Diaspora Engagement in EU Politics: The Representative Diaspora Organisations (RDO) Database and Typology

This paper contributes to the panel’s question by focusing on diaspora engagement in EU migration and development cooperation governance. Since the 2010s, the EU has increasingly supported diaspora engagement, in line with inclusion paradigms and whole-of-society approaches in international arenas. At the same time, diaspora organisations (DOs) have increasingly claimed to represent European citizens and residents with migrant backgrounds before EU institutions, seeking to enhance diaspora visibility, participate in supranational dialogues, and influence EU policymaking. This largely unexplored trend raises key questions about the democratic contributions of diasporas in EU international cooperation: how diverse are DO representation aims and practices at the EU level, and are patterns of diasporic representation emerging? Situated at the intersection of diaspora studies, non-elective representation, and EU studies, the paper presents original findings from the DIASPOREP-EU project, drawing on the Representative Diaspora Organisations (RDO) database. Compiled from multiple sources (ICMPD, EU), the dataset covers around 350 EU-based diaspora organisations active across 40 countries, enabling comparative and longitudinal analysis (2010–2025). The paper addresses key gaps by advancing a meso-level approach and identifying trans-diaspora patterns beyond single-case studies in EU international partnership contexts. Drawing on the RDO database combined with corpus-based text analysis and interviews, the paper offers cross-national and cross-regional comparisons of diaspora organisations engaging with EU institutions. Findings point to increasing organisational heterogeneity and intersectional profiles, alongside the persistence of established forms and the emergence of new actors (African diaspora youth advocacy associations). Second, the paper develops a typology of diaspora representation in EU politics, highlighting divergence between advocacy and policy influence; mediation and brokerage aligned with EU narratives; tokenistic institutional partnerships; and more marginal, contentious forms of representation.