The politics of numbers. Framing intra-EU migrants in the Netherlands

Mark Van Ostaijen,Peter Scholten

doi:10.1080/19460171.2016.1224725

Abstract

ABSTRACTNumbers and data collection play a key role in political framing. To explore how this works, this article provides a case-study analysis of European mobile workers in the Netherlands. Following the increase of intra-European mobility, European mobile workers have emerged as an important but contested policy target group for receiving countries. This article examines how numbers contributed to the framing process of this topic. This study reveals how frames legitimize the strategic usage of numbers and the indication of issues as problems. This contributes to our understanding of the importance of numbers in the framing process of target groups.

Highlights

At a certain moment we observed a stagnation in the increase of official registrations of intra-European Union (EU) migrants (. . .)
We adopt a constructivist approach in which we focus on political actors and authorities involved in the framing process of ‘intra-European movement’
We focused on a wide variety of data and knowledge producers, such as universities, NGO’s and private research agencies related to this topic such as the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) and the Statistics Office (CBS)

Summary

Introduction

At a certain moment we observed a stagnation in the increase of official registrations of intra-EU migrants (. . .). When a new minister came to office and interpreted the same figures, he said: ‘the amounts are still increasing’. Which are both true, but it’s about how you frame it, you can go any way. Framing is very important in this issue, in a lot of political dossiers, but certainly in this dossier (MCS3). How can we understand the above statement of a Ministerial civil servant and grasp the relevance of numbers in the ‘very important’ issue of framing? Numbers provide an objective means of identifying issues or problems and pinpointing areas for governmental intervention (Niskanen 2007). The methods of quantified data collection (Porter 1995), the selection and definition of items on which data are collected (Jasanoff 2004), as well as the definition of groups involved (Pierce et al 2014; Schneider and Ingram 1997; Yanow 2003) are often much more contested

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion