Does Policy Matter? On Governments’ Attempts to Control Unwanted Migration

Public policy making on asylum takes place in an environment of intense public scrutiny, strong institutional constraints and international collective action problems. By assessing the relative importance of key pull factors of international migration, this article explains why, even when controlling for their differences in size, some states receive a much larger number of asylum seekers than others. The analysis of 20 OECD countries for the period 1985-1999 further shows that some of the most high profile public policy measures—safe third country provisions, dispersal and voucher schemes—aimed, at least in part, at deterring unwanted migration and at addressing the highly unequal distribution of asylum burdens have often been ineffective. This is because the key determinants of an asylum seeker’s choice of host country are historical, economic and reputational factors that largely lie beyond the reach of asylum policy makers. Finally, the paper argues that the effectiveness of unilateral policy measures will be further undermined by multilateral attempts to harmonise restrictive policies and that current efforts such as those by the European Union will consolidate, rather than effectively address, existing disparities in the distribution of asylum burdens.public policy effectiveness, asylum, migration pull factors, deterrence, burden sharing, collective action problems, international co-operation, European Union

Buying into myths: free movement of people and immigration

The way in which free movement of people has become the central issue of the British government’s renegotiation and referendum campaign on the UK’s relationship with the EU risks obfuscating at least three central issues: why immigrants are coming to the UK; what impact EU migrants are having on the UK; and what can be done to effectively regulate such inflows. It is, however, not just the Eurosceptics and the British government but also ‘in campaigners’ and other EU member states who risk perpetuating a number of widely-held misconceptions about free movement and immigration for political reasons. Buying into such myths risks to undermine attempts to have a more honest and more evidence-based debate about immigration and migrant integration

Emergency brakes on migration: neither novel nor effective

The ’emergency brake’ is not the first time member states have tried to restrict freedom of movement within the EU. Indeed, after the enlargements in 2004 and 2007, most countries – though not Britain – did not give eastern European workers free access to their labour markets. But ultimately, write Eiko Thielemann (left) and Daniel Schade, the only reliable way to deter labour migrants is to ensure the economy is too weak to offer them worthwhile job opportunities

Jobs are good ones: addressing the factors that attract EU migrants to the UK

As one of the founding principles of the EU’s single market, the right to freedom of movement allows EU citizens to travel freely across the 28 Member States and to take up work in a place of their choosing. With very high numbers of EU citizens arriving in the UK in recent years, advocates of a Brexit often argue that this right has led to higher immigration than the UK can readily absorb, and one of the aims of David Cameron’s renegotiation was to curb the incentives for EU migrants to come to Britain. The purpose of the LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe hearing was to discuss the overall costs and benefits of this fundamental principle of the European Union. It took into account a wide range of expert opinions, while considering different policy options in the context of the forthcoming referendum.The chair Eiko Thielemann (left) and Daniel Schade report.

Escaping populism – safeguarding minority rights: non-majoritarian dynamics in European policy-making

Contrary to earlier predictions, communitarization in the area of asylum policies has not led to an erosion of refugee rights. Instead, there is growing evidence that EU asylum harmonization has safeguarded existing standards and even enhanced the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees in Europe. We seek to explain this by building on the insights of principal-agent theory. We argue that delegation to supranational institutions can strengthen non-majoritarian policy dynamics and shield EU policy-makers from populist pressures for further immigration restrictions that national governments are often confronted with. We support this argument empirically through a systematic longitudinal analysis of the evolution of EU asylum policies. In particular, we seek to assess the motivation for and impact of greater delegation to EU institutions on rights developments for asylum-seekers and refuges. We also explain to what extent EU policy-making has changed with the EU’s response to the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’

Immigration and International Co-operation: Public Goods Theory & Collective Refugee Management

By its very nature, international migration has an impact on the relations between countries of origin and destination. In the case of large-scale refugee flows, such movements also affect the relations between destination countries, as unilateral policy responses by one states often produces significant externalities for other states. Resulting free-riding opportunities undermine cooperation and lead to the under-provision of collective security measures aimed at controlling the movement of displaced persons. In recognition of these collective action problems, international institutions have played an increasingly influential role in the management of global asylum- and refugee flows. This paper highlights the security considerations that have prompted European states into cooperation through the institutions of the European Union. By analysing these collective efforts from an international public goods perspective, this paper offers new ways to assess the efficiency and equity of international refugee burden-sharing initiatives