Societal Challenges

Abstract

This chapter examines the challenges facing Dutch society once migrants have settled here. Their great diversity by origin makes it complicated to live side by side in neighbourhoods or communities, which can lead to feelings of loss, unease and insecurity. In this chapter we outline the most important findings in this area from our previous empirical research, as well as presenting new ones concerning the local impact of high levels of transient migration. The nature and scale of these challenges, especially those around social cohesion and labour-market participation, differ substantially from place to place. We therefore pay particular attention to that variety.

This chapter examines the challenges facing Dutch society once migrants have settled here. Their great diversity by origin makes it complicated to live side by side in neighbourhoods or communities, which can lead to feelings of loss, unease and insecurity. In this chapter we outline the most important findings in this area from our previous empirical research, as well as presenting new ones concerning the local impact of high levels of transient migration. The nature and scale of these challenges, especially those around social cohesion and labour-market participation, differ substantially from place to place. We therefore pay particular attention to that variety.

3.1 Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion

3.1.1 Diversity Hampers Conviviality

Large parts of the Netherlands are very diverse in terms of national origin. What does this mean for social cohesion?¹ Once a quarter the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) polls public perceptions of the main problems facing the country. Figure 3.1 shows that the subjects ‘immigration and integration’ and ‘living together’ have long been high on this national list, and in recent years have consistently topped it. Clearly, a lot of people have concerns about these issues.

Fig. 3.1

Perceived national problems as reported by Dutch population aged 18 years and older, 2008–2019 (four largest categories in 2019 third-quarter survey only)*

*Average of the 12 quarters in the 3 years covered

© WRR 2020 | Source: SCP

However, this does not necessarily mean that those concerns are related to increased diversity. There are many dimensions to social cohesion and it is influenced by a multitude of factors. For example, it is wise to distinguish between specific issues of cohesion and integration related to particular groups and more generic contextual issues such as a neighbourhood’s socio-economic composition or its degree of diversity. In recent decades a number of studies have been published about deficient integration by ‘traditional’ migrant groups and how this might affect various aspects of social cohesion. Those effects are compositional – that is, they relate to the specific demographic make-up of a neighbourhood. In this publication, however, we focus solely upon diversity effects: how a high degree of diversity by origin in itself affects conviviality within Dutch society as a whole. We look at this in more detail in Chap. 6. Another topic beyond the scope of this study is interethnic social cohesion, including the question of whether increased diversity leads to greater mutual tensions between groups from different countries of origin.

This section thus centres exclusively on the issue of whether a high degree of diversity by origin has an impact upon social cohesion within the general population. The starting point for our analysis is an article published by the American political scientist Robert Putnam in 2007. In this he argued that residents of ‘ethnically diverse’ – his terminology – neighbourhoods tend to withdraw from the public space and display less mutual solidarity and commitment to civic affairs.² Putnam’s findings sparked heated academic debate and a flood of follow-up research. A number of review studies have since appeared, consolidating the latest insights in this domain. The general picture they paint is that greater diversity does indeed reduce social trust, and that effect is strongest at the local level. For example, all report that neighbourhoods with a high level of diversity by origin score relatively poorly when it comes to mutual trust between their residents: compared with people living in more homogeneous communities, they have less contact with their neighbours, evaluate those contacts less positively and have a more negative opinion of their living environment.³

The review studies are less unambiguous about the effects of diversity upon the more general indicators of social cohesion. According to Tom van der Meer and Jochem Tolsma, residents of diverse neighbourhoods do not generally score lower than others when it comes to general trust, undertaking voluntary activities or acting as informal carers. On the other hand, a review by Danish researchers concludes that ethnic diversity does have some effect, albeit limited, upon more general social trust – that is, the extent to which people are generally inclined to trust others. Highly diverse neighbourhoods, moreover, are home to a relatively high proportion of less well-educated and unemployed people. These factors, too, have a major influence upon neighbourhood relations.⁴ When they are adjusted for, however, the negative effects of diversity upon trust remain.⁵

What about the Netherlands? Many Dutch studies are based upon small research populations in a limited number of neighbourhoods, or alternatively are primarily qualitative in nature, which makes it difficult to generalize the results. Furthermore, they tend to focus only upon one or two of the ‘traditional’ migrant groups rather than the ‘new diversity’ we have identified in this report. All this makes it very difficult to draw general conclusions about the relationship between diversity and cohesion; for example, because compositional effects may play a major role. Moreover, hardly any Dutch research has explored possible links between diversity and certain indicators of social cohesion, such as neighbourhood safety.

In our empirical research, therefore, we have built upon earlier studies to investigate the relationship between diversity of origin and social cohesion using large-scale data analyses. This involved linking the System of Social Statistical Datasets (Stelsel van Sociaal-statistische Bestanden, SSB) maintained by Statistics Netherlands with the national Police Records System (Basisvoorziening Handhaving, BVH) and the 2014 Netherlands’ Safety Monitor (Veiligheidsmonitor). The SSB contains data on more than 17 million residents of the Netherlands, whilst the BVH includes – amongst other things – details of everyone formally charged as a suspect in a crime. The Safety Monitor is an annual mass survey covering safety, liveability and victimhood. In 2014, more than 86,000 individuals in 403 municipalities and 8798 neighbourhoods were interviewed. Thanks to these comprehensive databases, our analysis covers every person between the ages of 12 and 60 registered as living in the Netherlands (n = 10,746,180) and we have been able to examine the relationship between diversity of origin and social cohesion in all Dutch municipalities and neighbourhoods.

We use the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a measure of diversity and not, as is usual, the percentage of residents from one of the ‘traditional’ migrant groups or the percentage of ‘non-Western immigrants’. Eighteen different groups are included in our HHI analysis, including residents with a Dutch background. In this way we have avoided compositional effects and the like, and have been able to obtain far ‘purer’ measures of the degree of diversity by origin and its effects. So, for example, communities like Amstelveen and Wassenaar, which are home to a wide variety of expatriates from Western countries, have a high HHI and are thus revealed as being diverse. That would not have shown up had the ‘classic’ measures of diversity by origin been used.

Social cohesion is an umbrella term encompassing many different factors and indicators. It is thus not possible to say exactly what ‘the’ effect of diversity upon ‘the’ social cohesion is. Increasing diversity can affect different aspects of cohesion in different ways. In our analyses we have looked at three clusters of indicators with regard to that cohesion: social capital, feelings of loss and social safety. Social capital is about the ability of people to live and work side by side. Feelings of loss reflect people’s emotional reactions when they lose touch with the anchors in their life. And social safety first and foremost requires that attention be paid to changes in social control. These three selected clusters are shown graphically in Fig. 3.2, and below we provide an overview of Dutch and international studies into each of them as well as presenting the results of our own analyses.

Fig. 3.2

Diversity by origin and aspects of social cohesion

© Jennissen et al. (2018)

3.1.2 Social Capital

Dutch research into ethnic diversity and social capital focuses upon three subthemes in this domain: (1) general trust; (2) neighbourhood relations; and (3) civic participation and voluntary activities. In the studies on the first and third of these, the findings are not clear-cut. In two relevant papers⁶ with somewhat similar results, the authors find that diversity at the neighbourhood level does not have any universally negative effect upon general trust or willingness to volunteer. And the same goes for informal care. Where negative effects are reported, that is usually in studies evaluating relationships within a neighbourhood. For example, residents of ethnically diverse environments state that their mutual contacts are less frequent and less positive than those reported between neighbours living in more homogeneous settings.⁷ Residents of diverse neighbourhoods are also less engaged with their local community.⁸

In our own research we have analysed the link between the degree of diversity and one particular key indicator with regard to relations at the local level: neighbourhood cohesion. This refers to the strength or weakness of contacts and ties between residents. Our analysis shows that the more diverse a neighbourhood is, the less cohesive its residents perceive it to be (see Fig. 3.3).⁹ This also applies to residents with a migrant background; they, too, tend to think that people hardly know each other and that there is little contact between them. They are also less likely to feel that their neighbours interact in a pleasant manner and that they live in a sociable community where people help each other and do things together.¹⁰ In conducting our analysis, we took the socio-economic characteristics of the neighbourhood and its residents into account. Besides diversity by origin, socio-economic deprivation also has a negative effect upon neighbourhood cohesion. But the former has by far the greatest impact.

