doivent travailler en amont de la décision à travers la formation des acteurs, agissant sur leurs représentations. La formation des acteurs associés à la construction de la politique sert à limiter leur autonomie en fixant des normes d'actions, et des modèles de référence cohérents avec les codes des politiques publiques :

« Les politiques publiques opèrent à travers des codes, des modèles de référence qui assurent la continuité de leur action. Les codes ont une triple dimension :
- une dimension cognitive : le code doit donner des éléments d'interprétation des forces qui déterminent l'évolution probable du secteur de la société ;
- une dimension normative : le code définit les valeurs dont il faudra assumer le respect dans cette évolution ;
- dimension instrumentale enfin. Le code définit aussi un ensemble de principes d'action qui veulent orienter l'action publique (en fonction de ce savoir et ces valeurs). »
(Jobert et Muller, 1987 : 47)

Dans la genèse sociale des politiques publiques, les intérêts sectoriels sont en décalage avec les intérêts globaux de la société (ou des représentations dont s'en font les élites au gouvernement). Les représentations des rapports entre global et sectoriel sont élaborées par des « médiateurs » :

« Les médiateurs élaborent le référentiel des politiques publiques. Leur fonction est double : décodeur les RGS (rapports global/sectoriel), c'est-à-dire les rendre intelligibles aux acteurs en présence, à travers l'élaboration d'une philosophie de l'action ; [...] recoder ce RGS en des termes susceptibles d'agir sur le réel, c'est-à-dire en normes et en critères d'intervention politiques. » (Jobert et Muller, 1987 : 71)

Pour ce qui concerne le rôle de médiateur du PNUD dans le multilatéralisme complexe, son expertise sur la bonne gestion du lien entre migration et développement, à l'usage des différents acteurs en jeu, poursuit l'objectif de diffusion des normes et d'harmonisation des pratiques au niveau global. La recherche de modèles universels, qui caractérise cette visée globale, à travers des preuves à repérer auprès d'une pluralité d'acteurs et de contextes de terrain, constitue la phase de la création d'un réseau d'acteurs nécessaire à légitimer son rôle politique de médiateur. L'objectif sera ensuite de discerner des tendances communes à ces acteurs dans le processus d'institutionnalisation du lien entre migration et développement au niveau local. Analyser les différences entre les diverses réalités de terrain ; comprendre les problématiques observées durant les activités importe peu pour l'aspiration « globale » du projet. L'essentiel est de déceler des éléments standards, un modèle reproductible — au moins en principe — de processus d'institutionnalisation de l'insertion de la migration dans les politiques de développement locales. Les intérêts sectoriels sont considérés comme n'étant pas en phase avec les intérêts globaux de la société ou avec les représentations élaborées par les élites gouvernementales.

Ainsi, c'est autour de ce lien entre le niveau local (projets, autorités, associations, migrants) et le niveau global (ONU, Union européenne, gouvernements du Nord comme du Sud) que la médiation s'articule. La diffusion des rapports et des outils de formation, l'organisation de forum de débat, l'insertion de la migration dans les ODD sert à promouvoir une culture de gestion rationnelle et non politisée des migrations et du lien entre migration et développement au niveau global.
Conclusion

Avec la diffusion de son expertise, le PNUD participe donc à la nouvelle politique de gestion internationale des migrations grâce à son rôle de médiateur entre, d'une part, la conception qu'ont les élites internationales des intérêts de la société globale, et d'autre part les intérêts « sectoriels », nationaux ou locaux. Cela est possible dans la mesure où l'ICMD ne se présente pas comme une initiative politique, mais plutôt technique. L'action collective est considérée de manière très limitée, comme étant la mise en œuvre d'un projet, pour lequel il est nécessaire d'anticiper et rationaliser à l'avance les objectifs et les outils à disposition, pour pouvoir ensuite les contrôler et les réguler. Dans la « cité par projets » du système néolibéral, gérer et guider l'action collective est donc le rôle d'une entité technique plutôt que politique (Boltanski et Chiappello, 1999).

Le langage technique et dépolitisé de l'expertise sert la médiation, en évacuant les rapports de pouvoir et les intérêts antagonistes des acteurs représentants de différents groupes sociaux positionnés à des niveaux différents de la stratification sociale globale. Mais « l'activité définitionnelle joue un rôle majeur dans la fabrique d'une solution [...] elle est d'abord et avant tout une activité politique » (Zittoun, 2013).

Ce langage est aussi cohérent avec le paradigme du développement néolibéral qui voit les problèmes sociaux comme le résultat d'une mauvaise gestion de la part des institutions, et dont la solution ne nécessite pas une négociation entre les intérêts des différents acteurs concernés. Ces derniers sont sélectionnés à travers les appels à projets, à l'aide de critères imposés par les bailleurs de fonds et de l'ICMD du point de vue des contenus des projets comme de la compétence technique des acteurs partenaires.

Néanmoins, les nouvelles normes d'action n'étaient pas incorporées par tous les acteurs de l'ICMD de la même façon, et des résistances se sont manifestées sous plusieurs formes. Les visions du monde et les besoins des acteurs qui vivent et agissent dans des territoires à la marge de la globalisation ne sont pas toujours cohérents avec ce qui est proposé par les Ol. Les témoignages des certains acteurs locaux ont dévoilé le caractère trop abstrait du discours « fédérateur » de l'ICMD, dans lequel on ne peut pas retrouver les réponses aux nécessités du terrain, malgré qu'il soit présenté comme construit sur des preuves de terrain. Les multiples façons de reproduire, nier, ou transformer le discours sur le lien entre migration et développement montrent que celui-ci, malgré le fait de se dire fondé sur les savoirs locaux, n'était pas partagé par tous ceux supposés le co-construire. En effet, l'objectif de l'ICMD était moins celui de restituer les réalités de terrain complexes que de servir d'outil au PNUD pour se positionner comme médiateur dans le champ de l'émergente politique globale de la gestion des migrations.

La participation d'acteurs locaux à la formulation de politiques aide à fixer les modèles de référence des politiques, leurs codes cognitifs, normatifs et instrumentaux. L'action de l'ICMD a servi d'une part à diffuser l'interprétation du problème « migration » comme un manque de bonne gouvernance (dimension cognitive) ; à établir les principes de bonne gouvernance à mettre en pratique pour résoudre les problèmes (dimension instrumentale) ; enfin, à diffuser les
Conclusion

Avec la diffusion de son expertise, le PNUD participe donc à la nouvelle politique de gestion internationale des migrations grâce à son rôle de médiateur entre, d'une part, la conception qu'ont les élites internationales des intérêts de la société globale, et d'autre part les intérêts « sectoriels », nationaux ou locaux. Cela est possible dans la mesure où l'ICMD ne se présente pas comme une initiative politique, mais plutôt technique. L'action collective est considérée de manière très limitée, comme étant la mise en œuvre d'un projet, pour lequel il est nécessaire d'anticiper et rationaliser à l'avance les objectifs et les outils à disposition, pour pouvoir ensuite les contrôler et les réguler. Dans la « cité par projets » du système néolibéral, gérer et guider l'action collective est donc le rôle d'une entité technique plutôt que politique (Boltanski et Chiappello, 1999).

Le langage technique et dépolitisé de l'expertise sert la médiation, en évacuant les rapports de pouvoir et les intérêts antagonistes des acteurs représentants de différents groupes sociaux positionnés à des niveaux différents de la stratification sociale globale. Mais « l'activité définitionnelle joue un rôle majeur dans la fabrique d'une solution [...] elle est d'abord et avant tout une activité politique » (Zittoun, 2013).

Ce langage est aussi cohérent avec le paradigme du développement néolibéral qui voit les problèmes sociaux comme le résultat d'une mauvaise gestion de la part des institutions, et dont la solution ne nécessite pas une négociation entre les intérêts des différents acteurs concernés. Ces derniers sont sélectionnés à travers les appels à projets, à l'aide de critères imposés par les bailleurs de fonds et de l'ICMD du point de vue des contenus des projets comme de la compétence technique des acteurs partenaires.

Néanmoins, les nouvelles normes d'action n'étaient pas incorporées par tous les acteurs de l'ICMD de la même façon, et des résistances se sont manifestées sous plusieurs formes. Les visions du monde et les besoins des acteurs qui vivent et agissent dans des territoires à la marge de la globalisation ne sont pas toujours cohérents avec ce qui est proposé par les Ol. Les témoignages des certains acteurs locaux ont dévoilé le caractère trop abstrait du discours « fédérateur » de l'ICMD, dans lequel on ne peut pas retrouver les réponses aux nécessités du terrain, malgré qu'il soit présenté comme construit sur des preuves de terrain. Les multiples façons de reproduire, nier, ou transformer le discours sur le lien entre migration et développement montrent que celui-ci, malgré le fait de se dire fondé sur les savoirs locaux, n'était pas partagé par tous ceux supposés le co-construire. En effet, l'objectif de l'ICMD était moins celui de restituer les réalités de terrain complexes que de servir d'outil au PNUD pour se positionner comme médiateur dans le champ de l'émergente politique globale de la gestion des migrations.

La participation d'acteurs locaux à la formulation de politiques aide à fixer les modèles de référence des politiques, leurs codes cognitifs, normatifs et instrumentaux. L'action de l'ICMD a servi d'une part à diffuser l'interprétation du problème « migration » comme un manque de bonne gouvernance (dimension cognitive) ; à établir les principes de bonne gouvernance à mettre en pratique pour résoudre les problèmes (dimension instrumentale) ; enfin, à diffuser les
valeurs néolibérales « apolitiques » de la libre circulation des personnes égales entre elles et libres d'investir (dimension normative). Les causes des problèmes sociaux n'étaient ni étudiées ni nommées. C'est plutôt au processus de change-ment politique que s'intéressait l'Unité de gestion.

En évitant de s'intéresser aux causes du « sous-développement », on détourne le regard des rapports de pouvoir et de domination qui lient différents acteurs sociaux entre eux pour se focaliser sur les mécanismes techniques de gestion du sous-développement. Cela exclut les réalités de dépendance et exploitation de différentes réalités migratoires. Chez certaines populations, spécifiques par leur position dominée dans la stratification sociale, les contraintes structurelles encadrent fortement les parcours migratoires et les choix d'investissement. Les priorités et volontés politiques des acteurs présents sur ce terrain sont antago-nistes, ce qui les empêche de collaborer et de fonder des partenariats équitables.

Références bibliographiques

Amiel Irène (2002) *Pratiques solidaires et (ré) importation d'expériences issues du Tiers-Monde : approche compréhensive du champ du développement*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Lille, Université de Lille.

Bakewell Oliver (2008) "Keeping them in their place": the ambivalent relationship between development and migration in Africa, *Third world quarterly*, 29 (7), pp. 1341-1358.

Boltanski Luc et Chiappello Ève (1999) *Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme*, Paris, Gallimard.

Bourdieu Pierre et Passeron Jean-Claude (1970) *La reproduction. Éléments d'une théorie du système d'enseignement*, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.

Bréant Hugo (2016) What if diasporas didn't think about development? A critical approach of the international discourse on migration and development, in Fassil Demissie Ed., *Africans on the Move*, London, Routledge, pp. 1-14.

Bréant Hugo (2012) Démontrer le rôle positif des migrations internationales par les chiffres. Une analyse de la rhétorique institutionnelle du système des Nations unies, *Mots. Les langages du politique*, 3 (100), pp. 153-171.

Breda Giulia (2019) (*Co*) Développement et gestion internationale des migrations : contrôler le savoir pour savoir contrôler, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Nice, Université Cote d'Azur.

Breda Giulia and Mangane Abdourahmane (2018) Different Investment Strategies Versus a Unique Co-development Discourse: A Case Study of Tunisian and Senegalese Migrants in France, in Marco Caselli and Guia Giraldoni Eds., *Globalization, Supranational Dynamics and Local Experiences*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 251-268.

Browne Stephen (2016) Why the UN Cannot Deliver as One (and How It Could), *FUNDS Briefing*, 43, [online]. URL: https://futureun.org/media/archive1/briefings/FUNDS_Brief43_DaO_Dec2016.pdf

Crépeau François and Purkey Anna (2023) The emergence of a global migration policy conversation. A retrospective on two mandates of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants (2011-2017), in Antoine Pécoud and Hélène Thiollet Eds., *Research Handbook on the institutions of global migration governance*, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Handbook, pp. 119-131.
valeurs néolibérales « apolitiques » de la libre circulation des personnes égales entre elles et libres d'investir (dimension normative). Les causes des problèmes sociaux n'étaient ni étudiées ni nommées. C'est plutôt au processus de change-ment politique que s'intéressait l'Unité de gestion.

En évitant de s'intéresser aux causes du « sous-développement », on détourne le regard des rapports de pouvoir et de domination qui lient différents acteurs sociaux entre eux pour se focaliser sur les mécanismes techniques de gestion du sous-développement. Cela exclut les réalités de dépendance et exploitation de différentes réalités migratoires. Chez certaines populations, spécifiques par leur position dominée dans la stratification sociale, les contraintes structurelles encadrent fortement les parcours migratoires et les choix d'investissement. Les priorités et volontés politiques des acteurs présents sur ce terrain sont antago-nistes, ce qui les empêche de collaborer et de fonder des partenariats équitables.

Références bibliographiques

Amiel Irène (2002) *Pratiques solidaires et (ré) importation d'expériences issues du Tiers-Monde : approche compréhensive du champ du développement*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Lille, Université de Lille.

Bakewell Oliver (2008) "Keeping them in their place": the ambivalent relationship between development and migration in Africa, *Third world quarterly*, 29 (7), pp. 1341-1358.

Boltanski Luc et Chiappello Ève (1999) *Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme*, Paris, Gallimard.

Bourdieu Pierre et Passeron Jean-Claude (1970) *La reproduction. Éléments d'une théorie du système d'enseignement*, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.

Bréant Hugo (2016) What if diasporas didn't think about development? A critical approach of the international discourse on migration and development, in Fassil Demissie Ed., *Africans on the Move*, London, Routledge, pp. 1-14.

Bréant Hugo (2012) Démontrer le rôle positif des migrations internationales par les chiffres. Une analyse de la rhétorique institutionnelle du système des Nations unies, *Mots. Les langages du politique*, 3 (100), pp. 153-171.

Breda Giulia (2019) (*Co*) Développement et gestion internationale des migrations : contrôler le savoir pour savoir contrôler, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Nice, Université Cote d'Azur.

Breda Giulia and Mangane Abdourahmane (2018) Different Investment Strategies Versus a Unique Co-development Discourse: A Case Study of Tunisian and Senegalese Migrants in France, in Marco Caselli and Guia Giraldoni Eds., *Globalization, Supranational Dynamics and Local Experiences*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 251-268.

Browne Stephen (2016) Why the UN Cannot Deliver as One (and How It Could), *FUNDS Briefing*, 43, [online]. URL: https://futureun.org/media/archive1/briefings/FUNDS_Brief43_DaO_Dec2016.pdf

Crépeau François and Purkey Anna (2023) The emergence of a global migration policy conversation. A retrospective on two mandates of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants (2011-2017), in Antoine Pécoud and Hélène Thiollet Eds., *Research Handbook on the institutions of global migration governance*, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Handbook, pp. 119-131.
**Daum Christophe** (2007) Le codéveloppement, grandeur et décadence d'une aspiration généreuse, *Revue internationale et stratégique*, 4 (68), pp. 49-59.

**Décosse Fréderic** (2011) *Migrations sous contrôle. Agriculture intensive et saisonniers marocains sous contrat « OMI »*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Paris, EHESS.

**Geiger Martin** (2008) Les organisations intergouvernementales et la gouvernance des flux migratoires, *Hommes et Migrations*, 1272, pp. 8-20.

**Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine** (2010) *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer.

**Georgi Fabian** (2010) For the benefit of some: The international organization for migration and its global migration management, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds, *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp.45-72.

**Ghosh Bimal** (2000) Towards a new international regime for orderly movements of people, in Bimal Ghosh Ed., *Managing Migration: Time for a New International Regime*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 6-26.

**Haas Hein (de)** (2012) The migration and development pendulum: A critical view on research and policy, *International Migration*, 50 (3), pp. 8-25.

**Haas Hein (de)** (2010) Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective, *The International Migration Review*, 44 (1), pp. 227-264.

**Hellio Emmanuelle** (2008) Importer des femmes pour exporter des fraises (Huelva), *Études rurales*, 182, pp.185-200.

**Hess Sabine** (2010) "We are Facilitating States!" An Ethnographic Analysis of the ICMPD, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The Politics of International Migration Management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 96-118.

**Inder Claire** (2010) International Refugee Law, "Hyper-Legalism" and Migration Management: The Pacific Solution, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The Politics of International Migration Management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 220-251.

**Jobert Bruno et Muller Pierre** (1987) *L'État en action. Politiques publiques et corporatismes*, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

**Lacroix Thomas** (2020) Réseaux des villes hospitalières: un panorama global, *e-migrinter*, [en ligne] consulté le 13/11/2023. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/e-migrinter.2281

**Lacroix Thomas** (2014) Conceptualizing transnational engagements: a structure and agency perspective on (hometown) transnationalism, *International Migration Review*, 48 (3), pp. 643-679.

**Lacroix Thomas** (2009) *Migration, Développement, Codéveloppement : quels acteurs pour quels discours ?*, [en ligne]. URL : https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00820369/document

**Lascoumes Pierre** (1996) Rendre gouvernable : de la « traduction » au « transcodage ». L'analyse des processus de changement dans les réseaux d'action publique, *La gouvernabilité*, pp. 325-338.

**Kalm Sara** (2010) Liberalizing movements? The political rationality of global migration management, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer.
**Daum Christophe** (2007) Le codéveloppement, grandeur et décadence d'une aspiration généreuse, *Revue internationale et stratégique*, 4 (68), pp. 49-59.

**Décosse Fréderic** (2011) *Migrations sous contrôle. Agriculture intensive et saisonniers marocains sous contrat « OMI »*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Paris, EHESS.

**Geiger Martin** (2008) Les organisations intergouvernementales et la gouvernance des flux migratoires, *Hommes et Migrations*, 1272, pp. 8-20.

**Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine** (2010) *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer.

**Georgi Fabian** (2010) For the benefit of some: The international organization for migration and its global migration management, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds, *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp.45-72.

**Ghosh Bimal** (2000) Towards a new international regime for orderly movements of people, in Bimal Ghosh Ed., *Managing Migration: Time for a New International Regime*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 6-26.

**Haas Hein (de)** (2012) The migration and development pendulum: A critical view on research and policy, *International Migration*, 50 (3), pp. 8-25.

**Haas Hein (de)** (2010) Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective, *The International Migration Review*, 44 (1), pp. 227-264.

**Hellio Emmanuelle** (2008) Importer des femmes pour exporter des fraises (Huelva), *Études rurales*, 182, pp.185-200.

**Hess Sabine** (2010) "We are Facilitating States!" An Ethnographic Analysis of the ICMPD, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The Politics of International Migration Management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 96-118.

**Inder Claire** (2010) International Refugee Law, "Hyper-Legalism" and Migration Management: The Pacific Solution, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The Politics of International Migration Management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 220-251.

**Jobert Bruno et Muller Pierre** (1987) *L'État en action. Politiques publiques et corporatismes*, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

**Lacroix Thomas** (2020) Réseaux des villes hospitalières: un panorama global, *e-migrinter*, [en ligne] consulté le 13/11/2023. DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/e-migrinter.2281

**Lacroix Thomas** (2014) Conceptualizing transnational engagements: a structure and agency perspective on (hometown) transnationalism, *International Migration Review*, 48 (3), pp. 643-679.

**Lacroix Thomas** (2009) *Migration, Développement, Codéveloppement : quels acteurs pour quels discours ?*, [en ligne]. URL : https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00820369/document

**Lascoumes Pierre** (1996) Rendre gouvernable : de la « traduction » au « transcodage ». L'analyse des processus de changement dans les réseaux d'action publique, *La gouvernabilité*, pp. 325-338.

**Kalm Sara** (2010) Liberalizing movements? The political rationality of global migration management, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer.
**Klein Asmara, Laporte Camille et Saiget Marie** (2015) *Les bonnes pratiques des organisations internationales*, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

**Mayntz Renate** (1993) Governing failures and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm, in Jan Kooiman Ed., *Modern governance: New government-society interactions*, London, Sage, pp. 9-20.

**Marchetti Chiara** (2010) Expanded borders: policies and practices of preventive refoulement in Italy, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 160-183.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2015) *Depoliticising Migration: Global Governance and International Migration Narratives*, Dordrecht, Springer.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2014) Les transferts de fonds vus par les organisations internationales : construction d'un enjeu et élaboration d'un agenda politique international, *Autrepart*, 4-5 (67-68), pp. 13-30.

**Perret Virgile** (2003) Les discours sur la société civile en relations internationales : portée et enjeux pour la régulation démocratique de la mondialisation, *Etudes internationales*, 34 (3), pp. 381-399.

**Rist Gilbert** (1996) *Le développement. Histoire d'une croyance occidentale*, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

**Sen Amartya** (2001) *Development as freedom*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

**Walters William** (2010) Imagined migration world: The European Union's anti-illegal immigration discourse, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 73-95.

**Wickramasekara Piyasiri** (2011) *Circular Migration: A Triple Win or a Dead End, Global Union Research Network Discussion*, Paper No. 15, Geneva, Global Union Research Network, [online]. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1834762

**Wihtol de Wenden Catherine** (2012) Dynamiques migratoires dans le monde, *Humanitaires*, 33, pp. 68-73.

**Zittoun Philippe** (2013) *La fabrique politique des politiques publiques : une approche pragmatique de l'action publique*, Paris, Presses de sciences Po.
**Klein Asmara, Laporte Camille et Saiget Marie** (2015) *Les bonnes pratiques des organisations internationales*, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

**Mayntz Renate** (1993) Governing failures and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm, in Jan Kooiman Ed., *Modern governance: New government-society interactions*, London, Sage, pp. 9-20.

**Marchetti Chiara** (2010) Expanded borders: policies and practices of preventive refoulement in Italy, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 160-183.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2015) *Depoliticising Migration: Global Governance and International Migration Narratives*, Dordrecht, Springer.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2014) Les transferts de fonds vus par les organisations internationales : construction d'un enjeu et élaboration d'un agenda politique international, *Autrepart*, 4-5 (67-68), pp. 13-30.

**Perret Virgile** (2003) Les discours sur la société civile en relations internationales : portée et enjeux pour la régulation démocratique de la mondialisation, *Etudes internationales*, 34 (3), pp. 381-399.

**Rist Gilbert** (1996) *Le développement. Histoire d'une croyance occidentale*, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

**Sen Amartya** (2001) *Development as freedom*, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

**Walters William** (2010) Imagined migration world: The European Union's anti-illegal immigration discourse, in Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud Eds., *The politics of international migration management*, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 73-95.

**Wickramasekara Piyasiri** (2011) *Circular Migration: A Triple Win or a Dead End, Global Union Research Network Discussion*, Paper No. 15, Geneva, Global Union Research Network, [online]. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1834762

**Wihtol de Wenden Catherine** (2012) Dynamiques migratoires dans le monde, *Humanitaires*, 33, pp. 68-73.

**Zittoun Philippe** (2013) *La fabrique politique des politiques publiques : une approche pragmatique de l'action publique*, Paris, Presses de sciences Po.
Giulia Breda

Savoir et pouvoir dans les politiques de migration
et de développement : l’exemple de l’ICMD

Cet article interroge l'internationalisation de la gestion des migrations par l'étude de la construction et de la diffusion d'une expertise sur le lien entre migration et développement par le Programme des Nations unies pour le déve- loppement (PNUD). À travers une observation participante de six mois en 2015 au sein de son Initiative conjointe pour la migration et le développement (ICMD), l'étude analyse les rapports de pouvoir en jeu dans la « co-construction » ainsi que dans la diffusion au niveau global de cette expertise technique. L'article montre que ce sont bien des normes et des critères d'intervention politique qui sont développés et diffusés par le PNUD dans une expertise technique qui a pour finalité de créer du consensus entre les intérêts des élites internationales des intérêts globaux de la société mondiale d'une part, et les intérêts « sectoriels », nationaux ou locaux d'autre part.

Knowledge and Power in Migration and Development Policies:
The Example of the JMDI

This article examines the internationalisation of migration management through
a study of the construction and dissemination of expertise on the link between
migration and development by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). Through a six-month length participant observation in 2025 within its
Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI), the study analyses the power
relationships at stake in the "co-construction" and global dissemination of this
technical expertise. The article shows that it is indeed standards and criteria
for political intervention that are developed and disseminated by the UNDP in
technical expertise that aims at creating consensus between the interests of
international elites and the global interests of world society on the one hand,
and "sectoral" national or local interests on the other.

Conocimiento y poder en las políticas de migración
y desarrollo: el ejemplo del ICMD

Este artículo examina la internacionalización de la gestión de la migración a través de un estudio de la construcción y difusión de conocimientos técnicos sobre el vínculo entre migración y desarrollo por parte del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD). A través de seis meses de observación participante en 2025 dentro de su Iniciativa Conjunta sobre Migración y Desarrollo (ICMD), el estudio analiza las relaciones de poder en juego en la «co-construcción» y difusión global de este conocimiento técnico. El artículo demuestra que, en efecto, son normas y criterios de intervención política los que elabora y difunde el PNUD en el marco de una experticia técnica que pretende crear consenso entre los intereses de las élites internacionales y los intereses globales de la sociedad mundial, por un lado, y los intereses «sectoriales», nacionales o locales, por otro.
Giulia Breda

Savoir et pouvoir dans les politiques de migration
et de développement : l’exemple de l’ICMD

Cet article interroge l'internationalisation de la gestion des migrations par l'étude de la construction et de la diffusion d'une expertise sur le lien entre migration et développement par le Programme des Nations unies pour le déve- loppement (PNUD). À travers une observation participante de six mois en 2015 au sein de son Initiative conjointe pour la migration et le développement (ICMD), l'étude analyse les rapports de pouvoir en jeu dans la « co-construction » ainsi que dans la diffusion au niveau global de cette expertise technique. L'article montre que ce sont bien des normes et des critères d'intervention politique qui sont développés et diffusés par le PNUD dans une expertise technique qui a pour finalité de créer du consensus entre les intérêts des élites internationales des intérêts globaux de la société mondiale d'une part, et les intérêts « sectoriels », nationaux ou locaux d'autre part.

Knowledge and Power in Migration and Development Policies:
The Example of the JMDI

This article examines the internationalisation of migration management through a study of the construction and dissemination of expertise on the link between migration and development by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Through a six-month length participant observation in 2025 within its Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI), the study analyses the power relationships at stake in the "co-construction" and global dissemination of this technical expertise. The article shows that it is indeed standards and criteria for political intervention that are developed and disseminated by the UNDP in technical expertise that aims at creating consensus between the interests of international elites and the global interests of world society on the one hand, and "sectoral" national or local interests on the other.

Conocimiento y poder en las políticas de migración
y desarrollo: el ejemplo del ICMD

Este artículo examina la internacionalización de la gestión de la migración a través de un estudio de la construcción y difusión de conocimientos técnicos sobre el vínculo entre migración y desarrollo por parte del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD). A través de seis meses de observación participante en 2025 dentro de su Iniciativa Conjunta sobre Migración y Desarrollo (ICMD), el estudio analiza las relaciones de poder en juego en la «co-construcción» y difusión global de este conocimiento técnico. El artículo demuestra que, en efecto, son normas y criterios de intervención política los que elabora y difunde el PNUD en el marco de una experticia técnica que pretende crear consenso entre los intereses de las élites internacionales y los intereses globales de la sociedad mundial, por un lado, y los intereses «sectoriales», nacionales o locales, por otro.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
# Learning Migration Governance:
The Representation and Reception
of International Norms in Capacity
Building Programs

Leila Kawar<fnref n="1" />

"This is a golden opportunity to learn about the other side of your business", announced the Director of the International Labour Organization's International Training Centre (ITC-ILO) to the thirty-five participants from nineteen countries gathered in Turin, Italy in July 2019 for the annual Labour Migration Academy. It was a bright summer morning, and the auditorium was large enough that speakers welcoming the participants used a microphone so that their remarks would be audible for those of us seated further from the podium as well as for the team of translators providing French-English simultaneous translations. As a researcher specializing in the sociolegal study of immigrants' rights, I had come to Turin to learn about international norms relevant to contemporary global migration policy debates. Looking around me as the course got underway, however, I saw no other academics among the enrolled participants. And while my assigned seat was designated by a name plaque that also listed my place of employment as the United States, the name plaques of the other participants showed that they had traveled to Turin from countries in Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia, South Asia, and North, West, Central and East Africa. Feeling a bit out of place, I sensed that mine was not the professional profile the Director had in mind when he formulated his welcome remarks, and I wondered what exactly was the business that they/we would to be learning to approach more holistically.

This article engages with the topical collection's thematic focus by exploring migration governance training courses as a point of entry into the politics of migration and development. As observed by this topical collection's editors, scholars have traced in rich detail how the theme of migration and development has provided the platform for assembling an abundance of expert conclusions, model practices, analytical frameworks, and goals for public action. My research contributes to this body of scholarship by exploring how these ideas and practices are being communicated and made meaningful in practice through an

<footnote n="1">1 Associate Professor, Department of American Culture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; leilakawar@gmail.com
The author thanks Jennifer Kim and Mara Pusic for their research assistance.</footnote>
# Learning Migration Governance:
The Representation and Reception
of International Norms in Capacity
Building Programs

Leila Kawar<fnref n="1" />

"This is a golden opportunity to learn about the other side of your business", announced the Director of the International Labour Organization's International Training Centre (ITC-ILO) to the thirty-five participants from nineteen countries gathered in Turin, Italy in July 2019 for the annual Labour Migration Academy. It was a bright summer morning, and the auditorium was large enough that speakers welcoming the participants used a microphone so that their remarks would be audible for those of us seated further from the podium as well as for the team of translators providing French-English simultaneous translations. As a researcher specializing in the sociolegal study of immigrants' rights, I had come to Turin to learn about international norms relevant to contemporary global migration policy debates. Looking around me as the course got underway, however, I saw no other academics among the enrolled participants. And while my assigned seat was designated by a name plaque that also listed my place of employment as the United States, the name plaques of the other participants showed that they had traveled to Turin from countries in Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia, South Asia, and North, West, Central and East Africa. Feeling a bit out of place, I sensed that mine was not the professional profile the Director had in mind when he formulated his welcome remarks, and I wondered what exactly was the business that they/we would to be learning to approach more holistically.

This article engages with the topical collection's thematic focus by exploring migration governance training courses as a point of entry into the politics of migration and development. As observed by this topical collection's editors, scholars have traced in rich detail how the theme of migration and development has provided the platform for assembling an abundance of expert conclusions, model practices, analytical frameworks, and goals for public action. My research contributes to this body of scholarship by exploring how these ideas and practices are being communicated and made meaningful in practice through an

<footnote n="1">1 Associate Professor, Department of American Culture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; leilakawar@gmail.com
The author thanks Jennifer Kim and Mara Pusic for their research assistance.</footnote>
empirical study of capacity building programming designed for those who will be applying contemporary migration governance frameworks in their day-to-day work. Specifically, I examine the curricular content offered in three different such capacity building settings, and I also consider how course participants contextualize and make sense of the norms and knowledge presented in these programs.

Such an approach aims to open-up the black box of contemporary migration governance, which scholarly proponents and critics alike have associated with a tendency towards normative coherence. On the one hand, recent juridical analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM) has assessed this framework as a further step toward integrating migration into the UN system and achieving more coherent international cooperation on migration issues (Fleury Graff, 2018). On the other hand, more critical assessments have presented contemporary migration governance as evidencing a managerial approach whose depoliticizing tendencies in effect silence alternative voices and viewpoints (Geiger and Pécoud, 2010; Pécoud, 2015; Vincent-Mory, 2018; Breda, 2019). Scholars have also specifically criticized recent migration-centered capacity building initiatives for merely reinforcing an inequitable global distribution of development aid (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). My findings suggest at least two ways in which this picture — set forth by both proponents and critics — of an emerging normative integration and closure may be incomplete. First, a close inspection of the curricular content offered in contemporary migration governance training courses reveals that these capacity-building programs, even as they are ostensibly oriented towards a common normative corpus and even as they deploy a broadly similar policy vernacular, may operate in strikingly distinct registers. Second, considering not only the representations of and about migration governance that are communicated in these trainings but also how these representations are translated, contested, and reinterpreted by their target audience suggests that this international normative framework is more open to interpretation than has been recognized. Before presenting this analysis, I first explain how the conceptualization of capacity building training programs offered in this article differs from other approaches, and then describe the context of contemporary migration governance in which capacity building is situated and to which it contributes.

## Conceptualizing Capacity-Building Training Programs

To better understand how migration governance training programs operate today, it is helpful to situate them in the broader phenomenon of international initiatives presented as building capacity for development. As historians of development have shown, technical assistance training programs have long featured as a component of international development assistance,<fnref n="2" /> but starting in the 1990s they assumed new meaning and visibility as many such

<footnote n="2">² In the postwar period, the idea that development capacities in “the poorer nations” could be increased through technical assistance projects featured as a core element of the Point Four Program articulated by U.S. President Harry Truman in January 1949 and later that year became institutionalized at the international level through the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance. For a discussion of this history, see Rist (2014: 70-92).</footnote>
empirical study of capacity building programming designed for those who will be applying contemporary migration governance frameworks in their day-to-day work. Specifically, I examine the curricular content offered in three different such capacity building settings, and I also consider how course participants contextualize and make sense of the norms and knowledge presented in these programs.

Such an approach aims to open-up the black box of contemporary migration governance, which scholarly proponents and critics alike have associated with a tendency towards normative coherence. On the one hand, recent juridical analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM) has assessed this framework as a further step toward integrating migration into the UN system and achieving more coherent international cooperation on migration issues (Fleury Graff, 2018). On the other hand, more critical assessments have presented contemporary migration governance as evidencing a managerial approach whose depoliticizing tendencies in effect silence alternative voices and viewpoints (Geiger and Pécoud, 2010; Pécoud, 2015; Vincent-Mory, 2018; Breda, 2019). Scholars have also specifically criticized recent migration-centered capacity building initiatives for merely reinforcing an inequitable global distribution of development aid (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). My findings suggest at least two ways in which this picture — set forth by both proponents and critics — of an emerging normative integration and closure may be incomplete. First, a close inspection of the curricular content offered in contemporary migration governance training courses reveals that these capacity-building programs, even as they are ostensibly oriented towards a common normative corpus and even as they deploy a broadly similar policy vernacular, may operate in strikingly distinct registers. Second, considering not only the representations of and about migration governance that are communicated in these trainings but also how these representations are translated, contested, and reinterpreted by their target audience suggests that this international normative framework is more open to interpretation than has been recognized. Before presenting this analysis, I first explain how the conceptualization of capacity building training programs offered in this article differs from other approaches, and then describe the context of contemporary migration governance in which capacity building is situated and to which it contributes.

## Conceptualizing Capacity-Building Training Programs

To better understand how migration governance training programs operate today, it is helpful to situate them in the broader phenomenon of international initiatives presented as building capacity for development. As historians of development have shown, technical assistance training programs have long featured as a component of international development assistance,<fnref n="2" /> but starting in the 1990s they assumed new meaning and visibility as many such

<footnote n="2">² In the postwar period, the idea that development capacities in “the poorer nations” could be increased through technical assistance projects featured as a core element of the Point Four Program articulated by U.S. President Harry Truman in January 1949 and later that year became institutionalized at the international level through the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance. For a discussion of this history, see Rist (2014: 70-92).</footnote>
programs were rebranded as “capacity building” (Berg, 1993). The context for these changes was a more general expansion of the international development agenda’s objects of intervention since the end of the Cold War (Hulme and Scott, 2010). In this context, international organizations came to pride themselves on taking a “global approach” to development cooperation, reflected in their new enthusiasm for law and development projects that sought to promote “good governance” and “a vibrant civil society” (Trubek and Santos, 2006; Rist, 2014: 232-233). Technical assistance, which in earlier decades had been primarily concerned with enabling developing countries to adopt and employ industrial technologies (Gilman, 2003; Macekura, 2013), likewise became more multidimensional. The result has been an expanding repertoire of training programs, labeled as capacity building, whose stated purpose is implementing elements of the international development agenda.

Much of the early analysis of these capacity building training programs was written by practitioners. In their analysis, these programs were presented as increasing the capacity not only of governments but also of NGOs and other organizations to operate alongside governments in achieving international development goals (Eade, 1997). In addition, such programs were celebrated as enhancing organizational capacity not only by generating technical know-how but also by imparting competences such as the ability to analyze problems and to develop and pursue strategies for solutions, to establish networks and to “cultivate a common partnership culture” (Brinkerhoff, 2002: 92). As these writings indicate, capacity building by the early 2000s had come to be programmatically concerned with the internalization of norms, institutional frameworks, identity, and mission.

While the early practitioner-generated literature on capacity building had acknowledged that learning goals and activities in training programs should be adjusted to varying contexts, subsequent scholarly studies increasingly levelled the criticism that in practice many capacity building programs do not follow this approach. These studies have assessed these programs — especially those supported by time-bound multilateral assistance — as tending to misread local context and to prioritize the concerns of high-income countries and other international actors (Jacobsen, 2017). As bluntly stated by one scholarly critic, “a primary function of concepts such as capacity development is to meet the legitimacy requirements of development assistance organizations” (Kühl, 2009: 551). Capacity building training programs are argued to be embedded in a neoliberal logic that operates to increase global inequalities (Miller, 2010) and that coopts local community-led development initiatives (Ife, 2010).

Of particular relevance for the present study, capacity building and its associated training programs have also become a subject of inquiry for scholarly studies informed by the methodological paradigm of practice theory and its social constructivist tenets.<fnref n="3" /> Such studies aim to foreground both the practicalities of designing and implementing capacity building interventions and the practical situations in which they are embedded (Bueger and Tholens, 2021). By conceptualizing capacity building programs as “situated performances”, such studies open up a new set of questions. Not only do they explore how these programs

<footnote n="3">³ For a theoretical introduction to practice-based approaches, see Swidler (2001).</footnote>
programs were rebranded as “capacity building” (Berg, 1993). The context for these changes was a more general expansion of the international development agenda’s objects of intervention since the end of the Cold War (Hulme and Scott, 2010). In this context, international organizations came to pride themselves on taking a “global approach” to development cooperation, reflected in their new enthusiasm for law and development projects that sought to promote “good governance” and “a vibrant civil society” (Trubek and Santos, 2006; Rist, 2014: 232-233). Technical assistance, which in earlier decades had been primarily concerned with enabling developing countries to adopt and employ industrial technologies (Gilman, 2003; Macekura, 2013), likewise became more multidimensional. The result has been an expanding repertoire of training programs, labeled as capacity building, whose stated purpose is implementing elements of the international development agenda.

Much of the early analysis of these capacity building training programs was written by practitioners. In their analysis, these programs were presented as increasing the capacity not only of governments but also of NGOs and other organizations to operate alongside governments in achieving international development goals (Eade, 1997). In addition, such programs were celebrated as enhancing organizational capacity not only by generating technical know-how but also by imparting competences such as the ability to analyze problems and to develop and pursue strategies for solutions, to establish networks and to “cultivate a common partnership culture” (Brinkerhoff, 2002: 92). As these writings indicate, capacity building by the early 2000s had come to be programmatically concerned with the internalization of norms, institutional frameworks, identity, and mission.

While the early practitioner-generated literature on capacity building had acknowledged that learning goals and activities in training programs should be adjusted to varying contexts, subsequent scholarly studies increasingly levelled the criticism that in practice many capacity building programs do not follow this approach. These studies have assessed these programs — especially those supported by time-bound multilateral assistance — as tending to misread local context and to prioritize the concerns of high-income countries and other international actors (Jacobsen, 2017). As bluntly stated by one scholarly critic, “a primary function of concepts such as capacity development is to meet the legitimacy requirements of development assistance organizations” (Kühl, 2009: 551). Capacity building training programs are argued to be embedded in a neoliberal logic that operates to increase global inequalities (Miller, 2010) and that coopts local community-led development initiatives (Ife, 2010).

Of particular relevance for the present study, capacity building and its associated training programs have also become a subject of inquiry for scholarly studies informed by the methodological paradigm of practice theory and its social constructivist tenets.<fnref n="3" /> Such studies aim to foreground both the practicalities of designing and implementing capacity building interventions and the practical situations in which they are embedded (Bueger and Tholens, 2021). By conceptualizing capacity building programs as “situated performances”, such studies open up a new set of questions. Not only do they explore how these programs

<footnote n="3">³ For a theoretical introduction to practice-based approaches, see Swidler (2001).</footnote>
operate as spaces for diffusing international norms and policy knowledge, but they also investigate whether and how the “capacity” required to be built may be interactively constructed by program participants. This emerging practice-based scholarship on capacity building suggests three thematic lines of inquiry that I draw on in this article to guide my analysis. First, studies informed by a practice-based approach highlight the potential fruitfulness of looking across capacity building contexts. This juxtaposition of locales or organizational settings allows the researcher to see the ubiquity of certain normative and discursive ideals, while also highlighting how these norms assume different texture and meanings in specific program contexts (Douglas-Jones and Shaffner, 2021). Second, practice-based studies of capacity building call on researchers to attend to forms of knowledge that are sidelined in these settings. As ethnographic study has elucidated, an understanding of these existing knowledges is crucial for understanding how local participants will respond when presented with imported ideals (Babül, 2012). Third, and relatedly, such studies invite researchers to examine how core normative elements in capacity building programs may shift in meaning as they are reinterpreted and reinvented through the repertoires of goals, intentions, and ambitions that program participants choose to bring into association with them. Notably, this leads to the insight that a key element in the success of capacity building exercises may be their power to enroll actors with different orientations and agendas (Ballestero, 2017).

Such practice-based lines of inquiry have not been the focus in existing research on capacity building in the migration field, which has instead tended to advance a more structural or regime-based analyses. Recently, scholarship on migration-centered capacity building initiatives has criticized the tendency of these projects to reinforce an inequitable global distribution of material resources, by sending money to international organizations rather than to under-capacity national states who are the nominal beneficiaries of development assistance (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). In addition, existing research has interpreted certain instances of these initiatives as strengthening the hand of autocratic regimes against their citizens (Dini, 2018) and allowing wealthy states to externalize international protection responsibilities (Robinson, 2023), while others are assessed as a half-measure at best, offering the rhetoric but not the reality of state responsibilities elaborated by internationally-agreed migration policy roadmaps (Chuang, 2023).

By asking questions about the practicalities of migration-centered capacity building interventions, both in terms of how they are practically designed and in terms of the practical situations in which they are embedded, the present study aims to deepen understanding of how capacity building operates in the migration field. Specifically, my analysis leverages methodological insights and directions for analysis elaborated in recent practice-based studies of capacity building to conceptualize such programs as situated performances where knowledge and norms about migration governance are interactively made meaningful, thereby calling attention to the agency of capacity building participants in this meaning-making process. In the discussion that follows, I draw on my own experience of “being there” as a participant in such programs to elucidate how capacity building training programs — with all their strengths and shortcomings — operate as settings in which features of the contemporary legal and political world of migration governance are produced, reproduced, and transformed.
operate as spaces for diffusing international norms and policy knowledge, but they also investigate whether and how the “capacity” required to be built may be interactively constructed by program participants. This emerging practice-based scholarship on capacity building suggests three thematic lines of inquiry that I draw on in this article to guide my analysis. First, studies informed by a practice-based approach highlight the potential fruitfulness of looking across capacity building contexts. This juxtaposition of locales or organizational settings allows the researcher to see the ubiquity of certain normative and discursive ideals, while also highlighting how these norms assume different texture and meanings in specific program contexts (Douglas-Jones and Shaffner, 2021). Second, practice-based studies of capacity building call on researchers to attend to forms of knowledge that are sidelined in these settings. As ethnographic study has elucidated, an understanding of these existing knowledges is crucial for understanding how local participants will respond when presented with imported ideals (Babül, 2012). Third, and relatedly, such studies invite researchers to examine how core normative elements in capacity building programs may shift in meaning as they are reinterpreted and reinvented through the repertoires of goals, intentions, and ambitions that program participants choose to bring into association with them. Notably, this leads to the insight that a key element in the success of capacity building exercises may be their power to enroll actors with different orientations and agendas (Ballestero, 2017).

Such practice-based lines of inquiry have not been the focus in existing research on capacity building in the migration field, which has instead tended to advance a more structural or regime-based analyses. Recently, scholarship on migration-centered capacity building initiatives has criticized the tendency of these projects to reinforce an inequitable global distribution of material resources, by sending money to international organizations rather than to under-capacity national states who are the nominal beneficiaries of development assistance (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). In addition, existing research has interpreted certain instances of these initiatives as strengthening the hand of autocratic regimes against their citizens (Dini, 2018) and allowing wealthy states to externalize international protection responsibilities (Robinson, 2023), while others are assessed as a half-measure at best, offering the rhetoric but not the reality of state responsibilities elaborated by internationally-agreed migration policy roadmaps (Chuang, 2023).

By asking questions about the practicalities of migration-centered capacity building interventions, both in terms of how they are practically designed and in terms of the practical situations in which they are embedded, the present study aims to deepen understanding of how capacity building operates in the migration field. Specifically, my analysis leverages methodological insights and directions for analysis elaborated in recent practice-based studies of capacity building to conceptualize such programs as situated performances where knowledge and norms about migration governance are interactively made meaningful, thereby calling attention to the agency of capacity building participants in this meaning-making process. In the discussion that follows, I draw on my own experience of “being there” as a participant in such programs to elucidate how capacity building training programs — with all their strengths and shortcomings — operate as settings in which features of the contemporary legal and political world of migration governance are produced, reproduced, and transformed.
# A Global Governance System for International Migration: A Case of Knowledge Work in Progress

The political context in which migration governance training programs are held is shaped by a conceptual distinction between, on the one hand, the status quo in which states, particularly migrant-receiving states, do more to control and restrict migration than to organize it and, on the other hand, a more orderly regime in which norms and institutions related to international migration become more coherent. Early writings on migration management framed it in terms of building an international regime for the movement of people that would be a counterpart to frameworks already in existence concerning cross-border movement of goods and services (Bhagwati, 1992; Ghosh, 1995). Expanded notions of governance in the migration sphere began to gain substantive intellectual and policy traction around the turn of the millennium. Of particular significance was the report of the UN Migration Working Group chaired by international relations scholar and Assistant UN Secretary-General Michael W. Doyle. Published in December 2002, the “Doyle Report” assessed the feasibility of creating a global organization for migration, be it through the designation of an existing organization as “lead agency” merging existing organizations, or creating a new one, as well as the manner in which inter-agency coordination could devote more attention to the “management” of international migration (United Nations, 2002).

Even as the UN did not immediately pursue any of these options, norm entrepreneurs continued to promote and circulate the notion of multilateral migration management. In the early 2000s, much of this momentum came from individual government officials in Sweden and Switzerland, who were committed to broadening the scope of international cooperation on migration from ad hoc bilateral and regional initiatives to what these officials envisioned as a more coherent multilateral regime (Papademetriou, 2006). Their initiatives to encourage multilateral conversation on international migration were pursued along a number of strands, most notably the state-led consultations of the Berne Initiative, for which IOM served as secretariat, as well as the Global Commission on International Migration, which convened nineteen members from source, transit and destination countries and whose final report sought to generate consensus around a common groundwork for “comprehensive, coherent and effective migration policies” (GCIM, 2005). In the context of these consensus-building exercises, researchers and philanthropic foundations were drawn into the project as participants and supporters (Cholewinski et al., 2007; Betts, 2011b; Koslowski, 2011). Moreover, international organizations were likewise drawn into the project, both as an element in states’ strategies and by acting entrepreneurially to channel their field of expertise toward migration (Geiger and Pécoud, 2014).

These consensus-building processes were accompanied by the elaboration by states and international organizations of normative frameworks which aimed to delineate why international cooperation on migration was desirable and to identify ways and means to achieve it. Notable among these were framework documents published by international organizations seeking to set the agenda for migration governance. While these non-binding frameworks differed in their wording and cited different examples in their appended listings of best
# A Global Governance System for International Migration: A Case of Knowledge Work in Progress

The political context in which migration governance training programs are held is shaped by a conceptual distinction between, on the one hand, the status quo in which states, particularly migrant-receiving states, do more to control and restrict migration than to organize it and, on the other hand, a more orderly regime in which norms and institutions related to international migration become more coherent. Early writings on migration management framed it in terms of building an international regime for the movement of people that would be a counterpart to frameworks already in existence concerning cross-border movement of goods and services (Bhagwati, 1992; Ghosh, 1995). Expanded notions of governance in the migration sphere began to gain substantive intellectual and policy traction around the turn of the millennium. Of particular significance was the report of the UN Migration Working Group chaired by international relations scholar and Assistant UN Secretary-General Michael W. Doyle. Published in December 2002, the “Doyle Report” assessed the feasibility of creating a global organization for migration, be it through the designation of an existing organization as “lead agency” merging existing organizations, or creating a new one, as well as the manner in which inter-agency coordination could devote more attention to the “management” of international migration (United Nations, 2002).

Even as the UN did not immediately pursue any of these options, norm entrepreneurs continued to promote and circulate the notion of multilateral migration management. In the early 2000s, much of this momentum came from individual government officials in Sweden and Switzerland, who were committed to broadening the scope of international cooperation on migration from ad hoc bilateral and regional initiatives to what these officials envisioned as a more coherent multilateral regime (Papademetriou, 2006). Their initiatives to encourage multilateral conversation on international migration were pursued along a number of strands, most notably the state-led consultations of the Berne Initiative, for which IOM served as secretariat, as well as the Global Commission on International Migration, which convened nineteen members from source, transit and destination countries and whose final report sought to generate consensus around a common groundwork for “comprehensive, coherent and effective migration policies” (GCIM, 2005). In the context of these consensus-building exercises, researchers and philanthropic foundations were drawn into the project as participants and supporters (Cholewinski et al., 2007; Betts, 2011b; Koslowski, 2011). Moreover, international organizations were likewise drawn into the project, both as an element in states’ strategies and by acting entrepreneurially to channel their field of expertise toward migration (Geiger and Pécoud, 2014).

These consensus-building processes were accompanied by the elaboration by states and international organizations of normative frameworks which aimed to delineate why international cooperation on migration was desirable and to identify ways and means to achieve it. Notable among these were framework documents published by international organizations seeking to set the agenda for migration governance. While these non-binding frameworks differed in their wording and cited different examples in their appended listings of best
practices, common themes include effective management, protection of migrant rights, and the close connection between migration and development. For example, IOM's International Agenda for Migration Management, published as an outcome of the Berne Initiative (2004), conceptualizes migration management as "based on notions of cooperation, partnership, comprehensiveness, and predictability", while also acknowledging that "compliance with applicable principles of international human rights, refugee, humanitarian, migrant workers and transnational organized crime laws is an integral component of any migration management system" and that proper management of the "close and complex relationship between migration and development" can contribute to the development of states and their populations (Berne Initiative, 2004: 24). The ILO Multilateral Framework for Labour Migration (ILO, 2006), drafted shortly afterwards in follow-up to ILO constituent discussion at the 2004 International Labour Conference, offers non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labor migration. It not only covers decent work principles contained in international labor standards but also addresses the themes of "effective management" and "migration and development". Significantly, in presenting these non-binding frameworks as a reference system for dialogue, cooperation, and capacity building at the national, regional and global levels, both documents specifically call for information campaigns and training sessions to advance this agenda.<fnref n="4" />

These non-binding framework documents represent an attempt to lay out concep-
tual foundations for migration governance as an interlinked complex,<fnref n="5" /> one that
presents multiple different though often related opportunities and challenges. The
juridical dimensions of migration governance were envisioned as incorporating
such varied subjects as labor migration, refugees, human trafficking, human
rights, humanitarian protection, migrant integration, and development assistance
as well as institution-building issues more traditionally defined (Chetail, 2007).
These subjects were drawn together by the notion that effective governance
must be multilateral, a tenet supported in two ways. First, it was argued that the
transnational and global nature of contemporary migration requires international
cooperation to be addressed effectively. Second, proponents of multilateralism
argued that good governance of migration — through its close connection with
the development of states and their populations — could be of benefit to migrant
origin and destination countries alike. What prevented these claims from gaining
further purchase as the foundations for global migration governance was that key
international players, specifically governments in migrant destination countries
in the global North, remained unwilling to submit themselves to a universal
set of rules for international migration (Martin et al., 2006). Some contempor-
aneous commentators attributed this to a more general "multilateralism fatigue"
(Battistella, 2009), while others identified it with neoliberal States' unwillingness
to accept any explicit inclusion of international labor standards and references to

<footnote n="4">4 International organizations have at times collaborated on capacity building program-
ming. For example, both IOM and ILO staff contributed to developing the content
presented in *Training Modules on Labour Migration Management* (IOM and OSCE, 2010),
[online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://www.osce.org/secretariat/92572</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 The terminological shift from "migration management" to "migration governance" aimed to signal a more dynamic approach with greater stakeholder participation. See Betts (2011a).</footnote>
practices, common themes include effective management, protection of migrant rights, and the close connection between migration and development. For example, IOM's International Agenda for Migration Management, published as an outcome of the Berne Initiative (2004), conceptualizes migration management as "based on notions of cooperation, partnership, comprehensiveness, and predictability", while also acknowledging that "compliance with applicable principles of international human rights, refugee, humanitarian, migrant workers and transnational organized crime laws is an integral component of any migration management system" and that proper management of the "close and complex relationship between migration and development" can contribute to the development of states and their populations (Berne Initiative, 2004: 24). The ILO Multilateral Framework for Labour Migration (ILO, 2006), drafted shortly afterwards in follow-up to ILO constituent discussion at the 2004 International Labour Conference, offers non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labor migration. It not only covers decent work principles contained in international labor standards but also addresses the themes of "effective management" and "migration and development". Significantly, in presenting these non-binding frameworks as a reference system for dialogue, cooperation, and capacity building at the national, regional and global levels, both documents specifically call for information campaigns and training sessions to advance this agenda.<fnref n="4" />

These non-binding framework documents represent an attempt to lay out concep-
tual foundations for migration governance as an interlinked complex,<fnref n="5" /> one that
presents multiple different though often related opportunities and challenges. The
juridical dimensions of migration governance were envisioned as incorporating
such varied subjects as labor migration, refugees, human trafficking, human
rights, humanitarian protection, migrant integration, and development assistance
as well as institution-building issues more traditionally defined (Chetail, 2007).
These subjects were drawn together by the notion that effective governance
must be multilateral, a tenet supported in two ways. First, it was argued that the
transnational and global nature of contemporary migration requires international
cooperation to be addressed effectively. Second, proponents of multilateralism
argued that good governance of migration — through its close connection with
the development of states and their populations — could be of benefit to migrant
origin and destination countries alike. What prevented these claims from gaining
further purchase as the foundations for global migration governance was that key
international players, specifically governments in migrant destination countries
in the global North, remained unwilling to submit themselves to a universal
set of rules for international migration (Martin et al., 2006). Some contemporá-
neous commentators attributed this to a more general "multilateralism fatigue"
(Battistella, 2009), while others identified it with neoliberal States' unwillingness
to accept any explicit inclusion of international labor standards and references to

<footnote n="4">4 International organizations have at times collaborated on capacity building program-
ming. For example, both IOM and ILO staff contributed to developing the content
presented in *Training Modules on Labour Migration Management* (IOM and OSCE, 2010),
[online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://www.osce.org/secretariat/92572</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 The terminological shift from “migration management” to “migration governance”
aimed to signal a more dynamic approach with greater stakeholder participation. See
Betts (2011a).</footnote>
migrant rights in a multilateral framework (Taran, 2009).

