Circular Migration of Live-ins in Germany
Introduction
The European Network for Migration [ EMN ] published a paper ( EMN 2011 ), which explains the potential benefits from a circulation of migrants between the country of origin and the receiving society . According to them it can lead to a so-called “ triple win ” scenario , in which all involved parties benefit . First , sending countries benefit , because money earned by migrants boosts local economies in the form of remittances . Second , the receiving countries benefit from circular migration , as it helps to meet labor shortages and increase economic growth . Third , the proponents also predict that migrants themselves benefit from repeated mobility , as they can increase their personal skills during their stay ( s ) abroad . This helps them to improve their socio-economic status in their country of origin . Rother ( 2013 ) has criticized this “ triple win ” idea suggesting that it is being used as a sort of “ mantra ” in policymaking , which has been repeated so many times that it became acknowledged truth while actually not having much to do with the already existing practices and possibilities for circularity . In the case of policy-making in the European Union [ EU ], circular migration is seen as a process , which requires a high level of regulation and management . Wickramasekara criticizes this definition as belonging to the “ definitions which attempt to describe desirable or good practice circular migration programs rather than those that exist today ” ( Wickramasekara 2011 , 11 ). Vertovec ( 2007 ) further suspects that within more managed and regulated circular programs there is less social mobility as they lead to “ people returning year after year to the same job rather than trying to negotiate their way into better jobs and localities like unregulated circular migrants might do ” ( pp . 6 ).
In academia there is no common definition scholars have agreed on , but a trend can be observed in which circular migration is defined as unregulated and free movement across borders ( Triandafyllidou 2013 ). This definition is more in line with what Wickramasekara ( 2011 ) calls spontaneous circular migration . While circular migration has been a topic in policy debates in the EU and academic literature , there has been little focus on how this circularity works in practice in Germany ( Schneider and Parusel 2011 ).
This article aims at closing this gap of knowledge about already existing patterns of circular migration by exploring the employment of live-ins in the German elderly care sector . Liveins are employees , mainly from Eastern European countries , who work in informal care and live with the person they are taking care of ( Schilliger 2013 ). While in the USA this profession is usually referred to as home health care workers , recent European studies also quoted in this paper used the term live-ins . The tasks include domestic work and care work , however , there is no clear description of duties and in some cases care work such as having a walk with the person in need of care is counted as free time ( Schilliger 2013 ). Tießler-Marenda ( 2014 ) states that estimations of the numbers of liveins in Germany revolve around 150,000 – 200,000 . In many cases live-ins are
121