Human rights or security?

Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

This study examines speeches in the European Parliament relating to asylum. Conceptually, it tests hypotheses concerning the relation between national parties and Members of European Parliament (MEPs). The computer-based content analysis method Wordfish is used to examine 876 speeches from 2004-2014, scaling MEPs along a unidimensional policy space. Debates on asylum predominantly concern positions for or against European Union (EU) security measures. Surprisingly, national party preferences for EU integration were not the dominant factor. The strongest predictors of MEPs' positions are their national parties’ general ‘right-left’ preferences, and duration of EU membership. Generally, MEPs from Central and Eastern Europe and the European People's Party take up pro-security stances. Wordfish was effective and valid, confirming the relevance of automated content analysis for studying the EU.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean Union Politics
Vol/bind19
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)344-362
Antal sider19
ISSN1465-1165
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2018

Citer dette

@article{200ebb4831df40b18a065555fa24cd7f,
title = "Human rights or security?: Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches",
abstract = "This study examines speeches in the European Parliament relating to asylum. Conceptually, it tests hypotheses concerning the relation between national parties and Members of European Parliament (MEPs). The computer-based content analysis method Wordfish is used to examine 876 speeches from 2004-2014, scaling MEPs along a unidimensional policy space. Debates on asylum predominantly concern positions for or against European Union (EU) security measures. Surprisingly, national party preferences for EU integration were not the dominant factor. The strongest predictors of MEPs' positions are their national parties’ general ‘right-left’ preferences, and duration of EU membership. Generally, MEPs from Central and Eastern Europe and the European People's Party take up pro-security stances. Wordfish was effective and valid, confirming the relevance of automated content analysis for studying the EU.",
keywords = "Asylum, Automated content analysis, European Parliament, European Union enlargement, Legislative speeches",
author = "Frid-Nielsen, {Snorre Sylvester}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1177/1465116518755954",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "344--362",
journal = "European Union Politics",
issn = "1465-1165",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "2",

}

Human rights or security? Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches. / Frid-Nielsen, Snorre Sylvester.

I: European Union Politics, Bind 19, Nr. 2, 2018, s. 344-362.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human rights or security?

T2 - Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches

AU - Frid-Nielsen, Snorre Sylvester

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This study examines speeches in the European Parliament relating to asylum. Conceptually, it tests hypotheses concerning the relation between national parties and Members of European Parliament (MEPs). The computer-based content analysis method Wordfish is used to examine 876 speeches from 2004-2014, scaling MEPs along a unidimensional policy space. Debates on asylum predominantly concern positions for or against European Union (EU) security measures. Surprisingly, national party preferences for EU integration were not the dominant factor. The strongest predictors of MEPs' positions are their national parties’ general ‘right-left’ preferences, and duration of EU membership. Generally, MEPs from Central and Eastern Europe and the European People's Party take up pro-security stances. Wordfish was effective and valid, confirming the relevance of automated content analysis for studying the EU.

AB - This study examines speeches in the European Parliament relating to asylum. Conceptually, it tests hypotheses concerning the relation between national parties and Members of European Parliament (MEPs). The computer-based content analysis method Wordfish is used to examine 876 speeches from 2004-2014, scaling MEPs along a unidimensional policy space. Debates on asylum predominantly concern positions for or against European Union (EU) security measures. Surprisingly, national party preferences for EU integration were not the dominant factor. The strongest predictors of MEPs' positions are their national parties’ general ‘right-left’ preferences, and duration of EU membership. Generally, MEPs from Central and Eastern Europe and the European People's Party take up pro-security stances. Wordfish was effective and valid, confirming the relevance of automated content analysis for studying the EU.

KW - Asylum

KW - Automated content analysis

KW - European Parliament

KW - European Union enlargement

KW - Legislative speeches

U2 - 10.1177/1465116518755954

DO - 10.1177/1465116518755954

M3 - Journal article

VL - 19

SP - 344

EP - 362

JO - European Union Politics

JF - European Union Politics

SN - 1465-1165

IS - 2

ER -