Within the Work Package "Comparing Crises", we want to understand two things:
- What is a "migration crisis" in our research regions?, and
- How do efforts to control and regulate movement figure in negotiations between state and non-state actors?
We argue that forced migration governance functions as a regime strategy of states at different levels of political stability with institutional and bureaucratic specificities limiting a state’s scope to act; is negotiated around humanitarian principles in which international actors and civil society play a crucial role; is driven by the size and perceived proximity of forced migrant groups in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, class, and religious belonging; and is characterised by strong path-dependency.
Contribution to International Research
"Comparing Crises" aims to look into processes in the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa and the position of forced migration governance within their polities and politics, thus adding a less Eurocentric perspective to international research. Its overall objective is to provide a cross-regional, potentially global framework which enables a comparative assessment and explains variation in forced migration governance across regions, space, and time.
Research Design and Methods
Our work follows a process-oriented approach which focuses on different scales (local, national, inter-/transnational) and which takes forced migrants’ perspectives as a starting point. We build our empirical base by conducting field work in Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Niger and Ethiopia/the Ethiopian diaspora, where we conduct interviews both with refugees and migrants as well as with political decision-makers and civil society actors. This is complemented by archival research and the study of secondary literature.