The Threat of a Crisis Frontex’ Reputation Management During the European Migration Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Master Thesis The Threat of a Crisis Frontex’ Reputation Management during the European Migration Crisis Heleen van der Donck s2094295 Heleen van der Donck [email protected] Supervisors: Dr. E.M. Busuioc | [email protected] Dr. D. Rimkutė | [email protected] Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs MSc Public Administration International and European Governance 10 / 08 / 2018 H. vd Donck - s2093294 I. Foreword This is it! My thesis on how Frontex deals with reputational threats during the European migration crisis. This is the end product of my MSc degree of Public Administration, and part of the specialization International and European Governance. I’d like to thank my supervisors, Madaline Busuioc and Dovile Rimkute, for their valuable feedback. A thank you to my capstone partners, Mark Heemskerk and Floran van Amelsfort, for struggling with me, answering my phone calls, and providing a great place for discussion. A great thank you to my parents, Diana Michel and Robert-Jan van der Donck, and my brother, Jeroen van der Donck, for their endless support and love, and for offering a quiet workspace for me to write this thing. May this not scathe my reputation! August 2018, Nijmegen 1 H. vd Donck - s2093294 II. Table of Contents I. Foreword 1 II. Table of Contents 2 III. List of Abbreviations 4 IV. List of Tables & Figures 5 1. Introduction 6 2. Literature Review 11 2.1 Bureaucratic reputation theory 11 2.2 Audiences 11 2.3 Reputational Threats 12 2.4 Reputational Dimensions 13 2.5 Reputation Management 14 2.6 Conclusion 17 3. Theoretical Framework 19 3.1 Dimensions of Reputation 19 3.1.1 The Performative Dimension 19 3.1.2 The Moral Dimension 20 3.1.3 The Procedural Dimension 20 3.1.4 The Technical Dimension 21 3.2 Reputational Threats & Media 21 3.3 Managing Reputational Threats 22 4. Methodology 27 2.1 Operationalizing the dependent variable: reputation management 28 2.2 Operationalizing the independent variable: reputational threats 29 2.2.1 Data Collection 30 2.2.2 Coding 31 2.3 Difference in operationalization dependent and independent variables 32 2.4 Threats to inference 33 5. Frontex, an overview 35 5.1 The Origin of Frontex 35 5.2 Mandate and Weaknesses 36 5.2.1 Implications of Decentralization 38 5.3 Criticisms of Frontex 38 2 H. vd Donck - s2093294 6. Results and Empirical Analysis 39 6.1 Independent variable (Reputational Threats) 39 6.1.1 Results 2013 39 6.1.2 Results 2014 41 6.1.3 Results 2015 43 6.1.4 Results 2016 46 6.1.5 Overall trends 48 6.2 Dependent variable (Reputation Management) 51 6.2.1 Results 2013 52 6.2.2 Results 2014 52 6.2.3 Results 2015 53 6.2.4 Results 2016 54 6.2.5 Overall Trends 54 7. Discussion & Conclusion 58 8. Bibliography 62 9. Appendices 68 3 H. vd Donck - s2093294 III. List of Abbreviations AAR Annual Activity Report AD Algemeen Dagblad EU European Union EUROSUR European Border Surveillance System FDA Food and Drug Administration Frontex Before 14-09-2016: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union Since 14-09-2016: European Border and Coast Guard Agency FD Financieele Dagblad GE Germany IBM Integrated Border Management JO Joint Operation NL The Netherlands RABIT Rapid Border Intervention Team UK The United Kingdom 4 H. vd Donck - s2093294 IV. List of Tables & Figures Tables Table 1 Keywords - Busuioc & Rimkute, 2018 29 Table 2 Scoring Results 2013 40 Table 3 Scoring Results 2014 41 Table 4 Scoring Results 2015 44 Table 5 Scoring Results 2016 46 Table 6 Count Distribution - sorted per year 55 Figures Figure 1 Distribution of Reputational Threats - 2013 40 Figure 2 Distribution 2014, sorted per country 42 Figure 3 Distribution of Reputational threats - 2014 43 Figure 4 Distribution of all articles in 2014, as counted 43 Figure 5 Distribution of Reputational Threats - 2015 45 Figure 6 Distribution 2016, sorted per country 47 Figure 7 Distribution of Reputational Threats - 2016 47 Figure 8 Development of the Intensity of Media Coverage & Reputational Threats 48 Figure 9 Total number of negatively coded articles, sorted by year 49 Figure 10 Total distribution of counted categories 50 Figure 11 Total Distribution of Counted Reputational Threats 50 Figure 12 Distribution of Reputation Management in 2013 52 Figure 13 Distribution of Reputation Management in 2014 53 Figure 14 Distribution of Reputation Management in 2015 53 Figure 15 Distribution of Reputation Management in 2016 54 Figure 16 Distribution of Dimensions of Reputation per Year - in percentages 55 Figure 17 Development of the Procedural Reputation 56 Figure 18 Distribution of Dimensions of Reputation per year - count 57 Figure 19 The Development of the Performative Reputation 57 5 H. vd Donck - s2093294 1. Introduction In 2015, 1.83 million irregular border