Environment and Planning D Society and Space · 2010 · 277 citations · 49 references
Human MigrationState BordersCross-border ManagementBorder StudiesGlobal MigrationInternal MigrationGlobal StudiesSocial SciencesCross-border ChallengeLanguage StudiesMigration PolicyGeopoliticsPublic PolicyInternational RelationsPowerful TendencyInternational GovernmentBorder ControlWorld PoliticsGlobalizationInternational Population MovementPolitical GeographyPolitical PluralismGlobal PoliticsEarly DebatesTransnational MobilityInternational OrganizationAnthropologyPolitical ScienceInternational Institutions
Globalisation debates have shifted from eroding borders to a “gated globalism” where borders and globalisation co‑evolve, yet the influence of international agencies on emerging border regimes remains underexplored. This study examines the International Organization for Migration’s role in promoting “border management” to address this oversight. Using neoliberal governmentality, the authors analyze the IOM’s power mechanisms in Armenia, Ethiopia, and Serbia, and document its diverse practices from training seminars to procurement of advanced surveillance equipment. The analysis shows that the IOM’s managerial framing of borders clashes with perceptions of borders as sites of social struggle and politics.
Early debates often read globalisation as a powerful tendency destined to make state borders less pertinent. Recent research has challenged this view by suggesting that globalisation and (re)bordering frequently advance hand-in-hand, culminating in a condition that might be described as ‘gated globalism’. But somewhat neglected in this recent wave of research is the role that particular international agencies are playing in shaping the norms and forms that pertain to emergent regimes of border control—what we call the international government of borders. Focusing on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and its involvement in the promotion of what it calls better ‘border management’, this paper aims to partially redress this oversight. The IOM is interesting because it illustrates how the control of borders has become constituted as an object of technical expertise and intervention within programmes and schemes of international authority. Two themes are pursued. First, recent work on neoliberal governmentality is useful for illuminating the forms of power and subtle mechanisms of influence that characterise the IOM's attempt to managerialise border policies in countries as different as Armenia, Ethiopia, and Serbia. Second, the international government of borders comprises diverse and heterogeneous practices, ranging from the hosting of training seminars for local security and migration officials to the promotion of schemes to purchase and install cutting-edge surveillance equipment. In such different ways one can observe in very material terms how the project of making borders into a problem of ‘management’ conflicts with a perception of borders as a site of social struggle and politics.
49