LAUSR

In line with the recognition of the critical challenges propelled by human mobility, the global governance of migration has become a fundamental issue on the international agenda. In contrast to other transnational issues such as trade and finance, the creation of a United Nations (UN) institutional framework for the governance of migration has followed a complex and uncertain route (Betts, 2010). Derived from the need to discuss pressing issues on the international migration agenda, a broader initiative for building a global migration regime was envisaged at the UN General Assembly in 2006 with its launch of the High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development (UN-HLD). This was conceived of as a formal event with a strong emphasis on policy issues that would be held at the UN headquarters every 7 years. The first UN-HLD gave rise to the creation of a yearly, state-led, non-binding, related Forum, alternatively hosted by migrant-receiving and migrant-sending countries – the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). To provide institutional support for this emerging process, the UN Secretary-General created an interagency coordinating mechanism, the Global Migration Group, integrating 15 entities of the UN system. It is important to note that the World Bank (WB) has stood as a key member of this Group playing a leadership role in establishing the dominant framework within which the debates surrounding the migration-development nexus have been entrenched. These debates have been marked by a dispute between two competing and contrasting positions. The first one, which underlines the rationale of mainstream migration policies promoted by the WB, has been conceptualised as migration management (Ghosh, 2008). Under the umbrella of an apparently ‘neutral’ notion, new narratives have been promoted. The attempt is to ‘depoliticise’ migration, obfuscate the existence of divergent interests, asymmetries of power or conflicts, avoid obligations imposed by international law and promote the idea that managing migration can be beneficial for all stakeholders: countries of destination, countries of origin, migrants themselves and their families. This unrealistic triple-win scenario clearly favours the interests of the migrant-receiving