Panel 4: Subnational dynamics of migration governance
Chair: Marcia Vera-Espinoza | University of Sheffield (MIGPROSP)
The local governance of immigration: policies of exclusion as a battleground
Maurizio Ambrosini | University of Milan
The so-called refugee crisis in Italy has highlighted once more the importance of local societies and local governments for the reception of new immigrants, especially if they are perceived as dangerous, undeserving and welfare scroungers.
Many mayors, local governments and political actors have mobilized against the reception of asylum seekers, giving new salience to the concept of “local policies of exclusion”. The political debate in the last years has focussed mainly on the issue of asylum, obscuring the fact that many other immigrants settle and work in local societies, holding regular permits or not.
The paper would like to discuss: 1) how local policies frame asylum seekers and immigrants, in particular emphasizing the local dimension of political exclusion of immigrants: 2) how different types or migrants are actually categorized and received in local societies, distinguishing formal authorization and social recognition; 3) how different kinds of intermediaries favour the settlement of different types of immigrants in local societies, often navigating and also circumventing policies of exclusion. The governance of immigration, especially at local level, can be defined as a battleground, in which different actors take part, according with various economic interests, social bonds, moral values and political beliefs. The practical governance of immigration and asylum is influenced by these different interests and visions. The paper is based on several years of studies conducted in Northern Italy, on irregular immigration, asylum seekers and local policies.
Going local in migration governance: the interplay between city, national and regional refugee policy
Barbara Oomen | EUI and Utrecht University
One of the most salient features of the governance of migration in this day and age is the degree to which (networks of) cities increasingly seek to take global center stage in the welcome and integration of migrants. The Sanctuary Cities in the United States can serve as one example, as can Eurocities, Solidacities and the emphasis on refugees by the Global Parliament of Mayors. In all these cases, cities seek to offer more protection than national policies would call far, often finding justification in international law and support from transnational networks. Whilst these transnational dynamics of city cooperation – including cities like New York, London and Paris – clearly impact refugee governance, they have received little scholarly attention to date.
This contribution examines how such networks contribute to the dynamics of migration governance in Europe and the United States, offering both a comparison of regional practices and a theory of their implications. The rise of cities as independent actors in migration policy adds another layer to the context of constitutional pluralism in refugee welcome and integration, both strengthening regional integration and questioning it. How has such pluralism impacted upon both regional policies, and local practice and what are the theoretical implications?
The sub-national governance of displacement: Against the anti-welfare common sense?
Leila Hadj Abdou | University of Vienna
Conflicts and challenges that have emerged in the wake of the recent ‘refugee crisis’ have highlighted the important role sub-national actors play for migration management. Regional and local settings were of crucial importance not only at the stage of refugee reception, but sub-national actors also continued to play a major role once a large number of asylum seekers had received protection. Consequently this paper´s perspective is on the sub-national level and its interaction with the national level, using the example of welfare policy in Austria.
Austria was a major destination country during the 2015 ‘crisis’ year. While the nation initially exhibited a welcoming response, soon a discursive shift occurred, particularly focusing on alleged welfare abuse by refugees. As a result benefits (targeting refugees) have been limited. The issue of welfare has dominated immigration debates since the 1990s. What is astonishing here, though, is the role of Vienna as the country´s outlier. Despite having the highest concentration of refugees the province has kept its inclusive commitment to welfare, a commitment that has been the source of heated political conflict in the country. The paper reconstructs and examines this current debate. It aims to understand the different approaches to the issue, by analyzing in how far welfare is portrayed and understood by key actors at the national and the sub-national level as a driver of migration to, and within the country. The paper is based on an analysis of media debates and qualitative interviews with governance actors
When subnational regions take over: a global perspective on regional policy variance in the field of immigrant integration
Verena Wisthaler | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano
Anita Manatschal | Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies (SFM) at the University of Neuchâtel
Christina Zuber | University of Konstanz
Research on integration policy has become a salient research topic over the past decade. Most of the conceptual or empirical studies in this field focus, however, on national or local levels of government. Integration policies made by regions in political systems that have an intermediate layer of government still lack systematic scholarly attention, in spite of striking regional policy differences (e.g. Swiss cantons, Italian regions) and bustling regional integration policy making activities (e.g. US states). Comparative research has been hampered by the lack of a common understanding of what integration policy refers to at the subnational level since this understanding depends on the multi-level allocation of powers in each national context. In this article, we develop a common conceptual understanding of subnational integration policies and use it to develop a comparative classification of integration policies in five classical federations (USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Germany) and three functional – though not nominal – federal systems (UK, Spain, Italy). Our comparative classification is based on an expert survey covering subnational regions in these eight countries, and draws on insights from national research, which often distinguishes three dimensions of integration policy (political, socio-economic and cultural).
The article serves as the introduction to a Special Issue edited by the authors on “Causes and effects of regional policy variance in the field of immigrant integration. A global comparison”.
Panel 5: Migration governance in North America
Chair: Andrew Geddes | Migration Policy Centre and University of Sheffield (MIGPROSP)
Up North from El Norte: Canada in North American regional migration system
Agnieszka Weinar | EUI
Canada has been long seen as a synonym of best practice as regards immigration policy. In its colonial and post-colonial history it developed a variety of instruments to manage inflows of people. It has been long argues that such an effective immigration management has been possible only because of Canada’s geographic location, cushioned from the South by the United States and kept safe from unauthorized passage by two Oceans. What has been often overlooked is that the geopolitical position of Canada in North American regional system has influenced the immigration policy decisions of the country for decades. As Pierre Trudeau once noted Canada was like a mouse sleeping in one bed with an elephant; Mexico makes for the other mouse.
In this paper I will consider the ways in which North American migration system dominated by US-Mexico bilateral relations has impacted immigration policy decisions in Canada. The guiding question is: how does Canada keep its immigration policy freedom in the face of US pressures, also vis-a-vis Mexico?
In the North American context identity politics permeates formal and informal cooperation frameworks. Diplomatic skills and soft power are key to keep sovereignty of policy decisions in the face of an assertive US and thus informal relations are far more important than formal cooperation frameworks. The paper is based on qualitative interviews with government officials in Ottawa and Montreal, policy document analysis and secondary sources.
Mexico and regional migration governance in North America: understanding the uncertainties of multiple migration dynamics in an era of restrictions
Nicola Phillips | University of Sheffield (MIGPROSP)
Marcia Vera-Espinoza | University of Sheffield (MIGPROSP)
This paper analyses how diverse migration dynamics and predominant restrictionist discourses and policies in North America impact the understandings and responses of/to international migration in Mexico’s migration governance system. Migration in Mexico is a multi-tiered phenomenon (Schiavon 2016). Its geopolitical position makes of Mexico a country of destination, sending, return and transit migration. While the number of people of Mexican origin living in the United States remains high, the net flow of Mexican migrants in the other side of the border has decreased in the last ten years. On the other hand, migration governance in the United States has become more restrictive, even before Donald Trump proclaimed the idea of building a wall between both countries. These restrictions have increased both the number of Central American migrants that stay in Mexico and the level of return migration. This paper explores how key decision-makers in Mexico make sense of the uncertainties posed by the causes and consequences of international migration. The understanding of these uncertainties is key to reflect on the role of Mexico within the regional migration system now and in the future, when is likely that migration pressures in the country will increase. The paper draws on 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with key actors in migration decision-making in Mexico in June 2016, as part of the ERC funded project Prospects for International Migration Governance.
Human rights rhetoric and the good governance of migration crises: challenges to dynamic responses
Roeland de Wilde | International Organization for Migration (IOM)
From late 2015 through 2016, more than 30,000 irregular migrants arrived in Costa Rica while trying to get to the United States or Canada. The government responded with an approach explicitly based on protecting the human rights of migrants by providing a temporary regular status; surprisingly, instead of extending this regularization to work visas, the government chose to create camps, an approach often associated with higher expenses, security risks and internal political debate. The language of human rights and humanitarian assistance seems to have played a central role in positions articulated by key decision-makers, namely the Presidency, the Foreign Minister, the Minister and Deputy Minister of Governance and the Director of the National Emergency Committee and the Director General of Migration and Foreigners.
The article draws on structured conversations with several of the key decision-makers to explore how they recall interactions in meetings and of the use of human rights and humanitarian language to argue for positions. The goal is to explore the role of the language of human rights and humanitarianism in making decisions about good migration governance outcomes, and what challenges this might raise in prescribing established solutions for highly dynamic situations.
