How Trade Agreements Shape Switzerland’s Immigration Policy
Preferential trade agreements (PTAs) are meant to facilitate trade between countries. Yet, beneath the surface of these economic treaties lies a lesser-known dimension that extends beyond trade – the intricate regulation of international migration. A new dataset produced by researchers from the nccr – on the move based on these agreements shows how trade-related immigration commitments shape immigration policy, including in Switzerland.
The MITA dataset captures the connection between trade and migration within 797 preferential trade agreements (PTAs) signed between 1960 and 2020 worldwide, revealing a notable trend: over 70% of all PTAs signed in the last decade also include provisions on international migration. Most of these provisions liberalize economic migration. Some, however, also contain commitments to protect migrant rights, coordinate actions to fight irregular migration and cooperate on readmission.
Switzerland, boasting a highly globalized economy and a strong multinational corporate presence, finds itself intricately woven into the crossroads of trade and migration policies. Like most countries, Switzerland adopted migration commitments through the 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Additionally, among Switzerland’s 53 PTAs (signed bilaterally or within the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)), 20 contain provisions that facilitate mobility – mostly linked to trade in services. The number of significant mobility provisions in Swiss PTAs has steadily increased over time, with mobility provisions included in all agreements drafted post-2014. Overall, Switzerland has eased immigration barriers such as economic needs tests or – to some extent – quota limitations in 37% of its PTAs. Other significant mobility provisions include the mutual recognition of qualifications, visa facilitation, or fee limitations.
A “Non-Immigrant” Immigration Policy
What are the practical implications of these mobility provisions? According to official discourse, these provisions within preferential trade agreements are seen as aligning more with trade objectives than migration goals. The commitments mainly involve individuals in business roles such as executives, managers and investors, who temporarily work in the host country while keeping their work contracts in their home countries. They could also arrive as independent professionals, thus avoiding formal integration into the host country’s labor market. This mobility largely entails short assignments, mostly spanning less than a year. However, the most far-reaching commitments center on intra-company transferees (ICTs) who move between different branches of multinational corporations and often stay several years.
Under the Swiss General Agreement on Trade in Services commitments, ICTs who work in one of the 93 listed sectors can be admitted for a duration of up to three years, extendable to four. Swiss preferential trade agreements often expand these terms, allowing up to five years in further sectors. Agreements with China, Hong Kong and Japan go further by eliminating quantitative restrictions or quotas, and thus offering quota-free intra-company transferee access (Schlegel and Sieber-Gasser 2014). This could be seen as conflicting with the 2014 “mass immigration” referendum, aiming to regulate immigration in Switzerland through quotas. Yet, parliamentary debates dismissed this concern, arguing that these commitments would not challenge Switzerland’s capacity to manage immigration.
This perspective implies that “intra-company-transferee” migration is only a very narrow and temporary form of mobility involving a limited number of individuals and businesses. However, in reality, ICT migration constitutes a substantial portion of labor immigration. Our ongoing analysis, based on the Swiss population and household statistics (STATPOP), reveals that posted workers, including intra-corporate transferees, comprised 30% to 47% of all non-EU labor immigration in Switzerland from 2015 to 2021. Findings from the nccr – on the move’s Migration Mobility Survey indicate that ICTs often stay for several years, with many even considering permanent residence.
Different Form of the Guest-Worker Model?
In the face of sustained economic demand for foreign labor and considerable political debates over immigration, Switzerland has historically leaned toward temporary forms of immigration. Moreover, it maintains one of Europe’s most restrictive naturalization systems (Lavenex and Manatschal 2022). Non-EU/EFTA nationals are only permitted entry as managers, specialists or qualified workers. Among this limited group, intra-company transferees hold a distinct privileged status. They enter Switzerland through regular employee immigration channels or as service providers. Unlike “regular” labor migrants, ICTs receive entry and stay permits based on an entitlement, without authorities’ discretion (SEM 2020).
Moreover, both ICTs and cross-border service providers are exempt from labor market priority testing, a requirement for employers to demonstrate the unavailability of Swiss or EU/EFTA citizens for the job. Although the annual immigration quota technically applies to ICTs, multinational companies tend to secure more immigration permits (SEM 2020). Perhaps most strikingly, in contrast to other third-country nationals, ICTs are not obliged to demonstrate integration potential into Swiss society and the labor market.
In essence, intra-company transferees and other business migrants align closely with Switzerland’s historical immigration policy, centered around strictly temporary assignments and concerns of “Überfremdung” (over-foreignization). Protected by international trade agreements, these highly skilled migrants enjoy multiple privileges under national law. Yet, linked to foreign work contracts and admitted only for strictly temporary stays, their presence greatly benefits Switzerland’s globally-oriented segments of the economy, particularly its multinational corporations.
Sandra Lavenex is a Professor of European and International Politics at the University of Geneva and co-leader of the projects “Migration Governance Through Trade Mobilities” and “The Impact of Crises on the Global Governance of Migration: Boost or Blow?” in the nccr – on the move.
Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik is a research fellow at the Cologne Center for Comparative Politics and a PhD candidate at the University of Geneva within the nccr – on the move doctoral program, where she is a researcher in the project “Migration Governance Through Trade Mobilities.”
Philipp Lutz is a Senior Researcher at the University of Geneva and an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Previously, he was a post-doctoral researcher in the project “Migration Governance Through Trade Mobilities.”
Mariana Alvarado is a researcher at the University of Geneva’s Department of Political Science and International Relations. Previously, she was a post-doctoral researcher in the project “Migration Governance Through Trade Mobilities.”
Note: this research was supported by the ‘nccr – on the move’ funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant 51NF40-182897. We are grateful to Julia Gubler and Laura Mauricio for their excellent research assistance in the coding of migration provisions.
References:
– Lavenex, Sandra, Philipp Lutz, und Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik. “Migration Governance through Trade Agreements: Insights from the MITA Dataset.” The Review of International Organizations, 1. Juli 2023.
– Lavenex, Sandra, Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, und Philipp Lutz. “What Do Trade Agreements Have to Do with Migration Policy?” MPC Blog, 7. August 2023.
– Lavenex, Sandra, and Anita Manatschal. 2022. ‘Migrationspolitik’. In Handbuch der SchweizerPolitik = Manuel de la politique suisse, eds. Yannis Papadopoulos et al. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
– Schlegel, Stefan, and Charlotte Sieber-Gasser. 2014. ‘Der Dritte Weg zur Vierten Freiheit’. Jusletter: 21.
– SEM. 2020. ‘Weisungen und Erläuterungen Ausländerbereich (Weisungen AIG). Kapitel 4 Aufenthalt mit Erwerbstätigkeit’. 136.
