Estudios de liberación de clorhidrato de clindamicina

What this literature review has clearly illustrated is that numerous works have dealt with the development of the EU asylum and migration policy. In fact, there is a rich literature covering investigations of the reasons that provoked the harmonisation process, critical assessments of the various steps that led up to the common asylum and migration policy, and the analysis of the involvement of non-governmental actors in the shaping process of said policy. The first part of the literature review uncovered that the harmonisation of asylum and migration matters has become necessary because of changing migration patterns that turned the EU into a destination region for migrants. It has also shown that as immigration increased so did the interest of politicians, bureaucrats, and the media. Many regard immigration as a threat to the internal security of the EU member states. As a consequence, the call for joint responses to ensure the security in Europe has grown louder. The second part of the literature review portrays the critical scholarly assessment of the different steps of the harmonisation process. It entails the major reforms on the way to a common asylum and migration policy but also quotes those voices that criticised the manner the reforms have been introduced, the content of some reforms, and the intention behind adopted legislation. The third part of the literature review, analyses those works that deal with non-governmental actors that try to influence

policy decisions in the area of asylum and migration. It contrasts the findings that literature offers on the lobbying strategies of national and European pro-migrant groups.

The studies on pro-migrant groups are a crucial element of the literature on the EU asylum and migration policy. The fact that numerous scholars have engaged with pro-migrant groups and ascribe them the capacity of using political opportunity structures to effectively make their claims confirms the opinion of those authors that are convinced that decision-making within the political system of the EU is multi-layered and does not exclude non-governmental actors (Blatter 2001b; Hooghe 1996; Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999; Marks 1996). What both scholars of the pro-migrant groups and proponents of the multi-level governance approach have in common is that they ascribe non-governmental actors an active role in the European decision-making process but at the same time they miss evaluate that role.

The extensive analysis of the advocacy work of pro-migrant groups active at EU level and their cooperation with EU and national policy-makers, however, would provide crucial insights into how decisions on asylum and migration legislation have been reached. Tracing concrete policy-making processes would uncover the different attitudes of the involved officials towards asylum and migration and towards pro-migrant groups. Who are the driving forces in adopting asylum and migration legislation and what are the attitudes of the different parties are questions that are not officially documented. A close retracing of how the content of selected directives has changed during the inter-institutional negotiations helps to better understand the development of the EU asylum and migration policy. Including pro-migrant groups into this analysis is a vital undertaking. To date, scholars have solely confirmed that pro-migrant groups, because of their comprehensive on the ground expertise in asylum and migration practices, have added to the information that the EU institutions require to propose and decide about new legislation in this area. To what extent their expertise and recommendations have influenced the decisions of the EU institutions, however, is not analysed in the existing literature. Previous studies have suggested that the Commission and the Parliament appear to be more responsive towards the claims of pro-migrant groups than the Council is. But is that true for all EU member states or do some states in fact support the ideas of the groups? And assuming that the influence of the pro-migrant groups towards the Council is marginal, does that mean that their overall influence on asylum and migration policy is limited?

Hence, if one considers the political system of the EU to be multi-layered and policy decisions as the result of interactions between the member states, the EU institutions, and non-governmental actors, one has to look into these interactions more carefully. This is best done by tracing the decision-making process of the EU institutions on selected case studies while at the same time investigating the advocacy work of pro-migrant groups on those case studies. This approach allows us to shed light on the decision-making process from different angles and to double-check how decisions and compromises have been reached. Constitutional reforms and policy programmes do only determine the ground rules for legislative processes and set the framework for political endeavours. They, however, cannot explain how concrete instruments have evolved, what interests and intentions the different parties pursued, and which actors were able to convince the others of their interests. Finding out about these aspects requires research that focuses on certain case studies and analyses governmental and non-governmental actors.