How parties frame social citizenship and the inclusion of immigrants in Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

Recent research on the transformation of West European party systems emphasises that cultural issues such as immigration have gained in importance besides the traditional socio-economic cleavage. While this literature shows that parties address not only cultural but also economic is-sues, it has paid less attention on whether parties combine cultural and economic issues. In this paper we focus on immigrants’ social rights by analysing if and how mainstream parties combine immigration and redistributive issues. Drawing on Faist (1995), we distinguish three different perspectives how political actors, here mainstream parties, might react to the welfare chauvinist claims that aim to restrict immigrants’ social rights. Our analysis relies on party manifestos in Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2011. The results of the anal-ysis indicate that variation is found among party families, in particular among the left. Even though the purpose of the paper is not to ‘prove’ that the populist challenge explains how the mainstream left-wing parties behave, the results allow nonetheless for interpreting mainstream parties’ strategic combination of welfare and immigration issues as a response to anti-immigration and anti-integration issues raised by populist challengers.

Immigration (Political science - International relations)

This entry discusses ‘immigration,’ which is the permanent movement of people across states, seen from the perspective of the receiving (rather than sending) states. The focus is on the relationship between immigration and states, a neglected topic in classic immigration research, but receiving more attention in recent scholarly literature. The entry discusses, in particular, some explanatory models of immigration policy and how the immigration experience has changed or reconfirmed the institution of citizenship.

Capitals and capabilities: linking structure and agency to reduce health inequalities

While empirical evidence continues to show that low socio-economic position is associated with less likely chances of being in good health, our understanding of why this is so remains less than clear. In this paper we examine the theoretical foundations for a structure-agency approach to the reduction of social inequalities in health. We use Max Weber's work on lifestyles to provide the explanation for the dualism between life chances (structure) and choice-based life conduct (agency). For explaining how the unequal distribution of material and non-material resources leads to the reproduction of unequal life chances and limitations of choice in contemporary societies, we apply Pierre Bourdieu's theory on capital interaction and habitus. We find, however, that Bourdieu's habitus concept is insufficient with regard to the role of agency for structural change and therefore does not readily provide for a theoretically supported move from sociological explanation to public health action. We therefore suggest Amartya Sen's capability approach as a useful link between capital interaction theory and action to reduce social inequalities in health. This link allows for the consideration of structural conditions as well as an active role for individuals as agents in reducing these inequalities. We suggest that people's capabilities to be active for their health be considered as a key concept in public health practice to reduce health inequalities. Examples provided from an ongoing health promotion project in Germany link our theoretical perspective to a practical experience.