Advertisement

Migration Governance in Three European Cities: New Local Paradigms?

  • Myrte S. Hoekstra
  • Josef Kohlbacher
  • Daniel Rauhut
Chapter
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)

Abstract

Immigration and the diversification of urban populations are among the major challenges being faced by European cities today. Over the past two decades, social and political debates have grown increasingly critical of ‘multiculturalism’, which is blamed for the loss of social cohesion and national identities. Therefore, national governments have shifted towards restrictive integration regimes whereby immigrants are required to adapt to the putative national culture. While studies of migration governance have traditionally focused on the national level, there is increasing interest in how local governments––who are most directly confronted with migration-related issues––view integration. New concepts used by city governments, such as diversity or interculturalism, would indicate a departure from assimilatory national rhetoric and/or policy, but their meaning and application remain unclear. Through a comparison of three European cities––Amsterdam, Stockholm and Vienna––we seek to understand the different uses of these concepts and relate them to the specific urban and national context.

References

  1. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, M. (2003). Host-stranger relations in Rome, Tel Aviv, Paris and Amsterdam: A comparison of local policies toward labour migrants. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Alsmark, G. (2007). Integrationspolitik på svenska. In G. Alsmark, T. Kallehave, & B. Moldenhawer (Eds.), Migration och tillhörighet: Inklusions- och exklusionsprocesser i Skandinavien (pp. 53–98). Göteborg: Makadam.Google Scholar
  4. Amsterdam. (2010). Kiezen voor de stad: Economisch groeien, sociaal versterken, duurzaam investeren. Programakkoord 2010–2014. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Amsterdam. (2012). Vervolgbrief Amsterdams burgerschap. http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/organisatie-diensten/dmo/burgerschap/beleidsbrief/
  6. Andersson, R. (2008). Skapandet av svenskglesa bostadsområden. In L. Magnusson Turner (Ed.), Den delade staden (pp. 119–160). Umeå: Boréa.Google Scholar
  7. Bäck, H., Larsson, T., & Erlingsson, G. Ó. (2012). Den svenska politiken. Struktur, processer och resultat. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  8. Bak Jørgensen, M. (2012). The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. International Migration Review, 46(1), 244–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2012.00886.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckman, L. (2011). Den rimliga integrationen. Stockholm: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  10. Bertossi, C. (2011). National models of integration in Europe: A comparative and critical perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1541–1561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borevi, K. (2002). Välfärdsstaten och det mångkulturella samhället. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  12. Borkert, M., Bosswick, W., Heckmann, F., & Lüken-Klaßen, D. (2007). Local integration policies for migrants in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. Bosswick, W., Lüken-Klaßen, D., & Heckmann, F. (2007). Housing and integration of migrants in Europe. Dublin: Eurofound.Google Scholar
  14. Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority-minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1061425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dagens Nyheter. (3-10-2014). Här är ministerposterna som försvinner.Google Scholar
  16. Dahlström, C. (2007). Rhetorical objectives and program efficiency in Swedish policy about immigrants. Journal of Public Policy, 27(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demker, M. (2014). Sverige år svenskarna. Motstånd och mobilisering mot invandring och invandrare i Sverige. Stockholm: Atlas Akademi.Google Scholar
  18. Demker, M., & Malmström, C. (1999). Ingenmansland? Svensk immigrationspolitik i utrikespolitisk belysning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  19. Duyvendak, J. W., & Scholten, P. (2012). Deconstructing the Dutch multicultural model: A frame perspective on Dutch immigrant integration policymaking. Comparative European Politics, 10(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2012.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emilsson, H. (2015). A national turn of local integration policy: Multi-level governance dynamics in Denmark and Sweden. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0008-5.Google Scholar
  21. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fassmann, H. (2010). Integration indicators of the National Action Plan on Integration. http://www.integrationsfonds.at/nap/integrationsindikatoren
  23. Fassmann, H., & Kohlbacher, J. (2009). Diversity policy in employment and service provision – Case study: Vienna, Austria. Dublin: Eurofound.Google Scholar
  24. Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs. (2014). Willkommen in Österreich – Erfolgreich integrieren von Anfang an. www.bmeia.gv.at/dasministerium/presse/aussendungen/2014/10/willkommen-in-oesterreich-erfolgreichintegrieren-von-anfang-an
  25. Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs. (n.d.). Advisory Board on Integration. www.bmeia.gv.at/en/integration/advisory-board-on-integration
  26. Guger, A., Agwi, M., Buxbaum, A., Festl, E., Knittler, K., Halsmayer, V., Pitlik, H., Sturn, D., & Wüger, M. (2009). Umverteilung durch den Staat in Österreich. Wien: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  27. Hicks, A., & Kenworthy, L. (2003). Varieties of welfare capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/soceco/1.1.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoekstra, M. (2014). Super-diversity and urban policies in Amsterdam. ICEC Report. https://doi.org/10.1553/icec_diversity_amsterdam2014.
  29. Hoekstra, M. (2015). Diverse cities and good citizenship: How local governments in the Netherlands recast national integration discourse. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(10), 1798–1814. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1015585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoekstra, M.S. (2017). Governing difference in the city: Urban imaginaries and the policy practice of migrant incorporation. Territory, Politics, Governance, online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2017.1306456
  31. Hollomey, C., Wöger, A., & Kraler, A. (2011). The national policy frame for the integration of newcomers in Austria. ICMPD: Project PROSINT. http://research.icmpd.org/fileadmin/Research-Website/Project_material/PROSINT/Reports/AT_WP2_Final.pdf
  32. Integrationsverket. (2006). Rapport integration 2005. Norrköping: Integrationsverket.Google Scholar
  33. Invandrarpolitiska kommittén. (1996). Sverige, framtiden och mångfalden. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  34. Johansson, C. (2005). Välkomna till Sverige? Svenska migrationspolitiska diskurser under 1900-talets andra hälft. Malmö: Bokbox.Google Scholar
  35. Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karlsson, S., Engkvist, R., Rauhut, D., Moberg, U., & Johansson, M. (2014). Baseline study Stockholm. ICEC Report. https://icecproject.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/icec_sto_baseline_study_22092014.pdf
  37. King, R. (2002). Towards a new map of European migration. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijpg.246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kohlbacher, J., Schnell, P., Reeger, U., & Franz, Y. (2014). Super-diversity and diversity-related policies in Vienna. ICEC Report. https://icecproject.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/4_baseline-study-vienna_20140901.pdf
  39. Koppenberg, S. (2015). Austria annual policy report 2014. EMN European Migration Network & International Organization for Migration. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/annual-policy/2013/01.austria_apr2013_part2_en_version_final.pdf
  40. Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MA 17 – Wien ist Vielfalt. (n.d.). Leitlinien der Wiener Integrations- und Diversitätspolitik. https://www.wien.gv.at/menschen/integration/pdf/integrationsleitlinien.pdf
  42. Ministry of the Interior. (2010). Nationaler Aktionsplan für Integration. http://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/Integrationsfond/NAP/nap_bericht.pdf
  43. Mourão Permoser, J., & Rosenberger, S. (2012). Integration policy in Austria. In J. Frideres & J. Biles (Eds.), International perspectives: Integration and inclusion (pp. 39–58). Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nordström Skans, O., & Åslund, O. (2009). Segregationen i storstäderna. Stockholm: SNS.Google Scholar
  45. ÖIF (Österreichischer Integrationsfonds) (Ed.). (2016). Flucht und Asyl 1. Halbjahr 2016, Fact Sheet 22. Aktuelles zu Migration und Integration.Google Scholar
  46. Penninx, R. (2009). Decentralising integration policies. Managing migration in cities, regions and localities. London: Policy Network. http://www.integratingcities2012.eu/documents/(2009%20-%20Penninx)%20Decentralising%20integration%20policies.pdf
