Paper: CES Conference, Boston 22-24 March 2012
Draft, please do not quote without permission
Forced Migration Flows and Regulations
in Northern Europe
Exploring Destination Clusters
By Jan-Paul Brekke
Senior Researcher
Institute for Social Research, Oslo Norway
jpb@socialresearch.no
+1 646 410 1964 (US cell)
What is the impact of migration policies on the volume and composition of
migration flows? Over the past decade, several efforts have been made to
analyze the relationship between migration regulations and migration flows
(Ortega and Peri 2009, Hatton 2009, Czaika and de Haas 2011). Some
studies focus on the role of policy, while other point to other factors, such as
economic differences, cultural links and networks. One of the challenges
facing these analyses has been gathering and organizing comparable data on
migration policies. In this paper we explore the data gathered for a cluster of
Northern European countries. The cluster design makes possible in-depth
analyses of the interaction between flows and regulations.
The paper is based on ongoing research in Norway where the objective is to
estimate the importance of migration policies for variations in distribution,
composition and volume of arrivals within a cluster of European countries.
The paper represents the first step in this analysis and makes use of data
gathered on changes in policies and regulations in nine Northern and Central
European countries (1994-2010). It is argued that these constitute a cluster by
having the same arrival profile – they share among them the migrants coming
from a handful of sending countries. These qualitative data will at a later stage
be a key element in an econometric study of the relative importance of policy
compared to economic, historical and network effects.
The EU has worked with increasing effort to secure harmonization in their
migration policies and legislation over the past fifteen years. Despite a long
list of directives and long-term programs meant to “level the playing field”,
substantial variations in arrivals persist within the region.
2
The paper builds on earlier compilations of migration policy data (Mayda
2005, Hatton 2007, Neumayer 2004). These data are updated and developed
and form the basis of the discussions in this paper. These include: The
harmonization of national and regional policies; a few examples of dynamics
of migration regulation between countries sharing the same groups of asylum
seekers; as well as policy reactions to the last major increase in arrivals of
asylum seekers to the region in 2002.
In this paper the point of departure is Norway. After having identified the
cluster of receiving countries that this Nordic country is a part of, and a review
of earlier contributions to the field, some early trends in our analysis of the
migration policy changes within the cluster will be discussed. I will finish with a
few examples of the policy reactions provoked by the 2002 peak in asylum
arrivals. What type of reactions did these periods elicit among the cluster
countries?
Clusters of receiving countries
Each recipient country in Europe attracts a different mix of asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers from one sending country tend to end up applying in a limited
number of European countries (Havinga and Böcker 1997:46, Middelton
2005:22). Other groups have different destinations. This results in asylum
seekers from a sending countries having destination profile, and receiving
countries having national reception profiles. The question is of course how
these patterns are established, maintained and changes.
From these profiles, we can identify receiving states that share groups of
applicants from one or more countries. These countries constitute what could
be called a destination cluster. In other words, one can have clusters around
one group of applicants, i.e. a single group cluster, or involving a list of
applicants nationalities, a multiple group cluster.
In our study we have attempted to identify one such multiple cluster. The
starting point was our project's country of reference, Norway. In order to
understand the influx of asylum seekers to Norway, we have to understand
the changes in flows and policies in the other countries that receive the same
groups of asylum seekers as Norway does. The premise being that changes
in asylum flows and regulations in one country may influence the flows and
regulations in other related receiving countries. In other words, we had to
ask; which reception cluster is Norway a part of?
First step was to identify the largest groups of asylum seekers that had arrived
in Norway over the past two decades. We looked at the period from 1994 to
2010 and identified the seven most numerous groups during this time span.
These groups were Serbia (and Montenegro), Iraq, Somalia, Russia,
Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran (See table 1). These were also major groups
coming to Europe as a whole during the period. In 2008, the same seven
nationalities filled the seven top positions in Europe (38 countries)(UNHCR).
2
3
Next step is to identify other European countries that were major receiving
countries for the same groups during the same period. We looked at which
countries were among the top five recipient of each nationality, according to
the UNHCR´s numbers. We looked at the year 2008 and found eight other
European countries that shared two or more of the top seven nationalities
identified in Norway. These rankings were identical for the years 2002 and
2009.