Fig. 3.3

Diversity by origin versus neighbourhood cohesion

© Jennissen et al. (2018)

3.1.3 Feelings of Loss

Faced with the presence of numerous and varied migrants, the non-migrant population may experience alienation; that is, the impression that it is losing power and control to the newcomers.¹¹ Researchers describe this using the term ‘feelings of loss’: the sense that valuable heritage from the past is being lost as a result of undesirable developments in the present. Migrants themselves may also have to contend with such feelings; for example, if they have had to leave their homes because of war or the fear of persecution, or because of homesickness, alienation and homelessness.¹² Here, though, we are concerned only with feelings of loss related to the degree of diversity in a neighbourhood. We also look at the experiences of established migrant groups, insofar as their size is large enough to be statistically significant.

In the Netherlands, a substantial proportion of people with a Dutch background sense a loss of control due to the presence of groups with a migrant background. They also feel that they are losing their own culture and identity, especially because of the Muslim presence in the country.¹³ A third dimension to feelings of loss is ‘loss of home’. With the arrival of migrants, physical and social landmarks such as churches, shops or schools may disappear or change, so that residents long settled in a neighbourhood no longer feel ‘at home’ there. One condition for feeling at ease in a living environment is a certain degree of so-called ‘public familiarity’: residents need to be able to understand and predict other people’s behaviour, so that they know what to expect from each other.¹⁴ This ability can be difficult to develop in neighbourhoods with a high degree of diversity by origin.

In our earlier study we probed the relationship between diversity by origin and ‘feeling at home’ in greater depth. Our guiding question was this: how does the composition of the population in their immediate vicinity affect this feeling in those with a Dutch background? The results (see Fig. 3.4) show that the greater diversity by origin, the less residents feel comfortable with the other people living in their neighbourhood and the less satisfied they are with its demographic composition. The same also applies to some groups of residents with a migrant background. For example, those of Surinamese origin also experience feelings of loss.¹⁵

Fig. 3.4

Diversity by origin versus ‘feeling at home’

© Jennissen et al. (2018)

3.1.4 Social Safety

Increased diversity can also have consequences for social safety. The academic literature shows that there may be a connection between the degree of diversity by origin in a neighbourhood and the rates of criminality there.¹⁶ The underlying mechanism is that a wide variety of backgrounds makes mutual communication and co-ordination more difficult. This reduces social control, making people more likely to commit crimes. Various international studies show that a higher degree of ethnic diversity is associated with higher crime rates.¹⁷ Empirical Dutch research into this relationship is very scarce, however.¹⁸

In our analysis we have examined whether or not the probability that a person is registered as an offender is related to the degree of diversity by origin in the municipality in which he or she lives.¹⁹ This exercise reveals that, other things being equal, that chance is approximately 40% higher in a very diverse community than in a very homogeneous one. Figure 3.5 shows our findings for an average 20 year-old man with a Dutch background who lives alone in a densely urbanized area. For a woman aged 20, a man of 60 or someone from a rural area, the likelihood of being a registered offender is obviously lower but the curve will be more or less the same. There is a ceiling to this effect, however (see Fig. 3.5): above a certain level of diversity, the probability of registration as an offender levels off. Communities with a high level of diversity, such as Rotterdam and The Hague, thus differ very little in this respect from places with an average level like Gorinchem and Helmond. So it is not the case that a very high degree of diversity by origin goes hand in hand with a high level of criminality.