Gradually, however, consensus-building on migration governance moved forward through its closer association with the broader UN and multilateral development field. This had a number of aspects. The first was the heightened enthusiasm for migration and development, and especially for financialization of remittances, on the part of multilateral lenders and by private sector financial institutions (Bakker, 2015). The Secretary-General's appointment of a High Level Special Representative in 2005-2006 and the convening of the first High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development capitalized on this enthusiasm and contributed to what scholarly commentators have termed a "narrative shift" around migration in international policy circles (McGregor, 2020). These developments in turn encouraged efforts by development assistance funders within the European Commission and elsewhere to explore more bottom-up development strategies linked to migrants and migration, which facilitated the growing involvement of the UN Development Program in this domain (Breda, 2023). Moreover, the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which was initially criticized as a state-run talk-shop with only tenuous links to the UN and that favored managerialism over rights, became from 2010 onwards the forum of choice for a global civil society network whose efforts, supported by the European Commission and other international funders, successfully leveraged the GFMD Civil Society Platform to claim space for public multilateral debate of migration politics (Rother, 2022). Just how far this institutionalization of the migration field within the UN development system had come over the course of a decade was evidenced by the inclusion of explicit mentions of migrants and migration in the 2030 Development Agenda and the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) approved by the UN General Assembly in September 2015. And this in turn fostered further institutionalization, by virtue of the SDGs' nature as non-binding framing guidelines for development planning and assistance (McGregor, 2020).

Most recently, the importance of the SDGs in setting a template for migration governance was underscored when the migration field acquired its own set of goals and targets through the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration<fnref n="6" />. This soft-law instrument, adopted by the UN General Assembly after a two-year period of drafting and negotiation, emerged from a context where large-scale movements of migrants and refugees had severely tested government's capacity to control their borders, thereby incentivizing wider acceptance of migration as an international issue. Addressing the competing interests of border security, access to flexible labor markets, and migrant welfare, the GCM seeks to reduce "irregular and involuntary migration by addressing conditions that prevent people from achieving the SDGs; and ensure that migration that occurs does so in a safe, orderly and regular manner" (Aleinikoff and Martin, 2018: 15). The GCM presents itself as covering international migration in all its dimensions and in a holistic and comprehensive manner, and as building on the linkage between migration and development. Through its role in implementing the GCM, IOM has acquired substantially expanded responsibilities as Coordinator and Secretariat of the new UN Network on Migration, which oversees a wide-ranging initiative to "strengthen capacities of Member States to implement the

<footnote n="6">6 United Nations, General Assembly (2019) Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, 11 January, UN Doc A/RES/73/195, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F73%2F195&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False</footnote>
migrant rights in a multilateral framework (Taran, 2009).

Gradually, however, consensus-building on migration governance moved forward through its closer association with the broader UN and multilateral development field. This had a number of aspects. The first was the heightened enthusiasm for migration and development, and especially for financialization of remittances, on the part of multilateral lenders and by private sector financial institutions (Bakker, 2015). The Secretary-General's appointment of a High Level Special Representative in 2005-2006 and the convening of the first High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development capitalized on this enthusiasm and contributed to what scholarly commentators have termed a "narrative shift" around migration in international policy circles (McGregor, 2020). These developments in turn encouraged efforts by development assistance funders within the European Commission and elsewhere to explore more bottom-up development strategies linked to migrants and migration, which facilitated the growing involvement of the UN Development Program in this domain (Breda, 2023). Moreover, the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which was initially criticized as a state-run talk-shop with only tenuous links to the UN and that favored managerialism over rights, became from 2010 onwards the forum of choice for a global civil society network whose efforts, supported by the European Commission and other international funders, successfully leveraged the GFMD Civil Society Platform to claim space for public multilateral debate of migration politics (Rother, 2022). Just how far this institutionalization of the migration field within the UN development system had come over the course of a decade was evidenced by the inclusion of explicit mentions of migrants and migration in the 2030 Development Agenda and the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) approved by the UN General Assembly in September 2015. And this in turn fostered further institutionalization, by virtue of the SDGs' nature as non-binding framing guidelines for development planning and assistance (McGregor, 2020).

Most recently, the importance of the SDGs in setting a template for migration governance was underscored when the migration field acquired its own set of goals and targets through the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration<fnref n="6" />. This soft-law instrument, adopted by the UN General Assembly after a two-year period of drafting and negotiation, emerged from a context where large-scale movements of migrants and refugees had severely tested government's capacity to control their borders, thereby incentivizing wider acceptance of migration as an international issue. Addressing the competing interests of border security, access to flexible labor markets, and migrant welfare, the GCM seeks to reduce "irregular and involuntary migration by addressing conditions that prevent people from achieving the SDGs; and ensure that migration that occurs does so in a safe, orderly and regular manner" (Aleinikoff and Martin, 2018: 15). The GCM presents itself as covering international migration in all its dimensions and in a holistic and comprehensive manner, and as building on the linkage between migration and development. Through its role in implementing the GCM, IOM has acquired substantially expanded responsibilities as Coordinator and Secretariat of the new UN Network on Migration, which oversees a wide-ranging initiative to "strengthen capacities of Member States to implement the

<footnote n="6">6 United Nations, General Assembly (2019) Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, 11 January, UN Doc A/RES/73/195, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F73%2F195&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False</footnote>
Global Compact and foster multi-partner cooperation”.<fnref n="7" /> Yet the GCM’s overt reliance on soft-law objectives — and the notable absence of a specific objective on human rights or references to fundamental ILO conventions — has generated skepticism about how useful its implementation will be for expanding migrants’ rights protections (Cholewinski, 2020; Pécoud, 2021).

## Capacity Building Training Programs for Practitioners in the Migration Field

In the context of the dynamics discussed above, it should come as no surprise that the governance of migration, including the protection of migrant workers’ rights, is now the subject of a large and growing number of internationally supported capacity building projects.<fnref n="8" /> Between 2019 and 2022, I enrolled as a participant in three different programs offering training on migration governance frameworks. The first of these, the Academy on Labour Migration, is a two-week intensive course that has been offered since 2011 by the ILO’s International Training Centre in Turin.<fnref n="9" /> The second of these programs, the Online Course on International Migration Law, is jointly organized by the International Institute for Humanitarian Law (IIHL) and by the IOM, which supports the course financially and considers it to be its “flagship” course.<fnref n="10" /> The third course in which I participated was the Certificate Programme on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM Certificate Programme). I enrolled in the civil society GCM Certificate Program’s first iteration, which consisted of weekly synchro- nous online webinars spanning six months which were organized through a collabo- ration of four international civil society organizations: Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) based in the Philippines, the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM) based in Lebanon, the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism

<footnote n="7">7 GCM, para 43.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 ILO (2021) *Good practices database – Labour migration policies and programs, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023*. URL: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/migpractice/migmain. listPractices?p_language=eng&ptheme=15. See also Micinski and Bourbeau (2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 According to the course description, the Academy aims at “enhancing the capacity of key migration actors to better understand labor migration challenges and opportuni- ties” through six hours of coursework daily in three areas of curricular focus: fair and effective labor migration governance, linkages between migration and sustainable deve- lopment, and instruments and mechanisms for protecting migrants’ and their families’ rights ITC-ILO (2023). The Labour Migration Academy briefly shifted to an online format before returning to its regular format in 2023. Approximately 4,300 participants from 154 countries have participated in the Turin Centre’s labor migration programming since 2006 when it began offering courses on this topic (ITC-ILO, 2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 I learned about this course from one of the instructors that I met in Turin, who mentioned that IOM was now also offering courses that cover similar topics. I was curious how the two organizations might bring a different perspective to similar material. However, it was not until two years later when online course offerings became more regular during the pandemic context, that I was able to enroll in an online version of the course. Although this course is presently offered only in online format, when it was launched in 2005 it was exclusively held as a five day intensive on site in Sanremo, Italy. It has enrolled some 1,200 participants since its inception (IIHL, 2024).</footnote>
Global Compact and foster multi-partner cooperation."<fnref n="7" /> Yet the GCM's overt reliance on soft-law objectives — and the notable absence of a specific objective on human rights or references to fundamental ILO conventions — has generated skepticism about how useful its implementation will be for expanding migrants' rights protections (Cholewinski, 2020; Pécoud, 2021).

## Capacity Building Training Programs for Practitioners in the Migration Field

In the context of the dynamics discussed above, it should come as no surprise that the governance of migration, including the protection of migrant workers' rights, is now the subject of a large and growing number of internationally supported capacity building projects.<fnref n="8" /> Between 2019 and 2022, I enrolled as a participant in three different programs offering training on migration governance frameworks. The first of these, the Academy on Labour Migration, is a two-week intensive course that has been offered since 2011 by the ILO's International Training Centre in Turin.<fnref n="9" /> The second of these programs, the Online Course on International Migration Law, is jointly organized by the International Institute for Humanitarian Law (IIHL) and by the IOM, which supports the course financially and considers it to be its "flagship" course.<fnref n="10" /> The third course in which I participated was the Certificate Programme on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM Certificate Programme). I enrolled in the civil society GCM Certificate Program's first iteration, which consisted of weekly synchro-nous online webinars spanning six months which were organized through a collaboration of four international civil society organizations: Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) based in the Philippines, the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM) based in Lebanon, the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism

<footnote n="7">7 GCM, para 43.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 ILO (2021) *Good practices database – Labour migration policies and programs, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023*. URL: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/migpractice/migmain.listPractices?p_language=eng&pTheme=15. See also Micinski and Bourbeau (2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 According to the course description, the Academy aims at "enhancing the capacity of key migration actors to better understand labor migration challenges and opportunities" through six hours of coursework daily in three areas of curricular focus: fair and effective labor migration governance, linkages between migration and sustainable development, and instruments and mechanisms for protecting migrants' and their families' rights ITC-ILO (2023). The Labour Migration Academy briefly shifted to an online format before returning to its regular format in 2023. Approximately 4,300 participants from 154 countries have participated in the Turin Centre's labor migration programming since 2006 when it began offering courses on this topic (ITC-ILO, 2023).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 I learned about this course from one of the instructors that I met in Turin, who mentioned that IOM was now also offering courses that cover similar topics. I was curious how the two organizations might bring a different perspective to similar material. However, it was not until two years later when online course offerings became more regular during the pandemic context, that I was able to enroll in an online version of the course. Although this course is presently offered only in online format, when it was launched in 2005 it was exclusively held as a five day intensive on site in Sanremo, Italy. It has enrolled some 1,200 participants since its inception (IIHL, 2024).</footnote>
(GRFDT) based in India, and the Civil Society Action Committee based in Switzerland.<fnref n="11" />

In each of these training programs I was joined by course participants who hailed from a range of geographic regions, although the balance between participation from countries in the global North typically identified as migrant destinations and from countries in the global South typically identified as migrant origin countries did differ between the courses. In each of the three courses the majority of enrolled participants were nationals of low and middle-income countries, who had come to the migration field from professional backgrounds in the public sector or in NGOs and trade unions, or who were young professionals or students seeking to pursue a career in these professional domains.<fnref n="12" /> In addition, the ILO-ITC and IOM-IIHL courses included sizable numbers of participants who were employed by international organizations and based in the field. Finally, the IOM-IIHL course included some mid-level government officials from wealthy destination states as participants, which the other courses did not. As I discuss below, these differing profiles of enrolled participants left an imprint on the classroom setting, shaping both how curricular themes and topics were addressed and the overall interactive dynamics.

## Data and Research Approach

In selecting these programs of study, my primary consideration was the expertise in migration governance issues of their sponsoring international organizations. This initially directed me to focus on the course offerings of the ILO and the IOM. The specific courses that I selected were presented not only as open to a diverse set of participants but also as offering an overview of multiple migration governance topics. In my applications to enroll in these courses, I explained that I was doing so as a recipient of a fellowship for mid-career scholars embarking on a new direction of research, which in my case involved a shift in focus from national to international lawmaking as the subject of study. I subsequently selected the transnational civil society GCM Certificate Programme as an additional setting for study because it offered an opportunity to explore what a civil society approach might mean in the context of migration governance capacity building.<fnref n="13" /> In this respect, my analysis leverages an abductive comparative ethnographic approach to fieldwork, specifically by first working

<footnote n="11">11 According to the course description, the weekly webinars aimed to provide "a multi-stakeholder space to review progress made on the implementation on each of the GCM objectives" GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee (2021). Anyone could register to attend the webinars, but enrollment in the certificate program did involve a selection process; applicants were informed they needed to hold a bachelor's degree and that they should be involved in one of the following sectors: development practitioners, activists, students, policymakers, academicians, diplomatic missions, representatives of civil society organizations, private sector, trade unions, international organizations.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Of the more than 200 enrolled participants in the first iteration of the civil society GCM Certificate Programme, about half identified themselves as students or early career researchers (GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee, 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 I learned about this course when it was advertised through the Civil Society Action Committee, a Geneva-based advocacy organization that operates as an umbrella group for civil society organizations concerned with migration policymaking at the global level. Thus far, this course has been repeated only once, as a second six month certificate program in 2021-2022 offered by MFA, GRFDT, and CCRM in collaboration with two additional partners, the International Institute for Migration and Development (IIMAD) and Metropolis Asia-Pacific.</footnote>
(GRFDT) based in India, and the Civil Society Action Committee based in Switzerland.<fnref n="11" />

In each of these training programs I was joined by course participants who hailed from a range of geographic regions, although the balance between participation from countries in the global North typically identified as migrant destinations and from countries in the global South typically identified as migrant origin countries did differ between the courses. In each of the three courses the majority of enrolled participants were nationals of low and middle-income countries, who had come to the migration field from professional backgrounds in the public sector or in NGOs and trade unions, or who were young professionals or students seeking to pursue a career in these professional domains.<fnref n="12" /> In addition, the ILO-ITC and IOM-IIHL courses included sizable numbers of participants who were employed by international organizations and based in the field. Finally, the IOM-IIHL course included some mid-level government officials from wealthy destination states as participants, which the other courses did not. As I discuss below, these differing profiles of enrolled participants left an imprint on the classroom setting, shaping both how curricular themes and topics were addressed and the overall interactive dynamics.

## Data and Research Approach

In selecting these programs of study, my primary consideration was the expertise in migration governance issues of their sponsoring international organizations. This initially directed me to focus on the course offerings of the ILO and the IOM. The specific courses that I selected were presented not only as open to a diverse set of participants but also as offering an overview of multiple migration governance topics. In my applications to enroll in these courses, I explained that I was doing so as a recipient of a fellowship for mid-career scholars embarking on a new direction of research, which in my case involved a shift in focus from national to international lawmaking as the subject of study. I subsequently selected the transnational civil society GCM Certificate Programme as an additional setting for study because it offered an opportunity to explore what a civil society approach might mean in the context of migration governance capacity building.<fnref n="13" /> In this respect, my analysis leverages an abductive comparative ethnographic approach to fieldwork, specifically by first working

<footnote n="11">11 According to the course description, the weekly webinars aimed to provide "a multi-stakeholder space to review progress made on the implementation on each of the GCM objectives" GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee (2021). Anyone could register to attend the webinars, but enrollment in the certificate program did involve a selection process; applicants were informed they needed to hold a bachelor's degree and that they should be involved in one of the following sectors: development practitioners, activists, students, policymakers, academicians, diplomatic missions, representatives of civil society organizations, private sector, trade unions, international organizations.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Of the more than 200 enrolled participants in the first iteration of the civil society GCM Certificate Programme, about half identified themselves as students or early career researchers (GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee, 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 I learned about this course when it was advertised through the Civil Society Action Committee, a Geneva-based advocacy organization that operates as an umbrella group for civil society organizations concerned with migration policymaking at the global level. Thus far, this course has been repeated only once, as a second six month certificate program in 2021-2022 offered by MFA, GRFDT, and CCRM in collaboration with two additional partners, the International Institute for Migration and Development (IIMAD) and Metropolis Asia-Pacific.</footnote>
through my initial field sites, attending to the empirical story that emerged from
these training experiences, and then eventually moving to another setting that
appeared to provide an interesting counterpoint. Such a research strategy, while
time consuming, has the advantage of “allow[ing] for more productive compari-
sons and less straightjacketing of theoretical claims, a problem that haunts many
external comparisons” (Tavory and Timmermans, 2020: 187).

