Research

Inside the Migration State: The Quest for Democratic Legitimacy

Migration is an evident consequence of globalization and at the same time the main concern of European constituencies against a more globalized world. Liberal democracies in Western Europe face a fundamental tension between economic needs to remain open to migration and political demands for closure. This research agenda tackles the dilemma for national governments striving for democratic legitimacy between competing policy imperatives of openness and closure. Thereby, I combine theoretical approaches of democratic representation, political economy and party politics to study policy trade-offs on immigration and to contribute to a better understanding of migration policy-making in the context of contested globalization. 

• Variation in policy-success: Radical-right populism and migration policy (2019) West European Politics, 42(3): 517-544.

Abstract: How do radical right populist parties influence government policies in their core issue of immigration? This article provides a systematic analysis of the direct and indirect effects of radical right anti-immigration parties on migration policy reforms in 17 West European countries from 1990 to 2014. Insights from migration policy theory serve to explain variations in the migration policy success of the radical right. While previous studies mostly treat migration policy as uniform, it is argued that this approach neglects the distinct political logics of immigration and integration policy. This article reveals significant variations in policy success by policy area. While immigration policies have become more liberal despite the electoral success of the radical right, when the radical right is in government office it enacts more restrictions in integration policies. Accordingly, anti-immigrant mobilisation is more likely to influence immigrants’ rights than their actual numbers.

• The Radical-Right in Power: A Comparative Analysis Of Their Migration Policy Influence (2019) in: Biard, Benjamin/Bernhard, Laurent/Betz, Hans-Georg (Hrsg.): Do they make a difference? The policy influence of radical right populist parties in Western Europe. ECPR-Press.

• Welfare states, demographic transition and immigration policies (2020) in: Careja, Romana/Emmenegger, Patrick/Giger, Nathalie (Hrsg.): The European Social Model under Pressure. Springer, pp 331-347.

Abstract: How does demographic change influence immigration policies in Western welfare states? In this chapter, I discuss two perspectives on the relationship between demographic ageing and labour immigration policies. Welfare states are under financial strain and face a trade-off between too little immigration that could undermine their economic foundation and too much immigration that could undermine their social foundation. Do welfare states admit more foreign workers to sustain their welfare state model in the context of demographic ageing? This contribution analyses the effects of population ageing on policy openness to immigration and how welfare state regimes moderate this relationship. I examine these questions by conducting a quantitative-comparative analysis of labour immigration policies in 21 Western democracies between 1980 and 2010. The results reveal that the liberalisation of immigration is a common response to demographic ageing but varies by welfare state regime. Social-democratic welfare states face larger welfare risks from immigration and more difficulties to integrate foreign labour. Instead of liberalising immigration, they opt for the facilitated expansion of female employment. Only in the case of liberal and conservative welfare states is there evidence for a demography-induced liberalisation of immigration. The findings suggest that welfare state arrangements condition how countries respond to the demographic challenge of an ageing population.

• Muddling between Responsiveness and Responsibility: The Swiss case of a a non-implementation of a constitutional rule (2020) Comparative European Politics, 18: 256–280. (with Klaus Armingeon)

Abstract: The tensions between responsible and responsive government have increased in the age of populism. How do politicians deal with this challenge? Do they give priority to short-term voter demands or are their strategies guided by the Weberian ethics of responsibility? We study this dilemma in the case of the Swiss popular vote establishing a constitutional amendment to cap immigration. This cap went against treaties with the European Union, which are of utmost economic importance to the Swiss people. We argue that politicians try to avoid a decision when facing a dilemma between responsibility and responsiveness to the people. If forced to take a stance, they may opt for responsibility, while shifting blame for being unresponsive to external scapegoats. Hence, politicians try to be responsive as long as possible before turning responsible and externalizing blame to minimize the electoral costs of non-responsiveness. This is a policy of muddling-through. Our findings bear important implications for representative democracy in times of external constraints.

• Citizens' response to a non-responsive government: the case of the Swiss Initiative on Mass Immigration (2023) Comparative European Politics, 21, 133–151. (with Klaus Armingeon)

Abstract: In times of contested globalization, democratic governments have increasing difficulties to reconcile international obligations with domestic political demands. Unresponsiveness to domestic constituents due to international constraints may threaten to undermine democratic legitimacy. We assess how citizens react to non-responsive governments in the case of a high-stake direct-democratic vote in Switzerland. The 2014 referendum on restricting immigration from the European Union failed in its implementation because of the EU's refusal to negotiate the free movement rights of its citizens. How did Swiss citizens adapt their policy preferences to this implementation failure? Drawing on original survey data, we show that citizens overwhelmingly did not adapt their policy preferences; rather, they rationalized the implementation failure in an effort to protect their ideological and partisan orientations. The results suggests that governments face major challenges to convey constrained policy choices to their citizens.

• Reassessing the gap-hypothesis: Tough talk and weak action in migration policy? (2021) Party Politics, 27(1): 174-186.

Abstract: Much of the literature on migration policy has proclaimed a gap between what parties say and what parties do. The “gap-hypothesis” expects political parties to deliver “tough talk” and “weak action” on the issue of migration. This article tests this idea empirically by asking whether political parties keep their electoral promises on migration policy. The analysis of governments across 18 West European countries between 1980 and 2014 makes use of a new cabinet-based data set of migration policy outputs and two different data sets measuring parties’ preferences on migration. The results show that governing parties enact systematically more liberal policies on immigration and integration than their electoral manifestos would suggest. The purported democratic deficit in migration policy is substantially the result of a limited fulfillment of the electoral mandate by governing parties. Nevertheless, governing parties act upon their electoral mandate dependent on the governing constraints and the electoral incentives. Overall, governments tend to deliver on their integration policy positions but not on their immigration policy positions. The manifesto–policy link is stronger in the domestic policy dimension where governments face fewer external constraints.

• Explaining the immigration policy mix: The relative openness towards asylum and labour migration (2021) European Journal of Political Research, 60(4): 763-784. (with Caroline Schultz and Stephan Simon)

Abstract: Western democracies have developed complex policies to manage migration flows. Much of the scholarly literature and political discourse assume that countries have become increasingly selective and that they prioritise economic intakes. Despite clear efforts by policymakers to distinguish between refugees and migrant workers, we know surprisingly little about how countries combine different policy dimensions and which factors shape their relative openness to different target groups. In this article, we shed light on how countries combine two of the main admission channels, asylum and labour migration, by introducing the concept of the ‘immigration policy mix’. A comparative analysis of 33 OECD countries between 1980 and 2010 examines the pattern and drivers behind their immigration policy mix: does the policy mix follow a pattern of convergence, is it subject to political dynamics or is it path‐dependent? The results reveal that despite a shift in political sympathies from asylum to labour migration, countries' immigration policy mixes have strongly converged into more liberal policies overall. The immigration policy mix primarily reflects governments’ limited room to manoeuvre due to competing political pressures. These insights demonstrate that the immigration policy mix serves to enhance our understanding of countries’ complex regulation of immigration.

• Allowing mobility Allowing mobility and preventing migration? The combination of entry and stay in immigration policies (2024) West European Politics, 47(4): 840-866.

Abstract: Western democracies have an economic interest in admitting immigrants but at the same time they fear the political costs of doing so. A recurring idea to help reconcile this tension is to allow for temporary mobility of immigrants while restricting their permanent settlement. Trying to shed light on this matter, this article studies whether and when liberal democracies design immigration policies that prioritise (temporary) mobility over (permanent) migration. First, the underlying rationale of states for such a mobility preference is identified, before conceptualising the temporal design of immigration policies based on the combination of entry and stay regulations. Second, three theoretical explanations for the variation of countries’ mobility preference are developed: liberal constraints, institutional path-dependence and domestic politics. Third, a comparative analysis tests the arguments by studying the combination of entry and stay regulations in the immigration policies of 33 OECD countries between 1980 and 2010. The results confirm that most liberal democracies have a mobility preference in their immigration policies, but largely confined to labour migration and to a declining degree over the past decades. The temporal design of immigration policies is path-dependent on historical immigration regimes with a tendency towards a lower mobility preference the more countries become familiar with large-scale immigration.

• The partisan politics of immigration: Between politicisation and globalisation. [working paper]

  • • Winner of the Rudolf Wildenman Prize by the European Consortium for Political Research

• Immigration reforms and blame avoidance strategies [working paper]

Connecting Countries and Dividing People: Burden-Sharing Politics in European Migration Governance

European countries experience a growing number of immigrants, which is leading to a mounting political crisis due to the absence of adequate governance responses. The conjuncture of open borders within Europe and exposure to external immigration requires collective efforts to effectively govern migration through responsibility-sharing. This project seeks to understand how the contrasting pressures stemming from the functional interdependence of countries in terms of migration movements and the domestic political contestation of immigration and European solidarity shape the politics of responsibility-sharing: When and how do European countries contribute to European responsibility-sharing in refugee protection and border migration control? What interests and norms drive burden-sharing politics in European democracies?

• Humanitarian protection as a European public good: The strategic role of states and refugees (2020) Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(3): 757-775. (with David Kaufmann and Anna Stünzi) 

Abstract: The surge of refugees arriving in Europe has accentuated the malfunctioning of the common European asylum system: the lack of coordination between nation states and failure in the common protection of refugees were the main outcomes of the so‐called refugee crisis. This article builds on the literature on public goods and policy compliance in order to explain the failure of European countries to provide humanitarian protection to refugees. A sequential game‐theoretical model serves to demonstrate the strategic interaction between states and refugees in European asylum policy. The analysis demonstrates that although both groups of actors benefit from a functioning European asylum system, they also have few incentives to contribute to the public good. States aim to reduce their individual refugee burden and refugees seek protection in their preferred destination country. The findings suggest that an effective provision of refugee protection requires both member states and refugees to contribute mutually to the public good.

• Responsibility-Sharing in Refugee Protection: Lessons from Climate Governance (2021) International Studies Quarterly, 65(2): 476-487. (with Anna Stünzi and Stefan Manser-Egli)

Abstract: The international governance of asylum requires states to cooperate to provide the public good of humanitarian protection. The need to establish responsibility-sharing resembles the collective action problem in climate change mitigation. While there is a general consensus on the differentiation of state responsibilities in most environmental agreements, states continuously fail to progress on responsibility-sharing in asylum governance. In this article, we compare the collective-action challenges in asylum to those in climate governance and identify the similarities and differences in their characteristics as public goods. We then discuss the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ that guides global climate change mitigation and demonstrate how equity principles can be applied to differentiate state responsibilities in the context of humanitarian protection. The subsequent analysis of recent efforts to establish effective responsibility-sharing reveals the trade-offs involved in the design of an allocation mechanism for refugee protection. Our findings provide important lessons for the prospects and limits of responsibility-sharing in asylum governance.

• Why do states admit refugees? A comparative analysis of resettlement policies in OECD countries (2022) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,  48(11): 2515-2539. (with Lea Portmann)

Abstract: Many refugee-receiving countries have restricted their asylum policies and stepped up their border control policies to prevent asylum seekers from reaching their territories. At the same time, the resettlement of refugees has gained popularity. Many states have introduced resettlement schemes or have increased the number of refugees they resettle. Why do states voluntarily admit refugees by expanding resettlement? This article develops a comprehensive theoretical account of countries’ resettlement choices and identifies the determinants of their openness to refugee resettlement through an empirical analysis of 33 OECD countries between 1980 and 2019. We find that the supply-side factor of wealth best predicts whether a country engages in refugee resettlement. The number of effective resettlement admissions tends to fluctuate with the demand-side factor of humanitarian need. Nevertheless, the expansion of resettlement policies does not result in a subsequent expansion of humanitarian protection. Instead, states combine resettlement policies with restrictive border control policies which allows them to preserve their humanitarian credentials while curtailing refugees’ overall access to asylum. These findings provide important insights into the policy-making of refugee resettlement and the strategic considerations in the asylum governance of liberal democracies.

• Between common responsibility and national interest: When do Europeans support a common European migration policy? (2024) European Union Politics, forthcoming.

Abstract: The European Union has progressively communitarised its migration policy. The formation of public support for this integration of a core state power presents an intricate puzzle. On the one hand, immigration is part and parcel of the conflict around the opening and closing of nation states, and thereby mobilises nativist views and Euroscepticism. On the other hand, the European Union may serve as a shield against external threats such as uncontrolled immigration. This article sheds light on this conundrum by examining how refugee arrivals affect public support for a common European migration policy across 28 European Union member states between 1992 and 2021. The results lend support to a post-functionalist logic of an identitarian backlash against integration and a collective action logic of instrumental solidarity in line with national interests.

