Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Asylum destination choice. What makes some West European countries more attractive than others?

By Eric Neumayer

Abstract

This article examines what explains the relative attractiveness of Western European countries as a destination for asylum seekers. Individuals coming to Western Europe in order to lodge an asylum application are modelled as utility maximisers who choose the destination country that offers the highest net benefit. This benefit is seen as a function of economic attractiveness, generosity of welfare provisions, deterrent policy measures, hostility towards foreigners and asylum seekers, existing asylum communities, colonial and language links as well as geographical proximity. Results from a large dyadic panel over the time period from 1982 to 1999 demonstrate the impact that these fundamental determinants have on asylum destination choice. The implications of the results for the ongoing debates over fair burden-sharing are complex as they provide arguments for two conflicting interpretations of burden-sharing as either financial side-payments or the physical re-allocation of asylum seekers

Topics: G Geography (General), H Social Sciences (General)
Year: 2004
DOI identifier: 10.1177/1465116504042444
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:610
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/610/1... (external link)
  • http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journ... (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/610/ (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2000). A Comparative Analysis of the Asylum Policy of Seven European Governments’, doi
    2. (1995). A Protection System for Non-Convention Refugees doi
    3. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. doi
    4. (2000). Asylum – Total Failure’, The World Today August/September:4-6.
    5. (2003). Asylum Applications and Recognition Rates in EU Member States 1982-2001: A Quantitative Analysis’, doi
    6. (2001). Asylum Applications in Industrialized Countries: 1980-1999. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. doi
    7. (1998). Asylum Applications in the European Union: Patterns and Trends and the Effects of Policy Measures’, doi
    8. (1998). Asylum Migration to the European Union: Patterns of Origin and Destination. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
    9. (2002). Asylum Policy in the West – Past Trends, Future Possibilities’,
    10. (2003). Between Interests and Norms: Explaining Burden-Sharing in the European Union’, doi
    11. (1981). Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects’, doi
    12. (1998). Burden-Sharing During Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective versus National Action’, doi
    13. (2001). Comparative Analysis of Reception Conditions for Persons Seeking Protection in the Member States of the European Union.
    14. (1999). Country of Asylum by Choice or by Chance: Asylum-Seekers in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK’, doi
    15. Eric (2003a) ‘Bogus Refugees? The Determinants of Asylum Migration to doi
    16. Eric (2003b) ‘Asylum Recognition Rates in Western Europe – Their Determinants, Variation and doi
    17. (1981). Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components’, doi
    18. (2002). European Immigration Politics – Review Article’, doi
    19. (2000). Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy of the European Union. The Hague: doi
    20. (2001). Judith Bara and Eric Tanenbaum doi
    21. (1994). Modelling International Migration: Economic and Econometric Issues’,
    22. (1998). More Refugees, Less Asylum: A Regime in Transformation’, doi
    23. (1997). National Cultures of the World – A Statistical Reference. doi
    24. (2000). Negotiating Asylum – The EU Acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. doi
    25. (1997). No Vacancy: The Political Geography of Immigration Control doi
    26. (1995). Position of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on Sharing the Responsibility: Protection Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Context of Large Scale Arrivals. Brussels: European Council on Refugees and Exiles.
    27. (2000). Push and Pull Factors of International Migration: A Comparative Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
    28. (1991). Refugees and Displaced Persons: Geographical Perspectives and Research Directions’, doi
    29. (1999). Safe Third Countries – Extending the EU Asylum and Immigration Policies to Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Central doi
    30. (1991). Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations’, doi
    31. (1997). South-North Refugee Migration: Lessons for Development Cooperation’, doi
    32. (2003). Statistical Database. Geneva: International Labour Organisation. doi
    33. (2002). Statistical Yearbook
    34. (1999). Tetty and Anita Böcker doi
    35. (2003). The “External Dimension” of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy’, doi
    36. (1994). The Economics of Immigration’, doi
    37. (2000). The Effects of Development on Migration: Theoretical Issues and New Empirical Evidence’, doi
    38. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge (Mass.): doi
    39. (2002). The Social Networks of Asylum Seekers and the Dissemination of Information About Countries of Asylum. Findings 165. London: Home Office. doi
    40. (1995). Transcending Boundaries: Temporary Protection and BurdenSharing in Europe’, doi
    41. (2002). Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers. Home Office Research Study 243. London: Home Office. doi
    42. (2000). Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?’, doi
    43. (1999). Why do Some Countries Produce so Much More Output per Worker than Others?’, doi
    44. (2003). World Development Indicators Online. doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.