crossings were registered at the external borders of the European Union (EU), and roughly 1.25 million people applied for asylum (“Migration and Asylum”, 2018). Over 1 million people arrived by sea, of which 3,771 people drowned in the Mediterranean (“Data Portal Mediterranean Situation”, 2018). Frontex, the European Border and Coastguard Agency, was heavily scrutinized for its lack of action in this period (The Economist, 2015). This kind of scrutiny can have serious consequences for the reputation of an agency, which in turn has consequences on the agency’s ability to cooperate with other organizations or receive funds (Carpenter, 2010, p. 49). The significant increase of refugee arrivals in Europe in 2015 led to a rise in media attention for the migration crisis, and in turn for Frontex. In 2014 only 216,000 refugees arrived in Europe, just under a quarter of the refugees that would arrive in 2015 (“Data Portal Mediterranean Situation”, 2018). With the start of the civil war in Syria in 2011, an increasing number of refugees made it to Europe, often travelling over the mediterranean sea, going from Turkey to Greece, or from Libya to Italy. In 2013 the Italian navy launched an operation called Mare Nostrum to tackle the humanitarian crisis that was happening in the Strait of Sicily. The aim of the operation was to provide security and protection for the people crossing the sea, and tackling smuggler networks and human trafficking (“Mare Nostrum Operation”, 2017). While this operation was very effective, it was also very expensive, and in 2014 Italy decided to shut it down (“Mare Nostrum Operation”, 2017). Frontex took over their mission and started Operation Triton (ANSA, 2014). They had to work with less funds and in a smaller scope of operation than Italy was operating in, which led to significant backlash (Davies, 2014). In a short amount of time Frontex went from being a relatively unknown agency, to becoming a central agency in the European debate on the migration crisis. The height of the crisis in 2015 brought ample amounts of negative 6 H. vd Donck - s2093294 attention to Frontex. European agencies, such as Frontex, have become an important part of the EU’s architectural set up, and are the most rapidly emerging institutional entities at the EU level (Busuioc, 2012, p. 719). There are currently more than 30 agencies operation in Europe in various areas of expertise and policy. Keleman (2002) explains that the emergency of decentralized agencies, of which Frontex is also an example, has come forth out of a political compromise between the European Commission, and the Member States. The Commission wanted to expand the EU’s regulatory capacity, and thus create more power for itself and the Union as a whole. The Member States, however, wished to maintain intergovernmental control. A solution was to decentralize certain agencies, away from Brussels (Keleman, 2002, p. 99). Not only have EU agencies increased rapidly, literature on these agencies has also grown since the first essay collection published in 1997 (Rittberger & Wonka, 2011). According to Rittberger & Wonka (2011) the literature that has developed on this topic since then, can be divided into three different thematic threads. The first thread discusses how regulatory bodies in the EU came to be, and how their design became the way it is now. This strand also discusses the dynamics of the origin, and explores alternatives to the agency format. The second body of work discusses what happens after agencies are established. It explores the consequences and the trajectories of governance with and and by EU agencies. The third and last thread encompasses the research that questions the legitimacy and accountability of EU agencies, that are seen as independent, non-majoritarian institutions (Rittberger & Wonka, 2011, p.780). Not only has the amount EU agencies increased over recent years, the power the have has increased as well. At first, agencies would provide information or have executive power, but recently, agencies are increasingly gaining operational and decision-making powers. Sometimes agencies even seem to have a certain amount of regulatory power (Busuioc 2012, p. 719). This is also the case with Frontex, whose mandate changed a lot in recent years, and included an increase of their powers, 7 H. vd Donck - s2093294 beyond information sharing and executing EU policy. However, the an increase in decision-making powers for EU agencies has an effect on the democratic character of these agencies. The distance from the EU decision-making platforms might allow agencies to escape accountability and control, which would further increase the democratic deficit already present in the EU (Busuioc, 2009, p. 600). Unfortunately, the distance and disconnect from the influence of representative EU institutions is necessary for agencies to be able to operate.