Immigrant Investor Programs: A Typology and European Experience

• In Event: Elite Mobility and Highly Skilled Migration

Abstract

In exploring contemporary migration, it is important to consider the development of policies targeting population linked to transnational, supranational and subnational political spaces. Immigrant investor programmes can provide a fresh look on the questions of membership in the contemporary world. These programmes follow a distinct policy logic and articulate particular state and individual interests. They are different from other immigration policies, because they target a limited number of beneficiaries. Immigrant investor programmes seek to attract the beneficiary (or his or her capital) to the state as opposed to many other immigration policies, which restrict the conditions of entry and stay of immigrants (e.g., family reunification, refugees).
The objective of this paper is to assess immigrant investor programmes on grounds of interests and purposes articulated in policies. The paper first develops a typology that differentiates between immigrant investor programmes whose primary purpose is to confer temporary or permanent residence rights (IRPs), and those with the objective of offering citizenship to investors – investment-based citizenship programmes (ICPs) and achievement-based citizenship programmes (ACPs).
It subsequently applies Freeman’s (2006) framework for policy analysis to this typology. The four types of immigrant investor programmes can generally be classified into concentrated distributive (permanent IRPs), diffused distributive (ACPs), redistributive (temporary IRPs) and regulatory (ICPs) policy types. However, while it is possible to classify and compare immigrant investor programmes on grounds of the overall policy purpose, there is significant cross-country variation among them. This variation reflects the interplay between national immigration goals, economic policy, pressures from external interest groups, and international factors.
The paper then uses the example of immigrant investor programmes in the EU to illustrate these dynamics and policy overlaps. Through an empirical analysis of citizenship and residence legislation in 28 EU Member States, the paper demonstrates that most countries are prone to adopting programmes that evoke less interest of the general public and are less politically contentious. This includes temporary IRPs and ACPs, which are justified through the country’s economic needs and enhanced reputation. Few countries adopt permanent IRPs (only Cyprus and Hungary at present) and ICPs (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta and Romania), because these programmes raise questions of national identity and security.
The conclusion to the paper clears the grounds for further inquiries in investment-based migration. Given the salience of this topic and the increasing number of investor citizenship programmes worldwide, a major avenue will be opened in citizenship and immigration studies to examine the instrumental uses of membership statuses, as well as strategies that direct and indirect beneficiaries pursue through immigrant investor programmes.

Author

• Jelena Dzankic, European University Institute