When we talk about migration and the meaning of borders, we address a global issue that no single discipline can fully grasp on its own. This was the reason for Professor Stephanie Hofmann and Professor Andrew Geddes to join efforts and organise a conference focussing on bridging fields of study with the Legon Centre for International Affairs and Diplomacy.
As Stephanie Hofmann explains, “A migration scholar asks different questions from a security scholar, but the two fields complement and challenge one another.”
This past October, researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds and at different stages of their careers gathered in Accra to explore the meanings and effects of borders in African and international politics. In this joint interview, they reflect on their insights and share key takeaways.
Why was the focus on borders? What is the history and meaning of borders?
Andrew: International migration is defined by the presence of borders, but here we run the risk of being overly Eurocentric. We tend to focus on territorial boundaries, state borders, and borders related to labour markets or welfare systems. However, in Africa, borders are much more fluid, deeply contested, and carry meanings that differ significantly from the way we typically discuss them. This means their relationship to contemporary policy and politics often takes a different direction from the debates we have in Europe.
Therefore, this challenges some of the fundamental assumptions that we might hold central to migration studies, especially if we adopt an overly narrow or scattered perspective focused on high-income countries. When studying international migration, we also study the meaning of borders—and how these meanings change over time.
Stephanie: The term ‘international’ refers to relationships between states and therefore draws our attention to borders. We took the conference as an opportunity to reflect not only on physical and legal borders, but also discuss technological, political, social and affective borders. By exploring these different concepts of borders, we questioned the way politicians often frame and discuss them.
It was therefore great to have a diverse group of scholars attending the conference. We had lawyers, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, as well as climate and agricultural experts. The variety of backgrounds and fields was very important.
How is the nexus between (in)security and migration connected to the presence of African borders?
Stephanie: A migration scholar asks different questions from a security scholar, but the two fields challenge one another, and emphasise the role of borders. This is why we wanted to focus on this nexus in the first place, which is something that emerged naturally through our discussions.
What I found particularly fascinating, especially during the conference, was how we explored the various ways of communication among migrants. This emphasised securities and insecurities that can arise along migration pathways. For example, based on their ethnographic research and focus groups, many researchers highlighted that migrating without a passport can sometimes feel more secure and even be economically cheaper. Without a passport to display, migrants may appear less vulnerable to bribery, leading to lower demands for bribes. This was counter-intuitive to me.
Other conference participation enabled us to discuss how pastoral groups that live along borders where there is currently war (such as at the border between Sudan and Ethiopia) communicate with one another.
Andrew: There is a lot of focus at the macro level on the nexus of migration, security, and insecurity.
What we achieved at this conference was bringing together researchers who could narrate how this nexus works at the household level. We discussed how decisions are made during migration journeys: how people travel through regular and irregular routes, what these routes mean, where they move to, where they move onward from, and how they stay connected with family members. This approach to narrating the nexus shifted the focus away from what can sometimes feel like catastrophising. Discussions about migration, insecurity, climate change, and mass displacement often dominate, but this research grounded the discussion in the lived experiences of people who move.
Migration is not always driven by crisis or disaster. Often, it is motivated by the same aspirations that many Europeans take for granted — seeking better opportunities and using migration as a means to achieve them. This perspective offered a fresh way of thinking about the nexus.
African scholars, in particular, do not take this kind of catastrophising lens. We know that most migration in Africa is within Africa, it is regional. Those maps with large arrows pointing from Africa to Europe are misleading.
What are some of the key takeaways?
Andrew: What I find particularly interesting is that Africa is a startlingly young continent, with strong identities and a political legacy rooted in Pan-Africanism. We encountered early-career scholars with a clear vision of Pan-African identity and politics, which was fascinating.
Stephanie: For me, one key takeaway is the incredible research happening across the continent on migration and security. That research is an important corrective to the often sensationalised political discourse in Europe about migration from the Global South to the Global North.
It shows that migration is primarily happening within Africa. It also sheds light on how different migration flows are communicated, not just through statistics but through the personal stories of individuals. Unpacking these flows and narratives offered us a richer and more nuanced understanding of migration in the African context.
Stephanie Hofmann is Professor and Joint Chair in International Relations and Director of the ‘Europe in the World’ research area at the Global Governance Programme of the Robert Schuman Centre.
Andrew Geddes is the Director of the Migration Policy Centre of the Robert Schuman Centre.
Learn more about the event.