A Combined Perspective

To sum up, theories of migration in general and forced migration in particular predict two contradicting state policies when it comes to asylum. The first strand of literature argues that destination countries will be more likely to adopt a closed refugee policy due to direct and indirect security concerns (Rogge 1981, Loescher & Monahan 1989, Lischer 2005, Crisp 2003), the rise of anti-immigrant populist parties (Freeman 2005, Hansen 2014) and the harsh economic conditions that cripple specifically the lower classes in destination countries (Widgen 1989, Milner 2009). These scholars believe that a combination of international and domestic factors will lead to the securitization of asylum policy in the destination country as the local community does not feel safe either physically or economically. Responding to the concerns of their constituencies, governments in destination countries will, then, opt out for policies that leave asylum seekers out. That is how “Fortress of Europe” has been built, for instance (Boswell 2007).

The second strand of literature posit that the globalization of human rights norms and transnational organizations (Sassen 1996, Soysal 1998), the moral authority of international organizations such as UNHCR (Loescher et. al. 2008), the domestic interest groups that will benefit from the fresh inflow of unskilled labor (Milner 1992, Freeman 1995, Kessler 1997, Castles 2002) and moral arguments based on liberal ideals prevent states from adopting exclusive asylum policies (Steiner 1999, Hollifield 2008). In other words, these scholars contend that liberal democracies are unable to pursue a closed asylum policy due to liberal institutions and ideals in a globalized world in which state sovereignty has increasingly been diminishing. In the case where altruism and ideals fail, it is then state interests that push for more inclusive asylum policies. Some of the destination countries use open asylum policy as a foreign policy tool to gain leverage and undermine the legitimacy of governments in sending countries by accepting a large number of refugees from hostile states (Loescher & Scanlan 1986, Rosenblum & Salehyan 2004).

One way or the other, the existing literature predicts convergence in state responses to asylum based on material capabilities or social perceptions, albeit in opposite directions. States either lose control of their borders and let everybody in, or strengthen their sovereignty and build fort-like borders that are impossible to pass even for the most vulnerable groups.

Following the steps of Jacobsen, Neumayer and Betts, I argue that we see divergence, not compliance and convergence, in destination country asylum policies. Most scholars treat state interests as fixed and exogenous. I believe destination country related factors play a key role in the asylum policy choice along with the merit of the asylum claim itself. Why does the literature expect convergence? Especially political economy accounts assume that economic elites in all liberal democracies have similar economic interests. As a result, they are expected to favor similar asylum policies. As economic elites are supposedly depend on cheap labor to bring down the costs of production and become more competitive in the world market, they are assumed to push for an open asylum policy. This line of reasoning implies that each and every liberal democracy has similar comparative advantages in the world market, based on similar domestic economic settings with similar institutions, actors, and demands.

However, this is not the case. Interest group politics is important, but the institutional context those interest groups operate is also important. It is the institutional context that determines the relationship between interest groups, their preferences, and demands from the state as well as how much influence they have on state’s decision-making process (Hall & Soskice, 2001). Therefore, we need to look closer to the economic institutional structure of a destination country to be able to understand what kind of preference set the economic actors have and what kind of pressures they put on state regarding the asylum policy. The institutional structure and economic preferences of different actors will determine the “labor absorption capacity” of the destination country – or there

lack of- and factor in during the formulation of the asylum policy. Accounting for the labor absorption capacity will allow us to explore the variation across diverse economic institutional settings and determine which kind of institutions are more supportive of an inclusive or exclusive asylum policy in destination countries.

Even though the existing literature provides useful insights on why destination countries might open or close up their borders to asylum seekers, we still know very little about the quality of the asylum policy once the asylum seekers gain refugee status. How much protection do destination countries actually provide when they open up their borders? Do asylum seekers enjoy full refugee status with access to health, education and labor markets or do destination states offer protection for a limited time frame with limited rights and benefits?

The literature also overlooks the dyadic relationship between the host population and the asylum- seeking group, and therefore fails to explain within case variations. Because the scholars focus on the overall public opinion towards “refugees” or “immigrants” in general, they overlook the specific feeling or perception the host country might have towards a certain asylum-seeking group. Even though the host community is, for example, against an open asylum policy, they might support providing protection for a specific asylum seeking group depending on how close they feel towards that group in particular. If the host community perceives the people in the asylee group as “friends,” “brothers” or “historical allies,” they might adopt a more welcoming attitude towards them than they have towards the vague concept of “refugees” on an aggregate level. Similarly, a community may be in favor of an open asylum policy in general, but might strongly oppose integration of a particular asylum-seeking group if they perceive the people in that group as “enemies,” “terrorists” or “proxies of a hostile country or ideology.” For example, Slovakia has announced at the height of the Syrian refugee crisis that the country will only accept Christian Syrians as refugees and closed its doors to

Syrians from other religious affiliations. Similarly, when faced with two different asylum crises in the early 1990s, Turks fleeing Bulgarian assimilation policy and Kurds fleeing Saddam’s massacres during the first Gulf War, Turkey embraced the former group with open arms while doing everything on its part to resist and constrain the latter. In both examples, the material capabilities of the destination countries remained the same while their asylum policies differed dramatically. It means not only the labor absorption capacity but also these societal preferences and prejudices matter. The social distance between the host community and the asylee group will determine the willingness of the destination country to welcome or leave out the asylum seekers and factor in the process of state’s asylum policy formulation. Incorporating the dyadic relationship between a particular asylee group and the host community, we will be able to explain why there is a variation within destination country asylum policies towards different asylum seeking groups under similar circumstances.

Lastly, there are limited numbers of studies that try to explain destination country asylum policies systematically. With the exceptions of Jacobsen (1996), Neumayer (2005) and Betts (2013), the literature that specifically studies states’ asylum policies is very limited and mostly descriptive. This study aims to contribute to this strand of literature not only theoretically but also empirically as well by analyzing the asylum policies of 30 advanced economies in a quantitative analysis, and then tracing the causal mechanism in two kinds of institutional settings with in-depth case studies.

To explain within and across state variation as well as the quality of the protection offered to asylum seekers, I adopt an interdisciplinary approach and expand on Jacobsen’s local capacity concept. I derive propositions about how the labor absorption capacity and identity politics shape the overall interests of states in a given issue area, and how states, in turn, shape their asylum policies around those interests when they need to decide whether to provide protection for a particular asylee group

or not. While doing that, I bring together comparative political economy, sociology and refugee studies and show that interdisciplinary research is not merely a choice but a necessity for explaining a complicated foreign policy issue such as asylum.

By bringing in the Varieties of Capitalism approach that focuses on the whole economic institutional structure in the host country, I go beyond Jacobsen’s local absorption capacity concept, which only takes unemployment rate into account as the indicator for economic capacity in a destination country. I argue that unemployment rate is merely a symptom, not the underlying factor that is at play. Rather, it is the type of economic institutional structure in a host country that needs to be taken into account. Varieties of Capitalism approach emphasizes the institutional foundations of different comparative advantages in advanced economies and explains how these differences shape the interests of economic actors and dictate complementary policies and practices in a number of issue areas. Scholars have mostly used Varieties of Capitalism to explain the variance of economic institutions such as labor market policy, central bank formation and monetary policy, corporate governance and technological innovation. How these economic institutions affect decision-making in foreign policy arena has attracted little scholarly interest. I believe the Varieties of Capitalism approach is a useful tool to explain the domestic foundations of foreign policy choices of many states. Economic institutional differences create differences in the preferences of economic actors, and these preferences in return put different pressures on states’ foreign policies in complex issue areas. Especially so when those issue areas have a direct effect on the labor market in the host economy.

Similarly, by bringing in Simmel’s (1950) social distance theory, I expand on Jacobsen’s social willingness concept, which only talks about historical experiences of the host society as refugees and with refugees. Social distance helps us understand how other factors help shape the perception

of the asylee group in the host country. Religion and historical experiences of the host society are still a big part of the identity formation in the host country, but they do not help us understand why the same experiences play out differently towards different asylee groups. To be able to explain the variation within states regarding their asylum policies, we need to take the perception and feeling towards specific asylee groups into account, not the overall attitudes or beliefs towards a vague and sometimes romanticized idea of “refugee.” Simmel’s social distance concept is a good measure for capturing the sentiment that may differ for each group the society interacts.

3 THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ROOTS OF STATE RESPONSES TO ASYLUM