Andrew Geddes

Migration and mobility in the European Union

Studying Migration and Mobility in the European Union Migration and Migration Policy in Europe The EU Dimension of Migration and Asylum Policy Labour Migration Family Migration Irregular Immigration Asylum Mobility, Citizenship and EU Enlargement Immigrant Integration Conclusions

Elites and the 'organised public': Who drives British immigration politics and in which direction?

This article examines the role of the ‘organised public’, collective action by interest groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in British immigration politics. The impact of the ‘organised public’ on policy outcomes has been a subject for theoretical speculation, especially by Gary Freeman. Here the authors test some of Freemans assumptions regarding what political mechanisms could account for what he sees as a persistent ‘gap’ between expansionist policies and restrictive public opinion through recourse to original empirical evidence. Their findings largely go against Freemans predictions. Immigration is an elite-led highly institutionalised field with a relatively weak level of civil society engagement. Elites dominate the field and hold a decisively restrictionist stance. This points toward an explanation where the direction of immigration policies is not an outcome of an organised pro-migrant lobby winning over a resource-weak diffuse anti-migrant lobby, as Freeman suggests, but determined in a relatively autonomous way by political elites.

Britain, France, and EU Anti-Discrimination Policy: The Emergence of an EU Policy Paradigm

guided by contrasting ‘policy paradigms’ at national level that led to the adoption of specific sets of policy instruments (Hall 1993). ‘Paradigms’ are by definition stable and self-reproducing and do not ‘shift’ readily. The concept thus is not the most apt for understanding policy change, but rather can be used to account for enduring, diverse national paths. Across the EU, different set of laws, policy structures, and organisations were set up in response to migration. These structures have persisted even in the face of new empirical developments (Geddes 2003). Yet, at EU-level, a response has developed since 1997 that challenges these well-established national responses. This article examines the circumstances under which an EU policy paradigm can emerge amidst contrasting national models leading to the requirement for extensive change of deeply rooted national institutions. Our empirical puzzle is the ‘world record’ adoption of the June 2000 EU antidiscrimination Directives based on Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty. This established a far-reaching system covering both direct and indirect discrimination and allowing scope for ‘positive action’ in areas where there was no prior Treaty competence. How can we account for this remarkable change where national responses are strongly divergent and where the existing body of literature suggests that ‘national models’ will prevail? To answer these questions, we have conducted comparative research on integration and anti-discrimination policy in France and the UK, which developed very distinct ‘philosophies of integration’ (Favell 1998). It could appear counterintuitive that the UK model was ‘exported’ to Europe when the UK has garnered a reputation as an ‘awkward partner’, had steadfastly opposed EU competence in this area, and when adoption of the British approach could impose significant adaptational pressures on member states with different or non-existent responses. Consequently, we have studied Britain, France, and EU Anti-Discrimination Policy: The Emergence of an EU Policy Paradigm

Europe's Border Relationships and International Migration Relations

This article explores the impact of changed border relationships within and between EU Member States on the increasingly important external dimension of migration and asylum policy. The article distinguishes between types of borders and identifies key patterns in the post-cold war migration politics of Europe. It then links these to new forms of international migration relations between EU states and their neighbours.

The Role of Narratives in Migration Policy-Making: A Research Framework

While debates on migration policy often revolve around rival values and interests, they also invoke knowledge claims about the causes, dynamics and impacts of migration. Such claims are best conceptualised as ‘policy narratives’, setting out beliefs about policy problems and appropriate interventions. Narratives are likely to be more successful where they meet three criteria: they are cognitively plausible, dramatically or morally compelling and, importantly, they chime with perceived interests. Increasingly, such narratives are also expected to draw on expert knowledge, although knowledge is often deployed to legitimise particular actors or preferences rather than to enhance the cognitive plausibility of the narrative. The series of articles in this issue explore how narratives are developed, codified, revised and diffused in policy debates and policy-making. We hope that they contribute not just to understanding migration policy, but also to wider debates on the role of ideas and knowledge in public policy.

Il rombo dei cannoni? Immigration and the centre-right in Italy1

This contribution analyses immigration policy during the five years of centre-right government in Italy 2001–06 led by Silvio Berlusconi and his Forza Italia party. It analyses the immigration discourse of the four main centre-right parties and the negotiations surrounding the landmark Bossi–Fini immigration law. It shows that, despite harsh and illiberal rhetoric, there were unprecedented increases in Italys legally resident foreign population between 2001 and 2006. This contribution demonstrates how, why and when party system and governmental variables intervened in the relationship between policy ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ to generate outcomes that did not correspond with some of the harsher contributions to public debate, particularly those by the regional-populist Lega Nord party. Beyond the specificities of the Italian case, this contribution shows that apparent contradictions, paradoxes and ambiguities can actually be functional elements of immigration politics (and of thorny social and political issues, more generally) and that supposed policy failings need to be related to the political processes that generate them and to the pay-offs to political actors that occur within these processes, that may not be negative.

Negative and positive racialisation: Re-examining ethnic minority political representation in the UK

In the 1997 British General Election the race issue appeared to count for little or nothing in constituency battles beyond those 44 seats in which an ethnic minority candidate was fielded. Almost all these constituencies contained sizeable ethnic minority electorates. The exception, whilst interesting and a powerful alternative to the framework discussed in this article, is just that: an exception to an underlying and far-reaching pattern in the political integration of ethnic minorities in Britain. Minority representatives plainly have the potential to enter the mainstream but so far they have generally not done so. Curiously, this is in large part the consequence of distinct racialisation processes that have opened up new opportunities whilst curbing others. In terms of the intersection between representative politics and racial politics at the end of the decade, the impression is underlined that race counts, but for ethnic minorities alone.

Chronicle of a Crisis Foretold: The Politics of Irregular Migration, Human Trafficking and People Smuggling in the UK

This article argues that a distinct repertoire of social and political contention associated with migration and the presence of immigrants in the UK plays a large part in structuring responses to ostensibly ‘new’ migration challenges such as people smuggling and human trafficking. This repertoire includes the elision and confusion of migration categories (particularly in this instance between irregular migration and asylum); the impact of state policies on the creation of ‘unwanted’ migration flows; fears of floods and invasions by ‘unwanted’ migrants; concerns that the state is losing control of migration; the depiction of migration and migrants as causes of increased support for the extreme right; the existence of labour market pull factors that provide economic spaces for both regular and irregular migrants; the symbolic power but limited effect of an international human rights regime and discourse; and problems of policy implementation. The contemporary twist is provided by the links made between irregular migration and the ‘war on terror’ and the ways in which migration has become a component of bilateral relations between the UK and other states, particularly those structured by EU competencies.

Britain and the European Union

Introduction Britain on the Edge of Europe Looking in from the Outside Full Hearted Consent? Britain in Europe from Heath to Major From New Labour to the Cameron Coalition Britain, EU Institutions and Decision-Making Processes Britain and Core European Union Policies Britain and the EUs Move Into High Politics The British State and European Integration British Party Politics and the Rise of Euroscepticism Conclusions: Britain and the European Union Assessed

Policy Analysis and Europeanization: An Analysis of EU Migrant Integration Policymaking

Abstract This article analyses EU-level research–policy infrastructures and their role in the Europeanization of migrant integration policies at a time of perceived crisis and policy failure. Rather than focusing on either knowledge utilization or knowledge production, it focuses on what we call “knowledge infrastructures” or different ways of mobilizing research with specific purposes of knowledge utilization. Rather than finding one dominant configuration of research–policy relations, various infrastructures that co-exist and sometimes even overlap were found. Besides EU-sponsored infrastructures aimed primarily at horizontal exchange of knowledge and information between countries and between cities, there were also infrastructures that were more directly related to EU policy goals as well as an infrastructure that mobilized research as an informal tool to monitor policy compliance. This shows that the use of research in Europeanization does not always mean “going technical”, but that precisely when the EU lacks formal competencies such as in the area of migrant integration policies, mobilizing specific types of research can form part of a political strategy designed to reinforce policy objectives.