Suchergebnisse

The aim of this work is to indicate reasons that determine the choice of the immigration policy in Lithuania. This is a new approach to this public policy area, because most of the research has analyzed only the nature of migration policy in the country so far. In this Master's thesis the existing nature of immigration policy toward labor immigrants from non-EU countries is chosen as an dependent variable and the reasons that could explain it are sought. The main goal of the work is to indicate the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. To achieve the goal, the following objectives were set: 1) to define how the concept of immigration policy is understood in this work; 2) based on previous research of migration policy, to construct a theoretical model on the basis of which countries like Lithuania should choose a rational immigration policy that corresponds to the country's economic, social and demographic interests; 3) to introduce theoretical approaches to political science that could explain the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the migration policy theories and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania; 4) to formulate the hypotheses based on the theories of political science presented; 5) to confirm or deny the hypotheses based on the information collected during the interviews and the data available in public space. The main question of this study asks why there is a clear discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. As immigration is seen as a part of public policy, public policy analysis approaches were chosen as tools that could help to answer the main question of the study. In addition, considering the fact that many public policy areas in Lithuania are securitized, the interpretation of international relations based on threat analysis was included. Based on the presented theories, three hypotheses were raised: 1) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the unwillingness of politicians to make unpopular decisions that could threaten their further political career (re- election); 2) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the most effective interest group; 3) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by real and fictional security threats. The results of the study confirmed two of the three hypotheses.

The aim of this work is to indicate reasons that determine the choice of the immigration policy in Lithuania. This is a new approach to this public policy area, because most of the research has analyzed only the nature of migration policy in the country so far. In this Master's thesis the existing nature of immigration policy toward labor immigrants from non-EU countries is chosen as an dependent variable and the reasons that could explain it are sought. The main goal of the work is to indicate the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. To achieve the goal, the following objectives were set: 1) to define how the concept of immigration policy is understood in this work; 2) based on previous research of migration policy, to construct a theoretical model on the basis of which countries like Lithuania should choose a rational immigration policy that corresponds to the country's economic, social and demographic interests; 3) to introduce theoretical approaches to political science that could explain the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the migration policy theories and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania; 4) to formulate the hypotheses based on the theories of political science presented; 5) to confirm or deny the hypotheses based on the information collected during the interviews and the data available in public space. The main question of this study asks why there is a clear discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. As immigration is seen as a part of public policy, public policy analysis approaches were chosen as tools that could help to answer the main question of the study. In addition, considering the fact that many public policy areas in Lithuania are securitized, the interpretation of international relations based on threat analysis was included. Based on the presented theories, three hypotheses were raised: 1) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the unwillingness of politicians to make unpopular decisions that could threaten their further political career (re- election); 2) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the most effective interest group; 3) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by real and fictional security threats. The results of the study confirmed two of the three hypotheses.

The aim of this work is to indicate reasons that determine the choice of the immigration policy in Lithuania. This is a new approach to this public policy area, because most of the research has analyzed only the nature of migration policy in the country so far. In this Master's thesis the existing nature of immigration policy toward labor immigrants from non-EU countries is chosen as an dependent variable and the reasons that could explain it are sought. The main goal of the work is to indicate the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. To achieve the goal, the following objectives were set: 1) to define how the concept of immigration policy is understood in this work; 2) based on previous research of migration policy, to construct a theoretical model on the basis of which countries like Lithuania should choose a rational immigration policy that corresponds to the country's economic, social and demographic interests; 3) to introduce theoretical approaches to political science that could explain the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the migration policy theories and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania; 4) to formulate the hypotheses based on the theories of political science presented; 5) to confirm or deny the hypotheses based on the information collected during the interviews and the data available in public space. The main question of this study asks why there is a clear discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. As immigration is seen as a part of public policy, public policy analysis approaches were chosen as tools that could help to answer the main question of the study. In addition, considering the fact that many public policy areas in Lithuania are securitized, the interpretation of international relations based on threat analysis was included. Based on the presented theories, three hypotheses were raised: 1) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the unwillingness of politicians to make unpopular decisions that could threaten their further political career (re- election); 2) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the most effective interest group; 3) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by real and fictional security threats. The results of the study confirmed two of the three hypotheses.

The aim of this work is to indicate reasons that determine the choice of the immigration policy in Lithuania. This is a new approach to this public policy area, because most of the research has analyzed only the nature of migration policy in the country so far. In this Master's thesis the existing nature of immigration policy toward labor immigrants from non-EU countries is chosen as an dependent variable and the reasons that could explain it are sought. The main goal of the work is to indicate the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. To achieve the goal, the following objectives were set: 1) to define how the concept of immigration policy is understood in this work; 2) based on previous research of migration policy, to construct a theoretical model on the basis of which countries like Lithuania should choose a rational immigration policy that corresponds to the country's economic, social and demographic interests; 3) to introduce theoretical approaches to political science that could explain the reasons which determine the discrepancy between the migration policy theories and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania; 4) to formulate the hypotheses based on the theories of political science presented; 5) to confirm or deny the hypotheses based on the information collected during the interviews and the data available in public space. The main question of this study asks why there is a clear discrepancy between the policy, proposed by migration analysts and economists, and the actual immigration policy in Lithuania today. As immigration is seen as a part of public policy, public policy analysis approaches were chosen as tools that could help to answer the main question of the study. In addition, considering the fact that many public policy areas in Lithuania are securitized, the interpretation of international relations based on threat analysis was included. Based on the presented theories, three hypotheses were raised: 1) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the unwillingness of politicians to make unpopular decisions that could threaten their further political career (re- election); 2) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by the most effective interest group; 3) The nature of immigration policy in Lithuania is determined by real and fictional security threats. The results of the study confirmed two of the three hypotheses.

In the last decades international migration has become one of the most salient issues on the European Union (EU) policy agenda. Increasing numbers of immigrants have challenged the capabilities of the Member states to implement effective national immigration policies. Therefore in 1999 the Member states began to develop a common EU immigration policy. However, after almost ten years a progress achieved in this field remains very limited. Especially difficult is to reach an agreement on a common policy in the field of the legal immigration. This paper by employing an institutional approach seeks to find out the most important factors restraining the shaping of common EU legal immigration policy. Veto players theory created by George Tsebelis is used as the theoretical background of the research. This theory explains how different institutional settings influence policy stability. According to the theory the most important feature of political institutions is veto players, i.e. decision makers whose agreement is required for the change of policy. The main argument of the veto players theory is that the higher number of veto players and the greater distances among their preferences lead to a higher level of policy stability. Following this theoretical framework the paper tests two hypotheses. After the first one the limited common EU immigration policy is a result of the high number of veto players in the immigration field. After the second one the limited common EU immigration policy is a result of the considerable discrepancy between veto players' preferences in the immigration field. The paper is organized in the following way. In the first part the process of shaping common EU immigration policy is described. The second part presents veto players theory: its conception, main ideas and arguments. The third part applies theoretical concepts of veto players theory to the analysis of common EU immigration policy. First of all the methodology of the application of the veto players theory is presented in detail. The results of spatial analysis of common EU immigration policy are given and interpreted in the last section of the paper. They let to evaluate how the number of veto players, the distances between their preferences and the agenda setters influence a common EU immigration policy. The analysis has revealed that the number of veto players is not significant factor of the limitations of the common EU immigration policy. Its impact depends on the preferences of veto players. Because of the relative similarity the preferences of veto players are also not an obstacle to develop a truly common EU immigration policy. The main conclusion of the paper is that the most important factor of limited common EU immigration policy is the discrepancy between the preferences of the European Commission and the Member states. The Commission as the institutional agenda setter presents proposals which are very liberal and therefore unacceptable to the Member states. The only one way to adopt common supranational rules in the field of legal immigration is then to modify the proposal of the Commission significantly. Thus the Commission limits the shaping of the common EU immigration policy. The results of the research indicate that considering the preferences of the Commission and the Member States the possibility to adopt common rules on regulating the entry of immigrants into the EU is much greater than to create a common policy of the immigrants' integration. In order to boost the development of common EU immigration policy the Commission should to cease advocating liberalisation of immigrants' integration. Instead of that the Commission as well as the Member States should try to reach an agreement on the common rules of the admission of third-country nationals. That is the most direct way to create a truly common EU immigration policy at the present conditions.

In the last decades international migration has become one of the most salient issues on the European Union (EU) policy agenda. Increasing numbers of immigrants have challenged the capabilities of the Member states to implement effective national immigration policies. Therefore in 1999 the Member states began to develop a common EU immigration policy. However, after almost ten years a progress achieved in this field remains very limited. Especially difficult is to reach an agreement on a common policy in the field of the legal immigration. This paper by employing an institutional approach seeks to find out the most important factors restraining the shaping of common EU legal immigration policy. Veto players theory created by George Tsebelis is used as the theoretical background of the research. This theory explains how different institutional settings influence policy stability. According to the theory the most important feature of political institutions is veto players, i.e. decision makers whose agreement is required for the change of policy. The main argument of the veto players theory is that the higher number of veto players and the greater distances among their preferences lead to a higher level of policy stability. Following this theoretical framework the paper tests two hypotheses. After the first one the limited common EU immigration policy is a result of the high number of veto players in the immigration field. After the second one the limited common EU immigration policy is a result of the considerable discrepancy between veto players' preferences in the immigration field. The paper is organized in the following way. In the first part the process of shaping common EU immigration policy is described. The second part presents veto players theory: its conception, main ideas and arguments. The third part applies theoretical concepts of veto players theory to the analysis of common EU immigration policy. First of all the methodology of the application of the veto players theory is presented in detail. The results of spatial analysis of common EU immigration policy are given and interpreted in the last section of the paper. They let to evaluate how the number of veto players, the distances between their preferences and the agenda setters influence a common EU immigration policy. The analysis has revealed that the number of veto players is not significant factor of the limitations of the common EU immigration policy. Its impact depends on the preferences of veto players. Because of the relative similarity the preferences of veto players are also not an obstacle to develop a truly common EU immigration policy. The main conclusion of the paper is that the most important factor of limited common EU immigration policy is the discrepancy between the preferences of the European Commission and the Member states. The Commission as the institutional agenda setter presents proposals which are very liberal and therefore unacceptable to the Member states. The only one way to adopt common supranational rules in the field of legal immigration is then to modify the proposal of the Commission significantly. Thus the Commission limits the shaping of the common EU immigration policy. The results of the research indicate that considering the preferences of the Commission and the Member States the possibility to adopt common rules on regulating the entry of immigrants into the EU is much greater than to create a common policy of the immigrants' integration. In order to boost the development of common EU immigration policy the Commission should to cease advocating liberalisation of immigrants' integration. Instead of that the Commission as well as the Member States should try to reach an agreement on the common rules of the admission of third-country nationals. That is the most direct way to create a truly common EU immigration policy at the present conditions.

This paper analyses the official position of the Japanese government towards international labour migration to Japan, and the response from foreigners living in Japan – certain survival strategies, such as niche employment and performative migration. Although one of the electoral bases of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party – small businesses – push for more import of labour force, the ruling elite uses its institutional autonomy to resist their pressures and sustain the current restrictive stance. The official discourse of the government normalises only high- and middle-class labour migration, while the migration of the working class is notably viewed as abnormal and undeserved. Responding to this attitude, foreigners tend to either resort to ethnic networks for survival, or demonstrate their emotional relationship to Japan or commitment. Although Japan is peculiar with its restrictive stance towards the mobility of labour, the way migrant labour is conceptualised, sorted and channelled is in many ways similar to that of other states, although seemingly more "radical". Thus, Japan presents an interesting case in developing theories of governmental responses to international labour migration.

This paper analyses the official position of the Japanese government towards international labour migration to Japan, and the response from foreigners living in Japan – certain survival strategies, such as niche employment and performative migration. Although one of the electoral bases of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party – small businesses – push for more import of labour force, the ruling elite uses its institutional autonomy to resist their pressures and sustain the current restrictive stance. The official discourse of the government normalises only high- and middle-class labour migration, while the migration of the working class is notably viewed as abnormal and undeserved. Responding to this attitude, foreigners tend to either resort to ethnic networks for survival, or demonstrate their emotional relationship to Japan or commitment. Although Japan is peculiar with its restrictive stance towards the mobility of labour, the way migrant labour is conceptualised, sorted and channelled is in many ways similar to that of other states, although seemingly more "radical". Thus, Japan presents an interesting case in developing theories of governmental responses to international labour migration.

This paper analyses the official position of the Japanese government towards international labour migration to Japan, and the response from foreigners living in Japan – certain survival strategies, such as niche employment and performative migration. Although one of the electoral bases of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party – small businesses – push for more import of labour force, the ruling elite uses its institutional autonomy to resist their pressures and sustain the current restrictive stance. The official discourse of the government normalises only high- and middle-class labour migration, while the migration of the working class is notably viewed as abnormal and undeserved. Responding to this attitude, foreigners tend to either resort to ethnic networks for survival, or demonstrate their emotional relationship to Japan or commitment. Although Japan is peculiar with its restrictive stance towards the mobility of labour, the way migrant labour is conceptualised, sorted and channelled is in many ways similar to that of other states, although seemingly more "radical". Thus, Japan presents an interesting case in developing theories of governmental responses to international labour migration.

This paper analyses the official position of the Japanese government towards international labour migration to Japan, and the response from foreigners living in Japan – certain survival strategies, such as niche employment and performative migration. Although one of the electoral bases of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party – small businesses – push for more import of labour force, the ruling elite uses its institutional autonomy to resist their pressures and sustain the current restrictive stance. The official discourse of the government normalises only high- and middle-class labour migration, while the migration of the working class is notably viewed as abnormal and undeserved. Responding to this attitude, foreigners tend to either resort to ethnic networks for survival, or demonstrate their emotional relationship to Japan or commitment. Although Japan is peculiar with its restrictive stance towards the mobility of labour, the way migrant labour is conceptualised, sorted and channelled is in many ways similar to that of other states, although seemingly more "radical". Thus, Japan presents an interesting case in developing theories of governmental responses to international labour migration.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

The aim of the research of the dissertation is to investigate the peculiarities of social adaptation of migrants on the ground of family reunification by assessing the impact and the links of social context, gender and ethnicity. In order to accomplish the set aim and goals, as well as to present a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of family reunification in Lithuania, various research methods are combined and a wide spectrum of literature and databases are used in the dissertation. They include: analysis of the structural (contextual) factors of family reunification and social adaptation (analysis of family reunification policies implemented on the EU and national level; statistical data analysis of the dynamics of the phenomenon of family reunification in Lithuania; analysis of data of the public attitudes towards immigrants survey); interviews with experts who represent governmental institutions and NGOs in the field of migration and migrants' integration; and interviews with migrants on the ground of family reunification who shared their personal experience of migration and social adaptation. The main idea that is developed in the study is related to the attitude that the type of social adaptation is not consciously chosen and is more than individual strategy, because this process is influenced by the social context of the destination country. Furthermore, in the dissertation gender neutral phenomenon of social adaptation is studied by taking into account gender sensitive approach. Such methodological approach complements underdeveloped migration feminist research methodology in Lithuania. Besides, an intersectionality approach is applied in the study in order to show if and how gender and ethnicity categories manifest and intersect during the process of social adaptation.