In recent decades we have witnessed the development of a new type of migration regulation and border control in Europe, North America and Australia. In this new system of controls, the focus is less on the physical crossing of territorial borders and more on the process as a whole; from airline reservations, ticketing and visa applications to monitoring individuals after arriving in the country of destination. The developing mode of border control encompasses a multiplication of borders, a multiplication of actors and a multiplication of data and technology. The question arises: Does the new form of border management in Western countries bring forward the aims of border control more effectively and does it entail new risks (for visitors/migrants)? In this article I will first outline a normative framework for evaluating current developments in border control, building on studies in political theory and the philosophy of law. I then substantiate my claim that a new type of border control is developing and present an overview of three interconnected multiplications. Next, using findings from empirical and legal studies, (likely) consequences of the multiplications will be presented. Linking these consequences to the normative framework allows us, finally, to point out risks of the currently developing system of border control. Points for practitionersIn recent decades Western countries have introduced new measures of border control, including new technologies and new types of agents in new roles. Together, these new measures make for a new type of global border control management. Our evaluation of this development shows that it entails new types of risks, and that these risks are likely to increase if this type of management develops further 260 International Review of Administrative Sciences 76(2) along the same lines. This analysis calls for a reorientation on instruments of border control leading to a more encompassing type of risk management in this field.

No abstract

Recently, many scholars in public administration have argued for a participatory turn: the introduction of deliberative arrangements to include citizens in policymaking. In this article, the arguments and likely consequences of these proposals are assessed by using Max Weber’s classical analysis of the interplay between democracy and bureaucratization. It is argued that advocacy for a participatory turn contains blind spots. In consequence, the proposed measures are likely to increase the problems that they were intended to remedy. Points for practitioners The conclusion for practitioners is that direct participatory arrangements are not the panacea to the multiple problems they are often presented to be. The view through a Weberian lens urges caution on those who consider introducing such arrangements, as they might lead to a diminishing of predictability and accountability of public administration, a decrease in (substantial) expertise within government, and a general dissatisfaction with arrangements that do not provide citizens with what they were led to expect. More direct participation, then, easily contributes to the problems they were meant to remedy.

Interpretive researchers, also in our field, often refer to Geertz' work. They focus on taking the natives' point of view, thick description and reading culture as a text. In this paper, it is argued that these guidelines cannot provide good reason to accept one interpretation of a social phenomenon over any other interpretation. On closer inspection, however, Geertz' work displays a stronger approach. This approach on important points fits Lakatos' ideal of sophisticated falsificationism. This reexamination of Geertz' actual approach urges to reconsider the strict dichotomy that is often made between interpretive and other types of research in Public Administration and Political Science.

No abstract