Flows, victims, and entrepreneurs : problematized migrants in the EU agenda on migration and the partnership framework : an analysis of discourse and practice in the EU’s external migration policies towards Africa

(1)

EU Agenda on Migration and the Partnership Framework

An analysis of discourse and practice in the EU’s external migration

policies towards Africa

Lennart van Loenen, 11248904 Supervisor: Dr. J. Doomernik Second reader: Dr. A. van Heelsum University of Amsterdam (UvA) Amsterdam, June 2018

(2)

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1. The European Agenda on Migration and the Partnership Framework

At the time of its establishment in the wake of the 2015 “refugee crisis”, the European Agenda on Migration (EUAM) was presented as a new and more coherent common European response to the problem of irregular migration, and to the plight of the thousands that had died at sea. Based on the principles of partnership, solidarity, and shared responsibility, the EUAM was to be a comprehensive policy framework incorporating immediate humanitarian protection, development cooperation, enhanced anti-trafficking and smuggling capacity, and possibilities for legal migration. Its external component, the Migration Partnership Framework (MPF), was established in 2016 and aimed at engaging a set of predominantly African countries in the collective management of migration. Since their establishment, the institutions and agencies associated with the EUAM and MPF – most notably the European Border and Coast Guard (Frontex) and the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) – have emerged as the principal means of EU attempts to manage migration from Africa to Europe.

Despite the emphasis on solidarity, comprehensiveness, and proper management, the EUAM and especially the Partnership Framework have drawn sharp criticism from humanitarian organizations, activists and scholars. Beneath the publicly stated concerns for human life, international cooperation, and the potentially beneficial impacts of migration on countries of origin, destination, and the migrant itself, such critics point out, the concrete practice of the EUAM’s external action consists in the tightening of border control, the militarization of the Mediterranean Sea, increased restrictiveness and repression towards irregular migrants, and the externalization of European bordering practices to countries in Africa (Amnesty International, 2017; Kervyn & Shilhav, 2017; Concord Europe, 2018).

On its face, then, there seems to be a gap between the contents of the EU’s discourse and its practice. Some have interpreted this as a cynical use of quasi-humanitarian and partnership rhetoric, that obfuscates the true underlying project of restriction, remote control, and the construction of a “fortress Europe”. Others have interpreted it as deriving from a tension between the EU Commission’s genuine intentions and either intra-European

(6)

political and institutional dynamics or misalignment between European and African policy priorities (Collett & Ahad, 2017).

This Master thesis proposes a different way of explaining the apparent contradiction between the discourses and practices of contemporary European external migration governance towards Africa. Starting from the post-structural premise that governing happens through “problematizations” – that is, the discursive and performative production of subjects and objects as problems – the representation of the category of the “migrant” in European policy discourse is analysed as a way of investigating the underlying political rationality of the EU’s external migration regime. Instead of juxtaposing discourse and practice, this thesis aims to analyse the extent to which discursive representation and concrete practice are in essential continuity with each other.

This approach has scholarly as well as societal relevance. First, it draws attention to the political dynamics of subject-constitution and performativity in contemporary EU external migration politics. This gets into view the productive power and specificities of discourse, and provides insight into the ways in which EU actors and institutions imagine the world of migration. Moreover, it allows us to see the tactics and practices through which this world is brought into being. This can enable us to understand how the representation of migrants in official EU discourses may not necessarily be in contradiction with the EUAM’s practices, but rather actively give rise to them. Second, the post-structural emphasis on hybridity, contingency, and complexity highlights the tensions, silences, and points of friction within the EU’s external migration policies. Broadly, then, this allows readers to acquire a critical perspective on the practices through which the physical movement of specific groups of people in this world are governed, and perhaps to deliberate on whether there may be alternative ways of acting.

1.2. Research question(s)

An analysis of the way that the category of “the migrant” figures in the EUAM and MPF entails, first, probing the various ways in which migrants are represented in high level EU discourse. Second, it entails investigating the relations between the discursive representations of migrant subjects and the practices encompassed in the EUAM and MPF.

(7)

Introduction - Structure of the thesis 6

(Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016), this thesis sets out to investigate the process through which the problematization of migration produces, first, the migrant as a particular type of subject, and second, the EU as the appropriate actor to deal with the problems that the migrant represents.

From these considerations, the central research question of this thesis can be derived: what is the role of the problematization of African migrants in the EU’s 2015 Agenda on Migration

and the Migration Partnership Framework? The concept of “problematization” will be

discussed at length in chapter 2, but following Bacchi (2016) it denotes the practices of discursive and performative “production” of subjects, objects, and places as problems that need to be “addressed” by particular actors in particular ways.

This leads to a set of two sub-questions: How are migrants from Africa problematized in

high level EU-discourses on migration policy in the context of the EU Agenda on Migration? This

question asks who the EU imagines it is addressing, why it thinks these migrant subjects are problematic, and how and by whom it presumes their behaviours should be governed.

A second question asks about the way that the problematization of migrant subjects in high level EU discourse relates to particular practices of the EUAM and the Partnership Framework: how are particular representations of migrant subjectivities in official EU discourse

related to the sets of practices and projects under the EU Agenda on Migration?

Together, these questions will bring into view the complex ensemble of discursive representations and performative practices through which the EU attempts to govern migration outside of its borders. It has a descriptive function insofar as it lays out all the different subject positions of the “migrant” within the EU’s discourse, and their relation to the EU’s contemporary practices of migration governance. Yet it also serves an explanatory function: analysing the role of the problematization of migrant subjectivities makes it possible to see the continuities between discourses and practices rather than a contradiction between official rhetoric and reality.

1.3. Structure of the thesis

The rest of this thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework in which the argument is situated. An overview of the state of the art in scholarly work on EU external migration policy is given, as well as an outline of its theoretical limitations.

(8)

Further, an outline of a post-structural, discourse-oriented approach is given, together with a hypothesized set of “paradigms” of migration governance and associated archetypical subject positions. Chapter 3 discusses the analytical strategy of this thesis. This consists of an analysis of discourse and policy content in the tradition of Bacchi’s “what’s the problem represented to be?” approach (WPR), combined with an analytical strategy drawn from Critical Frame Analysis (Bacchi, 2009; Krizsan, et al., 2012; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Chapter 4 introduces the results of the analysis by elaborating on the apparent absence of a “dangerous” migrant subject in the EU’s high level discourses, and the crucial ordering role of the concept of the “migration flow”. In addition, the relation between this discursive representation of migration and the institutions and types of practices associated with EU external migration governance is discussed. Chapter 5 provides a detailed analysis of the discourses and practices surrounding the subject position of the “victim”. Chapter 6 discusses the representation of the migrant as a “homo oeconomicus”. The concluding chapter 7 ties the results of chapter 5 and 6 back to the question of the “flow”, discusses the silences of the EU’s discourses, and outlines the theoretical implications of the overall analysis.

(9)

Theoretical Framework - Common perspectives on the EU’s external migration governance 8

2. Theoretical Framework

The first section of this chapter provides a general overview of the main scholarly work on EU external migration policy, and of common explanations of the “gap” between EU migration discourse and practice. Second, it is argued that a post-structural perspective on power, discourse, and subjectivity can add to our current understanding of the issue. The main premises and theoretical presuppositions of such a post-structural approach are laid out, following the tradition of post-structural thought as it has evolved from the work of Foucault to the “what’s the problem represented to be”-approach of Bacchi. Third, existing literature on discourses and practices in EU external migration governance is drawn upon to outline three main “paradigms” of migration governance that can be expected in the analysis.

2.1. Common perspectives on the EU’s external migration governance

The policies of the current EU Agenda on Migration and its external component in the Partnership Framework have to be seen in the light of a broader historical context in which migrant-receiving countries have increasingly attempted to externalise migration control to third countries (Lavenex, 1999; Zolberg, 2003). In explaining externalisation, scholars have argued that the complex institutional structure of the EU generates a multileveled political space in which actors “shop” among different venues to pursue policy interests (Guiraudon, 2000; Lahav & Guiraudon, 2006). Member States aiming to retain sovereignty over migration thus support EU-level action on migration issues only insofar as it is deemed instrumental to domestic priorities (Lavenex, 2006). As a result, migration policies in Europe increasingly shift towards the sphere of international relations, enlisting third parties in migration control. Moreover, this externalisation of migration policies tends to be significantly biased towards restrictive measures and “remote control”, since it is through preventing migrants from even reaching European territory that more humanitarian and liberal constraints on

(10)

migration control – such as the principle of non-refoulement1 – are circumvented (Lahav & Guiraudon, 2006; Lavenex, 2006; Guiraudon, 2002).

Concerning the political dynamics of EU externalisation policies, scholars have characterized it as a form of external governance: an “attempt to transfer the EU’s rules and policies to third countries and international organizations (Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, p. 791). The key mechanism within these efforts is conditionality, “a bargaining strategy of reinforcement by reward, under which the EU provides external incentives for a target government to comply with its conditions” (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2004, p. 662). In the case of migration policy this entails the inclusion of conditions on migration control in EU negotiations with third countries. Case studies of the EU’s attempts at external governance have shown that, despite the prevalence of “partnership” rhetoric, they tend to follow the logic of conditionality, and moreover exhibit a strong bias towards restrictive, anti-illegal or irregular migration policies (Carrera & Hernández i Sagrera, 2011; Lavenex & Stucky, 2011). Others have attempted to identify the limits of this type of external governance by stressing the agency of third countries (Reslow, 2012) and the role of third country organizational dynamics in the implementation process (Wunderlich, 2011; 2012).

In addition to such “hard” power approaches, EU efforts at external migration governance have been analysed through the lens of “soft” power (Nye, 2004). Drawing from constructivist approaches to international relations, the “social learning” model emphasizes the tactics of persuasion and emulation through trans-governmental networks (Checkel, 2001; Raustiala, 2002; Betts, 2011; Lavenex & Stucky, 2011). Third-country adoption of EU migration policies is then thought to be a type of norm diffusion, following the logic of appropriateness rather than consequence. These dynamics can be discerned, for example, in the EU-funded creation of Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) on migration policy (Thouez & Channac, 2006; Köhler, 2011).

Others have highlighted the roles that Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High

1_{The non-refoulement principle was established as a fundamental principle of international law under} the 1955 Convention on the Status of the Refugee, and forbids states to “return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”

(11)

Theoretical Framework - Common perspectives on the EU’s external migration governance 10

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) play in relation to European efforts at migration governance (Loescher, 2001; Georgi, 2010; Geiger, 2010; Potaux, 2011; Lavenex, 2016). Their disproportionate dependence on funding from migrant-receiving states – combined, in the case of IOM, with the absence of a formal UN mandate – inhibits their ability to act as a counterweight to receiving states’ migration policies (Lavenex, 2016, p. 560)2. At the same time, IGOs frequently act as subcontractors for the implementation of particular policies and projects, and are actively involved in the process of norm diffusion through the – often EU-funded – facilitation of dialogue and the creation of a “common language” between parties to the negotiation (Hess, 2010, p. 108; Lavenex, 2016).

These studies have produced considerable insight into contemporary EU efforts to impose migration control on countries outside of its borders. They have also provided some interesting explanations as to why there seems to be a gap between the stated goals of partnership and cooperation in the EU’s official discourse, and the concrete reality of increasingly restrictive migration policy. It is possible, however, to point to at least two problems, one theoretical and one in terms of focus.

In theoretical terms, most approaches discussed above are committed to an understanding of power that is essentially actor-centred and positivist (Kunz & Maisenbacher, 2013, p. 203). Whether authors focus purely on political bargaining processes or take into account “soft power” elements such as norm diffusion and the construction of a common language, the presumption is that, given a particular set of institutional arrangements, the policies of EU external migration governance can ultimately be traced back to the objective capacities and interests of certain actors in the policy process. This overlooks, first, the possibility of locating the operation of power not in individual capacities but in structural relations. This has, for instance, been the topic of several alternative approaches to EU external migration policy (Geiger & Pécoud, 2012; Maisenbacher, 2015). Second, and perhaps more importantly, this approach overlooks the full extent to which power is exercised through the production of meanings. The capacities and interests of particular actors arguably only attain their causal status within an already established system of meanings. Instead of analysing migration discourses as just techniques of

2 As of 2016, though, IOM has become part of the official UN framework. IOM now presents itself to the world as the “UN Migration Agency”. To what extent this institutional change will affect its political behaviour, however, remains to be seen.

(12)

persuasion or manipulation by some actors, it might be fruitful to ask how discourses shape the world itself, including the self-understanding of particular actors and their social relations.

In their emphasis on actor-centred explanations such studies have also overlooked the specific position of the category of “the migrant” within the politics of EU external migration governance. This is problematic since it is ultimately migrants that are understood as the embodiment of the “problem” of migration, and whose behaviours are said to require intervention. Moreover, since in most cases migrant voices are structurally underrepresented in the political process – i.e. migrants are unable to represent themselves in policy discourses – the way that they are actually represented in political discourse bears no necessary relation to reality. “The migrant” is not a purely descriptive, apolitical category of discourse, and critical scholarship should not readily assume its objective existence. There is a political dynamic through which the discursive category of “the migrant” is acquires a specific meaning, and this process invites critical scrutiny.

From these considerations it should be clear that there is a need to move beyond an actor-centred, positivist understanding of power. Attention should be turned towards the dynamics of meaning-production that produce the categories, concepts, and rationalities through which the world is perceived and acted upon. This task will be taken up by employing analytical strategies and concepts from post-structural approaches to politics.

(13)

Theoretical Framework - A post-structural approach to EU external migration policy 12

2.2. A post-structural approach to EU external migration policy

Post-structural approaches to politics and government trace back to Michel Foucualt’s work on knowledge/power and governmentality (Foucault, 1998; 1979; 2002a; 2002b). Since then, researchers have employed Foucault’s concepts and analytical strategies in a wide variety of contexts (Rose, 1999; Dean, 2010; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). It would be impossible to fully account for the depth of this body of work, yet for the purposes at hand it should suffice to clarify some basic concepts and characteristics.

Post-structural political analysis proceeds from Foucault’s understanding of power. Power is the name that Foucault gave to a decentralized network of “intentional and non-subjective” strategic relations that pervade society (Foucault, 1998, p. 94). As such, power cannot be possessed by an individual; it “exists only insofar as it is exercised”, by some aiming to influence the behaviour of others, as a set of “actions upon actions” (Foucault, 2002b, pp. 340-341). It operates both through relations of communication – discourses – and through relations of objective capacity – e.g. through physical violence or economic relations (Foucault, 2002b, p. 337). Most importantly, power – this network of non-subjective but intentional strategic relations – is productive: it produces political, legal, and cultural identities, accepted knowledges and scientific discourses, practical procedures, institutions, and techniques of domination.

At the core of a post-structural approach to politics, then, is a focus on practices, rather than on subjects and objects (Veyne, 1997). Resisting the positivist and essentialist tendency in political analysis to presuppose a strict subject-object opposition, in which subjects are acting in and reacting to an objective, external world, post-structural analyses focus on the ways in which both subjects and objects are co-constituted through a concrete and historical set of practices (Tietäväinen, et al., 2008, p. 64). The analytical strategy, broadly, is to “suppose that universals do not exist” (Foucault, 2008, p. 3), that is, to bracket the existence of purportedly trans-historical truths and entities such as states, markets, borders, or migrants. This exercise of bracketing is reflected in the strategic use of scare quotes whenever a particular object or subject is discussed. The concrete aim of such an approach is to historicize and denaturalize certain entities whose existence is often taken for granted in political analysis (Tietäväinen, et al., 2008). Particular objects – e.g. “borders” – or subjects – e.g. “criminals” – are treated not as natural but as always emergent, contingent

(14)

and unstable phenomena that are actively produced and reproduced through historical practices (of bordering, of criminalisation).

Historical and more or less coherent sets of such practices are often referred to as “arts of government”, or governmentalities. The concept of governmentality was developed by Foucault to study the historical development of political rationalities, and the way these were connected to a set of practices aimed at steering and directing the actions of people, the “conduct of conduct” (Foucault, 2002a). As such, it becomes possible to study the underlying political rationality of a particular set of policies, the specificity of the way that subjects and objects are represented and problematized, as well as implicit assumptions and silences that characterize it.

In sum: a post-structural approach to politics looks at the way that subjects and objects are constituted through practices of governing. Such practices of governing, moreover, encompass both discursive – knowledge production, rationalities, etc. – and non-discursive practices. The precise way in which government takes place is through problematization (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 17). Problematization entails the production of subjects – subjectification – and objects – objectification – as particular types of problems, which need to be “addressed” by particular actors and through particular means. “Subjectivity” does not necessarily refer to actual persons. Nor is the “subject” merely a figure of discursive representation. Rather, in analysing subjectivity post-structural scholars typically employ the concept of performativity (Butler, 1990). In this understanding the “subject” is the product of a process of “subjectification”, in which persons are incentivized to “perform” a particular subject position, through the construction and enactment of particular social roles, identities and behaviours (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 30).

Adopting this approach enables critical analysis of the precise role of the “migrant” as a problematized subject in contemporary EU efforts at external migration governance. It allows us to see that the migrant subjectivities in EU policy discourses are not passive, merely descriptive categories. In contrast, the representations of migrants in these discourses play an active role in the problematization of migration and in shaping the political rationality of the EU’s external migration regime.

Two general statements can be made about the dynamics of performativity in the context of our research question. First, analysing the EU’s high level policy discourse allows

(15)

Theoretical Framework - A post-structural approach to EU external migration policy 14

us to understand the production of “migrants” as a “people category” in the way it invokes migrants in specific subject positions or as particular “psychosocial types” (Walters, 2010, p. 85). Here the question is about the techniques through which particular types of migrant subjects are produced as problems in the EU’s policies. Second, it shows the role of migrant subjectivities in the production of other identities and social relations surrounding the government of migrants. Here the question is about the way that migrant subjects play a role in the performativity of, for instance, the EU as a particular type of actor in relation to the Member States and to the countries it has “partnered” with.

These considerations give an outline of the general perspective from which this thesis approaches the question of migrant subjects in the EUAM. To understand the problematization of migrants in contemporary EU external migration practices, we have to “suppose migrants do not exist”, and instead focus on the practices through which particular representations of migrants are brought into being. The precise analytical strategy will be laid out in chapter 3. Before that a look will be taken at current theoretical perspectives on subject positions in the EU’s migration policy.

(16)

2.3. Three governmental paradigms on migration

This section discusses three “paradigms” of migration and immigration policy, each embodying a distinct political rationality or “art of government”, corresponding with three archetypical subject positions and connected to a particular set of governmental practices. The first sub-section draws from the literature on securitization, the second from analyses of neo-liberal governmentality in the field of migration, and the last section considers the characteristics and role of humanitarian discourses. These considerations provide an overview of the types of subject positions, policy discourses, and practical efforts that can be expected in the EU’s contemporary partnership policies.