Table 1. Asylum seekers registered in Norway 1994-2010, ranked
Out of the seven nationalities listed above, we found that Norway shared
groups with Sweden (6 out of 7, only exception was Russian asylum seekers),
Germany (5 out of 7, missing Eritrea and Iran), Belgium (5 out of 7, missing
Eritrea and Somalia), UK (4 out of 7), Netherlands (3 out of 7), Austria (3 out
of 7), Switzerland and Denmark (2 out of 7). As we see, the cluster consisted
of countries in the North-Western Europe in addition to Switzerland and
Austria. France (2 out of 7) and Poland (1 out of 7), could have been included,
sharing asylum seekers from Serbia and Russia, but were excluded because
of lack of available data on policy changes.
The cluster of receiving countries that Norway belongs to could be said to
constitute a destination market for certain groups of asylum seekers. For
example, of the around 7000 Eritreans asylum seekers registered in Europe in
2010, 90 percent came to the NWE cluster countries (Norway 1711,
Switzerland 1708, Sweden 1443, UK 770, Netherlands 392, Germany 642
and Belgium 106). For Eritreans going to Europe, these destinations are the
major alternatives. The only other countries with a hundred or more Eritrean
applicants were France (642) and Italy (181).
It could be argued that the flows and policies outside the cluster will influence
the flows and policies to the cluster countries. This is obviously true. A model
only considering changes in flows and policies in such a limited selection of
countries will not be able to account for all external influences. Changes in
one receiving country, to the cluster as a whole or in the wider European
region may lead to changes in the volume and composition of asylum flows to
3
4
the region and thereby to the cluster countries. Changes in the conditions in
transit countries or in the sending countries may likewise have and effect on
the flows. Including all stages of the forced migration in our model is not an
option in this study. In the later empirical econometric study, we will include
sending country variables and detailed data on the influx to the European
region.
Some contributors to the field of asylum destinations have argued that
exaggerating the focus on European and Western destination hampers the
understanding. For example, Moore and Shellman (2007) argue that
Neumayer (2005), who found that asylum seekers tended to end up in
European destinations countries that had the highest wages, missed
important drivers of migration. They argue that although his conclusions may
fit the data for European destinations, including the vast majority of refugees
fleeing to neighboring countries would give a different answer (2007:32). In
their analysis, cultural proximity, costs and following others that have fled
before them steer refugees’ directions.
However, it could be argued that the effects of changes in the sending
countries and transit regions may to some extent be controlled by not trying to
explain the volume and composition of arrivals to Europe, but limit the
ambition to understanding the distribution within a cluster of countries. The
variations in the migration flows to the region/cluster countries as a whole
would then be a variable taken into account, and not as something to be
explained. Though not wholly satisfactory, the cluster approach opens for indepth analysis and in-cluster case studies that are more difficult to combine
with a model involving all stages of the migration process and all countries
involved.
Several attempts have been made at compiling a list of changes in migration
policy and legislation over the years. There are also current efforts being
made in the DEMIG (Determinants of Migration) project in the UK (Czaika and
de Haas 2011) and Social Science Research Center Berlin.
Previous studies have compiled and utilized such lists containing migration
policy and legislation changes in varying detail. These include Ortega and
Peri´s study from 2009 using among other data produced by Mayda and Patel
(2004), Hatton (2009) using his own data, and FRDB´s (Fondazione Rudolfo
DeBenedetti) Social Reforms Database (2007) that constructed an inventory
of migration policy covering European countries (1990-2005).
In our current study, the data from these studies have been integrated and are
currently being supplemented through the contributions of key informants in
the cluster countries. A detailed list of changes to the Norwegian migration
regime has also been added.
4
5
Perspectives on flows and regulations
The classic view of refugees and asylum seekers is that they are forced to
flee. Events in their home countries force them to leave without considering a
specific destination (Havinga and Böcker 1997). This view of the refugee or
asylum seeker as an actor with little or no influence over his/her actions has
been criticized (Zolberg et al. 1989). In the literature it has, however, not been
replaced with an actor that is fully in charge of his/her own actions. Instead, a
picture has been drawn of individuals that vary with regard to resources,
information and autonomy (Biljeveld and Taselaar 2000, Robinson and
Segrott 2002).
This variation presents a space between the individual and the destination. To
a varying degree, the individual asylum seeker or refugee may choose or
select one destination country over another. Who makes the decision and at
what point of the asylum journey will not be discussed here (See Havinga and
Böcker 1999, Koser and Pinkerton 2002, Robinson and Segrott 2002, Collyer
2004 and 2007, Brekke and Aarset 2009, Crawley 2010,). What is clear is that
the model of action opens for the influence of a list of pull factors in the
destination countries (Zimmermann 1996), including economic variables,
labor market conditions, welfare system, traditional ties with specific countries
of origin, the presence of diasporas and networks, access to education,
language and differences in asylum and migration policies.
Now, the researchers active in the field do not agree on which factors have
the stronger impact. Studies conducted over the past decade have
emphasized different explanatory variables. Thielemann (2004) found
unilateral migration policies to have little effect on migration flows. 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”, according to him (2004:1).
Zetter et. Al (2003) and Jennissen et al. (2009) have stressed the importance
of cultural and historical ties between sending and receiving countries. These
are accompanied by diasporas and transcultural relations that make
established destinations more likely goals for new migrants from groups that
already present in the receiving country. Economists like Mayda 2005, Hatton
(2005), NeuMayer (2005) and Ortega and Peri (2009) aim at establishing the
importance of migration policy on patterns of asylum arrivals.
Not only focusing on forced migration, Mayda found that changes in economic
opportunities in the host countries were the strongest predictor of variations in
emigration to that country. This was despite restrictive migration policy
measures implemented in her sampled countries (2005:19). Interestingly, she
did not find conclusive effects of colonial links.
Hatton developed an asylum policy index for EU member countries based on
data from ECRE, OECD and USCRI (United States Committee for Refugees
and Immigrants). Looking for effects of policy changes with regard to “access”,
“processing”, “waiting conditions” and “outcomes/acceptance rates”, he found
5
6
that despite the analysis showing a negative effect on arrivals, the overall
number of asylum seekers coming to Europe increased. He concluded that
the increase at the time (early 2000s) was due to the presence of networks.
Looking at a decline in arrival numbers at the first half of that same decade in
a later article, Hatton found that tightening of migration policies reduced the
number of asylum application in Western States by 14-17 percent.
Neumayer (2005) emphasized the importance of the conditions in the sending
countries as explanations of forced migration. Finding that lack of economic
opportunities combined with oppression and conflict increase the number of
refugees leaving a country. Migration networks and geographical proximity
steer the flow of asylum seekers towards certain destination countries, while
casual contact (aid, tourism etc.) with the developed world nor colonial
experience do not (2005:31).
In their study from 2009, Ortega and Peri looked at evidence from OECD
countries during 1980-2005 in search of the effect of migration policies and
other factors that influence migration flows. They found that economical
differences between sending and receiving countries have an impact. In
addition, their results showed that stricter policies in host countries reduced
the bilateral flow of asylum seekers.
In a recent state of the art review paper, de Haas outlines flaws that have
been dominating earlier studies understanding of the effectiveness of
migration policies (2011). He points to the vagueness when it comes to
establishing the relationship between macro economic, political and mesolevel factors such as networks (2011:2). He could have added the individual
action oriented level. However, establishing the link between macro, meso
and micro levels has challenged the social sciences since their very
beginning. Nonetheless, de Haas presents a model of migration based on
capabilities and aspirations (2006:26) that is meant to incorporate sending,
transit and reception countries perspectives.
A further contribution from the DEMIG project (Czaika and de Haas 2011) is
an identification of three points of policy inefficiency formulated as three gaps:
The discursive gap, between public discussion and formulated policies, the
implementation gap, between their formulation and implementation, and finally
the efficacy gap, between the implemented policies and their effects on
migration flows.
Trends in the Northern European Migration Regulations
The list of changes in migration policies and legislation compiled for this study
shows several common trends across the cluster countries and beyond,
despite national differences.
Looking back at the last 15 years, the most significant trend in Europe has
been the development of common EU asylum and migration legislation. This
may have had profound effects on the distribution and volume of asylum
6
7
arrivals. The goals of these efforts included securing burden sharing among
the member states, reducing secondary movements of asylum seekers and
providing applicants with minimum rights.
Initiated in Tampere in 1997, the ambition of achieving comprehensive
agreements, legislation and practice has been sustained and accelerated.
Despite certain delays, the Member States and associated countries have
agreed upon and implemented Directives on a wide range of migration and
asylum regulations, such as the Schengen and Dublin agreements including
the Eurodac. In the area of asylum, the CEAS (Common European Asylum
System) is set to be in place by the end of 2012, compiling a package of
directives including the Qualification Directive, Procedures Directive, the
Dublin agreement and Eurodac. Guided by the goals set in the Stockholm
Program and the Pact on Immigration, and by the increased on the ground
coordination of polices through the newly operative EASO (European Asylum
Support Office), the Union continues to press towards creating a common
migration policy.
Several of the cluster countries in our study (UK, DK, NO and SWI) are
influenced by the EU regulations through special arrangements. Britain and
Denmark have both opted out of the area of migration legislation and are not
automatically bound by the directives agreed upon by the other Member
States. They are however welcome to opt in on parts of the legislation. The
UK therefore finds themselves outside the Schengen area, but part of the
Dublin agreement. The Danes have long been a part of the Schengen
cooperation (implemented 2001) and have also more recently joined the
Dublin agreement.
Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, but have followed the
development of EUs migration regime closely since the 1990s. Norway
became part of the Schengen area in 2002 and implemented the EURODAC
registration system the same year. The Dublin agreement and its increased
operability is a pivotal part of the practice of the Norwegian immigration
authorities, turning one in five asylum seekers back to their first country of
application within Europe. The current Norwegian Government has an
expressed ambition of adapting their migration policies and legislation to that
of the Union (Brekke 2011). Switzerland, long being the outsider in most
matters pertaining to a unified Europe, has also realized the necessity of
regional cooperation in the migration area. This led them to join the Schengen
and Dublin agreements in 2008.
The remaining countries in our cluster (BEL, NL, AUT and SWE) have
participated fully in the development of the Union´s effort to create a common
migration policy. Sweden and Austria joined the Union in 1995, while Belgium
and Netherlands have been key Union players since the start in 1952.
A second trend can be identified from the list of policy changes in the nine
cluster countries during the 1994 – 2010 period. The period involved an
increasing will to manage migration, i.e. install regulation that reduces
unwanted and irregular migration while creating openings for migrants that are
7
8
seen as beneficial to the nation states. The trend would be accompanied by
increased focus on national interests. What types of migration benefits the
UK, Norway or the Netherlands? This change is expressed in attempts at
reducing and controlling the flow of asylum seekers and instead opening for
student migration or immigration from highly skilled workers. The points based
system introduced in Britain in 2009, illustrates this trend towards an active
immigration policy aimed at providing opportunities for those coming, but also
aiming at benefitting the host country.
In Norway this change from a focus on rights of immigrants to a more active
immigration strategy happened around the year 2000 (Brekke 2012). The
econometric study to be conducted later in our study will look at the effect of
these changes on the composition and volume of asylum arrivals.
The perhaps most radical shift in migration policies and regulation came in
Denmark after the 2001 elections. The newly installed Center-Right
government set out to reduce the arrival of asylum seekers and shifting the
composition of migrants towards a mix that was believed to be more beneficial
to the host country. As a consequence, the number of asylum arrivals
plummeted and remained low for the next ten years.
A third trend that is present in the list of policy changes is the increased
legislation and policy initiatives regulating return of irregular migrants and
rejected asylum seekers. Use of detention and chartered flights become
common (ex policy change in NL in 2003 on return). Even the traditionally
liberal Sweden initiated a targeted return operation to Iraq in 2008 following a
high number of arrivals.
