Erica Consterdine Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details i Interests, Ideas and Institutions: Explaining Immigration Policy Change in Britain, 1997-2010 Erica Consterdine Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics University of Sussex June 2014 i Statement I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature.......................................................................... ii Acknowledgments Writing a Dphil dissertation is no easy task. It requires support and encouragement from those around you. It is therefore a pleasure to thank all the people who have helped me along the way. I am firstly indebted to all my interviewees; they were all generous with their time and without their candidness this research would not have been possible. I also owe a great deal to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) who funded this research (grant number MP/21013669). The ESRC internship I undertook during my PhD studies provided invaluable insights into how immigration policy is made, as well as the use of evidence in policymaking. Thank you to all my colleagues at the Migration and Border Analysis Unit for their patience, wisdom and knowledge. As a shy undergraduate student I needed a little coaxing to speak up and be confident. I owe this entirely to Prof Luke Martell who forced me to overcome my evident “impostor syndrome”, encouraged me to pursue doctoral studies, and provided comments on various chapters. Likewise my earlier supervisors Prof Ben Rogaly and Prof Tim Bale provided invaluable support, advice and inspiration in the initial stages of research design and analysis. Comments from various academics at a number of conferences provided much needed critical feedback. My thanks go out to all of them. My fellow SEI colleagues have consistently and generously lent their ears, ideas and intellect over the years. I’m incredibly grateful for the many long, caffeine induced discussions we have had in Friston. I’d especially like to thank Roxana Mihaila, Satoko Horii, Dr Dan Keith, Dr Marko Stojic, Stine Laursen, Monika Bil, Rebecca Partos and Maria Emilsson, as well as colleagues in Global Studies, particularly Katie McQuaid and Ross Wignall. I would also like to thank the faculty at the Department of Politics and the Sussex Centre for Migration Research for their generosity, assistance and feedback over the years. This thesis wouldn’t have been completed without the support of my friends and family who allowed me to moan and groan for the duration. Special thanks go to my closest friends Amy Martin, Naomi Elliott, Lizzie Penny, Becky Saunders and Martin Lloyd, as well as my sister Merryl, brother in-law Steve, and my favourite little monkey Jake who always put things into perspective. My friends Dr Martine Huberty and Liam Stanley likewise not only iii offered support and company but also indispensable comments on many chapters. Their intellect has been a source of inspiration for me. Doing a PhD is much like a marathon and two people have run the distance from beginning to end, suffering and laughing with me. Tom Chambers and Ad Fishwick have been important colleagues but more importantly my closest confidants. Without the endless political, epistemological and critical debates (as well as the many pub visits), the thesis would not be what it is. I couldn’t begin to describe the support and wisdom of which my supervisors have so generously given me. Prof Paul Statham gave so much of his time and intellect, and his patience and encouragement will not be forgotten. Dr James Hampshire has been at the heart of this thesis from its inception. If I could ever hope to be as accomplished academic as he is I would be delighted. He has been my mentor and my friend and I’m greatly indebted for all of his time, encouragement and his creative inspiration. I will forever be grateful for the support of my parents Malcolm and Tracey. Without them I simply would not be on this path. They have picked me up when I’ve been down and believed in me when I doubted myself the most. Their encouragement, support and love means everything. Last but by no means least my eternal gratitude goes to my partner Ad Prangnell. No amount of words could do justice to the role that he’s played for the last five years. He has patiently supported and encouraged me, and read aloud every word of this thesis. He knows far more about immigration policy than he ever wanted to. My endless thanks to him for his love and support. This thesis is of course dedicated to you. iv UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX ERICA CONSTERDINE THESIS SUBMITTED FOR DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICS INTERESTS, IDEAS AND INSTITUTIONS: EXPLAINING IMMIGRATION POLICY CHANGE IN BRITAIN, 1997-2010 SUMMARY Under the Labour governments of 1997–2010, Britain’s economic immigration policy was transformed from one of the most restrictive to one of the most liberal in Europe. This development was especially puzzling given the noted path dependence of immigration policy, as well as the absence of any public demand for liberalisation. Based on over 40 elite interviews coupled with document and archival analysis, the thesis sets out to explain why economic immigration policy changed so radically in Britain between 1997 and 2010 by examining how organised interests, political parties and the institutional context influenced policy and policy change. The thesis argues that policy change was a result of a combined set of favourable conditions. The overarching change in the policy framework was also not preconceived and the repercussions were not intended. The shift in policy framing was a consequence of an accumulation of policy reforms from different departments with different agendas. However, the logic and idea behind the policy reforms were fundamentally underpinned by the Labour Party’s third way framework, in particular the Party’s business-friendly approach and its fixation with globalisation. The thesis demonstrates that immigration policymaking in Britain is an elite-driven pursuit, that the institutional context is pertinent to explaining policy change and that parties, and the ideas which configure them, shape immigration policy. v Contents Chapter 1 ..................................................................................... 1 Introduction – the puzzle of managed migration ..................... 1 1.2 Explaining migration management .......................................................................... 3 1.3 Plan of the thesis ...................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 ................................................................................... 12 Theoretical and methodological framework: interests, ideas and institutions .......................................................................... 12 2.2 Organised interests: non-governmental actors and policy networks ..................... 14 2.2.1 Policy context: organised interests and immigration policy change .............. 17 2.3 Do parties matter: political parties and party ideology ......................................... 20 2.3.1 Political parties and the politics of immigration ............................................ 23 2.3 Historical institutionalism: institutional change, policy framings and critical junctures ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.1 Institutions and immigration policy ................................................................ 33 2.4 Methodology and research design ......................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 ................................................................................... 39 Setting the scene: the history of Britain’s immigration policy ..................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Maintaining fortress Britain: 1948-1970 ............................................................... 40 3.3. 1970-1980: joining the community ...................................................................... 42 3.4 1980-1997: swamping Britain and the asylum crisis ............................................ 46 3.5 Immigration policy under New Labour ................................................................. 48 3.6 Dealing with the asylum crisis: 1997-2000 ........................................................... 50 3.7 2000-2005: the making of managed migration ..................................................... 52 3.7.1 Our competitive future: High-skilled migration ............................................. 53 3.7.2 Work permits ................................................................................................... 54 3.7.3 Low and semi-skilled: SAWS, SBS and Working Holidaymakers