The Dutch government must pursue a more active policy to familiarize all new migrants with our society and to incorporate them into it as effectively as possible. That is the main message of this publication. In recent decades, policy in this area has been too variable and too reactive. An active policy is necessary because migration to the Netherlands is structural in nature. The Netherlands is now a dynamic migration society, attracting people from all parts of the world. As a result, its diversity by origin is increasing. In addition, we have to deal with more and more transient migration: many immigrants who come to the Netherlands are just ‘passing through’ and so eventually leave again.

8.1 New Migration Patterns Are Not Yet Sufficiently Anchored in Policy

Current policy does not take sufficient account of this new reality. It is still too much rooted in the world of yesteryear, when newcomers came mainly from the ‘traditional’ countries of origin: Turkey, Morocco, Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean. That is now history. Today’s migrants come from a wide range of very different countries, such as the former Eastern Bloc nations, Syria, India or China. And they no longer settle only in the established multicultural districts in the major cities. Metropolitan suburbs, border towns, horticultural regions and expat communities also house many migrants, as do a variety of neighbourhoods in the major cities. In demographic forecasts, just about every future population scenario indicates that the number of people living in areas of high diversity by origin is set to increase. A development with considerable implications for all kinds of policy domains.Footnote 1

Most new immigrants, and their offspring, find their way in Dutch society on their own. Their greater diversity by origin and shorter average length of stay also reduces the likelihood of social cleavage; there is less chance that a few relatively homogeneous groups of newcomers will find themselves pitted against equally homogeneous groups of settled residents.

Nevertheless, these new patterns require vigilance. They complicate conviviality in residential neighbourhoods, at schools and in voluntary associations. There is also a risk of fragmentation, with society breaking up into a constellation of smaller groups, each seeking to cling to its own identity and in so doing turning its back on the rest. Researchers presume that any problems of this kind will eventually resolve themselves, dissipating over a few decades or generations,Footnote 2 but we believe that the government can accelerate this process through targeted policy. An acceleration that is essential given the systemic nature of international migration and the importance of maintaining social cohesion.

In our view, an active government policy of this kind should have three components.

  1. 1.

    The systematic reception and integration of migrants. The government should create facilities that help all migrants – temporary and permanent, students and asylum seekers, highly skilled and low-skilled – to find their way in Dutch society.

  2. 2.

    Greater consideration of social cohesion and community bonding at the local level, in response to the increasing strain these are under as a result of growing diversity. And not only in vulnerable neighbourhoods, but also in wealthier ones with substantial diversity by origin and a high rate of population turnover.

  3. 3.

    Migration policy should be more conducive to social cohesion, particularly with regard to the migrants of the future. Who should be admitted to the country and under what conditions? Although the Netherlands has limited room for manoeuvre in this respect, immigration policy should nevertheless address the issue more explicitly.

In this chapter we first formulate the core principles of such a systematic and proactive policy approach. We then flesh out the three policy components. In so doing, we have no illusions that that our proposals will dispel all concerns. Migration is one of the major social issues of our time, after all, and even in classic immigration countries it is a theme that divides politicians and citizens. The focus in this publication is the problems associated with the increasing diversity and transience of the migrants coming to the Netherlands, and the proposals we make are intended to help improve their reception into Dutch society and to strengthen the nation’s social cohesion.

8.2 Basic Principles: More Permanence, Coherence and Local Variation

The Netherlands needs to recognize more explicitly that it has become a migration society with a high degree of diversity and transience. This requires a proactive policy approach with three key pillars, as discussed below.

8.2.1 From Ad-Hoc to Systematic Policy

The systemic character of migration to the Netherlands requires systematic policies for the effective reception and integration of all immigrants rather than ad-hoc responses for the ‘groupe du jour’. In classic immigration countries like Canada and Australia, such an approach is standard practice. Dutch migration and integration policy, by contrast, is characterized by considerable volatility (see Chap. 4). The past 60 years have repeatedly seen more or less improvised responses to new developments, each with their own emphasis. And there has been little coherence between migration and integration policy. This volatility resulted in part from evolving economic conditions, alternately creating and suppressing demand for labour migrants, and in part from an increase in family and asylum migration. But there also was a third contributing factor: the fact that the Netherlands failed to properly realize that it had become an immigration country and that this required a coherent migration and integration policy.

