Despite decades of efforts to harmonize asylum procedures, large unexplained differences in asylum outcomes persist across European Union member states. Unfortunately, relatively little empirical literature has examined the causes of disparities in asylum recognition rates. In this paper, I suggest that domestic politics impact how asylum claims are adjudicated. I analyze origin-specific asylum recognition rates in 27 European Union member states from 2000-2018. The findings show that right-wing parties in government are associated with lower asylum recognition rates. This effect is strongest for far-right parties. When far-right parties gain legislative seats and cabinet positions, there is a substantive reduction in recognized asylum claims.
AmengayAStockemerD (2019)
The radical right in Western Europe: A meta-analysis of structural factors. Political Studies Review17(1): 30–40.
2.
ArmingeonKWengerVWiedemeierF, et al. (2019) Comparative political data set 1960–2017. Available at: www.cpds-data.org/ (accessed 19 November 2019).
3.
AvdanN (2014)
Do asylum recognition rates in Europe respond to transnational terrorism? The migration-security nexus revisited. European Union Politics15(4): 445–471.
4.
BlinderS (2015)
Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of ‘immigration’ in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Political Studies63(1): 80–100.
5.
BovensLChatkuptCSmeadL (2011)
Measuring common standards and equal responsibility-sharing in EU asylum outcomes.European Union Politics13(1): 70–93.
DavenportCArmstrongDAII (2004)
Democracy and the violation of human rights: A statistical analysis from 1796 to 1996.American Journal of Political Science48(3): 538–554.
8.
FacchiniGMaydaAM (2008)
From individual attitudes towards migrants to migration policy outcomes: Theory and evidence.Economic Policy23(56): 651–713.
9.
FeinH (1995)
More murder in the middle: Life-integrity violations and democracy in the world, 1987.Human Rights Quarterly17(1): 170–191.
10.
FisherMKatrinB (2018) Germany’s Europe-shaking crisis over migrants, explained. The New York Times, 7 July.
11.
Frid-NielsenSS (2018)
Human rights or security? Positions on asylum in European parliament speeches. European Union Politics19(2): 344–362.
12.
GolderM (2016)
Far right parties in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science19(1): 477–497.
13.
GudbrandsenF (2010)
Partisan influence on immigration: The case of Norway the case for the partisan theory. Scandinavian Political Studies33(3): 248–271.
14.
HattonTJ (2005)
European asylum policy.National Institute Economic Review194(October): 106–119.
15.
HolzerTSchneiderGWidmerT (2000)
Discriminating decentralization: Federalism and the handling of asylum applications in Switzerland, 1988-1996. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(2): 250–276.
16.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979)
Effective number of parties: a measure with application to west Europe.Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
MicinskiNR (2018)
Are you a terrorist? Comparing security screening for Iraqi asylum seekers in the United States and Sweden.International Migration57(4): 58–74.
19.
MuddeC (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
20.
MuddeC (2010)
The populist radical right: A pathological normalcy.West European Politics33(6): 1167–1186.
21.
NeumayerE (2005)
Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe. Journal of Conflict Resolution49(1): 43–66.
22.
RosenblumMRSalehyanI (2004)
Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement.Journal of Peace Research41(6): 677–697.
23.
SalehyanIRosenblumMR (2008)
International and asylum relations, admissions domestic politics, in the United States. Political Research Quarterly61(1): 104–121.
24.
SchainMA (2006)
The extreme-right and immigration policy-making: Measuring direct and indirect effects.West European Politics29(2): 270–289.
25.
SchittenhelmK (2019)
Implementing and rethinking the European Union’s asylum legislation: The asylum procedures directive.International Migration57(1): 229–244.
26.
SchneiderGSegadloNLeueM (2020)
Forty-eight shades of Germany: Positive and negative discrimination in federal asylum decision making. German Politics 29(4): 1–18.
27.
SchusterL (2000)
A comparative analysis of the asylum policy of seven European governments.Journal of Refugee Studies13(1): 118–132.
28.
SpiesD (2013)
Explaining working-class support for extreme right parties: A party competition approach. Acta Politica48(3): 296–325.
29.
ToshkovDD (2014)
The dynamic relationship between asylum applications and recognition rates in Europe (1987–2010). European Union Politics15(2): 192–214.
30.
ToshkovDde HaanL (2013)
The Europeanization of asylum policy: An assessment of the EU impact on asylum applications and recognition rates.Journal of European Public Policy20(5): 661–683.
31.
TraunerF (2016)
Asylum policy: The EU’s ‘crises’ and the looming policy regime failure.Journal of European Integration38(3): 311–325.
32.
ValentaM (2014)
The nexus of asylum-seeker migrations and asylum policy: Longitudinal analysis of migration trends in Norway. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights21(3): 371–394.
33.
Van der BrugWFennemaMTillieJ (2005)
Why some anti-immigrant parties fail and others succeed: A two-step model of aggregate electoral support. Comparative Political Studies38(5): 537–573.
34.
VinkMMeijerinkF (2003)
Asylum applications and recognition rates in EU member states 1982–2001: A quantitative approach. Journal of Refugee Studies16(3): 297–315.
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.