Panel 6: Dynamics of regional labour Migration governance
Chair: Nicola Phillips | University of Sheffield (MIGPROSP)
Migration interdependence and coercion in the Mediterranean
Gerasimos Tsourapas | University of Birmingham
In the context of regional migration governance, how do states attempt to leverage their position as destinations for labour migration in coercive interstate relations, and under what conditions are they successful in producing compliance? I identify how economically-driven cross-border mobility generates reciprocal political economy effects on sending and host states, or migration interdependence. I put forth three arguments. First, a host state may leverage its position against a sending state via the imposition of political economy costs in two ways. It may employ either a strategy of restriction, namely the curbing of remittances and/or the strengthening of immigration controls, or a strategy of displacement, namely the forceful expulsion of a sending state’s migrant population. Second, those sending states unable to compensate for such strategies, or vulnerable ones, are more likely to comply with host state strategies that are able to compensate for them, or sensitive ones. Finally, displacement is more effective than restriction in producing compliance. I demonstrate this framework through a least-likely, two-case study design of Libyan and Jordanian attempts at coercion against Egypt in the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring. Employing within-case analysis, I examine how two weaker Arab states leveraged their position against Egypt, a stronger state but one vulnerable to migration interdependence, through the restriction and displacement of Egyptian migrants. Overall, the paper sheds additional light into the interstate dynamics of labour migration governance in the Mediterranean littoral.
The economics of the ANZ-Asia-Pacific migration governance system: lessons for the European Union
Satish Chand | The University of New South Wales, Australia
Stefan Markowski | The University of Warsaw, Poland
International migration governance – comprising both formal and informal rules, agreements, procedures, understandings and compliance mechanisms shared by two or more countries – can be represented as a bi- or multi-lateral governance system, which aims to enhance the net benefits of cross-border mobility of people for participating nations. It can be modelled as an international economic club of participating states employing diverse forms of club governance. The efficacy of a migration-governance system could be judged, inter alia, by its ability to:
- Manage inflows and outflows of people to/from and between member states and the rest of the world, border controls, and migrant reticulation mechanisms;
- Minimise the absorptive friction and costs of immigration;
- Mitigate costs of emigration for source nations;
- Support emigrant diasporas; and
- Resettle refugees and other displaced people from third countries.
We argue that Australia, New Zealand together with 11 Pacific and two Asian nations form the ANZ Pacific-Asian Migration Governance System (ANZAP). Australia and New Zealand are renowned for the use of sophisticated migrant selection mechanisms. They also have a trade agreement that permits visa-free mobility of workers between them, and each has separate bilateral agreements with the members in ANZAP to allow quotas of workers to come on temporary basis to work and remit funds home as part of development assistance. While Nauru’s and PNG’s hosting of asylum seekers diverted from Australia has attracted considerable international notoriety, the enforcement of border controls by Australia has also involved collaboration with Indonesia, to deter irregular inflows of sea-borne immigrants, and the USA to create asylum seeker “swapping” mechanisms.
This paper presents ANZAP as a regional migration governance system with the view to drawing comparisons with and lessons for the EU.
Pre-departure orientation programs among the countries of the Colombo process: governing migration through information
Graziano Battistella | Scalabrini Migration Center
The Colombo Process is one of the regional consultative processes to help governing migration. It groups eleven countries of origin in Asia with labour migration flows directed mostly to the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. While the governance of migration by the countries of origin is mostly focused on the regulation of the migration process and the recruitment system, increased attention is given to empowering migrants through appropriate information ranging various aspects, from procedures related to the migration process to cultural aspects, value formation and reintegration. The paper will present a comparative analysis of the PDO programs and offer suggestions for its standardization. It will conclude with considerations on the relevance of information for the governing of migration.
The uneven migration governance of ASEAN
Stefan Rother | University of Freiburg
Labour migration has become one of the defining features of Southeast Asia, impacting the local, bilateral, transnational and regional level. The governance response has so far been markedly uneven: Some progress has been made on the issues of skilled migrants, but the dominant form of lower-skilled migration is characterized by a glaring governance deficit.
While the free movement of skilled labour remains a very distant goal, the recently established ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) has at least initiated measures to ease labour migration for several employment categories. But per the ILO and ADB, the largest absolute labour demand will continue to be for low- and medium skilled jobs in sectors such as trade, transport and construction and will not be met by the domestic workforce. This demand notwithstanding, governance in this area is restricted to a patchwork of bilateral agreements and MOUs. The negotiations on a legally binding Framework Instrument on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (AIMW) are moving at a snail’s pace due to conflicting interests of countries of origin and destination. My contribution will analyse how this governance deficit is addressed by the very vibrant civil society in the region by providing “migration governance from below”. These networks of networks advocate for a rights-based approach to migration on all governance levels while also often providing specific governance measures on the ground such as legal support, credit assistance or vocational training. Expanding space for migrant civil society thus has the potential to improve regional migration governance.
Panel 7: Forced migration governance
Chair: Diego Acosta | University of Bristol (MIGPROSP)
Migration governance at the Arab League and organization of Islamic conference
Ela Gokalp Aras | Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul (SRII)
Zeynep Sahin Mencutek | Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg
Mass refugee movements appear as not only an inherent part of international politics, but also a vital part of the on going transformations in the Middle East and European Union (EU). Research has, thus far, mainly focused on the response of the international community (UNHCR and IOM) and European Union, less attention has been given to those regional entities, specifically those organizations many MENA countries have membership such as Arab League (AL), and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). This study tries to shed light on the positioning of these organizations in coping with common refugee issues confronted by member states. It questions actual and potential role of these regional organizations in migration governance, by drawing empirical evidences from humanitarian and political responses to Syria refugee movement.
The study argues that there is scope for mobilization of greater attention to refugee governance at the regional level, which suffers from lack of regional asylum mechanisms and having a patchwork of local responses. However, an examination of policies and initiatives introduced by the AL and OIC signal the lack of promising vision, willingness and good record in refugee governance, because of sanctity of member states sovereignty, lack of their adjudicatory body, and regime characteristics of member states. Emphasis on the issue give insights about current state of norm adoption and cooperation in refugee issues. Moreover, research on the refugee governance of regions like MENA contributes to discuss to what extent the notion of a single global regime for refugees remain analytically coherent or politically relevant?
Refugees, security and the European Union
Christian Kaunert | Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
The main aim of this paper is to analyse the extent and the modalities of the securitization of asylum-seekers and refugees in the European Union (EU). There is a commonly held view in the existing literature that migrants and asylum-seekers have been securitized in the EU, that is, have been socially constructed as security threats. This paper puts forward a more nuanced argument by analytically distinguishing the asylum policy of the EU from its policies on migrants and border controls on the basis of the literature on ‘venue-shopping’ and policy venues. It also makes a distinction between the EU asylum policy and the EU’s policy towards asylum-seekers and refugees.
The paper argues that the development of the EU asylum policy, far from ‘securitizing’ asylum-seekers and refugees, has actually led to the strengthening and codification of several rights for these two categories of persons. However, so continues the argument, the securitization of irregular migration had led to a significant strengthening of border controls at the EU external borders, which, in turn, has made it more difficult for asylum-seekers and refugees to access the protection granted by asylum systems in the EU. Thus, security concerns have had mainly an indirect impact.
Towards a Euro-regional migration governance? Comparing the political debates on refugees and asylum seekers in the European region Tyrol-South Tyrol- Trentino
Alice Engl | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano
Verena Wisthaler | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano
The proposed paper analyses debates on regional migration governance in the border area between Italy and Austria. It focuses on the two Italian provinces South Tyrol and Trento and the Austrian region Tyrol. The three entities form the European Region Tyrol- South Tyrol-Trentino, which represents an interesting context to analyse regional migration governance.
First, the Brenner pass, an important gate in the refugee flow from South to North, runs as state border through the European region. Second, the region has a particular historical identity and a strong transnational cooperation at the sub-state level. Furthermore, the political landscape of the three entities shows political-ideological similarities regarding government and opposition parties. Hence, this article compares the debates on asylum seekers and refugee flows in the three regional parliaments. We assume that the euro-regional framework of cooperation and the political-ideological similarities of governing and opposition parties lead to similar interpretations of the refugee issue.
However, the analysis reveals significant differences in the political discourses, such as interpreting the refugee flow as state of emergency requiring humanitarian aid (South Tyrol) versus perceiving it as movement of people requiring integration measures (Tyrol). Thus, institutional cooperation and political-ideological similarities do not necessarily translate into a similar political debate. Instead, alternative explanations, such as institutional or cultural factors, must be identified to account for the differences in the discourses. The empirical results of the article build on a structured qualitative analysis assisted by Atlas.ti of the debates of the three regional parliaments in 2015 and 2016.
Frontex and asylum-seekers: between securitization and human rights
Sarah Leonard | Vesalius College, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
In the last few years, the European External Borders agency Frontex has become the focal point for the sharp criticisms of pro-migrant and human rights groups for what they see as violations of human rights standards at the external borders of the EU. In particular, there has been significant criticism of the impact of the activities of Frontex on asylum-seekers. As a result, there have been some changes that have sought to reinforce the importance of human rights in the activities of the Agency. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to examine these changes and to assess the extent to and the ways in which they have addressed the criticisms that have been levelled at the Agency. For that purpose, this paper is structured as follows. First of all, the paper presents the activities of Frontex. This analysis underlines the strong emphasis that is being put on security, whereas human rights do not appear to be identified as an important factor to be taken into account in these activities. It also identifies the lack of identification of asylum-seekers as a distinct group with specific needs. Secondly, the paper examines the various criticisms that have been levelled at Frontex with regard to the issue of the respect of human rights, those of asylum-seekers in particular. Thirdly, it analyses the various changes that have been gradually introduced to respond to these criticisms and assesses the extent to which they have addressed those, before drawing some conclusions.
Agnieszka Weinar is currently a Marie Curie Research Fellow at the European University Institute. She holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Warsaw in the field of European migration policy. In 2005-2007 she was an assistant professor at the University of Warsaw. In 2007-2010 she worked as a policy officer on migration issues in the European Commission, DG JLS (HOME). In 2011-2014 she was a scientific coordinator at the Migration Policy Centre (EUI) leading EC co-funded research projects focusing on Eastern Europe and integration of migrants. Her current research interests address external and internal aspects of EU migration and mobility policy and North-North migration.
Alice Engl is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Minority Rights at the European Academy Bozen/Bolzano (Italy), PhD in Political Science (University of Innsbruck).
Andrew Geddes is a Professor of Politics at the University of Sheffield, a part-time Professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute and Director of the EUI’s Migration Policy Centre (MPC). From September 2017, he will move full-time to the EUI to the Chair in Migration Studies and as Director of the MPC. For the period 2014-19 he holds an Advanced Investigator Grant awarded by the European Research Council for the project ‘Prospects for International Migration Governance’ (MIGPROSP). He has published extensively on migration politics and policy. Recent publications include The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe (Sage, 2016, with Peter Scholten).
Barbara Oomen is a Professor in the Sociology of Human Rights at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and a Fernand Braudel Fellow at the European University Institute for the 2016-2017 academic years. She works on the localization of international human rights law, and a recent edited volume is ‘Global Urban Justice: the rise of human rights cities’ (CUP 2016). Her current work focuses on the interplay between local authorities and international human rights law where it concerns refugees, she will start a five-year project titled ‘Cities of Refuge’ funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research on this interplay in Europe in the summer of 2017.
Prof Dr Christian Kaunert is the Academic Director and Full Professor in Politics at the Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussels. He was previously Full Professor of International Politics and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre at the University of Dundee. He was Senior Lecturer at the University of Salford, Senior Marie Curie Research Fellow, European University Institute, and Lecturer at the University of Wales Aberystwyth and the University of Maastricht. He holds a PhD and a MSc from the University of Wales Aberystwyth and a BA (Hons) from Dublin City University. His research evolves around EU Justice and Home Affairs, most notably in asylum and migration policy.
Diego Acosta is a Senior Lecturer in European and Migration Law at the University of Bristol. He has published widely in the area of European Migration Law, including his book: The Long-Term Residence Status as a Subsidiary Form of EU Citizenship. An Analysis of Directive 2003/109 (Martinus Nijhoff, 2011). He has also co-edited three other books. Dr Acosta is also now working 20% of his time as co-investigator in a five years research project entitled Prospects for International Migration Governance (MIGPROSP). He is now working on a book on South America to be published by CUP.
Gerasimos Tsourapas is a Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Birmingham. His research interests include the determinants of authoritarian durability, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa context; emigration and diaspora politics, particularly in the Global South; and the interplay between population mobility and international relations, particularly with regard to forced migration and refugee politics. He was previously a Senior Teaching Fellow in International Relations at SOAS, University of London (2015-16) and a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Migration and Refugee Studies of the American University of Cairo (2013-14).
Graziano Battistella is the director of the Scalabrini Migration Center in the Philippines. He was previously with the Center for Migration Studies in New York and dean of studies at the Scalabrini International Migration Institute in Rome. He has a background in political science and ethics. He founded in 1992 the quarterly Asian and Pacific Migration Journal (APMJ). Among his recent publications, he co-authored for IOM the Country Migration Report: The Philippines 2013, and edited the volume Global and Asian Perspectives on International Migration published by Springer in 2014.
Leila Hadj Abdou is a Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer at the Department of Political Sciences of the University of Vienna. From 2014-15 Leila was a Research Fellow at the University of Sheffield; and in 2013/14 she was a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transatlantic Relations in Washington D.C. From 2003-2009 held a position as a research associate at the University of Vienna. Leila holds a PhD (2013 from the EUI in Florence. She has also extensive, practical experience in the field of asylum/migration, having worked in 2016/2017 in an NGO supporting unaccompanied minor refugees, and in a centre coordinating educational activities for refugees and professionals supporting refugees.
Dr Marcia Vera Espinoza is a Post-Doctoral Research Associate working on the project Prospects for International Migration Governance (MIGPROSP) in the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. In her doctoral research she explored the experiences of resettlement of Colombian and Palestinian refugees in Chile and Brazil. In 2014 Marcia was awarded one of eight SIID-ESCR fellowships to be part of the project Latin American Perspectives on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Dr Vera Espinoza co-administrates the Sheffield Migration Research Network and teaches the MA module the Politics of Global Migration at the University of Sheffield.
Maurizio Ambrosini is Professor of Sociology of Migration at the university of Milan and chargé d’enseignement at the university of Nice-Sophia Antipolis (France). He is also the editor of the journal “Mondi Migranti”. In English he has published Irregular Immigration and Invisible Welfare (Palgrave, 2013) and edited Europe: No migrants land? (ISPI, 2016). His articles have been published on leading international journals, such as Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Ethnicities, International Migration. Bibliometric indicators: citations 4461; H-index: 33; i-10 index: 96 (Google Scholar, March 2017).
Dr N. Ela Gokalp Aras works as a Senior Research Fellow at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul (SRII). She is also the Vice-Director of the Migration Research Centre of the Association of Development, Migration and Social Policies. She has BA degree in International Relations (2000), MSc (2005) and PhD (2013) in Sociology from Middle East Tech. Uni. Her research and teaching focus on the European integration, EU-Turkey relations, comparative migration and refugee policies, border management, international human rights, research methods and projects. She has been publishing many articles in national and international journals, chapters in several edited national and international books.
Nicola Phillips is Professor of Political Economy and the Head of the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield. She was the Chair of the British International Studies Association (BISA) in 2015-2016, and is a past editor of the journals New Political Economy and Review of International Political Economy. She works in the field of global political economy, with interests focusing on global economic governance, inequality, labour in global production, and migration and development.
Roeland de Wilde began his current position as Chief of Mission in Costa Rica for the International Organization for Migration in September 2015, after three years as Special Assistant to IOM’s Director General. Mr de Wilde began with IOM in East Timor in 2000 and has since worked in human resources as well as managing IOM’s humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. He has also worked in private wealth management, business intelligence and on independent consulting projects. Mr de Wilde’s academic background is in political and economic anthropology with a focus on the informal sector, for which he received a PhD in Anthropology from the London School of Economics.
Dr Sarah Léonard is the Head of the Department of International Affairs and the Associate Dean for Research at Vesalius College, a US-style, Liberal Arts college in Brussels. She was previously a Senior Lecturer in Politics and the Deputy Director of the European Institute for Security and Justice, a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, at the University of Dundee (United Kingdom) and a Marie Curie Research Fellow at Sciences Po Paris (France). Sarah’s research focuses on the development of the European Union’s internal security policies, especially those relating to asylum, migration and borders, as well as counter-terrorism.
Satish Chand is Professor of Finance in the School of Business at the University of New South Wales Canberra and an Adjunct Professor at the Australian National University. His research interests include labour migration, land-tenure reform, and entrepreneurship and employment in fragile states.
Stefan Markowski is Professor and Chair of Management at the University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow Poland; Visiting Research Professor and the Centre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw, Poland; and Visiting Professor at the School of Business, University of New South Wales, UNSW Canberra, Australia. His primary field of research is defence economics and management. He is also increasingly involved in migration research.
Dr Stefan Rother is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, University of Freiburg, Germany. His research focus is on international migration, global governance, social movements, regional integration and non-/post-Western theories of international relations. He has conducted extensive fieldwork in Southeast Asia as well as participant observation at global governance fora and civil society parallel and counter-events at the UN, ILO, ASEAN and WTO-level as well as the GFMD, European Forum on Migration and World Social Forum on Migration. His latest monograph is “Democratization through Migration?” (Lexington 2016, with Christl Kessler).
Verena Wisthaler is a Researcher at the Institute for Minority Rights, EURAC – European Academy of Bozen; PhD Political Science, University of Leicester.