Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

This article explores the EU free movers' experience of borders and describes how they experience borders as complicated and complex. Although some variation exists in terms of the place of the free movers in the labor market, the advantage gained by being a corporate transferee is easily lost when individuals cease to be useful to their employers. The ambivalence - which is highlighted in past literature and experienced by Estonian migrants in Sweden also - is exploited by employers who create and also negotiate borders when they feel the need to. The article concurs with the suggestion of Wagner (2015) that free mobility within the EU functions as a sieve - i.e., there is free mobility for services, but workers' rights are often disregarded. Furthermore, due to the complex nature of borders, EU free movers themselves are often either unaware of or confused about their legal status and their rights.

Welfare provision as a border control strategy is often discussed in relation to irregular migrants and refugees. However, this article focuses on EU migrants. Using discourse theory, it explores interviews with policy experts from four migrant-receiving EU countries. The aim is to identify policy discourses on deservingness articulated in relation to intra-EU migrants from four member states in Eastern Europe, to detect mechanisms that generate these discourses and to reveal how they relate to welfare chauvinism. The article uncovers contesting logics that move policy experts toward welfare-chauvinist assumptions, which might contribute to the discursive welfare exclusion of EU migrants.

This article draws on the idea that welfare systems and institutions are based on normative assumptions about justice, solidarity, and responsibility. Even though the literature on welfare deservingness has highlighted the connection between ideas of solidarity and the support to, for instance, people with different ethnic backgrounds, there is very little research on the interconnections of different welfare state models and ideas on how migration should be governed. This article suggests that there is a link between the welfare state models suggested by Esping-Anderssen and different discourses on migrant welfare deservingness. The article explores the interlinkages of three welfare state models-liberal, social-democratic, and continental-corporative-and four discourses on welfare deservingness of migrants in respect to social welfare-labourist, ethno-cultural, residential, and welfarist (see Carmel & Sojka, 2020). It is suggested that the normative foundations embedded in different welfare systems lead to dissimilar ways of approaching migrants and migration.

Psycho-social wellbeing has been difficult to define for social sciences as it stands now. In migration research, studies usually rely on belonging, social interactions, or structural problems which migrants encounter upon arrival. All these approaches provide relevant insights, but struggle to address the more individual and psycho-social aspects of the migration process and subsequent adaptation period. This article proposes to shift the focus away from the internal world of the migrant, which is challenging for most social sciences to measure, and instead consider their outward actions. To this end, we introduce the concept of actionability, a term which is to be understood as an individual's ability to formulate and execute long-term plans based on their perceived needs, desires, and concerns. The idea of actionability allows us to assess how migrants interact with their environment and can formulate and successfully execute plans. By using 37 interviews with highly skilled Estonian migrants in UK, the article suggests that actionability is tightly connected to reflexive modes, developed by Archer, and that certain reflexive types have predictable patterns in how they react to the migration experience.

This article makes the case for using the concept of lifestyle migration to understand return migration. The key argument is that there are several advantages for engaging with lifestyle migration literature when analysing people's return, of which the prime reason is to draw attention away from the affective and emotional aspects of return migration and view it as a conscious decision related to future planning. A combination of statistical data and interviews with highly skilled Estonian migrants in the UK shows how the return of these migrants is often related to moving from one life stage to another. In the conscious process of planning for a family, several aspects related to both countries were evaluated and the return was often explained as benefitting the (potential) family. The article also claims that there is a need for lifestyle migration research to engage more actively on interlinkages between lifestyle and life stage.

This chapter describes how the Estonian state’s diaspora policy has moved away from being purely culture-centred towards a more business-focused initiative. The policy has undergone few changes during the last decade and still does not focus on social protection. The state does offer basic social protection and consular services by agreement with a few countries, such as the Russian Federation. The lack of Estonian state provided social protection to nationals abroad is counteracted, in some countries, by localized national organizations which the Estonian state may or may not fund. However, an important shift is taking place in the provision of Estonian language courses and cultural programmes to support returnees and their non-Estonian family members. 

Migration literature has traditionally distinguished between different motivations of migration, such as labour, family and newly also lifestyle migration, never fully exploring the background of these motivations. This article suggests that these different motivations may be explained by different modes of reflexivity as distinguished by Margaret Archer. Linking modes of reflexivity with migration motivations addresses two problems in current migration literature. First, it provides for practical application of reflexivity in explaining migration motivations, which has been missing so far. Second, the article advocates using psycho-social approach as opposed to more commonly adapted ethnical or class based explanations in understanding migration behavior, hence avoiding the potential trap of falling into the trap of methodological nationalism or classism. Through the interview with highly-skilled Estonian migrants it is shown that the reasons of migration among highly skilled are versatile and cannot be explained solely by their class background.

This paper examines recent migration from three little-studied European Union (EU) countries, the Baltic states, focusing on early-career graduates who move to London. It looks at how these young migrants explain the reasons for their move, their work and living experiences in London, and their plans for the future, based on 78 interviews with individual migrants. A key objective of this paper is to rejuvenate the core-periphery structural framework through the theoretical lens of London as an escalator' region for career development. We add a necessary nuance on how the time dimension is crucial in understanding how an escalator region functions - both in terms of macro-events such as EU enlargement or economic crisis, and for life-course events such as career advancement or family formation. Our findings indicate that these educated young adults from the EU's north-eastern periphery migrate for a combination of economic, career, lifestyle and personal-development reasons. They are ambivalent about their futures and when, and whether, they will return-migrate.

Whereas migration research has been heavily influenced by the individualization paradigm, studies on return migration have been more inspired by theories on attachment and belonging. It is common for this kind of research to assert that the main motivations for returning are social contacts and a homing desire. Although this article does not question the importance of such motivations for some, it does argue that return migration needs to be more problematized, not least by studying people who have decided not to return. Based on interviews with highly skilled Estonians, this article suggests that return decisions are influenced by three types of comparisons: social, temporal, and intra-subjective. The first two comparisons have been discussed to some degree in migration literature; however, a focus on intra-subjective comparisons – in which people compare different parts of their identity in order to decide on a potential return – has been scarce. This article suggests that, in line with the individualization of social relationships, but also with the introduction of a new EU mobility space, it is the latter type of comparison that is becoming increasingly widespread.