IMISCOE Research Series

Jean-Michel Lafleur
Daniela Vintila Editors

Migration and Social

Protection in Europe
and Beyond
(Volume 1)
Comparing Access to Welfare
Entitlements
IMISCOE Research Series
This series is the official book series of IMISCOE, the largest network of excellence
on migration and diversity in the world. It comprises publications which present
empirical and theoretical research on different aspects of international migration.
The authors are all specialists, and the publications a rich source of information for
researchers and others involved in international migration studies. The series is
published under the editorial supervision of the IMISCOE Editorial Committee
which includes leading scholars from all over Europe. The series, which contains
more than eighty titles already, is internationally peer reviewed which ensures that
the book published in this series continue to present excellent academic standards
and scholarly quality. Most of the books are available open access.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13502

Jean-Michel Lafleur • Daniela Vintila
Editors

Migration and Social

Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1)
Comparing Access to Welfare Entitlements
Editors
Jean-Michel Lafleur Daniela Vintila
FRS-FNRS & Centre for Ethnic and Centre for Ethnic and Migration
Migration Studies (CEDEM) Studies (CEDEM)
University of Liege University of Liege
Liege, Belgium Liege, Belgium

ISSN 2364-4087     ISSN 2364-4095 (electronic)

IMISCOE Research Series
ISBN 978-3-030-51240-8    ISBN 978-3-030-51241-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements

This study explores the mobility–welfare nexus from a comparative perspective by

bridging two bodies of literature – social policy studies and migration research – in
an innovative way. This book is part of a series of three volumes involving a large
number of scholars from different European and non-European institutions. We
were very lucky to have the opportunity to bring together such an extraordinary
group of experts and would like to sincerely thank all of them for their support and
dedication throughout this collaborative project.
All three volumes are part of the series Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro), which has received funding from
the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s 2020 research
and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 680014). We are very grateful to
the ERC for this support. In addition to these three volumes, readers can find a series
of indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40
countries on the following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/. We are
also extremely grateful to all members of the MiTSoPro Advisory Board for their
guidance during the project: Evelyn Astor, Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak, Daniel
Clegg, Michael Collyer, Yves Jorens, Alain Jousten, Madalina Moraru, Eva
Østergaard-Nielsen, Luicy Pedroza, Frans Pennings, Kitty Stewart, and Frank
Vandenbroucke.
Several institutions and academic networks have hosted panels, workshops, and
conferences during which this book was discussed at different stages of this col-
laborative project. We are particularly thankful to the IMISCOE network (especially
for organizing the IMISCOE Springer Conference in collaboration with MiTSoPro,
the ECPR Standing Group Migration and Ethnicity (which endorsed several
MiTSoPro-related panels/workshops during the ECPR Annual Conference and
Joint Sessions), the IPSA Research Committee RC03 European Unification (for
endorsing MiTSoPro panels at the IPSA World Congress of Political Science), the
Belgian Association of Political Science ABSP (we received extremely helpful
feedback on this book during different ABSP events) and the University of Liege
(which hosted several workshops and seminars related to this project).

v
vi Acknowledgements

We also wish to thank warmly Anna Triandafyllidou and Irina Isaakyan of the
IMISCOE Editorial Committee as well as Bernadette Deelen-Mans and Evelien
Bakker of Springer for their support throughout the publication process. We are
indebted to our colleagues from the Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies
(CEDEM) and the Faculty of Social Sciences (FaSS) of the University of Liege for
their continuous support and useful feedback during the preparation of this manu-
script. We are particularly thankful to the CEDEM Director Marco Martiniello for
always encouraging and supporting our MiTSoPro-related activities, Angeliki
Konstantinidou for her extremely helpful assistance in compiling comparative
migration data used in the introductory chapter of this book, Larisa Lara and Cindy
Regnier for the administrative help they provided to this project, and Donatienne
Franssen for her assistance during the preparation of the final manuscript.

Liege, Belgium Jean-Michel Lafleur

15 May 2020 Daniela Vintila
Contents

1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU:

The Interplay between Residence and Nationality ������������������������������    1
Daniela Vintila and Jean-Michel Lafleur
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria����������������������������������   33
Monika Riedel and Andreas Chmielowski
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium��������������������������������   49
Pauline Melin
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria��������������������������������   65
Zvezda Vankova and Dragomir Kolev Draganov
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia����������������������������������   81
Helga Špadina
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus����������������������������������   95
Christos Koutsampelas
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic�������������� 109
Kristina Koldinská
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark������������������������������ 123
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia���������������������������������� 137
Mare Ainsaar and Ave Roots
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland �������������������������������� 149
Laura Kalliomaa-Puha
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France���������������������������������� 165
Lola Isidro and Antoine Math
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany������������������������������ 179
Reinhold Schnabel

vii
viii Contents

13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece���������������������������������� 195

Fotini Marini
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary ������������������������������ 211
Gábor Juhász
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland���������������������������������� 225
Mel Cousins
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy�������������������������������������� 241
William Chiaromonte
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia������������������������������������ 257
Anhelita Kamenska and Jekaterina Tumule
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania������������������������������ 271
Romas Lazutka and Jekaterina Navicke
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg������������������������ 285
Nicole Kerschen
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta������������������������������������ 299
Sue Vella
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands������������������� 313
Frans Pennings
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland���������������������������������� 327
Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal�������������������������������� 345
Nazaré da Costa Cabral
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania ������������������������������ 361
Irina Burlacu, Sorina Soare, and Daniela Vintila
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic������������ 379
Jaroslav Kováč
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia�������������������������������� 391
Grega Strban and Luka Mišič
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain ������������������������������������ 405
Francisco Javier Moreno-Fuentes
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden���������������������������������� 421
Anton Ahlén and Joakim Palme
Chapter 1
Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits
in the EU: The Interplay between
Residence and Nationality

Daniela Vintila and Jean-Michel Lafleur

1.1 Introduction

Against a general background of increasing ethnic diversity, strong politicisation of

migration, and overexposure of mobile individuals to social risks, the access of
migrants and their offspring to welfare has become a key area of concern across
European democracies (Ruhs and Palme 2018). Especially in the context of the
recent financial crisis, high levels of unemployment and rapidly growing poverty
rates have led to an increased demand on welfare systems. At the same time, many
countries have undertaken reforms to curb social expenditure, cut the levels of social
benefits and/or restrict the pool of potential beneficiaries of welfare entitlements.
Examples in this regard are the reductions of budgetary expenditure on welfare, the
cut/freeze of public sector pay or pensions, the increase of retirement age, or the
reduction of unemployment benefits that several European Union (EU) Member
States adopted in recent years.1
This specific socio-economic context has had serious implications on the number
of individuals in need of social protection, with certain groups facing strong eco-
nomic hardship. Migrants have been particularly affected by the recent economic

1
European Parliamentary Research Service (2013). Social dimension of austerity measures: cases
of 4 EU countries in receipt of financial assistance. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep library/
Social-dimension-of-austerity-measures.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2020.

D. Vintila (*)
Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies (CEDEM),
University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]
J.-M. Lafleur
FRS-FNRS & Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies (CEDEM),
University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 1

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_1
2 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

crisis. According to the Eurostat migrant integration statistics2, half of non-EU

citizens aged 20–64 years old residing in the EU in 2017 were considered at risk of
poverty or social exclusion, compared to almost 28% among mobile EU citizens
and 22% for non-mobile Europeans, respectively. Moreover, severe material depri-
vation was twice as high for third-country nationals (hereafter TCNs) when com-
pared to EU citizens. Being in work does not necessarily act as a safety tool against
poverty: in 2017, one in five foreigners working in the EU suffered from in-work
poverty.3 Of course, foreigners are not the exclusive targets of welfare policy
reforms. Since the end of the twentieth century, EU Member States have indeed
moved from passive income payments to active employment measures within social
protection systems (Larsen 2005). This entails that all recipients of welfare entitle-
ments—independently of their nationality—should now demonstrate some form of
deservingness to receive such support.
In the context of the 2008 economic crisis and the growth in the arrival of asylum
seekers around 2015, migrants’ access to welfare has become increasingly salient in
political discourses and at the societal level across the EU. According to the
European Social Survey (ESS) data4, in 2016, more than 40% of ESS respondents
considered that immigrants should be granted access to social rights only after they
have worked and paid taxes for at least a year, whereas almost 30% supported the
idea of granting social benefits only to naturalised migrants. These negative atti-
tudes towards migrants’ access to social protection have also been coupled by
increasing politicisation of the effect of international migration on welfare systems
(Schmidt et al. 2018). Consequently, several governments across Europe have put
forward policy proposals aiming to limit migrants’ eligibility for welfare benefits,
whereas the argument of migrants as “abusers” or “unreasonable burden” for
domestic social protection systems has often gained salience in political discourses
(Lafleur and Stanek 2017; Ruhs and Palme 2018).
These recent socio-political dynamics have attracted an increasing scholarly
interest in mobility-driven inequalities in access to social protection. While a rap-
idly growing body of scholarship has explored how the strong supranational frame-
work of EU social security coordination affects intra-EU migrants’ access to benefits
(Martinsen 2005; Blauberger and Schmidt 2014; Kramer et al. 2018; Schmidt et al.
2018), little is known so far about the procedures, scope and extension of welfare
entitlements for third-country nationals across the EU5. The knowledge on the array
of social benefits that states make available to foreigners has also been predomi-
nantly restricted to case studies, with relatively little evidence of larger cross-­
national research (see Holzmann et al. 2005; Sainsbury 2006; Sabates-Wheeler and

2
Eurostat (2019). Migrant integration statistics- at risk of poverty and social exclusion (data code:
ilc_peps05). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migrant_integra-
tion_statistics_-_at_risk_of_poverty_and_social_exclusion. Accessed 16 March 2020.
3
Eurostat (2019). See Footnote 2.
4
ESS Round 8 Data (2016). https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/download.
html?file=ESS8e02_1&y=2016. Accessed 16 March 2020.
5
European Migration Network. (2014). Migrant access to social security and healthcare: policies
and practices. Brussels: European Commission
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 3

Feldman 2011). Furthermore, since migrants’ access to welfare has been tradition-
ally studied from the perspective of receiving states, the critical role that sending
states could play in protecting their nationals abroad against exposure to social risks
is still understudied (Gamlen 2008; Lafleur 2013; Levitt et al. 2017).
This book is part of a series of three volumes (see also Lafleur and Vintila 2020a,
b) that seek to address this research gap by providing a comprehensive cross-­country
comparison of social policies and programs targeting individuals in situation of
international mobility. The book adopts a top-down analytical approach of the con-
cept of migrant social protection, thus aiming to address the following questions:
What type of access to social protection do migrants have across European coun-
tries? What kind of social benefits can they claim in their host countries and what
type of welfare entitlements can they export from sending states? Do some migrant
groups benefit from an easier formal access to such benefits than others? More pre-
cisely, what difference of treatment, if any, do EU Member States operate between
EU migrants and third-country nationals beyond EU legislation? Lastly, are some
countries more inclusive than others when it comes to social protection regimes for
immigrants and emigrants alike?
To address these questions, this volume provides an in-depth analysis of social
protection policies that EU Member States make accessible to national residents,
non-national residents, and non-resident nationals. This differentiation allows us to
capture different scenarios in which the interplay between nationality and residence
could lead to inequalities in access to welfare. By bridging two bodies of literature –
social policy research and migration studies – in an innovative way, this book aims
to shed light on the changing nature of European welfare states as a result of the
intensification and diversification of migration processes and trajectories. The book
also addresses a major fragmentation in the academic scholarship on migrants’
access to welfare. Social policy scholars frequently overlook the specific barriers
that apply to migrants (nationality, duration of stay or prior contributions, family
split across borders, etc.) upon trying to access welfare in home or host countries
(Morissens and Sainsbury 2005). Similarly, they tend to overlook the fact that
migrants often maintain relations with other welfare states in which they may have
contributed in the past and/or from which they may still benefit from certain level of
protection despite their physical absence. More recently, migration scholars have
tried to overcome this difficulty by using the concept of transnational social protec-
tion to examine cross-border strategies by which migrants combine welfare entitle-
ments from home/host countries with informal strategies (via transnational solidarity
networks, migrant associations, etc.) to address their social protection needs or the
needs of their relatives (Barglowski et al. 2015; Levitt et al. 2017; Serra Mingot and
Mazzucato 2017; Lafleur and Vivas Romero 2018). In this process, scholars have
stressed the need to examine the interactions between sending and receiving states’
welfare configurations, but tended to use a case-studies approach that does not allow
for systematic comparisons across states and/or different categories of mobile
individuals.
In highlighting the multiple areas of state intervention towards migrant popula-
tions, we rely on a comparative research design that examines welfare entitlements
4 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

across EU276. For each country, we systematically analyse migrants’ access to ben-
efits across five policy areas: health care, unemployment, old-age pensions, family
benefits, and guaranteed minimum resources. Each case study maps the eligibility
conditions for accessing welfare, by paying particular attention to the type of ben-
efits that migrants can claim in host countries and/or export from home countries.
The chapters included in this volume discuss the legislation regulating access to
benefits in kind and cash, the legal definition of beneficiaries, the eligibility condi-
tions applied for each benefit, and the period for which these benefits are granted.
Each case study also provides an assessment of recent trends and directions in
accessing welfare across the five policy areas of interest.

1.2  hallenging the Welfare State in an Era of International

C
Mobility: What Type of Social Protection Regimes
for Mobile Individuals?

Historically, welfare states have been designed as closed systems in which a group
of people agree to share public goods (Walzer 1983). As citizenship has been the
main criteria to define membership to this group, resident citizens in need were
traditionally considered as an uncontested category of recipients of welfare entitle-
ments. Yet, as noted by Freeman (1986), the coincidence between citizenship and
the right to welfare has never been perfect. In the EU in particular, international
mobility has not only challenged the principle of citizenship, but also that of territo-
riality according to which one had to be a resident to access social benefits. This
trend has become visible since the end of World War II, with the development of the
European integration process and the signature of bilateral labour agreements with
third countries. The 1957 Rome Treaty7, in particular, acknowledged that, to con-
vince people to move, the principle of free movement of workers had to be associ-
ated with some form of openness of welfare systems towards foreigners as well as
increased coordination between states in the area of welfare. Whereas the develop-
ment of EU citizenship, the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
and the adoption of the EU legislation on social security coordination8 have

6
For an overview of migrants’ access to social protection in the United Kingdom, see Lafleur and
Vintila (2020b) in this series.
7
See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Axy0023. Accessed 16
March 2020.
8
See Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 on the coordination of social security systems (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:32004R0883- accessed 16 March 2020) and Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for
implementing Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R0987- accessed 16
March 2020).
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 5

p­ rogressively expanded the access of mobile EU citizens to other categories than

workers, states have tried to ensure that access to welfare remains primarily deter-
mined by a direct relation between individuals and Member States, rather than the
EU (Maas 2007; Lafleur and Mescoli 2018).
In this chapter, we argue that migration to, within and from the EU is contesting
the boundaries between insiders and outsiders in social policy legislations in two
ways. First, by posing increasing pressures on host countries (especially those
receiving large migration inflows) to extend access to social benefits beyond the
closed group of nationality holders. This had led to discussions vis-à-vis the open-
ness of post-national welfare state models (Bommes and Geddes 2000; Schmitt and
Teney 2019) and the necessity to grant residence-based welfare rights to foreigners,
especially those contributing to the social security system of their host countries via
employment and taxes (see also Guiraudon 2002). Secondly, drawing on efficiency
and fairness considerations, sending countries also started to witness increasing
demands to ensure the (ex)portability of social benefits for their non-resident popu-
lations (Holzmann 2016). This includes not only their nationals abroad (under the
rationale of a nationality-driven obligation for protecting the diaspora), but also
foreigners who accumulated social security rights in these countries and later
decided to return to their origin countries.
Nonetheless, these mobility-driven demands for exportability of social benefits
and the recognition of non-national residents as eligible claimants of welfare assis-
tance have quickly faced several counter-arguments. In the case of emigrants, their
exclusion as beneficiaries of social benefits has been justified by the fact that they
are no longer contributing to the welfare system of their home countries. Hence,
when exportability is allowed, it generally covers only contributory benefits for
those who comply with qualifying periods of prior contributions, thus justifying
their prior economic commitment with their countries of nationality. When it comes
to immigrants, the main debate has evolved around the idea that migration could rep-
resent a “burden” for the host welfare system, thus allegedly posing a threat espe-
cially for generous welfare regimes (Sainsbury 2006; Römer 2017; Ruhs and Palme
2018; Schmidt et al. 2018). This framing of migration and welfare relies on two
assumptions. On the one hand, it assumes that welfare states that offer a wider range
of easily accessible and generous benefits are necessarily more exposed to the
potential fiscal impact of migration. This mainly derives from the “welfare magnet
hypothesis” according to which generous welfare policies lead to increased immi-
gration (Borjas 1998). Independently of the mixed evidence found in this
regard (Giulietti 2014), the idea that migrants generally take out more from the
welfare system than they put in via taxes is still well-engrained in the public opinion
across developed economies9. It also justifies policy-makers’ use of the so-called
“no recourse to public funds for migrants” mantra (Deacon and Nita 2013), i.e. the
idea that, to avoid further immigration, social policy reforms should limit

9
See ESS results, Round 7 (2014). https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.
html?r=7. Accessed 16 March 2020.
6 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

immigrants’ access to social protection. Such perceptions, however, deny the exis-
tence of large differences between states in the way they deal with mobility in access
to social benefits. In other words, it is not only the width of policies or the budget
dedicated to them that matters, but also the specific eligibility conditions applied to
mobile individuals when they try to access benefits. Moreover, this approach also
overemphasizes the role of welfare states as social protection providers for residents
(nationals and non-nationals), but neglects that, beyond the EU framework and
bilateral/multilateral arrangements between sending and receiving states, important
discrepancies may still exist in the way states respond to the social protection needs
of their nationals abroad.
In parallel with these pressures for the redefinition of access to welfare at the
domestic level, international mobility has also become an important driver for
increasing social security cooperation between states (Avato et al. 2010). This coop-
eration mainly aims to regulate the types of social benefits that specific migrant
groups can access due to their links to several national welfare systems. Yet, this
type of cooperation can take different forms. On the one hand, the inclusiveness of
domestic welfare regimes towards migrants is often conditioned by the existence of
bilateral/multilateral social security agreements between home and host countries.
These agreements sometimes put certain nationalities in a more privileged position
to access welfare from their host countries. In the EU, despite the efforts to coordi-
nate Member States’ social security agreements with third countries, important
variations still exist in the level of social security cooperation with the home country
authorities of TCNs residing in EU countries (Eisele 2018). On the other hand, the
inclusiveness of national welfare regimes has also been significantly shaped, in
recent years, by the adoption of international norms recommending or guaranteeing
portability of rights and/or equal treatment provisions. At the global level, examples
include the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions and
Recommendations10 or the 1990 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of
Migrant Workers11. Regional agreements may also set rules regulating social secu-
rity cooperation between groups of states. The most advanced scheme in this regard
is the EU social security coordination. Together with the extensive jurisprudence of
the Court of Justice of the EU, the EU coordination often guarantees that mobile EU
citizens have an easier access to social benefits compared to TCNs, while also limit-
ing states’ margin of manoeuvre in freely regulating EU migrants’ access to welfare
(Seeleib-Kaiser and Pennings 2018; Schmidt et al. 2018).

10
https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conven-
tions-and-recommendations/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm. Accessed 16 March 2020.
11
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CMW.aspx. Accessed 16 March 2020.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 7

1.2.1  xisting Typologies of Immigrant Social

E
Protection Regimes

Until recently, there has been limited academic effort to map out migrants’ access
to social protection via large-N comparisons of different countries and groups of
mobile individuals. Some scholars have approached this topic via small-N compari-
sons of selected countries (Bommes and Geddes 2000; Sabates-Wheeler and Koettl
2010; Sainsbury 2012). Others have focused only on the welfare entitlements of
specific groups, such as immigrants (Sainsbury 2006; Römer 2017; Schmitt and
Teney 2019), thus neglecting that migrants are often entitled to social rights also
from their origin countries. Finally, some scholars have recently tried to classify the
immigrant population worldwide based not only on their access to social protection
in the host country, but also the portability of their rights across borders.
Holzmann et al. (2005) and later, Avato et al. (2010), in particular, built and
refined a typology of four immigrant social protection regimes focusing on the host
country legislation towards immigrants and bilateral/multilateral agreements con-
cluded between home and host countries. Drawing on the original typology of
Holzmann and colleagues, Avato et al. (2010) used existing databases on migration
flows to determine the share of global migration covered by each regime. Their
results demonstrate that few migrant groups (mainly those moving between wealthy
nations of the North) are under the most favourable regime (Regime I) allowing them
to access social benefits in the host country, while being able to export some
benefits due to bilateral/multilateral arrangements. Most migrants find themselves in
Regime II in which they can access the host welfare system without the possibility
to totalize contribution periods in absence of bilateral agreements. Under Regime III
(predominant in the Gulf countries), documented migrants cannot access the host
country’s welfare system, but specific and limited rights may be granted on an ad-hoc
basis. Lastly, under Regime IV, undocumented migrants are very exposed to social
risks as, in addition to their exclusion from welfare schemes, their exclusion from the
formal labour market also prevents them from accessing work-related protection.
These efforts to classify immigrant social protection regimes represent a major
step forward in merging migration research and social policy literature, especially
since they recognize that—in line with socio-anthropological work on transnational
migration—migrants do not cut links with the home country upon moving abroad.
However, they also face several limitations that question their validity and applica-
bility for all migrant groups across different home and host countries. Firstly, exist-
ing typologies do not actually detail the specific conditions under which migrants
can access social benefits, as they mostly focus on the existence of a non-­
discrimination principle in accessing welfare. Yet, the mere existence of non-­
discriminatory regulations does not necessarily guarantee that migrants are well
protected against vulnerability, nor that they can easily access welfare. Even when
equal treatment provisions are in place (a scenario that would probably fall under
Regime I according to previous typologies), migrants may still find it very hard to
claim social benefits simply because the eligibility conditions applied for those ben-
efits are quite restrictive, regardless of claimants’ nationality. Thus, the existence of
8 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

a social security agreement per se and the equal treatment provision stipulated in it
do not act as a guarantee that migrants will, indeed, have formal access to welfare,
nor that benefit provisions adequately respond to their needs.
Secondly, existing typologies only provide a snapshot of access to specific ben-
efits – especially pensions or health care in Holzmann et al. (2005), rather than
operationalizing social protection in a more comprehensive manner. While it is true
that accessing health care in the host country or having the possibility to export pen-
sions could have a crucial impact on migrants’ socio-economic vulnerabilities,
these specific benefits only capture a limited picture of the whole array of welfare
provisions that individuals may be entitled to when crossing the borders of different
countries. As shown in this volume, migrants also have access to other traditional
branches of social protection – including unemployment benefits, family-related
benefits or social assistance services- that are equally important for preventing pov-
erty and social risks. Consequently, the focus on a very narrow scope of welfare
rights could lead to a rather distorted picture of the reality in terms of how well
protected migrants are by national and international legislations. This becomes par-
ticularly evident when looking at old-age contributory pensions. As highlighted in
the country chapters in this volume, unlike other social security branches, old-age
pensions have subscribed to a trend of liberalization in terms of (ex)portability
across social security systems, due to increased cooperation between states.
Thirdly, it is rather unclear how existing typologies have captured and aggre-
gated different sub-categories of social benefits that migrants may have access to
across specific policy areas. For instance, their measurement of health-related enti-
tlements seems limited only to benefits in kind, while omitting the cash benefits
granted in case of sickness. Similarly, their focus on pensions is exclusively defined
within the framework of contributory old-age financial compensations, while
neglecting that several countries also grant non-contributory allowances aiming to
prevent poverty among the elderly population (see the examples of Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Finland, Italy or Sweden in this volume). This seems particularly relevant
since the specific conditions under which migrants can access non-contributory
pensions as well as the overall scope, rationale and possibility of exportability of
these pensions, are quite different when compared to the contributory ones.
Fourthly, by giving considerable weight to portability of benefits back to the
home countries, previous typologies seem rather focused on a particular migrant
group, namely those who have the intention to return after having lived abroad. Yet,
not all migrants share this migration trajectory and for many of them, the option of
return is not even a desirable one. For all those who find themselves in this scenario,
the importance of (ex)portability of social benefits could fade away when compared
to the relevance of their more immediate access to welfare in the host country (or
when compared to their entitlement to social rights from the home country while
residing abroad). Thus, apart from potentially overestimating the importance of
return for migrants’ life plans, these typologies might also underestimate the need
for social protection that individuals actually have during their stay abroad (which
in many cases, implies a quite long time span).
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 9

Additionally, previous typologies do not seem to address in detail how the gen-
eral inclusiveness and development of welfare states could shape countries’ behav-
iour towards emigrant and immigrant populations. As an illustration, migrants may
receive limited social benefits in a particular country not because of their status of
mobile individuals, but because that country offers limited benefits to all residents,
including national citizens. At the opposite pole, when a regime is classified as gen-
erous towards migrants, this does not necessarily indicate that policy-makers are
particularly concerned with addressing their social vulnerability. It can simply be a
direct consequence of the inclusiveness of that regime towards all residents in gen-
eral, regardless of their migration status. Lastly, in some cases, previous typologies
also put forward some speculative assumptions that may lead to an oversimplifica-
tion of social protection legislations. By way of example, Holzmann et al. (2005)
assume that migrants originating from countries that have concluded a bilateral
social security agreement (BSSA) with their host country fall under Regime I of
advanced portability. Yet, the mere existence of bilateral agreements does not
directly imply that they also cover all types of social benefits (see also Holzmann
2016 and several chapters in this volume); and the classification of these cases under
Regime I may overestimate how inclusive and prevalent this regime is.

1.2.2  elfare Entitlements for Mobile Individuals:

W
An Alternative Operationalization

This book aims to address some of the limitations of previous studies on immigrant
social protection regimes. To begin with, we adopt a comprehensive definition of
social protection by covering a wide range of social benefits. Drawing on the defini-
tions used by the European Commission’s Mutual Information System of Social
Protection (MISSOC)12, we provide an inventory of contributory and non-­
contributory benefits across five policy areas: unemployment (covering unemploy-
ment insurance and assistance benefits)13; old-age contributory and non-contributory
pensions14; family-related benefits (maternity, paternity, parental and child benefits)15;

12
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=815&langId=en. Accessed 16 March 2020.
13
Unemployment insurance benefits depend on a qualifying period of paid contributions, whereas
unemployment assistance benefits are generally means-tested and granted to those who do not
qualify (no longer qualify) for unemployment insurance benefits.
14
Contributory old-age pensions are granted to individuals who have reached retirement age and/
or sufficient years of contributions, whereas non-contributory pensions aim to prevent poverty and
provide a safety net for the elderly population with little or no contribution history.
15
Maternity and paternity benefits cover absence from work due to the birth of a child. Parental
benefits usually start after the maternity/paternity benefits come to an end and they generally aim
to cover parents’ absence from work to take care of their children. Child/family benefits cover the
costs incurred in bringing up children. Different eligibility conditions might apply for same-sex
couples, registered partners, adoptive parents, etc.; but these specific situations are not discussed in
this volume.
10 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

guaranteed minimum resources16; and health-related benefits (sickness benefits in

kind and cash, and invalidity benefits)17. In doing so, we aim to capture cross-coun-
try variations in states’ likelihood to extend certain benefits to migrants, with one
key expectation being that contributory benefits (directly deriving from social secu-
rity contributions) are more easily made available to mobile individuals when com-
pared to non-contributory benefits.
Secondly, this book enquires about the conditions of access to social benefits for
five different groups of potential beneficiaries: a) national residents; b) EU foreign
residents; c) non-EU foreign residents; d) EU nationals residing abroad in other EU
Member States and; e) EU nationals residing abroad in non-EU countries. Thus, we
systematically compare the inclusiveness of social protection systems towards
immigrants and emigrants alike; and we further assess how protected migrants are
in home and host countries by comparing the benefits they are entitled to with the
ones available for resident nationals. This comparison between groups aims to cap-
ture not only potential gaps in access to welfare between migrant and non-migrant
populations; but it also aims to test states’ predisposition towards a residence-based
access to social benefits versus a nationality-driven rationale of access to welfare. In
the case of non-national residents and non-resident nationals, we also distinguish
between those originating from (or going to) EU Member States and third countries.
This distinction draws from our expectation that the EU coordination framework
may grant mobile EU citizens an easier access to benefits when compared to
migrants going to or coming from non-EU countries, especially since most social
benefits analysed here fall in the field of application of EU coordination regula-
tions18. Our analysis specifically excludes certain migrant groups whose access to
welfare could be conditioned by their specific status: tourists, individuals dur-
ing short stays abroad of less than three months, undocumented migrants, students,
civil servants, asylum seekers, refugees, posted workers, family members, seasonal
workers. The data collection was based on a survey with national experts conducted
in the framework of the ERC-funded project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe” (MiTSoPro).19 National experts were asked to
complete five questionnaires (one per policy area) detailing the eligibility condi-
tions for accessing welfare in each country, based on national and/or international

16
Also referred to as “integration/insertion income”, “social assistance”, “income support”, etc.
Generally, these are means-tested benefits conceived as the last safety net, aiming to prevent
households from poverty. We mainly discuss general/non-categorical assistance schemes aiming to
guarantee a minimum income to all those in need, although some countries might also provide
specific schemes of categorical assistance for specific groups.
17
Whereas benefits in kind cover access to doctors, hospitalisation or treatment, sickness cash
benefits and invalidity benefits compensate individuals for the loss of income due to sickness/the
loss of the capacity to work.
18
See Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.
19
http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/ (accessed 16 March 2020). The survey was conducted
between April 2018–January 2019, with several rounds of consistency checks being centrally con-
ducted by the MiTSoPro team. Given the period in which the survey was conducted, the country
chapters included in this volume focus mainly on the policies in place at the beginning of 2019.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 11

legislation. The survey included standardised questions, thus ensuring comparabil-

ity across the countries analysed, despite their different welfare regimes, political
settings and migration histories.
Thirdly, the book maps out migrants’ access to social protection across EU27.
Increasing migration to and from the EU, coupled with incremental supranational
social security initiatives, make EU countries very relevant case studies for our pur-
poses. Yet, not all EU Member States are expected to be equally concerned with the
social protection needs of their foreign and diaspora populations. In fact, their dif-
ferent migration trajectories as well as the composition of their immigrant/emigrant
communities are expected to significantly shape their policy responses and reper-
toires when it comes to the inclusion of these groups into domestic welfare systems.
To begin with, there are still significant differences between those EU Member
States traditionally considered as countries of immigration (hence potentially facing
stronger demands for extending welfare to foreigners- see also Schmitt and Teney
2019) and those generally labelled as emigration countries (which, in turn, may be
more pressured to respond to the needs of their diaspora). Western European coun-
tries usually fall in the first category, whereas many Central and Eastern European
states (which also joined the EU more recently) are primarily seen as countries of
emigration.
Given these different migration patterns, the demographic weight of non-national
residents (Fig. 1.1) and non-resident nationals (Fig. 1.2) still varies widely across
the EU. In nine countries (Belgium, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Latvia, Estonia,
Malta, Cyprus, and Luxembourg), foreigners account for more than 10% of the
population, with the highest share (48%) being observed in Luxembourg. However,
in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania or Croatia, the share of foreign-
ers is quite low (1% or less of the population), reason for which these countries
would presumably receive less demands to ensure foreigners’ access to welfare.
Similarly, countries such as Croatia, Ireland, Portugal, Lithuania, Romania, Latvia,
Cyprus, Luxembourg, Estonia or Bulgaria count with sizeable diasporas, thus being
expected to be particularly responsive to the social protection needs of their nation-
als abroad, when compared to countries in which the proportion of non-resident
nationals is much more limited (Fig. 1.2).
Drawing on the demographic weight of immigrant and emigrant populations,
Fig. 1.3 sums up the expected societal demand that EU Member States may face for
including these groups in their domestic welfare systems. Several clusters emerge,
from countries which a priori could face stronger pressures for opening their wel-
fare systems to both immigrants and emigrants (Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg,
Latvia, Ireland, Malta), to countries in which this pressure for responsiveness is
expected to be much more limited due to their limited shares of non-national resi-
dents and non-resident nationals (the Czech Republic). Moreover, countries in
which only one of these groups is particularly sizeable are expected to face stronger
claims for inclusion of immigrants only (Belgium or Spain) or emigrants only
(Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland, Croatia or Slovakia). Finally,
some countries may face more moderate demands for opening their welfare system
to any (or both) of these groups.
12 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

Luxembourg
Cyprus
Austria
Estonia
Malta
Latvia
Belgium
Ireland
Germany
Spain
Sweden
Denmark
Italy
Greece
France
Netherlands
Slovenia
Czech R.
Finland
Portugal
Hungary
Slovakia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Poland
Romania

0 10 20 30 40 50

Fig. 1.1 EU Member States by share of foreigners over total population. (Source: Own elabora-
tion based on Eurostat data- Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship- 2018
[migr_pop1ctz], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 16 March 2020)

In terms of how states react to the social protection needs of these groups, one
reasonable expectation would be that the more sizeable immigrant or emigrant com-
munities are, the more likely it is for their needs and demands to be incorporated in
the political agenda and, implicitly, the higher the likelihood of states to ensure their
access to national welfare systems. Drawing on this rationale, countries counting
with large migrant groups could become particularly concerned with their social
protection in response to this demographic visibility, thus granting them access to
welfare entitlements. In turn, EU Member States in which the stocks of immigrants
and/or emigrants are considerably smaller would be less motivated to become par-
ticularly inclusive towards these communities. Yet, a reversed reaction is also likely
to emerge, especially if states ponder the anticipated costs of their policies in the
decision to grant or not welfare benefits to non-nationals or non-residents. When
these groups are relatively small, ensuring their access to welfare may result in a
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 13

Fig. 1.2 Relative size of diaspora populations (share of non-resident nationals over total popula-
tion). (Source: Own elaboration based on OECD data. The data on diaspora stocks is from OECD
(2015) “Connecting with emigrants: a global profile of diasporas 2015” and it refers to the emi-
grant population aged 15+ across 84 selected destinations (33 OECD countries and 51 non-OECD
states). For Malta and Cyprus, the stocks of diaspora are from the DIOC-E 2010/2011 Labour
Force Status dataset, covering emigrant population aged 15+ across 87 destinations (35 OECD
countries and 52 non-OECD states). The data on total population is from the OECD Historical
Data file (population 15+, reference year 2010, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.
aspx?DataSetCode=POP_PROJ#, accessed 16 March 2020))

low-cost political decision, as few individuals would potentially qualify as eligible

applicants. Moreover, adopting such policy would not only be feasible due to lim-
ited costs involved, but it could also come with a symbolical reward for these coun-
tries’ inclusiveness towards migrant groups. Conversely, when immigrant or
emigrant populations are particularly sizeable, the decision to grant them access to
the national welfare system – although much more meaningful in terms of
impact- could involve significant economic costs. Consequently, states may be more
hesitant to adopt such policy that comes with higher economic risks, given the larger
pool of non-nationals and non-residents who could become entitled to claim welfare
benefits.
Nevertheless, these initial expectations do not take into account the timing of
migration inflows/outflows, nor the specific composition of migration stocks, two
14 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

Strong demand
Cyprus,
Belgium, Austria, Estonia,
Spain Germany Ireland, Latvia,
Luxembourg,
Malta
SIZE FOREIGN COMMUNITY

Moderate demand

Denmark, Greece,
France, Netherlands,
Italy, Slovenia
Sweden
Limited demand

Bulgaria, Croatia
Finland, Lithuania,
Czech
Hungary Portugal, Poland,
Republic
Romania,
Slovakia

Limited demand Moderate demand Strong demand

SIZE DIASPORA

Fig. 1.3 Initial expectations regarding societal demands for states’ responsiveness, based on the
demographic size of immigrant and emigrant populations (% of each group over total population).
(Source: Own elaboration based on Eurostat data for immigrants and OECD data for emigrants
(see detailed description of sources in Figs. 1.1 and 1.2 above). The vertical axis captures the
expected demand that states may face for granting foreigners’ access to welfare, based on the share
of non-citizens over the total population: a) limited demand (countries in which foreigners repre-
sent <5% of the population); b) moderate demand (foreigners account for ≥5–<10% of the popula-
tion) and; c) strong demand (countries in which foreigners represent ≥10% of the population). The
horizontal axis captures the expected demand that states may face to ensure the access of non-­
resident nationals to welfare, based on the share of the diaspora over the total population (same
thresholds as for the vertical axis). Green indicates limited demand, orange indicates moderate
demand, while red indicates that strong demand is anticipated)

elements that could be equally relevant for anticipating when (and how) states
implement policies that allow foreigners and/or non-resident nationals to access
their welfare system. Regarding timing, one can assume that long-standing coun-
tries of immigration may be more open to granting social rights to foreigners when
compared to “new” countries of immigration (see Koopmans and Michalowski
2017 for a similar argument on how rights recognition could be linked to historical
immigration legacies). Consequently, EU Member States with a longer immigration
tradition (Germany, France, Belgium or the Netherlands, which started to receive
substantial migration inflows after World War II) are expected to have implemented
by now specific policies guaranteeing foreigners’ access to welfare, when compared
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 15

to countries which more recently started to attract international migrants (such as

South European countries or Finland). Similarly, countries experiencing emigration
waves for a long time (particularly Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Ireland or Portugal) are
expected to be more inclined to pro-actively respond to the social protection needs
of their citizens abroad when compared to more recent emigration countries (Poland,
Romania or Bulgaria, among others). However, when it comes to countries with a
longer tradition of emigration, it could also be the case that their diaspora popula-
tion is already well settled abroad, with an extensive access to destination countries’
welfare systems, and less need to rely on social benefits granted by origin countries.
This, in turn, could reduce the need for an active intervention in the area of social
protection from sending countries. Moreover, more recent emigrant communities
may be precisely the ones requiring more social protection attention from their
homeland, especially if they do not count with immediate access to the welfare
system of their host countries.
As for the composition of migration stocks, the EU system of social security
coordination and the principle of non-discrimination are expected to provide intra-
­EU migrants with easier access to social benefits when compared to non-EU groups
whose access to welfare usually depends on each EU host country20 and/or bilateral
agreements concluded between EU Member States and third countries21.
Consequently, one could expect that countries whose immigrant or emigrant popu-
lations mainly come from or go to other EU Member States have fewer incentives
to adopt inclusive social policy programs towards non-residents or non-nationals, as
most of them will, in any case, be protected by the EU framework in accessing
welfare.
As shown in Fig. 1.4, non-national EU citizens account for more than a half of
the foreign population in only eight EU countries (the Netherlands, Romania, Malta,
Belgium, Ireland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Luxembourg); whereas third-country
nationals still form the majority of the stocks of foreigners across most EU Member
States. However, most Europeans residing outside their countries of nationality are
intra-EU migrants (more than 75% in the case of Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia,
Finland, Belgium or the Czech Republic). Only the diaspora populations of nine EU
countries mainly reside in non-EU destinations.
Finally, the economic or political “leverage” that immigrant and emigrant com-
munities have on home and host country governments could also influence states’
decision to grant them welfare entitlements. As shown in Fig. 1.5, some emigrant

20
Yet, see also Regulation No. 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
November 2010 extending Regulation No. 883/2004 and Regulation No. 987/2009 to nationals of
third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their
nationality (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010R1231,
accessed 16 March 2020).
21
See also COM (2012) 153 final- Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions- The External Dimension of EU Social Security Coordination, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0153:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 16 March 2020.
16 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

% EU foreigners over total foreigners % diaspora going to EU Countries

Fig. 1.4 Share of mobile EU citizens from the total foreign population and from the total diaspora
of each EU Member State. (Source: Own elaboration based on the 2018 Eurostat data [migr_
pop1ctz] for foreigners and DIOC-E 2010/11 Labour Force Status data for nationals abroad (emi-
grant population aged 15+ across 87 selected destinations))

communities can be seen as important economic actors for their homeland, as their
remittances represent a substantial share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 3%
for Hungary, Lithuania or Luxembourg; 4% in Bulgaria and Latvia; or even 5% in
Croatia. Consequently, these origin countries may be more incentivised to adopt
specific policies for their nationals abroad when compared to other sending coun-
tries whose diaspora populations make more limited economic contributions (for
instance, Italy, Germany, Finland or the Netherlands). Moreover, countries in which
immigrants constitute a lower share of the workforce (especially Central and Eastern
European countries, which return low shares of foreign-born workers over total
employees) may be less likely to adopt specific policies for this group when com-
pared to countries in which 15% or more of the workforce is foreign-born (Fig. 1.5).
In addition, the political leverage that these communities count with could also
motivate policy-makers in home and host countries to become particularly respon-
sive to their social protection needs. For instance, one could reasonably assume that
countries in which immigrants and emigrants count with voting rights may be more
prone to address their welfare demands in national legislations, especially if these
communities are particularly large. The diaspora literature, in particular, has under-
lined how economic and electoral interests—among other factors—may push send-
ing states’ authorities to please citizens abroad with policies that respond to their
needs (Gamlen 2008; Lafleur 2013). Similarly, scholars working on immigrants’
voting rights postulated that foreigners’ enfranchisement may trigger parties’
responsiveness to immigrants’ interests (Bird et al. 2011; Vintila and Morales 2018).
Across the EU, all Member States recognize the right of mobile EU citizens to vote
at local and European Parliament elections (Shaw 2007; Vintila 2015); and in some
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 17

Luxembourg 53.5 3
Cyprus 27.0 2
Austria 18.3 1
Sweden 16.9 1
Italy 15.2 0
Spain 14.7 1
Germany 14.6 0
Belgium 13.9 2
Greece 12.2 0
France 11.2 1
Estonia 11.1 2
Slovenia 10.9 1
Portugal 10.0 2
Latvia 9.5 4
Croatia 9.3 5
Malta 8.6 2
Finland 5.2 0
Lithuania 3.7 3
Czechia 3.1 2
Hungary 2.2 3
Slovakia 0.8 2
Bulgaria 0.4 4
Poland 0.3 1
Romania 0.0 2
Netherlands
0.0

% foreign born over total employees Remittances as share of GDP

Fig. 1.5 EU countries by share of foreign-born over total employees and remittances as share of
GDP. (Source: Own elaboration based on the 2014 Eurostat dataset Employee by migration status,
educational attainment level, occupation and working time (lfso_14leeow, https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/data/database, accessed 16 March 2020) and the 2018 World Bank data on Migrant
Remittances Inflows (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/migrationremittancesdiasporaissues/
brief/migration-remittances-data, accessed 16 March 2020))

countries (Croatia, Slovakia, Sweden or Hungary), they can also vote in regional
elections. Some EU Member States also enfranchise all non-EU nationalities for
local elections (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden) and regional elections
(Denmark, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden); whereas others (Spain or Portugal) recog-
nize electoral rights only to specific non-EU nationalities (Arrighi et al. 2013). As
for emigrants, almost all Member States (except for Ireland, Denmark and Malta,
with exceptions) allow their citizens residing abroad to vote in national parliamen-
tary elections.22
In any case, the effect of migrants’ pressure (via their demographic, economic or
political leverage) on the openness of national welfare systems can also be mediated
or constrained by the general characteristics of the latter. In this regard, it is impor-
tant to note that the complexities of European welfare states make their classifica-
tion into ideal types of social policy models a rather difficult task. Welfare scholars

22
GLOBALCIT. Conditions for electoral rights. http://globalcit.eu/conditions-for-electoral-
rights/. Accessed 16 March 2020.
18 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

have proposed different classifications (see Esping-Andersen 1990; Ferrera 1996;

Bonoli 1997; Österman et al. 2019, among others). Denmark, Finland and Sweden
are generally labelled under the Nordic social-democratic welfare model that com-
bines strong universalism, solidarity, equality, strong but limited safety nets, high-­
quality public healthcare services and high shares of social protection expenditure
(Arts and Gelissen 2002; Kvist et al. 2012; Rice 2013). Austria, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Germany, France or the Netherlands are usually clustered under the
continental corporatist model based on Bismarkian insurance schemes, the security
principle, generous unemployment benefits and general benefits based on one’s
prior contributions or occupational status (Arts and Gelissen 2002; Palier 2010;
Österman et al. 2019). The Anglo-Saxon regime (defined by weak universalism,
free healthcare services, social benefits for individuals in need- including the work-
ing poor- in which means-testing plays a significant role) is, in turn, observable in
Ireland23. On the other hand, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal or Cyprus share impor-
tant features of the Mediterranean regime characterised by institutional fragmenta-
tion, significant role of family support in social protection provision, a developed
social assistance system, and rather generous old-age pensions provisions (Ferrera
1996; Arts and Gelissen 2002). Finally, Central and Eastern European countries
(most of which have adopted important social policy reforms since the 1990s) are
generally considered as having a social protection model of their own. This often
combines strong involvement of families as providers of social protection, low pen-
sions level, rather hybrid health care schemes and strong emphasis on redistribution
to prevent poverty (Österman et al. 2019).
This variety in the way in which EU states respond to the social protection needs
of their populations by emphasizing the importance of certain policy areas over oth-
ers is also reflected in their government expenditure on social protection (Fig. 1.6).
Social protection still stands out as the main function of government expenditure in
Europe, accounting for 18.8% of the GDP across the EU in 2017. Old-age pension
payments represent a significant component of government expenditure (10.1% of
the GDP across all EU Member States in 2017), followed by sickness and disability
(2.7%), family and children (1.7%), survivors (1.3%) and unemployment (1.2%).
Overall, 15 current EU Member States (the Netherlands, Slovenia, Poland, Spain,
Portugal, Luxembourg, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Italy,
Denmark, France, Finland) spent more than 15% on social protection in 2017, with
the highest share being reached in Nordic countries and in France. However, the
ratio of government expenditure on social protection to GDP is substantially smaller
in Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Latvia or Romania (less than 12% in each case).
In light of these different social policy frameworks, the share of people at risk of
poverty or social exclusion (Fig. 1.7) also varies widely across EU Member States.
In 2017, 22% of resident EU nationals across all EU Member States were consid-
ered to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion. This share was even higher in 12 EU

23
Although the Maltese welfare system is rather difficult to classify given its mixed character, it
also shares some common characteristics with the Anglo-Saxon social protection system, mainly
given the British legacy with emphasis on means-tested benefits (see Österman et al. 2019).
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 19

30

25

20

15

10

Sickness and disability Old age Survivors Family and children

Unemployment Housing Social exclusion n.e.c Social protection n.e.c

Fig. 1.6 Total general government expenditure on social protection (share of the GDP). (Source:
Own elaboration based on the 2017 Eurostat data- General government expenditure by function
(COFOG) [gov_10a_exp], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 16 of March 2020)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Nationals EU foreigners TCNs All Foreigners

Fig. 1.7 Percentage of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion (18–64 years), by citizenship.
(Source: Own elaboration based on the 2017 Eurostat data- People at risk of poverty or social
exclusion by broad group of citizenship (population aged 18 and over [ilc_peps05], https://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 16 of March 2020)

countries, reaching more than 30% in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. Migrants tend
to be even more vulnerable than national residents. Across all EU countries, the
share of foreigners at risk of poverty or social exclusion was 41.1%, up to 50.5%
amongst third-country nationals. In France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and
Sweden, more than a half of non-EU migrants were at risk of poverty or social
20 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

exclusion (up to more than 60% in Belgium and Greece). In these countries, but also
in Denmark, Austria or Slovenia, the gap between nationals and foreigners was
particularly large (more than 20 difference points in the share of people at risk). Yet,
this gap was smaller in Slovakia and Hungary (less than 5%); and it was slightly
reversed in Ireland, where the proportion of foreigners at risk of poverty was slightly
lower when compared to nationals.
How are these different features of European welfare states expected to affect
migrants’ access to social protection? Currently, there is no scholarly agreement on
this issue, as few arguments have been proposed so far on how social protection
regimes influence migrants’ social rights (see Morissens and Sainsbury 2005;
Sainsbury 2006, 2012; Van Der Waal et al. 2013; Österman et al. 2019; Schmitt and
Teney 2019). For instance, countries with more generous welfare policies may link
service provision to habitual residence in their territory, thus automatically exclud-
ing non-residents (Bruzelius 2019). They may also be more cautious in granting
immigrants’ access to these generous welfare entitlements, especially in a context
of fiscal pressures (Römer 2017). Other countries could appear as particularly
restrictive towards immigrants’ access to certain benefits simply because these ben-
efits are granted under rather restrictive eligibility conditions for all claimants,
including nationals. Finally, one could also expect that countries with universal
healthcare services automatically open entitlement to these services also for for-
eigners. However, systems that are more generous in offering non-contributory
means-tested benefits may be more restrictive towards migrants’ access to these
benefits by imposing more demanding residency conditions to avoid being more
susceptible to attract migrants that would depend on their welfare provisions.
Of course, politicisation of migrants’ access to welfare adds another layer of
complexity by further incentivising restrictiveness in social policy regulations
towards migrants, especially in countries with more generous welfare provisions.
Building on the work of Andersen and Bjørklund (1990) on welfare chauvinism,
scholars have looked at how right-wing populist parties combine sceptical dis-
courses on immigration with favourable views on economic redistribution limited to
the native population and “deserving migrants” (Rydgren 2004; Banting 2010; Van
Der Waal et al. 2010). As shown in several case studies, mainstream parties often
adjust their discourse on migration and welfare in response to the electoral success
of these right-wing populist parties (Kitschelt and McGann 1995; de Lange 2007;
Schumacher and van Kersbergen 2014). Whereas third-country nationals tend to
become the main target of such discourses, one recent illustration of mainstream
party adjustment to right-wing welfare chauvinist parties concerned mobile EU citi-
zens. In 2013, a group of British, German, Austrian and Dutch ministers complained
to the European Commission that some of their cities were ‘under a considerable
strain by certain immigrants from other member states’. The letter found support
among various centre parties (the UK Conservatives, the French Les Republicains)
that called for stricter controls, repatriation and the possibility to restrain the free
movement of some EU citizens (Barbulescu et al. 2015). This episode demonstrates
how politicization at EU level could aim to adjust supranational norms that protect
immigrants’ access to welfare.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 21

Departing from these general societal and welfare dynamics, the next section
summarizes some of the main findings of this volume in terms of how EU Member
States ensure the access to social benefits for their immigrant and emigrant
populations.

1.3  omparing Levels of Inclusiveness across Countries

C
and Between Groups: Main Patterns of Convergence
and Divergence

The empirical analyses developed in the country chapters included in this volume
confirm the existence of several instances of policy convergence in the way in which
European democracies legally define the access of their immigrant and emigrant
populations to domestic welfare systems.

1.3.1  abitual Residence, Territoriality and Restrictiveness

H
of Welfare Regimes towards Non-Residents

To begin with, the country chapters show that, in general, EU Member States tend
to be more inclined to grant residence-based welfare entitlements to foreigners
when compared to nationality-based social benefits for their nationals residing
abroad. As discussed in this volume, most Member States have implemented rather
restrictive policies towards the access of their emigrant populations to social bene-
fits. In fact, regardless of the size of the diaspora, the economic and political lever-
age of the later, or the type of welfare regime, European countries subscribe to the
same pattern that disqualifies non-residents from most cash-related benefits. Their
national boundaries still constitute the primary locus in which individuals can enjoy
welfare provisions. This means that emigrants do not have a basic entitlement to
various social benefits from their home countries just because they hold the status of
nationals of these countries. On the contrary, given that most social benefits are
conditional upon residence in the country that grants them, exportability is rarely
possible and generally levied only on grounds of international conventions, the
European social security coordination system, or bilateral social security agree-
ments signed with third countries. This finding thus confirm a pattern already high-
lighted in previous studies (see, for instance, Guiraudon 2002) of a decline in the
relevance of nationality for accessing welfare, compared to the strengthening of
residency-related conditions.
This strong emphasis on residence in access to social protection that directly
hinders emigrants’ eligibility for social benefits from their countries of nationality
is observed across most policy areas analyzed here. Although short-term temporary
stays abroad are generally allowed in particular circumstances (for instance, for the
purpose of medical treatment abroad or for holidays), when individuals leave their
22 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

EU countries of nationality to permanently settle abroad, they usually lose their

entitlement to social benefits from these countries.24 As an illustration, access to the
health care system or sickness cash benefits is usually based on the principle of ter-
ritoriality and generally granted only to those habitually residing or working in a
particular country. Consequently, moving abroad permanently usually terminates
membership to the health care system of the country of nationality. In the same vein,
residence in the country generally conditions access to unemployment benefits,
non-contributory pensions, family-related benefits and especially so, guaranteed
minimum resources. For instance, none of the EU Member States that implements
non-categorical assistance schemes aiming to guarantee a minimum income to all
those in need allow their nationals residing abroad to claim these benefits, as recipi-
ents must effectively reside in these countries. In some cases (see the example of
Cyprus in this volume), this effective residence criterion for claiming social assis-
tance is further complemented by a minimum period of prior and continuous resi-
dence in the country, this additional element constraining even the access of
returnees to this specific benefit.

1.3.2  ifferentiated Exclusion: Waiving the Residence

D
Condition for Emigrants

Despite this general trend pointing towards the restrictiveness of national social
policy legislations towards non-resident citizens, the EU coordination system allows
mobile EU citizens to continue receiving certain benefits from their countries of
nationality while residing in another EU country, thus shifting the restrictive under-
standing of welfare as a territorial responsibility. One obvious example is the pos-
sibility of EU citizens to retain (for a short period) their unemployment benefits
when moving to an EU/EEA (European Economic Area) country for the purposes
of finding a job25. Additionally, EU nationals also enjoy non-discriminatory access
to most welfare entitlements in their EU countries of residence. Given that, as previ-
ously mentioned, most Europeans living outside their countries of nationality reside
in other EU Member States, this supranational framework guarantees their access to
social protection even in absence of targeted national policies to ensure their inclu-
sion in the domestic welfare system of their origin countries.
Moreover, although eligibility for most social benefits is built on residence, some
exceptions (or waivers of the territoriality condition) can still be identified across
specific policy areas, thus indicating a certain selectivity in the exclusion of emi-
grants from domestic welfare systems. By way of example, invalidity benefits can

24
This excludes, of course, the case of individuals who reside abroad while still working in the
service of employers based in the country of nationality, a group that is specifically excluded from
our analysis.
25
Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009. See also: https://europa.eu/
youreurope/citizens/work/unemployment-and-benefits/transferring-unemployment-benefits/
index_en.htm. Accessed 16 of March 2020.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 23

often be exported worldwide (see, for instance, the chapters on Ireland, Malta or
Romania) although, in some cases (France, Belgium or Poland), they can only be
transferred within the EU, unless otherwise stipulated in bilateral agreements with
third countries. Contributory old-age pensions also stand out as an important excep-
tion to the strong link between residence and access to benefits across the EU26,
while also representing one of the most important components of government
expenditure across EU countries (Fig. 1.6 above). Unlike other cash payments, con-
tributory old-age pensions can generally be transferred to both EU and non-EU
countries (see the chapters on Austria, Croatia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland,
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia or Sweden).27 Yet,
some Member States (such as Bulgaria or the Czech Republic) still constrain non-­
resident nationals’ possibility to transfer these pensions to third countries on the
existence of bilateral agreements with the latter; whereas the Netherlands condi-
tions the amount received after the transfer of the contributory pension to the exis-
tence of such bilateral conventions. Additionally, some EU Member States also
offer specific public non-contributory pension schemes. However, as discussed in
the country chapters in this volume, access to these pensions usually depends on
residence in the country. Thus, non-resident nationals are excluded as potential
claimants (with some exceptions- see the chapter on Spain for details regarding the
means-tested non-contributory pension that the Spanish authorities make available
to elderly non-resident nationals who cannot work due to illness and do not receive
a contributory pension from the home or host country). Nevertheless, the general
tendency of exclusiveness of social policy legislations towards diaspora populations
is sometimes partly compensated by specific policies or programs that European
states develop in the attempt to respond to certain social protection needs of their
nationals abroad (for an in-depth discussion of such programs, see Lafleur and
Vintila 2020a).

1.3.3  qual Access for Foreign Residents in Social Policy

E
Regulations, but Modes of Exclusion via Immigration
Policies and the Labour Market

States’ restrictive behaviour towards diaspora populations does not necessarily cor-
relate with their policy stances towards foreign residents. Our findings indicate that
most European states tend to be rather inclusive in granting equal access of non-­
national residents to welfare benefits, thus responding to a residence-driven ratio-
nale (rather than a nationality-driven philosophy) in the design of the eligibility
conditions to access social rights. However, there are still important exceptions

26
For conditions of retiring abroad within the EU, see also Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004,
Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 and https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/retire-abroad/
state-pensions-abroad/index_en.htm (accessed 16 of March 2020).
27
In general, recipients are required to follow the procedure of the proof of life to receive their
pensions abroad.
24 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

from this pattern of social inclusion based on territoriality, such exceptions being
mostly visible in the area of non-contributory benefits and especially affecting third-­
country nationals.
As discussed in the country chapters, nationality is of rather minor importance
once foreigners obtain access to employment in their EU countries of residence.
Broadly speaking, social security laws do not distinguish between claimants based
on their nationality, they do not reserve social benefits only for nationality holders,
nor do they explicitly impose specific migration-related conditions that could directly
obstruct immigrants’ access to welfare. Entitlement to most benefits derives from
employment or qualifying periods of contribution to the social security system of
the EU countries of residence, rather than being conditional upon nationality.
Gainful activity thus becomes a decisive element for accessing contributory benefits
and as soon as a person starts contributing to the social security system of most EU
countries, he/she has equal access to benefits with the national citizens of those
countries.
Yet, complying with the qualifying period of contribution or employment
required for accessing social benefits may be more problematic for foreign workers
compared to their national counterparts. This is especially the case when consider-
ing immigrants’ employment vulnerability. For instance, the unemployment rates of
foreigners (especially third-country nationals) across the EU have been consistently
higher when compared to the unemployment rates of non-mobile EU citizens28 and
important obstacles (lack of recognition of qualifications obtained abroad, labour
market discrimination, etc.) still prevent migrants from finding suitable jobs in
their EU host countries29. Additionally, holding a valid work permit does not always
follow an easy procedure given the variation in the regulations applicable in this
regard across the EU. Hence, although social policy regulations may not directly
exclude foreigners from national welfare systems, domestic immigration policies
regulating the right to enter, reside and work in a particular country or general
labour market inequalities between migrants and non-migrants could still lead to
modes of exclusion from welfare entitlements. This reinforces the findings of previ-
ous studies regarding the importance of immigration policies in imposing different
levels of conditionality that could affect foreigners’ access to welfare (Sainsbury
2012; Shutes 2016; Bruzelius 2019; Schmitt and Teney 2019).
However, the type of benefits is another important element to be considered.
Our findings generally confirm the initial expectation that states are more likely
to restrict the access of mobile individuals (especially TCNs, who are also at higher
risk of poverty and social exclusion) to non-contributory benefits when compared to
the contributory ones. The country chapters show that benefits typically linked to

28
Eurostat (2019). Migrant integration statistics- labour market indicators (lfsa_urgacob and lfsa_
urgan). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migrant_integration_
statistics_%E2%80%93_labour_market_indicators#Unemployment. Accessed 16 of March 2020.
29
Eurostat (2017). Migrant integration: 2017 edition. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docu-
ments/3217494/8787947/ KS-05-17-100-EN-N.pdf/f6c45af2-6c4f-4ca0-b547-d25e6ef9c359.
Accessed 16 of March 2020.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 25

employment tend to be open to all claimants on equal grounds (regardless of their

nationality), although with some exceptions. For instance, most countries have no
statutory differences between the eligibility requirements for accessing a contributory
pension applied for national and foreign residents. However, some differences exist
in terms of the possibility to export such pension. By way of example, unlike their
national or EU counterparts, third-country nationals receiving a contributory pension
from Belgium or Luxembourg cannot generally export it (with some exceptions);
whereas those receiving a contributory pension from Lithuania can transfer it only
when moving to a country that has concluded a bilateral agreement with Lithuania.
In general, foreigners residing in EU Member States can also access cash bene-
fits in case of sickness as well as maternity, paternity or unemployment benefits
under the same eligibility conditions as those applied for national residents. For
unemployment benefits in particular, EU citizens can also aggregate the periods
spent in other EEA countries for complying with the requirement of prior contribu-
tion required to qualify for these benefits in the new EU country of residence. As
discussed in the chapter on Denmark, this also implies that an EU migrant worker
can have more immediate access to Danish unemployment benefits than the national
worker who stayed in Denmark. This situation has become a key issue of debate in
Danish politics, despite the condition applied in Denmark that individuals must be
members of the Danish unemployment insurance fund for three months before
using the principle of aggregation, a condition aiming to prevent EU citizens’ imme-
diate access to the unemployment scheme.
The situation is even more nuanced for third-country nationals as in some cases,
national provisions put them in a disadvantaged position for accessing unemploy-
ment benefits compared to mobile EU citizens. For instance, TCNs must hold the
long-term residence status to qualify for unemployment benefits in Bulgaria,
whereas in France, they are required to prove regular residence that is strictly
assessed based on the type of residence permits they possess. The Danish legislation
also requires claimants of unemployment benefits to have resided seven years out of
the last 12 years in Denmark. Although this prerequisite applies to nationals and
foreigners alike, it still puts TCNs in a more vulnerable position, especially since
periods spent in non-EU countries do not count for the seven years requirement
(unlike periods spent in the EU). Furthermore, in Malta, third-country nationals
who are not permanent residents cannot access unemployment benefits, as they are
unable to register for work at the employment service, which, in turn, is a require-
ment for receiving unemployment benefits.

1.3.4 I mmigrants’ Access to Non-contributory Benefits: More

Instances of Direct Exclusion

The situation is much more complex when it comes to foreigners’ access to non-­
contributory benefits that in many cases, has become a sensitive and rather contro-
versial issue in political and societal debates. In fact, it is in the area of non-contributory
26 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

benefits in which states show more direct or indirect forms of exclusion of non-
national residents from domestic welfare systems. In this particular area, claimants’
nationality remains an important element conditioning their access to welfare. For
example, whereas in some countries, EU and non-EU foreigners are entitled to
access guaranteed minimum resources schemes under the same eligibility condi-
tions as national residents (see the examples of Austria or Ireland), in others, resi-
dence-related clauses can directly hinder foreigners (especially TCNs with limited
prior residence) from claiming such benefits. To qualify for social assistance in
Belgium (a country in which the share of migrants at risk of poverty and social
exclusion is particularly high- Fig. 1.7 above), EU citizens must have resided for at
least three months, whereas third-country nationals must be registered in the Belgian
population register (which is usually possible only after five years of residence).
Similar situations are identified in Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Cyprus or
Luxembourg, where TCNs’ access to social assistance is made conditional upon a
prior residence period of at least five years or having obtained the permanent resi-
dent status. In Portugal, unlike national residents or EU citizens, third-country
nationals are also required to have resided for at least a year to be able to claim
social assistance. Some countries also condition access to social assistance for all
claimants to a minimum period of prior residence (five years in Cyprus or seven out
of the last eight years in Denmark), a requirement that can be particularly challeng-
ing for migrants, especially third-country nationals. Sometimes, access to guaran-
teed minimum resources schemes is also restricted for EU nationals: as explained in
this volume for the German case, EU citizens who enter Germany as jobseekers or
non-employed cannot claim the Minimum Income for Non-Participants.
As discussed above, non-contributory pensions represent another social protec-
tion area in which some EU Member States put forward more restrictive eligibility
conditions that mainly affect individuals who find themselves in a situation of inter-
national mobility. In some cases, non-EEA residents are directly excluded as poten-
tial beneficiaries of such pensions. Examples come from Belgium or Portugal,
where non-EEA residents cannot claim a non-contributory pension unless specifi-
cally provided for via bilateral agreements; but also Malta, where TCNs do not
qualify for such pensions unless they are long-term residents. In other cases, even
when the eligibility conditions for accessing a social pension are the same between
nationals and foreigners, strict residence provisions still apply. As an illustration, a
qualifying residence period of three years is required to access non-contributory
pensions in Finland, whereas in Estonia or Italy, this period is extended to five and
ten years, respectively. Similarly, social pension recipients in Cyprus must be per-
manent residents and have resided in Cyprus/EU/EEA/Switzerland for at least
20 years after the age of 40 or at least 35 years after the age of 18. In France, TCNs
must prove regular and continuous residence with an authorisation to work for at
least ten years to qualify for non-contributory pensions. Thus, by linking non-­
contributory pension schemes to residence conditionality, these countries explicitly
exclude elderly migrants who arrived more recently, although some of them may still
qualify for the general guaranteed minimum resource schemes offered by some of
these host countries.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 27

Finally, unlike maternity and paternity benefits that foreigners can generally
access under the same conditions as those applied for national residents, access to
child benefits across the EU is often conditioned by residence requirements.30 For
instance, the child allowance in Croatia is available to the parent of the child who
has uninterrupted residence in the country for at least three years prior to the appli-
cation. As explained in the chapters on Bulgaria, Romania, Malta, Luxembourg,
Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands or Portugal, children are also generally required
to reside in these countries to receive child benefits (with exceptions of residence in
other EU states or countries covered by bilateral agreements). In Cyprus, nationals
and foreigners alike must have resided legally and continuously in the country for
five years before applying for child benefits; whereas in Lithuania, TCNs with tem-
porary residence permits are eligible for child benefits if they have worked for at
least six months or are registered at the Employment Service if unemployed.
Denmark also requires a certain period of prior residence to qualify for family ben-
efits: six months of residence or employment in the past ten years to qualify for the
universal child benefit and one-three years of residence to be eligible for the child
allowance. As explained in the country chapter, access to family benefits has become
a recurrent topic in Danish politics, especially given the demands of the Danish
People’s Party (DPP) to restrict EU citizens’ right to child benefits. Denmark is not
an isolated case in this regard, as migrants’ access to family benefits has become a
politically sensitive issue across the EU (see also Strban 2016). Similar restrictive
proposals also gained salience and raised tensions in other Member States, espe-
cially Western European countries with sizeable immigrant communities. For
instance, the right-wing candidate for the 2017 presidential elections in France pro-
posed to make the regular residence condition for accessing family benefits more
restrictive, whereas the EU launched the infringement procedure against Austria for
trying to adapt family benefits to the costs of living in the child’s country of
residence.

1.3.5  he Negative Consequences of Take-Up

T
of Social Benefits

Even when foreigners are entitled to claim benefits on equal grounds with their
national counterparts, their access to welfare may still be indirectly constrained by
the potential negative consequences that the take-up of such benefits could have for
other migration-related entitlements. As discussed in some country chapters (see
Belgium, France, Ireland, Greece or Finland), reliance on social assistance is often
considered as a burden on public funds. In turn, this can negatively affect the renewal
of migrants’ residence permits, their applications for family reunification, or even

For the EU provision on coordination of family benefits, see Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and
30

Regulation (EC) No 987/2009. See also: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/unemploy-

ment-and-benefits/family-benefits/index_en.htm. Accessed 16 of March 2020.
28 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

their citizenship applications, as the latter generally depend on conditions of social

integration and proving one’s stable income and self-sufficiency. This creates an
extra layer of conditionality that could affect foreigners’ practical access to welfare
(see also Lafleur and Mescoli 2018 on the practice of residence permits removal for
EU nationals claiming certain welfare benefits in Belgium). Finally, as highlighted
in some chapters, even when migrants do benefit from equal access to welfare, the
required eligibility criteria (including qualifying periods of contribution/employ-
ment, waiting periods, type of documents supporting the application or the general
application procedure) can still make it more difficult for migrants to access benefits
when compared to non-migrants.
Summing up, country chapters included in this volume point towards interesting
variations in the way in which EU Member States respond to the social protection
needs of their immigrant and emigrant populations. Although national welfare
regimes usually seem more inclusive towards non-national residents when com-
pared to non-residents nationals, significant differences still exist in the regulations
conditioning foreigners’ access to benefits. In general, our results indicate that EU
coordination rules neutralise potential legal barriers for mobile EU citizens’ access
to welfare (although there are still some exceptions, such as the lack of full har-
monisation of the Croatian legislation to ensure equal treatment for EU nationals in
terms of accessing welfare). In many cases, this also confirms the initial expectation
according to which the EU social security coordination and the principle of equal
treatment and non-discrimination of mobile EU citizens place this group in a better
position to access social benefits when compared to non-EU migrants, thus creating
different tiers of entitlement to welfare. Indeed, the process of mapping out TCNs’
right to social protection across the EU reveals important gaps in terms of access,
especially when it comes to benefits that are not traditionally linked to employ-
ment or contributions to the host countries’ social security system. Whereas in some
countries, (certain categories of) TCNs are directly excluded from the list of poten-
tial beneficiaries of specific benefits, in others, much subtler mechanisms of exclu-
sion can be observed. Overall, these findings still show the existence of significant
inequalities in access to social protection for individuals coming to or moving out
of the EU. The country chapters included in the rest of the volume aim precisely at
highlighting and contextualising the complexities of such inequalities.

1.4 Structure of the Volume

The rest of the volume includes 27 country chapters, one per each EU Member
State. Each chapter starts with a general discussion regarding the evolution and
main characteristics of the national welfare system, thus analyzing the type of social
protection regime operating in each country, recent social policy reforms and the
main contributory and non-contributory benefits applicable in each case. This first
part is followed by a contextualization of the history of immigration and emigration
of each Member State, with each chapter providing information regarding the evo-
lution of migration flows, main countries of origin and destination of immigrants/
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 29

emigrants, as well as the main type(s) of migration (labour migration, lifestyle

migration, family reunification, etc.).
After this introductory section that provides a contextualization of each case
study, each chapter examines the main eligibility conditions for accessing social
benefits for national residents, non-national residents and non-resident nationals.
The main findings are interpreted in relation to key migration patterns and the type
of welfare regime. All chapters focus specifically on five core policy areas: unem-
ployment, health care, pensions, family-related benefits and guaranteed minimum
resources. For each type of benefit, authors explain how national and non-national
beneficiaries are legally defined in national legislations, which are the qualifying
periods of insurance, residence, or age for accessing these schemes, the characteris-
tics of means-tested programs versus those granted on a universal basis, and the
duration of benefits. The chapters also provide an in-depth discussion of situations
in which access to welfare is conditioned by nationality (with foreigners receiving
a differentiated treatment when compared to nationals) or residence (with non-­
resident nationals being excluded from certain benefits due to exportability regula-
tions). Authors also discuss migration-related requirements (specific residence
permits, authorisations of stay, visas, having a fixed domicile, etc.) that could hinder
immigrants’ and emigrants’ possibility to access social protection; while also
emphasizing how bilateral social security arrangements between home and host
countries could ensure better protection against social risks for mobile individuals.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s 2020 research and innovation programme
(Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of indicators
comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the following
website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/. We wish to thank Angeliki Konstantinidou for her
assistance in compiling the international migration data used in this chapter.

References

Andersen, J. G., & Bjørklund, T. (1990). Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress par-
ties in Denmark and Norway. Acta Sociologica, 33(2), 195–217.
Arrighi, J.-T., Bauböck, R., Collyer, M., Hutcheson, D., Moraru, M., Khadar, L., & Shaw, J. (2013).
Franchise and electoral participation of third country citizens residing in the European Union
and of EU citizens residing in third countries. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.
eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL-AFCO_ET(2013)474441. Accessed 05
May 2020.
Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art
report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158.
Avato, J., Koettl, J., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2010). Social security regimes, global estimates, and
good practices: The status of social protection for international migrants. World Development,
38(4), 455–466.
Banting, K. G. (2010). Is there a progressive’s dilemma in Canada? Immigration, multicultural-
ism and the welfare state: Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association,
Montreal, June 2, 2010. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 797–820. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0008423910000983.
30 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

Barbulescu, R., Lafleur, J.-M., & Stanek, M. (2015). Intra-European mobility: Patterns of immi-
gration flows and policies. Western Europe, 2016, 35–39.
Barglowski, K., Bilecen, B., & Amelina, A. (2015). Approaching transnational social protection:
Methodological challenges and empirical applications. Population, Space and Place, 21(3),
215–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1935.
Bird, K., Saalfeld, T., & Wüst, A. M. (2011). The political representation of immigrants and minor-
ities: Voters, parties and parliaments in liberal democracies. New York: Routledge.
Blauberger, M., & Schmidt, S. (2014). Welfare migration? Free movement of EU citizens and access
to social benefits. Research and Politics, I, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014563879.
Bommes, M., & Geddes, A. (2000). Immigration and welfare. Challenging the borders of the
welfare state. New York: Routledge.
Bonoli, G. (1997). Classifying welfare states: A two-dimension approach. Journal of Social Policy,
26(3), 351–372.
Borjas, G. J. (1998). Immigration and welfare magnets. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(4),
607–637.
Bruzelius, C. (2019). Freedom of movement, social rights and residence-based conditional-
ity in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(1), 70–83. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0958928718756262.
de Lange, S. L. (2007). A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right.
Party Politics, 13(4), 411–435.
Deacon, B., & Nita, S. (2013). Regional social integration and free movement across borders: The
role of social policy in enabling and preventing access to social entitlements by cross-border
movers. European Union and Southern Africa compared. Regions & Cohesion, 3(1), 32–61.
Eisele, K. (2018). Social security coordination in association agreements: Is a common EU
approach with third countries in sight? European Journal of Social Security, 20(2), 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1388262718771785.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferrera, M. (1996). The “Southern” model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social
Policy, 6(1), 17–37.
Freeman, G. P. (1986). Migration and the political economy of the welfare state. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485, 51–63.
Gamlen, A. (2008). The emigration state and the modern geopolitical imagination. Political
Geography, 27, 840–856.
Giulietti, C. (2014). The welfare magnet hypothesis and the welfare take-up of migrants (pp. 1–37).
Bonn: IZA World of Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.37.
Guiraudon, V. (2002). Including foreigners in national welfare states: Institutional venues and rules
of the game. In B. Rothstein & S. Steinmo (Eds.), Restructuring the welfare state: Political
institutions and policy change. New York: Palgrave.
Holzmann, R. (2016). Do bilateral social security agreements deliver on the portability of pensions
and health care benefits? A summary policy paper on four migration corridors between EU and
non-EU member states. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 5(17), 1–35.
Holzmann, R., Koettl, J., & Chernetsky, T. (2005). Portability regimes of pension and health care
benefits for international migrants. An analysis of issues and good practices. World Bank Social
Protection Research Paper. Geneva: Global Commission on International Migration.
Kitschelt, H., & McGann, A. (1995). The radical right in Western Europe: A comparative analysis.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Koopmans, R., & Michalowski, I. (2017). Why do states extend rights to immigrants? Institutional
settings and historical legacies across 44 countries worldwide. Comparative Political Studies,
50(1), 41–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016655533.
Kramer, D., Thierry, J., & van Hooren, F. (2018). Responding to free movement: Quarantining
mobile union citizens in European welfare states. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(10),
1501–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1488882.
Kvist, J., Fritzell, J., Hvinden, B., & Kangas, O. (Eds.). (2012). Changing social equality: The
Nordic welfare model in the 21st century. Bristol: Policy Press.
1 Migration and Access to Welfare Benefits in the EU: The Interplay… 31

Lafleur, J.-M. (2013). Transnational politics and the state. The external voting rights of diasporas.
New York: Routledge.
Lafleur, J.-M., & Mescoli, E. (2018). Creating undocumented EU migrants through welfare: A
conceptualization of undeserving and precarious citizenship. Sociology, 52(3), 480–496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518764615.
Lafleur, J.-M., & Stanek, M. (2017). Restrictions to social protection by new Southern
European migrants in Belgium. In J.-M. Lafleur & M. Stanek (Eds.), South-north migra-
tion of EU citizens in times of crisis (IMISCOE Research Series) (pp. 99–121). https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-39763-4_7.
Lafleur, J.-M., & Vintila, D. (Eds.). (2020a). Migration and social protection in Europe and beyond
(Volume 2): Comparing consular services and diaspora policies. Cham: Springer.
Lafleur, J.-M., & Vintila, D. (Eds.). (2020b). Migration and social protection in Europe and beyond
(Volume 3): A focus on non-EU sending states. Cham: Springer.
Lafleur, J.-M., & Vivas Romero, M. (2018). Combining transnational and intersectional approaches
to immigrants’ social protection: The case of Andean families’ access to health. Comparative
Migration Studies, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-018-0073-7.
Larsen, J. E. (2005). The active society and activation policy: Ideologies, contexts and effects. In
J. G. Andersen, A.-M. Guillemard, P. H. Jensen, & B. Pfau-Effinger (Eds.), The changing face
of welfare: Consequences and outcomes from a citizenship perspective (pp. 135–150). Bristol:
Bristol University Press.
Levitt, P., Viterna, J., Mueller, A., & Lloyd, C. (2017). Transnational social protection: Setting
the agenda. Oxford Development Studies, 45(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.201
6.1239702.
Maas, W. (2007). Creating European citizens. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Martinsen, D. S. (2005). The Europeanization of welfare – The domestic impact of intra-European
social security. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(5), 1027–1054.
Morissens, A., & Sainsbury, D. (2005). Migrants’ social rights, ethnicity and welfare regimes.
Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279405009190.
Österman, M., Palme, J., & Ruhs, M. (2019). National institutions and the fiscal impact of EU
migrants. Working Paper REMINDER Project. Available at: https://www.reminder-project.eu/
wp-content/uploads/2019/02/REMINDER-D4.3-Institutions-and-Fiscal-Effects.pdf. Accessed
05 May 2020.
OECD (2015). Connecting with emigrants: A global profile of diasporas. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Palier, B. (Ed.). (2010). A long goodbye to Bismarck? The politics of welfare reform in continental
Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Rice, D. (2013). Beyond welfare regimes: From empirical typology to conceptual ideal types.
Social Policy & Administration, 47, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12001.
Römer, F. (2017). Generous to all or ‘insiders only’? The relationship between welfare state gener-
osity and immigrant welfare rights. Journal of European Social Policy, 27(2), 173–196. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0958928717696441.
Ruhs, M., & Palme, J. (2018). Institutional contexts of political conflicts around free movement
in the European Union: A theoretical analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(10),
1481–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1488883.
Rydgren, J. (2004). Explaining the emergence of radical right-wing populist parties: The
case of Denmark. West European Politics, 27(3), 474–502. https://doi.org/10.108
0/0140238042000228103.
Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Feldman, R. (2011). Migration and social protection claiming social
rights beyond borders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Koettl, J. (2010). Social protection for migrants: The challenges of delivery
in the context of changing migration flows. International Social Security Review, 63, 115–144.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-246X.2010.01372.x.
Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants’ social rights in comparative perspective: Welfare regimes,
forms in immigration and immigration policy regimes. Journal of European Social Policy,
16(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706065594.
32 D. Vintila and J.-M. Lafleur

Sainsbury, D. (2012). Welfare states and immigrant rights. In The politics of inclusion and exclu-
sion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, S., Blauberger, M., & Martinsen, D. S. (2018). Free movement and equal treatment in an
unequal union. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(10), 1391–1402. https://doi.org/10.108
0/13501763.2018.1488887.
Schmitt, C., & Teney, C. (2019). Access to general social protection for immigrants in
advanced democracies. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(1), 44–55. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0958928718768365.
Schumacher, G., & van Kersbergen, K. (2014). Do mainstream parties adapt to the wel-
fare chauvinism of populist parties? Party Politics, 22(3), 300–312. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1354068814549345.
Seeleib-Kaiser, M., & Pennings, F. (2018). Intra-EU migration and social rights: An introduction.
In M. Seeleib-Kaiser & F. Pennings (Eds.), EU citizenship and social rights. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112710.00008.
Serra Mingot, E., & Mazzucato, V. (2017). Mobile populations in immobile welfare systems: A
typology of institutions providing social welfare and protection within a mobility framework.
The European Journal of Development Research, 29(4), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41287-016-0061-4.
Shaw, J. (2007). The transformation of citizenship in Europe: Electoral rights and the restructura-
tion of the political space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shutes, I. (2016). Work-related conditionality and the access to social benefits of national citizens,
EU and non-EU citizens. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0047279416000234.
Strban, G. (2016). Family benefits in the EU: Is it still possible to coordinate them? Maastricht
Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(5), 775–795. https://doi.org/10.117
7/1023263X1602300503.
Van der Waal, J., Achterberg, P., Houtman, D., de Koster, W., & Manevska, K. (2010). ‘Some are
more equal than others’: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in the Netherlands.
Journal of European Social Policy, 20(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710374376.
Van Der Waal, J., De Koster, W., & Van Oorschot, W. (2013). Three worlds of welfare chauvinism?
How welfare regimes affect support for distributing welfare to immigrants in Europe. Journal
of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.108
0/13876988.2013.785147.
Vintila, C. D. (2015). The European citizenship and the electoral rights of non-national EU citi-
zens in the EU Member States. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.
Vintila, D., & Morales, L. (2018). La representación política de las personas de origen inmigrante
en España e Italia. Papers, 103(4), 521–550. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers.2505.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defence of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Austria

Monika Riedel and Andreas Chmielowski

2.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
and Main Migration Features in Austria

2.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The Austrian social security system covers a broad range of social risks, most of
them via a compulsory social insurance system. A recent reform has reduced the
number of involved institutions and reallocated responsibilities as of January first,
2020 (Table 2.1).
These organisations are responsible for the areas related to health and invalidity,
pensions, and some family benefits. Other family benefits are governed by specific
national acts, such as one for the protection of mothers (Mutterschutzgesetz MSchG),
and are financed from general taxes. Unemployment benefits are mostly financed
via payroll contributions and managed by the Public Employment Service Austria
(Arbeitsmarktservice AMS).1 Guaranteed minimum resources are currently funded,
regulated and organized by the nine federal states. Regional differences in regula-
tions are minimised by the federal legislator (Sozialhilfe-Grundsatzgesetz),

1
AMS (2018). Unemployment insurance (UI). http://www.ams.at/en/public-employment-service-
austria-ams/unemployment-insurance. Accessed 16 April 2018.

M. Riedel (*)
Institute for Advanced Studies – IHS, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Chmielowski
Vienna University of Economics and Business; at the time of writing the chapter,
also Institute for Advanced Studies – IHS, Vienna, Austria

© The Author(s) 2020 33

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_2
34 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

Table 2.1 Austrian Social Security Institutions and Main Governing Acts (as of 01.01.2020)
Unemployment Accident Health Pension Poverty
Public Umbrella Association of Austrian Social Bundesländer
employment Security Organisations governments Act: Separate in
service Austria Austrian Austrian Pension each Bundesland, based on
(AMS) workers’ health insurance national legal guidelines
Act: AlVG compensation insurance institution
funds (AUVA) (ÖGK) (PVA)
Act: ASVG Act: Act:
ASVG ASVG
Insurance institution for civil servants,
railways and mining industry (BVAEB)
Act: B-KUVG
Social security institution for self-­
employed persons (SVS)
Act: SVS-G
Source: Own elaboration

limiting, among other things, the amount of benefits per month and person.2
However, in December 2019, parts of this legislation were revoked by the
Constitutional Court.
Health insurance coverage for around 80% of the overall population is provided
by the Austrian Health Funds (Österreichische Gesundheitskasse ÖGK) and regu-
lated by the general act on social insurance (Allgemeines
Sozialversicherungsgesetz, ASVG).3
The Austrian social insurance system is governed by the following
characteristics:
• Principle of insurance: Insurance is the prerequisite for drawing most benefits.
Many cash benefits are income-related due to income-dependent contributions.
The insurance is compulsory for persons who are either employees or self-­
employed and covers also their dependants.
• Principle of solidarity: Persons with higher income – who therefore pay higher
social insurance contributions and taxes – help to fund benefits for persons with
lower income.
• Income-related insurance contributions provide the funding basis for almost all
services, in several areas complemented by state support. A non-contributory
allowance can top up pensions to avoid poverty, and certain family benefits are
(co-)funded by taxes. Long-term care and social assistance are the only major
areas funded exclusively from taxes.

2
Verfassungsgerichtshof. (2019). Sozialhilfe-Grundsatzgesetz: Höchstsatzsystem für Kinder und
Arbeitsqualifizierungsbonus verfassungswidrig. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/VfGH_zu_
Sozialhilfe-Grundsatzgesetz_ _Hoechstsatzsyste.de.php. Accessed 19 March 2020.
3
Before 2020, coverage of ÖGK had been split into nine Bundesländer schemes, SVS into farmers
versus all other self-employed persons, and BVAEB into civil servants versus mining and railways.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 35

These characteristics highlight the central role that the employment status has in
the Austrian welfare system. The entitlement to most social benefits is derived from
employment, not from the citizenship status. Regarding health insurance, for
instance, the sector of employment defines which insurance organization is respon-
sible for coverage (private sector, public sector and self-employed persons are cov-
ered under separate schemes). The crucial point for access to the Austrian social
security system is thus the entry into legal employment. As soon as this is achieved,
nationality is an irrelevant factor for accessing most benefits. Also, the right to draw
tax-funded benefits depends mostly on residence, not citizenship. Having the centre
of one’s life in Austria is a key element in this regard, and the reason why non-­
Austrians are required to have residence permits in order to access these benefits.
Austrian nationals have no right to draw social assistance or family benefits unless
usually living in Austria.
Legal employment is possible without further conditions only for specific groups
of individuals: persons from European Union (EU) / European Economic Area
(EEA) countries (but not Croatia) or Switzerland; foreigners with a so-called Red-­
White-­Red-Card plus (Rot-Weiß-Rot-Karte plus), and holders of a residence permit
as family members or a permanent residence permit as EU citizen. For other foreign
residents, employers can apply for an employment permission
(Beschäftigungsbewilligung) for a specifically described job position. Such permis-
sions are mostly granted for students, Croatians, farm helpers, seasonal workers and
workers on rota. Permissions are granted by the regional AMS, given that the pro-
spective employer fulfils further conditions.
The Red-White-Red Card was introduced in 2011 for prospective long-term
migrants from third countries. Applications are evaluated by the AMS. As the intro-
duction of the Red-White-Red Card focused on achieving “high quality immigra-
tion”, four schemes were created: “very highly qualified workers”, “skilled workers
in shortage occupations”, “other key workers”, and “start-up founders”. After
2 years of employment in Austria, foreigners can apply for a Red-White-Red Card.

2.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the Habsburg Empire
exceeded the territory of today’s Republic of Austria, migration flowed mostly from
east to west, to the primary urban and industrial centers. Although the monarchy
was also an important country of emigrants bound mainly for Germany, Switzerland,
Italy, and increasingly, the Americas, immigration usually outstripped emigration.
This still can be observed in the numerous family names originating in countries of
the former Habsburg Empire. During and after World War II, many German-­
speaking residents from Austria’s neighbour countries to the East were integrated
into the Austrian population, with the exception of Jewish people. The accession of
former members of the Habsburg Empire to the European Union again tightened the
bonds between these countries and Austria.
36 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

As of October 2016, of Austria’s 8,8 million inhabitants, more than 1,6 million
(18.8%) were not born in Austria, with 45.5% of them (751,000 persons) coming
from EU/EEA/Switzerland, and another 35.1% from other parts of Europe.
According to the Statistik Austria (2017)4 data, persons born in Germany form the
largest group (224,000 persons accounting for 2.5% of the overall population), fol-
lowed by those born in Bosnia and Herzegovina (165,000), Turkey (160,000) and
Serbia (136,000). Syria and Afghanistan together contributed only half as many
foreign-born residents for Austria as Bosnia and Herzegovina or Turkey, but over a
very concentrated period of time. For instance, during 2015–2017, of about 156,000
asylum applications filed in Austria, Syrians and Afghans comprised the largest
shares (26% each). Since the end of 2015, the climate towards immigrants (espe-
cially foreign-born individuals with a (presumed) Muslim background) has become
much more critical, if not hostile. The 2017 parliamentary elections resulted in a
coalition of the conservative party (ÖVP) and the far right-wing party (FPÖ), with
especially the latter promising a strict anti-immigration regime. The salience of
migration during the electoral campaigns needs to be seen in context of the large
foreign influx to Austria: in 2015, with 88,300 new asylum applications, Austria
was the fourth largest receiver of asylum seekers in the EU (Buber-Ennser et al.
2018), but ranks only 15th in a comparison of overall population size across the
EU. After the break-up of the coalition in spring 2019, another election and the
formation of a new coalition between ÖVP and the Green Party, anti-migrant senti-
ments have cooled only to some extent.
In 2016, roughly 25,600 non-EU/EEA/Swiss citizens were granted a first resi-
dence permit in Austria, and about 42,300 persons applied for asylum. About 1200
persons were granted a Red-White-Red Card or a Blue Card EU and thus fulfil the
conditions for one of the categories of key workers. Family reunification resulted in
14,200 non-EU/EEA/Swiss citizens coming to Austria, and about 7400 students,
Au-Pairs, researchers and clerical persons were granted a first residence permit.
Seasonal work accounted for 3200 workers on average (Statistik Austria 2017).
For several years, there was public concern regarding immigration into low paid
employment, often also including over-qualification of the employees. In 2014,
23.5% of foreign-born persons working in Austria stated that they felt overqualified
in their job, compared to 8.8% of workers born in Austria. Within the group of
foreign-­born workers, over-qualification was less severe (but still higher than for
Austrian-born persons) among those born in other EU15 countries, Turkey, and per-
sons with more than 20 years of residence in Austria (Pesendorfer 2015). The issue
of over-qualification was addressed by cooperation between the Ministry of Labour
and Social Affairs and the Secretary of State of Integration. This cooperation aimed
at providing information and guidance to migrants in the process of having foreign
credentials accredited and validated. Following international examples, a minimum
income requirement for family reunification was introduced in the Act on Residence

4
Statistik Austria. (2017). Migration und Integration. Zahlen. Daten. Indikatoren. https://www.
oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/kommissionen/KMI/Dokumente/Migration_und_Integration._Zahlen_
Daten_Indikatoren/migration_und_integration_2017.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2018.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 37

and Settlement (Niederlassungs- und Aufenthaltsgesetz – NAG 2005), as family-­

related reasons (41.6% in 2014) rank even higher than work-related reasons (31.5%)
as major reason for immigration to Austria (Pesendorfer 2015:16). It reduced the
immigration of low-skilled persons from third countries who want to join their part-
ners in Austria who themselves are receiving welfare benefits like long-term unem-
ployment benefits or social assistance (Biffl 2017:163).
The current migration discussion focusses on immigration only, even though
Austria has been a country with large numbers of emigrants for many decades.
During the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, most notably during World
War II, many persons emigrated voluntarily or were forced to do so. Also, during the
first years after World War II, not all persons displaced from Eastern Europe
remained in Austria, but many moved on, mostly overseas.
Currently, no exact information is available on the number of Austrian citizens
living abroad. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates that in July 2018, 583,700
Austrian nationals lived abroad, 437,400 of whom in Europe. The main countries of
destination are Germany (261,000 persons), Switzerland (65,000), the United States
(US, 36,000) and Australia and United Kingdom (UK, 25,000 each).5 These num-
bers might rise during the next years. Between 2008 and 2017, on average, 22,000
Austrians emigrated per year, while on average, 15,500 Austrians returned to
Austria.6 In the public discussion, current emigration from Austria concentrates on
brain drain, often related to the medical profession.

2.2 Migration and Social Protection in Austria

Coverage of social insurance in Austria is quite high as more than 99% of all (legal)
inhabitants have health insurance. This is due to a combination of factors including
compulsory insurance against several social risks (unemployment, incapacity to
work due to illness or accident, pension) for most types of paid work, comprehen-
sive possibilities to cover economically dependent family members, possibility for
some persons to continue coverage on a voluntary basis, and compulsory coverage
with health insurance for pensioners and most unemployed persons. Compulsory
insurance coverage is linked to current or former legal employment exceeding cer-
tain thresholds and access to legal employment is restricted for non-EU/EEA/Swiss
citizens. Tax-financed benefits usually require a residence permit, which again
depends on legal employment or other types of regular income, and it is required
that the recipient’s usual place of residence has been in Austria, regardless of his/her
nationality.

5
http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/menschen_und_gesellschaft/bevoelkerung/internatio-
nale_uebersich/036450.html. Accessed 26 March 2019.
6
Statistik Austria. (2018). Wanderungsstatistik. https://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/men-
schen_und_gesellschaft/bevoelkerung/wanderungen/wanderungen_mit_dem_ausland_aussen-
wanderungen/index.html. Accessed 26 March 2019.
38 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

2.2.1 Unemployment

The Austrian unemployment insurance scheme consists of two consecutive systems

of unemployment benefit (Arbeitslosengeld) and unemployment assistance
(Notstandshilfe7), with exhaustion of the former being an eligibility criterion for the
latter. Eligibility for benefits requires a minimum number of contributions: for first
time applicants, 12 months within the last 2 years; for persons who already received
benefits from the scheme, seven contribution months during the last year, with lower
requirements for persons younger than 25 years8. Employees earning more than
438,05 EUR/month (2018; Geringfügigkeitsgrenze9) are due to compulsory full
insurance (i.e. all four insurance pillars: work accidents, unemployment, health and
pension). Self-employed persons can voluntarily choose to join the unemployment
insurance scheme10.
Unemployment benefits generally yield 55% of the recipient’s last earned income
and are usually granted for up to 20 weeks (extended to 52 weeks depending on age
and prior insurance or to 4 years in exceptional cases). Unemployment assistance
yields 92% of the last unemployment benefit or 95% if the benefit is below the
threshold for equalisation allowance and is granted for 52 weeks. It can be applied
for again as long as unemployment persists. Both payment schemes are tied to reg-
istration at the AMS and the jobseeker’s ability and willingness to work, which are
expressed by preparedness to accept AMS job offers. Lack of cooperation can be
sanctioned with temporary revocation of the payments. Unemployment assistance is
means-tested and since July 2018, only the applicant’s own income is taken into
account.
The access to unemployment benefits is not conditioned by applicants’ national-
ity, hence EU and non-EU foreigners can claim these benefits under the same condi-
tions as national residents. Austrians residing abroad are not entitled to claim
unemployment benefits from Austria, independently of their country of residence.
While receiving unemployment benefits, travel to any other country is allowed for
job search, training abroad or family affairs and restricted to a maximum of
3 months.
As explained, legal employment in Austria implies legal residence and holding a
working permit. EU citizens have advantages in gaining a residence and working
permit due to their right of unrestricted free movement for job search. The period of

7
Help.gv.at. (2018a). Notstandshilfe – Ruhen. https://www.help.gv.at/Portal.Node/hlpd/public/
content/361/Seite.3610021.html. Accessed 16 April 2018.
8
Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien (2017). Arbeitslos – Was nun?. https://media.arbe-
iterkammer.at/wien/PDF/Publikationen/ArbeitundRecht/Arbeitslos_was_nun_2017.pdf. Accessed
13 Apr 2018.
9
Help.gv.at. (2018d). Begriffslexikon – Geringfügigkeitsgrenze. https://www.help.gv.at/Portal.
Node/hlpd/public/content/99/Seite.990119.html. Accessed 9 May 2018.
10
WGKK. (2018). Arbeitslosenversicherungsbeitrag bei geringem Einkommen. https://www.
wgkk.at/portal27/wgkkdgportal/content?contentid=10007.724681&viewmode=content&portal:c
omponentId=gtndd7d8efd-b0a7-42fe-937c-b7f99005e756. Accessed 13 April 2018.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 39

prior contribution in EU/EEA and Switzerland are also taken into account when
accessing unemployment benefits in Austria: as long as a person has contributed for
a sufficient number of months into any unemployment insurance scheme in these
countries, it suffices to have been employed for at least 1 day in Austria to obtain
Austrian unemployment benefits. The totalisation of periods of contribution to for-
eign social security systems is also provided in the bilateral agreements with non-
­EU countries, such as Serbia, Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina.11 Apart from
these cases, however, the Austrian unemployment insurance scheme treats nationals
and (EU and non-EU) foreigners equally.

2.2.2 Health Care

In the private sector, employers deduct 3.87% of the employee’s gross wage, add
their employer’s contribution of 3.78%, and transfer the corresponding sum to the
institution responsible for coverage. Coverage continues during unemployment and
retirement. While residing in Austria, in the same household and not covered via
their own contributions, dependents can also be covered free of charge.
When first covered by a sickness fund (usually at birth), a so-called e-Card is
issued, stating the individual’s name and social security number. To claim health
care services in kind, one needs only the e-Card and some ID document. The ben-
efits are usually provided free of charge or for a small co-payment. Coverage for
health care starts on the first day of employment, independently of the prior resi-
dence and employment status.
Coverage for work accidents in the private sector is organized in a specialised
insurance organisation, Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt (AUVA). Coverage
of accident insurance is compulsory also for employment below the minimum
threshold applicable to other branches of insurance.
If one’s working capacity has been permanently reduced by at least 50%, one can
apply for disability pension. The form for the formal application contains detailed
questions regarding the tasks fulfilled in all jobs held during the last 15 years. Proof
of employment and wage should be already available at the insurer due to the com-
pulsory and/or voluntary pension insurance. Eligibility for disability pension
requires 60 contribution months if the applicant is younger than 50 years. Austrians
receiving disability pension can move abroad and still draw the Austrian pension.
Health care benefits and disability benefits are earned via payment of contribu-
tions. Cash benefits for incapacity to work are related to the contribution base and
there is no means-testing. The definition of covered health benefits in kind is very
broad. Breadth and depth of coverage do not differ between persons with higher and
lower contributions. This holds for all health-related benefits discussed above.

AlVG; AMS (2018a); BGBl. (2000, Turkey), (2001, Bosnia and Hercegovina), (2002, Serbia);
11

Help.gv.at (2018d); NAG § 8, 9, 51.

40 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

Achieving legal employment is thus the most important obstacle for health care
coverage of foreigners willing to work in Austria and their dependents. Furthermore,
NAG §11(2) 3 states that the permission to reside in Austria can only be granted if
the person is fully covered by a health insurance scheme that provides services in
Austria. Consequently, lack of health insurance is not much of a problem for legal
residents in Austria, but rather can be a barrier to achieve legal residence status.

2.2.3 Pensions

Austria grants two types of old-age pensions: contributory and non-contributory.

The general principle of the Austrian retirement scheme is to maintain the standard
of living. While all private employees are covered by the ASVG through one insurer
(Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – PVA), there are separate laws and insurers for
other employment groups (Table 2.1). Pensions are financed in the pay-as-you-go
logic from contributions between the same minimum and maximum thresholds as in
health insurance. Employers subtract 10.25% of gross income as employee’s contri-
bution, add 12.55% as employer’s contribution, and transmit the sum to PVA. In
addition to payroll contributions, ASVG specifies certain Government contribu-
tions, e.g. for persons with defined care obligations for small children or relatives
with severe care needs, and for persons doing their military service. The Government
is financing the Ausgleichszulage (non-contributory allowance for pensions below a
specified income threshold), according to the revenue equalization act
(Finanzausgleichsgesetz 2017 §2). When the pension insurance’s income from con-
tributions does not cover the total pension expenditure, the Government is legally
obliged to cover the difference (Ausfallshaftung des Bundes).
Currently, the standard retirement age is 65 years for men and 60 years for
women. Between 2024 and 2033, the standard retirement age of women will gradu-
ally be lifted to the same level as that for men. Retiring before the standard retire-
ment age has been possible for – and frequently done by – persons with many
contributory years but results in financial reductions of the pension. Individuals who
work even after reaching the standard retirement age achieve a bonus. The mini-
mum number of insurance years for being granted a pension is 15 years, and some
non-contributory periods are recognized for the calculation of insurance months12.
Individual pension accounts have been introduced in 2014. All earnings with
compulsory pension insurance are taken into account for calculating the pension

12
This includes: (1) periods when receiving unemployment benefit, payment for sick leave or from
accident insurance; a maximum of 24 months per dependent child. These periods are credited for
all EU/EEA/CH nationals fulfilling the necessary requirements. (2) For Austrian nationals only,
times of being soldier, prisoner, in hospital care or disabled, all related to WW II, or temporarily
emigrated due to NAZI prosecution up to 1945, and times of military service are recognised.
(ASVG § 227, 228). For a defined number of secondary and tertiary education years, contribution
months can be bought.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 41

and contribution months to foreign pension schemes are also considered. If the
qualifying period is reached with Austrian months alone, then calculation is as if
also contribution months in EU/EEA/Switzerland had been worked in Austria,
unless inclusion of foreign months is beneficial for the pensioner. If foreign months
are counted to reach the qualifying period, payments are reduced in proportion of
the foreign to the Austrian months. For third-country nationals, only Austrian
months and contributions are used to calculate the pension. In general, Austria pays
pension only for contributions into Austrian pension funds, but requires that foreign
contributions are mentioned when applying for pension benefits. Benefits from for-
eign insurers are paid directly from abroad to the beneficiary. Receiving the pension
abroad in case of permanently moving to a foreign country is possible under the
same conditions as for resident nationals.
The non-contributory pension (Ausgleichszulage, equalization allowance) is
intended to prevent poverty in old age. Each pension application includes the check
whether the pension income is below a certain threshold, which depends on house-
hold composition. All income from property, assets or pensions from Austria or
abroad have to be reported.13 Eligibility for the allowance requires that the centre of
living and usual place of residence is in Austria (both for citizens and non-citizens),
and that an Austrian/EU/EEA/Swiss pension is received. It is not possible to export
this allowance to other countries. In cases of doubt, the insurer can request docu-
mentation for the usual place of living. Furthermore, NAG § 11 states that no resi-
dence permit can be granted if the residence might become a financial burden for the
municipality. Such a burden is assumed if the income is below the eligibility thresh-
olds. The law states explicitly that benefits conditional upon residence in Austria –
like Ausgleichszulage – cannot be included in the calculation of the necessary income.

2.2.4 Family Benefits

There are several types of family-related benefits in Austria. Regarding maternity

benefits, women are not permitted to work during 8 weeks before the calculated
birthday of their child until 8 weeks after the child’s actual birth.14 Employed women
receive a cash benefit (Wochengeld) that amounts to the average earnings of the last
3 months and is financed from a special fund regulated by the Family Burden
Balancing Act (Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967). Wochengeld is due even if
there is only 1 month of employment at the cut-off date for the benefit or if the
mother has been employed for at least 3 months at conception, but is not employed
at 8 weeks before the calculated birth, unless it was her who terminated the employ-
ment.15 Access to Wochengeld does not depend on the place of residence or the

13
ASVG § 296 (1).
14
MSchG 1979.
15
ASVG § 162.
42 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

mother’s nationality. Hence, EU and non-EU foreign residents can access maternity
benefits in Austria under exactly the same conditions as those applied for resident
nationals. The benefit is exportable and can be accessed by nationals residing abroad
if they fulfil the necessary employment conditions.
For fathers of newborn children, Austria provides the legal concept of “family
time” (Familienzeit) consisting of 1 month of unpaid leave after childbirth or the
entry of a foster/adopted child into the family.16 In many industries, a father’s pos-
sibility to consume Familienzeit depends on the employer’s good will. Further
requirements for Familienzeit are: residence and centre of life in Austria in the same
household with the child and the other parent; eligibility for child benefits; at least
182 days of employment with compulsory health and pension insurance in Austria,
and intention to return to the same workplace after family time. The child’s country
of birth is irrelevant, as long as both parents and child have a common legal resi-
dence during the Familienzeit, and the father has been working (implying a working
permit) in Austria. Even employment in other EU/EEA countries, Switzerland or
countries with bilateral agreements is not sufficient for eligibility.17 Furthermore,
since residence has to be in Austria, export of the benefit is not possible.
As for parental benefits, employed mothers have a right to paid leave until the
day before the child’s second birthday, which however can be shared with the father.
The duration can be further extended if a part-time absence from work is chosen
instead of full-time, and certain income thresholds of the parent on leave are not
exceeded. If both parents take leave, they can achieve a total of 1063 days after
birth, of which between 91 and 212 days have to be consumed by the other partner.
As for cash benefits, parents can choose between two basic schemes: a flat-rate
scheme for mothers without own income, and an income-dependent scheme in
which benefits cannot be received for longer than 1 year after birth. In both schemes,
the centre of living of parents and child must remain in Austria and they must live
in the same household. EU and non-EU foreigners residing in Austria have the same
access to parental benefits as national citizens.
Families with children usually receive family support (Familienbeihilfe18), inde-
pendently of the employment status and prior contributions. Familienbeihilfe is
granted until the child’s 18th birthday (or the 25th birthday under certain circum-
stances). During receipt, the child’s own taxable income must not exceed 10,000€/
year. While Austrian citizenship is not an eligibility requirement for parent or child,

16
Help.gv.at. (2018). Familienzeitbonus für Väter bei Geburten ab 1. März 2017. https://www.help.
gv.at/Portal.Node/hlpd/public/content/8/Seite.080623.html. Accessed 2 May 2018.
17
In a court case regarding a similar scheme, namely income-dependent parental benefits, the
Austrian High Court decided that the non-consideration of employment time in other EU-countries
represents a violation of EU-law. This might imply that also in the case of the family time bonus
there actually exists a claim for fathers having worked abroad. However, such a legal decision has
not been made yet. (OGH (2015). Einkommensabhängiges Kinderbetreuungsgeld auch für
Grenzgänger. http://www.ogh.gv.at/entscheidungen/entscheidungen-ogh/einkommensab-
haengiges-kinderbetreuungsgeld-auch-fuer-grenzgaenger/. Accessed 9 May 2018).
18
Help.gv.at. (2018). Familienbeihilfe – Beantragung. https://www.help.gv.at/Portal.Node/hlpd/
public/content/8/Seite.080711.html. Accessed 30 April 2018.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 43

legal residence in Austria is. If parents live in separate households, the benefit is
granted to the person in whose household the child is living or to the person bearing
the main economic burden of caring for the child. This implies that recipient(s) can
receive family support even if the child physically lives in the EU/EEA/Switzerland,
as long as the main financier of the child’s livelihood resides in Austria. However,
eligibility ceases if the child moves to a third country.
A claim for a similar foreign benefit eliminates eligibility for Austrian family
support, but adjustment payments are possible. Due to the EU Regulation 883/2004,
cross-border commuters and EU/EEA/Swiss citizens in general have access to
Austrian family benefits if the main source of family income is in Austria19. Austrian
citizens living and working abroad are not eligible for Austrian family support.
In January 2018, the Austrian Parliament decided to apply an index to
Familienbeihilfe paid for children residing in a different EU/EEA country or in
Switzerland, thus making the level dependent on the cost of living in the country of
residence. This indexation has come into force on 1st of January 2019, triggering
large dispute in Austria and Brussels regarding its compatibility with the EU
Regulation 883/2004. On 24th of January 2019, the European Commission has
opened an infringement procedure against Austria.20 Apart from cases regulated by
EU law, the only country with an existing bilateral agreement regulating access to
family support is Israel: persons employed in Israel but residing in Austria have
access to Austrian family benefits.21

2.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Guaranteed minimum resources (Sozialhilfe, before 2020: Bedarfsorientierte

Mindestsicherung22) is a welfare benefit scheme that represents a safety net of the
last resort. It is applicable to persons who are not eligible to unemployment benefits
or whose income from these benefits is below the household-specific equalization
allowance. It is subject to state (Bundesländer) legislation, introducing some extent
of variation across states. However, the intention to achieve more geographical
equity led to a reform on the federal level in April 2019, which defined maximum

19
WKO (2018). Kinderbetreuungsgeld und Familienbeihilfe für EU/EWR- und Schweizer Bürger.
https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Kinderbetreuungsgeld-und-Familienbeihilfe-
fuer-EU-Buerger.html. Accessed 30 Apr 2018.
20
European Commission. (2019). Indexation of family benefits: Commission opens infringement
procedure against Austria. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-463_en.htm. Accessed 6
March 2019.
21
BGBl. (1975); FLAG § 2–5, 8; NAG § 8, 9; WKO (2018).
22
AMS (2018). Bedarfsorientierte Mindestsicherung. http://www.ams.at/service-arbeitsuchende/
bedarfsorientierte-mindestsicherung. Accessed 23 April 2018.
See also: Oesterreich.gv.at (2020). Allgemeines zur Sozialhilfe/Mindestsicherung, https://www.
oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/3/2/Seite.1693914.html. Accessed 19 March 2020.
44 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

benefit rates for adults depending on household composition. Provisions regarding

regressive additional benefits for families with children and minimum language
requirements for eligibility have been revoked by the Constitutional Court on 12th
of December 2019.
Several groups of persons are eligible to guaranteed minimum resources:
Austrian citizens, persons entitled to asylum or subsidiary protection (but not in all
Bundesländer), EU citizens residing in Austria for employment purposes, holders of
a permanent residence permit and persons deriving their entitlement from their rela-
tionship to another entitled person (e.g. spouse, civil partner). ‘EU citizens residing
in Austria for employment purposes’ refers to the legal concept of employment
property (Erwerbstätigeneigenschaft). This means one is either currently (self-)
employed, temporarily not employable due to sickness or accident, or involuntarily
unemployed after at least 1 month of employment and registered at AMS. Immigration
to Austria with the purpose to receive guaranteed minimum resources is explicitly
prohibited by law.23
To be granted guaranteed minimum resources, a person must be unable to earn
his/her living, willing to accept job offers and take existing measures to escape from
the economic hardship. Persons in retirement age, carers for (terminally) ill relatives
and non-academic students are exempt from the obligation to accept job offers.
There is no direct requirement regarding the duration of residence in Austria for
foreign citizens. However, the concept of employment property indirectly demands
a minimum employment time of 1 month in Austria and a permanent residence
requires prior residence of at least 5 years. Some federal states have additional
requirements for foreigners, such as willingness to integrate into the Austrian soci-
ety (i.e. participation in language and orientation courses in Lower Austria24) or
different residence requirements (residence permit for more than 4 months in
Carinthia25). The benefit level depends on the recipient’s household composition.
For the evaluation of the applicant’s economic situation, all household members’
income and wealth, in Austria and abroad, are taken into account. The benefit can
only be granted if all wealth (save some small amount of approximately 5000 €) is
spent. The receipt of guaranteed minimum resources is restricted to 12 months at
most, but can be applied for again.
The take-up of guaranteed minimum resources yields no sanctions affecting
renewal of the residence permits or naturalisation for foreign citizens. However,
being unemployed and/or unable to meet basic material standards for living per se
can affect these rights. Moreover, export of the benefit is not possible, regardless of
the new country of residence.26

23
E.g. for Vienna, WMG §5 (2).
24
See NÖ MSG.
25
https://www.klagenfurt.at/leben-in-klagenfurt/soziales/finanzielle-hilfen/mindestsicherung.html
26
NAG § 8, 9, 51, e.g. for Vienna also WMG.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 45

2.2.6 Bilateral Social Security Agreements

Austria signed bilateral agreements on social security with several countries, includ-
ing Serbia, Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina (the three most common origin
countries of non-EU citizens residing in Austria) and the US, Canada and Australia
(the three most common non-EU destination countries of Austrian nationals27). The
three latter agreements are restricted to the consideration of pension insurance time
only, thus insured times of (self-) employment in one country can be considered for
the evaluation of pension claims in the other. The agreements with the three former
countries additionally contain extensive regulations regarding the unemployment
insurance time (except for Turkey), health and accident insurance for citizens/resi-
dents of the other country28. In all these agreements, regulations on the Austrian
equalisation allowance are not included, and equalisation allowance is not portable.29

2.2.7 Obstacles and Sanctions

Eligibility for social security benefits in Austria does not generally depend on the
applicant’s nationality. On the one hand, this means that Austrians residing abroad
have no basic claim on benefits just because they are Austrians. On the other hand,
foreigners are not automatically excluded from access or eligible to reduced bene-
fits only. Generally, eligibility for tax-financed benefits is tied to legal residence
(and sometimes, economic activity) within Austria, and in case of insurance bene-
fits, contribution time to an Austrian insurance system. Residence, of course, implies
a valid residence permit, due to either normal immigration (employment situation in
Austria), long-term residence, or eligibility to asylum or subsidiary protection. EU
citizens have an advantage compared to third-country nationals due to unrestricted
free movement and the legal concept of “employment property”, which under some
conditions, allows staying in another EU country after losing the job.
Consistent with this underlying idea of equal treatment of citizens and legal resi-
dents is the fact that there are no sanction mechanisms within the social security
system that affect nationals in a different way from foreign residents. Non-­
cooperation with authorities (e.g. rejecting job offers from AMS while receiving
unemployment benefits) can cause a temporary suspension of benefit payments, but
there are – at least officially – no sanctions in place that reduce, for example, the

27
Statista. (2018). Anzahl der Ausländer in Österreich nach den zehn wichtigsten
Staatsangehörigkeiten am 1. Januar 2018. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/293019/
umfrage/auslaender-in-oesterreich-nach-staatsangehoerigkeit/. Accessed 18 April 2018.
28
Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz (BMASGK).
(2018). Zwischenstaatliche Beziehungen Österreichs im Bereich der sozialen Sicherheit auf einen
Blick. https://www.sozialministerium.at/cms/site/attachments/0/9/1/CH3434/
CMS1470041431373/abkommensuebersicht_1-3-18.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018.
29
BMASGK (2018), BGBl. (1987, 1991), BGBl III (2000, 2001, 2002, 2017).
46 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

chance of family reunification or naturalisation. Unemployment benefit and assis-

tance are designed with the intention to assist people on their way back to a finan-
cially self-sufficient life – therefore, there are no sanctions affecting the life after
receipt of those benefits in any way. Yet, the lack of legal employment itself will
often represent an obstacle to the renewal of a residence permit.
After the sudden break-up of the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in spring 2019 and subse-
quent elections leading to an ÖVP-Green Government in January 2020, several
planned reforms of the Austrian social system – which would have disadvantaged
immigrants over nationals – seem to have been put on hold for now. The abolish-
ment of unemployment assistance is less likely to be pursued in the current coali-
tion, and core reforms of the former Government regarding guaranteed minimum
resources have been overturned by the Constitutional Court. However, some of the
legislative changes are still in effect and the symbolism and rhetoric, which were
employed when promoting these policies, have left their marks on the public dis-
course. The then introduced photo on e-Cards, for instance, was advertised in social
media using a story where clearly foreign-born persons were hindered from fraud
by this photo ID. The indexation of Familienbeihilfe was often discussed in the
context of migrant workers from Turkey and their children back home, neglecting
the fact that third-country nationals would get these benefits only for children living
in Austria.

2.3 Conclusions

In the Austrian welfare system, insurance benefits depend on legal employment, and
access to legal employment is restricted for immigrants. Tax-financed benefits usu-
ally require a residence permit, and first issuance and extensions of residence per-
mits for non-EU/EEA/Swiss citizens are subject to the restriction that the person
will not become a financial burden for the municipality. Having proof of sufficient
income and of comprehensive health insurance are thus legal prerequisites for being
granted a residence permit. Only after long residence in the country, Austrian laws
allow to grant a permanent residence permit. In a comparison of countries from the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the period
1980–2010, this combination of characteristics made Austria stand out as persis-
tently very restrictive when it comes to letting immigrants participate in the welfare
state generosity (Römer 2017).
In Austria, the public discussion on migration focuses on the burden that immi-
gration – especially, but not exclusively, from third countries – might pose for the
welfare system. In the 2017 national elections, parties promising a stricter regime
regarding immigration and more restrictive social and welfare benefits for non-­
Austrians achieved the majority, while the more immigration-friendly parties lost.
Observers expect a relatively swift implementation of policies regarding immigra-
tion restrictions (Bodlos and Plescia 2018). The ÖVP-FPÖ coalition Government,
although not in power anymore since spring 2019, induced some sustaining changes.
2 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Austria 47

For example, child benefits, which used to be granted at the same level for children
living in Austria or other EU countries, are now adjusted to the living costs in the
country where the children reside. The European Commission repudiates the con-
sistency of such a differentiated child support with current EU law and has opened
an infringement procedure against Austria in January 2019.
Guaranteed minimum resources, regulated differently in the nine Bundesländer,
have been amended with a national regulation for common standards by the former
Government. While this legislation is still in effect, the Constitutional Court over-
turned two provisions (language requirements for eligibility and regressive maxi-
mum rates for families with children) which would have disproportionally
disadvantaged immigrants. An announced reform of unemployment assistance,
which might have led to its abolishment, is now less likely with the new ÖVP-Green
coalition. A large difference between both existing schemes is the inclusion of
wealth into the means-testing for eligibility for guaranteed minimum resources.
Regarding unemployment assistance, means-testing is independent from wealth, as
the benefit is an insurance benefit earned via former contributions. Foreigners
receiving unemployment assistance thus have an income independent from a munic-
ipality’s budget, in contrast to persons receiving guaranteed minimum resources.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s 2020 research and innovation programme
(Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of indicators
comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the following
website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Biffl, G. (2017). Migration and labour integration in Austria. SOPEMI report on labour migration
Austria 2015–2016. Report of the Austrian SOPEMI correspondent to the OECD. Monograph
Series Migration and Globalisation, Krems. Edition Donau-Universität Krems.
Bodlos, A., & Plescia, C. (2018). The 2017 Austrian snap election: A shift rightward. West
European Politics, 41(6), 1354–1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1429057.
Buber-Ennser, I., Goujon, A., Kohlenberger, J., & Rengs, B. (2018). Multi-layered roles of religion
among refugees arriving in Austria around 2015. Religions, 9(5), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel9050154.
Pesendorfer, K. (2015). Arbeitsmarktsituation von Migrantinnen und Migranten 2014. Ergebnisse
des Ad-hoc-Moduls der Arbeitskräfteerhebung 2014. Presentation. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
Römer, F. (2017). Generous to all or ‘insiders only’? The relation between welfare state generosity
and immigrant welfare rights. Journal of European Social Policy, 27(2), 173–196.
48 M. Riedel and A. Chmielowski

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 3
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Belgium

Pauline Melin

3.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Belgium

This chapter aims to examine the conditions and procedures for accessing social
benefits in Belgium. The relevance of the bilateral social security agreements with
the three main countries of origin of non-EU foreigners residing in Belgium
(Morocco, Turkey, Algeria) and the three main non-EU countries of destination of
Belgians abroad (USA, Canada and Australia) are also discussed. The chapter iden-
tifies potential differences between nationals and non-nationals in accessing Belgian
social benefits. Furthermore, it critically discusses the potential impact that the deci-
sion to migrate might have for acquiring or retaining social benefits in and from
Belgium. Before answering those questions, a short overview of the main character-
istics of the Belgian social security system and the migration history are provided.

