What makes asylum policies fair? A new study on the public’s view

‘Fairness’ is often cited as a key concern in asylum and refugee protection policies, but what do people actually mean when they talk about ‘fairness’? Is it fairness towards asylum seekers, the host country population, or a mix of both? Results from our recent survey experiments across Italy and Germany reveal that the public cares about both fair procedures for asylum seekers as well as fair outcomes for host communities. Interestingly, where an asylum seeker comes from does not seem to influence these perceptions.

In this blog post, we define different types of fairness, how we rigorously tested public views on fairness in asylum decision-making, and what our findings mean for policy and public debate.

Different types of fairness

Fairness is a fundamental principle in democracies; it shapes public opinion and influences whether political institutions are viewed as legitimate. Asylum policies have high stakes for both asylum seekers (hoping for legal protection to remain in a new country) and host country populations (who often have strong views about the impact of asylum seekers and other migrants on their communities). Asylum policies are also inherently complex, blending legal, moral, and political dimensions. As a result, whether decision-making in asylum processes is viewed as fair becomes especially critical. Both citizens and policymakers view it as a key concern.

To understand the critical factors shaping public perceptions of fairness we focused on two central concepts of fairness – procedural and distributive.

In the context of asylum decision-making, procedural fairness looks at whether the processes for how asylum decisions are made are transparent, impartial, and based on fair and equitable treatment of asylum seekers. This includes whether asylum seekers are granted the right to appeal a decision and whether they have access to legal advice during the asylum process. These aspects of procedural fairness align with international legal standards, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, which emphasises the rights of asylum seekers to fair treatment and due process.

On the other hand, distributive fairness is concerned with the outcomes of the asylum decision-making processes, including consequences for the host community and responsibility-sharing between different host countries. This means ensuring that the burdens and benefits of hosting asylum seekers, such as economic costs, social services, and integration efforts, are not negatively impacting the overall well-being of the host society and are equitably distributed among countries, preventing disproportionate strain on any single nation.

Testing perceptions of fairness

To study how people think about fairness in asylum processes, we conducted conjoint survey experiments with representative samples of the adult populations in Germany and Italy. Conjoint experiments enable us to understand how different attributes of an asylum decision-making process, presented in various combinations, influence respondents’ judgments.

Our study worked as follows. First, respondents were presented with hypothetical asylum decision-making processes that varied along four dimensions, including whether asylum seekers had the right to appeal and access to legal advice (procedural fairness); and whether there was an opportunity for the host country to impose a limit on the number of asylum applications a country could process each year, and whether there was a responsibility-sharing mechanism within the EU (distributive fairness).

Second, respondents were asked to evaluate which of the two hypothetical processes they considered fairer and to rate the overall fairness of each process.

Additionally, participants were divided into three groups: one group was asked the above questions about general asylum seekers, while the other two groups were asked specifically about Sudanese asylum seekers and Syrian asylum seekers. This allowed us to investigate whether the national origin of asylum seekers influenced public perceptions of fairness.

What do people think is fair in asylum decision-making and why does this matter?

Our study found that the public thinks that both procedural and distributive fairness matter in asylum decision-making. It also found that the national origin of asylum seekers did not significantly affect public perceptions of fairness.

These views about fairness have several potential implications for policy and public debate:

First, the importance the public places on procedural fairness highlights the need for transparent and accountable asylum processes that uphold the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. Ensuring access to legal representation and the right to appeal asylum decisions appear to be essential to maintaining public trust in the asylum system. Policies that erode these procedural safeguards could be perceived as unfair by the public and may undermine support for asylum systems in the long term.

Second, the finding that distributive fairness also matters in public perceptions of fair asylum processes points to the need for policies that address the perceived effects of asylum seekers on host countries as well as measures that aim at ‘fairness’ in relationship to other EU member states. Our findings suggest that mechanisms for improving responsibility-sharing among EU member states are crucial to ensuring that asylum systems are perceived as fair by the public.

Finally, the study’s finding that the national origin of asylum seekers did not significantly affect perceptions of fairness provides an important extension of existing research on public attitudes to asylum seekers and asylum policies, with potentially important implications for policy-making. While identity-based concerns may influence broader attitudes and policy preferences toward refugees and immigrants, when it comes to the fairness of asylum decision-making, citizens in Germany and Italy appear to be more concerned with ensuring that the process itself is fair and that the responsibility is shared equitably.

Navigating complexities to design fair asylum policies

Our findings suggest that gaining public support for asylum systems requires a balanced approach that considers both the rights of asylum seekers and the concerns of host country populations. The importance of both types of fairness emphasises the need for asylum policies that provide procedural safeguards based on core international protection norms but that also align with fundamental public values of fairness and justice among the host country’s population. European policymakers must navigate the complex terrain of national interests, EU-level coordination, and international legal obligations, all while maintaining public trust in the fairness of the asylum process. By designing asylum policies that are perceived as fair, policymakers can help ensure the long-term sustainability and legitimacy of refugee protection systems in Europe.

Learn more: To explore this study and its findings in more detail, read the full working paper.

This paper is part of the AFAR project, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation.

Tags: Asylum, Migration, Refugees, Asylum seekers