May I Come In? EU Policies to Control Migration: The EUTF
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study about the evolution of the EUs external dimension of migration policy and the central position of the EUTF for Africa therein summarizes the state-of-the-art of what we know about how the EUTF functions. The topic is timely, as the EU has ventured to new horizons with the EU Skills and Talents partnership instruments, the Talent pool, to name but a few. A solid review of the takeaways from the EUTF is thus in order.
The author has the more ambitious aim to critically analyze the content of documents relating to the EUTF to show that in practice the EUTF did not succeed in bringing down the numbers of migrants reaching Europe from North Africa. He mentions that the aim of the EUTF evolved, from one of border control to eliminating the root causes driving migration out of North Africa, and therein, youth unemployment. Yet, he does not advance what were the factors that led to the disappointing outcome of the EUTF.
This causality seems oversimplifying the complexity of the issue: the EUTF promoting development and at the same time, acting to prevent dangerous crossings-at-sea as one of the deadliest pathways to Europe, is not mentioned as a goal. And I am not sure whether the EUTF aims to bring down the numbers of migrants by securitization and surveillance at the borders only. I miss some flagship examples of the projects, which were /are being financed by the EUTF to this end.
The literature revolves strongly around Orsini, Zaun and Talani, despite the fact that others, like Moreno-Lax, Spijkerboer, Ilke Adams have also written about the EUTF.
The introduction and some of the sections are repetitive and do not go beyond the state of the literature, hence I miss some originality in the work, in particular regarding: the research hypothesis, the added--value of this study vis-à-vis others, the literature used, the findings. In terms of methodology, it is not clear, what the difference is between the authors documentary analysis and the content analysis. In the theoretical section, I missed the theory that was going to frame the study: regime theory? critical legal analysis? game theory? Hence, there are a few substantive questions that need to be re-worked in this piece, such that I suggest a revise and resubmit.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor edits, some articles appear before nouns, which are usually not necessary in English.
Author Response
Response 1: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files:
I greatly appreciate all the appointments, especially the suggestion to cite authors such as Spijkerboer, who was referenced in the paper and helped clarify the theory that guided the analysis.
The main objective of the article is not to analyse effect of the policies on migratory flows. The description of the flows on the appendix has the purpose only to visualise how they are related to the outcomes of the EUTF, for example, why the EU justify the implementation of the fund and extended it through years to prevent irregular migration.
Additionally, the externalisation of migration is at some point a need for the EU to remain its relations with third countries to find better solutions to the challenges posed by unwanted migration. For these purposes, implementing various strategies through a policy such as the EUTF could be considered a kind of test to identify which tool work and be improved to manage migration. (See article reviewed - Introduction, lines 52-63 and Theoretical Section, lines 147-150, 161-164, 177-188). Notwithstanding, at least three factors may have led to disappointing outcomes on the EUTF and that were not considered by the EU: First, the ongoing sea crossings; second, the extension of the fund; and third, divergences between the EU and African governments. (See Discussion section).
The complexity of EUTF policy mentioned (lines 362-380).
Finally, the author deleted repetitive sections identified in the article as was pointed out by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA well written and interesting historical account of the last few decades of migration flows to Europe. However, ostensibly, what you are seeking to address is a very important issue and, that is, whether the EU's efforts to address the "root causes" of irregular migration have achieved any effect on the flow of African migrants to the EU.
However, I found the submission largely descriptive and without a rigorous analysis of the EUTF program. Essentially, what you were attempting to do is an evaluation of the EUTF program based on EU documents over the course of the program. You describe this as a "case study" of the EUTF program but the focus is on identifying the key elements of the program, by examining where the expenditures were directed, and then comparing this to the flow of the number of African migrants into the EU.
The limitations of a study such as this are obvious, although ignored in your submission, that official EU documents might be presented from a particular perspective that may or not be what has been achieved at any particular point in time.
I found that your use of content analysis was not based on a sound methodology that identified either key words or phrases in the various documents that you relied on to assess the EUTF. What was offered instead were brief summaries of the EUTF annual reports (2016-2021) and the Board Meetings of the agendas and topics discussed (2015-2022). Press releases must be accepted as presenting the EU perspective on things and may or may not be of value in assessing any program. While you explicitly take a qualitative content analysis approach there could have been a quantitative approach to summarizing the six annual reports and the nine board meetings and the numerous, presumably, Press releases examined to help the reader follow the disparate fractured summarizes offered in your two Tables.
