Sharing the burden in a free riders’ land: The EU migration and asylum policy in the views of public opinion and politicians

Abstract

New divisions have emerged within the European Union over the handling of the recent migration crisis. While both frontline and favoured destination countries are called upon to deal with the number of migrants looking for international protection and better living conditions, no consensus has been reached yet on the quota-based mechanisms for the relocation of refugees and financial help to exposed countries proposed by the EU. Such mechanisms pose a trade-off for member states: the EU's response to the crisis offers help to countries under pressure, but it inevitably requires burden-sharing among all EU members and a limitation of their national sovereignty. Within this scenario, the article compares how public opinion and political elites in ten different EU countries view a common EU migration policy grounded on solidarity and burden-sharing. By tracing both within-and cross-national patterns of convergence (and divergence), the article shows that contextual factors influence policy preferences, with support for solidarity measures being stronger in countries with higher shares of illegal migrants and asylum seekers. While individuals' predispositions, identity and ideological orientations account for both masses' and elites' attitudes towards burden-sharing measures, subjective evaluations and beliefs concerning the severity of the crisis provide additional and alternative explanations when looking at the public's preferences. In particular, it is found that concern about the flow of migrants to Europe consolidates the impact of contextual factors, whereas the overestimation of the immigrant population fosters hostility against solidarity measures, with both effects more pronounced as the country's exposure to the crisis increases. In the light of these results, the main implication of this study is that EU institutions have to primarily address entrenched beliefs and misperceptions about immigrants to enhance public support for a joint approach to migration.

Transnational solidarity among political elites: what determines support for financial redistribution within the EU in times of crisis?

“…With very few exceptions, however, there is a lack of a comprehensive attempt to identify motives for transnational solidarity within the political elite. Regarding redistribution policies during a period of a high migration numbers, similar relations between sociopolitical attitudes and preferences for transnational solidarity are present for politicians and voters alike (Basile and Olmastroni, 2020). While work is the only study so far examining political elites' transnational solidarity and its determinants in times of an economic crisis, e.g., country affiliation, EU attitudes, as well as positioning on globalization and the political left-right spectrum, it also suffers from some weaknesses.…”

“…Existing studies show that transnational solidarity seems to be higher for politicians compared to voters (Ferrera and Pellegata, 2019;Basile and Olmastroni, 2020). This points to a problematic gap in terms of political representationat least, concerning the level of support.…”

From the lab to the poll: The use of survey experiments in political research

“…A factorial experiment on preferences towards asylum seekers Following the so-called refugee crisis, the issue of immigration has become increasingly relevant in Europe, contributing to the development of a climate of insecurity and cultural threat among the European publics (Basile and Olmastroni, 2020). Given its proximity to the Libyan coasts, the crisis has been even harsher in Italy.…”

Opting for opt outs? - Untangling the role of identity in shaping support for differentiated integration

“…A large literature (Basile and Olmastroni, 2020;Gabel, 1998;Gabel and Palmer, 1995;Hobolt and Wratil, 2015;Hooghe and Marks, 2005;Inglehart and Rabier, 1978;Karstens, 2020;Lutz and Karstens, 2021) investigates support for uniform European integration and the utilitarian and identarian foundations of such support.…”