Advertisement

Introduction

  • Federica InfantinoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The visa—an authorization to cross borders—is a recent invention. The history of visas is strictly interrelated to the constitution of modern nation-states. The Schengen visa is noticeable since it is issued by one state, but it authorizes entry in an area of more than one nation-state, in which internal frontiers have been lifted. The Schengen visa has been analyzed as a policy instrument of European migration control. However, the day-to-day implementation in comparative perspective remained a ‘black box’. This study focuses on the implementation of EU visa policy in the consulates of Belgium, France, and Italy in Morocco. It does so in original manners. First, it uses a ‘comprehensive implementation approach’ by taking account of the local, national, and supranational locations of Schengen visa policy-making. Second, it builds on in-depth pioneering fieldwork and a comparative research design that includes those three locations. The research design has determined the evolving of the puzzle and the realizing of the unanticipated: Cross-national differences diminish when policy is put into practice. Before outlining the content of the book, I highlight the findings as well as their contribution to implementation studies, comparative policy studies, migration studies, and European studies.

Keywords

Schengen visa Policy implementation Migration control Bordering Bureaucracy Transnational comparison 

References

  1. Albert, M., & Brock, L. (1996). Debordering the World of States: New Spaces in International Relations. New Political Science, 35, 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpes, M. J., & Spire, A. (2014). Dealing with Law in Migration Control: The Powers of Street-Level Bureaucrats at French Consulates. Social & Legal Studies, 23(2), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, S. H. (1996). Toward the Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and Human Development (pp. 53–70). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, J. (1992). Discretionary Decision-Making: A Jurisprudential View. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 89–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, C. J. (1991). What Is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? British Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2003). La mise à l’écart des étrangers: la logique du visa Schengen. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  7. Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2006). Polizia a distanza. Le frontiere mobili e i confini di carta dell’Unione Europea. Conflitti Globali, 2, 58–76.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, D., Jeandesboz, J., Ragazzi, F., & Bonditti, P. (2011). Borders and Security: The Different Logics of Surveillance in Europe. In S. Bonjour, A. Rea, & D. Jacobs (Eds.), The Others in Europe (pp. 77–86). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  9. Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2000). When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change (EUI Working Papers. RSC 2000/56). Italy: European University Institute. Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brodkin, E. Z. (1987). Policy Politics: If We Can’t Govern, Can We Manage? Political Science Quarterly, 102, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodkin, E. Z. (1990). Implementation as Policy Politics. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box (pp. 107–118). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brodkin, E. Z. (2008). Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Calavita, K. (1992). Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the INS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Castles, S. (2004). The Factors That Make and Unmake Migration Policies. International Migration Review, 38(3), 852–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the Problem of Reading Instruction: Using Frame Analysis to Uncover the Microprocesses of Policy Implementation in Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colombo, A., & Sciortino, G. (2004). Italian Immigration: The Origins, Nature and Evolution of Italian Migratory Systems. Journal of Italian Modern Studies, 9(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Della Porta, D. (2008). Case Selection in Case-Oriented Versus Variable-Oriented Research. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 192–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dicey, A. V. (1915). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2017). Passing the Buck? Analyzing the Delegation of Discretion After Transposition of European Union Law. Regulation & Governance.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12153.
  23. Dubois, V. (1999). La vie au guichet. Relation administrative et traitement de la misère. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  24. Dubois, V. (2010). Politique au guichets, politique du guichet. In O. Borraz & V. Guiraudon (Eds.), Politiques publiques. 2, Changer la société (pp. 265–286). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  25. Duina, F. (1997). Explaining Legal Implementation. The European Union International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25(2), 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duina, F. (1999). Nations-States Within the Common Market. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  27. Duina, F., & Blithe, F. (1999). Nations-States and Common Markets: The Institutional Conditions for Acceptance. Review of International Political Economy, 6(4), 494–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Edelman, L. B. (1990). Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in American Workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 95(6), 1401–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellerman, A. (2009). States Against Migrants: Deportation in Germany and the US. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Emerson, R. (1983). Holistic Effects in Social Control Decision-Making. Law and Society Review, 17, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Emerson, R., & Paley, B. (1992). Organizational Horizons and Complaint-Filing. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 231–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Eule, T. G., Loher, D., & Wyss, A. (2017). Contested Control at the Margins of the State. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(16), 2717–2729.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1401511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Falkner, G., & Treib, O. (2008). Three Worlds of Compliance or Four? The EU-15 Compared to New Member States. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Falkner, G., Treib, O., & Holzleithner, E. (Eds.). (2008). Compliance in the Enlarged Europe: A World of Dead Letters? Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. Favell, A., & Guiraudon, V. (2011). Sociology of European Union. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Feldman, M. S. (1992). Social Limits to Discretion: An Organizational Perspective. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 163–183). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  40. Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2005). The Reconstitution of Law in Local Settings: Agency Discretion, Ambiguity, and a Surplus of Law in the Policing of Hate Crime. Law & Society Review, 39(4), 893–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Graziano, P., & Vink, M. (Eds.). (2007). Europeanization: New Research Agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  42. Guild, E. (2001). Moving the Borders of Europe. Inaugural Lecture, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. https://cmr.jur.ru.nl/cmr/docs/oratie.eg.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2018.
  43. Guiraudon, V. (2000), European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy‐making as Venue Shopping. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38, 251–271.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00219.Google Scholar
  44. Guiraudon, V. (2003). Before the EU Border: Remote Control of the “Huddled Masses”. In K. Groenendijk, E. Guild, & P. Minderhoud (Eds.), In Search of Europe’s Borders (pp. 191–214). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  45. Guiraudon, V. (2007). Anti-discrimination Policy. In P. Graziano & M. Vink (Eds.), Europeanization: A Handbook for a New Research Agenda (pp. 295–308). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Guiraudon, V., & Joppke, C. (Eds.). (2001). Controlling a New Migration World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Guiraudon, V., & Lahav, G. (2000). A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate Revisited: The Case of Migration Control. Comparative Political Studies, 33(2), 163–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hassenteufel, P. (2005). De la comparaison internationale à la comparaison transnationale. Les déplacements de la construction d’objets comparatifs en matière de politiques publiques. Revue française de science politique, 55(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hassenteufel, P., & Surel, Y. (2000). Des politiques comme les autres? Construction de l’objet et outils d’analyse des politiques européennes. Politiques européennes, 1, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hawkins, K. (1992). The Use of the Legal Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 11–46). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as a Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Héritier, A., Kerwer, D., Knill, C., Lehmkuhl, D., & Teutsch, M. (2001). Differential Europe: The European Union Impact on National Policymaking. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  53. Herzfeld, M. (1992). The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracies. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Jileva, E. (2003). La mise en œuvre de Schengen: la délivrance des visas en Bulgarie. In D. Bigo & E. Guild (Eds.), La mise à l’écart des étrangers: les effets du visa Schengen (pp. 42–59). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  55. Jordan, B., Stråth, B., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2003). Contextualising Immigration Policy Implementation in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(2), 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (1998). Change as Appropriate Adaptation: Administrative Adjustment to European Environmental Policy in Britain and Germany. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 2(1). https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/26717/Knill_267176.pdf?sequence=2. Accessed 15 February 2018.
  58. Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (Eds.). (2000). Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and Old Problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House.Google Scholar
  60. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of Individuals in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  61. Manning, P. K., & Hawkins, K. (1990). Legal Decision: A Frame Analytic Perspective. In M. Weatheritt (Ed.), Policy Research: Where Now? (pp. 139–156). Farnborough: Gower.Google Scholar
  62. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  63. Palumbo, D. J., & Calista, D. J. (1990). Opening Up the Black Box: Implementation and the Policy Process. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box (pp. 3–18). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pratt, A. C. (1999). Dunking the Doughnut: Discretionary Power, Law and the Administration of the Canadian Immigration Act. Social & Legal Studies, 8(2), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland: Or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  67. Radaelli, C. (2002). The Domestic Impact of European Union Public Policy: Notes on Concepts, Methods, and Challenge of Empirical Research. Politique européenne, 1(5), 107–142.Google Scholar
  68. Rea, A. (2009). Laisser circuler, laisser enfermer: les orientations paradoxales d’une politique migratoire débridée en Europe. In C. Kobelinsky & S. Makaremi (Eds.), Enfermés dehors: Enquête sur le confinement des étrangers (pp. 265–280). Paris: Editions du Croquant.Google Scholar
  69. Satzewich, V. (2015). Points of Entry: How Canada’s Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In. Toronto: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  70. Schain, M. (2008). The Politics of Immigration in France, Britain, and the United States: A Comparative Study. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scheel, S. (2017). Real Fake? Appropriating Mobility Via Schengen Visa in the Context of Biometric Border Controls. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1401513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Spire, A. (2008). Accueillir ou reconduire. Enquête sur les guichets de l’immigration. Paris: Raisons d’Agir, Seuil.Google Scholar
  74. Sverdrup, U. (2007). Policy Implementation. In P. Graziano & M. Vink (Eds.), Europeanization: A Handbook for a New Research Agenda (pp. 197–211). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Torpey, J. (2000). The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wedel, J. R., Shore, C., Feldman, G., & Lathrop, S. (2005). Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 600(1), 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weller, J. M. (1999). L’État au guichet: sociologie cognitive du travail et modernisation administrative des services publics. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.Google Scholar
  78. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zampagni, F. (2013). Who Moves? Schengen Visa Policies and Implementation in Consulates. A Fieldwork Study from the Embassy of Italy in Senegal (PhD dissertation). Università di Pisa.Google Scholar
  80. Zolberg, A. (1999). Matters of State: Theorizing Immigration Policy. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience (pp. 71–93). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FNRSUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations