Introduction

Abstract

Migration-related diversity manifests itself primarily in cities. Cities are usually the primary points of entry for new migrants and often the first places where integration in society starts. Many cities have experienced centuries of immigration and consider migration as a core element of their identity (such as New York and Amsterdam). In an increasing number of Western European cities, even more than half of the population has a migration background. These cities are referred to as ‘majority-minority’ cities. In Europe, this is already true for cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels or Malmö and substantial parts of greater London, Frankfurt or Paris. Of the children under the age of fifteen in Amsterdam and Rotterdam only one third is still of Dutch descent (Crul 2016).

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Migration-related diversity manifests itself primarily in cities. Cities are usually the primary points of entry for new migrants and often the first places where integration in society starts. Many cities have experienced centuries of immigration and consider migration as a core element of their identity (such as New York and Amsterdam). In an increasing number of Western European cities, even more than half of the population has a migration background. These cities are referred to as ‘majority-minority’ cities. In Europe, this is already true for cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels or Malmö and substantial parts of greater London, Frankfurt or Paris. Of the children under the age of fifteen in Amsterdam and Rotterdam only one third is still of Dutch descent (Crul 2016).

Cities are in the forefront of an ongoing global process of growing mobility and diversity of populations. Although migration to cities is in itself certainly not a new phenomenon, the process of globalization in combination with the availability of faster and cheaper transport, stimulated the movement of more people, at a greater frequency and over larger distances. Cities are often the central hubs in such migration networks. Therefore, diversity within these cities not only increases but also becomes more complex. What is often referred to as ‘diversification of diversity (Hollinger 2006) relates to the diversification of the number of migrant groups but also the diversification within these groups. Group differences tend to grow over time between generations and amongst members of the second and third generation (Crul 2016). Compared to other countries, the socio-economic polarization amongst members of the second generation in the Netherlands has increased. A large group has experienced steep upward mobility, but on the other hand, an equally large group is lagging behind. Its offspring might run the risk of being worse off than their parents (Crul et al. 2013). Differences related to gender, generation, religion add to the complexities of people living together in large cities.

Sociologists have described this growing complexity of diversity as ‘superdiversity’; a situation in which diversity itself has become so ‘diverse’ that one can no longer speak of clear majorities or minorities (Vertovec 2007; Meissner 2015; Crul 2016). In this situation, the idea of who belongs to the established groups and who are the newcomers in the city also needs to be questioned. In a city like Amsterdam, the total number of people of Dutch descent that moves in and out of the city during a 10 years’ time-interval equals the entire population of Dutch descent in the city. They arrive at Amsterdam for study or work but decide to leave the city again once they have children. Migrants and their offspring, on the other hand, are overall very loyal to the city. Increasingly they have become real city dwellers.

The fact that more and more cities became majority-minority cities also has important consequences for how the process of assimilation and integration takes place. In many cases, the children of newly arrived immigrants grow up in neighbourhoods and go to schools where children of native Dutch descent are only a small minority. This means that they no longer integrate into a majority group any more on a day-to-day basis but into diverse migrant communities. What this means for assimilation programs pushed by majority groups and how these newly arrived children respond to these top-down city-government driven programs, is an important new empirical question.

Much research regarding city responses to the developments outlined above have focused on global cities using a so-called ‘global cities perspective’ (Glick Schiller and Çağlar 2009). This mainly includes cities that are of exceptional importance within global networks (economic, cultural and social) and thus important global migration centres. Take for instance Sassen’s key-reference work on ‘Global Cities’ (2000), the work of Keith on London (2005) and the recent work by Foner a.o. comparing the migration experiences of New York and Amsterdam (Foner a.o. 2015).

However, as Glick-Schiller and Çağlar (2009, 2011) observe, our understanding of such ‘exceptional’ global cities adds little to our understanding of how cities in general respond to superdiversity. Indeed, various scholars (Crul and Mollenkopf 2012; Zapata Barrero et al. 2017; Alexander 2007) have already highlighted the sharp differences that may manifest itself between cities. Superdiverse cities like Marseille, Liverpool, Malmö and Rotterdam tend to respond very differently to superdiversity than for instance New York. Alexander (2007) show us very different policy models emerging in cities with divergent social, economic, cultural and historic settings. Crul et al. (2013) stress that a situation of superdiversity potentially can develop into two scenarios: a positive but also a negative one. Depending on the political climate and the possibilities of social mobility for the second and third generation, a positive scenario of hope and empowerment can develop, but also a negative scenario of fear, feeling of resentment and humiliation. Glick-Schiller and Çağlar (2009, 2011) relate variations in the ‘locality’ of migration to the different positioning of cities within the global process of neoliberal restructuring. Some cities are well connected and on top of the economic hierarchy within such neoliberal networks (top- and up-scale cities) whereas others may be slow to respond to neoliberal restructuring and cut-off from benefits from global economic networks (down- and low-scale cities). In their perspective, cities like London, Amsterdam and New York are all positioned amongst the top-scale cities, but these case studies contribute very little to our understanding of for instance downscale cities.

This book takes the world port city of Rotterdam as a case study of a city that is trying to come to terms with superdiversity. Rotterdam is not a ‘global city’ like New York, but it does occupy a central place in a global logistical chain, leading to global networks of social and economic exchanges that have shaped the city in many ways, including by means of migration and diversity. Over the past centuries, Rotterdam has received many different types of migrants. However, its responses to diversity do not seem to seem to match those that we know from the literature on global cities. Rotterdam in many ways does not appear to be a ‘happy’ superdiverse city. However, today as well as in the past, migration and diversity have, besides positive influences and responses that were also clearly there, also met with friction and contestation, in a political sense as well as in an economic and social sense. Take the ethnic riots in the south of Rotterdam in the 1970s, the coming into power of a local populist party in the 2000s and the ongoing friction between local deprived native and migrant groups.

Therefore, this book tries to learn from the case study of Rotterdam as a superdiverse city that does not fit into the global cities type. At a very basic level, the book asks the question ‘what is the matter with Rotterdam’ (see also the epilogue to the book by Steve Vertovec)? How does superdiversity manifest itself in this type of ‘second’ cities, how does it affect urban life? What are the major differences between today’s superdiversity and migration patterns in the past? How superdiversity together with public and political contestation of superdiversity did frame policies and governance strategies in Rotterdam? What makes Rotterdam’s superdiversity different from Amsterdam and how can different responses to superdiversity be explained? To this aim, this book brings together state of the art research on different facets of Rotterdam’s struggle to come to terms with the reality of superdiversity. The contributions in this book focus on interdisciplinary aspects of superdiversity (including history, public administration, and sociology) and by doing so hopes to contribute to new narratives of Rotterdam as a city of migration.

1.1 Superdiversity: Origins and Implications

The concept of superdiversity (Vertovec 2007; Crul 2016) speaks to a dual transformation that societies all over the world are experiencing. First, not only the scale but also the character of mobility is changing. In the context of globalization and technological advancements, people are more mobile than ever in history. Notwithstanding the fact that migrations have been a central element throughout global history, absolute numbers are higher than ever, people move over greater distances and more frequent than before during their lives. Some scholars have referred to this transition in terms of ‘liquid mobility’ or the growing manifestation of ‘floating populations’ (Engbersen 2016). Secondly, because of migration, diversity has been increasing significantly. This involves not only the accumulation of different migrant groups over time, but also diversification along many other dimensions over different migrant generations (such as religion, socio-economic status, languages, etc.). A national perspective blurs the fact that there is a broad variety of ethnic, cultural and religious orientations amongst migrants having the same passport as well as significant differences in migration channels, migration motives, languages, social-economic positions and legal implications (Vertovec 2007). In such settings, it is very difficult to continue referring to migrant groups or communities, as ethnic, cultural or racial characteristics are only part of their identities.

To describe this type of diversity in majority-minority cities like Rotterdam we argue that existing assimilation and integration theories are no longer adequate. For our purposes, we adopt the concept superdiversity, as introduced by Vertovec in his seminal article of 2007. It took some time for researchers in social sciences in Europe started to embrace the concept in their researches. In the last decade, however, an increasing number of researchers use the concept to describe processes in large cities where superdiversity has become reality or will develop into superdiverse cities. The concept is, however, also widely criticized and debated. Several American scholars have questioned the benefits of superdiversity in relation to existing theories on diversity and assimilation. What is in other words ‘super’ about superdiversity? This is an important and relevant question. Crul has argued that diversity in migration and ethnic studies is often only perceived as ethnic diversity. Others have criticized this as the ‘ethnic lens’ (Hollinger 2006; Glick Schiller and Çağlar 2009). The concept of superdiversity stresses other important dimensions like gender, education, social status, generation or religion in order to explain processes of mobility or exclusion.

The other major critique is about the vagueness of the term, a point that cannot be disregarded. The concept of superdiversity should not be used in all situations where a certain degree of diversity is found. Existing integration and assimilation models should be applied in those cases where there is numerically a clear majority group and only a limited number of migrant groups. However, when people of native descent have become part of a minority group outnumbered by many different migrant groups, the concept of superdiversity may provide a better analytical tool to study processes of integration and social mobility. According to Meissner (2015) superdiversity also means acceptation diversity as a new reality. A reality that largely replaces the situation where newcomers integrate into a clear dominant native culture or majority society. In this new reality, we also need to investigate the integration of people of native descent. As one of the articles in this volume shows, the successful or unsuccessful integration of people of native descent in superdiverse city and neighbourhood environments differs across cities and neighbourhoods. This type of research shows that existing assimilation and integration theories have reached the limits and are unable to deal with complexities of superdiverse contexts and environments.

The concept of superdiversity has also been used to look at group differences, something mainstream theories of assimilation have largely neglected. It helps us to identify and understand the importance of other background characteristics but also by incorporating the importance of specific local or national contexts to explain differences within ethnic groups. This does not mean that the concept term of superdiversity is already a full-fleshed theoretical model comparable with for instance segmented assimilation theories. Empirical research through the lens of superdiversity, however, can help us to develop our understanding of processes of mobility, identification and belonging in situations characterised by superdiversity. It will help to advance the concept both empirically and theoretically.

An important theoretical position we take in this book is that superdiverse cities and neighbourhoods do not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. ‘Super’ in superdiversity, as many before us have explained, does not mean fantastic. Super refers to forms of complexities on top of the complexities related to migration. This means that an important question is under which conditions superdiverse cities and neighbourhoods create positive outcomes and which conditions result in negative outcomes. These outcomes are not restricted to migrants and their descendants, but also affects the old majority group of native descent. The rise in anti-immigrant parties has made it clear that this group also needs to be studied if we want to have a thorough understanding of the processes of integration. Wessendorf (2014) studied the superdiverse neighbourhood Hackney in London and used the term ‘common place diversity’. She argues that understudied is the extent to which people usually share public places without major conflicts, because they accept the common day reality of diversity and have learned finding their way. However, this does not necessary imply intensive interactions between people of different ethnic groups or regular contacts leading to more intimate friendships.

The sociological literature on superdiversity has advanced substantially in defining the concept, describing situations of superdiversity and map some of its implications. However, little progress has been made in terms of understanding how societies can respond to superdiversity. What type of policies would fit situations of superdiversity? How to understand the contested politics around superdiversity, especially since multiculturalism has suffered a considerable backlash (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010).

Only few studies have looked at how superdiversity manifests itself across different (social, cultural, political, economic) settings? Here, once again, we have to reiterate Glick-Schiller and Çağlar’s (2009) warning that most of our understanding of superdiversity seems to be shaped by studies of so-called ‘global cities’. How does it manifest itself in other types of cities, such as cities with a very specific political climate, or cities detached from global economic trade relations, or Jerome Hodos’ (2011) typology of ‘second cities’? Here we can draw lessons from the so-called complexity literature in social sciences, which sometimes leads to using theoretical notions that help understand complex social realities as notions that supposedly describe actual social realities and thus reduce precisely the complexity that we seek to understand. Superdiversity is likely to manifest itself in many different ways in many different settings.

Finally, a historical perspective is an integral part of this book and helps us to question the novelty of superdiversity as part of a process of globalization. In popular writings about the effect of globalization, the idea is pushed forward that twenty-first century’s integration of global trade, commerce, foreign direct investments, political interdependencies and international migration have not been witnessed before in history. However, critical globalization studies have stimulated scholarly debates on the “newness” of global processes of integration, in particular the role of international migration. Nevertheless, a cross-fertilisation between international migration studies and globalization are rare and often lack a historical dimension (Chinchilla 2005). Migration history is global history and few scholars on globalization would deny that human history started with migration. Globalisation from a migration perspective, may be not a new phenomenon, historians will acknowledge that historical globalization is not a linear process, but marked by disruptive and often contradicting developments (for a discussion see Antunes and Fatah-Black 2016). Historians – and migration historians in particular – are therefore looking for the historical events and consequences of globalization on a local level by comparing pre-modern, modern and post-modern patterns of migration. Migration pushed cities into global networks linking Europe to other parts of the world centuries ago (Lees and Hollen Lees 2013).

Historians of migrations are, normally, sceptical about sociologists labelling new trends without recognising historical parallels. Leo Lucassen’s The Immigrant threat (2005) questions the assumptions being made about the fundamental differences between the integration of present day migrant groups and those in the past. His comparative research on West-European’s old and new migrants can be read as a cogent and convincing case for studying migration patterns in a long-term historical perspective. We therefore took the historical angle on board to enrich our knowledge on how migration has shaped Rotterdam. Does superdiversity describe a social situation that is actually historically new, or can one say that some cities (or countries) have been superdiverse for a long time, or rather have been superdiverse in some time but not in others? The historical introduction in this volume suggest that Rotterdam’s pre-industrial society has been more superdiverse than the industrial era, showing the relevance of historical studies in this debate.

1.2 The Local Turn in Migration Studies

Scholars mostly agree that superdiversity, or migration-related diversity more in general, manifests itself most prominently in urban settings (Amin and Thrift 2002; Penninx et al. 2004; Alexander 2007; Vertovec 2007; Glick-Schiller and Çağlar 2009; Caponio and Borkert 2010; Crul and Mollenkopf 2012; Wessendorf 2015). Therefore, this growing attention to superdiversity is reflected in what has been described as ‘the local turn’ in migration studies (Zapata Barrero et al. 2017). Especially since the mid-2000s, a remarkable rise of interest is witnessed in studies on migration and diversity on a local scale.

This ‘local turn’ helps migration studies to overcome ‘methodological nationalism’ (Wimmer and Glick-Schiller 2003). This involves a tendency amongst migration scholars (manifested also in a lack of comparative methods as well as in a strong orientation on national policies) to study migration and diversity within specific national and historical developed settings and boundaries. In other words, it promoted a ‘national container view’, which according to Bertossi (2011) and Favell (2003) resulted in the prominence of so-called ‘national models of integration’. This meant that scholars and policymakers shared specific historically developed discourse and beliefs regarding how to approach migrant integration within a specific national setting. Examples include the French Republicanist model (Favell 1998), the British race relations model (Bleich 2013) and the Dutch multicultural model (Scholten 2013). The reification of these models would have discouraged the theoretical development of migration research by slowing down the development of comparative research (Thränhardt and Bommes 2010).

Methodological nationalism assumed that local policies could be based on historic specific national models of integration. However, recent studies have shown remarkable differences in approaches between city- and national-level policies (Scholten 2015; Bak Jorgensen 2012), but also between different cities within a specific country. Local policies were sometimes driven by very different models and logics than ‘national models of integration’, sometimes even conflicting with these national models (Scholten 2015; Bak Jorgensen 2012; Poppelaars and Scholten 2008). The ‘local turn’ has significantly complicated the so-called ‘multi-level governance’ of migration and integration (Hepburn and Zapata-Barrero 2014).

One should be careful not to replace the national models of integration with the idea that there is a very specific local model of integration (Caponio and Borkert 2010; Dekker et al. 2015; Scholten 2015; Zapata Barrero et.al. 2017). Rather, clear differences exist between policies in various cities, which cannot be explained on the basis of current literature. The great complexity of local situations leads to different migration and diversity patterns and local policy approaches (see also Caponio and Borkert 2010). For instance, Garbaye (2005) has focused on differences in local opportunity structures for political participation between Manchester and Lille. Crul and Schneider (2010) argue that specific urban social and political settings matter, not only regarding policy measures but also to social and economic outcomes of superdiversity. Alexander (2007) draws, in particular, attention to the role of city-specific migration histories, in connection with local economic infrastructures and opportunity structures, as a key explanatory factor why cities choose different policy models.

In an effort to introduce a more systematic approach to the comparative study of local integration policies, Glick-Schiller and Çağlar (2009, 2011) distinguish between different types of cities based on their positioning in terms of neoliberal restructuring. They argue that the neoliberal project, involving a transformation of global relations of production, is shaped by international migration movements. This neoliberal restructuring leads to the formation of global networks of economic interconnectedness with cities of higher hierarchical ranking and capital accumulation than others. The global cities (such as in Sassen 2001) rank among the top in terms of such neoliberal networks of exchange, enabling them to ‘jump scale’ as their global economic importance usually transcends that of the nation in which they are located (see also Barber 2013). Most cities are ranked lower in this global economic hierarchy and may benefit less from neoliberal restructuring. Glick Schiller and Caglar themselves use the examples of Manchester and Philadelphia in this regard (for a historical comparison see Hodos 2011).

Their thesis is that the positioning of a city in such neoliberal networks will not only shape migration flows to (and from) these cities but also the responses of these cities to migration and diversity. Top-scale cities are usually looked upon as cosmopolitan cities that have always attracted large migration flows that have driven and shaped these city’s economies and provided ideal opportunity structures for social mobility and integration of migrants. The positive outcomes of past migration flows and their effects on stimulating international economic relations contributed to increasing migration flows in the present and possibly in the future. Migration-related diversity for these cities is more easily accepted as a positive economic opportunity. Up-scale cities are usually upcoming cities actively engaged in international economic exchange relations and international migration is used as a part of a long-term strategy working their way up the international hierarchy. Take for instance the many upcoming cities that actively promote high-skilled migration to boost their local knowledge industries and strengthen their global positioning.

Low- and down-scale cities are also affected by increasing global economic networks, but the dominant neoliberal project may be less advantageous. Migration patterns are not shaped by knowledge and capital-intensive projects, but the results of reducing the production costs and safeguarding local economy structures. The deployment of guest labourers in various labour-intensive economies such as textiles, heavy industries and construction can be seen as an example in this regard. However, public perceptions of this migration may be more negative, as a ‘threat’ to national labour conditions and employment opportunities. Low-scale cities may try to diversify their local economy trying to change their position in global networks of exchange. However, down-scale cities may be locked-into a struggle between local capitalists’ desire to stay in business by using migration as a low-payed labour factor confronting local populist opposition to new migration as a threat to the “white” working man’s position.

Taking Glick-Schiller and Caglar’s types as a continuum from top- to down-scale, this book positions Rotterdam as an ‘average’ city somewhere in between up-scale and down-scale. This involves a similar position to for instance Liverpool, Malmö, Hamburg, Marseille or Philadelphia. An in-depth study of Rotterdam, when confronted with the more abundantly available literature on the top-scale cities, will provide a deeper insight in how different cities respond to superdiversity differently.

1.3 Rotterdam as a Case of Superdiversity

This book seeks to position itself in the rapidly evolving literature on superdiverse cities. There have been, especially over the last decade or so, various studies addressing superdiversity and its implications at the local level. As mentioned above, this book will address a different type of city, but by doing so it does seek to contribute to the literature on what superdiversity means and how it is responded to at the local level.

1.3.1 Rotterdam a Superdiverse Port City

Many of today’s global cities – New York, London, and Hong Kong – grew out of coastal settlements and because of their maritime activities and international migration movements became places of cultural diversity and financial-economic power, two important factors in pursuing global activities. In today’s global perception these cities are not identified and understood as maritime world cities, since their port function is secondary to their service sectors (Verhetsel and Sel 2009). From a global perspective port cities have often been categorized as second cities. According to Jerome Hodos (2011) “second cities engage with and participate in globalization processes across several social spheres – global culture, migration, industrial production, trade – but not international finance. This lack of an international financial sector or market, combined with the growth of a second city consciousness or identity over time, serves to mark off second from global cities”. However, as (Sassen 2010) claims even ports, which at first face play a secondary role lacking the financial, legal and creative services, which are characteristic for “real” global cities like London, New York and Tokyo, they are important nodes in the new knowledge, logistical chains and global migration networks. Even those port cities, like Liverpool, that due to containerisation and fierce competition had lost its former global port status, have shown to be resilient cities in post-modern circumstances. The waterfront regeneration in former major ports in the USA and in Europe has been partly an attempt to re-establish these cities as service hubs or tourist attractions (Wiese and Thierstein 2016).

The concept of the ‘second city’ takes the simultaneous intertwining of globalization and urbanization by scholars like Saskia Sassen (2001) as fundamental, but differs in focusing on non-global cities and in conceptualizing globalization as a much longer-term historical process. Rotterdam is an interesting case in point. Port cities and “second cities”, such as Rotterdam, form a suitable framework for a better theoretical understanding of how cities that do not fit the global cities perspective do respond to superdiversity.

This volume starts with a discussion on Rotterdam’s superdiverse nature before the industrial revolution took off in the mid-1850. From the sixteenth century onwards, Rotterdam benefitted from the international connections and trade networks dominated by Amsterdam. Trade followed ideas, vice versa and many refugees looked for a shelter in the tolerant Dutch Republic and found their way quiet easily in Rotterdam. Flemish leading merchants, French Huguenots, British and Scottish tradesmen – to name the most important groups – pushed forward Rotterdam’s economy and cultural life. The mercator sapiens, the learned merchant, played a crucial role in Rotterdam’s Early Enlightenment at the end of the seventeenth century. Rotterdam was called “Little London” in the early eighteenth century; a factor that contributed much to Rotterdam’s international standing as centre of trade and commerce. The early-modern skyline of Rotterdam represented the many churches and denominations of migrants who settled in the city. However, Rotterdam was already a place of arrival for poor migrants. They did not only come from the rural hinterlands, since more and more German migrants settled here. The Rhine-connection became one of the major push- and pull factors during the nineteenth century when Rotterdam developed its transitport and became one of the major ports on the European continent.

The long nineteenth century is an important intermediate period, linking the pre-modern migrations patters with the post-modern migration issues, which are reframed and discussed in a multicultural, transnational context of superdiversity. Jürgen Osterhammel claims (2014, p. 129) the “immigration society” is not a modern phenomenon, but was one of the great innovations in the nineteenth century, kick-started by the logistical and industrial revolutions. Port cities had a large impact on the economic growth all over Europe and this development coincided with large movements of people to the cities. As places of arrival and departure, port cities determined the migration pattern in the long-nineteenth century. New economic growth opportunities were stimulated in seaports, in particular the ports that were already important trading places of commerce in an earlier period (Lees and Hollen Lees 2013).

The nineteenth century was, according to Osterhammel, the golden age of ports and port cities, in particular the large cities, places big enough to handle the huge volumes of goods and passengers of the expanding world economy. Figure 1.1 presents an overview of Rotterdam’s major port developments and how these relate to major migration movements. Three periods are of particular importance 1850–1900; 1946–1960 and the period 1960–1970.

Fig. 1.1

Rotterdam’s port development and major migration periods. (Source: http://www.oecd.org/governance/regional-policy/oecdport-citiesprogramme.htm)

In order to have an idea about the development of Rotterdam’s migration pattern, Fig. 1.2 shows the long-term development of Rotterdam’s migration pattern form 1850–1940; and from 1946 to 2017. The net migration ratio’s show the balance between in- and outmigration to and from Rotterdam. The time-series indicate three major periods: (1) a strong increase of migration during the third part of the nineteenth century, with positive migration rates until the 1930s; (2) a period of negative migration rates during the 1960s and 1970s and (3) a period of increasing net migration since the second half of the 1980s.

Fig. 1.2

Migration ratios Rotterdam 1851–1940; 1946–2016. (Source: Statistics city of Rotterdam 1851–2016)

All three periods had an important impact on Rotterdam’s migration narrative; the first period relates to the Rotterdam port expansion, the second towards the post-war selective migration process, shaped by a mixture of economic industrial developments and the making of the Dutch welfare state. The third phase has taken off in the 1990s and this period relates to different socio-economic circumstances. Since then, as become clear in this volume, multiculturalism and increasing cultural contrasts framed a reinterpretation of earlier migration patterns. From a political point, it was impossible to place recent developments to an existing city port’s narrative of the working city. However, the impact on Rotterdam seems comparable from a demographic-transition perspective. The immigration rate of the period (1851–1900; average 55.7) parallels that of the period 1990–2016 (average of 55.0), but the emigration rate was considerable lower in the first period, 42.8 than in the later period (54.2) when the net-migration rate was just below 1%. From a population dynamics point of view, the third part of the nineteenth century was more important than in the more recent period. Rotterdam’s population was about 90,000 in 1850 and increased to around 300,000 50 years later; just before the Second World War, almost 620,000 people lived in Rotterdam. The strong migration push in the second part of the nineteenth century related to the strong expansion of the port. During the First World, Rotterdam’s in-migration was affected by the inflow of Belgian refugees. Apart from the in-migration of numerous German female servants, the city experienced a substantial negative net-migration rate in the inter-war period as many successful Rotterdamers moved to the suburbs. In fact, many turned their back to the city and this pattern resembles the selective migration process that took off in the mid-1960s. Rotterdam’s post-war welfare state, which was compatible to earlier forms of migration and population dynamics, underwent major changes in the 1960 and 1970s. People leaving Rotterdam had a different ethnic and social-cultural background than the new immigrants. While the Rotterdamers left the city en masse – population figures slowed down from 731,000 in 1965 to 613,000 10 years later – their homes in the nineteenth century neighbourhoods, once a migration area in itself, became residential areas for quest workers. Another major transmission took place during the early 1990s, when the migration rates started to rise again, one of the consequences of the major shifts in migration patterns due to globalisation and major economic, social, political and environmental changes resulting from this, the major themes of this book. Within the Netherlands Rotterdam as a second city but still a major hub, in terms of a geostrategic transfer point of major bulk goods (oil, petrochemicals) and containers. However, the expansion of its port economy – in particular since the 1950s and up to the more recent development of the Second Maasvlakte – has fundamentally changed the relationship between the city and its port. Port activities take place at a large distance of the inner city. Although the major transformation of the port economy has not have changed the identity of Rotterdam as a world port and port city – which is used in branding the city – the economic shift has had large consequences for the social position of Rotterdam as a post-war welfare city and the changing nature of migration. In a post-industrial context, the port of Rotterdam is no longer a pull-factor for labour migrants. However, as will be shown in this book, other factors were responsible for Rotterdam’s changing majority-minority structure.

