Not only Covid‐19 has spread all over the world—the policies responding to this pandemic have also diffused rapidly across countries. In this research note, we present findings from an original dataset that features mobility restrictions in all EU/EFTA states as well as the United Kingdom during the first wave of the pandemic. We find that most countries adopted restrictions within a few days only and that restrictions on internal mobility had been introduced prior to restrictions on cross‐border mobility, but that the latter have been more persistent. Furthermore, we observe an evolution from great variation of policy choices at the outset of the pandemic towards convergence. Analyzing the mobility restrictions through a policy diffusion lens, we find tentative evidence for interdependent policy‐making especially in the temporal patterns of adoption. Our research note can serve a basis for future research on policy‐making and policy diffusion in times of crisis.

No abstract

Intense pressure for international solutions and weak support for multilateral cooperation have led the EU to increasingly rely on its strongest foreign policy tool in the pursuit of migration policy goals: preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Starting from the fragmentary architecture of the migration regime complex we examine how the relevant content of the EU PTAs relates to multilateral institutions. Depending on the constellation of policy objectives, EU competence, and international interdependence, we propose a set of hypotheses regarding the conditions under which EU bilateral outreach via PTAs expands, complements, or substitutes international norms. Based on an original dataset of migration provisions in all EU PTAs signed between 1960 and 2020, we find that the migration policy content in EU PTAs expands or complements the objectives of multilateral institutions only to a very limited extent. Instead, the predominant constellation is one of substitution in which the EU uses its PTAs to promote migration policy objectives that depart from those of existing multilateral institutions.

States struggle to establish multilateral cooperation on migration – yet they include more and more migration provisions in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). This article sheds light on this phenomenon by introducing the Migration Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements (MITA) dataset. Covering 797 agreements signed between 1960 and 2020, this dataset offers a fine-grained coding of three types of migration provisions: those that facilitate the international mobility of service providers and labor migrants, protect migrant rights, and control unauthorized migration. Against the backdrop of limping multilateralism, we examine PTAs’ migration policy content with regard to two key cooperation dilemmas: conflicts of interest within developed countries and between them and developing countries. Facilitating business and labor mobility might be a possible way around the first dilemma, commonly referred to as the ‘liberal paradox': the tension between economic demands for openness and political calls for closure. Nevertheless, this facilitation is largely limited to highly skilled migrants and agreements between developed economies. Provisions for migration control tend to be included in agreements between developed and developing countries, which signals that states use issue-linkages to address the second dilemma, i.e. interest asymmetries. Finally, provisions for migrant rights stand out because they do not deepen over time. Our findings suggest that while PTAs have become an increasingly common venue for migration governance, the issue-linkage between trade and migration cooperation perpetuates entrenched divisions in the international system. The MITA dataset will allow researchers and policymakers to track the evolution of the trade-migration nexus and systematically investigate the motives for and effects of various migration provisions in PTAs.