2.3.1. Securitization and threat

A number of scholars of European migration politics have pointed out that the field of migration politics has, over the years, been increasingly “securitized” (Bigo, 2002; Huysmans, 2006; Guild, 2009). The concept of securitization has been employed in a variety of ways, but in a general sense it refers to the framing of a particular political phenomenon issue as an issue of security (Bigo, 2002, p. 63). Waever’s definition of securitization is useful here:

“Security is the speech act where a securitizing actor designates a threat to a specified referent object and declares an existential threat implying a right to use extraordinary means to fence it off. The issue is securitized – becomes a security issue, a part of what is ‘security’ – if the relevant audience accepts this claim and thus grants to the actor a right to violate rules that otherwise would bind.” (Waever, 2000, p. 251).

Securitization is fundamentally a discursive and intersubjective practice, in which a particular object is produced as threatening and particular actions are legitimized. As a speech act, it is not merely descriptive. It is performative insofar as it produces a particular set of meanings of migration: particular actors are made responsible, particular actions become rational, and particular depictions of migrants become accepted as accurate. This notion of securitization fits the definition of an “art of government” since it highlights the interconnection between the political rationality that constructs migration as a security issue,

(17)

Theoretical Framework - Three governmental paradigms on migration 16

and the concrete responsibilization and involvement of particular types of agencies in “responding” to it.

More concretely, securitization implies that migration in general is represented as a threat to the survival of the receiving country. This type of representation has several aspects. First, securitizing discourses can make associations between the influx of migrants into the country and other types of perceived threats to national security. Typical examples are efforts to relate migration to crime and terrorism – implying that increased numbers of immigrants would be connected to higher instances of crime and a higher risk of terrorist attacks. As Neal (2009) shows, this type of securitization discourse was prevalent in European immigration policymaking in the years after the September 2001 attacks in the US, although it gave way to a more managerial, risk-based approach after that (Neal, 2009).

More fundamental, securitizing securitization discourses may represent migration as a threat by its own nature. Here migration and immigration are perceived as threatening by definition, because they undermine the territorial integrity of the nation-state. This understanding of migration derives from the notion of sovereignty (Bigo, 2002, p. 67). Sovereignty, as the monopolized right of authority in a particular territorial space, requires the effective control of a state over its territory. This includes control over who enters, exits, and resides. As Torpey has pointed out, the history of European state building in modernity has been intricately connected to the “monopolization of the legitimate means of movement” (Torpey, 1998). If control over the movement of people is indeed so strongly tied to the perception of state sovereignty, then any violation of its territorial borders by an external entity – like migration – can be perceived as a direct threat to its survival.

Securitizing discourse constructs a seemingly stable collective or national identity over and against a series of dangerous and threatening forces, among which migration is one. In its archetypical form, its language employs the rhetoric of Carl Schmitt’s “state of exception”, in which a sense of crisis and immediacy justifies the use of emergency powers to defend the security of the state (Agamben, 2005). In analysing the discourse of the EUAM, then, securitizing discourses can be recognized in the language of threats, dangers, battle, and emergency.

If migration as a whole is represented as an existential threat to the sovereign nation, the individual migrant can be expected to be represented as the physical embodiment of this

(18)

threat. Securitization, then, can be said to presuppose a “dangerous” or “threatening” migrant subject. The migrant subject is framed as an intruder, a dangerous Other, a potential threat to security that needs to be contained. The representation of migrants in this way also entails the construction of categories of migrant subjects that are ultimately grounded upon suspicion, such as the construction of the “illegal immigrant” as a presumably stable identity (Walters, 2010).

In terms of practices, securitization involves the responsibilization of those state agencies that concern themselves with producing security: border control, law enforcement, and the military. Scholars of securitization have noted some time ago that far from producing a borderless world, the onset of globalization has seen a proliferation of borders (Andreas, 2003). The notion of “bordering” captures that borders are not natural phenomena that are “defended” against external intrusions, but are historically contingent sets of dividing practices that produce a separation between particular groups of people (Walters, 2006a; 2006b). Border policing, moreover, is performative: it enacts a “spectacle” (De Genova, 2013, p. 1181) where the self-identity of the sovereign nation is performed and reproduced through the exclusion of the “illegal” immigrant. Moreover, the “illegality” of the migrant is constructed as an objective fact, i.e. an aspect of the migrant’s personal identity rather than a product of legal and political state practices (De Genova, 2013).

Moreover, the practices of securitization seem to have become increasingly technological: the migrant, as a potential threat, needs to be made visible and “known” through a series of technologies that tend to focus on the migrant’s body as a locus of truth (Dijstelbloem, et al., 2011; van der Ploeg & Sprenkels, 2011). The behaviours, whereabouts, capacities and motivations of migrants both inside and outside the physical borders of Europe are increasingly subjected to continuous monitoring and policing (Broeders, 2011).

In sum, securitization as a paradigm of migration policy consists of a complex amalgam of discursive representations, subjectivities, and practices. Migration is represented as an issue of security, i.e. as a threat to the sovereignty and survival of the receiving nation, and potentially related to other threats such as crime and terrorism. This representation is embedded in a language of emergency, which establishes the responsibility of specific “security” actors. The archetypical subject position in this context is that of the

(19)

“intruder”, a threatening subject that has to be stopped or contained through practices of bordering, policing, and actions against illegal or irregular migration.

2.3.2. Neo-liberal governmentality and the homo oeconomicus

Other scholars of EU migration governance have pointed towards the proliferation of a set of discourses and practices that don’t neatly fit the securitization paradigm. The underlying political rationality is typically referred to as neo-liberalism, and encompasses a particular type of migrant subject. The most vivid instances of this political rationality can be found in the emergence of the discourses on “migration management” and on the migration-development nexus.

Scholars have pointed to the origins of the discourse on migration management in the work of Ghosh (Ghosh, 2000). Since then, the discourse of migration management has spread across global institutions and has become a central approach to migration policymaking (Geiger & Pècoud, 2010). Within the discourse of global migration management, migration is represented not as a threat or a danger, but rather as a natural, in itself politically neutral aspect of society that has both potential benefits and challenges (Kalm, 2010, p. 32). The task of government, then, is to govern migration in such a way that its benefits are maximized and its drawbacks are minimized (Ibid, p. 34). Migration, in short, needs to be “managed” instead of controlled. Through proper techniques of regulation, migration can be brought to produce win-win-win situations for the country of destination, the country of origin or transit, and the migrant itself (Ibid, p. 22).