Fig. 3.5

Probability* that an average** male with a Dutch background, aged 20 and living alone in a densely urbanized area is registered as an offender, 2014

*To be exact, odds ratios

**Not receiving benefits, on an average income and with a secondary-level education

© Jennissen et al. (2018)

The degree of diversity in a neighbourhood is certainly not the only factor associated with the likelihood that people living there will commit offences. The criminological literature is replete with underlying variables cited as influencing the occurrence of criminal behaviour, plus explanations as to why. We have therefore adjusted our findings for age, gender, origin group, income, educational attainment, type of household and position in it, receipt of social security benefits (as principle source of income) and extent of urbanization of the municipality of residence. All of these variables were also all significantly associated with the risk of committing a crime.

The diversity by origin of a living environment may also result in a reduced sense of personal safety. Indeed, our own analysis – presented in Fig. 3.6 – appears to confirm this. The more diverse a neighbourhood, the greater the chance that its residents do not open the door at night, avoid parts of its they consider unsafe, feel unsafe when out at night or home alone and fear becoming a victim of crime. Again, this is an autonomous effect of diversity unrelated to the socio-economic or ethnic composition of the neighbourhood.

Fig. 3.6

Effect of diversity upon feeling unsafe in a neighbourhood*

*For a 40-year-old working, married female without a migrant background, not previously a victim of crime and with an average level of educational attainment, average disposable income and children in the household

© Jennissen et al. (2018)

3.2 Transience and Social Cohesion

The average duration of migrants’ stays in the Netherlands is steadily shortening. It is quite plausible that this factor, too, can negatively affect the social cohesion in a neighbourhood or community. When more and more residents are just ‘passing through’, and the people who do stay constantly have new neighbours, this can lead to isolation amongst those who have settled there permanently. Which can weaken mutual relationships. This applies equally whether the ‘transient’ population consists of short-term migrants or of other groups.²⁰

Little empirical research has been conducted into the relationship between length of residence and social cohesion in the Netherlands. Tolsma and his colleagues are amongst the few exceptions,²¹ and they found hardly any evidence that ‘moving mobility’ (a high degree of transience) at the local level affects social cohesion. One possible reason for this is that their study also included ‘transients’ – those whose stay is only brief – themselves and it may be that their positive experiences offset more negative feelings with regard to social cohesion reported by long-term residents.

In order to exclude this possibility, in our own additional analyses we have looked only at intracommunity relations and lack of safety as perceived by people who have been living in a particular neighbourhood for more than 10 years. And we do indeed find that this group feels that neighbourhood relations deteriorate and that they themselves feel less safe when the average overall length of time people live in the neighbourhood is shorter.²²

Problems attributable to increased transience seem likely to be felt even more acutely in social units smaller than neighbourhoods, such as individual streets and housing blocks, schools and local voluntary associations. Schools, for example, have to deal with high rates of pupil intake and outflow at irregular times. Associations come under pressure because they rely heavily upon volunteers and in areas of high population turnover it becomes more difficult to retain such people for any length of time, never mind recruit them to positions of responsibility. We look at this in more detail in Chap. 6.

3.3 Considering Local Diversity

As we have seen in Chap. 2, the nature of diversity by origin can differ greatly between communities. And the same applies to diversity by length of stay. In some places a large proportion of the migrant population settles for a relatively long time. But in a growing number of others this form of diversity is increasing: some immigrants move on quickly, whilst others remain more permanently.

All of this confronts local governments with a combination of general and specific policy challenges. Whilst some have to deal primarily with less skilled migrant groups and so their main objective is to improve participation in the labour market, others are concerned primarily with ways to facilitate the harmonious conviviality of many different groups. The challenges at the local level are thus closely related to the nature of the diversity by origin and by length of stay in the community. We therefore explore them using the categories presented in Chap. 2 (see Box 2.2). It is important to note that this is a fairly generalized classification, whereby some municipalities may fall into several categories. Amstelveen, for example, is a metropolitan suburb of Amsterdam but also home to a large number of expats.

