Externalisation of migration policy and its complex consequences

The Norwegian Labour Party’s recent willingness to discuss establishing asylum centres outside of Europe signals a potential radical change in Norwegian migration policy. The practice of outsourcing European migration management to regions such as the Middle East and Africa—known as externalisation—is far from new. For years, European nations have sought to control migration flows before they reach European borders, often in cooperation with so-called third countries. However, research reveals that these initiatives rarely go as planned. If Norway is to consider a shift in its approach, it must draw on lessons from what has, and hasn’t, worked before.

Externalisation is not just about asylum. It involves measures such as bolstering border controls (even within Africa), information campaigns, and return agreements. Norway has so far focused primarily on the latter, working on return deals with countries like Ethiopia. While such cooperation is important, our research indicates that the outcomes are mixed. Agreements are not always implemented, and their intended effects—such as reducing migration numbers or increasing returns—often fail to materialise. Moreover, the unintended consequences of European migration policies, from border control to deportations, extend well beyond their immediate objectives.

Over the past four years, I have been part of a research project – the EFFEXT project – which examined the impact of European migration policy in partner countries. Our findings show that these policies often trigger ripple effects that reach far beyond their original goals. They complicate local mobility—an essential factor in societal development—and hinder partner nations’ ability to craft policies rooted in their own priorities. Partner countries navigate this fraught political terrain either by altering their strategies to align with European demands or by resisting them outright. Resistance can take the form of outright refusal to sign agreements or, more subtly, by signing deals that are never implemented.

Rippling Effects in Africa

During fieldwork along Ghana’s borders with its neighbours, I observed firsthand how European-funded initiatives have reshaped West African border control. While they have pushed for modernisation and professionalisation, they have also disrupted local community practices and undermined norms. Ghanaian citizens with valid travel documents may now be prevented from crossing the border if they are travelling northward, towards Libya. This not only violates human rights but also contravenes Ghana’s constitution.

Tightened controls have also escalated tensions in border communities. Traditional patterns of movement—long integral to local livelihoods—are increasingly deemed illegal, prompting some to resort to clandestine crossings to avoid bureaucratic hurdles. Meanwhile, Africa’s broader goals of regional mobility, akin to the EU’s internal market, are being sidelined.

European collaboration also affects the balance of power in partner countries. Working with authoritarian regimes can be quicker than working with democracies, where decisions face greater scrutiny. But this raises critical questions: What are the human rights implications of such partnerships? Does enhancing migration management in these countries erode their sovereignty, forcing them to prioritise European over national needs? Furthermore, selective funding creates divisions within these countries, exacerbating internal inequalities. The long-term fallout from European migration strategies not only poses challenges for Africa but also risks damaging Europe’s relationships with its partners in the Middle East and Africa.

Aid and Migration Control

A further complication is that much of European—and Norwegian—migration policy is funded through development aid. This raises profound questions about the purpose and effectiveness of aid. While the answers are not yet clear, we do know how it is perceived. Local organisations we have spoken to report that international aid is increasingly redirected towards migration control rather than addressing their actual needs. This fuels resistance to European influence and undermines trust in aid partnerships.

Where Does Norway Stand?

For Norwegian policymakers contemplating an expanded role in migration management outside Europe, it is vital to rely on established knowledge. Externalisation is a growing field of study, with new insights emerging regularly. While innovative migration policies may offer political rewards, they must be carefully scrutinised, building on past experience to guide future action. This is obvious but bears repeating: externalising migration policy is fraught with complex consequences, with potential short- and long-term rippling effects on migrants, their countries of origin, and the relationships between those countries and Europe—including Norway.