Instead of the construction of a sovereign political identity through the unilateral imposition of migration control, the emphasis is on the regulation and channelling of migration into those venues that are deemed most beneficial to the parties involved. Insofar as migration is represented as a problem, the problem is really said to lie in the lack of international arrangements for the proper governance of migration (Geiger & Pècoud, 2010; Kalm, 2010). As a result, the programmatic contents of the migration management paradigm focus just as much on building the “right” institutions for the management of migration as on the management of individual migrant behaviours itself. Through cooperation, “capacity building”, “partnership”, and multilateralism, the aim is to produce a shared, depoliticized language among different actors (Lavenex & Stucky, 2011; Kunz, 2011). The rhetoric

(20)

employed is managerial and technocratic: migration is represented as an ultimately apolitical phenomenon that is best dealt with by networks of experts and qualified agencies (Geiger & Pècoud, 2010). As such it not only promotes an attitude of partnership and technical cooperation between different states, but also the involvement of non-state actors such as IGOs, NGOs, and private business, as well as the creation of Regional Consultative Processes (Betts, 2011).

The closely related discourses of the migration-development nexus concern the double mechanism through which the phenomena of migration and development are thought to influence each other (Sørensen, et al., 2002). On the one hand, it is argued that migration is a potentially beneficial phenomenon for each party involved. For the receiving country, the inflow of migrants may complement particular demographic needs and labour market deficiencies. For the country of origin, remittances may provide some much need inflow of financial resources that may aid economic investment and development. For the individual migrant, migration may present the opportunity to send remittances to their families and home communities and thus attain a higher standard of living (Sørensen, et al., 2002; Castles & Miller, 2009).

On the other hand, the thought is that a higher level of economic development in the origin country could reduce the incentives for outmigration, which would imply that increased development coordination could be a means to “address” the problem of illegal or irregular migration (Lavenex & Kunz, 2008). The types of practices associated with the migration-development nexus consist in efforts that turn migration into a “tool” for development (e.g. opening up legal, circular migration schemes, options for pooling of remittances) and, conversely, efforts that turn development into a “tool” for migration policy (e.g. development cooperation in countries with high numbers of migrating people).

The archetypical subject position of neo-liberal paradigms of migration governance is the migrant as a homo oeconomicus. Derived from neoclassical economics, homo oeconomicus is a rational utility seeker that bases its choice on an assessment of costs and benefits of different courses of action in the face of scarcity (Caporaso & Levine, 1992, p. 79; Foucault, 2008, p. 268). This “economic” subject can appear in different forms – as an “entrepreneur” aiming to maximize human capital, or as a “consumer” seeking optimum utility – and it forms the core of many practices of neo-liberal governmentality. According to Foucault, one

(21)

of the crucial innovations of the neo-liberal art of government was to employ the model of the homo oeconomicus as an explanatory “grid” not just for economic behaviour but for all social behaviours in general (Foucault, 2008). Since the subject is presumed to follow a particular – rational, utility maximizing – procedure of choice, based on a particular number of input factors, the behaviour of the subject becomes quite predictable.

Applied to the subject of the migrant, this predictability provides the logic for a series of techniques of government that do not – like securitization – intervene directly in the migrant’s behaviour or body, but instead intervene in the environment that conditions the migrant’s choices. The concrete practices associated with managing the individual migrant, thus, aim at influencing the parameters upon which the migrant is presumed to base its behaviours. A good example of this type of practice is the emergence and dissemination of IOM awareness campaigns that aim at providing migrants and potential migrants with information about the dangers and downsides of “irregular” migration (Pècoud, 2010). More broadly, this paradigm undergirds practices that aim at improving socio-economic conditions for potential migrants, which would lead potential migrants to reconsider their migration choices.

In sum, the neo-liberal paradigm of migration policy consists in an effort to depoliticize migration, through the use of managerial language and an emphasis on the need for partnership and regulation of migration, rather than unilateral control or restriction. In the process, a host of actors beyond the receiving states are reponsibilized: third countries through involvement in RCPs and “capacity building” missions, IGOs and NGOs through their inclusion in policy deliberations and through subcontracting particular projects, and lastly migrants themselves. The archetypical subject position of the migrant is that of the homo oeconomicus. This subject can be managed through intervention in its choice architecture, and is actively produced as part of the attempt to maximize the benefits of migration.

2.3.3. Humanitarian discourse, vulnerability, and protection

A last common paradigm through which migration policy is often approached is humanitarianism. Significant about humanitarianism is that it is commonly associated with the discourses and practices of particular actors in international politics, most notably IGOs

(22)

and NGOs. Moreover, humanitarian discourses are less comprehensive than either securitization or neo-liberal governmentality in that they do not propose a complete explanatory frame through which all migration should be seen. Humanitarianism derives its political rationality and legitimacy not from a notion of sovereignty or a purported need for proper “management”, but rather from established human rights frameworks and an appeal to universal ethical standards. As a result, the language it employs is either juridical, emphasizing the need for protection and enforcement of core human rights, or – to a lesser extent – ethical, stressing the moral duties that particular actors have towards migrants or each other.

Drawing from the categories of existing human rights frameworks, humanitarian discourse problematizes mostly those aspects of migration where such human rights are in the balance: forced migration and displacement, legal protection of migrant workers, etc. The associated subject position is that of the “victim”. The migrant as a victim is most vividly embodied in the category of the refugee – a victim of circumstances in its origin country that threatens its immediate safety, and which establishes its right to protection. Yet the category of the victim can be interpreted more broadly to include all cases where migrant subjects are represented as vulnerable, subjected to malicious external forces, and in need of some sort of protection.

The practices associated with humanitarianism are those of protection: the resettlement of refugees, local protection of refugees and asylum seekers, provision of basic services to displaced populations (e.g. through food assistance), and protection of the rights of migrants abroad. In sum, humanitarianism as a paradigm of government poses a vulnerable migrant subject that requires protection.

2.3.4. Further considerations

These are the main types of discourses, practices, and representations of the migrant that we may expect to find in a systematic review of the EU’s external migration policies. Table 1 denotes a simplified version of the three theoretical paradigms, and that could be expected in the documents analysed in this thesis.

(23)

Table 1. Paradigms of migration governance.

Securitization Neo-liberalism Humanitarianism

Migration as: Threat to domestic security Neutral, potentially beneficial

to all parties involved

Human rights issue

Subject position: Intruder Homo oeconomicus Victim

Characteristic: Threatening;

Dangerous;

Connection to crime and/or terrorism

Entrepreneurial; Rational utility seeker;

Vulnerable;

In need of protection;

Responsibility: Security forces Expert networks;

RCP’s;

Third countries; Migrant

IGO’s, NGO’s, asylum officials Practices: Bordering; policing; surveillance; Anti-irregular migration actions; Legal/circular migration; Remittance pooling; Development policy; Information campaigns; Voluntary returns; Capacity building;

Local protection and inclusion;

Refugee resettlement; Emergency aid; Assistance to trafficking victims;

Before moving to the discussion of methods, some further considerations are in order.

First, while these three “paradigms” constitute distinct ensembles of political rationalities, problem representations, subject positions, and practical proposals, they are by no means mutually exclusive. In analysing the problematization of migration in EU policy it is of enormous importance to avoid objectification of the very modes of thought and practice under scrutiny. “Securitization” is therefore not presumed to be anything outside of the totality of practices through which migration is produced as a particular problem of security. The terms “securitization”, “neo-liberalism”, or “humanitarianism” are merely employed as names for series of practices and knowledges that share a certain common problematization of the world of migration. These paradigms of migration policy can be expected to interact considerably with each other in the concrete context of the EU’s efforts in Africa. More than just identifying different problematizations and subject positions, this thesis aims at highlighting the points at which different problematizations, subjectivities and practical proposals intersect and produce new tensions and performative effects.

(24)

Some examples should clarify this. For instance, some scholars have pointed to the way in which EU external activities have managed to frame the migration-development nexus within the EU’s migration agenda (Lavenex & Kunz, 2008). Presuming that increased prosperity and development could diminish the incentives for migration to Europe, development cooperation is employed as a way of controlling migration. As a result it becomes possible to speak of the securitization of the migration-development nexus – thus fusing securitarian and neo-liberal paradigms (Ibid, p. 446). Another good example concerns the status of humanitarian discourses in the complex of EU external migration policies. While humanitarian organisations are capable of providing some counterweight to states’ excessive securitizing efforts, their dependence on established legal frameworks means they are always at risk of reproducing the very categories of the discourses they criticize (Bigo, 2002, p. 72). Other studies have emphasized the mismatch between the humanitarian language of IGOs such as IOM and the fact that they, in absence of an international human rights mandate, are ultimately only accountable to the states that have contracted them (Georgi, 2010). Similarly, a recent set of scholarly contributions emphasizes the emergence of a “rescue-through-interdiction” model, in which security agencies reframe their interventions at the border as a form of rescuing lives – effectively branding the practice of bordering as a form of humanitarian protection (Aas & Gundhus, 2015; Moreno-Lax, 2018).

These examples show that paradigms of migration governance are not isolated and sterile, but rather hybrid sets of practices that interact in contingent ways. The relation between different paradigms as it emerges from the analysis in this thesis is likely to be complex. The general hypothesis, here, is that in the context of the EU’s attempts at governing migration from Africa under the EUAM and the Partnership Framework, different subject positions link up with different rationalities and practical proposals, producing historically specific social identities and responsibilities.

A last qualification is that, even though this thesis deals with EU discourse, the aim is by no means to paint a monolithic picture of the EU or to downplay its institutional complexity. While the language used in this thesis may occasionally suggest otherwise (in phrases like “the EU represents migration as x”), the EU is not treated as a singular, coherent actor. Rather, the EU is treated as an emergent and contingent phenomenon whose position in the world is perpetually produced and reproduced. With these considerations in mind it

(25)

should now be possible to move towards a description of the methods employed in this investigation.

(26)

3. Methods

Investigating the role of the problematization of migrant subjectivities in the EU’s contemporary migration policies towards Africa requires, first, the identification of different subject positions, problematizations, political rationalities, responsibilizations and practical proposals. Second, the relation between the discursive representation of migrants as problematic subjects and the concrete projects, programmes, and procedures of the EUAM has to be explicated.

3.1. Data selection and analytical strategy

The overall strategy employed in this thesis consists in an application of the “what’s the problem represented to be” (WPR) approach developed by Carol Bacchi (Bacchi, 2009; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The WPR approach is a form of policy analysis grounded in Foucauldian and post-structural discourse theory and fits in the theoretical perspective outlined in chapter 2. Investigating the underlying “problem representation” of particular policy documents allows for an understanding of the way that subjects, objects, and problems are constituted. The analytical task is “teasing out the conceptual premises underpinning problem representations, tracing their genealogy, reflecting on the practises that sustain them and considering their effects” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 17).

The research itself was carried out in two parts. With regard to the first sub-question – i.e. the discursive problematization of migrant subjectivities in EU external migration policy discourse – the analysis focused on the systematic review of policy documents from the EU’s high level discourses. Of these, a sample of six key texts was analysed employing a method of syntactic coding drawn from critical frame analysis (Krizsan, et al., 2012). This enabled a structured overview of the main subject positions in official EU discourse. This part of the research was supplemented with additional empirical evidence from other texts from high level EU discourse.

With regard to the second sub-question – the relation of the representation of migrant subjectivities in high level EU discourse to the practices under the EUAM and MPF – practices were selected on the basis of their significance in high level EU discourse.

(27)

Methods - Data selection and analytical strategy 26

out the relation between the set of problematized subject positions found in high level discourse and the concrete practices that sustain them.

3.1.1. Sampling of high level discourse documents

Given the vast amount of documents that comprise the EU’s high level policy discourses – including official communications, briefing notes, reports and policy proposals – it was necessary to restrict analytical focus to a limited set of key documents. The emphasis was put on the detailed and structured review of a sample of six key documents from the EU’s high level discourses on contemporary migration policy towards Africa. This review forms the core of the investigation of the discursive representation of migrants, but is supplemented for contextual depth with a thorough review of other key texts from EU migration discourse. Table 2 lists the texts included in the syntactic coding sample.

Table 2. Key high level documents in sample (per year).

2015 2016 2017

“A European Agenda on Migration”

(European Commission, 2015a)

“Establishing a Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration”

(European Commission, 2016a)

“Fifth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration”

(European Commission, 2017b) “Action Plan”

(Valetta Summit, 2015a)

“First Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration”

(European Commission, 2016b) “Political Declaration”

(Valletta Summit, 2015b)

First, the sample includes two crucial EU Commission communication that lay out the general policy framework of the EU’s contemporary attempts at governing migration, and as such form crucial points of reference for any subsequent policy proposal. These are the 2015 communication on establishing the EUAM and the 2016 communication on establishing the MPF.

