Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30127
The Effects of an Immigration Policy on the Economic Integration of Migrants and on Natives’ Attitudes: The Case of Syrian Refugees in Turkey

Authors: S. Zeynep Siretioglu Girgin, Gizem Turna Cebeci

Abstract:

Turkey’s immigration policy is a controversial issue considering its legal, economic, social, and political and human rights dimensions. Formulation of an immigration policy goes hand in hand with political processes, where natives’ attitudes play a significant role. On the other hand, as was the case in Turkey, radical changes made in immigration policy or policies lacking transparency may cause severe reactions by the host society. The underlying discussion paper aims to analyze quantitatively the effects of the existing ‘open door’ immigration policy on the economic integration of Syrian refugees in Turkey, and on the perception of the native population of refugees. For the analysis, semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group interviews have been conducted. After the introduction, a literature review is provided, followed by theoretical background on the explanation of natives’ attitudes towards immigrants. In the next section, a qualitative analysis of natives’ attitudes towards Syrian refugees is presented with the subtopics of (i) awareness, general opinions and expectations, (ii) open-door policy and management of the migration process, (iii) perception of positive and negative impacts of immigration, (iv) economic integration, and (v) cultural similarity. Results indicate that, natives concurrently have social, economic and security concerns regarding refugees, while difficulties regarding security and economic integration of refugees stand out. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, such as the educational level and employment status, are not sufficient to explain the overall attitudes towards refugees, while they can be used to explain the awareness of the respondents and the priority of the concerns felt.

Keywords: Economic integration, immigration policy, integration policies, migrants, natives’ attitudes, perception, Syrian refugees, Turkey.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1131772

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 554

References:


[1] K. F. Zimmermann, T. K. Bauer, and M. Lofstrom. "Immigration policy, assimilation of immigrants and natives' sentiments towards immigrants: evidence from 12 OECD-countries" IZA Discussion Paper, No. 187, Nov. 2000.
[2] A. F. Constant, M. Kahanec, and K. F. Zimmermann. “Attitudes towards immigrants, other integration barriers, and their veracity” International Journal of Manpower, vol. 30, no. 1/2, pp. 5-14, 2009.
[3] R. M. Friedberg and J. Hunt. “The impact of immigrants on host country wages, employment and growth” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 23-44, 1995
[4] B. C. Hayes and L. Dowds. “Social contact, cultural marginality or economic self-interest? Attitudes towards immigrants in Northern Ireland” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 455-476, 2006.
[5] J. A. Berg. “Explaining attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy: A review of the theoretical literature” Sociology Compass, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 23-34, 2015.
[6] E. Rustenbach. “Sources of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Europe: a multi‐level analysis1” International Migration Review, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 53-77, 2010.
[7] X. V. Del Carpio, and M. C. Wagner. “The impact of Syrian refugees on the Turkish labor market” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, no. 7402, 2015.
[8] H. Ergin. “Turkish university students' perceptions towards their Syrian classmates” Egitim ve Bilim, vol. 41, no. 184, 2016
[9] E. Lazarev and K. Sharma. “Brother or burden: an experiment on reducing prejudice toward Syrian refugees in Turkey” Political Science Research and Methods, pp. 1-19, 2015.
[10] B. Kavakli Birdal. “Suriyeli Sığınmacılara Yönelik Algı ve Tutumlar” unpublished. 2017.
[11] Eurostat, Perception Survey Results. Retrieved June 13, 2017 from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_percep&lang=en
[12] A. T. Dusundere and Y. Satir Cilingir, “Göçmenlere karşi kötümserlik artiyor mu?” Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı, 2017.
[13] M. Erdoğan and C. Ünver, “Türk iş dünyasının Türkiye’deki Suriyeliler konusundaki görüş, beklenti ve önerileri”, Türkiye İşveren Sendikaları Konfederasyonu (TİSK), Ankara, 17, 2016.
[14] T. W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton, 1950.
[15] J. E. Stets and P. J. Burke. “Identity theory and social identity theory” Social psychology quarterly, pp. 224-237, 2000.
[16] A. M. Mayda. “Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants” The review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 510-530, 2006.
[17] J. Hainmueller and M. J. Hiscox. “Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe” International organization, vol. 61, no. 02, pp. 399-442, 2007.
[18] I. N. Gang, F. Rivera-Batiz, and M. S. Yun. “Economic strain, ethnic concentration and attitudes towards foreigners in the European Union” IZA Discussion Paper, No. 578, Oct. 2002.
[19] T. J. Espenshade. “Unauthorized immigration to the United States” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 195-216, 1995.
[20] H. M. Blalock. "Toward a theory of minority-group relations", unpublished. 1967.
[21] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “Human Development Report”, Oxford University Press, 1994.
[22] D. O. Sears, C. P. Hensler, and L. K. Speer. “Whites' opposition to “busing”: self-interest or symbolic politics?” American Political Science Review, vol. 73, no. 02, pp. 369-384, 1979.
[23] D. O. Sears. “Symbolic politics: a socio-psychological theory” Iyengar, Shanto (Ed); McGuire, William James (Ed). Explorations in political psychology, pp. 113-149, 1993.
[24] A. Bohman. “Articulated antipathies: Political influence on anti-immigrant attitudes” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 457-477, 2011.
[25] J. Sides and J. Citrin. “European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information” British journal of political science, vol. 37, no. 03, pp. 477-504, 2007.
[26] E. Fussell. “Warmth of the welcome: Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy in the United States” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 40, no. 23 pp. 1-20, 2014.
[27] J. A. Berg. “Opposition to pro-immigrant public policy: Symbolic racism and group threat” Sociological Inquiry vol. 83, pp. 1–31, 2013.
[28] D. O. Sears. “The impact of self-interest on attitudes – a symbolic politics perspective on differences between survey and experimental findings: Comment on Crano” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 492–496, 1997.
[29] J. Haubert and E. Fussell. “Explaining pro‐immigrant sentiment in the US: social class, cosmopolitanism, and perceptions of immigrants1” International Migration Review, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 489-507, 2006.
[30] J.S. Fetzer. Public attitudes toward Immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[31] L. Bobo, V. L. Hutchings. “Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context” American Sociological Review pp. 951–972, 1996.
[32] G. W. Allport, The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954.
[33] T. F. Pettigrew. “Intergroup contact theory” Annual review of psychology, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 65-85, 1998.