Advertisement

Why do some cities adopt more diversity policies than others? A study in France and Germany

  • Julia Martínez-Ariño
  • Michalis Moutselos
  • Karen Schönwälder
  • Christian Jacobs
  • Maria Schiller
  • Alexandre Tandé
Original Article

Abstract

An increasing sociocultural heterogeneity of populations and vocal demands for the recognition of diversity have become common features of, in particular, cities in Western Europe. Do cities reshape policies in response to such developments? And to what extent do they implement policies that accommodate difference? We use data from an original survey of urban policy actors in the twenty largest cities of France and Germany to identify city-level diversity policy instruments. In both countries, such instruments are widespread, contradicting assumptions of dominant assimilationist paradigms. And yet, the degree of adoption across cities varies. Drawing on institutionalist theory, we investigate what might explain differing adoption rates. The main finding is that key determinants at the urban level differ between the two countries. In France, the political constellation is crucial; higher numbers of diversity policies are associated with centre-left dominance. In contrast, in German cities, political consensus around diversity policies seems to prevail and higher adoption rates are associated with higher population diversity. Our findings provide a first wide-ranging account of the adoption of diversity policy instruments in European cities. They demonstrate that such policies exist at a relevant scale. They further help explain why the adoption of diversity policy instruments is uneven.

Keywords

Diversity Policy instruments Cities Germany France 

References

  1. Alexander, M. 2007. Cities and Labour Immigration. Comparing Policy Responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Association des Bibliothécaires de France (2015) Charte du droit fundamental des citoyens à accéder à l’information et aux savoirs par les bibliothèques. Paris.Google Scholar
  3. Association des maires de grandes villes de France (2011) Etude politique de la ville: la diversité dans les grandes villes, un enjeu majeur pour les élus. Online publication 16 November. doi: http://franceurbaine.org/espace-presse/communiques-de-presse/etude-politique-de-la-ville-la-diversite-dans-les-grandes-villes.
  4. Ayoub, P.M. 2016. When States ‘Come Out’: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baglioni, S., and M. Giugni (eds.). 2014. Civil Society Organizations, Unemployment, and Precarity in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Banting, K., W. Kymlicka, R. Johnston, and S. Soroka. 2006. Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State? An Empirical Analysis. In Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Advanced Democracies, ed. K. Banting, and W. Kymlicka, 49–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbehön, M., and S. Münch. 2016. The ‘Distinctiveness of Cities’ and Distinctions in Cities: Boundaries of Belonging in Comparative Perspective. Urban Research & Practice 9(1): 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnartt, S., and R. Scotch. 2001. Disability Protests: Contentious Politics, 1970–1999. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bender, A.-F., A. Klarsfeld, and J. Laufer. 2014. Equality and Diversity in Years of Crisis in France. In International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work, Country Perspectives on Diversity and Equal Treatment, 2nd ed, ed. A. Klarsfeld, L. Booysen, E. Ng, I. Roper, and A. Tatli, 68–86. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Bereni, L. and R. Epstein. 2015. Instrumenter la lutte contre les discriminations : le “label diversité” dans les collectivités territoriales. Rapport final. Paris: Alliance de recherche sur les discriminations (ARDIS), Région Île de France.Google Scholar
  11. Berg, L.D., and J. Vuolteenaho. 2009. Towards Critical Toponomies. In Critical Toponymies. The Contested Politics of Place Naming, ed. L.D. Berg, and J. Vuolteenaho, 1–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Bertossi, C. 2012. The Performativity of Colour Blindness: Race Politics and Immigrant Integration in France, 1980–2012. Patterns of Prejudice 46(5): 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biemer, P. 2004. Modeling Measurement Error to Identify Flawed Questions. In Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, ed. S. Presser, et al., 225–246. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bogumil, J., and L. Holtkamp. 2013. Kommunalpolitik und Kommunalverwaltung eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Bonn: BpB.Google Scholar
  15. Borraz, O., and P. Le Galès. 2010. Urban Governance in Europe: The Government of What? Pôle Sud 32: 137–151.Google Scholar
  16. Bundesregierung, Die (2007) Der nationale Integrationsplan. Neue Wegeneue Chancen. Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. Carvalho, J. 2016. The Impact of Extreme-Right Parties on Immigration Policy in Italy and France in the Early 2000s. Comparative European Politics 14(5): 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CGET. 2014. Nouveau cadre de référence de la lutte contre les discriminations au sein de la politique de la ville: les enjeux de la nouvelle contractualisation. Commissariat général à l’égalité des territoires.Google Scholar
  19. Clingermayer, J.C., and R.C. Feiock. 1990. The Adoption of Economic Development Policies by Large Cities: A Test of Economic, Interest Group, and Institutional Explanations. Policy Studies 18(3): 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deephouse, D.L., and M. Suchman. 2008. Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, and R. Suddaby, 49–77. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dekker, R., H. Emilsson, B. Krieger, and P. Scholten. 2015. A Local Dimension of Integration Policies? A Comparative Study of Berlin, Malmö, and Rotterdam. International Migration Review 49(3): 633–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DESI. 2012. Stand der kommunalen Integrationspolitik in Deutschland. Studie erstellt für das Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung und die Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration. Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Deuser, P. 2012. Migration im Museum. Zum aktuellen Stand der Auseinandersetzung mit den Themen Migration und kultureller Vielfalt in deutschen Museen. Berlin: Deutscher Museumsbund e.V.Google Scholar
  24. Deutscher Museumsbund e.V. 2015. Museen, Migration und kulturelle Vielfalt. Handreichungen für die Museumsarbeit, Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. Dobbin, F., S. Kim, and A. Kalev. 2011. You Can’t Always Get What You Need. Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs. American Sociological Review 76(3): 386–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Escafré-Dublet, A., and R. Kastoryano. 2012. ACCEPT PLURALISM Research Project. Tolerance, Pluralism and Social Cohesion: Responding to the Challenges of the 21st Century of Europe. Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Fassin, D. 2002. L’invention française de la discrimination. Revue française de science politique 52(4): 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Favell, A. 1998. Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gammerl, B. 2010. Eine Regenbogengeschichte. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 60(15–16): 7–13.Google Scholar
  30. Gesemann, F., and R. Roth (eds.). 2009. Lokale Integrationspolitik in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft: Migration und Integration als Herausforderung von Kommunen. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Giraut, F. 2014. Contre la sous-représentation des femmes dans les noms de rues: géopolitique d’une mobilisation contemporaine multiforme. Neotoponymie, online publication. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35100.
  32. Givens, T., and A. Luedtke. 2005. European Immigration Policies in Comparative Perspective: Issue Salience, Partisanship and Immigrant Rights. Comparative European Politics 3: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glick-Schiller, N., and A. Çağlar. 2009. Towards a Comparative Theory of Locality in Migration Studies: Migrant Incorporation and City Scale. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35(2): 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Good, K. 2005. Patterns of Politics in Canada’s Immigrant-Receiving Cities and Suburbs. Policy Studies 26(3–4): 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. de Graauw, E., and F. Vermeulen. 2016. Cities and the Politics of Immigrant Integration: A Comparison of Berlin, Amsterdam, New York City, and San Francisco. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(6): 989–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grim, B. J. and Finke, R. 2006. International Religion Indexes: Government Regulation, Government Favoritism, and Social Regulation of Religion. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 2, article 1.Google Scholar
