EU Mobility Partnerships: A Model of Policy Coordination?

Abstract

As migration cooperation has grown in stature at the European level, a premium has been set on its conceptual coordination with related areas of EU policy. The Mobility Partnerships which the bloc recently signed with Moldova and Cape Verde appear as a model of this kind of coordination. Indeed their advocates believe they can regulate migration in such a way that the Union’s economic, social, development and neighbourhood policies all benefit. A simple tri-partite method is here employed to gauge the complementarity of one of the Partnerships, that with Moldova, with its broader policy context. The present analysis suggests that the political exigencies involved in realising the agreement led to conceptual overstretch. Although the Partnership seldom clashes with its broader policy context, the considerable demands placed on its coordinators in the European Commission mean that the Partnership’s positive contribution to related policy areas remains bitty and lacking in coherence.

New Modes of Governance in the External Dimension of EU Migration Policy

“…As Parkes has noted, these instruments and initiatives have taken their place on the migration horizon where “it might have been difficult to mobilize states to sign up to a narrower, more coherent initiative. [However], it might have spawned traceable benefits for the EU which would have persuaded Member States to participate in future schemes” (Parkes, : 344).…”

“…border surveillance and controls). It is therefore no coincidence that mobility partnerships have been concluded with states either around the EU's borders (Armenia, Georgia and Moldova), or situated on a migration route to the EU, as in the case of Cape Verde (Parkes, : 327). Given that the target countries for mobility partnerships are the EU's neighbouring countries, a strong level of differentiation is found within the partnerships.…”

“…Under the theme of “development” the idea seems to be that the partnership is offered as a means to secure cooperation with and ensure development of the third state – including ensuring that its mobile citizens return to the country once its level of development has increased. Neighbourhood countries are, of course, also transit routes for migrants from further afield and therefore the partnerships sit within the realm of external policy aims (Commission, : 11) as well as satisfying the general aim of reducing overall mobility – regular and irregular – to the EU (Parkes, : 33). As such, mobility partners emphasize the capacity‐building of third countries in terms of their ability to deal with migrants passing through, or claiming asylum (e.g.…”

Push and back: The ripple effect of EU border externalisation from Croatia to Iran

“…However, Parkes (2009) and Reslow (2015) suggest that most of the initiatives focus on restricting the circulation of individuals from non-EU countries into the EU. Among other issues is the unequal cooperation: mobility partnerships are primarily driven by EU migration interests (Andersson & Keen, 2019).…”

The Current Scheme to Manage Migration between Europe and Cape Verde: Promoter of Development or Tool for Border Closure?

“…The already signed SP and specially the PfM are meant to provide (more) opportunities for regular migration to the EU. Both frameworks however do not automatically provide for more mobility opportunities (Parkes, ; Carrera and Hernández i Sagrera, ; Lavenex and Stucky, ). The PfM goes beyond the SP by making explicit what Cape Verde would need to do to benefit from visa facilitation and ‘co‐development’.…”