Reassessing the gap-hypothesis: Tough talk and weak action in migration policy?

Abstract

Much of the literature on migration policy has proclaimed a gap between what parties say and what parties do. The “gap-hypothesis” expects political parties to deliver “tough talk” and “weak action” on the issue of migration. This article tests this idea empirically by asking whether political parties keep their electoral promises on migration policy. The analysis of governments across 18 West European countries between 1980 and 2014 makes use of a new cabinet-based data set of migration policy outputs and two different data sets measuring parties’ preferences on migration. The results show that governing parties enact systematically more liberal policies on immigration and integration than their electoral manifestos would suggest. The purported democratic deficit in migration policy is substantially the result of a limited fulfillment of the electoral mandate by governing parties. Nevertheless, governing parties act upon their electoral mandate dependent on the governing constraints and the electoral incentives. Overall, governments tend to deliver on their integration policy positions but not on their immigration policy positions. The manifesto–policy link is stronger in the domestic policy dimension where governments face fewer external constraints.

Misperceptions about Immigration: Reviewing Their Nature, Motivations and Determinants

“…This bears potential for scholarship that explores how they shape the behaviour of both citizens and political elites: when do those in power attempt to correct misperceptions, and when do they harness them to pander to the electorate instead? Research has shown that many politicians employ anti-immigration rhetoric to address the concerns of their constituents but refrain from restrictive policies (see, e.g., Lutz 2021; Slaven and Boswell 2019). Future research should pay more attention to the political context and examine the ramifications of misperceptions for political communication, policy making and liberal democracy more generally.…”

“…Political elites, in their capacity as influential actors who shape discourses and perceptions, are a second contextual factor that has drawn considerable scholarly attention. In view of widespread concerns about immigration, they may have electoral incentives to stoke fears, posture as adopting tough stances on the issue (Lutz 2021) and exaggerate its negative effects (Golder 2003). In doing so, they seek to capitalize on the status of immigrants as outsiders onto whom the public can project their fears and anxieties (Cochrane and Nevitte 2014; Dinas and van Spanje 2011).…”

Do Parties Matter for Environmental Policy Stringency? Exploring the Program-to-Policy Link for Environmental Issues in 28 Countries 1990–2015

“…Party manifestos represent the collected policy positions of a party and outline a policy agenda to voters (Lutz, 2021: 2). To compete with other parties and provide meaningful choices to voters, parties distinguish themselves by adopting distinct policy positions or by emphasizing and deemphasizing various political issues.…”

Technocracy Revisited: the Polish Security Dispositif and Ukrainian Migration to Poland

“…The Schengen system of border and migration management has always been subject to technocratic governance (Huysmans 2006), in which the field of security professionals gradually internalised the populist conflation of migration and security threat (Lazaridis and Skleparis 2016). As the anti-migration agenda became firmly established in the EU's mainstream politics (Toscano 2015;Lutz 2019;Lazaridis and Konsta 2015;Lazaridis and Tsagkroni 2015;Hayes and Dudek 2020), this created even more pressure for security and migration agencies to cope 'more effectively' with the increased number of non-EU individuals crossing Schengen borders.…”