8.2.2 Consider Conviviality as Well as Integration

This report has shown that a high degree of diversity by origin can undermine mutual trust and exacerbate feelings of insecurity or of not belonging, particularly at the local level.Footnote 3 These effects are strongly linked to the diversity of a neighbourhood and have nothing to do with its socio-economic composition; we also find the same correlation in wealthier localities and amongst residents with a migrant background. That diversity, along with increased short-stay migration, requires an infrastructure that facilitates the harmonious conviviality of residents of the Netherlands. And policy to that end should be based upon reciprocity: it makes demands not only of newcomers, but also of their host society. In practice, this requires that government create the right institutional conditions for newcomers to be able to participate in Dutch society, that individuals, businesses, schools, community facilities and libraries be open to them and treat them fairly and that the newcomers themselves understand the feelings of settled residents and are persuaded to play an active part in society.

This does not imply that current integration policy should be abandoned. The issues of diversity, transience and conviviality we have highlighted in this report come on top of longer-standing questions around the sometimes difficult integration of specific groups of immigrants and their offspring. Core aspects of current policy thus remain relevant, especially the stimulation of labour-market participation by vulnerable immigrant groups. In the coming decades the Netherlands will continue to have to deal with groups alienated from the Dutch labour market and requiring support to enter it. Work, after all, not only provides an income, social contacts and self-respect; it is especially important because it connects people,Footnote 4 a vital function in a society with a high degree of diversity. As the traditional immigration countries teach us, participation in the labour market is often the primary route to social integration and also helps build social cohesion.

8.2.3 Room for Local Variation

Local authorities play a crucial role in the reception and integration of immigrants. The huge variety of migrants now in the Netherlands, in terms of both background and length of stay, has resulted in major demographic variations across the country. In this report we have distinguished eight types of municipality based upon the size and characteristics of the migrant groups they host. Horticultural districts like Westland, which attract mainly temporary labour migrants from Poland, face very different policy challenges from expat communities such as Amstelveen, with large groups of highly skilled newcomers from countries like Japan and India. Central government should therefore give local authorities the policy space they need to be able to respond effectively to these variations.

In so doing, though, the government still needs to provide appropriate financial, legal and substantive support. Local authorities should have sufficient resources to accommodate new groups and to facilitate their conviviality with non-migrants. Together with the Association of Dutch Municipalities (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, VNG), the central government can also help them with know-how and examples of best practices.

8.3 Policy Recommendations

In describing the three key pillars of a proactive policy approach to migration in more detail, we have focused upon three particular issues. This in turn leads us to three generic recommendations on how the government can manage the arrival of the very different types of migrant now coming to the Netherlands.

  1. 1.

    Improve the reception and integration of all migrants.

  2. 2.

    Promote social cohesion, especially at the local level.

  3. 3.

    Make migration policy more conducive to social cohesion.

We have already elaborated on each of these in turn in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7. Below we recapitulate our most important specific recommendations.

  1. 1.

    Improve the reception and integration of all migrants

    • • Increase local authorities’ responsibility for the settlement of migrants.

    • • Create reception facilities for all migrants.

    • • Provide differentiated civic integration services for all migrants.

Every new immigrant to the Netherlands settles in a particular community, and the local authority there is the institution best placed to introduce them to Dutch society and facilitate their participation in it. These bodies therefore need to think about creating more permanent facilities to help all arriving migrants settle in. Sometimes, however, they have only a limited insight into who is coming and how long they stay. Not until it becomes apparent after some time that a specific group has settled in their area, and problems have perhaps already arisen, do they make appropriate provision. And with some communities now seeing new migrant groups arrive on constant basis, more is needed than ad-hoc facilities for the ‘groupe du jour’.

