Abstract
AbstractThis article seeks to understand a common and regular feature of asylum decision-making, namely, that the majority of asylum claims are rejected, mostly on the basis of non-credibility. It draws on a bottom-up, qualitative study of an administration in which asylum decision-making takes place: the Swiss Secretariat for Migration. By adopting a practice-theoretical approach to administrative work, it advocates paying attention to caseworkers’ routinised, self-evident and largely unquestioned behaviours, not only in terms of what they do, but also of what they think, feel and know. Building on Bourdieu, it introduces the concept of institutional habitus, which refers to the dispositions caseworkers develop on the job. On the basis of a specific decision-making practice termed ‘digging deep’, the article shows how these dispositions are structured and how, through the practices institutional habitus generates, these ‘structuring structures’ are continuously reaffirmed, leading to the relatively stable outcomes of administrative decision-making that can be observed from the outside. The article argues against the assumption that regularities of administrative work should be understood as the outcome of strict rule-following, top-down orders and political instrumentalism. At the same time, it challenges the individualist quality sometimes ascribed to discretionary practices in street-level bureaucracy literature and in critiques of credibility assessment practices in asylum adjudication.
Funder
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography,Law,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development,Demography
Reference56 articles.
1. Affolter, L. (2020). Keeping numbers low in the name of fairness. Ethos and ethics in a Swiss asylum administration. In J. Eckert (Ed.), The bureaucratic production of difference (pp. 27–57). Bielefeld: Transcript.
2. Affolter, L. (2021). Asylum matters: On the frontline of administrative decision-making. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Alpes, M. J., & Spire, A. (2014). Dealing with law in migration control: The powers of street-level bureaucrats at French consulates. Social & Legal Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663913510927.
4. Anker, D. (1992). Determining asylum claims in the United States. An Empirical Case Study. Review of Law & Social Change, XIX, 433–528..
5. Bohmer, C., & Shuman, A. (2008). Rejecting refugees: Political asylum in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献