Suchergebnisse

In recent years, the so called "refugee crisis" has triggered considerable policy change in many countries along the Eastern Mediterranean route. We understand reception as a hybrid policy field with a strong attachment to social policy. In many countries, welfare production used to be (or has become) a highly collaborative endeavour which spans different levels of political decision making (e.g. national, regional and municipal) and involves a high degree of subcontracting and public-private collaboration. The previously published 11 country reports in Work Package 4 (Reception policies, practices and responses) mostly discussed how the period of reception of refugees has become gradually extended. Most of the country reports demonstrated that there is a growing politics of deterrence of the nation-states while "Welcome Culture" in Europe has deteriorated to a great extent. Neo-liberal forms of governance, the emerging mechanisms of the so-called resilience of refugees, the problems of multi-level governance of migration and reception are also other contested areas to be covered by the country reports. The report content is based on empirical work from 11 country reports that primarily cover interview material conducted with stakeholders active in the field of reception and individual asylum seekers and refugees.

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".

In recent years, the so called "refugee crisis" has triggered considerable policy change in many countries along the Eastern Mediterranean route. We understand reception as a hybrid policy field with a strong attachment to social policy. In many countries, welfare production used to be (or has become) a highly collaborative endeavour which spans different levels of political decision making (e.g. national, regional and municipal) and involves a high degree of subcontracting and public-private collaboration. The previously published 11 country reports in Work Package 4 (Reception policies, practices and responses) mostly discussed how the period of reception of refugees has become gradually extended. Most of the country reports demonstrated that there is a growing politics of deterrence of the nation-states while "Welcome Culture" in Europe has deteriorated to a great extent. Neo-liberal forms of governance, the emerging mechanisms of the so-called resilience of refugees, the problems of multi-level governance of migration and reception are also other contested areas to be covered by the country reports. The report content is based on empirical work from 11 country reports that primarily cover interview material conducted with stakeholders active in the field of reception and individual asylum seekers and refugees.

The report focuses on reception policies and practices in Germany between 2011 and 2018. In the reporting period, Germany has received more than two Million asylum applicants, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, but also from the Balkans as well as North and sub-Saharan Africa. Within Germany, there are two major legal sources related to reception, i.e. the Asylum Act (Asylgesetz) and the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz). The Asylum Act outlines the process under which asylum is applied for and granted in Germany. The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act defines specific government benefits for asylum seekers including monthly payments for living expenses and health care services. The crosscutting and multilevel nature of reception fosters an incoherence of migration policies and practices within and across different levels of migration governance (European, national, regional, municipal). This fragmentary constellation is reinforced by the federalist and corporatist structure of the German polity and, in effect, leads to substantial insecurity of both asylum applicants and immigration administrators. Since 2015, reception policies have increasingly adopted a paradigm of "Integrated Refugee Management" which builds on logics of detention and control and involves a set of punitive measures to sanction non-compliance. The isolationist nature of this approach can severely compromise the capabilities of refugees and entails the risk of impeding social and structural integration. Although speeding up asylum decisions has become a central policy goal since 2015, our data points to many instances of protracted reception, i.e. a continuance of refugees within the reception regime for more than six months. An important reason apart from the high numbers of applications in the years 2015 and 2016 has been the frequent relocation of asylum applicants within Germany - "politics of dispersal".

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".

The report focuses on reception policies and practices in Germany between 2011 and 2018. In the reporting period, Germany has received more than two Million asylum applicants, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, but also from the Balkans as well as North and sub-Saharan Africa. Within Germany, there are two major legal sources related to reception, i.e. the Asylum Act (Asylgesetz) and the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz). The Asylum Act outlines the process under which asylum is applied for and granted in Germany. The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act defines specific government benefits for asylum seekers including monthly payments for living expenses and health care services. The crosscutting and multilevel nature of reception fosters an incoherence of migration policies and practices within and across different levels of migration governance (European, national, regional, municipal). This fragmentary constellation is reinforced by the federalist and corporatist structure of the German polity and, in effect, leads to substantial insecurity of both asylum applicants and immigration administrators. Since 2015, reception policies have increasingly adopted a paradigm of "Integrated Refugee Management" which builds on logics of detention and control and involves a set of punitive measures to sanction non-compliance. The isolationist nature of this approach can severely compromise the capabilities of refugees and entails the risk of impeding social and structural integration. Although speeding up asylum decisions has become a central policy goal since 2015, our data points to many instances of protracted reception, i.e. a continuance of refugees within the reception regime for more than six months. An important reason apart from the high numbers of applications in the years 2015 and 2016 has been the frequent relocation of asylum applicants within Germany - "politics of dispersal".

This report is about Germany's integration system. Germany is a "reluctant" immigration country. Despite its post-World-War-II history of immigration, Germany has never adopted a coherent strategy or policy of integration. Immigration was considered a transitory phenomenon as the notorious term "guest workers" suggests. Considering the expected return of immigrants to their countries of origin, integration policy making has long remained implicit. Recent processes of refugee immigration have opened a policy window for a more proactive approach to immigration and integration. However, the formulation and implementation of integration policies are situated in a setting of double complexity. First, integration is a crosscutting policy issue which connects to the responsibilities of various federal ministries. Second, it is a multi-level system in which policy making and monitoring largely take place on the federal level. However, the actual implementation is mainly realized on the level of regional states and municipalities. At least since 2016, integration measures (as those stipulated on Asylum Package II for example), point to the competing and paternalistic logic of retaining control over refugees. This is accomplished by the imposition of restrictions on movement and the expansion of value education as part of the integration courses. It is also supported by a logic of human capital, which privileges refugees as to their economic value whilst restricting basic rights, such as the freedom of movement. Individuals applying for asylum in Germany live highly restricted lives subject to accountability, compliance and punitive measures. While the "Asylum Packages" and the "Integration Act" have mainly focused on structural integration through labour market inclusion, the "Migration Masterplan" has emphasized sociocultural aspects, such as identification and acculturation. It's obvious that most initiatives respond to an alleged public expectation of refugees smoothly fitting in the society rather than to the actual demands of support and participation which they may have.

The report aims at mapping both the history of migration in Germany since 1945 and giving an overview of current asylum law, application procedures and overall legal status of Foreigners in Germany as well as the political organization and the constitutional entrenchment of the principle of asylum and immigration law. It depicts the reception of guest workers, the aftermath of the reunification and the New Act on Migration. The report gives a quantitative overview over migration since 2011 until 2017 and presents the different application procedures as well as the institutional organisation of asylum.

The report aims at mapping both the history of migration in Germany since 1945 and giving an overview of current asylum law, application procedures and overall legal status of Foreigners in Germany as well as the political organization and the constitutional entrenchment of the principle of asylum and immigration law. It depicts the reception of guest workers, the aftermath of the reunification and the New Act on Migration. The report gives a quantitative overview over migration since 2011 until 2017 and presents the different application procedures as well as the institutional organisation of asylum.