Abstract
This article investigates the role of performance–more specifically performance measurement and performance management–in migration governance. Using the case-study of the 2016 EU-Turkey statement, this article investigates what dimensions of performance and what performance indicators different actors involved in its implementation use. Furthermore, this article seeks to understand the extent to which political leaders in charge of the deal use these measures of performance. Using content and discourse analysis, the article finds that performance matters only marginally: performance is measured only partially, and these measures are used instrumentally by political leaders. The analysis goes further and suggests that four factors have had an impact on the partial and marginal role played by performance: the fact that the statement is implemented by a complex network, that it occurred in a situation of crisis, that it was done in a politicized context, and that the stakeholders held contradictory goals.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 102-115 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | International Journal of Public Administration |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 25 2020 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Business and International Management
- Public Administration
Access to Document
Other files and links
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Does Performance Matter in Migration Governance? The Case of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 43, No. 2, 25.01.2020, p. 102-115.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Does Performance Matter in Migration Governance? The Case of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement
AU - Tantardini, Michele
AU - Tolay, Juliette
N1 - Funding Information: The second research question, focused on performance management, seeks to understand the extent to which these measures of performance are used by political leaders (decision makers, officials and politicians) in charge of the deal. To address this question, we looked at public statements made by officials about the EU-Turkey deal and engaged in discourse analysis to understand how they discuss – or not – the performance of the implemented deal. Following insights from Teun van Dijk’s assessment of political discourse analysis, we assume that political discourse is a form of political action ( 1997 , p. 20), and in this case, a form of administrative action, in so far as it involves the use (or non-use) of performance information. We first browsed media coverage in an exploratory fashion to see which political leaders’ statements on the Statement were most relayed by the media. This search was conducted in May 2017 on Google News with the search terms “EU-Turkey deal,” “EU-Turkey agreement” and “EU-Turkey refugee agreement” (in English). This initial exploratory search highlighted that political leaders from three countries/institutions are more likely to refer to the statement: leaders from the EU, Germany, and Turkey. These three actors were indeed the main ones involved in agreeing on the initial statement. We can assume that these actors remain crucial during the implementation stage and are key actors for support and continuation of the policies envisioned by the statement. We therefore decided to look more specifically at the statements made by the executive leader of each of these countries (Chancellor Angela Merkel for Germany and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for Turkey) and the EU commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship (Dimitri Avramopoulos). For each of them, we referred to their official website and searched for references to the statement in the transcripts of their speeches between September 2016 and April 2017 (which includes the six and 12 month milestones of the implementation of the deal). 27 speeches were identified, with some speeches having several references to the Statement (see Table 3 ). Each reference was then listed and coded according to the following questions: Is the speaker referring to the performance of the statement? If yes, what kind of performance is referred to? If no, what is the speaker referring to? When interpreting the results, particular attention was given to the context of the statements made. Table 1. List of organizations and typology. Organization Acronyms and Full Names Typology AMIF: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Supranational ASB: Arbeiter Samariter Bund Nonprofit CARE: Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere Nonprofit DRC: Danish Refugee Council Nonprofit EASO: European Asylum Support Office Supranational EBF: External Border Fund Supranational EC: European Commission Supranational ECJHA: European Commission Justice and Home Affairs Council Supranational EIF: European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals Supranational ENPEN: European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Supranational ERF: European Refugee Fund Supranational EU: European Union Supranational Europol: European Police Office Supranational FRiT: The Facility for Refugees in Turkey Public Frontex: European Border and Coast Guard Agency Supranational GAS: Greek Asylum Service Public GRIS: Greek Reception and Identification Service Public HOME: European Commission Directorate for Migration and Home Affairs Supranational HP: The Hellenic Police Public IFRC: International Federation of Red Cross International IOM: International Organization for Migration International IRC: International Rescue Committee Nonprofit ISF: Internal Security Fund Supranational MC: Mercy Corps Nonprofit NRC: Norwegian Refugee Council Nonprofit RF: European Return Fund Supranational SRSS: European Commission Directorate General Structural Reform Support Service Supranational TDH: Terre Des Hommes Nonprofit UN: United Nations International UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees International UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund International Table 2. Dimensions of performance and indicator count. Dimension of performance Number of indicators % on total (235) Measures of output 96 indicators 41.38% Measures of workload 80 indicators 34.48% Measures of outcome 26 indicators 11.21% Measures of input 7 indicators 3.02% Measure of effectiveness 3 indicators 1.29% Regime performance 1 indicator 0.43% Others 22 indicators 8.19% TOTAL 235 100% Table 3. Public statements. Title of speech or of meeting Date Performance mentioned? Categorization Recep Tayyip Erdogan Source: https://www.tccb.gov.tr/receptayyiperdogan/konusmalar/ Speeches available and analyzed in Turkish E1 Bahreyn’de “Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu’da Barışa Yönelik Girişimci Vizyonu” Konulu Konferansında Yaptıkları Konuşma 2017/2/13 Yes Output Externalization E2 9. Büyükelçiler Konferansı Vesilesiyle Düzenlenen Yemekte Yaptıkları Konuşma 2017/1/9 No broader political context E3 29. Muhtarlar Toplantısında Yaptıkları Konuşma 2016/10/26 Yes Output Externalization E4 28. Muhtarlar Toplantısında Yaptıkları Konuşma 2016/10/19 Yes Output Externalization E5 Birleşmiş Milletler Mülteciler Zirvesi’nde Yaptıkları Konuşma 2016/9/20 Yes Outcome and/or workload Output Externalization E6 Birleşmiş Milletler 71. Genel Kurulu’nda Yaptıkları Konuşma 2016/9/20 Yes Outcome and/or workload Output Externalization Angela Merkel Source: https://www.bundesregierung.de Speeches available and analyzed in English M2 Government Statement in the German Bundestag 2017/3/9 Yes + Reproduce this agreement Outcome 1 M3 Greek Prime Minister in Berlin 2016/12/16 Yes Effectiveness M4 Angela Merkel Speaks during the Budget Debate 2016/11/23 Yes Effectiveness M5 Angela Merkel at the Western Balkans Summit 2016/09/24 Yes goal statement Capacity M6 Angela Merkel during the Budget Debate: “Germany will still be Germany” 2016/9/7 No expression of support + reproduce the statement M7 Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Annual Reception for the Diplomatic Corps in Meseberg on 11 July 2016 2016/8/11 Yes goal statement Outcome 1 Dimitris Avramopolous Source : https://ec.europa.eu Speeches available and analyzed in English A1 Remarks on the High Level Conference “Strengthening Europe’s external borders” at the European Parliament 2017/4/11 Yes goal statement Indeterminate A2 Remarks at the occasion of his visit in Budapest 2017/3/28 Yes Outcome 1 A3 Remarks following the JHA Council (Home Affairs) 2017/3/27 Yes expression of support Indeterminate A4 Remarks on the migration package adopted by the College ahead of the March European Council 2017/3/2 Yes remains to be done Outcome 1 actual data A5 Speech at the Konrad-Adenauer institute 2017/2/21 Yes Outcome 1 & 2 actual data A6 Remarks following the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council in Valletta 2017/1/26 Yes Outcome 1 A7 Statement during his visit to Lesvos, Greece 2017/1/18 Yes Outcome 2 Speech at the Sciences Po Youth & Leaders’ Summit 2017 on the Migration crises 2017/1/16 Yes Outcome 1 & 2 A8 Remarks at the EP Plenary Debate on the EU-Turkey Statement and the reinstatement of Dublin transfers 2016/12/14 Yes remains to be done Outcome 1 & 2 Outcome 3 (resettlement) actual data Outcome 4 (returns) actual data Efficiency Output A9 Remarks at the press conference on the state of play of progress under the European Agenda on Migration and the presentation of the action plan on travel document security 2016/12/8 Yes remains to be done Outcome 1 actual data A10 Speech at the EASO Consultative Forum in Athens 2016/11/28 Yes Workload (indeterminate) A11 Speech at the 5th Thessaloniki International Symposium 2016/10/22 Yes Outcome 1 A12 Remarks at the LIBE Committee meeting – Hearing on “The Schengen cooperation: present and future” 2016/10/12 Yes remains to be done indeterminate A13 Remarks at the Press Conference following the College Meeting of 28 September 2016/9/28 Yes Outcome 1 outcome 3 & 4 Output actual data A14 Remarks at the round table on Addressing vulnerabilities of refugees and migrants on their journeys from their countries of origin to their countries of arrival at the UN Migration Summit 2016/9/19 No future work A15 Speech at the EP Plenary Session: Asylum; provisional measures in favour of Italy and Greece 2016/9/14 Yes Outcome 3 Publisher Copyright: © 2019, © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2020/1/25
Y1 - 2020/1/25
N2 - This article investigates the role of performance–more specifically performance measurement and performance management–in migration governance. Using the case-study of the 2016 EU-Turkey statement, this article investigates what dimensions of performance and what performance indicators different actors involved in its implementation use. Furthermore, this article seeks to understand the extent to which political leaders in charge of the deal use these measures of performance. Using content and discourse analysis, the article finds that performance matters only marginally: performance is measured only partially, and these measures are used instrumentally by political leaders. The analysis goes further and suggests that four factors have had an impact on the partial and marginal role played by performance: the fact that the statement is implemented by a complex network, that it occurred in a situation of crisis, that it was done in a politicized context, and that the stakeholders held contradictory goals.
AB - This article investigates the role of performance–more specifically performance measurement and performance management–in migration governance. Using the case-study of the 2016 EU-Turkey statement, this article investigates what dimensions of performance and what performance indicators different actors involved in its implementation use. Furthermore, this article seeks to understand the extent to which political leaders in charge of the deal use these measures of performance. Using content and discourse analysis, the article finds that performance matters only marginally: performance is measured only partially, and these measures are used instrumentally by political leaders. The analysis goes further and suggests that four factors have had an impact on the partial and marginal role played by performance: the fact that the statement is implemented by a complex network, that it occurred in a situation of crisis, that it was done in a politicized context, and that the stakeholders held contradictory goals.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074341857&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074341857&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01900692.2019.1672189
DO - 10.1080/01900692.2019.1672189
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85074341857
SN - 0190-0692
VL - 43
SP - 102
EP - 115
JO - International Journal of Public Administration
JF - International Journal of Public Administration
IS - 2
ER -