My positionality as a researcher shaped what I took away from the interactive
dimension of these experiences. I found that my professional profile positioned
me in something of an intermediate position between the enrolled participants
and the instructors. In addition, my personal background — as a mid-career
professional currently based in the United States but with family living in a
middle-income country — allowed me to find points of connection with partici-
pants from a variety of different backgrounds, as did my ability to communicate
in both English and French. My analysis is thus informed not only by the curri-
cular content (presentations, course readings, assignments) of the three training
programs but also by the experience of “being there”, as my personal expe-
riences and reactions helped me better understand how this curricular content
was being made meaningful for participants. In addition, after each program’s
conclusion, I conducted follow-up interviews with both instructors and course
participants.<fnref n="14" /> The purpose of these interviews was to better understand the
overall architecture of the programs and their various knowledge practices.
Building on prior ethnographic work on the practical dimensions of “good gover-
nance” capacity building programs (Babül, 2012; Ballestero, 2017), my analysis is
focused on elucidating the different spaces for interactive knowledge-production
that have been opened up by migration governance capacity building.

Analysis

How was "migration governance" made meaningful in capacity building training
programs for practitioners in the migration field? What expectations and asso-
ciations — explicit and implicit — are constructed around this notion? Looking
beyond the stated curricular objectives, what sorts of actors and interests seek
to intervene in migration governance through their participation in these training
programs, and what kinds of interventions do they envision making?

Building the Migration Field

My participation in all three training programs afforded me some greater
insight into the nature of the “business” that — on the first day of the ILO
Labour Migration Academy — the ITC-ILO Director had suggested the enrolled
participants would be learning to approach more holistically. One foundational
curricular element to which I was exposed first-hand was the symbolic linkage
between migration and the SDGs, a connection which was underscored from
the outset at both the ILO-ITC and IOM-IIHL training courses. In the former,
shortly after the ILO-ITC Director had delivered his remarks, the enrolled partici-
pants were presented with an initial plenary lecture on “Migration in the SDGs”

<footnote n="14">14 Some of my interviewees, particularly those employed by international organizations, preferred to remain anonymous. For consistency, all interviews are presented in anony-mized form.</footnote>
through my initial field sites, attending to the empirical story that emerged from these training experiences, and then eventually moving to another setting that appeared to provide an interesting counterpoint. Such a research strategy, while time consuming, has the advantage of “allow[ing] for more productive comparisons and less straightjacketing of theoretical claims, a problem that haunts many external comparisons” (Tavory and Timmermans, 2020: 187).

My positionality as a researcher shaped what I took away from the interactive dimension of these experiences. I found that my professional profile positioned me in something of an intermediate position between the enrolled participants and the instructors. In addition, my personal background — as a mid-career professional currently based in the United States but with family living in a middle-income country — allowed me to find points of connection with participants from a variety of different backgrounds, as did my ability to communicate in both English and French. My analysis is thus informed not only by the curricular content (presentations, course readings, assignments) of the three training programs but also by the experience of “being there”, as my personal experiences and reactions helped me better understand how this curricular content was being made meaningful for participants. In addition, after each program’s conclusion, I conducted follow-up interviews with both instructors and course participants.<fnref n="14" /> The purpose of these interviews was to better understand the overall architecture of the programs and their various knowledge practices. Building on prior ethnographic work on the practical dimensions of “good governance” capacity building programs (Babül, 2012; Ballestero, 2017), my analysis is focused on elucidating the different spaces for interactive knowledge-production that have been opened up by migration governance capacity building.

## Analysis

How was “migration governance” made meaningful in capacity building training programs for practitioners in the migration field? What expectations and associations — explicit and implicit — are constructed around this notion? Looking beyond the stated curricular objectives, what sorts of actors and interests seek to intervene in migration governance through their participation in these training programs, and what kinds of interventions do they envision making?

## Building the Migration Field

My participation in all three training programs afforded me some greater insight into the nature of the “business” that — on the first day of the ILO Labour Migration Academy — the ITC-ILO Director had suggested the enrolled participants would be learning to approach more holistically. One foundational curricular element to which I was exposed first-hand was the symbolic linkage between migration and the SDGs, a connection which was underscored from the outset at both the ILO-ITC and IOM-IIHL training courses. In the former, shortly after the ILO-ITC Director had delivered his remarks, the enrolled participants were presented with an initial plenary lecture on “Migration in the SDGs”

<footnote n="14">14 Some of my interviewees, particularly those employed by international organizations, preferred to remain anonymous. For consistency, all interviews are presented in anonymous form.</footnote>
followed by a small-group exercise in which we were asked to assess for each
sustainable development goal whether its achievement impacts migration or
whether its achievement is rather impacted by migration. After we had done
our best to complete this task, it was explained that our various answers to the
question were less important than the take-away that migration is "transversal"
insofar as it is connected to all aspects of sustainable development and not only
the six targets that reference migrants or migration policies explicitly. Likewise,
in the IOM-IIHL course, the SDGs made a meaningful appearance in opening
remarks delivered by a senior IOM official, which stressed to the participants that
the course would elaborate the linkages between key components of migration
management with sustainable development. While watching this presentation,
my fellow participants and I could not miss seeing on the wall behind the
speaker a large colorful graphic poster which mapped the SDGs above each of
their associated targets. In both settings, the SDGs thus appeared not only as
a relevant conceptual framework but also as a semi-ritualized element of the
contemporary migration field.

Another element of continuity was the taken-for-granted reality of this “migration
field”, insofar as it appeared in all three courses as a materialized professional
field with its own corps of personnel and with a distinct corpus of expertise.
Over time, through my participation in the courses, I learned to recognize the
names and faces of experienced practitioners in this field. It was evident that
many of them were on a first name basis with each other and had previously
collaborated on other ILO and IOM-sponsored training courses. Indeed, several
of the “resource people” who I first encountered at the ITC-ILO training
program subsequently appeared as panelists at the civil society GCM Certificate
Programme where they presented on similar topics. For those enrolled in these
programs, especially younger professionals seeking to pursue careers in the
migration field, these presentations from experienced practitioners were signif-
cant not only for their content but also for the professional sensibility that
they modeled. This was especially evident in the civil society GCM Certificate
Programme, where the Zoom chat window offered a space for trying out the
buzzwords and diplomatic etiquette that we saw modeled by migration policy
experts in the weekly webinar panels. Professional socialization was also an
element of the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy, where most course partici-
pants already had substantial professional experience with development projects
or humanitarian operations, even as many were new to migration-related work.
Tellingly, one early course activity operated to signal what we would be learning
by way of an icebreaker question that asked those enrolled: “How many years
have you worked in the migration field?” To respond to this question, we were
asked to gather at the back of the training hall and position ourselves along a
line according to our years of work experience. This hands-on exercise seemed
designed to performatively affirm our roles as practitioners in a shared field, but
at the same time a field that we were still learning.

Alongside these elements of continuity, however, notable differences in tone
and emphasis were apparent between these various capacity building settings.
Consider, for example, the wording of course learning objectives. While an
over-arching theme of the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy was articulated in
terms of "fair and effective labor migration governance", the IOM-IIHL Course in
International Migration Law presented its learning modules as different compo-
followed by a small-group exercise in which we were asked to assess for each
sustainable development goal whether its achievement impacts migration or
whether its achievement is rather impacted by migration. After we had done
our best to complete this task, it was explained that our various answers to the
question were less important than the take-away that migration is "transversal"
insofar as it is connected to all aspects of sustainable development and not only
the six targets that reference migrants or migration policies explicitly. Likewise,
in the IOM-IIHL course, the SDGs made a meaningful appearance in opening
remarks delivered by a senior IOM official, which stressed to the participants that
the course would elaborate the linkages between key components of migration
management with sustainable development. While watching this presentation,
my fellow participants and I could not miss seeing on the wall behind the
speaker a large colorful graphic poster which mapped the SDGs above each of
their associated targets. In both settings, the SDGs thus appeared not only as
a relevant conceptual framework but also as a semi-ritualized element of the
contemporary migration field.

Another element of continuity was the taken-for-granted reality of this “migration
field”, insofar as it appeared in all three courses as a materialized professional
field with its own corps of personnel and with a distinct corpus of expertise.
Over time, through my participation in the courses, I learned to recognize the
names and faces of experienced practitioners in this field. It was evident that
many of them were on a first name basis with each other and had previously
collaborated on other ILO and IOM-sponsored training courses. Indeed, several
of the “resource people” who I first encountered at the ITC-ILO training
program subsequently appeared as panelists at the civil society GCM Certificate
Programme where they presented on similar topics. For those enrolled in these
programs, especially younger professionals seeking to pursue careers in the
migration field, these presentations from experienced practitioners were signif-
cant not only for their content but also for the professional sensibility that
they modeled. This was especially evident in the civil society GCM Certificate
Programme, where the Zoom chat window offered a space for trying out the
buzzwords and diplomatic etiquette that we saw modeled by migration policy
experts in the weekly webinar panels. Professional socialization was also an
element of the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy, where most course partici-
pants already had substantial professional experience with development projects
or humanitarian operations, even as many were new to migration-related work.
Tellingly, one early course activity operated to signal what we would be learning
by way of an icebreaker question that asked those enrolled: “How many years
have you worked in the migration field?” To respond to this question, we were
asked to gather at the back of the training hall and position ourselves along a
line according to our years of work experience. This hands-on exercise seemed
designed to performatively affirm our roles as practitioners in a shared field, but
at the same time a field that we were still learning.

Alongside these elements of continuity, however, notable differences in tone
and emphasis were apparent between these various capacity building settings.
Consider, for example, the wording of course learning objectives. While an
over-arching theme of the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy was articulated in
terms of "fair and effective labor migration governance", the IOM-IIHL Course in
International Migration Law presented its learning modules as different compo-
nents of “effective and fair migration management.” As elaborated by the latter course’s organizers, what this meant was that, by the end of the two-week online training, participants would have an enhanced ability not only to contribute to the realization of effective migration management systems but also to ensure that principles and policies relating to the protection of migrants were applied to such systems. At a practical level, the principles and policies that were emphasized in course presentations and group assignments primarily concerned the obligation of states to “address and mitigate risk” through protection practices that made individualized determinations for “different persons on the move, with different profiles, needs, and protection risks.” The final capstone exercise presented a hypothetical case involving irregular migration and asked enrolled participants to identify relevant legal instruments as well as the pertinent individual-level risks and vulnerabilities guiding their application. This capstone was presented as an exercise that served to hold all the pieces of the course together. It both illustrated and underscored a conceptualization of International Migration Law as offering a comprehensive set of rules that states need to learn to apply. It thus reinforced a particular imaginary of an international community of states in which each sovereign authority holds a prerogative to manage borders in line with mutually recognized *jus cogens* principles.

In contrast with the IOM-IIHL International Migration Law course's pedagogical emphasis on principles guiding individualized protection of migrants, the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy focused more on national migration policy design and the mainstreaming of migration into development planning. This theme was underscored in the capstone exercise, which invited enrolled participants to work interactively in role-play groups to inclusively design a national labor migration policy for a fictional destination country, Republika. The course facilitators repeatedly emphasized that the goal was not just formulating a labor migration policy for Republika but formulating a policy that was “based on reliable data to make it effective” and that incorporated both international labor standards and input from the various stakeholder groups whose positions we were invited to role-play. The aim, it was explained, was not just the design of the best policy for the moment but rather sustainability for the future. The assignment factsheet instructed us that the fictional State of Republika historically had not thought of itself as a country of immigration. However, it now needed to enact a fair and effective labor migration policy, in part to respond to national and international criticisms of its failure to enact such a policy. Specifically, this entailed entering into a bilateral labor migration agreement with the neighboring State of Demokratia, the main country of origin for migrants currently working in Republika. What was important, we were led to understand, was that the proposed national policy for Republika should elaborate “a well-governed and inclusive labor migration policy for sustainable development.” This emphasis on consultation-based governance was built into the design of the simulation, as all stakeholder groups — civil society, social partners, and local authorities within Republika, as well as the country of origin — were invited to vote on Republika’s proposed national labor migration policy on the last day of the course. Beyond stakeholder consultation, the exercise served to underscore two key take-aways concerning the mainstreaming of migration into development: first that a sustainable national policy was one that recognized the country’s need for migrants for its growth and development, and second, that having such a policy was itself a marker of that country’s progress on the path towards sustainable development.
nents of “effective and fair migration management.” As elaborated by the latter course’s organizers, what this meant was that, by the end of the two-week online training, participants would have an enhanced ability not only to contribute to the realization of effective migration management systems but also to ensure that principles and policies relating to the protection of migrants were applied to such systems. At a practical level, the principles and policies that were emphasized in course presentations and group assignments primarily concerned the obligation of states to “address and mitigate risk” through protection practices that made individualized determinations for “different persons on the move, with different profiles, needs, and protection risks.” The final capstone exercise presented a hypothetical case involving irregular migration and asked enrolled participants to identify relevant legal instruments as well as the pertinent individual-level risks and vulnerabilities guiding their application. This capstone was presented as an exercise that served to hold all the pieces of the course together. It both illustrated and underscored a conceptualization of International Migration Law as offering a comprehensive set of rules that states need to learn to apply. It thus reinforced a particular imaginary of an international community of states in which each sovereign authority holds a prerogative to manage borders in line with mutually recognized *jus cogens* principles.

In contrast with the IOM-IIHL International Migration Law course's pedagogical emphasis on principles guiding individualized protection of migrants, the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy focused more on national migration policy design and the mainstreaming of migration into development planning. This theme was underscored in the capstone exercise, which invited enrolled participants to work interactively in role-play groups to inclusively design a national labor migration policy for a fictional destination country, Republika. The course facilitators repeatedly emphasized that the goal was not just formulating a labor migration policy for Republika but formulating a policy that was “based on reliable data to make it effective” and that incorporated both international labor standards and input from the various stakeholder groups whose positions we were invited to role-play. The aim, it was explained, was not just the design of the best policy for the moment but rather sustainability for the future. The assignment factsheet instructed us that the fictional State of Republika historically had not thought of itself as a country of immigration. However, it now needed to enact a fair and effective labor migration policy, in part to respond to national and international criticisms of its failure to enact such a policy. Specifically, this entailed entering into a bilateral labor migration agreement with the neighboring State of Demokratia, the main country of origin for migrants currently working in Republika. What was important, we were led to understand, was that the proposed national policy for Republika should elaborate “a well-governed and inclusive labor migration policy for sustainable development.” This emphasis on consultation-based governance was built into the design of the simulation, as all stakeholder groups — civil society, social partners, and local authorities within Republika, as well as the country of origin — were invited to vote on Republika’s proposed national labor migration policy on the last day of the course. Beyond stakeholder consultation, the exercise served to underscore two key take-aways concerning the mainstreaming of migration into development: first that a sustainable national policy was one that recognized the country’s need for migrants for its growth and development, and second, that having such a policy was itself a marker of that country’s progress on the path towards sustainable development.
For its part, the civil society GCM Certificate Programme was notable for its distinct register of presentation in which civil society representatives served as moderators and interlocutors for panels drawn from a mix of migration policy practitioners, members of civil society, and academic specialists. This session format not only allowed representatives of global civil society networks to articulate their own interpretive vision of migration governance objectives but also placed them in a position to highlight the multiple ways in which states and multilateral institutions fall short in their current fulfillment of these obligations. To give a concrete example, in the webinar devoted to GCM Objective 1 ("Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies"), an invited panelist representing a multilateral lending institution discussed a project to harmonize measures of remittances cross-nationally, with the aim of enhancing the ability of national development planners "to maximize the potential contribution of migration to development". Responding to these remarks, the civil society moderator acknowledged that it was valuable to draw connections between poverty and development and remittances, but then posed a rhetorical question: "How do we humanize it so that the migrant worker doesn't become just another number but a real actor of change?"<fnref n="15" /> This format of intervention, which was repeated throughout the course, simultaneously offered a particular vision of the GCM and worked to solidify support for this vision by interactively constructing an audience of "global civil society". At the convocation ceremony for the program, it was announced that ninety-one graduates from twenty countries received a certificate and more than 120 policymakers and experts had participated as webinar presenters or discussants. This wide participation in the programming was received with enthusiasm by representatives of the collaborating civil society groups, as it was seen to validate their shared project of bringing to global policy venues what one speaker termed "a ground-up perspective, the experience of migrants and the experience that advocates find in implementing the GCM". While the participating civil society organizations did at times set forth somewhat different ideas concerning what this advocacy should concretely entail (a point which will be discussed further below), the course's overall emphasis on contributing a "civil society perspective" and its advocacy-oriented register clearly offered a distinct vision of how the migration field might take shape going forward.

## Existing Knowledges and Reception of Migration Governance Norms

Capacity building programs are often presented as opportunities for those outside the global North to become contributors to the security and prosperity of their societies through the acquisition and "uptake" of global norms (Trubek and Santos, 2006). As shown in prior ethnographic studies, however, this picture of adding new competences to a blank slate has the shortcoming of overlooking or misrecognizing existing local knowledge frameworks, thereby spurring some training participants to respond with alienated disengagement (Babül, 2012). To better understand how course objectives are made meaningful in practice, it is therefore important to ask: What are the existing forms of knowledge that participants bring to migration governance capacity building programs, and how do

<footnote n="15">15 Webinar on GCM Objective 1, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://csac-tioncommittee.org/gcm-objectives-webinar-series-1/</footnote>
For its part, the civil society GCM Certificate Programme was notable for its distinct register of presentation in which civil society representatives served as moderators and interlocutors for panels drawn from a mix of migration policy practitioners, members of civil society, and academic specialists. This session format not only allowed representatives of global civil society networks to articulate their own interpretive vision of migration governance objectives but also placed them in a position to highlight the multiple ways in which states and multilateral institutions fall short in their current fulfillment of these obligations. To give a concrete example, in the webinar devoted to GCM Objective 1 ("Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies"), an invited panelist representing a multilateral lending institution discussed a project to harmonize measures of remittances cross-nationally, with the aim of enhancing the ability of national development planners "to maximize the potential contribution of migration to development". Responding to these remarks, the civil society moderator acknowledged that it was valuable to draw connections between poverty and development and remittances, but then posed a rhetorical question: "How do we humanize it so that the migrant worker doesn't become just another number but a real actor of change?"<fnref n="15" /> This format of intervention, which was repeated throughout the course, simultaneously offered a particular vision of the GCM and worked to solidify support for this vision by interactively constructing an audience of "global civil society". At the convocation ceremony for the program, it was announced that ninety-one graduates from twenty countries received a certificate and more than 120 policymakers and experts had participated as webinar presenters or discussants. This wide participation in the programming was received with enthusiasm by representatives of the collaborating civil society groups, as it was seen to validate their shared project of bringing to global policy venues what one speaker termed "a ground-up perspective, the experience of migrants and the experience that advocates find in implementing the GCM". While the participating civil society organizations did at times set forth somewhat different ideas concerning what this advocacy should concretely entail (a point which will be discussed further below), the course's overall emphasis on contributing a "civil society perspective" and its advocacy-oriented register clearly offered a distinct vision of how the migration field might take shape going forward.

