Failing forward in EU migration policy? EU integration after the 2015 asylum and migration crisis

De Novo Bodies and EU Integration: What is the Story behind EU Agencies' Expansion?

“…While media attention seems to have focused on reduced inflows after the first quarter of 2016, the extent to which this is down to EU initiatives is an open question (Faigle et al ., ; Spijkerboer, ). A proper examination of these issues is carried out elsewhere (Scipioni, ), but to the extent that it is accepted that the asylum and migration crisis was not exclusively due to external shocks, the key point to assess is whether agencies can redress the Achilles' heel of EU asylum and migration policy, i.e. implementation.…”

‘Failing Forward’ Towards Which Europe? Organized Hypocrisy in the Common European Asylum System

“…Explicitly or implicitly, most accounts of recent crises link up with this motive and investigate the conditions under which crisis prompts integration. Whether adopting an intergovernmentalist (Biermann et al, 2017), a neofunctionalist (Schimmelfennig, 2018), a 'failing forward' (Scipioni, 2017) or a postfunctionalist perspective (Börzel and Risse, 2018), these analyses converge on the assertion that, unlike for the euro area, no meaningful integration steps resulted from the CEAS crisis. Comparing both cases, Schimmelfennig (2018) states that Member States' failure 'to agree on substantial integration progress' in migration policy is mainly due to the weakness of transnational demand and the absence of supranational actors capable of technocratic solutionssuch as, for the euro, the European Central Bank.…”

“…Comparing both cases, Schimmelfennig () states that Member States’ failure ‘to agree on substantial integration progress’ in migration policy is mainly due to the weakness of transnational demand and the absence of supranational actors capable of technocratic solutions – such as, for the euro, the European Central Bank. Others acknowledge that ‘the member states agreed on a whole set of joint measures’ (Börzel and Risse, , p. 8), in particular the relocation scheme, and thereby moved towards further ‘centralization’ (Scipioni, p. 8). But these measures have remained inconsequential due to poor implementation and, according to Börzel and Risse (), a postfunctionalist deadlock rooted in identity politics.…”

The renationalisation of migration policies in times of crisis: the case of Norway

“…This includes the development of the hotspots, relocation and the transformation of EASO into an EU Agency for Asylum. Scipioni (2017) has considered whether this could be conceptualised as a form of 'failing forward', in line with the past crisis-engendered progress of European integration. Given the division of competences he argued that this development had its limits; however, another trend that scholars have observed which pushes in this direction, examining the hotspots, is a kind of bottomup Europeanisation and agencification where European implementation structures are supplementing or to some extent substituting for national implementation (Tsourdi 2016).…”