Abstract
Liberal cosmopolitanism provides a set of norms that calls for the openness of borders. Freedom of movement, equality in opportunity and hospitality define a liberal framework for a state’s ruling over the access of foreigners to the territory. However, in states’ execution of border and immigration control these normative ideals seem not to apply. Accounts of border and immigration policy and discourse document a bias towards exclusion, restriction and securitization. It looks as if this normative political theory has no bearing on the real world. This is the starting point for an exploration into the public discourse on liberal cosmopolitan norms and the border. The study finds that most collective actors consider the application of the norms to be utopian. Still, they heavily draw on these norms as a means to critique domestic policies that attempt to regulate global mobility. These are considered to be morally wrong or insufficient for providing equality in opportunities, solidarity, or protection. Actors’ interpretation of key norms such as equality, hospitality and social justice varies significantly which calls for empirical as well theoretical work on the often Janus-faced implications of putting cosmopolitan norms into practice.
Keywords
Global mobility, cosmopolitanism and border policies
Cross-border mobility and transnational practices have become an almost universal human experience in the 21st century. Thus, the claim has been made that state and society should understand movements not only in their national, but also their global context (Beck, 2002). Liberal cosmopolitanism as a normative theory or ‘worldview’ links the national and the global by promoting a set of values for the interaction between society and foreigners 1 (Vertovec and Cohen, 2002: 8). It pushes for liberal norms; the universality of individual rights is of greater value for cosmopolitan theorists than particularistic group interests (Benhabib, 2004). In application to the field of immigration and border policies, some social theorists, legal scholars and philosophers even find justifications for declaring control of territorial access and membership an illegitimate and arbitrary state intervention into the mobility of the global citizen. They argue that the cosmopolitan citizen is entitled to freedom of movement and equal opportunities across nation-states irrespective of the citizenship they hold (Carens, 2006; Marchetti, 2006; Shabani, 2007).
The literature hardly accounts for a mobility and immigration regime that incorporates this vision. Predominantly, it is argued that states attempt the select closure of their borders (Laube, 2013; Mau et al., 2012; Weber and Pickering, 2011). A securitization discourse in immigration claims the fortification of Europe and the West becoming surrounded by walls that are insurmountable to the world’s poor (Andreas and Snyder, 2000). Studies on attitudes and public discourses hold that populist and right-wing parties gain ever more support in organizing opposition to the concept of a liberal western society that accepts immigration (Givens et al., 2009; Messina, 2007). It seems as if discontent against an ever-more mobile, open, and transnationally connected society is rising.
Empirical accounts of attitudes on border and immigration policy seem to disappoint the cosmopolitan vision. Yet, do such accounts already disprove liberal cosmopolitanism to be just a theoretical debate with no repercussions on the real world? What do we actually know about the relationship between the abstract normative theory and the public discourse on border and immigration politics? The understanding of liberal cosmopolitan norms by collective actors establishes the link between normative theory and the discourse on politics. The normative content of positions of political parties, unions and employer associations as well as NGOs conveys an idea about the normative theory’s role in discussing border and immigration policy. 2 How do these actors use and interpret norms that are considered to be part of liberal cosmopolitanism? Do these norms go along with their claims in this specific policy field?
Research that deals with collective actors’ positions, claims and policy frames on immigration and the border hardly offered a comprehensive account of how those are related to liberal cosmopolitanism. Kriesi and collaborators undertook the impressive task to research the changes in party manifestos of European parties from the 1970s to the 2000s. They claim the emergence of new populist right parties that are illiberal and anti-immigrant (Lachat and Kriesi, 2008). Koopmans and Statham (2000), as well as Statham and Geddes (2006), studied collective actors’ positions on immigration and border policies in terms of the opportunity structures given in respective political systems. For successful influence on policy, they emphasize the importance of actors’ framing of claims and how these claims fit with political opportunities (Statham and Geddes, 2006: 265). Studies on the ‘politicisation’ of civil society put a similar focus on public mobilization and conflicting attitudes towards policies of domestic and international institutions (Zürn et al., 2012). The object of our research is on the role and content of norms in actors’ claims. A quantitative study by Helbling delivers the most recent account of how norms such as fairness, equality and human rights define a dominant ‘moral universal’ frame in the immigration discourse of political parties in Western European countries (2013: 32–33). Also close to our objective is a body of research that looks at the impact of international norms on domestic change. Risse and Sikkink (1999: 5) observe processes in which international norms are internalized by actors and implemented domestically. In contrast, we show how local actors promote or reject cosmopolitan norms in justifying their positions in the public debate on the national governance of cross-border processes. This article proceeds in three stages. First, the general function of norms and values for actors’ positions is considered. Why should actors consider cosmopolitan norms at all? Second, we discuss a set of liberal norms that can be identified as key to cosmopolitanism on a theoretical level. In a third stage, the set of norms is applied to a sample of collective actors from two Western industrialized, liberal democracies, namely Austria and Finland, and their positions on border and immigration policy. By doing this, we propose an empirical approach to the research of the role of liberal cosmopolitanism in public discourse.
Research on norms and values in actors’ positions
Norms and values provide a collective understanding about certain end-states, such as justice and freedom, or about the proper behaviour of actors, such as fairness and solidarity (Bem, 1970: 16–17). Moreover, the liberal norms defined within cosmopolitan theory can be considered a power resource. Unlike money or violence, norms can provide schemes of interpretation used for persuasion that help in mobilizing for collective action (Gamson, 1968; Goffman, 1974). Norms are formed and discussed in political theory and philosophy. But at the same time their validity and significance are developed and shaped in discursive practice and actors’ interaction. Therefore, norms are fragile and can be contested. It is the societal discourse that can achieve consensus on norms (Habermas, 1992; Risse and Sikkink, 1999: 13). Borrowing from Habermas’ social constructivist approach to norms, we show how actors interpret liberal cosmopolitan norms and whether they develop a common understanding of them.
In contrast to the literature on the diffusion of norms, domestic interest approaches on immigration and border politics have identified heterogeneous positions of, mostly national, collective actors. Classically, this has been understood as unions, employers and parties of the left, right and centre struggling for their respective position to become the dominant position for policy making (Freeman, 1995). For example, unions can push for a position that stresses unfair competition among local and foreign workers for labour and wages. Employers, to the contrary, could argue for a position that stresses the necessity to hire foreign workers who are unavailable at the local labour market. Leftist parties and some NGOs might argue in favour of social justice claiming for open borders for non-members. Right-wing parties, the conservatives as well as anti-immigration groups, usually form their position by connecting immigration to national identity and security for society (Freeman, 1995; Geddes, 2000; Hollifield, 1992). The focus on domestic interest, however, misses the mutability of actor positions due to changing societal norms and values. Economic and political interests seem rather stable and are found to heavily impact on the policy-making process (Cornelius and Rosenblum, 2005; Freeman, 1995). But this approach systematically underestimates the role of norms and values in debates on policy making. More specifically, it ignores the changing relevance of global or cosmopolitan norms. However, as we find, these norms matter and provide for new insights into the variation and evolution of policies over time.
Liberal cosmopolitan norms may be part of a repertoire of ideas for the behaviour of state and society. But, these norms gain power only by the use of actors. National collective actors and their struggle with redefining border policies in a globalized world are the realm in which we might observe support, objection and different interpretations of the norms defined in liberal cosmopolitanism. Actors’ common understanding of these norms would indicate that liberal cosmopolitanism has been internalized by actors and, thus, could have an impact on society and state.
The liberal cosmopolitan view on border and immigration control
The cosmopolitan debate on how to control immigration and borders has its roots in Kant’s concept of world citizenship and hospitality (1917 [1795]: 137–142). At its centre, it bears human rights as a core cosmopolitan doctrine. Cosmopolitanism is embedded within liberalism: the individual and its rights are the starting point for theorising cosmopolitan norms (Holton, 2009: 89; Kleingeld, 2012). Peoples’ global equality in rights is the basic claim of cosmopolitan theory (Marchetti, 2006). In this sense, cosmopolitanism is distinct from certain strands of liberal political theory that consider individual rights in relation to a social group. A national or local community is held to be a requirement for enabling individual freedom and equality. This perspective can be made visible in terms of culture and identity. Both can be defined only among people in a community. Accordingly, within a liberal-communitarian conception of the state, some authors take the national community as a point of departure for realizing the rights of the individual (Kymlicka, 2001: 263). In contrast, liberal cosmopolitanism starts from the perspective of world society in which equal rights apply to all humans irrespective of their belonging to a group such as the nation-state. No distinctions should be made among people on the basis of citizenship (Marchetti, 2006). Clearly, this call for global rights has consequences for the regulation of border and immigration policies.
The ‘no border’ view is the most radical version of cosmopolitan claims on the border. Basically, it holds that people should not be restricted in their choices for their lives. This includes moving across state borders in the search of better living conditions. People should have the right to free movement because ‘it is an important liberty in itself’ (Carens, 1992: 25) and it acknowledges the right of every individual to ‘control his destiny, i.e. to equal individual self-determination’ (Marchetti, 2006: 5). As a consequence the state’s authority in controlling people crossing its borders would be compromised. Liberal cosmopolitans like Beitz, Carens and Pogge call for free movement, not only because of the norm to maximize each individual’s personal freedoms, but also because of a commitment to equal opportunity as a consequence of the principle of equality (Beitz and Goodin, 2009; Carens, 1992: 26; Pogge, 2011). The principle of equality prescribes that inequalities among people due to arbitrary social positions or natural advantages are unfair. People should have equal opportunity to gain access to a country. Referring to Rawls (1971) and his works on justice as fairness, Carens (1992) as well as Beitz (1999 [1979]) argue in favour of a cosmopolitan version of liberal egalitarianism. In Beitz’s interpretation, persons and not peoples are the units that should be treated according to the fairness principle (1999 [1979]: 515). In contrast to Rawls’s conception, equality among people should not be confined to the level of the nation-state. Accordingly, freedom of movement is considered to be instrumental in reducing economic and social inequality among people holding citizenship of different countries. Liberal cosmopolitans claim that social justice could be achieved globally if people were free to move anywhere to pursue a better life (Beitz, 1999 [1979]: 215; Carens, 1992: 26). Accordingly, norms such as the right to individual self-determination in terms of freedom of movement, equality and social justice are key cosmopolitan norms. Collective actors who claim for a policy of open or just borders can refer to these norms as justifications for openness.
In spite of its call for open borders, liberal cosmopolitanism justifies the exclusion of non-citizens under particular conditions (Marchetti, 2006: 3). In this regard, Ackermann, an advocate for universal citizenship and unrestricted movement, holds that: ‘The only reason for restricting immigration is to protect the ongoing process of liberal conversation itself’ (1980: 95). This means the stability of the liberal polity could be threatened because of the liberties it promotes. Completely open borders could cause the collapse of the various pillars on which the liberal polity rests. These pillars are liberal institutions such as democracy, freedom of speech and equality. Moreover, Carens highlights a threat to national security as a legitimate reason for restrictions on entry (1992: 28). Accordingly, the call for freedom of movement in order to achieve social justice and equality among people globally is not an unconditional claim. Otherwise, it could lead to the demise of the state and the community it defines.
Human rights’ norms and Kant’s principle of hospitality define cosmopolitan claims that do not question the border and the state’s sovereignty to regulate immigration. Rather, they call for inclusion for certain groups of people under particular conditions. Accordingly, the state is obliged to guard those in need of protection and to be hospitable to foreigners. These two principles lead to the call for opening borders. The individual is conceived as a ‘world citizen’ and enjoys the ‘cosmopolitan right’ to universal ‘hospitality’ (Heater, 2002: 7; Kleingeld, 2012: 76; Shabani, 2007: 89). The Kantian right to hospitality is justified by the fact that any human being has to be somewhere on the surface of the earth. Therefore, the state has an obligation for the admission of visitors if refusing them at the border leads to their death (Kant, 1917 [1795]: 137). Cosmopolitan right applies if the conditions that lead people to seek admission are beyond their control. For example, people fleeing war should be welcomed at the borders of the state. The principle of hospitality includes the right to protection (Kleingeld, 2012: 73). International refugee and asylum conventions put this call into practice (Joppke, 1998). Refugee law restricts access to asylum to those in fear of political persecution. It hardly ever applies to those fleeing famine, environmental or economic disaster.
But, the obligation to hospitality goes further than preventing death and persecution of a person by admission. According to Kant’s liberal cosmopolitanism, a central feature of the innate right to freedom is that people have the ‘permission to make an attempt at intercourse with the original inhabitants’ (Kant, 1917 [1795]: 139). What this attempt for intercourse at the border actually looks like is not specified. One could imagine visits, trading or cultural exchange. The state has to consider the individual’s claim for contact at the border. But, the state also retains the autonomy of refusing entry of the ‘travelling world citizen’ (Kant, 1917 [1795]; Kleingeld, 2012: 76). Actors can claim for states to respect the cosmopolitan right to hospitality. This includes an obligation for refugee protection and a general non-hostile attitude towards foreigners. However, by no means does this justify openness for temporary or permanent immigration. By its codification in international law, the right to protection can be understood as distinct from the norm of hospitality.
This discussion of liberal cosmopolitanism and its relationship to border and immigration control provides a theoretically informed idea about the norms to which collective actors could refer to in their positions. Five norms calling for the openness of borders were identified.
Protection. Access into a country should be granted to individuals who fear risk of persecution. Hospitality. Both state and society are obliged to respect the cosmopolitan right of every person to be treated in a hospitable way. Equality. All people should have equal opportunity to gain access into a country. Global freedom of movement. All people should be able to freely move around the globe. Freedom of movement is an important liberty in itself and a condition for individual self-determination. Social justice. Global social inequality should be reduced by allowing for entry.
Collective actors’ positions on border and immigration policies in Finland and Austria
Whether, and how, collective actors actually consider these theoretically deduced norms in their positions was examined by asking questions such as: first, whether they are satisfied with their country’s border policy; second, how openness and closure should be regulated in their opinion; and, third, about which normative principles should be considered in border and immigration policies. The focus is on collective actors such as political parties, interest groups such as labour unions and business associations, and non-governmental organizations that have a stake in asylum, immigration and border policy. It is assumed that these actors use norms and give meaning to them in the policy discourse. Norms can be found in the latent and the manifest structure of an actor’s position. A norm becomes manifest when it is codified, for example in party manifestos and position papers (Statham and Geddes, 2006). Beyond this obvious manifestation, norms can also be found in the latent structure of an actor’s position. The latent structure can be retrieved by looking at actors’ interpretation of the norms that define their position (Bem, 1970). The manifest structure of actors’ positions was researched by analysing documents. The latent structure was retrieved by qualitative semi-structured interviews. In 2012, altogether 29 interviews were conducted (see Table 1 in the Appendix for the list of interviewees). The value added by this qualitative approach to actors’ latent positions lies in the insights that can be retrieved on actors’ understanding of certain norms.
Two small EU member states, Austria and Finland, are the sample countries. Exemplifying the use of norms by actors in these two countries allows for further generalization on other Scandinavian as well as Western EU countries. In Sweden and Denmark as well as in Germany and the Benelux, corporatism and consensus are the key defining features of the public and political discourse. Austria and Finland are not only compared to these countries because they have similar features with regard to party system and corporatism but also because populist and right-wing parties were successful in recent national and European elections (Arter, 2010; Dachs et al., 2006; Pelinka, 2002). Since the 1990s both countries became immigration countries and societal discontent over immigration found its representation in political parties. Pressure from the right, voicing anti-immigrant attitudes, has an impact on national debates. Therefore, one could expect that the discussion among collective actors, specifically political parties, is more controvert, leaning towards further restricting foreigners’ access to the country (Gruber, 2011; Messina, 2007). Accordingly, liberal cosmopolitan positions are likely to be contested. The sample also has its limitations. The research can hardly make a general claim on the use of norms in the EU since Southern and Eastern European countries are not part of the sample.
In Finland, mainstream parties of the left and centre have changed their position towards immigration in the last two decades. In the 1990s, political parties were divided over the issue of foreigners’ entry to the country (Saukkonen, 1995: 113). Apparently, 10 years later, Finnish consensus politics have blurred conflicting positions on the issue held by parties of the left, right and centre (Nordberg, 2004: 731). However, consensus on border and immigration policies seems to have left the political discourse. In the 2011 parliamentary elections, a populist right-wing party, the True Finns (since 2011 called Finns Party), gained considerable voter support. Even though the party is not primarily an anti-immigrant party it has anti-diversity, anti-foreign and anti-European positions (Arter, 2010: 489; Kestilä, 2006: 174). Conservative parties, such as the National Coalition Party (KOK), the Centre Party, as well as the Finns Party raise concern over refugee migration to Finland, the intra-EU mobility of poor EU citizens and immigrants’ access to social security. With regard to cosmopolitan norms, the protection norm, freedom of movement and the justice and equality norm are critically discussed. Parties of the left of centre such as the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the Left Alliance and the Swedish People’s Party are very positive on increasing refugee migration as well as immigrants’ equal treatment in society. These parties endorse the cosmopolitan norms of protection and equality.
In Austria, immigration and the admission of foreigners are salient issues (Nordberg, 2004: 731). Mainstream parties of the left and right blame the right wing populist parties, notably the Freedom Party (FPÖ), for promoting anxiety among the Austrian population concerning immigrant admission. The topic of immigration has been politicized by the right putting pressure on other political parties to position themselves too. The Green party distances itself most clearly from that anti-immigration position and strongly considers cosmopolitan norms in its party manifesto. The Greens, especially, support the norms of hospitality and freedom of movement. The mainstream parties, Austrian peoples’ party (ÖVP) as well as Social Democrats (SPÖ), pursued a highly selective admission policy over the years of their coalition government. They promoted highly skilled immigration and aimed for restrictions of refugee admission. The ÖVP gives way to populist claims while the SPÖ tries to preserve its image as a party committed to the norm of equality. The party is torn between its own members’ claims and a universal idea of equality of all workers. First of all, the SPÖ represents the interests of the Austrian workforce who call for protection against ‘wage dumping’ by restricting access of foreigners to the labour market. In 2011, the coalition of SPÖ and ÖVP established a State Secretariat for Integration. It promotes immigrant integration and a welcoming culture (‘Willkommenskultur’) in Austria.
Regarding civil society actors in Finland, their position on immigration and open borders is overwhelmingly positive. As to be expected, employers are concerned with the supply of labour and access to international trade and communication by open borders. With slight variations, the three major unions, SAK, STTK and AKAVA, are concerned with equality issues concerning workers’ rights. Most NGOs in Finland that are concerned with issues of immigration and borders put their focus on refugee rights and equality in the admissions process. Accordingly, civil society actors endorse the following cosmopolitan norms: hospitality, freedom of movement, protection and equality.
In Austria, employer associations, such as WKÖ and IV, are the most ambitious representatives of cosmopolitan norms such as hospitality and freedom of movement. In this regard, they see common ground with the Green Party in pushing for more openness in border policies. Employers justify these norms by referring to the economic benefit of having a welcoming culture in Austria and by being open to international exchange. In contrast, some NGOs support freedom of movement, protection and hospitality for moral reasons (Asylkoordination, SOS Mitmensch, UNHCR, Red Cross). The unions (AK and ÖGB) focus less on cosmopolitan norms since they are more concerned with people’s living and working conditions in the country. They put emphasis on a regulated admission policy that considers the needs of Austrians first. Collective actors’ recognize cosmopolitan norms in their discussion of border and immigration policy. However, looking at the documents and the interview material, the content analysis shows that actors’ interpretation of some norms varies significantly. Protection and hospitality are the cosmopolitan norms that are endorsed most often. Also, equality as a norm ranks high. Lowest appraisal finds the freedom of movement norm and the justice norm. Measured by the frequency of appraisal the following order indicates actual importance of cosmopolitan norms to actors: (1) protection; (2) hospitality; (3) equality; (4) freedom of movement; and (5) social justice.
Actors’ interpretation and understanding of liberal cosmopolitan norms
Protection: Not a priority – A matter of course!
The cosmopolitan right to protection, as defined by Kant, acknowledges the state’s obligation for the well-being of foreigners if their lives are in danger. Collective actors in Austria and Finland endorse this right to protection and consider protection of those in need to be a moral obligation that should not be subject to changing political majorities. Also, the granting of protection, though limited to political persecution, is understood as an act of solidarity with refugees and burden sharing with the community of states. For Finnish and Austrian actors, solidarity with countries that host many refugees is practiced by resettlement. Reflecting the European experience with refugee movements in the 20th century, actors consider the possibility that they themselves might be in a situation of demanding their own right to protection at some point in the future. This notion of reciprocity encourages their solidarity. In both countries, actors emphasize their commitment to the European and international mechanisms for refugee protection. An expression of this commitment is the support for the establishment of a permanent, instead of a temporary, refugee resettlement quota.
A basic consensus for protection rights as a matter of course exists. However, concerns with the state’s implementation of the right remain. For example, NGOs are concerned that not all people who need protection actually receive it. The establishment of a Common European Asylum System is criticized for excluding refugees from asylum procedures at Europe’s external borders (Austria: Asylkoordination, Caritas, SOS Mitmensch; Finland: EK). A liberalization of the asylum and refugee system is called for in terms of a wider interpretation of the Geneva Convention and easier access for refugees’ family reunification (Austria: Asylkoordination; Finland: Red Cross, Refugee Advice Center, Lutheran Church). Some actors in Finland argue for an expansion of the resettlement quota. They argue that a rich country can ‘afford’ to accept more refugees (Finland: Refugee Council, Swedish People’s Party). From this angle, refugee protection is not only a moral imperative but also an act of global social justice.
Demands that would lead to an increase in refugees’ access to Austria and Finland are met with opposition. First of all, political parties raise concerns about the reception capacities of their countries and argue for a more ‘realistic’ perception of what their country is able to commit (Austria: ÖVP; Finland: KOK, Centre Party, SDP, also Red Cross). The centre-right openly criticizes abuse of the system by persons fleeing economic hardship and not political or other persecution. A strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention is called for in order to distinguish properly between rightful and bogus asylum seekers. In justifying restrictions, the argument is advanced that the right to protection, as a human right, might lose legitimacy if people are accepted for the wrong reasons (Austria: FPÖ, ÖVP; Finland: Finns Party). This is an attempt to delegitimize an accepted international norm. By qualifying the norm of protection, a justified claim is established that refugees from poverty can be rightfully refused. However, those fleeing poverty or environmental disasters can fear for their lives, too. Actors of the right pretend to be concerned about the legitimacy of the protection norm. In fact, they argue for restrictions. Both, Finnish and Austrian politicians stress this argument. This shows that actors of conservative and right-wing parties use this argument systematically. In contrast, the right to protection is almost sacrosanct for actors from the left. Paradoxically, this cosmopolitan norm is the one that is affirmed most passionately. Yet, at the same time actors hold conflicting positions as to what extent, and for whom, exactly, this right should be granted.
Conditional hospitality
Kant’s idea of hospitality means that foreigners should be met without hostility in order to enable communication and contact with the resident population. Hospitality ranges among the most abstract of the cosmopolitan norms. Speaking about hospitality, all interviewees refer to relations with persons who do not originate from either Austria or Finland. They are identified as guests, strangers, migrants, or tourists. In statements on hospitality, interviewees often distinguish between tourists and immigrants. While tourists are frequently seen as a ‘resource’ for the country, foreign residents are characterized as a ‘potential for conflict’ (Austria: Caritas, ÖVP). Interviewees’ common denominator is the claim for more hospitality and the critique that a welcoming culture is missing in their country. For example, some actors complain about private persons tending to behave in a stand-offish manner when foreigners are present. A Finnish politician explains this behaviour as a particular cultural trait in Finland, where ‘ignoring somebody is being polite’ (Finland: Finns Party).
Collective actors relate a positive image to the norm of hospitality and feel the need to justify why the cosmopolitan norm is still underdeveloped in their society’s practice. Actors envision three different ways of constructing a hospitable society. First, there is the idea of being as open, tolerant, friendly, welcoming and respectful towards strangers as to anyone else. Especially in Finland, it is often claimed that it is a personal decision whether to follow the norm of hospitality towards foreigners or not (Finland: SAK, Refugee Advice Centre, Swedish People’s Party). Thus, a welcoming culture can be created if there is a societal and political will to do so. In creating the welcoming culture, some interviewees emphasize the necessity of intercultural trainings or student exchange programs such as the European Erasmus program (Austria: WKÖ, Red Cross). The experience of being a foreigner oneself is considered to help people to be more open. Many actors invoke the cosmopolitan norms of hospitality to criticize the way foreigners are treated in Austria and Finland by public administration (Finland: EK, Swedish Peoples’ Party, Austria: Red Cross, UNHCR, SOS Mitmensch, WKÖ) as well as in politics. Politicians are perceived to often behave like ‘top dogs’ (Austria: Asylkoordination). Second, some actors claim that people should develop a neutral attitude towards foreigners. The public debate should be ‘unemotional’ and consider ‘the whole picture’ of tourism and immigration (Austria: Greens). Society should not shy away from naming problems arising from intercultural interactions on the one hand. But, on the other hand, the native population should be open to see the positive aspects of a multicultural society. Thirdly, interviewees discuss a utilitarian approach towards the cosmopolitan norm of hospitality. This view is informed by the economic benefits guests may bring to Austrian and Finnish society. Profit-driven actors, such as the tourism industry, are described as having a ‘highly professional approach’ towards guests and foreigners (Austria: SPÖ, SOS Mitmensch). They see an economical need in creating an open society in the globalized world. ‘You give something, you get something’ (Finland: Refugee Advice Centre) could be the tag line of an approach focusing on the benefits of a welcoming culture (Finland: Red Cross, AK, UNHCR).
For some Austrian and Finnish actors, hospitality must not be given unconditionally to any guest. Accordingly, hospitality depends on: compliance of foreigners with the national law, their proper behaviour in social interactions and their respect for the national culture (Austria: Red Cross, FPÖ; Finland: Red Cross). On that basis, hospitality can be practiced: ‘And then it does not play a role whether they wear a headscarf or take a bow in the direction of Mecca or whether they cook with many spices’ (Austria: Red Cross). If a guest abides by the rules, the receiving society should be tolerant regarding lifestyles and habits. Only some actors from the right confine hospitality to only those foreigners ‘whose effects on the society are either positive or neutral’ (Finland: Finns Party). Here, the difference between economically beneficial, short-term tourist mobility and immigrants that intend to stay permanently and might access the welfare state becomes most salient. These actors claim that the hosts should only give what the guest himself is willing to give in ‘either material or immaterial values’ (Austria: FPÖ).
Collective actors in Finland and Austria are in the process of defining what hospitality means to them. Most consider a welcoming culture to be desirable. Still, a welcoming attitude is conditional on the ‘proper’ behaviour of immigrants and tourists. Hospitality is not a right to be claimed but a relatively open concept that individuals may or may not apply in their interaction with foreigners.
Equality: Applying to whom?
In cosmopolitan theory, a conviction for people’s equality in opportunities and freedoms is a basic condition. People should have equal opportunities for gaining access to a country; discrimination against, or privileges for, certain groups should be abolished. Collective actors in Austria and Finland have a domestic view on equality and relate it to questions of equal treatment of nationals and foreigners. They support a meaning of equality that calls for equal rights for foreigners once they are residents in the country. Accordingly, they oppose the creation of a hierarchy in status and rights among immigrant groups as well as among nationals and immigrants. In Finland, especially, actors endorse an egalitarian society as propagated by the Nordic welfare state which calls for equal access to benefits for nationals as well as foreigners (Finland: Red Cross, Network for Free Movement, STTK, SAK, Social Democrats, National Coalition Party, Left Alliance). An interviewee from a Finish NGO criticizes that current border and immigration policies produce ‘in the case of Finland, thousands, and in the case of Europe, millions of people [who] live in extremely precarious situations, which affects very strongly their situations in labour markets and their overall life possibilities’ (Finland: Network for Free Movement). In Finland, actors put equal emphasis on the material and legal implications of equality. Austrian actors, too, draw on the equality norm to criticize a policy that discriminates against immigrants’ rights but hardly address inequalities in terms of access to the welfare state. For them, the focus is on equality in rights as the key to enabling integration (Austria: SPÖ, IV, SOS Mitmensch, AK, Asylkoordination, Caritas). Actors in Finland and Austria refer to groups of migrants that are considered to be staying permanently. Regarding status and rights, interviewees did not apply the equality norm to tourists.
The second meaning of equality calls for equal conditions of admission. Some civil society actors as well as unions are opposed to privileges in admission for single categories such as highly qualified migrants. The sorting of people into immigrant and visa categories with very different admission conditions is perceived as being unfair. Only refugees should enjoy priority access due to their vulnerability. The equality norm is used in opposing ever more select border and immigration policies that have been adopted in Austria and Finland during the last 15 years. Small quotas for some immigrant groups in Austria as well as administrative hurdles in the application process for some in moving to Finland are objected to (Finland: STTK, Network for Free Movement, Swedish People’s Party, Lutheran Church, Left Alliance; Austria: Green Party, SOS Mitmensch, WKÖ, AK, Asylkoordination).
However, the claim for equality becomes a contentious issue among actors, specifically unions and employers, when the conditions for access to the national labour market are discussed. Agreement exists on the claim to maintain equal conditions for anybody on the labour market. This means the exploitation of foreigners, regardless of whether they are seasonal workers, students, refugees or highly skilled migrants, by wage and social dumping is rejected throughout the sample of actors. However, the means used in order to avoid the creation of a firstly, rightful, and secondly, exploitative, so-called ‘two tier labour market’ differ among actors.
Employers and some unions, too, extend their call for equal conditions on the labour market to the conditions that foreigners must fulfil in order to access the market. They hold that unreasonably high salary thresholds should not disadvantage foreign labour or that labour market needs tests should not privilege local over foreign workers (Finland: AKAVA, EK, STTK; Austria: IV, WKÖ). It is held that such privileges for locals can create incentives for a shadow economy. Obstacles to the free exchange in supply and demand of labour would be circumvented by illegal employment of foreigners (Finland: Network for Free Movement). This understanding of equality in labour market access sees foreigners as equal participants in a global labour market. The claim includes foreign students or asylum seekers’ access to the labour market while they wait for their status to be decided upon (Austria: SPÖ; Finland: EK). Conversely, some dread equal conditions for foreigners’ access to the labour market. Unions as well as political parties that represent the interests of the blue collar sector fear that inequality in the country increases if nationals face competition for jobs from foreigners. Restrictions such as labour market needs tests should protect national workers from competition. They value privileges and protection for nationals higher than equality among market participants (Finland: SAK, Social Democrats; Austria: SPÖ, ÖGB, AK, FPÖ). However, the protection of local workers implies inequality for newcomers: if privileges for nationals on the labour market are maintained, equality in terms of admission and general rights is compromised. Then, categories of admission become more of a necessity in order not to impinge on nationals’ privileges. These categories define different sets of rights and lead to inequality among foreigners and nationals. Consequently, actors’ understanding of the norm of equality is closest to a cosmopolitan position if equality in admission corresponds with equal access to rights. This includes the right to access the labour market. Actors focused on the issue of labour market access and rights in their interpretation of equality. Other areas of regulation, such as the divide between permanent residents and the many temporary forms of immigrant status were hardly discussed according to the equality principle.
The research showed that many actors accept inequality for the sake of protection of their members or voters. By liberal egalitarians this inequality for some could even be justified if it had positive effects on those who are worse off (Rawls, 1971). However, measures against immigrants’ equal access to state and labour market have no positive effects on those who remain excluded. In contrast, the principle of equality of opportunity between foreigners and natives would call for a liberalization of admission and labour market policies. One interviewee brings this relationship to the point in stating that ‘an economical logic leads to a very liberal idea of man’ (Austria: IV).
Freedom of movement – On the regional level
Cosmopolitans consider the right to freedom of movement as an important right for the individual’s autonomy and as a prerequisite for other freedoms such as equality of opportunity. This ‘no border’ claim is radical since it doubts the state’s authority to control its borders and to define membership to society.
Except for two actors, from NGOs in Finland and Austria, who consider freedom of movement as a human right (Austria: SOS Mitmensch, Finland: Network for Free Movement), all other actors share the view that the implementation of such a universal right is difficult to realize in the current state system. The fear that mass immigration from poor countries could destabilize welfare systems and democratic decision-making serves as their justification for border policies. Many acknowledge that borders have ‘positive’ functions in providing social security for the already marginalized in society. Accordingly, they worry that a universal right to mobility would result in ‘social dumping’ and unfair competition on the labour market (Austria: AK, FPÖ, WKÖ, Caritas). Also, technically, freedom of movement would be difficult to establish in Finland since social benefits are residence based and not connected to employment. It is argued that the Nordic model of an inclusive welfare state had to become more exclusive, defining eligibility on nationality and not on residence. However, Finns are proud of an egalitarian system that they do not wish to change (Finland: EK, Finns Party).
Despite considering a world with universal mobility rights to be unrealistic, the idea of such a world is endorsed by some actors. It is acknowledged that claiming such a right is difficult in the political discourse for fear of being called utopian. Still, it is also claimed that the ideal brings global injustice as well as negative consequences of border policies to the fore (Austria: Greens). A distinction between the freedom of travel and the freedom of establishment is important to actors. The memory of the cold war with its restrictions on cross-border movements serves as a justification for the claim to a more liberal approach to the freedom of travel (Austria: SPÖ, Red Cross). The power of this norm can best be shown in actors’ discussion of the EU Schengen agreement. Control at the EU’s external borders is considered to be too restrictive by many actors (Austria: AK) while at the same time European freedom rights are endorsed as one of the most important achievements of international cooperation in the EU. Thus, the norm of freedom of movement justifies both critique and defence of the EU border regime. The defence of mobility rights for EU citizens has become a disputed issue for actors, since public opinion as well as some political parties have concerns about poverty migration from southern to northern European states (Finland: EK, Finns Party). Accordingly, actors consider freedom of movement to be a realistic ideal if it is implemented on a regional level among states that share similar socioeconomic standards (Austria: ÖVP; Finland: Red Cross, STTK).
Actors dismiss the right to global freedom of movement as an unrealistic and utopian claim. At the same time, actors who promote liberal values in Europe and at its borders use the norm as an ideal that should be lived up to.
Social justice: Local not global
Global social justice calls for open borders. Cross-border mobility should be a means for people to mitigate unequal living conditions. Socially just border and immigration policies are related to the norm of free movement as well as equality. Actors from political parties, NGOs and associations share the assumption that Austria and Finland are privileged countries in an overall unequal world. Whether this imbalance should be corrected by opening the borders to the global poor is heavily debated. Interestingly, Finns are more likely to conclude that national wealth means a special responsibility to help. Left-wing NGOs call for free movement in order to implement a ‘just’ mobility regime (Austria: SOS Mitmensch). On that line, the Finnish Free Movement Network claims for the ‘overall liberalization of the migration system’. Referring to free mobility in Europe, they argue that freedom of movement has shown its great potential to balance inequalities. As an example, they point to Roma from Bulgaria and Romania who are now able to move to Finland and make their living.
Moreover, social justice is related to solidarity with the weak, humanitarianism, equal opportunities, human rights and dignity, sustainability, protection, global reconciliation and responsibility on a global scale. The topic is loaded with moral expectation. But, for the majority of actors in Austria and Finland, these reflections do not lead to a discussion on whether it is altogether just to exclude non-members from wealth that they define nationally.
Political parties and civil society actors feel committed to some kind of transnational solidarity with other countries. In that regard, it is mainly NGOs and left wing parties that discuss the responsibility to expand refugee admission if the country has the resources to do so (Finland: Finnish Refugee Council, UNHCR; Austria: SOS Mitmensch). European countries are held responsible for refugee flows due to their global trade strategy and delivery of arms into conflict areas (Austria: Greens). This profit-oriented behaviour of European governments commits these countries to show transnational solidarity, too. As a positive side-effect of immigrant admission, remittances are mentioned as being a tool for the compensation of social inequalities. In contrast, some actors claim that inequalities should be tackled by preventing brain drain and by providing for assistance on-site. Actors frequently argue that social justice can only be achieved by helping poor people locally in their countries of origin (Austria: ÖVP, WKÖ; Finland: Finns Party, KOK, Finnish Lutheran Church). These actors are committed to provide help for reasons of justice, but they argue that this help is best provided on the spot. This argument is also welcome to conservatives since it ‘keeps migration at a low level’ (Austria: ÖVP).
Many collective actors understand the issue of social justice as a commitment to solidarity and reciprocity. Actors want to provide neighbourly help and expect that they, in turn, would receive help when needed. Especially in Finland, actors are conscious that their country was poor once and might not maintain its current privileged position in the global economy.
Liberal cosmopolitan norms in public discourse: A critique on the governance of global processes
The research on collective actors’ position on borders and immigration revealed that cosmopolitan norms are endorsed rather than rejected. Key liberal cosmopolitan claims do not only exist in academic debate, but are reflected upon in the policy discourse: protection for those in need has become a mainstream claim; the creation of a hospitable society could become a relevant political claim, especially in Austria; the call for equality finds support from actors who reject foreigners’ discrimination in terms of opportunities and rights; freedom of movement for all is a utopian vision for many but a norm to be defended in the European context; mobility as a means to achieve social justice is considered as an act of solidarity and reciprocity by some. The study offers a nuanced and qualitative account on Helbling’s (2013) finding on the predominance of moral–universal norms in political parties’ framing of immigration in Western European countries. Its major added value is an in-depth discussion of actors’ interpretations of liberal cosmopolitan norms.
The study found that liberal cosmopolitanism has its function in actors’ positions. The cosmopolitan norms give actors orientation and structure their position in the debate. Some norms can hardly be achieved in the present system of states functioning as containers for national societies (Bauböck and Perchinig, 2006; Gruber, 2011). Still, actors use norms in order to critique a situation that is considered to be morally wrong or insufficient. Here, the merit of cosmopolitan norms lies in their potential to bring attention to the negative consequences of national border and immigration policies: Protection always considers the unprotected. Bemoaning a lack of hospitality reveals discontent with a society’s ignorance and hostility. Equality accuses discrimination. Freedom of movement stands in opposition to the illiberal and authoritarian practice of state-forced immobility. Social justice warns that global inequality is immoral and needs to be balanced. More concretely, speaking about liberal cosmopolitanism allows for an evolving critique of local actors on the governance of global processes. Collective actors use cosmopolitan norms to indicate that current state policies are still normatively inadequate in managing a new era of global mobility.
Also, we find that a varying understanding of the content of norms could point to shortcomings in theory. Different interpretations show that the meaning of norms is in flux. The norms, as such, do not provide clear definitions of what the implementation of certain norms should look like. Actors accept and support certain norms but they also adopt them to promote their own political claims. They shape norms according to their respective position on the policy issue. Collective actors debate whether hospitality calls for an open and tolerant society or rather for a neutral attitude towards foreigners. In terms of equality in opportunity for access some actors criticize the multiple barriers that exist for different groups of foreigners in gaining access. Other actors put their emphasis on equality in rights between natives and foreigners in the country. Not only the equality norm but also the norm to promote social justice differs significantly in actors’ interpretations. For some actors, social justice in border and immigration policies does not only mean that open borders could balance global inequalities but also that their closure impedes brain drain, a reason considered to increase the gap between the global North and South. Thus, the claim for socially just border policies can lead to the openness as well as the closure of borders. Accordingly, the often Janus-faced meaning of norms should be considered both in political theory and in empirical work on the interpretation of cosmopolitan norms by those who put them into practice.