Sven Giegold

Sozialsysteme sind kein Einwanderungsmagnet!

Heute wurde der Bericht „ A fact finding analysis on the impact on the Member States‘ social security systems of the entitlements of non-active intra-EU migrants to special non-contributory cash benefits and healthcare granted on the basis of residence” veröffentlicht. Dieser wiederlegt, das Einwanderung in das deutsche Sozialsystem zunimmt und ein großes Problem darstellt. Gerade Innenminister Friedrich hat sich in den letzten Tagen diese Behauptung zu nutze gemacht um gegen Einwanderung mobil zu machen. Auch wenn der Bericht eine Querschnittsanalyse ist und somit bestimmte geographische Regionen höher belastet sein können als andere, ist die Aussage klar und deutlich-Immigration unter den Mitgliedsstaaten stellt keine unverhältnismäßig hohe Belastung dar! Im Gegenteil, trotz der derzeitigen schlimmen Situation auf den Arbeitsmärkten Europas hat sich die Nichterwerbsquote von EU-Migranten weiter verbessert.

Hier die 10 wichtigsten Punkte des Berichts

1. Non-active EU migrants represent a very small share of the total population in each Member State. They account for between 0.7% and 1.0% of the overall EU population. A few notable exceptions are Belgium (3%), Cyprus (4.1%), Ireland (3%) and Luxembourg (13.9%). The vast majority of non-active intra-EU migrants reside in EU-15 countries (approx. 98%). This reflects the overall pattern of intra-EU migration.

2. Overall intra-EU migration has increased over the past decade; according to EU-LFS estimates, the total number of intra-EU migrants aged 15 and above has increased from 1.3% to 2.6% of total EU-27  population between 2003 and 2012. The number of intra-EU migrants being non-active has also risen (both in absolute terms and in proportion of the total of EU-27 population) but to a lesser extent (from 0.7% in 2003 to 1.0% in 2012).

3. On average EU migrants are more likely to be in employment than nationals living in the same country (despite the fact that unemployment rates tend to be relatively higher amongst EU migrants). This gap can be partly explained by differences in the age composition between EU migrants and nationals, with more migrants than nationals falling in the 15-64 age bracket. The overall rate of inactivity among EU migrants has declined between 2005 and 2012 – from 47% to 33%. This happened despite an increase in the rate of unemployment among intra-EU migrants during the economic crisis.

4. Pensioners, students and jobseekers accounted for more than two-thirds of the non-active EU migrant population (71%) in 2012 – although significant differences can be found between countries. Other non-active intra-EU migrants e.g., homemakers fulfilling domestic tasks and other non-active family members of EU nationality account for 25% of the entire non-active EU migrant population. Persons who cannot work due to permanent disabilities represent a relatively small group of migrants (3%). The vast majority of non-active EU migrants (79%) live in economically active households, with only a minority of them living with other household members out of work.

5. The majority of currently non-active migrants have worked before in the current country of residence (64%). Non-active intra-EU migrants do not form a static group. A third of EU migrant jobseekers (32%) were employed one year before.

6. Evidence shows that the vast majority of migrants move to find (or take up) employment. Income differentials are also an important driver for migration, with individuals seeking to improve their financial position and standard of living. The importance of available employment opportunities motivating migration is demonstrated by recent shifts in migration patterns resulting from the impact of the crisis. Data show a trend shift away from East-West to more South-North intra-EU migration, albeit East-West migration remains most significant in volume terms. Countries such as Spain and Ireland have seen a decline in intra-EU inward migration, whereas flows to countries such as Austria, Denmark and Germany have increased.

7. This study found little evidence in the literature and stakeholder consultations to suggest that the main motivation of EU citizens to migrate and reside in a different Member State is benefit-related as opposed to work or family-related. This is underpinned by data which show that in most countries, immigrants are not more intensive users of welfare than nationals. Where they are more intensive users, they tend to use intensely only specific types of benefits linked to their socio-economic circumstances as migrants. Our analysis of EU data shows that migrants are less likely to receive disability and unemployment benefits in most countries studied. Where some studies found evidence supporting the ‘welfare magnet effect’ hypothesis, the overall estimated effects are typically small or not statistically significant.

8. In relation to special non-contributory cash benefits (SNCBs), the study shows that EU migrants account for a very small share of SNCBs beneficiaries. They represent less than 1% of all SNCB beneficiaries (of EU nationality) in six countries (AT, BG, EE, EL, MT and PT); between 1% and 5% in five other countries (DE, FI, FR, NL and SE), and above 5% in BE and IE (although the figures for Ireland are estimates based on claimant data rather than benefits paid). There is limited trend data on the use of SNCBs by EU migrants to draw any robust conclusions. In the 8 countries for which trend data is available, there has been an overall increase in the number of EU migrants in receipt of SNCBs – albeit in absolute numbers, figures remain small in most countries.

9. The extent to which non-active intra-EU migrants are eligible to access healthcare depends on the nature of the organisation of the health care system (residence based or insurance based). Our estimations indicate that on average, the expenditures associated with healthcare provided to non-active EU migrants are very small relative to the size of total health spending in or the size of the economy of the host countries. Estimated median values are 0.2 % of the total health spending and 0.01% of GDP.

10. Overall, it can be concluded that the share of non-active intra-EU migrants is very small, they account for a similarly limited share of SNCB recipients and the budgetary impact of such claims on national welfare budgets is very low. The same is true for costs associated with the take-up of healthcare by this group. Employment remains the key driver for intra-EU migration and activity rates among such migrants have indeed increased over the last 7 years.


Hierzu ein Kommentar von László Andor, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion:

„The study makes clear that the majority of mobile EU citizens move to another Member State to work and puts into perspective the dimension of the so called benefit tourism which is neither widespread nor systematic. The Commission remains committed to ensuring that EU citizens that would like to work in another EU country can do so without facing discrimination or obstacles. The Commission is also working with Member States to help them to further improve implementation of existing EU rules that coordinate social security. The Commission recognises that there can be regional or local problems created by a large, sudden influx of people from other EU countries into a particular geographical area. For example, they can put a strain on education, housing and infrastructure. It therefore stands ready to engage with Member States and, in particular, to help municipal authorities and others use the European Social Fund to its full extent.“


Hier der Link zu der Studie:




Rubrik: Unkategorisiert

Bitte teilen!