The Europeanisation of Policy Agendas
To what extent does Europeanisation and accession affect the convergence of policy agendas?
Nevena Bojović S1654152
MSc Public Administration – Public Management and Leadership Supervisor: Prof.dr. Kutsal Yesilkagit
Abstract
In an ever-changing and globalised world, the formation of policy agendas is becoming increasingly interdependent, progressing and developing similarities over time through the process of convergence. Past research on convergence of policy agendas has shown that in a context of Europeanisation in the European Union, member states frequently rely on one another’s successful policies when forming and disseminating their own policy agendas. This research explores how Europeanisation through the process of Serbia’s accession affects the convergence of policy agendas of candidate states, building on existing literature on what is known about member states. The main question this thesis seeks to answer is: To what extent does Europeanisation and accession affect the convergence of policy agendas? This thesis analyses the ways in which policy changes fit into the frameworks of convergence mechanisms. In this context, the policy area from which documents were analysed is migration, pertaining to strategies and policies adopted over the course of 2010 to 2019, in light of the migration influx seen in 2015. Using existing conceptualisations and frameworks of the mechanisms of convergence developed by key scholars in the field, this research analyses the extent to and ways in which the case of Serbia’s accession to the European Union fits within these frameworks. The results indicate that in the time frame of 2010 to 2019 the policy agendas of Serbia and the European Union converged only partially and not completely, an occurrence motivated by the migration crisis and the process of accession causing shifts in the policy agenda focus.
Contents
1. Introduction ...4
2. Theoretical framework ...7
a. Policy agenda setting and dynamics ...7
b. Policy convergence ...9
c. Blending agenda dynamics and convergence ... 12
3. Research Design ... 14
a. Case selection and background information ... 14
b. Methods and data collection ... 16
4. Policy agendas analysis ... 19
a. EU migration policy agenda (2010-2019) ... 19
b. Serbian migration policy agenda (2010-2019)... 24
c. Hungarian migration policy agenda (2010-2019) ... 29
5. Agendas in the media ... 33
a. The crisis in EU media ... 33
b. The crisis in Serbian media ... 35
c. The crisis in Hungarian media ... 38
6. Discussion and analysis ... 41
7. Conclusion and implications ... 53
8. Limitations and future research ... 56
1. Introduction
Agendas and agenda setting steer the attention given to policies. Agendas can be influenced by discussions and decisions made due to externally occurring events and circumstances that have an effect on entities, for example a country, community, or region. Agenda setting is a way of driving issues toward decision-making, existing primarily as a means of managing the amount of issues or topics garnering attention at a given time in a political system (Princen, 2009). As well as being influenced by external discussions and events, contents of agendas can also be a result of domestic pressures whereby public issues in a specific community are transformed into priorities that the government deals with (Zahariadis, 2016). A prime example of this is McCombs and Shaw’s seminal study on the 1968 American presidential election concluding that there was a correlation between what the public perceived as the most important issue and what the media reported this most important issue as being (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
The main focus of this thesis is the effect of accession and how it causes convergence in relation to agenda setting, while asking the question; what does accession do to agenda dynamics in a country? Taking the answer to this question into consideration, the main question this thesis seeks to answer is ‘to what extent does Europeanisation and accession impact the convergence of policy agendas?’ The case used to explore this is the refugee and migrant crisis that hit Europe in 2015. This event acts as a crucial turning point in the way migrants and refugees were perceived through public policies and the lens of the media, as well as being a defining moment of the decade due to the pressure it exerted on European countries and their ways of working. This thesis posits that convergence of the national agenda and supranational agenda occurs under the pressures and processes of accession, and examines this through comparisons of agendas. By answering the question ‘to what extent does Europeanisation and accession impact the convergence of policy agendas,’ this thesis’ relevance lays in the fact that it contributes to the academic debate in the field of agenda setting and formation, with a focus on the mechanisms of convergence that have the power to drive similarities between agendas. Moreover, it contributes to the knowledge of what EU enlargement might mean in the scope of policy agenda setting.
To answer this question, the influx of migrants into the EU – largely called a ‘crisis’ – in 2015 will be used as a case around which the policy agendas were formed. The start of the crisis was only the beginning of the ripple effect this migrant influx would have on policy makers in the
future. Let us set the scene; it is 2015 and an increasing number of migrants are entering the EU and neighbouring countries in an attempt to escape peril and turmoil of home. Under the crumbling Dublin agreement countries are working to accommodate increased populations, asylum, and integrations. In order to better understand the effects of the migrant crisis and how responses to it are intertwined with the process of accession, they will be studied in the context of Serbia through agendas. This thesis considers the external factors that influence agenda-setting on the national level, namely adopting the stance that accessions influence the extent to which national policy agendas of candidate countries follow that of the EU. Agendas are formed at policy venues where the problems and solutions are laid out, for example legislatures and executives (Timmermans & Scholten, 2006). Policy-change can take place as a result of influence spread from one country to another through diffusion, as well as through the mechanisms of convergence, discussed in detail below (Meseguer, 2005). To study whether this is the case, the migrant crisis in 2015 is used as a trigger event around which the analysis is centred. This thesis concerns itself with exploring how policy agendas differ based on this trigger. It focuses on making reference to how agendas are shaped by horizontal and vertical dimensions of agenda setting as posited by Baumgartner and Jones (2005) and Breeman and Timmermans (2019), discussed in the theoretical framework below.
Historically accession and EU enlargement has played an important role in ending conflicts across Europe while stabilising peace, quality of living, and justice (Verheugen, 2007). The Copenhagen criteria laid the foundations for what accession candidates need to fulfil in the realm of economic and the political requirements (Skytte Christoffersen, 2007). Such criteria ensure that countries fit the bill for enlargement, and are overall good candidates for European Union membership. After accession, countries become intertwined with a supranational identity where policy agendas converge due to the increased responsibility of answering to this supranational institution. Academic literature on convergence between the EU and member states assumes that member states are more likely to have similar policies to the EU due to their association with a higher institution (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). This relationship has been corroborated in several studies on the subject of convergence between the EU and member states, as well as simply between European countries in relation to environmental and economic policies (Fink, 2013; Busch & Jörgens, 2005). This thesis takes it upon itself to explore if such relationships of
convergence are translatable to countries who are in the process of accession, and whether it is this process that pushes the policy agendas together, particularly looking at migration policies.
The following section outlines the main theoretical concepts and reviews some core literature related to each of them. It further proceeds into outlining how the concepts are related to the selected case, before delving deeper into the research design and methods of the study. Later sections then contain the data and analyses pertaining to public policy and media sources, before continuing to the discussion of data, implications of findings, and conclusion.
2. Theoretical framework
The theoretical core of this thesis concerns itself with concepts of political agenda-setting and policy convergence. The theoretical base is constructed from existing work by Breeman and Timmermans (2019) on the subject of vertical and horizontal attention dynamics in agenda setting, including key factors related to agenda setting from scholars such as Baumgartner and Jones (2005), Princen (2006), and Walgrave and Vliegenthart (2010). In order to explore the relationship between accession and policy agendas, the element of policy convergence is incorporated (Bennett, 1991; Holzinger & Knill, 2005). To further explore policy convergence, the analysis of the accession process and extant policies of a country will be compared to that of a European Union member state. Such a comparison helps in uncovering the mechanisms behind agenda setting. Tracking the migration policies in both countries against the backdrop of the EU will allow for keeping the EU as a constant factor and point of comparison, while exploring how the accession causes fluctuations in policy attention and variations in agendas. Similarly, it will allow for revealing other possible underlying reasons for fluctuations in attention levels to migration policy applicable to other studies and cases.
a. Policy agenda setting and dynamics
Starting with political agenda-setting, the focus lies mainly within the politics of attention and the cyclical process behind fluctuations in attention to various policies (Baumgartner & Jones, 2005; Downs, 1972). A political agenda can be defined as a set of issues receiving high levels of attention from decision-makers in a polity (Princen & Rhinard, 2006). The cyclicality of attention to policies as posited by Baumgartner and Jones (2005) is represented by peaks and troughs in levels of attention given to policy issues; for example, devoting a proportionate amount of attention to one issue for a long period of time until suddenly there is a shift and the issue can either gain or lose disproportionate amounts of attention (Baumgartner & Jones, 2005; Walgrave & Vliegenthart, 2010). The process of attention fluctuation is referred to as the punctuation of policy agendas.
Breeman and Timmermans (2019) studied the horizontal and vertical attention dynamics in the context of environmental problems on the executive agendas of EU member states, namely the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Spain. Stemming from the terminology used by Breeman and Timmermans (2019), the terms used to assess attention dynamics are ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical.’ The notion of horizontal attention dynamics draws from both Downs (1972) and
Baumgartner and Jones (2005) namely highlighting the fact that agendas and policies experience cyclical waves of attention based on competition with other issues for space on the agenda, this being the ‘trade-off’ between issues for attention (Breeman and Timmermans, 2019). Horizontal attention dynamics can be described as issue competition within a nation, namely the competition between policy topics on the nations agenda (Breeman and Timmermans, 2019). The notion of issue competition relates to Walgrave and Vliegenthart’s (2010) study on the punctuated attention of policy agendas, as it implies the shift in levels of attention between issues on policy agendas. However, this dimension can also be explored with a country as the unit of analysis whereby the dynamics between countries are studied. This entails studying the attention to a specific policy issue, and the differences or similarities in attention to it from two different countries. Fink (2013) studied the latter in detail in relation to successes of economic policy, concluding that horizontal attention dynamics between countries depict a convergent relationship as one country is more likely to pursue a policy if said policy has been perceived as successful within another country. He found that both countries in question being member states does not make them more likely to have convergent policies, rather only the element of success plays a role (Fink, 2013).
The vertical dimension of attention dynamics refers to the policy agendas outside the country in question, and hints at a hierarchy or governance level that the country may be institutionally or legally tied to (Breeman and Timmermans, 2019). It is representative of multilevel agenda setting and characterised by questioning whether attention to a certain policy issue on the national agenda of a country follows the same course as attention levels in the supranational institution (Breeman & Timmermans, 2019). Agenda-setting may also be driven internally and domestically through mobilisation of support for a policy topic, where political actors are capable of changing an agenda by involving those who support it an excluding those who do not (Princen, 2011).
An interesting concept to note in this case is that of punctuated equilibrium, whereby policy makers make use of trigger events or drastic changes in the status quo to change the tone and direction of a political debate (Timmermans & Scholten, 2006). This concept is particularly interesting due to its focus on change and stability of policies, and what the driving forces behind such mechanisms may be (Timmermans & Scholten, 2006). It also relates to the punctuation of policy agendas as explored by Baumgartner and Jones (2005) and notably Walgrave and
Vliegenthart (2010) in discussing fluctuating levels of attention. Punctuated equilibria as studied by Walgrave and Vliegenthart (2010) are important in policy making and agenda setting due to their role in nurturing or hindering change, explored in reference to friction and cascading. Such punctuated equilibria are characterised by critical junctures, namely those trigger events that have happened and thus set the scene for actions taken in the future (Pierson, 2000). In this thesis there are two such instances that may have an effect on the policy attention dynamics. The first potential event is accession to the EU, which may act as a critical juncture in relation to vertical dynamics of policy attention. The second instance is the migrant flow, which is most easily translated in the horizontal dynamics through the relationship between countries on the subject of migrants. These are the main two critical junctures that caused punctuated equilibria in the scope of this thesis, and will thus be used in the attempt to unravel the mechanisms of policy convergence.
Agenda setting literature does not pertain only to the field of policies and policy making, but is also incredibly important in the formation of public opinion. Public opinion can be formed from the agenda setting occurring as a result of the medias’ reporting of policies and events. Agenda setting theory encompasses the role of the media in the formation of public agendas and public opinions. Although arguably the main agenda setter of a country is its prime minister or president alongside other key policy makers (Valenzuela & McCombs, 2019), the media is becoming increasingly important in the process of transferring the content of policies from policy venues to the public.
b. Policy convergence
To provide further knowledge, the element of policy convergence is used. In its most basic form, convergence can be defined as an increasing similarity over time, in this case of policies (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). Convergence can be either complete or incomplete, where complete convergence suggests a total similarity between cases, while incomplete suggests that there is still some variance between the cases (Plümper & Schneider, 2009). In policy analyses, policy convergence may appear in five different ways according to Bennett (1991). The five ways in which convergence may be seen are convergence of policy goals, policy content, policy instruments, policy outcomes, and finally convergence of policy style (Bennett, 1991). These differ from the processes that can cause convergence, more on this later. In this case the two relevant meanings of convergence are policy goals and policy content, which are the concepts of dealing
with a common policy problem and the ways in which government policy is manifested, respectively (Bennett, 1991). In his work Bennett (1991) states that the distinctions between the ways in which convergence is manifested have the tendency to portray policy making as having linear stages rather than being something that is susceptible to interactions and communication which have the power to shape the content of policies. However, focusing on some aspects of the ways convergence can be seen rather than ignoring them allows for a simpler and more straightforward study taking shape in a comparative case analysis. Interestingly, Bennett notes that convergence itself does not necessarily have to be a process of increasing similarity between two parties such as one copying the actions of another, but rather a process of one increasingly reaching the same level as the other over a period of time (1991). It is in this way that he considers convergence to be an issue of moving from one position to another – a characteristic of convergence is the development over time (Bennett, 1991). Due to this it includes the developmental progression of a single case, with the point of comparison being a former stage of the case being examined. This can be compared to an external variable where a similar pattern may or may not be occurring.