  47. Penninx, R., & Martiniello, M. (2004). Integration processes and policies. State of the art and lessons. In R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M. Martiniello, & S. Vertovec (Eds.), Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics and integration policies (pp. 139–165). New York: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  48. Penninx, R., Garcés-Mascareñas, B., & Scholten, P. (2007). Policymaking related to immigration and integration: A review of the literature of the Dutch case. IMISCOE, Country Report on The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  49. Ponzo, I., Gidley, B., Roman, E., Tarantino, F., Pastore, F., & Jensen, O. (2013). Researching functioning policy practices in local integration in Europe: A conceptual and methodological discussion paper. http://www.eu-mia.eu/Eumia%20meth%20paper3.pdf
  50. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708317172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prins, B. (2011). How (never) to become Dutch: Testing the civic integration test. In H. Harbers (Ed.), Strangeness and familiarity – Global unity and diversity in human rights and democracy (pp. 63–69). Utrecht: Forum.Google Scholar
  52. Rauhut, D. (2008). Sociala processer och integration. In G. Cars & K. J. Engström (Eds.), Stadsregioners utvecklingskraft – trender och nya perspektiv. Stockholm: KTH.Google Scholar
  53. Rijksoverheid. (2011). Integratienota integratie, binding, burgerschap. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/beleidsnotas/2011/06/16/integratienota
  54. Rojas, M. (1994). I ensamhetens labyrint. Stockholm: Brombergs.Google Scholar
  55. Schiller, M. (2016). European cities, municipal organizations and diversity: The new politics of difference. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scholten, P. (2013). Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: The case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands. Political Science, 46(3), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9170-x.Google Scholar
  57. Scholten, P. (2015). Between national models and multi-level decoupling: The pursuit of multi-level governance in Dutch and UK policies towards migrant incorporation. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-015-0438-9.
  58. Schrover, M. (2010). Pillarization, multiculturalism and cultural freezing: Dutch migration history and the enforcement of essentialist ideas. BMGN, 125(2-3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.7124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stadt Wien, Magistratsabteilung 17. (2012). Monitoring Integration Diversität Wien 2009–2011. Google Scholar
  60. Svanberg, I., & Tydén, M. (1992). Tusen år av invandring. Stockholm: Gidlunds.Google Scholar
  61. Swedish Government. (2015). Ministry of Justice. http://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice
  62. Thränhardt, D., & Bommes, M. (Eds.). (2010). National paradigms of migration research. Osnabruck: V&R.Google Scholar
  63. Tillväxtverket. (2012). Potentialer för tillväxt och sammanhållning: En studie av storstadsinsatserna inom regionalfondsprogrammen för Stockholm, Västsverige och Skåne-Blekinge. Rapport 0152.Google Scholar
  64. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00614.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Urban Renewal Office 6/14/15 (Steinbichler, M.) (14-06-2016). Miteinander in Mariahilf. A Neighbourhood Initiative for the 6th District. Presentation for the ICEC Policy Workshop, Vienna 14-06-2016.Google Scholar
  66. Van Gent, W. P. C., & Musterd, S. (2016). Class, migrants, and the European city: Spatial impacts of structural changes in early twenty-first century Amsterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(6), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1126092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701491770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wien-at (05-04-2016), Häupl präsentierte “Wiener Weg der Flüchtlingspolitik”. Ergebnis der Stadtregierungsklausur. https://www.wien.gv.at/rk/msg/2016/04/05007.html
  70. Yanow, D., & Van der Haar, M. (2013). People out of place: Allochthony and autochthony in the Netherlands’ identity discourse – Metaphors and categories in action. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16(2), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2012.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zeit.online (24-02-2016). Flüchtlingspolitik: Österreich will sich komplett gegen Flüchtlinge abschotten. http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-02/fluechtlingspolitik-konferenz-wien-balkanstaaten-oesterreich-mazedonien-grenzen
  72. Zincone, G., Penninx, R., & Borkert, M. (2011). Migration policymaking in Europe: The dynamics of actors and contexts in past and present. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrte S. Hoekstra
    • 1
  • Josef Kohlbacher
    • 2
  • Daniel Rauhut
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development StudiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Urban and Regional ResearchAustrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria
  3. 3.Karelian InstituteUniversity of Eastern FinlandEasternFinland

Personalised recommendations