Abstract
This article examines the indirect impact of populist radical right parties on the securitisation of asylum policy. The theoretical foundation of the paper draws on classic theories of securitisation, expanding them to the field of (forced) migration and combining them with theories on indirect policy impact. In a two-step analysis, this article firstly investigates changes to asylum law in Austria and Germany from 2015 to 2016, using a policy analysis. The case studies include populist radical right parties with and without parliamentary representation. Thus, the resulting stage model also accounts for gradation of the influencing factor. In the first step of the analysis a securitisation of the policy field is revealed in both cases; however, it appears to a stronger degree in Austria. The results are then related to the strength of the populist radical right parties, operationalised as poll ratings, and to election dates to capture the behaviour of government parties under growing electoral competition. In Austria, the securitisation of asylum law could be attributed to the increasing strength of FPÖ, while the results for Germany are ambiguous. Accordingly, the results suggest that securitisation of asylum policy is more likely when populist radical right parties experience strong support from the electorate.
Highlights
This article examines the indirect impact of populist radical right parties on the securitisation of asylum policy
The analysis aims to shed light on whether the change in European asylum policy is accompanied by a securitisation of the policy field and is correlated with the strength of populist radical right parties (PRRP)
The research literature suggests a causal link between the strength of PRRP and securitisation of asylum policy due to conceptual intersections
Summary
The concept of securitisation stems from the so-called Copenhagen School and represents a counter-concept to the classic, narrow concept of security which focuses on military threats to national territoriality (Daase, 2010, p. 3). The so-called Paris School redefined the concept and focuses on speech acts but examines social practices and the governability of the field applied through institutions, bureaucracy, and other security actors (Bigo, 2002; Huysmans, 2006; Squire, 2015; Karamanidou, 2015). According to this definition, if a policy area undergoes a securitisation process, it will be interpreted exclusively by means of its risk potential and other possible lenses of perception will be omitted. This equilibrium has shifted towards securitisation since 9/11 (Buonfino, 2006; Karamanidou, 2015) and the partial collapse of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and re-nationalisation of asylum policy suggest an intensification of this process
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
