European asylum policy

National Institute Economic Review

Volumn 194, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 106-119

  Hatton, Timothy J ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

asylum policy; Asylum seekers; policy coordination

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992904168     PISSN: 00279501     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0027950105061503     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Betts, A, (2003), ‘Public goods and the provision of refugee protection: the roleof the joint-product model in burden-sharing theory’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 274-296.
2. Böcker, A. and Havinga, T. (1997), Asylum Migration to the European Union: Patterns of Origin and Destination, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities.
3. Boswell, C. (2003), ‘Burden-sharing in the European Union: lessons from the Germanand UK experience’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 316-335.
4. Brons, M., Meijnen, K. and Schaap, M. C. (2001), ‘Public perceptions about refugees, asylumseekers and persons with temporary protection status: country report: The Netherlands’, The Hague: International Organisation for Migration.
5. Byrne, R. (2003), ‘Harmonisation and burden redistribution in the two Europes’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 336-358.
6. Dustmann, C. and Preston, I. (2000), ‘Racial and economic factors in attitudesto immigration’, IZA Discussion Paper 190.
7. Dustmann, C. and Preston, I. (2001), ‘Attitudes to ethnic minorities, ethnic context and location decisions’, Economic Journal, 111, pp. 353-373.
8. European Commission (2003), ‘Towards more accessible, equitable andmanaged asylum systems’, Brussels, Commission of the European Communities.
9. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2004), ‘Broken promises - forgotten principles: an ECRE evaluation of the development of EU minimum standards for refugeeprotection: Tampere 1999 - Brussels 2004’, at: http://www.ecre.org/positions/Tampere_June04.pdf
10. Hatton, T. J. (2004), ‘Seeking asylum in Europe’, Economic Policy, 38, pp. 5-62.
11. Hatton, T. J. and Williamson J. G. (2004), ‘Refugees, asylum seekers and policy in Europe’, NBER Working Paper 10680, Boston, NBER.
12. Khoser, K. and Pinkerton, C. (2002), ‘The social networks of asylum seekers andthe dissemination of information about countries of asylum’, London: UK Home Office.
13. MORI (2002), ‘Attitudes towards refugees and asylumseekers: a survey of public opinion’, London: MORI.
14. Neumayer, E.. (2004a), ‘Asylum destination choice: what makes some West Europeancountries more attractive than others?’, European Union Politics, 5, pp. 155-180.
15. Neumayer, E.. (2004b), ‘Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe - their determinants,variation and lack of convergence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution.
16. Noll, G. (2000), Negotiating Asylum: The EU Acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
17. Noll, G. (2003), ‘Risky games? A theoretical approach to burden-sharing in theasylum field’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 236-252.
18. Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York, Harcourt Brace.
19. O’Rourke, K. H. and Sinnott, R. (2003), ‘Migration flows: political economy ofmigration and the empirical challenges’, Trinity College, Dublin: unpublished paper.
20. Refugee Council (UK) (2004), ‘Refugee Council briefing on the common European asylum system’, at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/briefings/intl/common_euro.pdf.
21. Robinson, V. and Segrott, J. (2002), ‘Understanding the decision-making ofasylum seekers’, Home Office Research Study 243, London, UK Home Office.
22. Rotte, R., Vogler, M. and Zimmermann, K. (1997), ‘South-north refugee migration: lessons for development co-operation’, Review of Development Economics, 1, pp. 99-115.
23. Thielemann, E. R. (2003a), ‘Why EU policy harmonisation underminesburden sharing’, Canberra: National Europe Centre Paper 101,Australian National University.
24. Thielemann, E. R. (2003b), ‘Between interests and norms: explaining burden-sharing in the European Union’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, pp. 253-273.
25. UK House of Lords, European Union Committee (2004), Handling EU Asylum Claims: New Approaches Examined, 11th Report of Session 2003-04, London, Stationery Office.
26. UK Government (2003), ‘New international approaches to asylumprocessing and protection’, accessed as ‘New Visionfor Refugees’ from ProAsyl website: http://www.proasyl.de/texte/europe/union/2003/UK_NewVision.pdf
27. United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2001a), Asylum Applications in Industrialised Countries:1980-1999, Geneva: UNHCR.
28. United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2001b) The State of the World’s Refugees: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action, Geneva: UNHCR.
29. United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2003), ‘Summary of UNHCR proposals to complementnational asylum systems through new multilateral approaches’,from Statewatch website at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jun/unhcr.pdf
30. United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2004), Statistical Yearbook, 2003, Geneva: UNHCR.