Integration – the EU’s white elephant
It is no secret that Europe has been struggling to come to an agreement on a pan-European migration policy since the 2015 migration “crisis.” Public and political sentiments on the topic have swung from the left to the right over the years, resulting in the latest, trimmed-down New Pact on Migration and Asylum proposal that is currently being debated in Brussels.
Europe is not alone in its inability to secure a consensus over the complex issue of migration, which has globally succumbed to anti-globalization, protectionist and populist trends. We see the same challenges in the US as Congress maintains its stalemate over immigration, leading the Biden administration to flex its executive powers in order to open a back door on immigration just this week.
With the EU’s sights set on securing passage of the New Pact, it has offered member-states guidance on integration but left them in charge of their own policies. And both the reasons for and risks of this approach are frequently reconfirmed. A recent example is far-right Meloni’s new immigration package in Italy and the unsavory debates about “ethnic substitution,” the need for Italian women to get to work and have more babies, and migrants’ frustration over who will pick this season’s crops, according to the New York Times.
As a counterbalance to the “un-European” sentiments around migration, the EU has launched large funding mechanisms that aim to support solidarity and inclusion, combat racism and discrimination and even upskill and train migrants. But without corresponding national integration policies, many EU programs run through fragmented integration policy minefields, lessening the effectiveness and relevance of the projects.
One EU-funded pilot initiative is to promote the economic and social integration of migrants through entrepreneurship, and with good reason. Migrant entrepreneurship is a known driver for economic growth. In the US, migrants are 80% more likely than natives to start their own businesses and are job “creators” rather than “takers,” according to a study by Pierre Azoulay at the MIT Sloan School of Management.
With EU entrepreneurship levels on the lower end of the global spectrum, both in regard to companies formulated by EU nationals and migrants, the EU could use a boost. The case of migrant entrepreneurship in Europe, however, depends not only on the health of the EU’s overall entrepreneurship ecosystem, but also on integration policies, as found by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)-funded ATHENA project.
After almost two and a half years of pilots across six EU countries, aspiring and active migrant entrepreneurs of all skill and education levels noted that they stumble over bureaucratic hurdles related to residency permits and access to financing. The exception to this was in the case of Seville, where migrants are facilitated with residency permits if they intend to open a business.
The Seville case study caught the attention of the European Investment Bank, which is conducting its own research on the potential of migrant entrepreneurship and migrant-friendly financing mechanisms
And Seville’s results are encouraging, with just under half of migrants that received entrepreneurship training opening their businesses, and often matched with funding. The case study even caught the attention of the European Investment Bank, which is conducting its own research on the potential of migrant entrepreneurship and migrant-friendly financing mechanisms.
For the majority of EU countries, however, the following policy recommendations adapted from the ATHENA project apply. Firstly, in order to tap into the power of migrant entrepreneurship, it needs to be recognized not only as a key pathway towards the economic and social integration of migrants, but also a key driver for the economic growth and social cohesion of the EU. Secondly, bureaucratic barriers related to residency permits should not only be removed, but migrant entrepreneurs should be facilitated with the process.
In relation to the technicalities around starting a business, a multistakeholder approach with national coordination mechanisms is essential. Migrants need to be serviced by national business support organizations, entrepreneurial networks, banks and non-traditional financing mechanisms.
The Seville example offers a glimmer of hope for migrant entrepreneurs, while the listing of the Netherlands a top country for entrepreneurs by this year’s Global Entrepreneurship Monitor shows that the EU can get on the global entrepreneurship map. Now, the lessons learned through both cases need to be put together.
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum may indeed be too fragile to handle the additional layer of integration at this point, but it cannot be considered holistic nor will the EU benefit from migration without complementary integration policies. After its passage, there is a need for Europe to reframe the conversations around migration and “migrants” in order to return to its core values and capture the social and economic benefits that can be derived from all types and skill levels of migrants.
Cheryl Novak is a research associate at the Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP).
