Advertisement

Immigrant Integration Mainstreaming at the City Level

  • Ole Jensen
Chapter

Abstract

The local level has become increasingly central to the development of immigrant integration policies, due to both the increasingly diverse nature of cities and a general move towards polycentric integration governance models. As large cities are often the main recipients of immigrants, an increasing number of European cities can be described in terms of superdiversity, characterised by a proliferation of differences and without straightforward us-them distinctions. This chapter explores how generic policies are adapted to prevalent forms of diversity at the local level, and it analyses the increasing significance of frontline pragmatism in neighbourhood areas where ‘diversity is mainstream’. The question whether mainstreaming is a response to superdiversity becomes complicated by austerity measures at the national level.

References

  1. Alba, R., and N. Foner. 2015. Strangers No More: Immigration and Challenges of Immigration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrero, Z., T. Caponio, and P. Scholten. 2017. Theorizing the Local Turn in the Governance of Immigrant Policies: A Multi-Level Approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences 38 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, M.L., and N. Sigona. 2013. Ethnography, Diversity and Urban Space. Identities 20 (4): 347–360. doi: 10.1080/1070289X.2013.822382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozec, G., and P. Simon. 2014. The Politics of Mainstreaming Immigrant Integration Policies. Upstream Research Project, WP3 Report. Accessed September 10, 2015. http://www.project-upstream.eu/publications/country-reports/224-the-politics-of-mainstreaming-immigrant-integration-policies-case-study-of-france
  5. Brey, E. 2015. The Politics of Mainstreaming Immigrant Integration Policies: Case Study of Spain. Upstream Research Project, WP3 Report. Accessed October 16, 2015. http://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/fsw/Bestuurskunde/onderzoek/upstream/WP3_Spain.pdf
  6. Brey, E., M. Sánchez-Domínguez, and D. Sorando. 2015. Mainstreaming in Practice: The Efficiencies and Deficiencies of Mainstreaming in Spain. Upstream Research Project, WP4 Report. Accessed September 27, 2016. https://projectupstream.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/4-1-case-study-report-spain-brey-sorando-and-sanchez-2015.pdf
  7. Byrnes, M. 2013. Liberating the Land or Absorbing a Community: Managing North African Migration and the Bidonvilles in Paris’s Banlieus. French Politics, Culture and Society 31 (3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2016. Bevolking; ontwikkelung in gemeenten met 100 000 of meer inwoners. Accessed September 25, 2016. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70748NED&D1=0,2,4,16,18,20,22,24&D2=a&D3=0&D4=a&D5=l&HD=090707-1905&HDR=T&STB=G4,G2,G1,G3
  9. Collett, E., M. Benton, and H. McCarthy. 2015. Into the Mainstream: Re-thinking Public Services for Diverse and Mobile Populations—Policy Brief. Upstream Policy Brief, No. 3. https://projectupstream.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/upstream-wp5-policy-brief1.pdf
  10. Collett, E., and M. Petrovic. 2014. The Future of Immigrant Integration in Europe: Mainstreaming Approaches for Inclusion. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe.Google Scholar
  11. Crul, M., and J. Mollenkopf, eds. 2012. The Changing Face of World Cities: Young Adult Children of Immigrants in Europe and the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Crul, M., and J. Schneider. 2010. Comparative Integration Context Theory: Participation and Belonging in New Diverse European Cities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33 (7): 1249–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DCLG. 2012. Creating the Conditions for Integration. London: DCLG. Accessed July 14, 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7504/2092103.pdf
  14. Gidley, B. 2015. Mainstream Integration: What Works? Upstream Policy Brief, No. 4. Accessed September 27, 2016. http://www.project-upstream.eu/publications/policy-briefs/286-4-mainstreaming-intergration-what-works
  15. Independent. 2016. Burkini Ban Suspended: French Court Declares Law Forbidding Swimwear Woen by Muslim Women ‘Clearly Illegal’. 26 August 2016. Accessed September 25, 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-french-france-court-suspends-rule-law-forbidding-swimwear-worn-muslim-women-seriously-a7211396.html
  16. INSEE. 2013. Etrangers-Immigrés en 2013. Available online: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/theme.asp?theme=2
  17. Jensen, O. 2015. Mainstreaming in Practice: The Efficiencies and Deficiencies of Mainstreaming in the UK. WP4 Report. http://www.project-upstream.eu/publications/country-reports
  18. Jensen, O., and B. Gidley. 2014. The Politics of Mainstreaming Immigrant Integration Policies: Case Study of the United Kingdom. Upstream Country Report.Google Scholar
  19. Jensen, O., H. Jayaweera, and B. Gidley. 2012. Diversity, Cohesion and Change in Two South London Neighbourhoods. Concordia Discors Final Report, COMPAS, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Jóźwiak, I. 2015. Mainstreaming in Practice: The Efficiencies and Deficiencies of Mainstreaming in Poland. Upstream Research Project, WP4 Report.Google Scholar
  21. Jóźwiak, I., J. Nestorowicz, and M. Lesinska. 2014. WP3: The Politics of Mainstreaming Immigrant Integration Policies in Poland. WP3 Report. Accessed October 16, 2015. http://www.project-upstream.eu/publications/country-reports/226-the-politics-of-mainstreaming-immigrant-integration-policies-case-study-of-poland
  22. Jóźwiak, I., M. Sánchez-Domínguez, and D. Sorando. 2017. Migrant’s Integration Governance Patterns in the New-Migration Countries: The Role of NGOs in Poland and Spain. This volume (chapter 3).Google Scholar
  23. Maan, X., I. Van Breugel, and P. Scholten. 2014. The Politics of Mainstreaming Integration Policies: Case Study of the Netherlands. Upstream Research Project, Country Report.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2015. The Politics of Mainstreaming: A Comparative Analysis of Migrant Integration Governance in Europe. Upstream Research Project, Comparative Report.Google Scholar
  25. Meissner, F., and S. Vertovec. 2015. Comparing Super-Diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 38 (4): 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moren-Alegret, R., D. Wladyka, and A. Maas. 2011. Concordia Discors: Understanding Conflict and Integration Outcomes of Inter-group Relations and Integration Policies in Selected Neighbourhoods of Five European Cities. Barcelona Background Report. Accessed October 15, 2015. http://concordiadiscors.fieri.it/assets/BR_Bercelona.pdf
  27. ONS. 2012. 2011 Census: Key Statistics for Local Authorities in England and Wales. Published 11 December 2012. Crown Copyright.Google Scholar
  28. Phillimore, J. 2010. Approaches to Health Provision in the Age of Super-Diversity: Accessing the NHS in Britain’s Most Diverse City. Critical Social Policy 31 (1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon, P., and M. Beaujeu. 2015. Mainstreaming in Practice: Advantages and Disadvantages of Mainstreaming in France. Upstream Research Project, WP4 Report.Google Scholar
  30. Southwark Council. 2015. The History Behind Black History Month. Website. Accessed February 25, 2016. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200449/black_history_month/2822/the_history_behind_bhm
  31. The Guardian. 2015. Pork or Nothing. The Guardian, October 14, G2, 6–8.Google Scholar
  32. Van Breugel, I., X. Mann, and P. Scholten. 2015. Mainstreaming in Practice: The Efficiencies and Deficiencies of Mainstreaming in the Netherlands. Upstream Research Project, WP4 Report.Google Scholar
  33. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-Diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 1024–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ole Jensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations