The Role of IOM in a Migration-Negative World
Exclusive interview with Arthur Erken, Regional Director for Europe and central asia
By Elina Silver
Migration has shaped my life in ways I did not fully appreciate until I experienced being a migrant on three different continents, and began paying attention to the politics around it. I grew up in Sweden, once one of the most migration-friendly countries in the world. In 2015, when the Syria crisis sent hundreds of thousands of people across Europe, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt famously stood before the nation and asked Swedes to “open their hearts”. Much of Sweden did. Today, the Sweden Democrats – a party with antisemitic roots, now more commonly perceived as Islamophobic – are the country’s second-largest political force. Immigration has become, singlehandedly, the most polarising topic in Swedish public life.
Against this backdrop, I sought out Arthur Erken after his public lecture at CEU in late 2025. If anyone could answer my questions on how the negative narrative around migration is shaping politics, it would be IOM’s Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia.
IOM and the Narrative Problem
The International Organization for Migration (IOM), a UN agency, is the world’s largest intergovernmental organization dedicated to migration. With offices in over 100 countries, it works across the full spectrum of the field — from emergency humanitarian response to long-term policy development and labour mobility programmes. Erken leads IOM’s operations across Europe and Central Asia, based in Vienna.
During his talk at CEU, Erken’s main point came as a surprise to many: an absolute majority of the migration to Europe is regular. Regular migration is legal, documented, and expected. Yet the public debate and political rhetoric treat migration as a primarily uncontrolled crisis. Italy’s government under Meloni has been vocally anti-migration, but simultaneously expanded its decretoflussi – its annual quota for legal non-EU labour migrants. Sweden’s right-wing government campaigns on restricting immigration while its healthcare and aged care sectors depend on foreign workers to function. It is this contradiction that sits at the heart of European migration politics, and at the heart of this interview.
The Interview
The Stand: In your talk at CEU, you argued that IOM and sympathetic politicians struggle to “sell” the case for regular migration to the public. Why is it so hard to make this argument stick?
Arthur: The benefits of regular migration are clear in evidence but not always visible in the public debate. Migration is a natural and sustainable part of human development. When managed well, migration is a driver of economic development. In Europe specifically, regular migration supports labour markets, demographic imbalance, social security systems and innovation. Yet, these gains are often overshadowed by immediate political pressures or polarized narratives. Even the strongest data struggles to penetrate environments where fear and misinformation dominate. The challenge is not the strength of the argument, but the difficulty of communicating long-term benefits within the short cycles of political debate.
The Stand: How significant is the issue that regular and irregular migrants get generalized into one, and what kinds of problems does this create?
Arthur: This generalization is one of the most challenging dynamics in current migration debates. While the data is clear that around an estimated 90 percent of migration to Europe is regular and only a small share involves mixed or irregular flows, public and political discourse often frames migration through a security-oriented, threat-focused lens.
Importantly, despite often conflicting public narratives, regular migration pathways are in fact expanding. Several Western European countries are increasingly establishing bilateral labour mobility agreements with countries of origin to address critical labour shortages in key sectors. These initiatives demonstrate that well-managed, regular migration can be part of a pragmatic response to demographic and economic challenges.
When all migration is perceived as irregular, governments understandably face pressure to restrict rather than manage mobility, which in turn then weakens support for legal pathways and structured programmes. This fuels misunderstanding, increases stigma, and undermines investments in integration, skills recognition, and labour market initiatives. Policies designed in this climate of fear unfortunately tend to be reactive, fragmented, and less effective, ultimately affecting both migrants and host societies. At the same time, it is still important to acknowledge that irregular migration does not occur in a vacuum. Some people resort to irregular entry because they have no viable alternatives, often fleeing conflict, persecution, or severe insecurity. Treating these movements solely through a lens of irregularity risks overlooking protection needs and international obligations.
The Stand: Several European countries have seen labour-related migration increasingly replaced by refugee-related migration, with many refugees remaining on social benefits for years or even decades. Given this, why do you believe migration can be a solution to labour shortages?
Arthur: Migration remains one of the solutions to labour shortages because the challenge is not the willingness of migrants to work, but the barriers they face. Many asylum-seekers spend years unable to fully participate in the labour market due to legal restrictions linked to their protection status, slow recognition of qualifications, language barriers, and limited support from employers. The length of time a state grants for protection or residence can also determine when and how refugees can access work opportunities, which directly affects their ability to contribute economically. Where these barriers are addressed, outcomes improve markedly. At the same time, labour migration schemes are distinct from refugee protection and are specifically designed to match workers with shortages. Europe’s demographic trends make it clear that without both effective integration and well-managed regular migration pathways, labour gaps will continue to widen.
The Stand: Could better integration of migrants already here — rather than increased migration — be the solution?
Arthur: Integration of migrant workers is essential and must be strengthened, but migrants of working age already residing in countries cannot, on their own, compensate for demographic shifts and structural labour shortages. Effective integration helps migrant workers already in Europe contribute more fully and more quickly, and it is an investment every country should prioritize, for the benefit of both migrants and their host communities. But demographic realities mean that even excellent integration systems cannot produce the number of workers needed in key sectors. The sustainable approach combines strong integration measures with targeted, orderly channels for labour migration.