The same country may also be used to illustrate a fourth finding in the review
of policy changes in the nine countries, the practice of regularizations. The
presence of irregular migrants represents a constant challenge to host
governments. When return is not an option, over time these migrants may be
allowed to stay following two procedures. Either they are regularized on a
case to case basis, mostly without attracting public attention. Or they are
allowed to stay/reapply through government initiated regularization programs.
The list of policy changes in the Northern European region contains a series
of examples of these types of programs. Among these we find the reopening
of close to 30 000 cases of mostly rejected asylum seekers residing in hiding
in Sweden in 2008. More than 20 000 were allowed to stay. Other examples
include regularization in Belgium in 2000 and 2009, in the Netherlands in
2003 and 2007, in Germany 2007 and in Switzerland in 2001.
Responses to peak in arrivals in 2002
There exists a two-way relation between migration flows and regulations.
Regulations must be assumed to influence the number and composition of
arrivals, although the effect and exact dynamics is a matter of academic
discussion. The other way around, it is obvious that how many and who that
migrate to a certain country or region will potentially at least, influence the
8
9
migration policy and legislation.
The most clear-cut peak in asylum arrivals to Europe, and to our cluster
countries, was the increase after the turn of the century. Arrivals to Europe
went from around 250 000 in the mid 1990s to above 500 000 in 1998 before
peaking again at around 500 000 in 2001.
Figure 1. Trend asylum seekers Europe (44 and 38).
For our cluster countries, this trend can be seen in figure 2 below. As we see,
the trend is similar to that of the whole of Europe, with a rise towards two
peaks in 1998 and 2001.
Figure 2. Trend arrivals to nine cluster countries.
By including Germany, the upward trend towards the peak in 2001 is
9
10
somewhat blurred. If we exclude Germany from the cluster, we get the display
in figure 3, below.
Figure 3. Trend asylum arrivals to cluster countries (Germany excluded).
All countries within the cluster saw an increase around the shift of the century.
Even Germany, which experienced a strong general downward trend from
1997 and onward, saw numbers peak in 2001 before continuing to fall. The
high numbers of asylum applications experienced by Germany during the
1990s stemmed primarily from the wars and conflicts on Balkan, but the
country also received a substantial number of Iraqis.
Figure 4. North Western Europe Cluster, all countries.
For the purpose of the introductory discussions in this paper, we can isolate
three countries for further inquiry, Denmark, UK and Norway. We get the
following picture in figure 5.
10
11
Figure 5. Asylum seekers coming to UK, Norway and Denmark 1994-2010
From figure 5, we can recognize the pattern of peak(s) around the turn of the
century.
Explaining the rise in arrivals leading up to the peaks for UK (1999 and 2002),
Denmark (2000), Sweden (2002) and Norway (2002), will not be done here.
What we will do is to look at the policy changes during the peak periods.
Let us start with the most radical case of migration policy change among
these selected cases, Denmark. Following the elections in 2001, more than
20 restrictive measures were made through the Aliens Consolidation Act. The
ambition of the newly elected government was to reduce immigration in
general and in particular to reduce the arrival of asylum seekers and family
reunifications. The measures worked (Brekke 2005). Around the election in
the fall of 2001, there were strong signals that a change was underway. The
numbers fell immediately and started a strong downward trend. As we see in
figure 5, the implementation of the restrictive measures set off a trend that
continued throughout the decade and the number of asylum arrivals only
recently passed 5000.
As we see from figure 5, the number of arrivals rose in the neighboring
Sweden and Norway as they fell in Denmark following the election in 2001.
Both countries peaked in 2002. In Sweden, the authorities did not react to the
rising numbers in 2001 and 2002 by imposing restrictive measures. They did,
however, blame the newly elected Danish government for pushing the burden
of asylum arrivals across the border. Explaining the downward trend from the
Swedish peak year of 2002 is not straightforward. Pointing to the European
trend is only a start. A thorough analysis of the composition of arrivals during
that period is necessary along with the changes in other influential factors,
such as the policy of the neighboring states.