Policy convergence and the potential occurrence of Europeanisation through convergence has been explored in relation to both financial and environmental policies (Busch and Jörgens, 2005; Kemmerling, 2010). Delving deeper into the internal workings of convergence, Holzinger and Knill (2005) discuss convergence in the popular form of international harmonisation such as through legal obligations to the international institution they are party to. They posit that they do not expect there to be convergence between countries not part of an international institution and the institution itself, and thereby provide one of the key relationships that this thesis will explore (Holzinger and Knill, 2005). Previous studies on convergence on the cross-national scale such as that by Holzinger and Knill (2005) discuss the wide available range of indicators that can be useful in assessing the scope of convergence and instances in which it occurs. Similarly, Bennett discusses a non-exhaustive list of four processes that can cause convergence. These processes can within them shape the meaning of ‘policy convergence’ and dictate whether the convergence occurs in the policy style, outcomes, instruments, goals, and content as manifestations of convergence (Bennett, 1991).
The processes of emulation, elite networking and policy communities, harmonisation, and penetration are shown to be the four that cause convergence (Bennett, 1991). Convergence literature normalises the mechanism of emulation as it is historically common for countries to borrow from other countries and implement policies into their own systems (Bennett, 1991). While Bennett claims that this mechanism is a common occurrence and presents it in a positive light as a normalised system, Holzinger and Knill (2005) describe emulation as a system of copying models from elsewhere. This copying is brought about by a desire for conformity, and due to the description of the nature of the mechanism the acts of ‘copying’ and ‘borrowing’ carry different meanings whereby copying carries a negative stigma while borrowing or adapting sound more normalised. Convergence through harmonisation is characterised by interdependence whereby there is reliance on others in order to perform a task (Bennett, 1991).
This harmonisation is further reinforced by the existence of supranational organisations and institutions that facilitate the creation of a unified response or vision that thereby solves a problem or tackles an issue on the agenda (Bennett, 1991). This is precisely the type of convergence that Holzinger and Knill do not expect to find in countries that are not bound to a transnational institution (2005). Furthermore, it is one of the types of convergence that this thesis will seek to understand and whose mechanisms it will attempt to uncover. Holzinger and Knill’s conceptualisation of policy convergence highlights several causal mechanisms which result in convergence if political leaders or countries respond to the prompts of the mechanisms (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). Some of the most relevant mechanisms are grouped under the terms imposition, characterised by mechanisms of coercion, pressure, and forced policy transfer; international harmonisation, such as legal obligations through laws; regulatory competition, where changes occur due to competitive pressures; independent problem-solving, where independent responses by actors are similar; and finally transnational communication, characterised by causal mechanisms coming about as a result of communication rather than pressures or legal obligations (Holzinger & Knill, 2005).
Policy convergence literature in the political sciences mainly includes research comprising of descriptive statistics, single case studies, or comparative case studies (Plümper & Schneider, 2009). Although convergence is a subject that can be studied across many disciplines, political scientists’ criticisms of the research methods used to study convergence in the field of political
science led to decisions regarding the design of this thesis, namely the decision to conduct a comparative case study. This is because regression research is said to be more significant when used in the context of economics rather than the political sciences (Plümper & Schneider, 2009). In the past, (comparative) case studies on the subject of convergence have yielded several different findings across many policy areas. Some have found convergence in the of patterns the establishment of banks or in the privatisation policies, while some found convergence was geographically clustered (Marcussen, 2005; Murillo, 2002; Dyson, 2007). Scholars such as Botcheva and Martin (2001) found that in the context of international institutions, convergence was most likely when countries formed institutions that partook in collective-action responses, while others found that being part of the EU had little impact on the convergence of policies in countries France, Germany, and Italy (Kerwer & Teutsch, 2001).
c. Blending agenda dynamics and convergence
We know from existing literature that policy convergence between European countries as well as between EU member states and the EU is common, as seen through explorations of both economic and environmental policies. Policy convergence between countries is also positively impacted if a policy is successfully implemented in one country, increasing the chances of its implementation elsewhere (Fink, 2013). Typically, convergence mechanisms of harmonisation and diffusion are seen most clearly in these relationships. What we do not know is whether mechanisms of policy convergence typically attributed to the relationship between member states and the EU and Commission as a whole are also relevant between candidate states and the EU.
I argue that this is indeed the case and attribute the cause of this to be the accession process, which acts as a driver of policy convergence. Previous research in the field of agenda setting shows us that it is influenced both internally and externally, and thus agendas are not always independent but can instead draw influence from discussions occurring in external policy setting venues, and agendas of other countries. The interdependencies of agendas are caused by policy convergence. This is best explained by referencing Bennett’s (1991) list of the manifestations of policy convergence, occurring through convergence of goals, content, instruments, outcomes, and styles of policy. Agendas of countries may be connected based on having similar goals or outcomes after adopting the same policies, or perhaps they may formulate responses to policies in the same way (Bennett, 1991). Due to the communicative nature of policy formation and the fact that agenda
setting processes are often dependent on internal and external events and the international community, it would not be unseemly to consider a relationship between policy convergence and agenda setting.
Convergence literature discusses the external effect on the formation of national agendas and provides the outlook that countries draw inspiration from one another and adopt successful policies from other countries into their own practice, as well as being influenced by supranational institutions. National agendas and agenda setting are thus indicative of not only the policies adopted by countries but also the communication between countries and institutions that drive the formation of agendas. It is imperative to study agenda setting and the mechanisms driving it as the world we live in is becoming increasingly globalised and interdependent, where issues and problems affecting one country can similarly be affecting other countries and regions that they are connected to or intertwined with through supranational networks. Much existing literature on convergence focuses on studies of subject areas such as environmental and climate policies and outputs, transport policies, child care policies, as well as an emphasis on the diffusion mechanism of convergence (Plümper & Schneider, 2009). This thesis’ focus on studying the presence of convergence in the field of migration policy sheds light on how this particular policy area may entail the various mechanisms of convergence at play between countries and international institutions. Moreover, it considers several mechanisms of convergence such as harmonisation and transnational communication, previously looked at through studies on the Europeanisation of economic and environmental policy agendas by academics such as Kemmerling (2010, Fink (2013), Princen and Rhinhard (2006) and Holzinger and Knill (2005).
3. Research Design
a. Case selection and background information
The focus of this research is on the comparison of policy agendas between Serbia and the EU, while also looking to compare this outcome to that of Hungary and the EU, due to the somewhat volatile historical relationship between Serbia and Hungary. Comparing the policy agendas of Serbia and the EU to Hungary and the EU allows for a comparison of not only the extent of possible convergence that may occur but also the different responses to the migrant crisis between Serbia, Hungary, and the European Union and Commission. Serbia and Hungary share a border, as well as hundreds of years of history, and in more recent years, not a very loving relationship particularly in the context of the migration crisis in the last decade that culminated with Hungary building a fence on the border with Serbia to mitigate the inflow of migrants (Sicurella, 2018). This major turnaround event occurred in 2015, and thereby marks an instance of punctuated equilibrium (Sicurella, 2018; Walgrave & Vliegenthart, 2010).
Following several failed attempts to open the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) talks between the EU and Serbia, whose turbulent relationship was caused largely by the issue of Kosovo’s independence and lack of faith from EU Member States, in 2012 Serbia finally achieved candidacy status on its road to accession and officially started negotiations around accession in 2014 (Stahl, 2013). Both of these events – critical junctures – occurred within a few years of one another and thus fall roughly in the middle of the selected time frame. In order to explore whether there is convergence between Serbia and the EU’s attention to migration policy, the time frame selected will include years prior to both the official accession start and the increasing migrant crisis of 2015, as well as years later. A selected time frame of 2010-2019 will allow for an exploration of policies prior to both trigger events and will help in ascertaining and solidifying possible causes for convergence if there is any, without relying on too narrow a time span.
The thesis is centred on how Serbia’s association with the EU could affect the progression of migration policy within the country, and whether the patterns of change within the EU are reflected in Serbia’s stances on migration policy. The horizontal dimension of attention dynamics is characterised by a comparison between Serbia and Hungary in the scope of migration policy, and is used as a means of cross-referencing whether the same patterns of policy fluctuations occur
between Serbia and the EU, and Hungary and the EU. It thus explores whether there is convergence – in the sense of developmental progression in Serbian and Hungarian national level policies – with policies as dictated by the EU and the Commission. The main political agenda of choice pertains to migration policy extracted from policy documents of Serbia and Hungary compared to those of the European Union. The cases will be analysed to conclude which mechanisms of convergence are seen in possible similarities between agendas of Serbia, Hungary, and the EU.
In this case, the horizontal dimension focuses on exploring the attention levels to migration policy from the point of view of a comparison of dynamics between countries, but also concerning domestic issue competition. Comparing Hungary to Serbia across the same stages will allow for determining whether there are similar patterns in attention to policy, or policy content, while using the EU and Commission policies as a point of comparison. The vertical dimension in this case is characteristic of the relationship between Serbia and the European Union – a relationship fortified by Serbia’s accession to the Union. The comparison will similarly include Hungary and the European Union. Seeing as Hungary is already a member state of the EU, its policies with the EU may be more significantly and explicitly similar, a prediction established based on knowledge of convergence mechanisms from existing literature, namely convergence through harmonisation as posited by Holzinger and Knill (2005). The distinctive difference between Holzinger and Knill’s study from which the convergence conceptualisation is drawn and this thesis is that the main case assessed, namely Serbia, is not a member state which the authors assume restricts convergence by stating that it is not as evident as in cases of member states (Holzinger and Knill, 2005). Policy document sources encompassing the time period of Serbia’s accession will be assessed in order to determine whether it could be the causal factor that would cause a different outcome than that predicted by Holzinger and Knill (2005), and other crucial convergence scholars such as Fink (2003).
It is valuable to study convergence in the case of a candidate state and the EU while comparing it to a member state. The value is in the conclusions that can be drawn about whether or not policy convergence as studied by scholars such as Bennett (1991) and Holzinger and Knill (2005) is present between candidate states and the EU rather than being limited to only member states. It also allows for comparative evaluations of country profiles and unravelling how agenda setting occurs in such instances. This sort of comparative study in the realm of agenda setting helps
expand the current knowledge base and contributes to the literature in both fields of study. I examine whether a similar type of convergence as studied by Holzinger and Knill (2005), Fink (2003), Bennett (1991) or Busch & Jörgens (2005) can be seen in the relationship between Serbia and the EU, and whether one of the push factors behind this is the accession. In order to explore the cross-national convergence between Serbia and Hungary, this thesis seeks to discover whether there is convergence between Serbia’s and Hungary’s attention dynamics to migration policy compared to the EU with reference to the punctuated equilibrium of the migrant flow in the Balkans. I argue that accession does indeed result in policy convergence over time due to the nature of accessions such as their emphasis on negotiation, values, and the binding process of achieving EU membership.
b. Methods and data collection
To study the convergence of national policy agendas the source of data will largely comprise of policy documents from the EU, Serbia, and Hungary, outlining the yearly agenda and highlighting main issues to be targeted, as well as looking at migration-specific policy documents. Thus, the data gathered will be qualitative and the main method of analysis used is a comparative case study time series. The time series centres on analysing the content of policy documents in the time frame of 2010-2019. Migration-specific policy documents allow to assess whether there is convergence between the migration policies in Serbia, Hungary, and the EU by looking at the ways in which it is talked about, as well as whether the content of the policies across all three cases has similar focus, for example in terms of emphasis on human rights, wellbeing, and safety of refugees and migrants.
To provide an additional external view point on the levels of attention on a national scale, media sources will be assessed in order to study how the public debate is reported in the media, content-wise. In order to successfully explore whether there are convergent similarities between Hungary and Serbia on the horizontal dimension, there is a need to compare the two cases at the country level of analysis in order to see where these differences and similarities may be. This includes comparing their approaches to migration management, and the ways in which the media reported the crisis. This will provide useful insight in interpreting the data gathered from policy documents and media sources. Thus, the comparative time series allows for not only an analysis
of the individual countries’ approaches to migration, but also allows for determining whether EU membership causes differences in the measures adopted.
