Bridging Research, Public Debates, and Policies on Migration and Integration

Based on the conceptual framework of the three-way relationships between research, public debates, and policy-making, this chapter identifies key insights and lessons that can be learnt from the diversity of national and international experiences discussed in the previous chapters. The chapter draws on the theoretical analyses and case studies to make a number of recommendations for researchers, policy practitioners, and other participants in public debates to help strengthen the links between them. We argue that when linking research to public debates and policy-making on integration and migration, actors need to recognize different national and institutional contexts in order to be effective. Engaging the media carefully and strategically is critical for success. Where research is conducted in response to specific policy questions, it is critical for the credibility and impact of the research that it remains independent. When the different actors contributing to research, public debates, and policy-making understand and appreciate each other’s constraints, such common understandings can pave the way for improved policy-making processes and better public policies that deal more effectively with the real challenges of migration and integration.

Migration Research and Policy in the United States

US researchers have reached more consensus on the number and characteristics of migrants than on their socio-economic impacts, especially with regard to unauthorized migrants. When there is consensus among social scientists on some aspect of migration, such as the additional economic output due to the presence of migrants, this consensus result suggests very different policies for advocates. For example, the finding that the US economy may have been up to $10 billion larger in the 1990s due to migrants was touted by advocates of more migrants as proof of their benefits, and criticized by those favouring less migration as the equivalent of two weeks economic growth. President Trump is an example of a policy-maker selectively using migration research to justify restrictionist policies.

Research–Policy Dialogues on Migrant Integration in Europe

This chapter analyses the relationship between research and policy-making on integration. Drawing on a large, cross-country, empirical research project conducted during 2011–2014 (the DIAMINT project), the chapter considers how research and policy-making in the field of migrant integration have developed over time, and how their relationship functions under the present conditions of strong politicization of the issue in Europe. The authors propose a theoretical framework that distinguishes between three aspects of research–policy dialogues in the domain of immigrant integration: dialogue structures—including the formal and informal arrangements created for the exchange and communication of knowledge and research; knowledge utilization—the cultures and practices of knowledge utilization in policy processes; and taking the perspective of researchers, knowledge production. The chapter considers—first theoretically and then empirically—how the increasing politicization of the issue of integration in Europe can affect the various dimensions of research–policy dialogues in different countries.

The Changing Relationships between Research, Society, and Policy in the Netherlands

The WRR, The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy, has been a key advisory body in the field of migration and integration since the late 1970s. The heated reception of its 2007 report Identification with the Netherlands—rechristened the Máxima report after a speech by the then Crown Princess—marked an important turning point. Analysis of its reception shows that scientifically informed policy advice must increasingly address two developments: the growing significance of public opinion and the changing relationship between science, policy, and politics. To continue to fulfil its role as honest broker, scientific policy advice must be aware of the breadth of academic and other stakeholder opinion and of deeper public worries and emotions, without being captured by the ‘public majority’. This is necessary in an age when reaching out to the publics—often via media—appears as the most effective route to making an impact on politicians and policy-making.

Research, ‘Experts’, and the Politics of Migration

This chapter explores the role of research in immigration politics and policy-making. It starts by distinguishing between three different functions of research: as instrumental to adjusting policy interventions, as a means of substantiating preferences, and to legitimize decision-makers. It then explores the conditions influencing which of these functions prevails, notably (a) the level of contestation and political salience over the issue; (b) the ‘mode of settlement’ (democratic or technocratic) that is seen as appropriate in political deliberation; and (c) the mode through which policy-makers derive legitimacy (whether through symbolic gestures or outcomes). The chapter argues that these three factors help explain cross-national variations in patterns of knowledge utilization on immigration policy, as well as fluctuation over time and across sub-areas of immigration policy. The chapter goes on to explore how this account can help make sense of the current scepticism about expertise in debates on immigration.

Introduction

International migration and integration are among the most important and controversial public policy issues of our time. The disconnect between migration policy debates and migration realities has prompted a quest for more ‘evidence-based’ debates and policy-making. This introductory chapter gives the background and explains the rationale, aims, and key contributions of the book Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy-Making on International Migration and Integration. It provides a basic conceptual framework for the theoretical and empirical analysis in the subsequent chapters, focusing on the triangular relationships between research, public debates, and policy-making. The chapter also includes an overview of the key insights and arguments of the theoretical reflections, case studies, and policy analyses in the book.

Investigating Immigration and the Sustainability of the Norwegian Welfare State

This chapter deals with a specific part of research-based policy-making in the Norwegian context—the institution of Norwegian Official Commissions (Norges Offentlige Utredninger—NOU). This institution, which is a significant element of the consensual Norwegian governance, has since the 1970s increasingly been dominated by academics. The NOU tradition, with its high legitimacy within the polity, thus serves as a bridge between research and policy-making. The chapter uses two Commissions on the relationship between international migration and the sustainability of the national welfare model as cases, the first one with an emphasis on labour immigration, the second one on refugees. The chapter describes and discusses the political context in which they were commissioned as well as how they have impacted on public discussion and concrete reform processes in the aftermath. The two commissions can serve as examples of how research can contribute constructively in relation to policy-making on a particularly contentious issue.

‘Independent Experts’ and Immigration Policies in the UK

This chapter discusses the experiences of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Migration Observatory (MigObs) in providing independent analysis to inform immigration debates and policy‐making in the UK. The MAC was established by the UK government in 2007 and MigObs was launched as an ‘impact project’ by the University of Oxford in 2009. The chapter includes critical reflections and personal assessments based on the author’s role as one of five members of the MAC during 2007–2014 and as the first Director of MigObs during 2009–2012. The chapter shows how the institutional design of an impact initiative such as MigObs, or of an expert advisory body such as the MAC, can have important implications for its credibility and political acceptability, and thus long-term impacts on debates and policy-making.

Informing Realities

This chapter addresses how research and public debate about migration interact with and inform each other, focusing on public perceptions and media coverage as important aspects. Factors including generalized public innumeracy about migration levels, effects of emotions on perceptions, and variation in the perceived credibility of different messengers make communicating information—of which research evidence is an important type—a complex process with multiple points of potential resistance. Meanwhile, the demands and expectations of public users and policy-makers can influence how research happens and the types of questions that are seen to be more meaningful. These interrelationships exist within wider social, political, and economic contexts that, in certain circumstances, are likely to favour some outcomes over others. In total, the chapter argues that the pathway from generating research evidence to impacting public debates is not only uncertain, it is also more complex than is often presumed.

Understanding the Role of Evidence in EU Policy Development

This chapter looks at the formal and informal modes of research–policy interaction at EU level which have developed over the past decade, with particular attention to those processes that have emerged since the ‘crisis’ of 2015–2016, and assesses the relative merits of each. Which processes are ‘pro-forma’ and which are those that genuinely inform policy-makers and influence their approach? How do the various constituencies—EU officials, national civil servants, politicians, academics, and civil society—interact, and through what means is evidence acknowledged and incorporated into decision-making? This chapter investigates how deficiencies in interaction may have led to particular policy choices, and what lessons might now be learned for the next generation of European policy-makers, and the researchers that seek to inform those choices.