This paper studies whether refugee law should be centralized, how it should be centralized, and what are the consequences for migrants seeking protection as well as for host countries. Jurisdictions face different refugee in ows. We show that the resulting varying levels of strictness of the eligibility criteria create a legal externality which leads to a "race to the bottom", or a toughening, of asylum standards. They are stricter than the Pareto efficient level. To solve this problem, we consider two forms of harmonization: fixed and minimum standards. We find no proof that either type would lead to a better result for the member countries than national asylum law making. However, the system of minimum standards is clearly best for refugees, and that it is and better than total harmonization for both host countries.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, ULP, Strasbourg in its series Working Papers of BETA with number
2007-31.
Find related papers by JEL classification: K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: