Why symbolise control? Irregular migration to the UK and symbolic policy-making in the 1960s

Abstract

It has frequently been observed that irregular migration is a common object of symbolic policy-making: the use of cosmetic adjustments to signal action, rather than substantive measures that achieve stated goals. Yet there is little research analysing the considerations driving policy actors to adopt such approaches. Drawing on existing literature, we distinguish three theoretical accounts of symbolic policy-making: manipulation, compensation, and adaptation. We explore these accounts through examining the emergence of symbolic policies in UK immigration control in the 1960s. Through detailed archival research, we reconstruct the deliberations leading to a series of Home Office decisions to crack down on irregular entrydecisions which officials felt were not operationally sensible, but which were based on popular political narratives of the problem. We conclude that the UK's adoption of symbolic policy was a clear case of adaptation: a series of concessions to simplistic notions of control that did not chime with official views of what would work, and which were reluctantly embraced for reasons of political expediency. In conclusion, we suggest the need for more fine-grained analysis of the deliberations underpinning decisionmaking in bureaucracies, in order to produce more nuanced accounts of political rationalities in the area of immigration policy.

“What isn't in the files, isn't in the world”: Understanding state ignorance of irregular migration in Germany and the United Kingdom

“…Some scholars have argued that states collude with business in tolerating irregular immigration, to help sustain a pool of low‐cost, flexible labor (Castles, 2004). Others have argued that states refrain from producing information about irregular residents because they are aware of their limited capacity to enforce policy (Bommes & Sciortino, 2011; Slaven & Boswell, 2019). Thus public authorities may be aware that limited resources or inadequate infrastructure constrain their ability to meet public expectations about control.…”

What Drives the Immigration-Welfare Policy Link? Comparing Germany, France and the United Kingdom

“…In this view, excluding immigrants from welfare becomes one manifestation of a symbolic political discourse that avoids acknowledging the inevitability of permanently settled migrant populations (Faist, 1994). For political expediency, policymakers may adapt policies to resonate with strongly embedded public or political accounts of sensible immigration control, without expecting immigration control to improve (Slaven & Boswell, 2019). Tying in welfare provision “sends a message” (Calavita, 1996) about immigration control intentions, or makes a statement about immigration in the run-up to an election (Han, 2013).…”

Bridging the gaps: linking research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration

“…Policy is often symbolic in the sense of comprising cosmetic adjustments. Such gestures substitute for adjustments that achieve substantive change, given the difficulties in monitoring the effects of such interventions (Slaven and Boswell 2018).…”