Christina Boswell

The political functions of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy

ABSTRACT Most literature on knowledge utilization is premised on rationalist theories of organizations: bureaucracies draw on knowledge instrumentally, either to expand their power or to adjust policy output. This paper develops an alternative account of the functions of knowledge, arguing that organizations are just as likely to value knowledge as a source of legitimation, or as a way of substantiating their policy preferences. The prevalence of these different forms of knowledge utilization will depend on (a) features of the organization (its perceived stability and source of legitimation); and (b) features of the policy area (degree of contention and mode of settlement). The article applies this framework to explore the European Commissions use of knowledge in immigration policy, especially through the European Migration Network.

Theorizing Migration Policy: Is There a Third Way?

This article critically reviews theories of migration policy according to two criteria: methodological rigor and explanatory plausibility. It finds that political economy accounts are theoretically robust, but at the price of oversimplification. Neo-institutional theories offer more sophisticated accounts, but fall short on a number of methodological and explanatory counts. As an alternative, this article suggests a theory focusing on the functional imperatives of the state in the area of migration, which shape its responses to societal interests and institutional structures.

Migration Control in Europe After 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization

Rejecting the predominant view that 9/11 encouraged a ‘securitization’ of migration control, this article argues that political discourse and practice in Europe have remained surprisingly unaffected by the terrorism threat. This finding challenges the critical securities literature, implying the need for a more differentiated theory of the political system and organizational interests.

Migration and mobility in the European Union

Studying Migration and Mobility in the European Union Migration and Migration Policy in Europe The EU Dimension of Migration and Asylum Policy Labour Migration Family Migration Irregular Immigration Asylum Mobility, Citizenship and EU Enlargement Immigrant Integration Conclusions

The Role of Narratives in Migration Policy-Making: A Research Framework

While debates on migration policy often revolve around rival values and interests, they also invoke knowledge claims about the causes, dynamics and impacts of migration. Such claims are best conceptualised as ‘policy narratives’, setting out beliefs about policy problems and appropriate interventions. Narratives are likely to be more successful where they meet three criteria: they are cognitively plausible, dramatically or morally compelling and, importantly, they chime with perceived interests. Increasingly, such narratives are also expected to draw on expert knowledge, although knowledge is often deployed to legitimise particular actors or preferences rather than to enhance the cognitive plausibility of the narrative. The series of articles in this issue explore how narratives are developed, codified, revised and diffused in policy debates and policy-making. We hope that they contribute not just to understanding migration policy, but also to wider debates on the role of ideas and knowledge in public policy.

Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration

There is a striking lack of research on the utilisation of expert knowledge in public policy debates and party political mobilisation. Existing contributions in related fields of scholarship generate rather contradictory expectations. On the one hand, political communications literature points to the dumbing down of political debate, implying a limited role for expert knowledge. On the other hand, a number of prominent sociologists have noted the centrality of science in political debate on the politics of risk. This article suggests that the two theses are not necessarily incompatible. For knowledge to be reported in the media, it clearly needs to conform to criteria of novelty, drama and scandal, but scientific findings can and often do meet these criteria, especially in areas of risk, where there is enormous potential to scandalise government actions or omissions. The article illustrates these tendencies through an analysis of the use of expert knowledge in UK debates on migration from 2002 to 2004. It explores how research was used in parliamentary debates, speeches and newspaper coverage of three prominent episodes in the politics of migration. The examples demonstrate well how the mass media utilises research to expose political scandal. The analysis also suggests the ambivalence of political actors and especially incumbents in drawing on research. While governments are keen to utilise research to legitimise policies, they are also aware of the limitations of science in underpinning risky decisions. The article concludes with a discussion of how politics has responded to this dilemma.

Combining Economics and Sociology in Migration Theory

This paper considers some of the impediments to interdisciplinary integration in migration theory, focusing on the problem of combining economics and sociology. It argues that neoclassical economics has a number of methodological advantages, deriving from its elegant theoretical structure and its aptitude for measuring and predicting individual behaviour. However, these features are contingent on a number of simplifying assumptions about social action: namely, a commitment to methodological individualism, a uniform conception of rationality, and a theory of individuals as utility-maximising. These assumptions become untenable in the case of migration decision-making, which partially accounts for the failure of economics theories adequately to explain and predict migration flows. Instead of rejecting such approaches, however, the article suggests how economics methodologies can be usefully applied within interdisciplinary research: either as a tool for modelling patterns of migration decision-making already observed through more qualitative methodologies; or as a means of testing and ruling out certain hypotheses about migration decision-making.

Evasion, Reinterpretation and Decoupling: European Commission Responses to the ‘External Dimension’ of Immigration and Asylum

Since 1999, the European Commission has been responsible for ‘integrating’ immigration and asylum goals into the EUs external relations. This article explores how different Directorates-General have responded to this requirement. Rejecting prevalent rationalist theories, it draws on organisational sociology to argue that administrative organisations are preoccupied with internal social and psychological tasks, and only selectively read and respond to signals from their political environment. Depending on characteristics of the organisation and policy area, one can hypothesise four ideal-typical responses: full adaptation, evasion, institutional decoupling, and reinterpretation. An analysis of Commission responses suggests that DG Justice, Liberty and Security fully adapted to the agenda, while DG External Relations adopted a strategy of institutional decoupling. DG Development shifted from initial evasion to reinterpretation, contributing to the rather incoherent mix of goals that emerged in the 2005 Global Approach. The article considers the implications of this account for theories of policy change.

Politicising Migration: Opportunity or Liability for the Centre Right in Germany?

Centre-right parties have by and large been keen to mobilize support by adopting relatively restrictive approaches on immigration and multiculturalism. However, such mobilizing strategies carry a number of costs: centre-right parties risk losing support from more moderate supporters, and they may lose legitimacy by pursuing policies that conflict with more liberal approaches, or which prove difficult to deliver. This contribution develops a typology of these risks and applies it to analyse the behaviour of the CDU in Germany. While many features of the CDU are well suited to more restrictionist immigration policies, such approaches have at times conflicted with the more Christian and communitarian ethos on which the party was originally founded. Moreover, when in government the CDU has found it difficult to deliver on more restrictive pledges, and is likely to find it increasingly difficult to reconcile restrictiveness with a business-friendly approach.

Migration Control and Narratives of Steering

The dynamics of migration are incredibly complex, creating immense problems for governments attempting to steer immigration. These challenges are well elucidated in literature on societal steering, and especially Luhmanns analysis of the impediments to steering by the political and legal systems. Politics and the law develop highly simplifying models of the dynamics they are seeking to steer, resulting in various problems of distortion and counterproductive effects. We can see examples of this in the case of migration control, where attempts to prevent irregular labour or stay have led to numerous unintended effects. However, it is far from evident how such problems of steering can be addressed. A number of cognitive, social and political factors place pressure on policy-makers to adopt highly simplifying models of these processes. The implication is that policy interventions have a structural tendency to ‘short-circuit’ the complexity of the migratory processes they are attempting to steer.