In this communication, we analyse the implementation of student mobility policies in Europe through an instrument-based approach to public policy. Drawing on the framework developed by Lascoumes and Le Galès (2005), student mobility schemes are understood not as neutral technical devices, but as instruments embedded with values, representations and power relations, structuring interactions between European institutions, national governments, higher education institutions and users. This perspective is complemented by Fallon’s work (2022), which highlights the analytical value of policy instruments for understanding institutional adjustment processes and the differentiated effects of public policies across local contexts.

Our communication underlines how student mobility in Europe is shaped by two competing supranational frameworks: the European Commission (EC) and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Although their stated objectives appear to converge, their underlying logics differ. Acting within a supporting competence in education, the EC promotes mobility primarily as a lever for employability, competitiveness and European integration, notably through its central role as the main funder of mobility via the Erasmus+ programme. By contrast, the EHEA, originating in the Bologna Process, is based on an intergovernmental logic aimed mainly at academic harmonisation, degree recognition and intercultural competences (Ravinet, 2011). The coexistence of these frameworks generates partially conflicting objectives and tensions in governance modes: while the Commission relies on more prescriptive instruments (indicators, conditional funding), the EHEA operates through non-binding tools grounded in consensus.

These tensions help to explain the persistent gap between European ambitions (whether from the EC or the EHEA) and actual mobility outcomes. The target set in the ministers’ Louvain communiqué (2009) for 20% of graduates to experience a mobility period has not been achieved: in 2020, the average mobility rate in the EHEA stood at 8.4%. Significant disparities exist between countries, institutions and students.

At a national level, mobility rates vary widely according to economic, political and social contexts (Chankseliani and Hessel, 2016), the cost of living (Souto-Otero, 2008), financial support schemes (Eurydice, 2023) and the degree of institutionalisation of mobility policies (Garneau, 2007).

At an institutional level, differences in international attractiveness (Garneau, 2007), mobility preparation and academic organisation contribute to marked inequalities (Lopez-Duarte et al., 2021).

Students are also confronted with strong social inequalities in access to mobility, with those from disadvantaged backgrounds being under-represented among mobility participants due to cumulative financial, informational and cultural barriers ((Beerkens et al., 2015; Lopez-Duarte et al., 2021; Bréant et al., 2018).

Based on a qualitative study conducted in two French universities, our work examines the local implementation of European mobility policies. Using an instrument-based analytical framework (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005), we show that institutions appropriate European instruments gradually and selectively, according to their resources and strategic priorities. The Erasmus+ programme exerts a strong normative effect, standardising practices and procedures, yet its implementation reveals a gap between political ambitions and operational capacities. Recent innovations such as hybrid mobility, digitalisation of procedures and European University Alliances require organisational adjustments and increase the workload of international relations staff.

They emerge as key actors in policy implementation, resembling the figure of the street-level bureaucrat (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977), and serve as the interface between mobility’s various stakeholders. This positioning, supported by their training and seniority in the field of international exchanges, gives them an expertise they use to adapt the different requests and recommendations related to funding programs to local resources and constraints. This adjustment work is carried out at different levels, from the reception and follow-up of students applying for a mobility to coordination and information meetings with institutional partners.

This study is based on a qualitative research design aimed at examining how European student mobility policies are implemented and reinterpreted at an institutional level. Our analysis focuses on the instruments through which mobility is governed and operationalised, in line with an instrument-based approach to public policy (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005). We seek to understand how policy objectives are translated into practices, and how actors negotiate the constraints and opportunities associated with European mobility frameworks in their everyday work. Data was collected through a series of semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted in two public universities located in western France. These institutions were selected for their shared engagement in European mobility programmes and for their participation in European-level initiatives, while differing in size, disciplinary profile and organisational history. This comparative design allows for an exploration of both common implementation dynamics and locally specific adjustments, without claiming statistical representativeness. In our study we focus on credit mobility and include mobility schemes targeting academic and administrative staff. The interview sample comprises actors occupying different positions within the governance and implementation of international mobility. Participants include senior university leaders, international relations offices managers, mobility coordinators, and administrative staff involved in the day-to-day management of mobility schemes. Interviews were also conducted with beneficiaries of mobility programmes, in order to capture user perspectives on access conditions and support mechanisms. This multi-level sampling strategy makes it feasible to analyse how European policy instruments are perceived, appropriated and enacted across different organisational layers. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide covering several thematic dimensions: institutional strategies for internationalisation; the role of European instruments in shaping organisational practices; perceived constraints and resources associated with policy implementation; and the social and institutional factors influencing access to mobility. Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, and fully transcribed. Data analysis followed a thematic qualitative approach combining deductive and inductive coding. Initial coding categories were informed by the theoretical framework on policy instruments and institutional adjustment (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007; Fallon, 2022), while allowing for the emergence of themes grounded in the empirical material. Particular attention was paid to actors’ narratives of adjustment, discretion and prioritisation, as well as to the effects of instruments on organisational routines and workloads. This analytical strategy enables an examination of how European mobility policies are locally enacted and how their implementation contributes to differentiated institutional practices and inequalities.

By analysing student mobility through the lens of public action instruments, we aim to highlight a gap between European policy ambitions and the conditions of their implementation within higher education institutions. Grounded in an instrument-based approach to public policy (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2005), building on the work of Fallon (2022), this approach moves beyond a normative or evaluative reading of mobility policies to examine their organisational, social and unequal effects. Our findings show that the coexistence of two European frameworks – the European Commission (EC) and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) – generates partially conflicting injunctions, which translate into an increased complexity of mobility governance and into differentiated institutional adjustments. Far from being neutral, the instruments mobilised shape institutional priorities, structure professional practices and contribute to the production of inequalities in access to mobility across national, institutional and social contexts. Our study, based on interviews with actors involved in implementing mobility policies in two French universities, highlights the central role played by international relations staff and academic mobility coordinators. These actors, who can be likened to street-level bureaucrats (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977), perform the essential work of translation, mediation and regulation between European frameworks, national constraints and local realities. This work, however, remains invisible within standardised and increasingly digitalised policy instruments, despite being a key condition for the sustainability of mobility schemes and their capacity to fulfil the inclusion objectives assigned to them. From this perspective, analysing student mobility through its instruments does not merely allow for an assessment of policy effectiveness, but calls for a rethinking of the social, organisational and professional conditions underpinning policy implementation. It points to the need to recognise the work of frontline actors and to reconsider governance and steering mechanisms, in order to reduce the gap between European ambitions and local practices.

Beerkens, M., Souto-Otero, M., de Wit, H., & Huisman, J. (2015). Similar students and different countries? An analysis of the barriers and drivers for Erasmus participation in seven countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 184–204. Bréant, H., Chauvin, S. & Portilla, A. (2018). Les migrations internationales à l’épreuve du capital social. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 225, p. 8-13. Chankseliani, M. & Hessel, G. (2016). International student mobility from Russia, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia to the UK: Trends, institutional rationales and strategies for student recruitment. The Centre for Comparative and International Education, University of Oxford. Fallon, C. (2022). Traduction des modèles et prescriptions internationales d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche : analyse comparée des communautés belges. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 2022/1(29), p. 99-125. Garneau, S. (2007). Les expériences migratoires différenciées d'étudiants français De l'institutionnalisation des mobilités étudiantes à la circulation des élites professionnelles ? Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 23(1), 139-161. Lascoumes, P. & Le Galès, P. (2005). Introduction : L'action publique saisie par ses instruments. Dans P. Lascoumes et P. Le Galès (dir.), Gouverner par les instruments (p. 11-44). Presses de Sciences Po. López-Duarte, C., Maley, J. F., & Vidal-Suárez, M. M. (2021). Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8957–8980. Ravinet, P. (2011). La coordination européenne « à la bolognaise ». Réflexions sur l’instrumentation de l’espace européen d’enseignement supérieur. Revue française de science politique, 61(1), p. 23-49. Souto-Otero M. (2008). The socio-economic background of Erasmus students: a trend towards wider inclusion ? International review of education, 54(2), 135-154. Weatherley R. & Lipsky M. (1977). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: Implementing Special-Education Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.