Search

We examine to what extent political affinities versus social traits serve as the basis for social intolerance. To do it, we conducted conjoint experiments in five multiparty systems (Argentina, Chile, Italy, Portugal and Spain) asking respondents to choose among hypothetical profiles of neighbors moving to live next door.

We examine whether European voters update their views about the EU when exposed to information about EU actions, in the form of cooperation with non-EU countries, to tackle irregular migration.

This study explores how policy design affects public support for international cooperation between the European Union and non-EU countries on migration management. In particular, it assesses which features of international cooperation are more likely to generate public support or opposition.

Published 21 May 2021 What preferences do people have for cooperation between high and lower-income countries on irregular migration and refugee protection? Despite the increase in the number and breadth of cross-country cooperation agreements in this policy area, we know little about people’s preferences for such policies. This paper addresses this question in the context of the EU-Turkey ‘migration deal’ agreed in 2016. We conduct cross-country conjoint experiments in Germany, Greece, and Turkey to shed light on the types of policies that generate public support for cross-country cooperation on irregular migration and refugee protection. Our respondents are favorable to several core features of the current EU-Turkey migration deal regarding the return of irregular migrants, financial aid to refugees in Turkey, and the intensity of Turkish border controls. We also find evidence of public support for cooperation on resettlement and EU support to Greece to deal with migration. In certain aspects of cooperation, public preferences seem to respond to interactions between policy dimensions. For example, German public support for relocating refugees from Greece is enhanced if there are stepped-up border controls in Turkey. These findings have important implications for research on public attitudes to asylum and migration policies, ‘migration diplomacy’ in international relations, and public backlash against international cooperation more generally. With the support of the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. The research for this paper is part of the Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM), an international research and policy initiative funded by Stiftung Mercator.

This PhD dissertation is interested in the mass-elite linkages in the context of the immigration issue. It examines, on the one hand, factors likely to influence party responsiveness to public opinion (bottom-up connection) and, on the other hand, the impact of party stances and policies on public preferences in this policy area (top-down connection). Two chapters are dedicated to analysing the bottom-up process. Here, I examine to what extent party characteristics and party system features influence the responsiveness of parties to public opinion on immigration. The third chapter analyses the degree to which individual attitudes toward immigration are influenced by party positions and by immigration policies and policy outcomes (top-down process). The results indicate that parties do not track changes over time in the preferences of their party supporters. There is weak evidence that mainstream parties and parties with low distinctiveness in their immigration-emphasis profile are more sensitive to temporal changes in the mean voter's preferences. In addition, mainstream parties tend to be more responsive to changes in public opinion and in the objective migration context when they face a strong radical right party. Finally, there is evidence of weak but predictable impacts of party positions and immigration policies on individual attitudes toward immigration. Esta tesis doctoral se centra en la conexión entre ciudadanos y elites en el tema de la inmigración. Esa cxamina, por un lado, factorcs que pueden influir en la reccptividad dc los partidos políticos hacia la opinión pública sobre el terna dc la inmigración (conexión bottom-up) y, por otro lado, el impacto dc los posicionamientos de Ios partidos políticos y de las políticas en materia de inmigración sobre las prefercncias de los ciudadanos en esta área (conexión top-down). Dos capítulos de la tesis se dedican al análisis del proceso bottom-up. Aquí, examino la medida en que las características de los partidos y de los sistemas de partidos influyen en la receptividad de los partidos políticos hacia la opinión pública sobre la inmigración. El tercer capítulo analiza la medida en que las actitudes individuales hacia la inmigración están influenciadas por los posicionamientos de los partidos políticos y por las políticas en temas de inmigración y sus resultados. Los resultados de los análisis empíricos sugieren que los partidos no son receptivos hacia los cambios a lo largo del tiempo en las preferencias de sus simpatizantes. Hay alguna evidencia, aunque débil, que los partidos 'mainstream' y los que tienen baja especificidad en términos de énfasis sobre temas de inmigración son más sensibles a los cambios temporales en las preferencias del votante mediano. Asimismo, los partidos 'mainstream' son más receptivos hacia los cambios en la opinión pública y en el contexto migratorio cuando compiten en contra de un partido fuerte de derecha radical. Finalmente, hay evidencia de impactos débiles pero predictibles de los posicionamientos de los partidos políticos y de las políticas en temas de inmigración sobre las actitudes de los ciudadanos hacia la inmigración.