Do refugees impact voting behavior in the host country? Evidence from Syrian refugee inflows to Turkey

Abstract

We study how individual political preferences changed in response to the influx of over 3.5 million Syrian refugees to Turkey during 2012–2016. Using a difference-in-differences research design, we compare the political outcomes in geographic areas with high versus low intensities of refugee presence before and after the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. To address the endogeneity of refugees’ location choices, we adopt an instrumental variables approach that relies on (1) historical dispersion of Arabic speakers in Turkish provinces and (2) driving distances between Turkish and Syrian residential areas to predict the flows of refugees across Turkish provinces during the study period. We find strong polarization in attitudes towards refugees between the supporters and opponents of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). However, regression analyses of monthly survey data suggest that the massive inflow of refugees induced only a modest net drop in support for the AKP. Refugee inflows did not have a significant impact on election outcomes during the study period.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source: Directorate General of Migration Management,Turkey

Fig. 4

Source: Field Survey, Konda Research and Consultancy, 2016

Fig. 5

Source: Field Survey, Konda Research and Consultancy, 2016

Fig. 6

Source: Field Survey, Konda Research and Consultancy, 2016

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to UNHCR (United Nations High Commisionner for Refugees) , in 2016, around half of the global population of refugees was hosted in Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ethiopia and Jordan (UNHCR 2016).

  2. 2.

    Turkey has been using Syrian refugees’ resettlement as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with the European Union. The EU, in turn, has given six billion euros to Turkey to aid in refugee resettlement.

  3. 3.

    One exception is a study by Steinmayr (2016), who found that the recent Syrian refugee inflows weakened political support for the far-right movement in Austria.

  4. 4.

    See http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/erdogan-suriyeli-siginmacilara-seslendi-27342780. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.

  5. 5.

    See https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-38534106. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.

  6. 6.

    See online Appendix Table (A1) for the complete list of datasets, sources, and measurement.

  7. 7.

    Erdoğan (2014) also provides similar estimates for December 2014.

  8. 8.

    For example, Aksaray was a district of Niğde until becoming a province in 1989. We assigned the same percentage of Arabic speaking population to both.

  9. 9.

    Konda did not conduct surveys in some months, which usually correspond to Ramadan. Thus, we do not have data on six of the 60 months between January 2012 and December 2016.

  10. 10.

    Owing to the format in which Konda provides data, it is impossible to create an exclusive category of indecisive and absentee voters for all of the survey months.

  11. 11.

    TurkStat reports only the aggregate number of votes for all independent candidates.

  12. 12.

    Denoted by three categories: rural, urban and metropolitan area.

  13. 13.

    Our instrument differs from a typical shift-share instrument proposed in Altonji and Card (1991) and Card (2001), who use geographic variation in past immigrant settlement patterns to predict future inflows of immigrants. Before the Syrian conflict, migration from Syria to Turkey was negligible. Thus, the Arabic speaking population in Turkey that generates geographic variation in our instrument is not Syrian immigrants, but rather natives of the Turkish Republic, which was founded following the collapse of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire in 1922. We estimated the correlation between the population proportions of Arabic-speaking by province in 1965, and provincial level populations of Arabic-speaker in our monthly 2012–2016 surveys. This exercise yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.66.

  14. 14.

    The adjusted difference controls for respondent’s gender, age, education level, ethnicity, residential area (rural, urban, metropolitan), income group, whether the respondent considers herself religious, and whether she is Sunni Muslim, plus indicator variables for missing observations. Location fixed-effects are captured by dummy variables indentifying each province.

  15. 15.

    Hatay, Mardin, Siirt, Şanlıurfa, Osmaniye, Adana, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Van, Kilis and Gaziantep. Ninety-seven percent of the native Arabic speakers in 1965 lived in those 11 provinces.

  16. 16.

    These data were not collected for the monthly Konda surveys from June 2014 to March 2015.

  17. 17.

    See Staiger and Stock (1997) and Stock and Yogo (2002) for a general discussion of weak instruments.

  18. 18.

    We digitized data using the figures provided by TurkStat from Umumi Nufus Tahriri, Fasikul III, Usuller Kanun ve Talimatnameler Neticelerinin Tahlili, page 32 (https://kutuphane.tuik.gov.tr/pdf/0018326.pdf, last access - 2019/12/13 19:14:03). Hatay was not part of Turkey until the mid-1930s and we relied on the 1936 share of Arabic speakers in Hatay as reported by French High Commission in 1936 (Brandell 2006). The report provides data on shares of native Arabic speakers for nine provinces that hosted 97.46% of the native Arabic speakers in 1927. Given their negligible populations, we assigned zero to other areas that are not mentioned in the census report.

References

  1. Akarca, A. T., Başlevent, C., et al. (2009). Inter-party vote movements in turkey: The sources of akp votes in 2007. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 24(285), 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akarca, A. T., & Tansel, A. (2006). Economic performance and political outcomes: An analysis of the turkish parliamentary and local election results between 1950 and 2004. Public Choice, 129(1–2), 77–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akgündüz, Y., Van den Berg, M., & Hassink, W. (2015). The impact of refugee crises on host labor markets: The case of the syrian refugee crisis in turkey. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8841.

  4. Aksu, E., Erzan, R., & Kirdar, M. G. (2018). The impact of mass migration of syrians on the turkish labor market. IZA Discussion Paper No. 12050.

  5. Alesina, A., & Ferrara, E. L. (2005). Ethnic diversity and economic performance. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 762–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allport, G. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Altindag, O., Bakis, O., & Rozo, S. (2018). Blessing or burden? the impact of refugees on businesses and the informal economy. Available at SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3188406. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.

  8. Altonji, J. G. & Card, D. (1991). The effects of immigration on the labor market outcomes of less-skilled natives. In J. Abowd & R. Freeman (eds.), Immigration, trade, and the labor (pp. 201–234). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barone, G., D’Ignazio, A., de Blasio, G., & Naticchioni, P. (2016). Mr. Rossi, Mr. Hu and politics. The role of immigration in shaping natives’ voting behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 136, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443–450.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Braithwaite, A., Chu, T. S., Curtis, J., & Ghosn, F. (2019). Violence and the perception of risk associated with hosting refugees. Public Choice, 178(3), 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brandell, I. (2006). State frontiers: Borders and boundaries in the Middle East (Vol. 5). London: IB Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cagaptay, S. & Menekşe, B. (2014). The impact of syriaâs refugees on southern turkey. Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1.

  14. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1980). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Card, D. (2001). Immigrant inflows, native outflows, and the local labor market impacts of higher immigration. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(1), 22–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Çarkoğlu, A. (2002). The rise of the new generation pro-islamists in turkey: The justice and development party phenomenon in the november 2002 elections in turkey. South European Society and Politics, 7(3), 123–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Çarkoğlu, A., & Ergen, I. (2002). The rise of right-of-center parties and the nationalization of electoral forces in turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 26, 95–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ceritoglu, E., Yunculer, H. B. G., Torun, H., & Tumen, S. (2017). The impact of syrian refugees on nativesâ labor market outcomes in Turkey: Evidence from a quasi-experimental design. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 6(1), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cesur, R., & Mocan, N. (2018). Education, religion, and voter preference in a muslim country. Journal of Population Economics, 31(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Crain, W. M., Deaton, T. H., & Tollison, R. D. (1978). Macroeconomic determinants of tenure in the U.S. house of representatives. Atlantic Economic Journal, 6(2), 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (2015). Suriye ve Irak krizleri: Türkiyeânin ödediği fatura. http://faikoztrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Rapor_Suriye-ve-Irak-Krizleri_T%C3%BCrkiyenin-%C3%96dedi%C4%9Fi-Fatura.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.

  22. Dağı, I. (2008). Turkey’s akp in power. Journal of Democracy, 19(3), 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Del Carpio, X. V. & Wagner, M. C. (2015). The impact of syrians refugees on the turkish labor market. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (7402).

  24. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dustmann, C., & Preston, I. P. (2007). Racial and economic factors in attitudes to immigration. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erdoğan, M. (2014). Syrians in Turkey: Social acceptance and integration research. Ankara: Migration and Politics Research Centre, Hacettepe University.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Erdoğan, M. & Ünver, C. (2015). Perspectives, expectations and suggestions of the turkish business sector on syrians in turkey. TISK report, 353.

  28. Facchini, G., & Mayda, A. M. (2009). Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2), 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gedik, A. (1997). Internal migration in turkey, 1965–1985: Test of conflicting findings in the literature. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 9(2), 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Getmansky, A., Sınmazdemir, T., & Zeitzoff, T. (2018). Refugees, xenophobia, and domestic conflict: Evidence from a survey experiment in turkey. Journal of Peace Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317748719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gulesci, S. & Meyersson, E. (2012). For the love of the republic: education, religion, and empowerment. Unpublished working paper.

  32. Halkların Demokratik Partisi (2015). Mülteciler, hakları, sorunları ve çözüm önerileri. https://www.hdp.org.tr/images/UserFiles/Documents/Editor/Multecilerraporu.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.

  33. Hangartner, D., Dinas, E., Marbach, M., Matakos, K., & Xefteris, D. (2017). Does exposure to the refugee crisis make natives more hostile? Stanford-Zurich Immigration Policy Lab Working Paper No. 17-02.

  34. Harmon, N. A. (2017). Immigration, ethnic diversity, and political outcomes: Evidence from denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1043–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Holcombe, R. G. (1989). The median voter model in public choice theory. Public Choice, 61(2), 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. İçduygu, A. (2015). Syrian refugees in Turkey. The long road ahead. Transatlantic Council on Migration, Migration Policy Institute, 3(8):2016.

    Google Scholar 

  37. International Crisis Group (2016). Turkey’s refugee crisis: the politics of permanence. Report No. 241, November 30.

  38. Kibris, A. (2011). Funerals and elections: The effects of terrorism on voting behavior in turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(2), 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lahav, G. (2004). Immigration and politics in the new Europe: Reinventing borders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice.

  41. Magni-Berton, R. (2014). Immigration, redistribution, and universal suffrage. Public Choice, 160(3/4), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mayda, A. M., Peri, G., & Steingress, W. (2018). The political impact of immigration: Evidence from the united states. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  44. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mueller, D. C., & Murrell, P. (1986). Interest groups and the size of government. Public Choice, 48(2), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Otto, A. H., & Steinhardt, M. F. (2014). Immigration and election outcomes—Evidence from city districts in Hamburg. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 45, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Özden, Ş. (2013). Syrian refugees in turkey. Migration Policy Centre Research Report No.5.

  48. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American sociological review, 60, 586–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Steinmayr, A. (2016). Exposure to refugees and voting for the far-right:(unexpected) results from austria. IZA Discussion Paper No. 9790.

  53. Stock, J. H. & Yogo, M. (2002). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Working Paper 284, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  54. Tinti, P., & Reitano, T. (2016). Migrant, Refugee, Smuggler, Saviour. London: C. Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  55. UNHCR (2016). Global trends. forced displacement in 2015. Technical report.

  56. UNHCR (2017). Global trends. forced displacement in 2016. Technical report.

  57. Vasilakis, C. (2017). Massive migration and elections: Evidence from the refugee crisis in greece. International Migration, 56(3), 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yaylacı, F. G., & Karakuş, M. (2015). Perceptions and newspaper coverage of syrian refugees in turkey. Migration Letters, 12(3), 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yeginsu, C. (2014). Turkey Strengthens Rights of Syrian Refugees. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/world/europe/turkey-strengthens-rights-of-syrian-refugees.html.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank KONDA Research and Consultancy for the data support. We received valuable comments from Mathis Wagner, David Canning, Aytuğ Şaşmaz, Stephen O’Connell, Selim Erdem Aytaç, Murat Kırdar, Yulya Truskinovsky, Donald Halstead, and Theodore Joyce. Thanks to seminar and workshop participants at King’s College, Oxford University, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Columbia Population Research Center, Galatasaray University, Koç University, Bentley University, Eastern Economics Association, and the Population Association of America for their comments. This study did not receive any funding and the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onur Altındağ.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 70 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altındağ, O., Kaushal, N. Do refugees impact voting behavior in the host country? Evidence from Syrian refugee inflows to Turkey. Public Choice (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00768-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Refugees
  • Political preferences
  • Voting

JEL Classification

  • D72
  • F22
  • O15