‘There Are Voices in Every Direction’: Organizational Decoupling in Frontex*

Abstract

This article analyses Frontex through the lens of organizational sociology, challenging conventional accounts of the agency as a coherent, rational actor. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic fieldwork, it argues that Frontex can more appropriately be understood as a fragmented and only loosely coupled organization, with discrepancies existing between different units, languages and structures, and between those implementing Frontex operations on the ground, staff in the headquarters, and the management board. The article shows that, faced with contradictory demands, Frontex seeks to maintain support from its environment and to preserve legitimacy among its key stakeholders; in particular the European Parliament, the Commission and different member states. The loose coupling of the agency allows for the coexistence of different rationalities across different aspects of Frontex's work, catering to diverse stakeholders while also minimizing open conflict within the organization.

Symmetry in the Delegation of Power as a Legitimacy Criterion

“…Thus, the critique of the EU's approach to migration as one of ‘organized hypocrisy’ is correct, albeit perhaps for a different reason than how it is normally presented. On our analysis, the EU's problem is not only that its border regime fails to live up to the values and principles of its own constitution or that Frontex is rhetorically committed to fundamental rights without following through in practice (Cusumano, 2019; Lavenex, 2018; Murray and Longo, 2018; Perkowski, 2019). In addition, it is structurally conditioned to fail to satisfy those values and principles.…”

Frontex goes global: A two‐level experimentalist governance analysis of Frontex's international action and its role within the externalisation of EU borders

“…The existing literature accentuates the hybrid nature of EU agencies, which occupy a liminal state of ‘betwixt and between’ (Curtin, 2009) and function as ‘hierarchy beaters’ (Everson, 1995). Frontex, in particular, has demonstrated its hybridity through its relationships with and reliance on both EU institutions and Member States, as well as its multifaceted tasks (Perkowski, 2019; Rijpma, 2012). The agency has been designed to operate under a mix of principal‐agent and peer‐review accountability mechanisms.…”

“…Frontex's initial legal bill thus reflected a compromise between three competing visions pertinent among stakeholders: (1) a more federal vision, endorsed by the European Commission which saw in Frontex the potential to develop a supranational agency with executive powers to enforce EU border control policies; (2) a more intergovernmental vision, supported by many Member States that emphasised the need to maintain control over national borders while collaborating with other EU countries; and (3) a more humanitarian vision, supported by the European Parliament that emphasised the need for a more human rights‐cantered approach to border control and migration management (Leonard, 2009; Horii, 2015). Given the multipolar power distribution within the EU, disagreements have created policy uncertainly and consistently shaped Frontex over the years, leaving the agency in a situation where it is frequently confronted with conflicting and even incompatible demands from different stakeholders (Perkowski, 2019).…”

The evolution of EUropean border governance through crisis: Frontex and the interplay of protracted and acute crisis narratives

“…Since its formation, Frontex has been studied by scholars across a diversity of fields, including EU and organizational studies (Perkowski, 2019;Pollack and Slominski, 2009), legal studies (Fink, 2018;Moreno-Lax, 2018;Mungianu, 2016), and the related fields of Critical Border and Security Studies as well as Political Geography (Kasparek, 2021;Mountz, 2020;Neal, 2009;Pallister-Wilkins, 2015;Perkowski, 2018Perkowski, , 2021Vradis, et al, 2020). Seeking "to promote a 'pan-European model of integrated border security'" (Vaughan-Williams, 2009: 24), the agency has become a prime example for examining forms of border security beyond the sovereign nation-state.…”