Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Guest workers in Austria and Germany. A comparison based on the book “Fear of the Family” by Lauren Stokes and the paper “Austria” by Sylvia Hahn

A blogpost by Larissa Konzett

Based on the chapter “Austria” by Sylvia Hahn and the monograph “Fear of the Family” by Lauren Stokes, the following analysis examines how the migration policy narrative became entrenched in Austria and Germany.1 It considers how migration was officially justified, how migrant workers and their families were treated, and how gendered and social perceptions shaped the experiences of these groups.

The two authors bring different yet complementary perspectives to this topic. Lauren Stokes, Professor of German and History at Northwestern University in Illinois, USA, has been teaching there since 2016. Her research focuses on German migration history, gender and sexuality history, and modern German history. “Fear of the Family”, her first published book, integrates these themes by analyzing how West Germany responded to labor migration and highlighting the role of family and gender in this process.

Sylvia Hahn, professor at the University of Salzburg, also specializes in historical migration studies but extends her focus to include urban and gender history. The history of labor is another central aspect of her research, which is reflected in her book chapter on Austrian migration history. In this work, she examines migration movements within Austria since the 16th century, situating them within broader historical developments. Taken together, the two works offer a comparative perspective on migration history in Austria and Germany, providing insight into both structural and gender-specific dimensions.

Labor Migration in Austria and Germany

After the Second World War, both Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany urgently needed labor to rebuild their economies and support industrial growth. Both states therefore actively recruited foreign workers, so-called “guest workers”, to sustain their booming labor markets. Despite this deliberate recruitment, political elites in both countries maintained the narrative that they were not immigration countries. Migrant workers were expected to serve temporarily as “guests” and return to their countries of origin instead of settling permanently. As Sylvia Hahn puts it, there was “no interest in the integration or permanent settlement of these immigrant workers,” and they were explicitly referred to as “guest workers”.2 Similarly, while labor recruitment in West Germany was officially supported, “family migration, especially the arrival of wives and children, was seen as a problem”.3 This contradictory attitude, a constant need for migrant labor on the one hand, and rejection of permanent immigration on the other, forms the starting point of this blogpost.

Official Justifications for Labor Migration

The black-and-white photo shows several women and children sitting close together in a small room. Some of the children are holding dolls, while a woman on the left is attending to a toddler. In the foreground, there is a playpen, and on the right side of the image, a table with a patterned tablecloth can be seen, holding an empty plate and cutlery. In the background, light enters through a window with patterned curtains.

Wolfsburg guest-worker family in their apartment. Photo by Lothar Schaack, 1973, German Federal Archives: B 145 Bild-F040747-0009, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE; Wikimedia

In both countries, the recruitment of foreign workers was primarily justified on economic grounds. From 1955 onward, the West German government signed labor recruitment agreements (first with Italy, later with Spain, Greece, Turkey, and Yugoslavia) to address labor shortages during the “economic miracle”. Labor migration was thus state-sponsored, framed as a temporary measure to sustain economic growth without implying permanent immigration. The term “guest worker” (Gastarbeiter) itself reflected this logic. Germany was said to offer temporary employment, but not a new home.4

Austria began actively recruiting foreign workers somewhat later. In the mid-1960s, faced with growing labor shortages, Austria signed agreements with Turkey (1964) and Yugoslavia (1966). As in Germany, these policies were driven by economic needs, and integration was not intended. As Hahn notes, Austria, like Germany, had “no interest in the integration or permanent settlement of these immigrant workers”.5 Migration was presented as an economic utility rather than an opportunity to reshape society. Political and social motives remained secondary or were tied to economic arguments. Guest worker programs were even framed as acts of international cooperation or development aid. The idea of mutual benefit prevailed, while permanent settlement was deliberately excluded from the migration model.

Treatment of Migrants and Their Families

In both Austria and West Germany, the treatment of recruited migrant workers was initially shaped by the assumption of temporary residence. As a result, few integration efforts were made. Instead, migrants faced structural exclusion in many areas.

In Austria, this was evident in the public sector, where migrants were largely excluded after 1945. Public and nationalized industries prioritized hiring “their own people,” often along party or union lines, leaving limited opportunities for foreigners.6 Migrant families also had little access to public housing and relied on the private rental market, which was often expensive and overcrowded, as illustrated in the photo. The lack of space can be clearly recognized in this image. In West Germany, the situation was similar. Initially, young, single men were recruited and housed in dormitories or barracks, often segregated by gender, leaving no room for family life.7

These socio-economic exclusions made upward mobility difficult. Furthermore, citizenship law followed ius sanguinis, making it hard for migrants and their children to gain Austrian citizenship, even if they were born and raised in the country.8

Family reunification was not encouraged in the early 1960s. However, by the late 1960s, policymakers realized that satisfied workers were more productive. Spouses and children were temporarily permitted to join migrant workers, provided that the families were able to support themselves financially.9

This brief liberalization was soon followed by stricter regulations due to fears that family reunification would turn temporary stays into permanent settlement. In both countries, workers had to provide proof of adequate housing before bringing in family members, a significant barrier given existing discrimination in the housing market, as mentioned before.10

In Germany, fears of “ghettoization” directly influenced housing policy. Authorities tried to prevent high concentrations of migrants in specific districts or school classes. In some cities, including West Berlin, migrants were banned from renting in particular areas to avoid spatial segregation, a policy that proved largely ineffective11

Child reunification was especially regulated. Children above a certain age (often 16) were no longer allowed to join their parents due to presumed integration difficulties. Authorities justified this with child welfare concerns: older children, they argued, would struggle to adapt to German life. Even younger children could only join if both parents were already in the country.12

Austria followed a similar path but with some delay. After the 1974 recruitment stop, many workers chose to settle permanently, resulting in the reunification of spouses and children. During the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, extended family migration further expanded Turkish and (ex-)Yugoslav communities in Austria.13 Yet migrants continued to face challenges. Access to public housing remained limited, forcing families into overpriced, cramped apartments. In cities like Vienna, migrants did not live in isolated ghettos, but there was clear spatial segregation in lower-income districts. Social contact between migrants and Austrians was rare, and leisure activities remained largely separate.14

While migrants were expected to integrate, they were denied full participation in the labor market, housing, and citizenship. Symbolic gestures, like Austria’s 1979 recognition of the Islamic Community, did little to change the widespread social distance between the native and migrant populations.15

A particularly revealing aspect is the treatment of gender roles. Public and political narratives presumed that male workers would be joined by wives and children. However, as more women were recruited as workers, especially in factories and hospitals, male spouses began applying for family reunification. This reversal disrupted traditional expectations. Stokes explains how “the assumption that dependents were always women and children” was challenged16 Policymakers responded with new restrictions: male dependents were denied work permits, pushing many into illegal employment. This illustrated the inadequacy of state policies and revealed deep-seated gendered and paternalistic biases.

Overall, the treatment of guest worker families was marked by conditional tolerance without genuine integration. The second generation remained in a precarious situation: attending school without legal equality or social acceptance. As Stokes writes, West German migration policy ultimately became “a tool for enforcing social norms and regulating which families were allowed to belong”.17 This observation holds true for Austria as well. To connect this with the present perspective, the figure illustrates, based on Hahn, how the differences between the past and today have shifted. The narratives and structures developed in the 1960s and 1970s left lasting impacts, creating a permanent migrant class that remained excluded from full societal membership for decades.18

Conclusion: Exclusion and Gender Inequalities

The comparison between Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany reveals a central paradox of postwar history in both countries: while officially maintaining the self-image of non-immigration states, both were economically dependent on migrant labor. Foreign workers were actively recruited, first with no integration prospects, later only under strict conditions of self-sufficiency. Family reunification was long denied as a right and seen as a threat to the temporary migration model.

The treatment of migrant workers and their families was marked by structural exclusion, lack of equality, and deeply rooted prejudices, particularly regarding gender roles and supposed integration capacities. Women and children were seen as problematic, even though their presence often provided stability and cohesion for working migrants.

Despite differences in scale and timing, clear parallels emerge: the state defined who could belong and shaped the boundaries of inclusion through language, housing policies, and access to rights. As both sources show, migration was never merely an economic phenomenon but always an expression of social power. Its regulation reflects the contested process of negotiating belonging.19

 

Larissa Konzett holds bachelor’s degrees in Educational Science and Psychology. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Psychology and a second degree in Gender, Culture, and Social Change at the University of Innsbruck. She is expected to graduate in the winter semester 2025/26 and plans to continue her professional training as a clinical psychologist.

 

Diesen Artikel zitieren: Konzett, Larissa: Guest workers in Austria and Germany. A comparison based on the book “Fear of the Family” by Lauren Stokes and the paper “Austria” by Sylvia Hahn, 12.09.2025, https://belonging.hypotheses.org/5936[Abrufdatum].

  1. Hahn, Sylvia: Austria, in: Bade, Klaus J. / Emmer, Pieter C. / Lucassen, Leo / Oltmer, Jochen (eds.): The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe. From the 17th Century to the Present. Cambridge 2011, 83-93; Stokes, Lauren: Fear of the Family. Guest Workers and Family Migration in the Federal Republic of Germany. Oxford 2022. []
  2. Hahn, p. 84. []
  3. Stokes, p. 1. []
  4. Stokes. []
  5. Hahn, p. 84. []
  6. Hahn. []
  7. Stokes. []
  8. Hahn. []
  9. Stokes. []
  10. Stokes; Hahn. []
  11. Stokes. []
  12. Stokes. []
  13. Hahn, pp. 89-90. []
  14. Hahn. []
  15. Ibid. []
  16. Stokes, p. 6. []
  17. Stokes, p. 8. []
  18. Hahn. []
  19. The author used DeepL to translate and ChatGPT to help organizing the references. []

OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Larissa Konzett (12. September 2025). Guest workers in Austria and Germany. A comparison based on the book “Fear of the Family” by Lauren Stokes and the paper “Austria” by Sylvia Hahn. Migration and Belonging. Abgerufen am 6. Februar 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/14ngs


Das könnte dich auch interessieren …

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.