Territorial differences in the attitudes to the migration crisis in Germany: The political aspect
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2017-2-5
- Pages
- 60-75
Abstract
The European migration crisis has divided the population of Germany along the lines of the country’s migration policy and the attitude to immigrants. The antiimmigrant sentiment, supported by the rhetoric of the extreme right-wing parties and the criticism of current policies, have been growing in the society. This article reviews theoretical approaches to the study of public attitude to migrants proceeding from the effect that immigration has on the socioeconomic development of the host society. The authors propose a mechanism for analysing the political life of a society to develop viable approaches to managing the migration shock and mitigating its effect. The article considers the attitudes of the German population to immigration and immigrants in terms of the transformation of electoral preferences under the influence of the migration crisis. Recent data on the electoral standing of the Alternative for Germany party are used to develop a typology of states, based on the level of support for this party from the local population and on other measures of the migration situation and socioeconomic development. The authors identify northeastern regions with a high probability of popular support for the extreme right views on the migration crisis and northern and southwestern states that are most and least susceptible to the extreme right influence.
Reference
1. Sommerpressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel. Thema: Aktuelle Themen der Innen- und Außenpolitik, 2015, Die Bundesregierung, available at:https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2015/08/2015-08-31-pk-merkel....(accessed 24.10.2016).
2. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. 2014, Public Attitudes toward Immigration, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 17, p. 225—249.
3. Scheve, K., Slaughter, M. 2011, Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences Over Immigration Policy, Rev. Econ. Stat., Vol. 83, no. 1, p. 133—145.
4. Kinder, D., Kam, C. 2009, Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion, Chicago, IL.
5. Hopkins, D. J. 2011, National Debates, Local Responses: The Origins of Local Concern about Immigration in Britain and the United States, Brit. J. Polit. Sci., no. 41, p. 499—524.
6. Lyalina, А. V. 2016, Theoretical approaches to modeling the consequences of labor migration for host territories, Regional'nye issledovaniya [Regional studies], no. 2 (52), p. 66—71. (In Russ.)
7. Mayda, A. 2006, Who is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of Individual Attitudes Toward Immigrants, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 88, no. 3, p. 510—530. DOI: 10.1162/rest.88.3.510.
8. Malhotra, N., Margalit, Y. 2013, Mo CH. Economic Explanations for Opposition to Immigration: Distinguishing between Prevalence and Conditional Impact, Am. J. Polit. Sci., no. 57, p. 391—410.
9. Hanson, G. H., Scheve, K. F. Slaughter, M. J. 2007, Public finance and individual preferences over globalization strategies, Economics & Politics, no. 19, p. 1—33.
10. Hainmueller, J., Hiscox, M. 2010, Attitudes Toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., no. 104, p. 61—84.
11. Tingley, D. 2013, Public Finance and Immigration Preferences: A Lost Connection, Polity, no. 45, p. 4—33.
12. Chandler, C., Tsai, Y. 2001, Social Factor Influencing Immigration Attitudes: An Analysis of Data From the General Social Survey, Soc. Sci. J., no. 38, p. 177—188.
13. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., Prior, M. 2004, Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., Vol. 98, no. 1, p. 35—49.
14. Albertson, B., Gadarian, S. 2012, Who's Afraid of Immigration? The Effects of Pro- and Anti-Immigrant Threatening Ads among Latinos, African Americans and Whites. In: Freeman, G., Hansen, R., Leal, D. L. (ed.) Immigration and Public Opinion in Liberal Democracies, New York, p. 286—306.
15. Fetzer, J. 2011, The Evolution of Public Attitude toward Immigration in Europe and the United States, 2000—2010. In: Research report “Improving EU and US Immigration Systems; Capacity for Responding the Global Challenges: Learning from experiences”, European University Institute Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole.
16. Lahav, G., Courtemanche, M. 2012, The Ideological Effects of Framing Threat on Immigration and Civil Liberties, Polit. Behav, no. 34, p. 477—505.
17. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. 2013, Who Gets a Swiss Passport? A Natural Experiment in Immigrant Discrimination, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., no. 107, p. 159—187.
18. Golder, M. 2003, Explaining Variation in the Electoral Success of Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36, no. 4, p. 432—466.
19. Hungarian Politics in 2016, 2017, Freidrich Eber Stiftung and Policy Solution. Budapest, available at: http://www.policysolutions.hu/userfiles/hungarian_politics_in2016_web.pdf. (accessed 28.10.2016).
