“Glocal” Public Policy in Times of Global Migration

  • Anja Mihr


Migrants are policy brokers that change domestic public policy processes, turning them more global and more local at the same time. “Glocal” policy thinking and making have challenged and shifted priorities in the domestic and democratically driven policy processes around the world. In this chapter it will be argued that working migrants, asylum seekers, trafficked person, or refugees are willingly or unwillingly key actors and advocates within the advocacy coalition framework that change not only belief and policy learning systems but the whole concept of domestic and democratic public policy making. Despite the fact that most migrants do not enjoy full citizenship of the country they enter, live, and work in, but nevertheless they are full part of the labor and service market and possess democratic and legitimacy deficits on public policy systems. These deficits can be best overcome by policy makers when adhering to global norms and standards and by allowing local actors and cities to apply to them while migrants are becoming a more inclusive part of the public policy cycle


Global governance “Glocal” public policy Migration Human rights 


  1. Aguirre, V. R. (2006). The role of non-state actors in multistakeholder diplomacy. In J. Kurbalija & V. Katrandjiev (Eds.), Multistakeholder diplomacy, challenges and opportunities (pp. 85–95). Geneva: Diplo Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bauder, H. (2015). Perspectives of open border and no-border. Geography Compass, 9(7), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bens, J., & Zenker, O. (2017). Gerechtigkeitsgefühle: Zur effektiven und emotionalen Legitimität von Normen. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  4. Brettell, C. B. (2012). Deciding to jump: Immigration, gender and civic engagement. In K. R. Khorty (Ed.), Global migration, challenges in the twenty-first century (pp. 129–141). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. L. (2012). Globalization and sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy and constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, W. K. D. (2015). Theme cities: Solutions for urban problems. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dower, N., & Williams, J. (2002). Global citizenship: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Enderlein, H., Walti, S., & Zürn, M. (2012). Handbook of multi-level governance. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2017). Global approach to migration and mobility (GAMM). European Commission. Retrieved December 2017, from
  10. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Region. The global approach to migration and mobility, COM 2011, 743 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. EU Commission Migration Policy Priorities. (2017). Towards a European agenda on migration. Retrieved May 2018, from
  12. Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis, theory, politics and methods. London: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Goldin, I. (2011). Exceptional people: How migration shaped our world and will define our future. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goodin, R. E., Moran, M., & Rein, M. (2006). The public and its policies. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 19–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hay, C. (2008). Globalization and public policy, chapter 29. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 587–605). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Held, D. (2005). Democracy and the global order, form the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hollifield, J. F. (2012). Governing migration. In K. R. Khory (Ed.), Global migration: Challenges in the twenty-first century (pp. 184–201). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Hurrell, A. (2008). On global order: Power, values and the constitution of international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ignatieff, M. (2017). The ordinary virtues: Moral order in a divided world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khorty, K. R. (2012). Global migration, challenges in the twenty-first century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Koslowski, R. (2004, October). Possible steps towards an international regime for mobility and security. Global migration perspectives, no. 8, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. Krivenko, E. Y. (2017). Rethinking human rights and global constitutionalism: From inclusion to belonging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larason Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (2007). Public policy and democratic citizenship: What kinds of citizenship does policy promote. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & S. Mara (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis, theory, politics and methods (pp. 228–245). London: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when how. New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
  25. Manou, D., Baldwin, A., Cubie, D., Mihr, A., & Thorp, T. (Eds.). (2017). Climate change, migration and human rights, law and policy perspectives (Routledge studies in environment migration, displacement and resettlements). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Mareck, M. (2014). Global, local or glocal? The debate continues. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Massey, D., et al. (2009). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. McBeth, M. K., Jones, D., & Shanahan, E. A. (2014). The narrative policy framework. In S. Paul & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 225–266). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mihr, A. (2017). Climate justice, migration and human rights. In D. Manou, A. Baldwin, D. Cubie, A. Mihr, & T. Thorp (Eds.), Climate change, migration and human rights, law and policy perspectives (Routledge studies in environment migration, displacement and resettlements) (pp. 45–67). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1981). Effective policy implementation. London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. New York Times. (2017, 6 February). What are sanctuary cities. Retrieved December 2017, from
  32. North, D. N., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2017). Interrelation between public policy, migration and development, Paris. Retrieved December 2017, from
  34. Peilin, L., & Roulleau-Berger, L. (2013). China’s internal and international migration. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pogge, T. (2008). Global justice, seminal essays. London: Paragnon House.Google Scholar
  36. Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (2010). The United Nations global compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reinicke, W. (1997, November/December). Global public policy. Foreign Affairs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Risse, T. & Lehmkuhl, U. (2006). Governance in areas of limited statehood - new modes of governance? Berlin: SFB 700.Google Scholar
  39. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-orientated learning therein (pp. 129–168). Policy science no. 21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of policy process (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights, international law in domestic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The Guardian. (2017, 5 March). Chinese premier warns world entering period of political and economic upheaval, p. 5.Google Scholar
  43. UN Global Compact for Migration. (2016). Retrieved December 2017, from
  44. UN Development Programme. (2012). Multi-stakeholder decision-making, a guidebook. New York.Google Scholar
  45. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs International Migration Report. (2015). Highlights, New York, 2016, Doc ST/ESA/SER.A/375. Retrieved December 2017, from
  46. UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved December 2017, from
  47. UN Sustainable Development Goals. (2015). Agenda 2030. New York.Google Scholar
  48. Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2007). A guide to the advocacy coalition framework, chapter 9. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis, theory, politics and methods (pp. 124–125). London: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Weible, C. M. (2014). Introducing the scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of policy process (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). Philadelphia: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja Mihr
    • 1
  1. 1.Center on Governance Through Human RightsHUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Governance PlatformBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations