Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

versa, the selection of cases comprises countries with different degrees of association with the Union. In this respect, the selected cases represent Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland), associated countries with a high degree of integration (e.g. Norway), candidate countries with a fairly good degree of integration (e.g. Hungary), and candidate countries with a lower degree of integration (e.g. Estonia). Moreover, the selection of countries also reflects the temporal dimension of integration in terms of early and late start of integration, specifically with respect to the distinction between West European and previously communistic countries. This also relates to issues around the European Union’s extension process. In comparing small member states with small non-member states, one aim is to discuss how the change in the meaning and practice of citizenship has evolved through increased mobility rights within the EU, and whether Union membership may lead to changes in any direction. In this respect, the comparative frame will also assess whether the developments on the policy level support the EU’s principles of functional equivalence and subsidiarity or the principle of differentiated scale of rights. Issues related to the Sami concerns, the status of extra-territorial citizens (Svalbard, Aland Islands, Faroe Islands, and Greenland), and second country nationals as well receive a significantly greater attention in this connection, and the policy developments here will reflect how a country has to achieve a congruency in its citizenship standards. With respect to the goal of testing the utility of our qualitative-comparative analysis toolkit (QC-CITKIT) and our qualitative-comparative measurement tools (QC-CITSCALE), and forming a small states citizenship conditions database (QC-CITBASE), this selection of countries will help identify certain important types of misalignments between belongings and citizenship in the context of European peripheries as well as the best functioning participation and voice models. 26
III. SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT RESULTS AND METHODOLOGY The term “quality of citizenships” refers to alignments and misalignments between legal/institutional citizenship frames and citizens’/residents’ actual belongings, identities, and interests. This conceptualization also comprises citizens’ and residents’ degree of involvement, coexistence of diverse belongings, and individuals’ physical and psychic mobility. Figure 1. The General Research Frame Glocalmig maps the dynamic, changing and complex interrelationships as well as alignments and misalignments between different types of citizenship, the European citizenship, different types of rights-regimes, and citizens’ diverse identity and belonging patterns and their interests emanating from these belongings. Glocalmig ties the phenomena in the above figure to each other through the concept of quality of citizenships, and, thus, conceptualizes quality of citizenship in terms of: - citizenship structures’ aptness to accommodate and manage mobility, diversity, and to enable coexistence of diverse identities and belongings; - citizens’ and residents’ involvement in different channels of voice and participation; - individuals’ perceptions of the political institutions’ responsiveness to social groups’ and individual citizens’ belongings, preferences, and interests. Thus, the quality of citizenships crystallizes down to the degree and content of alignments and misalignments between the existing legal, structural, and institutional 27
Page 1 and 2: EU RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND
Page 3 and 4: EUROPEAN COMMISSION EU RESEARCH ON
Page 5 and 6: Preface Within the Fifth Community
Page 7 and 8: Table of contents Preface v Aknowle
Page 9 and 10: Aknowledgements On behalf of the Un
Page 11 and 12: The above statement should be regar
Page 13 and 14: meticulously addressing the citizen
Page 15 and 16: contexts. Policy responses to socia
Page 17 and 18: findings could only include certain
Page 19 and 20: the one hand and between participat
Page 21 and 22: collected during the country studie
Page 23 and 24: ● which existing national and int
Page 25: Table 1. The Countries and Groups u
Page 29 and 30: The designs of the three research t
Page 31 and 32: diverse society. In other words, th
Page 33 and 34: citizenships (e.g. new problems, ne
Page 35 and 36: enefits in the state. 1 A claim of
Page 37 and 38: These anomalies require supplement
Page 39 and 40: Table 2. Notions of the Citizen in
Page 41 and 42: The dimensions that Glocalmig focus
Page 43 and 44: spheres of interaction, meaning, an
Page 45 and 46: Residence, Permanent Residence, Mat
Page 47 and 48: The major objection to a comparison
Page 49 and 50: Table 3. Measurement and Scaling Mo
Page 51 and 52: and individuals within the new cont
Page 53 and 54: the future. In this sense, the data
Page 55 and 56: 3) Acceptance, cooperation, and sym
Page 57 and 58: integration and intercultural learn
Page 59 and 60: Medborgerhuset can be translated in
Page 61 and 62: It seems that a lot of the explanat
Page 63 and 64: The absence of some categories in s
Page 65 and 66: In order to provide a conceptual st
Page 67 and 68: 2.2.4. Multidimensional belongings
Page 69 and 70: 1. Variable Principal Normalization
Page 71 and 72: Dimension 5: European-territorial b
Page 73 and 74: territories. This is an alignment b
Page 75 and 76: voice and influence - national spac
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 7. Participation in Essentia
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 9. Respondents’ Geographic
Page 81 and 82:
2.2.7. Mobility of Minds - Psychic/
Page 83 and 84:
section is whether the degree of ge
Page 85 and 86:
On the other hand, increased “cro
Page 87 and 88:
Table 12. Alignments/Misalignments
Page 89 and 90:
extra-territorials are the most con
Page 91 and 92:
characteristics (belonging, partici
Page 93 and 94:
Concerning “alignments and misali
Page 95 and 96:
2.3.3. Spatial and mental mobility
Page 97 and 98:
Table 16. Explanatory Powers of the
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 12. Three Predictive Models
Page 101 and 102:
separates between essentialized spa
Page 103 and 104:
Fig. 14 illustrates the most import
Page 105 and 106:
country methods, especially in the
Page 107 and 108:
language skills, and organizational
Page 109 and 110:
is being created in these sites. Th
Page 111 and 112:
V. DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION O
Page 113 and 114:
York-based publisher, Edwin Mellen
Page 115 and 116:
2003 Radical Transnationalism and T
Page 117 and 118:
Scientific report submitted to the
Page 119 and 120:
2. Dissemination by the Austrian Ac
Page 121 and 122:
Towards a political theory of migra
Page 123 and 124:
Teaching 2004 summer term: Course a
Page 125 and 126:
4. Dissemination by the Estonian In
Page 127 and 128:
6. Dissemination by the Central Eur
Page 129 and 130:
VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.
Page 131 and 132:
Calhoun, Craig 1997, Nationalism. B
Page 133 and 134:
Horowitz, Donald L. 1985, Ethnic Gr
Page 135 and 136:
Ragin, Charles 1991, “The Problem
Page 137 and 138:
Taylor, Charles 1992, “Multicultu
Page 139:
European Commission EUR 23143 — E
Page 142:
KI-NA-23143-EN-N
show all

Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?