Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:25:38.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Asylum Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Timothy J. Hatton
Timothy J. Hatton*
Affiliation:
Australian National University and University of Essex
*
e-mail: tim.hatton@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy towards asylum seekers has been a controversial topic for more than a decade. Rising numbers of asylum applications have been met with ever-tougher policies to deter them. Following a period of policy harmonisation, the EU has reached a crucial stage in the development of a new Common European Asylum System. This paper seeks to shed light on what form this should take. It summarises the development of policy to date and it argues that these policies have been too tough, even from the point of view of EU citizens. Using an economic framework, it examines scenarios with different degrees of policy harmonisation and integration among EU countries. Finally, it argues that there is an important role for enhanced burden-sharing arrangements.

Keywords

Asylum seekersasylum policypolicy coordinationF22H41H77H87J61
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 194 , October 2005 , pp. 106 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper builds on previous research in Hatton (2004) and Hatton and Williamson (2004). I am grateful for useful comments from Alison Booth, William Coleman, Steve Dowrick, and Ben Smith, and from participants at the ANU School of Economics Workshop. Special thanks are due to John Ermisch for detailed advice on the theoretical framework.

References

Betts, A, (2003), ‘Public goods and the provision of refugee protection: the role of the joint-product model in burden-sharing theory’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böcker, A. and Havinga, T. (1997), Asylum Migration to the European Union: Patterns of Origin and Destination, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. (2003), ‘Burden-sharing in the European Union: lessons from the German and UK experience’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 316–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brons, M., Meijnen, K. and Schaap, M. C. (2001), ‘Public perceptions about refugees, asylum seekers and persons with temporary protection status: country report: The Netherlands’, The Hague: International Organisation for Migration.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. (2003), ‘Harmonisation and burden redistribution in the two Europes’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustmann, C. and Preston, I. (2000), ‘Racial and economic factors in attitudes to immigration’, IZA Discussion Paper 190.Google Scholar
Dustmann, C. and Preston, I. (2001), ‘Attitudes to ethnic minorities, ethnic context and location decisions’, Economic Journal, 111, pp. 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2003), ‘Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems’, Brussels, Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2004), ‘Broken promises - forgotten principles: an ECRE evaluation of the development of EU minimum standards for refugee protection: Tampere 1999 - Brussels 2004’, at: http://www.ecre.org/positions/Tampere_June04.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hatton, T. J. (2004), ‘Seeking asylum in Europe’, Economic Policy, 38, pp. 5–62.Google Scholar
Hatton, T. J. and Williamson, J. G. (2004), ‘Refugees, asylum seekers and policy in Europe’, NBER Working Paper 10680, Boston, NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khoser, K. and Pinkerton, C. (2002), ‘The social networks of asylum seekers and the dissemination of information about countries of asylum’, London: UK Home Office.Google Scholar
MORI (2002), ‘Attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers: a survey of public opinion’, London: MORI.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2004a), ‘Asylum destination choice: what makes some West European countries more attractive than others?’, European Union Politics, 5, pp. 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2004b), ‘Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe - their determinants, variation and lack of convergence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, G. (2000), Negotiating Asylum: The EU Acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Noll, G. (2003), ‘Risky games? A theoretical approach to burden-sharing in the asylum field’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York, Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, K. H. and Sinnott, R. (2003), ‘Migration flows: political economy of migration and the empirical challenges’, Trinity College, Dublin : unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Refugee Council (UK) (2004), ‘Refugee Council briefing on the common European asylum system’, at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/briefings/intl/common_euro.pdf.Google Scholar
Robinson, V. and Segrott, J. (2002), ‘Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers’, Home Office Research Study 243, London, UK Home Office.Google Scholar
Rotte, R., Vogler, M. and Zimmermann, K. (1997), ‘South-north refugee migration: lessons for development co-operation’, Review of Development Economics, 1, pp. 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thielemann, E. R. (2003a), ‘Why EU policy harmonisation undermines burden sharing’, Canberra: National Europe Centre Paper 101, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Thielemann, E. R. (2003b), ‘Between interests and norms: explaining burden-sharing in the European Union’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK House of Lords, European Union Committee (2004), Handling EU Asylum Claims: New Approaches Examined, 11th Report of Session 2003-04, London, Stationery Office.Google Scholar
UK Government (2003), ‘New international approaches to asylum processing and protection’, accessed as ‘New Vision for Refugees’ from ProAsyl website: http://www.proasyl.de/texte/europe/union/2003/UK_NewVision.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2001a), Asylum Applications in Industrialised Countries: 1980-1999, Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2001b) The State of the World's Refugees: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action, Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2003), ‘Summary of UNHCR proposals to complement national asylum systems through new multilateral approaches’, from Statewatch website at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jun/unhcr.pdfGoogle Scholar
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2004), Statistical Yearbook, 2003, Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar