Skip Navigation

Journal of Refugee Studies 2003 16(3):316-335; doi:10.1093/jrs/16.3.316
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boswell, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Burden-Sharing in the European Union: Lessons from the German and UK Experience

Christina Boswell1

1 Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg

As the costs of assisting asylum seekers in Europe have risen, the UK and Germany have both attempted to manage the problem through the regional dispersal of asylum seekers. This study examines how far this form of burden-sharing has met its objectives, and what its impact has been on asylum seekers. It finds that while dispersal has had some success in redistributing the costs of receiving asylum seekers (particularly in Germany), in many cases it has also exacerbated inter-ethnic tensions and racial violence in many new receiving areas. The paper considers the reasons for the relative success or failure of the two dispersal systems in meeting these goals, and draws some general conclusions about the conditions under which dispersal can be effective and humane. In conclusion, it applies the analysis to the EU level, considering how feasible and desirable such a system would be for burden-sharing between EU states.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 National Institute Economic ReviewHome page
T. J. Hatton
European Asylum Policy
National Institute Economic Review, October 1, 2005; 194(1): 106 - 119.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.