3.3.1 Majority-Minority Cities

In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, diversity by origin is the norm and no single group forms a majority. More than half of residents now have a migrant background. This transition represents an important symbolic watershed because it raises questions about the identity of cities and makes it even clearer how diverse many people’s day-to-day surroundings are becoming. These cities are faced with the task of facilitating the conviviality of very many different origin groups and of mitigating potential incompatibilities between them.

The Hague and Rotterdam, in particular, are having to deal with the short-term presence of labour migrants from within the EU. This form of temporary migration constitutes a new challenge for public institutions, including schools (see Box 3.1).

Box 3.1: School as a Place of Transit

Primary school De Kameleon in south Rotterdam has approximately 450 pupils, the majority with a central or eastern European migrant background. This means that it has to deal with a very high rate of irregular turnover. Each year a total of about 250 pupils join or leave the school. In some cases the composition of a class changes by as much as 70% over the course of a single year. There is also a lot of so-called ‘commuter migration’ in this part of Rotterdam – families who shuttle back and forth to their home country every few months. The temporary nature of these pupils presents the school with a major challenge. The repeated departure of classmates during the school year is emotionally stressful for the children, and the new arrivals require a lot of attention from the teachers.

3.3.2 Metropolitan Suburbs

Suburbs often serve as home for people who work in the nearby city. Schiedam is a suburb of Rotterdam, for example, and Zoetermeer an equivalent for The Hague. Conversely, major employers may be located in suburbs whilst much of their workforce lives in the city. Many employees of ASML in Veldhoven, for example, live in Eindhoven.

Metropolitan suburbs or peripheral communities also serve as overflow areas for the large cities. As a result, ‘big-city problems’ frequently spill over into them. Their population turnover is high, too, which creates problems for local institutions such as schools. For their policy and facilities, suburbs are strongly dependent upon co-operation with their metropolitan neighbours.

3.3.3 Larger Provincial Cities

Larger provincial cities like Utrecht, Haarlem, Dordrecht, Nijmegen and Enschede also have high levels of diversity. But unlike the majority-minority cities and their suburbs, people with a Dutch background are still very much in the majority. Nevertheless, they generally face policy challenges similar to those in the majority-minority cities.

3.3.4 Medium-Sized Towns with One Specific Migrant Group

Certain medium-sized Dutch towns are characterized by the presence of a single large non-European/Anglosphere minority group. This is often a result of historical recruitment of guest workers from a specific country of origin, as with the Moroccan community in Gouda and the Turks living in Leerdam and Almelo. Den Helder and Delfzijl, meanwhile, are examples of places which have attracted relatively large groups of Antilleans. Since later trends in migration, including the influx of highly skilled professionals and intra-EU labour migrants, have largely bypassed these towns, the original group has often remained the only one of any size.

Because of their specific demographic make-up, the risk of ethnic polarization is relatively high in these communities. In Gouda, for example, tensions have arisen in certain neighbourhoods due to their large Moroccan population. In the past, national integration policy specifically targeted ‘traditional’ migrant groups of this kind, but those efforts have been scaled down in recent years because of their sometimes counterproductive effects: the emphasis upon specific origin groups tended to stigmatize both them and the communities they lived in.

In many cases, the established minority groups in these medium-sized towns now consist largely of second-generation migrants. This has significant repercussions for local policy. Since they are not newcomers, it is important that the members of this generation be covered as much as possible by general policy and by universal services and amenities. This reduces ‘them-and-us’ thinking and promotes opportunities for contact. Nevertheless, knowledge about the specific origin group remains important. And targeted local policy can still be relevant.

3.3.5 Expat Communities

Expat communities have residents from a wide variety of countries of origin, but relatively few in the ‘traditional’ migrant categories. Typical examples are Amstelveen, Wassenaar, Voorschoten and Wageningen. Their diversity by origin is usually quite high, without that causing particular problems. In part this is due to the relatively self-sufficient nature of expatriates themselves: in general they are well-to-do and highly educated, and thus quite capable of taking care of themselves and contributing to the local economy in various ways.

