This study examines speeches in the European Parliament relating to asylum. Conceptually, it tests hypotheses concerning the relation between national parties and Members of European Parliament. The computer-based content analysis method Wordfish is used to examine 876 speeches from 2004 to 2014, scaling Members of European Parliament along a unidimensional policy space. Debates on asylum predominantly concern positions for or against European Union security measures. Surprisingly, national party preferences for European Union integration were not the dominant factor. The strongest predictors of Members of European Parliament's positions are their national parties’ general ‘right-left’ preferences, and duration of European Union membership. Generally, Members of European Parliament from Central and Eastern Europe and the European People's Party take up pro-security stances. Wordfish was effective and valid, confirming the relevance of automated content analysis for studying the European Union.
AcostaD (2009) The good, the bad and the ugly in EU migration law: Is the European parliament becoming bad and ugly? (The Adoption of Directive 2008/15: The Returns Directive). European Journal of Migration and Law11(1): 19–39.
BraunMSlavaMSchmittH (2009) European Parliament Election Study 2009, Manifesto Study, 1.0.0 ed. Cologne, Germany: GESIS Data Archive.
4.
BudgeIBaraJ (2001) Introduction: Content analysis and political texts. In: BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensAet al.(eds) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–19.
5.
CarrubaCJGabelMMurrahLet al.(2006) Off the record: Unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science36(4): 691–704.
6.
CrombezCHixS (2015) Legislative activity and Gridlock in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science45(3): 477–499.
GrimmerJStewartBM (2013) Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis21(3): 267–297.
11.
HixS (2002) Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 688–698.
12.
HixSNouryA (2007) Politics, not economic interests: Determinants of migration policies in the European Union. International Migration Review41(1): 182–205.
13.
HixSNouryA (2009) After enlargement: Voting patterns in the sixth European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(2): 159–174.
14.
HixSNouryARolandG (2006) Dimensions of politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 494–511.
15.
HjorthFKlemmensenRHoboltSet al.(2015) Computers, coders, and voters: Comparing automated methods for estimating party positions. Research & Politics2(2): 1–9.
16.
HägeFM (2011) Politicising council decision-making: The effect of European Parliament Empowerment. West European Politics34(1): 18–47.
17.
KaunertCLéonardS (2012) The development of the EU Asylum Policy: Venue-shopping in perspective. Journal of European Public Policy19(9): 1396–1413.
18.
KlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJet al.(2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
KlüverH (2009) Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics10(4): 535–549.
20.
KlüverHSpoonJ-J (2015) Bringing salience back in: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. Party Politics21(4): 553–564.
21.
LavenexS (2001) Migration and the EU's New Eastern Border: Between realism and liberalism. Journal of European Public Policy8(1): 24–42.
22.
LopatinE (2013) The changing position of the European Parliament on irregular migration and asylum under co-decision. Journal of Common Market Studies51(4): 740–755.
23.
MaurerAParkesR (2005) Democracy and European justice and home affairs policies under the shadow of September 11, Berlin, Germany: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Working Paper FG 1, 2005/11.
24.
MaurerAParkesR (2007) The prospects for policy-change in EU Asylum Policy: Venue and image at the European level. European Journal of Migration and Law9(2): 173–205.
25.
McElroyGBenoitK (2007) Party groups and policy positions in the European Parliament. Party Politics13(1): 5–28.
26.
McElroyGBenoitK (2012) Policy positioning in the European Parliament. European Union Politics13(1): 150–167.
27.
Proksch S-O and Slapin JB (2009). Wordfish: Scaling Software for Estimating Political Positions from Texts. Version 1.3. 15 January 2009. Available at: www.wordfish.org (accessed 17 January 2018).
28.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2010) Position taking in European parliament speeches. British Journal of Political Science40(3): 587–611.
29.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2012) Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science56(3): 520–537.
30.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order National Elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
SchmittHThomassenJ (2009) The EU party system after Eastern enlargement. Journal of European Integration31(5): 569–587.
33.
SchwarzDTraberDBenoitK (2017) Estimating intra-party preferences: Comparing speeches to votes. Political Science Research and Methods5(2): 379–396.
34.
ScullyRHixSFarrellDM (2012) National or European parliamentarians? Evidence from a new survey of the members of the European Parliament. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies50(4): 670–683.
35.
ServentAR (2010) Point of no return? The European Parliament after Lisbon and Stockholm. European Security19(2): 191–207.
36.
ServentAR (2011) Co-decision in the European Parliament: Comparing rationalist and constructivist explanations of the returns directive. Journal of Contemporary European Research7(1): 3–22.
37.
ServentAR (2013) Holding the European Parliament responsible: Policy shift in the Data Retention Directive from consultation to codecision. Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 972–987.
38.
ServentARTraunerF (2014) Do supranational EU institutions make a difference? EU asylum law before and after ‘communitarization’. Journal of European Public Policy21(8): 1142–1162.
39.
ServentARTraunerF (2015) Asylum: Limited policy change due to new norms of institutional behaviour. In: TraunerFServentAR (eds) Policy Change in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: How EU Institutions Matter, Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 35–52.
40.
SettembriPNeuholdC (2009) Achieving consensus through committees: Does the European Parliament manage?JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies47(1): 127–151.
41.
SlapinJBProkschS-O (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science52(3): 705–722.
42.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
43.
SubhanALavenexS (1999) Migration and asylum in Central and Eastern Europe, Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament. Director General for Research, Working Paper LIBE 104 EN.
44.
UNHCR (2015) World at War: UNHCR Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2014, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
45.
VoetenE (2009) Enlargement and the ‘normal’ European Parliament. In: ThomassenJ (ed.) The Legitimacy of the European Union After Enlargement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–113.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