Convergence is measured by looking at the national policy agenda and noting similarities or differences in the way in which – if any – migration is spoken about on the national agenda. As noted, these similarities are content-based and include looking at the ways in which the policies cover the areas of human rights, safety, and well-being, and whether they do so in similar patterns or ways to one another. To determine this, two main mechanisms of convergence namely harmonisation and transnational communication – as well as sub-mechanisms of the latter – will be selected. I will assess whether the policy documents over the chosen time frame bear content-based similarities, convergence scope, and degree of convergence to be classed as representative of the aforementioned two mechanisms. The definitions and criteria of what the two mechanisms of convergence entail and are characterised by are discussed in the theoretical framework above, and will serve as the main definitions this thesis makes use of. Thus, this thesis uses pre-existing conceptualisations of mechanisms of convergence rather than attempting to theorise new ones. This in itself is a useful way of determining whether existing conceptualisations are more of a one size fits all model, or whether there is room for expansion in what we believe convergence is and how it is manifested in the political sciences.
If increased attention to the same issues on both the Serbian agenda and the EU agenda is present, and the content of the policy changes bears similarities, we can assume policy convergence. Drawing from Holzinger and Knill’s (2005) conceptualisations of policy convergence and when measuring convergence, I will refer to the degree of convergence as well as the convergence scope. The degree of convergence deals with determining the increase in similarity over time, while the scope measures how many countries and policies are converging (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). Degree of convergence is measured by looking at the content of agendas and seeing whether similarities appear over time, here operationalised by the number of similar policies present in Serbia, Hungary and the EU from 2010-2019. Despite this, the similarities are also content based. To determine whether there is convergence between the policy agendas I strive to highlight instances if and when the policies relating to migration in the three cases bear likeness in terms of tactics or strategies adopted to manage migration. To do this, I will analyse both the actions taken and the language used in the policy documents and news media
sources. The convergence scope is measured in reference to the countries and policies and determining whether the degree of convergence is applicable to each case (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). It is thus determined by the number of cases adhering to similar policy approaches.
As discussed in the theoretical framework above, there exist several driving mechanisms of policy convergence. Holzinger and Knill’s (2005) classification of transnational communication encompasses causal mechanisms of convergence such as policy emulation and international policy promotion that I will use to establish whether accession causes convergence in policy agendas. These mechanisms adopt a less coercive focus whereby countries might feel pressures of legitimacy rather than face fears of being sanctioned. Emulation of policies is most simply defined as the copying of policies from other countries that may be brought about by a desire to be perceived as more legitimate (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). Similarly, the mechanism of international policy promotion is driven by a desire of legitimacy by adopting policies that are promoted by international institutions spreading desirable policy approaches (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). Also in the realm of less coercive convergence mechanisms are international harmonisation, lesson-drawing, and independent problem-solving (Holzinger & Knill, 2005). By examining policy documents from Serbia, Hungary, and the EU I will seek to explore whether any of these mechanisms of convergence are present. I hypothesise that the period of accession results in convergence of policies in Serbia and the EU due to increased interaction and monitoring of Serbia’s successful policies making them eligible for EU membership. Similarly, Hungarian and EU policies are expected to converge due to EU-membership and Hungary’s large role in the migrant crisis pushing progress in the field of national migration policies.
First follows a description of the policy agenda of the EU, followed Serbia and Hungary, showing policies and strategies undertaken by the three actors. Following this is an analysis of the media portrayals of the migration crisis of 2015 per the three cases. Using the media sources will help in measuring convergence – analysing and comparing the contents of these sources across the EU with Serbia will allow me to isolate patterns of common or differing approaches in the narrative of migration and refugees, as well as in the portrayals of policies taken to deal with the crisis. After this chapter, a discussion and analysis of the convergence mechanisms is presented where the descriptions of policy agendas and media sources are analysed to determine which convergence mechanisms can be seen in this relationship over the course of 2010-2019.
4. Policy agendas analysis
a. EU migration policy agenda (2010-2019)
Prior to the rapidly growing migrant influx of 2015, the EU’s main migration policy and framework until then was the 2005 Global Approach to Migration (and later Global Approach to Migration and Mobility; henceforth GAMM), amended in 2011 (European Commission, 2011). Since then, migration was said to be at the top of the Union’s agenda, placed there by events causing imbalances such as the Arab spring of late 2010 (European Commission, 2011). To manage the increasing incoming migration into Europe, the European Commission called for a strengthening of external migration policy at the hands of the EU, urging cooperation and partnerships with member and non-member states in order to increase communication and cooperation (European Commission, 2011). As of 2011 the GAMM has four main pillars, namely the better organisation of legal migration, prevention and combatting of illegal migration and human trafficking, maximising development impact of migration, and the promotion of international protection and improvement of asylum. To manage the influx of irregular and legal migrants, the GAMM is implemented through visas, readmission agreements, international cooperation, action plans, and bilateral policy discussions (European Commission, 2011). Since its inception its goal was to address migration in a balanced way that was based on partnership with non-EU countries (European Commission, 2011). The GAMM’s amendment in 2011 presented an increasingly efficient approach to dealing with migration. This efficiency is perhaps best encompassed by an encouraging of all member states to develop and employ strategies that focus on migration and mobility, emphasising the urgency and growing scale of the issue.
The amended GAMM also urged towards an improved integration policy and approach, so as to provide both an “adaptable workforce” and labour opportunities (European Commission, 2011). Moreover, the tone adopted in much of the GAMM 2011 is humane; it not only urges the Union and member states to attentively take care of the migrants in their respective countries, it also places an emphasis on human rights. The Union and member states were urged to adopt the GAMM as the central functioning framework of migration management, and based on the perspective that the central issue at hand were indeed people, policies were put in place to ensure migrants had access to all information they may require on the subject of their rights and opportunities.
To ensure that this is the case not only within the Union but across Europe, one of the central policies and pillars of the GAMM is communication and cooperation (European Commission, 2011). One of the management strategies to improve this is centred around bilateral relations and partnerships such as with the EU Neighbourhood and the Eastern Partnership (European Commission, 2011). This in turn not only strengthens the communication between such institutions but also their ability to better manage the issue at hand. Reflecting its name effectively, the amended GAMM emphasises the need for a truly global approach to managing migration. Alongside the GAMM, the European Commission and the Union developed an additional set of strategies and policies regarding the management of migrants and refugees in the case of the 2015 crisis. These strategies are characterised by the implementation of the ‘hotspot’ approach to managing migration and policies aimed at alleviating pressures on hotspot regions and improving their functionality (European Commission, 2015). In this case, hotspots are regions of countries at the frontline where there is immense pressure in terms of migrant numbers, and a need for the most support and resources (European Commission, 2015).
Since the start of the migrant influx into Europe in 2015, the European Commission presented the European Agenda on Migration in May which has since then dedicated itself to addressing challenges that the Union may face regarding irregular migration, asylum, and security. The first instalment of the European Agenda on Migration set the four pillars to better manage migration, including the creation of a well thought-out framework that would assist migrants in legally entering the Union and reduce irregular entry (European Commission, 2015). There was significant emphasis on communication and cooperation in this document which applied not only to member states but also to countries from which migration was stemming. In December 2015 the European Commission released a proposal on the management of returns of migrants to their country of origin, should they not qualify for asylum (European Commission, 2015). The measures taken ensure that irregular migrants are effectively repatriated, while considering their lack of proper documentation, and making sure that there are measures in place to aid the migrants genuinely in need of protection (European Commission, 2015).
The tone adopted within the documents since the inception of the European Agenda on Migration is that of urgency in solving the perceived problem that is migration. This comes in the form of the European Commission urging for speedier implementation of returns programs for
irregular migrants, improved rescue interventions at the hands of Frontex, as well as improvement of communication and coordination between countries on the Western Balkan route (European Commission, 2015). The main problem areas and measures to tackle these areas were listed as saving lives at sea, intercepting and targeting networks and routes of criminal smuggling, relocation of migrants increasingly entering the EU, resettlement and protection, and the use of networking and tools at the EUs disposal in order to aid the countries working on the front line (European Commission, 2015).
The four pillars for better migration management as mentioned in the EAM included reducing possible incentives for irregular migration, referring to smuggling, trafficking, and intercepting such problems at the source (European Commission, 2015). The issue of border management forms the second pillar, and describes the need for urgency in securing borders while taking action to ensure lives are not lost; a nod to Frontex and operation Triton (European Commission, 2015). The third pillar was the creation of a common European policy regarding asylum, aimed at efficiently and fairly tackling the increasing number of asylum applications and ensuring that it is granted to those who need it and who qualify (European Commission, 2015). As per the migration management plan, the fourth and final pillar was the creation of a new policy on legal migration (European Commission, 2015). This policy was less targeted at the urgent migrant influx from outside Europe, instead adopting an approach of targeting the nurturing of so called “legal” migration within Europe in order to stimulate knowledge and economies of European countries (European Commission, 2015). In this case “legal” migration refers to admission of third-country nationals, and phenomena such as economic migration rather than overtly focusing on the narrative of the pressing migrant influx. The EU’s agenda on migration sets the tone and course of action for not only the EU as an institution but also member states, relevant partners and alliances, and other international organisations.
Since 2010 the issue of migration has held a place on the agenda of the European Commission and the European Union. European Commission work programme strategy documents from 2010 to 2019 outline the main issues and areas of concern which the Commission aims to tackle by providing tactics and policies targeting problem areas. At the start of the decade in 2010, Europe was still feeling the effects of the recession and the main issues on the agenda were related to the European market and social market economy, as well as tackling the economic
crisis. Despite this economic focus, migration was still on the agenda most often talked about through the perspective of integration into European society, tackling illegal migration in the form of trafficking, and creating new immigration policies that strive to dull the effects of an ageing population across Europe (European Commission, 2010). In 2011, the Commission’s focus on migration was steered towards counteracting the effects of illegal immigration, and treating the problem at the source while policies taking centre-stage were more oriented towards building the reputation of the EU on the global scale, and stimulating European economies (European Commission, 2010).
The focus remained oriented on stimulating the economy and encouraging growth in 2012 (European Commission, 2011), while 2013 saw migration re-emerge on the agenda with strategies and policies aimed at reinforcing the mechanisms behind preventing incidents occurring during the migration process or at hotspots (European Commission, 2012). The approach in 2014 emphasised the benefits of the previous years’ focus on the economies of Europe, however retained focus on youth unemployment, human and labour rights, and equality for minorities, while migration took a back seat (European Commission, 2013). This attitude continued into 2015, where the Commission remained focused on making effective changes in regards to public debt, youth unemployment levels, and low levels of growth (European Commission, 2014). This strategy was increasingly oriented towards the EU distinguishing itself as a competitor globally.
The year 2015 was also marked by the establishment of the EAM, who’s newly introduced strategic plan as part of the Directorate-General of Migration and Home Affairs sets the scene for the strategies pertaining to migration in the period of 2016-2020. For 2016 the Commission turned its focus on the formulation of a common migration policy across Europe, and of course towards the management of the increasing pressure at hotspots and external borders. The Commission’s strategy for 2016 draws heavily on the European Agenda on Migration formulated in 2015, and urges the Union and its member states to increase attention to tackling irregular migration, smuggling, and refugee influx at the root or at various hotspots on Europe’s external borders (European Commission, 2015). The Directorate-General of Migration and Home Affairs’ strategy is specifically tailored towards the appropriate steps to take in the period of 2016-2020 to manage migration, and focuses on establishing a common European policy, creating return policies that
are fair and effective, and collaborating closely with parties such as Frontex to ensure borders are managed and lives are saved (European Commission, 2016).
In 2017 the Commission’s slogan on their policy and strategy document mentioned the need to empower, defend, and protect. The issue of increasing migration flows remained relevant, and for this year the scope of focus also encompassed ensuring the safety of migrants with the help of the Border and Coast Guard as well as other relevant partners (European Commission, 2016). Building on this, the implementation of the European Agenda on Migration continued in 2018, encompassing policies such as lawful repatriation and relocation of migrants who do not qualify for asylum, as well as an improved common European Asylum System emphasising shared responsibility (European Commission, 2017). To ensure that the process of strategy and policy implementation goes smoothly, in 2018 the Commission also increased their investments into countries and partners on the frontline and EU Neighbourhood, to support the regional effort (European Commission, 2017). In this year, migration was also considered alongside technology, as the Commission emphasised the relationship between migrants, technological advancements to aid in smoothing the process of identifying and registering migrants, and maintaining a high standard of security (European Commission, 2017).
Finally, for 2019 the focus of the Commission laid in the realms of migration, monetary and economic stimuli, global trade, and Brexit. The Commission expressed urgency for ensuring that security, migration and border management systems are operational together in order to facilitate efficient functioning of the three systems, and thus ensure efficient functioning of tasks such as visa provisions (European Commission, 2018). As a result of the previous years’ work on managing migration within the Union and on the periphery, the Commission recorded a 95% decrease in irregular migration since the apex following the turning point in 2015, although emphasised the need to remain vigilant as migratory routes are ever-changing, and continue to persist (European Commission, 2018). To ensure that migrants arriving via any which way have access to the necessary rights and facilities, the Commission urges the finalisation of the Common European Asylum System (European Commission, 2018).
The section above has provided a description of the policies and strategies in place, and measures taken by the EU from 2010 to 2019, including not only those policies before and after the migrant influx in 2015 but also the general policy focus of the years holistically. The
descriptions above will be used as a point of comparison in the sections following, regarding the policy agendas of Serbia and Hungary, to see whether the policy agendas of these countries bear similarity to those of the EU. As the EU is a supranational organisation, comparing its approaches to policies and tackling the migration crisis will allow me to draw conclusions regarding convergence on the vertical dimension of policy attention dynamics.
b. Serbian migration policy agenda (2010-2019)
The goals and priorities of Serbia’s overall migration policy are managed by the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration (henceforth the Commissariat), as well as several other ministries such as that of the Interior, of Foreign Affairs, and Justice, to name a few. The Government of Serbia and the International Organisation for Migration (henceforth IOM) produce annual migration profiles of Serbia and other Balkan states, outlining both migration trends as well as policies and agenda issues. The IOM’s Migration Governance Framework outlines three principles and three objectives underlining the necessary elements to facilitate adequate and responsible migration of people “through planned and well-managed migration policies” (IOM, 2016). The three principles are adherence to international standards in regards to the fulfilment of rights of migrants, formulation of policy through the use of evidence, and engagement with partners in addressing migration and issues that are related to it (IOM, 2016). The objectives going hand in hand with these principles are advancement of socioeconomic wellbeing of migrants, effective addressing of the mobility dimension of crises, and ensuring that migration occurs in a safe and dignified manner (IOM, 2016). The Serbian government’s migration management strategy of 2009 highlights the everlasting presence of migration in Serbia, both internal and external.
In these earlier years the focus on migrants was mainly steered towards expatriates who have left Serbia and thus unintentionally contributed to the effect of brain drain, as well as an ageing population (Government of Serbia, 2009). The migration management strategy of 2009 aligns itself very strongly with the EU and explicitly states how accession is a national goal of Serbia, and to achieve this process smoothly there will be an implementation of all measures deemed necessary for the accomplishment of EU-membership (Government of Serbia, 2009). This statement clearly sets the tone for central problem of this thesis and voices that the motivation behind policy implementation can indeed be attributed to EU-membership and accession.
However, it is important to note that this statement was made in 2009 and later again in 2010, years prior to the triggering migrant influx that could shift the status quo and alter the balance of the situation. Despite the motivation behind the alignment of policies being attributable to EU-membership and accession, the influx of migrant crisis may cause a slowing down of policy alignment and implementation, as it would be one of the first times in over a decade that Serbia would experience positive inbound migration rather that outbound, as was the case in years before. A timeline in the appendix is used to illustrate.
In 2009 the government of Serbia released a policy strategy to be used until 2014, with the intention of intercepting and solving the issue of irregular migration in Serbia. The issues and strategies laid out in this proposal were triggered by political instabilities and clashes on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and thus adopt a rationale based on relevant economic and political factors (Government of Serbia, 2009). The overall purpose was to solidify the politics behind the system of countering irregular migration, determine and draw up plans and implementations, as well as defining roles of national actors. As well as determining roles and mobilising support of national actors and relevant partners, this policy document discusses the role of information technology systems, visa policies, and borders amongst some of the factors relevant in the process of both immigration and emigration (Government of Serbia, 2009). The government’s discussion of emigration is highly linked to the economy, in that much emigration from Serbia includes economic migration and results in brain drain as many highly skilled nationals are emigrating both to the European Union member states, and elsewhere worldwide (Government of Serbia, 2009). When discussing immigration, this is done in conjunction with a focus on cooperation and security. The government policy emphasises cooperation of Serbia’s Ministry of the Interior with the EUs Frontex to improve the management of external borders (Government of Serbia, 2009).
Since the creation of the 2009 instalment on the management of migration there have been few changes to the attitude towards migrants and the workings of the Commissariat, however a new strategy for migration management was adopted in 2018, targeted to operate within the period of 2018-2020. This was adopted alongside a new communications strategy of 2017 between the Commissariat and Union, and Serbia on the subject of refugees and migrants. The focus in the 2018 migration management document lies on the emphasis that the problem of migration is
inherently a collective European problem, wherein Serbia is an important player (Government of Serbia, 2018). The policies and laws relating to migrants are less oriented towards repatriation and deflection, and more so towards their integration into Serbia, with an increased focus on making the integration and naturalisation process as well as work more accessible (Government of Serbia, 2018).
Regarding concerns over brain drain as stated in the 2009 migration management plan, this problem still persists. To tackle brain drain, the government proposed a policy wherein a short period of return to Serbia is recommended to expatriates in order to stimulate business and brain gain domestically, in cooperation with external international organisations (Government of Serbia, 2018). As mentioned in this document, this policy is specifically targeted toward stimulating brain gain, which in turn is motivated by Serbia’s accession to the EU (Government of Serbia, 2018). Policy makers state that this is necessary in order to smoothen and speed up the process of accession, as it is important to create an attractive economic and social environment for the return of expatriates. To alleviate the numbers of internal migrants and displaced persons, this policy document encourages employment and the provision of work permits as one of the most effective mechanisms of alleviating growing statistics of migrants (Government of Serbia, 2018).
The amended national strategy for solving the issues and questions of refugees was published in 2015 for the intention of serving the time period of 2015-2020. The main visions and values of the strategy are to comply with human rights, partner with relevant actors needed to smoothen the process of migration and refugee management, ensure the well-being of all migrants and refugees in Serbia, and actively involving refugees and migrants in search of the most appropriate solutions for them (Government of Serbia, 2015). There are 4 key strategies for tackling migration and refugees, the first of which being the creation of necessary requirements for the appropriate repatriation and return to country of origin of refugees and migrants who qualify for it in a dignified manner (Government of Serbia, 2015). In order to fulfil this strategy, the government states the need for a strengthening of national support in refugees’ countries of origin complying with international agreements in order to ensure their return is done safely (Government of Serbia, 2015). The second strategy of the government is the provision of necessary requirements and facilitation of equality for migrants and refugees who have decided to remain living in Serbia (Government of Serbia, 2015). In order to bring this strategy to fruition the government calls upon
the collaboration of ministries to aid in the provision of necessary services such as education and healthcare, and proposes the strengthening of diplomatic activities directed towards realising the rights of the refugee population in their countries of origin (Government of Serbia, 2015).
The third strategy proposed by the government is one ensuring the betterment of living conditions for the most at-risk refugees and migrants, and the measures in place are aimed at improving access to documentation and information, as well as coordination between institutions responsible in providing people with adequate documents (Government of Serbia, 2015). Further solutions include increasing share of employment positions held by migrants, and improving their incorporation into the education systems at their required level, while ensuring they have access to healthcare, accommodation, and the quality of life they need (Government of Serbia, 2015). Finally, the last strategic goal proposed was to protect the interests of migrants and refugees in obtaining their rights (Government of Serbia, 2015). To achieve the strategy of protecting the interests of migrants and refugees in access to rights in their place of origin, the main problematic areas pinpointed include employment and right to work, social and health protection, education, accommodation issues, and issues with documentation (Government of Serbia, 2015).
Regarding asylum seekers and refugees, the migration management strategy of 2018 and Law on Asylum of 2018 outline the steps to be undertaken when dealing with asylum seekers. The Law on Asylum states that under articles 24 and 25 asylum is granted to migrants or displaced persons who fear persecution on the basis of their gender, faith, language, national, political, or social affiliation, and race (Government of Serbia, 2018). Asylum is also granted if the individual does not fulfil the above conditions, but there is significant reason to believe they would face backlash upon return to their country of origin on the basis of the above states criteria. Going hand in hand with the Law on Asylum (2018), the Law on Migration (2012) as delivered by the Commissariat highlights the improvement of coordination between ministries and institutions working towards bettering migration management in Serbia. It pinpoints important areas of concern for migrants, namely their ability to access accommodation and food, assistance and right to health and social protection, and right to employment and schooling. In response to this the authorities grant such rights to migrants in Serbia. At the time of the creation of the Law on Migration in 2012 it was the first time that terms of migration were lawfully defined; this includes terminology such as internally displaced persons (IDPs), economic migrants, migrants and
refugees. This law acts as an answer to the until then lack of regulations and coordination within the system that manages migrations within Serbia. The Law on Migration lays out the principles and rights of migrants, concerning itself with the provision of accommodation, material aid, access to health and social integration and protection, and education and employment (Government of Serbia, 2012). This was later further ratified and emphasised in the national strategy of 2015-2020.
In the period of 2010 to 2019 Serbia’s domestic strategies have been oriented towards all form of matters, not simply migration. Much focus in the period of 2010-2013 was placed on the economy and finances, in terms of developing plans pertaining to fostering the private and public sectors, as well as improving trade, exports, and national economic development (Government of Serbia, 2010). As a country that is rich in natural resources, sustainable development strategies related to forestry, clean energy, and waste management dominated the playing field in latter end of the decade; a pattern reflected globally in the rise of environmentally aware movements and government programs. Strategies and policies about migration were referred to in conjunction with issues such as public administration, human rights, foreign affairs, and defence and security. In these respects, it occupied the national dialogue in the first half of the decade, namely 2010-2015, with explicit strategies targeting countering illegal migrations, border management, migration management, and the fight against human trafficking.
Despite this occasional prominence, much of the policies proposed and issues discussed on the Serbian agenda pertained to issues of an economic nature, or those related to infrastructure and investment. This was the case throughout 2012 where the government emphasised international relations and strengthening the ties with countries worldwide through mutual cooperation and aid agreements, as well as domestic infrastructural improvements and construction (Government of Serbia, 2012). The narrative of 2013 had a focus on economics and finances both in the realm of international relationships with partners, organisations, and countries, as well as domestically within Serbia, for example in regards to pensions (Government of Serbia, 2013). While economics and infrastructure remained the backbone of the main discussions of the government, issues such as improvement of international relations picked up in 2014 with the Serbian government bringing forth discussions with other countries on the subject of lifting visa restrictions and facilitating easier travel (Government of Serbia, 2014). Security took the forefront in 2015 with increasing focus on improving the law and order domestically, as well as better organising policy activities
while infrastructure and finance policies held their usual place on the agenda (Government of Serbia, 2015). Association and relations with Europe as a whole and particularly the European Investment Bank (EIB) and thus financial and economic strategies and policies gained traction in 2016, as well as the integration of refugees (Government of Serbia, 2016).
The steps taken by the Serbian government in 2017 reflect those of 2014, as this year much focus was placed on improving international relations and facilitating travel and work abroad through lifting visa restrictions with other countries. This year similarly saw a focus on security, with several policies being oriented towards creating effective relationships with regional neighbours and discussing joint efforts in safety and security strategies (Government of Serbia, 2017). The issue of migration was explored most in 2018 following the introduction of a new policy strategy targeting the problem of irregular migration as discussed above, as well as further policies discussing the provision of accommodation and services for refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Serbia (Government of Serbia, 2018; Government of Serbia, 2018). Despite this, other domestic issues such as investment, natural disaster management, health, education, and child care were explored more intensely with a larger amount of policies proposed and discussed on these subjects than that of migrants.
Having recounted Serbia’s policies targeting migration as well as their national focus from 2010-2019 we have a better idea of the attitudes towards migrants and the policies undertaken to support them and manage waves of migration prior to, during, and after the influx of 2015. Below follows a section on the Hungarian migration policy agenda pinpointing the key actions undertaken by the country in the realm of migration management between 2010 and 2019.
c. Hungarian migration policy agenda (2010-2019)
Hungary was subject to a study concerning the organisation of asylum and migration policies conducted within 24 member states of the Union, concluding in 2008 which set the scene for the way in which member states should be handling the processes of asylum and migration. This report describes the migrant and refugee flows toward Hungary in the 1990s as a result of conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and notes that due to this the Hungarian government decided to provide asylum for those individuals. This is reiterated in the Hungarian constitution of 2011, later revised in 2013 outlining that migrants and refugees have the same rights as Hungarian citizens when it comes to voting in local elections. Much of the dialogue surrounding
