Needed but not wanted. Making policies on low-paid labour migration in Denmark, Italy, and Poland

The contradiction between the economic demand for low-paid migrant workers and the political portrayal of such immigration as unwanted is not a new phenomenon. Although debated for more than three decades, this needed but not wanted paradox shows no signs of being resolved. Instead, long-term developments such as demographic decline and sudden crises like the Covid19 pandemic have accentuated Europe’s reliance on low-paid, yet essential migrant workers. At the same time, the rise and success of anti-immigrant populist parties across Europe have strengthened governments’ restrictive stances towards unwanted immigration. This thesis investigates how and why the paradox persists in policymaking across different times and national contexts. Adopting a longitudinal and cross-country comparison, it examines the development of labour migration policies in Denmark, Italy, and Poland—three countries that became immigration destinations at different historical moments: Denmark in the 1960s, Italy in the 1980s, and Poland in the 2000s.This design allows the analysis of how the paradox has been managed in policymaking across distinct time-periods and regional contexts, revealing both divergence in timing and convergence in dynamics. Methodologically, the research combines 69 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, civil servants, union representatives, and civil society actors with extensive archival research. This empirical foundation provides systematic insights into the drivers, conflicts, and actor constellations that shape labour migration policy over time. To grasp the complexity of a controversial policy problem, the analysis combines the interests, ideas, and institutions (3 I’s) framework with migration governance perspectives that move beyond a purely state-centric approach. While most studies that analyse the paradox remain within one theoretical tradition, this thesis integrates interest-, ideas-and institution-based approaches, and situates them within broader governance processes. By considering the dynamics between state and non-state actors involved in labour migration policymaking, this work highlights how shifting power relations, conflicts, and alliance-making contribute to the persistence of the paradox. The findings demonstrate that, despite significant differences in migration histories and institutional settings, all three countries followed a strikingly similar policy sequence. An initial denial phase was characterised by political inaction and minimal supervision during the early transition into immigration countries. A subsequent negotiation phase saw governments respond to economic partners and civil society demands for reform through attempts at comprehensive legislation balancing security-, economic- and migrant rights-oriented demands. This was followed by an anger phase, in which populist actors politicised immigration, mobilised public fears, and reversed earlier reforms, thereby narrowing viable policy options within utilitarian- and securitarian-oriented frames. Finally, a disillusion phase emerged, marked by pessimistic acceptance of the paradox’s insolvability, corresponding to a lack of radical reform in favour of incremental, consensus-dependent adjustments within the prevailing securitarian-utilitarian policy framework. These findings suggest that this patterned sequence explains policy convergence across diverse cases. Countries with different “immigration ages” are positioned at different stages of the same underlying process. By identifying the common dynamics through which the paradox is reproduced, the thesis contributes to comparative migration studies and to broader debates on the relationship between economic imperatives, political contestation, and institutional inertia in policymaking.