Migrants and Integration literature
Week 1
Czaika, M., & De Haas, H. (2013). The effectiveness of immigration
policies.
International migration is primarily driven by structural factors beyond the control
of immigration policies. While some researchers argue that immigration policies
have limited effectiveness due to these structural forces, others contend that
policies do influence migration flows.
Disagreement arises from differing definitions of policy effectiveness and
benchmarks for evaluation.
The text proposes a conceptual framework to empirically assess migration policy
effectiveness by defining policy effects and clarifying the role of states in migration
processes.
What is migration policy?
Broadly defined, migration policies are established in order to affect behavior of a
target population (i.e., potential migrants) in an intended direction.
Policies beyond those directly related to migration, such as labor market
regulations or education policies, can significantly influence migration patterns.
This blurs the distinction between migration and non-migration policies. Defining
immigration policy depends on implicit objectives stated in policy documents,
shaping rules set by states to impact various aspects of immigration flows.
Volume refers to the objectives to increase or reduce migration flows or to
maintain them at current levels.
Other policies target the internal composition of flows by encouraging or
discouraging the immigration and settlement of categories of migration, such as
asylum seekers, family migrants, high- and low-skilled labor etc. These policies aim
to affect the skills, income, and class composition of migrant inflows, based on
perceived economic needs and social desirability.
The objectives of both of these policies can overlap, especially if migrants from
certain countries tend to belong to particular class, ethnic, religious or income
groups. Sometimes the objectives are made explicit, reflecting the agenda of anti-
immigration political parties and interest groups.
Immigration policy effectiveness: objectives, outcomes, and gaps
To clarify policy effectiveness, it's crucial to distinguish between effectiveness and
effect. Effectiveness relates to achieving desired outcomes, while effect pertains to
actual outcomes. "Effectiveness" connects to policy goals, adding an evaluative
and subjective aspect to analyzing policy impacts.
This situation reveals two problems;
1. First, how can we empirically attribute a change in the volume, timing, or
composition of migration to a particular policy change? The correlation
between policy and migration trends, does not prove there is a causal link,
nor does it prove that policies are ineffective. This is even made more
complex due to limited availability of good migration data and the difficulty
, of quantifying migration policies.
2. Second, a more fundamental problem is how to determine what the intended
effect is. There is often a considerable discrepancy between publicly stated
and ‘’real’’ objectives of migration policy. This brings us to the related
question of whether it is possible to objectively determine the real intention
of migration policy, there are often multiple competing interests.
In democratic states, migration policy formulation involves balancing public
concerns about immigration with economic interests and human rights
considerations. Elected officials navigate between popular sentiments favoring
strict immigration laws and economic interests advocating for liberal policies. This
often results in compromises that may overlook illegal immigration or avoid
stringent regulations. Migration policies emerge from coalitions of stakeholders
with varying interests, aiming to secure electoral and parliamentary support.
However, these coalitions may prioritize self-interest over genuine shared values,
making it difficult to identify a singular "real" objective behind policies. Moreover,
policies may have specific or general objectives, targeting particular migrant
categories or overall immigration population volume and composition.
Conceptualizing policy gaps: discourse, implementation, and efficacy
Debates surrounding
immigration policy
effectiveness often
arise due to ambiguous
definitions and a
conflation of policy
effects with
effectiveness.
Additionally,
disagreements can
stem from
misconceptions about
the nature of policy
change, as empirical
evidence may
challenge assumptions
of increasing
restrictiveness. This
challenges the notion
that rising immigration despite stricter policies is
evidence of policy failure.
Furthermore, there is often a disconnect between
political rhetoric on immigration and the nuanced and
varied nature of actual migration policies.
There is thus a considerable difference between policies on paper and their interpretation
and implementation in practice. The extent to which policies are implemented varies widely
and depends on factors such as financial and human resources.
Figure 1 distinguishes between four levels at which migration policies can be
,conceptualized: public policy discourses, actual migration policies on paper, policy
implementation and policy (migration) outcomes. This distinction allows for the
identification of three ‘’immigration policy gaps’’:
1. The discursive gap:
The discrepancy between policy discourses and actual migration
policies in the form of laws.
2. The implementation gap:
The disparity between policies on paper and their
implementation.
3. The efficacy gap:
The extent to which implemented policies can affect
migration.
The discursive gap is the often-considerable discrepancy between discourses and actual
migration policies in the form of laws, regulations, and measures on paper. This gap is
common in public policy and is influenced by three main factors: (1) the influence of various
parties and interest groups on migration policies, often resulting in compromises during
policy-making, (2) political, economic, and legal constraints that restrict policy options,
especially in liberal democracies, and (3) the broad nature of migration discourses
compared to the specific targeting of categories in actual policy implementation.
