Governing Access to Nationality Through Paperwork: The Discretionary Uses of Documentation for Naturalisation in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT In this paper, we examine the discretionary uses of documentation in the implementation of naturalisation through a comparative perspective focusing on Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. We investigate the organisational and professional factors that are likely to impact variation in the uses of discretion based on documentation. Belgium, France and the United Kingdom represent three interesting case studies involving different actors with different mandates. In Belgium, municipal agents are responsible for a mandatory check of applicants' documents before transferring the naturalisation application to public prosecutors. While only the latter have the mandate to check that the legal requirements are met, most municipal agents are involved in the examination of the requirements. In France, before the digitisation of nationality acquisition in 2023, the initial acceptance of an application involved prefectural agents who had the power to refuse application registration if the documentation was deemed insufficient or ‘non‐compliant’. In the United Kingdom, ‘Nationality Checking Services’ (NCS) were available until 2019 in local register offices for an optional check of the application before the transfer to the Home Office, which remains the decision‐making body on nationality applications. As United Kingdom law regulates strictly immigration advice, NCSs were often unwilling to express themselves on the chances of an application. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork consisting of interviews with implementation agents in the three countries and observations of their interactions with applicants, this paper contributes to shedding light on what drives variations in the governance of access to nationality through paperwork.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Policy and Administration
Published
2024-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13098
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Governing Access to Nationality Through Paperwork: The Discretionary Uses of Documentation for Naturalisation in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom

Djordje Sredanovic, Émilien Fargues
2 citations
Social Policy and Administration
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
2.26
article

Governing Access to Nationality Through Paperwork: The Discretionary Uses of Documentation for Naturalisation in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom

Djordje Sredanovic, Émilien Fargues
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper, we examine the discretionary uses of documentation in the implementation of naturalisation through a comparative perspective focusing on Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. We investigate the organisational and professional factors that are likely to impact variation in the uses of discretion based on documentation. Belgium, France and the United Kingdom represent three interesting case studies involving different actors with different mandates. In Belgium, municipal agents are responsible for a mandatory check of applicants' documents before transferring the naturalisation application to public prosecutors. While only the latter have the mandate to check that the legal requirements are met, most municipal agents are involved in the examination of the requirements. In France, before the digitisation of nationality acquisition in 2023, the initial acceptance of an application involved prefectural agents who had the power to refuse application registration if the documentation was deemed insufficient or ‘non‐compliant’. In the United Kingdom, ‘Nationality Checking Services’ (NCS) were available until 2019 in local register offices for an optional check of the application before the transfer to the Home Office, which remains the decision‐making body on nationality applications. As United Kingdom law regulates strictly immigration advice, NCSs were often unwilling to express themselves on the chances of an application. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork consisting of interviews with implementation agents in the three countries and observations of their interactions with applicants, this paper contributes to shedding light on what drives variations in the governance of access to nationality through paperwork.

Social Policy and AdministrationVol. 59(4)
University of Chester (GB), Collège de France (FR), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR), Centre de Recherches Sociologiques sur le Droit et les Institutions Pénales (FR), Centre de Recherches Politiques de Sciences Po (FR)
London School of Economics and Political Science, University of Oxford, Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles
Peace, Justice and strong institutions, Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
2.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.