Second, the Action Plan and the Political Declaration from the Valletta Summit in November 2015 are included (Valetta Summit, 2015a; 2015b). While these documents are the

(28)

product of a multilateral summit and as such not strictly speaking EU discourse, they are frequently referred to by subsequent texts and as such provide a source of legitimacy for EU efforts at overseas migration governance. Moreover, one of the crucial tools of EU external governance in Africa, the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, was established at the Valletta Summit. So while not originating solely from the EU, these documents are nevertheless very much part of the EU’s high level discourses.

Lastly, the sample includes the first and fifth Progress Reports on the Partnership Framework (European Commission, 2016b; 2017b). These are communications by the EU Commission that reflect on the state of cooperation with the “partner countries”. Since they are more concerned with problematizing the relation between the EU, the Member States, and third countries than with the problematization of migrant subjects, only two Progress Reports were included in the sample – one for each year since the establishment of the Partnership Framework.

3.1.2. Analysing the sample

Investigating the problematization of migrant subjectivities in the six key documents consists of three main steps. First, it requires explicating the overall problem representation in the documents under scrutiny. The issue here is to determine whether the problematization of migration in the texts corresponds to one or more of the paradigms of migration policy outlined in chapter 2. This was done through a careful reading of the six documents in the sample, as well as other important texts from high level EU discourse, such as the other Progress Reports and more concrete decisions on policies within the context of the EUAM. This was helpful since it provided insight into the general outlook on migration that pervades the texts.

The second step is identifying subject positions. The aim here is to identify what the essential characteristics, behaviours, and drives of migrants are represented to be, and to determine whether these representations correspond to the three archetypical subject positions outlined in the theoretical framework. Further, the goal is to document the exact way that they are construed as a “problem”, as well as the underlying assumptions and political rationalities that can be read off from this representation. This step also entails

(29)

highlighting possible silences, elements of the representation that are left unproblematic – or outright contradictions.

The third step consists of identifying the types of practices – policies and projects in the past, present, and future – that are mentioned or proposed in relation to particular subject positions, as well as the responsibilization of specific agencies or actors. This step bridges the gap between discursive representation of migrants in official EU discourse and the concrete practices, procedures and projects associated with the government of migrants on the other. It brings into view what sorts of practices are represented as significant, and appropriate, in “responding” to the problem that the migrant poses.

This requires a systematic method of inquiry. A coding scheme was developed that allowed for a flexible yet structured analysis of the sample of documents from high level EU discourse. The scheme was based on an example provided by Krizsan et al in the context of a research project on framing in European policies on gender equality (2012). The authors propose the use of a method called “syntactic” coding. Syntactic coding allows for an analysis of policy content that focuses specifically on the particular meanings that are produced in a text by the use of codes that follow a particular pre-given “story grammar” (Krizsan, et al., 2012, p. 10). The particular position of migrant subjects in a sentence like “Those who live a clandestine life inside Europe have a precarious existence and can easily fall prey to exploitation” (European Commission, 2015a, p. 7) can only be conveyed by structuring the method of coding along a particular grammatical logic. It would not be enough to assign particular codes to particular parts of the sentence – to get into view the representation of migrant subjects, the precise relation between different parts of the sentence need to be included as well.

Table 3 shows the full coding scheme. Three codes are concerned with identifying the place of a sentence in the text. Eight concern the identification of subjects; the form in which they appear; the terms used to describe them; their location; other relevant specifications; characteristics and behaviours; causes or determinants; and the extent of agency ascribed to particular subjects. One code was added to catalogue underlying assumptions, presumed implications, and problem representation. One category was added to list the types of practices that were proposed or referred to in a specific context. A last category was included to allow the researcher to highlight silences within the discourse, and more broadly

(30)

to add comments on the text that seem relevant. with added questions that indicate the type of information that is to be included under each code.

Table 3. Coding scheme for analysis of high level EU discourse.

No Code name Questions Coding options

1 Section Which part of the text does the phrase occur? Open

2 Sub-section Which sub-part of the text does the phrase occur? Open

3 Page (Line) Which page and line in the text does the phrase occur? Page (Line)

4 Subject general Which type of subject is mentioned? Open

5 Form In what form is the subject mentioned?

- As a (group of) individual(s)?

- As (part of) a “flow”?

Solid/Fluid

6 Term Which term is used to refer to the subject? Open

7 Location Where is the subject represented to be:

- Currently?

- Coming from?

- Heading to?

Open

8 Further

specification Are there further quantitative/qualitative specifications involved?

- Amount of subjects? - Age? - Gender? - Ethnicity/nationality? - Religion? - Legal status? - Regular/irregular? Open 9 Characteristic/ Behaviour

What are the essential characteristics of the subject? What does the subject do?

What is being done to the subject?

Open

10 Causes/

determinants

What are the causes or determining factors of the subject’s

behaviour or situation? Open

11 Agency Is the subject represented as active of passive? Active/passive

12 Implications/

Assumptions/ Problematizations

What does the position of the subject imply for the EU’s course of action?

What is implicitly/explicitly assumed? What is deemed problematic?

Open

13 Policy Proposals Which past, future or ongoing policies are mentioned? Open

14 Silences/ researcher

comments What is left unproblematic? _{How does this particular statement relate to other}

statements, to the broader text, and to the theoretical framework?

What seems salient that is not captured by the other codes?

(31)

Employing this scheme, every explicit or implicit reference to migrants could be documented3, together with relevant information about the way they were represented. It also allowed for the use of simple spreadsheet software to produce tables with relevant content. Since the emphasis of a post-structural approach to discourse analysis is less on the linguistic structure of the text than on the way that subjects figure in the discourse, the liberty was taken to rephrase particular sentences to increase the readability of the tables themselves – insofar as this did not alter the implied meanings of the sentence. Literal quotes from the texts are marked by scare quotes. The use of brackets indicates notes or suggested examples and clarifications by the researcher. Moreover, since descriptions of migrants as part of a “flow” are closer to the representation of objects than of subjects – more on this in chapter 4 – the fields in the category “agency” are left empty.

This method of inquiry not only allows for the identification of different subject positions (e.g. the representation of different types of migrant “victims”) but also, more interestingly, the points where particular subject positions (e.g. the “victim”) coincide with particular representations of their determinants (e.g. the behaviour of networks of human traffickers) and proposals for particular types of action on the part of the EU (e.g. support for security and police forces). In sum, this analytical strategy allows for an understanding of the way that different paradigms of migration governance intersect through the interaction of subject positions, political rationalities, and practical proposals.

As mentioned, while the analysis of the sample of six key texts constituted the core of the analysis, it was supplemented by a thorough review of other texts from high level EU policy discourse.

3.1.3. Relation with practices

The need to restrict focus to a limited set of core texts is even more salient in the case of the practices of the EUAM and the Partnership Framework. It would have been simply impossible in the context of a Master’s thesis to engage in a complete analysis of all the project proposals of, for instance, the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Some criterion

3_{Whenever migrant subjects were only implicitly referred to, this was indicated by the addition} [implied].

(32)

for selection was needed in order to be able to assess the relation between the problematization of migrants in official EU discourses and concrete practices.

A useful strategy of selection flowed from the analysis of the sample of six key documents. The documents analysed in fact discuss many types of projects and programmes as exemplary cases of successful EU external migration governance. Others, conversely, are downplayed in their importance. Starting from the discursive representation of migrant subjects in high level discourse, it was possible to read off the particular practices that are proposed in relation to this type of subject, and move to an analysis of the agencies that are put in charge of these practices as well as actual project proposals. Hence, the six documents analysed using the syntactic coding scheme provided a starting point for a more detailed review of a selection of implementation-level policy texts.

This part of the analysis was not geared towards providing a full or comprehensive overview of the practices carried out by EU agencies in the context of the EUAM. Rather, the aim was to pursue in more detail several questions arising from the analysis of the discursive representation of migrants in high level EU discourse. These questions related principally to the possible performativity and responsibilization that a particular problematization of migrants effected. Given a particular representation of migrant subjects (e.g. as “lives in peril” on the Mediterranean Sea), a particular representation of causes and determinants of these migrant’s situations (e.g. the criminal behaviour of smuggling networks), the texts often put forth a specific set of policy proposals (e.g. enhancing funding for anti-smuggling activities). The precise details of such proposals could then be questioned in greater detail by analysing reports and project documents from the agencies involved in the implementation of these policies. Important documents in this regard were, for instance, the annual reports of Frontex and the EUTF, as well as concrete project proposals (action fiches) from the latter. The full tables generated by the analysis are included in Appendix 2.

(33)

Methods - Scope and limits 32

3.2. Scope and limits

As already indicated, there are some concrete limitations to the investigation. First, an

institutional limitation: the emphasis is more on discursive representation in high level EU

discourses rather on detailed analysis of all the practices of external governance under the EUAM. It does not presume to give a comprehensive picture of all of the projects of the EUTF, Frontex and other EU agencies. Second, a historical limitation: the analysis only considers texts from after the initial proposal of the EUAM. This precludes a more genealogical investigation. The focus is on the present structure of representation and problematization of migrant subjects, not excavating the historical roots of this present. Third, a geographical limitation: the thesis aims at understanding the problematization of migrant subjectivities in EU-African relations. The differences and similarities between the problematization of migrants from Africa and, for instance, from Syria, is not a principal focus of the investigation.

At the same time, however, the format of the coding scheme developed above does allow for its application in these other dimensions. A possible future investigation could expand the sample to take into account possible multi-level institutional tensions, historical continuities and changes, and geographical similarities and differences. As such, the analysis carried out in the following chapters is a first attempt at a type of investigation that could possibly expand into a range of other contexts.

Another limitation derives from (post-structural) discourse analysis itself. Since this thesis concerns itself only with the production of subjects, objects, and problems within the policy discourse and practice of the EU, it can tell us little about the way that actual, physical migrants conduct themselves in relation to the EU’s tactics. The focus is ultimately on the sets of techniques and knowledges through which particular accepted truths about the migrant are brought into being, and the way these truths enable the performativity of the EU as a particular actor on the world stage and the “migrant” as a particular social identity. Yet little can be said about the effectiveness of such practices, or about the accuracy of particular depictions of migrant subjects, on the basis of discourse analysis alone. Thus, not only should possible future studies expand the analysis laid out in this thesis across institutional levels, historical developments and geographical regions: they should also supplement it by

(34)

engaging in empirical research about migrant’s concrete behaviours and experiences in the face of the practices identified here.

(35)

Managing the “migratory flow” - Migration management and the absence of an intruder subject 34

4. Managing the “migratory flow”

This chapter discusses several key features of the overall problem representation found in the texts. First, the figure of a “dangerous” or “threatening” migrant subject is almost completely absent in the texts reviewed. Instead, the most frequently invoked position is that of the victim, followed by the migrant as a homo oeconomicus. Second, it is argued that the concept of the “flow” is central to the EU’s discourse, and that it takes on many characteristics of “dangerousness”, which are not reducible to the individual migrant subjects. Third, the role of the “flow” as an ordering concept in the EU’s external migration discourse is discussed in relation to the institutions set up under the MPF, and the types of practices that are pursued in this context.

4.1. Migration management and the absence of an intruder subject

The overall language of the documents follows the format of the migration management paradigm. This is most clearly so in the EUAM texts, which opens with an insistence on the trans-historical normality and naturalness of migration:

Throughout history, people have migrated from one place to another. People try to reach European shores for different reasons and through different channels. They look for legal pathways but they also risk their lives, to escape from political oppression, war and poverty, as well as to find family reunification, entrepreneurship, knowledge and education. Every person’s migration tells its own story (European Commission, 2015a, p. 1).

Not only is migration depicted as a “normal” phenomenon, individual migrants themselves are represented as unique individuals with complex personal histories and aspirations. Further, the text goes on to lament the emergence of dehumanizing stereotypes of migrants in European public debate:

Misguided and stereotyped narratives often tend to focus only on certain types of flows, overlooking the inherent complexity of this phenomenon, which impacts society in many different ways and calls for a variety of responses (European Commission, 2015a, p. 1).

Flows, victims, and entrepreneurs : problematized migrants in the EU agenda on migration and the partnership framework : an analysis of discourse and practice in the EU’s external migration policies towards Africa

EU Agenda on Migration and the Partnership Framework

An analysis of discourse and practice in the EU’s external migration

policies towards Africa

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Framework

3. Methods

4. Managing the “migratory flow”