11
12
The Norwegian government at the time also blamed their Danish counterparts
for the high number of asylum seekers coming in 2002. However, the
Norwegian authorities also announced and implemented restrictive measures
such as a 48-hour procedure, lists of safe countries and more. These came at
a time where the downward European trend had already started. A separation
of the effect of the downward trend of arrivals to Europe and the Norwegian
restrictions will have to wait till the econometric analysis. Norwegian
informants point to the introduction of the Eurodac identification system in
2002 as a key factor in bringing the numbers down in their country and the
rest of Europe.
The two peaks of the trend-line for the UK, in 1998 and 2002, were
accompanied by restrictive measures. The year after the first peak, a series of
restrictive measures were implemented through the Immigration and Asylum
Act (1999). These included more British liaison officers at key foreign airports,
new legal framework for detention of asylum seekers and a reduction on
welfare support during the processing period. After two years with lower
numbers, the next peak came in 2002. Again the asylum regime was
adjusted. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) extended the
power to detain asylum seekers, established a “white list” of safe countries
and language requirements for citizenships. The evaluation of the effect of
these measures compared to other factors will again have to wait. What is
clear is that asylum numbers in Britain remained low for the next decade,
remaining below 20 000 per year after 2007. Possibly contributing to this
trend, more restrictive measures were imposed through the 2004 Asylum and
Immigration Act and again in 2006.
Burden shifting
A key element in understanding the effect of migration policies on flows is the
notion that changes in policies and flows in one country may have effects on
the neighboring countries. The Scandinavian case of 2001 and 2002 is a clear
indication of this.
The tightening of policy and falling number of asylum seekers coming to
Denmark combined with an increase in Sweden, led to a dispute between
politicians and statisticians in the two countries. Did the policy changes in
Denmark cause the increase in Sweden? A thorough analysis tracing the
groups of applicants that “used to go to Denmark”, indicated that they ended
up in Sweden instead (Brekke 2004). Our econometric analysis will probe into
these mechanisms. The events following the changes in Danish policies in
2002 will also be studied as a separate case.
Another case of apparent near immediate effect of one country´s actions on
the flow to other countries was initiated in Sweden. The high number of Iraqi
applicants coming to that host country in 2007 (more than 20000) elicited
initiatives to make Sweden less attractive to that particular group. A return
agreement was negotiated with Iraq, forced returns were carried out and the
numbers dropped. During the same period, Iraqis applied in increasing
12
13
numbers in cluster countries such as the Netherlands and Norway. A Dutch
research group concluded that the shift in destination countries was caused
by the measures in Sweden (Jennissen et al 2009).
Somalis coming to the cluster countries
Both an econometric and a qualitative analysis of the relationship between
flows and regulations have also to consider the dynamics of separate asylum
flows. A brief look at the arrivals of Somalis to Europe and the cluster of
destination countries discussed in this paper opens for informed discussion on
the policy-flow nexus.
Figure 6. Somali asylum seekers, five major host countries and total arrivals
to Europe (38 countries).
In figure 6 we recognize the pattern from the trend in Europe with higher
number of arrivals in 2003 and 2009. The five major recipient countries of
Somali asylum seekers in the period received 75 percent or more of the total
number of Somalis registered in Europe, again confirming the idea of
destination clusters.
Now, can we detect any patterns of interaction between the arrivals of
Somalis be detected in figure 6? What we can see is that Norway and
Sweden followed the general trend of European arrivals from the conflict torn
East African country, both peaking in 2003 and 2009.
The Netherlands did not receive a high number of Somalis during the first
peak in Europe, but was the largest recipient in 2009 with 6000 arrivals. So a
low – high pattern can be seen. That is the opposite of the UK, where more
than 6000 Somalis applied for asylum during the 2001 – 2003 period, after
which the numbers fell each of the next seven years. British authorities
maintained a restrictive practice towards applicants from Somalia after 2003
as can be seen in their insistence to continue return operations to all parts of
13
14
the country (Home Office, UK Border Agency, Operational Guidance Note, 25
December 2011).
Earlier studies have pointed to the connections that exist between the Somali
populations in the Netherlands and the UK (Jennissen et al 2009). Can the
reduction in Somali arrivals to Britain be believed to have led to increased
numbers coming to the Netherlands and Sweden during the peak of 2008?
The top five countries, all part of the NWE cluster still received more than 75
percent of the total number of Somalis coming to Europe that year, so the
group was still largely distributed among the same destination countries as
earlier. In order to answer the question of burden shifting, more detail is
needed. Did the Somalis coming to the Netherlands and Sweden in 2008
have the same background as those coming to the UK during the first part of
the decade? What could Somalis coming to the Netherlands and Sweden in
2008 tell us about their evaluation of the alternative destinations?
Concluding remarks
This paper reports from the preparatory phase of a larger ongoing study on
the interaction between migration flows and migration regulations in Europe.
It is argued that looking at policy changes and flows within a cluster of
destination countries may provide a beneficial framework for in-depth
analysis. Starting with one particular country, in this case Norway, a group of
destination countries that share groups of asylum seekers can be constructed.
The eight other countries identified in what is called the Northern European
destination cluster (SWE, DK, UK, GER, BEL, NL, SWI, AUT) are the
alternatives for those nationalities traditionally coming to Norway.
A few immediate trends in migration regulation can be identified on the basis
of a compilation of policy changes in the cluster countries. The harmonization
of European migration legislation and regional cooperation through the
Schengen and Dublin agreements over the last fifteen years has changed the
region´s migration scene. However, national differences still persist, and the
question of how the harmonization affects the distribution of asylum arrivals
remains unanswered.
Another trend is the attempts to manage migration based on the needs of the
host country. The list also shows an increased focus on return throughout the
period. A final trend is the repeated use of regularizations of irregular migrants
and asylum seekers. Five of the nine cluster countries had implemented one
or more regularizations of one or both of these groups.
The extensive changes in the Danish migration regime in 2002 gave
immediate effects in the number of migrants coming to Denmark. This is an
interesting case that should be discussed by academics working with the
interaction between regulations and flows. The case seems to indicate that
notwithstanding the debate over the effect of policy over time, a radical shift of
policy may have a profound effect on arrivals. The case of the effects of the
14
15
changes in Denmark has not been widely studied in the international
literature. Like the profound reforms in the Netherlands (Aliens Act 2000)
following the high number of arrivals in 2000, by not taking into account these
extreme instances one may risk underestimating the effect and potential of
policy changes.
The radical change in Denmark may also prove to be a case that can be used
to study the effect on countries belonging to the same destination cluster. The
argument between Danish and Swedish politicians over burden sharing and
burden shifting points to the energy and importance of understanding crossnational arrival dynamics. And, the issue of burden sharing lies at the heart of
the European harmonization process.
The numbers presented in this paper studying the peak in European arrivals
in 2001 and 2002 show that most of the cluster countries responded with
restrictive measures. Sweden did not, but still saw falling numbers in the
years that followed. The effect of these measures on the reduction in arrivals
to Europe and the cluster region is not established in this paper, but will have
to wait.
In the macro-level studies of flows and regulations over the past twenty years,
the minor policy changes have not been included. These changes in policies
and practice will often target single groups of asylum seekers or migrants.
One risks to misinterpret changes in flows when these are not included as
part of the explanatory variable. Examples would be the Swedish initiative
supported by the appeals courts to start returning Iraqi applicants in 2007.
This is believed to have had profound effects on the destinations for this
nationality in Europe. Another example would be the return practice in Britain
pertaining to Somali asylum seekers. By not including this level of policy
change, researchers again may risk underestimating the impact of policy.
The paper also discusses briefly the changes in arrivals to the cluster
countries from Somalia. The question is raised whether restrictive policies
from one of their favorite destinations, the UK, could be the cause of
increased pressure on two of the other top five Somali recipient states,
Sweden and the Netherlands. Further studies are needed in order to find out
whether such a mechanism exists. The metaphor of the waterbed is
sometimes used in seminars on asylum flows and regulations, indicating that
if one state pushes down on one end of the bed, the water rises elsewhere.
This notion of a zero-sum game may be a brute simplification. In order to find
out how the mechanisms of cross-national arrival patterns really work, the
notion of clusters may be helpful.