The Stand: The dominant narrative in many countries is that migration is a threat. What impact does that have on your work?
Arthur: Negative narratives shrink the political space needed to improve migration governance. They slow down reforms that would make systems more predictable and humane, make it harder to expand legal pathways, and divert resources toward countering misinformation and managing tensions at local level. They also affect migrants directly by fostering exclusion, which in turn increases protection and integration needs. In essence, harmful narratives do not just shape perceptions, they directly influence policy decisions, and how quickly progress can be made. This creates a disconnect between public discourse and policy reality: while many governments acknowledge the need for migration to meet labour and demographic needs, political constraints often limit their ability to articulate this openly or translate it into coherent reforms. These challenges are precisely what the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) seeks to address, by providing a shared, evidence-based framework that recognizes migration as a driver of sustainable development and calls on states to expand regular pathways, counter misinformation, and strengthen cooperation. The International Migration Review Forum (IMRF), held at UN HQ in New York in May 2026, reflected this same tension: while most UN member states have reaffirmed their commitments under the GCM, the pace of implementation continues to be shaped by domestic political constraints, particularly around public narratives and regular migration.
The Stand: In your view, what is the most important impact that IOM has?
Arthur: IOM’s work spans the full spectrum of migration, from emergency and humanitarian assistance to long-term development and policy support, reflecting our mandate to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration for the benefit of all. Within this broad mission, an important impact is our ability to turn principles and evidence into practical solutions that help people and strengthen systems. As an intergovernmental organization, we operate at the intersection of evidence-based policy advice, protection, and implementation, and cooperate with different actors at the international, national and local level, such as businesses, civil society, migrant and diaspora organizations and academia, which allows us to support governments in designing sustainable migration pathways in a way that meets governments’ and migrants’ needs, protect vulnerable people, and improve integration and community resilience. The value lies in making migration more humane, more orderly, and more beneficial for both societies and individuals.
The Stand: Do you see IOM’s role changing in the future?
Arthur: Yes, our role is evolving toward more anticipatory, data-driven and partnership-based work. We are increasingly focused on helping governments prepare for demographic, economic and climate-related mobility rather than reacting only to crises. This includes deeper collaboration with academia, greater emphasis on digital tools and evidence, and a stronger leadership role in designing and testing innovative policies including labour mobility and integration models. Our work is becoming more forward-looking, and more interconnected with research and innovation.
The Stand: The press release announcing IOM’s partnership with CEU says it seeks to “bridge the gap between research and practice.” How is that gap experienced from IOM’s side — and what research is most urgently missing?
Arthur: The gap often lies in translating rigorous academic work into actionable tools for field operations and practical guidance for policy. Research can be highly theoretical or fragmented, while programmes and policymakers need timely, relevant and applied insights to design and implement effective measures. Partnerships like this aim to co-produce research that is both academically sound and operationally relevant, informing policy decisions and improving implementation on the ground.
Despite major progress, migration data still faces significant gaps and challenges. Differences in definitions and methods, incomplete time series, and diverse national contexts make it difficult to provide a fully comprehensive picture. Some phenomena - such as informal work, irregular migration, human trafficking, and migrant deaths and disappearances - are often underreported; while complex issues like social cohesion, integration outcomes, intersectional vulnerabilities, emigration and return, as well as the impact of climate change on mobility require additional research. Rapid advances in technology and artificial intelligence also shape migration patterns and governance, creating new data needs and ethical questions. These challenges highlight why continued investment in harmonized, high-quality data and research is essential, not only for practitioners and policymakers but also for scholars seeking to understand and explain migration in all its dimensions.
The Stand: One part of IOM’s partnership with CEU is student projects conducting research for IOM to use. How is IOM involved in these projects, and what results do you expect?
Arthur: IOM contributes by providing technical guidance and thematic expertise to ensure the research is relevant and practical. This includes generating research ideas, advising on methodologies, sharing data where appropriate, facilitating connections with relevant staff or professionals, reviewing outputs, and offering insights from operational experience. While CEU faculty provide academic oversight, IOM ensures the research is linked to policy and programme realities.
I am really excited about our partnership and I expect a lot from it. The first round of student projects in 2025-2026, cover diverse topics and countries, from social cohesion initiatives in Armenia and Tajikistan to strategies for attracting talent to Eastern Europe and examining how climate change influences migration to Europe. Outputs will range from improved evaluation methods and data models to lessons learned and best practices. These findings aim to strengthen evidence-based migration governance overall and may inform programme design, regional and country guidance as well as policy dialogue, supporting practitioners and policymakers in making informed decisions.
The Stand: Finally — what keeps you motivated when the work is this difficult?
Arthur: I am motivated by the combination of human stories and systemic impact. Seeing someone move from vulnerability to stability is deeply meaningful, and knowing that better policy can improve lives at scale keeps me committed. Migration governance is challenging, but it is also one of the few areas where well-designed solutions genuinely create mutual benefits for individuals, communities, and economies. That sense of purpose makes the challenges worthwhile.
This interview was conducted in written form and has been lightly edited for clarity.
