*Politiche Sociali/Social Policies (ed. Il Mulino)*
*Call for papers*
*THE BURDEN OF INTRA-EU MOBILITY ON NATIONAL WELFARE SYSTEMS: BETWEEN MYTH AND REALITY*
Focal Issue to be included in no. 3/2017
*Guest Editors: Stefano Giubboni and Francesco Costamagna*
Abstract Submission: *Deadline 20 January 2017*
Manuscript Submission: *Deadline 15 May 2017*
Free movement of persons has become one of the most cherished and most despised features of the European integration process. On the one side, the combined rights to free movement, residency and equal treatment are unique in the world with regard to both its scope and political commitment to regional integration and solidarity (Geddes, 2008). On the other side, these rights face now strong opposition, as they are perceived as encouraging social tourism and posing an unsustainable burden on national social security systems. For instance, this perception dominated the poisonous and largely uninformed Brexit debate over migration issues.
The possibility that free movement, associated with equal access to social protection for the movers, could represent a cost for national welfare systems is not a novel concern and has been taken into account by EU
policy-makers. Indeed, according to EU law only workers and the self-employed enjoy full rights to residence and not to be discriminated against in access to social benefits.Conversely, economically inactive persons have the right to reside in the territory of another Member State only if they can demonstrate having sufficient resources for them and their families, plus health insurance. The objective is to avoid their becoming “a burden on the social assistance system of the host State”(Art. 7 Directive 38/2004/EC).
The debate over the budgetary impact of intra-EU mobility reignited after the EU’s eastward enlargements of 2004 and 2007. In 2013, 4 Member States – UK, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands – formally asked the Commission to propose the amendment of Directive 38/2004/EC, in order to provide national authorities with more effective tools to combat a “type of immigration [that] burdens the host societies with considerable additional costs”. The same concerns dominated the poisonous and largely uninformed Brexit debate over migration issues. Here the focus centered on workers, as the British Government sought to obtain the possibility to unilaterally limit the ability of incoming citizens to have access to social benefits. Once again, the aim was to ease the pressure created by mobility on the financial sustainability of the national social security system.
These claims are not backed by strong evidence, as data on the burden posed by intra-EU mobility on national welfare systems are often partial and inconclusive. From a legal perspective, it is still uncertain when the
burden is heavy enough to deny a person the right to reside, as the CJEU has been less than consistent in defining this notion. Yet this element plays a major role in the public debate, contributing much to shape policy
and legislative choices adopted at national and supranational levels. Therefore, the editors welcome articles’ proposals that can contribute to more light on this issue, by addressing it from economic, legal, political
science or sociological perspectives. Articles focusing on the practice of single Member States are welcome, as well as those looking at the role that the budgetary impact of mobility plays in shaping public perceptions and
We invite submission of abstracts of about *1000 words* that outline the primary research question, theoretical approach, methods and relevance. Abstracts should be sent no later than *20 January 2017* to the following
address:* firstname.lastname@example.org *
Submitting Authors should also send a short biographical note. Guest editors will evaluate abstracts and notify submitting authors of acceptance or rejection by *10 February 2017*. The manuscript should be sent no later
than *15 May 2017* to the following address: email@example.com All manuscripts published in the Journal are subject to a double blind peer review system. Reviewers are chosen by Guest editors in consultation with
the editor of the journal. Decisions on publication will be taken on the basis of reviewers’ reports. Selected articles will be included in the focal issue no. 3 /2017 and will be published in December 2017.
Journal information and instructions for authors can be found on the