Lamis Abdelaaty, Ph.D.
labdelaa@maxwell.syr.edu
Associate Professor
Syracuse University
Year of PhD: 2014
Phone: 315-443-1744
Address: 100 Eggers Hall
City: Syracuse, New York - 13244
Country: United States
About Me:
Lamis Abdelaaty is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, and Senior Research Associate at the Campbell Public Affairs Institute. Her interests include international relations, human rights and humanitarianism, and asylum and migration. Her book, Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021), was awarded the Best Book Prize by the Migration and Citizenship section of the American Political Science Association. Her research has been supported by the National Science Foundation and the American Philosophical Society, and her articles have appeared or are forthcoming in Annual Review of Sociology, International Interactions, International Journal of Human Rights, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and other journals. Abdelaaty holds a doctoral degree in politics from Princeton University.
Research Interests
Refugees
Human Rights
Humanitarianism
Humanitarian (Refugee) Aid
Immigration Policy
Refugee Policy
International Law & Organization
Syrian Refugee Crisis
My Research:
Lamis Abdelaaty's research deals with refugees in international relations and explores three main themes. Much of her work examines states’ asylum policies and the rights they grant refugees. At the center of this research agenda is her book, Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). She has developed a second research agenda on individual attitudes towards refugees. Most recently, she has started developing a third research agenda on global refugee crises.
Publications:
Journal Articles:
From 2013 to 2018, the global refugee population increased by about 50 per cent. Although public opinion toward refugees plays a key role in shaping related policies, scholarly research on this topic remains limited. Using original data from a nationally representative conjoint survey experiment conducted in 2019, we examine whether US citizens’ attitudes toward refugees are distinct from their attitudes toward other types of immigrants to the US, and how applicant attributes shape American citizens’ preferences about admission of foreigners. We find that immigrant and refugee reasons (as defined by law) for migrating to the US affect attitudes, with refugee reasons garnering greater support. The labels “immigrant” and “refugee” on their own have smaller effects, in general, but can be salient in combination with other characteristics. We also find marked effects of newcomers’ characteristics, especially country of origin, profession, gender and religion.
While there is a large literature on attitudes toward immigrants, scholars have not systematically examined the determinants of attitudes toward refugees. Often, refugees are simply treated as a subset of immigrants, under the assumption that attitudes toward both sets of foreigners are similar. In this article, we examine whether there are distinctions between attitudes toward refugees and immigrants, as well as variation in their determinants. We address these questions using individual-level data from 16 countries in the 2002 and 2014 waves of the European Social Survey. We demonstrate that these two groups of foreigners are, indeed, viewed as distinct and that differences emerge because attitudes toward refugees are more often related to macro-level factors while immigrants are more frequently associated with micro-level economic concerns. By distinguishing between refugees and immigrants, this article addresses an important gap in the academic literature on attitudes toward foreigners in Europe.
This introduction outlines the need for a Special Issue on the topic of the migrant/refugee binary, discusses the contributions of the six papers that make up the issue, and outlines an agenda for future research on this topic.
Researchers have investigated the effects of ethnic heterogeneity on a range of socioeconomic and political outcomes. However, approaches to measuring ethnic diversity vary not only across fields of study but even within subfields. In this review, we systematically dissect the computational approaches of prominent measures of diversity, including polarization, and discuss where and how differences emerge in their relationships with outcomes of interest to sociologists (social capital and trust, economic growth and redistribution, conflict, and crime). There are substantial similarities across computations, which are often generalizations or specializations of one another. Differences in how racial and ethnic groupings are constructed and in level of geographical analysis explain many divergences in empirical findings. We conclude by summarizing the type of measurement technique preferred by outcome, when relevant, and provide considerations for future researchers contemplating how best to operationalize diversity. Finally, we highlight two less widely used yet promising measures of diversity.
Do crackdowns by destination countries deter refugees? Much of the existing literature conflates containment measures (forcibly restricting refugees in their home region or country) and deterrence policies (discouraging refugees by making the destination appear less attractive). In addition, empirical studies have focused almost exclusively on Western countries and analyzed the effects of acceptance rates or policy reforms on the number of asylum applications lodged. In contrast, this paper examines whether rights violations deter asylum-seekers and refugees by leveraging a global dataset drawn from reports by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. I find that deportation, detention, and encampment are not associated with decreases in asylum applications or refugee arrivals, and may actually be correlated with increases in them in some cases. While reduced access to the labour market may deter very small numbers of asylum-seekers and refugees, there are other sound reasons for destination countries to eschew restrictive employment policies.
This letter explores the prevalence of misperceptions about refugee policy and tests whether correcting these misperceptions changes attitudes toward refugees. Large numbers of people hold misperceptions about both the nature and effects of refugee policy. An experiment directly compares the effects of correcting misperceptions about existing refugee policy (e.g., the refugee admission process) with correcting misperceptions about the outcomes of refugee policy (e.g., the proportion of refugees in the United States and the percentage who receive welfare benefits). Corrective information about existing policy substantially increases support for refugees, but corrective information about policy outcomes has no effect on attitudes. The results suggest that including descriptive information about existing U.S. policy in media coverage of refugees could both correct misperceptions and change attitudes.
Even as Turkey took in over 3 million Syrians at great expense, Turkish officials were referring to these individuals as guests rather than refugees. Despite significant legal developments in the country, and particularly the formalization of a temporary-protection regime, this choice of labels reveals the influence of underlying political trends on Turkish policymaking regarding refugees. This article compares Turkey’s reactions to the Syrian inflow with its responses to previous refugee groups, including Iraqis in 1988, Bosnians in 1992, Kosovars in 1998 and Chechens starting 1999. In so doing, it demonstrates that the refusal to designate certain populations as asylum seekers or refugees enables Turkey to opt in or out of what might otherwise appear to be generally applicable, national-level policies. Through these strategic semantics, policymakers retain a freedom to manoeuvre in response to international and domestic political incentives.
Why do countries welcome some refugees and treat others poorly? Existing explanations suggest that the assistance refugees receive is a reflection of countries’ wealth or compassion. However, statistical analysis of a global dataset on asylum admissions shows that states’ approaches to refugees are shaped by foreign policy and ethnic politics. States admit refugees from adversaries in order to weaken those regimes, but they are reluctant to accept refugees from friendly states. At the same time, policymakers favor refugee groups who share their ethnic identity. Aside from addressing a puzzling real-world phenomenon, this article adds insights to the literature on the politics of migration and asylum.
What is the relationship between a government's respect for the rights of its own citizens and that government's regard for refugee rights? On one hand, we may expect that a country with high human rights standards will also offer a higher quality of asylum. Domestic laws that protect citizens’ rights may be extended to refugees, for example. On the other hand, there are reasons to theorize that a country with high human rights standards may offer a lower quality of asylum. For instance, governments may claim that protecting citizens’ wellbeing necessitates the rejection of refugees. To explore these questions, I analyse a global dataset drawn from reports by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. I find that the relationship between citizens’ rights and refugee rights is modified by economic conditions and the size of the refugee population. Moreover, some domestic rights (like freedom of movement and labor rights) may increase protections for refugees, while others (like rule of law) may decrease them. Refugees have been largely absent from the literature on the politics of human rights. By systematically examining the relationship between human and refugee rights worldwide, this paper fills an important gap in the scholarly and policy literature.
The recent surge in refugee arrivals to Europe has underscored the importance of identity concerns, with politicians and ordinary citizens alike expressing fear that admitting foreigners may result in unacceptable demographic and cultural change. However, scholars have not systematically examined the impact of ethnic diversity on attitudes towards refugees. Group threat theory and the contact hypothesis offer competing predictions: The former would expect diversity to be associated with opposition to refugees, while the latter would expect diversity to generate support for them. We explore individual-level attitudes in nineteen countries using the 2014 wave of the European Social Survey, combined with country-level data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, the Manifesto Project Dataset, and five different databases of ethnic diversity measures. Crucially, we employ multiple approaches to measuring diversity, including various measures of ethnic fractionalisation, linguistic heterogeneity, polarisation, and other relevant constructs. We find that greater ethnic diversity is associated with decreased support for refugees, but this relationship is not consistent across all measures of diversity. Since the relationship between ethnic diversity and support for refugees is highly dependent on the measure of diversity used, scholars should be wary of drawing strong conclusions about the effects of ethnic diversity without comparing different measures.
Books Written:
What explains state responses to the refugees they receive? This book identifies two puzzling patterns: states open their borders to some refugee groups while blocking others (discrimination), and a number of countries have given the UN control of asylum procedures on their territory (delegation). To explain these patterns, the book develops a two-part theoretical framework in which policymakers in refugee-receiving countries weigh international and domestic concerns. The book then substantiates this argument with a three-stage research design, which combines statistical analysis of asylum admissions worldwide, country case studies of Egypt and Turkey, and content analysis of parliamentary proceedings in Kenya.
Media Appearances:
TV Appearances:
The New Refugee Crisis
Radio Appearances:
Inside Poland's homes where Ukrainian refugees find peace away from Russia's invasion
Newspaper Quotes:
Ukrainian Refugees Are Being Embraced by Europe. Why Weren’t Syrians?
How you can help all refugees — from Ukraine and beyond
Does the Ukrainian refugee response expose a European double standard? Experts weigh in.
Denmark opens its arms to Ukrainians, while trying to send Syrian refugees home
The Powerful Force Guiding Poland’s Welcome to Ukrainians: Fear of Putin
The coming fight over Russian asylum-seekers
Blog Posts:
European Countries Are Welcoming Ukrainian Refugees. It Was a Different Story in 2015.
‘Migrants’ or ‘refugees’? It’s the wrong question. Here’s how to help the people fleeing to Europe.