## Existing Knowledges and Reception of Migration Governance Norms

Capacity building programs are often presented as opportunities for those outside the global North to become contributors to the security and prosperity of their societies through the acquisition and "uptake" of global norms (Trubek and Santos, 2006). As shown in prior ethnographic studies, however, this picture of adding new competences to a blank slate has the shortcoming of overlooking or misrecognizing existing local knowledge frameworks, thereby spurring some training participants to respond with alienated disengagement (Babül, 2012). To better understand how course objectives are made meaningful in practice, it is therefore important to ask: What are the existing forms of knowledge that participants bring to migration governance capacity building programs, and how do

<footnote n="15">15 Webinar on GCM Objective 1, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://csac-tioncommittee.org/gcm-objectives-webinar-series-1/</footnote>
these inform the reception of international norms by course participants?

As a participant in migration governance training programs, I observed only one instance of normative elements in the curriculum being explicitly challenged by another course participant. The matter of contention concerned so-called border control "pushbacks" in which refugees and migrants are forced back over a border without consideration of their individual circumstances and without any possibility to apply for asylum. Course presentations had categorized such state measures as violating both human rights principles and *jus cogens* norms. In response, one course participant repeatedly insisted on setting forth a different understanding, one which accorded such norms a more limited applicability in border zones. This participant continued to voice these strong views over several sessions and remained unconvinced even after the lead course coordinator laid out a "common sense" hypothetical case that aimed to foreclose further discussion.

Vocal rejection of "global" knowledge, apart from this outlier, hardly appeared within the training programs in which I was enrolled. However, my fellow enrolled participants did express skepticism about some aspects of international cooperation in migration governance. For instance, referring to a presentation which had stressed the overall benefits of migration, one course participant spoke of witnessing through prior professional work the serious health risks and physical dangers that migrant women encounter, thereby implicitly calling into question the assumed benefits of migration for such vulnerable migrants. Other participants likewise addressed what they perceived to be a mismatch between international priorities and the situation on the ground. As one of them explained to me in a follow up interview:

> "In Africa when we see the situation of the workers, believe me the migrant rights it's not the priority at all. They are in exactly the same situation as national workers. But it's like this. These global institutions, they do their part, and we have to do our part."
> 
> (Interview with North African course participant, 14/10/2019)

Existing knowledge along these lines likely informed the remarks repeatedly made by participants from low and middle-income countries in all three training programs, which expressed the view that the GCM's twenty-three objectives will be hard to realize, especially without substantially more money becoming available to their countries for this purpose.

Taken as a whole, the response to the material on the part of enrolled participants, especially those from low and middle-income countries, appeared to me as falling somewhere between resigned realism and cynicism. Without explicitly spelling out their views, many participants made clear that they understood migration governance in practice as being inseparable from a particular political agenda. This was made clear to me when one of my fellow participants in the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy presented me with a rhetorical question towards the end of our two-week course:

> "I wanted to ask you something. I came [to this capacity building course] because I wanted to learn about legal migration, when all of the emphasis is on irregular migration. But the only legal migration is within the regions. I don't think there is a coherent migration governance [questioning pause]."
these inform the reception of international norms by course participants?

As a participant in migration governance training programs, I observed only one instance of normative elements in the curriculum being explicitly challenged by another course participant. The matter of contention concerned so-called border control "pushbacks" in which refugees and migrants are forced back over a border without consideration of their individual circumstances and without any possibility to apply for asylum. Course presentations had categorized such state measures as violating both human rights principles and *jus cogens* norms. In response, one course participant repeatedly insisted on setting forth a different understanding, one which accorded such norms a more limited applicability in border zones. This participant continued to voice these strong views over several sessions and remained unconvinced even after the lead course coordinator laid out a "common sense" hypothetical case that aimed to foreclose further discussion.

Vocal rejection of "global" knowledge, apart from this outlier, hardly appeared within the training programs in which I was enrolled. However, my fellow enrolled participants did express skepticism about some aspects of international cooperation in migration governance. For instance, referring to a presentation which had stressed the overall benefits of migration, one course participant spoke of witnessing through prior professional work the serious health risks and physical dangers that migrant women encounter, thereby implicitly calling into question the assumed benefits of migration for such vulnerable migrants. Other participants likewise addressed what they perceived to be a mismatch between international priorities and the situation on the ground. As one of them explained to me in a follow up interview:

> "In Africa when we see the situation of the workers, believe me the migrant rights it's not the priority at all. They are in exactly the same situation as national workers. But it's like this. These global institutions, they do their part, and we have to do our part."
> 
> (Interview with North African course participant, 14/10/2019)

Existing knowledge along these lines likely informed the remarks repeatedly made by participants from low and middle-income countries in all three training programs, which expressed the view that the GCM's twenty-three objectives will be hard to realize, especially without substantially more money becoming available to their countries for this purpose.

Taken as a whole, the response to the material on the part of enrolled participants, especially those from low and middle-income countries, appeared to me as falling somewhere between resigned realism and cynicism. Without explicitly spelling out their views, many participants made clear that they understood migration governance in practice as being inseparable from a particular political agenda. This was made clear to me when one of my fellow participants in the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy presented me with a rhetorical question towards the end of our two-week course:

> "I wanted to ask you something. I came [to this capacity building course] because I wanted to learn about legal migration, when all of the emphasis is on irregular migration. But the only legal migration is within the regions. I don't think there is a coherent migration governance [questioning pause]."
In my reading, this was not so much a question as an indirect invitation to me to articulate my own politics. Yet it is revealing as much for its biting (albeit camouflaged) analysis of the international system as for the fact that this well-developed preexisting understanding of structural differences in power previously had not been expressed during the in-class discussion. Doing so would admittedly have been challenging, as there were few built-in curricular opportunities to address global power differences. Invited "resource persons" across all three training programs typically maintained a tone of objectivity and generality. Tellingly, on the occasions when presenters did invite discussion of power in global lawmaking, the palpable enthusiasm in the room indicated that many course participants had views on these matters that were well-developed and where existing knowledge was tied to prior experience.

## Diffusion and Translation of Migration Governance Norms

Contemporary capacity building in the migration field has been criticized by scholars of international relations as having an overall tendency to send money to international organizations rather than to under-capacity national states who are the nominal beneficiaries of development assistance (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). Yet such an approach tends to take the norms that inform capacity building as stable and fixed, without investigating whether these norms are truly a stable object. Indeed, one key insight from studies of capacity building informed by a practice-based approach is that knowledge and norms are contested, translated, and sometimes even invented in the act of doing capacity building (Bueger and Tholens, 2021). My findings affirm this insight, insofar as they reveal how norms of migration governance presented in these training programs may be re-interpreted and activated by those who participate in capacity building exercises.

At a general level, I found that many of my fellow program participants made sense of the trainings as spaces where the primary aim was cultivating a common culture broadly based on global norms. Several mentioned that they had come to the program with the expectation that it would allow them to become more acquainted with the culture of a given UN agency and to network with other professionals in the migration field. Notably, one participant mentioned in our follow-up conversation that it had been especially helpful to interact with course participants coming from other regions because their home country was "competing for the same market" in terms of sending migrants to the same destination countries. However, most responses were less concrete. One of the participants, with whom I spoke just after the course's conclusion, reflected that these types of trainings do give their participants some enhanced technical skills, but they viewed them mainly as offering greater familiarity with the general "disposition" of the global migration policy field. This echoes the characterization of capacity building offered in development policy studies, which foregrounds its programmatic concern with diffusing global norms, institutional frameworks, and organizational knowledges to local settings (Brinkerhoff, 2002).

Yet I also found that the development of general cultural competencies through migration governance training courses holds a special interest — and meaning — for groups seeking to become players on the global policymaking stage. While not all participants positioned themselves in this way, I found that those who adopted this strategy were in practice not simply absorbing international norms
In my reading, this was not so much a question as an indirect invitation to me to articulate my own politics. Yet it is revealing as much for its biting (albeit camouflaged) analysis of the international system as for the fact that this well-developed preexisting understanding of structural differences in power previously had not been expressed during the in-class discussion. Doing so would admittedly have been challenging, as there were few built-in curricular opportunities to address global power differences. Invited "resource persons" across all three training programs typically maintained a tone of objectivity and generality. Tellingly, on the occasions when presenters did invite discussion of power in global lawmaking, the palpable enthusiasm in the room indicated that many course participants had views on these matters that were well-developed and where existing knowledge was tied to prior experience.

## Diffusion and Translation of Migration Governance Norms

Contemporary capacity building in the migration field has been criticized by scholars of international relations as having an overall tendency to send money to international organizations rather than to under-capacity national states who are the nominal beneficiaries of development assistance (Micinski and Bourbeau, 2023). Yet such an approach tends to take the norms that inform capacity building as stable and fixed, without investigating whether these norms are truly a stable object. Indeed, one key insight from studies of capacity building informed by a practice-based approach is that knowledge and norms are contested, translated, and sometimes even invented in the act of doing capacity building (Bueger and Tholens, 2021). My findings affirm this insight, insofar as they reveal how norms of migration governance presented in these training programs may be re-interpreted and activated by those who participate in capacity building exercises.

At a general level, I found that many of my fellow program participants made sense of the trainings as spaces where the primary aim was cultivating a common culture broadly based on global norms. Several mentioned that they had come to the program with the expectation that it would allow them to become more acquainted with the culture of a given UN agency and to network with other professionals in the migration field. Notably, one participant mentioned in our follow-up conversation that it had been especially helpful to interact with course participants coming from other regions because their home country was "competing for the same market" in terms of sending migrants to the same destination countries. However, most responses were less concrete. One of the participants, with whom I spoke just after the course's conclusion, reflected that these types of trainings do give their participants some enhanced technical skills, but they viewed them mainly as offering greater familiarity with the general "disposition" of the global migration policy field. This echoes the characterization of capacity building offered in development policy studies, which foregrounds its programmatic concern with diffusing global norms, institutional frameworks, and organizational knowledges to local settings (Brinkerhoff, 2002).

Yet I also found that the development of general cultural competencies through migration governance training courses holds a special interest — and meaning — for groups seeking to become players on the global policymaking stage. While not all participants positioned themselves in this way, I found that those who adopted this strategy were in practice not simply absorbing international norms
but were rather approaching contemporary migration governance as a normative repertoire that could be translated and even built upon. To make this more concrete, the remainder of this section presents two condensed examples of civil society groups who I observed approaching migration governance training programs as a stepping-stone to intervening in global policymaking and whose members I encountered not only students but also organizers of such programs.

The first such group were members of an inter-regional trade unionist network, the Trade Union Network on Mediterranean and Subsaharian Migrants (Réseau syndical migrations méditerranéennes-subsahariennes, RSMMS), who I encountered initially as fellow enrolled participants in the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy and then later as participants in some of the civil society GCM Objectives webinars. Formed in 2014, RSMMS's network currently includes thirty trade union organizations from West Africa, North Africa, and southern Europe.<fnref n="16" /> By fostering organizational collaborations across migration routes, RSMMS aims not only to bring workers' values into migration policy questions but also, more broadly, to build solidarity among all workers in motion across borders and incorporate them into the labor movement. As part of this long-term strategy to "interfere" with foundational structures of global governance, the network has sought to operate as a visible player on the global stage.<fnref n="17" /> Along these lines, RSMMS submitted its own statement to the 2018 GCM drafting process and formally commented on the 2023 EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding. As it has sought to become a visible global player, RSMMS has also devoted substantial effort to capacity building. Notably, a multi-year project funded by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) enabled representatives of individual RSMMS member unions to participate in international organizations' migration governance capacity building programs and also supported specially-tailored capacity building programs that RSMMS organized for itself.<fnref n="18" /> These programs are seen to offer a valuable exposure to relevant multilateral frameworks for migrants' rights, thereby allowing the network's focal points to "be more concrete about these rights and how they could be translated on the ground"<fnref n="19" /> Yet individual RSMMS training participants also underscored for me that they saw the value of capacity building programming as extending beyond imparting knowledge that may then be translated into local context. In their words, capacity building offers a crucial space for "sharing of experience", both within the network and with workers' organizations in other regions, with the aim of jointly identifying innovative practices for migrants' rights organizing and activism.<fnref n="20" /> This emphasis on sharing of experience is significant because it highlights the value that RSMMS and its members see in adopting an experimental and collaborative approach to capacity building programming. When considered in the context of RSMMS's ambitious long-term aims, this experimental and collaborative approach points

<footnote n="16">16 RSMMS (2022) *Round Table – 10/02/2015*, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://www.rsmms.net/category/history/?lang=en</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Interview with RSMMS steering committee member, 27/08/2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 I learned about the existence of RSMMS from a fellow participant at the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy, who mentioned that she had come to our program in Turin only a week after participating in a training workshop at the RSMMS's Annual General Assembly across the Mediterranean in Tunisia's capital, Tunis.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 Interview with RSMMS-FES project coordinator, 06/08/2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Interview with RSMMS focal point, 16/09/2019.</footnote>
but were rather approaching contemporary migration governance as a normative repertoire that could be translated and even built upon. To make this more concrete, the remainder of this section presents two condensed examples of civil society groups who I observed approaching migration governance training programs as a stepping-stone to intervening in global policymaking and whose members I encountered not only students but also organizers of such programs.

The first such group were members of an inter-regional trade unionist network, the Trade Union Network on Mediterranean and Subsaharian Migrants (Réseau syndical migrations méditerranéennes-subsahariennes, RSMMS), who I encountered initially as fellow enrolled participants in the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy and then later as participants in some of the civil society GCM Objectives webinars. Formed in 2014, RSMMS's network currently includes thirty trade union organizations from West Africa, North Africa, and southern Europe.<fnref n="16" /> By fostering organizational collaborations across migration routes, RSMMS aims not only to bring workers' values into migration policy questions but also, more broadly, to build solidarity among all workers in motion across borders and incorporate them into the labor movement. As part of this long-term strategy to "interfere" with foundational structures of global governance, the network has sought to operate as a visible player on the global stage.<fnref n="17" /> Along these lines, RSMMS submitted its own statement to the 2018 GCM drafting process and formally commented on the 2023 EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding. As it has sought to become a visible global player, RSMMS has also devoted substantial effort to capacity building. Notably, a multi-year project funded by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) enabled representatives of individual RSMMS member unions to participate in international organizations' migration governance capacity building programs and also supported specially-tailored capacity building programs that RSMMS organized for itself.<fnref n="18" /> These programs are seen to offer a valuable exposure to relevant multilateral frameworks for migrants' rights, thereby allowing the network's focal points to "be more concrete about these rights and how they could be translated on the ground"<fnref n="19" /> Yet individual RSMMS training participants also underscored for me that they saw the value of capacity building programming as extending beyond imparting knowledge that may then be translated into local context. In their words, capacity building offers a crucial space for "sharing of experience", both within the network and with workers' organizations in other regions, with the aim of jointly identifying innovative practices for migrants' rights organizing and activism.<fnref n="20" /> This emphasis on sharing of experience is significant because it highlights the value that RSMMS and its members see in adopting an experimental and collaborative approach to capacity building programming. When considered in the context of RSMMS's ambitious long-term aims, this experimental and collaborative approach points

<footnote n="16">16 RSMMS (2022) *Round Table – 10/02/2015*, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://www.rsmms.net/category/history/?lang=en</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Interview with RSMMS steering committee member, 27/08/2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 I learned about the existence of RSMMS from a fellow participant at the ITC-ILO Labour Migration Academy, who mentioned that she had come to our program in Turin only a week after participating in a training workshop at the RSMMS's Annual General Assembly across the Mediterranean in Tunisia's capital, Tunis.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 Interview with RSMMS-FES project coordinator, 06/08/2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Interview with RSMMS focal point, 16/09/2019.</footnote>
towards an understanding of global migration governance as an evolving
normative space where locally-grounded innovative practice remains a possi-
bility.

A second group which has approached its involvement with migration governance programming — as organizers and instructors — as part of a strategy to build capacity for interventions at the global-level is the India-based Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT).<fnref n="21" /> I was introduced to this consortium of researchers and policymakers through the civil society GCM Certificate Programme, for which GRFDT researchers not only contributed general technical coordination for the weekly GCM Objectives webinars but also served as lead instructors for a parallel course unit in “Migration and Diaspora: Theory and Methodology”. Unlike the public-facing GCM Objectives panels, which were hosted by representatives of global civil society networks, the GRFDT-led instructional unit on Theory and Methodology was offered solely to those enrolled in the certificate program. A key theme running through this unit’s curriculum was that low and middle-income countries do not have the same interests as wealthy countries of destination who have pushed contemporary migration policymaking in a globally restrictive direction.<fnref n="22" /> The presentations emphasized that diasporas have a critical role to play in the development of human societies but that current national and global policies are preventing their potential contribution from being fully realized. GRFDT researchers used their presentations to urge the enrolled participants, the far majority of whom were based in low or middle-income countries themselves, to be critical of contemporary restrictive immigration policies — and specifically to question whether such policies were evidence-based — rather than taking them at face value. As a platform to reach a new generation of migration researchers from across the global South, this course unit addressed the perceived problem that existing policy-facing research on the phenomena of contemporary migration has been undertaken largely from a destination country perspective.<fnref n="23" /> GRFDT’s role in organizing the civil society GCM Certificate Programme thus not only enhanced the group’s visibility on the international stage (it “made us global”, as one GRFDT course coordinator put it). It also offered an opportunity to train (i.e. socialize) young professionals based in the global South, some of whom were additionally involved with GRFDT’s media internship program, thereby building research capacity to supply a more balanced empirical foundation for migration governance.

Conclusion

Capacity building training programs constitute an important site for constructing
the practical meaning of migration governance today. As the foregoing analysis

<footnote n="21">21 GRFDT, *About the GRFDT*, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://grfdt.com/about-us.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 For example, in one common assignment, we were asked to respond to the following prompt: "International migration is inherent in a capitalist economic system." Another assignment began by introducing a classic economic model drawing linkages between demographic transition and the stages of economic development and then asked us to "explain how the European countries attained this [migration transition]".</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 Interview with GRFDT President, 26/07/2022.</footnote>
towards an understanding of global migration governance as an evolving
normative space where locally-grounded innovative practice remains a possi-
bility.

A second group which has approached its involvement with migration governance programming — as organizers and instructors — as part of a strategy to build capacity for interventions at the global-level is the India-based Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT).<fnref n="21" /> I was introduced to this consortium of researchers and policymakers through the civil society GCM Certificate Programme, for which GRFDT researchers not only contributed general technical coordination for the weekly GCM Objectives webinars but also served as lead instructors for a parallel course unit in “Migration and Diaspora: Theory and Methodology”. Unlike the public-facing GCM Objectives panels, which were hosted by representatives of global civil society networks, the GRFDT-led instructional unit on Theory and Methodology was offered solely to those enrolled in the certificate program. A key theme running through this unit’s curriculum was that low and middle-income countries do not have the same interests as wealthy countries of destination who have pushed contemporary migration policymaking in a globally restrictive direction.<fnref n="22" /> The presentations emphasized that diasporas have a critical role to play in the development of human societies but that current national and global policies are preventing their potential contribution from being fully realized. GRFDT researchers used their presentations to urge the enrolled participants, the far majority of whom were based in low or middle-income countries themselves, to be critical of contemporary restrictive immigration policies — and specifically to question whether such policies were evidence-based — rather than taking them at face value. As a platform to reach a new generation of migration researchers from across the global South, this course unit addressed the perceived problem that existing policy-facing research on the phenomena of contemporary migration has been undertaken largely from a destination country perspective.<fnref n="23" /> GRFDT’s role in organizing the civil society GCM Certificate Programme thus not only enhanced the group’s visibility on the international stage (it “made us global”, as one GRFDT course coordinator put it). It also offered an opportunity to train (i.e. socialize) young professionals based in the global South, some of whom were additionally involved with GRFDT’s media internship program, thereby building research capacity to supply a more balanced empirical foundation for migration governance.

Conclusion

Capacity building training programs constitute an important site for constructing
the practical meaning of migration governance today. As the foregoing analysis

<footnote n="21">21 GRFDT, *About the GRFDT*, [online] accessed on 03/12/2023. URL: https://grfdt.com/about-us.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 For example, in one common assignment, we were asked to respond to the following prompt: "International migration is inherent in a capitalist economic system." Another assignment began by introducing a classic economic model drawing linkages between demographic transition and the stages of economic development and then asked us to "explain how the European countries attained this [migration transition]".</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 Interview with GRFDT President, 26/07/2022.</footnote>
in this article has shown, the curricular content of such programs communicates key normative guidelines and rules of contemporary migration policymaking, including not only principles inscribed in multilateral treaties but also a host of best practices and instruments of soft law. In all three courses examined through this analysis, the theme of “sustainable development” provided a core element of the curriculum, one which I found was presented simultaneously as an approach to migration questions and as an objective of migration governance. These findings are consonant with the assessment made in legal scholarship that this broad framework for international cooperation has become foundational to both current measures of success and to the more general discursive repertoire for discussions of migration law and policy globally (Desmond, 2020).

At the same time, building on the findings of ethnographic studies which underscore the potential interpretive openness of the language, values, and mobilizations behind sustainable development discourse (Ballestero, 2017; Douglas-Jones and Shaffner, 2021), my findings demonstrate that the practical meaning of migration governance depends on the local contexts into which these norms are translated and in which they are sometimes contested. While the three training programs in which I participated referenced common normative and policy frameworks, each program clearly prioritized different aspects of migration governance capacity and its beneficiaries. Likewise, the reception of these various formulations of migration governance norms was not simply a matter of passive socialization. Strikingly, many of my fellow course participants who worked within public institutions or civil society groups in implementing countries had no trouble repeating a global policy rhetoric with which they were already quite familiar, even as they also expressed — politely and often indirectly — criticisms of official doctrines and policy models for their distance from realities on the ground.

Moreover, my findings suggest that the elements of what migration governance means in practice are not only contested and translated but also occasionally invented in the act of doing capacity building. Through these programs I encountered groups of actors based in the global South who have invested in capacity building as part of their various strategies to intervene and reshape migration governance. Their experimentations with innovative organizing practices and with new mechanisms for generating empirical knowledge reflect an interest in challenging the status quo and a belief that the norms underpinning migration governance are sufficiently open-ended to support their against-the-grain interpretations. At the level of theory, what this suggests is that, although this domain of policymaking may at times appear to leave little space for alternatives, in practice actors in different learning settings are mobilizing migration governance norms with different emphases and with distinct objectives. How these various representations of international norms are practically understood, by whom, and to what ends are critical issues when theorizing the political implications of migration governance capacity building.
in this article has shown, the curricular content of such programs communicates key normative guidelines and rules of contemporary migration policymaking, including not only principles inscribed in multilateral treaties but also a host of best practices and instruments of soft law. In all three courses examined through this analysis, the theme of “sustainable development” provided a core element of the curriculum, one which I found was presented simultaneously as an approach to migration questions and as an objective of migration governance. These findings are consonant with the assessment made in legal scholarship that this broad framework for international cooperation has become foundational to both current measures of success and to the more general discursive repertoire for discussions of migration law and policy globally (Desmond, 2020).

At the same time, building on the findings of ethnographic studies which underscore the potential interpretive openness of the language, values, and mobilizations behind sustainable development discourse (Ballestero, 2017; Douglas-Jones and Shaffner, 2021), my findings demonstrate that the practical meaning of migration governance depends on the local contexts into which these norms are translated and in which they are sometimes contested. While the three training programs in which I participated referenced common normative and policy frameworks, each program clearly prioritized different aspects of migration governance capacity and its beneficiaries. Likewise, the reception of these various formulations of migration governance norms was not simply a matter of passive socialization. Strikingly, many of my fellow course participants who worked within public institutions or civil society groups in implementing countries had no trouble repeating a global policy rhetoric with which they were already quite familiar, even as they also expressed — politely and often indirectly — criticisms of official doctrines and policy models for their distance from realities on the ground.

Moreover, my findings suggest that the elements of what migration governance means in practice are not only contested and translated but also occasionally invented in the act of doing capacity building. Through these programs I encountered groups of actors based in the global South who have invested in capacity building as part of their various strategies to intervene and reshape migration governance. Their experimentations with innovative organizing practices and with new mechanisms for generating empirical knowledge reflect an interest in challenging the status quo and a belief that the norms underpinning migration governance are sufficiently open-ended to support their against-the-grain interpretations. At the level of theory, what this suggests is that, although this domain of policymaking may at times appear to leave little space for alternatives, in practice actors in different learning settings are mobilizing migration governance norms with different emphases and with distinct objectives. How these various representations of international norms are practically understood, by whom, and to what ends are critical issues when theorizing the political implications of migration governance capacity building.
## References

**Aleinikoff T. Alexander and Martin Susan** (2018) *Making the Global Compacts Work: What Future for Refugees and Migrants?*, [online]. URL: https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/unsw-adobe-websites/kaldor-centre/2023-09-policies/2023-09-policy-brief-6.pdf

**Babül Elif** (2012) Training Bureaucrats, Practicing for Europe: Negotiating Bureaucratic Authority and Governmental Legitimacy in Turkey, *PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review*, 35 (1), pp. 30-52.

**Bakker Matt** (2015) *Migrating into Financial Markets: How Remittances became a Development Tool*, Berkeley, University of California Press.

**Ballestero Andrea** (2017) Capacity as Aggregation: Promises, Water and a Form of Collective Care in Northeast Brazil, *The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology*, 35 (1), pp. 31-48.

**Battistella Graziano** (2009) Migration and Human Rights: The Uneasy but Essential Relationship, in Paul de Guchteneire, Antoine Pécoud and Ryszard Cholewinski Eds., *Migration and Human Rights: The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-69.

**Berg Elliot** (1993) *Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity Building in Africa*, New York, UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa.

**Berne Initiative** (2004) *International Agenda for Migration Management*, [online]. URL: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iamm.pdf

**Betts Alexander** (2011a) *Global Migration Governance*, New York, Oxford University Press.

**Betts Alexander** (2011b) Introduction: Global Migration Governance, in Alexander Betts Ed., *Global Migration Governance*, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-33.

**Bhagwati Jagdish** (1992) *A Champion for Migrating Peoples*, Christian Science Monitor, [online]. URL: https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0228/28181.html

**Breda Giulia** (2023) The Migration and Development Nexus and International Migration Management: The Role of the United Nations Development Program, in Antoine Pécoud and Hélène Thiollet Eds., *Research Handbook on The Institutions of Global Migration Governance*, Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 76-88.

**Breda Giulia** (2019) (*Co*) Développement et gestion internationale des migrations : Contrôler le savoir pour savoir contrôler, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université Cote d'Azur.

**Brinkerhoff Jennifer M.** (2002) *Partnership for International Development: Rhetoric or Results?*, Boulder, Lynn Rienner Publishers.

**Bueger Christian and Tholens Simone** (2021) Theorizing Capacity Building, in Christian Bueger, Timothy Edmunds and Robert McCabe Eds., *Capacity Building for Maritime Security*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-45.

**Chetail Vincent** (2007) *Globalization, migration and human rights: international law under review*, Brussels, Bruylant.

**Cholewinski Ryszard** (2020) The ILO and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, *International Journal of Law in Context*, 16 (3), pp. 304-320.
## References

**Aleinikoff T. Alexander and Martin Susan** (2018) *Making the Global Compacts Work: What Future for Refugees and Migrants?*, [online]. URL: https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/unsw-adobe-websites/kaldor-centre/2023-09-policies/2023-09-policy-brief-6.pdf

**Babül Elif** (2012) Training Bureaucrats, Practicing for Europe: Negotiating Bureaucratic Authority and Governmental Legitimacy in Turkey, *PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review*, 35 (1), pp. 30-52.

**Bakker Matt** (2015) *Migrating into Financial Markets: How Remittances became a Development Tool*, Berkeley, University of California Press.

**Ballestero Andrea** (2017) Capacity as Aggregation: Promises, Water and a Form of Collective Care in Northeast Brazil, *The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology*, 35 (1), pp. 31-48.

**Battistella Graziano** (2009) Migration and Human Rights: The Uneasy but Essential Relationship, in Paul de Guchteneire, Antoine Pécoud and Ryszard Cholewinski Eds., *Migration and Human Rights: The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-69.

**Berg Elliot** (1993) *Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity Building in Africa*, New York, UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa.

**Berne Initiative** (2004) *International Agenda for Migration Management*, [online]. URL: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iamm.pdf

**Betts Alexander** (2011a) *Global Migration Governance*, New York, Oxford University Press.

**Betts Alexander** (2011b) Introduction: Global Migration Governance, in Alexander Betts Ed., *Global Migration Governance*, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-33.

**Bhagwati Jagdish** (1992) *A Champion for Migrating Peoples*, Christian Science Monitor, [online]. URL: https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0228/28181.html

**Breda Giulia** (2023) The Migration and Development Nexus and International Migration Management: The Role of the United Nations Development Program, in Antoine Pécoud and Hélène Thiollet Eds., *Research Handbook on The Institutions of Global Migration Governance*, Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 76-88.

**Breda Giulia** (2019) (*Co*) Développement et gestion internationale des migrations : Contrôler le savoir pour savoir contrôler, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université Cote d'Azur.

**Brinkerhoff Jennifer M.** (2002) *Partnership for International Development: Rhetoric or Results?*, Boulder, Lynn Rienner Publishers.

**Bueger Christian and Tholens Simone** (2021) Theorizing Capacity Building, in Christian Bueger, Timothy Edmunds and Robert McCabe Eds., *Capacity Building for Maritime Security*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-45.

**Chetail Vincent** (2007) *Globalization, migration and human rights: international law under review*, Brussels, Bruylant.

**Cholewinski Ryszard** (2020) The ILO and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, *International Journal of Law in Context*, 16 (3), pp. 304-320.
**Cholewinski Ryszard, Perruchoud Richard and MacDonald Euan (2007)**
*International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Challenges*, The Hague, TMC Asser Press.

**Chuang Janie (2023)**
IOM and Ethical Labour Recruitment, in Megan Bradley, Kathryn Costello and Angela Sherwood Eds., *IOM Unbound? Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 270-296.

**Crépeau François (2019)**
L'émergence d'une conversation globale sur les politiques migratoires. Retour sur un mandat de Rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les droits de l'homme des migrants (2011-2017), *Droits Fondamentaux*, 17, [en ligne]. URL : https://www.crdh.fr/revue/n-17-2019/lemergence-dune-conversation-globale-sur-les-politiques-migratoires-retour-sur-un-mandat-de-rapporteur-special-des-nations-unies-sur-les-droits-de-lhomme-des-migrants-2011/

**Desmond Alan (2020)**
A new dawn for the human rights of international migrants? Protection of migrants' rights in light of the UN's SDGs and Global Compact for Migration, *International Journal of Law in Context*, 16 (3), pp. 222-238.

**Dini Sabine (2018)**
Migration management, capacity building and the sovereignty of an African State: International Organization for Migration in Djibouti, *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 44 (10), pp. 1691-1705.

**Douglas-Jones Rachel and Shaffner Justin (2021)**
Capacity Building in Ethnographic Comparison, in Rachel Douglas-Jones and Justin Shaffner Eds., *Hope and Insufficiency*, New York, Bergahn Books, pp. 1-18.

**Eade Deborah (1997)**
*Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development*, Oxford, Oxfam.

**Fleury Graff Thibaut (2018)**
Les deux pactes mondiaux sur les réfugiés et les migrations : forces et faiblesses d'une nouvelle coopération internationale, *Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales*, 34 (4), pp. 223-230.

**GCIM (2005)**
*Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action*, Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, [online]. URL: https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/GCIM_Report_Complete.pdf

**Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine (2014)**
International Organisations and the Politics of Migration, *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 40 (6), pp. 865-867.

**Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine (2010)**
*The Politics of International Migration Management*, New York, Palgrave.

**Ghosh Bimal (1995)**
*Movements of People: The Search for a New International Regime*, [online]. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139149

**Gilman Nils (2003)**
*Mandarins of the future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America*, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

**GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee (2021)**
*GCM Objectives Review Series*, [online]. URL: https://csactioncommittee.org/gcm-objectives-webinar-series/

**Hulme David and Scott James (2010)**
The Political Economy of the MDGs: Retrospect and Prospect for the World's Biggest Promise, *New Political Economy*, 15 (2), pp. 293-306.
Cholewinski Ryszard, Perruchoud Richard and MacDonald Euan (2007) *International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Challenges*, The Hague, TMC Asser Press.

Chuang Janie (2023) IOM and Ethical Labour Recruitment, in Megan Bradley, Kathryn Costello and Angela Sherwood Eds., *IOM Unbound? Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 270-296.

Crépeau François (2019) L'émergence d'une conversation globale sur les politiques migratoires. Retour sur un mandat de Rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les droits de l'homme des migrants (2011-2017), *Droits Fondamentaux*, 17, [en ligne]. URL : https://www.crdh.fr/revue/n-17-2019/lemergence-dune-conversation-globale-sur-les-politiques-migratoires-retour-sur-un-mandat-de-rapporteur-special-des-nations-unies-sur-les-droits-de-lhomme-des-migrants-2011/

Desmond Alan (2020) A new dawn for the human rights of international migrants? *Protection of migrants' rights in light of the UN's SDGs and Global Compact for Migration, International Journal of Law in Context*, 16 (3), pp. 222-238.

Dini Sabine (2018) Migration management, capacity building and the sovereignty of an African State: International Organization for Migration in Djibouti, *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 44 (10), pp. 1691-1705.

Douglas-Jones Rachel and Shaffner Justin (2021) Capacity Building in Ethnographic Comparison, in Rachel Douglas-Jones and Justin Shaffner Eds., *Hope and Insufficiency*, New York, Bergahn Books, pp. 1-18.

Eade Deborah (1997) *Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development*, Oxford, Oxfam.

Fleury Graff Thibaut (2018) Les deux pactes mondiaux sur les réfugiés et les migrations : forces et faiblesses d'une nouvelle coopération internationale, *Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales*, 34 (4), pp. 223-230.

GCIM (2005) *Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action*, Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, [online]. URL: https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/GCIM_Report_Complete.pdf

Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine (2014) International Organisations and the Politics of Migration, *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 40 (6), pp. 865-867.

Geiger Martin and Pécoud Antoine (2010) *The Politics of International Migration Management*, New York, Palgrave.

Ghosh Bimal (1995) *Movements of People: The Search for a New International Regime*, [online]. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139149

Gilman Nils (2003) *Mandarins of the future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America*, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

GRFDT/MFA/CCRM/CS Action Committee (2021) *GCM Objectives Review Series*, [online]. URL: https://csactioncommittee.org/gcm-objectives-webinar-series/

Hulme David and Scott James (2010) The Political Economy of the MDGs: Retrospect and Prospect for the World's Biggest Promise, *New Political Economy*, 15 (2), pp. 293-306.
**Ife Jim** (2010) Capacity Building and Community Development, in Sue Kenny and Matthew Clarke Eds., *Challenging Capacity Building*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 67-84.

**IIHL** (2024) *Migration Law Courses*, [online]. URL: https://www.iom.int/sanremo-migration-law-course

**ILO** (2006) *Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration*, [online]. URL: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_146243.pdf

**ITC-ILO** (2023) *Academy on Labour Migration*, [online]. URL: https://itcilo.org/en/areas-of-expertise/labour-migration/academy

**Jacobsen Katja Lindskov** (2017) Maritime security and capacity building in the Gulf of Guinea: On comprehensiveness, gaps, and security priorities, *African Security Review*, 26 (3), pp. 237-256.

**Koslowski Rey** (2011) *Global Mobility Regimes*, New York, Palgrave.

**Kühl Stefan** (2009) Capacity Development as the Model for Development Aid Organizations, *Development and Change*, 40 (3), pp. 551-577.

**Macekura Stephen** (2013) The Point Four Program and U.S. International Development Policy, *Political Science Quarterly*, 128 (1), pp. 127-160.

**Martin Philip L.**, **Martin Susan F.** and **Weil Patrick** (2006) *Managing Migration: The Promise of Cooperation*, Lanham, Lexington Books.

**McGregor Elaine** (2020) Migration, the MDGs, and SDGs, in Tanja Bastia and Ronald Skeldon Eds., *Routledge Handbook of Migration and Development*, New York, Routledge, pp. 284-293.

**Micinski Nicholas R.** and **Bourbeau Philippe** (2023) Capacity Building as Intervention-Lite: Migration Management and the Global Compacts, *Geopolitics*, 29 (1), pp. 39-63.

**Miller Chris** (2010) Developing Capacities and Agency in Complex Times, in Sue Kenny and Matthew Clarke Eds., *Challenging Capacity Building*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-40.

**Papademetriou Demetrios G.** (2006) Reflections on the Final Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, in Joseph Chamie and Mary G. Powers Eds., *International Migration and the Global Community: A Forum on the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration*, New York, Center for Migration Studies, pp. 109-115.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2021) Narrating an ideal migration world? An analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, *Third World Quarterly*, 42 (1), pp. 16-33.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2015) *Depoliticising Migration: Global Governance and International Migration Narratives*, London, Springer.

**Rist Gilbert** (2014) *The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. Fourth Edition*, New York, Zed Books.

**Robinson Corey** (2023) Offshoring and Outsourcing Anti-Smuggling Policy: Capacity Building and the Geopolitics of Migrant Smuggling, *Geopolitics*, 29 (1), pp. 13-38.
**Ife Jim** (2010) Capacity Building and Community Development, in Sue Kenny and Matthew Clarke Eds., *Challenging Capacity Building*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 67-84.

**IIHL** (2024) *Migration Law Courses*, [online]. URL: https://www.iom.int/sanremo-migration-law-course

**ILO** (2006) *Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration*, [online]. URL: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_146243.pdf

**ITC-ILO** (2023) *Academy on Labour Migration*, [online]. URL: https://itcilo.org/en/areas-of-expertise/labour-migration/academy

**Jacobsen Katja Lindskov** (2017) Maritime security and capacity building in the Gulf of Guinea: On comprehensiveness, gaps, and security priorities, *African Security Review*, 26 (3), pp. 237-256.

**Koslowski Rey** (2011) *Global Mobility Regimes*, New York, Palgrave.

**Kühl Stefan** (2009) Capacity Development as the Model for Development Aid Organizations, *Development and Change*, 40 (3), pp. 551-577.

**Macekura Stephen** (2013) The Point Four Program and U.S. International Development Policy, *Political Science Quarterly*, 128 (1), pp. 127-160.

**Martin Philip L.**, **Martin Susan F.** and **Weil Patrick** (2006) *Managing Migration: The Promise of Cooperation*, Lanham, Lexington Books.

**McGregor Elaine** (2020) Migration, the MDGs, and SDGs, in Tanja Bastia and Ronald Skeldon Eds., *Routledge Handbook of Migration and Development*, New York, Routledge, pp. 284-293.

**Micinski Nicholas R.** and **Bourbeau Philippe** (2023) Capacity Building as Intervention-Lite: Migration Management and the Global Compacts, *Geopolitics*, 29 (1), pp. 39-63.

**Miller Chris** (2010) Developing Capacities and Agency in Complex Times, in Sue Kenny and Matthew Clarke Eds., *Challenging Capacity Building*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-40.

**Papademetriou Demetrios G.** (2006) Reflections on the Final Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, in Joseph Chamie and Mary G. Powers Eds., *International Migration and the Global Community: A Forum on the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration*, New York, Center for Migration Studies, pp. 109-115.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2021) Narrating an ideal migration world? An analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, *Third World Quarterly*, 42 (1), pp. 16-33.

**Pécoud Antoine** (2015) *Depoliticising Migration: Global Governance and International Migration Narratives*, London, Springer.

**Rist Gilbert** (2014) *The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. Fourth Edition*, New York, Zed Books.

**Robinson Corey** (2023) Offshoring and Outsourcing Anti-Smuggling Policy: Capacity Building and the Geopolitics of Migrant Smuggling, *Geopolitics*, 29 (1), pp. 13-38.
**Rother Stefan** (2022) *Global Migration Governance from Below: Actors, Spaces, Discourses*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

**Swidler Anne** (2001) *What Anchors Cultural Practices, in Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von Savigny Eds., *The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory*, London, Routledge, pp. 83-101.

**Taran Patrick A.** (2009) *The Need for a Rights-Based Approach to Migration in the Age of Globalization*, in *Paul de Guchteneire, Antoine Pécoud and Ryszard Cholewinski Eds., *Migration and Human Rights: The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 150-168.

**Tavory Iddo and Timmermans Stefan** (2020) *Sequential Comparisons and the Comparative Imagination*, in *Corey M. Abramson and Neil Gong Eds., *Beyond the Case*, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 185-206.

**Trubek David M. and Santos Alvaro** (2006) *Introduction: The Third Moment in Law and Development Theory and the Emergence of a New Critical Practice*, in *David M. Trubek and Alvaro Santos Eds., *The New Law and Economic Development*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-18.

**United Nations** (2002) *Report to the Secretary-General on Migration by the Migration Working Group Chaired by Michael W. Doyle*, New York, United Nation.

**Vincent-Mory Claire** (2018) *Le petit monde du développement porté par les migrants : une sociologie de la reconnaissance des « associations de migrants » dans les arènes françaises de la coopération au développement (1981-2014)*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université Paris Nanterre.
**Rother Stefan** (2022) *Global Migration Governance from Below: Actors, Spaces, Discourses*, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

**Swidler Anne** (2001) *What Anchors Cultural Practices, in Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von Savigny Eds., *The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory*, London, Routledge, pp. 83-101.

**Taran Patrick A.** (2009) *The Need for a Rights-Based Approach to Migration in the Age of Globalization*, in *Paul de Guchteneire, Antoine Pécoud and Ryszard Cholewinski Eds., *Migration and Human Rights: The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 150-168.

**Tavory Iddo and Timmermans Stefan** (2020) *Sequential Comparisons and the Comparative Imagination*, in *Corey M. Abramson and Neil Gong Eds., *Beyond the Case*, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 185-206.

**Trubek David M. and Santos Alvaro** (2006) *Introduction: The Third Moment in Law and Development Theory and the Emergence of a New Critical Practice*, in *David M. Trubek and Alvaro Santos Eds., *The New Law and Economic Development*, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-18.

**United Nations** (2002) *Report to the Secretary-General on Migration by the Migration Working Group Chaired by Michael W. Doyle*, New York, United Nation.

**Vincent-Mory Claire** (2018) *Le petit monde du développement porté par les migrants : une sociologie de la reconnaissance des « associations de migrants » dans les arènes françaises de la coopération au développement (1981-2014)*, Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université Paris Nanterre.
Leila Kawar

# Learning Migration Governance: The Representation and Reception of International Norms in Capacity Building Programs

This article explores migration governance training programs as a point of entry into the contemporary politics of migration and development. Leveraging a comparative ethnographic lens, it examines the curricular content offered in three different such capacity building settings. Its analysis also considers how this content is received and contextualized by program participants. The study finds migration governance assumed distinct forms, with differing priorities, across the training programs offered by international organisations. In addition, it shows how the participants' prior experiences and their positionality within the professional field of those working on international migration contribute to shaping how they make sense of program content. By revealing how the meaning of migration governance shifts across the settings in which such knowledge is practically communicated and received, these findings open space for a more explicitly political approach to this domain of international law making.

## Apprendre la gouvernance des migrations : la représentation et la réception des normes internationales dans les programmes de renforcement des capacités

Cet article est le résultat d'une enquête sur les programmes de formation à la gouvernance des migrations en tant que points d'entrée des politiques contemporaines concernant le lien entre migration et développement. En s'appuyant sur une perspective ethnographique comparative, il examine le contenu de ces programmes dans trois dispositifs différents de « renforcement des capacités » proposés par des organisations internationales. L'analyse porte également sur la manière dont ce contenu est interprété et contextualisé par les participants au programme. L'étude constate que la gouvernance des migrations est présentée sous des formes distinctes, avec des priorités différentes, selon les différents programmes de formation. En outre, elle montre comment les expériences antérieures des participants et leur position dans le champ des professionnels travaillant sur les migrations internationales contribuent à façonner la manière dont ils donnent du sens au contenu des programmes. En montrant comment la signification de la gouvernance migratoire évolue en fonction des contextes dans lesquels ces connaissances sont communiquées et reçues, ces résultats ouvrent la voie à une approche plus explicitement politique dans le domaine de l'élaboration du droit international.
Leila Kawar

# Learning Migration Governance: The Representation and Reception of International Norms in Capacity Building Programs

This article explores migration governance training programs as a point of entry into the contemporary politics of migration and development. Leveraging a comparative ethnographic lens, it examines the curricular content offered in three different such capacity building settings. Its analysis also considers how this content is received and contextualized by program participants. The study finds migration governance assumed distinct forms, with differing priorities, across the training programs offered by international organisations. In addition, it shows how the participants' prior experiences and their positionality within the professional field of those working on international migration contribute to shaping how they make sense of program content. By revealing how the meaning of migration governance shifts across the settings in which such knowledge is practically communicated and received, these findings open space for a more explicitly political approach to this domain of international law making.

## Apprendre la gouvernance des migrations : la représentation et la réception des normes internationales dans les programmes de renforcement des capacités

Cet article est le résultat d'une enquête sur les programmes de formation à la gouvernance des migrations en tant que points d'entrée des politiques contemporaines concernant le lien entre migration et développement. En s'appuyant sur une perspective ethnographique comparative, il examine le contenu de ces programmes dans trois dispositifs différents de « renforcement des capacités » proposés par des organisations internationales. L'analyse porte également sur la manière dont ce contenu est interprété et contextualisé par les participants au programme. L'étude constate que la gouvernance des migrations est présentée sous des formes distinctes, avec des priorités différentes, selon les différents programmes de formation. En outre, elle montre comment les expériences antérieures des participants et leur position dans le champ des professionnels travaillant sur les migrations internationales contribuent à façonner la manière dont ils donnent du sens au contenu des programmes. En montrant comment la signification de la gouvernance migratoire évolue en fonction des contextes dans lesquels ces connaissances sont communiquées et reçues, ces résultats ouvrent la voie à une approche plus explicitement politique dans le domaine de l'élaboration du droit international.
## Aprendizaje de la gobernanza de la migración: la representación y aceptación de las normas internacionales en los programas de desarrollo de capacidades

Este artículo explora los programas de formación en gobernanza de la migración como punto de entrada a la política contemporánea de migración y desarrollo. Aprovechando una lente etnográfica comparativa, examina el contenido curricular ofrecido en tres entornos diferentes de capacitación. También se analiza cómo los participantes en los programas reciben y contextualizan estos contenidos. Se constata que la gobernanza de la migración adoptó formas distintas, con prioridades diferentes, en los distintos programas de formación de diferentes organizaciones internacionales. Además, se muestra cómo las experiencias previas de los participantes y su posición dentro del campo profesional de los que trabajan en la migración internacional contribuyen a dar forma a la manera en que dan sentido al contenido del programa. Al mostrar cómo cambia el significado de la gobernanza de la migración en los distintos entornos en los que se comunica y recibe dicho conocimiento, estos resultados abren un espacio para un enfoque más explícitamente político de este ámbito de la elaboración del derecho internacional.
## Aprendizaje de la gobernanza de la migración: la representación y aceptación de las normas internacionales en los programas de desarrollo de capacidades

Este artículo explora los programas de formación en gobernanza de la migración como punto de entrada a la política contemporánea de migración y desarrollo. Aprovechando una lente etnográfica comparativa, examina el contenido curricular ofrecido en tres entornos diferentes de capacitación. También se analiza cómo los participantes en los programas reciben y contextualizan estos contenidos. Se constata que la gobernanza de la migración adoptó formas distintas, con prioridades diferentes, en los distintos programas de formación de diferentes organizaciones internacionales. Además, se muestra cómo las experiencias previas de los participantes y su posición dentro del campo profesional de los que trabajan en la migración internacional contribuyen a dar forma a la manera en que dan sentido al contenido del programa. Al mostrar cómo cambia el significado de la gobernanza de la migración en los distintos entornos en los que se comunica y recibe dicho conocimiento, estos resultados abren un espacio para un enfoque más explícitamente político de este ámbito de la elaboración del derecho internacional.
# La relation migration-développement au prisme des localités : rétrospective d'une tension continue entre politisation et dépolitisation au Mali

Stéphanie Lima<fnref n="1" />

Dès les années 1960, alors que s'opère le renversement des circulations migra-
toires à l'échelle de la planète (Simon, 2008), la mise en lien entre migration
internationale et développement prend sa source dans une simplification, selon
laquelle la pauvreté serait une cause déterminante du projet migratoire (Kayser,
1977). Soutenir le développement des espaces d'origine devrait permettre aux
candidats à l'exil de rester, alors que toutes les études montrent que la pauvreté
n'est pas un motif isolé de départ et que le développement lui-même peut
favoriser de nouvelles migrations (de Haas, 2015 ; Gubert, 2019). Au début des
années 2000, alors que les dynamiques transnationales sont scrutées à la fois
sur le plan sécuritaire et en termes de réduction des inégalités, les remises finan-
cières des diasporas sont placées au centre de l'attention mondiale (Monsutti,
2008). Ces montants faramineux, visibilisés par l'usage de canaux plus formels,
attisent les convoitises et sont désignés comme instruments pour lutter contre
la pauvreté. Mais cette unité de vue à tous les niveaux de gouvernance ne peut
cacher cette contradiction sans cesse réactualisée : « réduire les risques que les
flux migratoires occasionnent pour les personnes en mouvement comme pour
les États tout en soutenant les effets positifs des migrations internationales sur
le développement des pays du Sud » (Monsutti, 2008 : 24). Ce mythe devenu
mondial alimente une dépolitisation, de plus en plus diffuse, usant de toutes les
ficelles pour faire advenir une « gestion des migrations » au prétendu service du
développement (Pécoud, 2014 et 2017).

Terme forgé par l'Occident au sortir de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le « déve-
lopment » s'ancre dans un système de croyances façonnées à l'aune de la
modernité, du capitalisme et de la colonialité du pouvoir (Rist, 1996 ; Latouche,
1998 ; Le Petitcorps et Desille, 2020). S'il est admis que les migrations sont
vectrices de transformations sociales et participent de la réalisation de soi,
des dimensions restent moins documentées, comme celle de la manière dont
les individus en migration conçoivent l'idée de développement, selon quelle
articulation entre engagement individuel et dynamique collective, quelle

<footnote n="1">1 Géographe, maîtresse de conférences, INU Champollion, Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès, CNRS, LISST, Toulouse, France ; stephanie.lima@univ-jfc.fr</footnote>
# La relation migration-développement au prisme des localités : rétrospective d'une tension continue entre politisation et dépolitisation au Mali

Stéphanie Lima<fnref n="1" />

Dès les années 1960, alors que s'opère le renversement des circulations migra-
toires à l'échelle de la planète (Simon, 2008), la mise en lien entre migration
internationale et développement prend sa source dans une simplification, selon
laquelle la pauvreté serait une cause déterminante du projet migratoire (Kayser,
1977). Soutenir le développement des espaces d'origine devrait permettre aux
candidats à l'exil de rester, alors que toutes les études montrent que la pauvreté
n'est pas un motif isolé de départ et que le développement lui-même peut
favoriser de nouvelles migrations (de Haas, 2015 ; Gubert, 2019). Au début des
années 2000, alors que les dynamiques transnationales sont scrutées à la fois
sur le plan sécuritaire et en termes de réduction des inégalités, les remises finan-
cières des diasporas sont placées au centre de l'attention mondiale (Monsutti,
2008). Ces montants faramineux, visibilisés par l'usage de canaux plus formels,
attisent les convoitises et sont désignés comme instruments pour lutter contre
la pauvreté. Mais cette unité de vue à tous les niveaux de gouvernance ne peut
cacher cette contradiction sans cesse réactualisée : « réduire les risques que les
flux migratoires occasionnent pour les personnes en mouvement comme pour
les États tout en soutenant les effets positifs des migrations internationales sur
le développement des pays du Sud » (Monsutti, 2008 : 24). Ce mythe devenu
mondial alimente une dépolitisation, de plus en plus diffuse, usant de toutes les
ficelles pour faire advenir une « gestion des migrations » au prétendu service du
développement (Pécoud, 2014 et 2017).

Terme forgé par l'Occident au sortir de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le « déve-
lopment » s'ancre dans un système de croyances façonnées à l'aune de la
modernité, du capitalisme et de la colonialité du pouvoir (Rist, 1996 ; Latouche,
1998 ; Le Petitcorps et Desille, 2020). S'il est admis que les migrations sont
vectrices de transformations sociales et participent de la réalisation de soi,
des dimensions restent moins documentées, comme celle de la manière dont
les individus en migration conçoivent l'idée de développement, selon quelle
articulation entre engagement individuel et dynamique collective, quelle

<footnote n="1">1 Géographe, maîtresse de conférences, INU Champollion, Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès, CNRS, LISST, Toulouse, France ; stephanie.lima@univ-jfc.fr</footnote>