The implementation gap is the discrepancy between policies on paper and their actual
implementation. This gap often occurs due to practical, budgetary, or corruption issues. It's
more significant when policy implementation involves a lot of discretion. Studies show that
this gap can be substantial, especially when policies are unrealistic. This gap is a primary
cause of potential policy failure. It's hard to measure the extent of policy implementation
accurately. Democracies tend to have a smaller implementation gap compared to
dictatorships due to adherence to certain rules.
The efficacy gap measures how well implemented laws, regulations, and measures
achieve their intended effects on migration flows. It's the second source of policy failure.
Migration is influenced by structural factors and internal dynamics, which can cause it to
continue despite restrictions. Efficacy gaps can result in limited or no effect, or unintended
side effects that offset the main goal.
The attempts of targeted policies to influence migration categories can often have
unintended effects on other migration flows. There are four ”substitution effects’’
that can limit the effectiveness of immigration restrictions:
1. Spatial substitution: the diversion of migration to other countries
2. Categorical substitution: a reorientation towards other legal
or illegal channels of immigration
3. Inter-temporal substitution: affecting the timing of migration
4. Reverse flow substitution: if immigration restrictions reduce not
only inflows but also return migrations
In this framework, policy effectiveness is about how well policies' objectives match
actual migration flows. Gaps in implementation and efficacy can undermine this. A
policy's limited effect doesn't necessarily mean policy failure, but rather
inefficiency, where outcomes may not justify the resources invested.
Measuring policy effectiveness: methodologies and evidence
The points discussed have implications for measuring migration policies and their impact on
migration patterns. Due to their varied and qualitative nature, expressing migration policies
, numerically is challenging. Current quantitative research employs two techniques to assess
policy effectiveness:
The first approach is to use a binary migration policy (dummy) variable to indicate
the years in which either a particular policy or any policy change has occurred.
While some studies suggest that immigration restrictions can significantly reduce
immigration, others find that policy dummies affect the skill composition of
immigration but not total immigration. Additionally, there's a question of whether
policy effects or broader macroeconomic factors indirectly influence migration
patterns in the EU.
The second approach consists of constructing composite migration policy indexes
to measure the intensity of policy restrictiveness and analyze how policy changes
affect migration flows or stocks. However, these indexes may overlook certain
policy aspects and lose granularity by lumping categories together, and some lack
clear upper and lower bounds for interpretability. Evaluating policy effects on
migration is complex due to interactions with other migration factors, leading to
substitution effects, and few studies explore long-term impacts on immigration flow
composition.
In summary, the evidence suggests that migration policies have relatively small effects on
immigration compared to other social, economic, and political factors. Non-migration
policies, such as labor market, social welfare, education, aid, and trade policies, often have
a more significant impact. Therefore, when analyzing immigration policy effectiveness, it's
crucial to consider these broader policies.
Conclusion
They argued that debates about the effectiveness of immigration policies are flawed
due to unclear definitions. They define immigration policies as laws, regulations,
and measures aimed at changing the volume, origin, and composition of
immigration flows, excluding non-migration policies' indirect effects.
In evaluating immigration policies, there's often confusion about which aspect to
focus on: the policy discussions, the written policies, or the actual implementation.
To clarify this, a framework was developed that identifies three gaps: the discursive
gap, the implementation gap, and the efficacy gap.
Public discussions are often used to judge the success of migration policies, but this
can overstate failures. There's often a mismatch between public talk and actual
policy actions. This gap shouldn't be seen as policy failure.
Differing opinions on immigration policy effectiveness can be clarified by
distinguishing between policy effects and effectiveness. Policy effects refer to how
policies influence migration in terms of level, direction, timing, or composition.
Effectiveness relates to achieving desired outcomes or policy objectives, adding
subjective elements to evaluations. Challenges arise as objectives are often diverse
due to various stakeholders favoring conflicting measures. Identifying a single
policy objective is methodologically impossible as states and policies vary. Often,
multiple objectives and competing political agendas of interest groups influence
policy decisions, potentially undermining effectiveness.
Empirical evidence indicates that policies play a role in migration outcomes, but
their impact seems less significant compared to other factors. However, it's
important not to see this as policy failure; migration is influenced by various
factors. Policy restrictions can lead to unintended effects, like migrants choosing
different legal or spatial routes. Due to data limitations, current studies may not
