Negative nation branding as a deterrent to migration.

Picture the following: you are the leader of a country. You can perhaps imagine that you want to do your best to improve your country’s reputation. After all, if others have a positive image of your country, it is more likely that investments will be made and that more tourists will visit and bring in money. Through negative negation branding, more and more European countries are trying to portray themselves as an unattractive destination, especially for migrants and asylum seekers. Just look at the Dutch cabinet’s plans to cut housing for migrants, issue only temporary residence permits and introduce border controls. The idea is that these drastic measures will make migrants perceive the Netherlands as an unattractive destination and therefore seek asylum in other countries, but does this actually work?

What is nation branding?

Standing out as a country on the world stage is no easy task. What makes a country unique or memorable? This is where the concept of nation branding comes in. Central to this is the story a country tells to project a certain image of itself to the outside world. This always involves the image of a country as a whole. British policy advisor Simon Anholt is considered the founder of nation branding, having noted in 1996 that the reputation of countries is similar to that of companies and products. In other words, a country’s reputation can be influenced by clever marketing. Nation branding aims to attract tourists and investors, as well as improve diplomatic relations, promote cultural traditions, and stimulate economic growth.

Nation branding is closely related to the concept of soft power, as both relate to a country’s reputation. The major difference is that soft power is about influencing the behaviour of other states without coercion. Nation branding, on the other hand, emphasises the image portrayed about a country and the key characteristics or traits associated with a country. For example, Germany is often associated with its car industry, when you think of Sweden your mind quickly goes to Ikea or ABBA, and Lithuania has profiled itself as a brave country.

One of the most successful nation brands can be found in Estonia. Since declaring independence in 1991, the Baltic state has worked hard to build a reputation as one of the most innovative and technologically advanced countries in the world. In recent years, Estonia has invested heavily in digital infrastructure using the e-Estonia programme, through which 99% of all government services are digitally managed and accessible online. Partly due to these measures, Estonia is now known as the most digitised country in the world.

Negative Nation Branding as a tool against migration

Generally, nation branding aims to put a country on the map in a positive way. In recent years, however, there has been an opposite trend in which countries want to make themselves as unattractive as possible. This is also known as negative nation branding. Campaigns highlighting a country’s terrifying image do not target tourists or investors, but another specific group: migrants and asylum seekers.

According to the United Nations (UN), an estimated 117 million people were fleeing violent conflict, economic hardship, climate change and persecution in 2023. The response of many Western countries, including those in Europe, has been to rely on deterrents to curb migrant inflows. These are not physical restrictions that deter migrants from seeking asylum, such as strict border controls. Instead, it involves measures that make a destination less attractive, with the aim of migrants seeking asylum elsewhere. Also known as ‘indirect deterrence’, these measures are based on the idea that fewer migrants will come to a country if its asylum policy appears as unattractive as possible. The hope is that migrants will go to neighbouring countries to seek asylum there. With its emphasis on influencing a country’s reputation, indirect deterrence can be seen as a form of nation branding.

The best-known European example when it comes to deterring migrants is Denmark. Partly thanks to an opt-out from European migration laws, the country has been implementing a stringent asylum policy for years. This includes not issuing permanent residence permits and repeatedly checking whether people still need protection or can be sent back. In the first three years a migrant stays in Denmark, family reunification is almost impossible. In addition, social benefits for refugees were cut by 50% in 2015, and childcare support and pensions for refugees are based on the length of stay in Denmark. Legislation has also been passed giving the police the power to search and seize asylum seekers’ funds and property to cover the cost of housing and other benefits.

The rest of the European Union (EU) is also increasingly turning to deterrents to curb migrant inflows. Particularly after the refugee crisis of 2015 and 2016, addressing migration flows has moved higher on the European agenda. For indirect deterrence to work, potential migrants need to be familiar with the asylum policy of the destination country. Much money and effort is put into information campaigns to discourage refugees and migrants from travelling to Europe. These information campaigns target potential migrants before they leave their home countries and are mostly disseminated through social media, especially Facebook. Information is considered an essential tool to address irregular migration by highlighting the risks associated with travelling to the EU. Indeed, it is assumed that potential migrants and refugees do not have enough information about the journey to Europe and the life they will have upon arrival. By providing that information, it is hoped that migrants will decide not to travel to the EU.

Does negative nation branding work?

Resorting to negative nation branding can, to some extent, be seen as a strategy by European states to reclaim sovereignty in the area of migration. Indeed, unlike measures that directly block access to asylum, forms of indirect deterrence are less precisely described by European and international law. However, indirect deterrence through stricter asylum policies can put other rights of migrants under pressure. Consider, for example, the right to freedom of movement, access to employment, public education and housing. In addition, restricting access to the labour market and housing may make migrants more dependent on public spending and increase the risk of exploitation by criminal organisations.

The question is whether negative nation branding through information campaigns that highlight the negative aspects and dangers associated with migration actually causes migrants to seek refuge elsewhere. Information campaigns tend to be dominated by dark messages about the risk, inevitable failure and potential exploitation that migrants may face. These messages are then justified on the basis that they are necessary to protect migrants. A key problem with European information campaigns is that they are too far removed from how local people from countries of origin think about migration. Campaigns highlight risks and try to convince people that life in the EU is tough for undocumented migrants. This does not include the lack of prospects in migrants’ home countries. Many people have so few options to improve their situation that, fully aware of the dangers of travelling to Europe, they often still choose to migrate or flee. Therefore, the decision does not depend only on the lack of information.

Migration experts argue that many asylum seekers do not consciously choose their destination country before embarking on their journey, although migrants generally seem to choose richer countries with low unemployment rates. Moreover, asylum policy in the country of arrival plays only a minor role in the final choice. Other factors such as post-colonial ties, language affinities and cultural similarities are often much more important. Personal networks and existing diasporas also seem to play a role in migrants’ decision-making process. Many information campaigns are, therefore, based on an overly simplistic picture of how people decide to migrate and to which country they eventually go.

Despite the lack of concrete evidence concerning the effectiveness of negative nation branding, European countries remain fully committed to using deterrents to curb the number of migrants and asylum seekers. However, the EU and its member states cannot simply ‘convince’ people to stay away. You can label your country as a terrible destination, but that will not stop migrants from coming anyway.

Sabine Herder holds a master’s degree in Crisis and Security Management from Leiden University and a master’s degree in European Policy from the University of Amsterdam. Before this, she completed a bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a major in International Relations.

Image: Shutterstock