15
16
References:
Brekke, J-P (2004). The struggle for control. Report Institute for Social
Research, Oslo.
Brekke, J-P & Aarset M.F. (2009). Why Norway? Understanding Asylum
Destinations. Rapport Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Nr. 12.
Collyer, M. (2004). The Dublin Regulation, Influences on Asylum Destinations
and the Exception of Algerians in the UK. Journal of Refugee Studies. 17(4):
375-400.
Collyer, M. (2007). In-between Places: Trans-Saharan Transit Migration in
Morocco and the Fragmented Journey to Europe, Antipode, 39 (4): 571-780.
Crawley, H. (2010). Chance or Choice? Understanding why asylum seekers
come to the UK, London: Refugee Council.
Czaika, M. and Haas, H. (2011). The Effectiveness of Immigration Policies. A
Conceptual Review. Working Paper 33. April. IMI. University of Oxford.
De Haas, H. (2011). The determinants of international migration.
Conceptualizing policy, origin and destination effects. DEMIG project paper
no. 2. Oxford.
Hatton, T.J. The Rise and Fall of Asylum. What happened and Why? The
Economic Journal 119: F183-F213
Biljeveld C. & Taselaar A.P. (2000). Expert meeting on pull factors in asylum
seekers’ choice of the Netherlands as country of destination. The Hague.
WODC 2000.
Gilbert, A. & and Koser K. (2006). Coming to the UK: What do AsylumSeekers Know About the UK before Arrival? Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 32, (7): 1209-1225.
Hatton, T. (2009), The Rise and Fall of Asylum: What Happened and Why?
The Economic Journal 119: F183-F213.
Hatton, T. (2005). Explaining trends in UK immigration, Journal of Population
Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 719-740, November.
Havinga, T. & Böcker A. (1997). Asylum migration to the European Union:
Patterns of origin and destination. European Commission. Nijemegen.
Havinga, T. & Böcker A. (1999). Country of Asylum by Choice or by Chance:
Asylum–seekers in Belguim, the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies. 25 (1): 43-61.
16
17
Jennissen, R. (2009). Migratie naar en vanuit Nederland. Maastricht
University, WODC. Nr. 3.
Koser, K. & Pinkerton C. (2002). The social networks of asylum seekers and
the dissemination of information about countries of asylum. Migration
Research Unit, University College, London.
Mayda, A. And Patel K. (2004). OECD Countries Migration Policy Changes.
Paper Georgetown.
Mayda, A. (2010). International Migration. A Panel Data Anlysis of the
Derminants of Bilateral Flows. Journal of Population Economics. 23: 1249-74.
Middelton, D. (2005). Why Asylum Seekers Seek Refuge in Particular
Destination Countries: An Exploration of Key Determinants. Global Migration
Perspectives. No. 34. Global Commission on International Migration.
Neumayer, E. (2005) Bogus refugees? The determinants of asylum migration
to Western Europe. International studies quarterly, 49 (3). pp. 389-410.
Ortega, F. and Giovanni P. (2009). The causes and effects of international
migrations: Evidence from OECD countries 1980-2005. National Bureau of
Economic Research. Working Paper 14833.
Richmond, A.H. (1993). Reactive Migration. Sociological perspectives on
refugee movements. Journal of Refugee Studies. 6 (1): 7-24
Robinson, V. & Segrott J. (2002). Understanding the decision-making of
asylum seekers. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate. July.
Thielemann, E. (2002). Soft Touch? Public Policy and the Control of
Unwanted Migration. Paper prepared for the Nordic Refugee Seminar 2002.
Thielemann, E. (2004). Does Policy Matter? CCIS Working Paper NO. 112.
University of California, San Diego.
Zetter, R., Griffiths D., Ferretti S. & Pearl M. (2003). An assessment of the
impact of asylum policies in Europe 1990-2000. Home Office Research Study
259. UK.
Zimmermann, K. F. (1996). European Migration: Push and Pull. International
Regional Science Review. 19 (1-2): 95-128.
Zolberg, A., Suhrke A. & Agyayo S. (1989). Escape from Violence. Conflict
and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World. New York Oxford. Oxford
University
Press.
17