Policy Sciences

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 217–236 | Cite as

Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: the case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands

  • P. W. A. Scholten


This article focuses on the relation between agenda dynamics and multi-level governance for a specific type of policy problems: intractable policy controversies. It discusses migrant integration policies in the Netherlands as a case-study, analysing problem, political and policy agendas in the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam and on the national level, as well as the relation and interaction between these policy levels. The article shows that in a contested policy area like migrant integration, patterns of agenda setting often have a strongly level-specific character, leading to different policy frames and thus complicating modes of governance in multi-level setting. Precisely when the framing of policy problems itself is at stake, level-specific agenda dynamics will produce different policy frames also in multi-level policy settings. This makes multi-level governance in terms of effectively coordinating relations between policy levels to create congruence of policies between different levels a particular challenge when faced with this type of policy problems.


Migrant integration policies Agenda setting Multi-level governance 


  1. Alexander, M. (2007). Cities and labour immigration: Comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Themes and issues in multi-level governance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level Governance (pp. 1–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bak Jørgensen, M. (2012). The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. International Migration Review, 46(1), 244–278.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bertossi, C. (2011). National models of integration in Europe: A comparative and critical analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1561–1580.Google Scholar
  6. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bommes, M., & Thränhardt, D. (2010). Introduction: National paradigms of migration research. In M. Bommes & D. Thranhard (Eds.), National paradigms of migration research. Osnabruck: IMIS.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, J. (2007). A view from France on the internal complexity of national models. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(6), 1003–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breeman, G., Timmermans, A., Lowery, D., & Resodihardjo, S. (2008). Executive policy agenda drift in coalition governance. Boston, MA: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  10. Caponio, T., & Borkert, M. (2010). The local dimension of migration policymaking. Amsterdam: AUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Zwart, F. (2005). The dilemma of recognition: Administrative categories and cultural diversity. Theory and Society, 34(2), 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duyvendak, J., & Scholten, P. W. A. (2011). Beyond the Dutch “Multicultural model”. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 12(3), 331–348.Google Scholar
  13. Entzinger, H. (2003). The rise and fall of multiculturalism: The case of the Netherlands. In C. Joppke & E. Morawska (Eds.), Toward assimilation and citizenship: Immigrants in liberal nation-states. Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  14. Favell, A. (2003). Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in Western Europe. Comparative Social Research, 22, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guiraudon, V. (1997). Policy change behind gilded doors: Explaining the evolution of aliens’ Rights in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 1974–94. New Haven: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: Vertical policy-making as venue shopping. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.Google Scholar
  18. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Policy Pr.Google Scholar
  20. John, P. (2001). Local governance in Western Europe. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The Politics of Attention. How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies in Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22Google Scholar
  23. Joppke, C., & Morawska, E. (2003). Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in liberal nation-states. Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  24. Koopmans, R., Statham, P., a.o. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Maussen, M. (2009). Constructing mosques: The governance of Islam in France and the Netherlands. PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Penninx, R., Kraal, K., Martiniello, M., & Vertovec, S. (2004). Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics and integration policies. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poppelaars, C., & Scholten, P. (2008). Two Worlds Apart. The divergence of national and local immigrant policies in the Netherlands. Administration and Society, 40(4), 335–357.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenau, J. N. (2004). Strong demand, huge supply: Governance in an emerging epoch. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 31–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholten, P. (2011). Framing immigrant integration: Dutch research-policy dialogues in comparative perspective. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Uitermark, J., & Duyvendak, W. G. J. (2008). Civilising the city: Populism and revanchist urbanism in the city of Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1485–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uitermark, J., Rossi, U., & Van Houtum, H. (2005). Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), 622–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations