4.4 Article

Immigration as a thermostat? Public opinion and immigration policy across Western Europe (1980-2017)

Journal

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 2665-2691

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2022.2107048

Keywords

Dyadic ratios algorithm; immigration; public opinion; representation; responsiveness; time-series cross-sectional

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study focuses on the dynamic relationship between public opinion and immigration policy, arguing that citizens have policy preferences and the demand responds when immigration policy changes. By using surveys and algorithms, comparable immigration opinion measures were designed for 13 countries. The study found evidence of both public and policy responsiveness for immigration, although not to the same extent.
An important focus of empirical accounts of representative democracy is the policy-opinion nexus. Drawing from the thermostatic model (Wlezien, 1995), this study examines the dynamic relationship between public opinion and immigration policy, one of the more salient issue domains that have reshaped European democracies since the 1980s. As a counter-factual to social identity accounts of immigration politics, this study argues citizens have policy preferences and when immigration policy changes, the demand responds. The result is a known movement between opinions and policy that we describe as an 'immigration thermostat'. We rely on dozens of high-quality surveys (more than 500 separate series, corresponding to nearly 2,500 marginals) and a dyadic-ratios algorithm to design comparable immigration opinion measures for 13 countries. We find evidence of both public and policy responsiveness for immigration, although not to the same extent. This suggests an asymmetrical 'immigration thermostat' but effective representation in the immigration domain across Western Europe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available