@demigkrems.bsky.social @fwf-at.bsky.social

Why does this matter?
It allows to:
• Track shifts in funding priorities over time
• Compare internal vs. external funding
• Link budget decisions to policy goals
• Explore trends in how migration is framed & funded
It’s grounded in the approach discussed here: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Measures are grouped by sub-policy areas like:
• Border & land management
• Return and readmission
• Legal migration & mobility
• Protection
• Migration-development

What’s in it?
For each entry (an objective associated with a committed amount), MigFund records:
- Budget commitment
- Target groups & regions
- General and specific objectives
- Implementation details
- A “restrictiveness” score (open ↔ restrictive)

@demigkrems.bsky.social

Wow, very well done!

We also make all our data available: full dataset + replication material. 📂 check it out!

7/9 Institutional communication on migration is strategic, segmented and often competing. It tells a lot about how the EU sees itself, and it wants to be seen.
Who speaks really matters.

6/9 Our argument: the internal/external policy divide does not hold up discursively, but proximity to "the crisis" and institutional logics still shape communication, despite more collaboration across institutions.

5/9 And when it's symbolic (like on the international migrants' day?)
Migration is part of our identity, values and solidarity. Complex topics like return or integration are carefully sidestepped. Unity in discourse, but selective.

4/9 When the crisis is far away: migration is a foreign policy issue, not an internal threat.
Border management is absent.
EEAS: diplomacy, solidarity, multilateralism.

3/9 When the focus in on the Neighbourhood:
DG Home: border control, first line of defence.
EEAS/HR: human dignity, root causes.

2/9 Drawing on 50k+ institutional EU documents (2010-2021), we show how internal and external migration policies are narrated differently by actors like the EEAS, DG Home, DG Near or DG Intpa.

1/9 We ask: how do different EU institutions frame migration? Do they speak with one voice? Or do they tell different stories depending on who's doing the talking - and to whom?