It’s been in the making for a long time, but it’s out now: a paper on citizenship regimes and the politicization of immigrant groups (Austrian Journal of Political Sciences, 46(1), open access. In the paper, I use my recombined MIPEX data and relate them to the politicization of immigrant groups — data from the SOM project. The paper explores how immigrants and their integration are debated across citizenship regimes. There is a special focus on asylum seekers, refugees, and irregular immigrants. Having an ethnic citizenship regime (as a tendency) is associated with more claims about asylum seekers, refugees, and irregular immigrants. At the same time, the association between immigrant group size and the extent to which immigrant groups are politicized is moderated by the citizenship regime.
I have just added an additional document to the replication material for MIPEX as a Measure of Citizenship Models. The paper in the SSQ uses MIPEX data up to 2010, but the MIPEX releases 2012+ use a slightly different question order because a few questions were added and removed. (It’s this updated version we’ve used for the time series of MIPEX/immigration policy in Switzerland 1848 to 2015.) With this, replicating my MIPEX-based measure of citizenship models was no longer straightforward with the more recent MIPEX releases. There’s one important point to consider, though: with the additional questions in the latest MIPEX data, it probably makes sense to include one or two additional (relevant) questions rather than slavishly following the items used in the SSQ paper.
Ruedin, Didier. 2015. “Increasing validity by recombining existing indices: MIPEX as a measure of citizenship models.” Social Science Quarterly 96(2): 629-638. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12162
Ruedin, Didier, Camilla Alberti, and Gianni D’Amato. 2015. “Immigration and integration policy in Switzerland, 1848 to 2014”, Swiss Political Science Review 21(1): 5-22. doi:10.1111/spsr.12144
The JEMS special issue “The public and the politics of immigration controls” is now available. The contributions to the special issue question the received wisdom that the public in Europe and the United States have negative attitudes towards immigration, and that governments necessarily react to these attitudes by introducing stricter immigration policies.
The special issue in JEMS covers the US, UK, and the Netherlands, as well as a comparative study by Laura Morales, Jean-Benoit Pilet et myself. We use data from the SOM project and MIPEX to examine the opinion-policy gap in seven countries, 1995 to 2010.
Our paper in JEMS on the opinion-policy gap is now out. We examine the gap between public opinion on immigration and policies, combining public opinion data with data from the SOM project and MIPEX. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, our analysis over time suggests that the strength of anti-immigrant parties is not associated with the opinion–policy gap on immigration. Instead, it seems that the salience of immigration and the intensity of the public debate are. When negative attitudes are combined with extensive media coverage policy congruence on immigration seems more likely.
Morales, Laura, Jean-Benoit Pilet, and Didier Ruedin. 2015. “Does the Politicization of Immigration Increase Congruence between Public Attitudes towards Immigration and Immigration Policies?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(9):1495-1516.
I’m always happy to see research published that I hoped to get done ‘one of theses days’. A recent paper in West European Politics uses a sophisticated model to statistically explain immigration policies using patterns of democracy. Different aspects of democracy are associated in different ways, but I’m a bit puzzled by the decision of the authors to downplay the influence of GDP. Perhaps there’s still a difference between political science and sociology after all, and institutional differences count more, so to speak, than for example a modernization thesis.
Wasn’t it already published, I’d include this paper as an example in my recent paper on recombining MIPEX. It’s just one of these instances where aggregated MIPEX scores (and in the supplementary material MIPEX dimensions) are used. Well, if you’re not into recombining MIPEX, a look at a pure reliability assessment of MIPEX might have helped making a slightly stronger case. With just 30 countries, more sensitivity analysis would also help. For instance, is there something about “settler legacies” or is it just Anglosaxon countries with a longer tradition of regulating race and ethnicity — something that MIPEX honours?
Future efforts should make use of the fact that MIPEX data have been collected over time, which makes for stronger conclusions (institutions or otherwise). They may also use theory other than the empirically refuted assumption that proportional systems are good for all kinds of minorities under all circumstance. Irrespective of these quibbles, with the paper by Anita Manatschal and Julian Bernauer we have a good basis to build on.