• Refugee Protection as a Public Good: What Benefits Do States Derive? (2024) Perspectives on Politics, FirstView. (with Diego Caballero-Velez)

Abstract: While a growing number of refugees is in need of humanitarian protection, most states are reluctant to admit them. For more than two decades, scholars have thought to understand this intricate challenge of international governance through the prism of collective action theory and the concept of refugee protection as an international public good. However, the specific benefits that states gain from refugee protection and that are assumed to constitute the public good remain surprisingly vague and under-specified. In this Reflection, we make three contributions to address this issue. First, we take stock of the literature and assess the evolution of the collective action theory in asylum governance. Second, we identify and conceptualize legitimacy, security, reputation, and development as four types of benefits that states derive from refugee protection. Third, we discuss the limitations of the dominant rational-choice approach and contend that the nature of refugee protection in the international realm is the product of international and domestic politics based on the contestation of interests and norms. These insights result in a series of recommendations for future research of refugee protection as a collective action problem.

• The Limits of Burden-Sharing: Fairness and Effectiveness in Refugee Protection [working paper]

Migration Governance through Trade Mobilities

This project sets out to study the drivers and patterns of migration governance in preferential trade agreements. The proliferation of migration clauses in trade agreements illustrates and perpetuates the shift from “migration” to “mobility” as flows are addressed as temporary and economically motivated. The advent of these new regulatory frameworks creates new categories of migrants with rights and benefits that, depending on how they translate into national laws and practices, yield inequalities between trade-related and other migrants. The aim is to conduct an in depth analysis of the evolution of the migration-trade nexus in international governance based on a novel global database on migration-related content in trade agreements from 1960 to 2020. The project funded by the "nccr on the move" seeks to shed light on the nexus between trade and migration in international governance. (Project website)

• "What have trade agreeements to do with migration policy?" A short overview of the project and its first findings, published by the Migration Policy Center (EUI)

• Migration governance through trade agreements: insights from the MITA dataset (2024) The Review of International Organizations, 19, 147–173. (with Sandra Lavenex and Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik) Dataset

Abstract: States struggle to establish multilateral cooperation on migration – yet they include more and more migration provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). This article sheds light on this phenomenon by introducing the Migration Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements (MITA) dataset. Covering 797 agreements signed between 1960 and 2020, this dataset offers a fine-grained coding of three types of migration provisions: those that facilitate the international mobility of service providers and labor migrants, protect migrant rights, and control unauthorized migration. Against the backdrop of limping multilateralism, we examine PTAs’ migration policy content with regard to two key cooperation dilemmas: conflicts of interest within developed countries and between them and developing countries. Facilitating business and labor mobility might be a possible way around the first dilemma, commonly referred to as the ‘liberal paradox': the tension between economic demands for openness and political calls for closure. Nevertheless, this facilitation is largely limited to highly skilled migrants and agreements between developed economies. Provisions for migration control tend to be included in agreements between developed and developing countries, which signals that states use issue-linkages to address the second dilemma, i.e. interest asymmetries. Finally, provisions for migrant rights stand out because they do not deepen over time. Our findings suggest that while PTAs have become an increasingly common venue for migration governance, the issue-linkage between trade and migration cooperation perpetuates entrenched divisions in the international system. The MITA dataset will allow researchers and policymakers to track the evolution of the trade-migration nexus and systematically investigate the motives for and effects of various migration provisions in PTAs.

• Expanding, Complementing, or Substituting Multilateralism? EU Preferential Trade Agreements in the Migration Regime Complex (2023) Politics and Governance,  11(2): 49-61. (with Paula-Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and Sandra Lavenex) Supplementary material.

Abstract: Intense pressure for international solutions and weak support for multilateral cooperation have led the EU to increasingly rely on its strongest foreign policy tool in the pursuit of migration policy goals: preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Starting from the fragmentary architecture of the migration regime complex we examine how the relevant content of the EU PTAs relates to multilateral institutions. Depending on the constellation of policy objectives, EU competence, and international interdependence, we propose a set of hypotheses regarding the conditions under which EU bilateral outreach via PTAs expands, complements, or substitutes international norms. Based on an original dataset of migration provisions in all EU PTAs signed between 1960 and 2020, we find that the migration policy content in EU PTAs expands or complements the objectives of multilateral institutions only to a very limited extent. Instead, the predominant constellation is one of substitution in which the EU uses its PTAs to promote migration policy objectives that depart from those of existing multilateral institutions. 

• The Limits of EU Market Power in Migration Externalization: Explaining Migration Control Provisions in EU Preferential Trade Agreements (2024) Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(5): 1351-1378. (with Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and Sandra Lavenex)

Abstract: The European Union (EU) increasingly seeks cooperation with transit and sending countries to prevent irregular migration and enforce returns. Yet, these countries have little incentives to engage in such cooperation. To overcome interest asymmetries, the EU has sought to link trade and migration control in its preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of migration provisions in all PTAs signed between 1960 and 2020 and a qualitative analysis of key policy documents, we show that the inclusion of such provisions does not follow patterns of interdependence and strategic priorities resulting from problem pressure. Rather, the proliferation of migration control provisions in EU PTAs is best explained by the institutional framework guiding the negotiation of these provisions. Whilst reflecting the political will to use PTAs as a ‘carrot’ to incite third-country cooperation, these findings also show the limits of targeted action on migration control via commercial policies.

• Migration governance through trade agreements – a two-level analysis (2024) in:  Wiebke Sievers, Rainer Bauböck, Mathias Czaika and Albert Kraler (Hg.): Drawing Boundaries and Crossing Borders: Migration in Theorie und Praxis. Jahrbuch Migrationsforschung 7. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp.169-184.

• Business Migration between Labour and Trade. Evidence from Switzerland (2025) Comparative Migration Studies, 13, 60. (with Alvarado, Mariana, Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, and Sandra Lavenex)

Largely unnoticed by the migration literature, business migration has established itself as a form of labour migration that is substantial in terms of numbers and receives preferential treatment in international and national migration law. Intra-corporate transferees, contractual service suppliers and business visitors all fall within this category and benefit from facilitated admission procedures agreed under trade agreements and corresponding provisions in national legislation. Assigned for temporary stays and retaining their work contract in the home country, these business migrants represent a “market model” of migration policy exploiting the economic benefits of human movement while avoiding migrants’ integration into the host countries’ labour market and society. This article conceptualizes business migration at the nexus of trade law, international labour markets and migration research and uses a mix of legal analysis, population register and other statistical data as well as survey data from Switzerland to demonstrate the scale and importance of this under-investigated yet significant type of economic migration. Amounting to nearly half of the regulated labour immigration into Switzerland, business migration is strongly associated with trade and investment ties as well as the presence of multinational companies. In contrast, trade agreements facilitating this type of labour mobility have no systematic effect.

• Attracting Migrants through the Backdoor: Business Migration in Switzerland. Migration Studies, 13(3): mnaf028. (with Alvarado, Mariana, Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, and Sandra Lavenex)

In regulating immigration, governments in Western democracies face a ‘liberal paradox’: they must balance economic and judicial pressures to admit and protect migrants with domestic political demands for restriction. A key strategy to navigate this tension is the ‘market model’ of migration policy, which emphasizes temporariness and limited rights. While commonly associated with low-skilled migration, we argue that this model also applies to highly skilled business migration. Business migrants—such as intra-corporate transferees, business visitors, and contractual service suppliers—form a substantial share of labour mobility but do not formally enter host labour markets, circumventing both associated rights and politicization. In this article, we study the policy frameworks and political dynamics surrounding business migration, demonstrating how it serves as an escape route from the liberal paradox. Key characteristics of business migration—temporary admission, restricted rights, ‘quiet politics’, and all-party consensus—enable governments to meet economic demands while limiting political backlash. Analysing Switzerland, a most likely case, we show how business migration operates as a high-skilled variant of the market model, reconciling economic openness with political closure. This study sheds light on the broader implications of business migration for immigration policy and politics in Western democracies.

• Preferential Trade Agreement and International Mobility of Business People (with Sandra Lavenex and Paula Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik) [working paper]

Attitudes towards (im)migration in the European Union

European democracies are characterised by a high level of transnational mobility and ethnic diversity. The internal freedoms of the European Union provides its citizen a unique set of rights for cross-border mobility. In recent years, anti-immigration movements and right-wing populist parties have mobilised against a borderless Europe. This project analyses original and secondary survey data to identify the determinants of EU citizens' attitudes towards a continent without internal borders. It aims to understand how citizens navigate the tension between economic interests and identity concerns. 

• Loved and feared: Citizens' attitudinal ambivalence towards free movement in the European Union (2021) Journal of European Public Policy, 28(2): 268-288.

Abstract: The right of citizens to live and work in any member state is a foundational pillar of the European Union. The views of EU citizens on free movement are characterized by a puzzle: the border-free Europe is seen as the most important achievement of European integration but also appears as a main driver of Euroscepticism. In this article, I argue that this is because of a tension between citizens’ own mobility rights and the mobility rights of citizens from other EU countries. This idea of ambivalence towards free movement is tested with observational data and a survey experiment across 28 EU countries. The results suggest that many citizens hold ambivalent views towards free movement due to a tension between the value of one’s own mobility and the fear of immigration. Their effective support depends on the relative salience of inward and outward mobility. This finding has important implications for the public support of international integration more generally.

• External borders and internal freedoms: how the refugee crisis shaped the bordering preferences of European citizens (2021) Journal of European Public Policy, 28(3): 370-388. (with Felix Karstens)

Abstract: The idea that internal inclusion requires external exclusion features prominently in many theoretical accounts of modern statehood and citizenship. In a similar vein, it has been argued that internal freedom of movement in the European Union requires strict immigration control at its external borders. This article sheds light on the relationship between internal de-bordering and external re-bordering, making two main contributions. First, we theorise the idea of an integration-demarcation conditionality based on the European Union’s symbolic legitimacy and functional needs. Second, we test the common belief that public support for free movement within Europe depends on a restrictive border regime for non-European immigration. For this purpose, we assess how the external shock of the 2015 refugee crisis shaped the bordering preferences of European citizens. We find that the crisis primarily increased citizens’ support for external re-bordering, and did not substantially undermine their support for internal free movement. Thus, the large-scale arrival of refugees has not led to a general backlash against open borders and immigration but has, rather, increased public support for the European model of combining internal freedoms with external controls.

• Between common responsibility and national interest: When do Europeans support a common European migration policy? (2024) European Union Politics, 25(2): 313-332.

Abstract: The European Union has progressively communitarised its migration policy. The formation of public support for this integration of a core state power presents an intricate puzzle. On the one hand, immigration is part and parcel of the conflict around the opening and closing of nation states, and thereby mobilises nativist views and Euroscepticism. On the other hand, the European Union may serve as a shield against external threats such as uncontrolled immigration. This article sheds light on this conundrum by examining how refugee arrivals affect public support for a common European migration policy across 28 European Union member states between 1992 and 2021. The results lend support to a post-functionalist logic of an identitarian backlash against integration and a collective action logic of instrumental solidarity in line with national interests.

Perceptions and Misperceptions about Immigration

Issues of immigration are central political challenges for European democracies, with public views often shaped by perceptions rather than reality. Consequently, they tend to fall victim to erroneous beliefs, ranging from innumeracy (i.e., the overestimation of the immigrant share in one’s country) to highly complex conspiracy theories. Both perceptions and misperceptions have been identified as crucial puzzle pieces in explaining policy preferences and political behavior. In particular, they may foster polarization and undermine the public’s ability to engage in deliberative decision-making. Still, only in recent years have scholars begun to pay attention to these phenomena, and many major questions regarding their nature and drivers remain insufficiently answered so far. This research agenda seeks to advance our understanding of (mis-)perceptions on a conceptual, theoretical and empirical level. How accurate are public perceptions about immigration? How can we measure them and what methodological pitfalls should be avoided? Are those who hold misperceptions really misinformed or only uninformed? What are the motivations and drivers of particular issue-specific perceptions? What consequences do perceptions have for political preferences and behavior? To what extent can misperceptions be corrected?

• Misperceptions about Immigration: Reviewing Their Nature, Motivations and Determinants (2023) British Journal of Political Science,  53(2): 674-689. (with Marco Bitschnau)

Abstract: Across Western democracies, immigration has become one of the most polarizing and salient issues, with public discourses and individual attitudes often characterized by misperceptions. This condition undermines people's ability to develop informed opinions on the matter and runs counter to the ideal of deliberative democracy. Yet, our understanding of what makes immigration so prone to misperceptions is still limited – a conundrum that this review seeks to answer in three steps. First, we take stock of the existing evidence on the nature of misperceptions about immigration. Secondly, we borrow from diverse bodies of literature to identify their motivational underpinnings and elaborate on how the protection of group identity, the defence of self-interest and security concerns can lead to distorted perceptions of immigration. Thirdly, we highlight relevant determinants of misperceptions at the level of both contextual influences and individual predispositions. We conclude that misperceptions about immigration are ubiquitous and likely to remain a key element of immigration politics.