3.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

As many European countries, social security in Belgium developed in the nine-

teenth century with the Industrial Revolution. It is however in 1944 that the social
security system was instituted in Belgium. With the law of 1944, the model of social
assistance which was predominant during the Industrial Revolution became a sub-
sidiary system compared to social security. The choice was then made to follow the
Bismarkian model based on the principle of social insurance (Pochet and Reman

P. Melin (*)
Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

© The Author(s) 2020 49

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_3
50 P. Melin

2006). As a result, the Belgian social security system is made of a contributory sys-
tem of work-based social insurance, with a residual non-contributory system of
social assistance.
Between 1960 and 1970, the coverage of the Belgian social security system was
extended, both in terms of beneficiaries and of benefits (Pochet and Reman 2006).
The work-based social insurance system differentiates between three categories of
potential beneficiaries (civil servants, employed, and self-employed workers) and
comprises 7 branches of benefits (sickness and maternity benefits; accident at work
and occupational diseases benefits; invalidity benefits; old-age and survivors’ ben-
efits; unemployment benefits; family benefits; and annual holidays). The non-­
contributory system of social assistance is based on solidarity and financed through
general taxation. It aims to provide a minimum social protection to those who are
involuntarily without income and cannot benefit from the work-based social insur-
ance system. This non-contributory system includes the minimum guaranteed
income (also called integration income1), the guaranteed income for the elderly,2 the
minimum family benefits,3 and disabled persons’ benefits.4
Social security is a federal competence managed by the Public Service on Social
Security.5 Over the last 45 years, the main changes in the Belgian social security
system concern a strong decentralisation of a previously centralized unitary social
security system (Béland and Lecours 2018; Jorens 2006). As a result, some aspects
of the Belgian social security system have been transferred either to the Regions or
the Community (for a recent overview of the different transfers put in a historical
perspective, see Dumont 2015). The most notable example is the transfer of family
benefits from the federal level to the Community level (i.e. the Walloon Region, the
Flemish Community, the German Community, and COCOM6 for the Brussels
Region).7 Although this transfer took place on July 2014, the Communities and
Regions had until December 2019 to organise the management of beneficiaries’
files and payments.
Belgian social security is financed by social security contributions, State subsi-
dies, and VATs. For employed persons, the social security contributions are paid by
the employer and the employee to the National Office for Social Security (ONSS/
RSZ),8 through a percentage of employee’s gross salary. Each social security branch
is managed by a different National Office. Sickness, maternity, paternity, and inva-
lidity benefits are managed by the National Institute for Sickness and Invalidity

1
Revenu d’intégration sociale/leefloon.
2
Guarantie de revenus aux personnes âgées/gewaarborgd inkomen voor bejaarden.
3
Prestations familiales guaranties/gewaarborgde gezinsbijslag.
4
Allocations pour des personnes handicapées/tegemoetkomingen voor personen met een handicap.
5
SPF Sécurité Sociale/FOD Sociale Zekerheid.
6
Commission Communautaire Commune.
7
Loi spéciale du 6 janvier 2014 relative à la sixième réforme de l’Etat, M.B., 31 janvier 2014.
8
Office National de la Sécurité Sociale/Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 51

Benefits (INAMI/RIZIV)9 which distributes financial resources to different insurers

(mutualités) responsible for benefits’ payment. Old-age pensions and the guaran-
teed minimum income for elderly are handled by the National Office for Pensions
(ONP/RVP).10 Unemployment benefits are managed by the National Office for
Employment (ONEM/RVA),11 although the payment of these benefits is done either
by trade unions or CAPAC.12 The most relevant institution for the management and
payment of family benefits is the Federal Agency for Family Benefits (FAMIFED/
FAMIFED).13 Finally, the guaranteed minimum income scheme is managed and
paid by the Local Centers for Social Assistance (CPAS/OCMW).14
For self-employed persons, the compulsory contributions have to be paid to pri-
vate social insurance funds or to a National Auxiliary Fund, managed by the
National Insurance Institute for the Self-Employed (INASTI/RSVZ).15 Self-­
employed persons are covered by 5 branches of social security (sickness, invalidity,
family, maternity benefits, and pensions).

3.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

The migration history of Belgium resembles the one of its neighbouring countries
such as Germany or the Netherlands. After the second World War, Belgium recruited
foreign workers to compensate its lack of labour force. From 1948 until 1958, the
great majority of the foreign workers were coming from Italy (Bousetta et al. 1999).
From the 1960’s, Belgium put in place a ‘guest-worker’ policy and attracted work-
ers from Southern Europe as well as from Morocco and Turkey. In 1974, the deci-
sion was made to stop recruiting migrant workers (Martiniello 2003). In the 1980’s,
the stock of foreigners stabilized due to the recruitment stop policy and due to the
increase in naturalisation rates (Jacobs et al. 2002; Bousetta and Bernès 2009).
Since then, a large share of migration from third countries happens through the
route of family reunification.16
In the last national census in 2011, the foreign population accounted for 10,49%
of the total population. According to Eurostat, in 2017, foreigners accounted for

9
Institut National d’Assurance Maladie-Invalidité/Rijksinstituut voor Ziekte-en
Invaliditeirsverzekering.
10
Office National des Pensions/Rijksdienst Voor Pensioenen.
11
Office National de l’Emploi/Rijksdienst voor arbeidsvoorziening.
12
Caisse Auxiliaire de Paiement des Allocations de Chômage/Hulpkas voorWerkloosheidsuitkeringen.
13
Agence Fédérale pour les Allocations Familiales/Federaal Agentschap voor de Kinderbijslag.
14
Centre Public d’Action Sociale/Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn.
15
Institut National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants/ Rijksinstituut voor de
Sociale Verzekeringen der Zelfstandingen.
16
European Migration Network (EMN). Family reunification with third country national sponsors
in Belgium. July 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/02a_belgium_
family_reunification_en_0.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2019.
52 P. Melin

14% of the total population in Belgium (Eurostat 2018). Out of these foreigners, the
large majority (up to 66%) comes from EU Member States (Eurostat 2018). French
(18%) and Dutch (17%) citizens are particularly represented. Italian (18%),
Romanian (9%), Polish (8%), Spanish (7%) and Portuguese (5%) citizens also
account for important stock of the foreign population (Eurostat 2018). Concerning
non-EU Member States, the largest groups of the foreign population in Belgium
come from Morocco (6%) and Turkey (3%). According to the Belgian Statistics
Office, 384.657 foreigners were employed or self-employed, 50. 815 were receiving
unemployment benefits, and 716.489 were economically inactive (StatBel 2016).
Finally, the proportion of EU citizens who are economically active is higher than the
one of non-EU foreigners (Vintila et al. 2018).
Finally, it should be said that in 2017, emigration from Belgium represented
119.382 persons (StatBel 2018). Furthermore, numbers from the consular report that
471.401 Belgians were registered abroad in July 2018. The main countries where the
Belgians are residing are all EU countries: France (132.557), the Netherlands
(38.824), Spain (28.947), the United Kingdom (28.293) and Germany (28.008).

3.2 Migration and Social Protection in Belgium

Access to social benefits in Belgium is not conditional upon nationality. Moreover,

very few benefits require a certain number of years of prior residence in the country.
One example in this regard is the minimum guaranteed income for the elderly which
is only accessible for Belgian nationals and citizens of some countries, and requires
a 10-years residence in Belgium (out of which 5 years of effective and uninterrupted
residence). This particularity is not surprising as it is also a non-contributory benefit
financed through general taxation. For all other benefits described in this chapter,
the relevant eligibility criterion is the contribution to the Belgian social security
system. Stating that residence is not relevant would, however, be misleading. For
most benefits, residence in Belgium is required in the sense that most benefits are
not exportable. Alternatively, if they are exportable, stringent conditions are attached
or it is completely up to the discretion of the administration to decide on the possi-
bility of exporting the benefit.

3.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment insurance benefits are only available for employed persons,17 as

opposed to self-employed persons. The qualifying period of employment varies
according to the age of the claimant.18 There is no specific condition regarding a

17
There is no specific scheme of unemployment assistance benefits in Belgium.
18
Arrêté royal portant réglementation du chômage, M.B., 25 novembre 1991, art.30.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 53

minimum period of prior residence, although claimants must have their main resi-
dence (and reside effectively) in Belgium. Hence, national citizens residing abroad
are not generally entitled to claim unemployment benefits from Belgium. Yet, there
are some instances where the beneficiary will receive unemployment benefits
although he/she is not residing in Belgium: 1. for annual holidays for up to 4 weeks
per year; 2. for maximum 2 weeks to actively search for a job abroad, upon autho-
rization of the competent authority; 3. for frontier workers residing abroad, but tem-
porarily unemployed in Belgium; 4. for beneficiaries who have already used the
4 weeks of annual holidays, the competent authority may grant 4 extra weeks for
voluntary work in cultural events; 5. for voluntary work for a sport event; 6. for a
period determined by a ministerial decision. In addition, the export of unemploy-
ment benefits for maximum 3 months is possible if the claimant has filled in a (U2)
form asking to retain unemployment benefits while moving in an European Union
(EU)/ European Economic Area (EEA) country for the purpose of finding a job.19
For EU foreigners who reside in Belgium between 3 months and 5 years, actively
seeking for a job and receiving unemployment benefits should not have any negative
consequences on their right to reside.20 Similarly, for non-EU foreigners, their right
to reside should not be, in principle, negatively affected by the take-up of unemploy-
ment benefits, unless they cannot prove that they do not have sufficient resources
and become a burden on the State’s social assistance. Income coming from unem-
ployment benefits can be taken into account for the ‘sufficient resources’ test only
if they actively look for a job.21 Moreover, those who apply for Belgian nationality
must prove social and economic participation22 and reliance on unemployment ben-
efits might be a hurdle in showing economic participation. Stable, regular and suf-
ficient incomes must also be proven for family reunification. However, if coupled
with positive feedback on active job search, unemployment benefits are considered
as sufficient resources to bring relatives via family reunification.23
Concerning the bilateral agreements concluded with third countries, it is worth
mentioning that in order for the periods of contributions completed abroad to be
considered by the Belgian authorities for the purpose of accessing unemployment
benefits, the claimant must have worked for at least 3 months in Belgium upon
return.24 Furthermore, only periods of insurance completed in certain countries are
taken into account, including EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

19
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
on the coordination of social security systems, [2004] OJ L 166/1, art. 64.
20
Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15
décembre 1980, art. 42 bis, para.1 and 2.
21
Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15
décembre 1980, art. 11, para.1, 1e; art. 10, para.2; art. 10, para. 5.
22
Code de la nationalité belge, M.B., 28 juin 1984, art.12bis.
23
Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15
décembre 1980, art.40ter, para.1, 1e.
24
Prior to 2016, only 1 day of work in Belgium upon return was sufficient.
54 P. Melin

Switzerland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro,25

Turkey, Algeria, Kosovo, and San Marino. For EU Member States, Bosnia,
Macedonia and Montenegro, the beneficiary’s nationality does not matter, while for
other countries, the beneficiary must be an EU citizen or national of one of the coun-
tries listed above.26

3.2.2 Health Care

Sickness in kind benefits are available to any salaried worker and assimilated cate-
gories legally residing in Belgium. This implies that unemployed persons, individu-
als on maternity leave or those registered in the national registry can also access in
kind benefits in case of sickness.27 The registration in the national registry would
mainly concern non-nationals after 3 months of stay in Belgium. Partners, cohabi-
tants, children of less than 25 years old and parents also have access, under certain
conditions, to benefits in kind.
To access benefits in kind, individuals must be affiliated with a sickness insurer
(caisse de maladie) and pay a minimum contribution during 6 months. There are
numerous derogations28 to this 6-months period and, in most cases, nationals do
benefit from one of these derogations. EU foreigners can also benefit from these
derogations if they were insured in another EU country. Hence, this 6-months period
mainly applies for non-EU foreigners. The sickness in kind benefits work as a reim-
bursement system where the patient is reimbursed 75% of the conventional honor-
ary. There is a flat-rate payment by the patient for any day spent in the hospital for
which 75% of the doctor costs are then reimbursed by the sickness insurers and a
lump-sum is granted for the costs of medicines.
Cash benefits in case of sickness (also called incapacity benefits) are granted
based on three conditions: having ceased all activities because of injury or func-
tional disorder resulting in a reduction of earning capacity of at least 66%; having
paid the minimum amount of contributions, and having prior insurance for at least
180 working days out of 12 months preceding the incapacity.29 While there is no

25
It should be noted that for Macedonia, Bosnia and Montenegro the period of 3 months is extended
to 6 months over the last 12 months prior asking the unemployment benefits. This information has
been retrieved through the ONEM website: http://www.onem.be/fr/documentation/feuille-info/
t31#h2_1, accessed 20 March 2019.
26
ONEM website: http://www.onem.be/fr/documentation/feuille-info/t31#h2_1, accessed 20
March 2019.
27
Loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994,
M.B., 14 juillet 1994, art.32.
28
Arrêté royal du 3 juillet 1996 portant exécution de la loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins
de santé et indemnités, M.B., 3 juillet 1996, art.130.
29
Arrêté royal du 3 juillet 1996 portant exécution de la loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins
de santé et indemnités, M.B., 3 juillet 1996, art.203.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 55

difference between nationals and foreigners in accessing cash benefits, there is with
regard to the export. For temporary stay in an EU/EEA country, the person receiving
sickness benefits from Belgium should inform the sickness insurer. Whereas for
temporary stay in a non-EU/EEA country, an authorisation from the doctor would
be needed. There is no possibility to retain sickness benefits when moving abroad
permanently.
Sickness cash benefits can be granted for 12 months after which invalidity ben-
efits can be claimed if the beneficiary is still unable to work. Invalidity benefits are
calculated based on previous earnings and the family situation of the invalid per-
son.30 They are available for all persons bound by a work contract as long as there is
a reduction of capacity for work of at least 66% and the person has contributed for
at least 180 working days during the last 12 months prior to the incapacity. Whereas
individuals receiving invalidity benefits must simply inform their mutualité in case
of temporary stays in an EU/EEA country, they must receive an authorisation from
the doctor for short stays outside the EU/EEA. If an individual decides to transfer
his/her residence to an EU/EEA country, the authorisation of the doctor is not
required although the person should communicate the change of residence to the
competent authority. The control of the invalidity status will then take place in the
country of residence. Invalidity benefits are lost if the person moves to a non-EU/
EEA country, unless the new country of residence has concluded a bilateral agree-
ment with Belgium including invalidity benefits.31
As for the coverage of health-related benefits in bilateral social security agree-
ments, it is worth mentioning that the agreements with the USA, Canada and
Australia are worded very similarly and only concern invalidity benefits. The agree-
ments with Morocco, Turkey, and Algeria cover sickness benefits in kind, in cash
and invalidity benefits. For invalidity benefits, all agreements provide for aggrega-
tion of periods of insurance. Furthermore, the agreements with USA, Canada and
Australia contain a provision stating that residence conditions should not be attached
to the grant and payment of the benefits; and that invalidity benefits should be
granted under the same conditions by Belgium for American, Canadian and
Australian nationals residing in third countries as it would for Belgian nationals,
and vice versa by USA, Canada and Australia for Belgian nationals residing in third
countries. That being said, those two elements (i.e. export to one of the Contracting
State and export to a third country) do not apply to American nationals who have not
been subject to the Belgian social security system for at least 18 months prior to the
incapacity. The agreement with Turkey specifically mentions that beneficiaries can
receive invalidity benefits when residing in the other Contracting State only if such
transfer of residence has been authorised by the competent institution in the
Contracting State. For sickness in kind benefits, the agreements with Algeria,
Morocco and Turkey ensure that workers and family members are granted access to

30
Loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994,
M.B., 14 juillet 1994, art.93.
31
Website of the Mutualité chrétienne: https://www.mc.be/que-faire-en-cas-de/etranger/invalidite,
accessed 20 March 2019.
56 P. Melin

these benefits in case of stay or residence in the other country. For cash benefits, the
agreements with Algeria, Morocco and Turkey provide that if a national of a
Contracting State is insured in that State and transfers his/her residence to the other
Contracting State, that person should be able to continue receiving sickness cash
benefits from the first Contracting State if its institutions authorized the residence
transfer.

3.2.3 Pensions

Old-age contributory pensions in Belgium are calculated based on the years of con-
tributions, the previous earnings and the family status.32 There is no minimum
period of contributions required, although a minimum amount per year of contribu-
tion is only granted after 15 years. A guaranteed minimum pension is available for
at least 2/3 of a complete career, i.e. after 30 years of contributions. For every year
of contribution, the person must have been working 156 days of full time work and
will be entitled to a bigger amount if he/she achieves 208 full time working days per
year. The standard retirement age is 65 years old.
There is no difference in terms of the conditions of access to old-age pensions
between nationals, EU foreigners, and non-EU foreigners, although some differ-
ences can be identified in terms of pension exportability. Belgian and EU nationals
must send a yearly life certificate to the competent authorities (except if they live in
France, Germany or the Netherlands where there is an electronic data exchange
between authorities). In principle, old-age pensions are not exportable for non-EU
foreigners,33 except if they are legally residing in an EU country34 (except Denmark),
are miner workers,35 or are covered by bilateral agreements allowing export of pen-
sion.36 The payment of the pension can be done to a Belgian/EEA bank account. The
pension can also be transferred to a non-EEA bank account if the person is legally

32
Arrêté royal portant exécution des articles 15, 16 et 17 de la loi du 26 juillet 1996 portant mod-
ernisation de la sécurité sociale et assurant la viabilité des régimes légaux des pensions, M.B., 23
décembre 1996, art.5.
33
Arrêté royal N50 relatif à la pension de retraite et de survie des travailleurs salariés, M.B., 24
octobre 1967, art. 27.
34
Which means that the person falls under the scope Regulation 1231/2010. Regulation (EU) No
1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries
who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, [2010]
OJ L 344/1.
35
But then the amount of the pension is up to 80% of the full amount the person would receive if
he/she stayed in Belgium.
36
Information retrieved from the website of SPF Pension: http://www.onprvp.fgov.be/FR/futur/
foreigner/paymentpension/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 20 March 2019.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 57

residing in that country. In any case, transfer to a non-Belgian bank account needs
to be communicated to the competent authority 2 months before the payment.37
The bilateral agreements with Morocco, Turkey, Algeria, USA, Canada, and
Australia provide for the principle of aggregation of periods of insurance and stipu-
late that old-age benefits granted by one country cannot be suspended or withdrawn
on grounds of the beneficiary staying or residing in the territory of the other country.
The agreements with Turkey and USA further allow for the export of old-age ben-
efits on the territory of third-countries in the same conditions as nationals of the
country competent for granting those benefits. However, the agreement with USA
clarifies that those two elements (i.e. export to one of the Contracting State and a
third country) do not apply to American nationals who have been subject to the
Belgian social security system for less than 18 months.
After 65 years old, individuals who have no or insufficient pensions are also
eligible for a special scheme of minimum guaranteed income for the elderly.38 This
non-contributory pension is available only for Belgian/EU/EEA/European Free
Trade Agreement (EFTA)/Swiss nationals and citizens of countries with whom
Belgium has a bilateral agreement covering this specific scheme. In order to obtain
this benefit, individuals must have resided in Belgium for at least 10 years including
at least 5 years of effective and uninterrupted residence.39 From time to time, SPF
Pensions checks the residence in Belgium by sending a letter to the beneficiary
which needs to be returned within 21 days. Despite this strict residence condition,
there is the possibility to stay abroad for up to 30 days per year while continuing to
receive the minimum guaranteed income from Belgium. Yet, this pension is lost if
individuals reside abroad for stays of more than six consecutive months or when
they are no longer registered in a Belgian municipality (commune).

3.2.4 Family Benefits

There are two conditions to access maternity benefits in Belgium: having completed
a waiting period of 6 months (from the start of the work until the person asks for
maternity benefits) and having worked for at least 120 days during those 6 months.40
Residence is not a requirement and foreign residents can access maternity benefits
under the same conditions as their national counterparts. The benefits are granted
for 15 weeks (with extensions in exceptional cases) and the amount is calculated
based on the salary (or flat rate for self-employed or unemployed). Non-resident
citizens who are not subject to Belgian social security cannot ask for maternity

37
Ibid.
38
Loi instituant la garantie de revenus aux personnes âgées, M.B., 22 mars 2001, art.3.
39
See also: Arrêté royal portant règlement général en matière de garantie de revenus aux per-
sonnes âgées, M.B., 23 mai 2001, Art. 42, para.1.
40
Loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994,
M.B., 14 juillet 1994, art.116/1.
58 P. Melin

benefits from Belgium. Paternity benefits can be granted to employees only, gener-
ally under the same conditions as maternity benefits, although their duration is of
only 10 days.41
Parental benefits are individual benefits available only to national or foreign
employees independently of the country of birth or residence of their child. Eligible
claimants must have worked for at least 12 months out of the last 15 months before
claiming parental benefits42 and the child should be less than 12 years old.43 Parental
benefits are flat-rate but depending on the region, the beneficiary might receive
additional sums.44 Parental benefits are granted for a maximum of 4 months when
claimants stop completely to work,45 8 months if the person stops working part-­
time, and 20 months for those who reduce their working time by 1/5. Individuals
who temporarily leave the country can continue to receive parental benefits. If the
person leaves permanently Belgium, the benefits will only be received if the person
lives in an EU/EEA country.
Child benefits are also available to individuals working in Belgium (although
there is no minimum period of contributions required)46 if the child resides and stud-
ies in Belgium (or the child resides and/or studies in an EU/EEA country or in a
country with whom Belgium has concluded a bilateral agreement).47 Individuals can
receive family benefits until the child reaches 18 years old or 25 years old if he/she
continues to study. The amount received depends on the number of children, house-
hold composition, and claimants’ income. Child benefits can be exported temporar-
ily provided that recipients continue to be affiliated to the Belgian social security
system and the child continues to reside and study in Belgium. For permanent stays
abroad, family benefits are only paid to the person who stays affiliated to the Belgian
social security (generally posted workers).
The bilateral agreements with USA, Canada and Australia only cite family and
maternity benefits for the purpose of the rules concerning the situations when a
person is subject to a particular legislation. For example, according to the lex loci
laboris rule, a person working in Belgium would be subject to the Belgian social
security legislation (including the legislation on family benefits and maternity ben-
efits). There is however no specific right arising from the agreements with USA,

41
Loi relative aux contrats de travail, M.B.,3 juillet 1978, art.30, para.2.
42
Arrêté royal relatif à l’introduction d’un droit au congé parental dans le cadre d’une interruption
de la carrière professionnelle, M.B., 29 octobre 1997, art.3 and 4.
43
Previously, in the beginning of 2000, the age of the child was of 4 years old. This was changed
in 2005 for 6 years old and in 2009 for 12 years old (Kil et al. 2016).
44
160 euros more in Flanders for a full-time parental leave (Kil et al. 2016).
45
Information retrieved from the ONEM website: http://www.onem.be/fr/documentation/feuille-
info/t19, accessed 20 March 2019.
46
Loi générale relative aux allocations familiales (LGAF), M.B., 19 décembre 1939, art. 51; Loi
portant modification des lois coordonnées du 19 décembre relatives aux allocations familiales
pour travailleurs salariés, M.B., 4 avril 2014.
47
For some countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Algeria and Kosovo) the number of children for
whom the person can get the child benefits is 4 (Mussche et al. 2014).
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 59

Canada and Australia with regard to family-related benefits. Such specific rights are
found in the agreements with Morocco, Turkey and Algeria which stipulate the prin-
ciple of aggregation of periods for family benefits, and specify that persons covered
by those agreements are entitled to receive family benefits for children residing in
the other country. For Algerian workers in Belgium, Article 28 of the agreement
provides that they should receive child benefits for children residing in Algeria
based on Algerian law and not the Belgian law. The agreement with Algeria also
states the possibility to retain maternity benefits when the residence is transferred
back to Algeria, upon authorization from the competent authority.

3.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

There are several eligibility conditions for accessing the guaranteed minimum
income48 (‘integration income’/revenu d’intégration/leefloon) in Belgium.49 First,
the person must be an adult or assimilated and have his/her effective residence in
Belgium. Second, claimants must be either: Belgian nationals, EU citizens (or fam-
ily members of an EU citizen) with a legal residence in Belgium for more than
3 months, foreigners registered in the population registry, stateless persons or indi-
viduals holding the refugee status or subsidiary protection in accordance with arti-
cle 49 on the law from 1980 on foreigners. Third, the person is without sufficient
resources and willing to work (with exceptions). Fourth, the person has asked for
his/her social security benefits either in accordance with the Belgian legislation or
with any other country’s legislation. In addition, the administration might also
require that the person exhausts his/her right to maintenance owed to him/her by
other people.
The effective residence condition of a legal and permanent stay in Belgium50
applies for everyone, either nationals or foreigners. There is no need to have a physi-
cal residence in Belgium but it is important to be present and allowed to stay in
Belgium. In that sense, the law is meant to also include people who do not have a
home but are allowed to stay in Belgium (homeless persons, for example). This
condition of the legal and permanent stay in Belgium also implies that there is no
possibility to export this benefit, except for temporary stays abroad of maximum
4 weeks per year. For stays longer than a week, the beneficiary must inform the
competent administration and justify the need to go abroad. The minimum

48
It should be noted that guaranteed minimum income refers here solely to revenu d’intégration/
leefloon and not to aide sociale. Aide sociale has a broader scope than revenue d’intégration. It can
be comprised of both material and immaterial help.
49
Those conditions are contained in art.3 of the law on integration income. Loi concernant le droit
à l’intégration sociale, M.B., 26 mai 2002, art.3.
50
Arrêté royal portant règlement général en matière de droit à l’intégration sociale, M.B., 11 juillet
2002, art.2.
60 P. Melin

guaranteed income is not covered by the bilateral agreements that Belgium has con-
cluded with third countries.
Besides the condition of effective residence, there is a de facto residence require-
ment for non-nationals. Unlike resident nationals, EU foreigners become entitled to
claim the guaranteed minimum income only after having legally resided in Belgium
for at least 3 months.51 Moreover, third-country nationals must be registered in the
population registry, the latter being possible only after 5 years of legal residence in
Belgium.52 In other words, non-EU foreigners residing in Belgium for less than
5 years are not considered entitled to claim the guaranteed minimum income.
Finally, it is also worth highlighting the potential negative consequences that the
take-up of this specific benefit might have on foreigners’ residence permits and their
naturalization in Belgium. Firstly, EU foreigners with a residence permit of more
than 3 months and less than 5 years who are not employed or self-employed must
prove having sufficient resources and not being a burden for the Belgian social
assistance system.53 Reliance on minimum guaranteed income might be considered
as being a burden on States’ funds54 and therefore negatively affect their right to
reside or the renewal of their residence permits. Secondly, when non-EU foreigners
apply for minimum guaranteed income to the Public Center for Social Aid, that
center has to notify the Immigration Department who can then withdraw their resi-
dence permit. Furthermore, with regard to family reunification, nationals and non-­
nationals have to prove sufficient and stable income and the minimum guaranteed
income is not taken into account for these purposes. An economic and social partici-
pation is also required for the acquisition of the Belgian nationality and foreigners’
reliance on social benefits is an element taken into account for assessing their
economic participation. The economic integration criterion is fulfilled if the
person worked as an employee in the past 5 years for a minimum of 468 days or has
paid contributions for at least 6 quarters as a self-employed person.55 Hence,
recourse to minimum guaranteed income is not a prove of economic integration
(quite the contrary) so it would impact negatively on the naturalization process
(Mussche et al. 2014).

51
Loi concernant le droit à l’intégration sociale, M.B., 26 mai 2002, art.3.
52
This entails the holding a long-term residence permit. Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour,
l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15 décembre 1980, art. 17.
53
Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15
décembre 1980, art. 40, para 4., 2e.
54
Although this should not be an automatic conclusion but should be assessed on a case-by-case
basis, weighting all the financial circumstances of the individual. Loi sur l’accès au territoire, le
séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, M.B., 15 décembre 1980, art. 40, para4.,
second last sentence.
55
Code de la nationalité belge, M.B., 28 juin 1984, art.12bis.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 61

3.3 Conclusions

Belgian social security system is mainly a work-based social insurance system com-
plemented by a non-contributory social assistance system aimed to protect those at
risk of poverty. Because it is a work-based social insurance system, the main crite-
rion to access social security benefits is the number of years of contributions. Hence,
access to social security benefits in Belgium does not depend on the nationality of
the claimants.
Even though it is a contributory system, individuals may be required to prove
residence in Belgium in order to obtain access to specific benefits and/or continue
receiving them. This implies that most benefits are not accessible if the beneficiary
moves abroad. For example, unemployment benefits require an effective residence
in Belgium, although, as previously explained, there are several derogations from
this general rule that do allow claimants to continue receiving the benefit after mov-
ing abroad. On the other hand, the minimum guaranteed income for the elderly
requires 10 years of residence in Belgium with a minimum of least 5 years of effec-
tive and uninterrupted residence. Moreover, the minimum guaranteed income
(‘income integration’) requires the person to be effectively residing in Belgium.
Having an effective residence in Belgium implies legal and permanent stay in the
country. Although this condition applies equally for both nationals and non-­
nationals, it has a different impact on foreigners. While nationals can be considered
as effectively residing in Belgium since birth, EU foreigners will only be considered
as such after 3 months of legal residence in Belgium, whereas non-EU foreigners
must be registered as foreigners in the population registry which is practically pos-
sible only after 5 years of legal residence in Belgium. Consequently, EU nationals
who have resided in the country for less than 3 months and non-EU foreigners resid-
ing in Belgium for less than 5 years cannot claim the guaranteed minimum income.
It is also interesting to note that bilateral social security agreements concluded
with third countries often facilitate the export of benefits for nationals of the
Contracting Parties. Without these agreements which stipulate the aggregation of
periods of insurance, it can be doubted whether the authorities will take into account
periods of contributions completed abroad in order to grant access to social benefits
in Belgium. The new law on aggregation of periods for the purpose of unemploy-
ment benefits and the need to work for 3 months in Belgium upon return in order to
become entitled to claim these benefits indicates that there is a tendency to restrict
the access to social security benefits in Belgium.
Finally, the take-up of social benefits by foreigners might not have a direct con-
sequence on their residence status in Belgium, but it can indirectly and negatively
affect this status. In order to be resident in Belgium, EU foreigners and non-EU
foreigners should have sufficient resources and should not become a burden on the
State’s social assistance. Income coming from unemployment benefits can be taken
into account for the ‘sufficient resources’ test only if they actively look for a job.
Furthermore, reliance on minimum guaranteed income might be considered as
being a burden on States’ funds and therefore impact negatively on the right to
62 P. Melin

reside or the renewal of residence permits. Even more, when non-EU foreigners
apply for minimum guaranteed income to the Public Center for Social Aid, that
center has to notify the Immigration Department who can then withdraw their resi-
dence permit. In addition, income coming from minimum guaranteed income are
not taken into account for the ‘sufficient resources’ test that needs to be passed for
family reunification. Concerning the acquisition of Belgian nationality, it is required
to prove social and economic participation. The economic integration criterion is
fulfilled if the person worked as an employee in the past 5 years for a minimum of
468 days or has paid social security contributions for at least 6 quarters as a self-
employed person. Hence, recourse to minimum guaranteed income is not a prove of
economic integration (quite the contrary) so it could impact negatively the acquisi-
tion of Belgian nationality. Similarly, reliance on unemployment benefits might be
a hurdle in the process of proving the economic participation of the person.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Béland, D., & Lecours, A. (2018). Federalism, policy change, and social security in Belgium:
Explaining the decentralization of family allowances in the sixth state reform. Journal of
European Social Policy, 28(1), 55–69.
Bousetta, H. & Bernès, L. (2009). Post-immigration challenges to political citizenship: The case
of Belgium. EMILIE Report.
Bousetta, H., Jacobs, D., Bonaventure, K., Martiniello, M., Nys, M., Rea, A., & Swyngedouw,
M. (1999). Multicultural policies and modes of citizenship in Belgium: The case of Antwerp,
Liege and Brussels. Liege: University of Liege. MPMC Report.
Eurostat (2018). Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship [migr_pop1ctz],
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 16 March 2020.
Dumont, D. (2015). La sécurité sociale et la sixième réforme de l’État: rétroactes et mise en per-
spective générale. Revue belge de sécurité sociale, 2, 175–226.
Jacobs, D., Martiniello, M., & Rea, A. (2002). Changing patterns of political participation of citi-
zens of immigrant origin in the Brussels capital region. The October 2000 elections. Journal of
International Migration and Integration, 3(2), 201–221.
Jorens, Y. (2006). Défédéralisation de la sécurité sociale en Belgique: l’exemple des soins de
longue durée. Lien social et Politiques, 56, 129–136.
Kil, T., Neels, K., & Wood, J. (2016). L’utilisation des régimes de congés par les mères issues de
l’immigration. Revue belge de sécurité sociale, 2, 263–283.
Martiniello, M. (2003). Belgium’s immigration policy. International Migration Review, 37,
225–232.
Mussche, N., Corlruy, V., Marx, I. (2014). Migrant access to social security: policy and practice I
Belgium. EMN Report, pp. 7–102.
Pochet, P., & Reman, P. (2006). La sécurité sociale en Belgique: entre régionalisation et europé-
anisation. Lien social et Politiques, 56, 89–102.
3 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Belgium 63

StatBel (2016). Population on 7 June by place of residence, sex, household role, level of education,
place on the labour market, and citizenship, https://bestat.statbel.fgov.be/bestat/crosstable.
xhtml?view=d32c6c55-57a6-4dbc-8b42-ff51f691e437. Accessed 16 March 2020.
StatBel (2018). Total of international migration (Belgians and foreigners) 1948–2019, https://stat-
bel.fgov.be/fr/themes/population/migrations#figures. Accessed 16 March 2020.
Vintila, D., Lafleur, J-M. & Nikolic, L. (2018). Report on political participation of mobile EU
citizens: Belgium. RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-PP 2018/13. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/
handle/1814/59565/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_PP_2018_13.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
Accessed 20 Mar 2019.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 4
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Bulgaria

Zvezda Vankova and Dragomir Kolev Draganov

4.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
and Main Migration Features in Bulgaria

This chapter aims to discuss the link between migration and welfare in Bulgaria by
closely examining the access of resident and non-resident nationals, and resi-
dent non-nationals to different types of social benefits in the areas of unemploy-
ment, health care, family benefits, pensions, and guaranteed minimum resources.

4.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The welfare regime in Bulgaria has undergone significant changes since the late
1990s and early 2000s as a result of social, economic, political and cultural pro-
cesses following the collapse of Bulgaria’s communist regime and centralized
planned economy (Nenovsky and Milev 2014). One of the fundamental changes in
this period was the profound reform of Bulgaria’s pension system. The existing at
that time mono-pillar pension system was replaced by the so-called multi-pillar
system combining solidarity-based non-funded pension schemes with arrangements
stimulating individual savings. The reform introduced a gradual increase in the stat-
utory retirement age, modified the new pension formula in order to match better

Z. Vankova (*)
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]
D. K. Draganov
National Social Security Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria

© The Author(s) 2020 65

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_4
66 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

contributions and benefits, and tightened access to early retirement schemes

(Hristoskov 2000; 2001).
The social protection system covered mainly passive measures such as unem-
ployment benefits and social assistance until 1996 (Mihaylova and Bratoeva-
Manoleva 2016). As a response to the severe economic crisis in 1996–1997,
however, public authorities undertook a series of macroeconomic stabilization mea-
sures such as the introduction of a currency board, stricter fiscal discipline and
structural reforms. Thus, active policies to boost labour market participation gained
more importance (Tache and Neesham 2011).
Since the beginning of the 2000s, the relative share of social protection benefits
as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) gradually decreased to reach
12.9% in 2007, compared to 14.1% in 2000 (Mihaylova and Bratoeva-Manoleva
2016, p. 8). Despite the fact that this trend was reversed to some extent in the period
2009–2016, the percentage share of the overall social protection expenditure to
GDP is still well below the European Union (EU) average (Eurostat, 2018a).
Bulgaria became an EU Member State in 2007, which required harmonization of
the national legislation with the European social regulations. Nevertheless, more
than ten years after Bulgaria’s EU accession, its social protection system is facing
some major challenges such as high levels of poverty and income inequality, limited
adequacy and coverage of the minimum income schemes, difficulties in accessing
healthcare and low public expenditure on health (European Commission, 2019).
The current Bulgarian social security system is based on the Bismark model
(Sredkova 2016, p. 39). Social protection consists of social security based on insur-
ance contributions, social security schemes and non-contributory social assistance,
including the social service system funded by the state budget (EMN 2014, p. 18).
The social security system based on contributions includes nine standard social
risks (Table 4.1) and provides benefits in case of temporary incapacity/reduced
capacity to work, maternity (pregnancy, childbirth, and child care), unemployment,
invalidity, old age and death. The National Social Security Institute (NSSI) manages
the state social security.
The healthcare system is based on two schemes: a compulsory social insurance
scheme covering all residents and a state funded scheme covering individuals who
do not contribute to the health insurance scheme (such as children and pensioners).
Health care is provided by different institutions. The Ministry of Health is respon-
sible for the provision of benefits financed from the state budget (medical aid in
emergency cases, examinations of disability, etc.), whereas the National Health
Insurance Fund is the competent institution for granting the benefits financed by
health insurance contributions (urgent medical care, childbirth and maternity, vac-
cines, etc.). The Social Assistance Agency under the management of the Ministry of
Labour and Social Policy and via the Social Assistance Directorates manages fam-
ily benefits and social assistance policies. Other institutions responsible for social
security in Bulgaria include the Employment Agency, the Agency for Persons with
Disabilities, the National Revenue Agency, the Executive Agency “General Labour
Inspectorate” and the Financial Supervision Commission (EMN 2014, p. 20).
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 67

Table 4.1 Types of social security benefits in Bulgaria and their financing principles
Benefits Financing principle
1. Sickness and maternity: Benefits in kind Contributions (employer and insured person) and
taxes.
2. Sickness and maternity: Cash benefits Contributions (employer and insured person).
State budget covers deficit.
3. Invalidity Contributions (employer and insured person).
State budget covers deficit.
4. Old-age Contributions (employer and insured person).
State budget covers deficit.
5. Survivors Contributions (employer and insured person).
State budget covers deficit.
6. Accidents at work and occupational Contributions (employer).
diseases
7. Unemployment Contributions (employer and insured person).
State budget covers deficit.
8. Family allowances Taxes.
9. Healthcare Contributions and taxes.
Source: Own elaboration based on MISSOC data, updated as of June 2018. https://www.missoc.
org/missoc-database/comparative-tables/results/. Accessed 2 March 2019

4.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Communist Bulgaria (1944–1989) was characterised by government regulated

labour migration, asylum driven emigration (due to a ban on the free movement of
Bulgarian citizens), and movements of the Bulgarian population of Turkish ethnic
origin (Markova 2010). The fall of the communist regime in 1989 led to major emi-
gration due to the lifting of the ban on free movement, Bulgaria’s deteriorating
economic conditions and rising unemployment, as well as its political instability.
Currently, the number of Bulgarians residing outside the country is estimated to be
close to 1.1 million, living mainly in Spain, Greece, Germany, Turkey and the USA
(Angelov and Lessinki 2017, p. 9). At the same time, Bulgaria has also started to
show characteristics of a transit country used by migrants as a channel to enter
Western Europe and slowly started to shift to a migrant receiving state (Bobeva
1994; Markova and Vankova 2014).
After a long period of transition to democracy, the Bulgarian economy began to
stabilise in the first years of the new millennium, thus showing signs of economic
growth. This led to a workforce shortage in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in the
history of democratic Bulgaria (Angelov and Vankova 2011, p. 47). The economic
growth and the new status of Bulgaria as an EU Member State led to an increase in
student immigration, attracted EU citizens (OECD 2010, p. 194) and marked a peak
in labour immigration of third-country nationals (Angelov and Vankova 2011,
p. 47). The onset of the global economic crisis, however, led to another decline in
immigration (Markova and Vankova 2014, p. 40). Currently, some sectors of the
recovering economy are experiencing workforce shortages. For instance, in 2016 the
68 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

majority of work permits were granted to highly qualified specialists in the IT and
engineering sectors who could benefit from exemptions from a labour market test
on the basis of the 2016 Law on Labour Migration and Labour Mobility (OECD
2018, p. 218).
Net migration still remains negative (OECD 2018, p. 218). According to the lat-
est OECD data from 2016, the stock of foreign-born residents in Bulgaria is 147,000
or 2% of the total population (ibid). The main countries of origin of non-EU resi-
dents are Russia (18.7% of the total foreign-born population), Syria (8.4%), Turkey
(6.9%) and Ukraine (6%) (OECD 2018, p. 218). Foreign-born residents originate
also from EU countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Greece (ibid).
EU citizens amount to one third of the total foreign-born population. According to
Eurostat data on first residence permits, family-related migration (33%) prevails
over employment-related immigration (16.6%) (Eurostat, 2018b). Nevertheless, the
majority of permits in 2017 were issued on the basis of residence (e.g. for foreign
retirees) and humanitarian reasons (38.8%). After several years of a steady increase
in the number of asylum applications, 2017 marked a significant drop to 3700 appli-
cations (OECD 2018, p. 218). By contrast, international student enrolment increased
to 5.4% of the total student population (ibid).
Before Bulgaria’s EU accession process commenced, asylum and migration pol-
icies were largely neglected. By 2007, the country had fully harmonised its legisla-
tion on migration in line with the EU acquis (Nedeva 2007, p. 25) and had laid the
foundations for the development of Bulgarian migration policy. A national public
policy in the field of migration was established, however, only after the accession of
Bulgaria to the EU (Krasteva et al. 2011, p. 11). It was developed on the basis of
four national migration strategies (for more details, see Vankova 2018a, 387–390).
Nevertheless, a comprehensive national migration policy, which goes beyond
Bulgaria’s long-term aims for accession to the Schengen Area and attracting for-
eigners of Bulgarian origin, is not a fact yet (Vankova 2018a, pp. 457–458). The
country’s need for labour migration has still not been officially articulated at either
the political or policy level (ibid).

4.2 Migration and Social Protection in Bulgaria

The conditions for citizens and foreigners to access social security in Bulgaria vary
depending on the type of benefits. In general, Bulgarian nationality and a period of
prior residence are not eligibility requirements (with some exceptions) and the gen-
eral procedures for accessing social security are the same for all individuals. In most
cases, the right to social security is linked to individual’s employment status.
However, the rules on labour migration and employment of foreigners are covered
by legislative acts falling out of the scope of the social security legislation, such as
the Law on Labour Migration and Labour Mobility and the Law on Foreigners.
Therefore, despite the fact that nationality and length of stay are not key factors
determining the right to social security, its implementation in reality depends on
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 69

complex inter-institutional coordination mechanisms involving not only social

security authorities, but also ministries and agencies governing labour market entry
and residence permits. On the other hand, Bulgarian nationals residing abroad are
entitled to claim benefits from Bulgaria only on the basis of concluded bilateral
social security agreements with third countries or under the EU social security
framework if they reside in an EU Member State.
The individual’s employment status in gaining access to social security has been
a decisive feature of the Bulgarian social protection system since the major reform
that took place at the beginning of the 2000s. Public authorities have not publicly
articulated any intentions to make a shift away from this approach yet. Furthermore,
as recent social protection and migration policy developments show, no change in
third-country nationals’ social protection status has been envisaged as part of the
political agenda of the current government.
A possible explanation for keeping the status quo is that the social protection
system is considered to be already well adapted to the needs of these groups and
policy-makers do not see a need for further reforms. For example, the National
Strategy in the Field of Migration, Asylum and Integration states that “Republic of
Bulgaria has contemporary, well developed and functioning equal opportunities,
social inclusion and non-discrimination legislation, which is in full compliance with
the European standards” (Council of Ministers, 2015, p. 28). Despite the fact that
“ensuring social inclusion and integration of third-country nationals” is listed
among the priorities of the Strategy (p. 40), there is no explicit reference to concrete
initiatives to adapt current social protection instruments. This demonstrates that the
integration of third-country nationals is not among the driving forces that have been
shaping social protection policy agenda in Bulgaria.
Other possible explanations for the current social protection policy are that
expanding its scope to non-employed third-country nationals is not in line with
Bulgaria’s migration policy and would not bring any political dividends. Since the
need of labour migration is not a politically articulated priority yet, liberalising the
social protection regime would run counter to the current migration policy of the
country which is based on restrictive general entry conditions and keeping migrant
workers in a temporary position (Vankova 2018a, p. 457).
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the national social protection system is still
problematic, which has been stressed recently by the European Commission. It was
pointed out that Bulgaria “has still one of the highest numbers of people living at
risk of poverty or social exclusion as well as high levels of income inequality” and
that “social transfers have a low impact on poverty reduction” (European
Commission, 2019, p. 35). This concerns in-kind transfers and health benefits in
particular. In a context where the level of social protection for the national popula-
tion is relatively low, any efforts to promote better coverage and adequacy of social
protection for foreign residents is not considered a successful political move despite
the slowly growing number of third-country nationals residing in Bulgaria.
70 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

4.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment benefits are paid on the basis of a compulsory social insurance

scheme financed by contributions covering only employees and providing earnings-­
related benefits. The scheme is financed by contributions from employers and
employees. Bulgaria does not have any unemployment assistance scheme.
The unemployment benefits are granted by the NSSI and regulated via different
legislative acts, including the Social Insurance Code,1 the Labour Code,2 and the
Law on Employment Promotion.3 Only resident nationals, EU citizens and long-­
term residents4 who are employees in Bulgaria are eligible to claim unemployment
benefits. Non-EU foreigners who do not hold the status of long-term residents are
not considered as eligible claimants, with the exception of Blue Card holders under
certain conditions. Unemployment benefits are granted to individuals who have
paid social insurance contributions for at least 12 months in the previous 18 months
before becoming unemployed. Prior residence in Bulgaria is not an eligibility
requirement for nationals and EU citizens. Applicants, however, must be registered
as unemployed at the Labour Bureau Directorates of the Employment Agency and
they must regularly prove they are job searching. Their registration (and therefore
the unemployment benefits) will be terminated if they refuse to accept an appropri-
ate work offer and/or inclusion in programs and measures for employment and
training.
The amount paid for unemployment benefits is dependent on previous earnings
and duration of employment. These benefits are paid for maximum 52 weeks.
Failing to cooperate with the employment services could lead to the temporary sus-
pension of unemployment benefits (with the possibility of a subsequent registra-
tion six months after the termination of the previous registration). Although there is
no formal requirement, if Bulgarian citizens, EU nationals or third-country nation-
als with long-term residence leave the country temporarily, they risk being de-­
registered from the Employment Agency and hence lose their benefits. Export of
unemployment benefits is possible only on the basis of EU law and bilateral agree-
ments on social security coordination. Among the main countries of origin for
migrants in Bulgaria (Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) and destinations for Bulgarians
(Turkey, USA and Canada), the agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine is the
only one which includes unemployment benefits in its material scope
(Vankova 2018b).

1
Кодекс за социално осигуряване, Promulgated in State Gazette (SG) 110/17 December 1999,
last amendment in SG 105/18 December 2018.
2
Кодекс на труда, Promulgated in SG 26/ 1 April 1986, last amendment in SG 92/ 6
November 2018.
3
Закон за насърчаване на заетостта, Promulgated in SG 112/ 29 December 2001, last amend-
ment in SG 91/2 November 2018.
4
Including permanent residents.
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 71

4.2.2 Health Care

The Bulgarian healthcare system is financed through contributions and taxes. It is

regulated by several acts including, among others, the Law on Health Insurance5
and the Law on Health.6
All resident nationals, EU foreigners, and third-country nationals who hold the
status of long-term residents7 are covered by the healthcare system or social insur-
ance for benefits in kind, independently of their employment status. Their participa-
tion in the health insurance system is mandatory. However, non-EU citizens with
short-term and continuous (up to one year) residence permits must cover the costs
of medical care at prices determined by the medical establishment. In principle, they
are not required to pay health insurance contributions.8 They are obliged to have a
private health insurance or private insurance covering the costs of treatment/hospi-
talisation during their stay in Bulgaria, unless otherwise stipulated in international
treaties. Nevertheless, all individuals have the right to emergency medical aid,
including those with permission for short-term and continuous residence, irrespec-
tive of whether they are workers, self-employed, unemployed or family members
(EMN 2014, p. 7). Dependent family members of an insured national do not auto-
matically derive the right to be co-insured.
Since the Bulgarian health system is universal, there is no minimum period of
insurance or residence required for resident citizens (except for citizens returning to
Bulgaria after a long-term stay abroad – see details below) and EU nationals to
become eligible to claim benefits in kind. Non-EU citizens need to wait at
least five years before they can access long-term residence in order to be covered
equally as nationals by the healthcare system. Nevertheless, a minimum period of
insurance is required in two different cases for non-resident nationals. Firstly, when
Bulgarian citizens reside abroad for less than 183 days a year or over 183 days a
year and do not declare that they will be insured abroad. In general, Bulgarian citi-
zens who intend to stay abroad for more than 183 days have to submit a declaration
for leaving the country. On that basis, individuals are exempted from the obligation
to pay health insurance contributions in Bulgaria (Article 40a of the Law on Health
Insurance). If they fail to do so, they are treated as compulsory insured and can lose

5
Закон за здравното осигуряване, Promulgated in SG 70/19 June 1998, last amendment in SG
105/18 December 2018.
6
Закон за здравето, Promulgated in SG 70/10 August 2004, last amendment in SG 102/ 11
December 2018.
7
Including permanent residents.
8
With exceptions for some groups (Article 24 (1) 5,7,8,9,10,13,14 and 16 of the Law on Foreigners
in the Republic of Bulgaria) which could receive permission for continuous residence if they have
visa for up to six months. If they are insured according to the Law on Health Insurance, their treat-
ment shall be covered by the National Health Insurance Fund (Article 6, para 1 of the Ordinance
No 2 of 2.07.2005). In some of these cases, they can be insured as employed/ self-employed per-
sons, i.e. have a permission for continuous residence and meet the requirements of the Law on
Labour Migration and Labour Mobility (see Article 8 (1) 2).
72 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

their health insurance right after not paying more than three monthly mandatory
health insurance contributions within the last 36 months. The right can be restored
with a one-off payment of all monthly contributions due for the last 60 months has
to be made (Article 109 of the Law on Health Insurance).
The second case concerns Bulgarian citizens who live abroad for more than
183 days and declare that they are insured in the country of residence, i.e. have
submitted a declaration before leaving the country. They can acquire health insur-
ance rights in Bulgaria in two ways: after a minimum period of insurance of
six months after returning to Bulgaria or if they pay a lump sum of 12 monthly
health insurance contributions (Article 40a of the Law on Health Insurance).
Moreover, they have to submit a declaration that they have returned to Bulgaria.
Before they acquire health insurance rights, they are treated as non-EU citizens and
need to pay for medical care. If non-resident nationals continue to pay the manda-
tory health insurance contributions, they do not lose their health insurance rights
and can receive treatment from the home country. These requirements do not apply
to citizens residing in an EU Member State although in this case, Bulgarian nation-
als must prove that the national legislation of the respective country was applied to
them during their stay abroad. Otherwise, they are treated as individuals who have
lost their insurance rights. In order to restore them, a one-off payment of all monthly
contributions due for the last 60 months has to be made (Article 109 of the Law on
Health Insurance).
The social security system covers partial costs and there is a co-payment from
the patient. The social insurance covers the costs in the so-called “main package of
healthcare activities” as provided by Ordinance No 3 of 20 March 2018 for deter-
mining the package of healthcare activities guaranteed by the National Health
Insurance Fund budget. Healthcare costs incurred outside the scope of the main
package are covered by patients. Resident nationals, EU citizens and long-term resi-
dents contribute towards the costs of their hospital treatment by covering the “hotel
costs” and the treatment provided. The cost of pharmaceutical products is only
partly covered by the health care scheme. Nationals residing in non-EU countries
could receive health benefits in kind from Bulgaria only if there is a bilateral agree-
ment with their host country that covers health care within its material scope.
Sickness cash benefits are available to resident nationals, EU nationals and non-
­EU foreign residents who are in employment and have a minimum period of insur-
ance of six months (for people aged 18 or above). There is no qualifying period in
case of cash benefits for temporary incapacity due to occupational disease or
employment-related injury. Prior residence in Bulgaria is not an eligibility require-
ment, but those receiving sickness benefits cannot leave the country for a temporary
stay abroad. The legal framework sets a maximum period for receiving this benefit
of six months without an interruption, 12 months with an interruption over a period
of three years, including the two years before the year of the sickness plus the year
of the sickness. In exceptional cases, the period can be prolonged to a maximum of
18 months without interruption. Employers are obliged to continue paying the
wages for employees who are on sickness leave for the first three days of the
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 73

incapacity. The agreements that Bulgaria concluded with Ukraine and Russia cover
sickness cash benefits.
Resident citizens, EU nationals and non-EU foreigners are eligible for invalidity
benefits in Bulgaria independently of their employment status. The analysed legis-
lation defines “invalidity” as any loss or disruption in the anatomical structure,
physiology or psyche of an individual. In general, social security benefits and allow-
ances are provided to people with the so-called permanent disability, i.e. those who
have permanently reduced opportunities to perform activities in a manner that is
possible for a healthy person and for which the medical expertise has established a
degree of reduced capacity or a type and degree of disability of at least 50%. The
qualifying period varies depending on employment, age, conditions of insurance,
etc. Residence is not an eligibility requirement. Nationals residing abroad are not
entitled to claim invalidity benefits from Bulgaria unless they reside in a country
that has concluded a bilateral agreement covering the export of invalidity benefits.
Among the agreements analysed, only those concluded with Ukraine and Russia
cover sickness cash benefits and invalidity pensions (Vankova 2018b).

4.2.3 Pensions

Public old-age pensions in Bulgaria include the contributory pension for insurance
and old-age (Пенсия за осигурителен стаж и възраст) and the non-contributory
social old-age pension (Социална пенсия за старост). The pension system has
three pillars. The first one covers the mandatory public pension insurance and has
universal coverage. The second pillar concerns the mandatory supplementary pen-
sion insurance. Contributions are accumulated in individual accounts. There are two
types of funds: the Universal Pension Funds covering individuals born after
31 December1959 and the Professional Pension Funds covering those working
under severe and harmful conditions. The funding of the first pillar is characterized
by standard pay-as-you-go defined benefit schemes financed through contributions
from employers, employees and self-employed. The state covers the deficits. The
second pillar is based on fully funded defined contribution schemes financed through
contributions from employers, employees and self-employed (Universal Pension
Funds) and employers (Professional Pension Funds). The third pillar is a voluntary
supplementary pension insurance (privately managed, fully funded, defined contri-
bution pension schemes). There are two types of funds: those for a voluntary sup-
plementary pension insurance and those for a voluntary supplementary pension
insurance under occupational pensionschemes.
EU and non-EU citizens, as well as nationals residing in Bulgaria and in other
EU countries who are employees or self-employed are eligible for contributory pen-
sions under the same eligibility conditions. There is no possibility to join the pen-
sion scheme on a voluntary basis. The minimum period of contribution required to
become eligible to claim a contributory pension is 15 years, 12 of which shall be
actual, i.e. the so-called “credited” insurance periods, for example maternity or
74 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

sickness leave, are excluded (Article 68 (3) of the Social Insurance Code). Insurance
periods acquired abroad are taken into account only if there is an international (EU)
agreement between Bulgaria and the countries where those periods have been accu-
mulated. In 2018, such a pension can be granted only if the individual has reached
66 years and four months. Individuals receive a pension calculated on the basis of
the actual number of contributory years, but not less than 15 years.
The retirement age for the standard public pension scheme is 61 years and
four months for women, and 64 years and two months for men. The right to a pen-
sion occurs if the insured persons have at least 35 years and 8 months of insurance
(women) and 38 years and 8 months (men), with some exceptions. The period of
residence is not an eligibility condition for the contributory pension. Credited peri-
ods are also taken into account for entitlement to pensions and individuals can also
pay contributions retrospectively in certain cases. As of 1 January 2019, only con-
tributory income after 31 December 1999 is taken into account for determining the
amount of pensions granted after 31 December 2018 (Article 70 (8) of the Social
Insurance Code). However, concerning the pensions granted under a bilateral treaty
or under European social security regulations, the reference income is the income
acquired under the Bulgarian legislation.
Only those who do not qualify for a contributory pension based on their insur-
ance record are eligible for a social pension. All applicants, including EU and non-
­EU nationals, who have their permanent address in Bulgaria become eligible for this
flat-rate pension at the age of 70. The annual income of all family members is taken
into account and it should not exceed the 12-fold amount of the guaranteed mini-
mum income.
While export of contributory pensions to other EU Member States is possible,
nationals residing in non-EU countries can access pensions from Bulgaria only if
their respective countries of residence have concluded an agreement in this regard
with Bulgaria. In some cases, non-contributory pensions fall into the material scope
of the concluded bilateral agreements (for example with Russia and Montenegro),
but it is explicitly stated that their export is not possible. Several bilateral agree-
ments concluded by Bulgaria cover pensions. The agreements with Ukraine and
Russia allow for the export of old-age, invalidity, and survivors pensions, as well as
death grants (Vankova 2018b). The agreement with Turkey covers the export of all
types of pensions of Bulgarian citizens who moved to Turkey after 1989 as provided
by the back then Pensions Law (repealed in 1999). This agreement covers personal
and survivors’ pensions for “length of service, old age, disability and invalidity due
to an accident at work or an occupational disease”. The agreement with Canada also
covers export of all pensions under the Bulgarian legislation.
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 75

4.2.4 Family Benefits

Maternity and parental benefits in Bulgaria are granted on the basis of a social insur-
ance contributory scheme in line with the Social Insurance Code and the Labour
Code. It provides earnings-related (pregnancy and childbirth) and flat-rate (raising
a child up to two years of age) benefits for economically active persons. Insurance
is compulsory except for self-employed persons, who may join voluntarily. Family
allowances are regulated mainly by the Law on Family Allowances9 and are granted
through a tax-financed scheme, access to which does not depend on the insurance or
economic status of the person (with the exception of child-raising allowance up to
one year for uninsured mothers).
Resident citizens, EU nationals and non-EU foreigners, as well as Bulgarians
residing in other EU Member States who are employed (employees and self-­
employed) and have contributed for 12 months of insurance for this risk are eligible
to claim maternity benefits. There are no specific requirements regarding prior resi-
dence in Bulgaria or the country of birth or residence of applicants’ child. The maxi-
mum duration for the maternity leave and benefits is until the 410th day of the
child’s birth. Upon expiration of this leave, insured persons are entitled to a flat rate
parental benefit for raising a child up to two years of age.
Maternity benefits are dependent on previous earnings. The daily cash compen-
sation is set at 90% of the average daily insurable income for the period of 24 cal-
endar months preceding the month of leave due to pregnancy and childbirth.
Employers are not legally obliged to pay wages during the maternity leave. Bulgarian
citizens and foreign residents who receive maternity benefits can leave the country
temporarily (there are no conditions specified in the law). Export of this benefit is
possible only if Bulgarian and EU citizens move to an EU Member State or to a
country with which Bulgaria has signed a bilateral agreement which covers this risk.
The latter is the only option for non-EU foreigners to export such benefit.
The above-mentioned eligibility rules also apply for paternity benefits. All resi-
dents (including foreigners) and Bulgarian citizens residing in other EU Member
States who are employed can receive the paternity benefit and leave for 15 days.
Child benefits in Bulgaria10 are conditioned to the residence and citizenship of
the child. There is a residency requirement for children of Bulgarian citizens: Article
3 of the Law on Family Allowances requires both residence in Bulgaria and
Bulgarian citizenship in case of families in which only one parent is a Bulgarian

9
Закон за семейните помощи за деца, Promulgated in SG 32/29 March 2002, last amendment
in SG 105/ 18 December 2018.
10
There are one-off and monthly allowances. One-off benefits can be granted for raising twins, for
raising of a child by a mother (adoptive mother) who is a full-time university student, for pupils
enrolled in first grade, for free railway and bus transport to mothers of multiple children, upon
childbirth or adoption of a child. Monthly allowances can be granted for raising a child below the
age of 20 until graduation from high school, for raising children under the age of one, for raising a
child with a permanent disability, or for a child without a right to survivors pension from a dis-
eased parent.
76 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

citizen. Third-country nationals are eligible to apply for such benefits only on the
basis of bilateral agreements. For instance, the bilateral agreement with Russia cov-
ers maternity and family benefits.11 The agreement with Ukraine covers maternity
(in Bulgaria) and maternity and family allowances (in Ukraine).12

4.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Guaranteed minimum resource in Bulgaria is based on a general non-contributory

minimum. Individuals who do not have the necessary means to meet their basic
needs and require support for their reintegration in the labour market and society
can receive monthly social assistance allowances (Месечни социални помощи) of
a differential amount based on a discretionary entitlement. The allowances are
means-tested and the provision is organised centrally. There is also a specific non-­
contributory minimum: the social old-age pension discussed above.
The Social Assistance Agency (Агенция за социално подпомагане) is respon-
sible for granting social assistance allowances. The main provisions regulating these
allowances are included in Law on Social Assistance.13 Only resident nationals and
EU citizens are eligible for social assistance as long as they have exhausted all pos-
sibilities for self-support. Non-EU foreigners without long-term or permanent resi-
dence cannot claim this benefit in Bulgaria.
The social assistance allowance is granted if the following criteria are met:
• the lodging where the claimant lives is composed of maximum one room for
each person living in the household;
• the claimant does not possess immovable property that can be a source of income
except for the assets serving the usual needs of the family (determined by a social
worker);
• the claimant does not have contracts for the transfer of property in return for the
obligation for support and care;
• the claimant has not purchased residential or summer-house property in the
last five years;
• the claimant has not received transfers of residential or summer-house property
through endowment in the last five years.
The period of prior residence is not an eligibility requirement, but the current
address of national and EU citizens must be in Bulgaria. Claimants of working age
must seek suitable work. Unemployed persons must have been registered in the
Labour Bureau Directorates at least six months before submitting their application

11
See http://www.nssi.bg/images/bg/regulations/icontrscts/Russia.pdf
12
See http://www.nssi.bg/images/bg/regulations/icontrscts/Ukraina.pdf
13
Закон за социално подпомагане, Promulgated in SG 56/ 19 May 1998, last amendment in SG
105/18 December 2018.
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 77

for social assistance and must have not refused any offer of employment, inclusion
in literacy, and/or vocational training. Unemployed persons of working age who
receive social assistance without being included in employment programs (under
Article 12b of the Law on Social Assistance) are obliged to provide community
work through programs organized by municipal administrations. They are required
to work for 14 days, four hours a day and failing to do so could lead to the temporary
suspension of the benefit.
The minimum resource benefit is dependent on income, assets and family com-
position. It can be received as long as the relevant conditions are met, with a reas-
sessment at relatively long intervals of time. Those receiving the benefit can
temporarily leave the country if they have received permission from the Ministry of
Health for treatment abroad. Apart from that, there are no special provisions on
absence but in practice this will be difficult if they need to look for a job or do com-
munity work. Export of such benefit in principle is not possible, but this issue is not
clearly regulated in existing legislation.

4.3 Conclusions

The findings of this chapter demonstrate that EU citizens and Bulgarians residing in
the country or in other EU Member States have access to most social benefits
granted in Bulgaria. Regarding third-country nationals, only long-term residents are
covered for most benefits. Such social protection rights are also granted to benefi-
ciaries of international protection, as well as special categories of migrants such as
Blue Card holders on the basis of EU law.
In general, the Bulgarian social security law does not impose nationality require-
ments with the notable exception of the Law on Social Assistance which extends the
rights under this act to several groups of non-EU citizens. Period of residence is not
a formal requirement under Bulgarian social security law, but the current address
must be in Bulgaria for most benefits. Despite the fact that eligibility differs for the
various categories of benefits, the general procedures for national and foreign ben-
eficiaries are the same. The legislative framework does not impose limits to tempo-
rarily absences either. However, there might be practical obstacles in some cases if
persons leave Bulgaria temporarily. In case of permanent residence abroad (outside
the EU), the export of benefits depends on bilateral agreements between Bulgaria
and third countries.
There are several factors explaining Bulgaria’s policy in this field. Firstly, the
social protection expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the country is still below
the level of other EU Member States, and the rates of poverty and social exclusion
in Bulgaria are very high. In 2017, 39% of the total population lived at a risk of
poverty or social exclusion European Commission, 2019, p. 38). These facts sug-
gest that social policy effectiveness in Bulgaria still comes short of ensuring that all
resident nationals enjoy an adequate level of income protection. Therefore, the
78 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

current state of play of the national social protection system could be attributed to
its overall design and political economy rather than to specific migration policy aims.
Another critical issue is the institutional coordination of the social protection and
migration policies. As mentioned above, Bulgaria’s social protection legislation
generally does not impose limitations on access to cash or in-kind benefits depend-
ing on criteria such as nationality or length of stay in the country. Despite that, in
some cases access to social benefits of third-country nationals can be hindered by
policy designs and institutional arrangements outside the scope of the social protec-
tion system. For instance, employment status and history are the most important
factors determining foreigners’ access to contributory benefits. Notwithstanding
that social security laws do not differentiate between beneficiaries of different
nationality, in order to become entitled to social security benefits, foreigners have to
accumulate necessary periods of contributions. Apart from cases where EU regula-
tions and/or bilateral agreements are applicable, this requires a certain period of
employment in Bulgaria and therefore depends on residence and work permits
issued sufficiently long before the risk in question occurs. When it comes to social
assistance, in order for non-EU citizens to be eligible for continuous residence, they
need to have sufficient means of subsistence without recourse to the social assis-
tance system in line with the requirements of Bulgarian migration law. The same is
valid for accessing long-term residence status. This means that although the social
security law does not limit the rights of non-EU citizens to such benefits, migration
law poses restrictions in this regard.
To sum up, Bulgaria, which has a rather small share of foreign population and
does not consider attracting immigration as a political priority, has put in place a
rather restrictive labour migration policy that has an effect also on the number of
foreigners who are eligible for social security benefits.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/. This work has also beenpartially sup-
ported by a Rubicon grant (project number 019.191SG.008) of theNetherlands Organisation of
Scientific Research (NWO).

References

Angelov, G. & Vankova, Z. (2011). Current Trends in Cross-border Workforce Migration from
and to Bulgaria According to Other Indicators. In I. Ivanova (ed.), Trends in Cross-border
Workforce Migration and the Free Movement of People – Effects for Bulgaria. https://osis.bg/
wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OSI_Publication_Law_7_en.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2019.
Angelov, G. & Lessenski, M. (2017). 10 years in the EU. Trends in Bulgarian migration. Open
Society Institute Sofia. https://osis.bg/?p=392&lang=en. Accessed 3 March 2019.
Bobeva, D. (1994). Emigration from and immigration to Bulgaria. In H. Fassmann & R. Münz
(Eds.), European migration in the late twentieth century. Historical patterns, actual trends, and
social implications (pp. 221–238). Hants: Edward Elgar Publishing.
4 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Bulgaria 79

Council of Ministers. (2015). National Strategy in the field of migration, asylum and integration
(2015–2020). Council of Ministers’ decision no 437/ (p. 12 June 2015).
Eurostat (2018a). [tps00098] - Expenditure on social protection - % of GDP. https://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00098&plugin=1.
Accessed 3 March 2019.
Eurostat (2018b). Residence permits for non-EU citizens. 166/2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/2995521/9333446/3–25102018-AP-EN.pdf/3fa5fa53-e076-4a5f-8bb5-
a8075f639167. Accessed 3 March 2019.
European Commission. (2019). Country report Bulgaria 2019 including an in-depth review on the
prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances. SWD (2019) 1001 final (p. 2019).
Brussels, 27.2. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/fileimport/2019-european-semester-
country-report-bulgaria_en.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2019.
Hristoskov, J. (2000). The mandatory public insurance – Changes, characteristic and contents of
the code on the mandatory public insurance. In The Bulgarian pension reform one year after
the start (pp. 10–16). Sofia: Pony Advertising.
Hristoskov, J. (2001). The Bulgarian pension system one year after the new beginning – A forward-­
looking assessment. In The Bulgarian pension reform (pp. 5–13). Sofia: Pony Advertising.
Krasteva, A., Otova, I. & Staykova, E. (2011). Satisfying Labor Demand through Migration in
Bulgaria 2004–2009. European Migration Network. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/
homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-
studies/labour-demand/03.bulgaria_national_report_satisfying_labour_demand_throug_
migration_final_version_28january2011.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2019.
Markova, E. (2010). Optimising migration effects: A perspective from Bulgaria. In R. Black et al.
(Eds.), A continent moving west?: EU enlargement and labour migration from Central and
Eastern Europe (pp. 207–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Markova, E., & Vankova, Z. (2014). Bulgaria. In A. Triandafyllidou & R. Gropas (Eds.), European
migration: A sourcebook (pp. 41–55). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mihaylova, S., & Bratoeva-Manoleva, S. (2016). Social transfers and income inequality in Bulgaria.
Bulgarian economic papers, 10–2016. Sofia: Center for Economic Theories and Policies.
National Contact Point to the European Migration Network in Bulgaria (EMN) (2014). Migrant
access to social security and healthcare: Policies and practice. Main study. https://ec.europa.
eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/emn-studies/illegally-resident/03.bulgaria_national_report_social_security_en_
version.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2019.
Nedeva, D. (2007). State of preparedness of the Republic of Bulgaria for joining the Schengen Zone.
Open Society Institute Sofia. https://osis.bg/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OSI_Publication_
EU_11_en.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2019.
Nenovsky, N. & Milev, J. (2014). Bulgarian welfare system (1989–2014) during the transition
and the crisis. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62039/1/
MPRA_paper_62039.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2019.
OECD. (2010). Trends in international migration: SOPEMI 2009 edition. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2009-1-en. Accessed 2 March 2019.
OECD. (2018). International migration outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1787/migr_outlook-2018-11-en. Accessed 2 March 2019.
Sredkova, K. (2016). Social insurance law (5th ed.). Sofia: SIBI Publishing.
Tache, I., & Neesham, C. (2011). The performance of welfare systems in post-communist Europe:
The cases of Romania and Bulgaria. International Journal of Economics and Research,
2(5), 90–107.
Vankova, Z. (2018a). Circular migration from the Eastern neighborhood to the EU: The rights of
migrant workers in Bulgaria and Poland. PhD Dissertation. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Vankova, Z. (2018b). Poland and Bulgaria’s bilateral agreements with Eastern partnership
countries in the context of circular migration. European Journal of Social Security,
20(2), 88–203.
80 Z. Vankova and D. K. Draganov

Open Access    This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, shar-
ing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 5
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Croatia

Helga Špadina

5.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Croatia

The main objective of this chapter is to discuss the social protection system appli-
cable to resident nationals, EU citizens and third country nationals residing in
Croatia, as well as non-resident citizens. The chapter provides a comparative analy-
sis of five different branches of social protection – unemployment, health care,
guaranteed minimum resources, pensions, and family-related benefits – with a spe-
cial focus on constraints linked to applicants’ residence status or nationality towards
their access to social benefits.

5.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

Croatian social security policy started to evolve from late nineteenth century under
the rule of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire with establishment of charities, followed
by the adoption of the first social laws and regulations after World War I (Puljiz
et al. 2008). After World War II, Croatia was a federal republic within the Socialist
Federative Republic Yugoslavia, being thus marked by the socialist approach to
social rights with universal coverage, the introduction of exclusive state competen-
cies regarding social protection and extensive social legislation guaranteeing all
social rights (Puljiz et al. 2008). After gaining independence in early 1990s, Croatia

H. Špadina (*)
Department of Labor and Social Law and Social Work, Faculty of Law,
University Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Osijek, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 81

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_5
82 H. Špadina

initially started to struggle with social policies aimed at minimizing the conse-
quences of the war for independence. In this period, the main priorities were the
social rights of displaced population and war veterans, the reparation of war dam-
ages and the economic crisis. Consequently, Croatia initiated a tripartite social dia-
logue and embarked on a reform of the health insurance system and the pension
insurance system. During the period 2000–2007, the country adopted more compre-
hensive reforms and harmonized its social policies to the EU standards, in prepara-
tion for full European Union (EU) membership (Croatia became a candidate country
in 2004 and a full EU Member State in 2013).
In the mainstream typologies of welfare regimes, Croatia could be classified as a
southern welfare state as its cash benefits are highly fragmented and very dualistic,
with a clear opposition between overprotected insiders (public employees, white-­
collar labour force, employees of state companies) and outsiders (migrants, women,
irregular workers), substantive informal economy, and a strongly gendered labour
market (Martin 2015). The current social protection system is mainly based on
employment status and on family links between the social security holder and
dependant family members. Most social rights are based on contributions and
mainly financed from obligatory social contributions of workers. However, social
welfare benefits and child allowance are needs-based and means-tested.
During the past years, there were two main changes in the Croatian social protec-
tion legislation. The first one was the introduction of the EU legislation on portabil-
ity of social benefits (due to Croatia’s accession to the EU) and the inclusion of EU
nationals in the social security legislation, on equal footing as nationals. However,
after 7 years of EU membership, national laws have not fully been aligned to the EU
acquis communautaire, such as the case of the Social Welfare Act explained below.
The second change refers to the expansion of the entitlement to certain social ben-
efits beyond traditional concepts of family members to include same-sex partners
(in accordance with the new Law on Life Partnership of Persons of the Same
Gender1). However, the extension of the scope of social rights to third country
nationals has not been discussed so far in the context of the reform of the Croatian
social security legislation.

5.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

The history of migration in Croatia can be divided into four phases: (a) emigration
for work and to escape conflict (from the fifteenth century until 1990); (b) involun-
tary migration to and from Croatia (1991–1995); (c) increase in legal and irregular
immigration to Croatia (1995–2012); and (d) the development of migration policies
aligned with the EU acquis.

1
Zakon o životnom partnerstvu osoba istog spola. Official Gazzette 92/14. https://www.zakon.
hr/z/732/Zakon-o-%C5%BEivotnom-partnerstvu-osoba-istog-spola Accessed 15 November 2018.
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 83

During the first period, Croatia experienced various migration patterns resulting
from the country’s dynamic political history and its strategic position. It is estimated
that over 200,000 people left the region as a result of the Ottoman conquest and
frequent wars between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs from the fifteenth to the
eighteenth century (Mlinaric 2009). Between 1890 and 1939, there was massive
overseas labour migration from Croatia to the Americas and Australia, with an esti-
mated number of 550,000–650,000 emigrants causing serious depopulation of cer-
tain parts of the country, particularly the islands (Mlinaric 2009). Emigration further
increased after World War II, although it was not voluntary. According to the esti-
mations, approximately 250,000 individuals involuntarily emigrated from Croatia
(Nejašmić 1991). In the post-war phase, the Yugoslav government concluded bilat-
eral recruitment agreements which facilitated the labour emigration to European
countries. In 1971, 671,908 Yugoslav citizens were working abroad, and Croatia
had the highest emigration rate of all Yugoslav republics (Mlinaric 2009).
The domestic war in 1991–1995 caused another wave of mass, involuntary
migration, coupled with labour migration. Around 450,000 persons emigrated from
Croatia during those years (Mlinaric 2009). In that period, Croatia developed legal
instruments for humanitarian protection of refugees and internally displaced per-
sons, and the overarching needs of forced migrants dominated all migration policy
approaches. At the same time, strategies for encouraging the Croatian diaspora to
return were at the centre of all migration discussions (Gregurovic and Mlinaric 2011).
From 2000 to 2009, Croatia experienced positive net migration, although this
pattern changed after 2009 when the country started to witness negative net migra-
tion. Since the EU membership, an estimated number of 200,000 Croatians have
migrated to other EU Member States. Between 2015 and 2017, approximately
138,000 Croatians have moved out of Croatia according to OECD data. Ireland hits
the record of an increase of 431% immigration rate of Croatians, with the majority
of migrants being in the working age 25–50, and one third being highly educated.2
In 2017, the government approved the issuance of 5211 work permits for the
employment of migrant workers within the quotas, while 5960 work permits were
issued during the same year.3 In 2018, the Decision on work quotas was changed
and the Government approved the issuance of 31,000 work permits. In 2019, a
record number of 65,100 work permits were approved, out of which 15,000 existing
permits can be extended and 41,810 new permits can be issued for the employment
of migrant workers.
At the end of December 2017, 2645 EU nationals had their temporary residence
in Croatia approved, while 7882 third country nationals were residing in Croatia.
The main non-EU nationalities are from the neighbouring countries – Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Serbia, along with Kosovo.4

2
According to data cited in: http://www.novilist.hr/Vijesti/Hrvatska/UBRZAVA-SE-ISELJAVANJE-
IZ-LIJEPE-NASE-U-dvije-godine-iz-Hrvatske-odselilo-138-tisuca-ljudi
3
Decision on Determination of Labour Migration Quotas for Employment of Foreigners (2018).
Ministry of Interior (2018).
4
Official statistics of the Ministry of Interior, www.mup.hr Accessed 1 May 2019.
84 H. Špadina

The history of emigration from Croatia has had a significant impact on current
migration policies. The system of labour quotas for migrants is still in place despite
its deficiencies and inefficacy. The last Migration Policy (valid between 2013 and
2015) and the current Foreigners Act deal in large part with combating irregular
migration, and there are very few concrete measures aimed at attracting and facili-
tating migration of highly skilled foreigners other than EU nationals. The country’s
emigration history is clearly linked to the problem of restricted access to a number
of social rights, which has resulted in ad hoc measures dealing with a small number
of immigrants. However, due to changes in migration patterns, the accession to the
EU – one of the external borders of which is in Croatia – and the need for a skilled
labour force, the national migration policy will have to be adjusted to reflect new
realities.

5.2 Migration and Social Protection in Croatia

This section closely examines the eligibility conditions for accessing social benefits
across five core policy areas. In Croatia, unemployment insurance benefits are avail-
able for all employed and self-employed persons with a qualifying period of insur-
ance of at least 9 months. Health care coverage is universal and the public health
care system includes cash sickness benefits, but also maternity, paternity and paren-
tal benefits. The qualifying period for maternity leave is 12 months of consecutive
insurance (or 18 months with interruptions during the last 2 years). The eligibility
criteria for maternity exemption from work is the prior permanent residence of at
least 3 years, compulsory Croatian health insurance and/or registration as unem-
ployed for at least nine uninterrupted months or 12 months with interruptions in the
last 2 years prior to the child birth. The eligibility criteria for maternity benefits is
the permanent residence for at least 5 years.
Regarding pension benefits, Croatia has a mix of a contributory universal insur-
ance scheme and a tax-financed universal scheme. Foreigners are obliged to contrib-
ute to the state funded and managed pension insurance scheme if they are legally
employed in Croatia, although in absence of a bilateral social security agreement,
pension contributions cannot be aggregated for foreigners. EU nationals enjoy
exportability of pension contributions. Finally, the Law law on Social Welfare has
not still been harmonized with the EU legislation and currently it still stipulates only
two categories of beneficiaries – nationals and foreigners, thus including EU nation-
als in the general category of foreigners. The conditions of access to social welfare
are the same for all categories and they are needs-based with a means-test which has
to prove whether requirements for social welfare are fulfilled.
The legal provisions stipulating the conditions for granting permanent residence
in Croatia include an approved temporary residence permit for an uninterrupted
period of 5 years prior to the submission of the application, including foreigners
who were absent from Croatia on multiple occasions of up to 10 months in total
within a 5-year period, or up to 6 months in the case of a one-time absence,
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 85

excluding any period of stay based on a work permit issued to seasonal workers,
daily migrant workers and service providers on behalf of a foreign employer, and
the time spent serving a prison sentence (Articles 92 and 93 of Foreigners Act).
Three categories of foreigners can also apply for permanent residence under special
circumstances. These include persons who, at the time of the application, had at
least 3 years of uninterrupted temporary stay, and at least 10 years under refugee
status, as demonstrated by a certificate of the competent state body for refugees. On
the one hand, the beneficiaries of the programme of return, reconstruction or hous-
ing care include foreigners who are residents of Croatia since 8 October 1991, as
demonstrated by a certificate of the competent state body for refugees, and those
who can establish that they returned to Croatia with the intention to live there per-
manently by that date. Beneficiaries also include children whose two parents held
permanent residence at the time of their birth or children of a single parent with a
permanent stay (as specified in Article 94 of Foreigners Act). In addition to those
requirements, foreigners wishing to establish permanent residence in Croatia must
have valid travel documents, means of support, health insurance, sufficient com-
mand of the Croatian language and the Latin script, familiarity with the Croatian
culture and social system (which is separately tested), and must not pose a threat to
public policy, public health or national security.
The Foreigners Act lays down the rights of foreigners with permanent residence,
which include the right to work and self-employment, vocational training, educa-
tion and scholarships, social welfare, the rights to pension, health insurance, child
benefits, maternity and parental support, tax benefits, freedom of association and
connection and membership in organisations that represent workers or employers,
or in professional associations.

5.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment rights are regulated by the Labour Market Law.5 The institution
responsible for the implementation of unemployment benefits in Croatia is the
Croatian Employment Office, which has competencies over labour market regula-
tions, while also implementing the bilateral agreements on social security that con-
tain clauses on the aggregation of employment insurance specifying entitlement to
unemployment benefits. The Office also provides advisory support to the
Government in the area of labour mobility of migrants- for instance, for setting
annual labour quotas- and job search counselling service for the general population
(including migrants who qualify for such services).
The organization of the unemployment benefits system in Croatia is based on
social insurance of employed workers and the contribution that all employees pay
from their monthly salaries. The unemployment scheme is financed primarily by

5
Official Gazette Number 118/18.
86 H. Špadina

social insurance of employed and self-employed persons.6 There is no special

scheme of unemployment assistance in the country. Resident nationals and non-­
national EU citizens can access unemployment benefits under the same eligibility
conditions. Third country nationals are generally excluded from accessing this ben-
efit in Croatia, except for those originating from countries that have signed a bilat-
eral social security agreement with Croatia covering unemployment benefits.
Claimants must comply with a qualifying period of insurance of at least 9 months.
Prior residence in the country is not a requirement for accessing unemployment
benefits, but rather periods of mandatory pension insurance linked to either work or
one of the specially regulated situations that are equal as periods of employment.
Registration with the national Employment Office, active job search and availability
for work are legal requirements for receipt of unemployment benefits. The amount
of unemployment benefits is linked to previous earnings in a way that it equals the
average of 3 months gross salary prior to the submission of the claim. The total
duration of the benefit is proportional to the previously completed employment
period, up to a maximum of 450 days.
Export of unemployment benefits by national citizens is possible only within the
European Union, if they register with the Croatian Employment Office at least
4 weeks prior to departure from Croatia, register with the national employment
service in the other Member State within 7 days of arrival, and regularly participate
in activities of the employment office in the destination country. Croatia has also
signed international social insurance agreements that include unemployment insur-
ance with Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and
Montenegro which are the main countries of origin of foreigners residing in Croatia,
as well as important destination countries for Croatians residing abroad.
Subsequently, nationals residing in those four countries have access to unemploy-
ment entitlements in Croatia on the basis of the reciprocity principle.

5.2.2 Health Care

The Croatian health care system is regulated by an extensive body of legislation,

including the Compulsory Health Care Insurance Act,7 the Health Care Act,8 the
Voluntary Health Insurance Act9 and the Compulsory Health Insurance and Health
Care of Foreigners in the Republic of Croatia Act.10 Croatia has a compulsory social
insurance scheme with universal health care coverage (95% of citizens are covered

6
While other sources of financing include assistance of international bodies and EU, income of the
Employment Office according to special regulations, donations and own income of
Employment Office.
7
Official Gazette Number 80/13,137/13.
8
Official Gazette Number 154/14, 70/16, 131/17.
9
Official Gazette Number 85/06, 150/08, 71/10.
10
Official Gazette Number 80/13.
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 87

by national, public health care). In general, the public health care scheme is mainly
financed by contributions, but one part of the public health care is financed by the
state budget (combined system of Bismarck and Beveridge models of health care
financing). The health care system covers 80% of the health care costs, while benefi-
ciaries cover the remaining 20%.
Beneficiaries of health care system are all employed and self-employed persons
and dependent family members, as well as several categories of unemployed per-
sons who have obligatory health insurance according to the Compulsory Health
Care Insurance Act. The periods of insurance and residence are not preconditions
for accessing benefits in kind after the payment of the first health insurance contri-
bution. All the costs of health care services are directly paid by the social security,
except a small portion paid by the beneficiary. If nationals have a full health care
coverage,11 all costs are fully covered by the social security system.
As the main condition for accessing health benefits in kind is either employment
or permanent residence status, all EU and non-EU nationals have access to these
benefits if they fulfil one of the qualifying conditions. Croatian nationals residing
abroad have access only to cross-border health care services in other EU Member
States if they fulfil the conditions stipulated in Articles 26–32 of the Law on
Compulsory Health Insurance.
Regarding cash sickness benefits, they are paid instead of salary, but they are
aligned with the salary amount. This is applicable to Croatian nationals, EU nation-
als and non-EU nationals under the compulsory health insurance scheme. General
practitioner doctors need to issue an incapacity for work certificate in order for the
patient to become eligible to claim sickness benefits. There are no specific condi-
tions of prior contribution or residence for accessing sickness benefits in Croatia.
Furthermore, these benefits can be granted for an unlimited duration. The employer
covers the first 42 days of sickness, and the Croatian Health Insurance Fund covers
the rest. While receiving sickness benefits, individuals cannot leave the country as
the Croatian Health Fund can conduct inspections to check their health condition.
Foreigners have access to these benefits under the same conditions as resident
nationals if they are compulsory insured.
The right to cash benefits based on invalidity is regulated by the Pension Insurance
Act as any loss, damage or incapacity of certain organ or body part more than 30%,
which resulted from professional illness or injury at work. All employed and self-­
employed residents who are paying social security contributions regardless of their
nationality and independently of the period of contribution are eligible to claim
invalidity benefits. Re-examination is possible at any given moment within the
period of 3 years following decision on the status by the specialised medical board.
National citizens residing abroad can access invalidity benefits from Croatia in
accordance with the European social coordination rules.

11
Consisting of obligatory health care coverage for basic services and additional health care cover-
age for full health care costs, including hospitalisation costs, complex medical treatment, specialist
tertiary care costs, costs of all basic medications, etc.
88 H. Špadina

All EU and non-EU citizens foreigners who are permanent residents legally
employed in Croatia have compulsory health insurance in the same way as Croatian
citizens. All beneficiaries have the option of paying additional health insurance,
which then covers all costs 100% (this applies for nationals and non-nationals
alike). The situation is different for third country nationals. The scope of the social
rights of migrants in Croatia depends on their residence status and employment.
European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and permanent residents enjoy certain
social rights comparable to Croatian nationals, while other categories of migrant
workers enjoy the right to compulsory health and pension insurance applicable to all
categories of legally employed migrant workers, regardless of their nationality. For
the past several years, the Council of Europe’s European Committee on Social
Rights has been warning Croatia that the situation regarding the access to health
care for migrants is not in line with Article 13§4 of the European Social Charter.
The Committee has noted that it has not been established that all legally and unlaw-
fully foreign residents in need are entitled to emergency medical and social
assistance.12
In general, all compulsorily insured migrant workers have access to health care,
except temporary residents (those residing less than 5 years) whose health insurance
contributions have not been paid for 30 days or longer. In that case, they are eligible
to use only emergency healthcare (Article 8. paras. 1 and 2 of the Compulsory
Health Insurance Act). In 1998, the Constitutional Court decided that limitations to
emergency health care for insured nationals who have not paid health care contribu-
tions are unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental rights.13 This decision is
in line with international human rights standards and should be equally applicable
to all categories of insured persons, regardless of nationality.
The Compulsory Health Insurance Act and the Act on the Health Protection of
Foreigners in the Republic of Croatia stipulate that all migrants on short and tempo-
rary stay, as well as undocumented migrants who are not accommodated in a pre-­
deportation centre, should cover all health care costs, including emergency health
care services. The European Committee of Social Rights has emphasised that all
categories of foreigners in Croatia should be entitled to emergency health care and
that this should not be linked to their pre-deportation or residence status.14
Furthermore, pregnant migrant women cannot derive their health care rights
from any applicable laws, unless they are obligatorily insured in Croatia. The Act on
Compulsory Health Care Insurance does not regulate the health care of female
migrants, including ante- and postnatal care, nor does it regulate health care rights
of new-born migrant children. Ante- and postnatal care is not clearly classified, so it

12
European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions XIX-2 (2009), (CROATIA), January 2010,
Articles 11, 13 and 14 of the Charter. European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions XX-2
(2013), (CROATIA), Articles 11, 13 and 14 of the 1961 Charter.
13
Constitutional Court of Republic of Croatia, U-I-222/1995, O.G. 150/98.
14
European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions XIX-2 (2009), (CROATIA), January 2010,
Articles 11, 13 and 14 of the Charter. European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions XX-2
(2013), (CROATIA), Articles 11, 13 and 14 of the 1961 Charter.
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 89

is difficult to assess whether delivery would be considered an emergency health

service and whether it should be paid for. According to the Regulation on the condi-
tions, organisation and working arrangements of out-of-hospital emergency health
care, emergency delivery outside the hospital conducted by the competent emer-
gency staff is considered an emergency health service. Another issue is that the
scope of health care rights for migrant children is not specifically regulated, so it is
unclear whether they enjoy the same scope of health protection as Croatian nation-
als. Without proper legislation, it is difficult to assess whether access to health ser-
vices for migrant children is in accordance with international human rights
instruments. Thus, children of undocumented migrants outside a pre-deportation
centre might be denied access to health care (Spadina 2015).
The bilateral social security agreements that Croatia has concluded with Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Serbia regulate the same scope of health care rights for nation-
als of these countries, including cash benefits for sickness and invalidity due to
professional sickness or injury at work. The agreement concluded with the Republic
of North Macedonia stipulates the same scope of health care rights as the agreement
with Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a small difference that this agreement specifi-
cally includes invalidity cash benefits.

5.2.3 Pensions

Pension rights in Croatia are regulated by the Pension Insurance Act.15 Croatia has
a mix of a contributory universal insurance scheme and a tax-financed universal
scheme.16 The finance scheme of the pension fund is based on contributions from
beneficiaries, capitalized contributions, state budget, own income of the Pension
Fund, and other income. The pension insurance is obligatory for all employed and
self-employed persons, regardless of their nationality. To access an old-age con-
tributory pension, applicants must prove a minimum period of contributions of
15 years and a qualifying minimum age of 65 years (with on-going extension up to
the age of 67 from 2038). There are several categories of persons who are insured
within the pension insurance system even if they are out of the labour market. This
includes young persons during internships and on-job trainings, parents during the
first year of the child, the caretakers of war veterans, unemployed individuals and
high-achieving athletes. The amount of the pension is based on earnings over the
whole career.
Non-national EU citizens and non-resident nationals can access contributory
pensions from Croatia under the same conditions as national residents. However,
non-EU foreigners are not entitled to claim contributory pensions in Croatia, except

15
Official Gazette Number 157/13,151/14, 33/15, 93/15, 120/16.
16
Non-contributory pensions do not exist in Croatia, but certain categories of persons have benefi-
cial access to pension rights (war veterans, members of the Parliament, and similar categories).
90 H. Špadina

for those originating from countries that have signed bilateral social security agree-
ments with Croatia covering entitlement to the pension scheme. Some bilateral
agreements signed by Croatia (such as the ones with the Republic of North
Macedonia and Australia) do offer a facilitated access to public contributory pen-
sions. If a national citizen was employed in one of the seven non-EU countries with
which Croatia has concluded bilateral social agreements, aggregation would take
place and periods of insurance would be recognized according to the provisions of
those agreements.

5.2.4 Family Benefits

Family benefits in Croatia are regulated by the Maternity and Parental Entitlements
Act17 and the Child Allowance Act.18 The whole area of family benefits is a non-­
contributory, tax-financed scheme. The institutions responsible for the management
of family-related benefits are the Croatian National Health Insurance Authority (for
maternity and paternity benefits) and the Croatian National Pension Fund (for child
benefits).
Maternity and paternity benefits are available to employed and self-employed
persons, regardless of their nationality. It is possible to voluntarily join the national
health insurance which then gives the right to access maternity and paternity bene-
fits, but it is not possible to voluntarily join the maternity and paternity benefits
scheme only. The Law also includes several categories of unemployed persons who
are obligatory health insured into the maternity benefits scheme. The only differ-
ence between employed and non-employed persons is the requirement for uninter-
rupted residence of at least 3 years for non-employed persons. EU and non-EU
foreign residents can access these benefits under exactly the same conditions as resi-
dent nationals.
Maternity benefits are dependent on previous earnings and can be paid for a
maximum of 28 weeks. After this period, they can be replaced by parental benefits
paid for up to 32 weeks. Each parent is entitled to use 16 weeks of paid parental
leave if they share the parental leave entitlement, or 32 weeks of parental leave if
only one parent uses it. If a parent has less than 12 uninterrupted months of employ-
ment prior to the activation of cash benefits, she/he receives 70% of the statutory
amount of parental benefit, whereas for the rest, the benefit is paid 100%. The Law
does not regulate the matter of where the child is born or resides; nor does it regulate
the exportability of parental rights or the possibility that the parents move abroad
while receiving the benefits.
Child benefits are available to a parent of a child who has uninterrupted residence
in Croatia of at least 3 years prior to the application for the child allowance (this

17
Official Gazette Numbers: 85/08, 110/08, 34/11, 54/13, 152/14, 59/17.
18
Official Gazette Numbers: 94/01, 138/06, 107/07, 37/08, 61/11, 112/12, 82/15.
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 91

applies independently if the beneficiary- i.e. the parent- is a Croatian national or a

foreign resident). The child who is abroad for more than 3 months loses the right to
child allowance, except if the beneficiary is an EU national (in this case, the rule
does not apply due to the EU social security coordination) or if bilateral agreements
with non-EU countries regulate differently. Beneficiaries can be non-EU citizens
who have permanent residence in Croatia of at least 3 years, recognized refugees
and persons under subsidiary protection. The benefit can be received until the child
reaches the age of 15 years old, extended for those who continue a formal education.
Child benefits are limited only to those parents whose income is below a certain
income threshold. Child allowance is exportable only to other EU Member States.
Out of all seven social security bilateral agreements signed by Croatia, only the
agreement with the Republic of North Macedonia offers facilitated access to the
child allowance scheme.

5.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The Social Welfare Act19 regulates social welfare. The institution responsible for
this area is the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy. Social
assistance is a non-contributory benefit, organized centrally and available to all resi-
dent nationals and certain categories of foreigners who are in need. The eligibility
criteria include income/means-test and ownership of property test for all applicants.
Length of residence is not a precondition for national residents. The situation is dif-
ferent for foreigners as, in order to access this benefit, they should either have per-
manent residence in Croatia (the permanent residence is granted after 5 years, which
has been criticised as an excessive residence length20) or belong to particularly vul-
nerable groups like asylum seekers, refugees, persons under subsidiary or t­ emporary
protection (or members of their families), unaccompanied minors or victims of
human trafficking. For all those particularly vulnerable categories, the length of
residence is not a precondition for claiming social welfare assistance. National citi-
zens residing abroad are not eligible to claim these benefits from Croatia.
Claimants of social assistance must have exhausted all legal duty of maintenance
that is regulated by the Family Act (which regulates not only duty of parents to sup-
port minor childen, but also a legal duty of adults to support aging parents).
Beneficiaries of the social welfare assistance are obliged to actively seek employ-
ment if they are able to work. They are also obliged to participate in community
work of minimum 30 h and maximum 90 h per month. If the beneficiary does not

19
Official Gazette Number 157/13.
20
Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. Geneva, 1–12
November 2010, Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in
accordance with paragraph 15 (c) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, Summary
of 11 stakeholders’ submissions1 to the Universal Periodic Review. A/HRC/WG.6/9/HRV/3, page
8, point 52.
92 H. Špadina

actively seek work, his/her right to social welfare can be revoked. The same applies
if the beneficiary leaves Croatia for more than 15 days.
Welfare allowance in Croatia is a flat-rate benefit per household member if all of
them qualify for social assistance. The benefit can be received for an unlimited
duration (i.e. until the end of a need). However, the amount of this welfare allow-
ance per person is insufficient to allow for a dignified living (the average amount is
only 105.00 EUR per month). Another significant obstacle for accessing the benefit
is related to the complex requirement for submitting at some instances as many
as 23 supporting documents,21 plus three statements of the claimant (related to the
right of the Centre for Social Welfare to make remarks in the property records, to
check all bank accounts of the claimant, and to use and check the information
acquired in procedure). Moreover, none of the seven bilateral social security agree-
ments that Croatia has signed with the main non-EU countries of destination for
Croatian nationals and with the main countries of origin of non-EU foreigners resid-
ing in Croatia cover the area of social assistance.

5.3 Conclusions

When we analyse the scope of social rights applicable to Croatian nationals as com-
pared to EU nationals and third country nationals in Croatia, it is important to high-
light that access to social rights is often very difficult to nationals due to overly
complicated statutory provisions and excessive requirements for supporting docu-
ments. Looking into the scope of social rights of EU nationals, unfortunately, even
several years after Croatia’s accession to the EU, social legislation has not been
fully harmonized to allow the unrestricted access to all social rights as compared to
Croatian nationals. Example for this is Law on Social Welfare stipulating the right
to social welfare for the general category of “foreigners” without specifically distin-
guishing EU nationals as a category per se, even after the latest amendment of the
Law in 2020. Thus, we cannot speak about full equality in access to social rights.
Non-EU nationals, on the other hand, have limited access to social rights, linked
to the employment or permanent residence status. They do not enjoy the full scope
of family benefits, the right to social housing or other specific social rights, includ-
ing unemployment benefits and contributory pensions. The social security legisla-
tion has not recently expanded the scope of social rights of third country nationals.
In addition, exportability of their social rights depends only upon the existence of
bilateral social security agreements. According to Article 68 of new Law on Labour
Market, a Croatian national who was employed abroad has access to unemployment
rights in accordance with bilateral social security agreements. In the absence of
such agreements, nationals have the right to unemployment benefits from Croatia if

21
See the list of documents here: http://czss-osijek.hr/zahtjev-zmn/. Accessed 01 Sep 2018.
5 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Croatia 93

they contributed to the Croatian Employment Fund for 9 months during the last
24 months since their employment abroad was terminated.
Two main changes marked the development of the Croatian social legislation in
recent years. The first one was the introduction of portability of social benefits to the
EU (due to the accession of Croatia to the EU). Another significant change is the
expansion of entitlements of certain social benefits beyond traditional concepts of
family members to include same-sex partners (in accordance with the new Law on
Life Partnership). There are no significant attempts to modernize this currently out-
dated system of social protection. Procedures to apply for social benefits are overly
complicated and unnecessarily burdened by high number of supporting documents.
This is often impossible to navigate even for nationals, and particularly so for for-
eigners. In fact, there is no social benefit for which the application can be submit-
ted online.
There is an ongoing discussion about the reform of the Croatian social welfare
system, potential changes of the entitlement to the national pension for those who
do not have 15 years of pension contributions and reform of family benefits to
include higher number of children entitled to receive child allowance and raise of
the maternity cash benefits. However, there are no discussions on the possibility to
extend the access of foreigners or nationals residing abroad to social benefits.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Gregurovic, S., & Mlinaric, D. (2011). The challenges of migration policies in Croatia: Migration
history, trends and prospects. AEMI Journal, 10, 99–112.
Martin, C. (2015). Southern welfare states: Configuration of the welfare balance between state and
the family. In M. Baumeister & R. Sala (Eds.), Southern Europe? Italy, Spain, Portugal, and
Greece from the 1950s until the present day. Frankfurt: Campus.
Mlinaric, D. (2009). Emigration research in Croatia: An overview. In U. Brunnbauer &
R. Oldenbourg (Eds.), Transnational societies, transterritorial politics. Migrations in the
(post) Yugoslav region, 19th–21st century (pp. 169–193). München: Oldenbourg.
Nejašmić, I. (1991). Iseljavanje iz Hrvatske-brojčani aspekt stoljetnog procesa. In I. Crkvenčić
(Ed.), Političko-geografska i demografska pitanja Hrvatske (pp. 61–83). Zagreb: Savez geo-
grafskih društava Hrvatske.
Puljiz, et al. (2008). Social policy of Croatia (pp. 1–73). Zagreb: Faculty of Law, University
of Zagreb.
Spadina, H. (2015). Discrimination in cross-national perspective: Labour and social discrimination
of migrant workers in the Republic of Croatia. In New developments in EU labour, equality and
human rights law (pp. 237–251).
94 H. Špadina

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 6
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Cyprus

Christos Koutsampelas

6.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Cyprus

Cyprus is small island country located in the eastern Mediterranean. The country
gained its independence in 1960. In 1974, a failed coup d’état triggered the invasion
of the Turkish army which occupied the northern part of the island. The invasion
caused economic devastation and forced many Cypriots to flee to Greece, the UK,
Canada and Australia (Konstantinidou this volume). The ensuing humanitarian cri-
sis strengthened social solidarity fostering political consensus for building a more
comprehensive welfare state (Neocleous 2014). During the 1980s and the 1990s, the
Cypriot economy undergone rigorous transformations leading to an impressive eco-
nomic growth that has turned Cyprus into an attractive destination for immigrants.
The large inflows of migrants brought about challenges in terms of integrating them
in the local society, as well as adapting social policies to address their diverse needs.

6.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The social protection system of Cyprus consists of a comprehensive array of con-

tributory and non-contributory benefits. The architecture of the system combines
elements from a variety of welfare models. It has some Beveridge type features
inherited from the British colonial era (Shekeris et al. 2009), while also sharing

C. Koutsampelas (*)
University of Peloponnese, Athens, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 95

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_6
96 C. Koutsampelas

commonalities with the typical Mediterranean welfare regime, such as the active
role of family in complementing insufficient statutory provisions (Gal 2010;
Koutsampelas and Pashardes 2017). Meanwhile, the regulatory framework is in a
process of constant ‘fine-tuning’ in an attempt to move closer to European standards
and to conform to European Union (EU) regulations (Ioannou 2008; Koutsampelas
and Pashardes 2017).
According to the ESSPROS database, the share of GDP devoted in social protec-
tion reached 19.1% in 2016, well below the EU-28 average (28.2%). Close to 70%
of these resources are directed to pensions and healthcare. The share of pensions in
total expenditures has been constantly increasing during the last decades (reaching
48.7% in 2016) due to population ageing and other institutional factors (Koutsampelas
2012). On the contrary, the share of healthcare in total expenditure has declined dur-
ing the last years. At 18.5% in 2016, it is one of the lowest in Europe (Theodorou
et al. 2018). The system is financed by social contributions (45.3% of total financ-
ing), general government contributions (49.8%) and other sources (5%), with the
share of social contributions steadily increasing during the last decade.
The backbone of the social protection system is the Social Insurance Scheme
(SIS)1 administered by the Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance
(MLWSI). The SIS is financed by compulsory social insurance contributions paid
by employees, self-employed, voluntarily insured persons, employers and the state.
Apart of old age benefits, the scheme offers access to several short-term benefits
providing income support to a variety of contingencies (unemployment, sick-
ness, etc.).
There is also a number of non-contributory cash benefits covering several types
of contingencies. The most important one is the Guaranteed Minimum Income
(GMI), a top-up benefit ensuring that every legal resident enjoys a minimum accept-
able standard of living. The level of GMI depends on family size and beneficiary’s
specific needs. Other non-contributory cash benefits include the child benefit, the
single parent benefit, the student grant and various disability benefits. Non-­
contributory benefits are typically means-tested (except for disability benefits) and
financed by general taxation.
Beneficiaries of in kind healthcare provision are entitled to a medical card which
provides access to free of charge healthcare services in public hospitals financed by
general taxation. Medical card holders should be Cypriots or EU citizens perma-
nently residing in Cyprus who fulfil additional requirements (i.e. means-testing).
Registration in the scheme is voluntary with the exception of civil servants who
have to pay a compulsory contribution calculated on their emoluments.
During the last years, the social protection system has undergone significant
reforms driven by economic, demographic and institutional factors (Ioannou 2008;
Simone 2011; Christou et al. 2016). The bulk of the reform efforts were concen-
trated on pensions and minimum income. The pension system was extensively
reformed in 2010–2013 aiming at ensuring its fiscal sustainability. During the same

1
The scheme is regulated by the Social Insurance Law of 2010 and Regulations Issued Thereby.
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 97

period, non-contributory benefits were also reformed by tightening eligibility crite-

ria, introducing stricter income-testing and reducing benefit rates (Christou et al.
2016). Not all reforms were motivated by an economic rationale. In 2014, the old
minimum income scheme was fundamentally reformed by substituting the old
regime of public assistance with a modern, better functioning, GMI scheme
(Koutsampelas 2016), while a new universal healthcare system is expected to be in
full operation in 2020.

6.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

During the last two decades, Cyprus has been an attractive destination for labour
migration due to labour shortages in many sectors of the economy (Trimikliniotis
and Demetriou 2011). The successful accession to the EU in 2004 also played a role
as it led to further opening the labour market due to the harmonisation of the legal
framework with the EU Directives and the abolishment of several restrictions to
immigration. Meanwhile, a large number of working permits to third-country
nationals were issued to cover shortages in the low-skilled sectors of the economy
(Eliofotou 2008; Christofides et al. 2007). Immigration contributed to the very good
performance by means of wage moderation (Christofides et al. 2007).
Figure 6.1 shows the net migration rate (i.e. the balance between in-migration
and out-migration flows) from 1981 to 2017. Net migration rate was positive during
the 1990s with a peak after country’s EU membership. Net migration became nega-
tive during 2012–2015 due the outbreak of the crisis which slowed inward migra-
tion and forced many Cypriots to seek job opportunities abroad (Konstantinidou this
volume). However, the net migration rate became again positive since 2016, follow-
ing the recovery of the economy.
As a result of these demographic shifts, the share of foreigners from the total
population doubled between 2001 and 2011, reaching 20.3% in the last Census
(2011). Most foreign residents originate from EU countries (Greece, the UK,
Romania and Bulgaria), while there is also a considerable number of third-country
nationals (Russia, Philippines, Sri-Lanka, Syria, Georgia). According to recent
Eurostat data on population by citizenship,2 the share of EU nationals residing in
Cyprus was 13.2% (or 114 thousand persons) in 2017 while the share of third-­
country nationals was 3.9% (or 34 thousand persons) the same year. It is also worth
mentioning that the number of asylum seekers in Cyprus has been increasing since
2013, mostly due to the geopolitical tensions in the Middle East area. In 2017, the
number of first time applicants almost doubled compared to 2016 (from 2840 to
4475 persons). Most asylum seekers come from Syria.
Finally, Cyprus is a country with a large number of emigrants scattered around
the globe. According to the Service for Overseas and Repatriated Cypriots of the

2
Eurostat Online Database, Table: [migr_pop1ctz], accessed on 19/03/2019.
98 C. Koutsampelas

20000

15000

10000

5000

-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000

Net migration

Fig. 6.1 Net Migration in Cyprus, 1991–2016. (Source: Statistical Service of Cyprus)

Foreign Ministry, there are 315,000 thousand Cypriots in Europe (mostly in UK and
Greece), 86,000 thousand in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), 52,000 in
America (USA and Canada) and 30,000 thousand in Africa (mostly in South Africa).

6.2 Migration and Social Protection in Cyprus

Both nationals and foreign citizens have access to a comprehensive package of con-
tributory and non-contributory benefits covering several contingencies including
unemployment, sickness, disability, maternity and paternity, income deprivation and
old age. The general rule is that contributory benefits, typically linked with employ-
ment, are open to all at equal terms irrespectively of nationality, while the EU social
security coordination rules as well as a number of bilateral social security agreements
protect social security rights through enabling the aggregation of periods of insur-
ance and residence. Access to non-contributory benefits (mostly family benefits and
minimum income support) is more complicated as residence-related criteria are usu-
ally required for claiming these benefits; thereby, creating some differences between
national citizens and recent migrants. Healthcare is a very problematic area of public
provision, mostly affecting third country nationals. Yet, a recently implemented
reform promises to fill the gaps in the provision of services and reduce inequalities.

6.2.1 Unemployment

The unemployment benefit scheme in Cyprus is administrated by the MLWSI in the

context of SIS. The beneficiaries of the scheme are involuntary unemployed persons
aged between 16 and 63 who are legally residing in Cyprus and satisfy the relevant
insurance conditions. Self-employed persons are excluded from the scheme. The
duration of the benefit is 156 working days for each period of employment interrup-
tion. The recipient should satisfy the following insurance conditions:
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 99

• has paid actual basic insurance contributions at least equal to 0.5 of the insur-
ance point,3
• has been insured for at least 26 weeks before the termination of employment,
• has paid actual or assimilated insurance equal to at least 0.39 of the insurance
point within the relevant contribution year.
The unemployment benefit consists of a basic and a supplementary part.4 The
weekly rate of the basic benefit is equal to 60% of the weekly basic insurable earn-
ings of the last year. This rate increases to 80%, 90% and 100% for one, two or three
dependants respectively. The weekly rate of the supplementary part is equal to 50%
of the average weekly insurable earnings exceeding the basic insurable earnings of
the last year up to a maximum amount. While receiving unemployment benefits,
recipients must regularly visit the Unemployment Office on specific days and times.
There are no statutory differences in terms of conditions of access and coverage
between nationals and foreigners. However, EU citizens are required to submit,
additionally to the documents required for nationals, a registration certificate from
the Civil Registry and Migration Department,5 whereas non-EU foreigners need to
submit a temporary residence permit or immigration permit.6 National citizens
residing abroad are not entitled to unemployment benefits (with the exception of
Cypriots working abroad for a Cypriot employer). However, the benefit can be
exported following the rules of EU Social Security Coordination. On that basis, a
registered unemployed in Cyprus may look for a job in another member state by
exporting the unemployment benefit to this country for a period of three months.

6.2.2 Health Care

Access to public healthcare services (free of charge or at a reduced charge) is pro-

vided through the issuance of a medical card (karta nosilias). Registering with the
scheme is not compulsory, but eligible recipients should meet the following
conditions7:

3
Actual and assimilated insurable earnings are converted into insurance points. One insurance
point is equal to 52 times the weekly basic amount of insurable earnings (€ 9068 in annual terms
in 2017).
4
A single payment is credited to the recipient. However, the basic and supplementary parts are dif-
ferently calculated.
5
Nationals from member states who intend to stay and work in Cyprus are required to apply for a
registration certificate following a standard and simple procedure. In order to apply for the certifi-
cate, they must complete a standard form, present their ID cards/passports, submit two photos and
pay a small fee.
6
Immigration permits have an indefinite duration.
7
According to the Government Medical Institutions and Services General Regulations 2000
to 2013.
100 C. Koutsampelas

• are either Cypriots or European citizens who reside permanently in Cyprus,

• have paid insurance contributions for at least three years (assimilated insurance
is counted),
• have submitted personal income tax declaration at the date of application,
• their annual income should not exceed €15,400 (single person),
• their annual income should not exceed €30,750 increased by €1700 for each
dependent child, if applicable.
Persons suffering from chronic diseases and GMI beneficiaries are excluded
from these criteria, while civil servants are compulsory insured paying a 1.5% con-
tribution calculated on their monthly emoluments. Medical card holders are subject
to medical co-payments.8 However, emergency care is provided free of charge to all
individuals, irrespective of their income or citizenship.
As for cash benefits in case of sickness, these contributory benefits are available
to employees and self-employed who are incapable for work. Sickness benefits are
granted for maximum 156 days for each period of employment disruption.9 In order
to qualify as eligible claimants, individuals must have paid actual basic insurance at
least equal to 0.5 of the insurance point, have been insured for at least 26 weeks and
have paid (actual or assimilated) insurance at least equal to 0.39 of the insurance
point during the relevant contribution year. The level of the benefit depends on the
insurable earnings and the number of dependants. The benefit is not payable if the
employed person continues to receive a full wage during sickness. In case of a
reduced wage, the sum of the benefit and the reduced wage should not exceed the
full wage. There are no standard rules concerning sick leaves. Several practices exist
in the market, varying in accordance to the specific collective agreements or indi-
vidual contracts signed between employees and employers.
Employees and self-employed who are permanently incapable of work (i.e.
unable to gain from their normal economic activity income above one third of the
amount earned by a healthy person with the same occupation and level of education
or, in the case of persons aged from 60 to 63, above half of that amount) can claim
invalidity benefits. The following insurance conditions should be satisfied:
• at least three actual basic insurance points and being insured for at least
156 weeks,
• weekly average insurable earnings (actual or assimilated) equal to at least 25%
of the weekly amount of the basic insurable earnings in the relevant period,
• (actual or assimilated) insurance equal to at least 0.39 of the insurance point
within the relevant contribution year or actual or assimilated insurance equal to
at least 0.39 of the insurance point on average within the last two relevant contri-
bution years.

8
For example, €3 for a visit to a General Practitioner, €0.50 for each prescribed pharmaceutical
product and €0.50 for each laboratory test with a maximum charge of €10 per medicine
prescription.
9
The payment may be extended if the insured person meets certain insurance requirements and he/
she is not expected to remain permanently incapable to work.
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 101

The level of the pension depends on insurable earnings, number of dependants

and the degree of loss of earning capacity.
Overall, the provision of healthcare services is the most problematic policy area
in terms of access of foreigners to social protection in Cyprus. The medical card is
issued only to Cypriots and EU citizens (including European Economic Area, EEA,
and Swiss citizens) who reside permanently in Cyprus. Non-EU foreigners are
excluded from the medical card scheme and have to bear the full financial costs of
their treatment if they make use of public services. Thus, third-country nationals
who have immigrated to Cyprus for reasons other than international protection are
not entitled to healthcare coverage and either stay uninsured or might be required to
possess a healthcare insurance contract with a private insurance company. In many
cases, these contracts come with limited coverage, while significant restrictions
make access to and utilization of services quite problematic (Kantaris et al. 2019).
Hence, third-country nationals in Cyprus have a high percentage of unmet health
needs compared to other groups (Kantaris et al. 2014; Theodorou et al. 2018).
Finally, in regard to sickness and incapacity benefits, there are not statutory provi-
sions creating disparities between national and foreign citizens, while the export-
ability of these benefits ensures that national citizens who have moved abroad to EU
countries can continue receiving the payments without impediments.

6.2.3 Pensions

The first pillar of the pension system consists of the Social Insurance Scheme (SIS)
and the Social Pension Scheme. SIS is a compulsory earnings-related scheme cov-
ering all employed and self-employed persons in Cyprus. Voluntary insurance is
possible for persons who wish to continue insurance after a period of compulsory
insurance and Cypriots working abroad in the service of a Cypriot employer. The
social pension is a flat-rate non-contributory pension provided to persons with no
access to other pensions or similar payments that exceeds the level of the social
pension.
The statutory retirement age is 65, with a possibility of early retirement at the age
of 63. The total contribution rate for employees is 20.2% applied on the insurable
earnings of the employee (with an upper ceiling of €4533) and is paid 7.8% by the
employee, 7.8% by the employer and 4.6% by the government. The contribution
rate for the self-employed is 19.2% (paid by themselves and the government). The
total contribution rates are programmed to increase by 1.3 percentage points every
five year up to 2039. Early retirement is discouraged through financial disincen-
tives, while prolongation of working life is encouraged through financial incentives
until the age of 68. Old age pensions consist of a basic and a supplementary part.
Their calculation is based on the contributory period, the level of gross insurable
earnings and the number of dependants.
102 C. Koutsampelas

The social pension is not means-tested, however certain residence restrictions

apply.10 In particular, recipients should be permanent residents of Cyprus and should
have resided in Cyprus, EU, EEA or Switzerland for at least 20 years after the age
of 40 or for at least 35 years after the age of 18. Social pension is calculated as 81%
of the basic old age pension.
There are no statutory differences in terms of conditions of access to old age pen-
sions between national and foreign citizens. The aggregation of periods of insurance
is possible in the context of EU Social Security Coordination. However, social pen-
sions are payable only to nationals and foreigners who are permanently residing in
Cyprus. The aggregation of residence periods in Cyprus, EU countries, EEA and
Switzerland is possible.

6.2.4 Family Benefits

Income support to families is provided through contributory and non-contributory

benefits. Contributory family benefits are provided by the SIS and cover employees
and self-employed persons, as well as their dependants. Non-contributory family
benefits are provided in a universal or means-tested basis and cover all families
fulfilling the relevant conditions. Family benefits are not subject to taxes and social
insurance contributions.
The child benefit is a means-tested non-contributory benefit paid to all families
with children, permanently residing in Cyprus.11 Its annual level ranges from €345
to €1675 per child depending on family structure and income. The single parent
benefit is also means-tested. The eligibility criteria for the child and the single par-
ent benefit require five years of permanent residency in the country.
Parents are also entitled to maternity and paternity benefits. The maternity ben-
efit is a contributory benefit payable to employed and self-employed mothers for
18 weeks. Certain contribution-related conditions should be satisfied. The amount
of the benefit is calculated based on the insurable earnings of the recipient. However,
the sum of the reduced wage (if any) and the benefit cannot exceed the full wage.
The paternity benefit is payable to employed fathers at the same conditions as the
maternity benefit, with the exception that its duration is 2 weeks.
There are not statutory differences between nationals and foreigners in regard to
access to family-related contributory benefits. For non-contributory benefits, there
is a residency requirement which might impact on migrants’ access to family ben-
efits. Specifically, the eligibility conditions require legally and continuously resid-
ing in the country for five years before successfully applying for child and/or single
parent benefits. However, periods of residence in other EU Member States, EEA
and Switzerland can be aggregated with periods of residency in Cyprus. Thus, this

10
According to Social Pension Law of 1995 and modifications.
11
According to Child Benefit Law of 2002 to 2017.
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 103

restriction effectively excludes newcomers from third countries. Furthermore, child

and single parent benefits cover families whose children reside with their parents.
This provision restricts access to migrants whose children reside in their country of
origin (most probably third-country nationals working in Cyprus on temporary resi-
dence permits).

6.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) scheme12 was introduced in 2014 as a

means-tested non-contributory top-up benefit whose scope is to ensure a minimum
acceptable standard of living to all persons legally residing in Cyprus (Koutsampelas
2016). The GMI is calculated as the difference between a basic income level and the
family (or personal) income of the recipient. The value of basic income is currently
set at €480 per month for a single person and increases with the size of the recipient
unit. The benefit is paid until the end of need and as long as the eligibility conditions
are met. GMI beneficiaries have also access to other benefits such as a housing
allowance, child care subsidisation, in kind healthcare benefits and long-term care
related cash benefits.
All income and properties13 of the claimant are taken into account in order to
determine the eligibility of the benefit. The level of the benefit depends on the fam-
ily income14 and the eligibility conditions consist of job-, age- and residency-related
criteria. Recipients are asked to register with the Public Employment Services
(PES), accept job offers, not have resigned six months (or less) before the applica-
tion day or while receiving the benefit, participate in vocational training, seminars
or communal services (if offered) and accept personal tutoring from PES counsellors.
Furthermore, the applicant must be at least 28 years old (with some exceptions).
Finally, the residence criterion requires that all eligible recipients should have con-
tinuously15 and legally resided in Cyprus at least for five years before claiming the
benefit. This means that EU and non-EU citizens have access to GMI benefits in
Cyprus as long as they satisfy this residence requirement. In the case of GMI, the
aggregation of periods of residence in other countries is not possible. Furthermore,
non-EU foreigners ought to have been granted the long-term residence status as
defined by the relevant law16 before applying for the GMI. This provision excludes

12
The scheme is regulated by the Guaranteed Minimum Income and Social Benefits Law of 2014
to 2017.
13
Including those located abroad.
14
Certain incomes are not taken into account in the means-testing, while income from employment
is partially excluded with the purpose of reducing labour market disincentives.
15
Temporary absence from the country is possible if its duration is below one month or if it is
related with health issues or studying abroad.
16
Alien and Immigration Law, Chap. 105.
104 C. Koutsampelas

third-country nationals on short term residence permits. Finally, nationals residing

abroad do not have access to GMI support; nor is this benefit exportable.

6.2.6  anctions and Bilateral/Multilateral Social

S
Security Agreements

Residence related criteria, such as proving permanent residency and/or completing

certain periods of residence, are only required for claiming non-contributory bene-
fits. However, in most cases, the aggregation of periods of residence is possible for
those who have lived in more than one country in the EU, EEA and Switzerland.
GMI recipiency, in addition to five years of continuously residing in Cyprus, also
requires the status of long-term resident for non-EU foreign citizens. The process of
applying for long-term residence can be complicated in some cases. The examina-
tion period of an application can take up to six months, while the applicant should
successfully submit a number of certificates and documents and, among others, to
prove that he/she has the means to economically maintain himself/herself without
depending on social benefits. To assess these resources, the pertinent authorities
might take into account applicants’ income from full-time employment, other
sources of income, cost of living, employment contract (which should be either
open-ended or longer than 18 months), housing conditions and economic sustain-
ability of business activities (if any).
In general, according to legislation, applying for a residence permit and/or fam-
ily reunification requires that the applicant has adequate and stable economic
sources, without relying on the welfare system. No particular benefits are specified
in the legislation; however, benefit recipiency might cause hindrances. As for the
issue of exportability, contributory benefits are in most cases exportable, especially
pensions and especially to EU destinations. On the other hand, restrictions are
applied on non-contributory benefits. For example, the social pension and the GMI
are clearly residence-based benefits, whose eligibility is lost if the recipient moves
abroad. Additionally, it is important to note that the non-permanent status of several
migrant groups imposes barriers to access to pensions. In particular, many third-­
country nationals are on temporary permits (usually of four years; often renewed for
two extra years) and if they fail to renew such permits, they have to leave the coun-
try (or stay illegally), before accumulating adequate pension rights. In that case, and
because their periods of insurance in Cyprus might not be taken into account in their
homelands, they are entitled to a lump sum pension benefit when they reach the
pensionable age.
Last but not least, Cyprus has concluded bilateral social security agreements
with 6 non-EU countries (Egypt, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Serbia and Syria).
It is worth mentioning that, out of these countries, Canada and Australia belong to
the top five destinations for Cypriots moving abroad (Konstantinidou this volume).
The scope of these agreements is to ensure the principle of equal rights (or
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 105

non-discrimination), to enable the aggregation of periods of insurance and resi-

dence between the two countries, to facilitate the exportation of those benefits cov-
ered by the agreements by eliminating any restrictions on payments and, finally, to
avoid the payment of double contributions. The agreements typically cover con-
tributory pensions and, in some cases, certain short-term contributory benefits. For
example, the agreement with Canada covers old age pensions, invalidity pensions,
widow’s pensions, orphan’s pensions and the funeral grants. In addition to pensions,
the agreement with Serbia also covers the maternity benefit, the birth grant, the sick-
ness benefit, the unemployment benefit, the employment injury benefits and the
funeral grant.