20. Germaniya. 2015. Ch. II: doklady Instituta Evropy [Germany. 2015. Part II: Reports of the Institute of Europe], 2016, Moscow, Institute of Europe, RAS, p. 46. (In Russ.)
21. Givens, T. 2012, Voting Radical Right in Western Europe, Cambridge University Press, p. 80—81.
22. The Social Aspects of the 2015 Migration Crisis in Hungary, 2016, TARKI Social Research Institute. Budapest, available at: http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2016/kitekint/20160330_refugees.pdf (accessed 28.10.2016).
23. Rol' malykh partii v partiino-politicheskoi sisteme Germanii: doklady Instituta Evropy [The role of small parties in the party political system of Germany: reports of the Institute of Europe], 2015, Moscow, Institute of Europe, RAS, p. 88. (In Russ.)
24. Timoshenkova, Е. П. 2015, The party political system of Germany after the elections to the Bundestag: the main development trends (2014—2015), Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta [Bulletin of the University of Moscow State Institute of International Relations], no. 5 (44), p. 108—117. (In Russ.)
25. Sides, J. Citrin, J. 2007, How Large the Huddled Masses? The Causes and Consequences of Public Misperceptions about Immigrant Populations, Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, available at: http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/immig.pdf (accessed 27.10.2016).
26. Crisis Migration Convening, Thematic report, 2013, John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, February 14—15, available at: https://www.macfound.org/media/files/Crisis_Migration_Thematic_Report_May_2013.pdf (accessed 28.10.2016).
27. Refugees and asylum-seekers, 2012, UNHCR Office in the Russian Federation, available at: http://unhcr.ru/fileadmin/files/images/refugees_eng.jpg (accessed 28.10.2016).
28. Definition of Migrant Crisis, 2015, Collins, available at: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/16432/Migrant+Crisis (accessed 28.10.2016).
29. Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl. Ausgabe: Oktober 2016, 2016, Bundesamt für migration und flüchtlinge, available at: http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/aktuelle-zahlen-zu-asyl-o... (accessed 01.02.2017).
30. Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl. Ausgabe: Dezember 2015, 2015, Bundesamt für migration und flüchtlinge, available at: http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/aktuelle-zahlen-zu-asyl-d.... (accessed 01.02.2017).
31. Asyl-zah-len für das 3. Quar-tal 2016 ver-öf-fent-licht, 2016, Bundesministerium des Innern, available at: http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/ Pressemittei lungen/DE/2016/10/asylantraege-september-2016.html (accessed 01.02.2017).
32. Zahlen zu Asyl in Deutschland, 2017, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, available at: https://www.bpb.de/politik/innenpolitik/flucht/218788/zahlen-zu-asyl-indeutschland (accessed 01.02.2017).
33. Politik II, Politbarometer, 2017, Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, available at: http://www.forschungsgruppe.de/Umfragen/Politbarometer/Langzeitentwicklung_-_Themen_im_Ueberblick/Po.... (accessed 01.02.2017).
34. Innenminister de Maizière 2015 kamen 890.000 Flüchtlinge nach Deutschland, 2016, Spiegel Online, available at: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-2015-kamen-890-000-schutzsuchende-nach-deutsc... (accessed 01.11.2016).
35. Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2015. Asyl, Migration und Integration, 2015, Broschueren des Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, available at: http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/bundesamt-in-zahlen-2015.pdf?__bl... (accessed 01.11.2016).
36. ARD DeutschlandTREND, 2016, Infratest dimap, available at: http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/(accessed 02.11.2016).
37. Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs, 2016, PewResearch Center, available at: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-j...(accessed 03.11.2016).
38. Martin, M. 2016, Most Germans fear terrorist attack after train ax assault: poll, REUTERS, available at: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1020YQ (accessed 02.11.2016).
39. Heckmann, F. 2016, Understanding the Creation of Public Consensus: Migration and Integration in Germany, 2005 to 2015, Washington, DC.
40. Melnikova, K. 2015, Test for tolerance, Lenta. Ru, available at: https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/09/05/migrant/(accessed 03.11.2016). (In Russ.)
41. Politik I, Politbarometer, 2017, Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, available at: http://www.forschungsgruppe. de/Umfragen/Politbarometer/Langzeitentwicklung_-_Themen_im_Ueberblick/Politik_I/ (accessed 03.02.2017).