Nevertheless, they do still throw up a number of specific policy challenges. Some expats send their children to international schools, for instance, but many opt for regular Dutch-speaking ones. Such phenomena call for a more differentiated approach, one which both facilitates temporary residence and, where appropriate, enables more lasting integration into Dutch society. Research amongst expatriates themselves, moreover, shows that they would like more contact with ‘locals’ in order to learn the language and integrate better.²³

3.3.6 Horticultural Districts

The large intensive horticulture sector in districts such as Westland, Zundert, Zeewolde and Horst aan de Maas has attracted a lot of people with a Polish or Bulgarian background. The central and eastern European origin group is often the only one of any size in these communities, which used to be fairly homogeneous. They are also characterized by a relatively high degree of diversity by length of stay in their migrant populations.

One important challenge facing their local authorities, then, is how to cater for these labour migrants when no-one can be quite sure how long they will stay. In the past, policymakers usually assumed that their presence was purely temporary. This, for example, was the thinking behind the development of so-called ‘Polish hotels’ – basic hostel-like living accommodation in horticultural areas for workers on short-term contracts. In reality, however, the situation has proven more complex: it is impossible to predict how long individual migrants will decide to remain, which often creates tensions between the policy requirements associated with transience and those linked to permanent settlement. To what extent should public resources be deployed to integrate newcomers who might or might not leave again at any time?

Even temporary migrants, moreover, make demands of certain local facilities, such as schools for their children. In horticultural districts, then, policy differentiation is crucial. In other words, one approach and set of facilities for migrants whose stays are truly temporary and another for those in need of a greater degree of integration into local society.

3.3.7 Border Communities

The presence of a relatively large number of residents with a German background makes certain Dutch border communities highly diverse.²⁴ For example, many Germans have settled in Vaals and Kerkrade in the province of Limburg. Many are international commuters: they come to live just inside the Netherlands, but continue to work in their homeland. Despite having opted for cheaper or more spacious living on the Dutch side of the border, their professional and social lives are still played out on the other side. As a result, they play little part in local society. This lack of community spirit is an important policy challenge for local authorities in the border regions. The key question here, then, is how to ensure that their various population groups do not turn their backs on each other.

3.3.8 Homogeneous Communities

Despite the fact that diversity by origin has increased considerably right across the Netherlands in recent decades, in 2015 some 3.2 million people – 19% of the total population – still lived in a municipality where more than 90% of residents have a Dutch background. For these homogeneous communities, addressing diversity is obviously not a policy priority. Nevertheless, this is a challenge they may well face sooner or later – for example, if they are allocated a quota of asylum migrants in line with the national dispersal policy.

3.4 Conclusions

The empirical analyses in Chap. 2 and this chapter reveal that the Netherlands is set to face major migration-related social challenges in the coming years. These are going to come on top of the existing ones associated with the integration of certain ‘traditional’ migrant groups. The new challenges are summarized below.

• 1. The structural nature of migration to the Netherlands requires structural provision for the reception and integration of newcomers. Increased transience also means that this provision needs to be organized in a different way. This is the upshot of Chap. 2, in which we have confirmed that immigration is indeed systemic and has only increased in the course of the past few decades. There are strong indications that this will continue to be the case in the decades to come.

• 2. A second challenge is to facilitate the conviviality of everyone living in the Netherlands, with and without a migrant background. The diversity by origin in the Netherlands has increased significantly and will continue to do so over the coming decades, even if actual immigration declines significantly. This new migration diversity makes conviviality more complicated, as a result of which people view their immediate living environment less positively. They feel less at home, less safe and less positive about intracommunity relations where they live. In addition, there are indications that increased transience is also having a negative impact upon social cohesion at street level, in schools and within voluntary associations.

In formulating policy to address these social challenges, it is important to take differences between different parts of the country into account. This means that national policy needs to leave plenty of scope for variation at the local level.