  37. Green, G. 2013. Age-Friendly Cities of Europe. Journal of Urban Health 90(1): 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffin, J.D. 2014. When and Why Minority Legislators Matter. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hadj-Abdou, L. 2014. Immigrant Integration and the Economic Competitiveness Agenda: A Comparison of Dublin and Vienna. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(12): 1875–1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harth, A. 2012. Stadtplanung. In Handbuch Stadtsoziologie, ed. F. Eckhardt, 337–364. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hohage, C. 2013. Moschee-Konflikte. Wie überzeugungsbasierte Koalitionen lokale Integrationspolitik bestimmen. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Howlett, M. 1991. Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice. Policy Studies Journal 19(2): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Imrie, R. 1996. Disability and the City: International Perspectives. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Institut für Kulturpolitik. 2005. Kulturorte als Lernorte interkultureller Kompetenz. Stand, Aufgaben und Perspektiven interkultureller Arbeit in der kulturellen Bildung. Bonn.Google Scholar
  45. Jorgensen, M.B. 2012. The Diverging Logics of Integration Policy Making at National and City Level. International Migration Review 46(1): 244–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kantor, P., and H.V. Savitch. 2002. Cities in the international marketplace. The political economy of urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kantor, P., and H.V. Savitch. 2005. How to Study Comparative Urban Development Politics: A Research Note. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(1): 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keslassy, E. 2009. Ouvrir la politique à la diversité. Paris: Institue Montaigne.Google Scholar
  49. King, D. 2007. The American State and Social Engineering: Policy Instruments in Affirmative Action. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 20(1): 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Landeshauptstadt Hannover. 2013. Bedeutende Frauen in HannoverEine Hilfe für künftige Benennungen nach weiblichen Persönlichkeiten. Referat für Frauen und Gleichstellung, Fachbereich Planen und Stadtentwicklung, Hannover.Google Scholar
  51. Lascoumes, P., and P. Le Galès. 2007. Introduction: Understanding Public Policy Through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 20(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Le Galès, P. and Vitale, T. 2013. Governing the Large Metropolis. A Research Agenda. Working Papers of the Programme Cities are Back in Town, 8.Google Scholar
  53. Legros, O., and T. Vitale. 2011. Les migrants roms dans les villes françaises et italiennes: mobilités, régulations et marginalités. Géocarrefour 86(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
  54. Meyer, J.W. 2008. Reflections on Institutional Theories of Organizations. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, and R. Suddaby, 790–811. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meyer, D.S., and D.C. Minkoff. 2004. Conceptualizing Political Opportunity. Social Forces 82(4): 1457–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meziani-Remichi, Y., and M. Maussen. 2017. Recruitment in Public Administrations. Diversity Policies and Selection Practices in a French City. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(9–10): 1679–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mossberger, C., S.E. Clarke, and P. John. 2015. Studying Politics in an Urban World: Research Traditions and New Directions. The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, 3–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Moutselos, M., C. Jacobs, J. Martínez-Ariño, M. Schiller, K. Schönwälder, A. Tandé. 2017. Cities and the Challenge of Diversity (CityDiv): The Survey, Technical Report. MMG Working Paper 17-09. Göttingen: MPI-MMG.Google Scholar
  59. Poppelaars, C., and P. Scholten. 2008. Two Worlds Apart: The Divergence of National and Local Immigrant Integration Policies in the Netherlands. Administration and Society 40(4): 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Richter, R. 2014. Differenzierung inszenieren: Der Fall Stadtmarketing. In Städte unterscheiden lernen, ed. S. Frank, et al., 247–282. Campus: Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  61. Sabatier, P.A. 1988. An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences 21(2–3): 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sabbagh, D. 2011. The Rise of Indirect Affirmative Action: Converging Strategies for Promoting “Diversity” in Selective Institutions of Higher Education in the United States and France. World Politics 63(3): 470–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sack, D. 2012. Urbane Governance. In Handbuch Stadtsoziologie, ed. F. Eckhardt, 311–335. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scharpf, F.W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schain, M.A. 2006. The Extreme-Right and Immigration Policy-Making: Measuring Direct and Indirect Effects. West European Politics 29(2): 270–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schiller, M. 2015. Paradigmatic Pragmatism and the Politics of Diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(7): 1120–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schönwälder, K., C. Sinanoglu, and D. Volkert. 2011. Vielfalt sucht Rat: Ratsmitglieder mit Migrationshintergrund in deutschen Großstädten; eine Studie des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung multireligiöser und multiethnischer Gesellschaften. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.Google Scholar
  68. Schröer, H. and Szoldatits, F. 2010. Interkulturelle Öffnung des Personalmanagements: Beispiel Landeshauptstadt München. Online, https://heimatkunde.boell.de/2010/07/01/interkulturelle-oeffnung-des-personalmanagements-beispiel-landeshauptstadt-muenchen.
  69. Sénac, R. 2012. L’invention de la diversité. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  70. Simon, P. 2013. Contested Citizenship in France: The Republican Politics of Identity and Integration. In Developments in French Politics, vol. 5, ed. A. Cola, S. Meunier, and V. Tiberj, 203–217. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sprague-Jones, J. 2011. Extreme Right-Wing Vote and Support for Multiculturalism in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(4): 235–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steels, S. 2015. Key Characteristics of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: A Review. Cities 47: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stone, D.A. 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104(2): 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Streiff-Fénart, J. 2012. A French Dilemma: Anti-discrimination Policies and Minority Claims in Contemporary France. Comparative European Politics 10(3): 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Triadafilopoulos, T., and K. Schönwälder. 2016. The New Differentialism: Responses to Immigrant Diversity in Germany. German Politics 25(3): 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wollmann, H., E. Balboni, J.-P. Gaudinm, and G. Marcou. 2010. The Multi-level Institutional Setting in Germany, Italy, France and the UK: A Comparative Overview. In The Provision of Public Services in Europe Between State, Local Government and Market, ed. H. Wollmann, and G. Marcou, 15–48. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wright, S. 2000. Jacobins, Regionalists and the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21(5): 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Martínez-Ariño
    • 1
  • Michalis Moutselos
    • 2
  • Karen Schönwälder
    • 2
  • Christian Jacobs
    • 2
  • Maria Schiller
    • 2
  • Alexandre Tandé
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenNetherlands
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic DiversityGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations