IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why and how there should be more Europe in asylum policies


  • Berger, Melissa
  • Heinemann, Friedrich


The experiences of the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe highlight the failures of the current model of having the EU and its members states share responsibility for asylum policies. Based on standard criteria of fiscal federalism, this paper analyses the shortcomings of the status quo. We show that European asylum policies stand in sharp contradiction to the optimal assignment of tasks within a federal system. For example, the current system creates substantial incentives for free-riding and foregoes the potential benefits of European economies of scale. Given this diagnosis, we explore the pros and cons of different options for a more European approach. In particular, we analyze and provide estimates of the quantitative implications for the options of: (A) quotas that would distribute refugees across countries according to a pre-determined calculation of reception capacity; (B) EU financing of national service provision; and (C) EU service provision in asylum policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Berger, Melissa & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2016. "Why and how there should be more Europe in asylum policies," ZEW policy briefs 1/2016, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewpbs:12016

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Blesse, Sebastian & Boyer, Pierre C. & Heinemann, Friedrich & Janeba, Eckhard, 2016. "Searching for a Franco-German consensus on the future of Europe: Survey results for Bundestag, Assemblée Nationale and Sénat," ZEW policy briefs 5/2016, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Silvia Angeloni, 2019. "Improving the distribution of asylum-seekers through a multi-criteria index," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 328-337, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:zewpbs:12016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.