August 14, 2003

Dr. David Griffiths, Senior Researcher in the The School of Planning at Oxford Brookes University, presented the results of a study that was commissioned by the United Kingdom's Home Office to assess the impact of various types of asylum policies in Europe. The briefing was part of the 'Migration Policy, Politics and Processes in the EU' series sponsored by the Delegation of the European Commission in Washington DC, and hosted by the Migration Policy Institute.

Joanne van Selm, Senior Policy Analyst at MPI, introduced Dr. Griffiths. The control of asylum admissions is an issue of top priority in the European Union, and in particular in the UK, with relatively radical new measures being seriously considered, giving Dr. Griffiths's work a particular salience.

Dr. Griffiths presented the results of the report "An Assessment of the Impact of Asylum Policies in Europe 1990-2000" which he wrote with Roger Zetter, Silva Ferretti, and Martyn Pearl. The study was commissioned by the United Kingdom's Home Office in 2001, with the goal of examining the impact of asylum policies on the number of asylum applications. Specifically, the study reviews legislative options, examines case studies that would help to analyze policies, and identifies research gaps. The study focuses on practices from 1990-2000. As Dr. Griffiths pointed out, the study's focus reflected the Home Office's assumption that most asylum applications are fraudulent and its policy goal of reducing asylum applications. Dr. Griffiths emphasized that the authors did not necessarily share these views, and actually feared that current restrictions on asylum had gone too far.

The report that resulted examined primarily five primary policy levers that have been thought to affect asylum applications: pre-entry controls, status determination procedures, reception policies, administrative responsibilities, and welfare and work entitlements

The study found that pre-entry policy interventions appeared to be most effective in controlling asylum flows. The impacts, however, were largely variable by country and the timing of the implementation of the policies. For example, carrier sanctions succeeded in reducing asylum arrivals in Denmark, but failed in Britain. Visa policy changes were also successful, but only in the short term, and they typically caused rises in asylum applications in neighboring countries. Dr. Griffiths explained that in summary, pre-entry policies were most successful, yet were also highly variable, complex in their nature of packaging, short-lived in their outcome, and worked differently for different states.

Status determination procedures vary greatly across countries and are extremely difficult to compare. The rates of applicants receiving convention status vary widely between countries and across the nationalities of applicants, but it is unclear how well-informed potential applicants are about determination rates. New approaches, such as accelerating asylum procedures and streamlining appeals are both thought to deter asylum applications, but this effect is not strong, nor is it seen in all cases. Likewise, the detention of asylum seekers has an uncertain effect on applications numbers, but can have a massive negative effect on the mental health of asylum seekers.

Reception policies were again variable by country and manner of implementation. No reception policies were in place in countries like Greece and Portugal, while countries such as Germany and Sweden had extensive policies. These variables, however, did not appear to have an impact on the numbers of asylum applications in each country. In the Netherlands, tight monitoring and surveillance of applicants after asylum applications were made appeared to reduce applications.

Welfare and work policies are widely perceived to be a pull factor from asylum entries, but there is little evidence to support this. Reductions in housing benefits in the UK from 1995 to 1997, for example, did not prevent asylum applications from increasing. Similarly, prohibiting applicants from working doesn't significantly affect application numbers.

The administration of all these policies makes a large difference on their effects. Policies set at the national level often varied in their implementation at the local level: in Germany, some local government administered assistance in the form of cash despite national legislation mandating in-kind aid. Also, many countries rely on non-governmental organizations to implement some of their policies, and these organizations may have goals that do not completely coincide with those of the government.

In summary, pre-entry controls are the most effective policy tool for reducing asylum applications, said Dr. Griffiths. However, they can have serious adverse effects, chief among them the fact that pre-entry controls may prevent legitimate refugees from receiving protection. Also, pre-entry controls may merely cause the re-direction of asylum seekers to other countries.

Dr. Griffiths then described two of the case studies examined in the report. Germany experienced a surge in asylum applications in 1992 and 1993, accounting for 75% of all asylum requests in Europe in 1993. The German government responded with restrictive legislation, implementing a set of policies that included a safe third country policy, re-admission agreements, airport detention zones, a crackdown on multiple applications, and changing benefits to in-kind aid, rather than cash. There was a clear decline in applications, but this decline began before most of the changes were enacted, brought about in part due to the end of the war in Yugoslavia, and there was noticeable displacement of asylum applications from Germany to neighboring countries.

The United Kingdom saw a large increase in applications beginning in 1988 and reaching 73,000 applications in 1991. The UK had no organized reception facilities at the time. The UK's policy response to this growth in asylum flows was relatively slow and sporadic, and occurred in three bursts of activity throughout the decade. Dr. Griffiths's team found little correlation between the policy changes, which included policies from the range of options described before, and subsequent asylum applications.

In summarizing his findings, Dr. Griffith observed that policy changes were only one of many factors, including crises in the country of origin and the existence of social networks, that affected asylum applications. Of the policy options, direct (i.e., pre-entry) controls had the most effect on asylum applications and packages of policy changes were more effective than isolated measures. There was also some indication that "first movers"-countries that implemented restrictive changes before others did-saw larger reductions as a result of policy changes. This theory meshes with the observation that restrictive policies induced displacement of asylum flows to other European countries. Dr. Griffiths also expressed his concerned about some of the possible unintended consequences of some of these policy changes, namely the growth of human trafficking in the 1990s.

Following Dr. Griffiths's presentation, Dr. Van Selm invited questions and comments from attendees.

Question: Why is the UK experiencing a continuing increase in asylum applications, but not other EU countries?

Response: There is a perception that the UK treats applicants and immigrants fairly and provides good opportunities. Also, a breakdown of the nationalities seeking asylum in the UK shows that many applications come from Somalis, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and other groups who already have significant populations in the UK or have colonial ties, indicating that social networks play a significant role.

Comment: Asylum entries can in fact be limited by policy, by measures as simple as rejecting applications. People do respond to policy changes-through social networks, people know very well what policies are in place where and what benefits can be obtained.

Response: Research in the UK shows that this is not always true, but that knowledge varies across groups, and by how people enter. People who enter with the help of professional traffickers, for example, seem to have a better knowledge of asylum policies.

Question: Why did you look at asylum application numbers, rather than acceptance rates? Wouldn't the proportion of claims that are legitimate be a better measure of the success of asylum policy?

Response: Acceptance rates should, indeed, be looked at. However, our approach reflected the requirements of the Home Office which commissioned the study. Their priorities can probably be expected to demonstrate a presumption that the majority of asylum claims are not legitimate, and perhaps the parameters set by them would seek to provide support for the UK's policies.

Question: Even if you reduce asylum applications, won't these people just attempt other forms of migration or seek asylum in other countries?

Response: That is true. Unfortunately, the political context in the UK had led many to interpret this report as support for more restrictive border controls, but in fact there are a large number of problems with such measures.