6.3 Conclusions

An in-depth analysis of the current regulatory framework in Cyprus reveals the

existence of few statutory provisions differentiating the conditions of access to
social protection between national and foreign citizens. However, this was not
always the case. Approaching the issue from a historical perspective, it can be said
that the architecture of the social protection system has become increasingly inclu-
sive during the last decade. An illustrating example of this trend is the on-going
healthcare reform (expected to be completed in 2020) which aims, among other
things, to lift a major barrier for third-country nationals who until now had to rely
on private medical insurance contracts.
There are two potential explanations of these recent policy developments. The
first is the gradual europeanisation of social policy in Cyprus which entailed the
transposition of many EU Directives into the national legislation (Ioannou 2008)
and affected several policy areas including migrants’ social rights. The influence of
the EU extends beyond legislative initiatives and includes the exchange of ideas and
good practices, the set of common goals and policy objectives including bench-
marking, the use of EU funds in shaping national policy as well as the political
weight of non-legal binding instruments.17 A second explanation is related to the
increasing economic and social importance of a growing migrant workforce whose
diverse needs ought to be catered, at least to a certain degree, by the welfare system.
Having said that, some differences in provisions still exist. These differences are
observed in regard to non-contributory benefits and mostly affect non-EU foreign
residents. Most importantly, entitlement to non-contributory benefits typically
requires a minimum period of residence in the country. For example, entitlement to
child benefits requires five years of continuous and legal residence in Cyprus, with
aggregation of periods of residence in other countries (i.e. EU, EEA and Switzerland)

17
Note that the healthcare reform was systematically included in the country-specific European
Council recommendations to Cyprus, see for example: Council Recommendation on the 2018
National Reform Programme of Cyprus and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018 Stability
Programme of Cyprus.
106 C. Koutsampelas

being possible for some benefits (e.g. child benefits) and not possible for others
(GMI). As far as GMI is concerned, non-EU foreigners should have acquired long-­
term resident status, additionally to five years of continuous and legal residence in
Cyprus. This restriction effectively excludes third-country nationals with fixed-term
residence permits.
Furthermore, until now, non-EU citizens were explicitly excluded from the pro-
vision of free of charge access to public healthcare, meaning that they had to rely on
private medical insurance. Nevertheless, the new National Healthcare System,
which is expected to be in full operation in 2020, will provide universal coverage to
all citizens thereby filling an important gap in social protection and reducing health
inequalities.
Access to contributory benefits depends on recipient’s accumulated social insur-
ance contributions (and/or period of employment) and does not depend on citizen-
ship, type of residence permits or other migration-related conditions. As a result, the
rules defining eligibility are uniform. Moreover, with the obvious exception of old
age pensions, the required minimum periods of insurance are not particularly long,
so as to implicitly set barriers to migrants on fixed-term residence permits, while the
aggregation of periods of insurance is possible for persons previously working in
other EU countries, EEA, Switzerland or countries covered by bilateral social secu-
rity agreements.
As for national citizens residing abroad, there are not specific welfare schemes
targeting this particular group.18 Yet, they can receive benefits from homeland if
they have worked in Cyprus before moving abroad. In most cases, these benefits
(typically contributory old age pensions) are exportable to their countries of resi-
dence. Furthermore, if they reside and/or work in EU, EEA and Switzerland, peri-
ods of residence and insurance in Cyprus count for claiming benefits from the social
security system of the country of residence.
Thus the overall picture is that after the implementation of the healthcare reform
there will be very few statutory provisions differentiating access to benefits between
Cypriot citizens and migrants. These remaining disparities are mostly associated
with non-contributory benefits and take the form of residence-related criteria. These
criteria might be understood as necessary to fence off public worries about welfare
migration, although such incidences are not common in Cyprus.
Nevertheless, it is also important to highlight that the lack of wide disparities in
the statutory provisions between nationals and foreigners does not guarantee the
equally effective use of these resources by the two groups. In some cases, even the
provision of universal coverage does not guarantee equity when the focus lies on
very vulnerable groups, which face multidimensional disadvantages in terms of
inadequate knowledge of language, perceived stereotypes, limited awareness and
enforcement of their social rights, marginalisation and social exclusion. Furthermore,
a large part of the welfare state is based on earnings-related contributory benefits.
This means that labour market inequalities (e.g. wage gaps between ethnic groups)

18
Cypriots working abroad at the service of a Cypriot employer are an exception.
6 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Cyprus 107

translate to disparities in social provisions. On that basis, to have the complete pic-
ture, it is imperative to assess the capacity of the social protection system to effec-
tively reduce poverty among migrants.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Christofides, L. N., Clerides, S., Hadjiyiannis, C., & Michael, M. S. (2007). The impact of foreign
workers on the labour market of Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review, 1(2), 37–49.
Christou, O., Ioannou, C., & Shekeris, A. (2016). The Cypriot welfare state at a time of crisis. In
K. Schubert, P. de Vilotta, & J. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Challenges to European welfare systems
(pp. 79–104). Cham: Springer.
Eliofotou, P. (2008). Immigration and wage flexibility in Cyprus and the adjustment in EU. Cyprus
Economic Policy Review, 2(2), 103–114.
Gal, J. (2010). Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states? Journal of European
Social Policy, 20(4), 283–300.
Ioannou, C. (2008). The Europeanization of Cypriot social policy: An ‘Apolitical’ Europeanization
process. Journal of Modern Hellenism, 25–26, 97–128.
Kantaris, M., Theodorou, M., Galanis, P., & Kaitelidou, D. (2014). Access and utilization of
health services by domestic helpers in Cyprus. International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, 29, e383–e393.
Kantaris, M., Theodorou, M., & Kaitelidou, D. (2019). Access and utilisation of health services
by migrant domestic helpers in Cyprus: The role of the employer. International Journal of
Migration, Health and Social Care, 15(1), 46–60.
Konstantinidou, A. (this volume). Diaspora policies, consular services and social protection for
Cypriot citizens abroad. In J.-M. Lafleur & D. Vintila (Eds.), Migration and social protection
in Europe and beyond (Volume 2) comparing consular services and diaspora policies. Cham:
Springer.
Koutsampelas, C. (2012). Aspects of elderly poverty in Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review,
6(1), 69–89.
Koutsampelas, C. (2016). The Cypriot GMI and comparisons with other European countries.
Cyprus Economic Policy Review, 10(1), 3–26.
Koutsampelas, C., & Pashardes, P. (2017). Social protection in Cyprus: Overview and challenges.
Economic Policy/Analysis Papers 05–17. Economics Research Centre, University of Cyprus.
Neocleous, G. (2014). An account of the development of social insurance for Cyprus, 1878–2004;
with particular reference to Older People. PhD thesis, University of York.
Shekeris, A., Ioannou, C., & Panayiotopoulos, C. (2009). Welfare adaptation in a divided state:
The Cypriot welfare system. In K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, & U. Bazant (Eds.), The handbook of
European welfare systems (pp. 83–100). New York: Routledge.
Simone, A. S. (2011). The Cypriot pension system: Issues and reform options. Cyprus Economic
Policy Review, 5(2), 3–34.
108 C. Koutsampelas

Theodorou, M., Kantaris, M., & Koutsampelas, C. (2018). Inequalities in health care – Cyprus
(European Social Policy Network (ESPN)). Brussels: European Commission.
Trimikliniotis, N., & Demetriou, C. (2011). Labour integration of migrant workers in Cyprus: A
critical appraisal. In M. Pajnik & G. Campani (Eds.), Precarious migrant labour across Europe
(pp. 73–96). Ljubljana: Mirovni Institut.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 7
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in the Czech Republic

Kristina Koldinská

7.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in the Czech Republic

7.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The modern Czech social security system finds its origins in Taafe’s reforms since
1880s that applied to the whole Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, including the Czech
lands. The Czech social security system is therefore part of the Bismarkian model
of social security, with big emphasis on social insurance. Czechoslovakia, estab-
lished in 1918, adopted the Austro-Hungarian legislation. Already in the 1920s, a
modern unified system of social security was adopted through Act No. 221/1924.
The social insurance of that time included almost all employees in all branches and
through it, social security benefits in case of old-age, invalidity and sickness (includ-
ing maternity) were provided. In 1948, Act No. 99/1948 Coll., on national insurance
was adopted. Inspired by the British Beverigean model, this act was substantially
changed in the 1950s, due to requirements of the communist society. The whole
social security system was centralized and etatized, and the social insurance prin-
ciple was practically abolished. As of beginning of 1990s, Czechoslovakia and from
1993, the Czech Republic, have been undergoing many reforms, including social
security reforms. One of first steps was to rebuild the social insurance system and to

K. Koldinská (*)
Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Faculty of Law, Charles University,
Prague, Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 109

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_7
110 K. Koldinská

establish the health insurance, which did not exist before. In 1995, a modern unified
system of family benefits (state social support) was introduced and the social assis-
tance reform was adopted only in 2006. In 2011, new systems of health care ser-
vices and benefits for people with disabilities were introduced. The Czech Republic
is still waiting for a real pension reform, which is difficult to adopt due to political
tentions.
The subjective right to social security in the Czech Republic is declared in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms1 as a component of the constitutional
system of the country and in international conventions and treaties ratified by the
Czech Republic2 (see also Pichrt and Koldinská 2016). The European Social Charter
adopted in 1961 was ratified by the Czech Republic only in 2000,3 whereas the
European Social Security Code had to wait even longer, being adopted in 2001.4
The European Union (EU) law also represents an integrated part of the Czech legal
system, and so several parts of EU primary law form a source of law regulating
social security issues in the Czech Republic.
The conditions and forms under which citizens may claim their constitutional
right to social security are set out in implementing acts. These acts define individual
forms of social security, including the form of security, its personal and material
scope, the eligibility conditions, levels of benefits and their duration, the sources of
funding, and the benefit procedure and administration.
The social security system in the Czech Republic comprises the pension, sick-
ness and health insurance systems, as well as the national employment policy sys-
tem and the non-contributory social benefits systems - state social support (basically,
family benefits) and social assistance. The health insurance system is financed via
health insurance funds. Other components of the system are financed from the state
budget. Contributions to social insurance systems (pensions and sickness insurance)
are paid by employers, employees and self-employed persons. These are income of
the state budget.
The health insurance, pension insurance and national employment policy system
are mandatory for every economically active individual. Some groups are consid-
ered insured without having to pay any premiums (students, women on maternity
leave, etc.). The pension system covers old-age, invalidity, and survivors pensions,
being managed by the Czech Social Security Administration. The calculation of
benefits is based on solidarity of insures and amount of contributions. Solidarity
however prevails. The sickness insurance scheme is obligatory for employees and
voluntary for self-employed. It covers sickness benefits, financial aid for maternity
and compensatory allowance for pregnancy and maternity, paternity benefits, care
benefits and long-term care benefits. The health insurance is compulsory for anyone

1
Promulgated by Resolution of the Presidium of the Czech National Council No. 2/1993 Coll.
2
In particular, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, promulgated
under No. 120/1976 Coll., and the Conventions of the International Labour Organization No 102
(1952), 128 (1967), 130 (1969), 167 (1988), etc.
3
Published under No. 14/2000, Collection of International Treaties.
4
No. 90/2001, Collection of International Treaties.
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 111

who resides permanently or is working for an employer based in the Czech Republic.
EU citizens who are employed or self-employed in the Czech Republic are also
covered. For certain categories (children up to 26 years old with no financial
resources, pensioners, recipients of parental allowances, women on maternity leave,
jobseekers, etc.), the insurance premiums are paid by the state.
The employment policy system provides earnings-related benefits, although, de
facto, this is still a non-contributory system. There is a small part of social insurance
contributions dedicated to state employment policy, although unemployment bene-
fits are not dependent on this amount.
The state social support system is a non-contributory system financed from the
state budget and administered by the assigned state bodies. By means of the social
support system, the state contributes in particular to families with dependent chil-
dren that are unable to provide for themselves. The tax-financed social assistance
benefits include benefits provided to persons with disabilities and the system of
assistance in material need. The later targets people with insufficient income, thus
trying to ensure the basic needs for living and housing. The social insurance system
is financed by contributions from employees and employers. The healthcare system
is funded by contributions and taxation (insurees insured by the State), whereas
family benefits and social assistance are financed from the state budget through
general taxation (Koldinská and Lang 2017; Koldinská and Tröster 2018).

7.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

As Blahoutová (2013) argues, Czech lands have historically been characterised as

emigration country, whose inhabitants were attracted to other parts of Europe and of
the world by promising economic opportunities. The picture of migration inflows
and outflows has rapidly changed after 1989 with the democratisation process of the
country.
The number of foreigners residing in the country has been steadily increasing.
According to the latest statistical data from the Czech Statistical Office,5 there were
524,142 foreigners residing in the Czech Republic in 2017, out of which 219,708
were EU citizens. Each year, approximately 45,000 people come to the Czech
Republic, whereas approximately 18,000 individuals emigrate from the country.
Foreigners represent not even 5% of the overall Czech population, which makes the
Czech society one of most homogeneous in Europe. This might be one of the most
important reasons for the generally closed and hostile attitude of the Czech popula-
tion towards foreigners.
Regarding intra-EU migrants, the largest groups of foreigners residing in the
Czech Republic originate from Slovakia (almost 112,000 individuals), followed by

5
Czech Statistical Office (2018). Foreigners in the Czech Republic. Available at: https://www.czso.
cz/documents/10180/61196236/29002718.pdf/571c5d12-3744-4d32-a8e2-e1a0f3f30e28?
version=1.2. Accessed 3 May 2019.
112 K. Koldinská

Germany (21,000) and Poland (20,000). The most numerous groups of third-­country
nationals come from Ukraine (117,000), followed by Vietnam (60,000) and Russia
(36,000). The high numbers from the above-mentioned countries can be explained
by historical determination (collaboration of socialist Czechoslovakia of that time
with Vietnam since 1970s) and cultural and language proximity (Ukraine, but also
Russia to a certain extent).
As for non-resident nationals, around 115,000 Czech citizens live and work in
other EU Member States, the most popular countries of destination being the United
Kingdom (UK), Germany and Austria. In general, the Czech Republic is not a very
much migratory nation.
The crucial legal norm regulating the entry and stay of migrants in the Czech
Republic is the Aliens Act (Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Foreign
Nationals in the Territory of the Czech Republic). This Act regulates the conditions
of entry of foreigners in the Czech Republic and their departure from the country.
Generally speaking, the Czech Republic has a quite restrictive migration policy.6
Especially for third-country nationals, it is crucial to have a long-term residence
permit in order to access social benefits. According to Sec. 42 of the Act No.
326/1999 Coll., an application for a long-term residence permit may be filed by a
foreign resident who holds a visa for over 90 days and intends to stay temporarily
for more than one year in the Czech Republic with the same purpose of residence.
The Foreigners Act envisages several sitations in which the long-term residence
permit can be claimed, including family reunification (Sec. 42a), studies (Sec. 42d),
investment (sec. 42n) or research (Sec. 42f).
Foreigners’ employment in the Czech Republic is regulated especially by Act
No. 435/2004 Coll., on employment and Act No. 262/2006 Coll., Labour Code (see
also Tomšej 2019). EU citizens have the right to free movement and therefore need
only to register with the foreign police. Third-country nationals can get the employee
card or a blue card. The employee card was introduced in 2014 as a new type of
long-term residence permit for foreigners residing for more than three months in the
Czech Republic for the purpose of employment. In most cases, it already includes
both the residence permit and the work permit in the Czech Republic. The employee
card is most often issued for the duration of the employment relationship, but for a
maximum of two years, with the possibility of repeated renewal. It is possible to
apply for an employee card only for a job registered in the central register of job
vacancies that can be occupied by an employee card holder - these are jobs that are
primarily offered to Czech citizens. The employee card is always linked to the spe-
cific job position for which it was issued.
Highly qualified third-country nationals who are looking for a job can apply for
work in the Czech Republic with a blue card that is issued only for jobs requiring

6
See e.g. the whole debate of Vyszegrad countries with the EU on migration quotas. On Czech
migration policy, see e.g. Janda, J. Summary of the discussion on Czech immigration and integra-
tion policy in European context. Available at: https://evropskehodnoty.cz/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/backgroundpaper-Shrnut%C3%AD-diskuze-o-migraci-v-%C4%8CR-v-
evropsk%C3%A9m-kontextu-.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2019.
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 113

high qualifications. As in the case of the employee card, the blue card can be
requested at a locally accessible embassy of the Czech Republic or at the Czech
Ministry of the Interior.

7.2 Migration and Social Protection in the Czech Republic

The Czech social protection system is quite open to individuals in situation of inter-
national mobility, especially mobile EU citizens. The EU coordination rules are
correctly applied and, in general, there is no problem for non-national EU citizens
to access the Czech social protection system under the same conditions as resident
nationals or for Czech citizens to keep their social rights if they decide to move to
another EU Member State.
The situation is slightly different for third-country nationals. The Czech social
protection system is open to non-EU foreigners who permanently reside in the
Czech Republic or work for an employer based in this country. Third-country
nationals who do not hold the status of permanent or long-term residents are gener-
ally excluded from the social protection system. Gainful activity is decisive for
participation in social insurance systems, especially for the sickness and pension
insurances. Health care insurance requires either permanent residence or a gainful
activity. Non-contributory systems generally require permanent residence.
Possibilities to export benefits abroad, or aggregate periods of insurance in the
Czech Republic, vary depending on the bilateral social security agreements signed
with third countries.

7.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment benefits are regulated by Act No. 435/2004 Coll. on employment.

Unemployment benefits are calculated based on past earnings, with some ceiling. If
there were not taxable earnings prior to unemployment, a theoretical previous earn-
ing (settled by the law and modified according to the economic development)
applies. There is only one scheme, and even if within the social insurance contribu-
tions, a small part is called “contribution to state employment policy”, this is not a
social insurance contribution as such.
According to Sec. 3 of the Employment Act, “a citizen of another Member State
of the European Union and his family member have the same legal status in the legal
relations regulated by this Act as a citizen of the Czech Republic. Family members
of a citizen of the Czech Republic who are not nationals of the Czech Republic or
of any other Member State of the European Union shall have the same legal status
as a citizen of the Czech Republic.” Sec. 25 also stipulates that “a person seeking
employment may be only a natural person who has his/her residence in the Czech
114 K. Koldinská

Republic”. Employment services are provided to people who reside in the Czech
Republic, regardless of their nationality.
Unemployment benefits are payable for up to five months (eight months for
those aged 50–55, 11 months for those over 55 years old). All Czech nationals and
EU citizens are eligible for this benefit, as long as they are not working or studying;
register as jobseekers with the Regional Labour Office and are not eligible for old-­
age benefits; and have 12 months of basic pension insurance in the past two years.
Jobseekers who fail to comply with certain conditions (mainly cooperation with the
Regional Labour Office) are suspended from the Labour Office register and must
return all benefits that were wrongly paid. They may register again after six months.
EU nationals have access to unemployment benefits under same conditions as
resident citizens. Non-EU nationals have access to the system only upon a decision
of the Labour Office, which authorises them to seek work in the Czech Republic.
This authorisation is based on the possibility to reside legally in the Czech Republic.
According to Sec. 89 of the Employment Act, a foreigner may be recruited and
employed if he/she holds a valid employee card, an employee transfer card or a blue
card, or a valid work permit issued by the Regional Labour Office and a valid resi-
dence permit in the Czech Republic. Non-EU foreigners shall request the work
permit in writing to the Regional Labour Office prior to their arrival in the Czech
Republic. The request can be submitted by foreigners themselves, their employers
in the Czech Republic, or through the person with whom foreigners concluded their
respective contracts. Nationals residing abroad in EU countries can access unem-
ployment benefits from the Czech Republic, if conditions settled by EU coordina-
tion rules are met. Those receiving unemployment benefits from the Czech Republic
can temporarily leave the country in search for a job abroad. However, moving
abroad on a permanent basis leads to the loss of unemployment benefits, except for
nationals who move to another EU Member State who can benefit from a limited
export of unemployment benefits for a period of three months.

7.2.2 Health Care

All permanent residents, employees of companies registered in the Czech Republic

and self-employed persons who are subject to the Czech law are compulsorily
insured and eligible for public healthcare (Sec. 2 of Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on health
insurance). Foreigners who do not meet these conditions can access health care only
via private insurances. This is particularly problematic for non-EU foreigners as the
requirements of permanent residence or employment in the Czech Republic are
strict.7 Nationals residing abroad can access health benefits in kind from the Czech
Republic if conditions settled by coordination rules are met.

7
Recently, a case has been brought before the Constitutional Court concerning a citizen of a non-
EU country who lived in the Czech Republic for a long time, was employed and paid health insur-
ance contributions. After having spent several years in the Czech Republic, the non-EU foreigner
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 115

Insured persons are entitled to free choice of a primary healthcare physician who
has a contract with his/her insurance company. There are no restrictions on the
patient’s choice of the healthcare provider. Patients have direct access to health care,
except for non-urgent treatments covered by the public health insurance. In this
case, the provider must have a contract with the health insurance company of the
person concerned. There is free choice of contracted hospitals after referral by a
primary doctor or a specialist.
Sickness insurance is part of the compulsory social insurance scheme for employ-
ees whose income from gainful activity is taxable in the Czech Republic (Act No.
187/2006 Coll., on sickness insurance). This part of the insurance scheme is volun-
tary for self-employed. Sickness benefits are paid subject to the claimant’s inability
to work as certified by a doctor (from the 4th to the 21st day, a wage compensation
is paid by the employers, whereas the benefit is paid from the 22nd day of illness).
There is no requirement of a qualifying period of work or residence in the country.
To qualify for the benefit, self-employed persons who are insured voluntarily and
have selected the amount of the premiums paid for sickness insurance, must have
been participating in a sickness insurance scheme for a minimum of three months
before the temporary inability to work arose.
Since 2018, two new sickness benefits have been introduced – the paternity ben-
efit8 and the long-term care benefit.9 The paternity benefit is granted to a father or
husband of the mother of a child, if he takes care after the child and mother for one
week during the first six weeks after birth. The long-term care benefit is granted for
maximum three months as a compensation of loss of income to a relative of a person
in need of care after hospitalisation.
Sickness benefits are granted per calendar day, for a maximum of 380 days from
the beginning of the inability to work. To apply for the sickness benefit, claimants
need to submit a form certified by a doctor from the first day of illness. Employees
whose employment contract has ended but who are still in the “protection period”
have the right to receive sickness benefits. The protection period lasts seven days
from the day when employment ended. For people employed for a shorter period
than their last period of employment, the protection period lasts only for the number
of days actually worked. This applies also to people who leave the Czech Republic,
if the Czech Republic remains their competent state according to EU coordination
rules. Nationals abroad can claim sickness benefits from the Czech Republic if they

applied for a permanent residence, but she lost her job before her authorisation for permanent resi-
dence was issued. During that period, she delivered a baby in a Czech hospital, but had to cover all
costs as in that moment she was not insured (she was not employed anymore and did not obtain the
permanent residence permit yet). The Constitutional Court ruled that the legislation in this case has
no other interpretation and that she was not covered by the health insurance in the moment of
delivery – see Pl. ÚS 2/15.
8
Act No. 148/2017 Coll., amending the Act No. 187/2017 Coll., on sickness insurance. The amend-
ment entered into force as of 1 February 2018.
9
Act No. 310/2017 Coll., amending the Act No. 187/2017 Coll., on sickness insurance. The amend-
ment entered into force as of 1.6.2018.
116 K. Koldinská

meet the conditions for export of benefits settled by the EU coordination rules or
bilateral agreements. EU and non-EU foreign residents can access sickness benefits
in cash from the Czech Republic under exactly the same eligibility conditions as
those applied for national residents.
Invalidity benefits are part of the pension insurance (Act No. 155/1995 Coll., on
pensions). Access to the system is guaranteed to all employed or self-employed
persons who are tax-residents in the Czech Republic. This condition, which is simi-
lar to the one for the sickness insurance, does not dependent on residence or citizen-
ship. However, to become tax-resident, one must have the possibility to be legally
employed/self-employed in the Czech Republic. Three degrees of invalidity are rec-
ognised. The third degree means that the ability to perform any economic activity is
reduced by at least 70%. For the second degree, the ability to perform any economic
activity is reduced by 50–69%, and by 35–49% for first-degree invalidity. Coverage
is granted until the person reaches 65 years old. When a disabled person reaches
retirement age, he/she can apply for old-age pension, which will be paid if its
amount is higher. Average earnings and the period of insurance determine the
amount of the invalidity pension. This pension has two components: a basic amount
per month, to which is added a percentage amount related to earnings, and calcu-
lated from the personal assessment base and the number of years of insurance. The
personal assessment base is based on the average gross earnings over the years
preceding the occurrence of invalidity. The formula varies according to the type of
pension. The invalidity pension from the Czech Republic can be accessed by nation-
als residing abroad in EU or non-EU countries if the conditions for exportability
settled by the EU coordination rules or bilateral agreements are met.

7.2.3 Pensions

Access to the Czech pension system is guaranteed to all employed and self-employed
persons (either national citizens or foreign residents) who are paying taxes in the
Czech Republic based on their gainful activity. The system is based on a compul-
sory social insurance scheme financed by contributions from employers and
employees and providing earnings-related benefits according to the length of insur-
ance. Participation is mandatory for employees, assimilated groups (unemployed,
people caring for children/the disabled, people in military service, etc.), and the
self-employed. The Pension Insurance Act lists those required to join the pension
insurance scheme. Most people become members in the insurance scheme by law,
without having to sign up. There is no public non-contributory pension scheme in
the Czech Republic. Self-employed individuals must inform the Social Security
Administration for the district in which they reside permanently (or, if they do not
have a permanent residence in the Czech Republic, the Social Security Administration
for the district where they are self-employed) that they have (re)commenced self-­
employment or cooperation in the self-employment of another person, or that they
have terminated their self-employment.
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 117

There is also a possibility of voluntary insurance for certain groups, such as indi-
viduals older than 18 years who enacted a gainful activity abroad, worked in the
Czech Republic for a foreign employer based in a country whith which there is no
bilateral social security agreement in place – for maximum two years, spouses or
registered partners of a civil servant sent abroad, if they followed him/her. In case of
a gainful activity abroad, premiums may be paid retrospectively for a period equiva-
lent to up to two years before the application to join the insurance scheme was
submitted. Up to ten years of pension insurance may be acquired in this way.
Applications are submitted to the Social Security Administration for the district
where the applicant resides permanently.
The retirement age in the Czech Republic is currently being prolonged, to reach
65 years as of 2036. The qualifying period of contribution to access a contributory
pension is 35 years. There are some credited periods taken into account (maximum
three years of unemployment, taking care after a child, etc.). Foreigners generally
have to comply with the same regulations as nationals for accessing a pension.
Nationals residing abroad in EU and non-EU countries can access the old-age pen-
sion from the Czech Republic if the EU coordination rules or bilateral agreement
envisage the export of these benefits and conditions are met.

7.2.4 Family Benefits

In addition to pre-natal and post-natal care, including free confinement and hospital
care, the social security system offers cash benefits for maternity and paternity.
To receive the maternity benefit, employees must have contributed to the sick-
ness insurance fund for at least 270 calendar days within the two years preceding
the birth. Self-employed persons must have paid the premiums for sickness insur-
ance and, for at least 180 days, the contributions to the self-employed individuals’
sickness insurance scheme during the year preceding the birth. The maternity com-
pensation benefit is granted to pregnant employees or to mothers until the ninth
month after birth, if they have been transferred to a position with lower earnings
because of the pregnancy; or self-employed and women whose employment came
to an end while they were pregnant, the protection period is always six months. EU
and non-EU foreigners must meet the same eligibility conditions as resident nation-
als for accessing maternity benefits from the Czech Republic. Non-resident nation-
als can claim these benefits from the Czech Republic only if they reside in another
EU Member State or in third countries with which there is a bilateral agreement in
place covering access to family benefits.
According to the Sickness Insurance Act, the paternity benefit is available for
fathers with sickness insurance. Fathers are entitled to up to 70% of their salary for
seven calendar days of leave, which can be taken at any time in the six weeks fol-
lowing the childbirth.
Non-contributory family benefits (child allowance, parental allowance, and the
birth grant) are regulated by Act No. 117/1995 Coll., on state social support. Sec. 3
118 K. Koldinská

of this Act stipulates that state social support benefits are subject only to a natural
person if he/she (and dependents) are registered in the Czech Republic for perma-
nent residence, if they are Czech nationals or have permanent residence in the Czech
Republic if they are foreigners (the condition is that they have the domicile in the
Czech Republic). These family benefits can be provided also when the claimant and
his/her family are foreigners who find themselves in specific different situations
such as: reported to the Czech Republic for residence or born in the Czech Republic
and registered in this country for residence; minors entrusted in the Czech Republic
to care which substitute parental or institutional care; those holding a permanent/
long-term residence permit; those granted supplementary protection; foreigners
holding an employee card; those working in the Czech Republic or who have
worked in the Czech Republic for at least six months and are registered as job seek-
ers if they have been granted a long-term residence permit in the Czech Republic;
or persons whose entitlement arises from directly applicable EU legislation or self-
employed persons. In all these situations, foreigners must have their domicile in the
Czech Republic in order to access these benefits.
However, the State Social Support Act stipulates that the child and parental
allowances shall be provided even if claimants do not have permanent residence in
the Czech Republic if they are dependent children of foreigners who have been
issued for at least nine months the card of an internally transferred employee or a
card of an internally transferred employee of another EU Member State and are
transferred to a business corporation or branch plant based in the Czech Republic,
provided that these dependent children and their jointly assessed persons have the
domicile in the Czech Republic.
The child allowance is a universal scheme financed by general taxation, provid-
ing means-tested, income-related benefits to all residents whose children reside in
the Czech Republic. All children who are residents are eligible for this allowance,
the benefit is however exportable. The benefit may be paid until compulsory educa-
tion is completed and entitlement for the child allowance is limited to families with
an income under 2.7 times the family’s living minimum.
The parental allowance aims to assist parents who provide full-time and regular
care for their children. This is a universal system financed by general taxation and
provides a flat-rate benefit to persons who are subject to the Czech law or reside in
the Czech Republic.10 Parental benefits are granted until the child is 4 years old. EU
and non-EU foreign residents can access these benefits under the same conditions
as those applied for national residents. The benefits are exportable only to other EU
Member States. Nationals residing in non-EU countries are thus excluded from
accessing parental benefits from the Czech Republic.
Family benefits are administered by the Labour Office, its regional offices, and
their contact points.

10
There are also other types of family related benefits such as the birth grant (one-off benefit for
low-income families to help them cover costs related to the birth of their first child). Housing
allowances and the death grant are also regulated by this act as family benefits.
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 119

7.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Guaranteed minimum resources are provided within the social assistance system
regulated by Act No. 111/2006 Coll., on aid in material need and Act No. 110/2006
Coll., on minimum subsistence. The living allowance and the supplement for hous-
ing11 are granted to: residents who are registered for or have the permanent resi-
dence in the Czech Republic; residents granted asylum or supplementary protection;
foreigners without a permanent residence in the Czech Republic, but whose rights
are guaranteed by an international treaty; EU nationals with more than three months
of residence (and their family members) if they do not qualify for social benefits
(excluding unemployment benefits) from the directly applicable EU legislation in
the Czech Republic; foreigners who were previously issued a long-term residence
permit in another EU country and later moved to the Czech Republic and their fam-
ily members, if they have been granted a long-term residence permit in the Czech
Republic and they reside in the territory of the Czech Republic.
Act No. 111/2006 Coll. provides also for a legal definition of residence/domicile
as follows: “A person is domiciled in the Czech Republic, especially if he or she is
long-term resident, performs a gainful activity there, lives here with his or her fam-
ily, fulfills compulsory school attendance or is constantly preparing for future pro-
fession, or there are other important reasons, activities, the interconnection of which
shows the connection of this person with the Czech Republic”. Due to this link
between the guaranteed minimum resources and residence/domicile in the Czech
Republic, the benefit is not exportable and national citizens residing abroad are not
eligible to claim it under the Czech law.
Social assistance is organised centrally, but benefits are paid by the regional
Labour Offices and their contact points. The benefit is means-tested and the willing-
ness to work is the basic condition for being considered in material need. Unless
they are in employment or a similar relationship, social assistance recipients must
register with the Labour Office as jobseekers, actively search for a job, accept any
employment (even short-term or less paid), and participate in active employment
policy programmes, public works, public service, etc. Certain persons are excluded
from work activities due to age, health status or family situation. Moreover, social
work with individuals or families precedes the granting of benefits and social inves-
tigations and home visits are an integral part of the evaluation. The guaranteed mini-
mum resources can be granted for an unlimited duration, until the end of need.
Another important aspect regarding the link between migration and access to
social benefits in the Czech Republic is related to the bilateral social security agree-
ments signed with third countries. There are 19 such agreements currently in place
and all of them are proportional (they offer access to social benefits to foreigners
residing in the country and Czech citizens residing in the contracting state).
However, not all bilateral agreements cover all the social security areas discussed
here. A wide material scope is covered by the agreements with Montenegro, Israel,

11
A so-called extraordinary immediate assistance can also be provided to individuals residing in
the Czech Republic, although the residence authorisation is not investigated in this case.
120 K. Koldinská

Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Tunisia and Ukraine. These agreements cover mater-
nity, sickness benefits, pensions, accident benefits, family benefits and birth grants.
However, other agreements cover only pensions, such as the ones signed with the
United States, Québec, Moldova, Korea, Canada, Japan, India, Chile or Australia.
As explained above, the three most important non-EU countries of origin of foreign-
ers residing in the Czech Republic are Ukraine, Vietnam and Russia. With Ukraine
and Russia, there are bilateral agreements (No. 29/2003 Coll.int.agr. with Ukraine
and No. 57/2014 Coll. int.agr. with Russia) and both of them have a wide material
scope. There is no bilateral agreement with Vietnam. On the other hand, the United
States, Canada and Australia are most important countries of destination for Czech
nationals residing abroad. The Czech Republic has signed bilateral agreements with
all three countries (No. 85/2008 Coll.int.agr. with the United States, No. 1/2003
Coll.int.agr. with Canada and No. 58/2011 Coll.int.agr. with Australia) and all three
agreements cover only pensions.12

7.3 Conclusions

Generally speaking, the Czech social security system is quite open to EU nationals,
due to EU coordination rules. Third-country nationals have access to social security
in the Czech Republic especially if they work in the country or have permanent resi-
dence. On the other hand, Czech nationals can usually quite easily export their
benefits to other countries, especially to EU countries and to non-EU states with
which the Czech Republic has bilateral agreements. In case there is no bilateral
agreement with a non-EU country, migrant workers are not covered (like in case of
Vietnam – see above).
Currently, there are no serious debates or policy proposals about changing the
access of foreign residents or non-resident nationals to the Czech social security
system. In the case of non-EU citizens, this might be due to the fact that the Czech
Republic welcomes only few refugees. Compared to other countries, the non-EU
population is not a sizeable one in the Czech Republic, and there are only few
nationals of Ukraine, Vietnam and Russia. What is however quite alarming is the
fact that there is no bilateral agreement with Vietnam, even if already second and
third generations of migrants originating from Vietnam currently reside in the Czech
Republic. Many of them however succeeded to obtain the Czech nationality. In
general, there is quite some hostility against foreigners from non-EU countries,
especially against people from Arabic countries13 (although this is not a large group
in demographic terms); but this has not been translated so far into serious societal or
political debates regarding their access to social benefits.

12
The list of bilateral agreements is available at: https://www.cssz.cz/cz/mezinarodni-smlouvy/
smlouvy-uzavrene-cr/prehled-smluv.htm. Accessed 3 May 2019.
13
See, for instance, the public opinion survey: https://www.stem.cz/tolerance-ceskych-obcanu-k-
cizincum/. Accessed 20 February 2019.
7 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Czech Republic 121

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Blahoutová, T. (2013). An overview of the migration policies and trends – Czech Republic.
https://migrationonline.cz/en/an-overview-of-the-migration-policies-and-trends. Accessed 20
Feb 2019.
Koldinská, K., & Tröster, P. (2018). Právo sociálního zabezpečení. Praha: C.H. Beck.
Koldinská, K., & Lang, R. (2017). International encyclopaedia of laws: Social security law. Suppl.
109. Czech Republic. In W. Van Eeckhoutte (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of laws: Social
security law (1. vyd). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Pichrt, J., & Koldinská, K. (2016). Czech Republic. In ILO the right to social security in the
European constitutions. Geneva: ILO.
Tomšej, J. (Ed.). (2019). Zaměstnávání cizinců v České Republice [Employment of foreigners in
the Czech Republic]. Praha: Wolters Kluwer.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 8
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Denmark

Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen

8.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Denmark

8.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The Danish welfare state is together with its Nordic counterparts often presented as
distinct. The model has traditionally been characterised as universalist, de-­
commodified, residence-based, non-contributory and relatively generous
(Cornelissen 1997; Cox 2004; Nannestad 2004). Firstly, the Danish welfare state is
described as universalist, promoting equality of status among its citizens. In such
system, the needy is not distinguished from the non-needy. Welfare universalism
benefits the middle class as much as the poor, as benefits are available to all citizens.
Social policies are not targeted to low income groups as in the residual welfare state,
nor they depend on labour market participation as in the insurance-based welfare
state (Korpi and Palme 1998).
Secondly, according to Esping-Andersen’s famous welfare worlds, a key feature
of the model is the high degree of ‘de-commodified’ welfare rights (Esping-­
Andersen 1990). A de-commodified welfare state will thus grant social rights on the
basis of citizenship rather than on the basis of market performance, i.e. attachment
to the labour market. Thirdly, social rights are granted based on residence
(Cornelissen 1997, 32). A person is entitled to welfare because s/he has legal resi-
dence, and not qua social contributions or citizenship. Fourthly, benefits have tradi-
tionally been tax-financed and not based on contributions. Yet, tax payment is not a

D. S. Martinsen (*)
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 123

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_8
124 D. S. Martinsen

Table 8.1 Socio-economic heterogeneity in the European Union (2015)

Member State GDP per capita in Social protection Social contributions
PPS expenditure (as % of total social
(EU-27 = 100) (in % of GDP) protection receipts)
Belgium 118 29,1 60,3
Bulgaria 47 17,3 50,8
Czech Republic 87 18,6 71,6
Denmark 126 31,1 18,1
Germany 124 28 64,7
Estonia 75 16,2 79,4
Ireland 176 15,6 39,2
Greece 68 26,1 54,7
Spain 89 24,3 54,3
France 106 32 61,1
Italy 96 28,9 49,5
Cyprus 81 21,5 46,1
Latvia 64 14,6 58,1
Lithuania 74 14,8 72,8
Luxembourg 268 21,6 50,4
Hungary 68 19,9 63,6
Malta 92 17,3 39,8
Netherlands 128 28,4 62,3
Austria 127 29,4 62,5
Poland 68 18,7 62,7
Portugal 76 24,8 45,1
Romania 57 14,3 45,1
Slovenia 82 23,5 66,4
Slovakia 77 17,8 67,9
Finland 109 31,1 47,7
Sweden 123 28,7 47,2
United Kingdom 108 28,6 40,1
Source: Martinsen and Werner (2018), based on data compiled from the Eurostat database
(data files prc_ppp_ind, une_rt_a, spr_exp_sum and spr_rec_sumt). Data for Poland in col-
umns 2 and 3 are from 2014, due to unavailability of data for 2015

direct requirement to receive a specific social benefit. Finally, the Danish welfare
model has also been characterised by relatively generous benefits and with exten-
sive welfare services (Lindbom 2001).
These characteristics still apply to the Danish welfare state, when compared to
its European counterparts. As Table 8.1 demonstrates, among the European Union
(EU) Member States, Denmark has the highest share of non-contributory benefits
and the second highest social protection expenditure as a percentage of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), only surpassed by France (Martinsen and Werner 2018).
However, it is also important to note that the model has undergone considerable
change (Kvist and Greve 2011). During the 1990s, the Danish pension system
developed collective and individual private schemes, which supplement the public
pension. Also, wage payment during parental leave depends on which collective
agreement one is covered by or the individual employer. In addition, some employ-
ers grant their employees private healthcare insurance. Thus, a more multi-tiered
welfare state has developed in Denmark (Kvist and Greve 2011), where labour
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 125

market attachment has come to matter more for the degree and quality of welfare
protection.
Due to its key characteristics, the Danish welfare state has sometimes been
argued as ‘unfit’ for migration and EU rules on free movement, because entitlement
to welfare does not depend on contribution (Martinsen 2005). Foreigners may thus
access the welfare state without necessarily having contributed to it. Before
Denmark became member of the European Community (EC), welfare benefits were
subject to Danish nationality and guarded by a principle of territoriality. For exam-
ple, the Danish public pension was granted to all Danish citizens who had resided at
least one year in Denmark. As a result of Danish EC membership in 1973, the
Danish citizenship clause was waived, but the one year residence rule was changed
into a fractional pension rule where pension would be calculated on basis of years
of residence in Denmark. A full pension came to require 40 years of residence
(Rasmussen 2004).1 Recently, new residence clauses have been adopted for mini-
mum benefits, unemployment benefits and for family benefits, as will be presented
below. Furthermore, a previous period of residence is required to receive study
grants. Foreigners will have to have resided five years in Denmark to qualify for
study grants. This applies both for EU and non-EU citizens, but is waived for EU
workers and persons covered by EU Regulation 883/2004.2 Danes living abroad will
have to have resided two out of the last 10 ten years in Denmark to be entitled to
study grants.

8.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Over the past 15 years, Denmark has been the object of international attention and
criticism due to its increasingly restrictive immigration policies limiting immigrants
and refugees’ access to the country and its social benefits. With refusals of accept-
ing the United Nations (UN) quota refugees, controversial bills aimed at impound-
ing the belongings of refugees, and trans-national advertisements signalling the
country’s cuts in the social benefits of refugees, Denmark’s relationship with immi-
gration became increasingly politically controversial. The 2011 national election
marked a turn in the history of Danish immigration policy, as immigration occupied
an unprecedented central topic on the political agenda and marked the beginning of
a much more restrictive approach and negative politicisation of immigrants and
refugees.
Until the latter half of the twentieth century, Denmark was a culturally homoge-
neous country witness to only small inflows of immigrants arriving mainly from
other Scandinavian countries. However, with economic growth from the mid-1960s,

1
See the amendment on the Danish law on social pension no. 257 and no. 258 of 7 June 1972.
2
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the coordination of social security systems.
126 D. S. Martinsen

the Danish industry’s demands for foreign labour grew. This marked the beginning
of Denmark’s short history of non-European labour immigration. The arrival of the
so-called ‘guest workers’ from countries such as Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and
Yugoslavia gave rise to unparalleled and diversified inflows of migrants (Nielsen
2012). Although generally favoured by the employers, the guest workers were met
with wider scepticism by trade unions such as the Danish Confederation of Trade
Unions (LO) which feared that migration could lead to unemployment and cultural
adaptation problems (Jønsson and Petersen 2012). The concerns of the trade unions
became particularly articulated during the oil crisis and overall economic decline of
the 1970s, which eventually led the Government and the social partners to decide on
a total stop for labour immigration in 1973 (Martens and Stenild 2009). This deci-
sion also marked the end of the labour immigration phase in Denmark, which has
since then primarily taken place within the context of the European Union and the
inter-Nordic labour market (Jønsson and Petersen 2012). From now on, immigra-
tion from third countries became more associated with refugees.
Until the mid-1980s, the number of refugees in Denmark was limited, consisting
mainly of refugees from Hungary, Uganda, Chile, and Vietnam (Ibid.). With the
Aliens Act of 1983, the rights of refugees were improved as they were now allowed
to stay in the country while their asylum applications were being handled. At the
same time, the requirements and conditions for gaining residence and family reuni-
fication were simplified. Due to its relatively few requirements for obtaining the
refugee status, the act became known for its liberal and humanitarian outlook
(Mikkelsen 2008). In the immediate years after its entry into force, thousands of
refugees fleeing from conflict and war in Iran, Iraq, and Palestine arrived in
Denmark. This development continued in the 1990s, with refugees arriving from
Somalia and the former republic of Yugoslavia.
Figure 8.1 shows the total numbers of immigrants from EU and non-EU coun-
tries in the period of 1980–2018. Since 1980, immigration from non-EU countries
has exceeded immigration from the EU. In 1980, 67,756 EU and 66,949 non-EU
immigrants stayed in Denmark. In 2018, the ratio was 207,899 EU immigrants to
383,779 non-EU immigrants. As observed in the figure, this development began
around 1985 and has increased since. In 2018, immigrants in Denmark came pri-
marily from Poland (40,601 persons), Syria (35,441 persons) and Turkey (32,924
persons).3
The increasing cultural heterogeneity of the population in Denmark, as well as
immigration’s impact on the social expenditures of the welfare state, became an
important issue on the political agenda during the 1990s. The debates of the 1990s
revolved mainly around immigrants on social welfare, their missing participation on
the labour market as a consequence of the crisis in the 1970s and the vulnerabilities
of refugees, and their potential non-integration into Danish society and the labour
market (Jønsson 2018). The growing political concern led to several adjustments of
the Aliens Act in the 1990s, which restricted family reunification and asylum

3
Statistics Denmark (2018) “Indvandrere i Danmark 2018”.
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 127

450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
EU-28
200000
Non-EU
150000
100000
50000
0

Fig. 8.1 Total number of immigrants from EU and non-EU countries in Denmark (1980–2018)
(Source: Statistics Denmark. Population 1st of January by sex, age, ancestry, country of origin and
citizenship, 1980–2019. Found at www.statistikbanken.dk (accessed on 10 March 2019))

permits. The later adoption of the Integration Act of 1998, the first law on immigra-
tion in the country’s history, saw further restrictions and cuts in the rights of refu-
gees. The act proposed three ways to solve the issue of participation: a three-year
introduction program of Danish language lessons, education, and employment to all
refugees; a geographical distribution of refugee residences; and a special integration
allowance with benefit set remarkably lower than social assistance. The latter
became particularly controversial as special legislation for immigrants conflicted
with the ideals of the universalist welfare model.
Since the Integration Act of 1998, the Danish immigration policy has been influ-
enced by the growing political power of the Danish People’s Party and their demands
for a stricter course on immigration. This has led to several modifications of the
Alien Act in terms of further limitations to gaining residence and asylum, family
reunification, and equal treatment in relation to social benefits. In recent years,
Denmark has made further cuts in social provisions offered to refugees and extended
the periods of time necessary for achieving residence permits. The transformations
from a liberal to a more restrictive immigration policy appears to have become the
new norm in Danish politics as more and more parties such as the Social Democrats
have adopted a restrictive stance to the question of immigration. In 2018, 20,909
Danes emigrated from Denmark. The main countries of destination for Danes emi-
grating in 2018 were Greenland (1941 persons), the United States (US, 1785 per-
sons) and Sweden (1776 persons).4

4
Source Statistics Denmark: www.statistikbanken.dk/UDVAN (last accessed 15 April 2020).
128 D. S. Martinsen

8.2 Migration and Social Protection in Denmark

Immigrants with the right to reside in Denmark have access to the social protection
schemes of the Danish welfare state, i.e. the various cash benefits provided; unem-
ployment benefits, guaranteed minimum benefits and family benefits among other
types of benefits, as well as benefits in kind offered by a large public service sector;
long term care, healthcare, child care, education among other welfare services. The
different eligibility conditions for selected benefits are detailed below.

8.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment benefit in Denmark is a voluntary unemployment insurance scheme

providing earnings-related benefits. The scheme is financed by contributions from
employees and self-employed through membership payment and by the state
through general taxes. There is no special unemployment assistance scheme in
Denmark.
Entitlement to unemployment benefits depends on membership of and contribu-
tions to an unemployment insurance fund for at least one year. The amount paid can
be up to 90% of the member’s previous work income, with a maximum threshold.
Unemployment benefits can be received for a maximum of two years within a three-­
year period. In order to qualify for unemployment benefits, the person must be
registered as job seeker, be available to the employment services and be available
for work. Furthermore, the person must actively seek employment and cooperate
with the employment office to build up an individual action plan.
The Danish law on unemployment has recently changed in December 2018. The
change of law inserted a residence criteria for all beneficiaries (Danes, EU citizens
and non-EU nationals alike), stipulating that one has to have resided seven years out
of the last 12 years in Denmark. In accordance with EU Regulation 883/2004, the
personal scope of the regulation can use the principle of aggregation to fulfill the
residence criteria. Residence periods spend in the EU/EEA are treated as periods
spend in Denmark, but periods outside the EU/EEA does not count into the seven
years residence requirement. Furthermore, the principle of aggregation can be used
to fulfill the one-year requirement of unemployment insurance. This means that an
EU citizen who has been insured against unemployment in another EU state for nine
months, for example, will only need to pay contributions to a Danish social insur-
ance fund for the remaining three months, before being entitled to unemployment
benefits. Denmark, however, has a special clause in Regulation 883/2004, according
to which one will have to have been member of a Danish unemployment insurance
fund at least three months before being able to use the principle of aggregation. The
principle of aggregation, nevertheless, implies that a migrant worker can have more
immediate access to Danish unemployment benefits than the national worker who
stayed within Denmark. However, figures show that very few have aggregated
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 129

periods from other Member States to open up Danish unemployment benefits. In

2017, only 41 EU or EEA citizens had used the principle of aggregation to be enti-
tled to Danish unemployment benefits after fulfilling the three months residence
clause (see the Minister of Employment’s answer to parliamentary question no.
S. 340, 12 December 2018). Furthermore, EU Regulation 883/2004 allows for
exportability of unemployment benefits for up to three months. The EU law thus
waives the Danish residence clause, but only for a limited number of months.
The principle of aggregation and the possibility to export unemployment benefits
does not apply for non-EU foreigners. In terms of exportability, this implies that
non-EU foreigners cannot bring their unemployment benefit with them for up to
three months to look for employment outside Denmark. The bilateral social security
agreements adopted with the first three non-EU countries of destination for Danes
abroad do not cover unemployment benefits. When it comes to bilateral social secu-
rity agreements with the first three main non-EU countries of origin of foreigners
residing in Denmark, these set out that nationals of these countries will be treated
equally with Danish citizens concerning unemployment benefits.

8.2.2 Health Care

Danish healthcare is provided by means of a national health service (NHS) system,

which offers healthcare as benefits-in-kind, tax-financed, largely free of charge and
publicly supplied. The system can be characterised as a decentralised, public, inte-
grated healthcare system in which the responsibility for organising and delivering
services is placed in the hands of the five Danish regions (Martinsen and Vrangbæk
2008). Primary care services are provided by private practitioners, i.e. general prac-
titioners (GPs), but are publicly funded and firmly integrated into regional planning.
General practitioners serve as important gatekeepers in the system, referring patients
to specialised care and hospital care. Treatment is largely provided free of charge,
but co-payments exist, primarily for medicine, dentistry and physiotherapy. All resi-
dents in Denmark are entitled to healthcare, irrespective of nationality. This means
that nationals, EU citizens and non-EU foreigners have the same rights. The Danish
healthcare system is organised by a principle of territoriality. Authorisation to
healthcare treatment abroad is only seldom given (Martinsen and Mayoral Diaz-­
Asensio 2016). Danish citizens residing abroad are not entitled to Danish health-
care. If a Danish citizen residing abroad wants healthcare treatment in Denmark, s/
he will have to pay the full costs and make the necessary arrangements with the
public hospital him/herself.
All employees and self-employed, including helping spouses, are entitled to cash
benefits in case of sickness. Sickness benefits can be received up to 22 weeks. The
requirement is to be unable to work due to sickness. No later than four weeks after
the beginning of the sickness leave, the employer shall call for a meeting to work
out a plan for the return to work. A written declaration from the doctor stating the
possibilities of working can be demanded. The general rule is that one has to reside
130 D. S. Martinsen

and pay taxes in Denmark to be entitled to cash sickness benefits. However, a person
may, in particular circumstances, leave the country without losing the sickness ben-
efit. That is if a stay abroad has been medically advised or similar situations. EU
Regulation 883/2004 allows EU citizens to take their sickness benefits with them to
another EU country. Bilateral agreements with non-EU countries may also stipulate
this right. However, if staying abroad while on cash sickness benefits, the person
will have to meet the same requirements as if staying in Denmark, show up at the
meeting called by the employer to design a recovery plan and hand in a written
declaration from the doctor, if demanded.
Invalidity benefit is a social pension in Denmark. The invalidity benefit is calcu-
lated according to the years of residence in Denmark, in the same way as the public
pension. To be granted a full pension, one has to have resided 40 years in total. If
one has resided less, a share pension is paid, for example 3/40, 7/40, 13/40 and so
on. To open up pension rights, Danes and EU citizens will have to have resided at
least three years in Denmark. If covered by EU Regulation 883/2004, EU citizens
can use the principle of aggregation and qualify after one year of residence. Non-EU
foreigners will have to have resided at least 10 years in Denmark, five years imme-
diately before the pension is payable. This benefit can be exported, also
permanently.
The bilateral social security agreements adopted with the first three non-EU
countries of destination for Danes abroad do not cover healthcare. When it comes to
bilateral social security agreements with the first three main non-EU countries of
origin of foreigners residing in Denmark, these state that nationals of these coun-
tries will be treated equally with Danish citizens concerning healthcare.

8.2.3 Pensions

Denmark has a multi-tiered pension system (Kvist and Greve 2011). The public
pension (folkepension) is the basic, flat-rate, universal pension who all residents or
those who have earned pension rights by means of previous residence are entitled
to. This pension is not means tested. As noted above, before Danish EC membership
in 1973, this pension was granted on the basis of Danish nationality. The EC acquis
made it necessary to change this and instead, the Danish Government managed to
negotiate a 40 years residence clause to be entitled to full public pension. This
means that, as with invalidity benefits (førtidspension) described above, one has to
have resided 40 years in total to be granted a full pension. If one has resided less, a
share pension is paid, for example 3/40, 7/40, 13/40, etc. To open up pension rights,
Danes and EU citizens will have to have resided at least three years in Denmark. If
covered by EU Regulation 883/2004, EU citizens can use the principle of aggrega-
tion and qualify after one year of residence. Non-EU foreigners will have to have
resided at least 10 years in Denmark, five years immediately before the pension is
payable. The old-age pension can be exported to other countries.
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 131

Denmark also has a compulsory social insurance scheme on defined-­contributions

covering employees and recipients of social security, i.e. the ATP scheme. All
employed persons as well as residents on social transfer will pay into the ATP
scheme. For employed persons, the monthly contribution is paid by the employed
and the employer. For residents on social transfer, the contribution is deducted from
the monthly allowance. However, this ATP scheme is a rather minor additional pen-
sion in comparison with the public pension (folkepension).
In addition to these public pensions, many employees have labour market pen-
sions agreed between the social partners and regulated by collective agreements.
Furthermore, individuals set up private pension savings schemes with their bank or
a pension fund. Thus, the pension replacement rates in Denmark differ considerably
between individuals.
The bilateral social security agreements with the first three non-EU destination
countries for Danes abroad cover old-age pension. This pension is also covered by
the bilateral social security agreements with the first three main non-EU countries
of origin of foreigners residing in Denmark.

8.2.4 Family Benefits

Family benefits in Denmark cover parental and child benefits. Concerning parental
benefits, this is a universal protection scheme for employees and self-employed with
earnings-related benefits. Employees will have to have worked at least 13 weeks
before parental leave to be entitled. Self-employed shall have been self-employed at
least six months within the last 12 months to be entitled. Unemployed with unem-
ployment insurance will be entitled to unemployment benefits. Non-insured unem-
ployed will be entitled to social assistance during their leave. Parents get 52 weeks
of paid parental leave in total. The general rule is that the mother has the right to
four weeks of leave directly before the planned birth and then to a further 14 weeks
of leave after birth. The father is entitled to take two weeks of leave during the first
14 weeks after the birth of the child. Then 32 weeks follow where the mother and
father can freely share leave between them. They can choose to be on parental leave
at the same time or in periods one after the other. While on parental leave, the ben-
eficiary does not have to reside in Denmark.
Child benefits are a tax-financed universal scheme covering all residents. Benefits
are granted depending on the age of the child and the income of the family. There
are two types of family benefits; the universal child benefit and the child allowance
(børnetilskud), which is means-tested and granted to residents with extra needs. All
residents with at least six months of residency or employment in Denmark in the
previous 10 years prior to each instalment are entitled to the universal child benefit.
To be eligible for the child allowance, one has to be a national resident or a foreign
resident with one-three years of prior residence in Denmark.
EU and non-EU nationals’ access and exportability of the universal child benefit
has been a quite salient topic in Danish politics and the public debate. When
132 D. S. Martinsen

negotiating the budget act in autumn 2010, the Danish Peoples Party (DPP)
demanded that in order to support the Government’s budget proposal, restrictions
on EU citizens’ right to child benefits should be adopted. The Government thus
initiated a reform process, mandating the executive to find a solution between EU
obligations and domestic politics. At first, DPP required a residence clause of
15 years (Tynell 2014, 215), but the Government noted that this would go against
EU law. In the end, the Danish Parliament adopted a two years residence or work
requirement in Denmark for residents to be entitled to full Danish child benefits.
After half a year, one would be entitled to 25% of the full amount. After one year,
to 50% of the full amount, whereas 1.5 years would grant 75% of the full amount.
The restriction became effective from 1st of January 2012. However, for EU citi-
zens, the residence clause did not continue for long. In July 2012, a German worker
in Denmark complained about his unequal right to Danish child benefits and an EU
pilot case was send to the Commission. The Commission send an opening letter to
the Government, and as from 18th of June 2013, the Ministry of Taxation announced
that Regulation 883/2004’s principle of aggregation now would apply to EU citi-
zens. This means that the periods where an EU citizen has earned rights to child
benefits in another Member State is aggregated to the periods having worked or
resided in Denmark. For non-EU nationals, the two years residence clause, how-
ever, still applies.
The bilateral social security agreements, which have been adopted with the first
three non-EU countries of destination for Danes abroad do not cover family bene-
fits. When it comes to bilateral social security agreements with the first three main
non-EU countries of origin of foreigners residing in Denmark, these state that
nationals of these countries will be treated equally with Danish citizens concerning
family benefits.

8.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Guaranteed minimum resources are tax-financed non-contributory benefits in

Denmark. The benefit is divided into three types: social assistance (kontanthjælp),
educational assistance (uddannelseshjælp) and integration allowance (integration-
sydelse). Social assistance grants a higher amount, whereas educational assistance
and integration allowance are lower amounts. The benefits are means tested and
offered when a person is, due to particular circumstances (e.g. sickness, unemploy-
ment or the like), for a shorter or longer period without sufficient means to meet his/
her requirements or those of his/her family. Personal circumstances are relatively
frequently reassessed. The benefit is granted until the end of need or as long as the
requirements are met.
Nationals and foreigners will have to have resided seven out of the last eight
years in Denmark to be eligible for social assistance and educational allowance
unless they according to EU law are entitled to the benefit. This basically means if
they have worker status according to EU law. If not eligible for social assistance and
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 133

educational allowance, the person will be granted integration allowance, which is a

lower amount. The grant of minimum benefit is subject to acceptance of an appro-
priate offer to participate in an activation measure. Payment of social assistance is
suspended, if the beneficiary or his/her partner refuses without reason to participate
in an activation measure or repeatedly fails to report to a job opportunity in the
framework of the activation.
Concerning EU workers’ right to social assistance, the entitlement and duration
of their benefit is tightly linked to whether or not they retain worker status when
losing their job. The involuntarily unemployed retain the status of worker if: a) they
have worked more than one year and are registered as jobseekers (in this case, the
person has a right to social assistance for more than six months) or; b) they have
worked less than one year and registered as a jobseeker, although in this case, the
status of worker and the right to receive social assistance is retained for no less than
six months. If an EU citizen receives social assistance before having acquired per-
manent residence, this may negatively affect the right to permanent residence.
Bilateral conventions do typically not include minimum guaranteed resources.

8.3 Conclusions

Over time, the Danish immigration policy has underwent considerable changes.
From a focus on labor immigration and securing the rights of refugees, Denmark
has since adopted a much stricter immigration policy, aiming to limit immigrants
and refugees access to the country. At the same time, foreigners’ access to Danish
welfare has been a thorny political issue and considerable change has been
implemented.
Denmark has moved from organizing its welfare state on national citizenship and
territoriality, into organizing it along the lines of residence. These changes occurred
at first when Denmark became member of the EC. Over time, labour market partici-
pation has come to matter more for the social protection provided. Furthermore,
migrants’ access to welfare in Denmark increasingly depend on citizenship and EU
related worker status. Residence clauses have been adopted for guaranteed mini-
mum benefits and family benefits. Eligibility depends on years resided in Denmark,
unless the applicant qualifies as a worker according to EU law and therefore can
aggregate periods of residence from one or several other EU Member States. In
sum, social protection in Denmark has become more multi-tiered and more EU
commodified.
Immigrants with the right to reside in Denmark have access to the social protec-
tion schemes of the Danish welfare state, i.e. the various cash benefits provided;
unemployment benefits, guaranteed minimum benefits and family benefits among
other types of benefits, as well as the benefits in kind offered by a large public ser-
vice sector; long term care, healthcare, child care, education among other welfare
services. The different eligibility conditions for selected benefits have been
detailed above.
134 D. S. Martinsen

The sustainability of the Danish welfare state and migration has been a recurrent
theme in the Danish political debate, in particularly portraying the welfare model as
vulnerable given that there is no direct link between contributions to the welfare
budget via tax and entitlements. In the wake of the 2004 and 2007 EU enlargements,
concerns about ‘welfare tourism’ have been raised across the political spectrum. It
has, however, been demonstrated that EU citizens have had a positive fiscal impact
on the Danish welfare budget over the years (Martinsen and Pons Rotger 2017).
Whereas the debate on ‘welfare tourism’ seems to have eased off, the exportability
of child benefits for EU citizens remains topical. Thus, currently, the Danish
Government works for an indexation of child benefits in relation to Regulation
883/2004.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s 2020 research and innovation programme
(Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of indicators
comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the following
website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.
Research assistance for this chapter from Søren Lund Frandsen is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Cornelissen, R. (1997). 25 years of regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71. Its achievements and its
Limits. In 25 years of regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 for migrant workers - past experiences,
present problems and future perspectives (pp. 27–68). Stockholm: Swedish National Social
Insurance Board.
Cox, R. (2004). The path-dependency of an idea: why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct.
Social Policy and Administration, 38(2), 204–219.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Wiley.
Jønsson, H. V., & Petersen, K. (2012). Denmark: A national welfare state meets the world. In
G. Brochmann, A. Hagelund, K. Borevi, H. V. Jønsson, & K. Petersen (Eds.), Immigration
policy and the Scandinavian welfare state 1945–2010 (Migration, diasporas and citizenship).
Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jønsson, H. (2018). 100 Danmarkshistorier projekt. In Indvandring i velfærdsstaten (100 dan-
markshistorier). Aarhus: Universitetsforlag.
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare
state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological
Review, 661–687.
Kvist, J., & Greve, B. (2011). Has the Nordic welfare model been transformed? Social Policy &
Administration, 45(2), 146–160.
Lindbom, A. (2001). Dismantling the Social Democratic welfare model? Has the Swedish welfare
state lost its defining characteristics? Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(3), 171–193.
Martens, A., & Stenild, K. (2009). Integrationspolitikkens historie og den integrationspolitiske
historie. Samfundsøkonomen (1).
Martinsen, D. S. (2005). The Europeanization of welfare – The domestic impact of intra-European
social security. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(5), 1027–1054.
Martinsen, D. S., & Vrangbæk, K. (2008). The Europeanization of Health Care Governance:
Implementing the Market Imperatives of Europe. Public Administration 86(1), 169–84.
8 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Denmark 135

Martinsen, D. S., & Mayoral Diaz-Asensio, J. (2016). A judicialisation of healthcare poli-

cies in Denmark and Spain? The universalist healthcare model meets the European Union.
Comparative European Politics, 15, 414.
Martinsen, D. S., & Pons Rotger, G. (2017). The fiscal impact of EU immigration on the tax-­
financed welfare state: Testing the ‘welfare burden’ thesis. European Union Politics:
1465116517717340.
Martinsen, D. S., & Werner, B. (2018). No welfare magnets – Free movement and cross-border wel-
fare in Germany and Denmark compared. Journal of European Public Policy. (Forthcoming).
Mikkelsen, F. (2008). Indvandring og integration (1. udgave, 1. oplag ed.). Kbh: Akademisk Forlag.
Nannestad, P. (2004). Immigration as a challenge to the Danish welfare state? European Journal
of Political Economy, 20(3), 755–767.
Nielsen, J. (2012). Islam in Denmark, the challenge of diversity. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Rasmussen, M. (2004). Joining the European communities: Denmark’s road to EC-membership,
1961–73.
Tynell, J. (2014). Mørkelygten: Embedsmænd fortæller om politisk tilskæring af tal, jura og fakta.
Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 9
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Estonia

Mare Ainsaar and Ave Roots

9.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Estonia

9.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The current welfare system in Estonia is a combination of work-based social protec-

tion ideas dating back to Soviet Union times and new transformations since the
independence period during the last 25 years (Ainsaar 2001; Ainsaar and Kesselmann
2016; Trumm and Ainsaar 2009). The most turbulent changes in the social protec-
tion system took place in the 1990s when after splitting up from the Soviet system,
Estonia built up a new social protection system and ideology. Contrary to many
other ex-Soviet countries who had their own social protection structures already in
place during the Soviet period, for Estonia, the 1992 independence meant the need
to build up new structures (including financing schemes) and create relevant institu-
tions for social protection management. Previously, the social security planning was
partly shared with central institutions in Moscow. Additionally, the system of
occupation-­based social protection services were disappearing during the privatisa-
tion and had to be replaced with new systems. The political and economic changes
were accompanied by the emergence of previously non-existent phenomenon such
as unemployment, personal contributions to insurance schemes, and privatisation of
the health care system. The current social protection system in Estonia still keeps
many characteristics of state and employer responsibility having roots in the Soviet
system (Ainsaar et al. 2019).

M. Ainsaar · A. Roots (*)

Institute of Social Studies, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 137

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_9
138 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

The current Estonian welfare regime is classified as a liberal type, often because
of the low level of social protection per capita and the high level of privatisation of
social protection institutions. However, the situation varies across different social
protection domains. For example, the housing policy is practically missing, while
the family policy is rather generous and universal (Ainsaar 2019). In addition, the
government has an essential role in setting the general rules and monitoring the
social protection system. The share of means-tested schemes is very low. The sys-
tem generally follows solidarity principles and tax-based revenues are distributed
among broader categories of recipients. Solely contributory schemes do not exist,
except for unemployment insurance. The occupational and totally private insurance
schemes are rare in Estonia. Old-age pensions represent the only social policy
domain where private insurance plays an essential role in determining the output of
social policy for the second and third pillar contributions. The Estonian social pro-
tection system is almost exclusively financed by social tax payed by employers
(78% from all expenses) and by the central and local government structures (20%).
Individuals cover directly only 1% of social protection expenditures. The Estonian
system can therefore be seen as a state responsibility universal system by structure.
The core element of the financing of social expenditures is social tax. Employers
pay it for employees and the government covers it for insured persons (children,
elderly, unemployed, employees whose loss of capacity for work has been assessed
as 40% or more, etc.). The social tax is 33% of the gross earnings, of which 20%
forms pension insurance and 13% health insurance. Social tax contributions are
used to (co)finance all social policy domains except the minimum income schemes.
Also, the state budget contributions are essential in financing social protection
(Ainsaar et al. 2019).

9.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

About 15% of individuals living in Estonia are born in other countries (Population
Census 2011). This is one of the highest shares in Europe, although the percentage
of non-national EU citizens is quite low (Batsaikhan et al. 2018). Most immigrants
have arrived during the Soviet period from Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia. Due to
demographic crises, Estonia is a country with a substantial immigration need in
order to replace the ageing population (Ainsaar and Stankuniene 2011; Ainsaar and
Rootalu 2016), and immigration flows will probably increase in future. Still, for
historical reasons, public attitudes towards immigrants are more cautious in Estonia
than in many other European countries (Ainsaar 1997; Ainsaar and Beilmann 2016)
and the country has had a rather conservative immigration policy during the past
25 years.
The age structure of the foreign-born population reflects the history of immigra-
tion to Estonia. 2% of foreign-born residents are in the age group 0–29 years, 6% in
30–49 years old group, and 30% in 50 and older age group. Estonia’s migration
history is closely linked with broader historical developments in the country. In
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia 139

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
-10000

-20000

-30000

-40000

Fig. 9.1 Net migration in Estonia (1946–2016) (Source: Ainsaar 1997; Statistics Estonia 2018)

1944, Estonia was annexed by the Soviet Union and after the second World War, the
country experienced massive job immigration from the Russian Federation and
other Soviet Union regions (Fig. 9.1), mainly to towns (Ainsaar 1997).
Immigration was replaced by net out-migration trends after the re-independence
at the beginning of the 1990s. A large share of Soviet Union military personnel,
their families and related population groups formed the main emigrant group at the
beginning of 1990s. The group of emigrants also included members of the Russian-­
speaking population, who felt insecurity towards their future or were reluctance
about the official language and citizenship requirements (Tammur 2017). The
Russian-speaking group (Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians) still remain the
dominant ethnic group in Estonia (Ainsaar and Stankuniene 2011).
Estonia’s accession to the EU in 2004 changed migration flows as emigration
started to decline and immigration to rise, although the net migration remained neg-
ative. Geographically close Finland became the main destination country for eco-
nomic emigrants. The majority of new immigrants still arrived from Russia and
Ukraine (Tammur 2017). Since 2015, immigration from other EU member states
also started to grow, partially due to return migration (Statistics Estonia 2019).
Since 2015, a new methodology for counting international migration was applied
in Estonia, using cumulative data from many administrative registers to calculate
the so-called residency index for all individuals (Tiit and Maasing 2016). If the
records in registers are missing for several continuous years, the person is classified
as emigrant and once the registers reveal the activity of a person in the country, he/
she can be counted as an immigrant. Due to this new methodology, both immigra-
tion and emigration numbers rose and the net migration rate became positive.
The entitlement to social security rights is based mostly on legal residency record
in Estonia. All newly arrived persons must register their place of residence and the
registration procedures depend on their nationality. EU citizens who stay more than
three months in Estonia must register at the population register within first three
months of arrival. Non-EU foreigners must have a valid visa, or a temporary or
140 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

long-term residence permit prior to their registration. Estonian immigration policy

applies a quota system for third-country nationals, although the regulations have
became more liberal in recent decades due to labour force shortages. For example,
there is no quota for specialists earning more than two times the average salary or
for nationals from countries with a special agreement with Estonia. Moreover, the
immigration quota does not include foreign employees in the information technol-
ogy sector or start-up companies.
Although there are signs of growing inflows, the number of new immigrants is
rather small and Estonia balances around the zero net migration. Although immigra-
tion is an essential topic in the public debate, Estonia has less experience with newly
arrived immigrants than other EU countries.

9.2 Migration and Social Protection in Estonia

Despite the relatively long history as a sending country, the topic of immigration
and emigration is poorly covered in the domestic social protection legislation in
Estonia. This applies for the legislation covering most social benefits except for
pensions. Concerning mobility, the Estonian social protection system follows the
EU requirements, but many mobility-related social rights are not covered explicitly
in the national law and in certain cases, the details regarding mobility-related situa-
tions are completely missing.
The main principles of social protection in Estonia are based almost exclusively
on the legal residency requirement. If a person is registered as a legal resident in the
population register, she/he has equal entitlement for social rights with long-term
legal residents. The social protection entitlement usually does not require waiting
periods. Once a foreigner becomes resident, equal treatment with national residents
is guaranteed. Hence, citizenship does not determine access to social rights. EU
foreigners and citizens of countries with bilateral agreements with Estonia might
have additional protection in some situations.

9.2.1 Unemployment

The Estonian unemployment policy includes unemployment insurance benefits, the

unemployment allowance, and labor market services (e.g. career counselling,
employment trainings and stipends, employment subsidies). The Law of
Unemployment Insurance1 sets the compulsory unemployment insurance tax shared
by employers and employees. In 2015–2018, the tax rate was 1.6% of income for

1
Riigi Teataja (2001). Töötuskindlustuse seadus. Riigi Teataja. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/
akt/104052018006. Accessed 7 February 2018.
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia 141

employees and 0.8% for employers.2 The unemployment allowance is a flat-rate,

means-tested benefit financed from the state budget. The Estonian Unemployment
Insurance Fund is the main institution in charge of implementing unemployment
policies.
All legal residents have equal access to unemployment benefits and allowance, as
long as they fulfil the requirements. To qualify for unemployment allowance, indi-
viduals must have worked 180 days during the last 12 months; and 12 months dur-
ing the last 36 months for the unemployment insurance benefit. The unemployment
allowance is means-tested and the applicants’ income must be lower than 164 euros
a month.3 There is also a waiting period of one month since the application was
submitted for unemployment allowance. The maximum period to receive the unem-
ployment allowance is 270 days. The waiting period for the unemployment insur-
ance benefit is 8 days since submission of the claim. The duration of this benefit
depends on the period of prior contribution: for individuals who have worked one to
five years, the benefit is granted for 180 days; for those who worked 5 to 10 years,
the duration of the benefit is 270 days; and it is further increased to 360 days for
those who contributed for 10 years or more.
Receiving unemployment benefits does not hinder foreigners’ access to resi-
dence permits. However, having a job is an important factor in the decisions regard-
ing residence permits. The allowance and insurance benefit can be received by
nationals residing in other EU countries, but not in non-EU countries. Unemployment
benefits recipients can travel to other EU countries to look for a job up to 3 months
and continue receiving the benefits if this is agreed with the Unemployment
Insurance Fund. Estonia also has two bilateral agreements (with Ukraine and
Australia) covering unemployment issues. For example, the agreement with Ukraine
allows to add up working periods in both countries to qualify for an unemployment
allowance.

9.2.2 Health Care

The main scheme to cover health insurance is a compulsory earnings-related health

insurance scheme for the economically active population, paid by employees and
self-employed. For many groups, the insurance is covered by the government (resi-
dent children up to 19 years of age, students up to 24 years of age, parents of chil-
dren in certain conditions, recipients of social benefits or insurance schemes,
pregnant women, etc.).
Compulsory contributory health insurance covers the costs of medical examina-
tions, medical treatment and prescription pharmaceuticals at discounted prices. It

2
Riigi Teataja (2014). Töötuskindlustusmakse määrad aastatel 2015–2018. Riigi Teataja https://
www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/128092014002&searchCurrent. Accessed 10 May 2018.
3
Töötukassa (2018). Töötutoetus. https://www.tootukassa.ee/content/toetused-ja-huvitised/tootu-
toetus. Accessed 11 May 2018.
142 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

also covers the costs of the allowance for temporary incapacity for work. Because
of its small size and centralised management of health care, Estonia has only one
(central) Sickness Fund. Voluntary health insurance is used mainly for travel related
additional health insurance cases. If the person is not already insured, he/she can
enter into a voluntary insurance contract with the national Health Insurance Fund or
any private insurance company. According to OECD estimates, 9.9% of the health
expenditures in Estonia is financed by government schemes, 65.6% by the compul-
sory social health insurance, 1.6% by the voluntary health insurance schemes and
22.7% by out-of-pocket payment (Ainsaar et al. forthcoming). The health care costs
for those who are not insured (5% of the population) are financed as out-of-pocket
payments.
The Estonian system defines disability as a long term mental or body dysfunc-
tionality that causes coping restrictions. Disabled people benefits are financed from
several sources and are available only for those who are permanent residents in
Estonia. The benefits’ level and arrangements are dependent on the type and degree
of disability.
All legal residents have the same entitlement rules for health treatment and health
insurance, regardless of their nationality. If a person is working in several EU coun-
tries, he/she is entitled to the health insurance coverage if he/she contributes to the
health insurance fund. The insurance coverage starts after 14 days waiting period
and is valid for two months after the termination of the employment contract.
Persons insured in Estonia can receive health treatment in other EU countries. When
travelling in Europe, holders of the Sickness Fund insurance are entitled to medical
care on an equal level with the nationals of their countries of residence (EU coun-
tries, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland). For expensive operations
and treatment in non-EU countries, a prior agreement from the Sickness Fund is
required. If an insured person falls ill abroad, the Health Insurance Fund will pay
the sickness benefit.
All persons having compulsory contributory health insurance are entitled for
almost free treatment in hospitals (with very low of pocket payment - 2 euros per
day) and access to medical doctors (with symbolic 1–3 euros out of pocket payment
for a visit). When the person falls ill, he/she can obtain a sick leave certificate and
the sickness benefit will be paid by the employer and the Health Insurance Fund.
For days 4–8 of sickness, the employer pays the benefit at 70% of 6 months’ average
salary of the employee. From day 9, sickness benefit is paid by the Health Insurance
Fund based on employee’s daily income. A person is entitled to the sickness benefit
for up to 182 consecutive calendar days. A physician can also issue a certificate for
sick leave for a longer period, but no sickness benefit will be paid during this period.
EU and non EU residents can access health benefits in kind and cash under the
same conditions as national residents. Moreover, nationals residing abroad have
access to health care under the same eligibility conditions as nationals living in
Estonia.
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia 143

9.2.3 Pensions

Pensioners in Estonia have higher poverty rate and their economic situation is worse
compared with the EU average (Estonia 2018). The old-age pension system stands
on three pillars. The national pension (rahvapension) and old-age pension (vana-
duspension) comprise the first pillar. National pension is financed from the state
budget, whereas the old-age pension and the second pillar are financed by individu-
als and employers from an earmarked social tax and by state budget. The second
pillar is mandatory for younger people (born in 1983 or later) with some state super-
vision and the third pillar is a voluntary pension scheme without state supervision.
Entitlement for old-age pension requires at least 15 years of employment in
Estonia. Periods worked in other EU countries can be taken into account. Those
who do not meet the 15 years requirement can claim a national pension (tax-financed
universal scheme guaranteeing a minimum pension for residents). The pensionable
age is 63, to be gradually increased to 65 by 2026. When a person retires earlier, the
pension is reduced by 0.4% per each month retired earlier. The national pension is
granted to individuals in retirement age who do not meet the qualifying period
requirement for an old-age pension and have resided in Estonia for at least five years
immediately before the submission of the claim. National pension is not paid to
persons who receive pension from another state.
There is no qualifying period for 2nd and 3rd pillar pensions schemes, but pay-
ments depend on the amount of collected money. Since 2018, there is no special
geographical restrictions for the use of 2nd and 3rd pillar pensions around the world.
Non-residents who have contributed to pension schemes in Estonia (old age, second
and third pillar) have the right to an old-age pension and second and third pillar pay-
ments. To receive their pension abroad, non-residents must contact the Pension
Center and submit yearly life certificates or certificates of residence in the other
country.
EU rules regulate how mobile EU citizens collect their pension rights from other
EU countries,4 by guaranteeing that the entitlement period and level on pension
earned in different EU countries are taken into account. Transferable pension rights
and eligibility criteria are the main topics of the bilateral agreements that Estonia
has signed with non-EU countries (Table 9.1). The most common issue regulated in
these agreements is the treatment of years at work (from the Soviet Union period in
the agreements with Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine) for eligibility of pension
insurance. Bilateral contracts with EU countries Latvia and Lithuania regulate the
period during the Soviet Union period. However, the contribution to the pension
schemes made in non-EU countries not covered by a bilateral agreement with
Estonia will not be taken into account for entitlement to pensions. If the person
moves to non-EU countries, he/she might lose the right for the first pillar old-age
pension earned in Estonia.

4
State pensions abroad (2018). https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/retire-abroad/state-
pensions-abroad/index_en.htm. Accessed 23 February 2019.
144 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

Table 9.1 Active bilateral social security agreements signed by Estonia

Agreements Regulation areas Main issues stipulated in the agreement
Russia Pensions, health care Some guarantees to military pensioners and their
(1996) family members in the both countries.
Canada Pensions Continuation of payment for citizens of a country
(2006) who move to the other country. Aggregation of
periods of employment for entitlement to the
minimum pension.
Lithuania Pensions for citizens Aggregation of years worked in the other country
(2007) (employees, employers, and before 1991 in accounting minimum working years
their family members) for pension entitlement. Before 1991, the years will
be counted in the country where the person has
worked or stayed longer.
Latvia Pensions for citizens Aggregation of years worked in the other country
(2007) before 1991 in accounting minimum working years
for pension entitlement. Before 1991, the years will
be counted in the country where the person has
worked or stayed longer.
Moldova Pensions for residents Regulates how social tax and work contribution is
(2011) taken into account in calculating pension in the
other country.
Ukraine Pensions, family benefits, Regulates the right of citizens of a country residing
(2011) work accident benefits, in the other country
death grant, unemployment
insurance.
Russia Pensions Totalization of years of employment between the
(2011) two countries.
Australia Pensions The years of work in the other country are taken
(2018) into account when counting the pension insurance
years.
Source: Maksu ja Tolliamet (2018)

9.2.4 Family Benefits

The Estonian family policy system can be divided into three subsystems: family
benefits, leaves and leave benefits (maternity, paternity, parental), and day care.5 In
2018, family benefits include birth grant, life entrance grant for children who gradu-
ate from institutions and start to live independently, child allowance, single parent
allowance, allowance for families with three or more children, child allowance for a
family of temporary military servant, and child allowance for a child in custody
care. As in case of other social protection schemes, all legal residents of Estonia are
entitled to family benefits and childcare services, regardless of their migration back-
ground in case of birth of a child or if they have children in the household. There is

5
The described system of family leave benefits is currently under review. The main idea is to make
the current leaves system what is financed partially from health care and partially from social taxes
more flexible for parents and change the source of maternity leave benefit.
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia 145

no special waiting period for the family benefits package. Family benefits are
financed from the general state budget and are not means-tested. Childcare leave
benefits (with some exceptions) are income-related with lower and upper ceiling.
The birth grant is a lump sum paid to one resident parent. For child allowance, sin-
gle parent allowance, allowance for families with three or more children, child
allowance for a family of temporary military servant, child allowance for a child in
custody care, the child must live in Estonia and cannot receive similar benefits from
elsewhere.
The maternity benefit is paid by the Health Insurance Fund to female employees
who are insured. The benefit is paid for 140 calendar days, at a rate of 100% of the
average income per calendar day (with upper and lower ceiling). Women who did
not work in Estonia before the maternity leave period are not eligible for a maternity
leave and benefit.
Working fathers can use the paternity leave of 30 working days in two months
before the predicted date of birth or two months after the birth (the leave can also be
used in parts). As for the parental leave, this is generally used after pregnancy and
maternity leave. The eligibility criteria is legal residency in Estonia. A mother or
father has the right for parental leave until their child reaches the age of 3. Parent
can change upon agreement who will use the child care leave, but the parental leave
benefit is generally paid to the parent taking care of the child. Parental leave benefit
is paid for 18 months and the state pays additionally for this period contributions to
the parent’s mandatory funded pension and health insurance. The amount of paren-
tal leave benefit depend on social tax contribution in Estonia if the parent worked
previously. If parent worked 100% in another EU country, the benefit will be calcu-
lated according the average salary. If a parent worked partially in another EU coun-
try or did not receive income in Estonia, the parental benefit calculations are based
on the minimum wage in Estonia. After the parental benefit period comes to an end,
one parent is entitled for childcare allowance, which does not depend on previous
earnings. All legal resident parents are entitled to claim the childcare allowance.
Family benefits are not transferable to other countries once the person leaves
Estonia. In case of child benefits (but not for leave benefits), the entitlement depends
on parent(s) residence and work status. For example, if one parent does not work,
but the other works in another EU country, the child get the child benefit from one
country and if in the other country, the level is higher, the missing part being cov-
ered by the other EU country.

9.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Minimum incomes in Estonia are guaranteed under the subsistence benefit scheme.
The benefit is paid to individuals/households residing in Estonia, whose income
after payment of fixed housing expenses are below the subsistence level. In 2020,
the subsistence level for people living alone or for the first member of the family
was 150 euros per month, 180 euros for every child and 120 euros for each
146 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

following family member.6 The subsistence benefit is granted for one month at time,
but there is no maximum time period limitations for receiving the benefit. A new
means test is carried out each month. Municipalities are responsible for the manage-
ment of the subsistence benefits, but the overall regulation7 is approved in the
national Parliament.
To claim subsistence benefits, individuals must submit an application to the local
authorities with documents certifying the net income of the household. In case of
doubt regarding the correctness of documents proving income and information con-
cerning residence, the documents shall be submitted to the regional structural unit
of the Tax and Customs Board or the authorised processor of the population register
for inspection. To enforce the right to decline the application for subsistence benefit
on the basis of property evaluation, local government officials have the right to ask
the person concerned or other parties for supplementary information.
The conditions of access to this benefit are the same between national residents,
EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners if they reside legally in Estonia. The only
eligibility condition is either short- or long-term legal residency in Estonia and
income level. Due to the residency-based nature of this benefit, nationals residing
abroad are not considered as eligible claimants. There is no explicit requirement
that individuals have to search for a job while receiving the subsistence benefit. All
legal residents get immediate access to this benefit after registering their residency
in Estonia, although the lack of decent income level can serve as a ground for deny-
ing the application for legal residence.

9.3 Conclusions

The current social policy in Estonia is a product of combination of prevailing right-­

wing governments, Soviet and Nordic welfare traditions, and EU normative guide-
lines (Ainsaar et al. 2019). Social security rights are based mostly on recorded
residency in Estonia with some additional entitlement rights for immigrants from
other EU countries or countries covered by bilateral agreements.
Immigration and emigration issues are still poorly regulated in the Estonian
social protection laws. For the last 25 years, Estonia has been mainly an emigration
country and this might explain the low salience of immigration-related social secu-
rity regulations in Estonia. Mass immigration has not been a problem and the social
protection acts hardly cover mobility-related issues in an explicit manner. Policy
discussions related to the social protection of non-national residents and non-­
resident nationals have been missing from the public debate during the last 15 years.

6
Sotsiaalministeerium. (2020). Toimetulekutoetus. https://www.sm.ee/et/toimetulekutoetus-0.
Accessed 23 February 2019.
7
Riigi Teataja (2015). Social Welfare Act. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/528062018001/con-
solide. Accessed 23 February 2019.
9 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Estonia 147

Immigrants’ access to social benefits in Estonia also depends on the general

structure of the national social protection system. The government and municipali-
ties are mostly responsible for providing social security and only certain domains of
social policy (like health care, old-age pensions and unemployment insurance) are
related to the contributory insurance in Estonia. Missing waiting periods for entitle-
ment to social benefits guarantee for newly arrived immigrants have similar rights
with long-term residents in terms of access to social protection.
The main channel for acquiring social protection rights in Estonia is the legal
residency. Although heavily financed by taxes and state contributions, the system is
quite generous towards foreign residents, especially the eligibility conditions or
general procedures for accessing benefits do not vary between national and foreign
residents. Estonia does not have specific scheme of social benefits only for foreign-
ers or only for Estonian citizens residing abroad. In most cases, there is no differen-
tial treatment between EU and non-EU citizens, only pensioners and health care
patients from EU can export some right for entitlement benefits from their countries
of origin. The EU rules cover illness and maternity benefits, disability, old age and
survivor’s pension, occupational accident and occupational disease benefits, funeral
allowance, and benefits paid to the unemployed and family benefits. Persons leaving
Estonia mostly lose entitlement for social protection, except for the pension scheme
and health care in EU. Due to bilateral agreements and EU regulations, a gradual
shift is observable in Estonia to take more into account international mobility in
recent years.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Ainsaar, M. (1997). Eesti rahvastik Taani hindamisraamatust tänapäevani. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli
Kirjastus.
Ainsaar, M. (2001). The development of children and family policy in Estonia from 1945 to 2000.
Yearbook of Population Research in Finland 2001, 37, 23–40. https://journal.fi/fypr/article/
view/44957. Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
Ainsaar, M. (2019). Economic crisis, families, and family policy in the Baltic states,
2009–2014. Journal of Baltic Studies, 50(1), 59–77. https://www.tandfonline.com/
eprint/5JNnDkQNNMn2Mjv6TWQX/full?target=10.1080/01629778.2019.1570958.
Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
148 M. Ainsaar and A. Roots

Ainsaar, M., & Beilmann, M. (2016). Üldised hoiakud sisserände suhtes. In M. Ainsaar &
M. Beilmann (Eds.), Eesti elanikkonna hoiakud kolmandatest riikidest sisserändajate suhtes
Euroopa Sotsiaaluuringu andmetes. Uuringu aruanne (pp. 16–23). Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.
Ainsaar, M., & Kesselmann, L.-E. (2016). Economic recession and changes in the Estonian wel-
fare state: An occasion not to waste a good crisis. In K. Schubert, P. de Villota, & J. Kuhlmann
(Eds.), Challenges to European welfare systems (pp. 177–195). Cham: Springer.
Ainsaar, M., & Rootalu, K. (2016). European demographic change and welfare challenges. In
K. Schubert, P. de Villota, & J. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Challenges to European welfare systems
(pp. 793–806). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ainsaar, M., Roots, A., & Kõre, J. (forthcoming). Estonia – Estonia health care development. In
E. Immergut, K. Anderson, C. Devitt, & T. Popic (Eds.), Health politics in Europe: A hand-
book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ainsaar, M., Roots, A., & Trumm, A. (2019). The welfare system in Estonia: between liberal and
social system. In S. Blum, J. Kuhlmann, & K. Schubert (Eds.), Handbook of European welfare
systems (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ainsaar, M., & Stankuniene, V. (2011). Demographic costs of transition and the future of the
Baltics. In M. Lauristin (Ed.), Estonian human development report. Baltic way(s) of human
development: Twenty years on (pp. 44–51). Tallinn: Eesti Koostöökogu.
Batsaikhan, U., Darvas, Z., & Raposo, I. G. (2018). People on the move: Migration and mobility in
the European Union (Ed. S. Gardner). (Bruegel Blueprint series, 28). Brussels. http://bruegel.
org/2018/01/people-on-the-move-migration-and-mobility-in-the-european-union/. Accessed 5
Mar 2019.
Estonia. (2018). The 2018 Pension Adequacy Report: Current and future income adequacy in old
age in the EU (Country profiles) (Vol. II, pp. 56–64). Brussels: European Commission.
Maksu ja Tolliamet. (2018). https://www.emta.ee/et/ariklient/tulud-kulud-kaive-kasum/sotsiaal-
maks/eli-oigus-ja-sotsiaalkindlustuslepingud. Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
Statistics Estonia. (2018). Sisseränne ületas väljarännet kolmandat aastat järjest. https://www.
stat.ee/pressiteade-2018-050. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
Statistics Estonia. (2019). The population of Estonia increased last year 16 January 2019. News
release, 7. https://www.stat.ee/news-release-2019-007?highlight=immigration. Accessed 23
Feb 2019.
Tammur, A. (2017). Native and foreign-origin population in Estonia. Quarterly Bulletin of
Statistics Estonia, 1(17).
Tiit, E.-M., & Maasing, E. (2016). Residency index and its applications in censuses and population
statistics. http://www.stat.ee/277644. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
Trumm, A., & Ainsaar, M. (2009). The welfare system of Estonia: Past, present and future. In
K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, & U. Brazant (Eds.), The handbook of European welfare systems
(pp. 153–170). London: Routledge.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 10
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Finland

Laura Kalliomaa-Puha

10.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
in Finland

10.1.1  ain Characteristics of the Finnish Social

M
Protection System

The Finnish social protection system is universal, hence not restricted to specific
groups or insured individuals only. It is divided into residence-based and
employment-­based social protection (Fig. 10.1). Eligibility is mostly built on resi-
dence whether it is question of income security, healthcare or social services. Most
benefits are financed by tax revenue. Employers and employees participate in the
funding of employment-based earnings-related benefits by paying social insurance
contributions. However, the contributions are often mandatory and contributions
therefore resemble taxes.1
All individuals residing in Finland are covered by social security schemes which
govern basic pensions (national pensions), sickness and maternity benefits, family
benefits, and social assistance. The Social Insurance Institution (Kansaneläkelaitos,
Kela, Folkspension anstaltet, FPA) is in charge of these benefits. All employed
persons are entitled to statutory earnings-related pensions and benefits for unem-
ployment, work accidents and occupational diseases. One particular feature of the

1
For more information regarding the Finnish social protection system, see the website of the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (https://stm.fi/en/frontpage) and Kela (https://www.kela.fi/
web/en). Accessed 18 February 2019.

L. Kalliomaa-Puha (*)
Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 149

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_10
150 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

Fig. 10.1 Social protection in Finland. (Source: KELA, https://www.kela.fi/web/en/social-secu-

rity-in-finland, accessed 28 February 2019)

Finnish social protection system is that also private insurance companies and unem-
ployment funds take care of these contributory benefits.
The duty to arrange health care and social services lies on municipalities of resi-
dence.2 Although there are numerous private social service providers (such as pri-
vate foster homes or elderly care), their services are mostly bought by the
municipalities. Contrary to that, the current Finnish health care system is a hybrid
one consisting of insurance-based national health insurance, municipality-based

2
Social Welfare Act (Sosiaalihuoltolaki, socialvårdslagen, 1301/2014, s. 12.1, and Health Care
Act (terveydenhuoltolaki, hälso- och sjukvårdslag, 1326/2010, s. 24). All laws can be found at
Finlex-database: www.finlex.fi. Accessed 18 February 2019.
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 151

health service model and employment-related occupational health care. The national
health insurance (run by Kela) provides reimbursements for the costs of prescribed
medicine and medical treatment obtained from private providers if one chooses to
use private providers instead of the public provision. All residents are covered.
Universal health care in each municipality was established in 1972. The third path
is occupational health care, which was institutionalized in 1978. The co-existence of
these three models has resulted in a multichannel system in financing, access to
health care and, consequently, different levels of availability and access to care.

10.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

For a long time, Finland has been a country of emigration and only in the 1980s the
number of immigrants started to exceed the number of people leaving Finland
(Fig. 10.2). From the seventeenth century to World War II, the majority of Finnish
emigrants settled in the United States, Canada and Australia, and in Finland’s neigh-
bouring countries such as Russia, Sweden and Norway. Starting from the 1950s and
peaking in the 1970s, Finns moved to work in Sweden looking for higher salaries,
better living standards and more available housing. By the 1980s, Finland approached
Swedish levels and many Finns began to return (Tanner 2011).
Out of the current population of around 5.5 million people, approximately 5%
claim a foreign background (having been foreign born, speaking a foreign language
or having a foreign citizenship). In 2017, there were 385,000 people with foreign

Thousand persons
40

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30
Immigration
-40
Emigration
-50
Net immigration
-60
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018

Fig. 10.2 Emigration and immigration in Finland, 1950–2018. (Source: Statistics Finland, https://
www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#muuttoliike, accessed 18 February 2019)
152 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

background, out of which 16% were born in Finland (Statistics Finland 2019). Most
foreign residents came from Estonia, Russia, Sweden, Iraq and China (Table 10.1).
Most of them arrived for family reasons (54% of immigrants aged 16–64 years liv-
ing in Finland in 2014), 18% arrived for work reasons, 10% for studies and 11% for
asylum and international protection (Tanner 2011; Sutela and Larja 2015). Estonians
mostly immigrated for work, whereas asylum-seeking was the main reason of
immigration for people from Middle East and Northern Africa. In 2014, most asy-
lum seekers came from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iran (Sutela and Larja 2015).
In 2014, only 3651 refugees came to Finland, while in 2015, 32,476 persons sought
for asylum. In 2019, the number for asylum seekers was 4550 (Finnish Immigration
Service, https://tilastot.migri.fi/#decisions/23330?l=en).
Given that the inflows to Finland have been relatively recent, the first Alien Act
came only in 1983 (400/1983, followed by Act 378/1991). It did not include any
actual right to reside, thus leaving the authorities with a vast room for discretion.
Only amendments in the 1999 Act provided for more precise criterion regarding the
evaluation of the right to reside including, for instance, that the decision cannot be
unreasonable. Due to several changes, the Act was considered incoherent and there-
fore reformed comprehensively in 2004 by Alien Act 301/2004 (still in force).
Finnish immigration policy is twofold: on the other hand, it aims to persuade
migrants to come to Finland for work (työperusteinen maahanmuutto) while, on the
other hand, it tries to cut down the benefits of asylum seekers so only those in real
need would come to Finland (Aer 2016). The significant increase in the numbers of
asylum seekers in 2015 further sharpened this rationale – for example, the possibili-
ties to get legal aid or apply for family reunification have become more restrictive,
the time to appeal has been shortened and the category of humanitarian protection
has been abolished from the legislation. However, migration is seen as one solution
for meeting challenges of ageing population and labour market instability. It has

Table 10.1 Foreigners in Finland (2016–2017)

Country of citizenship 2016 % 2017 % Annual change, %
Estonia 51,499 21,1 51,539 20,7 0,1
Russia 30,970 12,7 29,183 11,7 −5,8
Iraq 9813 4,0 11,729 4,7 19,5
China 8480 3,5 8742 3,5 3,1
Sweden 8040 3,3 8018 3,2 −0,3
Thailand 7487 3,1 7533 3,0 0,6
Somalia 7018 2,9 6677 2,7 −4,9
Afghanistan 5294 2,2 5792 2,3 9,4
Vietnam 5253 2,2 5603 2,2 6,7
Syrian Arab Republic 3355 1,4 5290 2,1 57,7
Others 106,430 43,7 109,346 43,8 2,7
Total 243,639 100 249,452 100 2,4
Source: Statistics Finland, Population structure. https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_
vaesto.html#muuttoliike, accessed 18 February 2019
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 153

been recognized that migrants’ social needs must be met, although the general per-
ception of migrants as excessive consumers of social benefits make extending social
security to new groups of people a rather difficult task both economically and politi-
cally (Kiuru 2014; Aer 2016). Yet, there is little evidence regarding the misuse of the
Finnish social security system and actually, the take-up of benefits by immigrants is
relatively low due to lack of awareness regarding the benefits they are entitled to
(Kiuru 2014; Castañeda et al. 2012).
For long the topic of immigration to Finland was not an issue of concern at the
political level, despite some discussions regarding refugee quotas and migrants’
integration during the 1990s. During the 2000s, the public debate has mostly evolved
around legal protection, economy and national security, and the possible misuse of
the asylum system (Palander 2018a; Välimäki 2017; Aer 2016). The category of
undocumented migrants, or “paperless” people (paperittomat) as referred to in pub-
lic, includes third-country nationals residing in Finland without a residence permit
or people residing in Finland legally but which are not entitled to social security,
social welfare or health services, for several reasons (Keskimäki et al. 2014;
Nykänen 2018). Discussions regarding the needs and social rights of this group
have only recently emerged, due to their relatively small numbers within the overall
foreign population. Following the Swedish example, there was a legislative pro-
posal for extending the rights of undocumented immigrants to cover also maternity
services and treatment of chronic diseases in addition to already provided emer-
gency care. Although the proposal was not finally approved, some municipalities
have started to offer certain services in addition to voluntary work based clinics
(Global clinics) in some large cities (Nykänen et al. 2017; Nykänen 2018).

10.2 Migration and Social Protection in Finland

Generally speaking, the Finnish social security system treats nationals and foreign-
ers equally. Nationality is not a criterion for accessing benefits or services. As soon
as a person becomes a permanent resident and is covered by the Finnish social
security system, the eligibility rules for accessing social benefits are the same for
citizens and non-citizens. However, the rules for entering the country and the condi-
tions for becoming a permanent resident are different between nationals, EU citi-
zens, and third-country nationals. Nationals do not need residence permits and they
can enter Finland at any point (Aer 2016).3 Residence permits are issued by the
Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket).4 EU/EEA/

3
The rules for entering Finland are stipulated in the Aliens Act (ulkomaalaislaki, utlänningslag,
301/2004) s. 10. Legislation of Finland can be found at online database in Finnish and Swedish.
Some translations of Finnish acts and decrees are also available in English and other languages.
See www.finlex.fi/en/. Accessed 18 February 2019.
4
https://migri.fi/en/home. Accessed 18 February 2019.
154 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

Swiss nationals do not need a residence permit, although they must register with the
Finnish Immigration Service if their stay is longer than 3 months.
The criterion for permanent residence is laid out in the Act on Residence-based
Social Security in Cross-border Situations (Laki asumisperusteisesta sosiaaliturv-
asta rajat ylittävissä tilanteissa, Lag om bosättningsbaserad social trygghet I grän-
söverskridande fall, Act 16/2019), and the Municipality of Residence Act
(Kotikuntalaki, Lag on hemkommun, 201/1994). A person is considered to live in
Finland on a permanent basis if she/he has the permanent residence and home in
Finland and stays mostly in Finland. As a main rule, residence abroad for less than
six months is considered temporary (except for specific categories such as posted
workers, state officials, students and their family members). The Municipality of
Residence Act stipulates that, in order to obtain a domicile in Finland, EU/EEA/
Swiss nationals need to register (if their stay is longer than 3 months), while third-­
country nationals need a permanent or extended residence permit.5 Those with
shorter residence permits (at least for a year) can still have a domicile in Finland if
they plan to stay in the country permanently. According to the Municipality of
Residence Act, Finnish origin, having lived in Finland previously, having had a
work contract for at least two years, having studied for at least two years or having
lived in Finland uninterruptedly for a year count towards permanency.6
If one moves to Finland on a permanent basis, he/she is usually covered by the
Finnish social security system from the first day. However, residence-based social
security systems may require a certain period of residence to qualify for certain
benefits such as parental allowances, invalidity benefits and the national pension. If
one comes to Finland from another EU country, time spent there counts for this
qualifying period. On the other hand, non-residents who work abroad in the service
of an employer from Finland also qualify for benefits from Finland, including the
national pension, child support, invalidity benefits, unemployment benefits and
health insurance benefits. Incoming workers qualify for Kela benefits if they earn at
least 696.60 € per month (Act 16/2019). One may be entitled to benefits even with
lower earnings or as jobseeker if he/she has worked for at least 6 months. Jobseekers
who arrive from third countries with which Finland has not concluded a social secu-
rity agreement cannot normally gain social security coverage in Finland.
Finland has concluded social security agreements with the main non-EU coun-
tries of destination of Finnish emigrants (United States, Canada and Australia), but
also the Nordic countries, Chile, Israel, India, China and South Korea.7 These agree-
ments stipulate that a pension accrued in Finland is always paid in the other country.
The agreement with the United States also covers health insurance, parental allow-
ances and child benefits for employees on a temporary assignment in the other

5
There are various kinds of residence permits: see Nykänen 2018; Kallio 2018; Sorainen 2017; Aer
2016; Kiuru 2014 or the website of the Migration Office.
6
One may keep domicile for a year when moving abroad. Therefore, it is possible to be entitled to
benefits in kind longer than cash benefits. Naturally, they cannot be exported, so to get them, one
has to travel to Finland.
7
Social security agreements can be found at https://www.finlex.fi. Accessed 18 February 2019.
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 155

country. The agreement with Chile covers medical treatment for pensioners, whereas
the one with Israel covers child benefits and maternity grants and, for posted work-
ers, also health insurance and parental benefits. The agreement with Australia stipu-
lates that temporary residents of Australia who are insured by the Finnish National
Health Insurance are entitled to emergency medical treatment. As for the social
security cooperation between the Nordic Countries, the first Nordic Convention on
Social Security was concluded in 1955. Nowadays, persons who move between the
Nordic countries are covered by the provisions of the EC Regulation on social secu-
rity. However, the Nordic Convention might offer better treatment in certain cases
(for instance, the Convention also applies to persons who would otherwise not be
covered by the EC Regulation such as non-EU citizens moving between Denmark
and other Nordic countries).

10.2.1 Unemployment

Finland has two unemployment schemes: a) the income-related benefits paid out by
unemployment funds (työttömyyskassa, arbetslöshetskassa) and financed through
premiums paid by insured employees and mandatory fees collected from employers
and employees in addition to taxes and; b) “basic benefits” paid out by Kela and
covered by taxes and fees paid by employees.8 Employees and self-employed can
voluntarily insure themselves with one of the unemployment funds for the income-­
related allowance. For individuals who have not joined any unemployment fund,
two “basic security” benefits are available: the basic unemployment allowance and
the labour market subsidy. Kela provides a flat-rate basic unemployment allowance
(peruspäiväraha, grunddagpenning) payable for 400 days to unemployed with at
least 26 weeks of employment (work done in other EU countries also counts for
this). To be eligible for this benefit, one has to register as jobseeker with the
Employment and Economic Development Office. The basic unemployment allow-
ance is not means-tested and meant mostly to resident unemployed (it can be
exported when the unemployed is looking for a job in other EU countries).
Those not complying with work requirements or those who have already
exhausted their unemployment benefits can apply for the non-contributory labour
market subsidy (työmarkkinatuki, arbetsmarknadstöd). This means-tested subsidy
is granted only to residents (either nationals or foreigners) for an unlimited duration.
The subsidy cannot be exported but if one resides temporarily abroad, is actively
looking for a job in Finland, and ready to accept work in Finland or take part in
activation measures, he/she can keep receiving labour market subsidy.
Unemployment benefits may also be temporarily cut or lost when claimants
refuse job offers or activation measures. Foreigners may have extra duties in an

8
Act on unemployment benefits, Työttömyysturvalaki, Lag on utkomstskydd för arbetslösa
1290/2002.
156 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

individual integration plan, and failing to do so might lead to reductions (Act on the
Promotion of Immigrant Integration 1386/2010).
Most social security agreements (except for China and South Korea) concluded
by Finland do not cover unemployment benefits. However, the Nordic Convention
includes, for instance, a five-year rule on the right of returning migrants from
another Nordic country to unemployment benefits. According to this rule, the
employment history in another Nordic country of a person who returns to Finland
can be taken into account directly as counting towards the condition concerning
previous employment for the Finnish unemployment allowance. However, one pre-
condition is that the person has worked in Finland or received unemployment allow-
ance from Finland in the previous five years.

10.2.2 Health Care

Every resident is entitled to adequate healthcare according to the Constitution of

Finland.9 Persons who have a municipality of residence in Finland are entitled to
treatment in the public healthcare system. Citizenship or country of origin are not
relevant for accessing benefits in kind in case of sickness: once a person is perma-
nent resident, he/she is entitled to public health care and covered by the National
Health Insurance (sairausvakuutus, sjukförsäkring). However, the type of residence
permit, the length of the residency and the reason for residency effect the scope of
the services.
Municipalities are responsible for arranging and funding health care in kind for
their permanent residents.10 They have the right to levy taxes, but also state subsi-
dies and user fees are important for funding. There is an upper limit per calendar
year for the fees for health care and medicine, beyond which patients do not have to
continue paying. Minors are exempt from fees. Most employees, however, have
access to occupational health care, exempt from fees. There are also special arrange-
ments for university students.
Those who stay in Finland temporarily are only entitled to emergency treatment.
Those insured in another EU country receive necessary medical treatment and pay

9
Perustuslaki, Grundlagen, 731/1999. Unofficial translation available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/
laki/ kaannokset/haku/?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bkieli%5D%5B%5D=en&search%
5Bpika%5D=constitution&submit=Search Accessed 18 February 2019.
10
The Health Care Act (terveydenhuoltolaki, hälso och sjukvårdslag, 1326/2010, unofficial transla-
tion available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2010/20101326, accessed 18 February
2019); Primary Health Care Act (kansanterveyslaki, folkhäsolag, 66/1972, unofficial translation
available at https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/1972/19720066 accessed 18 February 2019);
Act on Specialized Medical Care (erikoissairaanhoitolaki, lagen om specialiserad sjukvård,
1062/1989; unofficial translation available at https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannok-
set/1989/19891062, accessed 18 February 2019); Mental Health Act (mielenterveyslaki, mental-
vårdslagen, 1116/1990, unofficial translation available at https://www.finlex.fi/en/ laki/
kaannokset/1990/19901116, accessed 18 February 2019).
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 157

the same fees as residents. Others can be charged for the costs of the treatment after-
wards also for emergency treatment. In other words, everyone (including undocu-
mented migrants) is entitled to emergency health care and EU nationals to a bit
more even though they stay in Finland only temporarily as tourists. Asylum seekers
are entitled to emergency healthcare, including maternity care and treatment of
chronic diseases. Minors are entitled to all same services as permanent residents.
People coming to work in Finland from another EU country or their family mem-
bers are entitled to public healthcare services even though they have no domicile in
Finland. Third-country nationals have the same rights providing they have a resi-
dence permit that allows them to work (Kotkas 2019). Employees who are only
covered by earnings-related pension insurance or workers’ compensation are not
covered by the National Health Insurance and cannot get reimbursed for costs for
private healthcare, medicine or travel costs.
Under the Nordic Convention on Social Security, extra costs for the return jour-
ney home from another Nordic country in cases of illness are reimbursed. With
Australia, Finland also has an agreement covering medical treatment during a tem-
porary stay in the other signatory country.
Partial reimbursements for fees of private service providers, medicine and travel
is provided by the National Health Insurance. It provides also for the sickness allow-
ance to compensate for loss of income due to incapacity for work lasting less than a
full year.11 The system is perhaps the most universal in Europe in the sense that not
only are all employees and self-employed included, but also those who do not have
income (home-makers or students). Criterion of residency and work is laid down in
the Act 16/2019, s. 4–13. The sickness daily allowance is income-related and pay-
able for 300 days. Residents who are not qualifying for the income-related allow-
ance can claim the minimum flat-rate allowance. There is also a partial sickness
allowance aimed to help persons who are unfit for work to remain in work and to
return to full-time work. After 300 days of sick leave, the person can apply for a
disability pension.
Regarding invalidity, disability benefits are paid by Kela to provide support in
everyday life, studies or work to individuals with disability or chronic illness. The
criterion of the allowances is the same for nationals and foreigners as long as they
are permanent residents. The residency is judged according to the Act 19/2019 – liv-
ing in Finland permanently (sections 5 and 10) or filling in the minimum working
requirement (sections 7 and 8). There is a waiting period (for nationals and foreign-
ers equally) of three years. Insurance periods in other EU countries are accepted and
therefore a person may be entitled to the allowances right away after moving to
Finland. Disability benefits are considered sickness benefits and therefore export-
able to other EU countries.
Individuals between 16 and 64 years of age who have an illness or injury that
prevents from earning a reasonable living can also get compensation for loss of

11
Health Insurance Act (HIA, Sairausvakuutuslaki, sjukförsäkringslag, 1224/2004). Unofficial
translation available here: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/20041224. Accessed 18
February 2019.
158 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

income through the pension system. To get a disability pension (työkyvyttömyy-

seläke, sjukpension), insured persons must have lost their work capacity and the
incapacity is estimated to last for at least one year (this condition concerns only
earnings-related pension) or due to permanent injury. The disability pension con-
sists of the pension accrued during the insured person’s work history and the pro-
jected pension component. To get disability pension under the National Pensions
Act, individuals must have resided in Finland for at least 3 years after having
reached the age of 16 years.12

10.2.3 Pensions

The statutory pension system is two-fold, with work-related and residence-based

pensions. The statutory pension system consists of three defined benefit parts: the
work-related statutory earnings-related pension system, the residence-based
national pension system and the guarantee pension system.
Earnings-related pensions (työeläke, pension för arbetstagare) for employees
and self-employed are operated mainly on a pay-as-you-go basis, but some pensions
are operated according to the principle of partial funding. Pensions are based on
annual earnings and age. The scheme is defined-benefit. The earnings-related sys-
tem is fully mandatory, but it is run by private pension insurance institutions, com-
pany pension funds and industry-wide funds. Employers and employees finance
earnings-related pension together.
The residence-based, non-contributory, national pension (kansaneläke, folkpen-
sion) is tested against income from the earnings-related schemes (National Pensions
Act (568/2007, kansaneläkelaki, folkpensionslag). The family situation affects the
amount of the national pension. There is a waiting period for both nationals and
foreigners: having resided for at least 3 years after having reached the age of
16 years. There is no need to have lived in Finland continuously, but periods in
Finland can be counted together. Periods lived in another EU country can also be
counted. To get the full national pension, claimants must have lived in Finland at
least 80 percent off the time between 16 years and 65 years of age.
The non-contributory guarantee pension (takuueläke, garantipension) aiming to
alleviate poverty and guarantee the minimum safety net13 is granted to residents who
receive an old-age pension and their total gross pension income is less than €784,52
per month (as in 2019). Also foreigners (i.e. residents not entitled to national pen-
sion) who do not receive a national pension are eligible from the age of 65. Both of
these residence-based pensions are tax-financed, defined-benefit and operated on a
pay-as-you-go basis. Due to nearly universal coverage and the absence of ceilings,

12
The residence criterion does not have to be met if one has previously received disability allow-
ance for persons under age 16 or if the incapacity for work started while the individual lived in
Finland and before he/she reached the age of 19.
13
Act on guarantee pension, laki takuueläkkeestä, lag on garantipension, 703/2010.
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 159

the role of supplementary pension is negligible in Finland. If the person has been
covered by several different pension acts, the last pension provider awards and pays
the whole pension. The Finnish Centre for Pensions (Eläketurvakeskus, ETK,
Pensionskyddcentralen14) is the central body of the scheme. National pensions are
administered by the Social Insurance Institution (Kansaneläkelaitos, Kela,
Folkpensionanstaltet, FPA15).
It is possible to start in a new employment or work as self-employed while draw-
ing an old-age pension. From January 2017, the retirement age for earnings-related
pensions is raised by 3 months annually until it reaches 65 years in 2027. Thereafter,
it will be linked to life expectancy. Persons born in 1962 are the first age group who
have a lowest possible retirement age of 65 years. For persons born in 1965 or later,
the retirement age is linked to life expectancy. Currently, the retiring age for the
national pension is 65 years, but for those born 1965 or later, the retirement age in
the national pension scheme and the earnings-related pension scheme will be
adjusted with the life expectancy and determined at the age of 62 years. The longer
one works and the later one retires, the higher the pension will be.
Earnings-related pensions can generally be exported to any country. Also, all
social security agreements concluded by Finland cover pensions. The agreements
with the United States, Canada, Chile and Israel cover even national old-age pen-
sions and survivors’ pensions. The agreement with Australia only applies to old-age
pensions, whereas the agreements with India, China and South Korea cover
earnings-­related pensions. Payment abroad of an earnings-related pension continues
regardless of the country to which one has moved. However, national pensions can
only be exported in other EU countries. Guarantee pension is for residents only. If
the stay abroad is considered temporary (less than 6 months), it does not affect one’s
national or guarantee pension.

10.2.4 Family Benefits

The national, compulsory sickness insurance scheme for all inhabitants provides for
earnings-related benefits in case of maternity or paternity for economically active
parents. Parents who are not working are eligible for a minimum allowance. Thus
all residents are eligible. The residency is judged according to the Act 19/2019,
although there is a waiting period. Both parents (nationals or foreigners) must have
fulfilled a period of insurance in Finland for at least 180 days immediately before
the expected date of confinement. Insurance periods in other EU countries and Israel
are also accepted. Only third-country nationals coming straight to Finland cannot
have insurance periods accepted (Kotkas 2019).

14
https://www.etk.fi/en/. Accessed 18 February 2019.
15
https://www.kela.fi/web/en/pension. Accessed 18 February 2019.
160 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

Kela pays the maternity allowance (äitiysraha, moderskapspenning) for 105 days.
The gross compensation level in the average income group is about 75%. After
maternity leave, parental allowance (vanhempainraha, föräldrapenning) is paid for
158 days. The compensation rate is about 70% income at the median income level.
The parental leave can be shared between the mother and the father, but they cannot
receive it at the same time. The paternity leave (isyysvapaa, pappaledig) can last up
to 54 working days. Fathers can choose to stay at home for 1 to 18 days at the same
time as the child’s mother while she is paid maternity or parental allowance. The
rest of the leave can be taken after the parental allowance has ended. There is no
statutory continuation of payment, but collective agreements provide for the contin-
ued payment of wages and salaries for employees during part of the maternity and
paternity leave, and a few agreements during part of the parental leave. If the
employer pays the salary, the allowance is paid to the employer. The allowance is
exportable only to EU countries, although residing in any other country for less than
6 months will not end the payment (Kotkas 2019). After parental leave, parents can
take child care leave until the child (or youngest child) turns three years old. Child
home care allowance (kotihoidontuki, barnvårdstöden) is paid during that period.
Home care allowance can be exported to EU countries due to one of the parents
working in Finland. It cannot be paid to third countries. However, the family keeps
receiving home care allowance during customary vacations abroad. Usually under
3 months residing abroad is considered customary.
The main child-related cash transfer is the universal child allowance (lapsilisä,
barnbidrag) paid to the guardian of the child by Kela.16 It is tax financed, flat-rate
and paid to every child under 17 years of age. The amount of the benefit depends on
the number of children. The child allowance is for children residing permanently in
Finland. The permanency of the residency is judged by the Act 16/2019. However,
if the parent works in Finland and the child reside in another EU country, the child
can be entitled to child allowance. Third-country nationals need longer working
periods as stipulated in the Child Allowance Act section 1a. Child allowance is
included in the Social Security Agreement between Finland and Israel.

10.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The Constitution of Finland stipulates that those who cannot obtain the means nec-
essary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and
care (Sect. 19). This applies to all people residing in Finland (including undocu-
mented migrants or tourists without means), as all of them are provided at least
emergency healthcare and minimum income. Those residing in Finland perma-
nently, however, are entitled to social assistance (toimeentulotuki, utkomstöd) on

16
Child Allowance Act, lapsilisälaki, barnbidragslag,796/1992.
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 161

more permanent basis.17 Social assistance is paid only for people residing in Finland.
However, applying the Act on Social Assistance does not require permanent resi-
dence as the basic benefits described earlier do (Kotkas 2018; Van Aerschot 2017).
Again, nationality is not an eligibility criteria for accessing social assistance.
This last resort benefit is meant for those who either are not entitled to basic benefits
or - as more often is the case – whose basic benefits are insufficient to cover basic
expenses. To qualify for social assistance, the claimant is supposed to apply for all
other benefits (unemployment allowance or labour market subsidy) and be regis-
tered as jobseeker. The benefit is means-tested considering all type of household’s
income (except for assets necessary for living), although disability benefits, mater-
nity grant, reimbursement on expenses, activity supplements of unemployment ben-
efits or work income up to €150 per month do not affect the level of the benefit.
Social assistance can be granted as long as the relevant conditions are met, but the
benefit can be cut by 20–40% if the claimant refuses to participate in activation
measures, search for a job, or participate in the immigrant integration plan (only for
foreigners). The basic social assistance is managed by Kela and municipalities cater
for additional and preventive social assistance.
To apply for Finnish citizenship, family reunification or a permanent residence
permit, one must be able to provide for himself/herself. Although the occasional
take-up of social security benefits or even social assistance is not considered harm-
ful, the frequent take-up of such benefits is. Even EU nationals can be considered as
a burden if drawing constantly on social benefits, especially on social assistance.18
The authorities responsible for residence permits do not, however, generally receive
information on whether a foreigner has been granted social assistance in Finland
(Kiuru 2014). However, the discretion of this criterion should take into consider-
ation all the facts including whether the take-up of social assistance has been inten-
tional or happened for reasons beyond one’s control (Alien Act S39, Kotkas 2018;
Palander 2018b).

10.3 Conclusions

For a long time, Finland has been mainly a country of emigration and started to
attract large numbers of immigrants only during the past decades. These demo-
graphic changes have challenged the national welfare system that had to efficiently
respond to the different needs of such diverse populations. The current Finnish
social protection system treats nationals and legally residing foreigners on an equal
basis. The eligibility criteria, sanctions, waiting periods or amount of benefits are

17
Act on Social Assistance (Toimeentulotukilaki, Lag om utkomstöd, 1417/1997). English transla-
tion available here (without the latest amendments): https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannok-
set/1997/19971412, accessed 18 February 2019.
18
See case 2016:75 of the Supreme Administrative Court in which a German family was repatri-
ated due to constant drawing on social assistance.
162 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

the same irrespective of nationality. Coverage is gained mainly through residency.

If a residency is considered permanent, a person is usually covered once he/she
moves to Finland. Also working in Finland entitles to benefits, providing that one
fulfils the earning requirement. Getting into the country is therefore an important
phase and the regulations stipulated in the Alien Act condition migrants’ access to
social protection in Finland. As Kotkas (2018, 2019) highlighted, the social protec-
tion system is relatively equal, but getting into it might not always be equal.
Even if foreigners are covered by the Finnish social protection system, they may
not always gain advantage of it as nationals do. The services provided may not
always cater for migrants’ needs. For example, the health services do not reach
immigrants well enough, especially services for mental health, nor is equal treat-
ment of multinational clients always easy (Castañeda et al. 2012; Valtiontalouden
tarkastusvirasto 2014; Kalliomaa-Puha 2017). In many cases, EU and non-EU for-
eigners are treated equally in terms of access to social benefits, but there are also
many examples where EU nationals benefit from an easier access. To be able to
work in Finland, third-country nationals need residence permits, while EU nationals
may move to Finland and start working without them. There are various types of
residence permits which may have an effect on social rights and the possibility to
get entitlement through work. Third-country nationals may need longer working
periods to qualify for certain benefits such as the Child Allowance. Also, the length
of one’s stay and the reason of one’s residence matter. For example, asylum seekers’
residence is considered temporary and therefore this group has less rights. Persons
coming to Finland only to study are in most cases not entitled to benefits. The length
of the stay affects, for instance, the amount of national pension (pro rata-principle).
Children get social protection easier than adults. A person’s behaviour also affects
the amount of the benefits. Full amount of unemployment benefits and social assis-
tance require looking for a job and being active. Drawing on benefits frequently can
cause turning down the application for residence permits or citizenship (Kotkas
2018; Hakalehto and Sovela 2018).
Receiving cash benefits from abroad is quite flexible as long as non-residents
remain in the scope of the Finnish system, which in most cases is for six months.
Taking care of one’s social security affairs is relatively easy from abroad since most
correspondence with the authorities can be done online. However, services-in-kind
are impossible to export, which may sometimes cause difficulties when coordinat-
ing social protection with countries with cash benefits typical to insurance
based system.
Immigrants’ social security issues, exporting Finnish benefits and coordination
of social security benefits have gained salience in political debates in recent years.
Political pressures to change the legislation regulating access to social benefits in
Finland have emerged especially in a context in which benefits has been cut due the
economic recession affecting the country. Furthermore, the access of migrants to
social protection has also changed over time with the different EU directives which
are now fully implemented in Finland. Additionally, the efforts to increase work-­
related immigration in recent years have become controversial and legal scholars
have emphasized the fact that ensuring migrants’ access to social protection is not
10 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland 163

necessarily a political issue, but rather a legal – human rights – question (Aer 2016;
Kiuru 2014; Nykänen 2018; Palander 2017).
The Finnish system is, however, about to go through a big change. Two succes-
sive governments have been trying to launch the largest social policy reform ever in
Finland, but failed to reach political consensus. The main objectives are to fix
observed inequalities in access to social and health care, lacking customer orienta-
tion and cutting growing expenses. The most heated discussion so far has been on
increasing customer choice. That may have implications on immigrants’ access to
services. It may not be that easy to get the necessary information in a foreign lan-
guage to be able to find and choose the suitable service. In addition to this reform
on social and health care, a simplification of the cash benefits system is also
planned for.

Acknowledgements This chapter Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Finland is part of the
project “Migration and Transnational Social Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that
has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to
this chapter, readers can find a series of indicators comparing national social protection and dias-
pora policies across 40 countries on the following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/
socialprotection/.

References

Aer, J. (2016). Ulkomaalaisoikeuden perusteet. Alma Talent: Helsinki.

Castañeda, A. E., Rask, S., Koponen, P., Mölsä, M., & Koskinen, S. (Eds.). (2012).
Maahanmuuttajien terveys ja hyvinvointi. Tutkimus venäläis-, somalialais- ja kurditaustaisista
Suomessa. Raportti 61/2012. Terveyden- ja hyvinvoinninlaitos: Helsinki.
Hakalehto, S., & Sovela, K. (2018). Lapsen etu ja sen ensisijaisuus ulkomaalaisasioita koskev-
assa päätöksenteossa. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas, & J. Palander (Eds.), Ulkomaalaisoikeus
(pp. 407–448). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
Kallio, H. (2018). Ulkomaalaisen oikeus työntekoon. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas, & J. Palander (Eds.),
Ulkomaalaisoikeus (pp. 173–235). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
Kalliomaa-Puha, L. (2017). Maahanmuuttajan oikeus omaan kieleen, kulttuuriin ja vakaumuk-
seen. In L. Kalliomaa-Puha & A.-K. Tuovinen (Eds.), Sosiaaliturvan rajoilla. Kirjoituksia kan-
sainvälisestä sosiaalioikeudesta (pp. 262–293). Kela: Helsinki.
Keskimäki, I., Nykänen, E., & Kuusio, H. (2014). Paperittomien terveyspalvelut Suomessa.
Helsinki: THL, Raportti 11.
Kiuru, B. (2014). Migrant access to social security and healthcare: policies and practice in Finland.
European Migration Network. Finnish Immigration Service. Helsinki. https://ec.europa.eu/
home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports_en. Accessed 18
Feb 2019.
Kotkas, T. (2018). Ulkomaalaisten oikeus toimeentuloturvaan Suomessa. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas,
& J. Palander (Eds.), Ulkomaalaisoikeus (pp. 549–586). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
Kotkas, T. (2019). Rajat ylittävä sosiaalioikeus. Alma Talent: Helsinki.
Nykänen, E. (2018). Ulkomaalaisten oikeus sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluihin. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas,
& J. Palander (Eds.), Ulkomaalaisoikeus (pp. 587–616). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
164 L. Kalliomaa-Puha

Nykänen, E., Keskimäki, I., & Kuusio, H. (2017). Paperittomien ulkomaalaisten oikeus ter-
veyspalveluihin. In L. Kalliomaa-Puha & A.-K. Tuovinen (Eds.), Sosiaaliturvan rajoilla.
Kirjoituksia kansainvälisestä sosiaalioikeudesta (pp. 216–235). Kela: Helsinki.
Palander, J. (2017). Eurooppaoikeus ja pienipalkkaisten ulkomaalaisten työntekijöiden perheen
yhdistäminen. Tarkastelussa tulorajan lainmukaisuus ja suhteellisuus. In L. Kalliomaa-Puha &
A.-K. Tuovinen (Eds.), Sosiaaliturvan rajoilla. Kirjoituksia kansainvälisestä sosiaalioikeud-
esta (pp. 142–170). Kela: Helsinki.
Palander, J. (2018a). Ulkomaalaisoikeuden sääntelyjärjestelmä. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas, &
J. Palander (Eds.), Ulkomaalaisoikeus (pp. 1–38). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
Palander, J. (2018b). Perheenyhdistäminen ja perhe-elämän suoja. In H. Kallio, T. Kotkas, &
J. Palander (Eds.), Ulkomaalaisoikeus (pp. 357–406). Helsinki: Alma Talent.
Sorainen, O. (2017). Työperusteisen maahanmuuton harmonisointi EU:ssa ja Suomen ulko-
maalaislaki. Sosiaaliturvaoikeuksiin liittyviä epäjatkuvuuskohtia. In L. Kalliomaa-Puha &
A.-K. Tuovinen (Eds.), Sosiaaliturvan rajoilla. Kirjoituksia kansainvälisestä sosiaalioikeud-
esta (pp. 126–141). Kela: Helsinki.
Statistics Finland (2019). https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#muuttoliike.
Accessed 18 Feb 2019.
Sutela, H. & Larja, L. (2015). Yli puolet Suomen ulkomaalaistaustaisista muuttanut maahan
perhesyistä. Ulkomaista syntyperää olevien työ ja hyvinvointi tutkimus 2014. 15.10.2015.
Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. www.stat.fi/tup/maahanmuutto/art_2015-10-15_001.html. Accessed
18 Feb 2019.
Tanner, A. (2011). Finland’s Balancing Act: The Labor Market, Humanitarian Relief, and
Immigrant integration. Profile. Migration Information Source. The online Journal of Migration
Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/finlands-balancing-act-labor-market-
humanita rian-relief-and-immigrant-integration. Accessed 18 Feb 2019.
Välimäki, M. (2017). Kansainvälisten muutosten puristuksessa – Keskustan, Kokoomuksen ja
Sosiaalidemokraattien pakolaispolitiikka 1973–2015. Historiallinen aikakauskirja, 3(2017),
303–316.
Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto. (2014). Tuloksellisuustarkastuskertomus. Kotouttaminen sos-
iaali- ja terveydenhuollossa. Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston tarkastuskertomukset 3/2014.
Helsinki: Edita Prima.
Van Aerschot, P. (2017). Maahanmuttajien ja muiden ulkomaalaisten oikeus toimeentulotukeen
Suomessa. In L. Kalliomaa-Puha & A.-K. Tuovinen (Eds.), Sosiaaliturvan rajoilla. Kirjoituksia
kansainvälisestä sosiaalioikeudesta (pp. 236–261). Kela: Helsinki.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 11
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in France

Lola Isidro and Antoine Math

11.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in France

The French social protection system is characterized as both extensive and frag-
mented, having for long relied mostly on social security or insurance benefits, but
having much evolved over the last decades (by including more universal and means-­
tested schemes, having known restrictions on social insurance protections and being
at the dawn of a significant retrenchment). France is the European country having
also first known modern immigration, with important inflows of migrants going
back to the industrial Revolution at the end of the nineteenth century. Since the
mid-­1970s, the country has implemented publicly debated restrictive immigration
policies.

11.1.1  ain Characteristics of the French Social

M
Security System

Even if social assistance and social insurance schemes were already implemented
before World War (WW) II, the real birth of the modern French social protection
system took place with the creation of “Sécurité sociale” in 1945. This system

L. Isidro
Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Math (*)
Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales – IRES, Noisy-le-Grand, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 165

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_11
166 L. Isidro and A. Math

aimed at a universal coverage by developing ambitious contributory schemes that is

pursuing Beveridge’s goals using Bismarck’s means (Palier 2005). Having most
features of a conservative regime (Esping-Andersen 1990), the French system is
also characterized by a strong fragmentation: social security regimes differ accord-
ing to socio-professional categories, while other schemes are the responsibility of
social actors (employees’ and employers’ representatives), the central State or local
governments (Barbier and Théret 2004).
After WWII, the social protection system witnessed considerable developments.
Schemes improved in terms of performances and coverage with the rise of old-age
pensions and the extension of social insurances (“generalization”), especially health
care. During the 1970s and 1980s, the system knew a first shift towards more means-­
tested schemes, through the creation or extension of new ones (social assistance
minimum guaranteed income), the gradual replacement of more universal pro-
grammes (family benefits) by means tested ones, and towards a certain “universal-
ization” of previously contribution-based schemes (such as health care). These
evolutions (means-testing, generalization and universalization) were accompanied
since the mid-1980s by strong pressures on social budgets and important restric-
tions to social insurance rights such as old-age pensions and unemployment bene-
fits. This reconfiguration of the French social system is the result of ideological,
demographic and economic factors in a context characterized by mass unemploy-
ment, strong social and spatial inequalities, and a more competitive and globalized
economic environment putting a stronger pressure on social and fiscal systems
(Concialdi 2011). With the austerity orientation implemented since the beginning of
the 2010s, a new stage has been reached, with reforms aiming at downsizing the
social welfare (Math 2015).
In 2017, social protection expenditure amounted to 33.7% of the GDP, still plac-
ing France at the top of developed countries. Benefits represented 94% of this total
(31,7% of the GDP). Old-age and survivor benefits (pensions, old-age guaranteed
minimum income, social assistance or long term care benefits for the elderly) repre-
sented almost a half (45.5%) of all benefits. Health benefits (including invalidity,
work injuries and professional sickness) represented 35.1%, family and maternity
benefits 7.6%, unemployment and employment insertion benefits 6.1%, housing
benefits 2.5%, and poverty and social exclusion measures 3.2% (Table 11.1).

11.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Since the end of the nineteenth century, immigration has become a very important
phenomenon in France. As the birth rate in France had been much lower than in
other European countries during this century, the insufficient demographic growth
was a problem in the context of the industrial Revolution. For this reason, France
started to welcome workforce from border countries (Belgium, Spain, Italy). To
control those entries in a context of nation building (Noiriel 1988), the first impor-
tant immigration act (Act on residence of foreigners and protection of national
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 167

Table 11.1 Social benefit expenditure in France (2017)

in billions of € in %
Health 208,8 28,7
Invalidity 40,1 5,5
Work injuries & professional diseases 6,9 0,9
Old age 292,3 40,2
Survival 38,7 5,3
Family 55,2 7,6
Employment insertion 4,0 0,5
Unemployment 40,3 5,5
Housing 18,5 2,5
Poverty and social exclusion (not included 23,1 3,2
elsewhere)
Total 727,9 100,0
Source: La protection sociale en France et en Europe en 2017 – édition 2019, DREES, coll.
Panoramas de la DREES, Ministère des affaires sociales, Paris

labour) was adopted in 1893.1 During WWI, France also called in migrant workers
mostly from French colonies in Africa and Asia.
The lack of workers (due to long-lasting low birth rate and war) and the arrival
of people fleeing persecutions (Russians, Armenians, Jews from Eastern Europe,
Italians) led to significant inflows during the decade following WWI. The main
flows came from Italy and Poland. The share of immigrants (born a foreigner and
abroad according to the French definition) increased from 3.5% in 1921 to 6.6% in
1931.2 After the Great Depression, in a context of rising unemployment and eco-
nomic difficulties, restrictions were implemented during the 1930s with the rise of
nationalist and xenophobic ideologies. Several acts were passed to protect the
national labour market (1926; 1932; under the Vichy regime). The share of immi-
grants decreased from 6.6% in 1931 to 5.6% in 1936 and 5% in 1946.
The National Office of Immigration (NOI) was created in 1945, under the super-
vision of the Labour Ministry. The office was supposed to control the recruitment of
migrant workers. However, employers quickly circumvented the procedure and
directly recruited workers in their countries of origin, bringing them to France in a
context of rapid economic growth. The share of immigrants increased from 5% in
1946 to 7.4% in 1975, with most of them coming from Portugal, Spain and former
colonies of North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia). NOI has thus been led to
deliver ex post authorizations until the late 1960s (Spire 2005).
However, anticipating first signs of economic slow-down and fearing a replace-
ment of national workers by migrant workers, the Government announced the
suspension of immigration in 1974 and the administration started to take into

1
Loi relative au séjour des étrangers en France et à la protection du travail national
2
All statistics on immigrants and foreigners come from Census data (INSEE, national statistical
institution).
168 L. Isidro and A. Math

account the present and future situation of employment considering the profession
requested by migrants and its localization.3 The impact was immediate: in 1965,
80% of the attribution of residence permits were motivated by work, whereas in
1975, this rate fell to 20% (Thierry 2008). The renewals of work and residence per-
mits were also affected. Family immigration was restored in 1975 as its suspension
violated the right to respect for family life protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights. However, family reunification was still not encouraged and it con-
tinued to be restricted as well as other types of immigration (refugees, students,
workers, etc.). This was also the moment from which immigration started to become
a permanent publicly debated issue in France. In a context of economic slowdown
and rising mass unemployment, the share of immigrants from the total population
remained stable between 1975 (7.4%) and 1999 (7.3%), while the share of foreign-
ers decreased from 6.5% to 5.5%.
Since the 1990s, immigration laws were reformed many times, leading to a more
restrictive regime for entering and residing in France. Immigration also started to
gain salience in public debates, being often portrayed as “a problem” (Hmed and
Laurens 2008). Despite these restrictions, immigration flows (the causes of which
are mostly external to France or linked to colonialization ties) slightly increased
over the last two decades, although still remaining at low levels when compared to
other Western European countries. The annual flows of foreigners arriving in France
passed from around 190,000 from the mid-2000s to 253,000 in 2015. The share of
immigrants increased from 7.3% in 1999 to 8.5% in 2010 and 9.3% in 2015 (with a
corresponding share of foreigners of 5.5%, 5.9% and 6.7% for these years). Yet,
given rising outflows, the estimated net immigration remained extremely low, rep-
resenting only around 50,000 per year since the beginning of 2010s, i.e. less than
0.1% of the total population (INSEE 2019). In 2015, 44.6% of all immigrants (born
a foreigner and abroad) were born in Africa, 35.5% in Europe, 14.3% in Asia and
5.6% in America or Oceania. In comparison, recent immigrants come slightly more
from Europe, Asia and America and less from Africa: 37% of immigrants arrived in
France in 2016 are born in Europe (Italy, Portugal, the UK, Spain, and Romania as
main countries of origin), 35.7% in Africa, 16.2% in Asia and 11% in American
countries.
If growing restrictions to enter or stay in France since the 1990s have not stopped
immigration flows, they have however prevent more people from entering the coun-
try and led to more and more human rights violations, especially through various
repression and deportation measures. The restrictions have also had the conse-
quence of maintaining in or sending back to irregularity more foreigners and for
longer periods. They have also strongly increased the share of foreigners living in
France with short duration and precarious residence permits (Math and Spire 2016).
This has destabilized the situation for foreign residents and led to well documented
negative effects for their integration, especially for accessing the labour market or
the welfare system (Math 2016b).

3
Art. L. 341–4 (now art. R. 5221–20) of the Code du travail.
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 169

The number of French citizens living abroad has much increased over the last
two decades. Their number is estimated at 3.5 million, even if at end 2017, only 1.8
million were officially registered at diplomatic French authorities. Half of them are
dual nationals. Half of them live in a European country (37% in a European Union
(EU) Member State). The five first countries of destination, summing up 40% of
French nationals living abroad, are Switzerland, United States, United Kingdom,
Belgium and Germany.

11.2 Migration and Social Protection in France

The conditions that define foreigners’ access to the French social protection schemes
can be better understood by analysing five possible requirements or obstacles: resi-
dence (on the French territory), anteriority of presence (prior residence), regularity
(according to immigration law), anteriority of regularity (prior regular residence)
and regularity of the entry for children.
Social protection schemes are generally aimed only at the person (national citi-
zen or foreigner) residing in the country. This means actually being present in a
stable manner and not just occasionally in France, either by having one’s permanent
household, or by having one’s main residence in France (being present more than
six months per year is generally a sufficient condition to remain resident).
Consequently, persons residing abroad are excluded from most French social pro-
tection schemes, except for old-age contributory pensions. However, the residence
condition can be levied (and the benefits may be exported) on grounds of interna-
tional conventions, the European coordination of social security systems or bilateral
social security conventions.
Some form of anteriority of presence or residence may additionally be required
for both national citizens and foreign residents. Typically, this refers to a prior resi-
dence of three consecutive months in order to be eligible for health care coverage
(some groups are exempted from this condition, such as students, family members
of an insured person, etc.).
EU and non-EU foreigners also have to reside regularly in France to become
eligible for most social benefits. This condition is rather new in the social protection
system. It was actually introduced for some schemes at the same moment as immi-
gration policy was tightened in the mid-1970s and then extended to most social
protection schemes in 1993, as a mean for controlling immigration more strictly
(Isidro 2017). The definition of regularity, e.g. the list of documents accepted for
non-EU and non-European Economic Area (EEA) foreigners, may vary from one
benefit to another. The regularity for EU/EEA foreigners is defined by EU law, but
one may observe a rather restrictive and contestable application by French social
protection bodies. For some guaranteed minimum income schemes, non-EU for-
eigners may also have to prove having residence permits and authorizations to work
for a long period of time: five years for the general guaranteed minimum income
(RSA) and 10 years for the old-age one (ASPA). However, this requirement does
170 L. Isidro and A. Math

not apply for national citizens, EU/EEA foreigners, refugees and Algerians (the lat-
ter are protected by a specific international text requiring equal treatment). This
condition is rather new and has been introduced as a mean of excluding more for-
eigners, at a moment when any formal exclusion of foreigners or condition of
nationality was banned by Constitutional and European Courts.
Additionally, non-EU/EEA children born abroad have to enter France through
the family reunification procedure in order to qualify for family, housing and guar-
anteed minimum income benefits. This restriction, that has led to the exclusion of
numerous families, was introduced in 1986 by the newly elected right-wing govern-
ment as a direct response to the far right pressures with the entry at Parliament of
the xenophobic National Front party.

11.2.1 Unemployment

There are two main unemployment benefit schemes in France for private sector
employees: a compulsory unemployment social insurance financed by social contri-
butions and a tax financed unemployment solidarity or assistance.
To be eligible for the unemployment insurance benefit, one must be involuntarily
unemployed and have worked for at least 6 months during the last 24 months (for
unemployed under 53). The benefit is earnings-related. The duration depends of the
number of days worked during the past 24 months (ranking, in general, between a
minimum duration of 6 months and a maximum duration of 2 years).
To be eligible for the unemployment assistance benefit (allocation de solidarité
spécifique), one has not to be entitled or have exhausted entitlement to unemploy-
ment insurance benefits and have worked 5 years as an employed person during the
10 years preceding the end of the working contract. The benefit is flat rate (16.74 €
per day in 2020) and is means-tested at the household’s income level. It is renewable
every 6 months.
For both schemes, one also has to be registered as unemployed. To do so, one has
to be effectively and permanently looking for work; conform to a personalized
back-to-work action plan; be physically able to work; not to collect early retirement
benefits or have reached the statutory retirement age. Furthermore, registered unem-
ployed must reside in France, unless scarce possibility to export the benefit during
3 months in another EEA country, as specified by Regulation 883/2004 on the coor-
dination of social security systems (no such possibility exists with current bilateral
social security conventions).
This residence condition applies for both nationals and foreigners. However,
when registering as unemployed, third-country nationals are additionally required
to prove regular residence. This can be done by providing one of the residence per-
mits listed in Article R.5221–48 of the Labour Law (Code du travail). The defini-
tion of regularity (i.e. the list of residence permits) is particularly stringent, so that
some third-country nationals with legal residence and authorisation to work who
have also paid contributions cannot actually register as unemployed, and thus
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 171

cannot become eligible for unemployment benefits (for instance, foreigners with
“student” or “temporary worker” residence permits). This regularity condition is the
main and only difference that can be identified between non-EU foreigners and
other groups in terms of accessing unemployment benefits.
Being unemployed (and/or receiving an unemployment benefit) may affect EU
and non-EU foreigners’ access to naturalization, as the latter depends on the admin-
istrative appreciation of social integration and income. Indirectly through the level
of resources, it may also have an impact on the residence right after 6 month of
unemployment for EU foreigners (not having already acquired either a permanent
residence right or a residence right as a family member of an EU citizen with the
right to reside) that has worked less than 12 months before being unemployed (oth-
erwise he/she conserves his/her worker status as long as he/she is registered as
unemployed under EU law). Being unemployed may also raise problems for non-
­EU foreigners asking for the renewal of certain residence permits linked to employ-
ment (such as “temporary worker”). For non-EU foreigners, being unemployed may
lead to a refusal of their application for family reunification, as the later depends on
a minimum level of stable income.

11.2.2 Health Care

Health care (sickness benefits in kind) was initially built as a professional “bis-
marckian” contributory system, but has been extended over time to become a basic
universal scheme. Around 99% of the population was already covered at the end of
the 1980s (Math 2015). It is a compulsory social insurance scheme with affiliation
based on working activity criteria or, alternatively, permanent and regular residency.
The system is financed by a mix of resources (contributions, taxes, public authori-
ties’ participation). It covers nearly all residents except for irregular foreigners and
some newcomers during the first 3 months of their stay in France. The exclusion of
undocumented migrants was implemented in 1993 by the then newly elected right-­
wing government.
Sickness and invalidity benefits in cash, on the other side, have remained a com-
pulsory social insurance scheme for the employed and financed by contributions.
The access to sickness benefits in kind depends on showing documents that
prove either a working activity or residence during the former 3 months. EU/EEA
foreigners will have also to prove by any means that they are legally residing under
EU law. Non-EU foreigners have to provide a residence document (in a list stated
by an official text4). This is an obstacle for foreigners having immigrated legally to
actually access health care (for instance, asylum seekers sometimes wait a long time

4
Arrêté du 10 mai 2017 fixant la liste des titres de séjour prévu au I de l’’article R. 111–3 du code
de la sécurité sociale
172 L. Isidro and A. Math

for getting the necessary documents that are accepted for being affiliated to
health care).
To stay eligible, one has to continue residing in France, even if temporary stays
abroad are accepted (living abroad more than 180 days per civil year is a presump-
tion for not residing in France). There are possibilities to export benefits in kinds in
the framework of the European coordination of social security systems, either per-
manently (e.g., for pensioners with S1 form), or temporarily (e.g., for not pro-
grammed health care, with the European Health Insurance Card). There are also
some scarce possibilities to export benefits in kind within the framework of the 41
bilateral social security conventions passed with non-EU/EEA countries.
Sickness benefits in cash (contributory social scheme for the employed) are earn-
ings related. To access these benefits, individuals have to provide a declaration form
filled by a doctor (avis d’arrêt de travail). For foreigners, there is a regularity condi-
tion that has most often already be checked through health care affiliation. There is
a condition of residence for all, with some possibilities to export benefits in cash in
the framework of the European coordination of social security system or in the
framework of some of the bilateral social security conventions signed with non-EU/
EEA countries.
Invalidity benefits (pensions) in cash (contributory scheme for the employed)
depend on previous earnings and degree of invalidity. To access invalidity benefits,
one has to provide a medical form, a notice of tax income and a national identity
card or passport if national/EU/EEA citizen, or a residence permit (or equivalent
document) if non-EU foreigner. There is a condition of residence for all, but invalid-
ity contributory pensions are exportable to EU/EEA countries and within the frame-
work of most of bilateral social security conventions passed with non-EU/EEA
countries. There is also a non-contributory benefit for invalidity pensioners with low
incomes (allocation supplémentaire d’invalidité). This invalidity guaranteed mini-
mum income benefit is not exportable and an additional condition is required for
non-EU foreigners only: having had residence permits and authorizations to work
for the last 10 years, with some exceptions.
Access to naturalization for EU and non-EU foreigners may be difficult for sick-
ness or invalidity benefits recipients since it depends on social integration and
incomes. Through the level of resources provided by the benefit, it may also have
some negative impact on the right to reside of EU foreigners (not having already
acquired a permanent residence right or not having a residence right as a family
member of an EU citizen having a residence right). The resident permit that depends
on an employment activity may be not renewed for non-EU foreigners living on
such cash benefits. Family reunification applications of non-EU foreigners may also
be refused since it depends on a minimum income level and the stability of
this income.
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 173

11.2.3 Pensions

The French contributory old age pension scheme for private sector employees is
composed of a basic social insurance system (assurance vieillesse or retraites de
base de la Sécurité sociale) and supplementary ones (régimes de retraites complé-
mentaires). Both are compulsory and function on a pay-as-you go principle: the
contributions of working people directly fund the pensions of people who no longer
work. The amount depends on earnings, contributions and the duration of affilia-
tion. For those having too low income, a means-tested non-contributory benefit
(allocation de solidarité aux personnes âgées - ASPA) may be granted. It functions
as a guaranteed minimum income completing incomes up to a certain amount,
903.20 € for a single and 1402.22 € for a couple (2020 amounts).
For social security pension, the person has to provide his/her passport/identity
card and the pay slips of the last 12 months if he/she still works. Other pieces may
be required to validate non-working periods: unemployment and sickness leaves,
charge of child(ren), invalidity, etc. Any person, French or foreigner, is eligible to
contributory pensions wherever he/she resides. However, resident non-EU foreign-
ers have to provide a residence permit.
For the old-age minimum guaranteed income (ASPA), individuals have however
to reside in France (EU pensioners having received it since before 1992 in comple-
ment to a French contributory pension may still export it). To be eligible, one has to
provide a notice of tax income and two documents proving residence in France
(such as rent receipt, water, gas, phone, electricity bills, mayor attestation, etc.). The
eligibility and amounts are revised each year. EU/EEA foreigners also have to prove
that they are legally residing in France under EU law. Formally, there is no mini-
mum period of prior residence in France for EU/EEA foreigners. However, given
requirements of residence right for inactive EU citizens without sufficient resources
(unless having already acquired a residence right, not as inactive), only EU foreign-
ers with rather longstanding residence in France are actually eligible. Third-country
nationals must not only have a residence permit but also prove regular and continu-
ous residence with an authorisation to work for the last 10 years. In practice, this
rather new condition excludes most non-EU foreigners. Some are exempted by law
from this “10 years” condition (refugees, French army veterans and Algerians).
Under French law, there is no condition of residence for contributory old-age
pensions, whichever the nationality. The European social security coordination and
the 41 social security bilateral conventions provide for some coordination for peo-
ple having worked in two or more countries (“totalisation” of rights). There is no
possibility to export the old-age minimum guaranteed income. Moreover, receiving
ASPA may affect access to naturalization or family reunification that depend on
conditions such as social integration and incomes. The level of income required for
family reunification is much higher than this guaranteed minimum income so that a
long standing ASPA recipient will also have high difficulties to naturalise in France,
and will almost never obtain family reunification.
174 L. Isidro and A. Math

11.2.4 Family Benefits

Family benefits and maternity benefits in kind are non-contributory benefits, while
paternity and maternity benefits in cash are contributory. Benefits provided during
parental leave are partly contributory. There are several types of family benefits
whose eligibility conditions and amounts depend on many factors: number and age
of children, income, housing and activity status, family configuration, etc.
For maternity and paternity benefits in cash, prior contributions are required.
This condition can be easily fulfilled since, for instance, having worked full time
during 1 month during the past 3 months is sufficient. There is also a residence
condition. There are possibilities to export maternity and paternity benefits in cash
only in the framework of the European social security coordination or some of the
41 bilateral social security conventions with non-EU/EEA countries. For foreigners,
there is also a condition of regularity. As the non-EU foreigner has to be affiliated to
health care social insurance (benefits in kind), he/she has generally already provided
a residence permit, if not he/she is required to so.
For family benefits, including the parental leave benefit, one has to fulfil a form
and provide an identity card/passport and identity documents for the children. Both
the parent and the child have to reside on the territory. There are some possibilities
to export family benefits in the framework of the European coordination of social
security system. No such possibility exists in the framework of bilateral social secu-
rity conventions. However, some conventions include the possibility for a person
actually working in France and having children remaining in the other country to
receive, not the normal French family benefits, but some very small special benefits
specifically defined by this convention.
EU/EEA foreigners have also to prove by any means that they are legally resid-
ing in France under EU law. Non-EU foreigners has to provide one of the residence
documents listed at article D.512–1 of the Social Security Code. This list is restric-
tive and excludes some foreigners residing legally in France. Additionally, for a
non-EU child (at a non-EU foreigner’s charge) not born in France, the immigration
medical certificate delivered in the framework of the family reunification procedure
is required (some children are exempted from this condition, such as children of
refugees, scientific residence permit holders, etc.). This excludes many non-EU
families from accessing family benefits.

11.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The general basic guaranteed minimum income (revenu de solidarité active, RSA)
is attributed at the household level and complete income up to certain level depend-
ing on the size of the household (559.74 € for a lone person in 2020). The recipient
is required either to be registered as unemployed or to sign a social integration
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 175

contract. The beneficiary has to reside in France and there are no possibilities to
export this benefit, even through international conventions.
Foreigners have also to reside regularly. EU/EEA foreigners have to prove it by
any means. As, in general, inactive EU citizens must have sufficient resources to be
legally resident, only those having a right to stay on another specific ground included
in EU law may be eligible for the benefit: those having already acquired a perma-
nent residence right, those having a residence right as a family member of an EU
citizen (him/herself having a right to stay), those having a residence right as workers
(or as ex-worker having conserved one’s worker status), etc. Non-EU foreigners
have to justify a residence permit with an authorisation to work. And, unless some
exceptions (refugees, permanent or “10 year” permit holders), they have to prove
having been residing regularly and continuously and with an authorisation to work
for the last 5 years. As the police administration often renews residence permits with
delays, leaving periods of sometimes some weeks without any document, this leads
to the exclusion of non-EU foreigners even residing legally sometimes from
decades.
Receiving RSA may have an effect on naturalization that depends on social inte-
gration and income. Family reunification for non-EU foreigners is not possible
given the required level of income. Non-EU foreigners also have problems to stay
in a regular situation if they hold a residence permits depending on a professional
activity (such as “temporary worker”).

11.3 Conclusions

Several conditions may constitute obstacles to social protection for non-national

residents and non-resident nationals. These conditions have evolved over the last
decades, as publicly debated restrictions were introduced in immigration
legislation.
Until 1998, the national requirements reserved non-contributory benefits (guar-
anteed minimum income for old age or disabled people) to national citizen and,
since the 1970s and after ECJ decisions, to EEC (EU) foreigners, thus excluding
non-EEC foreigners (Izambert 2018a). This so-called “condition of nationality”
was however contrary to the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimina-
tion protected by the French Constitution, several international texts (especially
some EU treaties signed with third countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and
Turkey), and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. In spite
of the willingness of public authorities to maintain, and even extend it to other social
benefits, this condition was eventually abolished after a long judicial fight implying
constitutional and European Courts (Isidro 2017).
The residence on the territory has always been a requirement for accessing all
types of social protection schemes: social security, contributory, social assistance,
etc. For social security contributory benefits, it has been the only main condition for
a long time. This condition (that applies equally to nationals and foreigners) has not
176 L. Isidro and A. Math

been much controlled over the years. However, from the mid-2000s, and following
the suppression of the condition of nationality, policy makers and bureaucrats have
expressed the willingness to control more strenuously this residence condition.
Without any real legislative change, they released new regulatory texts and instruc-
tions in order to increase controls and sanctions. While all recipients have to comply
with this condition, the controls have mainly targeted those “suspected” of being too
often absent from the territory, mainly old age immigrants, especially those living
in collective homes (foyers) and/or having their family in the country of origin. In a
context of defiance towards immigration, these discriminatory controls were often
implemented in highly contestable manners and led to strong sanctions for the vic-
tims (Math 2013).
As the condition of nationality was discarded, a new condition of regularity for
the access of foreigners to most social benefits has been introduced and/or extended,
especially through the 1993 immigration law. The definition of regularity or the lists
of accepted documents/permits has however varied over time and according to ben-
efits, so that even foreigners living legally in France but not having the “good” docu-
ment may still be excluded from accessing social benefits. As immigration law has
been tightened, more foreigners are now left with precarious and short duration
permits, and as a consequence, may be excluded from certain social rights.
Furthermore, when foreigners renew the residence permits (which is now more fre-
quent than in the past due to the shortening of permits’ duration), immigration
police authorities do not deliver the new permit in time as they should, so that social
benefits are suspended for these foreigners during this waiting period (Math 2016a).
A condition of anteriority of presence or residence exists for some social protec-
tion schemes, for instance a prior residence of three consecutive months to be eli-
gible for health benefits in kind. This condition has not changed much over time.
One may mention the introduction in 2004 of a 3 months condition for accessing
social assistance health coverage for irregular immigrants (aide médicale de l’Etat),
as a result of numerous attacks from the right and far right politicians. Actually, the
reform has been presented both as a means to stop its supposed effect of attraction
to France and to fight frauds and abuses by foreigners (Izambert 2018b).
A new condition of anteriority (seniority) of regular residence has been recently
introduced and extended for non-EU foreigners. It was introduced in 1989 for the
general guaranteed minimum income: non-EU foreigners had to prove having resi-
dence permits and authorizations to work for 3 years. It was extended to 5 years in
2004. In 2006, it was extended to old-age and invalidity guaranteed minimum
income, and increased to 10 years in 2012. As this five or 10 years span time must
be continuous and given that immigration police authorities renew residence per-
mits with delays, more and more non-EU foreigners living regularly in France are
excluded since they cannot any longer fulfil this condition. This new condition de
facto plays a similar role as a discriminatory and xenophobic condition of national-
ity (Math 2014, 2016b).
Ideas of restricting the access to social protection for foreigners have extended
much beyond the only extreme right parties, such as the Front National that has also
proposed the “preference national”, i.e., reserving social benefits to national (or
11 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in France 177

European) citizens. For instance, the right-wing candidate for the 2017 presidential
elections proposed to extend the condition of anteriority of regular residence for
family benefits and to increase restrictions to other benefits. In a context of budget-
ary austerity, such an orientation is guided not only by xenophobic rationale, it is
also presented as a means for protecting the social State from new or too strong
spending cuts. One may note that the access to sickness benefits in kind for certain
categories of foreigners with precarious residence documents has been somewhat
restricted with the “protection universelle maladie” 2016 reform (Comede and Gisti
2017). Since 2020, asylum seekers are also excluded from it during their three first
months of stay in France. While several new social protection reforms are planned
to be implemented in 2019, 2020 or 2021 (old-age pensions, unemployment bene-
fits, guaranteed minimum income), nothing new is however decided regarding the
rules applicable to foreigners.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Barbier, J.-C., & Théret, B. (2004). Le nouveau système français de protection sociale. Paris:
Repères, La Découverte.
Comede & Gisti. (2017). La prise en charge des frais de santé des personnes étrangères par
la sécurité sociale. À jour de la réforme Puma (Protection universelle maladie). Paris: Note
pratique.
Concialdi, P. (2011). Où va la protection sociale ?, ¿interrogations? 12(2011).
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hmed, C. & Laurens, S. (2008). L’invention de l’immigration. Agone.
INSEE (2019). En 2017, la moitié des personnes arrivées en France sont nées en Europe. Insee
Focus 145. Paris.
Isidro, L. (2017). L’étranger et la protection sociale. Dalloz.
Izambert, C. (2018a). La régularité du séjour des étrangers en France : frontière du projet
d’universalisation de la protection sociale ? Revue française des affaires sociales 2018/4, 17–37.
Izambert C. (2018b). Soigner les étrangers ? L’État et les associations pour la couverture maladie
des pauvres et des étrangers en France des années 1980 à nos jours. PhD Thesis, EHESS, Paris.
Math, A. (2013). Les prestations sociales et les personnes âgées immigrées : la condition de rési-
dence et son contrôle par les caisses. Revue de droit sanitaire et social juillet-août 2013.
Math, A. (2014). Le RSA et les étrangers : origine et fortunes de la condition d’antériorité de rési-
dence. Revue de droit sanitaire et social 3/2014.
Math, A. (2015). Les mutations des dépenses de protection sociale sur longue période. In
J.-M. Monnier (Ed.). Les Finances publiques. La Documentation française.
Math, A. (2016a). Les conséquences de la précarisation du séjour sur l’accès aux droits
économiques et sociaux. In Gisti. Précarisation du séjour, régression des droits (pp. 83–91).
178 L. Isidro and A. Math

Math, A. (2016b). Terra Nova, les minima sociaux et les étrangers : faut-il accompagner et légitimer
plutôt que combattre l’extrême droitisation en cours ? Combat pour les droits de l’Homme, 8
décembre 2016.
Math, A. & Spire, A. (2016). La lente dégradation du statut des étrangers. La preuve par les
chiffres. In Gisti. Précarisation du séjour, régression des droits (pp. 49–66).
Noiriel, G. (1988). Le creuset français – Histoire de l’immigration XIXe-XXe siècle. Paris: Seuil.
Palier, B. (2005). Gouverner la sécurité sociale. Les réformes du système français de protection
sociale depuis 1945. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).
Spire, A. (2005). Étrangers à la carte. L’administration de l’immigration en France (1945–1975).
Paris: Grasset.
Thierry, X. (2008). Y a-t-il une vérité des chiffres sur les tendances migratoires ? In C. Rodier &
E. Terray (Eds.), Immigration : fantasmes et réalités. Pour une alternative à la fermeture des
frontières. Paris: La Découverte.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 12
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Germany

Reinhold Schnabel

12.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Germany

12.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The German social protection system can be characterized as a two-pillar system.

The first pillar is a social insurance system financed by contributions, while the
second one consists of a variety of tax-financed welfare programs. The contribu-
tions to and the benefits from the institutions of social insurance make up the larger
part of social protection finances. In 2017, public social expenditures in Germany
reached 29.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with 57% financed by social
insurance contributions. Due to federal subsidies, the expenditures of social insur-
ance exceed contributions by more than 100 billion €, so that total expenditures of
social insurance make up two thirds of social protection (19.9% of GDP) (BMF
2019a, b).
Membership in and contributions to social insurance are linked to labour earn-
ings and occupational status. The system covers the vast majority of labour force
participants and their dependent family members. This infamous “Bismarckian sys-
tem” goes back to the 1890s when social health insurance, disability insurance and
(less known, but very importantly) job-related injury insurance were introduced
within a few years. This system originally covered only blue-collar workers, but it
was later extended to cover also white-collar workers. Important exceptions are
professional employees (lawyers, physicians, architects, engineers) who can opt out

R. Schnabel (*)
Department of Economics, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 179

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_12
180 R. Schnabel

of public pensions and civil servants who are directly protected by their public sec-
tor employer. Unemployment insurance was introduced in the late 1920s, whereas
long-term care insurance was added in the 1990s. Thus, the German social insur-
ance system currently comprises five types of institutions for public pension, health
care, unemployment, long-term care insurance and work-related accidents.
One important feature of social insurance are contribution ceilings that limit con-
tributions. Opting out of social health and social long-term care in favour of a pri-
vate insurance is feasible for high-wage earners. In contrast, opting out of public
pensions (except for professional occupations) and unemployment insurance is not
allowed. However, an upper ceiling limits the contribution and benefit levels. As a
general rule, social insurance benefits are conditional on specific minimum periods
of contributions (“waiting time”), and do not depend on claimants’ citizenship.
However, restrictions to receiving benefits outside Germany may apply even for
German nationals.
German welfare programs deliver basic protection independently of former con-
tributions or occupational status. The main programs include child allowances or
tax deductions (whichever yields the highest amount – Bundeskindergeldgesetz,
29.11.2018); the minimum income benefits for labour force participants
(Grundsicherung für Erwerbsfähige according to Sozialgesetzbuch – SGB II,
18.12.2018) and for non-participants (Sozialhilfe according to SGB XII, 10.07.2018);
and housing allowances (Wohngeldgesetz, 11.11.2016). Child allowances are rather
universal and relatively high compared to other European countries. They are paid
to European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) citizens who reside
in Germany even if the child is living in other EU countries. Minimum income ben-
efits and housing allowances require residency and for non-nationals, these benefits
may be contingent on additional requirements (e.g. type of residency permit, labour
force status). Thus, eligibility for tax-financed social protection is somewhat more
restrictive.

12.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Migration has always been a defining part of the German history – as is also the case
for other European countries. In modern times, immigration played an important
role in the late industrial revolution, namely in the mining and steel industry. After
World War II, Germany recruited millions of so-called “guest workers”, first from
Italy, then from other southern European countries (Greece, Spain, Yugoslavia), and
later from Turkey. Following the first oil shock and the rising unemployment, the
active recruitment policy of foreign workers was abandoned. From the 1970s on,
family migration as part of the reunification of families played a major role and
became the main route of migration to Germany (SVR 2019, p.10).
In the early 1990s, immigration reached very high levels due to the collapse of
Yugoslavia and the civil war. In 1992, 1,5 million people migrated to Germany and
net migration totalled 780,000 (Fig. 12.1). Net migration fell below 100,000 in
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 181

2 100 000
1 900 000
1 700 000
1 500 000
1 300 000
1 100 000
900 000
700 000
500 000
300 000
100 000
- 100 000

Immigration Out-Migration Net migration

Fig. 12.1 Evolution of migration, 1991–2017. (Source: Federal Statistical Office 2019)

2004, and it even became slightly negative in 2008 and 2009. After the financial
crisis and the full integration of Romania and Bulgaria (first with limited and since
2014, with free movement of labour), the inflows started to increase again, exceed-
ing one million people since 2012. The so-called “refugee crisis” brought unparal-
leled inflows in 2015 and out-migration also reached one million or more since
2015. After the exceptional year 2015, net migration started to fall to the levels
before the refugee crisis, albeit still in the range of 400,000 per year or 0.5% of the
total population and well above the average of the last three decades.
Currently, Germany hosts around 19,6 million people with a migration back-
ground, of whom 10,9 million (around 13% of the total population) are foreigners
(Federal Statistical Office 2019 and BAMF/BMI 2019). Since 2017, immigration
has been (again) predominantly driven by European inflows. According to the
Federal Statistical Office data (2019), two thirds of migration inflows originate from
European countries, with 50% coming from EU28 (Table 12.1 in Appendix). The
largest groups of EU nationals in 2017 came from Romania, Poland, Croatia,
Bulgaria, Italy, and Greece. Still an important group are Turkish nationals who are
subject to a special treaty.
Emigration of German citizens was very high during the nineteenth century,
reaching about 5,5 million emigrants to the United States of America (USA)
between 1816 and 1914 (SVR 2015). Emigration peaked in the first half of the
twentieth century due to the first and second World Wars, with strong remigration
afterwards. Since about 50 years, emigration of German citizens is constantly higher
than re-migration.1 The cumulative effect reaches about 1,5 million people since
1967 (SVR 2015). The main destination in recent years has been Switzerland,

1
These numbers exclude the immigration of “native” Germans from the former USSR.
182 R. Schnabel

followed by the USA and Austria. While in the 1950s two-thirds of German emi-
grants moved to English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand), today, two-thirds of German emigrants stay within Europe. Mobility of
emigrants is very high: 60% of German emigrants have lived in another country
before. The number of persons born2 in Germany who live abroad has been esti-
mated to around four million (UNDESA 2013, cited by SVR 2015, see Ette and
Sauer 2010 for mobility of skilled).
The recent waves of migration triggered several legal changes. First, the immi-
gration during the Balkan war led to the enactment of a special minimum income
benefit law for asylum seekers in 1993 (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz). Until 1993,
asylum seekers were granted benefits under the regular welfare law (Sozialhilfe).
The new law was ruled as unconstitutional by the German Constitutional Court in
2012, due to evident underfunding of refugees; and was thus amended in 2015.
A package of new laws on immigration took effect in 2015 and replaced several
regulations on immigration that dated back to the 1960s. The new laws were neces-
sary in order to adopt European law. First, a new law on migration and residency for
non-EU nationals (Aufenthaltsgesetz3) regulates entry into and exit from Germany,
temporary and permanent residency permits, working permits, and new rules con-
cerning the Geneva refugee convention. Second, a new (German) Freedom of
Movement Act (Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU4) regulates the rights of EU citizens
according to the Freedom of Movement Directive 2004/38/EC. The package also
included changes to the Asylum Law (Asylgesetz) and the law on the benefits for
asylum seekers (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz). The former regulates the conditions
of entry, residency and exit of asylum seekers during the approval process, whereas
the latter regulates the monetary and in-kind benefits for this group. The new pack-
age was a compromise between the notion of Germany as an immigration country
and the need to stabilize the population given demographic aging and labour short-
ages. On one side, the new legislation facilitated the immigration of students and
academics. On the other side, it tried to prevent the so-called “welfare migration” by
limiting the influx of low-skilled workers from non-EU countries. For non-EU
workers without an academic degree, it is almost impossible to get a temporary resi-
dency permit. The main routes are family reunification or asylum.
In response to the inflow of persons from EU countries (especially Romanians
and Bulgarians), several amendments have been enacted recently that restrict or
clarify migrants’ access to the German social protection system. Within Germany
and in judicial decisions, the access to minimum income benefits has been disputed,

2
This number also includes second-generation migrants with a foreign passport.
3
Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im
Bundesgebiet, 30.07.2004, last amendment 12.07.2018. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/
aufenthg_2004
4
Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern, 30.07.2004, last amendment
20.07.2017. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/freiz_gg_eu_2004/
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 183

especially for EU nationals. According to recent legislation,5 EU citizens cannot

apply for minimum income benefits as unemployed directly after arrival to Germany.
While job search is allowed for 3 months, EU nationals are required to fund their
living expenses with own resources. However, receiving minimum income benefits
is still possible without further restrictions if the applicant works and receives a
“considerable” wage. After 1 year of legal employment, unemployment benefits and
minimum income benefits are granted in the same way as for national residents. The
minimum income benefit is restricted to 6 months for employment of less than 1 year.

12.2 Migration and Social Protection in Germany

This section examines the main eligibility conditions for accessing social benefits
for national residents, non-national residents and persons residing abroad. The latter
group consists of German citizens and of foreigners with a German social insurance
record. In this sub-section, we focus on general rules before turning to the specifics
of the five main fields of social protection.
Social insurance in Germany is linked to the labour market status and type of
occupation. It is mandatory for the largest part of the German labour force, namely
dependently employed except for civil servants. Self-employed can opt for social
health insurance (restrictions apply to reduce risk selection) and public pensions
(excluding disability benefits). Social insurance contributions on earnings above
850 € are formally shared between employer and employee. The aggregate rate is
about 40% of gross earnings. Special rules and rates apply for so-called “mini jobs”
(below 450 €) and “midi jobs” (between 450 and 850 €). Receiving unemployment
or pension benefits requires some kind of waiting time. Citizenship does not play a
role per se, but – in the case of non-EU citizens – it may be important in order to get
a work permit and thus employment in the formal sector. Thus, the main obstacle
lies in the immigration laws that restrict entry and work permits.
Receiving social insurance benefits abroad (exportability) is usually restricted,
depending on the type of insurance and residency abroad (temporary or permanent).
Details on the different parts of social insurance are explained below. Again, German
citizens abroad are treated in the same way as foreign citizens, because the right to
receive insurance benefits depends on former contributions and not on citizenship.
Eligibility for tax-financed benefits may be more restricted for non-German resi-
dents. Notably, EU and non-EU citizens have to prove some minimum employment
duration before receiving full minimum income benefits. Residency in Germany
plays an important role for tax-financed benefits. Once a permanent residency is
established abroad, tax-financed benefits are withdrawn. Some exceptions may
apply, e.g. for dependent children who visit a foreign school or college.

5
Gesetz zur Regelung von Ansprüchen ausländischer Personen in der Grundsicherung für
Arbeitssuchende nach dem II.Buch SGB und in der Sozialhilfe nach dem XII.Buch SGB, 22.12.2016
184 R. Schnabel

The rest of this section is divided into five sub-sections covering the five core
policy areas of social security. For each area, we discuss the eligibility conditions
applicable for citizens and non-citizens, by explaining how the beneficiaries are
defined in national legislations, which are the qualifying periods of insurance, resi-
dence, or age for accessing benefits, if certain schemes are means-tested or granted
on a universal basis, the general procedure for submitting the claim, waiting peri-
ods, and duration of benefits. Unemployment, health, and pension benefits are usu-
ally based on social insurance rights (UB, medical treatment, and public pensions).
These benefits may be complemented by “last resort” minimum income benefits
(unemployment assistance ALG2, basic income for elderly). Family/child benefits
and minimum income benefits are also discussed below.

12.2.1 Unemployment

The German unemployment insurance covers dependently employed (irrespective

of nationality) who are working in Germany or who are temporarily working abroad
for their German employer as posted workers (SGB III, chapter 2). One exception
are civil servants who are covered by their public employer. The insurance not only
covers unemployment benefits, but also offers job search and active labour market
policies (e.g. training, subsidized work according to SGB III, chapter 3).
After 12 months of contributions, a person who becomes unemployed is eligible
for 6 months of unemployment benefits (SGB III, chapter 4). The benefit duration
increases with age and duration of contributions to a maximum of 24 months (age
58+ and 48+ months of contributions). The net replacement rate is 60% for persons
without children and 67% for persons with at least one child. Weekly hours are
limited to 15 in order to qualify as unemployed and earnings above 165 € are
deducted from the benefit. No other means tests apply. Unemployed persons are
also covered by the other branches of social insurance (pensions, health, long-term
care) during the receipt of unemployment benefits.
Active search for work and timely cooperation with the labour agency
(Arbeitsagentur) is a basic requirement (SGB III, chapter 8). Cooperation is usually
proven by showing up at the agency and by accepting and conducting job inter-
views. In order to comply with these rules, an unemployed person has to show up
on short notice. Thus, residency in Germany or in a neighbouring country close to
the border is a fundamental requirement. Unemployed have to inform the agency if
they intend to go on holidays (maximum 3 weeks).
Unemployment benefits are exportable in compliance with EU Directives or
bilateral agreements (BA 2019) in the following cases:
• Cross-border commuters who are living in Germany and are insured in a neigh-
bouring country receive German unemployment benefits according to the resi-
dency principle.
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 185

• Cross-border commuters who are living in the EU and have been working in
Germany receive unemployment benefits in their country of residence.
• EU citizens who receive German unemployment insurance benefits can apply to
move to another EU country to actively search for work for a maximum of
6 months. Public pension, social health and long-term care insurance provide
coverage according to the German rules. However, the means-tested unemploy-
ment assistance according to SGB 2 (ALG2) is excluded for persons who do not
reside in Germany.
• A bilateral unemployment insurance agreement dating back to 1968 between
Yugoslavia and Germany is still in force (except for Slovenia and Croatia) and it
allows exporting eligibilities from one state to another.
If unemployment benefits and other income sources fall short of a household’s
minimum income level, the household is eligible for additional minimum income
support according to SGB II (basic income for labour force participants). Since
eligibility for unemployment benefits already requires a waiting time (12 months),
the restrictions in place for foreigners on temporary residency permits do not apply.

12.2.2 Health Care

Social health insurance (SHI) covers 88% of the German population (BMG 2019a,
b). Dependently employed (excluding civil servants) with compulsory membership
(SGB V) constitute the main group. A peculiarity of the German SHI is that depend-
ently employed are allowed to leave the SHI if their gross earnings exceed 5062.50
€ per month in 2019. Workers stay in the compulsory SHI after retirement. Several
other groups are in the SHI by law: unemployed, farmers, artists, journalists, and
those who do not have any other health insurance. Other persons can join the SHI as
voluntary members under some conditions that try to limit negative risk selection
into the SHI. For instance, privately insured – in general – cannot opt for SHI.
The SHI offers two main benefits: in-kind medical treatment and sickness pay
after more than 6 weeks of sickness leave (approximately 80% of former net earn-
ings6). Consulting a physician requires an insurance card. Reimbursement of service
providers is organized centrally per quarter by the organization of physicians or by
hospitals based on a point system. This has important consequences for exportabil-
ity, since foreign systems follow different rules. Persons who are insured in the

6
The employer has to pay the regular wage for the first 6 weeks of sickness. After 6 weeks, the SHI
pays a sickness benefit of about 80% of the last net wage. This may be replaced by disability insur-
ance benefits if the worker cannot start working after completion of medical treatment (and the
minimum contribution period of 5 years in the pension system is fulfilled). The same rules apply
for nationals and foreigners.
186 R. Schnabel

German SHI and who are eligible for treatment in EU/EEA countries will receive
medical treatment according to the rules of the foreign country (GKV-Spitzenverband
2015, 2016).
Temporary Stay Abroad
For the EU/EEA (including Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland), a
German resident (citizen or foreigner) should use the European Health Insurance
Card (EHIC) for treatment abroad. However, medical treatment is restricted to nec-
essary emergency treatment. For other countries, a private health insurance policy is
highly recommended, since physicians and hospitals in many countries demand
direct payment, and (full) reimbursement in Germany may be refused by the German
SHI. Cash transfers (e.g. sickness pay) are not directly affected. However, workers
may have to show up in person for examination during sickness leave. For persons
on sickness leave, this excludes temporary stays abroad for practical reasons.
Residency Abroad
In general, moving permanently abroad terminates membership in the German SHI,
since the conditions for insurance in Germany are not met, e.g. because a worker
becomes eligible for health insurance in the destination country. Thus, health insur-
ance follows residency. Moreover, the insurance of family members will also follow
the rules in the country of destination. An exception are cross-border commuters,
posted workers, and retirees who receive only German pensions. Retirees can keep
their German SHI after moving to EU/EEA (including Switzerland), provided they
have no claims to social protection in the foreign country. In this case, SHI follows
the pension insurance. Retirees can apply for an E121 or a S1 card that allows full
treatment in the country of residence according to the rules of this country. Retirees
keep their German Health Card and can return to Germany temporarily or perma-
nently for treatment. Retirees who move to a non-EU/EEA country lose protection
by their German SHI and have to buy another form of health insurance – although
they can keep their German public pension.

12.2.3 Pensions

The German public pensions are financed in a pay-as-you-go system and are regu-
lated in social law book VI (SGB VI). Dependently employed in Germany – except
civil servants – pay mandatory contributions on labour earnings (shared between
employer and employee). The contribution rate in 2019 is 19.3%. Posted workers
are insured in their country of origin (location of initial employment). Cross-border
commuters are insured in the country of employment.
All residents in Germany who are not mandatorily insured are allowed to pay
voluntary contributions. The same holds for German citizens living abroad and for
EU citizens living abroad who have at least contributed once to the German public
pension system. Non-EU citizens also have the right to pay voluntary contributions
if they reside in the EU and have a German public pension record.
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 187

A minimum waiting time of 5 years applies in order to qualify for pension ben-
efits. It can be fulfilled by regular contributions (mandatory or voluntary) or by
special credits, e.g. for children. Employment periods in different EEA countries are
added up towards the waiting time. The pension level is calculated using the sum of
earnings points. Earnings points are credited to the individual pension account
based on the level of annual earnings relative to average earnings. One year of aver-
age earnings yields exactly one earnings point. The sum of earnings points over the
whole lifecycle is proportional to the pension level. As in the other areas of social
insurance, nationality does not play a role in calculating pensions. Moreover,
according to EU rule, German pensions are internationally transferable. The benefi-
ciary is free to move abroad without any reduction in pension benefits.
The public pension insurance offers a variety of benefits: old-age pensions, dis-
ability pensions, and survivor pensions. Moreover, the German public pension
insurance offers rehabilitation treatment for persons who are at risk of becoming
disabled. The standard retirement age has gradually shifted up to the age of 67,
starting with cohort 1947 (age 65 + one month) and ending with cohort 1964 (age
67). If a pension starts before the standard retirement age (maximum of 3 years
early), it is permanently reduced by 0.3% for each month before the standard age.
Later retirement leads to a bonus of 0.5% per month. Disability pensions have no
age limit and are typically used before age of 60. The average age of disability
retirement in 2018 was 52.2 (Deutsche Rentenversicherung DR 2019). In case of
disability, the sum of earnings points is calculated as if the disabled person had been
working until the age of 62. The actuarial adjustment is limited to 10.8%. Disability
pensions of males who retired in 2018 were on average 30% lower than those of
males who claimed an old-age pension (DR 2019). Disability is thus an important
source of poverty.
In the area of pension insurance, exportability is of special importance, since
pensions are based on the entire working life and the present value of pensions eas-
ily exceeds 100,000 € for an individual. Export of pension claims has at least two
dimensions: the cumulation of pension claims of different jurisdictions due to inter-
national mobility during the working life and the mobility of retirees. Multilateral
agreements facilitate both types by reducing the complexity and risk of interna-
tional mobility (in compliance with EU Directives 883/2004 and 987/2009). These
rules cover EEA citizens who have been insured in EEA countries or Switzerland
(DR 2017). The rules also apply to non-EEA citizens in the EU, excluding Norway,
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
EU Directives apply to all persons who have acquired pension claims in the
German public pension system, irrespective of citizenship. The same holds for per-
sons who have collected claims in the other pension systems, e.g. special pension
plans for professional occupations, civil servants, farmers (DR 2017). Similar rules
hold for survivor pensions.
Special agreements exist, namely with Turkey and former Yugoslavia due to the
longstanding migration relations. Migrants from Turkey constitute the largest
minority in Germany and the bilateral agreement with Turkey dates back to 1964,
although it was modified in 1984 (DR 2014). The agreement regulates eligibility in
188 R. Schnabel

a similar way as in EU law. Pensions in Turkey and Germany can be accumulated

without reducing the eligibility in the other country. The retiree is free to move
internationally and the health insurance follows the pension insurance.

12.2.4 Family Benefits

Child and family benefits can be found in almost all areas of social protection rang-
ing from minimum income benefits to social insurance. For instance, parents receive
credits for children in the public pension insurance; children and spouses without
own income are insured without additional contribution in the social health and
long-term care insurance; unemployment benefits are higher for parents than for
those without children; and additional benefits are granted to single parents. In a
comprehensive empirical study on family and child-related benefits (Prognos 2014),
these benefits are estimated to have reached 125 billion € in 2010, excluding bene-
fits that relate to marital status of another 75 billion €. Family benefits that are part
of social insurance benefits are treated as described in Subsections 12.2.1, 12.2.2
and 12.2.3. Family benefits in the minimum income programs follow the principles
detailed in Subsection 12.2.5 below.
The child allowance/child tax deduction is the largest single part of child benefits
amounting to 40 billion €. This benefit is regulated in the income tax code
(Einkommensteuergesetz EStG §31, §32, and EStG section X). In 2019, child allow-
ances for the first and second child are 194 € per month, for the third child 200 € and
for other children 225 €. Moreover, the income tax code grants a child tax deduc-
tion. If this generates a tax relief higher than the child allowance, the exceeding tax
relief is paid out. Parents are eligible if a child is younger than 18 or if a child is
younger than 25 and in secondary or tertiary education. Child allowances are paid
to residents in Germany or those abroad who are fully taxable in Germany (§62
(1)).7 Non-EU/EEA citizens are eligible depending on the type of residence permit:
permanent residence permit, temporary residence permit with the right to work or
study, temporary residence permit for persons who need protection. This also
implies that asylum seekers during the decision process are not eligible for child
allowance, although they receive benefits according to the asylum seeker benefits
law (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz). EU citizens can claim child allowance even if
the child and one parent are living abroad. A similar situation may occur if the child
studies abroad. The child allowance expires if the eligible parent leaves Germany
and if unlimited income tax liability ends. It is also worth noting that tax liability in
Germany does not depend on citizenship, but on residency (180 days rule) and a
myriad of bilateral agreements apply.

7
Parent benefits during the first 14 months follow the same logic of eligibility (BEEG
Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz). The benefit is 67% of eligible net income or a maximum
of 1800 € per month for one parent who does not work.
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 189

Maternity leave covers 6 weeks prior to and 8 weeks after the date of delivery.
Full earnings are paid, and during the 8 weeks after delivery, work is strictly prohib-
ited to protect the health of mother and child. Paid parental leave can be chosen by
mother or father for a maximum of another 12 months. The replacement rate is 80%
and capped at 1800 Euros per month. A total of 3 years of parental leave (with
2 years unpaid) per child are possible. No distinction is made between nationals and
foreigners, although waiting periods may apply.

12.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The German law distinguishes between several types of minimum income benefits.
First, a distinction is made between labor force participants (working or seeking
work) and those who are temporarily or permanently out of the labour force.
Sozialgesetzbuch II applies to the first group, whereas Sozialgesetzbuch XII covers
the second one. The schemes do not differ in the way the minimum income is deter-
mined. The main difference is the work requirement in SGB II.
The Basic Income for Jobseekers and Workers (Grundsicherung für
Arbeitssuchende) applies to labour market participants and their families or other
household members sharing common resources. The benefit is paid to unemployed
persons who seek work or to employed persons if income (or other resources) are
lower than a certain minimum income. The relevant income is the total family or
household income. Dependent persons also receive benefits, labelled as Sozialgeld.
First, the minimum income threshold is determined based on the number and age of
persons in the household (Bedarfsgemeinschaft), (quasi)rent and other characteris-
tics (single parents, special needs, etc.). If income falls short of the living minimum,
the difference is paid out as a cash benefit. Withdrawal rates apply for labour income,
rising from 0% to 100%.
Note that while EU migrants cannot collect minimum income benefits as unem-
ployed without a “waiting period”, they do receive benefits from day one on if they
work and receive a “substantial” labour income (the latter is not determined by law,
but by jurisdiction).
The Minimum Income for Non-Participants (Welfare or Sozialhilfe) is regulated
in Social Law Book XII. Several categories of individuals are considered as “non-­
participants”. These include persons beyond the standard retirement age; those per-
manently unable to work more than 3 h daily who are thus considered disabled;
persons who are temporarily unable to work due to bad health or because they care
for dependents; or foreigners with a legal residence status who are not (yet) allowed
to work. The first two are eligible for MIB for elderly or disabled (Grundsicherung
im Alter und bei Erwerbsminderung, SGB XII, chapter 4), whereas the second
group is eligible for welfare (Hilfe zum Lebensunterhalt, SGB XII, chapter 3). The
main advantage of receiving MIB for elderly or disabled is that income and wealth
of parents or children of the needy person are not considered. For other Minimum
Income Benefits, parents and children may have to support their needy relatives.
190 R. Schnabel

Benefits are adjusted to changes in income, family composition, rent, etc.

Beneficiaries have to report to the local agency if their personal conditions change.
Otherwise, the level of benefits is checked annually. What is considered as “mini-
mum income” does not differ across the different types of MIB.
EU citizens who enter Germany as jobseekers or non-employed cannot claim
MIB, thus being treated differently than national residents. However, employed
migrants with income below the social minimum receive a supplementary MIB (as
difference between own resources and social minimum) from the beginning.
Moreover, after an uninterrupted employment of 1 year, EU citizens are treated like
nationals regarding MIB if they become unemployed. Then, they receive MIB per-
manently (as long as their means fall short of their needs). If unemployment follows
an employment spell of less than 1 year, MIB is paid for a maximum of 6 months.
After a legal residency of 5 years, EU citizens are treated like German nationals
regarding MIB. Usually, the relevant unit is the household and the eligibility of one
adult extends to all family members, even if the latter are third-country nationals
provided they have a legal residency permit.
In the case of non-EU foreign residents who are not asylum seekers, the basic
requirement for accessing MIB is a legal residency permit. Temporary permits (e.g.
Aufenthaltserlaubnis) specify the type of labour market activity that is allowed. This
is documented on the temporary permit. Persons who are allowed to work (and their
family) can receive Arbeitslosengeld 2 (ALG2). However, they may risk the exten-
sion of the residency permit or the application for German citizenship may be
rejected or delayed. Persons with other permits (e.g. education) do not qualify for
minimum income benefits, since the residency permit is conditional on having suf-
ficient own resources. However, students are allowed to work part time to make a
living. After completing the degree, academics get a special residency permit to
look for a job without MIB.
The law rules out MIB for migrants who enter Germany as job seekers. Moreover,
MIB is limited to the duration of the residency permit. On the other hand, perma-
nent residence permits (e.g. Niederlassungserlaubnis) always include the right to
work and to apply for benefits. However, they require at least a five-year legal prior
residence that again is conditional on self-sufficiency. As a rule, someone who
obtains a permanent residence permit has a good labour market record.
In the case of third-country nationals who apply for asylum, there is another
benefit that usually grants in-kind support according to Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz.
In many cases, the Government directly supplies housing. The level of support for
asylum seekers is generally lower than in the other MIB schemes. If the application
is successful, these migrants can apply for one of the regular MIBs depending on
their situation, work permit or work requirements. If the asylum application has
been rejected, the applicant stays in the asylum system.
Finally, it is equally important to highlight that SGB II and XII exclude benefits
for persons living abroad. Also, temporary visits to foreign countries are restricted:
job seekers have to apply for vacation at their job agency and retirees receiving MIB
lose their benefit if they stay abroad longer than 4 weeks.
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 191

12.3 Conclusions

Migration patterns in Germany have changed considerably during the post-war

period. The influx of the so-called “guest-workers” stopped during the 1970s, being
replaced by family reunification. Two big crisis-driven immigration waves swept
Germany, the first one after the collapse of Yugoslavia and the second one following
the crises in the countries from Syria to Afghanistan. These immigration waves trig-
gered legislative reactions aimed at reducing immigration incentives, especially in
the area of asylum law. But legislation in the early 2000s (under the red-green coali-
tion) also took a more liberal stance towards immigration of highly qualified per-
sons from non-EEA countries and – following the EU Directives on freedom of
movement – EEA citizens. As a result of European integration, migration patterns
changed dramatically, with EEA countries becoming the leading source of German
immigration. Moreover, EEA countries replaced the four Anglo-Saxon immigration
countries as the leading destination of German emigration. Currently, about 800,000
people from other EU Member States arrive to Germany each year and about
500,000 leave Germany to reside in other EU countries. It is reassuring for eco-
nomic policies that EU migrants display high levels of employment and have
boosted German employment, while unemployment rates reached historic lows.
During the past decades, migration obstacles for EEA citizens have been lowered
or abolished. The leading case is the social insurance system that provides social
security for migrants and German citizens in a non-discriminatory way and greatly
facilitates mobility for Germans and foreigners. However, eligibility for minimum
income benefits is subject to restrictions for those who enter Germany without
employment.
Main obstacles to immigration of non-EEA citizens still persist due to the restric-
tive law on temporary residence permits for workers. For this specific group of
foreigners, there are basically three ways to legally enter Germany: student visas,
academic credentials, or family reunification. It is very difficult to get a visa for
workers without academic degrees from third countries, since it is often impossible
to prove that a foreign non-academic degree is comparable to a German one. Thus,
it is far more promising for persons from third countries to apply for asylum with
the chance to get the permanent residence permit after several years as a tolerated
migrant.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.
192 R. Schnabel

Appendix

Table 12.1 Migration by country or region in 2017

Immigration Emigration Net migration
All Foreign All Foreign All Foreign
EU 28 827.559 785.198 587.769 536.813 239.790 248.385
 Romania 219.989 219.319 151.810 151.028 68.179 68.291
 Poland 152.522 148.582 119.098 114.029 33.424 34.553
 Croatia 53.050 52.791 23.955 23.591 29.095 29.200
 Bulgaria 78.347 78.020 49.321 48.871 29.026 29.149
 Italy 63.495 61.167 39.246 36.959 24.249 24.208
 Greece 30.586 29.786 17.415 16.725 13.171 13.061
Other Europe 210.881 187.140 147.499 121.691 63.382 65.449
 Turkey 47.750 42.859 27.049 21.208 20.701 21.651
 Bosn-Herz. 26.112 25.987 12.088 12.009 14.024 13.978
Africa 66.287 60.913 37.977 34.024 28.310 26.889
America 74.129 54.203 53.222 35.115 20.907 19.088
Asia/Austr 238.243 220.327 95.453 82.828 142.790 137.499
 Syria 50.551 50.463 1.428 1.386 49.123 49.077
 Irak 24.349 23.305 3.549 2.915 20.800 20.390
 India 26.946 26.199 15.076 14.371 11.870 11.828
Total 1.550.721 1.384.018 1.134.641 885.460 416.080 498.558
Source: Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, destatis, 2019)

References

BA – Bundesagentur für Arbeit. (2019). Arbeitslosengeld und Auslandsbeschäftigung. Nürnberg.

BAMF/BMI – Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge / Bundesministerium des Innern. (2019).
2016/2017 Migration report: Key results. Nürnberg/Berlin.
BMG – Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. (2019a). Daten des Gesundheitswesens 2018. Berlin.
BMG – Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. (2019b, March). Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung –
Kennzahlen und Fausformeln. Berlin.
DR – Deutsche Rentenversicherung. (2014). Arbeiten in Deutschland und in der Türkei. Berlin.
DR – Deutsche Rentenversicherung. (2017). Leben und arbeiten in Europa. Berlin.
DR - Deutsche Rentenversicherung. (2019). Rentenversicherung in Zeitreihen. Berlin.
Ette, A., & Sauer, L. (2010). Auswanderung aus Deutschland. Daten und Analysen zur internatio-
nalen Migration deutscher Staatsbürger. VS Verlag. Wiesbaden.
Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt - Destatis) (2019). Fachserie 1, Reihe 1.2,
Wanderungen. Wiesbaden.
GKV-Spitzenverband. (2015). Krankenversicherung bei Wohnort im Ausland. Bonn.
GKV-Spitzenverband. (2016). Merkblatt für Grenzgängerinnen und Grenzgänger. Bonn.
Prognos. (2014). Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen Maßnahmen und Leistungen
in Deutschland. Berlin.
12 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Germany 193

SVR – Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration. (2015).

International Mobil: Motive, Rahmenbedingungen und Folgen der Aus- und Rückwanderung
deutscher Staatsbürger. Berlin.
SVR – Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration. (2019).
Jahresgutachten 2019. Berlin.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 13
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Greece

Fotini Marini

13.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses key issues about the access of foreigners legally residing in
Greece and Greek citizens residing abroad to the Greek social security system and
highlights its impact on the development of a hybrid non-discrimination agenda
during the financial crisis (Amitsis 2018) and the refugee crisis of 2015 (Amitsis
2016). The first section highlights the main features and developments in the fields
of social security and migration in Greece. The second section examines the com-
plex framework regulating access to social benefits and services along five core
policy areas (unemployment, health care, pensions, family benefits and guaranteed
minimum resources). The analysis of eligibility conditions for accessing social pro-
tection (particularly the personal scope of application) leads to the conclusion that
the crisis was not used by domestic social policy makers as an argument to intro-
duce discriminatory treatment against individuals in long-term labour mobility and
cross-border mobility across Europe.

13.2  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Greece

Greece is the European Union (EU) Member State most impacted by the financial
crisis (Giannitsis and Zografakis 2015), given that it had not established social
safety nets for those (both national and foreigners) unable to meet their needs
through market or family settings, while the national social protection model was

F. Marini (*)
Social Administration Research Lab, University of West Attica, Attica, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]; https://sarl.uniwa.gr

© The Author(s) 2020 195

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_13
196 F. Marini

strongly fragmented, and public spending focused on civil servants salaries and
state pensions (Amitsis 2014). Migration has been an equally challenging phenom-
enon for Greece. Due to its geographical position and socio-economic advancement
after the 1980s, the country has received an important number of immigrants from
neighboring Balkan countries, who represent today the vast majority of its foreign
population. The financial crisis has caused a new emigration wave of highly skilled
Greeks (brain drain phenomenon), while migration flows from Asian and African
countries have increased climaxing with the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015–2016.

13.2.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The development of the national social security system had attracted the attention of
academics and policy makers since the 1990s. The system was characterized by
fragmented administrative structure, high bureaucracy, low sustainability and lim-
ited adequacy of social insurance schemes, supplemented by the lack of a concerted
social safety net for persons at risk of poverty and social exclusion (until mid-2010s
Greece and Italy were the only EU Member States without a General Minimum
Income Scheme). The traditional Mediterranean type social protection model
focused on statutory pensions, reproduced inequalities, increased costs against effi-
ciency and jeopardized the system’s viability (OECD 2013).
But international interest about the complex Greek case has been growing during
the three Economic Adjustment Programmes (known also as Bailout Programmes),
implemented since May 2010 by Greece and major lending international partners
(European Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund).
The programmes were influenced by budgetary control and social spending surveil-
lance processes (Amitsis 2017a; Stergiou 2017). The outbreak of the crisis led to the
adoption of new policy priorities, i.e. fiscal consolidation and structural rationaliza-
tion of social security schemes. After almost a decade of ongoing reforms, the sys-
tem remains in a controversial state of transition with serious repercussions on legal
certainty and procedural transparency1.
The latest phase of the reform process that impacts the status of foreigners has
been marked by the adoption of Law No. 4387/20162, which introduced

1
The implementation of reform processes has proved time-consuming due to the limited know how
of competent authorities, legal constraints related to the protection of social rights and lack of
broader social and political consensus. The 2016 reform further added to the confusion since,
3 years after the enactment of Law No. 4387/2016, the actual unification of the social insurance
system has not materialised yet due to the lack of a uniform benefit regulation for the new single
insurance fund. Legal uncertainty is intensified by petitions for judicial review (annulment) against
fundamental provisions of the reforming law submitted upon the Council of State (the highest
Administrative Court).
2
OJ Vol. A΄ 85/12.5.2016.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 197

fundamental principles of a Single Social Security System3 and unified all social
insurance funds into one. Attention should be also paid to the introduction of the
long-awaited national General Minimum Income (GMI) programme (Social
Solidarity Income Programme) by Law No. 4389/20164 and the new single family
benefit (Child Benefit Programme), established by Law No. 4512/20185.
Law No. 4387/2016 (article 1 par. 1) stipulates that public social benefits are
provided in the context of a Single Social Security System, aiming at the guarantee
of decent living standards. This System includes the National Health System for
health benefits, the National Social Solidarity System for welfare benefits and the
National Social Insurance System for insurance benefits through mandatory
schemes6.
Basic social insurance cash benefits aim at compensating loss of employment
income due to pre-defined insurance risks and are, in principle, contributory and
earnings-related. They include unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity
benefits, old age pension and invalidity pension, granted by the Single Social
Insurance Fund (EFKA) and the Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED)7.
Health benefits in kind (medical care, pharmaceutical products, hospitalization) for
the insured8, pensioners and their dependents are financed by contributions through
a compulsory health insurance scheme managed by the National Organisation for
the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY)9.
Basic social insurance is supplemented by other benefits, such as the non-­
contributory, means-tested Child Benefit granted by the Welfare Benefits & Social
Solidarity Organisation (OPEKA)10. Since February 2017, persons and households
in extreme poverty are entitled to enter the national GMI scheme Social Solidarity
Income (KEA). The scheme is funded by the state budget and is structured in three
pillars, including a non-contributory means-tested cash benefit granted by OPEKA,
work integration services and access to supplementary welfare services and benefits
in kind.

3
Here the term “Social Security” (ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑ) corresponds to a broader concept
including “social insurance” (ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΗ) but not identifying with it.
4
OJ Vol. A΄ 94/27.5.2016.
5
OJ Vol. A΄ 5/17.1.2018.
6
Affiliation to the national social insurance system is compulsory for all persons employed within
the Greek territory regardless of nationality (insurance territoriality principle). However, voluntary
continuation of insurance for persons out of employment is possible for pension and health care
under specific conditions – see Law No. 4387/2016.
7
EFKA and OAED are legal bodies under public law supervised by the Ministry of Labour &
Social Affairs.
8
Health care for non-insured Greek citizens and foreign residents is also provided through a spe-
cial scheme funded by the state budget – see Law No. 4368/2016.
9
EOPYY is a legal body under public law supervised by the Ministry of Health.
10
OPEKA is a legal body under public law supervised by the Ministry of Labour & Social Affairs.
198 F. Marini

13.2.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

For the greatest part of its modern history, Greece has been a country of emigration
rather than immigration. The first major emigration wave (1850–1930) was a result
of the broader geo-political context of that era11 (Kardasis and Harlafti 2006). The
second wave (1945–1977) consisted mainly of labour emigration12. Estimations on
the number of Greek emigrants abroad vary from 2,5 million to 4 million (Hasiotis
2006:13; Damanakis 2010:17), with the largest populations identified in USA,
Australia, Germany and Canada.
It was not until the late 1980s and as a result of the broader geo-political upheav-
als following the break-up of the Eastern bloc that Greece started to receive the first
waves of irregular immigration from Balkan and Eastern European countries. For
over 20 years, the public response to this troubling situation remained reluctant and
ambivalent without any particular effort to develop a comprehensive migration
management system. However, immigrants of those first waves were gradually
legalized and integrated into the domestic labour market13 (Ministry of Migration
Policy 2018). In April 2018, there were 523,715 immigrants legally residing in
Greece, the vast majority (353,826) of Albanian origin14 (Ministry of Migration
Policy 2018). The 2017 data show that only a small share of the foreign residents
were EU nationals, with the majority originating from the Balkan area15 (OECD
2018:236).
During the last decade, Greece has been facing new and complex challenges.
High unemployment rates and income insecurity have taken their toll on the quality
of life of both nationals and immigrants (Fouskas 2014). Since 2008, a new emigra-
tion trend can be identified with a vast number of highly skilled Greeks16 seeking
better prospects abroad (OECD 2018:236; Labrianidis and Pratsinakis 2015). Also,
the increase of migration waves from Asia (ex. Pakistan, Bangladesh) and Africa
and the recent refugee wave from Syria are bringing in a new type of migrant

11
The first emigration wave is attributed to a complex set of economic, social and political factors
(violent conflicts in the Balkan and broader European region, gradual collapse of the Ottoman
Empire, opportunities created by the development of international trade, migrant attraction poli-
cies in countries such as USA and Russia) and included voluntary and involuntary population
movements. Most emigrants (512,000) went to U.S.A., followed by imperial Russia (280,000) and
colonial Africa – mostly Egypt (120,000).
12
Out of 1,3 million emigrants of that period, (more than 600,000) went to Germany, whereas large
groups were directed to USA and Australia.
13
Integration processes were supported by the positive economic climate of that period and work-
force shortages in specific sectors (agriculture, manufacture, construction).
14
The second and third largest groups of third-country nationals living in Greece originate from
Georgia (18,865) and Ukraine (18,447).
15
Out of 516,300 immigrants in Greece in 2017, only 85,400 were EU citizens with the largest
groups being Bulgarians (29,800) and Romanians (16,900).
16
427,000 Greeks emigrated during 2008–2016 according to available data. Most of them were
university graduates who moved mainly to Germany and the UK.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 199

population with intensely different cultural profile and low skills level, making inte-
gration much more challenging (Ministry of Migration Policy 2018:15).
In 2010, the Government decided to establish for the first time a coherent migra-
tion and asylum management system and promote migrants’ long-term integration.
Flagship initiatives of this process included the setup of the Asylum Service and the
Reception & Identification Service in 2011, the adoption of the Code of Immigration
and Social Integration17, the reform of the Code of Hellenic Citizenship18 and the
simplification of the framework on the residence status of EU citizens, as regulated
by the Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 106/200719.
Despite the good intentions of policy makers, the effective implementation of
this reform remains a difficult equation to solve during an era of heavy fiscal con-
straints. In this context, the Ministry of Migration Policy announced a new national
strategy for immigrant integration (Ministry of Migration Policy 2018), which was
approved by the Governmental Council of Social Policy in July 2018.

13.3 Migration and Social Protection in Greece

Article 1 of Law No. 4387/2016 recognizes the general right to social benefits for
Greek citizens and foreigners legally and permanently residing in Greece. Also, the
Code of Immigration and Integration makes clear that legally residing non-EU
immigrants have the same rights as nationals in social insurance, whereas single
residence permit holders are entitled to equal treatment with nationals regarding
their access to social security schemes20. The general right to equal treatment with
nationals is also recognized to EU nationals and their family members residing in
Greece (P.D. 106/2007).
However, eligibility conditions for social benefits differ according to the type of
the benefit thus potentially having a different impact on the ability of national resi-
dents, non-national residents and non-resident nationals to enjoy them. Access to
social welfare benefits (non-contributory), subject to subsidiarity and needs assess-
ment principles, may also depend on prior residence requirements. Access to social
insurance benefits (contributory) requires affiliation to the National Social Insurance
System and fulfillment of insurance conditions, whereas nationality and duration of
prior residence in Greece are irrelevant as a rule.

17
Law No. 4251/2014 (OJ Vol. A΄ 80/1.6.2014) regulates all issues regarding the entrance and resi-
dence of third-country nationals in Greece and transposes Directives 2011/98/EU and 2009/50/
EU. It was amended by Law No. 4332/2015 (OJ Vol. A΄ 76/9.7.2015).
18
Amended by Laws No. 3838/2010, 4332/2015 and 4531/2018.
19
This P.D. (OJ Vol. A΄ 135/21.6.2007) regulates the entrance and residence of EU nationals and
their family members, transposing Directive 2004/38/EC. It was amended by Laws No. 4071/2012
and No. 4540/2018.
20
Social security is defined here with specific reference to Regulation (EC) 883/2004.
200 F. Marini

13.3.1 Unemployment

Coverage against the risk of unemployment is provided to employees by OAED21

through the compulsory and contributory social insurance scheme granting earnings
related allowance and health care coverage22. Unemployment benefits are granted to
individuals who have lost their job unintentionally and remain capable and willing
to work and available for work. The qualifying insurance period corresponds to
either 125 insured work days during the 14 months preceding job loss or 200 insured
work days during the 24 months preceding job loss, while the two last months
before job loss are not included in the reference period. Since 2014, access to the
benefit also requires that the claimant has not exceeded a maximum duration of
benefit payment set at 400 days in 4 years.
Claimants must register in the Job Seekers Registry and submit an application
with supporting documents, including proof of a fixed domicile and bank details
(regardless nationality of the claimant) and residence documents for foreign claim-
ants23. The basic monthly payment corresponds to 400 Euros and is complemented
by an increment of 10% for each dependent family member. The payment can go on
for a maximum of 12 months, unless the beneficiary has exceeded the ceiling of
400 days of benefit in 4 years.
The benefit is revoked if the beneficiary refuses to accept suitable jobs or training
opportunities offered by public employment services or leaves the country perma-
nently (which implies unavailability for work).

21
OAED is both unemployment insurance fund and public employment service.
22
The scheme is regulated by a complex legislative and regulatory framework including Legislative
Decree No. 2961/1954 (OJ Vol. A΄ 197/25.8.1954), Law No. 1545/1985 (OJ Vol. A΄ 91/20.5.1985),
Law No. 1892/1990 (OJ Vol. A΄101/31.7.1990), Law No. 3996/2011 (OJ Vol. A΄170/5.8.2011),
Joint Ministerial Decision No. 3800/359/1.3.2012 (OJ Vol. B΄ No. 565/2.3.2012) and implement-
ing OAED Executive Board Decisions No. 3701/55/22.11.2011 and No. 792/20/20.3.2018.
23
For all transactions with public authorities, non-nationals are required to demonstrate residence
related documents. For EU nationals, this includes the EU citizen registration certificate or the EU
citizen permanent residence card. For non-EU nationals, a valid residence card is required or a
certificate of submission of an application for residence card renewal.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 201

13.3.2 Health Care

Coverage against the risk of sickness is provided through the compulsory and con-
tributory health insurance scheme, managed by EOPYY for health benefits in kind24
and by EFKA for sickness cash benefits25. Under special programmes voluntary
insurance for health care is possible for Greek citizens or Greek emigrants liv-
ing abroad.
Access to benefits in kind is granted both to directly insured persons and their
dependent family members, provided that 75 insured work days are completed over
the preceding year or over the 12 first months of the last 15 months preceding ill-
ness. Claiming the benefits requires demonstration of the EFKA Health Booklet
(the procedure is soon expected to be simplified by the sole reference to the claim-
ant’s social security number – AMKA).
The main issue of controversy regarding foreigners’ health care insurance con-
cerns the treatment of their family members. For third-country nationals, only their
spouse and children are considered as dependent family members (Law No.
4251/2014), provided they reside legally and permanently in Greece. For EU nation-
als, although the category of qualifying persons is much broader, access to health
care for dependent family members requires that they are permanent residence card
holders (this specific residence card is issued after 5 years of residence in Greece).
These differentiations can hardly reconcile with the principle of equal treatment
regarding access to contributory social insurance benefits, as proclaimed by Laws
4387/2016 and 4251/2014 and EU Directives 2000/43/EC and 2011/98/EU.
The earnings-related sickness cash benefit is provided by EFKA to the directly
insured. The benefit aims at compensating loss of employment income due to the
temporary incapacity for work caused by illness. For employees, access to the ben-
efit for minimum duration of payment (182 days) requires certified work incapacity
and completion of at least 120 insured work days over the year preceding illness or
over the 12 first months of the 15 months period preceding illness. The duration of
payment depends on completed insurance periods with a maximum of 720 days for
the same illness.
The risk of invalidity is mainly covered through the compulsory and contributory
pension scheme of EFKA26. The current legislation27 defines invalidity as a condi-
tion resulting from illness or physical or mental disability, which appeared or wors-
ened after insurance affiliation and affects the ability of the insured to earn normal

24
Scheme regulated by Laws No. 3918/2011 (OJ Vol. A΄31/2.3.2011), No. 4238/2014 (OJ Vol. A΄
38/17.2.2014), No. 4486/2017 (OJ Vol. A΄ 115/7.8.2017) and No. 4529/2018 (OJ Vol. A΄
56/23.3.2018) and Joint Ministerial Decision No. ΕΑΛΕ/Γ.Π.80157/31.10.2018 (OJ Vol. B΄
4898/1.11.2018).
25
Law No. 4387/2016.
26
Law No. 4387/2016.
27
The scheme for employees is the most generalized one, regulated by Statutory Law No.
1846/1951, Law No. 2084/1992 (OJ Vol. A΄ 165/7.10.1992) and Law No. 4387/2016.
202 F. Marini

yearly earnings. There are three degrees of insurance invalidity, severe (over 80%),
moderate (67% – 79,99%) and partial (50% – 66,9%). Just like old age pension,
invalidity pension includes a contributory and a non-contributory component. The
crucial difference here is that prior residence is not taken into account for the calcu-
lation of the non-contributory component of invalidity pension.
Access to the contributory component (Contributory Pension) requires certified28
invalidity over 50% and the completion of 15 years of insurance. The contributory
pension is calculated according to pensionable earnings and duration of affiliation,
but access to the full amount requires severe invalidity as a rule.
The non-contributory component (National Pension) is flat-rate and financed by
the state budget. Access to the full amount (384 Euros) requires the completion of
at least 20 years of insurance.

13.3.3 Pensions

The risk of old age is covered through the compulsory and contributory pension
scheme of EFKA29. Voluntary insurance for pension is also possible for Greek citi-
zens or Greek emigrants living abroad30.
Since the 1990s, the old-age pension reform has been attracting the strong inter-
est of political elites and stakeholders because sustainability and adequacy of pen-
sion benefits represent a key challenge for the rudimentary Greek social security
model in the context of demographic ageing and high financial imbalances (Amitsis
2017b). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Greek Parliament has adopted at
least ten major pension statutes so far31. The age conditions were tightened after the
2013 and 2015 reforms32, whereas the scope of the benefit was reshaped in 2016
through the introduction of a non-contributory component.
The contributory component (Contributory Pension) is financed by contributions
of employers and employees; it is calculated according to previous pensionable
earnings and pensionable years. The general conditions to receive the full contribu-
tory pension include attainment of 62 years of age with 40 years of insurance or

28
Invalidity certification and assessment tasks are performed by specialized public agencies
(Invalidity Certification Centers – KEPAs).
29
The scheme is regulated by a complex institutional framework. See article 2 of Law No.
4336/2015 (OJ 111/3.8.1984) on age and insurance conditions and articles 2, 7, 8 and 28 of Law
No. 4387/2016 on residence requirements, features and calculation of the benefits.
30
See articles 1–4 of Law 1469/1984 (OJ Vol. A΄ 111/3.8.1984).
31
See Laws No. 1902/1990, No. 2084/1992, No. 3029/2002, No. 3232/2004, No. 3385/2005, No.
3518/2006, No. 3655/2008, No. 3863/2010, No. 3986/2011, No. 3996/2011, No. 4093/2012, No
4111/2013, No. 4316/2014, No. 4334/2015, No. 4336/2015, No. 4387/2016, No. 4393/2016 and
No. 4472/2017.
32
According to Law No. 4336/2015, the general uniform age limits for drawing standard full pen-
sion are applicable from 1.1.2022 with few exceptions. In the meantime, age limits are being
gradually increased to reach the uniform new limits by 31.12.2021.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 203

67 years of age with 15 years of insurance. A reduced contributory pension can be

claimed at the age of 62 with 15 years of insurance.
The non-contributory component (National Pension) is flat-rate and financed by
the state budget. Access to the national pension requires prior establishment of the
right to the contributory pension and prior legal and permanent residence in Greece
for at least 15 years (from age of 15 until retirement age). Drawing the full national
pension (384 Euros) requires an established right to a full contributory pension, at
least 20 years of insurance and 40 years of legal and permanent residence in the
country.
As a corollary of the contributory pension, the national pension is considered to
be absorbed by the former (main benefit) and, therefore, to have the same legal
nature (social insurance benefit). Given that the national pension is not means tested
and remains strongly linked to previous contribution, it does not correspond to the
status of a special non-contributory cash benefit in the sense of article 70 of
Regulation (EC) 883/2004 (Amitsis 2017b), nor should it be confused with public
non-contributory pension schemes (Stergiou 2017:759)33.
Once the claim for the contributory pension is granted, EFKA proceeds with the
examination of conditions required for the national pension. Regarding the prior
residence condition, the legality of residence for non-EU nationals is proved by a
certificate of legal residence issued by the same immigration authority which had
issued the last residence card. The examination of the permanent character of resi-
dence is more complex and concerns both immigrants and Greek citizens who have
spent part of their lives abroad. Competent authorities have issued guidelines34
according to which affiliation period to EFKA is not indisputable proof of perma-
nent residence and supplementary evidence35 should be required. The guidelines
also point out that residence periods in another EU country or a country which has
signed a bilateral social security agreement (BSSA) with Greece, are aggregated
with the residence periods in Greece for access to national pension, whereas the
calculation of the benefit follows the principle of apportionment.

33
As A. Stergiou points out:
The introduction of the national pension has not changed the philosophy of the system by turn-
ing it into some kind of Beveridge-type system. It has only infused elements of social security in
its dominant Bismarckian rationale. The differentiating element is the requirement of a residence
period in Greece, in addition to the requirement of an insurance (employment) period. It is evident
that employment usually identifies with residence. Therefore, someone having the minimum years
of insurance/employment period (at least 15) must prove a long and legal stay (40 years) in Greece
in order to enjoy the full amount of national pension (national solidarity). Social solidarity indi-
rectly but clearly acquires “national borders”. The right to national pension is recognized to immi-
grants, only when they have integrated into the structures of society, this proved by their long and
legal residence in the country.
34
Guidance No. 60000/18191/976/19.9.2017 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Social Insurance &
Social Solidarity and EFKA Circular No. 10/7.3.2018.
35
Such as residence related documents for non-nationals, tax record in Greece, insurance and resi-
dence periods in other countries, municipal certificates of permanent residence, rent contracts,
utility bills etc.
204 F. Marini

13.3.4 Family Benefits

Directly insured women employees are compensated for the loss of employment
income during the legally provided maternity leave through the Maternity Benefit
(known also as Pregnancy & Postpartum Benefit). This is a contributory social
insurance benefit granted by EFKA to claimants, who have completed 200 insured
working days during the last 2 years36 and stay off work for the overall duration of
the benefit payment (56 days before due date of child birth and 63 days after). The
amount corresponds to 50% of the standard wage of the claimant’s insurance con-
tribution class. Once the compulsory maternity leave is over, beneficiaries who have
received the Maternity Benefit are automatically entitled to the Supplementary
Maternity Allowance granted by OAED. This is a non-contributory social insurance
benefit that equals the difference between the Maternity Benefit and the beneficia-
ry’s actual wage.
Women employees who have received the Maternity Benefit and have a valid
employment contract can also benefit from the Special Maternity Protection Leave
and Allowance Programme37 managed by OAED. This is a non-compulsory addi-
tional maternity leave of 6 months with financial compensation equal to the statu-
tory minimum wage (non-contributory).
Protection to families with dependent children is provided through the Child
Benefit38, a non-contributory means-tested allowance financed by the state budget
and granted by OPEKA. The Child Benefit belongs to the category of demogrants,
corresponding rather to a composite social security benefit than a genuine social
welfare one.
Access to the benefit requires that the family has dependent children, that a tax
declaration has been submitted prior to the claim and that the equivalent family
income does not exceed the legally defined thresholds. There are some residence
requirements for both the claimant parent and the child, including prior legal and
permanent residence in Greece for 5 years before the claim39 and legal and perma-
nent residence in Greece at the time of the claim and during benefit payment40. The

36
Article 34 and 39 of Statutory Law No. 1846/1951.
37
Article 142 of Law No. 3655/2008.
38
Article 214 of Law No. 4512/2018 (OJ Vol. A΄ 5/17.1.2018), Joint Ministerial Decision No.
Δ12/Γ.Π.οικ.2738/36/17.1.2018 (OJ Vol. B΄ No. 57/18.1.2018) as amended and Joint Ministerial
Decision No. Δ11/οικ.19750/540/30.3.2018 (OJ Vol. B΄ No. 1293/12.4.2018).
39
According to Law No. 4512/2018, 5 years prior residence is required for parents and legal and
permanent residence (with no specified time limit) for the child. In administrative practice (Joint
Ministerial Decision No Δ11/οικ.65072/2920 of 10.12.2018), the verification of 5 years residence
requirement is performed both for parents and children (unless younger than 5 so residence time
counts since birth) through previous tax returns of the family.
40
Absence from Greece for more than 3 months leads to benefit suspension, whereas if the family
or the child moves abroad permanently the benefit is revoked. An indefinite absence abroad with-
out benefit suspension is allowed in case the reason for staying abroad relates to studies, hospital-
ization or work for an employer established in Greece.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 205

paid amount depends on the equivalent income category of the claimant and the
number of dependent children ranging from 28 Euros (for income of 10,000–15,000
Euros) to 70 Euros (for income up to 6000 Euros) per child.

13.3.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The national GMIS corresponds to the Social Solidarity Income Program (KEA)41,
a social welfare programme, centrally managed and state financed, providing non-­
contributory and means-tested benefits to people living in extreme poverty (Amitsis
2017a). The scheme is structured in three pillars, including income support, activa-
tion services and access to supplementary welfare services and benefits in kind42.
The benefit is addressed to recipient units, either to a household or a homeless
person (registered as such by the municipal social services) who fulfill the following
requirements43:
• Members of the household must legally and permanently reside in Greece.
• The declared income of the recipient unit during the 6 months preceding claim
must not exceed six times the guaranteed amount for each type of household.
• The assets of the household must not exceed the legal thresholds.
The maximum duration of coverage by the KEA Programme is 6 months and, if
need continues, a new application may be submitted with full reassessment. For
households with no other source of income the cash benefit corresponds to the guar-
anteed amount44, otherwise the benefit equals the difference between the house-
hold’s income and the guaranteed amount.

13.3.6  Critical Discussion of Key Factors on the Access

A
of Migrants to Social Benefits

The analysis of the Greek institutional framework and administrative practice

clearly leads to the conclusion that Greek citizens and foreigners legally residing in
Greece may access social benefits on equal terms since eligibility criteria are not
based on nationality. The basic migrant-related requirement corresponds to the

41
See article 235 of Law No. 4389/2016 as amended and Joint Ministerial Decision Δ13/
οικ/33475/1935/15.6.2018 (OJ Vol. B’ No. 2281/15.6.2018).
42
Due to the underdeveloped social care system, the service provision aspect of the scheme remains
extremely weak in practice.
43
Article 235 par. 6 of Law No. 4389/2016 and article 3 of Joint Ministerial Decision Δ13/
οικ/33475/1935/15.6.2018.
44
200 Euros for a single person plus 100 Euros for each extra adult member and 50 Euros for each
dependent child up to a maximum of 900 Euros per household.
206 F. Marini

existence of valid residence permits. As for prior residence requirements, they are
introduced when justified by the non-contributory and social solidarity character of
the benefit concerned and are equally implemented for Greeks living abroad. The
only special attention attributed to the latter corresponds to their right to affiliate
with the Greek social insurance system on a voluntary basis for pension and health
insurance in an effort to encourage repatriation.
However, a key issue about the interrelation between migration and social pro-
tection concerns how the insufficiency of financial resources implied by the recourse
to the GMIS might affect residence status, family reunification rights or naturaliza-
tion potential of migrants.
For non-EU nationals, inadequacy of resources may lead to the revocation or
non-renewal of residence permit (articles 4 par. 2 and 24 par. 1 of Law No.
4251/2014). For EU Blue Cards holders, insufficiency of resources and recourse to
the national social welfare system directly entails revocation or not renewal of resi-
dence permit (article 116 par. 3 of Law No. 4251/2014). Also, non-EU nationals can
only exercise the fundamental right to family reunification when they prove suffi-
ciency of resources without dependence on the national social assistance system
(article 70 par. 2 point b No. 4251/2014).
The residence status of EU nationals without permanent residence card can also
be affected since sufficiency of resources without recourse to the national welfare
system is a basic condition for their right to reside in Greece and receive a perma-
nent residence card (articles 7 par. 1 and 13 par. 1 of Presidential Decree No.
106/2007).
Naturalisation prospects may also be affected by the claim or the receipt of KEA,
as one of the main criteria for granting Hellenic citizenship to foreigners is the
degree of their socio-economic integration, while their financial status is legally
defined as an important indicator (article 5A of the Citizenship Code). Thus, what
may affect the naturalization process is not the act of claiming or receiving KEA per
se, but the poor financial condition implied.
Finally, regarding the application of beneficial transnational coordination rules,
it is evident that EU social security legislation is in full implementation in Greece
and, thus, access to rights is facilitated for all EU and non-EU citizens residing in
Greece and falling under their scope, as well as Greeks living in other EU countries.
Bilateral social security agreements have similar beneficial results in the field of
pensions, where the principles of equal treatment, maintenance of acquired insur-
ance rights, aggregation of insurance periods, apportionment of insurance benefits
and export of cash benefits are applied for all persons insured in Greece and the
other contracting party regardless nationality. Greece has signed “classic” BSSAs
with eight non-EU countries, including USA45, Australia46 and Canada47, which

45
Ratified by Law No. 2186/1994 (OJ Vol. A΄ No. 15), covering old age pension, invalidity pension
and survivors’ benefits.
46
Ratified by Law No. 3677/2008 (OJ Vol. A΄ No. 140), covering only old age pensions.
47
Ratified by Law No. 2492/1997 (OJ Vol. A΄ No. 83), covering old age pension, invalidity pension
and survivors’ benefits. Greece has also signed a separate classic type BSSA with Quebec.
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 207

represent the three largest destinations of Greek emigrants48. There is no BSSA,

though, signed with the countries whose nationals represent the three largest groups
of non-­EU foreigners in Greece (Albania, Georgia and Ukraine).

13.4 Conclusions

It is expected that Greece will not be affected by high rates of EU migrant workers
and jobseekers in the forthcoming years, given that the economic and financial situ-
ation bring into question the main reasons for moving in Greece (OECD & European
Commission 2014): earn enough to have a higher purchasing power at home;
achieved previously set goals, such as savings or completing education; having
higher chances of employment at home, etc. But the situation would be rather dif-
ferent for retired EU movers (Fries-Tersch et al 2016) and third country nationals,
who might be de jure and de facto influenced by policy decisions concerning their
access to the Greek social protection model.
This chapter has applied both institutional analysis and y bibliographical research
in order to assess whether, during a sharp financial crisis, Greece respects the fun-
damental principles of free movement and equal treatment for EU citizens
(Poptcheva 2014), and the solidarity discourse in favour of third-country nationals
(Guild and Carrera 2013). It concludes that affiliation with social insurance schemes
is directly linked to the degree of integration into the labour market, while access to
social welfare depends on the development of a controversial (for Greek citizens)
but generous (for third-country nationals) public assistance regime.
Last but not least, although prior residence requirements are applied equally
regardless nationality, it is clear that Greeks who have lived a part of their lives
abroad as well as immigrants may have a greater difficulty in fulfilling them. On the
other hand, access of foreigners to income support benefits may be discouraged
since, in certain cases, the implied inadequacy of resources affects their residence
status or naturalisation prospects.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

Greece has also signed classic BSSAs with Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, New Zealand and
48

Uruguay.
208 F. Marini

References

Amitsis, G. (2014). The impact of austerity policies on pensions during the financial crisis –
Lessons from a Mediterranean perspective. In T. Reilly (Ed.), Pensions: Policies, new reforms
and current challenges (pp. 125–146). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Amitsis, G. (2016). The development of national asylum policies in times of economic recession:
Challenges for Greece. Transnational Social Review, 6(1–2), 204–208.
Amitsis, G. (2017a). The social clauses of the Economic Adjustment Programmes for Greece: A
controversial paradigm for experimental policy-making in the welfare domain. Paper presented
in the 3rd International Conference on Public Policy. International Public Policy Association,
Singapore, 28–30.6.2017. www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/.../593c2f7db1b16.pdf. Accessed 1
March 2019.
Amitsis, G. (2017b). State Pensions, poverty and social inclusion during austerity times – The
paradigm of Greece. In B. Searle (Ed.), Generational interdependencies – The social implica-
tions for welfare (pp. 159–183). Wilmington: Vernon Press.
Amitsis, G. (2018). The regulation of multiple non-discrimination in Greece. In D. Balourdos &
N. Sarris (Eds.), Tackling multiple discrimination in Greece (pp. 105–133). Athens: National
Centre for Social Research/Ion.
Damanakis, M. (2010). Assessment of Hellenic education abroad up to 2010 and its prospects.
Report (2nd edition). Rethymnon: University of Crete (in Greek).
Fouskas, T. (Ed.). (2014). Contemporary immigration in Greece: A sourcebook. Athens: European
Public Law Organization.
Fries-Tersch, E., Tugran, T., & Bradley, H. (2016). 2016 annual report on intra-EU labour mobility.
In Network statistics FMSSFE. Brussels: European Commission.
Giannitsis, T., & Zografakis, S. (2015). Greece – Solidarity and Adjustment in times of crisis.
Study no. 38. Macroeconomic Policy Institute. Dusseldorf: Hans-Boeckler-Foundation.
Guild, E., & Carrera, S. (Eds.). (2013). Social benefits and migration: A contested relationship and
policy challenge in the EU. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Hasiotis, I. (2006). Introduction. In I. Hasiotis, O. Katsiardi-Hering, & E. Abatzi (Eds.), Greeks
in diaspora 15th century – 21st century (pp. 13–31). Athens: Hellenic Parliament (in Greek).
Hellenic Ministry of Migration Policy (2018). National strategy for integration. http://www.open-
gov.gr/immigration/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2019/01/ethniki-stratigiki.pdf. Accessed 1
March 2019.
Kardasis, V., & Harlafti, G. (2006). In quest of the Promise Land: The Hellenic Diaspora from the
mid-19th century to the 2nd World War. In I. Hasiotis, O. Katsiardi-Hering, & E. Abatzi (Eds.),
Greeks in diaspora 15th century – 21st century (pp. 53–73). Athens: Hellenic Parliament
(in Greek).
Labrianidis, L., & Pratsinakis, M. (2015). Outward migration from Greece during the crisis. Final
Report submitted to the Hellenic Observatory. London: The London School of Economic’s.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/hellenicObservatory/CMS%20pdf/Research/
NBG_2014_-Research_Call/LOIS%20LAMBRANIIDIS_Outward%20migration%20
from%20Gree ce%20during%20the%20crisis%20.pdf. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
OECD. (2013). Greece: Reform of social welfare programmes. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2018). International migration outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2008-en. Accessed 1 March 2019.
OECD & European Commission (2014). Matching economic migration with labour market needs
in Europe, Policy Brief, September 2014.
Poptcheva, E. -M. (2014). Freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens – Access to social
benefits, European Parliamentary Research Service. Brussels: European Parliament.
Stergiou, A. (2017). Social insurance law (3rd ed.). Athens/Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas Publishing
(in Greek).
13 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Greece 209

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 14
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Hungary

Gábor Juhász

14.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Hungary

14.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

‘Traditional’ categorisations of welfare states have limited application to the analy-

sis of the Hungarian welfare system. Due to the country’s turbulent social and eco-
nomic history, various ideas and practices influenced the process of welfare state
building in Hungary. Each of the different approaches has left some imprints on the
social welfare system, the reason for which some scholars have emphasised the
“hybrid” character of the Hungarian welfare state (Tausz 2009, 259.)
Welfare state building in Hungary can be divided into three periods, each of them
with different features in ideological terms. At the end of the nineteenth century,
Germany’s social reforms inspired to develop social insurance schemes in Hungary.
The communist coupe d’état at the end of WWII did not interrupt this development
since the Bismarckian model of social insurance proved to be suitable for the com-
munists to reward preferential groups (especially agricultural workers entering
cooperatives) by the extension of the benefits to them. It was also easy to use this
model for punishing those preserving their economic independence (smallholders,
artisans, etc.), as they were simply excluded from the system. The anti-communist
revolt in 1956 forced the communist party to change its social policy leading to
some Scandinavian-style reforms in the social insurance system. The economic and
political transformation in the 1990s has led to (neo)liberal reforms in some social

G. Juhász (*)
Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 211

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_14
212 G. Juhász

policy sectors (partial privatisation of pensions and health care and strict implemen-
tation of less eligibility in social assistance).
The central pillar of the Hungarian social security system is social insurance,
which accounts for 84% of social security expenditure.1 Social insurance has two
branches: pension and health insurance. Employers’ and employees’ contributions
finance both schemes on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the central budget finances
incidental deficits of them. Cash benefits in both schemes are income related. The
unemployment benefit scheme covers unemployed and self-employed, being
financed from contributions and providing maximised earnings-related benefits.
The second pillar is the rather extensive family benefit scheme. Family benefits are
universal and account for 11,9% of the social security budget.2 On the other hand,
instead of guaranteeing minimum income, Hungary developed a fragmented social
assistance system providing scarce aid to some categories of people.

14.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

In the middle ages, Hungarian kings settled German and Italian artisans and wine-­
growers in their kingdom. However, a vast population movement started with the
Ottoman invasion that almost entirely depopulated the middle part of Hungary by
the end of the seventeenth century, and the re-population of the territory required
organised migration. The first well-documented migration flow in Hungarian his-
tory happened at the turn of the twentieth century when almost 1,3 million people
left the Hungarian Kingdom to the United States (Puskás 1982). After the First
World War, Austria, Czechoslovakia and the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom
annexed two-thirds of the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom resulting in 350,000
ethnic Hungarians migrating to Hungary from the successor states between 1918
and 1924. With the end of the Second World War, population movements started
again. The Hungarian government forced 185,000 ethnic Germans to move to
Germany and while providing shelter for 376,000 ethnic Hungarians fleeing from
Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia (Romsics 2005). From 1949 to 1956,
‘migratory movements were officially restricted, although thousands of Hungarians
crossed the heavily militarised Austrian border illegally’ (Gödri et al. 2014, p. 9).
The Austrian border opened in the autumn of 1956 for 3 months, inspiring 176,000
Hungarian citizens to leave in the USA, Canada, Australia, Austria and other
Western European countries (ibid).
In the late 1980s, thousands of ethnic Hungarians moved from Romania to
Hungary, and some years later, migration flows started from Ukraine and Yugoslavia.

1
Own calculation. In 2016, the total expenditure on social protection was €21,252 of which
€17,929 was spent on sickness, healthcare, old age, survivors and disability benefits and services.
Source: Eurostat database, Net social benefits by function: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/
refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1& pcode=tps00083&language=en
2
Eurostat Data Explorer. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 213

As a result of historical experience and the accession to human rights conventions,

migration regulation has developed in two ways in Hungary. New legislation simpli-
fied the naturalisation of Hungarians living outside Hungary’s borders and adapted
the treatment of political refugees to international standards. The legislation was
less generous with economic migrants as they had to meet special conditions to
obtain permits to get settled and work. Despite this, Hungary became attractive to
immigrants from China and Middle Eastern countries who have set up business in
retail and service industries (Gödri et al., p. 12).
Hungary’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004 gave new impetuous
for emigration. Hungary’s migration balance is currently negative as the number of
Hungarians emigrants is three times higher the number of foreigners residing in
Hungary.3 According to Eurostat,4 325,000 Hungarian nationals reside in other
European countries, while the Hungarian Statistical Office5 accounts that 93,000
foreigners reside in Hungary.
Nevertheless, the issue of migration has not been on the political agenda in
Hungary until quite recently. The policy turn was a reaction to the quadrupling of
asylum seekers from Asia and Africa in 2015. In 2014, 42,777 registered asylum
seekers entered Hungary, whereas, in 2015, this number increased to 177,135
(Juhász et al. 2017 p. 9). By the end of August 2015, the Hungarian government
closed the southern border of the country and tightened the conditions for submit-
ting an asylum application. At the end of 2015, the government closed the country’s
largest refugee camp in Debrecen, while also stopping integration support for refu-
gees. Since 2016, application for asylum can be submitted only in Röszke and a
particular zone nearby, exclusively in office hours when only a minimal number of
cases may be dealt with (Juhász, Molnár, Zgut).
Against this general background, one can initially expect that the Hungarian
social security system is not particularly inclusive towards foreigners, particularly
those originating from non-EU countries. This chapter aims to test this hypothesis
by identifying a series of factors that could constrain migrants’ access to social
benefits.

14.2 Migration and Social Protection in Hungary

The main pillars of the Hungarian social security system were built in the commu-
nist era when inward and outward migration was rather moderate. The (forced) full
employment made it possible to deal with all social risks associated with the decline
and loss of ability to work (old age, widowhood, orphanhood, disability, maternity,
etc.) in the framework of the comprehensive and monolithic social insurance

3
Eurostat news release 87/2018.
4
Eurostat.
5
STADAT – 1.7, 2018.
214 G. Juhász

scheme. Due to the isolationist state policy, the provisions determining the personal
scope of the Act on Social Insurance did not address the issue of nationality, as it
was so obvious that the law applied only to ‘persons and their relatives being
involved in building the socialist society’.6 The builders of the socialist society
could have been only national citizens. Although increasing migration associated
with economic and political transformations did not put significant pressure on the
social security system in the 1990s, there have always been signs of welfare chau-
vinism in Hungarian politics (Mewes and Maus 2012). The fall of the Iron Curtain
and Hungary’s opening to the world in the 1990s provoked new fears of sharing the
benefits that the ‘premature welfare state’ (Kornai 1997) was able to provide for
newcomers from less developed countries in Hungary’s neighbourhood.
Aiming to prevent migrants from the neighbouring countries from accessing the
Hungarian labour market and the social security system was the reason for which
Hungary has still not ratified Article 18 and 19 the European Social Charter. The
access of Romanian citizens to the Hungarian social benefits came to the agenda in
a referendum in 2004 where the majority of voters rejected the idea of granting
Hungarian citizenship even to ethnic Hungarians living in the neighbouring coun-
tries. Despite these concerns, legal regulations are generally not restricting migrants’
access to social security benefits. It is a result of the massive dominance of contribu-
tory benefits which, in combination with reduced-value unemployment and family
benefits and the underdeveloped social assistance scheme which disprefers the
‘undeserving’ poor guarantees that mainly working migrants (and their dependent
relatives) had access to social security benefits.
In general, the Hungarian social security legislation does not differentiate
between nationals and foreigners. Entitlement to the most benefits depends on indi-
viduals’ contribution record. However, the employment of foreign nationals - a pre-
condition for becoming a member of the Hungarian social insurance - is subject to
various restrictions concerning residence and work permits. Family benefits are an
exception from the general rule, as they are conditional on claimants’ actual stay in
Hungary. Hungary does not provide guaranteed minimum resources which nega-
tively affects both domestic and foreign citizens. The subjects of social assistance
are Hungarian citizens, and foreigners have access to benefits if they hold a special
legal status residing in Hungary.

14.2.1 Unemployment

The unemployment benefit scheme was introduced in Hungary as a reaction to the

political and economic transformation during the early 1990s. The scheme is regu-
lated by Act 4 of 1991. Participation in the unemployment scheme and the payment

6
According to Article 1 of Act 2 of 1975 on Social insurance the purpose of the Act was ‘to regulate
and further develop, in accordance with uniform principles, the financial contributions of persons
and relatives involved in the building of socialist society.’
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 215

of contributions during economically active periods is mandatory for employees

and self-employed (Juhász 2007). Although the scheme is not conditional on citi-
zenship nor it requires a specific period of prior residence in Hungary, its compul-
sory character can be particularly problematic for non-EU citizens whose economic
activity (employment) is subject to work permits or holding a special status while
residing in Hungary. It is also important to note that Hungary refused to ratify
Article 18 of the Revised Social Charter what declares the right of citizens of the
Parties to engage in a gainful occupation in the territory of other Parties. Thus,
Hungary does not have an obligation to liberalise regulations governing the employ-
ment of foreign workers. However, third-country nationals who hold a work permit
are to receive the same treatment in the labour market and social security as resident
nationals.
Claimants of unemployment benefits have to register with the National
Employment Service (NES) and prove at least 12 months of contributions. The
amount of benefit is 60 per cent of the recipient’s previous wage, without exceeding
the national minimum wage. The benefit is granted for a maximum of 12 weeks and
recipients are obliged to cooperate with the NES and be available for work (failing
to do so can be sanctioned with the revocation of the benefit). Such rules make it
very difficult for beneficiaries to take this benefit abroad, although exporting is not
explicitly prohibited by law. The same regulations practically prevent non-resident
Hungarians from claiming the benefit from Hungary.
There is no specific unemployment assistance scheme in the country. However,
unemployed people who are not entitled to the unemployment benefit can claim the
so-called Benefit for Persons in Active Age (BPAA). This means-tested benefit is
available to those who have exhausted the unemployment benefit or do not have the
required period of prior contribution to claim the unemployment benefit. The enti-
tlement to BPAA is not conditional on social insurance records although claimants
are required to cooperate with the NES for a year preceding the submission of their
claim. Claimants have to register as job seekers, cooperate with the NES and the
local governments in searching for a job, or participate in public work programmes.
Failing to do so can lead to the revocation of the benefit. BPAA is a flat-rate benefit
determined as 80% of the minimum pension. The benefit is conditional on the ben-
eficiary’s stay in Hungary; hence non-resident Hungarians are not entitled to BPAA.
Foreigners have reduced access to BPAA. EU citizens who do not exhaust the
unemployment benefit are hardly able to complete the requirement for cooperation
with the authorities for a year preceding the submission of their claim. As to non-
­EU citizens, when they meet the eligibility criteria, their resident permit may be
revoked on the basis that they do not have enough means for their livelihood in
Hungary. Bilateral social security agreements with the countries whose nationals
represent the three largest groups of non-EU citizens residing in Hungary (Ukraine,
Serbia and China) or the countries that represent the most frequent destinations for
Hungarians abroad (USA, Canada, Australia) do not cover unemployment benefits
nor social assistance.
216 G. Juhász

14.2.2 Health Care

When the Hungarian Parliament redesigned the social security system in the 1990s,
it linked the use of health services to contribution payments (Juhász 2007). However,
certain groups of individuals are granted health insurance without having to pay
contributions (children below the age of 18, pensioners, beneficiaries of parental
benefits, and registered unemployed). Health insurance covers all employees and
self-employed. There is no qualifying period of prior contribution for accessing in-­
kind benefits. Health insurance typically covers the full costs of medical treatment.
Patients do not have to pay charges for hospital treatment, whereas pharmaceutical
costs are partially covered. Health expenditure is financed from social contribution
tax (paid by employers) and health insurance contribution (which is deducted from
employees’ gross income). Social contribution tax is 19,5% of salaries and wages,
including undefined contributions to the pension, health and labour insurance
schemes. Health insurance contribution is 8,5% of salaries and wages (4% for ben-
efits in kind, 3% for cash benefits and 1,5% for labour insurance).
Individuals legally residing in Hungary are entitled to voluntarily join the health
insurance regardless of their nationality, although special rules apply for their con-
tribution rate. Voluntarily joining health insurance is conditional on making a con-
tract with the National Health Insurance Fund, and on paying contributions to the
Fund that equal at least 50% of the minimum wage per month. In exchange, they get
access only to emergency care for the first 2 years of their contract. To take full
advantage of health care services, they have to pay for 24 months in advance. Unless
having an employment relationship with a Hungarian employer or a contract with
the National Health Insurance Fund, national citizens staying abroad are not entitled
to publicly financed health care. The same rules are to apply to foreigners residing
in Hungary.
Sickness cash benefit covers all employees and self-employed, although it is
impossible to join this scheme voluntarily. Entitlement to sickness benefit is condi-
tional on contribution payment, but not on a prior residence in the country. Sickness
benefit can be granted for a maximum 12 months, and it is income-related (set at
60% of the beneficiaries’ previous income, without exceeding the double of the
minimum wage). Employers are obliged to pay a wage for 15 days of sick leave in
a year, and the provision of sickness benefit starts after that. Employers are also
required to finance a third of the benefit paid to their employees. Sickness benefit is
not exportable. There is no distinction on the grounds of nationality between claim-
ants, but non-EU foreigners face more difficulties to get entitled to this benefit
because they are required to present work and residence permits for taking a job in
Hungary.
In the early 2010s, the legislation transformed disability pension for those below
the retirement age into a special kind of health benefit (Benefit for Persons with
Changed Work Capacity). Those in retirement age could claim for old-age pension,
while others could claim for rehabilitation benefit or disability benefit financed by
the Health Insurance Fund (Szikra 2018). Benefits for people with reduced work
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 217

capacity cover both employees and self-employed. There is a qualifying period of at

least 1095 days of prior insurance within the last 5 years, 2555 days within the last
10 years, or 3650 days within the last 15 years. Claimants cannot perform gainful
activities nor receive any regular cash benefits. Eligibility for the benefits is not
conditional on a prior residence in Hungary.
Persons whose work capacity may improve with standard rehabilitation are eli-
gible for the Rehabilitation Benefit covering 35% of the claimant’s previous average
monthly income, with an upper limit of 40% of the national minimum wage. Persons
who need permanent rehabilitation are eligible for an increased amount of 45% of
their average monthly income with an upper limit of 50% of the national minimum
wage. Uninhabitable people are entitled to claim a disability benefit.
Rehabilitation and disability benefits are exportable, although when beneficiaries
do not appear before the committee of medical experts which assesses their health
status, they can lose the benefit. Hungarian citizens who reside abroad may thus
have difficulties regarding their access to these benefits. On the other hand, EU and
non-EU foreign residents have equal access to these benefits as national residents.
The Hungarian – Soviet agreement that applies to Ukraine guarantees equal
treatment for accessing invalidity benefits to Ukrainian nationals residing in
Hungary while ensuring that the contribution records collected in Ukraine are taken
into account when Hungarian invalidity benefits are concerned. The agreement with
Serbia also stipulates equal treatment of Serbian nationals with Hungarian citizens
regarding the regulations applied for persons with changed work capacity and
allows for the aggregation of contribution periods. In the absence of security agree-
ment between Hungary and China, the general rules of the Hungarian legislation
shall be implemented for Chinese nationals staying in Hungary. Moreover, there is
no agreement signed with countries being the leading destination of Hungarians
abroad (USA, Canada and Australia). However, insurance-based disability benefits
may be exported in the same way as old-age pensions.

14.2.3 Pensions

Hungary has a two-pillar pension system with a pay-as-you-go state pension scheme
in its frontline. The second pillar consists of voluntary private pension funds in
which participation is influenced mainly by tax allowances. As a third pillar, a man-
datory private pension scheme operated in the country between 1998 and 2011 and
the number of private pensions fund members reached 3.1 million of which 60.000
thousand people have kept their membership by 2014 (Szikra 2009; Szikra and Kiss
2017). One of the severe shortcomings of the pension system is the lack of a ‘zero-­
pillar’ that should provide a minimum state pension for those who do not have the
contribution record for being entitled to a PAYG state pension. People with poor
contribution record may apply for means-tested social assistance.
The contributory pension scheme was set up in 1928. The original fully-funded
pension scheme was transformed into a pay-as-you-go one after WWII. Pension
218 G. Juhász

entitlement is conditional on reaching the statutory pension age (increasing gradu-

ally until 2022 when it will reach 65) and adequate (15/20 years long) contribution
record. The pension scheme covers both employees and the self-employed, and it is
not restricted to national citizens. Employees from abroad may establish member-
ship in the state pension scheme, and pension rules do not contain a mandatory resi-
dence period in the country. However, the possibility to join the public pension
scheme voluntarily is restricted to ‘domestic persons’. This category includes
Hungarian and citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA), stateless persons,
refugees, and those who have settled status in Hungary.7
Consequently, Hungarian and EEA citizens who are not staying in Hungary and
non-EEA citizens who do not have a special status in Hungary are not allowed to
join the pension scheme voluntarily. Another point where foreigners suffer disad-
vantage is the retrospective payment of pension contributions because the law offers
this possibility only to ‘domestic persons’. Claiming and exporting pensions from
and to abroad is possible.
The amount of the public pension is dependent on claimants’ previous earnings
calculated over the whole career but not earlier than 1 January 1988. The govern-
ment determines the amount of the minimum pension, but given its meagre amount
it is instead used as a benchmark of income tests in the social assistance system. The
social policy agreement between Hungary and the Soviet Union (applicable for
Ukraine) offers access to contributory pensions by aggregating the periods of con-
tributions that citizens of the two states completed in each other’s countries. Similar
rules apply to Serbia. The agreements with the USA and Canada offer equal treat-
ment to citizens of the contracting parties in each other’s pension system, and pen-
sion benefits are exportable to the contracting party. The agreement with Australia
also concerns the old age, survivors’ and disability pensions. Hungarian citizens are
treated equally with national citizens in Australia, pension benefits are exportable
and the creditable periods can be accumulated under the host country legislation.
Hungary does not have a universal old-age non-contributory pension. The task to
provide financial support to people who do not meet the eligibility criteria for a
contributory public pension is delegated to the social assistance system. Old Age
Allowance is a means-tested benefit administered by Regional Government Offices
and granted to people in need who are over 65 years of age. Old Age Allowance is
a means-tested benefit whose amount depends on claimants’ income, family status
and age. Their situation is reassessed by the Regional Government Offices periodi-
cally in every second year. The payment of the benefit is subject to the beneficiary’s

7
A settled status may be granted to third-country nationals whose housing and subsistence in
Hungary is provided, who are insured for the full range of health care or can provide the cost of
healthcare, who has a residence permit or a temporary residence permit, whose settlement is in
accordance with the interest of Hungary, and he/she has resided legally and uninterruptedly in
Hungary for at least 3 years immediately prior to the submission of the application. The status may
also be granted to the spouse and minor child of the aforementioned persons and those who previ-
ously had Hungarian citizenship or their ancestor were Hungarian citizens. (Act 2 of 2007,
Article 35)
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 219

stay in Hungary. Consequently, Hungarian nationals lose their right to this benefit if
they decide to move abroad. Since the personal scope of the act applied to Hungarian
citizens, immigrants, refugees and stateless persons, non-EU residents without such
status cannot claim the benefit. None of the bilateral agreements signed with the
main countries of origin of foreigners residing in Hungary or Hungarians residing
abroad covers non-contributory pensions or social assistance.

14.2.4 Family Benefits

Hungary has a comprehensive and complex family support system, including con-
tributory earnings-related and universal benefits (Juhász 2007, Darvas and Szikra
2017). Regarding maternity benefits, during the post-natal period, mothers can
choose between two types of cash benefits. If they have at least 365 days of health
insurance record within the 2 years preceding childbirth, they can claim for a mater-
nity benefit called Infant Care Allowance (csecsemőgondozási díj) for 24 weeks.
ICA is an income-related benefit financed from health insurance contributions, and
its amount is equivalent to 70% of the mother’s previous wage. If the mother does
not have sufficient contributions, she can apply for the Child Care Allowance (gyer-
mekgondozást segítő támogatás). Access to ICA does not depend on parents’ prior
residence in Hungary nor the child’s birthplace. Voluntary join the scheme is not
possible. The personal scope of the Family Support Act applies to Hungarian citi-
zens residing in Hungary. Consequently, Hungarian nationals living abroad can
claim maternity benefits only if they decide to move back to Hungary. On the other
hand, the legislation does not distinguish between national and foreign residents
when it comes to applications for ICA.
The Hungarian social security system does not explicitly provide paternity ben-
efits as such for fathers, although several maternity benefits are open to fathers as
well. For example, Infant Care Allowance is available for the father if the mother is
dead or unable to care for her baby. Both parents may claim for Child Care Fee and
Child Care Allowance, although the recipients of these benefits are typically moth-
ers. As a new labour law initiative, fathers got entitled to 5 days of extra paid leave
by the end of the second month after the childbirth. It is not a social security benefit
but a labour law measure, and thus, the costs are born by the employer.
Parental benefits (Child Care Allowance or Child Care Fee) generally start when
maternity benefit (Infant Care Allowance) comes to an end. Mothers who are not
entitled to Infant Care Allowance may apply for Child Care Allowance immediately
after giving birth. The law allows the sharing of parental benefits. Child Care
Allowance is a universal flat-rate and tax-financed benefit with a maximum duration
of 3 years (or 10 years when the child is permanently ill or severely disabled).
Entitlement to this benefit is granted to all residents, independently of their national-
ity. However, unlike national or EU citizens, third-country nationals can apply for it
only if they hold an individual status (being officially recognised as settled persons,
refugees, stateless persons) or a 6 months long work permit. The law does not
220 G. Juhász

require a specific period of prior residence in Hungary. Child Care Allowance is not
exportable: the Regional Government Office may cancel the eligibility for the ben-
efit of recipients stay abroad for more than 3 months.
As for the Child Care Fee, this is a contributory income-related benefit generally
granted until the child’ second birthday. Entitlement is conditional on the parents’
contribution record of at least 1 year taking the last 2 years into account. It is not
possible to voluntarily join this scheme. If the eligible person moves abroad and
neither he/she nor his/her partner establishes a social insurance relationship in the
host country, the benefit is exportable. Hungarian citizens working abroad may be
able to claim Child Care Fee when they return to Hungary, provided they comply
with the insurance requirement. EU foreigners who reside in Hungary enjoy the
protection of EU social security coordination rules, i.e. aggregation of creditable
periods collected in EEA countries.
Finally, Hungary also provides for a universal tax-financed Family Benefit for
families with children granted until the completion of the child’s secondary educa-
tion. The amount of the benefit depends on the number and health status of the
children and parents’ marital status. Entitlement to family benefit is not conditional
on a prior residence in Hungary, but claimants must reside in the country. It is nei-
ther possible to join the scheme voluntarily nor to export it. Non-resident Hungarians
regain their eligibility if they decide to return to Hungary. EU foreigners enjoy equal
treatment with Hungarian nationals, but the access of non-EU residents to Family
Benefit is conditional on their special status in Hungary (refugee, settled or stateless
person). Bilateral agreements determine the access of other non-EU foreigners to
this benefit. The low number of the bilateral social security agreement in which
Hungary is a partner excludes many non-EU foreigners from this benefit. The agree-
ment with Ukraine requires the contracting parties to provide social security bene-
fits to each other’s citizens on similar ground with their nationals. The agreement
with Serbia applies to social insurance benefits, meaning that contributory family
benefits (the Infant Care Allowance and the Child Care Benefit) are available for
Serbian nationals residing in Hungary. However, the agreements between Hungary
and the first three non-EU countries of destination of Hungarian citizens (USA,
Canada and Australia) do not cover the area of family-related benefits.

14.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Hungary does not provide a general scheme of guaranteed minimum resources for
everyone. However, it provides different categorical schemes targeting specific
groups of people in need, such as the elderly (Old Age Allowance) and individuals
in working age (Benefit for Persons in Active Age). In general, entitlement to these
benefits is conditional on nationality, but the rules extend the personal scope of the
legislation to EEA residents, immigrants, settled persons, refugees, stateless per-
sons and citizens of the countries that ratified the European Social Charter. It is
compulsory to reassess the eligibility for these benefit every second year. Those
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 221

who receive any of these benefits can leave the country temporarily for up to
3 months, but they risk losing benefits if they stay abroad for a more extended
period. Non-EU foreigners who do not fall in the abovementioned special catego-
ries are not entitled to claim these benefits.
People above the retirement age may claim the Old Age Allowance (időskorúak
járadéka), a means-tested benefit for those without sufficient resources for living.
Both single persons, couples and people living in domestic partnerships are entitled
to claim this benefit. The income threshold for eligibility is different according to
claimant’s age and marital status. Unemployed people in working- age can claim for
Benefit for Persons in Active Age previously discussed. Hungary’s bilateral social
security agreements do not cover the area of specific non-contributory minimum
resources.

14.3 Conclusions

Immigration from the more developed Western European countries has never been
an issue on the political agenda in Hungary, and the subjects of welfare chauvinism
were always the citizens of countries east of Hungary. The dominance of contribu-
tory benefits is an effective filter in the Hungarian social security system because it
gives preference to economically active people what prevents social dumping. Even
the migration crisis has not enforced changes in the rules that guaranteed equal
treatment of Hungarian and foreign nationals in most social security schemes.
Perhaps, the success of the government’s policy in stopping illegal migration was a
share in the lawmakers’ inactivity.
This chapter also showed that foreign nationals might face many problems when
accessing social security benefits in Hungary. National residents can comply more
comfortable with many rules compared to non-nationals. Concerning contributory
benefits, the law does not distinguish between Hungarian and foreign citizens as
long as they pay contributions. However, third-country nationals could have diffi-
culties to join these schemes because membership is conditional on employment,
and their chances to take a job in Hungary is often conditional on holding a work
(and residence) permit. Consequently, whereas social law is neutral towards for-
eigners, labour law regulations prevent many of them from being a member of the
social insurance schemes.
According to Hungarian law, the eligibility for social security benefits is not
conditional on a prior residence in the country, but prior contribution payment may
be an important factor in several cases. The prior contribution period affects the
amount of sick pay and eligibility for disability benefits. It is particularly problem-
atic that non-EU foreigners can aggregate their creditable periods only in the con-
text of bilateral social security agreements between Hungary and their home
countries. Considering that Hungary has signed not more than 14 bilateral agree-
ments, we can assume that such a low number prevents a significant share of for-
eigners living in Hungary from having access to social security benefits.
222 G. Juhász

The specific rules regarding the possibility to voluntarily join the social security
schemes can also constrain foreigners’ access to social protection, especially when
compared to national residents. It is not possible to voluntarily join the unemploy-
ment, invalidity and maternity benefits scheme; and only ‘domestic persons’ can
join the pension scheme voluntarily. To be recognised as a ‘domestic person’, a
foreigner needs to hold a special status in Hungary (EEA citizen, stateless person,
refugee, registered immigrant, settled person). Voluntary join the in-kind benefits
scheme of health insurance voluntarily is possible, but it provides a much narrower
range of benefits to ‘volunteers’ when compared to employees.
Restricting the export of benefits probably affects foreigners harder than domes-
tic citizens. Pensions are the only benefits fully exportable to other countries.
Unemployment benefit can be paid abroad for such a short period (3 months) that
makes the question of exportability somewhat irrelevant. Legal regulations do not
prohibit the export of disability benefits explicitly, but their frequent reassessment,
which requires the beneficiaries’ appearance before the relevant authority make the
export of these benefits practically impossible. Eligibility for family benefits, sick
pay, and the Old Age Allowance is conditional on an actual stay in Hungary.
Summing up, the general approach to social security legislation is the equal treat-
ment of nationals and non-nationals. However, the restrictions on joining several
schemes voluntarily, obtaining residence and work permit, exporting benefits com-
bined with the low number of Hungary’s bilateral social security agreements, leads
to the significant disadvantage of foreigners residing in Hungary.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Darvas, Á., & Szikra, D. (2017). Családi ellátások és szolgáltatások. In Z. Ferge (Ed.), Magyar
társadalom- és szociálpolitika (1990–2015) (pp. 215–254). Budapest: Osiris.
Gödri, I., Soltész, B., & Bodacz-Nagy, B. (2014). Imigration or Emigration Country? Migration
trends and their socio-economic background in Hungary: a long-term historical perspec-
tive. Hungarian Demographic Research Institute. Working Papers on Population, Family and
Welfare No. 19.
HCSO, Hungarian Central Statistical Office, STADAT Table 1.9 Asylum seekers in Hungary and
persons granted international protection status. Last update 08 March 2019. http://www.ksh.hu/
docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_wnvn003.html. Accessed 17 March 2019.
Juhász, A., & Molnár, Cs., & Zgut, E. (2017). Menekültügy és migráció Magyarországon. Prága:
Heinrich Böll Stiftung e. V. / Budapest: Political Capital.
Juhász, G. (2007). The development of social law in Hungary between 1985/1990 and 2005. In
A. Jakab, P. Takács, & A. F. Thatham (Eds.), The transformation of the Hungarian legal order
14 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Hungary 223

1985–2005. Transition to the rule of law and accession to the European Union (pp. 395–404).
Alphen aan der Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Kornai, J. (1997). Reforming the welfare states in post-communist societies. World Development,
25(8), 1183–1186.
Mewes, J., & Maus, S. (2012). Unravelling working-class welfare chauvinism. In S. Svallfors
(Ed.), Contested welfare states. Welfare attitudes in Europe and beyond (pp. 119–157).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Puskás, J. (1982). From Hungary to the United States. Budapest: MTA Akadémiai Kiadó.
Romsics, I. (2005). Magyarország története a XX. században. Budapest: Osiris.
Szikra, D. (2009). From Bismarck to the new pension orthodoxy. The historical development of
the pension system in Hungary. In K. Petersen & J.-H. Petersen (Eds.), The politics of age,
public pensions in a comparative and historical perspective. Hamburg: Peter Lang Academic
Publishing.
Szikra, D. (2018). Reversing privatization and re-natinalizating pensions in Hungary. International
Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.
Szikra, D., & Kiss, D. (2017). Assessing the impact of the 2010–2012 pension reform in Hungary.
Szociológiai Szemle, 27(4), 83–107.
Tausz, K. (2009). From state socialism to a hybrid welfare state: Hungary. In K. Schubert,
S. Hegelich, & U. Bazant (Eds.), The handbook of European welfare systems (pp. 244–260).
London: Routledge.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 15
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Ireland

Mel Cousins

15.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
and Main Migration Features in Ireland

This chapter focuses on the link between migration and welfare in Ireland. The
chapter has two main goals. First, it presents the general legal framework regulating
the welfare system in Ireland, paying particular attention to any potential differ-
ences in terms of conditions of access to social benefits between national residents,
non-national residents, and non-resident nationals. Secondly, the chapter discusses
how these different groups of individuals access social benefits across five policy
areas: unemployment, health care, family benefits, pensions, and guaranteed mini-
mum resources.

15.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

It is important to note that the social security and health care systems are almost
entirely separate in Ireland. The social welfare system is administered by the
Department of Social Protection (DSP). The health care system is the responsibility
of the Department of Health. It is implemented by the Health Services Executive
(HSE) in conjunction with a range of publicly and privately owned hospitals and
institutions and staff who are both employed by the HSE and by private bodies and

M. Cousins (*)
School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 225

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_15
226 M. Cousins

private doctors who have a contractual relationship with the HSE to provide public
health care.
The foundations of the Irish health and social welfare system were laid when
Ireland was a part of the UK. The first national system of income maintenance pay-
ments was established in the Poor Law (Ireland) Act of 1838. Subsequent UK leg-
islation in relation to workmen’s compensation (1898), old age pensions (1908) and
national insurance (1911) also applied to Ireland. Following Independence in 1922,
a number of additional schemes were introduced including unemployment assis-
tance (1933), widows’ and orphans’ pensions (1935) and children’s allowance
(1943). In 1947 a new Department of Social Welfare (now the Department of Social
Protection) and a Department of Health were established for the planning and
administration of social welfare and health respectively. In 1952 the existing social
insurance schemes were brought together into one unified system of social insurance.
The Irish social welfare system is primarily a system of income support pay-
ments which can be divided into three different categories: social insurance or con-
tributory payments; social assistance or means-tested payments; and universal child
benefit which is residence-based and unrelated to income or previous contributions
(McCashin 2004, 2019; Cousins 2005, 2016).
Only a very limited number of health-related services are provided under the
social insurance system, and the main public health care provision is by way of a
separate national health scheme operated under the auspices of the Department of
Health. Social insurance is funded on a PAYG basis by contributions paid by
employers and employees with any short-fall being met by the State. Both social
assistance and child benefit payments are funded out of general taxation.
In 2017 total social welfare expenditure amounted to €20bn.1 This accounted for
one quarter of current Government expenditure (26.4%) and 8.3% of GNP. The
funding of this expenditure in 2017 came from the State (50%), employer’s contri-
butions to the SIF (36%), employee’s contributions (11%) and contributions from
the self-employed (3%). Of 2 million people in receipt of a social welfare payment,
the vast majority (86%) were Irish, while 11% came from European Union (EU)
countries and 3% were third-country nationals.2
The social insurance scheme applies to all private sector employees earning over
a certain minimum payment each week (currently €38). Employees are insured
against the risks of old age, disability, unemployment, invalidity, occupational inju-
ries, survivorship, and maternity. Full social insurance cover was extended to the
civil and public service in respect of new employees in 1995. Social insurance also
covers the self-employed since 1988 but only in respect of a limited range of long-­
term benefits (e.g state pension) and some short-term benefits such as maternity.
Over three million people are insured under the social insurance scheme, over
2.3 million for all benefits.3

1
DEASP, Annual Statistical Report 2017.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 227

Pay-related social insurance (PRSI) contributions can be categorised into

four groups:
• Full-rate social insurance contributions (Classes A, E, F, G, H, N) which qualify
for most (or all) benefits.
• Self-employed contributions (Class S) which are generally only relevant to long-­
term benefits.
• Modified-rate social insurance contributions (Classes B, C and D) paid by cer-
tain civil and public servants.
• Voluntary contributions made by people (under age 66) who are no longer cov-
ered by compulsory PRSI provided they satisfy certain conditions.
‘Credited’ contributions are also awarded to persons who have already a record
of paid contributions but who are unable to continue paying contributions due to
certain contingencies such as unemployment or illness. These credited contribu-
tions assist in qualifying for social insurance benefits.
The social assistance scheme provides benefits for the traditional insurance cat-
egories and payments for lone parents, a residual supplementary welfare allowance
for persons with insufficient means, an allowance for carers and an earnings-related
payment for low income families in employment. Unlike social protection pay-
ments in most European countries, social welfare payments are flat-rated, with
increases in respect of qualified adult and children.4 A limited pay-related scheme,
which was introduced in the 1960s, was phased out and eventually abolished. The
Irish social welfare system is highly centralised. All aspects of planning, implemen-
tation and delivery are the responsibility of the DEASP.
In contrast to social protection systems in some European Catholic countries, the
Irish case is notable for an absence of a corporatist welfare system, involving differ-
ent insurance schemes for different categories of workers and tripartite management
by employers, unions and the State. However, Cousins (2005) argues that the Irish
welfare state is strongly segmented. If we take the three-sector model of the Irish
labour force dividing this into the public sector, the foreign trans-national sector and
indigenous industry and services, there is a striking complementarity between the
preferences of these sectors and the structuration of the Irish welfare system.
Employees in the public sector receive relatively high benefits through (largely
unfunded) public occupational pensions schemes and have job security. Employees
in the high-profit, high-productivity transnational corporations also tend to receive
relatively high welfare benefits but this time through the private welfare capitalism
of occupational benefits. Finally, the largest group of employees – those employed
in the comparatively low-productivity, indigenous Irish manufacturing and services
sector are covered only by the flat rate public welfare benefits.
Ireland has a national health type system funded by taxation (and co-payments).
The system is a means-tested one with those with ‘full eligibility’ for health care
being entitled to most health services without cost or subject to nominal charges

4
There are reduced payment for persons with lower levels of contributions.
228 M. Cousins

while the rest of the population are entitled to public health care subject to charges.
The total expenditure in 2017 was €15.2 billion for the delivery and contracting of
health and personal social services.

15.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Ireland has a long history of emigration dating back to before the Great Famine in
the mid-1800s. In more recent decades, the pattern of net emigration continued up
to the 1990s, except for a short period in the 1970s. However, with the improved
economic conditions and the expansion of the EU from 2004, there was a major
increase in immigration.
Following the Great Recession commencing in 2008, emigration again exceeded
immigration but this has reversed as the Irish economy recovered.5 The number of
immigrants to the State in the year to April 2018 [i.e. May 2017 to April 2018]
increased to 90,300 (6.7%), while the number of emigrants declined to 56,300
(−13.1%). This resulted in net inward migration to Ireland in 2018 of 34,000, the
highest level of net inward migration since 2008. Of the people who immigrated to
Ireland in 2018, almost one third (31.5%) were Irish nationals; another third (34.4%)
came from the EU; while the final third (34.2%) came from non-EU countries.
In April 2016, persons born abroad accounted for 17.3% of the population.6 The
main EU countries whose nationals live in Ireland are Poland, the UK, and Lithuania
(followed by Romania and Latvia). The main non-EU countries amongst immi-
grants to Ireland are Brazil, India and the USA (followed by China). The main
countries to which Irish nationals emigrate are the UK followed by other EU15
countries. The main non-EU destination countries are Australia, the USA and
Canada, reflecting a common language and long tradition of emigration.7
Ireland has had a common travel area with the UK for many decades and is not
part of the Schengen Area. Irish migration policy has been largely driven by its
membership of the EU (e.g. labour migration) and its links to the UK (e.g. refusal
to join Schengen). However, the Irish approach to economic migration from EU
countries has been relatively open (e.g. no restrictions were imposed on ‘new’ EU
migrants accessing the labour market in 2004).
One area of concern has been economic migration from outside the EU and
related asylum issues. From negligible levels, claims for asylum reached a peak of
over 11,000 in 2002, leading to changes (discussed below) in access to social pro-
tection benefits and to ongoing changes in the law concerning the recognition of
refugee status and related issues. However, in more recent years, the number of
individuals claiming asylum has fallen back with 3700 applications in 2018 (up

5
Population and Migration Estimates, CSO statistical release, 28 August 2018.
6
CSO, Census 2016 Summary Results.
7
https://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=pea18_2
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 229

Table 15.1 Indicators of Value

migrant integration in Ireland Ireland (2014) (0–100)
Overall score (with health) 52
Labour market mobility 38
Family Reunion 40
Education 30
Health 58
Political participation 73
Permanent residence 49
Access to nationality 59
Anti-discrimination 66
Source: http://mipex.eu/ireland

from 2900 in 2017). Eurostat reports that in 2017, 3058 third-country nationals
received authorisation to reside in Ireland for family reasons (for the first time).8
Irish immigration policy more generally has tended to develop on an ad hoc basis
without a very explicit policy or legal framework (for an overview of recent trends
in immigration and asylum, see Sheridan 2018). However, Ireland has recently
adopted a Migration Integration Strategy and an annual report monitoring integra-
tion presents a picture which is not disfavourable as to the successful integration of
many migrants (McGinnity et al. 2018). As the report points out, however, migrants
are a diverse group and some groups are much more likely to face unemployment,
higher rates of poverty and racism. In a comparative context, the Migrant Integration
Policy Index (MIPEX) shows that Ireland performs well on some indicators of inte-
gration (especially political participation), but poorly on others such as education,
labour market mobility and family reunification (for a more in-depth discussion, see
Arnold and Quinn 2017) (Table 15.1).

15.2 Migration and Social Protection in Ireland

Irish social welfare law does not contain any nationality requirements. Nor does it
generally contain ‘duration of residence’ requirements. The key issue in relation to
access to benefits for non-nationals is the habitual residence condition (HRC) which
applies to social assistance payments and child benefit (although it does not apply
to social insurance benefits). In addition, although not part of social welfare law,
many non-nationals are granted residence statuses which require that they do not
claim social welfare benefits.
The fact that there is no general residence requirement for social insurance pay-
ments means that Irish nationals may qualify for long-term benefits (such as

8
Eurostat, First permits issued for family reasons by reason, length of validity and citizenship.
230 M. Cousins

contributory state pension) even if they are living abroad (as long as they satisfy the
contribution and other requirements). The same applies in principle to non-nationals
(both EU and non-EU) although in practice such persons are less likely to have the
relevant Irish social insurance contributions. The following social insurance pay-
ments can be paid abroad:
• Invalidity Pension
• State Pension (Contributory)
• Disablement Benefit under the occupational injuries scheme
• Guardian’s Payment (Contributory)
• Widow’s, Widower’s or Surviving Civil Partner’s (Contributory) Pension
• Death Benefits under the Occupational Injury Benefit Scheme
• Bereavement Grant.
There are generally specific disqualifications in the case of ‘absence from the
state’ in relation to short-term social insurance benefits (such as illness benefit or
jobseekers benefit) so that payment abroad is generally not allowed, subject of
course to specific EU rules. The rules concerning specific provisions are discussed
below. However, in general, people on social welfare are allowed to take up to
2 weeks holidays abroad each year and the social welfare payment will continue to
be paid.9
Prior to 1 May 2004, there was no long-term ‘residence’ requirement in most
areas of Irish social welfare law. Persons who were residentt outside the country
were disqualified for certain benefits, in particular means tested payments. However,
individuals moving from another country qualified for benefits more or less imme-
diately (subject to satisfying the other relevant conditions). In the run-up to the
accession of the eight new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe (in
addition to Malta and Cyprus), a number of EU countries exercised their rights
under the accession treaties to impose restrictions on the immigration of workers
from the new Member States for a period of up to seven years. Ireland did not do so.
However, in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, Ireland intro-
duced a new habitual residence condition (HRC) in relation to all means tested
allowances and child benefit. Social insurance benefits remain payable without any
such restrictions.10
The relevant HRC provisions are now contained in Section 246 of the Social
Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 and in each of the relevant chapters concerning
the payments affected. These provisions require individuals to be ‘habitually resi-
dent’ in Ireland in order to be eligible to apply for jobseeker’s allowance, state pen-
sion (non-contributory), widow(er)s pension, guardians payment (non-contributory),
one parent family payment, carer’s allowance, disability allowance, supplementary

9
There are a number of exceptions in relation to specific schemes which affect very few people and
are not discussed here..
10
The requirement of a certain minimum number of contributions to qualify for insurance benefits
may mean that migrants will not immediately qualify for benefits although persons covered by EU
law may be able to aggregate contributions paid in other states in order to qualify.
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 231

welfare allowance (except exceptional needs payments and urgent needs payments),
and child benefit.
Section 246(4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005 (as amended)
(the Act) states that officers should take into consideration all the circumstance of
the case when determining if a person is habitually resident in Ireland, including: a)
the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;
b) the length and purpose of any absence from Ireland; c) the nature and pattern of
the person’s employment; d) the person’s main centre of interest, and; e) the future
intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.
In 2009 the Oireachtas [Parliament] made it a requirement that, in order to be
habitually resident, a person must have a right to reside (RtR) in Ireland. S. 246 (5)
of the Act now states that ‘a person who does not have a right to reside in the State
shall not, for the purposes of [the] Act, be regarded as being habitually resident in
the State.’ S. 246(6) goes on to list various categories of persons – including Irish
citizens, a person who has a right to enter and reside in Ireland under various EU
laws, and refugees in respect of whom a declaration of refugee status is in force –
who are to be taken to have a right to reside in Ireland. Conversely, s. 246(7) pro-
vides that various persons shall not be regarded as being habitually resident in the
State for the purpose of the Act. Note that this applies to habitual residence in gen-
eral and does not relate only to rights of residence. These include asylum seekers in
respect of whom a declaration of refugee status has not (yet) been granted (s.
246(7)(a)).
The HRC applies to both nationals and non-nationals although it will, of course,
be easier in many cases for Irish nationals to satisfy the HRC as they automatically
have a right to reside in Ireland whereas non-nationals do not. The HRC is, of
course, subject to EU law so that if a person is entitled to a benefit under EU law
(e.g. where Ireland is the competent Member State) then EU law overrides the HRC.
The structure of the Irish system means that in relation to most social benefits,
resident nationals and foreigners are formally treated the same. However, in the case
of those payments covered by the HRC, in practice it will generally be more diffi-
cult for an EU national to qualify for a benefit than for an Irish national to do so, and
more difficult again for a non-EU national to do so. However, there is no direct
discrimination against non-nationals and the Irish courts have held that the HRC is
not in breach of Irish or EU law.11
One other area in which the law might affect entitlement to benefits is that, in
many cases, third-country nationals will require work permits in order to work
legally in Ireland. It is understood that foreign nationals who require an employ-
ment permit under the Employment Permits Act 2003 (as amended) but who are in
employment without such a permit are not considered to be insurable.12 Therefore,
they would be unable to build up an entitlement to a contributory benefit.

11
Munteanu v Minister for Social Protection, [2017] IEHC 161; [2019] IECA 236.
12
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Scope%2D%2D-Insurability-of-Employment.aspx
232 M. Cousins

15.2.1 Unemployment

There are two main unemployment payments: contributory jobseeker’s benefit and
mean-tested jobseeker’s allowance. To qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit (JB), one
must be aged under 66 and be unemployed; have had a substantial loss of employ-
ment; be capable of work; be available for and genuinely seeking work; and satisfy
the contribution requirements.
To qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit, one must have paid Class A, H or P PRSI
contributions. Class A is the category paid by most private sector employees. Class
H is paid by soldiers, reservists and temporary army nurses, who do not qualify for
Jobseeker’s Benefit until they have left the army. Class P applies to sharefishermen
or sharefisherwomen classified as self-employed. To qualify, a person must
have paid:
• At least 104 weeks of PRSI; and
• 39 weeks of PRSI paid or credited in the relevant tax year; or
• 26 weeks of PRSI paid in the relevant tax year and 26 weeks of PRSI paid in the
tax year immediately before the relevant tax year.
The relevant tax year is the second-last complete tax year before the year in
which the claim is made. So, for claims made in 2018, the relevant tax year is 2016.
Jobseeker’s Benefit may be paid for up to 156 or 234 days of unemployment depend-
ing on the total contributions paid since commencing employment. A person with
260 or more contributions paid may qualify for 234 days and a person with less than
260 total contributions paid will qualify for 156 days. A separate Jobseeker’s Benefit
(Self-Employed) was introduced in November 2019.
The rules for the means-tested allowance are similar but this is also subject to the
HRC. As noted, to be entitled to either payment a person must be available for work.
DEASP interprets this as meaning that the person must be legally able to work.
Thus, a non-EU national who does not have a work permit will not be considered to
be available for work and would not qualify for a payment.

15.2.2 Health Care

In terms of entitlement to heath care, the Health Act 1970 draws a distinction
between persons having ‘full eligibility’ for services (Category 1) and those with
‘limited eligibility’ (Category 2). Persons with ‘full eligibility’ are commonly
described under the non-statutory name of medical-card holders. They are defined
as ‘persons who, in the opinion of the Health Services Executive are unable without
undue hardship to arrange general practitioner medical and surgical services for
themselves and their dependants’. In assessing who qualifies for this category, the
Health Service Executive takes into consideration the person’s overall financial situ-
ation. In practice, the determination of who is entitled to ‘full eligibility’ is
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 233

implemented by departmental circulars. Those with medical cards Category 1 gain

access to a range of health and social care services without charge (or subject to
limited charges), including GP care, and inpatient and outpatient hospital care.
However, due to long waits for some services (outpatient appointments, planned
hospital care, etc.), while there is an entitlement to care, people may be unable to
access care within a reasonable period of time. People in Category 1 get access to
all prescription drugs subject to limited charges. Those without medical cards (cat-
egory 2) either access public hospital care free of charge (public outpatient appoint-
ment) or subject to a statutory charge. However, most have to pay the full cost of
visiting a GP and the initial proportion of prescription costs.
The Health Acts limits entitlement to health care to persons who are ‘ordinarily
resident in the State’. The concept of ordinary residence has received relatively little
judicial consideration in Ireland – especially in a health and social welfare context.
Section 4 of the 1991 Act allows the Minister to issue guidelines to the HSE to assist
it in deciding whether or not a person is ordinarily resident in the State. These
guidelines provide that a person will normally be regarded as ‘ordinarily resident’
in Ireland if he/she satisfies the HSE that it is his/her intention to remain in Ireland
for a minimum period of one year. The person’s dependants must also satisfy the
criterion of ‘ordinary residence’ in order to establish eligibility for health services.
However, the law provides that a person who is not ordinarily resident in Ireland
but who, in relation to a particular service which is available to persons with full
eligibility, is considered to be unable, without undue hardship, to provide that ser-
vice for himself/herself or the dependants shall be granted full eligibility for that
service. Thus a non-resident person may be granted full eligibility in a case of hard-
ship. The ‘ordinary residence’ rule is, of course, subject to the provisions of EU law.
In addition, persons may be entitled to seek health care treatment abroad
under EU law.
Unlike many EU countries in Ireland, cash benefits related to sickness and dis-
ability operate entirely separately from the health care system. There are three main
sickness and disability benefits: short-term illness benefit (for those incapable of
work), long-term invalidity pension (for those permanently incapable of work), and
the means-tested disability allowance. In the case of illness benefit, a person must
satisfy the following two conditions to qualify for payment: s/he must have at least
104 weeks of PRSI contributions paid since starting work and a record of contribu-
tions in a recent tax year. In the case of invalidity pensions, the claimant must have
260 paid PRSI contributions (Class A, E, H or P) and 48 contributions paid (Class
A, E, H or P) or credited in the last or second last complete contribution year before
the claim. In general, the long-term invalidity pension may be payable abroad but,
subject to specific EU rules, the other illness and disability benefits are generally
only payable in Ireland.
234 M. Cousins

15.2.3 Pensions

The Irish pension system provides for a state pension (contributory) and a means-­
tested state pension (non-contributory). Pension age is currently 66 but is being
raised on a phased basis to 68 (to age 67 from 2021, age 68 from 2028). There is
also a specific widow’s and widower’s pension (both contributory and non-­
contributory). In practice, most of the people in receipt of these pensions are over
pension age.
To qualify for a State Pension (contributory), one must be aged 66 or over and
have paid Class A, E, F, G, H, N or S social insurance contributions. A person must
have paid social insurance contributions before a certain age (generally 56), have a
certain number of social insurance contributions paid (currently 520) and have a
certain average number of contributions over the years since s/he first entered insur-
ance – the rate of pension depends on the average number of contributions.
In general, the contributory pensions can be exported but non-contributory pen-
sions cannot. The HRC applies to the non-contributory pensions and, thus, a person
who is not habitually resident in Ireland as defined above (including having a right
to reside in Ireland) will not qualify for pension. There do not appear to be any other
provisions which would specifically affect non-nationals.

15.2.4 Family Benefits

In the case of family benefits, Ireland has a maternity benefit (payable for 26 weeks),
a paternity benefit (payable for 2 weeks) and is in the course of introducing a paren-
tal benefit (payable from November 2019). These are all insurance based payments
and the HRC will not apply. Therefore, there are no specific obstacles to non-­
nationals qualifying for these benefits if they satisfy the relevant conditions.
Maternity benefit may be payable abroad in EU/EEA countries (under EU rules)
and for up to 6 weeks in other countries.
The PRSI contributions can be from both employment or self-employment – the
PRSI classes that count for Maternity Benefit are A, E, H and S (self-employed). To
qualify for the benefit, employed persons must have at least 39 weeks of PRSI paid
in the last 12-month period; or at least 39 weeks of PRSI paid since first starting
work and at least 39 weeks of PRSI paid or credited in the relevant tax year or in the
tax year immediately following the relevant tax year; or at least 26 weeks of PRSI
paid in the relevant tax year and at least 26 weeks PRSI paid in the tax year imme-
diately before the relevant tax year.
In the case of child benefit (a universal family benefit payable to all persons with
children), the HRC does apply (subject to EU law). In addition, and again subject to
EU law, the child must be ordinarily resident in Ireland. Therefore, it will in general
be more difficult for non-nationals to qualify for child benefit. Irish nationals living
outside Ireland will not generally qualify. In addition, as noted above, asylum
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 235

seekers are specifically excluded from those who are habitually resident in Ireland.
Therefore, asylum seekers (almost inevitably non-EU nationals) cannot qualify for
child benefit (or other payments subject to HRC).

15.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The Irish minimum income payment is known as supplementary welfare allowance

(SWA). This is a residual (means-tested) payment payable to persons who do not
qualify for one of the other conditional payments in the social welfare code (and
who are not in full-time employment or study). It is also payable to persons pending
a decision on their claim for a mainstream payment and on an ongoing basis where
there is no such entitlement. It is not time-limited. The SWA system provides for
additional weekly supplements in respect of costs such as housing and diet, for
urgent needs payments and for once-off exceptional needs payments.
The HRC applies to SWA (except exceptional needs payments and urgent needs
payments). Thus while non-nationals (both EU and non-EU) are generally eligible
for SWA, they may not qualify for it due to the HRC and claiming SWA may indi-
cate that an EU national does not have a right to reside. In addition, asylum seekers
(who are not considered to be habitually resident) are not entitled to SWA. They are
instead provided for by a system of ‘direct provision’ (DP) which involves the pro-
vision of accommodation, food and other needs. There is also a small cash payment
for people in DP.

15.2.6 Bilateral Social Security Agreements

Ireland has bilateral Social Security Agreements with Canada, the Republic of
Korea, Australia, the United States of America, New Zealand, Québec, Switzerland
(largely superseded by EC Regulations), Japan and the United Kingdom covering
those parts of the United Kingdom that are outside of the European Union at the
time of writing i.e. Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. These agreements cover the
main (non-EU) countries where Irish nationals emigrate (USA, Canada and
Australia) and the country which is the largest source of non-EU migrants (i.e.
USA) but not Brazil, India and China (which are the next largest sources of such
migrants). These agreements protect the pension entitlements of Irish people who
go to work in these countries and they protect nationals of those countries who work
in Ireland. They allow periods of Irish social insurance and, depending on the legis-
lation in the other country, periods of residence/contributions which are completed
in the second country to be taken into account for determining workers’ entitlement
to pensions. They are generally based on the approach adopted in the EU co-­
ordination regulations and include specific arrangements for posted workers. The
Agreements cover long-term payments (state pension, invalidity pension, widow’s/
236 M. Cousins

widower’s pension, guardian’s payment), without covering unemployment or short-­

term illness. Ireland and the UK have also agreed a new bilateral agreeemnt which
will take effect when the transition period of the UK departure from the EU expires
at the end of 2020.
These agreements do not cover health care (in-kind). However, Ireland and
Australia have a reciprocal health agreement. This means that Australian visitors to
Ireland are entitled to receive emergency public hospital treatment subject to the
normal charges for non-medical card holders in Ireland. They are also entitled to
assistance towards the cost of prescribed drugs and medicines on the same basis as
people normally resident in Ireland. Similarly, Irish visitors to Australia will receive
emergency services and assistance towards the cost of prescribed drugs and medi-
cines on the same basis as persons ordinarily resident in Australia.

15.2.7 Obstacles and Sanctions

As discussed, the main obstacle in the social protection system to access to benefits
for non-nationals is the HRC. Table 15.2 shows the total number of claimants dis-
qualified on the basis of the HRC, with a breakdown by nationality. As observed,
after a peak in 2009, the numbers of individuals disqualified from accessing social
benefits have declined significantly. However, those affected are mainly
non-nationals.
Table 15.3 also shows the number of appeals and their outcomes, indicating that
the number of appeals has declined in recent years and they are generally more
likely to be successful than in the previous period.
Claiming a means-tested social welfare payment can also impact on a person’s
right to reside, on family reunification and on naturalization as it may indicate that
a person is not self-sufficient. However, it does not appear that there has been any
quantitative study of the extent to which this occurs. In addition, a number of immi-
gration statuses for third-country nationals require that a person does not claim a
social welfare benefit.

Table 15.2 Claims disallowed under Habitual Residence Condition, 2005–2015

Nationalities 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011 2012b 2013 2014 2015**
Irish N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 650 455 428 264 240 N/A
Other N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5256 4039 2389 2580 2318 N/A
Total 4599 4361 5123 6297 10,582 5906 4494 2817 2844 2558 1380
Source: Oireachtas [Parliament] Debates, 25 October 2016
a
Figures for 2010 are incomplete due to industrial action
b
The figures for 2012–2015 do not contain Carers Allowance
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 237

Table 15.3 HRC appeals finalised 2005–2016

Year Total Allowed Part allowed Disallowed Withdrawn
2005 535 216 4 315 0
2006 705 255 21 427 2
2007 699 182 8 507 2
2008 889 162 16 710 1
2009 1219 254 39 923 3
2010 3817 625 77 3111 4
2011 4551 1799 279 2470 3
2012 1827 846 127 844 10
2013 1191 441 64 683 3
2014 1171 448 56 665 2
2015 886 342 31 510 3
2016 712 251 26 435 0
TOTAL 18,202 5821 748 11,600 33
Source: Oireachtas [Parliament] Debates, 21 February 2017

15.3 Conclusions

Historically Ireland had low levels of immigration from other countries and the
social welfare system did not include any nationality or, in most cases, residence
requirements. However, given the expansion of the EU in 2004 and concerns about
a significant increase in migrant flows, Ireland followed the earlier UK example by
introducing a habitual residence test. Subsequently, in 2009, Ireland again followed
the UK approach by introducing a right to reside as part of the HRC. This forms the
main obstacle to non-nationals qualifying for means-tested benefits and child ben-
efit. There has been considerable debate about the HRC but this has only led to
minor changes in the law and clarification of how the HRC is to be applied. As we
have seen, claiming a benefit may also affect a person’s access to family reunifica-
tion and a number of immigration statuses require that one does not claim social
welfare. Studies of the impact of the HRC are set out in Pavee Point (2011);
Crosscare et al. (2012); and SAFE Ireland (2013).
Concerns about a significant increase in asylum seekers coming to Ireland in the
late 1990s and early 2000s led to the introduction of a system of direct provision
(see Working Group 2015). This has meant that asylum seekers are provided for
separately to the general social welfare system.
In the case of health care, there has been a long-standing rule that a person must
be ordinarily resident in Ireland (subject to limited exceptions). The operation of the
health care system is rather opaque and it is entirely unclear how this is imple-
mented in practice (see also Quinn et al. 2014). There are very few studies of this
topic (see, e.g. Migge and Gilmartin 2011; Stan 2015).
There is not a great deal of debate about these issues at present and opposition to
the HRC appears to have abated somewhat as its application has been refined by
DEASP and it has become more routine. Legal challenges to the HRC itself have
238 M. Cousins

been unsuccessful although there have been a number of more successful challenges
concerning whether or not a person has a right to reside under EU law.13
So, on the one hand, there is little discussion about relaxing the current rules but,
on the other, there do not appear to be any concrete proposals to restrict further
access of non-nationals to benefits. While there are, from time to time, headlines
about abuse of the Irish social welfare system by non-nationals, this has not reached
the same salience in societal and political debates as in other countries such as the
United Kingdom.
Overall, Irish social welfare policy on migrants has developed not from a social
protection perspective but rather from a labour market and immigration control
approach. On the one hand, there has been a desire to encourage labour migration
into Ireland but, on the other, a desire to discourage unwanted ‘economic’ migration
(i.e. migration which may be economically justified from the migrant’s perspective
but is not considered to be so from the government’s perspective). Given the absence
of a comprehensive immigration framework, the limited capacity of the immigra-
tion authorities to enforce the law, and the practical difficulties in doing so (e.g. in
enforcing deportation), the social welfare system has been used to discourage
unwanted immigration by removing (or limiting) entitlement to social protection.
Of course, this took place within the context of EU rules so that changes which
applied to EU nationals (such as the HRC) had to be EU-law compliant. In contrast,
changes applying to third country nationals (such as the Direct Provision scheme)
are subject to challenge under the Irish Constitution and/or the European Convention
on Human Rights and these provisions have generally been upheld in the Irish
courts.14

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Arnold, S., & Quinn, E. (2017). Family reunification of non-EU nationals in Ireland. Dublin: ESRI.
Cousins, M. (2005). Explaining the Irish welfare state: An historical, comparative and political
analysis. New York: Edwin Mellen.
Cousins, M. (2016). The Irish social protection system: Change in comparative context.
In M. P. Murphy & F. Dukelow (Eds.), The Irish welfare state in the twenty-first century:
Challenges and change. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

13
C-442/16 – Gusa v Minister for Social Protection (2017).
14
C.A. -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IEHC 532.
15 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Ireland 239

Crosscare, Doras Luimní & Nasc (2012). Person or number? Issues faced by immigrants accessing
social protection: A ‘snapshot’ of 54 cases presenting to NGOs across Ireland. Nasc, Crosscare
Migrant Project and Doras Luimní. http://dorasluimni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/per-
sonor numberreport.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2019.
McCashin, A. (2004). Social security in Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
McCashin, A. (2019). Continuity and change in the welfare state: Social security in the Republic
of Ireland. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McGinnity, F., Fahey, É., Quinn, E., Arnold, S., Maître, B., & O’Connell, P. (2018). Monitoring
report on integration 2018. Dublin: ESRI.
Migge, B., & Gilmartin, M. (2011). Migrants and healthcare: Investigating patient mobility among
migrants in Ireland. Health & Place, 17(5), 1144–1149.
Pavee Point. (2011). Impact of the Habitual Residence Condition (HRC) on Travellers
and Roma. Pavee Point https://www.lenus.ie/bitstream/handle/10147/143240/
PositPapImpactHRCOnTravellers Roma.pdf;jsessionid=74E9C7196C049BF6E01A85
2C438018FE?sequence=1. Accessed 25 February 2019.
Quinn, E., Gusciute, E., Barrett, A., & Joyce, C. (2014). Migrant access to social security and
healthcare: Policies and practice in Ireland. Dublin: ESRI.
SAFE Ireland. (2013). Report on the impact of the Habitual Residence Condition on women
seeking protection and safety for themselves and their children from a domestic violence per-
petrator. SAFE Ireland https://www.safeireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/SI-Impact-Habitual-
Residency-Condition-Sept2013.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2019.
Sheridan, A. (2018). Annual report on migration and asylum 2017: Ireland. Dublin: ESRI.
Stan, S. (2015). Transnational healthcare practices of Romanian migrants in Ireland: Inequalities
of access and the privatisation of healthcare services in Europe. Social Science & Medicine,
124, 346–355.
Working Group. (2015). Report to Government Working Group on the Protection Process on
Improvements to the Protection Process, including Direct Provision and Supports to Asylum
Seekers. [Place of publication and publisher not specified].

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 16
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Italy

William Chiaromonte

16.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Italy

16.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The Italian welfare state started to develop only by the end of the nineteenth century.
The social insurance has been a fundamental element for accessing social benefits
since the post-war period, especially after the 1948 Italian Constitution that has
defined social protection as an essential function of the State, thus creating a consis-
tent catalogue of fundamental social redistribution rights (Articles 2, 3, 32, 38 and
117) (Ascoli 2011; Ferrera et al. 2012; Chiaromonte and Giubboni 2016). The situ-
ation began to change during the 1970s, with the fiscal crisis having a gradual
impact on social benefits and welfare structure (Ferrera and Hemerijck 2003). The
welfare state has become the main subject of programs designed to restore the pub-
lic budget (Greve 2012), although this development has not occurred through an
appropriate and comprehensive recalibration of the overall system (Palier 2010;
Ascoli and Pavolini 2012). This has led to a situation in which the number of
beneficiaries of certain social benefits has been substantially reduced, causing an
infringement of the principle of equality enshrined in Art. 3 of the Constitution as it
triggered manifest disparities in treatment based on citizenship or residence
(Chiaromonte 2013).

W. Chiaromonte (*)
Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 241

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_16
242 W. Chiaromonte

Between the 1980s and 1990s, the process of transformation and restoration of
the social state has continued through the progressive transfer of powers and finan-
cial budgets from the central bodies to the local ones. This has led to a significant
fragmentation of the social services and benefits offered on the national territory.
The efforts to rationalize the social protection made since the mid-1990s have not
overcome, at least not completely, the fragmentation and categorization of the
instruments that historically characterize the structure of the Italian welfare state;
nor they have been able to mitigate the inhomogeneity of the provision of social
benefits. The largest part of social spending is still absorbed by the pension system
at the expense of policies to support families, children, unemployed people, etc.
Furthermore, a clear gap in the protection of the different occupational categories
exists in terms of access to social benefits. The outcome is a sharp segmentation
between insiders (those who are covered, mainly employees of the public adminis-
trations and large companies) and outsiders (those who are not covered, mainly
workers in the informal economy).
Currently, the Italian welfare state is characterized by the co-existence of three
main schemes (see also Pessi 2016; Ferrante and Tranquillo 2019; Persiani and
D’Onghia 2019; Cinelli 2020; Giubboni and Cinelli 2020):
• a social security scheme strongly based on employment and on a contributory
pension system organized around compulsory social insurance, which still repre-
sents the core and fundamental feature of the Italian welfare state. Only workers
can benefit from measures aimed to integrate and/or replace their income in case
of senility, illness, injury, unemployment, etc. Those social benefits based on
contribution (old-age pensions, unemployment benefits, maternity/paternity ben-
efits, etc.) are provided according to formulas that establish a correspondence
between contributions paid and insurance claim (Art. 38(2) Constitution);
• a universal scheme, mainly organized around the healthcare sector, in which ben-
efits are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of their active participation in
the labour market, and independently from a direct contribution to the service,
insofar as these services burden on the general taxation system;
• a social assistance scheme for individuals in need (Art. 38(1) Constitution) and
social benefits (maternity allowance, earning-related benefits for the family,
inclusion income, etc.) financed by the general taxation.

16.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

The transformation of Italy from an emigration country to a country of immigration

has started at the beginning of the 1970s (for an analysis of national migration poli-
cies, see Colucci 2018; for an in-depth contextualisation of the Italian emigration,
including statistics on nationals residing abroad, see Caldarini 2020). In particular,
arrivals in Italy have begun to overtake departures in 1971. Since then, the number
of foreigners in Italy has been increasing exponentially, from little less than 122.000
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 243

(1971 census) to 211.000 (1981 census), 356.000 (1991 census), 1.3 million (2001
census), reaching nearly 4 million (2011 census). Since 2013, the number is stable
at around 5 million people.
On the basis of the data available, the foreign population in Italy was estimated
at 5,8 million, of which around 5,2 million have a regular residential status (around
8,7% on the population) and nearly 600.000 are undocumented (IDOS 2019).1
Around 3.7 million foreigners originate from non-EU countries. This number has
been substantially stable over the last 3 years, also due to a significant decrease in
the arrivals by sea since 2017 (following the so-called “migrant crisis” which has
led to a significant increase in the arrivals by sea in Italy and a parallel surge of
requests for international protection). According to UNHCR estimates, there are
around 354.000 beneficiaries of international protection currently residing in Italy,
accounting for 0,6% of the total population.
By the end of 2019, there were approximately 2.5 million workers with foreign
citizenship in Italy, thus accounting for 10,7% on the overall employed population.
One-third were performing low-skilled jobs mainly in the service sector (where
foreign workers represent more than two-thirds – 65,9% – of all workers), or in the
industrial or agricultural sector (where foreigners account for 27,7% and 6,4% of all
workers).
Half of all foreigners residing in Italy (50,2%) are citizens of a European coun-
try. One fifth of all foreign residents (21,7%) originates from Africa and a slightly
lower quota from Asia (20,8%). There are around 370.000 foreigners from the
Americas, mostly Latin-Americans (7% of all foreign residents). Romanians repre-
sent the largest foreign group (23% of all foreigners), followed by Albanians (8,4%),
Moroccans (8%), Chinese (5,7%) and Ukrainians (4,6%). These first five nationali-
ties cover half of the entire foreign presence in Italy, while the first 10 (which
include, in order, Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Moldovia and Egypt) reach a little
less than two-thirds (63,5%).
Regarding the management of the migration phenomenon, a medium and long-­
term, effective and uniform strategy on migration policies has never been adopted in
Italy. The frequent legislative actions (often with emergency character, and mainly
aiming to regulate economic migration) have proved unsuccessful. Also because of
the complexity and intricacy of the procedure provided for by the applicable norms,
enshrined in the Testo unico sull’immigrazione,2 the entry and residence for work-
ing purposes of third-country nationals is difficult (Chiaromonte 2013). In particu-
lar, Testo unico sull’immigrazione provides a two-tier articulation of migration
policies for economic reasons. The first level is represented by the three year policy
paper on immigration policy (Art. 3(1)-3(3)), which aims to define the general fea-
tures of each annual determination of entrance flows, and measures for the
integration of foreigners (the last document approved refers to 2004–2006). The
second level of intervention, known as “decreto flussi” (Art. 3(4)), establishes

1
All the data mentioned in this chapter have been extrapolated from the Centro Studi e Ricerche
IDOS, 2019.
2
Decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286, Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina
dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero (Consolidated Law on Immigration).
244 W. Chiaromonte

annual maximum quotas of foreigners who are allowed to enter for working pur-
poses, based on which entry visas and residence permits for working purposes are
issued. In most recent years, the quotas for “decreti flussi” have been drastically
reduced: the number of work permits dropped from 250.000 in 2007 to 30.850 in
2019. Such a nearly absolute closure of the legal entry channels for working pur-
poses has determined a permanent violation of the norms that regulate entry and
residence and, therefore, an increase in the number of foreigners irregularly residing
in Italy, also considering the structural requests for foreign workers (especially sea-
sonal) from the Italian labour market. Consequently, in recent years, migration
inflows have leaned mainly towards international protection that has been used also
by migrants motivated by economic reasons, even if it is not designed to regulate
economic migration flows (Chiaromonte 2019).
Additionally, regularisation schemes for undocumented foreigners have also
been established. They represent a para-ordinary management tool of the migration
phenomenon. Since 1986, eight regularization schemes have been implemented, the
latest in 2020.

16.2 Migration and Social Protection in Italy

For a long time, the Italian social security protection has been guaranteed solely to
workers employed in the Italian territory, independently of their nationality, and to
Italian workers employed abroad by Italian companies (in derogation from the ter-
ritorial principle of social law, according to which workers are subject to the social
security framework of their country of employment). Only since the mid-1990s the
protection has been progressively extended to cover also self-employed workers.
The European social security coordination (Regulation 883/2004) and the CJEU
case law have further contributed to widen the concept of employment relationship
(Chiaromonte and Giubboni 2014; Fuchs and Cornelissen 2015; Pennings 2020).
In order to qualify for social security protection in Italy, workers do not have to
meet specific subjective requirements. Regarding age, for instance, the minimum
working age is sufficient, normally set at 16 years old. Sex, instead, has no relevance
at all for identifying the beneficiaries (for example, regarding pension benefits). Not
even citizenship, usually, affects the social security protection, in view of the gen-
eral principle according to which the non-contractual obligations are regulated by
the law of the place where the respective factual situation has occurred (Art. 25
disposizioni preliminari c.c.). Therefore, the work performed by foreigners in Italy
entails the right to social security protection according to the national legal frame-
work. Notwithstanding that, in certain cases, a specific regulation may be required,
as explained below for non-EU foreigners.
With regard to residence, the EU rule applies. Hence, the residence requirement,
which may be one of the conditions to access social security benefits according to
an EU member state national law, is not relevant. However, certain social security
benefits cannot be accessed outside the state of residence, e.g. the “assegno sociale”
(social allowance, as explained below).
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 245

Regarding the specific case of non-EU foreigners’ access to social security, the
Italian system is characterised by some peculiarities depending on the type of ben-
efits (Chiaromonte 2013; D’Onghia 2017). For social security benefits, equal treat-
ment between national citizens and non-EU foreigners is generally ensured.3
Non-EU foreigners working in Italy are entitled to the same benefits recognised to
Italian workers (including retirement and disability benefits, among others) upon
payment of contributions to the National Institute for Social Security (INPS).4
However, there are two exceptions: one concerning the case of the pension scheme
for seasonal non-EU foreign workers (which are excluded from protection against
unemployment and family benefits) and a second one regarding the failure to return
the social security contributions paid in Italy by non-EU foreign workers, in case of
repatriation.
In light of the principle of territoriality, non-EU foreigners are also subject to the
social security framework of the country of employment, unless bilateral agree-
ments concluded between Italy and third countries provide otherwise (Chiaromonte
2012). In that case, the foreign worker that has not accrued enough pension rights in
Italy can integrate them by adding the contributions paid to the other signatory
State. A further exception to the principle of territoriality is allowed if the presence
of the foreign workers on the Italian territory is due to a transnational provision of
services of short duration. In these cases, the social security framework of the host-
ing state is not relevant.
When it comes to the right of non-EU foreigners to access social assistance ben-
efits, in the past, national legislation and local norms imposed restrictions based on
the nationality or the residence permits of the applicants. These restrictions have
raised several criticisms regarding their incompatibility with international law, EU
law, and the Italian Constitution (Corsi 2017; Ferrara 2017; Orlandini and
Chiaromonte 2017; Sciarra 2017; Bologna 2018; Chiaromonte and Guariso 2019).
The Constitutional Court intervened to censure national and regional norms that

3
The principle of equal treatment between national citizens and non-EU foreigners in terms of
access to social security systems is protected both at international level (see ILO Conventions No.
97/1949, Art. 6, and 143/1975, Art. 10, on the protection of migrant workers; Convention No.
102/1952, Art. 68, and 118/1962, Art. 4, on social security; the ECHR norms that protect the social
security benefits, Art. 14 and Art. 1 of the first Protocol attached to the Convention; and the provi-
sions enshrined in the bilateral conventions on social security for migrant workers concluded with
non-EU countries) and at EU level (especially, Art. 21 and 34 of the Nice Charter, but also the
already mentioned measures aimed to coordinate the national social security systems, extended to
non-EU foreigners by Regulation 1231/2010). At the national level, the principle of equality
between nationals and non-EU foreign residents has been consistently recognized by the
Constitutional Court in reference to fundamental and inviolable constitutional rights (Corte costi-
tuzionale nn. 120/1967 and 62/1994) which include social security rights (Art. 2, 3, 10(2), 38
Constitution) (Corte costituzionale nn. 80/1971 and 160/1974). Beyond the Constitutional norms,
it is worth mentioning the Consolidated Law on Immigration, which is a collection of ordinary
norms that guarantee to all foreign workers legally residing in Italy, and their family members,
«equal treatment and full equality of rights as Italian workers» (Art. 2(3)). The relevant laws are
available at: http://www.normattiva.it. Accessed 23 January 2019.
4
Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale, https://www.inps.it/. Accessed 23 January 2019.
246 W. Chiaromonte

provided for the Italian citizenship as a mandatory requirement in order to qualify

for the guaranteed minimum resource scheme and the non-contributory pension.5
As a result of the Constitutional Court’s decisions, the legal amendments imposed
by the EU law and the judgments of ordinary courts, there are no longer social ben-
efits reserved only to nationals.
The issue of the extended residence and/or the residence permit required to have
access to certain social benefits is more complex. This requirement could poten-
tially represent a form of indirect discrimination of foreigners inasmuch as the mea-
sures adopted, although apparently neutral, could jeopardize the interests of the
individuals belonging to a given group. Originally, Art. 41 of the Testo unico
sull’immigrazione did not make any distinction as to the access to social assistance
between foreigners with a residence permit of at least one year (and their families)
and Italian nationals. However, Law 388/20006 (Art. 80(19)) has restricted the
access to various social assistance benefits only for third-country nationals who are
long-term residents (in practice, foreigners who earn a certain income level and
legally reside in Italy for at least 5 years). Since 2008, the Constitutional Court
intervened in several occasions on the issue by emphasizing the unreasonableness
of including the long-term residence status among the requirements for claiming
social assistance benefits (e.g. incapacity pension, invalidity allowance, etc.).7 The
Court has declared the unconstitutionality of such legal provisions. Hence, when it
comes to social assistance benefits aimed at supporting individuals who are in need,
any distinction between nationals and legally residing foreigners is in conflict with
the principles of equality (Art. 3 Constitution) and solidarity (Art. 2 Constitution).

16.2.1 Unemployment

The Italian unemployment scheme only provides unemployment insurance benefits

(there is no unemployment assistance scheme). The compulsory social insurance
scheme for employees and assimilated, who involuntarily lost their jobs, is financed
partly through contributions from employers, partly through general taxation, and
providing earnings-related benefits. The main unemployment benefit is the so-­
called NASpI (“nuova assicurazione sociale per l’impiego”).8 In order to access the

5
For instance, Corte costituzionale nn. 432/2005 and 40/2011.
6
Legge 23 dicembre 2000, n. 388, Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e plurien-
nale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2001).
7
For instance, Corte costituzionale nn. 306/2008, 11/2009, 187/2010, 239/2011, 40/2013, 22/2015
and 230/2015.
8
Decreto legislativo 4 marzo 2015, n. 22, Disposizioni per il riordino della normativa in materia di
ammortizzatori sociali in caso di disoccupazione involontaria e di ricollocazione dei lavoratori
disoccupati, in attuazione della legge 10 dicembre 2014, n. 183. This section does not refer to Dis-
Coll (unemployment benefit for para-subordinate workers assimilated to employees and “new”
self-employed).
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 247

NASpI, resident nationals and (EU and non-EU) foreign residents must be involun-
tarily unemployed for more than 6 months, able to work, available for the employ-
ment office, not benefit from any other pension nor receive any salary higher than
the personal annual taxable ceiling and apply within 68 days (98 days in case of
lawful dismissal for misconduct). The qualifying period of contribution for access-
ing unemployment benefits is at least 13 weeks of work insurance during the 4 years
prior to the job loss and at least 30 days of work insurance during the last 12 months
prior to dismissal. The benefit amounts to 75% of the monthly reference earnings
with a monthly ceiling of € 1195 plus 25% of worker’s actual monthly pay exceed-
ing this ceiling. The maximum payable amount is equal to € 1300 (gross) per month.
From the fourth month of receipt of the benefit, the amount is reduced by 3% every
following month. The statutory duration of the benefit is equal to half the number of
weekly contributions paid during the last four years prior to dismissal.
With particular reference to seasonal non-EU foreign workers, Art. 25 of the
Testo unico sull’immigrazione provides that they cannot accede to NASpI, albeit
their contributions – anyway due by the employer – are paid to INPS, and they are
expressly intended to support social care services in favour of foreign workers.
National citizens residing abroad in the service of an Italian employer (either in EU
or non-EU countries) can access NASpI from Italy under the same eligibility condi-
tions as those applied for resident nationals; in addition to NASpI benefits, they may
be entitled to a special unemployment benefit for repatriated workers.9

16.2.2 Health Care

The Italian National Health Service (SSN) was established by Law n. 833/197810
and it covers all inhabitants (based on residence). The SSN generally provides ser-
vices in kind and its financing mainly occurs through the National Health Fund
entirely supported by appropriations received by the State budget and proportion-
ally distributed among all Regions. The main funding source is the IRAP (Regional
tax on productive activities, a tax-financed scheme). Another funding source is the
joint participation of citizens to the expenditure for the services received (the so-­
called “ticket”).
Regarding benefits in kind in case of sickness, the health insurance card (for
national citizens and EU citizens) and the residence permit issued for one of the
reasons stipulated in the frame of the compulsory registration at the National Health
Service (for non-EU foreigners) are sufficient to qualify for such benefits. Art. 35 of
the Testo unico sull’immigrazione recognises to undocumented migrants essential
medical and hospital care in case of illness or injury, programs of preventive medi-
cine for the safeguard of individual and collective health, pregnancy protection and
maternity, protection of children’s health, vaccination and prophylaxis, without

9
Legge 25 luglio 1975, n. 402, Trattamento di disoccupazione in favore dei lavoratori rimpatriati.
10
Legge 23 dicembre 1978, n. 833, Istituzione del servizio sanitario nazionale.
248 W. Chiaromonte

putting any burden on them if they do not have sufficient economic resources. In
short, while non-EU foreigners legally residing in Italy have equal access to health
benefits in kind with resident nationals, undocumented foreigners can only enjoy
the core content of the healthcare protection (Corsi 2019).11 However, as the recent
Constitutional Court’s case law demonstrates, the Regions have, in some cases,
extended the personal scope of their healthcare legislation to non-EU foreign resi-
dents. This has led to a broadening of the principle of equal treatment in medical
care to the benefit of undocumented foreigners, compared to what is provided for by
the Testo unico sull’immigrazione.12
With the exception of national workers posted in Italy, Italian citizens residing
abroad in other EU Member States or in non-EU countries with which no agreement
with Italy is in force lose their right to healthcare in Italy and abroad upon cancella-
tion from the municipal registry and registration to the AIRE (registry of Italians
residing abroad). However, Italian citizens residing abroad and temporarily return-
ing to Italy are entitled to free urgent hospital services for a maximum period of
90 days per year if they do not have any public or private insurance coverage for
health services. Italian citizens registered to the AIRE and residing in other EU
countries, temporarily staying in Italy for reasons other than work or study, must
submit the European Insurance Health Card (EIHC) issued by the foreign institution
with which they are insured. If they do not have the EIHC, they can obtain the reim-
bursement of the health costs incurred in Italy by the health institution of their
country of residence.
In order to claim cash benefits in case of sickness, resident nationals, non-­resident
nationals and resident EU foreigners have to send to INPS a medical certificate
attesting their incapacity to work (there is no qualifying period of contribution, and
the granting period is established by the applicable collective agreement). Non-­
residents nationals who work in the service of an employer based in Italy can access
these cash benefits under the same conditions as national residents. Additionally,
non-EU foreigners have to hold a residence permit for work purposes to access sick-
ness benefits in Italy. Earnings-related benefits are generally provided by the
employer at the expense of INPS.
Regarding invalidity benefits, an insured person whose working ability is perma-
nently reduced to at least two thirds as a result of sickness or infirmity, documented
by a medical certificate, is considered invalid for the purpose of invalidity allowance
(“assegno ordinario d’invalidità”). The incapacity pension (“pensione di inabilità”)
is payable to the insured person or beneficiary of the invalidity allowance who is
absolutely and permanently incapable of any occupational activity.13 It is a compul-
sory social insurance scheme for all private sector employees, financed by contribu-
tions covering employees with earnings-related pensions depending on contributions
and duration of affiliation.

11
Corte costituzionale n. 252/2001.
12
Cfr., for instance, Corte costituzionale nn. 269/2010, 299/2010, 61/2011.
13
Legge 12 giugno 1984, n. 222, Revisione della disciplina della invalidità pensionabile.
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 249

16.2.3 Pensions

The work insurance general compulsory scheme for old age (“assicurazione
generale obbligatoria per la vecchiaia”) covers private sector employees by provid-
ing benefits calculated according to two determining factors: age and accrued con-
tributions. Other compulsory schemes are provided for self-employed and a certain
number of specific categories of workers, such as civil servants, professionals, atyp-
ical workers. The pension system is based on national defined-contributions scheme
for those who entered the labour market after 1st January 1996 (for those who
entered the labour market before that date, the system is “hybrid”). Contributions
are paid by workers and employers to INPS. Those contributions are used to provide
pensions received by those who are entitled in the same year (the so-called “sistema
a ripartizione”, pay-as-you-go system).
The public contributory old age pension is called “pensione di vecchiaia”. Since
2019, those who entered the labour market before 1st January 1996 are entitled to
this pension when reaching 67 years old and a minimum qualifying period of
20 years of paid and/or deemed contributions. For those who entered the labour
market after 1st January 1996, in addition to the mentioned requirements, the
amount of their pension must be equal to 1.5 times the amount of the social allow-
ance (“assegno sociale”).14 Otherwise, they can access the pension benefits at
71 years old with at least 5 years of effective contribution, independently from the
benefit’s amount. These conditions apply equally to resident nationals, EU foreign-
ers, non-EU foreigners (who also have to hold the residence permit for work pur-
poses), and national citizens residing abroad. Non-EU foreigners cannot repay the
pension contributions paid in Italy by the foreign worker in case of his/her
repatriation.15
The public non-contributory pension (“assegno sociale”, social allowance) is
addressed to Italian citizens residing in Italy for at least 10 years; EU citizens resid-
ing in Italy for at least 10 years; non-EU citizens residing in Italy for at least
10 years16 and with an EU residence permit for long-term residents; refugees and
holders of international protection. Beneficiaries must be at least 67 years old and
their income must be below the legally established thresholds. The social allowance
is temporary and the verification of the possession of the income requirements and
actual residence takes place annually.

14
Legge 8 agosto 1995, n. 335, Riforma del sistema pensionistico obbligatorio e complementare;
Legge 22 dicembre 2011, n. 214, Conversione in legge, con modificazioni del decreto-legge 6
dicembre 2011, n. 201, recante disposizioni urgenti per la crescita, l’equità e il consolidamento dei
conti pubblici.
15
Legislative Decree 286/1998, Art. 22(13).
16
The 10-years residence requirement for non-EU foreigners has been deemed discriminatory,
among other, by the Tribunale of Brescia 14.10.2015, and Tribunale of Vicenza, 2.8.2016.
250 W. Chiaromonte

16.2.4 Family Benefits

There are several types of maternity allowances in Italy. The maternity benefit
(“congedo di maternità”) and paid nursing leave (“permesso per allattamento)” are
granted to insured employees and assimilated groups (also self-employed) in case
of childbirth and adoption. The benefit can be granted for 5 months, out of which 0,
1 or 2 months prior to confinement. The amount is 80% of earnings for the compul-
sory period (no ceiling). The duration of paid nursing leave is 1- to 2-hour daily
nursing leave for the child’s mother or father: in case of part-time or full-time work,
respectively, until the first birthday of the child. The amount is 100% of earnings (no
ceiling). These conditions apply to national citizens, EU foreigners, non-EU for-
eigners having a residence permit for work purposes and national citizens who work
abroad in the service of an Italian employers.
The state financed maternity allowance (“assegno di maternità dello Stato”) is
granted to working mothers with low income or temporary unemployed mothers,
including EU mothers and non-EU mothers who are long-stay permit holders.17 In
order to qualify for this benefit, mothers are required to prove 3 monthly contribu-
tions completed within 9 months prior to beginning of pregnancy or, in case of
adoption, within the period from 18 to 9 months prior to the adoption. These condi-
tions apply also to national citizens working abroad in the service of an Italian
employer. Also, the maternity allowance (“assegno di maternità dei comuni”) is an
economic compensation paid for 5 months by the municipality of residence to non-­
working mothers with low household income, including EU foreigners and third-­
country nationals who are long-term residents.18 INPS extended the benefit also to
non-EU citizens who are family members of EU citizens and to holders of refugee
and international protection status.
Paternity benefit (“congedo di paternità”) is granted to insured employees and
assimilated groups (also self-employed).19 There are no qualifying conditions and
the benefit is granted, in 2020, for 7 days (plus one day extra if the mother agrees to
transfer from her maternity leave). The amount is 100% of earnings. The father may
also claim for a paid maternity leave of up to 3 months after the child’s birth in case
the mother does not claim for it, or if he has the sole charge of the child.20 These
conditions apply to national citizens, EU foreigners, non-EU foreigners having a
residence permit for work purposes and national citizens who work abroad in the
service of an Italian employers.
An optional supplementary parental leave (“congedo parentale facoltativo”) can
be granted to insured employees and assimilated groups (self-employed excluded).21

17
Decreto legislativo 26 marzo 2001, n. 151.
18
Decreto legislativo 26 marzo 2001, n. 151.
19
Legge 28 giugno 2012, n. 92, Disposizioni in materia di riforma del mercato del lavoro in una
prospettiva di crescita.
20
Decreto legislativo 26 marzo 2001, n. 151.
21
Decreto legislativo 26 marzo 2001, n. 151.
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 251

After expiry of the compulsory maternity/paternity leave, a reduced paid leave

(30% of salary) may be claimed by either parent for a 6-month period until the child
reaches the age of 3. This benefit can be claimed for further 5 months, at most, until
the child is 12 years old if the claimant parent’s salary does not exceed twice and a
half times the minimum pension. The amount is 30% of earnings if the child is
under 3 years old, unpaid if the child is 3–12 years old (with some exceptions).
These conditions apply to national citizens, EU foreigners, non-EU foreigners hav-
ing a residence permit for work purposes and national citizens who work abroad in
the service of an Italian employers.
The earnings-related benefits for the family (“assegno per il nucleo familiare”)
is a special measure for the families with more than 3 minor children (residing in
Italy, in another EU country or in a third country having concluded a social security
agreement with Italy) and who dispose of limited assets and incomes.22 Originally
it was only envisaged for Italian nationals, and later it has been extended to EU
nationals and third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
With particular reference to non-EU foreigners, the most recent legislation has
been directed to ensure non-contributory social benefits (i.e. the maternity allow-
ance and the earnings-related benefits for the family) to third-country nationals who
are long-term residents (as well as to those foreigners who enjoy equality of treat-
ment, established by EU norms, as for instance beneficiaries of international protec-
tion). This normative framework raises serious doubts regarding its reasonableness
and legitimacy in light of European norms. Indeed, to make certain benefits (espe-
cially those against poverty) contingent upon a minimum income – as for the permit
of third-country nationals who are long-term residents – seems to be in contradic-
tion with the aim of the social assistance benefit at stake. In light of these arguments,
ordinary judges have developed various interpretative solutions aimed to limit the
scope of the measures that make the long-term residence as a condition for some
non-contributory benefits, by disapplying the national norm on the grounds of its
inconsistency with supranational norms.23 The Constitutional Court has repeatedly
declared analogous norms as illegitimate.24

22
Legge 13 maggio 1988, n. 153, Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 13
marzo 1988, n. 69, recante norme in materia previdenziale, per il miglioramento delle gestioni
degli enti portuali ed altre disposizioni urgenti.
23
The judges, for instance, have argued that the limitation to third-country nationals who are long-
term residents constitutes a discrimination that violates the principle of equal treatment on social
security, as provided by Art. 12, Directive 2011/98. Therefore, they have imposed the disapplica-
tion of the national norm inconsistent with the european legislation (e.g. Tribunale of Milano,
2.12.2016; Tribunale of Modena, 30.9.2016; Tribunale of Bari, 20.12.2016; Tribunale of Brescia,
23.8.2016). Also the Constitutional Court has affirmed that, under these circumstances, the ordi-
nary judge has to apply directly the principle of equal treatment, ex Art. 12 Directive 2011/98
(Judgment n. 95/2017).
24
Inter alia, Corte costituzionale nn. 2/2013, 4/2013, 172/2013 and 222/2013. Cfr. Biondi Dal
Monte 2013.
252 W. Chiaromonte

16.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Until 2019, the REI (“reddito di inclusione”, inclusion income) was a general
scheme created in 2017 aiming to provide a minimum income for those who do not
have sufficient resources to support themselves.25 The scheme was organized both
centrally and locally (shared responsibility): the request to obtain the REI was sub-
mitted to the municipality of residence (“comune di residenza”), but the benefit was
granted by INPS. The REI consisted of two parts: an economic benefit, paid monthly
through an electronic payment card (REI Card), and a personalized project of acti-
vation and social and labour inclusion, aimed at overcoming the poverty condition.
National residents were eligible to claim the REI. To be eligible for this benefit,
EU foreigners were required to have the right of residence or the right of permanent
residence and reside in Italy for a consecutive period of at least 2 years. Non-EU
foreigners were required to be long-term residents and reside in Italy for a consecu-
tive period of at least 2 years (the benefit was also granted to beneficiaries of inter-
national protection). National citizens residing abroad could not claim the REI.
The “reddito di cittadinanza” (citizenship income) has been introduced in 2019.26
It aims to provide economic support and foster the social inclusion, being addressed
to those who do not reach a given income threshold. The benefit is reserved to
(beyond the Italian and EU citizens and their family members) foreigners who are
long-term residents, who have to add to the EU long-term residence permit the fur-
ther requirements asked to the Italian citizens as well: at least 10 years of residence
in Italy (the last 2 years continuously), as well as the residence on the national
­territory for the length of the benefit. In other words, as far as concerns general
benefits aimed to combat poverty, these are generally reserved for third-country
nationals who have the EU long-term residence permit.
The Bergamo Tribunal has raised question of constitutional legitimacy of the
norms for the part that provides for the requirement of the EU long-term residence
permit.27 Even if the question refers the reddito di inclusione (inclusion income), an
institute which has been replaced by the reddito di cittadinanza, the Court’s deci-
sion will have an impact also on the latest institute, given the similarities between
the two and the identity of the requirement prescribed.
This normative framework raises serious doubts of legitimacy as regards both
EU law and the reasonableness principle. Indeed, according to Art. 9 of the Testo
unico sull’immigrazione, the EU long-term residence permit is subject to income

25
Decreto legislativo 15 settembre 2017, n. 147, Disposizioni per l’introduzione di una misura
nazionale di contrasto alla povertà. To benefit from REI, the entire family was requested to have a
valid ISEE (indicator of the family economic situation) not exceeding 6.000 euros; a valid ISRE
(indicator of the ISEE related income) not exceeding 20.000 euros; real estate (deposit, current
accounts) not exceeding 10.000 euros (lowered at 8.000 euros for a couple and 6.000 euros for a
single person).
26
Legge 28 marzo 2019, n. 26, Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 28 gen-
naio 2019, n. 4, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di reddito di cittadinanza e di pensioni.
27
Tribunale of Bergamo, 1.8.2019.
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 253

requirements (an appropriate accommodation and an income as high as the social

allowance). Therefore, the fact that the benefits, especially those to combat poverty,
are subject to a minimum income seems in contradiction with their very aim.
The State also provides for a social allowance (“assegno sociale”)28 and other
non-contributory benefits such as the social card (an income support measure). On
the basis of Article 132 of Law 112 of 1998, the State has transferred to the Regions
legislative functions and administrative competences in the field of social services
for disabled persons, minors, youngsters, elderly people, poor families, etc. Some of
these competences have been delegated to municipalities which implement their
own policies of social intervention. The law does not provide for general conditions
or requirements for entitlement to municipal support (cash benefits or intervention
by social workers).
Summing up, the main obstacles to access social security benefits in Italy are
connected to the extended residence requirement and mostly concern non-EU for-
eigners. In fact, the national and regional legislator often makes the residence
requirement a condition of the status of beneficiaries of social assistance benefits.
As observed above, since these requirements can constitute forms of indirect dis-
crimination to the detriment of non-EU nationals, they have been often “neutral-
ized” by the ordinary and constitutional case law.
With reference to bilateral social security agreements, it is also worth mentioning
that Italy has not signed agreements with those countries whose nationals represent
the three largest groups of non-EU foreigners residing in Italy (Albania, Morocco
and China), but only with non-EU countries that represent the three largest destina-
tions of national citizens of Italy (USA, Canada and Australia). As far as the latter
are concerned, it is provided for an easier access to social benefits only in relation
to health care (in particular, invalidity benefits) and public contributory pensions,
while nothing is planned for unemployment, family benefits and guaranteed mini-
mum resources.

16.3 Conclusions

The most problematic aspect regarding migrants’ access to social protection in Italy
concerns the case of non-EU foreigners. However, this doesn’t apply for the social
security system where the principle of equal treatment between national citizens
and non-EU foreigners is generally enforced (with the exception of the two cases
mentioned above on the exclusion of the seasonal non-EU foreign workers from the
protection against dismissal and the family allowance, on the one hand, and the
missed repayment of the contributions paid in Italy by the non-EU foreign workers
in case of his/her repatriation, on the other hand).

28
Legge 8 agosto 1995, n. 335.
254 W. Chiaromonte

Regarding access to the single social assistance benefits, the principle of equal
treatment clashes with numerous national and regional legal provisions that differ-
entiate the possibility to be entitled to these benefits on the grounds of the residence
permit hold by the applicant and/or of given residence requirements (on the national
or regional territory). As discussed, these requirements are potential forms of indi-
rect discrimination to the detriment of foreign nationals, considering that the mea-
sures adopted, although apparently neutral, are able to jeopardise the non-EU
foreigners’ interests the most. Notwithstanding that, in the Italian legal framework,
we can also find requirements of this kind, for instance with regard to some family
benefits and the benefits to combat poverty, the judges – ordinary and constitu-
tional – in their judgments have mostly removed these requirements, thus reaffirm-
ing, via case law, the full equality of treatment between Italian and foreign nationals
legally residing in Italy, as to the access to the single social assistance benefits.
Finally, with particular reference to the case of nationals residing abroad, access
to social benefits from Italy is granted, in many cases – as we have seen – to those
working abroad in the service of Italian employers. Yet, the large majority of Italian
emigrants – who are not working in the service of Italian employers – are excluded,
and this aspect certainly represents a critical point.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Ascoli, U. (Ed.). (2011). Il welfare in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.

Ascoli, U., & Pavolini, E. (2012). Ombre rosse. Il sistema di welfare italiano dopo venti anni di
riforme. Stato e mercato, pp. 521 et seq.
Biondi Dal Monte, F. (2013). Dai diritti sociali alla cittadinanza. La condizione giuridica dello
straniero tra ordinamento italiano e prospettive sovranazionali. Torino: Giappichelli.
Bologna, S. (2018). Eguaglianza e welfare degli immigrati: tra self-restraint legislativo e aper-
ture giurisprudenziali e contrattuali. Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, I,
pp. 636 et seq.
Caldarini, C. (2020). Diaspora policies and social protection in Italy. In J.-M. Lafleur & D. Vintila
(Eds.), Migration and social protection in Europe and beyond (Volume 2). Comparing consular
services and diaspora policies. Cham: Springer.
Centro Studi e Ricerche IDOS. (2019). Dossier statistico immigrazione 2019. Roma: Centro Studi
e Ricerche IDOS.
Chiaromonte, W. (2012). Mobilità intraeuropea e sicurezza sociale. In L. Calafà, D. Gottardi,
& M. Peruzzi (Eds.). La mobilità del lavoro: prospettive europee e internazionali (pp. 125
et seq.). Napoli: ESI.
16 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Italy 255

Chiaromonte, W. (2013). Lavoro e diritti sociali degli stranieri. Il governo delle migrazioni eco-
nomiche in Italia e in Europa. Torino: Giappichelli.
Chiaromonte, W. (2019). Ideologia e tecnica della disciplina sovranista dell’immigrazione.
Protezione internazionale, accoglienza e lavoro dopo il «decreto Salvini». Giornale di diritto
del lavoro e di relazioni industriali, pp. 321 et seq
Chiaromonte, W., & Giubboni, S. (2014). I regolamenti europei di sicurezza sociale nella recente
giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia. Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della sicurezza sociale,
I, pp. 481 et seq.
Chiaromonte, W., & Giubboni, S. (2016). Cittadinanza amministrativa e previdenza sociale.
In A. Bartolini, & A. Pioggia (Eds.). Cittadinanze amministrative (pp. 57 et seq.). Firenze:
Firenze University Press.
Chiaromonte, W. & Guariso, A. (2019). Discriminazioni e welfare. In M. Barbera, & A. Guariso
(Eds.), La tutela antidiscriminatoria. Fonti, strumenti, interpreti (pp. 329 et seq.). Torino:
Giappichelli.
Cinelli, M. (2020). Diritto della previdenza sociale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Colucci, M. (2018). Storia dell’immigrazione straniera in Italia. Dal 1945 ai giorni nostri. Roma:
Carocci.
Corsi, C. (2017). L’accesso degli stranieri ai diritti sociali. In A. Bartolini, & A. Pioggia (Eds.).
Cittadinanze amministrative (pp. 133 et seq.). Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Corsi, C. (2019). Il diritto alla salute alla prova delle migrazioni. Istituzioni del federalismo, 1,
pp. 45 et seq.
D’Onghia, M. (2017). Tutele previdenziali e assistenziali dei lavoratori migranti. In Vv.Aa.,
Previdenza e assistenza. In P. Curzio, L. Di Paola, & R. Romei (Eds.). Lavoro (pp. 606 et seq.).
Milano: Giuffrè.
Ferrante, V., & Tranquillo, T. (2019). Nozioni di diritto della previdenza sociale. Padova: Wolters
Kluwer – Cedam.
Ferrara, M.D. (2017). Status degli stranieri e questioni di welfare tra diritti e inclusione sociale.
Rivista del diritto della sicurezza sociale, pp. 265 et seq.
Ferrera, M., & Hemerijck, A. (2003). Recalibrating European welfare regimes. In J. Zeitlin, &
D. Trubeck (Eds.). Governing work and welfare in a new economy: European and American
experiments (pp. 88 et seq.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferrera, M., Fargion, V., & Jessoula, M. (Eds.). (2012). Alle radici del welfare all’italiana. Origini
e futuro di un modello sociale squilibrato. Venezia: Marsilio.
Fuchs, M., & Cornelissen, R. (Eds.). (2015). EU social security law. Baden-Baden-München-­
Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Giubboni, S., & Cinelli, M. (2020). Lineamenti di diritto della previdenza sociale. Padova: Wolters
Kluwer – Cedam.
Greve, B. (Ed.). (2012). The times they are changing? Crisis and the welfare state. London:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Orlandini, G., & Chiaromonte, W. (2017). Art. 34. Sicurezza sociale e assistenza sociale. In
R. Mastroianni, O. Pollicino, S. Allegrezza, F. Pappalardo, & O. Razzolini (Eds.). Carta dei
diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea (pp. 642 et seq.). Milano: Giuffrè.
Palier, B. (Ed.). (2010). A long good-bye to Bismarck. The politics of welfare reforms in continen-
tal Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Pennings, F. (2020). European social security law. Mortsel: Intersentia.
Persiani, M., & D’Onghia, M. (2019). Fondamenti di diritto della previdenza sociale. Torino:
Giappichelli.
Pessi, R. (2016). Lezioni di diritto della previdenza sociale. Padova: Wolters Kluwer – Cedam.
Sciarra, S. (2017). “Migranti” e “persone” al centro di alcune pronunce della Corte Costituzionale
sull’accesso a prestazioni sociali. https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/interventi_
presi dente/Sciarra%20CdS%2026%20maggio%202017.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2019.
256 W. Chiaromonte

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 17
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Latvia

Anhelita Kamenska and Jekaterina Tumule

17.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Latvia

17.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

In characterising the Latvian welfare regime, most studies focus on the social policy
developments in all the three Baltic states, due to the common legacies of the Soviet
Union. After World War II, these states were incorporated into the Soviet Union and
were subjects to the same social policy regulation as the whole Union. The three
countries experienced a Soviet social protection system from 1940 to 1991.
During this period, the state was the main provider of welfare for its citizens. The
coverage of the social security system was universal in the Soviet Union, with rather
low benefit levels. Everyone was guaranteed security in all cases of loss of working
capacity, old age, invalidity, illness and the loss of the breadwinner. The extensive
social policy (full employment, free education and health care) and social security
with its huge redistributive feature promoted equality within classes and various
social groups (Aidukaite 2011). The Soviet welfare system was universal and pater-
nalistic. Establishing a mechanism that would help shift responsibility for social
security from the state to the individual was considered a high priority (Rajevska
and Romanovska 2016). Path dependency with the communist era was one of the
reasons why the right-wing politicians in the Baltic states found the Bismarckian
model too solidaristic and turned to liberal welfare policies (Toots and
Bachman 2010).

A. Kamenska (*) · J. Tumule

Latvian Center for Human Rights, Riga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 257

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_17
258 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

As regards Latvia and the other two Baltic states, it is commonly concluded that
their welfare regimes can be characterised as neoliberal with low social spending
and commodification degree, as closely falling into the neoliberal model based on
macroeconomic indicators of welfare state spending, high-income inequality, low
minimum wage, and a low degree of decommodification (Aidukaite 2019). As such,
various historic welfare regimes layers and liberal and conservative-corporatist
principles co-exist here (Toots and Bachmann 2010). The Baltic welfare system is
also defined as a distinct post-communist welfare regime, which represents a mix of
neo-liberal and Bismarckian features (Aidukaite 2009). Low levels of social expen-
diture have been one of the main arguments used to categorise Baltic countries to
the liberal welfare regimes. At the same time, Latvia as all the Baltic countries
implemented a three-pillar pension system faster and in a more radical manner than
most Western European countries.
In general terms, the social security system of Latvia is described as a mixture of
elements taken from the basic security (where eligibility is based on contributions
or residency, and flat-rate benefits are provided) and corporatist (with eligibility
based on labour force participation and earnings-related benefits) models. Elements
of the targeted model (in which eligibility is based on a proven need, and the level
of benefits is minimal) may be also found in Latvia. Some means-tested benefits are
quite extensive, e.g. social assistance benefits for low-income families, housing
benefits, a benefit for food and meals, a benefit for purposes related to education and
upbringing of children, etc. (Aidukaite 2013).
During the period 2008–2010, Latvia underwent major financial crises. It lost
25% of its Gross Domestic Product, with the unemployment rate reaching 18,7%.
To bridge the budget deficit, the Government cuts affected the social security sys-
tem, particularly pensions, employment and sickness benefits. Sickness benefits
were decreased from 52 to 26 weeks, patient payments for health care were increased
significantly, whereas the Government’s contribution to the second “pillar” of pen-
sions was reduced from 8% to 2%. Employees’ compulsory contributions to the
national social insurance scheme were also raised from 9% to 11% from
January 2011.
The Latvian social security system is financed from the special budget income –
the social insurance budget – based on compulsory social insurance contributions.
The social insurance system is based on the principle of solidarity as the current
contributions paid by employed persons are used for the payment of pensions and
other benefits. Social insurance according to the paid social contributions guaran-
tees income upon reaching the retirement age, in case of disability or sickness, dur-
ing maternity and child care periods, in case of unemployment and in other
similar cases.
Some social benefits (unemployment benefits, pensions, sickness, maternity and
child benefits) depend on previous earnings and the amount of social insurance
contributions. Others are non-contributory, such as the benefit for insuring the guar-
anteed minimum income level. There are benefits which depend on whether the
person is compulsory or voluntarily insured – such as in kind health care benefits.
Most contributory and non-contributory benefits are pre-conditioned by a
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 259

permanent residency status in Latvia. Since January 2018, significant policy changes
occurred in the area of healthcare. According to the latest health care financing
reform, access to the full range of state-funded health care services is available to
permanent residents subjected to compulsory or voluntary health insurance.
However, despite the fact that the amendments came into force on January 2018,
due to technical reasons, the new provisions have not been implemented in practice.
Moreover, following parliamentary elections in autumn 2018, the new Government
formed in early 2019, decided to give up the idea and focus efforts on developing a
sustainable model of health financing.

17.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Latvia experienced massive migration turnover and population losses during the
twentieth century, mainly due to the two World Wars, the annexation of the country
by the Soviet Union, and the resulting population transfers during almost five
decades of Soviet regime (Zelče 2011). In the twenty-first century, after the coun-
try’s accession to the European Union (EU) and the economic crises during the
period 2008–2010, emigration from Latvia to other EU Member States has mas-
sively increased (Hazans 2019). Latvia has been able to shape its own immigration
policies only during the periods of independence (1918–1940, and from 1990
onwards).
From a historical perspective, prior to World War I, Latvia was a land of immi-
gration as part of the Russian Empire. Between 1863 and 1913, the Latvian popula-
tion increased by 1,287,000, of whom 304,000 individuals (24%) immigrated.
During World War I and the Russian civil war, around one million of Latvia’s resi-
dents moved to other territories (mostly in Russia) as refugees, displaced persons or
after being mobilised into armed forces. In only five years, Latvia lost 37% of its
population. The country gained independence in 1918 and after the signature of the
peace treaty with Russia, nearly 300,000 people returned to Latvia between 1918
and 1928. During the 1930s, the number of foreign farm workers (most of them
from Lithuania and Poland) ranged from 12,000 to 40,000 (Zelče 2011). In 1939,
Germany “repatriated” almost all Baltic Germans and during the Nazi occupation
(1941–1945), the local Jewish population1 and half of the Roma population was
exterminated.
War deaths, Soviet executions and mass deportations to the East, flight to the
West,2 and post-war3 Soviet policies of mass migration weakened Latvia’s position
and resulted in the growth of the Russian minority, which accounted for more than

1
Between 65–70,000 Jews perished in the Holocaust.
2
It is estimated that, due to the war, Latvia’s population decreased by 300,000–500,000 people (a
25% decrease compared to 1939). Between 1944 and 1953, around 120,000 people fell victim to
Soviet terror (Zelče 2011).
3
Latvia was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1945.
260 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

one-third of the population in 1989 on the eve of independence. Initially, migrants

were demobilized Red Army soldiers and their families, internal security personnel
and Communist Party bureaucrats. From the early 1960s through the mid-1980s,
migrants tended to be workers in All-Union industries, particularly persons with a
technical or engineering background, as well as many retired Soviet military offi-
cers. The majority of migrants were Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians, whose
combined share of the population rose from 10.3% in 1935 to 42% in 1989
(Muižnieks 2006). As a result of immigration, the share of ethnic Latvians in
Latvia’s population dropped from 77% in 1935 to 52% in 1989.
In total, around four million people moved to Latvia between 1951 and 1990,
while 1,82 million left the country. The overall migration balance during the Soviet
occupation involved 941,000 people. The authorities of the regime explained that
immigration was needed because of the constantly increasing need for workers and
the low natural growth rate in the population (Zelče 2011). At the end of 1980s,
plans to construct a subway system in Riga drew protests from ethnic Latvians.
Hence, in 1989, the Government of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic approved
a plan to stop and regulate migration.4 When Latvia regained independence in 1991,
the share of minorities decreased due to the withdrawal of the Soviet army and eth-
nic minority return migration in the first half of the 1990s.
According to the 1990 Population Census, the population in Latvia stood at
2,67 million. By 2018, the population of Latvia was of 1,93 million individuals, a
decrease by 738,000 since 1990.5 The twenty-first century has been marked by emi-
gration from Latvia particularly since the country’s accession to the EU in 2004 and
during the 2008–2010 economic crises that resulted in the emigration of 260,000
individuals from 2008 to 2017, amounting to 13,5% of the population.6 The eco-
nomic crises also led to a greater number of Latvian non-citizens opting for the
Russian citizenship due to the benefits of an earlier retirement age.7
Broadly speaking, the Baltic states have been very sensitive to immigration from
outside the European Union and quite stringent about maintaining their ethnic bal-
ance, as well as protecting their languages and cultures (Birka 2019). Latvia estab-
lished an investor visa program, allowing investors from outside the EU to receive a
residence permit in exchange for a certain level of investments (real estate,8 share

4
Latvijas PSR Ministru padome. (1989). 1989.gada 14.februāra lēmums nr 46, “Par pasākumiem
iedzīvotāju skaita nepamatota mehāniskā pieauguma pārtraukšanai un migrācijas procesu
regulēšanai Latvijas PSR”.
5
Centrālā statistikas pārvalde (2018). Latvija 2018. Galvenie statistikas rādītāji, p.5 https://www.
csb.gov.lv/sites/default/files/publication/2018-05/Nr%2002%20Latvija%20Galvenie%20statisti-
kas%20raditaji%202018%20%2818_00%29%20LV.pdf. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
6
OECD Economic Surveys: Latvia 2019. OECD publishing. p.16, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/
economics/oecd-economic-surveys-latvia-2019_f8c2f493-en#page1. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
7
LSM.LV (2017). 10 gadu laikā Krievijas pilsoņu skaits Latvijā pieaudzis par vairāk nekā
28,000,https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/10-gadu-laika-krievijas-pilsonu-skaits-latvija-
pieaudzis-par-vairak-neka-28-000.a244201/. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
8
In 2014, the value of real estate to receive a temporary residence permit was significantly increased
and the number of recipients dropped.
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 261

capital, credit institution). During the period 2010–2017, over 17,000 visas were
granted and the overwhelming majority of recipients (around 70%) were Russians,
followed by Chinese (8,2%) and Ukrainians (8%).9 Moreover, since Latvia estab-
lished the asylum procedure in 1998, the number of asylum seekers and persons
granted refugee and subsidiary status has been quite small, except for the brief
period of EU relocation scheme when Latvia pledged to accept 571 asylum seekers.
Latvia’s immigration policy has generally aimed to protect the local workforce
and addressing labour shortages via the return of Latvian emigrants is seen as a key
solution. Nevertheless, the acute labour force shortage has led the Latvian authori-
ties to adopt several measures in 2017 and 2018, including the start-up visa for
individuals developing innovative products, regulations for issuing temporary resi-
dence permits to highly qualified specialists and the creation of a list of professions
facing a foreseeable lack of labour force.10 However, the number of third-country
nationals with work permits in 2017 was still small: 4029 nationals of Ukraine,
1230 from Belarus and 1095 Russians.11
According to the Population Register,12 on 1 July 2018, Latvia had a population
of 2,101,061 individuals, out of which 228,855 were Latvian non-citizens13 and
92,342 foreign residents. The largest groups of third-country nationals residing in
the country are citizens of the Russian Federation (54,258 individuals), Ukraine
(7485), Belarus (3318), India (1708), and Uzbekistan (1556). From 2007 to 2017,
the number of Russian citizens increased by nearly 28,000.14 This significant
increase occurred particularly during the economic crises in 2008–2010, when
many non-citizens opted for Russian citizenship due to lower retirement age.15 The
devaluation of the Russian rouble halted the trend.

9
OCCRP (2018). Latvia’s Once Golden Visas Lose their Shine – But Why?, 5 March, https://www.
occrp.org/en/goldforvisas/latvias-once-golden-visas-lose-their-shine-but-why. Last accessed 3
May 2020.
10
Saeima (2017). Grozījumi Imigrācijas likumā, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/288742-grozijumi-imi-
gracijas-likuma. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
11
LR Saeima. (2018). Imigrācijas loma darbaspēka nodrošinājumā Latvijā. Sintēzes ziņojums,
https://www.saeima.lv/petijumi/Imigracijas_loma_darbaspeka_nodrosinajums_Latvija-2018_
aprilis.pdf. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
12
Population Register (Iedzīvotāju reģistrs) (2018). Latvian residents by nationality (Latvijas
iedzīvotāju sadalījums pēc valstiskās piederības), https://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/assets/documents/
statistika/Iedz%C4%ABvot%C4%81ju%20re%C4%A3istrs%20st.%20uz%2001072018/ISVP_
Latvija_pec_VPD.pdf. Last accessed 10 November 2018.
13
Non-citizens are a special category of people - former USSR citizens who were resident in Latvia
on 01.07.1991 and have not obtained citizenship of any other country, thus this term does not
encompass foreign citizens and stateless persons.
14
LSM.LV (2018). During 10 Years the Number of Citizens of Russia in Latvia has increased by
28,000, 22 July, https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/10-gadu-laika-krievijas-pilsonu-skaits-
latvija-pieaudzis-par-vairak-neka-28-000.a244201/. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
15
Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2013). Par trešo valstu valstspiederīgo un Latvijas nepilsoņu
viedokli par Latvijas pilsonību un iemesliem, kas veicina vai kavē pilsonības iegūšanu, https://
www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/sakums/jaunumipublikacijas/p%C4%93t%C4%ABjumi/2013.gada-
p%C4%93t%C4%ABjums-par-tre%C5%A1o-valstu-valstspieder%C4%ABgo-un-latvijas-
262 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

There are two types of residence permits – temporary and permanent - for for-
eigners immigrating to Latvia. A residence permit is necessary if a foreigner is will-
ing to reside in Latvia for more than 90 days within half a year counting from the
first day of entry. A temporary residence permit is issued for one year and can be
re-registered every year depending on the purpose of entry.16 Permanent residence
permit is issued for five years. A foreigner can apply for a permanent residence
permit if he/she has continuously (with the exceptions provided for in the
Immigration Law) resided in Latvia for five years with a temporary residence per-
mit, as well as in other cases (for example, a minor child or a child in the custody of
a Latvian citizen, a non-citizen or of a foreigner, who has received a permanent resi-
dence permit, as well as other family members as set in the law).17 To receive a
permanent residence permit, a foreigner has to submit an application to the Office
of Migration and Citizenship Affairs. In most cases, when submitting the applica-
tion documents for a permanent residence permit, foreigners must show a certificate
on state language proficiency evidencing the basic knowledge of state language.18
As for the Latvian diaspora, in July 2018, 181,545 Latvian citizens lived abroad.
The majority of them resided in the United Kingdom (73,613 individuals), Ireland
(20,343) and the United States (15,316), followed by Canada and Australia. In 2018,
4457 Latvian citizens resided in Russia.

17.2 Migration and Social Protection in Latvia

In Latvia, most social benefits (unemployment, health, pensions, maternity/pater-

nity benefits) are available to socially ensured Latvian and foreign nationals.
According to the general principle, socially insured persons are those who are
employed, self-employed and actually make social insurance contributions.
Additionally, specific groups of persons are insured by the state (e.g. those in mater-
nity/paternity leave, persons receiving unemployment benefits, disabled persons,
etc.) and some can join the social insurance scheme voluntarily, including spouses
of self-employed who voluntary joined social insurance.19 Some social insurance
benefits are pre-conditioned by permanent residency. Thus, all state social

nepilso%C5%86u-viedokli-par-latvijas-pilson%C4%ABbu-un-iemesliem,-kas-veicina-vai-
kav%C4%93-pilson%C4%ABbas-ieg%C5%AB%C5%A 1anu-(pdf).pdf. Last accessed 10
November 2018.
16
See: http://www.pmlp.gov.lv/lv/sakums/pakalpojumi/iecelosana-lv/uzturesanas-atlaujas/uzture-
sanas-termins.html. Last accessed 10 November 2018.
17
Immigration Law (Imigrācijas likums), Section 24, 01.05.2003, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/68522-
imigracijas-likums. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
18
Rules of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 564, Section 35, 21.06.2010, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/212441-
uzturesanas-atlauju-noteikumi. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
19
Saeima, Law on State Social Insurance (Par valsts sociālo apdrošināšanu), Section 5, 6, adopted
on 01.01.1998, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=45466. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 263

allowances (including childbirth allowance and childcare benefit, state social secu-
rity benefits, funeral benefit) are available to Latvian citizens, Latvian non-citizens,
foreigners and stateless persons who permanently reside in Latvia.20

17.2.1 Unemployment

The unemployment benefit is financed from the state social insurance employment
special budget.21 The benefit is granted to Latvian citizens and foreigners who are
officially registered as unemployed persons. To qualify as eligible applicants, indi-
viduals must have worked for a least one year and have paid social insurance con-
tributions for unemployment for at least 12 months during the previous 16 months
period. Persons who have recovered the capacity to work after a disability and per-
sons who have taken care of a child with disability up to 18 years of age have the
right to unemployment benefits even if their social insurance contributions have not
been paid or have been paid for less than 12 months. Those who receive unemploy-
ment benefits are required to be actively involved in job search activities.
In order to apply for the benefit, individuals have to submit an application to the
State Social Insurance Agency (Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra). The
amount of the unemployment benefit depends on previous earnings. It is calculated
based on the average income from which unemployment contributions have been
made during the last 12 months, not counting the last two months before the job
loss. The benefit is paid for maximum nine months (full amount during the first
three months, 75% during the following three months, and 50% during the last three
months).
Unemployment benefits can be exported if recipients decide to move to another
EU Member State with an aim of searching for a job. In this case, the person can
continue to receive the benefit up to a maximum of six months. However, the unem-
ployment benefit can be lost if individuals do not fulfil the required duties, such as
active job search without justification. The export of the benefit to non-EU countries
is not possible. The bilateral social agreements signed with Russia,22 Ukraine,23 and

20
Saeima, Law on State Social Allowances (Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums), adopted on 31.10.2002,
Section 3,4: https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483 Secion 3,4 https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483.
Last accessed 3 May 2020.
21
Saeima, Law on Unemployment Insurance (Par apdrošināšanu bezdarba gadījumam), adopted
on 25. 11. 1999, Section 4: https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=14595. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
22
Agreement on Cooperation in Social Insurance Area between the Republic of Latvia and Russian
Federation (Latvijas Republikas un Krievijas Federācijas līgums par sadarbību sociālās drošības
jomā), 18.12.2007, https://likumi.lv/ta/lv/starptautiskie-ligumi/id/738. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
23
Agreement between the Republic of Latvian and Ukraine of Cooperation in Social Insurance
Area (Par Latvijas Republikas un Ukrainas līgumu par sadarbību sociālās drošības jomā),
19.05.1998, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=48170. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
264 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

Belarus24 grant access to unemployment benefits to the nationals of these countries

residing in Latvia and to Latvian nationals residing in these countries.

17.2.2 Health Care

The health care system is financed from the state general income budget, the social
insurance contribution for health care services, health insurance contributions,
patients’ co-payments, EU funds and other foreign financial instruments, local gov-
ernment co-payments, and income of state and local medical institutions.25 The pro-
vision of state paid health care services is divided into the following categories:
• Emergency medical assistance that is available to all nationals and foreigners.
• The minimum of state paid medical assistance and state funded health care is
available to all socially insured persons and all Latvian citizens, Latvian non-­
citizens, foreigners with a permanent residence permit, stateless persons whose
status was granted by Latvia, refugees, persons with a subsidiary protection sta-
tus, and asylum seekers. The minimum of state paid medical care includes emer-
gency medical assistance, childbirth assistance, family doctor’s services, and
state health care in case of treatment of diseases that might be dangerous for
public health care. Additionally, the spouse of a Latvian citizen and of a non-­
citizen with a temporary residence permit has the right to childbirth assistance in
Latvia. State funded health care in addition to the minimum state paid medical
assistance include primary, secondary and tertiary health care services, medica-
tion and medical devices.26
All employed and self-employed persons who make social insurance contribu-
tions, and spouses of self-employed persons who voluntary joined the social insur-
ance scheme have the right to sickness cash benefits, regardless of their nationality.
The sick leave certificate is issued by a doctor or doctor’s assistant.27 The first
10 days of sickness are paid by the employer. Starting with the 11th day of sickness,
a person has the right to apply for the state paid sickness benefit if social insurance
contributions have been made at least three months during the last six months before

24
Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Belarus on Cooperation in Social
Insurance area (Par Latvijas Republikas un Baltkrievijas Republikas līgumu par sadarbību sociālās
drošības jomā), 24.12.2008, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=185629. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
25
Saeima, Health Care Funding Law (Veselības aprūpes finansēšanas likums), adopted on
01.01.2018, Section 4, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/296188-veselibas-aprupes-finansesanas-likums. Last
accessed 3 May 2020.
26
Saeima, Healthcare Funding Law (Veselības aprūpes likums), adopted on 14.12.2017, Section
10,11, transitional provisions Section 5, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=296188. Last accessed 3
May 2020.
27
Saeima, Law on Maternity and Sickness Insurance (Par maternitātes un slimības apdrošināšanu),
adopted on 6.11.1995, Section 12, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=38051. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 265

the sickness occurred or for at least six months during the last 24 months. The State
Social Insurance Agency grants the sickness benefit in the amount of 80% of aver-
age contributions salary calculated based on the payments made during the last
12 months. The sickness benefit can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks (it can be
exceptionally extended to 52 weeks). The sickness cash benefit cannot be exported
to other countries.
The state social security disability allowance (invalidity benefit) can be granted
to permanent residents who are over 18 years old, have resided in Latvia for at least
60 months (out of which the last 12 months continuously), are unemployed at the
time of claiming the allowance and their disability has been certified by the State
Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health Condition and Working Ability.
Foreigners with a temporary residence permit are not entitled to this allowance.28
The monthly amount of the invalidity benefit is flat rate, depending on the disability
category.29 The payment of the allowance is discontinued if recipients leave the
country for permanent residence abroad.30 The bilateral social security agreements
signed with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus grant access to the nationals of these
countries residing in Latvia and Latvian citizens residing in these countries to cash
benefits in case of sickness and invalidity benefits.

17.2.3 Pensions

The Latvian public pension scheme complements the pay-as-you-go notional

defined contribution system. It is based on contributory social insurance and length
of service.31 In 2018, the retirement age was 63,3 years and the minimum length of
service was of 15 years. The pension system is based on three pillars. The first pillar
is the state compulsory unfunded or non-accumulated pension scheme managed by
the state. All those who pay social contributions are included in this pillar. The

28
Saeima, Law on State Social Allowances (Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums), adopted on 31.10.2002,
Section 13, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
29
Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and
Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and
Disbursement of the Benefits
(Noteikumi par valsts sociālā nodrošinājuma pabalsta un apbedīšanas pabalsta apmēru, tā
pārskatīšanas kārtību un pabalstu piešķiršanas un izmaksas kārtību), adopted on 22.12.2009,
Section 2, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/202850-noteikumi-par-valsts-sociala-nodrosinajuma-pabalsta-
un-apbedisanas-pabalsta-apmeru-ta-parskatisanas-kartibu-un-pabalstu-pieskir. Last accessed 3
May 2020.
30
Saeima, Law on State Social Allowances (Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums), adopted on 31.10.2002,
Section 13, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
31
Saeima, Law on State Social Allowances (Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums), adopted on 31.10.2002,
Section 9, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483 (last accessed 3 May 2020) and Saeima, Law on
State Pension (Likums par valsts pensijām), adopted on 2.11.1995, Section 3, https://likumi.lv/doc.
php?id=38048 (last accessed 3 May 2020).
266 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

contributions are used to pay the pensions of the existing generation of pensioners.
The second pillar is the state-funded pension scheme managed by chosen fund man-
agers, invested into financial market and saved for the pension of the specific con-
tributor. The third pillar is a private voluntary pension scheme which ensures the
possibility for every individual to create additional savings for his/her pension in the
private pension funds.32
The amount received depends on the pension capital accrued from 1 January
1996 until the moment of the application, the average social insurance amount from
1 January 1996 until 31 December 1999, length of insurance until 31 December
1995 and the time period for which the disbursement of the old-age pension was
planned from the year of granting the old-age pension.33 Certain credited periods are
taken into account for the entitlement to pensions (periods of inactivity of disabled
persons, periods of receipt of unemployment, sickness, maternity or parental bene-
fits, period of nursing a child until the age of 1,5 years, periods of inactivity of
spouses residing abroad with their partners who are on a diplomatic/consular/mili-
tary duties, etc.). For Latvian citizens, certain periods are recognised prior to 1
January 1991, such as the compulsory military service, studies at higher education
institutions, child care by the mother until the child reached 8 years of age, and
periods of political repression (e.g. when Latvian nationals where sent to Soviet
forced labour (Gulag) camps), etc.
Latvian and foreign nationals can export pensions when moving to another EU
or European Economic Area (EEA) country. Latvian nationals also have the right to
export pensions to a non-EU country with which there is a bilateral social security
agreement in place – for instance, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Australia, and Canada.
When a person decides to permanently move abroad, s/he has to inform the State
Social Insurance Agency and submit an application for continuation or renewal of
the payment of pension indicating the new place of residence. The application has
to be resubmitted annually adding notarised confirmation that the person is alive.34
Only Latvian nationals and foreigners with permanent residence permits who
have resided in Latvia for at least 60 months (out of which the last 12 as permanent
residents) have the right to claim a universal non-contributory pension (state social
security benefit) if they do not qualify for a contributory pension or for an insurance
compensation for damages related to an occupational accident or occupational dis-
ease. To become eligible, they must be unemployed and have reached the retirement
age. If a person receives a pension from another state, which is below the amount of

32
Saeima, Law On State Funded Pensions (Valsts fondēto pensiju likums), adopted on 17.02.2000,
https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=2341. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
33
Saeima, Law on State Pension (Likums par valsts pensijām), adopted on 02.11.1995, https://
likumi.lv/doc.php?id=38048. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
34
Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures for the Payment of the State Pensions Granted in the Republic
of Latvia to Persons After Departure for Permanent Residence in Foreign States (Latvijas Republikā
piešķirto valsts pensiju izmaksas kārtība personām pēc izbraukšanas uz pastāvīgu dzīvi ārvalstīs),
adopted on 27.06.2006, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=138903&from=off. Last accessed 3
May 2020.
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 267

the state social security benefit (EUR 64,03), the state social security benefit is
reduced by the amount, which complies with the amount of the pension granted by
the other state.

17.2.4 Family Benefits

Maternity, paternity and parental benefits are available to employed and self-­
employed (and spouse of self-employed) Latvian nationals, as well as EU and non-
­EU citizens who are socially insured in Latvia or have voluntarily joined the social
insurance scheme. The benefits scheme is based on compulsory social insurance. If
a Latvian national is socially insured in another EU or non-EU state, he/she cannot
claim the benefits from Latvia.
The maternity benefit is paid before and after the childbirth for a maximum
period of 140 days. The amount of the benefit is 80% of the average insurance con-
tributions salary of the applicant, calculated for a period of 12 months ending two
months before the month in which the pregnancy leave began. The paternity benefit
is paid to the father no later than two months after the child is born. The benefit is
granted for 10 days and the amount is 80% of the average insurance contributions
salary of the applicant, calculated for a period of 12 months ending two months
prior to the month in which the paternity leave has begun.35 The parental benefit is
paid to socially insured persons – mothers or fathers - taking care of a child.
Claimants must be employed on the day they are granted the benefit. If a person
takes the parental leave until the child is one years old, the amount is 60% of recipi-
ent’s average wage subject to insurance contributions. If the leave is until the child
reaches the age of 1.5, the amount is 43.75% of the recipient’s average wage subject
to insurance contributions. When the recipient of the parental benefit resumes work
or earning income as a self-employed, the amount received is 30% of the granted
benefit.
The child benefit is available to individuals who are permanent residents in
Latvia, independently if they are socially insured or not.36 Although there are no
specific conditions regarding the country of birth or nationality of the child, it is
required that the child has a personal identification number granted in Latvia. This
number is granted to all Latvian residents (temporary and permanent).37 Child ben-
efits are financed from the general state budget. The child care benefit and allowance
can be received at the same time, if the maternity benefit has not been granted for

35
Saeima, Law on On Maternity and Sickness Insurance (Likums par maternitātes un slimības
apdrošināšanu), adopted on 19.06.1998, Section 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, https://likumi.lv/doc.
php?id=38051. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
36
Saeima, Law on State Social Allowances (Valsts sociālo pabalstu likums), adopted on 31.10.2002,
Section 4, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=68483. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
37
Saeima, Law on Population Register (Iedzīvotāju reģistra likums), adopted on 27.08.1998,
https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=49641. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
268 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

the same child for the same period of time. These benefits are granted to a person
who is taking care of a child for a specific period. Therefore, the parents have to
agree on who will receive both the parental benefit and allowance for child care, as
both benefits are granted to one of the parents.
The bilateral social security agreements signed with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus
grant access to family benefits to nationals of these countries residing in Latvia and
to Latvian nationals residing in these countries. The agreement with Russia pro-
vides access to maternity/paternity benefit, child care allowance, child birth allow-
ance, and family state benefit. The agreement with Ukraine provides access to
maternity/paternity benefit, child care benefit, child birth benefit, and family state
allowance. The agreement with Belarus provides access only to maternity and pater-
nity benefits.

17.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The benefit for ensuring the guaranteed minimum income level is a cash benefit
granted to families or individuals who are in need and do not gain sufficient
income.38 The benefit is granted by the social service of the local governments. The
minimum amount is determined by the Government and financed from the state
budget. Only permanent residents are entitled to claim this benefit. This includes
EU and non-EU nationals and their family members who are permanent residents
and have resided in Latvia at least three months or six months if they arrived in
Latvia for employment purposes and can prove that they are searching for job. Upon
granting the benefit, the social service signs an agreement with the beneficiary on
the activities that the later has to undertake in order to improve own or family social
situation.39 If any of the recipients of the benefit does not carry out the agreement,
the amount of the granted benefit may be reduced by the guaranteed minimum
income level of the person not carrying out the duties of participation.40 The bilat-
eral social security agreements signed with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus cover

38
Saeima, Law on Social Services and Social Assistance (Sociālo pakalpojumu un sociālās
palīdzības likums), adopted on 31.10.2002, Section 1, https://likumi.lv/ta/id/68488-socialo-pakal-
pojumu-un-socialas-palidzibas-likums#p36. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
39
Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures for the Calculation, Granting, Disbursement of the Benefit for
Ensuring the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level and for the Entering into an Agreement
Regarding Participation (Kārtība, kādā aprēķināms, piešķirams, izmaksājams pabalsts garantētā
minimālā ienākumu līmeņa nodrošināšanai un slēdzama vienošanās par līdzdarbību), adopted on
17.06.2009, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=193738. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
40
Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures for the Calculation, Granting, Disbursement of the Benefit for
Ensuring the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level and for the Entering into an Agreement
Regarding Participation (Kārtība, kādā aprēķināms, piešķirams, izmaksājams pabalsts garantētā
minimālā ienākumu līmeņa nodrošināšanai un slēdzama vienošanās par līdzdarbību), adopted on
17.06.2009, Section 17, 18, https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=193738. Last accessed 3 May 2020.
17 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Latvia 269

access to the guaranteed minimum benefit for the nationals of these countries resid-
ing in Latvia and for Latvian nationals residing in these countries.

