On the issues of Globalization, Immigration and Policy diffusion in the US, one might ask several questions. For example: Has globalization resulted in the convergence of US immigration policy with the policies of other OECD countries? If so why has this occurred? And which mechanisms facilitate the policy diffusion process on the global level? The readings this week may be used to frame these questions as one thinks about this important issue of immigration. In “Globalization and Policy Convergence” Drezner (2001) argues that while theories of policy convergence differ on whether the driving force is economic or ideational and whether states are able to retain agency, structurally based theories lack empirical support. Gilardi (2010) in “ Who Learns From What in the Policy Process?” argues that learning processes are likely to be conditional and highly influenced by the beliefs of policy makers whether these beliefs are prior or posterior. Shipman and Volden (2008) in “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion” provides a discussion on the relative strengths of the four diffusion processes in influencing government. I would argue that there is indeed convergence in the immigration policies of the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Furthermore, while competitive and learning processes of policy diffusion are driving this convergence, it is delayed due to the conditional nature of the learning process.
Over the course of US history public policy towards immigration has changed. Immigration policy in the US is largely aimed at bringing immigrants who will be economically beneficial. As such immigration legislature has focused on three concerns; the ability of potential immigrants to find and hold jobs, their ability to adapt to American culture, and border security due to increasing occurrence of terrorist acts. Similarly in Canada the immigration system is focused on encouraging youthful, bilingual, high-skill immigration in order to build human capital within Canada’s labor force. As a result Canada has one of the highest net immigration rates in the world, greater than the UK, Australia and the United States. The aim of immigration policy in the UK is to enrich British culture and strengthen the economy while controlling immigration and the movement of people to protect the UK’s interests. As a result, British immigration policies are aimed at promoting multiculturalism and integration through anti-discrimination and education policies as well as religious diversity. The Australian Government operates a stricter and more rigid immigration policy that is aimed at achieving social and economic goals through the temporary and permanent movement of people and skills. Australian immigration authorities focus more on migrants who can demonstrate they will bring Professional, Trade or Business skills to Australia.
While immigration policy in these countries do differ, they do have some similarities that implies that there is some degree of policy diffusion. Moreover in contrast to policy diffusion at the state or municipal level the main mechanism driving this process is not learning and imitation but rather competition. As the main concern of the four OECD countries mentioned above is the attraction and retention of well-educated individuals that will bring social and economic benefits. Shipman and Volden (2008) disentangle for four mechanisms of policy diffusion: learning, imitation, competition and coercion. While some degree of learning in the policy diffusion process is taking place, one might argue that this learning is restrained by the specific conditions that exist in these countries. Gilardi (2010) makes a similar argument as he examines unemployment policies across 18 OECD countries. He shows that the diffusion process is influenced by whether the governing party is left or right in their ideology. In comparing immigration policy in Canada to the US, Canadian authorities must contend with a huge aging population that threatens the integrity of its economy while the US both historically, and more recently has had to consider border security. The UK on the hand has as its focus cultural and religious diversity while a second generation developed country like Australia must consider growth of its economy. Each of these themes acts to constrain the degree of learning in the policy diffusion process that will be undertaken in each country. US immigration policy for example should for example take into consideration the fact that it too faces an increasing aging population and could possibly benefit from the strategies implemented in the Canadian system. Yet a major part of its recent policy reforms have focused on security and border protection.
Despite the differences in the approaches to immigration policy it is quite clear that there is some degree of convergence between all four countries mentioned above. As they all recognize the importance of building up a highly skilled workforce that will enhance their social, cultural and economic structure. Moreover this policy convergence is largely due to globalization that facilitates the learning process while intensifying the role of competition in policy diffusion. Globalization not only promotes easy movement of capital and information but also the mobility of labor. Therefore in designing immigration policies these governments have been forced to consider the means for attracting and maintaining a youthful talented workforce. The degree of convergence is however slowed by domestic considerations in designing policy.
References
Drezner, Daniel W., “Globalization and Policy Convergence,” International Studies Review, 3(1), 2001
Gilardi Fabrizio, “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?” American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 2010
Shipan Charles R and Craig Volden, “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion,” American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 2008
Over the course of US history public policy towards immigration has changed. Immigration policy in the US is largely aimed at bringing immigrants who will be economically beneficial. As such immigration legislature has focused on three concerns; the ability of potential immigrants to find and hold jobs, their ability to adapt to American culture, and border security due to increasing occurrence of terrorist acts. Similarly in Canada the immigration system is focused on encouraging youthful, bilingual, high-skill immigration in order to build human capital within Canada’s labor force. As a result Canada has one of the highest net immigration rates in the world, greater than the UK, Australia and the United States. The aim of immigration policy in the UK is to enrich British culture and strengthen the economy while controlling immigration and the movement of people to protect the UK’s interests. As a result, British immigration policies are aimed at promoting multiculturalism and integration through anti-discrimination and education policies as well as religious diversity. The Australian Government operates a stricter and more rigid immigration policy that is aimed at achieving social and economic goals through the temporary and permanent movement of people and skills. Australian immigration authorities focus more on migrants who can demonstrate they will bring Professional, Trade or Business skills to Australia.
While immigration policy in these countries do differ, they do have some similarities that implies that there is some degree of policy diffusion. Moreover in contrast to policy diffusion at the state or municipal level the main mechanism driving this process is not learning and imitation but rather competition. As the main concern of the four OECD countries mentioned above is the attraction and retention of well-educated individuals that will bring social and economic benefits. Shipman and Volden (2008) disentangle for four mechanisms of policy diffusion: learning, imitation, competition and coercion. While some degree of learning in the policy diffusion process is taking place, one might argue that this learning is restrained by the specific conditions that exist in these countries. Gilardi (2010) makes a similar argument as he examines unemployment policies across 18 OECD countries. He shows that the diffusion process is influenced by whether the governing party is left or right in their ideology. In comparing immigration policy in Canada to the US, Canadian authorities must contend with a huge aging population that threatens the integrity of its economy while the US both historically, and more recently has had to consider border security. The UK on the hand has as its focus cultural and religious diversity while a second generation developed country like Australia must consider growth of its economy. Each of these themes acts to constrain the degree of learning in the policy diffusion process that will be undertaken in each country. US immigration policy for example should for example take into consideration the fact that it too faces an increasing aging population and could possibly benefit from the strategies implemented in the Canadian system. Yet a major part of its recent policy reforms have focused on security and border protection.
Despite the differences in the approaches to immigration policy it is quite clear that there is some degree of convergence between all four countries mentioned above. As they all recognize the importance of building up a highly skilled workforce that will enhance their social, cultural and economic structure. Moreover this policy convergence is largely due to globalization that facilitates the learning process while intensifying the role of competition in policy diffusion. Globalization not only promotes easy movement of capital and information but also the mobility of labor. Therefore in designing immigration policies these governments have been forced to consider the means for attracting and maintaining a youthful talented workforce. The degree of convergence is however slowed by domestic considerations in designing policy.
References
Drezner, Daniel W., “Globalization and Policy Convergence,” International Studies Review, 3(1), 2001
Gilardi Fabrizio, “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?” American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 2010
Shipan Charles R and Craig Volden, “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion,” American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 2008
RSS Feed