Migration Studies
Final Assignment: Burden Sharing in the European Union
Number of words: 2744
Introduction:
In the light of the current asylum-seeker crisis in the European Union (EU), this paper assesses a new proposal for burden sharing made by the European commission in September 2015. The proposal consists of a quota system in which asylum-seekers are allocated to member states through a distribution key that takes into account population seize and GDP and seeks to distribute asylum-seekers in an equitable manner. By comparing the feasibility and fairness of this quota system to two other policy approaches for burden sharing that are already implemented in Europe, this paper aims at finding the most feasible and fair proposal for burden sharing in order to solve the current crisis in the EU. The thesis statement is as follows: The quota system as proposed by the European commission on 9 September 2015 to tackle the migration crisis in Europe is the fairest, and most feasible policy proposal for burden sharing in the EU so far and should therefore be implemented. Firstly a theoretical framework is established in which the definitions and criteria of a fair and feasible policy are laid out. Then the theoretical framework is applied to three policies; policy harmonization, financial burden sharing through the European Refugee Fund and the newly proposed quota system. These are all policies either implemented or planned to be implemented to solve the problem of burden sharing in the EU. It will be established that only the last proposal satisfies both the criteria of fairness and feasibility as is stated in the thesis statement and would therefore be . Lastly a conclusion is given and a short recommendation for further action is given.
Theoretical framework:
In order to assess and compare the fairness and feasibility of the three policies, both concepts need to be clarified and a definition is needed that will be used throughout the paper. It seems intuitively right that a policy that aims to share the burden of a crisis should make sure that this burden is actually shared in a fair manner. However, it is important to establish what exactly is meant by ‘fair’ in this case. Firstly, according to the definition fair means ‘treating people in a way that does not favour some over others’. In this paper fairness is viewed from the perspective of the member states of the European Union. This is important, because a different outcome could occur if another perspective, for example of the refugees, would be taken. For a policy to be fair it has to take into account all actors involved and make sure that no one has an disadvantage compared to others. Another important distinction within the concept of fairness exists between equality and equitability and therefore it needs to be clarified whether a policy should seek to be equal or equitable. The difference between the two is that an equal distribution would mean that every actor involved would receive exactly the same thing whereas in an equitable distribution it is acknowledged that there are differences between the actors involved and that a fair distribution does not always automatically mean that everyone needs exactly the same things (Clow, Hanson & Bernier, n.d.). Throughout the paper fairness refers to the equitable distribution of the burden among member states, in which the different starting points of each country are taken into account. When a policy is developed, one of the most important criteria that determines a ‘good policy’ is whether it is actually possible to implement the policy. It is one thing to develop a policy on paper, but another to make it work in the real world. Feasibility refers to this characteristic of a policy. The word feasible is defined as ‘capable of being done or carried out’ and ‘reasonable’ (Merriam Webster Online, n.d.). Concerning the scope of this paper, only this first aspect of practicability is being applied. Can the policy actually be carried out? Of course, there are many different types of feasibility that could be assessed. Think for example of financial feasibility, technical feasibility or legal feasibility (Bowen, 2013). However, in this paper the aim is to purely look to what extent a policy is able to solve the problem and to what extent it can actually be implemented. This is also known as the operational feasibility (Bowen, 2013). Because the three policies compared in this paper are all either implemented in the European Union itself or somewhere else, it is also possible to look whether it actually works out in practice. Therefore, the following definition will be used throughout this paper: A policy is feasible when1) it is possible to carry it out and 2) it could achieve its objectives once implemented.