17.3 Conclusions

The access to the Latvian social security benefits is generally based on the principle
of employment, social insurance contributions, and permanent residence. Most
social benefits and services are available to socially insured permanent residents. At
the same time, the state offers minimum protection also to non-insured permanent
residents. Foreigners with temporary residence permits who are not socially insured
are the least socially protected group. There have been no major political debates on
access of foreigners to the social security scheme in general.
Along with other Baltic states, Latvia has been very sensitive to immigration
from outside the European Union and stringent about maintaining their ethnic bal-
ance and protecting its language and culture. This sensitivity reflects the region’s
contentious history with the Soviet Union, including population transfers and endur-
ing effects of Russification policies. Baltic states have been less than successful in
managing integration and social cohesion issues. The Migrant Integration Policy
Index (MIPEX) has continuously noted the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists in
all three Baltic countries (Birka 2019). Despite increasing shortages of labour force
in recent years, immigration policy has not been a priority of recent Latvian
Governments. Facilitating re-emigration is seen as a key measure to address
these issues.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Aidukaite, J. (2009). Old welfare state theories and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe:
Challenges and implications. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 42, 23–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2009.02.004.
Aidukaite, J. (2011). The “Baltic welfare state” after 20 years of transition. In M. Lauristin (Ed.),
Estonian human development report. Baltic way(s) of human development: Twenty years on
(p. 71). Tallinn: Eesti Koostoo Kogu.
Aidukaite, J. (2013). Changes in social policy in the Baltic States over the last decade (2000–2012).
Ekonomika, 92, 89–105.
Aidukaite, J. (2019). The welfare systems of the Baltic states following the recent financial crisis
of 2008–2010: Expansion or retrenchment? Journal of Baltic Studies, 50, 1–20.
270 A. Kamenska and J. Tumule

Birka, I. (2019). Can return migration revitalize the Baltics? Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
engage their diasporas, with mixed results. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/
can-return-migration-revitalize-baltics-estonia-latvia-and-lithuania-engage-their-diasporas
Hazans, M. (2019). Emigration from Latvia: A brief history and driving forces in the twenty-­
first century. In R. Kaša & I. Mieriņa (Eds.), The Emigrant communities of Latvia (IMISCOE
Research Series). Cham, Springer.
Muižnieks, N. (Ed.). (2006). Latvian-Russian relations: Domestic and international dimensions
(pp. 12–13). LU Akadēmiskais apgāds. https://www.szf.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/szf_faili/
Petnieciba/sppi/lat_un_starp/latvian-russian_relations_final%281%29.pdf.
Rajevska, F., & Romanovska, L. (2016). Latvia: Both sides of the economic recovery success
story. In K. Schubert, P. de Villota, & J. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Challenges to European welfare
systems (pp. 473–495). Springer.
Toots, A., & Bachmann, J. (2010). Contemporary welfare regimes in Baltic states: Adapting post-­
communist conditions to post-modern challenges. Studies of Transition States and Societies,
2(2), 31–44. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/26114992.pdf.
Zelče, V. (2011). Major flows of migration: Early 19th century to 1991. In B. Zepa & E. Kļave
(Eds.), Latvia. Human development report 2010/2011. National Identity, mobility and capabil-
ity (pp. 53–69). Riga: University of Latvia Press.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 18
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Lithuania

Romas Lazutka and Jekaterina Navicke

18.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
and Main Migration Features in Lithuania

This section aims to contextualize the national welfare regime, the main migration
patterns and policy developments in Lithuania. The focus is on the welfare provi-
sions for different groups based on citizenship and residence, i.e. for resident nation-
als, non-national residents, and non-resident nationals.

18.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

Lithuania has designed its social security system in a very short period of time, after
restoring its independence in 1990. Different factors influenced the formation of the
new social security system: inheritance from the Soviet period, the direct or indirect
influence of foreign experience, institutions and experts who advised on social secu-
rity reform issues, the necessity to adapt the social security system to the market
oriented economy and democratic political system. Under the influence of the above
mentioned factors, a new independent social security system was formed. The
Lithuanian social security model does not completely correspond to any of the well-­
known classifications of welfare regimes, as it counts with mixed features of differ-
ent welfare models (Medaiskis 1998).

R. Lazutka (*) · J. Navicke

Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 271

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_18
272 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

On the one hand, it can be classified as Bismarckian as it heavily relies on social

insurance principles (Aidukaite et al. 2012). Until recently, the share of social con-
tributions was 75% of the total financing as compared to around 55% on average in
the European Union (EU).1 The main social risks are covered by insurance schemes:
disability and old-age pensions, sickness, maternity, unemployment, health, work
accidents and occupational disease. Only family benefits, social care services,
means-tested social assistance, non-contributory social and state pensions are cov-
ered by non-contributory social protection schemes.
On another hand, researchers argued that Lithuania has developed the neoliberal
model (Lazutka et al. 2018). The macro-economic performance of Lithuania was at
a high level after joining the EU in 2004. Lithuania’s annual disposable income per
capita is now close to that of Slovenia and the Czech Republic, the most advanced
countries in Central East Europe (ibid.).
However, the impressive macro-economic performance of the country has so far
failed to reduce, or has even exacerbated a number of social problems that are
threatening its social and demographic sustainability (Sommers and Woolfson
2014). Lithuania is often criticized by major international institutions for dispropor-
tionally high effective taxation on labour, low public revenue, insufficient measures
against poverty and inequality (e.g. OECD 2018). The system is characterized by a
small share of employees’ compensation in the national income, low income redis-
tribution via tax-cash benefits system, low expenditure on social protection, and
very high rates of poverty and inequality in the context of the EU. The “small gov-
ernment” and “cheap labour” rhetoric still prevails in the political debate on main-
taining the country’s economic competitiveness. Not surprisingly, Lithuania was the
most rapidly depopulating country in the EU within the period of 2004–2014, losing
about 1% of population annually, mostly due to emigration (Lazutka et al. 2018).
Social security is administered mainly by several institutions operating at the
national level, i.e. the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the State Social
Insurance Council and the State Social Insurance Fund Board with its local offices,
the National Employment Service with its local offices, the State Patients Fund, etc.
Municipal social assistance units are responsible for means tested social assistance,
categorical family assistance benefits and social care services. Migration process is
handled by the Department of Migration. The State Social Insurance Fund Board,
the State Patients Fund, and municipalities also provide services for migrants in the
field of social protection.
The Republic of Lithuania has international bilateral agreements on social secu-
rity with neighboring countries and states that have historically been in the same
political and economic space, i.e. Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova. The agreements with
these countries are applicable to all social transfers, including a provision on pen-
sion payments. The terms of the latter agreement also apply to Canada. The
agreement with Russia is applied only to pensions. There are diplomatic notes

1
Eurostat (2019). ESSPROS data by scheme, own calculations. Eurostat Database: https://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 273

concerning the transfer of social security benefits for Lithuanian citizens who
acquired rights to them in the U.S. and currently reside in Lithuania. Former bilat-
eral agreements on social security with Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic,
and the Netherlands no longer applied after Lithuania joined the EU. Instead, the
Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems applies.

18.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Lithuania faced high levels of emigration in its recent history. The rapid out-­
migration from Lithuania to the Russian Federation started following the restoration
of independence in 1990. It was influenced by changing military, political and pub-
lic administration structures, when many Russian families decided to leave the
country (Thaut 2009). Emigration of Lithuanians also intensified in the context of
political, social, and labour market transition (Kuzmickaite 2003). The period was
marked by high unemployment and low salaries, low labor protection and uncer-
tainty about the future. Hence, Lithuania’s labour emigration in the 1990s can be
understood as a strategy to protect against the risks and to take advantage of the
opportunities associated with the country’s economic transition (Thaut 2009). The
primary destinations of labour emigration in the 1990s were the United States,
Germany, and Israel (OECD 2003). Other important destinations of labour emi-
grants included the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland.
According to Statistics Lithuania, the largest number of emigrants were between the
ages of 20 and 29, followed by those 30 to 39 years old.2 As Lithuania was outside
of the EU, these flows were largely illegal or semi-legal and emigrants were not
covered by social security schemes in the countries of destination. Data of Statistics
Lithuania (ibid.) reveal a negative net migration of more than 20,000 emigrants per
year over the decade of the 1990s.
Lithuania’s EU accession in 2004 opened new opportunities for intra-EU mobil-
ity. Lithuanian labour emigration is taking place within a new context and at a
greater level than that of the 1990s. According to the neo-classical economic theory,
the relative wage and unemployment differentials between EU countries play a pri-
mary role in encouraging Lithuanian labour emigration. For example, net average
earnings of a married couple with two children were 8 times higher in EU15 than in
Lithuania in 2004. In 2015, this ratio reduced to 4.4, but remains high for attracting
emigrants from Lithuania.3 Social security standards are also in general higher in
the countries of destination compared to Lithuania.
The network theory of international migration adds a second argument for high
rates of Lithuanians’ out-migration to EU15 countries. Increasing networks of

2
Statistics Lithuania (2006). International Migration of Lithuanian Population. Vilnius: Statistics
Lithuania.
3
Eurostat (2019). Annual net earnings [earn_nt_net]. Eurostat Database: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/data/database. Last update: 05-02-2019.
274 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

emigrants facilitate others in finding jobs, obtaining housing and in decreasing the
costs and risks of migration (Martin et al. 2006). The Lithuanian diaspora, particu-
larly in the UK and Ireland, lessen concerns about leaving the familiar culture, as
well as decrease feelings of dislocation upon arrival in the destination country
(Thaut 2009). Diaspora networks may also serve as informal protection against
social risks, while social protection rights are being coordinated within the EU.
As a result, the total Lithuanian population decreased from 3.706 million people
at its peak in 1992 to 2.794 million on 1 January 2019.4 In 27 years’ time, Lithuania
lost around 25% of its population. Should the current trend remain unchanged, the
population in Lithuania will only be 2.4 million in 2030, which represents another
14% decline compared to 2019.5
Nevertheless, the migration patterns have recently started to change. In 2018,
32,200 residents of Lithuania emigrated, which is 33% less than in 2017. The num-
ber of emigrants per thousand inhabitants has fallen from 16.9 (in 2017) to 11.5 (in
2018). 28,900 people immigrated to Lithuania in 2018. The number of immigrants
increased by 1.4 times compared to 2017. 57% of all immigrants are citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania, who returned to Lithuania. Nearly half of foreign immi-
grants were Ukrainians, 26% Belarusians, and 6% Russian citizens. Compared to
2017, in 2018, the number of immigrants from Ukraine increased by 32%, Belarus
by 20%, and Russian citizens by 19% (Gudavičius 2019). Decrease of unemploy-
ment rate and increase of wages were among the major factors. Brexit may have
added an extra argument for return migration. Moreover, some Lithuanian employ-
ers are increasingly turning to recruit cheaper labour from Ukraine and Belarus to
fill Lithuania’s emigration induced labour shortages. Workers from these non-EU
countries do not benefit from free movement, but they can work in Lithuania if the
country’s employers go through the proper procedures. Social protection of those
immigrants may become an issue for the national social policy in the future.
By 2004, Lithuania had fully harmonized its legislation on migration in line with
the EU acquis and is following common rules on EU social security coordination.
The most recent Strategy for the Demographic, Migration, and Integration Policy
for 2018–2030 was adopted in September 2018.6 The main objective of the Strategy
is to ensure a positive population change and a balanced age structure. To ensure
proper management of migration flows, the Strategy provides for encouraging
return migration and a balanced arrival of foreigners to satisfy national interests.
The Strategy also sets out to improve the economic welfare, social security, and
psychological/emotional well-being of Lithuanian emigrants, strengthen their bond
with the country and living environment, and pursue an effective diaspora policy.

4
Statistics Lithuania (2019). https://osp.stat.gov.lt/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize?hash=103cad31-9227-
4990-90b0-8991b58af8e7#/
5
Eurostat (2019). Population on first January by age, sex and type of projection [proj_15npms].
Eurostat Database: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Last update: 05-02-2019.
6
Seimas (2018). Strategy for the Demographic, Migration, and Integration Policy for 2018–2030.
20 September 2018. https://www.lrs.lt/sip/portal.show?p_r=119&p_k=2&p_t=260865
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 275

18.2 Migration and Social Protection in Lithuania

The conditions under which Lithuanian and foreign citizens can access social secu-
rity in Lithuania vary depending on the type of benefit. With some exceptions,
nationality and period of prior residence are not among eligibility criteria and the
general procedures for accessing social security are the same for all individuals.
Because of the prevailing contributory nature of social protection in Lithuania, in
most cases, the right to social benefits is linked to individuals’ employment status
and insurance record. Nationality and length of residency are not substantial factors
for the right to social protection in the country. Nevertheless, agencies administrat-
ing residence permission (the Department of Migration) and work permission (the
Employment Service) are involved in the process of social protection of migrants
together with the other social security agencies. On the other hand, non-resident
nationals are entitled to benefits from Lithuania under the EU social security coor-
dination framework or on the basis of bilateral social security agreements with third
countries.

18.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment protection is regulated by the Law on State Social Insurance (1991).

The system is based on social insurance principles, which is financed by social
insurance contributions paid to the Public Social Insurance Fund (there is no unem-
ployment assistance scheme in Lithuania). Employees and self-employed, both
nationals and foreigners, who reside and work in Lithuania are compulsory covered
by the scheme. They are eligible for unemployment benefits on the same terms.
Nationals residing abroad cannot claim unemployment benefits from Lithuania.
Inactive people are not allowed to join the unemployment insurance scheme
voluntarily.
There is no requirement for a minimum period of residence in the country to
access unemployment benefits. However, there is a minimum period of insurance
required, i.e. 12 months during the last 30 months. Periods of contributions in dif-
ferent EU countries are aggregated and this aggregation rule is also included in the
bilateral agreements with Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Benefits are paid by the
country were the claimant is insured at the moment of application.
The maximum duration for which claimants can receive unemployment benefits
is 36 weeks. Beneficiaries have to be registered with the national authorities as job-­
seekers, regularly prove job search and be available for work. Failing to cooperate
with the employment services and/or actively look for a job (e.g. not accepting suit-
able job offers, failure to report to the authorities, not attending the trainings) can
lead to the permanent revocation of the benefit.
Nationals who decide to move abroad can export unemployment benefits in
accordance to the rules of social protection coordination in the European Economic
276 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

Area (EEA) and EU - regulation No 883 (Clause 64). Equally, benefits may be
exported for non-EU residents if they decide to permanently move abroad. Export
of unemployment benefits to other non-EU/EEA countries are allowed on the basis
of bilateral agreements. The agreements that Lithuania has signed with Moldova,
Ukraine and Belarus foresee an aggregation of the entitlement periods and the pay-
ment of benefits according to the law of the country of residence. In all the above
cases, benefits may be conditionally exported for up to three months, i.e. the claim-
ant has to be registered as a jobseeker at the local employment office of the host
country. After three months, unemployed are allowed to apply for an extension of
the benefit payment for extra three months.

18.2.2 Health Care

The Law on Health System (1994)7 describes the structure and main principles of
the national health system organized in two levels: national and local. Institutions of
health care are subordinated either to municipalities or the Ministry of Health.
Private health sector is limited, particularly in the sphere of inpatient care. Since
2008, the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) has increasingly been contracting
private providers for specialist outpatient care (Jankauskienė and Medaiskis 2014).
The health system is funded by the NHIF through a national health insurance
scheme based on compulsory participation (Murauskienė et al. 2013). A major
source of financing are the compulsory health insurance contributions. There are
other allocations from the State budget and direct payments by patients.
All national citizens who are able to work (including economically inactive) are
mandatory covered by the national health insurance system and are required to pay
contributions. Economically inactive because of age, poor health or education are
insured by the state via subsidies from the State budget to the NHIF. EU and non-
­EU citizens permanently living in Lithuania are covered by the national healthcare
insurance on the same conditions as national residents. Non-EU citizens who have
a temporary residence permit in Lithuania and work in Lithuania or are registered
as unemployed, as well as their family members, are covered too. EU and non-EU
nationals without permanent residence are provided with emergency medical care
only. Lithuanian citizens residing abroad are not covered by the Lithuanian health-
care system for sickness benefits in kind. They are covered according to the rules of
coordination of social protection in the EEA and the EU (Regulation No 883).
Lithuanians can receive non-emergency health care services in the others countries
only with permission of the Ministry of Health when national medical institutions
are not able to provide adequate treatment. The NHIF covers the costs of treatment

7
The Law on Health System of the Republic of Lithuania (1994). Valstybės žinios, 1994-08-17, Nr.
63–1231. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.5905/JTsmtWIBhW
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 277

on such occasions. The NHIF also covers medical care for Lithuanian pensioners
residing in the others EU countries.
Full costs of medical treatment are paid directly by the NHIF. However, there are
patient charges and patients have to cover the costs of pharmaceutical products in
case of outpatient treatment. Part of these costs for some categories of patients are
covered by the health care scheme. People who do not pay compulsory contribu-
tions and are not insured by the state must cover the cost of treatment personally,
except for urgent and emergency health care which is always covered by the state.
Compulsory social insurance scheme for cash sickness benefit is an earnings-­
related benefit that applies to all employees. Most categories of self-employed are
covered by sickness insurance since January 1, 2017. Sickness benefit is granted
based on the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance (2000).8 The required
contribution record to be eligible for this benefit is at least three months during the
last year, or at least 6 months during the last two years. The benefit is paid starting
from the third day of sickness (employer pay remuneration for the two first days)
until the capacity to work has been restored, or the level of work incapacity has been
defined. The benefit amount is calculated based on compensatory income (CI) with
maximum and minimum thresholds. The monthly CI is an average wage, calculated
based on the insured person’s income earned in the three consecutive months pre-
ceding the incapacity. The sickness benefit is 80% of the CI, but must not be lower
than 25% of the insured income of the current year. It cannot exceed 5 times the
State insured income for the current year.
All foreign residents are eligible to claim sickness benefits on the same terms as
nationals. They are compulsory insured if employed or self-employed. There is no
minimum period of residence in the country that non-EU citizens have to prove to
become eligible for sickness benefits. Periods of contributions in different EU coun-
tries are aggregated, this aggregation rule also being stipulated in the bilateral agree-
ments with Belarus and Ukraine. The payment continues if the beneficiary leaves
the country, but still has an employment contract with a local employer.

18.2.3 Pensions

Lithuania’s old-age public pension system consists of three components: Statutory

pensions (hereafter named as Social insurance pensions or as the First pillar pension
scheme), Social pensions, and State pensions. Their modes of financing and relative
importance in the overall pension package vary greatly.
The social insurance pension scheme is the most important in terms of coverage
and provision of income in old age and incapacity. The system is financed by
employers, employees and contributions of the self-employed on PAYG basis. It is

8
The Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance of the Republic of Lithuania (2000).
Valstybės žinios, 2000-12-29, Nr. 111–3574. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/
TAIS.116582?jfwid=6vyuslcbg.
278 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

designed to replace part of the work income when an insured person retires (or
becomes disabled or dies). The pension benefit consists of two components. The
basic component is calculated based on the contributory period. The supplementary
component is earnings-related. Working pensioners can combine social insurance
pension with income from work without any deductions. In 2018, the retirement age
was 63 years 8 months for men and 62 years 4 months for women. It is gradually
prolonged to 65. The contribution period for a full pension is 30 years and is gradu-
ally prolonged to 35.
Work incapacity pensions are granted to individuals who have a minimal contri-
bution record required for the entitlement. The requirements on the minimum and
compulsory contribution periods for work incapacity pension are related to claim-
ants’ age.
State pensions are a public non-contributory scheme. They are granted mainly to
two rather large population groups. The first group includes post-war anti-Soviet
resistance fighters and people who have suffered from the former Soviet regime.
The second group is military and police officers, judges, scientists, artists, and other
smaller professional groups. As they are covered by the Social insurance pension
scheme, State pensions provide supplementary income protection.
The social assistance pension is designed as a minimum income pension for
those not protected by the social insurance pension scheme. Assistance pensions are
paid to the elderly or disabled persons who did not acquire social insurance rights
due to insufficient contribution record. Most recipients of this pension are disabled
people from childhood.
There is no minimum period of residence in Lithuania after which non-EU citi-
zens become eligible to claim a public contributory pension. On the other hand,
non-resident Lithuanians are also entitled to claim a public contributory pension
from Lithuania. However, a major challenge is the aggregation of contribution peri-
ods for migrant employees. For Lithuanian citizens, the contribution periods in
other EU countries are aggregated to determine the entitlement to a contributory
pension in Lithuania (based on Regulation No 883). Each country finances a share
of the total pension according to the length of service in that country. Also, national
citizens who decide to permanently move abroad can export their pensions from
Lithuania. In that case, periods completed in other countries are aggregated to deter-
mine their entitlement to a contributory pension. However, the pension amount is
limited. The period of employment during the Soviet regime (up to 1990) is not
taken into account when calculating pension benefit.
Non-EU citizens who receive a contributory pension from Lithuania are allowed
to export this pension when deciding to permanently move abroad, but only if they
move to a country with which Lithuania has a bilateral agreement covering pen-
sions. Such agreements exist with six non-EU countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova,
Russia, the USA and Canada. All six countries are important for pension provision
because of intensive migration flows due to historical reasons. The first four coun-
tries belong to the post-Soviet space, whereas North America is among the most
popular destinations for Lithuanians apart from several EU countries. In case of
Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Canada, the agreements foresee an aggregation of
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 279

contribution periods and financing shares of pension benefits by each country

according to the contribution periods. Thus, provisions of bilateral agreements are
similar to the EU regulations. The agreement with Russia covers pension payments
in the pensioners’ country of residence, taking into account contribution period in
the other country. The agreement with USA covers only export of pensions.
The remaining non-contributory state and social pension schemes are not so
important from the perspectives of migration. Eligibility conditions of the state pen-
sions are related to specific occupational status (e.g. military or policy service) or
historical events (e.g. victims of the anti-Soviet resistance). Social pensions are paid
only for those, who don’t receive any other pensions from Lithuania or abroad, and
a permanent residence permit is required. This residence permit also requires a
source of living, hence the social tourism of elderly is not possible.

18.2.4 Family Benefits

The policies to provide income support for children and families include contribu-
tory and non-contributory benefits. Contributory benefits are much more important,
i.e. public expenditures on contributory benefits are several times higher than expen-
ditures on non-contributory family and children benefits.
Contributory benefits mainly protect the income of families during the first
2 years after childbirth and include maternity leave benefits, paternity leave benefit,
and childcare leave benefit. All three benefits are paid if applicants have sickness
and maternity social insurance record for at least 12 months over the last 24 months.
Resident citizens, EU nationals and non-EU citizens, as well as Lithuanians resid-
ing in other EU countries who are employed and have contributed for 12 months of
insurance for this risk are eligible to claim contributory benefits. There are no spe-
cific requirements regarding prior residence in Lithuania, or regarding the country
of birth or residence of the applicant’s child. Periods of contributions are aggregated
for people who migrate in the EU. Bilateral agreements with Belarus and Ukraine
also cover aggregation of contributory periods and the benefit is paid by the country
where individuals are insured when submitting the claim.
Maternity leave benefit is a cash benefit paid to a pregnant woman for the number
of working days in the applicable period. The maternity benefit is equal to 100% of
recipient’s average monthly reimbursable income (AMRI) with a minimum amount
specified. Paternity leave benefit can be claimed by fathers for the first month of
childcare. The amount is 100% of the recipient’s AMRI with a minimum amount
specified.
Childcare leave benefit is a monthly payment aiming to support early childcare
at home. It may be paid for 1 or 2 years by decision of beneficiaries. Mothers
(fathers) can choose to take the benefit only during the first year (compensation rate
is 100% of the beneficiary’s reimbursed remuneration), or during the 2 years’ period
(compensation rate is 70% during the first year and 40% during the second year). It
is allowed to work and receive full amount of the benefit during the second year.
280 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

Because of the high rates of contributory benefits, families eligible for maternity
or paternity benefits are well protected against poverty (Lazutka et al. 2013).
Non-contributory benefits for children include the birth grant, the child benefit,
the benefit to a conscript’s child, the guardianship benefit, the housing grant (settle-
ment) and the pregnancy grant.9 The most important of them is the universal child
benefit introduced since January 2018. Every child from birth to 18 years of age (or
21 for those who continue studying) receives a monthly benefit of €50. Non-­
contributory child benefits are paid to EU citizens working in Lithuania and non-EU
citizens having permanent permission to reside in the country. EU nationals who are
not employed in Lithuania have to declare residency and live in Lithuania for at
least 3 months. Non-EU citizens with temporary residence permits are eligible for
non-contributory family benefits if they worked for at least 6 months, or are unem-
ployed, have permission to work and are registered at the Employment Service.

18.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

In Lithuania, the main element of the Minimum Income scheme is the Law on Cash
Social Assistance for Low-Income Residents (2003),10 which gives the legal basis
for providing Social Assistance Benefits (SAB). Municipalities are responsible for
SAB administration and provision. The SAB scheme is centralized in terms of eli-
gibility criterion, conditionality rules and formula of the benefit amount. However,
local authorities have the right to apply exemptions for eligibility criteria and con-
ditionality rules in the provision of SAB.
The monthly benefit level is 100% of the difference between the State Supported
Income (SSI) per person per month and an actual income of a single resident or the
first family member, 80% for the second member and 70% for the third and later
members. The Government sets the SSI as the basis for calculation of SAB level. It
is set by a political decision and has no substantial basis. Since January 2018, SSI is
equal to €122. A family (or a person) is entitled to SAB when the value of the assets
does not exceed an established threshold. There is an income disregard to increase
incentives to work. A share of work-related income from 15% to 35% can be disre-
garded depending on the number of children.
The benefit is awarded for 3 months and may be renewed if the circumstances
have not changed. Claimants are required to provide themselves with all possible
income that they can obtain. Family members (person) have to meet at least one of
the following requirements related to employment status and ability to work:

9
The Law on Benefits for Children of the Republic of Lithuania (1994). Nr. I-621. Valstybės žinios,
1994-11-18, Nr. 89–1706. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.5981/JJrWzNnfOp
10
The Law on Cash Social Assistance for Low-Income Families (Single Persons) of the Republic
of Lithuania (2003). Valstybės žinios, 2003-07-23, Nr. 73–3352. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/lega-
lAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.215633?jfwid =6vyuslc26
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 281

• they are employed for at least 3 months;

• they are not employed because they are studying, are of retirement age; have dis-
ability of group I and II; are unemployed; are nursing a family member.
SAB recipients can be asked to take part in “socially useful activities” organised
by municipalities and failing to do so may result in cancellation of the payment.
Only resident nationals and EU citizens are eligible for social assistance. The period
of prior residence is not an eligibility requirement, but the declared country of resi-
dence must be Lithuania. Those receiving the benefit can temporarily leave the
country. However, there is a requirement to look for a job, to perform community
work and to be ready for inspection of the living conditions. Non-EU citizens with-
out long-term or permanent residence cannot claim this benefit. That is because
there is a requirement to have a legitimate source of subsistence for residence per-
mits or citizenship. Thus, claiming a minimum income benefit is exclusive in the
process of seeking residence permits.

18.3 Conclusions

The Lithuanian social security model has mixed features of the Bismarckian and
liberal models of welfare state. The main social risks are covered by means of social
insurance. Social benefit levels are in general low as social protection financing as a
share of the GDP is around two times lower compared to the EU average. Social
security is administered mainly by the State Social Insurance Fund, the State
Patients Fund, and municipal social assistance units. These institutions also provide
services for migrants in the field of social protection. Migration process is handled
by the Department of Migration.
Low levels of social provisions and earnings, as well as high levels of poverty
and inequality are among the driving factors of intensive negative net migration
from the country. In 27 years’ time of regained independence, Lithuania lost around
25% of its population. Intensive emigration started following the restoration of
independence in 1990, when families of Soviet army officers and administration left
the country. Later, transition to market economy was marked by high unemploy-
ment, low labour income and social protection benefits, and uncertainty about the
economic future. Many Lithuanians decided to emigrate for jobs to Western coun-
tries. Before joining the EU, emigration flows were largely undeclared and emi-
grants were not covered by the social security schemes in the host countries. They
were not covered in Lithuania either, because of entitlement based mainly on the
contributions into the national Social Insurance Fund.
Lithuania’s EU accession in 2004 stimulated emigration, especially to the UK
and Ireland. These countries did not apply a transitional period of 7 years to open
their borders to workers from the new member states and decided to allow immi-
gration immediately. The largest Lithuanian diaspora is in these countries. Brexit
leaves social protection of this big community of Lithuanian emigrants uncertain.
282 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

For the date, Lithuanian emigrants and immigrants from the EU countries are
protected as the country had fully harmonized its legislation on migration in line
with the EU acquis and is following common rules on EU social security
coordination.
Because of the prevailing contribution-based financing of social benefits, the
right to social protection is generally linked to individuals’ employment status and
insurance record. Nationality and the length of residency are not among the factors
that condition access to social protection of EU and non-EU foreigners in Lithuania.
For EU-citizens, the periods of contributions in different EU countries are aggre-
gated in order to be eligible to claim benefits. For third-country nationals, the aggre-
gation of contribution periods, export benefits and some others specific issues
depend on bilateral agreements. Lithuania has bilateral agreements with countries
that historically have been in the same political and economic space, but outside of
the EU, i.e. Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia (only on pensions); but also with
countries in North America, e.g. traditional destination of emigration from Lithuania
in the XX century.
Despite the high emigration rate during several decades, the migration pattern is
starting to change. Decreasing unemployment, increasing wages and Brexit facili-
tate return migration of Lithuanians. Also, the number of foreign residents is
increasing. Nearly a half of foreigners are Ukrainian citizens, a quarter are from
Belarus. Lithuanian employers are increasingly willing to recruit cheaper labour
from the neighbouring Slavic countries. Immigrant workers are covered by all social
insurance schemes if they are employed legally and by categorical social protec-
tions schemes if they have permission to reside and to work in Lithuania. However,
occasions of illegal immigration started to emerge in mass media (Mrazauskaitė
2017). This problem is also noticed by the State Labour Inspectorate.11 Nevertheless,
shortage of the labour force and increasing labour costs for business, rather than
social protection issues, are on the agenda of public and political debates. The recent
Strategy for the Demographic, Migration, and Integration Policy for 2018–2030
aims at encouraging return migration and attraction of foreign workers to satisfy
demand for labour, while concern on stronger social protection for everybody –
resident nationals and foreigners alike – and on the emerging problem of illegal
immigration are not emphasized.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

11
Verslo žinios (2017). VDI įspėja: nelegalių darbuotojų iš užsienio daugės [State Labour
Inspectorate warns: the flow of illegal immigrants will increase]. 2017-12-28. https://www.vz.lt/
vadyba/personalo-valdymas/2017/12/28/vdi-ispeja-nelegaliu-darbuotoju-is-uzsienio-dauges#
ixzz5jSS4UJFl
18 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Lithuania 283

References

Aidukaitė, J., Bogdanova, N., & Guogis, A. (2012). Gerovės valstybės kūrimas Lietuvoje: mitas ar
realybė? (Establishment of the welfare state in Lithuania: Myth or reality?). Vilnius: Lietuvos
socialinių tyrimų centras. Sociologijos institutas. http://lstc.lt/download/Geroves_valstybes_
kurimas_visas.pdf.
Gudavičius, S. (2019). Gyventojų skaičiaus mažėjimas sulėtėjo, Lietuvoje – 2,8 mln.
žmonių [The slowdown of the decreasing population number. 2.8 mln. people in
Lithuania]. Verslo žinios, 2019, 01–11. https://www.vz.lt/verslo-aplinka/2019/01/11/
gyventoju-skaiciaus-mazejimas-suletejo-lietuvoje%2D%2D28-mln-zmoniu#ixzz5iQ28u9bu
Jankauskienė, D., & Medaiskis, T. (2014). Pensions, health and long-term care Lithuania. Country
Document. March 2014. ASISP, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocu-
ments.jsp?advSearchKey=asisp&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0
&country=0&year=0&orderBy=docOrder
Kuzmickaite, D. (2003). Between two worlds: Recent Lithuanian immigrants in Chicago
1988–2000. Vilnius: Versus Aureus.
Lazutka, R., Skučienė, D., Černiauskas, G., Bartkus, A., Navickė, J., & Junevicienė, J. (2013).
Socialinis draudimas Lietuvoje: kontekstas, raida, rezultatai (Social Insurance in Lithuania:
Context, Development, Results). Vilnius: LSTC.
Lazutka, R., Juška, A., & Navickė, J. (2018). Labour and capital under a neoliberal economic
model: Economic growth and demographic crisis in Lithuania. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(9).
Martin, P., Abella, M., & Kuptsch, C. (2006). Managing labour migration in the twenty-first cen-
tury. New York: Yale University Press.
Medaiskis, T. (1998). What model of social security should be chosen by post-communist Baltic
states? Second international conference on social security. Jerusalem. https://www.issa.int/
html/pdf/jeru98/theme1/1-4d.pdf
Mrazauskaite, L. (2017). Paini įdarbinimo tvarka ukrainiečius nustūmė į „šešėlį“ [Difficult sys-
tem of employment pushed Ukrainians into the “shadow economy”]. Lietuvos žinios. 2017
gruodžio 29 d. https://www.lzinios.lt/Ekonomika/paini-idarbinimo-tvarka-ukrainiecius-nus-
tume-i-seseli-/257078 #145312
Murauskiene, L., Janoniene, R., Veniute, R., Ginneken, E., & Karanikolos, M. (2013). Lithuania
health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 15, 2. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/
assets/pdf_file/ 0016/192130/HiT-Lithuania.pdf.
OECD. (2003). Trends in international migration. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2018). Economic survey Lithuania. Overview. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/eco/
surveys/economic-survey-lithuania.htm.
Sommers, J., & Woolfson, C. (Eds.). (2014). The contradictions of austerity: The socio-economic
costs of the neoliberal Baltic model. London/New York: Routledge.
Thaut, L. (2009). EU integration & emigration consequences: The case of Lithuania. International
Migration, 47(1), 191.
284 R. Lazutka and J. Navicke

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 19
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Luxembourg

Nicole Kerschen

19.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Luxembourg

19.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

Luxembourg established a Bismarckian social insurance scheme between 1901 and

1911, when it was in a Customs Union with Germany (Kerschen 2001; Scuto 2001).
All blue-collar workers and white-collar workers, whose wages were under a cer-
tain limit, were compulsory insured against four social risks: sickness, industrial
accidents, invalidity and old age. In the 1930s, social insurance was progressively
extended to private sector employees. Wage supplements for children and an unem-
ployment allowance for workers were also created. After World War II, universal-
ism, the main principle of Beveridge’s doctrine, was adopted. During the 1950s and
1960s, social insurance was extended to civil servants, self-employed workers and
the agricultural sector. The social security system was still based on the male-­
breadwinner model: workers were granted social rights as insured persons, whereas
family members were entitled to derived rights. All children raised in Luxembourg
were entitled to family benefits.
In the 1970s, Luxembourg changed from an industrial economy to a more ser-
vice oriented one, this also affecting the national welfare system. As a Bismarckian
model, the funding of the social protection system was characterised by social con-
tributions levied on wages and shared by employers and workers. Little by little, the

N. Kerschen (*)
Institute for Social Science of Politics (ISP), University Paris West Nanterre La Defense/ENS
Cachan, Nanterrre Cedex, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 285

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_19
286 N. Kerschen

State became the main contributor. From 2002 to 2016, the participation of the State
in the incomings of the social protection system was about 50% and it fluctuated
between 54% and 59% of the current public spending1 . Despite this fundamental
change, the practice of a professional activity in Luxembourg remained the basic
criteria for registration as an insured person and an equivalent status was given to
new categories of “workers”. Regarding social protection rights, the Welfare State
was expanded in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Government created a guaranteed
minimum income scheme (1986) and a long-term care insurance for the insured
population from the cradle to the tomb (1998).
In 2008, the “statut unique” put an end to the traditional legal differences between
blue-collar and white-collar workers. The four pension insurance funds and the five
sickness insurance funds, based on socio-economic groups, merged into one pen-
sion insurance fund and one sickness fund. The current Luxembourg system is com-
posed of the following institutions:
• the Common Centre for Social Security (le Centre Commun de la Sécurité soci-
ale – CCSS2), which registers workers and their family members and collects the
social contributions;
• the National Sickness Fund (la Caisse Nationale de Santé – CNS3), providing
benefits in kind and in cash in case of sickness and maternity;
• the National Pension Fund (la Caisse Nationale de Pension – CNAP4), which
pays invalidity and old age pensions;
• the Fund for the future of the children (la Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants –
CAE5), which ensures the delivery of family benefits and compensation for
parental leave;
• the Agency for the promotion of employment (l’Agence pour la promotion de
l’Emploi – ADEM6), which provides benefits in cash and services to the
jobseekers;
• the National Social Inclusion Office (l’Office National d’Inclusion Sociale-
ONIS7), which replaced since January 2019 the National Solidarity Fund (le
Fonds National de Solidarité – FNS), which pays a guaranteed minimum income
(REVIS) as a social assistance benefit.

1
Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale (IGSS), Rapport général sur la sécurité sociale au
Grand-Duché de Luxembourg 2018, Ministère de la Sécurité sociale, janvier 2019, p. 13. https://
igss.gouvernement.lu/fr/publications/rg/2018.html. Accessed 29 May 2019.
2
http://www.ccss.lu/. Accessed 29 May 2019.
3
http://cns.public.lu/fr.html. Accessed 29 May 2019.
4
http://www.cnap.lu. Accessed 29 May 2019.
5
http://cae.public.lu/fr.html. Accessed 29 May 2019.
6
http://www.adem.public.lu/en.html. Accessed 29 May 2019.
7
https://onis.gouvernement.lu/fr.html. Accessed 29 May 2019.
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 287

19.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

In the nineteenth century, Luxembourg was an emigration country. Since 1842,

Luxembourg was in the Customs Union with Germany and during that period,
Luxembourg nationals emigrated mainly to France, the United States and South
America. From 1891 onward, industrialization took place and main economic sec-
tors channeled the request for foreign labor force. In the south of the country, mono-­
industry, iron and steel metallurgy, was grounded on foreign capital and labor force.
In 1913, 60% of the staff was of foreign origins. World War I put an end to the
Customs Union with Germany and to the attraction of foreign labor force. But this
first period of immigration forged the Luxembourg political and legal approach of
immigration. The Luxembourg citizenship was defined as ius sanguinis and, from
1878 onward, as ius soli for the children of foreign parents born in Luxembourg
(Scuto 2010, 2013). On trade unions’ initiative, a protectionist migration policy was
put into place after World War I and until the 1970s economic crisis, national work-
ers had a quasi-monopole on the labor market of the steel and metal industry in the
south of the country, whereas foreign workers were considered as “additional labor”.
After World War II, Luxembourg signed bilateral agreements with Italy (1953),
Portugal and Yugoslavia (1970), regulating employment and social security for
workers from these countries. Family reunification was authorised only for Italian
workers with a permanent contract and for Portuguese workers. A major change
came with the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957.
As a founding Member State, Luxembourg could no longer apply a protectionist
migration policy to workers coming from an EU Member State, who were entitled
to free movement and residence.
In the post-industrial period, Luxembourg became more and more an immigra-
tion country.8 From 1981 to 2018, the resident population grew from 364,600 to
602,000 persons. In 1981, Luxembourg citizens represented 73% of the resident
population, this share decreasing to 57% by 2011 and 52% by 2018. Yet, the natu-
ralization rate in Luxembourg is below the EU28 average. 72.3% of new acquisi-
tions of citizenship are granted to citizens of another EU Member State, with
Portuguese citizens accounting for the largest share9. In fact, the large majority of
foreigners residing in Luxembourg are EU nationals10 (Table 19.1).

8
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes (2018). Rapport d’activité, Chapitre 8, 87–119.
https://maee.gouvernement.lu/content/dam/gouv_maee/minist%C3%A8re/rapports-annuels/Rap
port-annuel-2018.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2019.
9
EUROSTAT. Acquisition of citizenship statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/ Acquisition_of_citizenship_statistics#EU-28_Member_States_granted_citi-
zenship_to_825.C2.A0400_persons_ in_2017. Accessed 29 May 2019. STATEC (2019).
Naturalisations de la nationalité luxembourgeoise selon la nationalité d’origine 2010–2018. https://
statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12910&IF_Language=fra&Mai
nTheme=2&FldrName=2&RFPath=100. Accessed 29 May 2019.
10
STATEC (2019). 93% de la population luxembourgeoise sont des ressortissants de l’UE-28.
Regards N°07, 05/2019. https://statistiques.public.lu/catalogue-publications/regards/2019/
PDF-07-2019.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2019.
288 N. Kerschen

Table 19.1 Population residing in Luxembourg (1981–2018)

1981 1991 2001 2011 2018
Population 364,600 384,400 439,500 512,400 602,000
Luxemburgish Citizens 268,800 271,400 277,200 291,900 313,800
Foreigners 95,800 113,000 162,300 220,500 288,200
From
Portugal 29,300 39,100 58,700 82,400 96,500
France 11,900 13,000 20,000 31,500 45,800
Italy 22,300 19,500 19,000 18,100 22,000
Belgium 7900 10,100 14,800 16,900 20,200
Germany 8900 8800 10,100 12,000 13,100
UK 2000 3200 4300 5500 5900
Netherlands 2900 3500 3700 3900 4300
Other EU Member States 10,600 6600 9200 21,500 36,500
Third-country nationals 9200 22,500 28,700 43,800
Source: STATEC, https://statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.
aspx?ReportId=12853&IF_Langua ge=fra&MainTheme=2&FldrName=1. Accessed 29 May 2019

The recent demographic changes are mainly due to economic reasons (Hartmann-­
Hirsch 2008). Since the 1980s, Luxembourg has had a continuous growth of GDP
per capita (the highest in the EU), and of the interior employment. The concept of
interior employment is used by STATEC to document Luxembourg’s atypical labor
market: it includes workers residing in Luxembourg and frontier workers residing in
the neighboring countries, but excludes Luxembourg nationals residing in
Luxembourg and working abroad, as well as employees working in Luxembourg for
European and international institutions. During the past 20 years, interior employ-
ment grew by 93%, the number of workers with residence in Luxembourg by 53%
and the number of frontier workers by 180% (Table 19.2).

19.2 Migration and Social Protection in Luxembourg

All persons engaged in a professional activity in Luxembourg, whatever their

nationality or residence, are registered as insured persons by the Common Centre
for Social Security. They are compulsory insured and in principle, all active persons
have the same social rights. However, their situation might be different when it
comes to accessing legal residence and employment. Three main groups can be
identified in this regard:
(a) Luxembourg citizens and their family members, whatever their nationality,
have an unconditional right to reside and work in Luxembourg;
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 289

Table 19.2 Interior employment by residence (labor contract only) (1998–2018)

1998
2000 2005 2010 2015 2018
Workers residing in Luxembourg 147,622
156,513 168,296 186,288 209,776 227,213
68.70%
65.42% 59.43% 55.86% 55.76% 54.65%
Workers with Luxembourgish – – 93,568 99,124 106,324 111,443
citizenship 33.0% 29.7% 28.2% 26.8%
Workers from other EU Member – – 66,897 77,769 91,438 100,013
States 23.7% 23.3% 24.3% 24%
Non EU Workers – – 7831 9395 12,014 15,757
2.7% 2.8% 3.2% 3.8%
Frontier workers 67,242 82,711 114,911 147,193 166,406 188,447
31.30% 34.58% 40.57% 44.14% 44.24% 45.35%
Total 214,864 239,224 283,207 333,481 376,182 415,660
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: STATEC, Interior Employment (data of the first trimester of each year)
https://statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12916&IF_Language=fr
a&MainTheme=2&FldrName=3&RFPath=92. Accessed 29 May 2019.

(b) EU citizens residing in Luxembourg for more than 3 months must prove either
that they are workers or self-employed persons in Luxembourg [Article 6 (1) 1.
of Law of 29 August 200811] or that they have sufficient resources for them-
selves and their family members not to become a burden on Luxembourg’s
social assistance system and have comprehensive sickness insurance coverage
in Luxembourg [Article 6 (1) 2.]. EU citizens can also reside abroad and work
in Luxembourg, which is the case of thousands of frontier workers;
(c) Non-EU citizens need a residence permit allowing them to work as employees.
This permit is issued to foreigners who have the required professional qualifica-
tions and hold a labour contract for a post made available by ADEM, as long as
the exercise of their activity does not undermine the priority in employment
granted to Luxembourg and EU nationals and is of an economic interest for
Luxembourg [Article 42 (1)].
Regarding social security, Luxembourg and EU nationals are covered by EC
Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, whereas third-­
country nationals may be covered by bilateral/multilateral social security
agreements.12

11
Memorial A N°138 of 10 September 2008. http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memo-
rial-2008-138-fr-pdf.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2019.
12
Luxembourg signed bilateral social security conventions, regulating especially old age pensions
and access to healthcare, with the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Bosnia Herzegovina,
Canada, Capo Verde, Chile, China, USA, India, Japan, Macedonia, Morocco, Moldova,
Montenegro, Philippines, Quebec, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ex-Yugoslavia, Uruguay. https://www.
secu.lu/conv-internationales/conventions-bilaterales/. Accessed 29 May 2019.
290 N. Kerschen

19.2.1 Unemployment

Articles L. 521-1 to L. 527-4 of the Labor Code, hereafter ‘LC’ (Code du travail13)
regulate unemployment benefits provided by ADEM.14 Luxembourg has never cre-
ated an unemployment insurance scheme, for which employers and employees
would have to pay social contributions. The costs of unemployment benefits are
covered through the Employment Fund, which is financed by taxes. Moreover,
Luxembourg has no unemployment assistance scheme, but those who drop out of
the unemployment scheme, can claim the guaranteed minimum income (REVIS).
All legal residents who lose their job are entitled to unemployment benefits as
long as they are involuntarily unemployed; available and fit for work; aged between
16 and 65; willing to accept suitable jobs or active employment measures and claim
the benefit within 2 weeks. Eligible claimants must have worked for at least
26 weeks over the 12 months prior to the registration at ADEM. Benefits are
earnings-­related and represent 80% of the wages. The duration of payment depends
on the duration of work during the previous 12 months, which means that a person
who has worked during 8 months is entitled to the payment of unemployment ben-
efits for 8 months.
In the case of EU nationals, Article 64 of EC Regulation 883/2004 allows them
to export unemployment benefits after 4 weeks of unemployment registration and
during 3 months. A U2 form must be provided to the jobseeker by ADEM and
handed over to the employment service of the host country. The jobseeker must also
register in the host country. If the jobseeker does not return to Luxembourg after
3 months, he/she will lose the right to unemployment benefits. Except for this dis-
posal, it is not possible to export an unemployment benefit when a person moves
from Luxembourg to another country.
Unemployment has some consequences on residence rights. An employed EU
citizen is still considered as a worker without time limit when he/she loses his/her
job, if the following conditions are fulfilled: he/she is involuntarily unemployed, has
worked for more than 1 year in Luxembourg and is registered as a jobseeker at
ADEM. However, EU citizens will be considered as workers for only 6 months if:
(a) they are involuntarily unemployed and have registered as jobseekers at ADEM
at the end of a fixed-term labour contract of less than 1 year and; (b) they are invol-
untarily unemployed during the first 12 months after hiring and have registered as
jobseekers at ADEM. For the renewal of the residence permit, a non-EU foreigner
must be employed under a labor contract or be self-employed. If he/she is unem-
ployed, the renewal of the residence permit may be refused.

13
http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-code-travail-20170703-fr-pdf. Accessed 29
May 2019.
14
Memorial A N°11 of 26 January 2012. http://data.legilux.public.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-memo-
rial-2012-11-fr-pdf. Accessed 29 May 2019.
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 291

19.2.2 Health Care

Book I of the Social Security Code, hereafter ‘SSC’ (Code de la sécurité sociale)
regulates healthcare benefits in kind and in cash and the maternity benefit. Articles
1–7 define the beneficiaries of the compulsory regime and the conditions for access-
ing the voluntary regime. Benefits in kind are established under Articles 17–24,
benefits in cash under Articles 9–16 and the maternity benefit under Article 25.
All persons engaged in a professional activity in Luxembourg, employees and
self-employed, whatever their nationality or residence, are covered by a compulsory
healthcare and maternity insurance. Moreover, insured persons who are temporary
posted abroad by their employer remain covered by the Luxembourg sickness and
maternity insurance. Several groups of individuals are exempted from compulsory
insurance: (a) those who perform their professional activity only occasionally and
in a non-habitual way for a duration designed in advance, which should not exceed
3 months per calendar year and; (b) upon request, those performing a professional
activity in Luxembourg for a period which does not exceed 1 year and who remain
affiliated in a sickness and maternity regime abroad. Healthcare insurance is
extended to the family members of the insured person, to whom they are co-insured
on the basis of derived rights.
National citizens, EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners, who reside legally in
Luxembourg, who have been compulsory insured and who lose their rights, have the
possibility to subscribe to a voluntary insurance, if they were active in Luxembourg
for at least 6 months and they applied within the 3 months following the loss of their
rights (case 1). Likewise, national citizens, EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners
legally residing in Luxembourg who are not covered by the compulsory regime,
have the possibility to subscribe a voluntary insurance (case 2). Compulsory insured
persons and voluntary insured persons are obliged to pay contributions.
Regarding benefits in kind, patients have free choice of the healthcare providers,
who are covered by a collective agreement signed between the CNS and the repre-
sentatives of the providers. They are entitled to all healthcare provisions foreseen in
the Social Security Code. For some special provisions, prior authorisation from
CNS is needed. Terms, modalities and rates are inscribed in the CNS’ Statutes.
Insured persons become eligible to claim benefits in kind from the first day of affili-
ation if they are compulsory insured or if they subscribed to a voluntary insurance,
because they lost their rights for compulsory insurance (case 1). If they subscribed
to a voluntary insurance without prior affiliation (case 2), they will become eligible
to claim benefits in kind only after 3 months. There are two types of coverage: reim-
bursement system and benefits-in-kind system. When patients see a physician, they
pay the costs of medical treatment and later get reimbursed by the CNS. When they
buy drugs or are hospitalised, the costs are directly paid to the heathcare provider by
the CNS. In both cases, patients have to pay the costs that remain at their own
expense.
Regarding cash benefits, since 2008, employers have to compensate the first
13 weeks of temporary incapacity to work due to sickness (Article L. 121–6 LC).
292 N. Kerschen

Employees are entitled to retain their full wage. Employers are members of a Mutual
Insurance Company, which grants them reinsurance. Wages are reimbursed to the
employers by the CCSS on behalf of the Mutual Insurance Company. Healthcare
insurance pays a sickness allowance to self-employed people up to 52 weeks, pro-
vided they have worked for at least 104 weeks before they got sick. The same rules
apply to employees, who remain incapable to work after the period of 13 weeks.
The amount of compensation is equal to at least the guaranteed minimum wage and
to a maximum of five times this guarantee. The payment of the sickness benefit in
cash is suspended when the insured person stays abroad without prior authorisation
by the CNS.
As for the maternity benefit, this is granted to women who have worked in
Luxembourg for at least 6 months during the 12 months prior to the maternity leave.
There is no condition regarding the country of birth or residence of the child.
Maternity leave is compulsory and includes a prenatal leave, which starts 8 weeks
prior to the anticipated date of birth, and a postnatal leave of 8 weeks after the deliv-
ery. Postnatal leave may be extended to 12 weeks under special conditions. The
maternity benefit depends on previous earnings and is the same than the sickness
benefit.

19.2.3 Pensions

Book III of the SSC regulates old age and invalidity pensions (Art. 170 to 268). All
persons engaged in a professional activity in Luxembourg, employees and self-­
employed, whatever their nationality or residence, are covered by the compulsory
pension insurance (Article 170 SSC),
It is possible for national citizens, EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners to join
the pension scheme on a voluntary basis in two cases. Those who were compulsory
insured in Luxembourg and lost their rights can subscribe to a voluntary insurance
if they were active in Luxembourg for at least 12 months during the last 3 years
before they lost their rights and if they applied within the 6 months following the
loss of their rights (Art. 173 SSC). It is also possible for persons who are not engaged
in a professional activity in Luxembourg due to family responsibilities to subscribe
a voluntary insurance if they have their legal residence in Luxembourg, were com-
pulsory insured for at least 12 months, are under the age of 65 and are not entitled
to a personal pension (Art. 173bis SSC).
Luxembourg has two different old age pension schemes, one applicable in the
public sector and one applicable in the private sector. Since 1998, convergence
between both schemes was promoted. In order to bring the national legislation in
line with the European directives and ECJ case law, Luxembourg established the
so-called ‘second pillar’ of company pensions. It added also the ‘third pillar’ of
personal pensions thanks to tax-free allowances for pension contributions.
The pension scheme in the private sector is a pay-as-you-go system. It is funded
by a global contribution rate at 24% shared by the workers (8%), the employers
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 293

(8%) and the State budget (8%). It guarantees a minimum pension of 90% of the
social minimum wage for all insured persons who can prove a professional career of
at least 40 years. The standard retirement age is 65 years, which means that workers
who contributed for at least 10 years (including contributions on a voluntary basis)
are entitled to a pension. Early retirement is possible under specific conditions. In
2012, the general scheme of pensions in the private sector underwent a policy shift.
The main change concerned a progressive reduction, spread over 40 years, of the
gross pension replacement rate linked to the average revenue of the professional
career, which will force workers to postpone retirement and to stay longer in
employment, if they want to receive the same level of pensions than in the past.
For national citizens and EU foreigners, the periods that they completed in
another EU Member State will be aggregated according to EU Regulation 883/2004
to determine their entitlement regarding pension rights. This regulation does not
apply to non-EU foreigners whose rights depend on bilateral conventions. The fol-
lowing credited periods are taken into account for the entitlement to pensions of
national citizens, EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners: periods during which per-
sons benefit from allowances replacing wages, provided that contributions for the
pension insurance have been paid; 24 months for parents who care for the education
of their children in Luxembourg; periods during which an informal carer takes care
of a person in need for long term care at home; periods covered by parental leave;
periods during which persons are entitled to REVIS; military service periods.
Those who are not engaged in a professional activity in Luxembourg due to fam-
ily responsibilities, those who left a foreign pension regime not covered by a bilat-
eral/multilateral convention or those who left the pension regime of an international
organization providing for a flat-rate redemption value of pension rights, can back-­
purchase the corresponding periods provided they are legally residing in
Luxembourg, they were compulsory insured for at least 12 months, they are younger
than 65 and not entitled for personal pension rights. National citizens and EU for-
eigners can export the public contributory pension according to EU Regulation
883/2004, when they decide to permanently move abroad. Non-EU foreigners are
not allowed to export their pension, except if a social security convention, which
applies to them, provides for it.
As for invalidity pensions, according to Art. 187 SSC, persons are considered as
invalid if they, due to prolonged illness, infirmity or wear, lose their capacity of
work and become unable to exercise their last professional activity or any other
occupation in accordance with their forces and capacities. They are entitled to an
invalidity pension before the age of 65 if they have completed a probationary period
of 12 insurance months during the last 3 years prior to the date when invalidity was
recognised or since the sickness benefit in cash expired. If invalidity is due to an
accident or to a professional sickness, no probationary period applies. The benefi-
ciary of an invalidity pension must give up, in Luxembourg and abroad, any profes-
sional activity, as a self-employed subject to compulsory insurance and as an
employee other than an ‘insignificant’ activity. Moreover, up to 50 years, beneficia-
ries must comply with rehabilitation or retraining measures prescribed by the pen-
sion fund. Otherwise, the invalidity pension might be suspended. There are also
294 N. Kerschen

provisions for preferential employment for handicapped people. According to the

size of a company, a specific number of posts are reserved for people with disabili-
ties. Invalidity pension is automatically converted into an old age pension when the
beneficiary reaches the age of 65.

19.2.4 Family Benefits

Since 2016, a universal benefit (‘benefit for the future of the children’) replaced the
traditional family benefit. Each child is entitled to a flat-rate benefit of 265 EU per
month (Law of 23 July 201615). This new rule applies to children born since 1st of
August 2016, to the children of a person who starts working in Luxembourg since
that date and to persons with children who settle down in Luxembourg after 1st of
August 2016. For all other children, the former regulation remains applicable,
meaning they are entitled to traditional family benefits dependent on the composi-
tion of the family group. According to Art. 269 SSC, each child who resides effec-
tively and on an ongoing basis in Luxembourg and has his/her legal domicile there,
is entitled to the child benefit. Under this Article, ‘legal domicile’ means that the
person has an authorization to reside in Luxembourg, is legally registered in a
municipality and has established the main residence in Luxembourg. Furthermore,
family members, which means children born in wedlock, children born out of wed-
lock and adopted children of a person, who is subject to Luxembourg legislation
according to EU regulation or to a bilateral social security agreement providing for
family benefits in the country of employment, are entitled to the child benefit.
Moreover, children as family members must reside in a country covered by the EU
regulation or by a bilateral agreement. This condition applies to national citizens,
EU foreigners and non-EU foreigners, when the father and/or mother is employed
in Luxembourg and children reside abroad.
The law provides for exceptions. The condition of the ‘effective and ongoing’
residence on the part of the child is presumed satisfied when the child resides tem-
porarily abroad with a parent who is studying in an University abroad, who has been
posted abroad by the employer but remains covered by the Luxembourg social secu-
rity scheme, whom is granted the status of a diplomatic mission, etc. When a parent
works and resides in Luxembourg and children reside in another EU country with
the other parent who does not work, they are entitled to receive the Luxemburgish
child benefit in the country of their residence. When the parent is an EU national
cross border worker and the second parent is employed in the other EU country
where both reside together with their children, two legislations are applicable at the
same time and for the same family benefit. EU regulation provides for a priority
rule. The State of the residence of the children will pay the family benefit.

Memorial A N°38 of 28 July 2016. http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2016/07/23/n2/jo.

15

Accessed 29 May 2019.

19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 295

Luxembourg’s benefit will be suspended up to the amount of the benefit in the resi-
dence country of the children. If the amount of Luxembourg’s benefit is higher than
the amount of the benefit in the other country, Luxembourg must pay the supple-
ment corresponding to the difference between both benefits.
Paternity leave is guaranteed by Art. L. 233-16. 2 LC to all employees, regardless
of their nationality or residence, who work under a labour contract in the private
sector. It has been increased from 2 to 10 days since January 2018.16 Paternity leave
is granted for all children who are born in wedlock or out of wedlock or who have
been adopted, even if they reside abroad. Two months before childbirth, the father
must inform the employer that he wants to benefit from paternity leave. Therefore,
he must produce a medical certificate. Paternity leave must be taken during the
2 months following childbirth and it can be split. Wages during the paternity leave
are paid by the employer, who is entitled for reimbursement from the State for the
days which exceed the first 2 days. Reimbursement is limited to 5 x the Social
Minimum Wage.
The scheme of parental leave recently refocused for both parents (Law of 3
November 201617). Each parent can benefit from a full-time leave of 4–6 months or
from a part-time leave under special conditions, as long as the child is under the age
of 6. During parental leave, an income related benefit is granted to the beneficiary.
It is calculated on the average of the professional income from the 12 months pre-
ceding the beginning of parental leave. Its lower limit is equal to the social mini-
mum wage for non-qualified workers and its upper limit is equal to the social
minimum wage increased by two third. Both parents are entitled to parental leave
provided they comply with the general conditions to access parental leave. Each
parent must have been affiliated to the Luxembourg social security at the date when
the child was born and, without interruption, during the 12 months preceding the
beginning of the parental leave, either under one or more labour contracts totalling
at least 10 working hours per week or as an apprentice or as a beneficiary of an
allowance replacing wages for which contributions for sickness and maternity
insurance have been paid. Children must be raised in the household and parents
must devote themselves principally to the raising of their children. One parent must
take the parental leave directly after the maternity leave, whereas the other parent is
free to take it later. There are no conditions regarding nationality or residence of the
parents and the child.

16
Law of 15 December 2017, Memorial A N°1082 of 18 December 2017. http://data.legilux.pub-
lic.lu/file/eli-etat-leg-loi-2017-12-15-a1082-jo-fr-pdf.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2019.
17
Memorial A N°224 of 10 November 2016. http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2016/11/03/n1/
jo. Accessed 29 May 2019.
296 N. Kerschen

19.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Luxembourg established recently a new ‘income for social inclusion’ (REVIS).

Law of 28 July 201818 amended Law of 29 April 1999 and replaced the previous
‘guaranteed minimum income’. The scheme is organized centrally under the super-
vision of the Ministry for Family Affairs, Integration and the Greater Region.
REVIS includes two different types of allowances: a) an inclusion allowance, which
represents the difference between the guaranteed minimum resources calculated
according to the composition of the household and the household’s effective
resources; and b) an activation allowance, aiming to support persons who partici-
pate in professional or social activation measures established in an action plan
between ONIS and the beneficiaries. If the household has two adults, both of them
are, in principle, entitled to activation measures.
EU and non-EU foreigners who apply for REVIS must have residence rights in
Luxembourg, which means that they must be registered in the National Register for
Natural Persons and reside actually where they established their usual residence.
Non-EU foreigners must reside in Luxembourg for at least 5 years during the last
20 years or have long-term resident status. This condition does not apply to family
members of national citizens or EU foreigners. EU nationals and family members,
whatever their nationality, are not entitled to the REVIS during the first 3 months of
their residence in Luxembourg or during the period they are looking for a job in
Luxembourg, if they came to Luxembourg as jobseekers. This disposal does not
apply to employees and self-employed, to persons who retain their status and to
their family members, whatever their nationality.
REVIS is a means-tested benefit. Income and/or properties that individuals pos-
sess in Luxembourg and/or abroad are taken into account in order to determine the
eligibility for the minimum income benefit. Likewise, applicants must have
exhausted other social benefits or civic responsibilities of maintenance by family
members to become eligible. If they are fit for the labour market, they must be reg-
istered at ADEM and search for a job.

19.3 Conclusions

Luxembourg’s population has changed under economic pressures. Today, half of the
population are immigrants. Nationals from other EU Member States form the vast
majority of the foreign population. They are covered by EC Regulation 883/2004 on
the coordination of social security systems and entitled to the same social rights
than Luxembourg nationals. Non-EU foreigners are covered by bilateral social
security agreements that Luxembourg has signed with more than 20 countries.

18
Memorial A N°630 of 30 July 2018. The new law entered into force on the 1st January 2019.
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2018/07/28/a630/jo. Accessed 29 May 2019.
19 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Luxembourg 297

Overall, immigrants legally residing and working in Luxembourg do not have major
problems to access the social security system. However, entitlement to the guaran-
teed minimum income is restricted to EU citizens, including Luxembourg nationals,
and to third-country nationals, who comply with very strict length of residence
requirements.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant Agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Hartmann-Hirsch, C. (2008). Les immigrés hautement qualifiés : le cas du Luxembourg.

Migrations Société. Centre d’information et d’études sur les migrations internationales,
2008/3, N°117-118, 25–41.
Kerschen, N. (2001). Aux origines des assurances sociales luxembourgeoises. Analyse de la docu-
mentation parlementaire relative à l’assurance obligatoire contre les maladies et à l’assurance
obligatoire contre les accidents (1897–1902). BLQS, Volume 10, ALOSS, 61–99. https://
www.aloss.lu/fileadmin/file/aloss/Documents/BLQS/BLQS_10.pdf#pageMode=bookmarks.
Accessed 29 May 2019.
Kerschen, N. (2009). The Welfare system of Luxembourg: From past dependency to European
approach. In K. Schubert, U. Bazant, & S. Hegelich (Eds.), The handbook of European Welfare
systems (pp. 310–327). London: Routledge.
Kerschen, N. (2016). Luxembourg’s Welfare State in the crisis: a semi success story. In K. Schubert,
P. de Villota, & J. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Challenges to European Welfare Systems (pp. 443–472).
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Kerschen, N. (2020). Chapter 19: Changes in Luxembourg’s Welfare system (1998–2018):
Coalition governments and Europeanization as major driving forces. In S. Blum, J. Kuhlmann,
& K. Schubert (Eds.), Routledge handbook of European welfare systems (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Scuto, D. (2001). La naissance de la protection sociale au Luxembourg. Le contexte économique
et social, les acteurs et les enjeux politiques. BLQS, Volume 10, ALOSS, 39–59. https://
www.aloss.lu/fileadmin/file/aloss/Documents/BLQS/BLQS_10.pdf#pageMode=bookmarks.
Accessed 29 May 2019.
Scuto, D. (2010). Histoire des immigrations au Luxembourg (XIXe – XXIe siècles,). In 25 ans
d’action pour l’immigration. OGB-L, 25e Anniversaire du département des immigrés.
Scuto, D. (2013). Report on Luxembourg. EUDO Citizenship Observatory. Robert Schuman
Centre for Advanced Studies. Edinburgh University Law School.
298 N. Kerschen

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 20
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Malta

Sue Vella

20.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Malta

This chapter provides an analysis of social security benefits in Malta by paying

particular attention to differences in the conditions of access to five types of benefits
(unemployment, health care, family benefits, pensions and guaranteed minimum
resources) by different groups. Generally speaking, Malta’s welfare system has tra-
ditionally been very similar to the Southern European model, sharing many of its
key characteristics such as: relatively low overall social expenditure where con-
tributory benefits are considerably more generous than poverty relief; reliance on
families as care providers, together with low female employment rates; well-­
protected employment coexisting however with an irregular and unprotected periph-
ery; and a high involvement of the Catholic Church in the provision of welfare
(Ferrera 1996). Similar to other Southern European states, Malta’s welfare system
has evolved to promote female employment, to enable the balance of work and care
responsibilities, to strengthen work incentives and include those furthest from the
labour market through a variety of training and support measures. These changes
have mainly been driven by Malta’s accession to the EU in 2004 and the policy
convergence it has brought about. Accession has also meant the extension of the
Social Security Act to EU nationals residing in Malta on the same terms as Maltese
nationals. There have been numerous benefit changes in recent decades, driven by
principles of non-discrimination, adequacy, sustainability and activation.

S. Vella (*)
Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Faculty for Social Wellbeing, University of
Malta, Msida, Malta
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 299

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_20
300 S. Vella

20.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The introduction of the first statutory social security benefit in Malta dates back to
the late nineteenth century. Other benefits were introduced in the early twentieth
century, most notably through the Old Age Pensions Regulations1 of 1948. However,
it was not until 1956 that the structure of the current social security system was
established. In 1956, the National Insurance Act and the National Assistance Act
were passed, and the Department of Social Security2 was set up. In 1987, compre-
hensive amendments were made that brought together the Old Age Pensions
Regulations, the National Insurance Act and the National Assistance Act into one
legislation – the Social Security Act.3 The Social Security Act provides for a con-
tributory scheme and a non-contributory one. Regarding the contributory scheme,
all persons who are between 16 years and pensionable age must pay a weekly con-
tribution to this scheme, though a number of groups are exempted.4 The contribu-
tory scheme includes benefits such as sickness, healthcare, unemployment, injury,
invalidity, retirement, maternity and widowhood. To be eligible to the non-­
contributory scheme, applicants must meet the conditions of a means-test. Benefits
under this scheme include social assistance and children’s allowances among others.
Social security in Malta is financed through taxation and national insurance con-
tributions by employers, employees, and self-employed/self-occupied5 persons.
Employers and employees both pay Class One contributions that represent 10% of
the employee’s basic weekly wage subject to a maximum of €45.58 in 2018, pay-
able by both parties. Self-employed/self-occupied persons who earn more than
€910 per annum pay Class Two contributions based on their annual net profit or
income in the preceding year. Class two contributions represent 15% of net income,
subject to a maximum of €68.37 per week, in 2018.6 The State contributes 50% of
the combined contributions of employers and employees, and of s­elf-employed/

1
Old Age Pensions Regulations (1948)/Regolamenti dwar il-pensjonijet għax-xjuħ (1948). http://
justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=9762&l=1. Accessed 30
March 2019.
2
Department of Social Security. History of Social Security in Malta. https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/
en/about-us/Pages/The-History-of-Social-Security-in-Malta.aspx. Accessed 24 June 2018.
3
Social Security Act (1987)/Att dwar is-Sigurtà Soċjali (1987). http://justiceservices.gov.mt/
DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8794. Accessed 30 March 2019.
4
Including individuals who are in full-time education or training; persons not in gainful employ-
ment, or those whose annual income falls below a floor established by the Inland Revenue
Department; persons in receipt of parents’, survivors’, invalidity or retirement pensions; or those
in receipt of non-contributory social assistance or pensions.
5
Self-occupied persons are those who earn income from trade, business, profession, vocation or
any other economic activity that exceeds €910 per annum. Self-employed are those who receive
income from rents, investments, capital gains or any other income (Commissioner for Revenue n.d.)
6
Commissioner for Revenue. https://cfr.gov.mt/en/inlandrevenue/personaltax/Pages/SSC2-2018.
aspx. Accessed 30 March 2019.
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 301

self-occupied persons. Long-term benefits (injury, invalidity, retirement and survi-

vors) are financed on a ‘pay as you go’ basis. Non-contributory social assistance is
funded through taxation and general revenue.

20.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Malta has, like many other countries in Southern Europe, traditionally seen higher
levels of emigration than immigration. It was not until the early years of the new
millennium that levels of immigration started to rise. Malta went from being a very
homogenous society to one where the free movement of EU nationals in Malta from
2004 broadly coincided with a steady inflow of asylum seekers. The main reasons
for immigration to Malta are predominantly labour migration (especially among EU
nationals following accession) and asylum seeking; the latter started to rise in 2003,
peaking in 2008 and rising again in 2013 before dropping markedly after 2014.7
Figure 20.1 illustrates immigration by broad citizenship groups. A steady rise
may be noted over the past decade, both in the number of persons immigrating to
Malta as well as the equivalence of each annual inflow to the total population, rising
from 1% in 2006 to 4.5% in 2017. Although in the first decade of the new millen-
nium, third-country nationals (TCNs) outnumbered EU citizens, by 2015, the situa-
tion was reversed.
According to the Parliamentary Question Number 2527,8 27,228 non-EU for-
eigners resided in Malta in 2017, with the three largest groups originating from
Libya (13% of TCNs), Serbia (10%) and the Philippines (9%). On the other hand,
JobsPlus9 data (based on compulsory employee registration) show that foreign
workers in formal employment in Malta have risen from 3854 persons in 2002 to
44,565 persons in 2017 (equivalent to 20.2% of the employed population in Malta).
Of these, 78% were EU nationals and 22% TCNs. Most non-EU foreign workers
came from the Philippines and Serbia/Montenegro (both 30%), India (11%), Libya
and the Russian Federation (5%), Turkey, China, Nigeria and Bosnia/Herzegovina
(all 4%), and Eritrea (3%).
There is a discrepancy between the total number of third-country nationals resid-
ing in Malta according to PQ2527 (27,228 persons) and those in registered employ-
ment (9804 persons). If both sets of data are correct, it would seem that 17,424

7
UNHCR (2019). Figures at a glance. https://www.unhcr.org/mt/figures-at-a-glance. Accessed 30
March 2019.
8
House of Representatives (2017). Foreign nationals living in Malta. Parliamentary Question
2527- Sitting 57 of 27.11.17. Malta: Parliament. http://pq.gov.mt/PQWeb.nsf/7561f7daddf0609
ac1257d1800311f18/c1257d2e0046dfa1c12581e5005436dc!OpenDocument. Accessed 4
March 2018.
9
JobsPlus (2019). Foreign nationals employment trends. https://jobsplus.gov.mt/resources/publi-
cation-statistics-mt-mt-en-gb/labour-market-information/foreigners-data#title1.2. Accessed 30
March 2019. Jobsplus is Malta’s public employment agency.
 302 S. Vella

25000 5.0
4.5

Immigration as % of population
20000 4.0
Number of persons

3.5
15000 3.0
2.5
10000 2.0
1.5
5000 1.0
0.5
0 0.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2,016 2017

Maltese nationals Other EU nationals

Third-country nationals Immigration as % of total population

Fig. 20.1 Immigration to Malta, 2006–2017. (Source: National Statistics Office (2015, 2016,
2017, 2018a, b). NB: Comparable data for 2013 and 2014 not available at time of writing)

third-country nationals residing in Malta are not in employment (or in formal

employment). A good number of these may be inactive family members or students.
While a degree of irregular work is believed to occur among asylum seekers, there
are no estimates in this regard.
Regarding EU nationals, according to JobsPlus10 the top 10 countries of origin
are Italy (28% of all EU citizens living in Malta), the UK (17%), Bulgaria (9%),
Romania and Hungary (both 6%), Sweden and Germany (both 5%), Spain, Poland
and France (all 4%). Immigration from these EU countries has increased steadily in
recent years.
Turning to emigration, Fig. 20.2 illustrates emigration trends between 2006 and
2017. The number of Maltese nationals migrating abroad has remained quite con-
stant in recent years. Emigration from Malta has however risen among EU nationals
and third-country nationals. In 2017, total emigration was equivalent to around 2%
of the total population. Data regarding the destination countries of emigrants were
not available.

10
JobsPlus (2019). Foreign nationals employment trends. https://jobsplus.gov.mt/resources/publi-
cation-statistics-mt-mt-en-gb/labour-market-information/foreigners-data#title1.2. Accessed 30
March 2019.
 20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 303

12000 3.0

Equivalent to % of population
10000 2.5
Number of persons

8000 2.0

6000 1.5

4000 1.0

2000 0.5

0 0.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Maltese nationals Other EU nationals

Third-country nationals Emigration as % of total population

Fig. 20.2 Emigration from Malta, 2006 to 2017. (Source: National Statistics Office (2015, 2016,
2017, 2018a, b). NB: Comparable data for 2013 and 2014 not available at time of writing)

20.2 Migration and Social Protection in Malta

All persons, irrespective of nationality, who reside and work in Malta are obliged to
pay national insurance contributions under the Social Security Act, this making
them eligible for contributory benefits. The exception to this is the unemployment
benefit, to which third-country nationals who are not long-term residents are not
entitled (given that this benefit is contingent upon registration for work with the
public employment service and they are not entitled to do so). For non-contributory
benefits, persons who are legally residing in Malta may be eligible to social assis-
tance under the conditions stipulated in the Social Security Act.

20.2.1 Unemployment

Access to unemployment benefits in Malta is regulated by the Social Security Act

and the Employment and Training Services Act. Benefits are administered by the
Department of Social Security11 while the public employment service Jobsplus12 is
responsible for activation measures and the registration of jobseekers. There are two
types of unemployment benefits. Jobseekers formerly in employment who meet the

11
https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 30 March 2019.
12
https://jobsplus.gov.mt/. Accessed 30 March 2019.
304 S. Vella

contributory and job search criteria benefit from the flat-rate unemployment benefit.
In 2018, this benefit was €8.13 per day (single rate) or €12.44 per day (married
rate).13 Jobseekers who do not meet the contributory criteria can claim unemploy-
ment assistance (the maximum weekly rate for the head of household in 2018 was
€104.38 plus €8.15 per dependent household member). The special unemployment
benefit (a hybrid of the contributory benefit and social assistance) is paid to insured
persons who qualify for unemployment benefit and who, being heads of household
and also eligible for social assistance, are paid a higher rate.
Eligibility for unemployment benefit does not depend upon prior residence in
Malta, but upon meeting contributory criteria. Unemployment benefits are granted
to former employees who are involuntarily unemployed, fit and available for work,
and registered for work under the Part 1 register held by Jobsplus (if a jobseeker
does not register for work every week, the benefit is withheld). Claimants must have
paid at least 50 weeks of Class 1 contributions, of which at least 20 should have
been made in the two years preceding the application. A maximum of 156 days’
benefit is paid, provided that the number of benefit days does not exceed the number
of contributions previously paid.14 As for unemployment assistance, this benefit is
available for individuals who are heads of household, legally residing in Malta, and
registered on Part 1 of the Unemployment Register. Applicants must satisfy the
capital means test and their total income must not exceed the maximum unemploy-
ment assistance rate.15
Third-country nationals are not entitled to claim unemployment benefit. This is
because they are unable to register for work at the public employment service which,
in turn, is a requirement for receiving unemployment benefits (unless they are per-
manent residents and thus able to register for work at the public employment ser-
vice). Regarding unemployment assistance, only legally resident persons are entitled
to apply. Third-country nationals require an employment licence to work in Malta
and therefore would not be eligible to unemployment assistance, unless they are
long-term residents. As for EU nationals, because unemployment assistance is a
form of social assistance, it falls outside the scope of Regulation 883/2004. EU
nationals are thus not entitled to social assistance for their first three months in
Malta or during the subsequent job search period. This is because under Legal
Notice 191/2007, Union citizens seeking to reside in Malta are to prove that they
have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the Maltese social assis-
tance system. That said, following the Judgement Brey (C-140/12), Malta examines
each case on its own merits, depending on the conditions which rendered the Union
citizen in need of social assistance. Regarding exportability, unemployment assis-
tance is tied to residence and it is therefore not exportable. However, Maltese

13
This and all subsequent rates were derived from Department of Social Security. Benefit rates.
https://dssservices.gov.mt/BenefitPaymentRates.aspx. Accessed 21 June 2018.
14
https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Documents/Benefits-and-Assistance/UnemploymentBenefitEN.
pdf. Accessed 30 March 2019.
15
https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Documents/Benefits-and-Assistance/Unemployment%20
Assistance.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2019.
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 305

citizens residing in other EU countries can receive unemployment benefits from

Malta if they have been registered before leaving with Jobsplus for at least four
weeks and if they register with the public employment service of the host country
(in line with Regulation 883 of 2004).
The three largest groups of non-EU nationals in Malta come from Libya, Serbia
and the Philippines.16 No bilateral agreements that deal with unemployment cur-
rently exist with these countries. The three largest groups of Maltese citizens abroad
reside in Australia, Canada and the United States. Although bilateral agreements do
exist with Australia and Canada, these do not cover unemployment benefits.

20.2.2 Health Care

In case of sickness, access to benefits in kind and cash is regulated via different
pieces of legislation including the Social Security Act, the Medical and Kindred
Professions Ordinance, Hospital Fees Regulations and Health Care Fees Regulations.
Malta has a universal health care system and the fourth lowest rate of unmet health
need in the EU (Azzopardi Muscat et al. 2017). The healthcare expenditure in Malta
exceeds the EU average, being financed through taxation and general revenue and
administered by the Ministry for Health (Azzopardi Muscat et al. 2017). Services
are free at the point of use for those entitled to such services. Pharmaceutical prod-
ucts that are needed following discharge from hospital are purchased by the patient
except for those eligible to sickness assistance or free medical aid.
Eligibility to free medical aid depends upon a means-test and medical certifica-
tion; all persons entitled to social assistance are also entitled to free medical aid.
Emergency public healthcare is free of charge for Maltese citizens and their depen-
dent children; EU nationals ordinarily resident in Malta; third-country nationals
with an employment licence and paying social security contributions; citizens with
freedom of movement in Malta or those from a country with a reciprocal health
agreement; advisors and consultants to government; and students at the main post-­
secondary educational institutions. Other groups outside this list have to pay fees as
set out in the Healthcare (Fees) Regulations. Regarding planned healthcare services,
these are free of charge for Maltese and EU nationals having a certificate of entitle-
ment under EU Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. Similarly, third-country
nationals paying national insurance in Malta are entitled to treatment along the
same lines as Maltese and EU nationals and do not have to contribute towards the
cost of their treatment.
The sickness benefit is a contributory cash benefit payable to employees and self-­
occupied persons from the fourth day of illness, as the employer is obliged to pay

16
House of Representatives (2017). Foreign nationals living in Malta. Parliamentary Question
2527- Sitting 57 of 27.11.17. Malta: Parliament. http://pq.gov.mt/PQWeb.nsf/7561f7daddf0609
ac1257d1800311f18/c1257d2e0046dfa1c12581e5005436dc!OpenDocument. Accessed 4
March 2018.
306 S. Vella

the first three days. The daily rates in 2018 are €13.28 (single) or €20.51 (married).17
The benefit can last up to 156 days (or 468 days for serious illness or injury) but
cannot exceed the total social security contributions paid by the employee prior to
sickness. Sickness assistance is non-contributory and is payable when certain
defined chronic medical conditions incur exceptional expenditures. The assistance
is provided for as long as the chronic condition prevails and may be lifelong. Those
with limited means are also entitled to free medical aid (colloquially known as the
Pink Form), consisting of a limited number of medicines plus dental and ophthalmic
services.
All employed and self-employed persons, irrespective of nationality or period of
prior residence in Malta, are entitled to sickness benefits if they meet the contribu-
tory criteria. Eligible applicants must have paid at least 50 weekly contributions, out
of which 20 for the last two consecutive complete contribution years before the
beginning of the benefit year. Sickness assistance is means tested. The contributory
sickness benefit may be exported within the EU, whereas the means-tested sickness
assistance is tied to residence in Malta and cannot be exported.
Invalidity benefits are contributory benefits payable to persons who are certified
incapable of suitable full-time or regular part-time employment due to serious dis-
ease or impairment. Claimants must be under retirement age; have been in continu-
ous employment or Part 1 registration for at least 12 months preceding application;
certified incapable of suitable employment by a medical panel; and have at least 250
paid weekly contributions with an average of at least 20 contributions per year since
the age of 18. Accreditation for missing periods is possible in some cases, but unem-
ployment periods for third-country nationals are not taken into consideration for
accreditation purposes (unlike in the case of Maltese and EU nationals for which
unemployment periods can be accredited for contributory record purposes). The
invalidity benefit is exportable worldwide.
No bilateral agreements that deal with health-related benefits currently exist with
the three largest countries of origin of TCNs residing in Malta (Libya, Serbia, and
the Philippines). From the countries that represent the three most relevant destina-
tions of Maltese citizens abroad, bilateral agreements exist with Australia and
Canada, and both include invalidity pensions, which allow for a pro-rata invalidity
pension from Malta according to the number of contributions paid in Malta out of
their total working life in Malta and Australia/Canada. However, these agreements
do not cover sickness benefits in kind or in cash.

Benefit rates
17
from https://dssservices.gov.mt/BenefitPaymentRates.aspx. Accessed 30
March 2019.
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 307

20.2.3 Pensions

Pensions in Malta are regulated by the Social Security Act and the Pensions
Ordinance. The main pension is the contributory retirement pension which has two
forms: (a) the ‘two-thirds pension’ and (b) the flat-rate pension. The ‘two-thirds
pension’ is a defined-benefit scheme with a minimum and maximum rate depending
on the average of contributions paid and applicant’s pensionable income.18 The
scheme is financed by contributions on a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) basis and covers
employees and self-employed/self-occupied persons. The flat-rate pension is for
persons who have low pensionable income or who also receive a service pension.
There is also a means-tested non-contributory age pension.
Following the 2006 reforms, pensionable ages were increased, reaching 62 for
those born between 1952 and 1955 and 65 for those born on or after 1962. Applicants
must satisfy the contributions test: having paid (or been accredited) a yearly average
of at least 50 contributions from 1956 or from age 19, and/or from age 18 if born
after 1958 up to the last full year prior to retirement. Thus, a person retiring in 2018
would have had to pay 1820 weekly contributions. The minimum period of contri-
bution required is 10 years for those born before 1962 (12 years if born thereafter);
the period required for a maximum pension is now 40 years. Accreditation is pos-
sible for periods of sickness, widowhood, invalidity, unemployment, injury, child-­
raising, study, work in the Police or Armed Forces, Civil Protection, carers and
voluntary workers. Single inactive nationals may join the contributory pension on a
voluntary basis. Retrospective contributions are also possible for specific cases,19
but they cannot be made for periods when applicants were not in Malta.
As noted, unemployed residents who are over 60 and do not qualify for a con-
tributory retirement pension may be entitled to a non-contributory pension if they
satisfy the means test. Capital resources must not exceed €23,300 for a married
couple or €14,00020 in other cases. Applicants’ weekly means must not exceed the
highest rate of age pension. The contributory pension does not differentiate on the

18
The formula for pensionable income differs per retirement cohort following the 2006 reform. It
is currently calculated as follows: for employed persons born between 1952 and 1955, the pension-
able income is based upon the yearly average salary of the best full 3 consecutive years in the last
11 years prior to retirement; for self-employed/self-occupied born in these years, it is based upon
the yearly average net income of the best 10 consecutive years in the last 11 years prior to retire-
ment. The formula changes with subsequent cohorts; for the ‘youngest’ cohort (born after 1961),
the pensionable income is based upon the yearly average salary (employed) or net income (self-
employed/self-occupied) of the best 10 years in the last 40 years. See: Department of Social
Security. Contributory Retirement Pension. https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Pensions/Pages/
Contributory-Retirement-Pension-FAQ.aspx. Accessed 20 June 2018.
19
Unmarried persons who were in gainful employment but who did not effect insurance payments
pertaining to the five years before making the request for a pension; and persons aged between 59
and 64 in gainful employment who wish to make retrospective payments for missing contributions
that do not exceed five years
20
https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Documents/Benefits-and-Assistance/AgePensionEN.pdf.
Accessed 30 March 2019.
308 S. Vella

basis of nationality. Regulation 1408/71 means that pension contributions paid in

any EU country are taken into consideration when calculating the contributory pen-
sion in Malta.
Contributory pensions may be exported worldwide. As for non-contributory pen-
sions, EU citizens normally residing in Malta are entitled to apply. Third-country
nationals are not, unless they are long-term residents. Moreover, non-contributory
pensions are not exportable. As for the coverage of old-age pensions in bilateral
agreements, according to the agreement with Australia, any residence in Australia is
deemed to be a period of contribution in Malta and vice-versa. Similar provisions
apply to Maltese living in Canada and New Zealand, and vice-versa.

20.2.4 Family Benefits

Family benefits are regulated by the Social Security Act and the Employment and
Industrial Relations Act. They are financed through taxation and general revenue.
While families are supported in various other ways (for instance, through the tax
mechanism and through free or subsidised childcare), this section focuses on the
maternity benefit, the maternity leave benefit, and children’s allowances (there are
no specific schemes for paternity or parental benefits in Malta).
Maternity benefit is payable to any pregnant woman ordinarily resident in Malta
who is not in employment or is self-occupied. This benefit is of a maximum of
14 weeks, out of which 8 weeks before birth. The weekly rates in 2018 were of
€172.51 for a self-occupied woman, and €92.02 for a woman not in employment.21
The maternity leave benefit is paid by the State for four weeks to women in employ-
ment, following the 14 weeks of paid maternity leave paid by the employer. The
maternity benefit and the maternity leave benefit are non-contributory and are nei-
ther means-tested nor earnings-related. The children allowance is payable to parents
who have the custody of dependent children up to the age of 16 (or 21 if in educa-
tion or first-time jobseekers). Children’s allowance is non-contributory, means-­
tested, and it depends on family income. In 2018, the allowance ranged between
€8.66 and €22.23 per week.22
Eligibility to family benefits such as maternity benefits and children’s allowance
is based on ordinary residence in Malta, rather than nationality. Information on the
website of the Department of Social Security ties eligibility to being either citizens
of Malta or EU nationals; or married to/cohabiting with a citizen of Malta; or citi-
zens of a country that is party to the European Social Charter; or have refugee sta-
tus.23 However, the Department has clarified that all eligible residents in Malta are

21
https://dssservices.gov.mt/BenefitPaymentRates.aspx. Accessed 30 March 2019.
22
https://dssservices.gov.mt/BenefitPaymentRates.aspx. Accessed 30 March 2019.
23
https://servizz.gov.mt/en/Pages/Inclusion_-Equality-and-Social-Welfare/Social-Solidarity/
Benefits-and-Services/WEB648/default.aspx and https://servizz.gov.mt/en/Pages/Inclusion_-
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 309

entitled to apply for these family benefits, this also being reflected in the EU’s 2018
publication Your Social Security Rights in Malta. National citizens living abroad
cannot claim these benefits from Malta. In the case of children’s allowance, the
child must be ordinarily resident in Malta, and the recipient must have the care and
custody of the child. Current bilateral agreements do not cover family-related
benefits.

20.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Malta does not have a general guaranteed minimum resources scheme. While it
does have a social assistance scheme generally thought of as a ‘safety-net’, this is a
categorical scheme based on double conditionality: (i) ex ante, applicants must be
legally and ordinarily resident and belong to any of the following categories: being
incapable of work due to medical reasons; or having the sole care and custody of
children; or caring for a spouse who is critically ill; and (ii) an ex post work restric-
tion (see Slack and Ulph 2017).

20.3 Conclusions

Malta is currently enjoying strong economic growth with high employment and
record low unemployment levels. Labour shortages currently attract more policy
and public attention than does access to benefits. Although a small minority do, on
occasion, publicly express concern over the effect of non-nationals on the welfare
system, this has typically related to asylum seekers and not to EU nationals or third-­
country nationals who work and live in Malta on the basis of an employment licence.
As explained in this chapter, access to contributory benefits does not differentiate
on grounds of nationality. If applicants meet contributory requirements, they are
eligible to benefit under the respective schemes. Moreover, contributory benefits are
exportable. An exception to this, however, relates to the access of third-country
nationals who, having worked and paid social security contributions in Malta, are
not entitled to unemployment benefits (unless they hold the status of long-term resi-
dents). This is because third-country nationals are only entitled to reside in Malta on
the basis of an employment licence for a specific position (that cannot be filled by a
Maltese or other EU national); once this employment ends, they are not entitled to
seek other work in Malta. Thus, being unable to register for work at the public
employment service (which is necessary for entitlement to unemployment benefit),
third-country nationals cannot avail of this benefit.

Equality-and-Social-Welfare/Social-Solidarity/Benefits-and-Services/WEB2382/default.aspx.
Accessed 30 March 2019.
310 S. Vella

Unlike contributory benefits, access to non-contributory benefits is not as univer-

sal. In the case of family-related benefits, both Maltese and EU nationals (if ordinar-
ily resident in Malta) are entitled. There is less certainty, at least in official
documentation, regarding third-country nationals. While the Departmental website
states that only those third-country nationals who are married to/cohabit with a
Maltese citizen, or who are long-term residents, or have refugee status or come from
a country covered by the European Social Charter are eligible to maternity and child
benefits, in practice, it appears that all ordinary residents in Malta are eligible if they
meet the relevant criteria. This may prove somewhat misleading to potential non-
­EU applicants who do not feature in the ‘eligibility’ list.
Access to unemployment assistance is also limited. It is based on a test of need
and tied to ordinary residence. By definition, those third-country nationals only
entitled to reside in Malta on the basis of an employment licence (and who therefore
have income from employment) are not entitled to unemployment assistance,
although TCNs who hold a long-term residence permit do qualify. Neither are EU
nationals entitled to apply for unemployment assistance in the first few months of
their stay in Malta, as is the case in most EU member states wishing to discourage
‘welfare tourism’. However, when EU nationals establish a link with Malta, and
become ordinarily resident here, their application for unemployment assistance is
considered on its own merits and with reference to the reason for such need.
Overall, the pace and extent of immigration has been unprecedented in recent
Maltese history and occurred at a time of rapid social change and far more secular
lifestyles. Some have expressed concern over the impact of rising immigration on
the ‘national identity’ of an increasingly cosmopolitan Malta; there have also been
a few who have made third-country nationals the target of their discontent. This
however co-exists with the activities of a vigorous and unstinting group of NGOs
who campaign for migrants’ rights and support them on various fronts. The long-­
delayed introduction of an Integration Strategy, which was finally published in
December 2017,24 formalised the integration policy infrastructure in Malta and
launched the integration process which includes two-stage training in Maltese,
English and cultural orientation, casework and cultural mediation and awareness
raising, among other initiatives.
To conclude, the overall picture regarding the link between migration and wel-
fare in Malta is mixed. While EU migrants enjoy the same contributory entitlements
as Maltese, entitlement to social assistance is less clear and levels are meagre espe-
cially in the light of sharply rising housing costs. However, this is also true for eli-
gible Maltese nationals in a context, as explained earlier on, where effort is made to
ensure that contributory benefits do not undermine the ‘make-work-pay’ principle
(and therefore remain below a rather low minimum wage), and that non-­contributory
benefits remain lower than contributory ones – reflecting less perceived ‘merit’ but
certainly not lesser need.

MEAE (2017). Migrant Integration Strategy & Action Plan Vision 2020. Ministry for European
24

Affairs and Equality. https://meae.gov.mt/en/Documents/migrant%20integration-EN.pdf.

Accessed 1 March 2019.
20 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Malta 311

Perhaps the most apt characterisation of Malta’s evolving approach to the social
rights of third-country nationals can be found in the taxonomy outlined by Dean
(2011). Malta seems to have moved, over the years, from Dean’s moral-­authoritarian
stance (only allowing migrants in if they provide material benefit; excluding them
from citizenship and cultural life; and only meeting minimum welfare requirements
to comply with legal obligations) to a social-conservative stance which is more
“capable of compassion for migrants, but does not recognise their right to belong:
this favours protective (albeit measured) welfare provision” (2011, p. 25). One hope
for the future is that the new Integration Strategy may prove a feasible pathway to
permanent residence for those migrants who have made Malta their home, and that
nationality should no longer be a factor in their entitlement to benefits.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant Agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Azzopardi Muscat, N., Buttigieg, S., Calleja, N., & Merkur, S. (2017). Malta: Health system review.
Health Systems in Transition, 19(1), 1–137. European Observatory on Health Systems and
Policies. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/332883/Malta-Hit.pdf?ua=1.
Accessed 20 June 2018.
Commissioner for Revenue (n.d.) cfr.gov.mt/en/pages/Home.aspx.
Dean, H. (2011). The ethics of migrant welfare. Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(1), 18–35.
Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern Model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social
Policy, 6(1), 17–37.
National Statistics Office. (2015). Demographic review 2005–2012 post-census revisions. https://
nso.gov.mt/en/publicatons/Publications_by_Unit/Documents/C5_Population%20and%20
Migration%20Statistics/Demographic_Review_2005_2012.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
National Statistics Office. (2016). News release 108/2016 world population day: 11 July 2016.
https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C5/Population_and_Migration_
Statistics/Documents/2016/News2016_108.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
National Statistics Office. (2017). News release 111/2017 world population day: 11 July 2017.
https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C5/Population_and_Migration_
Statistics/Documents/2017/News2017_111.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
National Statistics Office. (2018a). News release 022/2018 population statistics (Revisions):
2012–2016. Retrieved March 30, 2019 from https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_
Unit/Unit_C5/Population_and_Migration_Statistics/Documents/2018/News2018_022.pdf.
Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
National Statistics Office. (2018b). News release 107/2018 world population day: 11 July 2018.
https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C5/Population_and_Migration_
Statistics/Documents/2018/News2018_107.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019.
Slack, S., & Ulph, D. (2017). Optimal universal and categorical benefit provision with classifica-
tion errors and imperfect enforcement. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 19(2), 289–311.
312 S. Vella

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 21
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in the Netherlands

Frans Pennings

21.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in the Netherlands

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the access to the Dutch social security
by individuals in situations of international mobility, especially European Union
(EU) citizens and third-country nationals residing in the Netherlands, as well as
Dutch nationals residing abroad.
Since the very first Dutch statutory social security laws were drafted, the Dutch
Government has studied foreign social security systems. The first schemes for
employees, unemployment, disability and sickness were Bismarck-type social secu-
rity schemes. For instance, eligibility for benefits was limited to workers and bene-
fits were earnings-related and financed from contributions. During the Second
World War, the Dutch Government, in exile in London, came to hear about the
Beveridge Report,1 which was written and published in this period, and established
a Commission to write a white paper on the future of Dutch social security.2 The
report by the Dutch Commission was the basis of a series of national insurance
schemes, i.e. schemes which cover all residents and offer flat-rate benefits. Such
schemes covered the areas of old-age pensions (1957), survivors’ benefits (1959),
disability benefits (1967) and exceptional medical costs (1967).
Unlike the British government, the Dutch government did not choose to imple-
ment just one system of social security. Instead, national insurance schemes were
added to the employees’ insurance schemes. Both types of social security insurance

1
W. Beveridge, Social Security and Allied Services, London 1942. Cmnd. 6404.
2
Commission Van Rijn, Sociale zekerheid, Vol. II, The Hague, 1945.

F. Pennings (*)
University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 313

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_21
314 F. Pennings

are still part of the present system. In addition to these insurance schemes, social
provision schemes, such as the system of social assistance, were implemented.
These schemes fill the gaps in protection which are not covered by the social insur-
ance schemes.

21.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Protection System

The Dutch social security system consists of a number of social insurance schemes
(outlined in Table 21.1), social provisions for specific groups, and a general regula-
tion for assistance (Klosse and Vonk 2014; Pennings 2017).
The Participatiewet (Participation Act) completes the social security system. It
provides benefits to any national or foreign citizen legally residing in the Netherlands
who does not have sufficient means or is in danger of not having sufficient means to
provide for the necessary cost of living. This Act provides that a person must first
claim any other insurance benefits or special social provisions available before he/
she is entitled to the benefit under this Act. The old age, survivors and child benefit
insurance Acts are national insurance schemes that generally cover all residents.
Insured persons are obliged to pay contributions for the old age and survivors insur-
ance schemes. These contributions are calculated as a percentage of the annual
wage or income and are levied by the Tax Office together with the income tax.
Child benefits are financed from public funds (taxes). The Sociale
Verzekeringsbank (SVB – Social Insurance Bank) is an organisation set up to man-
age the funds, carry out the administration of these Acts and pay the benefits.
Chapter 6 of the Wet structuur uitvoeringsorganisatie werk en inkomen (Wet Suwi –
Work and Income Implementation Structure Act) gives rules on the constitution,
tasks and competences of the SVB. Article 34 of the Wet Suwi provides that the
SVB is charged with the administration of the old age benefits scheme, the survivors
benefits scheme and the child benefit scheme. The Uitvoeringsinstituut werkne-
mersverzekeringen (Uwv – Administration of employees insurance schemes)

Table 21.1 Insured risk

Social insurance schemes National insurance schemes Employees insurance schemes
Sickness Employers are obliged to pay wages
Sickness Benefits Act
Long-term disability Disability Insurance Act
Old age General Old Age Pension Act
Survivors General Survivors Act
Children General Child Benefit Act
Medical Health Care Insurance Act
Unemployment Unemployment Benefits Act
Source: Own elaboration
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 315

administers the ZW, the WAO, the WIA and the WW, and the TW (Supplements
Act). The Zorgverzekeringswet (Zvw) is a national scheme that insures all residents
for health care provisions, regardless of their income (Pennings 2017).
Social insurance schemes (national insurance schemes and employees insurance
schemes) are mainly financed from contributions from insured persons and, in case
of insurance schemes for employed persons, also the employers. In some cases, the
government supplements the fund, in particular for old age benefits. The
Participatiewet is paid by municipalities. Since 1989, the national insurance scheme
Algemene Kinderbijslagwet (AKW – General Child Benefit Insurance Act) is no
longer paid from taxes. In certain cases –for instance, for the AOW and the ANW
(General Survivors Pension Act)-, (formerly) insured persons can also take out vol-
untary insurance for the periods between the ages of 15 and pension age if they were
not compulsorily insured during that time. This is especially important for people
who temporarily live outside the Netherlands and are not sufficiently insured abroad.
Voluntary insurance is possible for individuals below the age of 65 who are compul-
sorily insured for at least one year for a maximum period of ten years. Voluntary
insurance is possible if the person concerned notifies the SVB within one year since
the ending of the compulsory insurance.

21.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

The Netherlands has a long history of immigration and emigration. After the Second
World War, emigration gained importance especially due to the difficulties of find-
ing a job in a context in which the whole economy had to be built up again. During
the 1950s, roughly 350,000 people emigrated, with Canada, Australia, and the U.S
being the most popular destinations (Jennissen 2011). This trend started to change
during the 1960, as immigration started to exceed emigration. In particular, persons
from the (former) Dutch colonies started to come to the Netherlands (Indonesia,
Surinam), this adding to the inflows of people recruited to come to work in the
Netherlands in order to respond to labour shortages (guest workers) (Jennissen
2011). In this context, the Netherlands signed agreements for work recruitment with
Italy (1960), Spain (1961), Portugal (1963), Turkey (1964), Greece (1967), Morocco
(1969), Yugoslavia (1970) and Tunisia (1971). Turkey, Morocco and Spain were the
most important recruitment countries. Just like in other European countries, many
guest workers- especially from Turkey and Morocco- actually decided to settle in
the Netherlands. In 1975, the policy of recruitment of foreign labour force stopped,
although immigration continued as a result of family reunification. This led to a
significant increase of the immigrant population. By way of example, from 1975 to
2014, the Turkish origin population grew from about 55,639 to 396,414 individuals,
whereas the Moroccan origin population increased from 30,481 individuals in 1975
to 374,996 in 2014 (Jennissen 2011).
Until 2007, family migration was the main source of migration to the Netherlands,
accounting for almost 40% of all immigrants. Since 2007, labour migrants make up
316 F. Pennings

Table 21.2 Population in the Total population 17,081,507

Netherlands, 2018
Dutch background 13,218,754
Persons with migration background 3,862,753
Persons with Western migration 689,030
background
Persons with non-western migration 2,173,272
background
Marocco 391,088
Dutch. Antilles and Aruba 153,469
Surinam 349,978
Turkey 400,367
Other non-western 878,821
Source: CBS

the largest group, mainly from Central and Eastern European countries that joined
the European Union in 2004 and 2007. As shown in Table 21.2, in 2018, there were
little more than 3.8 million persons with a migration background residing in
Netherlands, most of which with a non-Western background (WRR 2018).
As a general rule, immigrants can naturalize in the Netherlands after five years
of legal residence, or three if they are married to a Dutch citizen (for more informa-
tion regarding migration to the Netherlands, see Lucassen and Penninx 1997; CPB
2007; Ooijevaar et al. 2013; Dagevos 2011). It is also interesting to note that, in the
Netherlands, immigrants from former colonies and lower wage countries performed
poorly in the labor market. Around 2000, a heated public debate started over the
(perceived) low levels of integration of immigrants in the Dutch society. Core ele-
ments of the policies developed after the turn of the century are to restrict family
migration and pressure immigrants to learn Dutch.
Regarding the link between migration and social security policy, until 2000, the
Netherlands had a system which allowed the export of most benefits, including to
outside the EU. Exceptions to this included public assistance and unemployment
benefit. The export became more restrictive with the Wet beperking export uitkerin-
gen (Benefit Restrictions (Foreign Residence) Act), which went into effect on 1
January 2000, and limits the right to export benefit to countries with which agree-
ments have been made which enable export of benefit. Export within the EU was not
affected. During Parliamentary debates on the Law, the Government announced the
intention to make agreements with all countries to which export of benefit is rele-
vant. Indeed, treaties have already been made with most of the countries in which
large numbers of claimants reside. These treaties have to ensure that reliable infor-
mation will be given on issues such as identity, death, civil status, family situation,
work, income, address, training, detention and health position of the claimant and
his/her family members. The provisions of the treaty require the foreign benefit
administration to verify such data and allow the Dutch benefit administration to
check these data abroad. The objective of the treaties is to treat beneficiaries abroad
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 317

in the same way as in the Netherlands (where the required information is already
available).
Another development relevant to foreigners is the Koppelingswet (Linking of
Insurance to Status Law). This Law provides that persons who do not have a perma-
nent residence permit are not insured and not entitled to benefit as long as they stay
in the Netherlands. When they leave the Netherlands, they may claim remaining
benefit rights, if any, providing that they satisfy the condition of the Wet beperking
export uitkeringen, discussed above. After the turn of the century, there were also
changes in the level of benefits payable to persons residing outside the EU. These
affected family benefits and parts of the disability insurance. For these benefits, the
levels were adjusted to that costs of living in the State of residence.

21.2 Migration and Social Protection in the Netherlands

The Dutch social security system has witnessed important changes over the years,
as it became much more focused on providing access to social benefits for those
residing in the territory of the Netherlands. This implies that within the Netherlands,
migrants are treated in the same way as nationals, provided they are legally staying
in the country. Exceptions exist for those recently arrived (less than five years,
which is relevant for accessing public assistance). This has been largely influenced
by EU law, in particular, Directive 2004/38 (for an in-depth analysis of EU law, see
Pennings 2015). Otherwise, there are no substantial differences between the various
groups in terms of level of benefit, eligibility conditions, etc. Nevertheless, the situ-
ation might be different for migrants who have not spent all their life in the
Netherlands, want to return to the country of origin, or have family members in
other countries. The EU rules on coordination of social security (Regulation
883/2004) are particularly relevant for specific groups of non-national residents,
such as seasonal workers, frontier workers, undocumented workers, or short-term
residents.
When it comes to employees’ insurance schemes (sickness, unemployment ben-
efit and disability benefit), persons working in the Netherlands – regardless of their
nationality – are treated in the same way as national residents in terms of conditions
of access to specific benefits. There are no separate eligibility conditions, differ-
ences in level of benefits, or any differentiated duration of benefits for foreign resi-
dents. EU nationals can invoke periods fulfilled in other EU Member States to
qualify for the unemployment benefit. The duration of this benefit depends on the
duration for work, for which periods of employment in other EU countries are par-
ticularly relevant. However, periods of employment outside of the EU do not count
for accessing unemployment benefits. For sickness and disability benefits, there are
no specific eligibility conditions related to the period of insurance. If a person still
has an employer, he/she is not paid sickness benefits, but instead the employer has
to continue to pay wages (in principle, by covering 70% of the wage). There are no
differences in this regard between national citizens, EU nationals and third-country
318 F. Pennings

nationals. Sickness benefits and disability benefits do not require any prior periods
of contribution.
As regulated by the EU law, unemployment benefits are exportable only for three
months within the EU/EEA. Disability and sickness benefits can be exported to
countries outside of the EU only if there is a bilateral social security agreement
allowing exportability. In order to access the benefits of the national schemes,
claimants must reside in the Netherlands. If one works in the Netherlands, this con-
dition is fulfilled. The situation might be different for individuals who are not work-
ing, as their possibility to access specific social benefits could depend on their
personal circumstances. In that case, it is relevant whether there centre of interest is,
in view of all the circumstances, in the Netherlands. If they have also links with
another country, it can take some time after entering the Netherlands before this
condition is fulfilled. National insurance benefits can be exported also to countries
outside the EU, but only if there is a bilateral social security agreement in this
regard. The exportability of old age benefits is always ensured, but if there is no
bilateral agreement, only the old age benefit is exported at the rate of 50% of the
married person pension, which is lower than that the rate for a single person.

21.2.1 Unemployment

Only those employed in the Netherlands qualify for unemployment insurance ben-
efits (Pennings 1990; Pennings and Damsteegt 2009). After 26 weeks of employ-
ment during a period of 36 weeks, one is entitled to unemployment benefits if he/
she loses at least five hours of work a week. In cases of full unemployment, the
benefit is 75% of the daily wage during the first two months, after which it decreases
to 70% (with a maximum of 70% of EUR 219 a day in 2020).3 A person whose
benefit is below the applicable subsistence income may be eligible for a supplement
on the basis of the Toeslagenwet (TW – Supplements Act). In order to receive unem-
ployment benefits, individuals must register as job-seekers, regularly prove job
search and be available for work. The duration of the unemployment insurance ben-
efit is related to the length of employment and claimant’s age. The benefit can be
granted for a minimum period of three months, up to a maximum of twenty-four
months.4

3
https://www.uwv.nl/particulieren/bedragen/detail/maximumdagloon
4
The duration of unemployment benefits is longer than 3 months if, in each of the four calendar
years lying in the five calendar years immediately before the first day of unemployment, the claim-
ant received wages over at least 208 hours. If this condition is satisfied, the duration of benefit is
one month for each year that counts for the employment past for the first ten years of work. Thus,
if the employment past is eight years, the total duration of benefit entitlement is eight months.
Years in which over 208 hours wages were received that exceed 10, count for half a month. This
means that after 20 years of work, one is entitled to unemployment benefits for 15 months.
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 319

There is no specific scheme of unemployment assistance in the Netherlands.

However, when the right to unemployment insurance benefits has ended, employees
born before 1965 who have become unemployed after they have reached the age of
50 may claim a benefit under the Income Provision for Older and Partially Disabled
Unemployed Employees Act (IOAW). One specific condition for this is that the
(family) income is below the relevant social minimum. Other employees may claim
a benefit under the terms of the Participatiewet (Public Assistance Act) if they sat-
isfy a means test on income and capital.
For access to unemployment insurance benefits, EU and non-EU foreign resi-
dents are treated in the same way as Dutch nationals. Persons (nationals and for-
eigners) can receive the unemployment benefit abroad when they are on holidays
(subject to some conditions). Due to the EU coordination rules, the export of unem-
ployment benefits to other EU member states is possible for three months. If one
stays abroad for a longer period, the unemployment benefit is no longer paid. After
six months, all the remaining rights are lost if one returns. Nationals residing abroad
in non-EU countries cannot claim unemployment benefits from the Netherlands.
This benefit is rarely covered in the bilateral social security agreements signed by
the Netherlands.

21.2.2 Health Care

In order to access health care, all persons residing in the Netherlands and all non-­
residents working in the Netherlands must buy a private insurance regulated by the
Zorgverzekeringswet (Zvw – Health Care Insurance act). All persons obliged to buy
an insurance must pay contributions, but those with a low income receive a supple-
ment compensating the costs. In this respect, there is no difference between persons
based on nationality.
The Zvw includes self-employed and unemployed persons, regardless of their
income. Non-residents living in another EU Member State who receive a Dutch
pension are also covered by this Act. If they receive a pension from the Netherlands
only, they are covered by the Zvw, they have to pay contributions in the Netherlands,
and they are entitled to benefits in kind in the country of residence. A person who is
within the personal scope of the Zvw is obliged to buy an insurance from a private
company. These private companies offer the same basic insurance, although there
may be differences in the extent of the choice the insured persons have in care pro-
vider. Companies determine the contribution rates for their insurance and that is
their major instrument of competition. There are no limitations on which institu-
tions/organizations can make a collective contract with an insurance company.
Employees often choose the company with which their employer has made a collec-
tive contract. Health insurance companies may not refuse any applicant for the basic
insurance and contributions for the basic insurance are the same for all buyers of a
particular policy, independently of their state of health. The health care needed by
the insured is paid by the insurance, although there is a statutory regulated annual
320 F. Pennings

own risk of EUR 385 per person (from which care by general practitioners is
excluded).
Non-residents who work in the Netherlands (often, frontier workers) are insured
in the Netherlands, for which a specific insurance agency was created. Non-residents
who are not working will only be covered by the insurance if they are pensioners
receiving only a pension from the Netherlands. Persons are treated in the same way
regardless of nationality.
Persons who become ill generally receive sick pay from their employer (i.e. 70%
of the wage up to 70% of the maximum daily wage relevant to social security, 219
euro a day in 2020). The Civil Code that deals with this does not distinguish on the
basis of nationality. The sick pay is exportable within the EU. It can also be exported
outside of the EU only if there is a bilateral agreement in place. Sick pay is payable
for a maximum period of 24 months. Persons who do not have an employer any-
more are eligible for sickness benefit under the Ziektewet (ZW – Sickness Benefits
Act). For this, no prior period of insurance is required and foreign residents must
meet the same eligibility conditions as national residents. For export, the same rules
apply as for sick pay.

21.2.3 Pensions

Old age pensions are residence schemes (i.e. all residents are insured, but also non-­
residents working in the Netherlands) paid from contributions and taxes. Everyone
earning a certain income has to pay contributions. Individuals who do not have suf-
ficient income are also insured, and this does not affect the acquisition of benefit
rights. In order to access a Dutch pension, individuals who are at least 66 years old
must have contributed for at least a year (the age will rise in the coming years,
according to a schedule in the Act). The level of old-age pension depends on the
duration of insurance as insured persons acquire 2% of the pension for every year of
insurance (thus after 50 years they have acquired a full pension). It is possible to buy
voluntary insurance for the missing years, but most insured persons consider this
possibility as being too expensive. For those having acquired an incomplete pen-
sion, a supplement is payable under the Participatiewet (the already mentioned pub-
lic assistance scheme).
EU and non-EU foreign residents can access an old-age pension in the Netherlands
under the same conditions as national residents. However, persons who do not fulfill
the full 50 year periods receive a lower pension (this rule applies to Dutch nationals
as well, but is- in practice- more relevant to non-nationals). They may export a pen-
sion from the country of origin, but if that is not the case, and their full income is
below the public assistance rate, a supplement is payable from the Public assistance
scheme (Participatiewet). Income and property abroad is taken into consideration
for this social assistance supplement.
The old-age pension is not means-tested (in fact, there is no means tested non-­
contributory old-age pension in the Netherlands; there is merely access to social
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 321

assistance for those who do not get a full old age pension). The old-age pension can
be exported to any country, but outside the EU, single persons can receive the single
rate pension only if there is a bilateral agreement. The single pension rate is 70% of
the standard (which is the same as the public assistance rate for a family). If this
condition is not fulfilled, pensioners receive the married person’s rate, that is 50%
of the standard (2 married persons both receive this rate, but for a single person, the
benefit is lower). For persons who were and/or are non-resident, but worked in the
Netherlands, the same conditions and rules apply (one year of work leads to acquisi-
tion of 2% of the full old-age pension).
As for invalidity benefits, a main element of the Act on disabled persons (Wet
inkomen naar arbeidsvermogen – WIA) is the distinction between persons who are
at least 80% permanently disabled and others. This distinction is elaborated under
the WIA in the Inkomensvoorziening volledig arbeidsongeschikten (IVA – Income
Provision for the Fully Disabled) for the first group and the Werkhervattingsregeling
gedeeltelijk arbeidsgeschikten (WGA – Scheme on the Take-Up of Work by Persons
Who Are Partially Able to Work) for the second group. IVA and WGA may seem
two different types of benefits, but they are payable on the basis of the same Act, the
WIA. The idea underlying IVA is that persons who are permanently disabled should
be given a good income provision. On the other hand, WGA covers persons who are
disabled between 35% and 80%, and individuals who are disabled for 80% but
whose disability is not considered permanent. The threshold for WIA is 35%, hence
higher than for WAO (15%). WGA refers to its recipients as ‘persons who are par-
tially able to work’, instead of ‘partially disabled’, since the main focus is on their
ability to work.
WGA recipients receive a wage-related benefit if they satisfy conditions on the
employment past (if they do not satisfy these conditions they qualify for the so-­
called wage-supplement or follow-up benefit) and the duration depends on their
employment past. The rules for entitlement and duration of this benefit follow those
of the WW (Unemployment Benefits Act). After the right to the wage-related ben-
efit has expired, individuals receive a wage supplement if they have an income of at
least 50% of their earning capacity. Those who do not have such income receive a
so-called follow-up benefit. The wage supplement is relatively generous, whereas
the follow-up benefit is very low. These rules are meant to encourage incapacitated
persons to take up work again. For persons who are disabled less than 35%, there is
no income provision under the WIA. Employers are supposed to keep these persons
in work and if they lose their job, they have to rely on WW benefit or public
assistance.
These benefits are granted to EU and non-EU foreigners under the same condi-
tions as those applied to Dutch nationals. When residing in another Member State
they can claim these benefits from the Netherlands under the rules of Regulation
883/2004; if residing outside the EU, they receive these benefits if a bilateral agree-
ment is made.
322 F. Pennings

21.2.4 Family Benefits

Maternity benefits cover employed women, although a scheme for self-employed

women was also recently introduced. These schemes apply to both Dutch nationals
and foreigners residing or working in the Netherlands. Maternity benefits are
granted for 16 weeks and do not require a certain minimum period of employment
or insurance, but one has to be insured at the beginning of the pregnancy leave.
Export of these benefits is regulated by the EU coordination regulation. Export out-
side the EU depends exclusively on bilateral agreements. There is no specific
scheme of paternity benefits in the Netherlands. There is a parental leave granted for
a period of 26 weeks and in some collective agreements, employers pay part of the
wage during the parental leave.
Insured persons- either national or foreign residents- are entitled to child benefits
for children under the age of 16 who belong to his/her household; or those under the
age of 18 who are supported by the applicant to a considerable extent. The insured
person is entitled to child benefits for children of 16 or 17 years of age, provided
those children are fulfilling the obligations of the Act on compulsory education or
are exempted from these in order to get a so-called start qualification5; are attending
school abroad or; are unemployed and registered with Uwv. In principle, insured
persons who live outside the Netherlands are not entitled to family benefits, except
for those subject to wage tax in the Netherlands or subject to Dutch law under EU
Regulation 883/2004. An insured person cannot claim child benefits for children
who live outside the Netherlands on the reference date and a stay of more than three
months abroad is equated with living outside the Netherlands. These exclusions do
not apply when a treaty is made between the Netherlands and the country in which
the insured person or child resides. This includes the countries within the territorial
scope of Regulation 883/2004. Child benefits are paid from taxes and as soon as a
person is a resident of the Netherlands, s/he receives the benefit. If the child does not
live in the household, the claimant must prove that s/he contributes to the costs of
living of the child. If the child lives outside the EU, a bilateral agreement is neces-
sary to ensure payment. Recently, the level of family benefits has been reduced for
non-EU countries, taking into account the costs of living in that country. Sometimes
it is difficult to transfer money to the child in order to show that one contributes to
the costs of living of the child. Within the EU, there is a consistent system but out-
side the EU, this has been regulated by bilateral agreements.

5
This is a qualification level that is deemed necessary to enter the labour market in order to have
better chances to get work; only when such a qualification is obtained one is no longer subject to
compulsory education, and if the child cannot find work he/she is accepted as unemployed for
this Act.
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 323

21.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Residents in the Netherlands who do not have sufficient income for the basic costs
of living are eligible for public assistance under the Participatiewet (Public
Assistance Act). The rates for this benefit are laid down in the Act; for actual entitle-
ment and the level of benefit, the income and resources (capital) of the claimant are
relevant, including that of the person he/she is living with. Claimants must seek
work and accept job offers, unless they are exempted from this. Claimants are now
also expected to do some unpaid work in exchange for their benefit, but the actual
forms and enforcement of the rules vary between municipalities. This benefit is pay-
able as long as one satisfies the conditions.
Public assistance is an area where the link to the Dutch territory has been
strengthened in the last decades. Persons residing abroad cannot claim public assis-
tance from the Netherlands. EU and non-EU foreigners residing in the Netherlands
for less than three months are not entitled to claim public assistance. After this
period, there is the risk of being expelled if one claims the benefit. After five years
of legally residing in the Netherlands, there is full equal treatment for both EU and
non-EU nationals. Otherwise, there are no differences in conditions (level, pre-
paredness to work, waiting periods, etc.).

