![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article advances accounts of expertise as a source of power in migration governance by examining how the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has cultivated authority as a logistical expert. Analyses of expert authority in global governance have traditionally focused on the production and control of information, particularly research and data. In contrast, this study demonstrates that logistical expertise was pivotal to the organisation’s early successes and long-term survival, and shows how logistical prowess and values associated with the logistical frame – such as efficiency and flexibility – have underpinned IOM’s expansion in significant ways. Drawing on extensive archival research and in-depth interviews, the article traces how IOM’s logistical operations have diversified over time, from interventions explicitly intended to facilitate the movement of (selected) migrants to a contemporary focus on a much wider range of activities such as humanitarian aid, returns, and data collection, that apply logistical techniques to manage or control mobility. The contribution is two-fold. First, the article advances understanding of IOM as an increasingly influential player in global migration governance by offering a concertedly historicised perspective focused on its logistical activities and identity. Second, by bringing scholarship on expertise and critical logistics into conversation, this work illuminates how logistics functions as a form of expertise, and demonstrates the power, risks and limitations of logistics as a source of expert authority in migration governance.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the participants in the Challenging Mobility Governance workshop, convened by the Wits-Oxford Mobility Governance Lab, for their helpful comments. Thank you also to the many archivists and interview participants who assisted with this work, and to Elisa Gilliet for her research assistance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Interview, member state official 4, December 2016.
2. Interview, IOM official 9, November 2015.
3. US NARA materials were accessed under Declassification Review Project NND 862 920.
4. The interviews were anonymised in order to enable open discussion of potentially sensitive institutional issues. In lieu of identifying details, interview participants are referred to by number. Approval for the interview protocol was obtained from the McGill University Research Ethics Board, REB 199–1015.
5. Interview, IOM official 5, November 2015.
6. Interview, member state official 7, December 2016.
7. Interview, IOM official 4, November 2015.
8. Interview, IOM official 2, November 2015.
9. Interview, member state official 1, November 2015.
10. Interview, IOM official 1, November 2015.
11. Interview, IOM official 8, November 2015.
12. Interview, member state official 6, December 2015.
13. Interview, IOM official 8, November 2015.
14. Interview, human rights advocate 5, December 2015.
15. Interview, independent expert 8, April 2020; Interview, human rights advocate 1, November 2015.
16. Interview, humanitarian NGO worker 4, November 2015; Interview, human rights advocate 7, December 2016.
17. Interview, IOM official 9, November 2018.
18. Interview, independent expert 8, April 2020.
19. Interviews, UN and humanitarian NGO officials, 2015, 2016, 2019.
20. Interview, IOM official 1, November 2015.
21. Interviews with UN and humanitarian NGO officials, and human rights advocates, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2021.
22. Interview, IOM official 1, November 2015.
23. Interview, IOM official 1, November 2015.
24. Interview, human rights advocate 4, November 2015. On this dynamic more generally, see e.g. (MOPAN Citation2019).
25. Interview, human rights advocate 5, December 2015.
26. Interview, human rights advocate 10, December 2016.
27. Interview, UN official 13, July 2021.
28. Interview, human rights official 10, December 2016.
29. Interview, humanitarian NGO official 3, November 2015.
30. Interview, human rights advocate 3, November 2015.
31. Interview, humanitarian NGO official 6, November 2015.
32. Interview, human rights advocate 5, December 2015. On this dynamic, see also (Tazzioli Citation2022).
33. Interviews, humanitarian NGO official 6, November 2015; human rights advocate 2, November 2015; human rights advocate 5, December 2015. On this issue, see also (Koch Citation2023).
34. Interview, human rights advocate 5, December 2015.
35. Interview, member state official 6, December 2016.
36. Interview, member state official 7, December 2016.
37. Interview, member state official 7, December 2016.
38. Interview, IOM official 11, November 2015.
39. Interview, IOM official 9, November 2015.
40. Interviews, member state officials 6, 7, 9, 10, December 2016; member state official 11, July 2017.
41. Interview, IOM official 19, October 2019.
42. Interview, IOM official 2, November 2015.
43. Interview, member state official 7, December 2016.
44. Interview, humanitarian NGO official 6, November 2015; Interview, IOM official 6, November 2015. See also IOM Citation2019.
45. Interview, IOM official 13, November 2015.
46. While accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse is a challenge across the humanitarian sector, Johansson (Citation2023) suggests that IOM’s institutional mechanisms to address this problem remain at an early stage of development.