Why Do States Extend Rights to Immigrants? Institutional Settings and Historical Legacies Across 44 Countries Worldwide

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractIn this article, we first test theories on immigrant rights across 29 countries from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, using our Indicators of Citizenship Rights for Immigrants (ICRI) data set. We focus on trajectories of nationhood and current institutional features to explain crossnational difference. We find that former colonial powers, former colonies that developed as settler countries, as well as democracies have been more likely to extend rights to immigrants. Strikingly, once we account for involvement in colonialism, we find no difference between supposedly "civic-nationalist" early nation-states and supposedly "ethnic-nationalist" latecomer nations, refuting a widely held belief in the literature on citizenship. We find no effect of a country's degree of political globalization. We replicate these findings on a sample of 35 mainly European countries, using the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX).

Indexing Immigration and Integration Policy: Lessons from Europe

“…Conceptualization had been a belated consideration in the index field. As Goodman (, p. 1909) observes, “the entrepreneurial spirit of developing and applying unique indicators has generally outpaced a concurrent conversation on methodology.” At the same time researchers were developing aforementioned citizenship indices, others were working on integration indices, including Indicators for Citizenship Rights for Immigrants (ICRI) (Koopmans & Michalowski, ; Koopmans et al, ), the Migrant Integration Policy Index (Migration Policy Group, ), and the Multicultural Policy Index (MCP). Different from citizenship, integration indices cast wide nets for policies considered part of the integration process.…”

“…Austria 1996-2010 1980, 1990, 2002, 2008 2010-2014 2010 a A recent coding update (Koopmans & Michalowski, 2017) are from the European Elections database; all other data are derived from the OECD. Descriptive statistics and data summary for all variables are in Appendix Table A1.…”

“…ICRI scores were derived from Koopmans et al (2012). ICRI scores were subsequently expanded to include more countries (Koopmans & Michalowski, 2017) but disaggregate data were unavailable.…”

A New Agenda for Immigration and Citizenship Policy Research

“…The data set includes 10 Western European countries and four time periods (1980,1990,2002,2008). Recently, this data set has been expanded to include 29 countries from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas (see Koopmans & Michalowski, 2016). 7 In the field of migration policies, the Determinants of International Migration (DEMIG) project has created a policy database that covers policy changes in 45 countries for the time period 1946 to 2013 (De Haas, Natter, & Vezzoli, 2015).…”

Regional Integration Support: A Positive Externality toward Migration Attitudes

“…Accordingly, scholars have explored the extent to which public opinion is an important component of European integration and why citizens vary in their views toward this (McLaren, ; Hooghe and Marks, ; De Vreese and Boomgaarden, ; Dinas and Pardos‐Prado, ; Hobolt and de Vries, ; Kentmen‐Cin and Erisen, ; de Vries, ). Particularly relevant for our study, recent works show how perceived potential cultural and identity threats posed by the influx of immigrants affect opposition to European integration, especially in light of the fact that enlargement implies freedom of movement within the single market and may be eventually linked to common immigration policies (De Vreese and Boomgaarden, ; Kentmen‐Cin and Erisen, ; Koopmans and Michalowski, ). While this research has produced important knowledge about the determinants of views on European integration, it has also displaced attention from the positive externalities that citizens' support of EU unification may actually generate.…”