21.2.6 Bilateral and Multilateral Social Security Agreements

The bilateral/multilateral social security agreements signed by the Netherlands do

not give a full solution to access to benefits (Van Everdingen et al. 2014). The agree-
ment with the largest group of foreigners living in the Netherlands (from Surinam)
allows export of some benefits only to that country. Since there is no significant new
migration inflow from this country (the main inflows from Surinam took place in the
1970s), there is no real need to help with aggregation of periods, etc. The bilateral
agreement with Turkey is interesting because it supplements multilateral agree-
ments (of the Council of Europe and also Decision 3/80). It covers access to dis-
ability benefit and the export of pensions and family benefits (van der Mei and
Eisele 2012). The bilateral agreement with Morocco also assists the covered per-
sons in exporting benefits, although, in this case, provisions have been inserted in
order to reduce family benefits to the costs of living in Morocco.
The agreements with the countries that represent the three main destinations for
Dutch nationals residing abroad (USA, Canada, Australia) are meant in particular
for those who permanently left the Netherlands. They help to access Dutch disabil-
ity benefit and export old-age pensions. Issues as minimum benefits and unemploy-
ment benefits are outside the scope of these agreements.
324 F. Pennings

21.3 Conclusions

The Dutch system treats foreigners working in the Netherlands in the same way as
national residents when it comes to accessing unemployment benefits, disability
benefits, old-age pensions and family benefits. For persons coming to the Netherlands
and not working, there is a period during which they are not eligible in which they
have to acquire the status of resident. Persons claiming public assistance may lose
their residence status if they claim this benefit during the first five years of resi-
dence. Persons coming from other Member States or from outside the EU may have
a gap in the acquisition of old-age benefits in the Netherlands, since this is a pro rata
benefit. However, they may have acquired benefit in their countries of origin. If not,
they can claim public assistance, but that means that their other pension rights and
property are taken into account.
Export of disability and old-age benefit is guaranteed within the EU, but a bilat-
eral agreement is needed for export outside the EU. Export of unemployment ben-
efits is possible under serious restrictions only, whereas the public assistance benefit
cannot be claimed from abroad. Also, there is a tendency to reduce the level of
benefit payable to other countries, taking the costs of living into account. There is
now considerable support for this in Dutch politics and some political parties in
Parliament would even prefer to terminate export of the non-contributory benefits to
countries outside the EU. So far, only an act on the reduction of family benefits and
part of disability benefit has been adopted, although this requires a revision of the
bilateral agreements that are currently in place.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

CPB. (2007). The labour market position of Turkish immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands;
reason for migration, naturalisation and language proficiency. The Hague: CPB.
Dagevos, J. (Ed.). (2011). Poolse migranten De positie van Polen die vanaf 2004 in Nederland zijn
komen wonen [Polish people who migrated to the Netherlands after 2004]. The Hague: Sociaal
en Cultureel Planbureau.
Jennissen, R. P. W. (Ed.). (2011). De Nederlandse migratiekaart. Achtergronden en ontwikkelin-
gen van verschillende internationale migratietypen, WODC/CBS. Meppel: Boom Juridische
uitgevers.
Klosse, S., & Vonk, G. (2014). Socialezekerheidsrecht. Deventer: Kluwer.
21 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Netherlands 325

Lucassen, J., & Penninx, R. (1997). Newcomers. Immigrants and their descendants in the
Netherlands 1550–1995. Amsterdam/Gouda: Het Spinhuis.
Ooijevaar, J., Sluiter, N., & Verschuren, S. (2013). Immigranten en werknemers uit de European
Unie in Nederland. In Bevolkingstrends 2013. Den Haag: CBS.
Pennings, F. (1990). Benefits of doubt. A comparative study of the legal aspects of employment
and unemployment schemes in great-Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands. Deventer:
Kluwer Law International.
Pennings, F. J. L. (2015). European social security law. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Pennings, F. J. L. (2017). Social security in the Netherlands. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Pennings, F. (2017). EU citizenship and social rights. Cheltenham: Edgar.
Pennings, F. J. L., & Damsteegt, A. (2009). De Werkloosheidswet. Deventer: Kluwer.
van der Mei, A. P., & Eisele, K. (2012). Portability of social benefits and reverse discrimination of
EU citizens versus Turkish nationals. European Law Review, 37, 204–213.
van Everdingen, M. et al. (2014). Bilateral treaties in the Netherlands. In P. A. Ortiz, M. Olivier,
& G. Vonk (Eds.). Social security and migrant workers’ (p. 215 et seq.). Alphen aan den Rijn:
Wolters Kluwer.
WRR. (2018). Regie over migratie: Naar een strategische Agenda [To a strategic agenda on migra-
tion]. The Hague: WRR.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 22
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Poland

Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak

22.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Poland

The main objective of this chapter is to discuss the Polish social security system,
with particular focus on the access of national residents, non-national residents and
non-resident nationals to its different components in the light of key migration
developments.

22.1.1  ain Characteristics of the Polish Social

M
Security System

In 2016, the social protection in Poland comprised 20.3% of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), which was below the European Union (EU) average (28.2%). The
financing of the Polish social protection system relies on social contributions, which
finance more than two thirds of social benefits and transfers. This, together with the
high degree of decommodification, places Poland among the countries character-
ised as a conservative-corporatist model of welfare state regime (Esping-Andersen
1990), but with gradual shift towards a liberal regime after the reforms introduced
in the past.

A. Chłoń-Domińczak (*)
SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 327

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_22
328 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

The social security system covers benefits in the area of unemployment, health
care, pensions, family benefits and social assistance. The organisational structure of
the Polish social security system is relatively complex, involving institutions at cen-
tral level and different levels of regional authorities (Table 22.1).
According to Law of 4 September 1997 on governmental administration sec-
tions, the “social security” section in Poland covers social insurance and social
security; old-age pension funds; social assistance; government programmes for
social assistance; social benefits, employment, social and vocational rehabilitation
of people with disabilities; support combatants and persecuted persons; the coordi-
nation of the social security systems and public benefit activity.1 The “social secu-
rity” section falls predominantly under the competence of the Minister of Family,
Labour and Social Policy, whereas the section health is managed by the Minister of
Health. Benefits administration for unemployment, social assistance and family
benefits is conducted at the regional and local level. As depicted in Table 22.1, the
overall coordination of regional labour market and social policies is conducted at
the regional level, by specialised Voivodship Labour Offices (for unemployment)
and Regional Social Policy Centres and Social Policy Divisions of Voivodship
offices.
There are two major sources of financing of the Polish social security system:
taxes and social insurance contributions. Social insurance contributions finance
around two thirds of total social protection expenditure (ESSPROS database).
Family benefits and social assistance are financed from taxes, while unemployment,
pensions, sickness, maternity and health care benefits are financed from social
insurance contributions. The type of financing also determines access to benefits.
For benefits financed by social insurance contributions, the eligibility criteria are
related to contribution payments, whereas for tax-financed programmes, the bene-
fits depend on household situation or level of income.
In recent years, the most important changes in the Polish social protection sys-
tem were in the area of family benefits. The new benefit for bringing up children
(“Family 500+”) was introduced in 2016 as a universal benefit. Consequently, the
family benefit expenditure in Poland rose by more than 1% of GDP and the overall
family spending exceeded the EU average. This change led to the reduction of pov-
erty risk for families with children, but it also had important labour market out-
comes with reduced participation of young women on the labour market (Magda
et al. 2018).

22.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

From the middle of the nineteenth century, the international movement of persons
played an important role in Poland’s demographic and labour market development
(Kaczmarczyk and Okólski 2008). Many Poles migrated, particularly to Germany,

1
(Journal of Laws of 2015 Text 812, as amended)
Table 22.1 Organisational structure of social security in Poland
22

Ministry of Family, Labour and Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of

Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy Social Policy Rural Development Health
Old-age and other pensions, accidents at work and
occupational diseases as well as sickness and maternity
Social For employees and those
Unemployment Family Benefits Assistance deemed employees For farmers Health care
Central The Polish Social Insurance Agricultural Social National Health
Institution (ZUS) Insurance Fund (KRUS) Fund (NFZ)
Regional Voivodeship Social Policy Divisions Social Policy Branches (43) Regional branches (16) NFZ
(Provincial) Labour of Voivodeship Offices Divisions of Voivedoship
Office (16) (16) Voivodeship branches (16)
Offices (16)
Regional Social Policy Regional
Centres (16) Social Policy
Centres (16)
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland

Poviat Poviat (district) Poviat Inspectorates (210) Local units (256) Voivodeship
(Urban) Labour (district) branch
Offices (341) Centres of representatives
Family
Assistance
(380)
(continued)
329
Table 22.1 (continued)
330

Ministry of Family, Labour and Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of

Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy Social Policy Rural Development Health
Old-age and other pensions, accidents at work and
occupational diseases as well as sickness and maternity
Social For employees and those
Unemployment Family Benefits Assistance deemed employees For farmers Health care
Commuine Appropriate organs Social Local offices (70)
(local/city council assistance/
offices or centres for benefit centres
social assistance/benefit (2497)
or other organisational
units of territorial local
government) (2497)
Financing Labour Fund Taxes/state budget Taxes/state Contributions for social Contributions for social Health care
contribution from budget insurance/state budget subsidy insurance/state budget contributions:
employers (2.45% 19.52% for old-age pensions, subsidy 9.72%
of company wage 11% for disability, 2.45% for
billa) sickness and variable
contribution for work injury
Source: (Social Insurance Institution 2017)
a
Labour Fund contribution is not paid for parents returning from parental leaves as well as recently hired people who were unemployed and are older than
50 years
A. Chłoń-Domińczak
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 331

in the 1970s and 1980s, when the estimated long-term outflow of people amounted
to between 1.1 million and 1.3 million (3% of the total population) and short-term
migration added another 1 million (Ibid). The outflows accelerated significantly
after the EU accession. The initial large-scale movement of Polish workers between
2004 and 2007 slowed down after the economic crisis, but accelerated again in
recent years, albeit at a slower pace. According to estimates, the outflow of workers
had a positive impact on the Polish labour market on the short-run, by reducing the
unemployment level and moderately increasing the wages. However, recent demo-
graphic projections point towards a quickly shrinking labour force, mainly caused
by low fertility levels since early 1990s. Thus, the economic growth potential in the
long-run is expected to be more hampered, compared to the short-run (Chłoń-­
Domińczak 2018). The long-term challenge of declining and ageing labour force,
caused by the demographic developments leading to fast population ageing, is
becoming visible.
Some of the losses on the labour market are mitigated by increased employment
of immigrants. Gradzewicz et al. (2016) highlight that the share of companies that
declared employment of at least one foreigner increased from 5% in 2010 to 13% in
2016 and further to 30% in 2018 (National Bank of Poland 2018). The share of
migrants in total employment and covered by mandatory social insurance also
increased (Buchholtz et al. 2017). However, the available data indicates that signifi-
cant share of migrants in Poland might work in the informal market or on contracts
that do not give access to social security, this increasing their exposure to social risks.
Measuring the scale of migration in Poland, both inflows and outflows, is a dif-
ficult challenge. Permanent migration is measured by the registers of residents.
Statistics Poland data on main directions of immigration and emigration for perma-
nent residence indicate that, between 2004 and 2014, the outflows were higher than
the inflows. Right after the economic crisis, the net outcome was close to zero, due
to the reduced flow of emigrants, but in 2013-2104 the level increased again, lead-
ing to an increased negative balance.
The source of information on permanent changes related to emigration is the
register of permanent residents. However, many Poles migrating to another country
do not inform the register, so the official numbers are underestimated. In the Polish
statistics, permanent residents who stay abroad for more than 3 months are called
temporary migrants. The size of this group is estimated on the combination of data
from population censuses (in 2002 and 2011) and the Polish Labour Force Survey
(LFS) data (Kaczmarczyk and Okólski 2008; Statistics Poland 2016; Chłoń-­
Domińczak 2018).
Estimates of the scale of migration from Poland since 2004 are made by Statistics
Poland. These are people who remain permanent residents in Poland but have lived
abroad, sometimes for many years. The stock of residents of Poland abroad after the
EU accession more than doubled, mainly due to the increased migration to EU
countries. The share of Polish nationals residing in other EU countries increased
from 75% in 2004 to more than 83% in 2016. The top two destinations are the
United Kingdom (UK, 788,000 people in 2016) and Germany (687,000). This also
means that the majority of Polish nationals abroad are covered by the social security
based on the EU regulations.
332 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

According to the Office for Foreigners, the number of foreigners with residence
permits increased from 175,000 in January 2014 to 325,000 in January 2018. More
than half of these permits were issued for temporary stay. Most residence permits
are linked to the right to employment, which in some cases need to be additionally
confirmed by work permits or declarations of employers. Until the end of 2017, two
types of documents were issued: (i) work permits for foreigners issued by voivods
and (ii) declarations of intent to entrust work to a foreigner (for seasonal work),
which employers placed in the poviat labour office, which could be used for selected
nationalities. In 2017, there were more than 235,000 issued work permits, which is
almost 6.5 times higher compared to 2010. Furthermore, there were more than
1.8 million declarations of intent to hire foreigners issued in 2017, that is ten times
more than in 2010. More than 90% of declarations concerned foreigners from
Ukraine, followed by former soviet countries (Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia)
and Russia.
From January 2018, short-term work may be performed based on the so-called
“new” statement on entrusting work to a foreigner and a permit for seasonal work.
Citizens of Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine are still enti-
tled to work in connection with the declaration, while seasonal work permits apply
to citizens of all third countries. This shows the continuous high interest of foreign-
ers to work in Poland and the high demand of Polish companies to hire foreigners,
due to shortages on the Polish labour market caused by the emigration and popula-
tion ageing.

22.2 Migration and Social Protection in Poland

The overall regulations related to the conditions of entry, transfer, residence and exit
of foreigners on the Polish territory are defined by Law of 12 December 2013 on
foreigners.2 The Law regulates important provisions related to the right to social
benefits, but also specifies conditions related to work permits depending on foreign-
ers’ coverage of selected social security provisions. Article 114 specifies that the
foreigner may receive a temporary residence and work permit (zezwolenie na pobyt
czasowy i pracę) under several conditions. One of them is being covered by health
insurance in the national health care system or having a private health insurance
covering the cost of medical treatment in Poland. Another condition is having suf-
ficient income to cover the cost of living of the migrant and his/her family in Poland,
understood as the monthly income that exceeds the income threshold for benefits
from social assistance for the migrant and dependant family members. The latter
condition is also applicable for temporary residence permits for delegated workers

2
Ustawa z dnia 12 grudnia 2013 r. o cudzoziemcach, 2013 http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/
DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130001650
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 333

(article 139a). Similar conditions also apply for temporary residence permits in
order to use long-term mobility (article 139o and 139 s). The conditions related to
access to health insurance and income above the social assistance thresholds also
hold for temporary residence permits to study in higher education institutions or
conduct scientific research (articles 144, 151, and 187). In the case of the temporary
residence to connect with the family, the condition related to access to health-care
coverage applies.
The access to social protection of immigrants in Poland is further specified in
legal acts defining the accessibility to social security benefits. For benefits related to
contributions, the main eligibility criterion is the payment of contributions.
Therefore, foreigners who work in Poland are covered by these types of schemes.
For benefits that are means-tested or depend on the family status, the eligibility
depends on the legal status of the immigrant and his/her residence in Poland.
Based on the EU Treaty, the legal framework in Poland also recognises the rights
of non-national EU citizens in the same way as the rights of the Polish citizens. As
explained below, this leads to some differences in access to benefits between
migrants from the EU and non-EU countries.
Access to specific benefits is depends on employment status. The regulations on
the employment of foreigners in Poland and of Polish workers abroad are included
in Chap. 16 of the Law from 20 April 2004 on employment promotion and labour
market institutions.3 Foreigners who are employed by the employment agency in
Poland need to have a contract with the institution, who employs them as temporary
workers, including specification of social insurance coverage. The Law enumerates
foreigners who have a right to work in Poland, including EU/European Economic
Area (EEA) citizens or citizens of other countries who have a right to free move-
ment according to the agreement with the European Community and its Member
States as well as their family members. For non-EU citizens, it applies to refugees
and people receiving protection in Poland, those having permanent residence permit
or long-term EU resident permit in Poland, foreigners having residence permit due
to humanitarian reasons, those with temporary residence permits that allows taking
up employment in Poland or those holding a residence document issued according
to article 1, section 2, letter a of the Council Directive no 1030/2002.4 The work
permit is required for third-country nationals, unless the foreigner fulfils additional
conditions specified in the Law.
The access of foreigners to social security is thus based on rules of social security
coordination that covers EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) coun-
tries and bilateral social security agreements with non-EU countries. The following
social security agreements are currently in force: Yugoslavia (covering currently

3
Ustawa z dnia 20 kwietnia 2004 r. o promocji zatrudnienia i instytucjach rynku pracy, (Journal of
Laws from 2004, No 99, Item 1001)
4
The requirement to have the employment permit does not apply to foreigners with temporary resi-
dence permits for studies or research and family members of Polish citizens or refugees and other
people staying in Poland receiving protection
334 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro),5 the Republic of North

Macedonia,6 the United States of America (USA),7 Canada,8 the Republic of Korea,9
Australia,10 Ukraine,11 Moldova12 and Belarus.13

22.2.1 Unemployment

The access to unemployment benefits and active labour market policies is regulated
by Law of 20 April 2004 on employment promotion and labour market institutions.
All unemployment-related policies and instruments are financed from the Labour
Fund. This is a public fund, financed from employers’ contributions amounting to
2.45% of the wage bill (Table 22.1).
Unemployment benefits are granted to unemployed people who have worked for
at least a year in the past 18 months and earned at least minimum wage. The benefit
does not depend on earnings. The basic amount is paid to the unemployed with
5–20 years of employment record and varies depending on the unemployment
period (higher for the first 3 months of unemployment and lower for subsequent
months). Those with shorter employment records (below 5 years) receive 80% of
the basic unemployment benefit, while those who worked longer than 20 year
receive 120% of the benefit.
As mentioned, the Law on employment promotion and labour market institutions
enumerates the groups of foreigners eligible to work (who can subsequently receive
unemployment benefits) in Poland. These include: EU/EEA citizens and those with
similar status and their family members, those with residence permits (permanent or
temporary) in Poland or long-term EU residents and their family members, refu-
gees, those who have permission to stay in Poland due to humanitarian reasons or
covered by temporary protection.
In the case of registration of non-nationals in the unemployment office, the
starorsta informs the Border Guards or the voivod about the registration. Foreigners
with temporary residence permits for studies, family members, victims of human
trafficking and other reasons not related to employment have access to active labour
market services, but not unemployment benefits and stipends paid during the period
of training or post-diploma studies.

5
Agreement of January 16, 1958 (Journal of Laws 1959, item 1914).
6
Agreement of April 6, 2006 (Journal of Laws from 2007, No. 229, item 1686).
7
Agreement of April 2, 2008.
8
Agreement of April 2, 2008.
9
Agreement of February 25, 2009.
10
Agreement of October 7, 2009.
11
Agreement of May 18, 2012.
12
Agreement of September 9, 2013.
13
Agreement signed in February 2019.
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 335

The Law also specifies the periods counted as eligibility for unemployment ben-
efits, which include employment in Poland or an EU country, as well as employ-
ment abroad in non-EU countries only if the person paid a contribution to a Labour
Fund amounting to 9.75% of the average wage for each month of employment. The
condition to pay supplementary contribution does not apply for repatriates.
The payment of unemployment benefits is conditional on the residence in Poland.
Unemployed people who are staying abroad for less than 10 days per calendar year
maintain the right to the unemployment benefit if they inform the poviat labour
office. This does not apply to the unemployed who seeks employment in other EU
countries. In this case, the benefit is paid up to 3 months of staying abroad (it can be
extended up to 6 months).

22.2.2 Health Care

The access to health-care benefits is defined in the Law of 27 August 2004 on Health
Care Services financed from Public Means.14 Article 2 of the Law specifies that
access to in-kind benefits is granted to all people who are covered by health care
insurance. There is no requirement of period of paying contribution before becom-
ing eligible for in-kind benefits (including primary care, specialised ambulatory
care and hospital services).
Insured non-nationals who pay health care contributions based, inter alia, on
their employment, or on the voluntary basis have access to benefits in kind. The Law
lists all types of insured people, including Polish/EU/EFTA citizens, nationals of
other countries who hold relevant residence permits and persons who have been
granted refugee status or subsidiary protection in Poland; as long as they pay con-
tributions on mandatory or voluntary basis. For insured people, there is no differ-
ence in access to health care services depending on the nationality – Polish citizens
and foreigners enjoy the same rights. There are also several categories of people
who are not insured, but still eligible for health care services (those who meet the
social assistance income criterion). Health care services are also guaranteed for
children below age 18, Polish citizens and foreigners who obtained refugee status or
subsidiary protection, or a temporary residence permit granted for family
reunification.
In-kind benefits are provided on the Polish territory. However, all insured people
based on the European Health Insurance Card have access to medically necessary,
state-provided health care during a temporary stay in other EU countries, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, under the same conditions and at the same
cost as people insured in those countries. Similarly, Polish nationals residing in the
EU countries have access to medical services in Poland. Polish citizens residing in

Ustawa z dnia 27 sierpnia 2004 r. o świadczeniach opieki zdrowotnej finansowanych ze środków

14

publicznych, http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20042102135
336 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

non-EU countries do not have access to in-kind services in Poland. They can receive
emergency treatment, but they are obliged to finance it from their own sources.
The access to sickness benefits in cash is based on the social insurance principle
and the only requirement relates to the payment of the contribution which is manda-
tory for all salaried workers and people performing their job based on employment
contracts. The contribution rate for sickness insurance is 2.45% of the gross salary
paid by the employee, or in the case of self-employed – declared income not lower
than 60% of average wage. The contribution for disability pensions is mandatory for
all groups of insured and it is 8% of salary (6.5% paid by the employer and 1.5%
paid by the employee). Disability pensions are paid upon the assessment of long-­
term full or partial incapacity to work.
The Laws regulating access to health benefits in cash do not refer specifically to
nationality with regards to access to benefits (Law of 13 October 1998 on Social
Insurance System,15 the Law of 25 June 1999 on cash benefits in the case of sickness
and maternity16 and the Law of 17 December 1998 on pensions from Social
Insurance Fund17). The Law on Social Insurance indicates that the Social Insurance
Institution provides Border Guards and State Employment Inspection with informa-
tion on the insured foreigners and their employers.
The short-term sickness benefits (in principle, 80% of salary) are granted after
the waiting period of 30 days. Self-employed people are covered by the sickness
insurance on a voluntary basis with longer working period (90 days). Prior to receiv-
ing sickness benefits, employees receive salaries from their employers (generally
for the first 33 days of sickness). The sickness benefit is payable upon the sick leave
issued by a doctor. Short-term sickness benefits are in general paid out in Poland. In
case of travel abroad, the benefit may be suspended only if the doctors’ prescription
does not allow the sick person to travel or recommends the stay at home.
Disability pensions are paid in case of long-term permanent or temporary inca-
pacity to work, assessed by social security doctors. As a rule, disability pensions are
granted for maximum 36 months and they are re-assessed afterwards. Disability
pensions are calculated according to the defined-benefit pension formula specified
in Law on pensions from Social Insurance Fund. Partial disability pension amounts
to the 75% of the full disability pension. To claim a disability pension, a person
needs to be covered by social insurance at least for 5 years (this period is shorter for
people younger than 30). For EU/EEA nationals and non-EU nationals from coun-
tries covered by bilateral agreements, this periods also includes periods of social
insurance in the foreign country. The main qualifying condition for claiming the
disability pension is the coverage by the social insurance system in Poland, regard-
less on the nationality. Disability pensions can also be paid in another country: in

15
Ustawa z dnia 13 października 1998 r. o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych, http://prawo.sejm.
gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19981370887
16
Ustawa z dnia 25 czerwca 1999 r. o świadczeniach pieniężnych w razie choroby i macierzyństwa,
http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19990600636
17
Ustawa z dnia 17 grudnia 1998 r. o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych,
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19981621118
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 337

the case of EU countries, based on the Directives of social security coordination and
for non-EU countries, based on bilateral social security agreements.

22.2.3 Pensions

Old-age pensions are a part of the contribution-based social insurance system, cov-
ering employees and self-employed. The old-age pension contribution is equal to
19.52% of salary, equally split between employee and employer. To claim old-age
pension, one has to reach legal retirement age (60 years for women and 65 years for
men). For the minimum pension guarantee, there is a minimum insurance period
equal to 20 years for women and 25 years for men. There is no general non-­
contributory pension scheme in Poland.18 After the change of pension system in
1999, the old-age pensions are paid according to defined contribution formula and
depend on lifetime contributions and life expectancy at retirement age.
The access to benefits depends on the previous social insurance record. There is
no reference to nationality in the Law on social insurance system and the Law on
Pensions from Social Insurance Fund. The access of migrants to pensions is an issue
mainly in the case of providing benefits for those that combine work experience
from more than one country (i.e. Poland and other country). Following the EU
accession, these issues are covered by the coordination of social security systems.
Pensions accrued in Poland and any of the EU countries can be transferred to pen-
sioner’s EU country of residence. Their periods of insurance in Member States also
accumulate for the assessment of pension benefits. As for non-EU countries, old-­
age pensions are also covered by all bilateral social security agreements that are
currently in force in Poland. This means that their benefits can be exported to their
countries of residence. Polish nationals who reside in a non-EU country that is not
covered by a bilateral agreement can receive their pensions on their bank account
in Poland.
The share of pensions paid on the basis of international agreements in Poland is
small. In 2017, 1.3% of total cash benefits paid by the Social Insurance Institution
were due to the implementation of international agreements (Social Insurance
Institution 2018). The number of pensions paid out as a result of these agreements
were around 154,000, including around 100,000 pensions paid in Poland and almost
54,000 pensions transferred to other countries. In the latter group, almost 38,000
pensions were transferred to EU countries (of which: 17,500 to Germany, 4400 to
France, 3100 to Sweden), which reflect the past migration trends from Poland.

Soldiers, police and other military forces as well as judges and prosecutors receive benefits from
18

non-contributory pension schemes.

338 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

22.2.4 Family Benefits

There are different types of family benefits in Poland. Upon child birth, the parents
are eligible to maternity, paternity and childcare benefits (financed from social
insurance based on the Law on Social Insurance Cash Benefits in Cases of Sickness
and Maternity) or parental benefits (tax-financed flat-rate paid to non-employed par-
ents for first 12 months after the child birth, based on the Law of 28 November 2003
on Family Benefits).19
For those covered by social insurance, maternity benefit (zasiłek macierzyński) is
paid for 20 weeks of maternity leave (urlop macierzyński) (up to 6 weeks can be
taken before the childbirth). The amount equals 100% of salary (80% if the mother
declares taking up 52 weeks of combined maternity and childcare leave). After
maternity leave, a mother or a father can claim childcare leave for 32 weeks, with
the maternity benefit equal to 60% of the salary (or 80% if the maternity benefit was
lowered to 80%). For fathers only, there are also two weeks of paternity benefit
(zasiłek ojcowski) that can be claimed during the first 24 months after childbirth.
Parents who are not covered by the social insurance receive the parental benefit
(zasiłek rodzicielski) that is flat rate (equal to 1000 zł/220 EUR) paid for 52 weeks
after childbirth. These benefits are tax-financed.
Since 2016, families receive benefits for bringing-up children (the so-called
“Family 500+ benefits”). These benefits are tax-financed, universal (except for the
income-tested benefit paid for the first child) and their distribution is organised by
local governments on grounds of the Law of 11 February 2016 on State support in
bringing up children.20 Families with lower income also can receive family benefits
that are tax-financed and income tested.
The sources of financing determine the access of foreigners to benefits and their
availability. Maternity, paternity and childcare leaves are paid to people who are
covered by social insurance for sickness and maternity, regardless the country of
nationality, provided that the parent claiming the benefit was insured in Poland.
These benefits can be paid when a beneficiary remains temporarily abroad, in agree-
ment with the Social Insurance Institution. In case of long-term stay, the benefits are
subject to the coordination of social security systems (for EU countries) or bilateral
agreements (for non-EU countries). Benefits cannot be exported to non-EU coun-
tries not covered by the social security agreement (they can be still received in
Poland).
The tax-finance parental benefits are paid to Polish nationals and (EU and non-
­EU) foreigners residing in Poland, as well as refugees who have the right to work in
Poland. The Laws enumerate foreign citizens eligible for tax-financed family ben-
efits and benefits for bringing up children, on the same conditions as Polish

19
Ustawa z dnia 28 listopada 2003 r. o świadczeniach rodzinnych, http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.
nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20032282255
20
Ustawa z dnia 11 lutego 2016 r. o pomocy państwa w wychowywaniu dzieci, http://prawo.sejm.
gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160000195
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 339

nationals. This includes EU nationals, foreigners coming from countries that have
signed bilateral social security agreements binding in Poland, those holding perma-
nent or temporary residence permits,21 foreigners with a long-term EU residence
permit, or those holding residence cards with the entry ‘access to the labor market’.22
This means that the access to tax-financed benefits to foreigners from non-EU coun-
tries is limited to selected reasons related to receiving residence permits.
Family benefits and benefits for bringing up children are granted to families if
they reside in Poland while receiving the benefits, unless otherwise allowed by the
coordination of social security systems. For those residing in another EU country,
the coordination of social security systems means that families have a right to a
supplementary allowance, i.e. difference between the benefit received in the other
EU country and Poland. Thus, those living in Poland can receive a supplement up to
the level of the benefit eligible in the country of origin, while Polish nationals living
abroad can receive a supplement up to the level of the Polish benefit. Currently, the
bilateral social security agreements signed by Poland do not cover family benefits
or benefits for bringing up children. Therefore, non-EU citizens have the right to
these benefits only if they reside in Poland. Similarly, Polish nationals residing in
non-EU countries do not have access to the Polish family benefits in the country of
residence.

22.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

There are three types of social assistance benefits in Poland that comprise the guar-
antee of minimum resources, paid based on the Law of 12 March 2004 on social
assistance.23 These are: (a) the Periodic Allowance (zasiłek okresowy) due to long-­
term illness, disability, unemployment, inability to maintain or acquire entitlement
to benefits from other social security systems for a period of time depending on the
decision of the social assistance center; (b) the Permanent Allowance (zasiłek stały)
granted to people with permanent disability or those who not able to work due to
their age; and (c) the Special Needs Allowance (zasiłek specjalny/celowy) granted
to cover the cost of purchase of necessary goods or services.
All benefits are payable to individuals or households whose income is below the
social assistance threshold. The foreigners eligible for benefits include those that are
residing or staying on the territory of Poland: (a) EU/EFTA nationals and their

21
Granted to work in a profession requiring high qualifications or due to other conditions specified
in Article 186 of the Law on Foreigners (inter alia: migrant workers, children of foreigners born in
Poland, has a long-term stay permit from other EU country) or in connection with obtaining refu-
gee status or subsidiary protection in Poland, if they live with family members in Poland.
22
Excluding third-country nationals authorized to work in an EU Member State for a period not
exceeding six months, those admitted for study or seasonal work, or those having the right to work
based on a visa.
23
Ustawa z dnia 12 marca 2004 r. o pomocy społecznej
340 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

family members with the right to stay or the right of permanent residence in Poland;
(b) on the basis of a permanent residence permit, a long-term EU residence permit
granted in Poland or in other EU country or a temporary residence permit granted
due to the refugee status or subsidiary protection or in connection with obtaining in
Poland the refugee status or subsidiary protection; and (c) in connection with obtain-
ing consent in Poland for humanitarian reasons or consent for tolerated stay. These
groups have the same conditions of access to benefits as Polish citizens.
Furthermore, the right to benefits in the form of crisis intervention, shelter, meal,
necessary clothing and special purpose allowance is granted to foreigners staying in
Poland on the basis of the certificate confirming assumption that they have been
victims of human trafficking or they have temporary residence permits as victims of
human trafficking. Moreover, as indicated in the introduction to this section, one of
the conditions to be granted residence permits in Poland is the proof that the level of
income of applicants exceeds the minimum income criteria specified for social
assistance. This means that the risk of claiming social assistance benefits by for-
eigners is limited.

22.2.6 Obstacles and Sanctions

As discussed, the eligibility of foreigners to social protection benefits depends on

the sources of their financing. In the case of social-insurance financed benefits (old-­
age, disability pensions, sickness benefits and maternity benefits), the access to ben-
efits is the same for Polish nationals, EU citizens and third-country nationals covered
by the respective social insurance. In the case of tax-financed benefits (family ben-
efits, social assistance benefits) and unemployment benefits (financed from the
Labour Fund), EU nationals have the right to those benefits on the same rules as
Polish citizens. The access of non-EU nationals to these benefits is conditioned by
holding permanent or temporary resident permits. To receive the resident permit,
third-country nationals need to prove that they have an income exceeding the social
assistance threshold, in order to limit the risk of claiming the benefits related to
guaranteed minimum resources.
For each type of benefit, the list of eligible foreigners is formulated differently.
The access to unemployment benefits is regulated in the most detailed manner,
which is also related to the fact that the Law on employment promotion and labour
market institutions also regulates various types of work permits for foreigners. The
other acts have less detailed, but still different, specification of foreigners who can
access social benefits. Thus, the set of regulations related to the availability of social
security to foreign nationals in Poland is quite complex and not easy to follow,
which may create difficulties in access to social security benefits.
The bilateral agreements currently in force in Poland (with Yugoslavia, the
Republic of North Macedonia, USA, Canada, the Republic of Korea, Australia,
Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus) cover old-age, disability and survivor pensions, and
sickness benefits. Family benefits are covered only in the agreements with Yugoslavia
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 341

and the Republic of North Macedonia. The bilateral agreements follow the follow-
ing principles: equal treatment, applying one legislation, summing insurance peri-
ods and retaining acquired rights. Hence, they offer easier access to claiming
benefits (due to summing insurance periods and applying one legislation), as well as
receiving benefits (due to the retaining of acquired rights and export of benefits).
The rising inflow of migrants to Poland leads to increasing share of foreigners
covered by the Polish social insurance system. Those employed on the work con-
tract or commission contract (the so-called umowa-zlecenie) are covered by the
mandatory social insurance. Data from the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) indi-
cates that between the first quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2018, the num-
ber of foreigners covered by the pension social insurance in Poland increased more
than 6 times: from 87,500 to 541,200. This is mostly due to the increased number of
Ukrainian workers, whose number of insured in mid-2018 was almost 15 times
higher compared to 2012. By mid-2018, the share of foreigners among all insured
people exceeded 3%, compared to around 0.6% in 2012.
Accumulation of pension rights by foreigners in Poland can lead to different
outcomes with regards to their future access to benefits, depending on the country
of origin and respective arrangement on social security agreements between coun-
tries. The majority of non-EU nationals working in Poland are covered by bilateral
social security agreements (Fig. 22.1), with the prominent share of Ukrainian work-
ers. However, the number of workers from countries that are not covered by such
agreements is also sizeable, which concerns particularly Belarusian, Vietnamese
and Russian citizens (Fig. 22.2). Signing the bilateral agreement with Belarus is an
important step to cover this gap. These workers in the future might have limited
access to their pension incomes at retirement, due to the lack of solutions related to
portability of their pensions. In particular, if their insurance record in Poland is
below 25 years (men) or 20 years (women), they will not have a right to the mini-
mum pension. According to the Polish legislation, they would receive a benefit that
is directly linked to the value of their accumulated contributions, divided by life
expectancy at retirement age.

Fig. 22.1 Insured Non-EU EU

foreigners by type of with no
international social 6%
agreement
security arrangements.
(Source: Own elaboration 17%
based on data of Social
Insurance Institution
(www.zus.pl))

Non-EU
with
bilateral
agreement
77%
342 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

Fig. 22.2 Number of 35,000

workers (by nationality) 30,000
most frequently covered by 25,000
20,000
social insurance from 15,000
non-EU countries without 10,000
bilateral agreements. 5,000
(Source: Own elaboration 0

HINDU

ARMENIAN
NEPALI
RUSSIAN

BANGLADESHI
BELARUSIAN
VIETNAMESE

CHINESE

TURKISH

KAZAKH
GEORGIAN
based on data of Social
Insurance Institution
(www.zus.pl))

The data from social insurance shows that the number of insured foreigners in
Poland is lower than the number of statements related to the intentions to hire for-
eign workers or the statements on hiring foreign workers that are reported to the
labour offices. This might indicate that there is a large number of foreign workers
who are working based on informal agreements, which do not give them a social
protection coverage.
In December 2017, there were almost 3500 foreigners registered as unemployed,
which constituted around 0.32% of all registered unemployed (MRPiPS 2018). This
share is much smaller than the share of foreigners in employment, which indicates
that existing policies related to the requirement to confirm the employment in order
to receive the residence permit are effective. There is a slight increase in the share
of unemployed registered at labour offices. In 2016, there were also around 3500
foreigners registered, constituting 0.26% of the total number of unemployed- com-
pared to 0.24% at the end of 2015 and 0.21% in 2014, respectively. However, this
rising trend is also linked to the lower number of unemployed in Poland, the drop
being related to lower numbers of Polish citizens unemployed. At the end of 2017,
the largest group among registered unemployed foreigners were citizens of Ukraine
(around 35%), Russia (around 15%) and Belarus (around 8%). 61% of unemployed
foreigners were women and 49% were long-term unemployed. Only 7% of all for-
eigners registered as unemployed had a right to unemployment benefit at the end of
2017. In the case of Polish citizens, the percentage was around 15%. This difference
probably results from limitations in access to unemployment benefits, related to
required work experience necessary to claim them.
Similar differences in access to benefits exist also in the area of family benefits.
According to the data from the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, in
2017, only 0.2% of the payments of benefits for bringing up children were paid to
foreign citizens.24

24
https://finanse.wp.pl/500-plus-takze-dla-dzieci-obcokrajowcow-dostaly-35-mln-zlotych-
6277810971388033a
22 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Poland 343

22.3 Conclusions

The migration landscape in Poland has been changing, particularly in recent years.
While in the past, the most important tendency was the relatively large wave of
emigration, particularly after the EU accession, during the last few years, Poland
has started to witness a dynamically rising share of foreign workers originating
mainly from Ukraine and other non-EU countries. This means that the issue of for-
eigners’ access to social security in Poland becomes an increasingly important topic
for social policy.
The provision of social security benefits in Poland are based on insurance-­
financed or tax-financed rules. In the first case, the access of foreigners to benefits
is similar as for Polish citizens, as it is determined by paying relevant social insur-
ance or health insurance contributions. The access to tax-financed benefits (family
benefits, social assistance, health care benefits financed from taxes) and unemploy-
ment benefits is limited to selected categories of foreigners, which is a narrower
group (European Migration Network 2014).
From May 2014, the changes in eligibility rules for social security benefits (fol-
lowing amendments to the Act on social pension, the Act on family benefits and the
Act on Employment Promotion and Labour Market Institutions) extended the cate-
gory of people entitled to unemployment benefits, family benefits and social pen-
sion to foreigners holding time-bound residence permits. There are also some
loopholes in the legislation. For example, the Children Ombudsman in 2017 indi-
cated that there are problems in access to family benefits for families with children
that have Polish citizenship, but parents do not (for example, the Polish parent died,
and the child remains under the custody of foreign parents).25
The share of foreigners, particularly from Ukraine, participating in social insur-
ance in Poland has increased. Most foreigners are covered by the relevant solutions
in the area of coordination of social security, either based on the EU regulations or
bilateral agreements. However, a sizeable share is not covered by such agreements,
which may hamper their access to old-age pensions. It is also worth noting the sig-
nificant share of foreign residents (mainly from Ukraine) who work in the informal
economy in Poland, without access to social insurance. This can be an increasingly
important issue in the coming years.
Lastly, Polish nationals residing abroad have access to benefits according to the
principle of acquired rights, in the case of EU countries (coordination of social
security systems) or in non-EU countries which have bilateral agreements with
Poland. Non-resident nationals cannot claim new benefits if they are tax financed
and when they are not covered by the Polish social insurance.

25
http://brpd.gov.pl/sites/default/files/wyst_2017_04_04_mrpips.pdf
344 A. Chłoń-Domińczak

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Buchholtz, S., Chłoń-Domińczak, A., & Góra, M. (2017, October). Implementing non-financial
defined contribution pensions in Poland (1–30).
Chłoń-Domińczak, A. (2018). Labour market policy thematic review 2018: An in-depth analysis
of the emigration of skilled labour. Poland. European Centre of Expertise (ECE) in the field of
labour law, employment and labour market policy.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
European Migration Network. (2014). Migrant access to social security in Poland.
Gradzewicz, M., Saczuk, K., Strzelecki, P., Tyrowicz, J., & Wyszyński, R. (2016). Badanie
Ankietowe Rynku Pracy. Raport 2016.
Kaczmarczyk, P., & Okólski, M. (2008). Demographic and labour-market impacts of migra-
tion on Poland. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), 600–662. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grn029.
Magda, I., Kiełczewska, A., & Brandt, N. (2018). The “family 500+” child allowance and female
labour supply in Poland. IBS Working Paper, 01.
MRPiPS. (2018). Zatrudnianie cudzoziemcow VII 2018 r [Employment of foreigners, July 2018].
Warsaw: Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, Labour Market Department.
National Bank of Poland. (2018). Analiza sytuacji sektora przedsiębiorstw. Szybki Monitoring
NBP [Analysis of the situation of the enterprise sector. Quick monitoring]. Warsaw.
Social Insurance Institution. (2017). Social security in Poland. Warsaw.
Social Insurance Institution. (2018). Informacja o świadczeniach pieniężnych z Funduszu
Ubezpieczeń Społecznych oraz niektórych świadczeniach z zabezpieczenia społecznego. IV
kwartał 2017 [Information on cash benefits from social insurance fund and about selected
benefits from social security]. Warsaw.
Statistics Poland. (2016). Informacja o rozmiarach i kierunkack czasowej emigracji z Polski w
latach 2004–2015 (pp. 1–5). http://stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktual-
nosci/5471/11/1/1/szacunek_emigracji_z_polski_w_latach_2004-2014.pdf.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 23
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Portugal

Nazaré da Costa Cabral

23.1  verview of the National Social Security System

O
and Key Migration Features in Portugal

23.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The institution of a democratic regime, after the 1974 Revolution, and the enact-
ment of the 1976 Constitution,1 also meant – with respect to the characterization of
the Portuguese Welfare State – the transition from a pure Bismarckian model that
marked the preceding regime to a Beveridgean model, at least of a partial nature
(see also the seminal work of Esping-Andersen 1990 regarding the three models
(“worlds”) of Welfare Capitalism). The right to social security is currently described
in the Constitution as a citizenship right (article 63), whereas the Constitutional
basis for the creation of a general and universal National Health Care System
(NHCS) was established by article 64.2
These two systems have a different nature in Portugal and are managed by differ-
ent institutions. The Social Security system maintains, for its most important

1
Constitutional Law of April, 2, 1976, with revisions: http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/
Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx
2
The effective implementation of this NHCS took place with the approval of Law 56/1979 (Lei n.°
56/1979, de 15 de Setembro). The Portuguese Parliament has recently approved the new Basic Law
for the NHCS (replacing the Law 48/90) It is the Law 95/2019 (Lei n.° 95/2019 de 4 de setembro).

N. da Costa Cabral (*)

University of Lisbon, Lisbon School of Law, Lisbon, Portugal
Alameda da Universidade, Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 345

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_23
346 N. da Costa Cabral

benefits, a contributory profile, and is managed by Social Security institutions (e.g.

the Social Security Institute – Instituto da Segurança Social, ISS – and the Social
Security Financial Management Institute – Instituto de Gestão Financeira da
Segurança Social),3 under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Social
Security. In contrast, the NHCS is mostly non-contributory in nature (financed
through general taxation) and managed by the Central Management of the Health
Care System (Administração Central do Sistema de Saúde – ACSS)4 under the
responsibility of the Minister of Health.
As for the Social Security system, despite the maintenance of its traditional con-
tributory profile (inherited from the previous Bismarckian regime), it has rapidly
evolved to become a more comprehensive (universal) system which covers a broader
range of social risks. In 1980, the non-contributory regime was created, aiming to
ensure protection against certain social risks (old-age, incapacity and family
expenses) in the event of the inexistence or insufficiency of a contribution period.
Later on, in the 1990s, Portugal introduced a minimum income guarantee
(Rendimento Mínimo Garantido), with the fight against poverty and social exclu-
sion becoming an autonomous goal as one of the purposes of traditional social
security.5
The first public pension reform took place in 1993. The Portuguese system,
included in the so-called ‘Mediterranean model of social protection’ (Ferrera et al.
2000), had been an immature late development and asymmetric in nature, at least in
comparison with central and northern European countries. Indeed, before the 1980s,
the Portuguese Bismarckian-type system was incomplete, since many groups of
workers (notably the considerable agrarian population and workers in some indus-
tries) were simply not included in the system’s coverage. Contributory histories
therefore started to be made at a late stage and during the 1990s, they still had a
rather short duration. The 1993 pension reform involved creating incentives to
increase workers’ contribution periods. It also raised the retirement age for women
(from 62 to 65 years of age) the same as it was for men (principle of equal treatment).6
This trend continued with the 2002 and 2007 reforms that brought significant novel-
ties to the rules regarding the calculation of pensions, notably the increase in the
number of contributory years required for establishing the reference income used to
determine the value of the pension.7 Additionally, the so-called ‘sustainability fac-
tor’ (factor de sustentabilidade – FS) was also introduced in 2007, aiming to reflect
in the pension amount the demographic changes occurring since the starting refer-
ence date and the (future) date of the pension request.

3
ISS website: http://www.seg-social.pt/iss-ip-instituto-da-seguranca-social-ip; IGFSS website:
http://www.seg-social.pt/igfss-ip-instituto-de-gestao-financeira-da-seguranca-social-ip
4
http://www.acss.min-saude.pt/
5
Law 19-A/96. Later on, the minimum income guarantee was replaced by Social Integration
Income (Rendimento Social de Inserção – RSI), under Law 45/2005 (Lei n.° 45/2005, de 29 de
agosto).
6
Decree-Law 329/93 (Decreto-Lei n.° 329/93, de 25 de setembro).
7
Decree-Law 187/2007 (Decreto-Lei n.° 187/2007, de 10 de maio).
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 347

The creation of the FS took place under the current Social Security Framework
Law (Law 4/2007- Lei n.° 4/2007, de 16 janeiro de 2007). According to this Law,
the Portuguese Social Security System – with its universal and comprehensive
nature – was structured into three subsystems. The first- entitled ‘Citizenship Social
Protection System’ (Sistema de Proteção Social de Cidadania) – includes all non-­
contributory benefits under residence and means-testing conditions. This first sub-­
system is mostly tailored to address poverty and social exclusion and it includes a
broad spectrum of benefits ranging from the ‘Social Integration Income’ and ‘Social
Assistance’ to social protection in old age, incapacity, family expenses and unem-
ployment. This sub-system is financed mostly through general taxation (transfers
from the general Government budget to the Social Security budget) and ear-
marked taxes.
The second sub-system – named ‘Contributory System’ (Sistema Previdencial) –
is meant to address social risks (old-age, incapacity, temporary disability, unem-
ployment, maternity, paternity and adoption, and death) in a Bismarckian fashion. It
is financed through payroll contributions paid by self-employed/employed workers
and employers.8 This system is managed according to a ‘pay-as-you-go’ and defined
benefit model.9 The third sub-system, of a voluntary nature (unlike the previous
ones), is the ‘Complementary system’ (Sistema Complementar). It includes both
private and government complementary pension schemes, managed in accordance
with a ‘funded’ financial model (see also Cabral and Rodrigues 2017).

23.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

In the EU, Portugal is traditionally considered as a country of emigration. Portugal

is – after Malta – the second EU country with most emigrants (about 2.3 million
people), meaning that more than 22% of the Portuguese citizens live abroad.10
Between 1955 and 1974, the main causes for emigration were economic (low
income per capita, unemployment, insufficient industrialization, and overall eco-
nomic fragility related to a rural economic structure), but also political (due to the
repressive nature of the political regime of the ‘Estado Novo’). After 1974, a

8
The contributory regimes (for employed workers, self-employed and other regimes) are currently
defined in the ‘Social Security Contributory Code’, approved by Law 110/2009 (Código
Contributivo dos Regimes da Segurança Social, Lei n.° 110/2009, de 16 de setembro), with
amendments.
9
Note that the aforementioned changes that aimed to adjust the system to demographic changes, in
fact changed the Portuguese system from a purely defined benefit model to a (partially) defined
contribution model. Concerning the transition within pay-as-you-go systems from defined benefit
models to defined contribution models, see Barr and Diamond (2010), Mendes (2011), Cabral
(2014), Fall (2014) and Fall and Bloch (2014).
10
Information from the latest Report of the Emigration Observatory (‘Observatório da Emigração’),
for the year 2015, and available here: https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/portugal-e-o-segundo-
pais-da-europa-com-mais-emigrantes-5688739.html
348 N. da Costa Cabral

s­ ignificant decrease in the number of annual citizens leaving the country occurred.
Whereas before the democratic regime the major destinations of Portuguese emi-
grants were European countries (e.g. France, Luxembourg and Germany) and coun-
tries in the American continent (e.g. the United States, Canada, Brazil and
Venezuela), after that date, there was a predominance of European countries as des-
tinations. Moreover, accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) in
1986 favoured this shift.
Within the decolonization process that took place along with the institution of a
democratic regime (from 1974 onwards), many Portuguese citizens that lived in
former African colonies returned to Portugal (the so-called ‘retornados’). This
involved a massive intake of new citizens (about 500 thousand) and the concomitant
increase in the Portuguese population. Simultaneously, throughout the years,
Portugal became a targeted destination for new immigrants – citizens from those
same former Portuguese colonies (e.g. Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, and
Guinea-Bissau). This process further intensified in the aftermath of the accession of
Portugal to the EEC. In fact, Portugal has since then received significant amounts of
structural Funds that were primarily allocated to construction and infrastructure.
Work force needs increased the demand for more immigrants that at that time came
mostly from Cape Verde (Baganha et al. 2009). Furthermore, following the collapse
of the Eastern bloc in Europe and the subsequent enlargement of the European
Community (or European Union), Portugal increasingly became a host country for
Eastern migrants (in the case of EU members, mostly from Romania; in the case of
non-EU members, from Ukraine, Russia and Moldavia). Simultaneously, Portugal
became a destination country also for Asian migrants originating mainly from
China. Since the 2000s, a significant increase of Brazilian migrants occurred, and
they have become the largest number of foreign citizens currently living in Portugal.
Last but not least, in these first decades of the twenty-first century, Portugal has also
become an increasing destination for many EU citizens, notably from the UK,
Spain, France and Italy, with these two latter countries undergoing a significant rise
in the last couple of years (SEF 2017).11
The recent financial and economic crisis has had a significant impact on migra-
tion movements in Portugal, affecting both emigration (with a significant increase)
and immigration (with a decrease). The migration balance was negative (net emi-
gration) between 2010 and 2016, this changing to a positive balance in 2017 (net
migration).12 Figure 23.1 captures this evolution in recent years by juxtaposing the
number of (new) permanent emigrants and (new) permanent immigrants.

11
So, the tenth main resident communities in Portugal are, according to data from SEF (2017):
Brazil (85426), Cape Verde (34986), Ukraine (32453), Romania (30750), China (23197), UK
(22431), Angola (16856), France (15319), Guinea-Bissau (15198) and Italy (12925).
12
Information from the Migration Observatory (‘Observatório das Migrações’). Statistical Reports
available here: https://www.om.acm.gov.pt/publicacoes-om/colecao-imigracao-em-numeros/
relatorios-anuais
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 349

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Permanent emigrants: total and by age group

Permanent immigrants: total and by age group

Fig. 23.1 New permanent emigrants and immigrants in Portugal. (Source: INE, PORDATA)

23.2 Migration and Social Protection in Portugal

Considering the applicability of the European rules on social security coordination

deriving from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and its
Implementing Regulation (EC) 987/2009, Portugal has managed – with respect to
non-national EU citizens living and working in the country – to achieve abolition of
discrimination on grounds of nationality (principle of equal treatment) in relation to
employment, remuneration and other working conditions, and the adoption of mea-
sures in the field of social security in order to ensure this. Portugal has been involved
in the on-going revision process of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and some areas were
given special attention: (i) treatment of economically inactive persons moving from
one Member State to another – the vicious circle between ‘working and activating
conditions to obtain residence and the residence condition to access social protec-
tion’; (ii) the qualification of long-term care as sickness benefits, as family benefits
(due to family dependence) or possibly as a new social risk; (iii) cross-border health
care provision and expenses reimbursement (see, on this issue, Giubonni et al. 2017).
As for citizens from non-EU countries, it is necessary to distinguish between the
treatment given to migrants from countries with which Portugal has signed bilateral/
multilateral Social Security Agreements13 and those with which those Agreements
have not been signed. For the latter, with respect to contributory benefits, non-EU

13
Portugal has signed such agreements with 18 countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Australia,
Bolivia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Canada, Canada-Québec, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, United States
of America (U.S.), the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Herm, Jethou and Man, Mozambique, Moldavia,
Paraguay, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. In 1978, Portugal also signed the (multilat-
eral) Ibero-American Convention on Social Security.
350 N. da Costa Cabral

foreigners are treated as Portuguese citizens if they are working and insured in the
Portuguese social security system. Nevertheless, they cannot make use of social
security coordination principles – notably the principle of aggregation of periods
and the principle of exporting benefits – whenever they come to Portugal with a past
contributory record in the country of origin. On the contrary, the former can make
use of these principles – at least for some benefits. Also, the material scope of the
Social Security Bilateral Agreements signed by Portugal with other countries has
increased over time. The former Agreements mostly included old-age and invalidity
(e.g. the Agreements signed with the United States and Canada in the 1980s),14
whereas in the more recent Agreements signed with some of the non-EU countries
from which more migrants enter Portugal (e.g. Mozambique, Cape Verde and
Ukraine), the majority of social risks are included. Moreover, in these cases, prin-
ciples of reciprocity, equal treatment, aggregation of contributory periods (for all
kinds of benefits) apply. Family members are included in the scope of protection
and there are also specific rules to prevent overlapping. In the case of Mozambique
and Cape Verde, some non-contributory benefits are also included in the scope of
the coordination rules (e.g. old-age and invalidity social pensions) and this repre-
sents a major improvement in the traditional conception of social security coordina-
tion rules that in the past were meant mostly for Bismarkian-type social benefits
(that is, involving the idea of insured workers).

23.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment benefit (subsídio de desemprego) is a contributory benefit financed

through payroll contributions paid by workers and employers. To claim this benefit,
workers must satisfy the basic conditions either with respect to a past contribution
period (a minimum qualifying period of 360 days of paid employment with regis-
tered earnings in the 24 calendar months immediately prior to the date of unemploy-
ment) or to the fullfilment of obligations vis-à-vis the employment centre (centro de
emprego) while unemployed (e.g. searching for and/or acceptance of suitable work)
(European Commission 2017, p. 51).
The duration and amount of unemployment benefits vary according to the benefi-
ciary’s age and contributory record. Notwithstanding this, unemployment benefits
may be paid as a lump sum if the beneficiary presents a project proposal to the
employment centre for creating his/her own employment. Workers may also claim
‘partial unemployment benefits’ (cash benefit paid to workers who claimed or were

14
With respect to old-age and invalidity pensions, Portuguese internal legislation (Decree-Law
187/2007) also ensures coordination mechanisms, notably through the applicability of the princi-
ple of the aggregation of periods.
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 351

receiving unemployment benefits, and who subsequently resume employment on a

part-time contract or who start self-employed work).15
In contrast, the ‘social’ unemployment benefit (subsídio social de desemprego)
is a universal-type benefit financed through general taxation. This benefit is granted
to unemployed people who possess a contributory record (although insufficient to
obtain the normal unemployment benefit) and fulfil residence and means-tested
conditions. Hence, this cash benefits aims to compensate unemployed for lack of
income due to involuntary unemployment if they do not meet the conditions for
unemployment benefits (initial social unemployment benefits) or after these unem-
ployment benefits came to an end (subsequent social unemployment benefits). The
duration and amount of the social unemployment benefits vary according to the
beneficiary’s age and contributory record.16
In 2012, an allowance for cessation of work for self-employed workers (subsídio
por cessação de atividade) was created. This allowance is of a contributory nature
and financed through contributions from self-employed workers and from the
respective contracting company. The duration and amount of the allowance also
vary according to the beneficiary’s age and contributory record.17
Foreigners (EU and non-EU) need to comply with the same eligibility require-
ments as national residentes, both with respect to unemployment benefit and ‘social’
unemployment benefit. Foreigners must have legal residence in Portugal, or permit,
allowing them to celebrate an employment contract. For all these unemployment
benefits, residence conditions remain highly active. This means that claimants must
keep some contact through residence with the Portuguese system, at the least
because they have to satisfy ‘integration’ conditions vis-à-vis the employment cen-
tre. For this reason, when beneficiaries (either Portuguese nationals or foreigners)
leave Portugal, the benefit is suspended for three months, a period after which – if
they do not return – it ceases to be paid. Ultimately, the export of unemployment
benefits (as admitted in the European Regulations) can be impaired by this residence-­
type obligation regarding the State of origin.

15
The basic legislation for unemployment benefit is Decree-Law 220/2006 (Decreto-Lei n.°
220/2006, de 3 de Novembro), with amendments.
16
The basic legislation for social unemployment benefit is Decree-Law 220/2006 (Decreto-Lei n.°
220/2006, de 3 de Novembro), with amendments. See also Decree Law 70/2010 (Decreto-Lei n.°
70/2010, de 16 de junho) – rules on the determination of incomes and household composition.
17
The basic legislation for Allowances for Cessation of Work for Self-Employed Workers is Decree
Law 35/2012 (Decreto-Lei n.° 35/2012, de 15 de março), Law 20/2012 (Lei n.° 20/2012, de 14 de
maio), with amendments including those from Decree-Law 2/2018 (Decreto-Lei n.° 2/2018, de 9
de janeiro).
352 N. da Costa Cabral

23.2.2 Health Care

The Portuguese Constitution enacted in 1976 defines the right to health as a univer-
sal social right and states that this is achieved through the creation of a universal,
general and free National Health Care System – NHCS (for all citizens or alike),
regardless of their economic, professional or statutory situation. The system was
therefore to be financed through general taxation. The implementation of the NHCS
(SNS – Serviço Nacional de Saúde) was carried out by Law 56/1979 (Lei no.
56/1979, de 15 de setembro). The NHCS has its own legal status and includes all
official institutions and services that provide health care under the Ministry of
Health. The national network of healthcare covers SNS facilities, private institutions
and independent professionals with whom contracts have been signed. The NHCS
is characterized by providing universal coverage and global health care in an inte-
grated way or else guaranteeing its provision. It is usually being free to its users,
taking into account the social and financial position of citizens; and it guarantees
equal access to its users.
While health care benefits in kind are provided by the NHCS on a universal
basis, sickness cash benefits (subsídio de doença) – for temporary disability/inca-
pacity – are paid by the social security system and are of a contributory nature. The
overall conditions access sickness benefit, applicable both to nationals and foreign-
ers legally resident, are: (i) beneficiaries must be gainfully employed for a total of
six calendar months, whether consecutive or aggregate, prior to the date that the
sickness started; (ii) beneficiaries must have registered earnings for at least twelve
days of work in the four months immediately before the month preceding the onset
of incapacity (professionalism index, índice de profissionalidade) – this condition
does not apply to self-employed workers or to seafarers covered by the voluntary
social security scheme; (iii) self-employed workers and persons covered by the vol-
untary social security scheme must have paid their social security contributions for
the quarter preceding the onset of incapacity.18
Sickness benefits are due either to nationals or foreigners as long as these legal
conditions are met. Benefits are paid up to 1095 days and the replacement rate
depends on the duration of the disability (between a rate of 55% to a duration up to
30 days and 75% for a duration higher than 365 days). Individuals in principle
should not leave the country, since they are disabled (unless for medical treatment
abroad also certified).
Unlike sickness benefits that are temporary in nature, invalidity pensions (pensão
de invalidez) are awarded to individuals in the event of permanent incapacity for
work for a reason not related to their occupation, as certified by the Incapacity
Verification System (Sistema de Verificação de Incapacidades).19 According to the
degree of incapacity, invalidity may be relative (when the beneficiaries’ earning

18
See Decree-Law 28/2004 (Decreto-Lei n.° 28/2004, de 4 de fevereiro) (with amendments).
19
See Decree-Law 187/2007 (Decreto-Lei n.° 187/2007, de 10 de maio), with changes – social
protection in old age and legal invalidity framework.
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 353

capacity for their own occupation is reduced, they are not expected to recover within
the next three years, and have registered earnings for at least five calendar years) or
absolute (when the beneficiary is permanently and definitively incapable of working
in any occupation and has registered earnings for at least three calendar years).20
Furthermore, invalidity pensions can be either of a contributory nature, depending
on the contributory history and the level of earnings,21 or of a non-contributory
nature (‘social’ invalidity pensions), which in turn are dependent on residence and
are means-tested.
Although the NHCS is a universal system, financed through general taxation and
therefore dependent on the residence condition (only residents in Portugal should be
entitled), in some cases – notably under Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and the (new)
Cross Border Health Care Directive (Directive 2011/24/EU) – access to health care
provision (benefits in kind) can be ‘opened’ to residents abroad (either foreigners or
even national citizens) either in the case of temporary stay or permanent stay in
Portuguese territory – and both for unplanned or scheduled treatment in the
Portuguese NHCS. One can thus say that in these particular cases (within the EU),
the residence condition (set as the primary condition in the Portuguese NHCS) is
outweighed by a labour insurance-type link with a (different EU) social security
system (which is, by its nature, a non-universal, non-residence-based link).
In the case of sickness benefits, the movement of workers/citizens across differ-
ent (EU or non-EU) countries determines the applicability of typical coordination
rules on social security – respectively enshrined in EC Regulations or in Bilateral
Agreements – and therefore, in specific cases, allowing for the export of benefits.
Finally, with respect to invalidity pensions of a contributory nature, coordination
mechanisms (e.g. aggregation of periods and benefit export) are firstly recognized
in Portuguese internal law (Decree-Law 187/2007), notably through the applicabil-
ity of the principle of the aggregation of periods, provided an international instru-
ment of coordination involving the Portuguese State has been signed. On the
contrary, social invalidity benefits are based on residence and for this reason export
of benefits is prevented.

23.2.3 Pensions

In the Portuguese system, there are two types of benefits related to old-age. Firstly,
there is the old-age contributory pension (pensão de velhice) financed by employ-
ers, employees, or self-employers in a pay-as-you-go regime. To claim this pension,

20
Absolute invalidity is considered as an incapacity of 100% for any type of work and relative
invalidity the incapacity to obtain at least 50% of the earnings obtained in the previous profession.
21
For this reason, nationals residing abroad can still access this pension under the same conditions
as Portuguese nationals residing in Portugal.
354 N. da Costa Cabral

individuals must prove a minimum period of contributions of 15 years22 and have

legal age to require the old age pension (for 2019, 66 years and 5 months old). The
pension amount is determined according to the beneficiary’s social security contri-
bution record and registered earnings. The pension is a percentage of the income
referenced (with the rules laid down in 2007, it corresponds to the average of earn-
ings registered over the contributory period – and a full contributory period is of at
least 40 years) multiplied by an annual accrual rate of between 2% and 2.3%, mul-
tiplied by the years of contribution.
Early retirement is possible in three situations: (i) specific early retirement
regimes for exacting professions (e.g. miners, air traffic controllers and pilots, dock-­
workers, etc.); (ii) long-term unemployment (and under age conditions); (iii) the age
retirement flexibility regime. In this latter case, early retirement is only possible
under strict conditions – e.g. long periods of insurance and a minimum age for
retirement, never less than 60 years of age – and implies a reduction in the amount
of the pension.
Foreigners (legally residing in Portugal) and nationals residing abroad have the
right to access the old-age contributory pension as long as legal conditions (supra)
are met.
Secondly, there is also a ‘social’ old-age pension (pensão social de velhice) of a
non-contributory nature which is granted under the following conditions: (i) being
legally resident in Portugal (as long as EU foreigners or coming from countries with
BSSA in place); (ii) income lower than a given threshold (for 2018, 428.90€); (iii)
legal age to request the social pension (the same as for the old-age pension – supra);
(iv) not benefiting from any other kind of pension and if so, the respective amount
should be inferior to the value of the social pension.23
An additional remark should be added to the applicability of internal rules on
old-age protection in the case of migrant citizens. As in the case of contributory
invalidity pensions, coordination mechanisms (e.g. aggregation of periods and ben-
efit export) are firstly recognized in Portuguese internal law (Decree-Law 187/2007),
notably with the applicability of the principle of the aggregation of periods, pro-
vided an international coordination instrument involving the Portuguese State has
been signed.24 On the contrary, social old-age pensions are based on the residence
condition and for this reason export of benefits is prevented.
Finally, there are certain supplements of a non-contributory nature that may be
paid on top of the old-age pension. These are the Dependency Supplement
(Complemento de Dependência) paid to pensioners in a state of dependency, and the

22
See Decree-Law 187/2007 (Decreto-Lei n.° 187/2007, de 10 de maio), with changes – social
protection in old age and legal invalidity framework.
23
Decree-Law 160/80 (Decreto-lei n.° 160/80, de 27 de maio) and Decree-Law 46/80(Decreto-lei
n.° 464/80, de 13 de outubro).
24
Pension exportability is allowed either by international rules (article 7 of Regulation EC 883/04 in
the case of EU residents, or some Bilateral Agreements signed), and first and foremost by the
internal Portuguese legislation (article 76/3 of the Decree-Law 187/2007) setting that the pension
request – in the case of residents abroad – can be presented in the social security service or website.
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 355

Solidarity Supplement for the Elderly (Complemento Solidário para Idosos – CSI),
paid to pensioners with limited means who have reached or passed the normal state
pension age under the general social security scheme and who are resident in
Portugal.25

23.2.4 Family Benefits

With respect to maternity/paternity, a significant innovation was introduced by the

2009 Labour Code: the current regime no longer distinguishes, as it did in the past,
between maternity and paternity leaves, but uses common expressions of ‘parental
leaves’ that can be shared, within certain conditions, between mothers and fathers.
The idea of equal treatment between women and men was therefore reinforced in
the Portuguese regime.
Parental leaves include maternity, paternity and adoption26 and they can be of
two types: (i) initial parental leaves (to be used immediately before or after birth/
adoption) that can be shared between parents27; (ii) subsequent parental leaves (to
be used in a subsequent period of the child’s life). The latter, for example, includes
an extended parental leave (three more months added to the initial period, and this
can be taken by one or both parents, but never at the same time) and a leave for
childcare. Furthermore, the social security system also pays subsidies for mother-
hood specific risks such as benefits for clinical risk during pregnancy, for termina-
tion of pregnancy and for special risk.
Parental leaves are of a contributory nature, being financed by payroll contribu-
tions paid by workers and employers, if applicable. Foreign citizens are entitled to
all these benefits in the same conditions as nationals and citizens residing abroad
can also claim these benefits as long as contributory conditions are fulfilled.
Moreover, some specific and limited benefits, entitled ‘social parental benefits’ can
be granted to nationals or foreigners without a (sufficient) contributory history – in
this case being residence-based and means-tested benefits. In either cases, entitle-
ment conditions are related to the mother and the father, not the child: notably, there

25
Decree-Law 232/2005 with amendments (Decreto-lei n.° 232/2005, de 29 de dezembro).
26
See Law 7/2009 (Lei n.° 7/2009, de 12 de fevereiro), with amendments – ‘Labour Code’; Decree-
Law 91/2009 (Decreto-Lei n.° 91/2009, de 9 de abril) - parental benefits.
27
Granted for a period of up to 120 or 150 consecutive days (paid at 100% of the reference income
in the former case, at 80% in the latter), according to the parents’ choice, without prejudice to the
rights of the mother (infra). Both parents may take this period at the same time. If the baby is
stillborn, then the entitlement is only 120 days. The benefit is extended by 30 consecutive days per
child, in the case of multiple live births. The 120 days or 150 days may be extended for shared
leave. Each parent is exclusively entitled to specific days of leave: (a) mothers are exclusively
entitled to take parental leave of up to 30 days before the birth, but must take 6 consecutive weeks
of leave following the birth; (b) fathers are required to take ten working days of parental leave, five
of which must be consecutive, within the 30 days immediately following the birth. The remaining
days may be taken in a single stretch or at intervals.
356 N. da Costa Cabral

are no specific requirements regarding the country of residence or nationality of

the child.
As for family benefits, since the enactment of the Social Security Framework
Law of 2007, these benefits are basically financed by budget transfers and taxes.
Family benefits are considered ‘universal-type’, non-contributory social benefits
relying on residence and means-testing conditions. The basic condition for access-
ing child benefit is that children should reside in Portugal. It should be noted that in
Portugal, children, not parents, are the direct beneficiaries of these family benefits.28
For children, residence in Portugal is therefore required, but the respective parents
can live and/or work abroad. The main eligibility conditions thus include: (i) being
legally resident in Portugal; (ii) not working; (iii) family reference income is equal
to or less than the fourth income bracket amount29; (iv) the total value of the entire
household’s movable assets is less than €101,116.80. Children aged up to 16 years
old are hence entitled to receive the benefit as long as they fulfil the previous condi-
tions (after the age of 16, family benefits are also granted depending on age and
education level).
Non-national children are also entitled to these benefits as long as they reside in
Portugal, even if this is not the case with respective parents and regardless nationality.

23.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The guaranteed minimum resources, in Portugal known as Social Integration

Income (Rendimento Social de Inserção, RSI) is mostly meant to address poverty
and social exclusion amongst residents in Portugal. The RSI is a cash means-tested
benefit (considering household incomes and real estate) established to help benefi-
ciaries with their basic needs, but also a measure aiming at fostering their integra-
tion professionally and within society. Therefore, beneficiaries must be actively
engaged in job search or accept other activating measures (e.g. training).30 Being
based on residence, this benefit cannot be exported to other countries.

28
See Decree-Law 176/2003, of 2nd of August 2003 (Decreto-Lei n.° 176/2003, de 8 de agosto)
with several changes.
29
The reference income is calculated by taking the total earnings of the household and dividing this
by the number of children in the same household, plus one. However, the benefit is only given to
children who meet the eligibility conditions and providing that the household income does not
exceed the fourth income bracket ceiling. Reference income brackets (for 2018): 1st Bracket:
0.5 × IAS* × 14 = Up to €3002.3 (inclusive); 2nd Bracket:; More than 0.5 × IAS × 14 to
1 × IAS × 14 = More than €3002.3 to €6004.6 (inclusive); 3rd Bracket: More than 1 × IAS × 14 to
1.5 × IAS × 14 = More than €6004.6 to €9006.9 (inclusive); 4th Bracket: More than 1.5 × IAS × 14
to 2.5 × IAS × 14 = More than €9006.9 to €15011.5 (inclusive); 5th Bracket: More than
2.5 × IAS × 14 = More than €15011.5. *€428.90 for 2018.
30
Law 13/2003 (Lei n.° 13/2003, de 21 de maio), with amendments – establishing Social Integration
Income, and Decree-Law 1/2016 (Decreto-Lei n.° 1/2016, de 6 de janeiro).
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 357

The eligibility conditions for accessing the RSI have been progressively restricted
during the Euro crisis (between 2009 and 2015), as was noted in the European
Commission (2015, p. 7) study. Problems of adequacy, effectiveness and ‘non-take-
­up’ arose during this dramatic period (which ultimately added to the increase of
poverty rates in Portugal). In this study, the Portuguese regime was included in the
category of “simple and non-categorical schemes but with rather restricted eligibil-
ity and coverage” (European Commission 2015, p. 7), and the main conclusion was
that amongst EU countries, Portugal was one of the seven where benefit coverage
had deteriorated since 2009 (Idem, p. 8).
The eligibility conditions are (still) very restrictive: (i) the household must not
have movable assets or goods subject to registration worth more than €25,279.20;
(ii) the claimant must be a legal resident of Portugal; (iii) the claimant must face
serious financial need; (iv) sign and comply with the Integration Contract (Contrato
de Inserção); (v) be over 18 years of age, with few exceptions; (vi) be registered
with the employment centre (centro de emprego) in his/her area (if unemployed and
capable of working); (vii) not be detained in prison; (viii) not have been placed in
any institutions financed by the State. These conditions apply to EU foreign citizens
alike. As for non-EU foreign citizens (from a country with no agreement of free
movement with EU), residence condition is more demanding, because he/she must
have lived in Portugal for at least one year.

23.3 Conclusions

Social benefits in Portugal are not, in principle, conditional on nationality: a foreign

citizen is granted treatment identical to that of a Portuguese national as long as the
specific conditions are met (basically, a contribution record for contributory benefits
and residence and means-testing conditions for non-contributory benefits).31 This is
a consequence of a national treatment principle (prohibition of discrimination) that
is of general application. Moreover, due to the same principle, Portugal has not
implemented any kind of specific social benefits scheme only for foreigners or for
citizens residing abroad.
In turn, for most benefits (either contributory or not), the condition of a minimum
period of residence is not imposed by the Portuguese legislation. The only exception
concerns the Social Integration Income, for which a minimum period of one year of
residence is required. Moreover, claiming and receiving social benefits should not
affect – at least in legal terms – the access of foreigners to the Portuguese citizen-
ship (naturalization process), their residence permits, or their right to family reuni-
fication. In practical terms, though, and since the residence visa (visto de residência)
is mostly granted to foreigners (notably those coming from non-EU countries) that

31
Some exceptions can be neverthless highlighted, as the aforementioned case with old-age ‘social’
pension, in which non-EU foreign citizens experience restrictions.
358 N. da Costa Cabral

enter the country to work, and with an employment contract, the lack of this contract
may delay or making the granting of the visa more difficult.
In general, when assessing the applicability of coordination rules and interna-
tional mechanisms to the framing of migration issues, and in particular the applica-
bility of the residence criterion, the following patterns can be observed with regard
to the Portuguese menu of social benefits.
Firstly, the minimum guarantee of resources (Rendimento Social de Inserção) is
only granted to citizens with (legal) residence in Portugal – including the case of
Portuguese citizens – therefore, the residence condition is very strong in this case.
The same happens typically with other non-contributory benefits, such as social
pensions and family benefits (the beneficiaries of which are the children).
Secondly, regarding health care benefits (in kind), although the NHCS is a uni-
versal system financed through general taxation and therefore dependent on the
residence condition (only residents in Portugal should be entitled), in some cases –
notably under Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and the (new) Cross Border Health Care
Directive (Directive 2011/24/EU) –access to health care provision can be ‘opened’
to citizens insured abroad (foreigners and national citizens). It is thus possible to
state that in these particular cases (within the EU), the residence condition (set as
the primary condition in the Portuguese NHCS) is outweighed by a labour insurance-­
type link with a (different EU) social security system (which is, by its nature, a
non-universal, non-residence-based link).
Thirdly, regarding contributory social benefits, two extremely different outcomes
occur, both resulting from the Portuguese internal law. The first one concerns the
case of parental allowances including both maternity and paternity in the Portuguese
system. In this case, the residence condition is weak and almost irrelevant, meaning
that parental benefits can be claimed even by those beneficiaries (Portuguese nation-
als or foreign citizens) that no longer live in Portugal, as long as the six month
request period (after the date of birth) is fulfilled (which is the same as for residents
in Portugal) and regardless of the place of birth of the child. The second scenario is
in the field of unemployment benefits. Despite the contributory nature of these ben-
efits, the residence conditions remain highly active, meaning that claimants must
keep some contact with the Portuguese system through residence, not the least
because they have to fulfil activating conditions vis-à-vis the employment centre
(e.g. searching for and/or acceptance of suitable work). For this very reason, when
beneficiaries leave the national territory, the benefit is suspended for three months,
a period after which – if they do not return – it ceases to be paid. Ultimately, the
export of unemployment benefits (as allowed for in the European Regulations) can
be impaired by this residence-type obligation towards the State of origin.
Finally, between these two extreme opposite outcomes, the Portuguese regime
with respect to contributory benefits may be closer, in certain cases, to the former
solution (weak residence condition) – which is the case with old-age and invalidity
pensions, whereas in other cases the solution is closer to the latter (strong residence
condition) – which is the case with sickness benefits.
23 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Portugal 359

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post) Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant Agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Baganha, M. I., Marques, J. C., & Góis, P. (2009). Imigrantes em Portugal: uma Síntese Histórica.
Ler História, 56. https://journals.openedition.org/lerhistoria/1979.
Barr, N., & Diamond, P. (2010). Pension reform – A short guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cabral, N. (2014). A reforma da segurança social portuguesa: análise de soluções à luz de uma
escala gradativa de intensidade. In F. R. Mendes & N. Cabral (Eds.), Por onde vai o Estado
Social em Portugal? (pp. 273–296). Porto: Vida Económica.
Cabral, N., & Rodrigues, N. C. (2017). Finanças dos Subsectores. Coimbra: Almedina.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
European Commission. (2015). Minimum income schemes in Europe – A study of nation policies
2015. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2017). Your social security rights in Portugal. Brussels: European
Commission.
Fall, F. (2014). Comparing the robustness of PAYG pension schemes (OECD Department Working
Papers No. 1134).
Fall, F., & Bloch, D. (2014). Overcoming vulnerabilities of pension systems (OECD Department
Working Papers No. 1133).
Ferrera, M. et al. (2000). The future of social Europe – recasting work and welfare in the new
economy. Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade, Oeiras: Celta Editores.
Giubonni, S. et al. (2017). Coordination of social security systems in Europe. Study for the EMPL
Committee, European Parliament.
Mendes, F. R. (2011). Segurança Social – O Futuro Hipotecado. Lisboa: Fundação Francisco
Manuel dos Santos.
SEF. (2017). Relatório de Imigração, Fronteiras e Asilo, Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras.
https://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa2017.pdf.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 24
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Romania

Irina Burlacu, Sorina Soare, and Daniela Vintila

24.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to provide a general overview of the main features of the social
security system in Romania and the nexus with the main migration patterns. It illus-
trates how social benefits have been transposed in the national legislation to cover
different groups of individuals living in, moving to or moving out of Romania. In
doing so, the chapter pays particular attention to the eligibility conditions for these
different groups in order to identify potential differences in terms of access to social
benefits between resident nationals, non-resident nationals, and non-national resi-
dents. The chapter is divided in three parts. The first part discusses the main devel-
opments in the field of social policy and migration in Romania. It starts from the
early 1990s’ logic of adaptation to internal pressures aiming to prevent large-scale
protests (Vanhuysse 2009; Pop 2013) and continues with the development of the
national welfare system during the 2000s. We then examine the features of the legal
framework regulating access to social benefits and services across five policy areas:
unemployment, health care, pensions, family benefits and guaranteed minimum
resources. Finally, we draw some analytical conclusions arguing that the post-crisis
renewal of the legal framework induced a redirection of core principles towards a

I. Burlacu (*)
United Nations University Migration Network, Maastricht University,
Maastricht, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Soare
Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Vintila
Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies (CEDEM),
University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 361

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_24
362 I. Burlacu et al.

more liberal perspective. However, despite regular amendments, Romanian policy-­

makers still tend to focus more on ensuring the social protection of the general cat-
egory of residents, regardless of their nationality.

24.2  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Romania

Over the last decade, Romania has become one of the fastest-growing economies in
the world (Vasilescu 2018), while also being one of the European Union (EU)
Member States with the lowest levels of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.1
Despite constant improvement in terms of macroeconomic indicators and social
policy reforms, there have been limited changes with regards to social inequality
(i.e. maintained poverty risk especially for residents of rural areas, Roma, and dis-
abled people – see Schraad-Tischler et al. 2018). Social security spending remained
limited (Vintila and Lafleur in this volume) and in certain areas such as health care,
Romania has the lowest expenditure per capita at the European level.2 Furthermore,
the country counts with a large rural population (46% of the total population in
20153); and important rural-urban disparities in terms of development and poverty
can still be observed. Rural areas have also experienced a high concentration of in-­
work poverty, particularly among those working in the subsistence agriculture
(Vasilescu 2018). While the regions of Bucharest Ilfov, North-West, Centre and
West are the most dynamic areas in terms of economy with a younger population,
the Southern part of Romania is still characterised by lower levels of socio-­economic
development and increasingly ageing demographical structures.4 Employment
growth remains extremely unbalanced, with significant regional disparities and low
employment rates for young people, women, individuals with low educational lev-
els, especially those originating from rural areas (Vasilescu 2018).
The demographic decline adds further complexity to this issue by challenging
the coverage, efficiency and limits of the Romanian welfare system. Since the early
1990s, Romania was included in the group of countries with the steepest decline in
population, together with Lithuania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Schubert
et al. 2016). Additionally, sizeable migration outflows openly challenged the sus-
tainability of the Romanian welfare system, in particular with regard to the pension

1
Eurostat (2019). Real GDP per capita [SDG_08_10], http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
Accessed 19 March 2020.
2
OECD (2017). Romania Country Health Profile 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283534-
en. Accessed 19 March 2020.
3
National Institute of Statistics (2017). Repere economice şi sociale regionale: Statistică
teritorială, http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/Publicatii_2017/82.Repere_economice_si_sociale_
regionale_Statistica_teritoriala/Repere_economice_si_sociale_regionale_Statistica_teritori-
ala_2017.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.
4
National Institute of Statistics (2017). See footnote 3.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 363

system (Popescu et al. 2016). The increased stocks of emigrants mostly include active
and qualified people, a major challenge for the domestic labour supply and a grow-
ing social problem (i.e. the negative by-effects on children left behind or the difficult
socio-psychological and economic reintegration of returnees).

24.2.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

Communist Romania had a social protection system based on pensions, health care
and sickness insurance provided on universal basis (Pop 2013). The system pro-
vided limited resources for non-state employees and did not acknowledge unem-
ployment. Given the emphasis on family and female active occupational status,
child allowances were also provided. This system was rapidly put under severe pres-
sures by the negative economic consequences emerged during the transition period,
among which the diffused risks of unemployment and marginalisation. Post-­
communist social policy reforms were implemented slowly and produced scattered
regulations (Sotiropoulos and Pop 2007). During the early 1990s, adjustments were
rather ad hoc sectoral responses aiming to consolidate democracy, while also pre-
venting the protests of specific professional categories such as miners (Sotiropoulos
and Pop 2007; Cerami and Stanescu 2009; Vanhuysse 2006, 2009). In this context,
political parties rapidly imposed themselves as the main managers of social policy-­
making, with limited involvement from welfare-focused societal actors such as
workers, trade unions or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (Sotiropoulos
and Pop 2007; Pop 2013). This was further facilitated by the diffusion of governing
via governmental ordinances, bypassing both Parliament and public debates. The
result was that the post-communist social agenda was co-drafted by parties and a
wide range of international actors (the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, the EU or the International Labour Organization) (Sotiropoulos and Pop
2007; Popescu et al. 2016).
Given the drastic reduction of the productive capacity of the national economy
and the limited financial resources available, Romanian policy-makers introduced
embrionary social safety nets (i.e. unemployment insurance (1991) and social assis-
tance (1995)), coupled with the expansion of early retirement incentives (Cerami
and Stanescu 2009). This reform was meant to control the risk of poverty explosion
due to the privatization process (Pop 2013). At the end of the 1990s, the imperative
of structural adjustments to the market economy induced a complex welfare state
restructuring that targeted, almost simultaneously, the health care system, family-­
related policies, pensions, unemployment, the fiscal decentralization of locally
delivered social benefits and the guaranteed minimum income (Sotiropoulos and
Pop 2007; Pop 2013). Many of these reforms were inspired by Western European
welfare systems, but their results remained rather poor (Popescu et al. 2016). The
infrastructure for their implementation at the central and local level in Romania
364 I. Burlacu et al.

remained under-financed, with inadequate human and logistic resources. Not sur-
prisingly, these reforms did not suffice to limit a pervasive poverty and social exclu-
sion (Raţ 2009). Strong political and social cleavages between rural and urban areas
resulted in policy blockages at the local level and inconsistent legislation
(Sotiropoulos and Pop 2007; Cerami and Stanescu 2009). Meanwhile, in response
to increased emigration and demographic challenges, different policies were imple-
mented with the explicit aim of preventing increased brain drain or countering
demographic decline.5
After the uptrend of economic development, Romania registered a negative
growth rate in 2010. The implementation of an austerity package brought important
cuts in terms of social benefits and, more generally, a neoliberal turn in Romanian
labour and health policies (Stoiciu 2012). In this context, the 2011 reform of the
social security system was openly designed to diminish the welfare state and to
encourage work by reducing welfare payments (Stoiciu 2012). The level of unem-
ployment benefits has abruptly decreased since then (i.e. in August 2017, only
18.9% of all unemployed were registered with the public employment service as
recipients of unemployment benefits6).
Currently, the Romanian welfare system is based on contributory benefits (old-­
age pensions, unemployment benefits, health insurance, maternity leave and allow-
ance, parental benefits, among others) and non-contributory benefits (state allowance
for children and families, emergency benefits and financial aid, disability allow-
ance, guaranteed minimum income or the guaranteed social pension). According to
the legislative reform implemented in January 2018,7 the social charges payable by
employers become the liability of employees, as follows: 25% for social insurance
contributions, 10% for health insurance contributions and 2.25% on work insur-
ance. Romania has a flat-tax rate of 10% and its fiscal policy has been criticized for
not being equally favourable for all social groups.8 Since 2007, the country has
introduced the pillar model endorsed by the World Bank and experimented by other
post-communist countries (Cerami and Vanhuyssen 2009; Popescu et al. 2016).
Despite the fact that Romania follows the general Central and Eastern European
trend in terms of GDP evolution, social indicators, and adjustment of the national
context to the acquis communautaire, the risk of destabilizing factors is still very
high, thus leading to a rather “hybrid” form of welfare state not entirely sustained
by real economic progress (Schipor and Frecea 2018).

5
This is the case for the generous flat-rate benefit for childcare or the grant for the first marriages
(Popescu et al. 2016).
6
OECD (2018). Key policies to promote longer working lives: Country note 2007 to 2017 Romania,
https://www.oecd.org/countries/romania/Romania_Key%20policies_Final.pdf. Accessed 19
March 2020.
7
Government Emergency Ordinance no. 79/2017 for amending and completing Law no. 227/2015
regarding the Fiscal Code. https://static.anaf.ro/static/10/Anaf/legislatie/OUG_79_2017.pdf.
Accessed 19 March 2020.
8
http://business-review.eu/news/world-bank-chief-economist-said-that-romania-should-change-
the-whole-social-protection-system-and-gave-up-the-flat-tax-188277. Accessed 19 March 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 365

24.2.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Population decline, population aging and emigration can briefly summarize the
main demographic trends in Romania after 1990. According to the National Institute
of Statistics,9 the demographic challenge that Romania is facing is the result of natu-
ral decline (i.e. fertility rates below the replacement level), migration, and the dif-
ficult socio-economic conditions of post-communism. After 2002, when EU
Member States agreed to lift visa requirements for Romanians, the intensity of
migration outflows rapidly increased, while the destination countries diversified
(Vintila and Soare 2018). Rapidly, Romania has become one of the main migrant
sending countries in the region (Zaharia et al. 2017).10
Figure 24.1 shows the evolution of the number of long-term emigrants from
Romania since 2008, with more than 2,3 million individuals having left Romania.
The vast majority of them moved to other EU countries. From a longitudinal per-
spective, long-term emigration peaked between 2002 and 2008, although it
decreased from 2008 to 2013, in parallel with the most critical years of the

3,50,000 94.8 100

3,02,796 89.2
3,00,000
80
2,50,000 231661

2,00,000 60

1,50,000 40
1,00,000
20
50,000

0 0

N emigrants % emigrants moving to other EU Member States

Fig. 24.1 Long-term emigrants from Romania (during the year of reference, 2008–2018). (Source:
Vintila and Soare (2018), updated based on Eurostat (2019): emigration by age group, sex and citi-
zenship [migr_emi1ctz]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (Accessed 19
March 2020))

9
National Institute of Statistics (2017). Proiectarea populaţiei Romăniei în profil teritorial la ori-
zontul anului 2060. http://www.insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/field/publicatii/proiectarea_popu-
latiei_romaniei_in_profil_teritorial_la_orizontul_2060.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.
10
See also: International Organization for Migration (2018). World Migration Report 2018, https://
www.iom.int/wmr/world-migration-report-2018. Accessed 19 March 2020.
366 I. Burlacu et al.

economic crisis. According to Eurostat data,11 by 2019, more than 3,5 million
Romanians were living in other EU Member States, with Italy hosting the largest
population of Romanian emigrants (1,2 million in 2019), followed by Spain (around
670,000). Over time, the corridors involving Italy and Spain were maintained by
migration networks established during the early 1990s, the availability of jobs, and
language similarities (Vasilescu 2018). High numbers of Romanians also took up
residence in Germany, the United Kingdom (UK) and France (Vintila and
Soare 2018).
Long-term emigration increased especially among young people, as over 65% of
non-resident Romanians are between 18 and 39 years old (Zaharia et al. 2017).
Thus, Romania has become the EU country with the highest emigration rate of
active labour market participants (Vasilescu 2018). Among highly qualified emi-
grants, there are IT specialists, doctors and students whose main reasons for emi-
grating are linked to job search and studies, while corruption, political instability or
the poor quality of public service are the main reasons for not returning to Romania
(Vasilescu 2018). The large number of young emigrants also led to diminishing
fertility rates, as the decision to migrate is positively correlated with the decision to
postpone or even renounce to having children (Popescu et al. 2016).
Compared to the sizeable Romanian diaspora, the number of foreigners residing
in Romania is very limited. Figure 24.2 shows that the total number of foreigners

150000 60
50.9
125000 50

100000 111523 40
73806 28.1
75000 30

50000 20
56750
20618
25000 10
0.4 0.6
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
N. EU Citizens N. Foreigners
% EU citizens over foreigners % Foreigners over total population

Fig. 24.2 Stock of non-national residents in Romania (total numbers and %) (2012–2018).
(Source: Vintila and Soare (2018), updated based on Eurostat (2019): population on 1 January by
age group, sex and citizenship [migr_pop1ctz]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/data-
base. (Accessed 19 March 2020). “EU citizens” refer to non-national EU citizens residing in
Romania)

11
Eurostat (2019). Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship [migr_pop1ctz],
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed 19 March 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 367

residing in Romania has generally increased during the last years. Yet, their share
over the total population remains very low (around 0.5%). Until 2017, most non-­
national residents were third-country nationals, mainly coming from the Republic
of Moldova, Turkey, China and Syria (Zaharia et al. 2017). However, by 2018,
mobile EU citizens accounted for almost a half of the foreign population in Romania,
with most of them originating from Italy, France, and Germany (Vintila and Soare
2018). The majority (60%) of foreigners living in Romania are male and around
1/5th of them moved to Romania for studies. Only a small share (5%) have a small
business in Romania. Therefore, as a labour force or economic potential, immigra-
tion to Romania does not present a large potential due to its reduced number and
type of immigration (Zaharia et al. 2017).
In response to these demographic changes, Romania’s migration policy has
started to crystalize in recent years, being shaped by different factors. Until 1989,
Romania was a closed country in which many people lived as temporary internal
migrants in cities, coming from villages and not having the possibility of getting a
permanent residence, especially in larger cities (Sandu et al. 2004). Around 100,000
Germans (who did not have the possibility to leave the country before 1989) left
Romania for permanent residence in Germany. After 1992, the rate of external
migration registered a sharp decline, with a second decrease of external migration
being observed after 1998. Within this context, the Romanian institutions developed
different programmes and initiatives to incentivize the return of Romanian emi-
grants. As for immigrants, the main legislative documents regulating the rights of
EU citizens in Romania have been adapted to the European legislation after the
country’s accession to the EU. In recent years, Romania also adopted the National
Immigration Strategy for the period 2015–2018,12 which established as policy pri-
orities the need to attract highly skilled workers, to cooperate with third countries,
and to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking. Maintaining national
safety and keeping investors in Romania were also priorities of this strategy that
aimed to encourage the immigration of third-country nationals wishing to develop
businesses in Romania. Overall, when it comes to immigration, Romania scores
well with respect to anti-discrimination of immigrants, although it lacks a function-
ing integration system (Wagner et al. 2018).

12
Apart from the Strategy on immigration and the Labour Code, there are several specific laws
applicable only to foreigners, mainly concerning their access to employment in Romania:
Government Ordinance no. 25/2014 on employment and detachment of foreigners (http://legis-
latie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/160962); Government Ordinance no. 44/2004 on the social
integration of foreigners (http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/49507) and its
Methodological Norms; Law no. 122 of 4 May 2006 on asylum in Romania (http://legislatie.just.
ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/71808); Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194 of 12 December
2002 on the regime of foreigners in Romania (https://www.mae.ro/sites/default/files/file/
anul_2016/2016_pdf/2016.11.01_anexa_4_oug_194-2002.pdf). All links were accessed on 19
March 2020.
368 I. Burlacu et al.

24.3 Migration and Social Protection in Romania

After joining the EU, Romania adopted the social security coordination Regulation
883/200413 and Regulation 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers14 that
enables equal treatment of non-national EU citizens living in Romania with
Romanian nationals on aspects such as eligibility for employment, remuneration,
conditions of work or dismissal, access to housing, family benefits, etc. Similarly,
Romanian citizens enjoy equal rights while residing in other EU countries. Overall,
access of citizens and non-citizens to social benefits in Romania is strongly related
to their residence, past contributions and specific elements characterizing individ-
ual cases.
The social protection rights of Romanians residing in non-EU countries and of
third-country nationals residing in Romania – groups that are less sizeable when
compared to the intra-EU mobility from and to Romania – are mainly regulated
via bilateral social security agreements signed with third countries. These agree-
ments are negotiated at high-level social security administration and they vary
substantially in terms of coverage, depending on the needs of the population
residing in each country and the available budget. Currently, social security agree-
ments are in place with the Russian Federation (1960), Algeria (1982), Peru
(1982), Morocco (1983), Libya (1977), Turkey (2002), Macedonia (2007), Canada
(2009), the Republic of Korea (2009), the Republic of Moldova (2010), Israel
(2011), Albania (2015), Quebec (2015) and Serbia (2016). Moreover, a series of
bilateral health agreements and conventions15 were signed to protect Romanian
citizens residing in non-EU countries and third-country nationals living in
Romania. Yet, the coverage of these agreements is quite asymmetrical. For exam-
ple, the agreement with Israel covers invalidity insurance and pensions, while the
one with Canada does not. Similarly, the agreement with Moldova covers more
than 11 types of benefits.

13
Regulation (EC) 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the coordination of social security systems. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
CELEX%3A02004R0883-20140101. Accessed 19 March 2020.
14
Regulation (EU) 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Union (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011R0492). Accessed 19 March 2020.
15
List of bilateral agreements available at: http://www.cnas.ro/media/pageFiles/List%C4%83%20
%20acordurilor,%20conven%C5%A3iilor%20%C5%9Fi%20%C3%AEn%C5%A3elegerilor%
20bilaterale%20%C3%AEncheiate%20la%20nivel%20de%20stat%20%C5%9Fi%20de.pdf.
Accessed 19 March 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 369

24.3.1 Unemployment

In 2019, the unemployment rate in Romania reached one of the lowest levels (3,9%)
during the last 20 years.16 The Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) 126/200817
made a first step in eliminating the connection between unemployment benefits
(indemnizație de șomaj)18 and the level of the guaranteed minimum wage. This
means that those applying for unemployment benefits are jobless, have no income,
or have a lower income than the value of the reference social indicator. A special
category of unemployment benefits (venitul lunar de completare) concerns the per-
sons belonging to collective dismissal in the defense production and state-owned
companies (GEO 36/2013).19
Unemployment benefits are available to national and non-national employees
and self-employed who are over 16 years of age and have contributed to the
Romanian National Agency of Employment (Agenția Națională pentru Ocuparea
Forței de Muncă – ANOFM) for at least 12 months in the last 24 months prior to
their application. The duration of unemployment benefit depends on the completed
period of contributions: 6 months (for persons with a contribution period of at least
1 year), 9 months (for those who have contributed for at least 5 years) and 12 months
(for persons with a contribution period of more than 10 years). Graduates who do
not find a job within 60 days after graduation receive unemployment benefits for
6 months. The law20 also distinguishes between categories of residents who are
compulsory insured for unemployment benefits (i.e. civil servants, elected office
holders, etc.) and persons who can voluntarily insure themselves for unemployment
benefits. Among these, there is an explicit reference to the eligibility to be insured
for unemployment benefits for Romanian citizens working abroad, foreign citizens
or stateless persons who are employed or have earnings.
To access unemployment benefits, one needs to prove a paid legal contract.
However, having resided in an EU country makes one eligible for totalization of all
contribution periods collected in Romania and other EU Member States and paid by
the last country of employment. When based in another EU Member State, one can

16
Eurostat (2019). Total unemployment rate [TPS00203], http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/data-
base. Accessed 19 March 2020.
17
Government Emergency Ordinance no. 126 of 8 October 2008 on the modification and comple-
tion of some normative acts in order to eliminate the links between the level of the rights granted
from the unemployment insurance budget and the level of the minimum gross basic salary in the
country and to establish the measures for applying some community regulations. http://legislatie.
just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/98026, Accessed 19 March 2020.
18
Romania does not have a special unemployment assistance scheme.
19
GEO no. 36 of 30 April 2013 on the application in the period 2013–2018 of social protection
measures granted to the persons belonging to collective dismissal. http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/
DetaliiDocument/160962. Accessed 19 March 2020.
20
Law no. 76 of 16 January 2002 regarding the unemployment insurance system and the stimula-
tion of employment. http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/LEGI/
L76-2002_act.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.
370 I. Burlacu et al.

send the request for totalization to the National Agency for Employment Directorate
for International Relations. When moving to another EU country, a Romanian citi-
zen who becomes unemployed in the EU country where he/she last worked will
receive cash benefits due to activity as an employed or self-employed. In this case,
the citizen will remain subject to the legislation of the country in which he/she was
last insured while working. If the Romanian citizen is a non-active person, he/she is
subject to the legislation of the country of residence. Lastly, if a Romanian/EU citi-
zen cannot find a job in Romania, he/she can move to another EU country to search
for work for 3 months (with the possibility of extension up to a maximum of
6 months). In this case, individuals must inform the Romanian authorities and the
authorities of the EU Member State where one searches for work. Those who are
not able to find work after 3 months will have to return to Romania and inform
national authorities about their return.

24.3.2 Health Care

The public health care system in Romania is financed mainly through contributions
(Law no. 95/200621). The low value of the contribution and the shrinking of the
working population negatively affects the health expenditure per capita and becomes
a fertile breeding ground for corruption (Popescu et al. 2016). Health benefits in-­
kind are available for those who contribute to the medical system, prove disability
status or long-term care eligibility. Inspired by the UK health system model, insured
people can access a basic package of medical services free of charge.22 They have to
pay for medicines if not hospitalized and they can register on the patient list of a
family doctor (general practitioner). Uninsured individuals can only access a mini-
mal package of medical services in cases of urgent surgery, birth, tuberculosis or
other epidemic diseases.23 Except for the minimal package of healthcare, uninsured
persons have to pay the full cost of the medical treatment.24 Some categories of citi-
zens are insured without paying contributions, whereas others can benefit from con-
tributions paid on their behalf by a third party.

21
Law no. 95 of 28 August 2015 on the reform in the health field. https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/g42tmn-
jsgi/legea-nr-95-2006-privind-reforma-in-domeniul-sanatatii?d=12.05.2019. Accessed 19
March 2020.
22
For more details: http://www.cnas.ro/page/drepturile-si-obligatiile-asiguratilor.html#. Accessed
19 March 2020.
23
Decision no. 140 of 21 March 2018 for the approval of the packages of services packages and the
Framework Contract that regulates the conditions of medical assistance, medicines and medical
devices in the social insurance system for the years 2018–2019. http://www.casan.ro/casalba/
media/postFiles/HG%20140-CONTRACT%20CADRU%202018-2019.pdf. Accessed 19
March 2020.
24
For more details: http://www.cnas.ro/page/pachetul-minimal-de-servicii-medicale-in-asistenta-
medicala-ambulatorie-de-specialitate -pentru-specialitatile-clinice.html. Accessed 19 March 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 371

In terms of migrants’ access to the public health care system, one challenging
aspect for authorities is to trace the number of immigrants residing in Romania who
are medically insured or have access to a family doctor. Despite the small size of the
foreign population, authorities still find it hard to identify the number of insured
migrants and the type of insurance they benefit from. The insured status and the
insurance rights are lost when foreigners lose the right to reside in Romania.
Undocumented migrants are particularly vulnerable given the strong barriers they
face for accessing basic medical services, emergency and basic social protection in
Romania (Alexe and Paunescu 2011). Similar to other EU countries, Romania also
counts with a high decentralisation and autonomy in the administration of the Health
Insurance Fund. This is the reason why, in cases of mobility within or outside the
EU, the regional and local insurance institutions need to be informed of the context
and duration of the stay abroad, so that they can issue all necessary documents and
communicate with the health insurance institutions in the country of destination.
Sickness benefits in cash require claimants to prove the incapacity for work due
to sickness certified by a doctor, a medical certificate issued from the first day of
incapacity and a notification of the employer within 3 days. Access to sickness ben-
efits is conditioned by a period of at least 6 months of contributions within the last
12 months. The legal framework refers to the general category of “insured people”
without explicit reference to a nationality criterion. GEO 158/201525 distinguishes
between different types of medical leave (concediu medical) and associated cash
benefits (indemnizație) covering: (a) temporary incapacity to work due to illness or
accidents outside the workplace; (b) incapacities due to accidents at work and occu-
pational diseases; (c) maternity; (d) childcare and; (e) risks linked to maternity.
Family physicians can prescribe up to 14 days leave and the legal framework guar-
antees an extension up to 90 calendar days per year upon the recommendation of
specialists or hospital doctors. The maximum duration for a sick leave is 180 calen-
dar days per year.
Disability benefits are available to national and foreign residents insured under
the public pension system who have lost at least half of their capacity to work as
certified by the social insurance medical expert. Once they have obtained a disabil-
ity pension, recipients must undergo periodic medical checks at intervals of between
1 and 3 years until they reach the standard retirement age. Failing to attend this
medical assessment leads to the suspension of the disability pension. Both Romanian
and foreign citizens can export their invalidity pension from Romania in case they
decide to move abroad.

25
GEO no. 158 of 17 November 2005 regarding holidays and social health insurance benefits.
http://www.cnas.ro/cascluj//theme/cnas/js/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Anunturi_Medici_2016/
OUG_(A)_158-2005_CM_actual_ian_2018.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.
372 I. Burlacu et al.

24.3.3 Pensions

The Romanian public pension scheme is regulated by Law no. 263/2010.26 Eligibility
for a contributory pension is evaluated based on claimants’ age and prior contribu-
tion to the pension scheme. To qualify for an old-age pension (pensie pentru limită
de vârstă), claimants must have reached the standard retirement age (65 years for
men and 60 years and 9 months for women, to increase gradually to 63 years by
January 2030) and have contributed to the pension scheme for at least 15 years (the
full contribution period is 35 years for men and 30 years and 9 months for women,
to be increased to 35 years by January 2030). Lower age requirements apply to
persons employed in arduous work and certain categories of individuals with dis-
abilities. Eligible claimants can also receive an early retirement pension without
penalties (pensie anticipată) granted up to 5 years before the standard retirement
age to those who have contributed for at least 8 years longer than the full contribu-
tion period. They can also apply for a partial early retirement pension with penalties
(pensie anticipată parțială) granted up to 5 years before the standard retirement age
to those having completed the full contribution period and those having exceeded by
up to 8 years the full contribution period.
The law also foresees the possibility for nationals residing abroad to access and
export pensions from Romania. The criteria of nationality and residence are fine-­
tuned. Article 5 of the law specifies that “(1) The contributors to the public pension
system may be Romanian citizens, citizens of other states or stateless persons, while
they have, according to the law, their domicile or residence in Romania. (2) The
public pension system can insure also Romanian citizens, citizens of other states
and stateless persons who do not have their domicile or residence in Romania, under
the conditions provided by the legal instruments of international character to which
Romania belongs”. Furthermore, foreigners who have worked in Romania can also
benefit from the public contributory pensions although they no longer reside in
Romania (GEO 194/2002, with amendments).
Contributors are subject to a public pay-as-you-go pension scheme. Contributions
are compulsory for employers, employees, and self-employed and the total contri-
bution rate differs depending on working conditions. The pension funding system of
the first pillar witnessed some changes in 2018. As mentioned, the contribution rates
for pensions increased to 25% and it is entirely up the employee only to pay the
premiums. These contributions are paid by all those residing and working in
Romania.
In addition to the public contributory pension, the social allowance for pension-
ers (indemnizația socială pentru pensionari) is a non-contributory benefit available
to pensioners residing in Romania whose pension amount is below the

Law no. 263 of 16 December 2010 regarding the unitary system of public pensions. http://www.
26

mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/LEGI/L263-2010.pdf. Accessed 19
March 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 373

guaranteed minimum social pension.27 This allowance is granted upon three criteria:
be a pensioner of the public pension system, irrespective of the retirement date; have
a domicile in Romania; have a pension of less than 400 RON. No forms of exclu-
sions based on claimants’ nationality are mentioned in the text of the law.

24.3.4 Family Benefits

There are several types of family-related benefits in Romania. The maternity leave
and allowance (concediu medical şi indemnizaţia pentru maternitate) are granted to
women who are legally residing in Romania and have contributed for at least
6 months to the social insurance system during the last 12 months prior to the mater-
nity leave. No explicit form of exclusion based on citizenship is mentioned in the
text of the law. The maternity leave period consists of 63 days before birth and
63 days of postnatal leave. This is a compulsory social insurance scheme for all
inhabitants financed mainly by contributions for employees and self-employed, pro-
viding an earnings-related benefit. No membership on a voluntary basis is allowed.
If moving to another EU country, social security coordination foresees that the
country of insurance is responsible for paying maternity or paternity benefits to
Romanian citizens according the national rules.
The paternity leave (concediu paternal) lasts 5 days, conditional to extension up
to 10 days if special fatherhood training is carried out. EU and non-EU citizens are
eligible to claim this benefit under the same conditions as Romanian citizens. The
paternity leave is granted only if the father is an employee and the amount received
equals the salary corresponding to the respective working days.
Parental benefit is a replacement income and a contributory benefit intended to
provide an income source for parents unable to work due to child-care responsibili-
ties. The benefit is paid upon the criterion of residing in Romania, irrespectively of
claimants’ nationality. Romania grants a child-raising leave (concediu pentru
creșterea copilului) and benefit (indemnizație pentru creșterea copilului) to natural
parents, individuals who hold the temporary custody of a child and legal guardians,
upon the criterion of residence in Romania. There is no exclusion from access to
these benefits based on citizenship and the child-raising leave and benefit are granted
until the child’s second birthday (or for the first 3 years for disabled children, with
a possible extension up to 7 years).
Finally, the state allowance for children (alocație de stat pentru copii) is a cash
benefit granted to children aged up to 18 who are legally residing in Romania. The
allowance is extended to young persons aged over 18 attending secondary or voca-
tional education courses. According to the dispositions of Law no. 61/1993, all
Romanian, foreign or stateless children living in Romania are entitled to receive the
state allowance.

27
Law no. 118 of 30 June 2010 regarding some necessary measures to restore the budget balance.
https://www.protectiacopilului6.ro/Files/legislatie/2010/L118-2010%20(30%20iunie%202010).
pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.
374 I. Burlacu et al.

24.3.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Currently, Romania guarantees three types of social aids for people with low
income28: the guaranteed minimum income (venitul minim garantat), the family
support allowance (alocația pentru susținerea familiei) and the aid for heating the
house (ajutorul de încălzire). The guaranteed minimum income has been designed
as a targeted response to the risks of poverty and exclusion, by guaranteeing both
subsistence and incentives to work. It can be received for an unlimited duration and
it is designed as a supplement to the applicant’s net income. The guaranteed mini-
mum income scheme was implemented as a means-tested programme in 1995,
reformed in 2001, and adjusted on a regular basis since then. To qualify for social
aid, both families and single persons aged over 18 whose net monthly income is
below the guaranteed minimum income must not own certain goods or properties.
Recipients who are able to work and are not in full-time education must perform
monthly community service at the request of the mayor of the municipality of resi-
dence or domicile.
The family support allowance (alocație pentru susținerea familiei) targets fami-
lies with low income who raise and look after children aged up to 18. The legal
criteria for accessing this scheme refer to residence in Romania. The criteria of
calculation of the amount take into account the income and number of children. The
maximum income limits up to 370 RON per family member. The eligibility is
explicitly extended from families whose members are Romanian citizens residing in
Romania to families whose members do not hold the Romanian nationality, but
reside in Romania (i.e. both EU and non-EU foreigners).

24.4 Conclusions

This chapter examined to what extent the Romanian welfare system covers its resi-
dent citizens compared to foreigners residing in Romania and Romanians residing
abroad. In doing so, it aimed to elucidate the role of the welfare state in the entire
migration landscape of the country, by addressing niche policy questions. It exam-
ined the coverage of the national welfare system when it comes to a variety of risks
at different life-cycle stages, such as unemployment, poverty, sickness, and old age.
Despite regular back-and-forth in the definition of social policies, the current
Romanian social protection system has a comparable design with other Western
European welfare states with regard to family and social insurance benefits, although
lower health expenditure and investment in employment services (Pop 2013). The
EU membership has induced policy-makers to adapt the welfare system with a view
to allow EU citizens to benefit from national provisions in this field (Popescu et al.

For more details: http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Legislatie/LEGI/

28

L416-2001.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.

24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 375

2016). Non-EU citizens with a residence permit were also included among the ben-
eficiaries. Overall, our findings indicate that the Romanian welfare state is open
towards its residents, regardless of their nationality, thus providing everyone equal
grounds for accessing social benefits. This is particularly the case for residents con-
tributing to social security taxes and active age workers. In terms of access to the
social benefits analysed in this chapter, there are no particular distinctions between
resident citizens and (EU or non-EU) foreigners living in Romania. However, the
Romanian legislation specifically links access to certain benefits to the requirement
of having one’s residence or domicile in Romania. Consequently, nationals residing
abroad as often excluded as potential beneficiaries of certain welfare entitlements
when compared to their resident counterparts. Yet, specific benefits such as the con-
tributory old-age pension or the invalidity pension can be exported in case recipients
decide to move abroad. Moreover, the EU social security coordination framework
also guarantees for a short-term exportability of unemployment benefits for
Romanian citizens who decide to move to other EU Member States in search
for a job.
The post-communist regulatory framework of the Romanian social protection
system has been rather unstable, witnessing numerous changes and amendments.
Over the last decade, the challenges faced by the welfare system – economic con-
strains, demographic decline, changes at the household structure, migration – have
been progressively contrasted by scaling back the state. The post-2010 neoliberal
turn was a direct by-effect of the emergency situation created by the negative GDP
growth in 2009 and the increasing deficit. Beyond these contextual stimuli and the
relevance of the fiscal constraints under economic crisis, the literature laid emphasis
on political power-related explanations. It is the case of the negative a priori for
social spending among politicians that culminated with the proposal of president
Băsescu to eliminate Article 47 from the Constitution (Popescu et al. 2016).
Refering to the state’s obligation to guarantee social protection and a decent living
standard for its citizens, Article 47(2) lists the main social rights guaranteed to citi-
zens (i.e. the right to pensions, paid maternity leave, medical care in public health
centres, unemployment benefits, etc.). The criminalization of the poor sapped pub-
lic confidence, welfare recipients increasingly being suspected of making fraudu-
lent claims or insufficient efforts to support themselves autonomously. Despite
alternation in Government, the politics of retrenchment has been maintained. The
quest to deregulate labor relations and the maintenance of low social costs have
become generally shared and despite long periods of economic growth, the quality
of life, poverty and social inequality indicators do not illustrate major improvements.
Within this context, while globalization has increased migration flows across
Europe, Romania clearly reports more emigration than immigration. As such, the
country registers one of the lowest share of (EU and non-EU) non-national residents
(see Vintila and Lafleur in this volume). Confronted with a limited number of poten-
tial foreign participants to the welfare provisions, the legal framework does not
mention forms of implicit or explicit exclusion. The criterion of residence on the
Romanian soil is, however, prevalent, and relatively few provisions are extended to
non-resident Romanian citizens. Considering the size of the Romanian diaspora,
376 I. Burlacu et al.

increased coordination is needed to guarantee a full access to the social rights guar-
anteed by the Constitution. On the long run, the (slow) growing non-EU migration
remains a challenge for the welfare state, requiring increasingly targeted social
assistance and education policies to enhance social integration and cohesion. This is
an element still to be developed by the Romanian social system.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Alexe, I., & Păunescu, B. (2011). Studiu asupra fenomenului imigraţiei în România. Integrarea
străinilor în societatea românească. Bucharest: Fundația Soros România. https://arps.ro/docu-
mente/studiu_privind_fenomenul_imigratiei.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
Cerami, A., & Stanescu, S. (2009). Welfare state transformations. In A. Cerami & P. Vanhuysse
(Eds.), Post-communist welfare pathways: Theorizing social policy transformations in Central
and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cerami, A., & Vanhuyssen, P. (2009). Introduction: Social policy pathways, twenty years after
the fall of the Berlin Wall. In A. Cerami & P. Vanhuysse (Eds.), Post-communist welfare path-
ways: Theorizing social policy transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Pop, L. (2013). The decoupling of social policy reforms in Romania. Social Policy & Administration,
47(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12013.
Popescu, L., Ivan, V., & Raţ, C. (2016). The Romanian welfare state at times of crisis. In
K. Schubert, P. de Villota, & J. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Challenges to European welfare systems.
Cham/ Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Raţ, C. (2009). The impact of minimum income guarantee schemes in Central and Eastern Europe.
In A. Cerami & P. Vanhuysse (Eds.), Post-communist welfare pathways: Theorizing social
policy transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandu, D., Radu, C., Constantinescu, M., & Ciobanu, O. (2004). A country report on Romanian
migration abroad: Stocks and flows after 1989. Study for www.migrationonline.cz. Prague:
Multicultural Center.
Schipor, C., & Frecea, G.-L. (2018). The welfare state development: Romania – between percep-
tions and reality. The Romanian Economic Journal, Year XXI no, 68, 179–186.
Schraad-Tischler, D., Schiller, C., Heller, S. M., & Siemer, N. (2018). Social justice in the EU –
Index report 2017 social inclusion monitor Europe, Bertelsmann Schtiftung. https://www.
bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/NW_EU_
Social_Justice_Index_2017.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
Schubert, K., de Villota, P., & Kuhlmann, J. (Eds.). (2016). Challenges to European welfare sys-
tems. Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Sotiropoulos, D. A., & Pop, L. (2007). Bulgaria and Romania. In B. Deacon & P. Stubbs (Eds.),
Social policy and international interventions in South East Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stoiciu, V. (2012). Austerity and structural reforms in Romania severe measures, questionable eco-
nomic results and negative social consequences. International Policy Analysis, Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/09310.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
24 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Romania 377

Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Divide and pacify: Strategic social policies and political protests in post-­
communist democracies. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Vanhuysse, P. (2009). Power, order and the politics of social policy in Central and Eastern Europe.
In A. Cerami & P. Vanhuysse (Eds.), Post-communist welfare pathways: Theorizing social
policy transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vasilescu, D. (2018). Social and employment policies in Romania policy. Department for Economic,
Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies, https://www.
europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/626064/IPOL_STU(2018)626064_EN.pdf.
Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
Vintila, D., & Lafleur, J. -M. (in this volume). Migration and access to welfare benefits in the
EU: The interplay between residence and nationality. In J. -M. Lafleur & D. Vintila (Eds.),
Migration and social protection in Europe and beyond (Volume 1). Comparing access to wel-
fare entitlements. Cham: Springer.
Vintila, D., & Soare, S. (2018). Report on political participation of Mobile EU citizens: Romania.
GLOBALCIT Political Participation Reports. http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/59406.
Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
Wagner, A., Stan, L. & Bönker, F. (2018). Romania report-sustainable governance indicators 2018,
Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2018/country/SGI2018_Romania.pdf.
Accessed 19 Mar 2020.
Zaharia, R. M., Ban, C., & Popescu, A. M. (2017). Relația dintre fenomenul migrației legale și
piața muncii din România. In Evoluții relevante, impact potențial, recomandări de politici.
Bucharest: Institutul European din România.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 25
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in the Slovak Republic

Jaroslav Kováč

25.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in the Slovak Republic

This chapter aims to analyse the social protection system in the Slovak Republic. In
doing so, it offers an overview of the conditions of access to different social benefits
(health care, unemployment, pensions, family benefits and guaranteed minimum
resources) of national residents, non-national residents and non-resident nationals.

25.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

After 1989, the Slovak Republic faced important challenges related to the transfor-
mation of the socialist economy into a market-based economy and the change of the
socialist social welfare system into a modern social security system. The country
not only had to build a concept of social policy and define the specific state policies
towards particular social groups, but it also had to define the main role of citizens’
social needs in the social policy of the new state.
The social security system in the new Slovak Republic struggled to respond to
changing socio-economic conditions derived from the transition to a market-based
economy, and to properly address ongoing societal and demographic changes. The
main aim of the transformation of social policy was to create a socially fair social
security system based on citizens’ personal participation, social solidarity and state
guarantee. It was assumed that through economic activity, citizens would be able to

J. Kováč (*)
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, Bratislava, Slovakia

© The Author(s) 2020 379

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_25
380 J. Kováč

provide for themselves, although the state’s support was also expected in specific
circumstances. Moreover, basic living conditions in case of material and social need
also had to be ensured in accordance with the Slovak Constitution. During the
1990s, the development of the social policy was marked by the adoption of several
conceptual documents, including the Social Reform Scenario (1990), the Rescue
Social Network (1990) and the Concept of Transformation of the Social Policy
(1996).1 Between 1993 and 1998, the Government pursued an economic policy
strategy of a gradual approach, while new institutions were created in the field of
social policy (the Social Insurance Agency, the National Labour Office and a com-
plex system of health insurance companies).
The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family continued this process of
reforms and systemic changes in 2002, with new initiatives being launched on the
basis of the “Strategy for promoting employment growth through changes in the
social system and labour market”. The year 2004 marked the last important social
policy transformation in Slovakia, leading to the establishment of state administra-
tion bodies and the adoption of a series of new key legislative acts and measures.
Regarding the sickness and pension systems (designed during the 1950s and
1960s), the reform concentrated mainly on their financial and institutional manage-
ment; and the decisive factor in the transformation of the existing social welfare
system into a public social insurance system was the comprehensive tax reform of
1st of January 1993. As part of social security, a substantial share of the social assis-
tance system for families with children was also implemented. These were elements
of direct financial assistance based on a system of benefits, indirect aid, in-kind
assistance and services. Social welfare included the provision of benefits in cash, in
kind, and social welfare services, including institutional welfare, to citizens in vul-
nerable situations who were unable to provide for themselves.
The current social protection system in Slovakia comprises social insurance and
health insurance system, state social support benefits and material need assistance.
These three subsystems differ from each other in terms of the principles on which
they are built, the type of coverage for specific risks, and their funding and manage-
ment procedures. The Slovak public health insurance system includes all benefits in
kind provided under the mandatory social security system that do not fall within the
sphere of private health services, i.e. services for which the patient pays the doctor
directly. It is a universal public healthcare scheme for all residents, funded by com-
pulsory insurance contributions paid by employees, employers, and the
self-employed.
The social insurance system covers all employees and self-employed individu-
als2 and comprises:
• the sickness insurance against loss or reduction of income for health reasons, provid-
ing income in case of temporary loss of working capacity, pregnancy and childbirth;

1
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (1996). Concept of
Transformation of the Social Policy of the Slovak Republic.
2
Police officers, career soldiers and recruits have separate provisions for social protection.
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic 381

• the pension insurance, including the old-age insurance (that guarantees an

income for the elderly and pays pensions to survivors of deceased beneficiaries)
and the invalidity insurance (that guaranteed a pension in the event of reduction
or loss of a beneficiary’s ability to engage in gainful employment or self-­
employment due to long-term health problems, and upon his/her death);
• the occupational injury insurance, covering damage to health or death following
an accident at work, an injury in the performance of one’s duties or an occupa-
tional disease;
• the unemployment insurance, providing insurance against loss of income in case
of unemployment and ensuring an income to persons who lose their job;
• the guarantee fund, protecting an employee against the risk of an employer’s
inability to honour his/her commitments and paying old-age insurance contribu-
tions due by the employer to the basic old-age savings plan (Bednárik 2018).
The Slovak mandatory pension insurance regime is based on two foundations:
the mandatory old-age insurance regime with defined contributions financed by
redistribution and managed by the Social Insurance Agency (thereinafter SIA); and
the mandatory pension savings system with defined contributions financed by capi-
talisation and managed by private pension fund management companies. The pen-
sion plan is based on savings invested in an individual account intended, together
with the old-age insurance provided by the relevant legislation, to guarantee an
income to the beneficiary in retirement or to his/her descendants in case of death.
The role of state social support is to provide targeted support to individuals or
families (usually with dependent children). It provides family-related cash benefits
and death grant which are financed by the state budget. All state social support ben-
efits are non-contributory cash benefits (Gejdošová 2012). On the other hand, social
assistance is used in situations where other resources that could help individuals or
families to overcome a life-threatening situation are not available and citizens are
unable to overcome this unfavorable situation by themselves. The social assistance
scheme provides material need assistance, including benefits in cash and kind
granted in cases of serious financial difficulties through the Labour, Social Affairs
and Family Office (OLSAF) or local authorities/municipalities.