8.3.1 Increase Local Responsibility for Settlement

Local authorities need to think more carefully about which immigrants best suit their communities. They can exert some influence over this by reaching agreements with employment agencies, employers, universities and the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers, COA), as well as by establishing facilities tailored to certain groups. In the case of asylum migration, central government could allow them some freedom to select the background of the refugee status holders settled in their areas – although it is essential in this respect to maintain even dispersal across host communities. Local authorities should also be given greater scope to make their own arrangements for the repatriation of specific groups, such as unemployed labour migrants. They can facilitate the departure of people with poor future prospects by co-operating with migrant self-help organizations and through agreements with employment agencies and employers.

8.3.2 Create Reception Facilities for All Migrants

The government needs to create systemic provision for the reception of new immigrants. Again, this is primarily a task for local authorities; they should establish more permanent facilities that help all incoming groups, not just asylum migrants or highly skilled workers but also labour, student and family migrants, to familiarize themselves with Dutch society. This would do away with the repeated need to develop ad-hoc provision to deal with sudden influxes of asylum or labour migrants. To this end it may be useful to set up a local or regional reception centre for all migrants settling legally in a particular area. One option here is to broaden the scope of existing expat centres, which tend to be rather exclusive. The new-style reception centres can help all newcomers, taking into account differences in their legal status, with housing, schools, healthcare, language tuition, sports facilities and organized activities. Together with regional training colleges (ROCS) and employers, local authorities can also provide guidance on work opportunities in their area. Finally, the reception centre can connect newcomers with civil society organizations, other local residents and entrepreneurs.

There should also be a systemic response to temporary migration, in particular with regard to housing and education. Especially in the densely populated Randstad conurbation, housing for all groups is in short supply and overcrowding is commonplace. Local authorities need to tackle illegal rental practices by unscrupulous landlords and employment agencies, and prevent temporary workers who lose their jobs from finding themselves on the street. Meanwhile, schools sometimes have to deal with unexpected spikes in pupil numbers, high rates of turnover and intake and outflow at irregular times. Regional co-operation and professionalization are needed to guarantee the accessibility and quality of education for newcomers.

8.3.3 Provide Differentiated Civic Integration Services for All

A civic integration policy designed primarily as a path to Dutch citizenship for permanent migrants no longer reflects the reality of the contemporary migration society. Large groups are now staying only temporarily in the Netherlands, whilst many who do remain longer have no desire to become Dutch nationals or only decide to do so after years settled here. Nevertheless, it is vitally important for social cohesion that all these groups be incorporated into Dutch society. This can be done by offering language tuition, by introducing them to the history and culture of the Netherlands and by encouraging their participation in organized community activities. The government should therefore create civic integration programmes for all migrants, including those whose stay is only temporary and others for whom the process is not mandatory.

The nature of these programmes will vary according to legal status and individual needs. If they want to stay longer in the Netherlands, for instance, many migrant workers from other EU member states need to learn Dutch. Highly skilled migrants also want to know more about the country’s culture and participate in local social life. Parents require assistance navigating the education system. And labour migrants need help with the many forms they have to fill in. All this calls for a varied portfolio of language and other civic integration services, tailored to the considerable diversity of today’s migrant population. The same applies to financing. For asylum migrants, civic integration is compulsory and heavily subsidized. For highly skilled newcomers, on the other hand, the process is voluntary but requires substantial personal investment. For labour migrants it is also voluntary, but the employer may be asked to contribute towards the costs.

  1. 2.

    Promote social cohesion

    • • Provide good physical and social infrastructure at neighbourhood level.

    • • Strengthen intercultural skills in education and other parts of the public sector.

    • • Enforce the basic rules of conviviality.

Increased diversity by origin and greater transience are straining social cohesion, especially at the local level. The more diverse a neighbourhood, the less its residents know and recognize each other and the less they feel at home there. At schools and voluntary associations, a higher turnover of pupils or members makes it harder to build long-term relationships. Yet at the same time Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, SCP) surveys of the national mood repeatedly show a great need for social cohesion. The government should therefore pursue an active policy aimed at strengthening social cohesion. Again, this is also primarily a task for local authorities.

8.3.4 Provide Good Physical and Social Infrastructure

Local authorities can promote social cohesion in different ways. In recent decades, all kinds of small-scale local initiatives have been launched to encourage social contact between residents from different ethnic groups. Due to the near total absence of good impact studies on these efforts, however, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. This applies not only to the Netherlands, but also to many other Western countries.Footnote 5

There is evidence supporting the importance of good configuration of the physical environment, though. Safe, clean public space is essential for social safety and for social interaction in general. Once this basic condition has been met, the local authority can encourage people to meet each other regularly in that space. This promotes a certain degree of public familiarity. Recognition from earlier encounters, however superficial, can contribute towards feeling at home, safe and connected. If its configuration invites people to linger in public space, there is a greater chance that residents will meet each other. Parks, public gardens and playgrounds play an important role in this respect.

There is a considerable body of research showing that a rich social infrastructure helps increase cohesion. Semi-public amenities like playing fields, local shops, libraries and community centres strengthen the social resilience of a neighbourhood. In the Netherlands, housing corporations are key players in this respect. They should be given greater scope to undertake small-scale activities in support of liveability and cohesion. In highly diverse environments, local authorities should invest more in professional community work.

Increasing diversity and transience put voluntary associations under pressure, too. Consequently, local authorities should not expect too much of this sector as a source of social cohesion. Very diverse clubs, societies and associations tend to experience high member turnover and may even need support to stay afloat. In areas where many migrants stay only temporarily, such as expat or horticultural communities, it might be worth investing in more informal groups. And sports clubs could think about arranging ‘casual’ leagues for expats and migrant workers, which are easy to join or leave as a team or a player.

8.3.5 Strengthen Intercultural Skills in Education and Other Parts of the Public Sector

Likewise, increasing diversity and transience have major repercussions for high-contact professions in the semi-public sector. They require distinct skills and make considerable demands of those working in the ‘front line’ of education, care and public housing, and not just in the big cities. Education, in particular, can serve as a laboratory for the development of institutional approaches and professional abilities to deal with diversity.

From the scientific literature, it seems that an intercultural approach works best at schools with pupils from a variety of backgrounds. When children feel seen and recognized at school, they have a greater sense of belonging there and perform better. This means that schools need to create scope for a certain degree of cultural familiarity . Within the regular curriculum, for example, subjects such as history and geography could address pupils’ various backgrounds and origins as a matter of course. An intercultural approach also takes into account the cultural backgrounds of the more long-established groups in society, and thus helps counter prejudice and cultural myopia in all directions.

In addition, schools need to prepare themselves for a pupil population that is evolving constantly in terms of its cultural diversity and have to be able to incorporate new groups smoothly. When the Netherlands had only a few migrant communities, specific expertise and dedicated policies could be developed for each of them. With dozens of different groups from all parts of the world, that is impossible. This also means that schools and teachers alike need knowledge and skills to cope with pupils of different origins and with highly diverse classes; these should be an integral part of their professional portfolio, so acquiring them should be a standard aspect of teacher and school-leader training. It is up to central government to ensure that these professionals and their schools possess the right know-how and resources.

8.3.6 Enforce the Basic Rules of Conviviality

Thirdly, increased diversity by origin, educational attainment and social background means that the differences between established groups and newcomers at the national level are less clear-cut now than they were in the past. No longer are a few relatively homogeneous groups with a migrant background pitted against an equally homogeneous ‘indigenous’ community.

Nevertheless, it is wise to consider how to promote cohesion at national, city and town levels. Without that, there is a risk of fragmentation, of society breaking up into a constellation of smaller groups that seclude themselves from each other. Moreover, public debate about national identity has not been helpful in promoting cohesion; in the Netherlands, and in neighbouring countries as well, these have proven more divisive than unifying. By contrast, urban and regional identities offer a more promising route. A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood, a city or a region can be acquired by going to school there, supporting the local football club or picking up its accent. We see that many residents with a migrant background develop local allegiances earlier than national ones, and that in the second generation these are even stronger than ethnic identities.

The national government’s main role in this respect is to enforce the basic ground rules of conviviality: everyone living in the Netherlands should respect its constitutional democracy and contribute towards society, whilst at the same time being allowed space to maintain their own traditions and symbols as long as this is in keeping with the rule of law and does not hinder participation.

Finally, the government can promote social cohesion by propagating unifying ‘national stories’ and institutions and by ensuring that newcomers engage with them. Examples include speaking the Dutch language, the struggle for a safe physical environment and the tradition of co-operation, compromise and consensus. Upholding these is quite different from establishing a national identity, which tends to engender a polarizing discourse and so fails to bond people. Emphasizing unifying or overarching goals and focusing upon things everyone living in the Netherlands has in common can promote more positive intergroup relations. After all, these general institutions are not linked to any one group: they are accessible to all, can forge links and offer continuity from the past into the present and future.

  1. 3.

    Make migration policy more conducive to social cohesion

    • • Labour migration policy: make labour migration conditional that it be complementary; that is, it meets a demonstrable need which cannot be satisfied by people from within the EU/EFTA zone. And in order to prevent labour migrants from remaining when they are no longer in paid employment, the government should maintain a strong commitment to circularity. Furthermore, the collective social costs for municipalities or regions when assessing work permits should also be taking into account.

    • • Asylum policy: consider increasing the proportion of refugees invited to the Netherlands, whilst also investigating ways to take better account of Dutch society’s capacity to incorporate asylum migrants.

Dutch migration policy is a balancing act between various disparate interests and considerations, such as economic development and humanitarian principles like respect for private and family life and protection from persecution. Governed by different legal frameworks, these interests and principles, which are governed by different legal frameworks, can be linked to three distinct types of migration: respectively, labour, family and asylum migration. When it comes to family migration, it is not possible to impose additional requirements within the existing legal parameters because of the restrictions imposed by the EU Family Reunification Directive. In the case of labour migration from outside the EU/EFTA zone and asylum migration, however, there is some scope for policy adjustments.

We therefore recommend exploring a number of new directions for migration policy.

8.3.7 Ensure that Labour Migration from Outside the EU/EFTA Zone Is Complementary and Circular

Government policy for labour migration from outside the EU/EFTA zone should aim first and foremost to ensure that this benefits the real incomes of those already living in the Netherlands. This occurs when migrants play a complementary role in the labour market.

In this respect, distribution issues also need to be considered. For example, the economic benefits of labour migration often accrue to employers whilst leaving wider society facing potential social problems. These result in costs to society that reduce real per-capita income.

Problems of conviviality can be reduced if labour migration is temporary in nature. Central governments would therefore be wise to continue promoting circularity in this domain, learning from mistakes made in the past.

8.3.8 Take Account of Society’s Capacity to Incorporate Asylum Migrants

Asylum migration is one of the main drivers of the increasing diversity of the Dutch population. This is due to its multitude of countries of origin, many with no significant previous history of migration to the Netherlands. We outline two possible options whereby Dutch asylum policy can remain tailored to its core objective of offering refugees a safe haven whilst at the time considering issues of conviviality.

The first is for the Netherlands to gain greater control over the refugees it receives by increasing the proportion invited to the country. This would give it a greater say in who exactly comes. Moreover, a broader invitation-based policy would allow a quicker response to sudden crises such as those involving the Yazidis in the Sinjar Mountains or at the Mória camp on Lesbos.

When inviting refugees, humanitarian determinants always remain paramount. But within that framework, factors related to ‘integration potential’ can also be taken into consideration. For example, compatibility with existing migrant networks in the Netherlands. This should accelerate incorporation into Dutch society and might also enable better matching of arriving refugees to the characteristics and needs of the communities they are resettled in.

A second option is to develop a systemic policy taking into account Dutch society’s capacity to incorporate asylum migrants. The German experience with numerical targets may be useful here.

Under both of these options, the policy’s success is highly dependent upon improved European and international co-operation to ensure the adequate reception of refugees in their region of origin and shared responsibility for their migration to safe third countries.

8.4 Concluding Remarks

8.4.1 A Greater Role for Local Authorities

In this study we have argued for government to take on a proactive role in order to guide international migration in the right direction and to help the multitude of groups living in the Netherlands living together harmoniously. To achieve this, different branches of government need to assume distinct responsibilities.

Central government takes the lead when it comes to shaping migration policy, and also has a key supervisory role. For example, it oversees enforcement of the basic rules of conviviality, including those to combat discrimination. With regard to civic integration, its remit needs to be strengthened; activities here are still not properly regulated, allowing abuses by unscrupulous language schools and reintegration agencies. National frameworks will also remain necessary for the dispersal of asylum seekers and the organization of compulsory civic integration programmes. Above all, though, national government has to create the right financial and legal conditions for local policy in areas such as education, integration, access to the jobs market and the social domain. Many of these have been subject to major cutbacks in recent decades, and a great deal of expertise has been lost. That needs to be restored and renewed, with the appropriate resources.

Local authorities face major challenges with regard to strengthening cohesion and helping large numbers of people find work. We advocate a reassessment of their existing responsibilities, particularly in the area of civic integration. Maintaining the physical environment and social domain has also traditionally been a task for local government. It is crucial to create an infrastructure, supported by civic society organizations, individuals and companies, that facilitates conviviality But local authorities should also assume additional responsibilities for shaping reception policy and – to an extent – repatriation policy.

8.4.2 Employers Also Have Responsibilities

Government lacks the resources, the knowledge and the authority to manage migration on its own. As in traditional immigration countries, a whole range of other parties need to engage with this issue – the private sector in particular. This applies first and foremost to employers ; they benefit directly from labour migration to the Netherlands, after all, be that by production workers or highly skilled professionals, so they are also responsible for its wider impact. For example, they should contribute towards local reception facilities and the financing of differentiated civic integration programmes. Or organize basic forms of such provision themselves. They should also make sure that temporary labour migrants are housed in decent accommodation.

As for the migrants themselves, Dutch society is entitled to expect them to make an effort to speak the language, to integrate and participate actively. Everyone in the Netherlands, migrant or otherwise, has a civic responsibility. For example, they sustain the nation’s physical and social infrastructure by taking part in community and neighbourhood projects, by volunteering and by joining clubs, societies and associations. The task for government in this domain is to support the multitude of civic initiatives currently promoting integration, liveability, sports, culture and neighbourhood management, as well as trying to instigate such activities where they do not already exist. This is the core challenge of contemporary community work in a migration society. Finally, there is also major role here for public institutions like schools, housing associations and care providers, not to mention the increasing number of social enterprises active in the fields of integration and conviviality.

8.4.3 Focus Upon Everyday Diversity

Ultimately, this is all about how we in in the Netherlands want to live together. The motto of the US migrant society is ‘E pluribus unum’: out of many, one. Although the reality is often different, this phrase retains a symbolic unifying function. For the Netherlands as a migrant society, unifying national institutions such as language, the struggle against water and the tradition of co-operation, compromise and consensus are also vitally important. A robust society knows how to propagate what people have in common and what binds them together. In this way it contributes towards the emergence of ‘everyday diversity’.Footnote 6

By this we mean that people living in the Netherlands consider diversity not as something exceptional but as a natural reality embedded in their day-to-day behaviour at school, in shops, in public spaces and at work. Everyday diversity ensures that we are able to live together harmoniously rather than in conflict. And that everyone – transients and settlers, newcomers and lifetime residents – can feel at home in the migrant society.