Local policies toward migrants as an expression of Host-Stranger relations: A proposed typology

Abstract

This article proposes an analytical framework for comparing and understanding local policy reactions to the settlement of labour migrants, based on the concept of Host-Stranger relations. Labour migrants represent the Stranger in our midst, and local migrant policies are part of a process in which the local authority comes to grips with the presence of these Strangers. Increasingly, European cities are developing their own ways of dealing with the permanent presence of a significant migrant population, often diverging from national policies. Municipal policy reactions range from establishment of migrant advisory councils to dispersal of ethnic enclaves. As 'new immigration' cities try out their own policies, we may speak of a European-wide phenomenon with cities in different stages of migrant policy development. Yet we lack a theoretical framework enabling comparison of migrant policies at the local level, across different cities and policy domains. The typology proposed here posits four types, or phases, of municipal attitudes/assumptions regarding the migrants and their Otherness, expressed in specific policies toward the migrant population. The aim of the typology is to highlight this often hidden dimension of policy-making at the local level. Examples from a literature survey of 25 cities illustrate uses of the proposed typology.

The Multilevel Governance of Migration and Integration

“…Mahnig ( 2004 ) concludes that local integration policies in Paris, Berlin, and Zurich have very much responded to local political circumstances, often in ad hoc ways and leading to accommodation in some instances and exclusion in others. According to Alexander ( 2003Alexander ( , 2007, differences in local social situations have triggered different policy responses, with some cities adopting a more culturalist and others a more socioeconomic approach. A recent study of integration policies in Amsterdam and Rotterdam found that these two cities within the same country and with similar migrant populations produced very different policy outcomes in terms of migrant integration.…”

Korak dalje u politikama integracije migranata

“…In this sense, it challenges the various ideal, typical policy models that have been developed in migration studies, including assimilationism, multiculturalism, universalism, and differentialism (Koopmans et al, 2005;Alexander, 2003;Castles, Miller & De Haas, 2013). In contemporary society migration-related diversity has become so structurally embedded in society at large that a more integral approach is required.…”

“…Mahnig (2004) concludes that local integration policies in Paris, Berlin, and Zurich have very much responded to local political circumstances, often in ad hoc ways and leading to accommodation in some instances and exclusion in others. According to Alexander (2003), differences in local social situations have triggered different policy responses, with some cities adopting more of a culturalist and others more of a socioeconomic approach. A recent study of integration policies in Amsterdam and Rotterdam has found that these two cities within the same country and with similar migrant populations produced very different policy outcomes in terms of migrant integration.…”

Educational Reception in Rotterdam and Barcelona: Policies, Practices and Gaps

“…and by the distinct points of view of the bureaucracies involved, then we might expect to find similarities between policy sectors even across countries (Van Waarden 1999). However, if the institutional make-up of receiving states determines the roles and responses of actors, it would be reasonable to expect cross-national differences and coherent national models (Lahav & Guiraudon 2006, Jordan et al 2003a, 2003b. More cross-national comparative research is necessary to gauge whether and to what extent cross-sector similarities outweigh cross-national variations.…”

“…8 The applicability of this paradigm has also been criticised because of its choice of the nation-state as the basic unit of observation. Many authors have emphasised that regimes focus on the national level while most integration policies are formulated and/or implemented at the city level (Bousetta 1997, Ireland 1998, Money 1999, Alexander 2003b). This focus presupposes an inability to grasp internal variations such as differences between political parties or between territorial tiers (Entzinger 2000), as different regimes in fact compete within one country (Scholten 2011).…”