge for innovative employment relations that support investment and mind the workplace institutional context.