Open Access
The moral conflict underpinning public perceptions of fairness in asylum decision-making
Loading...
Files
RSC_WP_2025_11.pdf (5.79 MB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Attribution 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1028-3625
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI; RSC; Working Paper; 2025/11; Migration Policy Centre
Cite
DRAŽANOVÁ, Lenka, RUHS, Martin, The moral conflict underpinning public perceptions of fairness in asylum decision-making, EUI, RSC, Working Paper, 2025/11, Migration Policy Centre - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/78296
Abstract
The regulation and perceived (un)fairness of asylum policies have become highly contentious in European politics. Yet, little is known about how people decide whether an asylum decision-making process is fair or unfair, and how and why this varies between individuals within and across countries. To address this gap, this paper explores the moral foundations underpinning public conceptions of fairness in this policy domain. We argue that individuals’ fairness evaluations of asylum decision-making are shaped by two competing moral orientations: ‘individualising’ moral foundations (such as care and equality) which emphasise procedural fairness vis-à-vis asylum seekers, and ‘binding’ moral foundations (such as loyalty and authority) which prioritise distributive fairness that safeguards the host community’s interests. We thus expect that variations in public fairness evaluations of asylum decision-making processes are fundamentally related to how different individuals evaluate and resolve any conflicts between their individualising and binding moral foundations. Our empirical analyses draw on data from an original conjoint survey experiment conducted in Germany and Italy with a sample of approximately 1,300 respondents per country. Our findings confirm that respondents with high levels of individualising moral foundations of ‘care’ are more likely to view procedural safeguards as enhancing fairness, while those endorsing binding moral foundations, such as ‘loyalty’, prioritise distributive fairness that aligns with national interests. Importantly, we show that fairness perceptions are shaped by how individuals balance competing moral considerations when evaluating asylum policies. These findings advance our understanding of the fundamental sources of public responses toward asylum and refuge protection policies, with important implications for public debates and policy-making.