The total Rotterdam population counted 635,000 in January 2017. Of this total population, in 2017 50,3% had a first or second generation migration background (see Fig. 1.3). This percentage increased rapidly from about 35% in the mid-1990s to over 50% in 2016. Second generation migrants, as defined in official statistics, include foreign-born people and their direct descendants. The Central Bureau of Statistics, also, differentiates between Western migrants, including European as well as North-American, Australian, New Zealand and Japanese migrants, and non-Western migrants.

Fig. 1.3

Percentage of western- and non-western migrants (first/second generation) of the total population. (Source: CBS statline)

The largest migrant populations are the Surinamese (8%), Turks (8%) and the Moroccans (7%); see Fig. 1.4. The share of these ‘traditional’ migrant groups increased over the last two decades, but most growth concentrated amongst the Western migrants (especially from Poland) and other non-Western groups. In fact, as Fig. 1.5 shows, the migrant population in Rotterdam is nowadays characterized by a broad range of different backgrounds, including Sub-Sahara African migrants, East-Asians, Central and East-European migrants and migrants from many different countries of origin. In total, Rotterdam hosts more than 180 different nationalities, making it one of the most diverse cities in the world. It is this ‘deepening’ of diversity that clearly makes Rotterdam a superdiverse city.

Fig. 1.4

Major migrant populations in Rotterdam (1996–2017). (Source: CBS statline)

Fig. 1.5

Various migrant groups as percentage of total migrant population in Rotterdam (2017). (Source: Jennissen et al. 2018)

Finally, Rotterdam clearly is a majority-minority city in the sense that the native population accounts for less than 50% of the total population. Additionally, Fig. 1.6 shows that the percentage of the native born population has decreased, whereas both the percentage of first and second generation migrants is still increasing. The fact that also the number of first generation migrants is increasing, clearly shows that Rotterdam continues to be a portal of entry for newcomers today.

Fig. 1.6

Native, first generation and second generation migrants, absolute figures (1996–2017). (Source: CBS statline)

1.4 Outline of the Book

The book builds an argument on superdiversity in the case of Rotterdam in three parts. The first section of chapters will define superdiversity in Rotterdam, from a historical and sociological perspective. It discusses both migration to and from Rotterdam. This includes contributions on relatively recent migration, such as the guest labourers in the twentieth century, as well as contributions on the role that migrants played in the early development of the city in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Each chapter discusses, besides sketching specific migration flows, how migration contributed to Rotterdam’s nature of superdiversity. It also brings a sociological perspective on the position of migrants on their contribution to the city of Rotterdam. This includes various aspects of the position of migrants, differentiating between education, housing, the local economy, etc. Since the editors wants to contribute to a broader narrative on Rotterdam as a superdiverse city, the authors discuss the role and contribution of migrants in social, economic, political or cultural terms, as well.

The second section of chapters focuses on various ways in which Rotterdam has responded to the challenge of migration and superdiversity. This includes an analysis of Rotterdam’s integration and, to some extent, migration policies, as well as more specific case studies of policy measures that have developed in Rotterdam over the last decades. Has Rotterdam really been such a laboratory of policy measures as sometimes suggested in the literature? In addition, is Rotterdam, although perhaps reluctantly so, coming to terms with superdiversity?

The third section places the Rotterdam case in a comparative perspective, in order to develop a better understanding of why Rotterdam has responded to superdiversity as it has. If there is a Rotterdam model of integration, how does it compare and relate to policies adopted in other cities, and for instance to national policies? How does Rotterdam compare to Amsterdam? Besides research-based comparisons, chapters in this volume also discuss various efforts that have been made by the Rotterdam administration to connect with other cities. This involves city networks like EUROCITIES, Integrating Cities and Intercultural Cities.

Finally, a concluding section elaborates on the argument of how Rotterdam stands for a broader range of superdiverse cities that do not fit in the category of ‘global cities.’ What can be learnt from the Rotterdam case on how other cities respond to superdiversity? Moreover, in what way does this volume contributes to the expanding literature on governance of superdiversity? A special epilogue to the book, written by Steve Vertovec, reflects further on what can be learnt from Rotterdam for a broader range of cities; ‘what’s the matter with Rotterdam?.’