| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
094986
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses how political parties frame European integration, and gauges the consistency of their argumentation. Over the course of investigation, one can see how actors' positions are justified, and how the European Union is perceived (i.e., what forces give rise to Euroscepticism and Europeanism). It is argued here that the parties' framing of issues depends on the interests they traditionally defend at the national level, their general positions on European integration, and whether or not they belong to the established political actors in their respective countries. The coding approach enables the relation of frames to actors and positions, moving beyond the techniques employed by existing studies that analyse the media presentation of European integration. Sophisticated frame categorisations are provided to capture the complex structure of argumentation, going beyond a simple dichotomy of economic and cultural frames. Relying on a large and original media dataset covering the period 2004-2006, six Western European countries are investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
107262
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
192042
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What is the causal impact of terrorism on immigration policy preferences? Under what circumstances and due to which psychological micro-mechanisms does this impact materialize? To answer these questions, we provide evidence from pre-registered and well-powered experiments for Germany and the United Kingdom. We find that anti-immigration responses to terrorism follow an emotional proximity rationale: terrorism leads to more restrictive migration policy preferences only among individuals with high levels of perceived insecurity, especially when terrorism occurs in their own country. Policy preferences are not affected by terrorism abroad or by information cues on the objectively low probability of being victimized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
173212
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We investigate the relationship between transnational terrorism and the restrictiveness of immigration policies. We argue that transnational terrorism may create incentives for governments to implement more restrictive migration policies. First, more restrictive policies may make terrorism a more costly endeavor, discouraging future terrorist activity. Second, voters may hold the government accountable for the increased insecurity and economic instability terrorism produces; more restrictive migration policies may signal political resolve and meet public demand for security-providing policies, consequently reducing the government’s chances of electoral defeat. We provide an empirical analysis of the effect of transnational terrorism on migration policy restrictiveness for a sample of 30 OECD countries between 1980 and 2010. We find that a greater exposure to transnational terrorism is associated with stricter migration controls, but not stricter migration regulations regarding eligibility criteria and conditions. This finding is robust to different model specifications, estimation methods, operationalizations of terrorism, and instrumental-variable approaches. It points to the securitization of immigration, providing partial support for the notion that transnational terrorism incentivizes migration policy change towards greater restrictiveness. However, the policy response appears to be surgical (affecting only migration controls) rather than sweeping (and thus not influencing broader migration regulations) for the countries in our sample.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|