Family-Immigration Policies in Europe, 1990–2018: Restrictive Drift, Partial Convergence and a Conditionality Turn
This article analyzes European family-immigration policies from 1990 to 2018 using the IMPIC dataset to reveal a restrictive drift characterized by a "conditionality turn" toward stricter economic and integration requirements, rather than a uniform race to the bottom or complete policy convergence.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, the story of migration in Europe has been told in two conflicting voices. On one hand, family reunification is seen as a fundamental human right, a way to keep loved ones together and help newcomers build stable lives. On the other, it is often viewed with suspicion, framed as a potential burden on public resources or a challenge to social cohesion. As governments in Europe have tried to balance these competing concerns, they have built a complex web of rules to decide who can bring a spouse, child, or parent to live with them. These rules are not just about who is allowed to enter; they are increasingly about what those people must prove they can do or possess before they are granted permission. This is the landscape that researchers have been trying to map: a shifting terrain where the right to family life is increasingly weighed against economic and behavioral demands.
To understand how these rules have changed, it helps to distinguish between two types of requirements. The first type defines who is eligible to apply in the first place. This is a matter of circumstance: does the person sponsoring the family member have a specific type of visa? How long have they lived in the country? Who counts as a family member? The second type involves conditions that eligible applicants must meet to actually get in. These are behavioral hurdles, such as proving you have enough money, a large enough apartment, or that you have passed a language test. While the first set of rules decides who gets a ticket to the line, the second set decides who is allowed to cross the finish line.
A new study by political scientist Anton Ahlén, analyzing data from twenty European countries between 1990 and 2018, offers a clear picture of how these rules have evolved. The research challenges three common stories that have circulated about European immigration policy. One story suggests that all European countries are slowly becoming identical in their strictness. Another suggests they are engaged in a "race to the bottom," where nations compete to be the most restrictive to stop migration. A third story argues that countries have taken a "civic turn," focusing almost entirely on testing newcomers' language skills and knowledge of local culture.
The data tells a different, more nuanced story. The study finds that family immigration policies have indeed become significantly more restrictive, but not in the way many people assume. The tightening of rules was not driven by a uniform narrowing of who is allowed to apply. Instead, the pressure came almost entirely from the second type of requirement: the conditions. Over the twenty-eight-year period, the number of rules making it harder to meet behavioral and economic demands grew far faster than the rules limiting who could apply. In fact, while the criteria for who could be a sponsor or a family member stayed relatively balanced, with some rules becoming stricter and others more generous, the conditions attached to admission became overwhelmingly harder to satisfy.
This shift was not a simple slide toward a single, harsh model. The study shows that while countries did become more similar to one another over time, they did not converge on a single policy. Some nations moved toward a "prohibitive" model, making it very hard to qualify for sponsorship and then adding even more difficult conditions. Others adopted a "conditional" approach, keeping the door open for many types of families but demanding high levels of income, housing, or language proficiency as the price of entry. A few countries, particularly in Southern Europe, remained relatively permissive, keeping both the eligibility rules and the conditions much looser than their northern neighbors.
The most striking finding is that the "civic turn" is only part of the picture. While it is true that many countries introduced language tests for incoming family members, the study reveals that the real driver of restriction has been economic. The rules now heavily favor those who can prove they have sufficient financial resources, stable employment, and adequate housing. This means that the ability to bring a family together is increasingly tied to a person's economic status. The research suggests that this is less about a uniform shift toward testing cultural knowledge and more about a broader "conditionality turn," where the right to family life is increasingly contingent on meeting specific economic and behavioral benchmarks.
The data also refutes the idea of a simple "race to the bottom." While policies did become stricter, the countries did not all copy each other's harshest rules. Instead, they followed different paths. Some nations tightened the rules on who could apply, while others kept the eligibility broad but raised the financial bar. This variety shows that European states are not moving in lockstep toward a single, extreme outcome. Instead, they are navigating a complex middle ground where the definition of a "desirable" migrant is being reshaped by a mix of economic capability and integration requirements.
Ultimately, the study reveals that the landscape of family migration in Europe has become a place where the door is still open, but the path through it has become much more expensive and demanding. The rules have not just become stricter; they have become more conditional. The right to reunite with family is no longer just a matter of relationship; it is increasingly a matter of financial solvency and demonstrated integration. This shift creates a new reality where the ability to exercise a fundamental right depends heavily on a family's economic capital, a trend that the researchers suggest is reshaping the very nature of inclusion in European societies.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.