You point out that the EUTF consisted of 254 projects worth some 4.9 billion euros that involved some 26 African countries in three windows. What, if anything, was the outcome of these projects and the monies spent over these six years in reducing the irregular migration flows from these 26 countries? If the effort was simply to enhance migration control within these countries and the EU, was this achieved?
What is not evident from Appendix A is how many of the migrants that came to Europe in each of these four years were irregular migrants? Presumably, those who were apprehended were either returned to their countries of origin or allowed to make asylum claims.
Consequently, I find it difficult to accept such a bold statement such as, "These numbers support the conclusion that initiatives such as the EUTF, aiming to address irregular migration, have proven to be insufficient policies." (Lines 484-5) Likewise, your assessment of these official documents and the statistic offered do not, I believe, support a statement such as, "... the funding allocated for these programs failed to yield the anticipated outcomes for the European Union." (Lines 486-7) Surely, more refined statistics and analysis of these 254 projects would be needed to make such a statement with any level of confidence. This is not to say that a general conclusion could be drawn from the other research you have cited but it cannot, in my view, be based solely on your own data and information presented.
Generally, what I find troubling with this type of research and analysis is that policies that are purportedly addressing the "root causes" of irregular migration that concentrate on border management and control, whether in the EU or in some 26 African countries are, in fact, actually addressing the "root causes" of any type of migration, let alone "irregular migration." While you make this point in passing, it seems to me that it ought to be front and centre in your submission.
While your submission has potential, I believe, it requires major revisions before it can be publishable.
Author Response
Response 2: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files:
I greatly appreciate the suggestion of using quantitative analysis to describe the patterns of expressions in the documents. Presenting the frequency of terms would be very interesting and could facilitate visualization and comprehension regarding the discussion. However, due to the limited time available for the authors to conduct such an analysis and make other major revisions, it was not possible to execute this specific suggestion. Although, it will be possible to apply it in future works related to this topic.
The main objective of the article is not to analyse effect of the policies on migratory flows. The description of the flows on the appendix is used only to the extent that is important to visualise how they are related why the EU justify the EUTF implementation and its extension through years of to prevent irregular migration.
The externalisation of migration is at some point a need for the EU to remain its relations with third countries to find better solutions to the challenges posed by unwanted migration. For these purposes, implementing various strategies through a policy such as the EUTF could be considered a kind of test to identify which tool work and be improved to manage migration. (See article reviewed - Introduction, lines 52-63 and Theoretical Section, lines 147-150, 161-164, 177-188).
Notwithstanding, at least three factors may have led to disappointing outcomes on the EUTF and that were not considered by the EU: First, the ongoing sea crossings; second, the extension of the fund; and third, divergences between the EU and African governments (See Discussion section).
Frontex as a source of people apprehended did not specify the ultimate destination of those migrants (lines 516 – 519).
The statement regarding the insufficiency of the EUTF policy has been changed to a question that still remains (lines 523-532).
Finally, following the reviewer suggestion, limitations of the study have been mentioned (lines 362-380 and lines 533-540).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version reads as an improvement over the original one. Issues were addressed appropriately. The paper can now be published.
Author Response
Thank you for the notes. I believe I have followed them in accordance with the article's proposal, which aims to enhance a discussion recently addressed by the authors cited in the text regarding the implementation of funds to address irregular migration. I also believe your suggestions could be further explored in future papers, for example with a focus on Correspondence Analysis to identify the associations between categories based on the number of migration regulation documents per year related to funds such as the EUTF. This approach would require more time to develop and would stem from different research questions and hypotheses.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your comments and the additions to the submission.
I am recommending that the submission be sent to peer review.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are a number of grammatical errors in the text that should be corrected.
Author Response
Thank you for the notes. I believe I have followed them in accordance with the article's proposal, which aims to enhance a discussion recently addressed by the authors cited in the text regarding the implementation of funds to address irregular migration. I also believe your suggestions could be further explored in future papers, for example with a focus on Correspondence Analysis to identify the associations between categories based on the number of migration regulation documents per year related to funds such as the EUTF. This approach would require more time to develop and would stem from different research questions and hypotheses.
