Abstract
ABSTRACTIt 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 entry – decisions 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 decision-making in bureaucracies, in order to produce more nuanced accounts of political rationalities in the area of immigration policy.
Highlights
Immigration policy is often seen as being susceptible to symbolic policy-making – the use of cosmetic policy adjustments to signal values and intent, rather than substantive measures to steer the object of intervention
We examine how far the three accounts outlined above characterise policy-makers’ approaches to symbolic policy-making in the area of irregular migration control
It shows how the U.K. government adopted a series of policies that Home Office officials patently regarded as making little contribution to meeting their immigration goals – but which would be effective in signalling commitment to meeting public expectations
Summary
Immigration policy is often seen as being susceptible to symbolic policy-making – the use of cosmetic policy adjustments to signal values and intent, rather than substantive measures to steer the object of intervention. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in measures to combat irregular immigration, which have become part of a ‘complex symbolic discourse’ (Cvajner and Sciortino 2010, 390). The literature on irregular immigration control has widely documented state attempts to signal stringent control through high profile measures, showing how such gestures are often decoupled from lenient or ineffective policies on the ground (Ceyhan and Tsoukala 2002; Castles 2004; Castles, de Haas, and Miller 2014). BOSWELL public sentiment through the use of emotive and polarising narratives (Edelman 1985; Gusfield 1986); or as intentionally deploying symbolic measures to divert attention from lenient practices of immigration control
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