25.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

In August 2011, the Slovak Government approved a medium-term strategy in the

area of migration.3 Covering the period until 2020, this policy strategy mainly aims
to create adequate conditions for the reception and integration of migrants in the
area of legal migration; strengthen the effectiveness of border control and fight
against illegal migration; contribute to the adoption of a unified European asylum

3
The migration policy of the Slovak Republic with a view to 2020 (2011). Ministry of Labour,
Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. https://www.employment.gov.sk/sk/informacie-
cudzincov/dokumenty/. Accessed 10 March 2019.
382 J. Kováč

system; and participate in the development of global partnerships with countries of

origin and transit. The implementation of this migration policy is based on the coor-
dination between state authorities, local state administration bodies, and self-­
governments and it assumes a wide involvement of non-governmental actors
developing activities in this area.
The current demographic developments show that the Slovak labour market and
the system of social security are significantly dependent on the inflow of human
capital from abroad. The basic criterion for the acceptance of foreigners within the
controlled economic migration is their potential for the development of the Slovak
economy, with certain preferences for migrants from culturally related countries
and those having the necessary qualifications and competencies to satisfy labour
market shortages.
Slovakia is not a traditional country of destination for migrants. It is a culturally
homogeneous country which was not been affected by the dramatic increase of
migration during the twentieth century. Until recently, Slovakia was almost exclu-
sively a country of emigration, although the accession to the European Union (EU)
started to change this pattern. Since 2004, legal migration to Slovakia has increased
more than five times, from 22,108 migrants in 2004 to 121,264 in 2018. Although
Slovakia registered the second highest increase of the foreign population across all
EU countries during the period 2004–2008, the share of foreigners from the overall
population still remains quite low - 2.2%. In fact, only Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania,
Romania and Poland have lower proportions of foreigners in the total population.4
Despite of that, Table 25.1 shows that the number of foreigners residing in
Slovakia has constantly increased since 2015; and in 2018, the number of third-­
country nationals living in Slovakia was even higher than the number of foreigners
originating from other EU Member States.
During the period 2014–2017, most residence permits issued for third-country
nationals were granted to nationals of Ukraine, followed by citizens of Serbia,
Vietman and Russia, respectively (Table 25.2). Given the increased proportion of
Serbian nationals working in Slovakia, especially in low-qualification jobs in manu-
facturing, the Slovak Republic and Serbia signed a Protocol on mutual cooperation
on work and employment in November 2017.

Table 25.1 Foreigners with residence permits in Slovakia (2015–2018)

31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018
Third-country nationals 35,261 41,232 50,395 65,381
EU nationals 49,526 52,015 54,056 55,883
Total 84,787 93,247 104,451 121,264
Source: Statistical Overview of Legal and Illegal Migration in the Slovak Republic, Presidium of
the Police Force Bureau of Border and Foreign Policy, data extracted from the Statistical Overview
in 2016–2018 on 22.03.2019. Available at: http://www.minv.sk/?rocenky

4
International Organization for Migration. Migration in Slovakia. https://www.iom.sk/en/migra-
tion/migration-in-slovakia.html. Accessed 19 March 2019.
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic 383

Table 25.2 First residence permits granted in Slovakia: top three non-EU nationalities
(2014–2017)
2014 2015 2016 2017
Ukraine (1592) Ukraine (3340) Ukraine (3016) Ukraine (4286)
Serbia (830) Serbia (1394) Serbia (2076) Serbia (4140)
Russia (494) Syria (899) Russia (743) Vietnam (1114)
Source: Eurostat migration statistics (mig_resfirst), data extracted from the Factsheet – Slovak
Republic – 2017 on 22.03.2019

Three ministries have competencies in terms of migration management: the

Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, and the Ministry
of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. The Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs
and Family coordinates and directs the work of 46 subordinate regional labour
offices that are responsible, among others, for granting work permits to foreign resi-
dents. Granting residence permits, registering residence and detecting and prevent-
ing illegal migration is overseen by the Aliens Police Departments of the Bureau of
Border and Alien Police of the Police Force Presidium. As for entry procedures, the
legislation distinguishes between temporary residence and permanent residence.5 A
temporary residence is generally granted for a period exceeding 90 days for differ-
ent reasons (including employment, business, study, research and development,
family reunification, etc.). On the other hand, the Act on Residence of Aliens dif-
ferentiates between permanent residence for five years, permanent residence for
unlimited period and long-term residence. The permanent residence for five years is
mainly granted for the purpose of family reunification or if it is in the interest of the
Slovak Republic. A foreigner may also apply for tolerated stay for specific purposes
defined by the law. Moreover, it is important to highlight that all foreigners entering
Slovakia have the obligation to report their place of stay in Slovakia at the Department
of Foreign Police. EU citizens and their family members are obliged to report their
stay no later than 10 working days, while third-country nationals must do so within
three working days from the date of entry in Slovakia.6
Foreigners’ access to the labour market consists of two steps: obtaining a work
permit and subsequently a temporary residence permit for the purpose of employ-
ment. A work permit is not required if the foreigner holds a permanent residence
permit, a temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification for
more than 12 months, for the purpose of study or if he/she maintains the status of a
Slovak living abroad. Given the lack of qualified workforce in several professions in
the Slovak labour market, a simplification of the conditions for hiring third-county
nationals was proposed in 2017 for sectors with ongoing labour shortages, and for

5
The Organisation of Asylum and Migration Policies Factsheet: Slovak Republic. EMN study on
Organisation of Asylum and Migration Policies in the Slovak Republic and was updated in
February 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_net-
work/authorities/slovakia_en. Accessed 19 March 2019.
6
Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. Residence of an Alien. https://www.minv.
sk/?reporting-residence. Accessed 10 February 2018.
384 J. Kováč

districts with registered unemployment rate lower than 5%. The list with ongoing
labor shortages for districts concerned was elaborated and is updated and valid for
limited time period. The approval of proposed measures is extended in 2018
and 2019.

25.2 Migration and Social Protection in the Slovak Republic

25.2.1 Unemployment

The unemployment benefit is a contributory benefit provided from the unemploy-

ment insurance (there is no special unemployment assistance scheme in Slovakia).
The benefit is granted to unemployed individuals who have paid unemployment
insurance contributions for at least two of the four years preceding their registration
as jobseekers. The character of the employment or the reasons for its finalisation
does not affect the entitlement to the unemployment benefit, its amount or the dura-
tion of payment. Unemployment benefit is paid for maximum six months. Provided
that all eligibility criteria are met, the beneficiary will receive an unemployment
benefit equal to 50% of the daily assessment basis. The unemployment benefit is
provided by SIA and communication with local OLSAF regarding registration and
availability for work is very important. Beneficiaries lose the right for unemploy-
ment benefit payment when they are removed from the jobseekers’ register for non-­
cooperation with OLSAF, illegal work or the granting of an employment permit
abroad. They can re-enter the jobseekers’ register six months after the date of
removal from the register.7
Foreigners residing in Slovakia are entitled to receive unemployment benefits
under the same conditions as national residents. EU foreigners also need to register
with the Department of Foreign Police. According to EU regulations, if a person
who receives an unemployment benefit under the legislation of the Slovak Republic
moves to another EU country to seek for a job, he/she shall retain the unemploy-
ment benefit entitlement if before leaving, is registered in the jobseeker’s list for at
least four weeks. Another condition is that the person asks to be registered with the
employment services of the EU country in which he/she is seeking job within seven
days. The insurance system is based on contributions paid by insured persons inde-
pendently of their nationality. While receiving unemployment benefits, nationals
and foreigners may leave Slovakia temporarily after communicating their stay
abroad to OLSAF and SIA. Nationals residing in non-EU countries cannot access
unemployment benefits or employment services from Slovakia.
As for the bilateral social security agreements signed with the three largest coun-
tries of origin of foreigners in Slovakia and the three largest countries of destination

7
Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. Employment Services. http://www.upsvar.
sk/sluzby-zamestnanosti.html?page_id=213. Accessed 10 February 2018.
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic 385

of Slovak nationals abroad, it is worth mentioning that the agreements with Ukraine,
Australia, the United States of America (USA), and Canada do not cover unemploy-
ment benefits. However, the agreements with Serbia and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics allow for an aggregation of insurance periods and ensure equal
treatment.8

25.2.2 Health Care

All persons who have permanent residence in Slovakia or are self-employed or

employed in Slovakia although they do not have permanent residence can access the
healthcare system based on their insurance. The access to the health care system is
granted once individuals present their health insurance card. Everyone with public
health insurance has a national insurance card or the European health insurance
card. Healthcare benefits are provided by medical services providers attached to the
health insurance funds. This universal healthcare scheme is funded by compulsory
contributions and state subsidies. In some cases, co-payments are required from
insured individuals. Everyone has the right to emergency healthcare provided by a
physician or a healthcare facility provider of their choice, regardless of whether they
have public health insurance or not. However, the hospital or the physician has the
right to demand the direct payment of incurred costs from patients. EU nationals
and non-EU foreigners with permanent residence enjoy equal treatment with Slovak
nationals as regards to the right to access healthcare (provided they are insured). In
the case of EU foreigners, the principle of coordination of social security systems
set out in the EU regulations in the field of healthcare applies.
Cash benefits in case of sickness are granted to nationals and foreigners living in
Slovakia, who are temporarily incapacitated for work due to an illness or injury,
have sickness insurance as employees or self-employed or are voluntarily insured in
case of sickness. Self-employed individuals can access sickness cash benefits if they
are compulsory insured and paid insurance contributions for the last five years.
Individuals who are voluntarily insured can claim sickness benefits is they have
been insured for 270 days in the last two years. The sickness benefit amount is deter-
mined based on income and it is paid by the employer during the first 10 days and
afterwards by SIA. The benefit is paid for a maximum of 52 weeks. Resident EU
and non-EU foreigners can access sickness cash benefits under the same eligibility
conditions as national residents. The access to sickness cash benefits for nationals
living in non-EU countries is limited, as they risk not to obtain the required insur-
ance period for entitlement. Citizens living in other EU countries enjoy equal treat-
ment with nationals of those countries. Nationals residing abroad have to meet the

8
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. Bilateral agreements on
social security. http://www.employment.gov.sk/sk/ministerstvo/medzinarodna-spolupraca/europ-
ska-unia/zmlu vy-socialnom-zabezpeceni/. Accessed 10 February 2018.
386 J. Kováč

same conditions as resident citizens for entitlement to sickness cash benefit in

accordance with the Slovak legislation.
As for invalidity benefits, an invalidity pension is granted to insured individuals
who are unable to engage in gainful activity in the long term as a result of unfavour-
able health conditions. The law considers as disabled any person whose health is
chronically impaired, resulting in a permanent loss of working capacity of at least
40%, whereas full invalidity is defined as the loss of working capacity for more than
70%. The invalidity pension amount is the same as for an old-age pension, it only
differs in the degree of disability (between 41% and 70%). The amount of the dis-
ability pension is based on the period of insurance. There are no restrictions regard-
ing the export of invalidity benefits and beneficiaries may leave Slovakia while
receiving an invalidity pension. EU and non-EU foreigners can receive an invalidity
pension from Slovakia under the same eligibility conditions as national residents.
Nationals residing in other EU countries have to meet the same conditions for enti-
tlement to invalidity insurance benefit as citizens residing in Slovakia. In the case of
nationals living in non-EU countries, their access to invalidity benefits from Slovakia
is limited due to the risk of not meeting the necessary requirements regarding years
of insurance.
In terms of coverage of healthcare in social security agreements, the agreement
with Ukraine does not cover healthcare, but it does cover invalidity and sickness
cash benefits. The agreements with Serbia and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics offer access to healthcare, invalidity and sickness cash benefits. The
agreements with the USA and Canada offer only access to invalidity pensions,
whereas the agreement with Australia does not cover any of these health-related
benefits.

25.2.3 Pensions

An insured person is entitled to an old-age pension under the mandatory social

insurance system if he/she has at least 15 years of insurance and reached the retire-
ment age of 62.9 Mandatory and voluntary periods of affiliation count equally as
insurance periods. Periods of exemption from payment of pension insurance contri-
butions for one of the reasons accepted by the social legislation (e.g. temporary
incapacity, maternity leave, the first 10 days of caring for a family member, etc.) are
also taken into account. The Slovak legislation does not prohibit old-age pensioners
from engaging in gainful employment. There is no public non-contributory pension
scheme in the country.
EU foreigners can enjoy equal treatment with Slovak nationals in terms of access
to an old-age pension. Non-EU foreigners enjoy equal treatment with Slovak

9
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. Social Insurance and
Pension Scheme. http://www.employment.gov.sk/sk/socialne-poistenie-dochodkovy-system/.
Accessed 15 March 2018.
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic 387

nationals only if they originate from a country that has signed a bilateral social
security agreement with Slovakia covering old-age pensions. Those receiving a pen-
sion from Slovakia may live abroad. Non-resident nationals are required to meet the
same conditions for entitlement to an old-age pension as citizens residing in
Slovakia.
The social security agreements with Ukraine, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, Serbia, the USA, Australia and Canada cover access to old-age pensions
by providing for aggregation of insurance periods and equal treatment.

25.2.4 Family Benefits

There are several types of family-related benefits in Slovakia. The maternity benefit
is a benefit from compulsory sickenss insurance scheme for employees and self-­
employed.10 The amount of maternity benefit depends on beneficiary’s income.
There is no specific scheme for paternity benefits, but fathers may also receive the
maternity benefit. Family benefits are non-contributory benefits provided from the
State’s social support scheme and financed from general taxation. Their amount
does not depend on the income of the beneficiary or the child’s age. The child ben-
efit is paid to parents independently if they are employed, self-employed or unem-
ployed. The parental allowance is paid in two levels. The amount depends on
whether prior to applying the beneficiary was paid maternity benefit. EU citizens
and nationals of non-EU countries that have signed bilateral agreements with
Slovakia covering access to maternity and family benefits have the same rights with
regard to maternity and family benefits as nationals of Slovakia.
The maternity benefit is granted to all insured women who have paid 270 days of
contributions in the last two years. The maternity leave lasts 34 weeks (37 weeks for
single mothers and 43 weeks for multiple births). The maternity leave cannot be less
than 14 weeks and must include the first six weeks after childbirth. The benefit is
paid by SIA through the social insurance scheme for employees, the self-employed
and voluntarily insured persons. EU and non-EU foreigners living in Slovakia enjoy
equal treatment with Slovak nationals in terms of accessing the maternity benefit.
Nationals residing in other EU countries have to meet the same conditions for enti-
tlement to maternity benefit as citizens residing in Slovakia. Nationals residing in
non-EU countries have limited access to maternity benefit (no aggregation).
The parental allowance11 is paid to parents for the education and maintenance of
children under the age of three (up to the age of six, in case of long-term unfavour-
able health conditions of a child). This is a two levels flat-rate benefit for all resi-
dents with children. Parents can work full time or part time while receiving the

10
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. Family and Social
Assistance. http://www.employment.gov.sk/sk/rodina-socialna-pomoc/. Accessed 15 March 2018.
11
Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. Social Affairs and Family. http://www.ups-
var.sk/socialne-veci-a-rodina-2.html?page_id=237. Accessed 10 February 2018.
388 J. Kováč

parental allowance. Eligible groups for parental allowance are residents or persons
temporary staying in Slovakia who are parents, adoptive parents, are exercising sub-
stitute care, or are the spouse of the child’s parent and sharing the same household.
The amount of the parental allowance depends on the beneficiary’s economic status.
All EU and non-EU foreign residents enjoy equal treatment with nationals regard-
ing entitlement to parental allowance. Nationals residing abroad may also receive
this allowance from Slovakia if they meet the same conditions for entitlement as
resident nationals.
Finally, the child benefit is paid to anyone providing for the education and main-
tenance of a dependent child. The entitled person must be permanent or temporary
resident in Slovakia. Child benefit is a flat-rate benefit paid monthly for each depen-
dent child until the end of compulsory school, 16 years, maximum up to 25 years.
All EU and non-EU foreigners residing in Slovakia have access to the child benefit
under the same conditions as national residents. To receive this benefit from
Slovakia, nationals residing abroad have to meet the same eligibility conditions as
national residents.
The social security agreements with Ukraine, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and Serbia offer access to the maternity insurance benefit to the nationals
of these countries residing in Slovakia. However, the agreement with Ukraine does
not cover access to the parental allowance and child benefits, whereas the agree-
ments with the USA, Canada and Australia do not cover family-related benefits.

25.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

In Slovakia, the assistance in material need is a universal, non-contributory scheme

financed by taxation, whose aim is to ensure a minimum income for those unable to
maintain their basic living conditions. The assistance is granted on the basis of a
subjective right (non-discretionary) as a means-tested benefit provided to persons
residing in Slovakia who are in a situation of material need, i.e. when their income
is lower than the subsistence minimum and they cannot secure an income them-
selves. The amount received varies according to the family composition. EU nation-
als and non-EU citizens are entitled to stay in Slovakia for more than three months
if they have sufficient financial means so that they do not become a burden for the
social assistance system. Non-resident citizens do not have access to this benefit
from Slovakia. The social security agreements with Ukraine, Serbia, the USA,
Canada, and Australia do not cover the area of social assistance benefits. However,
the agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics offers access to the
benefits from the material need assistance system to the nationals of this country
residing in Slovakia.
25 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in the Slovak Republic 389

25.3 Conclusions

In the Slovak Republic, the basic legal framework guaranteeing citizens’ social
rights is the Slovak Constitution which enshrines a number of social rights and
social assistance. Every citizen in a socially disadvantaged situation has the right to
such assistance to ensure basic living conditions. The social assistance benefits and
the state social support system are pillars for combating social exclusion and social
inequalities. The system applies the principle of solidarity with those who are in
specific situations heavily relying on certain form of help and have also strong merit
component and personal participation especially in the field of social insurance.
As shown in this chapter, the Slovak welfare system is based on social and health
insurance, state social support – in principle, financial support for families with
children and social assistance, in particular, material need assistance, allowances for
compensation of social consequences of severe health disability and social services.
The social protection system is based on aggregation of insurance periods, as well
as the principles of equal treatment and protection against discrimination on grounds
of nationality.
Social insurance benefits depend on the length of payment and the amount of
social security contributions. The social insurance system is open for all insured
individuals regardless of their nationality and it covers sickness, maternity, pater-
nity, unemployment and invalidity benefits, as well as old-age pensions, survivors’
benefits and benefits for accidents at work and occupational diseases. The health-
care insurance system is based on the principle of solidarity even though in some
cases, co-payments are required. The benefits within the state social support system
are also provided to all persons regardless of their nationality. Currently, the state
social support system includes the child benefit and supplement, the parental and
childcare allowance, as well as birth grants. As for social assistance, this scheme is
defined in Slovakia as the last safety net for those who are not able to ensure their
living standards by themselves. Measures in the social assistance areas reflect spe-
cific national conditions and are fit and oriented to specific groups of beneficiaries.
In this specific policy area, Slovakia allowed to introduce provisions that can limit
the access to social assistance benefits of EU or non–EU foreigners. Furthermore,
the social assistance area is not generally covered by bilateral social security agree-
ments and not available to non-resident nationals.
The accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union has had a significant
impact on the country’s economic policy and social security system. The EU mem-
bership also led to new challenges in terms of how to adapt the domestic social pro-
tection system to the free movement of the persons guaranteed in the EU. The legal
conditions defined in the national legislation and the principle of equal treatment
derived from the European social security coordination and bilateral agreements are
applied for all beneficiaries or persons concerned in Slovakia. The coordination rules
ensure that all EU foreigners and their family members enjoy equal treatment as
regards to the access to social security benefits in Slovakia. On the other hand,
nationals residing abroad in countries not covered by bilateral agreements with
Slovakia often may have limited or no access to social protection from Slovakia.
390 J. Kováč

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Bednárik. (2018). Social Protection in Slovakia (situation to January 1, 2018). https://www.ceit.sk/

IVPR/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=490%3Anova-publikacia-o-stave-
socialnej-ochrany&catid=2%3Anovinky&lang=en.. Accessed 15 Feb 2018.
Gejdošová. (2012). Sociálne zabezpečenie v systéme verejnej správy na Slovensku. Katolícka uni-
verzita v Ružomberku. http://www.akademickyrepozitar.sk/sk/repozitar/socialne-zabezpece-
nie -v-systeme-verejnej-spravy-na-slovensku.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 26
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Slovenia

Grega Strban and Luka Mišič

26.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Slovenia

This chapter discusses the key characteristics of the Slovenian welfare system
grounded in the continental archetype of corporatist, contribution-funded1
Bismarckian social insurance, reflecting the country’s Austro-Hungarian heritage,
with a subsidiary tax-funded social assistance scheme firmly in place. The social
security (insurance) scheme is grounded in the notion of gainful employment, there-
fore as a rule guaranteeing social protection regardless of one’s nationality or resi-
dence status. Access to the labour market, the main gateway to social insurance
inclusion or coverage, can however be limited. The social assistance scheme is
based on the notion of communal or long-term territorial affiliation (Slovenian citi-
zenship, permanent residence or permanent residence permit for foreigners).

1
All branches of social insurance are financed by contributions paid by the employees and the
employers. All employees pay the same amount of contributions (in proportion to their wages/sala-
ries), regardless of type of employment (e.g. wage earners, civil servants). The state budget covers
the difference between the expenses and revenue of individual social insurance carriers. The
financing of social insurance is regulated by the Social Security Contributions Act (Zakon o prisp-
evkih za socialno varnost – ZPSV), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 5/96, last amended in 2014,
with special provisions found in sectoral legislation.

G. Strban · L. Mišič (*)

Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 391

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_26
392 G. Strban and L. Mišič

26.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia2 establishes Slovenia as a

state governed by the rule of law and a social state (see also Strban 2017). The social
state principle is considered a binding legal principle in regard to the rule-making,
decision-making and administrative or executive powers of state bodies. The inclu-
sion of both constitutional principles in a single provision establishes Slovenia as a
normative social state (Strban 2012a/1). All other articles of the Constitution con-
cerning social security originate from the social state principle (Kresal et al. 2016).
Article 50 of the Constitution stipulates the right to social security, although the
constitutional content of the right is difficult to determine (Kresal et al. 2016, 28):
• Citizens have the right to social security, including the right to a pension, under
conditions provided by the law.
• The state shall regulate compulsory health, pension, disability and other social
insurance, and shall ensure its proper functioning.
• Special protection in accordance with the law shall be guaranteed to war veterans
and victims of war.
The content of the right to social security is rather open, with possibly no direct
correlation between the constitutional provisions and concrete rights stemming
from the social security system. Therefore, the right has to be further determined
fore and foremost by the general legislator, bound to stipulate individual rights and
obligations of insured persons and other beneficiaries (Strban 2016a/1).
From Article 50, also taking into account the case-law of the Slovenian
Constitutional Court, several relevant conclusions can be derived. First, according
to the plain meaning rule, only Slovenian citizens enjoy the right to social security.
However, the provision ought to be interpreted in line with international human
rights documents and social security conventions. The theological interpretation
significantly broadens the scope of the provision. The Slovenian social security sys-
tem, grounded in the notion of professional, functionally decentralized social insur-
ance (Strban and Mišič 2018; Mišič 2019), as a rule guarantees coverage to all
gainfully employed persons in the territory of Slovenia.
Second, there exists no numerus clausus of social insurance branches, according
to the Constitution. The Slovenian social insurance system is established in regards
to the traditional social risks stipulated in the ILO Convention No. 102, and consists
of compulsory health, pension, disability, unemployment, and parental insurance,
with the legislator authorized by the Constitution to regulate additional branches,
e.g. long-term care insurance. The introduction of a new branch of insurance does
not require for a Constitutional amendment. The sytem currently lacks a structured,
unified approach to long-term care and personal assistance both in legislation and

2
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustava Republike Slovenije – URS) Official Gazette of
the RS, No. 33/91-I, last amended in 2016.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 393

practice, with benefits in kind and cash dispersed between different branches of
social insurance and the social assistance scheme (Strban 2012b/2, 2018a/1).3
Third, the Constitution explicitly refers to social and not to other types of insur-
ance or social security schemes. Any substitution of professional insurance with a
residence-based scheme or private insurance would therefore require a Constitutional
amendment. Compulsory health insurance, providing coverage to almost all
Slovenian nationals and permanent residents, has however transgressed its profes-
sional roots, mimicking in regards to the personal scope of application (coverage) a
residence-based scheme. As other branches of social insurance, health insurance is
however implemented in a functionally decentralized system, with secondary legis-
lative, financing and administrative functions reserved primarily for the social insur-
ance carrier. Articles 51 and 52 of the Constitution stipulate the right to health care
(from public funds) and rights of disabled persons. Special protection is awarded to
family and children in accordance with Article 53 and 56.

26.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Recent immigration flows can be divided into four time periods. First, the period
until 1991 with predominant immigration of migrant workers from other Yugoslav
countries. Second, the period from the early until late 1990s with mass immigration
of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Third, the period between 1999 and 2004
with mass irregular immigration, and fourth, the period after 2004, when Slovenia
became a EU Member State (Kogovšek Šalamon 2018). As highlighted in the 2009
Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics, Slovenia was
for the first time faced with migration policy development and implementation in
1991, after it has reached independence. From 2002, the country witnessed a steady
increase in net migration from abroad. In 2002, Slovenia received 9134 immigrants
from abroad, with 7269 emigrants leaving the country. In 2004, the numbers
increased to 10,171 and 8269, reaching 30,296 immigrants (of whom 27,393 were
foreigners and 2903 Slovenian citizens) and 18,788 emigrants in 2009. The emigra-
tion peak (6500 more emigrants than in 2008) can be ascribed to the developing
economic crisis.4
In 2009, most immigrants were citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (47%), fol-
lowed by citizens of Kosovo (13,1%), before 2009 considered as citizens of Serbia,
leading to a decrease in the number of immigrants from Serbia (2900 in 2009). 1881
individuals immigrated from other EU Member States, with Bulgaria, Italy and

3
Personal Assistance Act (Zakon o osebni asistenci – ZOA), Official Gazette RS, No. 10/2017, last
amended in 2018, does not regulate long-term care insurance.
4
Concerning the emigration of Slovenian nationals, it should be noted that relatively large
Slovenian communities exist in the US, in Argentina and Australia, with concluded bilateral social
security agreements following a once lively current of emigration. Slovenia has also concluded a
social security agreement with Canada and the US.
394 G. Strban and L. Mišič

Slovakia representing top three EU countries of origin. In 2009, 1442 individuals

arrived from the neighbouring Croatia, then not yet an EU Member State. In 2010,
the population of Slovenia (usual residence criteria) reached 2,046,976 persons,
with 4626 EU nationals, 16,940 persons from candidate countries, 60,518 from
third countries and only 92 from EFTA member countries (2009 Annual Report on
Migration and International Protection Statistics).
A similar trend can be observed throughout the following years, with citizens of
Bosnia and Herzegovina (4369; 4861; 6330), Serbia (1331; 1874; 2399) and Kosovo
(1555; 1612; 1, 397) representing top three nationalities in regard to first residence
permits issued between 2014 and 2016, followed by FYROM and Russia. The
majority of residence permits were issued on grounds of gainful employment
(European Migration Network 2017). Economically conditioned migration to
Slovenia is by nature followed by family reunification.
According to the report issued by the national Migration Office, on the 31st of
December 2017, 80,482 permanent residence permits were issued to third-country
nationals, whilst 11,150 permits were issued to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals.
43,984 permanent residence permits were issued to citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina (22,721 temporary residence permits issued), 13,530 to citizens of
Kosovo (4457 temporary residence permits issued), 7750 to citizens of Serbia (7443
temporary residence issued), followed by FYROM (9477; 3449), Russia (858;
2165) and Ukraine (1216; 1116). The majority of EU nationals holding a permanent
or temporary residence permit in 2017 originated from Croatia, Bulgaria, Italy,
Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the UK, Austria and Poland. 11,387 per-
mits were held by Croatian, 4670 by Bulgarian, and 3094 by Italian citizens.
Hence, for the past 15 years, the majority of persons who migrated to Slovenia
originated from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Croatia.
In simplified terms, the reasons for the ongoing migration inflows, of course going
back further than the analysed 15 years, can be traced back to the countries’ com-
mon Yugoslav history, tradition and cultural heritage, dating back to the disintegra-
tion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War. It is as a rule
enhanced by common language group affiliation or linguistic similarities (Slovene,
Serbian, Croatian), traditional communities of nationals from former Yugoslav
countries and their Slovenian descendants residing in Slovenia, and the sheer prox-
imity of countries, with no major geographical barriers to separate the once united
nations.
Migration inflows are (also historically) driven by (male) jobseekers, seeking
gainful employment in the by far most developed Balkan country.5 The inflow is
however not only of key importance for migrant (and posted) workers and their
families, coming from socially and economically less developed countries in
Slovenia’s South-Eastern proximity, but also for the somewhat rigid Slovenian
labour market, commonly experiencing shortages of workers in the construction

5
In 2017, Slovenia reached 85% of the average GDP per capita in PPS (purchasing power stan-
dard) in (then) EU 28, whilst Croatia only reached 62%. Bosnia reached an average of 32%, Serbia
of 36%, FYROM of 36% and Montenegro an average of 46%. Source: Eurostat.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 395

sector, particular branches of the industry or particular professionals, e.g. graduate

nurses. The labour market is also strongly affected by posting. High absolute and
even higher relative numbers (in regard to the number of inhabitants) of workers
posted from Slovenia to other EU Member States (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet
2017), can be considered one of its key features, to which large numbers of frontier
workers can be added (e.g. daily migrants working in Austria or Italy). According to
the Statistical Office’s data for 2018,6 Slovenia’s economy (import and export of
goods) is most strongly interlinked with the economies of EU Member States, with
EU 28 export making up 76,5% of all export and EU 28 import making up 79,8% of
all import.

26.2 Migration and Social Protection in Slovenia

In order to enjoy coverage in compulsory social insurance schemes, Slovenian citi-

zenship or residence status is as a rule not required. It is a requirement for particular
types of insured persons, e.g. social assistance recipients or persons insured on
grounds of special provisions such as war veterans. The personal scope of applica-
tion (coverage) applies to the active working population of Slovenia, i.e. persons
gainfully employed in Slovenia (Kresal et al. 2016).
Gainful employment represents the core insurance basis in all social insurance
branches, irrespective of one’s nationality or residence status (permanent, tempo-
rary, registered, habitual or usual, factual residence, etc.). Article 8 of the
Employment, Self-employment and Work of Foreigners Act7 stipulates compulsory
inclusion for foreigners in accordance with (general) provisions. Special conditions
however apply to non-EU foreigners, who first have to obtain a working permit in
order to exercise gainful employment leading to the ex lege conclusion of any com-
pulsory social insurance,8 a feature as a rule typical for every professional or
employment-based type of insurance.
The single permit (single residence and work permit) allows third-country
nationals to enter the Republic of Slovenia in order to search for residence and
employment. The permit, for which persons apply at the administrative unit, diplo-
matic or consular office in their country of origin, requires an approval to the permit
obtained from the Slovenian employment services. As a result of transposed EU
Directives, it is granted in regard to employment, self-employment and work,

6
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/7715.
Accessed 11 Feb 2019
7
Zakon o zaposlovanju, samozaposlovanju in delu tujcev – ZZSDT, Official Gazette of the RS,
No. 1/18.
8
After compulsory social insurance has been ex lege concluded (pension and disability and unem-
ployment insurance offer voluntary inclusion in regards to particular statuses) any limitations, such
as the requirement to hold permanent residence in Slovenia in order the access benefits in cash or
in kind, would present a breach of the right to private property.
396 G. Strban and L. Mišič

posting, EU Blue Card, seasonal work, work performed by an agent, etc., with dif-
ferent conditions applying to different economic activities.
It is important to note that the transitional period, in which full access for Croatian
workers (as EU nationals) to the labour market was not yet granted, has not been
prolonged back in 2019. On grounds of bilateral agreements, access to the labour
market is (administratively) facilitated for Bosnian and Serbian workers and
Macedonian seasonal workers. No particular provisions apply for workers from
Kosovo or Montenegro. Slovenia has also not yet concluded a bilateral social secu-
rity agreement with Kosovo.
Free access to the labour market, accompanied by EU rules on social security
coordination, is granted to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. The tax-funded social
assistance scheme however requires the existence of a relevant link between the
beneficiary and the state or a sufficient level of one’s societal integration, i.e. the
fulfilment of permanent residence conditions (see also Mišič 2018).9 In that sense,
the Slovenian social security system fully mirrors the traditional distinction between
employment (contribution) based social insurance and residence (tax) based social
assistance schemes.
According to Article 33 of the Foreigners Act,10 foreigners can obtain a residence
permit if possessing sufficient means – income, income support, rights from social
insurance, etc., are considered in regard to the threshold. Rights from public funds
and family benefits are not considered when applying for the first residence permit
(as a rule valid for 1 year). According to Article 52, permanent residency is possible
after 5 years of continuous residence. Social assistance benefits can also be granted
to persons obtaining a special legal status, such as international protection, who are
not Slovenian nationals or permanent residents.
According to Article 25 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act,11 Slovenian
nationals, employed abroad, enjoy the right of voluntary pension and invalidity
insurance if they were insured or held permanent residence in Slovenia prior to
emigration. They however only enjoy the right if they are not insured abroad or if
they enjoy coverage but cannot export their benefits. In regard to cross-border
healthcare, the Healthcare and Health Insurance Act12 stipulates three distinct legal
bases. Two follow EU regulation, one however presents a “purely national” provi-
sion, allowing for medical treatment of insured persons abroad and cost reimburse-
ment when all possible means of treatment have been exhausted in Slovenia, whilst
it is reasonable to expect an improvement of patient’s health with treatment obtained
abroad (see Article 44.a). According to Article 7, the state budget covers costs of
“necessary” treatment (urgent medical treatment and treatment preventing

9
According to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 492/2011, equal treatment applies to workers, who are
EU citizens.
10
Zakon o tujcih – Ztuj-2, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 1/18, last amended in 2019.
11
Zakon o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju – ZPIZ-2, Official Gazette of the RS, No.
96/12, last amended in 2020.
12
Zakon o zdravstvenem varstvu in zdravstvenem zavarovanju – ZZVZZ, Official Gazette of the RS,
No. 72/06, last amended in 2019.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 397

deterioration of health) of foreigners and Slovene nationals residing abroad during

their temporary stay or travel through the territory of Slovenia if no payment of
services was possible. Moreover, Article 133 of the Rules on Compulsory Health
Insurance13 stipulates the right to cost reimbursement up to the average price of the
service provided in Slovenia for insured persons obtaining necessary treatment in
countries, where EU law does not apply, nor has Slovenia concluded a bilateral
agreement with the country of provided treatment.

26.2.1 Unemployment

Unemployment insurance, regulated by the Labour Market Regulation Act,14 is

implemented by the Employment Service of Slovenia and comprises: (i) unemploy-
ment benefit, (ii) the right to compulsory social insurance contributions payment,
and (iii) the right to pension and disability insurance contributions payment 1 year
prior to the fulfilment of the minimum retirement conditions. Insurance is compul-
sory for all workers, regardless of their nationality or residence status. According to
Article 6 of the Labour Market Regulation Act, stipulating equal treatment, same
rights and obligations apply to Slovenian, EU, EEA and Swiss citizens.
According to Articles 59, 63, 815 and 64 of the Act, unemployment benefit is
granted and paid under the following conditions: (i) the individual has to be insured
for at least 10 months (9 months prior to the amendment in 2019) during the
24 months period prior to unemployment or – if younger than 30 – for at least
6 months during the same period; (ii) unemployment has to be involuntary and
ought not to occur on grounds of worker’s fault (Article 63); (iii) the individual has
to possess working capacity, register with the employment services and be willing
to accept suitable employment (Article 8) and (iv) (unless otherwise stipulated by
an international legal act) resides in the Republic of Slovenia in order to avoid sus-
pension of rights (Article 64).
In accordance with the bilateral social security agreements that Slovenia has con-
cluded with the most relevant countries of origin of foreign residents, i.e. Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia (now a Member State) and FYROM, mutual rec-
ognition of facts and calculation of periods is in place (see also Strban 2018b/2 for

13
Pravila obveznega zdravstvenega zavarovanja, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 79/94, last
amended in 2020.
14
Zakon o urejanju trga dela – ZUTD, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 80/10, last amended in 2020.
15
According to Paragraph 2 of Article 8 ZUTD, third-country nationals count as unemployed per-
sons if they enjoy free entry to the Slovenian labour market, possess the single permit, the EU blue
card, or temporary residency permit when having filed for an extension on grounds of employment
or self-employment whilst being recipients of unemployment benefits. A third-country national
has to – according to Article 8a ZUTD (introduced with the amendment in 2019) – showcase A1
level of Slovene language skills within 12 months of becoming registered with the unemployment
office in Slovenia.
398 G. Strban and L. Mišič

key principles commonly incorporated in social security agreements). Agreements,

which are very similar to one another (in part even identical) however do not permit
the export of unemployment benefits.16
Voluntarily insured persons enjoy same rights as compulsorily insured persons.
The majority of voluntary insurance basis is however reserved for Slovenian citi-
zens, e.g. nationals working abroad if they cannot claim benefits upon their return;
spouses of nationals working abroad, who were employed or self-employed prior to
departure, etc.

26.2.2 Health Care

Health insurance, regulated by the aforementioned Health Care and Health Insurance
Act, is implemented by the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia and comprises: (i)
medical services at the primary, secondary and tertiary level, (ii) sickness cash ben-
efit paid due to a private or occupational social risk realization, and (iii) travel
expenses reimbursement. In case of long-term or permanent loss of working capac-
ity, the insured person is transferred from the health to the pension and invalidity
insurance scheme (Bubnov Škoberne and Strban 2010).
The benefits in-kind system is supplemented by private supplementary insurance
for co-payments. Private insurance is open to every compulsorily insured person
under equal conditions. The lump sum insurance premium is set regardless of one’s
income and risk level. Due to its claimed socially unjust nature, supplementary
insurance has long been expected to become substituted with an earnings dependent
public charge. An increase in contribution rates would however present the most
straightforward and legally sound solution for an increase in available funds (Mišič
and Strban 2017).
Social health insurance is compulsory for all employed and self-employed per-
sons in Slovenia, employee-like persons and recipients of social security benefits. If
not covered by any other insurance basis, two general clauses stipulate the insurance
of all (i) permanent residents, who (are obliged to) pay their health insurance con-
tributions, and (ii) national citizens and foreign permanent residents, who were
granted the right to compulsory insurance contribution payment due to their low
income. Derivative insurance of dependant family members is possible regardless
of their nationality. Unless otherwise stipulated by an international agreement, per-
manent residence possessed by family members in Slovenia is however required.
In regard to social security coordination, concluded social security agreements as
a rule also stipulate the condition of permanent residence, held by the family

16
Social security agreements, concluded with FYROM, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia,
Macedonia and Croatia, as a rule prohibit the export of the social assistance supplement, special
assistance and attendance allowance and other means-tested benefits, invalidity and unemploy-
ment cash benefits, death grants and funeral expenses reimbursements.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 399

member in territory of the other party, in order to receive medical services at the
expense of the affiliated (country of origin) social insurance carrier. Article 15 of the
Health Care and Health Insurance Act also lists the insurance base for family mem-
bers of insured persons, affiliated with a foreign social insurance carrier, who pos-
sess permanent residence in Slovenia and are not derivatively insured at the foreign
social insurance carrier. The provision however in the first place de facto refers to
Slovenian nationals, who are dependent family members of persons working abroad.
Regarding compulsory insurance, all gainfully employed persons are treated
equally, regardless of their nationality or residence status. Emergency treatment is
universal and guaranteed regardless of one’s insurance or other status. The social
security agreements mentioned above, concluded with the most relevant countries
of origin, establish a coordination mechanism in regard to both private and occupa-
tional social risks, with special provisions applying to posted workers, retirees and
family members, thus facilitating freedom of movement between both parties to the
agreement.

26.2.3 Pensions

Pension and invalidity insurance, regulated by the aforementioned Pension and

Disability Insurance Act, is implemented by the Pension and Invalidity Insurance
Institute of Slovenia. The first, repartition-based pension pillar comprises: (i) old-­
age pension, (ii) early pension, (iii) partial pension, (iv) invalidity pension, (v) wid-
ow’s and widower’s pension, (v) family pension, and (vi) assistance and attendance
allowance. It is compulsory for all employed, self-employed and employee-like per-
sons. Recipients of particular social security benefits (such as unemployment ben-
efits) are also insured. Voluntary insurance is possible. The first pillar also consists
of compulsory occupational insurance. The second pillar consists of voluntary indi-
vidual and collective supplementary insurance, offering additional income protec-
tion in regards to the first pillar. The third pillar consists of private life insurance
schemes.
As with other branches of what was considered professional insurance, equal
treatment applies to all gainfully employed persons. Special conditions however
apply to foreigners regarding access to particular benefits, e.g. parental allowance,
whose recipients also enjoy coverage within the pension and invalidity insurance.
At the same time, foreigners do not enjoy equal access to voluntary insurance – the
general clause for the voluntary insurance stipulates the condition of permanent
residence. According to Article 25, the possibility of voluntary insurance is granted
to Slovenian nationals, but not foreigners working abroad, if they were insured in
Slovenia prior to their departure or possessed permanent residence in Slovenia.
Voluntary insurance on grounds of covering for the difference between part-time
and full-time insurance is however possible regardless of one’s citizenship or resi-
dence status, since it depends on one’s occupation.
400 G. Strban and L. Mišič

As in the case of health insurance, the above listed social security agreements,
establish a coordination mechanism concerning old-age, invalidity and death, thus
facilitating freedom of movement between both parties. The export of benefits, pre-
dominately pensions, is their key feature.

26.2.4 Family Benefits

The broadly defined category of family benefits can be divided in two categories: (i)
parental insurance benefits and (ii) family benefits, including means-tested benefits
and two lump sum benefits. Both categories are regulated jointly by the Parental
Protection and Family Benefits Act.17 The first part of the Act regulates the compul-
sory, contribution-funded social insurance scheme, consisting of maternity, pater-
nity, and parental leave and benefits, and the right to part-time work due to child-care
and contribution payment. The second part of the Act regulates means-tested lump
sum benefits, provided within a tax-funded scheme, which however is not a social
assistance scheme since it aims to cover the costs related to child-care and not nec-
essarily to prevent poverty or social exclusion (Bubnov Škoberne and Strban 2010).
The Act covers birth grant, child benefit, large family supplement, special child-care
allowance for children requiring special care and partial compensation for the loss
of income for parents providing for disabled children.
As with other branches of insurance, equal treatment applies to all gainfully
employed persons. Recipients of particular social security benefits (e.g. unemploy-
ment benefits) are also insured. Voluntary insurance is, however, not possible.
Social insurance rights can be exercised regardless of one’s citizenship or resi-
dence status. Every application is to be filed with the Social Work Centre competent
in the territory of the insured person’s permanent residence, temporary residence (if
no permanent residence exists in Slovenia), the employer’s headquarters (if no resi-
dence exists in Slovenia) or competent in regard to the child’s place of birth. The
rights to family benefits however require a particular link to exist between the par-
ent, other person and/or child, and the state, i.e. the existence of permanent or com-
mon permanent residence, commonly complemented by the requirement of actual,
factual residence, and temporary residence in Slovenia. The above-mentioned social
security agreements include in their material scope: maternity leave (Croatia before
joining the EU), maternity leave and child benefits (FYROM), maternity leave,
paternity leave, parental leave (Serbia), and maternity leave, paternity leave, paren-
tal leave and child benefits (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (for an in-depth analysis, see
also Strban 2016b/2).

17
Zakon o starševskem varstvu in družinskih prejemkih – ZSDP-1, Official Gazette of the Republic
of Slovenia, No. 26/14, last amended in 2019.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 401

26.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

The tax-funded and means-tested social assistance scheme aimed at preventing pov-
erty and social exclusion, is regulated by several Acts.18 The Social Assistance
Benefits Act stipulates the following benefits: (i) monetary social assistance (mini-
mum income benefit), (ii) extraordinary monetary social assistance and (iii) supple-
mentary allowance (social assistance supplement). The beneficiaries can be: (i)
Slovenian citizens with permanent residence in Slovenia, (ii) foreigners, possessing
a permanent residence permit, which is, however, not required for EU workers, and
(iii) persons granted international protection and their family members, exercising
the right to family reunification. In addition, the Social Assistance Benefits Act stip-
ulates that monetary social assistance and supplement are to be granted to all per-
sons entitled on grounds of international legal acts, binding Slovenia. Social
assistance benefits cannot be exported. Moreover, no social assistance benefits fall
within the material scope of the bilateral social security agreements listed above.

26.3 Conclusions

Contribution-funded compulsory social insurance schemes are based on the notion

of gainful employment. All gainfully employed persons in Slovenia enjoy coverage
irrespective of their citizenship or residence status. Free access to the labour market
is enjoyed by Slovenian, EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Other foreigners first have
to obtain a single residence and work permit, which allows them to enter the coun-
try, search for residence and employment, and reside in Slovenia. Gainful employ-
ment as a rule leads to coverage within social security, whilst long-term territorial
affiliation or citizenship as a rule leads to coverage within the means-tested social
assistance scheme.
Bilateral agreements concluded with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and
FYROM facilitate freedom of movement rights for (seasonal) workers who are
nationals of one of the three countries, thereby enabling the historic migration flow
to continue. Workers’ mobility is by nature commonly followed by family reunifica-
tion. Freedom of movement is also facilitated by bilateral social security agree-
ments concluded with Croatia (now an EU Member State), Serbia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro and FYROM, some of them EU Candidate Countries. As
mentioned, Kosovo, also a relevant country of origin of foreigners residing in
Slovenia, has been left out.

18
Zakon o socialno varstvenih prejemkih – ZSVarPre, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 61/10, last
amended in 2018, the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act (Zakon o uveljavljanju pravic iz
javnih sredstev – ZUPJS), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 62/10, last amended in 2019, and the
Social Assistance Act (Zakon o socialnem varstvu – ZSV), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 3/07, last
amended in 2019.
402 G. Strban and L. Mišič

Regarding the export of pensions, social security agreements regulate the export
of non-EU foreigners’ benefits. If not stipulated otherwise, pensions and other
social security (insurance) benefits ought not to be limited or in any way altered on
grounds of the recipient residing in the territory of a party to the agreement. This
however does not apply to unemployment and means-tested benefits. Means-tested
or lump sum tax-funded family benefits require different types of residence condi-
tions (permanent, registered, actual) to be fulfilled by one parent, both parents, the
child, or the person caring for/raising the child.
EU-foreigners’ and national citizens’ social security benefits are exported with-
out limitations. Whenever general export is enabled for Slovenian citizens, it ought
to be enabled for all EU citizens. It can be concluded that the Slovenian legislation
facilitates freedom of movement rights for migrant workers entering Slovenia from
former Yugoslav republics by means of concluded bilateral agreements and proto-
cols to agreements that enable easier labour market access. At the same time, bilat-
eral social security agreements, grounded in mutual recognition of facts and
calculation of periods, offer a substantive level of social protection to migrant work-
ers and their family members. Social assistance however remains available under
the permanent residence condition, possibly fulfilled after 5 years of continuous
residence. Regarding Croatia, one of the key countries of origin, EU rules on social
security coordination apply.
As mentioned, the by far most relevant migration flow mirrors the common his-
torical background of Slovenia and other former Yugoslav nations, which is only
intensified by the countries’ proximity. The migration flow in the opposite direction
traditionally remains weak due to much lower wages and living standard in the
South-Eastern Balkans. It predominantly consists of short-term stays of tourists. It
however seems that Slovenia does not represent a tempting host country for other
EU and third-country nationals, a fact possibly ascribed to its relatively small econ-
omy and/or labour market, with the country still falling short of the EU 28 average
in GDP per capita in PPS. Other factors- such as the unfamiliar and complex Slavic
language and the proximity of economically more developed countries such as
Austria, Germany and (Northern) Italy- can also help explaining this situation.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics for Slovenia. https://ec.europa.
eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/migration-statistics/asylum-migration/2009/23._slovenia_national_report_
en.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
Bubnov Škoberne, A., & Strban, G. (2010). Pravo socialne varnosti. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
26 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Slovenia 403

De Wispelaere, F., & Pacolet, J. (2017). Posting of workers. Report on A1 portable documents
issued in 2016. Leuven: HIVA, KU Leuven.
Kogovšek Šalamon, N. (2018). Migration law in Slovenia. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law
International.
Kresal, B., Kresal Šoltes, K., & Strban, G. (2016). Social security law in Slovenia. Alphen aan den
Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Mišič, L. (2018). Theories of political philosophy as guiding principles in social security. Studies
on Labour Law and Social Policy, 25(3), 271–292.
Mišič, L. (2019). Social insurance and the state: can’t live with her, can’t live without her. In
A. Perulli & S. Bellomo (Eds.), New industrial relations in the era of globalization: A multi-
level analysis (pp. 137–152). Milano: Wolters Kluwer Italia.
Mišič, L., & Strban, G. (2017). Ukinitev doplačil in dopolnilnega zdravstvenega zavarovanja?
Pravna praksa, 36(22), 16–18.
Slovenia European Migration Network Country Factsheet. (2017). http://emm.si/wp-content/
uploads/25a_slovenia_country_factsheet_2017_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.
Strban, G. (2012a/1). Ustavna zapoved socialne države ni pravno nezavezujoča norma. Pravna
Praksa, 32(2), 3.
Strban, G. (2012b/2). Distinctive long-term care schemes as a response to changed family struc-
tures and demographic situation. Pravnik, 67(3–4), 249–278.
Strban, G. (2016a/1). Constitutional protection of the right to social security in Slovenia. In
M. Wujczyk (Ed.). The right to social security in the constitutions of the world. Broadening the
moral and legal space for social justice (pp. 243–260). Geneva: International Labour Office.
Strban, G. (2016b/2). Family benefits in the EU: Is it still possible to coordinate them?. Maastricht
Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(5), 775–796.
Strban, G. (2017). Social law reports 5/2017 (pp. 1–22). Munich: Max Planck Institute for Social
Law and Social Policy.
Strban, G. (2018a/1). Legal aspects of long-term care in Slovenia. In U. Becker & H Reinhard
(Eds.) Long-Term Care in Europe (pp. 415–460). Cham: Springer.
Strban, G. (2018b/2). Member States’ approaches to bilateral social security agreements. European
Journal of Social Security 20(2), 129–147.
Strban, G., & Mišič, L. (2018). Social partners in social security: Two common forms of recogni-
tion and selected issues. In J. Pichrt & K. Koldinská (Eds.), Labour law and social protection in
a globalized world: Changing realities in selected areas of law and policy (pp. 43–51). Alphen
aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 27
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Spain

Francisco Javier Moreno-Fuentes

27.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Spain

27.1.1  ain Characteristics of the Spanish Social

M
Security System

The Spanish social protection system is generally categorised as belonging to the

“Mediterranean” type (Ferrera 1996), and it occupies an intermediary position on
the “decommodification” scale (Esping-Andersen 1990). The main characteristics
of this system are the combination of social insurance programs (typical of the
“conservative-corporatist” model) with universalist schemes (of the “social-­
democratic” type), its strong reliance on families for the provision of care (for chil-
dren, the disable or the elderly), the high level of decentralization in the design,
management and, financing of social protection schemes, as well as the relatively
low level of social expenditure compared to the rest of Western European countries.
Today’s Spanish welfare state was founded upon the inadequate corporatist sys-
tem developed under Franco’s authoritarian regime (a variant of the conservative-­
corporatist model in place in continental Europe). From the late 1970s, the
democratically elected governments did not radically restructure the pre-existing
social protection programmes, but rather attempted to achieve a higher degree of
universalization and coverage for these same programmes (Moreno 2002).
Just like in other Southern European countries, and up to recently, public authori-
ties practically took for granted the self-sufficiency of households regarding the
provision of care and material support for their members, so families remained a

F. J. Moreno-Fuentes (*)
Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 405

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_27
406 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

central part of social policy in Spain (Flaquer 2000). This situation, which rein-
forced the exploitation of female members of the family, faces the challenge of the
growing incorporation of women into the labour market, as well as the gradual
decline in expectations of solidarity within the family.
Also characteristic of the Spanish welfare regime is the high degree of decentral-
ization of social policy decision-making and programme management. With the
exceptions of pensions and unemployment insurance, which remain in the hands of
the central government, social protection schemes are fundamentally run by the
autonomous regional governments and by municipal authorities. In this context, the
responsibility of the central government lies in the development of basic legislation
applicable nationwide, as well as in specific financial transfers of a conditional
nature to cover a share of the costs of certain social protection programmes. The
autonomous communities have, as a result, emerged as central political actors in the
development of systems of social assistance, care, education, and social services.
This means that social rights end up taking significantly distinct forms within differ-
ent regions, depending on the priorities established by the autonomous govern-
ments, as well as on the resources that each region may mobilize to finance such
policies (Marí-Klose and Moreno-Fuentes 2013).
The Spanish welfare state is also characterized by its relatively low level of social
spending, among the lowest of all Western European countries. A detailed analysis
of the disaggregated data on social spending shows that a relatively significant
financial effort is put into paying for pensions (as in the rest of Southern Europe).
Similarly, unemployment benefits absorb a significant fraction of the financial
resources dedicated to social protection due to the particular sensitivity of the
Spanish labour market to the fluctuations of the economic cycle, while the provision
of housing, or schemes to support families are extremely weak.

27.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Spain, a traditional country of emigration (at the times of the colonial expansion, to
the Americas, later on as economic migrants left for Latin America, Africa and
some of the most developed Western European countries), became a net receiver of
migrants over the last two decades. This shift of position in the international migra-
tion system was determined by the large economic and political changes experi-
enced by Spain over this period. While in 1999 the foreign population represented
roughly 2% of the Spanish population, by 2011 foreigners constituted more than
12% of the Census (more than 5.7 million persons), the second highest number of
foreigners in the European Union (EU-27) after Germany. This figure included both
EU nationals residing in Spain (both as retirees and students, and as workers, nota-
bly from the new Eastern European member states), and economic migrants from
Latin America, North-Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. The relatively rapid annual
growth in the number of foreign residents of the late 1990s accelerated after 2000,
with average annual increases superior to 40%. Both the scale and the speed at
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 407

which this immigration trend occurred were quite remarkable. Since 2000, the pace
of foreigners settling in Spain accelerated sharply, above all in the years 2000–2005,
period during which the annual intensity of settlement reached 16.8 foreigners per
1000 inhabitants (Izquierdo 2006). Starting in 2005, the volume of migration flows
to Spain decreased significantly, but remained, nevertheless, higher than the
European average. As a result of this process between 1990 and 2005 Spain became
one of the primary destination countries for immigration in the world, joining coun-
tries with a long tradition as receivers of migration flows.
Between 1996 and 2007, the Spanish economy created almost 8 million jobs,
expanding from 12.6 million employed in 1996, to 20.5 million in the second quar-
ter of 2007. Many of those jobs were occupied by foreigners, which contributed to
the introduction of flexibility in the Spanish labour market (in terms of hiring, work-
ing conditions, salaries and geographic and functional mobility), particularly in cer-
tain sectors and employment niches. While at the end of 2001, around 600,000
foreign workers were affiliated to the social security system (a little less than 4% of
the total workforce), by the end of 2007 they were almost 2 million (10.3% of the
total number of affiliates). After this peak, the economic crisis led to the destruction
of more than 2 million jobs, many of them occupied by immigrant workers.
Nevertheless, and despite the economic crisis that affected foreign workers with
particular intensity, the number of foreigners affiliated to the social security system
continued being close to 1.9 million people (around 10.5% of affiliated workers) at
the beginning of 2010.
The main regulatory framework for those migration flows has been the 4/2000
Spanish Immigration Law, which establishes the main principles under which for-
eigners can enter and settle in the country, while defining the basic set of rights and
obligations of those foreign residents. This regulation, amended in different aspects
by the successive governments, aims at striking a complex balance between a strict
logic of border closure, and the need to respond to the demands from different sec-
tors of the economy favourable to the arrival of foreign workers, as well as to the
requirements of the migratory projects of those foreigners settled in Spain.
The economic crisis experienced by Spain between 2008 and 2013 made migra-
tion flows affecting this country significantly more complex. While immigration
and emigration coexisted, immigration flows considerably decreased, and out-­
migration significantly expanded. At the same time, the profiles of people coming to
Spain and those leaving the country became more heterogeneous, combining for-
eign immigrants, naturalised foreigners, and native-born Spanish citizens in multi-
ple manners (González-Ferrer and Moreno Fuentes 2017). This re-emergence of
emigration flows was perceived as an indicator of Spain’s structural weaknesses.
The socio-economic shock produced by the crisis pushed a large spectrum of
Spanish workers to consider emigration as a way out of the situation of unemploy-
ment, and/or sub-employment. The incentives for migrating were there for a higher
number of segments of the Spanish population (including some of the immigrants
that had arrived in Spain in previous years, many of which had already acquired
Spanish citizenship), producing a relatively large-scale out-migration flow. This
flow was directed towards other EU countries, but also towards the countries of
408 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

origin of some of the groups that had arrived in previous years. The position cur-
rently occupied by Spain in the World Migration System (Bakewell 2012) has
become more complex, with significant out-migration flows combined with immi-
gration (fundamentally through family reunification, but also some labour migra-
tion), with a net balance that is difficult to ascertain.

27.2 Migration and Social Protection in Spain

In basic terms, foreigners can access Spanish social protection schemes through a
mix of two basic entitlement patterns: their participation in the labour market (for
programs based on social insurance), and their residence in Spanish territory (for
schemes based on a universalistic logic).
Access to welfare schemes included under the umbrella of the Social Security
system (unemployment benefits and assistance, sickness and disability benefits,
retirement pensions, as well as some family benefits) is essentially based on a con-
tributory logic, and the basic eligibility criteria is having previously contributed to
the system for a certain period via labor market participation. Nationality, per se,
does not play any role in the definition of entitlements to benefits from the National
Social Security Institute (Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, INSS).
Autochthonous workers and regularly employed foreign workers with valid work
permits can access these schemes in equal terms.
The significant role of the underground economy in the Spanish productive sys-
tem conditions access to social insurance programs for the most precarious catego-
ries of workers.1 Participation in informal sectors of the economy is the only
possibility to hold a job for undocumented migrants. Autochthonous and immigrant
workers with working permits who cannot find a job in the formal economy may
also have to rely on the underground economy to find employment. This situation
prevents workers from accessing the protection of contributory social insurance
schemes.
A second group of welfare policies, such as healthcare, education, social assis-
tance and personal social services, operate under a residence criterion. For these
programs, any person registered as a resident in a Spanish municipality is eligible,
regardless of their nationality, or the regularity of their residence status. Access to
these social protection programs is grounded on the eligibility criteria established
by the 4/2000 Spanish Immigration Law, which states the universality of access to
education and healthcare in Spain without any concern for the legal status of the

1
By their very nature, the precise size of economic activities outside of the State’s regulation and
taxation is unknown. Recent estimates quantify the average underground economy in Spain in the
period 2004–2015 to have been around 24.5% of the GDP (Medina and Schneider 2018). The
underground economic is concentrated in the construction, agriculture and particularly in the ser-
vices sector (cleaning, domestic service, and care tasks) where migrant labor has their main labor
market niches (Baldwin-Edwards and Arango 1999).
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 409

person. This Law also established that legal foreign residents are entitled to the
same social assistance services and benefits than Spaniards, while immigrants in an
irregular administrative situation can access a limited package of social assistance
and personal social services benefits. Due to the strongly decentralized character of
the Spanish welfare regime, each autonomous community has a large room of
maneuver for deciding its own policy regarding access of undocumented migrants
to social services in their territory. Thus, in some regions requirements to access
mainstreaming social services schemes are relatively flexible, while in other semi-­
public targeted schemes, generally run by third-sector organisations, have been
established to attend undocumented immigrants.
The dual nature of the welfare system conditions to some extent the eligibility of
Spanish nationals residing abroad to the different social protection schemes as well.
In general terms, those domains of social protection based on a social assistance
logic, or on a universalistic entitlement linked to residence in the country, exclude
those nationals who do not reside in Spain. On the other hand, some programs based
on a social insurance logic (notably pensions, although not unemployment benefits)
grant entitlements to Spanish nationals abroad to the extent that they contributed to
them previously to leaving the country.
The economic crisis started in 2008 opened a window of opportunity for the
introduction of austerity policies, and for a significant reduction of social rights in
Spain (Pavolini et al. 2015). Although the economy gradually recovered its pulse
over the last years, and with it, the public finances necessary to provide public ser-
vices, welfare programs and entitlements were significantly affected by fiscal con-
solidation measures.

27.2.1 Unemployment

The social security system constitutes the core and foundation of the Spanish wel-
fare state. Financed through the contributions of employers and employees, it is
comprised of a series of insurance schemes to respond to specific social risks linked
to citizens’ work life including unemployment, work related accidents, disability
and retirement.
The contributory nature of these insurance programmes implies that the basic
criterion defining the right to access most of the programmes managed by the
National Social Security Institute or by other agencies linked to it, such as the Public
Employment Service (Servicio Público de Empleo, SPE), is affiliation to social
security via participation in the labour market during a specified period. Thus, to
receive unemployment benefits, a worker must have contributed for a number of
months (specific to each insurance scheme), and the benefits he/she will receive will
be proportional to the duration and quantity of his/her contribution. These insurance
schemes operate under a pay-as-you-go logic (not a capitalization system), so each
worker contributes to a common fund from which resources are extracted to pay for
the benefits that must be assumed by the system at any specific point time. Nationality
410 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

does not play a significant role in the criteria defining the right to access INSS ben-
efits, as both Spanish citizens and foreigners with work permits and employment in
the formal economy have access to these systems under equal conditions. The con-
tributory nature of social security benefits explains the fact that immigrants’ access
to social insurance schemes is rarely contested in the public or political debates.
Remaining employed in the formal economy, and contributing to the social secu-
rity system, are central conditions to access the benefits and subsidies administered
by the INSS. The high rates of temporality among immigrants, as well as the shorter
duration of their labour careers, explain the relatively low rate of unemployment
benefits and subsidies coverage among these groups. Maintaining employment is
key for immigrants because in many cases the renewal of work and residency per-
mits depends on having held a job during the previous months. In this regard, enter-
ing into a situation of irregularity constitutes one of the risks threatening immigrants’
entitlement to the benefits of the social insurance system. Thus, the important role
played by the underground economy in the Spanish production system constitutes
an important obstacle for immigrants’ access to the social insurance system.
The amount and duration of unemployment benefits received by workers, both
national and foreigner, are directly tied to their previous trajectory of contributions.
Once the contributory benefits are exhausted, unemployed workers may receive an
unemployment social assistance subsidy for a limited period, provided they comply
with a series of specific requirements. Unemployment assistance protection con-
sists, in fact, of a series of means-tested programmes, including unemployment
assistance benefits,2 the agrarian unemployment subsidy,3 the Active Integration
Income (RAI), the Professional Requalification Programme (PREPARA) and the
Employment Activation Programme (PAE). These schemes have been gradually
integrated into the social security unemployment protection system at various stages
of the different labour market reforms implemented in Spain over the years. The
result is a layering of segmented programmes with different eligibility criteria and
variable duration of protection, depending on previous contributions, family respon-
sibilities and specific social conditions (disability, being the victim of gender vio-
lence, being a returning migrant, or being over 45). These schemes are available to
foreign residents with a regularized administrative situation as well, and they con-
stitute transitory programs for situations of socio-economic distress.
Both Spaniards and foreign nationals entitled to unemployment benefits and assis-
tance schemes need to reside in the country to have access to these benefits, and in case
of establishing their residence abroad they lose their entitlements to these programs.

2
Unemployed workers older than 45 access the Unemployment Assistance Benefits scheme with
less demanding requirements, and they do so for a longer period. In the case of those unemployed
over 52 who fulfil all the other conditions for retirement, the duration of unemployment benefits is
extended until the age of retirement.
3
The working of the Agrarian Unemployment Subsidy and Income Scheme is restricted to the
Autonomous Communities of Andalusia and Extremadura, where it plays a very significant role in
the protection of landless peasants who only find work during certain periods of the year in the
tasks associated with the harvesting of specific crops.
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 411

27.2.2 Health Care

The Spanish public healthcare system initiated the convergence toward a universal-
istic scheme with the passing of the 14/1986 General Health Law (Ley General de
Sanidad, LGS), which established the Spanish National Health System (Sistema
Nacional de Salud, SNS), inspired in the British National Health Service. This
move implied the decoupling of in kind healthcare services (which moved towards
a universalistic scheme financed through general taxation), from sickness benefits
(which remained anchored within the social security system, therefore strictly
dependent on a contributory logic).
The relative lack of legislative clarity regarding the rights of foreigners implied
that the extension of in kind healthcare coverage promoted by this Law and based
on residence criteria initially referred only to Spaniards. Citizens of other EU coun-
tries could access the SNS through the mutual recognition of healthcare coverage
within the EU, while access for immigrants remained conditioned by their links
with the social security system. Healthcare coverage for immigrants was later
granted by the Organic Law 4/2000 on the rights and liberties of foreigners in Spain
and their integration into society (Ley Orgánica sobre Derechos y Libertades de los
Extranjeros en España y su integración social). This regulation expanded health-
care coverage to all persons that could prove residence in Spain and lacked resources
to cover for the cost of their healthcare. The mechanism chosen to link healthcare
coverage with the criterion of residency was enrolment in the municipal population
register and a certificate of lack of means by municipal social services. This formula
prevented the use of the public healthcare system by short-term visitors to the coun-
try (tourists, etc.).
The process of gradual universalization of its coverage to reach 100% of the
population residing in Spain, regardless of their nationality, wealth or administrative
status, was completed in January 2012, with the implementation of the 33/2011
Public Health Law (Ley General de Salud Pública, LGSP). Shortly after the achieve-
ment of the complete universalization of the SNS, and justified by the crisis and the
deterioration of public finances, the Royal Decree 16/2012 on “urgent measures to
guarantee the sustainability of the National Health System and improve the quality
and safety of its benefits”, was approved in April 2012. This regulation cancelled the
universal entitlement to the national healthcare system based on residence criteria.
This Decree re-introduced the logic of social insurance by establishing the catego-
ries of “insured persons” (workers, pensioners, unemployed persons receiving ben-
efits, and job seekers), and “beneficiaries” (spouses and siblings of “insured”
persons younger than 26). Undocumented migrants were left out of the SNS, enti-
tled to care only in case of emergency or infectious diseases.4 Spaniards with
resources not contributing to the Social Security system (who had been included in

4
With the exception of pregnant women, those affected by infectious diseases and those in need of
urgent treatments. At that time it was estimated that 160,000 undocumented immigrants would lose
their health card.
412 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

the SNS only in January 2012 through the Public Health Law), jobless people with-
out benefits older than 26 (later re-introduced in the system under the condition of
proving lack of means), and those unemployed without benefits who leave the coun-
try for more than 90 days, were also excluded from the SNS (Rodríguez Cabrero
et al. 2018).5
Non-resident EU citizens were referred to EU cross-border healthcare regula-
tions, so to receive treatment in the SNS they should produce a European Health
Insurance Card for unforeseen medical treatment, have the authorization of their
country of origin’s health authority in case of planned treatment, or show a certifica-
tion of lack of healthcare entitlement in the country of origin and lack of financial
resources.6
This radical change in the eligibility criteria to access the SNS adopted by the
central government was supposed to limit the range of coverage of the 17 Regional
Health Services (SRS) composing the SNS.7 The complex articulation of political
and financial responsibilities in this policy area meant a substantially unequal appli-
cation of the provisions adopted in that regulation: it was explicitly ignored by some
autonomous governments (Andalusia and Asturias); other regions established spe-
cific programs to assist undocumented migrants without resources (Aragon, the
Basque Country, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Catalonia, Extremadura, Galicia,
Navarre, and Valencia); a third group introduced some exceptions in the exclusion
of undocumented immigrants from their health systems, for example, in the case of
those affected by chronic diseases (Madrid, Baleares, Castilla y León, Murcia and
Rioja); while a fourth group literally translated the guidelines of the decrees to their
regulation, cancelling health cards issued to undocumented immigrants (Castilla-La
Mancha) (Moreno Fuentes 2015).
In 2015, the Minister of Health publicly recognized the considerably negative
side effects derived from the expulsion of undocumented migrants from the SNS,
pointing in the direction of returning the right to primary care to undocumented
immigrants, but without specifying how this measure would be applied. In July
2018, the incoming social-democratic government approved the Royal Decree
7/2018 to return to the universalistic philosophy of the SNS. The current eligibility
regulation means a return to a universal entitlement to healthcare based on residence
(registration in a municipality) in the country.
Access to sickness cash benefits remained firmly linked to the social security
system, so eligibility to this scheme directly depends on previous contributions
related to formal participation in the labour market, and may benefit both Spanish

5
In July 2016, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling cancelling these limitation (STC 139/2016),
and therefore granting access to the SNS again to every Spanish and EU citizen legally residing
in Spain.
6
In September 2012, some 873,000 healthcare cards belonging to foreigners were cancelled.
7
The SNS is as a profoundly decentralized system, made of 17 SRS run by each of the Autonomous
Regions. The central government is responsible for the basic legislation on healthcare, while
regional health authorities are in charge of the deployment of that basic legislation within their own
territories, with a very large degree of autonomy in the way they structure their respective SRS.
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 413

nationals and foreign residents with working permits alike. This scheme aims at
guaranteeing income to workers in case of illness (if they contributed for at least
180 days during the five previous years) or work related accident (no requirement of
minimum period of contribution). In the event of an accident at work or an occupa-
tional disease, sickness benefits are paid from the day following the leave of work.
In case of a common illness or a non-work accident, the subsidy is paid as of the
fourth day of leave up to a maximum of 18 months.8

27.2.3 Pensions

Pension schemes constitute the core of the Spanish social security system, and they
absorb a very significant share of the total social spending in this country. As social
insurance programs, they are financed with the contributions of employers and
employees. The main schemes included under this category are income mainte-
nance programs to respond to work related accidents, disability and most notably
retirement.
Access to contributory pension schemes is based on previous contributions to the
system for a certain period via labor market participation. Nationality does not play
any role in the definition of entitlements to receive a contributory pension. What
matters is having paid social insurance contributions for the established period,
although that means, of course, having held a valid work permit in the case of for-
eign workers. Despite the existence of a great variation in the specific circumstances
that may affect workers when opting to a pension (due to their particular labour
market trajectories, the sector of activity, the moment when the worker may actually
retire, etc.), in 2019, the general rule established the age of retirement at 67 (or a
period of contribution of at least 36 years and 9 months to retire at 65) and a mini-
mum of 15 years of contributions.9 Workers entitled to a contributory pension
(regardless of their nationality), may receive their pensions abroad provided they
follow the required procedures of proof of life.
The Multilateral Ibero-American Social Security Agreement (ratified by Spain
as well as by Portugal, Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, El Salvador, Ecuador,
Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay) implies that nationals of these countries may use the
periods of contribution to the social security systems of any those countries for the
calculation of the total number of years of contributions in order to qualify for a
pension in Spain.

8
The temporary incapacity may be extended to 24 if those 6 extra months are considered necessary
for the full recovery of the worker and there was no expectation of him/her having to be considered
in a situation of invalidity.
9
For the first 15 years of contributions, 50% of the regulatory basis is received, with an extra 0.21%
for each additional month of contribution for the 163 months following, with an extra 0.19% added
in the remaining months.
414 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

In recent years, and despite the crisis, the percentage of foreigners among INSS
affiliates remained practically stable (between 10 and 11% of the total workforce in
the case of men, and around 10% among women). Thus, foreign workers continued
to help to balance the social security budget given the fact that this population is still
relatively young, and is therefore a net contributor to the system, claiming relatively
few benefits compared to autochthonous workers. This is particularly true regarding
retirement pensions, which constitute the largest expense in the social protection
system. Currently, only around 1% of the recipients of pensions in Spain are for-
eigners (of which more than half are EU citizens). The comparison of the demo-
graphic pyramids shows how the majorities of foreigners settled in Spain are in the
age group between 20 and 50, clearly over-represented in the population of working
age. Economic immigration has contributed to the rejuvenation of the Spanish
workforce, constituting a net contribution to the INSS coffers, something that
should continue to be the case in the next decades (Moreno Fuentes and Bruquetas-­
Callejo 2011).
In addition to contributory pension programs, there is also a non-contributory
pensions system for persons older than 65, or for those who have a recognised dis-
ability. These means-tested schemes, providing relatively limited benefits, cover
both Spanish nationals and foreigners legally residing in Spain who have not made
social security contributions during the legally stipulated period, and who meet all
the conditions for applying for these benefits (age or degree of recognized disabil-
ity). In both cases, beneficiaries must prove that they do not have sufficient eco-
nomic resources (less than €5136.6 per year in 2015)10 and that they are not entitled
to a contributory pension. The amount of the non-contributory pension varies
according to family circumstances and the income level of the household. This sys-
tem is financed through general taxation. Similarly, those Spanish nationals residing
abroad beyond the age of retirement, or who cannot work due to an illness, who do
not receive a contributory pension from Spain or their country of residence may
apply for a means-tested non-contributory pension to the Spanish authorities. The
main characteristics of these pensions are the same as non-contributory pension
schemes in Spanish territory, but their amount is adjusted to the specific conditions
of the country of residence of the beneficiary.

27.2.4 Family Benefits

The social expenditure devoted to families and children in Spain has traditionally
been very low when compared to the rest of Europe (5.3% of total social expendi-
ture, compared to an 8.4% average for the EU28).11 The most important program in

The income threshold rises if the pension holder lives with a spouse and/or dependent children.
10

https://www.comisionadopobrezainfantil.gob.es/es/gasto-en-familias-e-infancia-en-la-uni%
11

C3%B3n-europea-2016-respecto-al-total-del-gasto-social
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 415

this area is a non-contributory cash transfer scheme for low-income families with
underage children (291€ a year in 2016), as well as for families with disabled chil-
dren older than 18.12 These benefits are targeted at families whose income in 2016
did not exceed the threshold of 11,576.83€ per year (plus 15% per additional child).
This scheme is complemented by a set of one-time payments for cases of multiple
birth, large families, single parents or disabled mothers, as well as a universal cash
benefit/tax relief for working mothers of children aged 0–3.
The core of maternity/paternity leave benefits is based on a contributory scheme
linked to pregnancy and parenthood covering the salaries of workers on leave fol-
lowing the birth of a child. Both Maternity (ML) and Paternity Leaves (PL) are
contributory social insurance schemes financed for a short period with a high level
of protection (100% of the salary). Employed mothers are entitled to 16 weeks of
ML (of which up to 10 can be transferred to their partner), while employed fathers
are entitled to an 12 weeks PL (to be gradually extended to 16 weeks by 2021).
Since 2009, non-eligible employed mothers are also entitled to a flat-rate non-­
contributory maternity allowance for 42 days.
Child benefits at birth in Spain are limited to a means-tested single payment
(1000€) for the birth or adoption of a child in the case of large families (with three
or more children), single parent households, or handicapped mothers, as well as
a scheme in the event of multiple births.13 In addition to that, a means-tested child
benefit scheme for low-income families,14 or children with disabilities exist as well.
Although the origin of the funds to cover for these family benefits varies (child
benefits for low-income families is paid with general taxes, while both ML and PL
are financed through social insurance contributions), they are all run by the social
security system administration. This means that the basic eligibility is determined
by conditions related to the regularity of residency in the country, both of the par-
ents and the children (regardless of their nationality), and additionally by participa-
tion in the labour market (in the case of parental leaves). Thus, the national origin of
the applicant is not a key variable when determining actual eligibility, although
holding a residence permit appears as a sine qua non condition for all of them
(including the children generating the entitlement for the benefit), and actually,
working legally appears as an additional requirement for parental leaves. Spanish
nationals residing abroad are not entitled to any of these schemes since they do not
fulfil the requirement of residency in the country.

12
1000€ per year in the case of disability under 33%, 4414.8€ if the disability was between 65 and
75%, and 6622.8€ if the disability was over 75%.
13
3200€ in case of two children born at once, 7200€ in case of three, and 10,800€ in case of 4
or more.
14
In case of a single child the threshold of family income to receive this benefit is established at
11,954€ (with 15% increase for each additional child). Since April 2019, this benefit is established
at 341€ per year for the first child. A new category of severely poor has been also created (referring
to families with income below 4680€ per year) which will receive 588€ per year per child instead.
416 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

27.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

There is not a basic legal framework at the central government level to define the
fundamental traits of programmes to guarantee minimum resources to populations
in need in Spain. The Autonomous Communities’ minimum income schemes (MIS)
constitute the last-resort social protection safety net in Spain, and they were created
within the framework of the regions’ exclusive powers on social assistance and
social services. All 17 Autonomous Communities, plus the two autonomous cities
of Ceuta and Melilla, have implemented their own MIS, for which they have full
responsibility regarding regulation, planning, financing, implementation and evalu-
ation. The MIS in Spain constitutes, therefore, a group of unconnected schemes,
which nonetheless share certain basic features: they combine a cash transfer pro-
gramme (to guarantee some minimum monetary resources) with labour market acti-
vation and/or social insertion programmes, all with a relatively low intensity of
protection.
Although the design of these regional schemes has been strongly influenced by
horizontal emulation and policy learning among the Autonomous Communities,
there is a high degree of diversity between the different regional MIS programmes.
This variability is reflected in every aspect of the design and implementation of
these programmes (from delivery arrangements, to eligibility requirements, includ-
ing the level of benefits). The central government tries to facilitate the exchange of
information and the sharing of experiences and good practices among the
Autonomous Communities.
In addition to means-tested criteria, eligibility conditions for regional MIS
include age requirements, on how long the household has been living together, as
well as conditions of residency and duration of registration in the municipality.15
According to the 4/2000 Spanish Immigration Law, foreigners with a residence and/
or working permit are entitled to the same services and benefits from social services
as Spaniards, while immigrants with an irregular administrative status can only
access basic services and benefits. This distinction is not based on a clear legal defi-
nition regarding the content of basic and specialised services. As a result, each
Autonomous Community has resolved in its own way the issue of undocumented
immigrants’ access to its social services network: in some regions, requirements are
flexible in order to facilitate access, in others, semi-public schemes have been estab-
lished to service undocumented immigrants, often run by third-sector organisations.
Although Spanish nationality is not a condition for access to MIS benefits (except
in Andalusia),16 a certain period of residence in the specific Autonomous Community
is demanded in all programmes (Laparra 2014). Requirements vary from 6 months

15
As a consequence of this residency requirement, Spanish nationals residing abroad are not enti-
tled to benefits from MIS.
16
Article 3.3 of the 2/1999 Decree that regulates the Andalusian MIS (http://goo.gl/V4nVOx)
establishes that non-EU third-country nationals cannot apply to this scheme.
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 417

(the Balearic Islands and Galicia) to 36 months (the Canary Islands, the Basque
Country, and Valencia), with an extreme case of 5 years in the region of Murcia.
In 2008, immigrants accounted for 11.2% of the beneficiaries of Minimum
Income Schemes (MIS) in Spain, showing a clear underrepresentation of this group
considering that they constituted a larger proportion of the population at risk of
social exclusion. The economic crisis and its severe effects on the incomes of the
most vulnerable immigrant populations had increased this percentage to 27.5% by
the end of 2017 (MSSSI 2017).
The intensity of protection varies quite considerably across the different regional
MIS. The basic amount guaranteed for a one-person household ranges from EUR
300/month (Murcia or Ceuta) to something over double that figure (EUR 620/month
in the Basque Country). This heterogeneity is also present in the case of supple-
ments for additional household members, although, in general terms, the increases
in benefits for larger households are quite modest, and certainly far removed from
the scales of equivalence used in poverty measurement (in no region does a house-
hold of four members get near to double the basic amount for a single-person house-
hold: the most generous case increases that basic standard by only 60% for three
additional household members).
The unequal coverage of MIS in the Autonomous Communities bears little rela-
tion to the situations of poverty, social exclusion or need in each of those regions.
Many potential obstacles to actual access to those benefits are linked to institutional
factors regarding the actual administration of the programmes, which are designed
as comprehensive but tend towards a logic of social control, and which are poorly
endowed with the human and material resources required for their functioning,
leaving a wide margin for bureaucratic discretion, and the development of (subjec-
tive) morally loaded practices of behavioural control (Ayala 2014).

27.3 Conclusions

As a clear example of the “Mediterranean” welfare regime type, the Spanish social
protection system is characterized by a combination of social insurance programs
(with eligibility criteria grounded on social contributions linked to participation in
the labour market), and universalist schemes (with entitlements based on residency–
in some cases irrespective of administrative status-). This combination of mecha-
nisms to define access to social programs has a clear effect on the rights to access
social schemes by foreigners.
The eligibility rights of Spanish nationals to the different social protection
schemes when they reside abroad is also obviously affected by this state of affairs:
they have an easier access to those schemes based on previous contributions (pen-
sions), than to universalistic programs based on a logic of residency (in kind health-
care services), or to social assistance schemes (MIS).
While the key variable to determine access for social insurance schemes is not
nationality, but participation in the labour market (therefore strongly conditioned by
418 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

holding an authorisation to work), social protection programs based on residency

may have a more selective impact depending on the nationality of the potential user.
The nature of the international agreements ratified by Spain appears as a key
aspect as well in determining welfare entitlements for foreigners. This is quite obvi-
ous in the case of nationals of other EU member states, but also for nationals from
Latin American countries with which the Spanish State has signed an agreement for
the coordination of their social security systems.
Right before the economic crisis initiated in 2008, the Spanish welfare regime
was in a process of “expansive recalibration”, aimed at increasing the salience of
policies addressing new social risks through the expansion of child-care services,
parental leaves, increasing support for working mothers, and developing long-term
care services for dependant people (del Pino and Pavolini 2015). The fiscal consoli-
dation measures applied after 2010 implied both a clear “welfare retrenchment”,
with the significant cut of budgets allocated to most welfare programs (particularly
in the domains of healthcare, education, and social services), and a “restrictive reca-
libration” of the system with the reduction of welfare entitlements (notably, the
elimination of universality of healthcare access), the redefinition of State’s respon-
sibilities in the domain of welfare (decreasing role of public provision of services,
expansion of copayments, etc.), and the unequal impact of these measures in the
different social groups.
The contributory logic of access to the social security system increased the vul-
nerability of immigrant populations due to the serious deterioration of their employ-
ment situation (Bruquetas Callejo and Moreno Fuentes 2015). As their limited
entitlements to contributive programs were relatively fast drained, immigrants were
left in a situation of severe economic and social distress. Residential vulnerability
further impacted on these groups due to the financial burdens linked to increasing
housing costs, leading to a quick and intense decapitalization of immigrant
households.
Mediterranean welfare states that rely strongly on contributive schemes and have
large informal economies offer relatively weak protection to immigrants, since
these groups are most likely to work in the deregulated sector, and their rights to
welfare are largely conditional upon their participation in the regular labour market.
The crisis reinforced the important role of the informal economy, and this created
institutional inertia hindering the access of immigrants to insurance programmes.
While immigrants’ need for social protection increased as a consequence of the
crisis, the actual welfare take-up by this group decreased as a result of their more
limited access to the formal labor market, and more restrictive conditions of tar-
geted programs.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.
27 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Spain 419

References

Ayala, L. (Ed.). (2014). Distribución de la renta, condiciones de vida y políticas redistributivas. In

VII Informe FOESSA sobre exclusión y desarrollo social en España. Madrid: FOESSA.
Bakewell, O. (2012). Re-launching migration systems. International Migration Institute Working
paper no. 60. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Baldwin-Edwards, M., & Arango, J. (1999). Immigrants and the informal economy in Southern
Europe. London: Frank Cass.
Bruquetas Callejo, M., & Moreno Fuentes, F. J. (2015). Precarización y vulnerabilidad de la
población inmigrante en la España en crisis. El papel del Estado de bienestar. Panorama Social,
22, 139–152.
del Pino, E., & Pavolini, E. (2015). Decentralization in a time of harsh austerity: Multilevel gov-
ernance and the welfare state in Spain and Italy facing the crisis. European Journal of Social
Security, 17(2), 246–270.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern Model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social
Policy, 6(1), 17–37.
Flaquer, L. (2000). Family policy and welfare state in southern Europe. Working paper 185.
Barcelona: Institut de Ciencies Politiques i Socials.
González-Ferrer, A., & Moreno Fuentes, F. J. (2017). Back to the suitcase? Emigration during the
great recession in Spain. South European Society and Politics, 22(4), 447–471.
Izquierdo, A. (Ed.). (2006). Demografía de los extranjeros: incidencia en el crecimiento de la
población. Bilbao: Fundación BBVA.
Laparra, M. (Ed.). (2014). La fractura social se ensancha: intensificación de los procesos de exclu-
sión en España durante 7 años. In VII Informe FOESSA sobre exclusión y desarrollo social en
España. Madrid: FOESSA.
Marí-Klose, P., & Moreno-Fuentes, F. J. (2013). The southern European welfare model in the post-­
industrial order. Still a distinctive cluster. European Societies, 15(4), 475–492.
Medina, L., & Schneider, F. (2018). Shadow economies around the world: What did we learn
over the last 20 years? IMF Working Papers, WP/18/17. Washington, DC: International
Monetary Fund.
Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad (MSSSI). (2017). El sistema público de ser-
vicios sociales. Informe de rentas mínimas de inserción. Año 2017. Madrid: MSSSI.
Moreno, L. (2002). Bienestar mediterráneo y supermujeres. Revista Española de Sociología,
2, 41–57.
Moreno Fuentes, F. J. (2015). El puzle de la exclusión sanitaria de los inmigrantes indocumentados
en España. In Anuario de la inmigración en España 2014 (pp. 277–300). Barcelona: CIDOB.
Moreno Fuentes, F. J., & Bruquetas-Callejo, M. (2011). Immigration and welfare state in Spain. In
Colección de Estudios Sociales n° 31. Barcelona: Fundación La Caixa.
Pavolini, S., León, M., Guillén, A., & Ascoli, U. (2015). From austerity to permanent strain? The
EU and welfare state reform in Italy and Spain. Comparative European Politics, 13(1), 56–76.
Rodríguez Cabrero, G., Arriba González de Durana, A., Marbán Gallego, V., Montserrat Codorniu,
J., & Moreno Fuentes, F. J. (2018). ESPN Thematic Report on Inequalities in Access to
Healthcare. Spain 2018. Directorate-General for Employment, social affairs and inclusion.
Brussels: European Commission.
420 F. J. Moreno-Fuentes

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 28
Migrants’ Access to Social Protection
in Sweden

Anton Ahlén and Joakim Palme

28.1  verview of the Welfare System and Main Migration

O
Features in Sweden

28.1.1  ain Characteristics of the National Social

M
Security System

The Swedish welfare state is, in line with popular typologies, interchangeably
referred to as the Social Democratic, the institutional, or the encompassing model
of social policy, which reflects the political driving forces and its institutional char-
acteristics (Esping-Andersen 1990; Huber et al. 1993; Korpi and Palme 1998). The
Swedish welfare state is often clustered together with the other Nordic countries by
reference to the Nordic model underpinned by equality-promoting principles and a
political strategy of including the middle class in the social protection system in
order to generate political support for generous provisions also for vulnerable
groups in society. Infused by principles of universalism, the Swedish social security
model builds on a comprehensive public responsibility for the welfare of the entire
resident population. The model combines residence-based universal benefits with
earnings-related entitlements for the economically active population. Residents
have access to flat-rate basic benefits and for those in work, social insurance benefits
are earnings-related (Palme et al. 2009). Securing income and joint financing of
large welfare programs is dependent on high labour force participation and employ-
ment rates, as well as high taxes and social security contributions.
The Swedish welfare state is essentially individualistic, meaning that transfers,
taxes, and services are normally linked to the individual rather than the household.

A. Ahlén (*) · J. Palme

Department of Government, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020 421

J.-M. Lafleur, D. Vintila (eds.), Migration and Social Protection in Europe and
Beyond (Volume 1), IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51241-5_28
422 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

Social security is funded by a combination of employer’s social security contribu-

tions and taxes, and in the case of pensions, it is complemented with insured per-
son’s social security contributions. Cash benefits are administered at the central
state level. The exceptions are in the areas of social assistance (försörjningsstöd),
which is administered by the municipalities, and the voluntary state subsidised
unemployment insurance (arbetslöshetsförsäkring), which, in line with the Ghent
system, provides earnings-related benefits that are administered by independent
unemployment funds. Those who do not voluntarily join an unemployment insur-
ance fund can qualify for a basic flat rate benefit (grundförsäkring) (Esser et al.
2013). Benefits in kind tend to be provided on the local level by municipalities and
counties with local taxes being most the important source of revenue.
Although still dominated by universal and public-funded services, since 1990,
however, there has been an intensified market orientation of the Swedish welfare
system, which is mainly characterised by the introduction of private service provid-
ers within the publicly funded welfare system (Palme 2015). Since 2006, taxation
levels have decreased and some social security programs have been reformed or
retrenched (Ferrarini et al. 2012). Recent restrictive changes imply stricter eligibil-
ity criteria for social insurance and shorter duration of sickness and unemployment
benefits. Furthermore, in 2007, the insured person’s contributions to the earnings-­
related part of the unemployment insurance were increased, leading to a significant
decline in coverage of the unemployment insurance (Kjellberg 2011). Social secu-
rity benefits have thus gradually become less generous, which is a continuation of a
longer-term trend of falling formal replacement rates in most social insurance pro-
grams from around 90% in 1990 to around 80% today (Palme 2015).

28.1.2 Migration History and Key Policy Developments

Due to population growth and famine (among other factors), approximately 1.2 mil-
lion Swedes emigrated between 1850 and 1930, in particular to North America
(Hammar 1985). Since then, Sweden has gradually turned into a country of immi-
gration.1 Following the economic growth after the Second World War, there was a
substantive influx of labour immigrants from Nordic and other European countries
during 1950–1970 (Lundh and Ohlsson 1999). In the late 1970s and 1980s, Sweden
became a major receiving country of asylum seekers and resettled refugees.
Immigration to Sweden has since then continuously been characterized by large-­
scale asylum immigration and family immigration (Byström and Frohnert 2013).
Swedish migration and integration policies have often been regarded as liberal
and ambitious (Brochmann and Hagelund 2012). Building on ideas of universal
welfare state egalitarianism, a right-based integration model was adopted in the

1
However, emigration from Sweden has increased since the 1960s and approximately one out of
20 Swedish citizens are residing abroad (Westling 2012).
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 423

1970s, thus promoting equal opportunities for citizens and foreigners alike (Borevi
2014; Sainsbury 2012). Since the early 1990s, Sweden has also had comparatively
generous admission and settlement policies for protection seekers and family immi-
gration. This is reflected in comparative policy data in which Sweden frequently has
been ranked among the most liberal and enabling countries regarding immigration
and immigrant integration policy (Helbling et al. 2017).2 In addition, since the
enactment of a new legislation in 2008 regarding non-European union (EU) work-
ers, Sweden has become one of the world’s most open countries for labour immigra-
tion (Calleman 2015). Following the 2008 law, labour immigration has gradually
increased (see Fig. 28.1).
Political instability, conflicts and interventions around the world have affected
the inflow of asylum seekers in Sweden during the 1990s and the 2000s. Large
groups of refugees from former Yugoslavia arrived in Sweden in the 1990s, with a
peak of 84,018 in 1992 (Lundh and Ohlsson 1999). The number of asylum seekers
has increased during the 2010s, exceeding 40,000 per year from 2012 to 2017. In
recent years, most refugees originated from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.3 Increasing
immigration to Sweden in the twenty-first century has also resulted in an increase of
both the number and share of the foreign-born population. By the end of 2018, the
number of foreign-born residents was almost 2 million, accounting for around 19%
of the population.4

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Asylum Family Work Studies

Fig. 28.1 Immigration to Sweden by first permit reason, 2009–2018. (Source: Swedish Migration
Agency 2019)

2
See also: Migration Integration Policy Index (2015). Barcelona/Brussels: CIDOB and MPG. http://
www.mipex.eu/. Accessed 1 March 2019.
3
Swedish Migration Agency (2019). Statistics. https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-
the-Migration-Agency/Statistics.html. Accessed 1 March 2019.
4
Statistics Sweden (2019). Population statistics. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-
by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/. Accessed 1
March 2019.
424 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

With 163,000 asylum applicants in 2015, Sweden received – despite its relatively
small population of roughly 10 million – the third highest number of asylum seekers
registered in the EU (Parusel and Bengtsson 2017). The large number of new arriv-
als constituted a major challenge for key institutions such as the Migration Agency
and the Employment Service, municipalities, and the Swedish society more broadly.
To cope with these challenges, the Swedish Government introduced restrictive tem-
porary changes in the migration legislation. Except for the introduction of border
controls in 2015, the government adopted a temporary legislation in mid-2016 lim-
iting the possibility of asylum seekers and family members to acquire permanent
residence permits.5 The new legislation marks a major turnaround in Swedish immi-
gration policy (Parusel 2016). These temporary changes, in combination with inter-
national policies such as the EU-Turkey refugee agreement of 2016, have resulted
in a decreasing number of asylum seekers in Sweden. While both family immigra-
tion and labour immigration have increased in recent years, the overall number of
granted residence permits has dropped gradually since the peak in 2016 when
151,031 permits were issued.6 Figure 28.1 shows the number of granted residence
permits in Sweden between 2009 and 2018 by category of entry.

28.2 Migration and Social Protection in Sweden

As equal rights to social security is a fundamental feature of the Swedish welfare

state, nationality or immigration status of a person do not affect the entitlements to
social security benefits. Rights are based on either residence or work in Sweden.
The residence-based access to social protection entails that any individual who
resides and can be expected to reside in the country for at least 1 year is considered
a resident, regardless of his/her nationality and type of residence permit. The one-­
year criterion of the applicant’s intention to stay in Sweden is assessed by the
Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) and takes into consideration
factors such as the individual’s interest of staying in Sweden and the real domicile.
As far as work-related social security is concerned, no differences are normally
made on the basis of nationality or type of residence permit.
More recently, especially against the backdrop of the so-called migration crisis
in 2015–2016, the political debate in Sweden has to some degree drifted, with some
parties increasingly addressing the urgency to restrict newcomers’ and immigrants’
access to various social benefits. The rapid increase of asylum seekers in 2015 also
prompt the Swedish Government to introduce restrictive temporary changes in the

5
Swedish Migration Agency (2018). Limited possibilities of being granted a residence permit in
Sweden. https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Legislative-
changes-2016/Limited-possibilities-of-being-granted-a-residence-permit-in-Sweden.html.
Accessed 1 March 2019.
6
Swedish Migration Agency (2019). Statistics. https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-
the-Migration-Agency/Statistics.html. Accessed 1 March 2019.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 425

migration legislation, including border controls, more restrictive rules for residence,
and a maintenance requirement for the acquisition of permanent residence and for
family reunification.7 There have however been no changes when it comes to access
to benefits.
Since various social rights generally are based either on residence or on work in
Sweden, only a share of the benefits accounted for in this chapter are accessible for
Swedish nationals residing abroad. Certain benefits, mainly earnings-related, are
exportable to both EU and non-EU countries, such as earnings-related sickness and
activity compensations and earnings-related old-age pensions, whereas others are
only exportable to countries within the EU/European Economic Area (EEA) or
Switzerland, such as the guaranteed old-age benefit and the guaranteed flat-rate
benefit for invalidity.

28.2.1 Unemployment

The Swedish unemployment insurance system consists of two schemes: a state-­

subsidised voluntary insurance to compensate for the loss of income (inkomstbort-
fallsförsäkring), providing earnings-related benefits financed by contributions from
employers and insured individuals; and a basic insurance (grundförsäkring) financed
by employers’ contributions and providing a flat-rate benefit for those who are not
voluntarily insured but fulfil the work (and other) criteria.
To be entitled to unemployment benefits (both the earnings-related insurance and
the basic allowance) applicants are required to register as jobseekers at the public
employment office; to be capable of working for at least 3 h each working day and
an average of at least 17 h per week; to be below the age of 65; and to be otherwise
available to the labour market.8 The earnings-related benefit is paid to unemployed
individuals who have been a member of an unemployment insurance fund (arbet-
slöshetskassa) for at least 12 consecutive months. Entitlement to the basic allow-
ance requires that the individual is not eligible for the earnings-related benefit,
either by not satisfying the membership condition or by not being a member of an
unemployment fund. The qualifying period for both benefits is to have been
employed or self-employed for at least 6 months and at least 80 h of work per month
during the last 12 months or, to have been employed or self-employed for at least
480 h during a consecutive period of 6 months with at least 50 h of work every
month during the last 12 months. Calculations of the earnings-related benefit are
determined by previous income and the duration of unemployment. The benefit is
paid at 80% of the reference income during 200 days and thereafter at 70% during

7
Swedish Migration Agency (2018). Limited possibilities of being granted a residence permit in
Sweden. https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Legislative-
changes-2016/Limited-possibilities-of-being-granted-a-residence-permit-in-Sweden.html.
Accessed 1 March 2019.
8
SFS 1997:238.
426 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

100 days.9 The benefit ceiling is set at 910 Swedish Krona (SEK) (€94) per day for
the first 100 days and maximum SEK 760 (€78) for the remaining days. The flat-rate
basic allowance is set at SEK 365 (€38) per day. Both benefits can be granted for
300 days (extended to applicants who have a child).10
Apart from the requirement of having a fixed domicile in Sweden, there are no
specific requirements for EU and non-EU foreign residents to be eligible for unem-
ployment insurance. As unemployment benefits counts as a regular work-related
income, receiving unemployment provision is not a formal obstacle for applying for
family reunification according to the maintenance requirement. Recipients of unem-
ployment benefits are allowed to leave the country temporarily without losing their
benefit, but only to apply for employment in another EU/EEA country or Switzerland.
The benefits cannot be granted if the recipient moves permanently to another
country.

28.2.2 Health Care

Public healthcare in Sweden is universal and covers all residing inhabitants. Hence,
EU and non-EU foreigners holding a valid residence permit have access to public
healthcare under the same conditions as Swedish nationals. Swedish nationals
residing abroad are not eligible for the benefits-in-kind system,11 except for those
temporarily residing in other EU countries who are covered by the European Health
Insurance Card. The public healthcare system is tax-funded and administrated by
the counties (Landsting). The benefits-in-kind system implies that the patient pays
user charges to cover part of the cost for medical care and hospitalisation himself/
herself (children under 18 are exempt).
The system of sickness cash benefits is earnings-related and covers employees
and self-employed. For employees, the employers pay sick pay from the 2nd up to
the 14th day of illness and the Social Insurance Agency pay sickness cash benefits
(sjukpenning) as from the 15th day. Self-employed and unemployed registered with
the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) as jobseekers can
only receive sickness cash benefit, but not sick pay (sjuklön). There is no qualifying
period of insurance or prior residence to become eligible to claim sickness benefits.
Neither is there a general time limit of benefit duration. If the illness continues after
364 days, the insured individual can apply for extended sickness cash benefit (sjuk-
penning på fortsättningsnivå) with a reduction in the benefit received. If the insured

9
SFS 1997:238.
10
European Commission (2018). Mutual information system on social protection,
MISSOC. MISSOC comparative tables database. https://www.missoc.org/missoc-database/com-
parative-tables/ Accessed 1 March 2019.
11
SFS 2017:30.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 427

individual has a serious illness, he/she can apply for continued sickness cash
benefit.12
Invalidity benefits in Sweden are divided into two systems: an earnings-related
sickness/activity compensation (inkomstrelaterad sjukersättning/aktivitets-
ersättning) financed by contributions paid by employees and self-employed; and a
tax financed guaranteed compensation (garantiersättning) for all residents with low
or no earnings-related sickness compensation or activity compensation. Invalidity
benefits are paid to individuals with fully or partially reduced work capacity. If the
person has a partial disability, a reduced benefit is paid at ¾, ½ or ¼ of the full ben-
efit according to the degree of disability. At least three years of residence in Sweden
are required to become eligible to claim guaranteed compensation and at least
1 year with pensionable income is required to access the earnings-related
compensation.13
The systems of cash sickness and invalidity benefits are equal to citizens and
non-citizens alike. EU citizens with a right of residence (uppehållsrätt) in Sweden
can access these benefits under the same conditions as national residents. A non-EU
foreigner must have a residence permit valid for at least 1 year and must be consid-
ered, on a case-by-case basis, to intend to reside in Sweden for at least a year to be
eligible for sickness and invalidity benefits. Cash benefits in case of sickness are not
exportable to nationals who decide to reside permanently abroad. Swedish nationals
receiving the earnings-related sickness/activity compensation are allowed to keep
this benefit under the same conditions when deciding to permanently move abroad.
Individuals’ receiving the guaranteed compensation are only allowed to export the
benefit when permanently moving to an EU/EEA country or Switzerland.

28.2.3 Pensions

The public old-age pension system (ålderspension) is a compulsory and universal

scheme consisting of different components. The first tier includes the income-­
related pension (inkomstpension) based on two types of benefits; (1) a notional
defined contribution system (NDC) and (2) a fully funded premium reserve pension
(premiepension) following the defined contribution principle with individual
accounts. The second tier is the tax financed guarantee pension (garantipension)
granting a guaranteed level for all (permanent) residents and a supplement for those
with very low income-related pensions (Esser et al. 2013).
Even if there is no minimum period for enrolment in the Swedish pensions sys-
tem as a contributor/insured person, in reality, it takes a long time to qualify for a
full guarantee pension or an adequate income pension. Three years of pensionable
income are required for the income-related pension and 3 years of residence in

12
SFS 2010:110, section C.
13
SFS 2010:110, section C.
428 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

Sweden are required for the guarantee pension. The retirement age is flexible from
61 for the income-related pensions and payable from 65 years for the guarantee pen-
sion. The size of the income-related pension is determined based upon life-time
earnings (including social insurance benefits), age at retirement, cohort life expec-
tancy, and the development of the economy. The guarantee pension depends on the
duration of residence in Sweden (up to 40 years) and the amount of earnings-related
pensions. Migrants who do not fulfil the requirements for the guaranteed pension
are entitled to claim a maintenance support for the elderly (äldreförsörjningsstöd)
above the age of 65. The maintenance support is means tested and establishes a
reasonable standard of living after housing costs are paid.14
There are no additional requirements to become eligible for old-age related ben-
efits for foreigners residing in Sweden. Individuals are allowed to keep the income-­
related pension indefinitely, regardless of which country they move to. Individuals
are also allowed to keep the guarantee pension if they leave the country temporarily.
However, a beneficiary of the guarantee pension may only keep the benefit if he/she
resides in another country in the EU/EEA and Switzerland.

28.2.4 Family Benefits

Family-related social protection in Sweden is defined as child benefits and parental

benefits. The child benefits system is a compulsory and universal scheme covering
all resident parents and children. The system is tax financed and provides a flat-rate
child allowance (barnbidrag) and a large family supplement (flerbarnstillägg).
Child benefits are paid from the month after the birth of the child until the age of 16
(for those who reach 16 and are still in compulsory education, an extended child
allowance (förlängt barnbidrag) is paid).15
The scheme of parental benefits includes a tax financed benefits in kind health
service for all residents and a compulsory cash benefits system of parental insurance
(föräldraförsäkring) with earnings-related and flat-rate benefits. The benefits in
kind system include free maternity services and hospital care according to the pub-
lic healthcare system. The main condition for access to health care is residence in
Sweden. The cash benefits parental insurance includes the pregnancy cash benefit
(graviditetspenning) and the parental benefit (föräldrapenning). The first one is
payable during the period of leave between the 60th day before confinement and the
11th day before confinement; whereas the second one is payable for a total of
480 days per child. For children born after 2016, 90 of these days are reserved to
each parent (so called mother’s quota and father’s quota), while the remaining days
can be transferred between the parents. In addition, fathers are entitled to 10 benefit

14
SFS 2010:110, section E.
15
SFS 2010:110, section B.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 429

days in connection with childbirth.16 The minimum guaranteed parental benefit

(grundbelopp) is paid for 390 of the 480 days according to the sickness cash benefit
rate, the minimum being SEK 250 (€26) per day. The remaining 90 days are paid at
SEK 180 (€19) per day. To receive parental benefit above SEK 250 (€26) per day,
the parent must have been insured for sickness cash benefit above SEK 250 (€26)
for at least 240 consecutive days before confinement. This requirement applies for
the first 180 days of receiving the benefit and the remaining days are paid at either
at sickness benefit level or at a flat rate.17
EU citizens with a right of residence in Sweden can access family-related bene-
fits under the same conditions as national residents. Non-EU nationals must have a
residence permit that is valid for at least one year and must be considered, on a case-­
by-­case basis, to intend to reside in Sweden for at least a year. A new regulation
entered into force in July 2017 preventing parents migrating to Sweden from receiv-
ing parental benefits retroactively for children over 1 year. To receive child benefits,
the child must be residing in Sweden. If the child leaves Sweden for less than
6 months, the child allowance is still paid. This limit does not apply if the country
of destination is an EU/EEA country or Switzerland. Parental benefits can be
retained only by non-residents who are insured in Sweden and the child lives in an
EU/EEA country or Switzerland.18

28.2.5 Guaranteed Minimum Resources

Social assistance (försörjningsstöd/ekonomomiskt bistånd) is the only benefit in

Sweden that could qualify as a minimum income scheme. All legal residents are
entitled to social assistance to guarantee a reasonable standard of living. The benefit
is means-tested and administered by the municipalities. Social assistance is pro-
vided as a last resort (safety net). As a general rule, all real property, removable
assets, and incomes, regardless of the nature and origin, are taken into account and
deducted from the amount of social assistance. As long as the claimant is able to
work, he/she must be available to the labour market at all times. Moreover, claim-
ants might also be required to take part in work experience or other skill-enhancing
activities organised by the municipality. As the basic rule is that recipients of social
assistance should be residing in Sweden and available to the labour market, the pos-
sibility of exporting the benefit is normally not allowed. However, the decision on
social assistance is always preceded by an individual evaluation and may vary
between responsible committees and municipalities.19

16
SFS 2010:110, section B.
17
SFS 2010:110, section B.
18
SFS 2010:110, section B.
19
SFS 2001:453.
430 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

Foreigners are required to have a fixed domicile in Sweden to receive social

assistance. The basic rule for EU citizens is to have sufficient means to support
themselves and their family members in order to acquire the right of residence in
Sweden. Accordingly, claiming social assistance can affect their right of residence,
although the decision is made on a case-by-case basis involving individual assess-
ment. Non-EU foreigners must have a residence permit valid for at least one year
and must be considered, on a case-by-case basis, to intend to reside in Sweden for
at least a year to be eligible for the benefit. Claiming or receiving social assistance
do not affect EU and non-EU foreigners’ access to citizenship.20
Since 2010, newly arrived migrants that are beneficiaries of protection can apply
for an introduction benefit administered by the Swedish Public Employment
Service. This benefit requires migrants to participate in certain labour market pro-
grammes and is paid instead of social assistance if the migrant is eligible for the
introduction benefit.21 According to a temporary law introduced in 2016, beneficia-
ries of temporary residence permits are required to have a work-related income (pay
from work, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit) to be granted a permanent resi-
dence permit. This is however only required in order to obtain a permanent resi-
dence permit, not for the extension of a temporary residence permit. In addition, the
law also includes a maintenance requirement for family reunification, which
requires a regular work-related income (including pay from work, unemployment
benefit, sickness benefit, and earnings-related retirement pension).22 Hence, accord-
ing to the maintenance requirement, non-EU foreigners receiving social assistance
are in essence not eligible for family reunification.

28.2.6 Obstacles and International Agreements

The basic feature of equal rights to social security in Sweden is reflected by the few
differences in entitlements and rights for potential beneficiaries. Thus, the guiding
principle of the Swedish welfare system is that non-citizens should not be subjected
to separate rules on the basis of their nationality or immigrant status (Sainsbury
2012). Instead, rights to social security are normally based on either residence or
work in Sweden. Accordingly, there are no general differences between citizens and
non-citizens when it comes to the right of retrieving social benefits that are export-
able to other countries. As previously outlined, however, only a share of the benefits
accounted for in this chapter are accessible for foreigners or citizens residing abroad,
some of which do not include any limitations (i.e. the income-related sickness/activ-
ity compensation; the earnings-related old-age pension and the premium reserve

20
SFS 2001:453.
21
SFS 2010:197.
22
SFS 2016:752.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 431

pension), whereas others are only exportable to EU/EEA countries or Switzerland

(i.e. the guaranteed compensation for invalidity and the guaranteed old-age benefit).
Apart from the residence and work-related criteria, there are no specific obsta-
cles or sanctions for accessing social protection benefits for foreigners residing in
Sweden. However, the temporary law adopted in 2016 limits asylum seekers’ pos-
sibilities of being granted residence permits and the possibility of family reunifica-
tion for beneficiaries of temporary residence permits.23 Among other restrictions,
this new law also stipulates that the standard residence permit granted beneficiaries
of protection should be time-limited to 13 months. Although this policy does not
formally obstruct individuals with temporary residence permits to access social
benefits, it arguably constrains their possibilities to meet the one-year residence-­
based condition attached to various welfare benefits. The law also includes a main-
tenance requirement for family reunification requiring regular work-related income
that should match a so-called ‘standard amount’. Thus, in practice, the maintenance
requirement restricts, in most cases, the possibility of family reunification for ben-
eficiaries with temporary residence permits who receives income-support in the
form of social assistance.
In terms of international agreements, among the three countries whose nationals
represent the largest groups of non-EU foreigners residing in Sweden, bilateral
social security agreements have been concluded with Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Turkey, but not Iran. The agreement with Bosnia-Herzegovina covers health care,
pensions, and family benefits24 and it entails that citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina
residing in Sweden are covered by the public health service and sickness insurance
in accordance with Swedish law. They are also entitled, under equal conditions, to
public contributory and non-contributory pensions. Childcare allowance, according
to Swedish law, is given to citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina if they have resided in
Sweden for at least 6 months. The bilateral agreement with Turkey covers unem-
ployment benefits, health care, pensions, and family benefits.25 Turkish nationals
residing in Sweden are entitled, under equal conditions, to benefits in kind in case
of sickness. Income-related pensions may not be reduced, modified, suspended or
withdrawn on account of a Turkish recipient residing in Sweden. However, this does
not apply to the guarantee pensions. The agreement moreover entails that parental
insurance acquired in both countries shall be added together for the acquisition of
rights to the benefit. Turkish citizens residing in Sweden shall receive medical ben-
efits, and also maternity and childbirth benefits, in accordance with Swedish
legislation.
Among the three non-EU countries that represent the largest destinations of
Swedish citizens, bilateral agreements have been concluded with the United States
and Canada, but not with Australia. The agreement between Sweden and the United

23
SFS 2016:752.
24
Förordning 1978:798.
25
SFS 2005:234.
432 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

States covers health care and pensions.26 It stipulates that a Swedish citizen shall, if
eligible, be covered by sickness or activity compensation under US laws. Regarding
pensions, it also entails that the US agency shall, under certain conditions, take into
account periods of coverage that are credited under Swedish laws on income-related
pension when establishing the entitlement to old-age benefits for Swedish citizens
residing in the US. The bilateral agreement with Canada also covers health care and
pensions27 and for both insurance schemes, it entails that benefits acquired by
Swedish citizens in Sweden shall not be subject to any reduction, modification,
suspension, cancellation or confiscation if the person resides in Canada (this does
not apply to the guarantee pension).

28.3 Conclusions

The Swedish welfare state is in principle universal and encompassing, providing all
residents with an extensive system of benefits from the cradle to the grave. The
social protection system combines residence-based universal benefits with earnings-­
related entitlements for the economically active population. Thus, residents have
access to flat-rate basic social insurance benefits and for those in work, earnings–
related benefits are tied to the level of wages (Palme et al. 2009). The evolution of
the Swedish welfare state since 1990, however, has been characterised by intensi-
fied market orientation of welfare services, tax cuts, and various changes in the
welfare state programs. Consequently, it has been argued that social security bene-
fits, to some extent, have been drifting away from the core principles of an encom-
passing model where also the middle class is adequately covered by the model of
social protection (Ferrarini et al. 2012; Palme 2015). Changes in the Swedish social
security system have also included restricting the qualifying conditions for social
insurance benefits (sickness, unemployment insurance) and further limiting their
duration. However, a number of these changes have been reversed by the Red-Green
government in power since 2014.
A cornerstone of the Swedish social protection model is that foreigners should
not be subject to any specific rules only affecting them as a group on the basis of
their nationality or immigrant status (Sainsbury 2012). Instead, rights are based
either on residence or work in Sweden. The residence-based access to social protec-
tion entails that any individuals who reside and can be expected to reside in Sweden
for at least 1 year are considered residents, regardless of nationality and type of resi-
dent permit. As far as work-related social security is concerned, no differences are
normally made on the basis of nationality or type of residence permit. Since 2010,
newly arrived migrants that have been granted residence for protection and subsid-
iary protection reason may apply for an introduction benefit, which is paid instead

26
SFS 2004:1192.
27
SFS 2002:221.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 433

of social assistance if the migrant meets the necessary conditions. A new regulation
from 2017 prevents parents migrating to Sweden from receiving parental benefits
retroactively for children over 1 year.
Perhaps the most important policy change as regards to immigrants’ access to
social benefits concerns a new temporary law adopted by the Swedish Parliament in
June 2016, which limits asylum seekers’ possibilities of being granted permanent
residence permits. The present government has made a deal in Parliament to pro-
long this temporary legislation 2 years beyond June 2019. Although it does not
formally obstruct individuals with temporary residence permits to access social
benefits, the law entails that a holder of such permit should have work-related
income (pay from work, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit) to be granted a
permanent residence permit. The law also includes a maintenance requirement for
family reunification requiring a regular work-related income which, in practice, can
affect the possibility of family reunification for beneficiaries of temporary residence
permits who receives social assistance.
While the current Government still emphasizes the right to asylum and the poten-
tial gains of cross-border mobility,28 the restrictive policy reforms of 2015 and 2016,
including border checks and the temporary legislation, constitutes a major shift in
Swedish immigration policy. The reforms explicitly aimed to reduce the influx of
asylum seekers in order to cope with the challenges following the large reception of
asylum applications in 2015–2016. Even though the number of asylum seekers in
Sweden has decreased drastically since 2015, concerns over immigration have con-
tinued to be at the centre of political debates. In the 2018 national election, the radi-
cal right party the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) won 17.6% of the
votes making it the third largest party. Reflecting this tension, the availability of
Swedish social benefits has been discussed both as a means of attracting migrants
and in respect of the capacity of the system to cope with the large influx of newcom-
ers. Accordingly, some parties have put forward policy suggestions aiming to restrict
or further condition newly arrived migrants’ entitlement to social benefits. The two
largest opposition parties in the Swedish parliament, the Moderate Party (Moderata
Samlingspartiet) and the Sweden Democrats, have raised the most explicit proposi-
tions. The Moderate Party has proposed limited subsidies and welfare provisions for
new immigrants, including qualifying conditions in terms of language and work-­
based requirements to benefit from parental insurance, social assistance, and guar-
anteed pension. The party has also suggested that social assistance should not be
granted EU foreigners residing in Sweden who neither work nor study (Kinberg
Batra et al. 2017). Except drastically reducing immigration to Sweden, the Sweden
Democrats also proposed that social protection should be limited for foreigners and
conditional on work and language-related achievements.29 However, these

28
Government Offices of Sweden (2017). Migration and asylum policy objectives. https://www.
government.se/government-policy/migration-and-asylum/objectives/. Accessed 1 March 2019.
29
Sverigedemokraterna (2018). Sverigedemokraternas höstbudget 2018. https://sd.se/wp-content/
uploads/2017/10/H%C3%B6stbudget-2018.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.
434 A. Ahlén and J. Palme

p­ ropositions have not yet had any impacts when it comes to immigrants’ access to
social benefits in Sweden.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the project “Migration and Transnational Social
Protection in (Post)Crisis Europe (MiTSoPro)” that has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
gramme (Grant agreement No. 680014). In addition to this chapter, readers can find a series of
indicators comparing national social protection and diaspora policies across 40 countries on the
following website: http://labos.ulg.ac.be/socialprotection/.

References

Borevi, K. (2014). Multiculturalism and welfare state integration: Swedish model path depen-
dency. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21, 708–723. https://doi.org/10.108
0/1070289X.2013.868351.
Brochmann, G., & Hagelund, A. (2012). Comparison: A model with three exceptions? In
G. Brochmann & A. Hagelund (Eds.), Immigration policy and the Scandinavian welfare state
1945–2010 (pp. 225–275). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Byström, M., & Frohnert, P. (2013). Acknowledgments and general background. In M. Byström
& P. Frohnert (Eds.), Reaching a state of hope. Refugees, immigrants and the Swedish Welfare
State, 1930–2000 (pp. 7–26). Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
Calleman, C. (2015). The most open system among OECD countries: Swedish regulation of
labour migration. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 5, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/
njmr-2015-0001.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Esser, I., Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J., & Sjöberg, O. (2013). Unemployment benefits in EU
member states. Brussels: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission.
Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J., & Sjöberg, O. (2012). Sveriges socialförsäkringar i jämförande
perspektiv. En institutionell analys av sjuk-, arbetsskade- och arbetslöshetsförsäkringarna i
18 OECD-länder 1930 till 2010. Underlagsrapport till den Parlamentariska socialförsäkring-
sutredningen (S 2010:04).
Hammar, T. (1985). Sweden. In T. Hammar (Ed.), European immigration policy: A comparative
study (pp. 17–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helbling, M., Bjerre, L., Römer, F., & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: The
IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16, 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.4.
Huber, E., Ragin, R., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitu-
tional structure and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 711–749.
Kinberg Batra, A., Kristersson, U., & Svantesson, E. (2017, May 2). “Bidragens andel av svenska
ekonomi måste minska”. Dagens Nyheter. https://moderaterna.se/m-vi-vill-genomfora-en-stor-
bidragsreform. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
Kjellberg, A. (2011). The decline in Swedish Union Density since 2007. Nordic Journal of Working
Life Studies, 1, 67–93. https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v1i1.2336.
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare
state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological
Review, 63(5), 661–687.
28 Migrants’ Access to Social Protection in Sweden 435

Lundh, C., & Ohlsson, R. (1999). Från arbetskraftsimport till flyktinginvandring. 2:a rev. uppl.
Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
Palme, J. (2015). How sustainable is the Swedish model? In B. Marin (Ed.), The future of welfare
in global Europe (pp. 429–449). Farnham: Ashgate.
Palme, J., Nelson, K., Sjöberg, O., & Minas, R. (2009). European social models, protection and
inclusion. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies.
Parusel, B. (2016). Policies for labour market integration of refugees in Sweden. Migration Policy
Practice, 6(2), 11–16.
Parusel, B., & Bengtsson, M. (2017). The changing influx of asylum seekers in 2014–2016:
Member States’ responses. Country Report Sweden. EMN Sweden 2017:3. https://ec.europa.
eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/17a_sweden_changing_influx_en.pdf. Accessed 1
Mar 2019.
Sainsbury, D. (2012). Welfare states and immigrant rights: The politics of inclusion and exclusion.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westling, F. (2012). Svenskar bosatta utomlands. SOM-rapport 2012:09. Göteborgs universitet.
https://ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1373/1373789_svenskar-bosatta-utomlands.pdf. Accessed 1
Mar 2019.

Open Access   This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.