European city network on migrants with irregular status: Exploring functions and outcomes on a sensitive policy issue

Abstract

City engagement in transnational municipal networks in the migration field (TMNs) is widely seen as positive. Yet, the evidence for that optimism is limited and analysis of the functions and outcomes of these networks leaves many questions unanswered. This article presents a case study of the City Initiative on Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe (C‐MISE) as a contribution to our understanding. On the basis of documentary evidence and interviews with participants, it explores the operation of a network in a sensitive policy field. It throws light on the network's instrumental and “symbolic” functions and the relationship between them; on the factors which shape its operation and facilitate the accommodation of difference through internal socialization; and on the significance of the outcomes for the future governance of migration by urban and higher tiers. Conceptually, deconstructing “symbolic” functions into those of legitimation, substantiation and framing, facilitates a nuanced analysis of the role that each plays and exploration of a tension where those roles bordered on advocacy for policy change. In a critical assessment of the network's outcomes, it finds grounds for cautious optimism on the role TMNs can play in reframing debates, in the urban governance of migration, and in shifting its overall management from below.

New power configurations: City mobilization and policy change

“…Second, in addition to a so‐called ‘place at the table’ cities are pressing for meaningful participation not as figure heads but as advocates whose policy asks are reflected in national and international legislation. This is what Caponio (2018) and Spencer (in press) refer to as the ‘legitimation’ function of city networks (Oomen, 2019). Within the Mayors Dialogue, cities are shaping clear sets of policy and advocacy goals that combine the different realities of many, and that result in clear ‘asks’ by cities on both Continents towards their respective national and regional governments.…”

“…Oomen (2019) has described this range of functions provided by city networks as: (i) practical, (ii) symbolic, and (iii) jurisgenerative (Oomen, 2019; Spencer, 2022). From practical or instrumental and explicit information sharing (Caponio, 2018; Spencer, 2022); to more implicit, symbolic activities like showcasing, storytelling, and even shaming national governments; to jurisgenerative , considered the most powerful of functions, by which networks succeed in changing policies and creating norms at national/regional/global levels that are more reflective of local needs, and through which ‘the inter‐play between the global and the local works towards the mutual constitution of normative frameworks’ (Glick Schiller & Caglar, 2009, cited in Oomen, 2019, p. 931; see also Spencer, 2022).…”

“…One mayor has described this new networking as ‘deliberate enabling’ (Mayor of Freetown, personal communication, 23 December 2020), supporting the rising agency of mayors and cities through more intentional vehicles that permit for greater agency as international actors advancing their policies at higher levels of governance. These new configurations are more refined than the best practice sharing, where legitimization of policy positions by cities can lead to potent influence and new positioning at higher levels of regional and global governance (for European context, see Caponio, 2018; Spencer, 2022). The fourth function of networks could in this sense become one of a redesign of multi‐level governance in which local knowledge informs national policy, local action drives national response, and local needs trigger global cooperation.…”

“…Such networks have evolved from knowledge sharing and other standard network practices, to more systems‐changing objectives, like ensuring that cities’ voices are represented in inter‐state deliberations, which is now the case within, for instance, the annual Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), and through direct representation by cities when national governments withdraw from processes of international cooperation, which is what occurred during the negotiations of the GCM in 2018 (Rother, 2019; Stürner, 2020; Thouez, 2020). Oomen (2019) has described this range of functions provided by city networks as: (i) practical, (ii) symbolic, and (iii) jurisgenerative (Oomen, 2019; Spencer, 2022). From practical or instrumental and explicit information sharing (Caponio, 2018; Spencer, 2022); to more implicit, symbolic activities like showcasing, storytelling, and even shaming national governments; to jurisgenerative , considered the most powerful of functions, by which networks succeed in changing policies and creating norms at national/regional/global levels that are more reflective of local needs, and through which ‘the inter‐play between the global and the local works towards the mutual constitution of normative frameworks’ (Glick Schiller & Caglar, 2009, cited in Oomen, 2019, p. 931; see also Spencer, 2022).…”